by: patricia Cartwright
Other research has found that affect based and cognitive based attitudes are most effectively changed when the persuasion methods are affective and cognitive (Fiske, Ch.6). The science of persuasion posits that 6 principles of reciprocity, scarcity, authority, consistency, liking, and consensus contribute greatly to modifying attitudes and perceptions. The principle of reciprocity is giving when you receive; scarcity refers to a limited number of resources; authority refers to credibility and expertise whereas liking refers to being similar to and consensus is general agreement and points to what is the popular majority. When these principles are presented together in an argument regarding a topic, people are more likely to be persuaded. For example, you are more likely to give your waiter at a restaurant a larger tip if they appear to be likeable and similar to you and bring you a small gift (e.g., mints) at the end of your meal. Thus, attitude change can easily be activated by others and normative beliefs.
Another key component for changing attitudes is cognitive dissonance, the notion that people experience mental stress when they have two or more conflicting values, ideas, or beliefs (Festinger, 1959). According to the theory of cognitive dissonance, people seek cognitive consistency and when there is dissonance, individuals have the option of changing their attitudes, acquiring new information, or reducing the importance of their cognitions (Festinger, 1959). Although most dissonance research has focused on self-inflicted attitude change, there has also been research to demonstrate that social norms can have more of an impact and predictive power on behavior than attitudes themselves (Fiske, Ch.6). One approach to changing attitudes may be to focus on reframing the values of a social group to minimize the role of personal attitudes and their expression (Wolsko, 2016). Conversely, Clarke et al. (2016) revealed that, in some cases, having a strong attitude may actually reverse the direction of the normative social influence. Thus, you must instead focus on changing what is acceptable within a culture to change beliefs (Clarke et al., 2016). Next, I will show you how to apply these approaches to a contentious topic such as the anti-vaccination movement.
The anti-vaccination movement consists of those who believe vaccinations are dangerous (e.g., are linked to Autism, neurological conditions, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder) (Wakefield, 2001). While some parents are unable to vaccinate their children due to their medical conditions, allergies, or developmental stage, many parents without legitimate reasons fear that vaccines have “toxins” such as thimerosal which is a mercury used as preservative in vaccines (Wakefield, 2001). In order for the message that vaccinations are beneficial to be received, those against vaccinations must receive and yield to the message (Fiske, Ch.6). For this to occur, the source delivering the message must possess certain features which includes credibility (e.g., expertise and trust) (Fiske, Ch.6). If a prominent public figure and anti-vaxxer such as Dr. Oz or Jenny McCarthy were to denounce the anti-vaxxer movement, other anti-vaxxers would likely join. Behavior change is also more likely to occur when there are changes in the normative beliefs of this movement (Schultz, Tabanico, & Rendon, 2008). Given the desired behavior of vaccinating your children is a norm among U.S. families, the undesired behavior of not vaccinating your children should be shown to deviate from conformity to the norm (Schultz, Tabanico, & Rendon, 2008). This approach can be found to result in significant feelings of guilt and shame for not vaccinating their children. Thus, anti-vaxxers should be publicly shamed to regulate cultural norms (i.e., vaccinating children).
Public fear and shame are powerful motivators for attitude change. Fear appeal involves the impact of messages that frighten others (Fiske, Ch. 6). Research shows that too much fear can undermine persuasion but moderate-fear appeal can make a message effective when the receivers of the message are made aware of mild negative consequences and the message comes from a trusted source (Fiske, Ch. 6). For instance, those in the anti-vaccination movement should be informed that refusing vaccinations can have repercussions such as the spread of communicable diseases. In conjunction with fear appeal, the heuristic-systematic model should be used which asserts those more superficially involved in the anti-vaccination movement will likely be swayed by a popular communicator, whereas those who are more invested in the movement will likely be swayed on the strength and merit of the argument (e.g., strong support from medical research disconfirming potential consequences of vaccinations) (Fiske, Ch.6).
In conclusion, the ability to change the attitudes of others, while possible, can be a complex process. With the anti-vaccination movement, however, everyone is suffering the repercussions of a minority of parents refusing to vaccinate their children. This undesirable behavior needs to be ridiculed and shamed and disconfirming evidence for their claims should be brought to light to encourage them to resolve their cognitive dissonance. Furthermore, the principles of credibility, authority, consistency, and liking should be included in the argument against anti-vaccination advocates. Attitude change depends on the context, the recipients, whether they are highly or less involved, and the source delivering the message. In order for persuasive messages about vaccinations to invoke changes in attitudes of anti-vaxxers, they must be directly tailored to the particular context and purpose (Fiske, Ch.6).
- Clarke, S., Giubilini, A., & Walker, M. J. (2016). Conscientious objection to vaccination. Bioethics, 00, 1-7.
- Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58, 203-210.
- Fiske, S. T. (2014). Chapter 6. In Social beings: Core motives in social psychology. (pp. 223-271). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
- Schultz, W. P., Tabanoco, J. J., & Rendon, T. (2008). Normative beliefs as agents of influence basic processes and real-world applications, 385-405.
- Wakefield A. (2001). Measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine: Through a dark glass, darkly. Adverse drug reactions and toxicological reviews,19, 265-283.
- Walther, E. (2002). Guilty by mere association: Evaluative conditioning and the spreading attitude effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 919-934.
- Wolsko, C., Aricega, H. & Seiden, J. (2016). Red, white, and blue enough to be green: Effects of moral framing on climate change attitudes and conservation behaviors. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 65, 7-19.