Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

SOCIAL COGNITIVE > Tactics of Manipulation > Flashcards

Tactics of Manipulation Flashcards

1
Q

Langer (1989)

A

‘Because’ photocopier study we’re used to the word being followed by valid excuse, we allow concessions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Kuntz & Woolcott (1976)

A

RECIPROCITY

Sent greeting cards to random strangers –overwhelmingly people responded

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Regan (1971)

A

RECIPROCITY
Students brought to lab to rate paintings, with confederate Joe

2 conditions – Joe brought back a Coke or came back empty-handed. After, Joe asked for favour – buy raffle tickets

Results:
Participants who received Coke bought more raffle tickets, regardless of liking Joe
Participants who did not receive Coke bought more raffle tickets if they liked Joe – more willing to do favour for someone you like

Obligation to return favour even if you don’t like them
Coke=10c, average of 2 tickets=50c

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Cialdini et al. (1975)

A

RECIPROCITY - concession
Asked students to (a) chaperone juvenile inmates on day trip to zoo (17% said yes) or
(b) volunteer as counsellor for inmates for 2 hours a week for next 2 years (0% said yes)

Asked students to volunteer as counsellors for 2 hours a week for next 2 years, THEN asked if they would take inmates to zoo. Number of participants saying yes to zoo tripled to 51%.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Miller et al. (1976)

A

RECIPROCITY
Do people follow through on requests?
o Large request ~ volunteer 2 hours a week in mental health agency for 2 years
o Small request ~ volunteer for 2 hours in mental health agency

If large request presented first~ 75% accepted small request (compared to 29%)

Turn-up rate of volunteers:
Rejection-then-retreat: 85%,
Small request only: 50%

When someone changes request, more likely to be satisfied with outcome, feel more responsible to live up to agreement.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Kenrick & Gutierres (1980)

A 
CONTRAST PRINCIPLE (USED IN RECIPROCITY)
Females rated less attractive by males if just watched Charlie’s Angels
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Frenzen & Davis (1990)

A

LIKING
Tupperware parties
- When choosing whether or not to buy, liking for hostess TWICE as important as opinion about products

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Dion (1986)

A

LIKING – The Halo Effect

Attractive people judged as more intelligent, moral, competent

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Landy & Singall (1974)

A

LIKING

Attractive students’ poor essays were given higher grade than the unattractive.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Hammermesh & Biddle (1994)

A

LIKING

In US and Canada, physically attractive people earn more money than comparable others who are less attractive.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Dipboye et al. (1977)

A

LIKING

Attractive people more likely to be hired for a job (but more likely to groom themselves?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Mack & Rainey (1990)

A

LIKING
Good grooming accounted for more favourable than job qualifications. Got same female applicant to apply for positions dressed well or poorly.

Interviewers claimed that grooming plays small role.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Efran & Patterson (1976)

A

LIKING
Canadian Federal Elections
o Attractive candidates received 2.5 times more votes than unattractive. 73% Canadians denied their votes were influenced by physical appearance.
o Attractiveness effect more evident with contenders than established leaders. If you do not know much about candidate, typically base opinions on physical cues, especially for apathetic votes and women

The Halo Effect flips when judging women in authority: More attractive women seen as less intelligent, capable in position.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Kurtzburg et al. (1968)

A

LIKING
Two groups of disfigured prisoners ~ surgery or no surgery. Rehabilitation given to some members of both groups.
Results: a year later, regardless of rehab, those with surgery less likely to return to jail.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Stewart (1980)

A

LIKING
Experimenters sat in 74 court cases, rated attractiveness at start of trial

Result: more attractive, less likely to be incarcerated, lighter punishment. Of 28 not incarcerated, only 6 below average intelligence

  • Attractiveness inversely proportional to strength/severity of crime
  • Attractiveness only affected the length of sentence, not conviction
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Kulka (1978)

A

LIKING
Damages rewarded in automobile negligence mock trial. When victim more attractive than defendant, award was almost twice more than when defendant more attractive.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Reingen & Kernen (1993)

A

LIKING - ATTRACTIVENESS

Attractive fundraising for Heart Association collected twice as many donations.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Warren (1966)

A

LIKING - SIMILARITY

Friends, partners, etc. tend to be similar on range of variables (education, intelligence, etc)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Emswiller et al. (1971)

A

LIKING - SIMILARITY

People more likely to give dime to experimenter for phone call (dressed hip or straight) if dress style matched

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Suedfeld (1971)

A

LIKING - SIMILARITY

‘Hip’ experimenter received more signatures outside peace rally.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Aune & Basil (1994)

A

LIKING - SIMILARITY

Campus fundraisers doubled contributions by saying “I’m a student too!”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Chartrand & Bargh (1999)

A

LIKING - SIMILARITY

Mirror and matching. Participants reported liking confederates more who mimicked their behaviour.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Zajonc (1968)

A

LIKING - CONTACT AND COOPERATION
Mere Presence Effect:
Repeated exposure to any stimulus makes it more appealing, because what is unfamiliar or unknown is potentially dangerous.
After repeated exposure, if nothing negative happens, negative emotions decrease and positive emotions increase (arousal drops).
If repeat stimulus EVEN without awareness, ratings for object rises.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Bornstein et al. (1987)

A

LIKING - CONTACT AND COOPERATION
Participants subliminally exposed to photo of confederate or blank screen.
Participants then performed a task (determining the gender of obscure poets) with 2 confederates (who have been told to disagree).
• When the participant had been subliminally exposed to the confederate, they were more persuaded by the confederate’s opinion (i.e., agreed with the pre-exposed confederate in 28 out of 41 cases).

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Grush (1980)

A

Politics – correlation between media exposure and chance of candidate winning.

26
Q

Sherif (1961)

A

LIKING - COOPERATION
2 groups of boys, instilled strong group identity, intergroup conflict
THEN
Made groups like each other by making them cooperate, work towards superordinate common goal

27
Q

Smith & Engel (1968)

A

LIKING - CONDITIONING AND ASSOCIATION
Men who saw car with female model rated car as faster, more expensive, better designed… but refused to believe woman had influence on judgement.

28
Q

Razran

A

LIKING - CONDITIONING AND ASSOCIATION
The Luncheon Technique
People are fonder of people and concepts whilst eating. Political statements pps exposed to previously increased in approval whilst eating.
Charity events give food → more likely to donate.
Sweet flavour encourages prosocial behaviour.

29
Q

Drachman (1978)

A

RECIPROCAL LIKING
o Confederate worked on fun or dull task. Participant had power to release them from task or not.
o Participant had to complete easy or hard task, rated by confederate.
Confederate evaluated participant’s twice. Positive, negative, mixed / accurate, inaccurate
o Results: confederate who praised was more liked, even when inaccurate
• Praise does not have to be accurate to work

30
Q

Rind & Bordia (1996)

A

Waitresses who drew smiley faces on bill got more tips.

31
Q

Joe Girard

A

Greatest car salesman sent out 13,000 greeting cards each month saying ‘I like you’.

32
Q

Sherman (1980)

A

CONSISTENCY – COMMITMENT
Called and asked people what they’d say if asked to spend 3 hrs collecting money for Cancer Society. People usually say yes to appear nice.
A few days later, Cancer Society comes to house to ask to volunteer to collect money

700% increase in volunteers

If you can make someone make public declaration, more likely to be consistent.

33
Q

Freedman & Fraser (1966)

A

CONSISTENCY - FOOT IN THE DOOR
If agreed to put little sticker on front window (small request) first, then 76% also agreed to put “Drive Carefully” sign on front lawn. Otherwise only 17% agreed to big sign.

34
Q

Knox & Inkster (1968)

A

CONSISTENCY - COGNITIVE DISSONANCE
Asked how confident people were 30 second before OR 30 seconds after placing bet on horse. Significantly more confident after.

35
Q

Festinger

A
  • We need attitudes to be consistent with behaviour, otherwise experience cognitive dissonance
  • We try to regain consistency by changing our attitudes
  • Once we have made decision, we work very hard to justify it
36
Q

Freedman (1966)

A

COGNITIVE DISSONANCE
After signing petition that favoured ‘keeping California beautiful’, more likely to put big ugly Drive Carefully sign on front lawn 2 weeks later.
o 50% agreed even though request not related.
• Cognitive Dissonance Theory: once agreed to request, attitude changes, action taken consistent with attitudes

37
Q

Freedman (1965)

A

Child-rearing
Examined different strategies to elicit compliance in boys
• External motivator (threats) vs. internal motivator
• Temporary compliance vs. long-term compliance
o 5 toys, 4 crappy, 1 robot ~
o External motivator: Don’t play with the robot or I’ll punish you.
• Short-term compliance when possibility of punishment (only 1 boy played with the robot)
• Poor long-term compliance. When punishment no longer a threat (77% played)

Internal motivator: Don’t play with the robot! >:( / It is wrong to play.
• Long term compliance: boys generated own reasons for why it was wrong to play with robot (33% played)
• Reward must be barely sufficient incentive to actually perform task

38
Q

Greenwald (1968)

A

Ability to be persuaded depends on elaboration (scrutinising arguments). Manipulator more effective if they lead us to focus on favourable rather than unfavourable thoughts.

39
Q

Reingen (1982)

A

SOCIAL VALIDATION

When shown lists of neighbours who’d agreed to donate, people were more likely to donate.

40
Q

Bandura

A

SOCIAL VALIDATION
• Social validation can help overcome phobias
• Children scared of dogs watched other children playing with dog 20min/day
o Children more likely to play with dog, long-term improvements
o Video just as effective as real-life interaction
o Worked best when clips showed variety of children playing with dog
- Works best when the children in the video clips are the same age as those who were watching -> SIMILARITY

41
Q

O’Conner (1972)

A

SOCIAL VALIDATION
• Severely socially withdrawn pre-school children watched film containing different scenes in preschool setting
• Each scene showed solitary child watching social activity, then joining in and enjoying
• Immediately after, children began to interact with peers at level equal to normal kids
• Persisted after 6 week delay

42
Q

Latané (1968, 1970)

A

SOCIAL VALIDATION
Bystander Effect
presence of others inhibits helping, assume others will take responsibility, responsibility diffused

43
Q

Bryan & Test (1967)

A

SOCIAL VALIDATION
LA drivers more likely to help female driver with flat tire if witnessed someone helping another woman changing tire earlier.

44
Q

Rushton (1977)

A

SOCIAL VALIDATION

British adults more willing to donate blood if approached after observing confederate agreeing to donate

45
Q

Milgram (1963)

A

AUTHORITY
65% continued to shock no matter what.

But when power of authority was reduced, obedience declined:
E.g. ↓ immediacy/proximity of authority, instruction by phone, legitimacy of authority (run down building)

46
Q

Hofling (1966)

A

AUTHORITY ‘mechanical obedience’ in hospitals. Person identifying as doctor, giving prescription over phone, directed nurse to give 20m of astrogen to patient (double max dosage). 95% complied

47
Q

Lefkowitz (1955)

A

AUTHORITY
Jaywalking study ~ experimenters jaywalked dressed in business suit or casual
o Three times as many people when dressed in suit (authority-like)
o Authority not related to behaviour

Not necessarily actual authority figures that influence people

48
Q

Brehm (1966)

A

SCARCITY
Reactance Theory [Brehm]
• When freedoms threatened or restricted, we assess free choice with focus on retaining or regaining what was limited in first place
• We react against interference by wanting, trying to posses item more than before. e.g. can’t do that, can’t get that – want to possess that thing.

49
Q

Worchel (1975)

A

SCARCITY
Consumer preference study ~ cookies from jar, taste and rate
• Jar had 10 or 2 cookies
• When only 2 cookies, participants rated cookies more favourably
o Follow-up study: ~ always been scarce vs. become scarce?
• Started with jar of 10, replaced by jar of 2 OR only jar of 2 cookies
• Change from abundance to scarcity made cookies more tasty
o Participants told jar of 10 replaced by jar of 2 because: wrong jar / rater demands
• When cookies more scarce because of social demand, rated highest of all

50
Q

3 reasons why we repay favours?

A
  1. Feels unpleasant to be indebted
  2. Group will reject you if don’t reciprocate, tight-ass
  3. It is good for humanity (society breaks down if you just take the money and run)
51
Q

What is the Rejection-then-retreat or Door-in-the-face tactic?

A

– Requester changes from large request to small request.

– The recipient changes from non-compliant to compliant EVEN if they are not really interested in what is offered.

52
Q

What are five factors that will determine whether we like someone?

A
  1. Physical attractiveness
  2. Similarity
  3. Contact and Co-operation
  4. Association
  5. Reciprocal liking (i.e. the extent to which someone likes us)
53
Q

What is the foot-in-the-door tactic?

A

The tendency for people who have first agreed to a small request to comply later with a larger request in order to appear consistent.

54
Q

What is Cognitive Dissonance Theory? (Festinger)

A

We need our attitudes to be consistent with our behaviour. When they are not, we experience tension (called “cognitive dissonance”).

55
Q

The more responsible we feel for a ________ act, the more dissonance we feel, the more likely we are to try to regain consistency by changing our _________. So once we have made a decision, we tend to work very hard to _______ it.

A

The more responsible we feel for a troubling act, the more dissonance we feel, the more likely we are to try to regain consistency by changing our attitudes. So once we have made a decision, we tend to work very hard to justify it.

56
Q

What is the low-ball tactic?

A

A two-step compliance technique in which the manipulator secures an agreement with a request (Step 1) but then increases the size of that request by revealing hidden costs (Step 2).

57
Q

Social validation works best under what two conditions?

A
  1. Similarity (when we are similar to those performing the act).
  2. Uncertainty (e.g., during situations when we do not know how to act)
58
Q

Murray et al. (1968)

A

Murray et al. (1968)

– School-based, anti-smoking campaigns had a lasting effect only when they used same-age peer leaders as teachers.

59
Q

Melamed et al. (1978)

A

Melamed et al. (1978)
– Children who saw a film of a positive visit to the dentist lowered their own dental anxieties when the child in the film was the same age.

60
Q

What is the sleeper effect?

A

The delayed increase in the persuasive impact of a non-credible source
• When we first hear a message, we discredit a non-reliable source.
• But over time, we dissociate the source of the information from the message.
• That is, we tend to remember the message but not the source.

61
Q

When is the sleeper effect most reliable and when does it NOT occur?

A

Most reliable when participants do not learn who the source is until after they have received the initial message (that is, when you hear the message with an open mind and are not swayed by who said it).

Will not occur if you remind people of the source of the message prior to asking them their attitude/opinion on the subject a few weeks later.

SOCIAL COGNITIVE (2 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions