Editing Persuasion (section)

==Theories==
There are many psychological theories for what influences an individual's behaviour in different situations. These theories will have implications about how persuasion works.

=== Attribution theory ===
{{Main|Attribution (psychology)}}
Humans attempt to explain the actions of others through either dispositional attribution or situational attribution.

[[Dispositional attribution]], also referred to as internal attribution, attempts to point to a person's traits, abilities, motives, or dispositions as a cause or explanation for their actions. A citizen criticizing a president by saying the nation is lacking economic progress and health because the president is either lazy or lacking in economic intuition is utilizing a dispositional attribution.

[[Situational attribution]], also referred to as external attribution, attempts to point to the context around the person and factors of his surroundings, particularly things that are completely out of his control.  A citizen claiming that a lack of economic progress is not a fault of the president but rather the fact that he inherited a poor economy from the previous president is situational attribution.

A [[fundamental attribution error]] occurs when people wrongly attribute either a shortcoming or accomplishment to internal factors while disregarding all external factors. In general, people use dispositional attribution more often than situational attribution when trying to explain or understand the behavior of others. This happens because we focus more on the individual when we lack information about that individual's situation and context. When trying to persuade others to like us or another person, we tend to explain positive behaviors and accomplishments with dispositional attribution and negative behaviors and shortcomings with situational attributions.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/fundamental_attribution_error.htm|title=Fundamental Attribution Error|work=changingminds.org}}</ref>

===Behaviour change theories===
The Theory of Planned Behavior is the foremost theory of behaviour change. It has support from<ref>{{cite journal |pmid=11795063 |year=2001 |last1=Armitage |first1=C. J |title=Efficacy of the Theory of Planned Behaviour: A meta-analytic review |journal=The British Journal of Social Psychology |volume=40 |issue=Pt 4 |pages=471–99 |last2=Conner |first2=M |doi=10.1348/014466601164939 |s2cid=28044256 }}</ref> meta-analyses which reveals it can predict around 30% of behaviour. Theories, by nature however, prioritize internal validity, over external validity. They are coherent and therefore make for an easily reappropriated story. On the other hand, they will correspond more poorly with the evidence, and mechanics of reality, than a straightforward itemization of the behaviour change interventions (techniques) by their individual efficacy. 
These behaviour change interventions have been<ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.1037/0278-6133.27.3.379 |pmid=18624603 |title=A taxonomy of behavior change techniques used in interventions |journal=Health Psychology |volume=27 |issue=3 |pages=379–87 |year=2008 |last1=Abraham |first1=Charles |last2=Michie |first2=Susan |hdl=10871/13753 |s2cid=10117932 |url=https://ore.exeter.ac.uk/repository/bitstream/10871/13753/2/Abraham%20%20Michie%20_2008_%20Behaviour%20Change%20Techniques%20Taxonomy%20Health%20Psychology.pdf |hdl-access=free }}</ref> categorized by behavioral scientists. A mutually exclusive, comprehensively exhaustive (MECE) translation of this taxonomy, in decreasing order of effectiveness are:

# positive and negative consequences
# offering/removing incentives,
# offering/removing threats/punishments,
# distraction,
# changing exposure to cues (triggers) for the behaviour,
# prompts/cues,
# goal-setting,
# (increasing the salience of) emotional/health/social/environmental/regret consequences, 
# self-monitoring of the behaviour and outcomes of behaviour,
# mental rehearsal of successful performance (planning?), 
# self-talk,
# focus on past success,
# comparison of outcomes via persuasive argument,
# pros/cons and comparative imaging of future outcomes,
# identification of self as role model,
# self-affirmation,
# reframing,
# cognitive dissonance,
# reattribution,
# (increasing salience of) antecedents

A typical instantiations of these techniques in therapy is<ref>[[Exposure and response prevention]]</ref>{{Circular reference|date=April 2018}}exposure / response prevention for OCD.

===Conditioning theories===
{{Main|Classical conditioning}}
Conditioning plays a huge part in the concept of persuasion. It is more often about leading someone into taking certain actions of their own, rather than giving direct commands. In advertisements for example, this is done by attempting to connect a positive emotion to a brand/product logo. This is often done by creating commercials that make people laugh, using a sexual undertone, inserting uplifting images and/or music etc. and then ending the commercial with a brand/product logo.  Great examples of this are professional athletes.  They are paid to connect themselves to things that can be directly related to their roles; sport shoes, tennis rackets, golf balls, or completely irrelevant things like soft drinks, popcorn poppers and panty hose.  The important thing for the advertiser is to establish a connection to the consumer.<ref>Cialdini, R.B. (2007). "Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion" New York: HarperCollins Publishers.{{page needed|date=April 2018}}</ref>

This conditioning is thought to affect how people view certain products, knowing that most purchases are made on the basis of emotion. Just like you sometimes recall a memory from a certain smell or sound, the objective of some ads is solely to bring back certain emotions when you see their logo in your local store. The hope is that repeating the message several times makes consumers more likely to purchase the product because they already connect it with a good emotion and positive experience.
[[Stefano DellaVigna]] and Matthew Gentzkow did a comprehensive study on the effects of persuasion in different domains. They discovered that persuasion has little or no effect on advertisement; however, there was a substantial effect of persuasion on voting if there was face-to-face contact.<ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.1146/annurev.economics.102308.124309 |title=Persuasion: Empirical Evidence |journal=Annual Review of Economics |volume=2 |pages=643–669 |year=2010 |last1=Dellavigna |first1=Stefano |last2=Gentzkow |first2=Matthew |s2cid=10839722 |url=http://www.nber.org/papers/w15298.pdf }}</ref>

===Cognitive dissonance theory===
{{Main|Cognitive dissonance}}
[[Leon Festinger]] originally proposed the theory of cognitive dissonance in 1957.  He theorized that human beings constantly strive for mental consistency.  Our cognition (thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes) can be in agreement, unrelated, or in disagreement with each other. Our cognition can also be in agreement or disagreement with our behaviors.  When we detect conflicting cognition, or dissonance, it gives us a sense of incompleteness and discomfort.  For example, a person who is addicted to smoking cigarettes but also suspects it could be detrimental to their health suffers from cognitive dissonance.

Festinger suggests that we are motivated to reduce this dissonance until our cognition is in harmony with itself.  We strive for mental consistency.  There are four main ways we go about reducing or eliminating our dissonance:
# changing our minds about one of the facets of cognition
# reducing the importance of a cognition
# increasing the overlap between the two, and 
# re-evaluating the cost/reward ratio.
Revisiting the example of the smoker, they can either quit smoking, reduce the importance of their health, convince themself they are not at risk, or decide that the reward of smoking is worth the cost of their health.

Cognitive dissonance is powerful when it relates to competition and [[self-concept]].  The most famous example of how cognitive dissonance can be used for persuasion comes from Festinger and Carlsmith's 1959 experiment in which participants were asked to complete a very dull task for an hour.  Some were paid $20, while others were paid $1, and afterwards they were instructed to tell the next waiting participants that the experiment was fun and exciting.  Those who were paid $1 were much more likely to convince the next participants that the experiment really was enjoyable than those who received $20. This is because $20 is enough reason to participate in a dull task for an hour, so there is no dissonance.  Those who received $1 experienced great dissonance, so they had to truly convince themselves that the task actually was enjoyable to avoid feeling taken advantage of, and therefore reduce their dissonance.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.simplypsychology.org/cognitive-dissonance.html# |title=Cognitive Dissonance Theory |publisher=Simply Psychology |access-date=30 April 2014}}</ref>

===Elaboration likelihood model===
{{Main|Elaboration likelihood model}}
Persuasion has traditionally been associated with two routes:<ref name="Petty & Cacioppo (1986)">{{cite journal|last=Petty|author-link=Richard E. Petty|author2=Cacioppo|author2-link=John T. Cacioppo|title=The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion|journal=Advances in Experimental Social Psychology|year=1986|volume=19|issue=1|pages=123–205|doi=10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60214-2|hdl=10983/26083|s2cid=14259584 |hdl-access=free}}</ref>
* Central route: Whereby an individual evaluates information presented to them based on the pros and cons of it and how well it supports their values
* Peripheral route: Change is mediated by how attractive the source of communication is and by bypassing the deliberation process.<ref name="Petty & Cacioppo (1986)"/>

The Elaboration likelihood model (ELM) forms a new facet of the route theory. It holds that the probability of effective persuasion depends on how successful the communication is at bringing to mind a relevant mental representation, which is the elaboration likelihood. Thus if the target of the communication is personally relevant, this increases the elaboration likelihood of the intended outcome and would be more persuasive if it were through the central route. Communication which does not require careful thought would be better suited to the peripheral route.<ref name="Petty, Cacioppo & Schumann (1983)">{{cite journal|last=Petty |author-link=Richard E. Petty |author2=Cacioppo|author2-link=John T. Cacioppo |author3=Schumann|title=Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement|journal=Journal of Consumer Research|year=1983|volume=10|issue=2|pages=135–146|doi=10.1086/208954|url=http://www.sba.oakland.edu/faculty/kim/2010/readings%20for%20winter%202010/elm%20petty.pdf|citeseerx=10.1.1.319.9824 |s2cid=14927806 }}</ref>

===Functional theories===
Functional theorists attempt to understand the divergent attitudes individuals have towards people, objects or issues in different situations.<ref name="Katz (1960)">{{cite journal|last=Katz|first=D.|title=The functional approach to the study of attitudes|journal=Public Opinion Quarterly|year=1960|volume=24|issue=2|pages=163–204|doi=10.1086/266945|s2cid=8842147}}</ref> There are four main functional attitudes:
# Adjustment function: A main motivation for individuals is to increase positive external rewards and minimize the costs. Attitudes serve to direct behavior towards the rewards and away from punishment.
# Ego Defensive function: The process by which an individual protects their ego from being threatened by their own negative impulses or threatening thoughts.
# Value-expressive: When an individual derives pleasure from presenting an image of themselves which is in line with their self-concept and the beliefs that they want to be associated with.
# Knowledge function: The need to attain a sense of understanding and control over one's life. An individual's attitudes therefore serve to help set standards and rules which govern their sense of being.<ref name="Katz (1960)" />

When communication targets an underlying function, its degree of persuasiveness influences whether individuals change their attitude after determining that another attitude would more effectively fulfill that function.<ref name="DeBono (1987)">{{cite journal|last=DeBono|first=K.G.|title=Investigating the social-adjustive and value-expressive functions of attitudes: Implications for persuasion processes|journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology|year=1987|volume=52|issue=2|pages=279–287|doi=10.1037/0022-3514.52.2.279}}</ref>

===Inoculation theory===
{{Main|Inoculation theory}}
A vaccine introduces a weak form of a virus that can easily be defeated to prepare the immune system should it need to fight off a stronger form of the same virus.  In much the same way, the theory of inoculation suggests that a certain party can introduce a weak form of an argument that is easily thwarted in order to make the audience inclined to disregard a stronger, full-fledged form of that argument from an opposing party.

This often occurs in negative advertisements and comparative advertisements—both for products and political causes.  An example would be a manufacturer of a product displaying an ad that refutes one particular claim made about a rival's product, so that when the audience sees an ad for said rival product, they refute the product claims automatically.<ref>{{cite web |author=Jenah Schwartswalder |url=http://www.uky.edu/~drlane/capstone/persuasion/ino.htm |title=Inoculation Theory - Persuasion Context |publisher=Uky.edu |date=14 February 2001 |access-date=30 April 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140922081140/http://www.uky.edu/~drlane/capstone/persuasion/ino.htm |archive-date=22 September 2014 |url-status=dead }}</ref>

===Narrative transportation theory===
{{Main|Transportation theory (psychology)}}
Narrative transportation theory proposes that when people lose themselves in a story, their attitudes and intentions change to reflect that story.<ref name="Braddock2016">{{cite journal |last1=Braddock |first1=Kurt |last2=Dillard |first2=James Price |author2-link=James Price Dillard |title=Meta-analytic evidence for the persuasive effect of narratives on beliefs, attitudes, intentions, and behaviors |journal=Communication Monographs |date=25 February 2016 |volume=83 |issue=4 |pages=446–467 |doi=10.1080/03637751.2015.1128555|s2cid=146978687 }}</ref> The mental state of narrative transportation can explain the persuasive effect of stories on people, who may experience narrative transportation when certain contextual and personal preconditions are met, as Green and Brock<ref>Green, M. C., & Brock, T. C. (2002). "In the mind's eye: Transportation-imagery model of narrative persuasion." In M. C. Green, J. J. Strange & T. C. Brock (Eds.), ''Narrative impact: Social and cognitive foundations''. (pp. 315-341). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.</ref> postulate for the transportation-imagery model. Narrative transportation occurs whenever the story receiver experiences a feeling of entering a world evoked by the narrative because of empathy for the story characters and imagination of the story plot.

===Social judgment theory===
{{Main|Social judgment theory}}
Social judgment theory suggests that when people are presented with an idea or any kind of persuasive proposal, their natural reaction is to immediately seek a way to sort the information subconsciously and react to it.  We evaluate the information and compare it with the attitude we already have, which is called the initial attitude or anchor point.

When trying to sort incoming persuasive information, an audience evaluates whether it lands in their latitude of acceptance, latitude of non-commitment or indifference, or the latitude of rejection.  The size of these latitudes varies from topic to topic.  Our "ego-involvement" generally plays one of the largest roles in determining the size of these latitudes.  When a topic is closely connected to how we define and perceive ourselves, or deals with anything we care passionately about, our latitudes of acceptance and non-commitment are likely to be much smaller and our attitude of rejection much larger.  A person's anchor point is considered to be the center of their latitude of acceptance, the position that is most acceptable to them.

An audience is likely to distort incoming information to fit into their unique latitudes.  If something falls within the latitude of acceptance, the subject tends to assimilate the information and consider it closer to his anchor point than it really is.  Inversely, if something falls within the latitude of rejection, the subject tends to contrast the information and convince themself the information is farther away from their anchor point than it really is.

When trying to persuade an individual target or an entire audience, it is vital to first learn the average latitudes of acceptance, non-commitment, and rejection of your audience.  It is ideal to use persuasive information that lands near the boundary of the latitude of acceptance if the goal is to change the audience's anchor point.  Repeatedly suggesting ideas on the fringe of the acceptance latitude makes people gradually adjust their anchor points, while suggesting ideas in the rejection latitude or even the non-commitment latitude does not change the audience's anchor point.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://healthyinfluence.com/wordpress/steves-primer-of-practical-persuasion-3-0/feeling/social-judgment-theory/ |title=Social Judgment Theory &#124; Persuasion Blog |publisher=Healthyinfluence.com |date=22 April 2014 |access-date=30 April 2014}}</ref>