Department of Psychology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA.
Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2012 Jan;38(1):90-100. doi: 10.1177/0146167211420733. Epub 2011 Aug 30.
Compared to nonexperts, expert sources have been considered to elicit more processing of persuasive messages because of expectations that the information is likely to be valid or accurate. However, depending on the position of an advocacy, source expertise could activate other motives that may produce a very different relation from that found in past research. When messages are counterattitudinal (disagreeable), experts should motivate greater processing than nonexpert sources because of expectations that they will likely provide robust opposition to one's existing views. In contrast, when advocacies are proattitudinal (agreeable), nonexpert rather than expert sources should elicit more scrutiny because of perceptions that they will likely provide inadequate support to recipients' current views. Two studies offer evidence consistent with these predictions. Manipulations of source expertise created different expectations regarding the strength of opposition or support, and these perceptions accounted for effects of source expertise on the amount of message scrutiny.
与非专家相比，由于预期信息可能有效或准确，专家来源被认为会引发更多的说服信息处理。然而，根据宣传的立场，来源的专业性可能会激发其他动机，从而产生与过去研究中发现的非常不同的关系。当信息与态度相反（令人不快）时，由于预期专家可能会对现有观点提供强有力的反对，因此专家应该比非专家更能激发更多的处理。相比之下，当观点与态度一致（合意）时，由于人们认为非专家可能不会对接受者的现有观点提供足够的支持，因此非专家而不是专家应该更仔细地审查信息。两项研究提供了与这些预测一致的证据。来源专业性的操纵创造了关于反对或支持力度的不同期望，这些看法解释了来源专业性对信息审查程度的影响。
