Psych 3325- Exam 2

Semantic differential scale

Multi-item scale for rating a target along several dimensions (ex.) Easy 1 2 3 4 5 Hard

what type of conformity was the Asch (line) experiment?

-Unambiguous phenomenon -Normative influence (no private acceptance; superficial public conformity)

Wicker (1969)

-A weak or nonexistent relationship between attitudes and behaviors -Review essentially killed research on attitudes for years

What are some ways to reduce dissonance?

-Add new consonant cognitions -Reduce perception of choice -Reduce importance of the conflict -Change one of the dissonant cognitions -Change the behavior to bring it in line with dissonant cognitions

what type of conformity was the Sherif (autokinetic) experiment?

-Ambiguous phenomenon -Informational influence (private acceptance)

Grasshopper Study (Zimbardo 1965)

-Army reservists told to eat grasshoppers by a (relatively) nice or mean sergeant -mean sergeant caused people to become more positive to eating grasshoppers than the nice sergeant -mean sergeant caused people to change attitudes towards grasshoppers, nice sergeant caused people to add a consonant cognition

Asch line experiment: Asch (1951)

-Asked participants to match a line length to three other lines: which line is equal to this line? -Determining line length: participant always gives response after others have responded -on critical trials, confederate always give incorrect answers Participant must decide whether to: be correct (deviate) or conform -Participants always answer 100% correct when brought in alone, but change their answers even though someone said the wrong answer -75% conformed at least once Participants conformed on 1/3 of trials where confederate gave incorrect answers -In variation where people wrote down answers, conformity almost vanished

Strong attitude characteristics

-Resistance to change -Persistent over time -Impact processing and judgments -*predict behavior*

What is an attitude?

-negative, positive, or both (ambivalent) about anything -People, places, things, ideas -The extent to which you like or dislike something

The peg-turning task (Festinger and Carlsmith 1959)

-participants presented w/ a board. Told to turn the pegs on the board -half-turn clockwise followed by a half-turn counterclockwise -offered either $1 or $20 to have you tell the next participant the study was fun and exciting (even though it wasn't) -people with $1 rated the experiment the best, $20 awarded people were negative in the rating. -showed that if you lied to tell people it's good for $1, you might not have thought it was boring. $20 people told the truth that it was boring.

Brehm, 1956.

-people took surveys & received the appliance they rated more highly as a reward - took survey again after choosing & rated their new product slightly higher than they did the first time & the alternative drastically lower -spreading of alternatives

Robert Cialdini: principles of persuasion

1: reciprocity 2: scarcity 3: authority 4: consistency 5: liking 6: consensus

leading question

A question that contains or implies its own answer (thus inviting demand effects) Example: what did you think of that amazing answer? -Solution: use neutral phrasing to capture true opinion

Likert scale

A scale in which each statement is accompanied by 5 response options: strongly disagree, disagree, neither agree nor disagree, agree, strongly agree -among the most prolific and prominently used scales in psychology

The autokinetic effect: Sherif (1936)

A small, stationary point of light in a dark environment appears to move (motion perception relies on relativity to references, without features, hard to tell stability or instability of distant items). -Participants judge movement alone -Participants judge movement in groups (over 3 sessions) -as people are brought in more groups, the answers begin to line up because people are conforming to each other's answers -Participants are brought back to answer alone, but: influence of group persists when participant is alone

double negatives

Avoid negative phrasing except when necessary -example: "was that not the best four string quartet you have ever heard?" Vs. "was that the best four string quartet you have ever heard?" Goal: simplicity

self perception and dissonance (Bem 1967)

Argued that those given $1 in the Peg Turning Task change attitudes because they observed their own behavior. This approach to cognitive dissonance states that attitudes are changed after you observe your behavior. Dissonance is not about reducing bad feelings, but about understanding ourselves.

double-barreled questions

Asking two questions at once -Example: "Wasn't that guitar riff amazing and weren't the song lyrics clever?" -if someone says "yes", it is unclear to which part of the question they're answering.

Classical conditioning

Associating some attitude object with something that is already liked or disliked -"Sex sells" in advertising -taking on the attitudes of your parents or friends

Bogus Pipeline (Sigall, 1971)

Assumption: people will tell the truth if they believe their thoughts are already known, if the experimenter has a 'direct pipeline' into their minds. -Machine doesn't actually work, answers are already known from participants. Beeps whenever people answer untruthfully.

Learning approach- Hovland

Attitudes form when people encounter information that can be positively or negatively evaluated (read: anything) -I learn a candidate committed fraud -I read that chocolate is good for me

Context effects: attention

Context -Where the message appears matters -advertisements near interesting articles elicit less attention and people showed decreased memory about them

Consequences of elaboration

Central route processing leads to attitudes that are stronger. Peripheral route processing leads to attitudes that are weaker.

negative arousal motivation

Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance provides a motivational explanation for attitude change. We are motivated to reduce arousal This results in self-generated persuasion

Why do people have attitudes?

For behavior! Thinking is for doing.

The cupcake studies

Goal: examine "that's-not-all" technique- offering a better deal before you make a decision. Participants: 60/53 participants (booths at college campuses: bake sale). -people bought more of cupcake and cookies duo before they purchased the cupcake

The copy machine study (Langor, Blank, and Chanowitz (1978))

Goal: examine communication on social influence- consider whether mindful behavior could instead be impacted by semantic cues ("placebic" information). Likelihood of completing favor: no reason: 60%, real reason: 94%, fake reason: 93%. Whatever comes after the word "because", people don't care.

Getting into the group (Aronson and Mills 1959)

Group invited to join a discussion about sex Control: do nothing, easy initiation: read a random passage, hard initiation: read a sexually explicit passage in front of others. End result was actually talking about boring animal mating topics. Control liked the discussion the least, mild initiation liked the discussion the 2nd least, and severe initiation liked the discussion the most.

The Orne Studies

Have you perform serial additions of each adjacent two numbers on sheets filled with rows of random digits. Goal= perceived impossibility. Results: many people tried to give meaning to the studies, but the point was to make you stop the study. It's hard to create a study in which participants think it's meaningless.

Perceived behavioral control

How much control people think they have over their behavior. -When control is low, attitudes do not predict behavior -People don't form intentions when they doubt their ability to do the actions

McGuire (1964). Audience effects: resisting

Inoculation theory -important cultural beliefs were never challenged -people do not know how to resist persuasion Solution: give people practice counter arguing

Subjective norms

Our perceptions of what others think we should do. Strong subjective norms lead attitudes to be less predictive of behavior. -people are often very attuned to their social environment -people tend to do what others what, not what they necessarily want

The Billboard study

Participants asked show their support in promoting safe driving -Two conditions: half the participants asked to put huge ugly billboard in front of their lawn reading "Drive carefully" -Half the participants first approached to put small sign in their window, then asked to put up the big ugly sign. -Outrageous request had small percent say yes, outrageous request following small request had large percent say yes.

The Elaboration Likelihood Model

Petty and Cacioppo (1986)- inconsistencies in persuasion are due to the fact that people do not always process communication in the same way. Part of The Ohio State school of attitude change.

ELM study: senior comprehensive exams

Petty et al. (1984): OSU v Purdue is considering implementing a set of senior comprehensive exams as a requirement for graduation -everyone given time to process the message: everyone has the ability to process. -measured participants' need for cognition -High NFC: motivated to process -Low NFC: unmotivated to process

question order

Preceding questions can anchor perceptions, frame interpretations, and encourage consistent responses to later questions. Every multi-item scale has an order. What to do? 1) produce multiple versions and compare results. 2) identify a set of questions that does not frame later questions

Theory of planned behavior

Proposal that attitudes do predict behavior but only under certain conditions Three requirements: 1. The "specific' attitude toward the specific behavior 2. Subjective norms: our perceptions of what others think we should do 3. Perceived behavioral control: am I free to perform the behavior?

The ELM two routes to persuasion

Routes of persuasion: amount of elaboration determines what route to persuasion we use. -Peripheral route: people don't think critically about the context of the message, but focus instead on superficial characteristics (speeds up decisions) -Central route: people are more influenced by the strength and quality of the message arguments (doesn't necessarily imply accuracy)

Source effects: likeability

Similarity -People who belong to the same groups or who like the same things are more persuasive Physical attractiveness -Physically attractive people are more persuasive

indifferent attitude

Something you both know of/have no evaluations of

Inconsistencies

Sometimes a really strong set of arguments was found to be highly persuasive, but sometimes they were not. Sometimes people were persuaded by experts, regardless of what the experts said, but sometimes they were not.

"Closing time" study

Studies show that people find the opposite sex more attractive near closing time in bars

Attractiveness increases liking

Technique is in the name -"Im too sexy for this courtroom" study: two conditions: 1. defendant looks more attractive than victim. 2. victim looks more attractive than defendant. -Results: attractive victim got double the amount of money than attractive defendant

Consistency technique: foot in the door

Technique: ask for something small, then ask for something bigger. -First action implies support of the cause. To be consistent, one should continue to support the cause. -Opposite of door in the face.

Consistency technique: bait-and-switch

Technique: offer nice, low price item, then switch it for a higher priced item -people are more likely to buy it because they have made up their mind. - I want or need this item.

Consistency technique: low-ball

Technique: similar to bait-and-switch, except instead of offering a different product, offer the same one with restrictions that make it less appealing

Consistency technique: four-walls

Technique: stacking walls up, feel like you can't go back because each question makes you want to say yes.

Similarity increases liking

Technique: we tend to like and help those who seem similar to ourselves. We like ourselves, and they are like us. -Similar birthdays, same first names, etc. Increase compliance rates -Similarity does not need to be meaningful for it to increase compliance- incidental similarity: is when people feel similar to someone shares an insignificant attribute.

Personality factors

The need to evaluate: an individual difference variable. The tendency to form attitudes fairly readily, and toward a variety of objects. -high need to evaluate: form attitudes about everything -low need to evaluate: form attitudes less often

framing effects

The way you frame things/words is important to how people react to it. It's like a faux question; you know the answer to the question already.

Presence of others

Things can be influenced by other people.. Or the idea or imagined presence of other people

Tripartite Model of Attitudes

Three central components: affect, behavior, cognition -affect: based on how you feel, gut reactions -behavior: based on what you do -cognition: based on your thoughts and beliefs about the attitude object

spreading of alternatives

To reduce dissonance, we may change our attitude toward what we chose and didn't choose. What we choose becomes better, what we didn't choose becomes worse.

Source effects: credibility

Trustworthiness -Honest people are more persuasive -People who argue against self-interest are more persuasive Competence/expertise -People who are good at what they do/are experts, are persuasive

Properties of attitudes (3)

Valence: is the attitude positive or negative? Extremity: how positive or negative is it? (valence is like a scale, either I like it or don't. Extremity is the degree of the scale and in which way it tips, how much you like it or don't like it) Strength: how strong or weak is your attitude (e.g., resistant to change)? Strength isn't like extremity.

Reactance theory (Brehm)

When we feel pressured, or that our freedoms are being threatened, we act to reestablish these freedoms

post-decisional dissonance

When we have to make tough decisions between two attractive alternatives, dissonance can result AFTER you make the decision.

Ability

You have to be able to think -time pressure -distraction/fatigue -lack of knowledge

Motivation

You have to be motivated to think -personal relevance -accountability -need for cognition

Reciprocity

a feeling of obligation to give back to others in the form of behaviors, gifts, or services if you have received something first.

Persuasion

a method of changing a person's cognition, affect, behavior, and attitudes toward some object, issue, or person. Wanting to change something.

cognitive dissonance

a situation in which 2 cognitions (or a cognition and a behavior) contradict each other, producing an uncomfortable state of arousal. People are motivated to have consistent cognitions, try to relieve an uncomfortable state

consonance

agreement or compatibility between opinions or actions. "I believe that exercising is important, and I make sure to exercise daily"

Multiple roles of variables

any variables that serves as a cue under low elaboration can serve as an argument under high elaboration. -Under low elaboration, choose a product based on number of arguments -Under high elaboration, choose a product based on the content of those arguments

ELM: strong arguments

arguments for a position that are compelling and logically consistent. -generate favorable thoughts in recipient -recipient believes outcomes of strong proposal are: positive and highly probable

Specificity principle

attitudes predict behavior when the attitude measure closely matches the behavior in question -notable domains: recycling, voting

obedience

behavior change produced by the commands of authority. Obeying orders.

irrelevance

cognitions aren't relevant to each other at all

compliance

direct, external requests

From large to small

door in the face technique, that's not all technique

Central route

everything is evaluated as an argument, the critical factor is whether the arguments are strong

Heuristic cues

expertise, beauty, popularity, brand name, price, packaging

Indirect nonverbal behaviors

eye contact (the more eye contact, the more you like something), seating distance (measure how far you are sitting by something, closer means typically you like something more)

Indirect physiological measures

facial EMG, EEG, fMRI scans. -Sometimes people don't know how they're really feeling. Goal is triangulation and consistency for measures.

From small to large

foot in the door technique, low balling technique

direct measures of attitudes

getting explicit, direct responses about preferences. -directly asking -objective behaviors

Scarcity

if something is scarce, it is more valuable Principle: the fact that something is rare or "going fast" suggests that it is desirable.

liking

if you like someone, you should help him/her out. Principle: people are more agreeable with others they like, even when they have only known them for a short time. Factors that increase -Familiarity -Attractiveness -Similarity

Conscious exposures

increased liking with increased exposure initially... but eventually repetition causes annoyance and decreased liking.

Subconscious exposures

increased liking with increased exposure, even if you don't realize you are being exposed. -no difference in familiarity with increased exposure -misattribute fluency with positivity

Ambiguous situations- conformity factor

is this an emergency? -do I need to help? -is something really wrong?

Mere exposure

mere repetition can lead to liking

indirect measures of attitudes

non thoughtful attitude measures -proximity -brain signals

Peripheral route

non-argument related cues of persuasion. Involves heuristic cues.

elaboration

people differ in the amount of message-relevant thinking, or elaboration they engage in: the amount of message elaboration determines what types of information that is important for a specific person.

why do people conform? normative influence

people feel a need to be accepted -conform because we fear consequences of appearing deviant -Don't conform to appear correct, but conform to feel accepted -Conform because you don't want to appear different from the group -Leads to public acceptance- people respond differently in private

Consistency

people generally act according to their values and beliefs, and do not contradict themselves. Once committed to something, people follow through. PRINCIPLE: people are motivated to be consistent and do not want to appear hypocritical. Inconsistency leads to uncomfortable cognitive dissonance.

The "Yale School" of attitude change. (~1950)

persuasion is a product of whether or not people can learn and remember arguments. Who says what to whom in what context? -Who: the source -Says what: the content/message -To whom: the audience -In what context: the context in which the message is received

Resisting persuasion

receivers of messages do not always change their attitudes. They may resist persuasive attempts in many ways. -Counter-argue: come up w/ arguments against advocated position -Bolster: come up w/ arguments in favor of own opinion

Indirect "implicit" measures

sequential priming, IAT (we care about speed and errors)

ambivalent attitude

something you both like/dislike (have positive and negative evaluations of)

effort justification

spending effort motivates seeing the end result as worth the effort.

why do people conform? informational influence

the need to know what is right and proper behavior -conform because you want to be correct -assume other people have more information than you do -leads to "private acceptance"- you actually believe that the other people are right

Conformity

the tendency to behave/think in ways that are consistent w/ group norms. Others affect me, even when they're not trying to. "implicit" social pressure.

dissonance

two conflicting beliefs, values, or attitudes. "I believe that exercising is important, but I rarely ever do it"

JC Penny

used to have coupons and sales, then decided to cut down on this. Sales declined a lot because people were addicted to coupons and sales!

Zanna & Cooper (1974)

wanted to rule out that it wasn't attribution (self-perception) and show that arousal is important. -Have participants write a positive essay about the USSR -Participants given sugar pill -pill will have no noticeable side effects -pill will cause anxiety and discomfort -if self-perception is correct, both groups should: see themselves writing essay --> make an inference that they like the USSR If dissonance is correct, only those who were given "no side effect" pill will change their attitude. -Other group can blame tension on the pill

Authority

when an authority figure asks you to do something, you go along with what he or she says. Principle: authorities are believed to have more knowledge and training, so they know what's best. -Manufactured authority: problem with authority is that you can often manufacture it: actor portraying a doctor, research assistants in lab coats, fake cop, etc.

induced compliance

when people freely perform an attitude-discrepant behavior without receiving an adequate reward they change their attitudes to deal with this dissonance

Fazio et. al 1977

whether attitude change is due to dissonance or self-perception depends on the extent to which behavior violates the attitude -Discrepancy high --> creates arousal --> cognitive dissonance explains attitude change -Discrepancy low --> no arousal --> self-perception explains the attitude change