Perceived Argument Strength Research Articles

Do Emotional Appeals in Public Service Advertisements Influence Adolescents’ Intention to Reduce Consumption of Sugar-Sweetened Beverages?

Mass media campaigns are a commonly used approach to reduce sugary drink consumption, which is linked to obesity in children and adolescents. The present study investigated the direct and mediated effects of emotional appeals in public service advertisements (PSAs) that aired between 2010 and 2012 on adolescents’ intention to reduce their sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) consumption. An online randomized experiment was conducted with a national sample of adolescent respondents ages 13 to 17 years old (N = 805). Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 conditions. Three experimental conditions represented PSAs with different emotional appeals: humor, fear, and nurturance, plus a fourth control condition. The outcome was adolescents’ intention to cut back on SSBs. The direct effect of fear appeals on intention was mediated through adolescents’ perception of the PSAs’ argument strength; perceived argument strength was also the key mediator for the indirect effects of humor and nurturance on intention. Several hypothesized mediators influenced by the appeals were not associated with intention. This is the first study to test the effect of persuasive emotional appeals used in SSB-related PSAs. The perceived strength of the PSAs’ arguments is important to consider in the communication of messages designed to reduce SSB consumption.

A Measure of Perceived Argument Strength: Reliability and Validity

Studies of the content of persuasive messages in which the central arguments of the message are scrutinized have traditionally relied on the technique of thought-listing to assess argument strength. Although the validity of the thought-listing procedure is well documented, its utility can be limited in situations involving nonadult populations and sensitive topics. In this paper, we present a self-reported scale that can be used to assess perceived argument strength in contexts where thought-listing may be less appropriate. This scale taps into perceived argument strength from multiple points of view, including but also extending beyond the potential of the argument to elicit positive and negative thoughts. Reliability and validity of this scale were assessed in health communication contexts involving anti-drug public service announcements (PSAs) directed at adolescents and anti-smoking PSAs targeting adults. Evidence of convergence between this scale and the thought-listing technique was also obtained using the classical comprehensive exam arguments.

The Influence of Liking for Antismoking PSAs on Adolescents' Smoking-Related Behavioral Intentions

In this research, we examine the influence of liking for antismoking public service announcements (PSAs), relative to that of PSAs' perceived argument strength, on adolescents' smoking-related behavioral intentions. Data from the first Legacy Media Tracking Survey (LMTS–I) suggest that the relative persuasive impact of PSA liking and perceived argument strength varies as a function of message recipients' smoking status. PSA liking appears to be an important predictor of smoking intentions for never smokers, whereas perceived argument strength strongly predicts quitting intentions for current smokers. For former smokers, both perceived argument strength and PSA liking have significant effects on smoking intentions, with perceived argument strength exerting a stronger impact. Theoretical and practical implications of the findings are discussed.

Resistance Can Be Good or Bad: How Theories of Resistance and Dissonance Affect Attitude Certainty

This research investigated how lay theories about resisting persuasion can affect attitude certainty. Specifically, people who believed that resistance was negative (i.e., implies close-mindedness) showed different levels of attitude certainty after resisting persuasive messages than people who believed resistance was positive (i.e., implies intelligence). When people held positive lay theories of resistance and overcame ostensibly strong arguments, they showed increased attitude certainty (compared to those who overcame ostensibly weak arguments). However, individuals who believed that resistance was negative did not show increases in attitude certainty when overcoming strong arguments. Experiment 2 suggests that the effect of lay theories and perceived argument strength on attitude certainty was due to dissonance created by believing that resistance is undesirable but nonetheless resisting persuasion.

The effect of multiple source information on message scrutiny: The case of source expertise and likability1

To test for the effect of multiple source information on message scrutiny, in a three-factorial experiment source likability, source expertise, and argument quality were manipulated independently. In line with predictions, results indicated heightened message scrutiny in the case of inconsistent as compared to consistent source information. Thus, argument quality affected attitudes and perceived argument strength only when the message was presented by a dislikable expert and a likable non-expert (inconsistent source information). Both measures were unaffected by argument quality when the message was presented by a likable expert and a dislikable non-expert (consistent source information). The role of multiple source information in persuasion is discussed.

A hypothesis-assessment model of categorical argument strength

According to the proposed hypothesis-assessment model, the strength of inductive categorical arguments, such as {All Robins Have Substance X therefore All Birds Have Substance X}, is determined by the same factors that affect hypothesis plausibility in the everyday social milieu. The premises of such arguments are viewed as evidence and the conclusion is viewed as a hypothesis. Specifically, the proposed model predicts that the perceived strength of general-conclusion categorical arguments will be a function of (a) the number of premises that instantiate the conclusion; (b) the scope of the conclusion; and (c) the number of accessed alternatives to the conclusion. In Experiment 1, one group rated the strength of individual arguments and another constructed superordinate hypotheses in response to the premise information alone. Most of the variance in perceived argument strength was accounted for by the proposed predictors, R = .94. Experiment 2 employed a new set of arguments and included an additional forced-choice condition in which subjects had to choose the stronger of two arguments. Again, the correlation between predictors and argument strength was high, R = .91, and, all significant forced-choice preferences except one were correctly predicted by the model. The one unpredicted preference suggests the need to include conclusion accessibility as a fourth factor. Also, on a subset of the forced-choice pairs in which no significant preference was observed, two distinct patterns of responding were detected-one predicted and the other unanticipated. Some strengths and limitations of the proposed hypothesis-assessment model are discussed in light of these results.