Nabi & Moyer-Guse (2013). The psychology underlying media-based persuasion. - Article summary

Persuasion refers to a process whereby a message sender intends to influence an message receiver’s evaluative judgements regarding a particular object.

Cognitive Response Models of Persuasion assume that the thoughts people have during message exposure drive their subsequent attitudes. Message recipients are active participants whose cognitive reactions mediate the influence of a persuasive attempt.

The elaboration likelihood model (ELM) of persuasion states that there is a central and a peripheral route to persuasion. Central processing includes thoughtful consideration of the arguments and information and occurs when there is sufficient processing motivation and ability. The ratio of favourable to unfavourable cognitive responses generated about the message predicts the persuasive outcome. Peripheral processing includes heuristics will be used and occurs when there is insufficient processing motivation or ability. Attitude change based on central processing is more stable, enduring and predictive of behaviour.

Criticism of this model is the dichotomy between central and peripheral processing (1), the definition of argument strength (2) and the inability to specify whether particular message features will be processed centrally or peripherally (3). Thought confidence refers to the idea that confidence in one’s thoughts about the message intensifies their effect.

Chaiken’s heuristic-systematic model (HSM) of persuasion states accuracy-motivated people may assess message validity through heuristic and systematic processing. This may operate concurrently depending on the receiver’s judgemental confidence threshold for a particular issue. According to this model, individuals base decisions on heuristics if they can be sufficiently confident in the accuracy of those decisions.

Expectancy value theories assume that people have expectancies regarding whether an object has a certain attribute and they ascribe a particular value to that attribute. The combination of these assessments leads to the formation of an attitude.

The theory of reasoned action (TRA) states that behavioural intentions predict volitional behaviour. Behavioural intentions are based on attitudes toward performing a particular behaviour (1) and the subjective norm surrounding that behaviour (2). Attitudes are comprised of a group of salient beliefs regarding behavioural outcomes and evaluations of those outcomes. The subjective norm is comprised of perceptions of important others’ attitudes regarding one performing the behaviour and motivation to comply with their opinions.

Criticism of the theory of reasoned action are that the predictive validity is limited to volitional behaviours (1), stable attitudes and behavioural intentions (2) and corresponding attitude and behaviour measures in term of target, context, time and action (3). Another criticism is that it does not incorporate emotion.

The drive model states that fear is a drive state, motivating people to adopt recommendations expected to alleviate the unpleasant state. The parallel processing model states that people who focus on the threat (i.e. cognition) have adaptive responses to fear whereas people who respond with fear (i.e. emotion) have maladaptive responses. The expectancy value-based protection motivation theory states that thoughts generated in response to fear appeals can consist of judgement of threat severity (1), threat susceptibility (2), response (3) and self-efficacy (4). These thoughts can be combined to predict message acceptance. The extended parallel processing model (EPPM) states that if the predicted efficacy outweighs perceived threat, danger control and adaptive change will ensue. Otherwise, fear control and maladaptive behaviours are expected.

The cognitive function model states that message-relevant negative emotions affect the direction and stability of persuasive outcome based on emotion-driven motivated attention (1), motivated processing (2) and expectation of message reassurance (3).

The emotions-as-frames model states that emotions are frames through which incoming stimuli are interpreted. The emotional experiences, moderated by individual differences, influence both information accessibility and information seeking. It ultimately generates emotion-consistent decisions and actions.

Humour may enhance message attention and source liking although it is not more persuasive than a non-humorous message. Humour messages may be less persuasive because the audience discounts it as a joke, minimizing the impact on attitudes. It is also possible that humorous messages are more persuasive after some time has passed.

Framing theories state that the way in which information is presented influences a range of audience responses. A frame refers to a perspective infused into a message that promotes the salience of selected pieces of information over others. People tend to perceive information in a manner consistent with a particular message frame.

It is believed that framing effects are the result of information accessibility biases. Framing has been studied according to two dimensions; precision versus realism and text-specific versus context-transcendent. Precision involves holding information content constant while manipulating the way in which information is presented. Realism involves a natural variation in messages. Context-specific refers to frames that exist within a certain topic and do not translate to other topics (e.g. economic view in health-care or politics). Context-transcendent refers to frames that exist across contexts.

People tend to be risk-aversive when messages are framed in terms of gain (i.e. improving on the current situation) and risk-seeking when messages are framed in terms of loss. However, gain frames can be more effective than loss frames in the prevention behaviour context.

A narrative structure can provide advantages over more overt persuasive appeals because it is able to attract attention in a competitive media environment (1), narratives including well-liked characters are well-suited for modelling behaviour (2) and narrative persuasion may be used to persuade without arousing traditional forms of resistance (e.g. reactance) (3).

Entertainment-education programmes can influence people’s attitudes and behaviours regarding a large variety of topics (e.g. health-related topics). However, it can also lead to misinterpretations.

The social cognitive theory states that by observing others’ behaviours one may develop rules to guide one’s subsequent actions. Observational learning is guided by attention to certain models (1), retention processes (2), production processes (i.e. translating symbolic representation into action) (3) and motivational processes (4). The effects of observational learning may be long-lasting.

Transportation refers to absorption into a story such that one loses track of the real world and experiences the unfolding experiences in the story. This minimizes resistance to persuasion because the viewer is less able to counterargue the position.

The extended elaboration likelihood model (E-ELM) states that narrative messages foster greater absorption and identification with characters which suppresses counter-arguing. The enhanced state of engagement is dependent upon the appeal of the storyline, the quality of production and the unobtrusiveness of persuasive subtext.

The entertainment overcoming resistance model (EORM) states that different features of media narrative (e.g. identification) can overcome a range of sources of persuasive resistance.

Product placement refers to the purposeful inclusion of a brand within some entertainment media content. There is visual product placement (1), auditory product placement (2) and plot connected product placement (3). A prominent product placement makes it more likely that people can consciously recall it (e.g. intertwined in the plot is prominent). However, prominent product placement can lead to negative attitudes towards the brand. The least memorable placement (e.g. only visual) influences brand preference most. A prominent placement might activate viewers’ cognitive defences against persuasive messages.

Cognitive accessibility of a brand may improve brand preference and this can be achieved by subtle product placements. Less prominent placements are more likely to influence brand preference because of cognitive priming (1) and accessibility (2).