Persuasion 1 Flashcards
Persuasion meaning
Any change in beliefs and attitudes that results from exposure to a communication.
4 stages of persuasion
1) Learning models
2) Cognitive response model
3) Dual process models
4) Better dual process models
Learning models
Yale reinforcement approach: Who (source) said what (content) to whom (receiver) with what effect (extent and duration of attitude change).
Defensive avoidance
Reject a fear appeal if too alarming, recent evidence doesn’t support this.
What factors causes attitude change?
Attention, comprehesion and/or acceptance. Impacts may be contradictory: Two sided message might increase attention, but reduce comprehension.
Fear appeals
Some packaging: roken is dodelijk! Only helps when there is recommended action.
Information processing model (1)
Attention –> comprehension –> acceptance –> retention –> behavior
Each stage must be reached in order.
Simplified information processing model
P (influence) = P(reception) x P(acceptance)
Reception = attention + comprehesion
Acceptance = + retention
Influence of personality characteristics on simplified information processing model
Personality characteristics have opposing effects on reception and
acceptance. intelligence/self-esteem increase reception and decrease acceptance.
But no effect on attitude change.
Inverted-U for selfesteem, but not intelligence.
Kritiek stage 1 models
- Assume high involvement, deliberation through all steps. Heuristics, associations and repeated exposure may also persuade. Don’t necessarily have to learn message content for it to work
- 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 1 models
Yale reinforcement approach, Mcguire information processing model and simplified information processing model.
Cognitive response model (2)
Thought-listing technique and strong/weak arguments
Where should persuasion depend on?
Favorability of thoughts and extent of thinking about message:
Strong arguments –> favorable thoughts –> change. of andersom.
Thought listing technique
Message: Increase tuition fees with strong/ weak arguments. Fewer counterarguments to weak
arguments under distraction and fewer favorable thoughts to strong
arguments under distraction.
Conclusion: 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.
Contributions of the dual process model
Attitude change is not always via systematic processing and factors that impact intensity of message processing.
Elaboration likelihood model (3)
- People are motivated to hold correct attitudes.
- Motivation and ability to process information varies across
individuals and situations. - Information can influence attitude change by acting as a)
arguments, b) cues, c) 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 central processing is more
persistent, relates more to behavior, and more resistant to
counter-persuasion.
Hypothese 2 variaties in elaboration
Motivation and ability to process information varies across individuals and situations.
* Elaboration is a continuum, but often conceptualized as binary
* High elaboration: cognitively costly
* Low elaboration: fast, heuristic
Model of hypothese 2 (3stage)
High: central route/ systematic processing –> strenght argument –> positive or negative cognitive response –> change or no change
Low: peripheral route or heuristic processing –> positive or negative heuristic cue –> positive or negative heuristic inference –> change or no change
Positive or negative heuristic inference
Experts can be trusted vs non-experts.
Hypothesis 3 arguments, cues and elaboration
Content/factors can serve as arguments, peripheral cues, or change the level of elaboration
* Arguments – measured ratings on persuasiveness
* Cues – impact on persuasion independent of argument strength
* Factors can also influence on extent or direction of elaboration
Issue: hard to measure/perfectly categorize any of these
What are peripheral cues?
- Emotions, affective associations: hedonic fluency, mere exposure
- Source effects: attractiveness, expert, celebrity, likeable.
- Heuristics: Number of arguments, Inferences, associations
- Pleasant music, visual salience
High elaboration vs low elaboration
High elaboration: strong arguments high attitude, weak arguments low attitude.
Low elaboration: the peripheral cue has a lot of influence, strength argument doesn’t matter that much.
Hypothesis 4 objective elaboration
Influences level of elaboration but not direction.
- Factors that influence level of argument scrutiny (vs. reliance on peripheral cues)
- Ability and motivation to process arguments
- Focus on factors that increase elaboration
Elaboration vs cues (hypothesis 4/5)
Tradeoff between reliance on arguments and cues.
Increased elaboration –> reduced importance of peripheral cues, increase importance
of arguments. Decreased elaboration –> increased importance of peripheral cues, reduce importance of arguments. Focus on factors that reduce elaboration, increase reliance on cues
Factors that impact level of elaboration/processing.
Ability: Knowledge, time, distraction, repetition, format, arguments.
Motivation: Relevance, stakes/risks, standard of evidence, need for cognition, personal responsibility, proximity
Overeenkomst stage 2 en stage 3 (4/5)
Effect of distraction with thought listing technique. No distraction –> more difference between weak/strong arguments (central, high elaboration) and more distraction leads to reduced difference (pheripheral, low elaboration).
Study about razor blades: argument quality, cue and involvement.
Low involvement respond more to cue and high involvement respond more to quality argument.
Need for cognition
Tendency to engage in and enjoy thinking. For example: I prefer complex to simple problems or I prefer my life to be filled with puzzles I must solve. By high NFC argument strenght is more important than low NFC.
Hypothesis 6
Biased elaboration
Biased elaboration
Biases influence level AND direction of processing/elaboration (favorable/unfavorable).
Positive vs negative bias.
Positive bias
Process strong arguments more, no effect on weak arguments.
Negative bias
Process weak arguments more, no effect on strong arguments.
What factors influences the biases?
Prior knowledge and Forewarnings/inoculation
Prior knowledge
Increase processing ability and motivation but also might have stronger existing biases. Confirmation bias and Bayesian updating
Bayesian updating
Updating your prior beliefs when new evidence/arguments are presented.
Forewarnings/ inoculation
Allows preparation to resist message:
1) Warning about message content: retrieve own beliefs/attitudes before exposure
2) Warning about persuasive intent: react against motives, cue to reject or counterargue
Study about retrieval/knowledge and message quality
Higher retrieval –> les opinion change and less persuaded by weak messages.
Study warning and instructions
Guest lecture on requirement to live in campus dorms first 2 years of university. Warning vs no warnning, thoughts on dorm requirement vs any thoughts. Main effect of warning: with warning low change, no warning high change by any thoughts.
Hypothesis 7
Consequences of elaboration
Result of elaboration level
High elaboration/ central processing –> Persistence, attitude-behavior link and resistance to counter-persuasion.
Stage 4
Unimodel: persuasion by single route. Not popular by reasearchers.
Unimodel
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.
Heuristics are not “bad” (kritiek stage 3)
Types of information/cues
Arguments about attributes or qualities of product.
Endorser
Number and length of arguments
Number of endorsers/ social norms.
Endorsers
Expert, celebrity, familiar, likeable and attractive
Quote einstein
Everything should be made as simple as possible but not simpler.
Quote George Box
All models are wrong but some are useful.
