Values‐based Political Messages and Persuasion: Relationships among Speaker, Recipient, and Evoked Values

131 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

A Review and Conceptual Framework for Understanding Personalized Matching Effects in Persuasion (2020, background): “For example, recipients who share the source’s politics (e.g., a liberal source advocating to a liberal recipient) tend to exhibit greater attitude change (Hartman & Weber, 2009; Nelson & Garst, 2005), even if the content of the message does not align with their stance (Bochner, 1996).”
Individual differences in values determine the relative persuasiveness of biospheric, economic and combined appeals. (2017, background): “Tailored messages have greater self-relevance to recipients (Dijkstra, 2008) which enhances involvement and elaboration with the message, thereby increasing levels of persuasion (Nelson & Garst, 2005; Updegraff, Sherman, Luyster, & Mann, 2007).”
Preference Change in Competitive Political Environments (2016, background): “…were significantly more likely to think of gay rights in terms of equality (morality): “[E]xposure to frames invoking equality and morality led participants to explain their views in terms of these values” (Brewer 2008, p. 96; see also Chapp 2012, Clifford et al. 2015, Nelson & Garst 2005).”