Social Psych Week 5
Social Psych Week 5 Psych 360
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
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
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'