Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • A Group Investigation On Persuasion

    Uploaded by

    api-461452779
    298 views6 pages

    Original Title

    a group investigation on persuasion

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    298 views6 pages

    A Group Investigation On Persuasion

    Uploaded by

    api-461452779

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 6
    PERSUASION GROUP INVESTIGATION REPORT “What is the most effective route of advertising for advocating anti-smoking?” Introduction ‘Smoking is @ practice that can be detrimental to people's health. Despite extensive anti- smoking campaigns and increased awareness of the harmful effects, young-adults continue to smoke. The focus of this study is to determine which targeted processing route ~central, which targets a motivated audience that thoughtfully analyses the message, or peripheral, which uses superficial cues such as the aesthetics of the advertisement without critical thinking ~is most effective at persuading teenagers not to smoke, It is important to determine which route is more effective for advertising anti- smoking to improve on current campaigns. ‘An experimental investigation design was used. A sample of 27 year 12 students were randomly allocated into two groups: those shown an anti-smoking advertisement that targeted the central route of persuasion, through cigarette packaging; the Cigarette Packaging group, and those exposed to advertisements targeting the peripheral route, through the ‘Joe Chemo’ campaign; the Joe Chemo group. A subjective quantitative measure was used as participants completed a questionnaire that assessed their thoughts processing, attention and understanding of the advertisements. It was hypothesised that the participants in the cigarette packaging group would produce higher response scores for thoughts processing, attention and understanding, than those in the Joe Chemo group. The raw data, the responses to the questionnaire, was compiled. A mean score for the thoughts processing results from both the cigarette packaging and Joe Chemo groups were calculated. These averages were then plotted on a bar graph. The same was done for each group’s attention and understanding scores. The summaries for each measure were then ‘compared to determine which route of persuasion is more effective at deterring teenagers from smoking. High response scores indicate the advertisement was persuasive. Results Graph 1: Average scores for thoughts processing of participants inthe Cigarette Packaging and Joe Chemo groups. Average Thoughts Processing Score for both the Cigarette Packaging and Joe Chemo Groups 400 350 300 as 255 250 200 150 100 50 0 Cigarette Packaging Joe Chemo Group ‘Average Score (Thoughts Processing) Graph 2: Average scores for attention of participants in the Cigarette Packaging and Joe Chemo groups. | Average Attention Score for both the Cigarette Packaging | and Joe Chemo Groups Group = 100 g a 79 £ A 65 |= 60 ge (8 40 8 | & |g 20 \2 |= 0 | Cigarette Packaging Joe Chemo Graph 3: Average scores for understanding of participants in the Cigarette Packaging and Joe Chemo groups. Average Understanding Score for both the Cigarette Packaging and Joe Chemo Groups — 100 = & = 95 92 8 | | 3. 90 | 3 Le | | 2 85 | 8 | | 4 | |g 80 | £ | 5 26 | Cigarette Packaging Joe Chemo | Group | Discussion wv Interpretation of Results Graph 1 shows that the average thoughts processing score for the Cigarette Packaging group was 275, while the average score of the Joe Chemo group was 255, only 20 points lower than the Central group. This supports the hypothesis, as it was predicted that the cigarette packaging group would have the higher thoughts processing score, This suggests that those in the cigarette packaging group thought more in depth about the message of the advertisement than the Joe Chemo group. Thus as they processed the information more carefully, it was slightly more effective at persuading teenagers not to smoke. According to graph 2, the average attention score of the Cigarette Packaging group was 79, while the average score for the Joe Chemo group was 65, 14 points lower. These scores also support the hypothesis which predicted that the central route of persuasion would produce a higher attention score. These results show that those in the Cigarette Packaging group payed more attention to the content than those in the Joe Chemo group, suggesting targeting the central route was more persuasive in this respect, This could have been because the participants in the cigarette packaging group related more to the information, asit discussed the effects of smoking'on the human body, while the Joe Chemo group saw cartoons, and images of adults smoking, and thus could not relate, The emphasis on text may have also focused the Cigarette Packaging group’s attention as they had to concentrate and read, while the focus on images may have meant the Joe Chemo group became easily distracted. Graph 3 shows the Cigarette packaging group's average understanding score was 87, 5 points lower than Joe Chemo's 92, This does not support the hypothesis, as the understanding score was presumed to be higher for the Cigarette Packaging group. These results indicate that the group exposed to ‘Joe Chemo’ better understood the content than those exposed to the Cigarette Packaging images. This small difference may be because the advertising targeting the central route contained medical facts that some participants may have found complicated, while the advertisement targeting the peripheral route contained simple images and statements about the effects of smoking that did not require high elaboration to be understood. As this isa small difference, the advertisement targeting the central route was therefore marginally less persuasive as it relies on understanding to be effective, sample a The sample was made up of 27 year 12, psychology students from an Adelaide City School. The results could possibly be generalised to a population of Australian year 12, 16-18-year-old students, as people of the same age have similar cognitive development, as well as similar understanding of the effects of cigarettes. However, the small sample size makes it difficult to apply these results appropriately as all the varied characteristics of the thousands in the population of interest aren’t encompassed in 27 people. Also, the sample consists of school students who have a focus on academic education, and may enjoy analysing information mote critically, leading to increase thoughts processing scores for both groups, compared to. students from other schools who may not enjoy this as much. Therefore, making it difficult to generalise the results to the population of interest. a Investigation Procedures A strength of this experiment is that random assortment was used to allocate students into. the two groups. This ensured they were equivalent in all respects other than their advertisement exposure, and controlled extraneous variables, increasing the likelihood that it was the route of persuasion affecting respionse scores, not another factor, Thus improving the validity of the experiment. The presentations were also delivered in a dark, quiet room, which minimised the effects of extraneous variables as noise or activity could have distracted the participants from the content, lowering their response scores. This therefore also ensured it ‘was the independent variable affecting response scores. v However, the controlled environment means that this experiment has low external validity as the results only represent the effect of each route of persuasion In quiet, focused situations. This does not reflect the high distraction conditions in which most participants would experience advertising in the real world, The questionnaire used was very ambiguous as students were asked to mark their response on a continuum, This measure had low validity, as the number score this mark represented may not have been an accurate reflection of the participant's responses. Also, as it was a self-report measure, students may have not been truthful or had an unrealistic idea about their level of processing, leading to the high response scores from both groups. These scores therefore have low validity as they may not accurately reflect participant's responses, Furthermore, there was no test to ensure that the advertisements were successful at targeting each route of persuasion, meaning the results may not represent the influence of each route, and hence would impact the validity of the conclusions drawn.

    You might also like