This study investigated the effects of mood state, issue involvement, and argument strength on responses to persuasive appeals. Through an unrelated second study paradigm, 144 introductory psychology students were randomly assigned to High or Low Issue Involvement, Happy or Sad Mood Inductions, and Strong or Weak Argument conditions. Attitudes, measured on 9-point Likert-type scales, and cognitive responses, measured through a thought listing, were assessed. On attitudes, people in the Happy Induction condition were equally persuaded by Strong and Weak Arguments, whereas people in the Sad Induction condition were persuaded by Strong, but not Weak, Arguments. Involvement had no effect. On the thought-listing measures, people in the Happy Induction condition showed modest elaboration. A stronger pattern of effects, consistent with high elaboration, was noted on the thought listings of people in the Sad Induction condition and who were in the High Involvement group. Interestingly, people in the Sad Induction condition who were in the Low Involvement group showed mood-congruency on thoughts. The data suggest that the effects of mood state are not moderated by the effects of issue Involvement on this measure of attitudes but that there may be some moderation on measures of elaboration. Implications and directions for research are discussed.