The Effects of the Use of Analogy on Attitude Change and Source Credibility

  1. James C. McCroskey1,
  2. Walter H. Combs2

Article first published online: 7 FEB 2006

DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1969.tb00856.x

Issue

Journal of Communication

Journal of Communication

Volume 19, Issue 4, pages 333–339, December 1969

Additional Information

How to Cite

McCroskey, J. C. and Combs, W. H. (1969), The Effects of the Use of Analogy on Attitude Change and Source Credibility. Journal of Communication, 19: 333–339. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1969.tb00856.x

Author Information

  1. 1

    Dr. McCroskey (Penn State, 1966) is Associate Professor and Director of Graduate Studies in Speech-Communication at Illinois State University. His primary research interests involve the relationships among source and message variables in the production of attitude change and communication education. He is the author of two recently published books, An Introduction to Rhetorical Communication and (with Donald Klopf) Elements of Debate.

  2. 2

    Mr. Combs is an instructor in the Department of Speech and Drama at the University of Nebraska, at Omaha. He is currently studying for his doctorate at Michigan State University. His research interests include interpersonal communication, persuasion research, and studies of message analysis.

Publication History

  1. Issue published online: 7 FEB 2006
  2. Article first published online: 7 FEB 2006

SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

ARTICLE TOOLS

Get PDF (345K)

Abstract

This study examined the effects of two types of analogy on attitude change and source credibility. Subjects were exposed to either a literal, figurative, or no-analogy message. Comparison of attitude change scores and terminal source credibility ratings by message condition indicated that both the literal and figurative versions produced greater attitude change than the no-analogy version. Differences in source credibility ratings were not attributable to the use of analogy. The authors discuss the need for further research in the area and present two tentative explanations of their findings.

Get PDF (345K)