Search

Prior studies have found that name similarity can serve as a cue that favorably affects evaluations without conscious deliberation. In a series of four experiments, we show that name similarity can increase the conscious processing of information with which it is associated. When exposed to student resumes or advertised brands with names similar (versus dissimilar) to theirs, respondents were more likely to relate the information to themselves (self-reference, Experiments 2–4) and thoughtfully examine it. Evidence of thoughtful processing included slower reaction times when reviewing resumes and greater information recall (Experiment 1), spending more time in resume review (Experiment 2), greater evaluative differentiation between resumes and product brands of different quality (Experiments 2 and 3), and developing stronger brand attitudes (Experiment 4). An expanded view of how and why name similarity can affect persuasion is offered and discussed.

Three experiments compare the effects of familiar phrases (e.g., “don't put all your eggs in one basket”) to literal phrases conveying the same meaning (i.e., “don't risk everything on a single venture”) on attitude formation. It is argued that the meaning and value of familiar phrases are quickly and easily understood. It is further argued that such phrases tend to be most frequently used in limited-thinking situations and should be effective as peripheral persuasion cues when utilized in the context of a commercial message. All three experiments support this expectation of peripheral-cue effectiveness. Familiar, relative to literal, phrases resulted in more favorable attitudes under low (but not high) involvement conditions (Experiment 1), under conditions of message distraction (Experiment 2), and for persons with a low (but not high) need for cognition (Experiment 3). The results of all three experiments are discussed as being consistent with the predictions of the elaboration likelihood model.

Four experiments were conducted examining the effects of asking rhetorical questions on message processing and persuasion utilizing a radio commercial. Subjects exposed to questions were compared to other subjects exposed to content-equivalent statements across different message positions. The expectations of two different theoretical models of question effects are contrasted and compared. The results of all four experiments are consistent with the view that rhetorical questions elicit judgments on the topic of the request when they are received and that the availability of relevant information when a judgment is first requested is a critical factor determining whether or not message persuasion occurs. The pattern of results predicted by viewing rhetorical questions as elicitors of judgments is differentiated from previous views.