Greg Detre
Wednesday, 24 May, 2000
Prof Emler
The �persuasion model� of attitude change. Cmmon sense + learning theory
Source characteristics: Kelman�s analysis
Sleeper effects
Message content: motivational effects
Experiments vs field studies: problems of external validity
Two process models, e.g. McGuire: reception vs acceptance processes
Familiarity and �mere exposure� (cf Zajonc)
Cognitive response models
The �elaboration likelihood model� (Petty & Cacioppo)
The �heuristic-systematic model� (Chaiken)
if attitudes are related/underly behaviour � might we want to/can we change them?
e.g. govt, advertising (not very careful/scientific evaluations)
attitude = function of persusasion
Yale communication model � Karl Popper, Harold Kelly, Carol Hovland, Irving Janis, Herbert Kelman
source of persuasion
medium - what form it takes
the message itself
the target of persuasion
had its roots in learning theory + common sense
Kelman�s (1958) 3 processes of attitude change:
compliance (power)
identification (attraction)
internalisation (credibility � trustworthiness + experience)
e.g. worry of American POWs being brainwashed
Hovland � played �Battle of Britain� to GIs � immediate impact, fades over time
gave some people questionnaire 1 week after seeing the film, and others 9 weeks later
over time � some questions decreased
other questions: the effect actually increased
= the Sleeper effect � the source as its own credibility
Hovland, Weiss (1951) � �Sleeper effect�
manipulated source credibility
drugs taken without prescription � Medical Authority vs students
high cred source will have high impact which will decline
whereas the impact of low cred source will increase over time � forget your doubts about the source, remember the message
their relative impacts converge
�, Greenwald, Leippe & Baumgartner, 1988
effects occurs if:
presented with a message
new evidence in favour of claim
evidence completely discrediting credibility of source
immediately rate trustworthiness of source
Fear appeals
manipulate fear campaigns (e.g. AIDS ad campaign)
arouse fear, then suggest solution, which lowers the anxiety �/span> attitude change
but: the message which arouses most fear �/span> lowest attitude change (because the solution is perceived as being insufficient to reduce the fear)
Maddus + Rogers (1983)
target must be convinced that:
danger is serious
dangerous outcome is probable
recommended response will work
target is capable of response
e.g. earthquakes in California
unnatural in the lab � have people�s complete attention
Attitude change
McGuire�s (1969, 1985) process model
attention
comprehension
yielding
retention
behaviour
Mere exposure effect
we like what�s familiar � just being exposed to something influences us positively
Rogers (1962)
how people adopt new technologial innovations
awareness (mass media)
interest
evaluation (inter-personal)
trial (personal experience)
adoption
more attitude change when they didn�t focus on the content
= distraction? not thinking about the source of the message
got people to argue while counting lights � people come up with fewer counter arguments and are more accepting if they�re distracted counting the lights
= another 2 process model
weak arguments and distract them
or you can give them strong arguments when they�re attending
Systematic heuristic model
Petty & Cacioppo (1986) � Elaboration Likelihood Model
the likelihood that a subject will elaborate on the subject in their mind
1. People are motivated to hold correct attitudes
2. Cognitive effort to achieve this (f) of person and situation
3. Variables (e.g. number of arguments)
serve as persuasive argument
serve as peripheral cue
affect extent of elaboration
4. Variables can either enhance or reduce message scrutiny (Elaboration)
5. EL is (f) of motivation & ability. Increased elaboration decreases peripheral cue impact
6. Peripheral cues can have both positive and negative effects on persuasion
7. Change via central route is more persistent, resistant to change, greater impact on behaviour
Petty, Cacioppo & Goldman (1981)
expertise of source � peripheral cue
predicted: will matter when you�re not very involved
high involvement � expertise = high impact
arguments
What is a �strong argument� � how measure objectively?
just asked people which they thought were strong arguments
looked at the structure of arguments � factual claim + evaluative tone � easier to process information about value, than about factual claims