Involvement and persuasion: Tradition versus integration.

Abstract

In a recent meta-analysis, Johnson and Eagly (1989) questioned our conceptualization of and evidence for the effects of involvement on persuasion (Petty & Cacioppo, 1979, 1986). In particular, they concluded that (a) what we had termed issue involvement represented two distinct types of involvement (outcome- versus value-relevant), (b) each type of involvement had unique effects on persuasion, and (c) outcome involvement effects may be obtained only by 1 group of researchers. We argue that although 2 distinct research traditions of involvement have emerged, our original position that the 2 categories of involvement induce similar processes in persuasion situations remains viable. Evidence from Johnson and Eagly's meta-anatysis shows that as both types of involvement increase, argument quality becomes a more important determinant of attitudes. The greater message rejection found with involvement in value 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 been replicated by other investigators, including Johnson and Eagly. In a recent article in this journal, Johnson and Eagly (1989) reported a meta-analysis of the accumulated research on involvement and persuasion in which they concluded that it was useful to distinguish between value- and outcome-relevant involvement.l In addition, they suggested that although effects for the first type of involvement were robust, effects for the latter type of involvement may be obtained only by one group of researchers. In this article, we question both of these conclusions and provide a brief critique of their meta-analysis.