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

Abstract

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