{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,7,1]],"date-time":"2026-07-01T04:31:33Z","timestamp":1782880293017,"version":"3.54.5"},"reference-count":22,"publisher":"SAGE Publications","issue":"3","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2004,3,1]],"date-time":"2004-03-01T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1078099200000},"content-version":"tdm","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/page\/policies\/text-and-data-mining-license"}],"content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["Pers Soc Psychol Bull"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2004,3]]},"abstract":"<jats:p>Based on a conceptual analysis and existing research, the authors propose that the three source dimensions specified in the ANOVA model play similar roles in persuasion as other source characteristics (e.g., expertise). Two studies test assumptions derived from this approach regarding the effects of different combinations of consistency and consensus (Study 1) and distinctiveness and consensus (Study 2). Combinations resulting in contradictory (vs. similar) inferences regarding message validity should affect judgmental confidence and, consequently, affect message scrutiny. Study 1 shows that, as predicted, high consistency\/low consensus and low consistency\/high consensus (incongruent combinations) lead to higher desired confidence and more extensive message elaboration than high consistency\/high consensus and low consistency\/low consensus (congruent combinations). Similarly, Study 2 reveals heightened message scrutiny given incongruent (vs. congruent) combinations of distinctiveness and consensus. Results are discussed with respect to majority\/minority influence processes and multiple source characteristics.<\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.1177\/0146167203261297","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2004,5,27]],"date-time":"2004-05-27T11:08:31Z","timestamp":1085656111000},"page":"352-364","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":20,"title":["Source Consistency, Distinctiveness, and Consensus: The Three Dimensions of the Kelley ANOVA Model in Persuasion"],"prefix":"10.1177","volume":"30","author":[{"given":"Ren\u00e9","family":"Ziegler","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Michael","family":"Diehl","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Raffael","family":"Zigon","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Torsten","family":"Fett","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Eberhard-Karls-Universit\u00e4t T\u00fcbingen, Germany"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"179","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2004,3,1]]},"reference":[{"key":"atypb1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1037\/0022-3514.67.1.5"},{"key":"atypb2","unstructured":"Bless, H., W\u00e4nke, M., Bohner, G., Fellhauer, R. & Schwarz, N. (1994). Need for Cognition: Eine Skala zur Erfassung von Engagement und Freude bei Denkaufgaben [Need for cognition: A scale for the assessment of involvement and happiness in cognitive tasks]. Zeitschrift fuer Sozialpsychologie, 25, 147-154."},{"key":"atypb3","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Bohner, G., Moskowitz, G. B. & Chaiken, S. (1995). The interplay of heuristic and systematic processing of social information. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European Review of Social Psychology, 6, 33-68.","DOI":"10.1080\/14792779443000003"},{"key":"atypb4","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1037\/0022-3514.42.1.116"},{"key":"atypb5","unstructured":"Chaiken, S., Liberman, A. & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In J. S. Uleman & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 212-252). New York: Guilford."},{"key":"atypb6","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1177\/01461672982411007"},{"key":"atypb7","unstructured":"Eagly, A. H. & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt."},{"key":"atypb8","unstructured":"Eagly, A. H., Chaiken, S. & Wood, W. (1981). An attribution analysis of persuasion. In J. H. Harvey, W. J. Ickes, & R. F. Kidd (Eds.), New directions in attribution research (Vol. 3, pp. 37-62). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum."},{"key":"atypb9","unstructured":"Erb, H.P. & Bohner, G. (2001). Mere consensus effects in minority and majority influence. In C. K. W. De Dreu & N. K. De Vries (Eds.), Group consensus and minority influence: Implications for innovation (pp. 40-59). Oxford, UK: Blackwell."},{"key":"atypb10","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1177\/0146167298246006"},{"key":"atypb11","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1467-6494.1983.tb00872.x"},{"key":"atypb12","unstructured":"Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 192-238). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press."},{"key":"atypb13","unstructured":"Kelley, H. H. (1972). Attribution in social interaction. In E. E. Jones, D. E. Kanouse, H. H. Kelley, R. E. Nisbett, S. Valins, & B. Weiner (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior (pp. 1-26). Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press."},{"key":"atypb14","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1207\/S15327965PL100201"},{"key":"atypb15","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1002\/ejsp.2420130302"},{"key":"atypb16","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1037\/0022-3514.53.1.41"},{"key":"atypb17","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Moscovici, S. (1980). Toward a theory of conversion behavior. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 13, pp. 209-239). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.","DOI":"10.1016\/S0065-2601(08)60133-1"},{"key":"atypb18","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1002\/ejsp.2420040104"},{"key":"atypb19","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Petty, R. E. & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer.","DOI":"10.1007\/978-1-4612-4964-1"},{"key":"atypb20","unstructured":"Petty, R. E. & Wegener, D. T. (1999). The elaboration likelihood model: Current status and controversies. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual process theories in social psychology (pp. 37-72). New York: Guilford."},{"key":"atypb21","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1177\/0146167295216010"},{"key":"atypb22","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1177\/0146167202287007"}],"container-title":["Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/pdf\/10.1177\/0146167203261297","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/pdf\/10.1177\/0146167203261297","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2026,5,1]],"date-time":"2026-05-01T15:39:28Z","timestamp":1777649968000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/0146167203261297"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2004,3]]},"references-count":22,"journal-issue":{"issue":"3","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2004,3]]}},"alternative-id":["10.1177\/0146167203261297"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/0146167203261297","relation":{},"ISSN":["0146-1672","1552-7433"],"issn-type":[{"value":"0146-1672","type":"print"},{"value":"1552-7433","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2004,3]]}}}