Persuasion in ELM and Cognitive Dissonance

 

In order to persuade someone to hold the same beliefs or values as you it can help to understand the person and their existing beliefs first. In our COMM 321 class, we have discussed two theories that aid in this process: the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) and Cognitive Dissonance Theory.

 

The ELM helps us understand the way messages are processed by listeners and the ability of messages to influence. The central route is the path of cognitive processing where the message holds some sort of significance to the listener, whereas the peripheral route is the opposite and is considered a "mental shortcut" for irrelevant messages.

 

The Cognitive Dissonance Theory defines cognitive dissonance as the mental state cause by inconsistency between a person's two beliefs or a belief and an action. In other words, as humans we feel dissonance when a message conflicts with our existing ideas. The theory goes on to explain the ways we reduce this dissonance and how we reassure ourselves when we makes decision in moments of dissonance.

 

In class we primarily discussed both of these theories in regards to cognitive processing and the receivers to messages. Much like I highlighted above, we focused on the way listeners process messages (ELM) and the dissonance felt by listeners when messages go against existing ideals. As Communication students, however, it is also important to understand the message senders and the way they adapt these messages to ultimately have some sort of influence on listeners.

 

In looking at these two theories from the perspective of the message senders, we can see the importance they serve to persuasion. In ELM, we learn the receiver has the ability to process information via central route or peripheral route. As the message sender, it becomes important to understand how to shape messages, in order for them to be processed centrally. Message elaboration is another element of ELM that we discussed which demonstrates the sender's ability to carefully select issue-relevant arguments. In Cognitive Dissonance Theory, we learn that receivers experience somewhat of an internal chaos within them when messages go against their current beliefs. The theory also explains Minimal Justification hypothesis, which claims that the best way to stimulate an attitude change in others is to offer just enough incentive to elicit counter-attitudinal behavior. As a message sender, this becomes a key ingredient for persuasion through dissonance.

 

 

Check out this clip from It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, one of my favorites. It highlights many different elements of persuasion, but note its connection to our discussion above. Mac does a great job of using message elaboration in the beginning stating that he put everyone "on the fence" and highlighting the existing values held by the group. He knows by putting them on the fence, the group will make their opinion known; and they do, by placing themselves on the side of Evolution. Additionally, by stating their existing values, Mac assists the message in being processed centrally. We also see an example of minimal justification hypothesis when Charlie begins to influence the group.

 

 

 

 

Critical Theory of Communication in Organizations

 

The Critical Theory of Communication in Organizations is a theory by Stanley Deetz of the University of Colorado. His theory's ultimate goal is to reclaim the possibility of open negotiations of power. In other words, Deetz seeks to stray away from corporations having all the power in decision making. Additionally, the theory provides suggestions for productive and democratic communication reform (Griffin 273).

 

The theory is deemed 'critical' in its name because the theory involves much critique on

the current ways of organizations and their willingness to do whatever it takes for "the good of the company". Deetz believes that corporations come from a position of believing what is good for the company is also good for everyone. Deetz is most interested in studying the communication within organizations that is of a domineering and undemocratic nature, in order for corporations to become more inclusive in decision making. If everyone was involved, including investors, workers,

 

One element of Deetz' critique deals with the idea of corporate colonization and the influence of corporations on individuals, sometimes even subconsciously. In our COMM Theory class we talked about how big corporations are the dominant force in society and individuals end up defining their lives around work, defining their success according to work, and even make decisions according to corporate values. An example discussed in class and in our textbook by Em Griffin is the use of the phrase "the bottom line". The use of the term "the bottom line" in business represents the profit-and-loss statement, the last line on a financial report. Frequent use of the phrase in business influenced the individuals within the business to use it in their own lives, outside the realm of business. Though we may not realize it, we are constantly adopting the lingo of business and putting corporate values into play (274).

 

Deetz goes on to address communication and the common idea that communication is the transformation of information. He notes that the fact of the matter is, the "information" presented by corporations if often meaning 'in formation'. It may not be accurate and as long as individuals continue to see communication as this transferring of information, the more corporations will dominate. Deetz proposes a model based more on communication rather than information, where language is the principal medium through which social reality is created and sustained. Additionally, communication within organizations tends to exclude the voices of those who are not at the top. Deetz highlights that the need for control ends up dominating those in top positions which brings up potential consequences. "The desire for control can even exceed the desire for corporate performance" (276). This exclusion of voices of the people directly affected by the decisions of a corporation is labeled managerial control. Griffin notes some common phrases associated with this dictatorial, managerial control such as:

-"Because I'm the boss."

-"Because I say so."

-"If you don't like it, quit."

-"It's my way or the highway."

Deetz makes it clear that individual managers are not the cause of this issue in corporations, but that the real cause is managerialism. He defines managerialism as a systematic, logic, set of routine practices, and ideology that values control over all other concerns. In other words, the individuals at the top are almost trained to carry forth managerialism in their organizations.

 

An example of managerial control can be seen during my internship at Disney. In a large area of the park, I had 6 managers. Five of them were always nice when they came into one of our locations, always making sure we were ok and seeing if we needed anything. While I'm sure they were all there to observe and check everything out, those 5 never made it seem scary or intimitading. The sixth manager was the complete opposite. She would come into locations and specifically look for things wrong. If she found things wrong, all hell would break loose. Snappy commands would follow and it was just the most unpleasant thing if you were the one at the receiving end. If she couldn't find anything wrong she would say that and simply leave without the slightest compliment. From my communication with co-workers from other areas of the park, I began to understand that many individuals working in park management feel a sense of control being above a group of other individuals. I always felt like that specific manager was taking advantage of her power in the hierarchy. In a big company such as Disney, it seems easier to let that control take over. The managers are only one tier higher than the regular cast members, but with so many cast members in each area of the park, it is an honor and a privlege to be promoted. To be one of the few selected as a manager could become a dominating force in managing styles.





Griffin, Em. A First Look At Communication Theory. 8th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2012. Print.