persuasion lecture 12

meaning in this context

Mental representations of expected associations

"Naïve Scientists"

(Piaget, 1934)

-very early in life we form basic epistemic (knowledge based) expectations/theories about the world - eg object permanence, constant volume

-as we get older we continue to do this making more complicated beliefs including morals, how world should work etc

-we surrounded ourselves with expected associations

- when things deviate from this we don't like it

eg weather, others emotions your health - we have expected associations we have acquired

Explanation

Why does X occur?

Functions of forming explanations

Practical: predict and control events

-eg understand weather(crops), medicine and others emotions

-so then can act in a useful way (prescribe correct medicine etc )

Psychological: avoid uncertainty and conflict (causal uncertainty is even depressing - people who don't understand others behaviours are more likely to become depressed )

issues with forming explanations

- some phenomena too complex or vague for our brains to model, involve mechanisms that we can't immediately sense

-eg may feel we understand weather patterns but then have catastrophes

-dont understand bacteria - as naïve scientists ourselves

, ...and self-perceptions / metacognition / philosophical reflections on knowledge itself

A lot of cross-cultural psychologists

-many early cultures create mechanisms of compensatory control

-no method to understand future weather patterns, epidemics what causes love, social justice

-so extrapolate social reasoning-When someone in my group gets angry with me, they might destroy my property so a very large amount of destruction of my environment might be best attributed to a divine authority

-justice for something done wrong by some kind of supernatural entity (often mytholigcal)

-gives back control as can bargain with etc

-teleological explanations

teleological explanations

Teleological: explanation by purpose, intent

-assumes there is intent that governs when they are happening eg an intelligent being

teleological explanations- psychological function of explanaitions

good as avoids uncertainty and conflict,

you feel as though can develop system of control of future and world , base things on peoples behaviour etc

-what bad thing have people done to cause this, scrifices etc - compensatory control

Karl Popper argues this is enjoyed as is unfalsifiable

-no evidence would disprove it as can find other explanaitions

teleological explanations- practical function of explanaitions

But o-for practical reasons for explanations (predicting and controlling events) teleological arguments are not normally sufficient to effectively predict and control events

-okay with things that happened in the past but more difficult to predict future

-even do understand human behaviour properly will need psychological science

Empirical Explanation

-Theory - explanation that looks to determine underlying causes of phenomena

-Hypothesis - precise testable predictions that evaluates theory (derived from theory)

-Falsifiable - clear states outcomes that wouldn't support theory

Empirical Explanation-pro and con

-in principle this is the benefit of science able to accurately predict( good on practical level)

-however does falsifiability sounds psychologically satisfying based on our knowledge , having to constantly reform beliefs sounds painful (bad on psychological level)

-some people who buy into science a lot may enjoy but for day to day purpose not enjoyable

Scientific Method: Properties

Replication - repeatable and publicly observable?

Predictions - apply to other phenomena (non-tautological not circular, says there's an underlying process )?

--E.g., in the ELM, many variables/contexts can be explained by increased Elaboration Likelihood!

basic division in science

-verificationism

Vs

-falsificationism

-historical divide

Verificationist

what you would expect to see if the theory were true? Test for if this is happening / can we make it so?

We are probably Natural Verificationists - we look for what we're expecting, 'confirmation bias'. (Piaget, 1954) (S1 thinking)

- Theory matching experience, and vice versa

- Representativeness heuristic - how similar is experience to existing theory?

- Availability heuristic - how easily can I call up an existing theory to apply to an experience?

Theory of Evolution + Verificationism

-Theory suggests we should find animals "adapted to environment".

-Theory is "bolstered" by evidence that is consistent with it.

-Find birds with special beaks for collecting the nuts, fruits, insects of their region: theory of evolution seems more credible.

Fasificationism

-Falsificationist: What specific observation would mean that X theory cannot be sufficient to explain observed phenomena?

-So now scientists are 'trying to debunk' their own theory! (less easy to debunk the stronger the theory)

-Note this is opposite of our basic human tendency...

-AKA, opposite of verificationist hypothesis testing.

Theory of Evolution + Falsificationism

-Theory suggests we should not find mammals in Devonian strata (type of fossils), because mammals were not evolved yet.

-Theory is "vulnerable" to evidence that would "hurt" the theory

-more you find (especially if replicable etc worse) .

-Find a rat skeleton in Devonian strata: theory of evolution is 'damaged'.

Falsificationism problem in psych

(As we might expect...) Broad problem in psychology: absence of clear falsification conditions for many of our theories!

good falsification example

elaboration likelihood model.

ELM originally proposed 'thought bias' and 'variable as argument' as exhaustive(only 2) of how variables can persuade when people are thinking carefully (high EL).

More recently, metacognitive processes have been detected, falsifying the original "multiple roles postulate", forcing it to change., author then changed theory to fit with what observed

Scientific Method: "Revolutions"

"The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" (Kuhn, 1962)

Science goes through distinct stages - roughly 'immature' to 'mature'

Stage 1: Identification of phenomena (i.e., descriptive data)

Stage 2: Development of overarching paradigm (way of looking at data, tools etc)

Stage 3: "Crisis": experiences don't match paradigm expectations (i.e., falsification is available!)

Stage 4: Paradigm shift - return to Stage 2 (if enough people are paying attention to it)

Often Stage 3 is tolerated for a surprisingly long time. (allow contradictory rather than changing theory)

Stage 1: "Pre-Paradigm Science"

A pseudo-"theory" for every observable phenomenon

theories are descriptions of the effects, rather than explanations for why they occur

No consensus on broader theories to explain multiple phenomena

Progress is limited because:

-no agreement on acceptable methods

-no consolidation of resources to build instruments and labs

-no communication due to a lack of common language (jargon/terminology, theories don't integrate, just lots of little separate theories )

pre-paradigm science examples

-does fear messaging work -yep

-speaking fast works

-experts better than non experts at persuading

Stage 2: "Paradigm Science"

Theories are that apply to multiple observable phenomenon

Explanations that hypothesize shared causes for 'different' phenomena occur

Broad consensus on a Paradigm that sets common values and methods

'Normal Science' (in sense of being normally though tof as science)

Progress is facilitated because:

agreement on acceptable methods - and what phenomena are "of note"

consolidation of resources to build complex and expensive instruments and labs

communication grows because of a common language (jargon/terminology)

Stage 2: "Paradigm Science" In persuasion

-so why does fear messaging work as gets attention,

-talking quick works as seem more intelligent

-experts work as seem credible and credible is good

0recipient thinking is good as they can understand and process message these

-see all these have something in come, audiences must be attending to your message and receiving it -connecting dot

"Paradigm Science" Example:pre - ELM

-Most pre-ELM persuasion theories are descriptive, self-contradictory.

•E.g., faster vocal speed helps - because fast talkers seem smart, and such competence bolsters their credibility.

•This often contributes to a broader paradigm. Note all prior slide examples imply that more thinking is always better.

•This is consistent with old "learning" paradigm of persuasion as you might recall... 'persuasion is just getting someone to understand'.

implications/ issues pre-elm theories

•Implication: always better to speak faster... no apparent limit on how much faster??

-his research does not show this - persuasion detriment in strong messages when speak much faster (curvilinear- will need more complex data )

-similar contradictory findings for all prev slide theories

Stage 2: Paradigm ScienceSelective Attention

Selective Exposure & Selective Attention

Actively attend to information that confirms attitudes and filter out information that defies them."

selective attention card example

Deck of Cards: 52 cards, four suits, two colours etc.

mental representation of expected relations between features (i.e., clubs are black)

i.e., 'Paradigm'

-but shown other way round eg black hearts

card example results

after sufficient interaction without explanation, some participants experienced "acute personal distress"

-smth that disrupts expected association violates our assimiliation bias

Stage 3: Crisis ScienceCognitive Conflict

Consistency Motivation

Does scientific experience match paradigm expectations?

-contradiction leads to arousal and essential tension

-deep profound discomfort with information not congruent with their theory.

Stage 4 : paradigm shift

Eventually, paradigm can no longer solves important puzzles (need to overcame humans natural desires/heuristics etc)

Science stagnates until...

Paradigm Shift!

New way of 'seeing' phenomena

Solves most older puzzles

Sets out new values - new puzzles to solve

Different language

stage 4 of prev theories

why does fear work

-because it sets off this set of defensive cognitions for people

-until overcome defensiveness wont get persuasion (applies to all kind of threatening message - masculine men)

for speaking fast, there's some underlying processing elements that are important.

experts only persuade when have strong argument - elaboration likelihood