Lecture 2

Question 1

mere exposure study, with 25 different chinese characters and 5 x 5 of the same characters, conclusion?

Answer 1

characters were rated more positively, without people recognizing the characters. This generalised to new, similar stimuli. Resulted in more general positive affect.

Question 2

automatic vigilance (explaining mere exposure)

Answer 2

people are especially alert to negative stimuli, negativity bias, evolutionary advantage.
new neutral stimilus, repeated presentation without nefgative consequences, classical conditioning –> it’s safe.

Question 3

Manipulating processing ease: “at the university we are developing a new exam policy…” (black letters on white background) (yellow letters on pink background)

Answer 3

When the arguments were written on pink background, they actually liked the arguments better, because it’s easier to [rocess the back and white ones.

Question 4

Feeling of ease can be interpreted in different ways.. like manipulation: ease = bad

Answer 4

“for unintelligent people, thinking about a new subject feels easier, because they have less complex thoughts and less neuronal connections”, –> in other words: you’re dumb if it feels easy. Black on white feels easy so i must be dumb. counter arguments seems less convincing, more positive evaluation. Because it implied that they were dumb.

Question 5

5 things about ease of processing (evaluation)

Answer 5

• happens often and generally results in accurate evaluations
• normally ease of processing signals that information is frequent/probable
• people become wary when things become complex (may trigger system 2)
• but instructions can change the interpretation of ease
• the interpretation of the feelings matters more than the feeling itself.

Question 6

tips and trics for students!!

Answer 6

• don’t overly complex writing
• judgments of learning: people overestimate how likely they will remember certain information

Question 7

• judgments of learning

Answer 7

people overestimate how likely they will remember certain information
short term memory is over-estimated
reduces studying behavior and therefore long-term memory performance.

When information seems really easy, rehearsing may be more important than you think

Question 8

attribution

Answer 8

ascribing causes to social events:
- the self
- another person
- circumstances/chance (Heider!)

Question 9

Heider ascribing causes to social events

Answer 9

• actor
• other person
• circumstances/chance

Question 10

Bem’s self-perception theory

Answer 10

Self attributions –> first observing their own behaviour, people derive their motives, attitudes and emotions (self-definition)

Over-rewarding behaviour is bad for intrinsic motivation (20 euro, 1 euro after a boring ass task)

Question 11

Guilt, pride and sustainable consumption choices. What is it?

Answer 11

• Perceived costumer effectiveness gets higher
  consumers are more likely to act when they feel that their behaviour will make a difference
• similar to self-efficacy, perceived behavioral control, internal locus of control

Both associated with internal causal attributions (i did this!)

Question 12

Both guilt and pride prevent the ability to…

Answer 12

reduce cognitive dissonance by denying responsibility

Question 13

Freedman & Fraser: can we place this sign in your garden? (slow driving) (foot in the door technique)

Answer 13

No frist request: 17% agree to sign in garden
small, comparable request: first sticker, then sign (67)
small different first request: sticker with keep calofornia beautiful , rhwn 50% agree to sign in garden

Question 14

foot in the door technique

Answer 14

• self attribution
• self image is adjusted after agreeing to first small request
• with second, big request people act according to their (adjusted) self image

Question 15

Wegner’s theory of apparent mental causation

Answer 15

• causation cannot be directly observed (Hume)
• therefore: although fluently and quickly, it is an inference and can be biased.

Priority: thought needs to occur just before action
Consistency: thought needs to be consistent with the action (outcome)
- exclusivity: are other potential causes present?

Question 16

iSpy –> ik zie ik zie wat jij niet ziet (Wegner)
There was a conferderate, that would steer someone in the right direction, but the participant would think this was not the case.

Answer 16

Feeling that you intented to do a certain thing, that you were actually not intending to do. Illusory experience of self-agency.
5 seconds between thought and act: this was me.

Question 17

Causal knowledge study:
Condition 1 : high predictability with certain button press and outcome are strongly relations
- codnition 2: random button press and outcome
- condition 3: certain button press and an unrelated outcome are strongly related

Conclusion?

Answer 17

If people had no idea what to expect from the task, if there is no relationship between to subjects. Your suspectible to priming if you think there is a relation.

Question 18

So in what 2 cases are primes most effective in creating a sense of self agency?

Answer 18

• we do not have a direct explanation for (the outcomes of) our behavior, for example in novel stiuations
• the prime seems to offer a logical explanation for the outcomes of our behavior.

Question 19

BUT priming is sensitive to your own beliefs of what is possible. why?

Answer 19

For example when you suffer from defeatist beliefs: negative thoughts about one’s ability to succesfully perform goal-drected behavior.
Believe in supernatural and telepathic influences

Question 20

self-serving bias

Answer 20

motivation vs cognition : we expect our actions to have positive because that is what we aim for
negative consequences are unexpected and trigger a search for causes in the environment

Question 21

actor vs observer effect

Answer 21

• We know less well what others want and will do
• behaviour is more important than context
• situational attribution is more demanding: often complex, many factors

The fundamental attribution error mainly occurs for the behaviour of others and less for our own behaviour

Question 22

Fundamental attribution error

Answer 22

underestimate situation, and we overestimate person

Question 23

Jones & Harris (1967) Someone reads put a speech for/against Fidel Castro
- conditoon 1: written self
condition 2: speech already written

Answer 23

Even though the speech wasn’t written themselves, they still agreed in a sense to the speech they were giving. so when the speech was already written, people agreed to the speech, even if it was positive or negative

Question 24

Economic & consumer implications

Answer 24

• identifying consumer profiles and target audiences (ignoring context)
• Stigma (people living in poverty)
  don’t judge too soon!

Question 25

Does fundamental attribution error always occur? Name 5 things.

Answer 25

No, less with:
- moral behaviour
- negative mood
- accountability
- dependence upon target person
- collectivist cultures

Question 26

3 things about what system 1 does:

Answer 26

• maintains and updates a model of our personal world
• associates circumstances, events, actions and outcomes
• determines interpretation of the present as well as future expectations

Question 27

Benign violation theory

Answer 27

• violation must impose physical or psychological threat
• violation most occur in safe and playful context
• an interpretative process should help reconcile violation and sense of safety (wrong but okay)

Question 28

Prankvertising and morality

Answer 28

• norm violations likely trigge rmoral reasoning –> balancing of risks and benefits (degree of victim’ s fear) and (perceived prank meaningfulness)
• both perceptions of fear and morality can be generated by system 1
• conflicts between risks and benefits call for reflection by system 2

Question 29

What are benefits of pranks? when does these benefits occur in prankvertising?

Answer 29

• close connections with: campaign themes, product features, brand positioning
  –> facilitate observers’ understanding of the motives for staging the pranks. –> relaxtion of moral scrutiny.

so if the prank helps you to describe how good your product is, it’s okay for people

Question 30

Norm violation and humor –> study about low meaningful product. 3 conditions:
- victim fear (low vs high)
- surprise (low vs high) –> high surprise triggers our moral reasoning.
- prank meaningfulness (low vs high)

What was the conclusion out of the low meaningful pranks and the conditions? and the high meaningful pranks?

Answer 30

When there’s high surprise, you see that when there’s a lot of fear, morality got triggered. and didn’t perceive is as normal.

When there’s a high meaningfulness, this effect goes away

Question 31

confirmation bias

Answer 31

finding, remembering and interpreting evidence in line with your ideas and ignoring contradictory evidence

Question 32

Snyder & Swann study of what questions we would ask if we wanted to know if someone was more introverted or extraverted. Conclusion?

Answer 32

Introversion questions got asked more if they suspected someone to be introverted, same goes for extraverted questions

Question 33

why dom people often find confirmation for their expectations?

Answer 33

• positive testing
• limited capacity, negative testing is much less efficient, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence
• statisficing: decide on and pursue a course of action that will satisfy the minimum requirements necessary to achieve a particular goal.
• anchoring and adjustment
• self-fulfilling prophecy