Elaboration likelihood model

  From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The elaboration likelihood model (ELM) of persuasion[1] is a dual process theory describing the change of attitudes form. The ELM was developed by Richard E. Petty and John Cacioppo in the mid-1980s.[2] The model aims to explain different ways of processing stimuli, why they are used, and their outcomes on […]

 

The elaboration likelihood model (ELM) of persuasion[1] is a dual process theory describing the change of attitudes form. The ELM was developed by Richard E. Petty and John Cacioppo in the mid-1980s.[2] The model aims to explain different ways of processing stimuli, why they are used, and their outcomes on attitude change. The ELM proposes two major routes to persuasion: the central route and the peripheral route. Under the central route, persuasion will likely result from a person’s careful and thoughtful consideration of the true merits of the information presented in support of an advocacy.[3] The central route involves a high level of message elaboration in which a great amount of cognition about the arguments are generated by the individual receiving the message. The results of attitude change will be relatively enduring, resistant, and predictive of behavior.[4] On the other hand, under the peripheral route, persuasion results from a person’s association with positive or negative cues in the stimulus or making a simple inference about the merits of the advocated position. The cues received by the individual under the peripheral route are generally unrelated to the logical quality of the stimulus. These cues will involve factors such as the credibility or attractiveness of the sources of the message, or the production quality of the message.[5] The likelihood of elaboration will be determined by an individual’s motivation and ability to evaluate the argument being presented.[6]

Star Wars

Published on Sep 5, 2014 Rare 1977 Alec Guinness Interview on Star Wars on Parkinson Talk Show Published on May 14, 2014 In this interview made in 1999 Bill Moyers discusses with George Lucas how Joseph Campbell and his concept … Continue reading

Published on Sep 5, 2014
Rare 1977 Alec Guinness Interview on Star Wars on Parkinson Talk Show

Published on May 14, 2014
In this interview made in 1999 Bill Moyers discusses with George Lucas how Joseph Campbell and his concept of the Monomyth also known as the Hero’s Journey and other concepts from Mythology and Religion shaped the Star Wars saga.

The original Star Wars is a mixture of 1950’s popular culture: the Wizard of Oz, Kurosawa’s Hidden Fortress, Flash Gordon serials, and Westerns. George Lucas and Steven Spielberg took these influences and molded them into a fantasy epic to great success. Yet, what’s the essence of the success of the Star Wars franchise? What are the main motifs of the Original Trilogy that make the history compelling?

George Lucas, the creator of the franchise, is not of much helping explaining even the genesis of the story, let alone its cultural impact and significance. Lucas goes back and forth between claiming he had a grandiose vision of the whole thing from the beginning, to admitting he made Star Wars up as he went along. The Phantom Menace is more a reflection of Lucas inner demons than an extension of the original theme: Anakin and Darth Vader are self-insertion. Lucas trough his professional career searched for a balance between the light side of legacy and the dark side of merchandising and ended selling his soul to the White Slavers.

Lucas is the driving force behind the Star Wars mythology but A New Hope is great despite of him. He was a contributor among many.

I was coming out of my teens when I saw A New Hope for the first time. It was a successful movie but the big merchandising impetus really came with The Empire Strikes Back some years later. A New Hope was meant to be a B summer movie and George Lucas commercial drive is what propelled Star Wars into a Merchandising Empire.
Whatever makes A New Hope special cannot be found solely on the movie itself but in the social and historical moment when it appeared. Star Wars drove the cultural wave of oriental mysticism and martial arts just when they were taking the West by storm.
The new reboot by Disney just rips off the original story arc from A New Hope instead of breaking new ground: playing safe with their multibillion dollar investment.

The Force Awakens, a big budget Disney TV movie for Star Wars fans and a safe retragetting of Star Wars to new customers: children, girls in particular. The Force Awakens forces the plot and breaks consistency with the ending of Return of the Jedi by bringing the story line back to the beginning of A New Hope, and at the same time, pretending to be a continuation of the story by just relabeling things. The new elements are the perfect woman, and disregard of plot coherence in favor of continous action and simplicity. Why old fans find the new version acceptable is baffling. Maybe just old boys clinging to lost youth.

Poetry


A Mary Sue or Gary Stu or Marty Stu is an idealized fictional character, a young or low-rank person who saves the day through unrealistic abilities. Often this character is recognized as an author insert and/or wish-fulfillment.[1]

The term “Mary Sue” comes from the name of a character created by Paula Smith in 1973 for her parody story “A Trekkie’s Tale”[2]:15 published in her fanzine Menagerie #2.[3]The story starred Lieutenant Mary Sue (“the youngest Lieutenant in the fleet — only fifteen and a half years old”), and satirized unrealistic Star Trek fan fiction.[4] Such characters were generally female adolescents who had romantic liaisons with established canonical adult characters, or in some cases were the younger relatives or protégées of those characters. By 1976 Menagerie’s editors stated that they disliked such characters, saying:

Mary Sue stories—the adventures of the youngest and smartest ever person to graduate from the academy and ever get a commission at such a tender age. Usually characterized by unprecedented skill in everything from art to zoology, including karate and arm-wrestling. This character can also be found burrowing her way into the good graces/heart/mind of one of the Big Three [Kirk, Spock, and McCoy], if not all three at once. She saves the day by her wit and ability, and, if we are lucky, has the good grace to die at the end, being grieved by the entire ship.[5]

 


marketing mix

The term “marketing-mix” was first coined by Neil Borden, the president of the American Marketing Association in 1953. It is still used today to make important decisions that lead to the execution of a marketing plan. The various approaches that … Continue reading

The term “marketing-mix” was first coined by Neil Borden, the president of the American Marketing Association in 1953. It is still used today to make important decisions that lead to the execution of a marketing plan. The various approaches that are used have evolved over time, especially with the increased use of technology.[1]

The marketing mix is a business tool used in marketing and by marketers. The marketing mix is often crucial when determining a product or brand’s offer, and is often associated with the four P’s: price, product, promotion, and place.[2] In service marketing, however, the four Ps are expanded to the seven P’s[3] or Seven P’s to address the different nature of services.

In the 1990s, the concept of four C’s was introduced as a more customer-driven replacement of four P’s.[4] There are two theories based on four Cs: Lauterborn’s four Cs (consumer, cost, communication, convenience), and Shimizu’s four Cs (commodity, cost, communication, channel).

In 2012, a new four P’s theory was proposed with people, processes, programs, and performance.[5]

Unconscious Decision Making

Published on Jul 26, 2012 Instinct is the driving force behind human decision making. Irrationality must be recognized if we’re going to get beyond the risks of not being built as thinking machines, says David Ropeik. David P. Ropeik is … Continue reading

Published on Jul 26, 2012 Instinct is the driving force behind human decision making. Irrationality must be recognized if we’re going to get beyond the risks of not being built as thinking machines, says David Ropeik. David P. Ropeik is an international consultant, author, teacher, and speaker on risk perception and risk communication.[1] He is also creator and director of Improving Media Coverage of Risk, a training program for journalists. He is a regular contributor to Big Think,[2] Psychology Today,[3] Cognoscenti,[4] and the Huffington Post.[5] http://bigthink.com


Published on Nov 26, 2012 Animation describing the Universal Principles of Persuasion based on the research of Dr. Robert Cialdini, Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Marketing, Arizona State University. Dr. Robert Cialdini & Steve Martin are co-authors (together with Dr. Noah Goldstein) of the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Business Week International Bestseller Yes! 50 Scientifically Proven Ways to be Persuasive. US Amazon http://tinyurl.com/afbam9g UK Amazon http://tinyurl.com/adxrp6c IAW USA: http://www.influenceatwork.com IAW UK: http://www.influenceatwork.co.uk/


Nobel Prize winning neuropsychiatrist Eric Kandel describes new research which hints at the possibility of a biological basis to the unconscious mind. Directed / Produced by Elizabeth Rodd and Jonathan Fowler

Eric Richard Kandel (born November 7, 1929) is an American neuropsychiatrist. He was a recipient of the 2000 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his research on the physiological basis of memory storage in neurons. He shared the prize with Arvid Carlsson and Paul Greengard.

Kandel, who had studied psychoanalysis, wanted to understand how memory works. His mentor, Harry Grundfest, said, “If you want to understand the brain you’re going to have to take a reductionist approach, one cell at a time.” So Kandel studied the neural system of the sea slug Aplysia californica, which has large nerve cells amenable to experimental manipulation and is a member of the simplest group of animals known to be capable of learning.[1]

Starting in 1966 James Schwartz collaborated with Kandel on a biochemical analysis of changes in neurons associated with learning and memory storage. By this time it was known that long-term memory, unlike short-term memory, involved the synthesis of new proteins. By 1972 they had evidence that the second messenger molecule cyclic AMP (cAMP) was produced in Aplysia ganglia under conditions that cause short-term memory formation (sensitization). In 1974 Kandel moved his lab moved to Columbia University and became founding director of the Center for Neurobiology and Behavior. It was soon found that the neurotransmitter serotonin, acting to produce the second messenger cAMP, is involved in the molecular basis of sensitization of the gill-withdrawal reflex. By 1980, collaboration with Paul Greengard resulted in demonstration that cAMP-dependent protein kinase, also known as protein kinase A (PKA), acted in this biochemical pathway in response to elevated levels of cAMP. Steven Siegelbaum identified a potassium channel that could be regulated by PKA, coupling serotonin’s effects to altered synaptic electrophysiology. In 1983 Kandel helped form the Howard Hughes Medical Research Institute at Columbia devoted to molecular neural science. The Kandel lab then sought to identify proteins that had to be synthesized to convert short-term memories into long-lasting memories. One of the nuclear targets for PKA is the transcriptional control protein CREB (cAMP response element binding protein). In collaboration with David Glanzman and Craig Bailey, Kandel identified CREB as being a protein involved in long-term memory storage. One result of CREB activation is an increase in the number of synaptic connections. Thus, short-term memory had been linked to functional changes in existing synapses, while long-term memory was associated with a change in the number of synaptic connections. Some of the synaptic changes observed by Kandel’s laboratory provide examples of Hebbian learning. One article describes the role of Hebbian learning in the Aplysia siphon-withdrawal reflex.[4] The Kandel lab has also performed important experiments using transgenic mice as a system for investigating the molecular basis of memory storage in the vertebrate hippocampus.[5][6][7] Kandel’s original idea that learning mechanisms would be conserved between all animals has been confirmed. Neurotransmitters, second messenger systems, protein kinasesion channels, and transcription factors like CREB have been confirmed to function in both vertebrate and invertebrate learning and memory storage.[8][9]

Kandel is a professor of biochemistry and biophysics at the College of Physicians and Surgeons at Columbia University. He is a Senior Investigator in the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. He was also the founding director of the Center for Neurobiology and Behavior, which is now the Department of Neuroscience at Columbia University. Kandel’s popularized account chronicling his life and research, In Search of Memory: The Emergence of a New Science of Mind,[2] was awarded the 2006 Los Angeles Times Book Awardfor Science and Technology.


Learn every gesture and body language cue in one video. Eye, hand, leg, arm, and mouth gestures are completely covered. Gestures and Body Language Series Be an expert in body language. Applies to his and her body language. Article is here http://bit.ly/apSipQ

The Paradox of Choice

The Paradox of Choice – Why More Is Less is a 2004 book by American psychologist Barry Schwartz. In the book, Schwartz argues that eliminating consumer choices can greatly reduce anxiety for shoppers. Autonomy and Freedom of choice are critical to our well being, and choice is critical to freedom and … Continue reading

The Paradox of Choice – Why More Is Less is a 2004 book by American psychologist Barry Schwartz. In the book, Schwartz argues that eliminating consumer choices can greatly reduce anxiety for shoppers.

Autonomy and Freedom of choice are critical to our well being, and choice is critical to freedom and autonomy. Nonetheless, though modern Americans have more choice than any group of people ever has before, and thus, presumably, more freedom and autonomy, we don’t seem to be benefiting from it psychologically.

—quoted from Ch.5, The Paradox of Choice, 2004

Schwartz describes that a consumer’s strategy for most good decisions will involve these steps:

  1. Figure out your goal or goals. The process of goal-setting and decision making begins with the question: “What do I want?” When faced with the choice to pick a restaurant, a CD, or a movie, one makes their choice based upon how one would expect the experience to make them feel, expected utility. Once they have experienced that particular restaurant, CD or movie, their choice will be based upon a remembered utility. To say that you know what you want, therefore, means that these utilities align. Nobel Prizewinning psychologist Daniel Kahneman and his colleagues have shown that what we remember about the pleasurable quality of our past experiences is almost entirely determined by two things: how the experiences felt when they were at their peak (best or worst), and how they felt when they ended.
  2. Evaluate the importance of each goal. Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky have researched how people make decisions and found a variety of rules of thumb that often lead us astray. Most people give substantial weight to anecdotal evidence, perhaps so much so that it cancels out expert evidence. The researchers called it the availability heuristic describing how we assume that the more available some piece of information is to memory, the more frequently we must have encountered it in the past. Salience will influence the weight we give any particular piece of information.
  3. Array the options. Kahneman and Tversky found that personal “psychological accounts” will produce the effect of framing the choice and determining what options are considered as subjects to factor. For example, an evening at a concert could be just one entry in a much larger account, of say a “meeting a potential mate” account. Or it could be part of a more general account such as “ways to spend a Friday night”. Just how much an evening at a concert is worth will depend on which account it is a part of.
  4. Evaluate how likely each of the options is to meet your goals. People often talk about how “creative accountants can make a corporate balance sheet look as good or bad as they want it to look.” In many ways Schwartz views most people as creative accountants when it comes to keeping their own psychological balance sheet.
  5. Pick the winning option. Schwartz argues that options are already attached to choices being considered. When the options are not already attached, they are not part of the endowment and choosing them is perceived as a gain. Economist Richard Thaler provides a helpful term sunk costs.
  6. Modify goals. Schwartz points out that later, one uses the consequences of their choice to modify their goals, the importance assigned to them, and the way future possibilities are evaluated.

Schwartz relates the ideas of psychologist Herbert A. Simon from the 1950s to the psychological stress that most consumers face today. He notes some important distinctions between, what Simon termed, maximizers and satisficers. A maximizer is like a perfectionist, someone who needs to be assured that their every purchase or decision was the best that could be made. The way a maximizer knows for certain is to consider all the alternatives they can imagine. This creates a psychologically daunting task, which can become even more daunting as the number of options increases. The alternative to maximizing is to be a satisficer. A satisficer has criteria and standards, but a satisficer is not worried about the possibility that there might be something better. Ultimately, Schwartz agrees with Simon’s conclusion, that satisficing is, in fact, the maximizing strategy.

Attempts to duplicate the paradox of choice in other studies have had mixed success. A meta-analysis incorporating research from 50 independent studies found no meaningful connection between choice and anxiety, but speculated that the variance in the studies left open the possibility that choice overload could be tied to certain highly specific and as yet poorly understood pre-conditions

Tim Harford‘s column in the Financial Times argues that the “paradox of choice” may not be real at all. Harford builds his case on both the profit-maximizing behavior of real firms as well as continuing research in the field:

It is hard to find much evidence that retailers are ferociously simplifying their offerings in an effort to boost sales. Starbucks boasts about its “87,000 drink combinations”; supermarkets are packed with options. This suggests that “choice demotivates” is not a universal human truth, but an effect that emerges under special circumstances.

Benjamin Scheibehenne, a psychologist at the University of Basel, was thinking along these lines when he decided (with Peter Todd and, later, Rainer Greifeneder) to design a range of experiments to figure out when choice demotivates, and when it does not.

But a curious thing happened almost immediately. They began by trying to replicate some classic experiments — such as the jam study, and a similar one with luxury chocolates. They couldn’t find any sign of the “choice is bad” effect. Neither the original Lepper-Iyengar experiments nor the new study appears to be at fault: the results are just different and we don’t know why.

After designing 10 different experiments in which participants were asked to make a choice, and finding very little evidence that variety caused any problems, Scheibehenne and his colleagues tried to assemble all the studies, published and unpublished, of the effect.

The average of all these studies suggests that offering lots of extra choices seems to make no important difference either way. There seem to be circumstances where choice is counterproductive but, despite looking hard for them, we don’t yet know much about what they are. Overall, says Scheibehenne: “If you did one of these studies tomorrow, the most probable result would be no effect.” Perhaps choice is not as paradoxical as some psychologists have come to believe. One way or another, we seem to be able to cope with it.

It is of course important to make a distinction between choice and complexity. One reason behind the smart nudge of having new employees at a company be automatically enrolled in a 401(k) plan is that the stack of paperwork and the large, complex set of options will turn some employees off from joining if left to their own devices.

But asking someone who knows nothing about investing to suddenly think about asset allocation, to choose between fixed-income and equity products, between value and growth funds, etc., is a lot more complex than asking her to choose between strawberry jam and marmalade. So even if jam studies of the future prove inconclusive, it still seems wise to streamline choices whose complexity might otherwise hamper a good outcome.

But what about the other end of the choice spectrum? What about shoppers who don’t have any choice at all? That’s the subject of a new article by Daniel Mochon on “single-option aversion” in the new Journal of Consumer Behavior.

To understand single-option aversion, think about bread. A few years ago, Williams-Sonoma had a problem. They couldn’t get anybody to buy their breadmaker, which retailed for $279. So they did something that might strike you as bizarre: They started selling a $429 model, as well. Of course, nobody bought the expensive version. But sales of the cheaper model doubled.

Why?

You could offer a few reasons. One is that the fundamental rule of prices is that consumers don’t know what anything should cost (especially breadmakers) so we’re persuaded by clues. The expensive breadmaker here acted as a clue — a decoy that told other shoppers: Hey, you are getting an amazing deal on this breadmaker!

But another possible reason is that we’re incredibly reluctant to certain items — especially expensive items — when only one option is presented. If you walked into a Best Buy store, and there was only one TV left, would you buy it? Even if it was pretty much what you were looking for? Mochon’s research would suggest that many of you wouldn’t. When he offered DVD players to participants in one study, just 9% said they would buy a Sony model when it was the only option. When paired with a Philips DVD player, the number went up to 32%. The mere presence of options quadrupled willingness to buy. Mochon replicated the finding with TVs and donations.

(Hat tip: Marginal Revolution)

virtual virii

Viral has become marketing’s Holy Grail. From the Harlem Shake to the Rutgers basketball coach abusing his players, hardly a week goes by without some video or news story going viral. And word of mouth and virality have a huge … Continue reading

Viral has become marketing’s Holy Grail. From the Harlem Shake to the Rutgers basketball coach abusing his players, hardly a week goes by without some video or news story going viral. And word of mouth and virality have a huge impact on businesses, large and small. Blender company Blendtec’s sales shot up more than 700% a few years ago after videos of the CEO blending things like iPhones spread like wildfire. But what makes something go viral?

If you ask most social media “gurus,” they’ll tell you it’s all about getting lucky. Viral isn’t a strategy, it’s like buying a lottery ticket. Or they’ll talk about cats. Lots of people share videos of funny kitties, so cats must be the reason things go viral.

All these theories are great, except, well, they’re not really backed up by anything. No data. No analytics. Just old fashioned guesses based on looking at a couple particularly noteworthy successes. It’s like the idea that the Earth was flat. It seemed right until someone actually looked deeper and showed, well…it wasn’t.

Virality isn’t luck. It’s not magic. And it’s not random. There’s a science behind why people talk and share. A recipe. A formula, even.

My colleagues and I have analyzed thousands of news articles and hundreds of brands, all to understand why some make the most emailed list or get more word of mouth. Again and again we found the same principles at work. Six key drivers that shape what people talk about and share.Those six principles are the basis of my new book, Contagious: Why Things Catch On, and the first principle is Social Currency.

New York City is a tough place to open a bar. Competition is fierce and it’s hard to cut through the clutter. There are dozens of options around every corner.

But a few years ago Brian Shebairo launched a place that’s been packed since the day it opened. In fact, it’s one of the most sought after drink reservations in the city. Bookings are only available day-of and people frantically hit redial again and again hoping to snag a spot. Yet he’s never advertised the bar. Never spent a dollar on marketing.

How did Shebairo do it?

He hid his bar inside a hot dog restaurant.

Walk into Crif Dogs in the East Village, and you’ll find the most amazing hot dog menu you’ve ever seen. A Tsunami dog with pineapple and green onions, a Chihuahua dog with avocado and sour cream, and a Good Morning dog wrapped in bacon, smothered with cheese, and topped with a fried egg.

In one corner, off to the side, is an old-school phone booth. One of those rectangular numbers that Clark Kent used to morph into Superman. Walk inside and you’ll see a rotary dial phone on the wall. Pick up the phone, and just for fun, dial the number 1. Someone will pick-up the other line and ask you if you have a reservation. And if you do, the back of the phone booth will open and you’ll be let into a secret bar called, of all things, Please Don’t Tell.

Has Please Don’t Tell violated traditional “laws of marketing?” Sure. There is no sign on the street and no mention of it in the hot dog place. In fact, they’ve worked hard to make themselves a secret.

But there’s a funny thing about secrets. Think about the last time someone told you a secret. Told you not to tell another soul. What’s the first thing you did with that information?

You probably told someone else.

And the reason is something called Social Currency. People talk about things that make them look good. Sharp and in-the-know. Smart and funny rather than behind the times. If people go to a place like Please Don’t Tell, or even if they just hear about it, they tell others because it gives them status.

Social Currency isn’t just about hidden bars. It’s why people brag about their thousands of Twitter followers or their kids’ SAT scores. Why golfers boast about their handicaps and frequent fliers tell others when they get upgraded. McDonald’s used social currency to help the McRib sandwich take-off and RueLaLa used it to turn a struggling website into a $500M business.

Want to generate word of mouth? Get people talking about you? One way is to give them a way to look good. Make people feel special, or like insiders, and they’ll tell others—and spread word of mouth about you along the way.

Along with five other key principles (STEPPS: Social Currency, Triggers, Emotion, Public, Practical Value, and Stories), Social Currency is a sure fire way to generate buzz. Will following these six principles guarantee that 10 million people spread your message? No. But it will increase the number of people who pass it on. Encourage people to tell two friends instead of just one. It’s like a batting average in baseball. No one hits a home run every time, but by understanding the science of hitting you can boost your average.

The next time someone tells you that going viral is about luck, politely tell them that there is a better way. Science. Word of mouth isn’t random and it’s not magic. By understanding why people talk and share, we can craft contagious content. And use it to get our own products and ideas to catch on.
Jonah Berger is a Marketing professor at the Wharton School. Want to learn more about why things go viral? Check out his New York Times bestseller Contagious: Why Things Catch On. Follow Jonah below to stay up-to-date with his articles and updates!

Posted by:Jonah Berger

iThings

Apple has been ordered to pay damages to rival Samsung Electronics by a court in the Netherlands.

The court said that Apple had infringed a patent held by Samsung relating to the way phones and tablet PCs connect to the internet.

Apple, which recen…

Apple has been ordered to pay damages to rival Samsung Electronics by a court in the Netherlands.

The court said that Apple had infringed a patent held by Samsung relating to the way phones and tablet PCs connect to the internet.

Apple, which recently became the world’s most valuable firm, has been facing various legal issues.

In a separate case, it was fined $2.3m (£1.5m) in Australia for