Measuring systematic processing

A detailed discussion of the definitions of systematic and heuristic processing was provided in Chapter 2. Broadly speaking, systematic processing is described as “a comprehensive, analytic orientation in which perceivers access and scrutinize all informational input for its relevance and importance to their judgement task, and integrate all useful information in forming their judgements” (Chaiken, et al., 1989, p. 212). Heuristic processing, in contrast, is “a more limited processing mode that demands much less cognitive effort and capacity than systematic processing” (p. 213). The way in which systematic processing is measured, or perhaps more accurately, inferred, varies and a lack of direct measures creates issues when assessing variables that affect systematic processing. However, some techniques are frequently used in the literature to infer whether systematic or heuristic

processing is in use. These techniques include recording the number of thoughts that are listed, examining message recall, thought-listing tasks (with attention on whether attribute/message or consensus/opinion thoughts are reported), looking at differential agreement between weak and strong arguments, correlating message-related thoughts and message-related attitudes, and questionnaires. These methods have been employed in social psychology studies, typically investigating attitude persuasion, and their validity to worry situations should be considered.

3.3.1 Thought-listing

One of the most widely used methods of measuring information processing style is thought-listing. Thought-lists have been coded and analysed in different ways, including (1) the number of thoughts listed (Greenwald, 1968), (2) assessing content of thoughts for attribute versus consensus related thoughts (Maheswaran & Chaiken, 1991), and (3) examining how closely message-related thoughts correlate with attitudes toward the message conclusion (Chaiken, 1980). Martin, Hewstone and Martin (2007) employed thought-listing in their study of the impact of message relevance and levels of orientation on attitudes and message processing. Participants were given a counter-attitudinal message, and then asked to list the thoughts they had while reading the message. Martin et al. (2007) suggest that the higher the ratio of message-congruent thoughts compared to the number of total message- thoughts is an indication of the amount of thought elaboration. Similarly, Maheswaran and Chaiken (1991) analysed thoughts that participants had about a product message and coded them as attribute-related (i.e. features of the product, which they suggest represents systematic processing) and consensus-related (going along with public opinion about the product, which they suggest represents heuristic processing). Thought-listing allows some interpretation of the information processing style that individuals use, but it requires researchers to infer which thought processes led the individual to produce these thoughts. Furthermore, individuals may not write down all their thoughts, and some aspects of processing may not reach conscious awareness, particularly when using heuristics (Chen & Chaiken, 1999). Additionally, given that Chaiken et al. (1989) highlight that both systematic and heuristic processing can result in the same judgments being made, it is unclear how much certainty can be obtained about the type of information processing simply by looking at the thoughts listed by an individual.

Related to thought-listing, some research teams have analysed verbal communication for evidence of systematic and heuristic processing. Steginga and Occhipinti (2004) categorized participants’ responses as reflecting heuristic processing if they involved agreeing with expert opinions, and reflecting systematic processing if they demonstrated that the individual considered treatment information (e.g., side effects). However, Hamm (2004) questions whether (1) deferring to an expert counts as a ‘heuristic’ strategy; (2) it is possible to ascertain if an individual has used heuristic processing simply by assessing whether such ideas have occurred in the patient’s self-report account of the decision making process; and (3) patients’ decisions were actually consistent with the heuristics identified in their accounts (Steginga & Occhipinti didn’t report this).

Other authors have examined indicators of the amount of effort devoted to message processing such as the amount of message recalled successfully (Eagly & Chaiken, 1984; Smith & Shaffer, 1991), and the amount of time spent reading a message (Chaiken, 1980). This can be justified by the argument that systematic processing requires greater cognitive capacity than heuristic processing, and that this extra cognitive capacity requires greater time.

3.3.2 Information processing questionnaires

Griffin, Neuwirth, Giese and Dunwoody (2002) developed a 9-item questionnaire designed to measure systematic and heuristic information processing. Participants indicated their agreement or disagreement with statements, which they were told represented different ways that people deal with information they receive from the media and other sources about risk. A 5-point Likert-type scale response format was used. Heuristic processing was measured by four items, including ‘When I encounter information about this topic, I focus on only a few key points’. Systematic processing was measured by five items, including ‘After I encounter information about this topic, I am likely to stop and think about it’. Factor analysis supported the two factor solution of a heuristic processing factor and a systematic processing factor. While this questionnaire shows promise for measuring general tendencies towards systematic and heuristic processing, it might not map well onto measuring the processing of worry thoughts, which are typically internally generated risk appraisals, rather than risk information from an external source. The questionnaire has moderate reliability (Griffin, et al., 2002), but the authors did not report examinations of the questionnaire’s validity. A questionnaire measure of information processing styles raises some of the same issues that were discussed in relation to using thought-listing, see above. Most importantly, it requires

participants to be aware of the processing styles that they are using, and this may not always be the case. However, it provides an efficient way of assessing the approaches individuals take to the information that they are presented with.

3.3.3 Approximating the sufficiency threshold

An alternative approach to measuring systematic processing deployment is to assess the extent of an individual’s sufficiency threshold. Chaiken et al. (1989) account for why a higher sufficiency threshold should result in greater amounts of systematic processing, as outlined in Chapter 2. Consequently, when comparing two groups, those with higher sufficiency thresholds are more likely to engage in systematic processing. This seems a more promising way of examining the role of systematic processing in worry as alternative methods, such as thought-listing, are difficult to code in relation to worry thoughts. Numerous papers manipulate task importance, personal relevance, responsibility, accountability, need for control, or desire for cognition in order to induce systematic processing (Batra & Stayman, 1990; Chaiken & Maheswaran, 1994; Maheswaran & Chaiken, 1991; Petty, et al., 1981; Tetlock, 1983). As such, measuring these variables can provide an indication of an individual’s propensity to deploy systematic, as opposed to heuristic, processing.

3.3.4 Summary: Measuring systematic processing

Systematic processing has typically been assessed through thought-listing tasks and the attitude position adopted by the participant. Thought-listing tasks are limited by their reliance on participants to report all their thoughts. Furthermore, interpreting the style of information processing used from the attitudes that individuals settle upon may be ill-advised given that Chaiken et al. (1989) report both systematic and heuristic processing can result in the same outcome. Furthermore, despite Chaiken et al.’s (1989) assertion that the heuristic- systematic model (HSM) is applicable beyond the persuasion setting, the majority of experiments that have examined systematic processing have been conducted around persuasion and attitude formation. Consequently, it can be difficult to map these techniques onto other areas of human judgment, such as risk perception and, in the case of this thesis, personally-generated thoughts. More recently a questionnaire measure has been developed in the risk perception literature (Griffin, et al., 2002). This provides an efficient way of assessing the way in which an individual thinks that they have processed information, without the experimenter having to make inferences in the same way that is required in the coding of thoughts generated in a thought-listing procedure. An adaptation of the Heuristic-Systematic

Processing Questionnaire was used in this thesis. However, individuals need to be aware of what processing styles they have used. Consequently, the experimental studies utilised a novel measure informed by the sufficiency threshold principle of the HSM. Participants reported how much they endorsed cognitive appraisals that are known to raise sufficiency thresholds and promote systematic processing. While this method is fairly indirect, in that no actual measure of information processing is obtained, it is beneficial in that it does not require participants to have conscious awareness of how they processed information (although they do need to report how they feel in regard to the cognitive appraisals) and it does not require the experimenter to code the participants’ responses and infer which processing style was used, reducing the subjectivity of measuring systematic processing.