Duane T. Wegener

Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research.

Despite the widespread use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research, researchers often make questionable decisions when conducting these analyses. This article reviews the major design and analytical decisions that must be made when conducting a factor analysis and notes that each of these decisions has important consequences for the obtained results. Recommendations that have been made in the methodological literature are discussed. Analyses of 3 existing empirical data sets are used to illustrate how questionable decisions in conducting factor analyses can yield problematic results. The article presents a survey of 2 prominent journals that suggests that researchers routinely conduct analyses using such questionable methods. The implications of these practices for psychological research are discussed, and the reasons for current practices are reviewed.

Flexible correction processes in social judgment: the role of naive theories in corrections for perceived bias

Unlike many models of bias correction, our flexible correction model posits that corrections occur when judges are motivated and able to adjust assessments of targets according to their naive theories of how the context affects judgments of the target(s). In the current research, people flexibly correct assessments of different targets within the same context according to the differing theories associated with the context-target pairs. In Study 1, shared theories of assimilation and contrast bias are identified. Corrections consistent with those theories are obtained in Studies 2 and 3. Study 4 shows that idiographic measures of theories of bias predict the direction and magnitude of corrections. Implications of this work for corrections of attributions and bias removal in general are discussed.

Positive Mood Can Increase or Decrease Message Scrutiny: The Hedonic Contingency View of Mood and Message Processing

Currently dominant explanations of mood effects on persuasive message processing (i.e., cognitive capacity and feelings as information) predict that happy moods lead to less message scrutiny than neutral or sad moods. The hedonic contingency view (D. T. Wegener & R. E. Petty, 1994) predicts that happy moods can sometimes be associated with greater message processing activity because people in a happy mood are more attentive than neutral or sad people to the hedonic consequences of their actions. Consistent with this view, Experiment 1 finds that a happy mood can lead to greater message scrutiny than a neutral mood when the message is not mood threatening. Experiment 2 finds that a happy mood leads to greater message scrutiny than a sad mood when an uplifting message is encountered, but to less message scrutiny when a depressing message is encountered.

Beyond valence in the perception of likelihood: the role of emotion specificity.

Positive and negative moods have been shown to increase likelihood estimates of future events matching these states in valence (e.g., E. J. Johnson & A. Tversky, 1983). In the present article, 4 studies provide evidence that this congruency bias (a) is not limited to valence but functions in an emotion-specific manner, (b) derives from the informational value of emotions, and (c) is not the inevitable outcome of likelihood assessment under heightened emotion. Specifically, Study 1 demonstrates that sadness and anger, 2 distinct, negative emotions, differentially bias likelihood estimates of sad and angering events. Studies 2 and 3 replicate this finding in addition to supporting an emotion-as-information (cf. N. Schwarz & G. L. Clore, 1983), as opposed to a memory-based, mediating process for the bias. Finally, Study 4 shows that when the source of the emotion is salient, a reversal of the bias can occur given greater cognitive effort aimed at accuracy.

Message Order Effects in Persuasion: An Attitude Strength Perspective

Contemporary research on attitude change processes is reviewed for implications regarding the relative influence of successive opposing messages on final judgements. Based on this review, extent of message relevant elaboration is offered as a moderator of primacy versus recency effects in prior research. Support for this view is derived from the ability to explain the results of pervious studies and from two experiments in which message presentation order and personal relevance of the topic are manipulated in a factorial design. We find that situations that foster high levels of message elaboration lead to greater influence of an initial message on final judgments (a primacy effect) whereas situations that foster low levels of message relevant elaboration lead to greater influence of a second message on final judgments (a recency effect). Copyright 1994 by the University of Chicago.

Matching Versus Mismatching Attitude Functions: Implications for Scrutiny of Persuasive Messages

Two studies were conducted to examine the hypothesis that matching the content of a persuasive message to the functional basis of peoples attitudes enhances message scrutiny. In Study 1, high and low self-monitors were exposed to a message that matched or mismatched the functional basis of their attitudes (i.e., image appealfor high self-monitors and quality appealfor low self-monitors) and that -contained either strong or weak arguments. Attitudes were more strongly affected by message strength when the message arguments matched rather than mismatched thefunctional basis of the attitude. In Study 2, this outcome was especially characteristic of individuals who typically do not enjoy thinking (those low in need for cognition). These studies show that matching arguments to the functional basis of an attitude is not invariably beneficialfor persuasion but can enhance or reduce attitude change (compared to mismatched arguments) depending on the cogency of the matched information.

Discrete Emotions and Persuasion: The Role of Emotion-Induced Expectancies

The authors argue that specific emotions can alter the persuasive impact of messages as a function of the emotional framing of persuasive appeals. Because specific emotions inflate expectancies for events possessing matching emotional overtones (D. DeSteno, R. E. Petty, D. T. Wegener, & D. D. Rucker, 2000), the authors predicted that attempts at persuasion would be more successful when messages were framed with emotional overtones matching the emotional state of the receiver and that these changes would be mediated by emotion-induced biases involving expectancies attached to arguments contained in the messages. Two studies manipulating discrete negative emotional states and message frames (i.e., sadness and anger) confirmed these predictions. The functioning of this emotion-matching bias in parallel with emotion-induced processing differences and the limitations of a valence-based approach to the study of attitude change are also considered.

Attitudinal Ambivalence and Message-Based Persuasion: Motivated Processing of Proattitudinal Information and Avoidance of Counterattitudinal Information

Attitudinal ambivalence has been found to increase processing of attitude-relevant information. In this research, the authors suggest that ambivalence can also create the opposite effect: avoidance of thinking about persuasive messages. If processing is intended to reduce experienced ambivalence, then ambivalent people should increase processing of information perceived as proattitudinal (agreeable) and able to decrease ambivalence. However, ambivalence should also lead people to avoid processing of counterattitudinal (disagreeable) information that threatens to increase ambivalence. Three studies provide evidence consistent with this proposal. When participants were relatively ambivalent, they processed messages to a greater extent when the messages were proattitudinal rather than counterattitudinal. However, when participants were relatively unambivalent, they processed messages more when the messages were counterattitudinal rather than proattitudinal. In addition, ambivalent participants perceived proattitudinal messages as more likely than counterattitudinal messages to reduce ambivalence, and these perceptions accounted for message position effects on amount of processing.

Not all stereotyping is created equal: Differential consequences of thoughtful versus nonthoughtful stereotyping.

Much research emphasizes heuristic use of stereotypes, though stereotypes have long been considered as capable of influencing more thoughtful processing of social information. Direct comparisons between thoughtful and non-thoughtful stereotyping are lacking in the literature. Recent research in attitude change emphasizes the different consequences of judgments arising from relatively thoughtful versus non-thoughtful processes. Therefore, increased thought could not only fail to decrease stereotyping but might also create stereotypic perceptions that are more likely to have lasting impact. The current studies demonstrate thoughtful and non-thoughtful stereotyping within the same setting. More thoughtful stereotyping is more resistant to future attempts at change and to warnings of possible bias. Implications are discussed for the typical research questions asked after observing stereotypic judgements.

The Impact of Attitude Accessibility on Elaboration of Persuasive Messages

Two experiments were conducted to examine the impact of attitude accessibility on elaboration of persuasive appeals. In Experiment 1, the accessibility of attitudes toward nuclear power was measured using response latencies. Participants were then presented with a persuasive message that contained either strong or weak arguments against the use of nuclear power. Argument quality had a greater impact on persuasion when attitudes were high in accessibility than when they were low in accessibility. In Experiment 2, the accessibility of attitudes toward vegetarianism was experimentally manipulated by varying the number of times participants expressed their attitudes toward vegetarianism. Participants then read a pro-vegetarianism persuasive message that contained either strong or weak arguments. Again, argument quality had a greater impact on persuasion when accessibility was high than when it was low. Taken together, both experiments suggest that increased message topic attitude accessibility leads to enhanced elaboration of persuasive messages on those topics.