Dangerous world and The no country for the old men syndrome
Persuasion and Advertising Psychology of Media – Fall 2011
Persuasion• The process by which a person’s attitudes or behavior are influenced by communication with other people (Encyclopedia Britannica)
A new perspective in subliminal perception - Cuperflain& Clarke• Semantically active context;• Visual primacy over verbal content;• Familiarity;
Recent Perspective on Unconscious Processing Pratkanis& Greenwald• Accessibility Priming: Subliminal stimuli can increase accessibility and speed of recognition of semantically related stimuli that are presented afterwards (Marcel, 1983, Doctor- Bread > Doctor-Nurse)• Mood Priming: Repeated presentation of negative subliminal primes increased disliking of a stimulus presented afterwards (and viceversa, Barghand Pietromonaco, 1982).
Review of Literature on subliminal perception• Our mind constantly builds associations between element of our perception (inside and outside of our awareness).• The existence and importance of unconscious learning,that is learning that happens outside of our awareness and attention;
What kind of learning?• Is it a form of learning that we can use to prepare a test for school?- Not really: Recognition and Memory of the subliminally presented stimuli are generally pretty poor or absent.• Is it a form of learning that we can use to sell new products?- Not even: Subliminally priming for obscure product didn’t produce any result as compared with priming for products that were already recognized;
What kind of learning?• So what’s the most popular for of subliminal stimuli used in advertisement?- Masked Stimuli?- Not really;- Sub threshold stimuli?- Not even, they are actually either disturbing or of difficult recognition…- Peripheral Attention Stimuli?- Actually yes! That’s what Movie Product Placement is all about: It may not be great to actually sell product but is fundamental for Brand Image Building…
Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) Petty &Cacioppo1981
Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) Petty &Cacioppo1981• It’s a model that summarizes decades of apparently inconsistent research on persuasion, by identifying two routes to persuasion:• A Central Route;• A Peripheral Route;
Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) Petty &Cacioppo1981
Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) Petty &Cacioppo1981• Central route: - Generates issue-relevant cognitive responses (comprehension, retention, self generation of issue relevant content) to a message in an attempt to assess the true merits of the position taken; - Requires Motivation and Cognitive Resources;- Produces lasting, robust changes in attitudes and possibly behavior;
Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) Petty &Cacioppo1981• Peripheral Route: - Attitudes change because they have been associated with either positive or negative “cues” (such as attractiveness of the source/context, credibility of the source, number of arguments produced); - It is usually the preferred route in the absence of either Resources or Motivation; - Produces changes in attitudes that are shallow and short lived;
ELM - Petty &Cacioppo1981• Study 1, JPSP, 1981:• Method:- 144 UMass undergraduates;- IVs:2(involvement)X2(argument)X2(source);- Material: tape recorded voice arguing about the introduction of COMPs;- Personal involvement: COMPs in 1year Vs in 10yrs;- Argument quality: Data, Stats Vs Anecdotal;- Source Expertise: High School Vs Princeton Prof.;- No Message condition: w/18 participants;
ELM - Petty &Cacioppo1981Interaction of Strength of Argumentswith Level of Personal Involvement
ELM - Petty &Cacioppo1981Interaction of Perceived Expertise of the Sourcewith Level of Personal Involvement
ELM - Petty &Cacioppo1981• When a message concerns an issue of high personal relevance the effectiveness of its appeal is function of the content;• When a message concerns an issue oflow personal relevance the effectiveness of its appeal is function of the form;
ELM - Petty &Cacioppo1981• The No Message condition outlined the possibility of a “boomerang” effect in persuasion which was at its strongest when weak arguments were delivered by a source that was also perceived to be low in expertise.
ELM - Petty &Cacioppo1984• Study 2, JPSP, 1984:A study to test the characteristics of the peripheral route: Could just the number of argument presented, even if all weak, be a clue for peripheral persuasion?- 168 UMass undergraduates;- IVs:2(involvement)X2(argument)X2(number of arg);- Material, Personal Involvement and Quality of arguments were kept the same as the previous study;- Number of Arguments: 3 Vs 9 arguments, either all strong or all weak;
ELM - Petty &Cacioppo1984• In Absence of a Relevant personal involvement, the mere number of argument presented, independently from their quality, acted as an effective clue for peripheral persuasion.
ELM – Petty, Wells & Brock 1976• A study to test the role of available cognitive resources in determining the route of persuasion:- Ivs: 2 (argument) X2 (distraction);- Material: Listening to arguments for cutting in half tuitions;- Arguments: Strong Vs Weak;- Level of distraction: Following an X on the screen whose position was changed either frequently or very rarely.
ELM – Petty, Wells & Brock 1976- Distractiondisrupts the normal effect of persuasion: weak arguments would have less negative effect and strong arguments less positive;
ELM – Petty &Cacioppo 1979• A study to test the role of awareness of persuasive intent in determining the route of persuasion:- Ivs: 2 (Personal Relevance) X2 (Warning);- Material: Listening to (all strong) arguments introducing COMPs;- Relevance: Now Vs In 10 yrs;• Awareness of persuasive intent: pps received or not the communication that the message “was designed specifically to try to persuade college students of the desirability of changing certain college regulations”
ELM – Petty &Cacioppo 1979• Awareness of the persuasive intent of the message reduced its persuasive potential, even though the arguments presented were all strong.
ELM – Petty &Cacioppo 1986• A study on the consequences of route of persuasion:- Material: Listening to (all strong) arguments about introducing COMPs;- Relevance: Now Vs In 10 yrs;- DV: attitudes checked immediately after and then again in 2 weeks;
ELM – Petty &Cacioppo 1986• Attitudes change in Participants for whom personal relevance was high, and that were therefore assumed to have used Central Routes, lasted much longer than the peripheral route.