Download Persuasion theories - dwyersinterculturalcommunication

Persuasion theories
Cognitive Dissonance
Explanation of Theory:
This theory of Cognitive Dissonance says that human beings often have conflicting beliefs with
actions they take, or other beliefs they have. This dissonance creates a tension and tension
reduction is automatically sought by changing our evaluations by some degree. Cognitive
Dissonance is when you have two good choices and you make your decision then you find
yourself unsure or in doubt about the choice you made. You might have to downplay the other
choice in order to reassure yourself.
Theorist: Leon Festinger
Date: 1962
Primary Article:
A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, CA. Stanford University Press.
Social Judgement Theory
Explanation of Theory:
Social Judgement theory states that you have a statement or message and you accept it or reject
it based on your cognitive map. You accept or reject a message based on one's own egoinvolvement and if it falls within their latitude of acceptance.
Theorist: Muzafer Sherif, Carolyn Sherif, Carl Hovland
Date: 1961
Primary Article:
Sherif, M., & Hovland, C.I. (1961). Social Judgement. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Individual Interpretations:
My interpretation of this theory is that when people receive messages (verbal or nonverbal) they
immediately judge where the message should be placed on a scale in their mind through
comparing the message with currently held views.
Metatheoretical Assumptions:
Social Judgement theory is a scientific theory. Epistemologically there is one universal
interpretation (one truth) in that people judge the messages they receive. Ontologically, this
theory is deterministic in that an individuals behavior can be predicted. Axiologically, Social
Judgement theory is value-neutral in that the theoretical propositions are objective and not
biased. This theory explains how individuals judge the messages they receive. It predicts that
individuals accept, or reject specific attitudes and messages. Social Judgement theory has
relative simplicity in that it is a fairly simple study. It can be tested and proved false in that an
individual can test the theory through reflecting on statements, which evoke various opinions.
The theoretical propositions within the theory are consistent with one another. Social
Judgement theory generates new hypotheses, expanding the range of knowledge, and it also
has organizing power through organizing our existing knowledge about attitudes in our mind.
Critique:
Social Judgement theory proposes the idea that persuasion is a two-step process. The first step
involves individuals hearing or reading a message and immediately evaluating where the
message falls within their own position. The second step involves individuals adjusting their
particular attitude either toward or away from the message they heard.
Ideas and Implications:
Individuals have three zones in which they accept or reject specific messages or attitudes. The
latitude of acceptance zone is where individuals place attitudes they consider acceptable. The
latitude of rejection zone is where individuals place attitudes they consider unacceptable or
objectionable. The latitude of noncommitment is where people place attitudes they find neither
acceptable nor rejectable.
Example:
Example of Social Judgement theory:
Read through these statements and recognize the variety of opinions they represent;
1. Student athletes should be given extra time to complete assignments.
2. Student athletes are for the most part lazy when it comes to schoolwork.
3. Student athletes should receive more time to complete assignments because their schedule
is more hectic than the average student.
4.Student athletes should be treated like every other student.
5. Athletes should be able to skip class because they are tired from practices or games.
6. Professors should take extra time to tutor those student athletes who miss class.
Now, reread through these questions again and underline the statement that most closely
represents your opinion, and run a line through the statement that is most objectionable.
Circle the statements you think are reasonable, and cross out the statements you reject. Social
Judgement theory predicts that people hear a message and they immediately decide whether
they accept, reject, or remain noncommitted on the message.
Inoculation Theory
Explanation of Theory:
Inoculation theory states that inoculation is used to describe the attribution of greater resistance
to individuals. Or, the process of supplying information to receivers before the communication
process takes place in hopes that the information would make the receiver more resistant.
Theorist: William McGuire
Date:1961
Primary Article:
McGuire, W. (1961). Resistance to persuasion conferred by active and passive prior refutation
of the same and alternative counterarguments. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63,
326-332.
Individual Interpretations:
My individual interpretation of Inoculation Theory is that the information supplied to the
receivers before the communication takes place makes the receiver more resistant. Inoculation
can be described in a biological sense in that a less harmful disease often gives immunity to a
more harmful disease.
Metatheoretical Assumptions:
Inoculation theory is scientific. Epistemologically there is one truth in that supplying
information to receivers before communication makes the receiver more resistant. Ontologically
this theory is deterministic in that an individuals behavior can be predicted. Axiologically it is
value-neutral, therefore objective and not biased.
Critique:
Inoculation theory has explanatory power in that it provides credible explanations for the
concepts. This theory has predictive power, and has relative simplicity. Inoculation theory is
testable and can therefore be proved false, and is internally consistent. This theory generates
new hypotheses, and organizes existing knowledge.
Ideas and Implications:
Inoculation theory says that the nature of the presentation of the message is important. One
method involves passive reading in which receivers read the defensive material. Another
method is to read the refutational material and underline the passages relating to the
arguments presented in the defense. Next, experimenters supply an outline where the defensive
material is to be written out. The last method is to write out the arguments without any help.
Example:
McGuire’s basic method included constructing a persuasive message attacking a cultural
truism such as, “An apple a day, keeps the doctor away.” This message would contain
statements like “eating too many apples can cause digestive problems.” Prior to this message,
material would be introduced that should strengthen the belief in the truism.
Balance Theory
Explanation of Theory:
Balance theory states that when tensions arise between or inside people, they attempt to
reduce these tensions through self-persuasion or trying to persuade others.
Theorist:Fritz Heider and Theodore Newcomb
Date: 1946
Primary Article:
Heider, F. (1946). Attitudes and cognitive organization. Journal of Psychology, 21, 107112.
Individual Interpretations:
My interpretation of Balance theory is that individuals have certain attitudes which can
be represented by a plus sign (like) or a minus sign (dislike). Every individual has their
own opinions therefore people do not always agree on the same things which creates a
feeling of discomfort or imbalance. Two people may feel the same about an idea and
therefore agree on it so they have a feeling of comfort or balance.
Metatheoretical Assumptions:
Balance theory is Humanistic. Epistemologically this theory has multiple truths in that
humans try to reduce tension through self-persuasion or persuading others.
Ontologically this theory represents free will in that people choose whether or not they
like or dislike something. Axiologically, this theory is more value-laden in that the
theoretical propositions are subjective and biased.
Critique:
Balance theory presents analytic consistency in that the theoretical assumptions fit
together. The method of investigation in this theory is timely. The theory is practical,
and has heuristic value in that it can be applied other places.
Ideas and Implications:
Balance theory proposes that there are three ways in which a person can feel balance.
First the source and receiver can both dislike something and at the same time like
eachother, so they experience comfort and balance. Second, the source and receiver can
have a positive attitude toward an object or idea and display positive feelings toward one
another, therefore experiencing comfort and balance. Third, the source and the receiver
can disagree about an idea or object and also dislike eachother, therefore experiencing
comfort because they know that they disagree about the values of certain objects or
ideas.
Example:
Adam likes to watch football on television, and Jenah does not like to watch football. Yet
Jenah likes Adam, and values their relationship therefore this system is now in
imbalance. If Jenah would change her attitude about football, this system would be in
balance.
Rank's Persuasion Model
Explanation of Theory:
Rank's model of persuasion states that persuaders use two major strategies to achieve their
goals. These strategies are nicely set into two main schemas known as (1) intensify, and (2)
downplay.
Theorist: Hugh Rank
Date: 1976
Primary Article:
Rank, H. (1976). Teaching about public persuasion. In D. Dietrich (Ed.), Teaching and
Doublespeak. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Individual Interpretations:
My interpretation to this theory is similar to what most other people would interpret from it. It is a
very simplistic and somehwat obvious assessment of techniques used in persuasion. It states the
obvious and does little to help explain whether we make such decisions consciously or
subconsciously.
Metatheoretical Assumptions:
Rank's Model has mostly positivist qualities when analyzing the ontological, epistemological,
and axiological assumptions.
Ontological Assumptions:
Rank's Model appears to have one main reality, one truth, and is laid out in a very simplistic
manner, that we should all see things the same way when using the model.
Epistemological Assumptions:
Rank's Model seems to be independent in nature and allows researchers to be separate from
what they are observing.
Axiological Assumptions:
Rank's Model is value-free, and appears to be unbiased to those who adapt the model into
practice.
Critique:
Rank's Model is a non-scientific model that is high in methodological rigor. While the model
appears to be quite simplistic on the exterior, it is also formulated quite precisely and has the
ability to be applied carefully. The model seems to make relative sense in communication
practices and is easily applied.
Ideas and Implications:
The basic premise of the model stresses that people will either intensify or downplay certain
aspects of their own product, candidate, or ideology, or those of their receiver's. The persuader
will do this in one of four methods.
1) Intensify their own strong points.
2) Intensify the weak points of the opposition.
3) Downplay their own weak points.
4) Downplay the strong points of the opposition.
Example:
While arguing about their favorite movies, Joe continues to insist to Matt that the Die Hard
movies were much better than the Lethal Weapon movies. Rank's Model contends that Joe will
use one of four main strategies to argue his point to Matt. Joe will either:
1) Stress the stunning performances that were given by Die Hard lead actor Bruce Willis, while
pointing out the acclaim that WIllis received for the movies.
OR
2) Stress what he beleived was poor acting by Lethal Weapon lead actor Mel Gibson, while
pointing out the negative reviews Gibson may have received for the movies.
OR
3) Downplay the weak plotlines which were often criticized in the Die Hard movies.
OR
4) Downplay the terrific performance by Lethal Weapon actor Danny Glover, as well as
downplay the acclaim Glover received for the movies.
Other Scholars Who Have Used This Theory:
None Identified
Relevant Research:
None Found
Source Credibility Theory
Explanation of Theory:
The Source Credibility theory states that people are more likely to be persuaded when the source
presents itself as credible. The theory is broken into three models that can be used to more aptly
apply the theory. The names of those models are: the factor model, the functional model, and the
constructivist model.
Theorist: Hovland, C., Janis, I., Kelley, H.
Date: 1953
Primary Article:
Hovland, C.I., Janis, I.L., & Kelley, H.H. (1953). Communication and Persuasion. New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press.
Individual Interpretations:
My interpretation of the Source Credibility theory is that on the outside it seems to be self-evident,
and barely worth studying. But, it is interesting to note that many studies have also revealed no
relationship between attitude change and source credibility. Although it seems obvious to me that
a more credible source would be much more likely to affect the attitudes of others, I also feel that
this concept is worthy of study since it is regularly being proven and disproved. That is what
helps to make the general concept of source credibility a very interesting phenomena.
Metatheoretical Assumptions:
Source credibility theory takes what appears to be a naturalistic slant on things
metatheoretically.
Ontological Assumptions:
The source credibility theory has multiple realities because there are numerous different ways
of looking at things from within the theory.
Epistemological Assumptions:
Source credibility theory is an approach that allows different individuals to look at things from
their own perspective, thus, it is dependent.
Axiological Assumptions:
Source credibility theory deals with communication study in a way that is value-laden, and
takes into considersation that different researchers will have their own opinion.
Critique:
A critique of the source credibility theory shows the theory to be scientific in nature. It is high
level of falsifiability, as many researchers have found ways to disprove what the theory states.
The theory also has high level of internal consistencies, while its three main models also allow
the theory to have much organizing power.
Ideas and Implications:
The three models help to narrow the wide scope of the source credibility theory, while also
making it a much more focused strategy to use when studying communication. The factor
model (a covering laws approach) helps determine to what extent the receiver judges the source
as credible. The functional model (a covering laws approach) views credibility as the degree to
which a source satisfies a receiver's individual needs. The constructivist model (a human
action approach) analyzes what the receiver does with the source's proposal.
Example:
Jeff is trying to persuade Matt that "Cheers" is the best television show that was ever aired.
Matt is beginning to believe Jeff because Jeff knows all the statistics of how well the show did
when it was played. But, when he begins questioning Jeff about the show's specific content, he
finds him to be baffled. He later finds out from Chris that Jeff has never even watched the show
himself. This is an example of source credibility working against the persuader. In this
example, the person who is being persuaded, Matt, has found reason to question the integrity
of the persuader, Jeff.
Other Scholars Who have Used This Theory:
Baudhin, S.
Berlo, D.
Davis, M.
Lemmert, J.
McCroskey, J.
Relevant Research:
Baudhin, S., & Davis, M. (1972). Scales for the measurement of ethos: Another attempt.
Speech Monographs, 39, 296-301.
Berlo, D. Lemmert, J., & Davis, M. (1969). Dimensions for evaluating the acceptability of
message sources. Public Opinion Quarterly, 33, 563-576.
McCroskey, J.C. (1968). Scales for the measurement of ethos. Speech Monographs, 33, 67-72.
Congruity Theory
Explanation of Theory:
The Congruity theory predicts that if there are two contradicting people, sets of information, or
concepts on which a judgment must be made by a single observer, the observer will experience
pressure to change his or her judgment on one of the sides. However, if the two sets of
information are similar or congruent, then there will be no problem, and the observer will not
experience pressure of any form.
Theorist: Osgood, C., & Tannenbaum, P.
Date: 1955
Primary Article:
Osgood, C., & Tannenbaum, P. (1955). The principle of congruity in the prediction of attitude
change. Psychology Review, 62, 42-55.
Individual Interpretations:
My interpretation of the Congruity theory is that only the observer will determine whether or not
they will feel pressure. The observer alone must decide the level of congruence between the two
sides, before doing one of two things: (1) taking a stance in the middle and viewing the exchange
as one without problem, or (2) changing their viewpoint of one of the sides.
Metatheoretical Assumptions:
Through the analysis of the ontological, epistemological, and axiological assumptions, it can be
dervied that the congruity theory is naturalistic.
Ontological Assumptions:
Congruity theory appears to have multiple realities, and there are numerous ways to view
things when using the theory to conduct a study or perform an analysis.
Epistemological Assumptions:
Congruity theory takes a dependent view of things, as things could change to each observer,
depending on the way they view what is going on between the two main parties involved.
Axiological Assumptions:
Congruity theory appears to value-laden in nature, and it takes into account that separate
observers may be biased.
Critique:
Congruity theory is a scientific model because it is predictive of how third-party observers will
react to an argument between two main parties. It does little to explain why people do what
they do necessarily in such a situation, but simply states how their actions and views might
change.
Ideas and Implications:
The basic premise of the theory is to help determine the levels of congruence between two
sides. If a third-party observer feels pressure to take a side or change a viewpoint, there must
be low levels of congruence between the two sides. If the third-party observer feels no pressure,
than there must be a high level of congruence between the two immediate parties.
Example:
Dan and Patty are having a discussion regarding what movie they feel is the best of all time. If
Dan argues that Star Wars is much better than Return of the Jedi, and that the two are not
similar in any fashion, it is less likely that an independent observer will gauge the two movies
to be similar. The two movies will remain on opposite spectrums to the observer. Consequently,
if Patty argues that the two movies are very similar, but that Return of the Jedi was much
better, an on-looker to the discussion will begin to view the movies on more of an equilibrium.
Other Scholars Who Have Used This Theory:
Brown, R.
Kerrick, J.
Moss, C.
Stachowiak, J.
Relevant Research:
Brown, R. (1962). Models of Attitude Change. In R.Brown, E. Galanter, E. Hess, & G. Mandler
(Contributors), New Directions in Psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. (1-85)
Kerrick, J. (1958). The effect of relevant and non-relevant sources on attitude change. Journal
of Social Psychology 15-20.
Stachowiak, J. & Moss, C. (1965). Hypnotic alterations of social attitudes. Journal of Social
Psychology 77-83.
Belief Congruency
Explanation of Theory:
There are a hierarchy of beliefs, attitudes and values. Beliefs are the building blocks of
attitudes, so an attitude can be comprised of many beliefs and many attitudes merge to create
a value.
Theorist: M.Rokeach
Date: 1965
Primary Article:
Rokeach, M. and Rothman G. (1965). The principle of belief congruence and the congruity
principle as models of cognitive interaction. Psychological Review, 72, 128-142.
Metatheoretical Assumptions:
Interpretation:
A person has countless beliefs, fewer attitudes and a limited number of true values. The beliefs
must be congruent with attitudes they comprise. Beliefs, attitudes and values are interwoven
and ranked as a single belief system.
Critique:
Scientific Theory
This theory claims that there is a hierarchy of beliefs, attitudes and values and explains how
changes are made in each andpredicts how the change will occur.
Ideas and Implications:
Our values, attitudes and belief system can often be looked at as a layer of an onion. The outer
layers are much easier to alter than those closer to the center. As we come closer to the
center,it is nearly impossible to create a change. Shifts in our attitudes or beliefs may serve as
short-term changes of behavior, but only values serve as life guides that dictate a lifelong set of
behaviors.
Example:
When any type of company markets a product that is controversial, they have a goal to change
the beliefs of the consumer concerning the aspects of their products so that the consumer will
purchase the product. They realize that they are not able to change consumer values with a
mere advertisement, but they may change a surface belief that could result in a sale. For
instance, a candy manufacturer could make the claim that their candy, unlike other candy, is
actually healthy and promotes a longer life. The consumer, who previously thought the candy
was unhealthy, changes this belief and purchases the candy. There is no change in value, the
consumer will still not purchase what is bad for them, but the change in their belief of that
specific product creates a change
of action.
Reinforcement Theory
Explanation of Theory:
Attitude changes result from an opinion change produced through reinforcement in areas such as
attention, comprehension and acceptance.
Theorist: Hovland, Janis and Kelly
Date: 1967
Primary Article:
Hovland, Janis & Kelly. (1967 )Reinforcement Theory. In Elliot, R.M., Lindzey,
G.,MacCorquodale, K., (Eds), Theories of Attitude Change, 12-63.
Individual Interpretations:
Attention, comprehension and acceptance are considered by the audience before a new opinion
is adopted. The message must be attention-getting and easy to understand. More importantly,
it must be presented in a way that reinforces the idea's validity.
Metatheoretical Assumptions:
Ontological Assumption:
The theory is very deterministic and therefore scientific. It seeks to predict a group or
individual's reaction to reinforcement.
Epistemological Assumption:
Reinforcement theory falls along the scientific side of the spectrum. It presents persuasion as a
process with right and wrong steps.
Axiological Assumption:
Being scientifically well-rounded, Reinforcement theory maintains a value neutral stance. The
steps given are seen as applying to the population as a whole with little exception.
Critique:
While very thorough, Reinforcement Theory does not take into account other possible
motivators than those presented by the researcher. However, it provides a fairly reliable
method of predicting attitude changes though the explanation can be vague.
Ideas and Implications:
Reinforcement Theory does not define what constitutes a reinforcement. The examples of
reinforcement cited in the research cover such a broad range, from an 'A' to a verbal "nice
shirt," that the only commonality appears to be their positive nature. This is highly
individualistic in that what is positive to one person may be an insult to another.
Example:
A public relations practitioner is conducting a week long campaign for "Organ Donation
Awareness Week". S/he conducts a pre-campaign phone survey providing positive
reinforcement for pro-organ donation answers for two groups and no reinforcement for the
other two groups. All groups have an opposing position to organ donation.
One group from each, reinforcement and no reinforcement, are in the target area of the
campaign. According to Reinforcement Theory, the people in the areas that received the
reinforcement and the campaign will have the greatest change in attitude toward organ
donation. The next should be the group that received the reinforcement without the campaign
closely followed by those who received the campaign but not the reinforcement. The group with
the least amount of attitude change would be those who reached no reinforcement and did not
receive the campaign.
Relevant Research:
Slade, P.D., & Owens, R.G. (1998). A dual process model of perfectionism based on
reinforcement theory, Behavior Modification, (22)3, 372-391.
Information Manipulation Theory
Explanation of Theory:
A speaker purposefully and covertly violates one of the conversational maxims of quantity,
quality, relation and manner with the intention of deceiving his/her listener.
Theorist: Steve A. McCornack
Date: 1992
Primary Article:
McCornack, S.A. (1992). Information manipulation theory, Communication Monographs, (59),
1-16.
Individual Interpretations:
Information Manipulation Theory presents four maxims.
The maxim of Quantity refers to a person's expectations that a conversation will be as
informative as possible. We do not expect information to be left out.
The maxim of Quality refers to a person's expectation of being presented with information that
is truthful and complete.
The maxim of Relation illustrates the expectation of contributing relevant information to a
conversation.
The maxim of Manner relates to how things are said rather than what is said.
Metatheoretical Assumptions:
Ontological Assumption:
IMT predicts the methods of deception a person uses by determining what information will be
eliminated.
Epistemological Assumption:
IMT is scientific in nature and offers set guidelines for producing and identifying deceptive
messages.
Axiological Assumption:
IMT is value conscious because the researcher must judge is a deception. While violations of
the maxim of quality and quantity are factually driven, violations of relation and manner are
largely opinion based. For this reason the researcher must be aware of his/her own values
when making these judgments.
Critique:
IMT provides an explanation for and the multiple ways in which deception can occur. However,
it does not predict what maxims a person may violate only that the violation will occur within
the certain realm of possibilities provided.
Ideas and Implications:
IMT explains different types of deception. This information can be useful if a person is in a
situation like the following. The theory is used frequently my teenagers trying to convince their
parents to let them go to a party for the weekend. For example, saying an adult will be there
but failing to mention that the adult is the friend's 21-year-old brother who is supplying the
beer which violates the maxims of quantity and quality.
Example:
John has a ten page paper due Wednesday that is worth 50% of his final grade. Monday night
he went to the basketball game and didn't start on the paper. Tuesday night he went the
library and fell asleep at the computer. Fortunately, the paper was almost finished and saved.
John did, however, wake up ten minutes after his class was over and his professor does not
accept late papers. He goes to see his professor immediately. How will he answer when his
professor asks him why he wasn't in class to turn in his paper?
Quantity: "I am so sorry professor. I overslept."
Quality: "My roommate didn't pay the electric bill so our power got cut off and my alarm clock
didn't go off."
Relation: "I've just had a really bad week. My girlfriend broke up with me, the power turned off
my electricity and my boss says if I'm late one more time he'll fire me."
Manner: "I really need a good grade in this class. Honestly, my paper was already done I just
overslept" said while rolling eyes and looking disgusted.
Relevant Research:
Dawson, E.J., & Brashers, D. (1996). Information manipulation theory: A replication and
assessment. Communication Monographs, 63(1), 70-83.
Mc Cornack,S.A., Levine, T.R., Solowczuk, K.A., Torres, H.I. &Campbell, D.M. (1992). When the
alteration of information is viewed as deception: An empirical test of information manipulation
theory. Communication Monographs, 59(1), 17-30.
Elaboration Likelihood Model
Explanation of Theory:
There are two routes to persuasion -- the central route and the peripheral route. The central route
uses message elaboration, and can produce a major positive attitude change, while the
peripheral route uses six different message irrelevant cues to illicit a quick response with a minor
shift in attitude.
Theorist: Petty and Cacioppo
Date: 1986
Primary Article:
Baxter, L.A. (1988). A dialectical perspective on communication strategies in relationship
development. In S. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of Personal Relationships, pp.257-273.
Individual Interpretations:
The central route involves message elaboration and is used to scrutinize ideas, determine their
merit and contemplate possible consequences. The peripheral route provides a quick accept or
reject decision without deep consideration. Six cues automatically lead a person to the
peripheral route: reciprocation -"I did you a favor", consistency - "This is the way it's done",
social proof -"Everyone does it", liking -"You like me and my idea", authority -"Because I said
so", and scarcity -"This offer ends in five minutes".
Metatheoretical Assumptions:
Ontological Assumption:
ELM is a scientific theory that charcterizes humans as reactors to a stimulus making a desired
reaction or attitude change achievable.
Epistemological Assumption:
This theory provides the most effective way to persuade an audience or produce an attitude
change. These guidelines fit with the scientific perspective of one truth or one best way to do
approach a situation.
Axiological Assumption:
ELM is a value conscious theory. A speaker must communicate his/her message in the most
effective way for the audience not for the speaker.
Critique:
Elaboration Likelihood Model, though scientific, is difficult to critique according to traditional
scientific standards. The theory clearly and simply explains both routes of persuasion and the
ideal circumstances for each. However, as a model, it is difficult to determine its falsifiability
and internal consistency.
Ideas and Implications:
ELM is a fairly accurate model of how attitude changes are achieved and the difficulty in
producing a major or long-term attitude change. While it is not a blanket for all situations, the
guidelines set forth in the model provide an invaluable framework to the fields of public
speaking and persuasion.
Example:
Perfume ads rely on the peripheral route while infomercials use the central route to persuade a
person to buy their products. During a 30-second perfume commercial the audience has no
motivation to process information. Their concentration becomes nonexistent during commercial
breaks therefore advertisers must grab their attention the quickest and easiest way possible.
An infomercial has the time and the audience interest to use the central route. It is common
knowledge that most infomercials last 30 minutes. Therefore, if a person is watching the
producers can assume that the viewer has an interest in their product. Testimonial from a
reliable looking host helps to bring about the positive attitude change and therefore the sale
hoped for. However, to capture the transient viewer producers resort to the peripheral route by
lighting a car hood on fire.
Relevant Research:
Brooks-Harris, J.E., Heesacker, M., Mejia-Millan, C. (1996). Changing men's male gender-role
attitudes by applying the elaboration likelihood model of attitude change. Sex Roles: A Journal
of Research, 35(9-10), 563-581.
Hillenbrand-Gunn, T.L., Hawkins, A.K., Hacquard, L.L., Nichols, R.K., DeBord, K.A. & Brock,
K.J. (1995). Examining sex differences in altering attitudes about rape: A test of the elaboration
likelihood model. Journal of Counseling and Development, 73(6), 640-648.
White, P.H., & Harkins, S.G. (1994). Race of source effects in the elaboration likelihood model.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(5), 790-808.
Attribution Theory
Explanation of Theory:
Attribution Theory attempts to explain causes of behavior. It attempts to explain the causes of
people's behavior and attributing or explaining reasons as to why people behave the way they
do. Theorists: Heider
Date: 1958
Primary Article:
Heider, Fritz. The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. (New York: Wiley, 1958).
Metatheoretical Assumptions:
Attribution Theory is a humanistic theory. There is not a direct relationship between our behavior and its causes.
There can be a variety of behaviors that are perceived resulting from a variety of causes. Because Attribution Theory
is Humanistic, Epistemological assumption says that there are multiple realities, or truths as opposed to only one
truth. Humanistic Ontological assumption says that our human nature is of free will and not predetermined. Lastly,
Axiological assumption says that as opposed to objectivity, values are important in studying the discipline of
Communications.
Critique:
Being a Humanistic Theory, its critique is based on Farrell's categories that make up a good theory. These categories
are, Analytic Consistency, Methodological Rigor, Intuitive Credibility, and Heuristic Value (1987). This is good
theory based on its strong Heuristic Value, because it is very applicable to many different situations and can be
perceived in many different ways. It also has Intuitive Credibility. The theory makes sense relative to our actual
communicative practice. In other words, it has practicality. On the other hand, this theory is not as refined as other
humanistic communication theories. There exists room for improvement.
Example:
Say you are expecting a very important phone call but you have to run out to the store. Your roommate is the only
one home and you tell her to be sure to answer the phone because of this call. She says that she will take a message.
When you return home, you ask your roommate if she answered the call and took a good message, and she said
someone called, but she forgot who and how to reach them. There are several different reasons that this could have
happened. One, she could have gotten a call right before your call, learning that her grandmother was ill, and she
could have been too upset to remember to write it down. Or, the caller could have been short with her and not
wanted to leave a message, and so on. As you can see, there are several different kinds of causal attributions to
behavior, for example, situation causes, personal effects, ability to do something, obligation to do something ect.
The attribution
assigned to behavior centers on perceived causes. It is important to look very carefully at the context in which the
behavior took place.
Communication Scholars Who Have Made Use Of The Theory:
Hewstone, M. (1983)
Kelly, H. (1973)
Sillars, A.( 1980)
Kassin, S. & Baron, R. (1985)