Abstract
Summary Eighty-four male college students were given either a one-sided or two-sided appeal in which the communicator argued that a defendant in a court case was guilty of murder. A measure of agreement with the appeal served as the dependent variable. Ss unfamiliar with the issues in the simulated court case were more persuaded by a one-sided appeal than a two-sided appeal when the study was described as dealing with “accuracy of decision making.” On the other hand, there was a tendency for unfamiliar Ss to be more persuaded by a two-sided appeal than a one-sided appeal when an explicit persuasion context was provided. Also, Ss familiar with the issues were more resistant to persuasive attempts than unfamiliar Ss. Analysis of postexperimental questionnaire data revealed that counterarguments and perceptions of communicator competence and correctness were associated with the effects of the independent variables on S attitudes.
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.
