2004
Volume 41, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 1573-9775
  • E-ISSN: 2352-1236

Abstract

Abstract

Persuasive communication is designed to elicit certain thoughts and feelings in order to change the audience’s attitudes and intentions, with the ultimate goal of influencing behavior. This paper addresses the question what meta-analyses in the field of persuasion can tell us about the effects that persuasive communication can have on the audience’s behavior and on the steps leading up to that behavior. A review of these meta-analyses shows that changing intentions does not automatically lead to similar sized behavioral effects, that communicative interventions only have small to medium effects, that these effects can be obtained through ethos, pathos, and logos, and that these effects are to some extent susceptible to message design characteristics. The (small to medium) size of the effects of communicative interventions has implications for the design of research on persuasive communication as well as for the advice for practitioners.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/TVT2019.1.008.HOEK
2019-04-01
2021-10-15
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/15739775/41/1/08_TVT2019.1_HOEK.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.5117/TVT2019.1.008.HOEK&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Angie, A. D., Connelly, S., Waples, E. P., & Kligyte, V.(2011). The influence of discrete emotions on judgement and decision-making: A meta-analytic review. Cognition & Emotion, 25(8), 1393-1422.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Anker, A. E., Feeley, T. H., McCracken, B., & Lagoe, C. A.(2016). Measuring the effectiveness of mass-mediated health campaigns through meta-analysis. Journal of Health Communication, 21(4), 439-456.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Baumeister, R. F., & Bargh, J. A.(2014). Conscious and unconscious. In J. W.Sherman, B.Gawronski, & Y.Trope (Eds.), Dual-process Theories of the Social Mind (pp. 35-49). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Braddock, K., & Dillard, J. P.(2016). Meta-analytic evidence for the persuasive effect of narratives on beliefs, attitudes, intentions, and behaviors. Communication Monographs, 83(4), 446-467.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Calanchini, J., Moons, W. G., & Mackie, D. M.(2016). Angry expressions induce extensive processing of persuasive appeals. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 64, 88-98.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Carpenter, C. J.(2015). A meta-analysis of the ELM’s argument quality×processing type predictions. Human Communication Research, 41(4), 501-534.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Chu, S. C., & Kamal, S.(2008). The effect of perceived blogger credibility and argument quality on message elaboration and brand attitudes: An exploratory study. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 8, 26-37.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Cialdini, R. B.(2001). Influence. Science and Practice (4th Ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Cohen, J.(1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155-159.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. De Graaf, A., Sanders, J., & Hoeken, H.(2016). Characteristics of narrative interventions and health effects: A review of the content, form, and context of narratives in health-related narrative persuasion research. Review of Communication Research, 4, 88-131.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Dillard, J. P., Hunter, J. E., & Burgoon, M.(1984). Sequential-request persuasive strategies. Human Communication Research, 10(4), 461-488.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Eerland, A., & Van den Bergh, H.(2016). Empirische basis van conclusies. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 38(2), 139-146.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Eisend, M.(2006). Two-sided advertising: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 23(2), 187-198.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Eisend, M.(2011). How humor in advertising works: A meta-analytic test of alternative models. Marketing Letters, 22(2), 115-132.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Eisend, M.(2017). Meta-Analysis in advertising research. Journal of Advertising, 46(1), 21-35.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Eisend, M., & Tarrahi, F.(2016). The effectiveness of advertising: A meta-meta-analysis of advertising inputs and outcomes. Journal of Advertising, 45(4), 519-531.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Feeley, T. H., Anker, A. E., & Aloe, A. M.(2012). The door-in-the-face persuasive message strategy: A meta-analysis of the first 35 years. Communication Monographs, 79(3), 316-343.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Feeley, T. H., & Moon, S. I.(2009). A meta-analytic review of communication campaigns to promote organ donation. Communication Reports, 22(2), 63-73.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Ferguson, C. J., & Heene, M.(2012). A vast graveyard of undead theories: Publication bias and psychological science’s aversion to the null. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 555-561.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Fishbein, M., & Yzer, M.C.(2003). Using theory to design effective health behavior interventions. Communication Theory, 14(2),164-183.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Gollwitzer, P. M.(1999). Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans. American Psychologist, 54(7), 493-503.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P.(2006). Implementation intentions and goal achievement: A meta-analysis of effects and processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 69-119.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Hoeken, H.(2001). Anecdotal, statistical, and causal evidence: Their perceived and actual persuasiveness. Argumentation, 15(4), 425-437.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S.(1983). Generalizing about messages: Suggestions for design and analysis of experiments. Human Communication Research, 9, 169-181.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Kahneman, D.(2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Kumkale, G. T., Albarracín, D., & Seignourel, P. J.(2010). The effects of source credibility in the presence or absence of prior attitudes: Implications for the design of persuasive communication campaigns. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40(6), 1325-1356.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. T.(2001). Practical Meta-Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Manning, M.(2009). The effects of subjective norms on behaviour in the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analysis. British Journal of Social Psychology, 48(4), 649-705.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Meuffels, H. L. M., & Van den Bergh, H.(2006). De ene tekst is de andere niet: The language-as-a fixed-effect fallacy revisited: Statistische implicaties. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 28(4), 323-345.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Mulder, G.(2016). De kwaliteit van onderzoek. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 38(2), 163-173.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Noar, S. M., Hall, M. G., Francis, D. B., Ribisl, K. M., Pepper, J. K., & Brewer, N. T.(2016). Pictorial cigarette pack warnings: A meta-analysis of experimental studies. Tobacco Control, 25, 341-354.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. O’Keefe, D. J.(2002). The persuasive effects of variation in standpoint articulation. In F.H.van Eemeren (Ed.), Advances in Pragma-Dialectics (pp. 65-82). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. O’Keefe, D. J.(2015). Message generalizations that support evidence-based persuasive message design: Specifying the evidentiary requirements. Health communication, 30(2), 106-113.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. O’Keefe, D. J.(2017). Misunderstandings of effect sizes in message effects research. Communication Methods and Measures, 11(3), 210-219.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. O’Keefe, D. J., & Jensen, J. D.(2007). The relative persuasiveness of gain-framed and loss-framed messages for encouraging disease prevention behaviors: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Health Communication, 12, 623-644.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. O’Keefe, D. J., & Jensen, J. D.(2009). The relative persuasiveness of gain-framed and loss-framed messages for encouraging disease detection behaviors: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Communication, 59(2), 296-316.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T.(1986). Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change. New York, NY: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Pham, M. T., Geuens, M., & De Pelsmacker, P.(2013). The influence of ad-evoked feelings on brand evaluations: Empirical generalizations from consumer responses to more than 1000 TV commercials. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 30(4), 383-394.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Raju, S., Unnava, H. R., & Montgomery, N. V.(2009). The moderating effect of brand commitment on the evaluation of competitive brands. Journal of Advertising, 38(2), 21-36.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Sheeran, P.(2002). Intention-behavior relations: A conceptual and empirical review. European Review of Social Psychology, 12(1), 1-36.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Sheeran, P., Maki, A., Montanaro, E., Avishai-Yitshak, A., Bryan, A., Klein, W. M., Miles, E., & Rothman, A. J.(2016). The impact of changing attitudes, norms, and self-efficacy on health-related intentions and behavior: A meta-analysis. Health Psychology, 35(11), 1178-1188.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Shen, F., Sheer, V. C., & Li, R.(2015). Impact of narratives on persuasion in health communication: A meta-analysis. Journal of Advertising, 44(2), 105-113.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Sopory, P., & Dillard, J. P.(2002). The persuasive effects of metaphor: A meta-analysis. Human Communication Research, 28(3), 382-419.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Steinmetz, H., Knappstein, M., Ajzen, I., Schmidt, P., & Kabst, R.(2016). How effective are behavior change interventions based on the theory of planned behavior? A three-level meta-analysis. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 224(3), 216-233.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Tannenbaum, M. B., Hepler, J., Zimmerman, R. S., Saul, L., Jacobs, S., Wilson, K., & Albarracín, D.(2015). Appealing to fear: A meta-analysis of fear appeal effectiveness and theories. Psychological bulletin, 141(6), 1178-1204.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Tormala, Z.L, Briñol, P., & Petty, R.E.(2006). When credibility attacks: The reverse impact of source credibility on persuasion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 684-691.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Webb, T. L., & Sheeran, P.(2006). Does changing behavioral intentions engender behavior change? A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 132(2), 249-268.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Weerman, A., Hoeken, H., & Hornikx, J. M. A.(2016). Een kritische analyse van de manipulatie van argumentkwaliteit in reclameonderzoek. In D.van de Mieroop, L.Buysse, & R.Coesemans, R.(Red.), De macht van de taal: Taalbeheersingsonderzoek in Nederland en Vlaanderen (pp. 309-321). Leuven: Acco.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Wirtz, J. G., Sparks, J. V., & Zimbres, T. M.(2018). The effect of exposure to sexual appeals in advertisements on memory, attitude, and purchase intention: A meta-analytic review. International Journal of Advertising, 37(2), 168-198.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Xu, Z., & Guo, H.(2018). Advantages of Anticipated Emotions over Anticipatory Emotions and Cognitions in Health Decisions: A Meta-Analysis. Health Communication, 33(5), 519-525.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Zebregs, S., Van den Putte, B., Neijens, P., & De Graaf, A.(2015). The differential impact of statistical and narrative evidence on beliefs, attitude, and intention: A meta-analysis. Health communication, 30(3), 282-289.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5117/TVT2019.1.008.HOEK
Loading
/content/journals/10.5117/TVT2019.1.008.HOEK
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): communication strategies; message design; meta-analyses; persuasion
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error