Ch. 6- The Psychology of Persuasion

Beliefs, Attitudes and Values

The textbook suggests that values are something that are instilled in us from chilhood. And then it goes on about how "... values are far more stable than attitudes and beliefs". (p.136, Values) I am somehow unclear on this statement and trying to understand the interactions between the three cognitive elements of persuasion. The way I understood it is that values go hand-in-hand with beliefs (let's leave attitudes behind for now). If I were to define values, it would be something like a "a set of system of high importance in order to function effectively and successfully in society". One example that came to mind was education. From childhood, the value that my parents and the society that I grew up in ingrained in me that going to school is important because it gets you far in life. But along the way, I have met numerous people who never finished school but are quite successful and happy with their lives. I can chose to follow not to go to school because my belief has gone both ways. If I continue school, I can be successful. And success could also be achieved even if I don't finish school because of the people I met as examples of that. So do you think what it means is that if you embrace a specific value from the get go, your beliefs serve as paths as to where your attitude towards a certain value will lead?

Stimulus- Response Theory

I thought that this theory was really interesting even though it's a simple theory that most of us are aware of. Whatever we're in favor of, it is what grabs our attention and it is where we manage to find our comfort zone. Whenever we meet a person for the first time and share a minor information about ourselves that they agree with or have a similar experience to share, we immediately "click" with that person because of that similar life episode. In persuasion, to do this is very important so that persuasion would be achieved. Can you think of an incident when a persuasion message was supposed to have a stimulus response effect but didn't? (even if it worked for others but not for you as an individual).

Theory of Induced Discrepant Behaviour

This theory reminds me of "weighing the pros and cons" in simpler terms. In persuasion, in order to make this effective is "Weighting some information as more valid than other information reduces dissonance" (p.148). Suffice to say, the persuader must isolate the pros from the cons so he or she could could convey a message effectively. How would you perform induced discrepant behavior when trying to persuade an audience to support the legalization of same sex marriage? And what strategy that Gass and Seiter have identified (overt denial, bolstering, differentiation) would you use?