Hovland's team identified 3 factors that influenced persuasion; source factors suggest credible experts are more likely to persuade than non-experts. If a non-expert presents an extreme view audiences will likely resist and look to discredit the source. Popular attractive sources are more persuasive then non-attractive sources e.g. Bono has become a well known spokesperson for the plight of African Nations.
Message factors suggest we must understand a message to be persuaded and we are more likely to be persuaded by messages that we think are not trying to persuade us. Also low and high fear messages are not as effective as moderate fear messages. Low levels of fear do not motivate, while high fear can create too much fear preventing the message from being processed properly. Humour also appears to result in long term attitude change and persuasion. Whereas moderate fear level messages result in more short term changes.
Audience factors suggest high intelligence audience are less likely to be persuaded than low intelligence audiences, as they will likely be confident in their own beliefs making them harder to persuade. Audiences with higher involvement in a topic will typically react differently to audiences with low involvement when exposed to a persuasive message. Young children are also more easily persuaded as they do not understand the persuasive intentions of the messages.
Igartua et al found inserting messages in an entertainment context induced cognitive processing to achieve a more favourable attitude about the messages e.g. using fictional short stories to illustrate HIV/AIDS prevention. Results found the better quality fictional story, the more favourable attitude towards prevention was achieved, highlighting audience and message factors interact. Through entertaining messages the audience members became involved in an issue that they previously may have had no involvement suggesting the limitations of audience factors can be overcome if the nature of the message is changed accordingly. A methodological issue is self-report was used. The level of agreement rated may have been subjective to that day therefore results may lack validity.
Lewis et al found fear-arousing messages to be effective short term, straight after exposure in a drink driving campaign. However, if a positive humorous campaign was shown this was more effective in producing long term attitude change. Pre-exposure attitudes and attitude immediately after exposure were assessed using questionnaires therefore raises issues of demand characteristics and social desirability. Participants may have answered in a pro-social way against drink driving as they felt that is what was expected of them. Also because they felt campaigning against drink driving is more socially acceptable than ignoring the issue.
Real world application of the model includes use of designing of media campaigns as entertaining campaigns are suggested to have a longer lasting effect. This could be used positively to help create more successful campaigns to create longer lasting opinion and behaviour changes regarding dangerous lifestyle choices.
However,the model cannot explain how persuasion actually happens it simply concentrates on the steps needed for the persuasion process. It also assumes that attitude change occurs from the understanding of a message, but simply understanding a message does not always lead to persuasion and vice versa. The elaboration likelihood model explains persuasion can take place without full understanding of a message.
The Hovland-Yale model is argued to be over simplified as it only suggests there is one route to persuasion when it is likely persuasion involves more complex interaction from several components, it is too reductionist. Therefore the elaboration likelihood model may be more realistic in explaining media persuasion as it suggests there are two routes of persuasion suggesting a more complex system than the Hovland-Yale model.
No comments:
Post a Comment