Midterm 2

Social Class

the amount of wealth, education, and occupational prestige individuals and their families enjoy.

Thought Polarization Hypothesis

the hypothesis that more extended thought about a particular issue tends to produce a more extreme, entrenched attitude

covariation principle

the idea that behavior should be attributed to potential causes that occur along with the observed behavior Trying to determine what causes - internal or external, symptomatic of the person in question or applicable to nearly everyone - "covary" with the observation or effect we're trying to explain

Identifiable Victim Effect

the tendency to be more moved by the vivid plight of a single individual than by a more abstract number of people

Attributions about Controllability

Bernard Weiner and Craig Anderson did research that emphasized whether attribution implies that a given outcome is controllable Attributions for failure that imply controllability (lack of effort or poor strategy) make it easier to persevere because we can always try harder or try new strategy. If we view outcomes as too out of control, it's more tempting to give up People can be trained to adopt more productive attributional tendencies for academic outcomes If you attribute failed grades with failure in effort rather than brain, you're more likelier to try harder and restore hope and unleash productive energy

What are two reasons we rely on selective attention and selective evaluation to respond to information to maintain our POV?

People are inclined to attend selectively to information that confirms their original attitudes We tune out information that contradicts them - Ex) students who either supported or opposed the legalization of marijuana listened to a message that advocated legalization. Message contained 14 arguments: 7 strong and difficult to retue (appealing to people pro-legalization) and 7 silley and easy to refute (appealing to people anti-legalization) → students heard them with a buzz in the background. There was a button that could stop the buzz for 5 seconds - Results: pro-legalization students pushed button when it was stronger argument and vice versa We not only seek out and pay disproportionate attention to information that supports our attitudes; we also selectively evaluate the information we find, looking favorably on material that agrees with our point of view and critically on information that contradicts it. - Ex) Ziva Kunda (1990) had female and male students read a story presented as a New York Times article describing how caffeine consumption in females is associated with an increased risk of fibrocystic disease - Half of participants were high-caffeine users and half were low-caffeine users -Independent of caffeine use, male participants found article fairly convincing. Females with low-caffeine consumption also found article convincing but high-caffeine using females were less convinced and were more critical of it

self-serving attributional bias

People are inclined to attribute their own failure and other bad events to external circumstances, but to attribute their successes and other good events to themselves or internal attributes People more prone to self-serving bias to make themselves feel good

Descriptive norms

People's perceptions of how people actually behave in given situations, regardless of whether the behavior is approved or disapproved of by others

What is important about causal attribution?

Provides us with different emotions depending on what you get out of it Systematic research has shown that people's explanations have tremendous consequences in a number of areas, including health and education

Automatic Mimicry

Psychological copying of actions or behaviors ex) researchers asked participants to describe photographs with a confederate. Confederate would do a behavior (foot tapping, scratching) and they taped the participant's behavior → mimicked Tendency to mimic others is particularly strong when people have a need to affiliate with others and when the others in question are well liked We tend to mimic others as a way of laying the groundwork for smooth, gratifying interaction → shown to engage in more pro-social behavior immediately after (giving tons of money to charity etc)

Negative state relief hypothesis

taking an action to benefit someone else, especially when it's for a good cause, is one way to make ourselves feel better. In other words, we often help others to help ourselves

Just World Hypothesis

the belief that people get what they deserve in life ex) victims of abuse and rape are often viewed as responsible for their own fate → if there is no history behind this (childhood trauma etc) people will go as far to believe they were this way in "another life" Shows how far people will go to maintain their belief in a just world

normative social influence

the desire to avoid being criticized, disapproved of, or shunned People often reluctant to depart from norms of society/subgroups they are about most for fear of social consequence

Self-Validation Theory

the idea that feeling confident about our thoughts serves as a form of validation for them, making it more likely that we'll be swayed in their direction When we have doubts about our thoughts, we might disregard the thought entirely or endorse opposing attitude Ex) we might have number of arguments against against posting Ten Commandments in the city courthouse, but coming up with counter arguments is so hard that we end up accepting the idea

Augmentation Principle

the idea that people should assign greater weight to a particular cause of behavior if other causes are present that normally would produce a different outcome Typically we can be more certain that a person's action reflect what that person is really like if the circumstances would seem to discourage such action (standing your ground on a certain opinion even if you're being threatened) AKA: Easy to conclude about someone if they're "out of role" vs conclude about someone behaving "in role"

Discounting Principle

the idea that people should assign reduced weight to a particular cause of behavior if other plausible causes might have produced it Requires us to simultaneously weight what we've seen (heard or read) about the person's behavior, and the context of that behavior, to determine the kind of person we're dealing with - to decide whether to draw a dispositional inference Ex) pure logic tells us that everyone's going to act sunny when they're at an interview so we can't completely be confident about their disposition Discount the possibility that what we've seen tell us something about the person involved because we imagine that nearly everyone would act similarly in that context

Social Influence

the many ways people affect one another - Involves changes in behavior and/or attitudes that result from the comments, actions, or even the mere presence of others - People try to influence us all the time ( drinking, advertisers, parents) - We try to influence others (frown at certain behaviors, coax friend into doing favor)

Third Person Effect

the theory that people believe others are more affected by media messages than they are themselves Ex) participants judged the likely impact of three media presentations on themselves and on other respondents - three presentations - a political ad campaign, a story about levels of violence portrayed in media, and campaign designed to deter people from associating with individuals who drink and drive- participants rated others as more likely to be influenced than themselves - Tried to see if more exposure to certain ads made the people more in line with the ads position vs less exposure → but these were made through surveys so might be skewed (notoriously fallible) . Some people might be more motivated to watch more political ads than others

Metacognition

thinking about our own thinking aka secondary thoughts that are reflections on primary cognitions We have both primary cognitions (the thoughts themselves) and secondary cognitions (reflections on the thoughts we just had) ex) finding 6 examples of assertiveness vs 12. Those providing 6 rated themselves more assertive because it was easier. Whereas coming up with 12 is harder so people thought the harder it is, the less assertive they must be

Norm Based Approach

Based on power of social norms → appeal to both the mind and heart

Message Characteristics

aspects, or content, or a persuasive message, including quality of the evidence and the explicitness of its conclusions

What are the two routes to persuasion when trying to change people's old habits, strong preferences, and adjustment of daily routines?

Elaboration-Likelihood Model (ELM) and Heuristic-Systematic Model (HSM)

Emotion Based Approach

Emotion based approaches aim at heart and are powerful tools for compliance positive mood and negative mood (likely to help someone)

Reciprocal Concessions Technique

first favor is so large and unreasonable that the target inevitably refuses, slamming the door in the face of that request but then keeping it open just a crack for the subsequent, smaller request (aka door in the face technique) ex) chaperoning juvenile delinquents at zoo. People said yes after they were asked if they would counsel juvenile delinquents for 2 years. HAS to be the same person asking because there's a pressure to respond to what was perceived as a concession if only on person asks

What are two types of conformity?

Implicit: decide to toss out loose-fitting jeans in favor of tighter cut (or vice versa) because people are doing so Explicit: group members encouraging you to smoke

Is conformity a bad thing?

Not necessarily. Evolutionary psychologists and anthropologists have argued that tendency to conform is generally beneficial → we are often well served by doing what others are doing, unless we have a good reason not to There are bad, neutral, and good points for conformity

What are two ways our minds sometimes respond selectively to information in a way that maintains our initial POV?

Selective attention and selective evaluation

Situational Attribution

When all three types of the covariation principle are high (something must be special about the math class that Diane likes)

How does motivation and ability determine whether we will engage in central or peripheral processing?

- Motivation To devote time and energy to a message: when message has personal consequences - bears on our goals, interests, or well being - more likely to go through the central route and carefully work through arguments and relevant information - Ability When we have sufficient cognitive resources and time, we're able to process persuasive messages more deeply Knowledge about attitude issue or objects also affects factor - the more we know, the more thoughtfully we're able to scrutinize a persuasive message When ability is low (ex: arguments in persuasive message are being presented too quickly or is hard to comprehend) more apt to rely on easy-to-process, peripheral cues associated with the message, such as credentials of message source Being tired or distracted also makes peripheral processing more likely

What are some factors of the actor-observer difference?

1) Assumptions about what needs explaining can vary for actors and observers a) When asked about your choice in major, you believe your characteristic is a given → not included in explanation b) When asked about a friend's choice in major, their characteristic is not a given so you explain details about them 2) Perceptual salience of the actor and surrounding situation is different for the actor and observer a) Actor is typically oriented outward, toward situational opportunities and constraints b) Observers are typically focused on the actor and actor's behavior c) People tend to make attributions to potential causes that are perceptually salient, it makes sense that actors will tend to attribute their behavior to the situation, while observers will tend to attribute that same behavior to the actor 3) Actors and observers differ in the amount and kind of information they have about the actor and the actor's behavior a) Actors know when intentions influenced them to behave in a certain way; observers can only guess at those intentions b) Actors are more likely to know when particular actions are typical of them or not c) ex) observer may see someone slam door and conclude he's angry person. But, actor might know this is an unprecedented outburst and hence does not warrant such a sweeping conclusion

What are the three types of the covariation principle?

1) Consensus: what most people would do in a given situation. Does everyone behave the same way in that situation, or do few other people behave that way? If your friend one of a previous few who likes her stats class, or do most students like the class? All else being equal, the more an individual's reaction is shared by others (when consensus is high), the less it says about that individual and the more it says about the situation 2) Distinctiveness: what an individual does in different situations. Is a particular behavior unique to a specific situation, or does it occur in many situations? Does your friend seem to like all math classes, or even all classes in general, or does she just like her stats class? The more someone's reaction is confined to a particular situation (when distinctiveness is high), the less it says about that individual and the more it says about the specific situation 3) Consistency: what an individual does in a given situation on different occasions. Is the behavior the same now as in the past, or does it vary? Does your friend have favorable things to say about today's stats class only, or has she raved about the course all semester? The more an individual's reaction varies across occasions (when consistency is low), the harder it is to make a definite attribution either to the person or to the situation. The effect is likely due to some less predictable combination of circumstances

What are factors affecting conformity pressure?

1) Group Size Conformity increases as size of group increases BUT effects of group size levels off pretty quickly → conformity as group size increases but only to certain extent (group size of three or four) after that, conformity levels off 2) Group Unanimity When just one other member of the group deviated from the majority, then you feel you have an ally and report to your true opinions (they don't have to have the same answer as you) → what matters is break in unanimity Presence of an ally weakens both informational social influence ("Maybe I'm not crazy after all") and normative social influence ("At least I've got someone to stand by me") → protects independence of thought and action 3) Anonymity Anonymity eliminates normative social influence and therefore substantially reduce conformity When participant wrote answer on piece of paper, conformity dropped dramatically → no fear of group's disapproval Informational social influence leads to internalization: our private acceptance of the position advanced by the majority 4) Expertise and Status Expertise and status of the group members powerfully influence the rate of conformity ex) you would think highly if the Asch confederates were baseball players with good vision vs people with bad eyesight Two go hand in hand because we grant greater status to people with expertise, and (sometimes falsely) believe people with high status are experts Expertise Affects informational social influence Status Affects normative social influence Disapproval of high status individuals can hurt more than disapproval of people we care less about ex) bomber crew given word problem If pilot (one with highest status) answers, then 91% of crew also agree but if gunner answers (lower status) only 63% conformed 5) Culture People reared in interdependent cultures are more likely to be more susceptible to both informational social influence (considering the actions and opinions of others more telling) and normative social influence (they consider the high regard of others more important → might conform more than independent cultures ex) Milgram looked at Norwegian (more cohesive, polite) and French (more combative) way of disagreement and Norwegian people tend to be more conformative Western European and American societies put more emphasis on individual = pry away from majority 6) Tight and Loose Cultures Tightness vs looseness ( cultures that intertwine interdependent and independent dimension) Tight Strong norms regarding how people should behave and do not tolerate departure from those norms Loose Norms are not as strong and members tolerate more deviance Experiment: Gelfand Tight nations are more likely to have governments that are autocratic or dictatorial, to punish dissent ,to have sharp controls on what can be said in the media, to have more laws and higher monitoring to ensure that the laws are obeyed, an to inflict more punishment for disobedience → if a nation was tight on one thing, it was tight on all India, Germany, People's Republic of China, South korea, Japan, Australia Also asked about certain behaviors and emotions. Tight = fewer behaviors allowed in various situations Seems behavioral constraints are associated with ecological constraints 7) Gender All cultures sex type to some degree Women Raised to value interdependence and to nurture important social relationships more than men Men Raised to value and strive for autonomy and independence more than women are Research Women tend to conform more than men (social) but only by a BIT → depends on face-to-face contact and context of the situation Women tend to conform more in stereotypically male domains (questions about deer hunting) and vice versa (questions about cosmetics)

What are two reasons for mimicry?

1) Ideomotor action: merely thinking about a behavior makes its actual performance more likely. ex) thinking about eating bowl of gourmet ice cream makes us more apt to open freezer, take out carton, and dig in. Thinking about typing wrong makes us type wrong Brain regions responsible for perception overlap with those responsible for action → when we see others doing a behavior, it brings it up consciously or otherwise and makes us more likely to behave that way Ourselves 2) To prepare for interacting with them, interaction that will tend to go more smoothly if we establish some rapport The tendency to automatically adopt the behavior of members of different social categories holds true only for those with a positive attitude toward the group in question ex) people who have positive attitudes toward older adults tend to walk slower when category "elderly" was primed and vice versa

What are some message characteristics?

1) Message Quality Messages are higher quality when they appeal to core values of audience: Straightforward, clear, and logical Convey desirable consequences of taking actions suggested by message More attitude change will result if conclusions are explicit in message Good idea to pointedly refute the opposition, giving receiver material to use in arguing against opposing messages Also more persuasive if source is arguing against his own self- interest (ex: prisoner arguing for longer prison sentence) 2) Vividness Information is more effective when its vivid (colorful, interesting, and memorable) Vivid and misleading info can trump valid and relevant info that's not flashy Identifiable victim effect~ Vivid, flesh and blood victims are often more powerful sources of persuasion than abstract statistics ex) Ryan White at 13 contracted HIV and after dynig 6 years later, plight was widely reported by media and congress later passed Ryan White CARE act which funded largest set of services for low-income uninsured or underinsured people living with HIV/AIDS Recognizable victims are more apt to elicit feelings of empathy, thereby leading to willingness of donate HOWEVER If cases where blaming victim is possible, identifying person be breed more negative perceptions of the victim and result in decrease rather than increase of aid Also unnecessary vividness can lead to memorable points about the message being diminished 3) Fear Fear-eliciting persuasive messages providing information that can be acted on can be highly effective but shouldn't go overboard If danger is too scary, people might deny it rather than try to combat it most effective when combined with instructions on how to avoid negative outcomes ex) anti-smoking campaign + inducing hypocrisy 4) Culture Helpful to tailor message to fit norms, values, and outlook of particular cultural group ex) analyzing advertisements: American ads emphasized benefits to individual whereas Korean ads focused on benefits to collectives

What are some audience characteristics?

1) Need for Cognition People differ in need for cognition: degree to which they like to think deeply about things People with strong need for cognition like: Thinking Puzzles Pondering Considering multiple perspectives on issues People with weaker cognition don't: Find thought and contemplation much fun *people with high need for cognition are more persuaded by high-quality arguments and are relatively unmoved by peripheral cues of persuasion *people with low need for cognition opposite 2) Mood People exposed to persuasive messages while eating or listening to beautiful music are more apt to change their attitudes Work by Duane Wegner and Richard Petty indicates that persuasive efforts tend to be successful when mood of message matches the mood of the audience More pessimistic, counter attitudinal messages (arguing against prevailing attitude of audience) tends to prompt greater message processing in sad or depressed people Uplifting, pro-attitudinal messages prompt greater message processing in happy people 3) Age Younger people more susceptible to persuasive messages than adults or elderly people Ex) President Reagan got the more support from 18-25 yr old people (obama too!) Ex) children as witnesses in legal cases. Could be detoured by clever lawyers. Also advertising towards children can shape attitude more than towards adult's David Sears link age and susceptibility to persuasion literature Ex) college students (in first couple years) are at developmental stage that's dynamic; susceptible to attitude change because of flux of attitude identity As people age, people become less malleable in attitude Persuasion literature overestimates the extent to which our attitudes can be changed by would-be persuaders 4) Audience Size and Diversity Joshi and Wakslak (2013) reasoned that because larger groups tend to be more heterogeneous than smaller groups, a persuasive message aimed at a large group needs to bridge a variety of individual characteristics, including preferences and backgrounds Aka the more abstract and general the message is, the better vs concrete, specific detail oriented messages Research Ex) researchers asked participants to try to persuade either single person or group of 20 to recycle. - Asked to choose six out of 14 arguments to use in their appeal ranging from broad to specific - Abstract: why it's important to recycle - Concrete: how one goes about recycling - Results: broader arguments used for bigger group and more utilized with highly motivated participants vs less motivated

Why are we susceptible to the Fundamental Attribution Error if it's not that accurate?

1) We're not very good at assessing the validity of our own judgments. We can explain after the fact almost any failure of prediction, and we do it so effectively that we're prevented from seeing our errors. → makes other reasons of why it's not your fault 2) We also often see a given individual only in particular kinds of situations

Explain the three characteristics of source characteristics

ATTRACTIVENESS Can promote attitude change through peripheral (heuristic) route Especially attractive for when message isn't important to person and they have little knowledge in that domain Can also lead to persuasion through central route (ex) by increasing favorability of people's effortful thinking about position being endorsed because we like attractive faces CREDIBILITY Have both expertise and trustworthiness Ex: doctorates on advil and toothpaste commercials Can promote peripheral route when topic is of low personal relevance to audience or audience is distracted Highly motivated audience can see it as taking strong argument in favor of moving towards position the credible source is endorsing CERTAINTY Sources expressing views with certainty and confidence tend to be more persuasive People see it as more credible Ex) eyewitness testimonies are taken with more credibility when testimonies have confidence in them However, Karmarkar and Tormala argue that people are surprised when sources low in credibility come across as certain, just as they are surprised when highly credible sources express lack of confidence. → catches our attention and makes us more likely to scrutinize persuasive message Hypothesis: people with low credibility, but high in expressed confidence, can be quite persuasive as long as he or she is armed with compelling arguments. Highly credible source who seems to lack confidence can also be persuasive as long as he or she has strong arguments

What influences whether a potential cause springs to mind or how readily it springs to mind?

An important determinant is how much the cause stands out perceptually, or how salient it is Features of the environment tat more readily capture our attention are more likely to be seen as potential causes of an observed effect More likely to see person than situation Perceptual salience: people who are more salient - bigger, more brightly lit, more distinctively dressed- are typically seen as more influential in outcomes

Why are people so quick to see someone's actions as a reflection of the person's inner traits and enduring character?

Attribute people's behaviors or life experiences to something about them, rather than to fate or chance "What Goes Around Comes Around" "People Get What They Deserve" etc → we can reassure ourselves that nothing bad will happen to us if we are the right kind of person living the right kind of life We tend to attribute behavior and outcomes to dispositions in part because there is a motive to do so AKA: Dispositional inferences can be comforting and we can minimize perceived threats in this way

How are certain situations seen differently with Independent and Interdependent people?

Asians are more inclined than Westerners to attribute behavior to the situation ex) sport games: US see positive outcomes as result of abilities of individual players and actions of coaches. Asian teams refer more to other team and context Westerners see dispositions and internal causes, where Asians see situations and contexts ex) Morris and Peng (1994) fish example. Americans saw behavior of individual fish as internally causes and Chinese saw behavior as externally caused Might be this way because Asians think of themselves as part of a larger context connected to others...more inclined to see animals and even objects as behaving as they do because of their connections to other animals and objects Westerners see themselves as acting independently of social connections, so they tend to view all kinds of other things as acting in ways that are relatively unaffected by larger context

Why do people engage in causal analysis?

to make the world more predictable - can be things like traits and behavior Trait ex) her kindness explains her long hours at the soup kitchen, her unfailing politeness to everyone in residence hall, and willingness to share her notes with others in her class. Behavior ex) the long hours in the library, the ingratiating behavior toward the professor, and the theft of another student's notes all come together and make sense if we know that the individual has a particularly strong desire to get good grades

How does positive mood increase compliance?

Better to ask for a favor when someone is in a positive mood Feeling good makes people more likely to agree to requests and more generally, to help others Increases compliance for two reasons: 1) Our mood colors how we interpret events. More likely to view requests for favors as less intrusive and threatening when we're in good mood. Benefit of doubt 2) Mood maintenance a) We want the feeling of feeling good to last long and one way to sustain it is to do something for someone b) Turning down request makes you feel guilty and no longer in good mood c) ex) researchers give some people cookies and some not. Asked participants if they would help them with their next assignment as confederates and either help or hinder the participant. People with cookies agreed to helping participant but not hindering (don't want to lower mood) Good mood can also equate to food! => better chance of compliance on full stomach vs empty

Elaboration-Likelihood Model (ELM) / Heuristic-Systematic Model (HSM)

Both converge in respect to the core idea that people sometimes process persuasive messages rather mindlessly and effortlessly, and sometimes very deeply and attentively Both so similar, easier to think about it in terms of one of the theories (ELM)

How do people explain intentional actions by people?

By referring to the actor's reasons: Overwhelming majority of reasons offered to explain behavior fall into two classes: - Desire - Belief Belief and Desire give rise to intentional action, so it stands to reason that to understand the behavior of others, we have to understand what they're seeking and what they believe will allow them to get it (or prevent them from getting it) → understanding it is central to theory of mind and is embedded at early age

What are some types of Social Influence?

Conformity, Compliance, and Obedience

What are three specific cases of media and persuasion?

Consumer advertising: William McGuire claims that commercials don't influence you to go out and buy their products - Research has shown that there's a weak correlation between amount spent on commercials and consumers buying or is usually short lived - People spend money on ads because they bring product awareness, loyalty, and positive feelings about the product - all of which may, in turn, influence purchasing behavior down the line Political Advertising - Research has shown that there are almost no significant correlation between the amount a candidate spends on an election campaign and success in the election - However, 1976 Democratic presidential election did find correlation between candidate's expenditures and number of votes obtained, but only during early stages of campaign. - Most studies say that political ads have very weak effects on voting behavior - Research has also shown that negative ads that aggressively critique the opponent can turn people off from voting entirely - That being said, Bush's ads against his opponents really hurt them because it was after 9/11 and he knew how to him them hard. Good timing and resonance Public Service Announcements - "Don't Mess with Texas" was an exception but in general, studies have found that well-designed, well-funded efforts against drug abuse (ex) have had little impact on children's knowledge about the dangers of illegal drugs or behavior - Longitudinal study on DARE program is an example of this - Some novel methods of persuasions can be effective --> How to turn down sex reportedly decreased STDs → interventions may be effective by giving adolescents more confidence in their ability to negotiate contraceptive use with their sexual partners

examples of self-validation theory

Early Research Ex) researchers exposed participants to a persuasive message about an attitude issue and recorded whether their thoughts in response were favorable or unfavorable (Petty et al. 2002.) - Immediately afterwards, participants recalled a situation in which they had experienced either confidence or doubt; this was the researchers' way of manipulating the participants' confidence in their thoughts - Participants recalling doubt → not predicted by favorability or unfavorability of their thoughts. AKA didn't rely on their reflections to come up with their attitudes - presumably because those thoughts were shrouded in doubt *Self-validation theory would predict, the favorability or unfavorability of one's thoughts influenced persuasion only when they were associated with a feeling of confidence. Another Research Ex) self- validation theory can account for surprise findings → credible source might lead to less persuasion - Researchers presented participants with a persuasive message about a pain reliever that contained mostly strong or mostly weak arguments - Expectation: stronger arguments would elicit primarily favorable thoughts about the pain reliever but weak arguments would elicit mostly unfavorable thoughts → this was the case - Then participants were given the arguments from either a credible (reputable federal agency) or non credible source (high school student) . Then participants were asked to indicate their attitude about the pain reliever -Results: straightforward at first. Strong arguments from credible source = favorable outcome - Results: Weak arguments tended to lead participants to generate mostly unfavorable thoughts. Thus when the weak argument was sourced by a credible source, it increased confidence in the unfavorable thoughts. These participants were less persuaded than their counterparts who saw the exact same weak argument and thought they came from a non credible source. *By increasing people's confidence in their thoughts, source credibility can backfire when their confidently held thoughts are largely unfavorable toward the attitude issue or object at hand

Emotional Amplification

Emotional reactions to counterfactual thinking increase depending on how easy it is to imagine the alternative The pain is worse if a loved one died on a plane crash after they switched their flight last minute vs if they had kept their original flight

What is an example of a cultural difference in mimicry?

Experiment: Researchers interviewed both Anglo-American and Hispanic-American and mimicked or didn't mimic their behavior during the interview. For Hispanic-Americans, sympatia is important, and the mimicked behavior helped them do better whereas for Anglo-Americans, it didn't change much People various cultures differ in their tendencies to mimic others

What are the Big Five personality traits?

Extraversion Neuroticism Agreeableness Conscientiousness Openness to experience

What are some distinctions of how the Fundamental Attribution Error is used in different cultures?

FAE seems more widespread and pronounced for Westerners than Easterners. Westerners pay little attention to situational factors in circumstances in which Asians pay considerable attention to them and grant their influence ex) essay example. Chosen randomly to write about certain point of view but FAE showed that people thought that was their behavior despite knowing it was random (same for all cultures) BUT New experiment with Jones and Harris: had participants write their own essay on a point of view chosen by researcher. Then read articles by other people → Koreans learned from experience that their POV might not be their own because it might've been chosen. American's didn't learn anything Koreans are more likely to recognize implications of consensus information Many people behave in particular way in a given situation, then Koreans recognize that the situation is probably the main determinant of behavior Americans' attributions tend to be less influenced by consensus information FINALLY Asians are less likely to make an initial dispositional inference in circumstances where such inferences are made by the great majority of Westerners ex) Na and Kitayama (2011) had people read about behaviors of different people . When their picture was shown later with a word that described them in a different way, Americans were surprised, vs Koreans were not Asians are not just more likely to notice situational cues that might correct a dispositional inference; they might also be less likely to make a dispositional inference in first place Different attributional differences among American subcultures Puerto Rican children use fewer traits when describing themselves than Anglo-American children Less likely to use traits to describe other people's behavior Mexican-Americans and Mexicans were also less likely than Anglo-Americans to amek trait inferences

How much credit do we give to those succeeding in life and how much blame to we direct to those who are not?

Fundamental Attribution Error suggests that people tend to assign too much responsibility to the individual for great accomplishments and terrible mistakes, and not enough responsibility to the particular situation, broader societal forces, or pure dumb luck (174) Ex) jeopardy - questioners rate themselves average with student body vs everyone rating them higher

What's the best route of persuasion? Peripheral or Central Route?

For long-lasting attitude change, persuasion through central route is preferable. People will attend to message carefully and elaborate on it more deeply, increasing change of integrating arguments into their belief system End result: attitude change that is more enduring, more resistant to persuasion, and more predictive of future behavior For immediate acquiescence of an audience not very motivated or attentive, peripheral route

What are some examples of priming culture?

Hong Kong: governed by Britain for 100 years. Perfect for cultural studies. Culture is substantially Westernized and children learn English at the same time as Cantonese Ex) People in Hong Kong can be encouraged to learn in both interdependent and independent ways when presented with images that suggest one culture or another ex) Hong, Chiu, and Kung (1997) did experiment where they showed pictures of Western ideas (mickey mouse, cowboy, etc) and Asian ideas (Chinese man writing characters, Chinese dragon, etc) and a group with neutral landscape then did fish situation → people shown western idea said the individual fish was acting in motivation towards individual reasons, etc etc Also possible to prime religious concepts and affect the degree to which attributions are dispositional Ex) Protestants are more concerned than Catholics with state of their souls, more likely to make internal, dispositional attributions for behavior → increases internal attributions

Explain the three dimensions of explanatory style.

Internal/external cause: degree that cause is linked to the actor himself/herself or to the external situation→ implicates self vs doesn't Stable/unstable causes: you → implies that things will never change vs implies that things may improve Global/specific cause: something that influences other areas of their lives or just this one → something affects many areas of life vs applies to only a few ex) research by Peterson, Seligman, and colleagues Three dimensions listed above were combined to form overall explanatory style index that correlated with outcome variable of interest, like students' GPA Tendency to explain negative events in terms of internal, stable, and global causes is considered a pessimistic explanatory style and related to undesirable life outcomes (tend to get lower grade than more optimistic style)

Personality vs Situation. What culture uses which to judge people?

Koreans (interdependent culture) and Americans (independent culture) rated importance of personality same but Koreans believed situation to be more important Koreans considered personalities to be more changeable than the Americans did. Belief in the flexibility of personality is consistent with view that behavior is substantially influenced by external factors → also characteristic of interdependent people than independent people → abilities can change by environmental factors and effort ex) Americans report valuing education more than Asians do, but American students spend much less time studying than Asian students do.

The Process of Causal Attribution

Only by knowing the cause of a given event can we grasp the true meaning of what has happened and anticipate what's likely to happen Our perception of how much control another person has over his or her actions is one important factor in how we judge that person When a person offers an excuse for their behavior, it yield more sympathy and forgiveness when the excuse involves something beyond the person's control ("I have a flat tire") vs something controllable

What are some techniques that can be used to strengthen tendencies to resist persuasion and attitude change?

McGuire believed, much like an receiving an inoculation, persuasion can be resisted in a similar fashion Attitude inoculation: small attacks on our beliefs that would engage our preexisting attitudes, prior commitments, and background knowledge and thereby counteract the larger attack Ex) for smoking prevention programs, the idea would be to present people with pro-smoking arguments from peers and advertisements, such as "smoking is about freedom and maturity," then encourage them to make counterarguments.The hope would be that counterarguing in response to an initial attack would inoculate them, thereby making them more resistant to future inducements to smoke.

What are some cultural differences when attending to social context?

Most of world's people tend to pay more attention to social situations and the people who are involved in them than Westerners do Kinds of social factors merely background for North Americans appear to be more salient to people from other cultures Because non-Westerners think about themselves more in terms of the social roles they occupy Ex) Kitayama, Duffy, Kawamura, and Larsen (2002) demonstrated this difference in a study with Japanese and American participants. Square with line at bottom. Some participants had to draw a line at the bottom of a new square exactly replicating the OG square or relative to the size with a different sized square Americans were better at absolute judgment (ignoring context) Japanese were better at relative judgment (paying attention to context) More activity in brain area of difficult perception for East Asians where they had to ignore context and made judgments about absolute line length vs more activity for Westerners when they made proportional judgment aka attend to the context

Obedience

Occurs when power relationship is unequal and more powerful person, the authority figure, issues demand rather than request, to which less powerful person submits

Why do some people restrain to conformity/ resist attitude change when it comes to public commitments ?

One reason is that it's hard to back down from such endorsements without losing face, even when evidence is presented against the position we publicly embraced Another less obvious reason is that public commitments engage us in more extensive thoughts about a particular issue, which tends to produce more extreme, entrenched attitudes → Thought polarization hypothesis Research ex) Tesser measured participants' attitudes about social issues (like legalizing prostitution) then had them think about it for a few minutes - When they stated their opinions about the same issue a second time, they routinely gave stronger ratings; both opponents and proponents became polarized - Similarly, repeated expression of attitudes has been shown to lead to more extreme position in a variety of domains, including viewpoints about particular people, artwork, fashions, and football strategies - However, increased thought about an attitude object can lead to more moderate attitudes for people who previously had little motivation to think about the issue or little preexisting knowledge about it

In salient situations, how do we make causal attributions?

Research shows we focus on the context when making causal attributions When we're primarily interested in finding out about the situation a person is in (and less interested in person engaged in behavior), Gilbert's attributional sequence is reversed Automatically and effortlessly draw strong inferences about the situation

Why don't we reject dispositional inferences when it should be clear that the situation is powerful enough to have induced the behavior?

Research: Dan Gilbert (1989, 2002) makes it clear that we don't reason that way at all. We observe the behavior, identify what it is, and automatically characterize the person as having a disposition corresponding to the behavior observed. Only then do we consider the context of the behavior Too often too late: revising dispositional inference is effortful and therefore typically insufficient *In short, situation is secondary and often slighted in the process of terms of establishing a causal explanation Situational information is taken into account only AFTER an initial dispositional inference has already been made (if someone is hostile the first time, you'll see them hostile until the situation begs to differ)

How do you research ELM usage?

Researchers test ELM approach to persuasion by first generating strong and weak arguments for an attitude issue or object. They then present these arguments as part of a persuasive message. They also vary the potency of various peripheral cues associated with the message, such as number of arguments offered or the fame, attractiveness, or appeal of the source of the message. Finally, they vary a factor, such as the personal relevance of the issue, to manipulate the likelihood that the participants will process the message centrally or peripherally If participants process message via central route, they will be sensitive to strength of the argument (swayed only when strong. Not weak) Participants low in motivation or ability would be unlikely to discern strength of argument because they're only noticing peripheral cues (less affected by strength of argument) Example experiment: Juniors in college asked to read 8 weak or strong arguments regarding a policy to require comprehensive exam for all graduating seniors at their university. Some were told this would be enacted the following year and others told it would be enacted in 10 years. Also, some were told argument was generated by high school students while other was generated by "Carnegie Commission on Higher Education" chaired by Princeton University professor Result: when it was enacted in 10 years, most chose depending on who the argument was created by. Strength of argument did not matter. Opposite effect with those that would have to take it the next year. Strength of argument mattered more than who was writing it AKA it's easy to be swayed by the source of the message but if you are motivated, then you are much more inclined to think carefully at the argument and the strength of it

How does negative mood increase compliance?

Slightest introspection of certain types of bad moods can actually increase compliance instead of decreasing it ex) if your SO was flirting with someone else and you point it out, they feel guilty. So if you ask them for a favor, they're more likely to comply Strong, positive association with guilt and compliance ex) even if you see an innocent mouse being accidentally jolted with shock, participants donated more because they are in negative mood Negative state relief hypothesis: taking an action to benefit someone else, especially when it's for a good cause, is one way to make ourselves feel better. In other words, we often help others to help ourselves

What is an important aspect of making causal attributions?

Something important to note is whether the outcome of a production is something within the person (internal or "dispositional" cause) or whether a reflection of something about the context or circumstance ("situational" or external) It might be clear like when you win a game because you're a better player (internal cause) vs if you just got lucky (external cause) It might be an unclear situation if you became a famous guitarist for your love of rock-and-roll (internal) or desire of the fame and fortune (external cause)

Explain the two routes to the Elaboration-Likelihood Model (ELM)

The CENTRAL ROUTE to persuasion (known as systematic route in the HSM) occurs when people think carefully and deliberately about the content of a persuasive message Attend to logic and strength of the arguments and evidence contained in message Bring relevant information of their own - experiences, memories, and images - to the process of evaluating the message Through PERIPHERAL ROUTE ( known as heuristic route in HSM) people primarily attend to peripheral aspects of a message - relatively superficial, easy-to-process features of a persuasive communication that are tangential to the persuasive information itself. Might be the apparent expertise or credibility of a persuasive message's source Person is swayed by cues without engaging in much thought Might ignore what the source actually says because source is an expert or credible source Relies on simple heuristics (rules of thumb)

Fundamental Attribution Error

The tendency to attribute people's behavior to elements of their character or personality, even when powerful situational forces are acting to produce the behavior ex) Milgram's experiment with the shock waves had situational attribution but we might think the participant is weak or unusually cruel for going to max voltage Another experimental ex: Fidel Castro Essay Those that wrote pro Castro were seen as Pro Communist Cuba and vice versa if the assignment was a free write essay HOWEVER, even when writers were assigned which stance to write about, readers thought that pro Castro essay writers were pro-communist Cuba which was unwarranted → FAE

How does the minority have influence over the majority?

When the minority opinion is consistent, it has both a direct on (participants') responses in the public setting and latent effect on subsequent, private judgments Minorities have effect primarily through informational social influence because majority usually aren't concerned about social cost of stating their own opinion Majority might be confused as to why the minority is diverging away from the popular opinion and look closer at their argument Majorities typically elicit more conformity but often to public compliance Minorities typically influence fewer people. But nature of influence is often deeper and results in true private acceptance

Norm of Reciprocity

a norm dictating that people should provide benefits to those who benefit them Also exists in birds and mammals → monkeys getting parasite off of each other Also people tend to give more tips when waiter gives them candy Doing a favor for someone creates an uninvited debt that the recipient is obligated to repay ex) confederate giving participant soda from break made them more eager to buy raffle tickets from them

Explanatory Style

a person's habitual way of explaining events, and it's assessed along three dimensions: internal/external, stable/unstable, and global/specific ex) another research by Peterson and Seligman studied association between different explanatory styles and health. Examined whether person's explanatory style as young adult could predict physical healthier later in life. Used Harvard graduating class from 1942-44 as longitudinal study that required them to complete questionnaire every year and submit medical records of periodic physical examinations Result: optimistic tendency to make external, unstable, and specific attributions for failure presumably makes us less prone to despair and encourages more of a can-do outlook that promotes such behaviors as exercising regularly, visiting doctor, and even flossing teeth → longer healthier life

Attribution theory (chapter 5)

The study of how people understand the causes of events

What is the influence of exception vs routines?

There are codes around people replacing each other in high risk jobs such as bull fighters or sky divers because of how it can be "bad luck" (thought to be asking for trouble) In less extreme circumstances, an event may be memorable if we overestimate how often a change of heart leads to a bad outcome Ex) Switching lines at the supermarket or switching answers in a multiple choice test

What are the three basic types of compliance?

Those directed at the mind Those directed at the heart Those based on the power of norms (given the impact of informational and normative influences, appeal to both the mind and heart)

What are common determinants of emotional amplification?

Time & Distance If someone survived a plane crash and hiked until he was 75 miles away from safety and died, people would say he should receive less compensation vs if he he died a quarter of a mile away from safety because they were so close Olympics: bronze medal person focused on how they "at least" received a medal (fourth doesn't) versus silver medal who focused on "if only" things had gone differently. Second place looks sadder than bronze

Can attitude/confidence be embodied?

YES! Attitudes are partly embodied (bodily movements can influence the attitude people hold) Bodily movements can signal varying degrees of thought confidence, and it's this confidence that determines whether or not persuasion occurs Brinol and Petty (2003) research: participants listened to either strong or weak arguments in favor of a campus issue while nodding or shaking their head - Nodding led to greater confidence in the mostly favorable thoughts participants generated, leading to more favorable attitudes - According to self validation hypothesis, nodding or shaking can influence how confident people feel about their thoughts, and this confidence will lead to persuasion when the thoughts are favorable but not when they are unfavorable (when they tend to be when argument is weak) ONLY WITH SELF-VALIDATION HYPOTHESIS. OTHERWISE, NORMAL CASE IT WOULD BE THAT SHAKING WOULD LEAD TO LESS AGREEMENT -Thus, nodding in head while having unfavorable thoughts should enhance confidence in them, resulting in less rather than more, persuasion compared to when shaking the head

Can an attribution be fully justified without having self-serving bias?

YES! ex) teacher tutors students. Student does poor on first test, teachers double on effort. Half of students do poor on second test and half do well on second test. Those who did poorly, the teacher would blame the student BUT on a covariation level, the student does poorly whether or not the teacher was there to help so there is no correlation between the teacher and grade. Thus, the weight would be on the student and the teacher is fully justified. Can't rush into thinking someone is having self-serving attribution because it might be the result of a purely rational analysis

That's-not-all technique

a compliance approach that involves adding something to an original offer, thus creating some pressure to reciprocate ex) buying plasma TV and seller saying, "That's not all, it also comes with a free DVD player" which makes it seem like a gift ex) experiment: selling cookies and cupcake at a bake sale. More people bought the pack if advertised as 75 cents for a cupcake which comes with two medium sized cookies vs a cupcake and two medium sized cookies is 75 cents

Actor-Observer Difference

a difference in attribution based on who is making the causal assessment: the actor (who is relatively inclined to make situational attributions) → determining what kind of situation you're dealing with- or the observer (who is relatively inclined to make dispositional attributions) → determining what kind of person you're dealing with ex) participants had to explain why they chose their college major or why their best friends chose the major they did Found that participants more often referred to characteristics of the person when explaining someone else's choice than they did when explaining their own choice Focused on specifics of the major when explaining their own choice ex) you chose "Psychology" as your major because the textbook is interesting or professor is good vs your friend chose it because they need help with "issues"

Gender and attributional style

boys are more likely than girls to attribute their failures to lack of effort, and girls are more likely than boys to attribute their failures to lack of ability Carol Dweck and colleagues hypothesized that gender differences likely result from teachers' feedback patterns in fourth and fifth grade classrooms. When negative evaluation of girls' performance was exclusively restricted to intellectual inadequacies In contrast, almost half of criticism of boys' work referred to non intellectual factors. Positive feedback was given in vice versa way *argue that girls learn that criticism means they may lack intellectual ability, whereas boys learn that criticism may just mean they haven't worked hard enough or paid enough attention to detail. Similarly girls are likely to suspect that praise may be unrelated to the intellectual quality of their performance, whereas boys learn that praise means their intellectual performance was excellent

Conformity

changing one's behavior or beliefs in response to some real (or imagined) pressure from others

Source Characteristics

characteristics of the person who delivers a persuasive message, such as attractiveness, credibility, and certainty

Counterfactual Thoughts

consideration of what might have, could have, or should have happened, "if only" a few minor things were done differently "If only I had studied harder" implies that a lack of effort was the cause of a poor test result Ex) a scenario where a woman went to lunch with boss. Without boss knowing that the woman had a wine allergy, he ordered her a fish dish that included wine. Woman dies. There are two scenarios: one where the alternative dish was with wine and one without wine. Readers concluded there was more causal weight assigned to the boss when the alternative was without wine (she would've lived) vs with wine (still would've died). (counterfactual thoughts)

Causal attribution

construal process people use to explain both their own and others' behavior. ex) video with square and triangles Crucial to understanding everyday social behavior because we all make causal attributions many times a day, and attributions we make can greatly affect our thoughts, feelings, and future behavior

Agenda Control

efforts of media of all types substantially contributing to shape the information you think is broadly true and important. AKA Efforts of the media to select certain events and topics to emphasize, thereby shaping which issues and events people think are important. ex) prominence given to issues in news media -- crime, traffic congestion, or economic downturns - in correlation with public's perception that these issues are important Research ex) viewers in one condition saw three news stories dealing with US dependence on foreign energy sources; in another condition six stories, and in a final condition, no stories like this - When exposed to no news about dependence on foreign energy, 24% of viewers cited energy as one of the three most important problems facing the world - Rose to 50% for participants who saw three stories on the subject - Rose to 65% for those who saw six stories - Reality TV is not a good representation of human reality. Result of self-selection effects; perhaps more prejudiced, cynical, and informed people watch more TV (???)

Why do people from different levels on the socioeconomic ladder arrive at very different causal explanations for events?

ex) Michael Kraus and colleagues had people make attributions for positive and negative life events. People with lower socioeconomic status tended to invoke situational causes whereas those higher would invoke dispositional causes Also asked about people with different facial expressions surrounded by people with same or different expressions Lower social-class participants were less likely to rate smiling target as happy when other faces were frowning Lower social-class people, like Asians, live in worlds where attention to other people is more necessary for effective functioning than it is for higher social class people

What are the consequences of the Fundamental Attribution Error?

ex) people assume you can learn a lot about someone in a 30 minute interview but it only reveals the person's apparent trait and abilities in a single situation. Correlations between "input" information (letters of experience, reports of job performance, GPA), is a higher correlation with later outcomes

Examples of effective norm-based appeals

ex) putting information of energy usage for each dorm room For those averaging more energy usage than others decreased their energy usage and vice versa Putting sign of approval (happy or sad face) helped maintain a good low energy use. ex) reuse of hotel towels Increase in reuse when signs included people's testimony that they also reused towels in that same room Telling people about social norms is likely to be most effective when the norm is misunderstood, such as when people overestimate the popularity of destructive behavior or underestimate the popularity of constructive behavior Drinking popularity~ Pluralistic ignorance. Popular opinion that drinking is more normal and comfortable amongst students when in fact, it's not → students censor their own thoughts about drinking so that it maintains the popular opinion ex) research has shown that if you don't have a history of drinking before college and your random roommate does, your average GPA was a quarter point lower than usual whereas if you have a history with drinking and your roommate does too, your GPA average was a whole grade lower than if the roommate did not have a history drinking (men only)

Ideomotor Action

merely thinking about a behavior makes its actual performance more likely.

Sleeper Effect

messages from unreliable sources exert little influence initially but over time have the potential to shift people's attitudes. Over time people dissociate source of the message from the message itself ex) irresponsible guy on radio starts arguing about government preparing to ban the sale of handguns. You discount message because messenger's lack of credibility initially but over time, it influences your views because you dissociate source of message from its content However, when information challenging noncredible source precedes message, then sleeper effect doesn't occur → people develop negative reaction to ensuing message and argue against it so that it reduces its impact

What two primary factors determine whether we will engage in central or peripheral processing?

motivation and ability *For persuasion to occur via central route, have to be both motivated and able to engage in more in-depth processing. If either or both are lacking, persuasion generally relies on peripheral cues

Audience Characteristics

need for cognition, mood, age, and audience's size and diversity - can influence whether a persuasive message is likely to be effective Characteristics of those who receive a persuasive message - personal relevance - need for cognition - ability to process

Attitude Inoculation

small attacks on our beliefs that would engage our preexisting attitudes, prior commitments, and background knowledge and thereby counteract the larger attack --> poking bear too much and bear saying NO

Foot-in-the-door technique

opposite of the door in the face technique. A compliance approach that involves making an initial small request with which nearly everyone complies, followed by a larger request involving the real behavior of interest Starts with small request to which nearly everyone complies, which will be followed up with a larger request involving the real behavior of interest → the person then has a reason to agree to it ex) billboard in garden Slippery slope

Internalization

our private acceptance of the position advanced by the majority

What are some sources that raise metacognitions of thought confidence?

perceptions of the accuracy or validity of a thought, how easily a thought came to mind, or just from how clear a thought is in our mind. - We have greater confidence (more apt to be persuaded) when we perceive our thoughts to be valid, easily brought to mind, and clear

Informational Social Influence

reliance on other people's comments and actions as an indication of what's likely to be correct, proper, or effective. We want to be right, and the opinions of other people are a useful source of information we can draw on to "get it right" Pronounced behavior when we don't know how to behave happens more likely when: - situation is ambiguous or difficult - we feel low in knowledge or competence about the topic (informational social influence) Sherif's conformity experiment: made use of autokinetic illusion --> people's judgement about the movement of light converged over time

Compliance

when conformity pressure is sufficiently explicit and blends into another type of social influence. Responding favorably to an explicit request by another person - Can come from people with some power over you (boss or professor) or from peers (classmate asking for notes) - Compliance attempts from powerful people often aren't as nuanced and sophisticated as those from peers (aka your peers affect you more. Your professor persuading you to loan $10 vs friend)

Dispositional Attribution

when consensus and distinctiveness are low but consistency is high (something must be special about Diane who likes that math class)

Why do some advertisements fail?

when they can't overcome target audience's previous commitments (drugs, political alignments, etc) → some are embedded in DNA so are harder to overcome