Chapter 5 - Persuasion Flashcards
the process of persuasion
To elicit action, a persuasive message must clear several hurdles. What is crucial is not so much remembering
the message itself as remembering one’s own thoughts in response.
persuasion
The process by which a message induces change in beliefs,
attitudes, or behaviours.
central route to persuasion
Occurs when interested people focus on the arguments and respond with
favourable thoughts.
peripheral route to persuasion
Occurs when people are influenced
by incidental cues, such as a
speaker’s attractiveness.
credibility
Believability. A credible communicator is perceived as both
expert and trustworthy.
sleeper effect
A delayed impact of a message; occurs when we remember the message but forget a reason for discounting it.
Interestingly, the sleeper effect is particularly effective when
attitudes are based on beliefs rather than on emotional information
Percieved trustworthiness
Speech style also affects a speaker’s apparent trustworthiness. - eye contact
Trustworthiness is also higher if the audience believes the communicator is not trying to persuade them.
We also perceive as sincere those who argue against their own self-interest.
Norman Miller and his colleagues (1976) found that trustworthiness and credibility increase when people talk fast. People who listened to tape-recorded messages rated fast speakers (about 190 words per minute) as more objective, intelligent, and knowledgeable than slow speakers (about 110 words per minute). They also found the more rapid speakers more persuasive.
attractiveness
Having qualities that appeal to an audience. An appealing communicator (often someone
similar to the audience) is
most persuasive on matters of
subjective preference.
Is a logical message one that is more persuasive—or one that arouses emotion?
Both
- Well-educated or analytical people are responsive to rational appeals
- 1949). Thoughtful, involved audiences travel the central route; they are most responsive to reasoned arguments.
- Disinterested audiences travel the peripheral route
- It also depends on how people’s attitudes were formed. When people’s initial attitudes are formed primarily through emotion, they are more persuaded by later emotional appeals
- when their initial attitudes are formed primarily through reason, they are more persuaded through intellectual arguments
How good feelings effect messages
Messages can also become more persuasive through association with good feelings
Irving Janis and his colleagues (Janis,
Kaye, & Kirschner, 1965; Dabbs & Janis, 1965) found that students were more convinced by persuasive messages if they were allowed to enjoy peanuts and Pepsi while reading them
Good feelings often enhance persuasion, partly by enhancing positive thinking and partly by linking good feelings with the message
- People in a good mood make faster, impulsive decisions, as they rely more on peripheral cues, while unhappy people ruminate more
The effect of arousing fear
Arousing fear can help people listen to your message
Experiments by Howard Leventhal (1970) and his collaborators, by Ronald Rogers and his collaborators (Robberson & Rogers, 1988), and by Natascha de Hoog and her colleagues (2007) show that, often, the more frightened people are, the more
they respond.
Playing on fear works best if a message leads people not only to fear the severity and likelihood of a threatened event but also to perceive a solution and feel capable of implementing it
discrepancy
Sure enough, when credible poet
T. S. Eliot was said to have highly praised a disliked poem, people changed their opinion more than when he gave it faint praise. But when the less credible “Agnes Stearns,” a teacher’s college student, evaluated a disliked poem, high praise was no more persuasive than faint praise. Thus, as Figure 5–5 shows, discrepancy and credibility interact: The effect of a large versus small discrepancy depends on whether the communicator is credible.
People are more open to conclusions within their range of acceptability
it depends on how extreme of a position you should argue on the credibility you have
Deeply involved people tend to accept only a narrow range of views, and people who don’t care as much and are not as involved, you can advocate a discrepant view
How to deal with opposing arguments:
One-sided versus two-sided appeals
Carol Werner and her colleagues (2002) showed the disarming power of a simple two-sided message in experimental messages that promoted aluminum can recycling. Signs added to wastebaskets in a university classroom said, for example, “No Aluminum Cans
Please!!!!! Use the Recycler Located on the First Floor, Near the Entrance.” When a final persuasive message acknowledged and responded to the main counter-argument—“It May
Be Inconvenient. But It Is Important!!!!!!!!!!!”—recycling reached 80 percent (double the rate before any message and more than in other message conditions).
- A one-sided appeal was most effective with those who already agreed.
- An appeal that acknowledged opposing arguments worked better with those who disagreed. Experiments also revealed that a two-sided presentation is more persua-
sive and enduring if people are (or will be) aware of opposing arguments
primacy effect
Other things being equal, information presented first usually has the most influence.
eg.
- Lisette is intelligent, industrious, impulsive, critical, stubborn, and envious.
- Lisette is envious, stubborn, critical, impulsive, industrious, and intelligent.
the sentence that begins with the good adjectives paints a better picture of Lisette
recency effect
Information presented last sometimes has the most influence. Recency effects are less common than primacy effects.
To test for a possible recency effect, Miller and Campbell (1959) gave
another group of students one block of testimony to read. A week later, the researchers had them read the second block and then immediately state their opinions. Now the results were just the reverse—a recency effect. Apparently, the first block of arguments, being a week old, had largely faded from memory.
Forgetting creates the recency effect (1) when enough time separates
the two messages, and (2) when the audience commits itself soon after
the second message. When the two messages are back to back, followed by a time gap, a primacy effect usually occurs
