Persuasion and attitude change

Question 1

What years was social psychology largely the study of attitudes? + Who said this

Answer 1

1920’s, 1930’s. Allport 1935.

Question 2

When did experimental re-search 1st start on persuasion?

Answer 2

During WW2. US gov wanted to persuade people that they needed to join the war- psychologists brought in.

Question 3

After WW2 how did persuasion and attitude change progress? (3 things)

Answer 3

In the 1950’s/60’s post-war prosperity, strong interest in persuasion from businesses.
Then this adapted into ‘attitude change’.
The funding and capacity of attitude change to continue has always been plentiful due to governments, charities and businesses.

Question 4

Who continued their work after the war in the first what?

Answer 4

Hovland (1953), in the first coordinated research programme dealing with social psychology of persuasion.

Question 5

What are the 3 nonstarters?

Answer 5

Hypnosis, subliminal perception, brainwashing.

Question 6

2 points for hypnosis

Answer 6

It’s effective in one-to-one interaction with susceptible subjects
BUT no use for persuasion through mass media

Question 7

What is subliminal perception?

Answer 7

Preconscious processing of stimuli below the intensity or duration of absolute threshold.

Question 8

Who first suggested subliminal perception, in what situation? Who and what was the final conclusion on the topic?

Answer 8

James Vicary (1957), 'drink coca cola, eat popcorn' flawed 0.3ms on alternate endings. Sales roles 18%/58%. However in 1984 he admitted he made it up. 
Conclusion was, it doesn't work very well even closer to the threshold 150ms,  (Thorpe, Marlot 1996).

Question 9

Who was brainwashing allegedly used on/what year? What can it be comprised of? Conclusions (2 points)

Answer 9

US POW in Korean War 1950-1953.
Social isolation, sleep deprivation, propaganda.
Largely ineffective (Cialdini 2007).
Victims usually comply outwardly but not internalise the persuasive messages.

Question 10

What was the Yale communication program? Who, what year?

Answer 10

Hovland et al (1953)
that the key to understanding why people attend to, understand,accept a persuasive message is to study the characteristics of the person presenting the message, the contents of the message, and the characteristics of the receiver of the message.

Question 11

What are the 3 variables in the Yale programme? What were the 3 variables linked with?

Answer 11

Source variables, message variables, recipient variable. Attention, comprehension, acceptance and retention.

Question 12

What is source credibility affected by? 5 points, 4 names.

Answer 12

Trustworthiness, expertise (O’Keefe, 2002)
Popular, attractive sources = more trustworthy (Kiesler, Kiesler 1969) - George Cloony
Experts are more persuasive (Hovland, Weiss 1952).
Rapid speech increases perceived expertise (Miller et al 1976).
People we feel familiar, close to are able to exert more influence.

Question 13

What is the ‘sleeper effect’, who created it, what year?

Answer 13

(Hovland, Weiss 1951)
A messages power increases over time, the less credible source would become as persuasive as the more credible source, because the message survives but the source does not.
Therefore, negative political campaigning works in the long run.

Question 14

The 4 aspects in message variables

Answer 14

Repetition, one-sided vs two-sided arguments, inoculation theory, fear appeals.

Question 15

4 points in repetition, 2 names

Answer 15

Increases perceived truth (Arkes et al 1991).
Mere exposure effect (Zajonc 1968)- tendency for repeated exposure to enhance an observers liking for it or attitude towards it.
There are exceptions, like you can get bored or irritated.

Question 16

3 points to one-sided vs two-sided arguments. 2 names

Answer 16

Two sided is usually better (O’Keefe 1990).
Exceptions: Low intelligence recipients, if people initially agree, or if they’re unfamiliar with the issue (Allen et al 1999).
Comparative advertising, where the rival product is presented alongside as inferior is a common instance.

Question 17

Whats the inoculation theory, whose it by? Whats a cultural truism? 1 more name.

Answer 17

McGuire (1964)
Most ordinary attitudes/beliefs are more or less resistant to persuasion through being exposed to mild attacks.
Cultural truisms- Something most people have never heard being questioned ‘It is a good idea to brush your teeth 3 times a day’ are more vulnerable to persuasion.
Based on biological analogy, resistance to persuasion of cultural truisms can be increased by inoculation.
Compton, Pfau (2005)

Question 18

Whats the concept of fear appeal? Who did the report on it, what year? Who found a conflicting results? What’s the explanation for the results.

Answer 18

Fear will persuade someone further.
Janis Feshbach (1953), in a dental hygiene found less fear = messages followed more thoroughly. Hypothesised a inverted U hypothesis.
However, Wtts, Pagano (1967) found the opposite result on fearful communication to help people stop smoking.
When fear is low = people little motivated to attend to it, because it doesn’t make clear the consequences. As fear increase, so does arousal, interest + attention. But at too much fear, anxiety, panic may distort attention.
If someone feels they have the resources to cope then they’ll act on it compared to if they don’t.

Question 19

What are the 3 recipient variables?

Answer 19

Self-esteem, sex differences, age differences.

Question 20

Describe who + what the 3 recipient variables are.

Answer 20

Initially, Hovland found that distracted audience= easily persuaded, low SE more susceptible.
Self-esteem (McGuire 1968) People with high or low self-esteem are less influenced.
Curvilinear affect.
Sex differences- Crutchfield 1955) Women are more influenced than men. However, depends on other factors e.g. Sistrunk, McDavid (1971) favoured that when the subject is one men are more familiar women are easily persuaded and vice versa.
Age differences( Visser, Krosnick 1998)
5 different hypothesis- Increasing persistence, Impressionable years, Life stages, Lifelong opens, Persistence. Visser supported life stages- High susceptibility during early adulthood and later life.

Question 21

Definition of the elaboration likelihood model?

Answer 21

People are cognitive misers who only expend cognitive effort on issue important to them.

Question 22

Who was the elaboration likelihood model by, year?

Answer 22

Petty, Cacioppo 1981, 1986

Question 23

Describe the elaboration likelihood model?

Answer 23

Duel-process they. Highly motivated individuals process the message with care and elaborate, think about argument )central route).
If the argument is compelling they show lasting attitude change.
People whose motivation and processing ability are low are likely to be influenced by peripheral factors such as attractiveness of the source. In this route attitude change will be short-lived and poorly predictive.
Everything depends on likelihood.

Question 24

What is compliance?

Answer 24

Langer, Black (1978) compliance due to mindlessness.

Response to a specific request by another. Different from obedience, and conformity.

Question 25

Who came up with the foot in the door technique?
+
door in the face technique

Answer 25

Freedman, Fraser 1966.

Cialdini et al 1975.

Question 26

Why does foot in the door technique work? Who by?

Answer 26

Bem 1967 Self-perception theory. Complying with a small request people become committed to their behaviour, develop a picture of themselves as ‘giving’

Question 27

Problem with foot in door technique? Who by?

Answer 27

Foss, Dempsey 1979- if initial request is too small or the larger request is too big then the theory breaks down.

Question 28

Who proposed cognitive dissonance and what is it?

Answer 28

Festinger (1957)
An unpleasant psychological tension is generated when someone has 2 or more different cognitions that are inconsistent with each other.

Question 29

Whats good about cognitive dissonance theory and who said it?

Answer 29

Insko 1967

It generates non-obvious predictions on how people make choices when faced with conflicting attitudes/behaviours.