1. Persuasion You are feeling very sleeepy…

2. Bumper Stickers - “I’ll give up my gun when they pry it from my cold, dead hands.” Billboards - “Get U.S. out of the U.N.” Magazine Ads - “Think different” Television Ads - “Where’s the beef?” Radio Ads - “This program is brought to you by Exxon, working for a better environment” T- shirts - “No Nukes” Lawn Placards - “Vote for Rosenberg” Mailings, etc. 300 to 400 appeals/day from marketers alone

3. Outline Attitudes –Theories of Attitude Change –Factors affecting attitude change Persuasion –Dual-Process Model –Factors influencing persuasion

4. Martin Luther King, Jr.

5. National Rifle Association

6. What are attitudes? ABCs of attitudes –Affective: evaluations are based on positive and negative emotions associated with a target –Behavioral: a behavioral tendency to act in a certain manner towards the attitude object –Cognitive: evaluations based on beliefs & facts

7. Homer Simpson’s Attitudes Toward Beer Homer’s Attitude Toward Beer Behavior Regarding Beer Cognitions Regarding Beer Affective Evaluation Beer "Oh Lisa, you and your stories: 'Bart is a vampire', 'Beer kills brain cells'. Now let's go back to that building... thingy... where our beds and TV... is." "The other day, I was so desperate for a beer, I snuck into the football stadium and ate the dirt under the bleachers." "Mmmmm... Gummi Beer."

8. Consistency in persuasion 1.Balance theory (Heider, 1946, 1958) - we are motivated to have harmony in our views and behaviors - we want to agree with people we like a disagree with those we don’t Think of someone you respect / like. What if they expressed an opinion you opposed? 1.Could change your feelings for the person 2.Could change your opinion on the issue

9. If you like Tiger, shouldn’t you like the car?

10. Balance Theory Balanced Situations MichelleTeacher Legalized abortion + ++ MichelleTeacher Legalized abortion - -+ MichelleTeacher Legalized abortion + -- MichelleTeacher Legalized abortion - +-

11. MichelleTeacher Legalized abortion - ++ MichelleTeacher Legalized abortion + -+ MichelleTeacher Legalized abortion + +- MichelleTeacher Legalized abortion - -- Balance Theory Imbalanced Situations

12. Consistency in persuasion 2.Cognitive dissonance theory - we will work to resolve inconsistencies in our beliefs and actions when they matter to us - changing a behavior can change an attitude (and vice versa) Changes in attitudes occur primarily when we perceive justification – e.g., free will in determining our (inconsistent) actions

13. Ready to turn some pegs?? Students spent hour turning pegs in holes (really boring) Paid either $1 or $20 Who enjoyed the task more (when asked later)? Why $1 people  $20 was justification enough, $1 wasn’t – I must have really liked turning pegs! (Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959)

14. Insufficient justification Attitude change happens when one freely performs an attitude-discrepant act for an inadequate reward.

15. action or decision that conflicts w/ impt. aspect of self. InitiationAmplificationMotivationReduction is seen as freely chosen. produces negative consequences that were foreseeable Can’t be justified as due to strong reward or threat cannot be withdrawn unpleasant arousal. change designed to remove the unpleasant arousal. Dissonance begins with: More dissonance arises when the action or decision: Dissonance is experienced as: Dissonance is reduced through:

16. What affects how consistent we are? Arousal –Tranquilizers cause people to not change their opinions Preference for consistency Consequences –More impact of your behavior = more likely you will be to change your attitudes Salience of inconsistency

17. Consistent with what? Individualist  “me” focused Collectivist  group focused

18. Persuasion  change in private attitude or belief as a result of receiving a message Dual Process Model - takes into account two ways attitude change takes place - e.g., central vs. peripheral processing, systematic vs. heuristic processing, etc. Certain information is processed more deeply than other info

20. Message High motivation and ability to think about the message Low motivation or ability to think about the message Superficial processing, focused on surface features, e.g.: communicator’s attractiveness or number of arguments Deep processing, focused on the quality of the message arguments. Lasting change that resists fading and counterattack Temporary change that that is susceptible to fading and counterattack Persuasion Attempt Audience Factors Processing Approach Persuasion Outcome

21. “Retirement planning can be a way to stay ahead of the game.” Cris Carter Schwab Investor Central or Peripheral?

22. What affects level of processing? Personal relevance Need for cognition Ability - amount of information, cognitive capacity, format of message (medium, who it’s given by, etc.)

23. Who says... What...By what means... To whom? Communicator Credibility expertise trustworthiness Attractiveness Channel spoken written audio Video Audience Need for Cognition Message content Reason vs. emotion Discrepancy One vs. two-sided

24. Who says? --- The communicator Credibility: believability e.g., Hovland & Weiss (1951) expertise: the amount of knowledge the source is assumed to have trustworthiness: the perceived intention of the communicator to deceive. e.g., Eagly and others (1978) Perceived expertise Begin by saying things the audience agrees with Be introduced as someone knowledgeable on the topic Speak confidently (no stuttering), and quickly Communicator Credibility expertise trustworthiness Attractiveness

25. Class Demonstration Message on Phosphate containing detergents –Source Government Agency Soap Company

26. Attractiveness: having qualities that appeal to an audience physical appeal likeability perceived similarity surface characteristics (Dembroski and others, 1978) attitudes & values Persuasive on matters of subjective preference (e.g., aspirin, soft drinks) Communicator characteristics less relevant when the subject matter is important to participants Who says? --- The communicator

27. Low personal relevance High personal relevance Agreement with the message Petty and others (1981)

28. Time interval % attitude change The Sleeper Effect (Hovland & Weiss, 1951) Expert source Nonexpert source

29. Message content Reason vs. emotion Discrepancy One vs. two-sided What is said? 1. Is a carefully reasoned message more persuasive, or one that arouses emotion? 2. Will you be more persuasive by advocating an extreme point of view, or by advocating a moderate position? 3. Should your message be one-sided, or should it acknowledge two points of view?

30. 1.Is a carefully reasoned message more persuasive, or one that arouses emotion? (Dabbs & Janis, 1965)

31. Discrepancy Opinion change 2. Extreme or moderate point of view? Discrepancy interacts with communicator credibility (Aronson et al., 1963)

32. The message Opinion change 3. One-sided or Two-sided? The interaction of initial opinion with one- versus two-sidedness (Hovland et al., 1949)

33. Channel type Opinion change Message difficulty & transmission type (Chaiken & Eagly, 1978) The Channel of Communication Channel spoken written audio Video (Chaiken & Eagly, 1978)

34. Audience Effects: Need for Cognition Scale 1 = not at all like me 2 = somewhat unlike me 3 = uncertain 4 = somewhat like me 5 = very much like me 1. I really enjoy a task that involves coming up with new solutions to problems 2. Thinking is not my idea of fun 3. The notion of thinking abstractly is appealing to me 4. I like tasks that require little thought once I've learned them 5. I usually end up deliberating about issues even when they do not affect me personally 6. It's enough for me that something gets the job done; I don't care how or why it works 7. I prefer my life to be filled with puzzles that I must solve 8. I only think as hard as I have to. Audience Need for Cognition

35. Class Demonstration Compute need for cognition score –Add up scores (reverse score 4 and 6) Compute scores for essay evaluations –Add up scores On a piece of paper indicate: –Need for cognition score: –Essay A: –Essay B:

36. (Cacioppo et al., 1973)