Social Psychology

by Paul Seager

  Other models, such as the ‘composite model’ (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993, 1998) and the MODE model (Fazio, 1990) have also attempted to explain how attitudes influence behaviour: the former introduces a number of factors that might affect an individual’s attitudes towards behaviour, most notably habits, whereas the latter looks at the role of attitudes in predicting both planned and spontaneous behaviour. However, having explored the relationship between attitudes and behaviour, the question must now be whether or not attitudes can be changed.

  Changing attitudes – persuasion

  Whether for good or bad, people try to change the attitudes of others: the Government might want to change the population’s attitudes towards smoking, overeating or saving; advertising companies might attempt to change consumer behaviour by getting them to buy a new brand as opposed to an established brand; our close relations might want to change our attitudes towards other family members. Whilst, technically speaking, attitude change is different from persuasion, the two terms are often used interchangeably, with the latter term being more recognized by most people (see Spotlight below for a definition of persuasion). There has been a great deal of research looking at how persuasion works, with the perhaps idealistic belief that if we could change people’s attitudes (such as reducing prejudice and crime), then the world would be a better place (though some advertising companies would undoubtedly be much richer).

  Spotlight: Defining persuasion

  Persuasion seems to be an all-encompassing term that refers to the way in which an individual’s behaviour is changed. However, definitions vary in their complexity. For example, Levine (2006) refers to it as:

  ‘… the psychological dynamics that cause people to be changed in ways they wouldn’t have if left alone. The term serves as an umbrella that encompasses a number of related concepts in psychology: basic processes such as influence, control, attitude change, and compliance, and more ominous sounding extremes like mind control and brain-washing’ (p. 4).

  The first part of Levine’s quote serves as a very simple definition of persuasion, which is in contrast to the definition offered by Gass and Seiter (2011) who state that:

  ‘persuasion involves one or more persons who are engaged in the activity of creating, reinforcing, modifying, or extinguishing beliefs, attitudes, intentions, motivations and/or behaviours within the constraints of a given communication context’ (p. 33).

  Interestingly, Gass and Seiter draw distinctions between what they call pure cases of persuasion (such as political debates where candidates try to persuade individuals to vote for them) and borderline cases (such as the appearance of an individual, perhaps a tramp, which might ‘persuade’ individuals not to approach them).

  Two of the most popular models of persuasion put forward the idea that there are two ways in which an individual can be persuaded. Petty and Cacioppo’s (1986) ‘elaboration likelihood model’ (ELM) suggests that there are two routes to persuasion: the central route and the peripheral route. The former involves the individual paying careful attention to the message being presented; they will reflect on the ideas and assess the evidence supporting the message. The latter involves the individual using cues that aren’t related directly to the message. For instance, if we are watching a political debate on television, using the central route would suggest that we are paying particular attention to the words used by the candidate and whether their ideas seem rational and evidence-based. Using the peripheral route, we may pay more attention to the clothes they are wearing, how attractive we think they are, and how confident they look and sound. Which route we use can depend on many factors, such as:

  • How motivated we are to attend to the message: high motivation tends to lead us down the central route, whereas low motivation tends to suggest we will use the peripheral route. Thus when we watch a party political broadcast on behalf of the Labour party, we are more likely to use the central route if we are a Labour supporter and more likely to use the peripheral route if we support a different political party.

  • Our capability to process the message: if we feel that we can understand the ideas being put forward in the message and can generally make sense of it, then we are more likely to use the central route; otherwise we will rely more on the peripheral route.

  • Distraction: the more distracted we are, the more likely we are to use the peripheral route; the more focused we are, the more likely we are to use the central route.

  • Time constraints: if we have plenty of time, we will use the central route, but a lack of time could lead us down the peripheral route.

  • Individual differences: our personality traits may lead us more predominantly down one route than the other; for example, those high in ‘Need for Cognition’ will be more likely to use the central route.

  There are certainly other factors that might also affect how we process a message (e.g. our mood). Petty and Cacioppo don’t rule out the possibility that an individual might use both routes to process a message, but instead suggest that one will be used more predominantly than the other, depending on many of the factors listed above. Research supports this model and also suggests that a message is more likely to be longer lasting if it is processed by the central route.

  An alternative dual-route model of Persuasion has been put forward by Chaiken and Eagly (e.g 1980). Their ‘heuristic systematic model’ (HSM) is similar to the ELM in many ways. For example, it suggests that an individual has two modes of processing a message: systematic processing and heuristic processing. The first mode is analogous to the central route of the ELM and the second mode is similar to the peripheral route. The HSM also suggests that messages are likely to be processed simultaneously by both modes and affected by many of the same factors as the ELM. However, the major difference put forward by the HSM is what the authors call the sufficiency principle; they suggest that an individual will attempt to gather as much information as they need to make a decision (e.g. which candidate to vote for, which brand of washing powder to buy) but no more than is strictly necessary; an individual will balance the two modes of processing in order to get the information that they think they need.

  Both models have been shown to be useful in explaining how an individual will react to a persuasive message. However, critics suggest that there is very limited evidence of simultaneous processing of a message in the way that both models claim there will be. An alternative to the dual-processing models is the uni model of persuasion put forward by Kruglanski, which claims that there is simply one route to persuasion. The model suggests that there isn’t a qualitative difference between the two types of processing proposed by the dual-route models, just a quantitative one – the messages themselves dictate how much processing is needed by an individual, with longer messages needing more attention paid to them than shorter ones. Whilst this model has the advantage of being simpler than the other two, there is much evidence to suggest that many messages are processed in distinctly different ways, thus favouring the explanatory power of the dual-route models.

  COMPLIANCE – SHORT-TERM BEHAVIOUR CHANGE

  Changing behaviour based on more strongly-held attitudes tends to be a long-term process that can require a sustained effort. However, there are some occasions when a temporary change in behaviour is required which is not driven by an attitude; for example, you know that your friend has a strict policy (attitude) on not buying raffle tickets, but just on this one occasion you want them to make an exception to their rule. This is also something that ‘compliance professionals’ try to do: you may have gone into a shop just to look at new televisions and had no intention to buy one – but the salesperson might have had other ideas (after all, their livelihood probably depends on it). Getting another person to agree to a request, which ends in a short-term change to their behaviour, is referred to as compliance.

  Key idea: Compliance

  A superficial change in behaviour due to a direct request from another person or group.

  There are a number of strateg
ies that can be used to bolster the chances of compliance in another person, and these include the use of:

  1 Reciprocity

  2 Commitment/consistency

  3 Liking

  4 Scarcity

  The principle of reciprocity suggests that if I do something for you, then you will feel obliged to do something for me at a later time: the feeling of being ‘in debt’ to another is a hard one to shake and we will take the first opportunity to balance the ledger. Therefore, if you want your friend to buy a raffle ticket, try making them a cup of coffee (or a beverage of their choice), and then a little while later ask them to buy a raffle ticket – the first behaviour should greatly enhance the chances of compliance with your request. Reciprocity does not just work with giving something, but also with taking away something aversive, as research into the ‘door-in-the-face’ technique shows (see Case study below).

  The use of commitment and consistency as a compliance technique relies on the idea that people like to be seen as consistent and reliable. One such tactic to use this strategy is the ‘foot-in-the-door’ technique. This involves subjecting an individual to a small, but reasonable request which will activate feelings of consistency and reliability. Following this initial request with a larger, but related request, can force the individual to comply with it in order to maintain their feeling of consistency and reliability. A classic study found that individuals who were asked to erect a large and obtrusive ‘Reduce your speed’ sign in their back garden were much more likely to comply with the request when they had first been asked (and agreed) to put a small ‘Reduce your speed’ poster in their window some days before.

  Liking another person is generally a good way of increasing compliance. In general, we are much more likely to say ‘yes’ to a request if it comes from a person who we know and like. However, more recent research on the concept of ‘fleeting attractiveness’ suggests that even making a tenuous connection with someone can increase compliance levels. One piece of research found that participants who simply sat in a room with a person without any communication (whilst completing an experiment) were much more likely to accede to a request from them (49 per cent of the time) after the experiment was concluded, than if they were approached by them as a stranger (26 per cent). In the same set of experiments, if the situation was staged so that the participant believed that they shared the same date of birth with the person, then their compliance levels rose even more dramatically (62 per cent). The implications of such research suggests that building up even the most fragile of relationships with the target of your request can increase compliance levels dramatically (look out for such behaviour from salespeople in the future!).

  Case study: Reciprocity and compliance – the door-in-the-face technique

  Robert Cialdini and his colleagues (1975) investigated how compliance levels could be affected by the door-in-the-face technique, whereby a large, unrealistic request (which is unlikely to be acted upon) is followed by a more reasonable request. They set up a situation in which a class of students were asked to volunteer to chaperone a group of juveniles from a local detention centre on a trip to a nearby zoo; they were told it would require two hours of their time and would be unpaid. In this condition, only about 17 per cent of students volunteered. In a second condition, students were first asked to volunteer for a programme to act as counsellors at the local juvenile detention centre, which would require them to act as a big brother or sister to one of the detainees for about two hours a week over the next two years.

  When no one volunteered for this opportunity (as no one ever did), the large request was followed up with the smaller zoo request (as outlined previously). In this condition, 50 per cent of students volunteered to act as a chaperone (compared to the 17 per cent in the initial condition). They speculated that this was because the researchers were seen to do the students a favour (i.e. they moderated the size of their request), and many students felt obliged to reciprocate in some way.

  The threat of scarcity has also been found to increase compliance. If we find out that there is something that we can’t have, we are likely to want it even more. Cast your mind back to shops that have advertised closing down sales, or 20 per cent discounts for one day only. Such events are designed to modify our behaviour. One study found that when recruiters at a student fair, who were looking to fill positions at their company, were given a choice of interviewing students who had either already got a job offer from another company (thus a scarce commodity), or students with no such job offers, they were more likely to go for the former group.

  These four strategies represent very effective ways for increasing compliance levels, and thus bringing about a temporary change in the behaviour of another. It will come as no surprise that such strategies are used regularly and creatively both by compliance professionals (such as salespersons) and con artists.

  Summary

  Attitudes play an important role in our lives, and this chapter has shown what an attitude is, of what it is comprised and how social psychologists have attempted to measure them. It has also become clear that our attitudes do predict our behaviour in many situations. Additionally, evidence from the persuasion literature has shown that it is possible to change our attitudes based on the way in which persuasive messages are processed; research in the field of compliance has also illustrated that it is perhaps possible to by-pass our attitudes and effect a short-term change in our behaviour.

  Food for thought

  When you are next watching adverts on television, try to identify what component(s) of your attitudes they are targeting, and how they are attempting to modify your attitudes (your beliefs about the product, how you feel about the product, and whether or not you will buy the product). Are they hoping for a long-term change in your attitudes or just a short-term change in your behaviour?

  Dig deeper

  Brock, T. C. & Green, M. C. (Eds.) (2005). Persuasion: Psychological Insights and Perspectives. Second Edition. Sage.

  Cialdini, R. B. (2013) Influence: Science and Practice. Fifth Edition. Pearson.

  Eagly, A. H. & Chaiken, S. (1993) The Psychology of Attitudes. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

  Gass, R. H. & Seiter, J. S. (2011). Persuasion: Social Influence and Compliance Gaining. Fourth Edition. Pearson.

  Maio, G. R. & Haddock, G. (2010) The Psychology of Attitudes and Attitude Change. Sage.

  Fact-check

  1 With regard to the content of an attitude, which of the following is one of its components?

  a Affective

  b Cognitive

  c Behavioural

  d None of them are

  e All of them are

  2 Generally, an attitude towards an object will be either positive or negative. This is referred to as an attitude’s:

  a Strength

  b Function

  c Valence

  d Structure

  3 In terms of their structure, ambivalent attitudes are best represented by which of the following views?

  a One-dimensional

  b Two-dimensional

  c Three-dimensional

  d Four-dimensional

  4 Which of the following is not a dimension on which strong attitudes differ from weak attitudes?

  a Resistance to change

  b Durability

  c Openness

  d Influence

  5 Which of the following functions of an attitude is generally considered to be the most important?

  a Object appraisal

  b Social adjustment

  c Externalization

  d They are all equally important

  6 Which of the following methods is not an explicit measure of attitudes?

  a Self-report questionnaire

  b Evaluative priming

  c Semantic differential approach

  d All of the above are

  e None of the above are

  7 Which of the following is not a factor when considering the extent to which attitudes can predict behavi
our?

  a Attitude strength

  b Attitude function

  c Attitude topic

  d Attitude valence

  8 Which of the following components appeared in the ‘theory of planned behaviour’ but not in the ‘theory of reasoned action’?

  a Attitude

  b Subjective norms

  c Perceived behavioural control

  d They all appeared in the ‘theory of reasoned action’

  9 The ‘central route of processing’ is a component of which model of persuasion?

  a The theory of reasoned action

  b The heuristic systematic model

  c The uni model

  d The elaboration likelihood model

  10 The ‘foot-in-the-door’ compliance technique is based on which of the following strategies?

  a Commitment/consistency

  b Reciprocity

  c Liking

  d Scarcity

  8

  Prosocial behaviour

  There are many stories in the media that tell of tales of courage and compassion; the rescue services at the Twin Towers on 9/11, soldiers in Afghanistan putting their own lives at risk to save those of their comrades, or an individual who jumps down on to tracks at an underground station to save a child from an onrushing tube train. Regrettably we also come across astonishing tales of people’s lack of humanity, such as the case in New York in 2010 where Hugo Tale-Yax lay on the pavement in a pool of blood for over an hour, having been fatally wounded going to the aid of a woman who was being attacked. Many people passed by him without offering aid (some even took photographs), and by the time someone did eventually stop to help, it was too late. Social psychologists have striven to understand both types of behaviour.