PSYCH 242 TEST NO.2

favorable or unfavorable evaluative reactions (feelings or beliefs) towards someone or something

1969, Allan Wicker did reviewed several student studies that concluded that the ATTITUDE⇒BEHAVIOR LINK IS LOW

• 1. social influences are minimal
• 2. attitudes are specific to behavior
• 3. attitudes are strong (consistent and easily remember)

conscious, openly espoused, systematic and deliberate activation, planned action

unconscious, privately held, automatic activation, spontaneous action

phony lie-detector device that is sometimes used to get respondents to give truthful answers to sensitive questions

• 1. observable behavior - can be effected by social or other situations
• 2. measures of arousal - using EMG to analyze facial muscles

computer driven test of attitudes which measures times of pressing a button in reaction to certain images or words

set of rules about how people in a given social position out to behave

change in behavior or belief as a result of real or imagined group pressure

change in behavior as a result of direct order or command

• 1. Auto-kinetic Effect - Muzaref Sherif (1954)
• 2. Line Conformity Study - Asche

optical illusion associated with misinterpretation that a pinpoint of light moves in a dark room

the rule that a group uses for appropriate and inappropriate beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors

• 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

• 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

• Asche - use of non-ambiguous stimuli
• Sherif - use of ambiguous stimuli

going along with others judgement, belief, or behavior because you believe they are correct

feeling pressured into behavior like everyone else because you don't want to feel differently

• - addition of minority: 25% errors; developed a liking for the minority member
• - minority ↦ majority: 33% errors
• - minority leaving room: 10% errors

the process by which a message induces changes in attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors

a model of persuasive communication that holds that there are two routes to attitude change (central and peripheral)

focus on the QUALITY of the arguments in a message

focus on factors OTHER THAN the quality of arguments in a message (ex. aspect of the message or communicator)

high motivation - personally relevant to others and others have a need for cognition

and

high ability - sufficient time and no distraction

central; active attempts to comprehend and analyze message arguments in order to evaluate overall message

peripheral; using simple and general rules based on past experiences or observations

• Central - strong, resistant to change, predictive of behavior
• Peripheral - weak, easily changed, not predictive of behavior

Communicator ↦ Message Content ↦ Channel ↦ Audience

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)

having qualities that appeal to an audience; physical attractiveness and similarity to the audience

• age - older participants less likely to be persuaded
• thinking - forewarned? distracted? unmotivated?

Length: peripheral - longer=more persuasive; central - longer=more complicated

Order: primacy - information presented first is more influential; recency - "best for last"

• Good mood - rely on peripheral cues
• Fear - more likely to change attitudes and affect behavior

by asking someone to do a small favor, they will be more likely to do a larger favor in the future

• 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)

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

• 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)

two or more people who, for longer than a few moments, interact with or influence one another and perceive one another as "us"

tendency to perform better when others are present

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

Biking alone and Fishing rod experiments on social facilitation

doing something while others are watching effects social facilitation

participants engaging in same behavior as one another, but not collectively in full view of one another effects social facilitation

arousal - enhances performance on easy tasks and diminishes performance on complex tasks

social facilitation - mere presence of others increases arousal

the strengthening of dominant (prevalent, likely) responses in the presence of others

the tendency for people to exert less effort when they are working toward a common goal and are not individually accountable for their efforts

Procedure - experimental group blindfolded and made to believe others were pulling with them while control pulled alone

Results - control group participants pulled 18% harder

Procedure - experimental group told their output was being pooled while control was being individually monitored

Results - experimental group less energetic than control group

people who benefit from the group but give litter in return

effects of social loafing explained by decrease in worrying about being evaluated or judged

loss of self-awareness, loss of evaluation apprehension, responsiveness to group norms

people's attention focused on the situation, not themselves

fear of being evaluated or judged is reduced because individual behavior is less likely to be recognized

because "everyone is doing it", can attribute to behavior to situation rather than to something internal

Standford Prison Experiment

the tendency for groups to make decisions that are more extreme than the initial inclination of its members

the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome