Social Psychology lecture notes.docx

71 Pages
Unlock Document

PSY 102
Quinn Major

Lecture 1 9/27/2012 1:43:00 PM  What is social psychology?  Scientific study of how individuals think, feel, and behave in a social context o Relies on the scientific method o Focuses on cognition, emotion, and behavior  Psychology of the individual (as opposed to anthropology  culture and sociology  group)  Social context o Emphasis is on the social nature of individuals  “other people” do not have to be real or present  can be implied or imagined  ex: even when you’re alone, the things you do are shaped by other people (getting ready in morning: deodorant, blue jeans, etc.)  how does social psychology differ from other disciplines? o Personality psychology  individual variation/cross-situational consistency o Clinical psychology  abnormal behavior o Developmental  change over time o Sociology  focused on the group o Communication  kind of a spin off of social psychology; communicative aspects of social behavior o Off shoots of social psychology  Organizational psychology  Environmental psychology  Sports psychology  Health psychology  Political psychology Lecture 2 9/27/2012 1:43:00 PM  Social psychology and common sense  The “knew it all along” phenomenon  Common sense seems to explain many social psychological findings after the fact o But how does one distinguish common sense facts from common sense myths?  Unlike common sense, social psychology uses the scientific method to put its theories to the test  How we do social psychology  Scientific method (textbook) o A way of answering questions (other than observing and concluding)  Correlational research (textbook) o Detecting natural associations among variables o Does not imply causation  Example: # of electrical appliances correlates with usage of birth control  Explanation: wealthier people can afford both electrical appliances and birth control  Example: purchase of more books in home correlates with kids doing better in school  Explanation: wealth, parent education (more likely to buy books AND value child’s education), people who value education INDEPENDENT of parent education level o Examples  Positively correlated  The older you get, the more conservative you get  Negatively correlated  The more you smoke, the lower your life expectancy  Survey research o Random sampling critical: why? o Four biasing  Unrepresentative sample  How women feel after having abortions  Order of questions  How a question is phrased/order of questions  Should the Japanese government be able to set limits on how much American industry can sell? o Americans said absolutely not  Should the American government be able to set limits on how much Japanese industry can sell? o Americans say absolutely  Response options  Close ended/open ended options for answers  State of education system when asked about American problems  Wording of questions  Welfare vs. assistance to the poor  Ambushed vs. hit  Experimental method o Random assignment to conditions  Different than random sampling  UCSB psych studies: randomly assigned to conditions, BUT  we can choose which experiment  we are forced to do experiments o Control  Used to ensure that the independent variable was the ONE thing that caused the change in the dependent variable o Manipulation (of independent variable)  Internal validity – how confident you are that the IV was the cause of change in the DV o Observation/measurement (of dependent variable) o Issues in experimental research  Demand characteristics  Cues to the subject  Experimenter expectancy effects  Whether or not experimenter is pushing information that would cause certain effects  Internal validity  External validity  Lab versus field  Doing it in a laboratory or out in the field?  Social psychology and human values o We study the topics of our era o Science is subjective  Our preconceptions and values shape  Our hypotheses  The way we design studies  Our conclusions Lecture 3 – The Self 9/27/2012 1:43:00 PM  Why study the self?  Self = reflective o What people see in us, we will see  Possessions are extensions of self o Car, children, etc. o If you hurt car/child/etc. it hurts us  The self: why do social psychologists study it?  The self is a social construct o It governs our perceptions of reality o It is constructed by social reality  Much social behavior is motivated by the self o By a desire to maintain our self-views o By a desire to enhance our self-esteem  Who we are: o Colors what we see in the world we live in o Is shaped by the world we live in  Film  William James o “The mind from within”  material  things outside of us  spiritual  we are thinkers  social  how we want others to see us  individuation o young child separating from very close, dependent relationship on mother o forms strong sense of self  Freud o Id  primitive, unconscious o Superego  restrains id o Ego  conscious sense of self identity (moderates superego and id)  How does the self work in controlling behavior? o Awareness of continuing identity as a person  Internal regulator of thoughts, feeling, and behavior  Interprets/organizes our experiences  Provides plans, goals, incentives, etc. o Self schema  If self image is good, we try to live up to the standard  If self image is bad, adjust downward and fail more often  Theory of self efficacy  High sense = take on challenges they believe they can master  Low sense = shy away from things they believe exceed their abilities  Affect life paths/careers  What is the self?  William James o Self as knower “I” vs. self as known “me”  I  active knower  Me  all the knowledge we have about ourselves o Self as known can be divided into three aspects  Constituents (self-concept)  Material me  Possessions that have become part of me o car, house, clothes  Social me  lives in the eyes/minds of other people  how other people see me  spiritual me  ideals  religion  Feelings and emotion (self-esteem)  The acts to which they prompt (self-motives)  How is the self organized?  Is our self concept changing over time, or is it stable? o Both  stability, but slight changes over time  Due to life events, people, etc.  Do we have one self or many selves?  Self concept o Sum of beliefs people have about themselves  Self concept is both stable and dynamic  We have multiple, context-specific, selves that change over time o Available self concept  Accumulation of knowledge, experiences  I’m smart, I’m not good at math, I’m too fat, I’m a good friend o Accessible self concept  At any one time, only a little part of you is accessible  It feels like you’re changing  Drinking with friends at a bar  Vs.  At home with parents  Self-concept is hierarchical o Some dimensions of self are more important, more central to the self concept than are others  Self schemas  Schematic vs. a-schematic  Schematic  schematic about intelligence, musicianship, friendship (important to me)  Ex: if someone said I was a bad musician, it would sting  Influence perception, self esteem, motivation o Self esteem = accomplishments (divided by) pretentions  Different types of selves o Personal self  Unique person o Relational self  With others o Collective self (social identity)  Self complexity o Self complexity  the number and inter-connectedness of self aspects  High self complexity  Low self complexity  Dimensions inter-linked  Knowing oneself  Twenty statement test (who am I?) o My own  1. I am kind.  2. I am intelligent  3. I am a good friend.  4. I am Jewish  5. I am an only child  6. I am a musician  7. I am quirky  8. I am complex  9. I am fun to be around.  10. I am silly  11. I am perpetually tired  12. I am petite  13. I am into the arts  14. I am organized  15. I am fashion forward  16. I am interesting to talk to  17. I am a good listener  18. I am a good advice giver  19. I am dedicated to things I’m passionate about  20. I am very emotional/caring/sympathetic o changes over time/with age  Reactive measures (questionnaires)  Cognitive measures (reaction times) Lecture 4 – The Social Self Cont. 9/27/2012 1:43:00 PM  How do we “know” who we are?  Sources of self-knowledge: Overview o Self perception o Reflected appraisals o Social comparisons o Culture o How accurate is our self knowledge?  Self perception o Self perception theory (Bem)  we draw inferences about our self by observing our behavior and the constraints on our behavior  Observing own behavior  Social constraints  Ex: interview for job  a. questions led to describing themselves in introverted ways (favorite books, what do you do on rainy days) b. more fun (what are your favorite outdoor activities, how do you get a party started, etc.)  Rate yourself on introverted – extroverted scale  Group A said more introverted, group B said more extroverted o Constraint: control that coerces behavior  Ex: gun to head o Self perception of emotion  Facial feedback  changes in facial expression can lead to changes in the subjective experience of emotions  We label emotions based off the bodily feedback of our facial features  Ex: without being told to smile, put pencil in mouth and don’t have teeth touch  watch cartoons, etc. rate funniness of cartoon, rate how you feel  Rated themselves happier than sad  Body posture  Shoulders back, better posture  feel more powerful, stronger, etc. o Self perception of motivation  Intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivation  Intrinsic motivation  originates in factors within a person  Ex: read textbook because interested in subject  Extrinsic motivation  originates in factors outside the person  Ex: read textbook for a good grade, to get into grad school, etc.  What happens to intrinsic motivation once a reward is no longer available?  Overjustification effect  Ex: loves photography but told if you bring photos in you get money… over time you start to not like photography as much (not sure I love taking pictures because I’m getting paid to do it)  Paradoxical effects of reward on intrinsic motivation  How long children played with a bunch of really beautiful markers; them assigned 1/3 conditions  A. no reward  barely less than unexpected reward  B. unexpected reward  barely more than no reward  C. expected reward  significantly less than no reward and unexpected reward  Understanding the paradox  Should rewards NOT be offered?  What is important is how the reward is perceived o Constraint; is the award controlling/causing the behavior psychologically?  Ex: if every time you have an exceptional picture in addition to the 10 for $5 ones, you get a bonus = won’t undermine your intrinsic feelings  Other people o Reflected appraisals  Types of reflected appraisals  Direct appraisals  how particular other people ACTUALLY view you  Ex: asking parents/friends  Perceived self  how you THINK particular others view you  Ex: how I think my parents/friends see me  Generalized other  how you think people IN GENERAL view you  Ex: how people in general see me  Connections among reflected appraisals and self concept  Direct reflection (weak)  Others view of you –weak perceived self – strong self concept  Children’s self concepts and parents’ match  Difference in how parents ACTUALLY saw kids and how kids THOUGHT parents saw  Why is the link so weak?  Link between how they view you and how you view yourself (filtered information) o Sometimes people don’t tell you what they frankly think (bad breath, zipper down, etc.) o People censor what they say to us  The connections can be going the other way o Others view of you  how you think they view you  how you view yourself o Our self concepts shape our perceptions of how others see us  We get conflicting messages from different people  Some people are more important influences than others  social comparisons o we learn about ourselves by comparing ourselves with others when objective standards are unavailable o we tend to compare with others who:  we see as similar to us  who are in our immediate environment o our social context shapes our self-views  “frog pond” effect  two kids of average intellectual ability  send one to a school with V achieving kids  send one to a school with ^ achieving kids  wait a while, ask if they think they’re going to go far in school/life  kid at V achieving school feels smarter/higher aspirations  derive sense of how good we are compared to how “good” other people are  mr. clean vs. mr. dirty study  participants wait in a room to be interviewed for a job  another job candidate (confederate) is waiting  confederate is well dressed (clean) or unkempt (dirty)  participants completed self-esteem scale  results  self evaluations were lower when they applied for the job in the presence of Mr. Clean than Mr. Dirty  culture shapes the self  culture  shared set of meanings that structure one’s perception of the self and the world o “western self”  separate, independent, bounded, individuated  “to thine own self be true” o “eastern self”  connected, contextual, collective  “nail that stands out gets pounded down” o independent vs. interdependent view of self  mother father friend etc. SEPARATE FROM SELF  mother father friend etc. PART OF SELF  gender shapes the self  women’s self concept tends to be more interdependent o choose pictures with friends  men’s self concept tends to be more independent o choose pictures with self  are our self conceptions accurate? o Affective forecasting  We have difficulty predicting our responses to future emotional events  Why?  We tend to overestimate the strength and duration of our emotional reactions  For NEGATIVE events, we do not fully appreciate our psychological coping mechanisms  We focus only on the emotional impact of a single event, overlooking the effects of other life experiences  READ “STUMBLING INTO HAPPINESS”  Self esteem  Global evaluation of self as worthwhile, valuable o “I feel I am a person of worth” o “on the whole, I am satisfied with myself”  is high self esteem good? o Those with a positive self image tend to be happy, healthy, productive, and successful o Those with a negative self image tend to be more depressed, pessimistic about the future, and prone to failure o But does high self esteem ensure desirable life outcomes? o Should we try to raise children’s self esteem to ensure productivity and happiness when older?  ABC video Lecture 5 – The Self (cont.) 9/27/2012 1:43:00 PM  Is high self-esteem a social vaccine?  Video  “feeling good about failure”  self esteem o people with higher self esteem tend to be  happier/less depressed  healthier  more optimistic about the future  more productive  more successful/do better in school  high self esteem also is positively associated with o aggressiveness o juvenile delinquency o taking large risks (ex: unsafe sexual behavior) o stronger in-group bias  favoring their group over other groups  how to reconcile? o Different types of self esteem  Level (high/low)  Stability (how much it fluctuates across situations)  Explicit (self-report) vs. implicit (reaction time)  Measuring implicit  how quickly you are to associate good/bad attributes with self  Good words and bad words; which ones do you associate with yourself (uncontrolled, quick reaction times)  Who is most hostile?  People with HIGH-UNSTABLE self esteem  People with HIGH EXPLICIT-LOW IMPLICIT self esteem  Narcissists  They are easily threatened, defensive after negative feedback, most hostile  Where does self esteem come from? o Innate? o Early experiences (ex: parents) o Personal experiences (ex: accomplishments) o Self standards  James  Higgins’ self-discrepancy theory  Ideal self and ought self  Discrepancy in “ought” leads to anxiety  Sometimes standards are so high, it’s nearly impossible to meet those standards  Self and behavior  The self is a dynamic system that motivates behavior o Two main self motives  Self enhancement  see ourselves as good, worthy  Different cultures have different perception of good/worthy  Although idea of self enhancement in general is universal  Self enhancement (expanded)  Motive to feel good about ourselves o Especially evident following threats to self o Possibly innate o Stronger in individualistic societies  1-10 o leadership ability o ability to get along with others o patience o tolerance o thoughtfulness o etc.  how can we ALL be above average? o Implicit egotism  Ways we self enhance  Tesser’s self evaluation maintenance Model (SEM) o Two main processes underlie SEM  Reflection (bask in reflected glory)  “My daughter’s boyfriend’s uncle is a millionaire”  following on celebrity gossip  Comparison (suffer pain of comparison)  You’re a great student, and in comparison I suck o Whether we “bask” or “suffer” depends on three factors  Own performance relative to other (better/worse)  “closeness” of other to self  not necessarily friendship  similarity to you  importance of performance domain to self  you’re a better musician than me… if music is important to you, it matters. o Predictions of SEM  We “bask” when close others do better than us in domains that are NOT important to us  We “suffer” when close others do better than us in domains that ARE important to us  How do we maintain our self esteem?  We alter our closeness to others who do better than us in domains important to us (distance person)  Or  We reduce the importance of the domain to our self- concept (make “music” less important to me)  Other ways we self enhance  We avoid “upward” social comparisons o People that do better than me  We devalue things we are not good at  We choose situations and tasks in which we can shine  We inflate our contributions to successful joint efforts o Also deflate contributions to unsuccessful joint efforts…  We remind ourselves of things we are good at or value  We engage in self serving attributional biases  Self verification  maintain a stable, consistent self view (Swan)  How do we self verify?  We create environments that confirm our self view o We display “identity cues” to others  Athletic clothes, sexy clothes o We affiliate with others who confirm our self views o We interact with others so as to confirm our self views  We “see” and “remember” information that confirms our self views  Another self enhancement strategy: self handicapping  Creating alternative (nonability) attributions for poor performances  Ex: going out drinking before a midterm, so you can say “well, what do you expect? I got a bad score because I went out… not because I’m not smart/didn’t care.”  If you go all out on something and fail, it hurts your self esteem  Occurs when  Person is uncertain about future performance  Poor performance would threaten self concept  Types of self handicapping  Behavioral  creation of genuine handicaps to successful behavior  Excuse making  claiming excuses for poor performances Lecture 6 Self and Motivation: Conclusion and Social Thinking 9/27/2012 1:43:00 PM  Last class review  Two main motivations of the self o Self enhancement o Self verification  How do we self verify? o We create environments that confirm our self view  We display “identity cues”  We affiliate with others who see us as we see ourselves o We “see” and “remember” information that confirms our self views o Self enhance or self verify?  For people with positive self views  Motivations are consistent  What about people with negative self views?  Motivations clash  Prefer self enhancing feedback (feel goods)  But find self verifying feedback most credible, accurate o Self presentation  We are also motivate to “self present”  to control others’ impressions of ourselves  Can be automatic or deliberate o Self monitoring (Snyder)  Individuals differ in their orientation toward self- presentation  High self monitor (pragmatic)  Read social scene/social cues  Actors = high self monitors  Low self monitor (principled)  More concerned with behavior fitting internal attitudes  Consistent with internal monitors o Self regulation  Process by which we seek to control [regulate] our thoughts, feelings, and behaviors  High self control capacity is a good predictor of future success  Ex: young kids  piece of candy now, or wait 20 minutes have 5 pieces of candy  Why do you think that is?  Long term vs. short term goal oriented  Can self control be used up?  Baumeister experiments  IV o Pp randomly assigned to do task 1 that does or does not require exercise of self control  DV o Everyone does second task that requires self control o How much self control is shown on task 2?  Results o People who had to use self control on task 1 show less self control on task 2 (ex: persist less, eat more cookies)  Why?  Baumeister’s energy model of self control o Theory  Self control, like a muscle, gets tired with use  Exercising self control uses up glucose in the body just like physical exercise does o Hypothesis  Ingesting glucose will improve self control o Results  People whose self control was “depleted” on task 1 persisted longer on task 2 IF given sugared lemonade but NOT if given diet lemonade  BUT is glucose actually depleted by exercising self control? NEW FINDINGS  Replicated Baumeister studies but measured blood glucose before and after doing task 1  Results o People again showed less self control on task 2 if they had to exercise self control on task 1 o BUT blood glucose was unaffected by self control task  Further studies show  “depleted” people who merely rinsed their mouth with glucose (vs. diet sweetener) showed enhanced self control on second task  conclusion o decreased MOTIVATION causes the drop in self control, not decreased glucose  social thinking  social perception – process by which people come to understand other people o active o subjective o important o Blink! Malcolm Gladwell  First impressions occur very quickly  Nalini Ambady:  People form impressions based on “thin slices” of behavior  Can predict important outcomes  Political elections, teacher ratings, etc.  Trait negativity bias – negative information ahs a stronger impact on impression formation than positive information  nonverbal behavior influences impressions o facial expressions o body language o eye contact or gaze o physical touch  ted talk video o amy cuddy  Lecture 7 – Social Thinking 9/27/2012 1:43:00 PM  three models of the social perceiver  rational model  automatic model  cognitive miser model o we can’t process all the info coming into our senses at any moment o we do some things on autopilot  social thinking is biased  we often exhibit biases in our social perceptions  BUT biases do not necessarily result in error  Bias 1  we confirm our beliefs o We tend to seek, perceive, interpret, and remember information that verifies our existing beliefs (preconceptions, expectancies, schemas) o Examples  We remember things that didn’t occur  Amadou Diallo murder (thought he was going for gun, but was reaching for wallet)  Confirmatory hypothesis-testing  Introvert/extrovert study  Interviewing job candidates (tend to ask questions that would elicit responses based on whether or not he said introvert or extrovert)  Belief perseverance  Bogus feedback study  College students given test and told typical college student answer amount; “you’re well above average”  “jk, completely inaccurate test”  people told did well, thought they really did well (and vice versa)  Bias 2  we often don’t know why we do what we do o We don’t realize the effects of some actors  Ex: primacy effects  Information presented early tends to have more impact on impressions than information presented later in a sequence  Why? Once impression formed, leads to:  Selective attention  Selective interpretation o Priming effects  Concepts and words that come to mind easily can influence us without our awareness  Example:  Is Donald brave or reckless?  Flashed words below levels of perceptual awareness “reckless, brave, etc.”  Bias 3  we use mental shortcuts that lead to errors o If Fred a psychologist or a lawyer?  You go to a party where 70% of people are academic psychologists, and 30% are lawyers  You meet Fred and learn that he belongs to a country club, is loud, quarrelsome, and wears flashy clothes  We automatically think he’s a lawyer o Representativeness heuristic  We judge likelihood according to how well people match or represent a prototype  Underuse base-rates o Availability heuristic  We judge likelihood of events in terms of how easily they come to mind  Vivid information is overly persuasive  Which is more dangerous? Air travel or car travel (most people say air… false)  Buyer’s guide info or personal experience of a friend?  Bias 4  we are swayed by illusions of causation and control o We perceive cause where only correlation exists o We perceive control where none exists  Lottery ticket studies  Give it to a person vs. person taking ticket themselves  I wanna buy your lottery ticket back… the students that chose numbers themselves wanted 4x the amount  Bias 5  we over estimate how much others think like us o False consensus effect  Would you wear an “eat at joe’s” billboard around campus?  How many of your peers would say yes too?  Bias 6  wrong beliefs can generate their own reality o Self fulfilling prophecy  Examples  Rosenthal and Jacobson’s (1968) “Pygmalion in the Classroom” study  Late bloomers in the classroom (track kids’ performance, kids who randomly identified as late bloomers did better in school)  Perceived beauty can lead to nicer behavior  Men on phone with woman (half pics HOT, half pics NOT HOT)  Behaved differently on phone with girl he thought was cute… she behaved differently too  Three step process  Perceiver’s expectations  perceiver’s behavior toward the target  target’s behavior toward perceiver  perceiver’s expectations confirmed  When can self fulfilling prophecy be circumvented?  When perceiver is highly motivated to know the truth/be accurate  When perceiver has less power than the target  When target is informed of expectancy and motivated not to confirm it  Attributions  WHY did he/she do that? o Attributions  perceived causes or explanations for behavior  Enable us to predict behavior  Often triggered by unexpected and negative events  Main dimensions of attributions o Locus  is cause of behavior due to person (internal) or situation (external)? o Stability  is cause unchanging or subject to change? o Controllability  is the cause something that is under the person’s control or not?  Attributions have important consequences o For example:  Judgments of guilt or innocence  Expectations for the future  Emotional reactions (pride, shame)  Responses to poor, victims  How do we make attributions? (in textbook) o Classic theories  Jones and Davis (Correspondent Inference Theory)  Goal of perceiver is to figure out if people’s actions are a result of their internal dispositions  Attributions affected by  Person’s degree of choice  Expectedness of the behavior  Ex: person kidnapped, hijacking bank (forced, believing the cause, etc.)  Kelley: Covariation Theory  See graph in textbook  Causal schema model  When they don’t have lots of information, people use: o Discounting principle  Given attribution for a behavior is REDUCED when another FACILITATIVE cause is present  Ex: Someone getting a job because dad’s the CEO o Augmenting principle  Given attribution for a behavior is ENHANCED when another INHIBITING cause is present  Ex: someone moved from mail room to #1 salesman in 18 months… btw in a wheelchair  Attribution biases o Attributions are not always rational  Example  Self serving attributional bias  tendency to attribute our own positive outcomes to internal factors (us) and our negative outcomes to external (situational) factors  We do well on test (it’s us), we do poorly (it’s the teacher/test)  Fundamental attribution error  When we explain other people’s behavior we tend to: o Overestimate the role of personal factors o Overlook the impact of situations  Example: speechwriting (assigned position vs. really believing position) Lecture 8 9/27/2012 1:43:00 PM  Social Perception  Attribution biases o Self serving attributional bias  I did well on the test because I’m smart and studied  I did poorly on the test because it was written badly  In order to protect self esteem o Fundamental attribution error  When you see somebody do something, you overestimate that it was them, their personality, their beliefs that caused them to behave that way  Overlook situational/societal causes that make that person act as such  Pro/anti Castro speech  A western bias?  East Asian cultures = more sensitive/interdependent/collective; do not fall prey to fundamental attribution error (as much as Americans)  More aware of situational things that affect behavior o Actor observer bias  If you’re watching me and I’m watching you  Actor thinking about world, external/situational factors  Observer watching actor (internal factors) o Gilbert’s two step mode of attribution process  Person attributions are “automatic”  Actor is salient  Requires cognitive resources to pay attention to situational influences  FAE more likely to occur when people are distracted, busy  Attitudes and Persuasion  Examples of attitudes o What do you feel about Obama? o Are chocolate chip cookies better with or without nuts? o What are your views on the quarter/semester system? o Definition: always have a target/object  Attitude  a favorable or unfavorable evaluative reaction toward something or someone, exhibited in o Beliefs o Feelings o Or intended behavior  Intention =/= action  Measuring attitudes o Self report  Ask people, 1-10 scale, etc. o Behavioral  What you say is different than what you do  Do you like this person? Say yes, but sit far away from them o Physiological  People attach electrodes to face and take EMG  Facial muscles to measure smile/frown muscles  Amygdala  involved with emotional reactions to things o reaction time (implicit attitude test)  split second decisions  people are different in regards to timing when associating good and bad  being used with self as object  measures self esteem  implicit vs. explicit self esteem (discrepancies)  do attitudes predict behavior? o Less strongly than we might think… o Example  Chinese couple up and down coast  Email would you serve Chinese customers?  90% said no o WHEN do attitudes predict behavior?  When other influences on behavior are minimized  Social desirability concerns  Cash paying customer/want business  Has white customer next to them  Bogus pipeline study (Sigall and colleagues, 1971)  Make people think taking lie detector test  makes people more honest because they don’t want to be caught lying  Lie detector works because people THINK it works  When the attitude is specific to the behavior  Asked attitudes toward environment (pro/anti)  Do you drive a hybrid?  Do your attitudes toward the environment shape your behavior? o Other factors: money, biking instead, how far can you drive, etc. o Better to ask specifically: What are your attitudes toward buying a Hybrid next time you purchase a new car?  When the attitude is fresh in one’s mind (cognitively accessible)  When attitude is fresh in mind, most likely to respond behaviorally in line with attitude  When the attitude is strong  Personal experience vs. second hand  A few family cars, heard good things about Priuses, finally rented one and loved it; after personal experience buying car, stronger attitude toward purchasing one  When we are self-aware/self-monitoring  High self-monitor  match behavior to others’ attitudes  Low self-monitor  match behavior to personal attitudes  Can our actions affect our attitudes? o Saying is believing  Get people to behave  set attitudes into line  Ex: Vietnam war, sent presidential administration to Vietnam to support war (even when didn’t believe it)… started to be pro war o Role playing o Doing favors leads to positive attitudes  People say “I did this small favor for someone, must mean I like them.” o Evil acts beget negative attitudes  People say “I did/said this bad thing about someone, must mean I don’t like them/attitudes”  Cognitive dissonance theory o Three main assumptions  1. We seek consistency in our thoughts  2. We feel tension (dissonance) when our attitudes and actions are inconsistent  3. We are motivated to reduce dissonance – easiest way is by changing attitude o Ex: smoking is bad for my health and I want to be healthy  okay, I’ll quit smoking (as opposed to “eh, it isn’t that bad) o Demonstration of cognitive dissonance theory #1  Insufficient justification  Festinger and Carlsmith study (1959)  Come into lab and do really boring, terrible task for HOURS  Told people after task that the experiment is about expectations on performance  Three conditions  Please tell next people to do the experiment that it’s really interesting ($10 vs. $100)  Person went upstairs (how interesting/much fun was the task you were just in)  Completely anonymous… experimenter never see you again  Cognitive dissonance theory  o had insufficient justification for saying it was interesting for a small amount of money. Maybe it really WAS interesting…? o I said it was interesting, but I had sufficient reason for doing it; anyone would say that for $100! o BROUGHT ATTITUDE INTO LINE WITH THAT BEHAVIOR WAS o Demonstrations of cognitive dissonance theory #2  Justification of effort  Aronson and Mills (1959) initiation study  Really interesting group discussing interesting topics; to get into the group, you have to do an initiation type thing  Conditions: o F had to read M risqué words o Explicit sexual passages from novel in front of M experimenter o Initiation thing  Discussion?  Sex life of insects… completely boring  Went through hazing to get into group that was completely wortheless  Asked: how much fun was the experiment?  According to cognitive dissonance theory? o The ones who were embarrassed most  worked really hard = appreciated discussion more (rationalize/justifies effort) o Demonstration of cognitive dissonance theory #3  Dissonance after decision making  Example  If I’m trying to decide between buying Subaru and Honda  look similar, but decide Subaru. BEFORE making decision, almost dead even; AFTER putting money down “Subaru was obviously the better car”  Race track betting study  Do you think your horse is going to win? o Both horse A and horse B look good; leaning towards A barely o Right after put money down: horse A was obviously the best choice; obviously going to win, etc.  Why do our actions affect our attitudes? o Other theories  Self perception theory  Self affirmation theory  What we’re really trying to do is keep ourselves feeling good about ourselves  How do we change attitudes?  Two routes to persuasion o Central  systematic processing  Occurs when people think carefully about a message and are influenced by the strength of the arguments  Persuasion occurs as a result of people’s own thinking (reasoning)  Requires motivation and ability to think systematically  Compared to 10 mediocre arguments… 1 GREAT argument is better o Peripheral  heuristic processing  Occurs when people do not think carefully about a communication, but instead are influenced by cues that are irrelevant to the content or quality of the argument  Credibility  Expertise, trustworthiness, celebrities  The sleeper effect  A delayed impact of a message that occurs when we remember a message that was paired with a discredited source, but forget the reason for discounting it  Occurs a lot in modern day politics o Pure, plain out lies  Counting on the fact the idea will stick o Want fact to stick despite the fact we know it’s false (forgetting it’s a lie, just remember the point)  Attractiveness  Physical appeal (sex sells!)  Similarity  Ex: Marlboro cigarettes, sexy cowboys  Two routes to persuasion (see figure 6.5 in textbook) o Fear appeals motivate  Danger control (accept message)  Fear control (defend against/avoid message) o Strong fear appeals + high efficacy message (what to do) > greatest behavior change Lecture 9 - Conformity 9/27/2012 1:43:00 PM  Conformity  a change in behavior or belief in agreement with others  Compliance  conforming to an implied or explicit request in public while privately disagreeing  Obedience  conforming to an explicit request  Acceptance  conforming that also involves a change in belief  Two kinds of conformity  Informational influence  influence of other people that leads us to conform because we see them as a source of information o Looking to the crowd for answers (trying to find a classroom; following swarms of people) o The wisdom of crowds  Groups of people can have accurate information (when you put all of their individual bits of information together)  Ex: weight of cow  Single guess very inaccurate  Mean guess = VERY accurate (even more accurate than butchers/cow farmers) o Early classic experiment: Sherif (1936)  Participants sat in dark room  Shown a light for 2 seconds
More Less

Related notes for PSY 102

Log In


Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.