Persuasion Outcome of Commercials

Note: this entry did not mean to advertise products, demean people, companies, or organizations (even the Church) involved, or to discourage people from using them. 

I found myself starting my week, last week, unprepared for my COMA 101 class because I had not read ahead any of the chapters for the week’s discussion, but I must say I finally finished another episode of my hell week. It was very strenuous! Trust me. 

But our professor did not give us a chance to fully unwind this weekend, and instead left us an assignment to ponder, which was about the Elaboration Likelihood Model by Richard Petty and John Cacioppo. This actually deals with persuasion, and I find it interesting; even useful because I was able to connect the concept to my research about the media for another class. 

This is how I understand it: If the content of the message you are revealing is relevant to the receiver, he will “cognitively elaborate” and react to the message. This reaction is a change in attitude: whether this would be positive or negative. But sometimes, it would result to no attitude change. In other cases, the receiver may reject the message, and instead focuses on the peripheral cues of the speaker, which relies on the speaker’s credibility, rewards the receiver could get, and etcetera.  

Our assignment is to choose two advertisements on TV and decide which one goes to the central route and which goes to the peripheral route. I actually remembered conversations with our maid about commercials before, and so I thought of using it as my basis to answer this assignment. I asked her questions like, “bibilhin mo kaya yan? (would you buy that?)”, to know which route the message would pass. And so, here goes nothing: 

Here is the profile of our maid before seeing the commercial: She wants to be fair-skinned and she buys off the counter whitening products. She knows Vicky Belo, and has exclaimed once that if she had the money, she would go and get Belo as her doctor. (click the image to see the chart)

In the flow chart above, it is evident that the commercial went through the peripheral route, wherein the message was not given much of an importance; instead, our maid relied on who made the product. It was the name Belo that gave the product credibility for her. Moreover, she knew Belo was the “doctor to the Stars”. She already had this perception about Belo even before she saw the commercial, and when the advertisement was aired, endorsed by Belo’s clients, she did not need much of convincing! In fact, she didn’t care about the message of the advertisement as much as we (my family weren’t too keen on these products) did.

Maybe you are asking why there was only a weak attitude change. It’s because I feel that there wasn’t even an attitude change except for her throwing her other facial washes, lotions, and whitening soaps. For our maid, she knew of Belo beforehand, and if given the chance to be Belo’s client, she would never think twice to believe the dermatologist. And when the advertisement was aired, it prompted her to buy the product (and now, she has the complete line). That change (throwing her old skin care stuff), I believe was only a weak attitude change, because it would be temporary. If Belo launches another line of facial wash, lotion, and soap, I have no doubt our maid would yet again clamor for her salary to buy that line. (Yes, our maid is in fact more vain than my mom.)

Here’s another commercial analysis. Our maid once admitted that she was not keen in using condoms because of religion (The Catholic Church does not like the idea). Here’s a rundown: (click the image to see the whole chart)

 In this commercial, our maid was motivated to think. It was an issue, because my mom didn’t also want her to get pregnant (because we would answer for that. Poor us.) So, she was motivated to process the message because it was significant for her and so she thought about the message that condoms were effective for preventing pregnancy. So she was able to gain sufficient knowledge about condoms through the commercial. I could remember she said “Kuyawa ui. Maka jerjer gihapon ko, pero dili mabuntis! (Amazing! I could still have sex without being pregnant!)” Her cognitive elaboration caused her to change her attitude. It was a favorable case for her. She said that she would from then on use condoms, so she won’t be pregnant (yet still enjoy having sex? Hahaha). Moreover, she said she would use it even if the Church doesn’t allow. After all, according to her, she needed to be practical. She was still not stable enough financially to start a family with her boyfriend, since she was also helping her own family too.

In this case, I feel that her answer was enduring. The persuasive message of the ad was able to get the attention of our maid. She heard what the message said, and comprehended it. Although the message of the ad raised a question in our maid’s mind, it was able to bring a favorable light to her— which was enjoying sex without being pregnant. The message of the ad said that condoms were safe and it would prevent unwanted pregnancies. These were the incentives of the product and it was reinforced, when Winny Cordero, the endorser, referred to an expert, which further persuaded our maid that condoms do work and wasn’t bad after all. In fact, it was advantageous for her. Lastly, the message was retained, because when I asked her before putting this on my blog if she were using condom, she laughed at me and said yes.

According to a book I read, Persuasive Communication Fifth Edition by Edwin Bettinghaus and Michael Cody, “persuading receivers is more likely if they remember all the claims that a message contains.”  

In the case of our maid, the message was retained. In addition, it turned out as favorable for her.  

I do hope I was able to grasp the full concept of the ELM or the Elaboration Likelihood Model. I hope I did enlighten my readers too with this.

  

Anyway, I used the chart below as my basis for the charts I used above. This could be found in Em Griffin’s book (I forgot the title. Was it A First Look in Communication?). (Click the image to see the chart)

A Reply to “Have you seen those Chinese acrobats piled up on a single bike?” by Sir Nino

(This is part two of our assignment. Still, the entry is on www.coma101.wordpress.com. This time we are to base our advice using the Interactional view Watzlawick.)

To the narrator,

Relationships can be thought of as an equation (mathematics) [family] that depend on certain variables [family members]. When these variables are in flux, the result changes as well. To maintain the same result, the variables need to be constant. As this may be impossible, each variable has to be adjusted to produce the same result.

It is important for a family to talk and let the members understand you because other definitions may be formed in the head of another. When approaching a member, one does not have to yell, and always bear in mind the things that would be good for the “equation”. In this case, be a little more considerate. Aim to understand him/her because when one is problematic, it affects the whole “equation”, so it is better not to add to the problem and instead, help each other out in nursing what is “wounded”.

But in your case, the whole family seems to be contributing to a problem, thus altering the whole equation metaphor. Understanding how you see yourself, how you see other, and how you see how others see you (metacommunication, a sort of factor that contributes to your niche or role) is not at all important because when a family is in trouble, this metacommunication dominates the whole discussion, which should not be the case.

“Sick” family relationships get better only when the family members are willing to talk to each other about their patterns of communication, and even their predicaments. But I don’t seem to see that in yours and I suggest you do it. After all, it is not a question of who started the problem, but how to resolve it.

Having control, a position, or even power would be irrelevant since these variables equally contribute to the equation. In turn, to have healthy relationships, an interchange of complementary (having differences that contribute to one another) and symmetrical (having equal power, to perhaps sustain the other) relationships should occur.

As I understand your situation, you family system is resistant to change (like all other families). Each member has their niche, that equates to the status quo or your present situation. Family therapists believe that when one person in a “distressed family” gets better, another one gets worse. The more things change, the more they stay the same. I guess when you try to give a piece of advice to a family member, like your sister, try to think of a win-win situation if ever she applies your advice. Again, do not yell at her, and try to be considerate.

Another thing that you could do is for your family to step outside of the system (situation) and see the self-defeating nature of the rules under which they are playing. This is called reframing; seeing the whole thing from a bird’s eye view or stepping out of the box and looking at its contents.

To reframe means to change the conceptual and/or emotional setting or point of view in relation to which a situation is experienced and to place it into another frame which fits the “facts” of the same concrete situation equally, or even better and thereby changes its entire meaning. It is looking at things in a new light; changing perspective radically.

Further, it is seeing the whole equation [the family and its members/variables] in the system [situation/ status quo]. As I’ve said earlier, when one variable is problematic, other variables need to be adjusted. To do this, one may need to change the system. And what you have to do first, is to see it from another point of view. And then when you have scrutinized the whole thing, it may be useful if you and your family adjust.

It is actually up to you if you opt to stand with how you view each of your family members, and the situation. But you also have the option to look at life as a mixture of pleasant and unpleasant stuff. You just happen to experience the un

A Reply to “cha cha cha…” by Sir Nino

(The blog entry is posted at www.coma101.wordpress.com. Sir Nino is our COMA 101 professor, and we are tasked to give a piece of advice to either Jim or Shelley, using the Relational Dialectics Theory by Baxter and Montgomery as basis. I choose Jim because I could identify with him better because of gender. So here it goes.)

Jim,

There are things in a relationship that one wishes to conceal or to keep for himself/ herself. In your case, Shelley does not want you to read her diary. This is normal since relationships are never without “strains”, “the tug-of-war” or “the contradictions” (no matter how small you think it is), which are formed whenever two tendencies are interdependent yet mutually negate one another. (Griffin, p.161)

Why don’t you take this circumstance and look for the opportunity (good side) it provides. For example, you are still together even without reading the diary… Or do you opt to ruin the relationship because of this diary? Well, if ever you two fight over this, see the good side of it (be optimistic!) — it is an opportunity for you to talk to each other.

Relationships are always in constant change (after all, change is the only thing that is constant in this world). Perhaps this is the portion of the onion Shelley still does not want to peel; meaning this is the part or thing she is still not yet ready to disclose to you, as what was said bu Altman and Taylor in their Social Penetration Theory. (Self- disclosure is the primary way that superficial relationships progress to intimate relationships. One has the choice to either disclose an information or not. Although self-disclosure can lead to more intimate relationships, it can also leave one or more persons vulnerable.)

To fix this problem, I suggest you talk to each other and sort out “the conflict”. See this as a chance for you to talk to each other. Do not force her about that diary anymore. Let her be the one to willingly disclose that. You must also understand that even you have things kept secret from her. This might be your relationship with your family or your past addiction to drugs (Of course, I am just assuming). The same as through with Shelley. In this scenario, it pays to wait. Moreover, everyone seeks to have autonomy for a while — one wherein she can freely do the things she wants, like writing in her diary; thus, we must understand this need. (Para naman ‘di magsawa sa’yo!)

In Relational Dialectics Theory, Baxter and Montgomery say that people in relationships continue to feel the push and pull of conflicting desires. Basically, people wish to have the opposites, like autonomy and connection, openness and protectiveness, and novelty and predictability. Do not ever question why such things happen. In fact, as people communicate in relationships, they attempt to reconcile these conflicting desires, anyway they never eliminate their needs for both members of the opposing pairs.

It is not the diary that keeps your relationship alive (I hope so), but it is communication. How did you start courting her and how do you intend to make the relationship last? You communicate and not be overly curious of her diary. Everyone deserves even just a little privacy after all!

In conclusion, you must remember that self-disclosure is seen as the most valuable form of communication because through mutual revelation, people can discover similarities that already exist. But this is up to the person if he reveals or not. Differences can be just as important as similarities and claims that both are created and evaluated through a couple’s dialogue, which is a constitutive process that changes the relationship (Hmmm.. either good or bad?) Just don’t force her if she wishes not to reveal, but if she chooses to, do not make sour judgments.

Second, developing and sustaining relationships can be unpredictable since a relationship created through dialogue that’s always in flux can be messy. Accept it.

Third, when you talk, it is a chance for that magical moment to happen. Hear each other out and sort out any problems you have.

And lastly, the couple’s commitments are jointly created by both parties.

I hope I am of help to you and Shelley.

Being Judgmental?

Ever wondered why public school students are perceived poor, while private school students are thought of as rich? Just by the fact that people who are enrolled in an exclusive school pay a higher rate for education than those in the public school, most tend to have the idea that public school students are poor and those in exclusive schools are rich. Furthermore, this idea is stressed by the clothes they wear. Those in an exclusive schools wear branded clothing (usually from head to foot, and these “pieces” are not worn by the majority, or at least they don’t wear it at the same time with others who have the same clothes), while those who are not, do not (usually they wear faded and obviously department store shirts worn by most).

Because of this perception, people tend to act differently and sometimes they impose so-called “restrictions” or things they assume these people can and cannot do.

Because of this, I would like to study how people come to a conclusion that one is rich and the other is not. This communication act is part of being (innately?) judgmental.In my high school days, I often join trips for my extra-curricular activities (because they add points in your final grade whenever you join such activities). Often, we go to different schools (public schools, usually) to join seminars, workshops, and in some occasions, contests. I studied in an exclusive Chinese school, and this may probably be the reason why we came out as weird or different from students in the public school.

Most of my schoolmates were chinky-eyed (obviously because they were Chinese), and (I’ll be honest) we were more groomed (properly) compared to those other students. In return, they gave us the best seats and spoke to us well compared, yet again, to the other visitors.

But aside from these, some ad eyed us differently. I happen to unintentionally eavesdrop (is there such thing?) in one of their (public school students) conversation. They said we were “MAARTE” — people who dare not sit in dirty chairs (who would want to anyway), people who would be first to complain when they are in a room with only two ceiling fans as ventilation, and those who would not socialize with others (can be interpreted as the lower class).

We happen to live in a socially stratified society wherein people are classified  into groups like the elites and the “poor”. It is but natural for people to judge! (But these judgments are subject to revision as one can be wrong about some assumptions)

In the conversation (the part where they talked about us), they tackled so-called restrictions or things “rich people” would not do like socializing with “poor people”. What gave them that impression?

Symbolic Interaction theory explains this very well.

People are motivated to act based on the meanings they assign to people, things, and events. Further, meaning is created in the language that people use both with others and in private thoughts.

In this case, they view (according to my assumption based on the situation) people as rich when thay are properly groomed, wear perfume, have cars to drive them off almost anywhere, have beautiful hair, have a neat attire, and sometimes being chinky-eyed (they have this thing with Chinese people. They think all of them are rich) Thus, they also come up with assumptions that rich people do not do this, and that they only do that — some sort of limitations, perhaps, that they unconsciously impose.

How else would we describe and categorize someone as rich, and some who is not?

For example in UPMin, how do we arrive at a conclusion that someone is rich or someone is not? What descriptions do we make or how do we interpret (or put meaning) their gestures and other actions? What do we expect from them and what are the things we assume they would and would not do? Can these restrictions/ limitations or expected actions/ behavior be positive and help shape one’s character/ image? What do these perceptions do (do they make people avoid those who are like this and that?)? Why do we judge people anyway?