Abstract
Conditioned attitude strength was an increasing function of number of persuasion trials (1 vs 3 exposures to communication) (p <.02) and the strength of the opinion-eliciting argument (p <.001) with these two variables interacting multiplicatively (p <.05) to determine attitude strength (N = 200). Results were predicted from an extension of Hull-Miller-Spence learning theory.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
HULL, C. L. Principles of behavior. New York: Appleton-Century, 1943.
SPENCE, K. W. Behavior theory and conditioning. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1956.
SPENCE, K. W., & PLATT, J. R. UCS intensity and performance in eyelid conditioning. Psychol. Bull., 1966, 65, 1–10.
WEISS, R. F. Persuasion and the acquisition of attitudes: models from conditioning and selective learning. Psychol. Rep., 1962, 11, 709–732.
WEISS, R. F., A delay of argument gradient in the instrumental conditioning of attitudes. Psychon. Sci., 1967, 8, 475–458.
WEISS, R. F., RAWSON, H. E., & PASAMANICK, B. Argument strength, delay of argument, and anxiety in the “conditioning” and “selective learning” of attitudes. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1963, 67, 157–165.
WEISS, R. F., WEISS, J. J., & CHALUPA, L. M. Classical conditioning of attitudes as a function of source consensus. Psychon. Sci., 1967, 9, 465–466.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Note
1. Research supported by NIMH Grant MH-12402.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Weiss, R.F., Chalupa, L.M., Gorman, B.S. et al. Classical conditioning of attitudes as a function of number of persuasion trials and argument (UCS) strength. Psychon Sci 11, 59–60 (1968). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03330992
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03330992