Persuasion

1
Persuasion

• Chapter 7

2
Persuasion

• Attitude- a persons overall evaluation of a
  person, object, issue.
• Refers to how un/favorably target is viewed.
• Can be based on emotions, beliefs, experience,
  behaviors

3
Persuasion

• Attitude change-evaluation modified from one
  value to another.
• Polarization-evaluation moves in the direction of
  the initial tendency.
• Depolarization- more to the direction of
  neutrality.

4
History

• WW2 Army research (1949)
• Yale Group (1950s)
• Hoveland, Janis, Kelly (1953) source credibility.
• Hovland Janis (1959) Individual differences.
• Hoveland and Rosenberg (1960) message order
  effects.
• Sherif Hoveland (1961) ego-involvement.
• 1960s- consistency theorists
• Festinger (1957)
• Messy 1970s

5
Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM)

• Petty and Cacioppo (1981 1986)
• Attitudes can change by both effortful and
  non-effortful processes.

6
ELM

• 2 Routes to persuasion
• 1) Central route characterized by careful and
  effortful evaluation of all the information
  relevant to the merits of an advocated position
  (paraphrased from Petty, 1995).
• Elaboration tends to impact attitude change.
• Carefully evaluate the content of the message
• Strength of arguments matter
• -results in more enduring and stronger attitude
  change.

7
ELM

• 2) Peripheral route characterized by little
  cognitive effort or thinking about the merits of
  the attitude issue.
• Peripheral cues (irrelevant cues) tend to impact
  attitude change.
• Heuristics or rules of thumb used
• Content of the message is not important
• tends to result in less enduring and weaker
  attitude change.

8
ELM

• What determines which route is taken?
• 1) Motivation
• 2) Ability .ex
• Cacioppo Petty (1989) moderate repetition
  increases E. Too much decreases.
• Petty, Wells Brock (1976) External distraction
  decreases.

9
ELM

• Elaboration Likelihood continuum
• Central and peripheral process occur all along
  the continuum, what varies is the relative impact
  of these processes

10
ELM

• The more motivated and able people are to assess
  the central merits of the att. Obj and scrutinize
  information, the higher they are on the
  continuum.

11
ELM

• Low motivation and ability is on the low end of
  the EL continuum. Attitude change will result
  from less resource demanding processes.

12
Motivation and Ability
High
Moderate
Low
c/P
C/p
c/p?
13
ELM Peripheral Variables

• When motivation and ability are HIGH, a
  peripheral variable can
• be treated like an argumenta piece of
  information used to determine the merit of an
  object. (e.g., attractiveness)
• bias processing (e.g., mood)
• When motivation and ability are LOW, peripheral
  variables (or heuristics) allow individuals to
  form/change attitudes with little cognitive
  effort.
• Under MODERATE (or UNCERTIAN) motivation and
  ability, a peripheral variable may help determine
  whether we effortfuly process a message.

14
ELM

• Petty, Cacioppo, Goldman (1981)
• Undergraduates are told that the university is
  going to implement comprehensive exams.
• IV-Relevance - next year vs.10 years
• IV-Argument quality- Strong vs Weak
• IV-Source (author) - credible (Harvard) vs H.S.
  student
• Relevance-What does this do?
• I have some pictures ?

15
(No Transcript)
16
(No Transcript)
17
ELM

• Relevance-What did it do?
• High relevance condition Participants
  influenced by the quality of arguments regardless
  of source.
• Low relevance condition Participants influenced
  by the credibility of the speaker regardless of
  the quality of the arguments.

18
Multiple Roles for Persuasion Variables
19
Source Variables Who said it?

• Credibility
• Expertise- a sources presumed knowledge and
  ability to provide accurate info.
• Perceptions of expertise
• say agreeable things
• introduced as knowledgeable
• speak confidently (see next slide)

20
Source Variables Who said it?

• Erickson et al (1978) testimony, spoke
  confidently or hesitated.
• Petty, Cacioppo, Goldman (1981)

21
Source Variables Who said it?

• Sleeper effect
• Hovland et al (1953)
• Sleeper effect occurs when
• the message has a positive impact (this makes
  sense)
• the cue has a negative impact that overrides the
  message
• OMG, Stalin said that!?!?
• the message impression becomes dissociated from
  the cue more quickly than it dissociates from the
  message
• Kumkale Albarracin (2004) new review article.

22
Source Variables Who said it?

• Trustworthiness
• Eagly, Wood, Chaiken (1978) trustworthy source
  (presented an argument that disagreed with the
  audience) more persuasive than not.
• Anti-pollution speech.
• Wood and Eagly (1981)- argue an unexpected
  position.
• Pro-gay marriage.

23
Source Variables Who said it?

• Attractiveness/Likeableness
• Physical attractiveness
• Shavitt et al (1994) features of a product were
  un/related to attractiveness.
• When unrelated (e.g., a computer)
• When related (e.g. cosmetics)

24
Source Variables Who said it?

• Similarity (part of attractiveness)
• Dembroski et al (1978)-
• African American junior high students
• I.V.-heard take from African American or white
  dentist.
• D.V.-cleanliness of teeth the next day
• Results?
• Goethals and Nelson (1973)
• Similarity more persuasive for subjective
  preference
• Dissimilarity more convincing for facts.

25
Source Variables Who said it?

• Some others
• Power
• McGuire (1969) source has control over positive
  and negative outcomes for recipient and is
  perceived to be able to detect if recipient
  accepts position.
• Speed of Speech
• Smith Shaffer (1995) rate influenced perceived
  credibility under low relevanceno effect under
  high relevance.

26
Source Variables Who said it?

• Demographic Variables
• Goldberg (1968) scientific article was rated more
  favorably when attributed to male than female
  author.
• Levenson et al (1975) when the topic was about a
  feminine topic, female author more persuasive.

27
Majority/Minority Status

• Baker Petty (1994) found
• greater scrutiny for a counterattitudinal message
  when it was portrayed as the majority position
• greater scrutiny for a proattitudinal message
  when it was portrayed as the minority position
• Number of Sources

28
Message Variables (What is saidmessage content)

• 1) Message Topic, Position, Style
• Issue relevance/importance
• -Depends on how much a person cares about some
  issue.
• Petty Cacioppo (1979) increased relevance can
  increase scrutiny which should increase
  persuasion for strong, but decrease for weak,
  arguments.

29
Message Variables (What is saidmessage content)

• Position/Discrepancy
• Aronson et al (1963)
• I.V. Large vs. Small discrepancy
• I.V. Expert vs. non-expert.
• D.V. how much do they like a bad poem?

30
Message Variables (What is saidmessage content)

• Sherif Hovland (1961) Social Judgment theory
• Latitude of acceptance
• Latitude of non-commitment
• Latitude of rejection

LOA
LOR
LOR
NC
NC
31
Message Variables (What is saidmessage content)

• Use of Rhetorical Questions
• Petty, Cacioppo, Heesacker (1981)
• I.V. relevant/irrelevant
• I.V. Strong/weak
• I.V. Rhetorical question/ no
• D.V. Attitude
• Rhetoricals enhance processing when EL low but
  distracts processing when EL high.

32
When the topic is Irrelevant
33
When the topic is Relevant
34
Message Variables (What is saidmessage content)

• 2) Message Content
• Argument Quality
• -Mostly used as a tool to examine level of
  scrutiny.
• Fishbein Ajzen (1975) arguments present
  consequences, the more likely and desirable these
  are, more or less compelling.
• Cacioppo et al (1982) Arguments will be perceived
  as better the more they match the way we view the
  world. Religious more persuaded by religious than
  legal arguments.

35
Message Variables (What is saidmessage content)

• Argument Quantity
• Petty Cacioppo (1984) increasing the number of
  arguments

36
Message Variables (What is saidmessage content)

• Fear/Threat Appeals
• Rogers (1983) Protection Motivation Theory. Fear
  appeals should work if
• Message convinces people that the consequences
  are severe
• Consequences are likely if recommendation not
  followed
• Consequences can be avoided if recommended action
  is taken.
• Believe changes can be made.

37

• Rippetoe Rogers (1987) if people dont believe
  they can cope effectively, boomerang effect will
  occur.
• Boomerang Effect- When the opposite of the
  advocated position is adopted.

38
Message Variables (What is saidmessage content)

• Emotion vs. Reason
• Janis et al (1965) Pepsi and peanuts

39
Message Variables (What is saidmessage content)

• One vs. Two Sided Appeals
• Hovland (1949) one-sided more effective for those
  who initially favored a position but two-sided
  more effective for those opposed.

40
(No Transcript)
41
Framing

• Geers, Handley, McLarney (2003)
• When information is self-relevant, optimistic,
  relative to pessimistic, individuals focus on and
  are influenced more by affective information.
• IV level of optimism
• IV Argument Quality
• IV Message frame (uplifting or depressing)
• DV attitudes and thought

42
General pattern of findings
43
Message Variables (What is saidmessage content)

• Message Organization
• Miller Campbell (1959) closing arguments.
• Primacy effect- when initial information is given
  more weight in decisions.
• Recency effect- when recent information is given
  more weight in decisions.
• When which occurs depends on the time of the
  decision.

44

• 1..2decision
• 12..decision

45
Recipient Variables (to whom is it said?)

• Aspects of the receiver
• Attitudinal Variables
• Krosnick Petty (1995) strong attitudes are more
  stable, resistant to counter-pressure, have a
  larger impact on judgments.
• Issue relevant knowledge
• Petty et al (1994) can influence in different
  ways, LEL-cue, MEL effect ability or motivation,
  HEL bias info processing enabling pro- counter
  arguing.

46
Recipient Variables (Demographic Variables )

• Personality/Skills
• Jarvis Petty (1996) individual difference in
  the propensity to engage in evaluation and form
  attitudes.

47
Recipient Variables

• Intelligence and Self-Esteem
• McGuire Persuasion is the result of factors
  related to message reception and yielding.
• McGuire (1968) complex message, reception most
  important (intelligence positively related)
  simple message, yielding most important
  (intelligence negatively related).

48
Recipient Variables

• Self-Monitoring
• Snyder DeBono (1989), coffee commercial
  emphasizing taste and richness or scenery and
  company.
• Need for Cognition
• Cacioppo Petty (1982), H enjoy cognitive
  activities and engage in them when they have the
  chance. L dont think unless they have to.

49
Recipient Variables

• Mere thought
• Tesser (1978) merely thinking about an issue can
  polarize ones attitude.

50
Context Variables

• -factors related to the setting in which the
  communication is presented.
• Distraction
• Forewarning of Position
• Freedman Sears (1965)

51
Context Variables

• Anticipated Discussion or Interaction.
• Chaiken (1980), Tetlock (1983) if audience
  opinions are not known, people think diligently
  to adopt the best or justifiable opinion.
• Cialdini et al (1976) if no information is
  presented and audience position is unknown,
  people adopt a moderate position.

52
Context Variables

• Channel (message modality)
• Chaiken Eagly (1976) S and complex messages,
  greater persuasion and recall for written
  self-paced than audio external-paced format.
• Mood

53
Context Variables

• Repetition of Message
• Hovland et al (1953) suggested message repetition
  would enhance persuasion.
• Cacioppo Petty (1979) initial repetition
  increases persuasion, further repetition
  decreases it (tedium effect).

54
Behavior following persuasion

• Albarracin et al (2003)
• Read message about alcohol moderation or
  abstinence.
• Half of participants were later asked to try a
  new alcohol product, or engage in a filler task.

55
Basic pattern of findings
56
Resistance to Counterpersuasion

• McGuire (1964) Inoculation theory.
• effective bolstering
• providing supporting defense of the attitude,
• have person self-generate supportive information.
• provide counterattitudinal information and
  refutations (read or write) of this information
  can lead to resistance.
• McGuire Papageorgis (1961)

57
Resistance cont

• Tormala et al. (2002)
• After successfully refuting arguments,
  individuals are less persuaded by subsequent
  arguments
• what doesnt kill me makes me stronger