Attitude change

Persuasion
Topics

L5a L5b: The Source

 Elaboration Likelihood  Source credibility
Model  Non-verbal cues
The Target
The Message  Non-verbal Cues
 1 vs. 2 sided messages  Target Distraction
 Order of Arguments
L5c
 Persuasive Tactics
 Resisting Persuasion
Attitude Change

Yale attitude approach of persuasive

communication
 4 components of persuasion:
 Source: where the message comes from
 Target: who the message is for (what is their
motivation or internal state)
 Message: information within
 Medium (Channel): how the message is delivered
The Message: Elaboration Likelihood Model

Claims 2 paths to persuasion: central and peripheral

They can be anywhere on the spectrum below
COMMUNICATION

Central Appeal Peripheral Appeal

(Controlled) (Automatic)
Appeal to logic Appeal to emotions
Strong & compelling Superficial aspects of
arguments message/source
Lasting change Temporary/plastic

The target must be able to

Target Characteristics
Persuasion
process this info
Boredom will help
peripheral
Need for cognition will help
 Mindless Persuasion
 peripheral
 Appx $5,400/yr (USD) for impulsive purchases
 ~ 50% of grocery store purchases
 62% buy unplanned items
 Merchandise placement: Eye-level > waist >
floor
 Affective for young children cause they don’t
have the cognitive resources to think critically
 Mindful Persuasion… central
Santos et al., 1994
 Procedure: confederates as panhandlers (asked
for spare change). Either specificity (strange
amount which means specific amount or
general amount (typical)). The 2nd independent
variable is the amount asked for (high or low)

 IVs: Specificity (typical, strange), Amount (low, high)

 DV: $
 Mindful Persuasion… central
 Appeals that provoke controlled thinking can also be effective
 Percentage of inquiries is the percentage that asked why do you need this money…
higher in strange request
 The amount of money is higher for general requests, but the total amount of money is
outweighed in strange (specific) request
 Strange request had 2x as many ppl giving money… higher compliance
 Ppl didn’t ask if they needed a quarter in typical condition because in 1964 a quarter
was needed for phone booths
 Appeals that provoke controlled thinking can be affective for persuasion
 Peripheral vs. Central Appeals
What predicts success?
 Mood: peripheral success is better when person in good mood but when negative
mood central appeal is better. Ppl in bad mood are more likely to be critical
 Original encoding: how initial attitudes are formed. If we formed initial attitudes
from logical arguments, that that is the only way we are going to be able to
change it. Same thing is initial attitude formed on emotional appeal
 Target motivation & attention: cognitive related factors. Target must be willing and
able to perceive, attend to, and process the message. Those targets that are more
thoughtful/analytical, they are more likely to use the central route
 Importance
 Boredom: more likely peripheral
 Complexity: central route is more successful for clear and simple messages, more complex
more peripheral
 Cognitive load: how much info we can process at once. If under high load, we are distracted
and the peripheral route will be more successful
 Need for cognition: next slide
 Need for cognition
 Extent to which ppl are inclined towards effortful cognitive activities
 Complex vs. simple problem-solving tasks
 Desire & seek out relevant info
 Greater attitudes-behaviour consistency
 University faculty vs. factory workers. However, its unrelated to
years of education. This is a result of individual self selecting into
careers that meet their needs
 Positively related to
 General intelligence
 Self-esteem
 Curiosity
 Effective problem solving
 Unrelated to years of formal education
The message: One- vs. two-sided
appeals
 1 sided = only info to persuade

 2 sided = info to persuade + info about

shortcomings, limitations, competitor
products
The message: Two-sided appeals
The message: One- vs. two-sided appeals

Hovland, Lumsdaine & Sheffield, 1949

 Looked at war propaganda. War in Europe
was ending and moral was being aversively
affected… soldiers were overly optimistic, but
still needed to take over Japan
 IV: 1 vs 2 sided appeal
 DV: Persuasion
 The message: One- vs. two-sided appeals

One-sided Two-sided
1. Distance & logistical 1. US naval victories &
difficulties in the superiority
Pacific 2. Progress despite two-
2. Resources & front war
3. Ability to concentrate
stockpiles in Japan
forces on Japan after VE
3. Size & quality of
Day
Japanese Army
4. Japan's shipping losses
4. Determination of the
& manufacturing
Japanese people inferiority
Tried to convince the soldiers that this Included all the one-sided arguments but with a
will be difficult to do counter argument component as well
 The message: One- vs. two-sided appeals
2-sided argument
 Address counter- arguments for those who doubt
 Addresses counter-arguments
 But can create doubt in those who initially agreed
 provides counter arguments
Implications
 Preaching to the choir = use 1-sided argument
 Talking to the opposition = use a 2-sided argument

One sided more persuasive if they

already agreed, but two-sided
arguments create doubt
 The Order of Arguments: Primacy vs.
Recency
Primacy: initial information is contained
 Memory
 First impressions
 Lasting & resilient
 Voting
 Ballot order… being first can be
advantageous

Recency: more recent info is best recalled

 Memory
 Availability heuristic
 The Order of Arguments: Primacy vs. Recency

Miller & Campbell, 1959

 They used a transcript of an actual trial involving a suit for
damages because of a defective product
 IVs
 Timing of argument (Immediate, 1 week)
 Order (Plaintiff 1st or defendant 1st)

 DV: whether the ruling was in favor of plaintiff or defendant

The Order of Arguments: Primacy vs. Recency

 No time lag = Primacy effect

 Regardless of which argument is presented first, the initial info is
privileged when no delay
 Time Lag = Recency effect
 Normal decay: message 2 might be more clear, as they may have
forgotten message 1
 Availability heuristic? : message 2 is more accessible and more likely to
bring to mind
Summary

 2 routes to persuasion: central & peripheral

 Depends on target characteristics

 Messages can be 1 or 2 sided

 Depends on initial target agreement

 Order of arguments matters

 Depends on delay between messages & decision
L5b Topics

The Source
 Source credibility
 Non-verbal cues

The Target (Audience)

 Non-verbal cues
 Target distraction
 Credibility of Source
 A surprising finding
 Early work by Hovland et al. (1949)
 WWII propaganda: Wanted to know
if the propaganda films were
working
 They found the films weren’t very
affective cause they knew they were
propaganda films
 Sleeper effect: Some films did have
an effects, but over time
 Two components of credibility
 Expertise… military high on expertise
 Trustworthiness…. But maybe
military wasn’t so trustworthy
 Hovland & Weiss (1951)
 How long do the effects of source
credibility last?
 Methods overview
 Examined the sleeper effect
 Collected baseline measurements of
central topic messages. Pretest survey.
Also collected source credibility and
either pro/anti messages. The
dependant variable was measures of
attitude change towards the message,
credibility of source, and recall of the
source
 IV source credibility
▪ Journal vs. Magazine
 IV: pro/anti message
▪ Antihistamines
▪ Nuclear submarines
 Hovland & Weiss (1951) Timeline
Time 2 (4 weeks
Time 0: Pre-Test later)
General survey Attitude
about controversial questionnaire.
topics + credibility Content and source
of various sources. memory tests.

Time 1 (5 days later)

Read persuasive
messages.
Attitude questionnaire.
Content and source
memory tests.
Credibility of Source

Hovland & Weiss (1951) % RATING SOURCE AS

TRUSTWORTHY
DV: High Credibility Low Credibility
 Rating of trustworthiness
of the source 90
 Recall of the source 80
 Attitude change towards 70
60
the message 50
Credible sources (in this case 40
journal) was rated as 30
20
trustworthy 10
0
 Hovland & Weiss (1951) Results
RETENTION OF ATTITUDE
ATTITUDE CHANGE (TIME 1)
High Credibility Low Credibility
High Credibility Low Credibility

Change in agreement with persuas-

25
% showing attitude change in direction of

ive messages vs. Time 0

40 20

35
15
the persuasive message

30
10
25

20 5

15
0
Time 1 Time 2
10 This is the demonstration of the sleeper
5 effect… decrease in agreement with
high credibility and increase in
0
Anti-Histamines Atomic Subs agreement of the low credibility source
Same pattern for both topics No difference in remembering the
Attitude change was predicted by source credibility message
Credibility of Source
 Messages from high credibility sources become less persuasive
over time
 Due to normal decay

 Messages from low credibility sources become more persuasive

over time. Ppl forget the source of the information, but not the
information itself
 Sleeper effect

 Dissociation hypothesis
 weakened association between the cue (source) and the message =
sleeper effect
 Source Characteristics 2: Nonverbal Cues
(Mullen et al., 1986)

Tom Brokaw/NBC Dan Rather/CBS Peter Jennings/ABC

Reagan Mondale Reagan Mondale Reagan Mondale

11.50 11.21 10.37 10.46 17.44 13.38
Recoded the references made towards each presidential candidate. The audio
removed and was then given to participants and they rated the degree of
positive and negative facial expressions without knowing what the news anchor
was speaking about
DV: Positivity of facial expression from 1 (“extremely negative”) to 21 (“extremely positive”)

Peter Jennings was the only one who had a strong positive bias towards one of the
candidate
Post-Election Survey Results
Did a random telephone survey to see which news
ABC CBS & NBC
channel they watched and who they voted for
80
70
% viewers voting for Reagan

60
50
They found that in each of the 3
40 states, ppl who watched ABC
voted Reagan more frequently
30 Since a news castor a credible
20 source, this type of
endorsement can affect viewers
10 attitudes
0
OH MA PA
Target Characteristics 1: Nonverbal Cues
(Wells & Petty, 1980)... Facial feedback hypothesis

 Hear pro-tuition-increase 650

argument (from $587-$750)
600
while:
 Not moving head 550
 Shaking head
500
 Nodding head
450
 DV: $ suggested for next
400
year’s ugrad tuition
 This suggests that our own 350
non-verbal cues can
300
influence persuasion Control Shake Nod
 Target Distraction
Festinger (1964)
 Procedure: listened to speech criticizing
the role of fraternities on college life.
The film was either matching video or
audio or mismatch (audio played over
cartoon)… induced distraction

Persuasion 
 IV: Distraction
▪ Yes: audio and visual don’t match (cartoon)
▪ No: audio and visual match (speaker)
 DV: Persuasion
 The distracting group increased
persuasion (enhanced acceptance of the
anti frat)… this is interesting because
distracted individuals are thought to be
No Yes
more persuaded by peripheral appeals…
one reason may be that distractions Distraction
prevent counter arguments
 Why Does Distraction Enhance
Persuasion?
(Osterhouse & Brock, 1970)
Counterarguments theory: distractions prevent counterarguments
Procedure:
 students listed their thoughts after listening to a 6 min message advocating a
tuition increase… this is a counter attitudinal message
 While listening, they had to monitor 4 lights & voice which light flashed. In no
distraction condition, the lights didn’t flash at all. There was low and high
distraction

 IV: distraction (none, med, high)

 None: lights did not flash
 Medium: flashed 12x/min
 High: flashed 24x/min
 DV’s:
▪ persuasion level
▪ # of independent counterarguments
 Osterhouse & Brock Results
Persuasion Counterarguments
Counterarguments 
Persuasion 

None Medium High

Amount of Distraction

Distraction results in greater persuasion when it prevents us from arguing against the message
Summary

 Expert and credible sources are persuasive

 Non-verbal cues influence persuasiveness of
credible sources
 Non-verbal cues can persuade ourselves, even
when artificially induced
 A distracted audience is a persuadable
audience, if it prevents counter-arguments
Persuasive Tactics
L5c Topics

L5c
 Persuasive Tactics
 Resisting Persuasion
Persuasive Tactics
 Low-Balling
 Bait and Switch
 Foot in the Door
 The Reciprocation Rule
 Door-in-the-Face
 Scarcity Technique
 Low-Balling
DEFINITION AND EXAMPLES
 Two easy steps! CIALDINI ET AL. RESULTS
1. Get your target to commit to some
deal
2. Change the terms of that deal 60

50
 Cialdini et al., 1978
 Asked ppl to participate in a study and 40

then they were told it starts at 7am

and whether they prefer to come in on 30

wed or Friday
20
 In the control condition, they were told
the date and times before replying 10
whether they would participate
 IV: low-ball vs. control 0
Control Low-Ball
 DV: % willing to participate
 Why does it work?
 The need for behavioural consistency
 We think we’ve made a commitment, so we don’t want to go back
on it
 Behavioral consistency is a heuristic, a type of automatic thinking
that we use to ease decision making
 Emotional investment
 We want to avoid disappointment
 Ex: we pay for a vacation and then find out we need to pay extra to
check luggage
 Sunk costs
 The Concorde fallacy: when we already invested time and effort, we
don’t wont to make a change because it will change our previous
efforts
 Concord fallacy refers to the British and French government founded
a aircraft even after there was no longer an economic case for it
Contrast With Bait-And-Switch

LOW BALL BAIT AND SWITCH

 See Xbox One S for great  See Xbox One S for great
price, agrees to buy it. Then price, goes to buy it.
learn need to pay extra for  “Sold out”
something unexpected  Agrees to more expensive
(controllers) Xbox One X
 Buys it anyway.
So where low balling changes the terms of the original deal, bait and switch
changes the deal completely … I different product for a different price
 Foot in the Door (FITD) Technique
DEFINITION AND EXAMPLE
 Two easy steps!
1. Ask for something small
2. After you get it, ask the same target
for something bigger
Agreeing to the initial step creates the
basis to create consistency
Named after door to door salesman.
They found that is they were able to get
a foot inside, they were more likely to
make a sale
 Timeline:
 Lowball  same deal, same time
 FITD  different deals, different
times
 Freedman & Fraser (1966)
 Research questions EXPERIMENT 1
1. Does a target have to perform the small task for FITD to work, or
is agreement enough? That’s what the study below is about RESULTS
2. Is increased compliance to large request due to familiarity with
requester? 60
 Method
50

% complying (large request)

 Subjects got a telephone call with a household product survey. If
they agreed it was the small request. The big request was for men 40
to come over and inspect all the innovatory. They tested 4
30
conditions. In performance condition, they made the small
request and later a bigger request. In the agree only condition, 20
they asked a small request but didn’t have them do it and then
they made the bigger request. In familiarization condition, they 10
familiarized the subjects with the requester. So no small request, 0
but later on made a big request. They were told the questions but ce ly
tio
n c t
an On a nta
were not given the opportunity to answer them. In one contact rm e- ri z Co
re a
rfo Ag i li e
condition, only asked for big request Pe m On
Fa
 Implications? Condition
 Agreeing to the survey is not sufficient… just not consistency in
terms of thoughts, but in behavior as well

 Freedman & Fraser (1966)
EXPERIMENT 2
 Tested whether ppl complied with 2nd request due to
familiarity or to maintain consistency in responses
 Research questions
1. Does the FITD work when the requesters at Time 1 and Time 2 are 80
RESULTS
different?
70
2. Does the FITD still work when the issues at Time 1 and Time 2 are
different?

% Doing Large Favour

60
 Method
50
 Asked to sign a petition for driving safe or keeping California beautiful.
2nd request was a large ugly sign to be put on their lawn. One contact 40
is only asking for large request. Similar issue: ask for large request 30
after small on same issues. Different issue: ask for large request after
small but on different issues 20
 T1: Petition T2: Lawn sign 10
 Implications
0
 Consistency, not familiarity. Familiarity with requester does not One Con- Similar Different
matter tact Issues Issues
 Better compliance was found if there was similarity between the 1 st
Condition
and 2nd request
 FITD technique is not depended on familiarization or willingness to
participate
 The Reciprocation Rule
Strong, universal social norm
 Quid pro quo
 Scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours
 Return the favour
 The Golden rule

 Uninvited favors → feel indebted

 Even when initial gift is uninvited, we still feel like he must repay them
 E.g.
 Free samples in stores = buy it even if not great
 Give a coke, sell a raffle ticket (Regan, 1971)
▪ Tested whether participants who received a favor were more likely to help this person
▪ They had participants and confederates in pairs and were asked to rate different paintings. In
experimental condition, the confederate left and returned with 2 sodas. In control, no sodas. Once
the painting have been rated, the confederate told the participant that he was selling raffle tickets for
a new car and the one who sold the most can win 50$. He then asked the participant if he would buy
some tickets. experimental group bought 2x as many as control
 Door in the Face
 Three easy steps!
1. Ask for a huge favor
2. Get turned down
3. Immediately ask for smaller favor
 This works due to perceptual contrast (we see two things in
sequence that are different from one another, we will tend to see
the second one as more different from the first than it actually is).
The 2nd request seems more reasonable
 We also see the mechanism of reciprocal concessions.
 This refers to the pressure to respond to changes in bargaining. if
we refuse someone who then ask for something smaller, it's
almost like they're doing us a favor by lowering their request and
changing their initial position. So we feel like we need to do
something for them. 
 Door in the Face
 Cialdini’s study
 IV: Large favor first? (Yes vs. No) EXPERIMENTAL GROUP
 DV: % willing to do a smaller favor Large
Small
 Experimental group first asked if Favour
Favour
(2
they of at-risk teens as volunteer years)
(zoo)
counselors for free, for 2 years. No
one agreed. Then followed by a
CONTROL GROUP
smaller request, which was to take
a group of at-risk teens to the zoo. Small
In the control group, they were only Nothing Favour
(zoo)
asked for the smaller favor
 Cialdini Results
50
% Agreeing to Zoo Request

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Control Experimental

Experimental group 3x more likely

 Scarcity Technique
• Making product appear rare to increase desirability
• this plays on our fear of missing out, which we can
also define it as a fear of an act of omission, which is
regretting things we didn't do.
• This works because of the cognitive heuristic or type
of automatic thinking, where it's assumed that
products that are in limited supply or difficult to
obtain must be good because everyone else is trying
to get it to
that’s-not-all technique

 A two-step compliance technique in which the

influencer begins with an inflated request,
then decreases its apparent size by offering a
discount or bonus.
 Resisting Persuasion
1. Attitude inoculation
 Teach counter-arguments
▪ Get ppl to make a statement and weakly attacking their position…
small doses of arguments against their position
 E.g. decreased underage smoking rates (McAlister et al.,
1980)
▪ Highschool student inoculated junior students by having younger kids
role play a scenario where they are peer pressured to smoke. Student
called chicken and practiced their responses. They were half as likely
to smoke
2. Forewarning
 Forewarned is forearmed (with counter-arguments)
 Letting targets know that their position will be challenged later
 E.g. “stealing thunder” in the courtroom
▪ Give a peak of the argument that’s going to be used by the other side…
forewarning
 Forewarning
Freedman & Sears 1965
 Message: counter attitudinal lecture given to
Teenagers about how they should not be
allowed to drive. Group 1 was given the lecture
(no warning). Group 2 was given a 2 min
warning. Group 3 was given a 10 min warning

 IVs:
NS
 Warning (yes, no)

Persuasion
 Timing (-2, -10 min)
 DV: persuasion or agreement with lecture topic
 Results:
 In group 3, they had more time to come up with
counter arguments
1 2 3
 Group 2 was not significantly different from either
groups. This suggests that a bit more time is needed
to think of counter arguments
Summary: How to Persuade

 Central appeal for thinkers, peripheral appeal

for feelers (includes persuasive tactics)
 1 sided for those who agree, 2 sided for those
who don’t
 Go first, unless there is a delay
 Credibility may help or may not hurt
 A distracted audience is a persuadable
audience