12.3 Attitudes and Persuasion

Attitudes and Attitude Change

We all hold attitudes that shape how we behave. But what happens when our thoughts and actions don't line up? Cognitive dissonance theory explains the discomfort we feel when beliefs clash with actions, and how we try to resolve that inner conflict. Persuasion, meanwhile, is everywhere: ads, politics, everyday conversations. The Elaboration Likelihood Model describes how we process persuasive messages, either through careful thinking or quick shortcuts.

Cognitive Dissonance

Cognitive dissonance is the mental discomfort you experience when your attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors contradict each other. According to Leon Festinger's theory, people are motivated to maintain consistency among their cognitions. When inconsistency arises, the resulting discomfort (dissonance) pushes you to resolve it.

There are several ways people reduce dissonance:

• Change your attitude to match your behavior. A smoker who knows smoking is harmful might start telling themselves "it's not that bad" to reduce the conflict.
• Change your behavior to match your attitude. That same smoker could quit smoking instead.
• Add new cognitions that justify the inconsistency. "Smoking helps me manage stress, so it's worth it."
• Trivialize the inconsistency. "I only smoke a few cigarettes a week, so it doesn't really matter."

The strength of dissonance depends on a few factors:

• Importance of the cognitions involved. Dissonance about health consequences hits harder than dissonance about a minor preference.
• Number of dissonant cognitions. The more reasons you have that smoking is bad, the stronger the discomfort.
• Ability to rationalize. If you can easily justify the inconsistency (e.g., "addiction makes quitting nearly impossible"), the dissonance feels more manageable.

Persuasion and Influence

Elaboration Likelihood Model

The Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM), developed by Petty and Cacioppo, proposes two routes your brain can take when processing a persuasive message:

• Central route: You carefully evaluate the quality of the arguments. This happens when you're motivated and able to think deeply about the message. For example, you read a detailed policy proposal on an issue that directly affects your life.
• Peripheral route: You rely on surface-level cues instead of the argument itself. This happens when motivation or ability to process is low. For example, you buy a product because a celebrity endorsed it, not because you researched its quality.

What determines which route you take?

• Central route processing is more likely when the topic is personally relevant, the arguments are strong and evidence-based, and you have a high need for cognition (you genuinely enjoy thinking things through). Attitude changes from this route tend to be long-lasting and resistant to counter-persuasion.
• Peripheral route processing kicks in when you're distracted, pressed for time, or the topic doesn't feel relevant. Cues like source attractiveness, perceived expertise, or how likeable the speaker is carry more weight here. Attitude changes from this route tend to be temporary and easier to reverse.

Persuasion Techniques

Beyond the two routes, specific techniques exploit psychological tendencies to increase compliance:

Foot-in-the-door technique: Start with a small request, then follow up with a larger one.

1. Someone asks you to sign a petition supporting a cause.
2. You agree (small commitment).
3. A week later, they ask you to donate money to that cause.
4. You're more likely to say yes because you've already identified yourself as a supporter.

This works through self-perception theory: once you comply with the small request, you start to see yourself as the kind of person who supports that cause, which makes the larger request feel consistent with who you are.

Door-in-the-face technique: Start with an unreasonably large request, then follow up with a smaller one.

1. Someone asks you to volunteer 20 hours a week at a shelter.
2. You say no.
3. They then ask if you could volunteer just 2 hours this Saturday.
4. The second request feels much more reasonable by comparison.

This works through the contrast effect (the smaller request seems easy next to the big one), reciprocity (the requester "conceded," so you feel pressure to concede too), and sometimes guilt after saying no the first time.

Low-ball technique: Offer an attractive deal, then change the terms after the person has already committed.

1. A car dealer offers you a great price on a vehicle.
2. You agree and start filling out paperwork.
3. The dealer comes back and says the manager can't approve that price, so it'll be slightly higher.
4. You're more likely to accept the new terms because you've already invested time and mentally committed.

This exploits consistency (you want to follow through on your decision), sunk costs (you've already put effort in), and cognitive dissonance (backing out would conflict with the commitment you just made).