publication . Article . 1985

Two politicians in a realistic experiment: attraction, discrepancy, intensity of delivery, and attitude change

Oene Wiegman;
Open Access
  • Published: 01 Jan 1985
  • Country: Netherlands
Abstract
The leader of the Socialists in the Dutch Parliament and his Liberal opponent participated in this realistic experiment. Identical TV interviews with the two politicians were recorded and shown to subjects of both parties. The intensity of delivery was also varied: emotional versus rational. Our findgins indicated that the experimental interveiw changed the attitude of the subjects. In addition, support was found for a second hypothesis: Attitude change was greater for the attractive source from the same party than for the less attractive source from the opposite party. Furthermore, our expectations were confirmed that attitude change would be greater with high ...
Subjects
Medical Subject Headings: sense organsskin and connective tissue diseases
free text keywords: IR-70692, Social Psychology, Psychology, Attraction, Parliament, media_common.quotation_subject, media_common, Credibility, Liberalism, Attitude change
Related Organizations
37 references, page 1 of 3

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understandingattitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Aronson, E., & Golden, B. (1962). The effect of relevant and irrelevant aspects of communicator credibility on opinion change. Journal of Personality, 30, 135-146. [OpenAIRE]

Aronson, E., Turner, J. A., & Carlsmith, J . M. (1963). Communicator credibility and communication discrepancy as determinants of opinion change. Journal ofAbnormal and SocialPsychology, 67,31-36.

Ban, A. W. van den. (1964). A revision of the two-step flow of communication hypothesis. Gazette, 10,235-250.

Bochner, S . , & Insko, C. A. (1966). Communicator discrepancy, source credibility and opinion change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4,614-621.

Bowers, J. W. (1965). The influence of delivery on attitudes towards concepts and speakers.Speech Monographs, 32,154-158.

Brock, T. C. (1967). Communication discrepancy and intent t o persuade as determinants of counterargument production. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 3,296-309.

Coats, W. D., & Schmidchens, U. (1966). Audience recall as a function of speaker dynamism.Journal ofEducationalPsychology, 57,189-191.

Comstock, G. (1975). The evidence so far: The effect of television on children and adolescents.Journal of Communication, 25,25-34. [OpenAIRE]

Comstock, G. (1978). The impact of television on American institutions. Journal of Communication, 28, 12-28. [OpenAIRE]

Dietrich, J . E. (1946). The relative effectiveness of two modes of radio delivery in influencing atttidues. Speech Monographs, 13,58-65.

Fishbein, M., & Azjen, I. (1975). BelieL attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Foley, J. M. (1978). Mass Communication theory and research: An overview. In B. Ruben (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 2 (pp. 209-214). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

Foley, J. M. (1979). Mass Communication theory and research: An overview. In D. Nimmo (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 3(pp. 263-270). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

Granberg, D., & Campbell, K. E. (1977). Effect of communication discrepancy and ambiguity on placement and opinion shift. European Journal o f Social Psychology, 7,137-150.

37 references, page 1 of 3
Any information missing or wrong?Report an Issue