Abstract
This article examines how the subjective experiences of "feeling right" from regulatory fit and of "feeling wrong" from regulatory non-fit influence the way people process persuasive messages. Across three studies, incidental experiences of regulatory fit increased reliance on source expertise and decreased resistance to counterpersuasion, whereas incidental experiences of regulatory non-fit increased reliance on argument strength and increased resistance to counterpersuasion. These results suggest that incidental fit and non-fit experiences can produce, respectively, more superficial or more thorough processing of persuasive messages. The mechanisms underlying these effects, and the conditions under which they should and should not be expected, are discussed.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
