English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This study examined the effects of source partisanship and credentials on persuasion. Democrats and Republicans (N = 206) read a policy statement advocating for a national mask mandate, ostensibly written by either a doctor or layperson, associated either with the Democratic or Republican party. Participants’ perceptions of the source and receptivity to the message aligned with their political party’s normative position on the issue: Democrats rated the source as more competent and trustworthy, engaged in less counterarguing, and supported the policy more than Republicans. Although the doctor was trusted more than the layperson and Republicans (but not Democrats) attributed more trust and competence to an ingroup than an outgroup source, source characteristics had no effect on message receptivity.

When Wearing a Mask Is (Not) the Norm: Political Partisanship and Persuasion in the Context of COVID-19