cmn152-Final Review

cmn152-Final Review - NotehaJl CMN 152 EXAM 3 REVIEW LIST...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–11. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 2
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 4
Background image of page 5

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 6
Background image of page 7

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 8
Background image of page 9

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 10
Background image of page 11
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: NotehaJl CMN 152 EXAM 3 REVIEW LIST DUAL PROCESSING MODELS Cognitive response model 0 The thought—listing task is a method for assessment. 0 Messages that prompt favorable target— generated thoughts should be persuasive 0 Messages that prompt target-generated thoughts should be unpersuasive What are cognitive responses? 0 Cognitions generated in response to persuasive messages determine both the direction and magnitude of attitude change (valence & number of thoughts) 0 People actively relate information contained in a persuasive message to their existing feelings and beliefs about the message Factors that impact the favorability and magnitude of responses Message Featurea PreIeI-ninant Valenee Duteurne Strung «- Ferauaaien Weak . NF Pm- [oonnintenfl «- Persuaainn can. [ineunaiatantJ - NP Role of enhanced thought 0 The more cognitive responses the stronger the outcome will be. Langer’s study 0 In the study confederates attempt to cut in a line of people by requesting in 4 different ways Size of Request [# of copies} Small Lame Real Real: “lira double- lleaaan H i!“ H i!“ parked- cdlflplialvbe compliance _ . Fla-ache: “Can I cut In line because I want ta eat in line“ Placehic High Low compliance Gemplianee Depetlant Variable: compliance Mindful 0 Mindful (effortful system) Mindless 0 Mindlessness (less effortful system by which people process information) NotehaJl Elaboration likelihood model (ELM): a model that explains different the two different ways in which we process information. One route dominates over the other. 0 Central: characterized by comprehensive issue—relevant thinking 0 Peripheral: characterized by the use of simple judgment rules Heuristic systematic model (HSM): a model that explains different the two different ways in which we process information. Explains how the two routes affect each other. 0 Systematic: route characterized by comprehensive issue-relevant thinking 0 Heuristic: route characterized by the use of simple judgment rules Elaboration High Low central Feri ph-e ral Simple judgment rule: 0 The employment of heuristic cues such as: credibility, liking, consensus, and superficial message characteristics instead of cognitive elaboration. Elaboration: Thinking Factors that influence elaboration: o Involvement: extent to which a behavior or message advocated directly affects the receiver 0 Need for cognition: individual variability (enjoyment of effortful thinking) 0 Multiple sources with multiple arguments Ability Abilifl High Low Distraction - Low ngh Elaboration Elaboration Prior Knowledge High Low Elflbflratiqn Elaboration 0 Distraction 0 Prior knowledge Motivation NotehaJl Hativatian High Law I lure-Ive men'l: High Elaboratidn Elaboration Need For cognition Hi!“ Lflw Elflbflratifin Elaboration Multiple Sources? High m ulti Ele Elaboration uggnizatiu-na 0 Involvement 0 Need for cognition 0 Multiple sources with multiple arguments: must be multiple sources with distinct arguments Abil itwhlutivatiull f\ Yea Nu- Definitive Hesperus-e R A “w High \ 51M“! Weak ‘ i | NP _ Persuasi-un HI!- Ill“‘3rllil-Iiillil'|:lll Nature of persuasion based on route to persuasion: 0 high elaboration the resulting attitude depends upon whether the person has predominantly favorable or unfavorable thoughts about the advocated position 0 Changes in attitude that result mostly from central/ systematic processing will show greater temporal persistence, greater prediction of behavior, greater resistance to counter-persuasion Difference between models 0 According to ELM, one route tends to be dominant 0 HSM makes specific predictions on how the two routes impact each other (guided by the sufficiency principle) 0 Sufficiency principle Sufficiency principle: NotehaJl 0 not part of ELM, but is unique to HSM 0 People are motivated to produce accurate judgments 0 People will exert what ever effort required to attain an adequate degree of confidence that they have obtained their processing goals 0 People may desire greater levels of confidence in some situation than others 0 Discrepancy between actual and desired levels of confidence determine how much additional processing will occur “w Actual Desired Hi!“ | o o I l—l J mlgment Confidence Actual = Desired then no additional processing Desired > Actual then additional amount of processing corresponds to discrepancy Desired < Actual then no additional processing (additional processing: cue AND cognitive response) Additivity effects 0 Occurs when you have message strength ambiguity 0 Independent Variables: Source Credibility 0 Message Variable: argument ambiguity and strength 0 Task importance 0 Only affects high elaborators 0 Important attributes: strong arguments 0 Unimportant attributes: weak arguments Low Maturation One N? Cue P Weak Cue up We 9 strong Cue NP Gm: P killing-nun I." can High a... High Elaboration Cog. Resp-um Nil col. Response NP weak 309- I"E1lli"|’|""¢ ’ 593' Raw“ F 5‘“ CPI—5C“! NF CR)” p Law One "‘9'" c“: "Braces mm to deal with doubt. Interaction effects 0 Independent variables: consensus cue, task importance (ability or motivation variable), cue/message congruence 0 Findings: Incongruence enhances processing. 0 In situation of low importance participants with incongruent messages processed at levels similar to high importance participants NotehaJl 0 In conditions of congruence however, low importance participants were influenced by the consensus cue. 0 incongruence increases discrepancy between actual and desired confidence Terms that mean the same thing... System 1 [processing system] Stiller“ 2 Apply simple judgment rule Cognitive responsive mellel associateive, habit based Bfi'fl-rtl‘I-Il. rule-base Langer: mindless minlll'nl ELH: peripheral ELIII: central High levels of elaboration Lflw level!- d-f elaboration HSIII: heuristic H5lil: systematic SOURCE CHARATERISTICS Credibility 0 Judgment made by message recipient concerning the believability of message source 0 Expertise: dimension of credibility 0 Trustworthiness: dimension of credibility Factors impacting credibility souroe credibility } l Liking % trustworthiness K ) Persuasion exp erti se training dissimilarity has a + K eflect on expertise Attitude Similarity Training Similarity “What is the relationship between liking and persuasion? Tru stworthiness PA = physical attractiveness Impact of Credibility 0 The more involved a receiver is with the issue in the message the less credibility matters The position of the source can impact the direction of credibility's effects High credibility is more persuasive with a counterattitudinal message Low credibility is more persuasive with a proattitudinal message Identifying the source after the message minimizes the effect of credibility Liking NotehaJl Efl- Int. 55" Motivation $2 "0 change More Posi‘ive aflitude High likeability Of researcher Low likeability of No change Most positive attitude researcher change Effects of liking 0 Generally, liked sources are more influential than disliked 0 The effects of liking can be overridden by credibility 0 When issue—involvement is low liking has greater influence 0 Disliked sources can be more effective than liked sources Similarity No overarching generalization of the impact of similarity on persuasiveness How similarity affects persuasion 0 Similarity impacts persuasiveness indirectly 0 Perceived attitudinal similarity is associated with greater liking of the source 0 Perceived similarity can impact judgments of expertise 0 Perceived similarity can impact judgments of trustworthiness Sourceffieciever Similarity Expertise high trainingflow training low high high traihihgi’hightraihirtg high low low trainingflow training high low Attractiveness 0 Physical attractiveness influences persuasion through its effect on liking for the source 0 Effects of physical attractiveness on persuasion are limited to low-involvement topics How attractiveness affects persuasion 0 There is no overarching generalization of the impact of physical attractiveness on persuasiveness MESSAGE FEATURES Implicit conclusion: author provides premises and the target must derive the resulting conclusion independently Explicit conclusion: author provides premises and states the resulting conclusion Why might implicit/explicit conclusions be more effective? 0 Explicit: Receivers are less likely to misunderstand the point of a message 0 Implicit: Receivers may be more persuaded because they reached the conclusion on their own Which conclusion type is more effective? 0 Explicit; independent of target intelligence The role of intelligence on the effectiveness of explicit versus implicit conclusions NotehaJl One-sided versus two-sided messages 0 One—sided messages present arguments in favor of advocated position 0 Two—sided messages present arguments in favor/against an advocated position 0 Types of two sided messages Non refutational: Opposing arguments are mentioned but not argued against Refutational: Opposing arguments are presented and shown to be inferior to the position advocated When considering message sidedness, which message type is most effective? 0 Two-sided refutational messages are more effective than one-sided messages 0 Two—sided non—refutational messages are usually less effective than one-sided Evidence: information provided to support a message argument Three conditions for the effective use of evidence 0 Targets are aware that evidence is being presented 0 Targets must cognitively process the evidence 0 Targets must evaluate the evidence as legitimate Evidence versus no evidence 0 Overall, targets are more persuaded by messages with evidence than messages without evidence Types of evidence 0 Narratives: describe a specific instance or a case study 0 Statistics: provide a numerical summary of a large number of cases Evidence type and persuasion 0 There are inconsistent findings 0 Messages that employ both types of evidence are more persuasive than messages that use only one type of evidence Motivational appeals 0 Message irrelevant affect: is affect that bears no logical relevance to the message content 0 Message relevant affect: occurs due to the message content (message induced) Affect Moods: are independent of context, longer lasting and less intent Emotions (3 components) 0 Physiological change 0 Cognitive Appraisal 0 Action Tendency "m5 V3 Emuti-unn lmlenendant In! content tied to content Ina minus-iii: more [nasal-mama lawyer Ilmatinn all-Hm Malian Fear appeals NotehaJl 0 Fear is aroused when some stimulus/situation is perceived as threatening to the self and out of one’s control 0 Can be innate (i.e. fear of snakes) or learned (i.e. fear of exams) Nature of fear: in general, greater fear is associated with attitude and behavior change Fear’s action tendency: is to escape from the threatening stimulus/situation Fear and attitude change Persuasion Persuaalafl Low FEAR High LOW FEAR High "Linear Relatianahip “Makes intuitive “use unnamed by data but is net sup-panel by data What makes a fear appeal 0 Some define a fear appeal as a message that contains graphic message content 0 Others define a fear appeal as a message that arouses fear or anxiety in message targets Extended Parallel Process Model (EPPM) 0 Danger control: Danger control is associated with constructive and problem solving approaches to fearful situations 0 Fear control: Fear control is associated with denial or panic concerning the fearful situation 0 Response efficacy: belief that a recommended solution to the fearful situation will be effective 0 Self efficacy: belief that one can effectively perform the recommended behavior Model predictions 0 When exposed to a fear appeal the receiver can take part in either danger control or fear control 0 People who have high perceptions of both response and self efficacy will take part in danger control 0 Those low in either (or both) types of efficacy will take part in fear control Guilt 0 an unpleasant emotional state associated with possible objections to a person’s actions, inactions, circumstances or intention; unpleasant arousal similar to anxiety 0 The manner by which people reduce negative affect can be unrelated to the stimulus that produced the negative affect (people want to make up for what they have done) Guilt’s action tendency: guilt reduction Guilt as an influence tactic: 0 Boster et al. employed positive self-feeling messages to influence people experiencing guilt NotehaJl Negative State Relief Model (NSR) 0 Negative State Relief Model (N SR) 0 People are motivated to reduce negative affect Anticipated guilt 0 Anticipated feelings can shape behavioral choices 0 Targets avoid taking part in behaviors that would make them feel negative affect Direct request versus positive self feeling message Hg 1I'ES Message TYPE Positive Self- Feeling III-ere effective than Ilireet request. Here effective in lilth “fillies-l: garnering eurnplianee Dependant llirariatile: Complianee DITF and guilt -You force receivers to slam the door in your face by requesting something outrageous which makes them feel bad. sequential request strategy —consists of 2 requests -First request is a set up: the request too large for participant to accept. Your goal is for them to say “no!” -Second request is the target request cemparisen E-reup DITF Initial larger request Target Request Tame: “an” Compliance is higher when there is that initial larger request RESISTANCE Forewarning 0 Two types of forewarning 0 Simply warn people they will hear a persuasive message 0 Warn people by telling them about the topic and position taken in the persuasive message Stimulation of counterarguing 0 Both tactics can induce resistance to persuasion but do so by different processes NotehaJl o Reactance o Stimulation of counterarguing before receiving the message Inoculation: Promoting resistance to persuasion by exposing people to small doses of the opposing View. Inoculation theory was initially testing with cultural truisms Cultural truisms: beliefs in one’s culture that everybody holds and no one attacks Supportive treatments: simply give receivers arguments supporting the truism Refutational treatments: treatments first show receivers a weak argument against the truism and then refutes this argument Two components of refutational treatments (threat and refutational preemption) Supportive versus refutational treatments 0 The refutational treatment is more effective in promoting resistance to persuasion than the supportive treatment 0 The refutational treatment induces resistance to other antitruism arguments 0 The combination of refutational and supportive treatments is more effective than refutational alone Nontruisms Nontruisms and the differential effectiveness of treatment types 0 Little difference in the effectiveness of supportive and refutational treatments 0 Resistance produced by refutational treatments generalizes to novel arguments 0 Messages utilizing both supportive and refutational are more effective than messages with just supportive Psychological reactance 0 We like to preserve our established prerogatives/freedoms 0 Whenever free choice is limited or threatened, the need to retain our freedoms acts as a motivational force 0 When people feel that their freedom to behave or think in a certain way is restricted they experience psychological reactance and attempt to restore their freedom Nature of reactance 0 A form of psychological arousal; motivational state 0 Occurs due to the need for self—determination 0 Desire to restore or demonstrate attitudinal freedom Perceived freedom: perception of self-determination and that you come to your own opinions and conclusions Persuasive attempt can be perceived as a threat to perceived freedom Need for autonomy: nature of reactance is motivated by a need for autonomy Boomerang effect: desire for independence could cause boomerang Restoration of freedoms (or how people reduce reactance) 0 Ignoring the persuasive attempt 0 Derogating the source 0 Embracing the attitude threatened by the recommendation 0 Producing even more of the undesired behavior Things that impact magnitude of reactance o perceived importance of the behavior to the individual NotehaJl o The proportion of free behaviors limited, reactance increases as the proportion of behaviors limited or threatened increases 0 The magnitude of threat of elimination (Proportion of free behaviors limited: number of threats) Magnitude of the threat of elimination: reaction from you not doing requested behavior Forceful language and threat to autonomy: 0 Current research employing reactance theory 0 Most frequently investigated message feature is forceful language 0 Composed of controlling and demeaning language “must, they insult those that don’t do what is demanded 0 Messages with forceful language produce a threat to message recipients, reader’s autonomy 0 Less forceful languages: suggestions, recommendations Reactance measure (anger and negative cognitions) 0 Dillard and Shen measure of reactance is commonly employed 0 Reactance is anger and negative cognitions about the message Rea ctance Low: Moderate: High. -Iittle -moderate number of 41]!“ number m importance small magnitude threats, threata threats we” important -amall magnitude -im portant behavior behavior threateII-ed threat Of ill threatened -threat oi elimination elimination -thr~eat oi that is moderate- -Iarge magnitude elimination that is large but can. be threat of moderate but can be reangticauy elimination [i.e. realistittalliT alleviated or else threat) alleviated ...
View Full Document

Page1 / 11

cmn152-Final Review - NotehaJl CMN 152 EXAM 3 REVIEW LIST...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 11. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online