Yale attitude change approach

The effects of credibility rely on the aspects of the speaker to be of "high trustworthiness" or "low trustworthiness". Prominent, credible speakers can drastically persuade more people than others who are not credible. Credible speakers also have a sense of reputation where what they say matters to whom they are speaking to. In addition, attractive speakers have a stronger influence than those who are unattractive, regardless if the material is factual or not.[4]

The characteristics of the nature of the communication impacts the degree of attitude change. One such characteristic is the design of the message; people tend be more persuaded by messages that don't appear to be targeted for them.[1] By nature, there is a primacy effect that occurs with speakers. People are more influenced by what they hear first. The first speaker is recorded stronger than the following speakers even if the arguments following the first speaker are stronger. If there is a delay after every speech, then it is better to go last because of the recency effect where people remember the most recent event the most.[5]

Attitude may change depending on the characteristics of the audience. Audiences that are distracted during the persuasive communication will often be persuaded less than audiences that are not distracted.[1] From the ages of 18-25, people are very susceptible to attitude change. After those ages, people tend to be more stable and resistant to attitude change. Additionally, an audience member that is less intelligent tends to be more persuadable than those with higher intelligence. People who do not enjoy thinking can rely on experts and trustworthy sources to conserve their cognitive resources. If the expert source is untrustworthy, then the person might have to evaluate the material on their own. In most cases, people are not knowledgeable enough to interpret the information themselves or have very low confidence in the issue, thus they must rely on knowledgeable others(expert and trustworthy sources).[6]

The Yale group observed the effects of credibility on persuasion. Credibility was composed of; 1) Expertness: the degree to which the communicator was knowledgeable in the field, and 2) Trustworthines: In reference to the intentions of the communicator.[3]

Hovland and Weiss in studies such as, The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness[12] (1951), exposed participants to identical newspaper and magazine articles yet attributed them to either high credibility sources (like Robert Oppenheimer) or low credibility sources (like the Soviet Newspaper Pravda). Their results indicated that participants regarded sources with higher credibility more favorably than those considered as low-credibility. They contributed this effect to the expertise of the source and the confidence in the sources sincerity in delivering the message.[7] They also observed that effects from both positive and negative sources tended to dissipate after several weeks.[3]

An exception to the gradual dissociation of the effects of a persuasive message were reported in studies conducted by Hovland, Lumsdaine, and Shieffield. Results showed that while memory of factual information decreased or memory of the source dissipated opinion change increased gradually over time, they coined this phenomenon the Sleeper Effect.[3]

The Yale school focused on factors such as Motivating appeals[3] and organization of arguments in regards to the content of the communication. In particular they focused on "emotional" appeals which were considered a class of stimuli whose contents could arouse emotion, in contrast to logical/rational appeals.[3] In particular the group looked at fear-arousing appeals.[3]

Janis and Feshbach in their experiment Effects of Fear-arousing Communications(1953),[13] explored degrees of intensities of fear appeal and their effects on conformity in the context of the consequences of poor dental hygiene. The study showed that messages were more effective when contained low-leveled threat references such as "cavities" or "tooth decay" instead of "strong appeal" references, such as exclaiming serious infections that could cause paralysis and kidney damage.[3] The results suggested that appeals of high intensity would be less effective than milder ones.

In regards to structure of an argument Hovland, Lumsdaine, and Sheffield explored the effectiveness of one-sided and two-sided messages (containing pros and cons).[9] The study (referenced in Experiments on Mass Communications, 1948) looked at whether a message given to American soldiers would be more effective if it only advocated one position or if it advocated both sides of the position. It was found that two-sided messages were more effective on budging educated men's opinions.[9] Additionally, two sided arguments were also better at generating change of opinion in those soldiers who opposed the argument initially. For less educated men who also supported the government's position, the one-sided argument was more persuasive.[3] Their findings not only suggested that the content of the communication has an impact on attitude change but so do the attributes of the receiver.

A follow up study conducted by Lumsdaine and Janis, Resistance to counter propaganda produced by a one-sided versus two-side propaganda presentation(1953),[14] explored the resistance of opinion change motivated by argument structure. The findings summarized that two sided messages were more effective to resistance of counter propaganda regardless of initial position held (even if the initial belief was counter to the new developed belief). Two sided messages were more effective in maintaining sustained opinion change.[3]

Another study spearheaded by Hovland and Mandel, An experimental comparison of conclusion-drawing by the communicator and by the audience(1952),[15] highlighted that messages are more persuasive when they are implicitly argued. The audience is then able to come to their own conclusion. Hovland and Mandel mentioned that this effect may only be evident with less complex issues that can easily be surmised by the audience.[3]

In terms of the audience the Yale group concerned themselves with the audience predisposition, which they defined as the audience's motives, abilities, personalities,[3] and the context of the situation.[7]

In one study Kelly and Volkart, The resistance to change of group-anchored attitudes (Kelly, Volkart, 1952)[16], confirmed the notion that individuals with greater interest in retaining group membership are less likely to adopt beliefs that contradict group standards. Their findings are consistent with the hypothesis that supports the relationship between internalization of norms and stronger group attachments.[3]

Holland et al. studied[11] the resistance to attitude change when a person is a member of a group and discovered five factors that induce conformity of opinion within a group:

1) the individual's knowledge of group norms

2) the extent to which the individual values group membership

3) the individuals social status or rank within the group

4) particular situation cues

5) salience of the group(the extent to which a specific group is dominant in the individual's awareness at the time the 'counter persuasion' is delivered

Because these five factors play an influential role in inducing conformity, members may resist attitude change when the group is exposed to a message that counters group norms/culture. The more the group membership is valued, the more resistance, to the extent that a boomerang effect may occur.[11]

The Yale group did ample and very meaningful research in the field of attitude change and persuasion. They brought forth emphasis on the importance of learning theories behind attitude change and laid a strong foundation of mass findings that stimulated further research related to persuasion.[17] Examples of such work that stemmed from their findings was the inoculation theory and the social judgement theory.[17] The research was considered a landmark in the development of attitude change and persuasion.[18]

William McGuire(1968) further broke down Hovland et al. (1953) message processing stages (attention, comprehension, acceptance)[8] into six stages: presentation, attention, comprehension, yielding, retention, and behavior.[21] In summary, McGuire proposed that a message must first be presented, drawn attention to, and then understood and comprehended by the audience. This would cause an attitude change, that must be remembered at a later time to actually influence behavioral changes.[8] McGuire emphasized the importance of reception (the attention and comprehension stages of the Yale group) and yielding (anticipation and critical-evaluation steps) in his study of individual differences in influenceability.[22] According to McGuire reception was positively related to ability and motivational attributes.[22] Individual attributes also contributed to the yielding stage(acceptance of the opinion).[22] One weakness of the approach is the nature of its steps—specifically, the yielding step. The approach assumes that the audience's attitude will change by learning a new message, yet learning does not always result in persuasion.[23] This Information processing paradigm's heritage lays in the message learning theme and theories that guided the work done on persuasion and attitude change by the Yale Communications program.[24] McGuire is best known for his inoculation theory of exploring resistance to persuasion, which was influenced by the Yale School's research on the resilience of two-sided messages on opinion acceptance.[14]

The Albarracín model,[8] which is a stage model developed in 2002, builds off both McGuire's work and the Yale attitude change approach in regards to the sequence of message processing stages. The study found that message processing may occasionally bypass early stages and takes a step towards addressing the role of processing stages on attitude change. The evidence that people can use processing stages in a different order or even skip a stage altogether was the important acknowledgment of this study. [8]

Another model that stems from the Yale attitude change approach is the elaboration likelihood model which is a contemporary approach to persuasion. Developed by R.E. Petty and J.T. Cacioppo during the late 1980s, the model describes two ways in which persuasive communications can cause attitude change: centrally and peripherally. The central route to persuasion occurs when people have the ability and motivation to listen to a message, think about its arguments and internalize the information. The recipient relies on cognititive responses instead of heuristics when using the central route. The peripheral route to persuasion is used when the recipient has little to no motivation or effort and people are swayed not by the argument itself but by elements secondary to the message (such as the length of the communication or the attractiveness of the communicator). Under the peripheral route, the recipient relies on the context of the situation rather than the information at hand(i.e. they look at attractiveness in this case or if the person speaking is famous or not).[1]

Martin Bauer views the Yale approach from a slightly-different angle. In 2008, he argued that persuasion cannot focus only on the social influence of intersubjectivity (the sharing of subjective states by two or more individuals) but must include inter-objectivity (the understandings shared by individuals about social reality). Using the concept of the fait accompli (a completed, irreversible "done deal"), Bauer described artifacts such as nuclear power, information technology and genetic engineering as types of social influence.[25]

"Prepurchase Attribute Verifiability, Source Credibility, and Persuasion", a study by Shailendra Jain and Steven Posavac,[27] examined the role message origin plays in the likelihood that a recipient will believe the message in an advertisement. Advertisements for mountain bikes and cameras were studied; consumers were asked their overall reaction to search claims (claims which can be statistically proven) and experience claims (testimonials). The credibility of the claims was also compared. Participants were shown advertisements for each of the products and asked questions about the advertisements, which contained search or experience claims. The search claim for the mountain bike was its weight, the experience claim was its ease of control. The search claim for the camera was its compactness and the experience claim was its photo quality. The results indicated that consumers were more likely to believe (and be satisfied with) claims if they thought the source was trustworthy or had experience with the product. They were more likely to believe advertisements with concrete evidence behind the claims, such as the weight of the bike or the compactness of the camera. The study demonstrates that the credibility of a source correlates with its ability to persuade.[27]

"An Attribution Analysis of Communicator Characteristics on Opinion Change: the Case of Communicator Attractiveness", a study by Alice Eagly and Shelly Chaiken,[28] examined the effects of attractiveness and message content on persuasion. Eagly and Chaiken surveyed undergraduate students on communicators' attractiveness and whether they were persuaded to adopt the speaker's position (desirable or undesirable) on a topic. Students were asked to predict the speaker's position before hearing the message. The study showed that participants were more likely to be persuaded by an attractive speaker to take an undesirable position on a topic than by an unattractive speaker.[28] However, they were equally likely to be persuaded to take a desirable position on a topic by attractive and unattractive speakers. Participants were more likely to agree with attractive speakers in general and more likely to agree with any speaker discussing a desirable position on a topic.[28] More attractive individuals are more persuasive than individuals perceived as less attractive. Message content affects believability; desirable messages are more believable than undesirable ones.

Hovland states[29] another set of factors that impact attitude change, specifically, in order for the communication to be accepted by the recipient. One such factor is the prestige of the medium on which the message is communicated with. One medium may be more prestigeful than others. Most importantly, "prestige for whom?" is important to specify since certain mediums may be more prestigeful for certain segments of the population. Accordingly, how the medium differs in credibility affects the prestige of the medium; a medium judged by an individual to be the most trustworthy may be the most effective.[29]

A second factor which may affect the comparison of media is the extent of social interaction. In a study by Knower(1935),[29] hearing a speech when a member of an audience is less effective than hearing it individually. Conversely, a study by Cantril and Allport(1935)[29] suggest that radio may be more effective than print because the individual identifies as part of a larger group of people listening to the same program at the same time.

A third factor that affects the likelihood of acceptance of the message by the recipient is the extent to which the medium provides flexibility. Flexibility in this case means the extent to which the medium can canter to special interests and differences in comprehension. Print, for example, is particularly effective by providing for specialized interests and tastes to a greater extent than other mediums. Additionally, a two-way communication network may also induce flexibility. For example, in a political campaign where a two-way communication between the studio and the listener was employed, flexibility was heightened. Accordingly, "questions raised by the man-in-the-street could thus be answered immediately by the political candidate in the television studio"[29]