The influence of culture and close others on the effectiveness of (self)-persuasion

Although self-persuasion was shown to be more effective than direct persuasion in changing attitudes and intentions, its effectiveness in different cultures remains unclear. Furthermore, research suggests that Eastern individuals tend to incorporate close others in the self to a larger extent than Western individuals. Combining both lines of research, the current studies examined whether thinking of a close other would influence the effectiveness of (self)-persuasion across cultures. Two parallel studies were conducted. U.S. participants (n_study 1 = 195; n_study 2 = 292) and Chinese participants (n_study 1 = 187; n_study 2 = 313) reported their initial attitudes and intentions toward five target behaviors prior to either think of a specific close other or not. Subsequently, they were randomly assigned to receive either a self-persuasion or a direct persuasion task. Specifically, the self-persuasion task led participants to generate own arguments or arguments that they think the close other would give; the direct persuasion task led participants to read given arguments or imagine that the arguments were from the close other. In the end, all participants reported their attitudes and intentions again after doing the persuasion tasks. The moderation effect of culture was only found in Study 1, such that direct persuasion worked more effectively in Chinese participants than self-persuasion, whereas the effectiveness of the two persuasive techniques did not differ in U.S. participants. In both studies, thinking of a close other was not found to influence the effectiveness of (self-)persuasion across cultures. Possible explanations and future research directions were discussed.

Resolving the Meat-Paradox: A Motivational Account of Morally Troublesome Behavior and Its Maintenance

A majority of people the world over eat meat, yet many of these same people experience discomfort when the meat on their plate is linked to the death of animals. We draw on this common form of moral conflict—the meat-paradox—to develop insights into the ways in which morally troublesome behaviors vanish into the commonplace and every day. Drawing on a motivational analysis, we show how societies may be shaped by attempts to resolve dissonance, in turn protecting their citizens from discomfort associated with their own moral conflicts. To achieve this, we build links between dissonance reduction, habit formation, social influence, and the emergence of social norms and detail how our analysis has implications for understanding immoral behavior and motivations underpinning dehumanization and objectification. Finally, we draw from our motivational analysis to advance new insights into the origins of prejudice and pathways through which prejudice can be maintained and resolved.

Dissonance and Importance: Attitude Change Effects of Personal Relevance and Race of the Beneficiary of a Counterattitudinal Advocacy

The authors asked or instructed White college students to write an essay advocating a large tuition hike to increase scholarships for either students in general or Black students (yielding low or high racial symbolism, respectively) that would take effect in the near or far future (yielding high or low personal relevance, respectively). Especially when high-choice participants wrote highly compliant (i.e., unqualified) essays, attitude change was greater when the advocacy had either high (vs. low) personal relevance or high (vs. low) racial symbolism. Yet there was no attitude change when both symbolism and relevance were high. They may increase dissonance by making the dissonant elements more important and numerous. The coupling of relevance and symbolism, however, may link the attitude so strongly to personal values and self-concept that attitude change becomes untenable as a mode of dissonance reduction.