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
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Citations
Cites
The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60214-2 · Cited by 8,822
Self-citationChaiken, S. (1980) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-3514.39.5.752 · Cited by 5,516
Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change
Marquart, F., & Naderer, B. (2015) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-658-09923-7_20 · Cited by 5,011
The Influence of Source Credibility on Communication Effectiveness
Hovland, C. I., & Weiss, W. (1951) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1086/266350 · Cited by 3,543
Attitudes and Persuasion: Classic and Contemporary Approaches
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 3,368
Self-citationMany Hands Make Light the Work: The Causes and Consequences of Social Loafing
Latané, B., Williams, K., & Harkins, S. (1979) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.6.822 · Cited by 2,216
Self-citationPersonal involvement as a determinant of argument based persuasion
Petty, R., Cacioppo, J., & Goldman, R. (1981) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.41.5.847 · Cited by 2,061
Self-citationPetty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1984) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.46.1.69 · Cited by 1,727
Self-citationCognitive Responses in Persuasion
Petty, R. E., Ostrom, T. M., & Brock, T. C. (2014) · Psychology Press eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781315803012 · Cited by 1,223
Self-citationExperiments on Mass Communication
Hovland, C. I., & Lumsdaine, A. A. (2017) · Princeton University Press eBooks · doi:10.1515/9781400886807 · Cited by 597
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 201–209 of 209
Tamisier, D. (2017) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/65fad24dza108z4390zb780z550f1aecd5b9 · Cited by 1
Zhou, Y., Li, S. S., & Yang, C. (2026) · Health Communication · doi:10.1080/10410236.2026.2688191
Let AI Decide for Me? Decision Autonomy and Emotional Response in Tragic Medical Scenarios
Zhao, L., Wang, Y., Wang, Y., Chu, H., & Hu, F. (2026) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2026.2690097
A multi-character display method for enhancing persuasion in a single robot
Natori, T., Kawata, M., Ishiguro, H., & Yoshikawa, Y. (2026) · Advanced Robotics · doi:10.1080/01691864.2026.2707049
毛硕, Qin, C., & Kang, W. (2026) · Journal of Risk Research · doi:10.1080/13669877.2026.2722624 · Cited by 1
Yamamoto, K., Tanikawa, T., & Kuzuoka, H. (2026) · Discover Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1007/s44163-026-02469-5
Zwolinski, A., Burgers, C., & van der Meer, T. (2026) · Public Relations Review · doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2026.102763
Synthetic corroboration: when AI interpretation looks like independent evidence
Du, Y. (2026) · Journal of Psychology and AI · doi:10.1080/29974100.2026.2750743
インターネット・コミュニティにおける消費者行動の考察--クチコミの影響要因分析
鈴木, 和. (2008) · 生産管理 · doi:10.14846/seisankanri1995.15.141
Metadata
- Authors
- Harkins, S. G., & Petty, R. E.
- Affiliations
- Northeastern University (US)
- ORCID
- Petty, Richard E.
- Venue
- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
- Published
- 1987-02
- Volume
- 52
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 260-268
- ISSN
- 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1315
- 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