What emotions should be induced in order to maximize the impact of the content of a persuasive message?
Klaus Scherer (2005) define an emotion as “an episode in which coordinated changes in the different subsystems occur in response to a stimulus or an event that is considered as being highly significant for the individual”. The role of emotions has been widely studied regarding the positive or negative influence on reasoning, information processing and decision making. To understand the impact of emotions on information processing, it will be important to recall the Somatic Marker Theory so that it will be better understandable how this theory explains the beneficial direction of emotions on information processing. From this point, it will be legitimate to discuss what emotions should be induced in order to maximize the impact of the content of a persuasive message. Let’s see first how emotions are processed, then what kind of emotions can be induced, and eventually how to maximize the impact of the content of a message.
Inside the brain, somatic markers are associations between reinforcing stimuli that induce an associated psychological affective state. They are considered to be processed in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex. The main hypothesis underlying overloaded decision making is that when individuals have to cope with complex or conflicting decision tasks, cognitive processes can be insufficient (or biased) to take decisions and this is when somatic markers intervene. The SMH involves an emotional process that can guide decision making. Beside, accepting that somatic dispositions play the biological role described in the somatic marker theory, it is believed that emotions do improve decision making at every stage of the information gathering process. Moreover, an emotional individual is most likely to develop beliefs that are maintained and least likely to develop beliefs that are abandoned, simply because beliefs are developed on the basis of relevant information and then further evidence is more likely to reaffirm the individual in his beliefs than contradict him. Then, in the wake of decision making, this emotional process play a key-role. Let’s see how emotions are processed.
Two models of information processing are competing: the systematic information processing (SIP) on the one hand and the heuristic information processing (HIP) on the other hand. They differ in the kind of information that is processed and the requirements they generate. Within the SIP, all information is processed and cognitive and motivational resources are required. The HIP focus on peripheral aspects and heuristic cues are at stake. The HIP enables the use of simple decision rules. Four rules in favor of the subscription to the message (positive impact) are derived from particular heuristic clues, namely source credibility; source attractively; length of the message and the mood of the perceiver.Therefore, two key-notions rule the persuasive impact of one’s message: the content of the message and the heuristic cues. The first refers to the quality of arguments the message contains and the latter involves especially the source credibility mentioned just before. In other words, people focus on arguments’ attributes and give more credit to messages expressed by experts rather than non-experts on the considered subject. Therefore, knowing the leverage used by persuasion and the two models that compete, let’s see which one is affected to positive and negative emotions.
Mackie and Worth conducted an experiment that revealed the link between heuristic processing and positive emotions, regarding a persuasive message. After having positively induced emotions into participants’ mind through the display of happy or neutral films, they observed the impact of the source quality (experts and non-experts) and of the quality (strong and weak arguments) on people’s change in attitude towards the message (position before and after the message). Their results revealed that subjects with positive emotions were not influenced by the quality of the message (so there is no systematic processing), and subjects who were induced by positive emotions were influenced by the source of the message (i.e. by experts), which means that HIP is involved.
On the other hand, Bless et al. proved that SIP intervenes when negative emotions are at stake. Within their experimental setting, they induced emotions by asking to recall a happy or sad past event and measured the willing of participants to increase the tuition fees thanks to the quality of arguments and the focus-quantity on arguments. Results revealed that happily-induced subjects were not influenced by the message quality then no systematic processing is at stake for them, whereas sadly-induced individuals reported a high influence for strong arguments meaning that SIP was involved. Moreover, it has been proven that individuals who are sadly-induced rely also on individuating information, which can be a good leverage in the case of a persuasive message. This kind of salient information can indeed been used to divert people’s thoughts from the most probable or credible event, and lead them to bias their judgments or decision making. In their experiment, Krauth-Gruber and Ric induced mind through, among others, a story of a physical aggression with basic descriptions and witness’ testimony. They elicited the choice of sad subjects regarding the judgment of the potential aggressor. Because of individuating information, most of the sad participants thought that a priest was responsible more than a skinhead.
To sum up, in order to maximize the impact of a persuasive message, positive emotions (happy) should be induced when the source of the message is credible (experts):heuristic information processing of the message because the cognitive capacities are reduced. In order to maximize the impact of a persuasive message, negative emotions should be induced when the focus is on the quality of arguments: systematic information processing of the message because cognitive capacities are supported. That said, Baudenhausen et al. revealed that happily-induced subjects could also use a systematic processing, when they have enough cognitive resources available. On top of that, Bless et al. also demonstrated that positive emotions could also serve systematic processing, only when subjects are motivated.These findings lead us to the conclusion that positive emotions have three way of functioning(message source, motivation and to a lesser extent with cognitive resources availability) when one wants to maximize the impact of his persuasive message.
Resources:
[1] Bodenhausen, G. V., Kramer, G. P., & Süsser, K. (1994). Happiness and stereotypic thinking in social judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 621-632.
[2] Bless, H., Bohner, G., Schwarz, N., & Strack, F. (1990). Mood and persuasion: A cognitive response analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 331–345.
[3] Krauth-Gruber, S. & Ric, F. (2000). Affect and Stereotypic Thinking : A Test of the Mood-and-General-Knowledge Model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1587-1597.
[4] Mackie, D. M., & Worth, L. T. (1989). Processing deficits and the mediation ofpositive affect in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 27-40.
[5] Scherer, K. R. (2005). "What are emotions? And how can they be measured?". Social Science Information. 44(4), 693–727.