Units 37 39


Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Units 37 39

  1. 1. Social Psychology
  2. 2. Attitudes <ul><li>Tendency to evaluate stimuli with some degree of favor or disfavor </li></ul><ul><li>3 components of an attitude </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Affective </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Behavioral </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Cognitive </li></ul></ul></ul>
  3. 3. Theory of Planned Behavior <ul><li>Change specific attitude toward a behavior </li></ul><ul><li>Emphasize subjective norms </li></ul><ul><li>Increase perceived behavioral control </li></ul>
  4. 4. Persuasion <ul><li>The deliberate attempt to change attitudes </li></ul><ul><li>Components of persuasion </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Source – speakers more persuasive when credible </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Message – fear appeals can be effective but often backfire </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Attitude strength – stronger attitudes harder to change </li></ul></ul></ul>
  5. 5. Persuasion <ul><li>Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>How do characteristics of the message influence persuasion? </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Two routes through which people are persuaded: </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Central route – involves inducing recipient of a message to think carefully and weigh the arguments (systematic processing) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li> – leads to more enduring attitude change </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Peripheral route – persuasion depends on nonmessage factors </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
  6. 6. Persuasion <ul><li>Elaboration Likelihood Model (con’t) </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Use central route to change attitudes when: </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Recipient’s attitude strength is strong </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Recipient motivated to think about message arguments </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Recipient knowledgeable about the message source </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Receiver carefully attends to message </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Using distractions (glitzy campaigns, jingles) to impede </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>rational and conscious message processing will only </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>cause annoyance </li></ul></ul></ul>
  7. 8. Persuasion <ul><li>Elaboration Likelihood Model (con’t) </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Use peripheral route to change attitudes when: </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Recipient not likely to engage in high-effort cognitive thought processing (superficial processing) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Attitude is weak </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Recipient will not carefully consider the pros/cons of the issue or message </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Use of distractions does not capitalize on rational </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>thought processes </li></ul></ul></ul>
  8. 10. Persuasion <ul><li>Requests that shift from small to large: </li></ul><ul><li>“ Foot-in-the-Door” </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Small request first get compliance then larger request </li></ul></ul><ul><li>“ Low-Balling” </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Reasonable request first get compliance reveal hidden costly details (i.e., mistaken price suddenly discovered) </li></ul></ul>
  9. 11. Persuasion <ul><li>Requests that shift from large to small: </li></ul><ul><li>“ Door-in-the-Face” </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Unreasonable first request immediate smaller request </li></ul></ul><ul><li>“ That’s-Not-All” </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Large request discount/bonus immediately follows </li></ul></ul>
  10. 12. <ul><li>Scarcity – Rare things are highly valued (Home Shopping network, “Limited Time Only”/“Supplies Limited” sales) </li></ul><ul><li>Reciprocity – First the source gives you something. Once you accept it, you may feel obligated to give something back </li></ul><ul><li>Comparison rule – When others stop and stare, so do you (“salting the collection plate”, etc.) </li></ul>Other Types of Influence
  11. 13. Persuasion <ul><li>Fear appeals </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Arousing fear in order to facilitate a particular behavioral outcome can be useful </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Two components </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>The threat – perceived susceptibility : convince recipient they are vulnerable </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li> – perceived negativity : convince consequences are negative </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Recommended response </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>– perceived self-efficacy : convince recipient they are capable of enacting the recommended response </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li> – perceived response efficacy : convince the recipient the response actually works </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
  12. 14. The Self <ul><li>Social Comparison Theory (Festinger, 1954) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>We compare own attributes with similar others </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>People are motivated to know (1) if they are correct and (2) their ability level </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Upward social comparison – “Better off others” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Downward social comparison – “Worse off others” </li></ul></ul><ul><li>          </li></ul>
  13. 15. The Self <ul><li>Cognitive Dissonance Theory </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Perceived discrepancy between an attitude and a behavior </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Leads to state of psychological tension similar to anxiety </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Individual motivated to either change the attitude, behavior, or perception of inconsistent information </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Festinger & Carlsmith (1959) </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Monotonous task experiment ($1 vs. $20) </li></ul></ul></ul>
  14. 16. <ul><li>Festinger & Carlsmith (1959) </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Participants performed boring motor coordination task for 30 minutes </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Experimenter asked if subject would introduce study to next participant (a confederate) to make $ </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Subjects given either $1 or $20 to tell next subject the boring experiment was fun </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Afterward, subject filled out a survey to assess how they really felt about the experiment </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Those paid $20 to lie evaluated the study as much less favorable than those only paid $1….why? </li></ul></ul></ul>The Self
  15. 17. The Self <ul><li>Festinger & Carlsmith (1959) </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>In the $20 condition, the dissonance (lying about a boring task) was weaker – they know why they lied </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>In the $1 condition, dissonance is higher because subjects could not justify their behavior on external grounds </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Only option to reduce dissonance is to modify attitude toward the task – “I guess it was kind of interesting.” </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul>
  16. 18. The Self <ul><li>Self-Affirmation Theory (Steele, 1988) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>People strive to think of themselves in positive terms </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>People experience tension whenever they do something that violates these self-ideals </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>To reduce tension, simply reestablish positive self image, global self-esteem, decency, or adequacy </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>How does this differ from Cognitive Dissonance Theory? </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
  17. 19. The Self <ul><li>Halo effect </li></ul><ul><ul><li>When we consider a person good (or bad) in one category, we are likely to make a similar evaluation of them in other categories </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Dissonance avoidance? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Attributing someone as good at one thing and bad at another would make an overall evaluation difficult </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Advertisers (i.e., toward iPod customers) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Hollywood stars </li></ul></ul></ul>
  18. 20. The Self <ul><li>Fundamental Attribution Error (Ross, 1977) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Attribute events which happen to other people to their internal states (mood, personality, motivations) but attribute events involving ourselves to external influences </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Especially true when we know little about the other person </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Examples? </li></ul></ul>
  19. 21. Conformity <ul><li>Why do we conform? </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Maintain group cohesion </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Fear of being ridiculed or excluded </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Normative influence – Adopting group consensus to be liked/to belong to the group </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Informational influence – Adopting group consensus to be right in the eyes of outgroup others </li></ul></ul></ul>
  20. 22. <ul><li>Zimbardo’s (1971) Stanford Prison Experiment </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>2 groups </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>“ Prisoners” picked up by California police on a Saturday </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>morning, deloused, chained, and jailed </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>“ Guards” wore uniforms, given billy clubs, whistles, and </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>instructed to maintain order in the prison </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Experiment cancelled after only a few days as guards became progressively sadistic/abusive </li></ul></ul></ul>Conformity
  21. 24. Conformity <ul><li>Milgram’s Obedience Experiments (1963) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Participants told study was about the effect of punishment on learning – really about conformity to authority </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Paired associates task, with shock as punishment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Confederate was the “learner” in other room, participant was the “teacher” who administered the shocks </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Shocking apparatus had 15v to 450v (lethal) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The more mistakes the confederate makes, the higher the shock the participant is asked to give </li></ul></ul>
  22. 25. Conformity <ul><li>Results: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>65% of participants “killed” the victim </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What determined such obedience to authority? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>participant heard by victim but not seen </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>prestigious location (Yale laboratory) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>high social status of “expert” authority figure </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>authority figure present to push participant to continue </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>When participants in same room, only 30% lethally shocked victim </li></ul></ul>
  23. 26. Groups <ul><li>Social facilitation </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Individual performance (esp. competitive tasks) is altered due to the presence of others </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Performance improves on simple or familiar tasks </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Performance may not improve on complex or new tasks </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul>
  24. 27. Groups <ul><li>Social loafing </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Individual effort decreases as size of group increases </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Influenced by: </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Diffusion of responsibility </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Decreased evaluation apprehension </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Group productivity illusion (“They’re doing fine”) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Personal interest toward task </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Level of identification with the group </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
  25. 28. Groups <ul><li>Deindividuation </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>In a crowd, people: </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Lose sense of self/less self-aware </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Experience sense of anonymity </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Become more impulsive </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Become less rational and more suggestible </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Behave in more extreme ways </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
  26. 30. <ul><li>Stereotypes </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Generalizations about the &quot;typical&quot; characteristics of members of a group (can be + or -) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>“The cowboy and the Indian” are American stereotypes </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Prejudice </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Unreasonable feelings/opinions (negative attitudes) regarding racial, religious, or national groups </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Discrimination </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Treatment (action) toward others based on class or category rather than individual merit </li></ul></ul></ul>Perceiving Groups
  27. 31. <ul><li>Mere Exposure Effect (Zajonc, 1968) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The more we are exposed to something, the more we come to like it </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ Familiarity breeds liking” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>There is some benefit to simply hanging around or being near someone you’re interested in! </li></ul></ul>Close Relationships
  28. 32. Close Relationships <ul><li>Sternberg’s 7 Types of Love </li></ul><ul><ul><li>- Non Love (absence of commitment, intimacy, or passion) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>- Empty Love (commitment but no intimacy or passion) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>- Infatuation (passion but no commitment or intimacy) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>- Companionate (commitment and intimacy but no passion) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>- Fatuous (commitment and passion but no intimacy) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>- Romantic (intimacy and passion but no commitment) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>- Consummate (intimacy, passion, and commitment) </li></ul></ul>
  29. 34. Close Relationships <ul><li>Attachment Theory (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991) </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Closeness/intimacy processes key in the development and maintenance of trust and security </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Types of Attachment </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Secure </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Preoccupied </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Dismissing-Avoidant </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Fearful-Avoidant </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>