2. Theories of persuasion and attitude change Lecture 8

3. Attitude  behavior Theories of persuasion (Yale school) Theory of reasoned action (M. Fishbein & I. Ajzen Theory of planned behavior (I. Ajzen) Elaboration likelihood model (R. Petty & J. Caccioppo) Assimilation-contrast theory (M. Sherif)

4. Elaboration likelihood model by R. Petty and J. Caccioppo John Caccioppo Richard Petty

5. Elaboration likelihood model Two routes of persuasion: –Central – through quality of arguments –Peripheral – through peripheral cues Length of the message Source credibility Source attractiveness

6. Determinants of central vs. peripheral route Central route –The issue is important –Recipient is focused on the message –Message is easy to process –Recipient is in a sad mood Peripheral route –The issue is of no importance –Distractors are present (e.g., noise) –The message is difficult to process –Recipient is in a good mood

7. Theory of reasoned action M. Fishbein & I. Ajzen Martin Fishbein Icek Ajzen

8. Attitude = result of rational decision Rational decision – choice of the best alternative –Expected value of the chosen alternative –Probabilities x utilities of decision consequences –Choose this alternative which has the highest sum of products

9. Theory of reasoned action Attitude Social norms Behavioral intention Behavior

10. Attitude= result of rational choice Attitude Utility of A x Probability of A Utility of D X Probability of D Utility of B X Probability of B Utility of C X Probability of C

11. Social norms Norm Expectation X X Motivation X Expectation U X Motivation U Expectation Y X Motivation Y Expectation Z X Motivation Z

12. Examples Attitudes towards EU –Consequences of entering EU vs. not entering EU Evaluation (utilities) Probability –Social norms What others expect of me Do I want to yield to the expectation Attitudes towards removing own dogs’ shit from pavements –Consequences –Social norms

13. Theory of planned behavior Attitude Social norms Behavioral intention Behavior Control

14. Assimilation-contrast theory by M. Sherif

15. Judgments (descriptive, evaluative) Absolute vs. comparative judgments Harry Helson: Absolute judgments are never absolute –Evaluations are made with respect to some reference points –Reference points: Adaptation level (point of „psychological neutrality”) Anchoring points

16. Anchoring effects Anchors – points of reference Contrast effects –Comparison with an anchor – accentuates the difference Assimilation effects –Comparison with an anchor attenuates the difference

17. Contrast effects in perception of physical stimuli 50 o C30 o C10 o C

18. Attitude scales and assimilation-contrast effects Types of scales –Likert scale – the majority of known questionnaires and attitude scales –Thurstone scale – Guttman scale (e.g. social distance scale)

19. Attitudes Toward European Union Abortion Church Paid education Immigrants Homosexuals

20. Thurstone Scale Interval scale (items differ by equal intervals) Each item described with two parameters; –Scale value (position on the domension of positivity-negativity towards the attitude object) –Variance (amount of agreement on how positive is the statement) Louis Thurstone (1887-1955)

21. Constructing the Thurstone scale Collecting attitudinal statements (about 300) Eliminate –Factual statements –Statements difficult to understand –Double negations etc.. Competent judges (minimum 50) 11 categories –„1” – statement expresses an exteremely positive attitude (e.g. „Without membership in EU Poland will never be a truly democratic country” –„11” – statement expresses an extremely negative attitude (e.g.”Our membership in EU will deprive us of our Polish culture and identity”) –„6” – neither positive nor negative („EU money helps build highways in Poland”).

22. Computing scale values of attitudinal statements 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Statement 24 Statement 13 Statement 215 Me=2,6Me=6.2 Me=9.8 N judges

23. Computing scale values and measures of variance Scale value = median (or mean) Variance = quartile deviation (or standard deviation)

24. Selecting statements to the final version of the scale Statements with scale values covering the whole scale in equal intervals (1,2,3,4...11 lub 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5.......10.5, 11.0 itp.) Choice of statements with lowest variation

25. Administering the scale and computing the final score Participant marks only these statements that he/she agrees with Final score (attitude) = means of scale values of marked items

26. Thurstone vs Sherif Criticisms of assumptions underlying the Thurstone scale –Competent judges are not competent –Competent judges have own attitudes –Attitudes act as anchors Contrast effects Assimilation effects

27. Assimilation-contrast theory (ego involvement) by Muzafer Sherif Own attitude acts as an anchor Beliefs that are close to own attitude  assimilation effects Beliefs distant from own attitude  contrast effects Categorization of beliefs –Latitude of acceptance („yes” – I agree with it) –Latitude of rejectance („no” – I don’t agree with it) –Latitude of noncommitment („I don’t know” or „both agree and disagree”)

28. Three latitudes Latitude of acceptance Latitude of noncommitment Latitude of rejectance Number of opinions High ego-involvement Low ego-involvement

29. Ego-involvement effects The higher ego-involvement, the larger latitude of rejection, the smaller – latitude of noncommitment The higher ego-involvement, the higher probability that the persuasive message will be categorized as „not acceptable”  boomerang effects in persuasion

30. Persuasion as communication Yale school: Carl I. Hovland, Muzafer Sherif, Irving Janis Processes of attitude change = processes of communication Persuasion techniques = techniques of efficient communication

31. Carl I. Hovland Irving Janis Muzafer Sherif William McGuire Yale School

32. Persuasion as communication sourcemessageaudience

33. Persuasion as an effect of: Characteristics of the source of the message Characteristics of the message Characteristics of the channel Characteristics of the audience

34. Persuasive source: role of credibility Trustworthy –speaking fast (Miller et al.. 1976: fast speakers judged as more intelligent, objective and knowledgeable) –No perceived intention to persuade the audience –Arguing for a position against own Competent –Confident tone Effects of source credibility fade with time –Remembered message, not source  sleeper effect

35. Sleeper effect A delayed impact of a message, occurs when we remember the message but forget a reason for discounting it. Incredible source more effective after a longer lapse of time

36. Persuasive source: role of attractiveness Physical attractiveness Similarity vs. dissimilarity of a source –Message concerns subjective issues (tastes, preferences)  similar source more persuasive –Message concerns objective issues (facts)  dissimilar source more persuasive

37. Persuasive message: Role of emotions Appeal to reason vs. emotions –Central vs. peripheral route –Type of audience (educated or not) Influence of positive affect –Positive emotions  more persuasion Role of fear –Fear or fear + behavioral instruction? –Curvilinear relationship?

38. Positive affect caused by eating facilitated persuasion

40. Persuasive message: construction of a message One-sided vs. two-sided –Role of education –Previous or future exposure to counterarguments Distance from attitude of the audience –Boomerang effects With or without a clear conclusion Effects of order: primacy vs. recency

41. One sided message is more persuasive if the audience initially agreed, to-sided – when disagreed

42. Persuasive message: primacy vs. recency

43. Persuasive message: role of the channel Personal contact  more influence than media Concrete example  more influence then dry statistical data Written vs. video-taped –Difficult to understand messages  more persuasive when written –Easy to understand messages  more persuasive when video-taped Power-Point presentations?

44. Susceptible audience Self-esteem Education Gender Age and generation Involvement in an issue

46. Inocculation theory by McGuire How to create resistance to persuasive meassages? Vaccination: contact with a small dose of a virus  stimulation of antibodies A small dose of arguments against own attitude  generation of counterarguments  bolstering the attitude

48. Attitudes as constructions

49. Attitudes: retrieved from memory or constructed on the spot? Are attitudes really stable dispositions? Effects of –Context of other questions –Induced affect (F. Strack) –Affect as information (N. Schwartz & Clore) –Availability heuristic –Thinking about reasons of attitudes (T. Wilson)

51. Affect as information hypothesis After: Schwartz & Clore, 1983)

52. Measurement of attitudes

53. Likert’s scale Thurstone’s scale Guttman’s scale

54. Likert Scale Ordinal scales Several to several tens items Validity of items Several categories’ scale (from „I fully disagree” to „ I fully agree” Psychometric properties (reliability of the scale, discriminatory power of items, factorial structure of the inventory, external validity etc.)

55. Guttman’s scale (scalogram) Cumulativeness of the scale –Unidimensionality Height, scientific degrees Bogardus social distance scale as an example of Guttman scale 150 cm180 cm100 cm magister doctor doctor hab. professor

56. Social distance scale I consent to an Arab marrying my daughter I consent to an Arab being my boss I would shake hands with an Arab I consent to an Arab being my neighbor I consent to an Arab being my co-worker in an office I consent to an Arab being a resident of my city.

57. Construction of Guttman scale Choice of an attitude (preferably: unidimensional) Selection of items (covering one dimension) How cumulative is the scale?

58. Constructing the scale Participants answer „yes” or „no” to each statement Ordering the statements according to the number of „yes” answers, beginning from the smallest to the biggest For each statement calculated is the sum of answers in the so called „null field”

59. Null field 1 2 YES NO YES NO Null field I will consent to the marriage I will shake hands

60. Coefficient of reproducibility Measure of the extent to which one can „reproduce” answers to „lower” questions from answers to „higher order” questions. Sum of answers in „null fields”

61. Attitude-behavior consistency

62. Attitude-behavior consistenty One of the first experiments in social psychology – R. LaPierre (1934) –Would you accept a Chinese as a hotel guest? –Did you actually accept a Chinese as hotel guest? –Reasons for the discrepancy

63. Reasons for the attitude-behavior discrepancy –Methodological Way of measuring attitudes What is measured How many indices Global vs. concrete –Theoretical Predictors of behaviors different than predictors of attitudes When do attitudes influence behaviors? Role of objective self-awareness (Robert Wicklund) –Individual differences Self-monitoring (Mark Snyder)