Emotional and Rational AppealsAbstractIn many studies, data have been led to suggest that rational messages can encourage the generation of content-based cognitive responses and lead to attitudes strongly influenced by these cognitions. Studies have also led to the suggestion that people with negative moods are influenced by the quality of persuasive messages. Using manipulation techniques, bad mood can result in a different interpretation of anything from a verbal argument to a literal message. Although most studies indicate that good mood manipulations may not have a large effect on the perception of a scenario, further investigation may eliminate this theory. Persuasion in response to emotional and rational stimuli Much research has been done to try to indicate that emotional stimuli can influence attitude change. The other side of the matter is that rational appeals can do the same (e.g., Rosselli; Francine; Skelly, John J.; Mackie, Diane M, 1995). In a study conducted at the University of California at Santa Barbara, 184 students received partial credit in exchange for their participation. The subjects of the experiment were assigned to cells of a2 (positive or neutral mood) x 2 (type of emotional or rational message) x 2 (quality of strong or weak argument). The subjects were divided into groups of two to six. After establishing this phase, eight messages of approximately equal length were developed. Each message contained six arguments for or against using animals for research purposes. Rational and emotional were used in nature and strong and weak were used in quality. In the experiment procedure, subjects participated in an experimental session that included several tasks that were not directly related to the study. The first test involved a survey of the subjects' attitudes towards animal testing. At the end, the subjects read a persuasive message, answered questions related to the topic of animal research and finally completed the items aimed at verifying the effectiveness of the manipulations. After checking the analysis, the indications showed that there were no effects for gender. In addition to this, responses to all manipulation check measures were placed into one of four separate between-subjects analyzes of variance (ANOVAs). When looking at message type, the data revealed the predicted main effect for message type, F(1, 65) = 33.44. p < .0001. Furthermore, as expected, subjects exposed to emotional arguments correctly perceived them as emotional arguments while subjects exposed to rational arguments perceived them as rational arguments. A surprising part of the data was that many subjects preferred animal testing over animal testing.