有關態度改變文獻的回顧，社心學者提出了「推敲可能性模式」，認為即使有很多不同的說服理論，使用互異的專有名詞，基本上大致可致可區分成兩種不同的態度改變過程:其一是中樞途徑，另一為周邊途徑，二者同時運作。而決定採用何種說服途徑的重要因素之一，是訊息收者的涉入程度，當涉入程度愈高，愈可能採行中樞途徑。不可諱言，訊息接收者是否接受說服訊息而改變態度，傳遞訊息的人扮演相當重要的角色。本研究即著重於傳播來源者之人數與是否具有專家

身分作進一步之探究。從相關文獻中發現，有關訊息來源的研究頗多，只是多為操弄單一訊息來源，即使少數論及多重訊息來源的說服效果，也只限於將訊息傳播者定位為學生，再者，也沒有考慮訊息接收者本身之涉入程度;然現實生活中，專家身分所展現的說服魅力，以及多重訊息來源之說服情況的普遍，因此研究者想更深入探討專家身分的有無、傳播來源人數的多寡，與訊息接收者不同的涉入程度對說服效果的影響。

實驗過程區分成預試與正式研究，說服主題是「公立大學提高百分之五十學雜費的政策」。預試的結果發現:政大學生較反對此一提高學雜費政策，而且從中進一步篩選出與其態度相反的強勢論點，作為正式研究的訊息內容。

本研究結果發現:訊息接收者對於「公立大學提高學雜費」的態度，會因為不同的涉入程度，而產生互異的立場，並且是高主題涉入受試的反對程度比低主題涉入受試，還顯得更為反對。其次，從前、後兩次的態度測量結果，發現受試的態度產生顯著的態度改變，而且是朝說服訊息所主張的方向改變態度。而在「公立大學提高學雜費」方面，受試會因為訊息來源的身分是專家而產生更大的態度改變。另外，在「認為合理的調幅比例」方面，多重訊息來源所產生的說服效果比單一訊息來源大，但是二者的差異並未達顯著水準。再者，訊息來源人數的多寡並未對不同涉入程度的受試，產生不同的說服效果;以及不同身分的訊息來源並不會隨訊息來源的人數多寡而有不同的說服差異。最後，研究者討論造成此一結果的可能原因，並檢討在實驗進行中可能產生的一些未盡完善之處，以及對未來研究、社會大眾提供一些建議。

中文部分
李美枝社會心理學，大洋出版社，民74。

英文部分
Asch, S. E. ( 1951 ). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgment. In H. Gcutzkow (Ed.), Groups, leadership and men. Pittsburgh, Pa.: Carnegie.
Axsom, D., Yates, S., & Chaiken, S. ( 1987 ). Audience response as a heuristic cue in Persuasion. Journal of personality and Social Psychology, 53, 30 - 40.
Berscheid, E., & W alster, E. (1974). Physical attractiveness. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental Social psychology (Vo1.7). New York: Academic Press.
Brock, T. C. ( 1967 ). Communication discrepancy and intent to persuade as determinants of counterargument production. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 3, 269-309.
Byrne, D. (1971) The attaction paradigm. Ne\v York: Academic Press.
Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. ( 1979). Effects of message repetition and position on cognitive responses, recall, and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,37, 97 -109.
Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1980). Sex differences in influenceability: Toward specifying the underlying processes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6,651- 656.
Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Kao, C. F., & Redriguez, R.(1986 ). Central and peripheral routes to persuasion: An individual difference perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1032 - 1043.
Calder, B. J., Insko, C. A., & Yandell, B.(1974). The relation of cognitive and memorial processes to persuasion in a simulated jury trial. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,4, 62 - 93.
Chaiken, S. ( 1980 ). Heuristic versus systen1atic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,39, 752 - 766.
Cialdini. R. B., Levy, A., Herman, P., Kozlowski, L., & Petty, R. ( 1976 ). Elastic shifts of opinion: Determinants of direction and durability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 663 - 672.
Cialdini, R. B., Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T.(1981). Attitude and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology,32, 357 - 404.
Cook, T. D. ( 1969 ). Competence, counterarguing, and attitude change. Journal of Pernonality, 37, 342 - 358.
Eagly, A. H., & Warren, R. ( 1976). Intelligence, comprehension,and opinion change. Journal of personality, 44, 226- 242.
Ginter, G., & Lindskold, S. ( 1975 ). Rate of participation and expertise as factors influencing leader choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 1085 - 1089.
Harkins, S., & Petty, R. ( 1981 a ). The effects of source magnification of cognitive effort on attitudes: An information-processing view. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 401 - 413.
Harkins, S., & Petty, R. ( 1981b ). The multiple source effect in persuasion: The e'ffects of distraction. : .Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 627 - 635.
Harkins, S. G., & petty, R. E. ( 1987 ). Information utility and the multiple source effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 260 - 268.
Horai, J., Naccari, N., & Fatoullah, E. ( 1974). The effects of expertise and physical attractiveness upon opinion agreement and liking. Sociometry, 37, 601 - 606.
Hovland, c. 1., Janis, 1. L., & Kelley, J. J. (1953). Communication and persuasion. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Insko, C. A., Lind, E. A., & LaTour, S. ( 1976 ). Persuasion,recall, and thoughts. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 7, 66 -78.
Insko, C., Turnbull, W., & Yandell, B. (1974). Facilitating and inhibiting effects of distraction on attitude change,Sociometry, 37, 508 - 528.
Janis, 1. L., Kaye, D., & Kirschner, P. ( 1965). Facilitating effects of "eating while reading" on responsiveness to persuasive communications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1, 181 - 186.
Johnson, H. H., & Scileppi, J. A. ( 1969 ). Effects of ego-involvement conditions on attitude change to high and low credibility comrnunicators. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13, 31 - 36.
Krech. D., Crutchfield, R., & Ballachcy, E. ( 1962 ). Individual in society. New York: McGraw - Hill.
Leippe, M. R., & Elkin, R. A. ( 1987 ). When motives clash .Issue involvement and response involvement as determinants of persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 269 - 278.
Maddux, J. E., & Rogers, R. W. ( 1980) . Effects of source expertness, physical attractiveness, and supporting arguments on persuasion. A case of brains over beauty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 235 - 244.
Miller, N. ( 1965 ). Involvement and dogmatism as inhibitors of attitude change. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,1, 121 - 132.
Norman, R. ( 1976 ). When what is said is important: A comparison of expert and attractive sources. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 12, 294 - 300.
Pentony, J. F. ( 1986 ). Relation between involvement In an issue and quality of the argun1ent. Psychological Reports,59, 191 - 198.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. ( 1979 a ). Effects of forewarning of persuasive intent and involvement on cognitive responses and persuasion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5, 173 - 176.
Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T. ( 1979 b ). Issue-involvement can increase or decrease persuasion by enhancing messagerelevant cognitive responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1915 - 1926.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. ( 1980 ). Effects of issue involvement on attitudes in advertising context. In G. Gorn & M. Goldberg ( EdsJ, Proceedings of the Division 23 Program ( pp.75 - 79 ). Montreal, Canada : American Psychological Association.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. ( 1981 ). Attitudes and persuasion:Classic and contemporary approaches. Dubuque,IA: W m. C. Brown.
Petty, R., & Cacioppo, J. ( 1984). The effects of involvement on responses to argument quantity and quality: Central and peripheral routes to persuaasion. Journal , of Personality and Social Psychology , 46, 69 - 81.
Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Goldman, R. ( 1981 ). Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion. Journal of personality and Social psychology,41, 847 - 855.
Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D.C 1983). Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness:The moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 134-148.
Petty, R., Harkins, S., & Williams, K. ( 1980). The effects of group diffusion of cognitive effort on attitudes: An information-processing view . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 81 - 92.
Petty, R., Wells, G., & Brock, T.(1976). Distraction can enhance or reduce yielding to propaganda: Thought disruption versus effort justification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 874 - 884.
Rhine, R. J., & Severance, L. J. ( 1970 ). Ego-involvement,discrepency, source credibility, and attitude change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16, 175 - 190.
Rokeach, M. (1968). Beliefs, attitudes, and Values. San Francisco: Jossey -Bass.
Sherif, M., & Hovland, C. 1. ( 1961 ). Social judgment: Assimilation and contrast effects in communication and attitude change. Nevv Haven, CT : Yale University Press.
Sistrunk, F., & McDavid, J.W. (1971). Sex variable in conforming behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,17, 200 - 207.
Sivacek, J., & Crano, W. D.(1982). Vested interest as a moderator of attitude-behavior consistency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 210 - 221.
Tesser, A. ( 1978 ). Self - generated attitude change. In L.Berkowitz ( Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (vol. 11) . New York . Academic Press.
White, D. ( 1975 ). Contextual determinants of opinion judgment:Field experimental probes of iudgmental relativity boundary conditions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 1047 - 1054.
Wu, C., & Shaffer, D. R. ( 1987 ). Susceptibility to persuasive appeals as a Function of source credibility and prior experience with the attitude object. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 677 - 688.
Yalch, R. F., & Elmore-Yalch, R.C 1984). The effect of numbers on the route to persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 11, 522 - 527.
Zajonc, R. B. C 1968 ). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure.Jounal of Personality and Social Psychology Monograph Supplement, 9, 1 - 27.
Zanna, M. P., Kiesler, C. A., & Pilkonis, P. A. (1970), Positive and negative attitudinal affect established by classical conditioning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,14, 321-328.