Chapter 1
Definitions have fuzzy edges (application of the concept is arguable).
It is possible to clarify a concept without having to be committed to a sharp-edged definition of
the concept. > By focusing on the shared features of paradigm cases of the concept.
Paradigm cases of a concept: instances that nearly everyone would agree were instances of the
concept.
Persuader
Persuadee: the one who is persuaded
Features of paradigm cases of persuasion:
1. When we say that one person persuaded another, we identify a successful attempt to
influence. (Success is embedded in the concept of persuasion)
2. In paradigm cases of persuasion, the persuader intends to influence the persuadee.
3. Measure of freedom (free will, free choice, voluntary act) on the persuadee’s part.
4. The effects are achieved through communication (and perhaps especially by language)
5. Involve a change in the mental state of the persuadee.
Thus even when a persuader’s aim is to influence what people do (what products they buy), at
least in paradigm cases of persuasion that aim is accomplished by changing what people think
(what they think of the product).
Definition of persuasion: a successful intentional effort at influencing another’s mental state
through communication in a circumstance in which the persuadee has some measure of
freedom.
Attitude: an evaluative judgment of (reaction to) an object.
Attitude is the most involved mental state in persuasion. Attitudes represent stable evaluations
that can influence behaviour, they are a common persuasive target.
Attitudes are important for persuasion.
Explicit measures
Simple, straightforward, easy to administer, easy to construct. But: it is just an estimate
(schatting) of the attitude. Achterliggende redenen komen niet aan bod.
- Semantic differential evaluative scales
Respondends rate the attitude object on a number of 7-point bipolar scales that are end-
anchored by evaluative adjective pairs (good-bad, positive-negative)
- Single-item attitude measures
A single questionnaire item that asks for the relevant judgment (extremely favourable –
extremely unfavourable). Potentially weak reliability. A person response to a single
attitude question may be not as good as the response on 3 or 4 items all getting the same
thing.
(e.g. public opinion surveys)
,Quasi-explicit measures
Provide more information. But: may take more time to administer.
- Paired comparison
The respondent is asked a series of questions about the relative evaluation of each of a
number of pairs of object.
- Thurstone & Likert
The respondents attitude is derived from agreement or disagreement with statements
that are rather obviously attitude-relevant.
*Thurstone: a list of statements and asked to check the ones with which they agree
*Likert: The strength of agreement is assessed through some appropriate scale (e.g. this
bank is reliable, +3 strongly agree tm -3 strongly disagree)
It is important to select statements that help containing the right information. If you want to
learn about attitudes towards the United Nations, ‘’baseball is better than football’’ is not a good
statement.
Ranking techniques can give information about a large number of attitudes and provide insight
about comparative evaluations.
Implicit measures
Attitudes are being assessed. Most attractive in circumstances in which one fears respondents
may distort (verdraaien) their true attitudes.
- Autonomic responses (e.g. heart rate)
- Measures of brain activity
- Priming measures (examining the speed with which people make evaluate judgments
when those judgments are preceded by the attitude object)
- Implicit association test (attitudes are assessed by examining the strength of association
between attitude objects and evaluative categories)
- Etc.
Attitude en gedrag staan met elkaar in verband. Changing a person’s behaviour.. change that
person’s attitude.
Moderating factors of attitudes and behaviour consistency:
- The degree to which the behaviour is effortful or difficult
- The perceived relevance of the attitude to the behaviour
- Attitude accessibility
- Attitudinal ambivalence (tegenstrijdigheid)
- Having a vested interest in a position
- The extent of attitude-relevant knowledge
- Etc.
Correspondence of measures
One factor that influences the observed consistency between an attitudinal measure and a
behavioural measure is the nature of the measures involved.
Attitudinal measures and behavioural measures are likely to be rather more strongly associated
when there is a substantial correspondence between the two measures and underscore the
foolishness of supposing that a single specific behaviour will necessarily or typically be strongly
associated with a person’s general attitude.
,Direct experience
A second factor influencing attitude-behaviour consistency is the degree of direct experience
with the attitude object. Attitudes base on direct behavioural experience with the attitude object
have been found to be more predictive of later behaviour toward the object than are attitudes
based on indirect experience.
Example: trial experience with a product (direct experience) – exposure to advertising messages
about a product (indirect experience)
But direct experience strengthens both positive and negative attitudes.
(Als je iets slechts over een voedings product hebt gelezen, zal je het eerder kopen dan wanneer
je al hebt geproefd dat het niet lekker is.)
Encouraging attitude-consistent behaviour
Sometimes a persuaders challenge is not to changes a person’s attitude but to get that person to
act on their attitude.
- Enhance perceived relevance
Encourage people to see their attitudes as relevant to their behavioural choices (control
condition vs. experimental condition)
‘’You might not have realized it, but this really is an opportunity to act consistently with
your attitude’’
- Induce feelings of hypocrisy
When persons have been hypocritical, one way of encouraging attitude-consistent
behaviour can be to draw person’s attention to the hypocrisy. Leads people to recognize
their hypocrisy.
‘’You haven’t been acting consistently with your attitude, but here is an opportunity to do
so’’
- Encourage anticipation of feelings
Invite people to consider how they feel if they fail to act consistently with their attitudes
(regret and guilt).
‘’Here is an opportunity to act consistently with you attitude – and you think how bad
you will feel if you don’t.’’
Attitudes are not the only possible focus for persuasive efforts.
- Sometimes the focus of a persuasive effort will be some determinant of attitude, such as
a particular belief about the attitude product (e.g. that a product is environmentally
friendly)
- Sometimes persuaders want to influence some property of an attitude other than its
valence (negative or positive) and extremity > bijv: the salience (prominence,
accessibility), the confidence with which it is held or how it is linked to other attitudes.
(e.g. people already like a product the persuasive task is to ensure that those attitudes
are salient (activated) at the right time, for example reminding people of their attitudes)
Attitude strength a mixture of:
- Persistence – stronger attitudes are more persistence than weaker ones
- Resistance – stronger attitudes are more resistant to changes
- Impact on information processing and judgments – stronger attitudes are more likely to
affect such processes
- Impact on behaviour – stronger attitudes will have more effect on behaviour
Attitude change will often, but not always, be a persuaders goal.
, Chapter 2: Social Judgment Theory (SJT)
The central tenet of social judgment theory is that messages produce attitude change through
judgmental processes and effects. More specifically, the claim is that the effect of a persuasive
communication depends upon the way in which the receiver evaluates the position it advocates.
Attitude change is seen as a two-step process: the receiver makes an assessment (beoordeling)
of what position is being advocated by the message, the attitude change occurs after this
judgment—with the amount and direction of change dependent on the judgment.
❖ Judgments of Alternative Positions on an Issue A person’s reaction to a persuasive message
depends on the person’s judgment of the position being advocated, then it is important to be
able to access persons’ judgments of the various possible options.
The Ordered Alternatives Questionnaire
Provides the respondent with a set of statements, each representing a different point of view in
the issue being studied. Arranged in order from one extreme to the other > ordered
alternatives.
The respondent is asked to indicate the statements that are acceptable or unacceptable, some
can be neither. These responses are said to form the person’s judgmental latitudes on that issue.
The range of positions that the respondent finds acceptable form the respondent’s latitude of
acceptance, unacceptable > the latitude of rejection and neither accepts or reject > the
latitude of noncommitment. SJT proposes that the structure of the judgmental latitudes
systematically varies depending on one’s level of ego-involvement with the issue.
Latitude = breedtegraad
The Concept of Ego-Involvement
A person might be said to be ego-involved when the issue has personal significance to the
individual, when the person’s stand on the issue is central to his or her sense of self, when the
issue is important to the person, when the person takes a strong stand on the issue etc. SJT does
suggest that ego-involvement and position extremity will be empirically related, however, such
that those with more extreme positions on an issue will tend to be more ego-involved in that
issue.
Ego-Involvement and the Latitudes
The claim is that as one’s level of ego-involvement increases, the size of the latitude of rejection
will also increase and the sizes of the latitudes of acceptance and noncommitment will decrease.
Measures of Ego-Involvement
Several different techniques have been devised for assessing ego-involvement, examples:
- Size of the Ordered Alternatives Latitude of Rejection: latitude of rejection increase,
latitude of acceptance and noncommitment decrease. Latitude of noncommitment
shrinks more than the latitude of acceptance. This regularity has sometimes led to the
suggestion that the size of the latitude of noncommitment might serve as a measure of
ego-involvement, but the size of the latitude of rejection is the far more frequently
studied index.
- Own Categories Procedure: participants are presented with a large number of
statements (60 or more) on the topic and asked to sort statements into however many
categories they think necessary to represent the range of positions on the issue. Highly
involved participants > fewer categories. The fewer categories created, the greater the
degree of ego-involvement.
