All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Easy elaboration: The subjective experience of message processing and persuasion
Unformatted Document Text:  Subjective Experience 10 perceptions of credibility, SI α = .92. Items included anchors such as “competent/incompetent” and “intelligent / unintelligent.” Participants rated the source of the pro and con message as credible (M = 5.01, SD = 0.88; M = 5.32, SD = 1.05 respectively, t(31) = -.92, ns) above the scale’s midpoint (t(15) = 4.60, p <.05; t(17) = 5.32, p <.05 respectively). Argument quality. Participants perceptions of argument quality were measured with six 7-point, semantic differential items which were coded such that higher scores indicated greater perceptions of argument quality, SI α = .96. Items included anchors such as “believable/unbelievable” and “logical/illogical.” Participants rated the pro and con message’s arguments as having good quality (M = 5.78, SD = 0.87; M = 5.88, SD = 0.95 respectively, t(31) = -.31, ns) above the scale’s midpoint (t(15) = 8.18, p <.05; t(16) = 8.14, p <.05 respectively). Favorability. To determine if participants’ preferred specific information presented in the arguments before participation in the experiment, other respondents were asked to complete four 7-point, semantic differential items to indicate how favorable they were toward the information. Items included anchors such as “favorable/unfavorable” and “sympathetic/ unsympathetic.” The items were coded such that higher scores indicated participants were more favorable toward the information, SI α = .94. Participants rated the arguments in the pro message less favorably (M = 4.42, SD = 1.45) than the con message (M = 5.60, SD = 1.16), t(31) = 2.59, p < .05. The pro message arguments were rated within sampling error of the scale’s midpoint, t(15) = 1.16, ns, while the con message arguments were rated above the scale’s midpoint, t(16) = 5.70, p < .05). Subjective Experience Participants and procedure. Thirty-one respondents participated in the fourth phase of the pilot study. All participants read the pro argument. To induce differences in the subjective experience of processing the arguments, participants listed either 3 (subjectively easy) or 10

Authors: Smith, Rachel., Goei, Ryan. and Lindsey, Lisa.
first   previous   Page 10 of 23   next   last



background image
Subjective Experience 10
perceptions of credibility, SI
α
= .92. Items included anchors such as “competent/incompetent”
and “intelligent / unintelligent.” Participants rated the source of the pro and con message as
credible (M = 5.01, SD = 0.88; M = 5.32, SD = 1.05 respectively, t(31) = -.92, ns) above the
scale’s midpoint (t(15) = 4.60, p <.05; t(17) = 5.32, p <.05 respectively).
Argument
quality. Participants perceptions of argument quality were measured with six
7-point, semantic differential items which were coded such that higher scores indicated greater
perceptions of argument quality, SI
α
= .96. Items included anchors such as
“believable/unbelievable” and “logical/illogical.” Participants rated the pro and con message’s
arguments as having good quality (M = 5.78, SD = 0.87; M = 5.88, SD = 0.95 respectively, t(31)
= -.31, ns) above the scale’s midpoint (t(15) = 8.18, p <.05; t(16) = 8.14, p <.05 respectively).
Favorability. To determine if participants’ preferred specific information presented in the
arguments before participation in the experiment, other respondents were asked to complete four
7-point, semantic differential items to indicate how favorable they were toward the information.
Items included anchors such as “favorable/unfavorable” and “sympathetic/ unsympathetic.” The
items were coded such that higher scores indicated participants were more favorable toward the
information, SI
α
= .94. Participants rated the arguments in the pro message less favorably (M =
4.42, SD = 1.45) than the con message (M = 5.60, SD = 1.16), t(31) = 2.59, p < .05. The pro
message arguments were rated within sampling error of the scale’s midpoint, t(15) = 1.16, ns,
while the con message arguments were rated above the scale’s midpoint, t(16) = 5.70, p < .05).
Subjective Experience
Participants and procedure. Thirty-one respondents participated in the fourth phase of the
pilot study. All participants read the pro argument. To induce differences in the subjective
experience of processing the arguments, participants listed either 3 (subjectively easy) or 10


Convention
Convention is an application service for managing large or small academic conferences, annual meetings, and other types of events!
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 10 of 23   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.