psy 301 assignment wk 3
shahea
chapter_7.docxIntroduction: Infomercials and Advertisements
Every day we face other people trying to persuade us to buy or do something. Advertisements on television, the Internet, or the radio attempt to persuade us to buy a product. Family members, friends, and employers ask us to do things for them. Some of these messages we quickly dismiss, but others convince us and we buy that brand of paper towels or bake cupcakes for that fundraiser.
Imagine watching an infomercial for an exercise machine. The product is described by an attractive and trim fitness expert to a mildly skeptical person in front of an enthusiastic studio audience. The machine is demonstrated, the positive benefits and ease of use of the machine are touted, and viewers are offered the product at a low, low price. By the end of the infomercial the skeptic is convinced of its miraculous powers and you find yourself picking up the phone to order one for yourself. What makes such communications persuasive? Why do we do what others ask sometimes but not other times? Social psychology can help us find the answers to these questions and, perhaps, better resist being persuaded in the future.
As we explore persuasion we can divide the persuasive communication into three parts: the communicator, the message, and the audience. First we will deal with what characteristics of persuaders make people more likely to be persuaded. Next, we will think about characteristics of the message that lead people to change. Finally, we will explore what characteristics of the audience can lead them to be persuaded.
7.2 Who—Characteristics of the Persuade
Credibility: Expertise and Trustworthiness
As you watch an infomercial, a central communicator is likely to offer arguments for the product. Whether or not you listen to this person likely depends on how credible you view that person to be. Credibility has two aspects: expertise and trustworthiness (Hovland, Janis, & Kelley, 1953). A communicator with expertise is one who appears to have knowledge and is able to communicate it. A trustworthy communicator is one we believe is giving us accurate information.
Messages from expert sources are persuasive when the message includes strong arguments from within that expert's field of knowledge (DeBono & Harnish, 1988; Petty, Cacioppo, & Goldman, 1981). Messages that come from an expert source but are weak are less persuasive than messages coming from someone who is less of an expert, but who has strong arguments (Bohner, Ruder, & Erb, 2002; Tormala, Brinol, & Petty, 2006). Expert opinion is generally only persuasive within that expert's domain of expertise. For example, you might believe what fitness experts say about exercise but not what they say about cake decorating. Children, who are generally not experts, can be persuasive when a message focuses on their social role. For example, using children to demonstrate the safety features in a new vehicle may resonate with an adult's perceived role as protector and nurturer (Pratkanis & Gliner, 2004).
At times we may receive a message and not have the time or energy to think carefully through the arguments. In those instances trustworthiness of the communicator can serve as a cue as to whether we should trust the message. If we perceive that the communicator is providing us with accurate information, we may not feel it necessary to carefully examine the message itself. When we perceive the communicator to be less trustworthy, we may carefully examine the message to determine if we can trust it. A message can, in this instance, still be persuasive if it contains strong arguments. A nonexpert who cites a study by the American Heart Association showing that the exercise equipment improves heart health in 90% of users has a strong argument, despite lack of expertise. An expert who points out that the stainless steel frame of the equipment will match any decor has a weak argument. Strong messages from nonexpert sources can be persuasive because people carefully examine the arguments (Priester & Petty, 2003). Such careful examination creates stronger and more long lasting attitude change.
Physical Attractiveness and Likeability
The attractiveness of the communicator is another factor in the persuasiveness of the message. In general, more physically attractive communicators are more persuasive and less attractive communicators are less persuasive (Chaiken, 1979; Debevec, Madden, & Kernan, 1986; DeBono & Telesca, 1990). Individuals we like are also more persuasive to us. You might buy Girl Scout cookies from the neighbor who you know and like, but the Girl Scout from across town will likely sell you fewer cookies. Physically attractive communicators are relatively easy to find, but advertisers have found tricky ways to make it appear that an appeal is coming from someone we know and like. An envelope that appears to be addressed by hand and has a note inside is more likely to be opened and read than one that is clearly mass produced. In one study of this idea, a number of car owners in Dallas were sent an ad for car wax that appeared to have been ripped from a magazine, with a handwritten sticky note attached; if the recipient was named Mary, for example, the note would read "Mary—Try this. It works!—J," with "J" being the supposed sender. The ad contained a mail-in card for a free sample of the car wax. The ad was sent in an unmarked white envelope, hand-addressed, with a first-class stamp. Other participants were mailed the same ad, but in a typed envelope sent through metered mail, and the ad inside was simply printed on a sheet of paper with no note attached. When the message in the ad was strong and it appeared to come from someone they knew, more participants requested a free sample (Howard & Kerin, 2004).
Should the communicators make their desires to persuade explicit? To maintain credibility and avoid reactance, advertisers generally avoid stating that they are trying to persuade; however, in some contexts such information can be helpful. You would likely attribute selfish motives to the fitness expert who is trying to sell exercise equipment he designed. But your doctor presumably has your best interests in mind, so his or her obviously persuasive message about exercise may be received well (Campbell & Kirmani, 2000; Eagly, Wood, & Chaiken, 1978). Researchers have found that physically attractive communicators do well if they make their desire to persuade explicit. Unattractive communicators are not very successful in this instance. For the less attractive, keeping persuasive intent hidden is a better strategy. Similarly, disliked sources should keep persuasive intent under wraps, while liked sources are more persuasive when they are open about persuasive intent (Reinhard, Messner, & Sporer, 2006).
7.3 What—Characteristics of the Message
Emotion
Within a persuasive appeal, a communicator might attempt to elicit an emotion. Emotions contain both physiological and cognitive elements. Our bodies are involved in our emotions. For example, when you are frightened your blood pressure and your heart rate increase. Cognition is also important. The same bodily state may be interpreted differently depending on the context. You might feel fear if you are in a dark alley and a stranger approaches. In the context of a thrilling video game, that same racing heart could be interpreted as excitement (Schacter & Singer, 1962).
We learn to appropriately display our emotions from our culture and social context. For example, in some cultures it is not considered acceptable to display anger in front of others, while in others public displays are customary (Averill, 1980). We may also learn from those around us what emotions are appropriate to feel. This is one way persuaders may use emotion to convince us to do something. Convinced that you should feel guilty if your home does not smell like flowers, you buy a candle. Having learned from an advertiser that a new car will make you happy, you purchase a new vehicle.
Persuaders can also elicit specific emotions to motivate people to act. If an infomercial salesperson is trying to convince you to buy the exercise equipment, would it be best to scare you with the potential consequences of not exercising? Researchers have long been interested in how fear influences persuasion (Hovland et al., 1953, is an early example). The relationship was hypothesized to follow the pattern of an inverted U. At low fear levels, persuasion would be low because there was not enough motivation to change. At a moderate rate of fear persuasion should be highest; here people would be motivated to make a change but not so scared that they become paralyzed. At high levels of fear, according to this hypothesis, persuasion once again becomes less likely, as people become too frightened to process the information and respond to it. At this level, individuals may become defensive and ignore the content of the message.
The problem with this hypothesis is that research support is spotty (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993; Janis & Leventhal, 1968). The most important predictor of behavior when faced with a fear appeal seems to be not the level of fear aroused, but the belief of individuals in their ability to engage in actions that will allow them to avoid the feared consequence (Ruiter, Abraham, & Kok, 2001). Smokers might be exposed to a message that evokes a great deal of or very little fear about lung cancer, but if they do not believe they can quit, thereby avoiding cancer, the level of fear in the appeal does not seem to matter much (Hoeken & Geurts, 2005; Timmers & van der Wijst, 2007; Witte, 1998). The fitness expert should, then, scare you enough to motivate you to start exercising and convince you that the advertised product will make exercise easy.
Some persuasive appeals may use guilt to attempt attitude change. Charities, for example, might describe people who are hungry or sick or homeless in an attempt to persuade someone to give money or time. Guilt appeals can be successful. The more guilty people feel, the greater their intention to donate. However, if recipients are generally skeptical of emotional appeals and believe the communicator is manipulative, they will not feel as much guilt and therefore not be as likely to donate (Hibbert, Smith, Davies, & Ireland, 2007).
Advertisers can tap into other emotions in making their message persuasive. Happy holiday shoppers are likely to be persuaded by a happy message. The sweet and sappy commercials for engagement rings will do well with those who are in love and feeling sweet and sappy toward their significant other. Overall, a match between the emotional state of the person and the emotional overtones of the persuasive message creates the most persuasion (DeSteno, Petty, Rucker, Wegener, & Braverman, 2004).
Framing
Should the infomercial you are watching emphasize what you would gain by buying the equipment or what you might lose by not buying the equipment? Would a message that tells you about health improvement with exercising using this equipment be more persuasive than one that emphasizes your vulnerability to chronic health problems without the purchase of this machine? Messages can vary in whether they emphasize gains or losses. A message that focuses on benefits is described as being gain framed. If you were buying a vehicle, for example, the message that buying this car, with all of its safety features, will keep you safe in a crash emphasizes the things you would gain. A message that focuses on losses is loss framed. For example, a salesperson might suggest that if you do not buy this car with all of its safety features, your likelihood of experiencing major injury in a crash is increased. By emphasizing what you would lose, the message becomes loss framed. Framing can influence responses to persuasive messages.
When people are in a good mood they are more responsive to loss-framed messages. Happy people would respond well to a message that indicates that not exercising can increase your risk of dying of heart disease. When people are in a bad mood, gain-framed messages are more persuasive. Those who are upset or sad would respond better to a message that emphasizes your lowered risk of dying of heart disease with regular use of the exercise equipment (Keller, Lipkus, & Rimer, 2003).
One-Sided and Two-Sided Messages
When sharing a persuasive message the question arises whether presenting both sides of the argument is advantageous or whether presenting both sides would weaken the message. For example, if a car salesperson wanted to convince someone to buy an electric car, would presenting the positive features of the car alone be best or should the salesperson point out both the positives and negatives of owning an electric car? A communicator must also decide whether to simply describe the alternate position or also refute it. Should the electric-car salesperson simply mention the drawbacks of owning such a vehicle (the fully charged vehicle goes only 100 miles fully charged), or also explain why those are not of great concern (most trips people take are well under this distance)?
Overall, two-sided messages are more persuasive when they provide a refutation of the option the communicator is arguing against. If both sides are simply offered, with no refutation, one-sided messages are more persuasive (Allen, 1991; Buehl, Alexander, Murphy, & Sperl, 2001). In our infomercial example this means that the drawbacks of owning one's own equipment should be discussed by the communicator, but those drawbacks should be refuted. Owning one's own equipment, for example, means taking care of it and storing it, but, the fitness expert might argue, this equipment takes almost no care and can easily be stored in the corner of a room.
Narratives and Rational Appeals
In the exercise equipment infomercial, the story of one customer is shared. She describes her struggle with poor health and the decision to purchase the equipment. After regular use, she explains, she lost weight, felt great, and was able to go off medication for a chronic health problem. Is this sort of personal story more persuasive than statistics on the health of users? In other words, are people more persuaded when they hear a story or when they hear statistics? What is persuasive may depend on the strength of the arguments. Individuals are persuaded by stories if the stories are good even when arguments are weak. On the other hand, when a message is shared not in a story but as a rational appeal, arguments that are weak are not persuasive. In a rational appeal, only strong arguments lead to attitude change (Escalas, 2007). People presented with personal narrative of a health risk viewed themselves as being more at risk and said they were more likely to get tested than those presented with statistical information (deWit, Das, & Vet, 2008).
Stories can be persuasive, but those stories need to be well done. The key element in persuasive stories is something called transportation. In the context of story, transportation is the joining of feelings, attention, and thoughts (Green & Brock, 2000). Transportation involves getting lost in a story. Overall, if you have a good story, no matter the strength of your arguments, you should persuade with a story. Use rational appeals only when you have strong arguments.
Sleeper Effect
Generally messages are most persuasive when they are first encountered. Over time the effect of the message gradually declines. For instance, you might be quite motivated to exercise after your doctor tells you about the importance of exercise. A few months later, however, you find your gym clothes collecting dust in the corner. In some instances messages become more persuasive with time, a phenomenon called the sleeper effect (Peterson & Thurstone, 1933/1970). For the sleeper effect to occur, individuals need to spend enough time thinking about the message that the message sticks around (Priester, Wegner, Petty, & Fabrigar, 1999). People may discount a message when they first encounter it but over time forget their reasons for doing so, leading to greater persuasion after some time has elapsed (Kumkale & Albarracin, 2004). Some of the power of narratives may lie in the sleeper effect. The things individuals learn through a narrative are retained and any reasons for discounting it (it was just a fictional story) may be lost with time (Appel & Richter, 2007).
7.4 To Whom—Characteristics of the Audience
Culture
Western values usually emphasize independence and uniqueness, while Asian values often focus more on social roles and ingroups.
A large-scale difference in audiences for a persuasive message is the cultural background of the audience. In Chapter 2 different ways of viewing the self were discussed. People from Western cultures, like the United States, most often view themselves as independent and unique individuals; they are part of an independent culture. People from many Asian cultures, such as Korea, have a more interdependent view of themselves; they are part of an interdependent culture. In interdependent cultures, people see themselves as enmeshed within a social context, with the sense of self arising out of social roles and relationships.
Persuasive messages follow this pattern. Persuasive messages in the United States focus more on uniqueness and individual preferences. In Korea, advertisements and other persuasive messages are more likely to focus on harmony with others, particularly family or other ingroups (Han & Shavitt, 1994). Recent research has shown that this difference can vary depending on the particular group within a culture. Affluent Generation X consumers in China were more persuaded than older Chinese consumers by an advertisement for a car that emphasized uniqueness, an independent culture value (Zhang, 2010). With greater exposure to Western values, these young people in China were more persuaded by advertisers emphasizing those values.
Sex Differences
Are men or women easier to persuade? Although the difference is quite small, overall, researchers have found that women are slightly easier to persuade than men (Becker, 1986; Eagly & Carli, 1981). This difference is not true in all circumstances. In situations where women traditionally know more than men, men are easier to persuade. For example, men may be more persuaded by an advertisement for a cleaning product, since house cleaning is the traditional purview of women. Women are easier to persuade in situations where their gender has traditionally been less well-informed (Eagly & Carli, 1981).
Self-Esteem
Individuals' level of self-esteem can influence how easy it is to persuade them. When it comes to differences among people, William McGuire (1968), an early researcher of persuasion, proposed that persuasion depended on both receptivity and yielding. Receptivity means that one has the ability and is willing to pay attention to and understand a message. Yielding means that the individual changes his or her mind as a result of the message. In order for a message to be considered persuasive, the individual must both be receptive to the message and yield to it.
When evaluating the effect of self-esteem on persuasion, both receptivity and yielding are important (Rhodes & Wood, 1992). Individuals with low self-esteem are likely to be yielding. As people who do not trust their own opinion, they are likely to yield to what others say. But those with low self-esteem lack receptivity: they are less likely to pay attention and remember a message. On the other end of the spectrum, receptivity is high among those with high self-esteem. Individuals with high self-esteem are likely to pay attention to and remember a message. But those with high self-esteem are less yielding. Confident in their own judgments, they are not persuaded by what others say. It is those in the middle, with moderate self-esteem, that are likely to have the combination of receptivity and yielding that makes persuasion likely. Overall, research findings support this claim, although many variables interact with self-esteem, meaning that given the right circumstances individuals with high or low self-esteem are more persuadable (Sanaktekin & Sunar, 2008).
.
One model that brings together persuader, message, and audience variables is the elaboration likelihood model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). According to this model, people differ in their motivation and ability to process a persuasive message. When people are motivated and able to process a message, they will take more time to think about and evaluate the message. Elaboration refers to this engagement with the message. Those high on the spectrum of being willing and able to process a message will use what researchers have named the central route to persuasion. When using the central route, individuals process the message deeply, evaluating the strength of the persuasive arguments. If messages are strong, people are likely to respond with positive attitude change. But when arguments in a message are weak, those taking this route to persuasion may reject the message.
We tend to elaborate when a message is relevant to us and we have the time and energy to process it. For example, if a commercial for exercise equipment were shown during a television show you were watching, you might listen closely if you were thinking about buying such equipment and you had the time to listen. If you had a gym membership and were happy with your exercise routine, you might largely ignore the message. Distraction can stand in the way of taking this route to persuasion. When we are distracted we do not have the focus needed to evaluate a message (Petty & Brock, 1981; Petty, Wells, & Brock, 1976).
Our elaboration of a message can also depend on how much we feel the need to evaluate aspects of our lives in general. Need for cognition is a term researchers use to describe an individual difference in how much people enjoy thinking (Cacioppo & Petty, 1982). In a scale to assess need for cognition research participants are asked about their agreement with statements such as "I really enjoy a task that involves coming up with new solutions to problems" or "I would prefer a task that is intellectual, difficult, and important over one that is somewhat important but does not require much thought." (Cacioppo & Petty, 1982, p. 120). Whether or not something is personally relevant, people who are high in need for cognition tend to take the central route to persuasion (Cacioppo, Petty, & Morris, 1983).
Social Psychology in Depth: Word of Mouth and Persuasion
When making decisions about products to buy, restaurants to visit, or movies to see, we often ask our friends and relatives. A friend who raves about a new movie is probably more likely to get you to the theater than an advertisement on television. This passing of information about products or services through informal social networks is known as word of mouth. Traditionally, word of mouth has its strongest impact when a relationship is close (Brown & Reingen, 1987) and the message is rich or vivid (Kisielius & Sternthal, 1986; Sweeney, Soutar, & Mazzarol, 2008).
A new frontier for persuasion through word of mouth is the Internet. Many websites offer customer reviews of their products or services. These reviews, known as electronic word of mouth or e-word of mouth, can significantly affect popularity and sales (Ye, Law, Gu, & Chen, 2011; Zhang, Ye, Law, & Li, 2010). E-word of mouth is different from traditional word of mouth because many of the comments or reviews one might read about a product or service are from strangers, not friends or relatives.
Online shoppers tend to use certain clues to evaluate e-word of mouth. While considering the e-word of mouth for a product, shoppers look at the agreement among evaluations. If all reviewers are in agreement (all positive or all negative), that may sway a shopper (Chiou & Cheng, 2003). If the reviews for a camera you were considering purchasing were uniformly negative, would you buy the camera? One bad review among many, however, will not necessarily scare off a shopper. A set of perfect reviews may be seen as suspicious, too good to be true (Doh & Hwang, 2009). Overall, the greater the ratio of positive to negative reviews, the more positive the attitude of the shopper and the greater the intention to buy the product (Doh & Hwang, 2009).
Online reviews of products may be evaluated differently depending on the shopper. Online shoppers high in need for cognition were more persuaded by high-quality reviews than by low-quality reviews. The quality of the review had no impact on persuasion for those low in need for cognition (Lin, Lee, & Horng, 2011). A large number of reviews was more convincing to those low in need for cognition, but did not affect persuasibility for those high in need for cognition (Lin et al., 2011). Individuals who were largely unfamiliar with a product were also more swayed by the number of reviews for a product. Expertise of reviewers, not number of reviews, was more important to those who knew more (SanJose-Cabezudo, Gutierrez-Arranz, & Gutierrez-Cillan, 2009).
The way individuals engage in e-word of mouth may be different in different countries. In a study of discussion boards in the United States and China, researchers found greater information seeking but less information provision by the Chinese than the U.S. participants. Chinese participants were also more concerned about the country of origin, as opposed to the quality, of the products they were investigating (Fong & Burton, 2008).
Prior knowledge of a subject can influence people in a similar way. If you knew a great deal about exercise equipment, you would have an easier time processing a message. In this instance you would likely perceive a message with strong arguments as more convincing and quickly dismiss one with weak arguments or with only an attractive communicator to recommend it (Wood & Kallgren, 1988). As with need for cognition, even when a topic is not personally relevant someone with prior knowledge is still more likely to use the central route to persuasion (Chebat, Charlebois, & Gelinas-Chebat, 2001). Even if you are not presently in the market for exercise equipment, if you stumble across an advertisement for such equipment and have knowledge about equipment, you are likely to pay attention.
When people are less motivated or do not have the time or energy to process a message, they use the peripheral route to persuasion. With this route individuals use other cues to evaluate the persuasive arguments. These other cues include the number of arguments presented, the supposed credibility of the source, how many other people seem to be persuaded, and many other factors (Maheswaran & Chaiken, 1991; O'keefe, 2002; Petty, Caciopppo, & Schumann, 1983). For example, an online shopper using the peripheral route might be persuaded by the number of reviews for a product rather than the quality of those reviews (Sher & Lee, 2009).
When our self-control has been tested, we are more likely to take the peripheral route to persuasion. If you studied hard for a test, using all of your self-control to keep working through class material, an advertisement with an attractive communicator would be more persuasive to you, regardless of the strength of that communicator's arguments. Recall from the chapter on the self that ego depletion creates a problem for later volitional acts. The peripheral route is used when we do not have the time or energy to consider a persuasive message carefully, so when the ego is depleted we use this route. When individuals engage in self-control earlier they are more likely to give in to persuasive messages that come through the peripheral route (Fennis, Janssen, & Vohs, 2009).
When we are persuaded using the central route, our attitudes are stronger. Stronger attitudes tend to last longer and are less likely to be changed when attacked (Haugtvedt & Petty, 1992; Wu & Shaffer, 1987). Attitudes changed by the central route are more likely to lead to behavior in line with that attitude (Wu & Shaffer, 1987). All of this means that when you are trying to persuade someone, if you want the attitude to stick around for the long term you should use the central route. The problem is that it is generally easier to change someone's attitude using the peripheral route.
When someone tries to persuade us and we need to defend our beliefs and attitudes, that defense can make those attitudes stronger (Tormala & Petty, 2002). For example, imagine someone told you that you should no longer buy and eat your favorite brand of cereal. You would likely defend your cereal, describing its great taste, healthy ingredients, or low price. Having successfully defended your breakfast food, you would likely feel even more strongly about your cereal.
However, if our attitudes are attacked and we believe we did a poor job of defending those attitudes, we may hold the same attitudes as we did before, but with less certainty (Tormala, Clarkson, & Petty, 2006). Imagine someone attacked your breakfast cereal and you found yourself saying the box it came in has a nice design. Even if you still eat the cereal, you might think of the reason you gave for eating it an unsubstantial reason. When we hold our attitudes with less certainty, those attitudes are less predictive of our behavior. If your cereal were attacked again, researchers have found, you would be more likely to change your attitude and your breakfast choice.
When presenting a persuasive message, it is important for the communicator to avoid making the audience defensive. Affirming what others believe and validating their concerns can increase message scrutiny and lead to a change in behavior (Correll, Spencer, & Zanna, 2004). When students' concerns about availability of recycling containers were validated (we know it's a long walk but . . . ) and they were encouraged to use the containers that were available, even if it was inconvenient, their recycling behavior increased and lasted longer (Werner, Stoll, Birch, & White, 2002). Reactance, the tendency to reassert one's freedom in the face of demands from others, can be reduced by affirming what that person believes. Acknowledging concerns works by reducing criticism of a persuasive message, opening the individual up to consideration of the message (Werner, White, Byerly, & Stoll, 2009).
Conclusion
In evaluating persuasion we need to take into account where the message comes from, what the message contains, and the intended audience. Each of these factors interact with one another, so a particular communicator may be quite persuasive using a certain type of message with a certain audience but less persuasive when conditions change.
