Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
168 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
what is climax order?
what is anti-climax order? is one better than the other? |
-climax: most important argument LAST
-anti-climax: most important argument FIRST -small benefit for climax order |
|
|
which order is preferred when time is limited -climax/anti-climax?
|
-anti-climax
|
|
|
should you state a conclusion for your audience OR should you let them draw their own conclusion?
|
-state the conclusion
-making the message explicit is more effective |
|
|
what is recommendation specificity?
does specificity help/hurt a persuader? |
-when the communicator is urging a particular action, the message can vary in specificity w/which action is described
-from a general recommendation to a message w/more specific/detailed recommendation -more specific descriptions HELPS persuasion |
|
|
what's a 1-sided message?
what's a 2-sided message? |
-1-sided: has supporting arguments- ignores opposing arguments
-2-sided: has arguments for both sides (supporting/opposing) -tell the other side but then refute their arguments |
|
|
what are the 2 types of 2-sided messages?
which type is better than a 1-sided message? |
1. refutational
2. non-refutational -refutational 2-sided messages are more persuasive than 1-sided messages -undermines opposing arguments by refuting them directly |
|
|
what is a refutational message?
what is a non-refutational message? what kind of messages are those? |
-refutational: refutes the opposing arguments - undermines the opposing claims
-directly attacks them -non-refutational: acknowledges opposition but doesn't refute them -doesn't directly attacks them |
|
|
would a 2-sided refutational message in a commercial/advertising be beneficial?
|
-no
-yes -non-refutational 2-sided messages are neither more/less persuasive than 1-sided messages |
|
|
what is communication discrepancy?
|
-how different (discrepant) the advocated views are to what the persuader believes
-a persuader advocates a position only slightly discrepant from ("different from) the receiver's viewpoint -or advocate a highly discrepant position |
|
|
what is the general inverted-U b/w discrepancy and persuasiveness?
|
-little change is obtained w/extremely small/large discrepancies
-max effectiveness w/moderate levels of discrpeancy -increase discrepancy = increase attitude change --> up to a point/peak -beyond that point/peak --> increase in discrepancy = decrease in attitude change |
|
|
does communicator credibility affect the inflection point of the inverted-U?
how? |
-peak of the curve occurs at smaller discrepancies for low-credibility, than for high-credibility communicators
-optimal level of discrepancy is greater for high-cred communicator -high-cred sources can advocate more discrepant positions from the receiver than can low-cred sources |
|
|
does personal relevance affect the inflection point of the inverted-U?
how? |
-as the issue becomes more relevant to receiver, discrepancy becomes less tolerable
-more relevant issues = peak of curve occurs at lower levels of discrepancy -less relevant issues = curve peaks at some larger discrepancy |
|
|
when considering how much discrepancy to incorporate into one's message - should you give any thought to whether your audience is likely to agree/disagree w/you at the outset?
|
-pro-attitudinal discrepancies are more favorably received than counter-attitudinal discrepancies
-if the advocated view/receiver's view is on the same side of the neutral point |
|
|
what are the 2 ways of defining fear appeals?
|
1. reference to the properties of the communication
-high fear appeal message has explicit vivid depictions of negative consequences 2. degrees of aroused fear in audience -high fear appeal message: evokes greater fear/anxiety in receivers -doesn't care about characteristics of message |
|
|
what is the relationship b/w fear appeal message variations and aroused fear?
|
-a message may be a high fear appeal based on 1stdefiniton (has gruesome contents) but not by 2nd (doesn't arouse fear)
-different definitions - be sure to distinguish them |
|
|
stronger fear appeals are more persuasive...is that a small or large effect?
|
-small effect
-messages w/fear arousal has bigger persuasive effect than messages w/fear appeal content -aroused fear --> changes in attitudes |
|
|
are people who become fearful as a result of a message more likely to be persuaded by it?
|
-messages that arouse greater fear = more persuasive
|
|
|
is there any evidence that the relationship b/w fear and persuasion is curvilinear?
|
-little evidence
|
|
|
how does PMT protection motivation theory explain fear appeal effects?
|
-a person's motivations to adopt protective behaviors in the face of possible threats
-threat appraisal & coping appraisal -threat appraisal -depends on threat severity and threat vulnerability -coping appraisal -depends on response efficacy (the degree to which recommended action is perceived effective in dealing with problem) -and depends on self efficacy |
|
|
is there general superiority of examples over statistical evidence?
|
-examples are better than statistical evidence
-example: case history - details -stats: quantitative summaries - #s |
|
|
what makes a request strategy a "sequential"?
|
-when a request comes right after another
|
|
|
what factors shape the effectiveness of FITD?
|
-no obvious external justification for complying with initial request (no money rewards...)
-the larger the first request agreed by receiver, the more successful the FITD -when receiver actually performs the request instead of agreed to perform it -requests are prosocial (from institutions that provides benefit to the community) |
|
|
what factors shape the effectiveness of DITF?
|
-effects are larger if the 2 requests are made by the same person
-2 requests have the same beneficiary -no delay b/w requests -requests are prosocial |
|
|
what is general persuasibility?
|
-how easily someone is persuaded in general
-across topics, sources, settings... |
|
|
what kind of design is used to determine general plausibility?
|
-research designs
-people receive multiple persuasive messages on various topics -can look for evidence of intraindividual consistency in amount of attitude change displayed |
|
|
is there a general persuasibility trait?
large or small effect on people's responses to a persuasive message? |
-no general trait
-may be some differences b/w people in how easily they are persuaded -small differences |
|
|
is there a method for identifying in advance who are "easy targets" of influence?
|
-no
-no established procedure -no good evidence about the correlates of general persuasibility |
|
|
are there any differences b/w men/women in persuasibility:
who is more persuaded? small or large effect? |
-women are more easily persuaded than men
-but small effects |
|
|
what can be said about the validity of the argument that the topics used in experiences on gender differences in persuasion favor males over females?
|
-not that valid b/c research evidence does not have much support
-male topics not overreprestend -message topics are stereotypically sex linked: -men may commonly be more knowledgeable on certain topics -other topics women are more knowledgeable -people more influenced on topics they don't know much in -greater persuasibility of women might reflect nothing more than many male-oriented topics among persuasive message studies |
|
|
is there evidence that male experimenters more more/less likely to find sex differences in persuasibility than female experimenters?
|
-male researchers are more likley to find sex differences
-women are more easily persuaded than men -women researchers found on sex differences |
|
|
what is the socialization explanation for sex differences?
|
-men typically encouraged to be analytical, critical, independent thinkers
-women encouraged to preserve social harmony, support others -creates the condition that foster appearance of sex differences in persuasibility |
|
|
how does intelligence affect susceptibility to a persuasive message?
|
-persuasibility maximized at lower levels of intelligence
-greater knowledgeability that is associated w/greater intelligence enables more critical scrutiny of messages |
|
|
how does self-esteem affect susceptibility to a persuasive message?
|
-persuasibility maximized at intermediate levels of self-esteem
-low self-esteem: won't pay sufficient attention to message -distracted -high self-esteem: convinced they are correct - counter argue -so each group less likely to be persuaded than by those w/moderate levels of self-esteem |
|
|
why does o'keefe call for an application of ELM model to study individual differences in persuasion?
|
-self-esteem/intelligence focuses on the influence that these characteristics have on receiver activities
-ELM provides scheme to consider role of such individual-difference variables -such individual-difference variables can influence persuasion by affecting things like elaboration likelihood, sensitivity to certain cues... -EX: a given personality attribute might turn out to be related to elaboration ability generally --> produces corresponding effects on persuasive outcomes |
|
|
is there any reason to suppose that different kinds of fear appeals might work for high vs. low self monitors?
|
-high self-monitors: image oriented advertisements
-low self-monitors: produce quality -this personality difference is a marker of differences in receiver values -related to success of persuasive appeals that vary in degree to which those values are engaged |
|
|
how might cultural differences affect people's responsiveness to a persuasive message?
|
-cultural variation is associated with value differences
-differential effectiveness of corresponding persuasive appeals -diff. cultural backgrounds = diff. salient beliefs = diff. persuasive approaches |
|
|
what is the focus of the inoculation theory?
|
-focuses on the processes by which persons can be made resistant to persuasion
|
|
|
what is the biological metaphor?
how is it used to explain the effects of inoculation in persuasion? |
-people can be made resistant to viruses either through supportive treatment (good diet, rest, vitamins) or inducing resistance w/inoculation (exposes person to small doses of virus)
-the small dose is sufficient enough to stimulate/build body's defenses so that any later massive attack can be defeated -so expose people to small doses of the opposing view to induce resistance to persuasion |
|
|
what is a cultural trusim?
why are trusims such attractive topics for inoculation theory researchers? |
-cultural truism: a belief that a culture holds that is rarely attacked - what a culture believes to be true
-brush after every meal... -inoculation theory: truisms are vulnerable for 2 reasons: 1. believe has no practice in defending the belief (b/c it's never attacked 2. believer is unmotivated to undertake the necessary practice -no motivation to rehearse arguments in defense of the cultural truisms |
|
|
do supportive/refutational treatments differ in their power to inoculate?
|
-supportive: give receivers arguments supporting trusim
-refutational: shows receivers a weak attack on the truism then refutes the attack -refutational = better in resisting persuasion |
|
|
does inoculation through a refutational treatment have an effect that "spreads" to other topics?
|
-yes
-refutational treatment immunizes against other anti-truism arguments |
|
|
what can be said about the relative impact of a supportive/refutational inoculation treatment in non-truism topics?
|
-refutational treatments effective on resistance to persuasion on non-truism topics
-but effects aren't much bigger compared to supportive treatments -receivers don't assume their belief isn't invulnerable -so not a truism - refutational treatment isn't needed to underscore usefulness of the supporting materials |
|
|
would it be best to use a supportive/refutational/or combo of these 2 approaches when dealing w/a non-truism topic?
|
-for non-truisms: a combo (supportive/refutational) = greater resistance
-the combo creates a refutational 2-sided persuasive message (better than a 1-sided) |
|
|
what is the warning strategy?
how does it work? |
-when you warn a person of an impending counter-attitudinal message...it'll decrease the effectiveness of the attack
-if you're aware that a belief is vulnerable to attack...the awareness is sufficient to bolster the defense of that belief --> reduce effectiveness of attacks |
|
|
what are the 2 types of warning strategies?
|
1. warns receivers they'll hear a message intended to persuade them - no info about the topic
2. tells receivers the topic/position of the message -both resists persuasion by stimulating counter arguing in the audience |
|
|
when should we expect warnings to have the most inoculation effect?
|
-topic-position warnings: counter-arguing before the message is received
-more time delay b/w topic-position warning and actual message = more counter-arguing -influenced by motivation/ability to counter-argue |
|
|
what is refusal-skills training?
how this approach to inducing resistance been most often studied? |
-refusal-skills training: to train the receiver in skills for refusing unwanted offers
-to refuse offers/requests -with children/teens in resisting offers of illegal drugs, alcohol, tobacco... |
|
|
how is the refusal-skill training approach different than the inoculation approach?
|
-inoculation: provides receiver w/COGNITIVE defenses
-creates resistance to persuasion by preparing attitudinal defenses, mental counter-arguing -refusal-skills: aims to equip receiver communicative abilities |
|
|
what 3 conclusions does o'keefe draw about the value of refusal-skills training?
|
1. it is possible to teach refusal skills
-role-playing 2. directed feedback leads to more effectiveness at teaching refusal-skills -practice skills then get evaluated 3. refusal-skills program not effective in preventing/reducing drug, alcohol, tobacco use |
|
|
what might explain why refusal-skills training has been so ineffective to date?
|
-ineffective for drug/alcohol/tobacco applications
-maybe more helpful in other circumstances... |
|
|
in a debate situation, is there any general advantage to going 1st or last?
|
-no general advantage to either position
|
|
|
what is a primacy effect?
what is a recency effect? |
-primacy: when there is an advantage in being the 1st speaker
-recency: when there is an advantage in going 2nd |
|
|
when have primacy/recency effects been most often found in research?
|
-primacy: found in interesting, controversial, familiar topics
-recency: found in uninteresting, noncontroversial, unfamiliar topics relates to ELM |
|
|
how might the concept of elaboration be used to explain the relative impact of primacy/recency?
|
-primacy effects occur when elaboration is high
-1st message produce attitudes more resistant to persuasion -recency effects occur w/low elaboration -whatever is heard last is more prominent in memory |
|
|
what are examples of communication media?
|
-face-to-face interaction
-telephone interaction -TV -radio -computers (web, CD-ROMS) -written messages -print, books, magazines, newspapers...personal letters |
|
|
why is it so difficult to study the effects of communication media?
|
-barrier to understanding medium effects is the nature of communication media
-common communication media can represent bundles of diff. attributes -hard to untangle just which specific attribute is responsible for observed differences b/w media EX: company finds advertising messages more effective in TV than radio -TV is visual, radio is audio... -TV/radio reaches diff. audiences....etc... |
|
|
when one moves from written --> audiotaped --> videotaped messages...what happens to the impact of source characteristics (credibility) on message recipients?
|
-heightened impact of source characteristics on persuasive outcomes
-credibility/likability variations makes more of a difference in videotaped messages than in written messages |
|
|
if message content is difficult, what medium is likely to be most effective?
|
-written
-can be reread... -NOT audiotaped/videotaped |
|
|
what 1 feature of computer-mediated communication makes it relevant/useful in persuasion?
|
-easy tailoring of persuasive messages to particular receivers
-can customize info to a particular person... |
|
|
what is "decay of message effects"?
any general conclusions? |
-persuasive effects will evaporate as time passes
-old habits/attitudes can return -competing persuasive messages can be received -max persuasive effect: deliver message close to point of decision |
|
|
what factors affect the rate of decay of message effects?
|
-need for cognition, personal relevance, discussed message topic...
-ELM: -if persuasion happened under central route = more enduring effects -persistent effects more likely when persuasion is result of thoughtful consideration of issues/arguments than heuristics |
|
|
what is a sleeper effect?
what does it have to do with decay? |
-sleeper effect: increase in persuasive effectiveness over time
-persuasive effects doesn't always decay through time |
|
|
when would we expect to find a sleeper effect?
|
-message & discounting cue:
-receivers attend to high-quality arguments in message (personally relevant) -THEN after attending to the message...receivers are given a strong "discounting cue" -indicates the message conclusion is false -discounting cue has strong initial negative effect that dissipates more quickly than does the positive effect of the message --> sleeper effect |
|
|
what are some effects/benefits of good organized messages?
|
-higher:
-retention/comprehension -credibility/expertise -not attitude change: depends on message quality |
|
|
what are some patterns/ways to organize your message?
|
-chronological: time
-problem-solution: explain a problem, offer a solution -topical: distinct topics -cause-effect -criterion case: -establish the criteria that needs to be addressed then explain your proposals -hybrid: mix of the diff. patterns |
|
|
is any 1 of the organizational patterns more superior than the other?
|
-no
-just be organized |
|
|
what is the familiarity hypothesis?
|
-w/certain types of audiences, certain types of patterns may be more familiar
EX: lawyers-criterion case general audience-cause and effect |
|
|
what is the expectancy hypothesis?
|
-what people EXPECT in certain situations
EX: expect politicians to use problem-solution EX: in social science classes - expect to use topical |
|
|
what are the 2 organizational hypothesis?
|
1. familiarity
2. expectancy |
|
|
how many arguments should you use when involvement/ability are low? high?
|
-low: more arguments - peripheral cues
-high: # arguments has no effect on persuasion outcomes --> QUALITY |
|
|
what is the perceptual contrast theory?
|
-strong arguments are perceived even stronger if you hear weak arguments first
|
|
|
when should you use anti-climax?
when should you not? |
-when audience:
-has chance to question you -judge your character -limited time -NOT: if audience is on peripheral route |
|
|
what is the best/not effective/worst way to organize a 2-sided message?
|
-best: support-refute
-here's what i think...then attack -interwove for complicated issues -not effective: refute-support -worst: 2-sided non-refutational -you let them know the other side but don't attack them |
|
|
what are the 3 factors of repetition?
|
1. message learning approach
-repetition leads to attention/comprehension 2. repetition breeds liking, not contempt 3. variation -don't want to lead to wear-out so vary same message w/diff. ads |
|
|
what are the 3 latitudes of acceptability for attitudinal positions that a communicator might take?
|
1. acceptance
2. non commitment 3. rejection |
|
|
what is the relationship b/w communication discrepancy and attitude change?
|
-inverted U
-no discrepancy = no attitude change -boomerang effect: so discrepant from your position...you reinforce yourself --> counter to what they said |
|
|
what are 3 factors that modify the relationship b/w discrepancy and attitude change?
|
1. size of latitude of acceptance
-best predictor of easiness of persuasion -if big LOA - more easily persuaded 2. communicator credibility -harder to say no if you're super credible -easier to argue a more discrepant position 3. pro v. counter attitudinal advocacy -keep it pro-attitudinal |
|
|
what are the 4 different types of evidence?
|
1. stats
2. examples 3. testimony (expert/non-expert) 4. demonstrations -direct experience |
|
|
what are the 2 parts of logical validity?
|
1. recognition abilities
-can people recognize logic? 2. persuasiveness -some people can't recognize logical arguments -but can be persuaded if message appears logical even if it has flaws and un-logical validity |
|
|
what are the necessary requirements for evdience to have an impact on attitude change?
|
1. novelty
-new -info that we haven't heard before 2. relevance -relates to an issue we care about 3. believability -correct -trustworthy |
|
|
what is the general rule of effects of evidence?
|
-better evidence = more persuasive = more attitude change
|
|
|
what's "evidence v. simple source assertions"?
evidence effect |
-good evidence = more persuasive
-simple source assertion: makes claim but no logic/rationale behind the claim -true evidence has rationale behind it |
|
|
what is the "moderating effect of audience knowledge"?
evidence effect |
-little knowledge = more powerful effect w/ evidence
-evidence is always good |
|
|
what is the "moderating effect of involvement" & evidence?
evidence effect |
-low involvement = evidence doesn't matter - just the APPEARANCE OF EVIDENCE
-high involvement = evidence will help --> big impact |
|
|
what is the "persistence of attitude change"?
evidence effect |
-central/high involvement = attitude change is longer lasting
-more persistent over time |
|
|
what is the general rule of evidence and credibility?
|
-good evidence = enhances credibility, trustworthy, expertise
|
|
|
who benefits most from using good evidence?
evidence and credibility |
-low credible sources
-b/c they can't rely on their credibility |
|
|
how does "vested interests" relate to evidence and credibility?
|
-if you're trying to persuade me, it means you'll benefit somewhere
-use evidence to show them why you're right -and trustworthy |
|
|
what is the contrast effect?
evidence and credibility |
-debate situation
-combat opponents evidence w/your own evidence |
|
|
what are the effects of quantification?
|
-stats data
-affects people positively BUT you can't elaborate much on it -not the issue relevant/cognitive thinking that you want |
|
|
should you cite sources in your evidence?
|
-yes
-give qualifications of your sources -it'll be more persuasive |
|
|
what is the source magnification effect?
|
-higher # of sources = people think more about the message
|
|
|
what is the relationship of "strength of message threat" and experienced fear?
and attitude change? and behavior change? |
-a small correlation w/increase threat and the fear experienced
-a weaker correlation w/attitude change -weakest correlation |
|
|
what is the relationship of aroused fear to amount of persuasion?
|
-when people experience a lot of fear
--> it leads to behavioral change --> depends on susceptibility and relevance |
|
|
what are the 4 factors that increase the success of fear appeals?
|
1. response efficacy
-self-efficacy: if it scares you a lot, it must also have a solution/response for you to implement 2. source credibility 3. believability of threat/evidence 4. loved one as target |
|
|
what are the 2 ways to explain the effects of fear arousal from lecture?
|
1 drive reduction model
2. cognitive accounts |
|
|
what is the drive reduction model?
fear |
-fear is a negative state
-we are driven to reduce the negative state by following a recommendation -fear causes us to change/adapt |
|
|
what are cognitive accounts?
fear |
-fear/persuasion are effects of the message's impact on appraisal of likelihood/seriousness of consequences
-protection motivation model: -arouse fear -show that you're vulnerable -reassurance of efficacy/recommendation -self-efficacy building |
|
|
what are the 2 types of guilt?
|
1. existential
2. behavior-based |
|
|
what is existential guilt?
|
-life has treated you better than others
-you have things others don't have -nothing we personally did - we just exist better -feel guilty for having more EX: haiti |
|
|
what is behavior-based guilt?
|
-when you did something/somebody wrong
|
|
|
what are the 2 types of behavior-based guilt?
|
1. guilt & restitution
-b/c you did something wrong, you compensate by doing something right 2. generalized guilt -based on social groups you're associated with EX: vote yes on casinos b/c of USA's past treatment of indians |
|
|
what is self-esteem reaffirmation?
theoretical explanation of guilt |
-we don't feel good about ourselves --> decrease self-esteem
-so we find a way out |
|
|
what are the general conclusions about the persuasive impact of guilt?
|
-guilt best in moderation
-can overdo guilt b/c you can get defensive -can't overdo fear -don't personalize guilt |
|
|
what are the 2 types of positive esteem appeals to persuasion?
|
1. self-esteem repair
-you'll feel better about yourself if you do this/something EX: exercising 2. positive altercasting -when you praise someone for already doing something -casting someone in a positive role |
|
|
what % of ads make use of humor?
|
-20-40%
|
|
|
what are the general findings to:
-attention/liking of message -comprehension, cognitive elaboration, recall -credibly -attitude change humor |
-attention/liking of message: humor works!
-comprehension/cognitive elaboration/recall: no evidence!!! -credibility: humor doesn't relate to credibility but to topic -topic relevance = humor = increase cred -attitude change: humor isn't going to change attitude by itself unless humor has info that affects our beliefs |
|
|
what are the sexual effects on attention?
attitudes |
-people pay attention!
-like sexual appeal -just like humor -attitudes: -if they like the sexual appeal = they like the ad more -like the ad = try the product |
|
|
what are the sexual effects on comprehension?
credibility? |
-increase sex appeal = less likely to recall brand name image
-keep it simple -credibility: -depends if use of sexual appeal relates to product |
|
|
what are the 4 categories of sexual appeals?
|
1. decorative models
-an accessory to the product 2. suggestiveness 3. nudity 4. double entendre |
|
|
what is an allegory?
|
-story/description in which the characters/events symbolize a deeper underlying meaning
-the whole story stands for something else |
|
|
how do you avoid using powerless language?
|
-be direct
|
|
|
what are the 3 markers of powerlessness?
(what you should avoid doing) |
1. hedges
-words/phrases that "sort of" weaken your opinion 2. tag questions/declaratives w/ rising intonation -"you know?" -"I like that move, didn't i?" 3. hesitations, mid=clause pauses, ums, uhs... |
|
|
what are the effects of powelessness langauge on:
-attributions about the communicator -persuasion outcomes |
-attributions about the communicator
-decrease competence/cred/likability -lower status -uncharismatic -persuasion outcomes -little research on this |
|
|
what types of opinionated language should you avoid when talking to a passionate audience?
|
-opinionated reject statements:
-evaluate those who disagree negatively -opinionated acceptance statements: -praise for those who agree w/you |
|
|
what is the relationship b/w linguistic intensity and perceived commitment?
|
-more intense = appear more committed
-EX: frequently v. sometimes astronomical v. large |
|
|
what is the relationship b/w linguist intensity and credibility when it comes to counter/pro attitudinal message?
|
-counter-attitudinal:
-if i disagree with you, you would seem more credible if you toned down the intensity -pro-attitudinal: -preaching to the choir -w/intense language = you're more credible |
|
|
what is lexical diversity?
and its operational definition? |
-a variety of vocab = readers think you're more competent, like you more
-for every 25 words, count the # of unique words -average the 25 words, then average total |
|
|
can you generalize the effects w/dialects and accents?
|
-no
-depends on the context/situation EX: southern accent -bad when teaching philosophy -good when teaching cooking |
|
|
what is self-persuasion?
role playing |
-the process by which people undergo some form of attitude change as a result of though about the object
-our own thinking is what persuades us |
|
|
what is cognitive elaboration?
role playing |
-generation of cognitive response (thoughts) through thinking about a message
-as we think, we elaborate on the message |
|
|
what is attitude polarization?
role playing |
-when we think about an issue, our attitude towards the issue becomes more extreme
-regardless of original pos/neg attitude |
|
|
what are the 3 tactics of role playing?
|
1. arguing the opposing side
-EX: WWII gizzards -the more they talked about it --> attitude change 2. perspective taking Qs -ask Qs from the perspective of the asker -EX: why do you think mommy wants you go to to bed earlier? 3. role reversal -more formal process -EX: marital issues |
|
|
what are the 2 explanations for why role playing works?
|
1. satisfaction hypothesis :(
-sense of satisfaction of role playing, associated w/your position 2. improvisation hypothesis :) -generates new ideas/thoughts to support a position they previously didn't accept |
|
|
what kind of information is important for role playing?
|
-background info
-you have to know about the topic -background info leads to attitude change |
|
|
what are explanations for why the improvisation hypothesis is better?
role playing |
-biased scanning of arguments:
-scan memory for biased facts that support your view -but suggests short-term change -owness bias: -the bias you develop is your own -it's your arguement -longer-term change effect |
|
|
what are the 2 alternative explanations of role playing effects?
|
1. cognitive dissonance
2. self-perception theory -i did this so therefore i believe it it but no freedom of choice in this situation |
|
|
what happens in mental role playing?
|
-imagining/likelihood estimates for positive/negative events
-more likely to believe that it'll happen to you |
|
|
what are the behavioral effects in mental role playing?
|
-when you listen to something/imagining it's happening to you...
--> increase in effects |
|
|
why does imagining work?
mental role playing |
-imagining biases future thought
-once you've imagined it happening to you, hard to imagine life w/out it -impairment of consideration of alternative outcomes |
|
|
what are the 3 compliance strategies?
|
1. pregiving:
-use a favor to set a person to say yest to a future request 2. illustrative: -EX: coke --> raffle tickets 3. explanatory mechanism: -norm of reciprocity/kindness -if i do something nice for you, you should do something nice for me -you're indebt to me |
|
|
why does FITD work?
explanatory mechanism |
-b/c it's freedom of choice
|
|
|
why does DITF work?
explanatory mechanism |
-reciprocal concessions
-big offer/counter offer -they are making a compromise so you feel like you should reciprocate -perceptual contrast -2nd request doesn't seem as bad as 1st -impression management -they feel bad saying no to 1st big request -2nd request = chance to redeem themselves |
|
|
when is FITD better than DITF?
|
-when you have low source credibility
-when there are time delays b/w requests -low baseline compliance rates -when requestors can't be the same person |
|
|
what is low-balling?
why does it work? compliance |
-when you get them to say yes to a request and then you increase the cost of compliance
-EX: can you drive me to the airport? great flight leaves at 5:45am -it works b/c you already committed and self-perception (out of freedom of choice - i said so) |
|
|
what are signifiers?
what are signifieds? |
-signifiers: a sign that stands for something
-EX: EXIT sign, smoke -signified: the thing that it signifies -EX: door, fire |
|
|
what are the 3 types of signs?
|
1. iconic
2. indexical 3. symbols |
|
|
what are iconic signs?
|
-a resemblance b/w the sign and what it signifies/stands for
EX: a photograph, scale building model, sounds (meow) |
|
|
what are indexical signs?
|
-what causes the sign
EX: bullet hole --> gun shot smoke --> fire |
|
|
what are symbols?
|
-arbitrary
|
|
|
what is iconicity?
|
-STIMULATES REALITY
-images -better represents the thing they signify -similarities -can stimulate reality - persuade people |
|
|
what is indexicality?
|
-images as evidence that something occurred
-as proof EX: photographs - before/after |
|
|
what is syntactical indeterminacy?
|
-not as tight as words --> open to interpretation
-images as implied selling propositions -words need to be in a particular order but there's no "grammar" rules for images |
|
|
what are ways for attracting attention?
images as simulated reality - iconicity |
-violating reality
-surrealism/visual metaphors -visual parodies -direct eye gaze -rear views -viewing distance -metaphor for interpersonal distance -makes you feel like you're part of the scene -subjective camera POV |
|
|
what are the ways that you can elicit emotion?
images as simulated reality - iconicity |
-camera angle
-sexual appearances/attractiveness -environmental imagery -survival |
|
|
what are the 2 types of camera angles used to elicit emotion?
images as stimulated reality - iconicity |
1. low angle:
-looking up at you = you have power/status -we can be as good as them 2. high angle: -looking down at them = nurturance, subservience - |
|
|
what are some individual formal elements used in visual form and style?
images as stimulated reality - iconicity |
-analogies of:
-shape (soft/harsh angles) -color -size -sexual imagery |
|
|
what are some overall stylse of images used in visual form and style?
images as stimulated reality - iconicity |
-style and gender
-ads targeted to men differ from ads targeted to women -style and social status -symmetry, black/white, limited props -style of youth -crazy weird angles |
|
|
can images bridge cultures?
images as stimulated reality - iconicity |
-can share images easier than words
-BUT images influenced by culture --> interpret images based on our cultures |
|
|
what is the indexicality and photo v. drawing decision?
image as evidence - indexicality |
-drawing is sometimes easier to stress a simple point
-can show others things you can't do in photographs EX: dog wagging it's tail |
|
|
what's the value of indirectness?
image as implied/indirect selling proposition - syntactical indeterminacy |
-not directly saying it but SHOWING
--> involvement: you're involved in trying to figure out what' going on |
|
|
what is editing/montage?
image as implied/indirect selling proposition - syntactical indeterminacy |
-can create/imply a proposition
-edit it to make your point --> order of images to tell your story |
|
|
what works well in increasing involvement in image as implied/indirect selling proposition - syntactical indeterminacy
|
-using unexpected visual juxtapositions
-things that don't go together/makes no sense -we're trying to figure it out = increase involvement |
|
|
what are the typologies of visual propositions?
image as implied/indirect selling proposition - syntactical indeterminacy |
-causality:
-wear these jeans --> you're popular -contrast: -side by side comparison -our product is better -analogy: -it's a good substitute -V8 can substitute for vitamins -generalization -everybody likes it |
|
|
what is image as implied/indirect selling proposition - syntactical indeterminacy good for?
|
-showing the unspoken/unspeakable
-SHOW NOT SAY -images of social status -images of sex/romance |
|
|
in what ways can you resist induction through commitment?
|
-mere thought (--> polarization)
-commit to the position you hold -going on record: public verbal report of attitude -wear pins - tell others how you feel -going on record: public behavior -consistent behavior -actions -being put on record by others - external commitment |
|
|
what are the ways that you can anchor/strengthen your attitudes?
|
-link attitude to another attitude
-EX: pro choice & euthanasia = you have a right to decide what happens to your body -link attitude to your values/beliefs -link attitude to reference groups -more committed |
|
|
rank the following from weakest to strongest:
-refutational pre-treatment messages -warning of forthcoming attack -supportive pre-treatment messages |
-weakest: supporive pre-treatment messages
-medium: warning of forthcoming attack -strongest: refutational pre-treatment messages |
|
|
what are supporive pre-treatment messages?
|
-additional arguments about why we're right --> pro-attitudinal
|
|
|
what are some observations on message recipient factors in persuasion?
|
-predicting individual response is critical
--> tailor messages depending on person -messages affect diff. people in diff. ways EX: obama's speech = R hears bullshit, D hears brilliance -audience response and segmentation -response depends on audience type |
|
|
what are the 3 mcguire theories of persausibility?
|
1. mediational postulate
2. situational-weighting postulate 3. compensatory principle |
|
|
what is the mediational postulate?
mcguire theory of persausibility |
-net persuasive impact of any receiver variable is mediated by its relationship to each of 12 output steps of the communication/persuasion matrix
-how 1 variable can affect if it goes to another step |
|
|
what is the situational-weighting postulate?
mcguire theories of persausibility |
-each 12 steps varies in importance depending on the situation
-1 stage might be harder to pass then another stage |
|
|
what is the compensatory principle?
mcguire theories of persausibility |
-a receiver variable will typically facilitate persuasion at some steps of the persuasion process
-but interfere w/persuasion at other steps of the process -these 2 sets of effects cancel each other out -EX: anxiety can motivate/inhibit you |
|
|
what are some receiver characteristics?
receiver factors in persuasion |
-some individual differences may affect persuasion outcomes
(self-esteem, intelligence, anxiety, dogmatism, gullibility) -demographics -age, gender -affective state/mood |
|
|
how does mood affect the amount of cognitive elaboration?
|
-happy: peripheral cues - less cognitive
-sad: higher cognitive elaboration/critical thinking |
|
|
how does mood affect direction of cognitive elaboration?
|
-being sad doesn't lead to more negative cognitive response
--> balance, devil's advocate |
|
|
what are the 2 explanations of effects of mood on cognitive elaboration?
|
-decreased cognitive abilities
-CAN'T -depressed motivation -DON'T WANT TO |
