Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-qxsvm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-10-02T16:54:17.235Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Persuasion and Social Psychology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2024

Ivana Marková*
Affiliation:
University of Stirling
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This editor's introduction to the issue recalls the main methodological approaches to persuasion, rhetoric and propaganda in social psychology. It summarizes the classical theories issued from Hovland's Yale Communication Program in experimental social psychology, like dissonance, attitude changes, inoculation approach, elaboration likelihood model. Yet there are, today, competing perspectives on persuasion, which turn attention to the meaning of persuasion in modern complex societies, in technology and the media. These perspectives place emphasis not on changes of attitudes, but on communication, social influence and group processes. It is shown that the collection of articles in this issue brings out these diverse approaches in social psychology. Broadly, it encompasses social psychological studies based on the research of attitudes and attitude changes on the one hand, and those based on the studies of influence and communication on the other.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © ICPHS 2008

References

Dillard, P. and Pfau, M., eds (2002) The Persuasion Handbook: Developments in Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA, London: SAGE Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, G.R. (1980) ‘On Being Persuaded: Some Basic Distinctions’, in Roloff, M. E. and Miller, G. R. (eds) Persuasion: New Directions in Theory and Research, pp. 1128. Thousand Oaks, CA, and London: SAGE Publications. (Reprinted in Dillard, P. and Pfau, M., eds, 2002, pp. 3—16.)Google Scholar
Moscovici, S. (1993) ‘The Return of the Unconscious’, Social Research, 60: 3993.Google Scholar