Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
2018/7/18
1
Persuasion
Introduction to Communication Studies
(July 13, 2018)
Q1. Persuasion Competence?
¤ Self-Persuasion������
¤ As a persuader�Ability to make others accept your own ideas and engage in behaviors you expect, without damaging interpersonal relations.
¤ As a persuadee�Ability to accept others’ messages without biases.
Q2. 3 major considerations in Persuasion Design
¤Target Demographics
¤Target Process (Design)
¤Appeal
Q3. Definitions of Persuasion
¤Human communication designed to influence others by modifying their beliefs,values, or attitudes (Simons, 1976, p.21)
¤Any message that is intended to shape, reinforce, or change the responses of another, or others” (Miller, 1980)
4
2018/7/18
2
Q3. “Attitude Change”
pThe major target of persuasion
pPersuasion is ordinary conceived of as involving influencing others by influencing their mental states (= attitude) rather than by somehow influencing their conduct directly
p The aim is to change what people think (and then what they do)
5
Q4. What is influenced?
¤Belief
¤Attitude
¤Behavior
6
Q3. What is the real target of persuasion?
¤Attitude Change!
¤Attitude – Behavior – Consistency (ABC)
7
Q5. Three Dimensions of Persuasion Process
� Response Shaping Process� Response Reinforcing Process� Response Changing Process
8
2018/7/18
3
Q6. Motivation & Persuasion
¤Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs��������
¤Among unfulfilled needs, the lowest need functions as the motivation
Q7.What is persuasive communication？～3 influences～
• Interpersonal Influence（対人的影響）– Compliance Gaining Strategies
• Social Influence（社会的影響）
• Argumentation（論証）
Process in whichpeople comply
Process in whichPeople are convinced
Interpersonal Influence
① Sequential Request Strategies（段階的要請法）
– Foot-in-the-Door– Door-in-the-Face– Low-ball Techniques
(Freedman and Fraser, 1966)
2018/7/18
4
Foot-in-the-Door
���������� �������������� �
Foot-in-the-Door
������ ����� ������
30 min later ����
Door-in-the-Face
� ������������
������������������
����
Door-in-the-Face
������������
����������� ��
2018/7/18
5
Low-Ball Technique
�������������
��!����! �� ������ ��"
Low-Ball Technique
�� ������������
�������������
Q8. Interpersonal Influence ②
• Cialdini’s 6 Compliance Gaining Strategies
– Reciprocity (返報性)
– Commitment and Consistency (コミットメントと一貫性)
– Social Proof (社会的承認)
– Liking (好意)
– Authority (権威)
– Scarcity (希少性)
(Cialdini, 1993)
Interpersonal Influence ②• Marwell & Schmitt’s 16 Compliance Gaining
Strategies– Promise 約束– Threat 脅迫– Experience of positive consequences 好結果に関する経験– Experience of negative consequences 悪い結果に関する経験– Liking 好感– 事前の厚意– 制裁– 過去の借り– 道徳観– 満足度／不満足度の示唆– プラス／マイナスのロール・モデル– 懇願– 好人物評価／不良人物評価の示唆
2018/7/18
6
3. Social Psychology of Persuasion (Q9)
¤Social psychology of attitude/behavioral change (Social Influence)
¤Study “how people change their attitudes and behaviors” in terms of human psychology and social psychology.
Q10. Social Psychology of Persuasion
¤ Theory of Reasoned Action���� ���
¤ Theories of Cognitive Consistency（認知的一貫性理論群）¤ Theories of Cognitive Dissonance�����������
¤ Inoculation Theory（接種理論）¤ Social Judgment Theory�������
¤ Elaboration Likelihood Model（精緻可能性理論）¤ Fear Appeal Models���������
TRA
Attitude
Subjective Norm
Behavioral Intention Behavior
BI = (AB)w1 + (SN)w2
Belief Strength
Belief Evaluation
Normative Belief
Motivation to Comply
Central Route Peripheral Route
(Message Elaboration) (No Message Elaboration)
HIGH MENTAL EFFORT LOW
Persuasive Communication
MOTIVATED TO PROCESS?Personal Relevance / Need for Cognition
ABLE TO PROCESS?Free from distraction / Sufficient knowledge
TYPE OF COGNITIVE PROCESSINGArgument Quality / Initial Attitude
STRONG POSITIVE ATTITUDE CHANGE
Enduring, resisting, predicts behavior
STRONG NEGATIVE ATTITUDE CHANGE
Enduring, resisting, predicts behavior
WEAK ATTITUDE CHANGE
Temporary, vulnerable, does not predict behavior
NO Change
Yes
Yes
Favorable Case Unfavorable CaseNeutral Case
PERIPHERAL CUES
Speaker credibility, Reaction of others, External rewards
No
No
NoYes
ELM
2018/7/18
7
Cog Diss Theory
Amount of Incentive
Am
ount of Dissonance
When a person (is forced/induced) to comply (Counter Attitudinal Action)
�������� ��������������������������
Fear Appeal
Perceived Severity
Perceived Efficacy
Perceived Susceptibility
Protection Motivation
Message Acceptance
¤ Cognitive Dissonance Theory (Hieder)
¤ Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM)
Q. 11 Cognitive Consistency Theories(��������)
2018/7/18
8
$���. (Q.11)
(1) ���+,��&��-����(���(People have a need for cognitive consistency)
(2) �+,�!'&����������*��!3��/�� (When cognitive inconsistency exists, people experience psychological discomfort)
(3) �*��!3/�����)0���+,��&��#�2��� �%� "���1 (Psychological discomfort motivatespeople to resolve the inconsistency and restore cognitive balance.)
Q11 Presumptions of Cognitive Dissonance Theories
(1) Incongruence/Imbalance among knowledge, thoughts, attitudes, and/or behaviors gives us discomfort.
(2) When feeling discomfort/anxiety, we feel urge to reduce the anxiety.
(3) One way to reduce the discomfort/anxiety is to change our own attitudes/behaviors (p.129)
Persuasive Skill�
Creation of Cognitive Dissonance → Self Persuasion
Balance Theory (Q.12)(Heider, 1946, 1958)
¤ Cognitive Unit¤ P: perceiver / reference person ¤ O: other person¤ X: impersonal entity/thing
¤ Sentiment relation (Attitude)¤ Positive/Like¤ Negative/Dislike
POX Relationship
( P ) Jason
Kathy ( O ) ( X ) Smoking
2018/7/18
9
Balanced Cognitive TriadsP
O X
P
O X
P
O X
P
O X
Imbalanced Cognitive TriadsP
O X
P
O X
P
O X
P
O X
!�����%������ (Q.11)
¤Attitude Change�&�$��
¤Denial�*��
¤Differentiation����
(")#p.131 �������&�$���'����� (��
Attitude Change¤Changing the p-o or p-x relations
2018/7/18
10
Attitude Change( P ) Jason
Kathy ( O ) ( X ) Smoking
Initial Imbalanced Situation
Attitude Change ( P ) J
K ( O ) ( X ) S
( P ) J
K ( O ) ( X ) S
��¤changing the o-x relation (belief
distortion)
Denial( P ) Jason
Kathy ( O ) ( X ) Smoking
Initial Imbalanced Situation
Denial( P ) J
K ( O ) ( X ) S
��¤balancing the whole units by
differentiating aspects of o or x and holding different attitudes toward different aspects
2018/7/18
11
Differentiation( P ) Jason
Kathy ( O ) ( X ) Smoking
Initial Imbalanced Situation
Cognitive Differentiation ( P ) J
K’s background ( O ) ( X ) SK’s personal attribute ( O )
�����Attitude Extremity and InequalityP
O X
+3 +3
Incongruity = 6
P
O X
+1 +3
Incongruity = 4P
O X
+3 +1
Incongruity = 4
ELMQ14 (Elaboration Likelihood Model)
Petty & Cacioppo (1986) I. Alternative Paths to Persuasion
¤Two basic routes for persuasion: ¤Central Route��������¤Peripheral Route������
2018/7/18
12
Factors influencing the process���!�� �����
<Central Route>¤ Motivation for elaboration ����¤ Ability for elaboration ����¤ Type of elaboration ��#������¤ Elaborated Messages types ��� ������
<Peripheral Route>¤ Peripheral cues �����"���
Factors influencing the process�!%��#��"���� �
<Central Route>
¤ Motivation for elaboration ������¤ Ability for elaboration �!%����¤ Type of elaboration �!%�� ��¤ Elaborated Messages types ������� ��
<Peripheral Route>
¤ Peripheral cues �����$��
Six Cues in PR (Peripheral Route)(CIaldini, 1988)
¤ Reciprocation����¤ “You owe me”
¤ Consistency����¤ “We’ve always done it that way”
¤ Social Proof�������¤ “Everybody’s doing it”
¤ Liking� ��¤ “Love me, love my ideas.”
¤ Authority���¤ “Just because I say so.”
¤ Scarcity����¤ “Quick, before they’re all gone.”
Persuasive Communication
Yes
Yes
Favorable Case Unfavorable CaseNeutral Case
No
No
NoYes
ELM
2018/7/18
13
Other Cues
¤ Rewards���
¤ Source credibility��������¤ Likability & Expertise¤ Salient for those unmotivated or unable to elaborate
¤ Endorsements for highly popular or respected public figures
Implication
¤ Attitude Change������¤ Peripheral route change can be either
positive or negative, but it won’t have the impact of message elaboration
¤ The attitude change won’t last long, stand up to attack, or affect their behavior.
