terms and models - TERM 2 Flashcards
what are attitudes
affective: positive or negative feelings
behavioural: tendencies to act towards an object
cognitive: beliefs and thoughts about object
methods to measure attitudes
questionnaires, attitude scales (Likert)
covert measures -
observing behaviours
affective measures = implicit association (faster to classify things based on memory)
physiological responses = pupil response, facial EMG (zygomatic major muscle = smiling, corrugated super cilia muscle = frowning)
semantic differentials
pp rate attitude object according to pairs of opposing evaluative words
implicit attitudes
no conscious attitude and cannot be controlled
explicit attitudes
people can report and expression consciously controlled
behavioural approach to how attitudes are formed
mere-exposure = tendency to develop positive feelings towards familiar objects
used in advertising (positive attitude when seen 20v5v0 times)
interpersonal attraction (women vote more attractive when seen more - 15v10v5)
evaluative conditioning = pairing new stimulus with positive stimulus = positive attitude
drug rated more highly when paired with positive images
negative attitudes towards energy-dense snacks when paired with info on health consequences
cognitive approach to how attitudes are formed
self-perception = form attitudes by observing behaviour and making inferences (attributions)
facial feeback hypothesis = facial activity can influence affective response
funnier cartoons/ less implicit bias when pen in teeth
why do we have attitudes
utilitarian/instrumental
ego-defensive
value-expressive
knowledge/ cognitive economy
utilitarian/instrumental
attitudes exist because they are useful - avoid punishment and retain awards
ego-defensive
helps protect self image
ex: students who received consistent information on them being a serious student = more positive
more negative evaluation > greater message discounting > source derogation (source is stupid)
value-expressive
help us express values that are integral to our self-concept
knowledge/ cognitive economy
attitudes act as schemas
- save cognitive effort
attitude change
modification of an individuals general evaluative perception of a stimulus or set of stimuli
persuasion
an active attempt to change a person’s attitude through information
changing behaviour to change attitudes
yale approach + ELM (dual-process model) that argues that acceptance of a message can be achieved through central or peripheral routes
prejudice
negative evaluation of a social group significantly based on the individual’s group membership
consistent with tri-partite: cognitive, affective, conative (intentions)
changing attitudes through communication - Yale
Yale approach -
persuasion characteristics =
source = who is persuading, message = what, audience = to who
SOURCE
attractive sources = persuasion
high credibility sources = persuasion
MESSAGE
fear appeals = persuasive messages to provoke fear - conflicting research
backfire when people feel they are bing controlled = reactance
AUDIENCE
- cognition - audience’s tendency to engage (argument quality = larger persuasion when audience had high cognition)
- self-monitoring - high self-monitors positively influenced by attractive packaging
- regulatory focus/fit - promotion (more responsive when stimulus tells u how u can benefit) or prevention focus (how u can avoid)
changing attitudes through communication - elaboration likelihood model
people more likely to be influenced when there’s enough time to process message
central route: thinking about the message
factors influencing = motivation, ability, quality of arguments - ATTITUDE CHANGE more likely
peripheral route: relies on external cues/ heuristics -TEMPORARY persuasion
factors influencing = source credibility, message length (length = strength)
if cues present = persuasion
discrimination
inappropriate and unfair treatment of individuals due to group membership
3 forms of discrimination
individual (impact on specific groups)
institutional (policies intended to harm specific groups)
structural (policies the appear neutral in terms of intent but have negative impact on specific groups)
intergroup bias
systematic tendency to evaluate ones own membership group more favourable than non-membership group
encompasses cognition (stereotype), attitude (prejudice) and behaviour (discrimination)
frustration-aggression
if goals frustrated, energy leaves us in imbalance
rebalance through aggression directed at scapegoats
authoritarian personality
parenting style affects children like intolerance to minorities = aggression
critique of frustration-aggression
frustration not necessary for discrimination
individual differences - ignores social context
realistic conflict theory
competition for limited resources leads to prejudice
robbers cave study:
evaluated effects of conflict on prejudice and saw if co-operation would help
critique of authoritarian personality
acquiescence bias - no items on f-scale were reversed = tendency of saying yes inflate correlations between items
psychoanalytic constructs hard to empirically test
ignores situation effects on prejudice
critique of realistic conflict theory
are conflict and competition necessary for prejudice/discrimination?
social identity theory
self concept = personal identity + social identity
engaging in favourable behaviours that benefit the in-group relative to outgrip helps to maintain positive self-concept
group studies - assigned to random groups and pp would give points to favour in-group profit
explicit measures of prejudice
semantic differentials
Likert scale
blatant prejudice scale
subtle prejudice scale
traditional sexism sclae
modern sexism scale
traditional forms of bias
overt, blatant, obvious
ethophaulisms (slurs)
modern forms of bias
covert, subtle, ambiguous
implicit measures of prejudice
affective measure = implicit association test
modern discrimination - 3 forms of microaggression
micro-invalidation = actions invalidating people of colour
micro-insults = demean racial identity (e.g. asking person of colour how they got a job)
micro-assaults = racially-motivated actions meant to cause harm
tokenism - INSTITUTIONAL DISCRIMINATION
publicly making small concessions to a minority group to deflect accusations of prejudice
example
glass cliff - women more likely to be placed in precarious leadership roles (where there is a high risk of failure)
Ryan and Haslam = women more likely to perform poorly
direct intergroup contact
Allports contact hypothesis - contact between groups will reduce prejudice under certain conditions
conditions promoting prejudice-reduction
- equal status
- common goals
- intergroup co-operation
- institutional support
evidence of direct intergroup contact
515 studies
greater reductions in prejudice seen under Allport conditions
reduced by reducing anxiety, increasing empathy and increasing outgrip knowledge
indirect intergroup contact
vicarious contact = observation of interaction between in-group and outgrip members
extended contact = knowing that in-group members have contact with outgroup members
imagined contact
evidence of extended contact
White, Asian and African students who reported knowing more in-group members with at least one outgrip friend reported less prejudice
meta-analysis supports positive relationship between extended contact and intergroup attitudes
mechanisms underlying how vicarious and extended contact work
- reducing intergroup anxiety
- increasing empathy
- cognitive overlap between self and outgroup members
- changing perceptions of social norms
indirect intergroup contact - imagined contact
mentally simulating positive interactions with members of an out-group
Evidence:
pp who imagined positive interactions reported positive attitudes towards Sz
meta-analysis supports effectiveness in promoting positive attitudes , intentions and behaviour
mechanisms underlying imagined contact
- reduced intergroup anxiety
- increased empathy
- increased knowledge
critique of imagined contect
studies show small effect of imagined contact on reducing prejudice across 36 samples
doesn’t replicate in studies
Apfelbaum 2010
digital storybook on equality given with either colour blind approach or value diversity approach (appreciate how we r all different)
children told stories varying in degree of racially biased behaviour - no bias, ambiguous, explicit bias
children less likely to perceive discrimination in colourblind story - even when discrimination was explicit
colourblind ideologies
shouldn’t see others in terms of colour of skin
critique: could lead to micro invalidation
educational strategies
increase knowledge
Hughes - history lessons on racism showed more positive attitudes towards African Americans
prejudice confrontation
action taken by a person to confront prejudice behaviour
bystander anti-prejudice
confrontation by a non-target individual
Aarts 1997 - cycling
measure cycling ability then likelihood of cycling in 16 descriptions of travel situations (4 attributes)
measures favourability of using a bicycle in each situation and number of attributes used to make each decision
weak habit = use more attributes about situation
Czopp study
White pp completed task with white confederate making inferences about sentences paired with white/black people
The sentences were either stereotypical or non-stereotypical
Then randomly assigned feedback
PP completed 20-item Attitudes towards Black Scale
Participants confronted about stereotypes had greater reduction in prejudice
what are habits
strong associations between contexts and responses developed through repetition
by consequence: relatively automatic responses that are insensitive to changes
habits insensitive to changes in the value of response?
measured habit strength (how frequently eat popcorn)
context (cinema or meeting)
value of response (stale or not)
strong habit - still eat popcorn when stale
criteria for automaticity
- don’t require deliberation
- occur outside conscious awareness
- insensitive to changes in value of response
- difficult to control
are associations developed through repetition
wood, quit, kashy
43% of actions performed almost daily with sam contexts
webb - meta-analysis
changes in intentions led to larger changes in behaviours that pp performed sporadically than in behaviours that could be repeated into habits
mental habits
negative thinking measured by HINT: habit index of negative thinking
wood Gam and Guerrero Witt - habits
4 weeks before moving - asked how often they performed certain action and where, who with and if they also did action
results:
after moving,
less watching tv habit when more perceived change in location for strong habit
negative correlation for strong habit of change in others presence and reading newspaper
frequency of exercising decreased when more change in location and stronger habit
STRONG HABIT = MORE PERCEIVED CHANGE
counter-intentional habits
intentions have smaller effects on behaviours performed frequently in similar situations
why is it hard to break habits
People not aware that habits drive behaviour, what cues trigger habits and habitual responses
Habits are insensitive to changes in the value of response
priming task - habits
pp respond faster when habit (snack) is primed by cue (home) over alternative snack
habitual vs non-habitual response
automatic ingrained behaviours, shorter latency response vs deliberate, conscious effort
implementation intention
plan details how when and where they will perform behaviour
creates a new association with cue
Holland - II group had most change in recycling behaviour
vigilant monitoring
being alert to cues that prompt habitual responses
requires self-awareness
Quinn - vigilant monitoring showed most affect in changing habit
environmental psychology
study of the interplay between individuals and the built and natural environment