Chapter 5 - yielding to advertising

Question 1

The Yale Reinforcement Approach?

Answer 1

• research traces back to WW2
• described as “exposure to a persuasive communication that successfully induces the individual to accept a new opinion that constitutes a learning experience in which new verbal habit was acquired
• recipients would rehearse arguments of a message and form an attitude
• they will only accept the recommended attitude response if the incentives are greater than their original position
• incentives were recognised as rewards or punishments - THUS new incentives (reward-costs) must outweigh the old

Question 2

To understand Persuasion - Lasswell said we must know “who says what to whom with what effect”
–> This includes factors such as:

Answer 2

1) credibility of communicator
2) features of the appeal i.e. fear arousing
3) persuasiveness of arguments
4) was attitude persuasion maintained over time?

Question 3

Hovland at al added that to understand persuasion , it could be mediated through…

Answer 3

1) attention to the content of the communication
2) comprehension of the message
3) acceptance of the conclusions

Question 4

What is Source effects?

Answer 4

• the impact of the source of a communication of persuasion
• Hovland used source effects to demonstrate how prestige a communication is to influence targets evaluation of the communication

Question 5

Hovland also looked at impact of fear-arousing communication , what did he do and find?

Answer 5

• he looked at fear arousing communication on the acceptance of a recommendation that would reduce the threat
• DENTIST experiment –> fear threatened cancer, tooth decay (imagery) and infections
  RESULTS = the weakest appeal was most effective BECAUSE of defensive avoidance
• means that strongest fears were too threatening to accept and reduce initial fears

Question 6

What are the 5 stages of Information Processing Model of McGuire?

Answer 6

1) attention
2) comprehension
3) acceptance
4) retention
5) behaviour
- said each stage of is necessary and required to progress, Persuade, and be effective
ALL require systematic processing because recipients need to read, understand and think about arguments in order for their to be an impact
- type of processing motivation likely to be used for complex/expensive products

Question 7

McGuire also suggested that determinants of persuasion have different effects at different stages of persuasion process
He used a equation to simply his model, list each part and meaning

Answer 7

P(I) = P(R) x P(A)

P(I) = probability of a communication INFLUENCING attitudes (which relies on joint product of R x A

P(R) = probability of RECEPTION

P(A) = probability of of ACCEPTANCE/YIELDING

Question 8

Rhodes and Wood looked at individual differences in INFLUENCE-ABILITY

Answer 8

• found that individual differences with moderate self-esteem to be more influences
• found only limited support for McGuire’s model

Question 9

Greenwald and Petty’s Cognitive MODEL ?

Answer 9

• places importance on individuals thoughts “cognitive processes)
• passive listener from McGuires IPM replaced with active thinker (so silently discusses for / against arguments with the communicator)
  A listener
  -> active participant who relates communication to their own knowledge and they elaborate on message arguments
  -> cognitive responses determine how well the arguments are remembered

Question 10

Ohio State Group made 2 major contributions that made cognitive response into a testable theory…

Answer 10

1) the thought listening technique: PPs are asked to list all thoughts about a presentation. they are then made to eliminate irrelevant thoughts
- then thoughts are categorised by whether they are for or against communication
2) petty, wells and brock - proposed that cognitive responses to weak arguments reduces persuasion
- THUS strength of argument determines amount of persuasion and persuasion DEPENDS ON:
- - extent to which recipients engage in message relevant thoughts
- - favourability of these thoughts

Question 11

How can Distraction ENHANCE persuasion?

Answer 11

• by impairing PPs ability to counter argue
• HOWEVER, distraction could also move one away from positive, well argued communication that could have led to attitude change

Question 12

Petty et al tested role of distraction

HOW

Answer 12

PPs listened to well argued OR poorly argued counter attitudinal message (in favour of tuition fees)
- distraction task involved presentation of a visual stimulus (none - control, 15, 5 or 3 seconds)
RESULTS = increased attitude change for weakly argued message
RESULTS = decreased attitude change for stronger arguments
CONC: distraction impaired PPs ability to produce counter arguments for weak message BUT reduced number of favourable arguments for strong message

Question 13

Cognitive response model assumes …

Answer 13

attitude change is always mediated by argument-relevant thinking
EVEN if the extent to which PPs think about the argument is minimal

Question 14

Dual process Theories of persuasion

Is an extension of Cognitive response model that proposes …

Answer 14

1) persuasion can occur without much fault

2) specifies factors (moderators) that determine processing depth

Question 15

What are the two Dual process mdoels?

Answer 15

1) Elaboration likelihood model by Petty et al

2) Heuristic-systematic model by Chaiken et al

Question 16

What are the characteristics of dual process theories ?

Answer 16

• central route = more thoughtful/higher effort thinking aka systematic processing
• peripheral route = pp base argument strength on cues
• heuristic processing = use simple decision rules to accept/reject an argument (another form of peripheral route to persuasion “experts can be trusts”

Question 17

what does Dual processing model recognise ?

Answer 17

• recognises that message arguments are better than heuristic cues,
  BUT heuristic cues are easier to process (i.e central route makes attitude change last longer even though they are harder to process because they require more effortful thinking
• processing argument is impo because allows time and knowledge to judge an argument
• central (systematic) and peripheral (heuristic) processing can occur together

Question 18

what is multiple role assumption?

Answer 18

where advertisers use central and peripheral cues that serve as a heuristic cue and also an argument

Question 19

Chaiken et al add two more processing motives / goals…

Answer 19

• defence motive = our favoured position / preference produces a defence motive. Thus increasing our positive self-regard
• Impression motive = desire to express attitudes that are socially acceptable

both motive can be systematic and heuristic

Question 20

How to assess the INTENSITY with which PPs of a measure engage in message processing
- petty et al developed 2 strategies…

Answer 20

1) thought-listing technique = assess the extent to which attitude change is based on systematic
2) manipulation of argument quality= also assess extent to which attitude change is based on systematic processing because strong arguments > more favourable > attitude change

Question 21

How can we use knowledge and intelligence to evaluate arguments? tested by Wood et al
(processing ability, processing intensity and attitude change)

Answer 21

• PPs placed in groups based on their knowledge (high, medium, low)
• they saw either longer messages or short & either quality arguments or poor
• RESULTS = MORE knowledge PPs were LESS influenced by communications
• argument strength mattered for high knowledge PPs
• Message length (cue valence) impacted less knowledge PPs

Question 22

Maheswaran (1974) found same results as Wood et al (using knowledge and intelligence)

In his stereo-systems study

Answer 22

• Variables: knowledge (novice or expert)
  Argument strength (high vs low)
  Cue valence (manipulation) made in germany or thailand
  RESULTS =
  argument strength mattered only to experts,

cue valence mattered to novices

Question 23

The impact of DISTRACTION on processing ability ?

Answer 23

• distraction can reduce ability to produce counterarguments, thus at risk of being influenced by the communication
• Petty et al said the impact of distraction depends on quality of argument.
  Distraction will reduce attitude change when arguments are strong,
  but increase attitude change with weak arguments

Question 24

The impact of message repetition on processing ability ?

Answer 24

Cacioppo and Petty 1979
–> PPs were either in Pro or Counter attitudinal tuition fee increase conditions
- heard message either 0 (control) or 1, 3, or 5 times
Results
–> 3 exposures increased favourable thoughts AND decreased counter attitudinal arguments
-> 5 exposures seems tedious and boredom motivates people to go against argument (counter fees?) - TEDIUM EFFECT

Question 25

How was TEDIUM effect tested

Answer 25

Schumann tested it by advertising a new pen
RESULTS
- found that cosmetic variation (layout, font, colour) of the ads reduced the tedium effect, BUT ONLY with low product relevance

• Whereas substantive variation (e.g. content) = under high relevance, resulted in greater liking of product
• once an individuals processing intensity increases, cosmetic variation will be ineffective
  and ONLY substantive variation will REDUCE tedium

Question 26

Experiment on deep processing or shallow

Nordhielm 2002

Answer 26

• showed PPs 16 fictitious products including : picture, slogan, one line of a text
• ad exposures was for either: 0, 3, 10 or 25 secs
  and:
• processing depth were deep (products soon available
  or:
• shallow = (identify ads with subliminal logo, to prevent deep processing of the text )
  RESULTS
• for deep processing = attitude change followed a curvilinear pattern (although the downturn only occurred at 10 sec exposure)
  SHALLOW process = there was only a positive correlation = BECAUSE perceptual fluency increased for shallow processing, so with mere exposure, frequency f ad likely increased perceptual fluency that, in turn, resulted in greater liking for these ads

Question 27

Personal relevance as MOTIVATOR

Answer 27

• it is the importance of an outcome for individual - which leads to involvement of:
• potential gains (satisfies want) or potential loses (difficult decision)

Question 28

How did Petty, Cacioppo and Schumann test personal relevance by a Edge disposable razor ad

Answer 28

• argument strength (strong) used phrases such as “unsurpassed sharpness” OR
  weak = used phrases “ floats on water”

Cue valence (+ve) = celebrity
- (-ve) = Joe soap, avg citizen
- high personal relevance (PPs could have razor after exit)
- low relevance (not given razor + told wouldn’t be marketed in their area)
RESULTS
- personal relevance interacted with celebrity status (low involvement) and argument strength (high involvement)

Question 29

Petty and Cacioppo (1980) shampoo study testing personal relevance?

Answer 29

• Used physical attractiveness of female endorser instead of argument strength and personal relevance
  RESULTS
  = argument strength had greater impact on high involvement. But physical attractiveness had same impact on high and low involvement.
  REASON that physical attractiveness had impact on PPs in high involvement condition is because it may have acted as evidence for shampoo or CAUSE of the liking-agreement heuristic (attractive ppl liked more)

Question 30

Kirmani and Shiv suggest source congruity - what does this mean?

Answer 30

• this is a match between cognitively accessible endorser attributes and attributes associated with brand (does cue match the product?
• SC is important under high processing intensity, thus provide support for shampoo study????

Question 31

King and Herr (in addition to processing intensity) manipulated the relevance of characteristics of endorser to attributes of product they endorsed ? study and findings?

Answer 31

• had physically attractive couple OR an avg couple endorse either fictitious brand of razors OR brand of computer processors
• argument quality = low for both groups
• cognitive load
  = high PPs told they would fill in Qnaire,
  = low PPs did not fill out Qnaire
  RESULTS
  = when processing ability lowered, source attractiveness had positive influence on attitudes towards both products, regardless of product category
  = when cognitive load was high, source attractiveness only affected attitudes for razor and acted as cognitive cue for edge roar (cos motivation was already higher for this razor)

Question 32

Shavitt Swan and Lowrey manipulated source congruity through inducing different processing goals…explain the study and findings?

Answer 32

= they assumed physical attractiveness would be irrelevant in a restaurant whereby ppl only interested in actual food
= whereas ppl who are “impression-motivated” would be interested in physical attraction because it acts as a relevant cue for restaurant
RESULTS
= when PPs induced by sensory orientation, source attractiveness only had influence when relevance was low
= when PPs were induced by sensory orientation, source attractiveness influences impression when relevance was high

Question 33

Fear as a motivator:

communication consists of 2 parts …

Answer 33

1) fear appeal warning ppl of some health threat
2) an action recommendation that advises ppl about how to protect themselves
Listerine mouth wash example
- created ads that first created fear then offering cue to problem
= halitosis (aka bad breath)

Question 34

Parallel Response model
- in response to Yale model
= a more cognitive theory

Answer 34

• where Yale model suggests that drive reduction (emotional arousal) necessary to adapt to danger
  HOWEVER, parallel response model suggests threat is cognitively evaluated (and no arousal needed)
• gives rise to TWO parallel (independent responses)
  1) danger control: decision to act as well as actions taken to reduce danger
  2) fear control - actions taken to control emotional responses (alcohol) + strategies to reduce fear (defensive avoidance)
  Witte (1992) ADDED that perceived efficacy of an action determines whether individuals engage mainly in danger or in fear control

Question 35

Criticisms of Two Parallel response models

Answer 35

• there is no empirical evidence for the predicted interaction between threat and response efficacy
  = even though models assume that cognitive appraisal mediates the impact of persuasion on attitude and behaviour change, they make no predictions about these processes of information processing

Question 36

What problems did Stage model address (in response to parallel response

Answer 36

• stage model of processing of fear arousing communications: developed to address previous deficiencies
  -> recognises important determinants of the intensity of processing are the perceived severity (PS) of a health threat and personal vulnerability (PV) (i.e. personal relevance of a threat)
  -> if both severity and vulnerability are low, individuals
  are unlikely to invest much effort into processing information about this threat and will rely on heuristic processing
• if health threat is severe, ppl likely to systematically process information about this threat, even if they do not feel vulnerable
• severe health threats can also become personally relevant, even if one does not feel vulnerable at the time. This distinguishes differences between the stage and dual process