This article was downloaded by: [UQ Library]On: 19 November 2014, At: 07:00Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Social InfluencePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/psif20

The transmitter‐persistence effect:Resolving the disputeNurit Tal‐Or a , Elvira Nemets a & Saar Ziv a

a University of Haifa , IsraelPublished online: 14 Sep 2009.

To cite this article: Nurit Tal‐Or , Elvira Nemets & Saar Ziv (2009) The transmitter‐persistenceeffect: Resolving the dispute, Social Influence, 4:4, 274-281, DOI: 10.1080/15534510902764233

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15534510902764233

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms& Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

The transmitter-persistence effect: Resolving the dispute

Nurit Tal-Or, Elvira Nemets, and Saar ZivUniversity of Haifa, Israel

Previous research has demonstrated that expecting to transmit a persuasivemessage to another person preserves the transmitters’ attitudes over time. Thisfinding was originally explained by the organized cognitive construct in whichtransmitters store the message. Other researchers suggested that the attitudes’persistence stemmed from the incompleteness of the task; i.e., the transmittersdid not actually transmit the message. The current research aimed at resolvingthe dispute by comparing the attitude persistence of receivers of information tothat of transmitters who ultimately did not transmit information and to that oftransmitters who actually did transmit information to other people. While theattitudes of receivers weakened over time, the attitudes of the finished andunfinished transmitters persisted, supporting the original explanation.

Keywords: Transmitter-persistence effect; Attitudes.

While there is abundant research on the factors that reinforce attitude

change, much less attention has been devoted to its persistence (Sengupta,

Goodstein, & Boninger, 1997). The persistence of attitudes is important

both theoretically and practically. Theoretically, the essence of the attitude

construct comprises its relative stability (e.g., Rokeach, 1968). Practically,

persuasion that is not enduring is often useless, as in the case of

advertisements or education. Since there is usually a delay between ad

exposure and purchase behavior, the persistence of the attitudes formed or

changed by the persuasive message is very important to advertisers.

Similarly, educators hope that their messages will have a lasting impact

on their pupils (O’Keefe, 2002; Sengupta et al., 1997).

According to the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion (ELM), a

change in attitude has a better chance of being preserved when the

persuasive message is deeply rather than shallowly processed (Petty &

Cacioppo, 1986). In line with this suggestion, individuals with a strong need

# 2009 Psychology Press, an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business

http://www.psypress.com/socinf DOI: 10.1080/15534510902764233

Address correspondence to: Nurit Tal-Or, Department of Communication, University of

Haifa, 31905, ISRAEL. E-mail: ntalor@com.hevra.haifa.ac.il

SOCIAL INFLUENCE

2009, 4 (4), 274–281

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

07:

00 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

for cognition who are characterized as more thoughtful were shown to

preserve their newly formed attitudes longer than people with a low need for

cognition (Haugtvedt & Petty, 1992). Similarly, persuasion tended to be

more enduring when it was related to issues that were personally relevant

rather than irrelevant to the recipients (Haugtvedt & Strathman, 1990). The

endurance of persuasion found in these two studies was dependent on thecharacteristics of the addressees. However, it is much more practical for

persuaders to control the level of elaboration their recipients will exert, and

by doing so, to also control the persistence of persuasion. This goal was

accomplished by Boninger, Brock, Cook, Gruder, and Romer (1990).

In four different studies Boninger et al. (1990) demonstrated that people

who expected to transmit a persuasive message to another person

(transmitters) preserved their attitudes about the message for more than 8

weeks. In contrast, the attitudes of people who expected to receive moreinformation regarding the message (receivers) weakened over time. These

researchers explain that transmitters encode the message information in a

more coherent and organized cognitive structure, which is more likely to be

preserved over time (Boninger et al., 1990). Previous research indeed showed

that people who expect to transmit a message tend to encode it into a

cognitive structure that is more organized, unified, coherent, and well

developed than that of people who expect to receive more information

(Higgins, McCann, & Fundacaro, 1982; Zajonc, 1960). These processes oforganizing and developing the information demand intense cognitive

processing, which was shown in previous research to preserve attitudes

(Petty & Cacioppo, 1986).

Although Boninger et al.’s participants believed they would be transmit-

ting the information they actually did not do so, leading Lassiter, Pezzo, and

Apple (1993) to claim their result was confounded. According to these

authors, the incompleteness of the task led the participants to think about it

more intensely and hence their attitudes persisted (Zeigarnik, 1938). In linewith their argument, Lassiter et al. demonstrated that transmitters who were

instructed to transfer the message to a tape recorder showed a weakening in

attitudes, similar to the receivers.

These findings did not convince Boninger, Brannon, and Brock (1993)

who claimed that talking into a tape recorder is not ‘‘social communica-

tion.’’ Social communication induces common conversational rules (Grice,

1975) that motivate the creation of a coherent cognitive organization, which

mediates the effect on the persistence of the transmitters’ attitudes (Boningeret al., 1993). However, talking into a tape recorder does not substitute for

social communication and might have interfered with the coherent cognitive

construct the transmitters created.

Moreover, in previous research the uncompleted task effect was

demonstrated to last only for a brief time and to be susceptible to

THE TRANSMITTER-PERSISTENCE EFFECT 275

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

07:

00 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

interference from changes in situation. Any simple occurrence, such as a

phone call, that takes place between performing the task and the recall time

might eliminate the memory advantage of those who did not complete their

task over those who did (Zeigarnik, 1938). Lastly, as claimed by Boninger

et al. (1993), previous research has shown that the recall advantage that

derives from task incompleteness occurs only when the completion of the

task is an internalized goal of its performers (e.g., Mandler, 1975; Martin &

Tesser, 1989). The participants’ goal in the current research was to

participate in the experiment in order to gain course credit. The

transmission task was thus unlikely to become their personal goal

(Boninger et al., 1993).

In line with the above claims, it is assumed here that the transmitters’

attitudes persisted because they were stored as a more organized cognitive

construct and not, as claimed by Lassiter et al. (1993), because of the

uncompleted task. In order to resolve this dispute the current research

compared the endurance of the attitudes of the receivers of information to

that of transmitters who ultimately did not transmit information and to that

of transmitters who actually did transmit information to other people. In

line with Boninger et al. (1993), it is hypothesized that the attitudes of both

kinds of transmitters will show persistence, while the receivers’ attitudes will

weaken over time.

METHOD

Participants

The participants were 96 undergraduate students of a university in Israel. Of

these, only those who responded to the delayed questionnaire were included

in the experiment, leaving 66 students, of whom 37 were female, 29 were

male, and their mean age was 23.69 (SD53.48) (one person did not indicate

her age). The participants volunteered to participate in the experiment.

Materials and procedure

Participants were randomly assigned to four groups. All of the participants

received a booklet whose first page included demographic questions and a

request for their e-mail address, ostensibly for letting them know if they had

won a book of vouchers that would be raffled off among the participants.

The second page included a short text describing the dangers of marijuana.

The text described marijuana as causing distortions in the perception of

reality, illusions, and paranoia as well as various cognitive and health

problems. The groups differed in the instructions they received regarding

this text, which were placed at the top of the page, preceding the text. All

groups were instructed to read the text punctiliously. However, half of the

276 TAL-OR, NEMETS, ZIV

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

07:

00 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

groups were told that after reading the text they would be transmitting the

message to another student, and half were told that after reading the text

they would receive more information regarding this issue.

The last page of the booklet included the dependent measures, which were

six statements relating to attitudes concerning marijuana. These statements

were as follows: (1) I believe that marijuana damages the ability to perceive

and remember information. (2) I intend to use marijuana in the future. (3) I

believe that using marijuana is dangerous. (4) I believe there is a positive aspect

to the use of marijuana. (5) I believe that using marijuana increases the chance

of getting various illnesses. (6) I believe that marijuana distorts the user’s

perception of reality. Participants were asked to indicate their agreement or

disagreement with these statements on a scale ranging from 1 to 5.

After indicating their responses, half of the participants who were

assigned to be transmitters were told by the researchers that for them the

experiment was over. They were thanked by the researchers and told to

leave. After they left, the other half were asked to transmit the message to

the person sitting next to them. Similarly, half of the participants who were

assigned to be receivers were asked to leave and half received information

from the person next to them.

The attitudes concerning marijuana were measured twice: immediately

following the reading of the message and 4 weeks later using a questionnaire

sent by e-mail to all of the 96 participants as part of an unrelated survey.

This survey pretended to measure the participants’ attitudes toward various

issues that were on the public agenda such as using contraception and

unemployment. In this survey two statements were embedded relating to the

danger of using marijuana and the intention to use marijuana in the future.

Participants were asked to indicate their agreement or disagreement with

these statements on a scale ranging from 1 to 5.

RESULTS

Computation of the dependent variables

Two dependent variables were measured in the current research: the initial

attitudes following the reading of the message and the delayed attitudes. The

initial attitudes index was based on the mean of the six items concerning

marijuana usage (M54.10, SD50.78, Cronbach’s a50.85). The values of

this index ranged from 1 to 5, with larger numbers representing a greater

tendency to view marijuana usage as dangerous. The delayed attitudes index

was based on the mean of the two items concerning marijuana usage that

were included in the broader e-mail survey (M53.49, SD50.88, Cronbach’s

a50.70). The values of this index ranged from 1 to 5, with larger numbers

representing a greater tendency to view marijuana usage as dangerous.

THE TRANSMITTER-PERSISTENCE EFFECT 277

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

07:

00 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

The primary analysis

A three-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted, with the tuning set

(transmitters or receivers) and the actual performance of the tuning set (real

or false transmitters or receivers) as between-participants variables and the

time of the measurement of attitudes as a within-participants variable. This

analysis revealed a main effect for the time of measurement, F(1, 62)580.79,

p,.001, g25.57. The attitudes concerning marijuana were significantly more

negative in the initial measurement (M54.10, SD50.78) compared with the

delayed one (M53.49, SD50.88).

There was also a significant interaction between the tuning set and the

time of measurement, F(1, 62)567.79, p,.001, g25.52, (see Figure 1). In

order to better understand the nature of the interaction, two repeated-

measures ANOVAs were conducted separately for the receivers and for

transmitters. Receivers’ initial attitudes concerning marijuana were sig-

nificantly more negative (M54.16, SD50.67) than their delayed attitudes

(M53.00, SD50.57), F(1, 31)5130.51, p,.001, g25.81. Transmitters,

however, did not show any weakening in attitudes between the initial

(M54.04, SD50.88) and the delayed measures (M53.98, SD50.86),

F(1, 31)50.33, p..1, g25.01.

Looking at the same interaction from a different perspective reveals that,

immediately following the reading of the message, there was no significant

difference between the groups in their attitudes concerning the dangers of

Figure 1. The effect of transmitter and receiver tuning sets and of task completeness on the

persistence of attitudes.

278 TAL-OR, NEMETS, ZIV

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

07:

00 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

marijuana, F(1, 64)50.40, p..1, g25.006. However, after 4 weeks the

transmitters expressed more negative attitudes towards marijuana, F(1,

64)529.91, p,.001, g25.32, compared with the receivers. A Scheffe post-

hoc test showed that both finished and unfinished transmitters showed

significantly (p,.05) more positive attitudes than both finished and

unfinished receivers.

Most importantly, neither a significant main effect nor interactions were

found for the actual performance of the tuning set. There was no significant

difference in the overall level of persuasion between those who actually

performed the tuning set (M53.82, SD50.77) and those who did not

(M53.77, SD50.70), F(1, 62)50.16, p..1, g25.003. Moreover, there was no

difference in the initial measurement of attitudes between finished

transmitters (M54.12, SD50.92) and unfinished transmitters (M53.96,

SD50.85), F(1, 31)50.27, p..1, g25.008. In addition, in line with the

current research hypothesis, there was no difference between the finished

transmitters (M53.91, SD50.99) and the unfinished transmitters (M54.06,

SD50.73) with regard to delayed attitudes, F(1, 31)50.25, p..1, g25.008.

As Figure 1 demonstrates, the finished and unfinished receivers did not

show any significant difference either.

DISCUSSION

The current study aimed at conducting a decisive test of the conflicting

explanations raised by Boninger et al. (1990, 1993) and Lassiter et al. (1993).

The first authors claimed that transmitters created more organized and

coherent mental structures that helped preserve their attitudes. The latter

authors, however, claimed that transmitters preserved their attitudes only

because they did not have a chance to complete their task. The results of the

current study support Boninger et al.’s claim and confirm the hypothesis

regarding the effect of transmitter tuning on persuasion persistence. While the

attitudes of both the finished and unfinished receivers weakened from time 1 to

time 2, the attitudes of the finished and unfinished transmitters persisted over

time. These results clearly demonstrate that the reason for the enduring

attitudes of individuals who expect to transmit a persuasive message stems

from their expectation, not from the incompleteness of the task.

Following the recommendation of Boninger et al. (1990, p. 271), the

current research shows that this expectation about transmitting a persuasive

message results in more persistent persuasion, not only when the message is

relatively non-involving, as in Boninger et al.’s case, but also when it is

related to a very involving issue such as drug abuse.

The design of the present research enabled us to confirm Boninger et al.’s

claims regarding the role of expecting to transmit on persuasion endurance.

However, it is important to point out a possible shortcoming of the current

THE TRANSMITTER-PERSISTENCE EFFECT 279

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

07:

00 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

design, i.e., the lack of a ‘‘transmitting into a tape recorder’’ condition. We

did not utilize Lassiter et al.’s (1993) approach of transmitting into a tape

recorder because these researchers used it merely as an attempt to imitate

real social communication, and as such it is not important in its own right.

In addition, this approach is artificial and lacks relevance to the real world

compared to the current study condition of transmitting to another person.

Moreover, the goal of the current study was not to examine Boninger et al.’s

(1993) claims regarding the inadequacy of talking into a tape recorder, but

to examine Lassiter et al.’s claim about the confounding embedded in

Boninger et al.’s original study, i.e., between transmitting and incompletion

of the task. This goal is achieved by comparing the attitudes of people who

eventually did or did not transfer a message to another person to receivers of

information.

Having said all that, it might still be interesting in future research to

compare the endurance of attitudes of people who transmit persuasive

messages to a tape recorder with those of people who transmit messages to

another person. Based on the results of Lasssiter et al. (1993) and of the

current research it is expected that only the latter will show attitude

endurance. Future research might also examine Boninger et al.’s claim

regarding the reasons for the transmitters’ persuasion endurance more

carefully. These researchers maintain that transmitters preserve their

attitudes because they encode the message information in a more coherent

and organized cognitive structure, which is more likely to be preserved over

time (Zajonc, 1960). If this explanation is correct, then transmitters will not

be expected to preserve their attitudes when they will lack the ability to think

and organize the information. This hypothesis could be examined in an

experiment in which some of the transmitters are asked to perform an

interfering task that will not allow them to engage in thoughtful processing.

It is hypothesized that in that case the transmitter tuning set will not lead to

persuasion persistence.

Establishing the effectiveness of the transmitter tuning set on persuasion

persistence is particularly important because of the paucity of research

documenting simple persuasive tactics that can be used in order to prevent

persuasion decay (e.g., Tal-Or, Boninger, Poran, & Gleicher, 2004).

According to the current research, simply asking people to transfer a

persuasive message to other people will help to preserve their newly formed

attitudes for an extended period of time. And, most importantly, their

attitudes will be preserved even if they ultimately do not transfer the

message to any other person.

Manuscript received 25 November 2008

Manuscript accepted 20 January 2009

First published online 24 March 2009

280 TAL-OR, NEMETS, ZIV

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

07:

00 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

REFERENCES

Boninger, D. S., Brannon, L. A., & Brock, T. C. (1993). Effects of transmitter tuning on

attitude change persistence: An examination of alternative explanations. Psychological

Science, 4, 211–213.

Boninger, D. S., Brock, T. C., Cook, T. D., Gruder, C. L., & Romer, D. (1990). Discovery of

reliable attitude change resistance resulting from a transmitter tuning set. Psychological

Science, 1, 268–271.

Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and

semantics: Vol 3. Speech acts (pp. 365–372). New York: Academic Press.

Haugtvedt, C. P., & Petty, R. E. (1992). Personality and persuasion: Need for cognition

moderates the persistence of attitude changes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

63, 308–319.

Haugtvedt, C. P., & Strathman, A. J. (1990). Situational product relevance and attitude

persistence. Advances in Consumer Research, 17, 766–769.

Higgins, E. T., McCann, G. D., & Fundacaro, R. (1982). The communication game: Goal-

directed encoding and cognitive consequences. Social Cognition, 1, 21–37.

Lassiter, G. D., Pezzo, M. V., & Apple, K. J. (1993). The transmitter-persistence effect: A

confounded discovery? Psychological Science, 4, 208–210.

Mandler, G. (1975). Mind and emotion. New York: Wiley.

Martin, L. L., & Tesser, A. (1989). Toward a motivational and structural theory of ruminative

thought. In J. S. Uleman & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 306–326). New

York: Holt.

O’Keefe, D. J. (2002). Persuasion: Theory and research. London: Sage.

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral

routes to attitude change. New York: Springer.

Rokeach, M. (1968). Beliefs, attitudes and values: A theory of organization and change. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sengupta, J., Goodstein, R. C., & Boninger, D. S. (1997). All cues are not created equal:

Obtaining attitude persistence under low-involvement conditions. Journal of Consumer

Research, 23, 351–361.

Tal-Or, N., Boninger, D. S., Poran, A., & Gleicher, F. (2004). Counterfactual thinking as a

mechanism in narrative persuasion. Human Communication Research, 30, 301–328.

Zajonc, R. B. (1960). The process of cognitive tuning and communication. Journal of Abnormal

and Social Psychology, 61, 159–167.

Zeigarnik, B. (1938). On finished and unfinished tasks. In W. D. Ellis (Ed.), A source book of

gestalt psychology (pp. 300–314). New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World.

THE TRANSMITTER-PERSISTENCE EFFECT 281

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

07:

00 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014