Publisher Summary
This chapter outlines the two basic routes to persuasion. One route is based on the thoughtful consideration of arguments central to the issue, whereas the other is based on the affective associations or simple inferences tied to peripheral cues in the persuasion context. This chapter discusses a wide variety of variables that proved instrumental in affecting the elaboration likelihood, and thus the route to persuasion. One of the basic postulates of the Elaboration Likelihood Model—that variables may affect persuasion by increasing or decreasing scrutiny of message arguments—has been highly useful in accounting for the effects of a seemingly diverse list of variables. The reviewers of the attitude change literature have been disappointed with the many conflicting effects observed, even for ostensibly simple variables. The Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) attempts to place these many conflicting results and theories under one conceptual umbrella by specifying the major processes underlying persuasion and indicating the way many of the traditionally studied variables and theories relate to these basic processes. The ELM may prove useful in providing a guiding set of postulates from which to interpret previous work and in suggesting new hypotheses to be explored in future research.

/pdf/the-elaboration-likelihood-model-of-persuasion-3y2y5dyvfe.pdf

The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion

I have developed "tennis elbow" from lugging this book around the past four weeks, but it is worth the pain, the effort, and the aspirin. It is also worth the (relatively speaking) bargain price. Including appendixes, this book contains 894 pages of text. The entire panorama of the neural sciences is surveyed and examined, and it is comprehensive in its scope, from genomes to social behaviors. The editors explicitly state that the book is designed as "an introductory text for students of biology, behavior, and medicine," but it is hard to imagine any audience, interested in any fragment of neuroscience at any level of sophistication, that would not enjoy this book. The editors have done a masterful job of weaving together the biologic, the behavioral, and the clinical sciences into a single tapestry in which everyone from the molecular biologist to the practicing psychiatrist can find and appreciate his or

Principles of Neural Science

It is proposed that motivation may affect reasoning through reliance on a biased set of cognitive processes—that is, strategies for accessing, constructing, and evaluating beliefs. The motivation to be accurate enhances use of those beliefs and strategies that are considered most appropriate, whereas the motivation to arrive at particular conclusions enhances use of those that are considered most likely to yield the desired conclusion. There is considerable evidence that people are more likely to arrive at conclusions that they want to arrive at, but their ability to do so is constrained by their ability to construct seemingly reasonable justifications for these conclusions. These ideas can account for a wide variety of research concerned with motivated reasoning. The notion that goals or motives affect reasoning has a long and controversial history in social psychology. The propositions that motives may affect perceptions (Erdelyi, 1974), attitudes (Festinger, 1957), and attributions (Heider, 1958) have been put forth by some psychologists and challenged by others. Although early researchers and theorists took it for granted that motivation may cause people to make self-serving attributions and permit them to believe what they want to believe because they want to believe it, this view, and the research used to uphold it, came under concentrated criticism in the 1970s. The major and most damaging criticism of the motivational view was that all research purported to demonstrate motivated reasoning could be reinterpreted in entirely cognitive, nonmotivational terms (Miller & Ross, 1975; Nisbett & Ross, 1980). Thus people could draw self-serving conclusions not because they wanted to but because these conclusions seemed more plausible, given their prior beliefs and expectancies. Because both cognitive and motivational accounts could be generated for any empirical study, some theorists argued that the hot versus cold cognition controversy could not be solved, at least in the attribution paradigm (Ross & Fletcher, 1985; Tetlock & Levi, 1982). One reason for the persistence of this controversy lies in the failure of researchers to explore the mechanisms underlying motivated reasoning. Recently, several authors have attempted to rectify this neglect (Kruglanski & Freund, 1983; Kunda, 1987; Pyszczynski & Greenberg, 1987; Sorrentino & Higgins, 1986). All these authors share a view of motivation as having its effects through cognitive processes: People rely on cognitive processes and representations to arrive at their desired conclusions, but motivation plays a role in determining which of these will be used on a given occasion.

/pdf/the-case-for-motivated-reasoning-2ki9tjbrr6.pdf

The case for motivated reasoning.

A primary goal of scale development is to create a valid measure of an underlying construct. We discuss theoretical principles, practical issues, and pragmatic decisions to help developers maximize the construct validity of scales and subscales. First, it is essential to begin with a clear conceptualization of the target construct. Moreover, the content of the initial item pool should be overinclusive and item wording needs careful attention. Next, the item pool should be tested, along with variables that assess closely related constructs, on a heterogeneous sample representing the entire range of the target population. Finally, in selecting scale items, the goal is unidimensionality rather than internal consistency ; this means that virtually all interitem correlations should be moderate in magnitude. Factor analysis can play a crucial role in ensuring the unidimensionality and discriminant validity of scales.

/pdf/constructing-validity-basic-issues-in-objective-scale-336bh0ucpv.pdf

Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development

Attachment--and loss.

Trait concepts are used extensively in psychopathology research, but much of this research has failed to consider recent advances in the dimensional structure of personality. Many investigators have discounted the importance of this structural research, arguing that (a) little progress has been made in this area, (b) structural models have little direct relevance for psychopathology research, and (c) the principal methodological tool of structural research--factor analysis--is too subjective to yield psychologically meaningful results. We dispute each of these objections. Specifically, we offer an integrative hierarchical model--composed of four higher order traits--that is congruent with each of the major structural subtraditions within personality. We also discuss the implications of this integrative scheme for basic trait research, for the conceptualization and assessment of psychopathology, and for the etiology of disorder.

Structures of personality and their relevance to psychopathology.

Hindsight bias among physicians weighing the likelihood of diagnoses.

The Personality Psychopathology Five (PSY-5; A. R. Harkness & J. L. McNulty, 1994) is a dimensional descriptive system for personality and its disorders. Replicated rational selection was used to generate Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2; J. N. Butcher, W. G. Dahlstrom, J. R. Graham, A. Tellegen, & B. Kaemmer, 1989)-based scales for the PSY-5. The scales are Aggressiveness, 18 items; Psychoticism, 25 items; Constraint, 29 items; Negative Emotionality/ Neuroticism, 33 items; and Positive Emotionality/Extraversion, 34 items. In three clinical samples with Ns of 328, 156, and 1,196; a college sample with an N of 2,928; and MMPI-2 normative samples with an N of 2,567, alphas ranged from.65 to.88. For 838 college students who had also completed Tellegen's (1982) Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire (MPQ), correlations between PSY-5 scales and corresponding MPQ superfactors were as follows: Constraint, r =.57, p < .01; Negative Emotionality/Neuroticism, r =.72, p <.01; and Positive Emotionality/Extraversion, r =.62, p <.0.1 PSY-5 Aggressiveness correlated r =.59, (p <.01) with MPQ Aggression. PSY-5 Psychoticism correlated r =.61 (p <.01) with MPQ Alienation

Allan R. Harkness

Papers

Structures of personality and their relevance to psychopathology.

Hindsight bias among physicians weighing the likelihood of diagnoses.

The Personality Psychopathology Five (PSY-5): Constructs and MMPI-2 Scales.

The Personality Psychopathology Five (PSY-5): Issues from the pages of a diagnostic manual instead of a dictionary.

Estimates of contingency between two dichotomous variables.