When receiving information, people may be influenced by not only the true quality of a target object but also potential biasing agents and others. We consider that if people in specific conditions would try to revise the biasing impact in provide information. In the current study, we focus on self-activated correction behavior and discus two critical factors which induce the correction occurrence. We want to examine if people would correct their position to a target voluntarily when they have ability to identify potential bias and have the motivation to do an accurate decision.
In this experiment, we exert a particular endorser to be either high or low product-relevant source. For people with high ability of bias awareness and high accuracy motivation would view low product-relevant source as a bias to correct and view high product-relevant source as a central argument of persuasion instead of correcting judgment. However, people with either high ability of bias awareness or high accuracy motivation would not to correct their judgment toward target product because of either the low motive to make a correct evaluation or disability to identify the low relevant endorser as a bias source.
Furthermore, when there are sufficient arguments presented in the information, people might concentrate on deal with the central argument rather than identify the low relevant source as biasing impact even though they have the requirements to correct bias source.
The findings demonstrated that under high ability of bias awareness and high accuracy motivation condition people maintained primary product attitudes as well as believed faithfully what they felt important to evaluate the object. However, the source which was low relevant to target was be treated as biasing influence and worsen the judgment toward the target product.
When the marketer want to take any actions to influence their target customers, they should take target customers’ specific characteristics, such as ability of bias awareness and accuracy motivation into consideration in order to avoid the occurrence of potential correction.

Bargh, John A., and Peter Pietromonaco (1982). Automatic Information processing and Social Perception: The Influence of Trait Information Presented outside of Conscious Awareness on Impression Formation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 437-449.
Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116-131.
Herr, P. M. (1989). Priming Price: Prior Knowledge and Context Effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 67-75.
Herr, P. M., Sherman, S. J., and R. H. Fazio (1983). On the consequences of priming: Assimilation and contrast effects. Journal of experimental Social Psychology, 19, 323-340.
Herr, P. M., Yong-Soon Kang (2006). Beauty and the beholder: Toward an Integrative Model of Communication Source Effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 33, 1.
Higgins, E. T. and G. King (1981). Accessibility of Social Constructs: Information Processing Consequence of Individual and Contextual Variability. Personality, Cognition, and Social Interaction, 69-121.
Kubovy, M. (1977). Response availability and the apparent spontaneity of numerical choices. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 3, 359-364.
Martin, Leonard L. (1986). Set/Reset: Use and Disuse of Concepts in Impression Formation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 493-504.
Martin, John J. Seta, and Rick A. Crelia (1990). Assimilation and Contrast as a Function of People’s Willingness and Ability to Expend Effort in Forming an Impression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 27-37.
Meyers-Levy, Joan and Alice M. Tybout (1997). Context Effects at Encoding and Judgment in Consumption Settings: The Role of Cognitive Resource. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 1-14.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986b). The Elaboration Likelihood Model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, 19, 123-205. New York: Academic Press.
Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 135-146.
Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1993). Flexible correction processes in social judgment: Correcting for context induced contrast. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 29, 137-165.
Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T., and White Paul H. (1997). Flexible correction processes in social judgment: Implications for persuasion. Social Cognition, 16 (1), 93-114.
Schwarz, Norbert, Fritz Strack and H. P. Mai (1991). Assimilation and Contrast Effects in Part-whole Question Sequences: A Conversational Logic Analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 55, 3-23.
Schwarz, Norbert and Herbert Bless (1992). Scandals and the Republic’s Trust in Politicians: Assimilation and Contrast Effects. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.
Schwarz, Norbert, T. Munkel and H. J. Hippler (1990). What Determines a “Perspective”? Contrast Effects as a Function of the Dimension Tapped by Preceding Questions. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 357-361.
Schwarz, Norbert and Seymour Sudman (1992). Context Effects in Social and Psychological Research. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Stapel, D. A., Koomen, W., & Zeelenberg, M. (1998). The impact of accuracy motivation on interpretation, comparison, and correction processes: Accuracy motivation × knowledge accessibility effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 878–893.
Wegner, D. T., Petty, R. T. (1995). Flexible Correction Processes in Social Judgment: The Role of Naïve Theories in Corrections for Perceived Bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 36-51.
Wegener, D. T., & Petty, R. E. (1997). The flexible correction model: The role of naïve theories of bias in bias correction. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, 29, 141-208. San Diego: Academic Press.
Wyer, Robert S. and Thomas K. Srull (1981). Category Accessibility: Some Theoretical and Empirical Issues Concerning the Processing of Social Stimulus Information. Social Cognition: The Ontario Symposium, 1, 161-197. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.