TY - JOUR
T1 - Why counterattitudinal messages are as memorable as proattitudinal messages
T2 - The importance of active defense against attack
AU - Eagly, Alice H.
AU - Kulesa, Patrick
AU - Brannon, Laura A.
AU - Shaw, Kelly
AU - Hutson-Comeaux, Sarah
PY - 2000/11
Y1 - 2000/11
N2 - Three experiments were designed to clarify the mechanisms underlying Eagly, Chen, Chaiken, and Shaw-Barnes's (1999) meta-analytic demonstration that attitudinally congenial information has typically not been more memorable than uncongenial information. Participants remembered congenial and uncongenial messages equally well, despite their disapproval of the uncongenial information. This null congeniality effect was obtained regardless of whether (a) messages pertained to abortion or gays in the military or presented information on both sides or only one side of the issue; (b) recognition or recall measures were administered soon after the message or 2 weeks later; and (c) participants were or were not activists on the issue, had stronger or weaker attitudes, had more prior knowledge of counterattitudinal (vs. proattitudinal) arguments, or did or did not have their attention constrained to the message. Process findings suggested that participants' thoughtful counterarguing of the uncongenial messages enhanced their memory for them.
AB - Three experiments were designed to clarify the mechanisms underlying Eagly, Chen, Chaiken, and Shaw-Barnes's (1999) meta-analytic demonstration that attitudinally congenial information has typically not been more memorable than uncongenial information. Participants remembered congenial and uncongenial messages equally well, despite their disapproval of the uncongenial information. This null congeniality effect was obtained regardless of whether (a) messages pertained to abortion or gays in the military or presented information on both sides or only one side of the issue; (b) recognition or recall measures were administered soon after the message or 2 weeks later; and (c) participants were or were not activists on the issue, had stronger or weaker attitudes, had more prior knowledge of counterattitudinal (vs. proattitudinal) arguments, or did or did not have their attention constrained to the message. Process findings suggested that participants' thoughtful counterarguing of the uncongenial messages enhanced their memory for them.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0034348171&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0034348171&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1177/0146167200263007
DO - 10.1177/0146167200263007
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:0034348171
SN - 0146-1672
VL - 26
SP - 1392
EP - 1408
JO - Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
JF - Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
IS - 11
ER -