Docstoc

Persuasion

Document Sample
Persuasion Powered By Docstoc
					Persuasion
         Persuasion
         Message




Agent,
                   Recipient
source
         Yale Group Perspective
          1950 research group
• Who (Source)
  – Credibility
  – Expertise
  – Likability
• What (Message)
  – Argument quality
  – Argument type
• Whom (Audience)?
  – IQ.
  – Qualification
     Audience Characteristics
Match between audience and message.

High and Low Self-
Monitors asked how
much they would pay
for products in
information or image
oriented ads
             Audience.
          Mediational Model
              McGuire
• Whom:

 – Reception (understanding the message)
   • higher IQ, less complex message

 – Yielding (accepting the message) stages
   • lower IQ, more complex message
 Elaboration Likelihood Model
(Petty & Cacioppo, 1981,1986)


 Central
                     Persuasion

Peripheral
Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM;
       Petty and Cacioppo)
 – Two paths to persuasion: Central and Peripheral

   Central
       •Requires cognitive effort
       •Persuasion is a function of “cognitive response” - thoughts
       during careful consideration of the message (i.e.
       elaborations)
       •Message strength is important
   Peripheral:
       •Does not require effort
       •Persuasion is often a function of useful heuristics (or
       shortcuts)
       •Source, message length, etc.
               Elaboration Likelihood Model
Motivation:
                                                    Opportunity:
•Involvement
                                                    •Distraction
•Need for
                                Effort?             •Cognitive
 Cognition
                                                      ability
•Accuracy
                                                    •Knowledge
•Mood
                        NO                YES

        Peripheral/Heuristic:
                                          Central/Systematic:
        •Length
                                          •Message Quality
        •Source
                                          •Relevant information
        •Mood




                           Attitude change
 Involvement and persuasion.
• Petty & Cacioppo, 1979
• How about the comprehensive exam?
• IV1: Strong vs. weak argument
   Strong arguments (example)
• Before mandating the comprehensive exam, average
  total scores on the GRE were 1650. Since mandating the
  exam, however, GRE score have sky rocketed to an
  average total score of 1800, a national high.
• It is also true that graduate and professional schools
  show a strong preference for undergraduates who have
  passed the exam
• University alumni have also indicated that they will
  increase financial support If the exams are instituted,
  allowing a tuition increase to be avoided
     Weak arguments (example)
• One parent stated “I think that comprehensive exams are
  necessary. Maybe they would encourage my son to go to
  classes.
• The exams would increase student fear, therefore
  promoting more studying. In fact, one student at
  Mississippi State said “I would be totally scared if I had to
  take comprehensive exams. What if I failed? “ I guess
  they would motivate me to study all the time!”
• That is not to mention that requiring graduate students,
  but not undergraduate students to take the exams is
  similar to racial discrimination.
        Involvement and Persuasion
•   Petty & Cacioppo, 1979
•   How about the comprehensive exam?
•   IV1: Strong vs. weak argument
•   IV2: Your college vs. another college (involvement)



    8
    6                                           Strong
    4
                                                Weak
    2
    0
             Low                High
              Need for Cognition
• Learning new ways to think does not excite me much.
• I really enjoy a task that involves coming up with new
  solutions to problems.


                    Cacioppo, Petty & Morris 1983


          8
          6                                         Strong
          4
          2                                         Weak
          0
                  Low                High
      Mood and persuasion
• Mood and low elaboration.
• Mood and high elaboration.
• Mood and moderate elaboration.
Mood and heuristic processing.
• Mood-as-information
  – How do I feel about it?
• Classical conditioning
  – Associations
       Mood and substantial
           processing
• Mood-congruent memories
  – Priming effect
• Corrective processes (Weather study)
Petty, Schumann et al (1993)
Low elaboration
(low involvement, low need for cognition)

                                              Persuasion
        Mood




High elaboration
(high involvement, high need for cognition)


        Mood                  Thoughts          Persuasion
 Mood and moderate elaboration.
• Hedonic contingency theory
  – People are motivated to maintain or to
    achieve good mood.
  – Bad mood – almost any task may improve
    mood.
  – Good mood – almost any task may
    deteriorate mood.
  – Bad mood – increases elaboration
  – Happy mood – decreases elaboration (unless
    the task is enjoyable!)
 Behavior Basis for Persuasion
• Cognitive Dissonance
• Self-perception
           Self-Perception
• Under certain circumstances, people don’t
  know how they feel until they see how they
  behave (Bem, 1972)
Example. Brehm (1956)
• Rate 10 objects.
• Choose between 2 similarly desirable
  objects as a take-home gift.
• Rate 2 objects again.
• Result: The chosen gift is rated much
  higher.
 Example 2 Aronson & Mills (1956)
     Cognitive Dissonance
• Females read aloud words in order to gain
  admission to a sexual topic discussion
  group:
  – Sexually explicit
  – Sexually non-explicit
• Discussion: Secondary sexual
  characteristics or lower vertebrates.
• Rating the discussion. Who is higher?
  When do we infer attitudes from
         our behavior?
• Initial attitudes are weak or ambiguous.
• No other plausible explanation for the
  behavior.
• Free choice, responsibility for the
  unwanted consequences.
• Motivation for self-consistency.

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:5
posted:8/10/2011
language:English
pages:23