Self and Society: Explain theories of Persuasion

by ilariasantomauromatiassichymai (student)

Self and Society

Explain theories of persuasion.

Word count: 2789

Throughout decades psychologists have attempted to study the way in which others easily persuade individuals. Today the importance of understanding the power of persuasion is greater than ever, mainly because of the thousands of advertisements and commercials individuals are exposed to constantly. Persuasion has been defined as a human communication that is specifically designed to influence others by modifying their beliefs or attitudes (Vaughan & Hogg, 2005). Psychologists have been therefore attempting to develop theories to explain the development of the skills needed to correctly persuade others, including social judgment theory, the elaboration likelihood model, cognitive dissonance and the narrative paradigm.

The research on the relationship between persuasive communication and attitude change is more focused and mostly applied to advertising and marketing. Towards the end of the Second World War psychologists have been more interested in this topic and the systematic investigation of this phenomenon became more investigated. Hovland and colleagues (1953) were some of the first psychologists to work on persuasion and suggested that the key to understanding why people attend to persuasive messages is to study the characteristics of the person sending the message, the context of the message and the characteristic of the receiver. This was later called Yale approach model, which is still employed as the basis of contemporary communications theory in marketing and advertising. Hovland and colleagues identified 4 steps in the persuasion process; attention, comprehension, acceptance and retention. Yet, they emphasized that some communicators, message strategies and speech styles are more effective than others, hence it is hard to identify which strategy or message is most effective. Although persuasion has been studied for many years, social psychologists do not always agree about what the important steps are, however they emphasize that the audience’s thoughts are of critical importance. This is because the message will be accepted if it arouses favorable thoughts, whereas it will be rejected if the receivers argue against it in their minds. It has been observed that although individuals are constantly exposed to advertisements/commercials and therefore persuasive messages, most people consider that they are less likely to be influenced than others by these. This phenomenon has been called third-person effect, and affects everyone even though there is no difference between the susceptibility of individuals.

Although persuasion seems a simple, in reality it is very complex as three important things must be considered; the communicator, the message and the audience. Triandis (1971) has argued that a communicator who seems to be an expert, with knowledge, ability and various skills, demands more of our respect; high levels of expertise, good physical looks and extensive skills make a communicate much more effective. It is very important for the message to come from a credible source. Additionally, source characteristics such as attractiveness or similarity are also essential; we tend to prefer those messages that are both attractive and that come from people who are most similar to us. As a result, the persuasive message should be accepted because of these two characteristics. However, psychologists have identified that when the issue concerns a matter of taste or judgment, similar sources are accepted more than dissimilar sources. However, when the issue concerns a matter of fact, dissimilar sources do better (Goethals & Nelson, 1973). Additionally, the message that the sender purposes has a vital role in the process of persuasion. Psychologists suggested that this variable tends to interact quite strongly with characteristics of the audience. For example, if the audience is against an argument, but is fairly intelligent, it is more effective to present both sides of the argument. Psychologists have also suggested that the effects of repetition of a message strongly affect the overall persuasion. According to Arkes and colleagues (1991), simple repetition of a statement makes it appear more true, hence repeated exposure to an object or message increases its familiarity. Over the year, psychologists also examined fear in relation to persuasion. It has been suggested that fear-arousing messages may enhance persuasion, however not all fear conditions will have the same effect. According to Keller and Block (1995), when fear is at a very low level, and audience may have little motivation to attend to the message as it has little consequences. Lastly, Hovland and colleagues have noted that a distracted audience is more easily persuaded than one with full attention, provided that the attention is simple. This suggests that the attention of the audience plays a very important role in the process of persuasion. Interestingly, psychologists hypothesized an apparent difference between males and females. Crutchfield (1955) was the first to report that women were more conforming and susceptible to social influence compared to men. It has been suggested that this is because women are socialized to be cooperative, hence being less resistant than men to influence (Eagly, Wood & Fishbaugh, 1981). Psychologists have also noted that prior beliefs of the audience greatly affect the amount of persuasion they go through. According to some, arguments that are incompatible with prior beliefs are subjected to more extensive analysis and are judged much weaker than those arguments that are compatible with prior beliefs. From these variables, and many more, psychologists throughout decades have identified different theories to explain how persuasion works.

This is a preview of the whole essay

One of the first theories brought up by Sherif, Sherif & Nebergall (1965) is the social judgment theory. This theory suggests that knowing an individual’s attitudes on particular topics can provide clues about how to persuade him/her. Sherif and associates have been focusing on peoples’ assessment of persuasive messages, proposing that individuals make evaluations on the content of a given message, and that this largely depends on their stance on a particular topic message. According to Sherif, each attitude is placed into three categories: attitude of acceptance, which focuses on ideas that a person finds acceptable; latitude of rejection, which includes ideas that a person finds unacceptable; and latitude of non-commitment, which includes ideas for which an individuals has no opinion. Although attitudes can be placed into categories, Sherif and colleagues have argued that the reaction to a persuasive message mainly depends on the individual’s position on the topic (Sherif et al., 1965). Hence, the first step in social judgment process is to understand the receivers’’ attitudes towards a specific topic. Social judgment theory purpose that mapping attitudes of individuals towards a topic is a function of how ego involved the individual actually is (Sherif & Hovland, 1961). If an individual is highly ego involved with a topic, it is typically found that he/she believes the issue is very important, and therefore holds intense positions. This is vital information for a persuader; the more ego-involved an individual is, the larger latitude of rejection he/she will show. Persuading others typically focuses on modifying or changing completely their ideas, and this cannot happen with individuals, which strongly hold their own position. These responses are explained via two processes: contrast effect and assimilation effect (Sherif et al., 1965; Sherif & Hovland, 1961). Contrast effect focuses on the idea that an individual exaggerates the difference between the message and his/her own stance on the topic. This usually happens when the message falls within latitude of rejection of the individual. In this case, the individual will not be easily persuaded. On the other hand, assimilation effect is the opposite. In this case the receiver tends to minimize the difference between the message’s position and his/her own. This typically occurs when the message falls within latitude of acceptance of the individual. Hence, persuaders must take into consideration various characteristics of the receivers in order to influence them correctly. Despite this theory has been widely accepted, psychologists have developed other theories, which aid our understanding of how persuasion works.

A second theory of persuasion purposed by Cacioppo and Petty (1986) is the elaboration likelihood model (ELM). This theory suggests that persuasion is a cognitive event; individuals use mental processes of motivation and reasoning to accept or reject a persuasive message. Just like the social judgment theory, ELM stresses the importance of understanding the receivers before attempting to persuade them. On the other hand, the theory suggests that there are two possible ways or methods of influence: the first focuses on centrally based or routed messages, while the second one focuses on peripherally routed messages (Petty & Cacioppo, 1983). The central rout is considered to be the most complex of the two, as it tends to succeed mainly in long-term change. ELM theory suggests also that in order to be correctly persuaded, individuals need to meet two very important factors; they need to have the motivation to process the information that is been given to them and the must be able to physically process the message cognitively (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). Another very important point stressed by this theory is that individuals who intend to persuade others have to be aware of audience’s reaction to the quality and arrangement of the arguments presented. According to Petty and Cacioppo (1986), arguments can be divided into three categories: strong arguments, result in a positive response in the minds of the receivers while also positive associating their beliefs with those of the persuader; neutral arguments, which generate a non-committal cognitive response from the receiver; lastly, weak arguments, which produce negative cognitive responses. The second pathway, the peripheral route, relies on receiver’s emotional involvement and it technically persuades through more superficial means. This comes into play when receivers are unmotivated or unable to process a very elaborate message (Petty & Cacioppo, 1983,1986). If this were the case, the persuader would focus on a quick and easy way to persuade others. Just like the central route, the peripheral route is evaluated via positive, neutral or negative messages. This theory therefore suggests that there are various ways to persuade others, however one must pay attention to the audience’s characteristics.

A third theory purposed by psychology is the cognitive dissonance theory. It suggests that persuasion is not just a result of an injection of new or refined information or beliefs in others. In fact, it proposes that an influence often occurs at intrapersonal event, happening when there is incongruence between attitudes or behaviors by creating unwanted tension. The only way to resolve this tension is to altering either our beliefs or behaviors, so to achieving a change. According to Festinger (1957, 1962) dissonance happens because of preconceived ideas or believes individuals have. When presented with new or unfamiliar stimulus, individuals use schemata (cognitive structures for organizing the incoming information). According to him, individual have to use their schemata to make sense of the information and use it appropriately. However, the new incoming information will be somewhat inconsistent with the already known experiences. This causes imbalance, which later becomes a highly persuasive tool. Festinger asserted many times that individuals’ feel uncomfortable with holding contradictory beliefs, hence they will attempt to minimize this discomfort and therefore restore balance between thought and action. Festinger (1957) suggested that there are three possible relationships between beliefs and behaviors. The first consonance, which occurs when two stimuli are balanced. The second is dissonance, which occurs when two stimuli contradict each other. Lastly, there is irrelevance, which refers to the absence of both consonance and dissonance. Festinger emphasized that the most complex of the three is dissonance. According to him, not all dissonance is created equally, and thus there is a magnitude of dissonance that needs to be considered by the persuader; some forms of incongruence produce greater discomfort than others (Wood, 2000). Psychologists measure this by three variables; perceived importance of the stimuli; dissonance ration, which refers to the proportion of incongruent beliefs held in relation to the number of consonant beliefs on holds; and rationalize (justification), which refers to the level of justification individuals give to contrasting attitudes and actions: the more justification, the less discomfort. At the heart of cognitive dissonance theory lays the concept that persuasion happens through what receivers perceive. Psychologists have suggested four perceptual processes to explain how individuals can minimize dissonance (Wood, 2000). The first one is the selective exposure, which suggests that an individual actively avoids information that is inconsistent with their pervious established beliefs or actions. The second perceptual process is selective attention, which proposes that individuals who are exposed to stimuli that are incongruent with their own beliefs will only attend to the information that reaffirms their beliefs. The third process is selective interpretation, which predicts that individuals will decipher ambiguous information in a way that is perceived to be consistent with their already established beliefs. Lastly there is the selective retain process, which suggests that individuals selectively recollect information that support their viewpoints while forgetting the sections that create dissonance. Thus, cognitive dissonance theory focuses on an individual’s psychological response to the inconsistencies in beliefs and actions. Persuaders usually tend to create dissonance and offer a solution at the same time. As a result, receivers modify or re-align their beliefs or actions according to level of discomfort felt.

The last theory, suggested by Fisher (1984, 1989), is the narrative paradigm. This theory stresses the effectiveness of influence through narration. Fisher argued that human beings are storytelling creatures; hence the most persuasive message does not derive from a rational fact but through a narrative. Many advertisements narrate a very short story, and because of that story individuals tend to remember the product. Interestingly, Fisher (1989) purposed five assumptions for the explanation of the narrative paradigm. The first is called narration and includes symbolic words and actions that are used to assign meaning. According to this view, there is subjectivity in even the most logical message. Moreover, values, emotions and aesthetic preferences shape beliefs and actions. Hence, individuals spread messages and experiences through stories in order to capture the subjective experiences. The second assumption is narrative rationality; a logical method of reasoning by which an individual is able to determine the reliability of another individual’s narrative. This relies on good reasons as the basis for decision-making, as this allows individuals to validate and accept (or reject) another’s narrative based on the perceived truthfulness and consistency. Fisher added that it is necessary to have narrative coherence (when the narrative appears to flow smoothly and makes sense) and narrative fidelity (when the narrative appears to be truthful). Without these two, receivers will not see any ‘good reasons’ in the narrative and thus not change their beliefs and actions. A third assumption purposed deals with the individual’s culture, character, history, values etc. Logically, what appears to be coherent and truthful to one individual with particular values may not be the same case for another with different values. This is very important because it suggests, once again, that persuaders need to be aware of the characteristics of the receivers; by not knowing these, it would be complicated to successfully persuade individuals. A fourth assumption proposes that rationality (and therefore persuasion) stems from humans’ ability to create a coherent story. According to this view, facts are not what persuades receivers, but on the other hand, it’s the persuader’s ability to share his/her experiences via narrative. The last assumption proposes that the world is based mainly on both cooperative and competitive stories. In this case, individuals need to use the logic of ‘good reasons’ in order to choose among various narratives thus creating their own social reality. Fisher strongly believed that individuals relay on narratives in order to create common understanding, as these fundamentally affect the life of every individual. Although this paradigm suggests that it is hard to understand the world as a pure fact, it does not exclude logic (Lucaites & Condit, 1985). Fisher argued that it is important that individuals are not either rational or narrative, but rather are a both. Lastly, Fisher strongly believed that narrative is more effective means of influence. Yet, it is important to remember that the narrative has to have the logic of good reason and coherence, otherwise it won’t be convincing enough to persuade the receiver to modify his/her actions.

Psychologists have offered various theories to explain persuasion. None of these theory work against each other, but rather work together to aid our understanding of the subject. This is very important exposure to persuasion of various types is increasing in our word day by day. By understanding how it works, pschologists could be able to understand the reason behind some behaviors of individuals, and therefore aid our understanding on how human behavior can be modified. In addition, persuasion is part of individuals’ daily lives, and therefore it is important to understand how persuaders persuade and how receivers modify or re-align their beliefs and attitudes accordingly. As persuasion is used more in today’s society, these theories help psychologists to at least understand the basis of such skills and perhaps help for future research on the field.

Bibliography:

Arkes, H. R., Boehm, L. E., & Xu, G. (1991). Determinants of judged validity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 27, 576-605.

Block, L. G., & Keller, P. A. (1995). When to accentuate the negative: The effects of perceived efficacy and message framing on intentions to perform a health-related behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 192-203.

Crutchfield, R. S. (1955). Conformity and character. American Psychologist, 10(5), 191.

Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Fishbaugh, L. (1981). Sex differences in conformity: Surveillance by the group as a determinant of male nonconformity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40(2), 384.

Festinger, L. (1962). A theory of cognitive dissonance (Vol. 2). Stanford university press.

Fisher, W. R. (1989). Clarifying the narrative paradigm. Communications Monographs, 56(1), 55-58.

Goethals, G., & Nelson, E. (1973). Similarity in the influence process: The belief-value distinction. Journal of Personality and Social Psy- chology, 25, 117-122.

Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., & Kelley, H. H. (1953). Communication and persuasion; psychological studies of opinion change.

Lucaites, J. L., & Condit, C. M. (1985). Re‐constructing narrative theory: A functional perspective. Journal of Communication, 35(4), 90-108.

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change.

Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of consumer research, 135-146.

Sherif, M., & Hovland, C. I. (1961). Social judgment: Assimilation and contrast effects in communication and attitude change.

Sherif, C. W., Sherif, M., & Nebergall, R. E. (1965). Attitude and attitude change: The social judgment-involvement approach (p. 65). Philadelphia: Saunders.

Triandis, H. Attitude and atttitude change. New York: Wiley, 1971.

Vaughan, G., & Hogg, M. A. (2005). Introduction to social psychology. Pearson Education Australia.

Wood, W. (2000). Attitude change: Persuasion and social influence. Annual review of psychology, 51(1), 539-570.