Lecture 3: Cognitive Influences on Attitudes Flashcards
1
Q
questions about cognitions and attitudes (3)
A
- When do persuasive messages work? When do they not?
- How do persuasive messages work?
- When we adopt a new attitude, what happens to the old one?
2
Q
Hovland et al. (1953) (4)
A
- Proposed four stages for how persuasive messages work: 1) Notice the message, 2) pay attention to it, 3) comprehend it, and 4) accept it.
- You can offer incentives at the acceptance stage, but only if people made it through the other 3 stages.
- Incentives can be either utilitarian or social benefits.
- Problem: doesn’t account for messages that are understood but rejected (i.e. weak/poor arguments).
3
Q
McGuire (1968) or information processing paradigm (6)
A
- Noted that many persuasive messages can only be said to have “worked” if they have some later impact.
- Added two new stages onto Hovland’s model, creating the information processing paradigm.
- The odds of completing all these 6 stages are low, which explains why persuasion is often difficult.
- Added two new stages onto Hovland’s model, creating the information processing paradigm.
- Also proposed that a variable may have different effects on different stages.
- e.g. Self-esteem has been shown to increase the chance that someone would pay attention to or comprehend the message. But self-esteem has also been shown to correlate with lower acceptance of a message.
- Problem: doesn’t account for messages that are understood but rejected (i.e. weak/poor arguments).
4
Q
Greenwald (1968) (3)
A
- Proposed that we need to understand people’s cognitive responses (i.e. message-relevant thoughts) following a persuasive message.
- Positive cognitive responses will most likely lead to attitude change.
- Negative cognitive responses will most likely lead to rejection of the message.
5
Q
Fishbein & Ajzen (1981) or the acceptance-yielding impact model (3)
A
- Proposed the acceptance-yielding-impact model, which states that persuasive messages cause attitude change when they change: 1) the beliefs underlying the attitude, 2) the evaluations of these beliefs, or 3) both.
- Alternatively, we can simply add beliefs.
- Also recognized that a message’s total effect includes effects on beliefs not targeted by the message.
6
Q
Petty & Cacioppo (1986) (1)
A
- Introduced the elaboration likelihood model (ELM).
7
Q
Chaiken et al. (1989) (1)
A
- Proposed the heuristic-systematic model (HSM).
8
Q
similar basic principles of the ELM and HSM (6)
A
- Based on idea that the role of cognitive responses to a message varies across people and situations.
- Emphasize motivation and ability.
- Higher motivation and ability leads to more deliberate cognitive processing.
- Lower motivation and/or ability more reliance on simple cues and heuristics.
- There are many variables that can influence both motivation and ability.
- Are both dual models, i.e. proposing 2 routes to persuasion.
9
Q
central (ELM) or systematic (HSM) route to processing (3)
A
- Taking this route means that we’ll be more persuaded by strong arguments by changing cognitive responses to the message.
- A strong argument leads to a positive cognitive response, which creates a more positive attitude.
- A weak argument leads to a negative cognitive response, which produces a more negative attitude.
10
Q
peripheral (ELM) or heuristic (HSM) route to processing (3)
A
- Taking this route means that we’ll be more persuaded by simple (or peripheral) cues or heuristics.
- e.g. The length and/or number of arguments (Petty & Cacioppo, 1984).
- e.g. If the communicator is trustworthy and/or attractive (Petty et al., 1981; Chaiken, 1979).
11
Q
ways to influence motivation and ability (8)
A
- People are more likely to engage in deliberate cognitive processing (i.e. use central/systematic route) due to external factors, i.e. if:
- There are limited distractions;
- The message is clear and/or easy to understand;
- And internal factors, i.e. if the:
- Individual’s innate cognitive ability is higher (e.g. IQ);
- Individual enjoys effortful thinking (e.g. Need for Cognition);
- Issue/topic has more personal relevance.
- The first three can also be considered how much ability a person has, and the last two how much motivation.
12
Q
influences on processing for ELM and HSM (7)
A
- Both models acknowledge that deliberate processing can be biased.
- ELM: people can weigh strong and weak arguments differently.
- HSM: peripheral cues can affect deliberate processing.
- Both models acknowledge that the same variable/factor can act as:
- A determinant of motivation & ability;
- An argument (if using central/systematic processing);
- Or a cue (if using peripheral/heuristic processing).
13
Q
differences between the ELM and HSM (3)
A
- ELM focuses on motivation to hold correct attitudes; HSM adds social desirability and expression of identity as motivators (and that these lead to more biased thinking than the accuracy motive).
- ELM pays more attention to strength of attitudes that are formed (i.e. attitudes formed via the central route are stronger); HSM doesn’t make a distinction of this kind.
- The HSM includes an “additivity hypothesis,” which states that systematic and heuristic processing can co-occur; ELM is an either-or model.
- e.g. May use heuristics to supplement systematic thought, when it cannot yield a confident attitude.
14
Q
Petty et al. (1981) (6)
A
- When issues are personally relevant, effectiveness of a persuasive appeal depends on argument quality; when it’s not relevant, effectiveness depends on peripheral cues.
- Participants listened to a recording advocating for comprehensive exams.
- Three manipulations: high vs. low source expertise, strong vs. weak argument quality, and high vs. low personal involvement.
- Participants were surveyed on whether or not comprehensive exams should be instituted.
- Most favourable attitude change occured when strong arguments were presented to highly involved participants.
- Boomerang effect: weak arguments by non-experts, regardless of involvement.
15
Q
Priester & Petty (2003) (4)
A
- Greater scrutiny is applied when a product endorser is low in trustworthiness.
- Undergrads were presented with an ad for a new brand of roller skates.
- Two manipulations: skates were endorsed by a trustworthy source vs. untrustworthy source, and ads used strong vs. weak arguments.
- Effect of argument quality was greater when source was less trustworthy.
18
Q
attention as a dual vs. single process
A
