Kaakinen, J. K., Salonen, J., Venäläinen P. & Hyönä, J. (2011). Influence of text cohesion on the persuasive power of expository text. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology52, 201–208.

The present study examined how global text cohesion affects persuasion and memory for message arguments presented in expository text. Sixty-nine participants who held a neutral prior attitude towards NATO read a persuasive text about NATO that was either high or low in global cohesion. After reading, participants voted whether Finland should seek NATO membership and filled in an attitude questionnaire. After a 1-week delay they returned for a surprise recall task. The results showed that the high cohesion text was more persuasive than the low cohesion text. Moreover, attitude after reading but not text cohesion predicted later recall of the message arguments. The results show that global text cohesion increases text’s persuasive power and that readers who form a positive attitude have better memory of the persuasive arguments after a delay than readers who are less persuaded.

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.
10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.752
Web of Science® Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
Eagly, A. H. (1974). Comprehensibility of persuasive arguments as a determinant of opinion change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 758–773.
10.1037/h0036202
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Eagly, A. H., Chen, S., Chaiken, S. & Shaw-Barnes, K. (1999). The impact of attitudes on memory: An affair to remember. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 64–89.
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Eagly, A. H., Kulesa, P., Brannon, L. A., Shaw, K. & Hutson-Comeaux, S. (2000). Why counterattitudinal messages are as memorable as proattitudinal messages: The importance of active defense against attack. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1392–1408.
10.1177/0146167200263007
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Eagly, A. H., Kulesa, P., Chen, S. & Chaiken, S. (2001). Do attitudes affect memory? Tests of the congeniality hypothesis. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10, 5–9.
10.1111/1467-8721.00102
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Hafer, C. L., Reynolds, K. L. & Obertynski, M. A. (1996). Message comprehensibility and persuasion: Effects of complex language in counterattitudinal appeals to laypeople. Social Cognition, 14, 317–337.
10.1521/soco.1996.14.4.317
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Heller, E. & Areni, C. S. (2004). The effects of conditional indicative language on message comprehension and acceptance. Journal of Marketing Communications, 10, 229–240.
10.1080/1352726042000228295
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Hyönä, J. & Lorch, R. F. Jr (2004). Effects of topic headings on text processing: Evidence from adult readers’ eye fixation patterns. Learning and Instruction, 14, 131–152.
10.1016/j.learninstruc.2004.01.001
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Kamalski, J., Lentz, L., Sanders, T. & Zwaan, R. A. (2008a). The forewarning effect of coherence markers in persuasive discourse: Evidence from persuasion and processing. Discourse Processes, 45, 545–579.
10.1080/01638530802069983
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Kamalski, J., Sanders, T. & Lentz, L. (2008b). Coherence marking, prior knowledge, and comprehension of informative and persuasive texts: Sorting things out. Discourse Processes, 45, 323–345.
10.1080/01638530802145486
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar
Knower, F. H. (1936). Experimental studies of changes in attitude II. A study of the effect of printed argument on changes in attitude. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 30, 522–532.
10.1037/h0055902
Google Scholar
Lemarié, J., Lorch, R. F. Jr, Eyrolle, H. & Virbel, J. (2008). SARA: A text-based and reader-based theory of signaling. Educational Psychologist, 43, 27–48.
10.1080/00461520701756321
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Lorch, R. F. Jr (1989). Text-signaling devices and their effects on reading and memory processes. Educational Psychology Review, 1, 209–234.
10.1007/BF01320135
Web of Science® Google Scholar
McNamara, D. S. & Kintsch, W. (1996). Learning from texts: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22, 247–288.
10.1080/01638539609544975
Web of Science® Google Scholar
McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N. B. & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 1–43.
10.1207/s1532690xci1401_1
Web of Science® Google Scholar
McNamara, D. S. & Magliano, J. P. (2009). Towards a comprehensive model of comprehension. In B. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 297–394). New York: Elsevier Science.
10.1016/S0079-7421(09)51009-2
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Ministry of Defense of Finland (2007). Support and disapproval of NATO membership remains steady. December 19. Retrieved April 4, 2008, from http://www.defmin.fi/files/1174/report_in_english.pdf.
Google Scholar
Ozuru, Y., Dempsey, K. & McNamara, D. S. (2009). Prior knowledge, reading skill, and text cohesion in the comprehension of science texts. Learning and Instruction, 19, 228–242.
10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.04.003
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Petty, R. E. & Briñol, P. (2008). Persuasion: From single to multiple to metacognitive processes. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 137–147.
10.1111/j.1745-6916.2008.00071.x
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Petty, R. E. & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag.
10.1007/978-1-4612-4964-1
Google Scholar
Petty, R. E. & Wegener, D. T. (1999). The elaboration likelihood model: Current status and controversies. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual process theories in social psychology (pp. 41–72). New York: Guilford Press.
Google Scholar
Pomerantz, E. M., Chaiken, S. & Tordesillas, R. (1995). Attitude strength and resistance processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 408–419.
10.1037/0022-3514.69.3.408
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
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, 52–62.
10.1086/209240
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Roberts, J. W. (1985). The attitude-memory relationship after 40 years: a meta-analysis of the literature. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 6, 221–241.
10.1207/s15324834basp0603_3
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Vauras, M., Hyönä, J. & Niemi, P. (1992). Comprehending coherent and incoherent texts: Evidence from eye movement patterns and recall performance. Journal of Research in Reading, 15, 39–54.
10.1111/j.1467-9817.1992.tb00020.x
Google Scholar
Zimny, S. T. & Robertson, D. U. (1997). A stringent test of the influence of attitudes on text memory. Discourse Processes, 24, 167–197.
10.1080/01638539709545012
Web of Science® Google Scholar

Citing Literature

Volume52, Issue3

June 2011

Pages 201-208

Influence of text cohesion on the persuasive power of expository text

Abstract

References

Citing Literature

References

Information

About Wiley Online Library

Help & Support

Opportunities

Connect with Wiley

Influence of text cohesion on the persuasive power of expository text

Abstract

References

Citing Literature

References

Related

Information