나은영 (1999). 3수준 태도변화 이론의 검증: 태도 강도에 따른 내외집단 전달자와 메시지 강도의 효과.한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격, 13(1), 65-90.

서경원, 김혜숙 (2008). 검은 양 효과: 이탈정도의 영향과 내집단 이미지우려의 매개효과. 한국심리학회지: 연차학술발표대회 논문집, 단일호, 238-239.

Abrams, D., Hogg, M. A., & Marques, J. M. (2005). A social psychological framework for understanding social inclusion and exclusion. In D. Abrams, M. A. Hogg, & J. M. Marques (Eds.), The social psychology of inclusion and exclusion, 1-23.

Bohner, G., Chaiken, S., & Hunyadi, P. (1994). The role of mood and message ambiguity in the interplay of heuristic and systematic processing. European Journal of Social Psychology, 24, 207–221.

Bohner, G., Moskowitz, G. B., & Chaiken, S. (1995). The interplay of heuristic and systematic processing of social information. In W. Stroebe, & M. Hewstone (eds.), European Review of Social Psychology, 6, 33-68.

Bohner, G., Ruder, M., & Erb, H. P. (2002). When expertise backfires: Contrast and assimilation effects in persuasion, British Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 495-519.

Boudreau, C. (2009). Closing the Gap: When do cues eliminate differences between sophisticated and unsophisticated citizens?” Journal of Politics, 71, 964-976.

Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 752-66.

Chaiken, S., Liberman, A., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Heuristic and systematic processing within and beyond the persuation context. In J. S. Uleman, & Ja. A. Bargh (eds.), Unintended thought, New York: Guilford Press, 212-252.

Chaiken, S. & Maheswaran, D. (1994). Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: Effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 460-473.

Chen, S., & Chaiken, S. (1999). The heuristic-ststematic model in its broader context. In S. Chaiken, & Y. Trope (eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology, New York: Guilford, 73-96.

Chen, S., Duckworth, K., & Chaiken, S. (1999). Motivated Heuristic and Systematic Processing, Psychological Inquiry, 10, 44-49.

Cohen, G. L. (2003). Party over policy: The domnating impact of group influence on political beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 808-822.

Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Erb, H. P., Bohner, G., Schmaelzle, K. & Rank, S. (1998). Beyond conflict and discrepancy: Cognitive bias in minority and majority influence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 620-633.

Fleming, M. A. & Petty, R. E. (2000). Identity and persuation: An elaboration likelihood approach. In D. J. Terry & M. A. Hogg (eds.), Attitudes, Behavior, and Social Context: The Role of Norms and Group Membership, Mahwah, JJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 171-199.

Giner-Sorolla, R., & Cahiken, S. (1997). Selective use of heuristic and systematic processing under defense motivation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 84-97.

Hovland, C. I.(1959). Reconciling conflicting results derived from experimental and survey studies of attitude change. American Psychologist, 14, 8-17.

Iyengar, S. & Simon, A. (2000). New perspectives and evidence on political communication and campaign effect. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 149-169.

Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., &Suuloway, F. J. (2003). Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition, Psychological Bulletin, 129, 339-375.

Kam, C. D. (2005). Who toes the party line? Cues, Values, and Individual Differences, Political Behavior, 27, 163-182.

Klapper, J. T.(1960). The effects of mass communications. Glencoe, II.: Free Press.

Lasswell, H. D. (1948). The structure and function of communication in society. In L. Bryson (ed.), The communication of ideas: Religion and civilization series. New York: Harper & Row. 37-51.

Lau, R. R. & Redlawsk, D. P. (2001). Advantages and Disadvantages of Cognitive Heuristics in Political Decision Making, American Journal of Political Science, 45, 951-971.

Mackie, D. M. (1986). Social identification effects in group polarization, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 720-728.

Margues, J., Abrams, D., & Serodio, R. G. (2001). Being better by being right: Subjective group dynamics and derogation of in-group deviants when generic norms are undermined. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 436-447.

McGuire, W. J.(2001). After a half century of election studies: Whence, where, and whither? In: E. Katz & Y. Warshel (Eds.), Election studies: What’s their use?, New York: Westview, 15-57.

McGuire, W. J.(1986). The myth of massive media impact: Savagings and salvagings. Public Communication and Behavior, 1, 175-259.

McGuire, W. J.(1985). Attitudes and attitude change. In. G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.). Handbook of social psychology, Vol. 2, 233-246.

Mondak, J. (1993). Source cues and policy approval: The cognitive dynamics of public support for the Reagan agenda. American Journal of Political Science, 37, 186-212.

Ottari, V. C., Wyer, R. S., Deiger, M., & Houston, D. (2002). The Psychological Determinants of Candidate Evaluation and Voting Preference, In: V., C., Ottari, R. C. Tindale, J. Edwards, F. B. Bryant, L. Health, D. C. O’Connell, Y. Suarez-Balzacar, & E. J. Posavac(Eds.), The Social Psychology of Politics, 3-28.

Page, B. I. & Shapiro, R. Y. (1992). The Rational Public: Fifty Years of Trends in Americans’ Policy Preferences, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer.

Tajfel, H., Billig, M. B., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C. (1971). Social Categorization and intergroup behavior, European Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 149-178.

Tajfel, H. & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In: W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations, Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole, 33-47.

Tetlock, P. E. (1991). An alternative metaphor in the study of judgement and choice: People as politicians. Theory and Psychology, 1, 451-477.

Tetlock, P. E. (1983). Cognitive style and political ideology, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 118-126.

Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). (Eds.), Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford: Blackwell.

Turner, J. C. & Reynolds, K. J. (2001). The social identity perspective in intergroup relations: Theories, themes, and controversies. In R. Brown & S. Gaertner (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: intergroup processes, Malden, MA: Blackwell, 133-152.

Zaller, J. (1996). The myth of massive media impact revived: New support for a discredited idea. In D. C. Mutz, P. M. Sniderman, & R. A. Brody (Eds.), Political persuasion and attitude change, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press., 17-78.

Ziegler, R. & Diehl, M. (2003). Is politician A or politician B more persuasive? recipients’ source preference and the direction of biased message processing, European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 623-637.