To help assess the effect of a communicator's perceived background on his credibility, 266 Grade 7 and 8 students were asked to rate a speaker on drug abuse. Half the students were led to believe that the speaker had himself used psychotropic drugs regularly. The others were told he had used no such drugs. E, who was the speaker, was rated on knowledge of subject, ability to communicate, and understanding of young people. Differences in mean ratings given by the two groups did not show statistical significance. The absence of difference was attributed to the apparent disinclination of students to use drugs, and to their perception of E as an experienced case worker.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArnetC. C.DavidsonHelen H., and LewisH. N., “Prestige as a factor in attitude change.”Sociol. Soc. Res., 16, 49–55, 1931.
2.
KelmanH. C., and HovlandC. I., “Reinstatement” of the communicator in delayed measurement of opinion change. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psych., 48, 327–35, 1953.
3.
HovlandC. I.JanisI. L., and KelleyH., Communication and persuasion. Yale Press, New Haven, 1953.
4.
EinsingerR., and MillsJ., “Perception of the sincerity of a communicator as a function of the extremity of his position.”J. Experimental Soc. Psych., 4, 224–225, 1968.
LazarsfeldP. F.BerelsonB., and GaudetH., The people's choice. Quoted in KrechD.CrutchfieldR. S., and BallacheyE. L., Individual in society. McGraw-Hill, N. Y.; 1962.
7.
SigallH., and HelmereichR., “Opinion change as a function of stress and communicator credibility.”J. Experimental Soc. Psych., 5, 70–72, 1969.
8.
PanzicaN. S., “Cost—An Approach to Kids,”J. of Drug Education, 2(1); 23–29, 1972.
9.
HeiderF., The psychology of interpersonal relations. N.Y.: Wiley, 1958.
