lecture 4 attitude change and persuasion

Question 1

the yale attitude change approach

Answer 1

attitude change depends on ‘who’ says ‘what’ to ‘whom’

Question 2

‘who’ yale attitude change approach

Answer 2

source of communication ie
credibility
attractiveness - physically, personality, similarity to audience
likeability
competency - expertise?
trustworthy - willing to report truthfully w/o compromise

Question 3

‘what’ attitude change approach

Answer 3

the method of communication used ie 
percieved intention (if no intent then great persuade), method of presentation (primacy/recency), the argument (bias/objective- ie able to refute opponent), arousal and affect

Question 4

‘whom’ attitude change approach

Answer 4

personality and audience expectations 
distractability
positive mood
low intelligence (high ses and iq more deloperative and central processing - want to exert cog effort) 
mod self esteem
18-25 years

Question 5

dual route model of persuasion

petty and cacioppo 1986

Answer 5

persuasion is dependent on the route taken when listening to an attitude/opinion ie central or peripheral route

Question 6

central route dual route

Answer 6

source message strong, compelling and has lots of evidence, think critically
audience actively and deeply processing the info
high ability and motivation to elaborate on what listening to
persuasion is enduring

Question 7

peripheral route dual route

Answer 7

source/message more influenced by length and who is delivering speech (not swayed by logic)
audience focus on surface message - superficial processing
low ability and motivation to listen ie not personally relevant
little persuasion/short term

Question 8

chaiken persuasion of student attitudes

Answer 8

brochure persuade and manipulate attitude

• relevant or irrelevant topic (term structure)
• likeability of source (author preference of uni with others)
• irrelevant info - students influenced by likeability of source and length of arguement
• relevant info - influences by arguements given not by the likeability of the source

Question 9

what is attitude training

weirs et al 2011

Answer 9

trying to change rigid implicit attitudes towards unhealthy lifestyles ie alcoholism - associate with negative images or avoidance (push away when see) - weirs et al 2011
appears to form lower recidivism rates in addicts

Question 10

problem with attitude training research

Answer 10

only publish research that is significant and therefore cannot reliably conclude the usefulness of attitude training

Question 11

cogntiive dissonance theory

festinger 1957

Answer 11

people are motivated to maintain cognitive consistency eading to irrational/maladaptive behaviours
when there is a dissociation between what think/know and what people actually do - will try to justify behaviour by changing their behaviour and remove inconsistency
commit self to action when inconsistent makes unpleasant tension

Question 12

compliance to attitudes

Answer 12

surface change i nbehaviour and expressed attitudes in response to request/influence/presence of others
may be explicit or implicit - urged to respond in a desired way

Question 13

bem self perception theory

Answer 13

attitude change doesnt result from dissonance but simply inference of attitude from behaviour
interpret ambiguity by refering to own behaviour in different situations

Question 14

ciadini compliance principle ‘consensus’/’commitment’

Answer 14

gain compliance by getting people to commit to first request - therefore continue to commit to bigger requests (feel committed to say yes again)
people feel driven by need to be consistent with previous behaviours
first request must be minimally invasive so get affirmative response

Question 15

ciadini commitment foot in the door technique

freedman and fraser 1966

Answer 15

when asked a few simple questions vs complex, sig more likely to allow 6+ people into home to do thorough inventory of household products

Question 16

resistance to change: attitute inoculation - mcguire 1964

Answer 16

exposure to small contra-arguments ‘immunises’ people to not be easilt persuaded when later exposed to strongly contradicting arguments

Question 17

brehm 1966 reactance theory

Answer 17

when freedom to perform a certain behaviour is threatened - more likely to perform that behaviour to reinstate the sense of freedom/choice ie rebelling against rules in society
i

Question 18

hovland and weiss 1951 credibility

‘who’ Yale att change

Answer 18

read speach either by american physicist or written by soviet propaganda newspaper advocating the development of nuclear submarines
greater agreement when thought to be written by physicist

Question 19

tripp et al 1994 trustworthiness

‘who’ yale att change

Answer 19

more wary of people who try to persuade for own gain

ie the more a celebrity endorses a product the less trustworthy they appear

Question 20

chaiken 1979 appearance

‘who’ yale att change

Answer 20

41% people sign petition for attractive>32% for less attractive endorser

Question 21

mackie et al 1990 similarity

‘who’ yale att change

Answer 21

students read strong/weak speach by own student or diff uni student
greater persuasion when own

Question 22

miller and campbell primacy and recency

what yale att change

Answer 22

primacy - more influenced by what hear first when there is a delay following both arguements
recency - more influenced by what last hear when delay between arguements

Question 23

londau et al 2004 fear arousal

what yale att change

Answer 23

students more supportive of President Bush when reminded of own mortality/exposed to 9/11 Images

Question 24

keller 1999 fear arousal

what yale att change

Answer 24

fear messages are only persuasive if contains reassuring advice on how to cope with the threat/danger otherwise panic and tune out message

Question 25

mather and chattopadhyay 1991 positive affect

what yale att change

Answer 25

prefer commercial when follows upbeat programme > sad

positivity thought to activate peripheral route of persuasion - not focus on bad intent?

Question 26

petty et al 1998 central route

Answer 26

if forewarned about tendency to agree wit communicator who is likelable then over correct and majority sgree with undesirable speaker

Question 27

elaboration likelihood model

petty et al 2009

Answer 27

source > audience > high opp + motivation/ low opp + motivation > central / peripheral

Question 28

festinger and carlsmith 1959

cognitive dissonance

Answer 28

pps given $20 or $1 to lie to next pps that study fun - dont think study fun
those who given $1 report greater internal atttiudinal change - actually enjoyed- than those given $20
$1 insufficient justification for behaviour

Question 29

alternative ways to reduce cognitive dissonance

Answer 29

rationalise that others are also hypocrites
deny personal responsibility for beh
trivialise the issue
change att to match beh

Question 30

bern 1967 self perception theory

Answer 30

observers read step by step study on cog dissonance and asked to predict the results
- same info but no personal conflict
predict correctly - suggests dissonance not needed for attitude change

Question 31

cialdini 2004 reciprocity

Answer 31

norm that obliges us to repay others what we recieved from them
build trust and equality

Question 32

cialdini 2004 reciprocity door in the face technique

Answer 32

precede a desired request with one so extreme it is likely to be reected
feel normative need to reciprocate agents demands with demand of own and move to compliance with desire

Question 33

cialdini 2004 social norms

Answer 33

look for norms in gaining understanding of how to behave in ambigous situations

Question 34

brehm reactance theory

pennebaker and sanders 1976

Answer 34

reaction in bathroom to one of two signs
1. please dont write on these walls
2. do not write on these walls under any circumstances
2nd increase graffiti