Guilty by disassociation (and innocent by association): The impact of relevant and irrelevant analogies on political judgments

We investigate how associative (X is similar to Y) and disassociative (X is different from Y) analogies may affect judgments of political target stimuli they are employed to embellish. In an experimental study it was hypothesized that the judgmental relevance of the analogy-target relation is an important determinant of the effect of the analogy on subsequent judgments. It was reasoned that for irrelevant analogies the (dis)associative relation would be less efficiently encoded and utilized than the evaluative tone of the analogy itself, resulting in relative assimilation to the connotation of irrelevant analogies, even where the analogy was actually disassociated from the target. Where the analogy-target relation was relevant to judgments of the target, these judgments were predicted to follow the specified analogy-target relation for both associative and disassociative analogies. The predictions were supported. The relation of these results to social judgment models and to the rhetorical devices used to influence political judgment is discussed.