Central Route to Persuasion
From PsychWiki - A Collaborative Psychology Wiki
Persuasion is part of human life. As humans, we try to persuade someone to do something or to agree with us. We persuade other people by giving them information that we think is true, by pleading, by making them feel sympathy for us, etc. This can be exemplified when companies try to persuade us to buy their products or when a candidate is running for office and tries to persuade us to vote for him or her. Upon taking Social Psychology, I have learned that there are two routes of persuasion, but I will only speak of one. The central route to persuasion is the one of the two routes of persuasion in the Elaboration Likelihood model.
Central route to persuasion is defined as, “When people elaborate on a persuasive communication, listening carefully to and thinking about the argument, as occurs when people have both the ability and the motivation to listen carefully to a communication” (Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., and Akert, R. M., 2007: 199). If this definition is not clear to my reader as it wasn’t to me, Petty, R. E, Cacioppo, J. T., and Goldman, R., (1981) study explained central route to persuasion more clearly. Petty et al. (1981) describe Central route to persuasion is, “when information presented in a communication is personally relevant and some portion of the individual’s cognitive resources are required for the purpose to process the information” (522).
In order to understand the topic further, I will briefly explain the Likelihood model and the peripheral route to persuasion. As I mentioned, central route to persuasion is part of the Likelihood model. The Likelihood model is defined as, “an explanation of the two ways in which persuasive communication can cause attitudes to change” (Aronson et al. 2007: 199). The Likelihood model says “when people are motivated and have the ability to pay attention to the arguments in the communication is the central route, however, when people have do not pay attention to the arguments but are instead swayed by the surface characteristics is peripheral route to persuasion” (Aronson et al. 2007: 199). Furthermore, central route to persuasion specifies that people will be influenced by what the speech says, such as the logic of the argument and peripheral route to persuasion is when people are influenced by the superficial characteristics, such as those who give the argument, or how long it was (Aronson et al. 2007: 199; Kruglanski, A. W., and Thompson, E. P., 1999: 84; Lord, K. R., Lee, M., and Sauer. P. L., 1995: 73; Yalch, R., and Elmore-Yalch. R., 1984: 522).
Aronson et al. (2007), Kruglanski and Thompson (1999), and Yalch and Elmore-Yalch (1984), all base their information of the central route to persuasion from the experiment that Petty et al (1981) conducted in regards to test both the central route and peripheral route to persuasion. Aronson et al. (2007), Kruglanski and Thompson (1999), and Yalch and Elmore-Yalch (1984), agree that the argument needs to be relevant to the listener for it to pay attention and make cognitive assessments. Should social security be reduced? If you were a 72 year old person, this might affect you, but if you are of 21 years or so, this might not affect you (Arson et al. 2007: 200). Petty et al. (1984) clearly states that depending on the relevance of the issue it would determined the route of the persuasion (847).
Upon doing research for central route to persuasion, it became clearer to which way the route of persuasion might go. Aronson et al. (2007) mentioned that sometimes it is difficult to pay attention to a speech, even though one might want to because the listener might be tired, distracted by outside noise, or maybe the speech is too complex (202). Thus, the outcome will lead to the peripheral route to persuasion.
Example - Research
In the study of Petty, Cacioppo and Goldman, the main goal presents a study that explores the conditions under which each route to persuasion would be taken (1981). Petty et al., (1981) had two hypotheses: 1) when a persuasive communication was on a topic of high personal relevance, attitude changes would be governed mostly by a thoughtful consideration of the issue-relevant arguments presented (central route) and 2) when a message was on topic of low personal relevance, the peripheral features of the persuasion situation would be more potent (848).
In their method section they gather one hundred forty-five male and female undergraduates at the University of Missouri. The design was a 2 (issue involvement: high or low) X 2 (argument quality: strong or weak) X 2 (source expertise: high or low) factorial. The participants were told that the chancellor was seeking recommendations about policy changes to the institution because it was undergoing an academic reevaluation. The participants were told that several groups had prepared policy statements that were tape recorded. The male speaker was used for all recordings and mentioned that all seniors were required to take a comprehensive exam as a prerequisite to graduation.
In the personal involvement group, participants were given reading material prior to the exposure of the message. Half were told that the chancellor was seeking recommendations about policy changes to be instituted the following year (high), whereas the other half were told that the chancellor was seeking recommendations about changes to take effect in 10 years (low).
In the source expertise group, half of the participants learned that the tape they would hear was based on a report prepared by a class at a local high school (low), whereas the other half learned that the tape was based on a report prepared by the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, which was chaired by professor of the education at Princeton University (high).
In the argument quality group, there were two versions to support the argument in regards to seniors taking a comprehensive exam. In the strong version of the message, it provided persuasive evidence (statistics, data) in support of the exam. In the weak version of the message, it relied more on quotations, personal opinion, and examples to support its position.
In the quality of the argument, participants hearing the strong argument rate their quality as significantly higher than subjects hearing weak arguments. In the expertise, participants hearing the strong argument rated the speaker as more qualified than the participants hearing the weak arguments. Lastly, the personal involvement participants in the high-involvement rated the likelihood as higher than participants in the low-involvement conditions.
Petty et al.(1981) presents their study with prior knowledge about an issue that was identical for both high and low-involvement groups (854). The study apparently hinged more on motivational than on ability factors (Petty et al. 1981: 854). Thus, Petty et al. (1981) concluded that a person’s motives and abilities are typically different under high and low-involvement conditions suggest that some manipulations should be effective under high but not low involvement (854).
Example - Real life
To illustrate central route to persuasion, I can explain it by the issue of budget cuts in the state of California. As a Cal State L.A. student the budgets cuts are affecting not only me but students across the universities in California. The students have become active in stopping the fee increase in the universities. There is a problem occurring in the activism of the students in regards to this issue. As applying the theory of central route to persuasion, students that are going to be more affected are the most involved in participating in the protesting. Freshman, Sophomores, Juniors and students applying for the masters program are the ones participating the most, whereas seniors or students graduating within the upcoming year don’t really seem to participate the most. There are sets of limitations in the participation of the students. Several students continually feel that their participation is effortless. They see no guarantee that their actions would do any good to stop the budget cuts. Recently, an assembly member proposed a bill that would help out the Cal State universities to regain the budget that was cut. This bill would put a tax on gas in the state of California. The assembly member stated that partial money from the taxation would go into the Cal State fund. The meeting where the assembly member was giving a speech to explain the bill was filled with students, faculty, staff and community leaders. The people that were at the meeting were being persuaded by the central route to persuasion. They were all paying attention because this issue was relevant to them. They felt the need to be there so that they could help regain the funds cut from the Cal States. Hence, the people paid attention and had the ability and the motivation to listen to the speech.
References:
Aronson, E., Wilson. T.D., and Akert. R. M. Attitudes and Attitude changes: Influencing thoughts and feelings. In Social Psychology. 2007. Pearson Education. 189-226
Kruglanski, A., W and Thompson. E.P. 1999. Persuasion by Single Route: A view from the Unimodel. Psychology Inquiry. 10 (2), 83-109
Lord, K. R., Lee. M. and Sauer. P.L. 1995. The Combined Influence Hypothesis: Central and Peripheral Antecedents of Atitutde toward the Ad. 24 (1), 73-85
Petty, R. E., Cacioppo J. T., and Goldman. R. 1981. Personal Involvement as a Determinant of Argument-Based Persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 41 (5), 847-855
Yalch, R., and Elmore-Yalch. R.1984. The Effect of Numbers on the Route to Persuasion. The Journal of consumer Research. 11 (1), 522-527
◄ Back to Fall 2009 PSY 322 Assignment page
