Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1967. / Vita. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1975. / Typescript. Vita. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 179-192).

Theses (Ed.S.)--Marshall University, 2006. / Title from document title page. Includes abstract. Document formatted into pages: contains 20 p. Bibliography: page 17.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Ohio State University, 2005. / Title from first page of PDF file. Document formatted into pages; contains xvi, 251 p.; also includes graphics. Includes bibliographical references (p. 157-174). Available online via OhioLINK's ETD Center

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Texas Christian University, 2007. / Title from dissertation title page (viewed Sept. 11, 2007). Includes abstract. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (M.S.)--Montana State University--Bozeman, 2007. / Typescript. Chairperson, Graduate Committee: Ian M. Handley. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 51-54).

There is impressively consistent empirical support for the hypotheses that distraction and sensory deprivation increase responsiveness to persuasive inputs. The primary purpose of the two experiments reported here was to investigate whether distraction and sensory deprivation also increase the persuasive impact of attacks on cultural truisms, and the manner in which prior provision of counterarguments in the form of a refutational inoculation message interacts with these treatments. The effects of the independent variables were assessed by dependent measures of four theoretically distinct but related aspects of the attitude change process: comprehension, message belief acceptance, attitude change and cognitive reactions r— to the persuasive message. A total of one hundred subjects served in the two experiments. In the first experiment, the effects of three levels of distraction (no distraction, low effort distraction, high effort distraction) and of the presence or absence of refutational inoculation were examined. Contrary to previous research, distraction had no effect on any of the dependent measures; refutational inoculation, consistent with previous research, reduced message belief acceptance, increased pro-truism attitudes and increased counterarguments against the message. In the second experiment, the effects of three levels of sensory deprivation (0, 1 hour, 23 hours) and of the presence or absence of refutational inoculation were examined. Again contrary to previous research, sensory deprivation had no effect on any of the dependent measures; consistent with previous research, refutational inoculation reduced message belief acceptance, increased pro-truism attitudes and increased counterargument production. The implications of these results for competing explanations of distraction and sensory deprivation effects were discussed. The cognitive dissonance interpretation of the effects of distraction and the information need interpretation of the effects of sensory deprivation appear unable to account for the failure of these manipulations to increase persuasion. These findings are more in accord with the counterargument disruption interpretation. In addition, the counterarguing process appears to represent an important aspect of the general effects of the refutational inoculation message. Further research, using the same procedures of the present study, but a non-cultural truism as the attitude topic, is required to test the counterargument disruption interpretation more rigorously. / Arts, Faculty of / Psychology, Department of / Graduate

No description available.

The present study aimed to examine how a manipulated majority position affects attitude change for intergroup and non-intergroup issues. Specifically I wanted to see how norms of tolerance and norms of prejudice differed. The study employed a 3 (majority manipulated position: positive, neutral, or negative) X 2 (issue type: intergroup or non-intergroup) ANCOVA. Additionally, I wanted to examine how participants’ perceived societal direction affects attitude change for intergroup issues with a 3 (majority manipulated position: positive, neutral, or negative) X 3 (perceived direction of attitude: support, stay the same, negative) ANOVA. Participants were randomly assigned to view a majority manipulation position. Attitude change was determined by a difference between a pre-and post-manipulation score. In partial support of my hypothesis intergroup issues elicited more norm-consistent attitude change than non-intergroup topics, however this was driven by a prejudicial social norm effect. No effect was found for perceived societal direction.

The current study employed the self-validation hypothesis (Petty, Brinol, & Tormala, 2002) to test how thought confidence affects individuals’ responses to social norms regarding gay rights. After measuring their gay rights attitudes and thought confidence, participants took part in a discussion where they faced groups that either opposed their position on gay rights unanimously or non-unanimously (i.e., 4 opposing confederates vs. 3 opposing confederates and one supporting confederate). Those who were anti-gay rights conformed more than those pro, particularly when facing unanimous opposition. Thought confidence reduced the effects of normative pressure on conformity, but only in those who were anti-gay rights. Attitude change was reduced for anti-gay rights people with high thought confidence, but only when a supporting confederate was present. These results suggest that thought confidence affects resistance to social norms in people who are anti-gay rights whereas pro-gay rights people resist regardless of their level of thought confidence.