When expertise backfires: Contrast and assimilation effects in persuasion

Authors: Bohner G.¹; Ruder M.²; Erb H-P.³

Source: British Journal of Social Psychology, Volume 41, Number 4, December 2002 , pp. 495-519(25)

Publisher: British Psychological Society

Key:

- Free Content

- New Content

- Subscribed Content

- Free Trial Content

Abstract:

It was proposed that source cues bias message processing in a direction opposite to cue valence if message content violates cue-based expectancies (contrast hypothesis), but consistent with cue valence if message content is ambiguous (bias hypothesis). In line with these hypotheses, students (N = 123) reported less favourable thoughts and attitudes after reading weak arguments presented by a high (vs. low) expertise source (Expts 1 and 2), and reported more favourable thoughts after reading strong arguments presented by a low (vs. high) expertise source (Expt 2). Conversely, students' thoughts and attitudes were more (less) favourable when a high (low) expertise source presented ambiguous arguments (Expt 2). Results are discussed in relation to dual- vs. single-process accounts of persuasion and models of assimilation and contrast in social judgment.

Document Type: Research article

DOI: 10.1348/014466602321149858

Affiliations: 1: Universität Bielefeld, Germany 2: Universität Erfurt, Germany 3: Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg, Germany