Hijacking Catastrophe
Part One
Part Two
Part Three
Part Four
Part Five
Part Six
Part Seven
Part Eight
Part Nine
Part Ten
Dual Process
Many in this discipline and associated disciplines such as sociology and psychology speak to the dual process nature of assimilating meaning. Some describe it as hot/cold, explicit/implicit, controlled/automatic responses to stimuli. In any form, they mean that we experience meaning on two different levels; a surface and a deeper lever. I see it as experiencing it with the head and with the heart.
These commercials for Lexus exploit this process. For the head they speak to the sum of the technology of this automobile. For the heart, its aesthetics thrum the strings (in theory at least, this car doesn't turn me on).
Dual Process Theories
The Elaboration Likelihood Method is a model of how attitudes are formed and changed. Central to this model is the "elaboration continuum", which ranges from low elaboration (low thought) to high elaboration (high thought). The ELM distinguishes between two routes to persuasion: the central route and the peripheral route.
Central route processes are those that require a great deal of thought, and therefore are likely to predominate under conditions that promote high elaboration. Central route processes involve careful scrutiny of a persuasive communication (e.g., a speech, an advertisement, etc.) to determine the merits of the arguments.
Under these conditions, a person’s unique cognitive responses to the message determine the persuasive outcome (i.e., the direction and magnitude of attitude change). So, if favorable thoughts are a result of the elaboration process, the message will most likely be accepted (i.e., an attitude congruent with the messages position will emerge), and if unfavorable thoughts are generated while considering the merits of presented arguments, the message will most likely be rejected (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). In order for the message to be centrally processed, a person must have the ability and motivation to do so.
Peripheral route processes do not involve elaboration of the message through extensive cognitive processing of the merits of the actual argument presented. These processes often rely on environmental characteristics of the message, like the perceived credibility of the source, quality of the way in which it is presented, the attractiveness of the source, or the catchy slogan that contains the message. (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986).
Attitudes formed under high elaboration are stronger (more predictive of behavior and information processing, more stable over time, more resistant to persuasion) than those formed under low elaboration.
Variables can serve multiple roles in a persuasive setting depending on other contextual factors:
The Heuristic-Systematic Model specifies two routes to persuasion: systematic processing - an analytic orientation to information processing, and heuristic processing - a more restricted mode of information processing that makes fewer demands on cognitive resources.
Systematic processing is believed to be determined by the ability and motivation of respondents to process message content.
Heuristic processing is triggered by features of the available information that enable the use of cognitive heuristics to form judgments and decisions. An example of such a heuristic is “experts can be trusted,” leading those using this processing mode to agree more with positions advocated by experts.
The HSM assumes that both modes of processing can occur simultaneously, such that when weak arguments are presented by expert sources, systematic processing will attenuate the heuristic tendency to agree with positions espoused by experts. Likewise, systematic processing can be biased by heuristic processing, in that the perceived expertise of a source may establish expectations about the validity of the arguments from this source which then bias the evaluation of those arguments.
The Automatic Activation of Attitudes is the notion that attitudes can be triggered automatically without the deliberation of the HLM or HSM. This activation is founded within one's frame of reference and cemented in their convictions. Instrumental in resisting persuasive attempts.
Source Effects
The sleeper effect works against the speaker's credibility when it's established as high since it diminishes over time. If the credbility is medium to low to begin with, as stroger arguments are offered the audience remembers the more powerful points over the previous weaker ones.
Affinity scams occur when the speaker poses as a group member to create unwarranted trust. Ponzi (pyrmaid) schemes are often very persuasive through associating the scam with credible participants.
The Pelz effect suggests that people like to be associated with those who have power or influence at high levels becasue it enhances esteem to be associated.
Message Effects
Primacy-Recency deals temporally with the timeliness of the message, what comes first and what comes last.
Message sidedness plays into predispositions on topics and then arguing away from what may have been commonly held.
These commercials for Lexus exploit this process. For the head they speak to the sum of the technology of this automobile. For the heart, its aesthetics thrum the strings (in theory at least, this car doesn't turn me on).
Dual Process Theories
The Elaboration Likelihood Method is a model of how attitudes are formed and changed. Central to this model is the "elaboration continuum", which ranges from low elaboration (low thought) to high elaboration (high thought). The ELM distinguishes between two routes to persuasion: the central route and the peripheral route.
Central route processes are those that require a great deal of thought, and therefore are likely to predominate under conditions that promote high elaboration. Central route processes involve careful scrutiny of a persuasive communication (e.g., a speech, an advertisement, etc.) to determine the merits of the arguments.
Under these conditions, a person’s unique cognitive responses to the message determine the persuasive outcome (i.e., the direction and magnitude of attitude change). So, if favorable thoughts are a result of the elaboration process, the message will most likely be accepted (i.e., an attitude congruent with the messages position will emerge), and if unfavorable thoughts are generated while considering the merits of presented arguments, the message will most likely be rejected (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). In order for the message to be centrally processed, a person must have the ability and motivation to do so.
Peripheral route processes do not involve elaboration of the message through extensive cognitive processing of the merits of the actual argument presented. These processes often rely on environmental characteristics of the message, like the perceived credibility of the source, quality of the way in which it is presented, the attractiveness of the source, or the catchy slogan that contains the message. (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986).
Attitudes formed under high elaboration are stronger (more predictive of behavior and information processing, more stable over time, more resistant to persuasion) than those formed under low elaboration.
Variables can serve multiple roles in a persuasive setting depending on other contextual factors:
- Under high elaboration, a given variable (e.g., source expertise) can either serve as an argument (“If Einstein agrees with the theory of relativity, then this is a strong reason for me to as well”) or as a biasing factor (“if an expert agrees with this position it is probably good, so let me see what else agrees with this conclusion” (at the expense of information that disagrees with it).
- Under conditions of low elaboration, a given variable can act as a peripheral cue (e.g., through the use of an “experts are always right” heuristic – note that while this is similar to the case presented above, this is a simple shortcut, and does not require the careful thought as in the Einstein example above).
- Under conditions of moderate elaboration, a given variable can serve to direct the extent of information processing (“Well, if an expert agrees with this position, I should really listen to what (s)he has to say”). Interestingly, when a variable affects elaboration, this can increase or decrease persuasion, depending on the strength of the arguments presented. If the arguments are strong, enhancing elaboration will enhance persuasion. If the arguments are weak, however, more thought will undermine persuasion.
- More recent adaptations of the ELM have added an additional role that variables can serve. They can affect the extent to which a person has confidence in, and thus trusts, their own thoughts in response to a message (self-validation role). Keeping with our source expertise example, a person may feel that “if an expert presented this information, it is probably correct, and thus I can trust that my reactions to it are informative with respect to my attitude”. Note that this role, because of its metacognitive nature, only occurs under conditions that promote high elaboration.
The Heuristic-Systematic Model specifies two routes to persuasion: systematic processing - an analytic orientation to information processing, and heuristic processing - a more restricted mode of information processing that makes fewer demands on cognitive resources.
Systematic processing is believed to be determined by the ability and motivation of respondents to process message content.
Heuristic processing is triggered by features of the available information that enable the use of cognitive heuristics to form judgments and decisions. An example of such a heuristic is “experts can be trusted,” leading those using this processing mode to agree more with positions advocated by experts.
The HSM assumes that both modes of processing can occur simultaneously, such that when weak arguments are presented by expert sources, systematic processing will attenuate the heuristic tendency to agree with positions espoused by experts. Likewise, systematic processing can be biased by heuristic processing, in that the perceived expertise of a source may establish expectations about the validity of the arguments from this source which then bias the evaluation of those arguments.
The Automatic Activation of Attitudes is the notion that attitudes can be triggered automatically without the deliberation of the HLM or HSM. This activation is founded within one's frame of reference and cemented in their convictions. Instrumental in resisting persuasive attempts.
Source Effects
The sleeper effect works against the speaker's credibility when it's established as high since it diminishes over time. If the credbility is medium to low to begin with, as stroger arguments are offered the audience remembers the more powerful points over the previous weaker ones.
Affinity scams occur when the speaker poses as a group member to create unwarranted trust. Ponzi (pyrmaid) schemes are often very persuasive through associating the scam with credible participants.
The Pelz effect suggests that people like to be associated with those who have power or influence at high levels becasue it enhances esteem to be associated.
Message Effects
Primacy-Recency deals temporally with the timeliness of the message, what comes first and what comes last.
Message sidedness plays into predispositions on topics and then arguing away from what may have been commonly held.
Ideological Appeal
As we discussed in class, there is an ideological persuade lodged in just about any persuasive appeal involving logic - the attempt to change the way one thinks is inherent to outcomes ranging from getting people to buy laundry detergent to changing the way one thinks about socialized medicine. Couple that with emotion; passion, fear, anger, and the appeal has more efficacy, it's the reason why rhetorical prowess appeals to both hearts and minds.
The Epistemic Approach - Patronized Forbearance
From my blog, Thursday, September 4, 2008
One of my most common complaints from students is that they wish I wouldn't bring up religion in class discussion. I can see it in their faces and the hair on the backs of their necks any time I broach the subject. Figurative dukes up, ready to defend. My retort for years has been if they (those who find offense, it's certainly not everyone) can divorce their religion, the foundation of their values from the way they treat people, the way they communicate, I'll gladly skirt religion.
As I write this there are nineteen countries involved in religious conflict. According to the Center for Reduction of Religious-Based Conflict, these countries include:
The Balkans - Eastern Orthodox v. Muslims
Brazil - internal Roman Catholic conflict
The Caucasus - Christian v. Muslim, Orthodox v. a breakaway faction
China - the government v. Buddhism, Islam, Protestantism, Catholicism, and Taoists
Egypt - Muslims v. Christians
Ethiopia - Muslims v. Christians
India and Pakistan - Hindus v. Muslims
Indonesia - Christians v. Muslims
Iran - the persecution of the Baha'is
Iraq - Shiites v. Sunnis
Malaysia - Hindus v. Muslims v. Christians
The Middle East - Judaism v. Islam
Myanmar - Buddhists v. Christians
Nigeria - Christians v. Muslims
Northern Ireland - Roman Catholics v. Protestants
The Philippines – Muslim v. Roman Catholics
Sri Lanka – Hindus v. Buddhists
The Sudan – Christians v. Muslims
The United States – Muslims v. Christians
Historic conflicts have been more ideological rooted in theology, a breakaway in thinking condemned by a ruling religious order. These ideologies include concepts such as the solar system, the properties of light, lightning, mathematics, interest on money, anesthetics during childbirth, birth control, inoculation, and the shape of the earth. Lives have been taken over these.
More recently, theology was used to justify slavery, genocide, and racism.
Today we're fighting about gay marriage, unwanted pregnancies, capital punishment, sex education, polygamy, evolution, and the list goes on. These are quieter conflicts, though polarizing. What I'm not seeing is the amelioration of the human condition, a tide of compassion transcending tolerance. Instead there is division with patronized forbearance. For example, if while reading the list of countries above the thought crossed your mind that the reason these nations are warring is because they don't have the truth that you enjoy, I'd bet that you'd complain about my class discussions as well.
Christ, Hillel, and Confucius held a common tenet, one that either exacerbates the nature of the crimes listed above or justifies their impetus. For Jesus it was treat others as you want to be treated. The great Rabbi taught, “What thou thyself hatest, do not to thy neighbor.” Confucius taught it with one word, reciprocity. Granted, the Koran is bereft of such an idea, though it does state, “No one of you is a believer until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself.”
Each of the above is a variation of a theme, love one another or at least hate not one another, what one may consider an epistemic truth. Oddly, it is a premise dropped in order to defend it. This scene from the film, Enemy Mine is a great example of this:
So when I get comments like, “I go to Church on Sunday, I don't need to hear Eric talk about it on Monday,” or “I don't like it when Eric talks about religion,” or “Eric Young is the anti-Christ,” I get a bit blue, because I'm not getting through. And I realize I won't with everybody, I know, but the authors of these comments are the ones who had the most to learn.
Like it or not, the way we treat people is inextricably linked to the way we value them and that value is drawn from an emotion of love or an emotion of fear fueled by what we think we know to be true. The nineteen examples above illustrate the power of fear.
If love prevailed, we'd have much less conflict over religion. If love prevailed, the differentiation between sects would be obscured, the colors of skin would integrate, and tongues would wag between smiles regardless of language. If love prevailed ire would sleep in my classes and I could entertain more useful feedback from my students.
Until then I'll talk about religion in my classes and how it impacts the way we communicate.
Dialectical Perspectives
What if communication did not envision sending messages or persuading people about adopting our ideas or proposals? What if communication were no longer about transmitting information, but about generating information?
Such an approach would have a number of implications, including the way communication would be used in development projects and programs, not to communicate activities and results, but to engage stakeholders in addressing problems and defining objectives. This in turn would affect the whole communication learning approach, which should be no longer based on media and messages, but should include the use of two-way communication to engage stakeholders, prevent conflicts and address key issues leading to change.
Such an approach, even if widely advocated, is rarely implemented. Why? In many cases it is due to the OAMS factor, that is Only Apparently Making Sense. Experience teaches that often it is more convenient to adopt what is easier to use and understand, even at the risk of oversimplifying reality, than engaging with more complex models that, even though they are more effective in reflecting and addressing the challenges of the social reality, require a higher degree of complexity and risk.
Let me give you an example from the real world, which is also mentioned in the Development Communication Sourcebook. It is about a group of experts who witness the women of a certain village having to walk a long distance to fetch water. They quickly decide that a well is needed and proceed to provide the funds for such a well. The well is built and the problem is solved. Or so it seems. When another group of experts goes back to the village, they realize that the well is not being used. Why? Because that walk to fetch water was one of the rare moments, if not the only moment, that women had to socialize among themselves. If the "experts" had not returned to the village, the solution would have been perceived as a success, even if in reality it was a solution that only apparently made sense -- an OAMS.
The same often occurs in communication applications and capacity building where linear approaches which make sense in certain situations, such as media campaigns, are applied as a sort of one-size-fits-all. Naturally these approaches are easier to define and apply since they basically require a broader understanding of the behavior to be changed and often assume that information will be enough to bring that change. However, such approaches often make sense only apparently, because reality is more complex and change requires a higher level of stakeholders’ engagement than what is assumed in traditional, linear communication models. That is why I invite you to try ‘to invert the pyramid’, exploring what happens when communication is conceived and applied as a bottom-up process aimed at engaging and empowering stakeholders seeking a sustainable and meaningful change.
From A Major Challenge in Good Governance: The End of Communication as We Know It.
Photo Credit: Flickr user wallyg
Appeals Research Posts Rubric
Specified Objectives for Activity
Activity Description
Demonstrate your intuitive and applied research of topics relating to persuasive appeals in political, theological, or psychological rhetoric. To reach this end you will research, write and post three artifacts on your blog for this class, one for political, one for theological, and one for psychological appeals.
Be sure to:
Activity Rubric
The learner demonstrates their intuitive and applied research of topics relating to persuasive appeals in political, theological, or psychological rhetoric. 40 points
The learner examines motivational and/or ideological appeals used to persuade within their chosen rhetorical context. 30 points
The learner shows breadth and depth in their scope of research. 20 points
The learner posts their best work on their blog, three separate posts, one for each context, with sources linked within the body of their text. 10 points
- Transfer an understanding of communication fundamentals to the social contexts experienced in everyday life.
- Recognize the important, meaningful roles that non-spoken behaviors fulfill during our communication interactions.
- Understand the axioms of persuasive communication and its principles and ethics.
- Evaluate the interplay between the persuasive source and the responsive audience.
- Identify the strengths and weaknesses of the perceptual process of communication.
Activity Description
Demonstrate your intuitive and applied research of topics relating to persuasive appeals in political, theological, or psychological rhetoric. To reach this end you will research, write and post three artifacts on your blog for this class, one for political, one for theological, and one for psychological appeals.
Be sure to:
- Apply the persuasive approaches to each; the dialectical for politics, the epistemic for religion, and the narrative for the psychological context, and then find an artifact to analyze within these contexts.
- Look at motivational and/or ideological appeals used to persuade within these contexts.
- Feel free to use existing artifacts, interpersonal experiences, public messages, any message type wherein a persuasive appeal is proffered.
- Document your findings, being certain to link your claims to your supporting evidence of breadth and depth.
- Submit your findings on your blog you've created for this class, making sure all your posts are completed by July 9. Be sure to link your claims to your sources.
Activity Rubric
The learner demonstrates their intuitive and applied research of topics relating to persuasive appeals in political, theological, or psychological rhetoric. 40 points
The learner examines motivational and/or ideological appeals used to persuade within their chosen rhetorical context. 30 points
The learner shows breadth and depth in their scope of research. 20 points
The learner posts their best work on their blog, three separate posts, one for each context, with sources linked within the body of their text. 10 points
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)