Search

Although the actions of dopamine throughout the brain are clearly linked to motivation and cognition, the specific role(s) of dopamine in the CA1 subfield of the ventral hippocampus (vH) is unresolved. Prior preclinical studies suggest that dopamine D3 receptors (D3Rs) expressed on CA1 pyramidal cells exhibit a unique capacity to modulate mechanisms of long-term synaptic plasticity, but less is known about how interneuronal inputs modulate these cells. We hypothesized that inputs from μ-opioid receptor (MOR)-expressing inhibitory interneurons selectively modulate the activity of postsynaptic D3Rs expressed on CA1 principal cells to shape neurotransmission in the rat vH. We used the whole cell voltage-clamp technique to test this hypothesis by measuring evoked inhibitory postsynaptic currents (eIPSCs) from CA1 principal cells in vH slices or GABAA currents from acutely dissociated vH neurons. The eIPSC response recorded from CA1 neurons in vH slices was inhibited by either the MOR agonist DAMGO or the D3R agonist PD128907, but pretreatment with DAMGO occluded any further inhibition by PD128907. GABAA currents measured in acutely dissociated vH CA1 neurons were inhibited by D3R activation via PD128907, consistent with postsynaptic localization of D3 receptors. Kinetic alterations induced by the neuromodulatory agonists are consistent with selective targeting of postsynaptic D3Rs expressed on CA1 principal cells by MOR-expressing GABAergic inputs. Our findings suggest that postsynaptic D3R-mediated modulation of MOR-expressing GABAergic inputs is a site at which dopaminergic and opioidergic activity may contribute to disinhibition of vH excitatory neurotransmission and, thus, influence critical physiological processes such as synaptic plasticity and network oscillations. NEW & NOTEWORTHY: We report that the activity of an inhibitory synapse on CA1 pyramidal cells in the rat ventral hippocampus is shaped by heterogeneous neuromodulators. Specifically, postsynaptic dopamine D3 receptors on ventral hippocampal CA1 pyramidal neurons are selectively targeted by an inhibitory input from µ-opioid receptor-expressing GABAergic terminals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Compared with nonentitative groups, entitative targets are considered to elicit more elaborative processing because of the singularity or unity they represent. However, when groups serve as sources of persuasive messages, other dynamics may operate. The current research suggests that entitativity is intrinsically linked to perceptions of a group's efficacy related to the advocacy, and this efficacy combines with the position of the appeal to determine message elaboration. When messages are counterattitudinal, entitative (efficacious) sources should elicit greater processing than nonentitative groups because of concern that the entitative sources may be more likely to bring about the negative outcomes proposed. However, when appeals are proattitudinal, sources low in entitativity (non efficacious) should initiate more elaboration due to concern that they may be unlikely to facilitate the positive outcomes proposed. These hypotheses were supported in a series of studies. Preliminary studies established the entitativity--efficacy relation (Studies 1A and 1B). Primary persuasion studies showed that manipulations of source entitativity (Studies 2 and 3) and source efficacy (Studies 4A and 4B) have opposite effects on processing as a function of message discrepancy. Keywords: source efficacy, source entitativity, message discrepancy, message position, message processing

COVID-19 mitigation strategies have largely relied on persuading populations to adopt behavioural changes, so it is critical to understand how such persuasive efforts can be made more effective. The Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) of persuasion allows for the integration of a variety of seemingly disparate effects into one overarching framework. This allows for prediction of which effects are more likely to lead to subsequent behaviour change than others and for generation of novel predictions. We review several recent investigations into persuasive effects of variables related to the source of a persuasive message, features of the message itself, the recipient, and interactive effects between variables across these categories. Each investigation is situated within the ELM framework, and future directions derived from the ELM perspective are discussed. Finally, the implications of each piece of research for COVID-19 persuasive messaging are unpacked and evidence-based recommendations are made. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Attitudinal ambivalence has been found to increase processing of attitude-relevant information. In this research, the authors suggest that ambivalence can also create the opposite effect: avoidance of thinking about persuasive messages. If processing is intended to reduce experienced ambivalence, then ambivalent people should increase processing of information perceived as proattitudinal (agreeable) and able to decrease ambivalence. However, ambivalence should also lead people to avoid processing of counterattitudinal (disagreeable) information that threatens to increase ambivalence. Three studies provide evidence consistent with this proposal. When participants were relatively ambivalent, they processed messages to a greater extent when the messages were proattitudinal rather than counterattitudinal. However, when participants were relatively unambivalent, they processed messages more when the messages were counterattitudinal rather than proattitudinal. In addition, ambivalent participants perceived proattitudinal messages as more likely than counterattitudinal messages to reduce ambivalence, and these perceptions accounted for message position effects on amount of processing. Keywords: attitudinal ambivalence; information processing; message discrepancy; message position; message processing; persuasion

Much research emphasizes heuristic use of stereotypes, though stereotypes have long been considered as capable of influencing more thoughtful processing of social information. Direct comparisons between thoughtful and nonthoughtful stereotyping are lacking in the literature. Recent research in attitude change emphasizes the different consequences of judgments arising from relatively thoughtful versus nonthoughtful processes. Therefore, increased thought could not only fail to decrease stereotyping but might also create stereotypic perceptions that are more likely to have lasting impact. The current studies demonstrate thoughtful and nonthoughtful stereotyping within the same setting. More thoughtful stereotyping is more resistant to future attempts at change and to warnings of possible bias. Implications are discussed for the typical research questions asked after observing stereotypic judgments. Keywords: stereotyping, prejudice, attitudes, resistance, bias correction

The genius effect according to Lassiter and Munhall that occurs because of people's spontaneous due to the self as a reference point in order to evaluate a defeated other is described. It was seen that people's negative self-assessment would lead them to rate a person they unambiguously outperform as more inept than do uninvolved observers.

A study reviewing the research on social influence and message-based persuasion is presented. Message position moderates the relation between attitude accessibility and message processing, and when messages were counterattitudinal, increased accessibility lead to extensive processing.

Previous research has found that activating negative stereotypesaftercompletion of a task can lead people to feel more certain that they performed poorly (i.e., stereotype validation). The current research examined the implications that stereotype validation may hold for future performance. In two studies, the accessibility of gender stereotypes was manipulated after participants completed an initial test on a topic. After reporting perceptions of their performance, participants completed a follow-up test on the same subject. Consistent with hypotheses, activating negative stereotypes after the initial test was found to increase certainty in negative performance evaluations among stigmatized participants. Importantly, this higher certainty – triggered by stereotypes – predicted decreased performance on the later, follow-up test. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]