Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ttngx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-26T17:54:41.008Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How research on persuasion can inform dual-process models of judgment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2023

Richard E. Petty Open the ORCID record for Richard E. Petty [Opens in a new window] ,
Duane T. Wegener Open the ORCID record for Duane T. Wegener [Opens in a new window]  and
Pablo Briñol
Richard E. Petty
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA petty.1@osu.edu https://richardepetty.com wegener.1@osu.edu https://psychology.osu.edu/people/wegener.1
Duane T. Wegener
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA petty.1@osu.edu https://richardepetty.com wegener.1@osu.edu https://psychology.osu.edu/people/wegener.1
Pablo Briñol
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain pablo.brinnol@uam.es https://pablobrinol.com/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

De Neys makes some useful points regarding dual-process models, but his critique ignores highly relevant theories of judgment from the persuasion literature. These persuasion models predate and often circumvent many of the criticisms he makes of the dual-process approaches he covers. Furthermore, the persuasion models anticipated some of the correctives to dual-process models that he proposes.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 46 , 2023 , e138
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Blankenship, K. L., Wegener, D. T., Petty, R. E., Detweiler-Bedell, B., & Macy, C. L. (2008). Elaboration and consequences of anchored estimates: An attitudinal perspective on numerical anchoring. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(6), 1465–1476. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2008.07.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, C. J. (2015). A meta-analysis of the ELM's argument quality × processing type predictions. Human Communication Research, 41(4), 501–534. doi: 10.1111/hcre.12054CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaiken, S., Liberman, A., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In Uleman, J. S. & Bargh, J. A. (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 212–252). Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Haugtvedt, C. P., & Petty, R. E. (1992). Personality and persuasion: Need for cognition moderates the persistence and resistance of attitude changes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(2), 308–319. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.63.2.308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petty, R. E. (2001). Subtle influences on judgments and behaviors: Who is most susceptible? In Forgas, J. & Williams, K. D. (Eds.), Social influence: Direct and indirect processes (pp. 129–146). Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Petty, R. E., & Briñol, P. (2008). Persuasion: From single to multiple to meta-cognitive processes. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(2), 137–147. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6916.2008.00071.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petty, R. E., & Briñol, P. (2012). The elaboration likelihood model. In Van Lange, P. A. M., Kruglanski, A., & Higgins, E. T. (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 224–245). Sage. doi: 10.4135/9781446249215.n12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petty, R. E., & Briñol, P. (2014). The elaboration likelihood and meta-cognitive models of attitudes: Implications for prejudice, the self, and beyond. In Sherman, J., Gawronski, B., & Trope, Y. (Eds.), Dual-process theories of the social mind (pp. 172–187). Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Petty, R. E., Briñol, P., & Johnson, I. (2012). Implicit ambivalence. In Gawronski, B. & Strack, F. (Eds.), Cognitive consistency: A fundamental principle in social cognition (pp. 178–201). Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1984). The effects of involvement on response to argument quantity and quality: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(1), 69–81. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.46.1.69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123–205. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60214-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1990). Involvement and persuasion: Tradition versus integration. Psychological Bulletin, 107(3), 367–374. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.107.3.367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1998). Attitude change: Multiple roles for persuasion variables. In Gilbert, D., Fiske, S., & Lindzey, G. (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 323–390). McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Wegener, D. T., Clark, J. K., & Petty, R. E. (2006). Not all stereotyping is created equal: Differential consequences of thoughtful versus non-thoughtful stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(1), 42–59. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.90.1.42CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wegener, D. T., Petty, R. E., Blankenship, K. L., & Detweiler-Bedell, B. (2010). Elaboration and numerical anchoring: Implications of attitude theories for consumer judgment and decision making. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(1), 5–16. doi: 10.1016/j.jcps.2009.12.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar