Week 9 - Persuasion Flashcards
(25 cards)
Two Models of Persuasion
- Heuristic-Systematic Model
2. Elaboration-Likelihood Model
Dual-Process Model of Persuasion: Heuristic-Systematic Model
Peripheral (Heuristic) Process
- Unconscious, fast, automatic
- Use of peripheral information or heuristics for evaluation
E.g. Source attractiveness, source expertise, number and length of arguments, consensus
Central (Systematic) Process
- Conscious, slower, more deliberate
- Use of central or systematic processing of information for evaluation
E.g. Argument quality (Does the argument make sense? Is it convincing?)
Dual-Process Model of Persuasion: Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM)
The basic idea: When you see a message, can either think about it a lot or a little
Thinking a lot about it means you have elaborated on the message; “taking the central route”
Thinking a little about it means you have not elaborated on the message; “taking the peripheral route”
ELM lists factors that determine how likely you will elaborate or not.
Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM)
Factors that influence elaboration -> The Process
-> Factors that promote persuasion
Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM)
Factors that influence elaboration: -Issue is personally relevant. -Knowledgeable about the issue. The Process: -Central (Systematic) Factors that promote persuasion: -Argument quality
Factors that influence elaboration: -Issue is not personally relevant. -Tired or distracted. -Message is hard to understand. The Process: -Peripheral (Heuristic) Factors that promote persuasion: -Source attractiveness, expertise -No. and length of arguments -Consensus
Two “routes” to persuasion: Central and Peripheral
Central:
- Used when there is high ability and motivation to “elaborate”.
- If you are not distracted and you care about the topic, you will pay attention to the logic/rationale of the message
- Arguments, statistics, numbers, logic
Peripheral:
- Used when there is low ability and motivation to “elaborate”.
- If you are distracted and do not care about the topic, you will not pay a lot of attention to the message itself; will use superficial cues
- Celebrity endorsements, attractiveness, emotions, pictures
When Does Argument Strength or Source Expertise Matter?
- Argument strength matters when relevance of issue is high
- Source expertise matters when relevance of issue is low
Elements of Persuasion
Who said What to Whom
Who? -Message Source
What?- Message Content
Whom?- Message Receiver
WHO: Source Characteristics
- Attractiveness
More attractive people are more persuasive
Halo Effect: People you like (e.g., good looking people, famous people, close other) are assumed to have other good qualities as well - Credibility
Are the sources reliable or not?
Experts are more persuasive than non-experts because we trust them more - . Certainty
Does the person express his/her views with confidence?
Sources that express higher confidence and conviction when communicating their views are more persuasive.
- Credibility
The Sleeper Effect: Messages from unreliable sources tend to be rejected initially, but over time become accepted
The message and the (unreliable) source are separate pieces of information.
Initially stored together, but over time they can become dissociated
No longer remember that you should “discount” the message, and may start to believe the message.
Political smear campaigns: Voters are often exposed to negative info about candidates.
Note: The sleeper effect only occurs if the unreliable source is known AFTER reading the message, not before.
WHAT: Message Characteristics
- Message quality
Higher quality messages are more persuasive
Features of high quality message
They are straightforward, clear, and logical
Conclusions are explicit in the message (e.g., here is the take-away…)
Sources argue against their own interest (e.g., a prison inmate advocating longer prison sentence)
WHAT: Message Characteristics
- Message vividness: More vivid messages are more persuasive
Identifiable victim effect: Messages that focus on a single, vivid individual are more persuasive than fact-based messages
Fear appeals generally work as long as they include efficacy statements (instructions)
i.e. how to quit, how to change behaviour
WHOM: Receiver Characteristics
- Age: Young people are more persuadable than old people
Why? Older ppl have more life experience (rely on their schemas more)
WHOM: Receiver Characteristics
- Mood: Feeling negative or positive mood increases persuasion
Strong emotions -> more persuasion
Sad or depressed -> greater processing of pessimistic and counter-attitudinal messages
Happy -> greater processing of optimistic and pro-attitudinal messages
Guilt -> more persuasion when message conveys how to reduce the guilt (e.g., donating to the poor).
WHOM: Receiver Characteristics
- Need for Cognition: The degree to which someone thinks deeply about things
High NFC people are persuaded by central cues
Low NFC people are persuaded by peripheral cues
Matching: Tailoring Massage to Receiver
Matching effect: A message is more persuasive when the message content is matched to specific receiver characteristics.
American ads emphasized benefits to the individual (e.g., “Make your way through the crowd”), while Korean ads emphasized benefits to collectives (e.g., “We have a way of bringing people closer together”).
Upper-class individuals were more persuaded by messages with more independent themes, whereas lower-class individuals were more persuaded by messages with more interdependent themes.
Media & Conceptions of Social Reality
Media may not always sway your opinions, but they shape your perceptions of what issues are important
Agenda control: Tendency for media to select and emphasize specific events and topics, making people believe they are important
The Hostile Media Phenomenon
People tend to believe that the media are biased against our beliefs and preferences.
This is due to a fallacy known as naïve realism—the belief that the way we see the world is reasonable and objective, and people who disagree with us are biased.
As such, any media that attempts to present both sides of an issue is likely to be perceived as biased by people on both sides. In other words, “balanced reporting” is usually perceived as biased by both sides!
Resistance to Persuasion
- Selective Attention & Evaluation
- Level of Knowledge
- Public Commitment
- Attitude Innoculation
Selective Attention
Attitudes—a type of schema—also guide attention
Selective Attention:
- People seek out and tune into information that supports their pre-existing attitudes
- People avoid and tune out information that contradicts their pre-existing attitudes
Selective Evaluation
People like things that support their current attitudes and dislike things that contradict their current attitudes.
- Desire to maintain beliefs motivated skepticism towards information that challenges one’s beliefs
Difference between selective attention and evaluation
Selective attention: people are not exposed to arguments for both sides (you already filtered stuff out and only pay attention to things you believe in)
Selective evaluation: people are exposed to arguments for both sides then they make a biased judgement
Level of Knowledge
Attitudes based on more knowledge are more resistant to change.
Having greater knowledge means we can offer more and better counterarguments to defend our attitude.
Public Commitment
Publically committing to an attitude or intended behavior increases resistance to change.
Telling other people about our likes/dislikes and intentions “binds” us to those things and we want to maintain a consistent self-image
Thought Polarization: Simply thinking about an issue tends to produce more extreme, resistant attitudes.
- Commitment increases thought polarization (e.g., now I need to think of all the reasons to defend abortion)
