How Processing Resources Shape the Influence of Stealing Thunder on Mock-Juror Verdicts

Stealing thunder is a dissuasive tactic that involves volunteering self-incriminating information before another party does. This study investigated how the impact of stealing thunder on mock-juror judgments varied with the processing resources available to mock-jurors. Stealing thunder, thunder and no thunder conditions were contrasted under conditions that were conducive to central route processing (high elaboration) or only permitted peripheral processing (low elaboration). Results indicated that stealing thunder reduced the likelihood of guilty verdicts under peripheral, but not central route, processing conditions. Further, it appeared to do so by eliciting positive perceptions of source credibility that were then used as a peripheral cue supporting the arguments of the source.