individual versus group interest violation: surprise as …

25
INDIVIDUAL VERSUS GROUP INTEREST VIOLATION: SURPRISE AS A DETERMINANT OF ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION Richard E. Petty Ohio State University Monique A. Fleming and Joseph R. Priester University of Michigan Amy HarastyFeinstein Ohio State University Previous studies based on an attributional analysis of persuasion have suggested that a source who takes an unexpected position is perceived as more trustworthy and accurate than one who argues for an expected position. As a result, message processing is decreased when expectancies are violated compared to when they areconfirmed.Thecurrentresearchsuggeststhatthesefindingsarelimitedtocases inwhichtheunexpectedpositionviolatesindividualself-interest.Whenasource’s unexpectedpositionviolatesindividualself-interest,attributionsoftrustworthiness are enhanced, but when the unexpectedposition violatesgroup interest,this does notoccur(Experiment1).Instead,aviolationofgroupinterestinducessurprise(Ex- periment 1) and produces enhanced rather than reduced messageprocessing (Ex- periment 2). In persuasion contexts (whether attending a political speech, reading an advertisement, or buying a used car), people often have expectations about what the persuasion attempt will be like. For example, people might expect that the source of the message will take a certain position 418 Social Cognition, Vol. 19, No. 4, 2001, pp. 418-442 Preparation of this article was supported by NSF grant SAR-9520854. Portions of this re- search were presented at the 1993 meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago, IL. We are grateful to the 1992-1994Groups for Attitudes and Persuasion at Ohio State for helpful comments on these studies. Address correspondence to Richard E. Petty, Department of Psychology, 1885 Neil Ave- nue Mall, Columbus, OH 43210; E-mail: [email protected].

Upload: others

Post on 27-Oct-2021

3 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: INDIVIDUAL VERSUS GROUP INTEREST VIOLATION: SURPRISE AS …

Petty et a lSurpris e in Argu me nt Scru ti ny and Persu asi on

INDIVIDUAL VERSUS GROUP INTERESTVIOLATION SURPRISE AS A DETERMINANT OFARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION

Richard E PettyOhio State University

Monique A Fleming and Joseph R PriesterUniversity of Michigan

Amy Harasty FeinsteinOhio State University

Previous studies based on an attributional analysis of persuasion have suggestedthat a source who takes an unexpected position is perceived as more trustworthyand accurate than one who argues for an expected position As a result messageprocessing is decreased when expectancies are violated compared to when theyare confirmed The current researchsuggests that these findings are limited to casesin which the unexpected position violates individual self-interestWhen a sourcersquosunexpectedposition violates individual self-interestattributions of trustworthinessare enhanced but when the unexpected position violates group interest this doesnot occur (Experiment 1) Instead a violation of group interest induces surprise (Ex-periment 1) and produces enhanced rather than reduced message processing (Ex-periment 2)

In persuasion contexts (whether attending a political speech reading anadvertisement or buying a used car) people often have expectationsabout what the persuasion attempt will be like For example peoplemight expect that the source of the message will take a certain position

418

Social Cognition Vol 19 No 4 2001 pp 418-442

Preparation of this article was supported by NSF grant SAR-9520854 Portions of this re-search were presented at the 1993 meeting of the Midwestern Psychological AssociationChicago IL We are grateful to the 1992-1994Groups for Attitudes and Persuasion at OhioState for helpful comments on these studies

Address correspondence to Richard E Petty Department of Psychology 1885Neil Ave-nue Mall Columbus OH 43210 E-mail petty1osuedu

(eg that a Republican legislator will speak in favor of tax cuts) or thatthe source will provide cogent arguments in favor of his or her position(eg that a car salesperson will describe many positive attributes of anew car) Contemporary research suggests that the confirmation ordisconfirmation of these expectancies can have an effect on whether peo-ple are persuaded by the message and on the process by which this per-suasion occurs

EXPECTANCY DISCONFIRMATION IN PERSUASION SETTINGS

DISCONFIRMATION OF SOURCE-POSITION EXPECTATIONS

Although individuals can hold several different types of expectancies inpersuasion settings perhaps the most studied expectancy is that whichpeople have about the position the source of the message will take Re-search on source-position expectancies has found that people expectsources to take positions in their own self-interest and when this doesnot occur (ie when a source disconfirms the expected position) greaterattributions of source trustworthiness and message validity result Ac-cording to the Attributional Analysis of Persuasion (AAP Eagly ampChaiken 1975 Eagly Chaiken amp Wood 1981) and later extensions(Priester amp Petty 1995) if a source takes the expected position it is un-clear whether the source espouses the message because it is veridical orbecause the source will gain something from the advocacy Thereforewith expectancy confirmation the trustworthiness of the source and theveracity of the message are in doubt

Conversely when the source disconfirms source-position expectan-cies by arguing against self-interest recipients are likely to augmenttheir perceptions of the sourcersquos trustworthiness and of the messagersquosvalidity because they infer the source must have overcome all the poten-tially biasing factors upon which the expectancy was based For exam-ple a politician would be expected to take a pro-environmental stance ina speech to a group of environmentalists because it is in the politicianrsquosself-interest to do so (ie obtaining the votes of the group) If the politi-cian does not do this he or she is assumed to be speaking the truth Themerits of the message must have overcome the sourcersquos desire to act inhis or her own personal best interest Research has consistently foundthat a source who violates recipientsrsquo expectancies about the messageposition is perceived as more trustworthy and the message is seen asmore valid than when expectancies are confirmed (eg Eagly Wood ampChaiken 1978 Priester amp Petty 1995 Walster Aronson amp Abrahams1966)

Because a source who violates expectancies is seen as trustworthyandthe message as veridical there is little need to engage in extensive scru-

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 419

tiny of the message However when the source confirms expectanciesand the validity of the message is in doubt recipients need to assess themessage carefully prior to acceptance Specifically according to theAAP research and more recent dual route persuasion models (ie theelaboration likelihood model Petty amp Cacioppo 1986 the heuristicsys-tematic model Chaiken Liberman amp Eagly 1989) people are often mo-tivated to hold correct attitudes If they cannot be assured of accuracysuch as when the source is seen as untrustworthy greater message scru-tiny should occur as the recipient attempts ldquoto remove questions con-cerning message validityrdquo (Eagly et al 1981 p 56)

Priester and Petty (1995)found explicit support for one interesting im-plication of these propositions That is disconfirmation of expectanciesabout the position a source will take should be associated with less mes-sage processing than confirmation of expectancies In one study thequality of the arguments in the message was varied along with expectan-cies about a position a source would take Consistent with the AAPPriester and Petty (1995 Study 3) found that when a sourcedisconfirmed the expected message position perceptions of sourcetrustworthiness were enhanced and message processing (ie attitudedifferentiation between strong and weak messages Petty Wells ampBrock 1976) was reduced compared to conditions in which the sourcetook the expected position This processing effect was most apparent forindividuals who were not intrinsically motivated to thinkmdashthose recipi-ents who were low in need for cognition (NC Cacioppo amp Petty 1982)High NC participants showed message processing regardless of expec-tancy condition Thus the AAP and available research suggest that re-duced message processing will result after a source disconfirms onersquosexpectations about the position he or she will take compared to when asource confirms onersquos expectations

DISCONFIRMATION LEADING TO SURPRISEAND INCREASED PROCESSING

Although the conceptual rationale and the empirical evidence for re-duced message processing resulting from disconfirmation of source-po-sition expectancies are clear this effect is somewhat surprising given awide variety of research in persuasion and other domains suggestingthat violation of expectancies often leads to surprise and enhanced infor-mation processing compared to confirmation of expectancies For exam-ple Maheswaran and Chaiken (1991) found greater message processingwhen the quality of the message contrasted with the expected messagequality Similarly Baker and Petty (1994) found evidence that people ex-pect the majority of others to agree with their position (and the minorityof others to oppose it) When this expectation was violated recipients

420 PETTY ET AL

were surprised and engaged in greater message scrutiny In additionSmith and Petty (1995) showed that people who received a positivelyframed message when they expected to receive a negatively framedmessage (or vice versa) showed increased message processing com-pared to conditions in which people received the message they ex-pected All of these studies have shown that an unexpected message canlead to greater message processing presumably due to increased sur-prise after disconfirmation (Petty 1997)

Outside of the persuasion domain other research on expectancy ef-fects has also revealed that expectancy disconfirmation can produce in-creased information processing For example research on causalattribution (eg Pyszczynski amp Greenberg 1981 Wong amp Weiner1981) and on impression formation (eg Fiske amp Neuberg 1990Hastie 1984 Srull amp Wyer 1989) has found that perceivers engage inincreased effortful processing after their expectations are disconfirmed(see Olson Roese amp Zanna 1996 Stangor amp McMillan 1992 for re-views) Thus various persuasion and non-persuasion findings of ex-pectancy disconfirmation leading to increased effortful processingstand in stark contrast to the AAP hypothesis and findings of reducedmessage processing when a source-position expectancy isdisconfirmed

NECESSARY CONDITION FOR REDUCED PROCESSINGENHANCED TRUSTWORTHINESS

Why has the prior literature on source-position expectancies shown thatconfirmation of expectancies produces greater information processingwhereas other research on expectancies demonstrated thatdisconfirmation of expectancies produces greater information process-ing One possibility is that in the paradigms used to test source-positionexpectanciesmdashfrom the earliest studies (eg Walster et al 1966) to themost recent (eg Priester amp Petty 1995) and all in between (eg Eagly etal 1981) mdash the disconfirming source has always violated self-interest inthe position taken Thus disconfirmation of expectancies about thesourcersquos position is always confounded with violation of the sourcersquosself-interest For example when a politician speaks in favor of stricterenvironmental protection laws to factory owners the politician is actingagainst his or her own vested interest in obtaining votes as well asdisconfirming expectancies When violation of self-interest occurs thereis a ready interpretation for the violation The source is particularlytrustworthy This analysis suggests that reduced information process-ing is not invariably the result of a violation of source-position expec-tancy What would occur if a source took a position that violated

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 421

expectations but was not readily attributable to enhanced trustworthi-ness1

Consider a source who takes an unexpected position in violation of hisor her grouprsquos interest rather than his or her individual interest This posi-tion should be surprising since people generally expect others to be loyalto groups to which they belong (see Platow OrsquoConnell Shave ampHanning 1995 Platow Hoar Reid Harley amp Morrison 1997 Wenzel ampMummendey 1996) However unlike violation of individual self-inter-est it is not clear that a person who violates his or her grouprsquos interestswould be seen as trustworthy Although there is some aspect of selfless-ness in going against onersquos grouprsquos interests there is also some disloyaltyinvolved As Kramer Brewer and Hanna (1996) argued shared groupidentities help define bounded communities of mutual trust Thuswhereas violation of individual self-interest is admired and producestrust a person who violates group interest can be seen as disloyal and un-trustworthy because looking out for onersquos grouprsquos best interest is one as-pect of group loyalty (Brewer amp Silver 2000) So although a source whoviolates the grouprsquos interests can be viewed positively (eg as unbiased ortrustworthy because he or she is going against group and self-interest) heor she can also be viewed negatively as a bad group member or as dis-loyal Thus perceivers may have two conflicting reactions on the same di-mension (ie trustworthiness) toward the source who violates his or herown grouprsquos interest Similarly unlike confirmation of individual self-in-terest it is not clear that a person who confirms his or her grouprsquos interestswould be seen as untrustworthy Although a source who confirms thegrouprsquos interests can be viewed negatively (eg as biased because he orshe is acting to enhance group and self-interest) he or she can also beviewed positively as a good group member or loyal This greater variabil-ity in interpreting both group interest conditions should lead to an attenu-ation or elimination of differences in perceived trustworthiness betweengroup interest confirmation and disconfirmation In sum violations ofsource-positionexpectancies based on group interest should produce sur-prise without any accompanying augmentation of the sourcersquos trustwor-thiness Because of this violation of group interest might lead to enhancedinformation processing activity

The differential consequences of violating group versus individualself-interest on source attributions information processing or persuasion

422 PETTY ET AL

1 In the persuasion studies finding that disconfirmation of expectancies leads to en-hanced processing there is no individual source who violates expectancies For examplein Baker and Petty (1994) the participants are simply told that a majority or minority ofpeople favors a particular position This general information can violate expectancies ornot but no individual source violates expectancies

have not been investigated previously The present research aims to ad-dress these issues because the group interest case may provide an initialboundary condition to the previously identified and consistent effects ofsource-positionexpectancy disconfirmationBased upon (1) the clear dif-ferences in perceived selfishness and trustworthiness across the individ-ual interest confirmation versus disconfirmation conditions and (2) theattributional ambiguity under group interest disconfirmation and confir-mation conditions (see Snyder amp Wicklund 1981) we predicted thatsource perception differences in perceived trustworthiness between con-firmation and disconfirmation of expectancies would be larger when ex-pectancies were based on individual interest versus group interest Thatis although past research has shown that disconfirmation of individualself-interest expectancies leads to enhanced perceptions of source trust-worthiness relative to confirmation (eg Priester amp Petty 1995 Walster etal 1966) we expected that this difference would be attenuated or absentwith disconfirmation of group interest expectancies relative to confirma-tion Nevertheless both types of expectancy disconfirmation should beviewed as surprising relative to confirmation

Our first study was designed to evaluate the differences in perceptions ofsource trustworthiness surprise and attributional ambiguity across the in-dividual and group expectancy bases This experiment sought to replicatepast findings of attributional effects of self-interest (dis)confirmation andto extend the analysis to violations of group interest In a second study weinvestigated the effect of violations of source-position expectancies basedon group interest on message processing and persuasion Specifically wetested whether group interest expectancy disconfirmation leads to in-creased or decreased message processing relative to confirmation

EXPERIMENT ONE

OVERVIEW

In this study students read a brief scenario in which expectancies basedupon a sourcersquos self-interest or a sourcersquos grouprsquos interest were estab-lished and then either confirmed or disconfirmed by the position takenin a brief message summary To evaluate participantsrsquo source percep-tions based solely upon message position the message summary onlystated the position taken by the source without any supporting argu-ments After reading the short summary participants responded toitems measuring their perceptions of the source their surprise about theposition taken and their attributions for the position taken

The scenario opening paragraph stated that a specific person (or a spe-cific group) should receive a university scholarship Expectancies wereconfirmed when the sourcersquos position either advocated that the source

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 423

himself (ldquoBill Johnstonrdquo) or a group to which the source belonged (ldquomi-nority studentsrdquo) should receive the scholarship Expectancies weredisconfirmed when the essay advocated that either another person(ldquoDavid Matthewsrdquo) or a group to which the writer did not belong(ldquochildren of alumnirdquo) should receive the scholarship

These materials were designed to allow for a conceptual replication ofAAP work in the self-interest conditions and still allow a feasible varia-tion for the group interest conditions The expectancy manipulation wasmodeled after the AAP work (eg Eagly et al 1978) in that situationalconstraints led to expectations about the position the source would takeWe chose the groups ldquominority studentsrdquo and ldquochildren of alumnirdquo be-cause (1) both seemed to be reasonable groups to receive a scholarshipand (2) these groups were both ldquoascribedrdquo (Ashmore amp Del Boca 1979)to group members (the group members would either always belong tothe group or would never belong to the group) Thus it was clear in thegroup interest conditions that the position taken in the essay either bene-fited or potentially harmed the sourcersquos own group

METHOD

PARTICIPANTS

Sixty-six White students at Ohio State University (OSU) who were notchildren of OSU alumni participated in partial fulfillment of require-ments in an introductory psychology course The fact that participantswho were from racial minorities or children of alumni were not includedensures that the participants were non-invested parties

DESIGN

Participants were assigned to the cells of a 2 (Expectancy basis individ-ual interest group interest ) acute 2 (Expectancy confirmationdisconfirmation) between-participants factorial design In addition ameasure of NC (Cacioppo Petty amp Kao 1984)was taken as it has moder-ated prior work on expectancy violations (eg Priester amp Petty 1995Smith amp Petty 1995)

PROCEDURE

Sessions were conducted in groups of two to seven Upon arrival partic-ipants were given experimental booklets that contained the followinginformation The first page of the booklet described the study as part ofan ldquoessay writing-evaluation projectrdquo Although specific instructions

424 PETTY ET AL

differed across expectancy basis conditions (see below) general instruc-tions informed participants that they would be given and would be eval-uating the introductory paragraph of a sample essay ldquotaken from a poolof letters sent to the Office of Student Affairs at the University of IowardquoThe letters were described as pertaining to a planned university scholar-ship program that could only be offered to a limited number of studentsEssays were described as having been solicited to help decide whoshould receive the scholarship In addition participants were informedthat they would be given some demographic information about thewriter of the essay The participantsrsquo task was to form an impressionabout the writer and to evaluate the writing in the essay

The remaining pages of the experimental booklet contained in order(1) a demographic sheet about the writer (2) the essay introductory para-graph (3) the dependent variables and manipulation checks (4) the NCscale and (5) a participant demographic sheet After all participants in agroup had completed the booklets they were debriefed and excused

INDEPENDENT VARIABLES

Basis of Expectancy The basis of the expectancy (individual or groupinterest) was manipulated by varying both the initial instructions andthe essay introductoryparagraph In addition to the general instructionsdescribed above the first page of the booklet stated either that ldquoonly onestudent will receive the scholarshiprdquo (individual interest condition) orthat ldquoonly members of one group will receive the scholarshiprdquo (groupinterest condition) The essay paragraphs were also either described assolicited to help decide ldquowho should receive this scholarshiprdquo or ldquowhichgroup should receive these scholarshipsrdquo

Expectancy ConfirmationDisconfirmation Expectancies about the posi-tion to be taken were created by manipulating the instructions on thefirst page of the booklet and the source demographic sheet on the secondpage The expectancy confirmation or disconfirmationwas manipulatedthrough the content of the essay introductory paragraph on the thirdpage of the booklet

In the group interest conditions the initial instructions stated that es-says were solicited to help decide which one group should receive thescholarship In addition the demographic sheet on the writer providedinformation about the writerrsquos race and his parentsrsquo educational back-ground (among other information such as the writerrsquos name age sexuniversity year in school major hometown and hobbies) This infor-mation was held constant across all conditions The writer ldquoBillJohnstonrdquo was described as Black and his parents were not alumni fromhis university

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 425

The expectancy-confirming introductory paragraph for the group in-terest expectancy was

All students who are of racial minority status should qualify for the univer-sity scholarship program that would enable them to attend school withouthaving to pay tuition Although this means that the other equally-deservinggroups being considered (including children of alumni) will have to paytheir own tuition I believe that minority students are the most worthygroup based upon the following reasons

Thus in the group interest confirmation condition the source a Blackmale took the expected position in favor of his group The expec-tancy-disconfirming introductory paragraph for the group interest ex-pectancy was identical to the confirming paragraph except thatanother group (ldquochildren of alumnirdquo) was switched with ldquominoritystudentsrdquo so that the paragraph stated that ldquoalthough this means thatthe other equally-deserving groups being considered (including mi-nority students) will have to pay their own tuition I believe that chil-dren of alumnirdquo Thus in the group interest disconfirmationcondition the Black source took the unexpected position in favor of an-other group

In the individual interest conditions the expectancy was establishedin the initial instructions that only one student would receive the schol-arship Thus the student submitting an essay would be expected towrite that he should receive the scholarship To strengthen this expec-tancy the essay writer was also described as one of the scholarship pro-gram finalists The writer demographic information was identical to thegroup interest information

The expectancy-confirming introductory paragraph for the individ-ual interest expectancy was

I should qualify for the university scholarship program that would enableme to attend school without having to pay tuition Although this means thatthe other equally-deserving finalists will have to pay their own tuition I be-lieve that I am most deserving based upon the following reasons

Thus in this condition the source took the expected position in favor ofhimself The expectancy-disconfirming introductory paragraph for theindividual interest expectancy was identical to the confirming para-graph except that another personrsquos name (ldquoDavid Matthewsrdquo) was sub-stituted for ldquoIrdquo in the appropriate places Thus in this condition the

426 PETTY ET AL

source violated individual self-interest and took an unexpected positionin favor of someone else

Need for Cognition Scale After responding to the other measures par-ticipants completed the NC scale (Cacioppo et al 1984) High and lowNC participants were determined by a median split on the scale with themedian equaling 635 (scores ranged from 26 to 86)

DEPENDENT VARIABLES

Surprise Ratings After participants read the essay introductory para-graph they were asked to answer all questions without looking back atprevious pages On the page immediately following the essay introduc-tory paragraph participants were asked several general questions tomeasure their ldquooverall reaction to the writerrsquos choice of essay topicrdquo As acheck on whether expectancy violation was surprising participants re-sponded on a 7-point scale ranging from -3 = ldquonot at all surprisedrdquo to +3= ldquovery surprisedrdquo regarding how surprised they were about thewriterrsquos choice of essay topic

Source Trustworthiness Measures After evaluating the essay topicparticipants were asked for their opinions about the essay writer be-cause ldquoevaluations of the essay introductory paragraph might havebeen influenced by your attitude about the writerrdquo Participants wereasked to rate the writer on several positivenegative trait semanticdifferential scales These 7-point scales ranged from -3 to +3 Sourcetrustworthiness was measured with three scales (untrustworthytrustworthy insinceresincere dishonesthonest) which were pre-sented with other positivenegative source traits serving as filler items(eg coldwarm close-mindedopen-minded unlikeablelikeable)

Open-Ended Attributional Processing On the next page participantswere asked to write down the reasons why they thought that the studentchose to write his essay The number of trait attributions listed wascounted by a coder blind to conditions More traits were expected to belisted for individual versus group interest conditions In addition to as-sess the specific trait attributions of selfish and selfless the number of di-rect mentions ofsource ldquoselfishnessrdquo and ldquoselflessnessrdquo were alsotallied

Manipulation Checks and Participant Demographic Sheet To ensure thatparticipants were aware of the source information that created the ex-pectancy a recognition test of the source demographic information wasgiven after the other measures were completed The two importantquestions concerned the sourcersquos race and the sourcersquos parentsrsquo educa-

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 427

tional background2 The final page of the experimental booklet was aparticipant demographic sheet so that we could establish which partici-pants were minority students and which were children of alumni

RESULTS

All dependent variables were submitted to a 2 (Expectancy basis individ-ual interest group interest ) acute 2 (Expectancy confirmationdisconfirmation)acute 2 (Need for cognition high low)between-participantsanalysis of variance

SOURCE TRUSTWORTHINESS

The three scales designed to measure trustworthiness were highlyintercorrelated (Cronbachrsquos a = 74)and thus were averaged to form a trust-worthiness index This index wassubmitted to the three-wayANOVA Theonly significant effect obtained was the predicted interaction between Basisand Expectancy F(158) = 755 p lt 01 To interpret this interaction simpleeffects tests were conducted separately for individual and group interestexpectancies For individual interest conditionsa simple main effect for ex-pectancy was found F(132) = 478 p lt 04 Replicating previous research(eg Priester amp Petty 1995) when the source disconfirmed individual in-teresthe wasrated asmore trustworthy(M = 186)than when he confirmedindividual interest (M = 083) However for group interest conditions nodifference between expectancy disconfirmation (M = 087) and confirma-tion (M = 136) conditions was found F(130) = 158 p = 22

SURPRISE RATINGS

Two main effects were obtained on the surprise scale First as expectedparticipants were more surprised in the expectancy disconfirmation (M= 184)than in the confirmation conditions (M = -039) F(158)= 3047p lt0001 The other significant result was a main effect for expectancy basisRegardless of whether expectancies were confirmed or disconfirmedparticipants found the individual interest messages more surprising (M= 131)than the group interest messages (M = 015) F(158)= 825p lt 01

428 PETTY ET AL

2 On the source memory manipulation check two participants erred on the alumni sta-tus of the writerrsquos parents and no one erred on the writerrsquos race When these participantsare removed from analyses results are the same as those reported

The Basis acute Expectancy interaction was not significant F (158)= 215p =153 Thus as predicted it appears that participants were more surprisedafter expectancy disconfirmation than confirmation regardless ofwhether the expectancy was based upon the sourcersquos individual orgroup interest

OPEN-ENDED ATTRIBUTIONAL PROCESSING

Analyses of the number of trait attributions participants listed in theiropen-ended responses revealed a main effect for Expectancy BasisF(157) = 1188 p lt 01 Specifically participants explained the tar-getrsquos actions using more trait terms in the individual interest condi-tions (M = 114 traits per participant) than in the group interestconditions (M = 32) suggesting that a clear attribution was easier tomake in the individual than group interest conditions One specifictrait thought to differ between individual self-interest and group in-terest was perceived selfishnessselflessness Thus the percentagesof participants who referred to selfishness or selflessness were com-pared across expectancy basis 303 of participants in the individ-ual conditions mentioned selfishnessselflessness (participantsmentioned either selfishness or selflessness not both) whereas 0 ofparticipants in the group conditions mentioned this trait c2(1) =1146 p lt 001 To evaluate the numbers of references to selfishnessve r su s se l f l e ss n e ss ac ro ss e xp e ct an c y co n f i rm at io n an ddisconfirmation separate analyses were conducted for the individ-ual conditions only (since there were no mentions of these traits inthe group conditions) For mentions of selflessness 389 ofdisconfirmation (ie low self-interest) condition participants men-tioned this trait (or synonyms) whereas 0 of participants in theconfirmation (ie high self-interest) condition mentioned selfless-ness c2(1) = 740 p lt 007 For mentions of selfishness (or synonyms)20 of participants in the confirmation condition mentioned thistrait whereas 0 of participants in the disconfirmation conditionmentioned it c2(1)= 396 p lt05 It appears that participants weremore likely to attribute the sourcersquos choice of message position to a

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 429

3 We also conducted separate simple effects tests for the individual and group interestconditions to determine if the simple main effect for expectancy held These analyses con-firmed that effects for expectancy occurred in both the individual interest F(132)= 838plt 006 (Means Confirmed = 049Disconfirmed = 213)and group interest F(130)= 2701plt 0001 (Means Confirmed = -126 Disconfirmed = 156) conditions

personality trait (especially to selfishnessselflessness) when thesourcersquos position was relevant to self-interest rather than relevant to hisgrouprsquos interest

We also expected that the differential perceptions of source selfish-ness in the individual conditions would correspond to the greater per-ceived source trustworthiness under expectancy disconfirmation thanconfirmation To evaluate this prediction the correlations between ref-erences to selfishness (and selflessness) and the source trustworthinessratings were computed As predicted in the individual conditionstrustworthiness and mentions of selfishness were significantly nega-tively correlated r = -42 p lt 02 In addition trustworthiness and men-tions of selflessness were significantly positively correlated r = 36 p lt05

DISCUSSION

In this study we found different effects of expectancy disconfirmationon source perceptions for expectancies based on individual versusgroup interest As predicted trustworthiness attributions varied onlywhen the expectancy was based upon the sourcersquos individual self-inter-est Thus our individual interest expectancy conditions were consistentwith prior theory and research (eg Eagly et al 1978 Priester amp Petty1995) in that the source was perceived as more trustworthy when hewent against his own self-interest than when he wrote in favor of hisself-interest More importantly we found a condition under whichsource-position expectancy confirmation and disconfirmation did notmake a difference for trustworthiness attributions mdash when the expec-tancy was based upon group membership and group interest Resultsfrom the open-ended responses suggest that this attenuation mayhave been due to the greater attributional ambiguity when group in-terest rather than individual interest was concerned Thus Experi-me n t 1 ou t l in e s a b ou nda ry co n dit ion fo r th e ef fe c ts ofdisconfirmation of source-position expectancy on perceptions oftrustworthiness suggesting that taking an unexpected position doesnot invariably lead to perceptions of enhanced source trustworthi-ness

In addition consistent with previous expectancy disconfirmationwork (eg Baker amp Petty 1994) participants were more surprised whenexpectancies were disconfirmed than confirmed More importantly thisinvestigation extends this work by suggesting that individuals are moresurprised when an individual source takes a position that disconfirms

430 PETTY ET AL

rather than confirms expectancies regardless of whether the position vi-olates either individual or group interest4

EXPERIMENT TWO

Experiment 2 was designed to investigate the implications of the find-ings of Experiment 1 regarding the effects of disconfirmation of groupinterest for message processing Specifically we tested the predictionthat disconfirmation of a source-position expectancy that does not aug-ment perceived source trustworthiness (ie violation of group interest)will lead to increased rather than reduced message scrutiny Past re-search has already shown that reduced message scrutiny results whenindividual self-interest expectancy disconfirmation leads to enhancedperceptions of source trustworthinessand message validity (Eagly et al1978 Priester amp Petty 1995 Wood amp Eagly 1981) Because a source whoviolates group interest is not seen as more trustworthy but is more sur-prising we anticipate that group interest expectancy disconfirmation

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 431

4 Before conducting Study 2 one potential concern with the operationalization ofgroup interest expectancies in Study 1 was evaluated Specifically our group interest con-firmation condition had scholarships for ldquominority studentsrdquo as its topic whereas thetopic in the disconfirmation condition was about ldquochildren of alumnirdquo The groups ldquomi-nority studentsrdquo and ldquochildren of alumnirdquo are not equivalent and might show different ef-fects for reasons unrelated to expectancy violation For example it might be moresurprising for any source to advocate scholarships for alumni than for minorities To re-move this potential confound and use both topics in the expectancy confirming anddisconfirming cases we conducted a study to replicate conceptually our group interestfindings with both groups Source demographics were varied such that the source was ei-ther Black and not a child of alumni or White and a child of alumni A second minorchange was made in the essay topic mdash rather than a scholarship programthe programwasdescribed as a ldquouniversity service programrdquo that would allow participants free tuition Themessage either advocated that this program should be for children of alumni or for minor-ity students (see Experiment 2 for details)

Forty-eight individuals participated in this 2 (Source Black student of non alumni par-ents White student of alumni parents)acute 2 (Expectancy confirmation disconfirmation) be-tween-participants design In this study expectancy confirmationdisconfirmation wasalways on a group interest basis Participants received the demographic information andintroductory essay paragraph and then completed measures of surprise and source trust-worthiness In this revised version our manipulation of expectancy confirma-tiondisconfirmation was effective in producing surprise as participants weresignificantly more surprised after disconfirmation (M = 067) than after confirmation (M =-204) F(144) = 3438 p lt 0001 Furthermore replicating the group interest conditions inStudy 1 no significant effects were found on the source trustworthiness index As ex-pected participants did not view the disconfirming source as any more trustworthy (M =142) than the confirming source (M = 138) Neither of these effects was qualified by thesource That is Black students favoring alumni and White alumni favoring minority stu-dents were both more surprising than favoring onersquos own group

will lead to enhanced information processing compared to group inter-est expectancy confirmation as has been found in other work on expec-tancies (eg Baker amp Petty 1994Maheswaran amp Chaiken 1991Smith ampPetty 1995) To assess the extent to which the persuasive message wasscrutinized participants were presented with messages containing ei-ther all strong or all weak arguments In general the attitudes of partici-pants who are thinking about the message carefully should be moreaffected by message quality (ie they should be more persuaded bystrong than weak arguments) compared to participants who are notthinking about the message carefully (see Petty Wells amp Brock 1976Petty amp Cacioppo 1986)

METHOD

PARTICIPANTS

Two hundred eighty-eight White students who were not children ofOSU alumni participated in this study in partial completion of introduc-tory psychology course requirements As in Experiment 1 minority par-ticipants and children of alumni were not included in the analyses

DESIGN

Participants were assigned to the cells of a 2 (Source Black non-alum-nus child White alumnus child) acute 2 (Group interest expectancy con-firmed disconfirmed) acute 2 (Argument quality strong weak)between-participants factorial design (see footnote 4) As in Experiment1 a measure of NC was taken

PROCEDURE

Experimental sessions were conducted with groups ranging in size fromtwo to eight Upon arrival participants were given experimental book-lets that contained the following information The first page of the book-let described the study as part of a ldquojournalism writing-evaluationprojectrdquo in which participants would be given a newspaper article writ-ten by a student from another Big Ten university They were also toldthat they would be given some demographic information about the au-thor of the article The participantsrsquo task was to form an impression of thewriter and to evaluate the writing in the article itself Participants werethen given a summary of the message topic mdash that a tuition break pro-gram should be instituted at the University of Iowa The baseline level ofmessage scrutiny for this personally irrelevant message was expected to

432 PETTY ET AL

be relatively low (see Petty amp Cacioppo 1979 1990) The remainingpages of the booklet contained (1) a demographic sheet about the writer(2) the article (containing the persuasive message) (3) the dependentvariables and manipulation checks (4) the NC scale and (5) the partici-pant demographic sheet After all participants in a group had completedthe booklets they were debriefed and excused

INDEPENDENT VARIABLES

Source On the second page of the booklet participants were given ademographic sheet about the writer This page contained informationabout the writerrsquos age sex university year in school major hometownhobby race and parentsrsquo educational background (in this order) Infor-mation about the source remained the same in all conditions except forrace and parentsrsquo educational background The manipulation of sourcewas accomplished by varying jointly the race and the parentsrsquo univer-sity which was either BlackUniversity of Minnesota (ie minorityparents were not alumni of Iowa) or WhiteUniversity of Iowa (ienon-minority parents were alumni of Iowa) This manipulation pro-vided an internal replication of group interest disconfirmation effects onpersuasion (see footnote 4 for a pretest of the effects of this manipulationon source perceptions and surprise)

Group Interest Expectancy ConfirmationDisconfirmation The expe c-tancy manipulation was accomplished by the combination of the mes-sage source and message topic Participants were provided with a briefsummary of the message topic before they read the full persuasive mes-sage to create the expectancy confirmation or disconfirmation in ad-vance of the persuasion attempt Participants were informed that thearticle they would be evaluating was about one of the following topicsldquoStudents who are children of alumni (ie their parents graduated fromthe same university that the student attends) should be allowed to par-ticipate in a two year university service program that would allow themto attend school without having to pay tuitionrdquo Or ldquoStudents who are ofracial minority status should be allowed to participate in a two year uni-versity service program that would allow them to attend school withouthaving to pay tuitionrdquo

Thus expectancy confirmation resulted when the source wrote in fa-vor of his own group participating in this program and expectancydisconfirmation resulted when the source wrote in favor of a group towhich he did not belong

Argument Quality On the next pages of the booklet participants re-ceived the persuasive message The message contained either the strong

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 433

or weak arguments from Baker and Petty (1994 Study 2) The argumentsin the message were pretested such that the strong arguments elicitedprimarily positive thoughts and the weak arguments elicited primarilynegative thoughts when pretest participants were instructed to thinkabout them (see Baker amp Petty 1994 Study 2)

The persuasive message supported implementing a program in whichcertain students (either minority students or children of alumni) wouldbe eligible for tuition breaks in exchange for participating in a universityservice program The message arguments focused on the benefits of theuniversity service program for the university and for the students in-volved in the program For example one strong argument stressed thatwith the money saved through students performing various universityservices ldquoa greater portion of the university budget can be invested inmonetary incentives for research and teachingrdquo and ldquofunding will beavailable to recruit additional outstanding professors researchers andNobel prize winnersrdquo However a parallel weak argument suggestedthat the additional monies available can be ldquospent on materials such aspaint for buildings new machinery for mowing and landscaping andplantings shrubbery flowers and treesrdquo in order to make the universityldquoa scenic and beautiful place to spend the college daysrdquo

Need for Cognition Scale Participants completed the need for cognitionscale (Cacioppo et al 1984)after responding to the other measures Highand low need for cognition participants were determined by a mediansplit on the scale with the median equaling 635 (scores ranged from 31 to85)

DEPENDENT VARIABLES

Argument Quality Manipulation Checks Immediately after participantsread the persuasive message they were asked to answer all questionswithout looking back at previous pages On the page immediately fol-lowing the essay participants were asked to rate ldquohow well was the arti-cle writtenrdquo and ldquohow persuasive were the argumentsrdquo on 9-pointscales ranging from 1 = ldquonot at allrdquo to 9 = ldquoextremelyrdquo These questionswere provided along with several filler questions (eg how clear wasthe writing style) designed to fit the cover story about evaluating the ar-ticle The first two questions served as manipulation checks for argu-ment quality

Attitude Measures On the next page participants read that ldquobecauseyour evaluations of the article might have been influenced by your atti-tude toward the article topic we would like to ask your opinions aboutthe topicrdquo Participants then completed two general attitude questionsand a five-item semantic differential scale The general questions were

434 PETTY ET AL

ldquoIn general what is your opinion about the university service pro-gramrdquo and ldquoHow would you feel about the implementation of the uni-versity service program here at Ohio State Universityrdquo These itemswere completed on 9-point scales ranging from 1 = ldquostrongly opposerdquo to9 = ldquostrongly favorrdquo On the five-item semantic differential scale partici-pants were asked ldquorate how you feel about the university service pro-gramrdquo Each semantic differential was completed on a 9-point scale Thescale anchors were unfavorablefavorable badgood foolishwiseharmfulbeneficial and unfairfair

Source Memory Manipulation Check and Participant Demographics Aftercompleting all other dependent measures participants completed thesource memory multiple choice questions and the participant demo-graphic sheet (as described in study 1)5

RESULTS

All dependent variables were submitted to a 2 (Group interest expec-tancy confirmation vs disconfirmation) acute 2 (Source Black non-alum-nus vs White alumnus ) acute 2 (Argument quality strong vs weak) acute 2(NC high vs low) between-participants analysis of variance

Argument Quality Manipulation Checks6 To determine if our manipu-lation of strong and weak arguments was effective participantsrsquo re-sponses to the two argument quality questions were averaged andsubmitted to the four-way ANOVA The expected main effect for argu-ment quality was obtained F(1271) = 1297 p lt 001 Messages contain-ing strong arguments were rated more positively (M = 589) than wereweak messages (M = 512)7

Attitude Measure The a coefficient for the attitude scales was 95 so thescales were averaged to form an overall index This index was subjected

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 435

5 On the source memory manipulation check one participant made an error on thewriterrsquos race and eleven participants erred on the alumni status of the writerrsquos parentsWhen these participants are removed from analyses results are the same as those re-ported

6 One participant did not complete this measure and thus was not included in the anal-ysis

7 A main effect of expectancy was also obtained F(1 271) = 680 p lt 01 suggesting thatparticipants in the disconfirmation conditions rated arguments more positively (M = 579)than did participants in the confirmation conditions (M = 523)In addition a need for cogni-tion acute expectancy interaction emerged F(1271)= 400 p lt 05 suggesting that whereas highNC individuals rated the quality of the arguments higher when the expectancy wasdisconfirmed (M = 590)than confirmed (M = 491)low NC individualsrsquo perceptions of argu-mentquality were notaffected by expectancy (Mdisconfirmed = 568Mconfirmed = 555)

to the four-way between-participants ANOVA First a main effect forargument quality was obtained F(1272) = 1104 p lt 01 indicating thatparticipants receiving strong arguments were more persuaded (M =549) than were those who received weak arguments (M = 474) Ofgreater interest the predicted expectancy acute argument quality interac-tion F(1272) = 579 p lt 02 qualified this main effect (see Figure 1)When expectancies were disconfirmed argument quality had a greaterimpact on attitudes than when expectancies were confirmed More spe-cifically under expectancy confirmation conditions argument qualityhad no impact on attitudes F(1139) = 42 ns However under expec-tancy disconfirmation conditions a simple main effect for argumentquality emerged F(1145) = 1854 p lt 0001

One additional effect that emerged consistent with past research(Priester amp Petty 1995 Smith amp Petty 1995) was a three-way interactionamong expectancy argument quality and need for cognition F(1272) =386 p lt 05 (see Table 2) Separate analyses for high and low need forcognition participants indicated that high NC participants (ie those in-dividuals who enjoy thinking) showed only a main effect for argumentquality F(1134) = 784 p lt 01 (the expectancy acute argument quality inter-action F lt 1 ns) suggesting that they engaged in effortful processing ofthe message regardless of whether expectancies were confirmed or

436 PETTY ET AL

FIGURE 1 Interaction on attitudes between group interest expectancy status and argu-ment quality

disconfirmed Low NC participants showed a main effect for argumentquality F(1146) = 419 p lt 05 along with an expectancy acute argumentquality interaction F(1146) = 1038 p lt 01 This interaction indicatedthat low NC participants did not differentiate between strong and weakarguments when their expectancies were confirmed but they did differ-entiate when their expectancies were disconfirmed8

GENERAL DISCUSSION

The present research expands our understanding of the consequences ofsources taking unexpected positions Based on prior research and the-ory one would have predicted that when a source takes an unexpectedposition greater attributions of trustworthiness and reduced informa-tion processing activity should result compared to when the sourcetakes an expected position The current studies suggest that this result is

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 437

TABLE 1 Mean Attitude Ratings as a Function of Group-Interest Expectancy Statusand Argument Quality (Experiment 2)

mdashmdashAttitudesmdashmdash

Argument Quality Confirmed Disconfirmed

Strong 504 (65) 594 (79)

SD = 187 SD = 170

Weak 483 (76) 465 (68)

SD = 197 SD = 209

Note Ns indicated in parentheses

8 A source acute expectancy interaction F(1272) = 528 p lt 03 was also obtained A maineffect for expectancy emerged in the Black non-alumnus source condition F(1136)= 840p lt 01 Thus participants had more positive attitudes toward the message when a minor-ity source wrote in favor of children of alumni receiving the tuition breaks (M = 562) thanwhen the minority source wrote in favor of breaks for minorities (M = 475) Attitudes inthe White alumnus source conditions did not differ between expectancy disconfirming (M= 496)and confirming conditions (M = 513)F lt 1 This unanticipated result could have oc-curred because Caucasian participants paid more attention to the position taken by theBlack than the White source resulting in their being more affected by those positions(Petty Fleming amp White 1999 White amp Harkens 1994) Future research could includeconditions where a Black source is an alumnus and a White source is a non-alumnus totease apart race from alumni effects Importantly our results indicated that participantsengaged in greater scrutiny of the arguments whichever source (black or white alumnusor non-alumnus) violated expectancies That is the significant two-way Expectancy acute Ar-gument quality interaction was not qualified by source nor was the significant three-wayExpectancy acute Argument quality acute Need for cognition interaction qualified by source

likely primarily when the position taken violates individual self-inter-est When the position is unexpected because it violates a grouprsquos inter-est the results are quite different That is in Experiment 1 we showedthat although both types of expectancy violation induce surprise onlythe violation of self-interest is associated with increased perceptions oftrustworthiness Violations of group interest do not engender the sameenhancements of trustworthiness Instead violations of group interestappear to produce some attributional ambiguity The surprise accompa-nied by unclear attributions as to the cause of a behavior would be ex-pected to lead to increased rather than decreased informationprocessing This is the effect we observed in Experiment 2

INTEGRATION INFORMATION PROCESSING CONSEQUENCESOF EXPECTANCY DISCONFIRMATION

The current framework seems potentially useful for reconciling seem-ingly inconsistent findings in the persuasion literature regarding the in-formation processing consequences of expectancy disconfirmation Tosummarize briefly if disconfirmation of expectancies leads to increasedperceptions of source trustworthiness or enhanced perceptions of mes-sage validity then message processing should decrease over confirma-tion conditions (Chaiken et al 1989 Petty amp Cacioppo 1986) On theother hand if disconfirmation of expectancies leads only to surprisecompared to confirmation conditions message processing should in-crease In past research disconfirmations of expectancies about messagequality (Maheswaran amp Chaiken 1991) message framing (Smith ampPetty 1995) and whether a majority or minority of others hold a pro- orcounterattitudinal position (Baker amp Petty 1994) did not violate self-in-terest and thus should not lead to perceptions of source trustworthinessor message validity In each case recipients are simply left surprised by

438 PETTY ET AL

TABLE 2 Mean Attitude Ratings as a Function of Group-Interest Expectancy StatusArgument Quality and Participantsrsquo Need for Cognition Level (Experiment 2)

mdashmdashAttitudesmdashmdash

High Need for Cognition Low Need for Cognition

Argument Quality Confirmed Disconfirmed Confirmed Disconfirmed

Strong 508 (33) 580 (37) 500 (32) 607 (42)

SD = 204 SD = 156 SD = 170 SD = 182

Weak 432 (37) 484 (31) 535 (39) 445 (37)

SD = 202 SD = 200 SD = 181 SD = 217

Note Ns indicated in parentheses

the disconfirmation of expectancies and they engage in greater informa-tion processing activity presumably to resolve the violation of expecta-tions and re-establish their understanding of the topic or source at hand(Olson et al 1996)

It is somewhat ironic that the earliest work on expectancies in persua-sion (Eagly amp Chaiken 1975Eagly et al 1978Walster et al 1966 Woodamp Eagly 1981) focused on the one type of expectation (ie source-posi-tion expectancy based on personal self-interest) that produced an appar-ent exception to the subsequently emergent general rule thatdisconfirmation of expectancies enhances processing The current re-search is the first to show that violations of expectancies about the posi-tion a source will take can lead to enhanced information processing Thiswas accomplished by shifting the expectation from one based on self-in-terest alone to group interest

In examining this framework it is important to keep the theoreticalvariables in mind that underlie our integration That is when a sourceviolates expectancies a number of inferences are possible An expec-tancy disconfirmation can enhance perceptions of source trustworthi-ness or message validity (and thus decrease message processing) and itcan also affect surprise (and thus increase message processing) butwhen surprise alone occurs enhanced information processing occursWhen both occur it appears that perceptions of message validity reducemessage processing despite the increased surprise

For self- and group interest expectancy violations to occur at least twofactors seem necessary a perception that some self- or group interest isinvolved and an expectation that individuals will act in accordancewiththat interest A perception of self- or group interest may not always bepresent For example an aggregate of individuals which is notentitative enough (they do not form a coherent whole) may not be per-ceived as having a common group interest in the first place (Campbell1958Hamilton amp Sherman 1996Hamilton Sherman amp Lickel 1998) Insuch cases there would be no group interest to violate Even when self-or group interest is perceived however violations of them may not al-ways cause expectancy disconfirmationsFor example in some culturesself-interest violation may be expected rather than unexpected and thussuch violations would not be expected to lead to increased perceptionsof trustworthinessbecause people are more likely to make dispositionalattributions for behaviors that are unexpected (Jones amp Davis 1965)Likewise for some groups or issues group interest violation may also beexpected such as when the group is clearly undeserving and in those in-stances violation of group interest would not be expected to lead to sur-prise

Future work could examine these possibilities as well as explore sev-eral remaining issues For example although we compared individual

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 439

versus group interest violations on perceptions of trustworthiness andsurprise together in Study 1 we did not directly compare the effects ofthese two types of expectancy violations on information processing andpersuasion This was because the effects of individual self-interest viola-tion on information processing and persuasion seemed clear from priorresearch Nevertheless it would be prudent to examine the effects of in-dividual- versus group interest confirmation versus disconfirmation oninformation processing in the same study In addition our hypothesisthat surprise and attributional ambiguity mediate the increased process-ing resulting from group interest violations should be directly tested byassessing the mediators in the same study as the outcome variables

The current research and framework suggest that it is important toconsider that expectancies in persuasion contexts can be developedupon multiple bases such as on prior knowledge of a personrsquos past be-haviors a personrsquos group membership or human behavior in generalAs shown in our experiments the basis of the expectancy can make animportant difference in the outcome of disconfirmation on source per-ception and on subsequent information processing and persuasion

REFERENCES

Ashmore R D amp Del Boca F K (1979) Sex stereotypes and implicit personality theoriesToward a cognitive-social psychological conceptualization Sex Roles 5 219-248

Baker S M amp Petty R E (1994) Majority and minority influence Source-position imbal-ance as a determinant of message scrutiny Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy 67 5-19

Brewer M B amp Silver M D (2000) Group distinctiveness social identification and col-lective mobilization In S Stryker T J Owens amp R W White (Eds) Self Identityand Social Movements (pp 153-171) Minneapolis MN University of MinnesotaPress

Cacioppo J T amp Petty R E (1982) The need for cognition Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 42 116-131

Cacioppo J T Petty R E amp Kao C (1984)The efficient assessment of need for cognitionJournal of Personality Assessment 48 306-307

Campbell D T (1958) Common fate similarity and other indices of the status of aggre-gates as social entities Behavioral Science 3 14-25

Chaiken S Liberman A amp Eagly A H (1989) Heuristic and systematic processingwithin and beyond the persuasion context In J S Uleman amp J A Bargh (Eds) Un-intended thought (pp 212-252) New York Guilford Press

Eagly A H amp Chaiken S (1975) An attribution analysis of the effect of communicatorcharacteristics on opinion change The case of communicator attractiveness Journalof Personality and Social Psychology 32 136-144

Eagly A H Chaiken S amp Wood W (1981)An attribution analysis of persuasion In J HHarvey W J Ickes amp R F Kidd (Eds) New directions in attribution research (Vol 3pp 37-62) Hillsdale NJ Erlbaum

Eagly A H Wood W amp Chaiken S (1978) Causal inferences about communicators and

440 PETTY ET AL

their effects on opinion change Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36424-435

Fiske S T amp Neuberg S L (1990) A continuum of impression formation from cate-gory-based to individuating processes Influences of information and motivationon attention and interpretation In M P Zanna (Ed) Advances in experimental socialpsychology (Vol 23 pp 1-74) San Diego Academic Press

Hamilton DL amp Sherman S J (1996) Perceiving persons and groups Psychological Re-view 103 336-355

Hamilton DL Sherman S J amp Lickel B (1998) Perceiving social groups The impact ofthe entitativity continuum In C Sedikides J Schopler amp C A Insko (Eds) Inter-group cognitions and intergroup behavior (pp 47-74) Mahwah NJ Erlbaum

Hastie R (1984) Causes and effects of causal attribution Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 37 25-38

Jones E E amp Davis K E (1965) From acts to dispositions The attribution process in per-son perception In L Berkowitz (Ed) Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol2 pp 219-266) New York Academic Press

Kramer R M Brewer M B amp HannaB (1996)Collective trust and collective action Thedecision to trust as a social decision In R Kramer amp T Tyler (Eds) Trust in organiza-tions (pp 357-389) Thousand Oakes CA Sage

Maheswaran D amp Chaiken S (1991) Promoting systematic processing in low-motiva-tion settings Effects of incongruent information on processing and judgment Jour-nal of Personality and Social Psychology 61 13-33

Olson J M Roese N J amp Zanna M P (1996) Expectancies In E T Higgins amp A WKruglanski (Eds) Social psychology Handbook of basic principles (pp 211-238) NewYork Guilford Press

Petty R E (1997) The evolution of theory and research in social psychology From singleto multiple effect and process models In C McGarty amp S A Haslam (Eds) The mes-sage of social psychologyPerspectives on mind in society (pp 268-290)Oxford EnglandBlackwell Publishers Ltd

Petty R E amp Cacioppo J T (1979)Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasionby enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 37 1915-1926

Petty R E amp Cacioppo J T (1986) Communication and persuasion Central and peripheralroutes to attitude change New York Springer-Verlag

Petty R E amp Cacioppo J T (1990) Involvement and persuasion Tradition versus inte-gration Psychological Bulletin 107 367-374

Petty R E Fleming M A amp White P H (1999) Stigmatized sources and persuasionPrejudice as a determinant of argument scrutiny Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology 76 19-34

Petty R E Wells G L amp Brock T C (1976)Distraction can enhance or reduce yielding topropaganda Thought disruption versus effort justification Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology 34 874-884

Platow M J HoarS Reid S Harley K amp Morrison D (1997)Endorsement of distribu-tively fair and unfair leaders in interpersonal and intergroup situations EuropeanJournal of Social Psychology 27 465-494

Platow M J OrsquoConnell A Shave R amp Hanning P (1995) Social evaluations of fair andunfair allocators in interpersonal and intergroup situations British Journal of SocialPsychology 34 363-381

Priester J R amp Petty R E (1995) Source attributions and persuasion Perceived honestyas a determinant of message scrutiny Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 21637-654

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 441

Pyszczynski T A amp Greenberg J (1981)Role of disconfirmed expectancies in the instiga-tion of attributional processing Journal of Personality and Social Psychology40 31-38

Smith S M amp Petty R E (1995) Personality moderators of mood congruency effects oncognition The role of self-esteem and negative mood regulation Journal of Personal-ity and Social Psychology 68 1092-1107

Snyder M L amp Wicklund R (1981)Attribute ambiguity In J H Harvey W Ickes amp R RKidd (Eds) New directions in attribution research (pp 197-221)New York Halsted

Srull T K amp Wyer R S Jr (1989)Person memory and judgment Psychological Review 9658-83

Stangor C amp McMillan D (1992)Memory for expectancy-congruent and expectancy-in-congruent social information A meta-analytic review of the social psychologicaland social developmental literatures Psychological Bulletin 111 42-61

Walster E Aronson E amp Abrahams D (1966)On increasing the persuasiveness of a lowprestige communicator Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 2 325-342

Wenzel M amp Mummendey A (1996) Positive-negative asymmetry of social discrimina-tion A normative analysis of differential evaluations of in-group and out-group onpositive and negative attributes British Journal of Social Psychology 35 493-507

White P H amp Harkens S G (1994) Race of source effects in the elaboration likelihoodmodel Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67 790-807

Wong P T P amp Weiner B (1981) When people ask ldquowhyrdquo questions and the heuristicsof attributional search Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 40 650-663

Wood W amp Eagly A H (1981) Stages in the analysis of persuasive messages The role ofcausal attributions and message comprehension Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 40 246-259

442 PETTY ET AL

Page 2: INDIVIDUAL VERSUS GROUP INTEREST VIOLATION: SURPRISE AS …

(eg that a Republican legislator will speak in favor of tax cuts) or thatthe source will provide cogent arguments in favor of his or her position(eg that a car salesperson will describe many positive attributes of anew car) Contemporary research suggests that the confirmation ordisconfirmation of these expectancies can have an effect on whether peo-ple are persuaded by the message and on the process by which this per-suasion occurs

EXPECTANCY DISCONFIRMATION IN PERSUASION SETTINGS

DISCONFIRMATION OF SOURCE-POSITION EXPECTATIONS

Although individuals can hold several different types of expectancies inpersuasion settings perhaps the most studied expectancy is that whichpeople have about the position the source of the message will take Re-search on source-position expectancies has found that people expectsources to take positions in their own self-interest and when this doesnot occur (ie when a source disconfirms the expected position) greaterattributions of source trustworthiness and message validity result Ac-cording to the Attributional Analysis of Persuasion (AAP Eagly ampChaiken 1975 Eagly Chaiken amp Wood 1981) and later extensions(Priester amp Petty 1995) if a source takes the expected position it is un-clear whether the source espouses the message because it is veridical orbecause the source will gain something from the advocacy Thereforewith expectancy confirmation the trustworthiness of the source and theveracity of the message are in doubt

Conversely when the source disconfirms source-position expectan-cies by arguing against self-interest recipients are likely to augmenttheir perceptions of the sourcersquos trustworthiness and of the messagersquosvalidity because they infer the source must have overcome all the poten-tially biasing factors upon which the expectancy was based For exam-ple a politician would be expected to take a pro-environmental stance ina speech to a group of environmentalists because it is in the politicianrsquosself-interest to do so (ie obtaining the votes of the group) If the politi-cian does not do this he or she is assumed to be speaking the truth Themerits of the message must have overcome the sourcersquos desire to act inhis or her own personal best interest Research has consistently foundthat a source who violates recipientsrsquo expectancies about the messageposition is perceived as more trustworthy and the message is seen asmore valid than when expectancies are confirmed (eg Eagly Wood ampChaiken 1978 Priester amp Petty 1995 Walster Aronson amp Abrahams1966)

Because a source who violates expectancies is seen as trustworthyandthe message as veridical there is little need to engage in extensive scru-

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 419

tiny of the message However when the source confirms expectanciesand the validity of the message is in doubt recipients need to assess themessage carefully prior to acceptance Specifically according to theAAP research and more recent dual route persuasion models (ie theelaboration likelihood model Petty amp Cacioppo 1986 the heuristicsys-tematic model Chaiken Liberman amp Eagly 1989) people are often mo-tivated to hold correct attitudes If they cannot be assured of accuracysuch as when the source is seen as untrustworthy greater message scru-tiny should occur as the recipient attempts ldquoto remove questions con-cerning message validityrdquo (Eagly et al 1981 p 56)

Priester and Petty (1995)found explicit support for one interesting im-plication of these propositions That is disconfirmation of expectanciesabout the position a source will take should be associated with less mes-sage processing than confirmation of expectancies In one study thequality of the arguments in the message was varied along with expectan-cies about a position a source would take Consistent with the AAPPriester and Petty (1995 Study 3) found that when a sourcedisconfirmed the expected message position perceptions of sourcetrustworthiness were enhanced and message processing (ie attitudedifferentiation between strong and weak messages Petty Wells ampBrock 1976) was reduced compared to conditions in which the sourcetook the expected position This processing effect was most apparent forindividuals who were not intrinsically motivated to thinkmdashthose recipi-ents who were low in need for cognition (NC Cacioppo amp Petty 1982)High NC participants showed message processing regardless of expec-tancy condition Thus the AAP and available research suggest that re-duced message processing will result after a source disconfirms onersquosexpectations about the position he or she will take compared to when asource confirms onersquos expectations

DISCONFIRMATION LEADING TO SURPRISEAND INCREASED PROCESSING

Although the conceptual rationale and the empirical evidence for re-duced message processing resulting from disconfirmation of source-po-sition expectancies are clear this effect is somewhat surprising given awide variety of research in persuasion and other domains suggestingthat violation of expectancies often leads to surprise and enhanced infor-mation processing compared to confirmation of expectancies For exam-ple Maheswaran and Chaiken (1991) found greater message processingwhen the quality of the message contrasted with the expected messagequality Similarly Baker and Petty (1994) found evidence that people ex-pect the majority of others to agree with their position (and the minorityof others to oppose it) When this expectation was violated recipients

420 PETTY ET AL

were surprised and engaged in greater message scrutiny In additionSmith and Petty (1995) showed that people who received a positivelyframed message when they expected to receive a negatively framedmessage (or vice versa) showed increased message processing com-pared to conditions in which people received the message they ex-pected All of these studies have shown that an unexpected message canlead to greater message processing presumably due to increased sur-prise after disconfirmation (Petty 1997)

Outside of the persuasion domain other research on expectancy ef-fects has also revealed that expectancy disconfirmation can produce in-creased information processing For example research on causalattribution (eg Pyszczynski amp Greenberg 1981 Wong amp Weiner1981) and on impression formation (eg Fiske amp Neuberg 1990Hastie 1984 Srull amp Wyer 1989) has found that perceivers engage inincreased effortful processing after their expectations are disconfirmed(see Olson Roese amp Zanna 1996 Stangor amp McMillan 1992 for re-views) Thus various persuasion and non-persuasion findings of ex-pectancy disconfirmation leading to increased effortful processingstand in stark contrast to the AAP hypothesis and findings of reducedmessage processing when a source-position expectancy isdisconfirmed

NECESSARY CONDITION FOR REDUCED PROCESSINGENHANCED TRUSTWORTHINESS

Why has the prior literature on source-position expectancies shown thatconfirmation of expectancies produces greater information processingwhereas other research on expectancies demonstrated thatdisconfirmation of expectancies produces greater information process-ing One possibility is that in the paradigms used to test source-positionexpectanciesmdashfrom the earliest studies (eg Walster et al 1966) to themost recent (eg Priester amp Petty 1995) and all in between (eg Eagly etal 1981) mdash the disconfirming source has always violated self-interest inthe position taken Thus disconfirmation of expectancies about thesourcersquos position is always confounded with violation of the sourcersquosself-interest For example when a politician speaks in favor of stricterenvironmental protection laws to factory owners the politician is actingagainst his or her own vested interest in obtaining votes as well asdisconfirming expectancies When violation of self-interest occurs thereis a ready interpretation for the violation The source is particularlytrustworthy This analysis suggests that reduced information process-ing is not invariably the result of a violation of source-position expec-tancy What would occur if a source took a position that violated

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 421

expectations but was not readily attributable to enhanced trustworthi-ness1

Consider a source who takes an unexpected position in violation of hisor her grouprsquos interest rather than his or her individual interest This posi-tion should be surprising since people generally expect others to be loyalto groups to which they belong (see Platow OrsquoConnell Shave ampHanning 1995 Platow Hoar Reid Harley amp Morrison 1997 Wenzel ampMummendey 1996) However unlike violation of individual self-inter-est it is not clear that a person who violates his or her grouprsquos interestswould be seen as trustworthy Although there is some aspect of selfless-ness in going against onersquos grouprsquos interests there is also some disloyaltyinvolved As Kramer Brewer and Hanna (1996) argued shared groupidentities help define bounded communities of mutual trust Thuswhereas violation of individual self-interest is admired and producestrust a person who violates group interest can be seen as disloyal and un-trustworthy because looking out for onersquos grouprsquos best interest is one as-pect of group loyalty (Brewer amp Silver 2000) So although a source whoviolates the grouprsquos interests can be viewed positively (eg as unbiased ortrustworthy because he or she is going against group and self-interest) heor she can also be viewed negatively as a bad group member or as dis-loyal Thus perceivers may have two conflicting reactions on the same di-mension (ie trustworthiness) toward the source who violates his or herown grouprsquos interest Similarly unlike confirmation of individual self-in-terest it is not clear that a person who confirms his or her grouprsquos interestswould be seen as untrustworthy Although a source who confirms thegrouprsquos interests can be viewed negatively (eg as biased because he orshe is acting to enhance group and self-interest) he or she can also beviewed positively as a good group member or loyal This greater variabil-ity in interpreting both group interest conditions should lead to an attenu-ation or elimination of differences in perceived trustworthiness betweengroup interest confirmation and disconfirmation In sum violations ofsource-positionexpectancies based on group interest should produce sur-prise without any accompanying augmentation of the sourcersquos trustwor-thiness Because of this violation of group interest might lead to enhancedinformation processing activity

The differential consequences of violating group versus individualself-interest on source attributions information processing or persuasion

422 PETTY ET AL

1 In the persuasion studies finding that disconfirmation of expectancies leads to en-hanced processing there is no individual source who violates expectancies For examplein Baker and Petty (1994) the participants are simply told that a majority or minority ofpeople favors a particular position This general information can violate expectancies ornot but no individual source violates expectancies

have not been investigated previously The present research aims to ad-dress these issues because the group interest case may provide an initialboundary condition to the previously identified and consistent effects ofsource-positionexpectancy disconfirmationBased upon (1) the clear dif-ferences in perceived selfishness and trustworthiness across the individ-ual interest confirmation versus disconfirmation conditions and (2) theattributional ambiguity under group interest disconfirmation and confir-mation conditions (see Snyder amp Wicklund 1981) we predicted thatsource perception differences in perceived trustworthiness between con-firmation and disconfirmation of expectancies would be larger when ex-pectancies were based on individual interest versus group interest Thatis although past research has shown that disconfirmation of individualself-interest expectancies leads to enhanced perceptions of source trust-worthiness relative to confirmation (eg Priester amp Petty 1995 Walster etal 1966) we expected that this difference would be attenuated or absentwith disconfirmation of group interest expectancies relative to confirma-tion Nevertheless both types of expectancy disconfirmation should beviewed as surprising relative to confirmation

Our first study was designed to evaluate the differences in perceptions ofsource trustworthiness surprise and attributional ambiguity across the in-dividual and group expectancy bases This experiment sought to replicatepast findings of attributional effects of self-interest (dis)confirmation andto extend the analysis to violations of group interest In a second study weinvestigated the effect of violations of source-position expectancies basedon group interest on message processing and persuasion Specifically wetested whether group interest expectancy disconfirmation leads to in-creased or decreased message processing relative to confirmation

EXPERIMENT ONE

OVERVIEW

In this study students read a brief scenario in which expectancies basedupon a sourcersquos self-interest or a sourcersquos grouprsquos interest were estab-lished and then either confirmed or disconfirmed by the position takenin a brief message summary To evaluate participantsrsquo source percep-tions based solely upon message position the message summary onlystated the position taken by the source without any supporting argu-ments After reading the short summary participants responded toitems measuring their perceptions of the source their surprise about theposition taken and their attributions for the position taken

The scenario opening paragraph stated that a specific person (or a spe-cific group) should receive a university scholarship Expectancies wereconfirmed when the sourcersquos position either advocated that the source

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 423

himself (ldquoBill Johnstonrdquo) or a group to which the source belonged (ldquomi-nority studentsrdquo) should receive the scholarship Expectancies weredisconfirmed when the essay advocated that either another person(ldquoDavid Matthewsrdquo) or a group to which the writer did not belong(ldquochildren of alumnirdquo) should receive the scholarship

These materials were designed to allow for a conceptual replication ofAAP work in the self-interest conditions and still allow a feasible varia-tion for the group interest conditions The expectancy manipulation wasmodeled after the AAP work (eg Eagly et al 1978) in that situationalconstraints led to expectations about the position the source would takeWe chose the groups ldquominority studentsrdquo and ldquochildren of alumnirdquo be-cause (1) both seemed to be reasonable groups to receive a scholarshipand (2) these groups were both ldquoascribedrdquo (Ashmore amp Del Boca 1979)to group members (the group members would either always belong tothe group or would never belong to the group) Thus it was clear in thegroup interest conditions that the position taken in the essay either bene-fited or potentially harmed the sourcersquos own group

METHOD

PARTICIPANTS

Sixty-six White students at Ohio State University (OSU) who were notchildren of OSU alumni participated in partial fulfillment of require-ments in an introductory psychology course The fact that participantswho were from racial minorities or children of alumni were not includedensures that the participants were non-invested parties

DESIGN

Participants were assigned to the cells of a 2 (Expectancy basis individ-ual interest group interest ) acute 2 (Expectancy confirmationdisconfirmation) between-participants factorial design In addition ameasure of NC (Cacioppo Petty amp Kao 1984)was taken as it has moder-ated prior work on expectancy violations (eg Priester amp Petty 1995Smith amp Petty 1995)

PROCEDURE

Sessions were conducted in groups of two to seven Upon arrival partic-ipants were given experimental booklets that contained the followinginformation The first page of the booklet described the study as part ofan ldquoessay writing-evaluation projectrdquo Although specific instructions

424 PETTY ET AL

differed across expectancy basis conditions (see below) general instruc-tions informed participants that they would be given and would be eval-uating the introductory paragraph of a sample essay ldquotaken from a poolof letters sent to the Office of Student Affairs at the University of IowardquoThe letters were described as pertaining to a planned university scholar-ship program that could only be offered to a limited number of studentsEssays were described as having been solicited to help decide whoshould receive the scholarship In addition participants were informedthat they would be given some demographic information about thewriter of the essay The participantsrsquo task was to form an impressionabout the writer and to evaluate the writing in the essay

The remaining pages of the experimental booklet contained in order(1) a demographic sheet about the writer (2) the essay introductory para-graph (3) the dependent variables and manipulation checks (4) the NCscale and (5) a participant demographic sheet After all participants in agroup had completed the booklets they were debriefed and excused

INDEPENDENT VARIABLES

Basis of Expectancy The basis of the expectancy (individual or groupinterest) was manipulated by varying both the initial instructions andthe essay introductoryparagraph In addition to the general instructionsdescribed above the first page of the booklet stated either that ldquoonly onestudent will receive the scholarshiprdquo (individual interest condition) orthat ldquoonly members of one group will receive the scholarshiprdquo (groupinterest condition) The essay paragraphs were also either described assolicited to help decide ldquowho should receive this scholarshiprdquo or ldquowhichgroup should receive these scholarshipsrdquo

Expectancy ConfirmationDisconfirmation Expectancies about the posi-tion to be taken were created by manipulating the instructions on thefirst page of the booklet and the source demographic sheet on the secondpage The expectancy confirmation or disconfirmationwas manipulatedthrough the content of the essay introductory paragraph on the thirdpage of the booklet

In the group interest conditions the initial instructions stated that es-says were solicited to help decide which one group should receive thescholarship In addition the demographic sheet on the writer providedinformation about the writerrsquos race and his parentsrsquo educational back-ground (among other information such as the writerrsquos name age sexuniversity year in school major hometown and hobbies) This infor-mation was held constant across all conditions The writer ldquoBillJohnstonrdquo was described as Black and his parents were not alumni fromhis university

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 425

The expectancy-confirming introductory paragraph for the group in-terest expectancy was

All students who are of racial minority status should qualify for the univer-sity scholarship program that would enable them to attend school withouthaving to pay tuition Although this means that the other equally-deservinggroups being considered (including children of alumni) will have to paytheir own tuition I believe that minority students are the most worthygroup based upon the following reasons

Thus in the group interest confirmation condition the source a Blackmale took the expected position in favor of his group The expec-tancy-disconfirming introductory paragraph for the group interest ex-pectancy was identical to the confirming paragraph except thatanother group (ldquochildren of alumnirdquo) was switched with ldquominoritystudentsrdquo so that the paragraph stated that ldquoalthough this means thatthe other equally-deserving groups being considered (including mi-nority students) will have to pay their own tuition I believe that chil-dren of alumnirdquo Thus in the group interest disconfirmationcondition the Black source took the unexpected position in favor of an-other group

In the individual interest conditions the expectancy was establishedin the initial instructions that only one student would receive the schol-arship Thus the student submitting an essay would be expected towrite that he should receive the scholarship To strengthen this expec-tancy the essay writer was also described as one of the scholarship pro-gram finalists The writer demographic information was identical to thegroup interest information

The expectancy-confirming introductory paragraph for the individ-ual interest expectancy was

I should qualify for the university scholarship program that would enableme to attend school without having to pay tuition Although this means thatthe other equally-deserving finalists will have to pay their own tuition I be-lieve that I am most deserving based upon the following reasons

Thus in this condition the source took the expected position in favor ofhimself The expectancy-disconfirming introductory paragraph for theindividual interest expectancy was identical to the confirming para-graph except that another personrsquos name (ldquoDavid Matthewsrdquo) was sub-stituted for ldquoIrdquo in the appropriate places Thus in this condition the

426 PETTY ET AL

source violated individual self-interest and took an unexpected positionin favor of someone else

Need for Cognition Scale After responding to the other measures par-ticipants completed the NC scale (Cacioppo et al 1984) High and lowNC participants were determined by a median split on the scale with themedian equaling 635 (scores ranged from 26 to 86)

DEPENDENT VARIABLES

Surprise Ratings After participants read the essay introductory para-graph they were asked to answer all questions without looking back atprevious pages On the page immediately following the essay introduc-tory paragraph participants were asked several general questions tomeasure their ldquooverall reaction to the writerrsquos choice of essay topicrdquo As acheck on whether expectancy violation was surprising participants re-sponded on a 7-point scale ranging from -3 = ldquonot at all surprisedrdquo to +3= ldquovery surprisedrdquo regarding how surprised they were about thewriterrsquos choice of essay topic

Source Trustworthiness Measures After evaluating the essay topicparticipants were asked for their opinions about the essay writer be-cause ldquoevaluations of the essay introductory paragraph might havebeen influenced by your attitude about the writerrdquo Participants wereasked to rate the writer on several positivenegative trait semanticdifferential scales These 7-point scales ranged from -3 to +3 Sourcetrustworthiness was measured with three scales (untrustworthytrustworthy insinceresincere dishonesthonest) which were pre-sented with other positivenegative source traits serving as filler items(eg coldwarm close-mindedopen-minded unlikeablelikeable)

Open-Ended Attributional Processing On the next page participantswere asked to write down the reasons why they thought that the studentchose to write his essay The number of trait attributions listed wascounted by a coder blind to conditions More traits were expected to belisted for individual versus group interest conditions In addition to as-sess the specific trait attributions of selfish and selfless the number of di-rect mentions ofsource ldquoselfishnessrdquo and ldquoselflessnessrdquo were alsotallied

Manipulation Checks and Participant Demographic Sheet To ensure thatparticipants were aware of the source information that created the ex-pectancy a recognition test of the source demographic information wasgiven after the other measures were completed The two importantquestions concerned the sourcersquos race and the sourcersquos parentsrsquo educa-

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 427

tional background2 The final page of the experimental booklet was aparticipant demographic sheet so that we could establish which partici-pants were minority students and which were children of alumni

RESULTS

All dependent variables were submitted to a 2 (Expectancy basis individ-ual interest group interest ) acute 2 (Expectancy confirmationdisconfirmation)acute 2 (Need for cognition high low)between-participantsanalysis of variance

SOURCE TRUSTWORTHINESS

The three scales designed to measure trustworthiness were highlyintercorrelated (Cronbachrsquos a = 74)and thus were averaged to form a trust-worthiness index This index wassubmitted to the three-wayANOVA Theonly significant effect obtained was the predicted interaction between Basisand Expectancy F(158) = 755 p lt 01 To interpret this interaction simpleeffects tests were conducted separately for individual and group interestexpectancies For individual interest conditionsa simple main effect for ex-pectancy was found F(132) = 478 p lt 04 Replicating previous research(eg Priester amp Petty 1995) when the source disconfirmed individual in-teresthe wasrated asmore trustworthy(M = 186)than when he confirmedindividual interest (M = 083) However for group interest conditions nodifference between expectancy disconfirmation (M = 087) and confirma-tion (M = 136) conditions was found F(130) = 158 p = 22

SURPRISE RATINGS

Two main effects were obtained on the surprise scale First as expectedparticipants were more surprised in the expectancy disconfirmation (M= 184)than in the confirmation conditions (M = -039) F(158)= 3047p lt0001 The other significant result was a main effect for expectancy basisRegardless of whether expectancies were confirmed or disconfirmedparticipants found the individual interest messages more surprising (M= 131)than the group interest messages (M = 015) F(158)= 825p lt 01

428 PETTY ET AL

2 On the source memory manipulation check two participants erred on the alumni sta-tus of the writerrsquos parents and no one erred on the writerrsquos race When these participantsare removed from analyses results are the same as those reported

The Basis acute Expectancy interaction was not significant F (158)= 215p =153 Thus as predicted it appears that participants were more surprisedafter expectancy disconfirmation than confirmation regardless ofwhether the expectancy was based upon the sourcersquos individual orgroup interest

OPEN-ENDED ATTRIBUTIONAL PROCESSING

Analyses of the number of trait attributions participants listed in theiropen-ended responses revealed a main effect for Expectancy BasisF(157) = 1188 p lt 01 Specifically participants explained the tar-getrsquos actions using more trait terms in the individual interest condi-tions (M = 114 traits per participant) than in the group interestconditions (M = 32) suggesting that a clear attribution was easier tomake in the individual than group interest conditions One specifictrait thought to differ between individual self-interest and group in-terest was perceived selfishnessselflessness Thus the percentagesof participants who referred to selfishness or selflessness were com-pared across expectancy basis 303 of participants in the individ-ual conditions mentioned selfishnessselflessness (participantsmentioned either selfishness or selflessness not both) whereas 0 ofparticipants in the group conditions mentioned this trait c2(1) =1146 p lt 001 To evaluate the numbers of references to selfishnessve r su s se l f l e ss n e ss ac ro ss e xp e ct an c y co n f i rm at io n an ddisconfirmation separate analyses were conducted for the individ-ual conditions only (since there were no mentions of these traits inthe group conditions) For mentions of selflessness 389 ofdisconfirmation (ie low self-interest) condition participants men-tioned this trait (or synonyms) whereas 0 of participants in theconfirmation (ie high self-interest) condition mentioned selfless-ness c2(1) = 740 p lt 007 For mentions of selfishness (or synonyms)20 of participants in the confirmation condition mentioned thistrait whereas 0 of participants in the disconfirmation conditionmentioned it c2(1)= 396 p lt05 It appears that participants weremore likely to attribute the sourcersquos choice of message position to a

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 429

3 We also conducted separate simple effects tests for the individual and group interestconditions to determine if the simple main effect for expectancy held These analyses con-firmed that effects for expectancy occurred in both the individual interest F(132)= 838plt 006 (Means Confirmed = 049Disconfirmed = 213)and group interest F(130)= 2701plt 0001 (Means Confirmed = -126 Disconfirmed = 156) conditions

personality trait (especially to selfishnessselflessness) when thesourcersquos position was relevant to self-interest rather than relevant to hisgrouprsquos interest

We also expected that the differential perceptions of source selfish-ness in the individual conditions would correspond to the greater per-ceived source trustworthiness under expectancy disconfirmation thanconfirmation To evaluate this prediction the correlations between ref-erences to selfishness (and selflessness) and the source trustworthinessratings were computed As predicted in the individual conditionstrustworthiness and mentions of selfishness were significantly nega-tively correlated r = -42 p lt 02 In addition trustworthiness and men-tions of selflessness were significantly positively correlated r = 36 p lt05

DISCUSSION

In this study we found different effects of expectancy disconfirmationon source perceptions for expectancies based on individual versusgroup interest As predicted trustworthiness attributions varied onlywhen the expectancy was based upon the sourcersquos individual self-inter-est Thus our individual interest expectancy conditions were consistentwith prior theory and research (eg Eagly et al 1978 Priester amp Petty1995) in that the source was perceived as more trustworthy when hewent against his own self-interest than when he wrote in favor of hisself-interest More importantly we found a condition under whichsource-position expectancy confirmation and disconfirmation did notmake a difference for trustworthiness attributions mdash when the expec-tancy was based upon group membership and group interest Resultsfrom the open-ended responses suggest that this attenuation mayhave been due to the greater attributional ambiguity when group in-terest rather than individual interest was concerned Thus Experi-me n t 1 ou t l in e s a b ou nda ry co n dit ion fo r th e ef fe c ts ofdisconfirmation of source-position expectancy on perceptions oftrustworthiness suggesting that taking an unexpected position doesnot invariably lead to perceptions of enhanced source trustworthi-ness

In addition consistent with previous expectancy disconfirmationwork (eg Baker amp Petty 1994) participants were more surprised whenexpectancies were disconfirmed than confirmed More importantly thisinvestigation extends this work by suggesting that individuals are moresurprised when an individual source takes a position that disconfirms

430 PETTY ET AL

rather than confirms expectancies regardless of whether the position vi-olates either individual or group interest4

EXPERIMENT TWO

Experiment 2 was designed to investigate the implications of the find-ings of Experiment 1 regarding the effects of disconfirmation of groupinterest for message processing Specifically we tested the predictionthat disconfirmation of a source-position expectancy that does not aug-ment perceived source trustworthiness (ie violation of group interest)will lead to increased rather than reduced message scrutiny Past re-search has already shown that reduced message scrutiny results whenindividual self-interest expectancy disconfirmation leads to enhancedperceptions of source trustworthinessand message validity (Eagly et al1978 Priester amp Petty 1995 Wood amp Eagly 1981) Because a source whoviolates group interest is not seen as more trustworthy but is more sur-prising we anticipate that group interest expectancy disconfirmation

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 431

4 Before conducting Study 2 one potential concern with the operationalization ofgroup interest expectancies in Study 1 was evaluated Specifically our group interest con-firmation condition had scholarships for ldquominority studentsrdquo as its topic whereas thetopic in the disconfirmation condition was about ldquochildren of alumnirdquo The groups ldquomi-nority studentsrdquo and ldquochildren of alumnirdquo are not equivalent and might show different ef-fects for reasons unrelated to expectancy violation For example it might be moresurprising for any source to advocate scholarships for alumni than for minorities To re-move this potential confound and use both topics in the expectancy confirming anddisconfirming cases we conducted a study to replicate conceptually our group interestfindings with both groups Source demographics were varied such that the source was ei-ther Black and not a child of alumni or White and a child of alumni A second minorchange was made in the essay topic mdash rather than a scholarship programthe programwasdescribed as a ldquouniversity service programrdquo that would allow participants free tuition Themessage either advocated that this program should be for children of alumni or for minor-ity students (see Experiment 2 for details)

Forty-eight individuals participated in this 2 (Source Black student of non alumni par-ents White student of alumni parents)acute 2 (Expectancy confirmation disconfirmation) be-tween-participants design In this study expectancy confirmationdisconfirmation wasalways on a group interest basis Participants received the demographic information andintroductory essay paragraph and then completed measures of surprise and source trust-worthiness In this revised version our manipulation of expectancy confirma-tiondisconfirmation was effective in producing surprise as participants weresignificantly more surprised after disconfirmation (M = 067) than after confirmation (M =-204) F(144) = 3438 p lt 0001 Furthermore replicating the group interest conditions inStudy 1 no significant effects were found on the source trustworthiness index As ex-pected participants did not view the disconfirming source as any more trustworthy (M =142) than the confirming source (M = 138) Neither of these effects was qualified by thesource That is Black students favoring alumni and White alumni favoring minority stu-dents were both more surprising than favoring onersquos own group

will lead to enhanced information processing compared to group inter-est expectancy confirmation as has been found in other work on expec-tancies (eg Baker amp Petty 1994Maheswaran amp Chaiken 1991Smith ampPetty 1995) To assess the extent to which the persuasive message wasscrutinized participants were presented with messages containing ei-ther all strong or all weak arguments In general the attitudes of partici-pants who are thinking about the message carefully should be moreaffected by message quality (ie they should be more persuaded bystrong than weak arguments) compared to participants who are notthinking about the message carefully (see Petty Wells amp Brock 1976Petty amp Cacioppo 1986)

METHOD

PARTICIPANTS

Two hundred eighty-eight White students who were not children ofOSU alumni participated in this study in partial completion of introduc-tory psychology course requirements As in Experiment 1 minority par-ticipants and children of alumni were not included in the analyses

DESIGN

Participants were assigned to the cells of a 2 (Source Black non-alum-nus child White alumnus child) acute 2 (Group interest expectancy con-firmed disconfirmed) acute 2 (Argument quality strong weak)between-participants factorial design (see footnote 4) As in Experiment1 a measure of NC was taken

PROCEDURE

Experimental sessions were conducted with groups ranging in size fromtwo to eight Upon arrival participants were given experimental book-lets that contained the following information The first page of the book-let described the study as part of a ldquojournalism writing-evaluationprojectrdquo in which participants would be given a newspaper article writ-ten by a student from another Big Ten university They were also toldthat they would be given some demographic information about the au-thor of the article The participantsrsquo task was to form an impression of thewriter and to evaluate the writing in the article itself Participants werethen given a summary of the message topic mdash that a tuition break pro-gram should be instituted at the University of Iowa The baseline level ofmessage scrutiny for this personally irrelevant message was expected to

432 PETTY ET AL

be relatively low (see Petty amp Cacioppo 1979 1990) The remainingpages of the booklet contained (1) a demographic sheet about the writer(2) the article (containing the persuasive message) (3) the dependentvariables and manipulation checks (4) the NC scale and (5) the partici-pant demographic sheet After all participants in a group had completedthe booklets they were debriefed and excused

INDEPENDENT VARIABLES

Source On the second page of the booklet participants were given ademographic sheet about the writer This page contained informationabout the writerrsquos age sex university year in school major hometownhobby race and parentsrsquo educational background (in this order) Infor-mation about the source remained the same in all conditions except forrace and parentsrsquo educational background The manipulation of sourcewas accomplished by varying jointly the race and the parentsrsquo univer-sity which was either BlackUniversity of Minnesota (ie minorityparents were not alumni of Iowa) or WhiteUniversity of Iowa (ienon-minority parents were alumni of Iowa) This manipulation pro-vided an internal replication of group interest disconfirmation effects onpersuasion (see footnote 4 for a pretest of the effects of this manipulationon source perceptions and surprise)

Group Interest Expectancy ConfirmationDisconfirmation The expe c-tancy manipulation was accomplished by the combination of the mes-sage source and message topic Participants were provided with a briefsummary of the message topic before they read the full persuasive mes-sage to create the expectancy confirmation or disconfirmation in ad-vance of the persuasion attempt Participants were informed that thearticle they would be evaluating was about one of the following topicsldquoStudents who are children of alumni (ie their parents graduated fromthe same university that the student attends) should be allowed to par-ticipate in a two year university service program that would allow themto attend school without having to pay tuitionrdquo Or ldquoStudents who are ofracial minority status should be allowed to participate in a two year uni-versity service program that would allow them to attend school withouthaving to pay tuitionrdquo

Thus expectancy confirmation resulted when the source wrote in fa-vor of his own group participating in this program and expectancydisconfirmation resulted when the source wrote in favor of a group towhich he did not belong

Argument Quality On the next pages of the booklet participants re-ceived the persuasive message The message contained either the strong

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 433

or weak arguments from Baker and Petty (1994 Study 2) The argumentsin the message were pretested such that the strong arguments elicitedprimarily positive thoughts and the weak arguments elicited primarilynegative thoughts when pretest participants were instructed to thinkabout them (see Baker amp Petty 1994 Study 2)

The persuasive message supported implementing a program in whichcertain students (either minority students or children of alumni) wouldbe eligible for tuition breaks in exchange for participating in a universityservice program The message arguments focused on the benefits of theuniversity service program for the university and for the students in-volved in the program For example one strong argument stressed thatwith the money saved through students performing various universityservices ldquoa greater portion of the university budget can be invested inmonetary incentives for research and teachingrdquo and ldquofunding will beavailable to recruit additional outstanding professors researchers andNobel prize winnersrdquo However a parallel weak argument suggestedthat the additional monies available can be ldquospent on materials such aspaint for buildings new machinery for mowing and landscaping andplantings shrubbery flowers and treesrdquo in order to make the universityldquoa scenic and beautiful place to spend the college daysrdquo

Need for Cognition Scale Participants completed the need for cognitionscale (Cacioppo et al 1984)after responding to the other measures Highand low need for cognition participants were determined by a mediansplit on the scale with the median equaling 635 (scores ranged from 31 to85)

DEPENDENT VARIABLES

Argument Quality Manipulation Checks Immediately after participantsread the persuasive message they were asked to answer all questionswithout looking back at previous pages On the page immediately fol-lowing the essay participants were asked to rate ldquohow well was the arti-cle writtenrdquo and ldquohow persuasive were the argumentsrdquo on 9-pointscales ranging from 1 = ldquonot at allrdquo to 9 = ldquoextremelyrdquo These questionswere provided along with several filler questions (eg how clear wasthe writing style) designed to fit the cover story about evaluating the ar-ticle The first two questions served as manipulation checks for argu-ment quality

Attitude Measures On the next page participants read that ldquobecauseyour evaluations of the article might have been influenced by your atti-tude toward the article topic we would like to ask your opinions aboutthe topicrdquo Participants then completed two general attitude questionsand a five-item semantic differential scale The general questions were

434 PETTY ET AL

ldquoIn general what is your opinion about the university service pro-gramrdquo and ldquoHow would you feel about the implementation of the uni-versity service program here at Ohio State Universityrdquo These itemswere completed on 9-point scales ranging from 1 = ldquostrongly opposerdquo to9 = ldquostrongly favorrdquo On the five-item semantic differential scale partici-pants were asked ldquorate how you feel about the university service pro-gramrdquo Each semantic differential was completed on a 9-point scale Thescale anchors were unfavorablefavorable badgood foolishwiseharmfulbeneficial and unfairfair

Source Memory Manipulation Check and Participant Demographics Aftercompleting all other dependent measures participants completed thesource memory multiple choice questions and the participant demo-graphic sheet (as described in study 1)5

RESULTS

All dependent variables were submitted to a 2 (Group interest expec-tancy confirmation vs disconfirmation) acute 2 (Source Black non-alum-nus vs White alumnus ) acute 2 (Argument quality strong vs weak) acute 2(NC high vs low) between-participants analysis of variance

Argument Quality Manipulation Checks6 To determine if our manipu-lation of strong and weak arguments was effective participantsrsquo re-sponses to the two argument quality questions were averaged andsubmitted to the four-way ANOVA The expected main effect for argu-ment quality was obtained F(1271) = 1297 p lt 001 Messages contain-ing strong arguments were rated more positively (M = 589) than wereweak messages (M = 512)7

Attitude Measure The a coefficient for the attitude scales was 95 so thescales were averaged to form an overall index This index was subjected

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 435

5 On the source memory manipulation check one participant made an error on thewriterrsquos race and eleven participants erred on the alumni status of the writerrsquos parentsWhen these participants are removed from analyses results are the same as those re-ported

6 One participant did not complete this measure and thus was not included in the anal-ysis

7 A main effect of expectancy was also obtained F(1 271) = 680 p lt 01 suggesting thatparticipants in the disconfirmation conditions rated arguments more positively (M = 579)than did participants in the confirmation conditions (M = 523)In addition a need for cogni-tion acute expectancy interaction emerged F(1271)= 400 p lt 05 suggesting that whereas highNC individuals rated the quality of the arguments higher when the expectancy wasdisconfirmed (M = 590)than confirmed (M = 491)low NC individualsrsquo perceptions of argu-mentquality were notaffected by expectancy (Mdisconfirmed = 568Mconfirmed = 555)

to the four-way between-participants ANOVA First a main effect forargument quality was obtained F(1272) = 1104 p lt 01 indicating thatparticipants receiving strong arguments were more persuaded (M =549) than were those who received weak arguments (M = 474) Ofgreater interest the predicted expectancy acute argument quality interac-tion F(1272) = 579 p lt 02 qualified this main effect (see Figure 1)When expectancies were disconfirmed argument quality had a greaterimpact on attitudes than when expectancies were confirmed More spe-cifically under expectancy confirmation conditions argument qualityhad no impact on attitudes F(1139) = 42 ns However under expec-tancy disconfirmation conditions a simple main effect for argumentquality emerged F(1145) = 1854 p lt 0001

One additional effect that emerged consistent with past research(Priester amp Petty 1995 Smith amp Petty 1995) was a three-way interactionamong expectancy argument quality and need for cognition F(1272) =386 p lt 05 (see Table 2) Separate analyses for high and low need forcognition participants indicated that high NC participants (ie those in-dividuals who enjoy thinking) showed only a main effect for argumentquality F(1134) = 784 p lt 01 (the expectancy acute argument quality inter-action F lt 1 ns) suggesting that they engaged in effortful processing ofthe message regardless of whether expectancies were confirmed or

436 PETTY ET AL

FIGURE 1 Interaction on attitudes between group interest expectancy status and argu-ment quality

disconfirmed Low NC participants showed a main effect for argumentquality F(1146) = 419 p lt 05 along with an expectancy acute argumentquality interaction F(1146) = 1038 p lt 01 This interaction indicatedthat low NC participants did not differentiate between strong and weakarguments when their expectancies were confirmed but they did differ-entiate when their expectancies were disconfirmed8

GENERAL DISCUSSION

The present research expands our understanding of the consequences ofsources taking unexpected positions Based on prior research and the-ory one would have predicted that when a source takes an unexpectedposition greater attributions of trustworthiness and reduced informa-tion processing activity should result compared to when the sourcetakes an expected position The current studies suggest that this result is

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 437

TABLE 1 Mean Attitude Ratings as a Function of Group-Interest Expectancy Statusand Argument Quality (Experiment 2)

mdashmdashAttitudesmdashmdash

Argument Quality Confirmed Disconfirmed

Strong 504 (65) 594 (79)

SD = 187 SD = 170

Weak 483 (76) 465 (68)

SD = 197 SD = 209

Note Ns indicated in parentheses

8 A source acute expectancy interaction F(1272) = 528 p lt 03 was also obtained A maineffect for expectancy emerged in the Black non-alumnus source condition F(1136)= 840p lt 01 Thus participants had more positive attitudes toward the message when a minor-ity source wrote in favor of children of alumni receiving the tuition breaks (M = 562) thanwhen the minority source wrote in favor of breaks for minorities (M = 475) Attitudes inthe White alumnus source conditions did not differ between expectancy disconfirming (M= 496)and confirming conditions (M = 513)F lt 1 This unanticipated result could have oc-curred because Caucasian participants paid more attention to the position taken by theBlack than the White source resulting in their being more affected by those positions(Petty Fleming amp White 1999 White amp Harkens 1994) Future research could includeconditions where a Black source is an alumnus and a White source is a non-alumnus totease apart race from alumni effects Importantly our results indicated that participantsengaged in greater scrutiny of the arguments whichever source (black or white alumnusor non-alumnus) violated expectancies That is the significant two-way Expectancy acute Ar-gument quality interaction was not qualified by source nor was the significant three-wayExpectancy acute Argument quality acute Need for cognition interaction qualified by source

likely primarily when the position taken violates individual self-inter-est When the position is unexpected because it violates a grouprsquos inter-est the results are quite different That is in Experiment 1 we showedthat although both types of expectancy violation induce surprise onlythe violation of self-interest is associated with increased perceptions oftrustworthiness Violations of group interest do not engender the sameenhancements of trustworthiness Instead violations of group interestappear to produce some attributional ambiguity The surprise accompa-nied by unclear attributions as to the cause of a behavior would be ex-pected to lead to increased rather than decreased informationprocessing This is the effect we observed in Experiment 2

INTEGRATION INFORMATION PROCESSING CONSEQUENCESOF EXPECTANCY DISCONFIRMATION

The current framework seems potentially useful for reconciling seem-ingly inconsistent findings in the persuasion literature regarding the in-formation processing consequences of expectancy disconfirmation Tosummarize briefly if disconfirmation of expectancies leads to increasedperceptions of source trustworthiness or enhanced perceptions of mes-sage validity then message processing should decrease over confirma-tion conditions (Chaiken et al 1989 Petty amp Cacioppo 1986) On theother hand if disconfirmation of expectancies leads only to surprisecompared to confirmation conditions message processing should in-crease In past research disconfirmations of expectancies about messagequality (Maheswaran amp Chaiken 1991) message framing (Smith ampPetty 1995) and whether a majority or minority of others hold a pro- orcounterattitudinal position (Baker amp Petty 1994) did not violate self-in-terest and thus should not lead to perceptions of source trustworthinessor message validity In each case recipients are simply left surprised by

438 PETTY ET AL

TABLE 2 Mean Attitude Ratings as a Function of Group-Interest Expectancy StatusArgument Quality and Participantsrsquo Need for Cognition Level (Experiment 2)

mdashmdashAttitudesmdashmdash

High Need for Cognition Low Need for Cognition

Argument Quality Confirmed Disconfirmed Confirmed Disconfirmed

Strong 508 (33) 580 (37) 500 (32) 607 (42)

SD = 204 SD = 156 SD = 170 SD = 182

Weak 432 (37) 484 (31) 535 (39) 445 (37)

SD = 202 SD = 200 SD = 181 SD = 217

Note Ns indicated in parentheses

the disconfirmation of expectancies and they engage in greater informa-tion processing activity presumably to resolve the violation of expecta-tions and re-establish their understanding of the topic or source at hand(Olson et al 1996)

It is somewhat ironic that the earliest work on expectancies in persua-sion (Eagly amp Chaiken 1975Eagly et al 1978Walster et al 1966 Woodamp Eagly 1981) focused on the one type of expectation (ie source-posi-tion expectancy based on personal self-interest) that produced an appar-ent exception to the subsequently emergent general rule thatdisconfirmation of expectancies enhances processing The current re-search is the first to show that violations of expectancies about the posi-tion a source will take can lead to enhanced information processing Thiswas accomplished by shifting the expectation from one based on self-in-terest alone to group interest

In examining this framework it is important to keep the theoreticalvariables in mind that underlie our integration That is when a sourceviolates expectancies a number of inferences are possible An expec-tancy disconfirmation can enhance perceptions of source trustworthi-ness or message validity (and thus decrease message processing) and itcan also affect surprise (and thus increase message processing) butwhen surprise alone occurs enhanced information processing occursWhen both occur it appears that perceptions of message validity reducemessage processing despite the increased surprise

For self- and group interest expectancy violations to occur at least twofactors seem necessary a perception that some self- or group interest isinvolved and an expectation that individuals will act in accordancewiththat interest A perception of self- or group interest may not always bepresent For example an aggregate of individuals which is notentitative enough (they do not form a coherent whole) may not be per-ceived as having a common group interest in the first place (Campbell1958Hamilton amp Sherman 1996Hamilton Sherman amp Lickel 1998) Insuch cases there would be no group interest to violate Even when self-or group interest is perceived however violations of them may not al-ways cause expectancy disconfirmationsFor example in some culturesself-interest violation may be expected rather than unexpected and thussuch violations would not be expected to lead to increased perceptionsof trustworthinessbecause people are more likely to make dispositionalattributions for behaviors that are unexpected (Jones amp Davis 1965)Likewise for some groups or issues group interest violation may also beexpected such as when the group is clearly undeserving and in those in-stances violation of group interest would not be expected to lead to sur-prise

Future work could examine these possibilities as well as explore sev-eral remaining issues For example although we compared individual

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 439

versus group interest violations on perceptions of trustworthiness andsurprise together in Study 1 we did not directly compare the effects ofthese two types of expectancy violations on information processing andpersuasion This was because the effects of individual self-interest viola-tion on information processing and persuasion seemed clear from priorresearch Nevertheless it would be prudent to examine the effects of in-dividual- versus group interest confirmation versus disconfirmation oninformation processing in the same study In addition our hypothesisthat surprise and attributional ambiguity mediate the increased process-ing resulting from group interest violations should be directly tested byassessing the mediators in the same study as the outcome variables

The current research and framework suggest that it is important toconsider that expectancies in persuasion contexts can be developedupon multiple bases such as on prior knowledge of a personrsquos past be-haviors a personrsquos group membership or human behavior in generalAs shown in our experiments the basis of the expectancy can make animportant difference in the outcome of disconfirmation on source per-ception and on subsequent information processing and persuasion

REFERENCES

Ashmore R D amp Del Boca F K (1979) Sex stereotypes and implicit personality theoriesToward a cognitive-social psychological conceptualization Sex Roles 5 219-248

Baker S M amp Petty R E (1994) Majority and minority influence Source-position imbal-ance as a determinant of message scrutiny Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy 67 5-19

Brewer M B amp Silver M D (2000) Group distinctiveness social identification and col-lective mobilization In S Stryker T J Owens amp R W White (Eds) Self Identityand Social Movements (pp 153-171) Minneapolis MN University of MinnesotaPress

Cacioppo J T amp Petty R E (1982) The need for cognition Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 42 116-131

Cacioppo J T Petty R E amp Kao C (1984)The efficient assessment of need for cognitionJournal of Personality Assessment 48 306-307

Campbell D T (1958) Common fate similarity and other indices of the status of aggre-gates as social entities Behavioral Science 3 14-25

Chaiken S Liberman A amp Eagly A H (1989) Heuristic and systematic processingwithin and beyond the persuasion context In J S Uleman amp J A Bargh (Eds) Un-intended thought (pp 212-252) New York Guilford Press

Eagly A H amp Chaiken S (1975) An attribution analysis of the effect of communicatorcharacteristics on opinion change The case of communicator attractiveness Journalof Personality and Social Psychology 32 136-144

Eagly A H Chaiken S amp Wood W (1981)An attribution analysis of persuasion In J HHarvey W J Ickes amp R F Kidd (Eds) New directions in attribution research (Vol 3pp 37-62) Hillsdale NJ Erlbaum

Eagly A H Wood W amp Chaiken S (1978) Causal inferences about communicators and

440 PETTY ET AL

their effects on opinion change Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36424-435

Fiske S T amp Neuberg S L (1990) A continuum of impression formation from cate-gory-based to individuating processes Influences of information and motivationon attention and interpretation In M P Zanna (Ed) Advances in experimental socialpsychology (Vol 23 pp 1-74) San Diego Academic Press

Hamilton DL amp Sherman S J (1996) Perceiving persons and groups Psychological Re-view 103 336-355

Hamilton DL Sherman S J amp Lickel B (1998) Perceiving social groups The impact ofthe entitativity continuum In C Sedikides J Schopler amp C A Insko (Eds) Inter-group cognitions and intergroup behavior (pp 47-74) Mahwah NJ Erlbaum

Hastie R (1984) Causes and effects of causal attribution Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 37 25-38

Jones E E amp Davis K E (1965) From acts to dispositions The attribution process in per-son perception In L Berkowitz (Ed) Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol2 pp 219-266) New York Academic Press

Kramer R M Brewer M B amp HannaB (1996)Collective trust and collective action Thedecision to trust as a social decision In R Kramer amp T Tyler (Eds) Trust in organiza-tions (pp 357-389) Thousand Oakes CA Sage

Maheswaran D amp Chaiken S (1991) Promoting systematic processing in low-motiva-tion settings Effects of incongruent information on processing and judgment Jour-nal of Personality and Social Psychology 61 13-33

Olson J M Roese N J amp Zanna M P (1996) Expectancies In E T Higgins amp A WKruglanski (Eds) Social psychology Handbook of basic principles (pp 211-238) NewYork Guilford Press

Petty R E (1997) The evolution of theory and research in social psychology From singleto multiple effect and process models In C McGarty amp S A Haslam (Eds) The mes-sage of social psychologyPerspectives on mind in society (pp 268-290)Oxford EnglandBlackwell Publishers Ltd

Petty R E amp Cacioppo J T (1979)Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasionby enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 37 1915-1926

Petty R E amp Cacioppo J T (1986) Communication and persuasion Central and peripheralroutes to attitude change New York Springer-Verlag

Petty R E amp Cacioppo J T (1990) Involvement and persuasion Tradition versus inte-gration Psychological Bulletin 107 367-374

Petty R E Fleming M A amp White P H (1999) Stigmatized sources and persuasionPrejudice as a determinant of argument scrutiny Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology 76 19-34

Petty R E Wells G L amp Brock T C (1976)Distraction can enhance or reduce yielding topropaganda Thought disruption versus effort justification Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology 34 874-884

Platow M J HoarS Reid S Harley K amp Morrison D (1997)Endorsement of distribu-tively fair and unfair leaders in interpersonal and intergroup situations EuropeanJournal of Social Psychology 27 465-494

Platow M J OrsquoConnell A Shave R amp Hanning P (1995) Social evaluations of fair andunfair allocators in interpersonal and intergroup situations British Journal of SocialPsychology 34 363-381

Priester J R amp Petty R E (1995) Source attributions and persuasion Perceived honestyas a determinant of message scrutiny Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 21637-654

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 441

Pyszczynski T A amp Greenberg J (1981)Role of disconfirmed expectancies in the instiga-tion of attributional processing Journal of Personality and Social Psychology40 31-38

Smith S M amp Petty R E (1995) Personality moderators of mood congruency effects oncognition The role of self-esteem and negative mood regulation Journal of Personal-ity and Social Psychology 68 1092-1107

Snyder M L amp Wicklund R (1981)Attribute ambiguity In J H Harvey W Ickes amp R RKidd (Eds) New directions in attribution research (pp 197-221)New York Halsted

Srull T K amp Wyer R S Jr (1989)Person memory and judgment Psychological Review 9658-83

Stangor C amp McMillan D (1992)Memory for expectancy-congruent and expectancy-in-congruent social information A meta-analytic review of the social psychologicaland social developmental literatures Psychological Bulletin 111 42-61

Walster E Aronson E amp Abrahams D (1966)On increasing the persuasiveness of a lowprestige communicator Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 2 325-342

Wenzel M amp Mummendey A (1996) Positive-negative asymmetry of social discrimina-tion A normative analysis of differential evaluations of in-group and out-group onpositive and negative attributes British Journal of Social Psychology 35 493-507

White P H amp Harkens S G (1994) Race of source effects in the elaboration likelihoodmodel Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67 790-807

Wong P T P amp Weiner B (1981) When people ask ldquowhyrdquo questions and the heuristicsof attributional search Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 40 650-663

Wood W amp Eagly A H (1981) Stages in the analysis of persuasive messages The role ofcausal attributions and message comprehension Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 40 246-259

442 PETTY ET AL

Page 3: INDIVIDUAL VERSUS GROUP INTEREST VIOLATION: SURPRISE AS …

tiny of the message However when the source confirms expectanciesand the validity of the message is in doubt recipients need to assess themessage carefully prior to acceptance Specifically according to theAAP research and more recent dual route persuasion models (ie theelaboration likelihood model Petty amp Cacioppo 1986 the heuristicsys-tematic model Chaiken Liberman amp Eagly 1989) people are often mo-tivated to hold correct attitudes If they cannot be assured of accuracysuch as when the source is seen as untrustworthy greater message scru-tiny should occur as the recipient attempts ldquoto remove questions con-cerning message validityrdquo (Eagly et al 1981 p 56)

Priester and Petty (1995)found explicit support for one interesting im-plication of these propositions That is disconfirmation of expectanciesabout the position a source will take should be associated with less mes-sage processing than confirmation of expectancies In one study thequality of the arguments in the message was varied along with expectan-cies about a position a source would take Consistent with the AAPPriester and Petty (1995 Study 3) found that when a sourcedisconfirmed the expected message position perceptions of sourcetrustworthiness were enhanced and message processing (ie attitudedifferentiation between strong and weak messages Petty Wells ampBrock 1976) was reduced compared to conditions in which the sourcetook the expected position This processing effect was most apparent forindividuals who were not intrinsically motivated to thinkmdashthose recipi-ents who were low in need for cognition (NC Cacioppo amp Petty 1982)High NC participants showed message processing regardless of expec-tancy condition Thus the AAP and available research suggest that re-duced message processing will result after a source disconfirms onersquosexpectations about the position he or she will take compared to when asource confirms onersquos expectations

DISCONFIRMATION LEADING TO SURPRISEAND INCREASED PROCESSING

Although the conceptual rationale and the empirical evidence for re-duced message processing resulting from disconfirmation of source-po-sition expectancies are clear this effect is somewhat surprising given awide variety of research in persuasion and other domains suggestingthat violation of expectancies often leads to surprise and enhanced infor-mation processing compared to confirmation of expectancies For exam-ple Maheswaran and Chaiken (1991) found greater message processingwhen the quality of the message contrasted with the expected messagequality Similarly Baker and Petty (1994) found evidence that people ex-pect the majority of others to agree with their position (and the minorityof others to oppose it) When this expectation was violated recipients

420 PETTY ET AL

were surprised and engaged in greater message scrutiny In additionSmith and Petty (1995) showed that people who received a positivelyframed message when they expected to receive a negatively framedmessage (or vice versa) showed increased message processing com-pared to conditions in which people received the message they ex-pected All of these studies have shown that an unexpected message canlead to greater message processing presumably due to increased sur-prise after disconfirmation (Petty 1997)

Outside of the persuasion domain other research on expectancy ef-fects has also revealed that expectancy disconfirmation can produce in-creased information processing For example research on causalattribution (eg Pyszczynski amp Greenberg 1981 Wong amp Weiner1981) and on impression formation (eg Fiske amp Neuberg 1990Hastie 1984 Srull amp Wyer 1989) has found that perceivers engage inincreased effortful processing after their expectations are disconfirmed(see Olson Roese amp Zanna 1996 Stangor amp McMillan 1992 for re-views) Thus various persuasion and non-persuasion findings of ex-pectancy disconfirmation leading to increased effortful processingstand in stark contrast to the AAP hypothesis and findings of reducedmessage processing when a source-position expectancy isdisconfirmed

NECESSARY CONDITION FOR REDUCED PROCESSINGENHANCED TRUSTWORTHINESS

Why has the prior literature on source-position expectancies shown thatconfirmation of expectancies produces greater information processingwhereas other research on expectancies demonstrated thatdisconfirmation of expectancies produces greater information process-ing One possibility is that in the paradigms used to test source-positionexpectanciesmdashfrom the earliest studies (eg Walster et al 1966) to themost recent (eg Priester amp Petty 1995) and all in between (eg Eagly etal 1981) mdash the disconfirming source has always violated self-interest inthe position taken Thus disconfirmation of expectancies about thesourcersquos position is always confounded with violation of the sourcersquosself-interest For example when a politician speaks in favor of stricterenvironmental protection laws to factory owners the politician is actingagainst his or her own vested interest in obtaining votes as well asdisconfirming expectancies When violation of self-interest occurs thereis a ready interpretation for the violation The source is particularlytrustworthy This analysis suggests that reduced information process-ing is not invariably the result of a violation of source-position expec-tancy What would occur if a source took a position that violated

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 421

expectations but was not readily attributable to enhanced trustworthi-ness1

Consider a source who takes an unexpected position in violation of hisor her grouprsquos interest rather than his or her individual interest This posi-tion should be surprising since people generally expect others to be loyalto groups to which they belong (see Platow OrsquoConnell Shave ampHanning 1995 Platow Hoar Reid Harley amp Morrison 1997 Wenzel ampMummendey 1996) However unlike violation of individual self-inter-est it is not clear that a person who violates his or her grouprsquos interestswould be seen as trustworthy Although there is some aspect of selfless-ness in going against onersquos grouprsquos interests there is also some disloyaltyinvolved As Kramer Brewer and Hanna (1996) argued shared groupidentities help define bounded communities of mutual trust Thuswhereas violation of individual self-interest is admired and producestrust a person who violates group interest can be seen as disloyal and un-trustworthy because looking out for onersquos grouprsquos best interest is one as-pect of group loyalty (Brewer amp Silver 2000) So although a source whoviolates the grouprsquos interests can be viewed positively (eg as unbiased ortrustworthy because he or she is going against group and self-interest) heor she can also be viewed negatively as a bad group member or as dis-loyal Thus perceivers may have two conflicting reactions on the same di-mension (ie trustworthiness) toward the source who violates his or herown grouprsquos interest Similarly unlike confirmation of individual self-in-terest it is not clear that a person who confirms his or her grouprsquos interestswould be seen as untrustworthy Although a source who confirms thegrouprsquos interests can be viewed negatively (eg as biased because he orshe is acting to enhance group and self-interest) he or she can also beviewed positively as a good group member or loyal This greater variabil-ity in interpreting both group interest conditions should lead to an attenu-ation or elimination of differences in perceived trustworthiness betweengroup interest confirmation and disconfirmation In sum violations ofsource-positionexpectancies based on group interest should produce sur-prise without any accompanying augmentation of the sourcersquos trustwor-thiness Because of this violation of group interest might lead to enhancedinformation processing activity

The differential consequences of violating group versus individualself-interest on source attributions information processing or persuasion

422 PETTY ET AL

1 In the persuasion studies finding that disconfirmation of expectancies leads to en-hanced processing there is no individual source who violates expectancies For examplein Baker and Petty (1994) the participants are simply told that a majority or minority ofpeople favors a particular position This general information can violate expectancies ornot but no individual source violates expectancies

have not been investigated previously The present research aims to ad-dress these issues because the group interest case may provide an initialboundary condition to the previously identified and consistent effects ofsource-positionexpectancy disconfirmationBased upon (1) the clear dif-ferences in perceived selfishness and trustworthiness across the individ-ual interest confirmation versus disconfirmation conditions and (2) theattributional ambiguity under group interest disconfirmation and confir-mation conditions (see Snyder amp Wicklund 1981) we predicted thatsource perception differences in perceived trustworthiness between con-firmation and disconfirmation of expectancies would be larger when ex-pectancies were based on individual interest versus group interest Thatis although past research has shown that disconfirmation of individualself-interest expectancies leads to enhanced perceptions of source trust-worthiness relative to confirmation (eg Priester amp Petty 1995 Walster etal 1966) we expected that this difference would be attenuated or absentwith disconfirmation of group interest expectancies relative to confirma-tion Nevertheless both types of expectancy disconfirmation should beviewed as surprising relative to confirmation

Our first study was designed to evaluate the differences in perceptions ofsource trustworthiness surprise and attributional ambiguity across the in-dividual and group expectancy bases This experiment sought to replicatepast findings of attributional effects of self-interest (dis)confirmation andto extend the analysis to violations of group interest In a second study weinvestigated the effect of violations of source-position expectancies basedon group interest on message processing and persuasion Specifically wetested whether group interest expectancy disconfirmation leads to in-creased or decreased message processing relative to confirmation

EXPERIMENT ONE

OVERVIEW

In this study students read a brief scenario in which expectancies basedupon a sourcersquos self-interest or a sourcersquos grouprsquos interest were estab-lished and then either confirmed or disconfirmed by the position takenin a brief message summary To evaluate participantsrsquo source percep-tions based solely upon message position the message summary onlystated the position taken by the source without any supporting argu-ments After reading the short summary participants responded toitems measuring their perceptions of the source their surprise about theposition taken and their attributions for the position taken

The scenario opening paragraph stated that a specific person (or a spe-cific group) should receive a university scholarship Expectancies wereconfirmed when the sourcersquos position either advocated that the source

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 423

himself (ldquoBill Johnstonrdquo) or a group to which the source belonged (ldquomi-nority studentsrdquo) should receive the scholarship Expectancies weredisconfirmed when the essay advocated that either another person(ldquoDavid Matthewsrdquo) or a group to which the writer did not belong(ldquochildren of alumnirdquo) should receive the scholarship

These materials were designed to allow for a conceptual replication ofAAP work in the self-interest conditions and still allow a feasible varia-tion for the group interest conditions The expectancy manipulation wasmodeled after the AAP work (eg Eagly et al 1978) in that situationalconstraints led to expectations about the position the source would takeWe chose the groups ldquominority studentsrdquo and ldquochildren of alumnirdquo be-cause (1) both seemed to be reasonable groups to receive a scholarshipand (2) these groups were both ldquoascribedrdquo (Ashmore amp Del Boca 1979)to group members (the group members would either always belong tothe group or would never belong to the group) Thus it was clear in thegroup interest conditions that the position taken in the essay either bene-fited or potentially harmed the sourcersquos own group

METHOD

PARTICIPANTS

Sixty-six White students at Ohio State University (OSU) who were notchildren of OSU alumni participated in partial fulfillment of require-ments in an introductory psychology course The fact that participantswho were from racial minorities or children of alumni were not includedensures that the participants were non-invested parties

DESIGN

Participants were assigned to the cells of a 2 (Expectancy basis individ-ual interest group interest ) acute 2 (Expectancy confirmationdisconfirmation) between-participants factorial design In addition ameasure of NC (Cacioppo Petty amp Kao 1984)was taken as it has moder-ated prior work on expectancy violations (eg Priester amp Petty 1995Smith amp Petty 1995)

PROCEDURE

Sessions were conducted in groups of two to seven Upon arrival partic-ipants were given experimental booklets that contained the followinginformation The first page of the booklet described the study as part ofan ldquoessay writing-evaluation projectrdquo Although specific instructions

424 PETTY ET AL

differed across expectancy basis conditions (see below) general instruc-tions informed participants that they would be given and would be eval-uating the introductory paragraph of a sample essay ldquotaken from a poolof letters sent to the Office of Student Affairs at the University of IowardquoThe letters were described as pertaining to a planned university scholar-ship program that could only be offered to a limited number of studentsEssays were described as having been solicited to help decide whoshould receive the scholarship In addition participants were informedthat they would be given some demographic information about thewriter of the essay The participantsrsquo task was to form an impressionabout the writer and to evaluate the writing in the essay

The remaining pages of the experimental booklet contained in order(1) a demographic sheet about the writer (2) the essay introductory para-graph (3) the dependent variables and manipulation checks (4) the NCscale and (5) a participant demographic sheet After all participants in agroup had completed the booklets they were debriefed and excused

INDEPENDENT VARIABLES

Basis of Expectancy The basis of the expectancy (individual or groupinterest) was manipulated by varying both the initial instructions andthe essay introductoryparagraph In addition to the general instructionsdescribed above the first page of the booklet stated either that ldquoonly onestudent will receive the scholarshiprdquo (individual interest condition) orthat ldquoonly members of one group will receive the scholarshiprdquo (groupinterest condition) The essay paragraphs were also either described assolicited to help decide ldquowho should receive this scholarshiprdquo or ldquowhichgroup should receive these scholarshipsrdquo

Expectancy ConfirmationDisconfirmation Expectancies about the posi-tion to be taken were created by manipulating the instructions on thefirst page of the booklet and the source demographic sheet on the secondpage The expectancy confirmation or disconfirmationwas manipulatedthrough the content of the essay introductory paragraph on the thirdpage of the booklet

In the group interest conditions the initial instructions stated that es-says were solicited to help decide which one group should receive thescholarship In addition the demographic sheet on the writer providedinformation about the writerrsquos race and his parentsrsquo educational back-ground (among other information such as the writerrsquos name age sexuniversity year in school major hometown and hobbies) This infor-mation was held constant across all conditions The writer ldquoBillJohnstonrdquo was described as Black and his parents were not alumni fromhis university

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 425

The expectancy-confirming introductory paragraph for the group in-terest expectancy was

All students who are of racial minority status should qualify for the univer-sity scholarship program that would enable them to attend school withouthaving to pay tuition Although this means that the other equally-deservinggroups being considered (including children of alumni) will have to paytheir own tuition I believe that minority students are the most worthygroup based upon the following reasons

Thus in the group interest confirmation condition the source a Blackmale took the expected position in favor of his group The expec-tancy-disconfirming introductory paragraph for the group interest ex-pectancy was identical to the confirming paragraph except thatanother group (ldquochildren of alumnirdquo) was switched with ldquominoritystudentsrdquo so that the paragraph stated that ldquoalthough this means thatthe other equally-deserving groups being considered (including mi-nority students) will have to pay their own tuition I believe that chil-dren of alumnirdquo Thus in the group interest disconfirmationcondition the Black source took the unexpected position in favor of an-other group

In the individual interest conditions the expectancy was establishedin the initial instructions that only one student would receive the schol-arship Thus the student submitting an essay would be expected towrite that he should receive the scholarship To strengthen this expec-tancy the essay writer was also described as one of the scholarship pro-gram finalists The writer demographic information was identical to thegroup interest information

The expectancy-confirming introductory paragraph for the individ-ual interest expectancy was

I should qualify for the university scholarship program that would enableme to attend school without having to pay tuition Although this means thatthe other equally-deserving finalists will have to pay their own tuition I be-lieve that I am most deserving based upon the following reasons

Thus in this condition the source took the expected position in favor ofhimself The expectancy-disconfirming introductory paragraph for theindividual interest expectancy was identical to the confirming para-graph except that another personrsquos name (ldquoDavid Matthewsrdquo) was sub-stituted for ldquoIrdquo in the appropriate places Thus in this condition the

426 PETTY ET AL

source violated individual self-interest and took an unexpected positionin favor of someone else

Need for Cognition Scale After responding to the other measures par-ticipants completed the NC scale (Cacioppo et al 1984) High and lowNC participants were determined by a median split on the scale with themedian equaling 635 (scores ranged from 26 to 86)

DEPENDENT VARIABLES

Surprise Ratings After participants read the essay introductory para-graph they were asked to answer all questions without looking back atprevious pages On the page immediately following the essay introduc-tory paragraph participants were asked several general questions tomeasure their ldquooverall reaction to the writerrsquos choice of essay topicrdquo As acheck on whether expectancy violation was surprising participants re-sponded on a 7-point scale ranging from -3 = ldquonot at all surprisedrdquo to +3= ldquovery surprisedrdquo regarding how surprised they were about thewriterrsquos choice of essay topic

Source Trustworthiness Measures After evaluating the essay topicparticipants were asked for their opinions about the essay writer be-cause ldquoevaluations of the essay introductory paragraph might havebeen influenced by your attitude about the writerrdquo Participants wereasked to rate the writer on several positivenegative trait semanticdifferential scales These 7-point scales ranged from -3 to +3 Sourcetrustworthiness was measured with three scales (untrustworthytrustworthy insinceresincere dishonesthonest) which were pre-sented with other positivenegative source traits serving as filler items(eg coldwarm close-mindedopen-minded unlikeablelikeable)

Open-Ended Attributional Processing On the next page participantswere asked to write down the reasons why they thought that the studentchose to write his essay The number of trait attributions listed wascounted by a coder blind to conditions More traits were expected to belisted for individual versus group interest conditions In addition to as-sess the specific trait attributions of selfish and selfless the number of di-rect mentions ofsource ldquoselfishnessrdquo and ldquoselflessnessrdquo were alsotallied

Manipulation Checks and Participant Demographic Sheet To ensure thatparticipants were aware of the source information that created the ex-pectancy a recognition test of the source demographic information wasgiven after the other measures were completed The two importantquestions concerned the sourcersquos race and the sourcersquos parentsrsquo educa-

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 427

tional background2 The final page of the experimental booklet was aparticipant demographic sheet so that we could establish which partici-pants were minority students and which were children of alumni

RESULTS

All dependent variables were submitted to a 2 (Expectancy basis individ-ual interest group interest ) acute 2 (Expectancy confirmationdisconfirmation)acute 2 (Need for cognition high low)between-participantsanalysis of variance

SOURCE TRUSTWORTHINESS

The three scales designed to measure trustworthiness were highlyintercorrelated (Cronbachrsquos a = 74)and thus were averaged to form a trust-worthiness index This index wassubmitted to the three-wayANOVA Theonly significant effect obtained was the predicted interaction between Basisand Expectancy F(158) = 755 p lt 01 To interpret this interaction simpleeffects tests were conducted separately for individual and group interestexpectancies For individual interest conditionsa simple main effect for ex-pectancy was found F(132) = 478 p lt 04 Replicating previous research(eg Priester amp Petty 1995) when the source disconfirmed individual in-teresthe wasrated asmore trustworthy(M = 186)than when he confirmedindividual interest (M = 083) However for group interest conditions nodifference between expectancy disconfirmation (M = 087) and confirma-tion (M = 136) conditions was found F(130) = 158 p = 22

SURPRISE RATINGS

Two main effects were obtained on the surprise scale First as expectedparticipants were more surprised in the expectancy disconfirmation (M= 184)than in the confirmation conditions (M = -039) F(158)= 3047p lt0001 The other significant result was a main effect for expectancy basisRegardless of whether expectancies were confirmed or disconfirmedparticipants found the individual interest messages more surprising (M= 131)than the group interest messages (M = 015) F(158)= 825p lt 01

428 PETTY ET AL

2 On the source memory manipulation check two participants erred on the alumni sta-tus of the writerrsquos parents and no one erred on the writerrsquos race When these participantsare removed from analyses results are the same as those reported

The Basis acute Expectancy interaction was not significant F (158)= 215p =153 Thus as predicted it appears that participants were more surprisedafter expectancy disconfirmation than confirmation regardless ofwhether the expectancy was based upon the sourcersquos individual orgroup interest

OPEN-ENDED ATTRIBUTIONAL PROCESSING

Analyses of the number of trait attributions participants listed in theiropen-ended responses revealed a main effect for Expectancy BasisF(157) = 1188 p lt 01 Specifically participants explained the tar-getrsquos actions using more trait terms in the individual interest condi-tions (M = 114 traits per participant) than in the group interestconditions (M = 32) suggesting that a clear attribution was easier tomake in the individual than group interest conditions One specifictrait thought to differ between individual self-interest and group in-terest was perceived selfishnessselflessness Thus the percentagesof participants who referred to selfishness or selflessness were com-pared across expectancy basis 303 of participants in the individ-ual conditions mentioned selfishnessselflessness (participantsmentioned either selfishness or selflessness not both) whereas 0 ofparticipants in the group conditions mentioned this trait c2(1) =1146 p lt 001 To evaluate the numbers of references to selfishnessve r su s se l f l e ss n e ss ac ro ss e xp e ct an c y co n f i rm at io n an ddisconfirmation separate analyses were conducted for the individ-ual conditions only (since there were no mentions of these traits inthe group conditions) For mentions of selflessness 389 ofdisconfirmation (ie low self-interest) condition participants men-tioned this trait (or synonyms) whereas 0 of participants in theconfirmation (ie high self-interest) condition mentioned selfless-ness c2(1) = 740 p lt 007 For mentions of selfishness (or synonyms)20 of participants in the confirmation condition mentioned thistrait whereas 0 of participants in the disconfirmation conditionmentioned it c2(1)= 396 p lt05 It appears that participants weremore likely to attribute the sourcersquos choice of message position to a

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 429

3 We also conducted separate simple effects tests for the individual and group interestconditions to determine if the simple main effect for expectancy held These analyses con-firmed that effects for expectancy occurred in both the individual interest F(132)= 838plt 006 (Means Confirmed = 049Disconfirmed = 213)and group interest F(130)= 2701plt 0001 (Means Confirmed = -126 Disconfirmed = 156) conditions

personality trait (especially to selfishnessselflessness) when thesourcersquos position was relevant to self-interest rather than relevant to hisgrouprsquos interest

We also expected that the differential perceptions of source selfish-ness in the individual conditions would correspond to the greater per-ceived source trustworthiness under expectancy disconfirmation thanconfirmation To evaluate this prediction the correlations between ref-erences to selfishness (and selflessness) and the source trustworthinessratings were computed As predicted in the individual conditionstrustworthiness and mentions of selfishness were significantly nega-tively correlated r = -42 p lt 02 In addition trustworthiness and men-tions of selflessness were significantly positively correlated r = 36 p lt05

DISCUSSION

In this study we found different effects of expectancy disconfirmationon source perceptions for expectancies based on individual versusgroup interest As predicted trustworthiness attributions varied onlywhen the expectancy was based upon the sourcersquos individual self-inter-est Thus our individual interest expectancy conditions were consistentwith prior theory and research (eg Eagly et al 1978 Priester amp Petty1995) in that the source was perceived as more trustworthy when hewent against his own self-interest than when he wrote in favor of hisself-interest More importantly we found a condition under whichsource-position expectancy confirmation and disconfirmation did notmake a difference for trustworthiness attributions mdash when the expec-tancy was based upon group membership and group interest Resultsfrom the open-ended responses suggest that this attenuation mayhave been due to the greater attributional ambiguity when group in-terest rather than individual interest was concerned Thus Experi-me n t 1 ou t l in e s a b ou nda ry co n dit ion fo r th e ef fe c ts ofdisconfirmation of source-position expectancy on perceptions oftrustworthiness suggesting that taking an unexpected position doesnot invariably lead to perceptions of enhanced source trustworthi-ness

In addition consistent with previous expectancy disconfirmationwork (eg Baker amp Petty 1994) participants were more surprised whenexpectancies were disconfirmed than confirmed More importantly thisinvestigation extends this work by suggesting that individuals are moresurprised when an individual source takes a position that disconfirms

430 PETTY ET AL

rather than confirms expectancies regardless of whether the position vi-olates either individual or group interest4

EXPERIMENT TWO

Experiment 2 was designed to investigate the implications of the find-ings of Experiment 1 regarding the effects of disconfirmation of groupinterest for message processing Specifically we tested the predictionthat disconfirmation of a source-position expectancy that does not aug-ment perceived source trustworthiness (ie violation of group interest)will lead to increased rather than reduced message scrutiny Past re-search has already shown that reduced message scrutiny results whenindividual self-interest expectancy disconfirmation leads to enhancedperceptions of source trustworthinessand message validity (Eagly et al1978 Priester amp Petty 1995 Wood amp Eagly 1981) Because a source whoviolates group interest is not seen as more trustworthy but is more sur-prising we anticipate that group interest expectancy disconfirmation

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 431

4 Before conducting Study 2 one potential concern with the operationalization ofgroup interest expectancies in Study 1 was evaluated Specifically our group interest con-firmation condition had scholarships for ldquominority studentsrdquo as its topic whereas thetopic in the disconfirmation condition was about ldquochildren of alumnirdquo The groups ldquomi-nority studentsrdquo and ldquochildren of alumnirdquo are not equivalent and might show different ef-fects for reasons unrelated to expectancy violation For example it might be moresurprising for any source to advocate scholarships for alumni than for minorities To re-move this potential confound and use both topics in the expectancy confirming anddisconfirming cases we conducted a study to replicate conceptually our group interestfindings with both groups Source demographics were varied such that the source was ei-ther Black and not a child of alumni or White and a child of alumni A second minorchange was made in the essay topic mdash rather than a scholarship programthe programwasdescribed as a ldquouniversity service programrdquo that would allow participants free tuition Themessage either advocated that this program should be for children of alumni or for minor-ity students (see Experiment 2 for details)

Forty-eight individuals participated in this 2 (Source Black student of non alumni par-ents White student of alumni parents)acute 2 (Expectancy confirmation disconfirmation) be-tween-participants design In this study expectancy confirmationdisconfirmation wasalways on a group interest basis Participants received the demographic information andintroductory essay paragraph and then completed measures of surprise and source trust-worthiness In this revised version our manipulation of expectancy confirma-tiondisconfirmation was effective in producing surprise as participants weresignificantly more surprised after disconfirmation (M = 067) than after confirmation (M =-204) F(144) = 3438 p lt 0001 Furthermore replicating the group interest conditions inStudy 1 no significant effects were found on the source trustworthiness index As ex-pected participants did not view the disconfirming source as any more trustworthy (M =142) than the confirming source (M = 138) Neither of these effects was qualified by thesource That is Black students favoring alumni and White alumni favoring minority stu-dents were both more surprising than favoring onersquos own group

will lead to enhanced information processing compared to group inter-est expectancy confirmation as has been found in other work on expec-tancies (eg Baker amp Petty 1994Maheswaran amp Chaiken 1991Smith ampPetty 1995) To assess the extent to which the persuasive message wasscrutinized participants were presented with messages containing ei-ther all strong or all weak arguments In general the attitudes of partici-pants who are thinking about the message carefully should be moreaffected by message quality (ie they should be more persuaded bystrong than weak arguments) compared to participants who are notthinking about the message carefully (see Petty Wells amp Brock 1976Petty amp Cacioppo 1986)

METHOD

PARTICIPANTS

Two hundred eighty-eight White students who were not children ofOSU alumni participated in this study in partial completion of introduc-tory psychology course requirements As in Experiment 1 minority par-ticipants and children of alumni were not included in the analyses

DESIGN

Participants were assigned to the cells of a 2 (Source Black non-alum-nus child White alumnus child) acute 2 (Group interest expectancy con-firmed disconfirmed) acute 2 (Argument quality strong weak)between-participants factorial design (see footnote 4) As in Experiment1 a measure of NC was taken

PROCEDURE

Experimental sessions were conducted with groups ranging in size fromtwo to eight Upon arrival participants were given experimental book-lets that contained the following information The first page of the book-let described the study as part of a ldquojournalism writing-evaluationprojectrdquo in which participants would be given a newspaper article writ-ten by a student from another Big Ten university They were also toldthat they would be given some demographic information about the au-thor of the article The participantsrsquo task was to form an impression of thewriter and to evaluate the writing in the article itself Participants werethen given a summary of the message topic mdash that a tuition break pro-gram should be instituted at the University of Iowa The baseline level ofmessage scrutiny for this personally irrelevant message was expected to

432 PETTY ET AL

be relatively low (see Petty amp Cacioppo 1979 1990) The remainingpages of the booklet contained (1) a demographic sheet about the writer(2) the article (containing the persuasive message) (3) the dependentvariables and manipulation checks (4) the NC scale and (5) the partici-pant demographic sheet After all participants in a group had completedthe booklets they were debriefed and excused

INDEPENDENT VARIABLES

Source On the second page of the booklet participants were given ademographic sheet about the writer This page contained informationabout the writerrsquos age sex university year in school major hometownhobby race and parentsrsquo educational background (in this order) Infor-mation about the source remained the same in all conditions except forrace and parentsrsquo educational background The manipulation of sourcewas accomplished by varying jointly the race and the parentsrsquo univer-sity which was either BlackUniversity of Minnesota (ie minorityparents were not alumni of Iowa) or WhiteUniversity of Iowa (ienon-minority parents were alumni of Iowa) This manipulation pro-vided an internal replication of group interest disconfirmation effects onpersuasion (see footnote 4 for a pretest of the effects of this manipulationon source perceptions and surprise)

Group Interest Expectancy ConfirmationDisconfirmation The expe c-tancy manipulation was accomplished by the combination of the mes-sage source and message topic Participants were provided with a briefsummary of the message topic before they read the full persuasive mes-sage to create the expectancy confirmation or disconfirmation in ad-vance of the persuasion attempt Participants were informed that thearticle they would be evaluating was about one of the following topicsldquoStudents who are children of alumni (ie their parents graduated fromthe same university that the student attends) should be allowed to par-ticipate in a two year university service program that would allow themto attend school without having to pay tuitionrdquo Or ldquoStudents who are ofracial minority status should be allowed to participate in a two year uni-versity service program that would allow them to attend school withouthaving to pay tuitionrdquo

Thus expectancy confirmation resulted when the source wrote in fa-vor of his own group participating in this program and expectancydisconfirmation resulted when the source wrote in favor of a group towhich he did not belong

Argument Quality On the next pages of the booklet participants re-ceived the persuasive message The message contained either the strong

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 433

or weak arguments from Baker and Petty (1994 Study 2) The argumentsin the message were pretested such that the strong arguments elicitedprimarily positive thoughts and the weak arguments elicited primarilynegative thoughts when pretest participants were instructed to thinkabout them (see Baker amp Petty 1994 Study 2)

The persuasive message supported implementing a program in whichcertain students (either minority students or children of alumni) wouldbe eligible for tuition breaks in exchange for participating in a universityservice program The message arguments focused on the benefits of theuniversity service program for the university and for the students in-volved in the program For example one strong argument stressed thatwith the money saved through students performing various universityservices ldquoa greater portion of the university budget can be invested inmonetary incentives for research and teachingrdquo and ldquofunding will beavailable to recruit additional outstanding professors researchers andNobel prize winnersrdquo However a parallel weak argument suggestedthat the additional monies available can be ldquospent on materials such aspaint for buildings new machinery for mowing and landscaping andplantings shrubbery flowers and treesrdquo in order to make the universityldquoa scenic and beautiful place to spend the college daysrdquo

Need for Cognition Scale Participants completed the need for cognitionscale (Cacioppo et al 1984)after responding to the other measures Highand low need for cognition participants were determined by a mediansplit on the scale with the median equaling 635 (scores ranged from 31 to85)

DEPENDENT VARIABLES

Argument Quality Manipulation Checks Immediately after participantsread the persuasive message they were asked to answer all questionswithout looking back at previous pages On the page immediately fol-lowing the essay participants were asked to rate ldquohow well was the arti-cle writtenrdquo and ldquohow persuasive were the argumentsrdquo on 9-pointscales ranging from 1 = ldquonot at allrdquo to 9 = ldquoextremelyrdquo These questionswere provided along with several filler questions (eg how clear wasthe writing style) designed to fit the cover story about evaluating the ar-ticle The first two questions served as manipulation checks for argu-ment quality

Attitude Measures On the next page participants read that ldquobecauseyour evaluations of the article might have been influenced by your atti-tude toward the article topic we would like to ask your opinions aboutthe topicrdquo Participants then completed two general attitude questionsand a five-item semantic differential scale The general questions were

434 PETTY ET AL

ldquoIn general what is your opinion about the university service pro-gramrdquo and ldquoHow would you feel about the implementation of the uni-versity service program here at Ohio State Universityrdquo These itemswere completed on 9-point scales ranging from 1 = ldquostrongly opposerdquo to9 = ldquostrongly favorrdquo On the five-item semantic differential scale partici-pants were asked ldquorate how you feel about the university service pro-gramrdquo Each semantic differential was completed on a 9-point scale Thescale anchors were unfavorablefavorable badgood foolishwiseharmfulbeneficial and unfairfair

Source Memory Manipulation Check and Participant Demographics Aftercompleting all other dependent measures participants completed thesource memory multiple choice questions and the participant demo-graphic sheet (as described in study 1)5

RESULTS

All dependent variables were submitted to a 2 (Group interest expec-tancy confirmation vs disconfirmation) acute 2 (Source Black non-alum-nus vs White alumnus ) acute 2 (Argument quality strong vs weak) acute 2(NC high vs low) between-participants analysis of variance

Argument Quality Manipulation Checks6 To determine if our manipu-lation of strong and weak arguments was effective participantsrsquo re-sponses to the two argument quality questions were averaged andsubmitted to the four-way ANOVA The expected main effect for argu-ment quality was obtained F(1271) = 1297 p lt 001 Messages contain-ing strong arguments were rated more positively (M = 589) than wereweak messages (M = 512)7

Attitude Measure The a coefficient for the attitude scales was 95 so thescales were averaged to form an overall index This index was subjected

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 435

5 On the source memory manipulation check one participant made an error on thewriterrsquos race and eleven participants erred on the alumni status of the writerrsquos parentsWhen these participants are removed from analyses results are the same as those re-ported

6 One participant did not complete this measure and thus was not included in the anal-ysis

7 A main effect of expectancy was also obtained F(1 271) = 680 p lt 01 suggesting thatparticipants in the disconfirmation conditions rated arguments more positively (M = 579)than did participants in the confirmation conditions (M = 523)In addition a need for cogni-tion acute expectancy interaction emerged F(1271)= 400 p lt 05 suggesting that whereas highNC individuals rated the quality of the arguments higher when the expectancy wasdisconfirmed (M = 590)than confirmed (M = 491)low NC individualsrsquo perceptions of argu-mentquality were notaffected by expectancy (Mdisconfirmed = 568Mconfirmed = 555)

to the four-way between-participants ANOVA First a main effect forargument quality was obtained F(1272) = 1104 p lt 01 indicating thatparticipants receiving strong arguments were more persuaded (M =549) than were those who received weak arguments (M = 474) Ofgreater interest the predicted expectancy acute argument quality interac-tion F(1272) = 579 p lt 02 qualified this main effect (see Figure 1)When expectancies were disconfirmed argument quality had a greaterimpact on attitudes than when expectancies were confirmed More spe-cifically under expectancy confirmation conditions argument qualityhad no impact on attitudes F(1139) = 42 ns However under expec-tancy disconfirmation conditions a simple main effect for argumentquality emerged F(1145) = 1854 p lt 0001

One additional effect that emerged consistent with past research(Priester amp Petty 1995 Smith amp Petty 1995) was a three-way interactionamong expectancy argument quality and need for cognition F(1272) =386 p lt 05 (see Table 2) Separate analyses for high and low need forcognition participants indicated that high NC participants (ie those in-dividuals who enjoy thinking) showed only a main effect for argumentquality F(1134) = 784 p lt 01 (the expectancy acute argument quality inter-action F lt 1 ns) suggesting that they engaged in effortful processing ofthe message regardless of whether expectancies were confirmed or

436 PETTY ET AL

FIGURE 1 Interaction on attitudes between group interest expectancy status and argu-ment quality

disconfirmed Low NC participants showed a main effect for argumentquality F(1146) = 419 p lt 05 along with an expectancy acute argumentquality interaction F(1146) = 1038 p lt 01 This interaction indicatedthat low NC participants did not differentiate between strong and weakarguments when their expectancies were confirmed but they did differ-entiate when their expectancies were disconfirmed8

GENERAL DISCUSSION

The present research expands our understanding of the consequences ofsources taking unexpected positions Based on prior research and the-ory one would have predicted that when a source takes an unexpectedposition greater attributions of trustworthiness and reduced informa-tion processing activity should result compared to when the sourcetakes an expected position The current studies suggest that this result is

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 437

TABLE 1 Mean Attitude Ratings as a Function of Group-Interest Expectancy Statusand Argument Quality (Experiment 2)

mdashmdashAttitudesmdashmdash

Argument Quality Confirmed Disconfirmed

Strong 504 (65) 594 (79)

SD = 187 SD = 170

Weak 483 (76) 465 (68)

SD = 197 SD = 209

Note Ns indicated in parentheses

8 A source acute expectancy interaction F(1272) = 528 p lt 03 was also obtained A maineffect for expectancy emerged in the Black non-alumnus source condition F(1136)= 840p lt 01 Thus participants had more positive attitudes toward the message when a minor-ity source wrote in favor of children of alumni receiving the tuition breaks (M = 562) thanwhen the minority source wrote in favor of breaks for minorities (M = 475) Attitudes inthe White alumnus source conditions did not differ between expectancy disconfirming (M= 496)and confirming conditions (M = 513)F lt 1 This unanticipated result could have oc-curred because Caucasian participants paid more attention to the position taken by theBlack than the White source resulting in their being more affected by those positions(Petty Fleming amp White 1999 White amp Harkens 1994) Future research could includeconditions where a Black source is an alumnus and a White source is a non-alumnus totease apart race from alumni effects Importantly our results indicated that participantsengaged in greater scrutiny of the arguments whichever source (black or white alumnusor non-alumnus) violated expectancies That is the significant two-way Expectancy acute Ar-gument quality interaction was not qualified by source nor was the significant three-wayExpectancy acute Argument quality acute Need for cognition interaction qualified by source

likely primarily when the position taken violates individual self-inter-est When the position is unexpected because it violates a grouprsquos inter-est the results are quite different That is in Experiment 1 we showedthat although both types of expectancy violation induce surprise onlythe violation of self-interest is associated with increased perceptions oftrustworthiness Violations of group interest do not engender the sameenhancements of trustworthiness Instead violations of group interestappear to produce some attributional ambiguity The surprise accompa-nied by unclear attributions as to the cause of a behavior would be ex-pected to lead to increased rather than decreased informationprocessing This is the effect we observed in Experiment 2

INTEGRATION INFORMATION PROCESSING CONSEQUENCESOF EXPECTANCY DISCONFIRMATION

The current framework seems potentially useful for reconciling seem-ingly inconsistent findings in the persuasion literature regarding the in-formation processing consequences of expectancy disconfirmation Tosummarize briefly if disconfirmation of expectancies leads to increasedperceptions of source trustworthiness or enhanced perceptions of mes-sage validity then message processing should decrease over confirma-tion conditions (Chaiken et al 1989 Petty amp Cacioppo 1986) On theother hand if disconfirmation of expectancies leads only to surprisecompared to confirmation conditions message processing should in-crease In past research disconfirmations of expectancies about messagequality (Maheswaran amp Chaiken 1991) message framing (Smith ampPetty 1995) and whether a majority or minority of others hold a pro- orcounterattitudinal position (Baker amp Petty 1994) did not violate self-in-terest and thus should not lead to perceptions of source trustworthinessor message validity In each case recipients are simply left surprised by

438 PETTY ET AL

TABLE 2 Mean Attitude Ratings as a Function of Group-Interest Expectancy StatusArgument Quality and Participantsrsquo Need for Cognition Level (Experiment 2)

mdashmdashAttitudesmdashmdash

High Need for Cognition Low Need for Cognition

Argument Quality Confirmed Disconfirmed Confirmed Disconfirmed

Strong 508 (33) 580 (37) 500 (32) 607 (42)

SD = 204 SD = 156 SD = 170 SD = 182

Weak 432 (37) 484 (31) 535 (39) 445 (37)

SD = 202 SD = 200 SD = 181 SD = 217

Note Ns indicated in parentheses

the disconfirmation of expectancies and they engage in greater informa-tion processing activity presumably to resolve the violation of expecta-tions and re-establish their understanding of the topic or source at hand(Olson et al 1996)

It is somewhat ironic that the earliest work on expectancies in persua-sion (Eagly amp Chaiken 1975Eagly et al 1978Walster et al 1966 Woodamp Eagly 1981) focused on the one type of expectation (ie source-posi-tion expectancy based on personal self-interest) that produced an appar-ent exception to the subsequently emergent general rule thatdisconfirmation of expectancies enhances processing The current re-search is the first to show that violations of expectancies about the posi-tion a source will take can lead to enhanced information processing Thiswas accomplished by shifting the expectation from one based on self-in-terest alone to group interest

In examining this framework it is important to keep the theoreticalvariables in mind that underlie our integration That is when a sourceviolates expectancies a number of inferences are possible An expec-tancy disconfirmation can enhance perceptions of source trustworthi-ness or message validity (and thus decrease message processing) and itcan also affect surprise (and thus increase message processing) butwhen surprise alone occurs enhanced information processing occursWhen both occur it appears that perceptions of message validity reducemessage processing despite the increased surprise

For self- and group interest expectancy violations to occur at least twofactors seem necessary a perception that some self- or group interest isinvolved and an expectation that individuals will act in accordancewiththat interest A perception of self- or group interest may not always bepresent For example an aggregate of individuals which is notentitative enough (they do not form a coherent whole) may not be per-ceived as having a common group interest in the first place (Campbell1958Hamilton amp Sherman 1996Hamilton Sherman amp Lickel 1998) Insuch cases there would be no group interest to violate Even when self-or group interest is perceived however violations of them may not al-ways cause expectancy disconfirmationsFor example in some culturesself-interest violation may be expected rather than unexpected and thussuch violations would not be expected to lead to increased perceptionsof trustworthinessbecause people are more likely to make dispositionalattributions for behaviors that are unexpected (Jones amp Davis 1965)Likewise for some groups or issues group interest violation may also beexpected such as when the group is clearly undeserving and in those in-stances violation of group interest would not be expected to lead to sur-prise

Future work could examine these possibilities as well as explore sev-eral remaining issues For example although we compared individual

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 439

versus group interest violations on perceptions of trustworthiness andsurprise together in Study 1 we did not directly compare the effects ofthese two types of expectancy violations on information processing andpersuasion This was because the effects of individual self-interest viola-tion on information processing and persuasion seemed clear from priorresearch Nevertheless it would be prudent to examine the effects of in-dividual- versus group interest confirmation versus disconfirmation oninformation processing in the same study In addition our hypothesisthat surprise and attributional ambiguity mediate the increased process-ing resulting from group interest violations should be directly tested byassessing the mediators in the same study as the outcome variables

The current research and framework suggest that it is important toconsider that expectancies in persuasion contexts can be developedupon multiple bases such as on prior knowledge of a personrsquos past be-haviors a personrsquos group membership or human behavior in generalAs shown in our experiments the basis of the expectancy can make animportant difference in the outcome of disconfirmation on source per-ception and on subsequent information processing and persuasion

REFERENCES

Ashmore R D amp Del Boca F K (1979) Sex stereotypes and implicit personality theoriesToward a cognitive-social psychological conceptualization Sex Roles 5 219-248

Baker S M amp Petty R E (1994) Majority and minority influence Source-position imbal-ance as a determinant of message scrutiny Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy 67 5-19

Brewer M B amp Silver M D (2000) Group distinctiveness social identification and col-lective mobilization In S Stryker T J Owens amp R W White (Eds) Self Identityand Social Movements (pp 153-171) Minneapolis MN University of MinnesotaPress

Cacioppo J T amp Petty R E (1982) The need for cognition Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 42 116-131

Cacioppo J T Petty R E amp Kao C (1984)The efficient assessment of need for cognitionJournal of Personality Assessment 48 306-307

Campbell D T (1958) Common fate similarity and other indices of the status of aggre-gates as social entities Behavioral Science 3 14-25

Chaiken S Liberman A amp Eagly A H (1989) Heuristic and systematic processingwithin and beyond the persuasion context In J S Uleman amp J A Bargh (Eds) Un-intended thought (pp 212-252) New York Guilford Press

Eagly A H amp Chaiken S (1975) An attribution analysis of the effect of communicatorcharacteristics on opinion change The case of communicator attractiveness Journalof Personality and Social Psychology 32 136-144

Eagly A H Chaiken S amp Wood W (1981)An attribution analysis of persuasion In J HHarvey W J Ickes amp R F Kidd (Eds) New directions in attribution research (Vol 3pp 37-62) Hillsdale NJ Erlbaum

Eagly A H Wood W amp Chaiken S (1978) Causal inferences about communicators and

440 PETTY ET AL

their effects on opinion change Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36424-435

Fiske S T amp Neuberg S L (1990) A continuum of impression formation from cate-gory-based to individuating processes Influences of information and motivationon attention and interpretation In M P Zanna (Ed) Advances in experimental socialpsychology (Vol 23 pp 1-74) San Diego Academic Press

Hamilton DL amp Sherman S J (1996) Perceiving persons and groups Psychological Re-view 103 336-355

Hamilton DL Sherman S J amp Lickel B (1998) Perceiving social groups The impact ofthe entitativity continuum In C Sedikides J Schopler amp C A Insko (Eds) Inter-group cognitions and intergroup behavior (pp 47-74) Mahwah NJ Erlbaum

Hastie R (1984) Causes and effects of causal attribution Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 37 25-38

Jones E E amp Davis K E (1965) From acts to dispositions The attribution process in per-son perception In L Berkowitz (Ed) Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol2 pp 219-266) New York Academic Press

Kramer R M Brewer M B amp HannaB (1996)Collective trust and collective action Thedecision to trust as a social decision In R Kramer amp T Tyler (Eds) Trust in organiza-tions (pp 357-389) Thousand Oakes CA Sage

Maheswaran D amp Chaiken S (1991) Promoting systematic processing in low-motiva-tion settings Effects of incongruent information on processing and judgment Jour-nal of Personality and Social Psychology 61 13-33

Olson J M Roese N J amp Zanna M P (1996) Expectancies In E T Higgins amp A WKruglanski (Eds) Social psychology Handbook of basic principles (pp 211-238) NewYork Guilford Press

Petty R E (1997) The evolution of theory and research in social psychology From singleto multiple effect and process models In C McGarty amp S A Haslam (Eds) The mes-sage of social psychologyPerspectives on mind in society (pp 268-290)Oxford EnglandBlackwell Publishers Ltd

Petty R E amp Cacioppo J T (1979)Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasionby enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 37 1915-1926

Petty R E amp Cacioppo J T (1986) Communication and persuasion Central and peripheralroutes to attitude change New York Springer-Verlag

Petty R E amp Cacioppo J T (1990) Involvement and persuasion Tradition versus inte-gration Psychological Bulletin 107 367-374

Petty R E Fleming M A amp White P H (1999) Stigmatized sources and persuasionPrejudice as a determinant of argument scrutiny Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology 76 19-34

Petty R E Wells G L amp Brock T C (1976)Distraction can enhance or reduce yielding topropaganda Thought disruption versus effort justification Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology 34 874-884

Platow M J HoarS Reid S Harley K amp Morrison D (1997)Endorsement of distribu-tively fair and unfair leaders in interpersonal and intergroup situations EuropeanJournal of Social Psychology 27 465-494

Platow M J OrsquoConnell A Shave R amp Hanning P (1995) Social evaluations of fair andunfair allocators in interpersonal and intergroup situations British Journal of SocialPsychology 34 363-381

Priester J R amp Petty R E (1995) Source attributions and persuasion Perceived honestyas a determinant of message scrutiny Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 21637-654

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 441

Pyszczynski T A amp Greenberg J (1981)Role of disconfirmed expectancies in the instiga-tion of attributional processing Journal of Personality and Social Psychology40 31-38

Smith S M amp Petty R E (1995) Personality moderators of mood congruency effects oncognition The role of self-esteem and negative mood regulation Journal of Personal-ity and Social Psychology 68 1092-1107

Snyder M L amp Wicklund R (1981)Attribute ambiguity In J H Harvey W Ickes amp R RKidd (Eds) New directions in attribution research (pp 197-221)New York Halsted

Srull T K amp Wyer R S Jr (1989)Person memory and judgment Psychological Review 9658-83

Stangor C amp McMillan D (1992)Memory for expectancy-congruent and expectancy-in-congruent social information A meta-analytic review of the social psychologicaland social developmental literatures Psychological Bulletin 111 42-61

Walster E Aronson E amp Abrahams D (1966)On increasing the persuasiveness of a lowprestige communicator Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 2 325-342

Wenzel M amp Mummendey A (1996) Positive-negative asymmetry of social discrimina-tion A normative analysis of differential evaluations of in-group and out-group onpositive and negative attributes British Journal of Social Psychology 35 493-507

White P H amp Harkens S G (1994) Race of source effects in the elaboration likelihoodmodel Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67 790-807

Wong P T P amp Weiner B (1981) When people ask ldquowhyrdquo questions and the heuristicsof attributional search Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 40 650-663

Wood W amp Eagly A H (1981) Stages in the analysis of persuasive messages The role ofcausal attributions and message comprehension Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 40 246-259

442 PETTY ET AL

Page 4: INDIVIDUAL VERSUS GROUP INTEREST VIOLATION: SURPRISE AS …

were surprised and engaged in greater message scrutiny In additionSmith and Petty (1995) showed that people who received a positivelyframed message when they expected to receive a negatively framedmessage (or vice versa) showed increased message processing com-pared to conditions in which people received the message they ex-pected All of these studies have shown that an unexpected message canlead to greater message processing presumably due to increased sur-prise after disconfirmation (Petty 1997)

Outside of the persuasion domain other research on expectancy ef-fects has also revealed that expectancy disconfirmation can produce in-creased information processing For example research on causalattribution (eg Pyszczynski amp Greenberg 1981 Wong amp Weiner1981) and on impression formation (eg Fiske amp Neuberg 1990Hastie 1984 Srull amp Wyer 1989) has found that perceivers engage inincreased effortful processing after their expectations are disconfirmed(see Olson Roese amp Zanna 1996 Stangor amp McMillan 1992 for re-views) Thus various persuasion and non-persuasion findings of ex-pectancy disconfirmation leading to increased effortful processingstand in stark contrast to the AAP hypothesis and findings of reducedmessage processing when a source-position expectancy isdisconfirmed

NECESSARY CONDITION FOR REDUCED PROCESSINGENHANCED TRUSTWORTHINESS

Why has the prior literature on source-position expectancies shown thatconfirmation of expectancies produces greater information processingwhereas other research on expectancies demonstrated thatdisconfirmation of expectancies produces greater information process-ing One possibility is that in the paradigms used to test source-positionexpectanciesmdashfrom the earliest studies (eg Walster et al 1966) to themost recent (eg Priester amp Petty 1995) and all in between (eg Eagly etal 1981) mdash the disconfirming source has always violated self-interest inthe position taken Thus disconfirmation of expectancies about thesourcersquos position is always confounded with violation of the sourcersquosself-interest For example when a politician speaks in favor of stricterenvironmental protection laws to factory owners the politician is actingagainst his or her own vested interest in obtaining votes as well asdisconfirming expectancies When violation of self-interest occurs thereis a ready interpretation for the violation The source is particularlytrustworthy This analysis suggests that reduced information process-ing is not invariably the result of a violation of source-position expec-tancy What would occur if a source took a position that violated

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 421

expectations but was not readily attributable to enhanced trustworthi-ness1

Consider a source who takes an unexpected position in violation of hisor her grouprsquos interest rather than his or her individual interest This posi-tion should be surprising since people generally expect others to be loyalto groups to which they belong (see Platow OrsquoConnell Shave ampHanning 1995 Platow Hoar Reid Harley amp Morrison 1997 Wenzel ampMummendey 1996) However unlike violation of individual self-inter-est it is not clear that a person who violates his or her grouprsquos interestswould be seen as trustworthy Although there is some aspect of selfless-ness in going against onersquos grouprsquos interests there is also some disloyaltyinvolved As Kramer Brewer and Hanna (1996) argued shared groupidentities help define bounded communities of mutual trust Thuswhereas violation of individual self-interest is admired and producestrust a person who violates group interest can be seen as disloyal and un-trustworthy because looking out for onersquos grouprsquos best interest is one as-pect of group loyalty (Brewer amp Silver 2000) So although a source whoviolates the grouprsquos interests can be viewed positively (eg as unbiased ortrustworthy because he or she is going against group and self-interest) heor she can also be viewed negatively as a bad group member or as dis-loyal Thus perceivers may have two conflicting reactions on the same di-mension (ie trustworthiness) toward the source who violates his or herown grouprsquos interest Similarly unlike confirmation of individual self-in-terest it is not clear that a person who confirms his or her grouprsquos interestswould be seen as untrustworthy Although a source who confirms thegrouprsquos interests can be viewed negatively (eg as biased because he orshe is acting to enhance group and self-interest) he or she can also beviewed positively as a good group member or loyal This greater variabil-ity in interpreting both group interest conditions should lead to an attenu-ation or elimination of differences in perceived trustworthiness betweengroup interest confirmation and disconfirmation In sum violations ofsource-positionexpectancies based on group interest should produce sur-prise without any accompanying augmentation of the sourcersquos trustwor-thiness Because of this violation of group interest might lead to enhancedinformation processing activity

The differential consequences of violating group versus individualself-interest on source attributions information processing or persuasion

422 PETTY ET AL

1 In the persuasion studies finding that disconfirmation of expectancies leads to en-hanced processing there is no individual source who violates expectancies For examplein Baker and Petty (1994) the participants are simply told that a majority or minority ofpeople favors a particular position This general information can violate expectancies ornot but no individual source violates expectancies

have not been investigated previously The present research aims to ad-dress these issues because the group interest case may provide an initialboundary condition to the previously identified and consistent effects ofsource-positionexpectancy disconfirmationBased upon (1) the clear dif-ferences in perceived selfishness and trustworthiness across the individ-ual interest confirmation versus disconfirmation conditions and (2) theattributional ambiguity under group interest disconfirmation and confir-mation conditions (see Snyder amp Wicklund 1981) we predicted thatsource perception differences in perceived trustworthiness between con-firmation and disconfirmation of expectancies would be larger when ex-pectancies were based on individual interest versus group interest Thatis although past research has shown that disconfirmation of individualself-interest expectancies leads to enhanced perceptions of source trust-worthiness relative to confirmation (eg Priester amp Petty 1995 Walster etal 1966) we expected that this difference would be attenuated or absentwith disconfirmation of group interest expectancies relative to confirma-tion Nevertheless both types of expectancy disconfirmation should beviewed as surprising relative to confirmation

Our first study was designed to evaluate the differences in perceptions ofsource trustworthiness surprise and attributional ambiguity across the in-dividual and group expectancy bases This experiment sought to replicatepast findings of attributional effects of self-interest (dis)confirmation andto extend the analysis to violations of group interest In a second study weinvestigated the effect of violations of source-position expectancies basedon group interest on message processing and persuasion Specifically wetested whether group interest expectancy disconfirmation leads to in-creased or decreased message processing relative to confirmation

EXPERIMENT ONE

OVERVIEW

In this study students read a brief scenario in which expectancies basedupon a sourcersquos self-interest or a sourcersquos grouprsquos interest were estab-lished and then either confirmed or disconfirmed by the position takenin a brief message summary To evaluate participantsrsquo source percep-tions based solely upon message position the message summary onlystated the position taken by the source without any supporting argu-ments After reading the short summary participants responded toitems measuring their perceptions of the source their surprise about theposition taken and their attributions for the position taken

The scenario opening paragraph stated that a specific person (or a spe-cific group) should receive a university scholarship Expectancies wereconfirmed when the sourcersquos position either advocated that the source

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 423

himself (ldquoBill Johnstonrdquo) or a group to which the source belonged (ldquomi-nority studentsrdquo) should receive the scholarship Expectancies weredisconfirmed when the essay advocated that either another person(ldquoDavid Matthewsrdquo) or a group to which the writer did not belong(ldquochildren of alumnirdquo) should receive the scholarship

These materials were designed to allow for a conceptual replication ofAAP work in the self-interest conditions and still allow a feasible varia-tion for the group interest conditions The expectancy manipulation wasmodeled after the AAP work (eg Eagly et al 1978) in that situationalconstraints led to expectations about the position the source would takeWe chose the groups ldquominority studentsrdquo and ldquochildren of alumnirdquo be-cause (1) both seemed to be reasonable groups to receive a scholarshipand (2) these groups were both ldquoascribedrdquo (Ashmore amp Del Boca 1979)to group members (the group members would either always belong tothe group or would never belong to the group) Thus it was clear in thegroup interest conditions that the position taken in the essay either bene-fited or potentially harmed the sourcersquos own group

METHOD

PARTICIPANTS

Sixty-six White students at Ohio State University (OSU) who were notchildren of OSU alumni participated in partial fulfillment of require-ments in an introductory psychology course The fact that participantswho were from racial minorities or children of alumni were not includedensures that the participants were non-invested parties

DESIGN

Participants were assigned to the cells of a 2 (Expectancy basis individ-ual interest group interest ) acute 2 (Expectancy confirmationdisconfirmation) between-participants factorial design In addition ameasure of NC (Cacioppo Petty amp Kao 1984)was taken as it has moder-ated prior work on expectancy violations (eg Priester amp Petty 1995Smith amp Petty 1995)

PROCEDURE

Sessions were conducted in groups of two to seven Upon arrival partic-ipants were given experimental booklets that contained the followinginformation The first page of the booklet described the study as part ofan ldquoessay writing-evaluation projectrdquo Although specific instructions

424 PETTY ET AL

differed across expectancy basis conditions (see below) general instruc-tions informed participants that they would be given and would be eval-uating the introductory paragraph of a sample essay ldquotaken from a poolof letters sent to the Office of Student Affairs at the University of IowardquoThe letters were described as pertaining to a planned university scholar-ship program that could only be offered to a limited number of studentsEssays were described as having been solicited to help decide whoshould receive the scholarship In addition participants were informedthat they would be given some demographic information about thewriter of the essay The participantsrsquo task was to form an impressionabout the writer and to evaluate the writing in the essay

The remaining pages of the experimental booklet contained in order(1) a demographic sheet about the writer (2) the essay introductory para-graph (3) the dependent variables and manipulation checks (4) the NCscale and (5) a participant demographic sheet After all participants in agroup had completed the booklets they were debriefed and excused

INDEPENDENT VARIABLES

Basis of Expectancy The basis of the expectancy (individual or groupinterest) was manipulated by varying both the initial instructions andthe essay introductoryparagraph In addition to the general instructionsdescribed above the first page of the booklet stated either that ldquoonly onestudent will receive the scholarshiprdquo (individual interest condition) orthat ldquoonly members of one group will receive the scholarshiprdquo (groupinterest condition) The essay paragraphs were also either described assolicited to help decide ldquowho should receive this scholarshiprdquo or ldquowhichgroup should receive these scholarshipsrdquo

Expectancy ConfirmationDisconfirmation Expectancies about the posi-tion to be taken were created by manipulating the instructions on thefirst page of the booklet and the source demographic sheet on the secondpage The expectancy confirmation or disconfirmationwas manipulatedthrough the content of the essay introductory paragraph on the thirdpage of the booklet

In the group interest conditions the initial instructions stated that es-says were solicited to help decide which one group should receive thescholarship In addition the demographic sheet on the writer providedinformation about the writerrsquos race and his parentsrsquo educational back-ground (among other information such as the writerrsquos name age sexuniversity year in school major hometown and hobbies) This infor-mation was held constant across all conditions The writer ldquoBillJohnstonrdquo was described as Black and his parents were not alumni fromhis university

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 425

The expectancy-confirming introductory paragraph for the group in-terest expectancy was

All students who are of racial minority status should qualify for the univer-sity scholarship program that would enable them to attend school withouthaving to pay tuition Although this means that the other equally-deservinggroups being considered (including children of alumni) will have to paytheir own tuition I believe that minority students are the most worthygroup based upon the following reasons

Thus in the group interest confirmation condition the source a Blackmale took the expected position in favor of his group The expec-tancy-disconfirming introductory paragraph for the group interest ex-pectancy was identical to the confirming paragraph except thatanother group (ldquochildren of alumnirdquo) was switched with ldquominoritystudentsrdquo so that the paragraph stated that ldquoalthough this means thatthe other equally-deserving groups being considered (including mi-nority students) will have to pay their own tuition I believe that chil-dren of alumnirdquo Thus in the group interest disconfirmationcondition the Black source took the unexpected position in favor of an-other group

In the individual interest conditions the expectancy was establishedin the initial instructions that only one student would receive the schol-arship Thus the student submitting an essay would be expected towrite that he should receive the scholarship To strengthen this expec-tancy the essay writer was also described as one of the scholarship pro-gram finalists The writer demographic information was identical to thegroup interest information

The expectancy-confirming introductory paragraph for the individ-ual interest expectancy was

I should qualify for the university scholarship program that would enableme to attend school without having to pay tuition Although this means thatthe other equally-deserving finalists will have to pay their own tuition I be-lieve that I am most deserving based upon the following reasons

Thus in this condition the source took the expected position in favor ofhimself The expectancy-disconfirming introductory paragraph for theindividual interest expectancy was identical to the confirming para-graph except that another personrsquos name (ldquoDavid Matthewsrdquo) was sub-stituted for ldquoIrdquo in the appropriate places Thus in this condition the

426 PETTY ET AL

source violated individual self-interest and took an unexpected positionin favor of someone else

Need for Cognition Scale After responding to the other measures par-ticipants completed the NC scale (Cacioppo et al 1984) High and lowNC participants were determined by a median split on the scale with themedian equaling 635 (scores ranged from 26 to 86)

DEPENDENT VARIABLES

Surprise Ratings After participants read the essay introductory para-graph they were asked to answer all questions without looking back atprevious pages On the page immediately following the essay introduc-tory paragraph participants were asked several general questions tomeasure their ldquooverall reaction to the writerrsquos choice of essay topicrdquo As acheck on whether expectancy violation was surprising participants re-sponded on a 7-point scale ranging from -3 = ldquonot at all surprisedrdquo to +3= ldquovery surprisedrdquo regarding how surprised they were about thewriterrsquos choice of essay topic

Source Trustworthiness Measures After evaluating the essay topicparticipants were asked for their opinions about the essay writer be-cause ldquoevaluations of the essay introductory paragraph might havebeen influenced by your attitude about the writerrdquo Participants wereasked to rate the writer on several positivenegative trait semanticdifferential scales These 7-point scales ranged from -3 to +3 Sourcetrustworthiness was measured with three scales (untrustworthytrustworthy insinceresincere dishonesthonest) which were pre-sented with other positivenegative source traits serving as filler items(eg coldwarm close-mindedopen-minded unlikeablelikeable)

Open-Ended Attributional Processing On the next page participantswere asked to write down the reasons why they thought that the studentchose to write his essay The number of trait attributions listed wascounted by a coder blind to conditions More traits were expected to belisted for individual versus group interest conditions In addition to as-sess the specific trait attributions of selfish and selfless the number of di-rect mentions ofsource ldquoselfishnessrdquo and ldquoselflessnessrdquo were alsotallied

Manipulation Checks and Participant Demographic Sheet To ensure thatparticipants were aware of the source information that created the ex-pectancy a recognition test of the source demographic information wasgiven after the other measures were completed The two importantquestions concerned the sourcersquos race and the sourcersquos parentsrsquo educa-

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 427

tional background2 The final page of the experimental booklet was aparticipant demographic sheet so that we could establish which partici-pants were minority students and which were children of alumni

RESULTS

All dependent variables were submitted to a 2 (Expectancy basis individ-ual interest group interest ) acute 2 (Expectancy confirmationdisconfirmation)acute 2 (Need for cognition high low)between-participantsanalysis of variance

SOURCE TRUSTWORTHINESS

The three scales designed to measure trustworthiness were highlyintercorrelated (Cronbachrsquos a = 74)and thus were averaged to form a trust-worthiness index This index wassubmitted to the three-wayANOVA Theonly significant effect obtained was the predicted interaction between Basisand Expectancy F(158) = 755 p lt 01 To interpret this interaction simpleeffects tests were conducted separately for individual and group interestexpectancies For individual interest conditionsa simple main effect for ex-pectancy was found F(132) = 478 p lt 04 Replicating previous research(eg Priester amp Petty 1995) when the source disconfirmed individual in-teresthe wasrated asmore trustworthy(M = 186)than when he confirmedindividual interest (M = 083) However for group interest conditions nodifference between expectancy disconfirmation (M = 087) and confirma-tion (M = 136) conditions was found F(130) = 158 p = 22

SURPRISE RATINGS

Two main effects were obtained on the surprise scale First as expectedparticipants were more surprised in the expectancy disconfirmation (M= 184)than in the confirmation conditions (M = -039) F(158)= 3047p lt0001 The other significant result was a main effect for expectancy basisRegardless of whether expectancies were confirmed or disconfirmedparticipants found the individual interest messages more surprising (M= 131)than the group interest messages (M = 015) F(158)= 825p lt 01

428 PETTY ET AL

2 On the source memory manipulation check two participants erred on the alumni sta-tus of the writerrsquos parents and no one erred on the writerrsquos race When these participantsare removed from analyses results are the same as those reported

The Basis acute Expectancy interaction was not significant F (158)= 215p =153 Thus as predicted it appears that participants were more surprisedafter expectancy disconfirmation than confirmation regardless ofwhether the expectancy was based upon the sourcersquos individual orgroup interest

OPEN-ENDED ATTRIBUTIONAL PROCESSING

Analyses of the number of trait attributions participants listed in theiropen-ended responses revealed a main effect for Expectancy BasisF(157) = 1188 p lt 01 Specifically participants explained the tar-getrsquos actions using more trait terms in the individual interest condi-tions (M = 114 traits per participant) than in the group interestconditions (M = 32) suggesting that a clear attribution was easier tomake in the individual than group interest conditions One specifictrait thought to differ between individual self-interest and group in-terest was perceived selfishnessselflessness Thus the percentagesof participants who referred to selfishness or selflessness were com-pared across expectancy basis 303 of participants in the individ-ual conditions mentioned selfishnessselflessness (participantsmentioned either selfishness or selflessness not both) whereas 0 ofparticipants in the group conditions mentioned this trait c2(1) =1146 p lt 001 To evaluate the numbers of references to selfishnessve r su s se l f l e ss n e ss ac ro ss e xp e ct an c y co n f i rm at io n an ddisconfirmation separate analyses were conducted for the individ-ual conditions only (since there were no mentions of these traits inthe group conditions) For mentions of selflessness 389 ofdisconfirmation (ie low self-interest) condition participants men-tioned this trait (or synonyms) whereas 0 of participants in theconfirmation (ie high self-interest) condition mentioned selfless-ness c2(1) = 740 p lt 007 For mentions of selfishness (or synonyms)20 of participants in the confirmation condition mentioned thistrait whereas 0 of participants in the disconfirmation conditionmentioned it c2(1)= 396 p lt05 It appears that participants weremore likely to attribute the sourcersquos choice of message position to a

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 429

3 We also conducted separate simple effects tests for the individual and group interestconditions to determine if the simple main effect for expectancy held These analyses con-firmed that effects for expectancy occurred in both the individual interest F(132)= 838plt 006 (Means Confirmed = 049Disconfirmed = 213)and group interest F(130)= 2701plt 0001 (Means Confirmed = -126 Disconfirmed = 156) conditions

personality trait (especially to selfishnessselflessness) when thesourcersquos position was relevant to self-interest rather than relevant to hisgrouprsquos interest

We also expected that the differential perceptions of source selfish-ness in the individual conditions would correspond to the greater per-ceived source trustworthiness under expectancy disconfirmation thanconfirmation To evaluate this prediction the correlations between ref-erences to selfishness (and selflessness) and the source trustworthinessratings were computed As predicted in the individual conditionstrustworthiness and mentions of selfishness were significantly nega-tively correlated r = -42 p lt 02 In addition trustworthiness and men-tions of selflessness were significantly positively correlated r = 36 p lt05

DISCUSSION

In this study we found different effects of expectancy disconfirmationon source perceptions for expectancies based on individual versusgroup interest As predicted trustworthiness attributions varied onlywhen the expectancy was based upon the sourcersquos individual self-inter-est Thus our individual interest expectancy conditions were consistentwith prior theory and research (eg Eagly et al 1978 Priester amp Petty1995) in that the source was perceived as more trustworthy when hewent against his own self-interest than when he wrote in favor of hisself-interest More importantly we found a condition under whichsource-position expectancy confirmation and disconfirmation did notmake a difference for trustworthiness attributions mdash when the expec-tancy was based upon group membership and group interest Resultsfrom the open-ended responses suggest that this attenuation mayhave been due to the greater attributional ambiguity when group in-terest rather than individual interest was concerned Thus Experi-me n t 1 ou t l in e s a b ou nda ry co n dit ion fo r th e ef fe c ts ofdisconfirmation of source-position expectancy on perceptions oftrustworthiness suggesting that taking an unexpected position doesnot invariably lead to perceptions of enhanced source trustworthi-ness

In addition consistent with previous expectancy disconfirmationwork (eg Baker amp Petty 1994) participants were more surprised whenexpectancies were disconfirmed than confirmed More importantly thisinvestigation extends this work by suggesting that individuals are moresurprised when an individual source takes a position that disconfirms

430 PETTY ET AL

rather than confirms expectancies regardless of whether the position vi-olates either individual or group interest4

EXPERIMENT TWO

Experiment 2 was designed to investigate the implications of the find-ings of Experiment 1 regarding the effects of disconfirmation of groupinterest for message processing Specifically we tested the predictionthat disconfirmation of a source-position expectancy that does not aug-ment perceived source trustworthiness (ie violation of group interest)will lead to increased rather than reduced message scrutiny Past re-search has already shown that reduced message scrutiny results whenindividual self-interest expectancy disconfirmation leads to enhancedperceptions of source trustworthinessand message validity (Eagly et al1978 Priester amp Petty 1995 Wood amp Eagly 1981) Because a source whoviolates group interest is not seen as more trustworthy but is more sur-prising we anticipate that group interest expectancy disconfirmation

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 431

4 Before conducting Study 2 one potential concern with the operationalization ofgroup interest expectancies in Study 1 was evaluated Specifically our group interest con-firmation condition had scholarships for ldquominority studentsrdquo as its topic whereas thetopic in the disconfirmation condition was about ldquochildren of alumnirdquo The groups ldquomi-nority studentsrdquo and ldquochildren of alumnirdquo are not equivalent and might show different ef-fects for reasons unrelated to expectancy violation For example it might be moresurprising for any source to advocate scholarships for alumni than for minorities To re-move this potential confound and use both topics in the expectancy confirming anddisconfirming cases we conducted a study to replicate conceptually our group interestfindings with both groups Source demographics were varied such that the source was ei-ther Black and not a child of alumni or White and a child of alumni A second minorchange was made in the essay topic mdash rather than a scholarship programthe programwasdescribed as a ldquouniversity service programrdquo that would allow participants free tuition Themessage either advocated that this program should be for children of alumni or for minor-ity students (see Experiment 2 for details)

Forty-eight individuals participated in this 2 (Source Black student of non alumni par-ents White student of alumni parents)acute 2 (Expectancy confirmation disconfirmation) be-tween-participants design In this study expectancy confirmationdisconfirmation wasalways on a group interest basis Participants received the demographic information andintroductory essay paragraph and then completed measures of surprise and source trust-worthiness In this revised version our manipulation of expectancy confirma-tiondisconfirmation was effective in producing surprise as participants weresignificantly more surprised after disconfirmation (M = 067) than after confirmation (M =-204) F(144) = 3438 p lt 0001 Furthermore replicating the group interest conditions inStudy 1 no significant effects were found on the source trustworthiness index As ex-pected participants did not view the disconfirming source as any more trustworthy (M =142) than the confirming source (M = 138) Neither of these effects was qualified by thesource That is Black students favoring alumni and White alumni favoring minority stu-dents were both more surprising than favoring onersquos own group

will lead to enhanced information processing compared to group inter-est expectancy confirmation as has been found in other work on expec-tancies (eg Baker amp Petty 1994Maheswaran amp Chaiken 1991Smith ampPetty 1995) To assess the extent to which the persuasive message wasscrutinized participants were presented with messages containing ei-ther all strong or all weak arguments In general the attitudes of partici-pants who are thinking about the message carefully should be moreaffected by message quality (ie they should be more persuaded bystrong than weak arguments) compared to participants who are notthinking about the message carefully (see Petty Wells amp Brock 1976Petty amp Cacioppo 1986)

METHOD

PARTICIPANTS

Two hundred eighty-eight White students who were not children ofOSU alumni participated in this study in partial completion of introduc-tory psychology course requirements As in Experiment 1 minority par-ticipants and children of alumni were not included in the analyses

DESIGN

Participants were assigned to the cells of a 2 (Source Black non-alum-nus child White alumnus child) acute 2 (Group interest expectancy con-firmed disconfirmed) acute 2 (Argument quality strong weak)between-participants factorial design (see footnote 4) As in Experiment1 a measure of NC was taken

PROCEDURE

Experimental sessions were conducted with groups ranging in size fromtwo to eight Upon arrival participants were given experimental book-lets that contained the following information The first page of the book-let described the study as part of a ldquojournalism writing-evaluationprojectrdquo in which participants would be given a newspaper article writ-ten by a student from another Big Ten university They were also toldthat they would be given some demographic information about the au-thor of the article The participantsrsquo task was to form an impression of thewriter and to evaluate the writing in the article itself Participants werethen given a summary of the message topic mdash that a tuition break pro-gram should be instituted at the University of Iowa The baseline level ofmessage scrutiny for this personally irrelevant message was expected to

432 PETTY ET AL

be relatively low (see Petty amp Cacioppo 1979 1990) The remainingpages of the booklet contained (1) a demographic sheet about the writer(2) the article (containing the persuasive message) (3) the dependentvariables and manipulation checks (4) the NC scale and (5) the partici-pant demographic sheet After all participants in a group had completedthe booklets they were debriefed and excused

INDEPENDENT VARIABLES

Source On the second page of the booklet participants were given ademographic sheet about the writer This page contained informationabout the writerrsquos age sex university year in school major hometownhobby race and parentsrsquo educational background (in this order) Infor-mation about the source remained the same in all conditions except forrace and parentsrsquo educational background The manipulation of sourcewas accomplished by varying jointly the race and the parentsrsquo univer-sity which was either BlackUniversity of Minnesota (ie minorityparents were not alumni of Iowa) or WhiteUniversity of Iowa (ienon-minority parents were alumni of Iowa) This manipulation pro-vided an internal replication of group interest disconfirmation effects onpersuasion (see footnote 4 for a pretest of the effects of this manipulationon source perceptions and surprise)

Group Interest Expectancy ConfirmationDisconfirmation The expe c-tancy manipulation was accomplished by the combination of the mes-sage source and message topic Participants were provided with a briefsummary of the message topic before they read the full persuasive mes-sage to create the expectancy confirmation or disconfirmation in ad-vance of the persuasion attempt Participants were informed that thearticle they would be evaluating was about one of the following topicsldquoStudents who are children of alumni (ie their parents graduated fromthe same university that the student attends) should be allowed to par-ticipate in a two year university service program that would allow themto attend school without having to pay tuitionrdquo Or ldquoStudents who are ofracial minority status should be allowed to participate in a two year uni-versity service program that would allow them to attend school withouthaving to pay tuitionrdquo

Thus expectancy confirmation resulted when the source wrote in fa-vor of his own group participating in this program and expectancydisconfirmation resulted when the source wrote in favor of a group towhich he did not belong

Argument Quality On the next pages of the booklet participants re-ceived the persuasive message The message contained either the strong

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 433

or weak arguments from Baker and Petty (1994 Study 2) The argumentsin the message were pretested such that the strong arguments elicitedprimarily positive thoughts and the weak arguments elicited primarilynegative thoughts when pretest participants were instructed to thinkabout them (see Baker amp Petty 1994 Study 2)

The persuasive message supported implementing a program in whichcertain students (either minority students or children of alumni) wouldbe eligible for tuition breaks in exchange for participating in a universityservice program The message arguments focused on the benefits of theuniversity service program for the university and for the students in-volved in the program For example one strong argument stressed thatwith the money saved through students performing various universityservices ldquoa greater portion of the university budget can be invested inmonetary incentives for research and teachingrdquo and ldquofunding will beavailable to recruit additional outstanding professors researchers andNobel prize winnersrdquo However a parallel weak argument suggestedthat the additional monies available can be ldquospent on materials such aspaint for buildings new machinery for mowing and landscaping andplantings shrubbery flowers and treesrdquo in order to make the universityldquoa scenic and beautiful place to spend the college daysrdquo

Need for Cognition Scale Participants completed the need for cognitionscale (Cacioppo et al 1984)after responding to the other measures Highand low need for cognition participants were determined by a mediansplit on the scale with the median equaling 635 (scores ranged from 31 to85)

DEPENDENT VARIABLES

Argument Quality Manipulation Checks Immediately after participantsread the persuasive message they were asked to answer all questionswithout looking back at previous pages On the page immediately fol-lowing the essay participants were asked to rate ldquohow well was the arti-cle writtenrdquo and ldquohow persuasive were the argumentsrdquo on 9-pointscales ranging from 1 = ldquonot at allrdquo to 9 = ldquoextremelyrdquo These questionswere provided along with several filler questions (eg how clear wasthe writing style) designed to fit the cover story about evaluating the ar-ticle The first two questions served as manipulation checks for argu-ment quality

Attitude Measures On the next page participants read that ldquobecauseyour evaluations of the article might have been influenced by your atti-tude toward the article topic we would like to ask your opinions aboutthe topicrdquo Participants then completed two general attitude questionsand a five-item semantic differential scale The general questions were

434 PETTY ET AL

ldquoIn general what is your opinion about the university service pro-gramrdquo and ldquoHow would you feel about the implementation of the uni-versity service program here at Ohio State Universityrdquo These itemswere completed on 9-point scales ranging from 1 = ldquostrongly opposerdquo to9 = ldquostrongly favorrdquo On the five-item semantic differential scale partici-pants were asked ldquorate how you feel about the university service pro-gramrdquo Each semantic differential was completed on a 9-point scale Thescale anchors were unfavorablefavorable badgood foolishwiseharmfulbeneficial and unfairfair

Source Memory Manipulation Check and Participant Demographics Aftercompleting all other dependent measures participants completed thesource memory multiple choice questions and the participant demo-graphic sheet (as described in study 1)5

RESULTS

All dependent variables were submitted to a 2 (Group interest expec-tancy confirmation vs disconfirmation) acute 2 (Source Black non-alum-nus vs White alumnus ) acute 2 (Argument quality strong vs weak) acute 2(NC high vs low) between-participants analysis of variance

Argument Quality Manipulation Checks6 To determine if our manipu-lation of strong and weak arguments was effective participantsrsquo re-sponses to the two argument quality questions were averaged andsubmitted to the four-way ANOVA The expected main effect for argu-ment quality was obtained F(1271) = 1297 p lt 001 Messages contain-ing strong arguments were rated more positively (M = 589) than wereweak messages (M = 512)7

Attitude Measure The a coefficient for the attitude scales was 95 so thescales were averaged to form an overall index This index was subjected

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 435

5 On the source memory manipulation check one participant made an error on thewriterrsquos race and eleven participants erred on the alumni status of the writerrsquos parentsWhen these participants are removed from analyses results are the same as those re-ported

6 One participant did not complete this measure and thus was not included in the anal-ysis

7 A main effect of expectancy was also obtained F(1 271) = 680 p lt 01 suggesting thatparticipants in the disconfirmation conditions rated arguments more positively (M = 579)than did participants in the confirmation conditions (M = 523)In addition a need for cogni-tion acute expectancy interaction emerged F(1271)= 400 p lt 05 suggesting that whereas highNC individuals rated the quality of the arguments higher when the expectancy wasdisconfirmed (M = 590)than confirmed (M = 491)low NC individualsrsquo perceptions of argu-mentquality were notaffected by expectancy (Mdisconfirmed = 568Mconfirmed = 555)

to the four-way between-participants ANOVA First a main effect forargument quality was obtained F(1272) = 1104 p lt 01 indicating thatparticipants receiving strong arguments were more persuaded (M =549) than were those who received weak arguments (M = 474) Ofgreater interest the predicted expectancy acute argument quality interac-tion F(1272) = 579 p lt 02 qualified this main effect (see Figure 1)When expectancies were disconfirmed argument quality had a greaterimpact on attitudes than when expectancies were confirmed More spe-cifically under expectancy confirmation conditions argument qualityhad no impact on attitudes F(1139) = 42 ns However under expec-tancy disconfirmation conditions a simple main effect for argumentquality emerged F(1145) = 1854 p lt 0001

One additional effect that emerged consistent with past research(Priester amp Petty 1995 Smith amp Petty 1995) was a three-way interactionamong expectancy argument quality and need for cognition F(1272) =386 p lt 05 (see Table 2) Separate analyses for high and low need forcognition participants indicated that high NC participants (ie those in-dividuals who enjoy thinking) showed only a main effect for argumentquality F(1134) = 784 p lt 01 (the expectancy acute argument quality inter-action F lt 1 ns) suggesting that they engaged in effortful processing ofthe message regardless of whether expectancies were confirmed or

436 PETTY ET AL

FIGURE 1 Interaction on attitudes between group interest expectancy status and argu-ment quality

disconfirmed Low NC participants showed a main effect for argumentquality F(1146) = 419 p lt 05 along with an expectancy acute argumentquality interaction F(1146) = 1038 p lt 01 This interaction indicatedthat low NC participants did not differentiate between strong and weakarguments when their expectancies were confirmed but they did differ-entiate when their expectancies were disconfirmed8

GENERAL DISCUSSION

The present research expands our understanding of the consequences ofsources taking unexpected positions Based on prior research and the-ory one would have predicted that when a source takes an unexpectedposition greater attributions of trustworthiness and reduced informa-tion processing activity should result compared to when the sourcetakes an expected position The current studies suggest that this result is

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 437

TABLE 1 Mean Attitude Ratings as a Function of Group-Interest Expectancy Statusand Argument Quality (Experiment 2)

mdashmdashAttitudesmdashmdash

Argument Quality Confirmed Disconfirmed

Strong 504 (65) 594 (79)

SD = 187 SD = 170

Weak 483 (76) 465 (68)

SD = 197 SD = 209

Note Ns indicated in parentheses

8 A source acute expectancy interaction F(1272) = 528 p lt 03 was also obtained A maineffect for expectancy emerged in the Black non-alumnus source condition F(1136)= 840p lt 01 Thus participants had more positive attitudes toward the message when a minor-ity source wrote in favor of children of alumni receiving the tuition breaks (M = 562) thanwhen the minority source wrote in favor of breaks for minorities (M = 475) Attitudes inthe White alumnus source conditions did not differ between expectancy disconfirming (M= 496)and confirming conditions (M = 513)F lt 1 This unanticipated result could have oc-curred because Caucasian participants paid more attention to the position taken by theBlack than the White source resulting in their being more affected by those positions(Petty Fleming amp White 1999 White amp Harkens 1994) Future research could includeconditions where a Black source is an alumnus and a White source is a non-alumnus totease apart race from alumni effects Importantly our results indicated that participantsengaged in greater scrutiny of the arguments whichever source (black or white alumnusor non-alumnus) violated expectancies That is the significant two-way Expectancy acute Ar-gument quality interaction was not qualified by source nor was the significant three-wayExpectancy acute Argument quality acute Need for cognition interaction qualified by source

likely primarily when the position taken violates individual self-inter-est When the position is unexpected because it violates a grouprsquos inter-est the results are quite different That is in Experiment 1 we showedthat although both types of expectancy violation induce surprise onlythe violation of self-interest is associated with increased perceptions oftrustworthiness Violations of group interest do not engender the sameenhancements of trustworthiness Instead violations of group interestappear to produce some attributional ambiguity The surprise accompa-nied by unclear attributions as to the cause of a behavior would be ex-pected to lead to increased rather than decreased informationprocessing This is the effect we observed in Experiment 2

INTEGRATION INFORMATION PROCESSING CONSEQUENCESOF EXPECTANCY DISCONFIRMATION

The current framework seems potentially useful for reconciling seem-ingly inconsistent findings in the persuasion literature regarding the in-formation processing consequences of expectancy disconfirmation Tosummarize briefly if disconfirmation of expectancies leads to increasedperceptions of source trustworthiness or enhanced perceptions of mes-sage validity then message processing should decrease over confirma-tion conditions (Chaiken et al 1989 Petty amp Cacioppo 1986) On theother hand if disconfirmation of expectancies leads only to surprisecompared to confirmation conditions message processing should in-crease In past research disconfirmations of expectancies about messagequality (Maheswaran amp Chaiken 1991) message framing (Smith ampPetty 1995) and whether a majority or minority of others hold a pro- orcounterattitudinal position (Baker amp Petty 1994) did not violate self-in-terest and thus should not lead to perceptions of source trustworthinessor message validity In each case recipients are simply left surprised by

438 PETTY ET AL

TABLE 2 Mean Attitude Ratings as a Function of Group-Interest Expectancy StatusArgument Quality and Participantsrsquo Need for Cognition Level (Experiment 2)

mdashmdashAttitudesmdashmdash

High Need for Cognition Low Need for Cognition

Argument Quality Confirmed Disconfirmed Confirmed Disconfirmed

Strong 508 (33) 580 (37) 500 (32) 607 (42)

SD = 204 SD = 156 SD = 170 SD = 182

Weak 432 (37) 484 (31) 535 (39) 445 (37)

SD = 202 SD = 200 SD = 181 SD = 217

Note Ns indicated in parentheses

the disconfirmation of expectancies and they engage in greater informa-tion processing activity presumably to resolve the violation of expecta-tions and re-establish their understanding of the topic or source at hand(Olson et al 1996)

It is somewhat ironic that the earliest work on expectancies in persua-sion (Eagly amp Chaiken 1975Eagly et al 1978Walster et al 1966 Woodamp Eagly 1981) focused on the one type of expectation (ie source-posi-tion expectancy based on personal self-interest) that produced an appar-ent exception to the subsequently emergent general rule thatdisconfirmation of expectancies enhances processing The current re-search is the first to show that violations of expectancies about the posi-tion a source will take can lead to enhanced information processing Thiswas accomplished by shifting the expectation from one based on self-in-terest alone to group interest

In examining this framework it is important to keep the theoreticalvariables in mind that underlie our integration That is when a sourceviolates expectancies a number of inferences are possible An expec-tancy disconfirmation can enhance perceptions of source trustworthi-ness or message validity (and thus decrease message processing) and itcan also affect surprise (and thus increase message processing) butwhen surprise alone occurs enhanced information processing occursWhen both occur it appears that perceptions of message validity reducemessage processing despite the increased surprise

For self- and group interest expectancy violations to occur at least twofactors seem necessary a perception that some self- or group interest isinvolved and an expectation that individuals will act in accordancewiththat interest A perception of self- or group interest may not always bepresent For example an aggregate of individuals which is notentitative enough (they do not form a coherent whole) may not be per-ceived as having a common group interest in the first place (Campbell1958Hamilton amp Sherman 1996Hamilton Sherman amp Lickel 1998) Insuch cases there would be no group interest to violate Even when self-or group interest is perceived however violations of them may not al-ways cause expectancy disconfirmationsFor example in some culturesself-interest violation may be expected rather than unexpected and thussuch violations would not be expected to lead to increased perceptionsof trustworthinessbecause people are more likely to make dispositionalattributions for behaviors that are unexpected (Jones amp Davis 1965)Likewise for some groups or issues group interest violation may also beexpected such as when the group is clearly undeserving and in those in-stances violation of group interest would not be expected to lead to sur-prise

Future work could examine these possibilities as well as explore sev-eral remaining issues For example although we compared individual

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 439

versus group interest violations on perceptions of trustworthiness andsurprise together in Study 1 we did not directly compare the effects ofthese two types of expectancy violations on information processing andpersuasion This was because the effects of individual self-interest viola-tion on information processing and persuasion seemed clear from priorresearch Nevertheless it would be prudent to examine the effects of in-dividual- versus group interest confirmation versus disconfirmation oninformation processing in the same study In addition our hypothesisthat surprise and attributional ambiguity mediate the increased process-ing resulting from group interest violations should be directly tested byassessing the mediators in the same study as the outcome variables

The current research and framework suggest that it is important toconsider that expectancies in persuasion contexts can be developedupon multiple bases such as on prior knowledge of a personrsquos past be-haviors a personrsquos group membership or human behavior in generalAs shown in our experiments the basis of the expectancy can make animportant difference in the outcome of disconfirmation on source per-ception and on subsequent information processing and persuasion

REFERENCES

Ashmore R D amp Del Boca F K (1979) Sex stereotypes and implicit personality theoriesToward a cognitive-social psychological conceptualization Sex Roles 5 219-248

Baker S M amp Petty R E (1994) Majority and minority influence Source-position imbal-ance as a determinant of message scrutiny Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy 67 5-19

Brewer M B amp Silver M D (2000) Group distinctiveness social identification and col-lective mobilization In S Stryker T J Owens amp R W White (Eds) Self Identityand Social Movements (pp 153-171) Minneapolis MN University of MinnesotaPress

Cacioppo J T amp Petty R E (1982) The need for cognition Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 42 116-131

Cacioppo J T Petty R E amp Kao C (1984)The efficient assessment of need for cognitionJournal of Personality Assessment 48 306-307

Campbell D T (1958) Common fate similarity and other indices of the status of aggre-gates as social entities Behavioral Science 3 14-25

Chaiken S Liberman A amp Eagly A H (1989) Heuristic and systematic processingwithin and beyond the persuasion context In J S Uleman amp J A Bargh (Eds) Un-intended thought (pp 212-252) New York Guilford Press

Eagly A H amp Chaiken S (1975) An attribution analysis of the effect of communicatorcharacteristics on opinion change The case of communicator attractiveness Journalof Personality and Social Psychology 32 136-144

Eagly A H Chaiken S amp Wood W (1981)An attribution analysis of persuasion In J HHarvey W J Ickes amp R F Kidd (Eds) New directions in attribution research (Vol 3pp 37-62) Hillsdale NJ Erlbaum

Eagly A H Wood W amp Chaiken S (1978) Causal inferences about communicators and

440 PETTY ET AL

their effects on opinion change Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36424-435

Fiske S T amp Neuberg S L (1990) A continuum of impression formation from cate-gory-based to individuating processes Influences of information and motivationon attention and interpretation In M P Zanna (Ed) Advances in experimental socialpsychology (Vol 23 pp 1-74) San Diego Academic Press

Hamilton DL amp Sherman S J (1996) Perceiving persons and groups Psychological Re-view 103 336-355

Hamilton DL Sherman S J amp Lickel B (1998) Perceiving social groups The impact ofthe entitativity continuum In C Sedikides J Schopler amp C A Insko (Eds) Inter-group cognitions and intergroup behavior (pp 47-74) Mahwah NJ Erlbaum

Hastie R (1984) Causes and effects of causal attribution Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 37 25-38

Jones E E amp Davis K E (1965) From acts to dispositions The attribution process in per-son perception In L Berkowitz (Ed) Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol2 pp 219-266) New York Academic Press

Kramer R M Brewer M B amp HannaB (1996)Collective trust and collective action Thedecision to trust as a social decision In R Kramer amp T Tyler (Eds) Trust in organiza-tions (pp 357-389) Thousand Oakes CA Sage

Maheswaran D amp Chaiken S (1991) Promoting systematic processing in low-motiva-tion settings Effects of incongruent information on processing and judgment Jour-nal of Personality and Social Psychology 61 13-33

Olson J M Roese N J amp Zanna M P (1996) Expectancies In E T Higgins amp A WKruglanski (Eds) Social psychology Handbook of basic principles (pp 211-238) NewYork Guilford Press

Petty R E (1997) The evolution of theory and research in social psychology From singleto multiple effect and process models In C McGarty amp S A Haslam (Eds) The mes-sage of social psychologyPerspectives on mind in society (pp 268-290)Oxford EnglandBlackwell Publishers Ltd

Petty R E amp Cacioppo J T (1979)Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasionby enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 37 1915-1926

Petty R E amp Cacioppo J T (1986) Communication and persuasion Central and peripheralroutes to attitude change New York Springer-Verlag

Petty R E amp Cacioppo J T (1990) Involvement and persuasion Tradition versus inte-gration Psychological Bulletin 107 367-374

Petty R E Fleming M A amp White P H (1999) Stigmatized sources and persuasionPrejudice as a determinant of argument scrutiny Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology 76 19-34

Petty R E Wells G L amp Brock T C (1976)Distraction can enhance or reduce yielding topropaganda Thought disruption versus effort justification Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology 34 874-884

Platow M J HoarS Reid S Harley K amp Morrison D (1997)Endorsement of distribu-tively fair and unfair leaders in interpersonal and intergroup situations EuropeanJournal of Social Psychology 27 465-494

Platow M J OrsquoConnell A Shave R amp Hanning P (1995) Social evaluations of fair andunfair allocators in interpersonal and intergroup situations British Journal of SocialPsychology 34 363-381

Priester J R amp Petty R E (1995) Source attributions and persuasion Perceived honestyas a determinant of message scrutiny Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 21637-654

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 441

Pyszczynski T A amp Greenberg J (1981)Role of disconfirmed expectancies in the instiga-tion of attributional processing Journal of Personality and Social Psychology40 31-38

Smith S M amp Petty R E (1995) Personality moderators of mood congruency effects oncognition The role of self-esteem and negative mood regulation Journal of Personal-ity and Social Psychology 68 1092-1107

Snyder M L amp Wicklund R (1981)Attribute ambiguity In J H Harvey W Ickes amp R RKidd (Eds) New directions in attribution research (pp 197-221)New York Halsted

Srull T K amp Wyer R S Jr (1989)Person memory and judgment Psychological Review 9658-83

Stangor C amp McMillan D (1992)Memory for expectancy-congruent and expectancy-in-congruent social information A meta-analytic review of the social psychologicaland social developmental literatures Psychological Bulletin 111 42-61

Walster E Aronson E amp Abrahams D (1966)On increasing the persuasiveness of a lowprestige communicator Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 2 325-342

Wenzel M amp Mummendey A (1996) Positive-negative asymmetry of social discrimina-tion A normative analysis of differential evaluations of in-group and out-group onpositive and negative attributes British Journal of Social Psychology 35 493-507

White P H amp Harkens S G (1994) Race of source effects in the elaboration likelihoodmodel Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67 790-807

Wong P T P amp Weiner B (1981) When people ask ldquowhyrdquo questions and the heuristicsof attributional search Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 40 650-663

Wood W amp Eagly A H (1981) Stages in the analysis of persuasive messages The role ofcausal attributions and message comprehension Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 40 246-259

442 PETTY ET AL

Page 5: INDIVIDUAL VERSUS GROUP INTEREST VIOLATION: SURPRISE AS …

expectations but was not readily attributable to enhanced trustworthi-ness1

Consider a source who takes an unexpected position in violation of hisor her grouprsquos interest rather than his or her individual interest This posi-tion should be surprising since people generally expect others to be loyalto groups to which they belong (see Platow OrsquoConnell Shave ampHanning 1995 Platow Hoar Reid Harley amp Morrison 1997 Wenzel ampMummendey 1996) However unlike violation of individual self-inter-est it is not clear that a person who violates his or her grouprsquos interestswould be seen as trustworthy Although there is some aspect of selfless-ness in going against onersquos grouprsquos interests there is also some disloyaltyinvolved As Kramer Brewer and Hanna (1996) argued shared groupidentities help define bounded communities of mutual trust Thuswhereas violation of individual self-interest is admired and producestrust a person who violates group interest can be seen as disloyal and un-trustworthy because looking out for onersquos grouprsquos best interest is one as-pect of group loyalty (Brewer amp Silver 2000) So although a source whoviolates the grouprsquos interests can be viewed positively (eg as unbiased ortrustworthy because he or she is going against group and self-interest) heor she can also be viewed negatively as a bad group member or as dis-loyal Thus perceivers may have two conflicting reactions on the same di-mension (ie trustworthiness) toward the source who violates his or herown grouprsquos interest Similarly unlike confirmation of individual self-in-terest it is not clear that a person who confirms his or her grouprsquos interestswould be seen as untrustworthy Although a source who confirms thegrouprsquos interests can be viewed negatively (eg as biased because he orshe is acting to enhance group and self-interest) he or she can also beviewed positively as a good group member or loyal This greater variabil-ity in interpreting both group interest conditions should lead to an attenu-ation or elimination of differences in perceived trustworthiness betweengroup interest confirmation and disconfirmation In sum violations ofsource-positionexpectancies based on group interest should produce sur-prise without any accompanying augmentation of the sourcersquos trustwor-thiness Because of this violation of group interest might lead to enhancedinformation processing activity

The differential consequences of violating group versus individualself-interest on source attributions information processing or persuasion

422 PETTY ET AL

1 In the persuasion studies finding that disconfirmation of expectancies leads to en-hanced processing there is no individual source who violates expectancies For examplein Baker and Petty (1994) the participants are simply told that a majority or minority ofpeople favors a particular position This general information can violate expectancies ornot but no individual source violates expectancies

have not been investigated previously The present research aims to ad-dress these issues because the group interest case may provide an initialboundary condition to the previously identified and consistent effects ofsource-positionexpectancy disconfirmationBased upon (1) the clear dif-ferences in perceived selfishness and trustworthiness across the individ-ual interest confirmation versus disconfirmation conditions and (2) theattributional ambiguity under group interest disconfirmation and confir-mation conditions (see Snyder amp Wicklund 1981) we predicted thatsource perception differences in perceived trustworthiness between con-firmation and disconfirmation of expectancies would be larger when ex-pectancies were based on individual interest versus group interest Thatis although past research has shown that disconfirmation of individualself-interest expectancies leads to enhanced perceptions of source trust-worthiness relative to confirmation (eg Priester amp Petty 1995 Walster etal 1966) we expected that this difference would be attenuated or absentwith disconfirmation of group interest expectancies relative to confirma-tion Nevertheless both types of expectancy disconfirmation should beviewed as surprising relative to confirmation

Our first study was designed to evaluate the differences in perceptions ofsource trustworthiness surprise and attributional ambiguity across the in-dividual and group expectancy bases This experiment sought to replicatepast findings of attributional effects of self-interest (dis)confirmation andto extend the analysis to violations of group interest In a second study weinvestigated the effect of violations of source-position expectancies basedon group interest on message processing and persuasion Specifically wetested whether group interest expectancy disconfirmation leads to in-creased or decreased message processing relative to confirmation

EXPERIMENT ONE

OVERVIEW

In this study students read a brief scenario in which expectancies basedupon a sourcersquos self-interest or a sourcersquos grouprsquos interest were estab-lished and then either confirmed or disconfirmed by the position takenin a brief message summary To evaluate participantsrsquo source percep-tions based solely upon message position the message summary onlystated the position taken by the source without any supporting argu-ments After reading the short summary participants responded toitems measuring their perceptions of the source their surprise about theposition taken and their attributions for the position taken

The scenario opening paragraph stated that a specific person (or a spe-cific group) should receive a university scholarship Expectancies wereconfirmed when the sourcersquos position either advocated that the source

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 423

himself (ldquoBill Johnstonrdquo) or a group to which the source belonged (ldquomi-nority studentsrdquo) should receive the scholarship Expectancies weredisconfirmed when the essay advocated that either another person(ldquoDavid Matthewsrdquo) or a group to which the writer did not belong(ldquochildren of alumnirdquo) should receive the scholarship

These materials were designed to allow for a conceptual replication ofAAP work in the self-interest conditions and still allow a feasible varia-tion for the group interest conditions The expectancy manipulation wasmodeled after the AAP work (eg Eagly et al 1978) in that situationalconstraints led to expectations about the position the source would takeWe chose the groups ldquominority studentsrdquo and ldquochildren of alumnirdquo be-cause (1) both seemed to be reasonable groups to receive a scholarshipand (2) these groups were both ldquoascribedrdquo (Ashmore amp Del Boca 1979)to group members (the group members would either always belong tothe group or would never belong to the group) Thus it was clear in thegroup interest conditions that the position taken in the essay either bene-fited or potentially harmed the sourcersquos own group

METHOD

PARTICIPANTS

Sixty-six White students at Ohio State University (OSU) who were notchildren of OSU alumni participated in partial fulfillment of require-ments in an introductory psychology course The fact that participantswho were from racial minorities or children of alumni were not includedensures that the participants were non-invested parties

DESIGN

Participants were assigned to the cells of a 2 (Expectancy basis individ-ual interest group interest ) acute 2 (Expectancy confirmationdisconfirmation) between-participants factorial design In addition ameasure of NC (Cacioppo Petty amp Kao 1984)was taken as it has moder-ated prior work on expectancy violations (eg Priester amp Petty 1995Smith amp Petty 1995)

PROCEDURE

Sessions were conducted in groups of two to seven Upon arrival partic-ipants were given experimental booklets that contained the followinginformation The first page of the booklet described the study as part ofan ldquoessay writing-evaluation projectrdquo Although specific instructions

424 PETTY ET AL

differed across expectancy basis conditions (see below) general instruc-tions informed participants that they would be given and would be eval-uating the introductory paragraph of a sample essay ldquotaken from a poolof letters sent to the Office of Student Affairs at the University of IowardquoThe letters were described as pertaining to a planned university scholar-ship program that could only be offered to a limited number of studentsEssays were described as having been solicited to help decide whoshould receive the scholarship In addition participants were informedthat they would be given some demographic information about thewriter of the essay The participantsrsquo task was to form an impressionabout the writer and to evaluate the writing in the essay

The remaining pages of the experimental booklet contained in order(1) a demographic sheet about the writer (2) the essay introductory para-graph (3) the dependent variables and manipulation checks (4) the NCscale and (5) a participant demographic sheet After all participants in agroup had completed the booklets they were debriefed and excused

INDEPENDENT VARIABLES

Basis of Expectancy The basis of the expectancy (individual or groupinterest) was manipulated by varying both the initial instructions andthe essay introductoryparagraph In addition to the general instructionsdescribed above the first page of the booklet stated either that ldquoonly onestudent will receive the scholarshiprdquo (individual interest condition) orthat ldquoonly members of one group will receive the scholarshiprdquo (groupinterest condition) The essay paragraphs were also either described assolicited to help decide ldquowho should receive this scholarshiprdquo or ldquowhichgroup should receive these scholarshipsrdquo

Expectancy ConfirmationDisconfirmation Expectancies about the posi-tion to be taken were created by manipulating the instructions on thefirst page of the booklet and the source demographic sheet on the secondpage The expectancy confirmation or disconfirmationwas manipulatedthrough the content of the essay introductory paragraph on the thirdpage of the booklet

In the group interest conditions the initial instructions stated that es-says were solicited to help decide which one group should receive thescholarship In addition the demographic sheet on the writer providedinformation about the writerrsquos race and his parentsrsquo educational back-ground (among other information such as the writerrsquos name age sexuniversity year in school major hometown and hobbies) This infor-mation was held constant across all conditions The writer ldquoBillJohnstonrdquo was described as Black and his parents were not alumni fromhis university

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 425

The expectancy-confirming introductory paragraph for the group in-terest expectancy was

All students who are of racial minority status should qualify for the univer-sity scholarship program that would enable them to attend school withouthaving to pay tuition Although this means that the other equally-deservinggroups being considered (including children of alumni) will have to paytheir own tuition I believe that minority students are the most worthygroup based upon the following reasons

Thus in the group interest confirmation condition the source a Blackmale took the expected position in favor of his group The expec-tancy-disconfirming introductory paragraph for the group interest ex-pectancy was identical to the confirming paragraph except thatanother group (ldquochildren of alumnirdquo) was switched with ldquominoritystudentsrdquo so that the paragraph stated that ldquoalthough this means thatthe other equally-deserving groups being considered (including mi-nority students) will have to pay their own tuition I believe that chil-dren of alumnirdquo Thus in the group interest disconfirmationcondition the Black source took the unexpected position in favor of an-other group

In the individual interest conditions the expectancy was establishedin the initial instructions that only one student would receive the schol-arship Thus the student submitting an essay would be expected towrite that he should receive the scholarship To strengthen this expec-tancy the essay writer was also described as one of the scholarship pro-gram finalists The writer demographic information was identical to thegroup interest information

The expectancy-confirming introductory paragraph for the individ-ual interest expectancy was

I should qualify for the university scholarship program that would enableme to attend school without having to pay tuition Although this means thatthe other equally-deserving finalists will have to pay their own tuition I be-lieve that I am most deserving based upon the following reasons

Thus in this condition the source took the expected position in favor ofhimself The expectancy-disconfirming introductory paragraph for theindividual interest expectancy was identical to the confirming para-graph except that another personrsquos name (ldquoDavid Matthewsrdquo) was sub-stituted for ldquoIrdquo in the appropriate places Thus in this condition the

426 PETTY ET AL

source violated individual self-interest and took an unexpected positionin favor of someone else

Need for Cognition Scale After responding to the other measures par-ticipants completed the NC scale (Cacioppo et al 1984) High and lowNC participants were determined by a median split on the scale with themedian equaling 635 (scores ranged from 26 to 86)

DEPENDENT VARIABLES

Surprise Ratings After participants read the essay introductory para-graph they were asked to answer all questions without looking back atprevious pages On the page immediately following the essay introduc-tory paragraph participants were asked several general questions tomeasure their ldquooverall reaction to the writerrsquos choice of essay topicrdquo As acheck on whether expectancy violation was surprising participants re-sponded on a 7-point scale ranging from -3 = ldquonot at all surprisedrdquo to +3= ldquovery surprisedrdquo regarding how surprised they were about thewriterrsquos choice of essay topic

Source Trustworthiness Measures After evaluating the essay topicparticipants were asked for their opinions about the essay writer be-cause ldquoevaluations of the essay introductory paragraph might havebeen influenced by your attitude about the writerrdquo Participants wereasked to rate the writer on several positivenegative trait semanticdifferential scales These 7-point scales ranged from -3 to +3 Sourcetrustworthiness was measured with three scales (untrustworthytrustworthy insinceresincere dishonesthonest) which were pre-sented with other positivenegative source traits serving as filler items(eg coldwarm close-mindedopen-minded unlikeablelikeable)

Open-Ended Attributional Processing On the next page participantswere asked to write down the reasons why they thought that the studentchose to write his essay The number of trait attributions listed wascounted by a coder blind to conditions More traits were expected to belisted for individual versus group interest conditions In addition to as-sess the specific trait attributions of selfish and selfless the number of di-rect mentions ofsource ldquoselfishnessrdquo and ldquoselflessnessrdquo were alsotallied

Manipulation Checks and Participant Demographic Sheet To ensure thatparticipants were aware of the source information that created the ex-pectancy a recognition test of the source demographic information wasgiven after the other measures were completed The two importantquestions concerned the sourcersquos race and the sourcersquos parentsrsquo educa-

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 427

tional background2 The final page of the experimental booklet was aparticipant demographic sheet so that we could establish which partici-pants were minority students and which were children of alumni

RESULTS

All dependent variables were submitted to a 2 (Expectancy basis individ-ual interest group interest ) acute 2 (Expectancy confirmationdisconfirmation)acute 2 (Need for cognition high low)between-participantsanalysis of variance

SOURCE TRUSTWORTHINESS

The three scales designed to measure trustworthiness were highlyintercorrelated (Cronbachrsquos a = 74)and thus were averaged to form a trust-worthiness index This index wassubmitted to the three-wayANOVA Theonly significant effect obtained was the predicted interaction between Basisand Expectancy F(158) = 755 p lt 01 To interpret this interaction simpleeffects tests were conducted separately for individual and group interestexpectancies For individual interest conditionsa simple main effect for ex-pectancy was found F(132) = 478 p lt 04 Replicating previous research(eg Priester amp Petty 1995) when the source disconfirmed individual in-teresthe wasrated asmore trustworthy(M = 186)than when he confirmedindividual interest (M = 083) However for group interest conditions nodifference between expectancy disconfirmation (M = 087) and confirma-tion (M = 136) conditions was found F(130) = 158 p = 22

SURPRISE RATINGS

Two main effects were obtained on the surprise scale First as expectedparticipants were more surprised in the expectancy disconfirmation (M= 184)than in the confirmation conditions (M = -039) F(158)= 3047p lt0001 The other significant result was a main effect for expectancy basisRegardless of whether expectancies were confirmed or disconfirmedparticipants found the individual interest messages more surprising (M= 131)than the group interest messages (M = 015) F(158)= 825p lt 01

428 PETTY ET AL

2 On the source memory manipulation check two participants erred on the alumni sta-tus of the writerrsquos parents and no one erred on the writerrsquos race When these participantsare removed from analyses results are the same as those reported

The Basis acute Expectancy interaction was not significant F (158)= 215p =153 Thus as predicted it appears that participants were more surprisedafter expectancy disconfirmation than confirmation regardless ofwhether the expectancy was based upon the sourcersquos individual orgroup interest

OPEN-ENDED ATTRIBUTIONAL PROCESSING

Analyses of the number of trait attributions participants listed in theiropen-ended responses revealed a main effect for Expectancy BasisF(157) = 1188 p lt 01 Specifically participants explained the tar-getrsquos actions using more trait terms in the individual interest condi-tions (M = 114 traits per participant) than in the group interestconditions (M = 32) suggesting that a clear attribution was easier tomake in the individual than group interest conditions One specifictrait thought to differ between individual self-interest and group in-terest was perceived selfishnessselflessness Thus the percentagesof participants who referred to selfishness or selflessness were com-pared across expectancy basis 303 of participants in the individ-ual conditions mentioned selfishnessselflessness (participantsmentioned either selfishness or selflessness not both) whereas 0 ofparticipants in the group conditions mentioned this trait c2(1) =1146 p lt 001 To evaluate the numbers of references to selfishnessve r su s se l f l e ss n e ss ac ro ss e xp e ct an c y co n f i rm at io n an ddisconfirmation separate analyses were conducted for the individ-ual conditions only (since there were no mentions of these traits inthe group conditions) For mentions of selflessness 389 ofdisconfirmation (ie low self-interest) condition participants men-tioned this trait (or synonyms) whereas 0 of participants in theconfirmation (ie high self-interest) condition mentioned selfless-ness c2(1) = 740 p lt 007 For mentions of selfishness (or synonyms)20 of participants in the confirmation condition mentioned thistrait whereas 0 of participants in the disconfirmation conditionmentioned it c2(1)= 396 p lt05 It appears that participants weremore likely to attribute the sourcersquos choice of message position to a

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 429

3 We also conducted separate simple effects tests for the individual and group interestconditions to determine if the simple main effect for expectancy held These analyses con-firmed that effects for expectancy occurred in both the individual interest F(132)= 838plt 006 (Means Confirmed = 049Disconfirmed = 213)and group interest F(130)= 2701plt 0001 (Means Confirmed = -126 Disconfirmed = 156) conditions

personality trait (especially to selfishnessselflessness) when thesourcersquos position was relevant to self-interest rather than relevant to hisgrouprsquos interest

We also expected that the differential perceptions of source selfish-ness in the individual conditions would correspond to the greater per-ceived source trustworthiness under expectancy disconfirmation thanconfirmation To evaluate this prediction the correlations between ref-erences to selfishness (and selflessness) and the source trustworthinessratings were computed As predicted in the individual conditionstrustworthiness and mentions of selfishness were significantly nega-tively correlated r = -42 p lt 02 In addition trustworthiness and men-tions of selflessness were significantly positively correlated r = 36 p lt05

DISCUSSION

In this study we found different effects of expectancy disconfirmationon source perceptions for expectancies based on individual versusgroup interest As predicted trustworthiness attributions varied onlywhen the expectancy was based upon the sourcersquos individual self-inter-est Thus our individual interest expectancy conditions were consistentwith prior theory and research (eg Eagly et al 1978 Priester amp Petty1995) in that the source was perceived as more trustworthy when hewent against his own self-interest than when he wrote in favor of hisself-interest More importantly we found a condition under whichsource-position expectancy confirmation and disconfirmation did notmake a difference for trustworthiness attributions mdash when the expec-tancy was based upon group membership and group interest Resultsfrom the open-ended responses suggest that this attenuation mayhave been due to the greater attributional ambiguity when group in-terest rather than individual interest was concerned Thus Experi-me n t 1 ou t l in e s a b ou nda ry co n dit ion fo r th e ef fe c ts ofdisconfirmation of source-position expectancy on perceptions oftrustworthiness suggesting that taking an unexpected position doesnot invariably lead to perceptions of enhanced source trustworthi-ness

In addition consistent with previous expectancy disconfirmationwork (eg Baker amp Petty 1994) participants were more surprised whenexpectancies were disconfirmed than confirmed More importantly thisinvestigation extends this work by suggesting that individuals are moresurprised when an individual source takes a position that disconfirms

430 PETTY ET AL

rather than confirms expectancies regardless of whether the position vi-olates either individual or group interest4

EXPERIMENT TWO

Experiment 2 was designed to investigate the implications of the find-ings of Experiment 1 regarding the effects of disconfirmation of groupinterest for message processing Specifically we tested the predictionthat disconfirmation of a source-position expectancy that does not aug-ment perceived source trustworthiness (ie violation of group interest)will lead to increased rather than reduced message scrutiny Past re-search has already shown that reduced message scrutiny results whenindividual self-interest expectancy disconfirmation leads to enhancedperceptions of source trustworthinessand message validity (Eagly et al1978 Priester amp Petty 1995 Wood amp Eagly 1981) Because a source whoviolates group interest is not seen as more trustworthy but is more sur-prising we anticipate that group interest expectancy disconfirmation

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 431

4 Before conducting Study 2 one potential concern with the operationalization ofgroup interest expectancies in Study 1 was evaluated Specifically our group interest con-firmation condition had scholarships for ldquominority studentsrdquo as its topic whereas thetopic in the disconfirmation condition was about ldquochildren of alumnirdquo The groups ldquomi-nority studentsrdquo and ldquochildren of alumnirdquo are not equivalent and might show different ef-fects for reasons unrelated to expectancy violation For example it might be moresurprising for any source to advocate scholarships for alumni than for minorities To re-move this potential confound and use both topics in the expectancy confirming anddisconfirming cases we conducted a study to replicate conceptually our group interestfindings with both groups Source demographics were varied such that the source was ei-ther Black and not a child of alumni or White and a child of alumni A second minorchange was made in the essay topic mdash rather than a scholarship programthe programwasdescribed as a ldquouniversity service programrdquo that would allow participants free tuition Themessage either advocated that this program should be for children of alumni or for minor-ity students (see Experiment 2 for details)

Forty-eight individuals participated in this 2 (Source Black student of non alumni par-ents White student of alumni parents)acute 2 (Expectancy confirmation disconfirmation) be-tween-participants design In this study expectancy confirmationdisconfirmation wasalways on a group interest basis Participants received the demographic information andintroductory essay paragraph and then completed measures of surprise and source trust-worthiness In this revised version our manipulation of expectancy confirma-tiondisconfirmation was effective in producing surprise as participants weresignificantly more surprised after disconfirmation (M = 067) than after confirmation (M =-204) F(144) = 3438 p lt 0001 Furthermore replicating the group interest conditions inStudy 1 no significant effects were found on the source trustworthiness index As ex-pected participants did not view the disconfirming source as any more trustworthy (M =142) than the confirming source (M = 138) Neither of these effects was qualified by thesource That is Black students favoring alumni and White alumni favoring minority stu-dents were both more surprising than favoring onersquos own group

will lead to enhanced information processing compared to group inter-est expectancy confirmation as has been found in other work on expec-tancies (eg Baker amp Petty 1994Maheswaran amp Chaiken 1991Smith ampPetty 1995) To assess the extent to which the persuasive message wasscrutinized participants were presented with messages containing ei-ther all strong or all weak arguments In general the attitudes of partici-pants who are thinking about the message carefully should be moreaffected by message quality (ie they should be more persuaded bystrong than weak arguments) compared to participants who are notthinking about the message carefully (see Petty Wells amp Brock 1976Petty amp Cacioppo 1986)

METHOD

PARTICIPANTS

Two hundred eighty-eight White students who were not children ofOSU alumni participated in this study in partial completion of introduc-tory psychology course requirements As in Experiment 1 minority par-ticipants and children of alumni were not included in the analyses

DESIGN

Participants were assigned to the cells of a 2 (Source Black non-alum-nus child White alumnus child) acute 2 (Group interest expectancy con-firmed disconfirmed) acute 2 (Argument quality strong weak)between-participants factorial design (see footnote 4) As in Experiment1 a measure of NC was taken

PROCEDURE

Experimental sessions were conducted with groups ranging in size fromtwo to eight Upon arrival participants were given experimental book-lets that contained the following information The first page of the book-let described the study as part of a ldquojournalism writing-evaluationprojectrdquo in which participants would be given a newspaper article writ-ten by a student from another Big Ten university They were also toldthat they would be given some demographic information about the au-thor of the article The participantsrsquo task was to form an impression of thewriter and to evaluate the writing in the article itself Participants werethen given a summary of the message topic mdash that a tuition break pro-gram should be instituted at the University of Iowa The baseline level ofmessage scrutiny for this personally irrelevant message was expected to

432 PETTY ET AL

be relatively low (see Petty amp Cacioppo 1979 1990) The remainingpages of the booklet contained (1) a demographic sheet about the writer(2) the article (containing the persuasive message) (3) the dependentvariables and manipulation checks (4) the NC scale and (5) the partici-pant demographic sheet After all participants in a group had completedthe booklets they were debriefed and excused

INDEPENDENT VARIABLES

Source On the second page of the booklet participants were given ademographic sheet about the writer This page contained informationabout the writerrsquos age sex university year in school major hometownhobby race and parentsrsquo educational background (in this order) Infor-mation about the source remained the same in all conditions except forrace and parentsrsquo educational background The manipulation of sourcewas accomplished by varying jointly the race and the parentsrsquo univer-sity which was either BlackUniversity of Minnesota (ie minorityparents were not alumni of Iowa) or WhiteUniversity of Iowa (ienon-minority parents were alumni of Iowa) This manipulation pro-vided an internal replication of group interest disconfirmation effects onpersuasion (see footnote 4 for a pretest of the effects of this manipulationon source perceptions and surprise)

Group Interest Expectancy ConfirmationDisconfirmation The expe c-tancy manipulation was accomplished by the combination of the mes-sage source and message topic Participants were provided with a briefsummary of the message topic before they read the full persuasive mes-sage to create the expectancy confirmation or disconfirmation in ad-vance of the persuasion attempt Participants were informed that thearticle they would be evaluating was about one of the following topicsldquoStudents who are children of alumni (ie their parents graduated fromthe same university that the student attends) should be allowed to par-ticipate in a two year university service program that would allow themto attend school without having to pay tuitionrdquo Or ldquoStudents who are ofracial minority status should be allowed to participate in a two year uni-versity service program that would allow them to attend school withouthaving to pay tuitionrdquo

Thus expectancy confirmation resulted when the source wrote in fa-vor of his own group participating in this program and expectancydisconfirmation resulted when the source wrote in favor of a group towhich he did not belong

Argument Quality On the next pages of the booklet participants re-ceived the persuasive message The message contained either the strong

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 433

or weak arguments from Baker and Petty (1994 Study 2) The argumentsin the message were pretested such that the strong arguments elicitedprimarily positive thoughts and the weak arguments elicited primarilynegative thoughts when pretest participants were instructed to thinkabout them (see Baker amp Petty 1994 Study 2)

The persuasive message supported implementing a program in whichcertain students (either minority students or children of alumni) wouldbe eligible for tuition breaks in exchange for participating in a universityservice program The message arguments focused on the benefits of theuniversity service program for the university and for the students in-volved in the program For example one strong argument stressed thatwith the money saved through students performing various universityservices ldquoa greater portion of the university budget can be invested inmonetary incentives for research and teachingrdquo and ldquofunding will beavailable to recruit additional outstanding professors researchers andNobel prize winnersrdquo However a parallel weak argument suggestedthat the additional monies available can be ldquospent on materials such aspaint for buildings new machinery for mowing and landscaping andplantings shrubbery flowers and treesrdquo in order to make the universityldquoa scenic and beautiful place to spend the college daysrdquo

Need for Cognition Scale Participants completed the need for cognitionscale (Cacioppo et al 1984)after responding to the other measures Highand low need for cognition participants were determined by a mediansplit on the scale with the median equaling 635 (scores ranged from 31 to85)

DEPENDENT VARIABLES

Argument Quality Manipulation Checks Immediately after participantsread the persuasive message they were asked to answer all questionswithout looking back at previous pages On the page immediately fol-lowing the essay participants were asked to rate ldquohow well was the arti-cle writtenrdquo and ldquohow persuasive were the argumentsrdquo on 9-pointscales ranging from 1 = ldquonot at allrdquo to 9 = ldquoextremelyrdquo These questionswere provided along with several filler questions (eg how clear wasthe writing style) designed to fit the cover story about evaluating the ar-ticle The first two questions served as manipulation checks for argu-ment quality

Attitude Measures On the next page participants read that ldquobecauseyour evaluations of the article might have been influenced by your atti-tude toward the article topic we would like to ask your opinions aboutthe topicrdquo Participants then completed two general attitude questionsand a five-item semantic differential scale The general questions were

434 PETTY ET AL

ldquoIn general what is your opinion about the university service pro-gramrdquo and ldquoHow would you feel about the implementation of the uni-versity service program here at Ohio State Universityrdquo These itemswere completed on 9-point scales ranging from 1 = ldquostrongly opposerdquo to9 = ldquostrongly favorrdquo On the five-item semantic differential scale partici-pants were asked ldquorate how you feel about the university service pro-gramrdquo Each semantic differential was completed on a 9-point scale Thescale anchors were unfavorablefavorable badgood foolishwiseharmfulbeneficial and unfairfair

Source Memory Manipulation Check and Participant Demographics Aftercompleting all other dependent measures participants completed thesource memory multiple choice questions and the participant demo-graphic sheet (as described in study 1)5

RESULTS

All dependent variables were submitted to a 2 (Group interest expec-tancy confirmation vs disconfirmation) acute 2 (Source Black non-alum-nus vs White alumnus ) acute 2 (Argument quality strong vs weak) acute 2(NC high vs low) between-participants analysis of variance

Argument Quality Manipulation Checks6 To determine if our manipu-lation of strong and weak arguments was effective participantsrsquo re-sponses to the two argument quality questions were averaged andsubmitted to the four-way ANOVA The expected main effect for argu-ment quality was obtained F(1271) = 1297 p lt 001 Messages contain-ing strong arguments were rated more positively (M = 589) than wereweak messages (M = 512)7

Attitude Measure The a coefficient for the attitude scales was 95 so thescales were averaged to form an overall index This index was subjected

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 435

5 On the source memory manipulation check one participant made an error on thewriterrsquos race and eleven participants erred on the alumni status of the writerrsquos parentsWhen these participants are removed from analyses results are the same as those re-ported

6 One participant did not complete this measure and thus was not included in the anal-ysis

7 A main effect of expectancy was also obtained F(1 271) = 680 p lt 01 suggesting thatparticipants in the disconfirmation conditions rated arguments more positively (M = 579)than did participants in the confirmation conditions (M = 523)In addition a need for cogni-tion acute expectancy interaction emerged F(1271)= 400 p lt 05 suggesting that whereas highNC individuals rated the quality of the arguments higher when the expectancy wasdisconfirmed (M = 590)than confirmed (M = 491)low NC individualsrsquo perceptions of argu-mentquality were notaffected by expectancy (Mdisconfirmed = 568Mconfirmed = 555)

to the four-way between-participants ANOVA First a main effect forargument quality was obtained F(1272) = 1104 p lt 01 indicating thatparticipants receiving strong arguments were more persuaded (M =549) than were those who received weak arguments (M = 474) Ofgreater interest the predicted expectancy acute argument quality interac-tion F(1272) = 579 p lt 02 qualified this main effect (see Figure 1)When expectancies were disconfirmed argument quality had a greaterimpact on attitudes than when expectancies were confirmed More spe-cifically under expectancy confirmation conditions argument qualityhad no impact on attitudes F(1139) = 42 ns However under expec-tancy disconfirmation conditions a simple main effect for argumentquality emerged F(1145) = 1854 p lt 0001

One additional effect that emerged consistent with past research(Priester amp Petty 1995 Smith amp Petty 1995) was a three-way interactionamong expectancy argument quality and need for cognition F(1272) =386 p lt 05 (see Table 2) Separate analyses for high and low need forcognition participants indicated that high NC participants (ie those in-dividuals who enjoy thinking) showed only a main effect for argumentquality F(1134) = 784 p lt 01 (the expectancy acute argument quality inter-action F lt 1 ns) suggesting that they engaged in effortful processing ofthe message regardless of whether expectancies were confirmed or

436 PETTY ET AL

FIGURE 1 Interaction on attitudes between group interest expectancy status and argu-ment quality

disconfirmed Low NC participants showed a main effect for argumentquality F(1146) = 419 p lt 05 along with an expectancy acute argumentquality interaction F(1146) = 1038 p lt 01 This interaction indicatedthat low NC participants did not differentiate between strong and weakarguments when their expectancies were confirmed but they did differ-entiate when their expectancies were disconfirmed8

GENERAL DISCUSSION

The present research expands our understanding of the consequences ofsources taking unexpected positions Based on prior research and the-ory one would have predicted that when a source takes an unexpectedposition greater attributions of trustworthiness and reduced informa-tion processing activity should result compared to when the sourcetakes an expected position The current studies suggest that this result is

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 437

TABLE 1 Mean Attitude Ratings as a Function of Group-Interest Expectancy Statusand Argument Quality (Experiment 2)

mdashmdashAttitudesmdashmdash

Argument Quality Confirmed Disconfirmed

Strong 504 (65) 594 (79)

SD = 187 SD = 170

Weak 483 (76) 465 (68)

SD = 197 SD = 209

Note Ns indicated in parentheses

8 A source acute expectancy interaction F(1272) = 528 p lt 03 was also obtained A maineffect for expectancy emerged in the Black non-alumnus source condition F(1136)= 840p lt 01 Thus participants had more positive attitudes toward the message when a minor-ity source wrote in favor of children of alumni receiving the tuition breaks (M = 562) thanwhen the minority source wrote in favor of breaks for minorities (M = 475) Attitudes inthe White alumnus source conditions did not differ between expectancy disconfirming (M= 496)and confirming conditions (M = 513)F lt 1 This unanticipated result could have oc-curred because Caucasian participants paid more attention to the position taken by theBlack than the White source resulting in their being more affected by those positions(Petty Fleming amp White 1999 White amp Harkens 1994) Future research could includeconditions where a Black source is an alumnus and a White source is a non-alumnus totease apart race from alumni effects Importantly our results indicated that participantsengaged in greater scrutiny of the arguments whichever source (black or white alumnusor non-alumnus) violated expectancies That is the significant two-way Expectancy acute Ar-gument quality interaction was not qualified by source nor was the significant three-wayExpectancy acute Argument quality acute Need for cognition interaction qualified by source

likely primarily when the position taken violates individual self-inter-est When the position is unexpected because it violates a grouprsquos inter-est the results are quite different That is in Experiment 1 we showedthat although both types of expectancy violation induce surprise onlythe violation of self-interest is associated with increased perceptions oftrustworthiness Violations of group interest do not engender the sameenhancements of trustworthiness Instead violations of group interestappear to produce some attributional ambiguity The surprise accompa-nied by unclear attributions as to the cause of a behavior would be ex-pected to lead to increased rather than decreased informationprocessing This is the effect we observed in Experiment 2

INTEGRATION INFORMATION PROCESSING CONSEQUENCESOF EXPECTANCY DISCONFIRMATION

The current framework seems potentially useful for reconciling seem-ingly inconsistent findings in the persuasion literature regarding the in-formation processing consequences of expectancy disconfirmation Tosummarize briefly if disconfirmation of expectancies leads to increasedperceptions of source trustworthiness or enhanced perceptions of mes-sage validity then message processing should decrease over confirma-tion conditions (Chaiken et al 1989 Petty amp Cacioppo 1986) On theother hand if disconfirmation of expectancies leads only to surprisecompared to confirmation conditions message processing should in-crease In past research disconfirmations of expectancies about messagequality (Maheswaran amp Chaiken 1991) message framing (Smith ampPetty 1995) and whether a majority or minority of others hold a pro- orcounterattitudinal position (Baker amp Petty 1994) did not violate self-in-terest and thus should not lead to perceptions of source trustworthinessor message validity In each case recipients are simply left surprised by

438 PETTY ET AL

TABLE 2 Mean Attitude Ratings as a Function of Group-Interest Expectancy StatusArgument Quality and Participantsrsquo Need for Cognition Level (Experiment 2)

mdashmdashAttitudesmdashmdash

High Need for Cognition Low Need for Cognition

Argument Quality Confirmed Disconfirmed Confirmed Disconfirmed

Strong 508 (33) 580 (37) 500 (32) 607 (42)

SD = 204 SD = 156 SD = 170 SD = 182

Weak 432 (37) 484 (31) 535 (39) 445 (37)

SD = 202 SD = 200 SD = 181 SD = 217

Note Ns indicated in parentheses

the disconfirmation of expectancies and they engage in greater informa-tion processing activity presumably to resolve the violation of expecta-tions and re-establish their understanding of the topic or source at hand(Olson et al 1996)

It is somewhat ironic that the earliest work on expectancies in persua-sion (Eagly amp Chaiken 1975Eagly et al 1978Walster et al 1966 Woodamp Eagly 1981) focused on the one type of expectation (ie source-posi-tion expectancy based on personal self-interest) that produced an appar-ent exception to the subsequently emergent general rule thatdisconfirmation of expectancies enhances processing The current re-search is the first to show that violations of expectancies about the posi-tion a source will take can lead to enhanced information processing Thiswas accomplished by shifting the expectation from one based on self-in-terest alone to group interest

In examining this framework it is important to keep the theoreticalvariables in mind that underlie our integration That is when a sourceviolates expectancies a number of inferences are possible An expec-tancy disconfirmation can enhance perceptions of source trustworthi-ness or message validity (and thus decrease message processing) and itcan also affect surprise (and thus increase message processing) butwhen surprise alone occurs enhanced information processing occursWhen both occur it appears that perceptions of message validity reducemessage processing despite the increased surprise

For self- and group interest expectancy violations to occur at least twofactors seem necessary a perception that some self- or group interest isinvolved and an expectation that individuals will act in accordancewiththat interest A perception of self- or group interest may not always bepresent For example an aggregate of individuals which is notentitative enough (they do not form a coherent whole) may not be per-ceived as having a common group interest in the first place (Campbell1958Hamilton amp Sherman 1996Hamilton Sherman amp Lickel 1998) Insuch cases there would be no group interest to violate Even when self-or group interest is perceived however violations of them may not al-ways cause expectancy disconfirmationsFor example in some culturesself-interest violation may be expected rather than unexpected and thussuch violations would not be expected to lead to increased perceptionsof trustworthinessbecause people are more likely to make dispositionalattributions for behaviors that are unexpected (Jones amp Davis 1965)Likewise for some groups or issues group interest violation may also beexpected such as when the group is clearly undeserving and in those in-stances violation of group interest would not be expected to lead to sur-prise

Future work could examine these possibilities as well as explore sev-eral remaining issues For example although we compared individual

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 439

versus group interest violations on perceptions of trustworthiness andsurprise together in Study 1 we did not directly compare the effects ofthese two types of expectancy violations on information processing andpersuasion This was because the effects of individual self-interest viola-tion on information processing and persuasion seemed clear from priorresearch Nevertheless it would be prudent to examine the effects of in-dividual- versus group interest confirmation versus disconfirmation oninformation processing in the same study In addition our hypothesisthat surprise and attributional ambiguity mediate the increased process-ing resulting from group interest violations should be directly tested byassessing the mediators in the same study as the outcome variables

The current research and framework suggest that it is important toconsider that expectancies in persuasion contexts can be developedupon multiple bases such as on prior knowledge of a personrsquos past be-haviors a personrsquos group membership or human behavior in generalAs shown in our experiments the basis of the expectancy can make animportant difference in the outcome of disconfirmation on source per-ception and on subsequent information processing and persuasion

REFERENCES

Ashmore R D amp Del Boca F K (1979) Sex stereotypes and implicit personality theoriesToward a cognitive-social psychological conceptualization Sex Roles 5 219-248

Baker S M amp Petty R E (1994) Majority and minority influence Source-position imbal-ance as a determinant of message scrutiny Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy 67 5-19

Brewer M B amp Silver M D (2000) Group distinctiveness social identification and col-lective mobilization In S Stryker T J Owens amp R W White (Eds) Self Identityand Social Movements (pp 153-171) Minneapolis MN University of MinnesotaPress

Cacioppo J T amp Petty R E (1982) The need for cognition Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 42 116-131

Cacioppo J T Petty R E amp Kao C (1984)The efficient assessment of need for cognitionJournal of Personality Assessment 48 306-307

Campbell D T (1958) Common fate similarity and other indices of the status of aggre-gates as social entities Behavioral Science 3 14-25

Chaiken S Liberman A amp Eagly A H (1989) Heuristic and systematic processingwithin and beyond the persuasion context In J S Uleman amp J A Bargh (Eds) Un-intended thought (pp 212-252) New York Guilford Press

Eagly A H amp Chaiken S (1975) An attribution analysis of the effect of communicatorcharacteristics on opinion change The case of communicator attractiveness Journalof Personality and Social Psychology 32 136-144

Eagly A H Chaiken S amp Wood W (1981)An attribution analysis of persuasion In J HHarvey W J Ickes amp R F Kidd (Eds) New directions in attribution research (Vol 3pp 37-62) Hillsdale NJ Erlbaum

Eagly A H Wood W amp Chaiken S (1978) Causal inferences about communicators and

440 PETTY ET AL

their effects on opinion change Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36424-435

Fiske S T amp Neuberg S L (1990) A continuum of impression formation from cate-gory-based to individuating processes Influences of information and motivationon attention and interpretation In M P Zanna (Ed) Advances in experimental socialpsychology (Vol 23 pp 1-74) San Diego Academic Press

Hamilton DL amp Sherman S J (1996) Perceiving persons and groups Psychological Re-view 103 336-355

Hamilton DL Sherman S J amp Lickel B (1998) Perceiving social groups The impact ofthe entitativity continuum In C Sedikides J Schopler amp C A Insko (Eds) Inter-group cognitions and intergroup behavior (pp 47-74) Mahwah NJ Erlbaum

Hastie R (1984) Causes and effects of causal attribution Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 37 25-38

Jones E E amp Davis K E (1965) From acts to dispositions The attribution process in per-son perception In L Berkowitz (Ed) Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol2 pp 219-266) New York Academic Press

Kramer R M Brewer M B amp HannaB (1996)Collective trust and collective action Thedecision to trust as a social decision In R Kramer amp T Tyler (Eds) Trust in organiza-tions (pp 357-389) Thousand Oakes CA Sage

Maheswaran D amp Chaiken S (1991) Promoting systematic processing in low-motiva-tion settings Effects of incongruent information on processing and judgment Jour-nal of Personality and Social Psychology 61 13-33

Olson J M Roese N J amp Zanna M P (1996) Expectancies In E T Higgins amp A WKruglanski (Eds) Social psychology Handbook of basic principles (pp 211-238) NewYork Guilford Press

Petty R E (1997) The evolution of theory and research in social psychology From singleto multiple effect and process models In C McGarty amp S A Haslam (Eds) The mes-sage of social psychologyPerspectives on mind in society (pp 268-290)Oxford EnglandBlackwell Publishers Ltd

Petty R E amp Cacioppo J T (1979)Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasionby enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 37 1915-1926

Petty R E amp Cacioppo J T (1986) Communication and persuasion Central and peripheralroutes to attitude change New York Springer-Verlag

Petty R E amp Cacioppo J T (1990) Involvement and persuasion Tradition versus inte-gration Psychological Bulletin 107 367-374

Petty R E Fleming M A amp White P H (1999) Stigmatized sources and persuasionPrejudice as a determinant of argument scrutiny Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology 76 19-34

Petty R E Wells G L amp Brock T C (1976)Distraction can enhance or reduce yielding topropaganda Thought disruption versus effort justification Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology 34 874-884

Platow M J HoarS Reid S Harley K amp Morrison D (1997)Endorsement of distribu-tively fair and unfair leaders in interpersonal and intergroup situations EuropeanJournal of Social Psychology 27 465-494

Platow M J OrsquoConnell A Shave R amp Hanning P (1995) Social evaluations of fair andunfair allocators in interpersonal and intergroup situations British Journal of SocialPsychology 34 363-381

Priester J R amp Petty R E (1995) Source attributions and persuasion Perceived honestyas a determinant of message scrutiny Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 21637-654

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 441

Pyszczynski T A amp Greenberg J (1981)Role of disconfirmed expectancies in the instiga-tion of attributional processing Journal of Personality and Social Psychology40 31-38

Smith S M amp Petty R E (1995) Personality moderators of mood congruency effects oncognition The role of self-esteem and negative mood regulation Journal of Personal-ity and Social Psychology 68 1092-1107

Snyder M L amp Wicklund R (1981)Attribute ambiguity In J H Harvey W Ickes amp R RKidd (Eds) New directions in attribution research (pp 197-221)New York Halsted

Srull T K amp Wyer R S Jr (1989)Person memory and judgment Psychological Review 9658-83

Stangor C amp McMillan D (1992)Memory for expectancy-congruent and expectancy-in-congruent social information A meta-analytic review of the social psychologicaland social developmental literatures Psychological Bulletin 111 42-61

Walster E Aronson E amp Abrahams D (1966)On increasing the persuasiveness of a lowprestige communicator Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 2 325-342

Wenzel M amp Mummendey A (1996) Positive-negative asymmetry of social discrimina-tion A normative analysis of differential evaluations of in-group and out-group onpositive and negative attributes British Journal of Social Psychology 35 493-507

White P H amp Harkens S G (1994) Race of source effects in the elaboration likelihoodmodel Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67 790-807

Wong P T P amp Weiner B (1981) When people ask ldquowhyrdquo questions and the heuristicsof attributional search Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 40 650-663

Wood W amp Eagly A H (1981) Stages in the analysis of persuasive messages The role ofcausal attributions and message comprehension Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 40 246-259

442 PETTY ET AL

Page 6: INDIVIDUAL VERSUS GROUP INTEREST VIOLATION: SURPRISE AS …

have not been investigated previously The present research aims to ad-dress these issues because the group interest case may provide an initialboundary condition to the previously identified and consistent effects ofsource-positionexpectancy disconfirmationBased upon (1) the clear dif-ferences in perceived selfishness and trustworthiness across the individ-ual interest confirmation versus disconfirmation conditions and (2) theattributional ambiguity under group interest disconfirmation and confir-mation conditions (see Snyder amp Wicklund 1981) we predicted thatsource perception differences in perceived trustworthiness between con-firmation and disconfirmation of expectancies would be larger when ex-pectancies were based on individual interest versus group interest Thatis although past research has shown that disconfirmation of individualself-interest expectancies leads to enhanced perceptions of source trust-worthiness relative to confirmation (eg Priester amp Petty 1995 Walster etal 1966) we expected that this difference would be attenuated or absentwith disconfirmation of group interest expectancies relative to confirma-tion Nevertheless both types of expectancy disconfirmation should beviewed as surprising relative to confirmation

Our first study was designed to evaluate the differences in perceptions ofsource trustworthiness surprise and attributional ambiguity across the in-dividual and group expectancy bases This experiment sought to replicatepast findings of attributional effects of self-interest (dis)confirmation andto extend the analysis to violations of group interest In a second study weinvestigated the effect of violations of source-position expectancies basedon group interest on message processing and persuasion Specifically wetested whether group interest expectancy disconfirmation leads to in-creased or decreased message processing relative to confirmation

EXPERIMENT ONE

OVERVIEW

In this study students read a brief scenario in which expectancies basedupon a sourcersquos self-interest or a sourcersquos grouprsquos interest were estab-lished and then either confirmed or disconfirmed by the position takenin a brief message summary To evaluate participantsrsquo source percep-tions based solely upon message position the message summary onlystated the position taken by the source without any supporting argu-ments After reading the short summary participants responded toitems measuring their perceptions of the source their surprise about theposition taken and their attributions for the position taken

The scenario opening paragraph stated that a specific person (or a spe-cific group) should receive a university scholarship Expectancies wereconfirmed when the sourcersquos position either advocated that the source

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 423

himself (ldquoBill Johnstonrdquo) or a group to which the source belonged (ldquomi-nority studentsrdquo) should receive the scholarship Expectancies weredisconfirmed when the essay advocated that either another person(ldquoDavid Matthewsrdquo) or a group to which the writer did not belong(ldquochildren of alumnirdquo) should receive the scholarship

These materials were designed to allow for a conceptual replication ofAAP work in the self-interest conditions and still allow a feasible varia-tion for the group interest conditions The expectancy manipulation wasmodeled after the AAP work (eg Eagly et al 1978) in that situationalconstraints led to expectations about the position the source would takeWe chose the groups ldquominority studentsrdquo and ldquochildren of alumnirdquo be-cause (1) both seemed to be reasonable groups to receive a scholarshipand (2) these groups were both ldquoascribedrdquo (Ashmore amp Del Boca 1979)to group members (the group members would either always belong tothe group or would never belong to the group) Thus it was clear in thegroup interest conditions that the position taken in the essay either bene-fited or potentially harmed the sourcersquos own group

METHOD

PARTICIPANTS

Sixty-six White students at Ohio State University (OSU) who were notchildren of OSU alumni participated in partial fulfillment of require-ments in an introductory psychology course The fact that participantswho were from racial minorities or children of alumni were not includedensures that the participants were non-invested parties

DESIGN

Participants were assigned to the cells of a 2 (Expectancy basis individ-ual interest group interest ) acute 2 (Expectancy confirmationdisconfirmation) between-participants factorial design In addition ameasure of NC (Cacioppo Petty amp Kao 1984)was taken as it has moder-ated prior work on expectancy violations (eg Priester amp Petty 1995Smith amp Petty 1995)

PROCEDURE

Sessions were conducted in groups of two to seven Upon arrival partic-ipants were given experimental booklets that contained the followinginformation The first page of the booklet described the study as part ofan ldquoessay writing-evaluation projectrdquo Although specific instructions

424 PETTY ET AL

differed across expectancy basis conditions (see below) general instruc-tions informed participants that they would be given and would be eval-uating the introductory paragraph of a sample essay ldquotaken from a poolof letters sent to the Office of Student Affairs at the University of IowardquoThe letters were described as pertaining to a planned university scholar-ship program that could only be offered to a limited number of studentsEssays were described as having been solicited to help decide whoshould receive the scholarship In addition participants were informedthat they would be given some demographic information about thewriter of the essay The participantsrsquo task was to form an impressionabout the writer and to evaluate the writing in the essay

The remaining pages of the experimental booklet contained in order(1) a demographic sheet about the writer (2) the essay introductory para-graph (3) the dependent variables and manipulation checks (4) the NCscale and (5) a participant demographic sheet After all participants in agroup had completed the booklets they were debriefed and excused

INDEPENDENT VARIABLES

Basis of Expectancy The basis of the expectancy (individual or groupinterest) was manipulated by varying both the initial instructions andthe essay introductoryparagraph In addition to the general instructionsdescribed above the first page of the booklet stated either that ldquoonly onestudent will receive the scholarshiprdquo (individual interest condition) orthat ldquoonly members of one group will receive the scholarshiprdquo (groupinterest condition) The essay paragraphs were also either described assolicited to help decide ldquowho should receive this scholarshiprdquo or ldquowhichgroup should receive these scholarshipsrdquo

Expectancy ConfirmationDisconfirmation Expectancies about the posi-tion to be taken were created by manipulating the instructions on thefirst page of the booklet and the source demographic sheet on the secondpage The expectancy confirmation or disconfirmationwas manipulatedthrough the content of the essay introductory paragraph on the thirdpage of the booklet

In the group interest conditions the initial instructions stated that es-says were solicited to help decide which one group should receive thescholarship In addition the demographic sheet on the writer providedinformation about the writerrsquos race and his parentsrsquo educational back-ground (among other information such as the writerrsquos name age sexuniversity year in school major hometown and hobbies) This infor-mation was held constant across all conditions The writer ldquoBillJohnstonrdquo was described as Black and his parents were not alumni fromhis university

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 425

The expectancy-confirming introductory paragraph for the group in-terest expectancy was

All students who are of racial minority status should qualify for the univer-sity scholarship program that would enable them to attend school withouthaving to pay tuition Although this means that the other equally-deservinggroups being considered (including children of alumni) will have to paytheir own tuition I believe that minority students are the most worthygroup based upon the following reasons

Thus in the group interest confirmation condition the source a Blackmale took the expected position in favor of his group The expec-tancy-disconfirming introductory paragraph for the group interest ex-pectancy was identical to the confirming paragraph except thatanother group (ldquochildren of alumnirdquo) was switched with ldquominoritystudentsrdquo so that the paragraph stated that ldquoalthough this means thatthe other equally-deserving groups being considered (including mi-nority students) will have to pay their own tuition I believe that chil-dren of alumnirdquo Thus in the group interest disconfirmationcondition the Black source took the unexpected position in favor of an-other group

In the individual interest conditions the expectancy was establishedin the initial instructions that only one student would receive the schol-arship Thus the student submitting an essay would be expected towrite that he should receive the scholarship To strengthen this expec-tancy the essay writer was also described as one of the scholarship pro-gram finalists The writer demographic information was identical to thegroup interest information

The expectancy-confirming introductory paragraph for the individ-ual interest expectancy was

I should qualify for the university scholarship program that would enableme to attend school without having to pay tuition Although this means thatthe other equally-deserving finalists will have to pay their own tuition I be-lieve that I am most deserving based upon the following reasons

Thus in this condition the source took the expected position in favor ofhimself The expectancy-disconfirming introductory paragraph for theindividual interest expectancy was identical to the confirming para-graph except that another personrsquos name (ldquoDavid Matthewsrdquo) was sub-stituted for ldquoIrdquo in the appropriate places Thus in this condition the

426 PETTY ET AL

source violated individual self-interest and took an unexpected positionin favor of someone else

Need for Cognition Scale After responding to the other measures par-ticipants completed the NC scale (Cacioppo et al 1984) High and lowNC participants were determined by a median split on the scale with themedian equaling 635 (scores ranged from 26 to 86)

DEPENDENT VARIABLES

Surprise Ratings After participants read the essay introductory para-graph they were asked to answer all questions without looking back atprevious pages On the page immediately following the essay introduc-tory paragraph participants were asked several general questions tomeasure their ldquooverall reaction to the writerrsquos choice of essay topicrdquo As acheck on whether expectancy violation was surprising participants re-sponded on a 7-point scale ranging from -3 = ldquonot at all surprisedrdquo to +3= ldquovery surprisedrdquo regarding how surprised they were about thewriterrsquos choice of essay topic

Source Trustworthiness Measures After evaluating the essay topicparticipants were asked for their opinions about the essay writer be-cause ldquoevaluations of the essay introductory paragraph might havebeen influenced by your attitude about the writerrdquo Participants wereasked to rate the writer on several positivenegative trait semanticdifferential scales These 7-point scales ranged from -3 to +3 Sourcetrustworthiness was measured with three scales (untrustworthytrustworthy insinceresincere dishonesthonest) which were pre-sented with other positivenegative source traits serving as filler items(eg coldwarm close-mindedopen-minded unlikeablelikeable)

Open-Ended Attributional Processing On the next page participantswere asked to write down the reasons why they thought that the studentchose to write his essay The number of trait attributions listed wascounted by a coder blind to conditions More traits were expected to belisted for individual versus group interest conditions In addition to as-sess the specific trait attributions of selfish and selfless the number of di-rect mentions ofsource ldquoselfishnessrdquo and ldquoselflessnessrdquo were alsotallied

Manipulation Checks and Participant Demographic Sheet To ensure thatparticipants were aware of the source information that created the ex-pectancy a recognition test of the source demographic information wasgiven after the other measures were completed The two importantquestions concerned the sourcersquos race and the sourcersquos parentsrsquo educa-

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 427

tional background2 The final page of the experimental booklet was aparticipant demographic sheet so that we could establish which partici-pants were minority students and which were children of alumni

RESULTS

All dependent variables were submitted to a 2 (Expectancy basis individ-ual interest group interest ) acute 2 (Expectancy confirmationdisconfirmation)acute 2 (Need for cognition high low)between-participantsanalysis of variance

SOURCE TRUSTWORTHINESS

The three scales designed to measure trustworthiness were highlyintercorrelated (Cronbachrsquos a = 74)and thus were averaged to form a trust-worthiness index This index wassubmitted to the three-wayANOVA Theonly significant effect obtained was the predicted interaction between Basisand Expectancy F(158) = 755 p lt 01 To interpret this interaction simpleeffects tests were conducted separately for individual and group interestexpectancies For individual interest conditionsa simple main effect for ex-pectancy was found F(132) = 478 p lt 04 Replicating previous research(eg Priester amp Petty 1995) when the source disconfirmed individual in-teresthe wasrated asmore trustworthy(M = 186)than when he confirmedindividual interest (M = 083) However for group interest conditions nodifference between expectancy disconfirmation (M = 087) and confirma-tion (M = 136) conditions was found F(130) = 158 p = 22

SURPRISE RATINGS

Two main effects were obtained on the surprise scale First as expectedparticipants were more surprised in the expectancy disconfirmation (M= 184)than in the confirmation conditions (M = -039) F(158)= 3047p lt0001 The other significant result was a main effect for expectancy basisRegardless of whether expectancies were confirmed or disconfirmedparticipants found the individual interest messages more surprising (M= 131)than the group interest messages (M = 015) F(158)= 825p lt 01

428 PETTY ET AL

2 On the source memory manipulation check two participants erred on the alumni sta-tus of the writerrsquos parents and no one erred on the writerrsquos race When these participantsare removed from analyses results are the same as those reported

The Basis acute Expectancy interaction was not significant F (158)= 215p =153 Thus as predicted it appears that participants were more surprisedafter expectancy disconfirmation than confirmation regardless ofwhether the expectancy was based upon the sourcersquos individual orgroup interest

OPEN-ENDED ATTRIBUTIONAL PROCESSING

Analyses of the number of trait attributions participants listed in theiropen-ended responses revealed a main effect for Expectancy BasisF(157) = 1188 p lt 01 Specifically participants explained the tar-getrsquos actions using more trait terms in the individual interest condi-tions (M = 114 traits per participant) than in the group interestconditions (M = 32) suggesting that a clear attribution was easier tomake in the individual than group interest conditions One specifictrait thought to differ between individual self-interest and group in-terest was perceived selfishnessselflessness Thus the percentagesof participants who referred to selfishness or selflessness were com-pared across expectancy basis 303 of participants in the individ-ual conditions mentioned selfishnessselflessness (participantsmentioned either selfishness or selflessness not both) whereas 0 ofparticipants in the group conditions mentioned this trait c2(1) =1146 p lt 001 To evaluate the numbers of references to selfishnessve r su s se l f l e ss n e ss ac ro ss e xp e ct an c y co n f i rm at io n an ddisconfirmation separate analyses were conducted for the individ-ual conditions only (since there were no mentions of these traits inthe group conditions) For mentions of selflessness 389 ofdisconfirmation (ie low self-interest) condition participants men-tioned this trait (or synonyms) whereas 0 of participants in theconfirmation (ie high self-interest) condition mentioned selfless-ness c2(1) = 740 p lt 007 For mentions of selfishness (or synonyms)20 of participants in the confirmation condition mentioned thistrait whereas 0 of participants in the disconfirmation conditionmentioned it c2(1)= 396 p lt05 It appears that participants weremore likely to attribute the sourcersquos choice of message position to a

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 429

3 We also conducted separate simple effects tests for the individual and group interestconditions to determine if the simple main effect for expectancy held These analyses con-firmed that effects for expectancy occurred in both the individual interest F(132)= 838plt 006 (Means Confirmed = 049Disconfirmed = 213)and group interest F(130)= 2701plt 0001 (Means Confirmed = -126 Disconfirmed = 156) conditions

personality trait (especially to selfishnessselflessness) when thesourcersquos position was relevant to self-interest rather than relevant to hisgrouprsquos interest

We also expected that the differential perceptions of source selfish-ness in the individual conditions would correspond to the greater per-ceived source trustworthiness under expectancy disconfirmation thanconfirmation To evaluate this prediction the correlations between ref-erences to selfishness (and selflessness) and the source trustworthinessratings were computed As predicted in the individual conditionstrustworthiness and mentions of selfishness were significantly nega-tively correlated r = -42 p lt 02 In addition trustworthiness and men-tions of selflessness were significantly positively correlated r = 36 p lt05

DISCUSSION

In this study we found different effects of expectancy disconfirmationon source perceptions for expectancies based on individual versusgroup interest As predicted trustworthiness attributions varied onlywhen the expectancy was based upon the sourcersquos individual self-inter-est Thus our individual interest expectancy conditions were consistentwith prior theory and research (eg Eagly et al 1978 Priester amp Petty1995) in that the source was perceived as more trustworthy when hewent against his own self-interest than when he wrote in favor of hisself-interest More importantly we found a condition under whichsource-position expectancy confirmation and disconfirmation did notmake a difference for trustworthiness attributions mdash when the expec-tancy was based upon group membership and group interest Resultsfrom the open-ended responses suggest that this attenuation mayhave been due to the greater attributional ambiguity when group in-terest rather than individual interest was concerned Thus Experi-me n t 1 ou t l in e s a b ou nda ry co n dit ion fo r th e ef fe c ts ofdisconfirmation of source-position expectancy on perceptions oftrustworthiness suggesting that taking an unexpected position doesnot invariably lead to perceptions of enhanced source trustworthi-ness

In addition consistent with previous expectancy disconfirmationwork (eg Baker amp Petty 1994) participants were more surprised whenexpectancies were disconfirmed than confirmed More importantly thisinvestigation extends this work by suggesting that individuals are moresurprised when an individual source takes a position that disconfirms

430 PETTY ET AL

rather than confirms expectancies regardless of whether the position vi-olates either individual or group interest4

EXPERIMENT TWO

Experiment 2 was designed to investigate the implications of the find-ings of Experiment 1 regarding the effects of disconfirmation of groupinterest for message processing Specifically we tested the predictionthat disconfirmation of a source-position expectancy that does not aug-ment perceived source trustworthiness (ie violation of group interest)will lead to increased rather than reduced message scrutiny Past re-search has already shown that reduced message scrutiny results whenindividual self-interest expectancy disconfirmation leads to enhancedperceptions of source trustworthinessand message validity (Eagly et al1978 Priester amp Petty 1995 Wood amp Eagly 1981) Because a source whoviolates group interest is not seen as more trustworthy but is more sur-prising we anticipate that group interest expectancy disconfirmation

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 431

4 Before conducting Study 2 one potential concern with the operationalization ofgroup interest expectancies in Study 1 was evaluated Specifically our group interest con-firmation condition had scholarships for ldquominority studentsrdquo as its topic whereas thetopic in the disconfirmation condition was about ldquochildren of alumnirdquo The groups ldquomi-nority studentsrdquo and ldquochildren of alumnirdquo are not equivalent and might show different ef-fects for reasons unrelated to expectancy violation For example it might be moresurprising for any source to advocate scholarships for alumni than for minorities To re-move this potential confound and use both topics in the expectancy confirming anddisconfirming cases we conducted a study to replicate conceptually our group interestfindings with both groups Source demographics were varied such that the source was ei-ther Black and not a child of alumni or White and a child of alumni A second minorchange was made in the essay topic mdash rather than a scholarship programthe programwasdescribed as a ldquouniversity service programrdquo that would allow participants free tuition Themessage either advocated that this program should be for children of alumni or for minor-ity students (see Experiment 2 for details)

Forty-eight individuals participated in this 2 (Source Black student of non alumni par-ents White student of alumni parents)acute 2 (Expectancy confirmation disconfirmation) be-tween-participants design In this study expectancy confirmationdisconfirmation wasalways on a group interest basis Participants received the demographic information andintroductory essay paragraph and then completed measures of surprise and source trust-worthiness In this revised version our manipulation of expectancy confirma-tiondisconfirmation was effective in producing surprise as participants weresignificantly more surprised after disconfirmation (M = 067) than after confirmation (M =-204) F(144) = 3438 p lt 0001 Furthermore replicating the group interest conditions inStudy 1 no significant effects were found on the source trustworthiness index As ex-pected participants did not view the disconfirming source as any more trustworthy (M =142) than the confirming source (M = 138) Neither of these effects was qualified by thesource That is Black students favoring alumni and White alumni favoring minority stu-dents were both more surprising than favoring onersquos own group

will lead to enhanced information processing compared to group inter-est expectancy confirmation as has been found in other work on expec-tancies (eg Baker amp Petty 1994Maheswaran amp Chaiken 1991Smith ampPetty 1995) To assess the extent to which the persuasive message wasscrutinized participants were presented with messages containing ei-ther all strong or all weak arguments In general the attitudes of partici-pants who are thinking about the message carefully should be moreaffected by message quality (ie they should be more persuaded bystrong than weak arguments) compared to participants who are notthinking about the message carefully (see Petty Wells amp Brock 1976Petty amp Cacioppo 1986)

METHOD

PARTICIPANTS

Two hundred eighty-eight White students who were not children ofOSU alumni participated in this study in partial completion of introduc-tory psychology course requirements As in Experiment 1 minority par-ticipants and children of alumni were not included in the analyses

DESIGN

Participants were assigned to the cells of a 2 (Source Black non-alum-nus child White alumnus child) acute 2 (Group interest expectancy con-firmed disconfirmed) acute 2 (Argument quality strong weak)between-participants factorial design (see footnote 4) As in Experiment1 a measure of NC was taken

PROCEDURE

Experimental sessions were conducted with groups ranging in size fromtwo to eight Upon arrival participants were given experimental book-lets that contained the following information The first page of the book-let described the study as part of a ldquojournalism writing-evaluationprojectrdquo in which participants would be given a newspaper article writ-ten by a student from another Big Ten university They were also toldthat they would be given some demographic information about the au-thor of the article The participantsrsquo task was to form an impression of thewriter and to evaluate the writing in the article itself Participants werethen given a summary of the message topic mdash that a tuition break pro-gram should be instituted at the University of Iowa The baseline level ofmessage scrutiny for this personally irrelevant message was expected to

432 PETTY ET AL

be relatively low (see Petty amp Cacioppo 1979 1990) The remainingpages of the booklet contained (1) a demographic sheet about the writer(2) the article (containing the persuasive message) (3) the dependentvariables and manipulation checks (4) the NC scale and (5) the partici-pant demographic sheet After all participants in a group had completedthe booklets they were debriefed and excused

INDEPENDENT VARIABLES

Source On the second page of the booklet participants were given ademographic sheet about the writer This page contained informationabout the writerrsquos age sex university year in school major hometownhobby race and parentsrsquo educational background (in this order) Infor-mation about the source remained the same in all conditions except forrace and parentsrsquo educational background The manipulation of sourcewas accomplished by varying jointly the race and the parentsrsquo univer-sity which was either BlackUniversity of Minnesota (ie minorityparents were not alumni of Iowa) or WhiteUniversity of Iowa (ienon-minority parents were alumni of Iowa) This manipulation pro-vided an internal replication of group interest disconfirmation effects onpersuasion (see footnote 4 for a pretest of the effects of this manipulationon source perceptions and surprise)

Group Interest Expectancy ConfirmationDisconfirmation The expe c-tancy manipulation was accomplished by the combination of the mes-sage source and message topic Participants were provided with a briefsummary of the message topic before they read the full persuasive mes-sage to create the expectancy confirmation or disconfirmation in ad-vance of the persuasion attempt Participants were informed that thearticle they would be evaluating was about one of the following topicsldquoStudents who are children of alumni (ie their parents graduated fromthe same university that the student attends) should be allowed to par-ticipate in a two year university service program that would allow themto attend school without having to pay tuitionrdquo Or ldquoStudents who are ofracial minority status should be allowed to participate in a two year uni-versity service program that would allow them to attend school withouthaving to pay tuitionrdquo

Thus expectancy confirmation resulted when the source wrote in fa-vor of his own group participating in this program and expectancydisconfirmation resulted when the source wrote in favor of a group towhich he did not belong

Argument Quality On the next pages of the booklet participants re-ceived the persuasive message The message contained either the strong

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 433

or weak arguments from Baker and Petty (1994 Study 2) The argumentsin the message were pretested such that the strong arguments elicitedprimarily positive thoughts and the weak arguments elicited primarilynegative thoughts when pretest participants were instructed to thinkabout them (see Baker amp Petty 1994 Study 2)

The persuasive message supported implementing a program in whichcertain students (either minority students or children of alumni) wouldbe eligible for tuition breaks in exchange for participating in a universityservice program The message arguments focused on the benefits of theuniversity service program for the university and for the students in-volved in the program For example one strong argument stressed thatwith the money saved through students performing various universityservices ldquoa greater portion of the university budget can be invested inmonetary incentives for research and teachingrdquo and ldquofunding will beavailable to recruit additional outstanding professors researchers andNobel prize winnersrdquo However a parallel weak argument suggestedthat the additional monies available can be ldquospent on materials such aspaint for buildings new machinery for mowing and landscaping andplantings shrubbery flowers and treesrdquo in order to make the universityldquoa scenic and beautiful place to spend the college daysrdquo

Need for Cognition Scale Participants completed the need for cognitionscale (Cacioppo et al 1984)after responding to the other measures Highand low need for cognition participants were determined by a mediansplit on the scale with the median equaling 635 (scores ranged from 31 to85)

DEPENDENT VARIABLES

Argument Quality Manipulation Checks Immediately after participantsread the persuasive message they were asked to answer all questionswithout looking back at previous pages On the page immediately fol-lowing the essay participants were asked to rate ldquohow well was the arti-cle writtenrdquo and ldquohow persuasive were the argumentsrdquo on 9-pointscales ranging from 1 = ldquonot at allrdquo to 9 = ldquoextremelyrdquo These questionswere provided along with several filler questions (eg how clear wasthe writing style) designed to fit the cover story about evaluating the ar-ticle The first two questions served as manipulation checks for argu-ment quality

Attitude Measures On the next page participants read that ldquobecauseyour evaluations of the article might have been influenced by your atti-tude toward the article topic we would like to ask your opinions aboutthe topicrdquo Participants then completed two general attitude questionsand a five-item semantic differential scale The general questions were

434 PETTY ET AL

ldquoIn general what is your opinion about the university service pro-gramrdquo and ldquoHow would you feel about the implementation of the uni-versity service program here at Ohio State Universityrdquo These itemswere completed on 9-point scales ranging from 1 = ldquostrongly opposerdquo to9 = ldquostrongly favorrdquo On the five-item semantic differential scale partici-pants were asked ldquorate how you feel about the university service pro-gramrdquo Each semantic differential was completed on a 9-point scale Thescale anchors were unfavorablefavorable badgood foolishwiseharmfulbeneficial and unfairfair

Source Memory Manipulation Check and Participant Demographics Aftercompleting all other dependent measures participants completed thesource memory multiple choice questions and the participant demo-graphic sheet (as described in study 1)5

RESULTS

All dependent variables were submitted to a 2 (Group interest expec-tancy confirmation vs disconfirmation) acute 2 (Source Black non-alum-nus vs White alumnus ) acute 2 (Argument quality strong vs weak) acute 2(NC high vs low) between-participants analysis of variance

Argument Quality Manipulation Checks6 To determine if our manipu-lation of strong and weak arguments was effective participantsrsquo re-sponses to the two argument quality questions were averaged andsubmitted to the four-way ANOVA The expected main effect for argu-ment quality was obtained F(1271) = 1297 p lt 001 Messages contain-ing strong arguments were rated more positively (M = 589) than wereweak messages (M = 512)7

Attitude Measure The a coefficient for the attitude scales was 95 so thescales were averaged to form an overall index This index was subjected

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 435

5 On the source memory manipulation check one participant made an error on thewriterrsquos race and eleven participants erred on the alumni status of the writerrsquos parentsWhen these participants are removed from analyses results are the same as those re-ported

6 One participant did not complete this measure and thus was not included in the anal-ysis

7 A main effect of expectancy was also obtained F(1 271) = 680 p lt 01 suggesting thatparticipants in the disconfirmation conditions rated arguments more positively (M = 579)than did participants in the confirmation conditions (M = 523)In addition a need for cogni-tion acute expectancy interaction emerged F(1271)= 400 p lt 05 suggesting that whereas highNC individuals rated the quality of the arguments higher when the expectancy wasdisconfirmed (M = 590)than confirmed (M = 491)low NC individualsrsquo perceptions of argu-mentquality were notaffected by expectancy (Mdisconfirmed = 568Mconfirmed = 555)

to the four-way between-participants ANOVA First a main effect forargument quality was obtained F(1272) = 1104 p lt 01 indicating thatparticipants receiving strong arguments were more persuaded (M =549) than were those who received weak arguments (M = 474) Ofgreater interest the predicted expectancy acute argument quality interac-tion F(1272) = 579 p lt 02 qualified this main effect (see Figure 1)When expectancies were disconfirmed argument quality had a greaterimpact on attitudes than when expectancies were confirmed More spe-cifically under expectancy confirmation conditions argument qualityhad no impact on attitudes F(1139) = 42 ns However under expec-tancy disconfirmation conditions a simple main effect for argumentquality emerged F(1145) = 1854 p lt 0001

One additional effect that emerged consistent with past research(Priester amp Petty 1995 Smith amp Petty 1995) was a three-way interactionamong expectancy argument quality and need for cognition F(1272) =386 p lt 05 (see Table 2) Separate analyses for high and low need forcognition participants indicated that high NC participants (ie those in-dividuals who enjoy thinking) showed only a main effect for argumentquality F(1134) = 784 p lt 01 (the expectancy acute argument quality inter-action F lt 1 ns) suggesting that they engaged in effortful processing ofthe message regardless of whether expectancies were confirmed or

436 PETTY ET AL

FIGURE 1 Interaction on attitudes between group interest expectancy status and argu-ment quality

disconfirmed Low NC participants showed a main effect for argumentquality F(1146) = 419 p lt 05 along with an expectancy acute argumentquality interaction F(1146) = 1038 p lt 01 This interaction indicatedthat low NC participants did not differentiate between strong and weakarguments when their expectancies were confirmed but they did differ-entiate when their expectancies were disconfirmed8

GENERAL DISCUSSION

The present research expands our understanding of the consequences ofsources taking unexpected positions Based on prior research and the-ory one would have predicted that when a source takes an unexpectedposition greater attributions of trustworthiness and reduced informa-tion processing activity should result compared to when the sourcetakes an expected position The current studies suggest that this result is

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 437

TABLE 1 Mean Attitude Ratings as a Function of Group-Interest Expectancy Statusand Argument Quality (Experiment 2)

mdashmdashAttitudesmdashmdash

Argument Quality Confirmed Disconfirmed

Strong 504 (65) 594 (79)

SD = 187 SD = 170

Weak 483 (76) 465 (68)

SD = 197 SD = 209

Note Ns indicated in parentheses

8 A source acute expectancy interaction F(1272) = 528 p lt 03 was also obtained A maineffect for expectancy emerged in the Black non-alumnus source condition F(1136)= 840p lt 01 Thus participants had more positive attitudes toward the message when a minor-ity source wrote in favor of children of alumni receiving the tuition breaks (M = 562) thanwhen the minority source wrote in favor of breaks for minorities (M = 475) Attitudes inthe White alumnus source conditions did not differ between expectancy disconfirming (M= 496)and confirming conditions (M = 513)F lt 1 This unanticipated result could have oc-curred because Caucasian participants paid more attention to the position taken by theBlack than the White source resulting in their being more affected by those positions(Petty Fleming amp White 1999 White amp Harkens 1994) Future research could includeconditions where a Black source is an alumnus and a White source is a non-alumnus totease apart race from alumni effects Importantly our results indicated that participantsengaged in greater scrutiny of the arguments whichever source (black or white alumnusor non-alumnus) violated expectancies That is the significant two-way Expectancy acute Ar-gument quality interaction was not qualified by source nor was the significant three-wayExpectancy acute Argument quality acute Need for cognition interaction qualified by source

likely primarily when the position taken violates individual self-inter-est When the position is unexpected because it violates a grouprsquos inter-est the results are quite different That is in Experiment 1 we showedthat although both types of expectancy violation induce surprise onlythe violation of self-interest is associated with increased perceptions oftrustworthiness Violations of group interest do not engender the sameenhancements of trustworthiness Instead violations of group interestappear to produce some attributional ambiguity The surprise accompa-nied by unclear attributions as to the cause of a behavior would be ex-pected to lead to increased rather than decreased informationprocessing This is the effect we observed in Experiment 2

INTEGRATION INFORMATION PROCESSING CONSEQUENCESOF EXPECTANCY DISCONFIRMATION

The current framework seems potentially useful for reconciling seem-ingly inconsistent findings in the persuasion literature regarding the in-formation processing consequences of expectancy disconfirmation Tosummarize briefly if disconfirmation of expectancies leads to increasedperceptions of source trustworthiness or enhanced perceptions of mes-sage validity then message processing should decrease over confirma-tion conditions (Chaiken et al 1989 Petty amp Cacioppo 1986) On theother hand if disconfirmation of expectancies leads only to surprisecompared to confirmation conditions message processing should in-crease In past research disconfirmations of expectancies about messagequality (Maheswaran amp Chaiken 1991) message framing (Smith ampPetty 1995) and whether a majority or minority of others hold a pro- orcounterattitudinal position (Baker amp Petty 1994) did not violate self-in-terest and thus should not lead to perceptions of source trustworthinessor message validity In each case recipients are simply left surprised by

438 PETTY ET AL

TABLE 2 Mean Attitude Ratings as a Function of Group-Interest Expectancy StatusArgument Quality and Participantsrsquo Need for Cognition Level (Experiment 2)

mdashmdashAttitudesmdashmdash

High Need for Cognition Low Need for Cognition

Argument Quality Confirmed Disconfirmed Confirmed Disconfirmed

Strong 508 (33) 580 (37) 500 (32) 607 (42)

SD = 204 SD = 156 SD = 170 SD = 182

Weak 432 (37) 484 (31) 535 (39) 445 (37)

SD = 202 SD = 200 SD = 181 SD = 217

Note Ns indicated in parentheses

the disconfirmation of expectancies and they engage in greater informa-tion processing activity presumably to resolve the violation of expecta-tions and re-establish their understanding of the topic or source at hand(Olson et al 1996)

It is somewhat ironic that the earliest work on expectancies in persua-sion (Eagly amp Chaiken 1975Eagly et al 1978Walster et al 1966 Woodamp Eagly 1981) focused on the one type of expectation (ie source-posi-tion expectancy based on personal self-interest) that produced an appar-ent exception to the subsequently emergent general rule thatdisconfirmation of expectancies enhances processing The current re-search is the first to show that violations of expectancies about the posi-tion a source will take can lead to enhanced information processing Thiswas accomplished by shifting the expectation from one based on self-in-terest alone to group interest

In examining this framework it is important to keep the theoreticalvariables in mind that underlie our integration That is when a sourceviolates expectancies a number of inferences are possible An expec-tancy disconfirmation can enhance perceptions of source trustworthi-ness or message validity (and thus decrease message processing) and itcan also affect surprise (and thus increase message processing) butwhen surprise alone occurs enhanced information processing occursWhen both occur it appears that perceptions of message validity reducemessage processing despite the increased surprise

For self- and group interest expectancy violations to occur at least twofactors seem necessary a perception that some self- or group interest isinvolved and an expectation that individuals will act in accordancewiththat interest A perception of self- or group interest may not always bepresent For example an aggregate of individuals which is notentitative enough (they do not form a coherent whole) may not be per-ceived as having a common group interest in the first place (Campbell1958Hamilton amp Sherman 1996Hamilton Sherman amp Lickel 1998) Insuch cases there would be no group interest to violate Even when self-or group interest is perceived however violations of them may not al-ways cause expectancy disconfirmationsFor example in some culturesself-interest violation may be expected rather than unexpected and thussuch violations would not be expected to lead to increased perceptionsof trustworthinessbecause people are more likely to make dispositionalattributions for behaviors that are unexpected (Jones amp Davis 1965)Likewise for some groups or issues group interest violation may also beexpected such as when the group is clearly undeserving and in those in-stances violation of group interest would not be expected to lead to sur-prise

Future work could examine these possibilities as well as explore sev-eral remaining issues For example although we compared individual

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 439

versus group interest violations on perceptions of trustworthiness andsurprise together in Study 1 we did not directly compare the effects ofthese two types of expectancy violations on information processing andpersuasion This was because the effects of individual self-interest viola-tion on information processing and persuasion seemed clear from priorresearch Nevertheless it would be prudent to examine the effects of in-dividual- versus group interest confirmation versus disconfirmation oninformation processing in the same study In addition our hypothesisthat surprise and attributional ambiguity mediate the increased process-ing resulting from group interest violations should be directly tested byassessing the mediators in the same study as the outcome variables

The current research and framework suggest that it is important toconsider that expectancies in persuasion contexts can be developedupon multiple bases such as on prior knowledge of a personrsquos past be-haviors a personrsquos group membership or human behavior in generalAs shown in our experiments the basis of the expectancy can make animportant difference in the outcome of disconfirmation on source per-ception and on subsequent information processing and persuasion

REFERENCES

Ashmore R D amp Del Boca F K (1979) Sex stereotypes and implicit personality theoriesToward a cognitive-social psychological conceptualization Sex Roles 5 219-248

Baker S M amp Petty R E (1994) Majority and minority influence Source-position imbal-ance as a determinant of message scrutiny Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy 67 5-19

Brewer M B amp Silver M D (2000) Group distinctiveness social identification and col-lective mobilization In S Stryker T J Owens amp R W White (Eds) Self Identityand Social Movements (pp 153-171) Minneapolis MN University of MinnesotaPress

Cacioppo J T amp Petty R E (1982) The need for cognition Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 42 116-131

Cacioppo J T Petty R E amp Kao C (1984)The efficient assessment of need for cognitionJournal of Personality Assessment 48 306-307

Campbell D T (1958) Common fate similarity and other indices of the status of aggre-gates as social entities Behavioral Science 3 14-25

Chaiken S Liberman A amp Eagly A H (1989) Heuristic and systematic processingwithin and beyond the persuasion context In J S Uleman amp J A Bargh (Eds) Un-intended thought (pp 212-252) New York Guilford Press

Eagly A H amp Chaiken S (1975) An attribution analysis of the effect of communicatorcharacteristics on opinion change The case of communicator attractiveness Journalof Personality and Social Psychology 32 136-144

Eagly A H Chaiken S amp Wood W (1981)An attribution analysis of persuasion In J HHarvey W J Ickes amp R F Kidd (Eds) New directions in attribution research (Vol 3pp 37-62) Hillsdale NJ Erlbaum

Eagly A H Wood W amp Chaiken S (1978) Causal inferences about communicators and

440 PETTY ET AL

their effects on opinion change Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36424-435

Fiske S T amp Neuberg S L (1990) A continuum of impression formation from cate-gory-based to individuating processes Influences of information and motivationon attention and interpretation In M P Zanna (Ed) Advances in experimental socialpsychology (Vol 23 pp 1-74) San Diego Academic Press

Hamilton DL amp Sherman S J (1996) Perceiving persons and groups Psychological Re-view 103 336-355

Hamilton DL Sherman S J amp Lickel B (1998) Perceiving social groups The impact ofthe entitativity continuum In C Sedikides J Schopler amp C A Insko (Eds) Inter-group cognitions and intergroup behavior (pp 47-74) Mahwah NJ Erlbaum

Hastie R (1984) Causes and effects of causal attribution Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 37 25-38

Jones E E amp Davis K E (1965) From acts to dispositions The attribution process in per-son perception In L Berkowitz (Ed) Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol2 pp 219-266) New York Academic Press

Kramer R M Brewer M B amp HannaB (1996)Collective trust and collective action Thedecision to trust as a social decision In R Kramer amp T Tyler (Eds) Trust in organiza-tions (pp 357-389) Thousand Oakes CA Sage

Maheswaran D amp Chaiken S (1991) Promoting systematic processing in low-motiva-tion settings Effects of incongruent information on processing and judgment Jour-nal of Personality and Social Psychology 61 13-33

Olson J M Roese N J amp Zanna M P (1996) Expectancies In E T Higgins amp A WKruglanski (Eds) Social psychology Handbook of basic principles (pp 211-238) NewYork Guilford Press

Petty R E (1997) The evolution of theory and research in social psychology From singleto multiple effect and process models In C McGarty amp S A Haslam (Eds) The mes-sage of social psychologyPerspectives on mind in society (pp 268-290)Oxford EnglandBlackwell Publishers Ltd

Petty R E amp Cacioppo J T (1979)Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasionby enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 37 1915-1926

Petty R E amp Cacioppo J T (1986) Communication and persuasion Central and peripheralroutes to attitude change New York Springer-Verlag

Petty R E amp Cacioppo J T (1990) Involvement and persuasion Tradition versus inte-gration Psychological Bulletin 107 367-374

Petty R E Fleming M A amp White P H (1999) Stigmatized sources and persuasionPrejudice as a determinant of argument scrutiny Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology 76 19-34

Petty R E Wells G L amp Brock T C (1976)Distraction can enhance or reduce yielding topropaganda Thought disruption versus effort justification Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology 34 874-884

Platow M J HoarS Reid S Harley K amp Morrison D (1997)Endorsement of distribu-tively fair and unfair leaders in interpersonal and intergroup situations EuropeanJournal of Social Psychology 27 465-494

Platow M J OrsquoConnell A Shave R amp Hanning P (1995) Social evaluations of fair andunfair allocators in interpersonal and intergroup situations British Journal of SocialPsychology 34 363-381

Priester J R amp Petty R E (1995) Source attributions and persuasion Perceived honestyas a determinant of message scrutiny Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 21637-654

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 441

Pyszczynski T A amp Greenberg J (1981)Role of disconfirmed expectancies in the instiga-tion of attributional processing Journal of Personality and Social Psychology40 31-38

Smith S M amp Petty R E (1995) Personality moderators of mood congruency effects oncognition The role of self-esteem and negative mood regulation Journal of Personal-ity and Social Psychology 68 1092-1107

Snyder M L amp Wicklund R (1981)Attribute ambiguity In J H Harvey W Ickes amp R RKidd (Eds) New directions in attribution research (pp 197-221)New York Halsted

Srull T K amp Wyer R S Jr (1989)Person memory and judgment Psychological Review 9658-83

Stangor C amp McMillan D (1992)Memory for expectancy-congruent and expectancy-in-congruent social information A meta-analytic review of the social psychologicaland social developmental literatures Psychological Bulletin 111 42-61

Walster E Aronson E amp Abrahams D (1966)On increasing the persuasiveness of a lowprestige communicator Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 2 325-342

Wenzel M amp Mummendey A (1996) Positive-negative asymmetry of social discrimina-tion A normative analysis of differential evaluations of in-group and out-group onpositive and negative attributes British Journal of Social Psychology 35 493-507

White P H amp Harkens S G (1994) Race of source effects in the elaboration likelihoodmodel Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67 790-807

Wong P T P amp Weiner B (1981) When people ask ldquowhyrdquo questions and the heuristicsof attributional search Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 40 650-663

Wood W amp Eagly A H (1981) Stages in the analysis of persuasive messages The role ofcausal attributions and message comprehension Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 40 246-259

442 PETTY ET AL

Page 7: INDIVIDUAL VERSUS GROUP INTEREST VIOLATION: SURPRISE AS …

himself (ldquoBill Johnstonrdquo) or a group to which the source belonged (ldquomi-nority studentsrdquo) should receive the scholarship Expectancies weredisconfirmed when the essay advocated that either another person(ldquoDavid Matthewsrdquo) or a group to which the writer did not belong(ldquochildren of alumnirdquo) should receive the scholarship

These materials were designed to allow for a conceptual replication ofAAP work in the self-interest conditions and still allow a feasible varia-tion for the group interest conditions The expectancy manipulation wasmodeled after the AAP work (eg Eagly et al 1978) in that situationalconstraints led to expectations about the position the source would takeWe chose the groups ldquominority studentsrdquo and ldquochildren of alumnirdquo be-cause (1) both seemed to be reasonable groups to receive a scholarshipand (2) these groups were both ldquoascribedrdquo (Ashmore amp Del Boca 1979)to group members (the group members would either always belong tothe group or would never belong to the group) Thus it was clear in thegroup interest conditions that the position taken in the essay either bene-fited or potentially harmed the sourcersquos own group

METHOD

PARTICIPANTS

Sixty-six White students at Ohio State University (OSU) who were notchildren of OSU alumni participated in partial fulfillment of require-ments in an introductory psychology course The fact that participantswho were from racial minorities or children of alumni were not includedensures that the participants were non-invested parties

DESIGN

Participants were assigned to the cells of a 2 (Expectancy basis individ-ual interest group interest ) acute 2 (Expectancy confirmationdisconfirmation) between-participants factorial design In addition ameasure of NC (Cacioppo Petty amp Kao 1984)was taken as it has moder-ated prior work on expectancy violations (eg Priester amp Petty 1995Smith amp Petty 1995)

PROCEDURE

Sessions were conducted in groups of two to seven Upon arrival partic-ipants were given experimental booklets that contained the followinginformation The first page of the booklet described the study as part ofan ldquoessay writing-evaluation projectrdquo Although specific instructions

424 PETTY ET AL

differed across expectancy basis conditions (see below) general instruc-tions informed participants that they would be given and would be eval-uating the introductory paragraph of a sample essay ldquotaken from a poolof letters sent to the Office of Student Affairs at the University of IowardquoThe letters were described as pertaining to a planned university scholar-ship program that could only be offered to a limited number of studentsEssays were described as having been solicited to help decide whoshould receive the scholarship In addition participants were informedthat they would be given some demographic information about thewriter of the essay The participantsrsquo task was to form an impressionabout the writer and to evaluate the writing in the essay

The remaining pages of the experimental booklet contained in order(1) a demographic sheet about the writer (2) the essay introductory para-graph (3) the dependent variables and manipulation checks (4) the NCscale and (5) a participant demographic sheet After all participants in agroup had completed the booklets they were debriefed and excused

INDEPENDENT VARIABLES

Basis of Expectancy The basis of the expectancy (individual or groupinterest) was manipulated by varying both the initial instructions andthe essay introductoryparagraph In addition to the general instructionsdescribed above the first page of the booklet stated either that ldquoonly onestudent will receive the scholarshiprdquo (individual interest condition) orthat ldquoonly members of one group will receive the scholarshiprdquo (groupinterest condition) The essay paragraphs were also either described assolicited to help decide ldquowho should receive this scholarshiprdquo or ldquowhichgroup should receive these scholarshipsrdquo

Expectancy ConfirmationDisconfirmation Expectancies about the posi-tion to be taken were created by manipulating the instructions on thefirst page of the booklet and the source demographic sheet on the secondpage The expectancy confirmation or disconfirmationwas manipulatedthrough the content of the essay introductory paragraph on the thirdpage of the booklet

In the group interest conditions the initial instructions stated that es-says were solicited to help decide which one group should receive thescholarship In addition the demographic sheet on the writer providedinformation about the writerrsquos race and his parentsrsquo educational back-ground (among other information such as the writerrsquos name age sexuniversity year in school major hometown and hobbies) This infor-mation was held constant across all conditions The writer ldquoBillJohnstonrdquo was described as Black and his parents were not alumni fromhis university

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 425

The expectancy-confirming introductory paragraph for the group in-terest expectancy was

All students who are of racial minority status should qualify for the univer-sity scholarship program that would enable them to attend school withouthaving to pay tuition Although this means that the other equally-deservinggroups being considered (including children of alumni) will have to paytheir own tuition I believe that minority students are the most worthygroup based upon the following reasons

Thus in the group interest confirmation condition the source a Blackmale took the expected position in favor of his group The expec-tancy-disconfirming introductory paragraph for the group interest ex-pectancy was identical to the confirming paragraph except thatanother group (ldquochildren of alumnirdquo) was switched with ldquominoritystudentsrdquo so that the paragraph stated that ldquoalthough this means thatthe other equally-deserving groups being considered (including mi-nority students) will have to pay their own tuition I believe that chil-dren of alumnirdquo Thus in the group interest disconfirmationcondition the Black source took the unexpected position in favor of an-other group

In the individual interest conditions the expectancy was establishedin the initial instructions that only one student would receive the schol-arship Thus the student submitting an essay would be expected towrite that he should receive the scholarship To strengthen this expec-tancy the essay writer was also described as one of the scholarship pro-gram finalists The writer demographic information was identical to thegroup interest information

The expectancy-confirming introductory paragraph for the individ-ual interest expectancy was

I should qualify for the university scholarship program that would enableme to attend school without having to pay tuition Although this means thatthe other equally-deserving finalists will have to pay their own tuition I be-lieve that I am most deserving based upon the following reasons

Thus in this condition the source took the expected position in favor ofhimself The expectancy-disconfirming introductory paragraph for theindividual interest expectancy was identical to the confirming para-graph except that another personrsquos name (ldquoDavid Matthewsrdquo) was sub-stituted for ldquoIrdquo in the appropriate places Thus in this condition the

426 PETTY ET AL

source violated individual self-interest and took an unexpected positionin favor of someone else

Need for Cognition Scale After responding to the other measures par-ticipants completed the NC scale (Cacioppo et al 1984) High and lowNC participants were determined by a median split on the scale with themedian equaling 635 (scores ranged from 26 to 86)

DEPENDENT VARIABLES

Surprise Ratings After participants read the essay introductory para-graph they were asked to answer all questions without looking back atprevious pages On the page immediately following the essay introduc-tory paragraph participants were asked several general questions tomeasure their ldquooverall reaction to the writerrsquos choice of essay topicrdquo As acheck on whether expectancy violation was surprising participants re-sponded on a 7-point scale ranging from -3 = ldquonot at all surprisedrdquo to +3= ldquovery surprisedrdquo regarding how surprised they were about thewriterrsquos choice of essay topic

Source Trustworthiness Measures After evaluating the essay topicparticipants were asked for their opinions about the essay writer be-cause ldquoevaluations of the essay introductory paragraph might havebeen influenced by your attitude about the writerrdquo Participants wereasked to rate the writer on several positivenegative trait semanticdifferential scales These 7-point scales ranged from -3 to +3 Sourcetrustworthiness was measured with three scales (untrustworthytrustworthy insinceresincere dishonesthonest) which were pre-sented with other positivenegative source traits serving as filler items(eg coldwarm close-mindedopen-minded unlikeablelikeable)

Open-Ended Attributional Processing On the next page participantswere asked to write down the reasons why they thought that the studentchose to write his essay The number of trait attributions listed wascounted by a coder blind to conditions More traits were expected to belisted for individual versus group interest conditions In addition to as-sess the specific trait attributions of selfish and selfless the number of di-rect mentions ofsource ldquoselfishnessrdquo and ldquoselflessnessrdquo were alsotallied

Manipulation Checks and Participant Demographic Sheet To ensure thatparticipants were aware of the source information that created the ex-pectancy a recognition test of the source demographic information wasgiven after the other measures were completed The two importantquestions concerned the sourcersquos race and the sourcersquos parentsrsquo educa-

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 427

tional background2 The final page of the experimental booklet was aparticipant demographic sheet so that we could establish which partici-pants were minority students and which were children of alumni

RESULTS

All dependent variables were submitted to a 2 (Expectancy basis individ-ual interest group interest ) acute 2 (Expectancy confirmationdisconfirmation)acute 2 (Need for cognition high low)between-participantsanalysis of variance

SOURCE TRUSTWORTHINESS

The three scales designed to measure trustworthiness were highlyintercorrelated (Cronbachrsquos a = 74)and thus were averaged to form a trust-worthiness index This index wassubmitted to the three-wayANOVA Theonly significant effect obtained was the predicted interaction between Basisand Expectancy F(158) = 755 p lt 01 To interpret this interaction simpleeffects tests were conducted separately for individual and group interestexpectancies For individual interest conditionsa simple main effect for ex-pectancy was found F(132) = 478 p lt 04 Replicating previous research(eg Priester amp Petty 1995) when the source disconfirmed individual in-teresthe wasrated asmore trustworthy(M = 186)than when he confirmedindividual interest (M = 083) However for group interest conditions nodifference between expectancy disconfirmation (M = 087) and confirma-tion (M = 136) conditions was found F(130) = 158 p = 22

SURPRISE RATINGS

Two main effects were obtained on the surprise scale First as expectedparticipants were more surprised in the expectancy disconfirmation (M= 184)than in the confirmation conditions (M = -039) F(158)= 3047p lt0001 The other significant result was a main effect for expectancy basisRegardless of whether expectancies were confirmed or disconfirmedparticipants found the individual interest messages more surprising (M= 131)than the group interest messages (M = 015) F(158)= 825p lt 01

428 PETTY ET AL

2 On the source memory manipulation check two participants erred on the alumni sta-tus of the writerrsquos parents and no one erred on the writerrsquos race When these participantsare removed from analyses results are the same as those reported

The Basis acute Expectancy interaction was not significant F (158)= 215p =153 Thus as predicted it appears that participants were more surprisedafter expectancy disconfirmation than confirmation regardless ofwhether the expectancy was based upon the sourcersquos individual orgroup interest

OPEN-ENDED ATTRIBUTIONAL PROCESSING

Analyses of the number of trait attributions participants listed in theiropen-ended responses revealed a main effect for Expectancy BasisF(157) = 1188 p lt 01 Specifically participants explained the tar-getrsquos actions using more trait terms in the individual interest condi-tions (M = 114 traits per participant) than in the group interestconditions (M = 32) suggesting that a clear attribution was easier tomake in the individual than group interest conditions One specifictrait thought to differ between individual self-interest and group in-terest was perceived selfishnessselflessness Thus the percentagesof participants who referred to selfishness or selflessness were com-pared across expectancy basis 303 of participants in the individ-ual conditions mentioned selfishnessselflessness (participantsmentioned either selfishness or selflessness not both) whereas 0 ofparticipants in the group conditions mentioned this trait c2(1) =1146 p lt 001 To evaluate the numbers of references to selfishnessve r su s se l f l e ss n e ss ac ro ss e xp e ct an c y co n f i rm at io n an ddisconfirmation separate analyses were conducted for the individ-ual conditions only (since there were no mentions of these traits inthe group conditions) For mentions of selflessness 389 ofdisconfirmation (ie low self-interest) condition participants men-tioned this trait (or synonyms) whereas 0 of participants in theconfirmation (ie high self-interest) condition mentioned selfless-ness c2(1) = 740 p lt 007 For mentions of selfishness (or synonyms)20 of participants in the confirmation condition mentioned thistrait whereas 0 of participants in the disconfirmation conditionmentioned it c2(1)= 396 p lt05 It appears that participants weremore likely to attribute the sourcersquos choice of message position to a

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 429

3 We also conducted separate simple effects tests for the individual and group interestconditions to determine if the simple main effect for expectancy held These analyses con-firmed that effects for expectancy occurred in both the individual interest F(132)= 838plt 006 (Means Confirmed = 049Disconfirmed = 213)and group interest F(130)= 2701plt 0001 (Means Confirmed = -126 Disconfirmed = 156) conditions

personality trait (especially to selfishnessselflessness) when thesourcersquos position was relevant to self-interest rather than relevant to hisgrouprsquos interest

We also expected that the differential perceptions of source selfish-ness in the individual conditions would correspond to the greater per-ceived source trustworthiness under expectancy disconfirmation thanconfirmation To evaluate this prediction the correlations between ref-erences to selfishness (and selflessness) and the source trustworthinessratings were computed As predicted in the individual conditionstrustworthiness and mentions of selfishness were significantly nega-tively correlated r = -42 p lt 02 In addition trustworthiness and men-tions of selflessness were significantly positively correlated r = 36 p lt05

DISCUSSION

In this study we found different effects of expectancy disconfirmationon source perceptions for expectancies based on individual versusgroup interest As predicted trustworthiness attributions varied onlywhen the expectancy was based upon the sourcersquos individual self-inter-est Thus our individual interest expectancy conditions were consistentwith prior theory and research (eg Eagly et al 1978 Priester amp Petty1995) in that the source was perceived as more trustworthy when hewent against his own self-interest than when he wrote in favor of hisself-interest More importantly we found a condition under whichsource-position expectancy confirmation and disconfirmation did notmake a difference for trustworthiness attributions mdash when the expec-tancy was based upon group membership and group interest Resultsfrom the open-ended responses suggest that this attenuation mayhave been due to the greater attributional ambiguity when group in-terest rather than individual interest was concerned Thus Experi-me n t 1 ou t l in e s a b ou nda ry co n dit ion fo r th e ef fe c ts ofdisconfirmation of source-position expectancy on perceptions oftrustworthiness suggesting that taking an unexpected position doesnot invariably lead to perceptions of enhanced source trustworthi-ness

In addition consistent with previous expectancy disconfirmationwork (eg Baker amp Petty 1994) participants were more surprised whenexpectancies were disconfirmed than confirmed More importantly thisinvestigation extends this work by suggesting that individuals are moresurprised when an individual source takes a position that disconfirms

430 PETTY ET AL

rather than confirms expectancies regardless of whether the position vi-olates either individual or group interest4

EXPERIMENT TWO

Experiment 2 was designed to investigate the implications of the find-ings of Experiment 1 regarding the effects of disconfirmation of groupinterest for message processing Specifically we tested the predictionthat disconfirmation of a source-position expectancy that does not aug-ment perceived source trustworthiness (ie violation of group interest)will lead to increased rather than reduced message scrutiny Past re-search has already shown that reduced message scrutiny results whenindividual self-interest expectancy disconfirmation leads to enhancedperceptions of source trustworthinessand message validity (Eagly et al1978 Priester amp Petty 1995 Wood amp Eagly 1981) Because a source whoviolates group interest is not seen as more trustworthy but is more sur-prising we anticipate that group interest expectancy disconfirmation

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 431

4 Before conducting Study 2 one potential concern with the operationalization ofgroup interest expectancies in Study 1 was evaluated Specifically our group interest con-firmation condition had scholarships for ldquominority studentsrdquo as its topic whereas thetopic in the disconfirmation condition was about ldquochildren of alumnirdquo The groups ldquomi-nority studentsrdquo and ldquochildren of alumnirdquo are not equivalent and might show different ef-fects for reasons unrelated to expectancy violation For example it might be moresurprising for any source to advocate scholarships for alumni than for minorities To re-move this potential confound and use both topics in the expectancy confirming anddisconfirming cases we conducted a study to replicate conceptually our group interestfindings with both groups Source demographics were varied such that the source was ei-ther Black and not a child of alumni or White and a child of alumni A second minorchange was made in the essay topic mdash rather than a scholarship programthe programwasdescribed as a ldquouniversity service programrdquo that would allow participants free tuition Themessage either advocated that this program should be for children of alumni or for minor-ity students (see Experiment 2 for details)

Forty-eight individuals participated in this 2 (Source Black student of non alumni par-ents White student of alumni parents)acute 2 (Expectancy confirmation disconfirmation) be-tween-participants design In this study expectancy confirmationdisconfirmation wasalways on a group interest basis Participants received the demographic information andintroductory essay paragraph and then completed measures of surprise and source trust-worthiness In this revised version our manipulation of expectancy confirma-tiondisconfirmation was effective in producing surprise as participants weresignificantly more surprised after disconfirmation (M = 067) than after confirmation (M =-204) F(144) = 3438 p lt 0001 Furthermore replicating the group interest conditions inStudy 1 no significant effects were found on the source trustworthiness index As ex-pected participants did not view the disconfirming source as any more trustworthy (M =142) than the confirming source (M = 138) Neither of these effects was qualified by thesource That is Black students favoring alumni and White alumni favoring minority stu-dents were both more surprising than favoring onersquos own group

will lead to enhanced information processing compared to group inter-est expectancy confirmation as has been found in other work on expec-tancies (eg Baker amp Petty 1994Maheswaran amp Chaiken 1991Smith ampPetty 1995) To assess the extent to which the persuasive message wasscrutinized participants were presented with messages containing ei-ther all strong or all weak arguments In general the attitudes of partici-pants who are thinking about the message carefully should be moreaffected by message quality (ie they should be more persuaded bystrong than weak arguments) compared to participants who are notthinking about the message carefully (see Petty Wells amp Brock 1976Petty amp Cacioppo 1986)

METHOD

PARTICIPANTS

Two hundred eighty-eight White students who were not children ofOSU alumni participated in this study in partial completion of introduc-tory psychology course requirements As in Experiment 1 minority par-ticipants and children of alumni were not included in the analyses

DESIGN

Participants were assigned to the cells of a 2 (Source Black non-alum-nus child White alumnus child) acute 2 (Group interest expectancy con-firmed disconfirmed) acute 2 (Argument quality strong weak)between-participants factorial design (see footnote 4) As in Experiment1 a measure of NC was taken

PROCEDURE

Experimental sessions were conducted with groups ranging in size fromtwo to eight Upon arrival participants were given experimental book-lets that contained the following information The first page of the book-let described the study as part of a ldquojournalism writing-evaluationprojectrdquo in which participants would be given a newspaper article writ-ten by a student from another Big Ten university They were also toldthat they would be given some demographic information about the au-thor of the article The participantsrsquo task was to form an impression of thewriter and to evaluate the writing in the article itself Participants werethen given a summary of the message topic mdash that a tuition break pro-gram should be instituted at the University of Iowa The baseline level ofmessage scrutiny for this personally irrelevant message was expected to

432 PETTY ET AL

be relatively low (see Petty amp Cacioppo 1979 1990) The remainingpages of the booklet contained (1) a demographic sheet about the writer(2) the article (containing the persuasive message) (3) the dependentvariables and manipulation checks (4) the NC scale and (5) the partici-pant demographic sheet After all participants in a group had completedthe booklets they were debriefed and excused

INDEPENDENT VARIABLES

Source On the second page of the booklet participants were given ademographic sheet about the writer This page contained informationabout the writerrsquos age sex university year in school major hometownhobby race and parentsrsquo educational background (in this order) Infor-mation about the source remained the same in all conditions except forrace and parentsrsquo educational background The manipulation of sourcewas accomplished by varying jointly the race and the parentsrsquo univer-sity which was either BlackUniversity of Minnesota (ie minorityparents were not alumni of Iowa) or WhiteUniversity of Iowa (ienon-minority parents were alumni of Iowa) This manipulation pro-vided an internal replication of group interest disconfirmation effects onpersuasion (see footnote 4 for a pretest of the effects of this manipulationon source perceptions and surprise)

Group Interest Expectancy ConfirmationDisconfirmation The expe c-tancy manipulation was accomplished by the combination of the mes-sage source and message topic Participants were provided with a briefsummary of the message topic before they read the full persuasive mes-sage to create the expectancy confirmation or disconfirmation in ad-vance of the persuasion attempt Participants were informed that thearticle they would be evaluating was about one of the following topicsldquoStudents who are children of alumni (ie their parents graduated fromthe same university that the student attends) should be allowed to par-ticipate in a two year university service program that would allow themto attend school without having to pay tuitionrdquo Or ldquoStudents who are ofracial minority status should be allowed to participate in a two year uni-versity service program that would allow them to attend school withouthaving to pay tuitionrdquo

Thus expectancy confirmation resulted when the source wrote in fa-vor of his own group participating in this program and expectancydisconfirmation resulted when the source wrote in favor of a group towhich he did not belong

Argument Quality On the next pages of the booklet participants re-ceived the persuasive message The message contained either the strong

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 433

or weak arguments from Baker and Petty (1994 Study 2) The argumentsin the message were pretested such that the strong arguments elicitedprimarily positive thoughts and the weak arguments elicited primarilynegative thoughts when pretest participants were instructed to thinkabout them (see Baker amp Petty 1994 Study 2)

The persuasive message supported implementing a program in whichcertain students (either minority students or children of alumni) wouldbe eligible for tuition breaks in exchange for participating in a universityservice program The message arguments focused on the benefits of theuniversity service program for the university and for the students in-volved in the program For example one strong argument stressed thatwith the money saved through students performing various universityservices ldquoa greater portion of the university budget can be invested inmonetary incentives for research and teachingrdquo and ldquofunding will beavailable to recruit additional outstanding professors researchers andNobel prize winnersrdquo However a parallel weak argument suggestedthat the additional monies available can be ldquospent on materials such aspaint for buildings new machinery for mowing and landscaping andplantings shrubbery flowers and treesrdquo in order to make the universityldquoa scenic and beautiful place to spend the college daysrdquo

Need for Cognition Scale Participants completed the need for cognitionscale (Cacioppo et al 1984)after responding to the other measures Highand low need for cognition participants were determined by a mediansplit on the scale with the median equaling 635 (scores ranged from 31 to85)

DEPENDENT VARIABLES

Argument Quality Manipulation Checks Immediately after participantsread the persuasive message they were asked to answer all questionswithout looking back at previous pages On the page immediately fol-lowing the essay participants were asked to rate ldquohow well was the arti-cle writtenrdquo and ldquohow persuasive were the argumentsrdquo on 9-pointscales ranging from 1 = ldquonot at allrdquo to 9 = ldquoextremelyrdquo These questionswere provided along with several filler questions (eg how clear wasthe writing style) designed to fit the cover story about evaluating the ar-ticle The first two questions served as manipulation checks for argu-ment quality

Attitude Measures On the next page participants read that ldquobecauseyour evaluations of the article might have been influenced by your atti-tude toward the article topic we would like to ask your opinions aboutthe topicrdquo Participants then completed two general attitude questionsand a five-item semantic differential scale The general questions were

434 PETTY ET AL

ldquoIn general what is your opinion about the university service pro-gramrdquo and ldquoHow would you feel about the implementation of the uni-versity service program here at Ohio State Universityrdquo These itemswere completed on 9-point scales ranging from 1 = ldquostrongly opposerdquo to9 = ldquostrongly favorrdquo On the five-item semantic differential scale partici-pants were asked ldquorate how you feel about the university service pro-gramrdquo Each semantic differential was completed on a 9-point scale Thescale anchors were unfavorablefavorable badgood foolishwiseharmfulbeneficial and unfairfair

Source Memory Manipulation Check and Participant Demographics Aftercompleting all other dependent measures participants completed thesource memory multiple choice questions and the participant demo-graphic sheet (as described in study 1)5

RESULTS

All dependent variables were submitted to a 2 (Group interest expec-tancy confirmation vs disconfirmation) acute 2 (Source Black non-alum-nus vs White alumnus ) acute 2 (Argument quality strong vs weak) acute 2(NC high vs low) between-participants analysis of variance

Argument Quality Manipulation Checks6 To determine if our manipu-lation of strong and weak arguments was effective participantsrsquo re-sponses to the two argument quality questions were averaged andsubmitted to the four-way ANOVA The expected main effect for argu-ment quality was obtained F(1271) = 1297 p lt 001 Messages contain-ing strong arguments were rated more positively (M = 589) than wereweak messages (M = 512)7

Attitude Measure The a coefficient for the attitude scales was 95 so thescales were averaged to form an overall index This index was subjected

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 435

5 On the source memory manipulation check one participant made an error on thewriterrsquos race and eleven participants erred on the alumni status of the writerrsquos parentsWhen these participants are removed from analyses results are the same as those re-ported

6 One participant did not complete this measure and thus was not included in the anal-ysis

7 A main effect of expectancy was also obtained F(1 271) = 680 p lt 01 suggesting thatparticipants in the disconfirmation conditions rated arguments more positively (M = 579)than did participants in the confirmation conditions (M = 523)In addition a need for cogni-tion acute expectancy interaction emerged F(1271)= 400 p lt 05 suggesting that whereas highNC individuals rated the quality of the arguments higher when the expectancy wasdisconfirmed (M = 590)than confirmed (M = 491)low NC individualsrsquo perceptions of argu-mentquality were notaffected by expectancy (Mdisconfirmed = 568Mconfirmed = 555)

to the four-way between-participants ANOVA First a main effect forargument quality was obtained F(1272) = 1104 p lt 01 indicating thatparticipants receiving strong arguments were more persuaded (M =549) than were those who received weak arguments (M = 474) Ofgreater interest the predicted expectancy acute argument quality interac-tion F(1272) = 579 p lt 02 qualified this main effect (see Figure 1)When expectancies were disconfirmed argument quality had a greaterimpact on attitudes than when expectancies were confirmed More spe-cifically under expectancy confirmation conditions argument qualityhad no impact on attitudes F(1139) = 42 ns However under expec-tancy disconfirmation conditions a simple main effect for argumentquality emerged F(1145) = 1854 p lt 0001

One additional effect that emerged consistent with past research(Priester amp Petty 1995 Smith amp Petty 1995) was a three-way interactionamong expectancy argument quality and need for cognition F(1272) =386 p lt 05 (see Table 2) Separate analyses for high and low need forcognition participants indicated that high NC participants (ie those in-dividuals who enjoy thinking) showed only a main effect for argumentquality F(1134) = 784 p lt 01 (the expectancy acute argument quality inter-action F lt 1 ns) suggesting that they engaged in effortful processing ofthe message regardless of whether expectancies were confirmed or

436 PETTY ET AL

FIGURE 1 Interaction on attitudes between group interest expectancy status and argu-ment quality

disconfirmed Low NC participants showed a main effect for argumentquality F(1146) = 419 p lt 05 along with an expectancy acute argumentquality interaction F(1146) = 1038 p lt 01 This interaction indicatedthat low NC participants did not differentiate between strong and weakarguments when their expectancies were confirmed but they did differ-entiate when their expectancies were disconfirmed8

GENERAL DISCUSSION

The present research expands our understanding of the consequences ofsources taking unexpected positions Based on prior research and the-ory one would have predicted that when a source takes an unexpectedposition greater attributions of trustworthiness and reduced informa-tion processing activity should result compared to when the sourcetakes an expected position The current studies suggest that this result is

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 437

TABLE 1 Mean Attitude Ratings as a Function of Group-Interest Expectancy Statusand Argument Quality (Experiment 2)

mdashmdashAttitudesmdashmdash

Argument Quality Confirmed Disconfirmed

Strong 504 (65) 594 (79)

SD = 187 SD = 170

Weak 483 (76) 465 (68)

SD = 197 SD = 209

Note Ns indicated in parentheses

8 A source acute expectancy interaction F(1272) = 528 p lt 03 was also obtained A maineffect for expectancy emerged in the Black non-alumnus source condition F(1136)= 840p lt 01 Thus participants had more positive attitudes toward the message when a minor-ity source wrote in favor of children of alumni receiving the tuition breaks (M = 562) thanwhen the minority source wrote in favor of breaks for minorities (M = 475) Attitudes inthe White alumnus source conditions did not differ between expectancy disconfirming (M= 496)and confirming conditions (M = 513)F lt 1 This unanticipated result could have oc-curred because Caucasian participants paid more attention to the position taken by theBlack than the White source resulting in their being more affected by those positions(Petty Fleming amp White 1999 White amp Harkens 1994) Future research could includeconditions where a Black source is an alumnus and a White source is a non-alumnus totease apart race from alumni effects Importantly our results indicated that participantsengaged in greater scrutiny of the arguments whichever source (black or white alumnusor non-alumnus) violated expectancies That is the significant two-way Expectancy acute Ar-gument quality interaction was not qualified by source nor was the significant three-wayExpectancy acute Argument quality acute Need for cognition interaction qualified by source

likely primarily when the position taken violates individual self-inter-est When the position is unexpected because it violates a grouprsquos inter-est the results are quite different That is in Experiment 1 we showedthat although both types of expectancy violation induce surprise onlythe violation of self-interest is associated with increased perceptions oftrustworthiness Violations of group interest do not engender the sameenhancements of trustworthiness Instead violations of group interestappear to produce some attributional ambiguity The surprise accompa-nied by unclear attributions as to the cause of a behavior would be ex-pected to lead to increased rather than decreased informationprocessing This is the effect we observed in Experiment 2

INTEGRATION INFORMATION PROCESSING CONSEQUENCESOF EXPECTANCY DISCONFIRMATION

The current framework seems potentially useful for reconciling seem-ingly inconsistent findings in the persuasion literature regarding the in-formation processing consequences of expectancy disconfirmation Tosummarize briefly if disconfirmation of expectancies leads to increasedperceptions of source trustworthiness or enhanced perceptions of mes-sage validity then message processing should decrease over confirma-tion conditions (Chaiken et al 1989 Petty amp Cacioppo 1986) On theother hand if disconfirmation of expectancies leads only to surprisecompared to confirmation conditions message processing should in-crease In past research disconfirmations of expectancies about messagequality (Maheswaran amp Chaiken 1991) message framing (Smith ampPetty 1995) and whether a majority or minority of others hold a pro- orcounterattitudinal position (Baker amp Petty 1994) did not violate self-in-terest and thus should not lead to perceptions of source trustworthinessor message validity In each case recipients are simply left surprised by

438 PETTY ET AL

TABLE 2 Mean Attitude Ratings as a Function of Group-Interest Expectancy StatusArgument Quality and Participantsrsquo Need for Cognition Level (Experiment 2)

mdashmdashAttitudesmdashmdash

High Need for Cognition Low Need for Cognition

Argument Quality Confirmed Disconfirmed Confirmed Disconfirmed

Strong 508 (33) 580 (37) 500 (32) 607 (42)

SD = 204 SD = 156 SD = 170 SD = 182

Weak 432 (37) 484 (31) 535 (39) 445 (37)

SD = 202 SD = 200 SD = 181 SD = 217

Note Ns indicated in parentheses

the disconfirmation of expectancies and they engage in greater informa-tion processing activity presumably to resolve the violation of expecta-tions and re-establish their understanding of the topic or source at hand(Olson et al 1996)

It is somewhat ironic that the earliest work on expectancies in persua-sion (Eagly amp Chaiken 1975Eagly et al 1978Walster et al 1966 Woodamp Eagly 1981) focused on the one type of expectation (ie source-posi-tion expectancy based on personal self-interest) that produced an appar-ent exception to the subsequently emergent general rule thatdisconfirmation of expectancies enhances processing The current re-search is the first to show that violations of expectancies about the posi-tion a source will take can lead to enhanced information processing Thiswas accomplished by shifting the expectation from one based on self-in-terest alone to group interest

In examining this framework it is important to keep the theoreticalvariables in mind that underlie our integration That is when a sourceviolates expectancies a number of inferences are possible An expec-tancy disconfirmation can enhance perceptions of source trustworthi-ness or message validity (and thus decrease message processing) and itcan also affect surprise (and thus increase message processing) butwhen surprise alone occurs enhanced information processing occursWhen both occur it appears that perceptions of message validity reducemessage processing despite the increased surprise

For self- and group interest expectancy violations to occur at least twofactors seem necessary a perception that some self- or group interest isinvolved and an expectation that individuals will act in accordancewiththat interest A perception of self- or group interest may not always bepresent For example an aggregate of individuals which is notentitative enough (they do not form a coherent whole) may not be per-ceived as having a common group interest in the first place (Campbell1958Hamilton amp Sherman 1996Hamilton Sherman amp Lickel 1998) Insuch cases there would be no group interest to violate Even when self-or group interest is perceived however violations of them may not al-ways cause expectancy disconfirmationsFor example in some culturesself-interest violation may be expected rather than unexpected and thussuch violations would not be expected to lead to increased perceptionsof trustworthinessbecause people are more likely to make dispositionalattributions for behaviors that are unexpected (Jones amp Davis 1965)Likewise for some groups or issues group interest violation may also beexpected such as when the group is clearly undeserving and in those in-stances violation of group interest would not be expected to lead to sur-prise

Future work could examine these possibilities as well as explore sev-eral remaining issues For example although we compared individual

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 439

versus group interest violations on perceptions of trustworthiness andsurprise together in Study 1 we did not directly compare the effects ofthese two types of expectancy violations on information processing andpersuasion This was because the effects of individual self-interest viola-tion on information processing and persuasion seemed clear from priorresearch Nevertheless it would be prudent to examine the effects of in-dividual- versus group interest confirmation versus disconfirmation oninformation processing in the same study In addition our hypothesisthat surprise and attributional ambiguity mediate the increased process-ing resulting from group interest violations should be directly tested byassessing the mediators in the same study as the outcome variables

The current research and framework suggest that it is important toconsider that expectancies in persuasion contexts can be developedupon multiple bases such as on prior knowledge of a personrsquos past be-haviors a personrsquos group membership or human behavior in generalAs shown in our experiments the basis of the expectancy can make animportant difference in the outcome of disconfirmation on source per-ception and on subsequent information processing and persuasion

REFERENCES

Ashmore R D amp Del Boca F K (1979) Sex stereotypes and implicit personality theoriesToward a cognitive-social psychological conceptualization Sex Roles 5 219-248

Baker S M amp Petty R E (1994) Majority and minority influence Source-position imbal-ance as a determinant of message scrutiny Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy 67 5-19

Brewer M B amp Silver M D (2000) Group distinctiveness social identification and col-lective mobilization In S Stryker T J Owens amp R W White (Eds) Self Identityand Social Movements (pp 153-171) Minneapolis MN University of MinnesotaPress

Cacioppo J T amp Petty R E (1982) The need for cognition Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 42 116-131

Cacioppo J T Petty R E amp Kao C (1984)The efficient assessment of need for cognitionJournal of Personality Assessment 48 306-307

Campbell D T (1958) Common fate similarity and other indices of the status of aggre-gates as social entities Behavioral Science 3 14-25

Chaiken S Liberman A amp Eagly A H (1989) Heuristic and systematic processingwithin and beyond the persuasion context In J S Uleman amp J A Bargh (Eds) Un-intended thought (pp 212-252) New York Guilford Press

Eagly A H amp Chaiken S (1975) An attribution analysis of the effect of communicatorcharacteristics on opinion change The case of communicator attractiveness Journalof Personality and Social Psychology 32 136-144

Eagly A H Chaiken S amp Wood W (1981)An attribution analysis of persuasion In J HHarvey W J Ickes amp R F Kidd (Eds) New directions in attribution research (Vol 3pp 37-62) Hillsdale NJ Erlbaum

Eagly A H Wood W amp Chaiken S (1978) Causal inferences about communicators and

440 PETTY ET AL

their effects on opinion change Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36424-435

Fiske S T amp Neuberg S L (1990) A continuum of impression formation from cate-gory-based to individuating processes Influences of information and motivationon attention and interpretation In M P Zanna (Ed) Advances in experimental socialpsychology (Vol 23 pp 1-74) San Diego Academic Press

Hamilton DL amp Sherman S J (1996) Perceiving persons and groups Psychological Re-view 103 336-355

Hamilton DL Sherman S J amp Lickel B (1998) Perceiving social groups The impact ofthe entitativity continuum In C Sedikides J Schopler amp C A Insko (Eds) Inter-group cognitions and intergroup behavior (pp 47-74) Mahwah NJ Erlbaum

Hastie R (1984) Causes and effects of causal attribution Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 37 25-38

Jones E E amp Davis K E (1965) From acts to dispositions The attribution process in per-son perception In L Berkowitz (Ed) Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol2 pp 219-266) New York Academic Press

Kramer R M Brewer M B amp HannaB (1996)Collective trust and collective action Thedecision to trust as a social decision In R Kramer amp T Tyler (Eds) Trust in organiza-tions (pp 357-389) Thousand Oakes CA Sage

Maheswaran D amp Chaiken S (1991) Promoting systematic processing in low-motiva-tion settings Effects of incongruent information on processing and judgment Jour-nal of Personality and Social Psychology 61 13-33

Olson J M Roese N J amp Zanna M P (1996) Expectancies In E T Higgins amp A WKruglanski (Eds) Social psychology Handbook of basic principles (pp 211-238) NewYork Guilford Press

Petty R E (1997) The evolution of theory and research in social psychology From singleto multiple effect and process models In C McGarty amp S A Haslam (Eds) The mes-sage of social psychologyPerspectives on mind in society (pp 268-290)Oxford EnglandBlackwell Publishers Ltd

Petty R E amp Cacioppo J T (1979)Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasionby enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 37 1915-1926

Petty R E amp Cacioppo J T (1986) Communication and persuasion Central and peripheralroutes to attitude change New York Springer-Verlag

Petty R E amp Cacioppo J T (1990) Involvement and persuasion Tradition versus inte-gration Psychological Bulletin 107 367-374

Petty R E Fleming M A amp White P H (1999) Stigmatized sources and persuasionPrejudice as a determinant of argument scrutiny Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology 76 19-34

Petty R E Wells G L amp Brock T C (1976)Distraction can enhance or reduce yielding topropaganda Thought disruption versus effort justification Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology 34 874-884

Platow M J HoarS Reid S Harley K amp Morrison D (1997)Endorsement of distribu-tively fair and unfair leaders in interpersonal and intergroup situations EuropeanJournal of Social Psychology 27 465-494

Platow M J OrsquoConnell A Shave R amp Hanning P (1995) Social evaluations of fair andunfair allocators in interpersonal and intergroup situations British Journal of SocialPsychology 34 363-381

Priester J R amp Petty R E (1995) Source attributions and persuasion Perceived honestyas a determinant of message scrutiny Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 21637-654

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 441

Pyszczynski T A amp Greenberg J (1981)Role of disconfirmed expectancies in the instiga-tion of attributional processing Journal of Personality and Social Psychology40 31-38

Smith S M amp Petty R E (1995) Personality moderators of mood congruency effects oncognition The role of self-esteem and negative mood regulation Journal of Personal-ity and Social Psychology 68 1092-1107

Snyder M L amp Wicklund R (1981)Attribute ambiguity In J H Harvey W Ickes amp R RKidd (Eds) New directions in attribution research (pp 197-221)New York Halsted

Srull T K amp Wyer R S Jr (1989)Person memory and judgment Psychological Review 9658-83

Stangor C amp McMillan D (1992)Memory for expectancy-congruent and expectancy-in-congruent social information A meta-analytic review of the social psychologicaland social developmental literatures Psychological Bulletin 111 42-61

Walster E Aronson E amp Abrahams D (1966)On increasing the persuasiveness of a lowprestige communicator Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 2 325-342

Wenzel M amp Mummendey A (1996) Positive-negative asymmetry of social discrimina-tion A normative analysis of differential evaluations of in-group and out-group onpositive and negative attributes British Journal of Social Psychology 35 493-507

White P H amp Harkens S G (1994) Race of source effects in the elaboration likelihoodmodel Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67 790-807

Wong P T P amp Weiner B (1981) When people ask ldquowhyrdquo questions and the heuristicsof attributional search Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 40 650-663

Wood W amp Eagly A H (1981) Stages in the analysis of persuasive messages The role ofcausal attributions and message comprehension Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 40 246-259

442 PETTY ET AL

Page 8: INDIVIDUAL VERSUS GROUP INTEREST VIOLATION: SURPRISE AS …

differed across expectancy basis conditions (see below) general instruc-tions informed participants that they would be given and would be eval-uating the introductory paragraph of a sample essay ldquotaken from a poolof letters sent to the Office of Student Affairs at the University of IowardquoThe letters were described as pertaining to a planned university scholar-ship program that could only be offered to a limited number of studentsEssays were described as having been solicited to help decide whoshould receive the scholarship In addition participants were informedthat they would be given some demographic information about thewriter of the essay The participantsrsquo task was to form an impressionabout the writer and to evaluate the writing in the essay

The remaining pages of the experimental booklet contained in order(1) a demographic sheet about the writer (2) the essay introductory para-graph (3) the dependent variables and manipulation checks (4) the NCscale and (5) a participant demographic sheet After all participants in agroup had completed the booklets they were debriefed and excused

INDEPENDENT VARIABLES

Basis of Expectancy The basis of the expectancy (individual or groupinterest) was manipulated by varying both the initial instructions andthe essay introductoryparagraph In addition to the general instructionsdescribed above the first page of the booklet stated either that ldquoonly onestudent will receive the scholarshiprdquo (individual interest condition) orthat ldquoonly members of one group will receive the scholarshiprdquo (groupinterest condition) The essay paragraphs were also either described assolicited to help decide ldquowho should receive this scholarshiprdquo or ldquowhichgroup should receive these scholarshipsrdquo

Expectancy ConfirmationDisconfirmation Expectancies about the posi-tion to be taken were created by manipulating the instructions on thefirst page of the booklet and the source demographic sheet on the secondpage The expectancy confirmation or disconfirmationwas manipulatedthrough the content of the essay introductory paragraph on the thirdpage of the booklet

In the group interest conditions the initial instructions stated that es-says were solicited to help decide which one group should receive thescholarship In addition the demographic sheet on the writer providedinformation about the writerrsquos race and his parentsrsquo educational back-ground (among other information such as the writerrsquos name age sexuniversity year in school major hometown and hobbies) This infor-mation was held constant across all conditions The writer ldquoBillJohnstonrdquo was described as Black and his parents were not alumni fromhis university

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 425

The expectancy-confirming introductory paragraph for the group in-terest expectancy was

All students who are of racial minority status should qualify for the univer-sity scholarship program that would enable them to attend school withouthaving to pay tuition Although this means that the other equally-deservinggroups being considered (including children of alumni) will have to paytheir own tuition I believe that minority students are the most worthygroup based upon the following reasons

Thus in the group interest confirmation condition the source a Blackmale took the expected position in favor of his group The expec-tancy-disconfirming introductory paragraph for the group interest ex-pectancy was identical to the confirming paragraph except thatanother group (ldquochildren of alumnirdquo) was switched with ldquominoritystudentsrdquo so that the paragraph stated that ldquoalthough this means thatthe other equally-deserving groups being considered (including mi-nority students) will have to pay their own tuition I believe that chil-dren of alumnirdquo Thus in the group interest disconfirmationcondition the Black source took the unexpected position in favor of an-other group

In the individual interest conditions the expectancy was establishedin the initial instructions that only one student would receive the schol-arship Thus the student submitting an essay would be expected towrite that he should receive the scholarship To strengthen this expec-tancy the essay writer was also described as one of the scholarship pro-gram finalists The writer demographic information was identical to thegroup interest information

The expectancy-confirming introductory paragraph for the individ-ual interest expectancy was

I should qualify for the university scholarship program that would enableme to attend school without having to pay tuition Although this means thatthe other equally-deserving finalists will have to pay their own tuition I be-lieve that I am most deserving based upon the following reasons

Thus in this condition the source took the expected position in favor ofhimself The expectancy-disconfirming introductory paragraph for theindividual interest expectancy was identical to the confirming para-graph except that another personrsquos name (ldquoDavid Matthewsrdquo) was sub-stituted for ldquoIrdquo in the appropriate places Thus in this condition the

426 PETTY ET AL

source violated individual self-interest and took an unexpected positionin favor of someone else

Need for Cognition Scale After responding to the other measures par-ticipants completed the NC scale (Cacioppo et al 1984) High and lowNC participants were determined by a median split on the scale with themedian equaling 635 (scores ranged from 26 to 86)

DEPENDENT VARIABLES

Surprise Ratings After participants read the essay introductory para-graph they were asked to answer all questions without looking back atprevious pages On the page immediately following the essay introduc-tory paragraph participants were asked several general questions tomeasure their ldquooverall reaction to the writerrsquos choice of essay topicrdquo As acheck on whether expectancy violation was surprising participants re-sponded on a 7-point scale ranging from -3 = ldquonot at all surprisedrdquo to +3= ldquovery surprisedrdquo regarding how surprised they were about thewriterrsquos choice of essay topic

Source Trustworthiness Measures After evaluating the essay topicparticipants were asked for their opinions about the essay writer be-cause ldquoevaluations of the essay introductory paragraph might havebeen influenced by your attitude about the writerrdquo Participants wereasked to rate the writer on several positivenegative trait semanticdifferential scales These 7-point scales ranged from -3 to +3 Sourcetrustworthiness was measured with three scales (untrustworthytrustworthy insinceresincere dishonesthonest) which were pre-sented with other positivenegative source traits serving as filler items(eg coldwarm close-mindedopen-minded unlikeablelikeable)

Open-Ended Attributional Processing On the next page participantswere asked to write down the reasons why they thought that the studentchose to write his essay The number of trait attributions listed wascounted by a coder blind to conditions More traits were expected to belisted for individual versus group interest conditions In addition to as-sess the specific trait attributions of selfish and selfless the number of di-rect mentions ofsource ldquoselfishnessrdquo and ldquoselflessnessrdquo were alsotallied

Manipulation Checks and Participant Demographic Sheet To ensure thatparticipants were aware of the source information that created the ex-pectancy a recognition test of the source demographic information wasgiven after the other measures were completed The two importantquestions concerned the sourcersquos race and the sourcersquos parentsrsquo educa-

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 427

tional background2 The final page of the experimental booklet was aparticipant demographic sheet so that we could establish which partici-pants were minority students and which were children of alumni

RESULTS

All dependent variables were submitted to a 2 (Expectancy basis individ-ual interest group interest ) acute 2 (Expectancy confirmationdisconfirmation)acute 2 (Need for cognition high low)between-participantsanalysis of variance

SOURCE TRUSTWORTHINESS

The three scales designed to measure trustworthiness were highlyintercorrelated (Cronbachrsquos a = 74)and thus were averaged to form a trust-worthiness index This index wassubmitted to the three-wayANOVA Theonly significant effect obtained was the predicted interaction between Basisand Expectancy F(158) = 755 p lt 01 To interpret this interaction simpleeffects tests were conducted separately for individual and group interestexpectancies For individual interest conditionsa simple main effect for ex-pectancy was found F(132) = 478 p lt 04 Replicating previous research(eg Priester amp Petty 1995) when the source disconfirmed individual in-teresthe wasrated asmore trustworthy(M = 186)than when he confirmedindividual interest (M = 083) However for group interest conditions nodifference between expectancy disconfirmation (M = 087) and confirma-tion (M = 136) conditions was found F(130) = 158 p = 22

SURPRISE RATINGS

Two main effects were obtained on the surprise scale First as expectedparticipants were more surprised in the expectancy disconfirmation (M= 184)than in the confirmation conditions (M = -039) F(158)= 3047p lt0001 The other significant result was a main effect for expectancy basisRegardless of whether expectancies were confirmed or disconfirmedparticipants found the individual interest messages more surprising (M= 131)than the group interest messages (M = 015) F(158)= 825p lt 01

428 PETTY ET AL

2 On the source memory manipulation check two participants erred on the alumni sta-tus of the writerrsquos parents and no one erred on the writerrsquos race When these participantsare removed from analyses results are the same as those reported

The Basis acute Expectancy interaction was not significant F (158)= 215p =153 Thus as predicted it appears that participants were more surprisedafter expectancy disconfirmation than confirmation regardless ofwhether the expectancy was based upon the sourcersquos individual orgroup interest

OPEN-ENDED ATTRIBUTIONAL PROCESSING

Analyses of the number of trait attributions participants listed in theiropen-ended responses revealed a main effect for Expectancy BasisF(157) = 1188 p lt 01 Specifically participants explained the tar-getrsquos actions using more trait terms in the individual interest condi-tions (M = 114 traits per participant) than in the group interestconditions (M = 32) suggesting that a clear attribution was easier tomake in the individual than group interest conditions One specifictrait thought to differ between individual self-interest and group in-terest was perceived selfishnessselflessness Thus the percentagesof participants who referred to selfishness or selflessness were com-pared across expectancy basis 303 of participants in the individ-ual conditions mentioned selfishnessselflessness (participantsmentioned either selfishness or selflessness not both) whereas 0 ofparticipants in the group conditions mentioned this trait c2(1) =1146 p lt 001 To evaluate the numbers of references to selfishnessve r su s se l f l e ss n e ss ac ro ss e xp e ct an c y co n f i rm at io n an ddisconfirmation separate analyses were conducted for the individ-ual conditions only (since there were no mentions of these traits inthe group conditions) For mentions of selflessness 389 ofdisconfirmation (ie low self-interest) condition participants men-tioned this trait (or synonyms) whereas 0 of participants in theconfirmation (ie high self-interest) condition mentioned selfless-ness c2(1) = 740 p lt 007 For mentions of selfishness (or synonyms)20 of participants in the confirmation condition mentioned thistrait whereas 0 of participants in the disconfirmation conditionmentioned it c2(1)= 396 p lt05 It appears that participants weremore likely to attribute the sourcersquos choice of message position to a

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 429

3 We also conducted separate simple effects tests for the individual and group interestconditions to determine if the simple main effect for expectancy held These analyses con-firmed that effects for expectancy occurred in both the individual interest F(132)= 838plt 006 (Means Confirmed = 049Disconfirmed = 213)and group interest F(130)= 2701plt 0001 (Means Confirmed = -126 Disconfirmed = 156) conditions

personality trait (especially to selfishnessselflessness) when thesourcersquos position was relevant to self-interest rather than relevant to hisgrouprsquos interest

We also expected that the differential perceptions of source selfish-ness in the individual conditions would correspond to the greater per-ceived source trustworthiness under expectancy disconfirmation thanconfirmation To evaluate this prediction the correlations between ref-erences to selfishness (and selflessness) and the source trustworthinessratings were computed As predicted in the individual conditionstrustworthiness and mentions of selfishness were significantly nega-tively correlated r = -42 p lt 02 In addition trustworthiness and men-tions of selflessness were significantly positively correlated r = 36 p lt05

DISCUSSION

In this study we found different effects of expectancy disconfirmationon source perceptions for expectancies based on individual versusgroup interest As predicted trustworthiness attributions varied onlywhen the expectancy was based upon the sourcersquos individual self-inter-est Thus our individual interest expectancy conditions were consistentwith prior theory and research (eg Eagly et al 1978 Priester amp Petty1995) in that the source was perceived as more trustworthy when hewent against his own self-interest than when he wrote in favor of hisself-interest More importantly we found a condition under whichsource-position expectancy confirmation and disconfirmation did notmake a difference for trustworthiness attributions mdash when the expec-tancy was based upon group membership and group interest Resultsfrom the open-ended responses suggest that this attenuation mayhave been due to the greater attributional ambiguity when group in-terest rather than individual interest was concerned Thus Experi-me n t 1 ou t l in e s a b ou nda ry co n dit ion fo r th e ef fe c ts ofdisconfirmation of source-position expectancy on perceptions oftrustworthiness suggesting that taking an unexpected position doesnot invariably lead to perceptions of enhanced source trustworthi-ness

In addition consistent with previous expectancy disconfirmationwork (eg Baker amp Petty 1994) participants were more surprised whenexpectancies were disconfirmed than confirmed More importantly thisinvestigation extends this work by suggesting that individuals are moresurprised when an individual source takes a position that disconfirms

430 PETTY ET AL

rather than confirms expectancies regardless of whether the position vi-olates either individual or group interest4

EXPERIMENT TWO

Experiment 2 was designed to investigate the implications of the find-ings of Experiment 1 regarding the effects of disconfirmation of groupinterest for message processing Specifically we tested the predictionthat disconfirmation of a source-position expectancy that does not aug-ment perceived source trustworthiness (ie violation of group interest)will lead to increased rather than reduced message scrutiny Past re-search has already shown that reduced message scrutiny results whenindividual self-interest expectancy disconfirmation leads to enhancedperceptions of source trustworthinessand message validity (Eagly et al1978 Priester amp Petty 1995 Wood amp Eagly 1981) Because a source whoviolates group interest is not seen as more trustworthy but is more sur-prising we anticipate that group interest expectancy disconfirmation

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 431

4 Before conducting Study 2 one potential concern with the operationalization ofgroup interest expectancies in Study 1 was evaluated Specifically our group interest con-firmation condition had scholarships for ldquominority studentsrdquo as its topic whereas thetopic in the disconfirmation condition was about ldquochildren of alumnirdquo The groups ldquomi-nority studentsrdquo and ldquochildren of alumnirdquo are not equivalent and might show different ef-fects for reasons unrelated to expectancy violation For example it might be moresurprising for any source to advocate scholarships for alumni than for minorities To re-move this potential confound and use both topics in the expectancy confirming anddisconfirming cases we conducted a study to replicate conceptually our group interestfindings with both groups Source demographics were varied such that the source was ei-ther Black and not a child of alumni or White and a child of alumni A second minorchange was made in the essay topic mdash rather than a scholarship programthe programwasdescribed as a ldquouniversity service programrdquo that would allow participants free tuition Themessage either advocated that this program should be for children of alumni or for minor-ity students (see Experiment 2 for details)

Forty-eight individuals participated in this 2 (Source Black student of non alumni par-ents White student of alumni parents)acute 2 (Expectancy confirmation disconfirmation) be-tween-participants design In this study expectancy confirmationdisconfirmation wasalways on a group interest basis Participants received the demographic information andintroductory essay paragraph and then completed measures of surprise and source trust-worthiness In this revised version our manipulation of expectancy confirma-tiondisconfirmation was effective in producing surprise as participants weresignificantly more surprised after disconfirmation (M = 067) than after confirmation (M =-204) F(144) = 3438 p lt 0001 Furthermore replicating the group interest conditions inStudy 1 no significant effects were found on the source trustworthiness index As ex-pected participants did not view the disconfirming source as any more trustworthy (M =142) than the confirming source (M = 138) Neither of these effects was qualified by thesource That is Black students favoring alumni and White alumni favoring minority stu-dents were both more surprising than favoring onersquos own group

will lead to enhanced information processing compared to group inter-est expectancy confirmation as has been found in other work on expec-tancies (eg Baker amp Petty 1994Maheswaran amp Chaiken 1991Smith ampPetty 1995) To assess the extent to which the persuasive message wasscrutinized participants were presented with messages containing ei-ther all strong or all weak arguments In general the attitudes of partici-pants who are thinking about the message carefully should be moreaffected by message quality (ie they should be more persuaded bystrong than weak arguments) compared to participants who are notthinking about the message carefully (see Petty Wells amp Brock 1976Petty amp Cacioppo 1986)

METHOD

PARTICIPANTS

Two hundred eighty-eight White students who were not children ofOSU alumni participated in this study in partial completion of introduc-tory psychology course requirements As in Experiment 1 minority par-ticipants and children of alumni were not included in the analyses

DESIGN

Participants were assigned to the cells of a 2 (Source Black non-alum-nus child White alumnus child) acute 2 (Group interest expectancy con-firmed disconfirmed) acute 2 (Argument quality strong weak)between-participants factorial design (see footnote 4) As in Experiment1 a measure of NC was taken

PROCEDURE

Experimental sessions were conducted with groups ranging in size fromtwo to eight Upon arrival participants were given experimental book-lets that contained the following information The first page of the book-let described the study as part of a ldquojournalism writing-evaluationprojectrdquo in which participants would be given a newspaper article writ-ten by a student from another Big Ten university They were also toldthat they would be given some demographic information about the au-thor of the article The participantsrsquo task was to form an impression of thewriter and to evaluate the writing in the article itself Participants werethen given a summary of the message topic mdash that a tuition break pro-gram should be instituted at the University of Iowa The baseline level ofmessage scrutiny for this personally irrelevant message was expected to

432 PETTY ET AL

be relatively low (see Petty amp Cacioppo 1979 1990) The remainingpages of the booklet contained (1) a demographic sheet about the writer(2) the article (containing the persuasive message) (3) the dependentvariables and manipulation checks (4) the NC scale and (5) the partici-pant demographic sheet After all participants in a group had completedthe booklets they were debriefed and excused

INDEPENDENT VARIABLES

Source On the second page of the booklet participants were given ademographic sheet about the writer This page contained informationabout the writerrsquos age sex university year in school major hometownhobby race and parentsrsquo educational background (in this order) Infor-mation about the source remained the same in all conditions except forrace and parentsrsquo educational background The manipulation of sourcewas accomplished by varying jointly the race and the parentsrsquo univer-sity which was either BlackUniversity of Minnesota (ie minorityparents were not alumni of Iowa) or WhiteUniversity of Iowa (ienon-minority parents were alumni of Iowa) This manipulation pro-vided an internal replication of group interest disconfirmation effects onpersuasion (see footnote 4 for a pretest of the effects of this manipulationon source perceptions and surprise)

Group Interest Expectancy ConfirmationDisconfirmation The expe c-tancy manipulation was accomplished by the combination of the mes-sage source and message topic Participants were provided with a briefsummary of the message topic before they read the full persuasive mes-sage to create the expectancy confirmation or disconfirmation in ad-vance of the persuasion attempt Participants were informed that thearticle they would be evaluating was about one of the following topicsldquoStudents who are children of alumni (ie their parents graduated fromthe same university that the student attends) should be allowed to par-ticipate in a two year university service program that would allow themto attend school without having to pay tuitionrdquo Or ldquoStudents who are ofracial minority status should be allowed to participate in a two year uni-versity service program that would allow them to attend school withouthaving to pay tuitionrdquo

Thus expectancy confirmation resulted when the source wrote in fa-vor of his own group participating in this program and expectancydisconfirmation resulted when the source wrote in favor of a group towhich he did not belong

Argument Quality On the next pages of the booklet participants re-ceived the persuasive message The message contained either the strong

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 433

or weak arguments from Baker and Petty (1994 Study 2) The argumentsin the message were pretested such that the strong arguments elicitedprimarily positive thoughts and the weak arguments elicited primarilynegative thoughts when pretest participants were instructed to thinkabout them (see Baker amp Petty 1994 Study 2)

The persuasive message supported implementing a program in whichcertain students (either minority students or children of alumni) wouldbe eligible for tuition breaks in exchange for participating in a universityservice program The message arguments focused on the benefits of theuniversity service program for the university and for the students in-volved in the program For example one strong argument stressed thatwith the money saved through students performing various universityservices ldquoa greater portion of the university budget can be invested inmonetary incentives for research and teachingrdquo and ldquofunding will beavailable to recruit additional outstanding professors researchers andNobel prize winnersrdquo However a parallel weak argument suggestedthat the additional monies available can be ldquospent on materials such aspaint for buildings new machinery for mowing and landscaping andplantings shrubbery flowers and treesrdquo in order to make the universityldquoa scenic and beautiful place to spend the college daysrdquo

Need for Cognition Scale Participants completed the need for cognitionscale (Cacioppo et al 1984)after responding to the other measures Highand low need for cognition participants were determined by a mediansplit on the scale with the median equaling 635 (scores ranged from 31 to85)

DEPENDENT VARIABLES

Argument Quality Manipulation Checks Immediately after participantsread the persuasive message they were asked to answer all questionswithout looking back at previous pages On the page immediately fol-lowing the essay participants were asked to rate ldquohow well was the arti-cle writtenrdquo and ldquohow persuasive were the argumentsrdquo on 9-pointscales ranging from 1 = ldquonot at allrdquo to 9 = ldquoextremelyrdquo These questionswere provided along with several filler questions (eg how clear wasthe writing style) designed to fit the cover story about evaluating the ar-ticle The first two questions served as manipulation checks for argu-ment quality

Attitude Measures On the next page participants read that ldquobecauseyour evaluations of the article might have been influenced by your atti-tude toward the article topic we would like to ask your opinions aboutthe topicrdquo Participants then completed two general attitude questionsand a five-item semantic differential scale The general questions were

434 PETTY ET AL

ldquoIn general what is your opinion about the university service pro-gramrdquo and ldquoHow would you feel about the implementation of the uni-versity service program here at Ohio State Universityrdquo These itemswere completed on 9-point scales ranging from 1 = ldquostrongly opposerdquo to9 = ldquostrongly favorrdquo On the five-item semantic differential scale partici-pants were asked ldquorate how you feel about the university service pro-gramrdquo Each semantic differential was completed on a 9-point scale Thescale anchors were unfavorablefavorable badgood foolishwiseharmfulbeneficial and unfairfair

Source Memory Manipulation Check and Participant Demographics Aftercompleting all other dependent measures participants completed thesource memory multiple choice questions and the participant demo-graphic sheet (as described in study 1)5

RESULTS

All dependent variables were submitted to a 2 (Group interest expec-tancy confirmation vs disconfirmation) acute 2 (Source Black non-alum-nus vs White alumnus ) acute 2 (Argument quality strong vs weak) acute 2(NC high vs low) between-participants analysis of variance

Argument Quality Manipulation Checks6 To determine if our manipu-lation of strong and weak arguments was effective participantsrsquo re-sponses to the two argument quality questions were averaged andsubmitted to the four-way ANOVA The expected main effect for argu-ment quality was obtained F(1271) = 1297 p lt 001 Messages contain-ing strong arguments were rated more positively (M = 589) than wereweak messages (M = 512)7

Attitude Measure The a coefficient for the attitude scales was 95 so thescales were averaged to form an overall index This index was subjected

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 435

5 On the source memory manipulation check one participant made an error on thewriterrsquos race and eleven participants erred on the alumni status of the writerrsquos parentsWhen these participants are removed from analyses results are the same as those re-ported

6 One participant did not complete this measure and thus was not included in the anal-ysis

7 A main effect of expectancy was also obtained F(1 271) = 680 p lt 01 suggesting thatparticipants in the disconfirmation conditions rated arguments more positively (M = 579)than did participants in the confirmation conditions (M = 523)In addition a need for cogni-tion acute expectancy interaction emerged F(1271)= 400 p lt 05 suggesting that whereas highNC individuals rated the quality of the arguments higher when the expectancy wasdisconfirmed (M = 590)than confirmed (M = 491)low NC individualsrsquo perceptions of argu-mentquality were notaffected by expectancy (Mdisconfirmed = 568Mconfirmed = 555)

to the four-way between-participants ANOVA First a main effect forargument quality was obtained F(1272) = 1104 p lt 01 indicating thatparticipants receiving strong arguments were more persuaded (M =549) than were those who received weak arguments (M = 474) Ofgreater interest the predicted expectancy acute argument quality interac-tion F(1272) = 579 p lt 02 qualified this main effect (see Figure 1)When expectancies were disconfirmed argument quality had a greaterimpact on attitudes than when expectancies were confirmed More spe-cifically under expectancy confirmation conditions argument qualityhad no impact on attitudes F(1139) = 42 ns However under expec-tancy disconfirmation conditions a simple main effect for argumentquality emerged F(1145) = 1854 p lt 0001

One additional effect that emerged consistent with past research(Priester amp Petty 1995 Smith amp Petty 1995) was a three-way interactionamong expectancy argument quality and need for cognition F(1272) =386 p lt 05 (see Table 2) Separate analyses for high and low need forcognition participants indicated that high NC participants (ie those in-dividuals who enjoy thinking) showed only a main effect for argumentquality F(1134) = 784 p lt 01 (the expectancy acute argument quality inter-action F lt 1 ns) suggesting that they engaged in effortful processing ofthe message regardless of whether expectancies were confirmed or

436 PETTY ET AL

FIGURE 1 Interaction on attitudes between group interest expectancy status and argu-ment quality

disconfirmed Low NC participants showed a main effect for argumentquality F(1146) = 419 p lt 05 along with an expectancy acute argumentquality interaction F(1146) = 1038 p lt 01 This interaction indicatedthat low NC participants did not differentiate between strong and weakarguments when their expectancies were confirmed but they did differ-entiate when their expectancies were disconfirmed8

GENERAL DISCUSSION

The present research expands our understanding of the consequences ofsources taking unexpected positions Based on prior research and the-ory one would have predicted that when a source takes an unexpectedposition greater attributions of trustworthiness and reduced informa-tion processing activity should result compared to when the sourcetakes an expected position The current studies suggest that this result is

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 437

TABLE 1 Mean Attitude Ratings as a Function of Group-Interest Expectancy Statusand Argument Quality (Experiment 2)

mdashmdashAttitudesmdashmdash

Argument Quality Confirmed Disconfirmed

Strong 504 (65) 594 (79)

SD = 187 SD = 170

Weak 483 (76) 465 (68)

SD = 197 SD = 209

Note Ns indicated in parentheses

8 A source acute expectancy interaction F(1272) = 528 p lt 03 was also obtained A maineffect for expectancy emerged in the Black non-alumnus source condition F(1136)= 840p lt 01 Thus participants had more positive attitudes toward the message when a minor-ity source wrote in favor of children of alumni receiving the tuition breaks (M = 562) thanwhen the minority source wrote in favor of breaks for minorities (M = 475) Attitudes inthe White alumnus source conditions did not differ between expectancy disconfirming (M= 496)and confirming conditions (M = 513)F lt 1 This unanticipated result could have oc-curred because Caucasian participants paid more attention to the position taken by theBlack than the White source resulting in their being more affected by those positions(Petty Fleming amp White 1999 White amp Harkens 1994) Future research could includeconditions where a Black source is an alumnus and a White source is a non-alumnus totease apart race from alumni effects Importantly our results indicated that participantsengaged in greater scrutiny of the arguments whichever source (black or white alumnusor non-alumnus) violated expectancies That is the significant two-way Expectancy acute Ar-gument quality interaction was not qualified by source nor was the significant three-wayExpectancy acute Argument quality acute Need for cognition interaction qualified by source

likely primarily when the position taken violates individual self-inter-est When the position is unexpected because it violates a grouprsquos inter-est the results are quite different That is in Experiment 1 we showedthat although both types of expectancy violation induce surprise onlythe violation of self-interest is associated with increased perceptions oftrustworthiness Violations of group interest do not engender the sameenhancements of trustworthiness Instead violations of group interestappear to produce some attributional ambiguity The surprise accompa-nied by unclear attributions as to the cause of a behavior would be ex-pected to lead to increased rather than decreased informationprocessing This is the effect we observed in Experiment 2

INTEGRATION INFORMATION PROCESSING CONSEQUENCESOF EXPECTANCY DISCONFIRMATION

The current framework seems potentially useful for reconciling seem-ingly inconsistent findings in the persuasion literature regarding the in-formation processing consequences of expectancy disconfirmation Tosummarize briefly if disconfirmation of expectancies leads to increasedperceptions of source trustworthiness or enhanced perceptions of mes-sage validity then message processing should decrease over confirma-tion conditions (Chaiken et al 1989 Petty amp Cacioppo 1986) On theother hand if disconfirmation of expectancies leads only to surprisecompared to confirmation conditions message processing should in-crease In past research disconfirmations of expectancies about messagequality (Maheswaran amp Chaiken 1991) message framing (Smith ampPetty 1995) and whether a majority or minority of others hold a pro- orcounterattitudinal position (Baker amp Petty 1994) did not violate self-in-terest and thus should not lead to perceptions of source trustworthinessor message validity In each case recipients are simply left surprised by

438 PETTY ET AL

TABLE 2 Mean Attitude Ratings as a Function of Group-Interest Expectancy StatusArgument Quality and Participantsrsquo Need for Cognition Level (Experiment 2)

mdashmdashAttitudesmdashmdash

High Need for Cognition Low Need for Cognition

Argument Quality Confirmed Disconfirmed Confirmed Disconfirmed

Strong 508 (33) 580 (37) 500 (32) 607 (42)

SD = 204 SD = 156 SD = 170 SD = 182

Weak 432 (37) 484 (31) 535 (39) 445 (37)

SD = 202 SD = 200 SD = 181 SD = 217

Note Ns indicated in parentheses

the disconfirmation of expectancies and they engage in greater informa-tion processing activity presumably to resolve the violation of expecta-tions and re-establish their understanding of the topic or source at hand(Olson et al 1996)

It is somewhat ironic that the earliest work on expectancies in persua-sion (Eagly amp Chaiken 1975Eagly et al 1978Walster et al 1966 Woodamp Eagly 1981) focused on the one type of expectation (ie source-posi-tion expectancy based on personal self-interest) that produced an appar-ent exception to the subsequently emergent general rule thatdisconfirmation of expectancies enhances processing The current re-search is the first to show that violations of expectancies about the posi-tion a source will take can lead to enhanced information processing Thiswas accomplished by shifting the expectation from one based on self-in-terest alone to group interest

In examining this framework it is important to keep the theoreticalvariables in mind that underlie our integration That is when a sourceviolates expectancies a number of inferences are possible An expec-tancy disconfirmation can enhance perceptions of source trustworthi-ness or message validity (and thus decrease message processing) and itcan also affect surprise (and thus increase message processing) butwhen surprise alone occurs enhanced information processing occursWhen both occur it appears that perceptions of message validity reducemessage processing despite the increased surprise

For self- and group interest expectancy violations to occur at least twofactors seem necessary a perception that some self- or group interest isinvolved and an expectation that individuals will act in accordancewiththat interest A perception of self- or group interest may not always bepresent For example an aggregate of individuals which is notentitative enough (they do not form a coherent whole) may not be per-ceived as having a common group interest in the first place (Campbell1958Hamilton amp Sherman 1996Hamilton Sherman amp Lickel 1998) Insuch cases there would be no group interest to violate Even when self-or group interest is perceived however violations of them may not al-ways cause expectancy disconfirmationsFor example in some culturesself-interest violation may be expected rather than unexpected and thussuch violations would not be expected to lead to increased perceptionsof trustworthinessbecause people are more likely to make dispositionalattributions for behaviors that are unexpected (Jones amp Davis 1965)Likewise for some groups or issues group interest violation may also beexpected such as when the group is clearly undeserving and in those in-stances violation of group interest would not be expected to lead to sur-prise

Future work could examine these possibilities as well as explore sev-eral remaining issues For example although we compared individual

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 439

versus group interest violations on perceptions of trustworthiness andsurprise together in Study 1 we did not directly compare the effects ofthese two types of expectancy violations on information processing andpersuasion This was because the effects of individual self-interest viola-tion on information processing and persuasion seemed clear from priorresearch Nevertheless it would be prudent to examine the effects of in-dividual- versus group interest confirmation versus disconfirmation oninformation processing in the same study In addition our hypothesisthat surprise and attributional ambiguity mediate the increased process-ing resulting from group interest violations should be directly tested byassessing the mediators in the same study as the outcome variables

The current research and framework suggest that it is important toconsider that expectancies in persuasion contexts can be developedupon multiple bases such as on prior knowledge of a personrsquos past be-haviors a personrsquos group membership or human behavior in generalAs shown in our experiments the basis of the expectancy can make animportant difference in the outcome of disconfirmation on source per-ception and on subsequent information processing and persuasion

REFERENCES

Ashmore R D amp Del Boca F K (1979) Sex stereotypes and implicit personality theoriesToward a cognitive-social psychological conceptualization Sex Roles 5 219-248

Baker S M amp Petty R E (1994) Majority and minority influence Source-position imbal-ance as a determinant of message scrutiny Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy 67 5-19

Brewer M B amp Silver M D (2000) Group distinctiveness social identification and col-lective mobilization In S Stryker T J Owens amp R W White (Eds) Self Identityand Social Movements (pp 153-171) Minneapolis MN University of MinnesotaPress

Cacioppo J T amp Petty R E (1982) The need for cognition Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 42 116-131

Cacioppo J T Petty R E amp Kao C (1984)The efficient assessment of need for cognitionJournal of Personality Assessment 48 306-307

Campbell D T (1958) Common fate similarity and other indices of the status of aggre-gates as social entities Behavioral Science 3 14-25

Chaiken S Liberman A amp Eagly A H (1989) Heuristic and systematic processingwithin and beyond the persuasion context In J S Uleman amp J A Bargh (Eds) Un-intended thought (pp 212-252) New York Guilford Press

Eagly A H amp Chaiken S (1975) An attribution analysis of the effect of communicatorcharacteristics on opinion change The case of communicator attractiveness Journalof Personality and Social Psychology 32 136-144

Eagly A H Chaiken S amp Wood W (1981)An attribution analysis of persuasion In J HHarvey W J Ickes amp R F Kidd (Eds) New directions in attribution research (Vol 3pp 37-62) Hillsdale NJ Erlbaum

Eagly A H Wood W amp Chaiken S (1978) Causal inferences about communicators and

440 PETTY ET AL

their effects on opinion change Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36424-435

Fiske S T amp Neuberg S L (1990) A continuum of impression formation from cate-gory-based to individuating processes Influences of information and motivationon attention and interpretation In M P Zanna (Ed) Advances in experimental socialpsychology (Vol 23 pp 1-74) San Diego Academic Press

Hamilton DL amp Sherman S J (1996) Perceiving persons and groups Psychological Re-view 103 336-355

Hamilton DL Sherman S J amp Lickel B (1998) Perceiving social groups The impact ofthe entitativity continuum In C Sedikides J Schopler amp C A Insko (Eds) Inter-group cognitions and intergroup behavior (pp 47-74) Mahwah NJ Erlbaum

Hastie R (1984) Causes and effects of causal attribution Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 37 25-38

Jones E E amp Davis K E (1965) From acts to dispositions The attribution process in per-son perception In L Berkowitz (Ed) Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol2 pp 219-266) New York Academic Press

Kramer R M Brewer M B amp HannaB (1996)Collective trust and collective action Thedecision to trust as a social decision In R Kramer amp T Tyler (Eds) Trust in organiza-tions (pp 357-389) Thousand Oakes CA Sage

Maheswaran D amp Chaiken S (1991) Promoting systematic processing in low-motiva-tion settings Effects of incongruent information on processing and judgment Jour-nal of Personality and Social Psychology 61 13-33

Olson J M Roese N J amp Zanna M P (1996) Expectancies In E T Higgins amp A WKruglanski (Eds) Social psychology Handbook of basic principles (pp 211-238) NewYork Guilford Press

Petty R E (1997) The evolution of theory and research in social psychology From singleto multiple effect and process models In C McGarty amp S A Haslam (Eds) The mes-sage of social psychologyPerspectives on mind in society (pp 268-290)Oxford EnglandBlackwell Publishers Ltd

Petty R E amp Cacioppo J T (1979)Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasionby enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 37 1915-1926

Petty R E amp Cacioppo J T (1986) Communication and persuasion Central and peripheralroutes to attitude change New York Springer-Verlag

Petty R E amp Cacioppo J T (1990) Involvement and persuasion Tradition versus inte-gration Psychological Bulletin 107 367-374

Petty R E Fleming M A amp White P H (1999) Stigmatized sources and persuasionPrejudice as a determinant of argument scrutiny Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology 76 19-34

Petty R E Wells G L amp Brock T C (1976)Distraction can enhance or reduce yielding topropaganda Thought disruption versus effort justification Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology 34 874-884

Platow M J HoarS Reid S Harley K amp Morrison D (1997)Endorsement of distribu-tively fair and unfair leaders in interpersonal and intergroup situations EuropeanJournal of Social Psychology 27 465-494

Platow M J OrsquoConnell A Shave R amp Hanning P (1995) Social evaluations of fair andunfair allocators in interpersonal and intergroup situations British Journal of SocialPsychology 34 363-381

Priester J R amp Petty R E (1995) Source attributions and persuasion Perceived honestyas a determinant of message scrutiny Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 21637-654

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 441

Pyszczynski T A amp Greenberg J (1981)Role of disconfirmed expectancies in the instiga-tion of attributional processing Journal of Personality and Social Psychology40 31-38

Smith S M amp Petty R E (1995) Personality moderators of mood congruency effects oncognition The role of self-esteem and negative mood regulation Journal of Personal-ity and Social Psychology 68 1092-1107

Snyder M L amp Wicklund R (1981)Attribute ambiguity In J H Harvey W Ickes amp R RKidd (Eds) New directions in attribution research (pp 197-221)New York Halsted

Srull T K amp Wyer R S Jr (1989)Person memory and judgment Psychological Review 9658-83

Stangor C amp McMillan D (1992)Memory for expectancy-congruent and expectancy-in-congruent social information A meta-analytic review of the social psychologicaland social developmental literatures Psychological Bulletin 111 42-61

Walster E Aronson E amp Abrahams D (1966)On increasing the persuasiveness of a lowprestige communicator Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 2 325-342

Wenzel M amp Mummendey A (1996) Positive-negative asymmetry of social discrimina-tion A normative analysis of differential evaluations of in-group and out-group onpositive and negative attributes British Journal of Social Psychology 35 493-507

White P H amp Harkens S G (1994) Race of source effects in the elaboration likelihoodmodel Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67 790-807

Wong P T P amp Weiner B (1981) When people ask ldquowhyrdquo questions and the heuristicsof attributional search Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 40 650-663

Wood W amp Eagly A H (1981) Stages in the analysis of persuasive messages The role ofcausal attributions and message comprehension Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 40 246-259

442 PETTY ET AL

Page 9: INDIVIDUAL VERSUS GROUP INTEREST VIOLATION: SURPRISE AS …

The expectancy-confirming introductory paragraph for the group in-terest expectancy was

All students who are of racial minority status should qualify for the univer-sity scholarship program that would enable them to attend school withouthaving to pay tuition Although this means that the other equally-deservinggroups being considered (including children of alumni) will have to paytheir own tuition I believe that minority students are the most worthygroup based upon the following reasons

Thus in the group interest confirmation condition the source a Blackmale took the expected position in favor of his group The expec-tancy-disconfirming introductory paragraph for the group interest ex-pectancy was identical to the confirming paragraph except thatanother group (ldquochildren of alumnirdquo) was switched with ldquominoritystudentsrdquo so that the paragraph stated that ldquoalthough this means thatthe other equally-deserving groups being considered (including mi-nority students) will have to pay their own tuition I believe that chil-dren of alumnirdquo Thus in the group interest disconfirmationcondition the Black source took the unexpected position in favor of an-other group

In the individual interest conditions the expectancy was establishedin the initial instructions that only one student would receive the schol-arship Thus the student submitting an essay would be expected towrite that he should receive the scholarship To strengthen this expec-tancy the essay writer was also described as one of the scholarship pro-gram finalists The writer demographic information was identical to thegroup interest information

The expectancy-confirming introductory paragraph for the individ-ual interest expectancy was

I should qualify for the university scholarship program that would enableme to attend school without having to pay tuition Although this means thatthe other equally-deserving finalists will have to pay their own tuition I be-lieve that I am most deserving based upon the following reasons

Thus in this condition the source took the expected position in favor ofhimself The expectancy-disconfirming introductory paragraph for theindividual interest expectancy was identical to the confirming para-graph except that another personrsquos name (ldquoDavid Matthewsrdquo) was sub-stituted for ldquoIrdquo in the appropriate places Thus in this condition the

426 PETTY ET AL

source violated individual self-interest and took an unexpected positionin favor of someone else

Need for Cognition Scale After responding to the other measures par-ticipants completed the NC scale (Cacioppo et al 1984) High and lowNC participants were determined by a median split on the scale with themedian equaling 635 (scores ranged from 26 to 86)

DEPENDENT VARIABLES

Surprise Ratings After participants read the essay introductory para-graph they were asked to answer all questions without looking back atprevious pages On the page immediately following the essay introduc-tory paragraph participants were asked several general questions tomeasure their ldquooverall reaction to the writerrsquos choice of essay topicrdquo As acheck on whether expectancy violation was surprising participants re-sponded on a 7-point scale ranging from -3 = ldquonot at all surprisedrdquo to +3= ldquovery surprisedrdquo regarding how surprised they were about thewriterrsquos choice of essay topic

Source Trustworthiness Measures After evaluating the essay topicparticipants were asked for their opinions about the essay writer be-cause ldquoevaluations of the essay introductory paragraph might havebeen influenced by your attitude about the writerrdquo Participants wereasked to rate the writer on several positivenegative trait semanticdifferential scales These 7-point scales ranged from -3 to +3 Sourcetrustworthiness was measured with three scales (untrustworthytrustworthy insinceresincere dishonesthonest) which were pre-sented with other positivenegative source traits serving as filler items(eg coldwarm close-mindedopen-minded unlikeablelikeable)

Open-Ended Attributional Processing On the next page participantswere asked to write down the reasons why they thought that the studentchose to write his essay The number of trait attributions listed wascounted by a coder blind to conditions More traits were expected to belisted for individual versus group interest conditions In addition to as-sess the specific trait attributions of selfish and selfless the number of di-rect mentions ofsource ldquoselfishnessrdquo and ldquoselflessnessrdquo were alsotallied

Manipulation Checks and Participant Demographic Sheet To ensure thatparticipants were aware of the source information that created the ex-pectancy a recognition test of the source demographic information wasgiven after the other measures were completed The two importantquestions concerned the sourcersquos race and the sourcersquos parentsrsquo educa-

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 427

tional background2 The final page of the experimental booklet was aparticipant demographic sheet so that we could establish which partici-pants were minority students and which were children of alumni

RESULTS

All dependent variables were submitted to a 2 (Expectancy basis individ-ual interest group interest ) acute 2 (Expectancy confirmationdisconfirmation)acute 2 (Need for cognition high low)between-participantsanalysis of variance

SOURCE TRUSTWORTHINESS

The three scales designed to measure trustworthiness were highlyintercorrelated (Cronbachrsquos a = 74)and thus were averaged to form a trust-worthiness index This index wassubmitted to the three-wayANOVA Theonly significant effect obtained was the predicted interaction between Basisand Expectancy F(158) = 755 p lt 01 To interpret this interaction simpleeffects tests were conducted separately for individual and group interestexpectancies For individual interest conditionsa simple main effect for ex-pectancy was found F(132) = 478 p lt 04 Replicating previous research(eg Priester amp Petty 1995) when the source disconfirmed individual in-teresthe wasrated asmore trustworthy(M = 186)than when he confirmedindividual interest (M = 083) However for group interest conditions nodifference between expectancy disconfirmation (M = 087) and confirma-tion (M = 136) conditions was found F(130) = 158 p = 22

SURPRISE RATINGS

Two main effects were obtained on the surprise scale First as expectedparticipants were more surprised in the expectancy disconfirmation (M= 184)than in the confirmation conditions (M = -039) F(158)= 3047p lt0001 The other significant result was a main effect for expectancy basisRegardless of whether expectancies were confirmed or disconfirmedparticipants found the individual interest messages more surprising (M= 131)than the group interest messages (M = 015) F(158)= 825p lt 01

428 PETTY ET AL

2 On the source memory manipulation check two participants erred on the alumni sta-tus of the writerrsquos parents and no one erred on the writerrsquos race When these participantsare removed from analyses results are the same as those reported

The Basis acute Expectancy interaction was not significant F (158)= 215p =153 Thus as predicted it appears that participants were more surprisedafter expectancy disconfirmation than confirmation regardless ofwhether the expectancy was based upon the sourcersquos individual orgroup interest

OPEN-ENDED ATTRIBUTIONAL PROCESSING

Analyses of the number of trait attributions participants listed in theiropen-ended responses revealed a main effect for Expectancy BasisF(157) = 1188 p lt 01 Specifically participants explained the tar-getrsquos actions using more trait terms in the individual interest condi-tions (M = 114 traits per participant) than in the group interestconditions (M = 32) suggesting that a clear attribution was easier tomake in the individual than group interest conditions One specifictrait thought to differ between individual self-interest and group in-terest was perceived selfishnessselflessness Thus the percentagesof participants who referred to selfishness or selflessness were com-pared across expectancy basis 303 of participants in the individ-ual conditions mentioned selfishnessselflessness (participantsmentioned either selfishness or selflessness not both) whereas 0 ofparticipants in the group conditions mentioned this trait c2(1) =1146 p lt 001 To evaluate the numbers of references to selfishnessve r su s se l f l e ss n e ss ac ro ss e xp e ct an c y co n f i rm at io n an ddisconfirmation separate analyses were conducted for the individ-ual conditions only (since there were no mentions of these traits inthe group conditions) For mentions of selflessness 389 ofdisconfirmation (ie low self-interest) condition participants men-tioned this trait (or synonyms) whereas 0 of participants in theconfirmation (ie high self-interest) condition mentioned selfless-ness c2(1) = 740 p lt 007 For mentions of selfishness (or synonyms)20 of participants in the confirmation condition mentioned thistrait whereas 0 of participants in the disconfirmation conditionmentioned it c2(1)= 396 p lt05 It appears that participants weremore likely to attribute the sourcersquos choice of message position to a

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 429

3 We also conducted separate simple effects tests for the individual and group interestconditions to determine if the simple main effect for expectancy held These analyses con-firmed that effects for expectancy occurred in both the individual interest F(132)= 838plt 006 (Means Confirmed = 049Disconfirmed = 213)and group interest F(130)= 2701plt 0001 (Means Confirmed = -126 Disconfirmed = 156) conditions

personality trait (especially to selfishnessselflessness) when thesourcersquos position was relevant to self-interest rather than relevant to hisgrouprsquos interest

We also expected that the differential perceptions of source selfish-ness in the individual conditions would correspond to the greater per-ceived source trustworthiness under expectancy disconfirmation thanconfirmation To evaluate this prediction the correlations between ref-erences to selfishness (and selflessness) and the source trustworthinessratings were computed As predicted in the individual conditionstrustworthiness and mentions of selfishness were significantly nega-tively correlated r = -42 p lt 02 In addition trustworthiness and men-tions of selflessness were significantly positively correlated r = 36 p lt05

DISCUSSION

In this study we found different effects of expectancy disconfirmationon source perceptions for expectancies based on individual versusgroup interest As predicted trustworthiness attributions varied onlywhen the expectancy was based upon the sourcersquos individual self-inter-est Thus our individual interest expectancy conditions were consistentwith prior theory and research (eg Eagly et al 1978 Priester amp Petty1995) in that the source was perceived as more trustworthy when hewent against his own self-interest than when he wrote in favor of hisself-interest More importantly we found a condition under whichsource-position expectancy confirmation and disconfirmation did notmake a difference for trustworthiness attributions mdash when the expec-tancy was based upon group membership and group interest Resultsfrom the open-ended responses suggest that this attenuation mayhave been due to the greater attributional ambiguity when group in-terest rather than individual interest was concerned Thus Experi-me n t 1 ou t l in e s a b ou nda ry co n dit ion fo r th e ef fe c ts ofdisconfirmation of source-position expectancy on perceptions oftrustworthiness suggesting that taking an unexpected position doesnot invariably lead to perceptions of enhanced source trustworthi-ness

In addition consistent with previous expectancy disconfirmationwork (eg Baker amp Petty 1994) participants were more surprised whenexpectancies were disconfirmed than confirmed More importantly thisinvestigation extends this work by suggesting that individuals are moresurprised when an individual source takes a position that disconfirms

430 PETTY ET AL

rather than confirms expectancies regardless of whether the position vi-olates either individual or group interest4

EXPERIMENT TWO

Experiment 2 was designed to investigate the implications of the find-ings of Experiment 1 regarding the effects of disconfirmation of groupinterest for message processing Specifically we tested the predictionthat disconfirmation of a source-position expectancy that does not aug-ment perceived source trustworthiness (ie violation of group interest)will lead to increased rather than reduced message scrutiny Past re-search has already shown that reduced message scrutiny results whenindividual self-interest expectancy disconfirmation leads to enhancedperceptions of source trustworthinessand message validity (Eagly et al1978 Priester amp Petty 1995 Wood amp Eagly 1981) Because a source whoviolates group interest is not seen as more trustworthy but is more sur-prising we anticipate that group interest expectancy disconfirmation

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 431

4 Before conducting Study 2 one potential concern with the operationalization ofgroup interest expectancies in Study 1 was evaluated Specifically our group interest con-firmation condition had scholarships for ldquominority studentsrdquo as its topic whereas thetopic in the disconfirmation condition was about ldquochildren of alumnirdquo The groups ldquomi-nority studentsrdquo and ldquochildren of alumnirdquo are not equivalent and might show different ef-fects for reasons unrelated to expectancy violation For example it might be moresurprising for any source to advocate scholarships for alumni than for minorities To re-move this potential confound and use both topics in the expectancy confirming anddisconfirming cases we conducted a study to replicate conceptually our group interestfindings with both groups Source demographics were varied such that the source was ei-ther Black and not a child of alumni or White and a child of alumni A second minorchange was made in the essay topic mdash rather than a scholarship programthe programwasdescribed as a ldquouniversity service programrdquo that would allow participants free tuition Themessage either advocated that this program should be for children of alumni or for minor-ity students (see Experiment 2 for details)

Forty-eight individuals participated in this 2 (Source Black student of non alumni par-ents White student of alumni parents)acute 2 (Expectancy confirmation disconfirmation) be-tween-participants design In this study expectancy confirmationdisconfirmation wasalways on a group interest basis Participants received the demographic information andintroductory essay paragraph and then completed measures of surprise and source trust-worthiness In this revised version our manipulation of expectancy confirma-tiondisconfirmation was effective in producing surprise as participants weresignificantly more surprised after disconfirmation (M = 067) than after confirmation (M =-204) F(144) = 3438 p lt 0001 Furthermore replicating the group interest conditions inStudy 1 no significant effects were found on the source trustworthiness index As ex-pected participants did not view the disconfirming source as any more trustworthy (M =142) than the confirming source (M = 138) Neither of these effects was qualified by thesource That is Black students favoring alumni and White alumni favoring minority stu-dents were both more surprising than favoring onersquos own group

will lead to enhanced information processing compared to group inter-est expectancy confirmation as has been found in other work on expec-tancies (eg Baker amp Petty 1994Maheswaran amp Chaiken 1991Smith ampPetty 1995) To assess the extent to which the persuasive message wasscrutinized participants were presented with messages containing ei-ther all strong or all weak arguments In general the attitudes of partici-pants who are thinking about the message carefully should be moreaffected by message quality (ie they should be more persuaded bystrong than weak arguments) compared to participants who are notthinking about the message carefully (see Petty Wells amp Brock 1976Petty amp Cacioppo 1986)

METHOD

PARTICIPANTS

Two hundred eighty-eight White students who were not children ofOSU alumni participated in this study in partial completion of introduc-tory psychology course requirements As in Experiment 1 minority par-ticipants and children of alumni were not included in the analyses

DESIGN

Participants were assigned to the cells of a 2 (Source Black non-alum-nus child White alumnus child) acute 2 (Group interest expectancy con-firmed disconfirmed) acute 2 (Argument quality strong weak)between-participants factorial design (see footnote 4) As in Experiment1 a measure of NC was taken

PROCEDURE

Experimental sessions were conducted with groups ranging in size fromtwo to eight Upon arrival participants were given experimental book-lets that contained the following information The first page of the book-let described the study as part of a ldquojournalism writing-evaluationprojectrdquo in which participants would be given a newspaper article writ-ten by a student from another Big Ten university They were also toldthat they would be given some demographic information about the au-thor of the article The participantsrsquo task was to form an impression of thewriter and to evaluate the writing in the article itself Participants werethen given a summary of the message topic mdash that a tuition break pro-gram should be instituted at the University of Iowa The baseline level ofmessage scrutiny for this personally irrelevant message was expected to

432 PETTY ET AL

be relatively low (see Petty amp Cacioppo 1979 1990) The remainingpages of the booklet contained (1) a demographic sheet about the writer(2) the article (containing the persuasive message) (3) the dependentvariables and manipulation checks (4) the NC scale and (5) the partici-pant demographic sheet After all participants in a group had completedthe booklets they were debriefed and excused

INDEPENDENT VARIABLES

Source On the second page of the booklet participants were given ademographic sheet about the writer This page contained informationabout the writerrsquos age sex university year in school major hometownhobby race and parentsrsquo educational background (in this order) Infor-mation about the source remained the same in all conditions except forrace and parentsrsquo educational background The manipulation of sourcewas accomplished by varying jointly the race and the parentsrsquo univer-sity which was either BlackUniversity of Minnesota (ie minorityparents were not alumni of Iowa) or WhiteUniversity of Iowa (ienon-minority parents were alumni of Iowa) This manipulation pro-vided an internal replication of group interest disconfirmation effects onpersuasion (see footnote 4 for a pretest of the effects of this manipulationon source perceptions and surprise)

Group Interest Expectancy ConfirmationDisconfirmation The expe c-tancy manipulation was accomplished by the combination of the mes-sage source and message topic Participants were provided with a briefsummary of the message topic before they read the full persuasive mes-sage to create the expectancy confirmation or disconfirmation in ad-vance of the persuasion attempt Participants were informed that thearticle they would be evaluating was about one of the following topicsldquoStudents who are children of alumni (ie their parents graduated fromthe same university that the student attends) should be allowed to par-ticipate in a two year university service program that would allow themto attend school without having to pay tuitionrdquo Or ldquoStudents who are ofracial minority status should be allowed to participate in a two year uni-versity service program that would allow them to attend school withouthaving to pay tuitionrdquo

Thus expectancy confirmation resulted when the source wrote in fa-vor of his own group participating in this program and expectancydisconfirmation resulted when the source wrote in favor of a group towhich he did not belong

Argument Quality On the next pages of the booklet participants re-ceived the persuasive message The message contained either the strong

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 433

or weak arguments from Baker and Petty (1994 Study 2) The argumentsin the message were pretested such that the strong arguments elicitedprimarily positive thoughts and the weak arguments elicited primarilynegative thoughts when pretest participants were instructed to thinkabout them (see Baker amp Petty 1994 Study 2)

The persuasive message supported implementing a program in whichcertain students (either minority students or children of alumni) wouldbe eligible for tuition breaks in exchange for participating in a universityservice program The message arguments focused on the benefits of theuniversity service program for the university and for the students in-volved in the program For example one strong argument stressed thatwith the money saved through students performing various universityservices ldquoa greater portion of the university budget can be invested inmonetary incentives for research and teachingrdquo and ldquofunding will beavailable to recruit additional outstanding professors researchers andNobel prize winnersrdquo However a parallel weak argument suggestedthat the additional monies available can be ldquospent on materials such aspaint for buildings new machinery for mowing and landscaping andplantings shrubbery flowers and treesrdquo in order to make the universityldquoa scenic and beautiful place to spend the college daysrdquo

Need for Cognition Scale Participants completed the need for cognitionscale (Cacioppo et al 1984)after responding to the other measures Highand low need for cognition participants were determined by a mediansplit on the scale with the median equaling 635 (scores ranged from 31 to85)

DEPENDENT VARIABLES

Argument Quality Manipulation Checks Immediately after participantsread the persuasive message they were asked to answer all questionswithout looking back at previous pages On the page immediately fol-lowing the essay participants were asked to rate ldquohow well was the arti-cle writtenrdquo and ldquohow persuasive were the argumentsrdquo on 9-pointscales ranging from 1 = ldquonot at allrdquo to 9 = ldquoextremelyrdquo These questionswere provided along with several filler questions (eg how clear wasthe writing style) designed to fit the cover story about evaluating the ar-ticle The first two questions served as manipulation checks for argu-ment quality

Attitude Measures On the next page participants read that ldquobecauseyour evaluations of the article might have been influenced by your atti-tude toward the article topic we would like to ask your opinions aboutthe topicrdquo Participants then completed two general attitude questionsand a five-item semantic differential scale The general questions were

434 PETTY ET AL

ldquoIn general what is your opinion about the university service pro-gramrdquo and ldquoHow would you feel about the implementation of the uni-versity service program here at Ohio State Universityrdquo These itemswere completed on 9-point scales ranging from 1 = ldquostrongly opposerdquo to9 = ldquostrongly favorrdquo On the five-item semantic differential scale partici-pants were asked ldquorate how you feel about the university service pro-gramrdquo Each semantic differential was completed on a 9-point scale Thescale anchors were unfavorablefavorable badgood foolishwiseharmfulbeneficial and unfairfair

Source Memory Manipulation Check and Participant Demographics Aftercompleting all other dependent measures participants completed thesource memory multiple choice questions and the participant demo-graphic sheet (as described in study 1)5

RESULTS

All dependent variables were submitted to a 2 (Group interest expec-tancy confirmation vs disconfirmation) acute 2 (Source Black non-alum-nus vs White alumnus ) acute 2 (Argument quality strong vs weak) acute 2(NC high vs low) between-participants analysis of variance

Argument Quality Manipulation Checks6 To determine if our manipu-lation of strong and weak arguments was effective participantsrsquo re-sponses to the two argument quality questions were averaged andsubmitted to the four-way ANOVA The expected main effect for argu-ment quality was obtained F(1271) = 1297 p lt 001 Messages contain-ing strong arguments were rated more positively (M = 589) than wereweak messages (M = 512)7

Attitude Measure The a coefficient for the attitude scales was 95 so thescales were averaged to form an overall index This index was subjected

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 435

5 On the source memory manipulation check one participant made an error on thewriterrsquos race and eleven participants erred on the alumni status of the writerrsquos parentsWhen these participants are removed from analyses results are the same as those re-ported

6 One participant did not complete this measure and thus was not included in the anal-ysis

7 A main effect of expectancy was also obtained F(1 271) = 680 p lt 01 suggesting thatparticipants in the disconfirmation conditions rated arguments more positively (M = 579)than did participants in the confirmation conditions (M = 523)In addition a need for cogni-tion acute expectancy interaction emerged F(1271)= 400 p lt 05 suggesting that whereas highNC individuals rated the quality of the arguments higher when the expectancy wasdisconfirmed (M = 590)than confirmed (M = 491)low NC individualsrsquo perceptions of argu-mentquality were notaffected by expectancy (Mdisconfirmed = 568Mconfirmed = 555)

to the four-way between-participants ANOVA First a main effect forargument quality was obtained F(1272) = 1104 p lt 01 indicating thatparticipants receiving strong arguments were more persuaded (M =549) than were those who received weak arguments (M = 474) Ofgreater interest the predicted expectancy acute argument quality interac-tion F(1272) = 579 p lt 02 qualified this main effect (see Figure 1)When expectancies were disconfirmed argument quality had a greaterimpact on attitudes than when expectancies were confirmed More spe-cifically under expectancy confirmation conditions argument qualityhad no impact on attitudes F(1139) = 42 ns However under expec-tancy disconfirmation conditions a simple main effect for argumentquality emerged F(1145) = 1854 p lt 0001

One additional effect that emerged consistent with past research(Priester amp Petty 1995 Smith amp Petty 1995) was a three-way interactionamong expectancy argument quality and need for cognition F(1272) =386 p lt 05 (see Table 2) Separate analyses for high and low need forcognition participants indicated that high NC participants (ie those in-dividuals who enjoy thinking) showed only a main effect for argumentquality F(1134) = 784 p lt 01 (the expectancy acute argument quality inter-action F lt 1 ns) suggesting that they engaged in effortful processing ofthe message regardless of whether expectancies were confirmed or

436 PETTY ET AL

FIGURE 1 Interaction on attitudes between group interest expectancy status and argu-ment quality

disconfirmed Low NC participants showed a main effect for argumentquality F(1146) = 419 p lt 05 along with an expectancy acute argumentquality interaction F(1146) = 1038 p lt 01 This interaction indicatedthat low NC participants did not differentiate between strong and weakarguments when their expectancies were confirmed but they did differ-entiate when their expectancies were disconfirmed8

GENERAL DISCUSSION

The present research expands our understanding of the consequences ofsources taking unexpected positions Based on prior research and the-ory one would have predicted that when a source takes an unexpectedposition greater attributions of trustworthiness and reduced informa-tion processing activity should result compared to when the sourcetakes an expected position The current studies suggest that this result is

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 437

TABLE 1 Mean Attitude Ratings as a Function of Group-Interest Expectancy Statusand Argument Quality (Experiment 2)

mdashmdashAttitudesmdashmdash

Argument Quality Confirmed Disconfirmed

Strong 504 (65) 594 (79)

SD = 187 SD = 170

Weak 483 (76) 465 (68)

SD = 197 SD = 209

Note Ns indicated in parentheses

8 A source acute expectancy interaction F(1272) = 528 p lt 03 was also obtained A maineffect for expectancy emerged in the Black non-alumnus source condition F(1136)= 840p lt 01 Thus participants had more positive attitudes toward the message when a minor-ity source wrote in favor of children of alumni receiving the tuition breaks (M = 562) thanwhen the minority source wrote in favor of breaks for minorities (M = 475) Attitudes inthe White alumnus source conditions did not differ between expectancy disconfirming (M= 496)and confirming conditions (M = 513)F lt 1 This unanticipated result could have oc-curred because Caucasian participants paid more attention to the position taken by theBlack than the White source resulting in their being more affected by those positions(Petty Fleming amp White 1999 White amp Harkens 1994) Future research could includeconditions where a Black source is an alumnus and a White source is a non-alumnus totease apart race from alumni effects Importantly our results indicated that participantsengaged in greater scrutiny of the arguments whichever source (black or white alumnusor non-alumnus) violated expectancies That is the significant two-way Expectancy acute Ar-gument quality interaction was not qualified by source nor was the significant three-wayExpectancy acute Argument quality acute Need for cognition interaction qualified by source

likely primarily when the position taken violates individual self-inter-est When the position is unexpected because it violates a grouprsquos inter-est the results are quite different That is in Experiment 1 we showedthat although both types of expectancy violation induce surprise onlythe violation of self-interest is associated with increased perceptions oftrustworthiness Violations of group interest do not engender the sameenhancements of trustworthiness Instead violations of group interestappear to produce some attributional ambiguity The surprise accompa-nied by unclear attributions as to the cause of a behavior would be ex-pected to lead to increased rather than decreased informationprocessing This is the effect we observed in Experiment 2

INTEGRATION INFORMATION PROCESSING CONSEQUENCESOF EXPECTANCY DISCONFIRMATION

The current framework seems potentially useful for reconciling seem-ingly inconsistent findings in the persuasion literature regarding the in-formation processing consequences of expectancy disconfirmation Tosummarize briefly if disconfirmation of expectancies leads to increasedperceptions of source trustworthiness or enhanced perceptions of mes-sage validity then message processing should decrease over confirma-tion conditions (Chaiken et al 1989 Petty amp Cacioppo 1986) On theother hand if disconfirmation of expectancies leads only to surprisecompared to confirmation conditions message processing should in-crease In past research disconfirmations of expectancies about messagequality (Maheswaran amp Chaiken 1991) message framing (Smith ampPetty 1995) and whether a majority or minority of others hold a pro- orcounterattitudinal position (Baker amp Petty 1994) did not violate self-in-terest and thus should not lead to perceptions of source trustworthinessor message validity In each case recipients are simply left surprised by

438 PETTY ET AL

TABLE 2 Mean Attitude Ratings as a Function of Group-Interest Expectancy StatusArgument Quality and Participantsrsquo Need for Cognition Level (Experiment 2)

mdashmdashAttitudesmdashmdash

High Need for Cognition Low Need for Cognition

Argument Quality Confirmed Disconfirmed Confirmed Disconfirmed

Strong 508 (33) 580 (37) 500 (32) 607 (42)

SD = 204 SD = 156 SD = 170 SD = 182

Weak 432 (37) 484 (31) 535 (39) 445 (37)

SD = 202 SD = 200 SD = 181 SD = 217

Note Ns indicated in parentheses

the disconfirmation of expectancies and they engage in greater informa-tion processing activity presumably to resolve the violation of expecta-tions and re-establish their understanding of the topic or source at hand(Olson et al 1996)

It is somewhat ironic that the earliest work on expectancies in persua-sion (Eagly amp Chaiken 1975Eagly et al 1978Walster et al 1966 Woodamp Eagly 1981) focused on the one type of expectation (ie source-posi-tion expectancy based on personal self-interest) that produced an appar-ent exception to the subsequently emergent general rule thatdisconfirmation of expectancies enhances processing The current re-search is the first to show that violations of expectancies about the posi-tion a source will take can lead to enhanced information processing Thiswas accomplished by shifting the expectation from one based on self-in-terest alone to group interest

In examining this framework it is important to keep the theoreticalvariables in mind that underlie our integration That is when a sourceviolates expectancies a number of inferences are possible An expec-tancy disconfirmation can enhance perceptions of source trustworthi-ness or message validity (and thus decrease message processing) and itcan also affect surprise (and thus increase message processing) butwhen surprise alone occurs enhanced information processing occursWhen both occur it appears that perceptions of message validity reducemessage processing despite the increased surprise

For self- and group interest expectancy violations to occur at least twofactors seem necessary a perception that some self- or group interest isinvolved and an expectation that individuals will act in accordancewiththat interest A perception of self- or group interest may not always bepresent For example an aggregate of individuals which is notentitative enough (they do not form a coherent whole) may not be per-ceived as having a common group interest in the first place (Campbell1958Hamilton amp Sherman 1996Hamilton Sherman amp Lickel 1998) Insuch cases there would be no group interest to violate Even when self-or group interest is perceived however violations of them may not al-ways cause expectancy disconfirmationsFor example in some culturesself-interest violation may be expected rather than unexpected and thussuch violations would not be expected to lead to increased perceptionsof trustworthinessbecause people are more likely to make dispositionalattributions for behaviors that are unexpected (Jones amp Davis 1965)Likewise for some groups or issues group interest violation may also beexpected such as when the group is clearly undeserving and in those in-stances violation of group interest would not be expected to lead to sur-prise

Future work could examine these possibilities as well as explore sev-eral remaining issues For example although we compared individual

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 439

versus group interest violations on perceptions of trustworthiness andsurprise together in Study 1 we did not directly compare the effects ofthese two types of expectancy violations on information processing andpersuasion This was because the effects of individual self-interest viola-tion on information processing and persuasion seemed clear from priorresearch Nevertheless it would be prudent to examine the effects of in-dividual- versus group interest confirmation versus disconfirmation oninformation processing in the same study In addition our hypothesisthat surprise and attributional ambiguity mediate the increased process-ing resulting from group interest violations should be directly tested byassessing the mediators in the same study as the outcome variables

The current research and framework suggest that it is important toconsider that expectancies in persuasion contexts can be developedupon multiple bases such as on prior knowledge of a personrsquos past be-haviors a personrsquos group membership or human behavior in generalAs shown in our experiments the basis of the expectancy can make animportant difference in the outcome of disconfirmation on source per-ception and on subsequent information processing and persuasion

REFERENCES

Ashmore R D amp Del Boca F K (1979) Sex stereotypes and implicit personality theoriesToward a cognitive-social psychological conceptualization Sex Roles 5 219-248

Baker S M amp Petty R E (1994) Majority and minority influence Source-position imbal-ance as a determinant of message scrutiny Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy 67 5-19

Brewer M B amp Silver M D (2000) Group distinctiveness social identification and col-lective mobilization In S Stryker T J Owens amp R W White (Eds) Self Identityand Social Movements (pp 153-171) Minneapolis MN University of MinnesotaPress

Cacioppo J T amp Petty R E (1982) The need for cognition Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 42 116-131

Cacioppo J T Petty R E amp Kao C (1984)The efficient assessment of need for cognitionJournal of Personality Assessment 48 306-307

Campbell D T (1958) Common fate similarity and other indices of the status of aggre-gates as social entities Behavioral Science 3 14-25

Chaiken S Liberman A amp Eagly A H (1989) Heuristic and systematic processingwithin and beyond the persuasion context In J S Uleman amp J A Bargh (Eds) Un-intended thought (pp 212-252) New York Guilford Press

Eagly A H amp Chaiken S (1975) An attribution analysis of the effect of communicatorcharacteristics on opinion change The case of communicator attractiveness Journalof Personality and Social Psychology 32 136-144

Eagly A H Chaiken S amp Wood W (1981)An attribution analysis of persuasion In J HHarvey W J Ickes amp R F Kidd (Eds) New directions in attribution research (Vol 3pp 37-62) Hillsdale NJ Erlbaum

Eagly A H Wood W amp Chaiken S (1978) Causal inferences about communicators and

440 PETTY ET AL

their effects on opinion change Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36424-435

Fiske S T amp Neuberg S L (1990) A continuum of impression formation from cate-gory-based to individuating processes Influences of information and motivationon attention and interpretation In M P Zanna (Ed) Advances in experimental socialpsychology (Vol 23 pp 1-74) San Diego Academic Press

Hamilton DL amp Sherman S J (1996) Perceiving persons and groups Psychological Re-view 103 336-355

Hamilton DL Sherman S J amp Lickel B (1998) Perceiving social groups The impact ofthe entitativity continuum In C Sedikides J Schopler amp C A Insko (Eds) Inter-group cognitions and intergroup behavior (pp 47-74) Mahwah NJ Erlbaum

Hastie R (1984) Causes and effects of causal attribution Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 37 25-38

Jones E E amp Davis K E (1965) From acts to dispositions The attribution process in per-son perception In L Berkowitz (Ed) Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol2 pp 219-266) New York Academic Press

Kramer R M Brewer M B amp HannaB (1996)Collective trust and collective action Thedecision to trust as a social decision In R Kramer amp T Tyler (Eds) Trust in organiza-tions (pp 357-389) Thousand Oakes CA Sage

Maheswaran D amp Chaiken S (1991) Promoting systematic processing in low-motiva-tion settings Effects of incongruent information on processing and judgment Jour-nal of Personality and Social Psychology 61 13-33

Olson J M Roese N J amp Zanna M P (1996) Expectancies In E T Higgins amp A WKruglanski (Eds) Social psychology Handbook of basic principles (pp 211-238) NewYork Guilford Press

Petty R E (1997) The evolution of theory and research in social psychology From singleto multiple effect and process models In C McGarty amp S A Haslam (Eds) The mes-sage of social psychologyPerspectives on mind in society (pp 268-290)Oxford EnglandBlackwell Publishers Ltd

Petty R E amp Cacioppo J T (1979)Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasionby enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 37 1915-1926

Petty R E amp Cacioppo J T (1986) Communication and persuasion Central and peripheralroutes to attitude change New York Springer-Verlag

Petty R E amp Cacioppo J T (1990) Involvement and persuasion Tradition versus inte-gration Psychological Bulletin 107 367-374

Petty R E Fleming M A amp White P H (1999) Stigmatized sources and persuasionPrejudice as a determinant of argument scrutiny Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology 76 19-34

Petty R E Wells G L amp Brock T C (1976)Distraction can enhance or reduce yielding topropaganda Thought disruption versus effort justification Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology 34 874-884

Platow M J HoarS Reid S Harley K amp Morrison D (1997)Endorsement of distribu-tively fair and unfair leaders in interpersonal and intergroup situations EuropeanJournal of Social Psychology 27 465-494

Platow M J OrsquoConnell A Shave R amp Hanning P (1995) Social evaluations of fair andunfair allocators in interpersonal and intergroup situations British Journal of SocialPsychology 34 363-381

Priester J R amp Petty R E (1995) Source attributions and persuasion Perceived honestyas a determinant of message scrutiny Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 21637-654

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 441

Pyszczynski T A amp Greenberg J (1981)Role of disconfirmed expectancies in the instiga-tion of attributional processing Journal of Personality and Social Psychology40 31-38

Smith S M amp Petty R E (1995) Personality moderators of mood congruency effects oncognition The role of self-esteem and negative mood regulation Journal of Personal-ity and Social Psychology 68 1092-1107

Snyder M L amp Wicklund R (1981)Attribute ambiguity In J H Harvey W Ickes amp R RKidd (Eds) New directions in attribution research (pp 197-221)New York Halsted

Srull T K amp Wyer R S Jr (1989)Person memory and judgment Psychological Review 9658-83

Stangor C amp McMillan D (1992)Memory for expectancy-congruent and expectancy-in-congruent social information A meta-analytic review of the social psychologicaland social developmental literatures Psychological Bulletin 111 42-61

Walster E Aronson E amp Abrahams D (1966)On increasing the persuasiveness of a lowprestige communicator Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 2 325-342

Wenzel M amp Mummendey A (1996) Positive-negative asymmetry of social discrimina-tion A normative analysis of differential evaluations of in-group and out-group onpositive and negative attributes British Journal of Social Psychology 35 493-507

White P H amp Harkens S G (1994) Race of source effects in the elaboration likelihoodmodel Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67 790-807

Wong P T P amp Weiner B (1981) When people ask ldquowhyrdquo questions and the heuristicsof attributional search Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 40 650-663

Wood W amp Eagly A H (1981) Stages in the analysis of persuasive messages The role ofcausal attributions and message comprehension Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 40 246-259

442 PETTY ET AL

Page 10: INDIVIDUAL VERSUS GROUP INTEREST VIOLATION: SURPRISE AS …

source violated individual self-interest and took an unexpected positionin favor of someone else

Need for Cognition Scale After responding to the other measures par-ticipants completed the NC scale (Cacioppo et al 1984) High and lowNC participants were determined by a median split on the scale with themedian equaling 635 (scores ranged from 26 to 86)

DEPENDENT VARIABLES

Surprise Ratings After participants read the essay introductory para-graph they were asked to answer all questions without looking back atprevious pages On the page immediately following the essay introduc-tory paragraph participants were asked several general questions tomeasure their ldquooverall reaction to the writerrsquos choice of essay topicrdquo As acheck on whether expectancy violation was surprising participants re-sponded on a 7-point scale ranging from -3 = ldquonot at all surprisedrdquo to +3= ldquovery surprisedrdquo regarding how surprised they were about thewriterrsquos choice of essay topic

Source Trustworthiness Measures After evaluating the essay topicparticipants were asked for their opinions about the essay writer be-cause ldquoevaluations of the essay introductory paragraph might havebeen influenced by your attitude about the writerrdquo Participants wereasked to rate the writer on several positivenegative trait semanticdifferential scales These 7-point scales ranged from -3 to +3 Sourcetrustworthiness was measured with three scales (untrustworthytrustworthy insinceresincere dishonesthonest) which were pre-sented with other positivenegative source traits serving as filler items(eg coldwarm close-mindedopen-minded unlikeablelikeable)

Open-Ended Attributional Processing On the next page participantswere asked to write down the reasons why they thought that the studentchose to write his essay The number of trait attributions listed wascounted by a coder blind to conditions More traits were expected to belisted for individual versus group interest conditions In addition to as-sess the specific trait attributions of selfish and selfless the number of di-rect mentions ofsource ldquoselfishnessrdquo and ldquoselflessnessrdquo were alsotallied

Manipulation Checks and Participant Demographic Sheet To ensure thatparticipants were aware of the source information that created the ex-pectancy a recognition test of the source demographic information wasgiven after the other measures were completed The two importantquestions concerned the sourcersquos race and the sourcersquos parentsrsquo educa-

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 427

tional background2 The final page of the experimental booklet was aparticipant demographic sheet so that we could establish which partici-pants were minority students and which were children of alumni

RESULTS

All dependent variables were submitted to a 2 (Expectancy basis individ-ual interest group interest ) acute 2 (Expectancy confirmationdisconfirmation)acute 2 (Need for cognition high low)between-participantsanalysis of variance

SOURCE TRUSTWORTHINESS

The three scales designed to measure trustworthiness were highlyintercorrelated (Cronbachrsquos a = 74)and thus were averaged to form a trust-worthiness index This index wassubmitted to the three-wayANOVA Theonly significant effect obtained was the predicted interaction between Basisand Expectancy F(158) = 755 p lt 01 To interpret this interaction simpleeffects tests were conducted separately for individual and group interestexpectancies For individual interest conditionsa simple main effect for ex-pectancy was found F(132) = 478 p lt 04 Replicating previous research(eg Priester amp Petty 1995) when the source disconfirmed individual in-teresthe wasrated asmore trustworthy(M = 186)than when he confirmedindividual interest (M = 083) However for group interest conditions nodifference between expectancy disconfirmation (M = 087) and confirma-tion (M = 136) conditions was found F(130) = 158 p = 22

SURPRISE RATINGS

Two main effects were obtained on the surprise scale First as expectedparticipants were more surprised in the expectancy disconfirmation (M= 184)than in the confirmation conditions (M = -039) F(158)= 3047p lt0001 The other significant result was a main effect for expectancy basisRegardless of whether expectancies were confirmed or disconfirmedparticipants found the individual interest messages more surprising (M= 131)than the group interest messages (M = 015) F(158)= 825p lt 01

428 PETTY ET AL

2 On the source memory manipulation check two participants erred on the alumni sta-tus of the writerrsquos parents and no one erred on the writerrsquos race When these participantsare removed from analyses results are the same as those reported

The Basis acute Expectancy interaction was not significant F (158)= 215p =153 Thus as predicted it appears that participants were more surprisedafter expectancy disconfirmation than confirmation regardless ofwhether the expectancy was based upon the sourcersquos individual orgroup interest

OPEN-ENDED ATTRIBUTIONAL PROCESSING

Analyses of the number of trait attributions participants listed in theiropen-ended responses revealed a main effect for Expectancy BasisF(157) = 1188 p lt 01 Specifically participants explained the tar-getrsquos actions using more trait terms in the individual interest condi-tions (M = 114 traits per participant) than in the group interestconditions (M = 32) suggesting that a clear attribution was easier tomake in the individual than group interest conditions One specifictrait thought to differ between individual self-interest and group in-terest was perceived selfishnessselflessness Thus the percentagesof participants who referred to selfishness or selflessness were com-pared across expectancy basis 303 of participants in the individ-ual conditions mentioned selfishnessselflessness (participantsmentioned either selfishness or selflessness not both) whereas 0 ofparticipants in the group conditions mentioned this trait c2(1) =1146 p lt 001 To evaluate the numbers of references to selfishnessve r su s se l f l e ss n e ss ac ro ss e xp e ct an c y co n f i rm at io n an ddisconfirmation separate analyses were conducted for the individ-ual conditions only (since there were no mentions of these traits inthe group conditions) For mentions of selflessness 389 ofdisconfirmation (ie low self-interest) condition participants men-tioned this trait (or synonyms) whereas 0 of participants in theconfirmation (ie high self-interest) condition mentioned selfless-ness c2(1) = 740 p lt 007 For mentions of selfishness (or synonyms)20 of participants in the confirmation condition mentioned thistrait whereas 0 of participants in the disconfirmation conditionmentioned it c2(1)= 396 p lt05 It appears that participants weremore likely to attribute the sourcersquos choice of message position to a

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 429

3 We also conducted separate simple effects tests for the individual and group interestconditions to determine if the simple main effect for expectancy held These analyses con-firmed that effects for expectancy occurred in both the individual interest F(132)= 838plt 006 (Means Confirmed = 049Disconfirmed = 213)and group interest F(130)= 2701plt 0001 (Means Confirmed = -126 Disconfirmed = 156) conditions

personality trait (especially to selfishnessselflessness) when thesourcersquos position was relevant to self-interest rather than relevant to hisgrouprsquos interest

We also expected that the differential perceptions of source selfish-ness in the individual conditions would correspond to the greater per-ceived source trustworthiness under expectancy disconfirmation thanconfirmation To evaluate this prediction the correlations between ref-erences to selfishness (and selflessness) and the source trustworthinessratings were computed As predicted in the individual conditionstrustworthiness and mentions of selfishness were significantly nega-tively correlated r = -42 p lt 02 In addition trustworthiness and men-tions of selflessness were significantly positively correlated r = 36 p lt05

DISCUSSION

In this study we found different effects of expectancy disconfirmationon source perceptions for expectancies based on individual versusgroup interest As predicted trustworthiness attributions varied onlywhen the expectancy was based upon the sourcersquos individual self-inter-est Thus our individual interest expectancy conditions were consistentwith prior theory and research (eg Eagly et al 1978 Priester amp Petty1995) in that the source was perceived as more trustworthy when hewent against his own self-interest than when he wrote in favor of hisself-interest More importantly we found a condition under whichsource-position expectancy confirmation and disconfirmation did notmake a difference for trustworthiness attributions mdash when the expec-tancy was based upon group membership and group interest Resultsfrom the open-ended responses suggest that this attenuation mayhave been due to the greater attributional ambiguity when group in-terest rather than individual interest was concerned Thus Experi-me n t 1 ou t l in e s a b ou nda ry co n dit ion fo r th e ef fe c ts ofdisconfirmation of source-position expectancy on perceptions oftrustworthiness suggesting that taking an unexpected position doesnot invariably lead to perceptions of enhanced source trustworthi-ness

In addition consistent with previous expectancy disconfirmationwork (eg Baker amp Petty 1994) participants were more surprised whenexpectancies were disconfirmed than confirmed More importantly thisinvestigation extends this work by suggesting that individuals are moresurprised when an individual source takes a position that disconfirms

430 PETTY ET AL

rather than confirms expectancies regardless of whether the position vi-olates either individual or group interest4

EXPERIMENT TWO

Experiment 2 was designed to investigate the implications of the find-ings of Experiment 1 regarding the effects of disconfirmation of groupinterest for message processing Specifically we tested the predictionthat disconfirmation of a source-position expectancy that does not aug-ment perceived source trustworthiness (ie violation of group interest)will lead to increased rather than reduced message scrutiny Past re-search has already shown that reduced message scrutiny results whenindividual self-interest expectancy disconfirmation leads to enhancedperceptions of source trustworthinessand message validity (Eagly et al1978 Priester amp Petty 1995 Wood amp Eagly 1981) Because a source whoviolates group interest is not seen as more trustworthy but is more sur-prising we anticipate that group interest expectancy disconfirmation

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 431

4 Before conducting Study 2 one potential concern with the operationalization ofgroup interest expectancies in Study 1 was evaluated Specifically our group interest con-firmation condition had scholarships for ldquominority studentsrdquo as its topic whereas thetopic in the disconfirmation condition was about ldquochildren of alumnirdquo The groups ldquomi-nority studentsrdquo and ldquochildren of alumnirdquo are not equivalent and might show different ef-fects for reasons unrelated to expectancy violation For example it might be moresurprising for any source to advocate scholarships for alumni than for minorities To re-move this potential confound and use both topics in the expectancy confirming anddisconfirming cases we conducted a study to replicate conceptually our group interestfindings with both groups Source demographics were varied such that the source was ei-ther Black and not a child of alumni or White and a child of alumni A second minorchange was made in the essay topic mdash rather than a scholarship programthe programwasdescribed as a ldquouniversity service programrdquo that would allow participants free tuition Themessage either advocated that this program should be for children of alumni or for minor-ity students (see Experiment 2 for details)

Forty-eight individuals participated in this 2 (Source Black student of non alumni par-ents White student of alumni parents)acute 2 (Expectancy confirmation disconfirmation) be-tween-participants design In this study expectancy confirmationdisconfirmation wasalways on a group interest basis Participants received the demographic information andintroductory essay paragraph and then completed measures of surprise and source trust-worthiness In this revised version our manipulation of expectancy confirma-tiondisconfirmation was effective in producing surprise as participants weresignificantly more surprised after disconfirmation (M = 067) than after confirmation (M =-204) F(144) = 3438 p lt 0001 Furthermore replicating the group interest conditions inStudy 1 no significant effects were found on the source trustworthiness index As ex-pected participants did not view the disconfirming source as any more trustworthy (M =142) than the confirming source (M = 138) Neither of these effects was qualified by thesource That is Black students favoring alumni and White alumni favoring minority stu-dents were both more surprising than favoring onersquos own group

will lead to enhanced information processing compared to group inter-est expectancy confirmation as has been found in other work on expec-tancies (eg Baker amp Petty 1994Maheswaran amp Chaiken 1991Smith ampPetty 1995) To assess the extent to which the persuasive message wasscrutinized participants were presented with messages containing ei-ther all strong or all weak arguments In general the attitudes of partici-pants who are thinking about the message carefully should be moreaffected by message quality (ie they should be more persuaded bystrong than weak arguments) compared to participants who are notthinking about the message carefully (see Petty Wells amp Brock 1976Petty amp Cacioppo 1986)

METHOD

PARTICIPANTS

Two hundred eighty-eight White students who were not children ofOSU alumni participated in this study in partial completion of introduc-tory psychology course requirements As in Experiment 1 minority par-ticipants and children of alumni were not included in the analyses

DESIGN

Participants were assigned to the cells of a 2 (Source Black non-alum-nus child White alumnus child) acute 2 (Group interest expectancy con-firmed disconfirmed) acute 2 (Argument quality strong weak)between-participants factorial design (see footnote 4) As in Experiment1 a measure of NC was taken

PROCEDURE

Experimental sessions were conducted with groups ranging in size fromtwo to eight Upon arrival participants were given experimental book-lets that contained the following information The first page of the book-let described the study as part of a ldquojournalism writing-evaluationprojectrdquo in which participants would be given a newspaper article writ-ten by a student from another Big Ten university They were also toldthat they would be given some demographic information about the au-thor of the article The participantsrsquo task was to form an impression of thewriter and to evaluate the writing in the article itself Participants werethen given a summary of the message topic mdash that a tuition break pro-gram should be instituted at the University of Iowa The baseline level ofmessage scrutiny for this personally irrelevant message was expected to

432 PETTY ET AL

be relatively low (see Petty amp Cacioppo 1979 1990) The remainingpages of the booklet contained (1) a demographic sheet about the writer(2) the article (containing the persuasive message) (3) the dependentvariables and manipulation checks (4) the NC scale and (5) the partici-pant demographic sheet After all participants in a group had completedthe booklets they were debriefed and excused

INDEPENDENT VARIABLES

Source On the second page of the booklet participants were given ademographic sheet about the writer This page contained informationabout the writerrsquos age sex university year in school major hometownhobby race and parentsrsquo educational background (in this order) Infor-mation about the source remained the same in all conditions except forrace and parentsrsquo educational background The manipulation of sourcewas accomplished by varying jointly the race and the parentsrsquo univer-sity which was either BlackUniversity of Minnesota (ie minorityparents were not alumni of Iowa) or WhiteUniversity of Iowa (ienon-minority parents were alumni of Iowa) This manipulation pro-vided an internal replication of group interest disconfirmation effects onpersuasion (see footnote 4 for a pretest of the effects of this manipulationon source perceptions and surprise)

Group Interest Expectancy ConfirmationDisconfirmation The expe c-tancy manipulation was accomplished by the combination of the mes-sage source and message topic Participants were provided with a briefsummary of the message topic before they read the full persuasive mes-sage to create the expectancy confirmation or disconfirmation in ad-vance of the persuasion attempt Participants were informed that thearticle they would be evaluating was about one of the following topicsldquoStudents who are children of alumni (ie their parents graduated fromthe same university that the student attends) should be allowed to par-ticipate in a two year university service program that would allow themto attend school without having to pay tuitionrdquo Or ldquoStudents who are ofracial minority status should be allowed to participate in a two year uni-versity service program that would allow them to attend school withouthaving to pay tuitionrdquo

Thus expectancy confirmation resulted when the source wrote in fa-vor of his own group participating in this program and expectancydisconfirmation resulted when the source wrote in favor of a group towhich he did not belong

Argument Quality On the next pages of the booklet participants re-ceived the persuasive message The message contained either the strong

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 433

or weak arguments from Baker and Petty (1994 Study 2) The argumentsin the message were pretested such that the strong arguments elicitedprimarily positive thoughts and the weak arguments elicited primarilynegative thoughts when pretest participants were instructed to thinkabout them (see Baker amp Petty 1994 Study 2)

The persuasive message supported implementing a program in whichcertain students (either minority students or children of alumni) wouldbe eligible for tuition breaks in exchange for participating in a universityservice program The message arguments focused on the benefits of theuniversity service program for the university and for the students in-volved in the program For example one strong argument stressed thatwith the money saved through students performing various universityservices ldquoa greater portion of the university budget can be invested inmonetary incentives for research and teachingrdquo and ldquofunding will beavailable to recruit additional outstanding professors researchers andNobel prize winnersrdquo However a parallel weak argument suggestedthat the additional monies available can be ldquospent on materials such aspaint for buildings new machinery for mowing and landscaping andplantings shrubbery flowers and treesrdquo in order to make the universityldquoa scenic and beautiful place to spend the college daysrdquo

Need for Cognition Scale Participants completed the need for cognitionscale (Cacioppo et al 1984)after responding to the other measures Highand low need for cognition participants were determined by a mediansplit on the scale with the median equaling 635 (scores ranged from 31 to85)

DEPENDENT VARIABLES

Argument Quality Manipulation Checks Immediately after participantsread the persuasive message they were asked to answer all questionswithout looking back at previous pages On the page immediately fol-lowing the essay participants were asked to rate ldquohow well was the arti-cle writtenrdquo and ldquohow persuasive were the argumentsrdquo on 9-pointscales ranging from 1 = ldquonot at allrdquo to 9 = ldquoextremelyrdquo These questionswere provided along with several filler questions (eg how clear wasthe writing style) designed to fit the cover story about evaluating the ar-ticle The first two questions served as manipulation checks for argu-ment quality

Attitude Measures On the next page participants read that ldquobecauseyour evaluations of the article might have been influenced by your atti-tude toward the article topic we would like to ask your opinions aboutthe topicrdquo Participants then completed two general attitude questionsand a five-item semantic differential scale The general questions were

434 PETTY ET AL

ldquoIn general what is your opinion about the university service pro-gramrdquo and ldquoHow would you feel about the implementation of the uni-versity service program here at Ohio State Universityrdquo These itemswere completed on 9-point scales ranging from 1 = ldquostrongly opposerdquo to9 = ldquostrongly favorrdquo On the five-item semantic differential scale partici-pants were asked ldquorate how you feel about the university service pro-gramrdquo Each semantic differential was completed on a 9-point scale Thescale anchors were unfavorablefavorable badgood foolishwiseharmfulbeneficial and unfairfair

Source Memory Manipulation Check and Participant Demographics Aftercompleting all other dependent measures participants completed thesource memory multiple choice questions and the participant demo-graphic sheet (as described in study 1)5

RESULTS

All dependent variables were submitted to a 2 (Group interest expec-tancy confirmation vs disconfirmation) acute 2 (Source Black non-alum-nus vs White alumnus ) acute 2 (Argument quality strong vs weak) acute 2(NC high vs low) between-participants analysis of variance

Argument Quality Manipulation Checks6 To determine if our manipu-lation of strong and weak arguments was effective participantsrsquo re-sponses to the two argument quality questions were averaged andsubmitted to the four-way ANOVA The expected main effect for argu-ment quality was obtained F(1271) = 1297 p lt 001 Messages contain-ing strong arguments were rated more positively (M = 589) than wereweak messages (M = 512)7

Attitude Measure The a coefficient for the attitude scales was 95 so thescales were averaged to form an overall index This index was subjected

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 435

5 On the source memory manipulation check one participant made an error on thewriterrsquos race and eleven participants erred on the alumni status of the writerrsquos parentsWhen these participants are removed from analyses results are the same as those re-ported

6 One participant did not complete this measure and thus was not included in the anal-ysis

7 A main effect of expectancy was also obtained F(1 271) = 680 p lt 01 suggesting thatparticipants in the disconfirmation conditions rated arguments more positively (M = 579)than did participants in the confirmation conditions (M = 523)In addition a need for cogni-tion acute expectancy interaction emerged F(1271)= 400 p lt 05 suggesting that whereas highNC individuals rated the quality of the arguments higher when the expectancy wasdisconfirmed (M = 590)than confirmed (M = 491)low NC individualsrsquo perceptions of argu-mentquality were notaffected by expectancy (Mdisconfirmed = 568Mconfirmed = 555)

to the four-way between-participants ANOVA First a main effect forargument quality was obtained F(1272) = 1104 p lt 01 indicating thatparticipants receiving strong arguments were more persuaded (M =549) than were those who received weak arguments (M = 474) Ofgreater interest the predicted expectancy acute argument quality interac-tion F(1272) = 579 p lt 02 qualified this main effect (see Figure 1)When expectancies were disconfirmed argument quality had a greaterimpact on attitudes than when expectancies were confirmed More spe-cifically under expectancy confirmation conditions argument qualityhad no impact on attitudes F(1139) = 42 ns However under expec-tancy disconfirmation conditions a simple main effect for argumentquality emerged F(1145) = 1854 p lt 0001

One additional effect that emerged consistent with past research(Priester amp Petty 1995 Smith amp Petty 1995) was a three-way interactionamong expectancy argument quality and need for cognition F(1272) =386 p lt 05 (see Table 2) Separate analyses for high and low need forcognition participants indicated that high NC participants (ie those in-dividuals who enjoy thinking) showed only a main effect for argumentquality F(1134) = 784 p lt 01 (the expectancy acute argument quality inter-action F lt 1 ns) suggesting that they engaged in effortful processing ofthe message regardless of whether expectancies were confirmed or

436 PETTY ET AL

FIGURE 1 Interaction on attitudes between group interest expectancy status and argu-ment quality

disconfirmed Low NC participants showed a main effect for argumentquality F(1146) = 419 p lt 05 along with an expectancy acute argumentquality interaction F(1146) = 1038 p lt 01 This interaction indicatedthat low NC participants did not differentiate between strong and weakarguments when their expectancies were confirmed but they did differ-entiate when their expectancies were disconfirmed8

GENERAL DISCUSSION

The present research expands our understanding of the consequences ofsources taking unexpected positions Based on prior research and the-ory one would have predicted that when a source takes an unexpectedposition greater attributions of trustworthiness and reduced informa-tion processing activity should result compared to when the sourcetakes an expected position The current studies suggest that this result is

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 437

TABLE 1 Mean Attitude Ratings as a Function of Group-Interest Expectancy Statusand Argument Quality (Experiment 2)

mdashmdashAttitudesmdashmdash

Argument Quality Confirmed Disconfirmed

Strong 504 (65) 594 (79)

SD = 187 SD = 170

Weak 483 (76) 465 (68)

SD = 197 SD = 209

Note Ns indicated in parentheses

8 A source acute expectancy interaction F(1272) = 528 p lt 03 was also obtained A maineffect for expectancy emerged in the Black non-alumnus source condition F(1136)= 840p lt 01 Thus participants had more positive attitudes toward the message when a minor-ity source wrote in favor of children of alumni receiving the tuition breaks (M = 562) thanwhen the minority source wrote in favor of breaks for minorities (M = 475) Attitudes inthe White alumnus source conditions did not differ between expectancy disconfirming (M= 496)and confirming conditions (M = 513)F lt 1 This unanticipated result could have oc-curred because Caucasian participants paid more attention to the position taken by theBlack than the White source resulting in their being more affected by those positions(Petty Fleming amp White 1999 White amp Harkens 1994) Future research could includeconditions where a Black source is an alumnus and a White source is a non-alumnus totease apart race from alumni effects Importantly our results indicated that participantsengaged in greater scrutiny of the arguments whichever source (black or white alumnusor non-alumnus) violated expectancies That is the significant two-way Expectancy acute Ar-gument quality interaction was not qualified by source nor was the significant three-wayExpectancy acute Argument quality acute Need for cognition interaction qualified by source

likely primarily when the position taken violates individual self-inter-est When the position is unexpected because it violates a grouprsquos inter-est the results are quite different That is in Experiment 1 we showedthat although both types of expectancy violation induce surprise onlythe violation of self-interest is associated with increased perceptions oftrustworthiness Violations of group interest do not engender the sameenhancements of trustworthiness Instead violations of group interestappear to produce some attributional ambiguity The surprise accompa-nied by unclear attributions as to the cause of a behavior would be ex-pected to lead to increased rather than decreased informationprocessing This is the effect we observed in Experiment 2

INTEGRATION INFORMATION PROCESSING CONSEQUENCESOF EXPECTANCY DISCONFIRMATION

The current framework seems potentially useful for reconciling seem-ingly inconsistent findings in the persuasion literature regarding the in-formation processing consequences of expectancy disconfirmation Tosummarize briefly if disconfirmation of expectancies leads to increasedperceptions of source trustworthiness or enhanced perceptions of mes-sage validity then message processing should decrease over confirma-tion conditions (Chaiken et al 1989 Petty amp Cacioppo 1986) On theother hand if disconfirmation of expectancies leads only to surprisecompared to confirmation conditions message processing should in-crease In past research disconfirmations of expectancies about messagequality (Maheswaran amp Chaiken 1991) message framing (Smith ampPetty 1995) and whether a majority or minority of others hold a pro- orcounterattitudinal position (Baker amp Petty 1994) did not violate self-in-terest and thus should not lead to perceptions of source trustworthinessor message validity In each case recipients are simply left surprised by

438 PETTY ET AL

TABLE 2 Mean Attitude Ratings as a Function of Group-Interest Expectancy StatusArgument Quality and Participantsrsquo Need for Cognition Level (Experiment 2)

mdashmdashAttitudesmdashmdash

High Need for Cognition Low Need for Cognition

Argument Quality Confirmed Disconfirmed Confirmed Disconfirmed

Strong 508 (33) 580 (37) 500 (32) 607 (42)

SD = 204 SD = 156 SD = 170 SD = 182

Weak 432 (37) 484 (31) 535 (39) 445 (37)

SD = 202 SD = 200 SD = 181 SD = 217

Note Ns indicated in parentheses

the disconfirmation of expectancies and they engage in greater informa-tion processing activity presumably to resolve the violation of expecta-tions and re-establish their understanding of the topic or source at hand(Olson et al 1996)

It is somewhat ironic that the earliest work on expectancies in persua-sion (Eagly amp Chaiken 1975Eagly et al 1978Walster et al 1966 Woodamp Eagly 1981) focused on the one type of expectation (ie source-posi-tion expectancy based on personal self-interest) that produced an appar-ent exception to the subsequently emergent general rule thatdisconfirmation of expectancies enhances processing The current re-search is the first to show that violations of expectancies about the posi-tion a source will take can lead to enhanced information processing Thiswas accomplished by shifting the expectation from one based on self-in-terest alone to group interest

In examining this framework it is important to keep the theoreticalvariables in mind that underlie our integration That is when a sourceviolates expectancies a number of inferences are possible An expec-tancy disconfirmation can enhance perceptions of source trustworthi-ness or message validity (and thus decrease message processing) and itcan also affect surprise (and thus increase message processing) butwhen surprise alone occurs enhanced information processing occursWhen both occur it appears that perceptions of message validity reducemessage processing despite the increased surprise

For self- and group interest expectancy violations to occur at least twofactors seem necessary a perception that some self- or group interest isinvolved and an expectation that individuals will act in accordancewiththat interest A perception of self- or group interest may not always bepresent For example an aggregate of individuals which is notentitative enough (they do not form a coherent whole) may not be per-ceived as having a common group interest in the first place (Campbell1958Hamilton amp Sherman 1996Hamilton Sherman amp Lickel 1998) Insuch cases there would be no group interest to violate Even when self-or group interest is perceived however violations of them may not al-ways cause expectancy disconfirmationsFor example in some culturesself-interest violation may be expected rather than unexpected and thussuch violations would not be expected to lead to increased perceptionsof trustworthinessbecause people are more likely to make dispositionalattributions for behaviors that are unexpected (Jones amp Davis 1965)Likewise for some groups or issues group interest violation may also beexpected such as when the group is clearly undeserving and in those in-stances violation of group interest would not be expected to lead to sur-prise

Future work could examine these possibilities as well as explore sev-eral remaining issues For example although we compared individual

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 439

versus group interest violations on perceptions of trustworthiness andsurprise together in Study 1 we did not directly compare the effects ofthese two types of expectancy violations on information processing andpersuasion This was because the effects of individual self-interest viola-tion on information processing and persuasion seemed clear from priorresearch Nevertheless it would be prudent to examine the effects of in-dividual- versus group interest confirmation versus disconfirmation oninformation processing in the same study In addition our hypothesisthat surprise and attributional ambiguity mediate the increased process-ing resulting from group interest violations should be directly tested byassessing the mediators in the same study as the outcome variables

The current research and framework suggest that it is important toconsider that expectancies in persuasion contexts can be developedupon multiple bases such as on prior knowledge of a personrsquos past be-haviors a personrsquos group membership or human behavior in generalAs shown in our experiments the basis of the expectancy can make animportant difference in the outcome of disconfirmation on source per-ception and on subsequent information processing and persuasion

REFERENCES

Ashmore R D amp Del Boca F K (1979) Sex stereotypes and implicit personality theoriesToward a cognitive-social psychological conceptualization Sex Roles 5 219-248

Baker S M amp Petty R E (1994) Majority and minority influence Source-position imbal-ance as a determinant of message scrutiny Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy 67 5-19

Brewer M B amp Silver M D (2000) Group distinctiveness social identification and col-lective mobilization In S Stryker T J Owens amp R W White (Eds) Self Identityand Social Movements (pp 153-171) Minneapolis MN University of MinnesotaPress

Cacioppo J T amp Petty R E (1982) The need for cognition Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 42 116-131

Cacioppo J T Petty R E amp Kao C (1984)The efficient assessment of need for cognitionJournal of Personality Assessment 48 306-307

Campbell D T (1958) Common fate similarity and other indices of the status of aggre-gates as social entities Behavioral Science 3 14-25

Chaiken S Liberman A amp Eagly A H (1989) Heuristic and systematic processingwithin and beyond the persuasion context In J S Uleman amp J A Bargh (Eds) Un-intended thought (pp 212-252) New York Guilford Press

Eagly A H amp Chaiken S (1975) An attribution analysis of the effect of communicatorcharacteristics on opinion change The case of communicator attractiveness Journalof Personality and Social Psychology 32 136-144

Eagly A H Chaiken S amp Wood W (1981)An attribution analysis of persuasion In J HHarvey W J Ickes amp R F Kidd (Eds) New directions in attribution research (Vol 3pp 37-62) Hillsdale NJ Erlbaum

Eagly A H Wood W amp Chaiken S (1978) Causal inferences about communicators and

440 PETTY ET AL

their effects on opinion change Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36424-435

Fiske S T amp Neuberg S L (1990) A continuum of impression formation from cate-gory-based to individuating processes Influences of information and motivationon attention and interpretation In M P Zanna (Ed) Advances in experimental socialpsychology (Vol 23 pp 1-74) San Diego Academic Press

Hamilton DL amp Sherman S J (1996) Perceiving persons and groups Psychological Re-view 103 336-355

Hamilton DL Sherman S J amp Lickel B (1998) Perceiving social groups The impact ofthe entitativity continuum In C Sedikides J Schopler amp C A Insko (Eds) Inter-group cognitions and intergroup behavior (pp 47-74) Mahwah NJ Erlbaum

Hastie R (1984) Causes and effects of causal attribution Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 37 25-38

Jones E E amp Davis K E (1965) From acts to dispositions The attribution process in per-son perception In L Berkowitz (Ed) Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol2 pp 219-266) New York Academic Press

Kramer R M Brewer M B amp HannaB (1996)Collective trust and collective action Thedecision to trust as a social decision In R Kramer amp T Tyler (Eds) Trust in organiza-tions (pp 357-389) Thousand Oakes CA Sage

Maheswaran D amp Chaiken S (1991) Promoting systematic processing in low-motiva-tion settings Effects of incongruent information on processing and judgment Jour-nal of Personality and Social Psychology 61 13-33

Olson J M Roese N J amp Zanna M P (1996) Expectancies In E T Higgins amp A WKruglanski (Eds) Social psychology Handbook of basic principles (pp 211-238) NewYork Guilford Press

Petty R E (1997) The evolution of theory and research in social psychology From singleto multiple effect and process models In C McGarty amp S A Haslam (Eds) The mes-sage of social psychologyPerspectives on mind in society (pp 268-290)Oxford EnglandBlackwell Publishers Ltd

Petty R E amp Cacioppo J T (1979)Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasionby enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 37 1915-1926

Petty R E amp Cacioppo J T (1986) Communication and persuasion Central and peripheralroutes to attitude change New York Springer-Verlag

Petty R E amp Cacioppo J T (1990) Involvement and persuasion Tradition versus inte-gration Psychological Bulletin 107 367-374

Petty R E Fleming M A amp White P H (1999) Stigmatized sources and persuasionPrejudice as a determinant of argument scrutiny Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology 76 19-34

Petty R E Wells G L amp Brock T C (1976)Distraction can enhance or reduce yielding topropaganda Thought disruption versus effort justification Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology 34 874-884

Platow M J HoarS Reid S Harley K amp Morrison D (1997)Endorsement of distribu-tively fair and unfair leaders in interpersonal and intergroup situations EuropeanJournal of Social Psychology 27 465-494

Platow M J OrsquoConnell A Shave R amp Hanning P (1995) Social evaluations of fair andunfair allocators in interpersonal and intergroup situations British Journal of SocialPsychology 34 363-381

Priester J R amp Petty R E (1995) Source attributions and persuasion Perceived honestyas a determinant of message scrutiny Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 21637-654

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 441

Pyszczynski T A amp Greenberg J (1981)Role of disconfirmed expectancies in the instiga-tion of attributional processing Journal of Personality and Social Psychology40 31-38

Smith S M amp Petty R E (1995) Personality moderators of mood congruency effects oncognition The role of self-esteem and negative mood regulation Journal of Personal-ity and Social Psychology 68 1092-1107

Snyder M L amp Wicklund R (1981)Attribute ambiguity In J H Harvey W Ickes amp R RKidd (Eds) New directions in attribution research (pp 197-221)New York Halsted

Srull T K amp Wyer R S Jr (1989)Person memory and judgment Psychological Review 9658-83

Stangor C amp McMillan D (1992)Memory for expectancy-congruent and expectancy-in-congruent social information A meta-analytic review of the social psychologicaland social developmental literatures Psychological Bulletin 111 42-61

Walster E Aronson E amp Abrahams D (1966)On increasing the persuasiveness of a lowprestige communicator Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 2 325-342

Wenzel M amp Mummendey A (1996) Positive-negative asymmetry of social discrimina-tion A normative analysis of differential evaluations of in-group and out-group onpositive and negative attributes British Journal of Social Psychology 35 493-507

White P H amp Harkens S G (1994) Race of source effects in the elaboration likelihoodmodel Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67 790-807

Wong P T P amp Weiner B (1981) When people ask ldquowhyrdquo questions and the heuristicsof attributional search Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 40 650-663

Wood W amp Eagly A H (1981) Stages in the analysis of persuasive messages The role ofcausal attributions and message comprehension Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 40 246-259

442 PETTY ET AL

Page 11: INDIVIDUAL VERSUS GROUP INTEREST VIOLATION: SURPRISE AS …

tional background2 The final page of the experimental booklet was aparticipant demographic sheet so that we could establish which partici-pants were minority students and which were children of alumni

RESULTS

All dependent variables were submitted to a 2 (Expectancy basis individ-ual interest group interest ) acute 2 (Expectancy confirmationdisconfirmation)acute 2 (Need for cognition high low)between-participantsanalysis of variance

SOURCE TRUSTWORTHINESS

The three scales designed to measure trustworthiness were highlyintercorrelated (Cronbachrsquos a = 74)and thus were averaged to form a trust-worthiness index This index wassubmitted to the three-wayANOVA Theonly significant effect obtained was the predicted interaction between Basisand Expectancy F(158) = 755 p lt 01 To interpret this interaction simpleeffects tests were conducted separately for individual and group interestexpectancies For individual interest conditionsa simple main effect for ex-pectancy was found F(132) = 478 p lt 04 Replicating previous research(eg Priester amp Petty 1995) when the source disconfirmed individual in-teresthe wasrated asmore trustworthy(M = 186)than when he confirmedindividual interest (M = 083) However for group interest conditions nodifference between expectancy disconfirmation (M = 087) and confirma-tion (M = 136) conditions was found F(130) = 158 p = 22

SURPRISE RATINGS

Two main effects were obtained on the surprise scale First as expectedparticipants were more surprised in the expectancy disconfirmation (M= 184)than in the confirmation conditions (M = -039) F(158)= 3047p lt0001 The other significant result was a main effect for expectancy basisRegardless of whether expectancies were confirmed or disconfirmedparticipants found the individual interest messages more surprising (M= 131)than the group interest messages (M = 015) F(158)= 825p lt 01

428 PETTY ET AL

2 On the source memory manipulation check two participants erred on the alumni sta-tus of the writerrsquos parents and no one erred on the writerrsquos race When these participantsare removed from analyses results are the same as those reported

The Basis acute Expectancy interaction was not significant F (158)= 215p =153 Thus as predicted it appears that participants were more surprisedafter expectancy disconfirmation than confirmation regardless ofwhether the expectancy was based upon the sourcersquos individual orgroup interest

OPEN-ENDED ATTRIBUTIONAL PROCESSING

Analyses of the number of trait attributions participants listed in theiropen-ended responses revealed a main effect for Expectancy BasisF(157) = 1188 p lt 01 Specifically participants explained the tar-getrsquos actions using more trait terms in the individual interest condi-tions (M = 114 traits per participant) than in the group interestconditions (M = 32) suggesting that a clear attribution was easier tomake in the individual than group interest conditions One specifictrait thought to differ between individual self-interest and group in-terest was perceived selfishnessselflessness Thus the percentagesof participants who referred to selfishness or selflessness were com-pared across expectancy basis 303 of participants in the individ-ual conditions mentioned selfishnessselflessness (participantsmentioned either selfishness or selflessness not both) whereas 0 ofparticipants in the group conditions mentioned this trait c2(1) =1146 p lt 001 To evaluate the numbers of references to selfishnessve r su s se l f l e ss n e ss ac ro ss e xp e ct an c y co n f i rm at io n an ddisconfirmation separate analyses were conducted for the individ-ual conditions only (since there were no mentions of these traits inthe group conditions) For mentions of selflessness 389 ofdisconfirmation (ie low self-interest) condition participants men-tioned this trait (or synonyms) whereas 0 of participants in theconfirmation (ie high self-interest) condition mentioned selfless-ness c2(1) = 740 p lt 007 For mentions of selfishness (or synonyms)20 of participants in the confirmation condition mentioned thistrait whereas 0 of participants in the disconfirmation conditionmentioned it c2(1)= 396 p lt05 It appears that participants weremore likely to attribute the sourcersquos choice of message position to a

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 429

3 We also conducted separate simple effects tests for the individual and group interestconditions to determine if the simple main effect for expectancy held These analyses con-firmed that effects for expectancy occurred in both the individual interest F(132)= 838plt 006 (Means Confirmed = 049Disconfirmed = 213)and group interest F(130)= 2701plt 0001 (Means Confirmed = -126 Disconfirmed = 156) conditions

personality trait (especially to selfishnessselflessness) when thesourcersquos position was relevant to self-interest rather than relevant to hisgrouprsquos interest

We also expected that the differential perceptions of source selfish-ness in the individual conditions would correspond to the greater per-ceived source trustworthiness under expectancy disconfirmation thanconfirmation To evaluate this prediction the correlations between ref-erences to selfishness (and selflessness) and the source trustworthinessratings were computed As predicted in the individual conditionstrustworthiness and mentions of selfishness were significantly nega-tively correlated r = -42 p lt 02 In addition trustworthiness and men-tions of selflessness were significantly positively correlated r = 36 p lt05

DISCUSSION

In this study we found different effects of expectancy disconfirmationon source perceptions for expectancies based on individual versusgroup interest As predicted trustworthiness attributions varied onlywhen the expectancy was based upon the sourcersquos individual self-inter-est Thus our individual interest expectancy conditions were consistentwith prior theory and research (eg Eagly et al 1978 Priester amp Petty1995) in that the source was perceived as more trustworthy when hewent against his own self-interest than when he wrote in favor of hisself-interest More importantly we found a condition under whichsource-position expectancy confirmation and disconfirmation did notmake a difference for trustworthiness attributions mdash when the expec-tancy was based upon group membership and group interest Resultsfrom the open-ended responses suggest that this attenuation mayhave been due to the greater attributional ambiguity when group in-terest rather than individual interest was concerned Thus Experi-me n t 1 ou t l in e s a b ou nda ry co n dit ion fo r th e ef fe c ts ofdisconfirmation of source-position expectancy on perceptions oftrustworthiness suggesting that taking an unexpected position doesnot invariably lead to perceptions of enhanced source trustworthi-ness

In addition consistent with previous expectancy disconfirmationwork (eg Baker amp Petty 1994) participants were more surprised whenexpectancies were disconfirmed than confirmed More importantly thisinvestigation extends this work by suggesting that individuals are moresurprised when an individual source takes a position that disconfirms

430 PETTY ET AL

rather than confirms expectancies regardless of whether the position vi-olates either individual or group interest4

EXPERIMENT TWO

Experiment 2 was designed to investigate the implications of the find-ings of Experiment 1 regarding the effects of disconfirmation of groupinterest for message processing Specifically we tested the predictionthat disconfirmation of a source-position expectancy that does not aug-ment perceived source trustworthiness (ie violation of group interest)will lead to increased rather than reduced message scrutiny Past re-search has already shown that reduced message scrutiny results whenindividual self-interest expectancy disconfirmation leads to enhancedperceptions of source trustworthinessand message validity (Eagly et al1978 Priester amp Petty 1995 Wood amp Eagly 1981) Because a source whoviolates group interest is not seen as more trustworthy but is more sur-prising we anticipate that group interest expectancy disconfirmation

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 431

4 Before conducting Study 2 one potential concern with the operationalization ofgroup interest expectancies in Study 1 was evaluated Specifically our group interest con-firmation condition had scholarships for ldquominority studentsrdquo as its topic whereas thetopic in the disconfirmation condition was about ldquochildren of alumnirdquo The groups ldquomi-nority studentsrdquo and ldquochildren of alumnirdquo are not equivalent and might show different ef-fects for reasons unrelated to expectancy violation For example it might be moresurprising for any source to advocate scholarships for alumni than for minorities To re-move this potential confound and use both topics in the expectancy confirming anddisconfirming cases we conducted a study to replicate conceptually our group interestfindings with both groups Source demographics were varied such that the source was ei-ther Black and not a child of alumni or White and a child of alumni A second minorchange was made in the essay topic mdash rather than a scholarship programthe programwasdescribed as a ldquouniversity service programrdquo that would allow participants free tuition Themessage either advocated that this program should be for children of alumni or for minor-ity students (see Experiment 2 for details)

Forty-eight individuals participated in this 2 (Source Black student of non alumni par-ents White student of alumni parents)acute 2 (Expectancy confirmation disconfirmation) be-tween-participants design In this study expectancy confirmationdisconfirmation wasalways on a group interest basis Participants received the demographic information andintroductory essay paragraph and then completed measures of surprise and source trust-worthiness In this revised version our manipulation of expectancy confirma-tiondisconfirmation was effective in producing surprise as participants weresignificantly more surprised after disconfirmation (M = 067) than after confirmation (M =-204) F(144) = 3438 p lt 0001 Furthermore replicating the group interest conditions inStudy 1 no significant effects were found on the source trustworthiness index As ex-pected participants did not view the disconfirming source as any more trustworthy (M =142) than the confirming source (M = 138) Neither of these effects was qualified by thesource That is Black students favoring alumni and White alumni favoring minority stu-dents were both more surprising than favoring onersquos own group

will lead to enhanced information processing compared to group inter-est expectancy confirmation as has been found in other work on expec-tancies (eg Baker amp Petty 1994Maheswaran amp Chaiken 1991Smith ampPetty 1995) To assess the extent to which the persuasive message wasscrutinized participants were presented with messages containing ei-ther all strong or all weak arguments In general the attitudes of partici-pants who are thinking about the message carefully should be moreaffected by message quality (ie they should be more persuaded bystrong than weak arguments) compared to participants who are notthinking about the message carefully (see Petty Wells amp Brock 1976Petty amp Cacioppo 1986)

METHOD

PARTICIPANTS

Two hundred eighty-eight White students who were not children ofOSU alumni participated in this study in partial completion of introduc-tory psychology course requirements As in Experiment 1 minority par-ticipants and children of alumni were not included in the analyses

DESIGN

Participants were assigned to the cells of a 2 (Source Black non-alum-nus child White alumnus child) acute 2 (Group interest expectancy con-firmed disconfirmed) acute 2 (Argument quality strong weak)between-participants factorial design (see footnote 4) As in Experiment1 a measure of NC was taken

PROCEDURE

Experimental sessions were conducted with groups ranging in size fromtwo to eight Upon arrival participants were given experimental book-lets that contained the following information The first page of the book-let described the study as part of a ldquojournalism writing-evaluationprojectrdquo in which participants would be given a newspaper article writ-ten by a student from another Big Ten university They were also toldthat they would be given some demographic information about the au-thor of the article The participantsrsquo task was to form an impression of thewriter and to evaluate the writing in the article itself Participants werethen given a summary of the message topic mdash that a tuition break pro-gram should be instituted at the University of Iowa The baseline level ofmessage scrutiny for this personally irrelevant message was expected to

432 PETTY ET AL

be relatively low (see Petty amp Cacioppo 1979 1990) The remainingpages of the booklet contained (1) a demographic sheet about the writer(2) the article (containing the persuasive message) (3) the dependentvariables and manipulation checks (4) the NC scale and (5) the partici-pant demographic sheet After all participants in a group had completedthe booklets they were debriefed and excused

INDEPENDENT VARIABLES

Source On the second page of the booklet participants were given ademographic sheet about the writer This page contained informationabout the writerrsquos age sex university year in school major hometownhobby race and parentsrsquo educational background (in this order) Infor-mation about the source remained the same in all conditions except forrace and parentsrsquo educational background The manipulation of sourcewas accomplished by varying jointly the race and the parentsrsquo univer-sity which was either BlackUniversity of Minnesota (ie minorityparents were not alumni of Iowa) or WhiteUniversity of Iowa (ienon-minority parents were alumni of Iowa) This manipulation pro-vided an internal replication of group interest disconfirmation effects onpersuasion (see footnote 4 for a pretest of the effects of this manipulationon source perceptions and surprise)

Group Interest Expectancy ConfirmationDisconfirmation The expe c-tancy manipulation was accomplished by the combination of the mes-sage source and message topic Participants were provided with a briefsummary of the message topic before they read the full persuasive mes-sage to create the expectancy confirmation or disconfirmation in ad-vance of the persuasion attempt Participants were informed that thearticle they would be evaluating was about one of the following topicsldquoStudents who are children of alumni (ie their parents graduated fromthe same university that the student attends) should be allowed to par-ticipate in a two year university service program that would allow themto attend school without having to pay tuitionrdquo Or ldquoStudents who are ofracial minority status should be allowed to participate in a two year uni-versity service program that would allow them to attend school withouthaving to pay tuitionrdquo

Thus expectancy confirmation resulted when the source wrote in fa-vor of his own group participating in this program and expectancydisconfirmation resulted when the source wrote in favor of a group towhich he did not belong

Argument Quality On the next pages of the booklet participants re-ceived the persuasive message The message contained either the strong

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 433

or weak arguments from Baker and Petty (1994 Study 2) The argumentsin the message were pretested such that the strong arguments elicitedprimarily positive thoughts and the weak arguments elicited primarilynegative thoughts when pretest participants were instructed to thinkabout them (see Baker amp Petty 1994 Study 2)

The persuasive message supported implementing a program in whichcertain students (either minority students or children of alumni) wouldbe eligible for tuition breaks in exchange for participating in a universityservice program The message arguments focused on the benefits of theuniversity service program for the university and for the students in-volved in the program For example one strong argument stressed thatwith the money saved through students performing various universityservices ldquoa greater portion of the university budget can be invested inmonetary incentives for research and teachingrdquo and ldquofunding will beavailable to recruit additional outstanding professors researchers andNobel prize winnersrdquo However a parallel weak argument suggestedthat the additional monies available can be ldquospent on materials such aspaint for buildings new machinery for mowing and landscaping andplantings shrubbery flowers and treesrdquo in order to make the universityldquoa scenic and beautiful place to spend the college daysrdquo

Need for Cognition Scale Participants completed the need for cognitionscale (Cacioppo et al 1984)after responding to the other measures Highand low need for cognition participants were determined by a mediansplit on the scale with the median equaling 635 (scores ranged from 31 to85)

DEPENDENT VARIABLES

Argument Quality Manipulation Checks Immediately after participantsread the persuasive message they were asked to answer all questionswithout looking back at previous pages On the page immediately fol-lowing the essay participants were asked to rate ldquohow well was the arti-cle writtenrdquo and ldquohow persuasive were the argumentsrdquo on 9-pointscales ranging from 1 = ldquonot at allrdquo to 9 = ldquoextremelyrdquo These questionswere provided along with several filler questions (eg how clear wasthe writing style) designed to fit the cover story about evaluating the ar-ticle The first two questions served as manipulation checks for argu-ment quality

Attitude Measures On the next page participants read that ldquobecauseyour evaluations of the article might have been influenced by your atti-tude toward the article topic we would like to ask your opinions aboutthe topicrdquo Participants then completed two general attitude questionsand a five-item semantic differential scale The general questions were

434 PETTY ET AL

ldquoIn general what is your opinion about the university service pro-gramrdquo and ldquoHow would you feel about the implementation of the uni-versity service program here at Ohio State Universityrdquo These itemswere completed on 9-point scales ranging from 1 = ldquostrongly opposerdquo to9 = ldquostrongly favorrdquo On the five-item semantic differential scale partici-pants were asked ldquorate how you feel about the university service pro-gramrdquo Each semantic differential was completed on a 9-point scale Thescale anchors were unfavorablefavorable badgood foolishwiseharmfulbeneficial and unfairfair

Source Memory Manipulation Check and Participant Demographics Aftercompleting all other dependent measures participants completed thesource memory multiple choice questions and the participant demo-graphic sheet (as described in study 1)5

RESULTS

All dependent variables were submitted to a 2 (Group interest expec-tancy confirmation vs disconfirmation) acute 2 (Source Black non-alum-nus vs White alumnus ) acute 2 (Argument quality strong vs weak) acute 2(NC high vs low) between-participants analysis of variance

Argument Quality Manipulation Checks6 To determine if our manipu-lation of strong and weak arguments was effective participantsrsquo re-sponses to the two argument quality questions were averaged andsubmitted to the four-way ANOVA The expected main effect for argu-ment quality was obtained F(1271) = 1297 p lt 001 Messages contain-ing strong arguments were rated more positively (M = 589) than wereweak messages (M = 512)7

Attitude Measure The a coefficient for the attitude scales was 95 so thescales were averaged to form an overall index This index was subjected

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 435

5 On the source memory manipulation check one participant made an error on thewriterrsquos race and eleven participants erred on the alumni status of the writerrsquos parentsWhen these participants are removed from analyses results are the same as those re-ported

6 One participant did not complete this measure and thus was not included in the anal-ysis

7 A main effect of expectancy was also obtained F(1 271) = 680 p lt 01 suggesting thatparticipants in the disconfirmation conditions rated arguments more positively (M = 579)than did participants in the confirmation conditions (M = 523)In addition a need for cogni-tion acute expectancy interaction emerged F(1271)= 400 p lt 05 suggesting that whereas highNC individuals rated the quality of the arguments higher when the expectancy wasdisconfirmed (M = 590)than confirmed (M = 491)low NC individualsrsquo perceptions of argu-mentquality were notaffected by expectancy (Mdisconfirmed = 568Mconfirmed = 555)

to the four-way between-participants ANOVA First a main effect forargument quality was obtained F(1272) = 1104 p lt 01 indicating thatparticipants receiving strong arguments were more persuaded (M =549) than were those who received weak arguments (M = 474) Ofgreater interest the predicted expectancy acute argument quality interac-tion F(1272) = 579 p lt 02 qualified this main effect (see Figure 1)When expectancies were disconfirmed argument quality had a greaterimpact on attitudes than when expectancies were confirmed More spe-cifically under expectancy confirmation conditions argument qualityhad no impact on attitudes F(1139) = 42 ns However under expec-tancy disconfirmation conditions a simple main effect for argumentquality emerged F(1145) = 1854 p lt 0001

One additional effect that emerged consistent with past research(Priester amp Petty 1995 Smith amp Petty 1995) was a three-way interactionamong expectancy argument quality and need for cognition F(1272) =386 p lt 05 (see Table 2) Separate analyses for high and low need forcognition participants indicated that high NC participants (ie those in-dividuals who enjoy thinking) showed only a main effect for argumentquality F(1134) = 784 p lt 01 (the expectancy acute argument quality inter-action F lt 1 ns) suggesting that they engaged in effortful processing ofthe message regardless of whether expectancies were confirmed or

436 PETTY ET AL

FIGURE 1 Interaction on attitudes between group interest expectancy status and argu-ment quality

disconfirmed Low NC participants showed a main effect for argumentquality F(1146) = 419 p lt 05 along with an expectancy acute argumentquality interaction F(1146) = 1038 p lt 01 This interaction indicatedthat low NC participants did not differentiate between strong and weakarguments when their expectancies were confirmed but they did differ-entiate when their expectancies were disconfirmed8

GENERAL DISCUSSION

The present research expands our understanding of the consequences ofsources taking unexpected positions Based on prior research and the-ory one would have predicted that when a source takes an unexpectedposition greater attributions of trustworthiness and reduced informa-tion processing activity should result compared to when the sourcetakes an expected position The current studies suggest that this result is

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 437

TABLE 1 Mean Attitude Ratings as a Function of Group-Interest Expectancy Statusand Argument Quality (Experiment 2)

mdashmdashAttitudesmdashmdash

Argument Quality Confirmed Disconfirmed

Strong 504 (65) 594 (79)

SD = 187 SD = 170

Weak 483 (76) 465 (68)

SD = 197 SD = 209

Note Ns indicated in parentheses

8 A source acute expectancy interaction F(1272) = 528 p lt 03 was also obtained A maineffect for expectancy emerged in the Black non-alumnus source condition F(1136)= 840p lt 01 Thus participants had more positive attitudes toward the message when a minor-ity source wrote in favor of children of alumni receiving the tuition breaks (M = 562) thanwhen the minority source wrote in favor of breaks for minorities (M = 475) Attitudes inthe White alumnus source conditions did not differ between expectancy disconfirming (M= 496)and confirming conditions (M = 513)F lt 1 This unanticipated result could have oc-curred because Caucasian participants paid more attention to the position taken by theBlack than the White source resulting in their being more affected by those positions(Petty Fleming amp White 1999 White amp Harkens 1994) Future research could includeconditions where a Black source is an alumnus and a White source is a non-alumnus totease apart race from alumni effects Importantly our results indicated that participantsengaged in greater scrutiny of the arguments whichever source (black or white alumnusor non-alumnus) violated expectancies That is the significant two-way Expectancy acute Ar-gument quality interaction was not qualified by source nor was the significant three-wayExpectancy acute Argument quality acute Need for cognition interaction qualified by source

likely primarily when the position taken violates individual self-inter-est When the position is unexpected because it violates a grouprsquos inter-est the results are quite different That is in Experiment 1 we showedthat although both types of expectancy violation induce surprise onlythe violation of self-interest is associated with increased perceptions oftrustworthiness Violations of group interest do not engender the sameenhancements of trustworthiness Instead violations of group interestappear to produce some attributional ambiguity The surprise accompa-nied by unclear attributions as to the cause of a behavior would be ex-pected to lead to increased rather than decreased informationprocessing This is the effect we observed in Experiment 2

INTEGRATION INFORMATION PROCESSING CONSEQUENCESOF EXPECTANCY DISCONFIRMATION

The current framework seems potentially useful for reconciling seem-ingly inconsistent findings in the persuasion literature regarding the in-formation processing consequences of expectancy disconfirmation Tosummarize briefly if disconfirmation of expectancies leads to increasedperceptions of source trustworthiness or enhanced perceptions of mes-sage validity then message processing should decrease over confirma-tion conditions (Chaiken et al 1989 Petty amp Cacioppo 1986) On theother hand if disconfirmation of expectancies leads only to surprisecompared to confirmation conditions message processing should in-crease In past research disconfirmations of expectancies about messagequality (Maheswaran amp Chaiken 1991) message framing (Smith ampPetty 1995) and whether a majority or minority of others hold a pro- orcounterattitudinal position (Baker amp Petty 1994) did not violate self-in-terest and thus should not lead to perceptions of source trustworthinessor message validity In each case recipients are simply left surprised by

438 PETTY ET AL

TABLE 2 Mean Attitude Ratings as a Function of Group-Interest Expectancy StatusArgument Quality and Participantsrsquo Need for Cognition Level (Experiment 2)

mdashmdashAttitudesmdashmdash

High Need for Cognition Low Need for Cognition

Argument Quality Confirmed Disconfirmed Confirmed Disconfirmed

Strong 508 (33) 580 (37) 500 (32) 607 (42)

SD = 204 SD = 156 SD = 170 SD = 182

Weak 432 (37) 484 (31) 535 (39) 445 (37)

SD = 202 SD = 200 SD = 181 SD = 217

Note Ns indicated in parentheses

the disconfirmation of expectancies and they engage in greater informa-tion processing activity presumably to resolve the violation of expecta-tions and re-establish their understanding of the topic or source at hand(Olson et al 1996)

It is somewhat ironic that the earliest work on expectancies in persua-sion (Eagly amp Chaiken 1975Eagly et al 1978Walster et al 1966 Woodamp Eagly 1981) focused on the one type of expectation (ie source-posi-tion expectancy based on personal self-interest) that produced an appar-ent exception to the subsequently emergent general rule thatdisconfirmation of expectancies enhances processing The current re-search is the first to show that violations of expectancies about the posi-tion a source will take can lead to enhanced information processing Thiswas accomplished by shifting the expectation from one based on self-in-terest alone to group interest

In examining this framework it is important to keep the theoreticalvariables in mind that underlie our integration That is when a sourceviolates expectancies a number of inferences are possible An expec-tancy disconfirmation can enhance perceptions of source trustworthi-ness or message validity (and thus decrease message processing) and itcan also affect surprise (and thus increase message processing) butwhen surprise alone occurs enhanced information processing occursWhen both occur it appears that perceptions of message validity reducemessage processing despite the increased surprise

For self- and group interest expectancy violations to occur at least twofactors seem necessary a perception that some self- or group interest isinvolved and an expectation that individuals will act in accordancewiththat interest A perception of self- or group interest may not always bepresent For example an aggregate of individuals which is notentitative enough (they do not form a coherent whole) may not be per-ceived as having a common group interest in the first place (Campbell1958Hamilton amp Sherman 1996Hamilton Sherman amp Lickel 1998) Insuch cases there would be no group interest to violate Even when self-or group interest is perceived however violations of them may not al-ways cause expectancy disconfirmationsFor example in some culturesself-interest violation may be expected rather than unexpected and thussuch violations would not be expected to lead to increased perceptionsof trustworthinessbecause people are more likely to make dispositionalattributions for behaviors that are unexpected (Jones amp Davis 1965)Likewise for some groups or issues group interest violation may also beexpected such as when the group is clearly undeserving and in those in-stances violation of group interest would not be expected to lead to sur-prise

Future work could examine these possibilities as well as explore sev-eral remaining issues For example although we compared individual

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 439

versus group interest violations on perceptions of trustworthiness andsurprise together in Study 1 we did not directly compare the effects ofthese two types of expectancy violations on information processing andpersuasion This was because the effects of individual self-interest viola-tion on information processing and persuasion seemed clear from priorresearch Nevertheless it would be prudent to examine the effects of in-dividual- versus group interest confirmation versus disconfirmation oninformation processing in the same study In addition our hypothesisthat surprise and attributional ambiguity mediate the increased process-ing resulting from group interest violations should be directly tested byassessing the mediators in the same study as the outcome variables

The current research and framework suggest that it is important toconsider that expectancies in persuasion contexts can be developedupon multiple bases such as on prior knowledge of a personrsquos past be-haviors a personrsquos group membership or human behavior in generalAs shown in our experiments the basis of the expectancy can make animportant difference in the outcome of disconfirmation on source per-ception and on subsequent information processing and persuasion

REFERENCES

Ashmore R D amp Del Boca F K (1979) Sex stereotypes and implicit personality theoriesToward a cognitive-social psychological conceptualization Sex Roles 5 219-248

Baker S M amp Petty R E (1994) Majority and minority influence Source-position imbal-ance as a determinant of message scrutiny Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy 67 5-19

Brewer M B amp Silver M D (2000) Group distinctiveness social identification and col-lective mobilization In S Stryker T J Owens amp R W White (Eds) Self Identityand Social Movements (pp 153-171) Minneapolis MN University of MinnesotaPress

Cacioppo J T amp Petty R E (1982) The need for cognition Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 42 116-131

Cacioppo J T Petty R E amp Kao C (1984)The efficient assessment of need for cognitionJournal of Personality Assessment 48 306-307

Campbell D T (1958) Common fate similarity and other indices of the status of aggre-gates as social entities Behavioral Science 3 14-25

Chaiken S Liberman A amp Eagly A H (1989) Heuristic and systematic processingwithin and beyond the persuasion context In J S Uleman amp J A Bargh (Eds) Un-intended thought (pp 212-252) New York Guilford Press

Eagly A H amp Chaiken S (1975) An attribution analysis of the effect of communicatorcharacteristics on opinion change The case of communicator attractiveness Journalof Personality and Social Psychology 32 136-144

Eagly A H Chaiken S amp Wood W (1981)An attribution analysis of persuasion In J HHarvey W J Ickes amp R F Kidd (Eds) New directions in attribution research (Vol 3pp 37-62) Hillsdale NJ Erlbaum

Eagly A H Wood W amp Chaiken S (1978) Causal inferences about communicators and

440 PETTY ET AL

their effects on opinion change Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36424-435

Fiske S T amp Neuberg S L (1990) A continuum of impression formation from cate-gory-based to individuating processes Influences of information and motivationon attention and interpretation In M P Zanna (Ed) Advances in experimental socialpsychology (Vol 23 pp 1-74) San Diego Academic Press

Hamilton DL amp Sherman S J (1996) Perceiving persons and groups Psychological Re-view 103 336-355

Hamilton DL Sherman S J amp Lickel B (1998) Perceiving social groups The impact ofthe entitativity continuum In C Sedikides J Schopler amp C A Insko (Eds) Inter-group cognitions and intergroup behavior (pp 47-74) Mahwah NJ Erlbaum

Hastie R (1984) Causes and effects of causal attribution Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 37 25-38

Jones E E amp Davis K E (1965) From acts to dispositions The attribution process in per-son perception In L Berkowitz (Ed) Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol2 pp 219-266) New York Academic Press

Kramer R M Brewer M B amp HannaB (1996)Collective trust and collective action Thedecision to trust as a social decision In R Kramer amp T Tyler (Eds) Trust in organiza-tions (pp 357-389) Thousand Oakes CA Sage

Maheswaran D amp Chaiken S (1991) Promoting systematic processing in low-motiva-tion settings Effects of incongruent information on processing and judgment Jour-nal of Personality and Social Psychology 61 13-33

Olson J M Roese N J amp Zanna M P (1996) Expectancies In E T Higgins amp A WKruglanski (Eds) Social psychology Handbook of basic principles (pp 211-238) NewYork Guilford Press

Petty R E (1997) The evolution of theory and research in social psychology From singleto multiple effect and process models In C McGarty amp S A Haslam (Eds) The mes-sage of social psychologyPerspectives on mind in society (pp 268-290)Oxford EnglandBlackwell Publishers Ltd

Petty R E amp Cacioppo J T (1979)Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasionby enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 37 1915-1926

Petty R E amp Cacioppo J T (1986) Communication and persuasion Central and peripheralroutes to attitude change New York Springer-Verlag

Petty R E amp Cacioppo J T (1990) Involvement and persuasion Tradition versus inte-gration Psychological Bulletin 107 367-374

Petty R E Fleming M A amp White P H (1999) Stigmatized sources and persuasionPrejudice as a determinant of argument scrutiny Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology 76 19-34

Petty R E Wells G L amp Brock T C (1976)Distraction can enhance or reduce yielding topropaganda Thought disruption versus effort justification Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology 34 874-884

Platow M J HoarS Reid S Harley K amp Morrison D (1997)Endorsement of distribu-tively fair and unfair leaders in interpersonal and intergroup situations EuropeanJournal of Social Psychology 27 465-494

Platow M J OrsquoConnell A Shave R amp Hanning P (1995) Social evaluations of fair andunfair allocators in interpersonal and intergroup situations British Journal of SocialPsychology 34 363-381

Priester J R amp Petty R E (1995) Source attributions and persuasion Perceived honestyas a determinant of message scrutiny Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 21637-654

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 441

Pyszczynski T A amp Greenberg J (1981)Role of disconfirmed expectancies in the instiga-tion of attributional processing Journal of Personality and Social Psychology40 31-38

Smith S M amp Petty R E (1995) Personality moderators of mood congruency effects oncognition The role of self-esteem and negative mood regulation Journal of Personal-ity and Social Psychology 68 1092-1107

Snyder M L amp Wicklund R (1981)Attribute ambiguity In J H Harvey W Ickes amp R RKidd (Eds) New directions in attribution research (pp 197-221)New York Halsted

Srull T K amp Wyer R S Jr (1989)Person memory and judgment Psychological Review 9658-83

Stangor C amp McMillan D (1992)Memory for expectancy-congruent and expectancy-in-congruent social information A meta-analytic review of the social psychologicaland social developmental literatures Psychological Bulletin 111 42-61

Walster E Aronson E amp Abrahams D (1966)On increasing the persuasiveness of a lowprestige communicator Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 2 325-342

Wenzel M amp Mummendey A (1996) Positive-negative asymmetry of social discrimina-tion A normative analysis of differential evaluations of in-group and out-group onpositive and negative attributes British Journal of Social Psychology 35 493-507

White P H amp Harkens S G (1994) Race of source effects in the elaboration likelihoodmodel Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67 790-807

Wong P T P amp Weiner B (1981) When people ask ldquowhyrdquo questions and the heuristicsof attributional search Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 40 650-663

Wood W amp Eagly A H (1981) Stages in the analysis of persuasive messages The role ofcausal attributions and message comprehension Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 40 246-259

442 PETTY ET AL

Page 12: INDIVIDUAL VERSUS GROUP INTEREST VIOLATION: SURPRISE AS …

The Basis acute Expectancy interaction was not significant F (158)= 215p =153 Thus as predicted it appears that participants were more surprisedafter expectancy disconfirmation than confirmation regardless ofwhether the expectancy was based upon the sourcersquos individual orgroup interest

OPEN-ENDED ATTRIBUTIONAL PROCESSING

Analyses of the number of trait attributions participants listed in theiropen-ended responses revealed a main effect for Expectancy BasisF(157) = 1188 p lt 01 Specifically participants explained the tar-getrsquos actions using more trait terms in the individual interest condi-tions (M = 114 traits per participant) than in the group interestconditions (M = 32) suggesting that a clear attribution was easier tomake in the individual than group interest conditions One specifictrait thought to differ between individual self-interest and group in-terest was perceived selfishnessselflessness Thus the percentagesof participants who referred to selfishness or selflessness were com-pared across expectancy basis 303 of participants in the individ-ual conditions mentioned selfishnessselflessness (participantsmentioned either selfishness or selflessness not both) whereas 0 ofparticipants in the group conditions mentioned this trait c2(1) =1146 p lt 001 To evaluate the numbers of references to selfishnessve r su s se l f l e ss n e ss ac ro ss e xp e ct an c y co n f i rm at io n an ddisconfirmation separate analyses were conducted for the individ-ual conditions only (since there were no mentions of these traits inthe group conditions) For mentions of selflessness 389 ofdisconfirmation (ie low self-interest) condition participants men-tioned this trait (or synonyms) whereas 0 of participants in theconfirmation (ie high self-interest) condition mentioned selfless-ness c2(1) = 740 p lt 007 For mentions of selfishness (or synonyms)20 of participants in the confirmation condition mentioned thistrait whereas 0 of participants in the disconfirmation conditionmentioned it c2(1)= 396 p lt05 It appears that participants weremore likely to attribute the sourcersquos choice of message position to a

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 429

3 We also conducted separate simple effects tests for the individual and group interestconditions to determine if the simple main effect for expectancy held These analyses con-firmed that effects for expectancy occurred in both the individual interest F(132)= 838plt 006 (Means Confirmed = 049Disconfirmed = 213)and group interest F(130)= 2701plt 0001 (Means Confirmed = -126 Disconfirmed = 156) conditions

personality trait (especially to selfishnessselflessness) when thesourcersquos position was relevant to self-interest rather than relevant to hisgrouprsquos interest

We also expected that the differential perceptions of source selfish-ness in the individual conditions would correspond to the greater per-ceived source trustworthiness under expectancy disconfirmation thanconfirmation To evaluate this prediction the correlations between ref-erences to selfishness (and selflessness) and the source trustworthinessratings were computed As predicted in the individual conditionstrustworthiness and mentions of selfishness were significantly nega-tively correlated r = -42 p lt 02 In addition trustworthiness and men-tions of selflessness were significantly positively correlated r = 36 p lt05

DISCUSSION

In this study we found different effects of expectancy disconfirmationon source perceptions for expectancies based on individual versusgroup interest As predicted trustworthiness attributions varied onlywhen the expectancy was based upon the sourcersquos individual self-inter-est Thus our individual interest expectancy conditions were consistentwith prior theory and research (eg Eagly et al 1978 Priester amp Petty1995) in that the source was perceived as more trustworthy when hewent against his own self-interest than when he wrote in favor of hisself-interest More importantly we found a condition under whichsource-position expectancy confirmation and disconfirmation did notmake a difference for trustworthiness attributions mdash when the expec-tancy was based upon group membership and group interest Resultsfrom the open-ended responses suggest that this attenuation mayhave been due to the greater attributional ambiguity when group in-terest rather than individual interest was concerned Thus Experi-me n t 1 ou t l in e s a b ou nda ry co n dit ion fo r th e ef fe c ts ofdisconfirmation of source-position expectancy on perceptions oftrustworthiness suggesting that taking an unexpected position doesnot invariably lead to perceptions of enhanced source trustworthi-ness

In addition consistent with previous expectancy disconfirmationwork (eg Baker amp Petty 1994) participants were more surprised whenexpectancies were disconfirmed than confirmed More importantly thisinvestigation extends this work by suggesting that individuals are moresurprised when an individual source takes a position that disconfirms

430 PETTY ET AL

rather than confirms expectancies regardless of whether the position vi-olates either individual or group interest4

EXPERIMENT TWO

Experiment 2 was designed to investigate the implications of the find-ings of Experiment 1 regarding the effects of disconfirmation of groupinterest for message processing Specifically we tested the predictionthat disconfirmation of a source-position expectancy that does not aug-ment perceived source trustworthiness (ie violation of group interest)will lead to increased rather than reduced message scrutiny Past re-search has already shown that reduced message scrutiny results whenindividual self-interest expectancy disconfirmation leads to enhancedperceptions of source trustworthinessand message validity (Eagly et al1978 Priester amp Petty 1995 Wood amp Eagly 1981) Because a source whoviolates group interest is not seen as more trustworthy but is more sur-prising we anticipate that group interest expectancy disconfirmation

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 431

4 Before conducting Study 2 one potential concern with the operationalization ofgroup interest expectancies in Study 1 was evaluated Specifically our group interest con-firmation condition had scholarships for ldquominority studentsrdquo as its topic whereas thetopic in the disconfirmation condition was about ldquochildren of alumnirdquo The groups ldquomi-nority studentsrdquo and ldquochildren of alumnirdquo are not equivalent and might show different ef-fects for reasons unrelated to expectancy violation For example it might be moresurprising for any source to advocate scholarships for alumni than for minorities To re-move this potential confound and use both topics in the expectancy confirming anddisconfirming cases we conducted a study to replicate conceptually our group interestfindings with both groups Source demographics were varied such that the source was ei-ther Black and not a child of alumni or White and a child of alumni A second minorchange was made in the essay topic mdash rather than a scholarship programthe programwasdescribed as a ldquouniversity service programrdquo that would allow participants free tuition Themessage either advocated that this program should be for children of alumni or for minor-ity students (see Experiment 2 for details)

Forty-eight individuals participated in this 2 (Source Black student of non alumni par-ents White student of alumni parents)acute 2 (Expectancy confirmation disconfirmation) be-tween-participants design In this study expectancy confirmationdisconfirmation wasalways on a group interest basis Participants received the demographic information andintroductory essay paragraph and then completed measures of surprise and source trust-worthiness In this revised version our manipulation of expectancy confirma-tiondisconfirmation was effective in producing surprise as participants weresignificantly more surprised after disconfirmation (M = 067) than after confirmation (M =-204) F(144) = 3438 p lt 0001 Furthermore replicating the group interest conditions inStudy 1 no significant effects were found on the source trustworthiness index As ex-pected participants did not view the disconfirming source as any more trustworthy (M =142) than the confirming source (M = 138) Neither of these effects was qualified by thesource That is Black students favoring alumni and White alumni favoring minority stu-dents were both more surprising than favoring onersquos own group

will lead to enhanced information processing compared to group inter-est expectancy confirmation as has been found in other work on expec-tancies (eg Baker amp Petty 1994Maheswaran amp Chaiken 1991Smith ampPetty 1995) To assess the extent to which the persuasive message wasscrutinized participants were presented with messages containing ei-ther all strong or all weak arguments In general the attitudes of partici-pants who are thinking about the message carefully should be moreaffected by message quality (ie they should be more persuaded bystrong than weak arguments) compared to participants who are notthinking about the message carefully (see Petty Wells amp Brock 1976Petty amp Cacioppo 1986)

METHOD

PARTICIPANTS

Two hundred eighty-eight White students who were not children ofOSU alumni participated in this study in partial completion of introduc-tory psychology course requirements As in Experiment 1 minority par-ticipants and children of alumni were not included in the analyses

DESIGN

Participants were assigned to the cells of a 2 (Source Black non-alum-nus child White alumnus child) acute 2 (Group interest expectancy con-firmed disconfirmed) acute 2 (Argument quality strong weak)between-participants factorial design (see footnote 4) As in Experiment1 a measure of NC was taken

PROCEDURE

Experimental sessions were conducted with groups ranging in size fromtwo to eight Upon arrival participants were given experimental book-lets that contained the following information The first page of the book-let described the study as part of a ldquojournalism writing-evaluationprojectrdquo in which participants would be given a newspaper article writ-ten by a student from another Big Ten university They were also toldthat they would be given some demographic information about the au-thor of the article The participantsrsquo task was to form an impression of thewriter and to evaluate the writing in the article itself Participants werethen given a summary of the message topic mdash that a tuition break pro-gram should be instituted at the University of Iowa The baseline level ofmessage scrutiny for this personally irrelevant message was expected to

432 PETTY ET AL

be relatively low (see Petty amp Cacioppo 1979 1990) The remainingpages of the booklet contained (1) a demographic sheet about the writer(2) the article (containing the persuasive message) (3) the dependentvariables and manipulation checks (4) the NC scale and (5) the partici-pant demographic sheet After all participants in a group had completedthe booklets they were debriefed and excused

INDEPENDENT VARIABLES

Source On the second page of the booklet participants were given ademographic sheet about the writer This page contained informationabout the writerrsquos age sex university year in school major hometownhobby race and parentsrsquo educational background (in this order) Infor-mation about the source remained the same in all conditions except forrace and parentsrsquo educational background The manipulation of sourcewas accomplished by varying jointly the race and the parentsrsquo univer-sity which was either BlackUniversity of Minnesota (ie minorityparents were not alumni of Iowa) or WhiteUniversity of Iowa (ienon-minority parents were alumni of Iowa) This manipulation pro-vided an internal replication of group interest disconfirmation effects onpersuasion (see footnote 4 for a pretest of the effects of this manipulationon source perceptions and surprise)

Group Interest Expectancy ConfirmationDisconfirmation The expe c-tancy manipulation was accomplished by the combination of the mes-sage source and message topic Participants were provided with a briefsummary of the message topic before they read the full persuasive mes-sage to create the expectancy confirmation or disconfirmation in ad-vance of the persuasion attempt Participants were informed that thearticle they would be evaluating was about one of the following topicsldquoStudents who are children of alumni (ie their parents graduated fromthe same university that the student attends) should be allowed to par-ticipate in a two year university service program that would allow themto attend school without having to pay tuitionrdquo Or ldquoStudents who are ofracial minority status should be allowed to participate in a two year uni-versity service program that would allow them to attend school withouthaving to pay tuitionrdquo

Thus expectancy confirmation resulted when the source wrote in fa-vor of his own group participating in this program and expectancydisconfirmation resulted when the source wrote in favor of a group towhich he did not belong

Argument Quality On the next pages of the booklet participants re-ceived the persuasive message The message contained either the strong

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 433

or weak arguments from Baker and Petty (1994 Study 2) The argumentsin the message were pretested such that the strong arguments elicitedprimarily positive thoughts and the weak arguments elicited primarilynegative thoughts when pretest participants were instructed to thinkabout them (see Baker amp Petty 1994 Study 2)

The persuasive message supported implementing a program in whichcertain students (either minority students or children of alumni) wouldbe eligible for tuition breaks in exchange for participating in a universityservice program The message arguments focused on the benefits of theuniversity service program for the university and for the students in-volved in the program For example one strong argument stressed thatwith the money saved through students performing various universityservices ldquoa greater portion of the university budget can be invested inmonetary incentives for research and teachingrdquo and ldquofunding will beavailable to recruit additional outstanding professors researchers andNobel prize winnersrdquo However a parallel weak argument suggestedthat the additional monies available can be ldquospent on materials such aspaint for buildings new machinery for mowing and landscaping andplantings shrubbery flowers and treesrdquo in order to make the universityldquoa scenic and beautiful place to spend the college daysrdquo

Need for Cognition Scale Participants completed the need for cognitionscale (Cacioppo et al 1984)after responding to the other measures Highand low need for cognition participants were determined by a mediansplit on the scale with the median equaling 635 (scores ranged from 31 to85)

DEPENDENT VARIABLES

Argument Quality Manipulation Checks Immediately after participantsread the persuasive message they were asked to answer all questionswithout looking back at previous pages On the page immediately fol-lowing the essay participants were asked to rate ldquohow well was the arti-cle writtenrdquo and ldquohow persuasive were the argumentsrdquo on 9-pointscales ranging from 1 = ldquonot at allrdquo to 9 = ldquoextremelyrdquo These questionswere provided along with several filler questions (eg how clear wasthe writing style) designed to fit the cover story about evaluating the ar-ticle The first two questions served as manipulation checks for argu-ment quality

Attitude Measures On the next page participants read that ldquobecauseyour evaluations of the article might have been influenced by your atti-tude toward the article topic we would like to ask your opinions aboutthe topicrdquo Participants then completed two general attitude questionsand a five-item semantic differential scale The general questions were

434 PETTY ET AL

ldquoIn general what is your opinion about the university service pro-gramrdquo and ldquoHow would you feel about the implementation of the uni-versity service program here at Ohio State Universityrdquo These itemswere completed on 9-point scales ranging from 1 = ldquostrongly opposerdquo to9 = ldquostrongly favorrdquo On the five-item semantic differential scale partici-pants were asked ldquorate how you feel about the university service pro-gramrdquo Each semantic differential was completed on a 9-point scale Thescale anchors were unfavorablefavorable badgood foolishwiseharmfulbeneficial and unfairfair

Source Memory Manipulation Check and Participant Demographics Aftercompleting all other dependent measures participants completed thesource memory multiple choice questions and the participant demo-graphic sheet (as described in study 1)5

RESULTS

All dependent variables were submitted to a 2 (Group interest expec-tancy confirmation vs disconfirmation) acute 2 (Source Black non-alum-nus vs White alumnus ) acute 2 (Argument quality strong vs weak) acute 2(NC high vs low) between-participants analysis of variance

Argument Quality Manipulation Checks6 To determine if our manipu-lation of strong and weak arguments was effective participantsrsquo re-sponses to the two argument quality questions were averaged andsubmitted to the four-way ANOVA The expected main effect for argu-ment quality was obtained F(1271) = 1297 p lt 001 Messages contain-ing strong arguments were rated more positively (M = 589) than wereweak messages (M = 512)7

Attitude Measure The a coefficient for the attitude scales was 95 so thescales were averaged to form an overall index This index was subjected

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 435

5 On the source memory manipulation check one participant made an error on thewriterrsquos race and eleven participants erred on the alumni status of the writerrsquos parentsWhen these participants are removed from analyses results are the same as those re-ported

6 One participant did not complete this measure and thus was not included in the anal-ysis

7 A main effect of expectancy was also obtained F(1 271) = 680 p lt 01 suggesting thatparticipants in the disconfirmation conditions rated arguments more positively (M = 579)than did participants in the confirmation conditions (M = 523)In addition a need for cogni-tion acute expectancy interaction emerged F(1271)= 400 p lt 05 suggesting that whereas highNC individuals rated the quality of the arguments higher when the expectancy wasdisconfirmed (M = 590)than confirmed (M = 491)low NC individualsrsquo perceptions of argu-mentquality were notaffected by expectancy (Mdisconfirmed = 568Mconfirmed = 555)

to the four-way between-participants ANOVA First a main effect forargument quality was obtained F(1272) = 1104 p lt 01 indicating thatparticipants receiving strong arguments were more persuaded (M =549) than were those who received weak arguments (M = 474) Ofgreater interest the predicted expectancy acute argument quality interac-tion F(1272) = 579 p lt 02 qualified this main effect (see Figure 1)When expectancies were disconfirmed argument quality had a greaterimpact on attitudes than when expectancies were confirmed More spe-cifically under expectancy confirmation conditions argument qualityhad no impact on attitudes F(1139) = 42 ns However under expec-tancy disconfirmation conditions a simple main effect for argumentquality emerged F(1145) = 1854 p lt 0001

One additional effect that emerged consistent with past research(Priester amp Petty 1995 Smith amp Petty 1995) was a three-way interactionamong expectancy argument quality and need for cognition F(1272) =386 p lt 05 (see Table 2) Separate analyses for high and low need forcognition participants indicated that high NC participants (ie those in-dividuals who enjoy thinking) showed only a main effect for argumentquality F(1134) = 784 p lt 01 (the expectancy acute argument quality inter-action F lt 1 ns) suggesting that they engaged in effortful processing ofthe message regardless of whether expectancies were confirmed or

436 PETTY ET AL

FIGURE 1 Interaction on attitudes between group interest expectancy status and argu-ment quality

disconfirmed Low NC participants showed a main effect for argumentquality F(1146) = 419 p lt 05 along with an expectancy acute argumentquality interaction F(1146) = 1038 p lt 01 This interaction indicatedthat low NC participants did not differentiate between strong and weakarguments when their expectancies were confirmed but they did differ-entiate when their expectancies were disconfirmed8

GENERAL DISCUSSION

The present research expands our understanding of the consequences ofsources taking unexpected positions Based on prior research and the-ory one would have predicted that when a source takes an unexpectedposition greater attributions of trustworthiness and reduced informa-tion processing activity should result compared to when the sourcetakes an expected position The current studies suggest that this result is

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 437

TABLE 1 Mean Attitude Ratings as a Function of Group-Interest Expectancy Statusand Argument Quality (Experiment 2)

mdashmdashAttitudesmdashmdash

Argument Quality Confirmed Disconfirmed

Strong 504 (65) 594 (79)

SD = 187 SD = 170

Weak 483 (76) 465 (68)

SD = 197 SD = 209

Note Ns indicated in parentheses

8 A source acute expectancy interaction F(1272) = 528 p lt 03 was also obtained A maineffect for expectancy emerged in the Black non-alumnus source condition F(1136)= 840p lt 01 Thus participants had more positive attitudes toward the message when a minor-ity source wrote in favor of children of alumni receiving the tuition breaks (M = 562) thanwhen the minority source wrote in favor of breaks for minorities (M = 475) Attitudes inthe White alumnus source conditions did not differ between expectancy disconfirming (M= 496)and confirming conditions (M = 513)F lt 1 This unanticipated result could have oc-curred because Caucasian participants paid more attention to the position taken by theBlack than the White source resulting in their being more affected by those positions(Petty Fleming amp White 1999 White amp Harkens 1994) Future research could includeconditions where a Black source is an alumnus and a White source is a non-alumnus totease apart race from alumni effects Importantly our results indicated that participantsengaged in greater scrutiny of the arguments whichever source (black or white alumnusor non-alumnus) violated expectancies That is the significant two-way Expectancy acute Ar-gument quality interaction was not qualified by source nor was the significant three-wayExpectancy acute Argument quality acute Need for cognition interaction qualified by source

likely primarily when the position taken violates individual self-inter-est When the position is unexpected because it violates a grouprsquos inter-est the results are quite different That is in Experiment 1 we showedthat although both types of expectancy violation induce surprise onlythe violation of self-interest is associated with increased perceptions oftrustworthiness Violations of group interest do not engender the sameenhancements of trustworthiness Instead violations of group interestappear to produce some attributional ambiguity The surprise accompa-nied by unclear attributions as to the cause of a behavior would be ex-pected to lead to increased rather than decreased informationprocessing This is the effect we observed in Experiment 2

INTEGRATION INFORMATION PROCESSING CONSEQUENCESOF EXPECTANCY DISCONFIRMATION

The current framework seems potentially useful for reconciling seem-ingly inconsistent findings in the persuasion literature regarding the in-formation processing consequences of expectancy disconfirmation Tosummarize briefly if disconfirmation of expectancies leads to increasedperceptions of source trustworthiness or enhanced perceptions of mes-sage validity then message processing should decrease over confirma-tion conditions (Chaiken et al 1989 Petty amp Cacioppo 1986) On theother hand if disconfirmation of expectancies leads only to surprisecompared to confirmation conditions message processing should in-crease In past research disconfirmations of expectancies about messagequality (Maheswaran amp Chaiken 1991) message framing (Smith ampPetty 1995) and whether a majority or minority of others hold a pro- orcounterattitudinal position (Baker amp Petty 1994) did not violate self-in-terest and thus should not lead to perceptions of source trustworthinessor message validity In each case recipients are simply left surprised by

438 PETTY ET AL

TABLE 2 Mean Attitude Ratings as a Function of Group-Interest Expectancy StatusArgument Quality and Participantsrsquo Need for Cognition Level (Experiment 2)

mdashmdashAttitudesmdashmdash

High Need for Cognition Low Need for Cognition

Argument Quality Confirmed Disconfirmed Confirmed Disconfirmed

Strong 508 (33) 580 (37) 500 (32) 607 (42)

SD = 204 SD = 156 SD = 170 SD = 182

Weak 432 (37) 484 (31) 535 (39) 445 (37)

SD = 202 SD = 200 SD = 181 SD = 217

Note Ns indicated in parentheses

the disconfirmation of expectancies and they engage in greater informa-tion processing activity presumably to resolve the violation of expecta-tions and re-establish their understanding of the topic or source at hand(Olson et al 1996)

It is somewhat ironic that the earliest work on expectancies in persua-sion (Eagly amp Chaiken 1975Eagly et al 1978Walster et al 1966 Woodamp Eagly 1981) focused on the one type of expectation (ie source-posi-tion expectancy based on personal self-interest) that produced an appar-ent exception to the subsequently emergent general rule thatdisconfirmation of expectancies enhances processing The current re-search is the first to show that violations of expectancies about the posi-tion a source will take can lead to enhanced information processing Thiswas accomplished by shifting the expectation from one based on self-in-terest alone to group interest

In examining this framework it is important to keep the theoreticalvariables in mind that underlie our integration That is when a sourceviolates expectancies a number of inferences are possible An expec-tancy disconfirmation can enhance perceptions of source trustworthi-ness or message validity (and thus decrease message processing) and itcan also affect surprise (and thus increase message processing) butwhen surprise alone occurs enhanced information processing occursWhen both occur it appears that perceptions of message validity reducemessage processing despite the increased surprise

For self- and group interest expectancy violations to occur at least twofactors seem necessary a perception that some self- or group interest isinvolved and an expectation that individuals will act in accordancewiththat interest A perception of self- or group interest may not always bepresent For example an aggregate of individuals which is notentitative enough (they do not form a coherent whole) may not be per-ceived as having a common group interest in the first place (Campbell1958Hamilton amp Sherman 1996Hamilton Sherman amp Lickel 1998) Insuch cases there would be no group interest to violate Even when self-or group interest is perceived however violations of them may not al-ways cause expectancy disconfirmationsFor example in some culturesself-interest violation may be expected rather than unexpected and thussuch violations would not be expected to lead to increased perceptionsof trustworthinessbecause people are more likely to make dispositionalattributions for behaviors that are unexpected (Jones amp Davis 1965)Likewise for some groups or issues group interest violation may also beexpected such as when the group is clearly undeserving and in those in-stances violation of group interest would not be expected to lead to sur-prise

Future work could examine these possibilities as well as explore sev-eral remaining issues For example although we compared individual

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 439

versus group interest violations on perceptions of trustworthiness andsurprise together in Study 1 we did not directly compare the effects ofthese two types of expectancy violations on information processing andpersuasion This was because the effects of individual self-interest viola-tion on information processing and persuasion seemed clear from priorresearch Nevertheless it would be prudent to examine the effects of in-dividual- versus group interest confirmation versus disconfirmation oninformation processing in the same study In addition our hypothesisthat surprise and attributional ambiguity mediate the increased process-ing resulting from group interest violations should be directly tested byassessing the mediators in the same study as the outcome variables

The current research and framework suggest that it is important toconsider that expectancies in persuasion contexts can be developedupon multiple bases such as on prior knowledge of a personrsquos past be-haviors a personrsquos group membership or human behavior in generalAs shown in our experiments the basis of the expectancy can make animportant difference in the outcome of disconfirmation on source per-ception and on subsequent information processing and persuasion

REFERENCES

Ashmore R D amp Del Boca F K (1979) Sex stereotypes and implicit personality theoriesToward a cognitive-social psychological conceptualization Sex Roles 5 219-248

Baker S M amp Petty R E (1994) Majority and minority influence Source-position imbal-ance as a determinant of message scrutiny Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy 67 5-19

Brewer M B amp Silver M D (2000) Group distinctiveness social identification and col-lective mobilization In S Stryker T J Owens amp R W White (Eds) Self Identityand Social Movements (pp 153-171) Minneapolis MN University of MinnesotaPress

Cacioppo J T amp Petty R E (1982) The need for cognition Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 42 116-131

Cacioppo J T Petty R E amp Kao C (1984)The efficient assessment of need for cognitionJournal of Personality Assessment 48 306-307

Campbell D T (1958) Common fate similarity and other indices of the status of aggre-gates as social entities Behavioral Science 3 14-25

Chaiken S Liberman A amp Eagly A H (1989) Heuristic and systematic processingwithin and beyond the persuasion context In J S Uleman amp J A Bargh (Eds) Un-intended thought (pp 212-252) New York Guilford Press

Eagly A H amp Chaiken S (1975) An attribution analysis of the effect of communicatorcharacteristics on opinion change The case of communicator attractiveness Journalof Personality and Social Psychology 32 136-144

Eagly A H Chaiken S amp Wood W (1981)An attribution analysis of persuasion In J HHarvey W J Ickes amp R F Kidd (Eds) New directions in attribution research (Vol 3pp 37-62) Hillsdale NJ Erlbaum

Eagly A H Wood W amp Chaiken S (1978) Causal inferences about communicators and

440 PETTY ET AL

their effects on opinion change Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36424-435

Fiske S T amp Neuberg S L (1990) A continuum of impression formation from cate-gory-based to individuating processes Influences of information and motivationon attention and interpretation In M P Zanna (Ed) Advances in experimental socialpsychology (Vol 23 pp 1-74) San Diego Academic Press

Hamilton DL amp Sherman S J (1996) Perceiving persons and groups Psychological Re-view 103 336-355

Hamilton DL Sherman S J amp Lickel B (1998) Perceiving social groups The impact ofthe entitativity continuum In C Sedikides J Schopler amp C A Insko (Eds) Inter-group cognitions and intergroup behavior (pp 47-74) Mahwah NJ Erlbaum

Hastie R (1984) Causes and effects of causal attribution Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 37 25-38

Jones E E amp Davis K E (1965) From acts to dispositions The attribution process in per-son perception In L Berkowitz (Ed) Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol2 pp 219-266) New York Academic Press

Kramer R M Brewer M B amp HannaB (1996)Collective trust and collective action Thedecision to trust as a social decision In R Kramer amp T Tyler (Eds) Trust in organiza-tions (pp 357-389) Thousand Oakes CA Sage

Maheswaran D amp Chaiken S (1991) Promoting systematic processing in low-motiva-tion settings Effects of incongruent information on processing and judgment Jour-nal of Personality and Social Psychology 61 13-33

Olson J M Roese N J amp Zanna M P (1996) Expectancies In E T Higgins amp A WKruglanski (Eds) Social psychology Handbook of basic principles (pp 211-238) NewYork Guilford Press

Petty R E (1997) The evolution of theory and research in social psychology From singleto multiple effect and process models In C McGarty amp S A Haslam (Eds) The mes-sage of social psychologyPerspectives on mind in society (pp 268-290)Oxford EnglandBlackwell Publishers Ltd

Petty R E amp Cacioppo J T (1979)Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasionby enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 37 1915-1926

Petty R E amp Cacioppo J T (1986) Communication and persuasion Central and peripheralroutes to attitude change New York Springer-Verlag

Petty R E amp Cacioppo J T (1990) Involvement and persuasion Tradition versus inte-gration Psychological Bulletin 107 367-374

Petty R E Fleming M A amp White P H (1999) Stigmatized sources and persuasionPrejudice as a determinant of argument scrutiny Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology 76 19-34

Petty R E Wells G L amp Brock T C (1976)Distraction can enhance or reduce yielding topropaganda Thought disruption versus effort justification Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology 34 874-884

Platow M J HoarS Reid S Harley K amp Morrison D (1997)Endorsement of distribu-tively fair and unfair leaders in interpersonal and intergroup situations EuropeanJournal of Social Psychology 27 465-494

Platow M J OrsquoConnell A Shave R amp Hanning P (1995) Social evaluations of fair andunfair allocators in interpersonal and intergroup situations British Journal of SocialPsychology 34 363-381

Priester J R amp Petty R E (1995) Source attributions and persuasion Perceived honestyas a determinant of message scrutiny Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 21637-654

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 441

Pyszczynski T A amp Greenberg J (1981)Role of disconfirmed expectancies in the instiga-tion of attributional processing Journal of Personality and Social Psychology40 31-38

Smith S M amp Petty R E (1995) Personality moderators of mood congruency effects oncognition The role of self-esteem and negative mood regulation Journal of Personal-ity and Social Psychology 68 1092-1107

Snyder M L amp Wicklund R (1981)Attribute ambiguity In J H Harvey W Ickes amp R RKidd (Eds) New directions in attribution research (pp 197-221)New York Halsted

Srull T K amp Wyer R S Jr (1989)Person memory and judgment Psychological Review 9658-83

Stangor C amp McMillan D (1992)Memory for expectancy-congruent and expectancy-in-congruent social information A meta-analytic review of the social psychologicaland social developmental literatures Psychological Bulletin 111 42-61

Walster E Aronson E amp Abrahams D (1966)On increasing the persuasiveness of a lowprestige communicator Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 2 325-342

Wenzel M amp Mummendey A (1996) Positive-negative asymmetry of social discrimina-tion A normative analysis of differential evaluations of in-group and out-group onpositive and negative attributes British Journal of Social Psychology 35 493-507

White P H amp Harkens S G (1994) Race of source effects in the elaboration likelihoodmodel Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67 790-807

Wong P T P amp Weiner B (1981) When people ask ldquowhyrdquo questions and the heuristicsof attributional search Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 40 650-663

Wood W amp Eagly A H (1981) Stages in the analysis of persuasive messages The role ofcausal attributions and message comprehension Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 40 246-259

442 PETTY ET AL

Page 13: INDIVIDUAL VERSUS GROUP INTEREST VIOLATION: SURPRISE AS …

personality trait (especially to selfishnessselflessness) when thesourcersquos position was relevant to self-interest rather than relevant to hisgrouprsquos interest

We also expected that the differential perceptions of source selfish-ness in the individual conditions would correspond to the greater per-ceived source trustworthiness under expectancy disconfirmation thanconfirmation To evaluate this prediction the correlations between ref-erences to selfishness (and selflessness) and the source trustworthinessratings were computed As predicted in the individual conditionstrustworthiness and mentions of selfishness were significantly nega-tively correlated r = -42 p lt 02 In addition trustworthiness and men-tions of selflessness were significantly positively correlated r = 36 p lt05

DISCUSSION

In this study we found different effects of expectancy disconfirmationon source perceptions for expectancies based on individual versusgroup interest As predicted trustworthiness attributions varied onlywhen the expectancy was based upon the sourcersquos individual self-inter-est Thus our individual interest expectancy conditions were consistentwith prior theory and research (eg Eagly et al 1978 Priester amp Petty1995) in that the source was perceived as more trustworthy when hewent against his own self-interest than when he wrote in favor of hisself-interest More importantly we found a condition under whichsource-position expectancy confirmation and disconfirmation did notmake a difference for trustworthiness attributions mdash when the expec-tancy was based upon group membership and group interest Resultsfrom the open-ended responses suggest that this attenuation mayhave been due to the greater attributional ambiguity when group in-terest rather than individual interest was concerned Thus Experi-me n t 1 ou t l in e s a b ou nda ry co n dit ion fo r th e ef fe c ts ofdisconfirmation of source-position expectancy on perceptions oftrustworthiness suggesting that taking an unexpected position doesnot invariably lead to perceptions of enhanced source trustworthi-ness

In addition consistent with previous expectancy disconfirmationwork (eg Baker amp Petty 1994) participants were more surprised whenexpectancies were disconfirmed than confirmed More importantly thisinvestigation extends this work by suggesting that individuals are moresurprised when an individual source takes a position that disconfirms

430 PETTY ET AL

rather than confirms expectancies regardless of whether the position vi-olates either individual or group interest4

EXPERIMENT TWO

Experiment 2 was designed to investigate the implications of the find-ings of Experiment 1 regarding the effects of disconfirmation of groupinterest for message processing Specifically we tested the predictionthat disconfirmation of a source-position expectancy that does not aug-ment perceived source trustworthiness (ie violation of group interest)will lead to increased rather than reduced message scrutiny Past re-search has already shown that reduced message scrutiny results whenindividual self-interest expectancy disconfirmation leads to enhancedperceptions of source trustworthinessand message validity (Eagly et al1978 Priester amp Petty 1995 Wood amp Eagly 1981) Because a source whoviolates group interest is not seen as more trustworthy but is more sur-prising we anticipate that group interest expectancy disconfirmation

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 431

4 Before conducting Study 2 one potential concern with the operationalization ofgroup interest expectancies in Study 1 was evaluated Specifically our group interest con-firmation condition had scholarships for ldquominority studentsrdquo as its topic whereas thetopic in the disconfirmation condition was about ldquochildren of alumnirdquo The groups ldquomi-nority studentsrdquo and ldquochildren of alumnirdquo are not equivalent and might show different ef-fects for reasons unrelated to expectancy violation For example it might be moresurprising for any source to advocate scholarships for alumni than for minorities To re-move this potential confound and use both topics in the expectancy confirming anddisconfirming cases we conducted a study to replicate conceptually our group interestfindings with both groups Source demographics were varied such that the source was ei-ther Black and not a child of alumni or White and a child of alumni A second minorchange was made in the essay topic mdash rather than a scholarship programthe programwasdescribed as a ldquouniversity service programrdquo that would allow participants free tuition Themessage either advocated that this program should be for children of alumni or for minor-ity students (see Experiment 2 for details)

Forty-eight individuals participated in this 2 (Source Black student of non alumni par-ents White student of alumni parents)acute 2 (Expectancy confirmation disconfirmation) be-tween-participants design In this study expectancy confirmationdisconfirmation wasalways on a group interest basis Participants received the demographic information andintroductory essay paragraph and then completed measures of surprise and source trust-worthiness In this revised version our manipulation of expectancy confirma-tiondisconfirmation was effective in producing surprise as participants weresignificantly more surprised after disconfirmation (M = 067) than after confirmation (M =-204) F(144) = 3438 p lt 0001 Furthermore replicating the group interest conditions inStudy 1 no significant effects were found on the source trustworthiness index As ex-pected participants did not view the disconfirming source as any more trustworthy (M =142) than the confirming source (M = 138) Neither of these effects was qualified by thesource That is Black students favoring alumni and White alumni favoring minority stu-dents were both more surprising than favoring onersquos own group

will lead to enhanced information processing compared to group inter-est expectancy confirmation as has been found in other work on expec-tancies (eg Baker amp Petty 1994Maheswaran amp Chaiken 1991Smith ampPetty 1995) To assess the extent to which the persuasive message wasscrutinized participants were presented with messages containing ei-ther all strong or all weak arguments In general the attitudes of partici-pants who are thinking about the message carefully should be moreaffected by message quality (ie they should be more persuaded bystrong than weak arguments) compared to participants who are notthinking about the message carefully (see Petty Wells amp Brock 1976Petty amp Cacioppo 1986)

METHOD

PARTICIPANTS

Two hundred eighty-eight White students who were not children ofOSU alumni participated in this study in partial completion of introduc-tory psychology course requirements As in Experiment 1 minority par-ticipants and children of alumni were not included in the analyses

DESIGN

Participants were assigned to the cells of a 2 (Source Black non-alum-nus child White alumnus child) acute 2 (Group interest expectancy con-firmed disconfirmed) acute 2 (Argument quality strong weak)between-participants factorial design (see footnote 4) As in Experiment1 a measure of NC was taken

PROCEDURE

Experimental sessions were conducted with groups ranging in size fromtwo to eight Upon arrival participants were given experimental book-lets that contained the following information The first page of the book-let described the study as part of a ldquojournalism writing-evaluationprojectrdquo in which participants would be given a newspaper article writ-ten by a student from another Big Ten university They were also toldthat they would be given some demographic information about the au-thor of the article The participantsrsquo task was to form an impression of thewriter and to evaluate the writing in the article itself Participants werethen given a summary of the message topic mdash that a tuition break pro-gram should be instituted at the University of Iowa The baseline level ofmessage scrutiny for this personally irrelevant message was expected to

432 PETTY ET AL

be relatively low (see Petty amp Cacioppo 1979 1990) The remainingpages of the booklet contained (1) a demographic sheet about the writer(2) the article (containing the persuasive message) (3) the dependentvariables and manipulation checks (4) the NC scale and (5) the partici-pant demographic sheet After all participants in a group had completedthe booklets they were debriefed and excused

INDEPENDENT VARIABLES

Source On the second page of the booklet participants were given ademographic sheet about the writer This page contained informationabout the writerrsquos age sex university year in school major hometownhobby race and parentsrsquo educational background (in this order) Infor-mation about the source remained the same in all conditions except forrace and parentsrsquo educational background The manipulation of sourcewas accomplished by varying jointly the race and the parentsrsquo univer-sity which was either BlackUniversity of Minnesota (ie minorityparents were not alumni of Iowa) or WhiteUniversity of Iowa (ienon-minority parents were alumni of Iowa) This manipulation pro-vided an internal replication of group interest disconfirmation effects onpersuasion (see footnote 4 for a pretest of the effects of this manipulationon source perceptions and surprise)

Group Interest Expectancy ConfirmationDisconfirmation The expe c-tancy manipulation was accomplished by the combination of the mes-sage source and message topic Participants were provided with a briefsummary of the message topic before they read the full persuasive mes-sage to create the expectancy confirmation or disconfirmation in ad-vance of the persuasion attempt Participants were informed that thearticle they would be evaluating was about one of the following topicsldquoStudents who are children of alumni (ie their parents graduated fromthe same university that the student attends) should be allowed to par-ticipate in a two year university service program that would allow themto attend school without having to pay tuitionrdquo Or ldquoStudents who are ofracial minority status should be allowed to participate in a two year uni-versity service program that would allow them to attend school withouthaving to pay tuitionrdquo

Thus expectancy confirmation resulted when the source wrote in fa-vor of his own group participating in this program and expectancydisconfirmation resulted when the source wrote in favor of a group towhich he did not belong

Argument Quality On the next pages of the booklet participants re-ceived the persuasive message The message contained either the strong

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 433

or weak arguments from Baker and Petty (1994 Study 2) The argumentsin the message were pretested such that the strong arguments elicitedprimarily positive thoughts and the weak arguments elicited primarilynegative thoughts when pretest participants were instructed to thinkabout them (see Baker amp Petty 1994 Study 2)

The persuasive message supported implementing a program in whichcertain students (either minority students or children of alumni) wouldbe eligible for tuition breaks in exchange for participating in a universityservice program The message arguments focused on the benefits of theuniversity service program for the university and for the students in-volved in the program For example one strong argument stressed thatwith the money saved through students performing various universityservices ldquoa greater portion of the university budget can be invested inmonetary incentives for research and teachingrdquo and ldquofunding will beavailable to recruit additional outstanding professors researchers andNobel prize winnersrdquo However a parallel weak argument suggestedthat the additional monies available can be ldquospent on materials such aspaint for buildings new machinery for mowing and landscaping andplantings shrubbery flowers and treesrdquo in order to make the universityldquoa scenic and beautiful place to spend the college daysrdquo

Need for Cognition Scale Participants completed the need for cognitionscale (Cacioppo et al 1984)after responding to the other measures Highand low need for cognition participants were determined by a mediansplit on the scale with the median equaling 635 (scores ranged from 31 to85)

DEPENDENT VARIABLES

Argument Quality Manipulation Checks Immediately after participantsread the persuasive message they were asked to answer all questionswithout looking back at previous pages On the page immediately fol-lowing the essay participants were asked to rate ldquohow well was the arti-cle writtenrdquo and ldquohow persuasive were the argumentsrdquo on 9-pointscales ranging from 1 = ldquonot at allrdquo to 9 = ldquoextremelyrdquo These questionswere provided along with several filler questions (eg how clear wasthe writing style) designed to fit the cover story about evaluating the ar-ticle The first two questions served as manipulation checks for argu-ment quality

Attitude Measures On the next page participants read that ldquobecauseyour evaluations of the article might have been influenced by your atti-tude toward the article topic we would like to ask your opinions aboutthe topicrdquo Participants then completed two general attitude questionsand a five-item semantic differential scale The general questions were

434 PETTY ET AL

ldquoIn general what is your opinion about the university service pro-gramrdquo and ldquoHow would you feel about the implementation of the uni-versity service program here at Ohio State Universityrdquo These itemswere completed on 9-point scales ranging from 1 = ldquostrongly opposerdquo to9 = ldquostrongly favorrdquo On the five-item semantic differential scale partici-pants were asked ldquorate how you feel about the university service pro-gramrdquo Each semantic differential was completed on a 9-point scale Thescale anchors were unfavorablefavorable badgood foolishwiseharmfulbeneficial and unfairfair

Source Memory Manipulation Check and Participant Demographics Aftercompleting all other dependent measures participants completed thesource memory multiple choice questions and the participant demo-graphic sheet (as described in study 1)5

RESULTS

All dependent variables were submitted to a 2 (Group interest expec-tancy confirmation vs disconfirmation) acute 2 (Source Black non-alum-nus vs White alumnus ) acute 2 (Argument quality strong vs weak) acute 2(NC high vs low) between-participants analysis of variance

Argument Quality Manipulation Checks6 To determine if our manipu-lation of strong and weak arguments was effective participantsrsquo re-sponses to the two argument quality questions were averaged andsubmitted to the four-way ANOVA The expected main effect for argu-ment quality was obtained F(1271) = 1297 p lt 001 Messages contain-ing strong arguments were rated more positively (M = 589) than wereweak messages (M = 512)7

Attitude Measure The a coefficient for the attitude scales was 95 so thescales were averaged to form an overall index This index was subjected

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 435

5 On the source memory manipulation check one participant made an error on thewriterrsquos race and eleven participants erred on the alumni status of the writerrsquos parentsWhen these participants are removed from analyses results are the same as those re-ported

6 One participant did not complete this measure and thus was not included in the anal-ysis

7 A main effect of expectancy was also obtained F(1 271) = 680 p lt 01 suggesting thatparticipants in the disconfirmation conditions rated arguments more positively (M = 579)than did participants in the confirmation conditions (M = 523)In addition a need for cogni-tion acute expectancy interaction emerged F(1271)= 400 p lt 05 suggesting that whereas highNC individuals rated the quality of the arguments higher when the expectancy wasdisconfirmed (M = 590)than confirmed (M = 491)low NC individualsrsquo perceptions of argu-mentquality were notaffected by expectancy (Mdisconfirmed = 568Mconfirmed = 555)

to the four-way between-participants ANOVA First a main effect forargument quality was obtained F(1272) = 1104 p lt 01 indicating thatparticipants receiving strong arguments were more persuaded (M =549) than were those who received weak arguments (M = 474) Ofgreater interest the predicted expectancy acute argument quality interac-tion F(1272) = 579 p lt 02 qualified this main effect (see Figure 1)When expectancies were disconfirmed argument quality had a greaterimpact on attitudes than when expectancies were confirmed More spe-cifically under expectancy confirmation conditions argument qualityhad no impact on attitudes F(1139) = 42 ns However under expec-tancy disconfirmation conditions a simple main effect for argumentquality emerged F(1145) = 1854 p lt 0001

One additional effect that emerged consistent with past research(Priester amp Petty 1995 Smith amp Petty 1995) was a three-way interactionamong expectancy argument quality and need for cognition F(1272) =386 p lt 05 (see Table 2) Separate analyses for high and low need forcognition participants indicated that high NC participants (ie those in-dividuals who enjoy thinking) showed only a main effect for argumentquality F(1134) = 784 p lt 01 (the expectancy acute argument quality inter-action F lt 1 ns) suggesting that they engaged in effortful processing ofthe message regardless of whether expectancies were confirmed or

436 PETTY ET AL

FIGURE 1 Interaction on attitudes between group interest expectancy status and argu-ment quality

disconfirmed Low NC participants showed a main effect for argumentquality F(1146) = 419 p lt 05 along with an expectancy acute argumentquality interaction F(1146) = 1038 p lt 01 This interaction indicatedthat low NC participants did not differentiate between strong and weakarguments when their expectancies were confirmed but they did differ-entiate when their expectancies were disconfirmed8

GENERAL DISCUSSION

The present research expands our understanding of the consequences ofsources taking unexpected positions Based on prior research and the-ory one would have predicted that when a source takes an unexpectedposition greater attributions of trustworthiness and reduced informa-tion processing activity should result compared to when the sourcetakes an expected position The current studies suggest that this result is

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 437

TABLE 1 Mean Attitude Ratings as a Function of Group-Interest Expectancy Statusand Argument Quality (Experiment 2)

mdashmdashAttitudesmdashmdash

Argument Quality Confirmed Disconfirmed

Strong 504 (65) 594 (79)

SD = 187 SD = 170

Weak 483 (76) 465 (68)

SD = 197 SD = 209

Note Ns indicated in parentheses

8 A source acute expectancy interaction F(1272) = 528 p lt 03 was also obtained A maineffect for expectancy emerged in the Black non-alumnus source condition F(1136)= 840p lt 01 Thus participants had more positive attitudes toward the message when a minor-ity source wrote in favor of children of alumni receiving the tuition breaks (M = 562) thanwhen the minority source wrote in favor of breaks for minorities (M = 475) Attitudes inthe White alumnus source conditions did not differ between expectancy disconfirming (M= 496)and confirming conditions (M = 513)F lt 1 This unanticipated result could have oc-curred because Caucasian participants paid more attention to the position taken by theBlack than the White source resulting in their being more affected by those positions(Petty Fleming amp White 1999 White amp Harkens 1994) Future research could includeconditions where a Black source is an alumnus and a White source is a non-alumnus totease apart race from alumni effects Importantly our results indicated that participantsengaged in greater scrutiny of the arguments whichever source (black or white alumnusor non-alumnus) violated expectancies That is the significant two-way Expectancy acute Ar-gument quality interaction was not qualified by source nor was the significant three-wayExpectancy acute Argument quality acute Need for cognition interaction qualified by source

likely primarily when the position taken violates individual self-inter-est When the position is unexpected because it violates a grouprsquos inter-est the results are quite different That is in Experiment 1 we showedthat although both types of expectancy violation induce surprise onlythe violation of self-interest is associated with increased perceptions oftrustworthiness Violations of group interest do not engender the sameenhancements of trustworthiness Instead violations of group interestappear to produce some attributional ambiguity The surprise accompa-nied by unclear attributions as to the cause of a behavior would be ex-pected to lead to increased rather than decreased informationprocessing This is the effect we observed in Experiment 2

INTEGRATION INFORMATION PROCESSING CONSEQUENCESOF EXPECTANCY DISCONFIRMATION

The current framework seems potentially useful for reconciling seem-ingly inconsistent findings in the persuasion literature regarding the in-formation processing consequences of expectancy disconfirmation Tosummarize briefly if disconfirmation of expectancies leads to increasedperceptions of source trustworthiness or enhanced perceptions of mes-sage validity then message processing should decrease over confirma-tion conditions (Chaiken et al 1989 Petty amp Cacioppo 1986) On theother hand if disconfirmation of expectancies leads only to surprisecompared to confirmation conditions message processing should in-crease In past research disconfirmations of expectancies about messagequality (Maheswaran amp Chaiken 1991) message framing (Smith ampPetty 1995) and whether a majority or minority of others hold a pro- orcounterattitudinal position (Baker amp Petty 1994) did not violate self-in-terest and thus should not lead to perceptions of source trustworthinessor message validity In each case recipients are simply left surprised by

438 PETTY ET AL

TABLE 2 Mean Attitude Ratings as a Function of Group-Interest Expectancy StatusArgument Quality and Participantsrsquo Need for Cognition Level (Experiment 2)

mdashmdashAttitudesmdashmdash

High Need for Cognition Low Need for Cognition

Argument Quality Confirmed Disconfirmed Confirmed Disconfirmed

Strong 508 (33) 580 (37) 500 (32) 607 (42)

SD = 204 SD = 156 SD = 170 SD = 182

Weak 432 (37) 484 (31) 535 (39) 445 (37)

SD = 202 SD = 200 SD = 181 SD = 217

Note Ns indicated in parentheses

the disconfirmation of expectancies and they engage in greater informa-tion processing activity presumably to resolve the violation of expecta-tions and re-establish their understanding of the topic or source at hand(Olson et al 1996)

It is somewhat ironic that the earliest work on expectancies in persua-sion (Eagly amp Chaiken 1975Eagly et al 1978Walster et al 1966 Woodamp Eagly 1981) focused on the one type of expectation (ie source-posi-tion expectancy based on personal self-interest) that produced an appar-ent exception to the subsequently emergent general rule thatdisconfirmation of expectancies enhances processing The current re-search is the first to show that violations of expectancies about the posi-tion a source will take can lead to enhanced information processing Thiswas accomplished by shifting the expectation from one based on self-in-terest alone to group interest

In examining this framework it is important to keep the theoreticalvariables in mind that underlie our integration That is when a sourceviolates expectancies a number of inferences are possible An expec-tancy disconfirmation can enhance perceptions of source trustworthi-ness or message validity (and thus decrease message processing) and itcan also affect surprise (and thus increase message processing) butwhen surprise alone occurs enhanced information processing occursWhen both occur it appears that perceptions of message validity reducemessage processing despite the increased surprise

For self- and group interest expectancy violations to occur at least twofactors seem necessary a perception that some self- or group interest isinvolved and an expectation that individuals will act in accordancewiththat interest A perception of self- or group interest may not always bepresent For example an aggregate of individuals which is notentitative enough (they do not form a coherent whole) may not be per-ceived as having a common group interest in the first place (Campbell1958Hamilton amp Sherman 1996Hamilton Sherman amp Lickel 1998) Insuch cases there would be no group interest to violate Even when self-or group interest is perceived however violations of them may not al-ways cause expectancy disconfirmationsFor example in some culturesself-interest violation may be expected rather than unexpected and thussuch violations would not be expected to lead to increased perceptionsof trustworthinessbecause people are more likely to make dispositionalattributions for behaviors that are unexpected (Jones amp Davis 1965)Likewise for some groups or issues group interest violation may also beexpected such as when the group is clearly undeserving and in those in-stances violation of group interest would not be expected to lead to sur-prise

Future work could examine these possibilities as well as explore sev-eral remaining issues For example although we compared individual

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 439

versus group interest violations on perceptions of trustworthiness andsurprise together in Study 1 we did not directly compare the effects ofthese two types of expectancy violations on information processing andpersuasion This was because the effects of individual self-interest viola-tion on information processing and persuasion seemed clear from priorresearch Nevertheless it would be prudent to examine the effects of in-dividual- versus group interest confirmation versus disconfirmation oninformation processing in the same study In addition our hypothesisthat surprise and attributional ambiguity mediate the increased process-ing resulting from group interest violations should be directly tested byassessing the mediators in the same study as the outcome variables

The current research and framework suggest that it is important toconsider that expectancies in persuasion contexts can be developedupon multiple bases such as on prior knowledge of a personrsquos past be-haviors a personrsquos group membership or human behavior in generalAs shown in our experiments the basis of the expectancy can make animportant difference in the outcome of disconfirmation on source per-ception and on subsequent information processing and persuasion

REFERENCES

Ashmore R D amp Del Boca F K (1979) Sex stereotypes and implicit personality theoriesToward a cognitive-social psychological conceptualization Sex Roles 5 219-248

Baker S M amp Petty R E (1994) Majority and minority influence Source-position imbal-ance as a determinant of message scrutiny Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy 67 5-19

Brewer M B amp Silver M D (2000) Group distinctiveness social identification and col-lective mobilization In S Stryker T J Owens amp R W White (Eds) Self Identityand Social Movements (pp 153-171) Minneapolis MN University of MinnesotaPress

Cacioppo J T amp Petty R E (1982) The need for cognition Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 42 116-131

Cacioppo J T Petty R E amp Kao C (1984)The efficient assessment of need for cognitionJournal of Personality Assessment 48 306-307

Campbell D T (1958) Common fate similarity and other indices of the status of aggre-gates as social entities Behavioral Science 3 14-25

Chaiken S Liberman A amp Eagly A H (1989) Heuristic and systematic processingwithin and beyond the persuasion context In J S Uleman amp J A Bargh (Eds) Un-intended thought (pp 212-252) New York Guilford Press

Eagly A H amp Chaiken S (1975) An attribution analysis of the effect of communicatorcharacteristics on opinion change The case of communicator attractiveness Journalof Personality and Social Psychology 32 136-144

Eagly A H Chaiken S amp Wood W (1981)An attribution analysis of persuasion In J HHarvey W J Ickes amp R F Kidd (Eds) New directions in attribution research (Vol 3pp 37-62) Hillsdale NJ Erlbaum

Eagly A H Wood W amp Chaiken S (1978) Causal inferences about communicators and

440 PETTY ET AL

their effects on opinion change Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36424-435

Fiske S T amp Neuberg S L (1990) A continuum of impression formation from cate-gory-based to individuating processes Influences of information and motivationon attention and interpretation In M P Zanna (Ed) Advances in experimental socialpsychology (Vol 23 pp 1-74) San Diego Academic Press

Hamilton DL amp Sherman S J (1996) Perceiving persons and groups Psychological Re-view 103 336-355

Hamilton DL Sherman S J amp Lickel B (1998) Perceiving social groups The impact ofthe entitativity continuum In C Sedikides J Schopler amp C A Insko (Eds) Inter-group cognitions and intergroup behavior (pp 47-74) Mahwah NJ Erlbaum

Hastie R (1984) Causes and effects of causal attribution Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 37 25-38

Jones E E amp Davis K E (1965) From acts to dispositions The attribution process in per-son perception In L Berkowitz (Ed) Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol2 pp 219-266) New York Academic Press

Kramer R M Brewer M B amp HannaB (1996)Collective trust and collective action Thedecision to trust as a social decision In R Kramer amp T Tyler (Eds) Trust in organiza-tions (pp 357-389) Thousand Oakes CA Sage

Maheswaran D amp Chaiken S (1991) Promoting systematic processing in low-motiva-tion settings Effects of incongruent information on processing and judgment Jour-nal of Personality and Social Psychology 61 13-33

Olson J M Roese N J amp Zanna M P (1996) Expectancies In E T Higgins amp A WKruglanski (Eds) Social psychology Handbook of basic principles (pp 211-238) NewYork Guilford Press

Petty R E (1997) The evolution of theory and research in social psychology From singleto multiple effect and process models In C McGarty amp S A Haslam (Eds) The mes-sage of social psychologyPerspectives on mind in society (pp 268-290)Oxford EnglandBlackwell Publishers Ltd

Petty R E amp Cacioppo J T (1979)Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasionby enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 37 1915-1926

Petty R E amp Cacioppo J T (1986) Communication and persuasion Central and peripheralroutes to attitude change New York Springer-Verlag

Petty R E amp Cacioppo J T (1990) Involvement and persuasion Tradition versus inte-gration Psychological Bulletin 107 367-374

Petty R E Fleming M A amp White P H (1999) Stigmatized sources and persuasionPrejudice as a determinant of argument scrutiny Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology 76 19-34

Petty R E Wells G L amp Brock T C (1976)Distraction can enhance or reduce yielding topropaganda Thought disruption versus effort justification Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology 34 874-884

Platow M J HoarS Reid S Harley K amp Morrison D (1997)Endorsement of distribu-tively fair and unfair leaders in interpersonal and intergroup situations EuropeanJournal of Social Psychology 27 465-494

Platow M J OrsquoConnell A Shave R amp Hanning P (1995) Social evaluations of fair andunfair allocators in interpersonal and intergroup situations British Journal of SocialPsychology 34 363-381

Priester J R amp Petty R E (1995) Source attributions and persuasion Perceived honestyas a determinant of message scrutiny Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 21637-654

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 441

Pyszczynski T A amp Greenberg J (1981)Role of disconfirmed expectancies in the instiga-tion of attributional processing Journal of Personality and Social Psychology40 31-38

Smith S M amp Petty R E (1995) Personality moderators of mood congruency effects oncognition The role of self-esteem and negative mood regulation Journal of Personal-ity and Social Psychology 68 1092-1107

Snyder M L amp Wicklund R (1981)Attribute ambiguity In J H Harvey W Ickes amp R RKidd (Eds) New directions in attribution research (pp 197-221)New York Halsted

Srull T K amp Wyer R S Jr (1989)Person memory and judgment Psychological Review 9658-83

Stangor C amp McMillan D (1992)Memory for expectancy-congruent and expectancy-in-congruent social information A meta-analytic review of the social psychologicaland social developmental literatures Psychological Bulletin 111 42-61

Walster E Aronson E amp Abrahams D (1966)On increasing the persuasiveness of a lowprestige communicator Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 2 325-342

Wenzel M amp Mummendey A (1996) Positive-negative asymmetry of social discrimina-tion A normative analysis of differential evaluations of in-group and out-group onpositive and negative attributes British Journal of Social Psychology 35 493-507

White P H amp Harkens S G (1994) Race of source effects in the elaboration likelihoodmodel Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67 790-807

Wong P T P amp Weiner B (1981) When people ask ldquowhyrdquo questions and the heuristicsof attributional search Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 40 650-663

Wood W amp Eagly A H (1981) Stages in the analysis of persuasive messages The role ofcausal attributions and message comprehension Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 40 246-259

442 PETTY ET AL

Page 14: INDIVIDUAL VERSUS GROUP INTEREST VIOLATION: SURPRISE AS …

rather than confirms expectancies regardless of whether the position vi-olates either individual or group interest4

EXPERIMENT TWO

Experiment 2 was designed to investigate the implications of the find-ings of Experiment 1 regarding the effects of disconfirmation of groupinterest for message processing Specifically we tested the predictionthat disconfirmation of a source-position expectancy that does not aug-ment perceived source trustworthiness (ie violation of group interest)will lead to increased rather than reduced message scrutiny Past re-search has already shown that reduced message scrutiny results whenindividual self-interest expectancy disconfirmation leads to enhancedperceptions of source trustworthinessand message validity (Eagly et al1978 Priester amp Petty 1995 Wood amp Eagly 1981) Because a source whoviolates group interest is not seen as more trustworthy but is more sur-prising we anticipate that group interest expectancy disconfirmation

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 431

4 Before conducting Study 2 one potential concern with the operationalization ofgroup interest expectancies in Study 1 was evaluated Specifically our group interest con-firmation condition had scholarships for ldquominority studentsrdquo as its topic whereas thetopic in the disconfirmation condition was about ldquochildren of alumnirdquo The groups ldquomi-nority studentsrdquo and ldquochildren of alumnirdquo are not equivalent and might show different ef-fects for reasons unrelated to expectancy violation For example it might be moresurprising for any source to advocate scholarships for alumni than for minorities To re-move this potential confound and use both topics in the expectancy confirming anddisconfirming cases we conducted a study to replicate conceptually our group interestfindings with both groups Source demographics were varied such that the source was ei-ther Black and not a child of alumni or White and a child of alumni A second minorchange was made in the essay topic mdash rather than a scholarship programthe programwasdescribed as a ldquouniversity service programrdquo that would allow participants free tuition Themessage either advocated that this program should be for children of alumni or for minor-ity students (see Experiment 2 for details)

Forty-eight individuals participated in this 2 (Source Black student of non alumni par-ents White student of alumni parents)acute 2 (Expectancy confirmation disconfirmation) be-tween-participants design In this study expectancy confirmationdisconfirmation wasalways on a group interest basis Participants received the demographic information andintroductory essay paragraph and then completed measures of surprise and source trust-worthiness In this revised version our manipulation of expectancy confirma-tiondisconfirmation was effective in producing surprise as participants weresignificantly more surprised after disconfirmation (M = 067) than after confirmation (M =-204) F(144) = 3438 p lt 0001 Furthermore replicating the group interest conditions inStudy 1 no significant effects were found on the source trustworthiness index As ex-pected participants did not view the disconfirming source as any more trustworthy (M =142) than the confirming source (M = 138) Neither of these effects was qualified by thesource That is Black students favoring alumni and White alumni favoring minority stu-dents were both more surprising than favoring onersquos own group

will lead to enhanced information processing compared to group inter-est expectancy confirmation as has been found in other work on expec-tancies (eg Baker amp Petty 1994Maheswaran amp Chaiken 1991Smith ampPetty 1995) To assess the extent to which the persuasive message wasscrutinized participants were presented with messages containing ei-ther all strong or all weak arguments In general the attitudes of partici-pants who are thinking about the message carefully should be moreaffected by message quality (ie they should be more persuaded bystrong than weak arguments) compared to participants who are notthinking about the message carefully (see Petty Wells amp Brock 1976Petty amp Cacioppo 1986)

METHOD

PARTICIPANTS

Two hundred eighty-eight White students who were not children ofOSU alumni participated in this study in partial completion of introduc-tory psychology course requirements As in Experiment 1 minority par-ticipants and children of alumni were not included in the analyses

DESIGN

Participants were assigned to the cells of a 2 (Source Black non-alum-nus child White alumnus child) acute 2 (Group interest expectancy con-firmed disconfirmed) acute 2 (Argument quality strong weak)between-participants factorial design (see footnote 4) As in Experiment1 a measure of NC was taken

PROCEDURE

Experimental sessions were conducted with groups ranging in size fromtwo to eight Upon arrival participants were given experimental book-lets that contained the following information The first page of the book-let described the study as part of a ldquojournalism writing-evaluationprojectrdquo in which participants would be given a newspaper article writ-ten by a student from another Big Ten university They were also toldthat they would be given some demographic information about the au-thor of the article The participantsrsquo task was to form an impression of thewriter and to evaluate the writing in the article itself Participants werethen given a summary of the message topic mdash that a tuition break pro-gram should be instituted at the University of Iowa The baseline level ofmessage scrutiny for this personally irrelevant message was expected to

432 PETTY ET AL

be relatively low (see Petty amp Cacioppo 1979 1990) The remainingpages of the booklet contained (1) a demographic sheet about the writer(2) the article (containing the persuasive message) (3) the dependentvariables and manipulation checks (4) the NC scale and (5) the partici-pant demographic sheet After all participants in a group had completedthe booklets they were debriefed and excused

INDEPENDENT VARIABLES

Source On the second page of the booklet participants were given ademographic sheet about the writer This page contained informationabout the writerrsquos age sex university year in school major hometownhobby race and parentsrsquo educational background (in this order) Infor-mation about the source remained the same in all conditions except forrace and parentsrsquo educational background The manipulation of sourcewas accomplished by varying jointly the race and the parentsrsquo univer-sity which was either BlackUniversity of Minnesota (ie minorityparents were not alumni of Iowa) or WhiteUniversity of Iowa (ienon-minority parents were alumni of Iowa) This manipulation pro-vided an internal replication of group interest disconfirmation effects onpersuasion (see footnote 4 for a pretest of the effects of this manipulationon source perceptions and surprise)

Group Interest Expectancy ConfirmationDisconfirmation The expe c-tancy manipulation was accomplished by the combination of the mes-sage source and message topic Participants were provided with a briefsummary of the message topic before they read the full persuasive mes-sage to create the expectancy confirmation or disconfirmation in ad-vance of the persuasion attempt Participants were informed that thearticle they would be evaluating was about one of the following topicsldquoStudents who are children of alumni (ie their parents graduated fromthe same university that the student attends) should be allowed to par-ticipate in a two year university service program that would allow themto attend school without having to pay tuitionrdquo Or ldquoStudents who are ofracial minority status should be allowed to participate in a two year uni-versity service program that would allow them to attend school withouthaving to pay tuitionrdquo

Thus expectancy confirmation resulted when the source wrote in fa-vor of his own group participating in this program and expectancydisconfirmation resulted when the source wrote in favor of a group towhich he did not belong

Argument Quality On the next pages of the booklet participants re-ceived the persuasive message The message contained either the strong

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 433

or weak arguments from Baker and Petty (1994 Study 2) The argumentsin the message were pretested such that the strong arguments elicitedprimarily positive thoughts and the weak arguments elicited primarilynegative thoughts when pretest participants were instructed to thinkabout them (see Baker amp Petty 1994 Study 2)

The persuasive message supported implementing a program in whichcertain students (either minority students or children of alumni) wouldbe eligible for tuition breaks in exchange for participating in a universityservice program The message arguments focused on the benefits of theuniversity service program for the university and for the students in-volved in the program For example one strong argument stressed thatwith the money saved through students performing various universityservices ldquoa greater portion of the university budget can be invested inmonetary incentives for research and teachingrdquo and ldquofunding will beavailable to recruit additional outstanding professors researchers andNobel prize winnersrdquo However a parallel weak argument suggestedthat the additional monies available can be ldquospent on materials such aspaint for buildings new machinery for mowing and landscaping andplantings shrubbery flowers and treesrdquo in order to make the universityldquoa scenic and beautiful place to spend the college daysrdquo

Need for Cognition Scale Participants completed the need for cognitionscale (Cacioppo et al 1984)after responding to the other measures Highand low need for cognition participants were determined by a mediansplit on the scale with the median equaling 635 (scores ranged from 31 to85)

DEPENDENT VARIABLES

Argument Quality Manipulation Checks Immediately after participantsread the persuasive message they were asked to answer all questionswithout looking back at previous pages On the page immediately fol-lowing the essay participants were asked to rate ldquohow well was the arti-cle writtenrdquo and ldquohow persuasive were the argumentsrdquo on 9-pointscales ranging from 1 = ldquonot at allrdquo to 9 = ldquoextremelyrdquo These questionswere provided along with several filler questions (eg how clear wasthe writing style) designed to fit the cover story about evaluating the ar-ticle The first two questions served as manipulation checks for argu-ment quality

Attitude Measures On the next page participants read that ldquobecauseyour evaluations of the article might have been influenced by your atti-tude toward the article topic we would like to ask your opinions aboutthe topicrdquo Participants then completed two general attitude questionsand a five-item semantic differential scale The general questions were

434 PETTY ET AL

ldquoIn general what is your opinion about the university service pro-gramrdquo and ldquoHow would you feel about the implementation of the uni-versity service program here at Ohio State Universityrdquo These itemswere completed on 9-point scales ranging from 1 = ldquostrongly opposerdquo to9 = ldquostrongly favorrdquo On the five-item semantic differential scale partici-pants were asked ldquorate how you feel about the university service pro-gramrdquo Each semantic differential was completed on a 9-point scale Thescale anchors were unfavorablefavorable badgood foolishwiseharmfulbeneficial and unfairfair

Source Memory Manipulation Check and Participant Demographics Aftercompleting all other dependent measures participants completed thesource memory multiple choice questions and the participant demo-graphic sheet (as described in study 1)5

RESULTS

All dependent variables were submitted to a 2 (Group interest expec-tancy confirmation vs disconfirmation) acute 2 (Source Black non-alum-nus vs White alumnus ) acute 2 (Argument quality strong vs weak) acute 2(NC high vs low) between-participants analysis of variance

Argument Quality Manipulation Checks6 To determine if our manipu-lation of strong and weak arguments was effective participantsrsquo re-sponses to the two argument quality questions were averaged andsubmitted to the four-way ANOVA The expected main effect for argu-ment quality was obtained F(1271) = 1297 p lt 001 Messages contain-ing strong arguments were rated more positively (M = 589) than wereweak messages (M = 512)7

Attitude Measure The a coefficient for the attitude scales was 95 so thescales were averaged to form an overall index This index was subjected

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 435

5 On the source memory manipulation check one participant made an error on thewriterrsquos race and eleven participants erred on the alumni status of the writerrsquos parentsWhen these participants are removed from analyses results are the same as those re-ported

6 One participant did not complete this measure and thus was not included in the anal-ysis

7 A main effect of expectancy was also obtained F(1 271) = 680 p lt 01 suggesting thatparticipants in the disconfirmation conditions rated arguments more positively (M = 579)than did participants in the confirmation conditions (M = 523)In addition a need for cogni-tion acute expectancy interaction emerged F(1271)= 400 p lt 05 suggesting that whereas highNC individuals rated the quality of the arguments higher when the expectancy wasdisconfirmed (M = 590)than confirmed (M = 491)low NC individualsrsquo perceptions of argu-mentquality were notaffected by expectancy (Mdisconfirmed = 568Mconfirmed = 555)

to the four-way between-participants ANOVA First a main effect forargument quality was obtained F(1272) = 1104 p lt 01 indicating thatparticipants receiving strong arguments were more persuaded (M =549) than were those who received weak arguments (M = 474) Ofgreater interest the predicted expectancy acute argument quality interac-tion F(1272) = 579 p lt 02 qualified this main effect (see Figure 1)When expectancies were disconfirmed argument quality had a greaterimpact on attitudes than when expectancies were confirmed More spe-cifically under expectancy confirmation conditions argument qualityhad no impact on attitudes F(1139) = 42 ns However under expec-tancy disconfirmation conditions a simple main effect for argumentquality emerged F(1145) = 1854 p lt 0001

One additional effect that emerged consistent with past research(Priester amp Petty 1995 Smith amp Petty 1995) was a three-way interactionamong expectancy argument quality and need for cognition F(1272) =386 p lt 05 (see Table 2) Separate analyses for high and low need forcognition participants indicated that high NC participants (ie those in-dividuals who enjoy thinking) showed only a main effect for argumentquality F(1134) = 784 p lt 01 (the expectancy acute argument quality inter-action F lt 1 ns) suggesting that they engaged in effortful processing ofthe message regardless of whether expectancies were confirmed or

436 PETTY ET AL

FIGURE 1 Interaction on attitudes between group interest expectancy status and argu-ment quality

disconfirmed Low NC participants showed a main effect for argumentquality F(1146) = 419 p lt 05 along with an expectancy acute argumentquality interaction F(1146) = 1038 p lt 01 This interaction indicatedthat low NC participants did not differentiate between strong and weakarguments when their expectancies were confirmed but they did differ-entiate when their expectancies were disconfirmed8

GENERAL DISCUSSION

The present research expands our understanding of the consequences ofsources taking unexpected positions Based on prior research and the-ory one would have predicted that when a source takes an unexpectedposition greater attributions of trustworthiness and reduced informa-tion processing activity should result compared to when the sourcetakes an expected position The current studies suggest that this result is

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 437

TABLE 1 Mean Attitude Ratings as a Function of Group-Interest Expectancy Statusand Argument Quality (Experiment 2)

mdashmdashAttitudesmdashmdash

Argument Quality Confirmed Disconfirmed

Strong 504 (65) 594 (79)

SD = 187 SD = 170

Weak 483 (76) 465 (68)

SD = 197 SD = 209

Note Ns indicated in parentheses

8 A source acute expectancy interaction F(1272) = 528 p lt 03 was also obtained A maineffect for expectancy emerged in the Black non-alumnus source condition F(1136)= 840p lt 01 Thus participants had more positive attitudes toward the message when a minor-ity source wrote in favor of children of alumni receiving the tuition breaks (M = 562) thanwhen the minority source wrote in favor of breaks for minorities (M = 475) Attitudes inthe White alumnus source conditions did not differ between expectancy disconfirming (M= 496)and confirming conditions (M = 513)F lt 1 This unanticipated result could have oc-curred because Caucasian participants paid more attention to the position taken by theBlack than the White source resulting in their being more affected by those positions(Petty Fleming amp White 1999 White amp Harkens 1994) Future research could includeconditions where a Black source is an alumnus and a White source is a non-alumnus totease apart race from alumni effects Importantly our results indicated that participantsengaged in greater scrutiny of the arguments whichever source (black or white alumnusor non-alumnus) violated expectancies That is the significant two-way Expectancy acute Ar-gument quality interaction was not qualified by source nor was the significant three-wayExpectancy acute Argument quality acute Need for cognition interaction qualified by source

likely primarily when the position taken violates individual self-inter-est When the position is unexpected because it violates a grouprsquos inter-est the results are quite different That is in Experiment 1 we showedthat although both types of expectancy violation induce surprise onlythe violation of self-interest is associated with increased perceptions oftrustworthiness Violations of group interest do not engender the sameenhancements of trustworthiness Instead violations of group interestappear to produce some attributional ambiguity The surprise accompa-nied by unclear attributions as to the cause of a behavior would be ex-pected to lead to increased rather than decreased informationprocessing This is the effect we observed in Experiment 2

INTEGRATION INFORMATION PROCESSING CONSEQUENCESOF EXPECTANCY DISCONFIRMATION

The current framework seems potentially useful for reconciling seem-ingly inconsistent findings in the persuasion literature regarding the in-formation processing consequences of expectancy disconfirmation Tosummarize briefly if disconfirmation of expectancies leads to increasedperceptions of source trustworthiness or enhanced perceptions of mes-sage validity then message processing should decrease over confirma-tion conditions (Chaiken et al 1989 Petty amp Cacioppo 1986) On theother hand if disconfirmation of expectancies leads only to surprisecompared to confirmation conditions message processing should in-crease In past research disconfirmations of expectancies about messagequality (Maheswaran amp Chaiken 1991) message framing (Smith ampPetty 1995) and whether a majority or minority of others hold a pro- orcounterattitudinal position (Baker amp Petty 1994) did not violate self-in-terest and thus should not lead to perceptions of source trustworthinessor message validity In each case recipients are simply left surprised by

438 PETTY ET AL

TABLE 2 Mean Attitude Ratings as a Function of Group-Interest Expectancy StatusArgument Quality and Participantsrsquo Need for Cognition Level (Experiment 2)

mdashmdashAttitudesmdashmdash

High Need for Cognition Low Need for Cognition

Argument Quality Confirmed Disconfirmed Confirmed Disconfirmed

Strong 508 (33) 580 (37) 500 (32) 607 (42)

SD = 204 SD = 156 SD = 170 SD = 182

Weak 432 (37) 484 (31) 535 (39) 445 (37)

SD = 202 SD = 200 SD = 181 SD = 217

Note Ns indicated in parentheses

the disconfirmation of expectancies and they engage in greater informa-tion processing activity presumably to resolve the violation of expecta-tions and re-establish their understanding of the topic or source at hand(Olson et al 1996)

It is somewhat ironic that the earliest work on expectancies in persua-sion (Eagly amp Chaiken 1975Eagly et al 1978Walster et al 1966 Woodamp Eagly 1981) focused on the one type of expectation (ie source-posi-tion expectancy based on personal self-interest) that produced an appar-ent exception to the subsequently emergent general rule thatdisconfirmation of expectancies enhances processing The current re-search is the first to show that violations of expectancies about the posi-tion a source will take can lead to enhanced information processing Thiswas accomplished by shifting the expectation from one based on self-in-terest alone to group interest

In examining this framework it is important to keep the theoreticalvariables in mind that underlie our integration That is when a sourceviolates expectancies a number of inferences are possible An expec-tancy disconfirmation can enhance perceptions of source trustworthi-ness or message validity (and thus decrease message processing) and itcan also affect surprise (and thus increase message processing) butwhen surprise alone occurs enhanced information processing occursWhen both occur it appears that perceptions of message validity reducemessage processing despite the increased surprise

For self- and group interest expectancy violations to occur at least twofactors seem necessary a perception that some self- or group interest isinvolved and an expectation that individuals will act in accordancewiththat interest A perception of self- or group interest may not always bepresent For example an aggregate of individuals which is notentitative enough (they do not form a coherent whole) may not be per-ceived as having a common group interest in the first place (Campbell1958Hamilton amp Sherman 1996Hamilton Sherman amp Lickel 1998) Insuch cases there would be no group interest to violate Even when self-or group interest is perceived however violations of them may not al-ways cause expectancy disconfirmationsFor example in some culturesself-interest violation may be expected rather than unexpected and thussuch violations would not be expected to lead to increased perceptionsof trustworthinessbecause people are more likely to make dispositionalattributions for behaviors that are unexpected (Jones amp Davis 1965)Likewise for some groups or issues group interest violation may also beexpected such as when the group is clearly undeserving and in those in-stances violation of group interest would not be expected to lead to sur-prise

Future work could examine these possibilities as well as explore sev-eral remaining issues For example although we compared individual

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 439

versus group interest violations on perceptions of trustworthiness andsurprise together in Study 1 we did not directly compare the effects ofthese two types of expectancy violations on information processing andpersuasion This was because the effects of individual self-interest viola-tion on information processing and persuasion seemed clear from priorresearch Nevertheless it would be prudent to examine the effects of in-dividual- versus group interest confirmation versus disconfirmation oninformation processing in the same study In addition our hypothesisthat surprise and attributional ambiguity mediate the increased process-ing resulting from group interest violations should be directly tested byassessing the mediators in the same study as the outcome variables

The current research and framework suggest that it is important toconsider that expectancies in persuasion contexts can be developedupon multiple bases such as on prior knowledge of a personrsquos past be-haviors a personrsquos group membership or human behavior in generalAs shown in our experiments the basis of the expectancy can make animportant difference in the outcome of disconfirmation on source per-ception and on subsequent information processing and persuasion

REFERENCES

Ashmore R D amp Del Boca F K (1979) Sex stereotypes and implicit personality theoriesToward a cognitive-social psychological conceptualization Sex Roles 5 219-248

Baker S M amp Petty R E (1994) Majority and minority influence Source-position imbal-ance as a determinant of message scrutiny Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy 67 5-19

Brewer M B amp Silver M D (2000) Group distinctiveness social identification and col-lective mobilization In S Stryker T J Owens amp R W White (Eds) Self Identityand Social Movements (pp 153-171) Minneapolis MN University of MinnesotaPress

Cacioppo J T amp Petty R E (1982) The need for cognition Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 42 116-131

Cacioppo J T Petty R E amp Kao C (1984)The efficient assessment of need for cognitionJournal of Personality Assessment 48 306-307

Campbell D T (1958) Common fate similarity and other indices of the status of aggre-gates as social entities Behavioral Science 3 14-25

Chaiken S Liberman A amp Eagly A H (1989) Heuristic and systematic processingwithin and beyond the persuasion context In J S Uleman amp J A Bargh (Eds) Un-intended thought (pp 212-252) New York Guilford Press

Eagly A H amp Chaiken S (1975) An attribution analysis of the effect of communicatorcharacteristics on opinion change The case of communicator attractiveness Journalof Personality and Social Psychology 32 136-144

Eagly A H Chaiken S amp Wood W (1981)An attribution analysis of persuasion In J HHarvey W J Ickes amp R F Kidd (Eds) New directions in attribution research (Vol 3pp 37-62) Hillsdale NJ Erlbaum

Eagly A H Wood W amp Chaiken S (1978) Causal inferences about communicators and

440 PETTY ET AL

their effects on opinion change Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36424-435

Fiske S T amp Neuberg S L (1990) A continuum of impression formation from cate-gory-based to individuating processes Influences of information and motivationon attention and interpretation In M P Zanna (Ed) Advances in experimental socialpsychology (Vol 23 pp 1-74) San Diego Academic Press

Hamilton DL amp Sherman S J (1996) Perceiving persons and groups Psychological Re-view 103 336-355

Hamilton DL Sherman S J amp Lickel B (1998) Perceiving social groups The impact ofthe entitativity continuum In C Sedikides J Schopler amp C A Insko (Eds) Inter-group cognitions and intergroup behavior (pp 47-74) Mahwah NJ Erlbaum

Hastie R (1984) Causes and effects of causal attribution Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 37 25-38

Jones E E amp Davis K E (1965) From acts to dispositions The attribution process in per-son perception In L Berkowitz (Ed) Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol2 pp 219-266) New York Academic Press

Kramer R M Brewer M B amp HannaB (1996)Collective trust and collective action Thedecision to trust as a social decision In R Kramer amp T Tyler (Eds) Trust in organiza-tions (pp 357-389) Thousand Oakes CA Sage

Maheswaran D amp Chaiken S (1991) Promoting systematic processing in low-motiva-tion settings Effects of incongruent information on processing and judgment Jour-nal of Personality and Social Psychology 61 13-33

Olson J M Roese N J amp Zanna M P (1996) Expectancies In E T Higgins amp A WKruglanski (Eds) Social psychology Handbook of basic principles (pp 211-238) NewYork Guilford Press

Petty R E (1997) The evolution of theory and research in social psychology From singleto multiple effect and process models In C McGarty amp S A Haslam (Eds) The mes-sage of social psychologyPerspectives on mind in society (pp 268-290)Oxford EnglandBlackwell Publishers Ltd

Petty R E amp Cacioppo J T (1979)Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasionby enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 37 1915-1926

Petty R E amp Cacioppo J T (1986) Communication and persuasion Central and peripheralroutes to attitude change New York Springer-Verlag

Petty R E amp Cacioppo J T (1990) Involvement and persuasion Tradition versus inte-gration Psychological Bulletin 107 367-374

Petty R E Fleming M A amp White P H (1999) Stigmatized sources and persuasionPrejudice as a determinant of argument scrutiny Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology 76 19-34

Petty R E Wells G L amp Brock T C (1976)Distraction can enhance or reduce yielding topropaganda Thought disruption versus effort justification Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology 34 874-884

Platow M J HoarS Reid S Harley K amp Morrison D (1997)Endorsement of distribu-tively fair and unfair leaders in interpersonal and intergroup situations EuropeanJournal of Social Psychology 27 465-494

Platow M J OrsquoConnell A Shave R amp Hanning P (1995) Social evaluations of fair andunfair allocators in interpersonal and intergroup situations British Journal of SocialPsychology 34 363-381

Priester J R amp Petty R E (1995) Source attributions and persuasion Perceived honestyas a determinant of message scrutiny Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 21637-654

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 441

Pyszczynski T A amp Greenberg J (1981)Role of disconfirmed expectancies in the instiga-tion of attributional processing Journal of Personality and Social Psychology40 31-38

Smith S M amp Petty R E (1995) Personality moderators of mood congruency effects oncognition The role of self-esteem and negative mood regulation Journal of Personal-ity and Social Psychology 68 1092-1107

Snyder M L amp Wicklund R (1981)Attribute ambiguity In J H Harvey W Ickes amp R RKidd (Eds) New directions in attribution research (pp 197-221)New York Halsted

Srull T K amp Wyer R S Jr (1989)Person memory and judgment Psychological Review 9658-83

Stangor C amp McMillan D (1992)Memory for expectancy-congruent and expectancy-in-congruent social information A meta-analytic review of the social psychologicaland social developmental literatures Psychological Bulletin 111 42-61

Walster E Aronson E amp Abrahams D (1966)On increasing the persuasiveness of a lowprestige communicator Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 2 325-342

Wenzel M amp Mummendey A (1996) Positive-negative asymmetry of social discrimina-tion A normative analysis of differential evaluations of in-group and out-group onpositive and negative attributes British Journal of Social Psychology 35 493-507

White P H amp Harkens S G (1994) Race of source effects in the elaboration likelihoodmodel Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67 790-807

Wong P T P amp Weiner B (1981) When people ask ldquowhyrdquo questions and the heuristicsof attributional search Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 40 650-663

Wood W amp Eagly A H (1981) Stages in the analysis of persuasive messages The role ofcausal attributions and message comprehension Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 40 246-259

442 PETTY ET AL

Page 15: INDIVIDUAL VERSUS GROUP INTEREST VIOLATION: SURPRISE AS …

will lead to enhanced information processing compared to group inter-est expectancy confirmation as has been found in other work on expec-tancies (eg Baker amp Petty 1994Maheswaran amp Chaiken 1991Smith ampPetty 1995) To assess the extent to which the persuasive message wasscrutinized participants were presented with messages containing ei-ther all strong or all weak arguments In general the attitudes of partici-pants who are thinking about the message carefully should be moreaffected by message quality (ie they should be more persuaded bystrong than weak arguments) compared to participants who are notthinking about the message carefully (see Petty Wells amp Brock 1976Petty amp Cacioppo 1986)

METHOD

PARTICIPANTS

Two hundred eighty-eight White students who were not children ofOSU alumni participated in this study in partial completion of introduc-tory psychology course requirements As in Experiment 1 minority par-ticipants and children of alumni were not included in the analyses

DESIGN

Participants were assigned to the cells of a 2 (Source Black non-alum-nus child White alumnus child) acute 2 (Group interest expectancy con-firmed disconfirmed) acute 2 (Argument quality strong weak)between-participants factorial design (see footnote 4) As in Experiment1 a measure of NC was taken

PROCEDURE

Experimental sessions were conducted with groups ranging in size fromtwo to eight Upon arrival participants were given experimental book-lets that contained the following information The first page of the book-let described the study as part of a ldquojournalism writing-evaluationprojectrdquo in which participants would be given a newspaper article writ-ten by a student from another Big Ten university They were also toldthat they would be given some demographic information about the au-thor of the article The participantsrsquo task was to form an impression of thewriter and to evaluate the writing in the article itself Participants werethen given a summary of the message topic mdash that a tuition break pro-gram should be instituted at the University of Iowa The baseline level ofmessage scrutiny for this personally irrelevant message was expected to

432 PETTY ET AL

be relatively low (see Petty amp Cacioppo 1979 1990) The remainingpages of the booklet contained (1) a demographic sheet about the writer(2) the article (containing the persuasive message) (3) the dependentvariables and manipulation checks (4) the NC scale and (5) the partici-pant demographic sheet After all participants in a group had completedthe booklets they were debriefed and excused

INDEPENDENT VARIABLES

Source On the second page of the booklet participants were given ademographic sheet about the writer This page contained informationabout the writerrsquos age sex university year in school major hometownhobby race and parentsrsquo educational background (in this order) Infor-mation about the source remained the same in all conditions except forrace and parentsrsquo educational background The manipulation of sourcewas accomplished by varying jointly the race and the parentsrsquo univer-sity which was either BlackUniversity of Minnesota (ie minorityparents were not alumni of Iowa) or WhiteUniversity of Iowa (ienon-minority parents were alumni of Iowa) This manipulation pro-vided an internal replication of group interest disconfirmation effects onpersuasion (see footnote 4 for a pretest of the effects of this manipulationon source perceptions and surprise)

Group Interest Expectancy ConfirmationDisconfirmation The expe c-tancy manipulation was accomplished by the combination of the mes-sage source and message topic Participants were provided with a briefsummary of the message topic before they read the full persuasive mes-sage to create the expectancy confirmation or disconfirmation in ad-vance of the persuasion attempt Participants were informed that thearticle they would be evaluating was about one of the following topicsldquoStudents who are children of alumni (ie their parents graduated fromthe same university that the student attends) should be allowed to par-ticipate in a two year university service program that would allow themto attend school without having to pay tuitionrdquo Or ldquoStudents who are ofracial minority status should be allowed to participate in a two year uni-versity service program that would allow them to attend school withouthaving to pay tuitionrdquo

Thus expectancy confirmation resulted when the source wrote in fa-vor of his own group participating in this program and expectancydisconfirmation resulted when the source wrote in favor of a group towhich he did not belong

Argument Quality On the next pages of the booklet participants re-ceived the persuasive message The message contained either the strong

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 433

or weak arguments from Baker and Petty (1994 Study 2) The argumentsin the message were pretested such that the strong arguments elicitedprimarily positive thoughts and the weak arguments elicited primarilynegative thoughts when pretest participants were instructed to thinkabout them (see Baker amp Petty 1994 Study 2)

The persuasive message supported implementing a program in whichcertain students (either minority students or children of alumni) wouldbe eligible for tuition breaks in exchange for participating in a universityservice program The message arguments focused on the benefits of theuniversity service program for the university and for the students in-volved in the program For example one strong argument stressed thatwith the money saved through students performing various universityservices ldquoa greater portion of the university budget can be invested inmonetary incentives for research and teachingrdquo and ldquofunding will beavailable to recruit additional outstanding professors researchers andNobel prize winnersrdquo However a parallel weak argument suggestedthat the additional monies available can be ldquospent on materials such aspaint for buildings new machinery for mowing and landscaping andplantings shrubbery flowers and treesrdquo in order to make the universityldquoa scenic and beautiful place to spend the college daysrdquo

Need for Cognition Scale Participants completed the need for cognitionscale (Cacioppo et al 1984)after responding to the other measures Highand low need for cognition participants were determined by a mediansplit on the scale with the median equaling 635 (scores ranged from 31 to85)

DEPENDENT VARIABLES

Argument Quality Manipulation Checks Immediately after participantsread the persuasive message they were asked to answer all questionswithout looking back at previous pages On the page immediately fol-lowing the essay participants were asked to rate ldquohow well was the arti-cle writtenrdquo and ldquohow persuasive were the argumentsrdquo on 9-pointscales ranging from 1 = ldquonot at allrdquo to 9 = ldquoextremelyrdquo These questionswere provided along with several filler questions (eg how clear wasthe writing style) designed to fit the cover story about evaluating the ar-ticle The first two questions served as manipulation checks for argu-ment quality

Attitude Measures On the next page participants read that ldquobecauseyour evaluations of the article might have been influenced by your atti-tude toward the article topic we would like to ask your opinions aboutthe topicrdquo Participants then completed two general attitude questionsand a five-item semantic differential scale The general questions were

434 PETTY ET AL

ldquoIn general what is your opinion about the university service pro-gramrdquo and ldquoHow would you feel about the implementation of the uni-versity service program here at Ohio State Universityrdquo These itemswere completed on 9-point scales ranging from 1 = ldquostrongly opposerdquo to9 = ldquostrongly favorrdquo On the five-item semantic differential scale partici-pants were asked ldquorate how you feel about the university service pro-gramrdquo Each semantic differential was completed on a 9-point scale Thescale anchors were unfavorablefavorable badgood foolishwiseharmfulbeneficial and unfairfair

Source Memory Manipulation Check and Participant Demographics Aftercompleting all other dependent measures participants completed thesource memory multiple choice questions and the participant demo-graphic sheet (as described in study 1)5

RESULTS

All dependent variables were submitted to a 2 (Group interest expec-tancy confirmation vs disconfirmation) acute 2 (Source Black non-alum-nus vs White alumnus ) acute 2 (Argument quality strong vs weak) acute 2(NC high vs low) between-participants analysis of variance

Argument Quality Manipulation Checks6 To determine if our manipu-lation of strong and weak arguments was effective participantsrsquo re-sponses to the two argument quality questions were averaged andsubmitted to the four-way ANOVA The expected main effect for argu-ment quality was obtained F(1271) = 1297 p lt 001 Messages contain-ing strong arguments were rated more positively (M = 589) than wereweak messages (M = 512)7

Attitude Measure The a coefficient for the attitude scales was 95 so thescales were averaged to form an overall index This index was subjected

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 435

5 On the source memory manipulation check one participant made an error on thewriterrsquos race and eleven participants erred on the alumni status of the writerrsquos parentsWhen these participants are removed from analyses results are the same as those re-ported

6 One participant did not complete this measure and thus was not included in the anal-ysis

7 A main effect of expectancy was also obtained F(1 271) = 680 p lt 01 suggesting thatparticipants in the disconfirmation conditions rated arguments more positively (M = 579)than did participants in the confirmation conditions (M = 523)In addition a need for cogni-tion acute expectancy interaction emerged F(1271)= 400 p lt 05 suggesting that whereas highNC individuals rated the quality of the arguments higher when the expectancy wasdisconfirmed (M = 590)than confirmed (M = 491)low NC individualsrsquo perceptions of argu-mentquality were notaffected by expectancy (Mdisconfirmed = 568Mconfirmed = 555)

to the four-way between-participants ANOVA First a main effect forargument quality was obtained F(1272) = 1104 p lt 01 indicating thatparticipants receiving strong arguments were more persuaded (M =549) than were those who received weak arguments (M = 474) Ofgreater interest the predicted expectancy acute argument quality interac-tion F(1272) = 579 p lt 02 qualified this main effect (see Figure 1)When expectancies were disconfirmed argument quality had a greaterimpact on attitudes than when expectancies were confirmed More spe-cifically under expectancy confirmation conditions argument qualityhad no impact on attitudes F(1139) = 42 ns However under expec-tancy disconfirmation conditions a simple main effect for argumentquality emerged F(1145) = 1854 p lt 0001

One additional effect that emerged consistent with past research(Priester amp Petty 1995 Smith amp Petty 1995) was a three-way interactionamong expectancy argument quality and need for cognition F(1272) =386 p lt 05 (see Table 2) Separate analyses for high and low need forcognition participants indicated that high NC participants (ie those in-dividuals who enjoy thinking) showed only a main effect for argumentquality F(1134) = 784 p lt 01 (the expectancy acute argument quality inter-action F lt 1 ns) suggesting that they engaged in effortful processing ofthe message regardless of whether expectancies were confirmed or

436 PETTY ET AL

FIGURE 1 Interaction on attitudes between group interest expectancy status and argu-ment quality

disconfirmed Low NC participants showed a main effect for argumentquality F(1146) = 419 p lt 05 along with an expectancy acute argumentquality interaction F(1146) = 1038 p lt 01 This interaction indicatedthat low NC participants did not differentiate between strong and weakarguments when their expectancies were confirmed but they did differ-entiate when their expectancies were disconfirmed8

GENERAL DISCUSSION

The present research expands our understanding of the consequences ofsources taking unexpected positions Based on prior research and the-ory one would have predicted that when a source takes an unexpectedposition greater attributions of trustworthiness and reduced informa-tion processing activity should result compared to when the sourcetakes an expected position The current studies suggest that this result is

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 437

TABLE 1 Mean Attitude Ratings as a Function of Group-Interest Expectancy Statusand Argument Quality (Experiment 2)

mdashmdashAttitudesmdashmdash

Argument Quality Confirmed Disconfirmed

Strong 504 (65) 594 (79)

SD = 187 SD = 170

Weak 483 (76) 465 (68)

SD = 197 SD = 209

Note Ns indicated in parentheses

8 A source acute expectancy interaction F(1272) = 528 p lt 03 was also obtained A maineffect for expectancy emerged in the Black non-alumnus source condition F(1136)= 840p lt 01 Thus participants had more positive attitudes toward the message when a minor-ity source wrote in favor of children of alumni receiving the tuition breaks (M = 562) thanwhen the minority source wrote in favor of breaks for minorities (M = 475) Attitudes inthe White alumnus source conditions did not differ between expectancy disconfirming (M= 496)and confirming conditions (M = 513)F lt 1 This unanticipated result could have oc-curred because Caucasian participants paid more attention to the position taken by theBlack than the White source resulting in their being more affected by those positions(Petty Fleming amp White 1999 White amp Harkens 1994) Future research could includeconditions where a Black source is an alumnus and a White source is a non-alumnus totease apart race from alumni effects Importantly our results indicated that participantsengaged in greater scrutiny of the arguments whichever source (black or white alumnusor non-alumnus) violated expectancies That is the significant two-way Expectancy acute Ar-gument quality interaction was not qualified by source nor was the significant three-wayExpectancy acute Argument quality acute Need for cognition interaction qualified by source

likely primarily when the position taken violates individual self-inter-est When the position is unexpected because it violates a grouprsquos inter-est the results are quite different That is in Experiment 1 we showedthat although both types of expectancy violation induce surprise onlythe violation of self-interest is associated with increased perceptions oftrustworthiness Violations of group interest do not engender the sameenhancements of trustworthiness Instead violations of group interestappear to produce some attributional ambiguity The surprise accompa-nied by unclear attributions as to the cause of a behavior would be ex-pected to lead to increased rather than decreased informationprocessing This is the effect we observed in Experiment 2

INTEGRATION INFORMATION PROCESSING CONSEQUENCESOF EXPECTANCY DISCONFIRMATION

The current framework seems potentially useful for reconciling seem-ingly inconsistent findings in the persuasion literature regarding the in-formation processing consequences of expectancy disconfirmation Tosummarize briefly if disconfirmation of expectancies leads to increasedperceptions of source trustworthiness or enhanced perceptions of mes-sage validity then message processing should decrease over confirma-tion conditions (Chaiken et al 1989 Petty amp Cacioppo 1986) On theother hand if disconfirmation of expectancies leads only to surprisecompared to confirmation conditions message processing should in-crease In past research disconfirmations of expectancies about messagequality (Maheswaran amp Chaiken 1991) message framing (Smith ampPetty 1995) and whether a majority or minority of others hold a pro- orcounterattitudinal position (Baker amp Petty 1994) did not violate self-in-terest and thus should not lead to perceptions of source trustworthinessor message validity In each case recipients are simply left surprised by

438 PETTY ET AL

TABLE 2 Mean Attitude Ratings as a Function of Group-Interest Expectancy StatusArgument Quality and Participantsrsquo Need for Cognition Level (Experiment 2)

mdashmdashAttitudesmdashmdash

High Need for Cognition Low Need for Cognition

Argument Quality Confirmed Disconfirmed Confirmed Disconfirmed

Strong 508 (33) 580 (37) 500 (32) 607 (42)

SD = 204 SD = 156 SD = 170 SD = 182

Weak 432 (37) 484 (31) 535 (39) 445 (37)

SD = 202 SD = 200 SD = 181 SD = 217

Note Ns indicated in parentheses

the disconfirmation of expectancies and they engage in greater informa-tion processing activity presumably to resolve the violation of expecta-tions and re-establish their understanding of the topic or source at hand(Olson et al 1996)

It is somewhat ironic that the earliest work on expectancies in persua-sion (Eagly amp Chaiken 1975Eagly et al 1978Walster et al 1966 Woodamp Eagly 1981) focused on the one type of expectation (ie source-posi-tion expectancy based on personal self-interest) that produced an appar-ent exception to the subsequently emergent general rule thatdisconfirmation of expectancies enhances processing The current re-search is the first to show that violations of expectancies about the posi-tion a source will take can lead to enhanced information processing Thiswas accomplished by shifting the expectation from one based on self-in-terest alone to group interest

In examining this framework it is important to keep the theoreticalvariables in mind that underlie our integration That is when a sourceviolates expectancies a number of inferences are possible An expec-tancy disconfirmation can enhance perceptions of source trustworthi-ness or message validity (and thus decrease message processing) and itcan also affect surprise (and thus increase message processing) butwhen surprise alone occurs enhanced information processing occursWhen both occur it appears that perceptions of message validity reducemessage processing despite the increased surprise

For self- and group interest expectancy violations to occur at least twofactors seem necessary a perception that some self- or group interest isinvolved and an expectation that individuals will act in accordancewiththat interest A perception of self- or group interest may not always bepresent For example an aggregate of individuals which is notentitative enough (they do not form a coherent whole) may not be per-ceived as having a common group interest in the first place (Campbell1958Hamilton amp Sherman 1996Hamilton Sherman amp Lickel 1998) Insuch cases there would be no group interest to violate Even when self-or group interest is perceived however violations of them may not al-ways cause expectancy disconfirmationsFor example in some culturesself-interest violation may be expected rather than unexpected and thussuch violations would not be expected to lead to increased perceptionsof trustworthinessbecause people are more likely to make dispositionalattributions for behaviors that are unexpected (Jones amp Davis 1965)Likewise for some groups or issues group interest violation may also beexpected such as when the group is clearly undeserving and in those in-stances violation of group interest would not be expected to lead to sur-prise

Future work could examine these possibilities as well as explore sev-eral remaining issues For example although we compared individual

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 439

versus group interest violations on perceptions of trustworthiness andsurprise together in Study 1 we did not directly compare the effects ofthese two types of expectancy violations on information processing andpersuasion This was because the effects of individual self-interest viola-tion on information processing and persuasion seemed clear from priorresearch Nevertheless it would be prudent to examine the effects of in-dividual- versus group interest confirmation versus disconfirmation oninformation processing in the same study In addition our hypothesisthat surprise and attributional ambiguity mediate the increased process-ing resulting from group interest violations should be directly tested byassessing the mediators in the same study as the outcome variables

The current research and framework suggest that it is important toconsider that expectancies in persuasion contexts can be developedupon multiple bases such as on prior knowledge of a personrsquos past be-haviors a personrsquos group membership or human behavior in generalAs shown in our experiments the basis of the expectancy can make animportant difference in the outcome of disconfirmation on source per-ception and on subsequent information processing and persuasion

REFERENCES

Ashmore R D amp Del Boca F K (1979) Sex stereotypes and implicit personality theoriesToward a cognitive-social psychological conceptualization Sex Roles 5 219-248

Baker S M amp Petty R E (1994) Majority and minority influence Source-position imbal-ance as a determinant of message scrutiny Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy 67 5-19

Brewer M B amp Silver M D (2000) Group distinctiveness social identification and col-lective mobilization In S Stryker T J Owens amp R W White (Eds) Self Identityand Social Movements (pp 153-171) Minneapolis MN University of MinnesotaPress

Cacioppo J T amp Petty R E (1982) The need for cognition Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 42 116-131

Cacioppo J T Petty R E amp Kao C (1984)The efficient assessment of need for cognitionJournal of Personality Assessment 48 306-307

Campbell D T (1958) Common fate similarity and other indices of the status of aggre-gates as social entities Behavioral Science 3 14-25

Chaiken S Liberman A amp Eagly A H (1989) Heuristic and systematic processingwithin and beyond the persuasion context In J S Uleman amp J A Bargh (Eds) Un-intended thought (pp 212-252) New York Guilford Press

Eagly A H amp Chaiken S (1975) An attribution analysis of the effect of communicatorcharacteristics on opinion change The case of communicator attractiveness Journalof Personality and Social Psychology 32 136-144

Eagly A H Chaiken S amp Wood W (1981)An attribution analysis of persuasion In J HHarvey W J Ickes amp R F Kidd (Eds) New directions in attribution research (Vol 3pp 37-62) Hillsdale NJ Erlbaum

Eagly A H Wood W amp Chaiken S (1978) Causal inferences about communicators and

440 PETTY ET AL

their effects on opinion change Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36424-435

Fiske S T amp Neuberg S L (1990) A continuum of impression formation from cate-gory-based to individuating processes Influences of information and motivationon attention and interpretation In M P Zanna (Ed) Advances in experimental socialpsychology (Vol 23 pp 1-74) San Diego Academic Press

Hamilton DL amp Sherman S J (1996) Perceiving persons and groups Psychological Re-view 103 336-355

Hamilton DL Sherman S J amp Lickel B (1998) Perceiving social groups The impact ofthe entitativity continuum In C Sedikides J Schopler amp C A Insko (Eds) Inter-group cognitions and intergroup behavior (pp 47-74) Mahwah NJ Erlbaum

Hastie R (1984) Causes and effects of causal attribution Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 37 25-38

Jones E E amp Davis K E (1965) From acts to dispositions The attribution process in per-son perception In L Berkowitz (Ed) Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol2 pp 219-266) New York Academic Press

Kramer R M Brewer M B amp HannaB (1996)Collective trust and collective action Thedecision to trust as a social decision In R Kramer amp T Tyler (Eds) Trust in organiza-tions (pp 357-389) Thousand Oakes CA Sage

Maheswaran D amp Chaiken S (1991) Promoting systematic processing in low-motiva-tion settings Effects of incongruent information on processing and judgment Jour-nal of Personality and Social Psychology 61 13-33

Olson J M Roese N J amp Zanna M P (1996) Expectancies In E T Higgins amp A WKruglanski (Eds) Social psychology Handbook of basic principles (pp 211-238) NewYork Guilford Press

Petty R E (1997) The evolution of theory and research in social psychology From singleto multiple effect and process models In C McGarty amp S A Haslam (Eds) The mes-sage of social psychologyPerspectives on mind in society (pp 268-290)Oxford EnglandBlackwell Publishers Ltd

Petty R E amp Cacioppo J T (1979)Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasionby enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 37 1915-1926

Petty R E amp Cacioppo J T (1986) Communication and persuasion Central and peripheralroutes to attitude change New York Springer-Verlag

Petty R E amp Cacioppo J T (1990) Involvement and persuasion Tradition versus inte-gration Psychological Bulletin 107 367-374

Petty R E Fleming M A amp White P H (1999) Stigmatized sources and persuasionPrejudice as a determinant of argument scrutiny Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology 76 19-34

Petty R E Wells G L amp Brock T C (1976)Distraction can enhance or reduce yielding topropaganda Thought disruption versus effort justification Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology 34 874-884

Platow M J HoarS Reid S Harley K amp Morrison D (1997)Endorsement of distribu-tively fair and unfair leaders in interpersonal and intergroup situations EuropeanJournal of Social Psychology 27 465-494

Platow M J OrsquoConnell A Shave R amp Hanning P (1995) Social evaluations of fair andunfair allocators in interpersonal and intergroup situations British Journal of SocialPsychology 34 363-381

Priester J R amp Petty R E (1995) Source attributions and persuasion Perceived honestyas a determinant of message scrutiny Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 21637-654

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 441

Pyszczynski T A amp Greenberg J (1981)Role of disconfirmed expectancies in the instiga-tion of attributional processing Journal of Personality and Social Psychology40 31-38

Smith S M amp Petty R E (1995) Personality moderators of mood congruency effects oncognition The role of self-esteem and negative mood regulation Journal of Personal-ity and Social Psychology 68 1092-1107

Snyder M L amp Wicklund R (1981)Attribute ambiguity In J H Harvey W Ickes amp R RKidd (Eds) New directions in attribution research (pp 197-221)New York Halsted

Srull T K amp Wyer R S Jr (1989)Person memory and judgment Psychological Review 9658-83

Stangor C amp McMillan D (1992)Memory for expectancy-congruent and expectancy-in-congruent social information A meta-analytic review of the social psychologicaland social developmental literatures Psychological Bulletin 111 42-61

Walster E Aronson E amp Abrahams D (1966)On increasing the persuasiveness of a lowprestige communicator Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 2 325-342

Wenzel M amp Mummendey A (1996) Positive-negative asymmetry of social discrimina-tion A normative analysis of differential evaluations of in-group and out-group onpositive and negative attributes British Journal of Social Psychology 35 493-507

White P H amp Harkens S G (1994) Race of source effects in the elaboration likelihoodmodel Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67 790-807

Wong P T P amp Weiner B (1981) When people ask ldquowhyrdquo questions and the heuristicsof attributional search Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 40 650-663

Wood W amp Eagly A H (1981) Stages in the analysis of persuasive messages The role ofcausal attributions and message comprehension Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 40 246-259

442 PETTY ET AL

Page 16: INDIVIDUAL VERSUS GROUP INTEREST VIOLATION: SURPRISE AS …

be relatively low (see Petty amp Cacioppo 1979 1990) The remainingpages of the booklet contained (1) a demographic sheet about the writer(2) the article (containing the persuasive message) (3) the dependentvariables and manipulation checks (4) the NC scale and (5) the partici-pant demographic sheet After all participants in a group had completedthe booklets they were debriefed and excused

INDEPENDENT VARIABLES

Source On the second page of the booklet participants were given ademographic sheet about the writer This page contained informationabout the writerrsquos age sex university year in school major hometownhobby race and parentsrsquo educational background (in this order) Infor-mation about the source remained the same in all conditions except forrace and parentsrsquo educational background The manipulation of sourcewas accomplished by varying jointly the race and the parentsrsquo univer-sity which was either BlackUniversity of Minnesota (ie minorityparents were not alumni of Iowa) or WhiteUniversity of Iowa (ienon-minority parents were alumni of Iowa) This manipulation pro-vided an internal replication of group interest disconfirmation effects onpersuasion (see footnote 4 for a pretest of the effects of this manipulationon source perceptions and surprise)

Group Interest Expectancy ConfirmationDisconfirmation The expe c-tancy manipulation was accomplished by the combination of the mes-sage source and message topic Participants were provided with a briefsummary of the message topic before they read the full persuasive mes-sage to create the expectancy confirmation or disconfirmation in ad-vance of the persuasion attempt Participants were informed that thearticle they would be evaluating was about one of the following topicsldquoStudents who are children of alumni (ie their parents graduated fromthe same university that the student attends) should be allowed to par-ticipate in a two year university service program that would allow themto attend school without having to pay tuitionrdquo Or ldquoStudents who are ofracial minority status should be allowed to participate in a two year uni-versity service program that would allow them to attend school withouthaving to pay tuitionrdquo

Thus expectancy confirmation resulted when the source wrote in fa-vor of his own group participating in this program and expectancydisconfirmation resulted when the source wrote in favor of a group towhich he did not belong

Argument Quality On the next pages of the booklet participants re-ceived the persuasive message The message contained either the strong

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 433

or weak arguments from Baker and Petty (1994 Study 2) The argumentsin the message were pretested such that the strong arguments elicitedprimarily positive thoughts and the weak arguments elicited primarilynegative thoughts when pretest participants were instructed to thinkabout them (see Baker amp Petty 1994 Study 2)

The persuasive message supported implementing a program in whichcertain students (either minority students or children of alumni) wouldbe eligible for tuition breaks in exchange for participating in a universityservice program The message arguments focused on the benefits of theuniversity service program for the university and for the students in-volved in the program For example one strong argument stressed thatwith the money saved through students performing various universityservices ldquoa greater portion of the university budget can be invested inmonetary incentives for research and teachingrdquo and ldquofunding will beavailable to recruit additional outstanding professors researchers andNobel prize winnersrdquo However a parallel weak argument suggestedthat the additional monies available can be ldquospent on materials such aspaint for buildings new machinery for mowing and landscaping andplantings shrubbery flowers and treesrdquo in order to make the universityldquoa scenic and beautiful place to spend the college daysrdquo

Need for Cognition Scale Participants completed the need for cognitionscale (Cacioppo et al 1984)after responding to the other measures Highand low need for cognition participants were determined by a mediansplit on the scale with the median equaling 635 (scores ranged from 31 to85)

DEPENDENT VARIABLES

Argument Quality Manipulation Checks Immediately after participantsread the persuasive message they were asked to answer all questionswithout looking back at previous pages On the page immediately fol-lowing the essay participants were asked to rate ldquohow well was the arti-cle writtenrdquo and ldquohow persuasive were the argumentsrdquo on 9-pointscales ranging from 1 = ldquonot at allrdquo to 9 = ldquoextremelyrdquo These questionswere provided along with several filler questions (eg how clear wasthe writing style) designed to fit the cover story about evaluating the ar-ticle The first two questions served as manipulation checks for argu-ment quality

Attitude Measures On the next page participants read that ldquobecauseyour evaluations of the article might have been influenced by your atti-tude toward the article topic we would like to ask your opinions aboutthe topicrdquo Participants then completed two general attitude questionsand a five-item semantic differential scale The general questions were

434 PETTY ET AL

ldquoIn general what is your opinion about the university service pro-gramrdquo and ldquoHow would you feel about the implementation of the uni-versity service program here at Ohio State Universityrdquo These itemswere completed on 9-point scales ranging from 1 = ldquostrongly opposerdquo to9 = ldquostrongly favorrdquo On the five-item semantic differential scale partici-pants were asked ldquorate how you feel about the university service pro-gramrdquo Each semantic differential was completed on a 9-point scale Thescale anchors were unfavorablefavorable badgood foolishwiseharmfulbeneficial and unfairfair

Source Memory Manipulation Check and Participant Demographics Aftercompleting all other dependent measures participants completed thesource memory multiple choice questions and the participant demo-graphic sheet (as described in study 1)5

RESULTS

All dependent variables were submitted to a 2 (Group interest expec-tancy confirmation vs disconfirmation) acute 2 (Source Black non-alum-nus vs White alumnus ) acute 2 (Argument quality strong vs weak) acute 2(NC high vs low) between-participants analysis of variance

Argument Quality Manipulation Checks6 To determine if our manipu-lation of strong and weak arguments was effective participantsrsquo re-sponses to the two argument quality questions were averaged andsubmitted to the four-way ANOVA The expected main effect for argu-ment quality was obtained F(1271) = 1297 p lt 001 Messages contain-ing strong arguments were rated more positively (M = 589) than wereweak messages (M = 512)7

Attitude Measure The a coefficient for the attitude scales was 95 so thescales were averaged to form an overall index This index was subjected

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 435

5 On the source memory manipulation check one participant made an error on thewriterrsquos race and eleven participants erred on the alumni status of the writerrsquos parentsWhen these participants are removed from analyses results are the same as those re-ported

6 One participant did not complete this measure and thus was not included in the anal-ysis

7 A main effect of expectancy was also obtained F(1 271) = 680 p lt 01 suggesting thatparticipants in the disconfirmation conditions rated arguments more positively (M = 579)than did participants in the confirmation conditions (M = 523)In addition a need for cogni-tion acute expectancy interaction emerged F(1271)= 400 p lt 05 suggesting that whereas highNC individuals rated the quality of the arguments higher when the expectancy wasdisconfirmed (M = 590)than confirmed (M = 491)low NC individualsrsquo perceptions of argu-mentquality were notaffected by expectancy (Mdisconfirmed = 568Mconfirmed = 555)

to the four-way between-participants ANOVA First a main effect forargument quality was obtained F(1272) = 1104 p lt 01 indicating thatparticipants receiving strong arguments were more persuaded (M =549) than were those who received weak arguments (M = 474) Ofgreater interest the predicted expectancy acute argument quality interac-tion F(1272) = 579 p lt 02 qualified this main effect (see Figure 1)When expectancies were disconfirmed argument quality had a greaterimpact on attitudes than when expectancies were confirmed More spe-cifically under expectancy confirmation conditions argument qualityhad no impact on attitudes F(1139) = 42 ns However under expec-tancy disconfirmation conditions a simple main effect for argumentquality emerged F(1145) = 1854 p lt 0001

One additional effect that emerged consistent with past research(Priester amp Petty 1995 Smith amp Petty 1995) was a three-way interactionamong expectancy argument quality and need for cognition F(1272) =386 p lt 05 (see Table 2) Separate analyses for high and low need forcognition participants indicated that high NC participants (ie those in-dividuals who enjoy thinking) showed only a main effect for argumentquality F(1134) = 784 p lt 01 (the expectancy acute argument quality inter-action F lt 1 ns) suggesting that they engaged in effortful processing ofthe message regardless of whether expectancies were confirmed or

436 PETTY ET AL

FIGURE 1 Interaction on attitudes between group interest expectancy status and argu-ment quality

disconfirmed Low NC participants showed a main effect for argumentquality F(1146) = 419 p lt 05 along with an expectancy acute argumentquality interaction F(1146) = 1038 p lt 01 This interaction indicatedthat low NC participants did not differentiate between strong and weakarguments when their expectancies were confirmed but they did differ-entiate when their expectancies were disconfirmed8

GENERAL DISCUSSION

The present research expands our understanding of the consequences ofsources taking unexpected positions Based on prior research and the-ory one would have predicted that when a source takes an unexpectedposition greater attributions of trustworthiness and reduced informa-tion processing activity should result compared to when the sourcetakes an expected position The current studies suggest that this result is

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 437

TABLE 1 Mean Attitude Ratings as a Function of Group-Interest Expectancy Statusand Argument Quality (Experiment 2)

mdashmdashAttitudesmdashmdash

Argument Quality Confirmed Disconfirmed

Strong 504 (65) 594 (79)

SD = 187 SD = 170

Weak 483 (76) 465 (68)

SD = 197 SD = 209

Note Ns indicated in parentheses

8 A source acute expectancy interaction F(1272) = 528 p lt 03 was also obtained A maineffect for expectancy emerged in the Black non-alumnus source condition F(1136)= 840p lt 01 Thus participants had more positive attitudes toward the message when a minor-ity source wrote in favor of children of alumni receiving the tuition breaks (M = 562) thanwhen the minority source wrote in favor of breaks for minorities (M = 475) Attitudes inthe White alumnus source conditions did not differ between expectancy disconfirming (M= 496)and confirming conditions (M = 513)F lt 1 This unanticipated result could have oc-curred because Caucasian participants paid more attention to the position taken by theBlack than the White source resulting in their being more affected by those positions(Petty Fleming amp White 1999 White amp Harkens 1994) Future research could includeconditions where a Black source is an alumnus and a White source is a non-alumnus totease apart race from alumni effects Importantly our results indicated that participantsengaged in greater scrutiny of the arguments whichever source (black or white alumnusor non-alumnus) violated expectancies That is the significant two-way Expectancy acute Ar-gument quality interaction was not qualified by source nor was the significant three-wayExpectancy acute Argument quality acute Need for cognition interaction qualified by source

likely primarily when the position taken violates individual self-inter-est When the position is unexpected because it violates a grouprsquos inter-est the results are quite different That is in Experiment 1 we showedthat although both types of expectancy violation induce surprise onlythe violation of self-interest is associated with increased perceptions oftrustworthiness Violations of group interest do not engender the sameenhancements of trustworthiness Instead violations of group interestappear to produce some attributional ambiguity The surprise accompa-nied by unclear attributions as to the cause of a behavior would be ex-pected to lead to increased rather than decreased informationprocessing This is the effect we observed in Experiment 2

INTEGRATION INFORMATION PROCESSING CONSEQUENCESOF EXPECTANCY DISCONFIRMATION

The current framework seems potentially useful for reconciling seem-ingly inconsistent findings in the persuasion literature regarding the in-formation processing consequences of expectancy disconfirmation Tosummarize briefly if disconfirmation of expectancies leads to increasedperceptions of source trustworthiness or enhanced perceptions of mes-sage validity then message processing should decrease over confirma-tion conditions (Chaiken et al 1989 Petty amp Cacioppo 1986) On theother hand if disconfirmation of expectancies leads only to surprisecompared to confirmation conditions message processing should in-crease In past research disconfirmations of expectancies about messagequality (Maheswaran amp Chaiken 1991) message framing (Smith ampPetty 1995) and whether a majority or minority of others hold a pro- orcounterattitudinal position (Baker amp Petty 1994) did not violate self-in-terest and thus should not lead to perceptions of source trustworthinessor message validity In each case recipients are simply left surprised by

438 PETTY ET AL

TABLE 2 Mean Attitude Ratings as a Function of Group-Interest Expectancy StatusArgument Quality and Participantsrsquo Need for Cognition Level (Experiment 2)

mdashmdashAttitudesmdashmdash

High Need for Cognition Low Need for Cognition

Argument Quality Confirmed Disconfirmed Confirmed Disconfirmed

Strong 508 (33) 580 (37) 500 (32) 607 (42)

SD = 204 SD = 156 SD = 170 SD = 182

Weak 432 (37) 484 (31) 535 (39) 445 (37)

SD = 202 SD = 200 SD = 181 SD = 217

Note Ns indicated in parentheses

the disconfirmation of expectancies and they engage in greater informa-tion processing activity presumably to resolve the violation of expecta-tions and re-establish their understanding of the topic or source at hand(Olson et al 1996)

It is somewhat ironic that the earliest work on expectancies in persua-sion (Eagly amp Chaiken 1975Eagly et al 1978Walster et al 1966 Woodamp Eagly 1981) focused on the one type of expectation (ie source-posi-tion expectancy based on personal self-interest) that produced an appar-ent exception to the subsequently emergent general rule thatdisconfirmation of expectancies enhances processing The current re-search is the first to show that violations of expectancies about the posi-tion a source will take can lead to enhanced information processing Thiswas accomplished by shifting the expectation from one based on self-in-terest alone to group interest

In examining this framework it is important to keep the theoreticalvariables in mind that underlie our integration That is when a sourceviolates expectancies a number of inferences are possible An expec-tancy disconfirmation can enhance perceptions of source trustworthi-ness or message validity (and thus decrease message processing) and itcan also affect surprise (and thus increase message processing) butwhen surprise alone occurs enhanced information processing occursWhen both occur it appears that perceptions of message validity reducemessage processing despite the increased surprise

For self- and group interest expectancy violations to occur at least twofactors seem necessary a perception that some self- or group interest isinvolved and an expectation that individuals will act in accordancewiththat interest A perception of self- or group interest may not always bepresent For example an aggregate of individuals which is notentitative enough (they do not form a coherent whole) may not be per-ceived as having a common group interest in the first place (Campbell1958Hamilton amp Sherman 1996Hamilton Sherman amp Lickel 1998) Insuch cases there would be no group interest to violate Even when self-or group interest is perceived however violations of them may not al-ways cause expectancy disconfirmationsFor example in some culturesself-interest violation may be expected rather than unexpected and thussuch violations would not be expected to lead to increased perceptionsof trustworthinessbecause people are more likely to make dispositionalattributions for behaviors that are unexpected (Jones amp Davis 1965)Likewise for some groups or issues group interest violation may also beexpected such as when the group is clearly undeserving and in those in-stances violation of group interest would not be expected to lead to sur-prise

Future work could examine these possibilities as well as explore sev-eral remaining issues For example although we compared individual

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 439

versus group interest violations on perceptions of trustworthiness andsurprise together in Study 1 we did not directly compare the effects ofthese two types of expectancy violations on information processing andpersuasion This was because the effects of individual self-interest viola-tion on information processing and persuasion seemed clear from priorresearch Nevertheless it would be prudent to examine the effects of in-dividual- versus group interest confirmation versus disconfirmation oninformation processing in the same study In addition our hypothesisthat surprise and attributional ambiguity mediate the increased process-ing resulting from group interest violations should be directly tested byassessing the mediators in the same study as the outcome variables

The current research and framework suggest that it is important toconsider that expectancies in persuasion contexts can be developedupon multiple bases such as on prior knowledge of a personrsquos past be-haviors a personrsquos group membership or human behavior in generalAs shown in our experiments the basis of the expectancy can make animportant difference in the outcome of disconfirmation on source per-ception and on subsequent information processing and persuasion

REFERENCES

Ashmore R D amp Del Boca F K (1979) Sex stereotypes and implicit personality theoriesToward a cognitive-social psychological conceptualization Sex Roles 5 219-248

Baker S M amp Petty R E (1994) Majority and minority influence Source-position imbal-ance as a determinant of message scrutiny Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy 67 5-19

Brewer M B amp Silver M D (2000) Group distinctiveness social identification and col-lective mobilization In S Stryker T J Owens amp R W White (Eds) Self Identityand Social Movements (pp 153-171) Minneapolis MN University of MinnesotaPress

Cacioppo J T amp Petty R E (1982) The need for cognition Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 42 116-131

Cacioppo J T Petty R E amp Kao C (1984)The efficient assessment of need for cognitionJournal of Personality Assessment 48 306-307

Campbell D T (1958) Common fate similarity and other indices of the status of aggre-gates as social entities Behavioral Science 3 14-25

Chaiken S Liberman A amp Eagly A H (1989) Heuristic and systematic processingwithin and beyond the persuasion context In J S Uleman amp J A Bargh (Eds) Un-intended thought (pp 212-252) New York Guilford Press

Eagly A H amp Chaiken S (1975) An attribution analysis of the effect of communicatorcharacteristics on opinion change The case of communicator attractiveness Journalof Personality and Social Psychology 32 136-144

Eagly A H Chaiken S amp Wood W (1981)An attribution analysis of persuasion In J HHarvey W J Ickes amp R F Kidd (Eds) New directions in attribution research (Vol 3pp 37-62) Hillsdale NJ Erlbaum

Eagly A H Wood W amp Chaiken S (1978) Causal inferences about communicators and

440 PETTY ET AL

their effects on opinion change Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36424-435

Fiske S T amp Neuberg S L (1990) A continuum of impression formation from cate-gory-based to individuating processes Influences of information and motivationon attention and interpretation In M P Zanna (Ed) Advances in experimental socialpsychology (Vol 23 pp 1-74) San Diego Academic Press

Hamilton DL amp Sherman S J (1996) Perceiving persons and groups Psychological Re-view 103 336-355

Hamilton DL Sherman S J amp Lickel B (1998) Perceiving social groups The impact ofthe entitativity continuum In C Sedikides J Schopler amp C A Insko (Eds) Inter-group cognitions and intergroup behavior (pp 47-74) Mahwah NJ Erlbaum

Hastie R (1984) Causes and effects of causal attribution Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 37 25-38

Jones E E amp Davis K E (1965) From acts to dispositions The attribution process in per-son perception In L Berkowitz (Ed) Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol2 pp 219-266) New York Academic Press

Kramer R M Brewer M B amp HannaB (1996)Collective trust and collective action Thedecision to trust as a social decision In R Kramer amp T Tyler (Eds) Trust in organiza-tions (pp 357-389) Thousand Oakes CA Sage

Maheswaran D amp Chaiken S (1991) Promoting systematic processing in low-motiva-tion settings Effects of incongruent information on processing and judgment Jour-nal of Personality and Social Psychology 61 13-33

Olson J M Roese N J amp Zanna M P (1996) Expectancies In E T Higgins amp A WKruglanski (Eds) Social psychology Handbook of basic principles (pp 211-238) NewYork Guilford Press

Petty R E (1997) The evolution of theory and research in social psychology From singleto multiple effect and process models In C McGarty amp S A Haslam (Eds) The mes-sage of social psychologyPerspectives on mind in society (pp 268-290)Oxford EnglandBlackwell Publishers Ltd

Petty R E amp Cacioppo J T (1979)Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasionby enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 37 1915-1926

Petty R E amp Cacioppo J T (1986) Communication and persuasion Central and peripheralroutes to attitude change New York Springer-Verlag

Petty R E amp Cacioppo J T (1990) Involvement and persuasion Tradition versus inte-gration Psychological Bulletin 107 367-374

Petty R E Fleming M A amp White P H (1999) Stigmatized sources and persuasionPrejudice as a determinant of argument scrutiny Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology 76 19-34

Petty R E Wells G L amp Brock T C (1976)Distraction can enhance or reduce yielding topropaganda Thought disruption versus effort justification Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology 34 874-884

Platow M J HoarS Reid S Harley K amp Morrison D (1997)Endorsement of distribu-tively fair and unfair leaders in interpersonal and intergroup situations EuropeanJournal of Social Psychology 27 465-494

Platow M J OrsquoConnell A Shave R amp Hanning P (1995) Social evaluations of fair andunfair allocators in interpersonal and intergroup situations British Journal of SocialPsychology 34 363-381

Priester J R amp Petty R E (1995) Source attributions and persuasion Perceived honestyas a determinant of message scrutiny Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 21637-654

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 441

Pyszczynski T A amp Greenberg J (1981)Role of disconfirmed expectancies in the instiga-tion of attributional processing Journal of Personality and Social Psychology40 31-38

Smith S M amp Petty R E (1995) Personality moderators of mood congruency effects oncognition The role of self-esteem and negative mood regulation Journal of Personal-ity and Social Psychology 68 1092-1107

Snyder M L amp Wicklund R (1981)Attribute ambiguity In J H Harvey W Ickes amp R RKidd (Eds) New directions in attribution research (pp 197-221)New York Halsted

Srull T K amp Wyer R S Jr (1989)Person memory and judgment Psychological Review 9658-83

Stangor C amp McMillan D (1992)Memory for expectancy-congruent and expectancy-in-congruent social information A meta-analytic review of the social psychologicaland social developmental literatures Psychological Bulletin 111 42-61

Walster E Aronson E amp Abrahams D (1966)On increasing the persuasiveness of a lowprestige communicator Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 2 325-342

Wenzel M amp Mummendey A (1996) Positive-negative asymmetry of social discrimina-tion A normative analysis of differential evaluations of in-group and out-group onpositive and negative attributes British Journal of Social Psychology 35 493-507

White P H amp Harkens S G (1994) Race of source effects in the elaboration likelihoodmodel Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67 790-807

Wong P T P amp Weiner B (1981) When people ask ldquowhyrdquo questions and the heuristicsof attributional search Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 40 650-663

Wood W amp Eagly A H (1981) Stages in the analysis of persuasive messages The role ofcausal attributions and message comprehension Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 40 246-259

442 PETTY ET AL

Page 17: INDIVIDUAL VERSUS GROUP INTEREST VIOLATION: SURPRISE AS …

or weak arguments from Baker and Petty (1994 Study 2) The argumentsin the message were pretested such that the strong arguments elicitedprimarily positive thoughts and the weak arguments elicited primarilynegative thoughts when pretest participants were instructed to thinkabout them (see Baker amp Petty 1994 Study 2)

The persuasive message supported implementing a program in whichcertain students (either minority students or children of alumni) wouldbe eligible for tuition breaks in exchange for participating in a universityservice program The message arguments focused on the benefits of theuniversity service program for the university and for the students in-volved in the program For example one strong argument stressed thatwith the money saved through students performing various universityservices ldquoa greater portion of the university budget can be invested inmonetary incentives for research and teachingrdquo and ldquofunding will beavailable to recruit additional outstanding professors researchers andNobel prize winnersrdquo However a parallel weak argument suggestedthat the additional monies available can be ldquospent on materials such aspaint for buildings new machinery for mowing and landscaping andplantings shrubbery flowers and treesrdquo in order to make the universityldquoa scenic and beautiful place to spend the college daysrdquo

Need for Cognition Scale Participants completed the need for cognitionscale (Cacioppo et al 1984)after responding to the other measures Highand low need for cognition participants were determined by a mediansplit on the scale with the median equaling 635 (scores ranged from 31 to85)

DEPENDENT VARIABLES

Argument Quality Manipulation Checks Immediately after participantsread the persuasive message they were asked to answer all questionswithout looking back at previous pages On the page immediately fol-lowing the essay participants were asked to rate ldquohow well was the arti-cle writtenrdquo and ldquohow persuasive were the argumentsrdquo on 9-pointscales ranging from 1 = ldquonot at allrdquo to 9 = ldquoextremelyrdquo These questionswere provided along with several filler questions (eg how clear wasthe writing style) designed to fit the cover story about evaluating the ar-ticle The first two questions served as manipulation checks for argu-ment quality

Attitude Measures On the next page participants read that ldquobecauseyour evaluations of the article might have been influenced by your atti-tude toward the article topic we would like to ask your opinions aboutthe topicrdquo Participants then completed two general attitude questionsand a five-item semantic differential scale The general questions were

434 PETTY ET AL

ldquoIn general what is your opinion about the university service pro-gramrdquo and ldquoHow would you feel about the implementation of the uni-versity service program here at Ohio State Universityrdquo These itemswere completed on 9-point scales ranging from 1 = ldquostrongly opposerdquo to9 = ldquostrongly favorrdquo On the five-item semantic differential scale partici-pants were asked ldquorate how you feel about the university service pro-gramrdquo Each semantic differential was completed on a 9-point scale Thescale anchors were unfavorablefavorable badgood foolishwiseharmfulbeneficial and unfairfair

Source Memory Manipulation Check and Participant Demographics Aftercompleting all other dependent measures participants completed thesource memory multiple choice questions and the participant demo-graphic sheet (as described in study 1)5

RESULTS

All dependent variables were submitted to a 2 (Group interest expec-tancy confirmation vs disconfirmation) acute 2 (Source Black non-alum-nus vs White alumnus ) acute 2 (Argument quality strong vs weak) acute 2(NC high vs low) between-participants analysis of variance

Argument Quality Manipulation Checks6 To determine if our manipu-lation of strong and weak arguments was effective participantsrsquo re-sponses to the two argument quality questions were averaged andsubmitted to the four-way ANOVA The expected main effect for argu-ment quality was obtained F(1271) = 1297 p lt 001 Messages contain-ing strong arguments were rated more positively (M = 589) than wereweak messages (M = 512)7

Attitude Measure The a coefficient for the attitude scales was 95 so thescales were averaged to form an overall index This index was subjected

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 435

5 On the source memory manipulation check one participant made an error on thewriterrsquos race and eleven participants erred on the alumni status of the writerrsquos parentsWhen these participants are removed from analyses results are the same as those re-ported

6 One participant did not complete this measure and thus was not included in the anal-ysis

7 A main effect of expectancy was also obtained F(1 271) = 680 p lt 01 suggesting thatparticipants in the disconfirmation conditions rated arguments more positively (M = 579)than did participants in the confirmation conditions (M = 523)In addition a need for cogni-tion acute expectancy interaction emerged F(1271)= 400 p lt 05 suggesting that whereas highNC individuals rated the quality of the arguments higher when the expectancy wasdisconfirmed (M = 590)than confirmed (M = 491)low NC individualsrsquo perceptions of argu-mentquality were notaffected by expectancy (Mdisconfirmed = 568Mconfirmed = 555)

to the four-way between-participants ANOVA First a main effect forargument quality was obtained F(1272) = 1104 p lt 01 indicating thatparticipants receiving strong arguments were more persuaded (M =549) than were those who received weak arguments (M = 474) Ofgreater interest the predicted expectancy acute argument quality interac-tion F(1272) = 579 p lt 02 qualified this main effect (see Figure 1)When expectancies were disconfirmed argument quality had a greaterimpact on attitudes than when expectancies were confirmed More spe-cifically under expectancy confirmation conditions argument qualityhad no impact on attitudes F(1139) = 42 ns However under expec-tancy disconfirmation conditions a simple main effect for argumentquality emerged F(1145) = 1854 p lt 0001

One additional effect that emerged consistent with past research(Priester amp Petty 1995 Smith amp Petty 1995) was a three-way interactionamong expectancy argument quality and need for cognition F(1272) =386 p lt 05 (see Table 2) Separate analyses for high and low need forcognition participants indicated that high NC participants (ie those in-dividuals who enjoy thinking) showed only a main effect for argumentquality F(1134) = 784 p lt 01 (the expectancy acute argument quality inter-action F lt 1 ns) suggesting that they engaged in effortful processing ofthe message regardless of whether expectancies were confirmed or

436 PETTY ET AL

FIGURE 1 Interaction on attitudes between group interest expectancy status and argu-ment quality

disconfirmed Low NC participants showed a main effect for argumentquality F(1146) = 419 p lt 05 along with an expectancy acute argumentquality interaction F(1146) = 1038 p lt 01 This interaction indicatedthat low NC participants did not differentiate between strong and weakarguments when their expectancies were confirmed but they did differ-entiate when their expectancies were disconfirmed8

GENERAL DISCUSSION

The present research expands our understanding of the consequences ofsources taking unexpected positions Based on prior research and the-ory one would have predicted that when a source takes an unexpectedposition greater attributions of trustworthiness and reduced informa-tion processing activity should result compared to when the sourcetakes an expected position The current studies suggest that this result is

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 437

TABLE 1 Mean Attitude Ratings as a Function of Group-Interest Expectancy Statusand Argument Quality (Experiment 2)

mdashmdashAttitudesmdashmdash

Argument Quality Confirmed Disconfirmed

Strong 504 (65) 594 (79)

SD = 187 SD = 170

Weak 483 (76) 465 (68)

SD = 197 SD = 209

Note Ns indicated in parentheses

8 A source acute expectancy interaction F(1272) = 528 p lt 03 was also obtained A maineffect for expectancy emerged in the Black non-alumnus source condition F(1136)= 840p lt 01 Thus participants had more positive attitudes toward the message when a minor-ity source wrote in favor of children of alumni receiving the tuition breaks (M = 562) thanwhen the minority source wrote in favor of breaks for minorities (M = 475) Attitudes inthe White alumnus source conditions did not differ between expectancy disconfirming (M= 496)and confirming conditions (M = 513)F lt 1 This unanticipated result could have oc-curred because Caucasian participants paid more attention to the position taken by theBlack than the White source resulting in their being more affected by those positions(Petty Fleming amp White 1999 White amp Harkens 1994) Future research could includeconditions where a Black source is an alumnus and a White source is a non-alumnus totease apart race from alumni effects Importantly our results indicated that participantsengaged in greater scrutiny of the arguments whichever source (black or white alumnusor non-alumnus) violated expectancies That is the significant two-way Expectancy acute Ar-gument quality interaction was not qualified by source nor was the significant three-wayExpectancy acute Argument quality acute Need for cognition interaction qualified by source

likely primarily when the position taken violates individual self-inter-est When the position is unexpected because it violates a grouprsquos inter-est the results are quite different That is in Experiment 1 we showedthat although both types of expectancy violation induce surprise onlythe violation of self-interest is associated with increased perceptions oftrustworthiness Violations of group interest do not engender the sameenhancements of trustworthiness Instead violations of group interestappear to produce some attributional ambiguity The surprise accompa-nied by unclear attributions as to the cause of a behavior would be ex-pected to lead to increased rather than decreased informationprocessing This is the effect we observed in Experiment 2

INTEGRATION INFORMATION PROCESSING CONSEQUENCESOF EXPECTANCY DISCONFIRMATION

The current framework seems potentially useful for reconciling seem-ingly inconsistent findings in the persuasion literature regarding the in-formation processing consequences of expectancy disconfirmation Tosummarize briefly if disconfirmation of expectancies leads to increasedperceptions of source trustworthiness or enhanced perceptions of mes-sage validity then message processing should decrease over confirma-tion conditions (Chaiken et al 1989 Petty amp Cacioppo 1986) On theother hand if disconfirmation of expectancies leads only to surprisecompared to confirmation conditions message processing should in-crease In past research disconfirmations of expectancies about messagequality (Maheswaran amp Chaiken 1991) message framing (Smith ampPetty 1995) and whether a majority or minority of others hold a pro- orcounterattitudinal position (Baker amp Petty 1994) did not violate self-in-terest and thus should not lead to perceptions of source trustworthinessor message validity In each case recipients are simply left surprised by

438 PETTY ET AL

TABLE 2 Mean Attitude Ratings as a Function of Group-Interest Expectancy StatusArgument Quality and Participantsrsquo Need for Cognition Level (Experiment 2)

mdashmdashAttitudesmdashmdash

High Need for Cognition Low Need for Cognition

Argument Quality Confirmed Disconfirmed Confirmed Disconfirmed

Strong 508 (33) 580 (37) 500 (32) 607 (42)

SD = 204 SD = 156 SD = 170 SD = 182

Weak 432 (37) 484 (31) 535 (39) 445 (37)

SD = 202 SD = 200 SD = 181 SD = 217

Note Ns indicated in parentheses

the disconfirmation of expectancies and they engage in greater informa-tion processing activity presumably to resolve the violation of expecta-tions and re-establish their understanding of the topic or source at hand(Olson et al 1996)

It is somewhat ironic that the earliest work on expectancies in persua-sion (Eagly amp Chaiken 1975Eagly et al 1978Walster et al 1966 Woodamp Eagly 1981) focused on the one type of expectation (ie source-posi-tion expectancy based on personal self-interest) that produced an appar-ent exception to the subsequently emergent general rule thatdisconfirmation of expectancies enhances processing The current re-search is the first to show that violations of expectancies about the posi-tion a source will take can lead to enhanced information processing Thiswas accomplished by shifting the expectation from one based on self-in-terest alone to group interest

In examining this framework it is important to keep the theoreticalvariables in mind that underlie our integration That is when a sourceviolates expectancies a number of inferences are possible An expec-tancy disconfirmation can enhance perceptions of source trustworthi-ness or message validity (and thus decrease message processing) and itcan also affect surprise (and thus increase message processing) butwhen surprise alone occurs enhanced information processing occursWhen both occur it appears that perceptions of message validity reducemessage processing despite the increased surprise

For self- and group interest expectancy violations to occur at least twofactors seem necessary a perception that some self- or group interest isinvolved and an expectation that individuals will act in accordancewiththat interest A perception of self- or group interest may not always bepresent For example an aggregate of individuals which is notentitative enough (they do not form a coherent whole) may not be per-ceived as having a common group interest in the first place (Campbell1958Hamilton amp Sherman 1996Hamilton Sherman amp Lickel 1998) Insuch cases there would be no group interest to violate Even when self-or group interest is perceived however violations of them may not al-ways cause expectancy disconfirmationsFor example in some culturesself-interest violation may be expected rather than unexpected and thussuch violations would not be expected to lead to increased perceptionsof trustworthinessbecause people are more likely to make dispositionalattributions for behaviors that are unexpected (Jones amp Davis 1965)Likewise for some groups or issues group interest violation may also beexpected such as when the group is clearly undeserving and in those in-stances violation of group interest would not be expected to lead to sur-prise

Future work could examine these possibilities as well as explore sev-eral remaining issues For example although we compared individual

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 439

versus group interest violations on perceptions of trustworthiness andsurprise together in Study 1 we did not directly compare the effects ofthese two types of expectancy violations on information processing andpersuasion This was because the effects of individual self-interest viola-tion on information processing and persuasion seemed clear from priorresearch Nevertheless it would be prudent to examine the effects of in-dividual- versus group interest confirmation versus disconfirmation oninformation processing in the same study In addition our hypothesisthat surprise and attributional ambiguity mediate the increased process-ing resulting from group interest violations should be directly tested byassessing the mediators in the same study as the outcome variables

The current research and framework suggest that it is important toconsider that expectancies in persuasion contexts can be developedupon multiple bases such as on prior knowledge of a personrsquos past be-haviors a personrsquos group membership or human behavior in generalAs shown in our experiments the basis of the expectancy can make animportant difference in the outcome of disconfirmation on source per-ception and on subsequent information processing and persuasion

REFERENCES

Ashmore R D amp Del Boca F K (1979) Sex stereotypes and implicit personality theoriesToward a cognitive-social psychological conceptualization Sex Roles 5 219-248

Baker S M amp Petty R E (1994) Majority and minority influence Source-position imbal-ance as a determinant of message scrutiny Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy 67 5-19

Brewer M B amp Silver M D (2000) Group distinctiveness social identification and col-lective mobilization In S Stryker T J Owens amp R W White (Eds) Self Identityand Social Movements (pp 153-171) Minneapolis MN University of MinnesotaPress

Cacioppo J T amp Petty R E (1982) The need for cognition Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 42 116-131

Cacioppo J T Petty R E amp Kao C (1984)The efficient assessment of need for cognitionJournal of Personality Assessment 48 306-307

Campbell D T (1958) Common fate similarity and other indices of the status of aggre-gates as social entities Behavioral Science 3 14-25

Chaiken S Liberman A amp Eagly A H (1989) Heuristic and systematic processingwithin and beyond the persuasion context In J S Uleman amp J A Bargh (Eds) Un-intended thought (pp 212-252) New York Guilford Press

Eagly A H amp Chaiken S (1975) An attribution analysis of the effect of communicatorcharacteristics on opinion change The case of communicator attractiveness Journalof Personality and Social Psychology 32 136-144

Eagly A H Chaiken S amp Wood W (1981)An attribution analysis of persuasion In J HHarvey W J Ickes amp R F Kidd (Eds) New directions in attribution research (Vol 3pp 37-62) Hillsdale NJ Erlbaum

Eagly A H Wood W amp Chaiken S (1978) Causal inferences about communicators and

440 PETTY ET AL

their effects on opinion change Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36424-435

Fiske S T amp Neuberg S L (1990) A continuum of impression formation from cate-gory-based to individuating processes Influences of information and motivationon attention and interpretation In M P Zanna (Ed) Advances in experimental socialpsychology (Vol 23 pp 1-74) San Diego Academic Press

Hamilton DL amp Sherman S J (1996) Perceiving persons and groups Psychological Re-view 103 336-355

Hamilton DL Sherman S J amp Lickel B (1998) Perceiving social groups The impact ofthe entitativity continuum In C Sedikides J Schopler amp C A Insko (Eds) Inter-group cognitions and intergroup behavior (pp 47-74) Mahwah NJ Erlbaum

Hastie R (1984) Causes and effects of causal attribution Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 37 25-38

Jones E E amp Davis K E (1965) From acts to dispositions The attribution process in per-son perception In L Berkowitz (Ed) Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol2 pp 219-266) New York Academic Press

Kramer R M Brewer M B amp HannaB (1996)Collective trust and collective action Thedecision to trust as a social decision In R Kramer amp T Tyler (Eds) Trust in organiza-tions (pp 357-389) Thousand Oakes CA Sage

Maheswaran D amp Chaiken S (1991) Promoting systematic processing in low-motiva-tion settings Effects of incongruent information on processing and judgment Jour-nal of Personality and Social Psychology 61 13-33

Olson J M Roese N J amp Zanna M P (1996) Expectancies In E T Higgins amp A WKruglanski (Eds) Social psychology Handbook of basic principles (pp 211-238) NewYork Guilford Press

Petty R E (1997) The evolution of theory and research in social psychology From singleto multiple effect and process models In C McGarty amp S A Haslam (Eds) The mes-sage of social psychologyPerspectives on mind in society (pp 268-290)Oxford EnglandBlackwell Publishers Ltd

Petty R E amp Cacioppo J T (1979)Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasionby enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 37 1915-1926

Petty R E amp Cacioppo J T (1986) Communication and persuasion Central and peripheralroutes to attitude change New York Springer-Verlag

Petty R E amp Cacioppo J T (1990) Involvement and persuasion Tradition versus inte-gration Psychological Bulletin 107 367-374

Petty R E Fleming M A amp White P H (1999) Stigmatized sources and persuasionPrejudice as a determinant of argument scrutiny Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology 76 19-34

Petty R E Wells G L amp Brock T C (1976)Distraction can enhance or reduce yielding topropaganda Thought disruption versus effort justification Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology 34 874-884

Platow M J HoarS Reid S Harley K amp Morrison D (1997)Endorsement of distribu-tively fair and unfair leaders in interpersonal and intergroup situations EuropeanJournal of Social Psychology 27 465-494

Platow M J OrsquoConnell A Shave R amp Hanning P (1995) Social evaluations of fair andunfair allocators in interpersonal and intergroup situations British Journal of SocialPsychology 34 363-381

Priester J R amp Petty R E (1995) Source attributions and persuasion Perceived honestyas a determinant of message scrutiny Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 21637-654

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 441

Pyszczynski T A amp Greenberg J (1981)Role of disconfirmed expectancies in the instiga-tion of attributional processing Journal of Personality and Social Psychology40 31-38

Smith S M amp Petty R E (1995) Personality moderators of mood congruency effects oncognition The role of self-esteem and negative mood regulation Journal of Personal-ity and Social Psychology 68 1092-1107

Snyder M L amp Wicklund R (1981)Attribute ambiguity In J H Harvey W Ickes amp R RKidd (Eds) New directions in attribution research (pp 197-221)New York Halsted

Srull T K amp Wyer R S Jr (1989)Person memory and judgment Psychological Review 9658-83

Stangor C amp McMillan D (1992)Memory for expectancy-congruent and expectancy-in-congruent social information A meta-analytic review of the social psychologicaland social developmental literatures Psychological Bulletin 111 42-61

Walster E Aronson E amp Abrahams D (1966)On increasing the persuasiveness of a lowprestige communicator Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 2 325-342

Wenzel M amp Mummendey A (1996) Positive-negative asymmetry of social discrimina-tion A normative analysis of differential evaluations of in-group and out-group onpositive and negative attributes British Journal of Social Psychology 35 493-507

White P H amp Harkens S G (1994) Race of source effects in the elaboration likelihoodmodel Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67 790-807

Wong P T P amp Weiner B (1981) When people ask ldquowhyrdquo questions and the heuristicsof attributional search Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 40 650-663

Wood W amp Eagly A H (1981) Stages in the analysis of persuasive messages The role ofcausal attributions and message comprehension Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 40 246-259

442 PETTY ET AL

Page 18: INDIVIDUAL VERSUS GROUP INTEREST VIOLATION: SURPRISE AS …

ldquoIn general what is your opinion about the university service pro-gramrdquo and ldquoHow would you feel about the implementation of the uni-versity service program here at Ohio State Universityrdquo These itemswere completed on 9-point scales ranging from 1 = ldquostrongly opposerdquo to9 = ldquostrongly favorrdquo On the five-item semantic differential scale partici-pants were asked ldquorate how you feel about the university service pro-gramrdquo Each semantic differential was completed on a 9-point scale Thescale anchors were unfavorablefavorable badgood foolishwiseharmfulbeneficial and unfairfair

Source Memory Manipulation Check and Participant Demographics Aftercompleting all other dependent measures participants completed thesource memory multiple choice questions and the participant demo-graphic sheet (as described in study 1)5

RESULTS

All dependent variables were submitted to a 2 (Group interest expec-tancy confirmation vs disconfirmation) acute 2 (Source Black non-alum-nus vs White alumnus ) acute 2 (Argument quality strong vs weak) acute 2(NC high vs low) between-participants analysis of variance

Argument Quality Manipulation Checks6 To determine if our manipu-lation of strong and weak arguments was effective participantsrsquo re-sponses to the two argument quality questions were averaged andsubmitted to the four-way ANOVA The expected main effect for argu-ment quality was obtained F(1271) = 1297 p lt 001 Messages contain-ing strong arguments were rated more positively (M = 589) than wereweak messages (M = 512)7

Attitude Measure The a coefficient for the attitude scales was 95 so thescales were averaged to form an overall index This index was subjected

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 435

5 On the source memory manipulation check one participant made an error on thewriterrsquos race and eleven participants erred on the alumni status of the writerrsquos parentsWhen these participants are removed from analyses results are the same as those re-ported

6 One participant did not complete this measure and thus was not included in the anal-ysis

7 A main effect of expectancy was also obtained F(1 271) = 680 p lt 01 suggesting thatparticipants in the disconfirmation conditions rated arguments more positively (M = 579)than did participants in the confirmation conditions (M = 523)In addition a need for cogni-tion acute expectancy interaction emerged F(1271)= 400 p lt 05 suggesting that whereas highNC individuals rated the quality of the arguments higher when the expectancy wasdisconfirmed (M = 590)than confirmed (M = 491)low NC individualsrsquo perceptions of argu-mentquality were notaffected by expectancy (Mdisconfirmed = 568Mconfirmed = 555)

to the four-way between-participants ANOVA First a main effect forargument quality was obtained F(1272) = 1104 p lt 01 indicating thatparticipants receiving strong arguments were more persuaded (M =549) than were those who received weak arguments (M = 474) Ofgreater interest the predicted expectancy acute argument quality interac-tion F(1272) = 579 p lt 02 qualified this main effect (see Figure 1)When expectancies were disconfirmed argument quality had a greaterimpact on attitudes than when expectancies were confirmed More spe-cifically under expectancy confirmation conditions argument qualityhad no impact on attitudes F(1139) = 42 ns However under expec-tancy disconfirmation conditions a simple main effect for argumentquality emerged F(1145) = 1854 p lt 0001

One additional effect that emerged consistent with past research(Priester amp Petty 1995 Smith amp Petty 1995) was a three-way interactionamong expectancy argument quality and need for cognition F(1272) =386 p lt 05 (see Table 2) Separate analyses for high and low need forcognition participants indicated that high NC participants (ie those in-dividuals who enjoy thinking) showed only a main effect for argumentquality F(1134) = 784 p lt 01 (the expectancy acute argument quality inter-action F lt 1 ns) suggesting that they engaged in effortful processing ofthe message regardless of whether expectancies were confirmed or

436 PETTY ET AL

FIGURE 1 Interaction on attitudes between group interest expectancy status and argu-ment quality

disconfirmed Low NC participants showed a main effect for argumentquality F(1146) = 419 p lt 05 along with an expectancy acute argumentquality interaction F(1146) = 1038 p lt 01 This interaction indicatedthat low NC participants did not differentiate between strong and weakarguments when their expectancies were confirmed but they did differ-entiate when their expectancies were disconfirmed8

GENERAL DISCUSSION

The present research expands our understanding of the consequences ofsources taking unexpected positions Based on prior research and the-ory one would have predicted that when a source takes an unexpectedposition greater attributions of trustworthiness and reduced informa-tion processing activity should result compared to when the sourcetakes an expected position The current studies suggest that this result is

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 437

TABLE 1 Mean Attitude Ratings as a Function of Group-Interest Expectancy Statusand Argument Quality (Experiment 2)

mdashmdashAttitudesmdashmdash

Argument Quality Confirmed Disconfirmed

Strong 504 (65) 594 (79)

SD = 187 SD = 170

Weak 483 (76) 465 (68)

SD = 197 SD = 209

Note Ns indicated in parentheses

8 A source acute expectancy interaction F(1272) = 528 p lt 03 was also obtained A maineffect for expectancy emerged in the Black non-alumnus source condition F(1136)= 840p lt 01 Thus participants had more positive attitudes toward the message when a minor-ity source wrote in favor of children of alumni receiving the tuition breaks (M = 562) thanwhen the minority source wrote in favor of breaks for minorities (M = 475) Attitudes inthe White alumnus source conditions did not differ between expectancy disconfirming (M= 496)and confirming conditions (M = 513)F lt 1 This unanticipated result could have oc-curred because Caucasian participants paid more attention to the position taken by theBlack than the White source resulting in their being more affected by those positions(Petty Fleming amp White 1999 White amp Harkens 1994) Future research could includeconditions where a Black source is an alumnus and a White source is a non-alumnus totease apart race from alumni effects Importantly our results indicated that participantsengaged in greater scrutiny of the arguments whichever source (black or white alumnusor non-alumnus) violated expectancies That is the significant two-way Expectancy acute Ar-gument quality interaction was not qualified by source nor was the significant three-wayExpectancy acute Argument quality acute Need for cognition interaction qualified by source

likely primarily when the position taken violates individual self-inter-est When the position is unexpected because it violates a grouprsquos inter-est the results are quite different That is in Experiment 1 we showedthat although both types of expectancy violation induce surprise onlythe violation of self-interest is associated with increased perceptions oftrustworthiness Violations of group interest do not engender the sameenhancements of trustworthiness Instead violations of group interestappear to produce some attributional ambiguity The surprise accompa-nied by unclear attributions as to the cause of a behavior would be ex-pected to lead to increased rather than decreased informationprocessing This is the effect we observed in Experiment 2

INTEGRATION INFORMATION PROCESSING CONSEQUENCESOF EXPECTANCY DISCONFIRMATION

The current framework seems potentially useful for reconciling seem-ingly inconsistent findings in the persuasion literature regarding the in-formation processing consequences of expectancy disconfirmation Tosummarize briefly if disconfirmation of expectancies leads to increasedperceptions of source trustworthiness or enhanced perceptions of mes-sage validity then message processing should decrease over confirma-tion conditions (Chaiken et al 1989 Petty amp Cacioppo 1986) On theother hand if disconfirmation of expectancies leads only to surprisecompared to confirmation conditions message processing should in-crease In past research disconfirmations of expectancies about messagequality (Maheswaran amp Chaiken 1991) message framing (Smith ampPetty 1995) and whether a majority or minority of others hold a pro- orcounterattitudinal position (Baker amp Petty 1994) did not violate self-in-terest and thus should not lead to perceptions of source trustworthinessor message validity In each case recipients are simply left surprised by

438 PETTY ET AL

TABLE 2 Mean Attitude Ratings as a Function of Group-Interest Expectancy StatusArgument Quality and Participantsrsquo Need for Cognition Level (Experiment 2)

mdashmdashAttitudesmdashmdash

High Need for Cognition Low Need for Cognition

Argument Quality Confirmed Disconfirmed Confirmed Disconfirmed

Strong 508 (33) 580 (37) 500 (32) 607 (42)

SD = 204 SD = 156 SD = 170 SD = 182

Weak 432 (37) 484 (31) 535 (39) 445 (37)

SD = 202 SD = 200 SD = 181 SD = 217

Note Ns indicated in parentheses

the disconfirmation of expectancies and they engage in greater informa-tion processing activity presumably to resolve the violation of expecta-tions and re-establish their understanding of the topic or source at hand(Olson et al 1996)

It is somewhat ironic that the earliest work on expectancies in persua-sion (Eagly amp Chaiken 1975Eagly et al 1978Walster et al 1966 Woodamp Eagly 1981) focused on the one type of expectation (ie source-posi-tion expectancy based on personal self-interest) that produced an appar-ent exception to the subsequently emergent general rule thatdisconfirmation of expectancies enhances processing The current re-search is the first to show that violations of expectancies about the posi-tion a source will take can lead to enhanced information processing Thiswas accomplished by shifting the expectation from one based on self-in-terest alone to group interest

In examining this framework it is important to keep the theoreticalvariables in mind that underlie our integration That is when a sourceviolates expectancies a number of inferences are possible An expec-tancy disconfirmation can enhance perceptions of source trustworthi-ness or message validity (and thus decrease message processing) and itcan also affect surprise (and thus increase message processing) butwhen surprise alone occurs enhanced information processing occursWhen both occur it appears that perceptions of message validity reducemessage processing despite the increased surprise

For self- and group interest expectancy violations to occur at least twofactors seem necessary a perception that some self- or group interest isinvolved and an expectation that individuals will act in accordancewiththat interest A perception of self- or group interest may not always bepresent For example an aggregate of individuals which is notentitative enough (they do not form a coherent whole) may not be per-ceived as having a common group interest in the first place (Campbell1958Hamilton amp Sherman 1996Hamilton Sherman amp Lickel 1998) Insuch cases there would be no group interest to violate Even when self-or group interest is perceived however violations of them may not al-ways cause expectancy disconfirmationsFor example in some culturesself-interest violation may be expected rather than unexpected and thussuch violations would not be expected to lead to increased perceptionsof trustworthinessbecause people are more likely to make dispositionalattributions for behaviors that are unexpected (Jones amp Davis 1965)Likewise for some groups or issues group interest violation may also beexpected such as when the group is clearly undeserving and in those in-stances violation of group interest would not be expected to lead to sur-prise

Future work could examine these possibilities as well as explore sev-eral remaining issues For example although we compared individual

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 439

versus group interest violations on perceptions of trustworthiness andsurprise together in Study 1 we did not directly compare the effects ofthese two types of expectancy violations on information processing andpersuasion This was because the effects of individual self-interest viola-tion on information processing and persuasion seemed clear from priorresearch Nevertheless it would be prudent to examine the effects of in-dividual- versus group interest confirmation versus disconfirmation oninformation processing in the same study In addition our hypothesisthat surprise and attributional ambiguity mediate the increased process-ing resulting from group interest violations should be directly tested byassessing the mediators in the same study as the outcome variables

The current research and framework suggest that it is important toconsider that expectancies in persuasion contexts can be developedupon multiple bases such as on prior knowledge of a personrsquos past be-haviors a personrsquos group membership or human behavior in generalAs shown in our experiments the basis of the expectancy can make animportant difference in the outcome of disconfirmation on source per-ception and on subsequent information processing and persuasion

REFERENCES

Ashmore R D amp Del Boca F K (1979) Sex stereotypes and implicit personality theoriesToward a cognitive-social psychological conceptualization Sex Roles 5 219-248

Baker S M amp Petty R E (1994) Majority and minority influence Source-position imbal-ance as a determinant of message scrutiny Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy 67 5-19

Brewer M B amp Silver M D (2000) Group distinctiveness social identification and col-lective mobilization In S Stryker T J Owens amp R W White (Eds) Self Identityand Social Movements (pp 153-171) Minneapolis MN University of MinnesotaPress

Cacioppo J T amp Petty R E (1982) The need for cognition Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 42 116-131

Cacioppo J T Petty R E amp Kao C (1984)The efficient assessment of need for cognitionJournal of Personality Assessment 48 306-307

Campbell D T (1958) Common fate similarity and other indices of the status of aggre-gates as social entities Behavioral Science 3 14-25

Chaiken S Liberman A amp Eagly A H (1989) Heuristic and systematic processingwithin and beyond the persuasion context In J S Uleman amp J A Bargh (Eds) Un-intended thought (pp 212-252) New York Guilford Press

Eagly A H amp Chaiken S (1975) An attribution analysis of the effect of communicatorcharacteristics on opinion change The case of communicator attractiveness Journalof Personality and Social Psychology 32 136-144

Eagly A H Chaiken S amp Wood W (1981)An attribution analysis of persuasion In J HHarvey W J Ickes amp R F Kidd (Eds) New directions in attribution research (Vol 3pp 37-62) Hillsdale NJ Erlbaum

Eagly A H Wood W amp Chaiken S (1978) Causal inferences about communicators and

440 PETTY ET AL

their effects on opinion change Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36424-435

Fiske S T amp Neuberg S L (1990) A continuum of impression formation from cate-gory-based to individuating processes Influences of information and motivationon attention and interpretation In M P Zanna (Ed) Advances in experimental socialpsychology (Vol 23 pp 1-74) San Diego Academic Press

Hamilton DL amp Sherman S J (1996) Perceiving persons and groups Psychological Re-view 103 336-355

Hamilton DL Sherman S J amp Lickel B (1998) Perceiving social groups The impact ofthe entitativity continuum In C Sedikides J Schopler amp C A Insko (Eds) Inter-group cognitions and intergroup behavior (pp 47-74) Mahwah NJ Erlbaum

Hastie R (1984) Causes and effects of causal attribution Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 37 25-38

Jones E E amp Davis K E (1965) From acts to dispositions The attribution process in per-son perception In L Berkowitz (Ed) Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol2 pp 219-266) New York Academic Press

Kramer R M Brewer M B amp HannaB (1996)Collective trust and collective action Thedecision to trust as a social decision In R Kramer amp T Tyler (Eds) Trust in organiza-tions (pp 357-389) Thousand Oakes CA Sage

Maheswaran D amp Chaiken S (1991) Promoting systematic processing in low-motiva-tion settings Effects of incongruent information on processing and judgment Jour-nal of Personality and Social Psychology 61 13-33

Olson J M Roese N J amp Zanna M P (1996) Expectancies In E T Higgins amp A WKruglanski (Eds) Social psychology Handbook of basic principles (pp 211-238) NewYork Guilford Press

Petty R E (1997) The evolution of theory and research in social psychology From singleto multiple effect and process models In C McGarty amp S A Haslam (Eds) The mes-sage of social psychologyPerspectives on mind in society (pp 268-290)Oxford EnglandBlackwell Publishers Ltd

Petty R E amp Cacioppo J T (1979)Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasionby enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 37 1915-1926

Petty R E amp Cacioppo J T (1986) Communication and persuasion Central and peripheralroutes to attitude change New York Springer-Verlag

Petty R E amp Cacioppo J T (1990) Involvement and persuasion Tradition versus inte-gration Psychological Bulletin 107 367-374

Petty R E Fleming M A amp White P H (1999) Stigmatized sources and persuasionPrejudice as a determinant of argument scrutiny Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology 76 19-34

Petty R E Wells G L amp Brock T C (1976)Distraction can enhance or reduce yielding topropaganda Thought disruption versus effort justification Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology 34 874-884

Platow M J HoarS Reid S Harley K amp Morrison D (1997)Endorsement of distribu-tively fair and unfair leaders in interpersonal and intergroup situations EuropeanJournal of Social Psychology 27 465-494

Platow M J OrsquoConnell A Shave R amp Hanning P (1995) Social evaluations of fair andunfair allocators in interpersonal and intergroup situations British Journal of SocialPsychology 34 363-381

Priester J R amp Petty R E (1995) Source attributions and persuasion Perceived honestyas a determinant of message scrutiny Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 21637-654

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 441

Pyszczynski T A amp Greenberg J (1981)Role of disconfirmed expectancies in the instiga-tion of attributional processing Journal of Personality and Social Psychology40 31-38

Smith S M amp Petty R E (1995) Personality moderators of mood congruency effects oncognition The role of self-esteem and negative mood regulation Journal of Personal-ity and Social Psychology 68 1092-1107

Snyder M L amp Wicklund R (1981)Attribute ambiguity In J H Harvey W Ickes amp R RKidd (Eds) New directions in attribution research (pp 197-221)New York Halsted

Srull T K amp Wyer R S Jr (1989)Person memory and judgment Psychological Review 9658-83

Stangor C amp McMillan D (1992)Memory for expectancy-congruent and expectancy-in-congruent social information A meta-analytic review of the social psychologicaland social developmental literatures Psychological Bulletin 111 42-61

Walster E Aronson E amp Abrahams D (1966)On increasing the persuasiveness of a lowprestige communicator Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 2 325-342

Wenzel M amp Mummendey A (1996) Positive-negative asymmetry of social discrimina-tion A normative analysis of differential evaluations of in-group and out-group onpositive and negative attributes British Journal of Social Psychology 35 493-507

White P H amp Harkens S G (1994) Race of source effects in the elaboration likelihoodmodel Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67 790-807

Wong P T P amp Weiner B (1981) When people ask ldquowhyrdquo questions and the heuristicsof attributional search Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 40 650-663

Wood W amp Eagly A H (1981) Stages in the analysis of persuasive messages The role ofcausal attributions and message comprehension Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 40 246-259

442 PETTY ET AL

Page 19: INDIVIDUAL VERSUS GROUP INTEREST VIOLATION: SURPRISE AS …

to the four-way between-participants ANOVA First a main effect forargument quality was obtained F(1272) = 1104 p lt 01 indicating thatparticipants receiving strong arguments were more persuaded (M =549) than were those who received weak arguments (M = 474) Ofgreater interest the predicted expectancy acute argument quality interac-tion F(1272) = 579 p lt 02 qualified this main effect (see Figure 1)When expectancies were disconfirmed argument quality had a greaterimpact on attitudes than when expectancies were confirmed More spe-cifically under expectancy confirmation conditions argument qualityhad no impact on attitudes F(1139) = 42 ns However under expec-tancy disconfirmation conditions a simple main effect for argumentquality emerged F(1145) = 1854 p lt 0001

One additional effect that emerged consistent with past research(Priester amp Petty 1995 Smith amp Petty 1995) was a three-way interactionamong expectancy argument quality and need for cognition F(1272) =386 p lt 05 (see Table 2) Separate analyses for high and low need forcognition participants indicated that high NC participants (ie those in-dividuals who enjoy thinking) showed only a main effect for argumentquality F(1134) = 784 p lt 01 (the expectancy acute argument quality inter-action F lt 1 ns) suggesting that they engaged in effortful processing ofthe message regardless of whether expectancies were confirmed or

436 PETTY ET AL

FIGURE 1 Interaction on attitudes between group interest expectancy status and argu-ment quality

disconfirmed Low NC participants showed a main effect for argumentquality F(1146) = 419 p lt 05 along with an expectancy acute argumentquality interaction F(1146) = 1038 p lt 01 This interaction indicatedthat low NC participants did not differentiate between strong and weakarguments when their expectancies were confirmed but they did differ-entiate when their expectancies were disconfirmed8

GENERAL DISCUSSION

The present research expands our understanding of the consequences ofsources taking unexpected positions Based on prior research and the-ory one would have predicted that when a source takes an unexpectedposition greater attributions of trustworthiness and reduced informa-tion processing activity should result compared to when the sourcetakes an expected position The current studies suggest that this result is

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 437

TABLE 1 Mean Attitude Ratings as a Function of Group-Interest Expectancy Statusand Argument Quality (Experiment 2)

mdashmdashAttitudesmdashmdash

Argument Quality Confirmed Disconfirmed

Strong 504 (65) 594 (79)

SD = 187 SD = 170

Weak 483 (76) 465 (68)

SD = 197 SD = 209

Note Ns indicated in parentheses

8 A source acute expectancy interaction F(1272) = 528 p lt 03 was also obtained A maineffect for expectancy emerged in the Black non-alumnus source condition F(1136)= 840p lt 01 Thus participants had more positive attitudes toward the message when a minor-ity source wrote in favor of children of alumni receiving the tuition breaks (M = 562) thanwhen the minority source wrote in favor of breaks for minorities (M = 475) Attitudes inthe White alumnus source conditions did not differ between expectancy disconfirming (M= 496)and confirming conditions (M = 513)F lt 1 This unanticipated result could have oc-curred because Caucasian participants paid more attention to the position taken by theBlack than the White source resulting in their being more affected by those positions(Petty Fleming amp White 1999 White amp Harkens 1994) Future research could includeconditions where a Black source is an alumnus and a White source is a non-alumnus totease apart race from alumni effects Importantly our results indicated that participantsengaged in greater scrutiny of the arguments whichever source (black or white alumnusor non-alumnus) violated expectancies That is the significant two-way Expectancy acute Ar-gument quality interaction was not qualified by source nor was the significant three-wayExpectancy acute Argument quality acute Need for cognition interaction qualified by source

likely primarily when the position taken violates individual self-inter-est When the position is unexpected because it violates a grouprsquos inter-est the results are quite different That is in Experiment 1 we showedthat although both types of expectancy violation induce surprise onlythe violation of self-interest is associated with increased perceptions oftrustworthiness Violations of group interest do not engender the sameenhancements of trustworthiness Instead violations of group interestappear to produce some attributional ambiguity The surprise accompa-nied by unclear attributions as to the cause of a behavior would be ex-pected to lead to increased rather than decreased informationprocessing This is the effect we observed in Experiment 2

INTEGRATION INFORMATION PROCESSING CONSEQUENCESOF EXPECTANCY DISCONFIRMATION

The current framework seems potentially useful for reconciling seem-ingly inconsistent findings in the persuasion literature regarding the in-formation processing consequences of expectancy disconfirmation Tosummarize briefly if disconfirmation of expectancies leads to increasedperceptions of source trustworthiness or enhanced perceptions of mes-sage validity then message processing should decrease over confirma-tion conditions (Chaiken et al 1989 Petty amp Cacioppo 1986) On theother hand if disconfirmation of expectancies leads only to surprisecompared to confirmation conditions message processing should in-crease In past research disconfirmations of expectancies about messagequality (Maheswaran amp Chaiken 1991) message framing (Smith ampPetty 1995) and whether a majority or minority of others hold a pro- orcounterattitudinal position (Baker amp Petty 1994) did not violate self-in-terest and thus should not lead to perceptions of source trustworthinessor message validity In each case recipients are simply left surprised by

438 PETTY ET AL

TABLE 2 Mean Attitude Ratings as a Function of Group-Interest Expectancy StatusArgument Quality and Participantsrsquo Need for Cognition Level (Experiment 2)

mdashmdashAttitudesmdashmdash

High Need for Cognition Low Need for Cognition

Argument Quality Confirmed Disconfirmed Confirmed Disconfirmed

Strong 508 (33) 580 (37) 500 (32) 607 (42)

SD = 204 SD = 156 SD = 170 SD = 182

Weak 432 (37) 484 (31) 535 (39) 445 (37)

SD = 202 SD = 200 SD = 181 SD = 217

Note Ns indicated in parentheses

the disconfirmation of expectancies and they engage in greater informa-tion processing activity presumably to resolve the violation of expecta-tions and re-establish their understanding of the topic or source at hand(Olson et al 1996)

It is somewhat ironic that the earliest work on expectancies in persua-sion (Eagly amp Chaiken 1975Eagly et al 1978Walster et al 1966 Woodamp Eagly 1981) focused on the one type of expectation (ie source-posi-tion expectancy based on personal self-interest) that produced an appar-ent exception to the subsequently emergent general rule thatdisconfirmation of expectancies enhances processing The current re-search is the first to show that violations of expectancies about the posi-tion a source will take can lead to enhanced information processing Thiswas accomplished by shifting the expectation from one based on self-in-terest alone to group interest

In examining this framework it is important to keep the theoreticalvariables in mind that underlie our integration That is when a sourceviolates expectancies a number of inferences are possible An expec-tancy disconfirmation can enhance perceptions of source trustworthi-ness or message validity (and thus decrease message processing) and itcan also affect surprise (and thus increase message processing) butwhen surprise alone occurs enhanced information processing occursWhen both occur it appears that perceptions of message validity reducemessage processing despite the increased surprise

For self- and group interest expectancy violations to occur at least twofactors seem necessary a perception that some self- or group interest isinvolved and an expectation that individuals will act in accordancewiththat interest A perception of self- or group interest may not always bepresent For example an aggregate of individuals which is notentitative enough (they do not form a coherent whole) may not be per-ceived as having a common group interest in the first place (Campbell1958Hamilton amp Sherman 1996Hamilton Sherman amp Lickel 1998) Insuch cases there would be no group interest to violate Even when self-or group interest is perceived however violations of them may not al-ways cause expectancy disconfirmationsFor example in some culturesself-interest violation may be expected rather than unexpected and thussuch violations would not be expected to lead to increased perceptionsof trustworthinessbecause people are more likely to make dispositionalattributions for behaviors that are unexpected (Jones amp Davis 1965)Likewise for some groups or issues group interest violation may also beexpected such as when the group is clearly undeserving and in those in-stances violation of group interest would not be expected to lead to sur-prise

Future work could examine these possibilities as well as explore sev-eral remaining issues For example although we compared individual

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 439

versus group interest violations on perceptions of trustworthiness andsurprise together in Study 1 we did not directly compare the effects ofthese two types of expectancy violations on information processing andpersuasion This was because the effects of individual self-interest viola-tion on information processing and persuasion seemed clear from priorresearch Nevertheless it would be prudent to examine the effects of in-dividual- versus group interest confirmation versus disconfirmation oninformation processing in the same study In addition our hypothesisthat surprise and attributional ambiguity mediate the increased process-ing resulting from group interest violations should be directly tested byassessing the mediators in the same study as the outcome variables

The current research and framework suggest that it is important toconsider that expectancies in persuasion contexts can be developedupon multiple bases such as on prior knowledge of a personrsquos past be-haviors a personrsquos group membership or human behavior in generalAs shown in our experiments the basis of the expectancy can make animportant difference in the outcome of disconfirmation on source per-ception and on subsequent information processing and persuasion

REFERENCES

Ashmore R D amp Del Boca F K (1979) Sex stereotypes and implicit personality theoriesToward a cognitive-social psychological conceptualization Sex Roles 5 219-248

Baker S M amp Petty R E (1994) Majority and minority influence Source-position imbal-ance as a determinant of message scrutiny Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy 67 5-19

Brewer M B amp Silver M D (2000) Group distinctiveness social identification and col-lective mobilization In S Stryker T J Owens amp R W White (Eds) Self Identityand Social Movements (pp 153-171) Minneapolis MN University of MinnesotaPress

Cacioppo J T amp Petty R E (1982) The need for cognition Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 42 116-131

Cacioppo J T Petty R E amp Kao C (1984)The efficient assessment of need for cognitionJournal of Personality Assessment 48 306-307

Campbell D T (1958) Common fate similarity and other indices of the status of aggre-gates as social entities Behavioral Science 3 14-25

Chaiken S Liberman A amp Eagly A H (1989) Heuristic and systematic processingwithin and beyond the persuasion context In J S Uleman amp J A Bargh (Eds) Un-intended thought (pp 212-252) New York Guilford Press

Eagly A H amp Chaiken S (1975) An attribution analysis of the effect of communicatorcharacteristics on opinion change The case of communicator attractiveness Journalof Personality and Social Psychology 32 136-144

Eagly A H Chaiken S amp Wood W (1981)An attribution analysis of persuasion In J HHarvey W J Ickes amp R F Kidd (Eds) New directions in attribution research (Vol 3pp 37-62) Hillsdale NJ Erlbaum

Eagly A H Wood W amp Chaiken S (1978) Causal inferences about communicators and

440 PETTY ET AL

their effects on opinion change Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36424-435

Fiske S T amp Neuberg S L (1990) A continuum of impression formation from cate-gory-based to individuating processes Influences of information and motivationon attention and interpretation In M P Zanna (Ed) Advances in experimental socialpsychology (Vol 23 pp 1-74) San Diego Academic Press

Hamilton DL amp Sherman S J (1996) Perceiving persons and groups Psychological Re-view 103 336-355

Hamilton DL Sherman S J amp Lickel B (1998) Perceiving social groups The impact ofthe entitativity continuum In C Sedikides J Schopler amp C A Insko (Eds) Inter-group cognitions and intergroup behavior (pp 47-74) Mahwah NJ Erlbaum

Hastie R (1984) Causes and effects of causal attribution Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 37 25-38

Jones E E amp Davis K E (1965) From acts to dispositions The attribution process in per-son perception In L Berkowitz (Ed) Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol2 pp 219-266) New York Academic Press

Kramer R M Brewer M B amp HannaB (1996)Collective trust and collective action Thedecision to trust as a social decision In R Kramer amp T Tyler (Eds) Trust in organiza-tions (pp 357-389) Thousand Oakes CA Sage

Maheswaran D amp Chaiken S (1991) Promoting systematic processing in low-motiva-tion settings Effects of incongruent information on processing and judgment Jour-nal of Personality and Social Psychology 61 13-33

Olson J M Roese N J amp Zanna M P (1996) Expectancies In E T Higgins amp A WKruglanski (Eds) Social psychology Handbook of basic principles (pp 211-238) NewYork Guilford Press

Petty R E (1997) The evolution of theory and research in social psychology From singleto multiple effect and process models In C McGarty amp S A Haslam (Eds) The mes-sage of social psychologyPerspectives on mind in society (pp 268-290)Oxford EnglandBlackwell Publishers Ltd

Petty R E amp Cacioppo J T (1979)Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasionby enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 37 1915-1926

Petty R E amp Cacioppo J T (1986) Communication and persuasion Central and peripheralroutes to attitude change New York Springer-Verlag

Petty R E amp Cacioppo J T (1990) Involvement and persuasion Tradition versus inte-gration Psychological Bulletin 107 367-374

Petty R E Fleming M A amp White P H (1999) Stigmatized sources and persuasionPrejudice as a determinant of argument scrutiny Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology 76 19-34

Petty R E Wells G L amp Brock T C (1976)Distraction can enhance or reduce yielding topropaganda Thought disruption versus effort justification Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology 34 874-884

Platow M J HoarS Reid S Harley K amp Morrison D (1997)Endorsement of distribu-tively fair and unfair leaders in interpersonal and intergroup situations EuropeanJournal of Social Psychology 27 465-494

Platow M J OrsquoConnell A Shave R amp Hanning P (1995) Social evaluations of fair andunfair allocators in interpersonal and intergroup situations British Journal of SocialPsychology 34 363-381

Priester J R amp Petty R E (1995) Source attributions and persuasion Perceived honestyas a determinant of message scrutiny Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 21637-654

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 441

Pyszczynski T A amp Greenberg J (1981)Role of disconfirmed expectancies in the instiga-tion of attributional processing Journal of Personality and Social Psychology40 31-38

Smith S M amp Petty R E (1995) Personality moderators of mood congruency effects oncognition The role of self-esteem and negative mood regulation Journal of Personal-ity and Social Psychology 68 1092-1107

Snyder M L amp Wicklund R (1981)Attribute ambiguity In J H Harvey W Ickes amp R RKidd (Eds) New directions in attribution research (pp 197-221)New York Halsted

Srull T K amp Wyer R S Jr (1989)Person memory and judgment Psychological Review 9658-83

Stangor C amp McMillan D (1992)Memory for expectancy-congruent and expectancy-in-congruent social information A meta-analytic review of the social psychologicaland social developmental literatures Psychological Bulletin 111 42-61

Walster E Aronson E amp Abrahams D (1966)On increasing the persuasiveness of a lowprestige communicator Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 2 325-342

Wenzel M amp Mummendey A (1996) Positive-negative asymmetry of social discrimina-tion A normative analysis of differential evaluations of in-group and out-group onpositive and negative attributes British Journal of Social Psychology 35 493-507

White P H amp Harkens S G (1994) Race of source effects in the elaboration likelihoodmodel Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67 790-807

Wong P T P amp Weiner B (1981) When people ask ldquowhyrdquo questions and the heuristicsof attributional search Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 40 650-663

Wood W amp Eagly A H (1981) Stages in the analysis of persuasive messages The role ofcausal attributions and message comprehension Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 40 246-259

442 PETTY ET AL

Page 20: INDIVIDUAL VERSUS GROUP INTEREST VIOLATION: SURPRISE AS …

disconfirmed Low NC participants showed a main effect for argumentquality F(1146) = 419 p lt 05 along with an expectancy acute argumentquality interaction F(1146) = 1038 p lt 01 This interaction indicatedthat low NC participants did not differentiate between strong and weakarguments when their expectancies were confirmed but they did differ-entiate when their expectancies were disconfirmed8

GENERAL DISCUSSION

The present research expands our understanding of the consequences ofsources taking unexpected positions Based on prior research and the-ory one would have predicted that when a source takes an unexpectedposition greater attributions of trustworthiness and reduced informa-tion processing activity should result compared to when the sourcetakes an expected position The current studies suggest that this result is

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 437

TABLE 1 Mean Attitude Ratings as a Function of Group-Interest Expectancy Statusand Argument Quality (Experiment 2)

mdashmdashAttitudesmdashmdash

Argument Quality Confirmed Disconfirmed

Strong 504 (65) 594 (79)

SD = 187 SD = 170

Weak 483 (76) 465 (68)

SD = 197 SD = 209

Note Ns indicated in parentheses

8 A source acute expectancy interaction F(1272) = 528 p lt 03 was also obtained A maineffect for expectancy emerged in the Black non-alumnus source condition F(1136)= 840p lt 01 Thus participants had more positive attitudes toward the message when a minor-ity source wrote in favor of children of alumni receiving the tuition breaks (M = 562) thanwhen the minority source wrote in favor of breaks for minorities (M = 475) Attitudes inthe White alumnus source conditions did not differ between expectancy disconfirming (M= 496)and confirming conditions (M = 513)F lt 1 This unanticipated result could have oc-curred because Caucasian participants paid more attention to the position taken by theBlack than the White source resulting in their being more affected by those positions(Petty Fleming amp White 1999 White amp Harkens 1994) Future research could includeconditions where a Black source is an alumnus and a White source is a non-alumnus totease apart race from alumni effects Importantly our results indicated that participantsengaged in greater scrutiny of the arguments whichever source (black or white alumnusor non-alumnus) violated expectancies That is the significant two-way Expectancy acute Ar-gument quality interaction was not qualified by source nor was the significant three-wayExpectancy acute Argument quality acute Need for cognition interaction qualified by source

likely primarily when the position taken violates individual self-inter-est When the position is unexpected because it violates a grouprsquos inter-est the results are quite different That is in Experiment 1 we showedthat although both types of expectancy violation induce surprise onlythe violation of self-interest is associated with increased perceptions oftrustworthiness Violations of group interest do not engender the sameenhancements of trustworthiness Instead violations of group interestappear to produce some attributional ambiguity The surprise accompa-nied by unclear attributions as to the cause of a behavior would be ex-pected to lead to increased rather than decreased informationprocessing This is the effect we observed in Experiment 2

INTEGRATION INFORMATION PROCESSING CONSEQUENCESOF EXPECTANCY DISCONFIRMATION

The current framework seems potentially useful for reconciling seem-ingly inconsistent findings in the persuasion literature regarding the in-formation processing consequences of expectancy disconfirmation Tosummarize briefly if disconfirmation of expectancies leads to increasedperceptions of source trustworthiness or enhanced perceptions of mes-sage validity then message processing should decrease over confirma-tion conditions (Chaiken et al 1989 Petty amp Cacioppo 1986) On theother hand if disconfirmation of expectancies leads only to surprisecompared to confirmation conditions message processing should in-crease In past research disconfirmations of expectancies about messagequality (Maheswaran amp Chaiken 1991) message framing (Smith ampPetty 1995) and whether a majority or minority of others hold a pro- orcounterattitudinal position (Baker amp Petty 1994) did not violate self-in-terest and thus should not lead to perceptions of source trustworthinessor message validity In each case recipients are simply left surprised by

438 PETTY ET AL

TABLE 2 Mean Attitude Ratings as a Function of Group-Interest Expectancy StatusArgument Quality and Participantsrsquo Need for Cognition Level (Experiment 2)

mdashmdashAttitudesmdashmdash

High Need for Cognition Low Need for Cognition

Argument Quality Confirmed Disconfirmed Confirmed Disconfirmed

Strong 508 (33) 580 (37) 500 (32) 607 (42)

SD = 204 SD = 156 SD = 170 SD = 182

Weak 432 (37) 484 (31) 535 (39) 445 (37)

SD = 202 SD = 200 SD = 181 SD = 217

Note Ns indicated in parentheses

the disconfirmation of expectancies and they engage in greater informa-tion processing activity presumably to resolve the violation of expecta-tions and re-establish their understanding of the topic or source at hand(Olson et al 1996)

It is somewhat ironic that the earliest work on expectancies in persua-sion (Eagly amp Chaiken 1975Eagly et al 1978Walster et al 1966 Woodamp Eagly 1981) focused on the one type of expectation (ie source-posi-tion expectancy based on personal self-interest) that produced an appar-ent exception to the subsequently emergent general rule thatdisconfirmation of expectancies enhances processing The current re-search is the first to show that violations of expectancies about the posi-tion a source will take can lead to enhanced information processing Thiswas accomplished by shifting the expectation from one based on self-in-terest alone to group interest

In examining this framework it is important to keep the theoreticalvariables in mind that underlie our integration That is when a sourceviolates expectancies a number of inferences are possible An expec-tancy disconfirmation can enhance perceptions of source trustworthi-ness or message validity (and thus decrease message processing) and itcan also affect surprise (and thus increase message processing) butwhen surprise alone occurs enhanced information processing occursWhen both occur it appears that perceptions of message validity reducemessage processing despite the increased surprise

For self- and group interest expectancy violations to occur at least twofactors seem necessary a perception that some self- or group interest isinvolved and an expectation that individuals will act in accordancewiththat interest A perception of self- or group interest may not always bepresent For example an aggregate of individuals which is notentitative enough (they do not form a coherent whole) may not be per-ceived as having a common group interest in the first place (Campbell1958Hamilton amp Sherman 1996Hamilton Sherman amp Lickel 1998) Insuch cases there would be no group interest to violate Even when self-or group interest is perceived however violations of them may not al-ways cause expectancy disconfirmationsFor example in some culturesself-interest violation may be expected rather than unexpected and thussuch violations would not be expected to lead to increased perceptionsof trustworthinessbecause people are more likely to make dispositionalattributions for behaviors that are unexpected (Jones amp Davis 1965)Likewise for some groups or issues group interest violation may also beexpected such as when the group is clearly undeserving and in those in-stances violation of group interest would not be expected to lead to sur-prise

Future work could examine these possibilities as well as explore sev-eral remaining issues For example although we compared individual

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 439

versus group interest violations on perceptions of trustworthiness andsurprise together in Study 1 we did not directly compare the effects ofthese two types of expectancy violations on information processing andpersuasion This was because the effects of individual self-interest viola-tion on information processing and persuasion seemed clear from priorresearch Nevertheless it would be prudent to examine the effects of in-dividual- versus group interest confirmation versus disconfirmation oninformation processing in the same study In addition our hypothesisthat surprise and attributional ambiguity mediate the increased process-ing resulting from group interest violations should be directly tested byassessing the mediators in the same study as the outcome variables

The current research and framework suggest that it is important toconsider that expectancies in persuasion contexts can be developedupon multiple bases such as on prior knowledge of a personrsquos past be-haviors a personrsquos group membership or human behavior in generalAs shown in our experiments the basis of the expectancy can make animportant difference in the outcome of disconfirmation on source per-ception and on subsequent information processing and persuasion

REFERENCES

Ashmore R D amp Del Boca F K (1979) Sex stereotypes and implicit personality theoriesToward a cognitive-social psychological conceptualization Sex Roles 5 219-248

Baker S M amp Petty R E (1994) Majority and minority influence Source-position imbal-ance as a determinant of message scrutiny Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy 67 5-19

Brewer M B amp Silver M D (2000) Group distinctiveness social identification and col-lective mobilization In S Stryker T J Owens amp R W White (Eds) Self Identityand Social Movements (pp 153-171) Minneapolis MN University of MinnesotaPress

Cacioppo J T amp Petty R E (1982) The need for cognition Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 42 116-131

Cacioppo J T Petty R E amp Kao C (1984)The efficient assessment of need for cognitionJournal of Personality Assessment 48 306-307

Campbell D T (1958) Common fate similarity and other indices of the status of aggre-gates as social entities Behavioral Science 3 14-25

Chaiken S Liberman A amp Eagly A H (1989) Heuristic and systematic processingwithin and beyond the persuasion context In J S Uleman amp J A Bargh (Eds) Un-intended thought (pp 212-252) New York Guilford Press

Eagly A H amp Chaiken S (1975) An attribution analysis of the effect of communicatorcharacteristics on opinion change The case of communicator attractiveness Journalof Personality and Social Psychology 32 136-144

Eagly A H Chaiken S amp Wood W (1981)An attribution analysis of persuasion In J HHarvey W J Ickes amp R F Kidd (Eds) New directions in attribution research (Vol 3pp 37-62) Hillsdale NJ Erlbaum

Eagly A H Wood W amp Chaiken S (1978) Causal inferences about communicators and

440 PETTY ET AL

their effects on opinion change Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36424-435

Fiske S T amp Neuberg S L (1990) A continuum of impression formation from cate-gory-based to individuating processes Influences of information and motivationon attention and interpretation In M P Zanna (Ed) Advances in experimental socialpsychology (Vol 23 pp 1-74) San Diego Academic Press

Hamilton DL amp Sherman S J (1996) Perceiving persons and groups Psychological Re-view 103 336-355

Hamilton DL Sherman S J amp Lickel B (1998) Perceiving social groups The impact ofthe entitativity continuum In C Sedikides J Schopler amp C A Insko (Eds) Inter-group cognitions and intergroup behavior (pp 47-74) Mahwah NJ Erlbaum

Hastie R (1984) Causes and effects of causal attribution Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 37 25-38

Jones E E amp Davis K E (1965) From acts to dispositions The attribution process in per-son perception In L Berkowitz (Ed) Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol2 pp 219-266) New York Academic Press

Kramer R M Brewer M B amp HannaB (1996)Collective trust and collective action Thedecision to trust as a social decision In R Kramer amp T Tyler (Eds) Trust in organiza-tions (pp 357-389) Thousand Oakes CA Sage

Maheswaran D amp Chaiken S (1991) Promoting systematic processing in low-motiva-tion settings Effects of incongruent information on processing and judgment Jour-nal of Personality and Social Psychology 61 13-33

Olson J M Roese N J amp Zanna M P (1996) Expectancies In E T Higgins amp A WKruglanski (Eds) Social psychology Handbook of basic principles (pp 211-238) NewYork Guilford Press

Petty R E (1997) The evolution of theory and research in social psychology From singleto multiple effect and process models In C McGarty amp S A Haslam (Eds) The mes-sage of social psychologyPerspectives on mind in society (pp 268-290)Oxford EnglandBlackwell Publishers Ltd

Petty R E amp Cacioppo J T (1979)Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasionby enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 37 1915-1926

Petty R E amp Cacioppo J T (1986) Communication and persuasion Central and peripheralroutes to attitude change New York Springer-Verlag

Petty R E amp Cacioppo J T (1990) Involvement and persuasion Tradition versus inte-gration Psychological Bulletin 107 367-374

Petty R E Fleming M A amp White P H (1999) Stigmatized sources and persuasionPrejudice as a determinant of argument scrutiny Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology 76 19-34

Petty R E Wells G L amp Brock T C (1976)Distraction can enhance or reduce yielding topropaganda Thought disruption versus effort justification Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology 34 874-884

Platow M J HoarS Reid S Harley K amp Morrison D (1997)Endorsement of distribu-tively fair and unfair leaders in interpersonal and intergroup situations EuropeanJournal of Social Psychology 27 465-494

Platow M J OrsquoConnell A Shave R amp Hanning P (1995) Social evaluations of fair andunfair allocators in interpersonal and intergroup situations British Journal of SocialPsychology 34 363-381

Priester J R amp Petty R E (1995) Source attributions and persuasion Perceived honestyas a determinant of message scrutiny Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 21637-654

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 441

Pyszczynski T A amp Greenberg J (1981)Role of disconfirmed expectancies in the instiga-tion of attributional processing Journal of Personality and Social Psychology40 31-38

Smith S M amp Petty R E (1995) Personality moderators of mood congruency effects oncognition The role of self-esteem and negative mood regulation Journal of Personal-ity and Social Psychology 68 1092-1107

Snyder M L amp Wicklund R (1981)Attribute ambiguity In J H Harvey W Ickes amp R RKidd (Eds) New directions in attribution research (pp 197-221)New York Halsted

Srull T K amp Wyer R S Jr (1989)Person memory and judgment Psychological Review 9658-83

Stangor C amp McMillan D (1992)Memory for expectancy-congruent and expectancy-in-congruent social information A meta-analytic review of the social psychologicaland social developmental literatures Psychological Bulletin 111 42-61

Walster E Aronson E amp Abrahams D (1966)On increasing the persuasiveness of a lowprestige communicator Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 2 325-342

Wenzel M amp Mummendey A (1996) Positive-negative asymmetry of social discrimina-tion A normative analysis of differential evaluations of in-group and out-group onpositive and negative attributes British Journal of Social Psychology 35 493-507

White P H amp Harkens S G (1994) Race of source effects in the elaboration likelihoodmodel Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67 790-807

Wong P T P amp Weiner B (1981) When people ask ldquowhyrdquo questions and the heuristicsof attributional search Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 40 650-663

Wood W amp Eagly A H (1981) Stages in the analysis of persuasive messages The role ofcausal attributions and message comprehension Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 40 246-259

442 PETTY ET AL

Page 21: INDIVIDUAL VERSUS GROUP INTEREST VIOLATION: SURPRISE AS …

likely primarily when the position taken violates individual self-inter-est When the position is unexpected because it violates a grouprsquos inter-est the results are quite different That is in Experiment 1 we showedthat although both types of expectancy violation induce surprise onlythe violation of self-interest is associated with increased perceptions oftrustworthiness Violations of group interest do not engender the sameenhancements of trustworthiness Instead violations of group interestappear to produce some attributional ambiguity The surprise accompa-nied by unclear attributions as to the cause of a behavior would be ex-pected to lead to increased rather than decreased informationprocessing This is the effect we observed in Experiment 2

INTEGRATION INFORMATION PROCESSING CONSEQUENCESOF EXPECTANCY DISCONFIRMATION

The current framework seems potentially useful for reconciling seem-ingly inconsistent findings in the persuasion literature regarding the in-formation processing consequences of expectancy disconfirmation Tosummarize briefly if disconfirmation of expectancies leads to increasedperceptions of source trustworthiness or enhanced perceptions of mes-sage validity then message processing should decrease over confirma-tion conditions (Chaiken et al 1989 Petty amp Cacioppo 1986) On theother hand if disconfirmation of expectancies leads only to surprisecompared to confirmation conditions message processing should in-crease In past research disconfirmations of expectancies about messagequality (Maheswaran amp Chaiken 1991) message framing (Smith ampPetty 1995) and whether a majority or minority of others hold a pro- orcounterattitudinal position (Baker amp Petty 1994) did not violate self-in-terest and thus should not lead to perceptions of source trustworthinessor message validity In each case recipients are simply left surprised by

438 PETTY ET AL

TABLE 2 Mean Attitude Ratings as a Function of Group-Interest Expectancy StatusArgument Quality and Participantsrsquo Need for Cognition Level (Experiment 2)

mdashmdashAttitudesmdashmdash

High Need for Cognition Low Need for Cognition

Argument Quality Confirmed Disconfirmed Confirmed Disconfirmed

Strong 508 (33) 580 (37) 500 (32) 607 (42)

SD = 204 SD = 156 SD = 170 SD = 182

Weak 432 (37) 484 (31) 535 (39) 445 (37)

SD = 202 SD = 200 SD = 181 SD = 217

Note Ns indicated in parentheses

the disconfirmation of expectancies and they engage in greater informa-tion processing activity presumably to resolve the violation of expecta-tions and re-establish their understanding of the topic or source at hand(Olson et al 1996)

It is somewhat ironic that the earliest work on expectancies in persua-sion (Eagly amp Chaiken 1975Eagly et al 1978Walster et al 1966 Woodamp Eagly 1981) focused on the one type of expectation (ie source-posi-tion expectancy based on personal self-interest) that produced an appar-ent exception to the subsequently emergent general rule thatdisconfirmation of expectancies enhances processing The current re-search is the first to show that violations of expectancies about the posi-tion a source will take can lead to enhanced information processing Thiswas accomplished by shifting the expectation from one based on self-in-terest alone to group interest

In examining this framework it is important to keep the theoreticalvariables in mind that underlie our integration That is when a sourceviolates expectancies a number of inferences are possible An expec-tancy disconfirmation can enhance perceptions of source trustworthi-ness or message validity (and thus decrease message processing) and itcan also affect surprise (and thus increase message processing) butwhen surprise alone occurs enhanced information processing occursWhen both occur it appears that perceptions of message validity reducemessage processing despite the increased surprise

For self- and group interest expectancy violations to occur at least twofactors seem necessary a perception that some self- or group interest isinvolved and an expectation that individuals will act in accordancewiththat interest A perception of self- or group interest may not always bepresent For example an aggregate of individuals which is notentitative enough (they do not form a coherent whole) may not be per-ceived as having a common group interest in the first place (Campbell1958Hamilton amp Sherman 1996Hamilton Sherman amp Lickel 1998) Insuch cases there would be no group interest to violate Even when self-or group interest is perceived however violations of them may not al-ways cause expectancy disconfirmationsFor example in some culturesself-interest violation may be expected rather than unexpected and thussuch violations would not be expected to lead to increased perceptionsof trustworthinessbecause people are more likely to make dispositionalattributions for behaviors that are unexpected (Jones amp Davis 1965)Likewise for some groups or issues group interest violation may also beexpected such as when the group is clearly undeserving and in those in-stances violation of group interest would not be expected to lead to sur-prise

Future work could examine these possibilities as well as explore sev-eral remaining issues For example although we compared individual

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 439

versus group interest violations on perceptions of trustworthiness andsurprise together in Study 1 we did not directly compare the effects ofthese two types of expectancy violations on information processing andpersuasion This was because the effects of individual self-interest viola-tion on information processing and persuasion seemed clear from priorresearch Nevertheless it would be prudent to examine the effects of in-dividual- versus group interest confirmation versus disconfirmation oninformation processing in the same study In addition our hypothesisthat surprise and attributional ambiguity mediate the increased process-ing resulting from group interest violations should be directly tested byassessing the mediators in the same study as the outcome variables

The current research and framework suggest that it is important toconsider that expectancies in persuasion contexts can be developedupon multiple bases such as on prior knowledge of a personrsquos past be-haviors a personrsquos group membership or human behavior in generalAs shown in our experiments the basis of the expectancy can make animportant difference in the outcome of disconfirmation on source per-ception and on subsequent information processing and persuasion

REFERENCES

Ashmore R D amp Del Boca F K (1979) Sex stereotypes and implicit personality theoriesToward a cognitive-social psychological conceptualization Sex Roles 5 219-248

Baker S M amp Petty R E (1994) Majority and minority influence Source-position imbal-ance as a determinant of message scrutiny Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy 67 5-19

Brewer M B amp Silver M D (2000) Group distinctiveness social identification and col-lective mobilization In S Stryker T J Owens amp R W White (Eds) Self Identityand Social Movements (pp 153-171) Minneapolis MN University of MinnesotaPress

Cacioppo J T amp Petty R E (1982) The need for cognition Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 42 116-131

Cacioppo J T Petty R E amp Kao C (1984)The efficient assessment of need for cognitionJournal of Personality Assessment 48 306-307

Campbell D T (1958) Common fate similarity and other indices of the status of aggre-gates as social entities Behavioral Science 3 14-25

Chaiken S Liberman A amp Eagly A H (1989) Heuristic and systematic processingwithin and beyond the persuasion context In J S Uleman amp J A Bargh (Eds) Un-intended thought (pp 212-252) New York Guilford Press

Eagly A H amp Chaiken S (1975) An attribution analysis of the effect of communicatorcharacteristics on opinion change The case of communicator attractiveness Journalof Personality and Social Psychology 32 136-144

Eagly A H Chaiken S amp Wood W (1981)An attribution analysis of persuasion In J HHarvey W J Ickes amp R F Kidd (Eds) New directions in attribution research (Vol 3pp 37-62) Hillsdale NJ Erlbaum

Eagly A H Wood W amp Chaiken S (1978) Causal inferences about communicators and

440 PETTY ET AL

their effects on opinion change Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36424-435

Fiske S T amp Neuberg S L (1990) A continuum of impression formation from cate-gory-based to individuating processes Influences of information and motivationon attention and interpretation In M P Zanna (Ed) Advances in experimental socialpsychology (Vol 23 pp 1-74) San Diego Academic Press

Hamilton DL amp Sherman S J (1996) Perceiving persons and groups Psychological Re-view 103 336-355

Hamilton DL Sherman S J amp Lickel B (1998) Perceiving social groups The impact ofthe entitativity continuum In C Sedikides J Schopler amp C A Insko (Eds) Inter-group cognitions and intergroup behavior (pp 47-74) Mahwah NJ Erlbaum

Hastie R (1984) Causes and effects of causal attribution Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 37 25-38

Jones E E amp Davis K E (1965) From acts to dispositions The attribution process in per-son perception In L Berkowitz (Ed) Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol2 pp 219-266) New York Academic Press

Kramer R M Brewer M B amp HannaB (1996)Collective trust and collective action Thedecision to trust as a social decision In R Kramer amp T Tyler (Eds) Trust in organiza-tions (pp 357-389) Thousand Oakes CA Sage

Maheswaran D amp Chaiken S (1991) Promoting systematic processing in low-motiva-tion settings Effects of incongruent information on processing and judgment Jour-nal of Personality and Social Psychology 61 13-33

Olson J M Roese N J amp Zanna M P (1996) Expectancies In E T Higgins amp A WKruglanski (Eds) Social psychology Handbook of basic principles (pp 211-238) NewYork Guilford Press

Petty R E (1997) The evolution of theory and research in social psychology From singleto multiple effect and process models In C McGarty amp S A Haslam (Eds) The mes-sage of social psychologyPerspectives on mind in society (pp 268-290)Oxford EnglandBlackwell Publishers Ltd

Petty R E amp Cacioppo J T (1979)Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasionby enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 37 1915-1926

Petty R E amp Cacioppo J T (1986) Communication and persuasion Central and peripheralroutes to attitude change New York Springer-Verlag

Petty R E amp Cacioppo J T (1990) Involvement and persuasion Tradition versus inte-gration Psychological Bulletin 107 367-374

Petty R E Fleming M A amp White P H (1999) Stigmatized sources and persuasionPrejudice as a determinant of argument scrutiny Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology 76 19-34

Petty R E Wells G L amp Brock T C (1976)Distraction can enhance or reduce yielding topropaganda Thought disruption versus effort justification Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology 34 874-884

Platow M J HoarS Reid S Harley K amp Morrison D (1997)Endorsement of distribu-tively fair and unfair leaders in interpersonal and intergroup situations EuropeanJournal of Social Psychology 27 465-494

Platow M J OrsquoConnell A Shave R amp Hanning P (1995) Social evaluations of fair andunfair allocators in interpersonal and intergroup situations British Journal of SocialPsychology 34 363-381

Priester J R amp Petty R E (1995) Source attributions and persuasion Perceived honestyas a determinant of message scrutiny Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 21637-654

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 441

Pyszczynski T A amp Greenberg J (1981)Role of disconfirmed expectancies in the instiga-tion of attributional processing Journal of Personality and Social Psychology40 31-38

Smith S M amp Petty R E (1995) Personality moderators of mood congruency effects oncognition The role of self-esteem and negative mood regulation Journal of Personal-ity and Social Psychology 68 1092-1107

Snyder M L amp Wicklund R (1981)Attribute ambiguity In J H Harvey W Ickes amp R RKidd (Eds) New directions in attribution research (pp 197-221)New York Halsted

Srull T K amp Wyer R S Jr (1989)Person memory and judgment Psychological Review 9658-83

Stangor C amp McMillan D (1992)Memory for expectancy-congruent and expectancy-in-congruent social information A meta-analytic review of the social psychologicaland social developmental literatures Psychological Bulletin 111 42-61

Walster E Aronson E amp Abrahams D (1966)On increasing the persuasiveness of a lowprestige communicator Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 2 325-342

Wenzel M amp Mummendey A (1996) Positive-negative asymmetry of social discrimina-tion A normative analysis of differential evaluations of in-group and out-group onpositive and negative attributes British Journal of Social Psychology 35 493-507

White P H amp Harkens S G (1994) Race of source effects in the elaboration likelihoodmodel Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67 790-807

Wong P T P amp Weiner B (1981) When people ask ldquowhyrdquo questions and the heuristicsof attributional search Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 40 650-663

Wood W amp Eagly A H (1981) Stages in the analysis of persuasive messages The role ofcausal attributions and message comprehension Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 40 246-259

442 PETTY ET AL

Page 22: INDIVIDUAL VERSUS GROUP INTEREST VIOLATION: SURPRISE AS …

the disconfirmation of expectancies and they engage in greater informa-tion processing activity presumably to resolve the violation of expecta-tions and re-establish their understanding of the topic or source at hand(Olson et al 1996)

It is somewhat ironic that the earliest work on expectancies in persua-sion (Eagly amp Chaiken 1975Eagly et al 1978Walster et al 1966 Woodamp Eagly 1981) focused on the one type of expectation (ie source-posi-tion expectancy based on personal self-interest) that produced an appar-ent exception to the subsequently emergent general rule thatdisconfirmation of expectancies enhances processing The current re-search is the first to show that violations of expectancies about the posi-tion a source will take can lead to enhanced information processing Thiswas accomplished by shifting the expectation from one based on self-in-terest alone to group interest

In examining this framework it is important to keep the theoreticalvariables in mind that underlie our integration That is when a sourceviolates expectancies a number of inferences are possible An expec-tancy disconfirmation can enhance perceptions of source trustworthi-ness or message validity (and thus decrease message processing) and itcan also affect surprise (and thus increase message processing) butwhen surprise alone occurs enhanced information processing occursWhen both occur it appears that perceptions of message validity reducemessage processing despite the increased surprise

For self- and group interest expectancy violations to occur at least twofactors seem necessary a perception that some self- or group interest isinvolved and an expectation that individuals will act in accordancewiththat interest A perception of self- or group interest may not always bepresent For example an aggregate of individuals which is notentitative enough (they do not form a coherent whole) may not be per-ceived as having a common group interest in the first place (Campbell1958Hamilton amp Sherman 1996Hamilton Sherman amp Lickel 1998) Insuch cases there would be no group interest to violate Even when self-or group interest is perceived however violations of them may not al-ways cause expectancy disconfirmationsFor example in some culturesself-interest violation may be expected rather than unexpected and thussuch violations would not be expected to lead to increased perceptionsof trustworthinessbecause people are more likely to make dispositionalattributions for behaviors that are unexpected (Jones amp Davis 1965)Likewise for some groups or issues group interest violation may also beexpected such as when the group is clearly undeserving and in those in-stances violation of group interest would not be expected to lead to sur-prise

Future work could examine these possibilities as well as explore sev-eral remaining issues For example although we compared individual

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 439

versus group interest violations on perceptions of trustworthiness andsurprise together in Study 1 we did not directly compare the effects ofthese two types of expectancy violations on information processing andpersuasion This was because the effects of individual self-interest viola-tion on information processing and persuasion seemed clear from priorresearch Nevertheless it would be prudent to examine the effects of in-dividual- versus group interest confirmation versus disconfirmation oninformation processing in the same study In addition our hypothesisthat surprise and attributional ambiguity mediate the increased process-ing resulting from group interest violations should be directly tested byassessing the mediators in the same study as the outcome variables

The current research and framework suggest that it is important toconsider that expectancies in persuasion contexts can be developedupon multiple bases such as on prior knowledge of a personrsquos past be-haviors a personrsquos group membership or human behavior in generalAs shown in our experiments the basis of the expectancy can make animportant difference in the outcome of disconfirmation on source per-ception and on subsequent information processing and persuasion

REFERENCES

Ashmore R D amp Del Boca F K (1979) Sex stereotypes and implicit personality theoriesToward a cognitive-social psychological conceptualization Sex Roles 5 219-248

Baker S M amp Petty R E (1994) Majority and minority influence Source-position imbal-ance as a determinant of message scrutiny Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy 67 5-19

Brewer M B amp Silver M D (2000) Group distinctiveness social identification and col-lective mobilization In S Stryker T J Owens amp R W White (Eds) Self Identityand Social Movements (pp 153-171) Minneapolis MN University of MinnesotaPress

Cacioppo J T amp Petty R E (1982) The need for cognition Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 42 116-131

Cacioppo J T Petty R E amp Kao C (1984)The efficient assessment of need for cognitionJournal of Personality Assessment 48 306-307

Campbell D T (1958) Common fate similarity and other indices of the status of aggre-gates as social entities Behavioral Science 3 14-25

Chaiken S Liberman A amp Eagly A H (1989) Heuristic and systematic processingwithin and beyond the persuasion context In J S Uleman amp J A Bargh (Eds) Un-intended thought (pp 212-252) New York Guilford Press

Eagly A H amp Chaiken S (1975) An attribution analysis of the effect of communicatorcharacteristics on opinion change The case of communicator attractiveness Journalof Personality and Social Psychology 32 136-144

Eagly A H Chaiken S amp Wood W (1981)An attribution analysis of persuasion In J HHarvey W J Ickes amp R F Kidd (Eds) New directions in attribution research (Vol 3pp 37-62) Hillsdale NJ Erlbaum

Eagly A H Wood W amp Chaiken S (1978) Causal inferences about communicators and

440 PETTY ET AL

their effects on opinion change Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36424-435

Fiske S T amp Neuberg S L (1990) A continuum of impression formation from cate-gory-based to individuating processes Influences of information and motivationon attention and interpretation In M P Zanna (Ed) Advances in experimental socialpsychology (Vol 23 pp 1-74) San Diego Academic Press

Hamilton DL amp Sherman S J (1996) Perceiving persons and groups Psychological Re-view 103 336-355

Hamilton DL Sherman S J amp Lickel B (1998) Perceiving social groups The impact ofthe entitativity continuum In C Sedikides J Schopler amp C A Insko (Eds) Inter-group cognitions and intergroup behavior (pp 47-74) Mahwah NJ Erlbaum

Hastie R (1984) Causes and effects of causal attribution Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 37 25-38

Jones E E amp Davis K E (1965) From acts to dispositions The attribution process in per-son perception In L Berkowitz (Ed) Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol2 pp 219-266) New York Academic Press

Kramer R M Brewer M B amp HannaB (1996)Collective trust and collective action Thedecision to trust as a social decision In R Kramer amp T Tyler (Eds) Trust in organiza-tions (pp 357-389) Thousand Oakes CA Sage

Maheswaran D amp Chaiken S (1991) Promoting systematic processing in low-motiva-tion settings Effects of incongruent information on processing and judgment Jour-nal of Personality and Social Psychology 61 13-33

Olson J M Roese N J amp Zanna M P (1996) Expectancies In E T Higgins amp A WKruglanski (Eds) Social psychology Handbook of basic principles (pp 211-238) NewYork Guilford Press

Petty R E (1997) The evolution of theory and research in social psychology From singleto multiple effect and process models In C McGarty amp S A Haslam (Eds) The mes-sage of social psychologyPerspectives on mind in society (pp 268-290)Oxford EnglandBlackwell Publishers Ltd

Petty R E amp Cacioppo J T (1979)Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasionby enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 37 1915-1926

Petty R E amp Cacioppo J T (1986) Communication and persuasion Central and peripheralroutes to attitude change New York Springer-Verlag

Petty R E amp Cacioppo J T (1990) Involvement and persuasion Tradition versus inte-gration Psychological Bulletin 107 367-374

Petty R E Fleming M A amp White P H (1999) Stigmatized sources and persuasionPrejudice as a determinant of argument scrutiny Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology 76 19-34

Petty R E Wells G L amp Brock T C (1976)Distraction can enhance or reduce yielding topropaganda Thought disruption versus effort justification Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology 34 874-884

Platow M J HoarS Reid S Harley K amp Morrison D (1997)Endorsement of distribu-tively fair and unfair leaders in interpersonal and intergroup situations EuropeanJournal of Social Psychology 27 465-494

Platow M J OrsquoConnell A Shave R amp Hanning P (1995) Social evaluations of fair andunfair allocators in interpersonal and intergroup situations British Journal of SocialPsychology 34 363-381

Priester J R amp Petty R E (1995) Source attributions and persuasion Perceived honestyas a determinant of message scrutiny Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 21637-654

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 441

Pyszczynski T A amp Greenberg J (1981)Role of disconfirmed expectancies in the instiga-tion of attributional processing Journal of Personality and Social Psychology40 31-38

Smith S M amp Petty R E (1995) Personality moderators of mood congruency effects oncognition The role of self-esteem and negative mood regulation Journal of Personal-ity and Social Psychology 68 1092-1107

Snyder M L amp Wicklund R (1981)Attribute ambiguity In J H Harvey W Ickes amp R RKidd (Eds) New directions in attribution research (pp 197-221)New York Halsted

Srull T K amp Wyer R S Jr (1989)Person memory and judgment Psychological Review 9658-83

Stangor C amp McMillan D (1992)Memory for expectancy-congruent and expectancy-in-congruent social information A meta-analytic review of the social psychologicaland social developmental literatures Psychological Bulletin 111 42-61

Walster E Aronson E amp Abrahams D (1966)On increasing the persuasiveness of a lowprestige communicator Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 2 325-342

Wenzel M amp Mummendey A (1996) Positive-negative asymmetry of social discrimina-tion A normative analysis of differential evaluations of in-group and out-group onpositive and negative attributes British Journal of Social Psychology 35 493-507

White P H amp Harkens S G (1994) Race of source effects in the elaboration likelihoodmodel Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67 790-807

Wong P T P amp Weiner B (1981) When people ask ldquowhyrdquo questions and the heuristicsof attributional search Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 40 650-663

Wood W amp Eagly A H (1981) Stages in the analysis of persuasive messages The role ofcausal attributions and message comprehension Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 40 246-259

442 PETTY ET AL

Page 23: INDIVIDUAL VERSUS GROUP INTEREST VIOLATION: SURPRISE AS …

versus group interest violations on perceptions of trustworthiness andsurprise together in Study 1 we did not directly compare the effects ofthese two types of expectancy violations on information processing andpersuasion This was because the effects of individual self-interest viola-tion on information processing and persuasion seemed clear from priorresearch Nevertheless it would be prudent to examine the effects of in-dividual- versus group interest confirmation versus disconfirmation oninformation processing in the same study In addition our hypothesisthat surprise and attributional ambiguity mediate the increased process-ing resulting from group interest violations should be directly tested byassessing the mediators in the same study as the outcome variables

The current research and framework suggest that it is important toconsider that expectancies in persuasion contexts can be developedupon multiple bases such as on prior knowledge of a personrsquos past be-haviors a personrsquos group membership or human behavior in generalAs shown in our experiments the basis of the expectancy can make animportant difference in the outcome of disconfirmation on source per-ception and on subsequent information processing and persuasion

REFERENCES

Ashmore R D amp Del Boca F K (1979) Sex stereotypes and implicit personality theoriesToward a cognitive-social psychological conceptualization Sex Roles 5 219-248

Baker S M amp Petty R E (1994) Majority and minority influence Source-position imbal-ance as a determinant of message scrutiny Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy 67 5-19

Brewer M B amp Silver M D (2000) Group distinctiveness social identification and col-lective mobilization In S Stryker T J Owens amp R W White (Eds) Self Identityand Social Movements (pp 153-171) Minneapolis MN University of MinnesotaPress

Cacioppo J T amp Petty R E (1982) The need for cognition Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 42 116-131

Cacioppo J T Petty R E amp Kao C (1984)The efficient assessment of need for cognitionJournal of Personality Assessment 48 306-307

Campbell D T (1958) Common fate similarity and other indices of the status of aggre-gates as social entities Behavioral Science 3 14-25

Chaiken S Liberman A amp Eagly A H (1989) Heuristic and systematic processingwithin and beyond the persuasion context In J S Uleman amp J A Bargh (Eds) Un-intended thought (pp 212-252) New York Guilford Press

Eagly A H amp Chaiken S (1975) An attribution analysis of the effect of communicatorcharacteristics on opinion change The case of communicator attractiveness Journalof Personality and Social Psychology 32 136-144

Eagly A H Chaiken S amp Wood W (1981)An attribution analysis of persuasion In J HHarvey W J Ickes amp R F Kidd (Eds) New directions in attribution research (Vol 3pp 37-62) Hillsdale NJ Erlbaum

Eagly A H Wood W amp Chaiken S (1978) Causal inferences about communicators and

440 PETTY ET AL

their effects on opinion change Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36424-435

Fiske S T amp Neuberg S L (1990) A continuum of impression formation from cate-gory-based to individuating processes Influences of information and motivationon attention and interpretation In M P Zanna (Ed) Advances in experimental socialpsychology (Vol 23 pp 1-74) San Diego Academic Press

Hamilton DL amp Sherman S J (1996) Perceiving persons and groups Psychological Re-view 103 336-355

Hamilton DL Sherman S J amp Lickel B (1998) Perceiving social groups The impact ofthe entitativity continuum In C Sedikides J Schopler amp C A Insko (Eds) Inter-group cognitions and intergroup behavior (pp 47-74) Mahwah NJ Erlbaum

Hastie R (1984) Causes and effects of causal attribution Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 37 25-38

Jones E E amp Davis K E (1965) From acts to dispositions The attribution process in per-son perception In L Berkowitz (Ed) Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol2 pp 219-266) New York Academic Press

Kramer R M Brewer M B amp HannaB (1996)Collective trust and collective action Thedecision to trust as a social decision In R Kramer amp T Tyler (Eds) Trust in organiza-tions (pp 357-389) Thousand Oakes CA Sage

Maheswaran D amp Chaiken S (1991) Promoting systematic processing in low-motiva-tion settings Effects of incongruent information on processing and judgment Jour-nal of Personality and Social Psychology 61 13-33

Olson J M Roese N J amp Zanna M P (1996) Expectancies In E T Higgins amp A WKruglanski (Eds) Social psychology Handbook of basic principles (pp 211-238) NewYork Guilford Press

Petty R E (1997) The evolution of theory and research in social psychology From singleto multiple effect and process models In C McGarty amp S A Haslam (Eds) The mes-sage of social psychologyPerspectives on mind in society (pp 268-290)Oxford EnglandBlackwell Publishers Ltd

Petty R E amp Cacioppo J T (1979)Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasionby enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 37 1915-1926

Petty R E amp Cacioppo J T (1986) Communication and persuasion Central and peripheralroutes to attitude change New York Springer-Verlag

Petty R E amp Cacioppo J T (1990) Involvement and persuasion Tradition versus inte-gration Psychological Bulletin 107 367-374

Petty R E Fleming M A amp White P H (1999) Stigmatized sources and persuasionPrejudice as a determinant of argument scrutiny Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology 76 19-34

Petty R E Wells G L amp Brock T C (1976)Distraction can enhance or reduce yielding topropaganda Thought disruption versus effort justification Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology 34 874-884

Platow M J HoarS Reid S Harley K amp Morrison D (1997)Endorsement of distribu-tively fair and unfair leaders in interpersonal and intergroup situations EuropeanJournal of Social Psychology 27 465-494

Platow M J OrsquoConnell A Shave R amp Hanning P (1995) Social evaluations of fair andunfair allocators in interpersonal and intergroup situations British Journal of SocialPsychology 34 363-381

Priester J R amp Petty R E (1995) Source attributions and persuasion Perceived honestyas a determinant of message scrutiny Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 21637-654

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 441

Pyszczynski T A amp Greenberg J (1981)Role of disconfirmed expectancies in the instiga-tion of attributional processing Journal of Personality and Social Psychology40 31-38

Smith S M amp Petty R E (1995) Personality moderators of mood congruency effects oncognition The role of self-esteem and negative mood regulation Journal of Personal-ity and Social Psychology 68 1092-1107

Snyder M L amp Wicklund R (1981)Attribute ambiguity In J H Harvey W Ickes amp R RKidd (Eds) New directions in attribution research (pp 197-221)New York Halsted

Srull T K amp Wyer R S Jr (1989)Person memory and judgment Psychological Review 9658-83

Stangor C amp McMillan D (1992)Memory for expectancy-congruent and expectancy-in-congruent social information A meta-analytic review of the social psychologicaland social developmental literatures Psychological Bulletin 111 42-61

Walster E Aronson E amp Abrahams D (1966)On increasing the persuasiveness of a lowprestige communicator Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 2 325-342

Wenzel M amp Mummendey A (1996) Positive-negative asymmetry of social discrimina-tion A normative analysis of differential evaluations of in-group and out-group onpositive and negative attributes British Journal of Social Psychology 35 493-507

White P H amp Harkens S G (1994) Race of source effects in the elaboration likelihoodmodel Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67 790-807

Wong P T P amp Weiner B (1981) When people ask ldquowhyrdquo questions and the heuristicsof attributional search Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 40 650-663

Wood W amp Eagly A H (1981) Stages in the analysis of persuasive messages The role ofcausal attributions and message comprehension Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 40 246-259

442 PETTY ET AL

Page 24: INDIVIDUAL VERSUS GROUP INTEREST VIOLATION: SURPRISE AS …

their effects on opinion change Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36424-435

Fiske S T amp Neuberg S L (1990) A continuum of impression formation from cate-gory-based to individuating processes Influences of information and motivationon attention and interpretation In M P Zanna (Ed) Advances in experimental socialpsychology (Vol 23 pp 1-74) San Diego Academic Press

Hamilton DL amp Sherman S J (1996) Perceiving persons and groups Psychological Re-view 103 336-355

Hamilton DL Sherman S J amp Lickel B (1998) Perceiving social groups The impact ofthe entitativity continuum In C Sedikides J Schopler amp C A Insko (Eds) Inter-group cognitions and intergroup behavior (pp 47-74) Mahwah NJ Erlbaum

Hastie R (1984) Causes and effects of causal attribution Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 37 25-38

Jones E E amp Davis K E (1965) From acts to dispositions The attribution process in per-son perception In L Berkowitz (Ed) Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol2 pp 219-266) New York Academic Press

Kramer R M Brewer M B amp HannaB (1996)Collective trust and collective action Thedecision to trust as a social decision In R Kramer amp T Tyler (Eds) Trust in organiza-tions (pp 357-389) Thousand Oakes CA Sage

Maheswaran D amp Chaiken S (1991) Promoting systematic processing in low-motiva-tion settings Effects of incongruent information on processing and judgment Jour-nal of Personality and Social Psychology 61 13-33

Olson J M Roese N J amp Zanna M P (1996) Expectancies In E T Higgins amp A WKruglanski (Eds) Social psychology Handbook of basic principles (pp 211-238) NewYork Guilford Press

Petty R E (1997) The evolution of theory and research in social psychology From singleto multiple effect and process models In C McGarty amp S A Haslam (Eds) The mes-sage of social psychologyPerspectives on mind in society (pp 268-290)Oxford EnglandBlackwell Publishers Ltd

Petty R E amp Cacioppo J T (1979)Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasionby enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 37 1915-1926

Petty R E amp Cacioppo J T (1986) Communication and persuasion Central and peripheralroutes to attitude change New York Springer-Verlag

Petty R E amp Cacioppo J T (1990) Involvement and persuasion Tradition versus inte-gration Psychological Bulletin 107 367-374

Petty R E Fleming M A amp White P H (1999) Stigmatized sources and persuasionPrejudice as a determinant of argument scrutiny Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology 76 19-34

Petty R E Wells G L amp Brock T C (1976)Distraction can enhance or reduce yielding topropaganda Thought disruption versus effort justification Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology 34 874-884

Platow M J HoarS Reid S Harley K amp Morrison D (1997)Endorsement of distribu-tively fair and unfair leaders in interpersonal and intergroup situations EuropeanJournal of Social Psychology 27 465-494

Platow M J OrsquoConnell A Shave R amp Hanning P (1995) Social evaluations of fair andunfair allocators in interpersonal and intergroup situations British Journal of SocialPsychology 34 363-381

Priester J R amp Petty R E (1995) Source attributions and persuasion Perceived honestyas a determinant of message scrutiny Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 21637-654

SURPRISE IN ARGUMENT SCRUTINY AND PERSUASION 441

Pyszczynski T A amp Greenberg J (1981)Role of disconfirmed expectancies in the instiga-tion of attributional processing Journal of Personality and Social Psychology40 31-38

Smith S M amp Petty R E (1995) Personality moderators of mood congruency effects oncognition The role of self-esteem and negative mood regulation Journal of Personal-ity and Social Psychology 68 1092-1107

Snyder M L amp Wicklund R (1981)Attribute ambiguity In J H Harvey W Ickes amp R RKidd (Eds) New directions in attribution research (pp 197-221)New York Halsted

Srull T K amp Wyer R S Jr (1989)Person memory and judgment Psychological Review 9658-83

Stangor C amp McMillan D (1992)Memory for expectancy-congruent and expectancy-in-congruent social information A meta-analytic review of the social psychologicaland social developmental literatures Psychological Bulletin 111 42-61

Walster E Aronson E amp Abrahams D (1966)On increasing the persuasiveness of a lowprestige communicator Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 2 325-342

Wenzel M amp Mummendey A (1996) Positive-negative asymmetry of social discrimina-tion A normative analysis of differential evaluations of in-group and out-group onpositive and negative attributes British Journal of Social Psychology 35 493-507

White P H amp Harkens S G (1994) Race of source effects in the elaboration likelihoodmodel Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67 790-807

Wong P T P amp Weiner B (1981) When people ask ldquowhyrdquo questions and the heuristicsof attributional search Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 40 650-663

Wood W amp Eagly A H (1981) Stages in the analysis of persuasive messages The role ofcausal attributions and message comprehension Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 40 246-259

442 PETTY ET AL

Page 25: INDIVIDUAL VERSUS GROUP INTEREST VIOLATION: SURPRISE AS …

Pyszczynski T A amp Greenberg J (1981)Role of disconfirmed expectancies in the instiga-tion of attributional processing Journal of Personality and Social Psychology40 31-38

Smith S M amp Petty R E (1995) Personality moderators of mood congruency effects oncognition The role of self-esteem and negative mood regulation Journal of Personal-ity and Social Psychology 68 1092-1107

Snyder M L amp Wicklund R (1981)Attribute ambiguity In J H Harvey W Ickes amp R RKidd (Eds) New directions in attribution research (pp 197-221)New York Halsted

Srull T K amp Wyer R S Jr (1989)Person memory and judgment Psychological Review 9658-83

Stangor C amp McMillan D (1992)Memory for expectancy-congruent and expectancy-in-congruent social information A meta-analytic review of the social psychologicaland social developmental literatures Psychological Bulletin 111 42-61

Walster E Aronson E amp Abrahams D (1966)On increasing the persuasiveness of a lowprestige communicator Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 2 325-342

Wenzel M amp Mummendey A (1996) Positive-negative asymmetry of social discrimina-tion A normative analysis of differential evaluations of in-group and out-group onpositive and negative attributes British Journal of Social Psychology 35 493-507

White P H amp Harkens S G (1994) Race of source effects in the elaboration likelihoodmodel Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67 790-807

Wong P T P amp Weiner B (1981) When people ask ldquowhyrdquo questions and the heuristicsof attributional search Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 40 650-663

Wood W amp Eagly A H (1981) Stages in the analysis of persuasive messages The role ofcausal attributions and message comprehension Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 40 246-259

442 PETTY ET AL