00:00:01
[Music]
00:00:10
as we continue to talk about attitudes
00:00:12
in general and persuasion in particular
00:00:16
this time let's focus on the source of a
00:00:18
persuasive
00:00:20
communication here's a statement that's
00:00:22
probably not going to shock you we can't
00:00:24
change all people's minds all the time
00:00:28
and I guess that has some good points in
00:00:30
some bad points I mean it would be nice
00:00:32
if we had that type of power but keep in
00:00:35
mind if that type of power existed
00:00:37
people would wield that power against us
00:00:39
and we wouldn't want that I guess my
00:00:41
general point that I wanted to make is
00:00:43
that we're all unique people who come to
00:00:46
the table with our own unique
00:00:47
perspectives it's not like when I try to
00:00:50
persuade you of something I'm always
00:00:52
going to be able to get through to you
00:00:54
that's an oversimplification of the
00:00:56
persuasive process and it actually
00:00:58
reminds me of a conversation that I had
00:01:00
with a colleague of mine we weren't
00:01:01
seeing eye to eye about some policy
00:01:04
issue on campus so we were discussing it
00:01:06
and he came to my office and he said to
00:01:08
me if I'm right about the way I see this
00:01:11
issue I will persuade you and if you're
00:01:13
right about the way you see this issue
00:01:15
you will persuade me and I thought to
00:01:17
myself that's not true at all we already
00:01:20
know what the other person is likely to
00:01:22
say and we've already thought of
00:01:24
counterarguments so here's a general
00:01:26
Point persuasion in general decreases as
00:01:30
the significance of an issue or the
00:01:32
importance of an issue increases and
00:01:34
also as your familiarity with that issue
00:01:36
increases and that makes sense because
00:01:38
if an issue is really important to you
00:01:41
and you're really familiar with it it's
00:01:43
likely that you've really thought it out
00:01:45
and it's also likely that you've dug in
00:01:48
you've already determined what your
00:01:49
stance is going to be on that issue you
00:01:52
but by identifying some key factors in
00:01:55
the persuasive process we can strengthen
00:01:58
the odds that some persuasive attempt is
00:02:01
going to be successful so we can't
00:02:02
always change people's minds but if we
00:02:05
understand the persuasive process we can
00:02:07
craft a message so it's more likely to
00:02:09
be persuasive so what we're going to do
00:02:12
is start picking apart the persuasive
00:02:14
process so we can better understand when
00:02:16
it's going to be successful and when
00:02:17
it's going to be less successful and in
00:02:20
general persuasive Communications
00:02:22
consist of three main factors one is the
00:02:26
source of the message another is the
00:02:28
content of the message and a third key
00:02:32
factor is the audience to whom the
00:02:34
message is being directed so persuasive
00:02:37
Communications consist of who says what
00:02:40
to whom for now we're going to focus on
00:02:43
the source of the message so in other
00:02:45
words we're going to focus on the who
00:02:47
and who says what to
00:02:51
whom in general credible likable sources
00:02:55
are more
00:02:56
persuasive so what does it mean to be a
00:02:58
credible or a liable source Source let's
00:03:00
take each one of those
00:03:02
separately credibility in general is a
00:03:05
blend of Competency and
00:03:07
trustworthiness competent sources are
00:03:10
highly able they're smart they're
00:03:12
knowledgeable they're well spoken
00:03:15
they're seen as
00:03:16
experts so why is it that experts are
00:03:19
more persuasive well experts are
00:03:22
comforting to us they're somewhat
00:03:24
disarming because we assume that they
00:03:26
know what they're talking about so we
00:03:28
pay more attention to what they have to
00:03:30
say and we're more likely to accept what
00:03:32
they have to say in other words we're
00:03:34
more likely to be persuaded by experts
00:03:37
so for example Warren Buffett is a very
00:03:40
credible Source when it comes to
00:03:42
investing advice because he's one of the
00:03:44
richest men in the world so if I see a
00:03:47
news article that says it's going to
00:03:49
discuss Warren Buffett's 10 rules for
00:03:52
investing I'm going to read that because
00:03:54
I know that he's an expert he has
00:03:56
competency which makes him credible now
00:03:59
think about this as well competency and
00:04:02
credibility vary by context so here's a
00:04:05
picture of Merill stre Merill stre is an
00:04:08
amazing actress and I think when it
00:04:10
comes to that type of field most people
00:04:13
would see her as very competent and as
00:04:14
an expert however Merill stre sometimes
00:04:17
likes to talk about political issues in
00:04:20
that realm she's not seen as an expert
00:04:22
so in that realm she's not necessarily
00:04:24
seen as competent so in that realm she's
00:04:27
not necessarily seen as credible so she
00:04:29
will be less persuasive when talking
00:04:32
about political issues even though she
00:04:34
has a huge audience like for example
00:04:36
during an awards
00:04:38
banquet now contrast that with when I
00:04:41
hear the same types of political
00:04:43
arguments or political information
00:04:45
coming from a trusted newsman like
00:04:47
Lester Hol he is seen as much more
00:04:49
competent and thus he has much more
00:04:52
credibility but as I mentioned
00:04:55
competency isn't enough in order to be
00:04:58
credible you need to be competent but
00:05:00
you also need to be trustworthy in order
00:05:02
for you to be a credible Source who
00:05:05
might persuade me I need to trust that
00:05:08
you're telling me the truth now much of
00:05:11
our assessment of trustworthiness is
00:05:13
just simply based on stereotypes so
00:05:16
stereotypically when we think about like
00:05:18
members of Congress or car salesmen we
00:05:21
don't see them as very credible we don't
00:05:24
see them as very honest and that's what
00:05:26
these numbers are that you're looking at
00:05:27
right here they're essentially honesty
00:05:29
ratings you can see like nurses medical
00:05:32
doctors they're seen as very honest
00:05:33
people so it's just kind of
00:05:35
stereotypical and it also goes along I
00:05:37
guess with with the jobs that they have
00:05:39
I mean of course car salesmen are trying
00:05:41
to persuade us to buy a car uh they have
00:05:45
an ulterior motive they want to make
00:05:47
money nurses and medical doctors they're
00:05:49
not necessarily trying to persuade us
00:05:51
about something they're just trying to
00:05:53
inform us about something our our health
00:05:56
so all I'm saying is in general based on
00:05:58
their roles and BAS based on the
00:06:00
stereotypes that exist in our culture we
00:06:02
tend to see some people as more
00:06:04
trustworthy and other people as less
00:06:06
trustworthy and the people that we see
00:06:08
as more trustworthy they tend to be more
00:06:10
credible and thus they tend to be more
00:06:12
persuasive let's continue to talk about
00:06:14
trustworthiness a little bit here's a
00:06:16
good example uh Bernie Sanders although
00:06:19
he's a member of Congress he's a Senator
00:06:21
Bernie Sanders is indeed seen as very
00:06:24
trustworthy and that's because people
00:06:26
perceive him to be fighting for the
00:06:27
common man it's almost if he's fighting
00:06:30
against his own self-interest and this
00:06:33
brings up an important Point remember
00:06:35
when I was talking about car salesmen
00:06:37
when they're telling you about a car and
00:06:39
they're trying to persuade you to buy it
00:06:41
we know that they have a self-interest
00:06:43
in this deal because if you buy that car
00:06:46
they're going to make money but when
00:06:47
Bernie Sanders speaks many people
00:06:49
perceive him to be trustworthy because
00:06:52
they're unable to see his own
00:06:54
self-interest in many of the policies
00:06:56
that he proposes let me give you an
00:06:59
example Le from the other side of the
00:07:01
spectrum this is Wilford Brimley he's
00:07:03
deceased he an actor who made a lot of
00:07:06
movies and he was he was very popular
00:07:08
people loved him people saw him as a
00:07:10
grandfather well he started endorsing a
00:07:12
lot of products so he would be selling
00:07:14
Insurance he'd be selling medical
00:07:16
equipment he was selling oatmeal and the
00:07:19
point is because he was endorsing so
00:07:21
many products and people were able to
00:07:23
see that he had some type of
00:07:25
self-interest in it they no longer
00:07:27
trusted him and in fact it became a
00:07:29
little bit bit of a joke one week on
00:07:31
Saturday Night Live they had an actor
00:07:34
portraying him and they showed a
00:07:36
commercial that started out with high
00:07:38
I'm Wilford Brimley for Tampa so I guess
00:07:40
they were just trying to make the point
00:07:42
that this particular actor would endorse
00:07:44
any product so how can we trust him to
00:07:46
tell us honestly about any one of those
00:07:49
products all right well I mentioned that
00:07:51
credible and likable sources are more
00:07:53
persuasive let's talk a little bit now
00:07:55
about what makes a source more likable
00:07:58
well in general like
00:07:59
is composed of two primary factors one
00:08:02
is similarity and the other one is
00:08:04
pretty obvious physical attractiveness
00:08:06
you might not have thought much about
00:08:08
similarity but it's really pretty
00:08:10
interesting because people who are
00:08:12
similar to us they're essentially
00:08:14
informal members of our ingroup if they
00:08:17
share some type of characteristic with
00:08:19
us then we form a a more immediate bond
00:08:22
to them it's almost unquestionable so
00:08:25
for example it's not uncommon that I get
00:08:27
calls and people are trying to raise
00:08:29
money
00:08:30
well it's also not that uncommon that I
00:08:31
will get calls from Ohio University
00:08:33
trying to raise money sometimes they're
00:08:35
really smart from a social psychological
00:08:37
perspective and they will have an OU
00:08:40
student call now when I answer the phone
00:08:43
and I find out that the person that I'm
00:08:44
talking to is an U student I kind of
00:08:47
immediately bond with that student
00:08:49
because I know that that student is like
00:08:51
me I was an U student I'm now an OU
00:08:53
Professor so this person is part of my
00:08:55
ingroup now if that person is like me
00:08:58
and that person is part of my my in
00:08:59
group that person is going to be more
00:09:01
persuasive it's simply harder for me to
00:09:03
say no to someone who I have that much
00:09:05
in common with another characteristic
00:09:08
that leads to likeability is physical
00:09:10
attractiveness and I know it doesn't
00:09:12
seem like the world should work this way
00:09:13
but it does people who are physically
00:09:16
attractive just tend to be more likable
00:09:18
at least initially and when a physically
00:09:20
attractive source is part of some type
00:09:23
of persuasive campaign like in this
00:09:25
example Sophia Vergara is selling Diet
00:09:27
Pepsi we're going to pay attention
00:09:29
attention at least men are going to pay
00:09:30
attention I know I pay attention I have
00:09:33
no intention at all of buying or
00:09:35
drinking diet Pepsi but if I see her on
00:09:38
a commercial I'm going to watch it so
00:09:40
physically attractive people are more
00:09:42
likely to get our attention they're more
00:09:44
likely to keep our attention and there's
00:09:46
also some evidence that we're more
00:09:48
likely to try to please those people so
00:09:51
for example there was a really neat
00:09:53
research study done back in the 1970s by
00:09:55
Shelley Chen she's a well-known social
00:09:58
psychologist and and what she did In
00:10:00
This research study was manipulate the
00:10:03
attractiveness level of people who were
00:10:05
asking other people these were students
00:10:07
on campus to sign a petition so some of
00:10:09
the students that were out there asking
00:10:11
to have a petition signed were very
00:10:12
physically attractive people other
00:10:14
people were more average and the
00:10:16
petition had to do with um keeping meat
00:10:19
off of the menus in the cafeteria when
00:10:22
physically attractive people approached
00:10:24
others they were successful about 41% of
00:10:27
the time about 41% of the time the
00:10:30
people sign their petition the more
00:10:32
average looking people were successful
00:10:34
only about 32% of the time so one thing
00:10:37
that we'll cover later on is called the
00:10:39
what is beautiful is good stereotype and
00:10:43
in general when we see people who are
00:10:45
beautiful we tend to think that they
00:10:47
have a lot of other good characteristics
00:10:50
and that seems to also filter down
00:10:52
through their persuasive
00:10:53
Communications so I guess the bottom
00:10:55
line is when physically attractive
00:10:57
people speak we're more likely to listen
00:11:01
we're more likely to continue paying
00:11:02
attention and there's some evidence to
00:11:04
show that we're also more likely to
00:11:06
follow through and actually act on that
00:11:09
persuasive appeal so for the reasons
00:11:11
that we just discussed the source of a
00:11:13
message is obviously very influential
00:11:16
however that's not always the case and
00:11:18
the time that that's not the case is
00:11:20
when people are very involved in some
00:11:23
type of issue so personal involvement
00:11:26
can limit Source effects when a message
00:11:30
a persuasive appeal is very personally
00:11:32
relevant people are more likely to pay
00:11:34
attention and that makes sense because
00:11:36
if the message has something to do with
00:11:39
them they're more likely to pay
00:11:41
attention to what that message is really
00:11:42
saying in other words they're more
00:11:44
likely to process that message via the
00:11:46
central route and when they do this
00:11:49
they're much less likely to be
00:11:50
influenced by Source characteristics let
00:11:53
me give you an example of a research
00:11:55
study that makes that point pretty
00:11:56
clearly during this research study
00:12:00
students were presented with a
00:12:02
persuasive communication and there were
00:12:04
a couple things that were manipulated
00:12:06
one thing was how involved those
00:12:08
students would be in that persuasive
00:12:10
communication the persuasive appeal was
00:12:13
all about implementing comprehensive
00:12:14
exams for graduating seniors some of
00:12:17
those seniors some of those students
00:12:19
listening to the persuasive appeal were
00:12:22
very involved in the issue because they
00:12:24
were told that these new exams would
00:12:26
take place next year when they were
00:12:28
graduating so they would have to take
00:12:30
the exams other students who were
00:12:32
hearing the persuasive appeal were told
00:12:34
that the new exams would not be
00:12:36
implemented for another 10 years so it
00:12:38
wouldn't affect them so some students
00:12:40
were very involved because the new exams
00:12:42
would affect them some students were not
00:12:45
involved because the new exams would not
00:12:47
affect them now another thing that was
00:12:50
manipulated was the strength of the
00:12:52
arguments sometimes the students were
00:12:53
hearing very strong Arguments for why we
00:12:56
should have these comprehensive exams
00:12:58
and sometimes the students were hearing
00:12:59
weak arguments so let's just look at the
00:13:02
results from that perspective first when
00:13:05
students were really involved in this
00:13:07
issue because they would have to take
00:13:09
the exams they were persuaded most when
00:13:12
they heard strong arguments when they
00:13:14
heard weak arguments they were not
00:13:16
persuaded much at all so that's a good
00:13:18
example of how when you are highly
00:13:21
involved in an issue you are more likely
00:13:23
to process that message via the central
00:13:26
route now look at these students these
00:13:28
students heard heard the exact same
00:13:30
messages however they knew that these
00:13:32
exams were not going to affect them so
00:13:34
they were not very involved in what was
00:13:36
going on and as you would expect they
00:13:38
processed that information via the
00:13:40
peripheral route and remember when
00:13:42
people are processing information via
00:13:44
the peripheral route they're not really
00:13:46
scrutinizing the arguments very well so
00:13:48
here we see a very small difference in
00:13:51
the people's attitudes after hearing
00:13:53
strong arguments and weak arguments in
00:13:55
general it didn't matter all that much
00:13:58
how strong the argu ments were now
00:14:00
here's where things got more interesting
00:14:02
and here's where things are tied into
00:14:03
Source characteristics or Source
00:14:06
effects some of the students in the
00:14:09
research study were hearing the message
00:14:11
from an expert Source a college
00:14:13
professor other students were hearing
00:14:15
the persuasive appeal from a non-expert
00:14:18
source a high school student when people
00:14:21
were highly involved because those
00:14:23
comprehensive exams were going to affect
00:14:25
them it did not matter how credible The
00:14:28
Source was
00:14:29
because they were processing that
00:14:31
information via the central route and
00:14:33
via the central route I don't care if
00:14:34
you're an expert or you're not an expert
00:14:36
I want to hear what you have to say and
00:14:39
in these experimental conditions the
00:14:41
only thing that was being manipulated
00:14:43
was the expertise of the source they're
00:14:45
either highly expert or not expert did
00:14:48
not matter but now for the students who
00:14:52
had a relatively low involvement in this
00:14:54
issue because the comprehensive exams
00:14:56
would not affect them they were very
00:14:58
influ infuenced by who was speaking that
00:15:00
message and that's because they're
00:15:02
processing that information via the
00:15:04
peripheral route remember when people
00:15:06
are processing via the peripheral route
00:15:08
they're not paying attention to all the
00:15:10
nitty-gritty of the message it's just
00:15:12
not that important to them so they're
00:15:14
relying on some superficial cues well
00:15:17
one superficial cue is the source
00:15:19
characteristic that someone is an expert
00:15:21
or someone's not so much an expert when
00:15:24
these people were hearing the message
00:15:26
from an expert Source they saw the
00:15:29
arguments as relatively persuasive they
00:15:31
saw the idea for comprehensive exams as
00:15:34
favorable but when these students were
00:15:36
hearing the persuasive appeal from a
00:15:38
non-expert source from a high school
00:15:40
student they were not
00:15:42
persuaded so just to sum up my point is
00:15:44
that Source characteristics are very
00:15:47
important sources that are credible and
00:15:49
likable do indeed tend to be more
00:15:51
persuasive but that's most likely to
00:15:54
occur when people are processing
00:15:56
information via the peripheral route
00:15:59
when people are very involved in an
00:16:01
issue and they're processing information
00:16:03
via the central route they are still
00:16:05
going to be persuaded based on the
00:16:06
strength of the
00:16:08
arguments let's talk about the sleeper
00:16:11
effect next it's really a very
00:16:12
interesting phenomenon that's related to
00:16:15
Source characteristics here's the basic
00:16:17
Point noncredible sources can have a
00:16:20
greater persuasive impact over
00:16:23
time let me give you an example of how
00:16:25
this could work when Hillary Clinton was
00:16:28
running for president some people
00:16:31
discussed the idea that she might have
00:16:33
been involved in a murder of a person
00:16:36
who worked for Bill Clinton back when
00:16:37
Bill Clinton was President and I know
00:16:39
that sounds crazy and that's because it
00:16:41
is crazy and it's interesting though
00:16:44
that this was actually printed you know
00:16:47
in some tabloids and it was on the
00:16:49
internet but we need to keep in mind
00:16:51
that different sources are associated
00:16:53
with different levels of credibility so
00:16:56
if we saw this story printed and
00:16:59
seriously written about in like the Wall
00:17:01
Street Journal or the New York Times or
00:17:04
the Washington Post then it would have
00:17:06
one level of credibility but if we saw
00:17:09
something like this printed in the
00:17:10
Tabloid like the national Inquirer it
00:17:12
would be associated with another level
00:17:14
of credibility much less credibility
00:17:17
well my point about the sleeper effect
00:17:18
is this when people learn information
00:17:22
like the information that you're seeing
00:17:23
right in front of you they remember that
00:17:25
information they think about that
00:17:27
information and they also associated
00:17:29
with the source that provided that
00:17:31
information but the sleeper effect says
00:17:33
that over time people often disassociate
00:17:37
the source of the information with the
00:17:39
actual information they learned so a
00:17:42
source that is not credible over time
00:17:45
can become more credible when people
00:17:48
forget where they heard the information
00:17:50
so this is the type of thing that's
00:17:51
likely to happen someone will read about
00:17:54
Hillary Clinton being involved in a
00:17:56
murder in the National Inquirer and
00:17:59
they'll probably think that's crazy this
00:18:01
is just a tabloid and then it might be
00:18:03
six months down the road and somebody
00:18:05
will be talking about it and they'll say
00:18:07
yeah I remember reading about that at
00:18:08
some point maybe there's really
00:18:10
something to that because they're no
00:18:12
longer remembering where they read it
00:18:14
they're no longer remembering that the
00:18:16
source did not have
00:18:18
credibility what's interesting is that
00:18:20
this sleeper effect is most likely to
00:18:23
occur it occurs most reliably when
00:18:26
people learn about the source of the
00:18:27
information after they've already read
00:18:30
or heard about that persuasive message
00:18:32
so think about a situation like this
00:18:34
let's say that someone comes up to you
00:18:35
and they say like hey I heard that
00:18:36
Hillary Clinton was involved in a murder
00:18:38
then you talk about it a little bit and
00:18:40
then maybe you even talk about it with
00:18:41
someone else you start spreading that
00:18:43
information and it's only later that you
00:18:46
find out that that information was
00:18:47
originally published in the National
00:18:49
Inquirer and let's say that you don't
00:18:51
really trust the national inquire like
00:18:53
most people because it's a it's a
00:18:54
tabloid so at that point you'll pretty
00:18:57
much discount that story but remember
00:18:59
what the sleeper effect is all about
00:19:01
months later down the road you might
00:19:04
forget where that information came from
00:19:07
and when you hear other people talking
00:19:08
about it you're more likely in that
00:19:10
situation to say yeah I remember hearing
00:19:11
about that and you might be more likely
00:19:13
to think there's really something to it
00:19:15
and that's what the sleeper effect is
00:19:16
all about a non-credible source in this
00:19:19
case the national inquire can have a
00:19:21
greater persuasive impact on you over
00:19:24
time when that message that you remember
00:19:27
becomes disassociated with where you
00:19:29
read it the sleeper effect has been
00:19:31
demonstrated in some research studies in
00:19:34
these studies people are presented with
00:19:35
some information a persuasive appeal and
00:19:38
they're told that it either comes from a
00:19:40
high credibility Source or a low
00:19:41
credibility
00:19:42
source of course in this situation if
00:19:45
the source has low credibility people
00:19:47
don't change their attitudes very much
00:19:49
compared to if the source has high
00:19:51
credibility however if you check their
00:19:53
attitudes again over time in this case 3
00:19:55
weeks later we can see that even when
00:19:57
there's a low cred credibility Source
00:19:59
the people's attitudes tend to increase
00:20:01
just a little bit they become a little
00:20:03
bit more persuaded and people who heard
00:20:05
that information from a high credibility
00:20:06
source that tends to lose its persuasive
00:20:09
appeal because remember they too over
00:20:11
time are disassociating where they heard
00:20:14
that information so credible sources
00:20:17
over time tend to have less persuasive
00:20:19
impact and non-credible sources over
00:20:22
time tend to have more persuasive impact
00:20:25
now if you were to measure those people
00:20:27
3 weeks later but this time remind them
00:20:29
about the source of that communication
00:20:31
you won't see any sleeper effect at
00:20:33
all all right my friends that's it for
00:20:35
this section but stay tuned because
00:20:37
there's more social psychology coming up
00:20:39
soon
00:20:42
[Music]
00:20:52
[Music]
