Lecture 7 Flashcards
elaboration likelihood model (ELM)
a theory of persuasion that explains how people process persuasive messages through 2 different routes
- central route
- peripheral route
central route of ELM
involves careful and thoughtful consideration of the arguments presenter, requires motivation and ability to process
- attitude changes that result from the central route are more persistent, resistant to counterarguments, and predictive of behavior compared to those from the peripheral route
peripheral route
involves using superficial cues (e.g. attractiveness of the speaker, number of arguments) rather than deep evaluation
persuasion
any change in beliefs and attitudes that result from exposure to a communication
Yale reinforcement approach
- accepting message is verbal learning (mental rehearsal)
- acceptance depends on anticipated rewards/costs
- factors can cause attitude change via attention, comprehension, and/or acceptance (and impacts may be contradictory)
- two-sided message might increase attention, but reduce comprehension
- defensive avoidance (reject a fear appeal if too alarming)
fear appeals
- common in health, hygiene, and over the counter medication messaging
- generate ‘threat’ and show how the product/behavior can fix it
- Fanis & Feshbach (1953): fear should result in more persuasion, but only if the recommended action is effective
- Peters et al. (2013): find a positive interaction between threat and efficacy, such that both increase health behaviors
- Tannenbaum et al. (2015): find that threat increases intentions and behaviors, and efficacy increases this even more (no backfiring)
information processing model (McGuire, 1968)
- formalized ideas from Yale reinforcement approach
- clear stages involved in processing (each stage must be reached in order)
- determinants of persuasion may have different effects at different stages
simplified information processing model
- impacts of persuasion at different stages
- personality characteristics have opposing effects on reception and acceptance
personality characterisitcs impacts
- intelligence/self-esteem increase reception
- intelligence/self-esteem decrease acceptance
- prediction: no effect of intelligence/self-esteem on attitude change
stage 1 learning models
- yale reinforcement approach (Hovland et al., 1950s)
- who said what to whom with what effect (Lasswell, 1948)
- information processing model (McGuire, 1968)
- simplified information processing model
critiques of stage 1 models
- assume high involvement, deliberation through all steps (heuristics, associations, and repeated exposure may also persuade)
- assume passive learners (but, people may be active receivers who counter-argue, elaborate, relate to previous knowledge)
- no clear relationship between memory/recall and attitude change (more complicated than simply processing message = persuasion)
stage 2 model: cognitive response model (Anthony Greenwald)
emphasizes that persuasion depends more on a person’s own thoughts about a message rather than just the message itself
- persuasion should depend on favorability of thoughts (positive, counter argue) and extent of thinking about message (e.g. involvement, distraction)
cognitive response model contributions
- thought-listing technique
- strong/weak arguments
Petty et al. (1976)
test effect of distraction with thought-listing technique (increase tuition fees)
- fewer counter arguments to weak arguments under distraction
- fewer favorable thoughts to strong arguments under distraction
- distraction -> reduced thinking about message -> less persuasion
dual process theories of persuasion
cognitive response models assume that people need to think about the arguments for attitude change (this assumption is not supported)
- people sometimes change their attitude without thinking about the arguments in the message
- stage 3 model
dual process model contributions
- attitude change is not always via systematic processing
- factors that impact intensity of message processing (motivation and ability)
elaboration likelihood model (stage 3)
- people are motivated to hold correct attitudes
- motivation and stability to process information varies across individuals and situations
- information can influence attitude change by acting as arguments, cues, and impact the extent or direction of elaboration
- objective elaboration is influenced by factors that act on motivation or ability to process by increasing/decreasing argument scrutiny
- people make a trade-off between central processing and peripheral cues (more of one, less from the other)
- biased elaboration is influenced by factors that create a favorable or unfavorable bias in thoughts
- attitude change that results from processing is more persistent, relates more to behavior, and more resistant to counter-persuasion
Petty, Cacioppo & Schumann (1983)
ads about razor blades
- low invovlement respond more to cue
- high involvement respond more to argument quality
postulate 1 of ELM: seeking correctness
people are motivated to hold correct attitudes, as incorrect attitudes can lead to negative behavioral, emotional, and cognitive consequences
- individuals seek validation of their attitudes, often by comparing their opinions to those of others
postulate 2 of ELM: variations in elaboration
while people want to hold correct attitudes, the degree to which they engage in issue-relevant thinking varies due to individual differences and situational factors
- high elaboration likelihood occurs when people are motivated and able to process information
- when elaboration likelihood is low, attitudes are formed based on heursitics and cues rather than argument strength
postulate 3 of ELM: arguments, cues, and elaboration
variables in persuasion affect attitudes in 3 ways
- as persuasive arguments (when elaboration is high)
- as peripheral cues (when elaboration is low)
- by modifying the extent or direction of elaboration
a strong argument will lead to more persuasion when elaboration is high, whereas peripheral cues (such as a speaker’s credibility or attractiveness) have a greater impact when elaboration is low
peripheral cues
- emotions, affective associations (hedonic fluency, mere exposure)
- source effects (attractiveness, expert, celebrity, likeable)
- heuristics (number of arguments, interferences, associations)
- pleasant music, visual salience
- Maheswaran (1994): product evaluation of stereo systems (germany, thailand)
postule 4 of ELM: objective elaboration
objective processing occurs when people assess argument quality in a neutral way, without being biased by prior attitudes
- factors such as distraction, repetition, personal responsibility, and need for cognition influence how objectively people scrutinize a message
- distraction can reduce elaboration by limiting cognitive resources, leading people to rely on peripheral cues
postulate 5 of ELM: elaboration vs cues
- as motivation or ability to process a message decreases, peripheral cues become more important in determining persuasion
- conversely, as argument scrutiny increases, peripheral cues become less important
- increased elaboration -> reduced importance of peripheral cues, increase importance of arguments
- decreased elaboration -> increased importance of peripheral cues, reduce importance of arguments
factors impacting level of processing/elaboration
ability
- knowledge (+), time (pressure -), distraction (-), ambiguity of arguments (-), technical nature of arguments (-), repetition (+), presentation format (+ if more fluent)
motivation
- relevance (+), stakes/risk (+), standard of evidence (+), need for cognition (+), personal responsibility (+), proximity (spatial or temporal, +)
postulate 6 of ELM: biased elaboration
- influence level AND direction of processing (more favorable/unfavorable)
- more or less open to processing certain arguments more thoroughly
- positive bias: process strong arguments more (more +), no effect on weak arguments
- negative bias: process weak arguments more (more -), no effect on strong arguments
- influence factors: prior knowledge and forewarnings
Wood, Kallgren & Priesler (1985): prior knowledge
session 1: rate opinion on environmental preservation, list relevant facts and behaviors
session 2: read ‘interview’ against environmental preservation, re-rate opinion
- higher retrieval -> less opinion change
- higher retrieval less presuaded by weak messages
Petty & Cacioppo (1977): forewarning
guest leecture on requirement to live in campus dorms first 2 years of university
- main effect of warning
- accessbiligy of existing attitudes reduces persuasion similarly as warning
postulate 7 of ELM: consequences of elaboration
result of elaboration/processing level: persistence, attitude-behavior link, resistance to counter persuasion
- central/high elaboration is more effortful, requires more integration with existing attitudes and memory -> more consistent with other attitudes, easier to retrieve, more ability and motivation to defend, higher confidence
- central/high elaboration: change in attitude is stronger, more persistent and enduring, accessible, predictive, resistant to change
- peripheral/low elaboration: change in attitude is weaker, less persistent and shorter-term, less accessible, less predictive, susceptible to change
unimodel - persuasion by a single route (stage 4)
context: debate about multiple-role of cues/arguments
- unimodel (Kruglanski & Thompson, 1999): there is information/evidence and some of it is easier to process, some of it is more difficult to process
- people will only process the more difficult information if they are able and motivated to do so; ease of processing over info type
Einstein
“everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler”
types of information/cues
- arguments about attributes, qualities of product
- endorser: expert (if relevant for item), celebrity (e.g. sports star endorsing equipment), familiar (trustworthy), likeable (more similar), attractive (if beauty product)
- number of arguments
- length of arguments
- number of endorsers/social norms
key points (summary)
