Another message property is fear arousal. This comes in two forms. Rational appeals present facts, and provide the missing solution to the target audience’s problems. Emotional appeals on the other hand intend to arouse basic drives. Often they involve creating fear by giving a negative consequence of not changing your attitudes or behaviour as the source suggests (Higbee, 1969). However, creating too much fear causes people to become too frightened and the desired behaviour change ceases to happen.
Finally, the characteristics of the target can affect a message’s success. Johnson and Eagly (1989) believe that a targets’ involvement with the issue being raised is an important predictor of its success. If the target will be personally affected by the issue, or it has strong emotional relevance, they are more likely to be persuaded. However, the strength of the message’s argument is also important. In a study by Petty et al (1981), they proposed that college seniors would be required to take an exam before they graduated. Half of the target audience was told it would happen before they left college and the other half were told it would be afterwards. Also, half were given a strong argument and the other half was given a weak argument for the proposed exam. For those who had to take the exam the strength of the argument was more important in producing attitude change than for those who wouldn’t have to take it, showing that the strength of the argument is most important when the issue has personal relevance.
Also, other factors that influence a persuasion victory include the individuals need for cognition and how easily they are distracted. People differ in their willingness to take an issue and scrutinise it thoroughly until they come to an informed decision. These people are more likely to take the central route when analysing arguments and so are more likely to be persuaded. In addition, personal distractions affect the extent to which the message is being listened to. These can be events in the environment catching their attention or thinking about other things whilst the message is being given.
In conclusion, an advert needs to have an attractive, expert source with a strong and slightly discrepant message that has personal relevance and is important to the target. It also needs to be portrayed to a target who likes to scrutinise arguments and when there is little distraction for them. Depending on the combination of characteristics failing to occur, the more or less likely is it to fail in causing attitude change.
References
Dr Dave (2004) ‘Power of advertising’ Available from (Accessed 6th December 2006)
Gresko, J, Kennedy, L, Lesniak, J (1996) “Social Psychological Factors Underlying the Impact of Advertising” Available from: . (Accessed 6th December 2006)
Michener, H, DeLamater, D, Myers, D, ‘Social psychology’ 5th edition, US, Thomson/ Wadsworth
Wikimedia Foundation (2006) ‘Advertising’ Available from
(Accessed 6th December 2006)
Section B, Question 5
Choose any theoretical perspective in social psychology and, with reference to evidence, critically evaluate it.
Ideas in social psychology are divided into middle range theories and theoretical perspectives. Middle range theories are narrow and specific to a social phenomena, whereas theoretical perspectives are broad and offer many explanations for social behaviour that are applicable to a variety of contexts. They provide a frame of reference for analysing social attitudes and behaviours. The main perspectives are role theory, reinforcement theory, cognitive theory, symbolic interaction theory and evolutionary theory.
Evolutionary theory explains an array of social behaviour such as mate selection, aggression and altruism, by linking the psychological and social to the biological. Dennet (1996) describes evolutionary theory as a “marriage of socio-biology and cognitive psychology”. The basis is that humans are motivated to not only survive, but to pass on their genes to future generations, and their social behaviour reflects this desire.
One area of evolutionary theory that has recently received much interest is mate selection. The theory states that humans have an evolved disposition to have relationships with healthy individuals and therefore produce healthy children who will successfully mate and pass on the genetic code to future generations. Thornhill and Grammar (1999) state that we prefer attractive individuals because physical attractiveness portrays inner healthiness. Beautiful people therefore have high reproductive potential. Women like strong features such as a strong jaw whereas men like childlike facial features (portraying youth) and curves, as hips suggest high nutritional status and child bearing capabilities (Thornhill and Gangestad, 1993). However, different cultures and generations have found different things attractive.
Physical attractiveness isn’t the only influence that determines successful mating. Males look for youth and a caring nature because these characteristics allow the male more time to reproduce. Also the younger the female is, the more chance the offspring will survive. Females on the other hand look for money, strength and stability because she needs the resources to support herself and the child (Buss 1994). The age of the male isn’t important because he can reproduce for most of his life. These preferences will continue to dominate the population because it promotes successful mating. However, some studies contradict this theory. Buss and Barnes (1986) surveyed American college women and found that they rated kindness in a male as more important than any other trait. As kindness bears no connection to resources or strength, evolutionary theory cannot explain this finding.
Although homosexuality counteracts the theories of the evolutionary perspective because homosexuals cannot pass down their genes, it does try to explain homosexuality with reference to recessive genes in the population that actually cause a reproductive advantage because they can help look after relatives’ children. Another theory is dominance failure theory which states that homosexuality is a result of subordinate males unable to find female partners (this explains why there are more homosexual males than lesbians).
Evolutionary theory also attempts to explain parenting behaviour. It suggests that men are less likely to invest in taking care of their offspring because they haven’t invested much into it. Males invest one sexual act compared with 9 months of pregnancy from the mother (Shostak, 1981). Women therefore seek males who are most likely to want to take care of the child, so will be choosier in mate selection. However, research has found that women and men invest a lot to childrearing in long term relationships Alcock (1993) suggests that the mother invests in the newborn but the father helps more with the older children because he frees the mother to be with the next newborn. Also, Piliavin and LePore (1995) found that adoptive parents are more likely to abuse their children than biological parents, supporting the idea that parents are more likely to look after their biological children because they share the same genes.
Another behaviour the evolutionary perspective seeks to explain is aggression. Females who have children know that the child is theirs, whereas men can’t be totally sure as the female may have been with another man. If the child is not theirs, the male may waste time and money in raising the child without passing on his genes. This explains why men often react more violently to women’s infidelity than a woman reacts to a man’s cheating (Daly and Wilson, 1988).
The theory also attempts to explain altruistic behaviour. Dawkins (1982) suggests that we are more likely to help others who are genetically close to ourselves because this will increase our chances of passing down our genetic code, rather than protecting ourselves. However, people may show altruism because helping other people can relieve a bad mood. Cialdini et al (1984) called this ‘negative state relief’. Also, we are often aroused at other people’s distress so are motivated to remove whatever is making them upset so it will calm us down. Sagi and Hoffman (1976) found that very young infants cry when other infants cry, suggesting we are innately disposed to feel distressed when others are, and altruistic behaviour may not always be to pass down genes.
The evolutionary theory attempts to account for how and why the mechanisms that produce specific kinds of social behaviour arise. It links with other theories to suggest evolutionary explanations for the behaviours that other theories explain. It analyses behaviour that is successful and unsuccessful at maximising chances of survival and how and why we do it. However, Kenrick (1995) claims that evolutionary theory is guilty of circular reasoning. It will observe a social behaviour and explain the causes for it but will also explain alternative outcomes from the same cause. Therefore, evolutionary theory is a useful framework for describing social behaviour but has its limitations.
References
Gross, R (2000) Psychology, A New Introduction, London, Hodder and Stoughton
Michener, H, DeLamater, J, Myers, D (2004) Social Psychology London, Thomson/Wadsworth
Sabini, J, (1992), Social Psychology, London, Norton and company
Section B, Question 6
Your friend comments that Mary is always miserable because she has such low self-esteem. Why might this low self-esteem have developed, and what could be done to help Mary?
Self-esteem is the extent to which an individual feels self worth and proud of their achievements. A person with high self-esteem will feel competent and have confidence in their abilities and this will reflect in their day to day life. However, a person with low self-esteem such as Mary will often feel not good enough, and as a consequence, unhappy with themselves and their life.
Our level of self-esteem depends on our evaluations of ourselves and the personal importance we place on each aspect. A positive self-esteem will result if we place importance on the things we are good at, whereas poor self-esteem will result if we believe the things we are bad at are most important. The way we rate aspects is subjective. For example, a keen footballer who can’t grasp the offside rule will be much more likely to feel worthless than a chef who doesn’t understand it, as it isn’t important to them in their life. In the same way, the footballer will probably not care so much if they can’t programme their microwave. Similarly, Mary may place high importance on things she is not good at. To help Mary, she must try and change the level of importance she places on things or work on the things she isn’t good at.
The development of Mary’s self-esteem may have come from three sources. Firstly, high parental acceptance and involvement promotes higher self-esteem. If a child feels that their parents love them, they will begin to see themselves as worthy of love. Robertson and Simons (1989) found that poor adolescent self-esteem was related to shaming and criticism from parents. However, reciprocal influence may play a part because parents may find it harder to love a child with low self esteem, giving the child lower self-esteem and the vicious cycle continues. Mary may have had little parental acceptance as a child, and so she now feels unworthy of love from other people as well as her parents, causing her low self esteem. However, it has been found that during adolescence boys depend on parents more than girls for their self-esteem, whereas girls feel pressured to be attractive. Even so, if Mary’s parents were unloving she could either talk to them and explain how they make her feel or try and ignore the things they do.
Secondly, everyday feedback about performance affects our self-esteem. People need to feel competent and in control of their lives. We often get feedback from people we care about as these are the people that are closest to us. Possibly Mary surrounds herself with people who criticise her a lot and so she doesn’t feel in control. To change this, Mary could put a positive twist on any negative comments she gets.
Thirdly, we compare our achievements with other’s achievements. In a recent study, researchers gave job applicants a self-esteem questionnaire to fill out whilst waiting for an interview. Then, their rival applicant arrived (a confederate) and was either dull with poor personal hygiene or smart and confident. After the interview they were given the same questionnaire to fill out again. People waiting with the dull rival reported higher levels of self-esteem on the second questionnaire than did the people waiting with the smart rival.
A person’s level of self-esteem depends on their expectations. Often people with high self-esteem look at everything they do positively and expect to do good things. However, people with low self-esteem think negatively and expect people to confirm this. This is called self verification. People often have certain techniques to maintain their level of self-esteem, whether high or low. Firstly, they will manipulate appraisal through choosing to be around people who like them. Perhaps Mary has to be around people who don’t like her or feels she is unworthy of nice friends. Also people are guilty of selective information processing. Mary may choose only to remember events which had a negative outcome rather than a positive one. Thirdly, people are selective in their social comparison. People with high self-esteem tend to compare themselves to average achieving individuals whereas Mary may be comparing herself to ideal she can’t possibly achieve, and is experiencing self discrepancy. Finally, people are selective in their commitment to identities. Mary may place more importance on identities of hers which have a negative image by society, such as a smoker, or a single mother rather than the fact she is good at her job.
In order for Mary to raise her self-esteem she must abandon her techniques of maintaining her low self-esteem and change them to techniques of keeping a high level of self-esteem. She must try to be around people who are positive about her or at least try to retrieve something constructive about a criticism. She could also stop setting her standards of her ideal self so high and accept what she is and what she may never be. Finally, she must concentrate on her positive identities or work on changing her negative identities into positive ones if she can.
References
Gross, R (2000) Psychology, A New Introduction, London, Hodder and Stoughton
Michener, H, DeLamater, J, Myers, D (2004) Social Psychology London,
Thomson/Wadsworth
Sabini, J, (1992), Social Psychology, London, Norton and company
Michener, H, DeLamater, D, Myers, D, ‘Social psychology’ 5th edition, US, Thomson/ Wadsworth
Wikimedia Foundation (2006) ‘Advertising’ Available from . (Accessed 6th December 2006)
Gross, R (2000) Psychology, A New Introduction, London, Hodder and Stoughton
