CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 284Social and Intergroup PsychologyPsychology of Social InfluenceLearning Styles and Cognitive Differences

Field dependence and attitude change: Source credibility can alter persuasion by affecting message‐relevant thinking

Heesacker, Martin, Petty, Richard E., Cacioppo, John T.·1983·Journal of Personality
DOI 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1983.tb00872.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The present study shows that for a personally relevant counterattitudinal issue, a highly credible source can alter persuasibility by increasing a subject's message‐relevant thinking. Previous failures to show this effect were probably due to the highly thoughtful nature of typical research subjects, when confronted with involving issues. In the present study, field‐dependent and field‐independent subjects heard convincing or refutable counterattitudinal speeches given by sources of high or low credibility. Results indicated that subjects who are typically low in differentiation of stimuli (field‐dependent subjects) showed differential persuasion to strong and weak arguments only when they were presented by a highly credible source. For subjects who are typically high in propensity to differentiate stimuli (field‐independent subjects), the arguments were differentially persuasive for both high and low credible sources. These results are consistent with the hypothesis that increasing source credibility can enhance message‐relevant thought for subjects who typically do not scrutinize message content.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1983.tb00872.x

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • People are more likely to be influenced by information about climate change that has higher credibility.

    “Among various information about climate change to which people are exposed to, they are more likely to be influenced by information that have higher credibility.”

    From Credibility of climate change denial in social media (2019) · cites this paper as Heesacker et al., 1983

  • If incoming information from a person's social network carries no credibility, then it is less likely to be incorporated into the belief of the person.

    “The credibility of information that propagates in a social network is a critical factor that can shape the beliefs: if incoming information from a person's social network carries no credibility, then it is less likely to be incorporated in to the belief of the person (Pornpitakpan, 2004;Heesacker et al., 1983).”

    From Credibility of climate change denial in social media (2019) · cites this paper as Heesacker et al., 1983

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Heesacker, M., Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T.
Affiliations
  • University of Missouri (US)
  • University of Iowa (US)
Corresponding author
Heesacker, Martin
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Personality
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1983-12
Volume
51
Issue
4
Pages
653-666
ISSN
  • 0022-3506 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-6494
DOI
10.1111/j.1467-6494.1983.tb00872.x
OpenAlex
W2031663812
Cited by
284
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 12
FWCI
20.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor, 8184 d)
Locations
Journal of Personality (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Psychology of Social Influence
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Learning Styles and Cognitive Differences
Keywords
source credibility, persuasion, attitude change, field dependence, field independence, stimulus differentiation, argument strength

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