Quality of arguements vs persuader attractiveness Lab Report

Quality of arguements vs persuader attractiveness - Lab Report Example These cues are as follows: Reciprocation, "You owe me"; "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. ... 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