The flashcards below were created by user
dsalanga11292
on FreezingBlue Flashcards.
-
Attitude
favorable or unfavorable evaluative reactions (feelings or beliefs) towards someone or something
-
Attitude ⇒ Behavior Link
1969, Allan Wicker did reviewed several student studies that concluded that the ATTITUDE⇒BEHAVIOR LINK IS LOW
-
Attitudes predict behaviors when:
- 1. social influences are minimal
- 2. attitudes are specific to behavior
- 3. attitudes are strong (consistent and easily remember)
-
Explicit Attitude
conscious, openly espoused, systematic and deliberate activation, planned action
-
Implicit Attitude
unconscious, privately held, automatic activation, spontaneous action
-
Bogus Pipeline
phony lie-detector device that is sometimes used to get respondents to give truthful answers to sensitive questions
-
Ways of Covertly Measuring Explicit Attitudes:
- 1. observable behavior - can be effected by social or other situations
- 2. measures of arousal - using EMG to analyze facial muscles
-
Implicit Association Test (IAT)
computer driven test of attitudes which measures times of pressing a button in reaction to certain images or words
-
Role
set of rules about how people in a given social position out to behave
-
Conformity
change in behavior or belief as a result of real or imagined group pressure
-
Obedience
change in behavior as a result of direct order or command
-
Two Classical Studies of Conformity
- 1. Auto-kinetic Effect - Muzaref Sherif (1954)
- 2. Line Conformity Study - Asche
-
Auto-Kinetic Effect
optical illusion associated with misinterpretation that a pinpoint of light moves in a dark room
-
Social Norm
the rule that a group uses for appropriate and inappropriate beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors
-
Auto-kinetic Effect Procedure and Results
- Procedure:
- - Day 1: subject in dark room alone, asked to judge how far light moves in dark room
- - Day 2-4: same procedure except 2 other confederates in room that purposely said the same wrong answer to see if subject would conform
- Results:
- - participants conformed to the opinions of the confederates
- - demonstrates that people are HIGHLY SUGGESTIBLE
-
Line Conformity Procedure and Results
- Procedure:
- - participants (consisting of 7-9 participants in the crowd) were told they were part of a visual judgement experiment and were required to judge the size of 4 different lines and say which one was the shortest
- - 1st two trials all give right answer
- - 3rd trial, they all give the same wrong answer to see if subject would conform
- Results:
- - participants conformed with confederates even though lines were obviously not the same size
-
What was the major difference between Asch and Sherif's studies of conformity?
- Asche - use of non-ambiguous stimuli
- Sherif - use of ambiguous stimuli
-
Informative Influence
going along with others judgement, belief, or behavior because you believe they are correct
-
Normative Influence
feeling pressured into behavior like everyone else because you don't want to feel differently
-
Variation of Asche - addition of minority confederate, minority ↦ majority, minority leaving room
- - addition of minority: 25% errors; developed a liking for the minority member
- - minority ↦ majority: 33% errors
- - minority leaving room: 10% errors
-
Persuasion
the process by which a message induces changes in attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors
-
Elaboration Likelihood Model
a model of persuasive communication that holds that there are two routes to attitude change (central and peripheral)
-
Central Persuasion
focus on the QUALITY of the arguments in a message
-
Peripheral Persuasion
focus on factors OTHER THAN the quality of arguments in a message (ex. aspect of the message or communicator)
-
What two factors predict when people use Central Persuasion?
high motivation - personally relevant to others and others have a need for cognition
and
high ability - sufficient time and no distraction
-
Systematic Message Processing (ELM)
central; active attempts to comprehend and analyze message arguments in order to evaluate overall message
-
Heuristic Message Processing (ELM)
peripheral; using simple and general rules based on past experiences or observations
-
Differential Effects on Attitude
- Central - strong, resistant to change, predictive of behavior
- Peripheral - weak, easily changed, not predictive of behavior
-
Four Elements of Persuasion
Communicator ↦ Message Content ↦ Channel ↦ Audience
-
Four Elements of Persuasion - Communicator
must be perceived as an expert(speaks confidently and is knowledgeable about a topic) and trustworthy(not trying to be persuasive and arguing against own self interest)
-
Four Elements of Persuasion - Attractiveness
having qualities that appeal to an audience; physical attractiveness and similarity to the audience
-
Four Elements of Persuasion - Audience
- age - older participants less likely to be persuaded
- thinking - forewarned? distracted? unmotivated?
-
Four Elements of Persuasion - Message Content (Length and Order)
Length: peripheral - longer=more persuasive; central - longer=more complicated
Order: primacy - information presented first is more influential; recency - "best for last"
-
Four Elements of Persuasion - Message Content (Good Mood vs Fear)
- Good mood - rely on peripheral cues
- Fear - more likely to change attitudes and affect behavior
-
Foot in the door phenomenon
by asking someone to do a small favor, they will be more likely to do a larger favor in the future
-
Foot in the door phenomenon Experiment (Door to Door Donations)
- Procedure:
- - experimental group given pin to support cancer drive, control group given nothing
- - asked for donations the next day
- Results:
- - experimental group more likely to give donations (change attitudes towards self or cause)
-
Door in the face Phenomenon
by asking someone to do a large and outrageous favor (and they refuse), they will be more likely to agree to do a smaller request
-
Door in the face Phenomenon Experiment (College Student Mentoring)
- Procedure:
- - experimental group asked to mentor young child for 2 hrs a week for 2 years, control group asked nothing
- - asked both groups to take child to the zoo for 2 hours
Results: experimental group more likely to agree (cognitive dissonance about behavior)
-
Group
two or more people who, for longer than a few moments, interact with or influence one another and perceive one another as "us"
-
Social Facilitation (1st - Original)
tendency to perform better when others are present
-
Social Facilitation (2nd - New)
mere presence of others hinders performance when task is difficult or person is a novice and enhances performance when task is easy or person is an expert
-
Norman Triplett
Biking alone and Fishing rod experiments on social facilitation
-
Social Facilitation Research - Audience Effects (Dashiell)
doing something while others are watching effects social facilitation
-
Social Facilitation Research - Co-action Effects (Floyd Allport)
participants engaging in same behavior as one another, but not collectively in full view of one another effects social facilitation
-
Robert Zanjonc
arousal - enhances performance on easy tasks and diminishes performance on complex tasks
social facilitation - mere presence of others increases arousal
-
Social Facilitation (3rd - Newest)
the strengthening of dominant (prevalent, likely) responses in the presence of others
-
Social Loafing
the tendency for people to exert less effort when they are working toward a common goal and are not individually accountable for their efforts
-
Social Loafing - Tug of War Studies
Procedure - experimental group blindfolded and made to believe others were pulling with them while control pulled alone
Results - control group participants pulled 18% harder
-
Social Loafing - Exercise Bicycles
Procedure - experimental group told their output was being pooled while control was being individually monitored
Results - experimental group less energetic than control group
-
Social Loafing - Free-Riders
people who benefit from the group but give litter in return
-
Evaluation Apprehension
effects of social loafing explained by decrease in worrying about being evaluated or judged
-
Deindividuation
loss of self-awareness, loss of evaluation apprehension, responsiveness to group norms
-
Deindividuation - Perceptual Salience
people's attention focused on the situation, not themselves
-
Deindividuation - Loss of Evaluation Apprehension
fear of being evaluated or judged is reduced because individual behavior is less likely to be recognized
-
Deindividuation - Situational attributions
because "everyone is doing it", can attribute to behavior to situation rather than to something internal
-
Zimbardo
Standford Prison Experiment
-
Group Polarization
the tendency for groups to make decisions that are more extreme than the initial inclination of its members
-
Group Think
the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome
|
|