Mehr als Worte
Abstract
Zusammenfassung: In zwei Experimenten wurden die Annahmen des Elaboration-Likelihood-Modells zum Einfluss der Urteilsrelevanz auf die Wahl der Verarbeitungsstrategie im Bereich der Glaubwürdigkeitsbeurteilung in Alltagssituationen überprüft. Experiment 1 konnte zeigen, dass Personen bei hoher Relevanz ihres Urteils die zentrale Route der Verarbeitung wählten und mehr Gedanken über den Inhalt von Aussagen berichteten, und dass ihr Glaubwürdigkeitsurteil ausschließlich mit den Gedanken zum Inhalt korreliert war. Bei niedriger Relevanz ihres Urteils hingegen wurden mehr Gedanken über die Quelle als über den Inhalt berichtet, und das Glaubwürdigkeitsurteil korrelierte nur mit den Gedanken zur Quelle. In Experiment 2 wurden nonverbale und inhaltliche Informationen direkt manipuliert. Wie vorhergesagt, wirkte sich die Manipulation der Plausibilität der Aussagen nur bei Personen mit hoher Urteilsrelevanz auf die Glaubwürdigkeitszuschreibung aus. Das nonverbale Verhalten einer Quelle beeinflusste dagegen nur bei Personen mit niedriger Relevanz das Urteil.
Abstract: We tested the assumptions of the elaboration-likelihood model regarding the influence of involvement on information processing in the field of credibility attribution in everyday life situations in two experiments. Experiment 1 showed that participants under high involvement reported more thoughts about the content than about the source of a statement, and that their credibility judgments were exclusively correlated with the thoughts about the content. In contrast, participants under low involvement reported more thoughts about the source than about the content, and their credibility judgments were only correlated with the thoughts about the source. In Experiment 2, nonverbal and content information were directly manipulated. As expected the manipulation of content information only influenced the credibility judgments of highly involved participants. The nonverbal information about the source exclusively affected the credibility judgments of less involved participants.
References
Akehurst, L., , Köhnken, G., , Vrij, A. , Bull, R. (1996). Lay persons' and police officers' beliefs regarding deceptive behavior.. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 461– 471 .Brewer, M.B. (1988). A dual process model of impression formation. In T. Srull & R. Wyer (Eds.), Advances in social cognition (Vol. 1, pp. 1-36). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum .Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion.. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 752– 766 .Chaiken, S. (1987). The heuristic model of persuasion. In M.P. Zanna, J.M. Olson & C.P. Herman (Eds.), Social influence: The Ontario Symposium (Vol. 5, pp. 3-39). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum .Chaiken, S. , Maheswaran, D. (1994). Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: Effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment.. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 460– 473 .Chen, S. , Chaiken, S. (1999). The heuristic-systematic model in its broader context. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 73-96). New York: Guilford .Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences . New York: Academic Press .DePaulo, B.M., , Lindsay, J.J., , Malone, B.E., , Muhlenbruck, L., , Charlton, K. , Cooper, H. (2003). Cues to deception.. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 74– 118 .DePaulo, B.M., , Stone, J.I. , Lassiter, G.D. (1985). Deceiving and detecting deceit. In B.R. Schlenker (Ed.), The self and social life (pp. 323-371). New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company .Eagly, A.H. , Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes . Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich .Eagly, A.H., , Wood, W. , Chaiken, S. (1978). Causal inferences about communicators and their effect on opinion change.. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 424– 435 .Ekman, P. , O'Sullivan, M. (1991). Who can catch a liar?.. American Psychologist, 46, 913– 920 .Fazio, R.H. , Towles-Schwen, T. (1999). The MODE model of attitude-behavior processes. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 97-116). New York: Guilford .Fiske, S.T. , Neuberg, S.L. (1990). A continuum of impression formation, from category-based to individuating processes: Influences of information and motivation on attention and interpretation. In M.P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 23, pp. 1-74). New York: Academic Press .Forrest, J.A. , Feldman, R.S. (2000). Detecting deception and judge's involvement: Lower task involvement leads to better lie detection.. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 118– 125 .Freedman, J.L., , Adam, E.K., , Davey, S.A. , Koegl, C.J. (1996). The impact of a statement: More detail does not always help.. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 1, 117– 130 .Knapp, M.L. , Comadena, M.E. (1979). Telling it like it isn't: A review of theory and research on deceptive communications.. Human Communication Research, 5, 270– 285 .Hocking, J.E. , Leather, D.G. (1980). Nonverbal indicators of deception: A new theoretical perspective.. Communication Monographs, 47, 119– 131 .Hovland, C.I. , Weiss, W. (1951). The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness.. Public Opinion Quarterly, 15, 635– 650 .Knapp, M.L. , Comadena, M.E. (1979). Telling it like it isn't: A review of theory and research on deceptive communications.. Human Communication Research, 5, 270– 285 .Köhnken, G. (1990). Glaubwürdigkeit . München: Psychologie Verlags Union .Kraut, R.E. (1980). Humans as lie detectors: Some second thoughts.. Journal of Communication, 30, 209– 216 .Kruglanski, A.W., , Thompson, E.P. , Spiegel, S. (1999). Separate or equal?: Bimodal notions of persuasion and a single-process “unimodel”. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 293-313). New York: Guilford .McGuire, W.J. (1969). The nature of attitudes and attitude change. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 3, pp. 136-314). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley .Miller, G.R. , Burgoon, J.K. (1982). Factors affecting assessments of witness credibility. In N.L. Kerr & R.M. Bray, (Eds.), The psychology of the courtroom (pp. 169-194). New York: Academic Press .Mills, J. (1966). Opinion change as a function of the communicator's desire to influence and liking for the audience.. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2, 152– 159 .Mills, J. , Aronson, E. (1965). Opinion change as a function of the communicator's attractiveness and desire to influence.. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1, 173– 177 .Mullen, B. (1989). Advanced BASIC meta-analysis . Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum .Petty, R.E. , Cacioppo, J.T. (1981). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary approaches . Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown .Petty, R.E. , Cacioppo, J.T. (1986a). Communication and persuasion. Central and peripheral routes to attitude change . New York: Springer .Petty, R.E. , Cacioppo, J.T. (1986b). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion.. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123– 193 (357) .Petty, R.E. , Wegener, D.T. (1999). The Elaboration Likelihood Model: Current status and controversies. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 41-72). New York: Guilford .Reinhard, M.A., , Burghardt, K., , Sporer, S.L. , Bursch, S.E. (2002). Alltagsvorstellungen über inhaltliche Kennzeichen von Lügen: Selbstberichtete Begründungen bei konkreten Glaubwürdigkeitsurteilen.. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 33, 169– 180 .Reinhard, M.A. , Sporer, S.L. (1999, Juni). Lügst Du? Die Wirkung der Motivation auf den Prozess der Glaubwürdigkeitsbeurteilung . Vortrag, gehalten auf der 7. Tagung der Fachgruppe Sozialpsychologie, Kassel .Reinhard, M.A., , Sporer, S.L. , Bohner, G. (2002). Beeinflusst Need for Cognition den Prozess der Glaubwürdigkeitsbeurteilung? . Poster, präsentiert auf dem 43. Kongress der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie, Berlin .Rosenthal, R. , Rosnow, R.L. (1985). Contrast analysis: Focused comparisons in the analysis of variance . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .Stiff, J.B., , Miller, G.R. , Sleight, C. , Mongeau, P. , Garlick, R. , Rogan, R. (1989). Explanations for visual cue primacy in judgments of honesty and deceit.. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 555– 564 .Vrij, A. (2000). Detecting lies and deceit. The psychology of lying and the implications for professional practice . Chichester: Wiley, Ltd .Walster, E., , Aronson, E. , Abrahams, D. (1966). On increasing the persuasiveness of a low prestige communicator.. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2, 325– 343 .Winer, B.J., , Brown, D.R. , Michels, K.M. (1991). Statistical principles in experimental design . New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc .Zuckerman, M., , DePaulo, B.M. , Rosenthal, R. (1981). Verbal and nonverbal communication of deception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 14, pp. 1-59). New York: Academic Press .Zuckerman, M. , Driver, R.E., (1985). Telling lies: Verbal and nonverbal correlates of deception. In A.W. Siegman & S. Feldstein (Eds.), Multichannel integrations of nonverbal behavior (pp. 129-147). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum .Zuckerman, M., , Koester, R. , Driver, R.E. (1981). Believes about cues associated with deception.. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 6, 105– 114 .
