Social Psych Exam 2

Person Perception - 3 themes

the study of how we form and maintain impressions of others

1. impressions are made quickly and efficiently

• adaptive (need to survive)

2. they are resistant to change

• Our impressions last

3. other information is interpreted in line with them

• first impressions

Winerman SR#8 on “thin slicing”

• • People can often accurately judge personality and ability from very brief observations.

  • Thin slices of behavior provide meaningful information.

  • Extroversion and observable traits are easiest to judge.

  • Teaching effectiveness and personality can be predicted from brief observations.

  • However, first impressions are not always accurate and can be influenced by mood, culture, and individual differences.

  • First impressions are useful but should not be relied on completely.

What information do we use? [demo: forming impressions form photos]

• demo of Dr. G’s friend “Kim” & social psychologist “Brett”, of implicit egotism]

First use physical cues such as posture, face, age, hair, build, height, gender/race

Then move quickly to traits such as economical or informative

• Economical → it saves mental effort. Your brain makes fast shortcuts instead of slowly gathering lots of evidence.

• Informative → those quick guesses help you decide how to act around the person, even if they are not always accurate.

People form impressions fast. We use visible signals to assign personality traits almost automatically.

How do we integrate information into an overall impression?

2 general approaches

• 1. Normative approach: (naive scientist) assumes people form impressions in a rational and logical way. Example: Anderson’s information integration theory — we combine different pieces of information to reach an overall judgment.

• 2. Cognitive approach: people act as “cognitive misers.” They try to save mental effort by using shortcuts.

• Schemas: mental frameworks that help organize and interpret new information (e.g., person, role, event schemas).

• This efficiency can lead to memory errors — like the class demo where many people falsely remembered the word “sleep.”

factors that affect our integration

• Primacy effect: first information shapes overall impressions (Asch study — traits like intelligent, industrious vs. envious, stubborn led to different judgments).

• Priming: recently activated ideas can bias how we see others (e.g., recently married women notice wedding rings more often).

• Trait negativity effect: negative traits often weigh more than positive ones because they are seen as unusual and important for survival.

• Internal cues: our own mood or level of arousal can also affect the impressions we form.

How do schemas work?

1. provide us with expectations (how people behave, how things work, how situations unfold)

2. speed up processing (helps us process complicated info by simplifying it, fill in gaps)

• help us make judgements faster so we don’t have to start from scratch

3. act a s a filter (notice consistent info; recall consistent info; interpret ambiguous info as consistent)

• notice and remember consistency

Consequences of forming impressions - once formed, we act in ways that perpetuate them

• Perseverance effect: people keep believing an idea even after it has been disproved (e.g., suicide-note study).

• Confirmatory hypothesis testing: we look for evidence that supports what we already think (e.g., Swann’s introvert vs. extravert interactions).

• Self-fulfilling prophecy: expectations shape behavior and can make the expected outcome happen (e.g., Rosenthal & Jacobson study; class demo with “personality trait” hats).

• Suicide-note study (perseverance effect): participants were told they were good or bad at judging real suicide notes. Even after learning the feedback was fake, many still believed the original label.

• Swann’s introvert vs. extravert interactions (confirmatory testing): people asked questions that matched their expectations, which led partners to behave in ways that confirmed the assumed trait.

• Rosenthal & Jacobson study (self-fulfilling prophecy): teachers were told certain students would show strong intellectual growth. Those students later performed better, partly because of changed teacher expectations and treatment.

Accuracy of impressions - with all these biases, why not throw in the towel?

• Experience matters: we judge people more accurately when we know them well (friends vs. strangers).

• Motivation matters: we are less biased when accuracy feels important (e.g., forming impressions on a date vs. a brief interaction on a plane). Motivated Tactician

Social Judgment/Heuristics

• Making decisions in a social context: how we gather, choose, and integrate information to make judgments about other people and events

• The "cognitive miser" uses heuristics to make quick and efficient decisions

Representative heuristic

• A mental shortcut where we judge how likely something is based on how much it seems to match our idea of a typical case, not on actual probability.

  Examples

  • “Ivy League classics professor” → If someone sounds intellectual or bookish, we may assume they are a classics professor at an elite school. But there are far fewer classics professors than other jobs, so the judgment ignores base rates.

  • Coin sequence (H-T-H-T-T-H) → People think this looks more “random” than a pattern like H-H-H-T-T-T. In reality, all specific sequences are equally likely.

  Key idea:
  Similarity to a stereotype can feel like evidence of probability, even when it is not.

Availability heuristic

A mental shortcut where we judge how common or likely something is based on how easily examples come to mind.
If something is vivid, recent, or widely talked about, it feels more frequent than it really is.

Example

• Dramatic causes of death (plane crashes, shark attacks) are often in the news or movies. Because they are easy to recall, people may think they happen more often.

• But more common causes (heart disease, car accidents) actually occur far more, even though they get less attention.

Key idea:
Ease of recall can shape probability judgments, even when it does not match real statistics.

Simulation heuristic

A shortcut where we judge how likely an event is based on how easily we can imagine it happening.
The smoother the mental “story,” the more probable it feels.

Past example = counterfactual thinking

• Mr. Crane vs. Mr. Tees: If one man misses a flight by 5 minutes and another by 30 minutes, people feel the first case is more upsetting and “almost avoidable.” It is easier to imagine a small change that would have led to catching the flight.

Future examples = simulation thinking

• Penalty kick or free throw: If we can clearly picture the player scoring or missing, that imagined scenario can shape how likely we think the outcome is.

Key idea:
Events that are easier to mentally simulate feel more likely, even when real odds are the same.

conjunction fallacy

Conjunction fallacy

A thinking error where we believe that two events happening together are more likely than just one of those events alone.
This happens because the combined story often sounds more detailed or believable.

Example

• Communication → engineering major: A student is described as analytical and quiet. Many people think it is more likely that the student is a communication major who later switches to engineering than simply an engineering major.

• But in probability terms, adding extra conditions always makes an outcome less likely, not more.

Key idea:
A specific, vivid explanation can feel more realistic, even though single events are statistically more probable.

base rate fallacy

• The availability heuristic causes this

• (aka “vividness effect”; SR #9)

  A judgment error where people ignore general statistical facts (base rates) and focus instead on vivid or specific information about a case.

  This is also called the vividness effect because detailed stories feel more meaningful than abstract numbers.

  Example

  • If most students at a school are business majors, the base rate suggests a random student is likely in business.

  • But if one student is described as artistic and creative, people may guess they are an art major — even if art majors are very rare.

  Key idea:
  Concrete descriptions can outweigh real probability, leading to inaccurate judgments.

Despite the potential shortcomings of heuristics, people make reasonably good judgments most of the time; there are times when we are motivated to be correct so we decide not to use shortcuts (which metaphor?)

• motivated tactician

Heuristics and judgment — the “motivated tactician” idea

People often rely on shortcuts, but they can switch to more careful thinking when the situation calls for it (like Little Red Riding Hood realizing the wolf is not her grandma).

• Logical rules are simple to apply — take long way instead of short

• They are strongly motivated to be correct — don’t want to be eaten

• They are not distracted or mentally overloaded — just on a walk

• They have enough time to think before deciding — no need to rush little riding hood

Attribution Theory

Asking "why;" how people explain their own and others’ behavior

When do we make attributions?

attributions are made for:

• unexpected events: You studied a lot but still failed a test. You start asking why it happened.

• negative events: Your flight gets canceled the morning of travel. You look for a cause, like bad weather or airline error.

- We search for explanations most when something goes wrong or does not match what we expected.

Why are attributions important? 3 reasons

a. they help us predict & control the environment

• If you think you failed a test because you did not study enough, you may plan to start studying earlier next time.

b. they determine our feelings, attitudes, and behaviors

• If you believe you did well on a presentation because you are good at public speaking, you may expect to do well again.

c. they influence our future expectancies

• If you think a friend ignored your text on purpose, you may feel hurt, develop a negative attitude toward them, and stop reaching out.

FRITZ HEIDER

Heider argued that people try to figure out causes of behavior so they can understand, predict, and manage their social world.

• (under naive scientist model)

- We usually explain actions in two main ways:

• Person (internal) attribution:
  Example: A classmate gets an A. You think it is because they are smart and hardworking.
  Explanation: You see the cause as something about the person.

• Situation (external) attribution:
  Example: A classmate gets an A. You think it is because the test was easy or the professor graded lightly.
  Explanation: You see the cause as something about the environment.

Key idea:
Like “naive scientists,” people look for causes to make social life feel more predictable and controllable.

HAL KELLEY

Kelley’s Covariation Model (under naive scientist model)

• People explain behavior by looking at three kinds of information.

• These patterns help them decide if the cause is the person, the stimulus, or the circumstances.

• Person attribution:
  low consensus + low distinctiveness + high consistency
  → Cause = the individual

• Stimulus attribution:
  high consensus + high distinctiveness + high consistency
  → Cause = the object / target / item

• Circumstances attribution:
  low consistency (unusual one-time event)
  → Cause = the specific situation

Key idea:
We compare behavior across people, settings, and time to explain why it happens.

Kelley’s Covariation Model: 3 kinds of information

Example: Lisa is having trouble with her computer

• Consensus (others):
  Are other people also having trouble?
  Example: Everyone in class cannot log in → high consensus

• Distinctiveness (other situations):
  Does Lisa struggle with many computers or just this one?
  Example: She only has trouble with this lab computer → high distinctiveness

• Consistency (over time):
  Does this happen every time she uses this computer?
  Example: Her computer freezes every class → high consistency

Example: Paul is sleeping in biology

• Consensus:
  Other students are also falling asleep → high

• Distinctiveness:
  Paul stays awake in his other classes → high

• Consistency:
  Paul sleeps in biology every week → high

👉 Attribution: Stimulus (the lecture / professor)

NED JONES

Theory of Correspondence Inferences - (aka personal attributions) (Under naieve scientist model)

make trait judgments from a single behavior.
The goal is to decide if the action reflects a stable personality trait so we can predict future behavior.

• We ask: Does this behavior match (“correspond to”) who the person really is?

Example: Someone yells at a cashier → we may infer they are rude or impatient.

We use one clear behavior to guess a lasting trait.

2 Factors that lead to dispositional (personality) inferences in Jones’ theory

1. Choice (free choice matters)
Behavior seems more revealing when the person freely chose it.

• Example: A student chooses to take a very hard class → we infer they are motivated.

• But if the class was required, the behavior tells us less about their personality.

2. Social desirability (norm-breaking behavior stands out)
Behavior that is unexpected or socially undesirable gives stronger clues about traits.

• Example: Most people are polite in class.
  If someone openly insults the professor, we may infer they are hostile or disrespectful.

• Because the behavior goes against norms, it feels more diagnostic of personality.

These 3 foundational theories focus on the process by which we make attributions

• These theories describe the process people should use to make logical explanations.

• They are not competing. They all assume we act like “naïve scientists.”

1. Heider — person vs. situation causes

• Example: Your friend is late.
  You decide if it is because they are careless (person) or because of traffic (situation).

• Point: We look for simple causes to predict and control social life.

2. Kelley — compare across people, situations, and time

• Example: A student laughs in class.
  You ask: Do others laugh? Do they laugh in other classes? Do they always laugh here?

• Point: We use patterns of information (consensus, distinctiveness, consistency).

Jones — infer traits from one behavior

• Example: Someone chooses to help a stranger.
  You quickly infer they are kind.

• Point: Single actions can seem to reveal stable personality traits.

- All three assume people make logical, careful judgments.
- But research shows we often rely on shortcuts and biases instead.

Attributional biases

Despite the normative models, people are not always so logical; biases due to cognitive limitations, motivational factors, or both

1. Cognitive limitations (mental shortcuts / overload)

• Example: A classmate snaps at you. You assume they are rude, without thinking they might be stressed or tired.

• Explanation: We do not always have the time or energy to consider all situational causes.

2. Motivational factors (protecting self-esteem or beliefs)

• Example: You do well on an exam and think, “I’m smart,” but if you fail you think, “The test was unfair.”

• Explanation: We explain outcomes in ways that help us feel good or maintain our views.

3. Both cognitive and motivational influences together

• Example: You see a driver cut you off and assume they are a bad person.

• Explanation: It is quick and easy (cognitive), and blaming them may reduce your own frustration (motivational).

Fundamental Attribution Error (Ross, 1977)

aka “correspondence bias”; refers to people’s tendencies to make correspondent inferences/aka personal attributions)
- We tend to overfocus on personality (dispositions) and underestimate situational pressures when explaining others’ behavior.

FAE examples:

Castro essay study

• Students read essays that were either pro- or anti-Castro.

• Even when told the writer was assigned a position, readers still judged the writer’s true attitude based on the essay.
  👉 They ignored the situation (no choice) and assumed a personal belief.

Quizmaster study

• One person writes hard trivia questions (quizmaster).

• Observers rate the quizmaster as more intelligent than the contestant.
  👉 They overlook the situational advantage of writing the questions.

Celebrities

• A movie star acts rude in a stressful interview.
  👉 People may label them as a rude person, not considering pressure, exhaustion, or media context.

Professors

• A professor seems extroverted in class to teach.
  👉 Students may assume they are outgoing and extroverted, ignoring role expectations or large class demands.

Advice columnists

• Someone gives confident life advice in a column.
  👉 Readers may see them as naturally wise, forgetting they have time to prepare and edit responses.

causes of FAE/Correspondence bias: 

i. Salience (Heider)
We focus on the person who stands out in a situation, not the background context.

• Example: A speaker gives a boring presentation.
  You think, “They are dull,” instead of noticing the hot room or broken microphone.

• Why: The person is more visually and mentally noticeable than the situation.

ii. Gilbert’s 2-step model
Step 1: We make a quick personal attribution automatically.
Step 2: We may later adjust for the situation, but only if we have time and mental energy.

• “Anxious woman” study:
  Participants saw a woman acting nervous during an interview.
  Many assumed she was an anxious person, even when told she was discussing stressful topics.

• Why: People often stop at Step 1 and do not fully correct for situational causes.

iii. Culture
Some cultures focus more on individual traits, while others pay more attention to context.

• Example:
  In more individualistic cultures (like the U.S.), a late coworker may be seen as irresponsible.
  In more collectivist cultures, people may first consider traffic, family duties, or work demands.

Key idea:
FAE happens because the person grabs our attention, quick judgments come automatically, and cultural habits shape what we notice.

actor-observer effect (not in text; Jones & Nisbett, 1971)

• We explain other people’s behavior using personality traits, but explain our own behavior using the situation.

Examples:

Parents and curfews

• Parent’s view (observer): “My child is irresponsible for coming home late.”

• Teen’s view (actor): “I was late because my friend needed a ride.”
  👉 Others = personality. Self = situation.

Driving

• You get cut off → “That driver is rude.”

• You cut someone off → “I did not see them.”
  👉 Same behavior, different explanations.

Causes of actor-observer effect

1. Amount of information
We know more about our own circumstances and past behavior than about others’.

• Example: You know you were late because of traffic and a long day.
  But you do not know why a classmate was late, so you assume laziness.

2. Different perspectives (focus of attention)
Actors focus on the situation around them.
Observers focus on the person doing the action.

• Fiske & Taylor example idea:
  When watching a conversation, people judge the most visually noticeable person as causing the interaction.
  👉 What we attend to shapes our explanations.

Key idea:
We explain behavior differently depending on whether we are doing the action or watching it.

Self-Serving Bias (Miller & Ross, 1975)

• We tend to explain success as caused by ourselves (ability, effort, internal) and failure as caused by outside factors (bad luck, unfair situations, external).

Exams

• Good grade → “I’m smart. I studied hard.” (internal attribution)

• Bad grade → “The test was unfair. The questions were confusing.” (external attribution)

Sports

• Team wins → “We played with great skill and teamwork.” (internal)

• Team loses → “The referee made bad calls. The weather was terrible.” (external)

Auto accidents

• You avoid a crash → “I’m a careful driver.” (internal)

• You cause a crash → “The road was slippery. The other driver stopped suddenly.” (external)

Key idea:
This bias helps protect self-esteem by linking success to the self and shifting blame for failure to the situation.

False Consensus Effect

• We tend to overestimate how many other people share our attitudes or behaviors.

• This helps us feel that our choices are normal and typical.

Examples:

“Eat at Joe’s” sandwich board study

• Some students agreed to wear a silly sign around campus.

• Those who agreed thought most others would also agree.

• Those who refused thought most others would also refuse.
  👉 People assumed their own choice was common.

Cheating survey (research methods students)

• Students who admitted they might cheat believed many classmates would cheat too.

• Students who said they would not cheat believed most others would not cheat.

Political attitudes

• Someone with strong political views may think “most people see it my way.”
  👉 They project their beliefs onto the larger group.

UCLA grad students discussing unusual sexual behavior

• Students who engaged in less common behaviors believed others did similar things.
  👉 Personal behavior felt more typical than it really was.

Contrast: False Uniqueness (abilities and skills)

For positive traits or talents, people often do the opposite, so they feel unique/special for their abilities

• Example: A student who gets top grades may think their success is rare or special.

Key idea:
We see our opinions and actions as more common,
But our strengths are more unique.

Egocentric Bias (Ross & Sicoly, 1979)

• People tend to overestimate how much they contributed to shared tasks or outcomes.

• This happens because our own effort is more noticeable to us (cognitive reason) and because we like to see ourselves positively (motivational reason).

Examples:

Group projects

• You feel like you did most of the research and writing.

• Your teammate also feels like they did most of the work.
  👉 Each person remembers their own effort more clearly.

Housework

• One roommate thinks, “I clean the kitchen all the time.”

• The other roommate thinks the same about their own chores.
  👉 Both exaggerate their contribution because they notice what they do.

Key idea:
In shared situations, we focus on our own actions, so we see our role as bigger than it may actually be.

Defensive Attribution

• We sometimes blame victims for negative outcomes by assuming their personality or choices caused what happened.

  👉 This is linked to the just-world belief — the idea that the world is fair, so people get what they deserve.
  - Believing this helps people feel safer and more in control.

Examples:

Car accident

• Someone hears about a crash and says, “They were probably driving carelessly.”

• Explanation: Blaming the driver makes the listener feel less vulnerable.

Robbery or assault

• A person might say, “They should not have walked alone at night.”

• Explanation: This shifts the cause to the victim instead of random danger.

Serious illness

• Someone might think, “They must not have taken care of their health.”

• Explanation: This belief protects the idea that bad outcomes can be avoided.

Key idea:
Blaming victims can help people maintain the belief that life is predictable and fair, even when events are actually uncontrollable.

stereotypes (cognitive component)

• Generalized beliefs about what members of a group are like.

• They act as group schemas that guide expectations.

Gender stereotypes — prescriptive (how people should act)

• People expect women to be nurturing or men to be tough.

• Explanation: These are social rules, not just observations.
  When someone does not follow them, they may face criticism or backlash.

“Positive” stereotypes can still harm

• Example: Assuming all Asian students are naturally good at math.

- UCLA wanted to increase the minimum SAT score for asians (did not get passed).

• Explanation: This creates backlash, creates unrealistic expectations, and ignores variation within the group (implies all groups are the same).

Bottom line
- Stereotypes create rigid expectations, reduce individuality, and can lead to prejudice and unfair treatment.

Prejudice (affective component)

• Prejudice refers to negative feelings toward a group & its members

• It is about how someone feels, not just what they believe.

Examples:

Fear or discomfort

• A person feels uneasy sitting next to someone from a certain ethnic group.

• Explanation: The reaction is emotional, even if they do not openly express beliefs.

Dislike or resentment

• Someone says they “just don’t like” a certain group and avoids interacting with them.

• Explanation: The feeling itself reflects prejudice.

Anger or hostility

• A person becomes upset when a minority group moves into their neighborhood.

• Explanation: Strong negative emotions toward the group shape attitudes and behavior.

• Prejudice is negative by definition. But it often overlaps with stereotypes because beliefs about groups can lead to negative feelings. That is why the two terms are sometimes used interchangeably.

Discrimination (behavioral component)

• negative or harmful actions toward a group and its members

• It is about what someone does, not just what they think or feel

Examples:

Hiring decisions

• An employer chooses not to hire a qualified applicant because of their race or gender.

• Explanation: The action limits opportunity based on group identity.

School or workplace treatment

• A supervisor gives fewer responsibilities or chances for promotion to someone because of their sexual orientation.

• Explanation: Unequal treatment affects outcomes and success.

Everyday social exclusion

• A group of students refuses to let a classmate join activities because of their religion or nationality.

• Explanation: The behavior creates social and emotional harm.

Discrimination is the behavioral expression of prejudice or stereotypes, where negative attitudes turn into unfair actions.

Discrimination today (and trends) - "modern racism" is subtle and expressed when safe

• Bias often shows up in indirect or socially acceptable ways, rather than openly.

Race Examples

Housing (“steering”)

• A real estate agent shows a Black family homes mainly in certain neighborhoods, even when they can afford homes elsewhere.

• Explanation: The discrimination is subtle but still limits choice and opportunity.

Sports leadership

• A team relies heavily on Black athletes for performance and profit, but most coaches and executives remain white.

• Explanation: Access to power and decision-making roles is unequal.

Sexism example

Wage gap (campus setting)

• Two employees with similar roles and experience are paid differently, with women earning less.

• Explanation: The difference may not be openly justified, but it reflects unequal treatment.

Modern discrimination is often less obvious, but still shapes access to resources, status, and advancement.

Origins of prejudice

• complex and multifaceted; not a symptom of deviant or abnormal individuals but a result of systemic/structural factors and social and cognitive factors

Social Categorization

• Because we are busy thinkers, we sort people into quick mental groups (schemas) to make sense of the world.

Basic example

Kids and “doggies”

• A young child may call all four-legged animals “doggies.”

• Explanation: Categories help them process information fast, but they miss important differences.

Common categories we use

• Age → assuming older people are less tech-savvy

• Appearance → assuming someone in formal clothes is more responsible

• Race or religion → making assumptions about beliefs or behavior

Pros and cons of schemas

• Pro: Helps us organize information quickly and respond efficiently.

• Con: Can blind us to individuality and make us assume group members are all the same.

Categorizing people creates a sense of “us” (ingroup) and “them” (outgroup).

Social categorization helps us think efficiently, but it can also lead to bias, favoritism, and oversimplified views of others.

Ingroup vs. outgroup

1. Ingroup bias (favoring our own group)

• Even in minimal situations (like being randomly assigned to a team), people give more rewards or support to their own group.

• Example: Students may automatically support their university (SU) over a rival school.

👉 Tajfel & Turner’s social identity theory:
We gain part of our self-esteem from identity as a group member.
If our group seems better, we feel better about ourselves.

2. Outgroup homogeneity (“they are all alike; we are unique and different”)

• Example: Someone might think all members of another racial group look or act similar, while seeing their own group as diverse.

• Explanation: We notice more differences within our ingroup because we have more contact and information.

Social Learning / Socialization

• Stereotypes and prejudice are learned from the social environment — parents, friends, school, and media.

• They become social norms about how to think and act toward groups.

Everyday examples

• A child hears adults make negative jokes about a certain group and starts repeating those attitudes.

• Friends exclude a classmate because “people like that are weird.”

• TV shows repeatedly portray one group in limited roles, shaping expectations.

👉 Point: Bias is learned through observation and reinforcement.

Bigler’s UT child-development studies

first gave pretest: “How many White/Black people are nice/honest/mean?” (almost all, a lot, some, not many, none)

- then randomly assigned parents to one of 3 intervention conditions: (1 IV and 3 conditions):

• 1) multicultural videos (Sesame Street),

• (2) videos plus talking points about race,

• (3) talking points only (no video)

• Results:

- several families dropped out of study immediately (uncomfortable talking about race)

- most of those who stayed in the study didn’t follow the instructions to talk about race (only talked in vague generalities: "everybody's equal"); thus, no overall effects of intervention

- the kids were not "colorblind" - - the few parents (6 families) who DID talk about race saw dramatic improvement in attitudes

• Conclusion:

- parents avoid talking about race because they assume that kids are “colorblind” (i.e., don't notice race unless pointed out)

- Bigler argues that we DO need to talk about race bc kids DO notice it (e.g., just like they notice gender, hair color, and weight, they notice race) and they will show ingroup favoritism.

Red-shirt vs. blue-shirt study

• Children randomly assigned to shirt colors began to favor their own group.
  👉 Shows how quickly ingroup bias can form, even with meaningless categories.

KATZ' longitudinal study ("when do kids notice race and what effects does that have?")

• Followed White and Black kids for 1st 6 years and found that:

- 6 month old babies notice race (stare longer at photos of different race)

- 3 year olds prefer people of same race ("who would you like to be friends with?")

- at age 5 and 6, they sort people into categories based on race (vs. gender or other ways)

• Conclusion: kids are NOT colorblind (they know not to bring up race)

What to do to reduce prejudice in children? 3 strategies:

1. Use gender as a model to talk about race (counter stereotypes)

• Example: A parent says, “Anyone can be a doctor or a teacher, no matter their race.”

• Explanation: Kids already hear messages that challenge gender stereotypes.
  Using the same clear approach helps them learn that racial stereotypes are also unfair.

2. Do not silence kids when they notice race

• Example: A child asks why someone has a different skin color.
  Instead of saying “don’t say that,” a parent calmly explains that people have many natural differences.

• Explanation: Shushing makes race feel taboo and confusing.
  Open discussion helps children understand differences without fear or negativity.

3. Be specific, not vague

• Example: Teaching about Jackie Robinson by explaining the discrimination he faced in baseball.
  This is more effective than just saying “everyone should be treated equally.”

• Explanation: Concrete examples help children see what prejudice looks like and why it is wrong.

How are stereotypes and prejudice maintained?

1. Illusory correlations

We overnotice rare or distinctive pairings and assume they are connected.

• Example: If a minority group member commits a crime that gets media attention, people may think that group is more dangerous overall.

• Explanation: The combination feels memorable, so it seems more common than it really is.

2. Subcategorization

We create exceptions instead of changing the stereotype.

• Example: Someone believes “women are bad at math,” but meets a female engineer and says, “She’s different from most women.”

• Explanation: The stereotype stays intact because the person is put into a special subgroup.

3. Confirmation bias

We look for evidence that supports stereotypes and ignore evidence that contradicts them.
This can also shape behavior and create self-fulfilling prophecies.

• Example: A teacher expects certain students to struggle, gives them less attention, and their performance drops — seeming to confirm the original belief.

Key idea:
Stereotypes persist because people misperceive patterns, protect existing beliefs, and sometimes create the outcomes they expect.

Stereotype threat

This is when people fear confirming a negative stereotype about their group, which increases anxiety and can hurt performance.

• Experiment example: When women are reminded of gender stereotypes before a math test, their scores often decrease compared to when the stereotype is not mentioned.

• Explanation: Worry about being judged can interfere with focus and confidence.

What can be done to reduce prejudice in general (6)?

1. How to reduce prejudice — the Contact Hypothesis

Idea: Prejudice often comes from limited or biased contact.
Meaningful interaction can challenge stereotypes if certain conditions are met.

4 key conditions with short examples:

1. Equal status

• Example: Students from different backgrounds work as equal partners on a lab project.

• Explanation: When no group has more power, people are more open to seeing each other as individuals.

2. Personalized interaction

• Example: Coworkers share personal stories during team meetings.

• Explanation: Getting to know someone’s experiences reduces reliance on group stereotypes. (knowing 1 gay person changes attitude toward the group).

3. Cooperative interdependence

• Example: A mixed team must work together to finish a presentation that affects everyone’s grade.

• Explanation: Shared goals encourage trust and reduce “us vs. them” thinking.

4. Favorable social norms

• Example: A school clearly promotes inclusion and addresses biased behavior.

• Explanation: Support from authority figures and peers makes respectful interaction the expected norm.

Key idea:
Prejudice is reduced when people have meaningful, equal, and cooperative contact supported by positive social norms.

Cooperative interdependence research examples

Classic research examples

Sherif’s Robbers Cave experiment

• Boys at a summer camp formed rival groups and developed hostility.

• When they had to cooperate on shared problems (like fixing the water supply), prejudice decreased.
  👉 Shows the power of cooperative goals.

Aronson’s jigsaw classroom

• Students each learn one part of a lesson and must teach it to their group.

• Success depends on everyone contributing.
  👉 Builds mutual respect and reduces bias.

2. Overcoming automatic stereotypes

• Even people who value fairness may have stereotypes activate automatically. But they can reduce bias with effort and practice.

1. Look for individuating and stereotype-inconsistent information

• Example: Instead of assuming a quiet classmate is unfriendly, you learn they volunteer at a shelter and enjoy group activities.

• Explanation: Focusing on personal details helps replace broad group assumptions.

2. Interact with people in varied contexts

• Example: You first meet an international student in class, then also see them leading a club or playing sports.

• Explanation: Seeing people in different roles and settings challenges simple stereotypes and builds more accurate impressions.

Key idea:
Prejudice can become weaker when people actively notice individuality and gain diverse, meaningful experiences with others.

Ways to reduce prejudice — more factors

3. Intergroup friendships

• Example: A student forms a close friendship with a roommate from a different cultural background.

• Explanation: Regular positive contact reduces anxiety and increases understanding about the other group.

4. Education

• Example: In college, students take diversity or social psychology courses that discuss stereotypes and bias.

• Explanation: Learning new information and meeting diverse peers is linked to more positive racial attitudes.

5. Laws and policies

• Example: Workplace rules that prohibit discrimination in hiring or pay.

• Explanation: Legal standards can change behavior first, which over time can influence social attitudes.

6. Media portrayal

• Example: TV shows that include diverse families or movements like #MeToo or Black Lives Matter raising awareness of inequality.

• Explanation: Media shapes public conversation and can challenge stereotypes or normalize inclusion.

Key idea:
Prejudice can decrease through personal relationships, learning, social rules, and cultural messages.

Supplemental Readings

• Person Perception: — Consequences of forming impressions; self-fulfilling prophecies — expectations cause something to become true (e.g., SR#7: Rosenthal & Jacobsen study); in class demo with “personality trait” hats

• Person Perception: The study of how we form and maintain impressions of others (see Winerman SR#8 on “thin slicing” also)

• Social Judgment/ Huristics: base rate fallacy — ignore base rates (statistical info) in favor of dramatic case histories (aka “vividness effect”; SR #9)

• Attributional Theory: attribution bias — salience, anchor-adjustment [DAN GILBERT’S model; see also SR#10], culture (mostly in lecture so just simple review)

• Prejudice and Stereotypes: stereotypes (cognitive component) — American Indians; Stanton SR article #11)

• Supplemental readings relevant to prejudice and stereotypes: #11-12 (KNOW the purpose, method, results, and conclusion if empirical; know the main points if non-empirical) SR#11 - Stanton: How Native American Team Names distort your psychology and SR#12 - Eberhardt: Race and the death penalty

• Attitude Change: — Elaboration Likelihood Model (PETTY & CACIOPPO) — 1. simple idea: sometimes people are motivated to process messages carefully and sometimes they're not (see SR: ELM SR#13) (mostly in lecture so just simple review)

• Attitudes and Behavior: Cognitive Dissonance Theory: Three major dissonance paradigms (situations that cause dissonance) — Festinger & Carlsmith's (1959) peg-turning study (see SR#14) (mostly in lecture so just simple review)

Attitudes

• A venerable topic in social psychology (many decades of research; always a "hot topic")

• . Defining attitude: 1. “an enduring evaluation, positive or negative, of people, objects, and ideas”

Where do attitudes come from?

1. Parents

• Example: A child hears their parents praise volunteering and helping others, and grows up valuing community service.

• Explanation: Parents shape attitudes through rewards, punishments, and control over information (what kids see, hear, and experience).

2. Peers

• Example: A teenager starts dressing or thinking a certain way to fit in with their friend group.

• Explanation: Peers influence attitudes through social pressure and the desire to belong.

• Newcomb’s Bennington College study:

  • Women who attended a liberal college became more liberal over time, even if their families were conservative.

  • Many kept these attitudes later in life.
    👉 Shows how strong peer environments can shift beliefs.

• Recent pattern:

  • Some people shift attitudes again (e.g., around family or parenting), and overall views today are becoming more polarized.

3. Inborn / genetics

• Example: Some people are naturally more open or more cautious, which can shape attitudes about topics like religion or social issues.

• Explanation: Personality and temperament can predispose people toward certain beliefs.

• For example: people who are jumpy and scared of everything tend to lean on the conservative side (psychological reactivity).

• Twin studies:

  • Identical twins raised apart still show similar political attitudes (moderate correlations).
    👉 Suggests a genetic influence, though not total control.

Measuring attitudes (need both direction + intensity)

Direction = positive or negative
Intensity = how strong the feeling is

1. Attitude scales (self-report)

• Example: “There should be background checks on gun sales” → rate from strongly agree to strongly disagree.

• Explanation: Easy to use and shows both direction and strength.

• Issue: People may answer in a socially acceptable way (social desirability problem)

2. Bogus pipeline

• Example: Participants are hooked up to a fake “lie detector” and asked about their attitudes.

• Explanation: People are more likely to answer honestly because they think the machine can detect lies.
  👉 Reduces social desirability.

3. Physiological approaches

Measure body reactions instead of self-report.

• Galvanic skin response (GSR):

  • Example: Increased sweating when seeing a stressful or uncomfortable image.

  • 👉 Shows emotional arousal.

• Facial EMG:

  • Example: Small muscle movements when someone subtly smiles or frowns.

  • 👉 Detects positive or negative reactions.

• fMRI:

  • Example: Brain activity changes when viewing different social groups.

  • 👉 Shows underlying neural responses.

👉 These help bypass conscious control.

4. Implicit measures (IAT)**

• Example: Faster at pairing “good” words with one group vs. another.

• Explanation: Measures automatic, unconscious attitudes based on reaction time.

Do attitudes predict behavior? (Att ≠ Beh)

• People often assume they do, but research shows the link is weaker than expected.

General idea

• Example: Someone says they support environmental protection but still uses a lot of plastic.

• Explanation: What people say (attitudes) does not always match what they do (behavior).

LaPiere (1932) study

• Example: LaPiere traveled with a Chinese couple during a time of strong prejudice.
  Most hotels and restaurants served them in person, but later said they would not in written responses.

• Explanation: People’s stated attitudes (refusing service) did not match their actual behavior (serving them).

Wicker (1969) review

• Example: Across many studies, people’s attitudes (like honesty, religion, or prejudice) only weakly predicted their actions.

• Explanation: Many other factors (situation, norms, pressure) influence behavior beyond attitudes.

Key idea:
Attitudes can guide behavior, but they are not strong or consistent predictors on their own.

When do attitudes guide behavior? (Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behavior)

• Behavior depends on 3 things together:
  👉 attitude + subjective norms +control/efficacy

• Putting all three together means you are likely to engage in the behavior

Simple mode

Attitude + Norms + Control → Intention → Behavior

1. Attitude toward the behavior (research on 2 important factors summarized here)

A. Specificity (more specific = more predictive)

• Italian food vs. pizza:
  Saying “I like Italian food” does not predict what you will eat tonight.
  Saying “I want pizza tonight” does.

B. Strength (stronger = more predictive)

1. Amount of information

• Example: After writing a detailed research paper on climate change, you are more likely to recycle or reduce waste.
  👉 More knowledge = more stable attitudes.

2. Direct experience

• Example (guns): Someone who has used firearms has stronger, more consistent views than someone who has not.

• Example (LGBTQ+): Knowing someone personally often leads to stronger and more supportive attitudes.
  👉 Experience makes attitudes more real.

3. Vested self-interest

• Example (drinking age): College students care more about this than older adults.

• Example (campus parking): Students with cars have stronger opinions about parking rules.
  👉 If it affects you, your attitude is stronger.

👉 Why strength matters:
Strong attitudes are easier to recall, more important, and more likely to guide action.

Example: You think exercising is good and enjoyable → you plan to go to the gym.

Explanation: The more positive your attitude about a specific behavior, the more likely you intend to do it.

Explanation: The closer the attitude matches the behavior, the stronger the prediction.

2. Subjective norms (social pressure)

Example: Your friends all work out regularly, so you feel expected to go too.

Explanation: What others think or do can push you toward or away from a behavior.

3. Perceived control / efficacy (ability)**

Example: You want to go to the gym, but you have no transportation or time.

Explanation: If you feel unable to perform the behavior, you are less likely to do it.

Putting it all together

• You like working out (attitude)

• Your friends go (norms)

• You have time and access (control)

👉 You are very likely to actually go (behavior)

Key idea:

Attitudes matter, but behavior depends on context — social pressure and your ability to act.

Attitude Change

Overview: Because attitudes can change, persuasion is inevitable and all around us

Background/history

1. Research on attitude change first traced back to Kurt Lewin, who persuaded people to eat organ meats

2. Continued in the 1950s by Carl Hovland at Yale (one var after another)

- but contradictory findings and competing theories muddied the field

A new theoretical approach: Elaboration Likelihood Model (PETTY & CACIOPPO)

1. Simple idea

Sometimes people think carefully about a message, and sometimes they don’t.

• Example:
  You carefully compare laptops before buying (high thinking),
  But quickly choose a snack based on packaging (low thinking).

2. Continuum of elaboration

👉 Elaboration = how much you carefully think about a message

Low elaboration ←────────────→ High elaboration

(perophral) (Central)

2 routes to persuasion

High elaboration = Central route

• Persuaded by strong, logical arguments

• Example: Reading detailed evidence before deciding which candidate to vote for

• 👉 Leads to long-lasting attitude change

Low elaboration = Peripheral route

• Influenced by cues (who says it, mood, length, attractiveness)

• Example: Buying a product because a celebrity endorses it

• 👉 Leads to weaker, short-term change

What determines the route?

1. Motivation (do you care?)

• Example: You pay close attention to tuition changes because it affects you.
  👉 High motivation → central route

2. Ability (can you think about it?)

• Example: If you are distracted or the message is confusing, you rely on shortcuts.
  👉 Low ability → peripheral route

Strategies based on route

• If you have strong arguments → use the central route because attitude change is more predictive of behavior

  • Example: A detailed, evidence-based campaign speech

• If arguments are weak or audience is unmotivated → use the peripheral route

  • Example: Ads with celebrities, humor, or emotional appeal

Key idea:
Persuasion depends on how much people think about the message.
Deep thinking → stronger, lasting attitudes.

Framework for persuasion (ELM + “Who says what to whom with what effect”)

1. WHO (source of the message)

• Central route example:
  A medical expert gives strong data about a vaccine → you evaluate the evidence carefully.

• Peripheral route example:
  A celebrity promotes the same vaccine → you are influenced by their likability, not the data.

👉 Explanation:
Source matters more in the peripheral route (credibility, attractiveness).

2. WHAT (content of the message)

• Central route example:
  A detailed argument with statistics and evidence about climate change.

• Peripheral route example:
  A simple slogan like “Save the planet!” with emotional music.

👉 Explanation:
Message quality matters most in the central route.

3. TO WHOM (audience)

• Central route example:
  A student deciding on a major pays close attention to detailed program info.

• Peripheral route example:
  Someone casually watching ads may be influenced by humor or visuals.

👉 Explanation:
Audience motivation and ability determine which route is used.

4. EFFECT (outcome)

• Central route outcome:
  Attitudes are strong, stable, and predict behavior

  • Example: After deep research, you stick with your decision.

• Peripheral route outcome:
  Attitudes are temporary and easily changed

  • Example: You like a product because of an ad, then forget later.

Example of P & C route ads

• Central route ad:
  A car commercial showing safety ratings, fuel efficiency, and long-term cost savings.

• Peripheral route ad:
  The same car shown with attractive actors, music, and fast visuals, with little detail.

Key idea:
Persuasion depends on who delivers the message, what is said, who hears it, and how deeply they process it.

Source variables (WHO) — why the communicator matters

Source variables (WHO) — why the communicator matters
👉 Source matters most when people are not motivated to think deeply (peripheral route).

1. Credibility

Credibility = expertise + trustworthiness

A. Expertise (competence)

• Example: A licensed doctor explaining a vaccine is more persuasive than a random influencer.

• Pseudo-expert example: A TV personality giving medical advice without real credentials.
  👉 Explanation: We trust sources who seem knowledgeable.

B. Trustworthiness (honesty)

• Example: A tobacco company warning about smoking risks seems more believable because it goes against their interest.

• Example: A criminal supporting stricter laws appears more sincere.
  👉 Explanation: People are more persuasive when they seem unbiased or going against self-interest.

Sleeper Effect

👉 The influence of a low-credibility source increases over time

• Example: You hear a weak argument from an unreliable source.
  Later, you remember the message but forget the source, so it becomes more persuasive.

Why it happens:

• People separate the message from the source over time.

How to prevent it:

1. Remind people of the source later (repeat who said it)

2. Pair the source and message closely (so they are remembered together)

2. Likability

We are more persuaded by people we like

A. Similarity

• Example: A salesperson mentions they go to the same school as you → you feel more connected.
  👉 Explanation: We trust people who seem similar to us.

B. Attractiveness

• Example: Ads use attractive people (like the “Got Milk?” campaign) to promote products.
  👉 Explanation: Attractive or likable people create positive feelings that transfer to the message.

Key idea

Source effects matter most when people are not thinking deeply.
When motivation is high, people focus more on the argument itself (central route).

Message variables (WHAT) — how the message is structured

1. Volume of information (a lot vs. a little)

• Unmotivated audience → Peripheral route

  • Example: A quick ad with lots of talking points or a long message may seem more convincing just because it feels “impressive.”

  • 👉 More info can act as a cue, not carefully evaluated.

• Motivated audience → Central route

  • Example: A student researching grad schools wants detailed stats, outcomes, and costs.

  • 👉 Strong, clear arguments matter more than quantity.

2. Message discrepancy (how extreme?)

👉 Best = moderately discrepant (not too close, not too extreme)

• Example:
  If someone is slightly pro-environment, a message about stricter recycling laws may persuade them.
  But an extreme message (“ban all cars immediately”) may be rejected.

👉 Explanation: Too extreme = not believable; too similar = no change.

3. Reason vs. emotion

• Analytic / involved audience → Central route → Reason

  • Example: A policy report with data and evidence persuades voters who care deeply.

• Uninvolved audience → Peripheral route → Emotion

  • Example: A commercial with happy music and smiling families.

Types of emotional appeals

A. Positive feelings (classical conditioning)

• Example: A car ad showing beach trips, friends, and fun.
  👉 Positive emotions get linked to the product.

B. Fear appeals

• Example: Anti-smoking ads showing health damage.

👉 How much fear? Moderate fear works best.
👉 Key to success: Must include a clear solution (e.g., “quit smoking,” “wear a seatbelt”) so people feel they can act.

4. One-sided vs. two-sided appeals

• One-sided (only your view)

  • Example: A simple ad supporting recycling for people who already agree.

  • 👉 Works when audience already agrees or is unaware of other views.

• Two-sided (acknowledge both sides)

  • Example: A debate that admits downsides but explains why one option is still better.

  • 👉 Works better for informed or skeptical audiences.

5. Presentation order (first vs. last)**

• Primacy effect (first is better)

  • Example: Hearing one argument, then a delay, then another → you remember the first more.

  • AB…D

• Recency effect (last is better)

  • Example: Hearing two arguments back-to-back, then deciding → the last one sticks more.

  • A…BD

👉 Explanation: Timing matters — what you remember most depends on when you hear it.

Key idea:
Effective messages depend on how much people care, how they process info, and how the message is structured.

Audience variables (TO WHOM) — How people respond to persuasion depends on who they are.

1. Personality variables

A. Age

👉 Younger people are more impressionable

• Example: Teenagers may change their music taste or opinions quickly based on trends, while older adults’ views are more stable.

• Explanation: Attitudes become more fixed over time.

B. Need for cognition (NC)**

How much someone enjoys thinking deeply.

• HIGH NC → Central route

  • Example: A student reads detailed policy arguments before forming an opinion.

• LOW NC → Peripheral route

  • Example: Someone chooses a product based on a celebrity or simple slogan.

👉 Explanation: High NC = likes effortful thinking; low NC = prefers shortcuts.

C. Self-monitoring**

How much people adjust behavior to fit social situations.

• High self-monitors → image-based ads

  • Example: Buying clothes because they look stylish or socially appealing.

  • image oriented

• Low self-monitors → quality-based ads

  • Example: Choosing a product based on durability or usefulness.

  • cotent oriented

👉 Explanation: High SM care about image, low SM care about internal values.

2. Culture

• Individualist appeal: Focus on personal benefits

  • Example: “Quit smoking to improve your health.”

• Collectivist appeal: Focus on group/family

  • Example: “Quit smoking to protect your family.”

👉 Explanation: Messages are more persuasive when they match cultural values.

3. Forewarning

Being warned about a message can change how people respond.

A. Forewarning of position (what will be said)

• Example: Knowing someone will argue for stricter rules → you prepare counterarguments.
  👉 Effect: People become less persuaded.

B. Forewarning of intent (someone is trying to persuade you)**

• Example: Knowing an ad is trying to sell you something → you become more skeptical.
  👉 Effect: People resist persuasion more.

• Psychological Reluctance

Key idea:
Persuasion depends not just on the message, but on the audience’s personality, culture, and awareness.

Psychological Reluctance

When people feel their freedom is being threatened, they often push back and want to do the opposite.

Strict rules

• Example: A parent says, “You are not allowed to go to that party.”

• 👉 The teen now wants to go even more.

• Explanation: The restriction makes the behavior feel more desirable.

---

Health messaging

• Example: A message says, “Never eat junk food again.”

• 👉 People may ignore it or crave junk food more.

• Explanation: Extreme commands trigger resistance.

---

Advertising

• Example: An ad says, “You HAVE to buy this product.”

• 👉 People feel annoyed and reject the message.

• Explanation: It feels controlling, so people push back.

---

Relationships

• Example: A friend says, “You cannot hang out with that person.”

• 👉 You feel more drawn to that person.

• Explanation: Losing choice increases desire.

---

Key idea:
When freedom feels limited, people often resist and reassert control, sometimes by doing the opposite.

How to push people toward Central Route (deeper thinking)

Instead of matching the route, these strategies increase elaboration.

1. Rhetorical questions

• Example: An ad asks, “Do you really know what’s in your food?”

• Explanation: Makes people pause and actively think, rather than passively receive the message.

2. Multiple speakers

• Example: A campaign uses several experts (doctor, scientist, community leader) all giving evidence.

• Explanation: Different voices make the message seem more complex and worth processing, encouraging deeper thinking.

3. Make people feel responsible for passing on the message

• Example: Students are told they will need to explain the material to others later.

• Explanation: This increases motivation to pay attention and process carefully.

Key idea:
These strategies push people to engage more deeply, leading to stronger and longer-lasting attitude change.

A. How does our behavior affect our attitudes?(B → A)

Sometimes we change our attitudes to match what we’ve done.

• Example: You volunteer for a cause you did not care about at first.
  Over time, you start to believe it is important.

• Explanation: Your behavior leads you to adjust your attitude so things feel consistent.

B. Cognitive Dissonance Theory (Festinger, 1957)

1. Inconsistency creates discomfort (dissonance)

When behavior and attitudes do not match, we feel psychological tension and want to fix it.

Examples

• You cheat on a test but believe you are an honest person → feels uncomfortable.

• You smoke but know it is unhealthy → creates tension.

👉 Explanation: The mismatch creates pressure to reduce discomfort.

2. How do we reduce dissonance?

A. Change behavior

• Example: Quit smoking.
  👉 Aligns behavior with attitude.

B. Change attitude

• Example: “Smoking is not that bad.”
  👉 Adjust belief to match behavior.

C. Add new justifications (rationalization)

• Example: “Smoking helps me manage stress.”
  👉 Adds reasons to reduce tension.

D. Minimize importance

• Example: “It’s not a big deal if I cheat once.”
  👉 Downplays the conflict.

Key idea:
We are motivated to feel consistent, so when behavior and attitudes clash, we adjust one to reduce discomfort.

Three major dissonance paradigms (i.e., types of situations that cause dissonance) — Induced compliance (insufficient justification)

C. Three major dissonance paradigms

---

1. Induced compliance (insufficient justification)

When you do something that goes against your beliefs, and there isn’t a strong reason for it → dissonance.

---

Classic example: Peg-turning study (Festinger & Carlsmith)

• Participants did a boring task, then told others it was fun.

• Paid $1 vs. $20

• Those paid $1 later said the task was actually more interesting.

👉 Explanation:
$1 was not enough justification → they changed their attitude to reduce dissonance.

---

Zimbardo “grasshopper” study

• Army recruits ate grasshoppers with either a nice or harsh instructor.

• Those with the nice instructor liked it more.

👉 Explanation:
Less pressure = more dissonance → attitude shifts (“maybe it wasn’t that bad”).

---

Special case: Insufficient deterrence

A small punishment or threat creates more attitude change than a harsh one.

---

Forbidden toy study (Aronson & Carlsmith)

• Kids told not to play with a toy

• Mild threat: later liked the toy less

• Severe threat: still liked the toy

👉 Explanation:

• Mild threat = not enough reason → kids convince themselves they did not want it

• Severe threat = strong reason → no need to change attitude

---

Practical takeaway

• Example: “Don’t Mess With Texas” (subtle message) works better than harsh threats.

👉 Explanation:
Small pressure leads to internal attitude change, not just temporary compliance.

---

Link to psychological reactance

• Example: If parents say “You are absolutely forbidden to date them,” the teen may want to more.

• Example: Reverse psychology works because people resist being controlled.

👉 Explanation:
Strong threats can trigger reactance, where people push back to regain freedom.

---

Key idea:
Small pressure (not strong rewards or punishments) is most effective because it creates dissonance and leads to real attitude change.

Three major dissonance paradigms (i.e., types of situations that cause dissonance) — Effort Justification — “to suffer is to love”

When we put in effort or suffer for something, we convince ourselves it was worth it.

Classic study (Aronson & Mills, 1959)

• Women went through mild vs. severe initiation to join a discussion group.

• The group discussion was actually boring.

• Those with severe initiation rated the group as more interesting.

👉 Explanation:
“If I suffered for this, it must be valuable.”

---

Real-life examples

Fraternity/sorority hazing

• Example: Going through embarrassing or difficult rituals.

• 👉 Members later value the group more.

Psychotherapy

• Example: Spending time, money, and emotional effort in therapy.

• 👉 People may see it as more helpful because of the investment.

GRE prep courses

• Example: Paying a lot and studying for months.

• 👉 Students believe the course was very useful.

Treadmill / gym

• Example: Pushing through hard workouts.

• 👉 People value fitness more because of the effort.

---

Key idea:
The more we work or suffer, the more we convince ourselves it was worth it.

Three major dissonance paradigms (i.e., types of situations that cause dissonance) — Post-decision dissonance

After choosing between two good options, we feel tension.

Example

Vacation choice (skiing vs. beach)

• After choosing the beach, you start thinking:
  “The beach is way better than skiing anyway.”

Dating (Joe vs. Bob)

• After choosing Joe, you focus on his positives and downplay Bob’s strengths.

👉 Explanation:
We reduce dissonance by:

• Boosting the chosen option

• Devaluing the rejected one

---

Real-life example

Dan Gilbert (Harvard vs. another school)

• After choosing Harvard, he later viewed it as clearly the better choice.

👉 Even experts do this.

---

Key idea:
After decisions, we mentally justify our choice to feel confident and reduce regret.

Alternatives to dissonance theory —nThese explain attitude change without “tension.”

1. Self-perception theory (Bem)

We infer our attitudes by observing our own behavior (like an outsider).

• Example: “I volunteered a lot, so I must care about this cause.”
  👉 No discomfort needed — just inference.

---

2. Impression management

People change attitudes to look good to others, not because of internal discomfort.

• Example: Saying you support a popular issue in public to avoid judgment.
  👉 Focus is on social image, not internal conflict.

---

3. Self-affirmation theory

People reduce threat by affirming other positive aspects of themselves.

• Example: After doing poorly on a test, you remind yourself you are a good friend or athlete.
  👉 Restores self-worth without changing the attitude directly.

• Person Perception: — Consequences of forming impressions; self-fulfilling prophecies — expectations cause something to become true (e.g., SR#7: Rosenthal & Jacobsen study); in class demo with “personality trait” hats

Teacher Expectations for the Disadvantaged (Rosenthal & Jacobson)Purpose

• To test whether teacher expectations influence student intellectual performance through a self-fulfilling prophecy.
• Specifically, the researchers wanted to determine whether students randomly labeled as “intellectual bloomers” would show greater academic improvement simply because teachers expected them to improve.
• The study examined whether teacher expectations could actually cause changes in student intelligence and academic performance, rather than just reflect existing differences.

---

Method

• Participants were students from kindergarten through sixth grade at Oak School, an elementary school in San Francisco.

• At the beginning of the school year, students were given an intelligence test (Flanagan Tests of General Ability).

• Teachers were told that certain students were identified as “intellectual bloomers” who were expected to show dramatic intellectual growth during the year.

• In reality, these students were selected randomly, not based on actual test performance.

• Teachers believed these students had high intellectual potential.

• All students were tested again later to measure intellectual growth.

• Researchers compared the IQ gains of the “bloomers” (experimental group) and other students (control group).

---

Results

• Students randomly labeled as “bloomers” showed significantly greater IQ gains than students in the control group.

• These gains were strongest in younger children, especially in kindergarten and first grade.

• Teachers also described the “bloomers” more positively than other students. They were seen as:

– More curious
– More interesting
– More affectionate
– Better adjusted
– More likely to succeed in the future

• Teachers likely treated these students differently, even without realizing it, through subtle behaviors such as tone of voice, attention, encouragement, and feedback.

• These differences in teacher behavior influenced student performance.

---

Conclusion

• The results support the self-fulfilling prophecy, which occurs when expectations influence behavior in ways that cause the expectation to come true.

• Teacher expectations influenced student intellectual development.

• Students performed better because teachers believed they would perform better.

• Teacher expectations affected student performance through subtle behavioral changes.

• The findings show that social expectations can shape intelligence, academic success, and self-concept.

• The study demonstrates the powerful role of social perception and expectations in influencing real outcomes.

---

Key Concept DemonstratedSelf-Fulfilling Prophecy

• When expectations influence behavior in ways that cause the expectations to become true.

Example from study:
Teachers expected certain students to improve → treated them differently → students actually improved.

• Person Perception: The study of how we form and maintain impressions of others (see Winerman SR#8 on “thin slicing” also)

The article “Thin Slices of Life” by Lea Winerman is a non-empirical article because it is a review article. It summarizes multiple research studies and explains findings, but it does not present one single experiment with its own participants, method, results, and conclusion. Instead, it discusses research by Ambady, Kenny, Bernieri, and others.

So your notes should follow the non-empirical format (Main Ideas, Supporting Research, Key Concepts, and Conclusions), like your non-empirical example.

---

Article Notes – NON-EMPIRICAL FORMATThin Slices of Life (Winerman)

---

Main Idea 1: First impressions form quickly and can be surprisingly accurate

• People often form impressions of others within seconds, such as during speed dating, meeting someone new, or observing a teacher.

• Psychologists call these brief observations “thin slices,” which are very short periods of behavior that provide information about personality or ability.

• Research shows people can accurately judge certain traits, especially extroversion, based on brief exposure.

---

Supporting Research: Norman & Goldberg (1966); Kenny (1988)

• Students rated strangers’ personalities on the first day of class.

• Their ratings strongly matched the strangers’ self-ratings, especially for traits like:
– Sociability
– Responsibility

• Kenny later replicated these findings, showing that strangers’ first impressions correlated with personality test scores.

• This shows people can accurately judge personality traits quickly.

---

Main Idea 2: People can accurately judge personality from very short behavioral observationsSupporting Research: Bernieri & McLarney-Vesotski

• Participants watched 10-second video clips of strangers.

• Observers were able to predict all five major personality traits at better-than-chance levels.

• This shows personality is expressed in behavior and can be detected quickly.

---

Main Idea 3: Thin slices can accurately predict teaching effectivenessSupporting Research: Ambady (1993)

• Students watched silent video clips of teachers lasting only 30 seconds, then 15 seconds, then 6 seconds.

• Students rated teacher effectiveness.

• These ratings strongly correlated with actual teacher evaluations from real students.

• Correlation was 0.76, which is considered very strong in social psychology.

• Students also learned more from teachers who appeared more effective in thin-slice videos.

This shows people can accurately judge teaching ability from very brief observations.

---

Main Idea 4: First impressions are often accurate but not always

• First impressions can sometimes be wrong.

Example:
• Ted Bundy appeared friendly and trustworthy but was actually a serial killer.

• People may be misled by visible traits like attractiveness or charisma.

• Some personality traits are easier to judge than others.

Extroversion is easiest because it is visible through behavior.

Internal traits are harder to judge.

---

Main Idea 5: Accuracy of first impressions depends on several factorsFactor 1: Mood

Supporting Research: Ambady (2002)

• People in happy moods were more accurate at judging teacher effectiveness.

• People in sad moods were less accurate.

Mood affects social perception accuracy.

---

Factor 2: Cultural similarity

• People are better at judging individuals from their own culture.

• Cultural differences affect how personality is expressed.

Example:
Extroversion may look different in American and Chinese cultures.

---

Factor 3: Individual differences in social intelligence

• Some people are better at judging others than others.

• Social intelligence varies between individuals.

---

Main Idea 6: First impressions are useful but should not always be trusted

• First impressions are accurate on average, but not always for individual cases.

• Accuracy depends on:
– Situation
– Observer
– Target person
– Cultural context

• First impressions should be used cautiously.

---

Key Concepts from the Article

---

Thin Slices

Brief observations of behavior that can provide meaningful information about personality and ability.

Example:
Judging teacher effectiveness from a 6-second video clip.

---

Social Perception

The process of understanding others based on observation.

Example:
Judging personality from facial expression or behavior.

---

Nonverbal Behavior

Behavior such as body language, facial expression, and tone of voice.

Example:
Confident posture signals competence.

---

First Impression Accuracy

The degree to which initial judgments reflect actual personality or ability.

Example:
Predicting extroversion from short interactions.

---

Overall Conclusion of the Article

• People can often accurately judge personality and ability from very brief observations.

• Thin slices of behavior provide meaningful information.

• Extroversion and observable traits are easiest to judge.

• Teaching effectiveness and personality can be predicted from brief observations.

• However, first impressions are not always accurate and can be influenced by mood, culture, and individual differences.

• First impressions are useful but should not be relied on completely.

Social Judgment/ Huristics: base rate fallacy — ignore base rates (statistical info) in favor of dramatic case histories (aka “vividness effect”; SR #9)

The article “The Vividness Problem” by Keith E. Stanovich is a non-empirical article because it reviews multiple studies and explains concepts about vividness and decision making. It does not present one original experiment with its own participants, method, results, and conclusion. Therefore, your notes should follow the non-empirical format, like your professor’s example.

Here are your notes written in the correct non-empirical structure and style:

---

The “Vividness” Problem (Stanovich)

---

Main Idea: People are overly influenced by vivid, personal, and emotionally compelling information rather than reliable statistical evidence

• The vividness effect occurs when vivid information (personal stories, dramatic events, emotional examples) has a stronger influence on judgment than objective statistical data.

• Vivid information is more memorable and emotionally powerful, so people rely on it more when making decisions.

• This leads to poor decision making because vivid information is often less reliable than scientific evidence.

---

Example: Personal testimony influences decisions more than scientific data

• People may ignore large-scale survey evidence and instead trust a single story from a friend or advertisement.

Example:
• A person may choose a car based on one friend’s negative experience, even if thousands of survey results show the car is reliable.

• Personal testimony feels more convincing even though statistical evidence is more accurate.

---

Main Idea: Media coverage increases vividness and distorts risk perception

Example: Car crashes vs airplane crashes
• Car crashes kill far more people, but airplane crashes receive more media attention.

• Because airplane crashes are more vivid, people overestimate the risk of flying.

• Car crashes are less vivid and receive less attention, so people underestimate their risk.

This demonstrates how vivid information distorts judgment.

---

Supporting Research: Hamill, Wilson, & Nisbett (1980)

• Participants watched an interview with a prison guard.

• Some participants were told the guard was typical, others were told he was unusual.

• Even when participants were told the guard was not typical, their judgments were influenced by the vivid example.

• The vivid example had more influence than statistical information.

This shows vivid examples overpower statistical evidence.

---

Supporting Research: Wilson & Brekke (1994)

• Participants evaluated condom brands using either statistical data or personal testimonials.

• Even though participants said they trusted statistical evidence more, many chose products based on personal stories.

• This shows vivid testimonials influence decisions more than objective evidence.

---

Main Idea: Emotional vividness increases fear and risk perception

Example: Child abduction fears
• Media reports about child abductions created widespread fear.

• Parents believed abduction was very common.

• In reality, the probability was extremely low (1 in 700,000).

• Vivid stories increased fear even though the risk was rare.

---

Example: AIDS awareness and vividness

• President Reagan did not fully recognize the severity of AIDS until hearing a vivid personal story about actor Rock Hudson.

• Statistical evidence existed earlier, but the vivid example made the issue emotionally real.

This shows vivid information increases emotional impact and attention.

---

Main Idea: People rely too much on anecdotal evidence instead of scientific evidence

• Personal experiences and stories are emotionally powerful but often unreliable.

• Scientific evidence is more accurate because it is based on large samples and controlled research.

• However, people tend to trust personal stories more.

---

Example: Barnum Effect and astrology readings

• People believe vague personality descriptions are accurate because they are personally meaningful.

• These descriptions feel vivid and specific, even though they apply to many people.

• This leads people to believe in astrology and pseudoscience.

---

Main Idea: Scientific evidence is more reliable than vivid personal testimony

• Scientific evidence is based on controlled, repeated, and statistically valid research.

• Personal testimony is unreliable because it is based on individual experiences.

• Reliable conclusions require scientific evidence, not vivid anecdotes.

---

Conclusion: The vividness effect leads to errors in judgment and poor decision making

• People rely too heavily on vivid examples rather than statistical evidence.

• Vivid information is emotionally powerful but often misleading.

• Scientific evidence is more reliable but less vivid and therefore often ignored.

• Understanding the vividness effect helps people make better, more rational decisions.

---

Key Concept: Vividness Effect

• The vividness effect is the tendency for vivid, emotional, and personal information to influence judgment more than statistical evidence.

Example:
• Choosing a product based on a personal story rather than scientific research.

• Attributional Theory: attribution bias — salience, anchor-adjustment [DAN GILBERT’S model; see also SR#10], culture (mostly in lecture so just simple review)

The article “Inferential Hopscotch: How People Draw Social Inferences From Behavior” (Krull & Erickson) is a non-empirical article. It reviews multiple experiments (Gilbert, Uleman, Webster, Shweder, etc.) and explains the social inference process rather than reporting one original study with its own single method and results section.

So your notes should follow the non-empirical format (Main Ideas + Supporting Research + Key Concepts), like your professor’s example.

---

SR #10 – Krull & EricksonInferential Hopscotch

---

Main Idea: Social inference happens in stages, and people often “hopscotch” through them

Krull & Erickson describe how people move through different stages when drawing inferences from behavior.

There are three stages in the trait inference process:

1. Behavior Interpretation – What is the person doing?

2. Trait Inference – What does this say about their personality?

3. Situational Revision – Does the situation explain the behavior instead?

People often move quickly from behavior → trait inference and may skip situational revision unless motivated or cognitively able.

---

Stage 1: Behavior Interpretation

• People first interpret what the actor is doing.
• This stage is relatively automatic and effortless.

Example:
“John seems nervous.”

Research shows expectations influence this stage. Ambiguous behavior is interpreted based on context and prior beliefs.

---

Stage 2: Trait Inference (Default for Westerners)

• After interpreting behavior, people spontaneously infer traits.

Example:
“John seems nervous → John must be an anxious person.”

Research by Uleman and colleagues shows that trait inferences occur spontaneously—even when people are distracted.

Evidence:
• Participants read sentences implying traits (e.g., “The secretary solved the mystery halfway through the book”).
• Later recall tests showed spontaneous trait encoding.

Conclusion:
Trait inference is often automatic.

---

Stage 3: Situational Revision (Gilbert’s “Anxious Woman” Study)

This stage requires cognitive effort.

Gilbert’s famous study:
• Participants watched a woman appear anxious during an interview.
• Some were told she was discussing anxiety-provoking topics.
• Others were told she was discussing neutral topics.

When participants were cognitively busy (memorizing numbers), they failed to adjust for the situation and assumed she was dispositionally anxious.

When not busy, they revised their initial inference and considered the situation.

Key point:
Situational revision requires cognitive resources.
If distracted, people default to trait inference.

---

Main Idea: Social inference is flexible and goal-dependent

People don’t always default to traits.

If someone has a situational goal (e.g., trying to understand circumstances), they may spontaneously infer situational causes first.

Webster’s research:
• When participants expected to explain a speaker’s behavior situationally, they were more likely to consider context.
• Motivation affects whether people revise their inferences.

Conclusion:
Inference depends on cognitive load + motivation.

---

Cultural Differences in Default Inference

One of the most important parts of this article:

• Westerners default to trait inference.
• Non-Westerners default to situational inference.

Research by Shweder & Bourne:
• Western cultures are more likely to describe behavior in terms of abstract personality traits.
• Non-Western cultures emphasize context and social relationships.

Research by Newman:
• People high in idiocentrism (individualistic orientation) are more likely to spontaneously infer traits.

Conclusion:
Cultural values shape default inference processes.

---

The Social Inference Process (Full Model)

Figure (p. 3):
Behavior → Behavior Interpretation → Trait and/or Situational Inference → Revision of Initial Inference

People may:
• Jump directly to trait inference.
• Infer situation first.
• Revise initial inference if motivated and cognitively able.

Hence the term “inferential hopscotch” — people hop between steps.

---

Key Concepts to KnowSpontaneous Trait Inference

Automatic personality judgments drawn from behavior.

Situational Revision

Effortful adjustment that considers context.

Cognitive Load

When mentally busy, people are less likely to revise initial trait inferences.

Cultural Default

Western → trait inference
Non-Western → situational inference

• Prejudice and Stereotypes: stereotypes (cognitive component) — American Indians; Stanton SR article #11)

The Politico article is a non-empirical article. It explains psychological research and summarizes several studies about Native American sports mascots and stereotypes rather than reporting one single experiment with its own participants, method, and results. Therefore, the notes should follow the non-empirical format (Main Ideas + Supporting Research + Key Concepts + Conclusions).

---

Article Notes – NON-EMPIRICAL FORMATNative American Team Names and Their Psychological EffectsMain Idea: Native American sports mascots and team names have psychological effects beyond simple entertainment

• Sports mascots and team names using Native imagery influence how people think about Native Americans.

• Psychological research shows these symbols reinforce stereotypes and shape perceptions of Native identity.

• The debate about names like the former Washington Redskins or Cleveland Indians is not just about offense but about the broader psychological impact of stereotypes in society. (Wikipedia)

---

Supporting Research: Fryberg et al. – Psychological impact on Native youth

• Studies by psychologist Stephanie Fryberg examined how Native American mascots affect Native students.

• When Native American adolescents were exposed to mascot imagery, they reported:

• Lower self-esteem

• Lower expectations for future achievement

• Reduced sense of community worth (LSA at U-M)

• The mascots activated limiting stereotypes and narrowed how young people imagined their possible futures.

---

Main Idea: Stereotypes can harm both Native Americans and non-Native observers

Research shows that mascots and stereotypes affect how everyone thinks about Native Americans.

Effects include:

• Reinforcing the idea that Native Americans are “warriors” or historical figures rather than modern people.
• Encouraging simplified and inaccurate beliefs about Native cultures.

Exposure to mascots increases stereotyping and prejudice, even when the images are meant to be positive. (KU Sport)

---

Supporting Research: Social stereotype activation

Studies with mostly non-Native participants found that exposure to Native mascots activates stereotypes such as:

• “Aggressive”

• “Primitive”

• “Savage”

These stereotypes influence how people judge Native Americans and other minority groups. (KU Sport)

---

Main Idea: Stereotypes limit opportunities and identity development

Psychologists argue that stereotypical mascots reduce the complexity of Native identity.

Instead of recognizing diverse cultures and modern communities, mascots present a narrow historical stereotype.

This can influence:

• Educational expectations
• Self-confidence
• Career aspirations
• Social identity formation

Research suggests these effects are similar to other stereotype-based psychological harms.

---

Broader Social Effects of Mascots

Research indicates the consequences extend beyond Native communities.

Exposure to Native mascots can:

• Increase stereotypical thinking among non-Native people
• Normalize racial stereotypes
• Reinforce prejudice toward other minority groups

These mascots function as cultural symbols that shape social attitudes. (Wikipedia)

---

Key Psychological Concepts in the ArticleStereotyping

Simplifying complex groups into fixed traits or images.

Example: Depicting Native Americans only as warriors or historical figures.

---

Social Identity

People’s sense of who they are based on group membership.

Example: Native youth evaluating their identity based on cultural representation.

---

Psychological Harm of Stereotypes

Stereotypes can reduce self-esteem and limit perceived opportunities.

Example: Native students reporting lower achievement goals after seeing mascot imagery.

---

Overall Conclusion

• Native American mascots and team names have measurable psychological consequences.

• Research shows these symbols reinforce stereotypes and negatively affect Native youth’s self-concept and aspirations.

• Mascots also influence how non-Native people think about Native Americans, increasing stereotyping.

• Because of these psychological effects, many researchers and organizations argue that such mascots should be retired.

 prejudice and stereotypes: R#12 - Eberhardt: Race and the death penalty

SR – Eberhardt et al.Looking Deathworthy: Perceived Stereotypicality of Black Defendants Predicts Capital-Sentencing OutcomesPurpose

• The study examined whether the physical appearance of Black defendants—specifically how stereotypically Black they look—affects whether they receive the death penalty.

• Prior research had already shown that race affects death-penalty decisions, especially that defendants who kill White victims are more likely to receive the death penalty than those who kill Black victims.

• The researchers wanted to test a new question:
Does the degree of stereotypically Black facial features (e.g., darker skin, broader nose, thicker lips) influence sentencing outcomes?

---

Phase I – Black Defendant / White VictimMethod

• Researchers used a database of more than 600 death-eligible murder cases from Philadelphia between 1979–1999.

• From this dataset, 44 cases involved Black male defendants who murdered White victims.

• Photographs of the defendants were shown to Stanford undergraduate raters who did not know the men were convicted murderers.

• Participants rated how stereotypically Black each defendant appeared on a scale from 1 (not at all stereotypical) to 11 (extremely stereotypical).

• Researchers controlled for other factors that might affect sentencing, including:

• Severity of the crime

• Aggravating circumstances

• Mitigating circumstances

• Defendant’s socioeconomic status

• Victim’s socioeconomic status

• Defendant attractiveness

---

Results

• Defendants who were perceived as more stereotypically Black were significantly more likely to receive the death penalty.

• Death-sentence rates differed dramatically:

• 24.4% of defendants rated less stereotypically Black received the death penalty.

• 57.5% of defendants rated more stereotypically Black received the death penalty.

• This means the likelihood of receiving the death penalty more than doubled for defendants with more stereotypically Black features.

---

Phase II – Black Defendant / Black VictimMethod

• Researchers examined 308 cases where Black defendants killed Black victims.

• A subset of 118 cases was analyzed, and defendants’ faces were again rated for stereotypicality.

---

Results

• In these cases, facial stereotypicality did NOT predict death-penalty outcomes.

• Death-sentence rates were nearly identical:

• 45% for less stereotypical faces

• 46.6% for more stereotypical faces

---

Interpretation / Discussion

The researchers suggest the effect occurs only when race becomes especially salient, such as in cases where a Black defendant kills a White victim.

When race is salient:

• Jurors may rely on racial stereotypes as a heuristic.
• Stereotypically Black facial features may activate associations between Blackness and criminality.
• Jurors may perceive such defendants as more “deathworthy.”

When both defendant and victim are Black:

• Race becomes less salient.
• Jurors are more likely to treat the case as an interpersonal conflict rather than an intergroup conflict.

---

Key Psychological Concept DemonstratedStereotyping and Implicit Bias

Physical features associated with a racial group can trigger stereotypes that influence judgments, even in high-stakes decisions like capital punishment.

Research has shown people often associate more stereotypically Black facial features with criminality, which can affect sentencing decisions.

---

Conclusion

• The study shows that racial bias can operate not only between racial groups but also within a racial group based on perceived stereotypicality.

• Among Black defendants convicted of killing White victims, those who appeared more stereotypically Black were significantly more likely to receive the death penalty.

• These findings demonstrate how implicit racial stereotypes can influence real legal outcomes.

• Attitude Change: — Elaboration Likelihood Model (PETTY & CACIOPPO) — 1. simple idea: sometimes people are motivated to process messages carefully and sometimes they're not (see SR: ELM SR#13) (mostly in lecture so just simple review)

Central and Peripheral Routes to Advertising Effectiveness

Purpose

• The study tested the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) of persuasion, which proposes that attitudes change through two different routes: central and peripheral.

• The researchers wanted to determine whether argument quality or peripheral cues would be more persuasive depending on how involved people were with the product.

• The main hypothesis:

• Under high involvement, persuasion should occur through the central route, meaning attitudes depend on the strength of the arguments.

• Under low involvement, persuasion should occur through the peripheral route, meaning attitudes depend more on simple cues such as celebrity endorsers.

---

MethodParticipants

• 160 undergraduate students participated for course credit.

• Participants were randomly assigned to conditions in a 2 × 2 × 2 experimental design.

---

Independent Variables1. Involvement (High vs Low)

Participants were told either:

High involvement
• The razor would soon be available in their local area.
• They might receive the razor as a gift.

Low involvement
• The razor would be test-marketed on the East Coast and not available locally.
• They would instead receive toothpaste as a gift.

This manipulation changed how personally relevant the product was.

---

2. Argument Quality

The advertisement contained either:

Strong arguments
Examples included claims such as:

• The razor uses an advanced sharpening method

• A special coating prevents nicks and cuts

• It produced twice as many close shaves as competitors

Weak arguments
Examples included claims such as:

• The razor comes in many colors

• It floats in water

• It is designed with the bathroom in mind

---

3. Peripheral Cue (Endorser Type)

The advertisement featured either:

• Famous celebrity athletes
• Average unknown citizens

Celebrities were expected to serve as a positive peripheral cue.

---

Procedure

• Participants viewed a booklet containing 12 magazine advertisements.
• One of these ads was a fictitious advertisement for “Edge disposable razors.”

After viewing the ads, participants reported:

• Attitudes toward the product
• Likelihood of purchasing the razor
• Recall of product information and brand name

---

ResultsAttitudes Toward the ProductHigh involvement

• Participants were strongly influenced by argument quality.
• Strong arguments produced much more positive attitudes than weak arguments.

• The celebrity endorser had little effect.

---

Low involvement

• Participants were influenced more by the peripheral cue.
• Ads with celebrity endorsers produced more positive attitudes than ads with ordinary people.

• Argument quality had a weaker effect.

---

Purchase Intentions

• Participants were more likely to buy the product when the arguments were strong rather than weak.

• The effect of argument quality on purchase intentions was stronger under high involvement.

---

Memory Findings

• High involvement participants remembered more information about the product and brand.

• Celebrity endorsers sometimes increased attention to the advertisement but did not always improve memory for the brand.

---

Conclusion

• The results support the Elaboration Likelihood Model.

Two routes to persuasion exist:

Central Route

Occurs when people are highly involved and motivated to think carefully.

• People evaluate argument strength.
• Attitude changes tend to be stronger and more predictive of behavior.

---

Peripheral Route

Occurs when people have low involvement and do not carefully analyze the message.

• Attitudes are influenced by simple cues such as celebrities or attractiveness.
• Attitude changes tend to be weaker and less predictive of behavior.

---

Key Takeaway

Advertising effectiveness depends on audience involvement:

• High involvement → argument quality matters most.
• Low involvement → peripheral cues (like celebrity endorsers) matter more.

---

• Attitudes and Behavior: Cognitive Dissonance Theory: Three major dissonance paradigms (situations that cause dissonance) — Festinger & Carlsmith's (1959) peg-turning study (see SR#14) (mostly in lecture so just simple review)

This article is empirical, so the notes should follow the empirical format like your example.
Here are the notes written in that structure.

---

Festinger & Carlsmith (1959) – Cognitive Consequences of Forced CompliancePurpose

• To test predictions from cognitive dissonance theory.

• Specifically, to examine what happens when people are induced to say something that contradicts their true attitudes.

• The researchers predicted that smaller rewards would produce more attitude change because they create greater psychological discomfort (dissonance).

---

Method

• Participants: 71 male Stanford students (data from 60 used after exclusions).

• Participants completed boring and repetitive tasks (e.g., turning pegs, placing spools) designed to create a negative attitude toward the activity.

• After the task, participants were assigned to one of three conditions:

1. Control condition:

   • No request to lie about the task.

2. $1 condition:

   • Participants were paid $1 to tell another participant the task was interesting and enjoyable.

3. $20 condition:

   • Participants were paid $20 to give the same positive description.

• Participants were later interviewed about:

  • how enjoyable the task was

  • scientific value of the experiment

  • desire to participate again

  • how much they learned

---

ResultsMain finding

• Participants in the $1 condition rated the task as more enjoyable than both the control and $20 conditions.

• Control group ratings were slightly negative (tasks seen as boring).

• $20 group ratings were close to neutral.

• $1 group ratings were clearly positive.

Interpretation

• When paid only $1, participants had insufficient external justification for lying.

• To reduce dissonance, they changed their private attitudes and convinced themselves the task was enjoyable.

• When paid $20, participants had enough external justification, so less attitude change occurred.

Additional findings

• Differences between conditions did not appear on unrelated questions (e.g., how much they learned).

• This suggests the effect was specific to the dissonance created.

• Analysis of taped conversations showed that $1 participants were not more persuasive or effortful, ruling out alternative explanations such as greater rehearsal.