In addition to the source of a persuasive message and the nature of the message itself, a message’s impact on an audience also depends on the characteristics of the audience members. Whether a given audience member responds favorably or unfavorably to a message is determined by his or her individual age, sex, personality, socioeconomic status, education level, and habitual way of living, as well as the events and experiences of his or her life. For example, we described earlier that whether a person processes a persuasive message through the central route or the peripheral route depends in part on his or her motivation to attend to the message. So we would expect that individual differences in interests, values, and prior knowledge will determine who finds certain messages worthy of attention or not. Let’s consider how audiences differ according to the following characteristics.

People differ in their overall persuasibility, their susceptibility to persuasion. People high in persuasibility are more likely to yield to persuasive messages, whereas low-persuasibility individuals are less likely to be influenced. There are three key determinants of persuasibility.

Age: Between the ages of 18 to 25, people are usually in the process of forming their attitudes, and so they are more likely to be influenced by persuasive messages. As they move into their late 20s and beyond, their attitudes tend to solidify and become more resistant to change (Koenig et al., 2008; Krosnick & Alwin, 1989).

Self-esteem: People with low self-esteem are more likely to be influenced by persuasive messages than those with high self-esteem (Wood & Stagner, 1994; Zellner, 1970). People with low self-esteem are less confident and view themselves as generally less capable, so, as you might expect, they do not regard their own attitudes very highly. As a result, they are more likely to give up their current attitudes and go along with the position advocated in the message. People with high self-esteem, however, generally think highly of themselves. They are more confident in their attitudes, and they are therefore less likely to yield to influence.

293

Education and intelligence: Audience members who are more educated and intelligent are less persuadable than those with normal to low intelligence (McGuire, 1968). We can interpret this finding in a similar way as the self-esteem finding: People who are highly intelligent are more confident in their ability to think critically and form their own attitudes.

Another important audience characteristic is the attitude that audience members already have toward the position advocated in the message. Imagine that you are trying to persuade your parents that you should be allowed to study in Spain for a semester through a foreign exchange program. Would you be more effective if you presented only those arguments favoring a semester abroad and ignored any arguments opposed to your position—a one-sided message? Or would you be more persuasive if you brought up the arguments opposing the trip and then proceeded to refute them—a two-sided message? A two-sided message could work for you or against you. If you mention the reasons that you should not go abroad and then refute them (“One could say that this trip is too expensive, but I have some savings….”), then you can show that you have thought about the issue objectively and even-handedly, and your parents might therefore be more convinced that this trip is a good idea. However, simply by mentioning those opposing arguments you run the risk of bringing them to your parents’ attention and giving them more reasons to say no.

Whether a one-sided or a two-sided message is more effective depends in large part on the audience’s initial attitudes toward the issue at hand. If the audience members are already leaning toward agreement with the message, they will be more persuaded by a one-sided message that ignores opposing arguments. If, however, the audience is initially leaning toward disagreement with the message, then they will be more persuaded by a two-sided message that addresses opposing arguments (Hovland et al., 1949).

Why is this the case? If audience members are initially leaning toward disagreement, they are probably aware of at least a few arguments opposing the position advocated in the message. For example, if your parents are already inclined to oppose the semester abroad, they probably have some reasons (e.g., it is too dangerous). Thus, if the message ignores the audience’s opposing arguments, the audience will likely conclude that the communicator is biased, uninformed, or manipulative, and they will call into question the validity of anything he or she says.

If, however, the audience is already leaning toward agreement with the message, they are less likely to be aware of opposing arguments. Therefore, simply mentioning those opposing arguments may confuse audience members or lead them to conclude that the issue is more controversial than they initially thought. (“Hmm, I was all for the semester abroad, but now that you mention it, the trip would be awfully expensive.”) In this case you would have been more persuasive if you had focused only on those arguments favoring your position.

Think back to the study we discussed in this chapter looking at attitudes toward Edge razor blades (Petty et al., 1983). That study showed that a person’s motivation to think about a message can vary from situation to situation depending on whether that message pertains to his or her current goals and interests (e.g., anticipating a choice between razors or toothpastes). But you may have noticed that, across different situations, some people are generally more interested in thinking deeply about issues, whereas others are not. According to Cacioppo and Petty (1982), individuals high in need for cognition tend to think about things critically and analytically and enjoy solving problems. They tend to agree strongly with statements such as “I really enjoy a task that involves coming up with new solutions to problems.” Individuals low in need for cognition are less interested in effortful cognitive activity and agree with statements such as “I think only as hard as I have to.” With your knowledge of the elaboration likelihood model (ELM), do you suspect that individuals with high need for cognition would tend to take the central route or the peripheral route to persuasion?

294

If you said central, you’re right. This was shown in a study by John T. Cacioppo and his colleagues (1983). The researchers measured college students’ need for cognition, then asked them to read an editorial, allegedly written by a journalism student, arguing that all seniors be required to pass a rigorous, comprehensive exam to graduate. Thus, in this experiment, the message is relevant to all the participants. But for half the participants, the editorial contained fairly strong arguments in favor of the exam (“The quality of undergraduate teaching has improved at schools with the exams”), whereas the other participants read fairly unconvincing arguments for the exam (“The risk of failing the exam is a challenge more students would welcome”). Overall, as you might expect, participants were more favorable toward the exam requirement when it was supported by strong rather than weak arguments. But participants with high need for cognition were especially likely to approve of the proposal when it was supported by strong arguments and to disapprove of the proposal when it was supported by weak arguments (see FIGURE 8.10). So even though the message was equally relevant to all participants, some of them were inherently motivated to pay close attention to the arguments, whereas others were content merely to skim the message.

295

296

Just as some people are motivated to think in greater depth, other people are motivated to make a good impression and present a desired social image. Recall our discussion of self-monitoring from chapter 6. Those high in the trait of self-monitoring are social chameleons of sorts, motivated and adept at presenting themselves as the right person at the right time. If the situation calls for an outgoing individual, they can put on a gregarious face, but likewise they can portray themselves as thoughtful and quiet if the situation demands. Snyder and DeBono (1985) reasoned that because high self-monitors are concerned with projecting the right image, they should be especially influenced by ads that convey the potential for creating or enhancing a particularly desirable image. In other words, they should be more susceptible to peripheral-route cues.

In one study, not only were high self-monitors more persuaded by image-oriented ads but they also were willing to put their money where their mouths were. For example, whereas high self-monitors were willing to pay $8.24 for a bottle of Canadian Club whisky when it was accompanied by a message about quality (“Canadian Club Whisky: When it comes to great taste, everyone draws the same conclusion”), this amount rose to $9.75 when the whisky was pitched as enhancing one’s status (“Canadian Club Whisky: You’re not just moving in, you’re moving up”). Low self-monitors, in contrast, displayed the reverse pattern. So just as certain people can be differentially motivated to think carefully about a message, others may be motivated more by the power of the images—and the peripheral cues—that a message presents.

Earlier we noted that in certain situations, people are influenced by thinking about what they might gain, whereas in other situations they are influenced by thinking about what they could lose (Rothman, 2000). It turns out there is an additional piece to this puzzle that can further enhance our understanding of which people will be most persuaded by which type of message. Some people generally are oriented more toward the promotion of positive outcomes. Their actions are strongly driven by the growth motivation that we discussed in chapter 2. Consider Frank, who works out and watches what he eats so that he can look more like Ryan Reynolds. Other people are oriented more toward the prevention of negative outcomes. They are motivated to maintain security (see chapter 2). Consider Stephen, who works out and watches what he eats so he can avoid looking like Minnesota Fats. Note that Frank and Stephen engage in the same types of behavior, but they regulate their behavior according to two very different endpoints. We would say that Frank is high in promotion focus, whereas Stephen is high in prevention focus.

Why does this matter for persuasion? Because individual differences in promotion focus and prevention focus can determine which types of persuasive messages are more influential. In one study (Cesario et al., 2004) participants read an argument in favor of a new afterschool program. For some participants, the program was billed as catering to a positive end state (facilitating children’s progress and graduation). For other participants, it was billed as preventing a negative end state (ensuring that fewer children failed). For participants who were promotion focused, the promotion-oriented articulation of the program was a better fit to their current motivation and, as a result, were more likely to support it. However, those who were prevention focused experienced a better fit with the avoidance message of reducing failures and thus were more likely to support the program when it was framed in prevention-oriented terms.

The regulatory fit between the characteristics of the audience and those of the message has important implications not only for changing attitudes but also for changing behavior. Let us return to the examples of Frank and Stephen. Because Frank is promotion focused, it might be easier to persuade him to start a weight-loss program, because signing up is itself consistent with his goal of achieving a desired end state. But although Stephen’s focus on avoiding failures might not give him a leg up on starting a new diet program, it might make him more likely to sustain the behavior of dieting once he has started to count his calories (Fuglestad et al., 2008).

297