Some participants received a scenario in which the protagonists name was similar to their own These participants indicated that the character was more similar to themselves reported greater liking for the person and expressed more willingness to com ID: 2677 Download Pdf
Social Psychology. Persuasion. The direct attempt to influence or change other people’s attitudes. Persuasion. Elaboration likelihood model- . a model suggesting that attitudes can change through evaluation of the .
February 7, 2017. Nature of Persuasion. We are surrounded by persuasion. Obvious or intentional persuasion. Nonobvious or accidental influence. Persuasion can be positive!. Powerful, positive social force that works to motivate and inspire.
P. ersuasion is . an important literacy skill. Media, politicians, advertisers, and writers all use specific tools to persuade or convince you of their opinion. Once you know how to recognize . tools of .
Using . Words to . Get . What You Need. Linda Jones, Editorial Director. ADVANCE/Merion Matters. November 2012. Everybody is . selling . something. Persuasion. List the six steps of persuasion in America..
What is persuasion? What different kinds of persuasion are there? What are the different areas in our life when we are open to persuasion? Why do we need to persuade? . Persuasion is the process off changing or reinforcing attitudes, beliefs or behaviours and is something most people do or experience on a daily basis. We can persuade to influence people; to get something we want. Also people are trying to influence us so we need to understand the different ways this might happen. .
Chapter 6. Communicating in English. Talk, Text, Technology. Guy Cook . Introduction. Who uses persuasion: . A girl pestering her dad for ice-cream, a lawyer arguing for the innocence of the accused, an activist drums up support for a new political movement or a new cause, a religious man trying to convert his audience, a blogger posting his/her ideas on the internet . . . .
A study in the pragmatics of persuasion : a game theoretic approach.. L15. Glazer and Rubinstein (TE 2006). . Setup. Today. Sender choses which verified fact to reveal. Sender has limited capacity to verify facts.
Pathos. Dr. Jeffrey Arthurs, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, . as taught at Singapore Bible College DMin module, March . 2016. a. nd offered for free download by Dr. Rick Griffith at BibleStudyDownloads.org.
Two Types of Social Influence. Techniques of Social Influence. Persuasion. Resisting Persuasion. Social Influence and Persuasion. James Warren Jones . Jonestown (1978). How could Jim Jones have influenced his followers to such a deep level that more than 900 committed revolutionary suicide?.
L17. Information Design Literature. Discussed papers:. Kamienica. and . Genzkow. (AER 2011). Bergmann and Morris (2017). Genzkow. and . Kamienica. (. REStud. 2017). Other important papers:. Bergmann and Morris (ECMA 2013, TE 2016).
Published bystefany-barnette
Some participants received a scenario in which the protagonists name was similar to their own These participants indicated that the character was more similar to themselves reported greater liking for the person and expressed more willingness to com
Download Pdf - The PPT/PDF document "Whats in a Name Persuasion Perhaps GARNE..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
RequestsforreprintsshouldbesenttoRandyGarner,SamHoustonStateUniversity,BehavioralSciences,CollegeofCriminalJustice,Huntsville, TX77340–2296. E-mail: rgarner@shsu.edu pactofnamesimilarityorfamiliarityonovertbehavior.Rather,itmayonlyreflectaninfluenceofthesefactorsonpreferencesthatwerereportedinavotingboothratherthanOverview and PredictionsInStudy1,Ideterminedwhethermerenamesimilaritycaninfluencelikingandthewillingnesstoperformafavor.Participantsreadascenarioinwhichthenameofthecentralcharacterwaseithersimilarordissimilartotheirown.Iexpectedthatthosepersonswhoreadthescenariocontainingthename-similarcharacterwouldreportthatthecharacterwassimilartothemselves,wouldevaluatethecharactermorefavorably,andwouldreportgreaterwillingnesstoperformafavor for that person.Study2wassimilartothefirstexperimentexceptthatthecontrolgroupnameswerehighlyfamiliar,thuspermittingtheeffectsofnamesimilarityandnamefamiliaritytobedistinguished.Inaddition,Iexaminedthelengthoftimethatindividualsineachname-similarityconditionrequiredtocompletethetaskandtheamountofinformationinthescenariothattheywereabletorecall.Thesedataprovidedfurtherin-sightintotheamountofcognitiveprocessingthatpartici-InStudies3and4,participantsreceivedamailedques-tionnairealongwithacoverletterexplainingtheimportanceofthesurvey.Thecoverletterinonegroupwassignedwithanamesimilartotherecipients,whereasthecoverletterinthesecondgroupwassignedbyoneofseveralactualresearchas-sistantswhosenamesaredissimilarfromtherecipient.TheparticipantsinStudy3weredrawnfromundergraduatepsy-chologystudents,whereasthesurveymaterialsinstudy4weredistributedtoUniversityprofessorsthroughinterofficemail.Inbothcases,Ihypothesizedthatmoresurveyswouldbereturnedbyrecipientswhoreceivedthequestionnairefrom someone whose name was similar to their own.STUDY 1Participants.Inthisstudy,52femaleand30maleundergraduatepsychologystudentsparticipatedtofulfillaclassrequirement.Fromaclassrosterof91names,40personswererandomlyselectedtoreadascenarioinwhichtheprotagonist’snamewassimilartotheirown.Theremainingstudentsreadascenarioinwhichtheprotagonist’snamewasunfamiliar.Materials.Eachparticipantreceivedatwo-pagepacketpurportedtobeapartofareadingcomprehensionstudyfortheCommunicationDepartment.Thefirstpagecontainedabriefscenariothatprovidedadescriptionofafictitiouspersonincludingphysicalandpersonalitycharacteristicsaswellascertainlikesanddislikes.Thenarrativealsoincludedcommentsaboutthescenariosfictitiouscharacter,whichwerereportedtocomefromthecharacters’friends.Thedescriptionswerekeptneutralsothattheywouldbeapplicabletobothconditionswithoutregardtogender.Thesescenarioswereidenticalineverywaywiththeexceptionofthenameofthecentralfigure.Thoseinthename-similarconditionreceivedascenarioinwhichthenameofthecentralcharacterwassimilartotheparticipant.Theparticipantsinthecontrolconditionreceivedascenarioinwhichthecentralcharacterwasalwaysnamed“KerryStanlin.”Aseriesofpretestssuggestedthatthisnamewasbothgenderneutralandwasratedasmoderatelypositivewhencomparedtoamorecomprehensivelist.Forthename-similarcondition,agroupofresearchjudgescreatednamesthatweresimilarbutnotidenticaltothe40participantswhowererandomlyselectedfromtheclassroll.Earlyinthesemester,eachclassmemberhadbeenaskedtofillouta3×5in.indexcardthatincludedtheirnameandotherpertinentdata.Thisinformationwasusedtoinsurethenamepreferredbythestudent(e.g.,BobinsteadofRobert)wasutilizedincreatingthename-similarconditions.Ineachcase,thefirstnameofthecharacterwassimilaroriden-ticaltotheparticipantandthelastnamewasmodifiedtocre-ateasimilarappearingsurname.Forexample,anameap-pearingontheclassrollsuchasRobertGreermightbecomeBobGregarandCynthiaJohnstonmaybecomeCindyJohanson.Severalnamesposedparticularchallengesforthejudges; however, in each case, agreement was reached.Thesecondpageofthepacketwascompletedaftertheparticipantshadreadthescenario.Eachparticipantwasaskedtoratethelikabilityofthecentralcharacter,howwillingheorshewouldbetoperformafavorforthischaracterifasked,andhowsimilarheorshebelievedthecharacterwastothemselves.Allmeasureswererecordedon13-pointscalesrangingfrom1(notatall)to13(extremely).Severalotherquestionsdealtwiththecontentofthestoryinkeepingwiththepurportedintentionoftheresearcheffort.Anopennarrativesectionwasalsoincludedinwhichparticipantscouldindicatethereasonsfortheratingdecisionstheymade.Design and procedure.Ofthe82studentswhoparticipatedintheexperiment,40receivedname-similarpacketsandtheremaining42weregivencontrolpackets.Participantsreceivedamanilaenvelopethatcontainedtheirrandomlyassignedscenarioandquestionnaire.ThepacketsTheparticipantsweretoldthattheenclosedmaterialsinvolvedaveryshortreadingcomprehensionexercisethatwasbeingconductedattherequestoftheCommunicationDepartment.Theywereinstructedtoopenthepacketandweregiven2mintoreadthescenario.Oncetheyhadfinished,theyweretoldtoturnthepageandanswerallofthequestionswithoutreturningtothescenario.Finally,afterrespondingto storyyourread?”and“Whattypesofactivitiesdidtheindividualreportthattheyenjoyed?”wasscoredintermsoftheDesign and procedure.Inthisstudy,112participantswerepresentandreceivedeitheraname-similarscenario(56)oraname-familiar(=56)scenariopacketbasedonpreviousrandomassignment.Becauseoftherequirementsimposedbythismethodology,thematerialswerepreparedinadvance,andprecautionsweretakentoensureequivalenceingroups.Participantsinthename-similarconditionwereprovidedpacketssimilartothoseemployedinStudy1.Thoseinthename-familiarconditionrandomlyreceivedapacketinwhichthecentralcharacter’snamewasconstructedfromtheU.S.CensusandSocialSecurityAdministrationdatadescribedearlier.Men(=22)receivedthepacketswiththemostfamiliarmalenames(e.g.,JamesSmith,RobertJohnson,JohnJones,etc.)andwomen(=34)receivedpacketswiththemostfamiliarfemalenames(MarySmith,PatriciaJohnson, Linda Williams, etc.).TheproceduresandinstructionsweresimilartoStudy1.Theparticipantswereaskedtocompleteashortreadingcom-prehensionexercisethatwasbeingconductedattherequestoftheCommunicationDepartment.Attheconclusionoftheexercise,thestudentsinthisstudywereaskedtobringtheircompletedpackettooneoftheresearchassistantsatthefrontoftheroom.Theassistantsrecordedthetimethatthepacketwasreturned.Participantswerenotdebriefedimmediatelyasinthepreviousstudy.A2-weekfollow-upwasconductedinwhichthe10-question,content-retentioninstrumentwasad-ministered.Oncethisprocesswascompleted,thepartici-pants were thanked and fully debriefed.TheresultsofthisstudyaresummarizedintherighthalfofTable1.ConsistentwiththeresultsinStudy1,participantsinname-similarconditionsindicatedthatthecentralcharacterwasmoresimilartothemselves(=8.84)thandidparticipantsinname-familiarconditions(=5.82),110)=66.51,.001,=.377.Theyalsoratedthecharacterasrelativelymorelikeable(9.64vs.7.62),(1,110)=.01,=.197andweremorewillingtodoafavorfortheperson(9.21vs.7.26),(1,110)=29.88,=.214.Allmeasureswerehighlycorrelated,rangingfrom.68to.71.Therewerenosignificantdifferencesbygenderineithercondition.Participantsinthename-familiarconditiongavesimilarity-to-selfratingsthatwerebelowthemidpointofthescale.Time to complete the questionnaire.Participantsinthename-similarconditiontooksignificantlylonger(15.05min)tocompleteandreturntheirpacketsthandidthoseinthename-familiarcondition(=12.44min),Information recall.Thefollow-upinstrumentdesignedtoassesscontentretentionofthescenariowasadministeredto101oftheoriginal112participants.(Ofthe11missingparticipants,7wereinthename-similarconditionand4wereinthename-familiarcondition.)Althoughparticipantsrecalledagreaterproportionoftheinformationinname-similarconditions(=82.0%)thaninname-familiarconditions=78.9%),thisdifferencewasonlymarginallysignificant,(1,100)=3.02,.09.Thismaybeduetotheratherstraightforwardcontentinthescenarioandthesimplenatureof the exercise.Theresultssuggestthatnamesimilarityratherthannamefamiliarityhadthedominantinfluenceundertheconditionsweinvestigated.Participantsinname-similarconditionsrelativetothoseinname-familiarconditionsperceivedthemselvestobemoresimilartothecharacter,likedthecharactermore,andexpressedgreaterwillingnesstodothepersonafavor.Thus,thefamiliarnamesusedinthisstudydidnothavethesamepersuasiveeffectasthesimilarones.Itispossiblethattheparticipantsviewedthesimilarnamesassocommonrelativetotheirownthattheydecreasedtheirperceptionsofsimilarity.Thisissomewhatakintothefalseuniquenesseffect(Goethals,Messick,&Allison,1991)inwhichpeoplebelieveandwanttobeviewedasdistinctiveratherthancommonplace.Itisimportanttonotethatalthoughthecontrolnameswereintentionallycreatedtobehighlyfamiliar,theymaynotbeviewedasfamiliarasone’sownname.Asaresult,onemightarguethatnamefamiliarityremainsapossiblemediator.However,acomparisonoftheresultsofStudies1and2arguesagainstthisconclusion.Table1showsastrongcorrespondenceinscoresassociatedwiththename-similarconditionsinbothstudies.Furthermore,thedataforthetwocontrolconditionsarealsoverysimilardespiteimportantdifferencesintheirconstruction.AlthoughthecommonnamesinStudy2mayhavebeenlessfamiliartoparticipantsthantheirownnames,theywereclearlymorefamiliarthanKerryStanlin.However,aposthocanalysisindicatesthatthereisnosignificantdifferencebetweenthemeanratingsbycondition(namesimilarorcontrol)onanyvariableacrossthetwostudies(1inallcases).Althoughcautionshouldbeexercisedwhenmakingcomparisonsacrossstudies,theseexperimentswereconductedwithinasimilartimeframeandparticipantsweredrawnfromthesameparticipantpopulation.Therefore,theseresultsstronglyargueagainstfamiliarityastheprimarymediator.ParticipantsinStudy2spentmoretimethinkingaboutthescenarioinname-similarthaninname-familiarconditionsandhadnonsignificantlybetterrecalloftheinformationpresentedinformerconditions.Thesedatasuggestthatasimilarnamestimulatedparticipants’attentiontothecontentofthescenario,resultinginamorecarefulassessmentofitsimpli makingthesurveyproceduremoreefficientandproductiveinthefuture.Inthiscontext,participantswereaskedtoindicateanyreasonstheyconsideredwhendecidingtocompleteandreturnthesurvey.Fontstyle,generalappearance,andimportanceoftheinformationwerelistedaspossibleexamples,although the format was open ended.Design and procedure.Thirtyuniversityprofessorswererandomlyselectedtoreceiveaname-similarsurveypacketdescribedpreviously.Anadditional30professorsrandomlyreceivedacontrolsurveypacketalsocreatedinaccordancewithStudy3procedures.Thematerialsweresentviainterofficemailandincludedareturn-addressenvelope.Thosewhoreturnedthesurveywithintherequested10daysweresentthefollow-upquestionnaire.Thiswasdoneinanefforttodetermineifthoseinthename-similarconditionidentifiedthenamesimilarityoftherequesterasareasonorconsideration for the return of the survey.Attheconclusionofthestudy,allparticipantswereprovidedwithdetailedcorrespondenceoutliningthetruenatureofthestudy.Thecommunicationlistedanumbertocalliftherewereanyconcernsorquestions.Norequestsforaddi-tional information or inquiry were received.Thehypothesiswasconfirmed.Thosefacultymembersweresignificantlymorelikelytoreturntheirsurveyiftheyre-ceivedaname-similarcoverletter(56%;=17)thaniftheydidnot(30%;=9),=60)=4.34,.04.Follow-upquestionnairesweresenttoallofthosewhoreturnedtheirsurveysregardlessofcondition.Therewasnosignificantcontentvariationintheresponsesprovided.Analysisofthefollow-upquestionnaire,whichwasreturnedby9ofthe17participantsinthename-similarcondition,revealedthatnoneoftheparticipantswhoreturnedtheirsurveyindicatedthatthenamesimilarityofthesenderwasareasonfortheirreTheresultsofStudy4confirmtheconclusionthatperceivednamesimilaritycaninfluenceovertbehavioraloutcomes.Inthisreal-worldsetting,universityprofessorswhoreceivedthecoverlettersignedwithanamethatwassimilartotheirowncompletedandreturnedthesurveyinsignificantlygreaternumbersthanthoseinthecontrolgroup.AsidentifiedinStudy3,thelevelofcommitmentinvolvedinthisbehavioralsequencefarexceedthemereexpressionofaparticularNotsurprisingly,noneoftherecipientswhoreturnedthesurveyindicatedthatsimilarityofnamewasinvolvedintheirbehavioraldecisiontocompleteandreturnthesurvey.BornsteinandD’Agostino(1992)suggestedthatsucheffectsarestrongestwhentheyareperceivedwithoutconsciousawareness.Althoughitispossiblethatthenamesimilaritywasnoticed,itwasapparentlynotidentifiedasaconsciousconsiderationincomplyingwiththerequest.Thesefindingsareconsistentwiththeincreasingbodyofliteraturethathassuggestedpeoplefrequentlyrelyoncognitiveshortcutsindecisionmaking(Chaiken,1980,1987;Chaiken&Trope,1999;Eagly&Chaiken,1993;Petty&Cacioppo,1986).Thefailureofparticipantstomentionnamesimilarityasabasisfortheirdecisionmustbeevaluatedwithcautionduetotheobviousfailingsofhumanmemoryoverthe2-weekintervalbetweencompletionofthequestionnaireandthefollow-upsurvey.Furthermore,participantsmayhaveconsciouslyconsiderednamesimilarityatthetimetheyfirstdecidedtocompletethesurveybutmayhaveconsideredonlymoreproximalreasonsfortheirdecisionswhenlateraskedaboutit.Thisseriesofstudiesprovidedstrongsupportforthename-similarityeffect.Indoingso,theydemonstratedthatsomethingasseeminglyinsignificantasnamesimilaritycanhaveapersuasiveinfluenceonperceptionsofliking,percep-tionsofsimilaritytoself,andtheexpressedintentiontoen-gageintangiblebehavior(viz.,agreeingtodoafavor).Inad-dition,namesimilarityinducedindividualstoengageinanovertbehavioraltask.Thisfindingextendstheimplicationsofpreviousresearch,whichhasoftenconsideredonlygen-eral preferences for the first or the last letter in one’s name.Studies1and2notonlyprovidedevidencethatnamesim-ilaritycanhaveapotentinfluenceonperceptions,butindi-catedthattheeffectoccurredindependentlyofnamefamiliarity.Ifgeneralnamefamiliaritywereequallypersuasive,itshouldhavehadaninfluenceinthecontrolconditionofStudy2inwhichthenameswerequitefamiliar.Infact,thisinfluencewasnotevident.Moreover,theeffectsintheseconditionsdidnotdifferfromthoseobservedincontrolconditionsofStudy1inwhichthename(KerryStanlin)wasunfamiliaraswellasdissimilar.Incombination,thesedataprovideastrongargumentagainstfamiliarityastheprimarymediator.ItispossiblethatthecommonnamesusedinStudy2weresogeneralastohavelimitedpersuasiveappeal.Forexample,thenameJohnSmithmaybeamongthemostfrequentandfamiliarnames;however,itsverygeneralitymayadverselyimpactanypotentialinfluence.Onemightpaymoreattentiontosomethingastheresultofseeinganamesimilartooneself,butanameascommonasJohnSmithmayhardlycaptureone’sattention.Namesthatarepopular,familiar,andassociatedwithwellknownindividuals(e.g.,GeorgeBush,DonaldTrump,orMohammedAli)mayhaveresultedinmuch different findings.However,Study2providedasuggestionastoapotentialmediatingfactorinthisnamesimilarityprocess.Thosewho Lee,A.(2001).Themereexposureeffect:Anuncertaintyreductionexplanationrevisited.PersonalityandSocialPsychologyBulletin,27,Miller,D.(1991).Handbookofresearchdesignandsocialmeasurement(5th ed.). New York: McKay.Moreland,R.,&Zajonc,R.(1976).Astrongtestofexposureeffects.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 12,Nuttin,J.(1987).Affectiveconsequencesofmereownership:ThenamedlettereffectintwelveEuropeanlanguages.EuropeanJournalofSocialPsychology, 17,Pelham,B.,Mirenberg,C.,&Carvallo,X.(2002).Implicitegotism:Implicationsforinterpersonalattraction.ManuscriptsubmittedforpublicaPelham,B.,Mirenberg,C.,&Jones,J.(2002).WhySusiesellsseashellsbytheseashore:Implicitegotismandmajorlifedecisions.JournalofPersonality and Social Psychology, 82,Petty,R.E.,&Cacioppo,J.T.(1986).Communicationandpersuasion:Centralandperipheralroutestoattitudechange.NewYork:Springer-Verlag.Reaney, P. (1967).Strumpfer,D.(1978).Relationshipbetweenattitudestowardsone’snamesPsychological Reports, 43,Swap,W.C.(1977).Interpersonalattractionandrepeatedexposuretorewardersandpunishers.PersonalityandSocialPsychologyBulletin,3,Zajonc,R.B.(1968).Theattitudinaleffectsofmereexposure.[MonographsJournal of Personality And Social Psychology, 9,Received: December 19, 2003
© 2021 docslides.com Inc.
All rights reserved.