Heuristic-Systematic Model of Information Processing new article content ...
History
The Heuristic Systematic Model (HSM) is one of the two most widely recognized communication models of persuasion. The other model is the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM). Both models were predominately developed in the early-to-mid 1980’s and shared many of the same concepts and ideas (Albarracin & Johnson). Over three decades earlier, research into how people process persuasive messaging focused mainly on cognitive theories and the way the mind processed individual inputs. One guiding principle of underlying motivations of persuasive communications comes from Festinger’s (1950) statement that incorrect or improper attitudes are generally maladaptive and can have deleterious behavioral, affective, and consequences. In 1953, Hovland, 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 other people are perceived to hold similar attitudes, one's confidence in the validity of one's own attitude is increased” (Petty & Cacioppo, pp. 5-6). Another concept that contributed to the HSM was the Sufficiency Principle. This principle reflected widespread notions that perceivers used limited cognitive resources, or “economy-minded” 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 with the ELM, which described the two different ways information was processed, through central and/or peripheral processing (Chaiken & Trope p. 74). 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 (Petty & Cacioppo, pp. 6-7).” All these concepts and ideas led to the simultaneous development of the ELM and HSM.
Central and Peripheral Route
Heuristic Processing
Heuristic processing uses judgmental rules known as knowledge structures that are learned and stored in memory [1]. The heuristic approach offers an economic advantage by requiring minimal cognitive effort on the part of the recipient[2]. 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. [1]. 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[3]. In comparison to systematic recipients, in judging the validity of messages and rely more on accessible information such as the identity of the source or other non-content cues which exert more impact on persuasion than message characteristics. Heuristic views de-emphasize detailed information processing and focuses on the role of simple rules or cognitive heuristics in mediating persuasion[2].
Systematic Procssing
Systematic processing involves comprehensive and analytic, cognitive processing of judgment-relevant information[1]. The systematic approach values source reliability and message content, which may exert stronger impact on persuasion, when determining message validity[2]. 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[1]. Recipients developing attitudes from a systematic basis exert considerable cognitive effort and actively attempt to comprehend and evaluate the message’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[2].
Choosing Systematic or heuristic processing
Both Heuristic and Systematic processes may occur independently; it is also possible for both to co-occur in an additive fashion or in a way that the judgmental implications of one process lend a bias nature to the other[1]. The Heuristic-Systematic Model includes the hypothesis that attitudes developed or changed by utilizing heuristic processing alone will likely be less stable, less resistant to counterarguments, and will be less predictive of subsequent behavior than attitudes developed or changed utilizing systematic processing[2]. Recipients may sometimes choose to accept message conclusions they might otherwise have correctly rejected, or vice versa, had they properly invested the time and effort needed to receive and scrutinize the message[2]. When the recipient views the argumentation judgment as being inconsequential, the recipient will likely place greater value on economical concerns than reliability concerns. When economic concerns are predominant, the recipient will likely employ heuristic processing when formulating argumentation judgment. Reliability concerns are influenced by the level of the recipient’s issue-involvement or response-involvement.
When reliability concerns are predominant, the recipient will likely employ systematic processing when formulating argumentation judgment. When recipients perceive significant importance in formulating highly accurate argumentation judgment, the recipient will likely employ a systematic processing strategy. Source credibility affects persuasion under conditions of low, but not high, issue-involvement and response-involvement [2].
Direction of Future Research
Originally the heuristic-systematic model was developed to apply to “validity seeking” persuasion setting in which peoples’ primary motivational concern is to attain accurate attitudes that square with relevant facts [2][3]. Chaiken assumes that the primary processing goal of accuracy-motivated recipients is to assess the validity of persuasive messages, and that both heuristic and systematic processing can serve this objective[3]. Other motives beyond the validity-seeking persuasion context was identified by Chaiken and colleagues (1989) who proposed an expanded model that posits two additional motives that heuristic and systematic processing can serve; defense –motivation; and impression-motivation. - Defense-motivation is the desire to form or defend particular attitudinal positions. -Impression-motivation is the desire to form or hold socially acceptable attitudinal positions. Contrary to previous viewpoints, the Heuristic-Systematic Model and the Elaboration Likelihood Model should be treated as a complimentary model to create a duel-processing framework for use in future research for understanding a variety of social influence phenomena[3]. Future research should seek to link persuasion more closely with impression formation, which has previously focused on impressions based on agents' behaviors. An example would be to test if perceived expertise of a communicator is more stable over time and more resistant to counterfactual evidence if it is based on systematic processing than when it is based on a short description. Research has revealed that two-sided messages might not only be more persuasive but might also enhance the perceived credibility of a communicator[4].
Related Theories
Notes
References
- ^ a b c d e Chen, S., Duckworth, K., & Chaiken, S. (n.d). Motivated Heuristic and Systematic Processing. Psychological Inquiry, 10(1), 44. Retrieved from SocINDEX database
- ^ a b c d e f g h 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.
- ^ a b c d 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.
- ^ Reimer, T., Mata, R & Stoecklin, M. (2004). The use of Heuristics in Persuasion: Deriving Cues on Source Expertise from Argument Quality. In Current Research in Social Psychology, 10(6), 69-83.