Persuasion and Marketing

Question 1

What is the definition of Persuasion?

Answer 1

A change in attitude, beliefs or behaviour in response to direct messages. Persuasion requires internalisation. -> requires you to internalise the message/becomes a belief/behaviour of your own that you endorse

Question 2

There are 3 different definitions of attitude containing different components. What are these?

Answer 2

1. Attitudes are an evaluation (can be pos or neg)
2. Attitudes are an evaluation component but with an added behavioural component -> preparing us to act and approach (when positive) or avoid (when negative)
3. Evaluation, readiness to act and a cognitive component (a collection of thoughts/beliefs) -> associating something with being positive or negative cognitively

Question 3

People can describe attitudes are being implicit or explicit, and use these terms for some different things, what are some examples of this?

Answer 3

• Measurement: i.e. watched you order something and implied implicitly that you liked it? Or explicitly asked whether you liked something.
• Processing (level): i.e. implicit (automatic and quick response), explicit (deliberate response that you act on consciously and reflextively)
• Mental Construct (completely separate in the mind and brain and are unrelated and represented by different regions): implicit and explicit

Question 4

Why is it so difficult to show an attitude to behaviour link in the laboratory?

Answer 4

• Not clear which component of the three attitude component model is important in a given situation (for driving behaviour -> i.e. is it the beliefs even though your behaviour feels avoidant)?
• Not clear which attitude is driving behaviour in a given situation?
• Behaviour toward one attitude object could be controlled by attitude toward another -> could be driving by multiple attitudes and the end point of attitude drives your behaviour.

Question 5

How do we process persuasive messages? [dual process model of persuasion]

Answer 5

Two Influential Models

Question 6

What are the two influential models in the dual process model of persuasion?

Answer 6

Heuristic Processing AND Systematic Processing
^ heuristic systematic model (Chaiken, 1980)

Question 7

What is Heuristic Processing?

Answer 7

Argument quality not important -> just causally listening because it’s not very cognitively demanding (attitude is shaped by what other people do -> don’t rely on cognitive processing a lot, you sort of just simply apply the rules then that’s what shapes your attitude) [faster and the default]

Question 8

What is Systematic Processing?

Answer 8

reflecting on arguments, winning the evidence (Are they logically coherent, do they fit with existing knowledge etc. -> consequence is that if you are persuaded through systematic knowledge then the change in attitude is more likely to perserve overtime (more resistant to change because it’s built on more stable foundation)) [personality determines if you’re more likely to engage in systematic or heuristic processing, -> high in need for cognition you like to think about things and therefore engage in systematic processing]

Question 9

Outline of Heuristic Processing

Answer 9

• Argument quality is not so important
• Less cognitively demanding
• relies upon simple rules i.e. ‘the majority rules, the lecturers are always right’
• THE DEFAULT

Question 10

Outline of Systematic Processing

Answer 10

• argument quality is important
• involves the effortful scrutiny of all relevant information
• ‘are the arguments logically coherent?’. ‘ do they fit with my existing knowledge?’
• attitude change is more enduring and more resistant to change
• one as the motivation to be accurate, defend an attitude, or create a positive impression
• one has the cognitive capacity for effortful processing
• one tends, by personality, to need clear explanations

Question 11

Researchers want to know what inspires quick heuristic processing and systematic processing -> the need to distinguish which one their participants are engaging in
-> researchers provide some participants with weak argument and other with strong argument -> know which group is engaged in heuristic vs. systematic processing based on whether there is a different between the degree at which people are persuaded by strong vs. weak arguments

Answer 11

• Low motivation condition -> no real difference between the degree at which people were persuaded by the weak vs. strong argument -> hallmark of heuristic processing
• High motivation condition -> gap in attitude change between degree at which people were persuaded by strong vs. weak -> hallmark of systematic processing
• Low distraction -> capacity to engage in systematic processing
• High distraction -> no capacity to engage in systematic processing (instead heuristic -> too much going on to be systematic)

Question 12

how may we know the difference between systematic and heuristic processing?

Answer 12

• one group is really motivated to have an accurate perception of the world -> so more highly motivated (systematic processing of the persuasive message) than the other group (which will be heuristically processing)

Question 13

What factors may affect persuasion, specifically manipulating the source (i.e. the spokesperson)

Answer 13

• Expertise
• Trustworthiness
• Likeability
• Status
• Group membership

^ these factors interact to determine the efficacy of persuasion

Question 14

What factors may affect the message of persuasion?

Answer 14

• One- vs two-sided (i.e. pros and cons to the argument) arguments
• Emotional vs cognitive appeal
• Explicit vs implicit conclusion -> telling people what to think (let them come up to the conclusions yourselves)

^ these factors interact to determine the efficacy of persuasion

Question 15

What message may affect the persuasion of the audience (what the audience is like will shape the degree to which people are persuaded)

Answer 15

• Intelligence
• Self-esteem
• Need for cognition
• Cognitive load

^ these factors interact to determine the efficacy of persuasion

Question 16

Teeny et al., (2020) suggests sources are more persuasive when they share characteristics (message) with the audience. Aubois and colleagues examined this matching benefit in terms of power.

The independent variable was POWER -> hypothesised that individuals in a high power state will be more persuaded by high powered others.
* Baseline: write about your last trip to the store
* Low power: write about a time you lacked power
* High power: write about a time you had power

The second Independent variable was Role
* Communicator (i.e., source): “…write a persuasive speech promoting your university…”
* Audience (read them)

Dependent Variable: audience attitude towards the University

Coded participants on two different dimensions:
* coding of argument competence (capable, skillful, intelligent, confident)
* coding of argument warmth (good natured, trustworthy, tolerant, friendly, sincere)

When looking at persuasiveness of different persuaders, what did they find?

Answer 16

Baseline condition: no diff between whether communicator had been manipulated to be in high or low power

When audience had been primed to be in a high power state: high power communicator were found to more persuasive

When in low power state: low power communicators were to be more persuasive

SO THEY MATCH -> more persuaded when the situation matched (audience power x communicator)

Question 17

But what is the mechanism underlying this matching affect? They based this on the power of an individual. What were these powers?

Answer 17

High Power Individuals and Low Power Individuals

Question 18

High Power Individuals

Answer 18

• less dependent on others
• more ‘agentic’
• focused on competence

Question 19

Low Power Individuals

Answer 19

• more dependent on others
• more ‘communal’
• focused on warmth (affiliation)

Question 20

Overall, what did they find when matching source and audience?

Answer 20

High-power communicators
* used more competence-related arguments
* competence-related arguments more persuasive among high-power audiences

Low-power communicators,
* used more warmth-related arguments,
* warmth-related arguments more persuasive among low-power audiences
^provides a mechanism whereby the communicative power affected the attitudes of audience members based on their level of power

Question 21

What are the individual differences between the need for affect and a need for cognition?

Answer 21

Scales for need for Affect and a Scale for need for cognition

• degree to which you like and enjoy feeling things (affect) / like and need for thinking about things (cognition)

Question 22

What does the need for Affect scale include?

Answer 22

Scale from -3 (strongly disagree) to +3 (strongly agree) to rate items such as:
* “I like to dwell on my emotions”
* “I would prefer not to experience either the lows or highs of emotion” (reversed scored)
-> like/need for feeling things

Question 23

What does the need for cognition scale include?

Answer 23

Scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) to rate items such as:
* “I really enjoy a task that involves coming up with new solutions to problems”
* “Thinking is not my idea of fun” (reverse scored)
-> like/need for thinking

Question 24

Haddock et al., (2008) measured individual differences in the need for cognition and the need for affect. The individual difference was message orientation, manipulating a message about an imaginary animal (to be affect or cognition oriented).

They measured (DV) the attitude towards lemphur (made up animal) afterwards.
* both conditions contained valience information

What did they find?

Answer 24

Cognitive-oriented message: whether or not they were high or low/need for affect didn’t matter, both types of people were equally affected by cognition oriented message
* BUT found, high vs. low need for cognition, those higher in need were more persuaded by those cognition oriented messages

Affected-oriented message: individuals high in need for affect, more persuaded by affect but no significant difference when looking for cognition -> no different in high/low need for cognition were affected by affect messages

Question 25

How do we process expert arguments?

Answer 25

People process experts’ message heuristically when not very motivated -> Believe the expert regardless of whether argument is weak or strong when not motivated

On the other hand, people are likely to attend more closely to expert’s arguments (and process them systematically) when they are interested -> Complete opposite when motivated/interested

Question 26

When do we systematically process expert’s messages more than non-experts?

Answer 26

in situations where we are motivated and want to confirm our existing attitudes ->
we seek to confirm our existing attitudes (e.g., Nickerson, R. S., 1998).

Question 27

What is the difference between proattitudinal and counterattitudinal?

Answer 27

Proattitudinal: when people agree with us, we trust experts and process their arguments heuristically. But we scrutinize non-experts in order to (motivated) identify weaknesses in “our side”

Counterattitudinal: When people disagree with us, we ignore non-experts. But we scrutinize experts in order to better counter them/their message.

Question 28

How can we experiment what happens when we cross these factors (counterattitudinal and proattitudinal)(non-expert and expert)

Expertise, Argument and Audience was looked at in 4 stages:

1. ATTITUDE PRE-ASSESSMENT (“Should junk food be taxed?”)
   * Separates participants in two conditions: pro-attitudinal arguments and counter-attitudinal arguments.
2. SOURCE MANIPULATION
   * Expert condition: “Leading scholar in the field of health and food sciences.”
   * Non-expert condition: “A high school junior.”
3. ARGUMENT MANIPULATION
   * Strong condition: “The tax will provide $70m for healthy lifestyle initiatives.”
   * Weak condition: “The tax will provide a small amount of money.”

ATTITUDE POST-ASSESSMENT (“Should junk food be taxed?”)

What did they find for the Proattitudinal group ?

Answer 28

scruntize (systematic processing) more closely when the comment was delivered by a non-expert source but only heuristically processed the argument from the expert source -> in line with researchers predicted

• when someone is talking about something, you heuristically process it if you think they’re an expert but you pay more attention if they’re a non-expert

Question 29

What was found in the Counter-Attitudinal condition?

Answer 29

when source was an expert, could tell between weak and strong arguments but not so significantly when the source was a non-expert

Question 30

How can we argue that Brands are social objects?

Answer 30

According to the Brands as Intentional Agents Framework: brands are social objects and, like humans, are perceived in terms of intentions and ability (analogous to warmth and competence). The combination of these dimensions elicits different emotional responses.
*combining those two simultaneously, we can see where it falls in the dimensional space

Question 31

How do brands sit on the dimensional space?

Answer 31

High on Ability and Intention [Admiration - Popular Brands]

High on Ability and low on Intentions [Envy - Envied Brands]

High on Intentions but Low on Ability [Pity - Paternalised Brands]

Low on Ability and Intentions [Contempt - Troubled Brands]

Question 32

Describe Strong Brand Relationships

Answer 32

• elicit loyalty that goes beyond habit.
• reflect or contribute to the self concept.
• lead to resistance to negative information about the brand -> if you have a loyalty.
• lead to feelings of betrayal when the brand falls short of expectations.
• rely to some extent on anthropomorphism of the brand by marketers.
• vary with individual differences in personality (e.g., attachment style).

Question 33

What is Anthropomorphism?

Answer 33

• The attribution of human characteristics to inanimate objects, animals, etc.
• Used in branding whereby brands themselves are anthropomorphised -> giving them a association.
• Used in product design whereby products have humanlike features.
• These features can have a positive effect on product impressions (e.g., Delbaere et al., 2011).

Question 34

What happens when Participants learn about a product that is either anthropomorphised or was not - does it alter their attitudes?

• Non-anthropomorphised: “It is the most reliable and leading brand….It makes images that once were only a dream now a reality.”
• Anthropomorphised: “I am the most reliable and leading brand….I make images that once were only a dream now a reality.”
  THEN, the participants learned that product did not work (violated it’s expectations):
• WHAT are their attitudes toward the brand -> now that it doesn’t work?

HYPOTHESIS: It will depend on the social beliefs of the consumer. Are they entity or incremental theorists… When you make a brand more human…
HYPOTHESISED THAT:
* (anthropomorphised) Entity theorists will hold its mistakes against it (the brand)
* Incremental theorists will not do so (more flexible believing it might be a one off situation).

What did they find?

Answer 34

When product was anthropomorphised, Entity had more negative attitudes toward the brand (applying social rules to the product)

For Incremental Theorist, it did not matter if it was anthropomorphised or not

Question 35

What are Entity Theorists?

Answer 35

• Expect behaviour to be consistent over time (Ross and Nisbett 1991).
• Characterize a person based on a single act (Chiu, Hong, and Dweck 1997).
• focus on personality traits

Question 36

What are Incremental Theorists?

Answer 36

• Believe that behaviour changes with context (Dweck and Molden 2008).
• Do not expect behaviour to be stable over time (Levy and Dweck 1999) -> cause context shapes behaviours.
• focus on behaviour

Question 37

What about when corporates respond to make up for the mistake when it’s happened?

DENIAL: “We strongly deny these allegations and wish to ensure our valued customers and the public that the company has, thus far, fulfilled its promises in delivering the best quality to our customers.”

APOLOGY: “We would like to apologize to our valued customers and offer assurance that this type of unfortunate situation will never be repeated.”

COMPENSATION: “we would like to apologize to our valued customers and offer assurance that this type of unfortunate situation will never be repeated. Furthermore, we will provide compensation in one of two forms: 1) a free camera replacement; or 2) a free lens repair with a 15% discount off your next Zook purchase.”

Looked at Entity vs. Incremental Theorists

What did they find?

Answer 37

• Denial didn’t work well across both conditions -> had more negative attitudes in post conditions
• Compensation worked the best
• No difference between Non-anthropomorphised and anthropomorphised for incremental theorists
  **BUT critical for entity theories, when anthropomorphised, they liked the brand less, they apply social rules to the brand and are rigid, taking a lot to give them a positive attitude

Question 38

Audience Resistance Strategies

Answer 38

we can do it physically, mechanically and cognitive avoidance; we can actively contest the context (i.e. I don’t believe that source, content and tactics); we can empower ourselves by seeking validation for our attitudes and bolstering our attitude and self assertion

Question 39

Resistance neutralising tactics

Answer 39

we might engage in forced exposure, branded content and viral marketing (we can’t avoid this - esp when branded content tends to be snuck into films), against contesting, engaging in two-sided advertising, overwhelming those with information so they’re cognitively depleted, conveying the message that the brand is a safe space; get around people empowering themselves by empowering them in term (i.e. they affirm you, so you can trust them: you seem like someone who likes and deserves to be free, buy pepsi”),

Question 40

how do individuals evaluate brands?

Answer 40

in terms of their intentions and abilities as they would evaluate people in terms of warmth and competence

Question 41

what is the sleeper effect?

Answer 41

delayed increase in the effect of a message that is accompanied by a discounting cue
* discounting cue may be some negative connotation or lack of credibility in the message