Petty et al suggested two different routes to persuasion; the central route to persuasion is appropriate of the audience focuses on the message and the peripheral route if the audience focuses on the context of the message.
Need for cognition (NC) determines the route taken. Some individuals enjoy thinking about the information they receive and analyse problems and thus have a high NC; individuals like this are likely to take the central route to persuasion. In contrast, those with low NC rely on opinions of credible others and the context of the message to make a decision and therefore are more likely to take the peripheral route.
Attitudes changes through the central route are longer lasting and less susceptible to subsequent attempts to change them, than those conducted through the peripheral route. It is suggested most human beings are cognitive misers, relying on simple and time efficient strategies when making decisions.
Haugtvedt et al found that attitude change in high NC individuals was based more on the attribute of the product in an advert, while for low NC individuals, simple peripheral cues were more important in shaping attitudes. This supports the claim that the central route of persuasion is more effective for high NC individuals. However, this was a laboratory study advertising a fictional brand therefore results may not reflect that of what would occur in real life therefore may also lack external validity. In real life brand familiarity would play a role in persuasion as studies suggest repeated exposure can lead to a more positive view. This would likely interact with NC to determine whether the individual is persuaded.
Milani et al found computer mediated communication (CMC) was more likely to activate the central route of persuasion therefore results in fewer opinion changes than face to face interaction. Individuals would be less likely to change their view through CMC as they would be more likely to think deeply about the information rather than being swayed by emotion which could occur in a face for face condition. However, this study only involved the use of one group of students therefore lacks external validity and may not generalise to other situations.
Strength of the model includes it focuses on the internal processes of attitude change which is important in the understanding of how attitudes are formed and changed at a cognitive level. This model is suggested to be more realistic than the Hovland-Yale model of persuasion as it suggests there are tow routes to persuasion not just one solitary route. There is also emphasis on the importance of the context of the information, e.g. communicator or importance of the message, which likely plays a key role in persuasion.
However, the model can be argued to be oversimplified only containing two processing systems. Use of a continuum may be more realistic as it is likely an individual will use several types of processing when forming attitudes. Also it is not clear how the central and peripheral routes interact meaning it may be difficult to determine which system will be used.
No comments:
Post a Comment