PY1118 Persuasion & Attitude Change

8/2/2019 PY1118 Persuasion & Attitude Change

1/34

Persuasion & Attitude Change


2/34

Overview

Attitude changeAttitude inconsistency & cognitive dissonancePersuasion

Models of persuasionElaboration Likelihood Model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1984)

Increasing compliance

Resisting persuasion


3/34

Attitude change via cognitive dissonance

Cognitive dissonance = inconsistencybetween attitudes and/or behaviour

Festinger & Carlsmith (1959)asked participants toperform a boring task (turning pegs quarter turn left,then quarter turn right) for twenty minutes

After completing the task, paid them either $1 or$20 to tell the next participant that the task wasreally interesting.


4/34

Festinger & Carlsmiths (1959) results

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Enjoy Task

$1

$20

TaskIntere

st


5/34

Attitude change via cognitive dissonance

$1 group rated task more interesting than $20 group

Why? participants in the $20 group explain the

inconsistency between their experience and the liethey tell the next participant because they havebeen fairly well paid

However, the $1 group dont have this explanation,because they only received $1. So, the only way thecan reduce the feeling of dissonance is to convincethemselves that the task was really interesting


6/34

Cognitive dissonance: Limitations

Dissonance harder to create than imagined

Most attempts at attitude change, therefore, focuson trying to persuade people to change theirattitudes


7/34

Persuasive Communication


8/34

Attitude change: Yale Model

Persuasive communication major WW2 research effort

into voluntary rationing, propaganda etc. (Hovland et al.,

1953)

Source (communicator): Who is trying to persuadeyou?

Message (communication): What is being said?

Audience: Who is the audience?


9/34

Who do you believe?

We must reduce ourcarbon footprint to

prevent climate change

We do not need to reduceour carbon footprint to

prevent climate change


10/34

Attitude change: Yale Model; Source

Source (communicator): Who is trying to

persuade you?Hovland & Weiss (1951) found that participants

evaluated articles from a believable and trustworthysource (e.g., an academic journal) more favourably

than articles from a low credibility source (e.g., a

politically biased columnist)

Bochner & Insko (1967) found that students weremore inclined to believe an expert when it came to

estimating how many hours sleep humans need


11/34

Which message is more likely to changebehaviour?


12/34

Attitude change: Yale Model; Message

Message (communication): What is being said?Janis and Fesbach (1953) found message advocating

frequent teeth brushing was more effective if it elicited

moderate fear about the risks of not brushing, byshowing discoloured and decayed teeth as opposed

to high fear by showing gory effects of not brushing,

like death!


13/34

Attitude change: Yale Model

When might experts fail to persuade you?

Why do gruesome images fail to change behaviour?


14/34

When might experts fail to persuade you?

?


15/34

Why do gruesome images fail to changebehaviour?

?


16/34

Attitude change: Who is the audience?

Different audiences may require differentmessages, in different formats

Chaiken and Eagly (1983) looked at theinteraction between message complexity (easy,hard) and medium of delivery (written, audio,

video) on attitude change


17/34

Chaiken & Eagly (1983)

0

0.51

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Easy Difficult

Written

Audio

VideoOpinionChange


18/34

Attitude change: Who is the audience?

Key factor in persuasion is the audiences prior beliefs

Strong beliefs are hard to change, even when presented

with strong counter-arguments

Weak, or non-existent, beliefs much easier to change

Duck et al. (1999) also showed that we tend to see otherpeople as more easily persuaded compared to us.


19/34

Dual-process models of persuasion

Several models of persuasion in SocialPsychology propose that there are two routes topersuasion

Direct route focusing on content using strongarguments

Indirect route focusing on surface features ofmessage; present persuasion using attractive orknowledgeable sources


20/34

Attitude Change via Elaboration

Petty & Cacioppo (1986) Elaboration Likelihood

Model (ELM) proposes two routes to persuasion

Central route

Closely attended to, has personal meaning,cognitive route, try to remember eg. Medical

advice, Essay guidelines

Peripheral route

More superficial, association of cues with

message e.g., ISA allowance information


21/34

Attitude change: ELM: Relevance to you

ELM states that people elaborate arguments more when

they are about a topic that matters to them

If the topic is important to you (e.g., tuition fees) you will

process the argument carefully!

However, if the topic is unimportant (e.g., tax credits for

elderly people) you will probably not process the

argument so carefully.


22/34

Attitude change: ELM: Relevance to you

Petty et al. (1981) tested the idea that relevance affects

attitudes

Students reported their attitudes about a new exam, then

listened to a radio broadcast outlining why new exams

were needed

This year (high relevance)

In ten years time (low relevance)

Arguments were either strong (exams help with

coursework) or weak (sounds like a good idea)

Attitudes measured again


23/34

Petty et al.s (1981) Results

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

00.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Low Relevance High Relevance

P

ost-meassage

attitudes

Strong

Weak

Argumentquality doesnot matter

Argumentquality matters


24/34

Enhancing message compliance: Foot in the door

Foot-in-the-door = If target agrees to a small request theymay agree to a larger one later.

Freedman and Fraser (1966): Went door-to-door randomlyselecting houses in California and asked homeowners to

put a large, ugly, sign urging people to Drive Carefully.

Two weeks before, asked some homeowners to sign apetition to support a campaign for safe driving

Over 55% agreed to put up the sign if they agreed to signthe petition

Less than 20% agreed to put up the sign if they had notbeen approached before


25/34

Enhancing message compliance: Door-in-the-face

Door-in-the-face = start with large request that is bound tobe refused, follow-up with small request

Cialdini et al. (1975) asked students to serve as a voluntarycounseller at a youth offenders centre for two hours a

week for two yearsNo takers

Then asked if they would chaperone a group of offendersto the zoo for two hours

50% agreed

Participants who were just asked if they would chaperoneoffenders to the zoo

17% agreed


26/34

Enhancing message compliance: Low-ball tactic

Low-ball tactic = agree to request even after details change

Cialdini et al. (1978)Half their participants asked to be in an experiment thatbegan at 7am (Control)

Other half asked to commit themselves to theexperiment beforebeing told the experiment starts at 7(Low Ball)

31% of Control group agreed to take part in the study

56% of Low Ball group agreed to take part; they were alsomore likely to turn up!


27/34

Resistance to persuasion

Cognitive processes help us resist persuasion

Attention: Selectively process arguments to support our

point of view; ignore strong counter-arguments, butremember weak counter-arguments

Memory: Very unlikely to be persuaded if we cannot

remember arguments: poor processing of counter-arguments undermines memory for the arguments


28/34

Resistance to persuasion

Reactance (Brehm 1966)react against message; do the opposite of GPs

advice

Forewarningcan lead to forearming with counter arguments


29/34

Resistance to persuasion: Inoculation (McGuire)

Inoculation: exposure to small doses of persuasionboosts resistance

McGuire & Papageorgis (1961) students indicatedagreement on 15-pt scale with health beliefs like:Good idea to brush your teeth after each meal

Effects of penicillin have been of great benefit to mankind

Everyone should get a chest X-ray to detect TBMental illness is not contagious


30/34

Resistance to persuasion: Inoculation (McGuire)

McGuire & Papageorgis (1961) students allocatedto different conditions:

Supportive defence (essay supporting position)

Inoculation defence (essay with weak attack of position,

which was refuted)

Control (no attack)

Control (attack)

Finally, students asked to indicate agreement with

health beliefs


31/34

McGuire & Papageorgis (1961) results

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Inoculation Support Control (no

attack)

Control

(attack)

Acce

ptanceofHea

lthBelief


32/34

McGuire & Papageorgis (1961):Interpretation

McGuire & Papageorgis (1961) results show:Control (attack) reduced agreement, while Control (no

attack) did not change agreement

Supportive defence (essay supporting position) helped

maintain agreement relative to control (attack)

However, Inoculation defence (essay with weak attack

of position, which was refuted), was more effective

relative to control (attack)


33/34

Resistance to Persuasion: Attitude Certainty

Tormala & Petty (2002): participants who resistedmore persuasive arguments had higher attitudecertainty than participants who resisted lesspersuasive arguments

Tormala & Petty argue resisting strong argumentsboosts our confidence in our attitudes and increasesour certainty.

Only works for strong arguments because it is tooeasy to dismiss weak arguments


34/34

References

Chapter 6 Hogg & Vaughan

Chapter 4 Crisp & Turner

Tormala, Z.L., & Petty, R.E. (2002). What doesnt

kill me makes me stronger: The effects ofresisting persuasion on attitude certainty, Journal

of Personality & Social Psychology, 83, 1298-

1313.

Documents

PY1118 Persuasion & Attitude Change