Petty et al. 1981 suggested we will be highly motivated to examine any persuasive communication that threatens an existing important attitude, therefore enhancing our attitude and make persuasion less likely.
Trust that we attribute is greatest when we perceive someone arguing against their own self with nothing to gain. This notion is commonly used amongst advertisement campaigns using ordinary shoppers approached without warning to give their views on a product. We do not see they have an ulterior motive and nothing to gain, hence the reason why we are trustworthy. It is not just the power of the source on it’s own that increases the process of persuasion, our initial or our already upstanding thoughts of the communicator or the source will have some impact. Attractiveness has been shown to be a very major factor in the process of persuasion.
- the impact of physical appearance
- the likeability of the communicator
Patzer (1985) identifies a simple linear relationship between physical attractiveness of the communicator and persuasion has been generally found in research. Chaiken (1979) found that characteristics such as self-esteem or communication skills make people more attractive. Confidence has been examined using a simulated jury trial in a number of studies. Hesitancy is not persuasive. “A message resented in a more confident, powerful style is more likely to be accepted.” Bradac et al (1981). E.g. lawyers
Research has found that a powerful style speech is more of an advantage for males but more demanding on females depending on gender of audience. Powerful speech style reduces speakers’ credibility with males but increases with female recipients.
Eagly and Chaiken (1975) suggested people are more persuaded by communicators who are similar and liked. Cialdini (1993) suggested that the communicator expressing same views and values of persuasion are more increased. Many researchers have suggested that attribution explanations for the factors mentioned above. Other theorists have suggested that cognitive processing of persuasive information to explain the process of persuasion.
Wood and Eagly (1981) found that greater understanding led to increased persuasion when they looked at people’s attributions, understanding and attitude change in response from the persuasive communication. People often make attributions when they have limited information. They do this by drawing on memories, making assumptions and generalising from similar situations. High credibility sources produce less thinking from recipient, therefore higher or lower levels of persuasion depending on the nature of the persuasive message. Message comprehensibility is a fundamental part for an effective persuasive message. Eagly (1974) suggested a high comprehension produces a high recall of arguments which therefore produces a high level of persuasion. It is difficult to be persuaded by an argument you don’t understand. Calder et al. (1974) stated that greater number of arguments produces a greater level of persuasion
Other studies have found that fear increases an aversive drive state and a change in attitude helps alleviate that state. High levels of fear produce an easier notion to communicate and therefore less able to produce arguments against persuasive message.
Two needs come about fear arousal
- emotional – immediate fear
- cognitive – deal with danger
For an effective fear appeal communicators may make specific recommendations for coping behaviour and provide necessary information and other resources within their message. For example, for an effective message in encouraging young adults’ to practise safe sex, audiences must be ensured that there are few or no costs involved, removing any form of embarrassment, suggesting convenient locations for contraception and offering a supply of free condoms.
It is not just the communicators and the sources that are involved in the effects of the power of persuasion, the audience are just as fundamental.
Eagly and Warren (1976) found that characteristics are a major factor within the audience. Intelligence affects the number and complexity of arguments within the message. Higher levels of self-esteem and intelligence produce an understanding of message and therefore the audience a more likely to accept message but are also more likely to question and resist message. This notion supports the Sheriff & Hovland (1961) Social judgement theory. Accepting a persuasive message depends on whether it falls within our latitude of acceptance (openness to persuasion) or latitude of rejection (too distant from our initial attitude to be assimilated). Latitude of acceptance greater for attitudes that is unimportant to us. Latitude of rejection greater if holds extreme attitude or personal involvement. For example, Brown (1999) found people were more in favour for treatment and punishment for sex offenders but were less so if this was to take place in their community. This attitude falls in acceptance then assimilated if falls in reaction then will be contrasted.
Another factor of attitude change is sex differences. Much research has suggested that females are more easily persuaded than men.
Eagly (1978) found that women were more verbal than men. He also suggested that messages from previous research might be more interesting to men, therefore they are better informed of topic, have more personal involvement and therefore more likely to defend attitude.
Eagly (1978) considered these findings and carried out a content analysis on previous sex difference studies. He found that more topics included within the studies were related to men.
Media plays a large part in the process of persuasion. The diversity of the media enables more sources for the communicator, for example, models are used in advertisement to promote and strengthen the power of persuasion but are only effective if the audience finds the model attractive.
For many advertisement campaigns, with its diversity, media is the key to successful communications. For example, newspapers are targeted at a more visual audience, messages are conveyed through language. The use of powerful pictures can help facilitate the message; however interaction is restricted between the communicator and audience. This can be relatively permanent as re-expose to a message of interest will increase level of persuasion, but it is the audiences final decision to expose themselves to the message or not. For example, most people tend to have their favourite newspaper and also their favourite section in the newspaper.
Household product competing may use humour, music and attractive and well-known sources in a TV ad. Developing on these characteristics will maximise effectiveness.
Media is not passive to audiences. People tend to selectivity expose to certain media and satisfy needs and desires. This is known as the uses and gratifications paradigm (Rubin 1994). The media serves different functions for different individuals and this should be taken into account when in the process of persuasion. A message is more likely to get attention if the recipient perceives it as serving some function important to them.
Complex messages have found to be more successful when in print, people are bale to take time out to read, which is more than likely the reason why more open to criticism than persuasion within the media.
Persuasion research, which is usually characterised as the study of attitude change, often employs persuasive communication on fictitious issues, brands or other attitude objects to control for the influence of pre-existing attitudes, which mocks the notion of attitude change.
Insko & Butzine (1967) conducted a study in which the experimenters either flattered or insulted the participants before the attitude reinforcement trial. They found that conditioning was more successful when administered after flattery than after offence. Note, however, that offending participants did not wipe out the reinforcement effects. Even participants ho had been offended showed reinforcement induced attitude change as compared to control participants who hadn’t been reinforced.
In principle, attitude formation and attitude change do not imply different cognitive mechanisms but rest on the same processes where social influence as opposed to biological influences are concerned.
There is some evidence, mainly from twin studies, that attitudes may in part be genetically influenced. It is assumed that the genetic influence on attitudes is mediated by other genetically determined factors such as sensory structures, body chemistry, intelligence, temperament and others.
Attitudes may also be acquired. In addition to environmental factors and genetic dispositions, the interaction of both might explain part of the variance in attitudes. Also, genetic dispositions and environmental factors are not necessary independent of each other. Wilson (1989) found that simply asking people o think about the reasons why they hold a certain attitude may be enough to cause a change.
The more you think about an issue, the more information you will generate. That is why Mere exposure theory was thought, by simply thinking about an issue without receiving any external information may instigate attitude change.
Tesser, 1978 suggested that attitudes may become more extreme if the thoughts are evaluative consistent and they become less extreme if the thoughts are inconsistent.
Changes in behaviour my lead to opposite changes in attitude if people (a) are forced to refrain from cherished behaviour, or (b) are rewarded for engaging in a behaviour they liked to perform anyway. These phenomena have been explained by a motivation to restore a threatened freedom (psychological reactance) and the tendency to infer one’s own attitudes from one’s behaviour lie an external observer (self-perception).
Although incentives may be effective in changing attitudes the amount of attitude change is often inversely related to the magnitude of an incentive.
From looking at the communicator, the source, the medium and the audience, structure, content and organisation of message is crucial. All this must be taken into account for an effective persuasive communication. The stability of an attitude depends on it’s structure, however the structural properties of an attitude can be influenced by behaviour and information processing.
Reference
Ajzen, I & Fishbein, M. (1980) Understanding Attitudes & Predicting Social Behaviour. London: Prentice Hall.
Brehm, S.S & Brehm, J.W. (1981) Psychological Reactance: A Theory of Freedom and Control. New York: Academic Press.
Chaiken, S. (1971) Communicator Physical Attractiveness and Persuasion. Journal of personality & social psychology, 37, 1387-1397.
Chaiken, S & Eagly, A.H. (1976) Communication Modality as a Determinant of Message Persuasiveness and Message Comprehensibility. Journal of personality and Social psychology, 34, 605-614.
Cialdini, R.B. (1993) Influence: Science and Practice (3rd edn). New York: Harper Collins.
Eagly, A.H. (1974) Comprehensibility of Persuasive Arguments as a Determinant of Opinion Change. Journal of personality and social psychology, 29, 758-773.
Hovand, C.I & Weiss, W. (1951) The Influence of Source Credibility on Communication Effectiveness. Public opinion quarterly, 15, 635-650.
Petty, R.E & Cacioppo, J.T. (1986) The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion. New York: Academic Press.