Suspicion and conclusion-drawing combine interactively: the unbiased communicator who draws the conclusion is most effective and the suspicious one who does not is least effective¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r? · q3
Currency · newest study 1952 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? The combined operation of suspicion and conclusion-drawing produced a highly significant effect, with the unbiased communicator who drew the conclusion most effective and the suspicion-arousing communicator who did not draw it least effective. → Hovland 1952

Evidence¶

Hovland 1952¶

Hovland, Carl I., and Mandell, Wallace. (1952). An Experimental Comparison of Conclusion-Drawing by the Communicator and by the Audience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 47, 581-88. doi:10.1037/h0059833

q3 · i? · causal · r?

Interaction (omnibus) result from the 242-undergraduate experiment's four-version design. The abstract reports a "highly significant effect" naming the best and worst of the four combinations; no F statistic or effect size is printed.

"The combined operation of the variables of suspicion and conclusion-drawing produced a highly significant effect, the unbiased communicator who drew the conclusion being the most effective and the suspicion-arousing communicator who did not draw the conclusion being least effective."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Amount of factual material acquired does not differ between explicit-conclusion and audience-conclusion communications — related
• An introduction arousing suspicion of the communicator's motives leads the identical communication to be judged more one-sided — related