Involvement and persuasion: Types, traditions, and the evidence.

Abstract

This article is a reply to Petty and Cacioppo's (1990) critique of our meta-analysis in which we concluded that research has established 3 different types of involvement with distinctly different effects on persuasion ( Johnson & Eagly, 1989). We first correct their summary of our review. In response to their claim that outcome-relevant and value-relevant involvement are best reduced to a single construct, we assert that this proposal fails to account for existing research findings and provides only a highly speculative account of the processes that might mediate the impact of involvement on persuasion