Attitudes & Behaviour: Attitude Change Flashcards
ATTITUDE COMPONENTS
- THOUGHTS = cognition/C
- FEELINGS = affect/A
- ACTIONS = behaviour/B
CHANGING ATTITUDES VIA CHANGING THOUGHTS
- persuasive communication influenced by:
1. SOURCE
2. CONTENT
3. AUDIENCE
SOURCE FACTORS
CREDIBILITY
ATTRACTIVENESS
SIMILARITY
SLEEPER EFFECT
CONTENT FACTORS
COMMUNCATION ARGUMENTS
APPEALING TO EMOTIONS
CONTENT: COMMUNCATION ARGUMENTS
- more arguments = better via repetition
- counterarguments depend on audience; initial agreement -> one-sided = better; initial disagreement -> counterargument provided BUT refuted
- spell out conclusions
- discrepancy/credibility aimed for small changes
CONTENT: APPEALING TO EMOTIONS
- communication depicts extremely negative/fearful consequences of refusing change
- convinces audience that consequences likely if attitudes don’t change
- offers strong positive reassurance that complying w/recommendations will have positive results
- fear builds emotional tension -> audience = ^ receptive BUT only if tinged w/optimistic idea of fearful consequences being avoided via recommendations
AUDIENCE FACTORS
INTELLIGENCE
GENDER
AGE
CULTURE
HOW DOES PERSUASION OCCUR?
- popular models say it depends upon cognitive responses to attitude object; varies across people/situations ie:
PETTY & CACIOPPO (1986)
1. ELM (Elaboration Likelihood Model)
CHAIKEN ET AL (1991)
2. HSM (Heuristic-Systematic Model)
ELABORATION LIKELIHOOD MODEL (ELM)
- people motivated to hold correct attitudes
- amount/nature of issue-relevant elaboration varies
- variables can affect attitudes by serving as arguments/cues/factors affecting nature/amount of elaboration
- motivation to process message objectively elicits argument scrutiny
- motivation/ability to process arguments causes ^ argument usage/lower cue usage
- biased processing leads to biased issue-relevant thoughts
- elaborate processing of message -> new/strong attitudes
HEURISTIC-SYSTEMATIC MODEL (HSM)
- similar to ELM as elaborates motivation/ability as message processing depth determinants
- proposes extending more effort to assess message quality when motivation/ability = ^ (systematic)/use simple cues/heuristics when motivation/ability = low (heuristic)
- huge overlap w/ELM
ELM PROCESS
- 2 main attitude change routes:
1. PERIPHERAL (spontaneous)
2. CENTRAL (deliberative)
ELM: PERIPHERAL ROUTE
- be swayed by cues peripheral -> message content (ie. source factors)
- use heuristics like “people who talk fast get what they’re saying”
- default UNLESS willing/deliberative intention
- attitude change via PR = temporary/susceptible to change/poor beh predictor
ELM: CENTRAL ROUTE
- if willing/deliberate:
- generate own thoughts favourable/unfavourable to message arguments
- use self-generated reactions to arrive at attitude that MIGHT dif from initial attitude
- attitude change via CR = relatively permanent/resistant to further change/good beh predictor
ELM FLOW: HIGH
PERSUASION ATTEMPT
- message
AUDIENCE FACTORS
- high motivation/ability to think about message
PROCESSING APPROACH
- deep processing focused on argument quality
PERSUASION OUTCOME
- lasting change resisting fading/counterattacks
ELM FLOW: LOW
PERSUASION ATTEMPT
- message
AUDIENCE FACTORS
- low motivation/ability to think about message
PROCESSING APPROACH
- superficial processing focused on surface features ie. speaker’s attractiveness/argument number
PERSUASION OUTCOME
- temporary change susceptible to fading/counterattacks
ROUTE DETERMINATION
ABILITY
- aka. cognitive load
MOTIVATION
- aka. need for cognition
PERSONAL INTEREST
- aka. will this affect me?
ABILITY
PETTY ET AL (1976)
- college students listened to strong/weak argument favouring 20% tuition ^
- 1/2 busy (did complex computer task while listening)
- 1/2 non-busy
ABILITY RESULTS
PETTY ET AL (1976)
- non-busy = strong arguments -> agreement w/disliked proposal
- busy = strong + weak -> agreement w/disliked proposal AS…
- complex computer task prevented counter-argument
- factors ^ processing decrease peripheral cue reliance
NEED FOR COGNITION (NFC)
HIGH
- enjoys tasks requiring making new solutions to problems
- sets goals that can only be accomplished via expending considerable mental effort
- prefers complex over simple problems
LOW
- thinking ISN’T fun
- enough if job is done; don’t care how/why
- more thinking = more errors
MOTIVATION
CACIOPPO & PETTY (1982)
- are issues deeply considered? is one high/low in Need for Cognition (NFC)?
- college students listened to strong/weak arguments
- 1/2 high/low NFC
- low NFC = agreed more w/weak BUT agreed w/both
- high NFC = ONLY impressed w/strong
PERSONAL INTEREST
PETTY ET AL (1981)
- students read communication about comprehensive exam at uni either:
1. in 10y (low personal relevance)
2. immediately (high personal relevance)
- communication attributed to either:
1. prestigious education commission
2. high school class
PERSONAL INTEREST RESULTS
- source credibility (peripheral cue) mattered more for low personal relevance (esp. w/weak arguments) BUT…
- argument strength (central cue) mattered more for high personal relevance students
KRUGLANSKI’S SINGLE PROCESS
- any info relevant to attitude judgement can be used to form attitude even when info = cued (ie. anti-abortion message = fetus suffers if aborted)
- stronger belief is argument from widely acknowledged fetal development expert > priest
- no way to access message validity
- SO… no real dif between cue/message content
SINGLE VS DOUBLE PROCESSES
- Kruglanski = most studies show cues briefly/early
- longer/complex message arguments appear later
- not much effort involved in understanding/using cues BUT…
- higher effort levels needed to understand/use message arguments
- dif should disappear if cues are made complex/arguments are made simple ie:
- source expertise (cue) presented in complex way via lengthy message source resume (need to work out who from/what said)
- SOME validity but two-process favour overall
! COGNITIVE INFLUENCES: SUMMARY !
- attitudes influenced by info we have about attitude object’s attributes/properties
- reactions depend on source/content/audience/context/deliverance
- theories talking about info processing sequences show how hard it can be to persuade (can fail at many stages)
- cognitive reactions to persuasive info = vital subsequent attitude determinants
- motivation/ability affect how cognitive processes shape attitudes
AFFECIVE INFLUENCES ON ATTITUDES
- feeling/attitudes = closely linked
- not really about unified models; more dif ideas
- include:
EXPOSURE
EMOTION LEARNING
MOOD
EXPOSURE
ZAJONC (1968)
- mere exposure evokes positive attitude
- aka. the more you see object = more you like it
MORELAND & BEACH (1992)
- 4 similar women attend 130pp class x0/5/10
- students rated slides rating them at term end
- despite no interaction, x15 attendees = ^ liked
BRICKMAN ET AL (1972)
- ^ liking for paintings previously rated as positive/neutral
- BUT less liking for disliked ones
MERE EXPOSURE & PERSUASIVE MESSAGES
WEISBUCH, MACKIE & MARQUES (2003)
- mere exposure (ME) -> persuasive message source ^ agreement ONLY when pps unaware of prior exposure
- 220w essays favouring tax hikes > repair roads
- alleged author in small photo
- POST essays = pps prior photo exposure manipulated (mixed w/others/exposed subliminally/no exposure)
MERE EXPOSURE & PERSUASIVE MESSAGES: RESULTS
- ^ agreement when source previously shown
- effect eliminated if pps who’d seen photo = consciously asked if they had (pre attitude ratings)
- ONLY subliminal exposure pps showed increased agreement w/message post answering Q (unaware of exposure)
MERE EXPOSURE PROCESS
- familiarity/boredom
- conscious/non-conscious habituation
- habituation REDUCES negative effect
- boredom INCREASES negative effect
EMOTION LEARNING
- attaching products to something positive (ie. ad)
- includes:
EXPOSURE CONDITIONING
BEHAVIOUR CONDITIONING
OBSERVATIONAL CONDITIONING
MOOD EFFECTS ON ATTACHMENTS
- mood has powerful effect on attitudes
- OVERALL evidence suggests we express attitudes in line w/current mood
MOOD CONGRUENCE MODERATORS
SCHWARZ & CLORE (1983)
- mood doesn’t always elicit matching attitudes
- when attention explicitly drawn to mood cause = less likely to influence attitudes
- mood-as-info
MOOD EFFECTS ROUTES
- might link to ELM
- we might strive to maintain good mood and become lazy
! AFFECTIVE INFLUENCES: SUMMARY !
- mere exposure elicits positive attitudes
- attitudes influence by pairing objects/behaviours w/emotional experiences/subtle rewards
- positive may lead to ^ liking BUT varies
- mood can be cue/bias source/info processing motivator/resource
- consider other emotions ie. fear
ALBARRACIN & SHAVITT (2018)
- importance of context
- when studying attitude change, be ^ mindful of:
1. THE PERSON (individual values/general goals/language/emotions/developmental or life span influences)
2. THE SOCIAL CONTEXT (individual’s interactions w/communicators/social networks/social media)
3. THE BROADER SOCIO-HISTORICAL CONTEXT (impact of historically significant climatic/political/economic events, fundamental cultural impact on characteristics/functions of attitude)
! SUMMARY !
- classic research gives basic understanding of what motivates attitude change (source/context/audience)
- cognitive processes may affect attitude change (ELM/HSM)
- affective processes influence attitude change (exposure/emotion learning/mood)
- attitudes are continually shaped/modified by personal/contextual factors
