Attitude Change and Persuasion

Lecture 4

Attitude Change

any sig. change of individual’s attitude.

in persuasion → communicator, communication, medium used + characteristics of audience.

Persuasion vis Deliberative Processing (McGuire, 1969; 1986)

highlights challenge of persuading. interruption can negate.

get audience to:-

• attent

• comprehend message

• accept message

• retain new attitude

• act on new attitude

Message-Learning Approach (Hovland, Janis & Kelley, 1953)

learning of message content primary mediator of attitude change. three important characteristics:-

• source/communicator (who)

• message (what)

• audience (whom)

Message-Learning: The Communicator

the expertise heuristic.

function of credibility is believing experts. perceived competence critical.

Bochner & Insko (1966) - study beliefs on necessary sleep hours.

• group 1 - given info about sleep hours from ‘high credibility’ score.

• group 2 = from ‘low credibility’ score.

results = Ps more likely to believe high credibility.

Message-Learning - The Message

repetition/familiarity heuristic.

sentence repetition increases believability (Arkes et al., 1991).

may not work with novel product (Campbell & Keller, 2003).

when fear moderate → biggest impact on attitude change (Janis, 1967).

Chaiken & Eagly (1983):-

• best medium depends on message complexity

• simple = video

• complex = written

Message-Learning - The Audience

Janis (1954) - low self-esteem → more easily persuaded.

HOWEVER

McGuire (1968); Rhodes & Wood (1992) - high/low self-esteem less easily persuaded than moderate.

Dual Process Models

ancillary features also influence persuasion. dual-process models explain when/how.

emphasise two routes for persuasion:-

• high effort → deliberative

• low effort → automatic

Dual-Processing: Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) - (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986)

attitude change mediated by central and peripheral route processing.

elaboration = extent one engages in central-route processing of issue-relevant arguments, not peripheral route e.g. heuristic processing.

deliberative → central route → arguments closely attended to/processed. stronger attitudes.

low effort → peripheral → not closely attended, relies on peripheral cues

Additional ELM Variables

peripheral cues = increase persuasiveness when elab. likelihood low (peripheral).

message argument = increase persuasiveness when elab. likelihood high (central).

motivation = plays role when elab. likelihood moderate. cues determine whether to attend to. 

Petty, Cacioppo & Goldman (1981)

Ss listen to arguments. motivation + source credibility manipulated.

results:-

• high motivation + expertise = high persuasion (central)

• high motivation + low expertise = low persuasion (central)

• low motivation + high expertise = high persuasion (peripheral expertise heuristic)

• low motivation + low expertise = low persuasion (peripheral expertise heuristic)

argument quality - central = persuasion high whe argument good, low if poor.

need for cognition = high need for cognition more likely to use central.

Dual Processing: Heuristic-Systematic Model (HSM) - Chaiken (1980; 1982; 1987)

careful attention to message = systematic processing. otherwise, use heuristics. 

overcomes ELM weakness e.g. specifies when high/low effort processing used.

high effort = systematic route → processive all info in comprehensive way.

low effort = heuristic route → heuristic for decision making. requires existing heuristic.

systematic more likely with high motivation+capacity. heuristic likely plays some role.

HSM - Bias Hypothesis

even under systematic processing, heuristic info not disregarded. message ambiguities → systematic processing biased by initial heuristic processing.

Chaiken & Maheswaran (1994) - Ps think part of marketing focus group examining answerphone XT100. manipulated:

• motivation

• source credibility

• argument strength

Chaiken & Maheswaran (1994) - Motivation 

high → Ps told XT100 may marketed in their area depending on decisions

low → XT100 may be marketed in other area depending on recommendations of this + other group

Chaiken & Maheswaran (1994) - Source Credibility

high credibility → info comes from respected consumer mag.

low credibility → info comes from discount store chain

Chaiken & Maheswaran (1994) - Argument Strength

high strength → XT100 better than rivals

weak strength → XT100 poorer than rivals

ambiguous → XT100 has both strengths and weaknesses

expected:

• high motivation - argument strength alone impact attitude, but ambiguous more influenced by credibility heuristic.

• low motivation -source credibility have most impact.

Chaiken & Maheswaran (1994) - Results

Ps attending argument:

• high motiv + high strength → pos. attitude

• high motive + low strength → neg. attitude

Initial heuristic bias:

• high motiv + ambig + high cred → pos. attitude

• high motiv + ambig + low cred → neg. attitude

heuristic alone:

• low motiv → attitude affect only by credibility

HSM - Sufficiency Principle

more specific than ELM on when systematic processing is engaged. people want sufficient confidence in judgements. sufficiency determined by:-

• actual confidence → eval of how convincing communication is

• sufficiency threshold → point communication is convincing enough

actual confidence lower = motivated to process systematically

desired confidence higher for personal issues (elevates sufficiency threshold).

Cognitive Dissonance

co-occurrence of inconsistent beliefs, attitudes, behaviours. cognitive tension resolved by changing one belief/attitude so both consistent.

dissonance can be route to attitude change.

Selective Exposure Hypothesis (Frey, 1986; Frey & Rosch, 1984)

tend to avoid potentially dissonant info, leading to persuasion resistance.

dissonance unpleasant, motivated to avoid it → avoidance of info inconsistent with existing beliefs.

avoidance less likely if:-

• attitude strong → resources to rebut contradictory communication

• attitude weak → motivated to find more → attend communication

Self-Perception Theory vs Cognitive Dissonance

Bem (1972) - people infer attitudes from behaviour. what if attitude inconsistent?

dissonance → might change attitude to resolve inconsistency.

self-perception → behaviour provides info about what attitude should be.