Attitudes and consistency

Question 1

hypothetical mediating variable

Answer 1

ATTITUDE- stimulus leads to attitude leads to response

Question 2

balance theory + cog dissonance, ways to reduce cog diss

Answer 2

the traditional cog consistency theories. cog diss. can only happen with free will, diss– aversive state of arousal (uneasiness)– diss reduction.
ways to reduce diss: change behavior (difficult), focus on pos side, change attitude on one of the cognitions (didn’t want to do well on test anyway), shift attention to other positive qualities of self, trivialization

Question 3

self verification

Answer 3

ppl want to maintain beliefs, especially about themselves

Question 4

ways of having attitudes

Answer 4

cognitive (thoughts about something), affective (emotional response), behavioral (what you do)

Question 5

origin of cog diss. theory

Answer 5

A, B, C all equally attractive, either select A or B or recieved A or B. Then, either select alternative of previous choise (a or b) or new option (c). w cognitive diss, you’re more likely to devalue the option you originally rejected. So, when they originally chose it, more likely to choose a novel option than the one they rejected. done w monkeys and children, about equal results

Question 6

consistency theory predictions

Answer 6

selective perception: 
-exposure (seeking consistent info) 
-attention (attending to cons. info)
-interpretation (judging ambiguity as cons.) 
selective learning

Question 7

balance theory basics

Answer 7

Heider (1958), developed theory. Has 3 components, could be either balanced or imbalanced. Ex- (balanced: you like your partner, you partner likes your friend, your friend likes you. Imbalanced, you like your partner, your partner doesn’t like your friend, your friend likes you). Ppl tend to try to fix this imbalance by changing something (i.e., start to like your friend less, or partner starts liking friend). Can go beyond liking, and be “am i part of this group”

Question 8

problems w consistency seeking theories

Answer 8

limited approach. Ppl accept a fair amount of inconsistency.

Question 9

dual processing- impression formation

Answer 9

dual process model (two systems, fast/automatic/intuitive/immediate attitude, or slow/controlled/thoughtful)
of imp. info
stimulous (person), identification (can i idtentify w them), are they relevant to me (no–stop), if yes then self invovlement (do i want to know them?) if no then (categorization, if fits, then stereotypes stay, if it does not fit, then it leads to individuation). If yes, then personalization.

Question 10

dual proc- attribution

Answer 10

dual process model of overconfident attributions

spont. trait inference

Question 11

automatic system (top down)

Answer 11

intuitive, categorical, holistic, effortless. theory driven, sterotypes, heuristics, shemas, half truths. Cognitive misers

Question 12

controlled (bottom up)

Answer 12

data driven. personalization, systematic, attribute oriented. Motivated tactician, flexible interpreters

Question 13

taxonomy of impression formation

Answer 13

both category based and person based impressions can be both heuristic and elabortive.
processing level- peripheral- category based- stereotypinh- person based- simple
central- individuation- complex

Question 14

brewers model (motivated tactician)

Answer 14

focus on motivation

Question 15

chaiken model, heuristic-systematic model

Answer 15

a continuum w two ends- automatic, effortless– systematic, effortful
l(east effort principle) when we care less or want to use less effort we just use heuristics, like when watching a famous person sell a product
when we really care we analyze a LOT (sufficiency principle)

Question 16

elaboration likelihood model

Answer 16

ELM
similar to heuristic systematic model
systematic processing is called the central route
herutistic proc is called peripheral route. associations, etc
changing attitude through central route is more PERMANENT- more deeply processed, thought through
persuasive info either leafs to peripheral att. change, retaining intitial att., or central pos or neg att. change

Question 17

peripheral cues influence

Answer 17

when youre highly involved, much less likely to be influenced by peripheral cues but much more likely to be influenced by central cues

Question 18

classic conditioning (heuristic proc)

Answer 18

humor and beautiful women in ads, music, etc. Affective info directly linked to attitude object

Question 19

how-do-i-feel-about-it heuristic

Answer 19

if i feel good, i must like it

Question 20

consensus heuristic

Answer 20

if most ppl think it’s true, then it must be true (effect of applause on attitude)

Question 21

mood effects on peripheral route

Answer 21

when sad, more analytical and more persuaded by strong vs weak args. But when happy, less analytical/content driven and more evenly persuaded by strong/weak args

Question 22

individual diffs

Answer 22

outcome involved ppl don’t think more objectively/accurately, instead they think more.

• need for cognition, mot. to think
• uncertainty orientation, less heuristic.
• need to evaluate; bothers me to remain neutral, i form opinions about everything

Question 23

critiques of ELM

Answer 23

-doesnt explain why ppl support or counter arg. what they encounter
-model focused on pp lwho want to validate attitude, but some don’t
-persuasion variables have multiple roles
-maybe justification not true attitude change through cog responses
-