Social Psychology: Attitudes, Cognitive Dissonance, and Social Influence

Comprehensive vocabulary flashcards covering Social Psychology lecture units on Attitudes & Attitude Change, Cognitive Dissonance Theory, and Conformity, Compliance, & Obedience.

Attitude

An overall evaluation of somthing whether its positive or negative—A really easy way to remember it:

Attitude = “How do I feel about ___?”

ABCs of Attitudes

The three components that structure an attitude: Affect (feelings or emotional evaluation), Behavior (actions or intentions to act), and Cognition (thoughts, beliefs, or knowledge).

• A = Affect → how you feel about it

• B = Behavior → how you act toward it

• C = Cognition → what you think/believe about it

Explicit Attitudes

Attitudes that are consciously endorsed and can be directly reported by an individual, often measured through self-report questionnaires.

Explicit = “I can EXPLAIN it.”

For example, if someone asks:

“Do you like country music?”

You say: “Yes, I love country music.”

That’s an explicit attitude because you’re consciously aware of how you feel and can report it.

Implicit Attitudes

Attitudes or mental associations that operate outside conscious awareness or differ from reported evaluations.

Think:

Implicit = “automatic reaction.”

For example, you might explicitly say:

“I’m not afraid of dogs.”

But when a large dog suddenly runs toward you, you automatically tense up or move away.

That automatic reaction could reflect an implicit attitude toward dogs.

Implicit Association Test (IAT)

a way researchers try to measure implicit attitudes—automatic associations that people may not consciously report.

IAT = “How quickly does my brain connect two things?”

For example, you might be asked to sort words into categories using two keys:

Round 1

• Flowers + Good → same key

• Insects + Bad → same key

Round 2

• Flowers + Bad → same key

• Insects + Good → same key

Memory trick:
IAT = “Which pairing is easier/faster for my brain?”

Davidson & Jaccard Study (Birth Control Study/ Attitude-Behavior Specificity Study)

What they did:
They studied married women’s attitudes toward birth control and then looked at whether those attitudes predicted their actual use of birth control.

What they found:
The more specific the attitude was, the better it predicted the specific behavior.

Connections;

Attitude specificity

Attitude

Behavioral intentions

Matching/ Correspondence

Heuristic

A cognitive shortcut used to form a quick impression or attitude without deeply analyzing all available information, such as relying on attractiveness, expertise, or familiarity.

Heuristic = “quick and easy way of thinking.”

For example, you’re choosing between two restaurants you’ve never tried:

“That restaurant has a huge line, so it must be good.”

You didn’t research the food, reviews, prices, or chef. Your brain used a shortcut:

Lots of people there → probably good.

Mere Exposure Effect

The psychological phenomenon where repeated exposure to a stimulus increases positive evaluations of it without requiring new substantive information, as shown in Zajonc's (1960s) Chinese character study.

• “The more I see it, the more I like it”

The mere exposure effect means that repeated exposure to something can make us like it more, even if nothing else about it changes.

For example, imagine you hear a new song:

First time: “Eh, I don’t really like this.”
Fifth time: “Okay, it’s kinda catchy.”
Tenth time: “Wait, I love this song.”

The song didn’t change — you just became more familiar with it.

Why does this happen?

Familiarity tends to feel comfortable and safe, so repeated exposure can make something feel more positive.

Persuasion

An intentional attempt or process designed to change an individual's attitude.

Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM)

A persuasion framework created by Petty & Cacioppo (1986)

ELM (Elaboration Likelihood Model): Two ways persuasion changes attitudes.

• Central Route: Think deeply about the argument/evidence → stronger, longer-lasting attitude change.

• Peripheral Route: Use shortcuts/heuristics (attractiveness, popularity, credibility) → weaker, shorter-lasting change.

Memory: Central = content | Peripheral = cues.

Central Route to Persuasion

A persuasion process characterized by thoughtful, careful analysis of argument qualitY; it requires both motivation and ability, producing durable attitude change. Central route = you carefully think about the actual arguments and evidence.

Peripheral Route to Persuasion

Peripheral route = you are persuaded by things OTHER than the actual quality of the argument.

A persuasion process driven by superficial cues and shortcuts (such as speaker expertise or attractiveness) when motivation or ability is low, producing temporary attitude change.

Petty, Cacioppo, & Goldman (1981) Study - Personal Relevance / ELM Study

An ELM experiment showing that high personal relevance (exam policy implemented now) leads participants to focus on argument quality (central route), whereas low personal relevance (implemented in $10$ years) leads participants to rely on source expertise (peripheral route).

High relevance → argument quality mattered (central).
Low relevance → source expertise mattered (peripheral).

Bless, Bohner, Schwarz, & Strack (1986) Study - Mood & Persuasion Study

What they did: Participants read a persuasive message while researchers manipulated their mood (happy vs. sad) and the strength of the arguments.

What they found:

• Sad mood → paid more attention to argument quality → more careful thinking.

• Happy mood → relied more on heuristics/shortcuts → less careful thinking.

Concept: Mood affects information processing / Central vs. Peripheral processing (ELM).

🧠 Remember: Sad = systematic; Happy = heuristic.

Psychological Reactance

When you feel like someone is taking away your freedom, you become motivated to resist and do the opposite.

Example: “You CAN’T date him.” → makes you want to date him even more.

An unpleasant motivational state identified by Brehm (1966) that arises when people feel a freedom of choice is threatened, frequently prompting them to engage in the prohibited behavior.

Erceg, Hurn, & Steed (2011) Study-Cigarette Warning Label / Reactance Study

They studied smokers and exposed them to cigarette health-warning labels to see whether the warnings produced psychological reactance.

What they were asking:
Could strong anti-smoking warnings make smokers feel that their freedom to choose to smoke was being threatened, causing them to resist the message?

Concept:
👉 Psychological Reactance / resistance to persuasion

A study on smokers revealing that graphic warning labels triggered higher anger and irritation (reactance) than text warnings due to perceived threats to freedom.

Pennebaker & Sanders (1976) Study- Graffiti / Reactance Study

What they did:
They put signs in bathroom stalls telling people not to write graffiti. The wording differed:

• Strong/threatening: “Do NOT write on these walls!”

• Milder: “Please do not write on these walls.”

Then they measured how much graffiti people actually wrote.

What they found:
The stronger, more controlling message led to MORE graffiti than the polite message.

Concept: 👉 Psychological Reactance

LaPiere (1934) Study- Chinese couple study

What they did:
LaPiere traveled with a Chinese couple to over 250 hotels/restaurants in the U.S. At the time, there was strong anti-Chinese prejudice.

• Almost all businesses served them and treated them normally.

• Later, LaPiere mailed those same businesses a questionnaire asking whether they would serve Chinese customers.

• Most said NO.

What they found:
People’s actual behavior did not match their stated attitudes.

Concepts it connects to:

• Attitudes ≠ behavior

• Explicit attitudes (what people say they believe)

• Behavior can be influenced by the situation

• Helps explain the attitude-behavior relationship

Accessible Attitude

An attitude that comes to mind easily and quickly upon encountering an object or situation, serving as a primary guide for spontaneous behaviors.

Example:
If you love dogs, seeing a dog immediately makes you think, “I love dogs!” Your positive attitude toward dogs is highly accessible.

Why it matters:
The more accessible an attitude is, the more likely it is to influence your behavior.

Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB)

A model by Ajzen (1991)

TPB = your behavior is predicted by your intention to do it.

Your intention is influenced by 3 things:

1. Attitude → Do I think the behavior is good or bad?

2. Subjective norms → Do other people think I should do it?

3. Perceived behavioral control → Do I feel capable of doing it?

Example:
You plan to start going to the gym:

• Attitude: “Working out is good for me.”

• Subjective norm: “My friends think I should work out.”

• Perceived control: “I have time and can actually get to the gym.”
  → Intention: “I’m going to start going.”
  → Behavior: You go to the gym.

What is Subjective Norms

A component of the Theory of Planned Behavior representing an individual's beliefs about what important people around them expect or approve of.

Subjective norms = your perception of what other people think you should do.

Think: “What do the people around me expect me to do?”

Example:
You want to study for your exam because your friends and parents think you should study.

🧠 Flashcard:
Subjective norms → perceived social pressure/expectations from others about what you should do.

Perceived Behavioral Control

A component of the Theory of Planned Behavior representing an individual's belief regarding whether they realistically possess the resources, time, opportunity, and ability to perform a behavior. (How Capable/in-control you feel about performing a behavior.

Perceived behavioral control = how much you believe you can actually do the behavior.

Think: “Can I realistically do this?”

Example:
You want to go to the gym, and you think, “I have enough time, transportation, and ability to work out.” → High perceived behavioral control.

Cognitive Dissonance

Cognitive dissonance = the uncomfortable feeling when your thoughts, beliefs, or behavior don’t match.

Think: “I believe one thing, but I’m doing another.”

Example:
You believe cheating is wrong, but you cheat on a test → you feel uncomfortable because your belief and behavior conflict.

• People are motivated to reduce the discomfort by changing their behavior, changing their attitude, or justifying what they did.

The psychological discomfort defined by Festinger (1957) that arises when an individual notices an inconsistency between their attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors. (discomfort from conflicting beliefs/behaviors → motivates us to reduce the conflict.)

Four-Step Process of Dissonance

Four-Step Process of Dissonance — Smith & Mackie (2015)

1. Perceive an inconsistency → “My behavior doesn’t match my belief.”

2. Perceive behavior as freely chosen → “I chose to do this.”

3. Feel discomfort → The inconsistency makes you uncomfortable.

4. Attribute discomfort to the inconsistency → “I feel bad because my behavior and belief don’t match.”

External Justification

External Justification

An outside reason, reward, or pressure that explains why you did something that goes against your attitude.

• Strong external justification → less dissonance

• Weak external justification → more dissonance

Insufficient Justification Effect

Insufficient justification = when there isn’t a strong enough outside reason for what you did, so you change your attitude to make your behavior make sense.

Think: “I didn’t have a good external reason… so maybe I actually believe it.”

Example:
You say something you don’t really believe for only $1. Since $1 is not a strong reward, you may start changing your attitude to match what you said.

Fester & Carlsmith (1959( Study - $1 vs. $20 Study

What they did: Participants completed a very boring peg-turning task, then were paid either $1 or $20 to tell the next participant that the task was enjoyable.

What they found: The $1 group later rated the boring task as more enjoyable than the $20 group.

• Cognitive dissonance

• External justification

• Insufficient justification effect

• Attitude change

Aronson & Carlsmith (1963) Forbidden Toy Study

Aronson & Carlsmith (1963) — Forbidden Toy Study

What they did:
Children picked a toy they really liked. Researchers then told them not to play with it, using either a mild threat or a severe threat.

What they found:

• Mild threat → weak external justification → more dissonance → children later liked the toy less

• Severe threat → strong external justification → less dissonance → children still liked the toy

Connections:

• Cognitive dissonance

• External justification

• Insufficient justification

• Attitude change

Effort Justification Effect

Effort justification = the more effort you put into something, the more you tend to value it.

Think: “I worked really hard for this, so it must be worth it.”

Example:
If joining a club requires a really difficult initiation, you may end up liking the club more because you went through so much to get in.

Aronson & Mills (1959) Group Initiation Study

Aronson & Mills (1959) — Group Initiation Study

What they did:
Women went through either a severe initiation, mild initiation, or no initiation before joining a discussion group.

What they found:
The severe-initiation group liked the group more, even though the group discussion was boring.

Why:
They had put in more effort/discomfort, so they valued the group more.

Connections:

• Cognitive dissonance

• Effort justification

• Attitude change

Overjustification Effect

Overjustification = when an external reward makes you think you’re doing something for the reward instead of because you actually enjoy it.

Think: “Maybe I only do this because I get rewarded.”

Example:
You already love drawing, but then you start getting paid to draw. Over time, you may enjoy drawing less because it starts to feel like something you do for the money.

Dickerson et al. (1992) Water Conservation Study

What they did:
Participants were encouraged to publicly support water conservation and were also reminded of times when they had wasted water.

What they found:
That mismatch made them feel hypocritical/dissonant, so they later took shorter showers to conserve water.

Connections:

• Cognitive dissonance

• Hypocrisy

• Attitude-behavior inconsistency

• Behavior change

Four Strategies of Dissonance Reduction

Four Strategies of Dissonance Reduction

1. Change your attitude → “Maybe I don’t actually believe that.”

2. Change your behavior → Act in a way that matches your belief.

3. Add a justification → Give yourself another reason that makes it feel okay.

4. Reduce importance → Tell yourself, “It’s really not that big of a deal.”

Social Influence Continuum

Social influence continuum = different levels of pressure from other people that can change your behavior.

Usually think of it as:

• Conformity → changing to match a group.

• Compliance → doing something because someone asks.

• Obedience → doing something because an authority figure tells you to.

Conformity

changing your beliefs or behavior to match a group, even if nobody directly tells you to.

Think - Mean girls (Journal 1) Cady And the plastics

Informational Social Influence

Informational social influence = conforming because you think other people know what is correct.

Think: “I’m not sure what to do, so I’ll follow them because they probably know.”

Usually happens when the situation is unclear or ambiguous.

Example:
You’re at a formal event and don’t know which fork to use, so you copy everyone else.

Normative Social Influence

Normative social influence = conforming because you want to fit in, be liked, or avoid rejection.

Think: “I know what I think, but I’ll go along with the group so I don’t stand out.”

Example:
You know an answer is wrong, but everyone else says it’s right, so you agree with them.

Sherif (1936) Autokinetic Study

What they did:
Participants looked at a stationary point of light in a dark room that appeared to move. They estimated how far it moved, first alone and then with a group.

What they found:
People’s answers became more similar to the group’s answers, and that group norm lasted even when they were later tested alone.

Why:
The situation was ambiguous, so people used others as a source of information.

Connections:

• Informational social influence

• Conformity

• Ambiguous situations

• Private acceptance

• Group norms

Asch (1955) Line Judgment Study

What they did:
Participants had to choose which line matched a target line. The answer was obvious, but 7 confederates purposely gave the wrong answer.

What they found:
76% of participants conformed at least once and went along with the wrong group answer. When they could answer privately, they were much more likely to give the correct answer.

Why:
They usually knew the group was wrong, but conformed because they did not want to stand out.

Connections:

• Normative social influence

• Conformity

• Desire to fit in

• Public conformity

• No private acceptance

Private Acceptance vs. Public Conformity

Private acceptance = you actually believe the group is right.

Think: “They’re right, so I changed my mind.”

Public conformity = you go along with the group, but privately still disagree.

Think: “I’ll agree so I fit in, even though I think they’re wrong.”

Connections:

• Informational influence → usually private acceptance

• Normative influence → usually public conformity

Compliance

Compliance = changing your behavior because someone directly asks you to.

Think: “They asked me, so I did it.”

Example:
A friend asks you to help them move, and you say yes.

Norm of Reciprocity

Norm of reciprocity = feeling like you should give something back when someone does something for you.

Think: “They did something for me, so I should return the favor.”

Example:
Someone buys you coffee, so you feel like you should buy theirs next time.

Door-in-the-Face Technique

Ask for something huge first, get rejected, then ask for the smaller thing you actually wanted.

Think: “Big request → No → Smaller request → More likely yes.”

Why it works:
The smaller request feels like a concession, so the other person feels pressure to make a concession too.

Example:
“Can you volunteer 10 hours?” → No.
“Okay, can you volunteer 1 hour?” → More likely yes.

That's-Not-All Technique

making an offer better before the person decides.

Think: “Wait, there’s more!”

Example:
“This costs $20… but I’ll also throw in a free bonus.”

The added bonus makes the person feel like they’re getting extra value, which can increase compliance.

Foot-in-the-Door Technique

Get someone to agree to a small request first, then ask for a bigger request.

Think: “Small yes → bigger yes.”

Why it works:
After saying yes once, people may see themselves as the kind of person who agrees/helps, and they want to stay consistent.

Example:
“Can you sign this petition?” → Yes.
“Would you put a large sign in your yard?” → More likely yes.

Low-Ball Technique

Low-ball = get someone to commit first, then reveal the worse conditions afterward.

Think: “Get the yes first → then add the hidden cost.”

Example:
You agree to buy a car for a good price, then after you commit, extra fees are added.

Why it works:
People want to stay consistent with the commitment they already made.

Connections:

• Guéguen et al. (2002)

Obedience

Obedience

Obedience = following a direct order from someone with higher authority or social power.

Think: “They’re in charge, so I follow the order.”