COMMUNICATOR DISCREPANCY, PERCEIVED CREDIBILITY, AND OPINION CHANGE

MIRZA S. SAIYADAIN

doi:10.4992/psycholres1954.11.13

MIRZA S. SAIYADAIN

Author information

JOURNAL FREE ACCESS

1969 Volume 11 Issue 1 Pages 13-16

DOI https://doi.org/10.4992/psycholres1954.11.13

Details

Published: 1969 Received: January 22, 1969 Available on J-STAGE: February 24, 2009 Accepted: - Advance online publication: - Revised: -
Correction information
Date of correction: February 24, 2009 Reason for correction: - Correction: ABSTRACT Details: Wrong : How credible and at what level of discrepancy a source should be in order to be sufficiently influential is examined in this study. PROCEDURE: Perceived credibility and communicator discrepancy were manipulated. 100Ss, who were found having different perception of the source, made judgements about their degree of agreement with the com-municator at different levels of discrepancy. RESULTS: (1) Trend anal-ysis showed curvilinear relationship between discrepancy and influence for MBA sample only. (2) Significant differences in the overall influence effect between the two samples were found, which was explained in terms of their perception of the source. (3) Prediction that the means between the two samples will show significant differences at some levels of discrepancy was not supported.
Right : How credible and at what level of discrepancy a source should be in order to be sufficiently influential is examined in this study.
PROCEDURE: Perceived credibility and communicator discrepancy were manipulated. 100Ss, who were found having different perception of the source, made judgements about their degree of agreement with the communicator at different levels of discrepancy. RESULTS: (1) Trend analysis showed curvilinear relationship between discrepancy and influence for MBA sample only. (2) Significant differences in the overall influence effect between the two samples were found, which was explained in terms of their perception of the source. (3) Prediction that the means between the two samples will show significant differences at some levels of discrepancy was not supported.

Date of correction: February 24, 2009 Reason for correction: - Correction: CITATION Details: Wrong : BREWER, M. B., & CRANO, W. D. 1968 Attitude change as a function of discrepancy and source of influence. J. soc. Psychol., 76, 13-18.
CHEN, W. K. C. 1933 Retention of the effect of oral propaganda. J. Soc. Psychol., 7, 479-483.
COHEN, A. R. 1959 Communication discrepancy and attitude change: A dissonance theory approach. J. Pers., 27, 386-396.
EWING, T. N. 1942 A study of certain factors involved in change in opinion. J. Soc. Psychol., 16, 63-68.
HOVLAND, C. 1. 1959 Reconciling conflicting results derived from experimental and survey studies of attitude change. Amer. Psychologist, 14, 8-17.
HOVLAND, C. I., HARVEY, O. J., & SHERIF, M. 1957 Assimilation and contrast effect in reaction to communication and attitude change., J. Abnorm. soc. Psychol., 55, 244-252.
INSKO, C. A., MURASHIMA, F., & SAIYADAIN, M. 1966 Communicator discrepancy, stimulus ambiguity, and influence., J. Pers., 34, 262-274.
SAMPSON, E. E. 1963 Status congruence and cognitive consistency. Sociometry, 26, 146-162.

Right : BREWER, M. B., & CRANO, W. D. 1968 Attitude change as a function of discrepancy and source of influence. J. soc. Psychol., 76, 13-18.
CHEN, W. K. C. 1933 Retention of the effect of oral propaganda. J. Soc. Psychol., 7, 479-483.
COHEN, A. R. 1959 Communication discrepancy and attitude change: A dissonance theory approach. J. Pers., 27, 386-396.
EWING, T. N. 1942 A study of certain factors involved in change in opinion. J. Soc. Psychol., 16, 63-68.
HOVLAND, C. I. 1959 Reconciling conflicting results derived from experimental and survey studies of attitude change. Amer. Psychologist, 14, 8-17.
HOVLAND, C. I., HARVEY, O. J., & SHERIF, M. 1957 Assimilation and contrast effect in reaction to communication and attitude dlange. J. Abnorm.soc.Psychol., 55, 244-252.
INSKO, C. A., MURASHIMA, F., & SAIYADAIN, M. 1966 Communicator discrepancy, stimulus ambiguity, and influence. J. Pers., 34, 262-274.
SAMPSON, E. E. 1963 Status congruence and cognitive consistency. Sociometry, 26, 146-162.

Date of correction: February 24, 2009 Reason for correction: - Correction: PDF FILE Details: -

Date of correction: February 24, 2009 Reason for correction: - Correction: ABSTRACT Details: Wrong : How credible and at what level of discrepancy a source should be in order to be sufficiently influential is examined in this study.
PROCEDURE: Perceived credibility and communicator discrepancy were manipulated. 100Ss, who were found having different perception of the source, made judgements about their degree of agreement with the communicator at different levels of discrepancy. RESULTS: (1) Trend analysis showed curvilinear relationship between discrepancy and influence for MBA sample only. (2) Significant differences in the overall influence effect between the two samples were found, which was explained in terms of their perception of the source. (3) Prediction that the means between the two samples will show significant differences at some levels of discrepancy was not supported.
Right : How credible and at what level of discrepancy a source should be in order to be sufficiently influential is examined in this study.
PROCEDURE: Perceived credibility and communicator discrepancy were manipulated. 100 Ss, who were found having different perception of the source, made judgements about their degree of agreement with the communicator at different levels of discrepancy. RESULTS:(1) Trend analysis showed curvilinear relationship between discrepancy and influence for MBA sample only.(2) Significant differences in the overall influence effect between the two samples were found, which was explained in terms of their perception of the source.(3) Prediction that the means between the two samples will show significant differences at some levels of discrepancy was not supported.

Date of correction: February 24, 2009 Reason for correction: - Correction: CITATION Details: Wrong : BREWER, M. B., & CRANO, W. D. 1968 Attitude change as a function of discrepancy and source of influence. J. soc. Psychol., 76, 13-18.
CHEN, W. K. C. 1933 Retention of the effect of oral propaganda. J. Soc. Psychol., 7, 479-483.
COHEN, A. R. 1959 Communication discrepancy and attitude change: A dissonance theory approach. J. Pers., 27, 386-396.
EWING, T. N. 1942 A study of certain factors involved in change in opinion. J. Soc. Psychol., 16, 63-68.
HOVLAND, C. I. 1959 Reconciling conflicting results derived from experimental and survey studies of attitude change. Amer. Psychologist, 14, 8-17.
HOVLAND, C. I., HARVEY, O. J., & SHERIF, M. 1957 Assimilation and contrast effect in reaction to communication and attitude dlange. J. Abnorm.soc.Psychol., 55, 244-252.
INSKO, C. A., MURASHIMA, F., & SAIYADAIN, M. 1966 Communicator discrepancy, stimulus ambiguity, and influence. J. Pers., 34, 262-274.
SAMPSON, E. E. 1963 Status congruence and cognitive consistency. Sociometry, 26, 146-162.

Right : BREWER, M. B., & CRANO, W. D. 1968 Attitude change as a function of discrepancy and source of influence. J. soc. Psychol., 76, 13-18.
CHEN, W. K. C. 1933 Retention of the effect of oral propaganda. J. Soc. Psychol., 7, 479-483.
COHEN, A. R. 1959 Communication discrepancy and attitude change: A dissonance theory approach. J. Pers., 27, 386-396.
EWING, T. N. 1942 A study of certain factors involved in change in opinion. J. Soc. Psychol., 16, 63-68.
HOVLAND, C. I. 1959 Reconciling conflicting results derived from experimental and survey studies of attitude change. Amer. Psychologist, 14, 8-17.
HOVLAND, C. I., HARVEY, O. J., & SHERIF, M. 1957 Assimilation and contrast effect in reaction to communication and attitude change. J. Abnorm. soc. Psychol., 55, 244-252.
INSKO, C. A., MURASHIMA, F., & SAIYADAIN, M. 1966 Communicator discrepancy, stimulus ambiguity, and influence. J. Pers., 34, 262-274.
SAMPSON, E. E. 1963 Status congruence and cognitive consistency. Sociometry, 26, 146-162.

Abstract

How credible and at what level of discrepancy a source should be in order to be sufficiently influential is examined in this study.
PROCEDURE: Perceived credibility and communicator discrepancy were manipulated. 100 Ss, who were found having different perception of the source, made judgements about their degree of agreement with the communicator at different levels of discrepancy. RESULTS:(1) Trend analysis showed curvilinear relationship between discrepancy and influence for MBA sample only.(2) Significant differences in the overall influence effect between the two samples were found, which was explained in terms of their perception of the source.(3) Prediction that the means between the two samples will show significant differences at some levels of discrepancy was not supported.

Corresponding author

Correction information

Register with J-STAGE for free!