Social Psychology Week 7 Notes
Social Psychology Week 7 Notes PSY 270-001
Popular in psy orientation soc psy
verified elite notetaker
Popular in Psychology
verified elite notetaker
This 4 page Class Notes was uploaded by Bailey Anderson on Wednesday October 5, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to PSY 270-001 at Indiana State University taught by Dr. Sheets in Fall 2016. Since its upload, it has received 5 views. For similar materials see psy orientation soc psy in Psychology at Indiana State University.
Reviews for Social Psychology Week 7 Notes
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
Date Created: 10/05/16
Social Psychology Week 7 Notes o Examples: Titles Researcher called nurse, identified as Dr. (unknown name) and gave instructions for excess dose 95% of nurses were caught headed to room with drug Uniform/dress Bickman’s RAs told people to “put money in parking meter” cond 1 dressed normal, cond 2 dressed in uniform No uniform= 45% compliance Uniform= 95% compliance Speaking style Selfconfidence; talking fast Frank Abagnale. Jr. (Catch me if you can) Pilot, doctor, lawyer Sales examples? Crest & ADA How do we avoid? research, ask questions if really expert Don’t the girls all get prettier at closing time? song 52 males, 51 females in 3 bars in TX 3 M/F teams entered bars (1 per bar) at 9, 10:30, and 12 (cars closed at 12:30 Asked to rate people of opposite sex 110 Also how would you rate members of own sex? Ratings of opposite sex increased Ratings of own sex not affected Others studied show not due to alcohol Scarcity Scarcity when things are in limited supply (rare), value goes up o Unilever shampoo (in Lindstrom’s Buyology) Put “contains X9 factor” on bottle as a joke When later removed from label, got complaints o Sales examples: car commercials (they’re going fast), fast food (limited time), black Friday shopping o Scarcity & competition Scheduled to see apartment: 5 other couples there to make you feel like you need to make a decision and buy quickly Liking o No surprise we are persuaded by people we like o What kind of people do we like? Similarity people prefer candidates (Bush vs Kerry) when own faces are morphed with them (but only moderates). Also, people asked to do favor (read and critique essay) 2x as likely when shared birthday (Yee) Physical attractiveness we are all more persuaded by attractive people Lower bails, less likely to be found guilty, more likely to win elections Car with attr woman is rated as “faster and more appealing” Good feelings 99 German students: how do you know you like someone? “you feel good when they are around” Optimism People who feed us People don’t like being controlled and may rebel Psychological Reactance o Karl Pearson at Cambridge (1880s) Went to dean and said “I can’t abide by this requirement that I attend Chapple everyday” dean said okay I’m not going to force you. Dean notices Pearson sitting in Chapple We have the same reaction to heavyhanded influence attempts like those we’ve discussed Compliance may not yield attitude change Dissonance required “insufficient justification” Let’s switch to “persuasion” via “central” route, which may evoke less reactance Central Route Persuasion How can we get people to think before making up mind? o Focus on conscious attitudinal change o Central route= mindfulness= thinking o Characteristics of Messenger (s) Who is persuasive? “credible” (believable)= expert + trustworthy, also eye contact, lack of hesitation, not persuading If arguments run contrary to expectations “similar/likeable” are also persuasive (especially on values/tastes) but not always mindful “multiple sources (communicators)” maybe mindful if decision independent but maybe social proof What makes a message persuasive? o a.) Get attention, b.) understandable, c.) convincing, d.) memorable, e.) compelling (motivate behavior) o What affects these? Logic (reason) vs Emotional Reason is more “central”, but not always most persuasive Humor (a) + (d), but mindful? Recall: good feelings Fear can be powerful mechanism (a)+(e) –if give “solution” (or generate helplessness) Repetition Repeated information is more believable (c)+(d) Sleeper effect (even discredited ) Relevant messages (a) Study: college students read messages about possibility of creating a graduation exam. Given either weak arguments (other schools have) or strong arguments (insure future jobs) Also: some people told it wouldn’t start for 10 years (low relevance), others were told it would start next year so they would have to take it (high relevance). They measured their agreement. Strong agreement when relevance is high and low agreement when relevance is low. 2 sided If the audience is wellinformed, likely to hear the other side, or against you, present both sides of the argument. If two sides are being presented, by you, or someone else (as in a debate), should you present your “target” message first or last? first because of primacy effect (what you see first is more impressionable and given more weight) 1sided if the audience is with you Order of presentation (c)+(d) Present first However, present last if there’s a long timelag o Mode (channel) of Persuasion Persontoperson is typically most persuasive but not always mindfully (+not costeffective) Media (TV/radio) also influences Two step process (media effects “leaders” who affect others) Step 1 may be mindful, but perhaps not step 2 Don’t discount written words Written is effective for complex/diff messages o Characteristics of the Audience/Situation: what type of audiences most persuaded? Younger audiences (mindful or liberal?) Intelligent and hi in cognition audience persuaded via “thinking” How can we promote “mindfulness” or thinking in an audience? Minimize distractions Get them active/involved: how? Asking questions (even rhetorical) and allowing time for thought. Generating reflection/discussion (in groups) Make people responsible for evaluation of points (ex: give a list of arguments and have them check them off as you go through them) Lewin (1943) w/ M. Mead: WWII Organ Meats studies – can we get americans to eat other cuts of meat so we can send the good meat to the military. Nutritionists talked to groups of people and talked about the value and talk about how you could use them in meals and encouraged them to try it. The lectures were affective about 10% of the time. in another condtion: divide audience up into groups that would have discussions about how they could use these meats in the meals and the nutritionists would just offer opioion. Over half of these groups tried these meats.