Lecture 4 Flashcards
What makes a persuasive source?
- Believeable sources must be credible sources
- to be seen as credible, the source must have two distinct characteristics–> compotence or expertise, trustworthiness (warmth), confidence (Kahnemanm)
- how likeable is the communicator
- two factors influence likeability – similarity between the source and the audience: mimicry? and the physical attractiveness of the source.
strong arguments vs weak
and expert vs non expert source
what is their relationship to involvement?
when there is low involvement, the arguments don’ t matter, bbut the expert source does!
when there is high involvement, the arguments do matter, but the expert source does not
the sleeper effect
The sleeper effect is a psychological phenomenon that relates to persuasion. It is a delayed increase in the effect of a message that is accompanied by a discounting cue. A discounting cue being some negative connotation or lack of credibility in the message.
high credibility –> attitude does still change, but after 3 weeks it ain’t as noticeable anymore.
low credibility –> attitude change goes up! after 3 weeks.
Halo effect
tendency for positive impressions of a person in one area to positively influences one’s opinion about this person or feelings in other areas
-> also happens for brands products companies
often about good first impressions and beauty, but can be based on previous performance too. Luck or other factors are underestimated.
The halo effect also works the opposite way : because we see hitler as pure evil, it is almost impossible to imagine he likes dogs.
job interviewing: a self fulfilling prophecy
interviewers expectations –> interviewers conduct of the interview –> applicant’s interview performance –> hiring decision
my expectations of the interviewee changed the attitude of the interviewer.
Hallo effect in marketing, name 4 things
- other products by same company
- celebrity endorsements
- product placement
- flagships (halo cars) (that mercedes cars are so good at formula 1, makes people think that all mercedes cars are good)
Hindsight bias (or knew it all along effect)
tendency to perceive past events as more predictable than they really were
- people often believe that after an event has occured, they would have predicted or perhaps even would have known with a high degree of certrainty what the outcome of the event would have been before the event occured
- false sense of control
- they forget their initial opinion!
Outcome bias
Bad outcome = bad decision
Good outcome = good decision
Hindsight vs. outcome
- knowing it beforehand
- basing the quality of the decision on the outcome (even if the process was bad or good)
Illusion of validity
A bias in which people tend to overestimate their ability to interpret and predict the outcome when analyzing a set of data.
- especially data with a consistent pattern, because we seek patterns. This tells us a story (WYSIATI), which feels valid. The better this story feels, the more confident we are.
- people often predict by selecting the output that is most representative of the input. Little to no regard to factors that limit the prediction.
This can impact in trading stocks.
Dunning - Kruger effect
cognitive bias in which incompetent or unaware subjects overestimate their knowledge or expertise, considering themselves as more adept than they really are.
On the other hand: high ability individuals underestimate their relative competence and may erroneously assume that tasks which are easy for them are also easy for other.
in what domain will you find the dunning-kruger effect mostly? and where less?
College debat tournaments, logic quiz performances, telling jokjes, mostly domains where knowledge implies competence.
Less when it depends on other factors such as physical skill –> football coaches can’t perform well, yet have lots of knowledge
if you can’t dunk, it is quickly obvious you may not be a competent basketball player
when do experts make the most mistakes? and why?
low validity environment: turbulent, low certainty, when there is no direct feedback, in each case a simple algorithm works better at predicting
Sunk Cost Principle
The princip;e that only future costs and benefits, not past commitments, should be considered in making a decision
- economic decisions are biased by past investments of time, money, and effort.
why do we have difficulty detecting deception?
Mismatch between the behavioral cues that actually signal deception and the ones used to detect deception.
four channels of communication provide relevant information:
- words: cannot be trusted
- face: controllable
body: somewhat more revealing than face
- voice: most rvealing cue
- perceivers tune in to the wrong channels
are experts good?
Even when presented with an algorithm (and the way it performs) ○ They try to overcomplicate it○ True in extreme cases (broken leg rule: e.g. if you want to know if Bob will go to the movies next week, an algorithm will be much better at predicting thisthan an expert, BUT if an expert knows that Bob has broken his leg last week, the algorithm will fail)■ Extreme cases are just that and not happening a lot (think of regressionto the mean)● Availability heuristics? ○ They are overconfident because they have additional information■ Worked hard to obtain this? Now I’ll use it!
