theories of persuasion and attitude change lecture 8

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)