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;
62 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Premise of ELM
|
People want to hold “correct” attitudes
People vary in their willingness and ability to process (elaborate on) information |
|
|
COGNITIVE RESPONSE MODEL
|
People integrate new information with what they currently know
Receiver plays an active role in persuasion Cognitive reactions during message processing determine its effectiveness |
|
|
Continuum of elaboration
|
Little ---------------------------------Great deal
mental activity of mental activity |
|
|
Two Ways to Process Information
|
Central route processing (high mental activity)
Peripheral route processing (low mental activity) |
|
|
Central Route Processing
|
Great deal of cognitive processing
Attitude change via the central route is a function of: message content (argument quality) individual’s self-generated thoughts (elaboration) |
|
|
Peripheral Route Processing
|
Little amount of cognitive elaboration
Persuasion is based on aspects of the message other than the arguments being made Attitude change via the peripheral route is a function of: Reactions to positive or negative (peripheral) cues in the message environment Source expertise, trustworthiness, attractiveness, etc. Message length, tone, etc. |
|
|
Heuristics
|
Peripheral cues
We don’t have time to process everything around us Mental shortcut rule of thumb rules we have developed through: our previous experiences observations |
|
|
Heuristics – three types
|
Credibility heuristic
“Credible sources can be trusted” Liking heuristic “People I like usually have correct opinions” Consensus heuristic “If other people believe it, then it’s probably true” |
|
|
Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM)
|
We process both centrally and peripherally
Content can be processed C or P Imagery and other non-argument based cues can be processed C or P Both central and peripheral routes can induce attitude change ELM explains conditions under which people use central versus peripheral routes |
|
|
Predicting Elaboration
|
A variety of situational and personal factors may affect elaboration
Two factors getting the most attention in ELM research are: Motivation Ability |
|
|
ELM -- Motivation
|
Receiver must be motivated to engage in effortful cognitive processing
Personal relevance/Involvement Motivation may also be affected by the receiver’s need for cognition |
|
|
ELM -- Ability
|
Message elaboration is also affected by ability
Recipient must be willing and able to elaborate |
|
|
ELM -- Implications
|
Central processing
Changes/reinforces attitudes Leads to more long term change than peripheral processing Peripheral processing Relies most typically on cues relevant to credibility and attractiveness BUT attractiveness can be a peripheral or central cue (i.e., celebrity selling make-up) |
|
|
Ethos
|
The character of the speaker
Credibility Most potent for persuasion |
|
|
Credibility
|
A perceptual factor
Made up of two factors: Expertise Trustworthiness |
|
|
Measuring Ethos (McCroskey, 1966) – Authoritativeness scale
|
I respect this speaker's opinion on the topic.
This speaker is not of very high intelligence. This speaker has high status in our society. I would consider this speaker to be an expert on the topic. The speaker is well-informed on this subject. This speaker is an authority on the topic. Few people are as qualified to speak on this topic as this speaker. This speaker has considerable knowledge of the factors involved with this subject. This speaker has had substantial experience with this subject. |
|
|
Measuring Ethos (McCroskey, 1966) – Character Scale
|
This speaker is a reputable person.
I trust this speaker to tell the truth about the topic. I admire the speaker's background. I believe that this speaker is concerned with my well-being. I would like to have this speaker as a personal friend. The character of this speaker is good. This speaker is an honorable person. |
|
|
Dimensions of ethos
|
McCroskey
Authoritativeness Expertise* Respect opinions High status Knowledgeable/well informed Substantial experience Character Trustworthiness* Reputable Honest Likeable Honorable |
|
|
Attributions of message sources
|
Questioning motivations/intentions
Attribution Theory We behave like naïve psychologists (Kelley, 1967) We try to explain why people behave a certain way Two major categories of causal inference DISPOSITIONAL (personal/internal) Behavior is due to some personal characteristic Does the speaker believe in this? Does the speaker really care about me? ENVIRONMENTAL (situational/external) Behavior is due to some situational factors Is the speaker profiting from this? Benefiting in any way? |
|
|
Expectations of Message sources
|
Based on our existing knowledge/information
Two biases people anticipate (Eagly et al, 1981) Knowledge Bias Inferring that the source does not have complete or accurate information Source is biased because of background or occupation Reporting Bias Source is unwilling to report all of the information The context may affect how much information is disclosed |
|
|
Related source Characteristics;
PERCEIVED SIMILARITY |
PERCEIVED SIMILARITY
Effective persuasion may begin with establishing a personal connection Salespeople Testimonials in ads Political candidates mingling with citizens |
|
|
Related source Characteristics: Physical Attractiveness
|
Chaiken (1979)
Field experiment: Will you sign a petition to eliminate meat in breakfast and lunch menus on campus? More attractive sources Generated more agreement with position advocated Received more petition signatures Perceived as friendlier Chaiken’s (1986) meta-analysis found: Physical attractiveness can be persuasive Only in relatively unimportant situations Not related to evaluations of expertise |
|
|
The Influence of Status
|
Crossing on the Red Light Experiment
(Lefkowitz, Blake, & Mouton, 1955) Downtown Austin 3 successive afternoons/3 street corners N=2,103 pedestrians Manipulation Experiments’ model was either high/low status HIGH = suit, pressed white shirt, tie, shined shoes LOW = dirty pants, scuffed shoes, wrinkled denim shirt When the model disobediently crosses the street (against the light), will others follow? Disobedience without model (control condition) 1% of pedestrians cross the street Disobedience with model influence Low status: 4% follow his lead High status: 14% follow his lead Conclusions: “class counts” |
|
|
Tactics to reduce credibility
|
Hilary Clinton
accused of intentionally darkening Obama’s complexion in a commercial she aired |
|
|
Recipient-Oriented framework
|
Active audience
Perceives credibility (expertise/trustworthiness) Credibility is subjective! Can change over time Can change from person to person It is a perception! Integrates new and old information But also relies on heuristics |
|
|
Evidence is persuasive when…
|
It is attributed to highly credible sources
It is plausible and novel It is PROCESSED It is not overwhelming |
|
|
One-sided messages
|
contain only supporting arguments
more effective when target person has little education (less than high school) |
|
|
Two-sided messages
|
address opposing viewpoints
more effective when target person has at least some high school education |
|
|
The effectiveness of one- versus two-sided messages depends on
|
Person’s initial position on the issue
Level of education |
|
|
Two-sided message- Nonrefutational
|
Merely acknowledges another viewpoint
Allen (1991): meta-analysis 2-sided non-refutational = 20% less effective than one-sided |
|
|
Two-sided message- Refutational
|
Recognize opposing viewpoints
Refute them Allen (1991): meta-analysis 2-sided refutational = 20% more effective than 1-sided |
|
|
Organizing a persuasive appeal
|
Primacy Effect
We remember the first things we hear Recency Effects We remember the last things we hear So repetition is always good |
|
|
Vampire creativity
|
Marketing term
Remember the ad…not the product |
|
|
LOGOS
|
Message Factors
Evidence Message sidedness Order effects |
|
|
PATHOS
|
Emotional Appeal
Persuasion by appealing to audience members’ EMOTIONS Emotional appeal can be in content or visual form Language choice can affect audience response Mood, music, pace, and other features can appeal to emotion |
|
|
Audio-Visual Redundancy
|
When the same information is presented in text/audio and visuals more effective
|
|
|
Visual Connectedness
|
The more closely the visuals relate to the overall message, the more effective it will be
|
|
|
Visual Superiority Effect
|
When text/audio and visuals conflict visuals carry more weight
|
|
|
Visual and Persuasion - Claim 2
|
Visuals can evoke emotions in audience members, which influence message processing (and success of persuasion attempts)
|
|
|
Visual and Persuasion - Claim 1
|
VISUALS ALONE CAN MAKE AN ARGUMENT
|
|
|
4 different perspectives about fear appeals
|
Drive Model
Parallel Process (Response) Model Protection Motivation Model Extended Parallel Process Model |
|
|
Perspective about fear appeals: Drive Model
|
Fear = drive state (fear drives actions)
Inverted U-shaped relationship Need just the right amount of fear appeal to elicit action Too little- no motivation to act Too much- leads to avoidance (no motivation to act) Message recommendation If fear is reduced, you will accept the message If fear is not reduced, message will not elicit change |
|
|
Perspective about fear appeals: Parallel Process
|
Fear appeals have two components:
(1) cognitive danger control (adaptive): Recognition of danger Motivation to protect self or others Attitude and behavior change Message acceptance (2) emotional fear control (maladaptive) Fear arousal Motivation to control fear (defensive motivation) Denial/minimization of threat Message rejection |
|
|
Perspective about fear appeals:
Protection Motivation Model |
A message is effective when all 4 cognitions are addressed:
Perceived severity How bad is the outcome? Perceived susceptibility Will it happen to me? Response Efficacy Is there an action that can be taken to divert this threat? Self-Efficacy Can I enact this response to divert the threat? |
|
|
Perspective about fear appeals:
Extended Parallel Process Model |
Blends Parallel Process & Protection Motivation Models:
MOTIVATION- If threat is perceived as irrelevant/insignificant little motivation to process message If threat is perceived as serious and relevant, individual becomes fearful; motivated to reduce fear by changing a behavior EFFICACY- Threat < Efficacy Danger Control Adaptive outcome (persuasion successful) Threat > Efficacy Fear Control Maladaptive outcome (denial, etc.) |
|
|
People may be unmotivated or unable to scrutinize content (ELM) because of...
|
Personality traits may affect how motivated and able people are to elaborate on info
Receiver = plays an active role personality (and other variables affecting the receiver) must be considered |
|
|
Dogmatism
|
Personality trait
The extent to which a person is close minded Highly dogmatic prefer a particular conclusion may not elaborate on the validity of a message Examples: Of all the different philosophies that exist in the world, there is probably only one that is correct” “There are two kinds of people in this world; those who are for truth and those who are against truth” |
|
|
High dogmatism
|
Difficult to persuade
Credible source may increase effectiveness |
|
|
Low dogmatism
|
More susceptible to persuasion
Can acknowledge their own shortcomings Recognize flaws in their own reasoning Strength of argument more important than credibility of source (Vicchiano, 1977) |
|
|
Self-Esteem
|
Too little- preoccupied; do not process content
Too much- process arguments; but do not yield Mid-range - most persuadable Bettinghaus Claim: Receiver with HSE- more persuaded w/optimistic tone Receiver with LSE- more persuaded w/pessimistic (threatening) tone |
|
|
Need for Cognition
|
Personality variable: To what extent do you enjoy to cognitively elaborate (think)?
High- quality of arguments Low- cues (heuristics) |
|
|
Self-Monitoring
|
High
Attitudes serve social adjustive function Engage in approval-seeking behavior Susceptible to persuasion Under pressure Consensus Heuristic (Strickland 1977) Example: Ad showing the popularity of a product Low Attitudes serve value expressive function Distinguish between high/low credibility of source Persuaded by highly credible source Example: Ad with a low credible source, even |
|
|
Inoculation Theory
|
Metaphor: Interaction with less harmful disease can prevent harm from (make one immune to) more harmful disease
Inoculation can come from many sources Family Previous experience/knowledge Media (or persuasion source) itself |
|
|
Theory of Cognitive Dissonance: Three Basic Assumptions
|
People need cognitive consistency
Cognitive inconsistency- psychological discomfort Psychological discomfort- motivation to resolve inconsistency (restore balance) |
|
|
Inconsistency between attitudes =
|
Imbalance
|
|
|
Inconsistency once a behavior has taken place
|
Dissonance
|
|
|
Theory of Cognitive IDssonance: Festinger describes two cognitive states
|
1) Consonance
State of consistency Thoughts, ideas, values, behaviors EXAMPLE: The democratic process is important to me, so I’m registered to vote (2) Dissonance State of inconsistency leads to psych. tension EXAMPLE: The democratic process is important to me, but I’m not registered to vote |
|
|
Dissonance Increases With…
|
Personal relevance or importance to us
Strength of the conflicting elements Inability to rationalize, explain or remedy the inconsistency |
|
|
Responding to Dissonance
|
A state of dissonance
(inconsistency of attitudes, behaviors, beliefs) Powerful motivation to retain cognitive consistency Potential for irrational and even maladaptive behaviour |
|
|
Resolving Dissonance
|
Change behavior
Change attitude Justify behavior by adding a new cognitive element |
|
|
Induced Compliance
|
When you get someone to engage in a behavior that is not in line with their attitude
Paid subjects to lie But induced compliance, or creating dissonance for individuals, can be a persuasive tactic to change attitudes & behaviors Examples: free samples, Pepsi challenge |
|
|
Critiques of Cognitive Dissonance
|
Not everyone experiences the same level of dissonance
Cannot predict resolution to dissonance Not falsifiable |
