4PSYC001W Social Psychology

semester 1 2017/18

w1629021

Critically evaluate the role of these four factors that can influence persuasion:

(1) the communicator, (2) the message, (3) how the message is communicated and

(4) the audience.

Persuasion is a process aimed to change a person`s or group`s attitude or behaviour (Myers and
Twenge 2017, p.189). Studies reveal the two paths leading to persuasion are the central and
peripheral route (Petty, Cacioppo, 1986). People who like to analyze facts and focus on arguments
usually take the central route, compared with people who take the peripheral route, mainly rely on
visual or non-verbal cues as they are not motivated to think about an issue or get distracted easily.
Edward Bernays, Sigmund Freud`s nephew was the first to think about persuading huge crowds, by
using their unconscious desires to make them buy consumer products in 1920s America. To this day,
persuasion is still used in everyday life, whether people go for a job interview or giving advice to a
friend. There are four components in persuasion, the communicator, the message, how the message
is communicated and the audience. This essay will outline these four factors, and how these factors
influence persuasion.

August 28, 1963, Washington, American civil rights activist Martin Luther King delivered his famous
speech “I have a dream”. His emotional speech persuaded thousands of people, but what made him
so effective in his speech? He was a highly educated individual, so people perceived him as a credible
source. Communicators appear to be credible when they are seen to be expert and trustworthy
(Porpitakpan, 2004). Doctors and dentists are perceived not just credible persons, but also seemed
as experts because they are knowledgeable on the topic. Advertisers use this to construct television
commercials, where the credible person (the doctor) talks about the product (toothbrush) making it
seem special (Myers and Twenge 2017, p.194). These constructed commercials only work for people
using the peripheral route, because they are not interested in analysing all the information.
According to Moore, Swift and Pentland (2010), it also helps if the person is energetic and
charismatic. Humour is also a great aid if the audience does not trust the source, because it can
distract people from negative thinking, by lifting their mood, so the source will start to appeal to
them (Strick et al., 2012). Studies reveal that emotional arguments are often more influential when
they come from people considered as beautiful (Chaiken, 1979; Dion & Stein, 1978; Pallak et al.,
1983). The media uses attractive models and celebrities to influence people in advertising. However,
beauty is not the only form of attractiveness that influences us. A commercial for a new product is
more influential if it comes from a person similar to us. A housewife, a neighbour, a family member,
someone from the same peer group with the same gestures, or habits can have an impact on the
audience. Tomphson and Malaviya (2013) found that advertisements were more influential when
the actor was seen similar to the audience.

The most effective messages are framed to the audience, especially influential when they have a
relevance in the listener`s life (Geers et al., 2003). A well-framed message can be an emotional or
factual based message. But which one should the source present? It depends on the audience.
Peripheral-based audiences will prefer emotional messages, while central route based audiences will
most likely to respond to rational ones. Attitudes also shape preferred message context. If the
attitudes of the audience have based on reason, later this audience will prefer factually based
arguments (Edwards, 1990; Fabrigar & Petty, 1990). Contradict pre-existing message views will meet
with the audience defence and will be ignored. Only a credible source can present a contradictive
message, and meet with an attitude change (Elliot Aronson et al., 1963). When the audience likes to
consider facts (central-route) it is better to present both sides of the arguments, it might seem fairer
and might confuse the audience (Myers and Twenge 2017, p.202). For example, when television
commercials show two products, and one of them is presented as superior to the other, to make it
seem special. When the audience is too busy to analyse it is better to show them only one-sided
arguments. When the Message is informant rather than starting with arguments, the audience does
not feel that they are trying to persuade them, therefore they are more likely to be persuaded
(Myers and Twenge 2017, p.194). Analytical people tend to like strong arguments, if the arguments
are weak they will start to question and scrutinize it. For peripheral audience’s weak arguments can
be presented with a distraction, which can be visual, so they will focus on the distraction rather than
the message. Too long and difficult messages will only be attended by central route based audience,
peripheral-route based audiences will ignore the facts and will focus on the pictures and visual cues
of the message. Messages can also be effective by evoking positive and negative emotions (Myers
and Twenge 2017, p.198). When the audience thinking positively they are making fast judgements
and will generate more favourable thoughts toward the message. A negative message can be a fear-
arousing message, it can be a health or an environmental issue, where the source trying to raise
awareness or responsibility by evoking fear from the audience. Studies reveal that the more
frightened and vulnerable people feel the more likely that they change their attitudes (de Hoog et
al., 2007; Robberson &Rogers, 1988; Tannenbaum, 2013). Fear-arousing messages can only be
effective if they also present a solution. In this way, the message will not meet with denial because
the audience will have a solution how to avoid or prevent the situation (Devos-Comby & Salovey,
2002; Maddux & Rogers, 1983; Ruiter et al., 2001). Deciding whether the source should present
negative or positive evoking message depends on the audience. One study found that older adults
respond to positive appeals better than negative ones, and younger adults respond better to
negative appeals rather than positive appeals. (McKay-Nesbitt et al., 2011)

The message can come in different forms. It can be audio, videotaped, or written. It can come from
media, education, it can also come to face-to-face conversations. Experiments show that face-to-
face (live) and video messages are far more persuasive than written ones, especially live ones,
because they are rooted in our experience, therefore produce more attitude change (Geers, 2003;
Myers and Twenge 2017, p.207). When people talking to people and spreading an information, has a
far bigger effect than media influence, because they trust these people. Media uses opinion leaders
to influence people in larger groups (Keller & Berry, 2003). They can be your family, your friends, or
persons, perceived as experts. Written messages only have better effectiveness when they are
difficult to understand (Myers and Twenge 2017, p.207). In this way, the reader can always read it
back and have time to think about it. Although a video and audio message are more persuasive than
a written one, in the video message the audience is focusing more on the communicator`s
characteristics rather than the message, compared to the written one the audience can focus on the
message without any distraction (Chaiken et al., 1983). In one experiment a likeable communicator
was more persuasive when his or her message was delivered by videotaped form rather than in
written form. However, the unlikeable communicator was more persuasive when he or she delivered
the message in a written, rather than a videotaped form (Chaiken et al., 1983). Central-route based
audiences focusing on the argument rather than the communicator, therefore they are not affected
by the likability (Wood, Wendy; Kallgren, Carl A., 1988). Although strong arguments are likely to
induce greater persuasion, messages that provides too much protest can arouse cognitive
dissonance (Stanchi, 2013). Cognitive dissonance is a psychological state, where the person`s beliefs
and reality clash. There is two strongly held belief. One is that no message is perfect, and the other is
that every message has two sides. These strong beliefs arise from a frequent natural scepticism that
things which appear to be too good, they are unrealistic. The audience will feel that the message is
flawed, or pushy, eventually, they will resolve the dissonance with the thought that the message is
wrong, and they will continue to hold on to their initial belief (Stanchi, 2013).
Different people prefer different routes to persuasion. For optimistic audiences, it is better to
present positive persuasion, for pessimistic, the best way is through negative persuasion (Geers et
al., 2003). Audience types can be young, old, middle-aged, female, male, there are cultural
differences, educational difference, but there are 2 main factors to consider. The first factor is the
age. Social psychologists have found that people`s attitude, whether it`s social or political correlates
with their age (Myers and Twenge 2017, p.208). Researchers have found the explanation for this
phenomenon is the generational gap. Older People keep their initial attitude that they gained when
they were young, that attitude is not matching the new generations youth`s attitude, therefore a
generational gap form (Myers and Twenge 2017, p.208). Individual characteristics matters such as
age, need for cognition and affective intensity, like positive or negative emotions, in constructing
effective messages. One study found that younger adults respond and remember better to
emotional appeals, rather than rational ones, compared to older adults, who will find rational ads
more appealing than to negative emotional evoking ones (McKay-Nesbitt et al., 2011). This
phenomenon is due to socioemotional selectivity theory which is a lifespan motivation theory
(Cartensen et al., 2003). As time goes by, people`s motivation shifts, that influence cognitive
processes, as people age, they will prefer positive information over negative ones, in attention and
memory. The other factor is the two routes, central and peripheral route persuasion. People who
like to consider, analyse facts, will take the central route to persuasion, they will be more influenced
by strong arguments and facts, rather than the communicator`s attributions, and weak arguments
will be ignored or questioned by them (Cacioppo et al., 1996). Compared to people who rely on
peripheral cues, they will be influenced by visual cues, the communicator`s non-verbal cues, and
likability, they will not be analysing facts, they are easy to lead on. Studies showed that people
taking the central route to persuasion, will be more influenced by a central route based message,
and the peripheral route message will be more appealing to people with a low need for cognition
(Edwards, 1990; Fabrigar & Petty 1999). Moreover, if a central route based person is persuaded,
their attitude change will persist for a long-term, and they will remember the message. When it
comes to peripheral route based audience, they will remember for a short-term period, they might
forget the source, and they might remember the message. This is called the `sleeper-effect` (Myers
and Twenge 2017, p.193).

To conclude all four factors, play an important role in persuasion. The communicator must possess
certain characteristics, like credibility, trustworthiness, to induce great effects. The message must be
framed to the audience, should the source present it according to peripheral or central route
persuasion, use negative or positive evoking message, depends on the audience. The channel of the
communication is also crucial as in there is a hierarchy of the presentation type. Live, videotaped,
audio and written, and more importantly, crucial to consider the characteristic of the audience like
age, low or high need for cognition, as this determines how to present the message to the audience.
Understanding how individual characteristics interact with message framing helps to understand
how to use persuasion to produce effective messages. Which factor is important depends on the
individual, whether take the central route or the peripheral route, as this has a great impact on all
other factors.

Word count (2000)

References

Aronson, E., Turner, J. A., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1963). Communicator credibility and
communication discrepancy as determinants of opinion change. The Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychology, 67(1), 31.

Avolio, B. J., Sosik, J. J., Kahai, S. S., & Baker, B. (2014). E-leadership: Re-examining
transformations in leadership source and transmission. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 105-
131.

Bèzes, C., & Mercanti-Guérin, M. (2017). Similarity in marketing: Scope, measurement, and
fields of application. Recherche et Applications en Marketing (English Edition), 32(1), 83-
105.

Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Kao, C. F., & Rodriguez, R. (1986). Central and peripheral
routes to persuasion: An individual difference perspective. Journal of personality and social
psychology, 51(5), 1032.

Carstensen, L. L., Fung, H. H., & Charles, S. T. (2003). Socioemotional selectivity theory
and the regulation of emotion in the second half of life. Motivation and emotion, 27(2), 103-
123.

Chaiken, S., & Eagly, A. H. (1983). Communication modality as a determinant of persuasion:

The role of communicator salience. Journal of personality and social psychology, 45(2), 241.

Clark-Hitt, R., Smith, S. W., & Broderick, J. S. (2012). Help a buddy take a knee: Creating
persuasive messages for military service members to encourage others to seek mental health
help. Health communication, 27(5), 429-438.

Curtis, A., Kensall, L., Lambert, S.(Producers) & Curtis, A. (Director). (2002) The century of
the self. United States : RDF Television, BBC.
Fabrigar, L. R., & Petty, R. E. (1999). The role of the affective and cognitive bases of
attitudes in susceptibility to affectively and cognitively based persuasion. Personality and
social psychology bulletin, 25(3), 363-381.

Geers, A. L., Handley, I. M., & McLarney, A. R. (2003). Discerning the role of optimism in
persuasion: the valence-enhancement hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 85(3), 554.

Grabo, A., Spisak, B., & van Vugt, M. (2017). Charisma as signal: An evolutionary
perspective on charismatic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly.

Jang, J., & Feng, B. (2017). The Effects of Gain-and Loss-Framed Advice Messages on
Recipients’ Responses to Advice. Journal of Language and Social Psychology,
0261927X17706961.

Keller, E., & Berry, J. (2003). The influentials: One American in ten tells the other nine how
to vote, where to eat, and what to buy. Simon and Schuster.
McKay-Nesbitt, J., Manchanda, R. V., Smith, M. C., & Huhmann, B. A. (2011). Effects of
age, need for cognition, and affective intensity on advertising effectiveness. Journal of
Business Research, 64(1), 12-17.
Myers, G. D. & Twenge M. J. (2017) Social Psychology (12th ed.) New York, NY, US:
McGraw-Hill Education
NACHESCU, M. L. The Impact of Corporate Disclosures on the Financial Market in Time of
Financial Crisis.

Nettelhorst, S. C. (2013). The effects of actor attractiveness and advertisement choice on

mechanical avoidance behaviors. Kansas State University.

Petty, R. E., Wegener, D. T., & Fabrigar, L. R. (1997). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual
review of psychology, 48(1), 609-647.

Pornpitakpan, C., Li, Q., & Fu, S. F. I. (2017). A gender-focused review of the effect of
message source attractiveness on persuasion: Implications for marketers and advertisers.

Sinclair, R. C., Moore, S. E., Mark, M. M., Soldat, A. S., & Lavis, C. A. (2010). Incidental
moods, source likeability, and persuasion: Liking motivates message elaboration in happy
people. Cognition and emotion, 24(6), 940-961.

Stanchi, K. (2013). What Cognitive Dissonance Tells Us About Tone in Persuasion

Strick, M., Holland, R. W., van Baaren, R. B., & van Knippenberg, A. (2012). Those who
laugh are defenseless: How humor breaks resistance to influence. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Applied, 18(2), 213.

Tannenbaum, M. B., Hepler, J., Zimmerman, R. S., Saul, L., Jacobs, S., Wilson, K., &
Albarracín, D. (2015). Appealing to fear: A meta-analysis of fear appeal effectiveness and
theories.

Thompson, D. V., & Malaviya, P. (2013). Consumer-generated ads: does awareness of

advertising co-creation help or hurt persuasion?. Journal of Marketing, 77(3), 33-47.

Wood, W., & Kallgren, C. A. (1988). Communicator attributes and persuasion: Recipients'
access to attitude-relevant information in memory. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 14(1), 172-182.

Wrenn, C. L. The Social Psychology of Veganism–Fear-Framed Persuasion.