CHAPTER 10 Affect and Persuasion James Price Dillard and Kiwon Seo ognitive approaches to understanding design and message effects as they pertain to human thought and action have embraced affect. It aims to illustrate the issues that are most C a model of mind-as-computer (Miller, central to research on emotion and persuasion. 2003). Indeed, in areas such as artificial intelli- The third and final portion considers what future gence, one of the primary tools of the trade is research might look like by focusing attention on computer simulation. The mind-as-computer practices and ideas that have retarded research as metaphor pointed the way to understanding per- well as those that are likely to yield the greatest suasive processes in terms of input processes, benefit as we move forward. comprehension, associative memory, decision making, depth of processing, and recall: All of which led to improved understanding of how Conceptions of Affect messages create change in individuals. But, as data accrued and theoretical boundaries were Affect is an umbrella term that is meant to encom- tested, it became apparent that something crucial pass feelings of all sorts. Beneath that umbrella lie was missing: Computers didn’t feel. In sharp some important distinctions that implicitly and contrast, humans are often, perhaps always, explicitly guide the questions that researchers ask experiencing some kind of affect. Some research about affect as well as their corresponding answers. has shown that pre-existing moods caused Gaining an appreciation of the research requires a research participants to respond to persuasive closer examination of the various ways in which messages in very different ways. Other lines of affect has been conceptualized. inquiry established that the feelings produced by persuasive messages undergird purchasing behaviors, voting, and health decisions. Bipolar Valence What is meant by affect? The first section of this chapter reviews how that term has been used. One approach to thinking about affect is in The theoretical perspectives that correspond terms of valence, where valence means a contrast with different usage are also considered. The sec- between good and bad or pleasant and unpleasant. ond segment explores questions of message The strongest version of the valence perspective is 150 (c) 2013 Sage Publications, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Chapter 10. Affect and Persuasion——151 bipolar model. On this view, affect is invariably and fear, both of which occupy the same space in located at some point on a continuum that ranges the unpleasant–high arousal quadrant of the cir- from positive at one end of the scale and negative cumplex. They have also been justly criticized as at the other. Here, the underlying theoretical con- atheoretical in that they are inductive findings cept of affect is hydraulic: For every unit of good derived entirely from the application of dimen- feeling that accrues to an individual, one unit of sion reduction algorithms to judgments of the bad feeling is displaced. frequency or similarity of affect words. Despite these shortcomings, the PA models have main- tained a place in the research literature for 40 or Categorical Valence more years. A less stringent assumption can be seen in studies in which good and bad feelings are con- Discrete Emotions and sidered separately, as when research participants Appraisal Theories are asked how good they feel and, in a separate question, how bad they feel (e.g., Watson & In simple terms, the discrete emotions approach Clark, 1994). In these cases, the conceptual rela- casts affect as a set of qualitatively distinct states tionship between valenced categories is one of that vary in intensity. Individuals may experience conceptual independence. Studying the effects of more or less happiness, sadness, or jealousy, but emotion on persuasion typically means using each emotion is categorically different from every positive and negative feelings as predictors. other emotion. One way in which they are distinct is their causes. Cognitive appraisal theories are frameworks Valence Plus Arousal for understanding discrete emotions. There are several such theories, but they all agree that emo- Another tradition of affect research expands tions arise from a particular form of cognition on the valence-only models by adding an arousal known as appraisals (Scherer, Schorr, & Johnstone, dimension. These pleasure-arousal (PA) models 2001). At the broadest level, appraisals are judg- view valence as the hedonic tone of the experi- ments of the extent to which relevant aspects of ence and arousal as the subjective experience of the environment are configured so as to promote energy versus lassitude. Together, pleasure and or inhibit an individual’s goals, where goals range arousal are thought to define “core” or elemental in abstraction from survival to arriving at work aspects of all affective experience (Russell & on time. When the person-environment relation- Feldman Barrett, 1999). Some theorists see value ship is seen as relevant and goal congruent, posi- in asserting the existence of an affective circum- tive emotions follow. Conversely, perceptions of plex. Pragmatically, this means that pleasure and relevance and goal incongruence yield negative arousal are orthogonal to one another. Any and emotions. But, there is a host of other appraisals all affects are arrayed in a circle defined by terms too that, in combination, create unique constella- that are roughly equidistant from the point at tions of appraisals that define different emotions. which the two dimensions cross. Thus, all affects For instance, joy/happiness derives from the can be understood in terms of their location. belief that (1) some event has transpired that is In this view, depression is defined in terms of (2) compatible with a previously existing goal unpleasantness and low arousal. Joy is both (e.g., Roseman, 2001). Guilt is the product of pleasant and energetic. One inarguable problem knowledge that one has failed to meet some per- for the PA models lie in the placement of anger sonally relevant standard for behavior. Other (c) 2013 Sage Publications, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 152——PART II. Theories, Perspectives, and Traditions possible appraisals might be expressed as the the motivations associated with particular answers to questions such as: How certain is the emotions are best conceptualized at a more event (e.g., past vs. future)? What is the cause specific level. Disgust causes people to (e.g., self vs. other)? Can I control it (e.g., high recoil, hope prompts engagement, and vs. low)? Was it fair/legitimate (e.g., high vs. team pride encourages embrace. In other low)? Emotion theorists disagree about how the words, each emotion is functionally differ- content and number of appraisals that are ent and behaviorally specific form of required for a theory of emotion. However, they approach or avoidance. agree on the larger point that each of the emo- tions results from an exclusive pattern of ante- One important question that has been raised cedent judgments. about appraisal models is the order in which the Emotions themselves can be thought of as cognitive judgments occur. Lazarus (1991) draws distinctive, patterned responses that are observ- a line between two groups of judgments: Primary able in six domains. appraisals—relevance and goal congruity—have to do with the nature and significance of the • One of them is subjective experience. Fear event. Secondary appraisals, which include feels different from anger, which feels dif- notions of accountability and coping potential, ferent from elation. have more to do with defining the options for • Emotions are also represented in the physi- behavioral response. Another writer, Scherer ological domain, which includes changes in: (1984), suggests that appraisals are sequenced blood flow to different areas of the body, such that they move from rudimentary evalua- blood pressure, heart rate, nervous system tions, such as novelty and the intrinsic pleasant- activation, and muscle tension. ness of the event, through more cognitively • Neurological activity in distinct brain regions complex judgments, including cause, power, and is associated with different emotions (Phan, legitimacy. His multistep model does not require Wager, Taylor, & Liberzon, 2002). that every appraisal take place. Steps can be • Emotions correspond with alterations in skipped. But, the overall process is thought to expression. The most obvious of these alter- occur in a strict order. Whether one supposes ations are facial expressions, but other two-steps or several in the appraisal process, the aspects of behavior, such as gait and body assumption that appraisals are ordered implies lean, are expressive as well. This point questions concerning the speed at which the pro- underscores an often unappreciated fea- cess unfolds. ture of emotion: They are not merely inter- An answer can be had by turning attention to nal phenomena. Rather, emotional states the function of emotions. From an evolutionary produce behaviors that are seen and inter- perspective, emotions are decision-making pro- preted by others. grams that accept input in terms of appraisal • Emotions bring about changes in cognition. information, then output directions for behavior. Fear, for example, narrows the perceptual They are designed, evolutionarily speaking, to field and focuses attention on the threaten- provide adaptive solutions to problems that ing stimulus. Happiness enables associa- occurred with regularity