Persuasion Social Influence and Compliance Gaining Robert H. Gass John S. Seiter Fifth Edition

Transcription

1 Persuasion Social Influence and Compliance Gaining Robert H. Gass John S. Seiter Fifth Edition

2 Pearson Education Limited Edinburgh Gate Harlow Essex CM20 2JE England and Associated Companies throughout the world Visit us on the World Wide Web at: Pearson Education Limited 2014 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without either the prior written permission of the publisher or a licence permitting restricted copying in the United Kingdom issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency Ltd, Saffron House, 6 10 Kirby Street, London EC1N 8TS. All trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners. The use of any trademark in this text does not vest in the author or publisher any trademark ownership rights in such trademarks, nor does the use of such trademarks imply any affiliation with or endorsement of this book by such owners. ISBN 10: ISBN 13: British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Printed in the United States of America

3 High self-monitors: Daffodil Queen contestants eavesdropping on contestant interviews. Reprinted by permission of Steven G. Smith. and is particularly relevant to a psychological characteristic known as ego involvement. According to the theory, on any topic, whether it be abortion, an advertised product, or a favorite movie, there are a range of possible opinions that a person can hold. For example, one topic is what should be done with people who have been found guilty of first-degree murder. Here are several positions, some extreme, some moderate, which you might embrace on this topic. Murderers should: 1. Be rewarded for decreasing the population. 2. Be slapped on the hand and sent away. 3. Be given a $500 fine. 4. Receive a 5-year prison term. 5. Receive a 20-year prison term. 6. Receive a life sentence with a chance for parole. 7. Receive a life sentence with no chance for parole. 8. Be put to death. 9. Be tortured to death, along with all other lawbreakers, jaywalkers included. Social judgment theory argues that on this continuum of positions, we each have a most preferred position, called an anchor. For instance, imagine that two people, Muffy and Mort, both agree most with position 7, that murderers should spend their lives in prison with no chance for parole. In Figure 1, this anchor point is represented by an X. Of course, the anchor position is not the only 109

4 What should be done with murderers? Position: Muffy Mort 1. Reward 2. Slap on the wrist 3. $500 fine 4. 5 years in prison years in prison Latitude of Latitude of Noncommitment 6. Life with possible parole 7. Life without parole 8. Death Noncommitment X Acceptance X Acceptance 9. Death by torture Figure 1 Illustration of Social Judgment Theory. position a person might find acceptable. You can see in Figure 1, for example, that Muffy also would accept the death penalty as a fitting punishment. Together, with Muffy s anchor, these positions represent Muffy s latitude of acceptance. In other words, these are positions she finds tolerable. She would not, however, agree with all positions, for in addition to the latitude of acceptance, social judgment theory describes two other latitudes. The first, called the latitude of noncommitment, contains positions about which a person feels neutral or ambivalent. Muffy is neither for nor against murderers receiving life sentences with the possibility of parole; she is neutral. The second, called the latitude of rejection, contains positions that a person would reject. For example, Muffy rejects the idea that murderers be rewarded, slapped, fined, spend 5 to 20 years in prison, or be tortured. Notice in Figure 1 that the span of these latitudes is different for different people. Compared to Mort, Muffy has a larger latitude of rejection and narrower latitudes of noncommitment and acceptance. For this reason, Muffy is a good example of an ego-involved person. People are ego involved when an issue has personal significance to them and their sense of self. Thus, they become strongly committed to their stand on the issue and are more likely to reject other positions. 110

5 A person might also be ego involved about one issue and not another. For instance, Muffy might have strong feelings about what happens to murderers, but care less about abortion, gun control, or gasoline prices. Social judgment theory makes several important predictions about the process of persuasion. First, because people judge everything according to their anchor position, it is difficult, if not impossible, to persuade them to accept a position too far away from that anchor. For instance, if you tried to convince Mort that murderers should be rewarded, you d be wasting your time (see Figure 1); messages falling inside a person s latitude of rejection are bound to fail. In fact, the theory argues that when a message falls too far away from a person s anchor position, the person perceives the message to be farther away from the anchor than it really is. This is known as the contrast effect. However, the assimilation effect occurs when a message that falls within a person s latitude of acceptance is perceived to be closer to the anchor position than it really is. For example, although Mort would prefer that murderers be severely punished, if you told Mort that murderers should be moderately punished, he might decide that you basically agree and accept your position. Thus, whereas contrast leads to the rejection of a message, assimilation leads to successful persuasion. You might have guessed by now that the contrast effect is more likely in egoinvolved people than in people who are not ego involved. Indeed, it s difficult to persuade someone who is ego involved (e.g., Sherif, Kelly, Rodgers, Sarup, & Tittler, 1973). Because their latitude of rejection is so large (and their latitude of acceptance is so narrow), obviously, they will reject most persuasive messages. One of the things we like best about social judgment theory is how it suggests that persuasion is not a one-shot deal. We think the theory does a good job of illustrating that persuasion may have to occur over time. For example, imagine trying to persuade Muffy that murderers should merely be slapped (see Figure 1). We ve already seen that trying to convince her of that will lead to rejection. But aiming messages nearer the anchor point might meet with more success. You might try to persuade Muffy that life in prison with a chance for parole is a good position. Then, if she agrees to that, later you could try to convince her that 20 years in prison is justified. Get the idea? Anchor positions need to be moved gradually. issue involvement: What s This have to Do with me? Although we just stated that involvement inhibits persuasion, in reality, things are more complicated than that. Indeed, the effect of involvement on persuasion depends on the type of involvement we re considering. Specifically, Johnson and Eagly (1990) argued that two types of involvement are ego involvement (a.k.a. value-relevant involvement), which is linked to enduring values embedded in a person s self-concept, and outcome-relevant involvement (a.k.a. issue involvement), which has to do with a person s current goals or outcomes (e.g., a cancer patient with the goal of using marijuana to minimize physical pain). Based on this notion, Johnson and Eagly analyzed a large number of studies and found that, consistent with social judgment theory, value-relevant involvement inhibited persuasion. Meanwhile, consistent with the elaboration likelihood model, issue involvement caused people to pay closer attention to arguments in persuasive 111

6 messages. Issue involvement facilitated persuasion when arguments were strong but inhibited persuasion when arguments were weak (Johnson & Eagly, 1990). Another study found that when listening to messages promoting health, involved people were more persuaded by informational messages, while noninvolved people were more persuaded by testimonials (Braverman, 2008). Dogmatism, Authoritarianism, and Social Vigilantism: you Can t Teach an Old Dog new Tricks In the classic movie A Few Good Men, Tom Cruise and Demi Moore defend two Marines, who, while following orders from their superior officers, accidentally killed a fellow soldier. Their defense? We were simply following orders. History is replete with examples of this excuse. It was used by Nazi defendants at Nuremberg. It was repeated again during the Vietnam War by soldiers involved in the My Lai massacre, by Ollie North in the Iran-Contragate scandal, and by U.S. soldiers in charge of Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib. We were following orders is a timeworn excuse and a reflection of a personality trait known as authoritarianism. Authoritarian people respect authoritative leadership and tend to follow authorities blindly (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levenson, & Sanford, 1950; Allport, 1954). They condemn those who question and deviate from conventional norms, exhibit hostility toward out-group members, and help cause and inflame intergroup conflict (Altemeyer, 1999). They raise children who are unaccepting of out-groups and who tend to associate with bullies (Knafo, 2003). They believe that power and rigid control are acceptable, and are likely to use physical punishment. Finally, if you are authoritarian, you may not have the self-insight to recognize it. According to Altemeyer (1999): If you tell people about authoritarianism, including the part about authoritarians being aggressive when backed by authority, and then ask them how willing they would be to help the federal government eliminate authoritarians, then you guessed it High [authoritarians] will be more willing to volunteer than others, to hunt themselves down. And yet, compared with most people, they think their minds are models of rationality and self-understanding. (p. 159) A personality trait that is very much related to authoritarianism is dogmatism (Rokeach, 1960). In fact, according to Christie (1991), dogmatism was introduced as a more general type of authoritarianism; although some argue that authoritarianism and dogmatism scales measure the same thing, others claim that the authoritarianism scale tends to identify close-minded conservatives, whereas the dogmatism scale identifies close-minded liberals and conservatives. Whatever the case, dogmatic people, like authoritarians, tend to be deferential to authorities. In addition, dogmatics are close-minded, have difficulty being objective, and tend to believe there is only one right way to do things (i.e., their way). With this in mind, you might think that such close-mindedness makes authoritarian and dogmatic people difficult to persuade. Interestingly, however, a meta-analysis by Preiss and Gayle (1999) found just the opposite. That is, compared to their counterparts, dogmatic and authoritarian people were easier to persuade. The authors 112

7 suggested that the rigid beliefs of people with such traits might interfere with the way they scrutinize messages, thereby resulting in greater agreement with a message. Note, however, that although Preiss and Gayle s (1999) analysis is useful in some respects, we think it s too soon to conclude that dogmatic and authoritarian people are easy to persuade. Indeed, we suggest that more research needs to be conducted to determine when dogmatism/authoritarianism is positively related to persuasion and when it is not. By way of example, successfully persuading such people might depend on the nature of the source. Harvey and Beverly (1961), for instance, reported that high authoritarians, compared to low authoritarians, are more likely to be influenced by a person who is a high-status authority. Similarly, a study by DeBono and Klein (1993) found that when dogmatic people received persuasive messages from experts, they did not think much about the messages and, regardless of the quality of the messages, were more persuaded than people who were not dogmatic. However, when they received persuasive messages from nonexperts, dogmatics were more persuaded by strong arguments than by weak ones. Thus, it may be that authoritarians and high dogs, as people who are highly dogmatic are called by researchers, are especially vulnerable to messages from authority figures. A related trait is known as social vigilantism (Saucier & Webster, 2010). Like dogmatics, social vigilantes think their beliefs are superior to others beliefs. Unlike dogmatics, who tend to dismiss those who disagree with them, social vigilantes try to impress their beliefs onto others. By way of example, when confronted with a contrary view, a social vigilante in one study stated, Everyone does have a right to their own opinions. I just think you should know how ignorant you sound when you voice them (Saucier & Webster, 2010, p. 19). Not surprisingly, research indicates that social vigilantes, compared to people measuring low on this trait, not only express more belief superiority, they also counterargue more and, as a result, are more resistant to persuasion (Saucier & Webster, 2010). Cognitive Complexity and need for Cognition How would you describe your best friend? Fun or boring? Intelligent or stupid? Superficial or disclosive? Even-tempered or moody? According to a theory known as constructivism (Delia, O Keefe, & O Keefe, 1982), people attempt to make sense of their world by using constructs like the ones just mentioned. Constructs are perceptual categories (e.g., fat/thin, popular/unpopular, strong/weak) that we use when evaluating everything from professors, to textbooks, to music, to arguments. Constructs can be compared to eyeglasses: Just as you see things differently depending on whether you re wearing thick or thin lenses, the constructs you use affect the manner in which you perceive the world. For instance, someone who evaluates you on the sole basis of whether you are Christian or non-christian will see you much differently than someone who uses more constructs (such as kind or cruel, shy or extroverted, happy or sad, playful or serious, emotional or stoic) to evaluate you. Obviously, everyone has a unique system of constructs, and some people clearly use more constructs than others. People who use a large number of different and abstract constructs that are well integrated are known as cognitively 113