Chapter 6

If you should want to influence someone’s behaviour, it certainly is worthwhile trying first to
influence their attitudes.

Attitude change - Any significant modification of an individual’s attitude. In the persuasion process
this involves the communicator, the communication, the medium used and the characteristics of the
audience. Attitude change can also occur by inducing someone to perform an act that runs counter to
an existing attitude.

In our coverage, we focus on two general orientations. The first concentrates on people’s use of
arguments to convince others that a change of mind, and perhaps of behaviour, is needed. The second
orientation focuses on the behaviour of the target person. By getting someone to behave in a certain
way, we may actually be able to change their underlying attitudes. This path to attitude change is the
focus of cognitive dissonance.

Cognitive dissonance - State of psychological tension produced by simultaneously having two

opposing cognitions. People are motivated to reduce the tension, often by changing or rejecting one of
the cognitions. Festinger proposed that we seek harmony in our attitudes, beliefs and behaviours and
try to reduce tension from inconsistency among these elements.

Persuasive communication

Persuasive communication - Message intended to change an attitude and related behaviours of an

audience.

Perhaps not surprisingly, most people believe they are less likely to be influenced than others by
advertisements; a phenomenon called the third-person effect (‘You and I are not influenced, but they
are’). For example, if we see a mundane product being advertised by using attractive models in an
exotic setting, we assume that we (and those like us) are wiser than others to the tricks of the
advertising industry. In reality, we are just as susceptible.

Three general variables involved in persuasion: the communicator, or the source (who); the
communication, or message (what); the audience (to whom). Four steps in the persuasion process:
attention, comprehension, acceptance and retention.

WhO: source factors: Expertise – experts are more persuasive than nonexperts; Popularity and
attractiveness – these factors make communicators more effective; Speech rate – communicators who
speak rapidly are more persuasive than those who speak slowly. Rapid speech gives an impression of
‘I know what I’m talking about’

WhAt: message factors: Perceived manipulation – we are more easily persuaded when we think the
message is not deliberately intended to manipulate us; Linguistic power – a message in a powerless
linguistic style (frequent hedges, tag questions, hesitations) is less persuasive than one in a powerful
linguistic style. Fear – messages that arouse fear can be very effective. For example, to stop people
smoking we might show them pictures of cancerous lungs

tO WhOM: audience factors: Self-esteem – people with low self-esteem are persuaded more easily
than people with high selfesteem; Distraction – people are sometimes more susceptible to persuasion
when they are distracted than when paying full attention; Age – people in the ‘impressionable years’
are more susceptible to persuasion than those who are older; When the argument in a message is of
high quality – those who are high self-monitors are persuaded more by someone who is an attractive
person; those who are low self-monitors are persuaded more by an expert

The communicator

Great expertise, good physical looks and extensive interpersonal and verbal skills make a
communicator more effective. We are also more influenced by people we feel familiar, close and
attracted to, and by people with power and control over the kinds of reinforcement we might receive.

The credibility of the communicator affects the acceptability of persuasive messages. But
attractiveness, likeability and similarity also play a very significant role. Source attractive- ness is
exploited mercilessly by the advertising industry.

Attractiveness also significantly influences the political process – people tend to prefer and vote for
attractive candidates over less attractive candidates.

Similarity plays a role because we like people who are similar to us and are therefore more persuaded
by similar than dissimilar others. When the focus of persuasion is a matter of taste or judgement,
similar sources are accepted more readily than dissimilar sources. But when the focus is a matter of
fact, dissimilar sources do better.
What works best in the persuasion process is an interaction of three categories of variables
(‘communication language’ terms are given in brackets):

1 The source (sender) – from whom does the communication come?

2 The message (signal) – what medium is used, and what kinds of argument are involved?
3 The audience (receiver) – who is the target?

As a position adopted in a message becomes increasingly discrepant from what most people would
accept, a more credible communicator becomes more effective in inducing opinion change.

When a message is simple, i.e. it does not require much elaboration or thought processing, source
credibility acts as a heuristic: ‘this person is famous, so what they say must be true’. However, a more
complex message requires more elaboration or thought processing.

the message

It is more effective to present both sides if the audience is against the argument but is also fairly
intelligent, whereas it is better to present only one side if a less intelligent audience is already
favourably disposed towards the argument.

Comparative advertising, in which a rival product is presented as inferior to a target product, is a

common instance of using two-sided messages. When a consumer is not very motivated to buy the
target product, comparative advertising can work. An attentive and interested consumer is likely to
process message information quite carefully, whereas comparative advertising is simply geared to
making a product appear better. If loyalty to a rival brand is high, comparative advertising of a new
target brand is not very effective.

Repeated exposure to an object clearly increases familiarity with that object. Repetition of a name can
make that name seem famous.

Fear-arousing messages may also enhance persuasion. Many agencies in our community use forms of
advertising and persuasion that are intended to frighten us into complying with their advice or
admonitions. Health workers may visit the local school to lecture children on how ‘smoking is
dangerous to your health’. Does this work? The answer is a mixed one.

McGuire proposed two parameters that might control the way we respond to a persuasive message,
one involving comprehension and the other involving the degree to which we yield to change. The
more we can understand what is being presented to us and can conceive of ways to put this into effect,
the more likely we are to go along with a particular message.

Dual-process models of information processing, people who are not particularly frightened may not
be motivated to attend to the message because the message does not spell out sufficiently the harmful
consequences of the behaviour. As fear increases, so does arousal, interest and attention to what is
going on. Much fear is also bad.

In the context of health behaviour, and according to protection motivation theory, fear appeals should
reduce dangerous health practices if they include an effective presentation of how to cope with the
danger.

A demand can be perceived as a threat if one feels one does not have the resources to cope, and a
challenge if one feels one does have the resources to cope.
Terror management theory - thoughts of our own death create ‘paralysing terror’. This makes us
seek symbolic immortality, which we achieve by identifying with and psychologically defending
cultural institutions and ideologies that we subscribe to. Fear-laden messages may lead to ideological
conviction and zealous identification with groups, rather than to attitude and behaviour change related
to the focus of the message.

In the advertising industry, a related distinction is made between factual and evaluative advertising.
The former involves claims of fact and is thought to be objective, whereas the latter involves opinion
and is subjective.

Sleeper effect - The impact of a persuasive message can increase over time when a discounting cue,
such as an invalid source, can no longer be recalled.

the audience

Distracted audience is more easily persuaded than one that is paying full attention, provided the
message is simple; and that people with low self-esteem are more susceptible than those with high
self-esteem. people with either low or high self-esteem are less persuasible than those with moderate
self-esteem. He reasoned that those with low self-esteem would be either less attentive or else more
anxious when processing a message, whereas those with high self-esteem would be less susceptible to
influence, presumably because they are generally more self-assured.

Gender-related persuasiveness is a complex interaction of who is speaking, who is listening and

whether the message is delivered in a sex-stereotyped way.
1 Increasing persistence – susceptibility to attitude change is high in early adulthood but decreases
gradually across the life span; attitudes reflect the accumulation of relevant experiences (a negative
linear line).
2 Impressionable years – core attitudes, values and beliefs are crystallised during a period of great
plasticity in early adulthood (an S-curve).
3 Life stages – there is a high susceptibility during early adulthood and later life, but a lower
susceptibility throughout middle adulthood (a U-curve).
4 Lifelong openness – individuals are to some extent susceptible to attitude change through- out their
lives.
5 Persistence – most of an individual’s fundamental orientations are established firmly dur- ing pre-
adult socialisation; susceptibility to attitude change thereafter is low.

There are at least two other audience variables that relate to the persuasion process. Prior beliefs
affect persuasibility. There is evidence for a disconfirmation bias in argument evaluation. Arguments
that are incompatible with prior beliefs are scrutinised longer, are subjected to more extensive
refutational analyses and are judged weaker than arguments compatible with prior beliefs. Cognitive
biases are important in both attitude formation and change.

Dual-process models of persuasion

Elaboration–likelihood model (ELM), when people receive a persuasive message, they think about
the arguments it makes. However, they do not necessarily think deeply or carefully, because that
requires considerable cognitive effort. People are cognitive tacticians who are motivated to expend
valuable cognitive capital only on issues that are important to them. If the arguments of the message
are followed closely, a central route is used.
If the central route to persuasion is to be used, the points in the message need to be put convincingly,
as we will be required to expend considerable cognitive effort. when arguments are not well attended
to, a peripheral route is followed.

Shelley Chaiken’s heuristic–systematic model (HSM) deals with the same phenomena using slightly
different concepts, distinguishing between systematic processing and heuristic processing. Systematic
processing occurs when people scan and consider available arguments. In the case of heuristic
processing, we do not indulge in careful reasoning but instead use cognitive heuristics, such as
thinking that longer arguments are stronger.

You will recall that heuristics are simple decision rules or ‘mental short-cuts’, the tools that cognitive
misers and motivated tacticians use.
People seem to have a sufficiency threshold: heuristics are used as long as they satisfy our need to be
confident in the attitude that we adopt, but when we lack sufficient confidence we switch to more
effortful systematic processing.

The role of cognition is fundamental in handling a persuasive message, but how well we concentrate
on the content of a message can be affected by something as transient as our mood. For example,
background music is a widely used advertising ploy to engender a mellow feeling. There is a sneaky
reason behind this – feeling ‘good’ makes it difficult for us to process a message systematically.

In summary, when people are motivated to attend to a message and to deal with it thoughtfully, they
use a central route to process it according to the ELM (Petty and Cacioppo) or process it
systematically according to the HSM (Chaiken). When attention is reduced so that people become
cognitively lazy, they use a peripheral route (Petty and Cacioppo) or resort to heuristics – simple
decision rules (Chaiken).

Compliance

Compliance refers to a surface behavioural response to a request by another individual; whereas

conformity refers to the influence of a group upon an individual that usually produces more enduring
internalised changes in one’s attitudes and beliefs. Compliance is more closely associated with
behaviour, and conformity with attitudes. Compliance is also more closely associated with individuals
having some form of power over you.

Tactics for enhancing compliance

Jones and Pittman (1982) describe five compliance strategies and emotions: intimidation is an attempt
to elicit fear by getting others to think you are dangerous; exemplification is an attempt to elicit guilt
by getting others to regard you as a morally respectable individual; supplication is an attempt to elicit
pity by getting others to believe you are helpless and needy; self-promotion is an attempt to elicit
respect and confidence by persuading others that you are competent; and ingratiation is simply an
attempt to get others to like you in order to secure compliance with a subsequent request. These last
two, self-promotion and ingratiation, ser- vice two of the most common goals of social interaction: to
get people to think you are competent and to get people to like you – competence and warmth are the
two most basic dimensions on which we evaluate people.

Ingratiation - Strategic attempt to get someone to like you in order to obtain compliance with a
request. A person attempts to influence others by first agreeing with them and getting them to like him
or her. Next, various requests are made. You would be using ingratiation if you agreed with other
people to appear similar to them or to make them feel good, made yourself look attractive, paid
compliments, dropped names of those held in high esteem or physically touched them.

‘ingratiator’s dilemma’: the more obvious it is that an ingratiator will profit by impressing the target
person, the less likely it is that the tactic will succeed

Reciprocity principle is another tactic, based on the social principle that ‘we should treat others the
way they treat us’. If we do others a favour, they feel obliged to reciprocate. Regan (1971) showed
that greater compliance was obtained from people who had previously received a favour than from
those who had received none. Similarly, guilt arousal produces more compliance. People who are
made to feel guilty are more likely to comply with a later request: for example, to make a phone call
to save native trees, to agree to donate blood, or at a university to participate in an experiment.

Another very effective tactic is the use of multiple requests. Instead of a single request, a two-step
procedure is used, with the first request functioning as a set-up or softener for the second, real request.
Three classic variations are the foot-in-the-door, the door-in-the-face and low-balling tactics.

The foot-in-the-door tactic builds on the assumption that if someone agrees to a small request, they
will be more willing to comply with a later large request. Some salespeople use this approach. At first,
they might call you to ask just a few questions ‘for a small survey that we are doing’ and then entice
you to join ‘the hundreds of others in your area’ who subscribe to their product. If the initial request
appears too small or the second too large, the link between the requests breaks down.

By complying with a small request, people become committed to their behaviour and develop a
picture of themselves as ‘giving’. The subsequent large request compels them to appear consistent. -
the principle of self-consistency.

The foot-in-the- door tactic alters people’s interpretation of situations that activate attitudes enhancing
compliance.

In a refinement of the tactic, people agreed to a series of graded requests rather than jumping from a
small to a large request. They were presented with two preliminary requests, increasingly demanding,
prior to an ultimate request. At first, a prospective partner might not agree to go out with you on a
date but might well agree to go with you to study in the library. Your next tactic is to request another
meeting, and eventually a proper date.
Polish field experiment: Compliance with the second, more demanding request was higher in the
experimental group.

Door-in-the-face tactic - Multiple-request technique to gain compliance, in which the focal request is
preceded by a larger request that is bound to be refused. Here a person is asked a large favour first and
a small request second. Politicians especially are masters of this art. To illustrate, say that the
government warns the media that student fees will need to go up 30 per cent. Are you angry? Later,
however, it announces officially that the increase will ‘only’ be 10 per cent.

For the tactic to be effective, the researchers noted that the final request should come from the same
person who made the initial request. According to them, participants perceive the scaled-down request
as a concession by the influencer, and consequently they feel pressure to reciprocate. If some other
person were to make the second request, reciprocation would not be necessary.

Low-ball tactic Here the influencer changes the rules halfway and manages to get away with it. Its
effectiveness depends on inducing the customer to agree to a request before revealing certain hidden
costs. It is based on the principle that once people are committed to an action, they are more likely to
accept a slight increase in the cost of that action. This tendency for people to stick with decisions is
also captured in the notion of sunk costs, where once a course of action is decided on, people will
continue to invest in it even if the costs increase dramatically.

We often act before we think. Much compliance is due to mindlessness: we agree without giving it a
thought.

Langer and her colleagues conducted experiments in which people were asked to comply with
requests with little or no justification. In one, a person about to use a photocopier was interrupted by
an experimenter, who requested priority use for: (1) no reason, (2) a non-informative reason (‘I have
to make copies’) or (3) a justified reason (‘I’m in a rush’). They found that as long as the request was
small, people were likely to agree, even for a spurious reason. There was lower compliance when
there was no reason.

Action research

Lewin believed that attitude change could best be achieved if people were actively engaged in the
change process rather than just being passive targets of persuasion. He referred to this involvement of
the participants in the actual research process, and its outcome, as action research. Lewin
demonstrated that an active discussion among ‘housewives’ about how best to present beef hearts and
other similar foods to their families was much more effective than merely giving them a persuasive
lecture presentation.

A key premise of cognitive dissonance is that people actively organise their cognitions and will
change them to make them consistent with what they are feeling or with how they are acting.

Cognitive dissonance and attitude change

Cognitive consistency theories - A group of attitude theories stressing that people try to maintain
internal consistency, order and agreement among their various cognitions.

The maxim appears to be: The greater the dissonance, the stronger the attempts to reduce it.

Because dissonance is unpleasant, people tend to avoid exposure to ideas that produce it. According to
the selective exposure hypothesis, people are remarkably choosy when potentially dissonant
information is on the horizon. Exceptions are when their attitude is either: (1) very strong, and they
can integrate or argue against contrary information, or (2) very weak, and it seems better to discover
the truth now and then make appropriate attitudinal and behavioural changes.

A virtue of cognitive dissonance theory is that it is stated in a broad and general way. It is applicable
in many situations, particularly ones involving attitude or behaviour change. For instance, it has been
used to understand:

● people’s feelings of regret and changes of attitude after making a decision;● their patterns of
exposing themselves to and searching for new information;● reasons why people seek social support
for their beliefs;● attitude change in situations where lack of support from fellow ingroup members
acted as a dissonant cognition;●  attitude change in situations where a person has said or done
something contrary to their customary beliefs or practice; and ●  attitude change to rationalise
hypocritical behaviour (Stone & Fernandez, 2008; Stone, Wiegand, Cooper, & Aronson, 1997).

A particularly appealing feature of dissonance theory is that it can generate non-obvious predictions
about how people make choices when faced with conflicting attitudes and behav- iours. Dissonance
research adopts one of three different research paradigms: effort justification, induced compliance and
free choice.

effort justification - A special case of cognitive dissonance: inconsistency is experienced when a

person makes a considerable effort to achieve a modest goal.

The moment you choose between alternatives, you invite a state of dissonance. Suppose you need
some takeaway food tonight. You make the momentous decision to get Indian food rather than
Chinese food. You keep mulling over the alternatives even after making your choice. Tonight’s the
night for a curry – you can taste it in your mouth already! The curry will be evaluated more
favourably, or perhaps Chinese food becomes less attractive, or maybe both – and tomorrow is
another day.

Later studies have shown that effort justification is a useful device to induce behavioural changes
relating to phobias and alcohol abuse.

Induced compliance

Sometimes people are induced to act in a way that is inconsistent with their attitudes. An important
feature of the induced compliance paradigm is that the inducement should not be so strong that
people feel they have been forced against their will.

Induced compliance - A special case of cognitive dissonance: inconsistency is experienced when a

person is persuaded to behave in a way that is contrary to an attitude.
According to the induced compliance paradigm, dissonance follows from the fact that you have
agreed to say things about what you have experienced when you know that the opposite is true. You
have been induced to behave in a counter-attitudinal way.

One of social psychology's counter-intuitive findings: Commitment to return to repeat a boring task is
maximised, as is dissonance, by offering a minimal reward.

One way of reducing the continuing arousal is to convince yourself that the experiment was really
quite interesting after all.

Post-decisional conflict - The dissonance associated with behaving in a counter-attitudinal way.

Dissonance can be reduced by bringing the attitude into line with the behaviour.

Military cadets' liking for fried grasshoppers as food, as a function of the interpersonal style of an
officer - here is another counter-intuitive outcome: Complying with an unpleasant request can seem
more attractive when the person making the request is less attractive.

Counter-attitudinal actions with foreseeable negative consequences, such as being quoted in the media
saying that smoking is not harmful, requires an intricate inducement; whereas actions with less
serious or negative consequences, such as voting anonymously that smoking is harmless, may be less
difficult to bring about. However, once people have been induced to act counter-attitudinally, the
theory predicts that dissonance will be strong and that they will seek to justify their action.

Free choice

Once a person has made a choice between decision alternatives, dissonance theory predicts that the
person making a bet will become more confident about a successful outcome.

People’s prefer intuitive over rational predictions of outcomes, using the representativeness
heuristic. For example, we are less confident of winning a lottery if we opt to exchange our
purchased ticket for a new ticket. Intuitively, it does not feel right – the cognitive load of assessing the
competing choice probabilities is excessive.