Monday, September 10, 2007
Attitude change has received much attention from theoretical and experimental studies. Theories of cognitive dissonance and social identity theory will be presented. Particular emphasis will also be given to information processing through systematic and peripheral routes with respect to the elaboration likelihood model and the systematic heuristic model. An analysis of the three key factors in attitude change programs follows. These are the communicator, the communication and the recipient. Research evidence illustrating methods to increase persuasion is presented for each of these areas. Finally, three social change programs targeting health behaviours will be discussed. The effectiveness of SunSmart, Quit and Active Australia strategies provide knowledge of how to successfully change community attitudes.
Attitudes involve evaluations of objects, including people and issues, which range from positive to negative (Petty, Wegener, & Fabriga, 1997). According to Petty and colleagues, the construct of attitudes and attitude change has been one of the most researched disciplines in social psychology. Particular emphasis will be given to cognitive dissonance, social influence through social identity theory, and the dual process models of the elaboration likelihood model and the heuristic systematic model. With such knowledge at hand, research studies will be presented outlining the key elements of attitude change, the communicator, message and recipient. Finally, the successful attitude change program of Sunsmart will be examined.
One of the early theories on attitude change was that of Festinger’s (1957, as cited in Elliot, & Devine, 1994) cognitive dissonance theory. Festinger examined the relationship between cognitions and behaviour. He proposed that individuals avoid inconsistency in their thoughts and actions as it caused dissonance. The phenomenon of dissonance is psychological discomfort, which prompts a change in attitude to resolve the conflict (Elliot, & Devine, 1994).
Since the original theory, many variations have emerged. Aronson (1968, as cited in Wood, 2000) developed self-concept analysis. This model states that the inconsistency is between an area of one’s self concept and behaviour. A person with a positive self concept will experience dissonance when he or she behaves dishonestly or tries to convince people to adopt an attitude that is inconsistent with their own beliefs
However, attitudes are not just formed and changed through cognitive dissonance. There are other factors, an important one being society.
Social identity theory (Tajfel, 1982) focuses on social factors that influence whether information is perceived as accurate. From this viewpoint, attitudes and behaviour of group members are explained through the interactions and relations between groups. Individuals attempt to maintain a positive evaluation of one’s identity through social comparison, which occurs between in-groups and out-groups. People see themselves as part of in-groups, which share common attitudes and beliefs that drive behaviour. Furthermore, the in-group members are differentiated from out-groups, who hold contrasting ideals. This group membership or identity is very important. Attitudes are affected by the position of the in-group and reality is defined from group social attitudes. According to Turner (1982, as cited in Woods, 2000), the influence of groups occurs through referent informational influence. Turner states that consistent attitudes amongst in-group members make the adopted attitude seem the correct stance. When there is disagreement between fellow members steps to address these differences are undertaken. Furthermore, Kameda, Ohtsubo and Takezawa (1997) showed that the prototypic or central group members have a greater influence on attitudes than peripheral group members. As these members have the most shared information they are seen as reliable and expert.
Whilst social identity focuses on evaluations of group memberships, the dual process models focus on the understanding of the issue. According to Wood’s (2000) review, the elaboration likelihood model (ELM) and the heuristic systematic model (HSM) are two important theories of attitude change. Both of these models advocate two separate routes to attitude change. The main difference between the ELM and HSM is the naming of these routes. The ELM defines the central and peripheral paths whereas the HSM uses the terms heuristic and systematic. Each viewpoint underlines motivation and information processing ability as important factors for the changing of an attitude. Motivation refers to factors such as personal relevance, involvement, and a need for cognition where individuals are intrinsically motivated to process information (Petty & Cacioppo, 1979; Cacioppo & Petty, 1982). Ability encompasses prior knowledge, comprehension and distraction (Petty, Wells, & Brock, 1976). When an individual has high levels of motivation and ability a larger amount of cognitive effort is used to analyse the quality of arguments. It has been shown, with this central or systematic route, that when strong arguments are used attitude change occurs, whereas weak arguments are not effective (Leippe & Elkin, 1987). On the other hand, an individual with low motivation or ability spends less time considering the arguments and uses simple persuasion cues from what is presented (Petty & Cacioppo, 1984). This is the peripheral or heuristic approach. There are important implications from these models with the method of attitude change depending on what is important to the audience.
A study by Chaiken (1980) supported the notion that high involvement uses systematic processing and that low involvement uses heuristic processing. Those who had high involvement reported more time reading the message and thinking about arguments than time spent thinking about the communicator. The opposite was true for low involvement. Chaiken conducted two experiments to examine the factors of number of arguments and a measure of likeability. She concluded that under the high involvement condition the number of arguments was important, with more arguments leading to greater attitude change. On the other hand, under low involvement, attitude change was affected by likeability. Similarly, Petty Cacioppo and Goldman (1981) found that high relevance meant that attitudes are influenced mainly by the quality of arguments. On the other hand when relevance was low, expertise had the greatest influence. A further finding of Chaiken’s study was that attitudes are more persistent when the content is analysed or when there is high involvement compared to when the source is important or when there is a low level of involvement. This was supported by Van Shcie, Martijn, & Van Der Plight, (1994) who found that a high amount of cognitive effort results in more enduring attitudes whereas little processing of arguments does not. These effects of different processes of attitude change are important but there are many other variables that play a role. Petty, Wegener and Fabriga (1997) outlined three important elements in attitude change programs. These are the communicator, the message and the recipient. The communicator or source characteristics refer to the source/ person delivering the message and their creditability. You are more likely to trust and respond to a professional journal than a pop magazine (Harrington et.al 2003) and simile a doctor to a drug dealer. The message element looks at the meaning of what is being said. Presenting both sides of the story, or the two perspectives can help change peoples attitudes (Harringtonet.al, 2003), as they have meaning associated with the message. The recipient or target characteristics refer to the attributes of the person who receives the message. Intelligence may have an affect on the success of the message, the more intelligent the target audience the less likely they are to be persuaded by simple message content. Mood, self esteem and even fear can affect the successfulness of the message. There is not a simple formula to attitude change. The elements and their importance in attitude change depend on each individual circumstance.
The abundance of knowledge available on attitude change has led to many successful attitude change programs. Attitudes toward health protective behaviours have received much attention recently, one such important social change program being Sunsmart. The Sunsmart program began in Victoria, Australia, in 1980 as ‘Slip! Slop! Slap!’ Although its name changed in 1988 to Sunsmart, the campaign goal of changing attitudes and behaviour towards exposure to the sun has remained unchanged (Sunsmart program 2003-2006, 2002). As the prevalence of skin cancer in Australia is amongst the highest in the world and can be present in all individuals, the issue is of high relevance to the entire population (Sunsmart: 20 years on, 2001). For this reason the program involved large media campaigns, resource development, education and implementation of health and safety guidelines in workplaces, schools and sporting groups. The availability of sunscreen and compulsory wearing of hats was one such initiative used in schools. The current focus is on expanding people’s knowledge about the risks of sun exposure and the benefits of sun protection, in an attempt to change attitudes and behaviours. Research and evaluation has played a significant role in the success of the program. For example, Sunsmart: 20 years on (2001) described how research found that television campaigns targeted at adolescents and younger adults should use fear and shock in their messages. Furthermore, statistics show that Sunsmart has been successful in changing the social attitudes towards behaviour in the sun. According to the article, the percentage of Victorians who would like to get a suntan decreased from 61% in 1988 to 35% in 1998.
The processes that lead to attitude change include inconsistencies with behaviour or self concept, or feelings of responsibility, which all lead to cognitive dissonance. Additionally, there is the influence of society through group membership. Once presented, information can be analysed comprehensively through systematic routes, or short cuts and peripheral cues can be used. The path taken will depend on the level of motivation and ability of individuals. The most effective method of attitude change needs to manipulate message, communicator and audience factors. There is a large amount of research evidence outlining, which factors work for which situations. Successful attitude change programs towards health behaviour such as Sunsmart illustrate the effectiveness of widespread awareness of the issue and potential benefits and risks.
References
Cacioppo, J., & Petty, R. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116-131.
Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 752-766.
Elliot, A.J., & Devine, P.G. (1994). On the motivational nature of cognitive dissonance: Dissonance as psychological discomfort. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 382-394.
Harrington, N. G., Lane, D. R., Donohew, L., Zimmerman, R. S., Norling, G. R., An, J., Cheah, W. H., McClure, L., Buckingham, T., Garofalo, E. and Bevins, C. C. (2003). Persuasive strategies for effective anti-drug messages. Communication Monographs, 70(1), 16-38.
Kameda, T., Ohtsubo, Y., & Takezawa, M. (1997). Centrality in socio-cognitive network and social influence: An illustratio n in a group decision making context. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 296-309.
Leippe, M., & Elkin, R. (1987). When motives clash: Issue involvement and response involvement as determinants of persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 269-278.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1984). The effects of involvement on responses to argument quantity and quality: central and peripheral routes to persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 69-81.
Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. X, & Goldman, R. (1981). Personal involvement as a determinate of argument-based persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 847-855.
Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. (1983). Central and peripheral
routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement.
Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 134–148.
Petty, R., Wegener, D., & Fabrigar, L. (1997). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 609- 647.
Petty, R.E., Wells, G.L. and Brock, T.C. (1976), Distraction Can Enhance or Reduce Yielding to Propaganda: Thought Disruption Versus Effort Justification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 874-884.
Priester, J., & Petty, R. (1995). Source attributions and persuasion: Perceived honesty as a determinant of message scrutiny. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 637–654.
SunSmart: 20 years on. (2001). Retrieved August 14, 2005, from http://www.sunsmart.com.au
Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33, 1–39.
Van Schie, E., Martijn, C., & van der Pligt, J. (1994). Evaluative language, cognitive effort and attitude change. European Journal of Social Psychology, 24, 707-712.
Visser, P., & Krosnick, J. (1998). The development of attitude strength over the life cycle: Surge and decline. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1389-1410.
Wegener, D. T., Petty, R. E., & Klein, D. J. (1994). Effects of mood on high elaboration attitude change: The mediating role of likelihood judgments. European Journal of Social Psychology, 24, 25-44.
Wood, W. (2000). Attitude change: Persuasion and social influence. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 539-570.
Attitudes involve evaluations of objects, including people and issues, which range from positive to negative (Petty, Wegener, & Fabriga, 1997). According to Petty and colleagues, the construct of attitudes and attitude change has been one of the most researched disciplines in social psychology. Particular emphasis will be given to cognitive dissonance, social influence through social identity theory, and the dual process models of the elaboration likelihood model and the heuristic systematic model. With such knowledge at hand, research studies will be presented outlining the key elements of attitude change, the communicator, message and recipient. Finally, the successful attitude change program of Sunsmart will be examined.
One of the early theories on attitude change was that of Festinger’s (1957, as cited in Elliot, & Devine, 1994) cognitive dissonance theory. Festinger examined the relationship between cognitions and behaviour. He proposed that individuals avoid inconsistency in their thoughts and actions as it caused dissonance. The phenomenon of dissonance is psychological discomfort, which prompts a change in attitude to resolve the conflict (Elliot, & Devine, 1994).
Since the original theory, many variations have emerged. Aronson (1968, as cited in Wood, 2000) developed self-concept analysis. This model states that the inconsistency is between an area of one’s self concept and behaviour. A person with a positive self concept will experience dissonance when he or she behaves dishonestly or tries to convince people to adopt an attitude that is inconsistent with their own beliefs
However, attitudes are not just formed and changed through cognitive dissonance. There are other factors, an important one being society.
Social identity theory (Tajfel, 1982) focuses on social factors that influence whether information is perceived as accurate. From this viewpoint, attitudes and behaviour of group members are explained through the interactions and relations between groups. Individuals attempt to maintain a positive evaluation of one’s identity through social comparison, which occurs between in-groups and out-groups. People see themselves as part of in-groups, which share common attitudes and beliefs that drive behaviour. Furthermore, the in-group members are differentiated from out-groups, who hold contrasting ideals. This group membership or identity is very important. Attitudes are affected by the position of the in-group and reality is defined from group social attitudes. According to Turner (1982, as cited in Woods, 2000), the influence of groups occurs through referent informational influence. Turner states that consistent attitudes amongst in-group members make the adopted attitude seem the correct stance. When there is disagreement between fellow members steps to address these differences are undertaken. Furthermore, Kameda, Ohtsubo and Takezawa (1997) showed that the prototypic or central group members have a greater influence on attitudes than peripheral group members. As these members have the most shared information they are seen as reliable and expert.
Whilst social identity focuses on evaluations of group memberships, the dual process models focus on the understanding of the issue. According to Wood’s (2000) review, the elaboration likelihood model (ELM) and the heuristic systematic model (HSM) are two important theories of attitude change. Both of these models advocate two separate routes to attitude change. The main difference between the ELM and HSM is the naming of these routes. The ELM defines the central and peripheral paths whereas the HSM uses the terms heuristic and systematic. Each viewpoint underlines motivation and information processing ability as important factors for the changing of an attitude. Motivation refers to factors such as personal relevance, involvement, and a need for cognition where individuals are intrinsically motivated to process information (Petty & Cacioppo, 1979; Cacioppo & Petty, 1982). Ability encompasses prior knowledge, comprehension and distraction (Petty, Wells, & Brock, 1976). When an individual has high levels of motivation and ability a larger amount of cognitive effort is used to analyse the quality of arguments. It has been shown, with this central or systematic route, that when strong arguments are used attitude change occurs, whereas weak arguments are not effective (Leippe & Elkin, 1987). On the other hand, an individual with low motivation or ability spends less time considering the arguments and uses simple persuasion cues from what is presented (Petty & Cacioppo, 1984). This is the peripheral or heuristic approach. There are important implications from these models with the method of attitude change depending on what is important to the audience.
A study by Chaiken (1980) supported the notion that high involvement uses systematic processing and that low involvement uses heuristic processing. Those who had high involvement reported more time reading the message and thinking about arguments than time spent thinking about the communicator. The opposite was true for low involvement. Chaiken conducted two experiments to examine the factors of number of arguments and a measure of likeability. She concluded that under the high involvement condition the number of arguments was important, with more arguments leading to greater attitude change. On the other hand, under low involvement, attitude change was affected by likeability. Similarly, Petty Cacioppo and Goldman (1981) found that high relevance meant that attitudes are influenced mainly by the quality of arguments. On the other hand when relevance was low, expertise had the greatest influence. A further finding of Chaiken’s study was that attitudes are more persistent when the content is analysed or when there is high involvement compared to when the source is important or when there is a low level of involvement. This was supported by Van Shcie, Martijn, & Van Der Plight, (1994) who found that a high amount of cognitive effort results in more enduring attitudes whereas little processing of arguments does not. These effects of different processes of attitude change are important but there are many other variables that play a role. Petty, Wegener and Fabriga (1997) outlined three important elements in attitude change programs. These are the communicator, the message and the recipient. The communicator or source characteristics refer to the source/ person delivering the message and their creditability. You are more likely to trust and respond to a professional journal than a pop magazine (Harrington et.al 2003) and simile a doctor to a drug dealer. The message element looks at the meaning of what is being said. Presenting both sides of the story, or the two perspectives can help change peoples attitudes (Harringtonet.al, 2003), as they have meaning associated with the message. The recipient or target characteristics refer to the attributes of the person who receives the message. Intelligence may have an affect on the success of the message, the more intelligent the target audience the less likely they are to be persuaded by simple message content. Mood, self esteem and even fear can affect the successfulness of the message. There is not a simple formula to attitude change. The elements and their importance in attitude change depend on each individual circumstance.
The abundance of knowledge available on attitude change has led to many successful attitude change programs. Attitudes toward health protective behaviours have received much attention recently, one such important social change program being Sunsmart. The Sunsmart program began in Victoria, Australia, in 1980 as ‘Slip! Slop! Slap!’ Although its name changed in 1988 to Sunsmart, the campaign goal of changing attitudes and behaviour towards exposure to the sun has remained unchanged (Sunsmart program 2003-2006, 2002). As the prevalence of skin cancer in Australia is amongst the highest in the world and can be present in all individuals, the issue is of high relevance to the entire population (Sunsmart: 20 years on, 2001). For this reason the program involved large media campaigns, resource development, education and implementation of health and safety guidelines in workplaces, schools and sporting groups. The availability of sunscreen and compulsory wearing of hats was one such initiative used in schools. The current focus is on expanding people’s knowledge about the risks of sun exposure and the benefits of sun protection, in an attempt to change attitudes and behaviours. Research and evaluation has played a significant role in the success of the program. For example, Sunsmart: 20 years on (2001) described how research found that television campaigns targeted at adolescents and younger adults should use fear and shock in their messages. Furthermore, statistics show that Sunsmart has been successful in changing the social attitudes towards behaviour in the sun. According to the article, the percentage of Victorians who would like to get a suntan decreased from 61% in 1988 to 35% in 1998.
The processes that lead to attitude change include inconsistencies with behaviour or self concept, or feelings of responsibility, which all lead to cognitive dissonance. Additionally, there is the influence of society through group membership. Once presented, information can be analysed comprehensively through systematic routes, or short cuts and peripheral cues can be used. The path taken will depend on the level of motivation and ability of individuals. The most effective method of attitude change needs to manipulate message, communicator and audience factors. There is a large amount of research evidence outlining, which factors work for which situations. Successful attitude change programs towards health behaviour such as Sunsmart illustrate the effectiveness of widespread awareness of the issue and potential benefits and risks.
References
Cacioppo, J., & Petty, R. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116-131.
Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 752-766.
Elliot, A.J., & Devine, P.G. (1994). On the motivational nature of cognitive dissonance: Dissonance as psychological discomfort. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 382-394.
Harrington, N. G., Lane, D. R., Donohew, L., Zimmerman, R. S., Norling, G. R., An, J., Cheah, W. H., McClure, L., Buckingham, T., Garofalo, E. and Bevins, C. C. (2003). Persuasive strategies for effective anti-drug messages. Communication Monographs, 70(1), 16-38.
Kameda, T., Ohtsubo, Y., & Takezawa, M. (1997). Centrality in socio-cognitive network and social influence: An illustratio n in a group decision making context. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 296-309.
Leippe, M., & Elkin, R. (1987). When motives clash: Issue involvement and response involvement as determinants of persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 269-278.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1984). The effects of involvement on responses to argument quantity and quality: central and peripheral routes to persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 69-81.
Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. X, & Goldman, R. (1981). Personal involvement as a determinate of argument-based persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 847-855.
Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. (1983). Central and peripheral
routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement.
Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 134–148.
Petty, R., Wegener, D., & Fabrigar, L. (1997). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 609- 647.
Petty, R.E., Wells, G.L. and Brock, T.C. (1976), Distraction Can Enhance or Reduce Yielding to Propaganda: Thought Disruption Versus Effort Justification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 874-884.
Priester, J., & Petty, R. (1995). Source attributions and persuasion: Perceived honesty as a determinant of message scrutiny. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 637–654.
SunSmart: 20 years on. (2001). Retrieved August 14, 2005, from http://www.sunsmart.com.au
Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33, 1–39.
Van Schie, E., Martijn, C., & van der Pligt, J. (1994). Evaluative language, cognitive effort and attitude change. European Journal of Social Psychology, 24, 707-712.
Visser, P., & Krosnick, J. (1998). The development of attitude strength over the life cycle: Surge and decline. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1389-1410.
Wegener, D. T., Petty, R. E., & Klein, D. J. (1994). Effects of mood on high elaboration attitude change: The mediating role of likelihood judgments. European Journal of Social Psychology, 24, 25-44.
Wood, W. (2000). Attitude change: Persuasion and social influence. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 539-570.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)