Cognitive Dissonance Theory Perspective on Persuasion
The cognitive dissonance theory was conceptualized more than forty years ago and its full development is ongoing. The theory can be used in varied issues like interaction of cognition, affect, motivation, and research generated for lasting attitudes, behavioral change, and belief. The original theory version points to a cognitive inconsistency that affects the dissonance in response to equal magnitude that drives it. The four paradigms used in dissonance research stem from the freedom of choice as dissonance is aroused once it is achieved. Induced compliance paradigm is relevant when a person delivers an action against the common belief or attitude. Hypocrisy paradigm is followed through when contrary statements are not in line with delivered actions. Self-consistency and affirmation all reflect the revisions of dissonance according to the generated acts even when they are pitted against each other. In return, the aversive consequences are produced after the analysis on changes realized through dissonance and attitudes. The theory is sound in explaining the effect towards behavioral change even in today’s settings especially with action-oriented mindsets in people. At the final, persuasion is thus developed through understanding.
The Elaboration Likelihood Model
The elaboration likelihood model uses a dual approach process in terms of social information phenomena for the purposes of persuasion. The model has a central idea in identifying the two different persuasion processes. They depend on the extent of message recipient in elaboration with relevance on the given topic of information. When it comes to issue-relevance thinking, different conditions dictate the manner of recipient responses. Motivational factors surrounding the elaboration likelihood model have two distinct influences. The level of involvement of the receiver is fundamental as well as the respective need for cognition in the process. The central and peripheral routes are used in persuasion based on the elaboration likelihood model. Persuasion through the central route encompasses a higher relativity and depends on predominant valence of the thoughts on issue-related criteria according to the respective user. The peripheral route encompasses low relativity is depicted by the outcomes of the persuasive efforts and are therefore not dependent. Each route has a consequence in regarding the level of persuasion especially with the subsequent behavior. Different variables are responsible for the persuasion criteria enhanced by the multiple roles contained.
Hypocrisy and Cognitive Dissonance Use to Motivate Behavior Change
Cognitive dissonance in people can be derived from hypocrisy when they fail to replicate their belief according to their actions and enable behavioral change. Hypocrisy procedures can be used in to motivate change in behaviors especially with relations to health, environment, and interpersonal relations. Hypocrisy however is distinct when it affects the level of dissonance reduction when attitude change is required. The greatest effect is then induced when the target course of expected outcomes is highlighted with the reference on personal failures. The target is usually the behavior as persuaded. When normative standards are used in the prescribed promotion of target behavior, the first channel of dissonance reduction is achieved with the help of cognition and change. Secondly, when self-integrity is advocated according to the norms for behavior, discrepancy becomes important in delivering the dissonance reduction. The moist common motivational assumption on change behavior is through the advent of negative arousal. There have to be normative standards and commitment when the changes are applied, mindfulness on the impact of past failures, and the generated effect from the persuasion process. Hypocrisy therefore becomes an important tool in effecting behavioral change through persuasion and cognitive dissonance.