Interesting Material is More Persuasive

05 Friday Oct 2018

Posted by memoirandremains in Persuasion, Psychology, Uncategorized

Tags

Interesting Material, Persuasion, Psychology

I know it seems self evident that interesting material would be more persuasive, but someone went out an proved that point:

P. Karen Murphy and Patricia A. Alexander, “Persuasion as a Dynamic, Multidimensional Process: an Investigation of Individual and Intraindividual Differences,” American Educational Research Journal 41, no. 2 (Summer 2004): 337-63.

Definition of Persausion:

We speak of persuasion as an interactive process through which a given message alters an individual’s perspective by changing the knowledge, beliefs, or interest that underlie that perspective (Miller, 1980). Further a persuasive text is any message “structured to counter the current beliefs of a typical reader as well as to present new ones” by capitalizing on a reader’s existing knowledge and beliefs (Chambliss & Garner, 1996, p. 294). By defining persuasion and a persuasive text in this manner, we avoid casting this critical process in “all or nothing” terms (e.g., Hovland, Janis & Kelley, 1953). That is, we allow for incremental change that does not necessarily result in a radical or complete transformation in understanding or attitude. We also understand persuasion to be a mechanism for encouraging individuals to examine a concept or subject more closely or rom a different perspective. Such a process involves examining evidence that supports or refutes claims and critically weighing arguments (Toulmin, 1958). So defined, persuasion is neither inherently good nor evil, but a catalyst for thinking analytically about messages encountered by individuals (Alexander, Fives, Buehl & Mulhern, 2002; Hynd, 2001).

p. 338

Key elements:

Petty and Cacioppo (19860, among the most influential persuasion researchers, portray the interplay of credibility, emotions, and arguments as the keys to change.

p. 339

Peripheral and Central Route Processing:

According to Petty and Cacioppo’s (1986) Elaboration Likelihood Model, individuals process persuasive messages through two distinct routes: peripheral and central. Individuals who do not attend reflectively or critically to the persuasive arguments presented, but are captivated by the emotions of the situation or the character of the speaker, ravel the peripheral route. In contrast, individuals who weigh the argument thoughtfully and logically, are personally motivated, and cognitively able to attend to the message follow the central route. Although attitudinal change is expected from both paths, those who travel the central route are apt to experience deeper and more permanent effects than those who follow the more peripheral path to persuasion.

p. 339

A more able reader is more likely to be persuaded:

Moreover, it has been determined that individual’s ability to process a given message increases the likelihood that the message will prove persuasive. Consequently, those with greater comprehension skills are more apt to process the content of a persuasive message at a deeper level than those who comprehension skills are marginal or weak (Dole & Sinatra, 1998). Similarly, there is evidence that individuals who are more capable of retrieving relevant beliefs, whether in concert or in opposition to the author, are more likely to process the arguments presented, consequently are more likely to be persuaded (Wood & Kallgren, 1998).

p. 339.
Interesting material is more likely to persuade:

When readers are unable to grasp the meaning or perceive its relevance, they are unlikely to be persuaded.

p. 340

As mentioned previously, features of texts such as their interestingness, comprehensibility, and credibility have been shown to play a significant role in the persuasion process (e.g., Allen, 1991; Dole & Sinatra, 1998).

p. 341

We found that compelling articles, presented to readers in an unmodified state, performed well as catalysts for persuasion. As a result of reading these persuasive magazine articles, participants’ knowledge and interests grew and their beliefs became more like the beliefs advocated by the authors in the texts.

p. 359

Where the reader already has substantial knowledge, he is harder to persuade:

Second, we found that there was an inverse relationship between what individuals believe they know about a topic and the degree of agreement with the author they report after reading. In effect, it may be that too much topic-specific knowledge can be an impediment to change in beliefs.

p. 357

The More You Think, the Harder You are to Persuade

04 Thursday Oct 2018

Posted by memoirandremains in Persuasion, Psychology, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Central Route, ELM, Peripheral Route, Persuasion, Prior Bias, Psychology, Self-Exploration

(Working on a book on persuasion — and how to avoid being manipulated — so I’ll be posting research notes here and there):

Quick summary: The more you know on a subject, the harder you are to persuade. Even a personal with “low bias” (you don’t care much) can become more resistant to persuasion if they are given time and encouraged to consider the matter seriously before they hear the argument.

Also it explains the nature of “peripheral” and “central route” persuasion:

Greg J. Neiymeyer et al., “Changing Personal Beliefs: Effects of Forewarning, Argument Quality, Prior Basis and Personal Exploration,” Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 10, no. 1 (1991): 1-20.

The basic tenant of ELM [Elaboration Likelihood Model] is that attitudes sometimes changes as a function of thoughtful consideration of relevant arguments and sometimes as a result of inferences based on the association of a position with various positive or negative cues (e.g., counselor credibility). According to the model, if the individual is motivated and able to do so, he or she will actively process and elaborate the persuasive appeal, relating to preexisting cognitive schemas and generating issue-relevant beliefs in support of, or opposed to, the advocated position. According to this orientation, persuasion should occur if the individual’s self-generated “cognitive responses” (i.e., thoughts) are predominately favorable, whereas resistance to persuasion should occur if they are primarily unfavorable (Ciadini, Petty & Cacioppo, 1981). In either event, the persuasion is said to have occurred thorugh the central route since it is through careful and diligent processing of the argument’s perceived merits that the individual forms his or her attitude.

In contrast, when individuals are either unmotiviated or are unable to scrutinize the message, their likelihood of actively processing and elaborating it is correspondingly reduced. In this case they may minimize cognitive effort by appealing instead to environmental cues associated with the message (e.g, the source credibility) to determine their attitudes. This peripheral route to persuasion should be more heaviliy utilized when the individual is distracted from listening to the message or relatively uninterested in its content. The fact that attitude change resulting from peripheral processing is less enduring and less predictive of actual behavioral change than what occurs through central route processing …..

Page 2.

The more you know about a subject, the harder you are to persuade:

On the other hand, those individuals with relatively few available thoughts in support of their position are mores susceptible to persuasion.

***

Researchers have long recognized that “one of the most important variables affecting information processing activity is the extent to which a person has an organized structure of knowledge (schema) concerning an issue” (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986, p. 165). In the case of high bias, individuals have well-articulated networks of preexisting proattitudinal attitudes, and it is precisely under these conditions that we would expect robust counterarguing and effective resistance to persuasion (cf., Ross, Lepper & Hubbard, 1975; Taylor & Fiske, 1984). This finding therefore supports the general conclusion that, “the more issue-relevant knowledge people have, the more they tend to be able to counterargue communications opposing their initial positions and to cognitively bolster (proargue) congruent messages” (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986, p. 165).

P. 15

They discovered that a low-bias person (someone with little concern) became more difficult to persuade when they forewarned about the argument that would be made & were given some time to consider the argument for themselves: which the researchers called “self-exploration”. The researchers were studying what would made someone coming into counseling more willing to change. A step in counseling could be ask the counselee to articulate their existing understanding and reasoning. If change is sought, this might make things more difficult, “The effects of reviewing and articulating self-relevant attitudes may be to render them more resistant to subsequent change.” P. 19

How Your Associations Effect the Way Others See You

23 Saturday Jun 2018

Posted by memoirandremains in Persuasion, Psychology, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Cialdini, Narrative, Persuasion

We are known by the company we keep: to be associated with another may raise or lower the opinions of others. Therefore, one important means of persuading others is to be aware of, and manage our connections to others

At the height of his wealth and success, the financier Baron de Rothschild was petition for a loan by an acquaintance. Reputedly the great man replied, “I won’t give you a loan myself; but I will walk arm-in-arm with you across the floor the Stock Exchange, and you will soon have willing lenders to spare.” Apparently the baron was wise in more than matter of finance. He understood and intriguing fact with the psychology of impression management: It is possible to influence how we are viewed by managing information about the people and things to whihc we are merely connected.

Robert B. Cialdini, “Beyond Basking: Indirect Techniques of Image Management,” in Impression Management in the Organization, ed. Robert A. Giacalone and Paul Rosenfeld (Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 1989), 45.

Cialdini then proceeds to offer 8 variations on this theme. First, we may wish to establish either a connection or distance from the “other”. In these four instance, our connection is ambiguous, and thus we are seeking to making the connection — or lack thereof — clear. He labels these mechanisms as

Boasting: Proclaiming a Positive Link to a Favorable Other

Burying: Disclaiming a Positive Link to a Favorable Other

Blaring: Proclaiming a Negative Link to an Unfavorable Other

Blurring: Disclaiming a Negative Link to a Favorable Other

What of circumstances where we are unquestionably united to another, such as a business partner or family member? In these instances, we are not seeking to establish our tie to that person, but rather to effect the way the audience thinks about that person. These techniques he labels as

Burnishing: Enhancing the Favorable Features of a Positively Linked Other

(Our firm is the best!)

Boosting: Minimizing the Unfavorable Features of an Positively Linked Other
(my brother’s not that bad)

Blasting: Exaggerating the Unfavorable Features of Negatively Linked Other
(Yes, he doesn’t like me — but he’s a jerk.)

Belittling: Minimizing the Favorable Features of a Negatively Linked Other
(Sure, he doesn’t like me, but he’s not really that important)

You’re not as smart as the Internet makes you think you are

22 Friday Jun 2018

Posted by memoirandremains in Culture, Persuasion, Psychology, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Book, Internet, Memory, Narrative, Pride, Psychology

hqdefault

Journal of Experimental Psychology
2015, vol. 144, no. 3, 674-687
Matthew Fisher, Mariel K. Goddu, Frank C. Keil
“Searching for Explanations: How the Internet Inflates Estimates of Internal Knowledge”

Human beings can create systems for distributing tasks and information. Families and businesses do this sort of thing: work and information is distributed across all the members of the system. This permits the system to do more than any individual could do alone. Or to quote our authors,

By reducing redundancy, transactive memory systems work to encode, store and retrieve information more effectively than could be done by any individual.

Id., at p. 674. Now, our transactive partner in this memory storage and recall process could be a technological: indeed, the Internet has taken over as perhaps the primary source of information storage.

But the Internet goes far beyond what a spouse or business partner can provide in terms of information: it is always there, always ready, always responsive, nearly instantaneous and provides seemingly inexhaustible resources:

The Internet has been described as a “supernormal stimulus” in that its breadth and immediacy far surpass any naturally occurring transactive partner to which our minds have adapted.

Id. at p. 675. Thus, not surprisingly, the Internet has a profound effect upon how we understand our possession of knowledge. But rather than humbling us, the Internet plays to our pride and causes us to over-evaluate our self-understanding:

And in the case of the Internet, an especially immediate and ubiquitous memory partner, there may be especially large knowledge overestimations. As people underestimate how much they are relying on the Internet, success at finding information on the Internet may be conflated with personally mastered information, leading Internet users to erroneously include knowledge stored outside their own heads as their own.

Id. at p. 675.

The authors of the study note that there may be dangers in this freely accessible information. This unnoticed tendency to overestimate our intellectual abilities is coupled to a decreasing ability to retain and access “internal” information.

To draw this point out further, the Internet seems to have the ability to make us increasingly vulnerable to information: (1) we have decreasing ability to critique this information (granted the question of critique was not tested in the study, however, that seems like an inherent trouble with an atrophied cognitive mechanism: one merely “finds” the information, rather than segregates the information; and, the hideous ability to manipulate public opinion almost instantly through the “news” media seems proof of this point); and (2) when we ingest this information we are not realizing that it was sourced outside of ourselves, but rather come to believe that this is our “own” information.