UNIT IV: Attitude and Attitude Change

Introduction to Social Psychology: A European Perspective BPS Textbooks in

Psychology: Hewstone, Stroebe, Jonas

Aronson, E., Wilson, T.D. and Akert, R.M. (2010). Social Psychology (7th ed.).
Boston: Prentice Hall.

Baron, R.A., Branscombe, N.R., Byne, D. and Bhardwaj, G.(2010). Social

Psychology (12th Edition). Delhi, Pearson.

Myers, D.G. (2005). Social Psychology (8th ed.). New Delhi : Tata McGraw Hill
Pub. Co. Ltd. (not very good)

Baumister and Bushman (good for persuasion)

Definition of attitudes:
The field of social psychology was originally defined as the scientific study of
attitudes (Watson, 1925) because it was assumed that attitude was the key to
understanding human behavior. The defining characteristic of attitudes is that they
express an evaluation or affect towards some object. Evaluations are expressed by
terms such as liking-disliking, pro-anti. Favoring-not favoring and positive-negative.
There is general agreement that attitude represents a summary evaluation of a
psychological object captured in such attribute dimensions as good-bad, harmful-
beneficial, pleasant-unpleasant, and likable-dislikable (Ajzen & Fishbein 2000).

However, the initial definitions of attitudes were broad and encompassed cognitive,
affective, motivational, and behavioral components. For e.g. Krech and Crutchfield
(1948) defined attitude as follows:

"An attitude can be defined as an enduring organization of motivational,

emotional, perceptual, and cognitive processes with respect to some aspect
of the individual's world".

In subsequent decades, attitudes were reduced to its affective/evaluative component

expressed in such terms ‘likes and dislikes’. Zimbardo (1999) defines
attitudes as follows:

An attitude can be defined as a positive or negative evaluation of people,

objects, event, activities, ideas, or just about anything in your environment
(Zimbardo et al., 1999).

Because the person directs these evaluative responses toward a particular entity, the
stimuli that elicit the responses is termed the attitude object in attitude theory.

Tri components view of attitudes

1
Some researchers define attitude in terms of three components (referred to as ABC)
though one component may be stronger than the other. These three components are:
affective, behavioral and cognitive. Example: Jane believes that smoking is unhealthy
(cognitive component), feels disgusted when people smoke around her (affective
component), and avoids being in situations where people smoke (behavioral
component).

1. Affective (emotions or feelings)-- This is the emotional/feeling component.

Attitudes may involve positive or negative feelings or may have a mix of
positive and negative feelings about the object (‘ambiguous affect’). An
attitude rooted more in emotions referred to as affectively based attitudes.
For e.g. people often vote with their heart rather than their mind.
2. Behavioral/conative (action)-- This is the action component; more
specifically, it consists of the predisposition to act a certain way toward the
attitude object. An attitude based more on an observation of one’s behaviour is
referred to as behaviourally based attitudes. For e.g. when a person is asked
whom she likes the most and she says that she likes X the most because she
tries to hang out with her the most then this is a behaviourally based attitude.
3. Cognitive (thoughts) -- This consists of beliefs and perceptions. An attitude
rooted more in beliefs is referred to as cognitively based attitudes. For e.g
when we buy a vacuum cleaner because of its utility then it is a cognitively
based attitudes.

Greater consistency between the cognitive and affective components is associated

with greater attitude stability and resistance to persuasion. Inconsistency among the
three components may cause tension and anxiety and the person tries to bring change
in these components so that balance is restored.

2
Many researchers feel that the term ‘attitude’ should be used to refer to the evaluative
or affective component only (e.g. like or dislike) and this has given rise to
unidimensional models of attitude where the focus is only on one component. For
example, ‘prejudice’ has an affective component which is a negative feeling towards a
group, ‘stereotypes’ are beliefs about a group (cognitive component) and
‘discrimination’ involves negative actions against a group (behavioral component).

Recent Modifications of the Attitude Concept

 Classical view- attitudes as stable structures: The classical presumption

(Fazio, 2007) states that all attitudes are permanent representations stored in
memory and are retrieved when appropriate cues are available. For instance,
one may retrieve a well-defined and permanent memory of liking strawberry
ice cream whenever ice cream becomes relevant. . Therefore, some attitudes
are quite stable and resistant to change
 Attitudes as temporary constructions (Feldman & Lynch, 1988). In its
extreme version, this ‘constructionist’ approach assumes that
individuals always construct attitudes on the spot i.e. when the situation so
demands (Schwarz, 2000) and there are no permanent attitudes stored in
memory. For instance, perhaps when you think about your neighbour, you
think about the fact that his yard is messy, that he accumulates rusting cars in
his driveway, and that he has a couple of dogs that are nuisances. Each of
these attributes that you associate with your neighbour tend to have negative
evaluative overtones: But, somehow, you have never integrated these
evaluative implications into a net evaluation of your neighbour. Rather, it
becomes crystallized only under circumstances that demand a summary
evaluation, such as when an overall attitude is demanded by a behavioral
encounter (e.g. when you are asked "So, do you like your neighbour?'").

There may be many different types of attitudes – some which are stored as stable
memory structures while others stored as temporary memory structures.

Dimensions of Attitudes
Attitudes vary along several crucial dimensions, including their strength, accessibility,
and ambivalence:

 Attitude Strength: Definitions of attitude strength differ, but strong attitudes

are generally seen as ones that are firmly held (resistant to change), that are
durable over time, and that have a powerful impact on behavior.

 Attitude Accessibility: The accessibility of an attitude refers to the ease with

which it comes to mind. In general, highly accessible attitudes tend to be
stronger.

 Attitude Ambivalence: Ambivalent attitude arc conflicted evaluations that

include both positive and negative feelings about an object of thought. When
3
 ambivalence is high, an attitude tends to be more pliable in the face of
persuasion.

Attitude differentiated from other concepts

A major source of conceptual confusion arises from the fact that there is considerable
disagreement over how the concept of attitude should be distinguished from closely
related concepts.
 Beliefs: Beliefs have only a cognitive component.

 Value. A value relates to how one ought, or ought not, to behave in life. Values
are more stable and guide us in life. Attitudes always have an attitude object
while values are broader. Some examples of values could be the value to
behave with sincerity.

 Opinion. Some writers believe that opinions are a verbal expression of some
attitude. Still others state that opinions have a more cognitive component and a
weaker affective component.

 Prejudice, discrimination and stereotypes: Prejudice has an affective

component; ‘stereotypes’ are beliefs about a group (cognitive component) and
‘discrimination’ involves negative actions against a group (behavioral
component).

Explicit and implicit attitudes

Implicit attitude is an automatic and unconscious response to the attitude object; while
an explicit attitude is conscious. For e.g. from childhood we may retain a habitual,
automatic fear or dislike of people for whom we now verbalize respect and
appreciation. Introspective-reports are often untrustworthy as they do not access the
implicit attitudes.

Typically, implicit altitudes conform to explicit altitudes. Cockroaches elicit an

implicit negative response that is consistent with our explicit negative attitude. Thus,
the distinction between explicit and implicit attitudes will not always be important.

Inconsistency between explicit and implicit attitudes can occur, however. An

individual might express liking for an individual whom he or she subconsciously
envies. Wilson and his colleagues (2000) have given the dual process theories which
states that people may simultaneously hold two attitudes (even opposite) toward the
same object i.e. ‘implicit’ and ‘explicit’ attitudes.

The Functions of Attitudes (Katz, 1960)

4
 1. The Utilitarian/adjustive Function: The expressing of certain attitudes may
bring about some utility i.e. direct rewards or help avoid punishments. For
example, when expressing a positive attitude or liking for particular music or
ways of dressing allows some adolescents to join particular social groups and
obtain the benefits of group membership (friendship, social support and so
on). Similarly a woman may like a political candidate because the candidate is
in favor of proposing laws for granting reservation for women in jobs. The
women hopes that by supporting this candidate she would get a job in future.

2. The Ego-Defensive Function: An ego-defensive attitude protects the ego or

self image from threat i.e. it makes the person feel better about him or herself
thereby enhancing self esteem. An excellent example of this function is the
attitude of racism, which can have any number of ego-defensive expressions.
These could include "I wouldn't have so much trouble getting a job if they
weren't given preferential treatment," or "I don't have anything to do with
them because you can't trust them to be fair with you."

3. Self / Ego-expressive. The attitudes we express (1) help communicate who we

are and (2) may make us feel good because we have asserted our identity. For
e.g. a person’s identity is reflected in the statement: “I have generally positive
attitudes toward homosexuals because I don't think sexual preferences are a
basis of judgment of someone's personality. Sexual preferences are a personal
matter”.

4. The Knowledge Function (or the object appraisal function): Attitudes provide
us with a means of knowing and understanding our social world. For example,
consider a person who holds strong, easy-to retrieve attitudes toward the
candidates in an upcoming election. Presumably, this voter would have an
easier time deciding which vote to make than a voter who holds no attitudes
toward the candidates.

Attitudes and Behaviour relationship: attitude

behaviour consistency
Attitudes have been of interest to researchers mainly because it creates a connection
to behavior. Attitudes are expected to predict and explain human behavior. For
example, if Tara has a positive attitude toward a brand of pants, it follows that she will
buy the pants; she will behave in a way that is consistent with her attitudes.
Advertisers aim to create positive attitudes toward objects in the hope that consumers
will purchase those objects.

Unfortunately, the study of attitude-behavior relations has not been quite so simple.
Attitudes affect behavior and behaviour too affects attitudes – the effect is
bidirectional.

5
Influence of attitudes on behaviour
Attitudes are expected to predict human behavior. However, the relationship between
attitudes and behaviour is complex and is not always straightforward. In a pioneering
study LaPiere (1934) concluded that people often do not behave in line with their
attitudes. He observed that virtually all hotel owners served Chinese couples
courteously but most owners when asked later (through a mailed questionnaire) if
they would serve Chinese couples, responded in the negative. In 1969, Wicker (1969)
found few studies where the correlation between attitudes and behavior were as high
as .30 (r = .30) and concluded “it may be desirable to abandon the attitude concept”
as attitudes are unrelated to overt behaviors.

Many other reviews found that attitudes and behaviors were sometimes correlated and
sometimes not. The focus of research thus turned from "are attitudes correlated with
behavior?" to trying to understand factors that influence the attitude behaviour link:

Same levels of generality/specificity between attitude and behaviours: In the earlier

studies attitude and behavioral measure are at different levels of specificity. For there
to be a strong relationship between attitude and behavioral the measures of attitude
and behaviour should be same in terms of specificity or generality.

A global attitude is an evaluation of a target that involves no specific action, context,

or time elements. A scale that assesses attitudes toward Muslims, for example, results
in a score that represents a generally favorable or unfavorable evaluation of Muslims;
no particular action, context, or time is specified. Such a global scale will not be able
to predict specific behaviours such as voting for a Muslim candidate in a local
election or inviting a Muslim to one's home. Such behaviours involve specific actions
and often also specific context and time elements, and are by definition not
compatible with the global attitude measure.

Further studies—more than 700 in all—confirmed that specific, relevant attitudes do

predict behaviour (Bassili, 1995; Six & Eckes, 1996; Wallace et al., 2004).

Making attitudes potent: Myers (2000) suggests that when we act automatically our
attitudes often lie dormant - We answer the restaurant cashier’s question, “How was
your meal?” by saying, “Fine,” even if we found it tasteless. Thus attitude behaviour
consistency is low.

However, self-conscious people usually are in touch with their attitudes. Edward
Diener and Mark Wallbom (1976) noted that nearly all university students say that
cheating is morally wrong. They then gave students a problem solving task and told
them to stop when a bell in the room sounded. Left alone, 71 percent cheated by
working past the bell. Among students made self-aware—by working in front of a
mirror while hearing their tape-recorded voices—only 7 percent cheated. Thus, those
students who were made self-aware their attitudes predicted behaviour more
consistently.

6
Minimizing social influences on expressed attitudes: Like other behaviours, attitude
expressions are subject to outside influences such as social desirability. Myers (2000)
suggests that we could minimizing social influences on expressed attitudes by using
implicit measures such as Implicit attitude test, physiological measures of attitudes.

Reducing influence of other determinants of behaviour : Failure to find attitude-

behaviour consistency can be due to the fact that attitude is only one of the factors that
influence behaviour. Thus, measuring attitudes alone is not sufficient to predict or
explain behaviour. Other factors (determinants) that influence behaviour are important
to understanding the attitude-behaviour relationship.

Factors influencing the attitude - behaviour link

1) Attitude accessibility:
Attitudes high in accessibility are good predictors of behaviour in different
circumstances. Attitude accessibility refers to how easily an attitude can be retrieved in
memory and are expressed quickly; accessibility is measured by the speed with
which people can report how they feel about an issue or object . Easily accessible
attitudes guide behaviour. When attitudes are not accessible, there is no reason to
believe that they would affect behavior. For example, when many individuals come
across an object such as a cockroach, they have an immediate negative evaluative
response. This response is activated automatically, beyond the individual’s control.

Russell Fazio, who has extensively studied attitude accessibility, investigated this
issue in connection with the 1984 presidential election (Fazio & Williams, 1986). The
summer before the election, potential voters were asked whether they agreed with
each of the following two statements: "A good president for the next 4 years would be
Walter Mondale," and "A good president for the next 4 years would be Ronald
Reagan." The respondents had to indicate how strongly they agreed or disagreed by
pressing a button. The researchers measured the time that passed before respondents
pressed the button. The longer respondents took to hit the button, the longer the
latency and the less accessible the attitude. On the day after the election, respondents
were asked whether they had voted and, if so, for whom they had voted. Results
indicated that Attitude accessibility measured in June and July 1984 accurately
predicted voting behavior in November. Those who had responded quickly for Reagan
were more likely to vote for him than those who had taken longer to respond. The
same relationship held, although not quite as strongly, for Mondale supporters.

2) Attitude strength:
Strong Attitudes are good predictors of behaviour in different circumstances. ‘Strong
ideas’ are firmly held with a high degree of commitment, conviction and we have
elaborated arguments to support them. The results of a study of attitudes toward
Greenpeace (Holland, et al, 2002) suggests that people with very positive attitudes
towards Greenpeace were more likely to make a donation to the cause than those
with weak positive attitudes.

7
It is possible to make attitudes stronger by increasing the accessibility of the attitude
as usually accessible attitudes are also very strong. This can be done directly by
having people think about, express, or discuss their attitudes with others.

Attitude strength appears to be multi-dimensional and is related to dimensions of a)

attitude certainty, b) extremity, and c) the extent to which it is based on direct
experience:

a) Attitude certainty: Attitudes high in certainty are good predictors of behaviour

in different circumstances. Attitude certainty refers to the degree that people feel
sure about their position on an issue. People may not be sure whether they support
or oppose capital punishment, and many other issues indicating low attitude
certainty. Others may be very sure about these issues indicating high attitude
certainty. Increased certainty has been shown to enhance the attitude-behaviour
relationship, such that attitudes held with certainty are more likely to predict
behaviour. Many factors determine whether or not individuals feel certain about
their attitudes.

 First, individuals feel more certain of their attitudes if their peers express
similar opinions, (called consensus). e.g., Fazio, 1979
 Second, attitudes, after being repeated aloud, tend to become more certain.
(e.g., Holland, Verplanken, & van Knippenberg, 2003)
 Third, if individuals have acquired direct experience with some object or
event, their attitudes towards this issue tend to be more certain. E.g. If
individuals have enjoyed shopping in a shopping mall, their attitudes
towards this shopping mall are often more certain.
 Fourth, attitudes that have been maintained, even after someone else has
attempted to persuade individuals to adopt a different position, also tend to
be more certain. (e.g.,Tormala & Petty, 2002).

Petrocelli, Tormala, and Rucker (2007) distinguished between two facets of

attitude certainty: correctness and clarity
 Attitude correctness refers to the degree to which individuals feel their
attitudes are accurate or correct.
 Attitude clarity refers to the extent to which individuals feel they know
whether their attitudes are positive or negative. Sometimes people may not
be clear about their attitudes i.e. they often adopt both positive and
negative attitudes towards an issue, like capital punishment, at the same
time. These attitudes are called ambivalent and may change over time.
Thus, an attitude at one time might not be the same as an attitude at a later
time.

Eventually, in terms of attitude-behaviour consistency, attitudes high in

correctness and clarity (and therefore attitudes held with high certainty) are good
predictors of behaviour in different circumstances. Individuals, for example, who
express positive attitudes towards charity may be more likely to donate money if
these attitudes are certain rather than uncertain.

8
 b) Attitude extremity- vested interest: Studies indicate that greater the extremity
and greater the vested interest greater the impact on behaviour. Extremity
refers to the intensity of an attitude and ranges from strongly negative to
strongly positive. One of the key determinants of attitude extremity is vested
interest. Vested interest (or self-interest) as the extent to which an attitude
object has perceived personal consequences for a person. For example, a 30
year old individual is told that the legal driving age is being raised from 16 to
17 in his state. White he may not agree with this law, he is not impacted like a
15 year old prospective vehicle operator and is unlikely to be involved in
protesting the change. This example illustrates the point that highly vested
attitudes concerning issues are related to an individual's point of view.

c) Direct experience: Attitudes formed on the basis of direct experience tend to

exert stronger influence on behavior than those formed through hearsay as
they come to mind more easily when in the presence of an attitude object. Ex:
attitude toward a shopping mall is probably stronger (pro or con) the more one
has had personal experience with this shopping mall.

3) Affective cognitive consistency:

In general, when the affective and cognitive components of an attitude are clear and
consistent, they better predict behaviour.

4) Situational factors:
A number of situational variables that affect the strength of the attitude–behavior
relation include:

 Social norms: Norms, or beliefs about how one should or is

expected to behave in a given situation, can exert a powerful
influence on behavior.
 Time pressure: Individuals are more likely to base their
decisions on their attitudes when they are under time pressure
because their attitudes provide a heuristic (short cut) for making
quick decisions. When there is no time pressure they may think
more deeply and the link may be weaker.

9
5) Qualities of the Person: In addition, some kinds of people typically display
greater attitude–behavior consistency than do others.

 Self monitoring and Self awareness: In general, two classes of individuals

have been considered: those who are aware of and guided by their internal
feelings (low self monitoring) and those who tend to rely heavily on cues in
the situation to decide how to behave (high monitoring). In general, people
who are aware of their feelings (low self monitors) display greater attitude–
behavior consistency than do people who rely on situational cues.

 Self consistency: Individuals who describe themselves as relatively self

consistent over different situations show a high correlation between attitudes
and behaviours

How do attitudes guide behaviour?

There has been a shift from asking “do attitudes guide behavior?” to the question
“how do attitudes guide behavior?”

Ajzens’ ‘Theory of Planned Behavior’ (Ajzen,1988, 1991) (prunuciation Ah-shin)

This is the extension model of the Theory of Reasoned Action, and is one of the best
supported psychological theories with respect to predicting human behavior (Sommer,
2011).

The theory (TBP) tries to give the process by which attitudes and behaviours are
related. It states that people’s behaviours are governed by their intentions which in
turn are influenced by their attitudes, subjective norms and perceived control.

Let us assume we want to predict the behaviour of whether a person will engage in
physical exercise.
10
  Attitude (towards the behaviour): Attitudes of the individual will affect his
behaviour. Let us assume the person has positive attitudes towards exercising.
 Subjective norms (towards the behaviour)- The second factor, subjective
norms, refers to how significant others (friends and family) will evaluate that
behavior. For example, you might think, “All my friends exercise, and they
will think that it is appropriate that I do the same.” In this case, you may
exercise despite your distaste for it.

 Perceived behavioral control (towards the behaviour) - Perceived behavioral

control, the third factor, refers to a person’s belief that the behavior he or she is
considering is easy or hard to accomplish. For example, a person will be more
likely to engage in exercise if he or she believes that it can be easily done.
 Intentions (towards the behaviour): Behavioral intention (BI) is an indication
of a person's plan (or readiness) to perform a behavior or action. These are
assumed to capture the motivational factors that influence a behavior; they are
indications of how hard people are willing to try, of how much of an effort
they are planning to exert, in order to perform the behavior.

Example: When we want to predict a person’s behaviour with respect to studying for
the class
 Attitude (towards behaviour): Studying for class this week is something I
favor.
 Subjective norms: My friends think studying is a waste of time.
 Perceived behavior control: I also have to work 40 hours this week on top of
studying. It's hard to control or be in full control of studying when we have
other things affecting that.
 Intention: I am not so motivated

So our attitude towards studying is positive. But actually chances of studying will be
low because of subjective norms and low behavioral control. So in this case our
behavior will not be consistent with our attitudes.

Fazio’s ‘Attitude-to-Behavior Process’ Model (Fazio, 1986)

This model (ABP) is based on the research finding that accessible attitudes are more
predictable of behaviours:

11
  Event (attitudinal object): The process model begins with the observation that
an individual is exposed to an event (or attitudinal object). For e.g. the person
sees a bug

 Attitude: Exposure to the object will activate ‘accessible’ attitudes.

 Perception of attitudinal object: Once the attitude is activated, the attitude

colors how the attitudinal object is perceived. For example, if you see a bug
(attitudinal object) then you have an automatically accessible negative attitude
toward bugs which gets activated. This may influence your behaviour and you
may want to flee.

 Norms also influence behavior and according to the process model norms
influence how you define the situation or context of the potential behavior. For
e.g. if you are at a posh restaurant then you probable cannot flee as it is against
the norms.

 Based on the definition of the event that is driven by the activated attitudes
(e.g., this is a nasty event) and the social norms (e.g., this is an informal
setting), then you act accordingly

The above model has been incorporated into his more recent MODE model (Fazio’s ,
1990). The MODE model (motivation and opportunity as determinants of the attitude-
behavior relationship) postulates two pathways through which attitudes can lead to
either spontaneous behavior which is fast and requires no deliberation (e.g. shouting
at the sight of a cockroach) or deliberate which requires reflection. Which pathway
will be activated depends on two factors – Motivation and Opportunity. The term
‘motivation’ in this model, refers to a desire to behave in a certain way. ‘Opportunity’
means the time or the ability required to engage in reflective thinking.

12
  Spontaneous pathway: When motivation and opportunity are low, behaviour is
guided by easily accessible attitudes as they comes to mind quickly. This leads
to attitude behaviour consistency as there is no deliberation or reflection about
the event or object. Thus the spontaneous pathway gets activated. For e.g. if
you have easily accessible attitudes toward chocolate, the mere sight of a piece
of chocolate might activate your positive feelings (attitude) and immediately
prompt you to pick it up and eat it (low motivation to think about its harmful
effects and little time to think reflectively). In this case, attitude-relevant
behavior flows directly from your strong attitude.

 Deliberate pathway: Alternatively when there is high motivation and high

opportunity, individuals may scrutinize other information relevant in the
situation before making a decision (deliberate attitude-behavior process). In
this situation, easily accessible attitudes can play a role in decision making but
the relative influence on the accessible information is likely diminished
because of additional information and leads to decision in a more deliberative
fashion. Thus the deliberate pathway gets activated. For e.g. the person is fond
of chocolates but is highly motivated to reduce his weight and so deliberates
on whether it will do him good or bad. The deliberate pathway gets activated
and here attitude behaviour consistency may or may not be there.

The Influence of Behavior on Attitudes

Behavior also affects attitudes.
Role playing: Evidence indicates that a role taken on in life influence our attitudes.
Although the behaviors associated with a new role may initially feel artificial, they
soon seem to reflect one’s true self. In the 1970s, the psychologist Philip Zimbardo
conducted a famous study called the prison study, which showed how roles cause
people to change their attitudes.

Interracial behaviour and racial attitudes: Research indicates that positive interracial
behaviour such as ‘desegregation’ reduces racial prejudice i.e. changing behaviours
led to attitude change. Gordon Allport in 1954 described how desegregation might
reduce racial prejudice in what came to be known as the ‘contact hypothesis’. The
contact hypothesis predicts that contact’ or interactions
between members of different social groups, under appropriate conditions, can lead to
change in attitudes and reductions in prejudice (Allport, 1954). If children from
different ethnic groups play together in school, their attitudes toward each other
should improve.

Social movements: Historian Grunberger (1971) reports that the German greeting of
‘Heil Hitler’ was an outward token of conformity praising Hitler. People then tried to
consciously believe what they said. The technique of ‘brain washing’ used by Chinese
also involved speaking or writing on trivial issues and very gradually on more
important issues. Once a prisoner had spoken or written a statement, he felt an inner
need to make his beliefs consistent with his acts.

13
The Foot-in-the-Door Phenomenon: The foot in-the-door principle refers to the
tendency wherein people who have first agreed to a small request comply later to a
larger request. Example: Jill is more likely to let an acquaintance borrow her laptop
for a day if he first persuades her to let him borrow her textbook for a day. The person
agrees to a small action which produces a small change in attitude. This leads to more
chamges.

Low Ball Technique: Another example of the ‘foot in the door phenomenon’ is the
‘Low-ball technique’. The low-balling technique is a persuasion tactic in
which an item is initially offered at a lower price than one expects in order
to get the buyer to commit; then, the price is suddenly increased. The low-
balling technique is commonly used among salesmen and advertisers.
Robert Cialdini (chal-DEE-nee) and his collaborators (1978) demonstrated
that after the customer agrees to buy a new car because of its great price
and begins completing the sales forms, the salesperson removes the price
advantage by charging for options the customer thought were included or
by checking with a boss who disallows the deal because, “We’d be losing
money.” Cialdini and his collaborators found that this technique indeed
works. The reason being that backing out on a commitment seems wrong
and may threaten self-esteem (creating dissonance), even if the
commitment was obtained in an unethical way.

The door-in-the-face technique: This is opposite of the foot-in-the-door technique.

The door-in-the-face technique is a persuasive tactic of making a large
request that a person will likely refuse in order to get the person to
subsequently agree to a smaller request.

‘That's-not-all-technique’: is another compliance technique in which the persuader

makes an offer and then adds something extra to make the offer look better before the
target. Ladies and gentlemen, I'm not only going to reduce this by 10%, not even by
20% and not even by 40%. E.g. Today, ladies and gentlemen, the price is reduced for
you by a whopping 50%! The ‘that's-not-all’ technique, like the door-in-the-face
technique, is based on reciprocal concessions and a sense of personal obligation.
When a stranger or interaction partner does something kind for you, you feel an
obligation to do something nice or kind in return.

Evil and Moral Acts: We are more likely to hurt those we dislike, but we also come to
dislike those we have hurt. In the latter case, the behaviour leads to an attitude change
(i.e. dislike). Prisoner-of-war guards who must sometimes hurt prisoners as part of the
job often come to hate the prisoners. Acting in violation of one’s moral standards may
set in motion a process of self justification so that one sincerely believes in the act.
Similarly doing a favor for someone leads to more liking of the person.

How do behaviours guide attitudes?

Self-presentation: Impression management: Self-presentation is the act of behaving in

ways to create a favorable impression. Inconsistency between attitudes and behaviour
leads to an unfavorable impression and hence we want to avoid it. Self-presentation
theory assumes that people, especially those who self monitor their behaviour hoping
14
to create a good impression, will adapt their attitude reports to appear consistent with
their actions.

Self-perception theory (self-observation): This theory states that behaviours influence

attitudes because people infer their attitudes by observing their own behavior
especially if they are unsure about their attitudes. So people make direct inferences
from their behavior to their attitude. For example, you may be able to relate to the
following experiences: “This is my second sandwich; I guess I was hungrier than I
thought.” The foot-in-the-door technique works because the initial behavior triggers
self-perception processes that lead people to believe their attitude is consistent with
the action they have just performed. This “new” attitude then makes -it more likely
that they will agree to a second, larger request

Cognitive-Dissonance Theory (Leon Festinger, 1957): ‘Dissonance’ means an

inconsistency. When a person holds conflicting or inconsistent cognitions (such as
acting one way and feeling another - such as acting one way and feeling another) he is
in a state of ‘cognitive dissonance’. This produces discomfort (e.g. anxiety) and hence
is motivated to reduce this dissonance (e.g. I believe in honesty yet I cheated in the
exam) by either changing their attitude or their behaviours so that they become
consistent with each other.

In a classic study by Festinger and Carlsmith (1959), participants were required to do

a boring task and were then paid either $1 or $20 to tell a waiting participant (a
confederate) that the tasks were really interesting. Subjects were then asked to rate
how much they liked the boring task. The results indicated that those who were paid
$1 liked the task more than the other group. This group had experienced cognitive
dissonance (task was boring but they said it was interesting), as they had insufficient
external justification for lying for $1. They reduced dissonance by changing their
attitudes and making themselves believe that the task was really enjoyable.
Participants in the second group attributed their lying to the external reward ($20) and
so there was enough external justification. Thus, no dissonance and no attitude change
were experienced by this group.

15
Formation/ OriginsofAttitudes
How do people form attitudes? Majorsourcesofattitudeformationare:

1. Mere exposure (familiarity effect): Some attitudes are formed and shaped by
what Zajonc (1968) calls the ‘mere effect effect’ which means that simply
being exposed to an object increases our feelings, usually positive, towards that
object. This means familiarity may lead to liking.

This effect has been demonstrated with a wide range of stimuli, including
foods, photographs, and words. In one early study, researchers placed ads
containing nonsense words such as NANSOMA in college newspapers
(Zajonc & Rajecki, 1969). Later, they gave students lists of words that
included NANSOMA, to rate. Mere exposure to a nonsense word, such as
NANSOMA was enough to give it a positive rating. In another study,
participants were exposed to nonsense syllables and to Chinese characters
(Zajonc, 1968). Repeated exposure increased the positive evaluations or both
the nonsense syllables and the Chinese characters.

There are limits to the effect, at least in the experimental studies. A review of
the mere-exposure research concluded that the effect is most powerful when it
occurs randomly over time, and that too many exposures actually will decrease
the effect (Bornstein, 1989). A constant bombardment does not work very
well.

Repeated exposures increase liking when the stimuli are neutral or positive to
begin with. What happens when the stimuli are negative? It seems that
continual exposure to some object that was disliked initially increases that
negative emotion (Bornstein, 1989). Say, for example, a person grew up
disliking a different ethnic group because of comments she heard her parents
make. Then, on repeated encounters with members of that group, she might
react with distaste and increasing negativity. (Krosnick et al 1992). Thus,
negative feelings of which a person might hardly be aware can lead, with
repeated exposure to the object, to increased negative emotions and,
ultimately, to a system of beliefs that support those emotions.

2. Classical conditioning: This is based on mere association between two or

more stimuli. For e.g. if one associates a person with something negative then
we will develop a negative attitude towards him – if one is in a room with
something negative like a humid room then we will develop a negative attitude
towards the person. If on the other hand we associate him with something
positive -like a good news – then we will develop a positive attitude towards
him.

The classical conditioning approach to understanding attitude acquisition has

been developed by Staats. Staats and Staats (1958) presented national names
(e.g., “Swedish”) on a screen while reading aloud words, and found that the
national name paired with positive words was subsequently evaluated more
positively than the national name paired with negative terms. In another

16
 experiment, (Krosnick et al., 1992) participants were shown different slides in
which a target person was engaged in various activities, such as walking on a
street or getting into a car. Immediately before each slide there were very short
exposures (13 milliseconds) of positive slides (e.g., newlyweds, a pair of
kittens) or negative slides (e.g., a face on fire, a bloody shark). Generally,
participants who had seen the person paired with warm, positive stimuli rated
the person as having a better personality and as more physically attractive than
did those who had seen the person paired with violent negative stimuli.

Classical conditioning suggests that our attitudes may be coloured by the

context in which the object has been experienced. Children may develop
negative attitudes towards members of other nationalities because significant
people around them make negative remarks or show their dislike towards
them.

3. Operant conditioning. With classical conditioning, the person plays a passive

role but in operant conditioning procedures, the person first has to produce a
response before it can be rewarded or reinforced. If one expresses, or acts out
a negative attitude toward some group, and this is reinforced by one’s peers,
the attitude is likely to be expressed again.

In an experiment, Insko (1965) had students interviewed by telephone about

some local issue. About half of them were rewarded or reinforced for
favourable responses while the other half for unfavourable responses. One
week later, both group showed a change in attitude in the expected direction.

Many reinforcers can be used for attitude change. The main reinforcers that
have been studied are verbal reinforcers, such as the response ‘good’ when
someone expresses an opinion. In order to explain the effects like those seen in
the above experiments, Cialdini and Insko (1969) have suggested a two factor
theory of verbal reinforcement that can result in attitude change. This theory
suggests that, on the one hand, the reinforcing event 'good' by the
experimenter conveys information about the other person's (experimenter’s)
attitude. Additionally, it suggests that the other person (experimenter)
approves of the response. This approval produces liking for the other
(experimenter), which in turn fosters agreement with his or her point of view.

4. Social (Observational) learning: We observe the attitude of others and tend to

learn vicariously from the reinforcements which they receive. We are more
likely to adopt behaviors that are followed by positive consequences than
behaviors that are followed by negative consequences. Children often learn to
do what their parents do as they provide models for them. A lot of what we
learn is also based on observing the mass media – TV, magazines, movies etc.

Kortenhaus and Oemarest (1993) analyzed award-winning children's books to

find out how males and females were portrayed. They pointed out, that
although portrayals got better from the 1970s to the early 1990s, there is still
a 2:1 ratio of males to females in central characters, pictures, and characters
in children's stories. They also found that males were more likely to be
portrayed in independent, instrumental roles (i.e., carrying out some activity);

17
 whereas girls were more likely to be portrayed in nurturant and dependent
roles. Even if a female character were portrayed in an active, independent
role, a male character was often portrayed in a more active, independent role.
The media has a definite role in shaping a child's world view of appropriate
gender-based roles.

5. Social comparison: This is the process in which we compare ourselves (whom

we value or admire such as family, friends etc.) to others to know whether we
hold a true view of reality. When we listen to people who we like, we develop
certain attitudes so that we become similar to these people. This concept
explains why, in some cases, the attitudes of some adolescents are more
likely to be influenced by their peers than by their own parents, since at
that stage of identity formation, peer relations and the are of
utmost importance.

6. Genetic factors: Twin studies indicate that genetic factors may also have some
role in attitude formation. Identical twins (even when raised in separate
environments) show a higher correlation in their attitudes than do fraternal
twins, providing evidence for a genetic basis of attitudes. Certain type of
attitudes may be more heritable than others and these include gut level
preferences (‘gut level’ preferences such as preference for music). Some
attitudes (e.g., death penalty, religion, sex, music) show heritability
coefficients of around .50. (Tesser, 1993). More heritable attitudes are harder
to change, and they are more quickly accessible.Clearly, attitudes don't "sit" on
genes; genetic influences on attitudes must be mediated through complex
interactions between biological tendencies and socio-cultural shaping.

What are the mechanisms that might account for the genetic component of
attitudes? The answer is that genetics may have an indirect effect on our
attitudes. This is likely because of the influence of genetics on temperament
and personality, which influence attitudes. Researchers have shown that
individual differences on a variety of broad personality factors are partly
attributable to genetic differences (e.g., Tellegen et al., 1988). For e.g.,
consider aggressiveness, which, as research has shown, has a genetic
component. Level of aggressiveness can affect a whole range of attitudes and
behaviors, from watching violent TV shows and movies, to hostility toward
women or members of other groups, to attitudes toward capital punishment
(Oskamp, 1991). Similarly studies indicate that there is a genetic basis for
certain personality traits, like impulsivity (Albarracin & Vargas, 2010). Studies
also indicate that impulsive people have more positive attitudes toward trying
new experiences, and hence genes might play an indirect role in the formation
of attitudes.

Even those who argue that genes play a role in attitude formation are quick to
acknowledge that genes do not operate in isolation. Whatever influence they
exert is in combination with the social environment. There is no gene that
causes attitudes toward sex roles, race, and religion. Whatever influence genes

18
 exert is critically filtered through environmentally experienced lenses. For
example, a person might be genetically predisposed to like pineapple, but if
pineapple is not available (or affordable), she cannot develop a positive
attitude toward the fruit. In addition, if the first time she tastes pineapple she
develops a rash or gets bitten by a dog, she is apt to evaluate pineapple more
negatively.

7. Direct Personal Experience: Another way we form attitudes is through direct

personal experience. Attitudes acquired through direct experience are likely to
be strongly held and to affect behavior. If, for example, your attitude that the
environment needs preserving was formed because you lived near a river and
observed directly the impact of pollution, you will be less likely to be per-
suaded even by powerful counterarguments (Wood, 1982). For example,
people who had experience with flu shots gathered further information about
the shots and were more likely to get vaccinated each flu season (Davison,
Yantis, Norwood, & Montano, 1985).

8. Functional theory of attitudes: this theory states that attitudes are formed in
order to satisfy certain psychological needs. We believe things not necessarily
because they are true but because they are useful to us. According to
(Crano,2008), attitudes tend to serve four basic psychological functions:
utilitarian, knowledge, ego defensive, and value-expressive. (elaborate on this)

The Yale Attitude Change approach

(Hovland et al, 1953)
Persuasion refers to deliberate attempts to change people’s attitudes and behaviours.
The Yale Attitude Change Approach first studied by Carl Hovland and his colleagues
(1953) at Yale University focuses on “who says what to whom and with what effect”.
The typical elements of persuasion are:
o Source/communicator of the message (Who)
o Content of the message (What)
o Target/Audience of the message (Whom)
o Channel of communication (How)

19
The Source
Credibility: The perceived credibility of the communicator is an important
characteristic that influences persuasion. Credibility refers to both expertise and
trustworthiness (i.e. provides valid information). Research indicates the higher the
perceived credibility, the more persuasive the source is. Communicators can lose their
credibility if they are seen as having a stake in the position they are persuading others
to adopt.

Expertise and trustworthiness need not go together

Bill Clinton: High expertise/low trustworthiness

Ronald Reagan: Low expertise/high trustworthiness

Hovland (1953) found that at times even messages from a low-credibility

(‘discounting cue’) source could be persuasive. The "sleeper effect" has been
defined as a delayed increase in the persuasive impact of a communication from
a source low in credibility. This happens because the low credibility source is
forgotten but the content of the message was retained. This explanation came to be
known as the ‘discounting cue hypothesis’ which rests on the notion that we store
information about the message content and content source differently and recall them
with different degree of success.

Sleeper effect

Recipients of communications about a political candidate may ‘discount’ or resist a message

coming from a representative of the opponent party because they do not perceive the source
of the message as credible. Because the source of the political message serves as a
discounting cue and temporarily decreases the impact of the message, recipients may not be
persuaded. Over time, however, recipients of an otherwise influential message may recall the
message but not the noncredible source and thus become more persuaded by the message
than they were immediately following the communication. The term sleeper effect has been
used to denote such a delayed increase in persuasion observed when the discounting cue
(e.g., noncredible source) becomes unavailable in the memory of the message recipients.

This effect occurs when someone initially ignores a persuasive message because it doesn’t
seem to be credible, and then gradually starts to believe the message. This is the opposite of
the normal way persuasion works because typically, people tend to become less convinced by
messages as time passes, and may actually need a lot of reinforcement to maintain their
changed opinions. Most experts think the effect happens because people may gradually lose
the sense of connectedness between the message they received and the circumstances of the
message which made them initially distrust it.

20
Attractiveness:

 Physical attractiveness: The more attractive the communicator, the greater the
persuasion. Exception: If attractiveness is used in a negative way
 Perceived similarity to communicator: The greater similarity with the source
simiar attitudes, vallues and even appearances) greater the persuasion.
 Speech style: Rapid (to a point) fluid speech with eye contact yields most
persuasion. More persuasion if you believe that the communicator is not trying
to persuade you (e.g., hidden camera)

Minority/majority status:

In earlier studies it was observed that the minority group were conforming to the
majority (e.g. Asch). Such a ‘majority influence’, according to Moscovici can best be
explained in terms of public compliance (the person is more concerned with the
reaction of the group than to the issue itself). However, later studies suggested that it
is also possible that the minority changes the attitudes of the majority. ‘Minority
influence’ is the result of the majority being persuaded to examine the minority’s
viewpoint. Nemeth (1986) has offered a cognitive explanation which suggests that a
minority within a group that consistently disagrees has the effect of changing what the
majority pays attention to and encouraging new ways of thinking.

The Message
Number of arguments: The more the number of favourable arguments in a message,
the higher the chances the message will have a higher persuasive impact. This
happens because increasing the number of favourable arguments increases the number
of favourable issue relevant thoughts.

Message framing: Message framing refers to the presentation of a persuasive

communication in such a way so as to encourage a certain interpretation. Two kinds of
frames have generally been studied:

 In a ‘gain frame’ the message emphasizes the benefits of engaging in a

behaviour. E.g. the glass is half full.
 In a ‘loss frame’ the message emphasizes the costs of failing to engage in a
particular behaviour. E.g. the glass is half empty.

Studies indicate that ‘loss frames’ are more effective than gain frames though this
effect is modified by situational and dispositional factors. Individuals perceive losses
and gains differently: a loss is more devastating than the equivalent gain is gratifying
especially for high risk behaviours.

21
 Gain frame and loss frame

Gain frame

Flossing your teeth daily removes particles of food in the mouth, avoiding bacteria,
which promotes great breath.

Loss frame

If you do not floss your teeth daily, particles of food remain in the mouth, collecting
bacteria, which causes bad breath.

Repetition: Repeating the message several times may increase the effectiveness of the
message but after several repetitions it may add little to the effectiveness and even
may decrease it. Complex messages may gain more from increased repetition as there
is more to learn but simple messages can be heard only a few times as after that they
become boring and unpleasant. To avoid wear out professionals sometimes resort to
‘repetition with variation.

Rational versus emotional appeals: Rational appeals (using facts and figures) are
most effective when

 The audience is well educated

 The audience is highly involved with the issue and will
carefully process the contents of the message

Persuasive messages are also effective when they are associated with good feelings
(emotional appeal). For example, a message is more persuasive when one is in a good
mood. Persuasive messages arousing negative affect such as fear appeals are also
effective. According to the protection motivation theory or PMT by Rogers (1983),
fear appeals that are threatening and offer an effective means of coping lead to
changes in maladaptive behaviour. Also when threat is greater than coping, it leads to
message rejection and may lead to anger, avoidance or denial towards the message
and even unhealthy behaviours ( i.e. ‘boomerang effect’).

In general fear appeals are most effective when three conditions are met:

 The amount of fear aroused is relatively strong, but not so

strong as to turn a person off
 The target of the message must believe that the dire
consequences in the appeal could happen to him or her
 The target of the message must be shown how to avoid the dire
consequences depicted in the appeal. This third condition is
essential, without it a fear appeal won't work even if the first
two conditions are met

22
Using humor in appeals is effective because of two reasons:1) it captures the attention
of the audience and 2) increases likability of the message. However, one problem with
humorous messages is that it may interfere with the comprehension of the message
and draw attention away from the persuasive content. However, this shortcoming can
be reduced by employing humor relevant to the content of the message.

One or two sided approach: A one-sided message presents only support argument,
whereas a two-sided message presents both support and counter-arguments. A two-
sided message is best if the audience are well- informed on the topic, disagree with
the intended message, and are aware that there are many perspectives on the issue. A
two sided argument in such situations gives the impression that the source is objective
and fair minded increasing the trustworthiness. Such a strategy is also very effective
when the audience is likely to be exposed to more information subsequently. Research
shows that presenting an opposing view may forewarn what people might hear later. A
one-sided message is best if the audience is not well-informed, generally favourable
and sees the issue as one sided.

Example: “Vote George Bush – he’ll keep our country safe.” (One sided
appeal)

Example: “Despite the ailing economy, George Bush is a good president.”

(Two sided appeal)

Order of message arguments: When a message begins with a weak argument and
ends with a strong one, it is called a climax order; if on the other hand one begins with
a strong argument and ends with a weak one it is called a anti-climax order and
sandwiching strong arguments between weak ones is called a pyramidal order. The
pyramidal order is least effective while the climax order is most effective.

Vivid versus evidence based messages: Vivid messages use emotional and colourful
stories that will hold audience’s attention whereas evidence based appeals cite facts
and numerical data. Research strongly supports the notion that evidence based appeals
are more persuasive when attributed to a highly credible source rather than when
attributed to a low credibility source.

Matching messages: Matching message content to attitude function (e.g value

expressive, utilitarian) is the means by which persuasion can be achieved. Research
indicates that affective appeals are more effective in changing affectively rather than
cognitively based attitudes; matching attitudes to one’s culture also led to more
attitude change.

Message Discrepancy: This refers to the difference between the initial attitude of
the audience and the content of the message. High discrepancy occurs when the
message is very different from the audience's initial attitude. Too much discrepancy
will produce little attitude change because the audience will reject the message. If a
message is not at all discrepant, no attitude change occurs because you are telling
your audience what they already believe. Maximum persuasion occurs with a
moderate amount of discrepancy. A high-credibility communicator can "get away
with" more discrepancy than a low-credibility communicator. That is, a high

23
credibility communicator is persuasive with high discrepancy. Message discrepancy
and communicator credibility interact. Audience involvement and discrepancy also
interact. Highly involved audiences tolerate less discrepancy than less involved
audience.

Overheard Messages. Other research has shown that it people think they are
overhearing a message, it is more persuasive than if they see it as a sales pitch
(Walster & Festinger, 1962). People are more persuaded by messages that do not seem
to be designed to influence them.

Research has shown that advertisements with omitted conclusions are more
persuasive than advertisements with conclusions (Kardes, 1988). Consumers appear
to be more strongly influenced by the advertised message if they draw the conclusion
on their own.

Characteristics of the medium/channel

Mode in which a message is presented: The message can be presented face-to-

face, or in some other way such as printed word, video, email, or word of mouth. Face
to face encounters can make the message more salient, personal and attention
grabbing. These encounters can focus attention on such variables as speaker’s
attractiveness, likability and credibility. Among the mass media. The print media are
better at conveying complex persuasive messages while radio and TV are more
effective for simple messages.

Speed of speech: People who speak fast are perceived more credible and hence more
persuasive as compared to slow speakers. Fast speech is beneficial when the initial
position is opposite to that of the communicator. Fast speech however, is less
persuasive when it is presented to an audience which favors the communicator’s point
of view as it is difficult to understand and cannot be incorporated in the current belief
system so as to strengthen it.

Speech style: When people use a powerful speaking style, they are generally judged
more credible and more powerful. However, at times the communicator’s gender may
under certain conditions reverse the effect such that women who use a powerless
speech (using phrases such as “I guess’, “I think”, “don’t you think so?”) are more
effective than those who employ an assertive style. Female persuaders with a male
audience are effective when they combine assertive language with a non verbal style
that communicates friendliness and affiliation like a smiling face, moderate eye
contact and relaxed forward leaning.

The target
Moods: People who are in a positive mood are more susceptible to persuasion
because they are less likely to engage in extensive processing of the presented
arguments and are more responsive to the expertise of the communicator. In contrast,

24
people in a neutral mood are more likely to be persuaded when the arguments are
strong.

Need for Cognition: Most people are mentally lazy; they are cognitive misers. In
contrast, people high in need for cognition like to think, analyze situations, and solve
mental problems. Need for cognition is "the tendency for an individual to engage in
and enjoy effortful thinking". For example, people high in need for cognition may be
more likely than others to watch the debates in a presidential election, because they
like to think about the issues and candidates.

Research has shown that people high in need for cognition are more persuaded by
strong arguments and are less persuaded by weak arguments than are people low in
need for cognition (e.g., Cacioppo, Petty, & Morris, 1983). For example, a strong
argument for conducting common entrance exam for all students before entering col-
lege is: "Colleges show a preference for undergraduates who have passed a
comprehensive exam as they know the ability of all students." A weak argument ia
that "by not administering the exam, a tradition dating back to the ancient Greeks was
being violated."

Self-monitoring: People high in self-monitoring are very concerned about their

public images and tend to use social cues to regulate their self-presentation and are
sensitive to the social consequences of their behaviour. Low self-monitors (“be
yourself” people) are less concerned about the opinions of others and are more likely
to rely on inner dispositions.

Differences in self-monitoring would lead to differences in what kind of appeal (high

or soft appeal) would be effective. Two kinds of appeals have been distinguished.

 ‘Hard-sell’ advertising (quality based) uses a direct "reason why" the

consumer can directly benefit from using the advertised product (e.g. high
quality of product, good taste of a product)
 ‘Soft-sell’ advertising (image based), on the other hand, is more indirect and
evoke positive emotional responses (such as warmth). These advertisements
highlight the image associated with using a product, or the image that one can
project by owning or using a particular product.

Studies indicate that high self-monitors are more amenable to persuasive messages
that target social image (soft-sell), whereas low self-monitors are amenable to
messages that target the truth (hard-sell). In one study (Snyder & DeBono, 1985),
people high in self-monitoring gave ads that focused on image (e.g., "Barclay . . . You
can see the difference") higher ratings than ads that focused on quality (e.g., "Bar-
clay . . . You can taste the difference").

Self-esteem: There is some evidence that the relationship between self esteem and
persuasibility is curvilinear with people of moderate self-esteem being more easily
persuaded than both those of high and low esteem levels. William McGuire (1968 )
developed a model for persuasion that emphasized processes such as ‘reception’ and
‘yielding’:

25
  Receptivity refers to whether you "get" the message (Did you pay attention to
it? Do you understand it?).
 Yielding refers to whether you "accept"' the message.

McGuire found that audience members with high self-esteem were receptive to
persuasive messages because they had confidence in their initial positions. However,
they did not yield to the message because were satisfied with their existing attitudes.
Later work has largely confirmed McGuire’s model (Rhodes & Wood, 1992). A more
recent study took a closer look at attitudes in 8,500 American adults 60 to 80 years old
(Visser & Krosnick, 1998). In this age range, attitudes changed most in the oldest
adults. Thus, middle-aged people may be the most resistant to persuasion.

Age: There is a U-shaped relationship between age and persuasion. 'The easiest
people to persuade are young children while middle age most difficult. According to
the ‘impressionable years hypothesis’, adolescents and young adults are also easily
persuaded (Dawson and Prewitt, 1969). One study analyzed survey data from 2,500
American. The results showed that attitudes changed the most in 18- to 25-year-olds,
followed by 26- to 33-year-olds. Attitudes changed very little in 34- to 83-year-olds. A
more recent study took a closer look at attitudes in 8,500 American adults 60 to 80
years old (Visser & Krosnick, 1998). In this age range, attitudes changed most in the
oldest adults. Thus, middle-aged people may be the most resistant to persuasion.

Cultural Differences: People from individualist cultures tend to place more emphasis
on the individual, whereas people from collectivist cultures tend to place more
emphasis on the group. Hang-Pil and Shavitt (1994) tested what types of
advertisements appealed to members of these two cultures. Half of the participants
were from the United States (individualist); the other half were from Korea
(collectivist). One set of ads focused on the person (e.g., "Treat yourself to a breath-
freshening experience"); the other set of advertisements focused on the group (e.g.,
"Share this breath-freshening experience"). The results showed that Americans were
more persuaded by the individualistic ads, whereas Koreans were more persuaded by
the collectivistic ad.

Theoretical Perspectives on Attitude Change and

Persuasion
Hovland’s approach did not give the reasons as to why persuasion occurs. Later
approaches to persuasion focussed on how this change is brought about.

Social judgement theory: (Muzafer Sherif and Carl Hovland, 1947):

The audience first judges how much the message agrees or disagrees with his or her
own attitude. A recipient's attitude may be divided into three regions: latitude of
acceptance (positions acceptable to the individual), latitude of rejection (positions non
acceptable) and latitude of non-commitment which lies in between the first two

26
attitudes. A listener’s involvement in the topic -- that is, how important a topic is to a
listener -- is an important factor in attitude change.

SJT predicts that attitude change occurs when the message is fairly close to the
target's initial attitude i.e. it lies in the areas of acceptance and non-commitment but
not does not fall in the latitude of rejection.

Cognitive models:

a) Cognitive response model by Greenwald (1968): According to this model, listening

to a communication is like having a private conversation (called ‘cognitive
responses’) where the listener argues with the propositions in the communication.
Messages are persuasive to the extent that that they evoke favourable thoughts but not
persuasive to the extent that they evoke an unfavourable thought.

b). The Elaboration Likelihood Model by Petty and Cacioppo (1986)(pronounced as

Kay –Shia –oppo)

: The basic idea is that when someone is presented with information, some level of
“elaboration” occurs i.e. person puts in some effort to understand the message. The
model suggests that people express either high or low elaboration (that is, their level
of effort) when they encounter a persuasive message. The level of elaboration then
determines which processing route the message takes: central or peripheral.

 Central route processing (high effort) means the audience carefully considers
the message. They’ll pay more attention and scrutinize the quality and strength
of the argument. Two conditions are necessary for effortful processing to occur
—the recipient of the message must be both motivated and able to think
carefully. A person’s motivation to consider message arguments can be
influenced by a number of variables, including the perceived personal
relevance of the message and whether the person enjoys thinking in general. A
person’s ability to think can also be influenced by a number of variables,
including the amount of distraction present in the persuasion context and the
number of times the message is repeated. Any attitudes changes occurring
through this route are more enduring and resistant to counter-arguments.
E.g. A woman who is very much interested in platinum jewels will be closely
watching the advertisements of platinum jewels. She is fascinated with the new
trends and tends to collect them. Here she has the motivation for the subject
matter and she care about it. She carefully processes the message and thinks
about it. And her husband may not be interested in jewels so he will be totally
ignoring the message from advertisements about the jewels. Here the woman
processes the message in her central route and not her husband.

 Peripheral route processing (low effort) happens when the audience is unable
or unwilling to engage in much thought on the message while being influenced
by superficial factors (or peripheral factors), such as source credibility, visual
appeal, presentation, etc. Any attitudes changes occurring through this route are
less enduring, subject to change through counter-arguments, and in need of
continual reinforcement.

27
 E.g. Aryan, a high school student in a book store to buy a note book for doing
his homework. He sees many designs in front cover of the notebook from
various companies. He became confused, and then he saw a notebook with his
favorite football player’s picture in front cover. Without thinking much about it,
he bought that notebook.

A politician who campaigns by delivering carefully researched speeches that

thoughtfully analyze complex issues is following the central route to
persuasion. In contrast, a politician who depends on marching bands, flag
waving, celebrity endorsements, and emotional slogans is following the
peripheral route.

These two routes to persuasion represent the extreme ends of a continuum. People are
rarely this extreme in their behavior relying on some combination of central and
peripheral persuasion strategies.

c) The heuristic systematic model by Chaiken et al (1989): This model too suggests
two modes of information processing: a) systematic processing which is similar to the
central route of persuasion and b) heuristic processing where the individual uses
simple cognitive heuristics to process the information (e.g. source credibility). For e.g.
people may have learned from previous experience that statements by experts have
more truth as compared to non experts and hence they may apply the heuristic
“statements by experts can be trusted”.

d) Cognitive consistency theories: Critical condition for attitude change is to introduce

inconsistency between a given attitude and a behavior or an attitude and another
attitude. A lack of consistency causes discomfort so that an individual attempts to ease
the tension by adjusting attitudes or behaviors in order to once again achieve balance
or consistency.

The balance theory by Heider (1958) states that people try to create a balance in their
relationships. Specifically, the theory (Heider, 1946) primarily focused on a triad that
has three elements, P,O,X:
• P: Person (perceiver, self)
• O: Other person
• X: Attitude object (thing, event, action)

1. According to Heider (1958), a balanced triad occurs when all the relationships
are positive, or two are negative and one is positive (i.e., two people have a
negative attitude toward an issue, but they like each other).

2. Imbalance occurs when these outcomes are not achieved (i.e., all three
relationships are negative, or you have a negative attitude toward an issue that
your friend favors). If there is imbalance then the person will try to change his
attitudes in such a way that a balance is achieved. In this theory, there are eight
possible configurations; four balanced and four unbalanced. Unbalanced states

28
 are recognized as being unstable. Under these conditions, perceivers attempt to
restore balance by changing their attitudes toward objects or other persons.

Balance theory

e) Cognitive-Dissonance Theory (Leon Festinger, 1957): ‘Cognitive dissonance’ is

the discomfort felt by a person who holds two or more conflicting
cognitions (e.g., ideas, beliefs, etc.) simultaneously. In a state of dissonance, people
may experience a state of uncomfortable tension (e.g. anxiety) and hence are
motivated to reduce this dissonance (e.g. I am a bright person yet one fails in the
exam). Altitude change is a major way of reducing dissonance.

29
 (elaborate further depending on time)

f) Bem’s Self perception Theory: According to this theory, we may observe our own
behaviours (i.e. make self-inferences) to know about ourselves (including our
attitudes). For example, you may be able to relate to the following experiences: “This
is my second sandwich; I guess I was hungrier than I thought.” According to Bem's
self-perception theory, people often infer their attitudes from their behavior. Thus,
Bem argued that in the study by Festinger and Carl-smith (1959), the subjects paid $1
probably thought to themselves, "A dollar isn't enough money to get me to lie, so I
must have found the task enjoyable."

This thinking isn't much different from what dissonance theory would predict. Both
theories suggest that people often think, "If I said it (“was a boring task”), it must be
true." But the two theories propose that similar patterns of thought unfold for entirely
different reasons. According to dissonance theory, subjects think along these lines
because they're struggling to reduce tension caused by inconsistency among their
cognitions. According to self-perception theory, subjects are engaged in normal
attributional efforts to better understand their own behavior. Bem originally believed
that most findings explained by dissonance were really due to self-perception.
However, studies eventually showed that self-perception is at work primarily when
subjects do not have well-defined attitudes regarding the issue at hand.

Resistance to persuasion
We are constantly bombarded with information that attempts to change our attitudes,
Persuasive attempts by friends, parents and teachers, volatile speeches by religious
leaders need to be resisted at times. Eagly and Chaiken (1995) recently issued a call to
investigators to “understand the specific psychological mechanisms that enable people
to thwart persuasive efforts”

Reactance theory (Brehm, 1966): When people feel that their ‘freedom to choose’ an
action is threatened (as occurs during persuasion), they experience an unpleasant

30
feeling called ‘reactance’. This also motivates them to perform the threatened
behavior, thus proving that their free will has not been compromised and increases
resistance to persuasion. Pennebaker and Sanders (1976) put one of two signs on
college bathroom walls. One read ‘Do not write on these walls under any
circumstances’ whilst the other read ‘Please don’t write on these walls.’ A couple of
weeks later, the walls with the ‘Do not write on these walls under any circumstances’
notice had far more graffiti on them.

Forewarning: forewarning involves letting a person know ahead of time that a

favored attitude will be challenged. This allows a person to rally defenses or prepare
to resist the message. If a person is forewarned that a salesperson will call with a
misleading offer, the person is unlikely to find the salesperson persuasive. Freedman
and Sears (1965) documented a forewarning effect. They measured the
persuasiveness of a lecture given to teenagers, arguing that "Teenagers should not be
allowed to drive." One group of teenagers was warned about the topic ten minutes
ahead of time; the other was simply given the lecture. The group warned ahead of
time showed less attitude change. Petty and Cacioppo (1977) verified that a delay
between a warning and the delivery of a message encouraged people to generate more
arguments against the message.

Inoculation: After the Korean War with its reports of brainwashing, psychologists
tried to figure out how to build up resistance to unwanted persuasion. William
McGuire and colleagues (1964) advocated a technique called inoculation. To
inoculate a person against persuasion, that person is exposed to weak attacks on a
favored position. The attacks must be weak so they do not actually change attitudes,
but the person is encouraged to fight them off and thereby learn to resist attacks.
McGuire and colleagues were able to show that, in experimental situations,
inoculation approaches were more powerful than simply telling a person they were
right and should ignore attempts at persuasion.

Research has shown that inoculation works. In one study, high school students
inoculated seventh-and eighth-graders against peer pressure to smoke. For example,
the seventh- and eighth-graders were taught to respond to advertisements implying
that liberated women smoke by saying "She is not really liberated if she is hooked on
tobacco." They also role-played situations in which peers were trying to persuade
them to smoke. For example, after being called "chicken" for not taking a cigarette,
they answered with statements like "I'd be a real chicken if I smoked just to impress
you." Inoculated children were half as likely as uninoculated children at another
junior high school to begin smoking (Falck & Craig, 1988).

Counterarguments: Cognitive response model - This model suggested by

Greenwald (1968) states that a cognitive response is a thought generated in response
to persuasive communication (Petty, 1981). In persuasion settings, two important
cognitive responses—counterarguments and favorable thoughts—have been
identified. More counterarguments and less support arguments are generated when
there is ‘belief discrepancy’ i.e. the message content differs from what people believe.
Interfering with favorable (“this is a great idea”) thoughts or enhancing
counterarguments (e.g. “this will never work”) reduces persuasion.

31
Biased assimilation: Biased assimilation, is the tendency of individuals to
perceive information consistent with their viewpoint as more valid than information
that is inconsistent with their viewpoint. Supporting facts may seem overwhelmingly
strong and negating facts may seem automatically weak. Biased assimilation leads to
more counterarguments and hence more resistance to persuasion. As an example, two
physicists with different views on the origin of the cosmos might interpret the same
new data in very different ways to fit into their existing scientific views.

Self control: One must possess adequate self control resources to effectively resist
persuasion. In the self control model by Burkely (2008), self control is conceived as
an energy resource which gets depleted the more we use it. Thus, resistance to
persuasive messages (especially strong arguments) leads to a depletion of self control
resources and after multiple persuasive efforts the individual’s ability to resist
becomes very less. However, by engaging in ‘self control’ exercises such as regulating
one’s mood or improving one’s posture, people may develop more self control and
thus be able to resist persuasion.

Attitude polarization: This refers to the tendency of attitudes to become extreme

when active attempts are made at changing them. That is, attitudes that are initially
favorable tend to become more favorable, whereas initially unfavorable attitudes tend
to become more unfavorable. Attitude polarization may occur as a result of three
processes: 1) people generate new information that is consistent with their initial
beliefs (e.g. If a person holds initially negative beliefs about illegal immigration,
asking that person about illegal immigration may cause them to generate additional
beliefs e.g., increasing local taxes, in support of that person’s initial beliefs about
illegal immigration), 2) People may reinterpret existing information to make it more
consistent with their initial beliefs (e.g shouting by an immigrant may be interpreted
as proof that the immigrant is rude though the immigrant may be shouting a warning)
and 3) information that is inconsistent with initial beliefs may be suppressed or
forgotten. For example, suppose a person sees an illegal immigrant coworker help an
old lady cross an intersection. If that person has a negative attitude about illegal
immigrants, he may choose to ignore this good deed when thinking about illegal
immigration because this new information is inconsistent with his initial attitude.

32