Changing minds: attitudes, cognitive dissonance and persuasion

Transcript

SoheePicture someone who knows, really knows, that smoking is bad for her health. She steps outside for a cigarette anyway. And as she lights it, she tells herself, it's fine, these are filtered.

RyanThat little sentence is doing a lot of work.

SoheeIt is. It's the sound of a mind protecting itself. Welcome to EPPP Prep, the podcast. I'm Sohee.

RyanI'm Ryan. Today we're talking about how attitudes change. First, how we change our own minds to escape discomfort. Then, how other people change our minds through persuasion.

SoheeStart with the basic term. The OpenStax psychology textbook defines an attitude as our evaluation of a person, an idea or an object. Typically, attitudes are favorable or unfavorable, positive or negative.

RyanAnd attitudes have three components. An affective component, which is feelings. A behavioral component, the effect of the attitude on behavior. And a cognitive component, beliefs and knowledge.

SoheeThe textbook's example is recycling. It makes me feel good to recycle, that's affect. I recycle as often as I can, behavior. Recycling is good for the environment, cognition.

RyanSo what happens when those pieces don't line up? That's Leon Festinger's theory, from 1957. Cognitive dissonance is psychological discomfort arising from holding two or more inconsistent attitudes, behaviors or cognitions.

SoheeLike our smoker. The belief, smoking harms my health. The behavior, I smoke. They clash, and that clash feels bad.

RyanAnd there's an important refinement. Later research documented that only conflicting cognitions that threaten our positive self-image cause dissonance.

SoheeWhich makes sense. The discomfort is really, I'm a smart, healthy person, and I'm doing something that isn't smart or healthy.

RyanThe textbook adds that dissonance isn't just uncomfortable in the mind. It can cause physiological arousal and activate brain regions important in emotion and cognition. So we're motivated to reduce it.

SoheeHow do people reduce it? The textbook lists three ways.

RyanOne, change the discrepant behavior, like quitting smoking. Two, change your cognitions through rationalization or denial, like telling yourself filtered cigarettes reduce the risk. Three, add a new cognition.

SoheeAnd the textbook's example of adding a cognition is, smoking suppresses my appetite so I don't become overweight, which is good for my health.

RyanNow here's a case where the first option, changing the behavior, is off the table. The textbook describes Joaquin, who enlists in the military and is miserable in boot camp. He's signed on for four years and can't legally leave.

SoheeSo what does he change?

RyanHis beliefs. He tells himself, I'm becoming stronger, healthier and sharper. What I'm doing really matters. And then he feels better. The dissonance resolves through attitude change, because behavior change wasn't possible.

SoheeThat leads right into justification of effort. We value goals and achievements we put a lot of effort into. If something is hard to get, we believe it's more worthwhile.

RyanThe classic experiment is Aronson and Mills, 1959. College students volunteered to join a group that would discuss the psychology of sex. They were randomly assigned to no initiation, an easy initiation, or a difficult initiation.

SoheeAnd then the first discussion was deliberately made very boring.

RyanRight. And the students who went through the difficult initiation rated the group more favorably than those with an easy initiation or none.

SoheeBecause admitting I suffered to get into a boring group is dissonant. So the group must be good. There's a modern echo too. Heckert and colleagues surveyed 463 undergraduates, and courses requiring the most effort were evaluated as more valuable.

RyanPause and think. A man spends a whole weekend assembling a bookcase from a flat-pack kit, swearing the whole time. A month later, he says it's his favorite piece of furniture, better than the expensive one his sister bought him. What's going on?

SoheeJustification of effort. He invested a lot, so he values it more. The textbook uses almost exactly that example, with a dresser.

RyanNow let's turn outward, to persuasion. The textbook defines it as the process of changing our attitude toward something based on some kind of communication.

SoheeAnd the first big framework is the Yale attitude change approach. Carl Hovland researched persuasion for the U.S. Army during the Second World War, then continued at Yale.

RyanThe model says three things affect persuasiveness: the source of the message, the content of the message, and the characteristics of the audience.

SoheeSource first. Speakers who are credible, meaning they have expertise and are seen as trustworthy, are more persuasive. So are more attractive speakers. That's why advertisers hire famous actors and athletes.

RyanMessage features. More subtle messages are more persuasive than direct ones. And then there's timing, which is easy to mix up.

SoheePrimacy and recency.

RyanRight. According to the textbook, when messages are given back-to-back, the argument that comes first, as in a debate, is more influential. But if there's a delay after the first message, before the audience has to decide, the last message tends to be more persuasive.

SoheeSo primacy when the messages run back-to-back, recency when there's a delay after the first message, before the audience decides. The textbook cites Miller and Campbell, 1959.

RyanAnd then the audience. People have to be paying attention to be persuaded. People with moderate self-esteem are more easily persuaded than people with higher or lower self-esteem. And younger adults, aged 18 to 25, are more persuadable than older adults.

SoheeThe textbook also reports that people with lower intelligence are more easily persuaded than people with higher intelligence. Now an especially popular model of persuasion, which builds on all of this.

RyanThe elaboration likelihood model, from Petty and Cacioppo, 1986. There are two routes to persuasion, central and peripheral.

SoheeThe central route is logic driven. It uses data and facts. Think of a car company stressing safety features and fuel economy. For it to work, the argument must be strong, and if it succeeds, the attitude change lasts.

RyanAnd it works best when the audience is analytical and willing to process the information.

SoheeThe peripheral route is indirect. It relies on peripheral cues, like positive emotions and celebrity endorsement. A popular athlete selling athletic shoes. It doesn't require much effort or information processing.

RyanAnd here's the trade-off. The peripheral route may promote positive feelings toward the product, but it typically results in less permanent attitude or behavior change.

SoheeThe textbook adds that the audience doesn't need to be analytical or motivated for the peripheral route, and it may not even be noticed, as with product placement in a television show.

RyanPause and think. A small business owner is choosing a computer. One ad lists processing speed and memory in detail. Another shows a famous musician smiling next to the laptop. Which route is each, and which change lasts longer?

SoheeThe specifications are the central route, and if the argument is strong, the change lasts. The musician is the peripheral route, more likely to produce a short-lived change. And the business owner is exactly the kind of analytical audience the central route suits.

RyanLast technique: foot-in-the-door. The persuader gets you to agree to a small favor or a small purchase, then later asks for something bigger.

SoheeFreedman and Fraser's 1966 study is the classic. People who agreed to post a small sign in their yard or sign a petition were more likely to agree to put up a large sign than people who never got the small request.

RyanAnd why does it work? The principle of consistency, from Cialdini. Our past behavior often directs our future behavior, and once we've committed to a behavior, we want to stay consistent.

SoheeSo once you've said yes to the small request, saying no to the big one would feel inconsistent with what you've already done.

RyanSo how does the exam test this? Expect a scenario and a label. Someone keeps a behavior they can't change and shifts their beliefs to match: dissonance reduction. Someone values something more because it was hard: justification of effort.

SoheeOr a question about which message works better for which audience. Analytical and motivated: central route, lasting change. Distracted or unmotivated: peripheral cues, shorter-lived change.

RyanLet's recap. Attitudes have affective, behavioral and cognitive components. Dissonance is discomfort from inconsistent cognitions, especially ones that threaten our self-image.

SoheeWe reduce it by changing behavior, rationalizing, or adding a cognition. Hard-won things feel more valuable: justification of effort, shown by Aronson and Mills.

RyanThe Yale approach: source, message, audience. Back-to-back messages favor the first; a delay after the first message favors the last.

SoheeThe elaboration likelihood model: central route, strong arguments and lasting change; peripheral route, cues and briefer change. And foot-in-the-door works through our wish to stay consistent.

RyanHere's a kind thought to end on. Studying for this exam is effortful, and you may notice it makes the knowledge feel more valuable to you. That's okay. Let the effort mean something.

SoheeTry some practice questions on attitudes and persuasion next. Thanks for listening to EPPP Prep.

Loading the read-along timings…