272:
al., 1988) implemented a study to identify the conditions by which the sleeper effect does and does not occur. Pratkanis directed a series of seventeen experiments in which he presented the discounting cue either before or after the message and found that the sleeper effect occurred mostly when the cue followed the message but not when the cue was first. In order to explain his findings, Pratkanis and his team proposed a modified forgetting hypothesis, which suggested that the sleeper effect occurs because the effect of the message and the cues decay at different rates. Based on this suggestion the message and the cue act like two communications operating in opposite directions. The sleeper effect emerges when the effect of these communications is about equal, promptly following message exposure, but the effect of the cue later decays more rapidly than that of the message. However, the timing of the discounting cue is essential to produce the effect because information presented first lasts longer, whereas more recent information dissipates more rapidly (Miller & Campbell, 1959). Thus, the sleeper effect should occur when the discounting cue occurs at the end of a persuasive communication and stimulates a primacy effect of the message content. Years later, Pratkanis, Greenwald, Leippe, and
Baumgardner (1988) offered an
255:(in this case, the non-credible source) was causing the effect. Over time, however, the effect of the messages presented by credible sources decayed, whereas the effect of the messages presented by non-credible sources either remained the same or increased slightly. Despite evidence for the sleeper effect from this series of studies, the recall measures indicated that recipients could still remember the non-credible sources of the messages at the time of the delayed follow-up.
238:
this hypothesis, Hovland and his colleagues (Hovland & Weiss, 1951; Kelman & Hovland, 1953; Weiss, 1953) initiated a series of experiments in which participants received messages attributed to either trustworthy or untrustworthy sources and then completed measures of opinions as well as of recall of the message content and the source. Overall, messages with credible sources produced greater initial persuasion than messages delivered by non credible sources.
201:
receivers forget the noncredible communicator as time goes by, and therefore the initial message rejection diminishes. Nevertheless, they later propositioned that message receivers may not entirely forget the cue, yet the association between the representations of the discounting cue and the message content may fade over time and produce a sleeper effect. These two formulations vary in that (a)
259:
sufficient for the sleeper effect to occur. As the association weakens over time, rendering the cue less accessible in relation to the communication topic, there may be a delayed increase in persuasion as long as the message arguments are still memorable. To this extent, factors that facilitate retention of the message content should create settings conducive to the sleeper effect.
221:
25:
292:
306:
67:
254:
With a subset of conditions that caused participants to question the credibility of the source in the movie, participants later reported a slight increase of persuasion (much to the researchers’ surprise). After examining the results, they initially hypothesized that forgetting of the discounting cue
271:
Something that
Hovland and his team ignored that is important is why over time, the discounting cue becomes less accessible than the message even when both pieces are similarly effective at the onset. To answer this question Greenwald, Pratkanis, and their team (Greenwald et al., 1986; Pratkanis et
258:
This is when the forgetting hypothesis was replaced by the dissociation hypothesis. Now according to the dissociation hypothesis the sleeper effect does not need to imply that the discounting cue becomes permanently unavailable in memory. A weakened association between the cue and the message may be
175:
According to the dissociation interpretation, a sleeper effect appears to happen when a convincing message is conferred with a discounting cue (such as a low-credible source or counterargument). A sleeper effect occurs because of an impulsive dissociation of a message and a discounting cue over time
118:
This pattern of attitude change has puzzled social psychologists for nearly half a century, primarily due to its counter-intuitive nature and for its potential to aid in understanding attitude processes (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). It has been a very widely studied phenomenon of persuasion research
114:
often see negative advertisements about a party or candidate for office. At the end of the advertisement, they also might notice that the opposing candidate paid for the advertisement. Presumably, this would make voters question the truthfulness of the advertisement, and consequently, they may not
237:
According to the forgetting hypothesis, a discounting cue associated with a message initially decreases acceptance of the message. As time goes by, one may observe a delayed increase of persuasion if the recipient forgets the cue but recalls the merits of the message (Hovland et al., 1949). To test
196:
et al. measured the soldier’s opinions five days or nine weeks after they were shown a movie presentation of army propaganda. It was found that the difference in opinions of those who had observed the army propaganda movie and those who did not watch the movie were greater nine weeks after viewing
279:
They argued that the conditions under which the sleeper effect is more likely to occur were not emphasized by the dissociation hypothesis. Additionally, the requirements for a sleeper effect specified by Gruder et al. (1978) did not detail the empirical conditions necessary to observe the sleeper
80:
is a psychological phenomenon that relates to persuasion. It is a delayed increase in the effect of a message that is accompanied by a discounting cue, typically being some negative connotation or lack of credibility in the message, while a positive message may evoke an immediate positive response
102:
In contrast, some messages are often accompanied with a discounting cue (e.g., a message disclaimer, a low-credibility source) that would arouse a recipient’s suspicion of the validity of the message and suppress any attitude change that might occur by exposure to the message alone. Furthermore,
200:
The first efforts to justify the effect were consistent with the understanding of persuasion processes at that time. Hovland and his colleagues introduced a program of research to study how recall of the message and the source persuaded the sleeper effect. They first hypothesized that message
98:
Over time, however, their newly formed attitudes seem to gravitate back toward the opinion held prior to receiving the message, almost as if they were never exposed to the communication. This pattern of normal decay in attitudes has been documented as the most frequently observed longitudinal
262:
According to this reasoning, the sleeper effect occurs because the association between the discounting cue and the message in one’s memory becomes weakened over time; hence, when the message is recalled for purposes of producing an attitude, the source is not readily associated.
153:
However, Cook and his associates responded by suggesting that previous studies failed to obtain the sleeper effect because the requirements for a strong test were not met. Specifically, they argued that the sleeper effect will occur only if:
85:
soldiers exposed to army propaganda. It was hypothesized that over time the soldiers forgot that the message was propaganda. The effect has been widely studied but notoriously difficult to reproduce, leading to some doubt over its existence.
171:
Experimental studies conducted did, in fact, provide evidence for the sleeper effect occurring under such theoretically relevant conditions. Furthermore, the sleeper effect did not occur when any of the four requirements were not met.
119:(Kumkale & AlbarracĂn, 2004; see also Cook & Flay, 1978). Despite a long history, the sleeper effect has been notoriously difficult to obtain or to replicate, with the exception of a pair of studies by Gruder et al. (1978).
115:
be persuaded initially. However, even though the source of the advertisement lacked credibility, voters will be more likely to be persuaded later (and ultimately, vote against the candidate disfavored by the advertisement).
103:
when people are exposed to a persuasive message followed by a discounting cue, people tend to be more persuaded over time; this is referred to as the sleeper effect (Hovland & Weiss, 1951; Cook & Flay, 1978).
1105:
Petty RE, Wegener DT. The elaboration-likelihood model: Current status and controversies. In: Chaiken S, Trope Y, editors. Dual process theories in social psychology. Guilford Press; New York: 1999. pp. 41–72.
141:
The sleeper effect is involved with initial message impression so the phenomenon has implications for models of persuasion, including teaching methods, as well as more recent conceptualizations, such as the
130:
The sleeper effect is controversial because the influence of persuasive communication is greater when one measures the effect closer to the presentation instead of farther from the time of the reception.
1109:
Petty, RE; Wegener, DT; Fabrigar, LR; Priester, JR; Cacioppo, JT (1993). "Conceptual and methodological issues in the elaboration-likelihood model of persuasion: A reply to the
Michigan State critics".
94:
When people are exposed normally to a persuasive message (such as an engaging or persuasive television advertisement), their attitudes toward the advocacy of the message display a significant increase.
197:
it than five days. The difference in delayed persuasion is (which
Hovland et al. termed) the sleeper effect, where there was a significant increase of persuasion in the experimental group.
915:
Gruder, C.L.; Cook, T.D.; Hennigan, K.M.; Flay, B.R.; Alessis, C.; Halamaj, J. (1978). "Empirical Tests of the
Absolute Sleeper Effect Predicted from the Discounting Cue Hypothesis".
1007:
Pratkanis, A.R.; Greenwald, A.G.; Leippe, M.R.; Baumgardner, M.H. (1988). "In Search of
Reliable Persuasion Effects: III. The Sleeper Effect is Dead. Long Live the Sleeper Effect".
1351:
Priester, J.; Wegener, D.; Petty, R.; Fabrigar, L. (1999). "Examining the
Psychological Process Underlying the Sleeper Effect: The Elaboration Likelihood Model Explanation".
573:
Gruder, CL; TD Cook; KM Hennigan; BR Flay; C Alessis; J Halamaj (1978). "Empirical tests of the absolute sleeper effect predicted from the discounting-cue hypothesis".
600:
Pratkanis, Anthony R.; Leippe; Greenwald; Baumgardner (1988). "In Search of
Reliable Persuasion Effects: The Sleeper Effect is Dead. Long Live the Sleeper Effect".
217:
Because the sleeper effect has been considered to be counter-intuitive, researchers since the early 1950s have attempted to explain how and why it occurs.
852:
Cook, T. D.; Gruder, C. L.; Hennigan, K. M.; Flay, B. R. (1979). "History of the
Sleeper Effect: Some Logical Pitfalls in Accepting the Null Hypothesis".
127:
One of the more challenging aspects that the sleeper effect posed to some researchers in early studies was the sheer difficulty of obtaining the effect.
81:
which decays over time. The sleeper effect also refers to a delayed positive response that is maintained over time. The effect was first noticed among
1295:
Mazursky, D.; Schul, Y. (1988). "The
Effects of Advertisement Encoding on the Failure to Discount Information: Implications for the Sleeper Effect".
46:
33:
209:
suggests that cue remains available in memory but is simply less easily retrieved (less accessible) in relation to the topic of communication.
1274:
Mazursky, D.; Schul, Y. (2000). "In the Aftermath of Invalidation: Shaping Judgment Rules on Learning that Previous Information was Invalid".
546:
Cook, TD; CL Gruder; KM Hennigan; BR Flay (1979). "History of the Sleeper Effect: Some Logical Pitfalls in Accepting the Null Hypothesis".
1175:
Cohen, A.R., "Need for Cognition and Order of Communication as Determinants of Opinion Change", pp. 79–97 in Hovland, C.I. (ed.),
1137:
Ajzen, I., "Persuasive Communication Theory in Social Psychology: A Historical Perspective", pp. 1–27 in Manfredo, M.J. (ed.),
822:
1046:
Greenwald, AG; Pratkanis, AR; Leippe, MR; Baumgardner, MH (1986). "Under what conditions does theory obstruct research progress?".
1521:
244:, Lumsdaine, and Sheffield (1949) first discovered the effect by a well-known study that demonstrated the delayed impact of a
1531:
1526:
147:
134:
After attempting to replicate the effect and failing, some researchers suggested that it might be better to accept the
1221:
Hovland, C (1959). "Reconciling Conflicting Results Derived From Experimental and Survey Studies of Attitude Change".
1516:
339:
143:
38:
645:
Kumkale, G. Tarcan; Dolores AlbarracĂn (23 May 2011). "The Sleeper Effect in Persuasion: A Meta-Analytic Review".
324:
349:
1139:
Influencing Human Behavior: Theory and Applications in Recreation, Tourism, and Natural Resources Management
1192:
1055:
1016:
893:
609:
469:
650:
433:
401:
943:
Hovland, C.I.; Weiss, W. (1951). "The Influence of Source Credibility on Communication Effectiveness".
1372:
Schulman, G.I.; Worrall, C. (1970). "Salience Patterns, Source Credibility, and the Sleeper Effect".
273:
1197:
1021:
614:
1060:
898:
704:
Hovland, CL; W Weiss (1951). "The Influence of Source Credibility on Communication Effectiveness".
677:
Hovland, CL; W Weiss (1951). "The Influence of Source Credibility on Communication Effectiveness".
474:
205:
suggests that the traces of the cue disappear or become unavailable in memory over time, while (b)
1495:
1164:
832:
185:
107:
82:
1253:
Lariscy, R.A.W.; Tinkham, S.F. (1999). "The Sleeper Effect and Negative Political Advertising".
1487:
1458:
1339:
1073:
1034:
995:
818:
762:
627:
528:
311:
297:
1479:
1450:
1427:
1402:
1381:
1360:
1329:
1304:
1283:
1262:
1230:
1202:
1156:
1142:
1119:
1094:
1065:
1026:
985:
977:
952:
924:
903:
861:
810:
793:
752:
744:
713:
686:
619:
582:
555:
518:
510:
479:
378:
1085:
Lariscy, RAW; Tinkham, SF (1999). "The sleeper effect and negative political advertising".
937:
Experiments on Mass Communication: Studies in Social Psychology in World War II: Volume III
844:
663:
446:
414:
248:
135:
1147:
Catton, W.R. (1960). ""Changing Cognitive Structure as a Basis for the "Sleeper Effect".
1123:
990:
965:
884:
Gillig, P.M.; Greenwald, A.G. (1974). "Is it Time to Lay the Sleeper Effect to Rest?".
873:
757:
732:
523:
498:
344:
329:
319:
161:(b) the discounting cue has a strong enough effect to suppress initial attitude change;
814:
396:
Cook, TD; BR FLay (1978). "The persistence of experimentally induced attitude change".
1510:
167:(d) the message itself still has an effect on attitudes during the delayed post-test.
1499:
1266:
1242:
1183:
Hannah, D.B.; Sternthal, B. (1984). "Detecting and Explaining the Sleeper Effect".
1098:
245:
241:
193:
189:
1406:
460:
Gillig, PM; AG Greenwald (1974). "Is it time to lay the sleeper effect to rest?".
1393:
Sitton, S.C.; Griffin, S. (1980). "The Sleeper Effect in Reconstructive Memory".
1334:
1317:
928:
586:
1483:
981:
748:
514:
1470:
Wilson, T.D.; Lindsey, S.; Schooler, T.Y. (2000). "A Model of Dual Attitudes".
1364:
1287:
1069:
1030:
865:
623:
559:
334:
287:
220:
111:
66:
1491:
1462:
1343:
999:
766:
532:
24:
1077:
1038:
631:
164:(c) enough time has elapsed between immediate and delayed post-tests; and
1432:
1415:
1168:
1318:"Creative Hypothesis Generating in Psychology: Some Useful Heuristics"
1454:
1247:
Communication and Persuasion: Psychological Studies of Opinion Change
1234:
1213:
Hovland, C.I., "Introduction", pp. 1–10 in Hovland, C.I. (ed.),
907:
483:
1160:
784:
Capon, N.; Hulbert, J. (1973). "The Sleeper Effect — An Awakening".
1385:
1308:
1206:
956:
797:
717:
690:
382:
369:
Capon, N; J. Hulbert (1973). "The Sleeper Effect - An awakening".
219:
65:
18:
428:
Eagly, Ah; S. Chaiken (1993). "The psychology of attitudes".
99:
pattern of persuasion research (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993).
1416:"Memory Suggestibility as an Example of the Sleeper Effect"
966:"The Sleeper Effect in Persuasion: A Meta-Analytic Review"
733:"The Sleeper Effect in Persuasion: A Meta-Analytic Review"
499:"The Sleeper Effect in Persuasion: A Meta-Analytic Review"
1441:
Weiss, W (1953). "A "Sleeper" Effect in Opinion Change".
807:
The Persistence of Experimentally-Induced Attitude Change
497:
Kumkale, G. Tarcan; Dolores AlbarracĂn (23 May 2011).
192:, after attempts to change their opinions and morals.
138:
and conclude that the sleeper effect does not exist.
123:
Controversy about the existence of a "sleeper effect"
935:
Hovland, C.I., Lumsdale, A.A. & Sheffield, F.D,
176:(contrasting to a simple forgetting of a source).
939:, Princeton University Press, (Princeton), 1949.
880:, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, (Fort Worth), 1993.
731:Kumkale, G. Tarcan; Dolores Albarracin (2004).
276:that differed from Hovland and his colleagues.
8:
1009:Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
917:Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
886:Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
602:Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
575:Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
462:Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
1249:, Yale University Press, (New Haven), 1953.
1217:, Yale University Press, (New Haven), 1957.
1179:, Yale University Press, (New Haven), 1957.
213:Hypotheses on how the sleeper effect occurs
184:The sleeper effect was first identified in
1141:, Sagamore Publishing, (Champaign), 1992.
1443:Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology
1431:
1333:
1196:
1059:
1020:
989:
897:
756:
613:
522:
473:
350:Misattribution of memory#Source confusion
49:of all important aspects of the article.
1215:The Order of Presentation in Persuasion
1177:The Order of Presentation in Persuasion
361:
964:Kumkale, G.T.; AlbarracĂn, D. (2004).
840:
830:
659:
648:
442:
431:
410:
399:
45:Please consider expanding the lead to
7:
1414:Underwood, J.; Pezdek, K. (1998).
1124:10.1111/j.1468-2885.1993.tb00078.x
14:
805:Cook, T. D.; Flay, B. R. (1978).
1185:The Journal of Consumer Research
304:
290:
23:
1420:Psychonomic Bulletin and Review
809:. Vol. 11. pp. 1–57.
37:may be too short to adequately
1276:Journal of Consumer Psychology
1267:10.1080/00913367.1999.10673593
1099:10.1080/00913367.1999.10673593
158:(a) the message is persuasive;
47:provide an accessible overview
1:
1407:10.1080/00221309.1980.9711753
1395:Journal of General Psychology
815:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60004-0
1335:10.1146/annurev.psych.48.1.1
1297:Journal of Consumer Research
929:10.1037/0022-3514.36.10.1061
587:10.1037/0022-3514.36.10.1061
228:Figure C: Differential-Decay
148:elaboration likelihood model
110:during important elections,
1484:10.1037/0033-295x.107.1.101
1322:Annual Review of Psychology
982:10.1037/0033-2909.130.1.143
878:The Psychology of Attitudes
749:10.1037/0033-2909.130.1.143
515:10.1037/0033-2909.130.1.143
233:Forgetting and dissociation
1548:
1365:10.1207/s1532785xmep0101_3
1288:10.1207/s15327663jcp0904_3
1070:10.1037/0033-295x.93.2.216
1031:10.1037/0022-3514.54.2.203
866:10.1037/0033-2909.86.4.662
624:10.1037/0022-3514.54.2.203
560:10.1037/0033-2909.86.4.662
340:Psychological manipulation
144:heuristic-systematic model
325:Framing (social sciences)
1374:Public Opinion Quarterly
945:Public Opinion Quarterly
786:Public Opinion Quarterly
706:Public Opinion Quarterly
679:Public Opinion Quarterly
371:Public Opinion Quarterly
72:Figure B: Sleeper Effect
16:Psychological phenomenon
1522:Advertising techniques
1316:McGuire, W.J. (1997).
1255:Journal of Advertising
1087:Journal of Advertising
970:Psychological Bulletin
854:Psychological Bulletin
737:Psychological Bulletin
658:Cite journal requires
548:Psychological Bulletin
503:Psychological Bulletin
441:Cite journal requires
409:Cite journal requires
274:alternative hypothesis
251:on American soldiers.
229:
226:Figure B: Dissociation
73:
70:Figure A: Normal Decay
1532:Persuasion techniques
1527:Psychological warfare
1223:American Psychologist
223:
69:
1472:Psychological Review
1245:& Kelley, H.H.,
1112:Communication Theory
1048:Psychological Review
224:Figure A: Forgetting
872:Eagly, A.K., &
108:political campaigns
1433:10.3758/bf03208820
267:Differential decay
230:
90:The sleeper effect
74:
1517:Cognitive science
923:(10): 1061–1074.
581:(10): 1061–1074.
312:Psychology portal
298:Philosophy portal
64:
63:
1539:
1503:
1466:
1455:10.1037/h0063200
1437:
1435:
1410:
1389:
1368:
1353:Media Psychology
1347:
1337:
1312:
1291:
1270:
1238:
1235:10.1037/h0042210
1210:
1200:
1172:
1127:
1102:
1081:
1063:
1042:
1024:
1003:
993:
960:
932:
911:
908:10.1037/h0035744
901:
869:
848:
842:
838:
836:
828:
801:
771:
770:
760:
728:
722:
721:
701:
695:
694:
674:
668:
667:
661:
656:
654:
646:
642:
636:
635:
617:
597:
591:
590:
570:
564:
563:
543:
537:
536:
526:
494:
488:
487:
484:10.1037/h0035744
477:
457:
451:
450:
444:
439:
437:
429:
425:
419:
418:
412:
407:
405:
397:
393:
387:
386:
366:
314:
309:
308:
307:
300:
295:
294:
293:
249:propaganda movie
188:soldiers during
180:First identified
112:undecided voters
106:For example, in
59:
56:
50:
27:
19:
1547:
1546:
1542:
1541:
1540:
1538:
1537:
1536:
1507:
1506:
1469:
1440:
1413:
1392:
1371:
1350:
1315:
1294:
1273:
1252:
1241:Hovland, C.I.,
1220:
1198:10.1.1.455.3259
1182:
1161:10.2307/2573045
1146:
1134:
1132:Further reading
1108:
1084:
1045:
1022:10.1.1.299.4346
1006:
963:
942:
914:
883:
851:
839:
829:
825:
804:
783:
780:
775:
774:
730:
729:
725:
703:
702:
698:
676:
675:
671:
657:
647:
644:
643:
639:
615:10.1.1.299.4346
599:
598:
594:
572:
571:
567:
545:
544:
540:
496:
495:
491:
459:
458:
454:
440:
430:
427:
426:
422:
408:
398:
395:
394:
390:
368:
367:
363:
358:
310:
305:
303:
296:
291:
289:
286:
269:
235:
227:
225:
215:
182:
136:null hypothesis
125:
92:
71:
60:
54:
51:
44:
32:This article's
28:
17:
12:
11:
5:
1545:
1543:
1535:
1534:
1529:
1524:
1519:
1509:
1508:
1505:
1504:
1478:(1): 101–126.
1467:
1449:(2): 173–180.
1438:
1426:(3): 449–453.
1411:
1390:
1386:10.1086/267813
1380:(3): 371–382.
1369:
1348:
1313:
1309:10.1086/209142
1292:
1282:(4): 213–222.
1271:
1250:
1239:
1218:
1211:
1207:10.1086/209000
1191:(2): 632–642.
1180:
1173:
1155:(4): 348–354.
1144:
1133:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1118:(4): 336–363.
1106:
1103:
1082:
1061:10.1.1.335.598
1054:(2): 216–229.
1043:
1015:(2): 203–218.
1004:
976:(1): 143–172.
961:
957:10.1086/266350
951:(4): 635–650.
940:
933:
912:
899:10.1.1.76.9150
892:(1): 132–139.
881:
870:
860:(4): 662–679.
849:
841:|journal=
823:
802:
798:10.1086/268097
792:(3): 333–358.
779:
776:
773:
772:
743:(1): 143–172.
723:
718:10.1086/266350
696:
691:10.1086/266350
669:
660:|journal=
637:
608:(2): 203–218.
592:
565:
554:(4): 662–679.
538:
509:(1): 143–172.
489:
475:10.1.1.76.9150
452:
443:|journal=
420:
411:|journal=
388:
383:10.1086/268097
360:
359:
357:
354:
353:
352:
347:
345:Source amnesia
342:
337:
332:
330:Misinformation
327:
322:
320:Disinformation
316:
315:
301:
285:
282:
268:
265:
234:
231:
214:
211:
181:
178:
169:
168:
165:
162:
159:
124:
121:
91:
88:
78:sleeper effect
62:
61:
41:the key points
31:
29:
22:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1544:
1533:
1530:
1528:
1525:
1523:
1520:
1518:
1515:
1514:
1512:
1501:
1497:
1493:
1489:
1485:
1481:
1477:
1473:
1468:
1464:
1460:
1456:
1452:
1448:
1444:
1439:
1434:
1429:
1425:
1421:
1417:
1412:
1408:
1404:
1400:
1396:
1391:
1387:
1383:
1379:
1375:
1370:
1366:
1362:
1358:
1354:
1349:
1345:
1341:
1336:
1331:
1327:
1323:
1319:
1314:
1310:
1306:
1302:
1298:
1293:
1289:
1285:
1281:
1277:
1272:
1268:
1264:
1260:
1256:
1251:
1248:
1244:
1240:
1236:
1232:
1228:
1224:
1219:
1216:
1212:
1208:
1204:
1199:
1194:
1190:
1186:
1181:
1178:
1174:
1170:
1166:
1162:
1158:
1154:
1150:
1149:Social Forces
1145:
1143:
1140:
1136:
1135:
1131:
1125:
1121:
1117:
1113:
1107:
1104:
1100:
1096:
1092:
1088:
1083:
1079:
1075:
1071:
1067:
1062:
1057:
1053:
1049:
1044:
1040:
1036:
1032:
1028:
1023:
1018:
1014:
1010:
1005:
1001:
997:
992:
987:
983:
979:
975:
971:
967:
962:
958:
954:
950:
946:
941:
938:
934:
930:
926:
922:
918:
913:
909:
905:
900:
895:
891:
887:
882:
879:
875:
871:
867:
863:
859:
855:
850:
846:
834:
826:
824:9780120152117
820:
816:
812:
808:
803:
799:
795:
791:
787:
782:
781:
777:
768:
764:
759:
754:
750:
746:
742:
738:
734:
727:
724:
719:
715:
711:
707:
700:
697:
692:
688:
684:
680:
673:
670:
665:
652:
641:
638:
633:
629:
625:
621:
616:
611:
607:
603:
596:
593:
588:
584:
580:
576:
569:
566:
561:
557:
553:
549:
542:
539:
534:
530:
525:
520:
516:
512:
508:
504:
500:
493:
490:
485:
481:
476:
471:
467:
463:
456:
453:
448:
435:
424:
421:
416:
403:
392:
389:
384:
380:
376:
372:
365:
362:
355:
351:
348:
346:
343:
341:
338:
336:
333:
331:
328:
326:
323:
321:
318:
317:
313:
302:
299:
288:
283:
281:
277:
275:
266:
264:
260:
256:
252:
250:
247:
243:
239:
232:
222:
218:
212:
210:
208:
204:
198:
195:
191:
187:
179:
177:
173:
166:
163:
160:
157:
156:
155:
151:
149:
145:
139:
137:
132:
128:
122:
120:
116:
113:
109:
104:
100:
96:
89:
87:
84:
79:
68:
58:
48:
42:
40:
35:
30:
26:
21:
20:
1475:
1471:
1446:
1442:
1423:
1419:
1401:(1): 21–25.
1398:
1394:
1377:
1373:
1359:(1): 27–48.
1356:
1352:
1325:
1321:
1303:(1): 24–36.
1300:
1296:
1279:
1275:
1261:(4): 13–30.
1258:
1254:
1246:
1226:
1222:
1214:
1188:
1184:
1176:
1152:
1148:
1138:
1115:
1111:
1093:(4): 13–30.
1090:
1086:
1051:
1047:
1012:
1008:
973:
969:
948:
944:
936:
920:
916:
889:
885:
877:
857:
853:
806:
789:
785:
740:
736:
726:
709:
705:
699:
682:
678:
672:
651:cite journal
640:
605:
601:
595:
578:
574:
568:
551:
547:
541:
506:
502:
492:
465:
461:
455:
434:cite journal
423:
402:cite journal
391:
374:
370:
364:
278:
270:
261:
257:
253:
246:World War II
240:
236:
216:
207:dissociation
206:
202:
199:
194:Carl Hovland
190:World War II
183:
174:
170:
152:
140:
133:
129:
126:
117:
105:
101:
97:
93:
77:
75:
55:October 2021
52:
36:
34:lead section
1328:(1): 1–30.
1243:Janis, I.L.
1229:(1): 8–17.
874:Chaiken, S.
468:: 132–139.
1511:Categories
778:References
712:(4): 635.
685:(4): 635.
377:(3): 333.
335:Propaganda
203:forgetting
1193:CiteSeerX
1056:CiteSeerX
1017:CiteSeerX
894:CiteSeerX
843:ignored (
833:cite book
610:CiteSeerX
470:CiteSeerX
39:summarize
1500:18324937
1492:10687404
1463:13052337
1344:15012475
1000:14717653
767:14717653
533:14717653
284:See also
280:effect.
146:and the
1169:2573045
1078:3714929
1039:3346811
991:3100161
758:3100161
632:3346811
524:3100161
242:Hovland
186:US Army
83:US Army
1498:
1490:
1461:
1342:
1195:
1167:
1076:
1058:
1037:
1019:
998:
988:
896:
821:
765:
755:
630:
612:
531:
521:
472:
1496:S2CID
1165:JSTOR
356:Notes
1488:PMID
1459:PMID
1340:PMID
1074:PMID
1035:PMID
996:PMID
845:help
819:ISBN
763:PMID
664:help
628:PMID
529:PMID
447:help
415:help
76:The
1480:doi
1476:107
1451:doi
1428:doi
1403:doi
1399:103
1382:doi
1361:doi
1330:doi
1305:doi
1284:doi
1263:doi
1231:doi
1203:doi
1157:doi
1120:doi
1095:doi
1066:doi
1027:doi
986:PMC
978:doi
974:130
953:doi
925:doi
904:doi
862:doi
811:doi
794:doi
753:PMC
745:doi
741:130
714:doi
687:doi
620:doi
583:doi
556:doi
519:PMC
511:doi
507:130
480:doi
379:doi
1513::
1494:.
1486:.
1474:.
1457:.
1447:48
1445:.
1422:.
1418:.
1397:.
1378:34
1376:.
1355:.
1338:.
1326:48
1324:.
1320:.
1301:15
1299:.
1278:.
1259:28
1257:.
1227:14
1225:.
1201:.
1189:11
1187:.
1163:.
1153:38
1151:.
1114:.
1091:28
1089:.
1072:.
1064:.
1052:93
1050:.
1033:.
1025:.
1013:54
1011:.
994:.
984:.
972:.
968:.
949:15
947:.
921:36
919:.
902:.
890:29
888:.
876:,
858:86
856:.
837::
835:}}
831:{{
817:.
790:37
788:.
761:.
751:.
739:.
735:.
710:15
708:.
683:15
681:.
655::
653:}}
649:{{
626:.
618:.
606:54
604:.
579:36
577:.
552:86
550:.
527:.
517:.
505:.
501:.
478:.
466:29
464:.
438::
436:}}
432:{{
406::
404:}}
400:{{
375:37
373:.
150:.
1502:.
1482::
1465:.
1453::
1436:.
1430::
1424:5
1409:.
1405::
1388:.
1384::
1367:.
1363::
1357:1
1346:.
1332::
1311:.
1307::
1290:.
1286::
1280:9
1269:.
1265::
1237:.
1233::
1209:.
1205::
1171:.
1159::
1126:.
1122::
1116:3
1101:.
1097::
1080:.
1068::
1041:.
1029::
1002:.
980::
959:.
955::
931:.
927::
910:.
906::
868:.
864::
847:)
827:.
813::
800:.
796::
769:.
747::
720:.
716::
693:.
689::
666:)
662:(
634:.
622::
589:.
585::
562:.
558::
535:.
513::
486:.
482::
449:)
445:(
417:)
413:(
385:.
381::
57:)
53:(
43:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
