Persuasion. A tradi;onal model of persuasion 2/2/12. Untrustworthy sources can be persuasive! MAR February 7, 2012

Transcription

1 Persuasion MAR 3503 February 7, 2012 A tradi;onal model of persuasion Untrustworthy sources can be persuasive! When they are arguing against their own interests An experiment by Walster et al. (1966): Ps read about a convicted criminal, Joe the Shoulder Napolitano, who argues either for More powerful, stricter courts More lenient courts and sentences 1

2 Untrustworthy sources can be persuasive! When is a disliked source persuasive? Again, when their messages are unexpected Ps read a message by a new university administrator who: Is likeable or unlikeable Delivers a desirable or undesirable message Amount of opinion change Source is: Message is: Likeable Unlikeable Undesirable Desirable Eagly & Chaiken, 1975 Dual process theories System 1 (peripheral route): rela;vely fast, associa;ve, based on simple heuris;cs, o]en automa;c, requiring li_le cogni;ve capacity, o]en unconscious System 2 (central route): rela;vely slow, rule- based, opera;ng on high- effort, systema;c reasoning, requiring cogni;ve capacity, o]en conscious when opera;ng Domains: judgment, decisions, a_ribu;on, person percep;on, stereotyping, persuasion 2

3 Elabora;on Likelihood Model Two routes to persuasion: Central route: when the target is mo;vated and able to systema;cally process the message Peripheral route: when they are not The success of various source and message cues depends on which route a target is taking Involvement and argument strength Ps read an essay arguing in favor of comprehensive exams, either At their own school (high involvement) At another school (low involvement) Arguments were either strong or weak Hypothesis: Argument strength should have a larger impact on aetudes under condi;ons of high involvement Pe_y & Cacioppo,

4 Involvement and argument strength Pe_y & Cacioppo, 1979 Involvement and argument strength Data: agreement with author s posi;on Argument strength: Issue involvement Strong Weak High Low Pe_y & Cacioppo, 1979 Mood and argument strength Ps are placed in a good mood or a bad mood by wri;ng about happy or sad life events Then they read weak or strong arguments in favor of a tui;on hike at their school Happy Strong Weak Sad Bless et al.,

5 Involvement, message, and source Issue: School should change to a trimester system, to be implemented either: Next year (high involvement) 10 years from now (low involvement) Source is either likeable and presents 1 argument or dislikeable and presents 5 arguments ELM makes unique predic;ons: Central route will lead to more change with dislikeable source, while peripheral route will lead to more change with likeable source Chaiken, 1980 Involvement, message, and source Source/message quality Dislikeable, 5 arguments Likeable, 1 argument High involvement Low involvement Chaiken, 1980 Involvement, message, & exper;se Comprehensive exams to be ins;tuted: Next year (high involvement) 10 years from now (low involvement) Message contains 8 strong or 8 weak arguments Message is a_ributed to a high schooler (low exper;se) or a Princeton professor (high exper;se) Pe_y, Cacioppo, & Goldman,

6 Involvement, message, & exper;se Aetude change High personal relevance Low personal relevance Pe_y, Cacioppo, & Goldman, 1981 Celebrity endorsements Par;cipants evaluate a magazine ad for a disposable razor High involvement: Product would soon be market tested in their community, and they would have an opportunity to select a razor as a free gi] Low involvement: Product would soon be market tested in several distant ci;es Strong or weak arguments Endorsed by celebri;es or random ci;zens Pe_y, Cacioppo, & Schumann, 1983 Celebrity endorsements Pe_y, Cacioppo, & Schumann,

7 Celebrity endorsements Aetude change High personal relevance Low personal relevance Pe_y, Cacioppo, & Goldman, 1981 Message strength vs. # of arguments Comprehensive exams to be implemented in one year or 10 years (yes, again!) Number of arguments: 3 or 9 Argument strength: strong or weak Pe_y & Cacioppo, 1984 Message strength vs. # of arguments Aetude change Low involvement High involvement Pe_y & Cacioppo,

8 Message strength vs. composi;on Tui;on hike, at one s own school or a different school Three sets of arguments: 3 strong arguments 3 weak arguments 3 strong and 3 weak arguments Pe_y & Cacioppo, 1984 Message strength vs. composi;on Pe_y & Cacioppo, 1984 When does aetude change endure? Aetudes formed via the central route: Persist longer Wa_s (1977): Ps either write or read a persuasive essay. Aetudes are assessed immediately and 6 weeks later He found that wri;ng and reading the essay produced the same amount of aetude change ini;ally But wri;ng the essay led to more processing via the central route, and thus more change 6 weeks later Are more predic;ve of behavior Cornell housing study 8

9 2/2/12 Necessary psychological steps Perceive the message Favorably evaluate the message If any of these steps fails, informa;on will be of no use Understand the message Remember the message Percep;on Favorable evalua;on Why might people not favorably evaluate a helpful message? The medium Not funny, interes;ng, likeable, fun The message itself People get defensive when they re being cri;cized Some;mes people just don t like things 9

10 Understanding Costanzo et al., 1986 Remember this Memory is not perfect Informa;on may even backfire Persuasion process 10

11 Summary Persuasion can happen through one of two routes: central and peripheral Central route when people have mo;va;on or ability to think about message Peripheral when they do not What cues work to change aetudes differs depending on which route is in use Peripheral cues include superficial aspects of endorsers and number of arguments Central cues include argument strength and exper;se, Central route aetude change is more likely to s;ck Next ;me: When do people comply with requests? 11