lecture 6 - persuasive communication Flashcards
Group persuasion
- What factors determine whether we’re likely to comply with a group?
- When are minority influences in a group most persuasive?
- When is media-based persuasion most effective?
When and how do we resist group pressure?
group persuasion - why do people conform
informational influence - the desire to be right usually leads us to change our minds and our behaviour
“other people have unique information”
normative influence - the desire to be liked may lead us to change our public behaviour but not our private opinions
“it is uncomfortable disagreeing with other people”
Group Persuasion
Why do people conform?
Informational Influence
- “Conformity due to own epistemic limits” (Cognitive?)
Conformity is higher for ambiguous topics on which subjects are least well informed (Coleman, Blake, & Mouton, 1958)
For example, complex sociopolitical problems
(“how should we balance the need for
economic growth with combatting climate
change?”) seem to generate a lot of conformity
pressure – perhaps one reason for the power of
political identity
Easy and unambiguous
- the smallest state in the union is: Connecticut, Delaware, New Jersey, Rhode Island
Vs Hard and ambiguous
- avid means the same as or the opposite of; eager, vivid, arid, volatile
Group Persuasion
Why do people conform?
Normative Influence
- “Conformity to avoid feeling bad” (Affective?)
- Deviants in a group expect (Gerard & Rotter, 1961) and receive (Deutsch & Gerard, 1955) more negative evaluations from the others.
Conformity is higher when people depend on the group for rewards (Lewis, Langan, & Hollander, 1972) or will interact with them in the future (Deutsch & Gerard, 1955)
Is Normative Influence Contained?
Gradual private change
Normative Influence
- Conformity occurs first for public behaviour, but this behaviour may cause people to later change their private beliefs (Buehler & Griffin, 1993)
- Why? People don’t like to be (seen as) hypocrites – we want our attitudes to match the attitudes implied by our behaviours.
“We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be.” - Vonnegut
group persuasion - other factors
people conform when…
Commitment to
the Group
In general,
greater
commitment to
a group leads
to greater
pressure for
conformity.
group unanimity
There is a
unanimous
majority.
One dissenter
can reduce the
amount of
conformity.
group size
There are
several other
people holding
the same view
or performing
the same
behaviour.
desire for individuation
Individual
differences,
i.e., personality.
Group Persuasion
Group Unanimity
Solomon Asch paradigm
Even a lone ally decreased the pressure to conform
Interestingly, the ally could also be wrong!
As long as it seemed okay to give a different answer, individuals felt less pressure to comply.
Demonstrates the power of (often illusory) unanimity.
selects the correct response (B) at a higher rate, even though “C” (the rebellious answer) is not actually correct
inference: broken “unanimity”
conformity drops (from 32% to 9%)
Group Persuasion
Group Size
Asch also detected backfire when his paradigm added as many as 15 confederates; however, he surmised this could be due to increased suspicion.
General conclusion should probably be that larger group sizes increase conformity, but this levels off quickly (e.g., at 5-15).
graph in notes
Minority Influence
Moscovici studies
Moscovici’s (1985) Studies
- Six-person groups rated the colour of slides, with a two-person minority of confederates.
- The confederates consistently said “green” when the true answer was blue.
Almost a third of participants reported seeing at least one green slide.
minority influence - three main factors
When minority influence is effective (and possibly trusted)
Consistency - they have to consistently show the same pattern of response and can’t waver on their attitude position. consistent with core message (Wood et al., 1994;
Moscovici et al., 1969)
Early defections from
the majority side. - when it happens it creates a cascade effect, early converts make others think its ok to change my mind(Clark III, 1990)
Minority is similar
to the majority
(Volpato et al., 1990)
Minority Influence
Dual process perspective?
Why the minority is effective
The dual-process hypothesis suggests
that majorities elicit conformity,
whereas minorities elicit
conversion/innovation (Moscovici,
1985; Peterson & Nemeth, 1996).
This is also consistent with Petty’s
research last lecture.
System I
fluency
System II
disruption
Media Influences
Descriptive Data
- Possibly more than half of waking day is spent with media, far more than face-to-face interactions with all friends and family.
- Thus, crucial we understand its influence.
Digital has surpassed traditional, yet both remain crucial.
graph in notes
Media Influences
Effectiveness
- Power of ‘broadcast’ media comes not just from scope of message dissemination – also comes from shared awareness that so many others are watching.
- When aware that others are watching same event (e.g., sports, political speeches etc.) this initiates shared attention effect - and thus higher elaboration likelihood (Steynberg, Bramlett, Fles & Cameron, 2016).
- Critical thinking: Can be this be consistent with the idea that majority influences induce conformity? Why or why not?
Media Influences
Effectiveness
- Mostly correlational surveys on what ads and content viewed, related to various political activities (Baek, 2015; Greenwood, Sorensen & Warner, 2016).
– Can we draw causal conclusions? - Retrospective self-report is fallible
- Self-presentation biases
- Self-selection as we are not passive viewers of context
– Remember previous weeks: selective cognitive processes…
Media Influences
Effectiveness
- Is consumed media cause or effect?
- We know politically motivated people more likely to consume congruent political media than less motivated (Iyengar, 2004) which makes media seem more of a mechanism than a cause.
Media can frame what is considered ‘important’ (Cialdini, 2016). The very fact something is being covered implies importance.
Media Influences
Structural Bias
- First studies coding the content of broadcast media (Gerbner, Gross, Morgan & Signorielli, 1986) – on TV, males outnumbered females 3 to 1 – warping reality
- Films 2007 to 2012: women have 25% of speaking roles (Smith et al., 2013). Ethnic minorities, & older adults or children below base rates.
- Prime time TV overrepresents crime – heavy viewers (5 hours per day) tend to endorse more prejudiced views, assume women have relatively limited abilities, overestimate prevalence of violent crime, etc.
– causal or cyclical?
Media Influences
Where does it come from?
- Facebook, Twitter/X, etc. – now more than just social networking and entertainment.
- Primary source for disseminating others opinions on everything and anything: e.g., political candidates, parenting practices, current events, restaurants.
Facebook ‘Meaningful Social Interaction’ algorithm means 3% of users determine bulk of content.
Media Influences
Where does it come from?
- Interestingly, even “apolitically” motivated engagement on social media (e.g., done just to catch up with friends/family, meet new people) relates to political change. (Diehl, Weeks, & Gil de Zuniga, 2016.)
One reason is that socially motivated usage still increases network heterogeneity, which prompts more discussion of disagreements. This then relates to political change
graph in notes
Media Influences
What to do?
- Vallone et al. (1985): merely exposing people to contrary information doesn’t simply convert them.
- The “other side” is biased; “my side” is objective (naïve realism)
- More effective: role-playing taking the other side (Lord et al., 1984)
- If I make the pro-X arguments, the pro-X arguments seem reasonable. Essentially hijacks our high esteem of ourselves.
- I have conceptually replicated these results myself!
»> Interactive Task, time permitting
(persuade your neighbour of something you may not believe
Media Influences
Effectiveness
- Media persuades by bolstering and shaping worldviews
- How often does media persuade us to change our worldview?
- Reviews suggest small effect on what we buy, health habits or voting behavior.
Why?
persuasion system - resistance
System I
Motivation
Behavioural approach
To agreeable people/things.
Attention
Selective
attention
cognition
Selective
processing;
mnemic
neglect.
emotion
Maintain
positive mood
Persuasion System
Resistance
- 1964 US surgeon general issued report linking smoking to lung cancer – incontrovertible evidence of risks of smoking – equal impact on smokers and non-smokers?
- 40% of smokers found the document flawed, 10% of non-smokers (Gilovich & Ross, 2004).
Does this remind you of previous lecture?
what makes people resist?
Attitude Inoculation
Reactance
Public Commitment
Knowledge; Meta-knowledge
Persuasion System
Attitude Inoculation
- McGuire (1961) - Attitude Inoculation: “small ‘attacks’ on our beliefs that would engage our pre-existing attitudes, prior commitments and background knowledge and thereby counteract a larger ‘attack’.
- Overcoming weak arguments from the other side can strengthen us against stronger versions of those arguments later. (I.e., straw man arguments.)
- “If-then” programming: IF you see this argument, HERE is the response (counter).
Bolster System I (automatize resistance)
