Advertisement

Current Psychology

, Volume 8, Issue 3, pp 234–249 | Cite as

Cognitive tuning sets: Anticipating the consequences of communication

  • B. Guerin
  • J. M. Innes
Articles

Abstract

This paper reviews the literature on cognitive tuning sets: the expectations of having to transmit or receive information. It is shown that having to transmit information leads to a unified and distorted summary being transmitted, a reluctance to receive additional information, a rejection of inconsistent information, and a shaping of the material to accommodate the anticipated audience. As well, the opinions of the transmitters become polarized. It is argued that the receiver condition is probably not the correct control group to use since the outcome depends on the uncontrolled perceived goals. It is suggested that future research should probably treat the multiple effects of cognitive tuning sets separately. An integrated explanation is given in terms of anticipating the consequences of communication.

Keywords

Attitude Change Current Psychology Stimulus Person Inconsistent Information Evaluation Apprehension 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Brilhart, B.L. (1965). The relationship between some aspects of communicative speaking and communicative listening.Journal of Communication, 15, 35–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brock, T.C., & Fromkin, H.L. (1968). Cognitive tuning set and behavioral receptivity to discrepant information.Journal of Personality, 36, 108–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Burnstein, E., & Vinokur, A. (1975). What a person thinks upon learning he has chosen differently from others: Nice evidence for the persuasive-arguments explanation of choice shifts.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 11, 412–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cohen, A.R. (1961). Cognitive tuning as a factor affecting impression formation.Journal of Personality, 29, 235–245.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Davis, E. (No date). Zajonc’s measures of cognitive structures: Some problems. Unpublished paper, Department of Psychology, Australian National University, lCanberra.Google Scholar
  6. Duval, S., & Wicklund, R.A. (1972).A theory of objective self-awareness. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  7. Ede, L., & Lunsford, A. (1984). Audience addressed/audience invoked: The role of audience in composition theory and pedagogy.College Composition and Communication, 35, 155–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Freud, S. (1973).Introductory lectures on psycho-analysis. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin.Google Scholar
  9. Harkins, S.G., Harvey J.H., Keithly, L., & Rich, M. (1977). Cognitive tuning, encoding, and the attribution of causality.Memory and Cognition, 5, 561–565.Google Scholar
  10. Harvey, J.H., Harkins, S.G., & Kagehiro, D.K. (1976). Cognitive tung and the attribution of causality.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 708–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hennigan, K.M., Cook, T.D., & Gruder, C.L. (1982). Cognitive tuning set, source credibility and the temporal persistence of attitude change.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 412–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Higgins, E.T., McCann, C.D., & Fondacaro, R. (1982). The “Communication Game”: Goal-directed encoding and cognitive consequences.Social Cognition, 1, 21–37.Google Scholar
  13. Hoffman, C., Mischel, W., & Baer, J.S. (1984). Language and person cognition: Effects of communicative set on trait attribution.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 1029–1043.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Holt, L.E., & Watts, W.A. (1969). Salience of logical relationships among beliefs as a factor in persuasion.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 11, 193–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Innes, J.M. (1981). Polarization of response as a function of cognitive tuning set and individual differences.Social Behavior and Personality, 9, 213–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Leventhal, H. (1962). The effects of set and discrepancy on impression formation.Journal of Personality, 30, 1–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Markus, H., & Zajonc, R.B. (1985). The cognitive perspective in social psychology. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.),Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 137–230). New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  18. Mazis, M.B. (1973). Cognitive tuning and receptivity to novel information.Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, 9, 307–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McFarland, C., Ross, M., & Conway, M. (1984). Self-persuasion and self-presentation as mediators of anticipatory attitude change.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 529–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McGuire, W.J. (1968). The nature of attitudes and attitude change. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.),Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 136–314). Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
  21. Moore, J.C. (1974). Audience effects in a communication chain: An instance of ingratiation.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1, 58–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Petty, R.E., Ostrom, T.M. & Brock, T.C. (1981).Cognitive responses in persuasion. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  23. Powell, F.A. (1974). Cognitive tuning and differentiation of arguments in communication.Human Communication Research, 1, 53–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Scott, W.A. (1968). Attitude measurement. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.),Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 204–273). Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
  25. Tesser, A. (1978). Self-generated attitude change. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 11, pp. 289–338). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  26. Tetlock, P.E. (1983). Accountability and complexity of thought.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 74–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Warr, P.B., & Knapper, C. (1968).The perception of people and events. London: Wiley.Google Scholar
  28. Watts, W.A., & Holt, L.E. (1970). Logical relationships among beliefs and timing as factors in persuasion.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16, 571–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Yarkin, K.L., Town, J.P., & Harvey, J.H. (1981). The role of cognitive sets in interpreting and remembering interpersonal events. In J.H. Harvey (Ed.),Cognition, social behavior, and the environment (pp. 289–308). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  30. Zajonc, R.B. (1955).Structure of the cognitive field. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  31. Zajonc, R.B. (1960). The process of cognitive tuning and communication.Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 61, 159–167.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Zajonc, R.B. & Adelmann, P.K. (1987). cognition and communication: A story of missed opportunities.Social Science Information, 26, 3–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. Guerin
    • 1
  • J. M. Innes
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Behavioural SciencesJames Cook UniversityTownsvilleAustralia
  2. 2.University of AdelaideAustralia

Personalised recommendations