Kevin L. Blankenship

Relation of General Deviance to Academic Dishonesty

This study investigated the relations of cheating on an exam and using a false excuse to avoid taking an exam as scheduled to various forms of minor deviance. College students completed measures of cheating, false excuse making, and minor deviance. A factor analysis identified clusters of deviance behaviors. Cheaters scored higher than noncheaters on measures of unreliability and risky driving behaviors, and false excuse makers scored higher than other students on measures of substance use, risky driving, illegal behaviors, and personal unreliability. In addition, men scored higher than women on substance abuse and illegal behaviors factors. Results are interpreted in terms of personological theories of honesty and reliability.

The Role of Different Markers of Linguistic Powerlessness in Persuasion

This research examined the unique effects of different markers of linguistic powerlessness (hedges, hesitations, and tag questions) on persuasion. Participants read (Experiment 1) or listened to (Experiment 2) a communication advocating comprehensive exams. Under high message relevance, messages containing powerless markers resulted in less favorable attitudes and more negative perceptions of the message and source than did the control message. This effect occurred in both experiments and was a result of these markers lessening the impact of strong arguments; in Experiment 2, strong arguments were no more persuasive than weak arguments when the message contained any of these markers. Under low message relevance, tag questions improved the persuasiveness of message arguments relative to the control condition. These results demonstrate that the effects of linguistic markers of powerlessness are complex and depend on marker type and processing depth.

Opening the Mind to Close It: Considering a Message in Light of Important Values Increases Message Processing and Later Resistance to Change

Past research showed that considering a persuasive message in light of important rather than unimportant values creates attitudes that resist later attack. The traditional explanation is that the attitudes come to express the value or that a cognitive link between the value and attitude enhances resistance. However, the current research showed that another explanation is plausible. Similar to other sources of involvement, considering important rather than unimportant values increases processing of the message considered in light of those values. This occurs when the values are identified as normatively high or low in importance and when the perceived importance differs across participants for the same values. The increase in processing creates resistance to later attacks, and unlike past research, individual-level measures of initial amount of processing mediate value importance effects on later resistance to change. Important values motivate processing because they increase personal involvement with the issue, rather than creating attitudes that represent or express core values.

Rhetorical Question Use and Resistance to Persuasion: An Attitude Strength Analysis

Although previous research has provided indirect evidence that rhetorical questions can increase attitudinal resistance, what little work that was done was not specifically designed to examine the issue. Current models of attitude change suggest that rhetorical questions can increase persuasion and message processing, creating a relatively strong, resistant attitude. These processing and resistance effects in turn may be mediated by a property of attitude strength such as participants’ cognitive responses. In Study 1, placing rhetorical questions in a message increased participants’ message processing and counterargument generation relative to a control message. In addition, participants’ attitudes were mediated by participants’ cognitive responses. Study 2 found that a message containing rhetorical questions increased participants’ attitudinal resistance to an attacking message more than a control message, and the resistance effects were related to participants’ cognitive responses. These results provide the first direct evidence for the resistance effects of rhetorical question use and for mediators.

Language and Persuasion: Linguistic Extremity Influences Message Processing and Behavioral Intentions

The present studies explore the role of linguistic extremity on message processing, persuasion, and behavioral intentions. Past research has found that the use of intense language has led to increases in attitude—behavior consistency. The authors present research that suggests that one reason for these effects is because linguistic extremity increases message processing, a common antecedent to attitude strength. Across two studies, linguistic extremity increased message processing relative to a control message. Study 2 replicated the increased processing effects with a different topic, and linguistic extremity led to increases in intentions to sign a petition when the message contained strong arguments. Furthermore, increases in behavioral intentions were mediated by participants’ amount of processing. Implications for linguistic extremity as a linguistic marker of attitude strength are discussed.

Driving anger and metacognition: the role of thought confidence on anger and aggressive driving intentions

The present studies examined the self-validating role of anger within provoking driving situations, using a scenario method. Specifically, we predicted that one reason for why individuals higher (rather than lower) in trait driving anger are more likely to aggress when provoked is because these individuals are more confident in their thoughts resulting from the provocation. Higher thought confidence, in turn, may influence the amount of anger experienced and the extent to which the anger translates into aggressive behavior. Study 1 found that participants higher in driving anger were more confident in their thoughts in a provoking situation and their thought confidence mediated the effect of trait driving anger on anger in response to the provocation. Using a manipulation of consistency, Study 2 found that thought confidence mediated the influence of anger on aggressive driving intentions, but only for individuals higher in driving anger. The current research adds to the growing work examining a new mechanism by which emotion (e.g., anger) can affect behavior.

The influence of just-world beliefs on driving anger and aggressive driving intentions

Decades of research demonstrate that the extent to which one believes the world is just can have important interpersonal consequences. Unfortunately, most of the commonly studied consequences are negative in nature. Guided by previous research demonstrating the buffering effect of just-world beliefs and anger, the present research explores how belief in a just world (BJW) may mitigate anger in the domain of driving anger and examines the limiting conditions of this effect. Study 1 demonstrated the expected negative relation between common measures of BJW and anger expression in a driving context. Study 2 found that the buffering effects of just-world beliefs and driver aggression were greater when BJW was violated (vs. not). Study 3 replicated the effects on aggression and anger and established a mediational role of anger on the buffering effects of just-world beliefs on thoughts and driver aggression.

Values, Inter-Attitudinal Structure, and Attitude Change Value Accessibility Can Increase a Related Attitude’s Resistance to Change

Accessibility is one of the most basic structural properties of an attitude and an important factor to consider in attitude strength. Despite its importance, relatively little work has examined the role of attitude accessibility in an inter-attitudinal context, particularly as it relates to the strength of related attitudes in the network. The present research examines accessibility as a property of one attitude (toward an abstract goal or end-state, that is, a value) that might influence the strength of a different but related attitude (toward a social policy conceptually related to the value). In Study 1, a highly accessible evaluative component of a value increased resistance to change of attitudes and behavioral intentions toward a social policy related to that value. Similarly, a manipulation of value accessibility (Studies 2 and 3) led to increased resistance of attitudes and behavioral intentions toward a social policy related to that value. Implications for the role of accessibility in inter-attitudinal strength are discussed.

Leveraging Processing to Understand Linguistic Cues, Power and Persuasion

In a persuasion context, how something is said can influence perceptions of power and subsequent information processing just as much as what is said. Here we focus predominantly on the ways in which various linguistic cues and styles (e.g. rhetorical questions, linguistic extremity) can impact persuasion attempts. Using common dual- and multi-process models as a guide, we examine how linguistic cues and the associated power dynamic serve multiple roles in a persuasion context. Taken together, the role and resultant information processing determine the durability of attitudes formed in the persuasion context. Taking each linguistic variable in turn, there are clear indicators that linguistic cues also convey information about power dynamics. This information about the relative power between source and audience also influences information processing and attitude strength. By leveraging information-processing models it is possible to discuss implications for attitude strength, confidence and durability. As a result of these processes, linguistic cues provide a mechanism by which power dynamics are both revealed and reified. Finally, while most research has focused on the impact of persuasion on attitudes towards a wide variety of topics, we propose that using particular linguistic cues can influence not only attitudes toward messages, but also attitudes toward people.

Value Activation and Processing of Persuasive Messages

Basing attitudes on one’s core values has long been thought to result in strong, consequential attitudes. Recent research suggests a less direct route for values to influence attitude strength—by influencing the extent to which people process attitude-relevant information. That research induced research participants to explicitly consider important or unimportant values in relation to the persuasive message. In contrast, the current research examined whether mere activation of important values before encountering a persuasive message could enhance message processing. Normatively important or unimportant values were subtly activated by simply presenting values (Experiment 1) including the values in a previous “unrelated” study (Experiment 2) or rating the importance of values in a questionnaire prior to the persuasive message. Experiment 3 suggested that important values are not equivalent to any other important constructs. Activation of important values increased information processing but activation of equally important alternative attitudes did not.