The present research explores a contextual perspective on persuasion in multiple message situations. It is proposed that when people receive persuasive messages, the effects of those messages are influenced by other messages to which people recently have been exposed. In two experiments, participants received a target persuasive message from a moderately credible source. Immediately before this message, participants received another message, on a different topic, from a source with high or low credibility. In Experiment 1, participants' attitudes toward the target issue were more favorable after they had first been exposed to a different message from a low rather than high credibility source (contrast). In Experiment 2, this effect only emerged when a priming manipulation gave participants a dissimilarity mindset. When participants were primed with a similarity mindset, their attitudes toward the target issue were more favorable following a different message from a high rather than low credibility source (assimilation).
Baker, S.M., & Petty, R.E. (1994). Majority and minority influence: Source-position imbalance as a determinant of message scrutiny. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 5-19.
2.
Baron, R.M., & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
3.
Bless, H., Igou, E.R., Schwarz, N., & Wänke, M. (2000). Reducing context effects by adding context information: The direction and size of context effects in political judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1036-1045.
4.
Bohner, G., Ruder, M., & Erb, H.P. (2002). When expertise backfires: Contrast and assimilation effects in persuasion. British Journal of Social Psychology , 41, 495-519.
5.
Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 752-766.
6.
Chaiken, S., Liberman, A., & Eagly, A.H. (1989). Heuristic and systematic processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In J. S. Uleman & J. A. Bargh (Ed.), Unintended thought (pp. 212-252). New York: Guilford.
7.
Chaiken, S., & Maheswaran, D. (1994). Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: Effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 460-473.
8.
Dijksterhuis, A., Spears, R., Postmes, T., Stapel, D.A., Koomen, W., van Knippenberg, A., & Scheepers, D. (1998). Seeing one thing and doing another: Contrast effects in automatic behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 75, 862-871.
9.
Herr, P.M. (1986). Consequences of priming: Judgment and behavior . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1106-1115.
10.
Herr, P.M., Sherman, S.J., & Fazio, R.H. (1983). On the consequences of priming: Assimilation and contrast effects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 19, 323-340.
11.
Kelman, H.C., & Hovland, C.I. (1953). “Reinstatement” of the communicator in delayed measurement of opinion change. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 48, 327-335.
12.
Markman, K.D., & McMullen, M.N. (2003). A reflection and evaluation model of comparative thinking. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 244-267.
13.
Martin, L.L., Seta, J.J., & Crelia, R.A. (1990). Assimilation and contrast as a function of people's willingness and ability to expend effort in forming an impression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 27-37.
14.
Miller, N., & Campbell, D.T. (1959). Recency and primacy in persuasion as a function of the timing of speeches and measurements. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 59, 1-9.
15.
Moskowitz, G.B., & Skurnik, I.W. (1999). Contrast effects as determined by the type of prime: Trait versus exemplar primes initiate processing strategies that differ in how accessible constructs are used. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 911-927.
16.
Mussweiler, T. (2001). “Seek and ye shall find”: Antecedents of assimilation and contrast in social comparison. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 499-509.
17.
Mussweiler, T. (2003). Comparison processes in social judgment: Mechanisms and consequences. Psychological Review, 110, 472-489.
18.
Mussweiler, T., Rüter, K., & Epstude, K. (2004a). The man who was-n't there: Subliminal social comparison standards influence self-evaluation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 689-696.
19.
Mussweiler, T., Rüter, K., & Epstude, K. (2004b). The ups and downs of social comparison: Mechanisms of assimilation and contrast. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 831-844.
20.
Petty, R.E., Briñol, P., & Tormala, Z.L. (2002). Thought confidence as a determinant of persuasion: The self-validation hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 722-741.
21.
Petty, R.E., & Cacioppo, J.T. (1979). Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasion by enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1915-1926.
22.
Petty, R.E., & Cacioppo, J.T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion. New York: Springer-Verlag.
23.
Petty, R.E., Cacioppo, J.T., & Goldman, R. (1981). Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 847-855.
24.
Petty, R.E., Tormala, Z.L., Hawkins, C., & Wegener, D.T. (2001). Motivation to think and order effects in persuasion: The moderating role of chunking. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 332-344.
25.
Petty, R.E., & Wegener, D.T. (1993). Flexible correction processes in social judgment: Correcting for context induced contrast. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 29, 137-165.
26.
Petty, R.E., & Wegener, D.T. (1998). Attitude change: Multiple roles for persuasion variables. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 323-390). New York: McGraw-Hill .
27.
Petty, R.E., Wheeler, S.C., & Tormala, Z.L. (2003). Persuasion and attitude change. In T. Millon & M. J. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of psychology, Volume 5: Personality and social psychology (pp. 353-382). New York: John Wiley.
28.
Pornpitakpan, C. (2004). The persuasiveness of source credibility: A critical review of five decades' evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 243-281.
29.
Ruys, K.I., Spears, R., Gordijn, E.H., & de Vries, N.K. (2006). Two faces of (dis)similarity in affective judgments of persons: Contrast or assimilation effects revealed by morphs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 399-411.
30.
Schwarz, N., & Bless, H. (in press). Mental construal processes: The inclusion/exclusion model . In D. Stapel & J. Suls (Eds.), Assimilation and contrast in social psychology. New York: Psychology Press.
31.
Schwarz, N., & Bless, H. (1992). Scandals and the public's trust in politicians: Assimilation and contrast effects in social judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 574-579.
32.
Schwarz, N., Bless, H., Strack, F., Klumpp, G., Rittenauer-Schatka, H., & Simons, A. (1991). Ease of retrieval as information: Another look at the availability heuristic. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 195-202.
33.
Sherif, M., & Hovland, C.I. (1961). Social judgment: Assimilation and contrast effects in communication and attitude change. New Haven: Yale University Press.
34.
Stapel, D.A., & Koomen, W. (2000). Distinctness of others, mutability of selves: Their impact on self-evaluations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 1068-1087.
35.
Stapel, D.A., & Koomen, W. (2001a). The impact of interpretation versus comparison mindsets on knowledge accessibility effects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 134-149.
36.
Stapel, D.A., & Koomen, W. (2001b). Let's not forget the past when we go to the future: On our knowledge of knowledge accessibility effects. In G. Moskowitz (Ed.), Cognitive social psychology (pp. 229-246). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
37.
Stapel, D.A., Koomen, W., & Van der Plight, J. (1997). Categories of category accessibility: The impact of trait versus exemplar priming on person judgments . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 44-76.
38.
Stapel, D.A., & Schwarz, N. (1998). The Republican who did not want to become President: An inclusion/exclusion analysis of Colin Powell's impact on evaluations of the Republican Party and Bob Dole. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 690-698.
39.
Tormala, Z.L., Briñol, P., & Petty, R.E. (2006). When credibility attacks: The reverse impact of source credibility on persuasion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 684-691.
40.
Tormala, Z.L., & Petty, R.E. (2007). Contextual contrast and perceived knowledge: Exploring the implications for persuasion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 43, 17-30.
