Attitudes are influenced not only by the source of the message but also by the content and style of the message itself as it appeals to both our minds and our feelings. Here we consider some characteristics of the message, including approaches you can take to enhance your own ability to persuade.

Argument Strength

Earlier we said that when people take the central route to persuasion, their attitudes are influenced primarily by the strength of the arguments. But what makes an argument strong or weak?

First, to be strong a message needs to be comprehensible. For example, participants in one study were more convinced by arguments arranged in a logical order than they were by the same arguments presented in a jumbled order (Eagly, 1974).

Argument strength is also influenced by the length of the message. If you want to persuade people, should you present them with a long communication that contains lots of arguments, or a short one? There is no simple answer. If the audience takes the central route, message length can either increase and decrease persuasion. On the one hand, a longer message can be more persuasive if it contains many supportive arguments rather than a few (Calder et al., 1974). On the other hand, if you try to increase the length of a message artificially by adding weak arguments or repeating the same arguments, an attentive audience may become irritated at the message and reject it (Cacioppo & Petty, 1979). Also, people’s cognitive resources allow them to think about and remember only so many arguments in a given time span. The more arguments you present, the less able the audience is to think about and rehearse those arguments, and the fewer they will remember (Eagly, 1974). As a result, longer messages with arguments of varying quality can be less persuasive than messages containing only a few, highly convincing arguments (Anderson, 1974; Harkins & Petty, 1987). Sometimes less is more.

282

If the audience is taking the peripheral route, longer messages tend to be more persuasive than shorter ones (Petty & Cacioppo, 1984; Wood et al., 1985). Why? Imagine that you are reading a newspaper editorial advocating increasing the local property tax. You notice that it lists 19 bullet-pointed arguments in support of increasing the tax. Even if you didn’t have the motivation or the energy to digest this long article, you might say to yourself, “If a person has that many reasons, they must have a valid point.” This heuristic, or mental rule of thumb, ignores the fact that each of those 19 reasons may be totally biased, redundant, or just plain wrong. But for readers taking the peripheral route, the mere length of the message may be enough to gain their acceptance.

Confident Thoughts About the Message

We have seen that when people take the central route, they are not passively receiving a persuasive message. Rather, they are actively elaborating on the message, thinking carefully about its central claims and comparing that information with their prior knowledge of the topic. According to the cognitive response approach to persuasion (Greenwald, 1968), their attitudes will be influenced not only by what they think about the message but also by how confident those thoughts feel (Petty et al., 2002).

People often step back and think about their own thoughts—a process called metacognition. In doing this, they may consider how confident they are that their thoughts are correct. The more confident people feel that their thoughts about a message are correct, the more powerfully those thoughts will guide their attitudes. Some surprisingly subtle factors can influence confidence. One is simply how one moves one’s body while thinking about the message. Consider how people move their heads. Usually, if you are talking and the people listening are nodding their heads up and down, it means that they agree with you, and that is likely to boost your confidence in what you are saying.

Briñol and Petty (2003) hypothesized that if people nod their own heads while generating thoughts about a message, those thoughts would feel more valid, and would therefore strongly guide their attitudes. To test this hypothesis, they had college students put on a pair of headphones and listen to a speech advocating that students be required to carry personal identification cards. Participants were also told that the headphones were specially designed for use during exercise and other bodily movement. Thus, to test the headphones’ performance, participants were asked to move their heads while listening to the speech. Half the participants were asked to move their heads up and down (as if nodding “yes”); the other participants were asked to shake their heads from side to side (as if saying “no”). Even though this head-nodding exercise was unrelated to the persuasive communication, it had a potent effect ( FIGURE 8.5). When presented with strong arguments for why they should carry identification cards, the head-nodding participants were more confident in their positive attitudes and more likely to agree. But when presented with weak arguments, they were more confident in the negative attitudes they formed and less likely to agree with the communication. In contrast, when participants shook their heads, they felt less confident about their positive or negative thoughts, and so those thoughts had less of an influence on whether they agreed with the message.

Statistical Trends Versus Vivid Instances

Persuasive messages often feature statistics (“Four in five dentists agree….”) or vivid examples (“Jared lost weight at Subway!”). Which is more persuasive? Consider this scenario: You’re wondering which city to move to after graduation. After comparing statistics such as per capita crime rates and housing market trends, you tentatively decide on Chicago. But soon after, a friend tells you in vivid detail that her purse was stolen in Chicago, and she’s not likely to return. How much will this one person’s experience influence your attitudes? Rationally speaking, it shouldn’t: That person’s experience is one out of millions. Nevertheless, a single vivid example can have a surprisingly strong impact on attitudes, even when it conflicts with one’s knowledge of what is generally or statistically true. Why? Because a vivid instance entices the audience to connect the message to their own experience and emotions (Strange & Leung, 1999). In this example, your friend’s experience may trigger your own memories of times you felt unsafe in a big city or of other negative things you’ve heard about Chicago.

283

In one demonstration of this, Hamill and colleagues (1980) had participants read an article that described in vivid detail how a welfare recipient had spent the last couple years abusing the welfare system by making dishonest purchases and neglecting her adult responsibilities. After reading the article, some participants (those in the “typical” condition) were told that the woman described in the article was typical of welfare recipients and had been receiving welfare for an average length of time. In contrast, participants in the “atypical” condition were told the opposite—that the woman had been on welfare much longer than was common. The researchers also had a third group of participants who did not read about the woman’s situation.

Afterward, all participants reported their attitudes toward the entire population of welfare recipients, answering questions such as, “How hard do people on welfare work to improve their situations?” As you can see in FIGURE 8.6, participants exposed to the vivid description of just one person abusing the welfare system reported less favorable attitudes toward the entire population of welfare recipients than did those who did not read the description. Also important, it didn’t matter whether participants were told explicitly that the described woman was typical or atypical of welfare recipients. A vivid description of a single case can have a powerful influence on attitudes, even when it’s not representative of a larger population of people or experiences. This is an important point to keep in mind when others attempt to persuade you: A single personal example or event can grab hold of your attention, but it’s important to think about whether that single example is representative of the broader reality.

The Size of the Discrepancy

Imagine you were asked by your local newspaper to write an editorial article encouraging people to conserve natural resources. Your goal is to change people’s attitudes, and, you hope, their behavior, but how extreme should your position be? You could advocate that people make large lifestyle changes such as walking to work every day rather than driving. This is a gamble: If people are persuaded, then you’ve successfully changed their attitudes to a significant extent, but you run the risk of turning people off completely or being dismissed as radical. On the other hand, if you advocate for smaller lifestyle changes, such as using fewer water bottles, people may be more likely to go along with you, but you will always wonder: “Could I have had a greater influence if I had pushed them outside their comfort zone a little farther than I did?”

The issue here has to do with the discrepancy between the position advocated in a message and the audience’s preexisting attitudes. Let’s consider what goes on in the audience’s heads when they encounter a discrepant message. We know that people are strongly motivated to be right—to hold correct attitudes. So when they come across a message suggesting that they are misinformed or doing something wrong, it makes them uncomfortable—the greater the discrepancy, the greater the discomfort (this idea should be familiar from our discussion of cognitive dissonance in chapter 6). One way that people can reduce this discomfort is to change their attitudes to bring them closer to the position advocated in the message. With this in mind, you would be well advised to advocate a position that is highly discrepant from the audience’s current attitudes, because it will produce more discomfort and thus greater attitude change. Indeed, some research has found such a linear relation between the size of the discrepancy and attitude change (Zimbardo, 1960).

284

However, another way that people can reduce their discomfort is to derogate the source of the message. If an audience discounts a communicator’s expertise or trustworthiness, they can write off his or her message and keep their existing attitudes intact. In line with this intuition, research shows that as the size of the discrepancy increases, attitude change increases—but only up to a point. After this, people find the message so different from their own position that they dismiss it out of hand (Hovland et al., 1957).

So what gives? Should you start with a really extreme position or not? To make sense of these seemingly contradictory findings, Aronson and colleagues (1963) proposed that the key factor is the credibility of the source. If the communicator is seen as highly credible—perhaps because he or she is known to be an expert on the topic of the message—the audience will have difficulty simply derogating the source of the message. In that case, an extreme position that makes people uncomfortable is more effective. But if the communicator’s credibility is in question, it is much easier for the audience to derogate the communicator and thus ignore the message. In that case, a message with a more moderate position will be more persuasive.

The Order of Presentation: Primacy Versus Recency

Imagine it is early December, with the holidays approaching, and you get a phone call in which you learn that you’re one of two final applicants for a great job. The employer asks if you would like to be the first or the second person interviewed. During the interview you’ll be given time to make your case as to why the employers should hire you rather than the other applicant. Other things being equal, should you opt to go first or second?

Perhaps your intuition tells you that the person who is interviewed first will be the more persuasive, because she has the chance to make the critical first impression and get the employers on her side early on. In this way, she insures that the other applicant will not only have to offer a good argument for her own candidacy but she also will have to counter-argue all the points you made in the first interview. But perhaps you sense that the person who interviews second will have the advantage, because her arguments will be fresher in the employers’ memory when they make their hiring decision.

Research shows that both intuitions are correct: Arguments presented first and last each can provide the edge you want—and either would be better than being a middle candidate out of three or more. So what should you do? Recalling how we introduced the scenario, what question do you think you want to ask? We suggest that it would behoove you to ask the employers, “When do you plan to decide who you’re going to hire—before or after the holiday break?” This is an important piece of knowledge because the timing of the overall situation makes a big difference (Miller & Campbell, 1959). Specifically, the effects of presentation order depend on (a) the amount of time between the end of the first message and the start of the second message; and (b) the amount of time between the end of the second message and the moment when the audience finally makes up its mind (see on).

If there is no delay separating the two messages, and if there is a considerable delay between the end of the second message and the audience’s response, then the first message will be more persuasive than the second (other things being equal, of course). This is called the primacy effect. What accounts for this effect? When little time elapses between the two messages, the first message is still fresh in audience members’ minds when they receive the second message. As a result, they have more difficulty learning the arguments in the second message. As we discussed earlier, arguments that are difficult to comprehend are less persuasive.

285

In contrast, if there is a time delay separating the two messages, and if the audience makes up its mind immediately after the second message, then the second message will be more persuasive than the first. This is called the recency effect. Under these conditions, the first message does not interfere so much with the audience’s ability to learn the second argument. More important, the second argument is fresher in the audience’s memory when it makes up its mind.

So the answer to which of the interview positions will have the advantage in the hiring decision is, “It depends.” If the applicants are to interview back to back with no delay (i.e., before the holiday break), and if the employers are going to take some time after the second interview to think over the arguments before deciding (i.e., after the holidays), then the primacy effect will be dominant, and the first interview will be the more persuasive. But if there is to be a long break between the two interviews (i.e., one before the holiday and one after), and the employers are going to make their decision immediately after the second interview, then the recency effect will be dominant, and the second interview will be the more persuasive.

Persuading people involves changing their thoughts, but it also involves changing how they feel about something at a deeper, “gut” level. Persuasive messages are more effective if they get the audience to associate a position or a product with positive feelings and the avoidance of negative feelings. This can be accomplished in a number of ways. Generally, this below-the-cortex approach to persuasion takes the peripheral route. Conscious deliberation about the message is not needed and might even interfere with the effectiveness of these strategies.

Repetition and Familiarity

One of the most basic ways that persuasive messages get the audience to feel positive about a position or brand is through repetition. If you have ever watched the same TV channel for more than an hour, you probably noticed that the same commercials are repeated over and over. One advantage of repeating messages is that it can help the audience to comprehend messages that might be complex. Second, even if the message is not difficult to comprehend, seeing or hearing a message over and over again increases the accessibility of a product or position in the audience’s memory. This was illustrated in George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984 (see FIGURE 8.8). In the novel, Big Brother—the ruling regime—repeated the slogan “War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength” over and over. Sheer repetition made the message continually—and eerily—salient in the public’s mind. But in our everyday experience, if we have been told our whole lives that Brawny brand paper towels are the “quicker picker-upper,” then that information is going to pop up instantly when we’re at the store trying to decide among 10 brands of paper towels.

286

Repeatedly exposing consumers to a persuasive message may have another benefit for advertisers. Research on the mere exposure effect shows that the more we are exposed to a novel stimulus, the more we tend to like it. Zajonc (1968) first studied this phenomenon by showing American participants pictures of Chinese characters, a novel thing for most Americans. Participants rated those characters that they viewed many times as being more aesthetically pleasing than characters that they hadn’t seen or had seen only a few times. The mere exposure effect occurs even when people are unaware of having been frequently exposed to a stimulus. In fact, research suggests that the mere exposure effect actually might be strongest when exposure happens outside of awareness (Bornstein, 1989). The more often people unconsciously perceive the stimulus, the more they tend to like it, prompting Zajonc (1980) to claim that “preferences need no inferences.”

The best general explanation for the mere exposure effect is that the more people are exposed to a neutral stimulus, the more familiar it feels, and people generally prefer the familiar to the unfamiliar. Debate continues regarding why the familiar is preferred, but there are two likely explanations (Chenier & Winkielman, 2007). First, as novel stimuli become familiar, they seem less strange and safer. Second, familiar stimuli are easier to perceive and grasp fully.

This perspective helps to explain why the magazine ad in FIGURE 8.9a might be effective. The ad assumes that you, as the magazine reader, already have a positive attitude toward Jennifer Aniston (hence the plus sign connecting you and Aniston in FIGURE 8.9b). The ad informs you that Aniston is positively inclined toward Smart Water. This leaves only your relation to Smart Water undetermined. According to balance theory, the audience would experience an internal pressure to evaluate Smart Water positively so that they can maintain a harmonious state in which all the elements (themselves, Aniston, Smart Water) are consistent with each other. If people were not naturally inclined to prefer balanced over imbalanced relations between their thoughts, then we wouldn’t expect them to feel any motivation to like Smart Water, because they would be perfectly comfortable if some of the elements in this system didn’t quite fit together.

Positive Mood

Another way to create positive feelings toward a message is to deliver it when people are in a good mood. In a classic study by Janis and colleagues (1965), participants read a series of persuasive messages on topics such as the armed forces and 3-D movies. Half the participants were given peanuts and soda to snack on while reading the messages, whereas the other half did not get any snacks. Participants allowed to snack were more convinced by the messages than participants who were not snacking. Since this study was conducted, research has shown that people more readily agree with messages when they experience success, hear pleasant music, or view beautiful scenery (Schwarz et al., 1991). The influence of positive mood on persuasion has not been lost on people. You probably know that businesspeople often bring clients to lunch at a fancy restaurant, or you may have experienced a salesperson opening up a conversation with a funny story. If you are in a good mood while receiving the message, you will be more likely to agree with it, even if the reason for your good mood has nothing to do with the message itself.

289

Negative Emotions

Of course, not all persuasive messages try to create positive emotions; some try to persuade the audience that by doing something or acquiring something, they can avoid negative consequences or punishments. For example, a message might pitch a product as providing relief from a painful or embarrassing social encounter or as reducing one’s harmful impact on the environment. In these cases, the designer of the message is hoping to arouse negative emotions and then offer recommendations for assuaging your concern. Most commonly, these kinds of messages try to evoke fear in the audience. Your current author recently saw a pamphlet (and, yes, read it!) in the optometrist’s office titled, “Your Eyes Are Under Attack!”

Sometimes fear works, leading to more attitude and behavioral change. Banks and colleagues (1995) found that middle-aged women were far more likely to follow a recommendation to get a mammogram if they had watched a video that framed mammography in fear-arousing terms (emphasizing how not getting a mammogram might result in death) than were another group of women who watched a similar video that framed mammography in more positive terms. This shows that the way a message is pitched can make a big difference. People generally are more likely to comply with a message that frames a health behavior in gain-related terms (“Use sunscreen to help your skin stay healthy”) when the behavior involves prevention of a risk condition such as skin cancer. However, a message that frames a health behavior in loss-related terms (“Without regular mammograms, breast cancer can go undetected until it’s too late”) is often more effective for detection of a health problem such as breast cancer (Rothman & Salovey, 1997). Thus, there are different ways to use fear to effectively change attitudes.

But fear also can backfire. Janis and Feshbach (1953) found that a message was less effective at persuading the audience to practice improved oral hygiene if it used fear-arousing images of rotting gums and teeth than if it used more neutral images. Janis and Feshbach interpreted this result as showing that some fear-arousing messages are so overwhelming that the audience defensively avoids them, and so no attitude change occurs.

So what makes the difference? Leventhal (1970) proposed that arousing fear on its own is not enough to persuade people. When people are told simply that they will suffer some threatening outcome, they feel distressed or helpless, and they often tune out entirely. But if you provide them with a clear means of protecting themselves from that threatening outcome, then they are more likely to be persuaded. That is, fear-arousing messages are most effective in changing people’s attitudes if, in addition to heightening fear about a threatening outcome, they provide the audience with information about what specific actions are required to mitigate or avoid that threatening outcome (Rogers & Prentice-Dunn, 1997; Witte & Allen, 2000).

In one study testing this possibility, Leventhal and colleagues (1965) found that participants were more likely to follow the recommendation of a health message and get a tetanus shot if they were exposed to a fear-arousing message about the dangers of tetanus and they were given a detailed set of instructions on how to get the shot. If participants only received the fear-arousing message (with no instructions on how to get the shot) or just the specific instructions without the fear-arousing description of tetanus, they were less likely to get the shot. These results indicate that eliciting fear is important in motivating behavior—no one in the “no fear” condition got the shot—but you also need to provide frightened people with detailed information about what actions to take to reduce the threat.

290

292