Discuss the Relationship Between Persuasion and Attitude Change.

Discuss the relationship betwixt persuasion and attitude change. The procedure of changing attitudes to and then further more than(prenominal) than than change behaviour has led psychologists to expand search into the topic of how persuasion takes place. The Hovland-Yale determine was ab initio developed to persuade the Ameri finish public for more support in the last stages of WW2. It was learnt that in secern to persuade effectively, the need was to focus on who and what. in the main the content, the hearing and the communicator.It was lay out that the well-nigh effective sources were experts as they had more credibility than non-experts, but too favourite and attractive sources were more effective than unattractive sources. Bochner & Insko asked students to give notice how much sleep was needed, before armying them deuce different sources of data an expert and a non-expert. Students were more persuaded by the expert even when it conflicted with their own bel iefs. another(prenominal) finding from the model found that contents ar more effective if the earreach feels that their main purpose is not to persuade.Also, if a message contains a moderate take of fright it becomes more successful. McGuire also found that thither was a primacy effect in messages. His research found that when he was trying to persuade students to join a course, he was more persuasive if he gave the official points first. The final factor involved in the Hovland-Yale model is earreach factors. It was seen that moderately intelligent audience members were more easily persuaded and when aiming at high intelligence audience members, it would be more effective to present some(prenominal) sides of the argument.The Elaboration-Likelihood model focuses on the message itself and splits this into two sections. Whether the audience focuses on the main content of the message or if they focus on other factors much(prenominal) as the communicator giving the message. Pett y et al. c altogethered this the cardinal and peripheral passage. The central travel guidebook audience members focus on the fictitious character of the arguments and ar motivated to think about the message. Its been suggested that this has a lasting attitude change.The peripheral channel is quite the opposite as audience members be not motivated to think about the message and they focus on the peripheral tools (such as music, celebrities, colour) instead than the arguments presented. Attitude change through the peripheral route is temporary. The Hovland-Yale model has good research support for all three factors involved in the model. Morton et al. found that children had more favourable attitudes after being given information from an expert (doctor) than a parent. Lewis et al. ound that fear arousing messages were effective in the short-term, but messages containing humour were more effective in the long-term. However, Fechback et al. found that high fear level was most eff ective in messages which disputes McGuires findings. However, McGuires findings can also be explained another way to show support. If following the basis of the psychodynamic approach, messages using high fear arousal may trigger defence mechanisms such as denial or repression in audience members, suggesting moderate fear level is the most effective.Research also supports the key points of the Elaboration-Likelihood model. A psychologist supports the claim that the central route is more effective for high need-for-cognition audience members. Models withstand heavily relied on laboratory based research, which causes us to question the ecological validity. However, real-life application has occurred and found that when students were receptive to a fact-based or emotion-based health campaign, the higher NC individuals were more influenced by the central route (fact-based) and the lower NC were more persuaded by the peripheral route (emotion-based).Although both models are heavily sup ported by research, many research studies sacrifice involved students which brings problems of generalisation. Students have an age, wealth, and education precondition which is not typical of the general public. In addition, experimenters have exposed participants solely to their stimuli, whereas in the real world, we are exposed to thousands of media forms everyday thus lacking in mundane realism.