The Effects of Cognitive and Affective Persuasion on Supporting the Death Penalty

This thesis examined how participants with cognitively based favorable attitudes toward the death penalty were influenced by cognitive or affective arguments that criticized the death penalty. College students\u27 general attitudes toward the death penalty were measured using a Likert-type scale. They were then asked to write out their thoughts and/or feelings about the death penalty. Some of the participants received two cognitive arguments while others received two affective arguments against the death penalty. After reading these counterarguments, the participants\u27 positions and thoughts/feelings were once again measured. Only participants with cognitively based attitudes that were supportive of the death penalty were included in the data analysis. Their positions before and after reading the counterarguments were compared. The same was done on the amount of statements the participants generated in support of the death penalty. Regardless of whether they received a cognitive or affective counterargument, the participants\u27 positions after reading the counterarguments were significantly less supportive of the death penalty. However, there were no significant reductions in the amount of statements generated in support of the death penalty. Although the type of counterargument had no significant influence on the positions taken, there was a non-significant trend that suggested that affective counterarguments seemed to be more effective than cognitive counterarguments in reducing support toward the death penalty