This article was downloaded by: [University of New Hampshire]

On: 26 February 2015, At: 17:03

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,
UK

The Journal of Social

Psychology
Publication details, including instructions for authors
and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vsoc20

Limits of Credibility: The Case

of Political Persuasion
a a
Jean-Charles Chebat , Pierre Filiatrault & Jean
a
Perrien
a
Center for Research in Management University of
Quebec , Montreal
Published online: 30 Jun 2010.

To cite this article: Jean-Charles Chebat , Pierre Filiatrault & Jean Perrien (1990)
Limits of Credibility: The Case of Political Persuasion, The Journal of Social
Psychology, 130:2, 157-167, DOI: 10.1080/00224545.1990.9924566

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1990.9924566

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the
information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.
However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,
or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views
expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the
Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with
primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any
losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,
and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the
Content.
 This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,
sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is
expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 17:03 26 February 2015
 The Journal of Social Psychology, 130(2), 157-167

Limits of Credibility: The Case of

Political Persuasion

JEAN-CHARLES CHEBAT
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 17:03 26 February 2015

PIERRE FILIATRAULT
JEAN PERRIEN
Center for Research in Management
University of Quebec at Montreal

ABSTRACT.The present study explores the interactive effects of three major varia-
bles affecting message acceptance: source credibility, recipients’ involvement, and
locus of control. Statements representing a political party’s views on the causes of a
negative economic situation were evaluated by 381 Canadian students for degree of
acceptance. They also evaluated the party’s credibility and assessed their personal in-
volvement in the economic situation. Contrary to the predictions of the Petty and
Cacioppo (1979) Elaboration Likelihood Model (J2LM). the results show that credi-
bility had an impact on message acceptance in situations of both low and high in-
volvement, but high involvement enhanced message acceptance, confirming ELM
and contradicting Sherifs social judgment theory. Externally controlled recipients
proved to be more sensitive to the effects of credibility.

POLITICAL PARTIES, as well as public and nonprofit organizations,

often strive to enhance their credibility in order, they assume, to improve
the acceptance of their messages. Recent studies have shown that the effects
of credibility vary according to two factors at least, neither of which a com-
municator should neglect: the degree to which the receiver of the message is
involved in the issue and personal characteristics of the receiver, such as
locus of control (LOC). The purpose of the present study was to propose a
model relating credibility and message acceptance (MA) a9 mediated by two
variables, issue involvement and LOC. There are two reasons for carefully
considering the problem of credibility. On a practical level, it is important

The present research wm made possible by a grant from the Social Sciences and
Humanities Research Council of Canada.
Reprint requests should be sent to Jean-Charles Chebat, Universit&du Quebec,
C.P. 8888, Succursale “A,” Montreal, Qubbec H3C 3P8, Canada.

157
 158 The Journal of Social Psychologv

to determine the kinds of issues for which credibility is a concern and to

identify the type of public for whom credibility is a significant tool of per-
suasion. On a theoretical level, it is important to define an integrative model
that clarifies the relationship among the various concepts involved in this
question-attitude toward the source, issue involvement, personality
(LOC), and MA-and to explain contradictory results obtained in previous
studies by looking at the role of mediating variables.

Main Effects
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 17:03 26 February 2015

Effects of credibility. Previous research has consistently shown that credi-

bility enhances MA. Trustworthiness and expertness, which, according to
Kelman (l%l), represent the cognitive component of source credibility, bring
about more immediate attitude changes (Miller & Baseheart, 1%9; Shulman
& Worrall, 1970). Affective characteristics of the source, in particular at-
tractiveness, have also been found to have positive effects on attitude
change when there is a similiarity between source and receiver (Simons,
Berkowitz, & Moyer, 1970). It was hypothesized that credibility increases
MA (Hypothesis Hl).

Effects of involvement. Sherif, Sherif, and Nebergall (1%5) proposed a

social judgment theory to explain the negative relationship between level of
involvement and MA. Highly involved individuals are likely to have precise
thoughts and ideas on issues that are important to them, so that the interval
of MA is narrower in such cases. Results from studies by Eagly and Manis
(1966) and Petty, Cacioppo, and Schumann (1983) have supported the
social judgment theory. However, contrary to social judgment theory, Pal-
lak, Muller, Dollar, and Pallak (1972), Petty and Cacioppo (1979), and Petty,
Cacioppo, and Goldman (1981) have found a positive relationship between
involvement and initially favorable attitudes. Receivers with high involve-
ment are easier to persuade. Petty and Cacioppo (1979) proposed that in-
volvement triggers information processing. This proposition has been made
in studies by Cialdini, Herman, Kozlowski, and Petty (1976), Craik and
Lockhart (1972), and Miller, Maruyama, Beaver, and Valone (1976).
The contradiction in these results needs to be resolved. Petty and
Cacioppo (1979) and Petty, Cacioppo, and Goldman (1981) focused on an
issue that was intrinsically involving: American students were exposed to a
message about a comprehensive examination that was a prerequisite for
graduation. In both studies, the relationship between issue involvement and
MA was found to be positive. In another study, however, a negative rela-
tionship was found: “Involved subjects were more skeptical of the product
than were less involved subjects” (Petty et al., 1983, p. 141). In this case,
students were exposed to a message about a much less involving issue-
 Chebat, Filiatrault, & Perrien 159

razor blades. Similarly, Sherif, Kelley, Rodgers, Sarup, and Tittler (1973)
based their conclusions on a study about messages not likely to be involv-
ing, namely, the merits of an historical figure-General Von Hinden-
burg-and the probability of the success of an unknown comedian named
O’Keefe. Razor blades, General Von Hindenburg, and an unknown come-
dian are likely to be less involving issues than graduation to most students.
Hence, some issues are intrinsically more involving than others, and there is
no evidence that phenomena brought about by lower involvement issues are
isomorphic with those brought about by higher involvement issues. Because
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 17:03 26 February 2015

in this research the issue (i.e., economic crisis and its consequences-
unemployment, inflation, etc.) is highly involving for most respondents, it
was hypothesized that higher involvement increases MA (Hypothesis H2).

Effects of LOC. Several studies have established the relationship between

LOC and persuasion: Chebat and Picard (1984), McGinnies and Ward
(1974), PeGeira and Austrin (1980), and Weigly (1977) have shown that ex-
ternally controlled individuals are more persuasible than those who are in-
ternally controlled. Internally controlled individuals feel that they are in
charge of their destinies, whereas those who are externally controlled feel
that they are at the whim of outside forces. MA was hypothesized to be in-
creased by external LOC (Hypothesis H3).

Interactive Effects
Credibility x Involvement. Petty et al. (1983) found that source credibility
enhances MA only if involvement is low. This finding, which has been con-
f m e d by other studies (Johnson & Scileppi, 1%9; Petty & Cacioppo, 1979;
Petty et al., 1981; Rhine & Severance, 1970), is the basis for Petty and
Cacioppo’s (1979) Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM). They propose
two routes that lead to persuasion: the central route, which is operative
under conditions of high involvement, and the peripheral route, which is
operative under conditions of low involvement. In the first case, persuasion
depends on intrinsic arguments in the message; in the second, it is mediated
by cues exterior to the message, including source credibility. Under condi-
tions of low involvement, message receivers use cues such as credibility in
forming their attitudes toward the message. Following Petty and Cacioppo,
it was hypothesized that low involvement increases the effects of credibility,
whereas high involvement reduces these effects (Hypothesis H4).

CredibiIity x LOC. Few studies have focused on the interactive effects of

LOC and credibility on MA. Hester (1977) found that internally controlled
individuals attributed significantly more credibility to the source than exter-
nally controlled individuals, r(178) = .84, p < .001. McGinnies and Ward
 160 The Journal of Social Psychology

(1974) showed contradictory results: Whereas externally controlled subjects

from the United States and Japan were more influenced by a highly credible
source than internally controlled subjects, the reverse was true for Aus-
tralian subjects.
It was reasoned that internally controlled individuals construct an inte-
grated perception of the source and the message. They are assumed to be
less sensitive to external pressures (such as the source’s prestige, expertness,
competence, trustworthiness) than externally controlled individuals; conse-
quently, a highly credible source would elicit less defensive reactions from
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 17:03 26 February 2015

internally than from externally controlled subjects. Sternthal, Dholakia,

and Leavitt (1978) showed that a “moderately credible source induced a
more positive attitude toward the issue than the highly credible com-
municator” (p. 258). Respondents who feel external pressure would react
defensively vis-his a highly credible source; they would feel “less inclined
to engage in this cognitive work (to bolster support for a position advocated
by the message)” (Sternthal et al., 1978, p. 259). These results, which sup-
port the cognitive response theory, can be related to the mediator function
of LOC: It was hypothesized that externally controlled respondents, who
are more sensitive to external pressure, would react more defensively
toward a highly credible source and its message; conversely, those who are
internally controlled would not feel threatened by a highly credible source
and would be more likely to have consonant attitudes toward the source and
toward the message (Hypothesis H5).
Involvement x LOC. Petty et al. (1983) stress that “a diligent considera-
tion of issue-relevant information requires not only motivation to think but
also the ability to process the information” (p. 143). Involvement is a neces-
sary but not sufficient condition to process message content, because cogni-
tive ability is also required. It was hypothesized that internality reinforces
the effects of high involvement: Both increase the effects of the argument
presented (Hypothesis H6).

Model and Hypotheses

The hypothetical relationship between variables in the model of persuasion
we have named Message Acceptance Through Credibility, Involvement,
and Locus of Control (h4ACIL) is summarized in Figure 1. The first three
hypotheses focus on the main effects of the dependent variables; the other
three focus on interactive effects:
H1. MA is increased by credibility attributed to the source by the re-
ceiver.
H2. MA is increased by a higher level of receiver involvement in an
issue.
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 17:03 26 February 2015

,I
I
0
I
I
0
I
*
Chebat, Filiatrault, & Pemen
161
 162 The Journal of Social Psychologv

H3. MA is increased by an external LOC.

H4. The effects of higher credibility on MA are reduced by higher in-
volvement and increased by lower involvement.
H5. The effects of higher credibility on MA are increased by an inter-
nal LOC.
H6. MA is increased by the interactive effects of an internal LOC and
high involvement.

Method
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 17:03 26 February 2015

Sample
The sample consisted of 424 undergraduate marketing students at the
University of Quebec at Montreal (age range, 19 to 43 years; 52% male,
48% female); 381 questionnaires were used.
Dependent Variable
We drew 12 statements that were typical of their explanations for economic
problems from the speeches of several ministers of the Department of Fi-
nance, Economic Development, and Revenue of the province of Quebec.
The economic crisis was attributed to various environmental factors, in-
cluding the worldwide crisis, interest rates, inadequate Canadian federal
economic policy, and other variables over which the provincial ministers ex-
ercised no control. Six-point Likert scales were used to measure level of
agreement, ranging from totally disagree to totally agree.
Independent Variables
LOC. Respondents were required to complete the full-length Rotter (1966)
questionnaire.
Credibility. In line with Kelman (1961), we conceptualized credibility as a
two-dimensional concept incorporating a cognitive component (expertness
and trustworthiness) and an affective component (attractiveness and
prestige). The credibility of the provincial government was assessed on each
of these four dimensions. For each of these dimensions one 6-point Likert
scale was designed (ranging from totally agree to totally disagree) to
measure respondents’ assessment of expertness, trustworthiness, attrac-
tiveness, and prestige of the government. A global score of credibility was
obtained by averaging the four individual scores.
Involvement. Three indicators were used to assess respondent involvement:
1. Motivation to process information-the interest that respondents
showed in understanding the causes of the economic crisis on a cog-
nitive level (two &point Likert scales).
 Chebat, Filiatrault, & Pemen 163

2. Personal relevance-the degree to which the economic crisis af-

fected respondents’ social status, self-image, and relations with
others (two dpoint Likert scales).
3. Capacity to act-the degree to,which respondents felt they were able
to solve personal problems resulting from the crisis (two &point
Likert scales).
Involvement was operationalized as the average score on the &point
Likert scales mentioned above.
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 17:03 26 February 2015

Messages
Twelve sentences were chosen from speeches that reflected the same basic
idea in a different rhetorical fashion: Responsibility of the economic crisis
was attributed to the federal government. Four of these messages are
presented below. The average score of MA measures the degree of accep-
tance of the common basic idea:
1. The federal government’s monetary decisions have caused three
times as many lost jobs in Quebec as in the rest of Canada.
2. The Quebec government should fear future actions from the federal
government because the future will resemble the past.
3. Through its monetary, economic, and fiscal policies, the federal
government endangers the public finances of Quebec.
4. All economists have observed that the federal government is unable
to create jobs.

Statistical A naiysis
To test the relationships among source credibility, involvement, LOC, and
MA, a series of multiple regression analyses was conducted. Because of the
predefined role of each variable within the conceptual framework (see
Figure l), MA was defined as the criterion (Y), credibility and involvement
as two predictors (xland x2), and LOC as a quasi-moderator (2) because of
its direct effect on MA and its moderating role on the other two predictors.’
Consequently, a moderated regression analysis (MRA) was conducted.
M U allows one to measure the influence of predictors on the criterion, as
well as to identify the presence of either a pure or a quasi-moderator (Shar-
ma, Durand, & Gur-Arie, 1981; Zedeck, Cranny, Vale, & Smith, 1971). For
the problem at hand, six regressions were performed:
Y=a + b,x, + b s 2
Y=a + blxl + b g 2 + b ~ x ,

1. A quasi-moderator is defined as a variable acting both as a predictor and a pure

moderator on another variable (Sharma et al., 1981).
 164 The Journal of Social Psychology

The analysis focuses mainly on regression coefficients. If 6 , and b2 are sta-

tistically significant, it means that xl and x2 are actual predictors. If b, is
significant, it means that there is a significant interaction between the two
predictors. If b, is significant and b, is not, z is not a moderator variable but
simply another predictor. If 6, = 0 and b, # 0, z is a pure moderator on x,.
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 17:03 26 February 2015

In the same manner, if b, = 0 and b6 # 0, z is a pure moderator on x2(and if

b7 is also # 0, z also acts as a pure moderator on the interaction term). But
if b, # 0 and b, # 0 and/or 66 # 0, then z is a quasi-moderator on either xl or
x2, or both (Sharma et al., 1981, p. 293). Applied to our data, this analytical
procedure resulted in the following set of regression equations (asterisk =
not significant at p I.05):

Y = 3.66 + 0.44x4 + 0.16X2 R2 = 21.66% (la)

Y = 3.66 0.44Xi + 0.16X2 - 0.07X,X2* RZ = 21.65% (2a)
Y = 3.66 + 044x1 + 0.16X2
- 0.009XlX2 + 0.022* R2 = 21.38% (3a)
Y = 3.65 + O.43Xr + O.15Xi
- 0.008x,x2* + 0.022* R2 = 23.33% (4a)
Y = 3.65 + O.43X1 + 0.16~2
-0.009x,x,* + 0.022* R2 = 21.38% (5a)
Y = 3.65 + o.43X1 + 0 . 1 6 ~ ~
- 0.009X,X,* - 0.02* - 0.01 ZxlX2* R2 = 21.38% (6a)
From these equations we may conclude the following:
1. Source credibility (x,) and involvement (x2)are predictors of MA
(Y), because b, -and b, are significant coefficients. The overall explaining
power is over 20%. But credibility contributes more to MA than involve-
ment (0.44 vs. 0.16 for their respective standardized coefficients).
2. There is no significant interaction between credibility and involve-
ment (b3in Equation 2a is not a significant coefficient).
3. LOC acts as a pure moderator on the effects of source credibility on
MA: More precisely, externally controlled individuals prove to be more sen-
sitive to the effects of credibility on MA. This is not true for involvement (as
indicated in Equations 4a, 5a, and 6a: b, = 0.15, whereas b,, b6, and b, are
not significant).
The actual model based on these results is pictured in Figure 2. The numbers
in this figure are the standardized regression coefficients, indicating the
magnitude of the causal relationships.
 Chebat, Filiatrault, & Pemen 165

Locus of
control
I

(-0.15)
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 17:03 26 February 2015

t- I

1 I
Message
Acceptance

FIGURE 2. Actual MACE model.

Discussion
Results confirmed the significant association of credibility with MA: There
was a clear alignment of attitudes toward the source (credibility) and toward
the message. As expected, high involvement enhanced MA, confirming
ELM and previous studies (e.g., Chaiken, 1980) but contradicting Sherifs
social judgment theory. This contradiction can be explained by looking at
the level of intrinsic issue involvement. On the basis of our literature review,
we suggested that when respondents are exposed to messages related to
issues with important personal consequences-comprehensive examinations
for graduation (Petty et al., 1981), mixed-sex visitation hours for university
students (Petty & Cacioppo, 1979), or, in our case, the economic crisis-
they make greater cognitive efforts to assimilate the message. Conversely, if
the issue is not intrinsically involving, like soap (Chebat & Picard, 1985) or
razor blades (Petty et al., 1983), the amount of thought the message pro-
vokes is likely to be lower. Petty et d. (1981) have observed “the longstand-
ing tradition of persuasion researchers to employ messages that are low in
 166 The Journal of Sociol Psychology

personal relevance” (p. 853). This research tradition may account for those
studies that have validated a negative relationship between involvement and
MA: Low involvement issues do not warrant considerable cognitive effort.
Miller et al. (1976) assert:
It may be irrational to scrutinize the plethora of counter-attitudinal messages
received daily. To the extent that one possesses only a limited amount of infor-
mation processing time and capacity, such scrutiny would disengage the
thought processes from the exigencies of daily life. (p. 623)
Our results show no significant interaction of credibility and involvement;
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 17:03 26 February 2015

this contradicts our hypotheses derived from ELM. Credibility and involve-
ment individually affected MA, but no combined effects were evidenced.
ELM maintains that credibility effects are significant only if involvement is
low. Our results demonstrate that credibility is equally effective under con-
ditions of low and high involvement. Consistent with the results of Hester
(1977) and those of McCinnies and Ward (1974) with their Australian sam-
ple, our results show that internally controlled respondents’ attitudes
toward the communicator and the message are more consistent than exter-
nally controlled respondents’ attitudes.

REFERENCES

Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of
source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 39, 752-766.
Chebat, J. C., & Picard, J. (1984). Locus of control, product involvement, andper-
suasibility. (Working Paper 84-28), University of Quebec at Montreal, Centre de
Recherches en Gestion.
Chebat, J. C., & Picard, J. (1985). The effects of price and message-sidedness on con-
fidence in product and advertisement with personal involvement as a mediator
variable. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 2, 129-1 34.
Cialdini, R., Herman, A., Kozlowski, P., &Petty, R. (1976). Elastic shift of opinion:
Determinants of direction and durability. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 34, 663-672.
Craik, F. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for
memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671-684.
Eagly, A. H., & Manis, M. (1966). Evaluation of message and communication as a
function of involvement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3,
483-485.
Hester, W. R. (1977). Effects of locus of control and consensus on selection of alter-
native sources of explanation and credibility attributed to actors’ causal interpreta-
tions (Doctoral dissertation, University of Toledo, 1977). Dissertation Abstracts,
7802485.
Johnson, H. H., & Scileppi, J. A. (1%9). Effects of ego-involvement conditions on
attitude change to high and low credibility communicators. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 25, 57-78.
Kelman, H. C. (l%l). Processes of opinion change. Public Opinion Quarterly, 25.
57-78.
 Chebat, Filiatrault, & Pemen 167

McGinnies, E., & Ward, C. (1974). Persuasibility as a function of source credibility

and locus of control: Five cross-cultural experiments. Journal of Personality, 42,
360-37 1.
Miller, G., & Baseheart, J. (1%9). Source trustworthiness, opinionated statements,
and response to persuasive communication. Speech Monographs, 36, 1-7.
Miller, N., Maruyama, G., Beaver, R., & Valone. K. (1976). Speed of speech and per-
suasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34. 615-625.
Pallak, M. S . , Muller, M., Dollar, K., & Pallak, J. (1972). Effect of commitment on
responsiveness to an extreme consonant communication. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 23, 429-436.
Perreira, M. N., & Austrin, H. R. (1980). Locus of control and status of the experi-
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 17:03 26 February 2015

menter and prediction of suggestibility. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hyp-

nosis, 28(4). 367-374.
Petty, R. E.. & Cacioppo. J. T. (1979). Issue involvement can increase or decrease
persuasion by enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 37, 1915-1926.
Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Goldman, R. (1981). Personal involvement as a
determinant of argument-based persuasion. Journal of Personality and Sochl
Psychology,' 41, 847-855.
Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. (1983). Central and peripheral routes
to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of Con-
sumer Research, 10, 135-146.
Rhine, R., & Severance, L. (1970). Ego-involvement, source credibility, and attitude
change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16, 175-190.
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of
reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80 (1, Whole No. 609).
Sharma, R. M., Durand, R. M., & Gur-Arie, 0. (1981). Identification and analysis of
moderator variables. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 291-300.
Sherif, C. W., Kelley, M., Rodgers, H., Sarup, G., & Tittler, B. (1973). Personal in-
volvement, social judgment, and action. Journal of Personality and Social
PSyChOlOgy, 27, 311-328.
Sherif, C. W., Sherif, M., & Nebergall, R. E. (1965). Attitude and attitude change.
Philadelphia: Saunders.
Shulman, G., & Worrall, C. (1970). Salience patterns, source credibility, and the
sleeper effect. Public Opinion Quarterly, 34, 371-382.
Simons, H. N., Berkowitz, N., & Moyer, R. (1970). Similarity, credibility, and at-
titude change: A review and a theory. Psychological Bulletin, 73, 1-6.
Sternthal, B., Dholakia, R., & Leavitt, C. (1978). The persuasive effect of source
credibility: Tests of cognitive response. Journal of Consumer Research, 4, 252-260.
Weigly, G. P. (1977). Effects of locus of control, interpersonal trust, and source
credibility on a persuasive influence attempt (Doctoral dissertation, Ohio Universi-
ty, 1977). Dissertation Abstracts, 7723475.
Zedeck, S., Cranny, C. J., Vale. A. C.. &Smith. P. C. (1971). ComDarison of ioint
moderators in three prediction techniques. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55,
234-240.

Received April 24, 1989