New User Special Price Expires in

Let's log you in.

Sign in with Facebook


Don't have a StudySoup account? Create one here!


Create a StudySoup account

Be part of our community, it's free to join!

Sign up with Facebook


Create your account
By creating an account you agree to StudySoup's terms and conditions and privacy policy

Already have a StudySoup account? Login here

Social Psych Week 5

by: Katie Truppo

Social Psych Week 5 Psych 360

Katie Truppo
GPA 3.4

Preview These Notes for FREE

Get a free preview of these Notes, just enter your email below.

Unlock Preview
Unlock Preview

Preview these materials now for free

Why put in your email? Get access to more of this material and other relevant free materials for your school

View Preview

About this Document

Social Psych
Dr. Lowell Gaertner
Class Notes
social, Psychology
25 ?




Popular in Social Psych

Popular in Psychology (PSYC)

This 5 page Class Notes was uploaded by Katie Truppo on Friday August 26, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to Psych 360 at University of Tennessee - Knoxville taught by Dr. Lowell Gaertner in Fall 2016. Since its upload, it has received 4 views. For similar materials see Social Psych in Psychology (PSYC) at University of Tennessee - Knoxville.


Reviews for Social Psych Week 5


Report this Material


What is Karma?


Karma is the currency of StudySoup.

You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!

Date Created: 08/26/16
Attitude (cont.) V. Behavior Affects Attitude A. Cognitive Dissonance as Cognitive Consistency (Leon Festinger) Studied a cult who believed aliens would rescue them before end of world After they didn’t get rescued, they believed just as strongly and justified previous beliefs 1. Relationship Among Cognitions: consonant, dissonant, irrelevant Consonant: consistent Loving animals, having a pet Dissonant: inconsistent Hating animals, having a pet Irrelevant Loving pizza, having a pet 2. Cognitive Dissonance When we are aware of inconsistencies, we have unpleasant sense of tension This motivates us to restore consistency 3. Intensity of Dissonance Intensity can vary Influenced by importance of beliefs and amount of inconsistencies 4. Reducing the Dissonance 1. Change One of the Cognitions Deny/justify 2. Add Consonant Cognitions Justify 3. Change the Importance of the Cognition How important behavior is to you 5. Classic studies of Cognitive Dissonance E.g., Festinger and Carlsmith (1959 pegboard task. Participants pick up peg an turn it for an hour Participants asked to convince others that it’s fun, offered $1 or $20 Questionairre asking how much enjoyed, $1 liked study more Convinced themselves they liked it to justify lying for a dollar E.g., Aronson and Mills (1959) initiation Female participants joined ongoing discussion group about sex Either had to read explicit sex words and story, or had to read clinical words (anatomical), then listened to boring discussion Explicit participants rated discussion as more enjoyable because they embarrassed themselves and needed to justify the discussion as interesting B. Cognitive Dissonance as Self-Protection Reinterpreted as a response to a threat to the self, rather than a response to cognitive inconsistency Efforts to reduce the dissonance are viewed as efforts for self-protection 1. Factors Necessary to Arouse Dissonance a. Behavior Produces an Aversive Event Realize you did something that caused an aversive outcome b. Person Accepts Responsibility for the Aversive Event 1. Believe you freely chose what you did 2. Believe that aversive consequences were foreseeable 2. Example of Process E.g., Nel, Helmrich & Aronson (1969) Incentive (high vs low pay for counterattiduinal message) X Audience (Promessage, Antimessage, Undecided) C. Cognitive Dissonance: Self-Protection as Consistency D. Bem’s Self-Perception Theory (Daryl Bem) In absence of restraint, we make internal attribution E. Evidence of Dissonance-Arousal Eg. Zanna & Cooper (1974): (Low vs High choice for counter attitudinal essay) X (alleged effect of a Pill) Participants had to write an essay about something they don’t believe Either forced to write it, people made to write on topic they don’t believe in a way that they thought they chose Everyone had to take pill (placebo) and told either it makes you feel tense, no effects, or relaxed Low choice people’s attitude weren’t affected by pill, high choice attitude changed because they couldn’t attribute it to pill E.g., Cooper, Zanna, & Taves (1978) (Low vs High choice for counter att essay) x (Placebo vs Tranquilizer) Half given placebo, half tranquilizer, told no effect Only people that took placebo and wrote under free choice, felt dissonace VI. Persuasion: Active Attempt to Change Attitude Persuasion is an active attempt to change attitudes. A. Message Learning Approach Carl Hovland The person must ATTEND (pay attention to), COMPREHEND (understand), and RETAIN (remember) the message. A.1. Characteristics of the Source: Who is Persuasive? a. Credibility Expertise: expert in field sometimes more persuasive Trustworthiness: sometimes more persuasive b. Attractiveness A.2. Characteristics of the Message: What Messages are Persuasive? a. Number of Arguments: sometimes fewer were persuasive, sometimes more b. 1 sided vs. 2 sided messages Recognize only one side or both sides of view, both sometimes persuasive A.3. Characteristics of the Target: Who is persuaded? Person impacts persuasion B. Cognitive Response Theory: Greenwald and Brock More favorable thoughts lead to persuasion, less favorable less persuasion B.1. Distraction Attempt to stop people from thinking in order to persuade E.g., Festinger and Maccoby (1964) Fraternity brothers listened to anti fraternity message One video was synced words and person, other was out of sync (distracting) Out of sync audio people were persuaded more than in sync people E.g., Osterhouse and Brock (1970) Participants told to count lights while listening to counter attitudinal message, some fast flashing some slow Asked to generate own thoughts, people with slow lights generated more counter thoughts and were less persuaded B.2. Forewarning People come up with own argument against message when told about message beforehand, prevents persuasion C. Elaboration Likelihood Model: Petty and Cacioppo (1981) C.1. Two Routes to Persuasion C.1.a. Central Processing Actively think about message, engaged and generate own thoughts Active thoughts lead to persuasion C.1.b. Peripheral Processing Not attending and thinking about message Message doesn’t persuade us, but peripheral cues do (expertise, attractiveness) C.2. Motivation & Ability Determine The Route Active thoughts require us to be motivated and able to think about it C.3. Paradigm in which Petty & Cacioppo Tested the ELM Three variables were manipulated: Involvement, Source Cue, and Message Strength. C.3.a Involvement Half Ohio State Seniors told they will have to pass comprehensive exams to graduate, other half told it would happen in 10 years C.3.b Source Cue Hear message arguing for exams Half told it’s college professor, other half from high school student C.3.c Message Quality Strong messages: designed to elicit favorable thoughts Weak message: not elicit favorable thoughts


Buy Material

Are you sure you want to buy this material for

25 Karma

Buy Material

BOOM! Enjoy Your Free Notes!

We've added these Notes to your profile, click here to view them now.


You're already Subscribed!

Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'

Why people love StudySoup

Jim McGreen Ohio University

"Knowing I can count on the Elite Notetaker in my class allows me to focus on what the professor is saying instead of just scribbling notes the whole time and falling behind."

Anthony Lee UC Santa Barbara

"I bought an awesome study guide, which helped me get an A in my Math 34B class this quarter!"

Bentley McCaw University of Florida

"I was shooting for a perfect 4.0 GPA this semester. Having StudySoup as a study aid was critical to helping me achieve my goal...and I nailed it!"


"Their 'Elite Notetakers' are making over $1,200/month in sales by creating high quality content that helps their classmates in a time of need."

Become an Elite Notetaker and start selling your notes online!

Refund Policy


All subscriptions to StudySoup are paid in full at the time of subscribing. To change your credit card information or to cancel your subscription, go to "Edit Settings". All credit card information will be available there. If you should decide to cancel your subscription, it will continue to be valid until the next payment period, as all payments for the current period were made in advance. For special circumstances, please email


StudySoup has more than 1 million course-specific study resources to help students study smarter. If you’re having trouble finding what you’re looking for, our customer support team can help you find what you need! Feel free to contact them here:

Recurring Subscriptions: If you have canceled your recurring subscription on the day of renewal and have not downloaded any documents, you may request a refund by submitting an email to

Satisfaction Guarantee: If you’re not satisfied with your subscription, you can contact us for further help. Contact must be made within 3 business days of your subscription purchase and your refund request will be subject for review.

Please Note: Refunds can never be provided more than 30 days after the initial purchase date regardless of your activity on the site.