Heuristic-systematic model of information processing: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 03:28, 21 February 2016

Revision as of 03:32, 21 February 2016

Line 6:

Early research investigating how people process persuasive messaging focused mainly on cognitive theories and the way the mind processed individual inputs. One of the early guiding principles of underlying motivations of persuasive communications came from [[Leon Festinger]]’s (1950) statement that incorrect or improper attitudes are generally maladaptive and can have deleterious behavioral, affective, and consequences.

In 1953, [[Carl Hovland|Hovland]], [[Irving Janis|Janis]], and Kelley noted that a sense of "rightness" accompanies holding opinions similar to the opinions of others. In 1987, Holtz and Miller reaffirmed this line of thought by noting, “When"When other people are perceived to hold similar attitudes, one's confidence in the validity of one's own attitude is increased.” "<ref name =Petty>Petty, R.E. & Cacioppo, J.T. (1986), Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change. New York; Springer-Verlag</ref>

Another concept that contributed to the HSM was the sufficiency principle. This principle reflected widespread notions that people use limited [[Cognition|cognitive]] resources, or use an "economy-minded" approach to [[information processing]] when presented with persuasive information. Based on this thought, early assumptions said people were at least partially guided by the “"[[principle of least effort]].”" This principle stated that in the interest of economy, the mind would often process with the least amount of effort ([[heuristic]]), and for more detailed information processing would use more effortful processing (systematic). This was the major difference when compared with the ELM, which described the two different ways information was processed, through central and/or peripheral processing.<ref name=chaiken2>Chaiken, S., & Trope, Y. (1999). Dual-process theories in social psychology . New York: Guilford Press.</ref>

Ideas contributing to the development of both [[persuasion]] models continue to be refined, "Although people want to hold correct attitudes, the amount and nature of issue-relevant elaboration in which they are willing or able to engage to evaluate a message vary with individual and situational factors."<ref name =Petty/>

Line 18:

== Heuristic processing ==

[[Heuristic]] processing uses judgmental rules known as knowledge structures that are learned and stored in memory.<ref name=Chen /> The heuristic approach offers an economic advantage by requiring minimal [[cognitive]] effort on the part of the recipient.<ref name =Chaiken>Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic Versus Systematic Information Processing and the Use of Source Versus Message Cues in Persuasion. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 39(5), 752-766. Retrieved from SocINDEX database.</ref> Heuristic processing is governed by availability, accessibility, and applicability. Availability refers to the knowledge structure, or heuristic, being stored in memory for future use. Accessibility of the heuristic applies to the ability to retrieve the memory for use. Applicability of the heuristic refers to the relevancy of the memory to the judgmental task.<ref name=Chen>Chen, S., Duckworth, K., & Chaiken, S. (1999). Motivated Heuristic and Systematic Processing. Psychological Inquiry, 10(1), 44. Retrieved from SocINDEX database</ref> Due to the use of knowledge structures, heuristic information processors are likely to agree with messages delivered by experts, or messages that are endorsed by others, without fully processing the semantic content of the message.<ref name=Eagly>Eagly, A.H. & Chaiken, S. (1993). Process theories of attitude formation and change: The elaboration likelihood and heuristic-systematic models. In A.H. Eagly & S. Chaiken, (Eds.), The psychology of attitudes. Orlando: Harcourt Brace: pp. 303-350.</ref> In comparison to systematic processors, heuristic processors judge the [[validity]] of messages by relying more on accessible context information, such as the identity of the source or other non-content cues, which are more [[persuasive]] to them than the message characteristics. Heuristic views de-emphasize detailed information processing and focuses on the role of simple rules or cognitive heuristics in mediating [[persuasion]].<ref name=Chaiken />

== Systematic processing ==

Systematic processing involves comprehensive and analytic, [[cognitive]] processing of judgment-relevant information.<ref name=Chen /> The systematic approach values source [[Reliability (statistics)|reliability]] and message content, which may exert stronger impact on persuasion, when determining message validity.<ref name=Chaiken /> Judgments developed from systematic processing rely heavily on in-depth treatment of judgment-relevant information and respond accordingly to the semantic content of the message.<ref name=Chen /> Recipients developing attitudes from a systematic basis exert considerable cognitive effort and actively attempt to comprehend and evaluate the message’smessage's arguments. Systematic recipients also attempt to assess their validity as it relates to the message’s conclusion. Systematic views of persuasion emphasize detailed processing of message content and the role of message-based cognitions in mediating opinion change. While recipients utilizing systematic processing rely heavily on message content, source characteristics and other non-content may supplement the recipients’ assessment of validity in the persuasion message.<ref name=Chaiken />

== Choosing systematic or heuristic processing ==

Line 37:

== Practical application ==

Research into [[information processing]], especially [[in persuasive messaging]], has a natural application in advertising, specifically medical awareness. A 2004 study by Suzanne K. Steginga, PhD, and Stefano Occhipinti, PhD, [[Queensland Cancer Fund]] and the School of Applied Psychology, [[Griffith University]], [[Queensland]], [[Australia]], investigated the utility of the heuristic-systematic processing model as a framework for the investigation of patient decision making. A total of 111 men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer were assessed using [[verbal protocol analysis]] and self-report measures. The results showed: "Most men (68%) preferred that decision making be shared equally between them and their doctor. Men's use of the expert opinion heuristic was related to men's verbal reports of decisional uncertainty and having a positive orientation to their doctor and medical care; a desire for greater involvement in decision making was predicted by a high internal locus of health control. Trends were observed for systematic information processing to increase when the heuristic strategy used was negatively [[affect (psychology)|affect]]-laden and when men were uncertain about the probabilities for cure and side effects. There was a trend for decreased systematic processing when the expert opinion heuristic was used. Findings were consistent with the heuristic-systematic processing model and suggest that this model has utility for future research in applied decision making about health issues.<ref name =app>{{cite journal|authors=Steginga, Suzanne K.; Occhipinti, Stefano|url=http://mdm.sagepub.com/content/24/6/573.short|title=The Application of the Heuristic-Systematic Processing Model to Treatment Decision Making about Prostate Cancer |journal=Med Decis Making November/December|year= 2004 |volume=24: 573-583, http://mdm.sagepub.com/content/24/|number=6/573|pages=573–583|doi=10.short1177/0272989X04271044|pmid=15534339}}</ref>

The model is also used in Internet webpage considerations. In a 2002 study by Wathen & Burkell, they proposed a theory that separated the evaluation process into distinct segments. In the theory, the process began with low-effort examinations of peripheral cues (e.g., appearance, design, organization, and source reputation) then continued to a more high-effort analysis of the content of the information source. The proposed research also drew on social psychological theories of dual-processing, which stated that information processing outcomes were the result of interaction between a fast, associative information-processing mode based on low-effort heuristics, and a slow, rule-based information processing mode based on high-effort systematic reasoning. Wathen and Burkell proposed (but did not test) that if an individual determines that an online source does not meet an appropriate level of credibility at any one stage, then he or she will leave the site without further evaluation. They theorized that this “easy to discard” behavior was indicative of information-rich environments, where the assumption is that many other potential sources of information exist, and spending too much time on any one source is potentially wasteful.<ref name=wathen>Wathen, C. N., & Burkell, J. (2002). Believe it or not: Factors influencing credibility on the Web. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(2), 134–144</ref>