Class Notes (1,200,000)
CA (650,000)
UTSG (50,000)
PSY (4,000)
PSY220H1 (200)

Persuasion, Cognitive dissonance, etc.

Course Code
Jason Plaks

of 3
-Implicit predict automatic bahav better, and questionnaires better precit contr
olled behaviour
The correlations between attitude and behav tend to be modest at best and someti
mes dissapointing
Fishbein and Ajzen
- Our attitude are just one piece of the puzzle
1. Attitude toward behav
2. Social norms
3. Perceivd control over behav
When the three things work together, act on attitude
Bottom line - one's attitude is only part of the puzzle
Attitude strength
a) Importance
- If it affects you
- Social norm - the biggest predictor of a person's vote is their neighbours vot
- If it relates to own religious philosophical values
- If it affects friends
b) Accessibility
Prefer questionnaires on political party
Half the subjects had a mirror and the other half didnt
Found that those who had a mirror in the room exhibited more correspondence betw
een attitude and behav
Mirrow heightens self-awerenenss - and part of this awareness includes accesibil
ity of one's core attitudes
-PPl are only persuaded if they understand and rationally process the msg
a) A dual-process model:
i) Central route
ii) Peripheral route
Message variables
Audience variables
#1. Likeability
#2. Personal involment
Directly affected - central route
Unaffected - based on who was saying it not what - peripheral route
Message variables
#1. Anount of material: depends on whether you think subjects will process centr
ally or peripherally
E.g. if you expect audience to process peripherally,then "more is better" heuris
tic works
if centrally - better arguments work
#2. Order of material
1. Msg 1-Msg2->One week - > Decision - Primacy
2. Msg 1 - One week - Msg 2 - Decision - Recency
Bc of memory/ forgetting
#3. Msg discrepancy
The most attitute change occurs at moderate amounts of discrepancy - b/c of foot
in the door phenomena
#4. Fear
Fear appeals works by increasing out incentive to think about the argument (cent
ral route) + when directions on what to do are provided.
A fundamental human motivation is to maintatin cognitive consisncency
A fundamental and powerful motivation
When ppl are in the state of inconsistency they are in a state of tension
1. Change attitude
2. Change future behav
The boring lying experiment
Subjects liked the task more the less they were payed
$1 is insufficient justification so dissonance occurs. I told a lie for insuffic
ient justification- why did I do that?
Those in the highly embarassing test condition found the sex/spore discussion gr
oup more
Over the decades there have been numerous revisions on cog dissonace
Cooper and Fazio
4 criteria are needed
Also - pill experiment
Most attitude change with relaxation pill
Harmon- Jones
Sugar KA:
High Choice 7.2
No choice - 6.2
Vinegar KA:
No choice - 1.5
High Choice - 5.5
Diff between high and no choice vinegar KA
Couldnt attribute what their wrOuote to the experimenter and needed to explain
This supports Festinger's claim that mere inconsistency is enough to provoke CD
Motivation vs Cognition Dissonance
Self-perception theory
Our attitutedes in life are mostly unclear
Thus we look at out behav to infer our attitudes
I.e. change in attitude not caused by CD but by rational observation
So which is it?
Fazio argues both are correct:
a) When behav is highly dicrepant - dissonance
b) When somewhat - observation
Outght = festinger's cognitive dissonance
Ideal - we do not feel cognitive dissonance
Ought - homeostasis - keeping at zero
Ideal - above zero
The greater the ideal discrepancy the greater the dejection
The greater the ought discreapnce the greater the agitation
Positive events - no discrepancy so null
Those ideal focuses focus on positives, those ought positive focus on negatives
(absense and presence for both).