analyze an advertising campaign (could be a series of ads, or just a single ad; could be either print or television, or both) aand discuss the persuasion tools and methods the advertising
Mcm 380: Persuasive Communication
Processing Persuasive Communications I
Introduction
Examining theory and research on the effects of persuasive communication
Guiding models of attitude and behavior change – approaches that form the basis for much of the research and applications that follow
The cornerstone of these theoretical approaches is a focus on process
Introduction
Why the focus on process?
Scholars believe that if they can understand how people cognitively process messages, they can better analyze the impact that communications have on attitudes
They believe that the better they comprehend individuals’ modes of processing information, the more accurately they can explain the diverse effects messages have on attitudes
You cannot understand the effects of communication on people without knowing how people process the message
Historical Foundations
Carl Hovland and his colleagues at Yale University conducted the first detailed, empirical research on the effects of persuasive communication
The Yale attitude change approach was distinctive because it provided facts about the effects on attitudes of the communicator’s credibility, message appeals, and audience members’ personality traits
Hovland/Yale Model of Persuasion
Convinced by theory and their generation’s experience with WW II persuasion campaigns that communications had strong effects on attitudes, the researchers set out to examine who says what to whom with what effect (Hovland, Janis, & Kelley, 1953; Smith, Lasswell, & Casey, 1946)
Theory-driven approach and commitment-to-testing hypotheses proved enduring
Hovland/Yale Model of Persuasion
The Yale researchers were also interested in understanding why messages changed attitudes
Working in an era dominated by reward-based learning theories and research on rats’ mastery of mazes, Hovland naturally gravitated to explanations that focused on learning and motivation
He emphasized that persuasion entailed learning message arguments and noted that attitude change occurred in a series of steps
To be persuaded, individuals had to attend to, comprehend, learn, accept and retain the message
Hovland/Yale Model of Persuasion
Communication
Message Learning
Attitude Change
Attention
Comprehension
Learning
Acceptance
Retention
Hovland/Yale Model of Persuasion
But…the thesis misses the mark in an important aspect
It assumes that people are sponge-like creatures who passively take in information they receive
In fact, as Leon Festinger and Nathan Maccoby noted, an audience member
does not sit there listening and absorbing what is said without any counteraction on his part. Indeed, it is more likely that under such circumstances, while he is listening to the persuasive communication, he is very actively, inside his own mind, counter-arguing, derogating the points the communicator makes and derogating the communicator himself. (1964, p. 360)
The Cognitive Response Model of Persuasion
Think of how you react to a persuasive message
Do you sit there, taking in everything the speaker says? Are you so mesmerized by the communicator that you stifle any thoughts or mental arguments?
Hardly!
You actively think about the speaker, message, or persuasion context
You may remember message arguments, yet probably recall with greater accuracy your own criticisms of the speaker’s point of view
The Cognitive Response Model of Persuasion
This view of persuasion developed in the years that followed the publication of Hovland’s research and is known as the cognitive response approach to persuasion
This approach asserts that people’s own mental reactions to a message play a critical role in the persuasion process, typically a more important role than the message itself (Brock, 1967,; Petty, Ostrom, & Brock, 1981)
The Cognitive Response Model of Persuasion
Cognitive responses include thoughts that are favorable to the position advocated in the message (proarguments) and those that criticize the message (counterarguments)
Persuasion occurs if the communicator induces the audience member to generate favorable cognitive responses regarding the communicator or message
The cognitive response view says that people play an active role in the persuasion process
It emphasizes that people’s own thoughts about a message are more important factors in persuasion than memory of message arguments
The Cognitive Response Model of Persuasion
Communication
Cognitive Responses
Attitude Change
1. Proarguments
2. Counterarguments
3. Thoughts that
(a) originate with the message
(b) creatively elaborate on the message, or are
(c) irrelevant to the message
The Cognitive Response Model of Persuasion
By calling attention to the role thoughts play in persuasion, the cognitive response approach illuminated scholarly understanding of persuasion.
Consider the following examples:
Forewarning, which occurs when a persuader warns people that they will soon be exposed to a persuasive communication.
Distraction, where sometimes people might be distracted from paying attention to a communication with which they disagree.
The Cognitive Response Model of Persuasion
Forewarning is a common occurrence in life, and research has explored what happens when people are warned that they are going to receive a message with which they staunchly disagree.
Cognitive response studies have clarified what happens inside people’s minds when this occurs.
Individuals generate a large number of counterarguments, strengthening their opposition to the advocated position (Perry & Cacioppo, 1977)
As cognitive response research predicts, forewarning someone reduces the likelihood that a persuasive message will succeed.
“Forewarning an audience to expect a persuasive message tends to make that message less persuasive.” (William L. Benoit, 1998: 146)
Forewarnings can instill resistance to persuasion, provided they get people to think long and hard about the issue and the arguments contained in the message.
The Cognitive Response Model of Persuasion
Cognitive responses also help explain an off-beat persuasion effect called distraction.
Sometimes people are distracted from paying attention to a communication with which they disagree.
For example, people might be talking, or music might be playing, etc
In other cases, communicators intentionally distract receivers from paying attention to a message (think about advertisers!)
In such circumstances, people can be highly susceptible to persuasion.
The distraction hypothesis holds that distraction facilitates persuasion by blocking the dominant cognitive response to a message (Petty, Wells, & Brock, 1976).
The Cognitive Response Model of Persuasion
Think about what’s happening:
If I listen to a message with which I disagree, my normal response is probably to counterargue with the communicator in my head. But if my mind is elsewhere – I’m checking Facebook updates or am laughing at a joke – I am not able to formulate arguments against the message.
I, therefor, have fewer mental objections to the advocated position. As a result, I end up moving somewhat closer to the communicator’s point of view than I would have if I had not been distracted in this way.
Notice what’s going on: it’s not the distraction from the message that counts; rather, it’s the distraction from our own arguments regarding the message.