communicator, message, audience:

if you have a positive attitude towrds the source, then you must have a ___ attitude towards the message in order for it to be ____ 

what theory is this?

positive

balance

balance theory

Bases of source information

what are the two types?

ones that arent relevent to attitude change

ones that are relevent to attitude change

1. outcome control:

- reward and punishment

- have the power to give/withold a reward

2. coerocion:

- use of threat of force

3. ligitimate authority:

-people who have legit authority making decisions

1. expertise:

- individual recognized to have experience or knowledge in an area or field

2. information: 

- useful info, from whatever source

3. referent power:

- admired individuals, those we indentify with and try to take on their qualities

1. expertise:

- individual recognized to have experience or knowledge in an area or field

2. information: 

- useful info, from whatever source

3. referent power:

- admired individuals, those we indentify with and try to take on their qualities

4. credibility

- is the source credible???

-it is when the effects of a msg from a credible source weaken over time and the effects of a msg from a non-credible source strengthen overtime

- impact from a non-credible source "wakes up" after time and dont see a diff between the two sources

- they are an attempt to get rid of the sleeper effect

- you tell ppl the info from the less credible source should be discounted bc it is less true

- forget the discouting cue info

- dissosiation of cue info from msg content

- cue decays faster

other source variables: likability

more persuaded when we think the intention of the msg isnt trying to persuade us

is persuasion the goal?

- neg info has more impact on attitudes than pos info

-better memory for neg vs. pos words

-emphasizing losses from action X are more persuasive than those emphasizing gains from action X

msg framing: promotion focus

-the outcome of the action is desirable

-ex. eat more veggies you will be skinny

-focus on pos benefits

-use a gain frame for this: focus on pos outcomes of behaviour

- outcome of action (or non-action) is undesirable

- ex. if you dont wear a seat belt u will die

-keep you from experiencing something bad

- focus on negatives

-use loss frame for this: focus on the negative thing that will happen if you do or dont do something

- info about neg consequences

info about availability of effective coping response

confidence that coping response will be successful

- feared neg event is sever and highly likely

- audience is assured that they can do something to prevent feared outcome

- recommended 1 time behaviour

- when talking with female audiences

msg variables:argument quality and quantity

- strong arguments are more effective than weak

- need to be simple and basic tho -> not hard to understand

- outcome likely = stronger argument

- quality has more effect when arguments are longer rather than shorter

- quality has more effect when argument counter rather than pro-attitudinal

quality has more effect when argument outcome-relvant rather than value or impresseion-relevant (something that will happen to you rather than something that is important to you)

- 1 sided better when: audience is unintelligent and in favor of msg

- 2 sided better when: audience is intellgient and opposed to msg 

- implicit better when: audience in intelligent

- explicit better when: audience is unintelligent

1. anticipating communication: less attitude change when audience knows msg is coming

2. age: younger and older ppl are more persuaded

3. social environment: more persuadion when in presence of pro-msg group

4. intelligence: less persuasion with increasing intelligence

5. gender: females are more readily persuaded

1. introversion vs. extraverion: msgs that are congruent with personalty types are more effective

2. mood and emotion: neg/unhapy mood= greater persuasion from strong rather than weak arguments, pos/happy moods= equal persiasion from strong and weak arguments (do not process info as thouroughly when in pos mood)

less 

pos

msg variables: personality related to major motives

knowledge

consistency

self worth

- tendency to engage in an enjoy effortful thought

- greater primacy effects

- more effective persuaders

- stronger attitudes, more resistant to change

personality and persuasion: need to evaluate

- need to make judgements

- attitudes tend to be more stable

- have more accessible attitudes

- need ot know how things are going to turn out or are

- more primacy effects

- more use of peripheral cues rather than central cues

- when initial info is low, increased persuadability

- when initial opinion exists, reduced persuadability

- awareness of one's thoughts and attitudes

- higher attitude-behaviour consistency

- more resistant to persuasion

- less dissonance-based attitude change

- acceptance of values advocatedby authority

- more persuaded by authority figures and group pressure

personality and persuasion: resistance to persuasion

- little attitude change when elab is low

- more attitude change when elab is high

personality and persuasion: counter-arguing

- find flaws in other arguments

- high counter arguing scores on scale are associated with less attitude change

- ability to defend one's position

- high DC individuals have lower perference for pro-attitudinal info, and greater reception of counter-attitudinal info

- higher DR ppl are more likely to change attitudes in response to counter-attitudinal info

- need to feel independent from others

- less attitude change in conformity paradigms

- preference for unique product designs

- responsive to cues internally generated (I) or responsive to cues expernally generated (D)

- FD more suggestible and persuadable

- high FI individuals change attitudes more

personality and persuasion: self monitoring

- aware of how others see/evaluate them

- less suceptible to dissonance manipulations

- lower attitude-behavior consitency

personality and persuasion: machiavellianism

- manipulating others for personal gain

- better at persuading others

- less influenced by persuasive msgs

- change attitudes less under dissonance

self perception theory

we modify our attidues to be consistent with our beliefs and our behaviour

ex. balance theory

aversive (negative) consequences

choice/committment to behaviour

affect -discomfort -> arousal is motivation for change

new look theory

attribution theory

-situational attributions: person behaves in a way bc that is what is expected/demanded of the sitation -> does not have to do with personality

-dispositional attributions: when a person behaves to his or her needs, related to personality, something internal to person

dispositional

situational

1. msg elab/central route - elaborating on the content/arguments in the msg -> central route to persuasion

2. peripheral cues - produce attitude change through elements that have nothing to do with content of msg -> ex. source attractiveness, credibility, argument quantity

more stable over time

more predictive of behaviour

more resistant to persuasion

does the source have anything to gain by us supporting their position? 

bias could be a personal gain to a personal advantage

if looks like there is no reason for personal gain we assume no bias

if source is bias more neg cognitions

when elab likelihood is high = msg quality has big effect   -> low qual msg = low attitude change

when elab likelihood is low = high vs. low quality doesnt make a big difference

elab is high = quantity isnt as important as qual

elab is low = quanitity is very important

elab is low = more effected by recency effect

elab is high = more effected by primacy effect

elab is low = affect is peripheral cue

elab is high = affect acts as info

affect can also shift motivation

affect at high elab can lead to bias in nature of direction of our attitude

best to have pos affect associated with msg

ppl with low SE are more persuaded when using periperal cues

elab is high = depends on wen you are primed about SE

- primed before msg = less persuaded -> more neg cogs about msg

- primed after msg = more persuasion -> more pos cogs about msg

accuracy- want our attitudes to be correct and algin with reality

cognitive economy - using a few cog resources as possible

defense: we defend aainst knowing things about ourself that are neg

impression management- selective and biased processing to get along with and be accepted by others

as systematic processing yield more and more relevant info, heuristic processing isnt detectable

systematic processing dominates

one set of processses in evaluating message content 

- drawing conclusions from information

when elab is low = individual should be processing easiest possible info and ignoring harder processes

when elab is high = individual should be processing the harder info