4. Attitude change and persuasion Flashcards
Explain the study of Festinger and Carlsmith.
Festinger and Carlsmith conducted a study where participants had to engage in a boring task for 30 minutes. They were then split into 3 groups. 2 of those groups were told they had to speak to a student who was considering taking part in the study and convince them that the task was fun. In one group, they were paid 20 dollars to convince the student to take part, and in another group they were paid 1 dollar. The control group weren’t ask to convince a student.
Participants in all groups were asked to rate how enjoyable they found the boring task how scientifically important they believed it to be and whether they would be likely to participate again.
RQ: would the extent to which participants rated this boring task to be enjoyable and worthwhile be determined by the amount of money they’d been paid to convince someone else the task was fun?
The control group said the task was unenjoyable.
Those being given 20 dollars rated the task as being neither enjoyable nor unenjoyable.
Those in the one dollar condition reported the task was relatively quite enjoyable They also reported that the task was relatively scientifically important to a greater extent than the other groups did. They also reported that they would be willing to participate in the study again, unlike those in the other groups.
Those that were paid but were paid less reported a more positive attitude to the task. This is because the one dollar group was experiencing cognitive dissonance. They believed the task was boring but had also told the second student that the task was fun. They hadn’t been paid enough to justify lying to another person.
As 20 dollars is enough to provide a reason to lie, this group did not experience cognitive dissonance- they attributed a dissonant cognition to payment
What are the three ways in which Festinger proposed we can reduce cognitive dissonance?
- Add new cognitions that are consistent with one of the inconsistent cognitions; ‘I did it for the money; if I hadn’t been paid I wouldn’t have done it’.
- Removing one of the dissonant cognitions and replacing it with one which is more consistent; ‘the task was fun’.
- Reduce the importance of one of the dissonant cognitions; ‘I don’t care about the other participant’..
What are the three ways in which Festinger proposed we can reduce cognitive dissonance?
- Add new cognitions that are consistent with one of the inconsistent cognitions; ‘I did it for the money; if I hadn’t been paid I wouldn’t have done it’.
- Removing one of the dissonant cognitions and replacing it with one which is more consistent; ‘the task was fun’.
- Reduce the importance of one of the dissonant cognitions; ‘I don’t care about the other participant’..
Explain the study of Aronson and Mills.
A study in which females were invited to joint a group discussion about sex. This investigated effort justification.
They were told they might have to be screened to ascertain their eligibility for the study. They were then randomly split into 3 groups.
Group 1: control group, they were told they don’t need to be screened
Group 2: mild initiation group, were screened and had to read aloud five words related to sex that would be mildly embarrassing for them
Group 3: severe initiation group, had to read aloud more obscene sex-related words
Participants were they asked whether they’d read a particular book about sexual behaviour in animals and they all said no. This book was obscure and had been chosen as it was unlikely anyone would have read it. The experimenter said they could join the group discussion and could listen but not participate as they had not read the book.
Participants put on headphones and listened to the discussion, which was a tape recorded discussion which lasted an hour and was very boring. They then had to relate how interesting and boring the discussion had been.
RQ: Would those who had been severely initiated offset the cognitive dissonance by changing their attitudes?
Findings: those who were severely initiated rated the group discussion to be most enjoyable. This is because they experienced cognitive dissonance; they had one cognition that they had been through a severe initiation ceremony so as to earn the right to be in the discussion and had another cognition that the discussion was boring.
They offset their dissonance by changing their attitude to be in line with their behaviour- they removed their dissonant cognition that he discussion was boring and replace it with a consonant cognition that the discussion was enjoyable.
Those who underwent the mild initiation didn’t experience cognitive dissonance to the same extent as those in the severe group as they made less of an effort to join the discussion.
Ethical issues of study: sexual harassment of participants. Male experimenters making female participants uncomfortable.
Apply cognitive dissonance and effort justification to the concept of initiation ceremonies.
Initiation ceremonies are a way of preserving a group and keeping them together. If the initiation ceremony is unpleasant, it means the participant will come to value the group they have joined more than they would have done if they hadn’t undergone that experience.
Explain post-purchase cognitions.
If we are making a purchase and having to decide between two similar items, once we have made a decision we will avoid thinking about the positive aspects of the option we didn’t choose as this will create cognitive dissonance in us. There are 4 ways to reduce the dissonance here:
- Pay more attention to the pros of the option we chose; we seek consonant information.
- Pay less attention to the pros of the option we didn’t choose; we avoid dissonant information.
- Pay more attention to the cons of the option we didn’t choose; seek consonant information
- We pay less attention to the cons of the option we chose; we avoid dissonant information.
Owners of 2 very similar cards were recruited to a study and were given a choice of adverts to read. They could read ads for their own car, the rival car or two neutral adverts which weren’t about cars. It was found that people mostly chose to read adverts about their own car. There is nothing to be gained from reading an ad about a car you already own, and so we can assume participants chose to read the ad about their own car to avoid reading positive information about the rival car.
Explain Bem’s evaluation of Festinger and Carlson’s experiment.
According to Festinger it is because we have to inconsistent cognitions that create an unpleasant affective state and we are very strongly motivated to alleviate that state.
Bem argued what Festinger termed cognitive dissonance doesn’t actually occur at all. He argued that the results for the boring task study could be accounted for by self perception theory where we infer our attitudes from external cues because internal ones are weak or unclear. If we aren’t sure about our attitudes, we infer them from our behaviour. Carl and Festinger’s participants were only asked about their attitudes to the task and after they had completed it and attempted to convince the student it was fun. According to Bem, participants observed themselves trying to convince the student that the task was fun. The external cues were clear for those who had been paid 20 dollars and so they didn’t need to infer their behaviour from their actions, however the one dollar group did and so inferred they had a positive attitude towards the task.
Bem set up a study which sought to replicate cognitive dissonance effects but based on asking external observers what they thought the attitudes of the participant would be. If observers followed the same pattern of inferring attitudes as the participants themselves then this would support self-perception theory and were inferring their attitudes from their own behaviour.
Bem replicated the Festinger and Carlson study with observers rating the attitudes of the actors in each condition and found a very similar pattern of findings to the original study- observers who observed those who were paid only a dollar said they must have had a positive attitude towards the task as they weren’t being paid much. Bem argued that because observers think in this way, this is also how participants in the study thought.
Explain the work of Harmon-Jones regarding distinguishing between self-perception theory and cognitive dissonance theory.
Harmon-Jones et al pointed out that one important point of difference between the cognitive dissonance theory explanation and the self-perception theory was that according to cognitive dissonance, inconsistency between cognitions creates an aversive physiological state whereas self-prediction theory does not state that people who self-perceive should feel bad in anyway.
Harmon-Jones et al. designed a study to test whether participants in Festinger’s study experienced physiological arousal to determine whether the cognitive dissonance or self-perception theory was correct.
Participants had to read a very boring passage and then write a statement claiming that the passage is not boring. Participants had to take part in a skin conductance test which measures the extent to which someone is physiologically aroused. Those who had to write a statement that the passage wasn’t boring were found to become physiologically aroused, as predicted by cognitive dissonance theory but not self-perception theory. This study suggests that cognitive dissonance is actually occurring.
Explain the action model of dissonance.
Harmon-Jones and Harmon-Jones went on to develop cognitive dissonance theory and argued that the reason why people experience cognitive dissonance is that our cognitions act as action tendencies- if we know how we feel about a particular object then we are in a position to act a particular way when we need to act; if we know we think smoking is bad, we know to say no when someone offers us a cigarette.
Dissonance arises when action tendencies conflict with each other; we have a cognition about our attitude and our behaviour and a state of dissonance is created if these don’t match because it suggests our action tendencies don’t align with each other and so in the future we wouldn’t be clear on how to respond appropriately in the situation. The potential for effective action is compromised when there are conflicts between our action tendencies.
The way in which we try and reduce dissonance is through taking the path of least resistance in terms of trying to recover a state of harmony between our action tendencies. Usually the path of least resistance is to change our attitudes because we can’t change the behaviour that we’ve already done but we can change our attitudes. Changing our attitude makes us more ready to deal with a future situation effectively as we won’t have to navigate conflicting action tendencies.
Explain the action model of dissonance.
Harmon-Jones and Harmon-Jones went on to develop cognitive dissonance theory and argued that the reason why people experience cognitive dissonance is that our cognitions act as action tendencies- if we know how we feel about a particular object then we are in a position to act a particular way when we need to act; if we know we think smoking is bad, we know to say no when someone offers us a cigarette.
Dissonance arises when action tendencies conflict with each other; we have a cognition about our attitude and our behaviour and a state of dissonance is created if these don’t match because it suggests our action tendencies don’t align with each other and so in the future we wouldn’t be clear on how to respond appropriately in the situation. The potential for effective action is compromised when there are conflicts between our action tendencies.
The way in which we try and reduce dissonance is through taking the path of least resistance in terms of trying to recover a state of harmony between our action tendencies. Usually the path of least resistance is to change our attitudes because we can’t change the behaviour that we’ve already done but we can change our attitudes. Changing our attitude makes us more ready to deal with a future situation efficiently and quickly as we won’t have to navigate conflicting action tendencies.
Define the term persuasion.
Persuasion is the process by which a message brings about a change in somebody’s attitudes and/or behaviour.
What is the elaboration likelihood model?
This model assumes that people are motivated to hold correct attitudes about an object.
When we receive a persuasive communication, the likelihood we will elaborate on that message (the extent to which we think about the message) depends on whether we have the motivation and the ability to process it.
If, when we elaborate on a message, we find ourselves thinking either positive or negative thoughts about the attitude object, and we adopt those new thoughts, then we change our attitudes. If our attitudes towards the object become more favourable then this is positive attitude change. If they become less favourable then we experience negative attitude change. Any attitude change that arises from this route should be stable and long lasting as we’ve been persuaded by the quality or strength of the argument that is present within the communication. This is called the central route to persuasion.
If we motivation and ability bu the strength is weak and doesn’t make us think more positively or negatively we won’t change our attitudes.
The central route requires that we are motivated and able to process the message and that the content of the message gives rise to a great deal of positive or negative thoughts.
If we don’t have enough motivation or ability to process a message, this doesn’t necessarily mean we won’t be persuaded by it. We can still be persuaded but it will be by different features of the message known as ‘peripheral cues’. These cues are not central to the argument being presented within the message but can still elicit a response without substantial cognitive processing. E.g. they might make us feel good or bad. If peripheral cues are present, we may change our attitude however these changes are unlikely to be long-lasting.
Our motivation and ability determine the route through which we may be potentially persuaded. The stability of the change will depend on whether we are being persuaded by the strength of the argument or the peripheral cues.
Explain Petty’s research into factors impacting motivation and ability to process a message.
Petty et al. developed a paradigm to study the influence of factors on motivation and ability to process a message.
Firstly, they develop strong or week arguments around a topic. Then they verify how strong or weak the messages are using an independent panel of participants.
Then, within the study procedure itself, they manipulate a variable they expect would impact on motivation or ability e.g. how personally relevant a topic is. Next, they present the message to the participant and ask them to present all their thoughts about the object of that message. Then researchers code those thoughts to determine how many favourable and unfavourable thoughts have been elicited. They also have participants report their attitude towards the topic; how positive or negative they feel towards the topic.
A study that looked at the relationship between personal involvement in a topic and the likelihood of participants elaborating on that argument. Participants were shown a series of 12 ads which they were asked to judge. The crucial advert was the 6th one which was for a fictitious razor called the edge razor. 3 variables were manipulated;
Strength of the argument for or against the razor: strong arguments concerned efficiency and weak ones related to unimportant information such as how well the razor floats
Presence or absence of peripheral cue: In one condition, the ad featured an endorsement of the razor from well-liked sports personalities of the time and in the other situation it was endorsed by average looking, unknown people.
Personal involvement: One group of participants were told they could choose the razor as an incentive for participating in the study. The other group was told they’d receive a toothbrush and that the edge razor was being trialed in another county.
RQ: Would personal involvement influence the extent to which arguments or cues influenced to extend of the persuasiveness of the razor advert?
We’d expect that where personal involvement is low, participants will be influenced by the presence or absence of peripheral cues as they lack motivation to process the message and where personal involvement is high participants will be influenced by the weakness/strength of a message.
Findings:
People with high involvement were more influenced by argument quality; stronger arguments led to more positive attitudes and vice versa for weaker ones. The peripheral cue did not matter.
The attitude of people who had low involvement was significantly influenced by the peripheral cues of who was endorsing the product. Celebrity endorsement led to more positive attitudes.
Explain Petty’s work into examining the impact of cognitive load on persuasion.
RQ: Would imposing a cognitive load on participants impair their ability to process a message and so make them less sensitive to the strength of an argument?
Participants were asked to read a message that favoured reducing tuition fees at their university. The argument was either easy to counter (weak argument) or hard to counter (strong argument).
All participants were also asked to do a second task simultaneously where they had to count how frequently and where on a screen a flash occurred while they were reading a tuition fee argument. Half of the participants had to only monitor four flashes a minute (low distraction condition) whereas the other half had to monitor 12 flashes a minute (high distraction condition).
Findings: Those who were minimally distracted reported high agreement with the strong argument and low agreement with the weak one; they were sensitive to the quality of the argument. Those who were highly distracted were not impacted by the strength of the argument; they were generally not persuaded by either argument. This is presumably because they were unable to attend to the arguments because they lacked the ability to do so while being distracted.
This study shows that distraction lowers sensitivity to arguments when it comes to being persuaded.
What are some problems with the elaboration likelihood model?
It can be difficult to distinguish between cues and arguments; we can’t come to conclusions as to which is more persuasive if we can’t distinguish
Not predictive; we can only tell after giving someone a cue or argument that we can judge it is effective. It lacks utility.
