Cues about Cues in Political Comments on Social Media: Effects of Commenters’ Attractiveness and Claims of Cognitive Effort
Keywords:
social media, other-provided cue, comment, attractiveness, cognitive effort, impressionAbstract
Humans strive for balance between their motivations for accurate judgments and their cognitive effort. Although heuristic cues provide cognitive shortcuts, heuristic-based processing does not guarantee quality judgments. Based on the heuristic-systematic model, this study investigates if social media users select cues to use for their judgments based on cue applicability and reliability, which can facilitate more effective heuristic processing. The present study examine if (1) commenters’ physical attractiveness and their claims of cognitive effort influence the effects of their comments about a political candidate on the viewer’s attitude toward and vote intention for the candidate, and (2) if the viewer’s political interest moderates the influences. The results indicate that vote intention is significantly influenced by the cognitive effort cue whereas attitude is significantly influenced only when the viewer is interested in politics. The attractiveness cue does not have a significant influence.
References
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.
Chaiken, S. (1979). Communicator physical attractiveness and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(8), 1387–1397.
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(5), 752–766.
Chaiken, S., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In J. S. Uleman & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended Thought, (pp. 212-252). New York: Guilford Press.
Chen, S., & Chaiken, S. (1999). The heuristic-systematic model in its broader context. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process Theories in Social Psychology (pp. 73–96). New York: Guilford Press.
Converse, P. E. (1970). Attitudes and non-attitudes: Continuation of a dialogue. In E. R. Tufte (Ed.), The quantitative analysis of social problems (pp. 168–189). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Darke, P. R. Chaiken, S., Bohner, G., Einwiller, S., Erb, H. P., & Hazlewood, J. D. (1998). Accuracy motivation, consensus information, and the law of large numbers: Effect on attitude judgment in the absence of argumentation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1205–1215.
Delli Carpini, M. X. (2000). Gen.com: Youth, civic engagement, and the new information environment. Political Communication, 17, 341–349.
Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper & Row.
Eagly, A. H., Ashmore, R. D., Makhijani, M. G. & Longo, L. C. (1991). What is beautiful is good, but…: A meta-analytic review of research on the physical attractiveness stereotype. Psychological Bulletin, 110(1), 109–128.
Ekman, P., Friesen, W. V., O'Sullivan, M., & Scherer, K. (1980). Relative importance of face, body, and speech in judgments of personality and affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(2), 270–277.
Fein, S., Goethals, G. R., & Kugler, M. B. (2007). Social influence on political judgments: The case of presidential debate. Political Psychology, 28(2), 165–192.
Feingold, A. (1992). Gender differences in mate selection preferences: a test of the parental investment model. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 125–139.
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (2013). Social cognition: From brains to culture. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Goren, P. (2013). On voter competence. Oxford University Press.
Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling [White paper]. Retrieved from http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf
Higgins, E. T. (1996). Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicability, and salience. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds). Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 133–168). New York, NY: Guilford.
Jackson, L. A., Hunter, J. E., & Hodge, C. N. (1995). Physical attractiveness and intellectual competence: A meta-analytic review. Social Psychology Quarterly, 108-122.
Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. (1983). Generalizing about messages: Suggestions for design and analysis of experiments. Human Communication Research, 9(2), 169-191.
Kassin, S. M., Goldstein, C. C., & Savitsky, K. (2003). Behavioral confirmation in the interrogation room: on the dangers of presuming guilt. Law and Human Behavior, 27(2), 187–203.
Lau, R. R., & Redlawsk, D. P. (2001). Advantages and disadvantages of cognitive heuristics in political decision making. American Journal of Political Science, 45(4), 951–971.
Lee, J. (2015). The double-edged sword: The effects of journalists’ social media activities on audience perceptions of journalists and their news products. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication, 20(3), 312–329.
Lee, J. & Lim, Y. (2014). Who says what about whom: Young voters’ impression formation of political candidates on social networking sites. Mass Communication & Society, 17(3), 553–572.
Lee, E., & Jang, Y. J. (2010). What do others’ reactions to news on Internet portal sites tell us? Effects of presentation format and readers’ need for cognition on reality perception. Communication Research, 37(6), 825–846.
Maddux, J. E., & Rogers, R. W. (1980). Effects of source expertness, physical attractiveness, and supporting arguments on persuasion: A case of brains over beauty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(2), 235–244.
Maheswaran, D., & Chaiken, S. (1991). Promoting systematic processing in low-motivation settings: effect of incongruent information on processing and judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(1), 13.
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magic number seven plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity to process information. Psychological Review, 63, 81-97.
Mondak, J. J. (1993). Public opinion and heuristic processing of source cues. Political Behavior, 15(2), 167–192.
Nahari, G., & Ben‐Shakhar, G. (2013). Primacy effect in credibility judgements: The vulnerability of verbal cues to biased interpretations. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27(2), 247–255.
Nishimura, Y. (2010). Impoliteness in Japanese BBS interactions: Observations from message exchanges in two online communities. Journal of Politeness Research, Language, Behaviour, Culture, 6(1), 35-55.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In Communication and Persuasion (pp. 1-24). New York: Springer.
Pew Research Center. (2011). Well known: Clinton and Gadhafi; little known: Who controls Congress: Political knowledge update. Retrieved from http://www.people-press.org/2011/03/31/well-known-clinton-and-gadhafi-little-known-who-controls-congress
Pingree, R. J., Quenette, A. M., Tchernev, J. M., & Dickinson, T. (2013). Effects of media criticism on gatekeeping trust and implications for agenda setting. Journal of Communication, 63, 351–372.
Pingree, R. J., & Stoycheff, E. (2013). Differentiating cueing from reasoning in agenda-setting effects. Journal of Communication, 63, 852–872.
Ratneshwar, S., & Chaiken, S. (1991). Comprehension's role in persuasion: The case of its moderating effect on the persuasive impact of source cues. Journal of Consumer Research, 18(1), 52–62.
Sundar, S. S. (2008). The MAIN Model: A heuristic approach to understanding technology effects on credibility. In M. J. Metzger & A. J. Flanagin (Eds.), Digital Media, Youth, and Credibility (pp.73-100). The John D. and Catherine T. McArthur foundation series on digital media and learning. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Taylor, S. E., & Fiske, S. T. (1978). Salience, attention, and attribution: Top of the head phenomena. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 11, 249-288.
Thomson, P. (2009). Children and young people: Voices in visual research. In P. Thomson (Ed.). Doing Visual Research with Children and Young People (pp. 1–19). London, England: Routledge.
Todorov, A., & Duchaine, B. (2008). Reading trustworthiness in faces without recognizing faces. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 25(3), 1–16.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty. Science, 185, 1124-1131.
Wang, S. S., Moon, S. I., Kwon, K. H., Evans, C. A., & Stefanone, M. A. (2010). Face off: Implications of visual cues on initiating friendship on Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(2), 226–234.
Walther, J. B., & Parks, M. R. (2002). Cues filtered out, cues filtered in: Computer-mediated communication and relationships. In M. L. Knapp & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (3rd ed., pp. 529–563). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Walther, J. B., Van Der Heide, B., Kim, S. Y., Westerman, D., & Tong, S. T. (2008). The role of friends’ appearance and behavior on evaluations of individuals on Facebook: Are we known by the company we keep? Human Communication Research, 34(1), 28–49.
Walther, J. B., Van Der Heide, B., Hamel, L. M., & Shulman, H. C. (2009). Self-generated versus other-generated statements and impressions in computer-mediated communication a test of warranting theory using Facebook. Communication Research, 36(2), 229–253.
Chaiken, S. (1979). Communicator physical attractiveness and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(8), 1387–1397.
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(5), 752–766.
Chaiken, S., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In J. S. Uleman & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended Thought, (pp. 212-252). New York: Guilford Press.
Chen, S., & Chaiken, S. (1999). The heuristic-systematic model in its broader context. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process Theories in Social Psychology (pp. 73–96). New York: Guilford Press.
Converse, P. E. (1970). Attitudes and non-attitudes: Continuation of a dialogue. In E. R. Tufte (Ed.), The quantitative analysis of social problems (pp. 168–189). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Darke, P. R. Chaiken, S., Bohner, G., Einwiller, S., Erb, H. P., & Hazlewood, J. D. (1998). Accuracy motivation, consensus information, and the law of large numbers: Effect on attitude judgment in the absence of argumentation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1205–1215.
Delli Carpini, M. X. (2000). Gen.com: Youth, civic engagement, and the new information environment. Political Communication, 17, 341–349.
Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper & Row.
Eagly, A. H., Ashmore, R. D., Makhijani, M. G. & Longo, L. C. (1991). What is beautiful is good, but…: A meta-analytic review of research on the physical attractiveness stereotype. Psychological Bulletin, 110(1), 109–128.
Ekman, P., Friesen, W. V., O'Sullivan, M., & Scherer, K. (1980). Relative importance of face, body, and speech in judgments of personality and affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(2), 270–277.
Fein, S., Goethals, G. R., & Kugler, M. B. (2007). Social influence on political judgments: The case of presidential debate. Political Psychology, 28(2), 165–192.
Feingold, A. (1992). Gender differences in mate selection preferences: a test of the parental investment model. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 125–139.
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (2013). Social cognition: From brains to culture. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Goren, P. (2013). On voter competence. Oxford University Press.
Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling [White paper]. Retrieved from http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf
Higgins, E. T. (1996). Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicability, and salience. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds). Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 133–168). New York, NY: Guilford.
Jackson, L. A., Hunter, J. E., & Hodge, C. N. (1995). Physical attractiveness and intellectual competence: A meta-analytic review. Social Psychology Quarterly, 108-122.
Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. (1983). Generalizing about messages: Suggestions for design and analysis of experiments. Human Communication Research, 9(2), 169-191.
Kassin, S. M., Goldstein, C. C., & Savitsky, K. (2003). Behavioral confirmation in the interrogation room: on the dangers of presuming guilt. Law and Human Behavior, 27(2), 187–203.
Lau, R. R., & Redlawsk, D. P. (2001). Advantages and disadvantages of cognitive heuristics in political decision making. American Journal of Political Science, 45(4), 951–971.
Lee, J. (2015). The double-edged sword: The effects of journalists’ social media activities on audience perceptions of journalists and their news products. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication, 20(3), 312–329.
Lee, J. & Lim, Y. (2014). Who says what about whom: Young voters’ impression formation of political candidates on social networking sites. Mass Communication & Society, 17(3), 553–572.
Lee, E., & Jang, Y. J. (2010). What do others’ reactions to news on Internet portal sites tell us? Effects of presentation format and readers’ need for cognition on reality perception. Communication Research, 37(6), 825–846.
Maddux, J. E., & Rogers, R. W. (1980). Effects of source expertness, physical attractiveness, and supporting arguments on persuasion: A case of brains over beauty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(2), 235–244.
Maheswaran, D., & Chaiken, S. (1991). Promoting systematic processing in low-motivation settings: effect of incongruent information on processing and judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(1), 13.
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magic number seven plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity to process information. Psychological Review, 63, 81-97.
Mondak, J. J. (1993). Public opinion and heuristic processing of source cues. Political Behavior, 15(2), 167–192.
Nahari, G., & Ben‐Shakhar, G. (2013). Primacy effect in credibility judgements: The vulnerability of verbal cues to biased interpretations. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27(2), 247–255.
Nishimura, Y. (2010). Impoliteness in Japanese BBS interactions: Observations from message exchanges in two online communities. Journal of Politeness Research, Language, Behaviour, Culture, 6(1), 35-55.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In Communication and Persuasion (pp. 1-24). New York: Springer.
Pew Research Center. (2011). Well known: Clinton and Gadhafi; little known: Who controls Congress: Political knowledge update. Retrieved from http://www.people-press.org/2011/03/31/well-known-clinton-and-gadhafi-little-known-who-controls-congress
Pingree, R. J., Quenette, A. M., Tchernev, J. M., & Dickinson, T. (2013). Effects of media criticism on gatekeeping trust and implications for agenda setting. Journal of Communication, 63, 351–372.
Pingree, R. J., & Stoycheff, E. (2013). Differentiating cueing from reasoning in agenda-setting effects. Journal of Communication, 63, 852–872.
Ratneshwar, S., & Chaiken, S. (1991). Comprehension's role in persuasion: The case of its moderating effect on the persuasive impact of source cues. Journal of Consumer Research, 18(1), 52–62.
Sundar, S. S. (2008). The MAIN Model: A heuristic approach to understanding technology effects on credibility. In M. J. Metzger & A. J. Flanagin (Eds.), Digital Media, Youth, and Credibility (pp.73-100). The John D. and Catherine T. McArthur foundation series on digital media and learning. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Taylor, S. E., & Fiske, S. T. (1978). Salience, attention, and attribution: Top of the head phenomena. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 11, 249-288.
Thomson, P. (2009). Children and young people: Voices in visual research. In P. Thomson (Ed.). Doing Visual Research with Children and Young People (pp. 1–19). London, England: Routledge.
Todorov, A., & Duchaine, B. (2008). Reading trustworthiness in faces without recognizing faces. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 25(3), 1–16.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty. Science, 185, 1124-1131.
Wang, S. S., Moon, S. I., Kwon, K. H., Evans, C. A., & Stefanone, M. A. (2010). Face off: Implications of visual cues on initiating friendship on Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(2), 226–234.
Walther, J. B., & Parks, M. R. (2002). Cues filtered out, cues filtered in: Computer-mediated communication and relationships. In M. L. Knapp & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (3rd ed., pp. 529–563). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Walther, J. B., Van Der Heide, B., Kim, S. Y., Westerman, D., & Tong, S. T. (2008). The role of friends’ appearance and behavior on evaluations of individuals on Facebook: Are we known by the company we keep? Human Communication Research, 34(1), 28–49.
Walther, J. B., Van Der Heide, B., Hamel, L. M., & Shulman, H. C. (2009). Self-generated versus other-generated statements and impressions in computer-mediated communication a test of warranting theory using Facebook. Communication Research, 36(2), 229–253.
Downloads
Published
2016-12-23
Issue
Section
Articles
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
