Sociological psych. ch.7

system 2

conscious/deliberate type of thought process.

target

usually those who are socially accessible. Messages written for a specific audience rather than for everyone. 1. consider demographics 2.consider if you are enabling a counter argument. 3.consider the need for cognition. 4.consider linear/direct vs. distracting/priming.

affect heuristic

"Affect", in this context, is a feeling such as fear, pleasure or surprise. It is shorter in duration than a mood, occurring rapidly and involuntarily in response to a stimulus. While reading the words "lung cancer" might generate an affect of dread, the words "mother's love" can create an affect of affection and comfort. When people use affect ("gut responses") to judge benefits or risks, they are using the affect heuristic.[45] The affect heuristic has been used to explain why messages framed to activate emotions are more persuasive than those framed in a purely factual way.[46]

fear-then-relief

"Excuse me, have'nt you lost your wallet?" 40% more bought vs. 10%.

perceived expertise

. This is where the visual and the intellectual and maybe even the speaking patterns come into play. If the audience believes that this person has the expertise to be speaking on these matters, they're more likely to be persuaded, or at least tune in to the message being presented.

similarity

. We can find that speakers who are able to portray themselves as similar to their target audience, the target audience is more likely to listen. They can do that through the ways in which they act, sometimes we see advertisements and we see celebrities eating a certain type of food, so we all of a sudden relate to that person, even though they could be a celebrity, they could be an athlete, and we're never going to be in that line of work or of that caliber, but they're eating the same type of food that we are. We actually are interested in trying to emulate them or we find some sort of similarity. You can also see that with certain brands for certain lifestyles. Again, having certain celebrities or keynote speakers finding a way to create similarities between their target audience ensures that the target audience listens and some sort of belief that that person is speaking to them on their level.

speaking style

. We want to make sure that the speakers are confident and that they're fluent in what they're talking about. You also want to make sure that they're energetic, and that they're fluently and clearly communicating their point. If they use too many examples, too many words, and things get a little confusing, people tend to tune out. You want to make sure you're clear to the point and that you give the audience something to remember.

content

. You want to make sure that you figure out the best way to structure an argument that you're trying to make. The book talks about the difference between one-sided and two-sided arguments, one-sided that you're acknowledging just your side. You're only giving facts, key information, and truths and reason about what you know and what you're trying to convey versus a two-sided, which is giving fair discussion of an opposing view. Not only are you providing your view, but you're providing an opponents view and then talking about the different ways that your view might give more to the actual viewers or talking about some of the flaws in a very fair way about the opposing view. If you do aggressive characteristic attacks or content attacks on other people, it tends to turn people off, so you want to make sure you're giving a fair discussion to both sides, and then really landing with how yours is a little bit better.

the central route

.systematic/explicit/reflective. When interested people focus on the arguments and respond with favorable thoughts. When ppl. are motivated to think about an issue. Focusing on the arguments. Can lead to more enduring change. This is the ability to convince others to focus on an argument and respond favorably to that argument. You want to pay attention to the message you're sending when you try to access this route. You want to make sure that people can not only comprehend the message, but that they believe the message that you're trying to sell, that they have some way to remember it. This is why visual aids or music jingles or things of that nature are really effective in getting people to remember names, brands, and services. After they go through the comprehension, believing, and remembering stages, the goal is to get them to behave accordingly and take action. Specifically if you're trying to sell something, the action would be that they actually buy once you go through all of these processes. . The central route processes things really quickly, and often has the ability to change explicit attitudes

Best advice for persuasion

1. Use logic or emotion, depending on the audience. 2. Ask a small favor before a large one. 3. Offer two-sided messages that challenge arguments against your message. 4. Go first or last for best results.

Principles of human influence

1. authority:Identify problems you have solved/ppl. you have served. 2. liking: win friends/influence ppl.create bonds based on similar interests, praise freely. 3. Social proof: ppl. allow the examples of others to validate how to think, feel, and act. Use "peer power"-have respected others lead the way. 4. reciprocity: ppl. feel obligated to repay in kind what they have received. Be generous with time/ resources. What goes around comes around. 5. consistency:ppl. tend to honor their public commitments. Instead of telling someone, "Please call if your plans change." ask, "will you call if you change your plans?" and no-shows will drop. 6. Scarcity: Ppl. prize what is scarce. Highlight genuinely exclusive information or opportunities.

priming

Activating particular associations in memory. Automatic social processing. Embodied cognition.

door-in-the-face-technique

After someone first turns down a large request, the same requester counteroffers with a more reasonable request. Customers first offered dessert were much more likely to agree for a coffee on the second request.

three-dimensional model

Bernard Weiner proposed that individuals have initial affective responses to the potential consequences of the intrinsic or extrinsic motives of the actor, which in turn influence future behavior.[11] That is, a person's own perceptions or attributions as to why they succeeded or failed at an activity determine the amount of effort the person will engage in activities in the future. Weiner suggests that individuals exert their attribution search and cognitively evaluate casual properties on the behaviors they experience. When attributions lead to positive affect and high expectancy of future success, such attributions should result in greater willingness to approach to similar achievement tasks in the future than those attributions that produce negative affect and low expectancy of future success.[12] Eventually, such affective and cognitive assessment influences future behavior when individuals encounter similar situations. Weiner's achievement attribution has three categories: stable theory (stable and unstable) locus of control (internal and external) controllability (controllable or uncontrollable) Stability influences individuals' expectancy about their future; control is related with individuals' persistence on mission; causality influences emotional responses to the outcome of task.

competence

Capacity to address fundamental issues.

one-sided vs. two-sided appeals

Carol Werner (2002): Showed the disarming power of a simple two-sided message in aluminum recycling experiment. When a final persuasive argument acknowledges/responded to the main counter argument.80% (double the rate before any message).

self-concept

Cognitive or descriptive component of oneself ( I am a stoner). 1. Social-capacity to cooperate with others. 2. Values 3. Beliefs 4. Abilities 5. Goals

normative influence

Conformity based on a person's desire to fulfill others' expectations, often to gain acceptance. Concern for social image produces normative influence.

informational influence

Conformity when ppl. accept evidence about reality provided by other ppl. Yelp reviews are an example. Your friends influence the experiences that inform our attitudes. That influence only lasts for about 3 days though. The desire to be correct creates informational influence. When ppl. care about being right.

effective persuasion

Credibility. The more trust you earn and the more expertise you accumulate, the more credible you and your ideas become. An understanding of the audience. This includes identifying decision makers, key stakeholders, and influencers; analyzing your audience's likely level of receptivity; and determining how the people you aim to persuade will make the decisions you hope to influence. A solid argument that is logical, consistent, and fact-based. Your argument should favorably address the interests of those you hope to persuade, eliminate or neutralize competing alternatives, and recognize the politics of the situation. Ideally, your argument should also be endorsed by objective and authoritative third parties. Effective communication. You should communicate your position clearly and succinctly in a way that demonstrates your credibility and takes into account your audience and their specific needs.

culture bias

Culture bias is when someone makes an assumption about the behavior of a person based on their cultural practices and beliefs. People in individualist cultures, generally Anglo-America and Anglo-Saxon European societies, value individuals, personal goals, and independence. People in collectivist cultures see individuals as members of groups such as families, tribes, work units, and nations, and tend to value conformity and interdependence. In other words, working together and being involved as a group is more common in certain cultures that views each person as a part of the community. This cultural trait is common in Asia, traditional Native American societies, and Africa. Research shows that culture, either individualist or collectivist, affects how people make attributions.[16] People from individualist cultures are more inclined to make fundamental-attribution error than people from collectivist cultures. Individualist cultures tend to attribute a person's behavior due to their internal factors whereas collectivist cultures tend to attribute a person's behavior to his external factors.[17] Research suggests that individualist cultures engage in self-serving bias more than do collectivist cultures, i.e. individualist cultures tend to attribute success to internal factors and to attribute failure to external factors. In contrast, collectivist cultures engage in the opposite of self-serving bias i.e. self-effacing bias, which is: attributing success to external factors and blaming failure on internal factors (the individual).[

Dana Carney/Mahzarin Banaji (2008)

Discovered that order can also affect simple preferences. Ppl. tend to prefer the first one presented. 62% when asked to make a snap judgement.

dispositional attributions

Dispositional attribution is a tendency to attribute people's behaviors to their dispositions; that is, to their personality, character, and ability.[20] For example, when a normally pleasant waiter is being rude to his/her customer, the customer may assume he/she has a bad temper. The customer, just by looking at the attitude that the waiter is giving him/her, instantly decides that the waiter is a bad person. The customer oversimplifies the situation by not taking into account all the unfortunate events that might have happened to the waiter which made him/her become rude at that moment. Therefore, the customer made dispositional attribution by attributing the waiter's behavior directly to his/her personality rather than considering situational factors that might have caused the whole "rudeness".

attitude inoculation

Exposing ppl. to weak attacks on their attitudes to prepare them for stronger attacks.

external attribution

External attribution, also called situational attribution, refers to interpreting someone's behavior as being caused by the situation that the individual is in. For example, if Jacob's car tire is punctured he may attribute that to a hole in the road; by making attributions to the poor condition of the highway, he can make sense of the event without any discomfort that it may in reality have been the result of his bad driving.[5]

Gain framed

Gain framed messages are more effective than those framed in loss.

trustworthiness

High if the audience believes the communicator is not trying to persuade them. You want to give the audience a reason to actually trust not only the person, but the message that you're conveying. We tend to see that trustworthiness is a lot higher in audiences who believe that the communicator is not trying to actually persuade them, so if they don't know that this is clearly the point of the message and it's really just more of a conversation that they may be more inclined to listen to your point of view and entertain it as far as their behavioral changes

Conformity

Highest when the response is public and is made without a prior commitment. Those high in the personality trait, agreeableness and conscientiousness (who follow social norms for neatness and punctuality) conform more. Higher in collectivist cultures. Countries that have a high risk of diseases such as malaria, typhus, and tuberculosis tend to be high conforming.

foot-in-the-door-phenomenon

If you need a big favor, start out with a small one first. 76% consented ugly sign in yard, after first being asked to put a decal in their vehicle. When ppl. commit to public behaviors, they tend to perceive those acts as their own doing, and they come to believe more strongly in what they do.

heuristics

In psychology, heuristics are simple, efficient rules which people often use to form judgments and make decisions. They are mental shortcuts that usually involve focusing on one aspect of a complex problem and ignoring others.[1][2][3] These rules work well under most circumstances, but they can lead to systematic deviations from logic, probability or rational choice theory. The resulting errors are called "cognitive biases" and many different types have been documented. These have been shown to affect people's choices in situations like valuing a house, deciding the outcome of a legal case, or making an investment decision. Heuristics usually govern automatic, intuitive judgments but can also be used as deliberate mental strategies when working from limited information. any approach to problem solving, learning, or discovery that employs a practical method not guaranteed to be optimal or perfect, but sufficient for the immediate goals. Where finding an optimal solution is impossible or impractical, heuristic methods can be used to speed up the process of finding a satisfactory solution. Heuristics can be mental shortcuts that ease the cognitive load of making a decision. Examples of this method include using a rule of thumb, an educated guess, an intuitive judgment, guesstimate, stereotyping, profiling, or common sense. enabling a person to discover or learn something for themselves. "a "hands-on" or interactive heuristic approach to learning" Computing proceeding to a solution by trial and error or by rules that are only loosely defined. noun noun: heuristic; plural noun: heuristics 1. a heuristic process or method. the study and use of heuristic techniques. noun: heuristics Origin early 19th century: formed irregularly from Greek heuriskein 'find.' Translate heuristic to Use over time for: heuristic Thinking strategies (or predispositions) that enable us to make quick, efficient judgements. representative heuristics and availability heuristics (if something is available in your mind you are more likely to think it is happening.

recency effect

Info. presented last is sometimes the most influential. Less common than primacy effects. Forgetting creates the recency effect: 1. when enough time seperates the two messages, and 2. the audience commits soon after the second message.

system 1

Intuition/unconcsious

intuition

Mostly conducted by the automatic processing in our brain.

peripheral route

Occurs when ppl. are influenced by incidental cues, such as speakers attractiveness. Focusing on cues that trigger automatic acceptance without much thinking. In these instances, easily understood, farmiliar statements are more persuasive than novel statements with the same meaning. More slowly builds implicit attitudes through repeated associations between an attitude and an emotion. Using simple heuristics, like "Trust the experts!" a little bit less direct. This is the ability to influence people by what we consider incidental cues. whereas the peripheral one is more slow, and it builds through implicit attitude change, and it has to be done through repeated associations.

perceived expertise

One way to become an authoritative "expert" is to begin by saying things the audience agrees with, which makes you seem smart. Ppl. count someone as an expert who supports their own pre-existing values/views. "congenial views seem more expert phenomenon".

actor/observer difference

People tend to attribute other people's behaviors to their dispositional factors while attributing own actions to situational factors. In the same situation, people's attribution can differ depending on their role as actor or observer.[19] For example, when a person scores a low grade on a test, they find situational factors to justify the negative event such as saying that the teacher asked a question that he/she never went over in class. However, if another person scores poorly on a test, the person will attribute the results to internal factors such as laziness and inattentiveness in classes. The theory of the actor-observer bias was first developed by E. Jones and R. Nisbett in 1971, whose explanation for the effect was that when we observe other people, we tend to focus on the person, whereas when we are actors, our attention is focused towards situational factors.The actor/observer bias is used less frequently with people one knows well such as friends and family since one knows how his/her close friends and family will behave in certain situation, leading him/her to think more about the external factors rather than internal factors.

persuasion

Persuasion is a process by which a method induces change in one's beliefs, attitudes, or behaviors. elements: the communicator the message how the message is communicated the audience

cognition

Ppl. are motivated by a need for cognition. They like it when they have to think or analyze. Linear is the best way to communicate.

cohesion-fed conformity

Ppl. become more similar to those they are around.

non-conformists'

Score high the personality trait of openness to new experiences.

confirmation bias

Seeking info. that confirms our current beliefs, or what we want to believe.

Occams razor

Seeking the simplest possible

self-serving bias

Self-serving bias is attributing dispositional and internal factors for success, while external and uncontrollable factors are used to explain the reason for failure. For example, if a person gets promoted, it is because of his/her ability and competence whereas if he/she does not get promoted, it is because his/her manager does not like him/her (external, uncontrollable factor). Originally, researchers assumed that self-serving bias is strongly related to the fact that people want to protect their self-esteem. However, an alternative information processing explanation is that when the outcomes match people's expectations, they make attributions to internal factors. For example if you pass a test you believe it was because of your intelligence; when the outcome does not match their expectations, they make external attributions or excuses. Whereas if you fail a test, you would give an excuse saying that you did not have enough time to study.[13] People also use defensive attribution to avoid feelings of vulnerability and to differentiate themselves from a victim of a tragic accident.[22] An alternative version of the theory of self-serving bias states that the bias does not arise because people wish to protect their private self-esteem, but to protect their self-image (a self-presentational bias). This version of the theory would predict that people attribute their successes to situational factors, for fear that others will disapprove of them looking overly vain if they should attribute successes to themselves.[citation needed] For example, it is suggested that coming to believe that "good things happen to good people and bad things happen to bad people" will reduce feelings of vulnerability[citation needed]. This belief would have side-effects of blaming the victim even in tragic situations.[13] When a mudslide destroys several houses in a rural neighborhood, a person living in a more urban setting might blame the victims for choosing to live in a certain area or not building a safer, stronger house. Another example of attributional bias is optimism bias in which most people believe positive events happen to them more often than to others and that negative events happen to them less often than to others. For example, smokers on average believe they are less likely to get lung cancer than other smokers.

lowball technique

Tactic for getting compliance. Those who agree to an initial request will often still agree when the requestors ups the ante;Those only receiving the expensive price were less inclined to agree. Even when we are aware of a profit motive, having written the agreement form ourselves, we most likely would not back out.

availiability heuristics

The availability heuristic is a mental shortcut that helps us make a decision based on how easy it is to bring something to mind. In psychology, availability is the ease with which a particular idea can be brought to mind. When people estimate how likely or how frequent an event is on the basis of its availability, they are using the availability heuristic.[11] When an infrequent event can be brought easily and vividly to mind, people tend to overestimate its likelihood.[12] For example, people overestimate their likelihood of dying in a dramatic event such as a tornado or terrorism. Dramatic, violent deaths are usually more highly publicised and therefore have a higher availability.[13] On the other hand, common but mundane events are hard to bring to mind, so their likelihoods tend to be underestimated. These include deaths from suicides, strokes, and diabetes. This heuristic is one of the reasons why people are more easily swayed by a single, vivid story than by a large body of statistical evidence.[14] It may also play a role in the appeal of lotteries: to someone buying a ticket, the well-publicised, jubilant winners are more available than the millions of people who have won nothing.[13]

basalganglia

The basal ganglia (or basal nuclei) is a group of subcortical nuclei, of varied origin, in the brains of vertebrates including humans, which are situated at the base of the forebrain. Basal ganglia are strongly interconnected with the cerebral cortex, thalamus, and brainstem, as well as several other brain areas.

cerebral cortex

The cerebral cortex is the largest region of the cerebrum in the mammalian brain and plays a key role in memory, attention, perception, cognition, awareness, thought, language, and consciousness.[1] The cerebral cortex is the most anterior (rostral) brain region and consists of an outer zone of neural tissue called gray matter, which contains neuronal cell bodies. It is also divided into left and right cerebral hemispheres by the longitudinal fissure, but the two hemispheres are joined at the midline by the corpus callosum.[

learned helplessness

The concept of learned helplessness emerged from animal research in which psychologists Martin Seligman and Steven F. Maier discovered that dogs classically conditioned to an electrical shock which they could not escape, subsequently failed to attempt to escape an avoidable shock in a similar situation.[31] They argued that learned helplessness applied to human psychopathology. In particular, individuals who attribute negative outcomes to internal, stable and global factors reflect a view in which they have no control over their situation. It is suggested that this aspect of not attempting to better a situation exacerbates negative mood, and may lead to clinical depression and related mental illnesses.

covariation model

The covariation model states that people attribute behavior to the factors that are present when a behavior occurs and absent when it does not. Thus, the theory assumes that people make causal attributions in a rational, logical fashion, and that they assign the cause of an action to the factor that co-varies most closely with that action.[9] Harold Kelley's covariation model of attribution looks to three main types of information from which to make an attribution decision about an individual's behavior. The first is consensus information, or information on how other people in the same situation and with the same stimulus behave. The second is distinctive information, or how the individual responds to different stimuli. The third is consistency information, or how frequent the individual's behavior can be observed with similar stimulus but varied situations. From these three sources of information observers make attribution decisions on the individual's behavior as either internal or external. There have been claims that people under-utilise consensus information, although there has been some dispute over this.[10] There are several levels in the covariation model: high and low. Each of these levels influences the three covariation model criteria. High consensus is when many people can agree on an event or area of interest. Low consensus is when very few people can agree. High distinctiveness is when the event or area of interest is very unusual, whereas low distinctness is when the event or area of interest is fairly common. High consistency is when the event or area of interest continues for a length of time and low consistency is when the event or area of interest goes away quickly.[10] Three-dimensional model

defensive attribution hypothesis

The defensive attribution hypothesis is a social psychological term referring to a set of beliefs held by an individual with the function of defending themselves from concern that they will be the cause or victim of a mishap. Commonly, defensive attributions are made when individuals witness or learn of a mishap happening to another person. In these situations, attributions of responsibility to the victim or harm-doer for the mishap will depend upon the severity of the outcomes of the mishap and the level of personal and situational similarity between the individual and victim. More responsibility will be attributed to the harm-doer as the outcome becomes more severe, and as personal or situational similarity decreases.[22] An example of defensive attribution is the just-world hypothesis, which is where "good things happen to good people and bad things happen to bad people". People believe in this in order to avoid feeling vulnerable to situations that they have no control over. However, this also leads to blaming the victim even in a tragic situation.[13] When people hear someone died from a car accident, they decide that the driver was drunk at the time of the accident, and so they reassure themselves that an accident will never happen to them. Despite the fact there was no other information provided, people will automatically attribute that the accident was the driver's fault due to an internal factor (in this case, deciding to drive while drunk), and thus they would not allow it to happen to themselves. Another example of defensive attribution is optimism bias, in which people believe positive events happen to them more often than to others and that negative events happen to them less often than to others. Too much optimism leads people to ignore some warnings and precautions given to them. For example, smokers believe that they are less likely to get lung cancer than other smokers.

sleeper-effect

The delayed persuasion after ppl. forget the source or it's connection with the message.

charisma and attractiveness

There's different types of attractiveness. We all know that physical attractiveness tends to resonate and get more favorable responses than unattractiveness, and so consistently we see in research that physically attractive people are more liked, more listened to, and more likely to be believed than what we consider unattractive people. Attractiveness is really important when we think about who we want to convey our message and how people are going to see the person that's talking.

credibility

This can happen with people having multiple exposures, having favorable thoughts in response to a person or a message, or they may also see additional messages that kind of are coupled with the main message that give them reasons to support in their own mind the trustworthiness of it. The effects of source credibility diminishes after a month or so.

fundamental attribution error

The fundamental attribution error describes the habit to misunderstand dispositional or personality-based explanations for behavior instead considering external factors. The fundamental attribution error is most visible when people explain and assume the behavior of others. For example, if a person is overweight, a person's first assumption might be that they have a problem with overeating or are lazy and not that they might have a medical reason for being heavier set.[14] When evaluating others' behaviors, the situational context is often ignored in favor of the disposition of the actor to be the cause of an observed behavior. This is because when a behavior occurs attention is most often focused on the person performing the behavior. Thus, the individual is more salient than the environment and dispositional attributions are made more often than situational attributions to explain the behavior of others.[5] However, when evaluating one's own behavior, the situational factors are often exaggerated when there is a negative outcome while dispositional factors are exaggerated when there is a positive outcome.[5] The core process assumptions of attitude construction models are mainstays of social cognition research and are not controversial—as long as we talk about "judgment". Once the particular judgment made can be thought of as a person's "attitude", however, construal assumptions elicit discomfort, presumably because they dispense with the intuitively appealing attitude concept.[15]

internal attribution

The process of assigning the cause of behavior to some internal characteristic, rather than to outside forces.

representative heuristics

The representativeness heuristic is seen when people use categories, for example when deciding whether or not a person is a criminal. An individual thing has a high representativeness for a category if it is very similar to a prototype of that category. When people categorise things on the basis of representativeness, they are using the representativeness heuristic. "Representative" is here meant in two different senses: the prototype used for comparison is representative of its category, and representativeness is also a relation between that prototype and the thing being categorised.[15][18] While it is effective for some problems, this heuristic involves attending to the particular characteristics of the individual, ignoring how common those categories are in the population (called the base rates). Thus, people can overestimate the likelihood that something has a very rare property, or underestimate the likelihood of a very common property. This is called the base rate fallacy. Representativeness explains this and several other ways in which human judgments break the laws of probability.[15] The representativeness heuristic is also an explanation of how people judge cause and effect: when they make these judgements on the basis of similarity, they are also said to be using the representativeness heuristic. This can lead to a bias, incorrectly finding causal relationships between things that resemble one another and missing them when the cause and effect are very different. Examples of this include both the belief that "emotionally relevant events ought to have emotionally relevant causes", and magical associative thinking.[19] The representativeness heuristic is used when making judgments about the probability of an event under uncertainty. It is one of a group of heuristics (simple rules governing judgment or decision-making) proposed by psychologists Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman in the early 1970s. The representativeness heuristic is a mental shortcut that helps us make a decision by comparing information to our mental prototypes.

channel of communication

The way the message is delivered. Face to face, in writing, on film, etc.

misinformation effect

We are strongly subject to our current feelings at the time of retrieval.

perceptual salience

When people try to make attributions about another's behavior, their information focuses on the individual. Their perception of that individual is lacking most of the external factors which might affect the individual. The gaps tend to be skipped over and the attribution is made based on the perception information most salient. The most salient perceptual information dominates a person's perception of the situation.[33] For individuals making behavioral attributions about themselves, the situation and external environment are entirely salient, but their own body and behavior are less so. This leads to the tendency to make an external attribution in regard to their own behavior.

semantic aphasia

Words are devoid of meaning. They know the words of the song but not the music.

attribution theory

a theory that supposes that one attempts to understand the behavior of others by attributing feelings, beliefs, and intentions to them. Humans are motivated to assign causes to their actions and behaviors.[1] In social psychology, attribution is the process by which individuals explain the causes of behavior and events. The development of models to explain these processes is called attribution theory.[2] Psychological research into attribution began with the work of Fritz Heider in the early part of the 20th century, subsequently developed by others such as Harold Kelley and Bernard Weiner. Attribution theory can be applied to juror decision making. Jurors use attributions to explain the cause of the defendant's intent and actions related to the criminal behavior.[24] The attribution made (situational or dispositional) might affect a juror's punitiveness towards the defendant.[25] When jurors attribute a defendant's behavior to dispositional attributions they tend to be more punitive and are more likely find a defendant guilty[25] and to recommend a death sentence compared to a life sentence.[26]

the communicator

credibility=believably.

elements of persuasion

expertise, trustworthiness, communication, charisma, attractiveness,similarity, celebruty endorsements, content-structure of arguments (one vs. two sides), primacy, reason vs. emotional appeals.

self-schema

long-lasting/stable set of memories that summarize a persons beliefs, experiences, and generalizations about the self.

fear

moderate fear is best. High levels of feat work well if a sense of efficacy is generated/clear means of dealing with the fear provided.

primacy effect

preconceptions control interpretations; Info. presented early is most persuasive.