Upgrade to remove ads
Only $2.99/month

PSYC TEST 2

Terms in this set (162)

Harold Camping
-has convinced people that based off his reading of the bible, the world going to end in May
-Marie Exley has organized her life around this end-of-the-world event
-Part of movement of Christians loosely organized radio broadcasts and websites
-example of belief-justification: started cognitive dissonance theory
Leon Festinger-cult experience
-infiltrated a group in the 1950s that thought the world was going to end that year (take by spaceship to planet Clarian if they removed all metal from what wearing, gave up all $ and possessions & went to live in house receiving messages from planet)
-Found they did not give up their beliefs when date passed: decided that bc they had been such devout followers of the women, they had saved the world
Basic Idea of Cognitive Dissonance
-people have a need to maintain consistent beliefs about themselves and their world
-many of us belief that our beliefs are generally psychologically consistent in that one follows another...
(if actions do not match beliefs, one does not follow the other-psychological inconsistency)
The Theory of Cognitive Dissonance
-When we are confronted with information that we have behaved in ways that are irrational, immoral, or stupid, we experience discomfort
-Cognitive Dissonance: the discomfort caused by performing an action that is contrary to logic or rational beliefs
-Cognitive dissonance helps us understand why people retain separate beliefs when given the same information (by justifying and rationalizing, this helps to maintain our views)
Leon Festinger
-1957, defined the powerful phenomenon of cognitive dissonance
2 kinds of cognitive dissonance
(1) Festinger- stems from any 2 conflicting conditions
e.g. I am standing in the rain; I am not getting wet
(2) More modern theory-most powerful and upsetting when people behave in ways that threaten their self-image
-something to do with the self-concept
-when dissonance doesn't involve your self-image and self-concept, then it doesn't have much impact
Festinger and Carlsmith's classic study on cognitive dissonance
Participants (male) arrived, seated at a table, asked to perform a series of dull, meaningless tasks for ~1 hour
-Afterwards experimenter asks you to give the experiment instructions to the next participant: tell her the tasks were worthwhile, interesting, and educational
-Paid either $1 or $20 to do this, then privately rate enjoyment of tasks in a questionnaire
-Participants taking $1 experienced cognitive diss, because of 2 inconsistent cognitions: I did this stupid boring task, yet told this women it was fun (and only got $1 for doing it-small reward)-->feel dissonance, thus change their attitude toward the task to resolve the dissonance that way
-but those with $20 did not have to change their attitudes (($20 large enoigh reward to be external justification-convinces you not to think about it)
2 Ways that We Can Explain the Dissonance Effect
1. Conflicting beliefs (Festinger's initial theory-2 inconsistent tasks):
a. I performed a boring task
b. I told someone it was fun
2. Beliefs that challenge positive self image:
a. I am a truthful person
b. I lied to the next research participant
Classic Example of Dissonance Theory-Smoker's Dilemma
-I smoke
-I know that smoking threatens my health and can give me lung cancer
-Result: people might argue against research data, assume genetics buffer you from bad effects, could decide consequences worth the enjoyment of smoking
-desired outcome: people change their behavior
Ways of reducing dissonance
1. Change behavior
-realize "I'm harming myself"-Eliot/Aronson version
that involves self-concept
2. Change condition
-justification: add consonant cognition ($20-
relieves burden)
Self Affirmation (Cognitive Dissonance)
-An additional way of reducing dissonance: by trying to bolster the self-concept (affirming positive sense of self)
-The smoker who failed to quit might remind herself of the things she DOES do well: "Yes it is not smart of me to smoke, but i am a really good mathematician"
-threat of self-concept reduced through self-affiramtion
Everyday Dissonance: Insufficient Justification
...
External Justification
-aka consonant cognition
-Definition: a reason or explanation for dissonant behavior that resides outside of the individual (e.g. in order to receive a reward, avoid a punishment, not hurt others' feelings)
-e.g. lie to friend that you like her ugly dress, because it is important to you not to cause pain to people you like (provides external justification-consonant cognition-for having told a harmless lie); insufficient, because if we are telling lies, we could experience dissonance: think of ourselves as truthful people yet we lie 3x a day (but normally dont experience dissonance because telling these lies helps makepeople feel better: sufficient external justifcation)
Example of External Justification: Benjamin Franklin
-Legislator not fond of Ben Franklin, so BF felt he had to do something to convince him to like him
-"he that has one done you a kindness will be more ready to do you another than eh whom you yourself have obliged"
-"If I do you a favor, I must like you"
-If he hated Franklin and lent him the book, should experience dissonance: Franklin capitalizing on fact that inference guy will make is "I guess I do like him"
-LESSON: if you can get someone with very small incentive to do something for you, they may infer that they like you (more sufficient than if BF had done guy a favor-sets up a situation where the guy had to change his attitude toward ben)
Internal Justification
Internal Justification: the reduction of dissonance by changing something about oneself (e.g. one's attitude or behavior)
Counterattitudinal Advocacy
-stating an opinion or attitude that runs counter to one's private beliefs or attitudes
-When we engage in counterattitudinal advocacy with little external justification, that is, without being motivated by something outside of ourselves, what we believe begins to look more and more like the lie we told.
-e.g. the first counterattitudinal study was Festinger's $20-saying that they enjoyed the task, even when they didn't
Cognitive Dissonance with Race Study
-During 1959, when U.S. still polarized on racial segregation issues, Jones and Kohler showed a series of arguments on both sides of issue in southern town who were strong segregationists or strong integrationists
-When asked later to recall the arguments, everyone most likely to recall: PLAUSIBLE ARGUMENTS ON THEIR SIDE & IMPLAUSIBLE ON OPPOSING SIDE
SELECTIVE RECALL: indicator of dissonance ("forget" about the other sides that disprove your views)
-people can deal with dissonance on daily basis by just not thinking about contrary information
-constructing reality to support our initial beliefs
-chose groups highly motivated to reduce the dissonance and remember only the arguments that fit their view
Rational Behavior Vs. Rationalizing Behavior
-In a study of people who were wired up to FMRIs while they were trying to process dissonant or consonant information
-Reasoning areas of the brain shut down when a person was confronted with dissonant information
-Emotion circuits of the brain light up happily when consonance is restored
-As Westen put it, people twirl the "cognitive kaleidoscope" until the pieces fall into the pattern they want to see, and then the brain repays them by activating circuits involved in pleasure—not unlike, he added, what addicts feel when they get a fix.
Decisions
-every time we make a decision, we experience dissonance: between 2 cars, 2 colleges, 2 potential dates-both alternative usually have positives and negatives, so while making decisions, you have doubts
-After the decision, the negatives of your choice and positives of non-chosen alternatives create dissonance
Post-Decision Dissonance Reduction
-Dissonance aroused from making a decision is reduced by enhancing the attractiveness of the chosen alternative and devaluing the rejected one
-See the most with irrevocable (irreversible) decisions
Low Balling
-a car sales technique of pricing "bait and switch"
-deal with multiple salespeople. First person gives you such a great price, you decide to take car. he goes back to talk to boss, and boss doesn't agree. at that point "committed" to sticking with purchase
-Works bc:
1. have already written check for downpayment
2. already excited about purchase
2. price differential with other deals probably small and can be justified
cog diss-have to focus on all of the positives of cars you bought and negatives of those you didnt: helps you feel better when you think you can't get out of the deal
Decision Making: Household Items Study
-Most decisions involve trade offs (negative of chosen alternative against positives of other)
-Women rated 8 household items (toaster, coffeemakers) and told could take one home
-Had to choose between 2 alternatives:
#1 ranked (the best) vs. #2 ranked (liked 2nd best)/
#1 ranked vs. #7 ranked
-idea that 1 vs. 2 would experience the most dissonance, bc like the 2nd a lot too
-Rated products again: rating of the 2nd choice went down, rating of 1st increased just slightly (adjustment to convince themselves they made the right decision:post-decision dissonance reduction)]-Rating of 1st not a much increase, 7th did not go down (no need to adjust how they felt about these items-no need to think about what could have been; happy with the first choice)
Justifying Your Effort
-Most people are willing to work hard to get something they really want, but sometimes things don't turn out to be worthwhile
-When people are in an absurd situation, they minds rationalize it by inventing a comfortable illusion
-2 cognitions employee in comic dealing with: chooses tow work somewhere but job is crap and he hates it-should experience dissonance
Choices in dealing with dissonance
1. change behavior: by quitting
2. change your attitude: I must like my job
3. add a consonant cognition: come up with another reason why staying at job (job market bad, looked elsewhere)-won't have to change behavior OR attitude
Justification of Effort Definition
-increasing liking for something you have worked hard to attain
-even the most boring people and trivial activities have some redeeming qualities: can be interpreted favorably
-works because of objective construal idea-we can focus on specific things most important to us
Classic Demonstration of Justification of Effort (psychology of sex study)
-Aronson and Mills (1959)
-female college students volunteered to participate in a student group discussing psychology of sex
-Some participants underwent "severe initiation" and had to repeat obscene words to experimenters
-Told that because group discussion had to do with sex, have to make sure comfortable talking about sex
-"Mild initiation": listened to boring group discussion on sexual behavior of seagulls
-Then rated liking for group
-Question was, how much would women like being in a group given their intitation experiences to get into it?
-Severe initiation higher liking for group than mild-justifying their embarrassing experience of having to say these words by saying "group must be very cool if I was willing to do this"
-Had to change attitude in order to understand why they would put themselves through it
Bernie Madoff and Effort Justification
-bilked hundreds of wealthy people out of an estimated $50 billion
-Investors knew that 10-12% annual return was impossible but they had worked hard to let him take their money-often begging him to allow them to invest in millions of dollars (own kind of initiation)
-Probably more stressful to admit that this was a ponzi scheme than to just avoid thinking about it: one of the things that kept the "business" going
-Functioned like a severe initiation: more committed in the end to his money management company than would've been otherwise
Other Social institutions that engage in severe initiation (makes people like more)
-Fraternities (over period of time; the more and more into it, the more extreme intiation rights become, the more committed)
-"Playing hard to get"-have to work hard to make relationship work; could increase value of relationship
-Military (beginning the toughest part-increases commitment to commander, fellow soldiers bc made thru initial initiation
We Even Justify Our Own Immoral Behavior
-Honesty and ethics: a product of our environment?
-College students solved matrix problems and received payment for each solution
-Some self-payed and shredded answers (transfer $ from envelope to self every time correct: totally anonymous)-permissive environment
-others were paid by experimenter and answers scored
-thus some based on honor code, while others not (# self-reported items 13.5 vs. 10)
Results: Everyone cheated in permissive environment, but people who read honor code did less; honor code didn't matter in those w/ no opp to ceat (amt self-reported # of items correct remained the same: 8)
How people used their behavior to explain their attitude toward cheating (condoning it)
-Sometimes getting ahead of the curve is more important than adhering to rules
-Rules should be flexible enough to adapt to different situations
-Cheating is appropriate behavior because nobody gets hurt
-If others engage in cheating behavior, then the behavior is morally permissible
-It is appropriate to seek short-cuts as long as it does not hurt someone else's experience
-End results more important than the means by which one pursues these results
^if score high on these standards, probably have low moral beliefs
How people used their behavior to explain their attitude toward cheating (abhorring it)
-those who didn't have the opportunity to cheat believe in ethical values and take it personally (explaining their behavior as their own values--better for those who read the honor code than those who didn't but sentiments in entire group_
-In permissive group, much more belief in immoral behavior--morals have changed to be much less ethical: if situations that allow you to cheat, influences your personal ethics: justifying your behavior
- 2 inconsistent cognitions:
1. I cheat
2. Cheating is wrong
Justification: I can't deny I cheated, so maybe cheating isnt that bad
Ethics as a Product of the Environment We Are In
-Basil argued that you get ethical behavior and morals in environments that encourage you to be ethical
-if in environments that encourage you to cheat-has an influence on your own ethics and values
-people rationalize behaviors that the environment lets them perform
The Power of Mild Punishment
-Cognitive dissonance: Should only reward wit little rewards: just enough to encourage honest behaviors, but not so much that they feel they did it because of reward
-based on dissonance theory, we will all obey rules if encouraged to do so, but given mild restrictions on our behavior
-if given severe punishments, we don't do something bc of the severe punishment, but don't engage when mild punishment because see as a personal refelction of ourselves
-want them to have intrinsic motivtion for the behavior and not attribute the behavior to the external control
Insufficient Punishment
-arouses dissonance
-external justification not sufficient for having resisted a desired activity or objet: usually results in devaluing the forbidden activity or object
-the less severe the punishment, the less severe the external justification
Aronson and Carlsmith Study-Forbidden Toy Experiment (1963)
-preschoolers rated attractiveness of several toys
-half threatened with mild punishment, 1/2 with severe for playing with an attractive toy
-all alone w toys 4 a few min, 0 played w forbidden toy
-Then allowed to play with toys during free play
-Later told they could play with all toys: those threatened w severe punishment played with the toy while those threatened with mild didn't
-if less severe, cog dis led them to decide they didnt play with the toy bc didnt like it (incorporate the attitude you showed in not playing with the toy)
-if severe, can attribute not playing with toy to the punishment (external justification: can still like it)
2 cognitions of mild punishment
1. not playing with the toy
2. Insufficient punishment
set up situation so that everyone would go along with request, but in such as way that not clear if that person's individual choice or not: to reduce dissonance, decide "I must not have liked this toy"
How Much to Reward or Punish?
-Single Episode: promise a large reward or severe punishment (strong external justifications);
e.g. like with driving over speed limit: drive w/i bc
know going to be punished if don't but dont nec
think the right or best thing to do
-Longer-term commitment: give smaller rewards or punishments; when people act in socially-appropriate ways, they can now internalize it and act upon what they feel are their own ethics
Dissonance in Advertisement
-justifying extreme reaction to products
-Snickers, Doritos, Coke, Pepsi
-High evaluations of the products because of the extreme reactions to it
Impact Bias
The tendency to overestimate the intensity and duration of our emotional reactions to future negative events
e.g. people overestimate how dredful they will feel following a romantic breakup or losing a job
-reason they don't reduce dissonance about future events is because reducing dissonance is largely unconscious
External Justification book definition
-a reason or an explanation for dissonant behavior that resides outside the individual (e.g., in order to receive a large reward or avoid a severe punishment)
Hypocrisy Induction
-the arousal of dissonance by having individuals make statements that run counter to their behaviors and then reminding them of the inconsistency between what they advocated and their behavior
-The purpose is to lead individuals to more responsible behavior
(wide gap between knowing what you shod do and actually doing it)
-
Example of hypocrisy induction
Sexual behavior often accompanied by denial: but if wrote speech describing dangers of AIDS and advocating using condom every time have sex: those who just wrote more likely to fail to use condoms than those who recited in front of video and told high school students would watch
Why? the students who had to make video became aware of own hypocrisy (experiencing high dissonance)
-to remove the hypocrisy and maintain self-esteem, would need to start practicing what tehy were preaching
Connection between self-esteem and willingness to make behavioral changes
-the higher the participant's self-esteem, the greater was their intention to reduce dissonance in the most direct way (e.g. smoking)
Sobering Effect of dissonance
-in a study of giving shocks, those who knew their partner would have opportunity to retaliate against at later time did not derogate the victim-little dissonance becase the victim was going to be able to even the score
-in other case, need to belittle the victim in order to convince themselves that he or she deserved it
-sobering future consequences in war: dehumanize enemy to justify actions
To correct derogating victims
-must be able to resist the need to derogate: review own actions and realize if we have been at fault: acknowledge mistakes
Attitudes
-EVALUATIONS OF PEOPLE, OBJECTS, AND IDEAS (we evaluate what we encounter from attitudes)
-in order to be an attitude, must have some liking or disfavor associated with it
-(positive or negative evaluation of "attitude object"
-Attitudes differ from moods in that they are directed toward something (moods just general sentiment)
Definition of attitudes
-EVALUATIONS OF PEOPLE, OBJECTS, AND IDEAS
-IMPORTANT BC DETERMINE WHAT WE DO (choices)
-positive or negative evaluation of "attitude object"
bad...good
like...dislike
-Residues of past experience 9you carry your past experiences with you through your attitudes-if a certain kind of person betrayed you in past, you might be distrustful of that person in future)
-Reflect goals, personality traits
-gives us orientations to engage with in the world (things we think are going to be beneficial and avoid things we don't like)
3 Key Aspects that Attitudes Reflect
1. Affect-emotional reaction
(e.g. angry when people throwing recyclable trash in normal bin)
2. Cognition-thoughts/beliefs
(recycling helps the environment and will be somethign we will all have to learn in order to continue to live in a sustainable environment)
3. Behavior-behavioral reaction
(Complain about recycling bins on campus/save plastic bottles and put in recycling bin)
Where do our attitudes come from? Inherited?
-Some attitudes may be linked to our genes (studies comparing MZ and DZ twins [kids living in same fam vs apart)-can see how much traits are inherited and how much develop from experience)
High heritability coefficients for:
Activities:
crossword puzzles, organized religion, leader of groups, liking rollercoasters, doing athetlic activities, playing organized sports

Attitudes: open door immigration, abortion on demand
Implications of Twin Studies on Attitudes
-genes set general dispositions (e.g. intelligence, temperament) that shape environmental experiences that increase likelihood of developing certain attitudes (not specifics but general predispositions e.g. the difference tolerances we have for different people could become part of our attitudes toward immigration-specific attitude develops out of your experiences as a person who is either open or closed)
Where do attitudes come from? Experience?
-Social experiences also important in shaping attitudes
-Not all attitudes are created equally: Any given attitude can be based more on cognitive, affective, or behavioral experiences
-e.g. Affective: attitude toward food likely to be very affectively based: disgust at seeing someone eat an insect
-e.g. Cognitive: political attiudes should be based on understanding of the consequences of politcies and particular actoins
-Behavioral: sports-something you participate in actively could be just based on behaviorl attitudes, like sports because makes you feel good and a way of interacting with other people
Cognitively Based Attitudes
-An attitude based primarily on people's beliefs about the properties of an attitude object
-purpose is to classify the plusses and minuses of an object so we can quickly tell whether we want to have anything to do with it
Inferring Cognitively-Based Attitudes
-People use broader evaluations to generate specific thoughts: novel attitudes can be generated from existing broad convictions (convictions stronger on broader issue)
e.g. attitude on specific news item, penal reform, deduced from attitude on more general issue: capital punishment
e.g. attitude on sex discrimination news item deduced from attitudes toward equal rights for women and men
-when people cued and connection between general and established linked, more likely to generate specific from general
-more likely also when held very strong value on certain issue
Affectively Based Attitude
-Based largely on people's feelings and attitudes (NOT objective appraisal of positives and negs like cognitive; emotional)
-sometimes we simply like, or may feel certain way about someone or something, despite what we cognitively believe (could even feel great about something in spite of having negative beliefs)
-Come from:
1. People's values (e.g. religious and moral beliefs)
2. Sensory reactions (e.g. taste of chocolate)
3. Aesthethic reactions (admiring a painting or lines and color of a car)
4. Conditioning
-Basis of our democracy is an informed public, but estimate that 1/3 of the electorate knows nothing about specific politicians but still have strong feelings about them (vote more from hearts than minds)
Classical-Conditioning
-creates affect-based attitudes (attitudes can resultantly take on a positive of negative affect through classical conditioning)
-when a stimulus that elicits an emotional response is repeatedly paired with a neutral stimulus that does not, the neutral stimulus takes on the emotional properties of the first stimulus
EXAMPLES:
-shampoo (n.s.) + current dating partner + feelings
-smell shampoo=feelings (person originally generates positive feelings, associate with shampoo, then shampoo associates positive feelings)
-works best when people don't know much already about neutral stimulus
e.g. Lotto Commercial (not clear what about but basic purpose was our affect: the affect would be assoc with winning the loterry)
Operant Conditioning (Skinner)
-Creates affect-based attitudes attitudes can resultantly take on a positive of negative affect through operant)
-behaviors that people freely choose to perform increase or decrease in frequency when followed by reinforcements or punishments
-mechanism for learning attitudes
e.g. a 4 yr old Korean boy goes to playground and begins to play with White, European American boy-his parents question his choice, asking why he plays with "round eye"-boy learns to associate White with disapproval
Eel example of instrumental conditioning
-Attitudes not universal, so if you don't use this bank, you will be confused and potentially insult your customers
-the bank relies on poeple who are local to help deal with the customs, and if you don't use this bank, you will be punished in the same way as the man in the commercial
-consequences of our behavior will help us to form our attitudes: in this case, toward the bank
Behaviorally-Based attitudes
-An attitude based on observations of how one behaves toward an attitude object
-Revising Bem's Self-Perception Theory: under certain circumstances, people don't know how they feel until they see how they behave
e.g. you asked a friend how much she likes to exercise. If she replies, "Well, I guess I like it, because I always seem to be going for a run or heading over to the gym to work out," she has a behaviorally based attitude--based more on an observation of her behavior than on her cognitions or affect
Conditions Under Which People Infer Attitudes from Behaviors
1. Initial attitude is weak or ambiguous
2. When no other plausible explanations, such as a reward for behavior

( If your friend already has a strong attitude toward exercising, she does not have to observe her behavior to infer how she feels about it, or if your friend believes she exercises to lose weight or because her doctor has ordered her to, she is unlikely to assume that she runs and works out because she enjoys it
-Overjustification: when reading a book for a class, people often assume they are being motivcated by extrinsic reward and don't make a basis from their internal attitude
How do attitudes change?
-Change, often in response to social influence
-Even something as personal and internal as an attitude is highly social, influenced by the imagined or actual behavior of other people (whole pt of advertising)
Attitude Change: Lab and real-life
-We know that people DO change attitudes in lab
-Don't always perceive chainge: ILLUSION OF VULNERABILITY
-attitude scales: subjective experience of change<actual change
0we think others change and not ourselves: kind of cognitive-dissonance type explanation: we are motivated to be consistent, makes us seem more coherent and stable if we think we've had same attitudes all along
Third Person Effect
-Part of attitude change idea
-belief that others are influenced whereas you are not
-start to think that advertisers would not be spending huge amounts of $ on something if didnt think getting something back for it-probably more impacttful for other people than me
-turns out that people are more influenced by advertisements more than they think-studies shown if see a commercial for specific product, more likely to get that product-->shows advertising works, particularly for new products
Changing Attitudes by Changing behavior: Cognitive Dissonance Theory Revisited
-Attitudes follow behavior, especially when little external justification
Yale Attitude Change Approach
-When are people most likely to change their attitudes in response to persuasive messages?
-Focused on Who said What to Whom
-WHO: source of communication: expert? attractive?
-WHAT: communication: quality of arguments? both sides of issue?
-WHOM: audience-distracted? intelligent? self-esteem?
How do people process a persuasive message?
motivation: how important that topic is to a person's well-being
-e.g. issue of social security: importance to 72-year old w/ sole income from social security vs. 20 year-old from well-to-do family
Elaboration Likelihood Model: Central vs. Peripheral Processing
-Central: people are (1) motivated and (2) have the ability to pay attention to arguments in the communication (careful, thoughtful, and deliberate)
-Peripheral: people do not pay attention to arguments but are instead swayed by surface characteristics (using heuristics, rules of thumb to evaluate aP message)
Central Route to Persuasion
-When people are motivated to process a message and have the ability to do so, they will be most logically persuaded when the facts are logically compelling
(e.g. computer and motorcycle magazines-both have LOTS of information about the gear-advertisers assume both types of groups are highly motivated to know every detail to evaluate)
Peripheral Route to Persuasion
-When people are not motivated or not able to process a message, they notice the surface characteristics of a message: how long it is, who is delivering it, how it makes them feel
Elaboration Likelihood Model: Mandatory Senior Exams: central vs. peripheral
-Central (high-relevance): strong argument (will be reading them and thoughtfully evaluating), source does not matter because listening to information more
-Peripheral (low-relevance): weak argument (not carefully processing the info because not an issue that is relevant), more attention on who is speaking (expert) because relying on visual
Elaboration likelihood model
-ELM helps to explain confusion between when expert or argument matter: able to make predictions about when SOURCES would make a difference and when MESSAGE ARGUMENTS would make a difference-
-The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986; Petty et al., 2005), for example, specifies when people will be influenced by what the speech says (i.e., the logic of the arguments) and when they will be influenced by more superficial characteristics (e.g., who gives the speech or how long it is).
-Basis is how hard people are willing to work: not willing to work that hard if not highly motivcated to think ebyond the source expertise to think if actually a good policy
Using the ELM
1. Identify the MENTAL STATE of audience (how much will they elaborate?)
-MOTIVATED to process message arguments?
-ABLE to process message arguments?
2.MATCH PERSUASIVE TOOL(arguments,cues)2that state
-motivated and able means CENTRAL processing
-distracted, not knowledgeable, don't care=PERIPH
3. Use arugments and cues that are appropriate to the audience
-tailor the ads to what you think you will work best for the audience
e.g. if devising a political campaign
Example of ELM: Political Campaign
-Based on ELM, trying to figure out what people would respond to. Depends on:
-Attitudes: whether they would like the candidate (if more attractive candidate, will matter more to the less knowledgeable voters-pay more attention to the visual)
-Behavior: whether they would vote
-knowledgeable vs. less knowledgeable audience: more knowledgeable voters will be more infleunced by the stronger arguments
-strong vs. weak arguments (weaker knowledgeable voters will be less able to evaluate what is a stronger or weaker argument)
Long-Lasting Attitude Change
-Compared with people who base their attitudes on PERIPHERAL CUES, people will base their attitudes on a CENTRAL/CAREFUL ANALYSIS of the arguments will:
1. Maintain their attitude over time
2. Behave consistently with this attitude
3. Be more resistant to counter-persuasion
-if you can get people to read your arguments and change their attitudes based on this argument, they will maintain and remember why they changed it
Fear-Arousing Communications
persuasive messages that attempt to change people's attitudes by arousing their fears
e.g. sunscreen ads show what will look like if don't use sunscreen (skin cancer)
e.g. anti-tobacco ads
-if MODERATE AMOUNT OF FEAR is created and PEOPLE BELIEVE they can reduce this fear by following the message, then they will ANALYZE THE MESSAGE CAREFULLY and CHANGE their attitude via the CENTRAL route
Classic Study of Fear-Arousal (Levanthal)
-Showed smokers a film that they were going to get skin cancer
-3 different conditions
1. people who received a pamphlet explaining to them how to quit smoking
2. graphic film about lung cancer: all going to get, but no instructions on how to quit
3. Given scary film + recommendations about how to quit (so as to cancel the fear)
-If fear appeal based on moderate fear and reccomendations to help deal with it, would expect third option (both) to be most effective-true
-Watching the film scared people and giving them the pamphlet reassured them that there was a way to reduce this fear--by following instructions
Why the other 2 options in the Levanthal tobacco study didnt work
-Seeing only the film did not give information about how to reduce the fear
-Only reading the pamphlet didn't work wel lbecause little fear motivating people to read it carefully
-this may explain why some attempts to frighten people into changing their attitudes and behaviors fail. They succeed in scaring the people but do not provide specific recomenndations to help them reduce their fears
Fear-Arousal: Too Much Fear?
-Fear arousing appeals will also fail if they are so strong that they overhwlem people
-if people are too scared, they'll get defensive, deny the threat, and be unable to think rationally
-Need to scare, but also provide a solution
Resisting Persuasive Messages: Attitude Innoculation
-ATTITUDE INNOCULATION: making people immune to influence by initially exposing them to small doses of the arguments against their position
-When the full persuasive arguments hit them, they are already immune to them
-more likely to work with central route to persuasion instead of peripheral: if haven't thought much about issue, particularly susceptible to an attack on that attitude using logical appeals
CULTURAL TRUISMS: beliefs that members of a society accept uncritically, especially vulnerable to influence not based on much thought
Resisting Persuasive Messages: Being Alert to Product Placement
-For TV shows, can Tivo/DVR or leave room when commercials come on (2 year study showed 5% decrease in purchase of new packaged-goods products in homes with Tivo/DVR vs. homes that don't)
-So, advertisers use indirect advertising with product placement: TV/moves paid to display products
-2/3 of advertisers use product placement, about $3.6 billion spent in 2009
-consumers are very willing to buy if we see characters we like use particular products: may be fine, but may also influence us to buy products not really interested in purchasing or not necessary-we want control over this
-one reason p.p. works is b/c people do not realize that someone is trying to influence their attitudes and behavior (peoples' defenses are down)
-Children esp. vulnerable
Resisting Persuasive Messages: Forewarning
-When people are forewarned, they carefully analyze what they see and hear-may resist attitude change
-Without warnings, people pay little attention to persuasive attempts: accept them at face value
-So what to tell kids before they watch TV or go to moves?
-forewarn about advertisement techniques,
Do Attitudes Predict Behavior?
-Help us figure out what to approach and avoid: guides to help us decide what going to work or not (likes and dislikes of those trying to appeal to)
-Attitudes also socially influenced-social phenomena
BUT: no place in brain that is an attitude, hypothetical constructs
-we are making these things up as a way to try to explain behavior
-Attitudes only useful to the extent that they explain behavior: no physical thing to account for
"First" Attitude/behavior prediction study-LaPierre
-Driving cross-country, would sent Chinese couple (friends) ahead to see if deated at restaurants and given rooms at hotel
-Assessed behavior: were Chinese served? Yes, despite prejudices, at 249/250 establishments
-Assessed attitudes 6 months later: Surveyed same establishments, would you serve Chinese? No, only 8 places agreed to serve (time of a lot of anti-Chinese sentiments)
-SHOWED ONE THING TO HOLD A VALUE AND ANOTHER THING TO ACT UPON IT
-May have been thinking of poor stereotype of Chinese when answered, but when this educated, wealthy couple came in and approached, might have had different approach/thoughts
-Person who responded could've been different (but 249 vs. 8 major differnce)
-Also culd have been social awkwardness if threw out of restaurant, btu dif ans if asked hypothethically
Skepticism About Relation between Attitudes and Behaviors in the Field
-"it is considerably more likely that attitudes will be unrealted or only slightly related to over behaviors than that attitudes will be closely related to actions"
-Wicker (1969)-echoes LaPierre's findings
Predicting Spontaneous Behaviors
-Attitudes predict spontaneous behaviors only when they are highly accessible: AUTOMATICITY
The Researcher's Dilemma of Predicting behaviors from attitudes
-What attitudes? What behaviors?
e.g. Attitude toward Iraq wont predict eating Big Macs
e.g. Attitude toward rap won't predict voting 4 obama
-Class example of attitudes vs. behaviors showed that general attitudes predict overall general behaviors, but hard to predict any one specific behavior
-Attitudes and behavior measures match when specific
-e.g. General attitudes toward healthful foods--> general behavior across all healthful foods
-e.g. Specific attitudes-->specific behavior (the more specific the attitude, the more it correlates with specific behavior)
Attitude-Behavior Prediction: Birth Control Study
-Had to assess women's attitudes toward THEMSELVES using birth control pills to predict their specific behavior (if will use birth control pills during 2 years of study)
-Didn't work to ask them general question about how they feel about birth control
How Know if Measures (attitude & behavior) match?
-Attitude/Behavior Diagram:
1. Target=attitude object
-Attitudes differ from moods in that they are
directed toward a particular object (e.g. bc pill)
2. Action=particular action specified
e.g. reading labels, buying healthy foods
3. Context=siituation
e.g. only when with friends, only if living in dorm?
4. Time=time period specified
Attitude should predict behavior if attitude and behavior correspond across the 4 components
Davidson and Jaccard Birth Control Pill Diagrammed
(put in diagrams)
Will these attitudes predict behaviors?
Attitude: Desire to get a good job after graduation?
Behavior: How many hrs u spend studying per week
Target: A-good job; B-studying
Action: A-getting it; B-me studying
Context: none
Time: A-after graduation
No: don't match
Predict? Attitude toward birth control (in general) r=.08
Behavior: me using BC pills in next 2 years
Target: A-BC; B-BC pills
Action: none; me using
Context: none for both
Time: none; next 2 years
-Does not predict: general to specific
Predict? Attitude toward me using birth control in next two years
Behavior: me using BC pills in next 2 years
r=.57
Target: A-BC pills; B-BC pills
Action: A-me using; B-me using
Context: none
TIme: next two years, next two years
-Attitude DOES predict behavior: target and action the same
Definition of Conformity
-A change in behavior due to real, imagined, or implied presence of others
Conformity: Yawning
-Fixed action pattern lasting about 6 seconds
0when bored, tense, sleepy, influenced by others!
-Even when others' mouths covered
Conformity: Laugh tracks
-Laugh track or comedy shows especially influential when we think audience is folks like us (recorded here at USC-basic social influences)
Home Court Advantage?
-Biased refereeing: not fan enthusiasm, travel, tailoring the team to the park
-in the NFL, home teams receive fewer penalties tha away times (about half a penalty less per game) and are charged with fewer yards per play
-Even unbiased referees might call more fouls on visitors, use crowd noise as a guide-fans scream when a visitor trips an opponent-so more likely to correctly "convict" the visiting players
-Shows even social influence on expert referees
Informational Social Influence: What's "Right"
-Pick up cues of acceptable behaviors (clothes, eating in class, how get around campus), from people around you-end up doing similar things to those who you are friends with
-Often most of us look to see what others are doing in a situation (like woman and man fighting): if others think emergency, we will likely try to address but ignore if others do
-BOOK DEF: the influence of other people that leads us to conform because we see them as source of info to guide our behavior; we conform bc we believe that others' interpretation of an ambiguous situation is more correct than ours and will help us choose an appropriate course of action
-when situation (1) ambiguous, (2) a crisis, (3) others are experts
Definition of Informational Social Influence
-conforming to others because they provide useful, accurate information to guide behavior
-especially in ambiguous situations (relying upon others for information about how you should respond)
-
Informational Social Influence: Private influence vs. Public Compliance
PRIVATE INFLUENCE/ACCEPTANCE: conforming out of a genuine belief that they are right (central processing more likely to lead-changes people's beliefs about an issue because deliberate about what is right and wrong)
-PUBLIC COMPLIANCE: conforming without necessarily believing it's right (peripheral processing more likely to lead to public compliance-more thinking about the pros and cons)
-informational conformity (public) can be used to produce private acceptance (e.g. "social norms approach" w/ alcohol use, reduce ambiguity about drinking norms to reduce alcohol intake by teens)
Informational Influence: Trying to Be Accurate-lineup study
heard 3 other "participants" (confederates) give judgments first-purposely wrong
-High importance group more likely to conform-study more important and deliberating more carefully (motivated to "get things right")--demonstrates informational influence: 51% conformity
-When highly motivated to be right, still rely on others-but can't really figure out what the correct answer is
-Because there is uncertain information, we rely upon others for information
-In low motivation, less likely to conform: 35%
-high motivation: when one's personal safety is involved, need for information is acute and the behavior of others very informative
-in alternative study where clear who right person was, even when group is clearly wrong & even strong incentives to be accurate, they still conformed sometimes-people still find it difficult to risk social disapproval, even from strangers
Very likely to be influenced by others when the situation is:
1. AMBIGUOUS (unsure of what is correct response, appropriate behavior, what is right-MOST CRUCIAL VARIABLE in determining how much people use each other as source of information)
2. CRISIS (immediate action, feel scared and panicky, we usually do not have time to think about what action to take-need to act immediately)
3. OTHERS ARE EXPERTS (very likely to be influential-the more expertise or knowledge a person has, the more valuable he or she will be as a guide in ambiguous situation)
When are other people a good source of information?
Ask yourself:
1. Do they know more about what is going on than me
2. Is there an expert?
3. Are others' actions aligned with my moral compass/ my sense of right and wrong?
Normative Social Influence: The Need to Be Accepted
Humans by nature a social species-acceptance from other critical to well-being
-Being excluded by others is stressful and traumatic
Social Norms
-SOCIAL NORMS: implicit or explicit rules a group has for the acceptable behaviors, values, and beliefs of its members
-groups have certain expectations about how group members should behave, and members in good standing conform to these rules (if don't, seen as deviant-can be punished, ridiculed, or rejected by other group members)
Normative Social Influence Def
-conforming to others in order to be liked or accepted by them
-being deprived of human contact is stressful and traumatic
-leads to public compliance with group's beliefs and behaviors: May be limited to public compliance without private acceptance
-Conformity for normative reasons occurs in situations where we do what other people are doing not because we are using them as a source of information but because we won't attract attention, be made fun of, get into trouble, or be rejected.
Classic Study on Normative Social Influence-Solomon Asch's Line Study
-Thought psychologists wrong idea in arguing that everyone will be influence in behavior by others
-Tried to set up a situation where thought nobody would go along with others' judgments
When the group said or did something that contradicted an obvious truth, Asch thought surely people would resist social pressures and decide for themselves what was going on (very clear right answer what right answer was-no ambiguity)
-Thought would be able to demonstrate people not influenced by others when know what the right answer is
-Shown stimulus line and supposed to indicate which other lines are same; 6-8 others give wrong answer, then subject had to say what his or her judgment was
-People conformed on average on about 1/3 of the 12 trials in which accomplices gave the wrong answer
Results of Line Study
-When people giving judgments alone, about 100% accurate
-But when in a group where everyone gives the wrong answer,--even though you know the correct one, 40% of the time, will go along with incorrect answers given by the people around you (only 24% never conformed at all; sizable # conformed every time)
-Normative social influence: for many participants, public compliance, but only a few reported private acceptance <--worried about social implications of disagreeing with others
-Conformity is surprising because correct answer so clear-and no incentive to go along with perfect strangers, but still do
-conformity for normative reasons can occur simply because we do not want to risk social dissaproval
-Brain imaging research suggests that normative social influence occurs bc people feel negative emotions, such as discomfort and tension when they stand up for their beliefs
Social Impact Theory
-Conformity Depends on the following factors:
1. Strength (importance of the group)
2. Immediacy (how close group is to you in space and time during attempt to influence you)
3. Number of people in the group
-conformity will increase as strength and immediacy increases
-more likely to conform when groups are large more
and more influence until about 3 people, tapers off
after that: the more people there are, the less focus
on you [opinion matters less] when 2 people give
answer, some validation of their views, further with
3 but beyond that is unnecessary, no further impact
-Going from three people to four makes more of a
difference than going from fifty-three people to
fifty-four. (book says once group reached four or five, conformity does not increase much...so limit is 3?)
Social Impact Theory: Allies
-If one person in the group dissents, they provide social support for deviation
e.g. 1 supporter in group of 5 vs. 1 in group of 15: both have relief mechanism (beyond 3, everyone the same)
The Difficulty of Being the Lone Dissenter: Even in the U.S. Supreme Court
-The most common decision ratio is unanimous (9-0 vote) among the Justices (35%)
-The least common decision is 8-1 with a single dissenter (10%)
-Idea that the court would be unanimous and 8-1 only 10% surprising when think about the issues debating about: lower courts have struggled by SC judges don't like to be out there
Normative Social Perspective Over Time, place
A meta-analysis of 133 Asch line-judgment studies conducted in seventeen countries showed that cultural values affected normative social influene
-Review of 133 studies in 17 countries (Bond & Smith)
1. More recent studies, less conformity
2. % of female participants: more conformity (women more likely to conform than men-women tend to be more agreeable; could be part of it)
3. Majority part of outgroup, less conformity (e.g. if UCLA students were USC students less likey to conform)
4. More collectivist societies (like Asia) are more conformist
Minority Opinions Sometimes Influential
-Groups with deviant opinions can impact social change (influence in the beliefs of the majority)
-Elizabeth Cady Stanton
MLK Jr
Thomas Paine, author of Rights of Man
-Until the 1970s, psychologists did not think of minorities as being influential
Minority Influence Definition
-a numerical minority of group members influence the behavior or beliefs of the majority (not ethnic, racial: opinion minorities, deviant opinions)
-Minorities that are CONSISTENT and CERTAIN attract attention (not normative influence)
-Rejected overtly initially--people want to be part of majority
-must be consistent over time and different members of the minority must agree with each other
-able to use Informational influence to introduce new and unexpected info and causes group to examine issues more carefully
-But eventually convince people that they are right (how social change comes about)
-can rarely use other group members to conform through normative influence
Do Minorities Have an Impact?
-Information: how people interpret issue
-Results in validation Process-get people to rethink issue by framing it in a certain ay and taking position that attracts attentions (not immediate, delayed)
-Usually not a specific issue, but a related one
e.g. Inconvenient Truth-argues for a lifestyle change-instead we might buy carbon credits (but won't stop flying necessarily)-might sensitize to broader issue if minority opinion too radical to follow: still look for other ways to conform
-Tea Party movement wants to reduce govt spending, less taxes, refuce fed budget deficit, original interpretation of Consitmost people see too radical, but likely to affect opinion if maintain consistent opinion clearly
Data on Minority Opinions
-We don't really know if minorities have a direct influence or not
-Wood conducted a meta analysis of minority influence
1. Compared minorities to majorities
-Direct influence: majority more influential (people want to be like majorities; may also have informational influence)
-Indirect influence: slight trend in the direction of minorities having more influence on indirect measures
Leniency Effect
-Minorities are more influential when they are in-group members
-We are very lenient to people in our own group-
-People listen, might not agree on direct measures, but don't contradict minorities (eventually persuaded on indirect measures)--we don't reject minority position in the same way we would outsiders, so we are influenced by them on indirect measures
Change in Meaning: A kind of informational influence
-What a statement means really depends on who endorses it (e.g. if KKK vs. founding fathers endorsing opinion that world basically fair and people who work hard get ahead in life)
-Wood study: told students Klan very much in favor of above issue: students changed their attitudes so that it shifted away from what Klan's was (became much more mid-scale on this particular item, simply bc wanted to deviate from clan)
-People change own attitude if originally in compliance with disliked minority
-If weren't able to change attitude, self-esteem drops
-Use group's values to determine issues and reject positions of other groups bc using those vcalues to interpret issues
Obedience to Authority
-Obedience social norm valued in every culture (to obey legitimate authority figures; otherwise chaos)
-Part of socialization is figuring out who the authority figures are and how to obey them
Interalizing Obedience
-we usually obey rules and laws even when authority figures not present
-e.g. stop at red lights even if cops not parked at corner
-However, obedience can have serious condesequences: when people obey orders of authority figure to hurt or kill others
Milgram's Study of Obedience
-Inspired by Holocaust, began in July 1961, 1 yr after Adolf Eichmann trials
-Decided to put people in setting where influenced by others to do horrinle things
-psychologists expected that 1% of population would administer lethal electric shocks (450 volts)
-Started with control condition: performing task alone
-Such high levels of obedience even when doing alone-changed research question
-Found we can do terrible things without group influence
-As soon as remove experimenter (authority figure) from the room, much less compliance/obedience
Milgram results
-62.5% administered lethal shock
-Normative Pressures: when 2 other teachers refused to continue, much easier to say no (if role model refuses, teacher also refuses)
-No participants experienced long-term consequences, but likely much more self-aware
Factors Affecting Compliance in Milgram
1. How close teacher was to learner (victim)
2. How close teacher to experimenter (authority)
-when experimenter left and fellow colleague of participant encouraged to increase shock, much less likely to do so (lacked expertise, much less likely to be used as source of information for response-only 20% complied)
-when 2 experimenters in charge and began to disagree, 100% of participants stopped-authorities' definiton of situation became unclear so participant broke out of conforming role
What was it about Milgram situation that makes the influences/pressure so great?
-Assume the authority figure thought through the potential harm, makes it easier to carry out
-Assume they are responsible (clearly causing harm even if completely believe everything experimenter saying about no lasting harm)
-If we can transfer responsiblity to someone else, we will do all kinds of actions we would normally say we wouldn;t do: POWER OF EXPERIMENTER
-COMBO OF NORMATIVE AND INFORMATIONAL INFLUENCES:
N-a lot of pressure from experimenter to obey
I-ambiguous, people didnt know how to act-when experimenter left the room, no longer a legitimate authority to help participant define situation: significantly reduced level of obedience
Milgram Connection to Holocaust
-Eichmann figured that when the Nazis had to actually kill inmates (shoot face-on), the solders didn't like, made uncomfortable
-Where gas chambers came from: could put in and kill and nobody could see; didn't feel personally responsible: "learner" and "teacher" in separate rooms
-Had to "follow orders" no personal responsibility
-Combo of informational and normative influence: N-if other people saying not going to deliver shock, teachers reduce level; I-Germans conditioned to think of Jews a certain way
Other Examples of Obedience: Abu Gharib: Why?
1. -Orders: Lyndie England said that she had been ordered to, for example, poimt the camera at detainee's genitals while signaling a thumb's up (told to wear prisoners down)
2. -Breakdown of military discipline and authority inside the prison
3. -Hard environment: England's company anticipated they'd work as traffic cops, but instead stood guard 10-16 hrs/day; 6-7 days/wk in an overcrowded prison
-temperatures inside up to 100 degrees, mortar shells pelted roof--> 4. pressures of time, stress
5. Incremental steps: self-justification
6. Limited personal responsibility: "following orders"
-Tells us somethign about the Nazis that not particularly bad people, but instead it is in the social context
Why Do Humans Live in Groups?
-All large primates live in groups
-Survival benefits: protect from predators, get food, rear children, defend against others
What is a group:
Group: two or more people who interact and are interdependent; influence each other
Interdependent: mutually dependent, one person in group depends on the other
-ways for aggregations (shoppers in store) to become a group, but must interact and become interdependent in some way
Why do people join groups?
1. Informational: source of info, helps to resolve ambiguity about the world (tells us what to do)
2. Normative: an important part of our identity: helps us to define who we are
3
The Composition and Functions of Groups
-Most interacting groups have 2 to 6 members
-In real-world, interacting groups tend to be:
-alike in age, sex, beliefs, opinions,
because:
1. Groups attract people who are already similar (provide most info and help us to define an identity)
2. Groups operate in way that encourage similarity in members
Social norms vs. social roles
-SOCIAL ROLES: shared expectations in a group about how PARTICULAR PEOPLE are supposed to behave
e.g. Leader-supposed to make decisions for everyone in group
e.g. Teacher
-Surprising how much we share these expectations and how general these standards of social roles are
e.g. stanford Prison Experiment
Stanford Prison Experiment
-Zimbardo's group built a mock prison in the basement of psych dept at Stanford University and paid students to play the role of guard or prisoner (determined by flip of coi(
-Lost themselves in the roles they were playing (boundary between real-life and role playing blurred)
-Example of how social roles take over our behavior
-Had to stop after 6 days-prisoners suffering psychologically
Why?
-Uniforms (physical), full immersion (for prisoners), incremental (got more into over time), hard not to be influenced when given such strong social expectations and roles that we all undestand
Power of Stanford Experiment
-Showed power of social roles in governing our behavior
-Powerful bc shows us what we CAN do given a certain situation-push our understanding of who we are (hard to see out of our day-to-day lives)
Gender Roles
-All societies have expectations of how men and women should behave
-Changing roles influence who we are, even affecting our personalities
-Women's self-rating of assertiveness mirror societal roles (when in the working field vs. at home, more assertive)
-Shows personalities change with social roles: has to do with people's experiences and sense of competence and confidence in themselves
-e.g. when go out to work, need to contribute, be outspoken to be successful-so women develop skills, get educatied and use education: influences assertiveness
Biology in Social Roles
-A lot of what we think are innate differents are at least a very complex product of biology and learning: and these sex differences can shift over time
-On many levels of assertiveness, men and women currently do not differ greatly
-Social roles you fill will have great influence on who you are
Triplet's Early Studies (Social Faciliation)
-1898
-Bicyclist: noticed if you ride with other peoeple, you go faster than if you are going alone
-don't even need to cycle with you, just be in the same place and situation
Social Facilitation: When the Presence of Others Energizes us
SOCIAL FACILITATION: better performance on simple tasks and worse performance on complex tasks when others are present (Zajoric clarified this phenonmenon)
SIMPLE TASKS: repetitive, like running or bicycling-presence of others makes do better
COMPLEX TASKS: must deliberate and come up with thoughtful answers-worse
Presence of Others
PRESENCE OF OTHERS:
1. Performing a task with coworkers doing the same thing as you
2. Performing a task in front of others observing oyu
Cockroaches in relation to presence of others
-in dozens of studies, presence of others improves performance when task relatively simple, well-learned
-Cockroaches: run faster when group of other cockroaches observing from end of maze where light (they don't like) to food on other end
-With difficult tasks, takes people longer to perform when others present than when performing alone
-For cockroaches, solving a complex maze in which they had to run toward a light to find a darkened area--do much worse with box of other cockroaches (hard bc has to go against natural response of running away from light)
Arousal and Dominant Response in Social Faciliation
Presence of others:
1. Increases physiological arousal (our bodies become more energized)
2. When aroused, tend to to what's learned (correct for simple tasks, not complex or new tasks)
We become aroused in presence of others bc:
1. Alert and vigilant: wonder what they (others) will do (even cockroaches same way with arousal)
2. Evaluation Apprehension (want others to think well of us)
3. Distraction (trying to do both the task and attend to the audience)
What is the effect of work environment on tasks?
-Office: probably not a good idea to do new, challenging task ; Cubicle: only simple things
-Test:
-If you've studied really hard (well-learned), want to take in large classroom situation where slightly aroused
-if haven't studied much, more thinking involved, would want to take alone (more essay test or mc where havent studied)
Social Loafing
-Presence of many others can relax us
-When working with others, indivdiual efforts can't be identified and evaluated
-Important with impairment: other people arouse when in the spotlight, but when spotlight not on you, you are less noticeable and thus relaxed
-OPPOSITE OF SOCIAL FACILIATION
Early research of social loafing
-noise of 6 people shouting or clapping "as loud as you can" was <3 times as loud as one person alone (6 people loafing)
-Study where put on headphones so couldnt tell how many others were present (just told there were others)
-Student predicted would be louder in groups bc less inhibited, but actually when believed 5 people there, produced 1/3 less noise than when believed alone
DEF of Social Loafing
-When people are in the presence of others and individual performance can't be evaluated
-Do worse on simple tasks
-Do better on complex tasks (not as aroused-doesnt get in the way)
-Assuming a minimum effort
-better to work in groups when material is touch: to be relaxed and better able to think material through
examples of cognitively based attitudes
-vacuum cleaner: attitude likely to be based on beliefs about object merits of particular brands (like how well they perform) and cost, not how sexy they make you feel
examples of affect-based attitudes
-politics, sex, religion
-views on abortion, death penalty, premarital sex: all often based more on values than cold examination of facts
-sensory reactions: like liking the taste of chocolate
-aesthetic reactions admiring painting
Explicit Attitudes
attitudes we consciously endorse and can easily report
-rooted more in recent experiences
Implicit Attitudes
attitudes that are involuntary, uncontrollable, and at times unconscious
-rooted in childhood experiences
-e.g. if have a negative implicit attitude toward African Americans (even if explicitly support affirmative action), will likely influence behaviors not monitoring or controlling, like how nervous he acts around African Americans
internal justification for attitude change
in order to change one's beliefs about negative practice, must give internal justification to speak against and thus change behavior to reduce cog dissonance
Persuasive Communication
-Communication (e.g. a speech or television ad) advocating a particular side of an issue
Yale Attitude Change Approach (book definition)
-The study of conditions under which people are most likely to change their attitudes in response to persuasive messages, focusing on "who said what to whom"--the source of the communication, the nature of the communication, and the nature of the audience
Need for Cognition
-A personality variable reflecting the extent to which people engage in and enjoy effortful activities
-People high in the need for cognition more likely to form their attitudes by paying close attention to relevant arguments
-People low in need for cognition more likely to rely on peripheral cues (like how attractive or credible speaker is)
Confidence in Argument Change
-The more confident people are in their thoughts about a product, the more likely they are to believe your appeal to change their attitude
Reactance Theory
-the idea that when people feel their freedom to perform a certain behavior is threatened, an unpleasant state of reactance is aroused, which they can reduce by performing the threatened behavior
Attitude Accessibility (Predicting Behaviors from Attitudes)
ATTITUDE ACCESSIBILITY: the strength of the association between attitude object and a person's evaluation of that object, measured by the speed with which people can repeat how they feel about object
-When accessibility is high, ur attitude comes to mind whenever you see or think about that attitude object
-When accessibility low,attitude comes to mind more slowly
-Follows that highly accessible attitudes will be more likely to predict spontaneous behaviors because people are more likely to be thinking about their attitude when they are called on to act
-One important determinant is degree of direct behavioral exeperience people have w the attitude object (the more direct, the more accessibility--the more sponaneous behaviors will be consistent with attitudes)
theory of planned behavior
-the idea that the best predictors of a person's planned, deliberate behaviors are the person's attitudes toward specific behaviors, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control
SPECIFIC ATTITUDES: only specific attitudes toward the behavior in question can be expected to predict that behavior
SUBJECTIVE NORMS: peoples' beliefs about how people they care about will view the behavior in question (can be very important in predicting intentions)
PERCEIVED BEHAVIORAL CONTROL: intentions are influenced by the ease with which people believe they can perform the behavior--if think it is easy to perform the behavior, more likely to do so
Specific attitudes
-the theory of planned behavior holds that only specific attitudes toward the behavior in question can be expected to predict that behavior
(birth control)
Subliminal Messages
-words or pictures that are not consciously perceived but may nevertheless influence people's judgments, attitudes, and behaviors
-no evidence that they have any influence on people's behavior, but is evidence can be influenced under careful laboratory conditions
-Regardless, ads much more powerful when people consciously perceive them
Contagion
-the rapid spread of emotions of behaviors through a crowd
-in a truly ambiguous and confusing situation, other people may be no more knowledgable or accurate than we are--if other people are misinformed, we will adopt their mistakes and misinterpretations
-depending on others to define the situation can therefore lead us into serious inaccuracies
mass psychogenic illness
the occurence, in a group of people, of similar physical symptoms with no known physical cause
-this form of contagion usually begins with just 1 person reporting phsyical symptoms (usually someone experiencing stress in his or he r life)
-other people construct what seems to be reasonable explanation for illness-new defintion spread, and more people begin to think they have the symptoms too
-as # of those afflicted grows, both the physical symptoms and their supposed explanation become more credible and thus more widespread
-mass media plays powerful role in dissemination
Idiosyncrasy Credits
-Tolerance a person has over time, by conforming to group norms; if enough idiosnycrasy credits are earned, the person can, on occasion, behave deviantly without retribution from the group
Cultural differences in conformity
-Even though Japan culture more highly conforming than our own in many areas, two Asch-type studies found that when the group unanimously gave the incorrect answer, the Japanese students less conformist in general than N. Americans
-In japan, cooperation and loyalty directed to groups in which one belongs and identifies, little expectation should conform to behavior of complete strangers, esp in artificial setting (same with Germany)
-Meta-anaylsis found conformity is valued trait in collectivist cultures, not a negative one like in US
Reasons Why Difficult for people to abandon "obey authority" norm in the Milgram experiments:
1. Fast-paced nature: prevented participants from reflecting on wat they were doing-hard to realize that the norm that was guiding their behavior became no longer appropriate
2. Self-justification: every time a person makes a difficult decision, dissonance is produced, w/ resultant pressures to reduce it (if builds up incrementally, can justify in small amounts at each stage-each shock and its justification laid the groundwork for the next shock-hard to put a lmit on where to stop
3. Loss of personal responsibility: other is a legitimate authroty-they define what you are supposed to do and responsible for the end results
Why Milgram's Study Unethical
1. involved deception
2. no true informed consent
3. psychological distress
4. not told of right to withdraw
5. inflicted insight: learned things about themselves (e..g they would obey to hurt someone) they had not agreed to beforehand
6.
This set is often in folders with...