Lec 6 - COT.pptx

Communicatio n Theory Lecture 6 – Social Judgment Theory and Cognitive Dissonance Theory  0 1 Social Judgment Theory of Muzafer and Carolyn Sherif Three Latitudes: Acceptance, Rejection, and Noncommitment Social judgment–involvement: Perception and evalu...

Communicatio n Theory Lecture 6 – Social Judgment Theory and Cognitive Dissonance Theory  0 1 Social Judgment Theory of Muzafer and Carolyn Sherif Three Latitudes: Acceptance, Rejection, and Noncommitment Social judgment–involvement: Perception and evaluation of an idea by comparing it with the current attitudes. (Muzafer and Carolyn Sherif) Known as social judgment theory. The Sherifs saw an attitude as an amalgam of three zones. Latitude of acceptance: Range of ideas that a person sees as reasonable or worthy of approval. Latitude of rejection: Range of ideas that a person sees as unreasonable or objectionable. Latitude of noncommitment: Range of ideas that a person sees as neither acceptable nor objectionable. Figure 14.1: Ned’s Cognitive Map Regarding Air Safety  Ego-Involvement: How Much Do You Care? Ego-Involvement: The importance or centrality of an issue to a person's life. Usually demonstrated by membership in a group with a known stand. High linkage with closely held values and self- concept. People who hold extreme opinions on either side of an issue almost always care deeply. Extreme positions, high ego-involvement, and wide latitudes of rejection tend to go together.  Judging the Message: Contrast and Assimilation Errors We use anchored attitudes as comparison points when we hear discrepant messages. Contrast is a perceptual error whereby people judge messages that fall within their latitude of rejection as farther from their anchor than they really are. Assimilation is a perceptual error whereby people judge messages that fall within their latitude of acceptance as less discrepant from their anchor than they really are.  Discrepancy and Attitude Change Judging how close or how far a message is from the anchored position is the first stage of attitude change; shifting our anchor in response to the message is the second. If a message is within the latitude of acceptance, we adjust our attitude to accommodate the new input. The greater the discrepancy, the more hearers will adjust their attitudes. Boomerang effect: Attitude change in the opposite direction of what the message advocates. Listeners are driven away from rather than drawn to an idea.  Practical Advice for the Persuader For maximum influence, select a message right on the edge of the audience's latitude of acceptance or noncommitment. Persuasion is a gradual process consisting of small, successive movements. Persuasion is also a social process. According to the Sherifs, the most dramatic, widespread, and enduring attitude changes involve changes in reference groups with differing values. Reference groups: Groups that members use to define their identity.  Empirical and Anecdotal Support for Social Judgment Theory The topics of sufficient sleep and asking for (SJT) money 1 seem relevant for assessing SJT's validity. Sufficient sleep. Students read an article by an expert regarding the required amount of sleep and noticed that it changed from seven hours to no sleep at all! The Sherifs' theory suggested that the fewer hours recommended, the more students will be swayed until they begin to regard the message as patently ridiculous. Anything less than three hours apparently fell outside their latitude of acceptance and became progressively  Empirical and Anecdotal Support for Social Judgment Asking for money. Theory (SJT) 2 Ethical questions are raised when social judgment theory is applied to persuasive techniques used for raising money. A fundraiser underestimated a donor's latitude of acceptance. Asked the donor "do you really think that's enough?" Donor increased the donation by $5,000. Figure 14.2: Sleep Study Result  Ethical Reflection: Kant’s Categorical Imperative According to German philosopher Immanuel Kant, before we say something selfish or self-serving, we should consider what's ethical. He believed lying was wrong—always—and so is breaking a promise. Kant came to this absolutist position through the logic of his categorical imperative. Categorical imperative: Duty without exception; act only on that maxim which you can will to become a universal law. Kant would have us look at the difference between what we plan to say to influence others and what we truly believe. We should ask regarding persuasion techniques, "What if everybody did that all the time?" If we don't like the answer, we have a solemn duty not to do the deed.  Critique: A Useful Theory with Unanswered Questions The core idea of SJT is generally supported by quantitative research. However, the explanation for why the theory works is not convincing enough. Since defining ego-involvement is impossible according to Wilmot, testing the theory's hypotheses about the cause and effect of ego- involvement will always be somewhat problematic. Despite questions that surround SJT, it is an elegant conception of the persuasion process that falls within the latitude of acceptance of the author.  0 2 Cognitive Dissonance Theory of Leon Festinger Dissonance: Discord between Behavior and Belief Cognitive dissonance: The distressing mental state caused by inconsistency between a person's two beliefs, or a belief and an action. The need to avoid dissonance is as basic as the need for safety or the need to satisfy hunger. (Leon Festinger) It is an aversive drive that goads us to be consistent.  Health-Conscious Smokers: Dealing with Dissonance 1 When Festinger first published his theory in 1957, he chose the topic of smoking to illustrate the concept of dissonance. As the number and certainty of medical reports linking smoking with lung cancer, emphysema, and heart disease increased, humorous references to cigarettes no longer seemed funny. Americans had to grapple with two situations: Smoking is dangerous to my health. I smoke cigarettes.  Health-Conscious Smokers: Dealing with Dissonance 2 Today, those who vape have to grapple with incompatible cognitions. According to Festinger, a person who vapes might use a number of mental gymnastics to avoid dissonance while they vape. One way that they avoid mental anguish is by trivializing or denying the link between vaping and lung disease. To avoid dissonance, people engaged in mental gymnastics, say things such as: I think the research is sketchy. The results are mixed. We need more studies to know anything for sure.  Reducing Dissonance between Actions and Attitudes 1 Festinger hypothesized three mental mechanisms people use to ensure their actions and attitudes are in harmony: Selective exposure prevents dissonance. Postdecision dissonance creates a need for reassurance. Minimal justification for action induces attitude change.  Reducing Dissonance between Actions and Attitudes 2 Hypothesis one: Selective exposure prevents dissonance. Selective exposure: Tendency people have to avoid information that would create cognitive dissonance because it is incompatible with their current beliefs. Research supports the selective exposure hypothesis.  Reducing Dissonance between Actions and Attitudes 3 Hypothesis two: Postdecision dissonance creates a need for reassurance. Postdecision dissonance: Strong doubts experienced after making an important, close-call decision that is difficult to reverse. According to DeSantis, smokers keep postdecision dissonance at bay through collective rationalization with friends who smoke cigars together.  Reducing Dissonance between Actions and Attitudes Hypothesis three: Minimal justification for action 4 induces attitude change. Minimal justification hypothesis: The best way to stimulate an attitude change in others is to offer just enough incentive to elicit counterattitudinal behavior. Behavior → Attitude Compliance: Public conformity to another's expectation without necessarily having a private conviction that matches the behavior. Festinger's advice: If one wanted to obtain private change in addition to mere public compliance, the best way to do this would be to offer just enough reward or punishment to elicit overt compliance.  A Classic Experiment: “Would I Lie for a Dollar?” 1 Counterattitudinal advocacy: Publicly urging others to believe or do something that they opposed to what the advocate actually believes. Festinger and Carlsmith experiment: People changed their attitudes toward the task to bring it into line with their behavior. Some students were asked to lie for $1, while others were asked to lie for $20. Students who lied for $20 admitted the task was dull and experienced little or no tension between action and attitude. Students who lied for $1 claimed task was more enjoyable and had to create another justification. Figure 16.1: Festinger’s Process Model of Cognitive Dissonance Three Revisions to Clarify the Cause and Effect of Dissonance 1 Self-consistency: The rationalizing animal. Aronson was not convinced that logical inconsistency produces dissonance. He concluded that what produces dissonance was inconsistency between cognition and our self-concept. Personal responsibility for bad outcomes (the New Look). Cooper argues that we experience dissonance when we believe our actions have unnecessarily hurt another person.  Three State-of-the-Art Revisions: The Cause and Effect of Dissonance 2 Self-affirmation to dissipate dissonance. (Steele) Some fortunate people can call up a host of positive thoughts about themselves that will blot out a concern for restoring consistency. Most people are greatly motivated to maintain an overall self-image of moral adequacy. Denial, forgetfulness, and trivialization of the incident are alternatives to attitude change, but only for the person who already has high self- esteem. Dissonance: Discord between Behavior and Belief Cognitive dissonance: The distressing mental state caused by inconsistency between a person's two beliefs, or a belief and an action. The need to avoid dissonance is as basic as the need for safety or the need to satisfy hunger. (Leon Festinger) It is an aversive drive that goads us to be consistent.  Theory into Practice: Persuasion Through Dissonance Focusing on attitude change as the end product of dissonance. Don't promise lavish benefits if a friend abandons an attitude or warn of dire consequences if they don't. Offer just enough encouragement (minimal justification) for a friend to try new behavior that departs from old habits. Encourage the subject to count the cost of doing what they want, and to grasp the potential downside of that behavior for others.  Critique: Dissonance over Dissonance 1 Cognitive dissonance theory has been used by scientists to predict future events and explain their data, and it has practical utility. It struggles when it comes to relative simplicity. Daryl Bem doesn't think we need the four-stage process. He claims that self-perception is a simpler explanation than dissonance. Self-perception theory: The claim that we determine our attitudes the same way outside observers do—by observing our behavior; is an  Critique: Dissonance over Dissonance 2 Festinger never specified a reliable way to detect the degrees of dissonance a person experiences. If researchers can't observe dissonance, then the theory's hypotheses aren't testable.  Critique: Dissonance over Dissonance 3 Scholars still seek a dissonance thermometer: A hypothetical, reliable gauge of the dissonance a person feels as a result of inconsistency. The most promising attempts to develop a dissonance thermometer have used neuroimaging. Advocates of cognitive dissonance in the field of communication counter that nothing about mental processes is simple.