Skip to main content
Search
Search
    Quick Search anywhere
    Quick search in Citations
Advanced Search
Skip main navigationClose Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu
Previous article
Original Article

Heart Versus Mind

How Affective and Cognitive Message Frames Change Attitudes

Published Online:December 30, 2015https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000257

Abstract

Abstract. Several researchers have pursued the question of whether affective or cognitive persuasion appeals are more successful in changing attitudes. The vast majority of studies in this field have found that the persuasiveness of affective and cognitive appeals depends on the extent to which recipients’ existing attitudes are based on affect or cognition: Affective messages are more successful in changing affect-based attitudes; cognitive messages are more successful in changing cognition-based attitudes. However, research to date has not uncovered the processes leading to these effects. In the present article it is argued that there are two plausible explanations. First, matching messages to informational attitude bases might heighten message scrutiny. This would mean that a central process underlies the effects. Second, a peripheral process might account for the effects. Specifically, processing fluency might act as a peripheral cue. The results of an experimental study clearly suggest that that processing fluency underlies the effects.

References

  • Breckler, S. J. (1984). Empirical validation of affect, behavior, and cognition as distinct components of attitude. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1191–1205. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.47.6.1191 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Breckler, S. J. & Wiggins, E. C. (1989). Affect versus evaluation in the structure of attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 253–271. doi: 10.1016/0022-1031(89)90022-X First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Breckler, S. J. & Wiggins, E. C. (1991). Cognitive responses in persuasion: Affective and evaluative determinants. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 27, 180–200. doi: 10.1016/0022-1031(91)90021-W First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Brock, T. C., Brannon, L. A. & Bridgwater, C. (1990). Message effectiveness can be increased by matching appeals to recipients’ self-schemas: Laboratory demonstrations and a national field experiment. In S. J. AgresJ. A. EdellT. M. DubitskyEds., Emotion in advertising: Theoretical and practical explorations (pp. 285–315). New York, NY: Quorum Books. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Brockner, J. & Higgins, E. T. (2001). Regulatory focus theory: Implications for the study of emotions at work. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 35–66. doi: 10.1006/obhd.2001.2972 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Cacioppo, J. T. & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116–131. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.116 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Cesario, J., Grant, H. & Higgins, E. T. (2004). Regulatory fit and persuasion: Transfer from “feeling right”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 388–404. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.86.3.388 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Clarkson, J. J., Tormala, Z. L. & Rucker, D. D. (2011). Cognitive and affective matching effects in persuasion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 1415–1427. doi: 10.1177/0146167211413394 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Crites, S. L., Fabrigar, L. R. & Petty, R. E. (1994). Measuring the affective and cognitive properties of attitudes: Conceptual and methodological issues. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 619–634. doi: 10.1177/0146167294206001 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • DeBono, K. G. & Rubin, K. (1995). Country of origin and perceptions of product quality: An individual difference perspective. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17, 239–247. doi: 10.1080/01973533.1995.9646142 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Dechêne, A., Stahl, C., Hansen, J. & Wänke, M. (2009). The truth about the truth: A meta-analytic review of the truth effect. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14, 238–257. doi: 10.1177/1088868309352251 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Edwards, K. (1990). The interplay of affect and cognition in attitude formation and change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 202–216. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.59.2.202 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Edwards, K. & von Hippel, W. (1995). Hearts and minds: The priority of affective versus cognitive factors in person perception. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 996–1011. doi: 10.1177/01461672952110001 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Fabrigar, L. R. & Petty, R. E. (1999). The role of the affective and cognitive bases of attitudes in susceptibility to affectively and cognitively based persuasion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 363–381. doi: 10.1177/0146167299025003008 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Fazio, R. H. & Zanna, M. P. (1978). Attitudinal qualities relating to the strength of the attitude-behavior relationship. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 398–408. doi: 10.1016/0022-1031(78)90035-5 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Haddock, G., Maio, G. R., Arnold, K. & Huskinson, T. (2008). Should persuasion be affective or cognitive? The moderating effects of need for affect and need for cognition. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 769–778. doi: 10.1177/0146167208314871 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Hasher, L., Goldstein, D. & Toppino, T. (1977). Frequency and the conference of referential validity. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16, 107–112. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5371(77)80012-1 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. In M. P. ZannaEd., Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 1–46). New York, NY: Academic Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Katz, D. (1960). The functional approach to the study of attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 24, 163–204. doi: 10.1086/266945 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Lavine, H. & Snyder, M. (1996). Cognitive processing and the functional matching effect in persuasion: The mediating role of subjective perceptions of message quality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 32, 580–604. doi: 10.1006/jesp.1996.0026 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Lee, A. Y. & Aaker, J. L. (2004). Bringing the frame into focus: The influence of regulatory fit on processing fluency and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 205–218. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.86.2.205 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Maio, G. R. & Esses, V. M. (2001). The need for affect: Individual differences in the motivation to approach or avoid emotions. Journal of Personality, 69, 583–614. doi: 10.1111/1467-6494.694156 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Mayer, N. D. & Tormala, Z. L. (2010). “Think” versus “feel” framing effects in persuasion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 443–454. doi: 10.1177/0146167210362981 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Millar, M. G. (1992). Effects of experience on matched and mismatched arguments and attitudes. Social Behavior and Personality, 20, 47–56. doi: 10.2224/sbp.1992.20.1.47 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Millar, M. G. & Millar, K. U. (1990). Attitude change as a function of attitude type and argument type. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 217–228. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.59.2.217 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Petty, R. E. & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 123–205). San Diego, CA: Academic Press Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0065260108602142 First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Petty, R. E. & Wegener, D. T. (1998). Matching versus mismatching attitude functions: Implications for scrutiny of persuasive messages. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 227–240. doi: 10.1177/0146167298243001 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Petty, R. E. & Wegener, D. T. (1999). The Elaboration Likelihood Model: Current status and controversies. In S. ChaikenY. TropeEds., Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 41–72). New York, NY: Guilford. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Petty, R. E., Wegener, D. T. & Fabrigar, L. R. (1997). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 609–647. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.48.1.609 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Petty, R. E., Wheeler, S. C. & Bizer, G. Y. (2000). Attitude functions and persuasion: An elaboration likelihood approach to matched versus mismatched messages. In G. MaioJ. OlsonEds., Why we evaluate: Functions of attitudes (pp. 133–162). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. doi: 10.2224/sbp.1992.20.1.47 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Ryffel, F. A., Wirz, D. S., Kühne, R. & Wirth, W. (2014). How emotional media reports influence attitude formation and change: The interplay of attitude base, attitude certainty, and persuasion. Media Psychology, 17, 397–419. doi: 10.1080/15213269.2014.933850 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Schwarz, N. & Clore, G. L. (2007). Feelings and phenomenal experiences. In A. KruglanskiE. T. HigginsEds., Social psychology. Handbook of Basic Principles (pp. 385–407). New York, NY: Guilford. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Searle, S. R., Speed, F. M. & Milliken, G. A. (1980). Marginal means in the linear model: An alternative to least squares means. The American Statistician, 34, 216–221. doi: 10.2307/2684063 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • See, Y. H. M., Petty, R. E. & Fabrigar, L. R. (2008). Affective and cognitive meta-bases of attitudes: Unique effects on information interest and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 938–955. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.94.6.938 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • See, Y. H. M., Petty, R. E. & Fabrigar, L. R. (2013). Affective-cognitive meta-bases versus structural bases of attitudes predict processing interest versus efficiency. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 1111–1123. doi: 10.1177/0146167213490807 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Tiedens, L. Z. & Linton, S. (2001). Judgment under emotional certainty and uncertainty: The effects of specific emotions on information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 973–988. doi: 10.1037/OO22-3514.81.6.973 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Tormala, Z. L., Rucker, D. D. & Seger, C. R. (2008). When increased confidence yields increased thought: A confidence-matching hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 141–147. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2006.11.002 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Unkelbach, C., Bayer, M., Alves, H., Koch, A. & Stahl, C. (2011). Fluency and positivity as possible causes of the truth effect. Consciousness and Cognition, 20, 594–602. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Wheeler, S. C., Petty, R. E. & Bizer, G. Y. (2005). Self-schema matching and attitude change: Situational and dispositional determinants of message elaboration. Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 787–797. doi: 10.1086/426613 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar