Social psych exam 2 boogaloo

Lets get this easy A

Attutides

Beliefs that have an evaluative connotation attached to them, whether it be postitive or negative

Components of attitudes

• Affective

• Behavioral

• Cognitive

Affective

Feelings, likes and values (I love my Roomba)

Behavioral

Intent to act (I run my Roomba a lot)

Cognitive

Beliefs; informational (This vacuum has so many great features holey moley)

Explicit

Attitudes that we consciously endorse and easily report

Implicit

Unconscious attitudes that are involuntary and uncontrolled

Bosson, Swann & Pennebaker (2000)

• Implicit

• Rate letters and numbers; the ones that correspond to you personally are signs of good self-esteem (E, A, 22, 11, 13)

• Signature size? Higher self-esteem, larger signature

Explicit units of measurement

• Rosenburg self-esteem scale

• Attitudes towards obese persons scale

Attitudes often formed early in age-

-diverge

AgrestOm & Rooth, 2011

• Job candidates were matched on equal credentials

• 1 was altered to look more obese

• Hiring managers took IAT scores

Results from AgrestOm & Rooth, 2011

• IAT scores predicted who was invited for interviews

• Higher IAT bias, less invites for obese candidates

Attitudes influence

Behavior

Borgida & Campbell (1982)

Pro-environment: signing anti-parking lot petition (also was consistent)

Are attitudes good predictors of behavior?

LaPiere (1930) hotel study

• Called hotels in advance asking if they would serve them (Chinese couple)

• 92% said no over the phone

• 1% actually went through and turned the couple away

When are attitudes a better predictor of behaviors?

• Attitudes are very strong

• Attitudes are specific

• The closer together the attitude and behavior are measured

• Social influences are minimized

Subjective norms

Perceptions about other peoples beliefs

Cognitive dissonance

State of tension when a person holds 2 attitudes that contradict each other

Dissonance is unpleasant, so people are motivated to

Reduce it

Cognitive dissonance is MOST strong when it

Threatens self-esteem

Festinger's Cognitive Dissonance Theory experiment

• First study of cognitive dissonance

• All did a boring knob-turning task

• Then they were asked to tell another participant that the knob task was fun :3

• ½ were paid $1, ½ were paid $20. All told the lie

Results from Festinger's Cognitive Dissonance Theory experiment

• They were asked how much they liked the task

• $20 group didn’t like it AT ALL, $1 group said they enjoyed it

Post-decisional dissonance

A form of regret that perhaps we didn't make the best choice

To avoid post-decisional dissonance, we

INCREASE favorability of what we chose, and DECREASE favorability of what we did not

Brehm (1956)

• Post-decisional dissonance

• Rank an order of appliances

• Able to take home one of the products, either #4 or #5 choice

Brehm (1956) results

Asked to rerank items; item they took home moved up, the rest would go down

Dissonance theory:

To avoid feeling bad, people think about good qualities of chosen products and bad of the unchosen

Self-perception theory:

What did I do? I chose the toaster. Why? I probably like it

Dissonance theory is a good theory for

Why we change attitudes

Self-perception theory is good at

Explaining the formation of an attitude

Zanne and Cooper (1974)—Dissonance as arousal

• 1/3 would experience arousal

• 1/3 told nothing of symptoms

• 1/3 told would feel relaxed

• All wrote counter-attitudional essays

Zanne and Cooper (1974) results

• ALL felt arousal after writing essay

• After writing essay they measured attitude change

• Those who thought they were aroused due to the pull had little attitude change

• Those who were told no info showed A LOT of attitude change

• Those who were told they were going to be aroused had the MOST attitude change

Yale attitude change approach

“Who said what to whom?"

Credibility

Expertise/confidence sells credibility

Miller, Maruyama, Beaber and Valone (1967)

Participants heard audios of the negative effects of caffeine from a locksmith and a biochemist

Results from Miller, Maruyama, Beaber and Valone (1967)

Biochemist was deemed most persuasive reguardless of talking speed

Message variables

Emotional vs rational

Emotional

Use for identical products. Use trendy music, celebrity endorsements. Pepsi v Coca-Cola

Rational

If different products, emphasize what makes it unique, distinct. Comparing universities

One-sided message

Speaker = audience. Dont compare to competition. All pro all day.

• Works when it matches what the audience wants to hear

Two-sided message

Trying to convince someone who doesn't match you.

• Convincing a show shoveler ($) to buy a snowblower ($$$). Explaining pros and cons

Leventhal, Watts and Pagano (1967)

• 1/3 shown graphic video and were given a pamphlet

• 1/3 only shown video

• 1/3 only given pamphlet

Results from Leventhal, Watts and Pagano (1967)

Pamplet was least effective, duo was VERY effective.

Fear messages with solutions are

Extremely effective

Target variables

• Strength of attitude

• Importance of attitudes

Cesario and Higgins (2008)

IVs: nonverbal cues: eager v vigilant delivery style; regulatory style, promotion/prevention

Cesario and Higgins (2008) results

Precaution with a vigilant style had a high persuasion rate, follow prevention is good with vigilance, and promotion is good with eagerness

Distracability

Distracted = more persuation

Forewarned

Will not be persecuted

Mood

Good mood = more persuaded

Reactance theory - Brehm (1967)

When administering too strong a prohibition (threatens your freedom), the prohibition may boomerange and lead to an increase in the prohibited activity (restore freedom)

Wright, Wadley, Denner and Philips (1992) - attractive dates study

• Chose between equally attractive dates: A or B

• No threat: Ability to choose however, YOU choose

• Mind threat: “Hey I really like A, but you do you bruh”

• High threat: “You have to choose A; there's no way you can't."

Wright, Wadley, Denner and Philips (1992) results

• No threat: 57% chose A over B

• Mind threat: 86% chose A over B

• High threat: 14% chose A over B