Heuristic-Systematic Model

Message Processing Modes

Systematic processing involves methodological, critical, and thorough processing of messages in which receivers scrutinize message-relevant content in relation to other information concerning the object or issue addressed. Here receivers carefully ascertain or evaluate the validity of the position advocated in a message. In persuasion of this type, recipients' comprehension and careful cognitive examination may mediate the message's influence.

Heuristic processing, in contrast, occurs when receivers attend only to a subset of available information, exert limited cognitive effort, and employ relatively simple decision rules called schemata or cognitive heuristics most probably learned from experiences and observations in life. They use such heuristics in this mode to judge the validity of messages and arrive at attitude judgments. Chaiken offers three sets of heuristic cues that lead receivers [Page 475]to utilize certain heuristics. These are communicator cues, context cues, and message cues.

With regard to communicator cues, persons may consider statements by experts as more veracious than statements by nonexperts, leading to the use of the expert heuristic, “statements by experts can be trusted.” Similarly, people may retrieve and employ a liking-agreement heuristic such as “people agree with people they like” or “people I like usually have correct opinions on issues.”

Contextual cues in the message or situation may also affect attitude change. For example, overhearing an audience member's approval of a message may prompt receivers to utilize the consensus heuristic of, “if other people think the message is correct, then it is probably valid.” Message cues also have their heuristic processing implications. According to Chaiken and associates, people may have experienced situations in which strong, convincing messages characteristically contain extra arguments, longer and more comprehensive arguments, statistically grounded arguments, or arguments from highly credible sources. In this case, “length implies strength,” “more arguments are better arguments,” and “arguments based on expert opinions are valid” may be the derived rules employed in the presence of such message cues. The HSM suggests that message receivers may use such premises to ascertain the veridicality, or truth, of a persuasive message rather than carefully examining the quality of the arguments. In such cases, people agree more with messages containing numerous (vs. few) arguments, with messages that are of considerable length (vs. shorter), or with statistically laden messages or messages attributed to expert sources.

The use of systematic or heuristic modes will have implications for the persuasion that occurs. Attitudes formed or changed solely on heuristic processing will likely be less stable, less resistant to messages of a counterattitudinal nature, and less predicative of subsequent behavior than attitudes fashioned via systematic processing.

...