Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Social Psychology II > Attitudes & Behaviour: Attitude Change > Flashcards

Attitudes & Behaviour: Attitude Change Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
Psychology 101 flashcards GRE® Psychology flashcards AP® Psychology flashcards
1
Q

ATTITUDE COMPONENTS

A
  1. THOUGHTS = cognition/C
  2. FEELINGS = affect/A
  3. ACTIONS = behaviour/B
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

CHANGING ATTITUDES VIA CHANGING THOUGHTS

A
  • persuasive communication influenced by:
    1. SOURCE
    2. CONTENT
    3. AUDIENCE
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

SOURCE FACTORS

A

CREDIBILITY
ATTRACTIVENESS
SIMILARITY
SLEEPER EFFECT

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

CONTENT FACTORS

A

COMMUNCATION ARGUMENTS
APPEALING TO EMOTIONS

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

CONTENT: COMMUNCATION ARGUMENTS

A
  • more arguments = better via repetition
  • counterarguments depend on audience; initial agreement -> one-sided = better; initial disagreement -> counterargument provided BUT refuted
  • spell out conclusions
  • discrepancy/credibility aimed for small changes
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

CONTENT: APPEALING TO EMOTIONS

A
  • communication depicts extremely negative/fearful consequences of refusing change
  • convinces audience that consequences likely if attitudes don’t change
  • offers strong positive reassurance that complying w/recommendations will have positive results
  • fear builds emotional tension -> audience = ^ receptive BUT only if tinged w/optimistic idea of fearful consequences being avoided via recommendations
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

AUDIENCE FACTORS

A

INTELLIGENCE
GENDER
AGE
CULTURE

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

HOW DOES PERSUASION OCCUR?

A
  • popular models say it depends upon cognitive responses to attitude object; varies across people/situations ie:
    PETTY & CACIOPPO (1986)
    1. ELM (Elaboration Likelihood Model)
    CHAIKEN ET AL (1991)
    2. HSM (Heuristic-Systematic Model)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

ELABORATION LIKELIHOOD MODEL (ELM)

A
  • people motivated to hold correct attitudes
  • amount/nature of issue-relevant elaboration varies
  • variables can affect attitudes by serving as arguments/cues/factors affecting nature/amount of elaboration
  • motivation to process message objectively elicits argument scrutiny
  • motivation/ability to process arguments causes ^ argument usage/lower cue usage
  • biased processing leads to biased issue-relevant thoughts
  • elaborate processing of message -> new/strong attitudes
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

HEURISTIC-SYSTEMATIC MODEL (HSM)

A
  • similar to ELM as elaborates motivation/ability as message processing depth determinants
  • proposes extending more effort to assess message quality when motivation/ability = ^ (systematic)/use simple cues/heuristics when motivation/ability = low (heuristic)
  • huge overlap w/ELM
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

ELM PROCESS

A
  • 2 main attitude change routes:
    1. PERIPHERAL (spontaneous)
    2. CENTRAL (deliberative)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

ELM: PERIPHERAL ROUTE

A
  • be swayed by cues peripheral -> message content (ie. source factors)
  • use heuristics like “people who talk fast get what they’re saying”
  • default UNLESS willing/deliberative intention
  • attitude change via PR = temporary/susceptible to change/poor beh predictor
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

ELM: CENTRAL ROUTE

A
  • if willing/deliberate:
  • generate own thoughts favourable/unfavourable to message arguments
  • use self-generated reactions to arrive at attitude that MIGHT dif from initial attitude
  • attitude change via CR = relatively permanent/resistant to further change/good beh predictor
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

ELM FLOW: HIGH

A

PERSUASION ATTEMPT
- message
AUDIENCE FACTORS
- high motivation/ability to think about message
PROCESSING APPROACH
- deep processing focused on argument quality
PERSUASION OUTCOME
- lasting change resisting fading/counterattacks

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

ELM FLOW: LOW

A

PERSUASION ATTEMPT
- message
AUDIENCE FACTORS
- low motivation/ability to think about message
PROCESSING APPROACH
- superficial processing focused on surface features ie. speaker’s attractiveness/argument number
PERSUASION OUTCOME
- temporary change susceptible to fading/counterattacks

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

ROUTE DETERMINATION

A

ABILITY
- aka. cognitive load
MOTIVATION
- aka. need for cognition
PERSONAL INTEREST
- aka. will this affect me?

17
Q

ABILITY

A

PETTY ET AL (1976)
- college students listened to strong/weak argument favouring 20% tuition ^
- 1/2 busy (did complex computer task while listening)
- 1/2 non-busy

18
Q

ABILITY RESULTS

A

PETTY ET AL (1976)
- non-busy = strong arguments -> agreement w/disliked proposal
- busy = strong + weak -> agreement w/disliked proposal AS…
- complex computer task prevented counter-argument
- factors ^ processing decrease peripheral cue reliance

19
Q

NEED FOR COGNITION (NFC)

A

HIGH
- enjoys tasks requiring making new solutions to problems
- sets goals that can only be accomplished via expending considerable mental effort
- prefers complex over simple problems
LOW
- thinking ISN’T fun
- enough if job is done; don’t care how/why
- more thinking = more errors

20
Q

MOTIVATION

A

CACIOPPO & PETTY (1982)
- are issues deeply considered? is one high/low in Need for Cognition (NFC)?
- college students listened to strong/weak arguments
- 1/2 high/low NFC
- low NFC = agreed more w/weak BUT agreed w/both
- high NFC = ONLY impressed w/strong

21
Q

PERSONAL INTEREST

A

PETTY ET AL (1981)
- students read communication about comprehensive exam at uni either:
1. in 10y (low personal relevance)
2. immediately (high personal relevance)
- communication attributed to either:
1. prestigious education commission
2. high school class

22
Q

PERSONAL INTEREST RESULTS

A
  • source credibility (peripheral cue) mattered more for low personal relevance (esp. w/weak arguments) BUT…
  • argument strength (central cue) mattered more for high personal relevance students
23
Q

KRUGLANSKI’S SINGLE PROCESS

A
  • any info relevant to attitude judgement can be used to form attitude even when info = cued (ie. anti-abortion message = fetus suffers if aborted)
  • stronger belief is argument from widely acknowledged fetal development expert > priest
  • no way to access message validity
  • SO… no real dif between cue/message content
24
Q

SINGLE VS DOUBLE PROCESSES

A
  • Kruglanski = most studies show cues briefly/early
  • longer/complex message arguments appear later
  • not much effort involved in understanding/using cues BUT…
  • higher effort levels needed to understand/use message arguments
  • dif should disappear if cues are made complex/arguments are made simple ie:
  • source expertise (cue) presented in complex way via lengthy message source resume (need to work out who from/what said)
  • SOME validity but two-process favour overall
25
Q

! COGNITIVE INFLUENCES: SUMMARY !

A
  • attitudes influenced by info we have about attitude object’s attributes/properties
  • reactions depend on source/content/audience/context/deliverance
  • theories talking about info processing sequences show how hard it can be to persuade (can fail at many stages)
  • cognitive reactions to persuasive info = vital subsequent attitude determinants
  • motivation/ability affect how cognitive processes shape attitudes
26
Q

AFFECIVE INFLUENCES ON ATTITUDES

A
  • feeling/attitudes = closely linked
  • not really about unified models; more dif ideas
  • include:
    EXPOSURE
    EMOTION LEARNING
    MOOD
27
Q

EXPOSURE

A

ZAJONC (1968)
- mere exposure evokes positive attitude
- aka. the more you see object = more you like it
MORELAND & BEACH (1992)
- 4 similar women attend 130pp class x0/5/10
- students rated slides rating them at term end
- despite no interaction, x15 attendees = ^ liked
BRICKMAN ET AL (1972)
- ^ liking for paintings previously rated as positive/neutral
- BUT less liking for disliked ones

28
Q

MERE EXPOSURE & PERSUASIVE MESSAGES

A

WEISBUCH, MACKIE & MARQUES (2003)
- mere exposure (ME) -> persuasive message source ^ agreement ONLY when pps unaware of prior exposure
- 220w essays favouring tax hikes > repair roads
- alleged author in small photo
- POST essays = pps prior photo exposure manipulated (mixed w/others/exposed subliminally/no exposure)

29
Q

MERE EXPOSURE & PERSUASIVE MESSAGES: RESULTS

A
  • ^ agreement when source previously shown
  • effect eliminated if pps who’d seen photo = consciously asked if they had (pre attitude ratings)
  • ONLY subliminal exposure pps showed increased agreement w/message post answering Q (unaware of exposure)
30
Q

MERE EXPOSURE PROCESS

A
  • familiarity/boredom
  • conscious/non-conscious habituation
  • habituation REDUCES negative effect
  • boredom INCREASES negative effect
31
Q

EMOTION LEARNING

A
  • attaching products to something positive (ie. ad)
  • includes:
    EXPOSURE CONDITIONING
    BEHAVIOUR CONDITIONING
    OBSERVATIONAL CONDITIONING
32
Q

MOOD EFFECTS ON ATTACHMENTS

A
  • mood has powerful effect on attitudes
  • OVERALL evidence suggests we express attitudes in line w/current mood
33
Q

MOOD CONGRUENCE MODERATORS

A

SCHWARZ & CLORE (1983)
- mood doesn’t always elicit matching attitudes
- when attention explicitly drawn to mood cause = less likely to influence attitudes
- mood-as-info

34
Q

MOOD EFFECTS ROUTES

A
  • might link to ELM
  • we might strive to maintain good mood and become lazy
35
Q

! AFFECTIVE INFLUENCES: SUMMARY !

A
  • mere exposure elicits positive attitudes
  • attitudes influence by pairing objects/behaviours w/emotional experiences/subtle rewards
  • positive may lead to ^ liking BUT varies
  • mood can be cue/bias source/info processing motivator/resource
  • consider other emotions ie. fear
36
Q

ALBARRACIN & SHAVITT (2018)

A
  • importance of context
  • when studying attitude change, be ^ mindful of:
    1. THE PERSON (individual values/general goals/language/emotions/developmental or life span influences)
    2. THE SOCIAL CONTEXT (individual’s interactions w/communicators/social networks/social media)
    3. THE BROADER SOCIO-HISTORICAL CONTEXT (impact of historically significant climatic/political/economic events, fundamental cultural impact on characteristics/functions of attitude)
37
Q

! SUMMARY !

A
  • classic research gives basic understanding of what motivates attitude change (source/context/audience)
  • cognitive processes may affect attitude change (ELM/HSM)
  • affective processes influence attitude change (exposure/emotion learning/mood)
  • attitudes are continually shaped/modified by personal/contextual factors

Social Psychology II (18 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions