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 16 or subjective experience was found. However, those who read the positive message and had the easy task were slightly more likely to intend to seek information (M = .17, SD = .38) than any of the other students (average M = .12, SD = .33), F(1,66) = 9.21, p < .05, r = .05. A very small relationship between the students’ approval of photo enforcement and the likelihood that they intended to seek more information was found, r(66) = .06, ns. The students very rarely requested more information (M = .03, SD = .17). Though there was no difference between the pro and con messages, those students who received the tough subjective experience (M = .06, SD = .25) were more likely to leave their email addresses for more information then those with the easy subjective experience (M = .00, SD = .00), F(1,66) = 30.34, p < .05, r = .18. Those participants who indicated that they intended to seek information were more likely to leave their email address (M = .22, SD = .44) then those who did not (M = .00, SD = .00), F(1,66) = 30.34, p < .05, r = .45. All of the information-seeking behavior was exhibited within one cell of this interaction: those participants who intended to seek more information and had finished the tough subjective experience left their email addresses (M = .50, SD = .58) while those in the other conditions did not (average M = .00, SD = .00). The “magic cell” contrast was statistically significant, F(1,66) = 61.12, p < .05, r = .70). Discussion In trying to understand persuasion, sometimes we can draw new ideas from other social sciences. Sometimes, we cannot. In the current study, we asked if the effect of subjective experience in recalling information would generalize to persuasive message processing. Our results are inconclusive. In our experiment, participants read a persuasive message (either a pro argument or a con argument) and listed more or fewer arguments in line with the message to vary the subjective experience in processing the message. To make the subjective experience

Authors: Smith, Rachel., Goei, Ryan. and Lindsey, Lisa.
first   previous   Page 16 of 23   next   last



background image
Subjective Experience 16
or subjective experience was found. However, those who read the positive message and had the
easy task were slightly more likely to intend to seek information (M = .17, SD = .38) than any of
the other students (average M = .12, SD = .33), F(1,66) = 9.21, p < .05, r = .05. A very small
relationship between the students’ approval of photo enforcement and the likelihood that they
intended to seek more information was found, r(66) = .06, ns.
The students very rarely requested more information (M = .03, SD = .17). Though there
was no difference between the pro and con messages, those students who received the tough
subjective experience (M = .06, SD = .25) were more likely to leave their email addresses for
more information then those with the easy subjective experience (M = .00, SD = .00), F(1,66) =
30.34, p < .05, r = .18. Those participants who indicated that they intended to seek information
were more likely to leave their email address (M = .22, SD = .44) then those who did not (M =
.00, SD = .00), F(1,66) = 30.34, p < .05, r = .45. All of the information-seeking behavior was
exhibited within one cell of this interaction: those participants who intended to seek more
information and had finished the tough subjective experience left their email addresses (M = .50,
SD = .58) while those in the other conditions did not (average M = .00, SD = .00). The “magic
cell” contrast was statistically significant, F(1,66) = 61.12, p < .05, r = .70).
Discussion
In trying to understand persuasion, sometimes we can draw new ideas from other social
sciences. Sometimes, we cannot. In the current study, we asked if the effect of subjective
experience in recalling information would generalize to persuasive message processing. Our
results are inconclusive. In our experiment, participants read a persuasive message (either a pro
argument or a con argument) and listed more or fewer arguments in line with the message to
vary the subjective experience in processing the message. To make the subjective experience


Convention
All Academic Convention makes running your annual conference simple and cost effective. It is your online solution for abstract management, peer review, and scheduling for your annual meeting or convention.
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 16 of 23   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.