Motivation and ability
Two newer models of persuasion, the ‘elaboration likelihood model’ (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986) and the ‘heuristic–systematic model’ (Chaiken, Liberman & Eagly, 1989), predict that the effects of persuasive messages depend on people’s motivation and ability to think carefully about them. If someone is highly motivated and able to process a persuasive message, they should be heavily influenced by the strength of the arguments in the message. But if they are less motivated or able to process the message, then they should be strongly affected by simple cues within the message, such as the presenter’s attractiveness or expertise. Many variables influence motivation and ability. Motivation is high when the message is relevant to personal goals and there is a fear of being wrong. Ability is high when people are not distracted and when they possess high cognitive skills. Although all of these variables have been studied in connection with both models of persuasion, most of this research has focused on the personal relevance of the message.For example, Petty et al. (1983) found that the attractiveness of the spokesperson presenting a message influences attitudes when the issue is not personally relevant, but has no effect when the issue is personally relevant. In contrast, the strength of the argument within the message influences attitudes when the issue is personally relevant, but not when the issue is not personally relevant. These findings support the predictions of the elaboration likelihood model and the heuristic–systematic model. Although many experiments have revealed similar effects, the heuristic–systematic model suggests that high personal relevanceshould not always lead to the lower use of cues such as the presenter’s attributes. For example, when a personally relevant message contains ambiguous arguments (i.e. it has strengths and weaknesses), people may be more persuaded by a message from an expert source than from an inexpert source (Chaiken & Maheswaran, 1994). According to this model, high personal relevance causes people to use environmental cues when the message arguments themselves provide no clear conclusions. This prediction has received some experimental support (Chaiken & Maheswaran, 1994).
Two newer models of persuasion, the ‘elaboration likelihood model’ (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986) and the ‘heuristic–systematic model’ (Chaiken, Liberman & Eagly, 1989), predict that the effects of persuasive messages depend on people’s motivation and ability to think carefully about them. If someone is highly motivated and able to process a persuasive message, they should be heavily influenced by the strength of the arguments in the message. But if they are less motivated or able to process the message, then they should be strongly affected by simple cues within the message, such as the presenter’s attractiveness or expertise. Many variables influence motivation and ability. Motivation is high when the message is relevant to personal goals and there is a fear of being wrong. Ability is high when people are not distracted and when they possess high cognitive skills. Although all of these variables have been studied in connection with both models of persuasion, most of this research has focused on the personal relevance of the message.For example, Petty et al. (1983) found that the attractiveness of the spokesperson presenting a message influences attitudes when the issue is not personally relevant, but has no effect when the issue is personally relevant. In contrast, the strength of the argument within the message influences attitudes when the issue is personally relevant, but not when the issue is not personally relevant. These findings support the predictions of the elaboration likelihood model and the heuristic–systematic model. Although many experiments have revealed similar effects, the heuristic–systematic model suggests that high personal relevanceshould not always lead to the lower use of cues such as the presenter’s attributes. For example, when a personally relevant message contains ambiguous arguments (i.e. it has strengths and weaknesses), people may be more persuaded by a message from an expert source than from an inexpert source (Chaiken & Maheswaran, 1994). According to this model, high personal relevance causes people to use environmental cues when the message arguments themselves provide no clear conclusions. This prediction has received some experimental support (Chaiken & Maheswaran, 1994).
No comments:
Post a Comment