Beauty vs Brains: Evaluating the Influence of Attractive of the Persuader vs the Quality of Arguments - Lab Report Example

Running Head: Evaluating the influence of attractiveness of the persuader Vs the quality of arguments Beauty Vs Brains Evaluating the influence of attractiveness of the persuader Vs the quality of arguments Name University Brains Vs Beauty That we have powerto give or withhold our assent at will is so evident that it must be counted among the first and most common notions that are innate in us. Descartes (1644/1984, p. 205) "The strongest knowledge-that of the total unfreedom of the human will-is nonetheless the poorest in successes, for it always has the strongest opponent; human vanity." Nietzsche, XXX Introduction Both of the above quotes make different stands. Do we know what side of the fence are we on Studies of persuasion have yielded some support for the idea that persuasive messages influence evaluative beliefs, which influence attitudes (e.g., Maio, Bell, et al., 1996), although this effect may occur only when people are motivated and able to process persuasive messages in a systematic manner (Chaiken, Liberman, & Eagly, 1989; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986; E. P. Thompson, Kruglanski, & Spiegel, 2000). (Millon and Lerner, 2003) The elaboration likelihood model or ELM is a theory that deals with persuasion and the development of arguments. It is elaborated in this theory, that there are two routes of processing an external situation. The central route involves message elaboration, defined as the extent to which a person carefully thinks about issue-relevant arguments contained in a persuasive communication (Griffin 198). In contrast the peripheral route offers a shorthand way to accept or reject a message "without any active thinking about the attributes of the issue or the object of consideration" (Griffin). Most of the time people identify speaker credibility, others' reaction, and external rewards as variables that promote mindless acceptance via the peripheral route. According to Robert Cialdini of Arizona State University, there are six cues that trigger a "click, whirr" programmed response. These cues are as follows: Reciprocation, "You owe me"; Consistency, "We've always done it that way"; Social Proof, "Everybody's doing it"; Liking, "Love me, love my ideas"; Authority, "Just because I say so"; and Scarcity, "Quick, before they're all gone" (Griffin 198). These cues are often the excuse people use when supporting or validating their actions. There are various factors involved which determine the route to be employed. These include the extent to which the concerned individual is involved in the issue. When the point is of "putting your money where your mouth is", one is more cautious. Argument quality manipulation is another factor. Whether arguments are presented as non biased facts or in a rhetoric manner each elicits a different cognitive response. The perceived ability of the concerned individual can also pose a barrier to processing the argument through central route. Several arguments are pre-tested in pilot experiments; those that elicit consistently favorable cognitive responses are labeled strong arguments and those that evoke consistently unfavorable cognitive responses become weak arguments. People tend to derive their self-esteem from the same traits that lead to social acceptance (e.g., competence, likability, attractiveness). Halo effects refer to instances in which information about one attribute influences judgments about other unrelated attributes. To the extent that even the violence depicted in media is most apt to be learned when an attractive perpetrator with whom the viewer can identify engages in justified and rewarded violence that fails to depict the harm suffered by the victim of the violence. People who enjoy thinking (i.e., those high in need for cognition; Cacioppo & Petty, 1982) on the other hand tend to form attitudes on the basis of the quality of the arguments in a message rather than on peripheral cues (see Cacioppo, Petty, & Morris, 1983). Individual differences also exist in the ability of people to think about a persuasive communication. For example, as general knowledge about a topic increases, people can become more able (and perhaps more motivated) to think about issue-relevant information (Wood, Rhodes, & Biek, 1995). Knowledge is only effective to the extent that it is accessible, however (e.g., Brucks, Armstrong, & Goldberg, 1988). When knowledge is low or inaccessible, people are more reliant on simple cues (e.g., Wood & Kallgren, 1988). (Millon and Lerner, 2003) Thus no single mechanism is involved in coming to a final judgment and neither is the judgment written on stone once formed. One can always review the choices taken; analyze the driving factors behind making them and correcting them if required. We shall consider the attractiveness of source and its influence on evaluating an argument as opposed to the quality of argument itself. Research Hypothesis: Knowledge of a subject influences the choices made pertaining to it whereas superficial attractiveness persuades subject at a lack of information. Method: A survey can be carried out where 100 individuals, 50 males and 50 females in the age group of 18-21 having a science background are asked to participate offering them an extra credit point in their common course. The selection of participants should be random and voluntary. The survey would be about a famous soft drink brand and its popularity through various media campaigns. The survey could have a score of 1 through to 4. It could start with a neutral question to rate the particular brand and its preference to the concerned individual. Then a question would be asked of what do they relate most instantly with the brand. A famous endorsement could be displayed then and the participants can be asked to rate it. Here, whether the endorser is a male or female could affect the participant depending on his/her gender. This criterion can be checked. Then a very good economic deal can be shown to be offered on the same product once and once on its competitor. The outcome of this could reflect whether the processing is now through the central or the peripheral route. Then a few scientific articles can be distributed about the specific product in concern illustrating the possible health hazards of the same product. Students could be asked to remark on their opinion of the product again and whether they would still consume it. A rhetoric argument could then be put forward by self proclaimed experts with articulate lucid language. Students opinion would again be reviewed. Ultimately a non biased, yet lengthy matter of fact description of the situation is given in terms of the report accompanied with a lot of facts, figures and explanations; studying which in detail the students are then asked to give their final verdict. Whether the cumbersome nature of the information is deterrent enough to the students from objectively knowing the truth of the matter which affects their health would be interesting to find out. The survey should be cleared from the Institutional Review Board prior to be carried out. Statistical Analysis: I would perform a co-relation analysis whether each new way of presentation of the case bore an effect on the participants perception of the product before and after the presentation/illustration. Depending on the size of the sample a Hypothesis test can be carried out. For a small sample size generally a t test is carried out. For large samples a Z test is performed. I would perform a t test to compare the means as to whether the opinion of males swayed more than women, whether attractiveness was more influential in an effective judgment than scientific data and the individuals' personal quanta of interest to get to the bottom of the matter studying the matter with a little more interest. References Millon, Theodore, Lerner, Melvin,(2003) "Persuasion and Attitude Change" Personality and Social Psychology, Handbook of Psychology, Volume 5 (15) 353-382 Griffin, Emory A. 2003 Elaboration Likelihood Model of Richard Petty & John Cacioppo. A First Look at Communication Theory. 5th Ed (14) Part B: Results Ans 1: Subject Stress Before Stress After MS:before MS:after 1 9 17 11 10 2 22 23 19 16 3 10 24 6 8 4 32 28 18 11 5 21 29 12 14 6 19 22 8 8 7 21 32 18 16 8 13 26 21 20 9 30 34 11 12 10 41 40 14 9 Where MS: Marital Satisfaction A co-relation analysis was performed in Excel. The correlation coefficient ranges in value between -1.0 and +1.0. To interpret the correlation coefficient, we must consider both its sign (positive or negative) and its absolute value. A perfect positive correlation has a coefficient of 1.0; a perfect negative correlation has a coefficient of -1.0. When there is no association between two variables, the correlation coefficient has a value of 0. The Karl Pearson's co-relation co-efficient between stress and marital satisfaction before getting the job = 0.2253 The Karl Pearson's co-relation co-efficient between stress and marital satisfaction after getting the job = 0.041792 T-test A two tailed paired T-test would be performed for questions 2 and 3. The t-test assesses whether the means of two groups are statistically different from each other. This analysis is appropriate whenever you want to compare the means of two groups. Types of t test: There are 3 types of t tests: 1) t test to compare sample means for equal variance 2) t test to compare sample means for unequal variance 3) Paired t test A paired t test: The paired t test is generally used to compare two small sets of data when data in each sample set is related. In this case, the subjects remain the same and the effect on them before and after a particular situation is analyzed. The formula for a t test is given by: Two tailed Distribution: A one tailed distribution is used when your comparing and speculating in your null hypothesis that a particular mean value is greater than the other. Whereas a two tailed compare whether the two means differ significantly or not. Which is greater, is not considered in a two tailed distribution. Hypothesis Testing: H0: Stress scores are significantly different before and after getting the job Ha: Stress scores are not significantly different before and after getting the job Subject Stress Before Stress After 1 9 17 2 22 23 3 10 24 4 32 28 5 21 29 6 19 22 7 21 32 8 13 26 9 30 34 10 41 40 Mean x1 = 21.8 x2 = 27.5 s1 = 10.163 s2 = 6.637 Substituting the values in the formula, the t test statistic is 0.01577381 Degrees of freedom= (n-1) = (20-1) = 19 The t distribution table for n=19 at 90%, 95% and 99% has values of 1.729, 2.093 and 2.861 respectively i.e all greater than our test statistic. Thus we reject the hypothesis. Ans 3. H0: Marital Satisfaction scores are significantly different before and after getting the job Ha: Marital Satisfaction scores are not significantly different before and after getting the job Subject MS:before MS:after 1 11 10 2 19 16 3 6 8 4 18 11 5 12 14 6 8 8 7 18 16 8 21 20 9 11 12 10 14 9 Mean x1 = 13.8 x2 = 12.4 s1 = 5.0288 s2 = 4.0055 Substituting the values in the formula, the t test statistic is 0.1678 Degrees of freedom= (n-1) = (20-1) = 19 The t distribution table for n=19 at 90%, 95% and 99% has values of 1.729, 2.093 and 2.861 respectively i.e all greater than our test statistic. Thus we reject the hypothesis. Discussion A co-relation co-efficient of 0.25 and 0.04 indicates a very weak co-relation; i.e the stress scores are not significantly different before and after getting the job. i.e the marital satisfaction scores are not significantly different before and after getting the job. Similar point is illustrated by the way of t tests of the two samples with respect to stress scores and marital satisfaction before and after getting a new job. In both cases the t distribution table values are greater than the t test statistic, thus leading to rejecting the hypothesis that stress scores and marital satisfaction score differ significantly before and after the job. It is always advisable to have a larger sample size to a more accurate estimate of the hypothesis. Also the demographic of the concerned individual and the time frame before and after joining the new job in which this survey is taken can also affect the results. Read More