CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 490Psychology of Social InfluenceSocial and Intergroup PsychologyEmbodied and Extended Cognition

The Effects of Over Head Movements on Persuasion: Compatibility and Incompatibility of Responses

Wells, Gary L., Petty, Richard E.·1980·Basic and Applied Social Psychology
DOI 10.1207/s15324834basp0103_2
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

It was hypothesized that overt movement can either augment or inhibit certain cognitive activities depending on whether the movement has been positively associated with or negatively associated with that cognitive activity in the past. Seventy-two subjects who believed that they were testing headphone sets engaged in either vertical, horizontal, or no-instructed head movements while listening to a simulated radio broadcast. Subjects in the vertical headmovement conditions agreed with the editorial content of the radio broadcast more than did those in the horizontal head-movement conditions. This effect was true for both counterattitudinal and proattitudinal editorial content. A surreptitious behavioral measure indicated that vertical movements in the counterattitudinal message condition and horizontal movements in the proattitudinal message condition were more difficult than vertical movement in the proattitudinal message condition or horizontal movement in the counterattitudinal message condition. The processes involved are compared with context learning wherein: (1) the generation of counterarguments is learned in the context of horizontal head movement with poor transfer to vertical head movement; and (2) the generation of agreement responses is learned in the context of vertical head movement with poor transfer to horizontal head movement.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1207/s15324834basp0103_2

Cites

1 of 1 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?

  • Experiments show that if you are induced to inadvertently nod your head while listening to a view being expressed, you are more likely to endorse that view later without knowing your opinion was experimentally manipulated.

    “Or consider experiments showing that if you are induced to inadvertently nod your head when listening to a view being expressed, you are more likely to endorse that view later without knowing that your opinion was experimentally manipulated (Brin ˜ol and Petty 2003; Wells and Petty 1980);”

    From Mindfulness: Diverse perspectives on its meaning, origins, and multiple applications at the intersection of science and dharma (2011) · cites this paper as Wells and Petty 1980

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wells, G. L., & Petty, R. E.
Affiliations
University of Alberta (CA)
ORCID
Venue
Basic and Applied Social Psychology
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
1980-09
Volume
1
Issue
3
Pages
219-230
ISSN
  • 0197-3533 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-4834
DOI
10.1207/s15324834basp0103_2
OpenAlex
W2051134943
Cited by
490
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 26 · 2012: 28
FWCI
7.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Basic and Applied Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Psychology of Social Influence
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Embodied and Extended Cognition
Keywords
head movement, persuasion, attitude change, response compatibility, contextual learning, transfer of learning

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