Name- Kartiki Program- BA Programme Semester- 2 Roll number- 21/24 Q) Explain in detail the persuasion model. Discuss the factors that resist change in attitudes. (9,6) Ans) Persuasion is defined as efforts to change others' attitudes through the use of various kinds of messages. Through this process, a message can induce change in attitudes as well as beliefs or behaviour. There are certain cognitive processes that underlie persuasion. Petty and Cacioppo (1986) developed the elaboration-likelihood model of persuasion, which analyses cognitive responses to persuasive communications. According to this model, persuasion can occur in either of the 2 distinctive ways which differ in the amount of cognitive effort or elaboration they require. The first way is the central route processing which involves careful consideration of message content and ideas. People are motivated to engage in thoughtful consideration of the pros and cons of an argument and systematic processing when their motivation and capacity to process information relating to the persuasive message is high. The second way is the peripheral route processing which involves the use of simple rules of thumb or shortcuts (heuristics) to process information. People are likely to draw their conclusions from peripheral cues associated with the communication but irrelevant to the merits of the arguments. We engage in this type of processing when we lack the ability or capacity to process more carefully or when our motivation to perform such cognitive work is low. Early research efforts aimed at understanding persuasion involved the study of the following elements: source of a message, the message, and the target of the message. These elements are fundamental components of the communication-persuasion paradigm. The source The first thing we notice in a communication situation is the communicator or the source. Communicator credibility denotes the extent to which the target perceives the communicator as a believable source of information. People are more persuaded by highly credible communicators than by those low in credibility. The first study of credibility to demonstrate this effect was a classic paper by Hovland and Weiss (1952). Participants heard communications on issues such as the advisability of selling antihistamines without a prescription or whether the steel industry was to blame for the steel shortage. The results indicated that communications attributed to high-credibility sources produced more attitude change than those from low-credibility sources. Also, a message from a source having a high level of expertise relevant to the issue will bring about greater attitude change than a similar message from a source with a lower level of expertise. Regardless of expertise, it is important that a communicator is perceived as unbiased and trustworthy. Communicators are seen as especially trustworthy when they have little to gain from the particular stance they adopt. Another factor that enhances perceptions of trustworthiness is multiple sources. When several people say the same thing, they are more persuasive than when a single person makes the same argument. Multiple sources have this advantage only when their judgments are regarded as truly independent of each other. Multiple sources, then, produce more attitude change only when they express genuinely independent judgments. Likeability on the part of the communicator is another factor that makes a message more persuading. Whatever the source of likability (similarity, attractiveness, or simple contact), likability tends to increase persuasive influence because we want to maintain and enhance relationships with those we like. Chaiken (1979), for example, showed that students rated by other students as physically attractive were also more persuasive communicators. We are also persuaded when a position is adopted by a group of people we like or identify with such groups are called reference groups. If people admire a group, they want to be like the group's members. When the other members express a particular opinion, each member wants to hold a similar opinion. And, consequently, people lean in the direction of changing their opinions to make them agree with those of their reference groups. Where a communication comes from-that is, the nature of the communicator-is clearly important in terms of how a message is evaluated. Attractive, likeable, credible, expert, trustworthy individuals are more persuasive than those who lack these attributes. The Message The actual content of the message clearly influences whether people will accept it or not. A number of variables in the communication itself have important effects on the degree to which people are persuaded by it. A major factor that influences the degree to which we are persuaded by a communication is how discrepant that communication is from our own position. By definition, a discrepant message is one advocating a position that is different from what the target believes. To cause a change in beliefs and attitudes, a message must be at least somewhat discrepant from the target’s current position. A message that is moderately discrepant will be more effective in changing a target’s beliefs and attitudes than a message that is only slightly discrepant. Research has predicted a U-shaped relationship between discrepancy and attitude change namely, that relatively little attitude change will occur with low-discrepant and highdiscrepant communications, and that maximum attitude change will occur with moderately discrepant communications. Sometimes the arguments in a communication are strong and compelling, and sometimes they are weak and specious. People respond more favourably to strong arguments in a persuasive communication primarily when they are motivated to pay close attention and are able to think carefully about the arguments. Thus, strong argument can cause attitude change they are strongly backed with evidence, and they are conveyed to the target when they are motivated and will likely engage in central processing. Repetition is another factor that effects the persuasiveness of a message. Much research by Zajonc (1968) shows that familiarity based on repetition increases liking. With persuasive communications, however, repetition appears to increase attitude change only up to a point. Cacioppo and Petty (1979) presented students with communications containing eight different arguments on increasing university expenditures. Each communication was presented once, three times or five times. The authors found that agreement increased with more exposure up to a point, but then fell off. This can be understood by imagining that repetition might have 2 separate effects: It may increase the opportunity to consider the content of a persuasive communication and enhance the processing of the message, but it may also increase the chances of tedium, and therefore produce a negative reaction. The implication of this argument is that repetition helps strong arguments, because people process them more completely. But it may hurt weak arguments because it exposes their flaws or simply makes them tedious. Under some circumstances, peripheral cues can be very important in determining attitude change. When we have little motivation to think about the arguments in a message, or when we are unable to process the arguments well, then peripheral cues become very important in determining attitude change. The number of arguments in a message and the length of those arguments are two such peripheral cues. Presenting more arguments in a message increases attitude change when the issue is not very relevant to the person. Similarly, longer messages have a more persuasive impact than short messages, but only among those who are uninformed, because they presumably give the actual messages little thought. A variety of factors, thus, determine whether any given message will be persuasive. The Target Target individuals, namely the persons to be persuaded, vary in a number of respects that affect persuasion as well. The arousal of emotions or motives is one way in which attempts are made to persuade an individual. Fear is one emotion that can have an impact on attitude change. The learning theory approach suggests that fear-arousing messages will be accepted if the communication offers fear reducing recommendations. The original study of fear and attitude change was conducted by Janis and Feshbach (1953). They showed high school students a film that emphasized the importance of brushing one's teeth three times a day. High fear was aroused by showing hideous pictures of badly decayed teeth and gums. In the mild-fear condition, participants saw less dramatic and less frightening pictures, and in the no fear or control condition, participants saw no pictures of diseased teeth. The findings of the study are- the overall effectiveness of a health promotion campaign is likely to be reduced by the use of strong fear appeal, as it produced the least change in behaviour. The evidence indicates that at moderate levels, fear-arousing arguments can be more effective in producing attitude change than are arguments that cause little or no fear. If a message causes fear that is relevant to the topic, provides information about how to reduce fear, such as the measures one should take to avoid a possible problem, attitude change is more likely to happen. Another factor related to the target and whether he or she will be persuaded by a communication relates to ego involvement. It means when someone relates to a cause personally, their attitude may get linked with their ego. The target’s involvement with the issue fundamentally affects the way they process a message. When highly involved, a target will want to scrutinize the message closely and think carefully about its content. In such cases, strong arguments will likely produce substantial attitude change, whereas weak arguments will produce little or no attitude change. In contrast, the target who is uninvolved will have less motivation to think carefully about the message. Also, if the target is committed to their initial attitude on an issue, it might result in resisting persuasion. Resistance to a persuasive message depends in great part on the strength of this commitment. Commitment is increased when we take a public stance on an attitude position, when we get to freely choose an attitude position instead of being forced or nudged into a position. Lastly, another source of commitment is direct experience with an attitude object. If one has first hand experience with an attitude object, they are likely to have strong attitudes towards it which could be hard to change. A second type of ego involvement occurs when an issue has important consequences for the individual. This has been called issue involvement. It motivates people to attend closely to the issue and to the relevant arguments. When we are involved in an issue, strong arguments are more persuasive than weak ones. Our attitudinal response may can be very important if we know that it will receive public scrutiny and bring social approval or disapproval. This kind of involvement is called response involvement. It refers to how the expressions of our attitude will be received by others. A study was conducted by Leippe and Elkin in 1987. College students heard a strong or weak message after learning whether the message issue would have relevance to their personal lives outside the laboratory (high or low issue involvement) and whether they would later discuss the message issue (high or low response involvement). Only the participants who were both highly issue involved and weakly response-involved, scrutinized the arguments closely, as reflected in greater attitude change in response to the stronger arguments. With high response involvement-that is, when participants were preoccupied with their self-presentation-the strength of arguments was virtually ignored. Lastly, individual personality characteristics that may affect persuasion and the kinds of messages that are persuasible. Some of the variables studied in this context include authoritarianism/dogmatism, anxiety, locus of control, and self-esteem, among many others. Individuals who are low in dogmatism tend to be persuaded by strong, but not by weak, arguments. Highly dogmatic individuals, in contrast, are persuaded by strong arguments only when the source is nonexpert. Another individual-difference factor that influences persuasion is the need for closure. Participants who are high in need for closure are typically more resistant to persuasion than people low in need for closure, because they don't like to change. These are the factors that influence persuasion and form the model of persuasion. Communicator Communication Target •Credibility •Liking •Reference group •Discrepancy •Strong vs Weak arguements •Repetition •Peripheral cues •Fear arousal •Ego involvement •Personality The factors that resist change in attitudes People can be persuaded to change their attitudes and behaviour. However, there are several factors that, enhance our ability to resist even highly skilled efforts at persuasion. Barriers to attitude change Forewarning Inoculation Distraction Blanket rejection Message Distortion Source Derogation The first factor is forewarning- a warning of an impending influence attempt. This aid to resisting influence refers to simply warning people that they are about to be exposed to a persuasion attempt. In a study by Freedman and Sears (1965), teenagers were told 10 minutes beforehand that they were going to hear a talk entitled, "Why Teenagers Should Not Be Allowed to Drive." Other teenagers were not told about the talk until just before the speaker began. Those who had been warned ahead of time were less influenced by the talk than those who had not. Forewarning enabled them to resist the message. When we know that a speech or written appeal is designed to alter our views, we are often less likely to be affected by it than when we do not possess such knowledge. It is because forewarning influences several cognitive processes that play an important role in persuasion. First, forewarning provides us with more opportunity to formulate counterarguments— those that refute the message—and that can lessen the message’s impact. In addition, forewarning provides us with more time to recall relevant information that may prove useful in refuting the persuasive message. Wood and Quinn (2003) found that forewarning was generally effective at increasing resistance, and that simply expecting to receive a persuasive message (without actually even receiving it) can influence attitudes in a resistant direction. Inoculation is another factor that becomes a barrier to attitude change. Interested in how persons develop resistance to persuasion, McGuire (1964) proposed that a target can be inoculated against persuasion. He specified various attitude inoculation treatments that would enable target persons to defend their beliefs against persuasion attempts. Attitude inoculation means exposing people to weak attacks upon their attitudes so that when stronger attacks come, they will have refutations available. One such treatment, called the refutational defence consists of giving the target- information that is discrepant with their beliefs and arguments that counter the discrepant information and that support their original beliefs. By exposing a target to weak attacks and allowing the target to refute them, this inoculation builds up the target’s resistance and prepares the target to resist stronger attacks on their attitudes in the future. The second treatment, called-supportive defence strengthens resistance by bolstering the person’s opinion: this approach involves providing additional arguments to support the original position. A study by McGuire and Papageorgis (1961) used both supportive and refutational methods to build up defences. They used three groups of participants: One group received support for their position, one group had their position attacked weakly and refuted it, and the third group experienced neither approach. Afterward, all three groups were subjected to a strong attack on their initial position. The supportive method helped participants resist persuasion slightly, but the refutational method helped a great deal. Participants receiving this preparation changed their attitudes much less than did participants in the other two groups. The ability to resist persuasion is weakened by anything that makes it harder to counterargue the discrepant communication. In particular, distracting attention may enable a persuasive message to get through. Anything that prevents the target from giving full attention to the argument will impair the target’s ability or motivation to evaluate an argument or appeal effectively and, therefore, influence the persuasion attempt. A study by Festinger and Maccoby (1964) demonstrated this effect of distraction. 3 separate experiments were done at different universities to test the hypothesis that a persuasive communication that argues strongly against an opinion to which the audience is committed will be more effective if the audience is somewhat distracted from the communication so that they cannot adequately counterargue while listening. 2 films were prepared, each containing the same communication arguing strongly against fraternities. One was a normal film of the speaker making a speech. The other film, with the same track, had an utterly irrelevant and highly distracting visual presentation. Presumably, those watching the irrelevant film were more distracted from the anti-fraternity speech than were those watching the person speak. Participants who initially disagreed with the speech (that is, who were in favour of fraternities) were more influenced in the dis traction condition than in the non-distraction condition. Taking the participants' minds off the speech increased its effectiveness. Distraction tends to foster persuasion only when it interferes with an otherwise effective counterarguing process. Thus, distraction is more likely to lead to persuasion when the issue is a familiar one about which we have established our arguments than when the issue is one about which we do not have ready arguments. Blanket rejection is yet another factor that prevents attitude change. Rather than refuting the arguments on logical grounds or weakening them by attacking their source, individuals simply reject arguments for no apparent reason. For example, a typical response by a smoker to a well-reasoned, logical attack on cigarette smoking is to say that the arguments are not good enough to make her stop. She does not answer them, she simply does not accept them. It often takes more than a good argument to convince people of something. Message factors may also be important in rejecting a persuasive communication. Specifically, cognitive consistency theories maintain that inconsistency between our own position and that advocated in a message may be resolved by distorting or misperceiving the communication to reduce the discrepancy between it and our own position. Just as communicator characteristics can enhance the persuasiveness of a communication, they can also be used to discredit a communication. When faced with a communication that is inconsistent with our attitudes, we can reduce inconsistency by deciding that the source of the communication is unreliable or negative in some other way. This is called source derogation. Such an attack on the source of a communication is common in politics, informal debates, courtroom trials, and practically every kind of disagreement.
