The role of the origin (automatic vs. reflective) of affective state for the effectiveness of persuasion based on strong vs. weak arguments

Magdalena T. Walkowiak; Kamil K. Imbir

doi:10.18290/rpsych.2018.21.1-2

Magdalena T. Walkowiak University of Warsaw, Faculty of Psychology
Kamil K. Imbir University of Warsaw, Faculty of Psychology

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18290/rpsych.2018.21.1-2

Keywords: Elaboration Likelihood Model; persuasion; Emotion Duality Model; reflective emotions; automatic emotions; information processing

Abstract

Previous research has focused on the influence of emotional valence on the effectiveness of per-suasion via the central route or the peripheral route. The purpose of this study was to answer the question of whether other dimensions of emotion, such as the origin of emotional charge (auto-matic vs. reflective) may also influence the effectiveness of persuasion. It was expected that reflective emotions would increase susceptibility to strong arguments, while automatic emotions would result in a lack of sensitivity to the quality of arguments. Emotional words of proven emotional quality were used to elicit affective states. They were chosen in order to contrast the different levels of emotional valence (negative, neutral, and positive) and the origin of emotion (automatic and reflective). It turned out that in the case of reflective conditions, a significantly higher effectiveness of persuasion was observed for strong arguments than for weak ones. In the case of automatic conditions, there was no difference in the effectiveness of persuasion depending on the quality of the arguments. There were also no differences related to emotional valence; however, the manipulation of affective states on emotional valence dimension turned out not to be effective. This suggests that the origin of emotion can be considered a factor influencing processing via the central or peripheral route to persuasion.

References

Aronson, E., Wilson, T., & Akert, R. (1997). Psychologia społeczna. Serce i umysł [Social psychology: The heart and the mind]. (A. Bezwińska, W. Domachowski, M. Draheim, E. Hornowska, M. Kowalczyk, Z. Kowalik, & M. Zakrzewska, Trans.). Poznań, Poland: Wydawnictwo Zysk i S-ka.
Batra, R., & Stayman, D. (1990). The role of mood in advertising effectiveness. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(2), 203-214.Böhner, G., & Wänke, M. (2004). Postawy i zmiana postaw [Attitudes and attitude change] (J. Radzicki, Trans.). Gdańsk, Poland: Gdańskie Wydawnictwo Psychologiczne.
Gawronski, B., & Creighton, L. A. (2013). Dual-process theories. In D. E. Carlston (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of social cognition (pp. 282-312). New York, NY, US: Oxford University Press.
Griskevicius, V., Shiota, M., & Neufeld, S. (2010). Influence of different positive emotions on persuasion processing: A functional evolutionary approach. Emotion, 10(2), 190-206.
Imbir, K. (2014). Emocjonalne znaczenie słów: walidacja metody wyznaczania norm afektywnych dla słów polskich [The emotional significance of words: Validation of the method of esta-blishing affective norms for Polish words]. Studia Psychologiczne, 52(2), 33-42.
Imbir, K. (2016a). From heart to mind and back again. A duality of emotion overview on emotion- -cognition interactions. New Ideas in Psychology, 43, 39-49.
Imbir, K. (2016b). Affective Norms for 4900 Polish Words Reload (ANPW_R): Assessments for Valence, Arousal, Dominance, Origin, Significance, Concreteness, Imageability and Age of Acquisition. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1081.
Jarymowicz, M., & Imbir, K. (2015). Toward a human emotions taxonomy (based on their automatic vs. reflective origin). Emotion Review, 7(2), 183-188.Kahneman, D. K. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York, NY, US: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Morris, J., Woo, C., & Singh, A. (2005). Elaboration likelihood model: A missing intrinsic emotional implication. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 14(1), 79-98.
Petty, R., Brinol, P., & Priester, J. (2008). Implications of the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research, 2, 125-164.
Petty, R., & Cacioppo, J. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123-205.
Petty, R., Cacioppo, J., & Goldman, R. (1981). Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(5), 847-855.
Petty, R., Cacioppo, J., & Schumann, D. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 135-146.
Schwarz, N., & Bless, H. (1991). Happy and mindless, but sad and smart? The impact of affective states on analytic reasoning. In J. Forgas (Ed.), Emotion and social judgments (pp. 55-71). Pergamon Press.
Sokołowska, J. (2011). Dualizm poznania a procesy decyzyjne [The dualism of cognition and decision-making processes]. In A. Falkowski & T. Zaleśkiewicz (Eds.), Psychologia poznaw-cza w praktyce. Ekonomia, biznes, polityka [Cognitive psychology in practice: Economics, business, politics] (pp. 53-104). Warsaw, Poland: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Strack, F., & Deutsch, R. (2004). Reflective and impulsive determinants of social behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(3), 220-247.
Tokarz, M. (2006). Argumentacja, perswazja, manipulacja. Wykłady z teorii komunikacji [Argumentation, persuasion, manipulation: Lectures in the theory of communication]. Gdańsk, Poland: Gdańskie Wydawnictwo Psychologiczne.
Wojciszke, B. (2004). Człowiek wśród ludzi. Zarys psychologii społecznej [Man among people. An outline of social psychology]. Warsaw, Poland: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar.