MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Emotional Factors in Attitudes and Persuasion

2002· book-chapter· en· W2982126664 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistic research and analysis
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPersuasionSocial psychologyPsychologyCiceroConstruct (python library)Object (grammar)RhetoricAngerAttitudeAffect (linguistics)PoliticsAttitude changePolitical scienceCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this chapter we examine the role of emotional factors in attitudes and persuasion. Attitudes refer to people’s global evaluations of any object, such as oneself, other people, possessions, issues, abstract concepts, and so forth. Thus a person’s dislike of ice cream and favorable predisposition toward a political candidate are examples of attitudes. Persuasion is said to occur when a person’s attitude changes. Change can refer to moving from no attitude to some attitude or from one attitude to another. Persuasion can be very explicit and blatant, such as when a person sets out to modify another’s evaluation and provides a strong communication against the other’s point of view, or it can be rather implicit and subtle, such as when a person’s attitude changes simply because the attitude object (e.g., one’s car) shifts from being associated with pleasant to unpleasant outcomes. Classic treatises on persuasion have held that understanding emotion is critical to understanding attitude change. For example, Aristotle’s Rhetoric described how to make an audience feel specific emotions, such as anger or fear, and then how to use these emotions to influence the audience (see also Cicero, 55 B.C./1970). The importance of emotional factors was also recognized in some of the earliest contemporary work on attitudinal processes. We begin by discussing work on the structure of attitudes because it is in this work that emotional factors first received substantial attention as a theoretical construct. Then we turn to the role of affect in producing attitude change. Attitude structure refers to the underlying foundation, components, and organization of a person’s evaluation. Probably the first major attitude structure theory to feature affect prominently was the tripartite theory of attitudes. According to advocates of this perspective (e.g., Insko & Schopler, 1967; Katz & Stotland, 1959; Rosenberg & Hovland, 1960; Smith, 1947), attitudes can be conceptualized as made up of three components: affective, cognitive, and behavioral. The affective component consists of positive and negative feelings associated with the attitude object. The cognitive component comprises beliefs about and perceptions of the attitude object. Finally, the behavioral component is made up of response tendencies and overt actions related to the attitude object.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.935
Threshold uncertainty score0.932

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0690.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.089
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.180 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Quick stats

Citations117
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLinguistic research and analysisFrench-language works237,207