Attitudes is “the fundamental orientation to evaluate people, other living beings, things, events, and ideas along a good-bad dimension” (Fiske, Gilbert, & Lindzey, 2010, p. 382). Persuasion is when other individuals’ communication influences the attitudes and behavior of another person.
An example of persuasion is when I watch Youtube videos, the advertisement of getting your body back into shape is usually the advertisement that shows prior to me watching the video. Prior to watching these videos, I always wanted to get back into shape and preserve my body as I approach the next chapter of my life. The more times that I saw the video, the more I wanted to get started sooner rather than later. Eventually I began ordering merchandise from the ad and incorporating the merchandise into my everyday life. The consisent communication from the host of the commercial ad influenced me to get started on getting back into shape.
An example of a peer reviewed article regarding changing attitudes is Attitude change: Persuasion and social influence by Wendy Wood. Wood stated that there are three motives that influence attitude change. The three motives concerning attitude change are rewards and punishments that attitude change potentially could provided, a solid understanding of reality, and self-concerns (Wood, 2000). Wood’s article directly relates to how I felt when I consistently would watch the workout ad that appeared prior to me watching my Youtube videos. My physical appearance and health are very important to me, and the reward for getting back into shape motivates me to get started. The consequence is just as great as the reward due to the potential health concerns as I get up in age if I do not exercise. As a result of concerns about my self, the rewards and punishments, and reality, the ad had a significant role in motivated me to want to buy items from their website and begin my journey in getting my health back into order.
References:
Fiske, S. T., Gilbert, D. T., & Lindzey, G. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook of social psychology (5th ed.,Vol. 1). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons
Wood, W. (2000). Attitude change: Persuasion and social influence. Annual Review Of Psychology, 51539-570. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.539
Post 2:
Moral Reasoning (Two culture comparison)
A definition of morality must include an acknowledgement of cultural variation. Matsumoto, 2001). There are universal norms of morality, such as a prohibition against killing of the innocent, but even within this variation there are different views of how to define morality. Matsumoto, 2001). Morality within a culture must apply to all persons in the group and cannot be altered for the sake of an individual. Morality surpasses the individual self and society and seeks out what is just and in the best interest of all. (Jensen, 2008). Morality can be conceptualised as social norms ingrained into the individual by means of example, reward and punishment, (Sundar, 2002) and defined as something that is regarded within natural laws.
Both African and Americans share similar views on aspects of morality, such as, it is wrong to steal. (Metz, 2007). In both cultures individuality, creativity and nonconformity are also encouraged. (Metz, 2007). According to Jensen, (2008), cultural studies found that children internalize moral rules passed onto them by their parents and those in authority, and move through their life span, growing from seeking self-interest, to seeking the interest of others, such as family and other groups, and showing autonomy. In these cultures, the adolescent is able to determine right from wrong through interaction with their peers. (Sundar, 2002, Jensen, 2008). By adulthood, Westerners are more likely to look to individual justice and rights, while the principles of the eastern cultures are based on social hierarchy and harmony. (Jensen, 2008).
In both cultures the moralistic element of helping others (Metz, 2007) and caring for them (Jensen, 2008) are important, though the moral reasoning may differ. According to Metz, (2007), the requirement of an individual to help others is heavier in Africa, where elements of the collectivist culture are still dominant. Westerners, on the other hand look at individual rights (Bedford & Hwang, 2003), as opposed to needs, where rights are based on the resources one possess. One deserves, for example, to be rewarded for one’s efforts, and sharing of one’s rewards and resources, especially with those to whom there is no obligation, is considered to be generous. In Africa though, there is a moral obligation to help others, particularly those who can offer nothing in return. (Metz, 2007). Here, the interpersonal relationship is emphasised. The owner of two cows, for example, who obtains sufficient milk from one, is obligated to donate the milk from the second cow to those less fortunate that himself. (Metz, 2007).
Another difference in moral reasoning is revealed in the manner in which the dispensation of justice is viewed. Westerners punish law breakers for wrong doing, demanding that law breakers “do the time†when they “do the crime,†with the justification being the individual deserves the condemnation for breaking the law. Africans, on the other hand believe it is appropriate to respond to crime with the expectation of a reconciliation and some mending of the broken relationship between the offender, the victim and the community. (Metz, 2007). This reconciliation is meant to appease the ancestors and protect the community from their wrath.
Western cultures, like America, are normally associated with the promotion of a degree of individuality that leads ultimately to autonomy. (Matsumoto, 2001). Upholding the ethic of autonomy means trying to fulfil the individual needs and desires, (Jensen, 2008) such as material possessions. The moral goal is finding the right way to achieve this, by considering the needs of others and not infringing on their rights or causing harm. In this scenario, the individual has responsibility for him/herself (Jensen, 2008), therefore guidance on violating these norms are mainly internalized. Violation of these norms usually trigger feelings of guilt in the individual. (Bedford & Hwang, 2003). According to Humphries & Jagers, (2009) when the focus is on acquiring things to satisfy one’s well-being or on one’s rights, (Bedford & Hwang, 2003), the emphasis may to a lesser extent focus on the needs of others. While one can certainly be empathetic to others, it is ultimately the responsibility of the others to work independently and achieve their own goals.
Another culture specific factor is community oriented values where members focus on the various roles and positions within the groups as a means of creating and sustaining harmony. (Jensen, 2008). There is an interrelated moral stance that emphasises the moral concern of utilising one’s role to help others. (Matsumoto, 2001). There is an inherent demonstration of loyalty to the group and its members in the execution of one’s role in service to the wider group. (Jensen, 2008). Conversely, an individual’s failure to fulfil the group’s expectations has the potential to engender feelings of personal guilt in the individual, and shame in having disappointed the community. (Bedford & Hwang, 2003). This fear of being publicly shamed by the community is incentive enough to undertake one’s roles and responsibilities always with the community’s interest at heart.
References
Bedford, O., & Hwang, K. (2003). Guilt and shame in Chinese culture: A cross-cultural framework from the perspective of morality and identity. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 33(2), 127–144. doi: 10.111/1468-5914.00210
Humphries, M. L., & Jagers, R. J. (2009). Culture: A possible predictor of morality for African American adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 19(2), 205–215. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-7795.2009.00590.x
Jensen, L. (2008). Through two lenses: A cultural-developmental approach to moral psychology. Developmental Review, 28(3), 289-315. doi: 10.1016/j.dr.2007.11.001
Matsumoto, D. (Ed.). (2001). The handbook of culture and psychology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Metz, T. (2007). Toward an African Moral Theory. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 15(3),321-341. Doi: 10111/j.1467-9760.2007.00280.x
Sunar, D. (2002). The psychology of morality. In W. J. Lonner, D. L. Dinnel, S. A. Hayes, & D. N. Sattler (Eds.), Online Readings in Psychology and Culture (Unit 2, Chapter 11). Retrieved from http://www.wwu.edu/culture/Sunar.htm
Post 3: Central Route and Peripheral Processing
The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion is broken into two routes, which are the central routes and the peripheral routes. The central routes (high elaboration likelihood) is when the receiver of the message is motivated by the message and is able to think about the message. The peripheral route (low elaboration likelihood) is when the receiver of the message is not motivated by the message, but the receiver is motivated cues peripherally such as physical attraction or verbal tone (Petty & Cacioppo, 1984).
Two factors that may influence when the central route of persuasion occurs is ability and motivation. When the central route of persuasion occurs,the receiver is able to receive the message and is able to be motivated by the message without any distractions (Petty and Cacioppo, 1984). For example, while sitting in a quiet location, if I were to watch a commercial regarding the benefits of apple cider vinegar, and the commercial is backed by scientific labs to prove this information is valid regarding apple cider vinegar, I would be more motivated to buy the apple cider vinegar due to the information from the commerical.
Two factors that may influence when the peripheral route of persuasion occurs is peripheral cues and multiple arguments. These factors act as a shortcut. This means that the recipient of the information is unable to receive the message because the recipient is not motivated or does not have the ability to receive the message. An example of peripheral cues is if an attactive woman would advertise the best cologne to wear, the observer would be more likely to focus on her attraction level rather than the information regarding the cologne. An example of multiple arguments is when the recipient of the message is observing a debate but is not interested in the debate topic, but chooses the debater who places many arguments in one sentence.
References:
Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (n.d). THE ELABORATION LIKELIHOOD MODEL OF PERSUASION. Advances In Consumer Research, 11(1), 673-675.
Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2011). Attitudes. Baltimore, MD: Author.
