Field dependence and attitude change: Source credibility can alter persuasion by affecting message‐relevant thinking

TLDR

Prior failures to demonstrate this effect were likely due to the highly thoughtful nature of typical research subjects when faced with engaging issues. The study compared field‑dependent and field‑independent participants who listened to counterattitudinal speeches of varying credibility. The study found that for personally relevant counterattitudinal issues, a highly credible source increases message‑relevant thinking and persuasion in field‑dependent subjects, while field‑independent subjects were persuaded by both high‑ and low‑credibility sources, supporting the idea that source credibility boosts message‑relevant thought in those who normally do not scrutinize content.

Abstract

Abstract The present study shows that for a personally relevant counterattitudinal issue, a highly credible source can alter persuasibility by increasing a subject's message‐relevant thinking. Previous failures to show this effect were probably due to the highly thoughtful nature of typical research subjects, when confronted with involving issues. In the present study, field‐dependent and field‐independent subjects heard convincing or refutable counterattitudinal speeches given by sources of high or low credibility. Results indicated that subjects who are typically low in differentiation of stimuli (field‐dependent subjects) showed differential persuasion to strong and weak arguments only when they were presented by a highly credible source. For subjects who are typically high in propensity to differentiate stimuli (field‐independent subjects), the arguments were differentially persuasive for both high and low credible sources. These results are consistent with the hypothesis that increasing source credibility can enhance message‐relevant thought for subjects who typically do not scrutinize message content.