New Directions in Message Tailoring: Beyond Affect-Cognition Matching Effects in Persuasion

NUS Brownbag 2018
New directions in message tailoring:

Beyond affect-cognition matching effects in
persuasion
See Ya Hui Michelle 施雅慧

National University of Singapore
Talk outline
1. When and how message tailoring backfires
2. The role of meta-bases (i.e., subjective

perceptions)
3. Tailoring in other domains e.g., multiculturalism

v. colourblindness
Affect-Cognition matching effects
Cognitive appeal Affective appeal
Cognitive attitude Affective attitude

Negative to Positive Negative to Positive
e.g. Clarkson, Rucker, & Tormala, 2008; Fabrigar & Petty, 1999;
Huskinson & Haddock, 2004; See, Petty, & Fabrigar, 2008 5
Affective vs Cognitive Appeals
Cognitive passage Affective passage
“ …lemphurs have depleted “…The lemphur, with the

nearly 19.2% of the total woman’s body in its
supply of fish and other mouth, smashed down
aquatic foods (e.g. oysters, on the water with a
clams) ...” thunderous splash,
spewing foam and blood
…”
6
Affective-Cognitive Attitudes
Cognitive attitude formation Affective attitude formation
“ …Lemphurs are “…For glorious seconds

extremely intelligent I knew what it was like to
creatures that are be the swiftest swimmer
capable of being trained in the sea. She towed
to perform complex me, and I tried not to get
behaviors...” in the way…”
e.g., Fabrigar & Petty, 1999; Clarkson et al., 2008

7
annoyed-happy
tense-calm
Attitude
unsafe-safe
useless-useful
E.g., Huskinson & Haddock, 2004; See et al., 2008 8

unsafe-safe
useless-useful Attitude
annoyed-happy
tense-calm
E.g., Huskinson & Haddock, 2004; See et al., 2008 9

E.g., Eagly, Mladinic, & Otto, 1994; Giner-Sorolla, 2004; See et al., 2013 10
Outline

perceptions)

v. colourblindness
Present Research
• Beyond pro-attitudinal/ neutral persuasion?

o Counter-attitudinal persuasion
• Beyond attitude change?

o Certainty in unchanged attitude
Bu & See (under revison)

Affect-Cognition matching: other effects?
Negative to Negative Negative to Negative
13
Present Research
• Recipient factor?
o Defensive confidence (Albarracin & Mitchell, 2004)
“No matter what I read…I am always capable of defending my feelings
and opinions”

Present Research: Theoretical Background
Sufficiency principle of the Heuristic-Systematic
Model (e.g., Chaiken et al., 1989; Chen & Chaiken, 1999)
Present Research: Theoretical Background
Mental processes underlying matching effects
e.g., accessibility of emotions v. beliefs (Giner-Sorolla, 2004)
e.g., recall of emotions v. beliefs (Haddock et al., 2008 )
Present Research: Hypothesis
Hypothesis
• Low defensive confidence individuals: mismatched 

less certainty
• High defensive confidence individuals: matching does
not matter

For a cognitive issue…
• Low defensive confidence individuals:

affective appeal  less certainty
• High defensive confidence individuals:

matching does not matter
For an affective issue…
• Low defensive confidence individuals:

cognitive appeal  less certainty
• High defensive confidence individuals:

matching does not matter
Present Research: Procedure
• Defensive confidence
• Read affective or cognitive message
• Attitudes
• Attitude certainty
• Defensive confidence
“ When I pay attention to ….people who disagree with me, I feel

confused and cannot think”
“No matter what I read…I am always capable of defending my feelings
and opinions”
Present Research: Procedure (Study 1)
Cognitive appeal
Many new students are unaware about certain functions...
They receive alerts for some but not others, missing
information and deadlines. This means that in general, the
IVLE system is less effective than it is supposed to be….

Affective appeal
Many new students do not know…. Imagine how much
anxiety you would feel missing a deadline because you
thought you were emailed information from all modules. This
situation is irritating…
Cognitive appeal
With the increase in tuition fees, incoming students
would …..weigh the pros and cons of attending
university. Professors … able to deliver lectures more
efficiently.
Affective appeal
With the increase in tuition fees, incoming students
would feel less pressure to attend university ……
students would have a more enjoyable experience in
class.
Present Research: Results
Study 1: Study 2:
online course management system tuition increase
7.0 7.0
6.5 6.5
Attitude Certainty
Attitude Certainty
6.0 6.0
5.5 5.5
5.0 5.0
Low High Low High
Defensive Confidence Defensive Confidence
Cognitive/matched message Affective/mismatched message Cognitive/mismatched message Affective/matched message

Present Research: Implications
• Mismatching can be more effective than matching when
the persuasion is an attack on attitudes
• Low defensive confidence individuals but strong specific

attitudes
Present Research: Future Directions
• Underlying mechanisms?
• Individual differences in affective-cognitive attitudes?
• Boundary conditions ?
Outline

perceptions)

v. colourblindness
Outline

perceptions)

v. colourblindness
Single-construct perspective
Attitudinal property
e.g. knowledge
Objective Subjective
measures measures
31
Example
• Knowledge (Davidson, Yantis, Norwood and Montano, 1985; Wilson, Dunn, & Kraft,
1989) :
1. Objective: No. of pieces of information
2. Subjective: How well-informed are you?
32
Examples (cont.)
• Ambivalence (Priester & Petty, 1996; Thompson, Zanna, & Griffin, 1995) :
1. Objective: No. of dominant and conflicting reactions
2. Subjective: How conflicted are your reactions?
33
Dual-construct perspective
(e.g., Bassili, 1996; See, Petty, & Fabrigar, in prep; Visser, Bizer & Krosnick, 2006)
Structural Meta-attitudinal
property property
measures measures
34
Dual-construct perspective
(e.g., Bassili, 1996; See, Petty, & Fabrigar, in prep; Visser, Bizer & Krosnick, 2006)
Structural bases Meta-bases
?
measures measures
35
Structural bases
• components in the mental architecture of an attitude
36
Structural bases items
• Ps report their
– cognition
– affect
– attitudes
37
Cognition (Crites, Fabrigar & Petty, 1994)
Click on the number that best describes your
BELIEFS about snakes:
I think snakes are __________.

e.g., useless-useful
38
Affect (Crites et. al., 1994)
FEELINGS about snakes:
Snakes makes me feel __________.

e.g., tense-calm
39
Attitude (Crites et. al., 1994)
Attitudes about snakes:
Overall, my opinion about snakes is

_________.
e.g., negative-positive
40
Meta-bases
• metacognitive judgments about bases of an attitude
41
Meta-bases items
o To what extent do you think your attitudes toward snakes are driven
by your emotions?
o To what extent do you think your attitudes toward snakes are driven
by your beliefs?
42
Affective-Cognitive meta-bases for birth control, blood donation,
chocolate, snakes, spiders.
cognitive meta-bases affective meta-bases

individual individual
Introduction to meta-bases
• Discriminant validity
• Predictive validity
• Moderator
44
Need for affect (Maio & Esses, 2001)
• Tendency to approach emotions-arousing events.
45
Need for cognition (Cacioppo, Petty, Feinstein, & Jarvis, 1996)
• Tendency to engage in and enjoy activities that require thinking.
46
Discriminant validity (Study 1; See, Petty, & Fabrigar, 2008)
1. 2. 3. 4.
1. Structural --- .02 -.03 -.08

bases
2. Meta- --- .05 -.22

bases
3. Need for --- .42*

affect
4. Need for ---

cognition
* p < .01 47
Introduction to meta-bases
• Discriminant validity
• Predictive validity
• Moderators
48
Affective message
Blood donation makes you feel good all over!
Ad Council – blood donation msg 3 p. 2 Please click to continue 49

Cognitive message
Give a gift that costs nothing to give!
Ad Council – blood donation msg 3 p. 2 Please click to continue 50

DV = attitude change (Study 2; See et. al., 2008)
0.3 0.3
Cognitive Affective Cognitive Affective

structural bases structural bases meta-bases meta-bases
β = .17, t (139) = 2.08, p =.04 β = .16, t (139) = 1.98, p =.05
51
Deliberativeness as a moderator
spontaneous moderate deliberative
meta-bases meta-bases
structural structural
bases bases
52
Ratings from previous participants
Stimulates Special Arouses
thinking? effects? feelings? Acting?
Movie A 2.1 1.9 4.5 4.5
Movie B 4.5 4.1 2.4 2.0
Movie C 1.9 2.3 4.7 4.1
Movie D 4.4 3.4 1.9 3.3
Movie E 4.6 1.8 2.2 4.4
Movie F 2.0 3.9 4.4 1.7
53
Movie A 2.1 1.9 4.5 4.5
Movie B 4.5 4.1 2.4 2.0
Movie C 1.9 2.3 4.7 4.1
Movie D 4.4 3.4 1.9 3.3
Movie E 4.6 1.8 2.2 4.4
Movie F 2.0 3.9 4.4 1.7
54
Movie A 2.1 1.9 4.5 4.5
Movie B 4.5 4.1 2.4 2.0
Movie C 1.9 2.3 4.7 4.1
Movie D 4.4 3.4 1.9 3.3
Movie E 4.6 1.8 2.2 4.4
Movie F 2.0 3.9 4.4 1.7
55
DV = use of affect-cognition dimension in preference
Deliberative  Control
(15.5s) : (10.5s) :
Meta-bases: Meta-bases:
β = .42, t (38) = 2.79, p = .01 β = -.09, t (33) = -.56, p = .58
Structural bases: Structural bases:

β = -.23, t (38) = -1.53, p = .13 β = .36, t (33) = 2.19, p = .04
56
• Matching to meta-bases is more effective than
mismatching.
• Inaccuracy in subjective perceptions does not mean
they are not impactful.
Outline

perceptions)
Outline

perceptions)

v. colourblindness
Present Research
• Multiculturalism: appreciation of differences between

groups
• Colourblindness: ignoring differences between group

Present Research
• Multiculturalism in Singapore
o Foundation for national identity
Present Research
• Colourblindness in Singapore
o housing quotas
o matched funding for ethnic minority organizations
Present Research
• Self-transcendence values
e.g. “It is important to him/her to respond to the needs of others.”
• Conservation values
e.g. “S/he is concerned that the social order be protected.”
Study 1 in See, Lim, & Pauketat (under review)

• Values
• Multiculturalism
• Colourblindness
• Willingness to interact with PRC immigrants
Study 1 in See, Lim, & Pauketat (under review)

• Increase support for multiculturalism for those who prioritize
self-transcendence
• Increase support for colourblindness for those who prioritize

conservation
Conclusion
• Beyond one-size-fits all
• Nuances in message tailoring
Thank you
Excitement
Anxiety
Incompetent
Authentic
Calcium
Happy
Guilty Artificial
flavoring
Beneficial
Uplifted for health
Tired Time-
consuming
Outline
• Introduction and Research Question
• Affect and cognition
• Felt/Subjective ambivalence
• Affective-Cognitive meta-bases
• Hypothesis
• Studies 1-3
• Summary of Findings
• Future Directions
Introduction: Attitudinal Components
Emotions
Attitudes
Beliefs
e.g., Crites, Fabrigar, & Petty, 1994; Smith, 1947; Zanna & Rempel, 1988
Introduction: Ambivalence
Ambivalence: an experience of evaluative conflict that
arises from having both negative and positive
evaluative reactions associated with the attitude object
(e.g., Thompson, Zanna, & Griffin, 1995)
“To what extent do you feel conflicted about

exercising? ”
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
not at all totally
Introduction: Subjective Ambivalence
Subjective Ambivalence: an experience of evaluative
conflict that arises from having both negative and
positive evaluative reactions associated with the
attitude object (e.g., Thompson, Zanna, & Griffin, 1995)
exercising? ”
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
not at all totally
Outcomes of Subjective Ambivalence
 Persuasion (e.g., Bassili, 1996)

 Information Processing (e.g., Clark, Wegener, & Fabrigar, 2008)
 Attitude-Behavior Consistency (e.g., Costarelli & Colloca, 2004; Priester, 2002)
Research Question
When does having mixed emotions or beliefs

predict subjective ambivalence?
Affective-Cognitive Meta-Bases
“ To what extent do you think your attitudes toward

___________are driven by your emotions?”
“ To what extent do you think your attitudes toward

___________are driven by your beliefs?”
 Subjective perceptions of attitudinal bases

 Reflects processing concerns
Affective-Cognitive meta-bases for birth control, blood donation,
chocolate, snakes, spiders.
cognitive meta-bases affective meta-bases

individual individual
Affective-Cognitive Meta-Bases and Time
Investment I
 Study’s procedure
 Read affective positive and cognitive negative
OR
 Read cognitive positive and affective negative
See, Petty, & Fabrigar, 2013; Study 3

Outcome = Time investment
The more affective the meta-bases, the greater the proportion
of time spent on reading the affective than cognitive
information. 0.6
0.59
0.58
Proportion of
Time Spent on 0.57
Affective
Information 0.56
0.55
0.54
0.53
cognitive affective
Meta-bases
β = .26, t(52) = 2.31, p = .03, rpartial =.31

Affective-Cognitive Meta-Bases and Time
Investment II
 Read cognitive frame:
“Now you will be reading a passage about

the characteristics of lemphurs.”
OR
 Read affective frame:
“Now, you will be reading a passage about

the emotions that an individual experiences…”

Outcome = Time investment
Given a cognitive frame, more cognitive meta-bases meant
longer reading time. Given an affective frame, more affective
meta-bases tended to mean longer reading time.
Cog Frame: β = −.35, t(23) = −2.22, p = .04, rpartial = −.42.
Aff Frame: β= .32, t(25) = 1.72, p = .10, rpartial = .32

Affective-Cognitive Meta-Bases and Clip Preference
 Presented with previous students’ ratings See, Petty, & Fabrigar, 2008; Study 3

Movie A 2.1 1.9 4.5 4.5
Movie B 4.5 4.1 2.4 2.0
Movie C 1.9 2.3 4.7 4.1
Movie D 4.4 3.4 1.9 3.3
Movie E 4.6 1.8 2.2 4.4
Movie F 2.0 3.9 4.4 1.7

Movie A 2.1 1.9 4.5 4.5
Movie B 4.5 4.1 2.4 2.0
Movie C 1.9 2.3 4.7 4.1
Movie D 4.4 3.4 1.9 3.3
Movie E 4.6 1.8 2.2 4.4
Movie F 2.0 3.9 4.4 1.7


Movie A 2.1 1.9 4.5 4.5
Movie B 4.5 4.1 2.4 2.0
Movie C 1.9 2.3 4.7 4.1
Movie D 4.4 3.4 1.9 3.3
Movie E 4.6 1.8 2.2 4.4
Movie F 2.0 3.9 4.4 1.7

Outcome = Clip preference
The more affective the meta-bases, the greater the liking for
affective than cognitive clips.
 Reflect processing concerns

 greater reliance on others’ emotions and beliefs (See et al., 2008)
 invest more time in processing (See et al., 2013)
 judge message to be meaningful (Keer et al., 2013)
 relationship satisfaction (Tan, See, & Agnew, 2015)

Research Question
When does having mixed emotions or beliefs

Hypothesis
Affective Meta-Basis Topic
Mixed Emotions/
Intra-Affect Conflict (IAC)
Subjective
Ambivalence
Mixed Beliefs/
Intra-Cognition Conflict (ICC)
Hypothesis
Cognitive Meta-Basis Topic
Mixed Emotions/
Subjective
Ambivalence
Mixed Beliefs/
Study 1 (Matching)
 Pilot test
Ice-cream = relatively affective meta-bases Exercise = relatively cognitive meta-bases

See & Luttrell, under review
Study 1 (Matching)
Design:
120 Ps randomly assigned to 2 conditions:
1. Match condition i.e., salient mixed emotions
for affective meta-bases topic and salient
mixed beliefs for cognitive meta-bases topic

Study 1: match condition
• Ice cream brings joy to every • I think that exercising is
family. beneficial to my health.
• I often feel guilty after I eat • It is foolish to spend my free
ice-cream. time on exercising.
+ all positive belief items + all positive emotion items
(1= not at all; 7 = definitely)
Crites, Fabrigar, & Petty, 1994; Smith & Nosek , 2011

Study 1
Design:
Randomly assigned to 2 conditions:
1. Match condition i.e., salient mixed emotions for
affective meta-bases topic and salient mixed beliefs
for cognitive meta-bases topic
2. Mismatch condition i.e., salient mixed beliefs for
affective meta-bases topic and salient mixed
emotions for cognitive meta-bases topic
Study 1: mismatch condition
• The calcium content in ice- • My exercise routine gets me
cream promotes bone pumped up and excited. (1 =
health. not at all; 7 = definitely)
• It is unsafe to eat ice cream, • Having to exercise on a regular
basis makes me feel rather
given the amount of artificial annoyed at times.
flavoring it might contain.
+ all positive emotion items

+ all positive belief items
(1= not at all; 7 = definitely) Crites, Fabrigar, & Petty, 1994; Smith & Nosek , 2011
Level of intra-component conflict
[(P + N) / 2] ‒ |P – N|
Thompson, Zanna, & Griffin, 1995

Study 1: all participants

ice-cream? ”
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
not at all totally
Study 1
IAC: ß = .58, t(115) = 5.66, p < .0001 IAC: ß = .24, t(115) = 1.56, p = .12
ICC: ß = -.17, t(115) = -1.16, p = .25 ICC: ß = .51, t(115) = 2.99, p = .004
Study 2
 What if all participants had same opportunity to

report negative and positive emotions and
beliefs?
Would individual differences in affective-
cognitive meta-bases for the topic matter?

Study 2 (Cognitive Topic)
Going to the dentist = cognitive meta-bases

113 participants
 Positive and negative emotions (intra-affect conflict)

 Positive and negative beliefs (intra-cognition conflict)
 Subjective ambivalence
 Affective-Cognitive meta-bases for dentist

Positive + negative emotions Positive + negative beliefs
• It feels great when your • Going to the dentist is

teeth are so clean after a valuable for your health.
dentist visit • Going to the dentist takes a
• I feel tense when I go to the long time and costs a lot of
dentist. money.
ICC: ß = 0.31, t(109) = 3.27, p = .001 IAC: No main effect, p = .19
MB x ICC, p = .95 MB x IAC, ß = .34, t(107) = 2.15, p = .03

Aff MB individuals: ß = .36, t(107) = 2.48, p = .01
Cog MB individuals: ß = .08, t(107) = -.63, p = .53
Study 3
What if topic was primarily affective ?
Would general individual differences in affective-
cognitive meta-bases matter?

Study 3 (Affective Topic)
220 participants
 Affective-Cognitive meta-bases for

birth control, blood donation, chocolate, snakes, spiders.
 Positive and negative emotions (intra-affect conflict)

 Positive and negative beliefs (intra-cognition conflict)
 Subjective ambivalence
Positive + negative emotions Positive + negative beliefs
• Running would make me • I believe that running is a

feel better when I am feeling useful way to stay fit.
down. • It is foolish to spend too
• I hate how I get sweaty much time on running.
when I run.
Study 3 (Affective Topic)
IAC: ß = 0.35, t(216) = 5.55, p = <.001 ICC: ß = .19, t(216) =3.00, p = .003, 95% CI: 0.05, 0.24]
MBs x ICC: ß = -.14, t(214) = -2.22, p = .03
MBs x IAC, p = .41
Cog MB individuals: ß = .32, t(214) = 3.79, p <.001
Aff MB individuals: ß = .07, t(214) = -.63, p = .86
Summary of Findings
 IAC (Mixed emotions) is a stronger predictor of
subjective ambivalence for topics of primarily
affective concerns
 ICC (Mixed beliefs) is a stronger predictor of

subjective ambivalence for topics with primarily
cognitive concerns
Summary of Findings
ICC (mixed beliefs) also predicts subjective
ambivalence for an affective topic for individuals
with general cognitive meta-bases
IAC (mixed emotions) also predicts subjective

ambivalence for a cognitive topic for individuals
with affective meta-bases for that topic
A Matching Perspective
Affective Meta-Basis Topic
Mixed Emotions/
Subjective
Ambivalence
Mixed Beliefs/
A Matching Perspective
Cognitive Meta-Basis Topic
Mixed Emotions/
Subjective
Ambivalence
Mixed Beliefs/
Future Directions
 Where do affective-cognitive meta-bases come
from?
 Past experience
 Subjective norms
 Function of the attitude

Future Directions
 Health attitudes
 Mixed beliefs associated with lower attitude-behavior
correspondence for alcohol (Armitage, 2003)
 Will inducing cognitive concerns increase subjective
ambivalence, and help reduce binge drinking behavior

among those with positive attitudes for binge drinking?
Future Directions
 Intergroup attitudes
 For an outgroup for which fairness norms apply, mixed
emotions tend to be greater than mixed beliefs (Mucchi-Faina et
al., 2009).
 Will inducing affective concerns increase ambivalence
toward such outgroups?

Future Directions
 Social identity
 Mixed beliefs tend to be greater than mixed emotions for
ingroup (Mucchi-Faina et al., 2002).
 What about other ingroups?
 Will inducing affective/ cognitive concerns hurt or
promote identification with ingroup?

Thank You!
My collaborators
• Noorfaadhilah Abdul Halil Khan (National University of Singapore)
• Christopher Agnew (Purdue University)
• Leandre Fabrigar (Queen’s University)
• Andy Luttrell (College of Wooster)
• Richard Petty (Ohio State University)
• Kenneth Yu-yang Tan (Singapore Management University)
• L.Z. Bernice Khoo (National University of Singapore)
Joy
Hate
Convenient
Expensive
Ambivalence: actually having both negative and
positive evaluative reactions associated with the
attitude object (e.g., Kaplan, 1972)
“To what extent are your attitudes about

exercising favorable? ”
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
not at all totally
Ambivalence: having both negative and positive
(e.g., Kaplan, 1972)
“To what extent are your attitudes about

exercising unfavorable? ”
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
not at all totally
Ambivalence: having both negative and positive
(e.g., Kaplan, 1972)
From the unipolar responses, we can have:
[(P + N) / 2] ‒ |P – N|
Introduction: Objective Ambivalence
Objective Ambivalence: actually having both negative
and positive evaluative reactions associated with the
attitude object (e.g., Kaplan, 1972)
[(P + N) / 2] ‒ |P – N|
Research Question
2. How does having mixed emotions or beliefs
a. Objective ambivalence will mediate the

relationship between mixed emotions or beliefs
on subjective ambivalence in a matching fashion.
Research Question
b. Objective ambivalence will mediate the impact

of mixed emotions but not mixed beliefs on
subjective ambivalence.
Rockladge & Fazio, 2016

Research Question
c. Objective ambivalence will mediate the impact

of mixed beliefs but not mixed emotions on
subjective ambivalence.
Van Harreveld et al., 2015

“To what extent are your attitudes toward ice-

cream positive? ”
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
not at all totally
“To what extent are your attitudes toward ice-

cream negative? ”
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
not at all totally
Study 1
Study 2
Study 3
Summary of Findings
 Where mixed beliefs predicted subjective
ambivalence for the topic, the relationship was
mediated by overall objective ambivalence.
 Where mixed emotions predicted subjective
ambivalence for the topic, the relationship was
mediated by overall objective ambivalence.
Affect-Cognition matching effects
137
Affect-Cognition mismatching effects
138

New Directions in Message Tailoring: Beyond Affect-Cognition Matching Effects in Persuasion

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

New Directions in Message Tailoring: Beyond Affect-Cognition Matching Effects in Persuasion

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NUS Brownbag 2018

New directions in message tailoring:

See Ya Hui Michelle 施 雅 慧

2. The role of meta-bases (i.e., subjective

3. Tailoring in other domains e.g., multiculturalism

Cognitive appeal Affective appeal

Cognitive attitude Affective attitude

“ …lemphurs have depleted “…The lemphur, with the

“ …Lemphurs are “…For glorious seconds

e.g., Fabrigar & Petty, 1999; Clarkson et al., 2008

E.g., Huskinson & Haddock, 2004; See et al., 2008 8

E.g., Huskinson & Haddock, 2004; See et al., 2008 9

2. The role of meta-bases (i.e., subjective

3. Tailoring in other domains e.g., multiculturalism

• Beyond pro-attitudinal/ neutral persuasion?

• Beyond attitude change?

Bu & See (under revison)

Cognitive appeal Affective appeal

Cognitive attitude Affective attitude

Negative to Negative Negative to Negative

Bu & See (under revison)

• Low defensive confidence individuals: mismatched 

Bu & See (under revison)

• Low defensive confidence individuals:

• High defensive confidence individuals:

• Low defensive confidence individuals:

• High defensive confidence individuals:

“ When I pay attention to ….people who disagree with me, I feel

Many new students are unaware about certain functions...

They receive alerts for some but not others, missing

information and deadlines. This means that in general, the

IVLE system is less effective than it is supposed to be….

Many new students do not know…. Imagine how much

anxiety you would feel missing a deadline because you

thought you were emailed information from all modules. This

With the increase in tuition fees, incoming students

would …..weigh the pros and cons of attending

university. Professors … able to deliver lectures more

With the increase in tuition fees, incoming students

would feel less pressure to attend university ……

students would have a more enjoyable experience in

Cognitive/matched message Affective/mismatched message Cognitive/mismatched message Affective/matched message

• Low defensive confidence individuals but strong specific

2. The role of meta-bases (i.e., subjective

3. Tailoring in other domains e.g., multiculturalism

2. The role of meta-bases (i.e., subjective

3. Tailoring in other domains e.g., multiculturalism

1. Objective: No. of pieces of information

2. Subjective: How well-informed are you?

1. Objective: No. of dominant and conflicting reactions

2. Subjective: How conflicted are your reactions?

Structural bases Meta-bases

I think snakes are __________.

Snakes makes me feel __________.

Overall, my opinion about snakes is

cognitive meta-bases affective meta-bases

• Tendency to engage in and enjoy activities that require thinking.

1. Structural --- .02 -.03 -.08

2. Meta- --- .05 -.22

3. Need for --- .42*

4. Need for ---

Blood donation makes you feel good all over!

See Ya Hui Michelle 施雅慧