CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 210Psychology of Social InfluenceSocial and Intergroup PsychologyLinguistics and Discourse Analysis

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 24 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Information utility and the multiple source effect

Harkins, Stephen G., Petty, Richard E.·1987·Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
DOI 10.1037/0022-3514.52.2.260
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In a series of studies, Harkins and Petty (198 la) identified a multiple source eifect whereby information presented by multiple sources received greater scrutiny than did the same information presented by a single source. One implication of this was that when multiple sources presented strong arguments, the arguments elicited more favorable issue-relevant thoughts and more agreement than when the same strong information was presented by a single source. However, when multiple sources presented weak arguments, the arguments elicited more unfavorable issue-relevant thoughts and less agreement than when the same weak information was presented by a single source. This article addresses why multiple sources enhance processing. We report three experiments consistent with the view that multiple sources enhance message processing because of recipients' perceptions that information from multiple sources is more likely to be based on different perspectives and independent pools of knowledge and, thus, is more worthy of diligent consideration. Specifically, in Experiment I we found that the persuasive advantage of multiple sources presenting strong arguments was eliminated when the sources were said to have formed a committee rather than being independent. In Experiment 2, we found that the committee manipulation eliminated the persuasive advantage of multiple sources presenting strong arguments only when this information was available prior to argument exposure and not when it was provided after exposure. In Experiment 3, subjects were led to believe that the multiple sources who formed a committee were either very similar or dissimilar. When the committee was believed to include members with similar perspectives, the persuasive advantage of multiple sources presenting strong arguments was eliminated, but when the committee was believed to include members with dissimilar perspectives, the persuasive advantage of multiple sources was retained. In sum, the present research is consistent with the view that the power of multiple sources to enhance issue-relevant thinking lies in their perceived informational independence and the divergent perspectives they are presumed to represent.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0022-3514.52.2.260

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Citations

Cites

Show all 24 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Harkins, S. G., & Petty, R. E.
Affiliations
Northeastern University (US)
ORCID
Petty, Richard E.
Venue
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
1987-02
Volume
52
Issue
2
Pages
260-268
ISSN
  • 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1315
DOI
10.1037/0022-3514.52.2.260
OpenAlex
W2139173704
Cited by
210
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 5
FWCI
6.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Psychology of Social Influence
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › Linguistics and Discourse Analysis
Keywords
information utility, persuasion, argument strength, attitude change, source similarity, message processing

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review