The effects of a salient self-schema on the evaluation of proattitudinal editorials: Top-down versus bottom-up message processing

Abstract

The effects of a salient self-schema on message evaluation were studied. Subjects were identified who characterized themselves using trait adjectives that reflected the prototype of either a religious or a legalistic person. Equally persuasive sets of proattitudinal messages were developed empirically using weak arguments. Half of the messages were developed to reflect a religious perspective on the issue (capital punishment, abortion) whereas 1/2 were developed to reflect a legalistic perspective on the tissue. Religious and legalistic subjects were then exposed to religious or legalistic arguments supporting an equally acceptable position (e.g., eliminating capital punishment). Subjects evaluated the persuasiveness of the communication and listed their thoughts as part of a curriculum development project. Subjects, when exposed to schema-relevant message arguments for a position in which they believed, were apparently more positive about the quality of the message arguments and in their cognitive responding. The heuristic value of self-schemata was extended to the area of attitudes. Cognitive responses in persuasion were evidently subjectively rather than objectively rational.