Psychophysiological Reactions to Persuasive Messages Deploying Persuasion Principles
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".