An introduction arousing suspicion of the communicator's motives leads the identical communication to be judged more one-sided¶

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 suspicion-arousing communication was judged to have given a more one-sided presentation of the facts than the impartial communication, even though the talks were identical. → 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?

Judgment result from the same 242-undergraduate experiment: the two tape-recorded talks were identical, differing only in the introduction. The abstract reports the suspicion version "was iudged to have given a more one-sided presentation of the facts"; no effect size is printed.

"The "suspicion-arousing" communication was iudged to have given a more one-sided presentation of the facts than the "impartial" communication, even tho the talks were identical."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• 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 — related
• Impartial presentation of both sides moderates attitudinal position — related
• In debate situations subjects move toward their pre-existing bias — related
• Male and female subjects responded differently, confounding interpretation — related