ﬁg? "HUIHNIHINHIWIWWIHNIUIJIIUNIHIHIIIHllHl_

THESHB

ZCCQ

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

Response to Persuasive Message from Ingroup and
Outgroup Source in Two Cultures: Taiwan and the
United States

presented by

Maria Knight Lapinski

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for

Ph . D . degree in Communicat ion

 

 

(QM!- M

ajor professor
Date I M g 000

MS U i: an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINE-'5 return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

 

 

DATE DUE I DATE DUE DATE DUE
MAY 3 .
i ;' 1 20m in 1 2 2009

 

rd b:
i
TU

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11m Woes-p.14

RESPONSE TO PERSUASIVE MESSAGES FROM INGROUP AND OUTGROUP
SOURCE IN TWO CULTURES: TAIWAN AND THE UNITED STATES

By:

Maria Knight Lapinski

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment for the requirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Communication

2000

ABSTRACT

RESPONSE TO PERSUASIVE MESSAGES FROM INGROUP AND OUTGROUP
SOURCE IN TWO CULTURES: TAIWAN AND THE UNITED STATES

By:

Maria Knight Lapinski

There is extensive research in the United States that suggests we are likely to form
groups with similar others. Over time, our attitudes become more similar to those of our
fellow group members. Typically, we are more persuaded by messages that originate
ﬁom members of our ingroup than by messages ﬁ'om an outgroup member. Under some
conditions, however, such as when the source of the message is individuated, outgroup
members are as persuasive as ingroup members. Because many social scientiﬁc theories
have been tested exclusively in the United States, little is known about the persuasive
power of ingroup or outgroup sources in cultures other than the United States. Theorizing
regarding the individualistic and collectivistic dimensions of culture and social identity
provide the rationale for the current study. There is reason to believe that because of the
emphasis placed on ingroup/outgroup distinctions in collectivist cultures, such as Taiwan,
the persuasive power of the ingroup will be even stronger and messages from outgroup
members will be less persuasive than in individualistic cultures, such as the United
States. The current study employs a 2x2x2x2 independent groups design to test the
eﬂ‘ects of message source, individuation, message strength, and individualism-
collectivism on attitudes and behavioral intent. The results of this study indicate that the
data are not consistent with the hypothesized relationships, but that a message by

individuation interaction exists.

Copyright by

MARIA KNIGHT LAPINSKI-LAFAIVE
2000

To A.C.L.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

There are many people who have helped me throughout the process of completing my
doctorate. Although it is impossible to acknowledge everyone who has helped me in
some way, there are several people without whom I could not have made it through this
process.

First, would like to thank Dr. Franklin J. Boster, my major professor, for showing me
“the way”.

I would like to thank my committee members: Dr. Jim Dearing, Dr. Stan Kaplowitz, and
Dr. Kim Witte. They provided many insights into this project and mentorship throughout
my program. I have thoroughly enjoyed working with each one of them.

I am very grateful to the faculty and students in the Department of Communication.
They, along with my committee members, have been like a family to me. I would
especially like to acknowledge faculty members Tim Levine, Sandi Smith, and Ron
Tamborini (my bowling partner) for their support. The graduate students who could “feel
my pain” made the whole process worthwhile (and often fun?!) including: Monique
Mitchell, Craig Hullett, Dana Mastro, Ric Ohashi, Shelly Campo, and Victoria Orrego.
Special thanks to LiFang Yang and Chi Wai Lee for their help with translation and for
teaching me about Chinese culture.

Thank you to the outstanding Department of Communication staff: Marge, Deb, Kathy,
and Ann — you’re the one’s who make the department tick. Marge, thanks for letting me
(and the rest of the department) come whine to you. You’re a rock.

A special thank you to Dr. Wen-Ying Liu, my colleague and ﬁiend, for all of her help
throughout the process of conceptualization, instrument development, and data collection.

I couldn’t have done it without you. Xie Xie Nin.

The support of my parents, Jack and Nancy Lapinski, has been invaluable throughout my
academic career. They have always believed in me even when I didn’t believe in myself.

To my sister Natasha, who is completing her Master’s thesis as I complete my
dissertation, thank you for all of the late night procrastination calls. Believe me, I
understand. I’m very proud of you.

Finally, I would like to thank my husband Andrew Christian LaFaive for his unfailing
support and encouragement throughout this process. He has taught me the meaning of
unconditional love. I think it was the lucky rubs that did the trick. I love you Kissy.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................

INTRODUCTION ............................................................
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW ..................................

CHAPTER 2: METHOD .....................................................
Participants ..........................................................
Procedure .............................................................
Message Design ......................................................
Independent Variables .............................................

Message Strength ..........................................
Individuation ................................................
Ingroup/Outgroup ..........................................
Individualism/Collectivism ...............................
Dependent Variables ................................................
Attitudes .....................................................
Behavioral Intent .............................................

CHAPTER 3: RESULTS .................... , ..............................
Measurement Models .............................................
Induction Checks ...................................................

Message Strength ..........................................
Individuated/Nonindividuated ............................

Ingroup/Outgroup .........................................
Individualism/Collectivism ..............................

Tests of Hypotheses ...............................................
CHAPTER 4: DISCUSSION ..............................................
REFERENCES ..............................................................

APPENDICES ..............................................................

vi

vii

l6
l6
16
17
18
18
18
l9
I9
20
20
20

21
2 l
22
22
23
24
24
26

28

35

43

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

Table 4

Table 5

Table 6
Table 7

LIST OF TABLES

Contrasts for predicted relationships .......................................... 45

Means, standard deviations, and Standardized Item Alphas
for the dimensions of the Horizontal and Vertical Individualism
and Collectivism scale .......................................................... 46

Message strength induction check means (M) and standard
deviations (SD) for Taiwanese and United States participants ............ 47

Message strength induction check means (M) and standard
deviations (SD) for Taiwanese and United States participants ............ 48

Means (M) and standard deviations (SD) for the
dependent variables by message type and individuation .................... 49

Contrast analysis for eﬂ‘ects of the predicted model on attitudes .......... 50

Contrast analysis for effects of the predicted
model on behavioral intentions ................................................. 51

vii

INTRODUCTION

The inﬂuence of groups on member attitudes has been well documented in the
United States. Under many conditions messages received ﬁ'om ingroup members are
more persuasive than those from outgroup members. The cultural dimension of
individualism and collectivism suggests that this ﬁnding is not universal, but that the
degree to which, and the conditions under which, group members inﬂuence individual
attitudes varies from culture to culture. The purpose of this study is to test the inﬂuence
of messages from ingroup members, message strength, and individuation of source on
attitudes about strengthening water pollution and conservation laws for people in Taiwan
and the United States.

This manuscript will examine the literature regarding the inﬂuence of group
membership on attitudes, the theoretical basis for this inﬂuence, and theories of cultural
variability that suggest differences in the inﬂuence process for persons ﬁ'om Taiwan and
the United States. Several hypotheses will be presented, as well as a method for testing
these hypotheses. Finally, the results of the experiment designed to test these predictions
will be reviewed and discussed, along with a discussion of its limitations and implications

for future research.

CHAPTER 1
LITERATURE REVIEW

Typically, we form groups with others who have attitudes similar to our own
(Byrne, 1971; Newcomb, 1953). Forming groups with similar others occurs commonly
because it allows us to maintain cognitive consistency (F estinger, 1957; Newcomb,
1953), serves to reinforce our own attitudes (Byrne, 1971), and facilitates
communication. Moreover, conformity pressures that arise during social intercourse
result in group members becoming more similar to one another as the duration of group
membership increases (Asch, 1952; Crutchﬁeld, 1955; Festinger, 1950).

Many scholars have noted that these intragroup pressures are particularly effective
in producing group member homogeneity (Sherif, Harvey, White, Hood, & Sherif, 1961).
Generally, scholars have focused on the effect of conformity pressures such as
compliance (e.g., Asch, 1952), legitimization (Milgram, 1974), and identiﬁcation (e.g.,
Kelman, 1961, Siege] & Siegel, 1957). These studies suggest that people typically modify
their actions in response to real or imagined normative pressures ﬁ'om group members.

Researchers have also examined the process of persuasion as a source of
intragroup inﬂuence. These studies indicate that under a variety of conditions messages
produced by an ingroup member are more persuasive than those produced by outgroup
members (Allen & Wilder, 1978; Clark & Maas, 1988; Mackie, Worth, & Asuncion,
1990; McGarty, Haslam, Hutchinson], & Turner, 1994; Wilder, 1990).

Researchers of group processes often consider ingroups as consisting of “two or
more individuals who share a common identiﬁcation” (Turner, 1982; p. 15).

Membership in a particular group or category can be deﬁned in terms of subjective

perception of membership in a given category (Mackie et al., 1990; Turner, 1982). Out-
groups are those groups with which one does not identify (Jackman & Senter, 1980) or
does not claim membership. Ingroups can include (but are not limited to) workgroups,
family, school groups, and political or religious groups (Gudykunst, Yoon, & Nishida,
1987). When the state is threatened, the state can also be considered an ingroup (Triandis,
1989)

Groups can be distinguished in terms of the extent to which members interact
with those ﬁom other groups and the extent to which they are naturally occurring as
opposed to deliberately designed (McGrath, 1984). That is, some groups, such as social
groups, may form based on interpersonal attraction among group members. Other groups,
such as organizational groups, are formed deliberately to pursue a speciﬁc goal. In some
cases, researchers may deliberately form groups for the sole purpose of examining the
ways in which these artiﬁcially created groups function. Similarly, some groups may
have members that are more likely to interact with outgroup members (e. g. a member of a
ﬁiendship group interacting with persons from another ﬁ'iendship group) than members
of other groups (e. g. members of two different organizational groups are less likely to
interact or anticipate interaction with one another). Researchers of the persuasive impact
of group member messages have commonly employed groups with minimal interaction
among group members and between ingroups and outgroups in experimental designs (e. g.
Mackie et al., 1990; Wilder, 1990).

The ingroup most ﬁ'equently invoked in social scientiﬁc experiments is that of
university afﬁliation (e.g. Mackie et al., 1990). Other researchers have created ingroups

and outgroups by randomly assigning participants to each group (e.g. Abele & Petzoid,

1996; Wilder, 1990) and fostering group identiﬁcation. Group identiﬁcation and
perceived similarity are often measured as proxy for the extent to which one believes a
particular person is an ingroup member (Wilder, 1990). Speciﬁcally, one should identify
more strongly with ingroup members than outgroup sources, and perceive oneself as
more similar to ingroup than outgroup members. Under most conditions, it is clear that
the perception that a source is an ingroup member yields considerable attitude change.

Ingroup persuasive messages are more effective than outgroup messages when
social categorization is salient (McGarty et al., 1994), when the source is perceived as
consistent (Allen & Wilder, 1978), and the source is highly credible (Clark & Maas,
1988). In an attempt to understand the processes tlmt underlie this phenomenon, scholars
have examined the factors that mediate the impact of ingroup persuasive messages on
attitude change.

A program of research conducted by Mackie and her associates (Mackie et al.,
1990; Mackie, Gastardo-Conaco, & Skelly, 1992) focussed on the processes that occur
when one receives a persuasive message from an ingroup or outgroup member. These
experiments examined the effectiveness of persuasive messages for topics that were
relevant to the ingroup, and that were attributed either to ingroup or outgroup sources.
Ingroup and outgroup were experimentally induced by varying the source of the message
identiﬁed as either a student ﬁ‘om the participant’s university or another university.
Mackie et a1. (1990, Study 1) found that participants were most persuaded when they
received a strong message from an ingroup member. There was less persuasion when the
ingroup member’s message was weak or when the message was attributed to an outgroup

source. Additionally, participants recalled more arguments from the message when it was

attributed to an ingroup as opposed to outgroup source, suggesting participants were
more carefully processing arguments from the ingroup source than those from the
outgroup source (Mackie et al., 1990).

Similarly, Mackie et a1. (1992) found that when people receive a message from an
ingroup as opposed to outgroup source they take longer to process the message and tend
to be more persuaded by strong than weak arguments. This research also indicates that
prior knowledge of an ingroup source’s attitudinal position results in acceptance of the
ingroup position, regardless of message quality, and that a message ﬁ'om an outgroup
source produces little attitude change (Mackie et al., 1992).

In a partial replication and extension of the Mackie et a1. (1990) experiment,
Wilder (1990) examined the conditions under which ingroup and outgroup sources are
persuasive. In Experiment 1, groups were created by the experimenter and group
identiﬁcation was fostered by providing group emblems and banners. In Experiment 2,
university afﬁliation of the source was varied consistent with Mackie et al. (1990). This,
research demonstrated that ingroup sources are indeed more persuasive than outgroup
sources, but also reported that when outgroup sources were individuated they were as
persuasive as ingroup sources. Individuating the source of a message involves viewing
the source of a message as independent from other group members. That is, the individual
characteristics of a communicator are made more salient than group characteristics
(Wilder, 1990). In the Wilder study (1990; Experiment 3), individuation was
experimentally induced by providing participants with minimal information about the
source of the message (either ingroup or outgroup member). This information included

name, hometown, and major area of study. Research on familiarity and belief complexity

(e.g. Linville, 1982) suggests that the more information one has about the source of the
message, the more persuasive that source should be.

Other studies examining the impact of individuation indicate that responses to
individuating information are moderated by the valence of that information (e. g. Abele
and Petzoid, 1996). Ingroup members described with negative individuating informtion
are evaluated less negatively than those for whom no group membership was identiﬁed
and the same negative individuating information was provided. That is, when compared
with others about whom no group membership information is given, negative information
about ingroup members typically results in enhancement of ingroup qualities.
Conversely, positive information about the outgroup leads to devaluation of outgroup
members more so than for those for whom no categorization information was provided
(Abele & Petzold, 1996). Thus, the research on individuation of source indicates that an
outgroup source can be persuasive when individuated and that the valence of that
information is important for judgements about the source.

Scholars typically proffer several explanations of the ﬁndings for the persuasive
appeal of ingroup members and individuated outgroup members. The ﬁndings are
consistent with classical theories of ingroup-outgroup homogeneity that describe the
ways in which we categorize members of social groups (e.g. Allport, 1954). According to
this explanation the source of intragroup inﬂuence comes from the fact that “people
organize and make attributions about ingroup messages differently ﬁ'om the same
information emanating from an outgroup” (Wilder, 1990, p. 1212; see also Asch, 1952).

This perspective, termed social identity, or social categorization, theory (Tajfel &

Turner, 1979; Turner, 1982) suggests that persons organize the social environment to

provide a stable sense of self and to maintain a positive self-image. To facilitate self-
maintenance, people use the source to interpret the content of the message. Messages
iiom one’s ingroup members are likely to be encoded by characteristics more speciﬁc
than group membership — that is, one cannot distinguish oneself ﬁom other ingroup
members simply on the basis of group membership, so one looks for more speciﬁc
distinguishing characteristics. One then categorizes the messages one receives by some
speciﬁc characteristic of the ingroup member.

The ingroup/outgroup distinction, however, makes group membership salient by
promoting a distinction between one’s own identity and that of members of the outgroup.
Therefore, messages from outgroup members do not have to be differentiated from one
another and messages can be stored in the broad “outgroup” category. Indeed, a
signiﬁcant body of research indicates that in most cases, outgroup members are viewed as
relatively homogenous as compared to ingroup members (Allport, 1954; Linville &
Jones, 1980). Due to the perceived heterogeneity of ingroup members, messages from the
ingroup members are viewed as unique and more persuasive (Wilder, 1990). Consistent
with research by Harkins and Petty (1987), this explanation suggests that messages from
an ingroup source are viewed as independent from those generated by other ingroup
members and therefore messages coming ﬁom this source are persuasive. Because
outgroup messages are placed into a broad category based on group membership, the
source of the message is not viewed as independent of the group unless the receiver is
given information to allow for more speciﬁc categorization of the source (e. g.
individuating information). Providing participants with individuating information about

the outgroup source ensures that the source appears to be more independent than a source

who is identiﬁed with a group. Thus, the individuated outgroup source is more persuasive
than a source about whom no individuating information is provided (Abele & Petzold,
1996; Wilder, 1990).

Not inconsistent with the social identity approach is the message-processing based
explanation (Chaiken, 1980, 1987; Petty & Cacioppo, 1981, 1984; Petty, Cacioppo, &
Goldman, 1981) for these ﬁndings offered by Wilder (1990), Mackie et a1. (1990, 1992)
and others. Mackie et a1. (1990, 1992) suggested that ingroup message processing tended
to be content-focussed as evidenced by more time spent reading ingroup messages and
more recall of message arguments. Conversely, messages attributed to outgroup members
result in little or no processing as evidenced by the fact that responses do not differ in the
strong and weak message conditions. (Mackie et al., 1990). People may view ingroup
messages as more important than outgroup messages and therefore attend to and organize
the information in these messages more carefully (Mackie et al., 1990). That is, either
because persons believe ingroups are more relevant and important than outgroups (based
on past experience) or because people identify with the ingroup members, people spend
more time encoding ingroup messages. Wilder (1990) suggests that because people spend
more time encoding ingroup messages these messages are examined more carefully and
therefore strong messages result in informational inﬂuence. Although Wilder’s (1990)
study yields little evidence to substantiate the claims of the message processing based
approach, he suggests that this approach offers a viable interpretation of his data.

This conjecture is a result of observing people who reside in a culture that is
predominately individualistic, speciﬁcally from the United States. The external validity

of these results are questionable, however, because there is reason to believe that cultural

differences might moderate the relationships reported by Mackie et a1. (1990) and Wilder
(1990). Speciﬁcally, the extent to which these ﬁndings apply in collectivist cultures is a
matter demanding close scrutiny.

Collectivism-individualism is a dimension employed commonly for the purpose
of distinguishing cultures (e.g. Hofstede, 1980; Hui & Triandis, 1986; Triandis, 1989).
Similarly, Triandis (1989) and others (e.g. Markus & Kitiyama, 1991; Sampson, 1985,
1988) have discussed the concept of individualism and collectivism at the level of the
individual. These individual-level distinctions, termed ideocentrism-allocentn'sm
(Triandis, 1989) or independent-interdependent self-construal (Markus & Kitiyama,
1991), are said to correspond to and be inﬂuenced by, cultural-level dimensions. An
ideocentric self predominates in cultures that are more individualistic, whereas an
allocentric self is more common in areas that are culturally collectivistic. The
conceptualizations of the individual—level variables correspond directly to the cultural
level variables. For the current paper, which predicts differences based on culture, the
cultural level distinctions will be the focus of discussion.

The dimension of individualism-collectivism explains the ways in which
individuals in different cultures see the self in relation to others, speciﬁcally to members
of ingroups. For those in collectivist cultures individual goals are subordinate to ingroup
goals. Collectivists emphasize ingroup-outgroup boundaries more than individualists.
Ingroups tend to be stable in collectivist cultures and people will remain a part of an
ingroup even if that group makes extensive demands on the individual (Triandis,
Botempo, Villareal, Asai, & Lucca, 1988). Indeed Triandis (1989) suggests,

“Collectivists automatically obey ingroup authorities and are willing to ﬁght and die to

maintain the integrity of the ingroup, whereas they distrust and are unwilling to cooperate
with members of the outgroup” (p. 509). Many regions in Asian and Aﬁ‘ican, among
others (e.g. Poland; Cialdini, Wosinska, Barnett, Butner, & Gornik-Durose, 1999) have
been classiﬁed as predominantly collectivistic cultures (Hofstede, 1980, Triandis et al.,
1988)

Personal goals are superordinate in individualistic cultures. These cultures allow
for more ﬂuid boundaries between ingroup and outgroup members. Ingroups are less
stable in individualist cultures than they are in collectivist cultures and people tend to
have a larger number of ingroups (Triandis et al., 1988). Regions including parts of
Europe, Australia and the United States, among others, have been classiﬁed as
individualist.

Although individualism-collectivism has been measured by a number of different
scales (see Triandis & Gelfand, 1998 for a review), recent revisions and reﬁnements have
led to the development of a scale that combines the best items from existing scales and
incorporates the concepts of horizontal and vertical collectivism and individualism.

The horizontal and vertical addition to the conceptualization of individualism-
collectivism deals explicitly with the importance of status for those in a given culture.
Those who are horizontal individualists, although emphasizing the individual, are not
interested in achieving high status (Triandis & Gelfand, 1998). Those who are vertical-
individualists are interested in acquiring status via direct competition with others.
Triandis and Gelfand (1998) suggest that vertical collectivists support competition at the

group, but not the individual level. Finally, horizontal collectivists see themselves as

10

 

similar to others with little desire for competition. Central to each of these concepts is
the notion of ingroups and outgroups.

Triandis (1989) suggests that there are a number of group-related factors that must
be considered in order to understand the impact of individualism-collectivism on social
behavior. Such factors include the number of ingroups, the extent of the inﬂuence of each
group, and the depth of inﬂuence of each group. Because members of individualistic
cultures tend to have a relatively large number of speciﬁc ingroups, each ingroup exerts
relatively less inﬂuence on individual behavior. Collectivists, on the other hand, have a
small number of ingroups and the inﬂuence of each group is substantial. Typically, in
collectivist cultures ingroups tend to be small (e. g., family or school group), whereas in
individualist cultures, they tend to be large. For collectivists, these ingroups tend to be
ordered hierarchically in terms of inﬂuence (Triandis, 1989).

The sharp distinction between ingroup and outgroup members in collectivist
cultures has been examined in several studies, some of which used social categorization
theory as a basis for predictions (e.g., Brown et al., 1992; Hinkle & Brown, 1990; Lee &
Ward, 1998). This research suggests that allocentrics, the individual-level manifestation
of collectivism addressed previously, exhibit more positive attitudes toward the ingroup
and more negative attitudes toward the outgroup than ideocentrics (Lee & Ward, 1998)
Similarly, ingroup identiﬁcation is more apt to occur in collectivist cultures (Brown et al.,
1992).

Research on ingroup/outgroup attributional biases indicates that collectivists
engage in more derogation of outgroup members and have stronger intergroup biases than

members of individualist cultures (Al-Zahrani & Kaplowitz, 1993). Collectivists are

11

likely to exhibit a group-serving attributional bias (Bond, Hewstone, Wan, & Chiu 1985)
and typically make more negative attributions about outgroup members’ behaviors (Bond
et al., 1985; Bond, Chiu, & Wan, 1984).1 In collectivist cultures persons report having
greater attributional conﬁdence in ingroup members than outgroup members (Gudykunst
& Nishida, 1986).

There is also evidence to indicate that collectivists perceive communication with
outgroup members to be an arduous process. Gudykunst, Yoon, and Nishida (1987), in a
test of social penetration theory, found people in collectivist cultures perceive more
difficulty interacting with outgroup members than those in individualistic cultures and
that the communication with outgroup members was less personalized and synchronized
(Gudykunst et al., 1992).

This research indicates that for collectivists communication with outgroup
members is typically more difﬁcult, and generally results in more negative attributions
about outgroup members than for those in individualistic cultures. There is little direct
empirical evidence for the persuasive impact of ingroup members in collectivist cultures.
Hui and Triandis (1986), in their survey of cross-cultural researchers, found that
researchers believe collectivists would be more susceptible to inﬂuence by ingroup
members than individualists and suggested that collectivists will attend to the inﬂuencing
agent more than individualists. This prediction has not been tested.

Because of the importance of the ingroup relative to the outgroup for members of
collectivist cultures, the same argument is likely to be perceived as stronger if it is
attributed to an ingroup somce than if it is attributed to an outgroup source (cmp. Asch,

1952, Wilder, 1990). Furthermore, individuating information about a message source,

12

although likely to be recalled, is unlikely to provide a compelling cue that results in
listeners conforming to message recommendations. Instead, it is likely to be perceived as
irrelevant to the attitude judgment, the source’s ingroup-outgroup status being a more
salient cue, and hence, a stronger causal factor. Thus, it is reasonable to expect that
collectivists will be less persuaded by persuasive messages attributed to outgroup
sources, even if those messages contain strong argtunents and the sources are
individuated. Moreover, because of the effect of the ingroup-outgroup status of the source
on perceived argument strength, it is reasonable to expect that collectivists will be more
persuaded by persuasive messages attributed to ingroup sources than messages presented
by outgroup sources, even if the arguments in the message are weak.

Based on previous research by Mackie et a1. (1990) and others (e.g. Chaiken,
1980; Petty & Cacioppo, 1981, 1984; Tasaki, Kim, & Miller, 1998) it is possible to
predict the ways in which people will respond to persuasive messages. Mackie et a1.
(1990) cited the fact that participants in the strong message condition produced more
message-related thoughts and recalled more arguments as evidence that messages from
ingroup members are given more scrutiny. This message-based thinking then led to
greater persuasion in the strong message condition (Mackie et al., 1990). The research on
people with differing cultural orientations suggests that this phenomenon may also vary
across cultures.

Although Tasaki, Kim, and Miller (1998) induced involvement as opposed to
varying message strength, they found that persons with higher interdependent self-
construal (predominant in collectivist cultures) engaged in more source-based processing

across conditions. Additionally, they found that relative attitude change was greater for

13

those with interdependent self-construal than those with independent self-construal, if the
source had high status. That is, contrary to the ﬁndings of Mackie et a1. (1990) and
others, it was not message-based processing that led to greater attitude change for those
who are more interdependent, but characteristics of the source. Thus, one would expect
that those who are more collectivistic should be more likely than those who are more
individualistic to recall characteristics of the source.

Additionally, Johnson and Eagly (1989) demonstrated the importance of
involvement in their meta-analysis of the effects of involvement on attitude change.
Involvement is the “motivational state induced by the association between an activated
attitude and some aspect of the self,” (Johnson & Eagly, 1989; p.293). One type of
involvement, outcome-relevant involvement, deals with the salience of an issue given an
individuals’ existing goals or desired outcomes. Johnson and Eagly’s (1989) meta-
analysis indicated that high levels of outcome involvement increases persuasion for
strongly argued messages and reduces persuasion for weakly argued messages. Thus, it is
desirable to employ topics about which both collectivist Taiwanese and individualist
United States participants exhibit similar levels of involvement. For this reason, the
messages in the current experiment were piloted to assess levels of outcome involvement
in both Taiwan and the United States and to determine if levels of involvement are
similar and relatively high in both countries.

An experiment was designed to test several predictions. It employed a 2
(ingroup/outgroup source) X 2 (individuated/non-individuated source) X 2 (strong/weak
message) X 2 (individualist/collectivist) independent groups design with attitudes and

behavioral intentions as the dependent variables. Persons in Taiwan and the United States

14

were given the source inductions and either a strong or weak message regarding
strengthening water quality laws. This issue was chosen because it was found to be
involving for persons ﬁ'om both countries.2 Taiwan was selected because persons from
this country are generally highly collectivistic (Hofstede, 1980). Thus, Taiwanese should
exhibit higher levels of horizontal and vertical collectivism than participants from the
United States. Conversely, the United States is considered highly individualistic
(Hofstede, 1980). Participants from the United States should exhibit greater levels of
horizontal and vertical individualism than participants from Taiwan.

For Taiwanese/collectivists, an interaction is predicted between group status and
message strength such that more attitude change occurs when an ingroup member
presents a strong message than when a weak message is presented, but little attitude
change occurs when an outgroup member presents either a strong or weak message.
Additionally, there will be a main effect for group status such that the ingroup source will
always be more persuasive than the outgroup source. There will be no effect for
individuation for Taiwanese/collectivist participants because the source’s group status
will be more salient than the individuating information. That is, inconsistent with Wilder
(1990) an individuated, outgroup source will not be anymore persuasive than the non-
individuated outgroup source.

For individualists/United States participants, a three-way interaction is predicted
between in/outgroup source, individuation, and message strength such that in the strong
message condition, an ingroup source is more persuasive than an outgroup source, unless
that source is individuated. An individuated, outgroup source should be as persuasive as

an individuated or non-individuated ingroup source. A strong message ﬂour a non-

15

individuated, outgroup should be less persuasive. In the weak message condition,
participants will be less persuaded than in the strong message condition, and will again
exhibit the least persuasion in the non-individuated, outgroup source condition. The

contrast coefﬁcients for the predictions discussed above are presented in Table 1.

CHAPTER 2
METHOD
Participants
Participants in the experiment included 158 students at Shih Hsin University in
Taipei, Taiwan and 237 American students ﬁom Michigan State University. The
participants from Taiwan were 76% female, and the average age of participants was
20.43 (SD = 2.14). Participants ﬁ'om United States were 59% female, with a mean age of
19.45 (SD = 1.63). The differences in the proportion of females ﬁom each country was
signiﬁcant [)8 (l) = 12.00, p < .05, r = .17] with the Taiwanese sample having a greater
proportion of female participants. Similarly, the differences in mean age between
Taiwanese and United States participants was signiﬁcant
[t (393) = 4.89, p < .05, r = .24]. 3 The Taiwanese participants were signiﬁcantly older
than participants from the United States.
Procedure
Each participant was assigned randomly to the experimental conditions in a 2
(ingroup/outgroup source) X 2 (individuated/non-individuated source) X 2 (strong/weak

message) X 2 (individualist/collectivist) independent groups design.

16

Upon entering the laboratory, participants received a questionnaire containing a
pretest assessment of attitude and behavioral intentions on the issue of strengthening
clean water laws. Immediately following the attitude scale they received the
ingroup/outgroup induction crossed with the individuation induction.

Aﬁer reading the source description, participants read either strong or weak
arguments in a message described as the text of a speech given by a student leader. Next,
they completed several items assessing the quath of the message induction. Participants
then completed a check of individualism/collectivism, post-test attitude and behavioral
intent items, and items assessing basic demographic information. Finally, participants
were asked to list characteristics of the source of the message and were debriefed.
Message De_sigr_1.

Messages were designed by the author and a Taiwanese collaborator. Both the
strong and weak message contained arguments for increased clean water legislation. The
strong messages contain valid arguments and strong evidence for the premises. This
message is presented in Appendix A. The weak messages contain logical errors and weak
evidence for the premises. The weak message is presented in Appendix B. Both messages
contained the same explicit conclusion (“Our country must implement stronger laws to
protect the quath of our freshwater supply.”). All versions of the message were
approximately one page in length, single-spaced, and took respondents approximately
four minutes to read. The weak message contained 552 words and the strong message
contained 520 words. The messages for the Taiwanese sample were translated and back-

translated by independent Mandarin-speaking collaborators.

l7

The messages were pilot tested to assess Taiwanese and American participants’
perceptions of argument strength. The pilot test included 83 participants ﬁ'om the United
States and 85 from Taiwan. The initial pilot resulted in substantial modiﬁcations to the
messages and scale items. The ﬁnal messages were tested to determine the effectiveness
of the message strength induction. A one-tailed t-test indicated that in the United States,
the strong message (Mean = 4.03; SD = .53) was perceived as signiﬁcantly stronger than
the weak message (Mean = 3.72; SD = .77) [t (81) = 2.11; p = .038; r = .23]. Similarly, in
Taiwan the strong message (Mean = 3.64; SD = .65) was perceived as stronger than the
weak message (Mean = 3.30; SD = .53) [t (83) = 1.88; p = .05; r = .20]. The effects for
message on perceptions of message strength are comparable in size to those found in
previous research on the impact of message strength on attitudes. 4
Ind§p_endent Variables

Message Strengt_h. The strength of the arguments presented in each message were
evaluated with six Likert-type items assessing perceptions of message strength on a 5-
point response scale anchored with “strongly disagree” and “strongly agree”. Higher
scores indicate greater perceived message strength. The scale included items such as
“The message I read was compelling” and “The message I read presented very strong
arguments.” Items assessing message strength are presented in Appendix C.

Individuation. Individuation was induced in the same fashion as Wilder (1990) in
which participants were given either some information or no information about the group
member presenting the message. Individuating information included information not
relevant to message content about the source’s hometown, major, and name. The non-

individuation condition participants were given no such information. As a check for the

18

individuation induction participants in all conditions were asked to recall information
about the source. This recall task was a one-item open-ended assessment. As a check of
the individuation induction, this free-response measure was coded as either containing
correct individuating information about the source, containing incorrect individuating
information about the source, or no response. To be coded as “correct” the response turd
to include at least one piece of accurate individuating information (e. g., the source’s
name).

Ingroup/Outgmup. For participants in the United States, the person serving as the
ingroup source was ﬁom Michigan State University and the outgroup source was from
the University of Colorado. For Taiwanese participants, the source of the message was
either be a student at Shih Hsin University (ingroup source) or Ping Dong Technical
College (outgroup source), both in Taiwan. The effectiveness of the source induction was
assessed with the same one item measure used to assess the individuation induction
discussed above. The open-ended responses were coded as either correct (i.e., containing
any information about the group status of the source), incorrect (i.e., containing wrong
information about group status), or no response.

Individualism/Collectivism. Individualism/collectivism was assessed with
Singelis and Triandis’ (in Triandis, 1995) horizontal and vertical individualism and
collectivism scale. This scale contains 32 Likert-type items ranging ﬁ'om 1 = Strongly
Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree such as, “When I succeed it is usually because of my
abilities” and “I feel good when I cooperate with others.” Eight items measured each

dimension. The scale is presented in Appendix D.

19

Dep_endent Variables

Attitude. Participant attitudes on the message topic were assessed on an eight-item
Likert-type scale (l=Strongly Disagree to 5=Strongly Agree) with higher scores
indicating greater agreement with message recommendations. This scale included items
such as: “I think enacting new laws to protect drinking water in the United States (or
Taiwan for Taiwanese participants) is a good idea” and “Stronger laws protecting United
States (Taiwan’s) freshwater sources are not necessary.” The attitude items are presented
in Appendix E.

Behavioral Intent. The likelihood that participants would engage in behaviors
related to the issue were assessed with a four item Likert-type scale including items such
as “I would sign a petition supporting stronger water protection laws” and “I would
attend a rally in support of stronger water protection laws.” The 5-point scales were
anchored with “strongly disagree” and “strongly agree” and higher scores indicated more
agreement with message recommendations. The behavioral intent items are presented in

Appendix F.

20

CHAPTER 3
RESULTS
Measurement Models

Conﬁrmatory factor analyses were performed to test the construct validity of each
scale. Tests for internal consistency and parallelism were conducted separately to
examine the relationship between predicted and observed relationships between items for
both the Taiwanese and United States data.

In both Taiwan and the United States a ﬁve-item unidimensional solution was
found for the attitude scale. The pretest attitude scale was found to be highly reliable in
both the Taiwanese (Standardized Item or = .80) and United States (a = .80) data. The
posttest attitude scale was also highly reliable in both countries (a = .87 for both
samples). In the United States, the pretest attitude scale had a mean of 21.81 (SD = 2.68)
and the post-test scale had a mean of 20.99 (SD = 2.75). For the Taiwanese sample, the
pretest attitude scale had a mean of 21.93 (SD = 2.47) and a posttest mean of 20.98 (SD =
2.85). The Taiwanese and United States pretest means are not signiﬁcantly different
from one another [t (393) = .46, p > .05, r = .02].

A three item behavioral intentions scale was also consistent with the
unidimensional model. The pretest behavioral intent scale had a Standardized Item or =
.71 for the United States data, and an a = .67 for the Taiwanese data. The posttest
behavioral intent scale had an a = .80 in the United States sample, and an a = .70 in the
Taiwanese sample. Analysis indicated that in the United States data the pretest
behavioral intent scale had a mean of 9.47 (SD = 2.34) and the posttest scale had a mean

of 9.59 (SD = 2.40). In the Taiwanese data, the pretest measure of behavioral intent had a

21

mean of 10.03 (SD = 2.14) and in the posttest had a mean of 10.11 (SD = 2.14). The
Taiwanese and United States samples differed signiﬁcantly on pretest behavioral intent
scores [t (386) = -2.39, p = .017, r = -. 12] with Taiwanese participants being more likely
to report intent to engage in behaviors to promote strengthening clean water laws than
participants ﬁ'om the United States.

Conﬁrmatory factor analysis also indicated a four-item unidimensional solution

for the message strength scale. This scale is reliable in both the United States data (or =

 

.82) and Taiwanese data (a = .81). The scale had a mean of 15.37 (SD = 2.60) in the
United States data and a mean of 14.02 (SD = 2.39) in the Taiwanese sample.

The Horizontal and Vertical Collectivism and Individualism Scale (Singelis &
Triandis, in Triandis, 1994) consists of four factors. Analysis resulted in a four-item
unidimensional solution for the horizontal-individualism scale. For both the United States
and Taiwanese data the means, standard deviations, and alpha coefﬁcients for each factor
are presented in Table 2. A ﬁve-item unidimensional solution was produced for the
horizontal-collectivism scale, vertical-individualism scale, and vertical-collectivism
scale.

Induction Checks

Mesgge Strength. To assess the effectiveness of the strong-weak message
induction a 2 (individuated/non-individuated source) x 2 (ingroup/outgroup source) x 2
(T aiwan/U nited States) x 2 (strong/weak message) analysis of variance (ANOVA) was
performed with the perceived message strength scale as the dependent variable. The
analyses indicated a substantial main effect for message on perceived message strength

such that the strong message (M = 15.54; SD = 2.29) was perceived as signiﬁcantly

22

stronger than the weak message (M = 14.09; SD = 2.70) [F (1, 369) = 30.59, p=.001, n2 =
.08, r =.28]. There was also a signiﬁcant main effect for country such that Taiwanese
viewed both the strong message and weak message as weaker than those from the United
States [F (1, 369) = 28.45, p= .00, n2 = .06, r = .25].4 These means are presented in Table
3. Analysis revealed an additional main effect for individuation on perceptions of
message strength such that a message ﬁom an individuated source (M = 14.54; SD =
2.51) was perceived as weaker than a message from a non-individuated source [M =
15.12; SD = 2.67; F (1, 369) = 4.73; p = .03, n2 = .01, r = .10]. Ingroup/outgroup status
of the source did not impact perceived message strength [F (1, 369) = .20, p =.655].
There were no substantial interaction effects for the independent variables on perceptions
of message strength.

Individuaﬁedﬂ‘lon-Ingividuated. The single item assessment of the extent to which
participants could recall the source of the message revealed that the individuation
induction was effective. Of the Taiwanese subjects in the individuation condition (N =
84), approximately 24% of the participants recalled the induction correctly, 12% recalled
it incorrectly, and 64% did not mention speciﬁc individuating information about the
source. The proportion of Taiwanese participants correctly identifying the individuation
manipulation differs signiﬁcantly from zero [z=5. 15, p < .05; 95% Conﬁdence Interval
(CI) =. 15 - .33]. Similarly, the difference between those who recalled the induction and
those who did not is signiﬁcant (Ap= .12; z = 3.38; p < .05; 95% CI = .05 - .19). In the
United States sample, of those in the individuation condition (N = 114), 51% recalled
accurate information regarding the source, 10% recalled information inaccurately, and

39% did not recall speciﬁc information about the source. The proportion of participants

23

from the United States correctly identifying the individuation manipulation differs
signiﬁcantly from zero (2 = 10.89, p < .05; 95% Conﬁdence Interval = .42 - .60). The
difference between those who recalled the induction and those who did not was also
signiﬁcant (Ap = .41; z = 8.90; p < .05; 95% CI = .32 - .50).

It was predicted that Taiwanese participants should focus more on qualities of the
source than those from the United States, and should therefore be better able to recall
information about the source of the message. Chi-square analysis of the data from the
ingroup/outgroup induction check revealed that people ﬁ'om the United States were
signiﬁcantly more likely to mention the group information about the source of the
message than those from Taiwan [x2 (2) = 18.98; p = .001].

Ingroup/Outgmup. For the ingroup/outgroup induction, 82% of Taiwanese
participants did not mention group information about the source, 8% mentioned
inaccurate information, and 9% mentioned the group status of the source. Of the United
States participants, 65% did not mention information about the group status of the somce,
7% mentioned inaccurate information, and 28% correctly recalled source group
information. The United States participants were signiﬁcantly more likely to recall
speciﬁc individuating information about the source of the message [12 (2) = 8.52; p =
.01].

Individualism-Collectivism. To test the extent to which Taiwanese are more
collectivist than individuals from the United Statess, a 2 (individuated/non-individuated
source) x 2 (ingroup/outgroup source) x 2 (Taiwan/United States) x 2 (strong/weak
message) ANOVA was performed on each of the horizontal and vertical individualism-

collectivism scales. For the horizontal-individualism scale, the United States mean and

24

the Taiwanese mean differ signiﬁcantly [F (1, 368) = 104.41, p = .001, n2 = .21, r = .45].
Indicating that, as expected, participants from the United States tended toward greater
horizontal-individualism than those from Taiwan. There were no other signiﬁcant main
effects for the other independent variables on horizontal-individualism. There was,
however, a signiﬁcant 3 way interaction for country, message, and group on horizontal-
individualism [F (1, 368) = 10.40, p= .01, 112 = .02, r = .14]. The character ofthis
interaction was such that in the United States the strong message, ingroup condition
contained persons higher on horizontal-individualism than in the strong message
outgroup condition. In Taiwan this pattern was reversed with more horizontal-
individualists in the strong message, outgroup source condition than in the strong
message ingroup source condition. In every cell, the United States participants were
higher on horizontal-individualism than the Taiwanese participants. The means for this
effect are presented in Table 4.

The United States mean and the Taiwanese mean on the horizontal-collectivism
scale do not differ signiﬁcantly [F (1, 367) = .15, p = .70, n2= .0004]. There were no
other signiﬁcant main effects or interaction effects for the independent variables on
horizontal-collectivism. There was also no signiﬁcant diﬂerence between the United
States and Taiwanese means on the vertical-individualism scale [F (1 , 369) = 1.16,p = .28
n2 = .003], nor were there any other signiﬁcant effects for the other independent variables
on vertical-individualism. Analysis of the vertical-collectivism scale revealed that the
Taiwanese mean differs signiﬁcantly from the United States mean [F (1,368) = 23.59,

p=.001, 112==.06, r = .24] with Taiwanese having higher levels of vertical-collectivism.

25

 

This difference was in the expected direction. There were no other signiﬁcant effects for
the independent variables on vertical-collectivism.
Tests of Hymtheses

The hypotheses dealt with the impact of individuation, group status, and message
strength on attitudes and behavioral intent. In order to assess change in attitudes ﬁ'om
pretest to post test an attitude change scale was created by subtracting pretest attitude
scores ﬁ'om posttest scores and summing across items. The attitude change scale had a
reliability of 01 = .49 in the United States and a =.63 in Taiwan. Due to the unreliability
of the change scores, analysis of covariance (AN COVA) was performed with pretest
attitude as the covariate and post-test attitude as the dependent variable. A 2 (strong/weak
message) X 2 (ingroup/outgroup source) X 2 (individuated/non—individuated source) X 2
(United States/Taiwan) independent groups AN COVA revealed a statistically signiﬁcant
message by individuation interaction [F (1, 362) = 3.90, p = .049, 02 = .01; r = .07]. As
indicated by the means in Table 5 the character of the interaction was such that in the
weak message condition, the non-individuated source was more persuasive than the
individuated source. In the strong message condition, the means were in the opposite
direction. The individuated source was more persuasive than the non-individuated source.
There was no main effect for country [F (l, 362) = .32, p = .57]. The predicted three-way
interaction for group, message, and individuation in the United States was not signiﬁcant
[F (1,218) = 2.59, p = .11], nor was the predicted main effect for group in the Taiwanese
data [F (1,143) = .67, p = .42]. In order to test of the predicted interactions among the
independent variables on attitudes, contrast analysis was employed using the contrast

coefficients provided in Table 1. These analyses revealed that these data are not

26

 

consistent with the predicted model [F (1, 373) = 3.17, p >.05, n2 = .004, r = .06]. The
complete contrast analysis is presented in Table 6. Thus, these data are not consistent
with the hypotheses regarding the impact of the independent variables on attitudes.

To test the predictions regarding the impact of the in independent variables on
behavioral intentions, a change scale was created by subtracting pretest behavior scores
from post test behavior scores and summing across items. Similar to the attitude change
scale this scale had low reliabilities (or =.20 in the US and a = .44 in Taiwan), thus an
ANCOVA was performed with pretest behavioral intent as the covariate.

A 2 (strong/weak message) X 2 (ingroup/outgroup source) X 2 (individuated/non-
individuated source) X 2 (T aiwan/U S) independent groups AN COVA with post-test
behavioral intention scores as the dependent variable revealed a signiﬁcant message by
individuation interaction [F (1,362) = 7.30 p=.007, n2 = .01; r = .08]. Examination of the
means in Table 5 indicates a pattern similar to the means for the attitude scale. In the
weak message condition, the non-individuated source was more persuasive than the
individuated source. In the strong message condition, the individuated source was more
persuasive than the non-individuated source. There was no main cﬂ‘ect for country [F
(1,362) = .003, p = .96]. In the Taiwanese data, the predicted main effect for group was
nonsigniﬁcant [F (1, 145) = .00, p = .96]. The predicted three-way interaction for group,
message, and individuation in the United States was also nonsigniﬁcant [F (1,218) = .44,
p = .51]. As an additional test for the predicted interaction effects, a contrast analysis was
performed with these data (see Table 1 for contrast coefficients). The data were not
consistent with the predicted model [F (1, 376) = 3.65, n2 = .003, r = .05]. Additional

results from the contrast analysis are reported in Table 7.

27

 

CHAPTER 4:
DISCUSSION

The goal of this study was to extend and test the external validity of previous
research regarding the impact of message strength, ingroup/outgroup, and
individuated/non-individuated source on attitudes and behavioral intentions. The study
was designed to test for a three-way interaction between these variables in the United
States on both attitudes and behavioral intentions. These data are not consistent with
these hypotheses, nor with previous research regarding the impact of source
characteristics in the United States. Speciﬁcally, previous research indicated that an
outgroup source is persuasive only when that source is individuated and that a strong
message ﬁ'om an ingroup source is persuasive whether or not that source is individuated.
The current examination found no effect for group and no group by individuation
interaction.

A main effect was predicted for group source for those ﬁ'om Taiwan, such that the
ingroup source was always more persuasive than the outgroup source. These data were
not consistent with this prediction. There was no main effect for group evident in these
data. The predicted group by message strength interaction was also not evidenced in these
data. Additionally, it was predicted that Taiwanese should be more likely than
participants ﬁom the United States to recall characteristics of the source. Chi-square
analysis revealed that the data were not consistent with this prediction. Participants from
Taiwan were actually less likely to recall characteristics of the source than participants

from the United States.

28

 

These data do indicate an interaction effect for strong/weak message and
individuated/non-individuated source on attitude. In the weak message condition the non-
individuated source was more persuasive than the individuated source. In the strong
message condition the individuated source was more persuasive than the non-
individuated source. Put differently, source individuation can attenuate persuasion if a
message is weak, but increase persuasion when the message is strong. These data indicate

that this effect occurs regardless of the group status of the source or the cultural

 

background of the participants. The message by individuation interaction effect occurred
despite a somewhat weak message strength induction for both participants from the
United States and Taiwan. Similarly, the group status of the source did not make a
diﬂerence in subsequent attitudes.

The effects were similar for message and individuation on behavioral intent. In
the weak message condition the non-individuated source was more persuasive than the
individuated source. In the strong message condition the individuated source was more
persuasive than the non-individuated source. Thus, it appears that for behavioral
intentions, when the message was weak, being an individuated source actually detracted
ﬁ'om the persuasive power of the source. That is, knowing speciﬁc information about the
source of a message makes people less likely to comply with the recommendations in a
weak message. If the message is strong, however, the individuated source will impact
behavioral intentions more strongly than the non-individuated source. Again, these
effects occur across culture and source. Put differently, neither the ingroup/outgroup

status of source nor the cultural group of the participants impacted behavioral intentions.

29

Thus, these ﬁndings generalize across Taiwanese/co llectivistic and United
States/individualistic participants. There were no other effects approaching signiﬁcance.

The message by individuation interaction could be attributable to a message
strength magniﬁcation effect for the individuated source. That is, providing identifying
information about the source of a message produces greater scrutiny of the message than
providing little or no information about the source. In the case of a message containing
weak, specious arguments, the message magniﬁcation effect produces less attitude
change than if the message contains strong arguments.

It is important to note, however, that due to the complex design of this study,
there is a possibility of 15 effects for the independent variables including four main
effects, 6 two-way interactions, 4 three-way interactions, and 1 four-way interaction.
Post-hoc Bonferroni correction indicates that in order to produce a family-wise error rate
of p = .05, effects would have to be signiﬁcant at the p = .003 level. The message by
individuation interaction for both attitudes and behavioral intent is not signiﬁcant at this
level. Thus, this interaction could be due to sampling error.

These ﬁndings are particularly interesting given the data from the message
strength induction check that indicated that across conditions, the message from the
individuated source was perceived as weaker than the message from the non-individuated
source. Although this effect occurred, in the strong message condition the individuated
source still impacted both attitudes and behavioral intentions, and there was no main
effect for individuation on attitudes. This suggests that the effects for message are

particularly important. Wilder (1990) examined the impact of source individuation on

30

 

attitudes, but did not control for the effects of message strength, nor did he measure
perceptions of message strength.

There are several limitations of the current study that might explain the
inconsistencies between the hypotheses and the data. First, either the induction of
ingroup/outgroup was relatively ineffective or the induction check measure was weak.
Only a small percentage of the participants recalled group-related characteristics of the
source. Following the data analysis reexamination of the questionnaires revealed that the
Taiwanese questionnaire stated in the instructions that the questionnaire was from Shih
Hsin University, the ingroup source. Because so few of the participants actually recalled
group-related characteristics, however, this problem may be inconsequential. The current
study employed an ingroup/outgroup manipulation that may not have been sufficient to
produce change in participants ﬁ'om Taiwan. That is, although in the United States, non-
interactive, deliberately designed groups have been used in previous research on this
issue and produced signiﬁcant results, these groups may not be salient for those in
collectivist cultures. Other ingroups, such as family or social groups could be more likely
to make ingroup/outgroup distinctions salient to those ﬁ'om collectivist cultures such as
Taiwan.

The induction of group status used in the current study was the same in both
content (i.e. university affiliation) and form (i.e. group status was mentioned once before
participants read a message) as those which yielded signiﬁcant attitude shifts in prior
research (Mackie et al., 1990, Experiment 1; Wilder, 1990; Experiment 3). Many studies
(e.g. Abele & Petzold, 1996; Mackie et al., 1990, Experiment 1; Wilder, 1990) did not

report an induction check or recall measure for ingroup/outgroup affiliation, so it is not

31

 

possible to know if participants would have been able to recall information about group
membership. Mackie et al., (1990) did report nearly 100% accuracy in participant recall
of source cues in their second experiment, but their ingroup/outgroup induction (i.e.,
several visual and verbal cues indicating group status) was much more extensive than the
inductions employed in both previous and current research. In this study, the use of a
single item, open-ended measure to check the effectiveness of both the ingroup/outgroup

and the individuation inductions, although better than no induction check, may be one

 

reason that the induction appears to be weak.

Both the individuation and ingroup/outgroup inductions were not mentioned by
the majority of the Taiwanese participants. These inductions faired better with the United
States participants. There are several possible explanations for the failure of both
inductions, especially in Taiwan. Speciﬁcally, the induction of these independent
variables illustrates one of the major difficulties in collecting international data. The
Taiwanese participants were far less likely to recall either of the inductions than
participants from the United States. This suggests that there may have been language or
translation problems with the survey. Although the questionnaires were translated and
back-translated several times, it was difficult to ﬁnd translators who understand the
importance of accuracy required to do social scientiﬁc research. Similarly, the
investigator does not have enough Mandarin pro ﬁciency to translate or back-translate
questionnaires adequately. Unless the translator has participated in the study design the
i translator may not be cognizant of the inductions (especially in a complex design) and
their critical role in the study design. It should be noted, however, that translation is

obviously not the only problem with the inductions used in the current study; the results

32

of this study fail to replicate those of previous research conducted in English in the
United States.

The problem of translation was also evident in the message induction. Although
the message induction was effective in both Taiwan and the United States, the messages
were seen as weaker in Taiwan. This may be a function of the translation of the messages
or a cultural difference in the ways in which evidence and logic are perceived. It should
be noted that these messages were piloted several times in an attempt to gain equivalence
of message evaluation. In the pilot study, these messages were perceived as similarly
strong and weak in by those from Taiwan and the United States.

Additional investigations of the variables examined in this study could employ
multiple attitude donnins when designing messages. In this case, the issue of water
conservation is one that Taiwan and the United States perceive similarly in terms of
outcome involvement, but there rmy be other factors that inﬂuence perceptions of
messages on this topic (e.g., prevalence of messages on this issue in the media). On a
related issue, ﬁrture examinations of this type could employ messages that are highly
counter-attitudinal. In the current study, attitudes toward the issue were primarily
positive. In order to examine attitude change it is necessary both to choose topics for
which there is likely to be signiﬁcant change and develop reliable measures of change.
Future research can address these needs.

The data also revealed mixed ﬁndings for the horizontal/vertical individualism-
collectivism measure in the United States. This ﬁnding speaks to the importance of
measurement in social science. The measurement of individualism and collectivism has

historically given researchers difficulties. Indeed, in some disciplines these variables are

33

assumed, based on culture, rather than measured due to questionable validity and
reliability of existing measures. Clearly there is variability within cultures on these
variables. To the extent that a collective orientation may be related to perceptions of
messages ﬁ'om an ingroup or outgroup source, future research issues should consider
measurement of collectivism and individualism.

There are several related issues that merit investigation. First, many researchers
have created groups as opposed to using naturally occurring groups as was done in this
study. There are arguments for employing each of these inductions, but certainly a
induction of ingroup and outgroup would be more effective if one was aware of the
extent to which participants have and identify with other relevant ingroups.
Ingroup/outgroup distinctions have been discussed extensively in the intercultural
research, but few have examined which groups are the most relevant ingroups or
outgroups. Perhaps the groups chosen for the present investigation are not the most
salient, hence, not the most persuasive ingroups. Finally, it might also be the case that
persuasion (i.e., attitude change) is not the primary means by which ingroup members in
collectivist cultures gain conformity from group members. Other social inﬂuence forces
such as compliance or conformity may be the primary mechanism by which group
members become more similar over time. Thus, the extent to which messages ﬁ'om
ingroup or outgroup members inﬂuence individual attitudes in cultures other than the

United States remains an important area for additional research.

34

 

REFERENCES

35

REFERENCES

Abele, A., & Petzold, P. (1996). Asymmetrical evaluation of ingroup versus
outgroup members: A look ﬁ'om an information integration perspective. Europgan
Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 219-231.

Allen, V.L., & Wilder, DA. (1978). Perceived persuasiveness as a function of
response style: multi-issue consistency over time. Europ_ean Joml of Social
Psychology, 8, 289-296.

Allport, G. W. (1954). The ngture of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-
Welsely.

Al-Zahrani, S. S. A., & Kaplowitz, S. A. (1993). Attributional biases in

individualistic and collectivistic cultures: A comparison of Americans with Saudis. Social

Psychology Quarterly, 56, 223-233.

 

Asch, S. E. (1952). Social psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.

Bond, M.H., Chiu, C.-K., & Wan, K.-C. (1984). When modesty fails: The social
impact of group-effacing attributions following success or failure. European Joum_algf
Social P cholo , 1_4, 335-338.

Bond, M.H., Hewstone, M., Wan, K.-C., & Chiu, C.-K. (1985). Group-serving
attributions across intergroup contexts: Cultural differences in the explanation of sex-

typed behaviors. European Journal of Socigl Psychology, 15, 435-451.

36

 

Brown, R., Hinkle, S., Ely, P.G., Fox-Cardamone, L., Maras, P., & Taylor, LA.
(1992). Recognizing group diversity: Individualist-collectivist and autonomous-relational
social orientations and their implications for intergroup processes. British Journal of
80:3in Psychology, 31, 327-342.

Byrne, D. E. (1971). The attraction paradigm. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the
use of source versus message cues in persuasion. ,Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 32, 752-766.

Chaiken, S. (1987). The heuristic model of persuasion. In M. P. Zanna, J.M.
Olson, & C. P. Herman (Eds), Social inﬂuence: The OnLario symwith (V 01. 5, pp. 33-
39). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cialdini, R.B., Wosinska, W., Barnett, D.W., Butner, J., & Gomik-Durose, M.
(1999). Compliance with a request in two cultures: The differential inﬂuence of social
proof and commitment/consistency on collectivists and individualists. Personality and
Socigl Psychology Bulletin. 25, 1242-1253.

Clark, R. D., & Maas, A. (1988). The role of social categorization and perceived
source credibility in minority inﬂuence. The Euroman Journal of Social P§ychology, 18,
381-394.

Crutchﬁeld, R. S. (1955). Conformity and character. Am ican Psychologist, 19,

191-198.

37

 

F estinger, L. (1950). Social pressures in informal groups. New York, NY: Harper
and Brothers.

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cogm'tive dissona_r_19§. Evanston, IL: Row
Peterson.

Gudykunst, W. B., & Nishida, T. (1986). The inﬂuence of individualism-
collectivism on perceptions of communication behavior associated with relationship

terms. Human Communication Research, 13, 147-166.

Gudykunst, W. B., Yoon, Y. C., & Nishida, T. (1987). The inﬂuence of
individualism-collectivism in perceptions of communication in ingroup-outgroup
relationships. Communication Monographs, 54, 295-306.

Harkins, S. G., & Petty, R. E. (1987). Information utility and the multiple source
effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 260-268.

Hinkle, S., & Brown, R. (1990). Intergroup comparison and social identity: Some
links and lacunae. In D. Abrams and M. A. Hogg (Eds), Social identity theory:
Congtructive aid critical advances. New York, NY: Harvester-Wheatsheaf.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s comuences: International differences in work-
related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Hui, C. H. & Triandis, H. C. (1986). Individualism and collectivism: A study of

 

cross-cultural researchers. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 11, 225-248.
’ Jackman, M.R. & Senter, MS. (1980). Images of social groups: Categorical or
qualiﬁed? Public Opini_on Quarterly. 4:1, 341-361.
Johnson, B. T., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). The effects of involvement on persuasion:

A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulliten, 106, 290-314.

38

Kelman, H. C. (1961). Processes of opinion change. Public Opinion Qu_aaterly, Q,
57-78.
Lee, L. & Ward, C. (1998). Ethnicity, idiocentrism-allocentrism and intergroup

attitudes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 109-123.

 

Linville, P.W. (1982). The complexity-extremity effect and age-based
stereotyping. Journal of Personwand Sowsychpargy, 4_2_, 193-211.

Linville, P.W. & Jones, E. E. (1980). Polarized appraisals of outgroup members.
Journal of Personality and Social Psycholpgy, 38, 689-703.

Mackie, D. M., Gastardo-Conaco, C. M., & Skelly, J. J. (1992). Knowledge of
the advocated position and the processing of in-group and out-group persuasive
messages. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 145-151.

Mackie, D. M., Worth, L. T., & Asuncion, A. G. (1990). Processing of persuasive
ingroup messages. Journal of Persopality apd Social Psychpjpgy, 58, 812-822.

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for
cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.

McGarthy, C. Haslam, Hutchinson, & Turner, J.C. (1994). In M. P. Zanna & J. M.
Mosler (Eds) The psychology of prejudice: The (Aario symposium. Vol. 7. Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.

McGrath, J .E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and pgrformance. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to agaority: An experimegal view. New York,

NY: Harper and Row.

39

Newcomb, TM. (1943). Personality and social change: Attitude formation in a
student community. New York: Holt, Rinehard, & Winston.

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic car!
contentmrary approaches. Dubuque, IA: Brown.

Petty , R. E., & Cacioppo, J T. (1984). The effects of involvement on responses to
argument quantity and quality: Central and peripheral cues to persuasion. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, ﬂ, 69-81.

Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Goldman, R. (1981). Personal involvement as a
determinant of argument-based persuasion. Journal of Personality and Sonia] Paychyo_l_gy,
if, 847-855.

Sampson, E. E. (1985). The decentralization of identity: Toward a revised
concept of personal and social order. American Psychoingig 1203-1211.

Sampson, E. E. (1988). The debate on individualism. American Paychologist, Q,
15-22.

Sherif, M. Harvey,O.J., White, 13.1., Hood, W.R., & Sherif, cw. (1961).
Intergoup conﬂict and cooperation: The robber’s cave experiment. Norman OK:
University Book Exchange.

Siegel. A.E., & Siegel, S. (1957). Reference groups, attitude groups, and attitude
change. Journal of Abnormal and SociaiPsycho_logy, 3, 360-364.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J .C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conﬂict. In

W. G. Austin and S. Worschel (Eds), The social psychology of intergzoup relations.

Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole.

40

 

Tasaki, K., Kim, M.S., & Miller, MD. (1998, March). The effects of social status
on cognitive iammtiopﬂd post-message attitude: Focussmg' on self-construals. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the International Society for Intercultural Relations,
Fullerton, CA.

Triandis, HQ (1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts.
Paychological Review, 26, 506-520.

Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview
Press.

Triandis, H. C., Botempo, R., Villareal, M. J., Asai, M., & Lucca, N. (1988).
Individualism and collectivism: Cross-cultural perspectives on self-ingroup relationships.
Journal of Personaland Social Psycho—logy, 54, 323-338.

Triandis, H.C., & Gelfand, M.J. (1998). Converging measurement of horizontal
and vertical collectivism. Journal of Personality and Soaial Psychalpgy, 14, 118-128.

Turner, J.C. (1982). Toward a cognitive redeﬁnition of the social group. In H.
Tajfel (Ed), Social identity and interggoup behavior. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.

Wilder, D. A. (1990). Some determinants of the persuasive power of ingroups and
outgroups: Organization of information and attribution of independence. Journal of

Personalﬂ' and Social Psychology, 52, 1202-1213.

41

 

Endnotes
1. There is at least one exception to these ﬁndings. Al-Zahrani and Kaplowitz (1993)
found that Saudi’s (collectivist) exhibit Leas ingroup bias for family members and persons

of the same nationality than those from the United States (individualist).

2. The topic of water quality was chosen for the current study because it was believed
participants would exhibit moderate to high outcome involvement. Level of outcome
involvement in the issue was be examined with six Likert-type items on 5-point scales
with higher numbers meaning greater involvement in the outcome. Items included: “The
outcome of this issue directly affects my life.” and “Whether or not new clean water
legislation is enacted is important to my life.” Pilot tests indicated that United States
participants exhibit high involvement in the issue (Mean = 4.14; SD = .58) as do
Taiwanese (Mean = 4.09; SD = .49). These means do not differ signiﬁcantly from one

another [t (128) = .45; p = .66; r=.04].

3. Subsequent analysis revealed no main effects for sex on either attitudes [F(1, 344) =
.082, p = .77] or behavioral intent [F(1, 345) = .073, p = .78]. There were also no
signiﬁcant interactions for sex with the other independent variables. Additionally, age
was not highly correlated with either the attitude scale (r = -.03 8) or the behavioral
intentions scale (r = -.044).

4. Mackie et al., 1990 reported effect size indices of r = .17 and .42 in Experiments 1 and

2 respectively. These effects are within sampling error of the effects in the current study.

42

5. Historically, researchers have assumed a culture is collectivist or individualistic based
on Hofstede’s (1980) original classiﬁcation of countries. This assumption has been made

in part, due to problems with measurement of these variables.

43

TABLES

Table 1.
Contrasts for predicted relationships.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Individualist Collectivist
United States Taiwan
Non Individuated Non Individuated
Individuated Individuated
Strong Ingroup 1 1 1
Mess. OutGroup 0 -1 -1
Weak Ingroup 0 0 0 0
Mess. Outgroup -1 0 -1 -1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

45

 

Table 2.
Means standard deviations, and Stanaardized Item Alphas for the dimensiona of the
Horizontal and Vertical Individualism and Collectivism scan.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dimension Mean Standard Deviation Al Ira
Country US. Taiwan U.S. Taiwan U.S. Taiwan

Horizontal- 14.67 12.35 2.03 2.40 .45 .48

Individualism

Horizontal- 19.12 2.03 2.03 2.62 .60 .70

Cdkahkm

Vertical- 15.50 15.86 3.02 3.28 .72 .78

Individualism

Vertical- 17.25 18.49 2.50 2.44 .46 .53

Collectivism

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

46

Table 3.

Messaga strength indﬁuction check means (M) anistangrd deviations (SD) for
Taiwanese and United States participants.

 

 

 

 

 

Weak Message Strong Message
Taiwan M=13.49 M=14.52
SD=2.62 SD=2.04
United States M=14.48 M=l6.23
SD=2.70 SD=2.19

 

 

 

47

Table 4.

Means (M) and standard degiations (SD) for horizonaaj-individualism by the independent

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

variables.
Individualist Collectivist
United States Taiwan
Non Individuated Non Individuated
Individuated Individuated
Strong Ingroup M=15.28 M=15. 14 M=1 1.56 M=11.78
Mess. SD=2.34 SD=2.37 SD=2.38 SD=2.35
OutGroup M=13.76 M=14.36 M=12.39 M=13.48
SD=2.21 SD=1.65 SD=2.30 SD=2.06
Weak Ingroup M=14.93 M=14.41 M=12.53 M=12.68
Mess. SD=2.28 SD=2.01 SD=2.37 SD=3.27
Outgroup M=14.82 M=14.67 M=12.18 M=12.15
SD=1.39 SD=1.75 SD=1.85 SD=2.25

 

 

 

 

 

48

 

Table 5.

wans (M) and stande deviations (SD) for the dependent variables by message typ_e
and individuation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Weak Message Strong Message
Individuated Non- Individuated Non-
Individuated Individuated
Attitude M=20.88 M=21.14 =21 .08 M=20.79
SD=2.65 SD=2.68 SD=2.80 SD=3.05
Behavioral M=9.35. M=10.1 1 M=10.06 M=9.63
Intent SD=2.27 SD=2.01 SD=2.39 SD=2.41

 

 

 

 

49

Table 6.

Contrast analysis for effects of the predicted model on attitudes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source Sum of (11' Mean F '12 r
Squares Squares

Model 12.24 1 12.24 3.17 .004 .06

Residual Explained 1493.81 4 373.45 97.00 .50 .71

Variance

Within Subjects 1436.70 373 3.85

Error

Total 2942.75 378

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

50

 

Table 7.

Contrast analysis for effects of the predicted made] on behavioral intentions.

 

Source

Sum of

(11'

Mean

F

2

 

 

 

 

 

 

1" l'

Smrares Squares
Model 5.89 1 5.89 3.65 .003 .05
Residual Explained 1389.13 347.28 215.7 .69 .83
Variance
Within Subjects 605.60 376 1.61
Error
Total 2000.62 381

 

 

 

 

 

 

51

 

APPENDICES

52

Appendix A
Strong Message

One of the most serious problems facing (Taiwan/the United States) today is the
availability of fresh water for personal, agricultural, and industrial use. We must urge
government officials to enact tougher laws to reduce water pollution and promote water
conservation. There are several reasons that we must enact this legislation before we
have a severe water problem in (Taiwan/the United States).

Population increases, coupled with economic growth have increased the demand
for ﬁ‘esh water and the availability of this water is quickly decreasing. A 1997 report by
the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development indicated that (Taiwan) is
ranked 2"d in the world in overuse of groundwater. Estimates suggest that by the year
2020 the country will be facing a shortage of water suitable for drinking. Much of the
available water becoming polluted —all major sources of ﬁ'eshwater in this country suffer
pollution to some degree. Despite legislation meant to improve water quality,
(Taiwan’s/the United States’) water quality has deteriorated at one of the fastest rates in
the world.

One major source of this problem is that the available water is becoming polluted
by industrial dumping. Industrial waste accounts for 40% of total discharge of
wastewater. Currently, many industries are allowed to discharge their untreated waste
into this country’s streams, rivers, and coastal waters. This dumping has resulted in
dangerous levels of mercury and arsenic in several primary sources of drinking water.
These elements have been linked to a number of fatal illnesses and are especially harmful
for pregnant women and children. The Environmental Protection
(Agency/Administration) estimates that approximately 60% of fetal abnormalities can be
linked directly to pollutants in the freshwater supply.

A second major threat to our water supply is run-off ﬁ'om farms and
developments. The pesticides and fertilizers used in farming and on developments such
as resorts and golf courses run into nearby rivers and streams and seep into the sources of
drinking water. In many areas of the country, this has seriously contaminated the supply
of ﬁ'eshwater and resulted in serious health problems for those who drink this water.
Indeed, high concentrations of pesticides in some sources of ﬁeshwater have been linked
to a 30% increase in cancer-related deaths over the last 20 years.

Untreated household sewage is also a major source of pollution for (Taiwan’s/the
United States’) water supply. Due to insufficient sewage systems, raw sewage is
fiequently discharged directly into rivers. These systems are unable to handle high
volumes of sewage and as a consequence frequently overﬂow into somces of freshwater.
Regional estimates indicate that in many areas of the country, sewage overﬂow into
rivers and reservoirs occurs 5-6 times each month during periods of heavy rainfall.

Although there are some laws in place to deal with some of these problems, these
laws are weak and often not enforced. New, nrore stringent, water conservation and
protection legislation must be enacted as soon as possible. It is the government’s job to
place tougher restrictions on polluters and strictly enforce these restrictions in order to
save this country from a shortage of fresh water and to protect the people of (Taiwan/the
United States) from major health risks associated with water pollution.

53

Appendix B

Weak Message

One problem facing (Taiwan/the United States) today is the availability of ﬂesh
water for personal, agricultural, and industrial use. We must encourage government
officials to enact tougher laws to reduce water pollution and promote water conservation.
There are several reasons that we must enact this legislation before we have a water
problem in (Taiwan/the United States).

Population increases, coupled with economic grth have increased the demand
for ﬁ‘esh water and the availability of this water is decreasing. A 1997 report by the
United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development indicated that (Taiwan/the
United States) is ranked 50"I in the world in overuse of groundwater. Estimates suggest
that sometime in the next 500 years the country may be facing a shortage of water
suitable for drinking. There have been a number of water—related health problems
surfacing in recent years which indicates that some of the available water could be
becoming polluted. It is possible that several of the sources of ﬁeshwater in this country
suffer pollution to some degree. Despite legislation meant to improve water quality,
(Taiwan’s/the United States’) water quality has deteriorated at fairly fast rate.

One source of this problem is that the available water is becoming polluted by
industrial dumping. Recent public health data indicate that 3 people in the region exhibit
high levels of mercury and arsenic in their blood stream. At least 1 of these cases can be
linked to water consumption. This indicates a signiﬁcant problem of industrial pollution
of drinking sources. Mercury and arsenic have been linked to a number of illnesses and
might be harmful for pregnant women and children. The Environmental Protection
(Agency/Administration) estimates that perhaps 0.01% of fetal abnormalities can be
linked to pollutants in the ﬁ'eshwater supply. Industrial waste accounts for 10% of the
total discharge of wastewater. Currently, sonre industries are allowed to discharge their
untreated waste directly into this country’s streams, rivers, and coastal waters.

A second possible threat to our water supply is run-off from farms and
developments. It is believed that the pesticides and fertilizers used in farming and on
developments such as resorts and golf courses run into nearby rivers and streams and
seep into the sources of drinking water. In many areas of the country, an increase in
cancer deaths indicates that these pesticides may have contaminated the supply of
ﬁ'eshwater. Although this water has not been directly tested, it is believed that
concentrations of pesticides in some sources of ﬁeshwater may be linked to 3 or 4
cancer-related deaths over the last 20 years.

Untreated household sewage is also a source of pollution for (Taiwan’s/the United
States’) water supply. Due to insufficient sewage systems, sewage is occasionally
discharged directly into drainage systems. These systems are unable to handle high
volumes of sewage and as a consequence might overﬂow into sources of ﬁ'eshwater.
Regional estimates indicate that in some areas of the country, sewage overﬂow into rivers
and reservoirs occurs 1-2 times every ten years during periods of heavy rainfall.

Although there are some laws in place to deal with some of these problems, these
laws are weak and often not enforced. New, more stringent, water conservation and
protection legislation should be enacted. It is the government’s job to place tougher
restrictions on polluters and enforce these restrictions in order to save this country from a

54

potential shortage of ﬂesh water and to protect the people of (Taiwan/the United States)
ﬁ'om possible health risks associated with unclean water.

55

Appendix C

Message Strength

The report I read was persuasive.

The report I read was compelling.

The report presented very strong arguments.

The arguments presented in this report were dumb.

This report presented strong evidence for enacting new clean water laws.

The report about enacting new clean water laws presented strong arguments.

56

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

Appendix D
Individualism-Collectivism Items
I prefer to be direct and forthright when I talk to people.
My happiness depends very much on the happiness of those around me.
I would do what would please my family, even if I detested the activity.
Winning is everything.
One should live one’s life independently of others.
What happens to me is my own doing.
I usually sacriﬁce my self-interest for the beneﬁt of the group.
It annoys me when other people perform better than I do.
It is important for me to maintain harmony within my group.
It is important to me that I do my job better than others.
I like sharing little things with my neighbors.
I enjoy working in situations involving competition with others.
We should keep our aging parents with us at home.
The well-being of my co-workers is important to me.
I enjoy being unique and different ﬁ'om others in many ways.
If a relative were in ﬁnancial difficulty, I would help within my means.
Children should feel honored if their parents receive a distinguished award.
I often do “my own thing”.
Competition is the law of nature.
If a co-worker received a prize 1 would feel proud.
I am a unique individual.

To me, pleasure is spending time with others.

57

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

When another person does better than I do, I get tense and aroused.

I would sacriﬁce an activity I enjoy very much if my family did not approve.
I like my privacy.

Without competition, it is not possible to have a good society.

Children should be taught to place duty before pleasure.

I feel good when I cooperate with others.

I hate to disagree with others in my group.

Some people emphasize winning, 1 am not one of them.

Before taking a major trip, I consult with most members of my family and many
ﬁ'iends.

When I succeed, it is usually because of my abilities.

58

Appendix E
Attitude Items
I think enacting new laws to protect drinking water in the United States is a good

idea.

It is important that we have stronger laws to protect the people of the United
States from water pollution.

I would vote for stronger laws in the United States against polluting freshwater
sources.

I think new laws concerning water protection in the United States are a poor idea.

New laws to protect the United States’ ﬁ'eshwater should be enacted as soon as
possible.

Stronger laws protecting United States ﬁeshwater sources are not necessary.

It is important for the U. S. government to pass new legislation to protect water
quality.

I would not support stronger laws against polluting United States ﬁeshwater
sources.

59

Appendix F
Behavioral Intent Items

I would sign a petition supporting stronger water protection laws.

I would write a letter to my governmental representative supporting stronger
water protection laws.

I would be willing to boycott companies that pollute our water.

I would attend a rally in support of stronger water protection laws.

60

                  
    

GAN

1111111111111111

MIC
1

ll)

1
3

ll