Ather Qureshi March 17th 2014 Lecture 2 for Final: Consumer ...
March 17th 2014
Ather Qureshi Lecture 2 for Final: Consumer Psychology: The Psychology of Attitude Change 1. Message Learning Approach 2. Cognitive Response Model 3. Elaboration-Likelihood Model Prologue: Attitude change is Big Business •
1. Average person in NA exposed to 1500 persuasive attempts in a single day. o
o •
About half come from advertisements.
Advertisements in Canada, $ 10 billion per year.
In US, it is much more. (GM is $ 3 billion per year in US, only one company!)
Designed to influence attitudes.
2. Defining Attitudes: An evaluative response toward an object or issue )(expresses favor or disfavor) o
Three types of evaluative response
Behavioural (approach/avoid; buy/not buy)
Affective Response (emotional responses – love, hate, like)
Cognitive (evaluative beliefs – “I believe…”) •
o
Beliefs that express favor or disfavor.
Q: How can we change people’s Attitudes?
Part 1: The Message Learning Approach (Hovland and the “Yale Group”) •
In order to be persuaded, the learner must learn the message.
•
A. Four Sequential stages of message learning: o
1. Attention (must notice the message)
o
2. Comprehension (understand the content of the message)
o
3. Yielding (accept conclusions of message)
1
Do I agree with this? Critical stage.
March 17th 2014
Ather Qureshi o •
4. Retention (remember message and attitude)
B. Attitude Change (message leaning) is not easy! o
E.g. If we’re 80% successful with 100 people
o
80 people will attend to message (100 x 0.8)
o
64 will comprehend the message (80 x 0.8)
o
51 will yield to conclusions (64 x 0.8)
o
41 will retain new attitude (51 x 0.8)
o
[only 33 people will act on their new attitude! 41 x 0.8]
o
•
The Miller Lite beer commercials (“tastes great”, “Less filling”).
Featured famous athletes. Target audience guys who watch sports and drink beer)
Easy phrase to comprehend. It doesn’t compete with other beers in its aid, so it’s likely to be yielded. Easy to remember (retention).
Yale group says:
Message learning depends on “Who says what to whom”.
Depends on characteristics of the Source (who), message (what), and recipients (whom).
Experimenter would manipulate a characteristic, and see outcome of message learning.
D. Research on “Yielding” (attitude change). o
Critical stage is the yielding stage. 100 of studies have been done.
o
Inconsistent results! E.g., what makes a source persuasive and make us yield?
2
33% success rate isn’t bad if you’re talking to large number of people. (let’s say a million people)
C. Factors that influence message learning o
•
Also known as Attitude change
Source (credibility, expertise, likeability, similarity, attractiveness)
March 17th 2014
Ather Qureshi •
Any of these can Source “traits” can influence Persuasion.
Recipient (E.g., intelligence, moods); •
Inconsistent, intelligent and unintelligent people were both shown to affect yielding. No one way.
•
Moods (happy or sad) both shown to affect yielding. No one way.
Message (E.g. Length, comprehensibility). •
Shorter messages are more effective than longer messages.
•
Comprehensibility was shown to have a positive and negative effect on yield.
1977: Conclusion on factors on Yielding. •
“There is reigning confusion in this area”.
•
Need for a more theoretical and radical approach to figure this out.
Part 2: Greenwald’s Cognitive Response Model •
Before we get to stage 3, we need to attend to and comprehend the message. o
•
3
However, according to Greenwald’s Cognitive response model, there is something after comprehending the message.
We are thinking about what is being said. We are elaborating on what’s said, “cognitive responses”. There is an internal stream of thought. Actively thinking about what is being said.
According to the Cognitive Response model, that leads to yielding.
Influences direction (Agree or Disagree) and amount (Agreeableness and disfavorness) of attitude change.
INTERLUDE: Measuring Cognitive Responses o
Recipients listen to (or read) message
o
List all of their “thoughts” about message.
o
Thoughts are coded as favorable or unfavorable.
“Message made some good points” Favorable.
“I thought the arguments were stupid” Unfavorable.
March 17th 2014
Ather Qureshi
Note: Can also code thoughts about source: •
“I like the source”. Favorable
•
“That guy makes me sick”. Unfavorable. o
o
A. Factors that influence the direction (favorability) of cognitive responses.
1. Current Attitudes •
If message is pro-attitudinal (consistent with our current attitude), favorable thoughts generated (agree with message); if counter attitudinal, unfavorable thoughts generated (disagree with message).
•
But, doesn’t address attitude change. What happens when we agree with someone that we used to consider counter-attitudinal.
Q: Other factors that influence direction? •
o
Petty & Cacioppo: Argument Quality o
If strong > favorable thoughts > agree
o
If weak > unfavorable thoughts > disagree.
o
Advertisements should focus on argument quality.
B. Factors that influence the amount of cognitive responding.
4
Canadian Tire guy who always shows his new Canadian tire tools to next door neighbor was actually found to be an unfavorable source. They stopped those ads.
1. Distraction •
Decreases (interferes with) cognitive responses, so
•
If there’s a strong argument, we generate fewer favorable thoughts because we are distracted (vs not distracted) and thus, we agree less with the message.
•
If there’s a weak argument, we generate fewer unfavorable thoughts because we are distracted (vs not distracted) and thus, we agree more the message than we should.
March 17th 2014
Ather Qureshi
2. Message Repetition: Increases cognitive responses. (opposite in definition and effect than Distraction, when you repeat things, distractedness loses it’s effectiveness and you still get the message) •
If arguments are strong, more favorable thoughts generated > Agree more with message when repeated (vs not repeated).
•
If arguments are weak, more unfavorable thoughts generated > Agree less with message when its repeated vs not repeated).
3. Personal Involvement (relevance) increase cognitive responses (we’ll think more about messages that are personally relevant or important).
Part 3: The Elaboration Likelihood Model (Petty & Cacioppo) •
A. Factors that Determine message elaboration (amount of thought): o
1. Motivation: To think about the message: e.g.,
Message is personally relevant;
Being personally responsible for evaluating the message.
•
Reduces Social Loafing
•
It affects their life.
Individual differences in “need for cognition” (highs enjoy complex thought, lows don’t). •
o
Motivation is necessary for message elaboration, but it’s not sufficient. Person must also have…
2. Ability: To think about message.
Distraction decreases ability; message repetition increases ability.
Prior knowledge increases ability; time pressure decreases ability.
Message comprehensibility increases ability. •
• 5
Some people just like think about complex things, they enjoy it.
Increases amount. Depends on Argument strength. (same idea as current attitude change).
B. What if “motivation” &/or “ability” are Low?
March 17th 2014
Ather Qureshi o
There are Two “routes” to persuasion.
o
1. Central Route (Scrutinize (examine or inspect closely and thoroughly) message content.
o
Requires high motivation and ability
2. Peripheral Route
Taken when motivation &/or ability are low.
Rely on “peripheral cues” (e.g., heuristics (rule of thumb)) •
o
3. The “Edge” disposable Razor Study:
Manipulated Three things: •
6
E.g., “Experts can be trusted”. “People we like are usually right”. “Length implies strength”.
1. Personal relevance (motivation to think) o
High > Razor will soon be available in their area; will get to use the razor.
o
Low > Razor will only be available in another area, so won’t get to use razor.
•
Note: ability was high for all participants, so
•
High Personal relevance should take central route (scrutinize message contest)
•
Low personal relevance should take peripheral route (rely on peripheral cues).
•
2. Peripheral Cue (source likeability: likeable “celebrities” vs neutral “Californians”. ); o
Low Relevance should agree with likeable celebrities (apply liking heuristic)
o
High Relevance should ignore source cue and focus on quality in the message.
o
With likeable celebrities, low relevance people, apply their likeable heuristic, and they accept the razor message, don’t scrutinize the message, and end up to like the razor.
March 17th 2014
Ather Qureshi o •
o •
3. Message Quality (Strong vs weak arguments; see handouts on OWL).
Attitudes that are formed through the central route have different characteristics.
C. Characteristics of Attitudes: o
o
Peripheral Route: Don’t really think about, just change attitude based on heuristics.
Unstable (easily changed);
Don’t predict future behaviour. •
Heuristics works for quick things. If you want to buy a car, don’t just rely on a simple heuristic (common sense). You would want a stronger argument.
•
Doesn’t really have any behavioural outcomes.
Central Route: You thought about this, understand it, and agree with it to accept or reject it with your current attitude.
Stable (resistant to change);
Good Predictors of Future Behavior. •
7
Doesn’t happen with neural Californians.
Can generate behavioural outcomes.
Ather Qureshi Lecture 2 for Final: Consumer Psychology: The Psychology of Attitude Change 1. Message Learning Approach 2. Cognitive Response Model 3. Elaboration-Likelihood Model Prologue: Attitude change is Big Business •
1. Average person in NA exposed to 1500 persuasive attempts in a single day. o
o •
About half come from advertisements.
Advertisements in Canada, $ 10 billion per year.
In US, it is much more. (GM is $ 3 billion per year in US, only one company!)
Designed to influence attitudes.
2. Defining Attitudes: An evaluative response toward an object or issue )(expresses favor or disfavor) o
Three types of evaluative response
Behavioural (approach/avoid; buy/not buy)
Affective Response (emotional responses – love, hate, like)
Cognitive (evaluative beliefs – “I believe…”) •
o
Beliefs that express favor or disfavor.
Q: How can we change people’s Attitudes?
Part 1: The Message Learning Approach (Hovland and the “Yale Group”) •
In order to be persuaded, the learner must learn the message.
•
A. Four Sequential stages of message learning: o
1. Attention (must notice the message)
o
2. Comprehension (understand the content of the message)
o
3. Yielding (accept conclusions of message)
1
Do I agree with this? Critical stage.
March 17th 2014
Ather Qureshi o •
4. Retention (remember message and attitude)
B. Attitude Change (message leaning) is not easy! o
E.g. If we’re 80% successful with 100 people
o
80 people will attend to message (100 x 0.8)
o
64 will comprehend the message (80 x 0.8)
o
51 will yield to conclusions (64 x 0.8)
o
41 will retain new attitude (51 x 0.8)
o
[only 33 people will act on their new attitude! 41 x 0.8]
o
•
The Miller Lite beer commercials (“tastes great”, “Less filling”).
Featured famous athletes. Target audience guys who watch sports and drink beer)
Easy phrase to comprehend. It doesn’t compete with other beers in its aid, so it’s likely to be yielded. Easy to remember (retention).
Yale group says:
Message learning depends on “Who says what to whom”.
Depends on characteristics of the Source (who), message (what), and recipients (whom).
Experimenter would manipulate a characteristic, and see outcome of message learning.
D. Research on “Yielding” (attitude change). o
Critical stage is the yielding stage. 100 of studies have been done.
o
Inconsistent results! E.g., what makes a source persuasive and make us yield?
2
33% success rate isn’t bad if you’re talking to large number of people. (let’s say a million people)
C. Factors that influence message learning o
•
Also known as Attitude change
Source (credibility, expertise, likeability, similarity, attractiveness)
March 17th 2014
Ather Qureshi •
Any of these can Source “traits” can influence Persuasion.
Recipient (E.g., intelligence, moods); •
Inconsistent, intelligent and unintelligent people were both shown to affect yielding. No one way.
•
Moods (happy or sad) both shown to affect yielding. No one way.
Message (E.g. Length, comprehensibility). •
Shorter messages are more effective than longer messages.
•
Comprehensibility was shown to have a positive and negative effect on yield.
1977: Conclusion on factors on Yielding. •
“There is reigning confusion in this area”.
•
Need for a more theoretical and radical approach to figure this out.
Part 2: Greenwald’s Cognitive Response Model •
Before we get to stage 3, we need to attend to and comprehend the message. o
•
3
However, according to Greenwald’s Cognitive response model, there is something after comprehending the message.
We are thinking about what is being said. We are elaborating on what’s said, “cognitive responses”. There is an internal stream of thought. Actively thinking about what is being said.
According to the Cognitive Response model, that leads to yielding.
Influences direction (Agree or Disagree) and amount (Agreeableness and disfavorness) of attitude change.
INTERLUDE: Measuring Cognitive Responses o
Recipients listen to (or read) message
o
List all of their “thoughts” about message.
o
Thoughts are coded as favorable or unfavorable.
“Message made some good points” Favorable.
“I thought the arguments were stupid” Unfavorable.
March 17th 2014
Ather Qureshi
Note: Can also code thoughts about source: •
“I like the source”. Favorable
•
“That guy makes me sick”. Unfavorable. o
o
A. Factors that influence the direction (favorability) of cognitive responses.
1. Current Attitudes •
If message is pro-attitudinal (consistent with our current attitude), favorable thoughts generated (agree with message); if counter attitudinal, unfavorable thoughts generated (disagree with message).
•
But, doesn’t address attitude change. What happens when we agree with someone that we used to consider counter-attitudinal.
Q: Other factors that influence direction? •
o
Petty & Cacioppo: Argument Quality o
If strong > favorable thoughts > agree
o
If weak > unfavorable thoughts > disagree.
o
Advertisements should focus on argument quality.
B. Factors that influence the amount of cognitive responding.
4
Canadian Tire guy who always shows his new Canadian tire tools to next door neighbor was actually found to be an unfavorable source. They stopped those ads.
1. Distraction •
Decreases (interferes with) cognitive responses, so
•
If there’s a strong argument, we generate fewer favorable thoughts because we are distracted (vs not distracted) and thus, we agree less with the message.
•
If there’s a weak argument, we generate fewer unfavorable thoughts because we are distracted (vs not distracted) and thus, we agree more the message than we should.
March 17th 2014
Ather Qureshi
2. Message Repetition: Increases cognitive responses. (opposite in definition and effect than Distraction, when you repeat things, distractedness loses it’s effectiveness and you still get the message) •
If arguments are strong, more favorable thoughts generated > Agree more with message when repeated (vs not repeated).
•
If arguments are weak, more unfavorable thoughts generated > Agree less with message when its repeated vs not repeated).
3. Personal Involvement (relevance) increase cognitive responses (we’ll think more about messages that are personally relevant or important).
Part 3: The Elaboration Likelihood Model (Petty & Cacioppo) •
A. Factors that Determine message elaboration (amount of thought): o
1. Motivation: To think about the message: e.g.,
Message is personally relevant;
Being personally responsible for evaluating the message.
•
Reduces Social Loafing
•
It affects their life.
Individual differences in “need for cognition” (highs enjoy complex thought, lows don’t). •
o
Motivation is necessary for message elaboration, but it’s not sufficient. Person must also have…
2. Ability: To think about message.
Distraction decreases ability; message repetition increases ability.
Prior knowledge increases ability; time pressure decreases ability.
Message comprehensibility increases ability. •
• 5
Some people just like think about complex things, they enjoy it.
Increases amount. Depends on Argument strength. (same idea as current attitude change).
B. What if “motivation” &/or “ability” are Low?
March 17th 2014
Ather Qureshi o
There are Two “routes” to persuasion.
o
1. Central Route (Scrutinize (examine or inspect closely and thoroughly) message content.
o
Requires high motivation and ability
2. Peripheral Route
Taken when motivation &/or ability are low.
Rely on “peripheral cues” (e.g., heuristics (rule of thumb)) •
o
3. The “Edge” disposable Razor Study:
Manipulated Three things: •
6
E.g., “Experts can be trusted”. “People we like are usually right”. “Length implies strength”.
1. Personal relevance (motivation to think) o
High > Razor will soon be available in their area; will get to use the razor.
o
Low > Razor will only be available in another area, so won’t get to use razor.
•
Note: ability was high for all participants, so
•
High Personal relevance should take central route (scrutinize message contest)
•
Low personal relevance should take peripheral route (rely on peripheral cues).
•
2. Peripheral Cue (source likeability: likeable “celebrities” vs neutral “Californians”. ); o
Low Relevance should agree with likeable celebrities (apply liking heuristic)
o
High Relevance should ignore source cue and focus on quality in the message.
o
With likeable celebrities, low relevance people, apply their likeable heuristic, and they accept the razor message, don’t scrutinize the message, and end up to like the razor.
March 17th 2014
Ather Qureshi o •
o •
3. Message Quality (Strong vs weak arguments; see handouts on OWL).
Attitudes that are formed through the central route have different characteristics.
C. Characteristics of Attitudes: o
o
Peripheral Route: Don’t really think about, just change attitude based on heuristics.
Unstable (easily changed);
Don’t predict future behaviour. •
Heuristics works for quick things. If you want to buy a car, don’t just rely on a simple heuristic (common sense). You would want a stronger argument.
•
Doesn’t really have any behavioural outcomes.
Central Route: You thought about this, understand it, and agree with it to accept or reject it with your current attitude.
Stable (resistant to change);
Good Predictors of Future Behavior. •
7
Doesn’t happen with neural Californians.
Can generate behavioural outcomes.
