Final Flashcards
How do nonverbal influence & liking affect
attitudes & behaviour?
-they can serve as simple heuristic cues (attractiveness, height, hand gestures
-we are more influenced by sources that we like
-bias the valence of thoughts (smiling source will make us associate their message with positivity)
-can serve as ‘evidence’ or an argument for a message (hot person selling beauty products)
-can be determinant of processing route, heuristic when we focus on things like appearance, objectification aka not systematic
what 2 factors predict liking?
attractiveness and similarity
we tend to like sources that exemplify this and are more influenced by them in turn
ingratiating
a person attempts to influence another person by becoming more likable to their target
pretending to like the band of the girl you like so she will talk to you
physical attractiveness as a social factor
-they are treated more positively
-income and attractiveness are positively correlated
-they tend to be more liked, leading to greater influence
Why does physical attractiveness
increase liking?
we find their company inherently rewarding, like seeing a beautiful landscape- pleasure areas of the brain activate
halo effect
what is good is beautiful stereotype
-we associate beauty with other good qualities
- attractive people are judged to be smart, successful, confident, etc… these are assumed positive attributes
- self-fulfilling prophecy that perpetuates itself
what are some examples of the influence of physical attractiveness?
hot models can enhance consumer evaluations of a product, people are more likely to imitate their behaviors, they tend to receive more help and cooperation from others
Similarity
we tend to like people that are similar to us in terms of demographic, attitudes, personality, attractiveness, experience, clothing, politics, etc.
similarity is enforcing to one’s own self concept, they validate our view of the world
In romantic relationships, similarity between partners in SES, education, age, religion, physical attractiveness, intelligence, & others predicts higher marital satisfaction
behavioral mimicry
a small pro social way that someone can appear more ‘similar’ when building rapport
Similarity and context
things like clothing can indicate a lot, similarly dressed sources are more persuasive
in more formal settings it is better to also be more well dressed, but better to be more casually dressed when trying to persuade someone at a bus stop
similarity can also backfire when someone is very self-critical and you share a trait with them-rather than being more persuaded-they may have a lower opinion of you
familiarity and positive contact
we tend to like things that are familiar to us
-such as taking the same route to work/brands that we are familiar with and have bought before
-we prefer the mirrored images of ourselves but the true image of friends, each of which are the more familiar stimuli
mere exposure effect
the more often people are exposed to a stimulus, the more
positively they evaluate that stimulus
-Even subliminal presentations of a stimulus show the mere exposure effect
-such as liking the people you sit next to in class more, or liking a song more after frequent exposure
do opposites attract?
at a higher level, there is little evidence
-the least important factor in terms of similarity being personality, like an introvert and an extrovert will work out, rather than something like conflicting political beliefs
what degree of similarity is needed?
not much, even trivial measures of similarity can have an effect, and this happens at an unconscious level
like a 4 digit code being close to your birthday
-similarity between the names “Kriza” and “Kirti” may have been enough for me to perceive her as similar and more likable
self-essentialist beliefs
beliefs that oneʼs attributes are caused by an underlying essence, like their aura, religion, spirituality, etc…
individual differences in self-essential beliefs amplify the effects of trivial similarities and liking
- the higher it is, the more trivial attributions can matter, more likely to undergo attributional processing
ex: the whole story of my name
subliminal presentations of stimuli (in relation to the mere exposure effect)
-this is something like briefly flashing images during an online activity, participants presented with the image in a set of other random images prefer the image they were unconsciously exposed to
the exposure should be a neutral-positive experience
high conflict situations such as constantly seeing a coworker you hate will not make you like them more
social ties and familiarity
the strength of social ties between the requestor and the target are a significant predictor of compliance likelihood
- random people from high school peddling their MLM are unlikely to illicit much compliance, but more than a complete stranger
- confederates that made requests with people they talked to prior elicited more compliance than confederates that had no prior contact
Why does familiarity increase liking?
it reduces uncertainly and is associated with safety, you have been exposed to this same thing without experiencing any negative consequences
as familiarity increases, perceived risks tend to decrease
novel stimuli are seen as more risky, they have an unknown level of danger
- this is why media exposure to more diverse demographics is important
perceptual fluency
the ease with which a stimulus is processed
familiar stimuli are easier to process and interpret-like watching a movie for a second time
perceptual fluency is positively valanced
the reverse is also true, familiarity can even be inferred from ease of process
- easy to process stimuli seen as more familiar, such as easy to read font
fluency heuristic
when people infer truth/accuracy from ease of processing
- easy to process/fluent statements are rated as more true, and are more easily retrieved from memory
- disfluent speech markers lower perceptions of truth, such as “um” and “uh”
rhyme as reason effect
rhyming statements seem more true than non-rhyming ones, example of perceptual fluency
“no pride in genocide”
vs
“birds of a feather flock conjointly”
easier to process AND more memorable, rhyming ad slogans increasing people’s willingness to engage
compliments/people who already like us
we tend to like those who like us back (reciprocal liking)
we tend to like people that flatter us, even when we know that is not true, but there is a limit before this can become abrasive
servers and hair stylists getting more tips after giving compliments
mechanisms of compliments increasing compliance?
similarity-the compliment implies that they approve of us and have something in common
norm of reciprocity- compliment seen as a small act of kindness that activates the norm
- compliance increasing even more when the norm is made salient
eye contact/direct eye gaze
signal of liking, but can also signal dominance when it is direct and consistent
people engage in it more when concerned tier their relationship goals with the subject or trying to be persuasive/ingratiate themselves
we pick up emotions better when making eye contact
the concept is also linked to ostracism, the lack of eye contact making people feel excluded or can be done to signal unwillingness to interact
eye contact and compliance
sources that make eye contact are more persuasive and elicit greater compliance- people accepted more leaflets, made more charitable donations, and were more willing to do a small favor
sources that made eye contact were seen as more trustworthy, likable, and attractive
eye contact: emotional vs informational ads
for informational ads: direct eye gaze gave the speaker more credibility and people reported more positive attitudes
for emotional ads: there were no differences with credibility, but there were more positive reacting for article when subject was looking away
- likely because it ‘matches’ the mood of the ad, chill vibes
-and narrative transportation, seeing yourself in the cafe too
source’s eye gaze
can influence what we may pay attention to
gaze cuing effect/joint attention
- babies do this a lot but so can adults
stronger effects when emotional expressions are used
- more likely to follow someone’s gaze if they are having a reaction to it
speech rate
sources that speak fast are seen as more attractive, confident, trustworthy, and knowledgeable
also increases greater compliance and persuasion
- there is a limit to this and we prefer varied speech rather over fast and constant
but there is some evidence suggesting that it can undermine elaboration
- this can be intentional to activate people’s heuristic processing, so it good for weaker arguments (ben shapiro)
vocal pitch
lower vocal pitch is associated with higher confidence
also leads to higher elaboration, which leads to more systematic processing
the underlying reasons may be social (men having lower pitches and patriarchy yk) or it might be related to the fact that adults tend to have lower pitched voices than children- lower pitch denoting lived experience
vocal volume
speakers more persuasive when they speak at a higher volume and vary their volume
greater perceived confidence
vocal pleasantness
associated with persuasiveness
fluent speech seen as more credible and persuasive, less interrupted and hesitant
greater pitch variety enhances perceived competence, character, and sociability
physical proximity
closer proximity can convey dominance, invasion of personal space
moderate to close proximity increases perceived credibility
ideal distance can be very context dependent, such as your relationship with the person but generally
Moderate: 4-5ft
too close: 1-2 ft
These 2 elicit systematic processing
too far: 14-15 ft
expressiveness
Affirmative head nods, greater facial expressiveness (smiling), gesturing, less postural rigidity, & moderate relaxation associated with greater persuasiveness
comfort level also matters a lot, no processing if the target is only thinking “this person is too close and creepy”
random body movement also has an impact
- hand gestures vs fidgeting are seen differently
nonverbal cue alignment-regulatory-focus theory
Written persuasive messages that fit recipientsʼ regulatory focus are more persuasive
theory of goal pursuit and motivational orientation
2 focuses
promotion and prevention focus
when the delivery matches the the target’s motives, increased persuasion
promotion focus
representing goals as hopes and aspirations, prefer eager, advancement strategies of engaging with tasks
focused on gains & accomplishments
associated with cues like open hand gestures and leaning forwards
seeing what you have to gain, goals as additive achievements
prevention focus
representing goals ad duties and obligations, prefer vigilant, cautious strategies of engaging with tasks
focused on safety and security, loss aversion
cues like leaning back, closed hand movements/keeping hands together
seeing goals as preordained tasks that NEED to be completed- like how getting mu license and degree are not achievements but just kinda things i have to do, not achievements
liking via conditioning and association
both can increase liking and persuasion
participants more persuaded when message is accompanied by pleasant music or portrayed in front of a pleasant background
- ex: more persuasive if you bring your client to a nice coffee shop rather than infront of a dumpster
Killing the messenger
blaming the bearer of bad news
opposite of “basking in the reflected glory” which is basically taking celebrating a cool successful thing that another person or group did as if it were you that achieved something
- such as sports fans being very happy when their team wins
luncheon technique
food increases the effectiveness of persuasion
- greater opinion change when participants were eating while reading a persuasive message
-more favorable rating for political statements shown while eating
we are hard wired to enjoy food so presenting it with a message associates that message with positivity
credibility
a source’s perceived expertise and trustworthiness
highly credible sources tend to be more persuasive
expertise
perceptions that source is capable of making correct assertions
Ability, knowledge, intelligence
can be context dependent-i trust katie to teach me psych but not physics (idk she could secretly be goated)
Trustworthiness
perceptions that assertions made by source are ones the source considers valid
Willing to report what they know truthfully without compromise
I trust that katie isn’t lying to me about what she knows about social influence and will admit when she does not know things
