Communicator (psychology)
In the socio-psychological understanding, a communicator is a person who provides information on a topic (e.g. as a sender, speaker or writer). The role of the communicator is usually to influence our attitudes (i.e. to strengthen, weaken or change them).
Whether we believe a communicator, that is, whether we believe his information is credible or true, depends on various factors.
The communicator is a mediator when he refers to another communicator and conveys his message to the recipient (e.g. in an abridged and edited version). In psychology, mediation has developed from this as an independent method and discipline.
credibility
Perceived competence
A communicator's credibility is influenced by the competence we perceive. We often consider an (apparent) expert to be more competent than an (apparent) layperson.
In one study, test subjects were shown an advertising film for toothpaste. Either a student or a dentist advertised a toothpaste in it. Although the information read out was exactly the same in both cases, the advertisement seemed more believable when it showed the dentist.
In the 1950s (during the Cold War), test subjects in the United States heard a speech about Russian nuclear submarines, which was read out by either a Russian or a US scientist. The information read out was the same in both cases. Nevertheless, the American scientist seemed more believable.
trustworthiness
The perceived trustworthiness essentially depends on how we assess the intentions of the communicator.
Speakers appear more trustworthy when they seem to argue against their personal interests: Eagly and colleagues had a communicator deliver a speech that accused a company of polluting a river by draining sewage. The audience was informed through the speaker. If you told them that the speaker was “a student who works for the accused company” or “a politician who comes from the corporate sector”, the information seemed more believable. If the audience was informed that the speaker was “an environmental activist”, the speech seemed less credible and the audience attributed the information primarily to the “bias” of the communicator.
Testimony is more believable when the witnesses look the jury in the eyes in the trial than when they look at the ground.
People who are willing to suffer pain or personal disadvantage for their attitudes appear more believable (e.g. Nelson Mandela , Mahatma Gandhi , etc.).
If the communicator acts seemingly unselfish, he appears more believable: In an experiment by Cooper and Neuhaus with a pretended court case, two experts appeared: one was allegedly paid several thousand dollars, the other a few hundred dollars. Although the reports they submitted were exchanged in several test groups, the underpaid reviewer always seemed more credible.
attractiveness
Resemblance to the listener
The greater the resemblance to the listener, the more believable communicators can appear.
In one study, people were observed who bought paint from a specialist shop. Under the first condition, the seller appeared very competent, but had little resemblance to the buyer (e.g., "I can explain exactly what the paints are made of and how long they last. For the purpose for which you use the paints I've never used them myself. ”) Under the second condition, the seller was very similar to the buyer, but only little expert knowledge (“ Unfortunately, I don't know much about the colors. But last week I got mine just like them House painted with it. "). Buyers bought more colors when the seller was more like them.
Similarity vs. credibility
The similarity with the communicator is v. a. decisive when it comes to questions of personal preference . In particular, the affective attitude component - i.e. the emotional evaluation - is addressed here (see attitude (psychology) ). When I am asked to choose a cake, I don't really care if someone says, “I can tell you exactly what nutritional value the cakes have and what is in them. But I haven't tried it myself. ”It is more important for me when someone tells me:“ Take the cake - I think it's the most delicious myself! ”.
Credibility is more important when it comes to objective realities . The cognitive attitude component - i.e. stored information, opinions, statements - is influenced. If I want to buy a car, competence is more important to me (“This car has the following technical characteristics:…”) than pure similarity (“I am similar to you and think the car is stupid, although I don't know exactly what characteristics it has.” )
In a study by Goethals and colleagues, students were asked to assess applicants with regard to their suitability for the university. They should assess a group of them (affective) based on their suitability for later friendships. The other group (cognitive) should use objective data, such as grades and assessment, to come to their judgment on the applicants. Thereafter, a confidante of the investigator who was either very similar or dissimilar to the students attempted to change their opinion of the applicants. When the confidante was similar to the students, the opinion in the “affective” group was more influenced. If the familiar was dissimilar, it influenced the “cognitive” group more.
Physical attractiveness
Obviously, physical attractiveness increases a communicator's effectiveness.
Shelly Chaiken , New York University professor of social psychology, developed the heuristic model of persuasion. For example, in an experimental study, she had attractive or unattractive people conduct a survey on the university campus about the introduction of vegetarian dishes in the canteen. Attractive speakers received more signatures than unattractive ones.
Limits of the communicator
Personal concern of the listener
Petty and colleagues conducted a study with students in 1981. They heard a speech about the introduction of a new exam. They were divided into two groups: one was told that the exam would be introduced in one year (high personal concern), the other was informed that the exam would not be introduced for ten years (low personal concern). When presenting the speech about the exam, two conditions were varied: the strength of the arguments (strong vs. weak) and the credibility of the speaker (high - a professor vs. low - a student). In the group of personal concerns, attitudes were mainly influenced by the quality of the arguments. If there was little personal concern, the speaker's credibility in particular influenced the formation of opinions.
Sleeper effect
The more time passes between the communication of the information by the communicator and the retrieval of the setting, the weaker the association between speaker and information becomes. See sleeper effect .
literature
- Brock, TC (1965). Communicator-recipient similarity and decision change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36
- Cooper, J. & Neuhaus, IM (2000). The "hired gun" effect: assessing the effect of pay, frequency of testifying, and credentials on the perception of expert testimony. Law and Human Behavior, 24 (2) , 149-171
- Eagly, AH & Himmelfarb, S. (1978). Attitudes and opinions. Annual Review of Psychology, 29 , 517-554
- Petty, RE, Wegener, DT & Fabrigar, LR (1997). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology, 48 , 609-647
supporting documents
- ^ S. Chaiken - Social influence: The ontario symposium, 1987 - books.google.com
- ↑ Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion , Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 39 (5), Nov 1980, 752-766. doi : 10.1037 / 0022-3514.39.5.752 .
- ^ Influence, Persuasion, and Personal Presentation
- ↑ study shows that long-lasting attitude change is possible even though a source is perceived as biased ( Memento of the original from January 5, 2014 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. , University of Iowa CRISP Volume 8, Number 3, Publication date: October 9, 2002, accessed August 5, 2014
