Social psychology is labelled (at a simplistic level) as the ‘scientific investigation of how thoughts, feelings and behaviours of the individual are influenced by the actual, imagined or implied presence of others’ (Allport, 1935 as sited in Vaughan and Hogg, 2005). Moreover it is the study of individual’s thoughts, actions and feelings as a function of personal and situational influence.
With this in mind you would presume that social psychology is a very old science, since for our entire existence we have been social animals that have survived by living in groups. But this is not the case; social psychology is a relatively new field of psychology that has derived from current psychology field’s behaviourism and psychoanalytical psychology. Whilst humanity has existed social psychology topics such as conformity, persuasion, obedience, prejudice, social conflict amongst many others have always existed. It was only a century ago that we began to recognisee and record, or politely put began to understand the complexity of human thought, feelings and behaviour in the group dynamics.
Hence the timeline of major developments and their implications on psychology will begin a century ago. Perhaps the most influential turn-of-the-century force for social psychological thought was Herbert Spencer, who in 1874 extended Darwin's notions from the biological realm into the social. It was Spencer--not Darwin--who coined the phrase "survival of the fittest." Simplified, the survival of a species is dependent on its ability to compete and gain resources over one another, and that the successful species genes are passed on. In fact, Social Darwinism became quite influential in the thought of many early American psychologists.
In 1897, Norman Triplett carried out what is usually described as the first experimental study of social psychology, a study of competition and how groups improved the pace for individual performance. Triplett found individuals reeled fishing lines faster when working against other individuals apposed to against a clock, a term commonly known now as ‘social facilitation’.
In contrast to this Max Ringelmann discovered the opposite in the late 1890’s. He measured how much force was exerted onto a rope when individuals worked alone or in a group. He found that in the group situation individuals did not exert as much force as when working alone, a term now referred to as ‘social loafing’. Again the complexity of group dynamics is evident; in one experiment the group increases effort in another it decreases effort. Triplett and Ringelmann experiments showed that more research is needed to understand the individual and the group.
Early 20th century sociologist Edward Ross published a textbook introducing social psychology within sociology in 1908. Meanwhile a handful of psychologists began to explore the field as well after the growing recognition of a greater understanding into human interaction needed. Among the psychologists was William McDougall, who published his popular "Social Psychology" in 1908. His book looked at primary emotions, nature of sentiments and moral conduct which are still modern topics in present textbooks. Both Ross and MacDougal not only brought Social psychology to the English speaking world but began to formally publish written understanding of the human complexity in individual’s thoughts, actions and feelings as a function of personal and situational influence.
It wasn't until the mid-1920s that social psychology would take a firm hold in psychology. A watershed event was the 1924 publication of Floyd Allport's "Social Psychology," a book that became widely used in social psychology classes at American universities.
In 1923 Gardner Murphy defined social psychology as an experimental discipline, which separated social psychology from the naturalistic observational techniques used in sociology, his textbook “Experimental Social Psychology helped to initiate the separate field within Psychology for the Social Being.
La Pierre in 1934 fuelled the importance of understanding the complexity between human behaviour and attitude; La Pierre along with a Chinese couple drove around the United States visiting restaurants and hotels. All establishments provided services to the group; however when La Pierre sent questionnaires on housing Chinese couples to the establishment’s months later, they replied that they would not accommodate Chinese guests. Hence La Pierre was able to prove the American Attitude at the time that they did not like Chinese immigrants. Yet the behaviour of the establishments differed from their attitude. La Pierre made aware again the difference between attitudes and behaviour, and the need to further pursue an understanding of the complex differences within human attitudes and behaviour.
Muzafer Sherif in 1935 again studied the relationship between attitude and behaviour. On a different level Sherif looked to explore wether the presence of others would change an individual’s behaviour in a social setting. Through his study with light flash he found that even when an individual; had witnessed a certain number of flashes if the group (who were confederates in the experiment) purposely stated a different number that the individual would change there answer to suit the group, a term known as norm formation or group norms.
Solomon Asch in 1951 received great attention for his insight to group pressure and conformity. Through his line measuring task Asch found similar findings to Sherif in that the group will affect the behaviour of the individual. Asch published his findings in his Textbook “Social Psychology’ which allowed again further understanding into the group processes.
In 1954, Muzafer Sherif worked with Caroline Sherif to further understand group processes, first and foremost to look at Intergroup conflict and group dynamics of a group of children on a camping trip. There findings on cooperation, competition and the “Realistic Conflict Theory (theory of groups fighting for resources to survive) was monument in the field of social psychology. Sherif and Sherif made evident that how with group formation competition and conflict are certain. Testimony to these finding is war, when groups are formed no matter the background conflict seems to be a common occurrence.
The work of Kurt Lewin and Gestalt psychology on democratic and autocratic groups, as well as on frustration and its resulting aggressive behaviour in children, became classics in Social Psychology. Also, Lewin's work on group dynamics and conflict resolution would establish his field from the 1940s through the 1970s. Lewin was regarded as a father of experimental social psychology and was criticised for his theoretical viewpoint, to which his famous line “ there is nothing as a practical as a good theory’ was his defence. Lewin’s work on the person situation theory is still one of the most taught theories throughout Universities and schools.
Leon Festinger in 1954 founded the social comparison theory. A theory that saw human learning as a process in which people learn about themselves by comparing themselves to others. With further study Festinger also founded cognitive dissonance, a term given to when inconsistencies produce psychological discomfort, leading people to rationalise their behaviour or change their attitudes.
Gordon Allport in the 1950’s did extensive work on stereotypes and prejudice. His work on heuristics proved that prejudice could occur due to the human brain taking less effort if it uses schemas to judge people. Hence Allport was able to show how whilst heuristics are vital to survival, they are a major component in the formation of prejudice.
In the early 1960s, a major reappraisal of social psychology occurred in reaction to Stanley Milgram's controversial research on obedience. Milgram set up a situation where subjects believed they were shocking an unknown individual for incorrect responses. Milgram’s study showed that even when inflicting pain onto individual’s people are likely to obey. A study that supports the atrocities in Nazis Germany in WWII, along with other wartime examples even today in Africa and Europe. A further implication of the Milgram's study was the use of deception in experiments and allied methodological problems leading universities to create committees to examine ethical concerns in experiments.
Darly and Latatne in 1968 brought prosocial behaviour to the social psychology table. After the murder of Kitty Genovese in 1964 Darly and Latatne looked to understand why people would not help someone in a critical situation such as life and death. As Kitty Genovese was murdered over thirty- five people heard her screams for hep or saw her struggle from her captives and yet not one person helped. A term later called the bystander effect, where in social setting individuals will not help or act as they presume that someone else will.
The Stanford university prison study by Phillip Zimbardo in 1971 gave further meaning to social psychology. Zimbardos finding on deindividuation in the study proved to again support how atrocities on human life can come about through individuals submerging their identity into the group.
Modern studies and reality TV has brought social psychology to a new level. A program by Jane Elliot called “Blue Eye, Brown eye” is a very popular education tool used by many institutions dealing with prejudice. Jane Elliot gives and takes away human value based upon the colour of an individual’s eye. Through her studies Elliot was able to show that even in the present world that is said to be ‘fair and just’ prejudice, and deindividuation along with many other attributes of social psychology studies are still evident.
References
Baumeister, R and Bushman, B (2008) Social Psychology and Human Nature.
Vaughan, G and Hogg, M (2005). Introduction to Social Psychology.
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/psychology/lists/timeline.html
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
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)