Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisorChairperson, Graduate Committee: Ian M. Handleyen
dc.contributor.authorOwenby, Shaun Roberten
dc.date.accessioned2015-07-07T18:31:35Z
dc.date.available2015-07-07T18:31:35Z
dc.date.issued2014en
dc.identifier.urihttps://scholarworks.montana.edu/xmlui/handle/1/8787en
dc.description.abstractPrevious research shows that people can hold general goals for action or inaction. Further, action (vs. inaction) goals can result in less or greater attitude change in response to a persuasive message under different circumstances. To explain this opposite pattern of results, the current research explored the possibility that action (inaction) goals enhance (diminish) the default tendency of a given situation. Furthermore, research on attitude polarization demonstrates that despite exposure to equally strong yet opposing messages on a particular topic, individuals evaluate information consistent with their existing attitude as stronger (i.e. biased assimilation) and report more polarized attitudes as a result. Thus, for the present thesis, it was hypothesized that action (inaction) goals would enhance (diminish) this default tendency for biased information processing, leading to more (less) polarized attitudes compared to participants who receive no (control) goals. In this experiment, participants with non-neutral initial attitudes toward the impact of illegal immigration on the economy completed word fragments as part of an apparent verbal agility task. Via random assignment, this task actually primed either a general action, inaction, or no (control) goal. Next, participants viewed equally strong but opposing messages in a side-by-side format where one message supported and the other refuted the economic benefits of illegal immigration. Finally, participants responded to several measures to assess direct and perceived attitude polarization, as well as biased assimilation of the messages. The results replicated several findings in attitude polarization literature; however, goal primes yielded no effects, thus the hypotheses were unsupported. Several explanations of the results and possibilities for future research are discussed.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherMontana State University - Bozeman, College of Letters & Scienceen
dc.subject.lcshAction theoryen
dc.subject.lcshAttitude changeen
dc.subject.lcshImpression formationen
dc.subject.lcshGoal (Psychology)en
dc.titleInvestigating the impact of general action and inaction goals on attitude polarizationen
dc.typeThesisen
dc.rights.holderCopyright 2014 by Shaun Robert Owenbyen
thesis.catalog.ckey2737238en
thesis.degree.committeemembersMembers, Graduate Committee: Jessi L. Smith; Matthew Vessen
thesis.degree.departmentPsychology.en
thesis.degree.genreThesisen
thesis.degree.nameMSen
thesis.format.extentfirstpage1en
thesis.format.extentlastpage73en
mus.data.thumbpage80en


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record


MSU uses DSpace software, copyright © 2002-2017  Duraspace. For library collections that are not accessible, we are committed to providing reasonable accommodations and timely access to users with disabilities. For assistance, please submit an accessibility request for library material.