Textbook Notes (372,187)
CA (164,113)
McMaster (8,941)
PSYCH (1,473)
PSYCH 3CB3 (13)

Textbook Notes.pdf

10 Pages

Course Code
Richard B Day

This preview shows pages 1-2 and half of page 3. Sign up to view the full 10 pages of the document.
Note: I have taken almost every Dr. Day class there is; these notes are based on my understanding of the types of material he typically likes to test under the textbook section. If you look back to our previous midterm posted online, you will notice a trend that every question but one was an experiment from the text and I have highlighted experiments mainly, and starred those experiments with a high likelihood of being tested (look for theory names and experiments). If something is unclear I recommend using the textbook to clarify rather than full reliance on these notes. All the best Chapter 5 Eight main models of attitude persuasion Yale model of persuasion McGuire has 6 stages for successful persuasive messages:  Presentation stage: exposure to message  Attention stage: message must be attended to  Comprehension stage: message must be understood  Yielding stage: changing recipient attitude  Retention stage: remembering new attitude  Behavior stage: new attitude influences behavior  Inverted U-shaped curve for influence of self-esteem on persuasion: Persuasion increases from low to mid esteem and decreases from mid to high esteem Cognition-in-Persuasion model We interpret a message and this interpretation leads us to remember prior knowledge and we use this prior knowledge in accepting/rejecting the message Acceptance-yielding-impact model Based on assumption that beliefs/cognitions influence attitudes. Part of this model known as expectancy X value perspective posits that changing the way we think about some attitude object can change our attitudes. Not all beliefs influence attitudes but rather only modally salient or primacy ones do (i.e. important beliefs) Postulates Elaboration Likelihood Heuristic-Systematic Model Model One Motivation to hold correct attitudesPeople may desire a correct attitude or want social desirability or desire an attitude consistent with values Amount and nature of elaboration Heuristic processing uses rules of Two varies thumb and systematic processing uses analytic thinking Three Variables can serve as arguments Least effort and sufficiency and cues principles. People use only process as much as they need for confidence Motivation to process results in Ability hypothesis: heuristic Four increased scrutiny processing requires less effort Five Increased motivation leads to Additivity hypothesis: heuristic and increased use of arguments but not systematic processing can co-occur cues and act independently Six Biased processing leads to biased Bias hypothesis: heuristic cues can thoughts influence systematic processing Seven High processing causes new, strong Attenuation hypothesis: when arguments heuristic and systematic processing contradict, heuristics are reduced Eight Enhancement hypothesis: use heuristics when unable to perform systematic * Experiment (will probably be tested) The experiment attempted to prove that the less trustworthy the communicator, the greater scrutiny and thought will go into processing the message content. Thus, subjects were either a shown a message from a reliable communicator (Nancy Kerrigan) or an unreliable communicator (Tonya Harding). For each condition, subjects were either exposed to strong or weak arguments for roller blades. The argument quality effect was higher for the unreliable communicator (Tonya Harding) than the reliable communicator; in other words the strength of the argument mattered more when the source/communicator was perceived as untrustworthy. Furthermore, the correlation between favourability of the message and cognitive responses (degree of scrutiny) was higher for the untrustworthy source; this is basically saying that to believe a message more from an untrustworthy source, we need greater scrutiny of the message. (p.101) Four main differences between the ELM and HSM 1. The heuristic systematic model predicts that our ability to be persuaded by a message is determined more by value-expression and social acceptance than it is determined by accuracy. Our desire to hold socially acceptable values biases our thinking of a message in favor of these values. This is known as the multiple-motives hypothesis because multiple motives influence or ability to be persuaded. This is not predicted by the ELM. 2. The ELM discerns between circumstances that elicit the formation of strong versus weak attitudes. Strong attitudes are formed under the central route through cognitive responses and weak attitudes are formed under the peripheral route. Less emphasis of post-attitude strength is seen in the HSM. 3. Low processing in the ELM is influenced by peripheral cues like emotion. In the HSM, these are rules of thumb (“if-then” statements) 4. Personal relevance leads to less use of cues in the ELM (uses central route) but not so for the HSM (both routes are independent and can be used together). In the HSM, when the message is hard to understand, there is a lot of processing but peripheral cues (like the quality of a model’s hair) are also influential. Experiment 2 (* Will probably be tested) Researchers wanted to see the effect of personal relevance on the use of source credibility to form attitude judgments. Subjects were either given a highly relevant message or a message not relevant at all (affecting someone nearby vs. someone far away). The source of the message was either credible or not and the message was either strong, weak or in the middle. The results showed that when the message was highly relevant, subjects were more influenced by the strength of the argument and were not likely to be affected by the credibility of the source. When the message was not relevant, subjects were more influenced credibility but not by the strength of the argument. However, when the message was highly relevant but the message was in the middle (both arguments for and against) then subjects were heavily influenced by the credibility of the source and had more positive thoughts for the highly credible source. Furthermore, in the high relevance condition, the source credibility drove more positive thoughts and an influence independent on thoughts. (p.105) New theory: The meta-cognitive model describes the introduction of a new evaluation of an attitude to the object in addition to the pre-existing old ones or a change in the evaluation of an existing object. This model predicts that when we are told information that is inconsistent with our pre-existing beliefs and we believe this new information and reject the old, that we should see unconscious/implicit ambivalence and conscious/explicit agreement with the new information. An experiment that tested this idea gave opposing descriptions of two individuals (one is good and one is bad) to a subject. Afterwards, the experimenter told the subjects that the descriptions they read were actually reversed (the good guy was bad and the bad guy was good). When tested using implicit measures, ambivalence was seen between the new and old attitudes, even though the old attitudes were clearly wrong and rejected! When tested using explicit measures, correct/new belief was observed. This supports the meta-cognitive model and the idea that when form a new evaluation of an object
More Less
Unlock Document
Subscribers Only

Only pages 1-2 and half of page 3 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

Unlock Document
Subscribers Only
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version

Unlock Document
Subscribers Only

Log In


Don't have an account?

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.