Only $35.99/year

Theories of Persuasion Exam 2

Terms in this set (66)

**** Notes from reading:


4 Hypothetical Compliance-Gaining Situations
1. Noninterpersonal / Short-term consequences
2. Noninterpersonal / Long-term consequences
3. Interpersonal / Short-term consequences
4. Interpersonal / Long-term consequences


Along with a list of 16 possible typologies of compliance-seeking strategies
Some are socially appropriate strategies / Some are socially inappropriate strategies


Each strategy is rated using an 8-point Likert Scale (extremely unlikely to extremely likely to be used)


3 General Findings:
1. 16 strategies did vary across the 4 situations - participants were more uncertain with the noninterpesonal situations
2. There were 1 to 3 strategy clusters within each of the 4 situations - they varied in # and composition
3. Participants tended to be more likely to use socially appropriate strategies


The MBRS studied became a pattern for research methods in using hypothetical scenarios and using the likelihood-of-use-ratings for preformulated compliance-seeking strategy.
This practice became known as the strategy-selection procedure.


It was later criticized in that social appropriateness was more predictive of whether a strategy would be rated as more likely. It did not necessarily predict actual strategy choice in the real world.


**** Notes from class:


*Typologies of persuasive messages
-e.g. socially appropriate vs. socially inappropriate messages.
[Do ppl tend to make promises in order to get friends to help them out with something? Do they appeal to logic and reason? Do they make threats? What could we call the strategies? How could we categorize types of messages?]
• Cognitive complexity: the degree of nuance in people's systems of personal constructs
Do you see the world in black and white, or in various shades of gray?
People high in cognitive complexity..

• make more distractions in how they see the world
• produce more sophisticated messages to help them achieve their goals
**Cognitive complexity matters in terms of how well people create persuasive message

• A person low in cognitive complexity would tend to believe that people are either good or evil
• A person high in cognitive complexity would argue that there are lots of variations between good and evil. These ppl tend to send more person centered messages
o Person Centered Messages: Adapt to another person's perspective
o take into account the listener
o focus on the listener's goals and wants.
o This is a perspective on how individual differences are associated with variation in message production
o SLumber Party and name calling examples.
o HIGH: encourage the listener's understanding of the pros of recommended actions and the cons of problematic behavior
o LOW: Emphasize threats of punishments or exercise of power.
• Most people fall in the middle in low and high complexity.
• CC does not equal intelligence.
• CC equals "successful"
• CC can be learned by being exposed to new points of view (NOT a fixed trait)


EXAMPLE of CC: Honest v. Trustworthy

• Someone low in CC say that you have to be honest all the time
• Someone high in CC say that sometime you can lie in some situations.