Abstract
In their thoughtful and carefully argued target article, Kruglanski and Thompson challenge the central assumption of dual-process theories a qualitative difference in the persuasion process hinges on whether persuasion is accomplished by the processing of message arguments versus the processing of information exogenous to the message; that is, by cues or heuristics. I found their arguments very convincing. They persuaded me that on a theoretical level their rejection of the central assumption of dual-process frameworks is justified. Furthermore, I expect that by freeing information processing theories of persuasion from a number of apparently superfluous assumptions, their theoretical analysis is likely to stimulate new areas of persuasion research. On a practical level, however, I think that their analysis will have less of an impact. I suspect that heuristic cues, such as communicator expertise, serve as convenient indicators of message validity because they are both less complex and precede the message in most real-life communication settings.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: 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.