Exam 2 Flashcards
Conformity, Persuasion, Attitudes & Behaviors
Attitudes
Evaluative judgments
- good or bad; like or dislike
- not all created equally (ex: hangers/carpet)
- attitudes influence behavior and vice versa
Tri component of conceptualizing attitudes
ABC (interchangeable and tridirectional)
- Affect (attitude)
- Behavior
- Cognition
Attitudes and predicting behavior
People expressed attitudes hardly predicted behavior
- wicker 1969 –> “systemic review”
when do attitudes predict behavior
- social (+ other) influences on what we say are minimized/minimal
- behavior is aggregate
- Attitudes are specific to behaviors of interest
- attitudes are potent
- self-awareness is higher (mirror study)
When does behavior affect attitude
- we come to believe in what we stand up for (saying is believing)
- foot in the door phenomenon
- Roleplaying
- individualists are more likely to hold tight to their beliefs (consistency/must commit to show healthy mental stability)
foot in the door phenomenon
smaller request increases the likelihood of larger requests
- escalating behavioral commitments (acts)
- a tends to fall in line with b
- Dr. M and Last Hope K-9
Role playing
social monitoring + social roles
- when we step into a new role, we may feel phony but soon it begins to “fit”
- we internalize and adopt the attitudes that reflect the role
role
a set of norms that defines how people ought to behave
Why does behavior affect attitudes?
“saying becomes believing”
no compelling external explanation for one’s words (check) vs forced or perceived no choice (X)
the science of self talk (does it work?)
could use this idea to help with life challenges/changes like…
- self-doubt
- body image
- performance anxiety
Zimbardo - Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE)
best example of how attitudes are shaped on roles + Situations influence
- Zimbardo and the mock prison set up at the Stan. psych basement
- male college students through newspaper ad were randomly assigned to guard or prisoner
- finding: if the situation is powerful enough, morally good people can be convinced to engage in corrupt or evil behavior
- critiques: study designs, findings validity, tellings of the drawn conclusions
Critiques of the SPE
- UK replication attempt showed no violence (Hasham + Reicher)
- Can’t simulate real prison life
- Zimbardo encouraged and created a narrative that fostered reverence for his study (Gray + Blum)
- “Guards weren’t given instruction” skepticism –> prison consultant+undergrad research assistant
- Douglass Korpi breakdown (undue stress)
- Abusive guard –> social desirability (good results for researchers)
- archived audio –> coached participants
- Not all guards were equally abusive
- situation vs person (ad selection)
- participants who responded to the ad scored higher on social dominance, narcissism and lower on altruism
Based on the SPE study
perhaps certain types of people were drawn to the SPE
- same results, maybe not (Carnahan + McFarland)
Limitations of C + M
- Not a direct replication
- forever changing absolute truth overtime (re-examining is necessary to fully know)
Zimbardo Rebuttal to Critiques
- self-promotional
- said korpi changed the story –> in the film “Quiet Rage” he says Korpi broke down
- Only one guard “prodded to be tougher
- never claimed personality didn’t matter (variation in niceness)
- Eshelmans comments on how role playing doesn’t negate abusive behavior became extreme (nicer? intervention?)
making sense of SPE
- audio recorded evidence should not be ignored
- findings could still tell us something important
- recognize situation forces (individual variables matter)
Cognitive Dissonance Theory
inconsistent cognitions or doing something that is inconsistent with behavior
behavior does not equal attitude
- more dissonance when LESS external justification ($1 vs $20)
Why does behavior lead to attitude change
- cognitive dissonance theory
- Self-perception theory
Dissonance
the unpleasant psychological state that we are motivated to reduce
Example of CDT
I love smoking, despite knowing the health risks, and do it anyway
Festinger’s Main Ways to reduce Dissonance
- Change behavior
- Change cognitions/add new information
- Selective exposure -seek infor that agrees with ones views while avoiding dissonant information
Carlsmith + Festinger 1959
A: would counter-attitudinal action produce changes in how participants feel?
Would being paid $1 vs $20 to tell others that a boring task was interesting alter how ‘enjoyable’ the participants found the boring task
M: Peg/knob turning, 3 conditions:
1. paid $1 to lie about fun exp.
2. paid $20 to lie about fun exp.
3. Control no lying no $
DV = rated enjoyment of the exp.
F: control had the lowest exp. enjoyment while $1 (high dissonance group) had the highest
- more dissonance when less external justification
counter-attitudinal action
behaving one way that is inconsistent with the way we are thinking or feeling
external justification that effects dissonance
blatant coercion
directly ordered
strong/highly desired external rewards
steps of dissonance
- imitation: actions conflict with important aspects of self
- Amplification: more dissonance arises when the action is seen as freely chosen
- Motivation: dissonance is experienced as unpleasant arousal
- Reduction: due to change designed to remove unpleasant arousal (conscious or unconscious)
applied value of CDT
Decision making - post decisional dissonance
and
effort justification
post decisional dissonance
the tension we feel after deciding between two options that offer both positive and negative features
effort justification
we come to like what we “suffer” for
- the tendency for individuals to increase their liking for something they have worked hard to attain
limitations to dissonance theory
- culture –> doesn’t generalize well. holds better in western individualistic cultures. collectivists are all abt the group goal and therefore are more comfortable doing things inconsistent with there attitudes
- affirming oneself in another domain –> resolve the dissonance in a different way (won’t feel as much)
- you do something wrong, feel bad, then do other nice things to make up for it (resolving the dissonance)
Self-perception theory (SPT)
internal cues to our mental and feeling states are weak
we look at our own behavior to develop attitudes
behavior –> attitude
- attributional reasoning –> look to behavior and external constraints
- more parsimonious than CDT
- INFER ATTITUDE based on behavior and external factors
- Overjustification effect
overjustification effect
a decrease in intrinsic motivation caused by providing external rewards
- many life tasks contain both int and ext rewards
- overjustification effect is about necessary rewards
lepper et al (1973)
- 3 groups (expected reward, unexpected, no reward)
- DV = % time spent drawing w markers (mins)
- random assignment of kids
- kids are placed in a toy room and asked “to color and when you are done you get [condition dependent]”
- ER = 8.59%. UR = 18.09% NR = 16.73%
- RESULT: If we are given unnecessary rewards –> there is less intrinsic motivation (doing something for reward takes away the joy)
comparing CDT and SPT
NO ONE THEORY CAN EXPLAIN ALL FINDINGS
hard to compare + inconsistent b + a produce arousal (hr)
CDT
- cant explain attitude change w/o dissonance
- cant explain overjustification theory
- focuses on contradictions in behavior and attitude
- looks at the presence of rewards on motivation
SPT
- cant explain attitude change that occurs via arousal
- overall better explains attitude formation
- looks at readily available attitudes to guide behavior
- neutral attitudes when they aren’t strongly formed
implications of B to A research
changing one’s own attitude: alter your own behavior to change your attitudes
- clinician strategy –> tell patients “go outside for x amount of time or interact with x individuals”
how to change other’s attitudes: change how other behave hoping their attitude follows
social influence
the exercise of social power by a person or group to change the attitudes/behavior of others in a particular direction
conformity
a change in behavior or belief as the result of real or imagined (perceived) group pressure
types of conformity
- acceptance - acting/believing in line with the social pressure
- compliance - publicly acting in line with an implied or explicit request (privately disagree)
- obedience (compliance type) –> acting in line with
direct order or command
conformity + social norms
we often conform due to social norms
ex: walking on the right side
norms concerning sympathy
- do not make unwarranted claims of sympathy
- dont claim too much sympathy too often
- dont claim sympathy too readily/quickly
- claim + accept some sympathy (symp lines open)
- repay sympathy w gratitude and/or sympathy
what factors allow for sympathy even when the rules are not always followed?
kids or people in a vulnerable situation that require it
what happens when sympathy roles are violated
negative impressions and relationships suffer
sympathy
feeling sorry for or with another person
what are some ways that we give sympathy in our digital era?
- reposting content –> sad current events
- phone calls and txts to check in on loved ones
- user bio
- dedicating a post to someone
motivations underlying conformity
- normative social influence
- informational social influence
normative social influence
conformity based on a person’s desire to fulfill other expectations often to gain acceptance
- driven by a desire to be liked
information social influence
conformity occurs when people accept evidence about reality provided by other people
- driven by a desire to be right
who has extra influence on you for both informational and normative reasons
FRIENDS
Informational and social influence in the real world
- hotels have increased the number of ppl who reuse bath towels (reducing water and energy use)
informational: signs w information on saving energy/conserving water
normative: signs saying “most guests reuse”
normative or informational influence?
informational –> a task is difficult, a person cares abt being correct, to feel competent
important factors = the duration of the behavior, and presence of a punishing agent, in the real world both are happening simultaneously
classic conformity studies
- asch (1951)
- sherif (1935) –> norm formation
Sherif study (1935)
tried to isolate norm formation
- autokinetic phenomenon –> apparent movement of a point of light in the dark
- asked “how far did the light move”
- responses varied but began to converge w more trials
- RESULT: alone –> 1.75”-7” vs 3-group sessions where responses converged/matched
- 1 year later they gave the same conforming response (lasting)
Norms formation is maintained and reinforced
in uncertain situations, people conform to group opinion
Asch (1951)
Conformity (peer pressure on conformity)
- 6 confederate, 1 participant do the asch paradigm line task
- first few trials the confeds say the correct response but in critical trials they all say wrong answers
- RESULT:
75% conformed at least once to the confeds
37% of total responses were conforming
control group –> virtually no errors
writing answers down = no errors
Social pressures can cause ppl to go against their own judgments
what predicts conformity?
- judgements are difficult
- people feel incompetent (insecure of own judgements)
- group size (Milgrim field experiment, 3-5 ppl)
- status (low ppl conform to high status)
- unanimity
- cohesiveness
- public commitment
Milgram Field Experiment
looked at the percentage of passersby who imitated a group looking upward at the sky
- bigger group –> more imitation
- 5-6 ppl in a group produced more conformity (then it plateaus)
who conforms
people pleasers and rule followers
- please other and follow rules
- fulfill/uphold social roles
- culture influences social responsiveness
conformity in everyday situations
- dental flossing (told others flossed ppl flossed more)
- cancer screening
- eating (someone eating a lot, you eat a lot too)
suggestibility in the real world
- the chameleon effect –> mimicking another’s behavior (contagious yawning)
- Mass hysteria –> suggestibility to problems that spread throughout a large group of ppl (gun violence+copycat suicide)
Obedience
- type of complieance
- acting in accord with direct order
- Constructive ob: it’s necessary to benefit society
- destructive ob: harms society (Milgram’s focus)
Milgram Shock Study
1961
- 40 men paid $4.50
- a male experimenter in a lab coat
- participant = teacher, confed = learner
- participant must shock learner for getting questions wrong
- sample shock
- psychiatrist prediction –> most stop at 150 volts
- RESULT:
65% went all the way to 450 volts (26/40)
similar result with more compelling learner reactions
How do we understand the results of Milgram Shock Study?
-ppl were not abnormal or sadistic
-power of the situation (present authority figure)
-dont commit FAE
- prods: “you must go on” “it is absolutely necessary that you continue” etc
ethical critiques of Milgram Shock + response
- undue stress against participant’s will
- altered self-concepts
his response:
-“terribly overblown”
- 84% glad they participated
-psychiatrist evaluated participants a year later and found no lasting harm (not a strong response)
Milgram’s explanation for Shock study
Agency Theory 1974
Agency Theory 1974
People have 2 states of behavior in a social situation
1. autonomous state
2. agentic state
autonomous state of agency theory
direct own actions, take responsibility
agentic state of agency theory
allows other to direct actions and pass responsibility for consequences
- belief in qualified/legitimate authority
- belief that an authority figure accepts responsibility
milgram replication factors to affect obedience
- emotional distance
- closeness + legitimacy of the authority figure
- institutional authority and prestige
- Modeling
emotional distance Milgram obedience factor
- depersonalization
- learner in the same room –> shock rate drops to 40%
- must put learner’s hand on the shock plate –> drops to 30%
- Another participant (confed) gives shock –> up to 93% (more distance from learner)
closeness + legitimacy Milgram obedience factor
- order given over phone –> down to 21%
- the experimenter called away and replaced by a participant in regular clothes–> down to 20%
Institutional authority + prestige Milgram obedience factor
study moved to bridgeport CONN (modest run down building) –> down to 48%
modeling Milgram obedience factor
2 confeds with a participant (the one teacher confed refused to obey)
- served as a model for breaking conformity –> down to 10%
jerry burger modern replication (2006)
partial replication of Milgram shock study (n=70)
- went up to 150 v (moral tipping pt)
- slightly lower obedience rate but similar
- no gender differences
- modeling did not significantly sway teachers like in Milgrams
- concern of teachers didn’t predict stopping likelihood
PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY
other factors on Milgrams Shock + obedience
age, culture, gender, personality
mostly western, individualist countries
they DONT vary
Influences on refusal
- compassion
- ethics
- recognition of situation as problematic
would you shock a puppy?!
Milgrim replication by Sheridan and King (1972)
- shock a puppy when it misbehaves
- ALL women shocked till the end
- 6 male participants refused to continue
SMALL SAMPLE –> ACCURACY OF GENDER COMPARISONS
Why was Milgram’s set up so effective? 4 features
- “slippery slope” of incremental commitment
- the norm in this situation is to shock (social norms)
- opportunity to deny responsibility
4, limited time to reflect on the decision
real world implications of obedience (blind)
hoflings(1966) field experiment –> obedience to authority in med. setting –> nurses were asked by doc to provide a high dosage of medication (placebo) (not reccommended) –> 21/22 did it anyway despite their own judgement
- what could happen when lives are on the line?
- how can we safeguard?
- how to avoid
resisting social pressure
reactance –> a motive to protect or restore one’s sense of freedom
asserting uniqueness
in a group, we are most conscious of how we differ from others
ex: little kids when asked to describe themselves mention their qualities that separate them from others (macguire)
psychological reactance in the real world
- COVID + americans and masks (rebelling when told what to do)
- warning labels (threat to freedom/forbidden fruit)
- “reverse psych”
persuasion
the process by which a message induces change in attitudes or behaviors…a means of convincing people to:
- agree w a point of view
- believe something, or act a certain way
- buy a product
elaboration likelihood model (ELM)
when different persuasion factors are more or less likely to impact individuals
1. central route
2. peripheral route
Hovland 1953 –> yale attitude approach
central route of ELM
interested people focus on the arguments and respond with “critical” thoughts (cognitive elaboration)
DEEP THINKING
“reasoned” conclusion (doesn’t mean its unbiased)
peripheral
superficial thinking
not focused on the message; rather influece by “incidental or peripheral cues
- quick + superficial
- influence by things that dont matter
- cues that cause persuasion
mindless persuasion in the real world
- merchandise at eye-level
- merchandise at the end of the aisle
- bundle pricing
- prices ending in 99, 95, or 9 (feels cheaper)
factors that determine ELM route to expose a message
- motivation
- ability
process approach: deep, focused on message quality
lasting, resists fading + counterattacks
low motivation/ability approach: superficial, surface features (attractiveness) (opp nature)
elements of persuasion
- credibility (perceived expertise and trustworthiness, motives, humor, speaking style, ex: CAMEL cigs smoked by doctors”)
- message (what)
- How is it communicated (How
- audience (to whom)
Trustworthiness
arguing in own self-interest = lower perceived trust
ex: paid expert testifying for defense ==> karen reid gets a expert testifyer hired by the FBI, jury finds out, hung jury
trust + humor
to establish/connect with an audience
persuasion tactic
can distract from deep thinking (more trusting?)
good mood –> less counterarguing
linguistic style
influences credibility
rapid > slower speakers (speak slow, think slow heuristic)
women –> hestitat style = more common
juries are more convinced when the witness is confident and fluent
caveat: can speak too much w/o listening
sleeper effect
delayed persuasion
an initially discounted message become effective, as we remember the message but forget the reasons for discounting it
ex: taking a test, remember the prof says it but cant remember is it’s true or false
beauty
physically attractive communicator increases persuasion
similarity
identification with someone increases their ability to persuade
doesn’t take much
- fleeting/quick convo
-winnning votes from uninformed voters (based on looks)
HALO effect –> other positive qualities like competence
message quality
central route, argument must be strong VS peripheral
emotion vs reason
well educated + analytical person? –> more persuaded by logic based appeals
less educated and less analytical people –> more emotional base to be convinced
dependent on how the initial attitude was formed (e/r?) –> If the attitude was initially logically formed, emotional persuasion wont convince at vice versa
Emotion: ASPCA commercials
Logical: Burglar ads
Good feelings
- enhance persuasion (make us more susceptible despite the quality)
fear appeals
persuasive communication that attempts to persuade through use of threatening stimuli
- threat competent
-ex: former drug campaigns (“this is your brain on drugs”)
what type of fear appeals are effective?
graphic images > text-only
evidence that anti-smoking campaigns have been effective using graphic images
ex: pictures of blackened lungs and stained yellow teeth shown to young adults increased
- fear
- accurate recollection of health message
it decresed…
- chance of smoking
fear appeal example across the globe
australia added graphic images (sick and dying smokers) to cig. packages (2012)
decreased smoking rate by ~5%
fear appeals work better when…
- vulnerable + susceptible
- perceived solutions (place to get tested or get help)
- self-efficacy
- 1-time occurence (v. repeated)
- moderate fear (diff from txtbook)
one sided vs two sided appeals
is the audience aware of opposing views
- offer 2-sided appeal (perceived credibility + trustworthiness)
ex: The defense’s case seems more credible when damaging evidence is discussed before the prosecution
MIXED RESEARCH
When to present my message?
present before or after my opponent?
primacy typically more effective than recency
primacy effect
other things being equal, information presented first usually has the most influence
recency effect
information presented last sometimes has the most influence
primacy and recency…may depend on
- back-to-back messages
- if the audience responds at a later time –> primacy effect - message 1 with time before message 2
- audience responds after the 2nd message –> recency effect
How the channel of communication
the way the message is delivered–whether face-to-face, in writing or film, or in some other way
- repetition
- rhyming
- active experience that strengthens attitudes
- increases fluency and believability
repetition
- adults and children are more likely to believe a message if heard 2x rather than 1x
- the more familiar and recognizable –> more believable a statement
- repetition –> familiarity, familiarity –> liking
Message repetition in the real world
politicians use repetition to win votes + discredit opponents
“murder rate is the highest it’s been in 45 years” –> Donald trump repeatedly saying the 2016 election was rigged
caveats of message repetition
2 exceptions:
- initial attitude
- frequency of repetition - 3x = suggested max in a given time frame
ex: HEAD ON ad
rhyming-as-reason effect (cognitive bias)
more likely to believe statements that contain rhyme vs. no rhyme
- easier to process
-“sounds better”/rolls of the tongue (more likely to repeat/remember)
woes unite foes > woes unite enemies
the channel of communication: best to worst
with media –> persuasion = more life like
order of persuasion:
- live (face to face)
- videotaped
- audiotaped
- written
difficult messages are best understood + recalled when written down
contact has greater influence than the media
- modern selling often strives to use more word-of-mouth
- knocking on doors»»
To whom: the audience
- age
- thoughtfulness
- self-esteem
- intelligence
age (audience)
teens and young adults are more impressionable (attitudes forming)
attitudes often solifify in middle adulthood
life cycle explanation (for attitude change over time)
attitudes change as people grow older
generational explanation
attitudes don’t really change; older people largely hold onto the attitudes they adopted when young
data primarily supports this
intelligence (audience)
people with lower intelligence are more easily persuaded (general)
self-esteem (audience)
people with moderate self-esteem are easiest to persuade
thoughtfulness (audience)
if the message is strong, it should stimulate thinking
stimulating thinkinng makes…
strong message > persuasive
weak < persuasive
ways to stimulate thinking
- use rhetorical questions
- present multiple speakers
- make people feel responsible
- repeat the message
- get people’s undistracted attention
individual differences in thoughtfulness
need for cognition: motivation to think
if the person has high need for cog, the argument quality must be strong (central route processing)
does the audience know you are trying to persuade them
- forewarned is forearmed
- distraction disarms counterarguing (images)
- uninvolved audiences use peripheral cues
forewarned is forearmed
Does the audience know you are trying to persuade them? –> they might be motivated to counterargue
Common persuasion tactis
- rule of reciprocation/reciprocity
- Consistency + Commitment
- Foot-in-the-door
- Door-in-the-face
Rule of reciprocity
we should repay what a person has provided us
- its strongest when we are given something unexpected + personal
- ppl feel the offer = generous, more likely to return the favor
coca cola experiment (reagan 1971)
evaluating art = cover; fellow confed
two IVs:
1. likeability (polite vs rude on phone)
2. reciprocity (brings ex soda vs nothing)
confed asked participant if they’d buy a raffle ticket?
no soda: likeability influenced raffle
soda: 2x as many raffles (likeability didn’t matter)
consistency + commitment
desire to maintain consistency with what you have already done or said, especially in public
commitment characteristics that foster more lasting ones
1. public
2. active
3. effortful
4. freely chosen
door in the face
rejection then retreat
large request is rejected followed up by a smaller request that gets increased compliance
result? more likely to donate and donate more
what makes it effective?
- “retreat” in the form of a small request is viewed as a favor (r of r) and creates a contrast that seems more reasonable (contrast principle)
wicker 1969
found that attitudes were a weak predictor of behavior
“systemic” review
