Psychophysiological Reactions to Persuasive Messages Deploying Persuasion Principles
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Measurement of physiological reactions to persuasive messages can improve our understanding of psychological processes of persuasion, and potentially further enhance and personalize current persuasion interventions. However, little is known about the relationship between psychophysiology and persuasive processes. This study focused on four persuasion principles: scarcity, commitment, consensus, and authority, and people's susceptibility to them. Physiological measures included the cardiovascular, respiratory, and electrodermal system, as well as facial motor systems. Psychological measures consisted of self-reported attitude towards oral care and susceptibility to persuasion (STPS). We performed a randomized within-subject experiment in which fifty-six participants viewed persuasive messages deploying the aforementioned persuasion principles to improve their oral care. Results indicated different physiological patterns during persuasion versus rest. We found no different physiological patterns in exposure to distinct persuasion principles, nor a clear correlation with susceptibility to individual persuasion principles. However, mixed model analysis illustrated that overall STPS scores help explain variance in reactivity of skin conductance level and skin conductance response, and reactivity in the zygomaticus major: lower susceptibility relates to higher reactivity. Summarizing, we have found no conclusive support for distinct psychophysiological patterns associated with different persuasion principles, although overall susceptibility seems to be reflected in physiology to some extent.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it