A Meta-Analysis of the ELM's Argument Quality × Processing Type Predictions

By Christopher J. Carpenter. 2015

117 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Literature and Literary Theory, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/bcec1618498d82e708b3e7280fd7879ba52ff399

How researchers see this paper

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

In Literature and Literary Theory

1. Richard E. Petty
2. P. Briñol
3. Joshua M. Parcha
4. Joseph J. Siev
5. Catherine Y. Kingsley Westerman
6. J. Teeny
7. Zakary L. Tormala

In Sociology and Political Science

1. P. Briñol
2. Richard E. Petty
3. J. Teeny
4. Joshua M. Parcha
5. Catherine Y. Kingsley Westerman
6. Joseph J. Siev
7. Zakary L. Tormala
8. Derek D. Rucker

Citations in the corpus

• A Review and Conceptual Framework for Understanding Personalized Matching Effects in Persuasion (2020, methodology): “This technique has been used subsequently to study how matching (e.g., DeBono & Harnish, 1988), along with many other variables (see Carpenter, 2015), can influence the extent of elaboration.”
• How Corporate Social Advocacy Affects Attitude Change Toward Controversial Social Issues (2020, background): “Involvement is one of the most important variables in determining whether an individual is motivated to engage in issue-relevant thinking (Carpenter, 2015; O’Keefe, 2013) because it can be used to predict whether a persuasive message will be centrally or peripherally processed.”