Attitudes and Persuasion

Attitudes

An evaluation (positive or negative) of a person, object, or idea

Dual process system for attitudes

• explicit attitudes

• Implicitly attitudes

• Can be inconsistent

Explicit attitudes

Conscious evaluation, generated by the rational system

Implicit attitudes

Unconscious associations, generated by the intuitive system

• quick automatic reactions we have towards things

• Partially genetic (born with, prepared fears) ex. Spiders

Study on attitudes: cats vs. dogs

Strong explicit attitudes preferring dogs, strong implicit attitudes preferring cats

• maybe because of seeing rabid dogs in movies, being startled by dogs in the neighborhood, etc.

Measuring explicit attitude

Likert scales

Strongly disagree = 1 … strongly agree = 7

• can be tricky because people might feel inclined to lie about their explicit attitudes (ex. Social desirability)

Measuring implicit attitudes

Implicit Association Test (a measure of of implicit attitudes that uses reaction time as the metric)

• doesn’t correlate very well with behaviors

Predicting behavior from attitudes (LaPiere [1934])

First study to demonstrate inconsistency between attitudes and behaviors

• traveled around US and accompanied by his Chinese student and Chinese students’ wife, both spoke unaccented English

• Strong negative attitudes towards Chinese at the time

• Went to over 250 establishment, only once were they discriminated against because of being Chinese and refused to serve them (the behavior)

• Surveyed on attitudes, 128 gave surveys back, almost all (90%) of them say they won’t serve Chinese (the explicit attitude), only 1 said they would serve Chinese

  • Complete opposite of the behavior

Predicting behavior from attitudes (wicker [1969])

Reviewed literature and concluded no attitude-behavior consistency

• found that attitudes and behavior correlated at .3 (not super strong), confirmed findings from LaPiere

Predicting behavior from attitudes (Ajzen and Fishbein)

• Theory of reasoned action and planned behavior

• relationship between intentions and behaviors

• Three factors determine voluntary behavior

  • Attitudes towards behavior

  • Subjective norms

  • Perceived behavioral control

• Conclusion: attitudes aren’t the only predictors of behavior

Cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger)

People dislike inconsistency among their beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors

• the tension that arises when you become aware of inconsistencies between beliefs and behaviors

Ways to reduce dissonance

• change something (Belief, attitude, behavior)

• Downplay the importance of something

• Add something that resolves inconsistency

Free choice paradigm

Participants make a choice between alternative, report attitude toward each choice

• post-decisional dissonance

• Spreading of alternatives

Post-decisional dissonance

A state of psychological discomfort that follows an important decision

Spreading of alternatives

Resolving post-decisional dissonance by emphasizing positives of chosen option and negatives of not-chosen option

Induced compliance paradigm

Participants are nudged to engage in a behavior that conflicts with their true beliefs or attitudes

• Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) - peg turning study

How to resolve induced compliance paradigm

Resolve by adopting a belief or attitude consistent with the induced behavior

Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) - peg turning study

• participants came into lab and did a boring task (turn the pegs a quarter turn)

• Told participants waiting in the waiting room need to be led to believe the task is fun and asked for help from participant to make it seem fun

  • Half participants paid $1, the other half paid $20; all lied to the next participant

  • “I heard the task was boring / no it was super fun and good for hand-eye coordination”

• People who got paid 1 thought it was more enjoyable to them than the people who paid 20

• Maybe people who got paid 1 felt dissonance, and so they said the task was more favorable to make themselves feel better about lying to them

Effort justification

Reducing dissonance by convincing ourselves that suffering was valuable

• hazing, initiation practices, arduous physical tasks

Persuasion

Intentional efforts to change someone’s attitude, usually in hopes of changing their behavior

• A lot of research into this occurred during WW2 to understand why people committed these atrocities, how to persuade Americans to join war, how to convince women to work in male jobs while the men were going (We can do it! Rosie poster)

Elaboration Likelihood Model

• Two possible routes to persuasion

  • Central route processing

  • Peripheral route processing

Central route processing (review lecture video for this)

Thinking systematically and evaluating the arguments; effortful processing

• must have motivation and ability to focus on arguments

• Good for long-lasting attitude change

Peripheral route processing

Influenced by incidental or irrelevant characteristics (nothing to do with argument, but intended to influence you anyways, ex. Ads)

• effective for unmotivated tired, or distracted audience

• Also useful when arguments are weak

Yale approach to attitude change

“Who says what to whom?”

• who —> speaker effects

• What —> message effect

• To whom —> audience effects

• Tells us when persuasion is more likely to occur

The Who: speaker effects (what makes a speaker more persuasive)

• attractiveness: physical, likeability, well-dressed, etc.

• Credibility: combination of expertise and trustworthiness

• Certainty: confidence is persuasive

Exception to speaker effects (sleeper effect)

Delayed impact of a message that occurs when we remember the message but forget the reason for discounting it (the source)

• saw a tabloid with rumors and thought it was garbage, but over time forget the source of the message, so when someone mentions the person the rumor is about, you bring up the rumor you saw in the tabloid

The what: message effects

• message quality

• Vividness

• Fear appeals

Message quality

• straightforward, clear, and logical

• Explicitly refute the other side

• Speak against your own self-interest (ex. Beer ad saying to drink responsibly)

Message quality

• straightforward, clear, and logical

• Explicitly refute the other side

• Speak against your own self-interest (ex. Beer ad saying to drink responsibly)

Identifiable victim effect

People more likely to donate to something if they see evidence of a victim suffering (easier to imagine the cause we’re donating to if you can see a clear example as opposed to abstract suffering)

Fear appeals

Can increase or decrease persuasion

• reception yielding model

• Best way to use fear appeals

  • Moderate amount of fear (not too much, not too little)

  • Include a solution

Reception yielding model

Be scary enough to be convincing but not so scary that people tune out

To whom: audience effects

• some people are more persuadable than others

  • Age: younger people are easiest to persuade

    • College students are primary targets for cults

  • Mood: good mood is generally better, but could also match the message to people’s moods

    • Study: participants read persuasive essays, one group got Pepsi and peanuts and other group didn’t, group with Pepsi and peanuts rated the essays as more persuasive

How can we resist persuasion

• be forewarned (people who expect persuasion are going to be less persuadable)

• Be informed

• Make a public commitment to your position