Social PsychologySocial Psychology

AttitudesAttitudes

• Tendency to evaluate stimuli with some Tendency to evaluate stimuli with some degree of favor or disfavordegree of favor or disfavor

• 3 components of an attitude3 components of an attitudeo AffectiveAffectiveo BehavioralBehavioralo CognitiveCognitive

Theory of Planned BehaviorTheory of Planned Behavior

• Change specific attitudes toward a Change specific attitudes toward a behaviorbehavior

• Emphasizes subjective normsEmphasizes subjective norms

PersuasionPersuasion

• The deliberate attempt to change The deliberate attempt to change attitudesattitudes

• Components of persuasionComponents of persuasiono Source – speakers more persuasive when Source – speakers more persuasive when

crediblecredibleo Message – fear appeals, content/information Message – fear appeals, content/information o Attitude strength – stronger attitudes Attitude strength – stronger attitudes

harder to changeharder to change

PersuasionPersuasion

• Elaboration Likelihood Model Elaboration Likelihood Model o Use Use central routecentral route to change attitudes to change attitudes

when:when:• Recipient attitude strength is strong Recipient attitude strength is strong • Recipient motivated to think about Recipient motivated to think about

message argumentsmessage arguments

o Using distractions (glitzy campaigns, Using distractions (glitzy campaigns, jingles) to impede jingles) to impede

rational/conscious processing causes rational/conscious processing causes annoyance annoyance

PersuasionPersuasion

• Elaboration Likelihood Model Elaboration Likelihood Model o Use Use peripheral routeperipheral route to change attitudes to change attitudes

when:when:• Recipient not likely to engage in high-Recipient not likely to engage in high-

effort cognitive thought processing effort cognitive thought processing (“superficial processing”)(“superficial processing”)

• Useful when attitude is weakUseful when attitude is weak

o Recipient will not carefully consider the Recipient will not carefully consider the pros/cons of issue or messagepros/cons of issue or message

PersuasionPersuasion

• Requests that shift from small to large:Requests that shift from small to large:

• ““Foot-in-the-Door” Foot-in-the-Door” o Small request first get compliance then Small request first get compliance then

larger requestlarger request

• ““Low-Balling” Low-Balling” o Reasonable request first get compliance Reasonable request first get compliance

reveal hidden costly details (i.e., mistaken reveal hidden costly details (i.e., mistaken price suddenly discovered)price suddenly discovered)

PersuasionPersuasion

• Requests that shift from large to small:Requests that shift from large to small:

• ““Door-in-the-Face” Door-in-the-Face” o Unreasonable first request immediate Unreasonable first request immediate

smaller requestsmaller request

• ““That’s-Not-All” That’s-Not-All” o Large request discount/bonus immediately Large request discount/bonus immediately

followsfollows

• Scarcity Scarcity – Rare things are highly valued (Home – Rare things are highly valued (Home Shopping network, Shopping network, “Limited Time “Limited Time Only”/“Supplies Limited” sales)Only”/“Supplies Limited” sales)

• Reciprocity Reciprocity – – First the source gives you First the source gives you something. Once you something. Once you accept, may accept, may feel obligated to give something backfeel obligated to give something back

• Comparison ruleComparison rule – – When others stop and stare, When others stop and stare, so do you so do you (“salting the (“salting the collection plate”)collection plate”)

Other Types of InfluenceOther Types of Influence

The SelfThe Self

• Cognitive Dissonance TheoryCognitive Dissonance Theoryo Perceived discrepancy between an Perceived discrepancy between an

attitude and a behaviorattitude and a behavior creates creates psychological tension/anxietypsychological tension/anxiety

o Individual motivated to either change Individual motivated to either change the attitude, behavior, or perception of the attitude, behavior, or perception of inconsistent informationinconsistent information

• Festinger & Carlsmith (1959)Festinger & Carlsmith (1959)o Monotonous task experiment ($1 vs. Monotonous task experiment ($1 vs.

$20)$20)

• Festinger & Carlsmith (1959)Festinger & Carlsmith (1959)o Participants performed boring motor Participants performed boring motor

coordination task for 30 minutescoordination task for 30 minutes

o Subjects given either $1 or $20 to tell next Subjects given either $1 or $20 to tell next subject the (boring) experiment was funsubject the (boring) experiment was fun

o Those paid $20 to lie evaluated the study Those paid $20 to lie evaluated the study as much less favorable than those only as much less favorable than those only paid $1paid $1

• Why?Why?

The SelfThe Self

The SelfThe Self

• Festinger & Carlsmith (1959)Festinger & Carlsmith (1959)o In $20 condition, dissonance (lying about a In $20 condition, dissonance (lying about a

boring task) was weaker – subjects knew boring task) was weaker – subjects knew why they lied why they lied

o In $1 condition, dissonance was higher – In $1 condition, dissonance was higher – subjects could not justify their behavior on subjects could not justify their behavior on external grounds (only $1)external grounds (only $1)

• One option to reduce dissonance was to One option to reduce dissonance was to modify attitude toward the task – “It modify attitude toward the task – “It waswas kind of interesting.”kind of interesting.”

The SelfThe Self

• Halo effectHalo effecto A person considered good (or bad) in one A person considered good (or bad) in one

category is likely to be similarly evaluated category is likely to be similarly evaluated in other categoriesin other categories

o Dissonance avoidance?Dissonance avoidance?• Attributing someone as good at one thing Attributing someone as good at one thing

and bad at another would make an overall and bad at another would make an overall evaluation difficultevaluation difficult

The SelfThe Self

• Fundamental Attribution Error (Ross, 1977)Fundamental Attribution Error (Ross, 1977)o Attribute events which happen to other Attribute events which happen to other

people to their internal states (mood, people to their internal states (mood, personality, motivations) personality, motivations)

o Attribute events involving Attribute events involving ourselvesourselves to to externalexternal influences influences

o Especially true when we know little about Especially true when we know little about the other personthe other person

• Mere Exposure Effect (Zajonc, 1968)Mere Exposure Effect (Zajonc, 1968)o The more we are exposed to something, The more we are exposed to something,

the more we come to like itthe more we come to like it

o ““Familiarity breeds liking”Familiarity breeds liking”

o There is some benefit to simply being There is some benefit to simply being near someone you’re interested innear someone you’re interested in

The SelfThe Self

• Zimbardo’s (1971) Stanford Prison Zimbardo’s (1971) Stanford Prison ExperimentExperiment

o 2 groups2 groupso ““Prisoners” detained by California police on a Prisoners” detained by California police on a

Saturday Saturday

morning, deloused, chained, and jailedmorning, deloused, chained, and jailed

o ““Guards” wore uniforms, given billy clubs, Guards” wore uniforms, given billy clubs, whistles, and whistles, and

instructed to maintain order in the prisoninstructed to maintain order in the prison

o Experiment cancelled after only a few days as Experiment cancelled after only a few days as guards became progressively abusiveguards became progressively abusive

ConformityConformity

ConformityConformity

• Milgram’s Obedience Experiments (1963)Milgram’s Obedience Experiments (1963)o Participants told study was about the effect of Participants told study was about the effect of

punishment on learningpunishment on learning

o Confederate was the “Learner” in other room, Confederate was the “Learner” in other room, participant was the “Teacher” who administered participant was the “Teacher” who administered the shocksthe shocks

o Shocking apparatus operated with 15v (mild) to Shocking apparatus operated with 15v (mild) to 450v (lethal)450v (lethal)

o The more mistakes the “Learner” made, the higher The more mistakes the “Learner” made, the higher the shock the participant/“Teacher” was asked to the shock the participant/“Teacher” was asked to give give

ConformityConformity

• Results:Results:o 65% of participants “killed” the victim65% of participants “killed” the victim

o What determined such obedience to authority?What determined such obedience to authority?o Participant heard by victim but not seenParticipant heard by victim but not seeno Prestigious location (Yale laboratory)Prestigious location (Yale laboratory)o High social status of “expert” authority High social status of “expert” authority

figure figure o Authority figure present to push participant Authority figure present to push participant

to continueto continue

o When participants in When participants in samesame room, only 30% room, only 30% lethally shocked victimlethally shocked victim

GroupsGroups

• Social facilitationSocial facilitationo Individual performance (esp. competitive Individual performance (esp. competitive

tasks) is altered due to the presence of tasks) is altered due to the presence of othersothers

Performance improves on simple or Performance improves on simple or familiar tasksfamiliar tasks

Performance may Performance may notnot improve on improve on complex or new tasks complex or new tasks

GroupsGroups

• Social loafingSocial loafingo Individual effort decreases as size of Individual effort decreases as size of

group increasesgroup increaseso Influenced by:Influenced by:

- Diffusion of responsibilityDiffusion of responsibility- Decreased evaluation apprehensionDecreased evaluation apprehension- Group productivity illusion (“They’re Group productivity illusion (“They’re

doing fine”)doing fine”)- Level of identification with the group Level of identification with the group

GroupsGroups

• DeindividuationDeindividuationo In a crowd, people:In a crowd, people:

- Become less self-aware + feel Become less self-aware + feel anonymousanonymous

- Become more impulsive, less rational Become more impulsive, less rational and more suggestibleand more suggestible

- Behave in more extreme waysBehave in more extreme ways

• StereotypesStereotypeso Generalizations about the "typical" Generalizations about the "typical"

characteristics of individuals or members of a characteristics of individuals or members of a group (can be + or -) group (can be + or -)

o Ex: “Someone who wears glasses is intelligent” Ex: “Someone who wears glasses is intelligent”

• PrejudicePrejudiceo Unreasonable feelings (negative attitudes) Unreasonable feelings (negative attitudes)

regarding others’ racial/ethnic, sexual, political, regarding others’ racial/ethnic, sexual, political, or religious group statusor religious group status

• DiscriminationDiscriminationo Behavior (action) toward others based on Behavior (action) toward others based on

negative attitudes negative attitudes

GroupsGroups

Bystander EffectBystander Effect

• Latane and Darley (1968) studyLatane and Darley (1968) studyo Participants told to discuss problems faced Participants told to discuss problems faced

by students in a high pressure urban by students in a high pressure urban environmentenvironment

o Discussions took place over intercoms to Discussions took place over intercoms to maintain “the absolute importance of maintain “the absolute importance of anonymity”anonymity”

o Participants believed they were talking to 1, Participants believed they were talking to 1, 2, or 5 other people2, or 5 other people