Table 2.

Descriptive Summary of Study Characteristics

Characteristic	Value	ka
General characteristics
Median year of report	1982	72
Mean year of report (range = 1951-2003; SD = 13 years)	1979	72
Source (%)
Journal article (%)	88	72
Dissertation, thesis, and other unpublished material	12	72
Sample composition (%)
High school students	7	72
University students	88	72
Randomly selected adults	5	72
Data sets collected in the United States (%)	89	72
Theoretical moderators
Presentation time of discounting cue (%)
Before the message	53	72
After the message	39	72
Simultaneously with the message (e.g., Hovland & Weiss, 1951)	6	72
Discounting cue was embedded within the text of the message	1	72
Ability to think about the issue
Mean no. of message repetitions (range = 1-5; SD = 0.79)	1.49	72
Message repetition (%)
Yes	60	72
No	40	72
Recipients' prior knowledge on the issue (%)
Low or none	14	72
Moderate	51	72
High	35	72
Motivation
Outcome relevance (%)
Low	71	72
High	28	72
Mixed or no basis for judgment	1	72
Recall/recognition of message content and discounting cue
Data sets including measures for content memory (%)	40	72
Type of content-memory measure (%)
Free recall	69	29
Multiple choice	21	29
True-false	3	29
Mixed	7	29
Data sets including measures for memory of the discounting cue	22	72
Type of cue-memory measure (%)
Free recall	96	22
Multiple choice	4	22
Other characteristics of the experiments
Design
No. of posttests (time points) after message exposure (%)
Two	68	72
Three	6	72
Four	4	72
Multiple measurements in a single session (e.g., Pratkanis et al., 1988)	22	72
Percentage of data sets in which the time variable was a within-subject factor	85	72
Mean interval between message exposure and first delayed test (days; SD = 16)	18	72
Mean interval between message exposure and second delayed test (days; SD = 10)	24	7
Basis for manipulation of the discounting cue (%)
Source credibility	71	72
Message disclaimer	15	72
Combination of message disclaimer and reactance-inducing statements	7	72
Presentation of reactance-inducing statements	4	72
Inclusion of reservations in text	3	72
Mean message length in words (range = 72-1,000; SD = 329)	510	60 (12)
Mean no. of messages participants received (range = 1-32; SD = 9.50)	4.74	66 (6)
Data sets with one-sided messages (%)	96	72
Mean no. of arguments in messages (range = 2-10; SD = 2.70)	5	42 (30)
Message modality (%)
Written text	75	72
Audio (e.g., tape, radio)	8	72
Film and/or slides	8	72
Mixed media	8	72
Data sets involving an acceptance-cue group (%)	71	72
Data sets involving a message-only control group (%)	44	72
Data sets involving a no-message control group (%)	42	72
Median sample size for discounting-cue groups (range = 9-80)	27	72
Characteristics of the attitudinal issue
Issue domain (%)
Sociopolitical	32	72
Consumption	15	72
Environment	4	72
Cultural truisms	13	72
Education	7	72
Health and biology	3	72
Mixed and other	26	72
Discrepancy between message position and initial attitudes of recipients (%)
Low or none	19	72
Moderate	15	72
High	18	72
No basis for judgment	47	72
Measurement of persuasion
Type of measure (%)
Attitude	56	72
Belief	44	72
Median no. of items (range = 1-18)	4.20	72
Data sets reporting reliability information for multiple-item measures (%)	33	54
Type of scale (%)
Single-item dichotomous scale (i.e., agree-disagree)	6	72
Single-item polichotomous scale	19	72
Multiple-item dichotomous scale	1	72
Multiple-item polichotomous scale	74	72
Context of experiment (%)
Message exposure and immediate posttest setting
Laboratory or classroom	94	72
Recipients' house	6	72
Setting of delayed and immediate measurements (repeated measures only)
Same	42	61
Different	52	61
Mixed	3	61
Not reported	3	61

Note. k = number of applicable data sets from which the relevant descriptive information was drawn.

^aNumbers in parentheses indicate the number of applicable data sets from which the relevant information could not be drawn.