Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 12:
Systematic processing involves comprehensive and analytic, cognitive processing of judgment-relevant information. The systematic approach values source reliability and message content, which may exert stronger impact on persuasion, when determining message validity. Judgments developed from systematic processing rely heavily on in-depth treatment of judgment-relevant information and respond accordingly to the semantic content of the message. (Chen et.al., 1999). Recipients developing attitudes from a systematic basis exert considerable cognitive effort and actively attempt to comprehend and evaluate the message’s arguments. Systematic recipients also attempt to assess their validity as it relates to the message’s conclusion. Systematic views of persuasion emphasize detailed processing of message content and the role of message-based cognitions in mediating opinion change. While recipients utilizing systematic processing rely heavily on message content, source characteristics and other non-content may supplement the recipients’ assessment of validity in the persuasion message. (Chaiken, 1980).
== Choosing Systematic or heuristic processing ==
Recipients may sometimes choose to accept message conclusions they might otherwise have correctly rejected, or vice versa, had they properly invested the time and effort needed to receive and scrutinize the message. (Chaiken, 1980).
When the recipient views the argumentation judgment as being inconsequential, the recipient will likely place greater value on economical concerns than reliability concerns.
When economic concerns are predominant, the recipient will likely employ heuristic processing when formulating argumentation judgment.
Reliability concerns are influenced by the level of the recipient’s issue-involvement or response-involvement.
When reliability concerns are predominant, the recipient will likely employ systematic processing when formulating argumentation judgment.
When recipients perceive significant importance in formulating highly accurate argumentation judgment, the recipient will likely employ a systematic processing strategy.
Source credibility affects persuasion under conditions of low, but not high, issue-involvement and response-involvement.
(Chaiken, 1980).
== Direction of Future Research ==
Originally the heuristic-systematic model was developed to apply to “validity seeking” persuasion setting in which peoples’ primary motivational concern is to attain accurate attitudes that square with relevant facts (Chaiken, 1980; Eagley & Chaiken, 1993). Chaiken assumes that the primary processing goal of accuracy-motivated recipients is to assess the validity of persuasive messages, and that both heuristic and systematic processing can serve this objective. (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). Other motives beyond the validity-seeking persuasion context was identified by Chaiken and colleagues (1989) who proposed an expanded model that posits two additional motives that heuristic and systematic processing can serve; defense –motivation; and impression-motivation.
- Defense-motivation is the desire to form or defend particular attitudinal positions.
-Impression-motivation is the desire to form or hold socially acceptable attitudinal positions.
Contrary to previous viewpoints, the Heuristic-Systematic Model and the Elaboration Likelihood Model should be treated as a complimentary model to create a duel-processing framework for use in future research for understanding a variety of social influence phenomena. (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993).
Future research should seek to link persuasion more closely with impression formation, which has previously focused on impressions based on agents' behaviors. An example would be to test if perceived expertise of a communicator is more stable over time and more resistant to counterfactual evidence if it is based on systematic processing than when it is based on a short description. Research has revealed that two-sided messages might not only be more persuasive but might also enhance the perceived credibility of a communicator. (Reimer, Mata, & Stoecklin, 2004).
== Related Theories ==
== Notes ==
| |||