Persuasion & Attitude Change

Overview
Attitude change
Attitude inconsistency & cognitive dissonance Persuasion

Models of persuasion
Elaboration Likelihood Model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1984)

Increasing compliance
Resisting persuasion

Attitude change via cognitive dissonance

Cognitive dissonance = inconsistency between attitudes and/or behaviour
Festinger & Carlsmith (1959) asked participants to perform a boring task (turning pegs quarter turn left, then quarter turn right) for twenty minutes After completing the task, paid them either $1 or $20 to tell the next participant that the task was really interesting.

Festinger & Carlsmiths (1959) results

Task Interest

1.5 1 0.5 0 -0.5 -1 Enjoy Task $1 $20

Attitude change via cognitive dissonance

$1 group rated task more interesting than $20 group
Why? participants in the $20 group explain the inconsistency between their experience and the lie they tell the next participant because they have been fairly well paid However, the $1 group dont have this explanation, because they only received $1. So, the only way the can reduce the feeling of dissonance is to convince themselves that the task was really interesting

Cognitive dissonance: Limitations

Dissonance harder to create than imagined

Most attempts at attitude change, therefore, focus on trying to persuade people to change their attitudes

Persuasive Communication

Attitude change: Yale Model

Persuasive communication major WW2 research effort into voluntary rationing, propaganda etc. (Hovland et al., 1953) Source (communicator): Who is trying to persuade you? Message (communication): What is being said? Audience: Who is the audience?

Who do you believe?

We must reduce our carbon footprint to prevent climate change

We do not need to reduce our carbon footprint to prevent climate change

Attitude change: Yale Model; Source

Source (communicator): Who is trying to persuade you?
Hovland & Weiss (1951) found that participants evaluated articles from a believable and trustworthy source (e.g., an academic journal) more favourably than articles from a low credibility source (e.g., a politically biased columnist) Bochner & Insko (1967) found that students were more inclined to believe an expert when it came to estimating how many hours sleep humans need

Which message is more likely to change behaviour?

Attitude change: Yale Model; Message

Message (communication): What is being said?
Janis and Fesbach (1953) found message advocating frequent teeth brushing was more effective if it elicited moderate fear about the risks of not brushing, by showing discoloured and decayed teeth as opposed to high fear by showing gory effects of not brushing, like death!

Attitude change: Yale Model

When might experts fail to persuade you?

Why do gruesome images fail to change behaviour?

When might experts fail to persuade you?

Why do gruesome images fail to change behaviour?

?

Attitude change: Who is the audience?

Different audiences may require different messages, in different formats

Chaiken and Eagly (1983) looked at the interaction between message complexity (easy, hard) and medium of delivery (written, audio, video) on attitude change

Chaiken & Eagly (1983)

5 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Easy Difficult

Opinion Change

Written Audio Video

Attitude change: Who is the audience?

Key factor in persuasion is the audiences prior beliefs

Strong beliefs are hard to change, even when presented with strong counter-arguments Weak, or non-existent, beliefs much easier to change Duck et al. (1999) also showed that we tend to see other people as more easily persuaded compared to us.

Dual-process models of persuasion

Several models of persuasion in Social Psychology propose that there are two routes to persuasion Direct route focusing on content using strong arguments Indirect route focusing on surface features of message; present persuasion using attractive or knowledgeable sources

Attitude Change via Elaboration

Petty & Cacioppo (1986) Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) proposes two routes to persuasion Central route Closely attended to, has personal meaning, cognitive route, try to remember eg. Medical advice, Essay guidelines Peripheral route More superficial, association of cues with message e.g., ISA allowance information

Attitude change: ELM: Relevance to you

ELM states that people elaborate arguments more when they are about a topic that matters to them
If the topic is important to you (e.g., tuition fees) you will process the argument carefully! However, if the topic is unimportant (e.g., tax credits for elderly people) you will probably not process the argument so carefully.

Attitude change: ELM: Relevance to you

Petty et al. (1981) tested the idea that relevance affects attitudes
Students reported their attitudes about a new exam, then listened to a radio broadcast outlining why new exams were needed This year (high relevance) In ten years time (low relevance) Arguments were either strong (exams help with coursework) or weak (sounds like a good idea) Attitudes measured again

Petty et al.s (1981) Results

0.8

Post-meassage attitudes

0.6 0.4 0.2 0 -0.2 -0.4 -0.6 -0.8 Low Relevance High Relevance Strong Weak

Argument quality does not matter

Argument quality matters

Enhancing message compliance: Foot in the door

Foot-in-the-door = If target agrees to a small request they may agree to a larger one later.
Freedman and Fraser (1966): Went door-to-door randomly selecting houses in California and asked homeowners to put a large, ugly, sign urging people to Drive Carefully. Two weeks before, asked some homeowners to sign a petition to support a campaign for safe driving

Over 55% agreed to put up the sign if they agreed to sign the petition
Less than 20% agreed to put up the sign if they had not been approached before

Enhancing message compliance: Door-in-the-face

Door-in-the-face = start with large request that is bound to be refused, follow-up with small request
Cialdini et al. (1975) asked students to serve as a voluntary counseller at a youth offenders centre for two hours a week for two years
No takers

Then asked if they would chaperone a group of offenders to the zoo for two hours
50% agreed

Participants who were just asked if they would chaperone offenders to the zoo
17% agreed

Enhancing message compliance: Low-ball tactic

Low-ball tactic = agree to request even after details change Cialdini et al. (1978) Half their participants asked to be in an experiment that began at 7am (Control) Other half asked to commit themselves to the experiment before being told the experiment starts at 7 (Low Ball) 31% of Control group agreed to take part in the study 56% of Low Ball group agreed to take part; they were also more likely to turn up!

Resistance to persuasion
Cognitive processes help us resist persuasion Attention: Selectively process arguments to support our point of view; ignore strong counter-arguments, but remember weak counter-arguments Memory: Very unlikely to be persuaded if we cannot remember arguments: poor processing of counterarguments undermines memory for the arguments

Resistance to persuasion
Reactance (Brehm 1966)
react against message; do the opposite of GPs advice

Forewarning
can lead to forearming with counter arguments

Resistance to persuasion: Inoculation (McGuire)

Inoculation: exposure to small doses of persuasion boosts resistance McGuire & Papageorgis (1961) students indicated agreement on 15-pt scale with health beliefs like:
Good idea to brush your teeth after each meal Effects of penicillin have been of great benefit to mankind Everyone should get a chest X-ray to detect TB Mental illness is not contagious

Resistance to persuasion: Inoculation (McGuire)

McGuire & Papageorgis (1961) students allocated to different conditions:
Supportive defence (essay supporting position) Inoculation defence (essay with weak attack of position, which was refuted) Control (no attack) Control (attack)

Finally, students asked to indicate agreement with health beliefs

McGuire & Papageorgis (1961) results

Acceptance of Health Belief

12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Inoculation Support Control (no attack) Control (attack)

McGuire & Papageorgis (1961): Interpretation

McGuire & Papageorgis (1961) results show:
Control (attack) reduced agreement, while Control (no attack) did not change agreement Supportive defence (essay supporting position) helped maintain agreement relative to control (attack) However, Inoculation defence (essay with weak attack of position, which was refuted), was more effective relative to control (attack)

Resistance to Persuasion: Attitude Certainty

Tormala & Petty (2002): participants who resisted more persuasive arguments had higher attitude certainty than participants who resisted less persuasive arguments Tormala & Petty argue resisting strong arguments boosts our confidence in our attitudes and increases our certainty. Only works for strong arguments because it is too easy to dismiss weak arguments

References
Chapter 6 Hogg & Vaughan Chapter 4 Crisp & Turner Tormala, Z.L., & Petty, R.E. (2002). What doesnt kill me makes me stronger: The effects of resisting persuasion on attitude certainty, Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 83, 12981313.