attitude change Flashcards
what is cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger, 1987)
It is uncomfortable for people to hold two conflicting cognitions at the same time
thinking about two views that are dissonant with each other at the same time produces an aversitve state that motivates you to change one of those cognitions
should be able to change people’s attitudes by changing their behaviour
what is the cogntive dissonance interpretation of Festinger & Carlsmith’s (1959) experiment
idea that behaviour can change attitudes
created a strong attitude to a specific task that participants were asked to engage in
had to engage in two boring activities to establish the attitude ‘I don’t like this task’:
with one hand to take individuals off a tray and relpace them for 30 mins or turn 42 square pegs a quarter turn repeatedly for 30 mins
participants were then asked to tell a subsequent participant that the task is interesting and exciting, and will either be paid $20 or $1 for doing so (also control condition)
Idea is that $1 is not sufficient compensation to tell a lie, leaving them in a state of cognitive dissonance
Prediction that they will have to change their attitude that the task was in fact fun
The $20 condition should be sufficient to align all the cognitions so there will be no state of dissonance and thus no need to change attitudes
Control: don’t like the task
$20: don’t like the task
$1: do like the task
Appears to be evidence for cognitive dissonance theory
However there is an alternative explanation based on Bem’s self-perception theory
what is the self-perception theory (BEM, 1972) interpretation of Festinger & Carlsmith’s (1959) experiment
participants reflect on the experience and make judgements on the basis of what has happened
They ground their attitude in their self-perception of their behaviour
$1 condition: told someone else the task was exciting despite only being paid $1 so infer that they do think the task is enjoyable
$20 condition: told someone else the task was exciting because they were paid $20 so infer that they actually think the task is dull.
Similar to schackter’s theory of emotion where people self-attribute emotion partly based on inferences about their self-observed arousal
As a result Bem’s theory is seen as another form of self-attribution theory
Compare cognitive dissonance and self-perception
CD:
applies in situations where individuals are strongly aware of their attitude and engage in a behaviour that conflicts with this attitude
as attitude is salient, people are aware of the conflict between their attitude and behaviour which results in an unpleasant arousal state that motivates attitude change to reduce the dissonance
SP
applies when there is not strong awareness of attitudes and discrepancy between attitude and behaviour is low
what is the Yale approach
best ways to inspire different behaviours and persuade individuals
who says what to whom with what effect
who - source of persuasion
what - nature of the message they are delivering
whom - target of persuasion
how persuasion is delivered and communicated, how it is processed and what effect it has
thought to influence attention, comprehension and acceptance which generate different outcomes
how do source factors affect opinion and perception change
expertise, trustworthiness, likability, status, race and religion interact with attention
how do message factors affect affect change
order of arguments, nuance, type of appeal, explicit/implicit nature interact with comprehension
how do recipient factors affect action change
persuadability, initial position, intelligence, self-esteem and personality interact with acceptance
how has the yale model been criticised
focused which factors affect persuasion rather than how persuasion works as a process
many of the factors investigated don’t have consistent effects regardless of context
need to understand and explain this variability
what is the information processing model (Maguire, 1969, 1985)
focus on what kinds of cognitive processes participate in when exposed to persuasive communications
The more a person attends to a message, the more they are likely to yield to a message because they understand and internalise it better.
The longer they yield to a message, the more likely it is to lead to a change in attitude and subsequently behaviour.
This is not an accurate model.
what is inoculation (McGuire & Papagerogis, 1961)
exposure to weak arguments against persuasive communication provokes the production in counter arguments and so cause psychological resistance
then able to resist stronger arguments
people are not passive recipients of persuasive communications but active engagers who produce their own cognitive responses to the persuasions.
what did McGuire et al.’s (1961) study reveal about inoculation
Participants were presented with weak counter arguments for cultural truisms (attitudes most individuals are likely to subscribe to e.g brush teeth)
Those who were exposed to the weak counter arguments, subsequently had greater resistance to strong counter arguments.
Suggests the initial weak counter arguments spurred participants to develop their own defences to these criticisms. This process allowed them to resit the stronger counter arguments
what is the cognitive response approach (Greenwald, 1968)
Argue that recipients generate their own thoughts about persuasive communications as they are presented to them which involves making connections with prior beliefs and feelings about the topic of the persuasive communications, contingent on their responses might be affirming or dismantling, thus determining whether a persuasive communication is effective or not
how has the cognitive response approach influences methodology
led to the development of two distinct methodologies
thought listing: report and write down positive and negative thoughts being generated
comparing the effect of strong and weak arguments: Manipulate the extent to which participants engage in positive or negative cognitive response
If a recipient is exposed to a strong argument, they are likely to produce predominantly favourable thoughts.
If they are exposed to a weak argument, they are likely to produce predominantly unfavourable thoughts.
Allows us to explain why the same kind of factor can produce different effects on our attitudes, depending on context.
how do different strengths of persuasive message affect attitude change
strong arguments result in a predominantly favourable cognitive response and so attitudes change
weak arguments result in a predominantly unfavourable cognitive response so attitudes do not change
how do cognitive factors affect persuasion
depends on kind of cognitive response recipient is engaging in
low cog resources decrease number of thoughts generated (either way)
which can affect whether an attitude is changed or not depending on whether thoughts are favourable or unfavourable
We can manipulate whether cognitive responses are favourable or unfavourable by changing the strength of the persuasive arguments contained in a persuasive communication.
how do motivational factors affect persuasion
If we are strongly motivated to process persuasive communication, then we will generate more cognitive responses.
These can either be favourable or unfavourable.
Reducing motivation can thus increase or decrease attitude change depending on the favour of an individual’s responses.
what are the effects of distraction (Petty et al., 1976)
students exposed to persuasive communication about increased tuition fees (likely to be unfavourable responses) with weak/strong arguments
measured strength of persuasion by how +ve attitudes are after exposure
During the communication participants had to record flashes that would appear on their computer screen
High distraction: 12 flashes
Low distraction: 4 flashes
people ended up being more positive towards an increase in university tuition fees if they were exposed to strong arguments compared to weak arguments.
However, that effect differs depending on the level of distraction that participants were exposed to such that weak arguments have a stronger effect when distraction is high.
This is because the process of generating unfavourable thoughts is disrupted
what are the effects of involvement (Petty et al., 1981)
Proposed changes to exams
Manipulated motivation
High involvement condition: changes to come into force the following year
Low involvement condition: changes implemented in 10 years time
High involvement condition means participants are more motivated to engage in generation of their own cognitive responses to the persuasive communication
Strong argument condition: favourable thoughts
Weak argument condition: unfavourable thoughts
Participants in the high involvement condition are more persuaded by the strong arguments than the weak arguments to a greater extent than in the low involvement condition.
The effects of motivation on the success of persuasive communication differ depending on whether the arguments are strong or weak.
what issues are there for the cognitive response approach
persuasion communications operate in different ways depending on whether indivudal’s are engaging in systematic issue-related thinking or not
what do dual process theories of persuasion propose
process 1: systematic resource demanding processing
process 2: non-systematic processing that may depend on cues or heuristics
what is the elaboration likelihood model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986)
template for dual mode models
recipients have a continuum of elaboration of messages that represents how much recipients think about the arguments contained in persuasive communications
Reliance on peripheral cues and superficial evidence without need for elaboration → issue-relevant thinking involving favourable and unfavourable arguments
how is elaboration assessed
Self-report
Thought-listing
Comparing effects of strong and weak arguments (more of a difference implies elaboration)
what is the central route 1 in ELM
High elaboration
Motivated
Available cognitive resources
there is critical evaluation of message content, which requires time, effort and ability
recipients try to remember what they already know about an issue and relate this to the argument
leads to long lasting attitude change that is more resistant to counter-persuasion and more likely to guide information-processing and predict behaviour
what is the peripheral route 2 in ELM
cues and heuristics
characteristics of the source and message e.g expertise, number, length of argument
short-lived attitude change less resistant to counter-persuastion and less likely to guide information processing and behaviour towards the topic
happens when motivation, ability or available cognitive resources are low
how do cues and arguments effect persuasion following central and peripheral routes (Petty et al., 1981)
Topic: major changes to examination system
High involvement: planned next year
Should be route 1
Low involvement: planned in 10 years
Should be route 2
Manipulated cues
Expert source: Carnegie commission on higher education
Non-expert source: class discussion at a high school
Manipulated strength of arguments
Strong
Weak
Results
Effects of cues about expertise
High involvement condition: source expertise makes very little difference to subsequent attitude
Low involvement condition: source expertise makes a big difference to post communication attitudes
Effects of argument strength
(should only make a difference when individuals are engaged in central route processing)
High involvement: argument strength makes a big difference
Low involvement: argument strength makes less of a difference
Direct support for dual mode account
what is the heuristic system model (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993)
specifies that peripheral processing relies on heuristics
processing motivation (low confidence threshold motivates systematic reasoning) and ability (depends on distraction and availability of cognitive resources) determine whether information is processed systematically or depending on heuristics
Under systematic processing, strong arguments generate positive thoughts that lead to a change in attitude; weak arguments generate negative thoughts that lead to no or negative change in attitude.
Cues that draw on prepossessed heuristics that are either negative (leading to lack of change) or positive (positive change in attitude)
can there be co-occuring heuristic and systematic processing
The same message may sometimes be processed both systematically and heuristically when motivation and ability are high enough to lead to systematic processing
Heuristic processing can still continue as the two are not mutually exclusive
This means we can get additive effects
Heuristic processes may bolster the effect of systematic processing of arguments based on their strength
They can also interact with each other
Heuristic process may bias perceptions of argument strength (e.g expertise)
is there an interactive effect of credibility and argument strength (Chaiken & Mahenswaran, 1994)
investigated the effects of cues and argument strength on persuasion on attitudes towards an answering machine
strong/weak/ambiguous argument strength condition (should allow interaction)
low importance (large group, not available to them)/high importance (small group, available to them)
high credibility (info based on consumer reports)/ low credibility (info based on sellers)
participants asked how much they like the product
Argument strength makes little difference in the low importance condition but the credibility cue does
In high importance argument strength has a large effect
Importantly there is an interaction between the effects of source credibility and strength of argument when we look at the ambiguous condition
When credibility of source is perceived as low, the argument is perceived as weaker.
Therefore the cue makes a difference even when systematic processing is occurring as the heuristics are still valid and as a result they change the perceived strength of argument.
compare ELM and HSM
Agreements
Dual mode
More thorough vs less thorough processing
Role of motivation and ability
Required for more thorough mode in both cases
Disagreements
Less thorough mode
Heuristic processes are not equivalent to peripheral route which may involve a variety of cue-driven processes
Competition between modes
Elaboration is a dichotomous continuum but heuristic and systematic processes are not mutually incompatible
