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