Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Involvement and Persuasion: Tradition Versus Integration

Involvement and Persuasion: Tradition Versus Integration In a recent meta-analysis, Johnson and Eagly(1989) questioned our conceptualization of and evidence for the effects ofinvolvement on persuasion (Petty & Cacioppo,1979, 1986).In particular, they concluded that (a) what we had termed issue involvementrepresented two distinct types of involvement (outcome- versus value-relevant), (b) each typeof involvement had unique effects on persuasion, and (c) outcome involvement effects may beobtained only by 1 group of researchers. We argue that although 2 distinct research traditionsof involvement have emerged, our original position that the 2 categories of involvement inducesimilar processes in persuasion situations remains viable. Evidence from Johnson and Eagly'smeta-analysis shows that as both types of involvement increase, argument quality becomes a moreimportant determinant of attitudes. The greater message rejection found with involvement invalue as compared with outcome studies can be explained in terms of confounding factors.Finally, we note that the outcome involvement effects that we reported initially have beenreplicated by other investigators, including Johnson and Eagly. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Psychological Bulletin American Psychological Association

Involvement and Persuasion: Tradition Versus Integration

Psychological Bulletin , Volume 107 (3): 8 – May 1, 1990

Loading next page...
 
/lp/american-psychological-association/involvement-and-persuasion-tradition-versus-integration-PusHfn36QX

References (46)

Publisher
American Psychological Association
Copyright
Copyright © 1990 American Psychological Association
ISSN
0033-2909
eISSN
1939-1455
DOI
10.1037/0033-2909.107.3.367
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

In a recent meta-analysis, Johnson and Eagly(1989) questioned our conceptualization of and evidence for the effects ofinvolvement on persuasion (Petty & Cacioppo,1979, 1986).In particular, they concluded that (a) what we had termed issue involvementrepresented two distinct types of involvement (outcome- versus value-relevant), (b) each typeof involvement had unique effects on persuasion, and (c) outcome involvement effects may beobtained only by 1 group of researchers. We argue that although 2 distinct research traditionsof involvement have emerged, our original position that the 2 categories of involvement inducesimilar processes in persuasion situations remains viable. Evidence from Johnson and Eagly'smeta-analysis shows that as both types of involvement increase, argument quality becomes a moreimportant determinant of attitudes. The greater message rejection found with involvement invalue as compared with outcome studies can be explained in terms of confounding factors.Finally, we note that the outcome involvement effects that we reported initially have beenreplicated by other investigators, including Johnson and Eagly.

Journal

Psychological BulletinAmerican Psychological Association

Published: May 1, 1990

There are no references for this article.