Persuasion

Views:
 
Category: Education
     
 

Presentation Description

No description available.

Comments

By: chamchit206 (37 month(s) ago)

can i dl ur nice ppt?

Presentation Transcript

Persuasion: 

Persuasion Attitudes are positive or negative evaluations of objects Affect—emotion, liking or disliking Behavior—actions directed towards the object Cognitions—thoughts and beliefs about the object Attitude formation Classical conditioning Operant conditioning Observational learning Heredity Function Accuracy—knowledge, or object appraisal, function Consistency—value–expressive , ego–defensive Social approval—social identity or social–adjustment

Attitudes and Behavior : 

Attitudes and Behavior History—attitudes fail to predict behavior Lapiere Attitudes vs. Actions Lack of cross–situational consistency in behavior When will attitudes predict behavior Theory of reasoned action

Attitudes and Behavior : 

Attitudes and Behavior Measurement Level of measurement Accessibility Automatic Norms Self-awareness Frequent use Direct experience Knowledge

Persuasion: 

Persuasion Yale Who says what to whom with what effect? Who—the source of the message What—the content of the message How—the channel of communication To whom—the target of communication Four steps Attention Comprehension Acceptance Attitude change

Elaboration likelihood model : 

Elaboration likelihood model Cognitive response—Greenwald Central/peripheral—Petty and Cacioppo Peripheral Shortcuts Superficial Unstable Central Accuracy Motivation and opportunity Stable Organized previous theories and findings

Argument Quantity and Quality: 

Argument Quantity and Quality

Persuasion Overview: 

Persuasion Overview

Which attitudes resist persuasion?: 

Which attitudes resist persuasion? Strong attitudes Commitment Biasing of response Self–relevant Central processing Self–talk persuades Agreement encourages positive self–talk Inhibiting counterarguments if person disagrees Distraction Decreases the effectiveness of strong or pro-attitudinal arguments Increases effectiveness of weak or counter attitudinal arguments Knowledge to evaluate Attitude inoculation—present and refute weak counter–arguments

Dual Process: 

Dual Process Motivation Personal relevance Need for cognition Ability Lack of time Distraction Insufficient information Persuasion most effective Peripheral Audience disagrees Weak message Central Audience agrees Strong arguments

To be accurate: 

To be accurate Shortcuts Credibility Expertise Communicator style Trustworthiness Speak against interests Lack of intent to persuade Others’ responses—Favorable response from others in the audience

The Sleeper Effect: 

The Sleeper Effect Discounting cues Peripheral (credibility) and central processing

Slide13: 

The person High involvement Greater processing Emotional shortcuts Classical conditioning Good mood reduces central processing Fear High fear No solution Defensive avoidance and denial Minimize applicability to self Solution to reduce fear–effectiveness Interactions Expertise and complexity Low in need for cognition

To be consistent: 

To be consistent Heider Balance theory Festinger and dissonance Cognitive consequences of forced compliance—Leon Festinger and James Carlsmith Independent variable Control , $1, $20 Dependent variable How enjoyable the task

Dissonance—Results: 

Dissonance—Results

Slide16: 

Forced or induced compliance Effort Justification Post–decisional Insufficient justification

Hypocrisy and Dissonance: 

Hypocrisy and Dissonance I’m a hypocrite and so is everyone else: Group support and the Reduction of cognitive dissonance, by Blake M. McKimmie, Deborah J. Terry, Michael A. Hogg, Antony S. R. Manstead, Russell Spears, and Bertjan Doosje Hypocrisy paradigm—commit to socially desirable attitude and alter previously inconsistent behavior Social support—impact dissonance Comparison with self-concept or normative information Induce dissonance and see if change in attitude Basic hypothesis—dissonance and group identification Group support would reduce dissonance when group membership was salient When an in–group was non supportive individuals would distance themselves from the group

Variables: 

Variables Independent Salience of group Group salient Differences from University B students Group not salient Individual Group support or nonsupport for behavior Group is generous (behavioral nonsupport) Group is not generous (behavioral support) Hypocrisy manipulation Attitude towards generosity Generosity checklist Dependent Attitude towards generosity Group identification

Results Attitude Change: 

Results Attitude Change

Results Group Identification: 

Results Group Identification

Boundary conditions: 

Boundary conditions Choice Commitment and irrevocability Aversive consequences Physiological arousal

Slide22: 

Self-Affirmation theory Interaction of self-esteem and dissonance Individual with high self-esteem may bemor eprone to dissonance Cultural effects To gain social approval High self-monitors and women more presuasible in public settings