ISC Exam 2

Chapters 9-15, Lecture 11a, 11b, 12a, 12b, 13a, 13b

Attitude =

evaluation

Attitude definition

Positive, negative, mixed evaluation of a person, event, object, or idea

Cognitive consistency theories

How do we form attitudes?

Traditional cognitive consistency theories

cognitive dissonance, balance theory

Self verification

Maintaining existing beliefs concerning the self, e.g. personality questionnaire or questions others ask

Perceptual confirmation effect

We seek out information consistent with beliefs

Example of perceptual confirmation effect

when we Google, we google something that directs us towards things that will confirm that preference

Social identity theory

Bias in processing to enhance the social self = self esteem enhancement

Example of social identity theory

Identifying with group when group wins but not when loses

Cognitive dissonance

What we want is that everything is consistent; when we have an attitude, our thoughts and behaviours are all aligned

Two solutions for reducing cognitive dissonance

Changing behaviour or changing cognition

Changing cognition in cognitive dissonance

* Focus on positive
* Change attitude of one of the cognitions
* Shift attention to other positive qualities of self
* Trivialization

Example of trivialization

“test was stupid anyway”

According to the experiment with children and monkeys on preference-making…

**High level cognition is not needed to create preferences in choice making.**

2-choice paradigm

* Put 3 similar, equally attractive toys in stockings so the kids could not see them
* For monkeys: put three colourful m&ms
* Phase 1: Choose between A and B
* Phase 2: Choose between reject and new choice

Selective exposure

Seeking consistent info

Selective attention

Attending to consistent info

Selective interpretation

Judging ambiguity as consistent

Selective learning

Retaining consistent info

Selective recall

Uncued memory for consistency

Balance Theory (Heider 1958)

Relationship between Perceiver -> Other -> Attitude Object

Balanced Triad

\
You like your roommate, your roommate likes his car, you like his car.

Imbalanced Triad

You like your roommate, your roommate likes his car, you don't like his car.

Problem with balance theory

You cannot predict behaviour

Brewer’s model of impression formation (dual processing)

system 1, system 2, focused on motivation, attention, and identification

Heuristic Systematic Model

describes how people form attitudes in response to persuasive appeals. It distinguishes an effortful mode of processing in which individuals carefully scrutinize the given information and a lower-effort mode in which they employ rules of thumb (heuristics)

Least effort principle in heuristic systematic model

uses heuristics, e.g. matching famour person selling a product

sufficiency principle

when we really care we analyze like hell, e.g. potential lover

Two ends of the heuristic-systematic model

automatic/effortless and systematic/effortful

Elaboration Likelihood Model

people can have either high or low levels of elaboration — the extent to which they are willing and able to scrutinize an argument.

systematic processing in elaboration likelihood model

the central route

heuristic processing in the elaboration likelihood model

the peripheral route

In the elaboration likelihood model, changing attitude through the ______ route is more permanent.

central

Those with high levels of elaboration are more likely to process information via…

central route

Those with low levels of elaboration are more apt to process information via…

peripheral route, more prone to distraction

Classical study of Petty et al

DV: Favourability ratings of proposal to implement an exam before graduating

IV: audience (personal) involvement, communicator (expert vs non-expert), message (argument quality)

Effect of source on convincing people

* Higher involvement, expertise matters more
* Lower involvement, expertise matters less

Effect of argument quality on convincing people

* High involvement, strong arguments matter more
* Low involvement, argument strength matters less

Effect of number of arguments on convincing people

* High involvement, number of arguments doesn't matter
* Low involvement, number of arguments matters

Famous people and Razors experiment

High involvement: No difference in post message attitude between celebrity and citizen



Low involvement: big difference in post message attitude between celebrity and citizen

Consensus heuristic

If most people think it is true, then it must be true

Effect of applause on attitude

example of audience involvement; applause can have positive effect on attitude

Mood effects on attitude change

Sad: weak arguments no change, strong arguments large change

Happy: Strength of argument doesn’t matter

Individual differences in attitude change

need for cognition, uncertainty orientation, need to evaluate

need for cognition

motivation to think: enjoying coming up with new solutions or only thinking as hard as they have to

uncertainty orientation

when and what to think in service of increasing certainty vs maintaining an open-minded uncertainty, certainty orientation = more heuristic because people need to feel certain

need to evaluate

correlates moderately with need for cognition: forming opinions about everything, bothers them to feel neutral

Systematic processing processes

* consider message valence and quality
* issue relevant thoughts
* recall arguments
* lasting change

systematic processing moderators

* personal interest
* personal consequences
* personal responsibility
* lack of consensus

Heuristic processing processes

* use rapid effortless informal rules
* messages long is strong
* communicators believe a beauty and trust an expert

heuristic processing

* low cognitive capacity
* low motivation

ELM critique

1. Does not explain why people support or counter argue what they encounter
2. Model seems focused on people who want to validate attitude, sometimes we just do not (e.g. biased information processing, such as stereotypes)
3. Persuasion variables have multiple roles e.g. # of arguments may help central and peripheral processing; makes it difficult to falsify
4. Maybe justification not true attitude change through cognitive responses
5. Peripheral processes cannot be measures with favourability item as they are unconscious, e.g. linguistic stimulus

4 functionalities of attitudes

Instrumental function, knowledge function, ego-protective function, value-expressive function

Instrumental function of attitudes

Attitudes direct us to behaviour; provide the individual with more rewards than punishments

Knowledge function of attitudes

helping to interpret ambiguous information or to organize information;

Emotions/attitudes help you evaluate if something is a threat

Ego-protective function of attitudes

protect the self against inner conflicts

Value-expressive function of attitudes

self-concept and central values that are important to us

What theory does the Festinger & Carlsmith “boring task” experiment support? Why?

Cognitive dissonance:

* $1 is insufficient external justification for inconsistent behaviour
* $20 is sufficient external justification

Festinger & Carlsmith ‘Boring Task’ study

Participants are given a boring task, see how amount of money ($1 vs $20) given to convince someone else to do the task effects how fun participants rate this boring task

Aronson & Mills ‘Embarrassing Task"‘ study

People do varying degrees of embarrassing tasks (reading pornographic material in public) in order to enter the group, the higher the embarrassing task, the more one enjoys the group: 'I suffered to get in, so I must enjoy this thing'

Knowledge function of attitudes example

People unfamiliar with nuclear energy may develop an attitude that is dangerous and should not be used as an energy source. Or, **In the absence of knowledge about a person, we may use a stereotyped attitude for judging the person.**

Ego defense function of attitudes example

An older manager whose decisions are continually challenged by a younger subordinate manager may feel that the latter is brash, cocky, immature, and inexperienced.

Value expressive function of attitudes example

Consumers adopt certain attitudes to translate their values into something more tangible and easily expressed.

Instrumental function of attitudes example

For example, because tax evasion is punishable, a person may decide against evading taxes and begin paying them properly.

The effect of humor in ads (Hansen, Strick et al., 2009)

Product was less remembered with humor

Personal Identity

Social Identity

About which group you belong to

 



Social Identity Theory

1. Part of identity is via membership of groups and social categories - social identity
2. Groups and social categories and the social identity with it, have. Certain positive or negative value.


1. Want to identify with positive groups more than negative groups
3. People want to achieve and want to maintain a positive social identity (self-esteem)


1. "We won"
2. "They lost"
4. A negative social identity is unsatisfying and will activate coping mechanisms


1. "They lost"

Self Concept - Cognitive

Awareness of group membership

Self Concept - Evaluative

Value of group membership

Self Concept - Affective

Emotional meaning of the group membership

Social Identification

The degree to which someone gets their social identity from the group

Why people engage in social identification

1. Increase self-esteem


1. Possibility to distinguish own group in positive way from other groups
2. Reduce uncertainty


1. Group norms tell you how to act, what to think, what to feel
3. Base for self-definition


1. Part of the self is seen in terms of the group

Categorization

The process of understanding what something is by knowing what other this it is equivalent to and what other things it is different from

Why do we need categories?

We need categories to make sense of people.


1. Reduced complexity of the world
2. Gives us knowledge
3. Tells us what to predict or to expect
4. (Illusion) of control

 



Social Categorization

* To identify individuals as members of a social group based on shared features
* Helps us to be efficient in interactions with others

How Social Categorization can cause trouble

* Can cause trouble:
* Enlarges differences between groups
* Reduces differences within groups

Consequences of social categorization

Existing differences between members of same category will be minimalized



Differences between categories will be exaggerated

Affective consequences of social categorization

Prejudice: People have more positive feelings for ingroup member than outgroup members (prejudice)

Cognitive consequences of social categorization

Steteotype: people have beliefs about features/characteristics of groups; ingroup information will be processed more into depth; negative ingroup info will be more easily ignored or reasoned away (stereotyping)

Behavioural consequences of social categorization

Discrimination: people trust ingroup members more than outgroup members (discrimination)

Stereotype

Mental representation of a social category; generalization of a group - idential characteristics are assigned to all members

Prejudice

A positive or negative evaluation of a social category and its members. Often used negative. Ther evaluation is based ONLY on the membership of the category

Prejudice example

women are bad in leadership, Suzy is a woman, so she is bad in leadership

Stereotype example

Women are emotional

Discrimination

Every positive or negative behaviour towards and based on a social category and its members

Discrimination example

Women are bad in leadership, Suzy won't get the leadership job because she is a woman.

Jane Elliot discrimination experiment

“blue eyes” vs “brown eyes” children

Measuring stereotypes

Implicit measures

Implicit stereotyping

Outside of awareness and without conscious intent

Reactivity

knowing being measured makes people respond inconsistent with natural reactions and beliefs

Bolstering

* more extreme viewpoints in public
* E.g. when you ask people about their stereotypes when you ask them in public

IAT (Implicit Associations Test) critique

* Controversy if it truly measures attitude/implicit prejudice
* Does it measure culture?
* Lack of familiarity?
* How malleable is it?
* Prev. exposure to pos or neg minority does change result
* Just before you take the test, if you see on social media, news, have a very positive or negative encounter with outgroup, can influence results on this test
* Faking can be detected

Where do stereotypes come from?

Personal experience (saliency, illusionary correlation), Social learning (

Illusionary correlation

The belief that two variables are associated with one another when no real association exists

Group size and stereotyping

More positive information than negative information given for both groups

\
What happens IRL: They overestimate negative information for minority group, because the sample is smaller.

This explains how the illusory correlation exists, in a sense.

Face-ism

The prominence for body in women’s pictures vs. prominence for face in men’s pictures

Effect of Face-ism

When face is prominent, it is seen as more intelligent and ambitious

Effect of “women belong at home” commercials

Women have less confidence, less aspirations

Protection of the stereotype

counter-stereotypic behaviour is 'explained away’: Behaviour results in surprise and triggers memories of stereotypic behaviour, which strengthens the stereotype