Download COMM 1101: Cases in Communication

COMM 1101
Professor McLeod
Fall 2016
Week 6: Lecture 3 of 3
Friday, September 30th, 2016
Lecture Topic: Theory of Reasoned Action and Social Judgment Theory Lecture Keywords: Theory of Reasoned Action, Behavioral Intentions, Social Judgment Theory, Ego Involvement, Latitude of Acceptance
Announcements
●
Quiz 3 on Monday will cover all readings and class activities from September 23rd - September 30th (except rhetorical tradition)
●
We will cover Phenomenological tradition theories on Monday ○
●
Be sure to have completed the “Six America’s Quiz” assigned for last Friday Change in reading assigned for next Wednesday
○
We will be having a guest speaker ○
Under substituted readings on Blackboard
Important Correction
●
The cybernetic tradition focuses on how elements of a system are related to each other
●
In the case of the Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, we consider a system containing our cognitions and our behaviors
●
Our desire for consistency motivates us to keep this system in balance
●
Dissonance occurs when the system is imbalanced
●
We make changes to restore balance to the system and to therefore reduce dissonance
●
When can persuasive messages change our behaviors?
○
Under what circumstances do we see change in our behavioral intentions? Theory of Reasoned Action
●
Our attitudes + social norms ●
●
○
Our attitudes influence our behaviors ○
We try to act consistently with our attitudes
This leads to behavioral intentions
○
How likely are they are to recycle?
○
Will they take that extra step to understand recycling? What is Cybernetic About TRA?
○
The cybernetic nature is reflected in the famous formula describing the theory
○
BI=Abw1+(SN)w2
○
BI- behavioral intentions
■
Function of our attitudes
■
Behavior intention= attitude (weight 1=w1) + social norm (weight 2=w2)
Social Judgment Theory ●
How relevant is the issue to us? ●
Will I take the time to read that plastics recycling chart?
●
If the issue is relevant, we have ego involvement (“I’m worried about how global warming
will affect my family”)
●
Our past attitudes act as points of reference to help us judge messages (“I’m already convinced it’s a danger”)
●
Messages within our latitude of acceptance are more likely to convince us (“I’m going to
read that plastics chart!”)
●
Insert Graph ●
On a Bell curve to the left is the idea that “Climate change is not a problem” ; this occurs up
to the latitude of rejection
●
Then to the right is the latitude of non commitment - don’t have a strong prior attitude,
don’t care, etc. ●
To the right of the latitude of non commitment is the latitude of acceptance where we accept
that “Climate change is definitely a problem”
●
When we have high ego involvement - our latitude of rejection is higher (If you don’t agree
with me, you must disagree with me)
●
More support that climate change is more of a “danger to birds” than “danger to humans” ○
Interesting result but a closer look sees that it was only asked to those who are a part of
the Cornell Lab of Ornithology (aka Bird lovers)
○
The follow-up research to this...
■
Nationally representative sample
■
Parallel question wording: □
“Danger to (humans/birds), for example droughts and decreased food supply...”
□
Positive versus negative framing
□
“... benefit of reducing climate change is fewer droughts and better food supplies” □
No significant difference was found □
When you add people’s belief in climate change, you see a difference
Sociopsychological Tradition
●
Elaboration Likelihood Theory
○
●
Attribution Theory
○
●
Under what circumstances will people elaborately process a message?
How do assumptions about the causes for behavior affect reactions to persuasion attempts?
Social Judgment Theory
○
How are our responses to persuasive messages affected by our internal anchors and our
ego involvement?
Cybernetic Tradition
●
Cognitive Dissonance ○
●
What happens when people’s cognitions and behaviors are imbalanced?
Theory of Reasoned Action
○
How do people combine beliefs, attitudes and perceptions of social norms