Chapter 3-Attitude Change - Objectives. Chapter 3 Outline -Attitude Change

Transcription

1 Chapter 3-Attitude Change - Objectives 1) An understanding of how both internal mental processes and external influences lead to attitude change 2) An understanding of when and how behavior which is inconsistent with attitudes can lead to subsequent changes in attitudes 3) Knowledge of how persuasion is determined by characteristics of the source, audience and message and how the message is communicated 4) An understanding of when and how people resist attempts to be persuaded 5) Knowledge of how persuasion and attitude change may occur either by causing the person to think about the issue, or by distracting the 1 person from the issue Chapter 3 Outline -Attitude Change Part 1 -Cognitive Consistency and Attitude Change Cognitive Dissonance Insufficient Justification Problems of Arousal Part 2 - Persuasion Yale Model Factors: Source, Message, Audience, Channel Part 3 - Persuasion and Cognition Elaboration Likelihood (ELM) model Need For Cognition Limits to Persuasion 2 1

2 Outline Part 1 - Cognitive Consistency and Attitude Change Basic Principles Modes of Reduction Types of Cognitive Dissonance Insufficient Justification An experiment Dissonance in Action Ways to reduce cognitive dissonance The problem of arousal 3 Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (Festinger, 1957) Principles: 1) Dissonance = logically opposed cognitions 2) Dissonance = negative arousal 3) Magnitude of dissonance is related to the importance of the cognitions 4) Larger the magnitude of the dissonance, the greater the motivation to reduce it 4 2

3 Theory of Cognitive Dissonance Principles 1) dissonance = logically opposed cognitions 2) dissonance = negative arousal 3) magnitude of dissonance = importance of cognitions 4) magnitude of dissonance motivation to reduce Modes of Reduction 1) Change cognition: Quit smoking 2) change importance: Smoking isn t really harmful 3) rationalize elements as not relevant: I m not at risk 4) bolster now-consonant elements: Smoking helps me diet Types of Cognitive Dissonance 1) Post decision: after buying a new car 2) Selective exposure: watch commercials only for your brand 3) Social Support: others disagree with you 4) counter-attitudinal behaviour: belief versus behaviour 5 Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959 How much I enjoyed the experiment (-5 to +5) Enjoyment Control $20 $1 No Low High Dissonance Dissonance Dissonance 6 3

4 Insufficient Justification Dissonance theory predicts that when our actions are not fully explained by external rewards or coercion, we will experience dissonance, which can be reduced by believing in what we have done High dissonance group (i.e. $1 group) I said the dull experiment was interesting. I had insufficient justification for doing so. Hmm. Come to thing of it, I guess it was sort of interesting. Low dissonance group (i.e. $20 group) I said the dull experiment was interesting. But I had sufficient justification for doing so - $20. 7 Cognitive dissonance theory posits that our attitudes change because we are motivated to maintain consistency among our cognitions. Cognitive Dissonance: Tension that arises when one is simultaneously aware of two inconsistent cognitions. For example, dissonance may occur when we realize that we have, with little justification, acted contrary to our attitudes or made a decision favouring one alternative despite reasons for favouring another 8 4

5 Dissonance occurs when: a person acts in a counterattitudinal manner with free choice without external justification for the action Person notices the discrepancy a sense of discomfort is attributed to having committed this counterattitudinal act 9 Ways to Reduce Cognitive Dissonance For example, consider people who have quit smoking cigarettes because of health risks, but then resume the habit. How might they reduce the dissonance aroused by the discrepancy between their attitude ( I don t like smoking ) and their behavior ( I m smoking again. )? 10 5

6 Ways to Reduce Cognitive Dissonance Common Strategies Change Attitudes people can simply change their attitudes to make them consistent with discrepant behaviors Adding Cognitions If two discrepant thoughts cause dissonance, people can add more consonant thoughts Altering the importance of the discrepancy Examples I don t really need to quit. I like smoking. Smoking relaxes me and keeps my weight down, which benefits my health It s more important to stay relaxed and slim than worry about maybe getting cancer 30 years from now. 11 Ways to Reduce Cognitive Dissonance, Continued Common Strategies Reducing Perceived Choice people can convince themselves that they are not freely choosing to engage in the discrepant behaviour Changing Behavior People can change their behavior so that it no longer conflicts with their attitudes Examples I have no choice but to smoke. I have so much stress in my life now that smoking is one of the only ways to calm my nerves. I m going to stop smoking again. 12 6

7 The Problem of Arousal Arousal: How is it defined? How is it measured? 13 Outline Part 2 -Attitude Change Persuasion - What predicts it? Characteristics of the source Sleeper effect Discounting Cue Hypothesis Message Factors Primacy-recency Arousal of Fear Audience Factors Self-esteem Gender The Channel of communication Message difficulty and the channel 14 7

8 Persuasion Cognitive Dissonance related to internal processes resulting in attitude change persuasion looks at how influences from outside the person may result in attitude change What predicts persuasion: 1) Who presents the message (source) 2) What the message is (message) 3) To whom the message is directed (audience) 4) By what means the message is sent and directed, and how it is presented (channel) 15 Persuasion: Yale Model 1) Source: credibility expertise likeability 2) Message: one-sided versus two-sided primacy versus recency fear arousal 3) Audience: persuasibility gender 4) Channel: media differences 16 8

9 Characteristics of the Source Expertise Credibility Likeability Sleeper effect - tendency for communication to increase in persuasiveness over time when emanating from a low-credibility source. Discounting cue hypothesis - a hypothesis stating that when a source of communication is not trusted, the message tends to be disregarded. 17 Message Factors both sides of argument are presented - which has the advantage? The side presented first (primacy) or the side presented last (recency) Primacy effect - tendency for information presented earlier in a sequence to have a greater impact than information presented later. Depends on the amount of time separating the messages, however: shorter time = primacy effect longer time = recency effect Arousal of fear 18 9

10 Arousal of Fear A U-shaped relationship Attitude Change Low Moderate High Intensity of Fear-arousing communication 19 Audience Factors Individual differences in persuasibility: Self-esteem differences as a function of the message Gender data are inconsistent with regard to gender differences 20 10

11 Channel Factors Does it make a difference in terms of how the message is delivered? E.g. written, audiotaped, videotaped Data are inconsistent; it appears to depend on the message: difficult messages more effective when written easy messages more effective on videotape or in person 21 Model of the Persuasion Process Persuasive Message Stage 1 Attention to Message? Yes No Stage 2 Comprehension of message? No No Attitude Change Yes Stage 3 Acceptance of Message? Yes No Attitude Change 22 11

12 Outline Part 3 - Persuasion and Cognition Elaboration-likelihood model Conditions in which cognitive elaboration is likely Individual differences and elaboration likelihood Two routes to persuasion Limits to persuasion Forewarning Inoculation Is attitude change real? 23 Elaboration-likelihood Model (ELM) (Petty et al, 1994) takes into consideration the fact that people can respond to persuasive messages either by active cognitive scrutiny of the content of the message or by more reactive, less effortful shortcuts to evaluating persuasive messages. According to ELM, two different routes exist by which persuasion occurs and attitudes change 24 12

13 Elaboration Likelihood Model (Petty et. Al, 1994) two routes to persuasion Central strong, logical arguments Peripheral factors unrelated to argument (distraction, attractive source, heuristics) When is elaboration likely? 1) Motivation: When issue is important 2) Opportunity: When person has time and knowledge to think about the argument 25 Persuasion and Cognition Work linking persuasion to cognitive processes has shown that, in general, persuasion occurs when people are thinking about the issue and the message (central route) or when they are influenced by peripheral cues such as attractiveness of the source, novelty or humour, or the perception that everyone else believes the message (peripheral route) Attitude change due to the central route of persuasion is less common and more lasting than that due to peripheral route processing 26 13

14 Route to Persuasion Peripheral Route Instead of actively thinking about the attitude object, the person relies on incidental cues and simple rules of thumb, such as the attractiveness of the communicator or the length of the message Route to Persuasion Central Route Most likely to occur when people find the message personally relevant and involving people are high in the need-for-cognition people are in a neutral or mildly negative mood the communicator speaks at a normal rate of speed Effects on attitudes Attitudes tend to be strong, resistant to counterarguments and predictive of behavior Person carefully scrutinizes all the available information to determine the merits of presented arguments 27 Effects on attitudes Attitudes tend to be weak, susceptible to counterarguments and not predictive of behavior Most likely to occur when people find the message to be irrelevant and noninvolving people are low in the need-for-cognition people are in a positive mood the communicator speaks rapidly 28 14

15 Conditions in which cognitive elaboration is likely Cognitive elaboration and therefore attitude change is more likely to occur when a person has the opportunity (i.e. time to think) and is motivated to consider the arguments in the message personality differences also play a role high motivation and personal involvement 29 Individual Differences and Elaboration Likelihood some individuals are more likely than others to engage in cognitive elaboration have a need for cognition people with a high need for cognition are more likely to be influenced by the quality of the arguments, while those low on this variable tend to be more influenced by peripheral route factors 30 15

16 Sample Questionnaire items 1) I really enjoy a task that involves coming up with new solutions to problems. 2) Thinking is not my idea of fun. 3) The notion of thinking abstractly is appealing to me. 4) I like tasks that require little thought once I ve learned them. 5) I usually end up deliberating about issues even when they do not affect me personally. 6) It s enough for me that something gets the job done; I don t care how or why it works 31 Need for Cognition (Cacioppo & Petty, 1982) Measures person s need to think things out (not necessarily ability) Are you high or low in the need for cognition? If you agree with items 1, 3 and 5 and disagree with items 2, 4, and 6, then you would be regarded as high in need for cognition 32 16

17 Limits to persuasion Forewarning and Inoculation People can best resist attempts to persuade them when they are forewarned of an attempt or when exposed to weak attacks on their position before receiving the persuasive message (inoculation). 33 Is attitude change real? Data are mixed most due to self-report (limitations in measuring change) Issues of compliance (i.e. publicly yielding to a persuasive communication without private acceptance Most reversion occurs relatively quickly and then tapers off 34 17