Social Psych 2 Lecture 7 Persuasion

Cialdini’s six principles of persuasion

liking - people like those who like them (uncover real similarities and offer genuine praise)

reciprocity - people repay in kind (give back what you receive, door-in-the-face)

social proof - people follow the lead of similar others (use peer power when available)

consistency - people align with their prior commitments (make commitments active, public, and voluntary, foot-in-the-door, low-balling)

authority - people defer to experts (expose your expertise and not assuming the answer is self-evident, credentials should be visible)

scarcity - people want more of what they can have less of (highlight unique benefits and exclusive information)

persuasion by liking

people like things that are liked by people they like

classical conditioning (stimulus elicits emotional response and is repeated so neutral take son subconscious)

ex: uncovers real similarities and offers genuine praise = liking

persuasion by reciprocity

people feel obliged to repay in kind what they’ve received

door-in-the-face (using guilt by introducing something large that they will reject at first so they agree with a smaller request)

people repay in kind (give back what you receive)

ex: given gifts so stay at the job they don’t like

persuasion by social proof

people follow the lead of other people to decide what is right/safe/normal

use peer power when available: SIMILAR people over distant

neighbors donated so the list is longer and others also donate

horizontal

persuasion by consistency

people are motivated to be consistent with their prior commitments

foot-in-the-door: start with small request and gradually build up to larger

make target make a public commitment

(make commitments active, public, and voluntary, foot-in-the-door, low-balling)

persuasion by authority

people defer to credible experts

(expose your expertise and don’t assume the answer is self-evident, credentials should be visible)

ex: man in white coat

Credibility Expertise Study: perceived expertise and trustworthiness

persuasion by scarcity

people prize what is scarce and want more of what they can have less of

(highlight unique benefits and exclusive information like limited edition)

moral reframing

argue for a position using moral values of the audience (not of the speakers)

moral foundations theory

why human moral reasoning varies across cultures, individuals, political groups

liberty/oppression (against tyranny, domination, restrictions on freedom)

endorsed by liberals:

harm/care (protecting others, relieve suffering, promote compassion)

fairness/reciprocity (justice, rights, reciprocity, punish hoe who cheat)

endorsed by conservatives:

in-group/loyalty (self-sacrifice, group trust, vigilance against betrayal)

authority/respect (social order, tradition, obedience, hierarchy)

purity/sanctity (physical and spiritual purity, wholesomeness, aversion to disgust)

moral empathy gap

people have trouble understanding moral worldviews different from their own

persuasion

active attempt to change another’s attitudes by direct message

elaboration likelihood model (ELM)

two routes to persuasion:

central route: what people think carefully and deliberately about, the content of the message (logic and strength of arguments, evidence-based is strong, personal anecdote is weak), requires both motivation and ability otherwise rely on peripheral, alters BELIEFS, result is enduring

peripheral route: where people attend to relatively easy-to-process, superficial cues related to the message (length, expertise, attractiveness), little cognitive effort, peripheral cues, no conscious elaboration, alter AFFECTS, result is susceptible to future changes

message is personally relevant = ____ route of elaboration (high or low?)

personal relevance: central route because you are more motivated to think carefully

affected by number and strength of arguments

strong arguments persuade you more

weak arguments persuade less and might backfire because you notice its bad

message is not personally relevant = ____ route of elaboration (high or low?)

low elaboration = peripheral route

you don’t think hard and rely on shortcuts/cues and amount of arguments

argument strength has little affect