Jaya Gakhal
Outline and evaluate two models of attitude change
One model of attitude change is the Hovland- Yale model. This is a threecomponent model which refer to the ‘feelings’ or emotions associated with the
attitude, the behavioural component involved and the cognitive component
which refers to the beliefs and thoughts about the attitude. Hovland argued that
we can understand attitude change by considering it a sequential process. The
first process in the process is attention. In order to be persuaded, an individual
must first notice the attempt to persuade them. Many people are constantly
bombarded with several adverts and messages, most of which are likely to go unnoticed. The second stage is comprehension; the individual must understand
what is being said to them in order to be persuaded. If they do not understand
the message, again it may go un– noticed or not have any effect on them. The
third stage is reactance, the individual will react to the message and either agree
largely with is or may not agree with it and disregard it entirely. Following this is
acceptance; the message is only accepted if it is believed. The Hovland – Yale
model argues that persuasion is dependent on several factors: The source, (e.g.
credibility, physical appearance and speed of speech) the message, (content and
fear) the medium, (e.g. audio – visual messages are more persuasive than written
messages) the target (e.g. people with higher self – esteem are harder to
persuade than those with lower self- esteem) and the situation (e.g. we are more
likely to be persuaded by someone who is similar to us for example in ethnic
background). Hovland emphasised that the three components interact with each
other rather than being separate. The model saw people as largely rational,
dealing and weighing up information in a thought out sequence. This approach is
highly cognitive as it assumes that people always think carefully. More recently
social psychologists have shown that people so not always carefully consider
information as thoroughly as this model suggests. In fact, most of the time we are
cognitive misers (we take shortcuts and jump to conclusions when processing
information that is limited.)
For this reason, more dual process models are used for persuasion. This is
because they distinguish between two types of persuasion: those that require
careful and rational consideration of the arguments (e.g. the Hovland Yale
model) and those which minds are made up on the basis of very limited
information. Dual – process models are based on the assumption that people are
not always willing or able to think systematically about the arguments when
exposed to a persuasive attempt. The elaboration likelihood model (ELM) is one
dual- process model that Petty and Cacioppo agreed that when an attempt is
made to persuade someone, they consider the argument. They also viewed
people as cognitive misers however, this is when people do not always take into
account all of the information e.g. about the sender/ source of the message. The
ELM argued that there are two specific routes to attitude change: The central
route: this is primarily based on thought and cognitive effort. The person will
consider the argument carefully and even consider counter arguments. Their
persuasion depends on the quality of the argument and attitude change is
normally permanent. The peripheral route: In contrast this route requires
minimal cognitive effort. The person does not give much thought to the message
they are presented and are likely to respond to cues and use shortcuts to make
Jaya Gakhal
their decision about attitude change. The attitude change here is likely to be
temporary. This model seems to suggest that attitudes ‘belong’ to people.
However, some attitudes are shared by many members of a community e.g. racial
and other prejudices. This model may therefore fail to show the importance of
collective attitudes like these. Discursive psychologist (study and examine how
language is used in everyday settings) also criticise the idea that attitudes are
consistent and measurable, as suggested in the ELM. The same person may, for
example, have both positive and negative thoughts of something within a single
sentence. They suggest that we shouldn’t view attitudes as measurable entities
but as ‘resources’ – people may use them in conversation to persuade other
people of their viewpoint.