00:00:01
[Music]
00:00:10
all right welcome back let's continue to
00:00:12
talk about attitudes and as we talk
00:00:15
about persuasive communication this time
00:00:17
let's focus on the actual content of the
00:00:20
message so you'll recall that when we
00:00:23
talk about persuasive
00:00:25
Communications we know that they consist
00:00:27
of three primary factors so we discussed
00:00:30
that persuasion can be boiled down to
00:00:32
who says what to whom so who we're
00:00:36
talking about the source of the message
00:00:38
what we're talking about the content of
00:00:40
the message and to whom we're talking
00:00:42
about the audience to whom the message
00:00:44
is actually directed that means we're
00:00:47
focusing on what a person actually says
00:00:50
and how the person actually says it and
00:00:52
throughout this discussion try to keep
00:00:54
in mind that when Stakes are high when
00:00:57
something is important people process in
00:01:00
information via the central route we
00:01:02
only strong messages messages that have
00:01:05
a strong content lead to
00:01:08
persuasion all right well as we focus on
00:01:10
message content let's discuss some
00:01:13
informational strategies these are
00:01:15
simply strategies for crafting a
00:01:17
persuasive appeal that can make it more
00:01:20
likely for that persuasive message to be
00:01:22
successful so for example is it more
00:01:25
persuasive for a message to be long or
00:01:28
to be short is it is it more persuasive
00:01:30
for a message to be one-sided or
00:01:33
two-sided it would be nice if there was
00:01:35
one simple answer but the real answer is
00:01:38
that it depends and the key thing is
00:01:41
that it depends on how interested the
00:01:43
intended audience is how involved
00:01:45
they're going to be because we know if
00:01:47
an issue is important and the audience
00:01:50
is likely to be highly involved then
00:01:52
they'll process the message via the
00:01:53
central route and they'll carefully
00:01:55
scrutinize that message but if not if
00:01:57
they're not going to be highly involved
00:01:59
if it's not that important to them they
00:02:01
may pay less attention to the meat of
00:02:03
the message particularly if the message
00:02:05
is long or if it's difficult to
00:02:07
understand or if they're pressed for
00:02:09
time in those situations the audience
00:02:12
May process the message via the
00:02:13
peripheral route which means they're
00:02:16
going to be more likely to be influenced
00:02:17
by Source characteristics that we
00:02:19
discussed previously so for example they
00:02:21
might be more influenced by if the
00:02:24
person is likable or they might be very
00:02:26
influenced if the person is attractive
00:02:28
or they might be very influenced simply
00:02:30
because the person providing the message
00:02:32
was described as an expert but message
00:02:35
content matters too so let's break down
00:02:38
some of the general principles that
00:02:39
we've learned that have been confirmed
00:02:41
by research
00:02:42
studies so let's first discuss if a
00:02:45
message is more likely to be persuasive
00:02:47
if it's long or if it's short one thing
00:02:50
is really pretty clear the length of the
00:02:52
message is not going to matter much if
00:02:54
the people are highly involved if it's a
00:02:57
very important issue and thus they're
00:02:58
going to be processing that information
00:03:00
via the central route for these people
00:03:03
it doesn't matter if the message is long
00:03:05
or if it's short what really matters is
00:03:07
what you say and if the strength of that
00:03:09
message is high if it's a strong message
00:03:12
with good solid arguments then
00:03:14
persuasion is likely to take place but
00:03:16
remember not everybody is going to
00:03:18
scrutinize an argument very carefully so
00:03:21
what's interesting is that long messages
00:03:23
may seem more valid to people who are
00:03:26
processing information via the
00:03:28
peripheral route because peripheral
00:03:30
route processing pays attention to
00:03:34
various rules of thumb and superficial
00:03:37
characteristics it's possible that these
00:03:39
people are likely to say wow that person
00:03:41
had such a long message they had so much
00:03:43
to say they really have a strong
00:03:45
argument so in that situation they're
00:03:47
not necessarily paying attention to what
00:03:49
is being said but just that the person
00:03:51
said a lot and if they said a lot it was
00:03:53
probably important let me just give you
00:03:56
a quick example imagine if a persuasive
00:03:59
communication was structured this way
00:04:01
and I'm a politician and I say my plan
00:04:03
is supported by nearly every senator in
00:04:06
the state legislature that message is
00:04:08
short it's sweet it's powerful it
00:04:11
conveys a very important point if nearly
00:04:14
every Senator is supporting my plan it's
00:04:17
probably a pretty strong plan so people
00:04:20
who are processing this information on
00:04:21
the central route are likely to take
00:04:23
notice now contrast that short simple
00:04:27
powerful message with this one one what
00:04:30
if I were to say my plan is supported by
00:04:33
Senator Stevens and Senator Johnson
00:04:35
favors my plan as well and so does
00:04:37
Senator Cox and uh Senator Jones he's
00:04:39
got great things to say about my plan
00:04:41
and indeed Senator field says that he's
00:04:43
going to support it as well and I can go
00:04:45
on and on and on and actually I can talk
00:04:48
about every single senator who supports
00:04:50
my plan now if I were to do that it's
00:04:54
possible that people who are processing
00:04:55
this information via the peripheral
00:04:57
route will be very impressed because
00:05:00
they'll say like wow this guy was
00:05:01
talking forever about all these
00:05:03
different Senators who support his plan
00:05:05
that's really very impressive and
00:05:07
they're not necessarily thinking to
00:05:09
themselves even what the message is
00:05:11
instead they're just relying on that
00:05:13
basic rule of thumb if someone just
00:05:15
talked for a long time and they said a
00:05:17
lot of stuff and they said that a lot of
00:05:19
people support their ideas they probably
00:05:21
have a pretty good idea I'm impressed
00:05:23
I'm persuaded but we have to be careful
00:05:27
because adding weak arguments to our
00:05:29
message or adding redundant arguments to
00:05:31
our message can actually dute a message
00:05:34
that started out very strong and this is
00:05:37
particularly true for people who are
00:05:38
processing that message via the central
00:05:40
route so my point is that it's possible
00:05:43
that this message right here might do
00:05:45
well with people who are processing via
00:05:47
the peripheral route simply because I'm
00:05:49
going to list a lot of different
00:05:50
Senators who support my plan however by
00:05:55
adding Senator after Senator after
00:05:57
Senator I'm really just adding redundant
00:05:59
arguments and people who are processing
00:06:02
via the central route they're not going
00:06:04
to be impressed all they needed to know
00:06:06
was this right here that my plan is
00:06:08
supported by nearly every senator in the
00:06:10
state legislature if I keep adding
00:06:13
redundant information I might actually
00:06:15
weaken my message now here's another
00:06:17
interesting and related Point people who
00:06:20
are processing a persuasive appeal via
00:06:22
the peripheral route remember they're
00:06:24
relying on basic rules of thumb and the
00:06:27
rule of thumb that we're talking about
00:06:28
right now is the long longer the message
00:06:30
the better it must be the longer the
00:06:32
message the more important stuff that
00:06:34
the person has to say so sometimes I can
00:06:38
add relatively weak arguments to a
00:06:41
message and actually make those
00:06:43
peripheral route processors more
00:06:45
impressed so imagine this example right
00:06:48
here here I might be saying that my plan
00:06:51
is supported by nearly every senator in
00:06:53
the state legislature and by many city
00:06:55
councilmen now the whole idea that my
00:06:59
plan is supported by City councilmen
00:07:01
isn't necessarily really strong because
00:07:04
City councilmen represent really small
00:07:06
fish when we're talking about some
00:07:08
policy that occurs at the state level so
00:07:11
although that additional weaker
00:07:13
information might make the message more
00:07:16
persuasive to people processing on the
00:07:18
peripheral route because they're simply
00:07:20
counting the number of
00:07:21
arguments that type of message is not
00:07:24
going to make Central route processors
00:07:27
more impressed because all that they're
00:07:29
going to be queuing in on is the weaker
00:07:31
information and overall the message
00:07:34
might become diluted so it's kind of an
00:07:36
interesting example that more is not
00:07:39
always better particularly when it comes
00:07:40
to Central route processing if you can
00:07:43
stick with a short very strong argument
00:07:46
that's probably what you want to
00:07:48
do all right well let's switch gears for
00:07:50
a second and focus on this particular
00:07:52
question is it more persuasive to have a
00:07:55
one-sided argument or a two-sided
00:07:57
argument one General principle is that
00:07:59
one-sided messages tend to resonate with
00:08:01
your base and also potentially with
00:08:03
people who are processing information
00:08:05
via the peripheral route before we move
00:08:07
on let me just even make sure that you
00:08:09
understand what I mean by a one-sided
00:08:11
persuasive appeal or a two-sided
00:08:13
persuasive appeal a one-sided message is
00:08:16
simply a persuasive communication that
00:08:18
focuses on one side of the issue only so
00:08:20
they're structured as if our side of the
00:08:23
debate has like all the right arguments
00:08:26
and all the good points and then their
00:08:28
side of the debate has all the wrong
00:08:30
arguments and all the weak points well
00:08:33
your base is likely to respond to that
00:08:35
type of one-sided message because they
00:08:38
agree with you already and they support
00:08:40
you almost no matter what and by the way
00:08:43
that's one reason that presidential
00:08:45
candidates often speak in such Extreme
00:08:47
Ways during the presidential primaries
00:08:50
at that point in the race for the
00:08:51
presidency they only need to convince
00:08:54
their fellow Democrats or their fellow
00:08:56
Republicans to support them that's their
00:08:58
base but you know how this process works
00:09:01
after the primaries are over all that's
00:09:03
going to remain is one Republican
00:09:05
candidate and one Democratic candidate
00:09:08
and those two folks now need to gain the
00:09:11
support of Voters who are outside of
00:09:13
their base they now need support from
00:09:16
people who are likely to see at least
00:09:17
some good qualities in both candidates
00:09:20
so now when presenting arguments the
00:09:22
presidential candidates might want to
00:09:24
have some messages that are somewhat
00:09:26
more two-sided such that they include a
00:09:28
more fair and comprehensive discussion
00:09:30
of the important issues because without
00:09:33
that Central route processors are likely
00:09:36
to see the candidate as extremely biased
00:09:38
and then they will likely discount what
00:09:40
that candidate has to say so you can see
00:09:43
the process gets kind of complex you
00:09:44
know persuasion is not easy it's not
00:09:46
easy to change people's minds and we
00:09:48
need to consider a lot of different
00:09:50
factors so when we're talking about
00:09:52
these informational strategies right now
00:09:54
I think it's important to see that both
00:09:56
long and short arguments can be
00:09:58
persuasive
00:10:00
and one-sided and two-sided arguments
00:10:02
can both be persuasive it just depends
00:10:04
on the audience that we're talking to
00:10:06
and how involved they are in the actual
00:10:09
topic all right well let's move along
00:10:12
well what we're doing right now is
00:10:13
talking about the content of a
00:10:15
persuasive appeal so we're focusing on
00:10:18
what people say and how they say it so
00:10:21
one good question that we can ask is our
00:10:24
first impressions or final arguments
00:10:26
more influential so if you were in some
00:10:28
type of debate debate with somebody who
00:10:30
has a conflicting View and you're trying
00:10:32
to persuade some other people who are
00:10:34
listening is it better to speak first or
00:10:37
is it better to speak last are people
00:10:39
going to be more likely to remember the
00:10:41
initial things that they heard or are
00:10:43
they going to be most influenced by what
00:10:45
they heard last well it turns out that
00:10:47
order can be actually relatively
00:10:49
important so the order in which a
00:10:51
persuasive message is delivered can lead
00:10:53
to either Primacy effects or recency
00:10:56
effects and it really depends on the
00:10:58
timing of the decision ision that the
00:10:59
people in the audience are making this
00:11:01
table right here might help us better
00:11:04
understand the results of This research
00:11:06
and this is based on a classic study
00:11:08
from the
00:11:09
1950s and in this research study people
00:11:12
were reading summaries of a court case
00:11:15
so they were reading about the two sides
00:11:17
from this battle so they'd get some
00:11:19
information from the plaintiffs and then
00:11:21
they'd also get some information from
00:11:23
the defendants and they would read that
00:11:25
information individually and then later
00:11:28
on they had to decide
00:11:29
which case was most persuasive so if
00:11:31
they were on a jury who would they vote
00:11:33
for so let's just walk through the four
00:11:35
different conditions that were tested in
00:11:38
the first condition the subjects first
00:11:40
read about the plaintiff side of the
00:11:42
case and then they read about the
00:11:44
defendant side of the case and then they
00:11:47
waited about a week until they made
00:11:49
their decision and later on when they
00:11:51
made their decision the researchers
00:11:52
found a Primacy effect such that it was
00:11:55
that first set of messages from the
00:11:57
plaintiffs that tended to be most
00:11:59
persuasive so after that one we delay
00:12:02
people forget quite a bit of information
00:12:05
but what seemed to be most top of mind
00:12:07
or most influential was what they heard
00:12:10
first so we call that a Primacy
00:12:12
effect it's in this second condition
00:12:15
that you're going to see the timing of
00:12:16
the decision really plays a key role so
00:12:20
in this situation the research subjects
00:12:22
first heard about the arguments from the
00:12:24
plaintiff they then had to wait one week
00:12:27
so that's almost like 4 this trial there
00:12:30
was a delay so they came back after a
00:12:33
week and then they heard the arguments
00:12:34
from the defendant and it was at that
00:12:36
point that they made a decision to
00:12:37
determine who had the strongest case now
00:12:40
in this situation they found that the
00:12:42
defendants had the strongest case so the
00:12:44
information that they heard most
00:12:46
recently turned out to be most
00:12:48
persuasive that's why we call that a
00:12:50
recency
00:12:52
effect so what's likely Happening Here
00:12:54
is that the initial information that the
00:12:57
subjects heard from the plaintiff's case
00:12:59
somewhat lost its persuasive impact
00:13:02
during that onewe delay and because the
00:13:05
subjects were now just hearing today
00:13:08
about the defendant's case they were
00:13:11
most persuaded by it when they had to
00:13:13
make a decision right after hearing it
00:13:15
that's what a recency effect
00:13:17
is in this third condition neither side
00:13:21
ended up having an advantage if the
00:13:23
subjects first heard about the
00:13:24
plaintiff's case and then immediately
00:13:27
after they heard about the defendant's
00:13:28
case and and then immediately after that
00:13:30
they made a decision there were really
00:13:32
no differences in terms of which case
00:13:34
they thought was stronger and likewise
00:13:37
there seemed to be no timing advantage
00:13:39
in this fourth condition where the
00:13:41
subjects first heard about the
00:13:43
plaintiff's case they then went through
00:13:45
a onewe delay they then came back and
00:13:47
they heard about the defendants case and
00:13:49
then again they had a onee delay and
00:13:51
then later on they came back and made a
00:13:53
decision well in this situation because
00:13:55
there were delays after hearing both of
00:13:57
the cases the persuasive power of each
00:14:01
communication somewhat lost effect and
00:14:03
therefore their decision did not favor
00:14:05
one side over the other it's kind of
00:14:08
interesting to look at the results from
00:14:10
this fourth condition and see how they
00:14:12
apply to how we schedule conventions
00:14:15
when there's going to be a presidential
00:14:16
election so in that situation one of the
00:14:19
conventions needs to be scheduled first
00:14:22
well if you're one of those decision
00:14:23
makers you need to determine do you
00:14:25
really want to fight for your convention
00:14:27
to be first or do you really want to
00:14:29
fight for your convention to be second
00:14:32
well the research would show that the
00:14:34
timing being first or second really
00:14:37
wouldn't influence the final decision
00:14:40
because the way it usually works is one
00:14:42
of the groups will have their convention
00:14:43
let's say it's the Democrats and then
00:14:45
some time goes by maybe a week maybe two
00:14:47
weeks and then the other group is going
00:14:49
to have their convention let's say
00:14:50
that's the Republicans and then again
00:14:52
time goes by maybe a series of weeks and
00:14:54
then we make a decision about who's
00:14:56
going to be president well in those
00:14:58
situations there does not tend to be
00:15:00
recency effects or Primacy effects so in
00:15:03
this situation neither First Impressions
00:15:06
nor final arguments tend to give you an
00:15:09
advantage all right well let's wrap up
00:15:11
this discussion by talking about message
00:15:13
discrepancy what we're trying to figure
00:15:15
out here is how extreme should our
00:15:17
persuasive messages be let's remind
00:15:19
ourselves of this first persuasion is
00:15:21
all about changing people's minds and
00:15:24
that's not an easy thing to do for a
00:15:26
variety of reasons so for example we
00:15:29
know that people like to seek
00:15:30
information that confirms their existing
00:15:33
attitudes and you might recall that's
00:15:35
what confirmation bias is all about we
00:15:37
also know that people naturally defend
00:15:40
their attitudes cuz remember our
00:15:42
attitudes are one key thing that
00:15:44
comprise who we are they're one key
00:15:46
thing in defining who we are and we
00:15:48
don't want to give that up very
00:15:50
easily so how discrepant should a
00:15:53
persuasive message be from the
00:15:56
audience's current position another way
00:15:59
to think about this is when trying to
00:16:00
change someone's attitude do we want to
00:16:03
go for a subtle change or do we really
00:16:05
want to try to rock the person's world
00:16:08
so for example if I'm trying to convince
00:16:10
a meat eater to become a vegetarian I
00:16:13
can try to convince that person to eat a
00:16:15
little less meat you know perhaps
00:16:17
because I can convince them that it's U
00:16:19
more healthy to eat less meat or I can
00:16:23
try to convince them to eliminate meat
00:16:25
Al together not only because it's more
00:16:27
healthy but because farming animals
00:16:30
destroys our environment and because
00:16:32
farming animals is cruel to the animals
00:16:34
and because it's morally wrong to take
00:16:36
advantage of the Animals by confining
00:16:38
them and then by eating their babies so
00:16:41
you can see based on that example we
00:16:43
have a lot of latitude in terms of how
00:16:45
we craft our message we can be
00:16:47
relatively subtle and search for just a
00:16:50
little bit of change a little bit of
00:16:51
persuasion or we can be relatively
00:16:54
heavy-handed and really try to seek
00:16:57
significant persuasion sign ific
00:16:59
attitude change so what would the
00:17:01
research on this topic suggest that we
00:17:03
do well the bottom line is it's really
00:17:05
best to be cautious because if we put
00:17:08
too much pressure on someone they're
00:17:10
likely to outright reject our message
00:17:13
altogether in fact if I were to plot
00:17:15
message discrepancy and the level of
00:17:18
persuasion on a graph we'd probably find
00:17:21
a very interesting pattern of results in
00:17:23
fact it's likely to make what we call an
00:17:25
inverted U so let's make sure we can
00:17:27
make sense of this if I'm plotting
00:17:29
persuasion on the graph of course that
00:17:31
can range from low to high if it's low
00:17:34
I'm not going to change people's
00:17:35
attitudes very much High persuasion
00:17:37
would mean I'm very successful I'm
00:17:39
changing people's attitudes now let's
00:17:41
look at the message discrepancy if
00:17:43
there's low message discrepancy that
00:17:45
means my persuasive appeal differs just
00:17:48
a little bit from the target person's
00:17:51
original attitude but High message
00:17:53
discrepancy means that my persuasive
00:17:56
appeal differs quite a bit now from that
00:17:59
person's initial attitude so here's the
00:18:02
bottom line when I'm talking to that
00:18:04
meat eater if I were to give them a
00:18:06
persuasive appeal that is not very
00:18:08
discrepant from their initial attitude
00:18:10
but of course it it differs a little bit
00:18:12
I'm going to try to convince them for
00:18:14
example that they should just give up
00:18:15
meat one day a week if they give up meat
00:18:18
one day a week I'm going to try to
00:18:20
convince them that they're going to have
00:18:21
a healthier diet overall you can see in
00:18:24
these situations when message
00:18:25
discrepancy is relatively low the
00:18:28
success of persuasion is reasonably High
00:18:32
however when message discrepancy is high
00:18:35
and I'm giving that person the hard cell
00:18:37
trying to get them to give up meat Al
00:18:40
together it's in those situations that
00:18:43
the persuasion is likely to be low and
00:18:45
I'm unlikely to change their minds
00:18:47
overall keep in mind that people don't
00:18:49
appreciate being told that their current
00:18:51
world viw is wrong you know you might be
00:18:54
right but they won't necessarily
00:18:56
appreciate it and they will likely
00:18:58
resist it at least
00:19:00
initially in fact the more self-defining
00:19:03
an issue is the more resistant to
00:19:05
persuasion your intended target will be
00:19:07
but let's be fair there are individual
00:19:09
differences in terms of how open-minded
00:19:11
people will be some people will Embrace
00:19:14
a new chance to redefine themselves
00:19:16
based on your unsolicited persuasive
00:19:18
appeal but most people
00:19:21
won't well that's it for this section
00:19:23
but stay tuned because there's more
00:19:24
social psychology coming up soon
00:19:32
[Music]
00:19:40
[Music]
