Persuasion MAR 3503 February 7, 2012. A traditional model of persuasion.

Persuasion

MAR 3503

February 7, 2012

A traditional model of persuasion

Untrustworthy sources can be persuasive!

• …When they are arguing against their own interests

• An experiment by Walster et al. (1966):• Ps read about a convicted criminal, Joe “the

Shoulder” Napolitano, who argues either for– More powerful, stricter courts– More lenient courts and sentences

Untrustworthy sources can be persuasive!

When is a disliked source persuasive?

• Again, when their messages are unexpected• Ps read a message by a new university

administrator who:– …Is likeable or unlikeable– …Delivers a desirable or undesirable message

Eagly & Chaiken, 1975

Source is:

Message is: Likeable Unlikeable

Undesirable 2.6 0.1

Desirable 2.3 2.6

Dual process theories

• System 1 (peripheral route): relatively fast, associative, based on simple heuristics, often automatic, requiring little cognitive capacity, often unconscious

• System 2 (central route): relatively slow, rule-based, operating on high-effort, systematic reasoning, requiring cognitive capacity, often conscious when operating

• Domains: judgment, decisions, attribution, person perception, stereotyping, persuasion

Elaboration Likelihood Model

• Two routes to persuasion:– Central route: when the target is motivated and

able to systematically process the message– Peripheral route: when they are not

• The success of various source and message cues depends on which route a target is taking

Involvement and argument strength

• Ps read an essay arguing in favor of comprehensive exams, either– At their own school (high involvement)– At another school (low involvement)

• Arguments were either strong or weak• Hypothesis: Argument strength should have a

larger impact on attitudes under conditions of high involvement

Petty & Cacioppo, 1979


Argument strength:

Issue involvement Strong Weak

High

Low


Data: agreement with author’s position

Mood and argument strength

• Ps are placed in a good mood or a bad mood by writing about happy or sad life events

• Then they read weak or strong arguments in favor of a tuition hike at their school

Bless et al., 1990

Involvement, message, and source• Issue: School should change to a trimester

system, to be implemented either:– Next year (high involvement)– 10 years from now (low involvement)

• Source is either likeable and presents 1 argument or dislikeable and presents 5 arguments

• ELM makes unique predictions:• Central route will lead to more change with

dislikeable source, while peripheral route will lead to more change with likeable source

Chaiken, 1980

Involvement, message, and source

Source/message quality

Dislikeable, 5 arguments Likeable, 1 argument

High involvement

Low involvement

Chaiken, 1980

Involvement, message, & expertise

• Comprehensive exams to be instituted:– Next year (high involvement)– 10 years from now (low involvement)

• Message contains 8 strong or 8 weak arguments

• Message is attributed to a high schooler (low expertise) or a Princeton professor (high expertise)

Petty, Cacioppo, & Goldman, 1981

Involvement, message, & expertise


High personal relevance Low personal relevance

Celebrity endorsements

• Participants evaluate a magazine ad for a disposable razor

• High involvement: Product would soon be market tested in their community, and they would have an opportunity to select a razor as a free gift

• Low involvement: Product would soon be market tested in several distant cities

• Strong or weak arguments• Endorsed by celebrities or random citizens

Petty, Cacioppo, & Schumann, 1983


Petty, Cacioppo, & Schumann, 1983



High personal relevance Low personal relevance

Message strength vs. # of arguments

• Comprehensive exams to be implemented in one year or 10 years (yes, again!)

• Number of arguments: 3 or 9

• Argument strength: strong or weak


Message strength vs. # of arguments

Low involvement High involvementPetty & Cacioppo, 1984

Message strength vs. composition

• Tuition hike, at one’s own school or a different school

• Three sets of arguments:– 3 strong arguments– 3 weak arguments– 3 strong and 3 weak arguments


Message strength vs. composition


When does attitude change endure?

• Attitudes formed via the central route:– Persist longer• Watts (1977): Ps either write or read a persuasive

essay. Attitudes are assessed immediately and 6 weeks later• He found that writing and reading the essay produced

the same amount of attitude change initially• But writing the essay led to more processing via the

central route, and thus more change 6 weeks later– Are more predictive of behavior• Cornell housing study

Necessary psychological steps

• Perceive the message

• Favorably evaluate the message

• Understand the message

• Remember the message

If any of these steps fails, information will be

of no use

If any of these steps fails, information will be

of no use

Perception

Favorable evaluation

• Why might people not favorably evaluate a helpful message?– The medium• Not funny, interesting, likeable, fun

– The message itself• People get defensive when they’re being criticized

– Sometimes people just don’t like things

Understanding

Costanzo et al., 1986

Remember this

• Memory is not perfect• Information may even backfire

Persuasion process

Summary• Persuasion can happen through one of two routes:

central and peripheral– Central route when people have motivation or ability to

think about message– Peripheral when they do not

• What cues work to change attitudes differs depending on which route is in use– Peripheral cues include superficial aspects of endorsers

and number of arguments– Central cues include argument strength and expertise,

• Central route attitude change is more likely to stick

• Next time: When do people comply with requests?

Persuasion MAR 3503 February 7, 2012. A traditional model of persuasion.

Documents

Transcript of Persuasion MAR 3503 February 7, 2012. A traditional model of persuasion.