Class Notes (1,100,000)
CA (620,000)
UTSG (50,000)
PSY (4,000)

PSY320H1 Lecture Notes - Elaboration Likelihood Model, Tooth Brushing, Attitude Change

Course Code
Ashley Waggoner Denton

of 5
PSY320H1F: September 25th, 2012
Chapter 5
Incentives to Change
- Yale Model of Persuasion (Hovland et al.):
Messages could change a persons attitude by presenting an incentive for attitude
The source of the persuasive communication (who)
Participants evaluated articles from sources who are believable and trustworthy
more favourably than articles from low credibility sources
Its content (what)
A message advocating frequent tooth brushing is more effective if it elicit
moderate fear about the effects of failure to brush than if it glorifies sever effects
The audience (to whom)
Processing Stages
- Yale Model of Persuasion (Hovland et al.):
1. Pay attention
2. Comprehension
3. Acceptance (incentives influence attitudes at this stage)
- McGuire (1968):
1. Presentation
2. Attention
3. Comprehension
4. Yielding (changes the persons attitude)
5. Retention (remember their new attitude at a later time)
6. Behaviour (new attitude influence behaviour)
A variable can have different effects on different stages during message processing
Ex. High self-esteem more likely to attend and comprehend, but less likely to
yield self-esteem should produce curvilinear effects on persuasion
Criticism: does not explain how message acceptance would actually emerge
- Cognition-in-Persuasion Model (Albarracin, 2002):
1. Interpretation of the persuasive message and any other information available at the
time (Ex. source characteristics)
2. Recall relevant prior knowledge
3. Identify, select, and use some of the information as the basis to form their final
attitude and subsequent behaviour
Suggests that decreases and motivation and ability affect the chances of identifying
potential information and then selecting information on the basis of its relevance
curvilinear predictions
Unlike earlier models, it notes that message processing can sometimes bypass
earlier stages
Cognitive Responses
- Greenwald (1968):
Persuasion must be understood by considering peoples cognitive responses following
PSY320H1F: September 25th, 2012
a persuasive message
Cognitive responses are a function of the beliefs that people already have, the
communication itself, and other factors outside of the message
Attitude change should be more likely among people who generate positive cognitive
- Acceptance-Yielding-Impact Model (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1981):
Beliefs are the important basis of attitudes
Messages should cause an attitude change when they change the beliefs underlying
the persons attitudes, their evaluations of these beliefs, or both
Not all beliefs are important in determining attitudes; the beliefs that count are
those that are
modally salient
(the ones that most likely come to mind)
Expectancy X Value perspective: belief change can occur by altering either the
expectancies associated with the beliefs or the values associated with them
BUT: hard to change the evaluative components, may be easier to
Yielding: more
of the message position than existed before
Impact: a messages total effect on a person includes effects on beliefs not targeted in
the message
Different Processes: To Think or Not to Think
Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986) & Heuristic-Systematic Model
(HSM; Chaiken et al., 1989): the role of cognitive responses to a message varies across people
and situations
Elaboration Likelihood Model
Heuristic-Systematic Model
- People are motivated to hold correct attitudes
- The amount and nature of issue-relevant
elaboration can vary
- Variables can affect attitudes by serving as
arguments, cues, or factors that affect the nature
and amount of elaboration
- The motivation to process a message objectively
elicits argument scrutiny
- The motivation and ability to process arguments
cause increased use of arguments and lower use
of cues
- Biased processing of a message leads to biased
issue-relevant thoughts
- Elaborate processing of a message causes new,
strong attitudes
- People may desire a correct attitude, a value-expressive
attitude, or an attitude that helps their social image
- Heuristic (retrieval and application of judgmental rules)
vs. systematic (analytic and thorough examination)
- Least effort and sufficiency principles
- Ability hypothesis: heuristic processing requires less
cognitive effort
- Additivity hypothesis: heuristic and systematic can
co-occur and exert independent effects
- Bias hypothesis: heuristic cues may influence attention,
examination, and interpretation of information within
systematic processing
- Attenuation hypothesis: systematic processing will reduce
the use of heuristic processing when their conclusions
- Enhancement hypothesis: inability to perform systematic
processing + high desired level of confidence in their
attitudinal goal use more heuristic processing
- Motivation and ability determine the way people process information
High motivation and ability: strong arguments influence attitudes more powerfully
PSY320H1F: September 25th, 2012
Low motivation and ability: strongly effected by simple cues within the message
- Petty, Cacioppo, & Goldman (1981): implementation of a new comprehension exam
3 manipulated variables:
Personal relevance: next year (high relevance) vs. ten years later (low relevance)
Credibility of the source: Carnegie Commission on Higher Education (high
expertise) vs. a class at a local high school (inexpert source)
Quality of the arguments: strong vs. weak
Prediction: according to ELM, personally relevant = strength of the message,
irrelevant = expertise of the source
Participants asked to rate their attitude toward the comprehensive exams:
High self-relevance:
Students who read the strong argument became more favourable toward
the exam
Source expertise had no impact on attitude
Low self-relevance:
Argument quality had no impact on attitude
The message caused more favourable attitude when it came from an expert
- Priester & Petty (2003): trustworthiness of the communicator roller blades brand ad
Prediction: according to ELM, argument quality should have a greater effect on
recipients attitudes when the message is delivered from a low trustworthy source
due to increased scrutiny
Manipulated variable:
Trustworthiness: Nancy Kerrigan (high trustworthy) vs. Tonya Harding (low
Quality of the arguments: strong vs. weak
Argument quality effect significantly greater when Harding was endorsing
roller blades
Positive correlation between favourability of participants attitudes and
cognitive responses
Greater scrutiny is allocated when the product endorser is low in
- Both propose that biasing factors can affect the nature in which people react (weigh up
the strengths or weakness of the message) to the message content
- Both permit multiple roles for variables in the persuasion context
Differences between ELM and HSM
- Focus on the motivation to attain correct
Alleged effects of social-desirable &
value-expressive attitudes can be explained
by flaws in past studies
- Predicts that people can be motivated to attain a
correct attitude and attitude that is socially
desirable, or an attitude that expresses personal
identity and values
Motives to achieve socially acceptable &
value-expressive attitudes more biased