theories of persuasion and attitude change lecture 8
Post on 18-Dec-2015
265 views
TRANSCRIPT
Theories of persuasion and attitude change
Lecture 8
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)
Elaboration likelihood model by R. Petty and J.
Caccioppo
John Caccioppo
Richard Petty
Elaboration likelihood model
• Two routes of persuasion:– Central – through quality of arguments
– Peripheral – through peripheral cues• Length of the message
• Source credibility
• Source attractiveness
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
Theory of reasoned action
M. Fishbein & I. Ajzen
Martin Fishbein
Icek Ajzen
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
Theory of reasoned action
Attitude
Social norms
Behavioralintention
Behavior
Attitude= result of rational choice
Attitude
Utility of A x
Probability of A
Utility of DX
Probability of D
Utility of BX
Probability of B
Utility of CX
Probability of C
Social norms
Norm
Expectation XX
Motivation X
Expectation UX
Motivation U
Expectation YX
Motivation Y
Expectation ZX
Motivation Z
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
Theory of planned behavior
Attitude
Social norms
Behavioralintention
Behavior
Control
Assimilation-contrast theory by M. Sherif
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
Anchoring effects
• Anchors – points of reference • Contrast effects
– Comparison with an anchor – accentuates the difference
• Assimilation effects– Comparison with an anchor attenuates the difference
Contrast effects in perception of physical stimuli
50oC 30oC 10oC
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)
Attitudes
• Toward European Union• Abortion• Church• Paid education• Immigrants• Homosexuals
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)
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”).
Computing scale values of attitudinal statements
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Statement 24Statement 13
Statement 215
Me=2,6
Me=6.2
Me=9.8
N judges
Computing scale values and measures of variance
• Scale value = median (or mean)• Variance = quartile deviation (or standard
deviation)
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
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
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
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”)
Three latitudes
Latitude of acceptance
Latitude ofnoncommitment
Latitude ofrejectance
Nu
mb
er
of
op
inio
ns
High ego-involvement
Low ego-involvement
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
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
Carl I. Hovland
Irving Janis
Muzafer Sherif
William McGuire
Yale School
Persuasion as communication
source message audience
Persuasion as an effect of:
• Characteristics of the source of the message
• Characteristics of the message
• Characteristics of the channel
• Characteristics of the audience
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
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
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
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?
Positive affect caused by eating facilitated persuasion
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
One sided message is more persuasive if the audience initially agreed, to-sided – when disagreed
Persuasive message: primacy vs. recency
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?
Susceptible audience
• Self-esteem• Education• Gender• Age and generation• Involvement in an issue
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
Attitudes as constructions
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)
Affect as information hypothesis
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
life
sat
isfa
ctio
n
no yes
attention turned to weather
SunnyRainy
After: Schwartz & Clore, 1983)
Measurement of attitudes
Measurement of attitudes
• Likert’s scale• Thurstone’s scale• Guttman’s scale
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.)
Guttman’s scale (scalogram)
• Cumulativeness of the scale– Unidimensionality
• Height, scientific degrees
• Bogardus social distance scale as an example of Guttman scale
150 cm 180 cm100 cm
magister doctor doctor hab. professor
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.
Construction of Guttman scale
• Choice of an attitude (preferably: unidimensional)
• Selection of items (covering one dimension)
• How cumulative is the scale?
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”
Null field
1
2YES NO
YES
NONull field
I will consent to the marriage
I w
ill s
hake
han
ds
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”
Attitude-behavior consistency
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
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)