title: When expertise backfires: contrast and assimilation effects in persuasion.
abstract: It was proposed that source cues bias message processing in a direction opposite to cue valence if message content violates cue-based expectancies (contrast hypothesis), but consistent with cue valence if message content is ambiguous (bias hypothesis). In line with these hypotheses, students (N = 123) reported less favourable thoughts and attitudes after reading weak arguments presented by a high (vs. low) expertise source (Expts 1 and 2), and reported more favourable thoughts after reading strong arguments presented by a low (vs. high) expertise source (Expt 2). Conversely, students' thoughts and attitudes were more (less) favourable when a high (low) expertise source presented ambiguous arguments (Expt 2). Results are discussed in relation to dual- vs. single-process accounts of persuasion and models of assimilation and contrast in social judgment.
authors.affiliation: Universität Bielefeld, Germany. Gerd.Bohner@uni-bielefeld.de
authors.forename: Gerd
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Bohner
authors.forename: Markus
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Ruder
authors.forename: Hans-Peter
authors.initials: HP
authors.lastname: Erb
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000704:Analysis of Variance; D001290:Attitude; D001364:Awareness; D003071:Cognition; D003463:Cues; D005858:Germany; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D010565:Persuasive Communication; D011361:Professional Competence; D013334:Students / Q000523:psychology*