8.4 Characteristics of the Audience

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.

Persuasibility

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.

Initial Attitudes

When trying to convince those who might disagree with you, is it better to provide a one- or two-sided argument? It depends on how the audience is initially leaning.
[Spencer Platt/Getty Images]

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.

Need for Cognition and Self-monitoring

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?

Need for cognition

Differences between people in their need to think about things critically and analytically.

FIGURE 8.10

Need for Cognition
People who have a high need for cognition like to think deeply and are more persuadable through the central route. In this study, students high in need for cognition were more positive toward a proposed comprehensive exam if the arguments for it were strong than if the arguments were weak. Those low in need for cognition were less sensitive to argument strength.
[Data source: Cacioppo et al. (1983)]

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.


SOCIAL PSYCH at the MOVIES

Argo: The Uses of Persuasion

In 1979, Iranian militants stormed the U.S. embassy in Tehran, taking 52 Americans hostage in retaliation for what they saw as American meddling in Iran’s government. Six U.S. diplomats managed to slip away and found refuge in the home of the Canadian ambassador. They feared that it was only a matter of time before they were discovered by Iranian revolutionaries and likely killed, so they could not just arrive at Tehran’s airport and reveal their American identities.

Back in the United States, the CIA operative Tony Mendez came up with a plan to get the diplomats safely out of the country: convince the Iranians that the diplomats were Canadian filmmakers who were in Iran scouting exotic locations for a sci-fi adventure movie along the lines of Star Wars. Although all of this sounds like a crazy premise cooked up by a screenwriter dreaming of a box office smash, the movie Argo (Heslov et al., 2012), directed by and starring Ben Affleck in the role of Mendez, actually tells a gripping true story of rescue and persuasion.

Mendez first has to persuade the higher-ups in Washington to authorize and fund his rescue operation. He lays out the plan using strong arguments, describing the operation in detail and carefully explaining why it is the most promising idea considered so far. But they’re not convinced, because they are processing Mendez’s message through the peripheral route to persuasion. Maybe they feel pressed for time, but they have difficulty getting past a simple heuristic: On the face of it, the idea of staging a fake movie sounds insane.

Eventually Mendez gets the green light and works with the Hollywood makeup artist John Chambers (John Goodman) and the producer Lester Siegel (Alan Arkin) to set up a phony movie-production company with the pretense of developing a sci-fi flick called Argo. If they are going to convince the Iranians that they are making a Hollywood movie, they need all the trappings of a film crew on a scouting mission, including a glossy poster, a script and storyboards, press releases, and an office phone if and when the Iranians decide to check things out (which they do). With all of these peripheral cues to back up their story, they create a convincing cover for the trip.

The next group that needs to be persuaded are the people whose lives are on the line. Posing as Argo’s producer, Mendez meets the diplomats who are in hiding and provides them with Canadian passports and fake identities. But he also gives them a crash course in the film industry and Canadian citizenship. After all, if they have any chance of making it past the authorities and getting on the plane, they need to play their roles convincingly. But they too are skeptical of Mendez’s scheme and reluctant to go along with it. At first Mendez tries to persuade them by presenting himself as a trustworthy source, a powerful peripheral cue when audiences take the peripheral route. But the diplomats aren’t processing information peripherally. The outcome of what happens is incredibly relevant to them, and that elicits central route processing. Shifting gears, Mendez takes the time to deliver a strong argument for why they should trust him. He reveals his true identity and describes his training and his record of successful rescue missions. He also reminds them that he is risking his own life, too. He knows that the source of a message can gain credibility by being perceived as having nothing to gain by deception or manipulation. His willingness to risk his own life is evidence that he firmly believes that the plan can work, and the diplomats begin getting into character.

In the movie’s suspenseful climax, we watch the “film crew” slowly making their way through security checkpoints in Tehran’s airport. Gun-toting Iranian soldiers suspect them of being American and lock them in a room to interrogate them just as their flight is boarding. The soldiers have very strong initial attitudes of mistrust toward Americans, in large part because of being repeatedly exposed to this message by revolutionaries who give impassioned speeches on America as the enemy of Iran. As the tensions rise in the interrogation room, one of the diplomats steps in and tries a new persuasive strategy. He lays out the movie storyboards on a table and improvises a stirring synopsis of the film they are supposed to be making. He is appealing to the soldiers by applying the principle of balance. He knows that the soldiers have a very strong positive attitude toward revolution, so he’s showing that the film crew is equally excited to be capturing a fictional story about a triumphant revolution on film. He’s hoping that the soldiers will seek to bring those two cognitions into balance: If we like revolution, and you like revolution, then it follows that we like you. Is he persuasive? Do the Americans make it out of Iran? You’ll have to watch to find out.

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.

Regulatory Focus

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.

Promotion focus

People’s general tendency to think and act in ways oriented toward the approach of positive outcomes.

Prevention focus

People’s general tendency to think and act in ways oriented toward the avoidance of negative outcomes.

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

SECTION review: Characteristics of the Audience

Characteristics of the Audience

A message’s influence on attitudes and behavior depends on who receives it.

Three determinants of persuasibility

Age.

Self-esteem.

Education and intelligence.

Initial attitudes

One-sided arguments obscure counterarguments, appealing to audiences leaning toward agreement.

Two-sided arguments avoid the perception of bias, appealing to audiences leaning toward disagreement.

How people think and self-monitor

People with high need for cognition prefer the central route.

Those motivated to make a good impression are more susceptible to peripheral route cues.

Regulatory style

For audiences high in promotion focus, influential messages highlight positive outcomes.

Prevention-focused people are persuaded by messages highlighting negative outcomes.