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

Lecture notes from Week 8

by: Ivy Notetaker

Lecture notes from Week 8 Psyc 3580

Marketplace > Auburn University > Psychology > Psyc 3580 > Lecture notes from Week 8
Ivy Notetaker
GPA 3.38

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 Psychology lecture notes from Oct 4 and Oct 6
Social Psychology
Dr. Gitter
Class Notes
25 ?




Popular in Social Psychology

Popular in Psychology

This 7 page Class Notes was uploaded by Ivy Notetaker on Friday October 7, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to Psyc 3580 at Auburn University taught by Dr. Gitter in Fall 2016. Since its upload, it has received 3 views. For similar materials see Social Psychology in Psychology at Auburn University.


Reviews for Lecture notes from Week 8


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: 10/07/16
Social Psychology Dr. Gitter 10/4/16 Attitudes Do attitudes predict behavior? ­ Wicker (1969): Attitudes sometimes fail to predict behavior o E.g. volunteering, the environment ­ However, there are times that attitudes do predict behavior ­ In order to see this in experiments, you must assure participants’ confidentiality. Behavior’s Influence on Attitudes ­ Foot­in­the­door phenomenon (Freedman and Fraser, 1966) o Half of participants were asked to put small sign in window of their house that  said “wear your seatbelt”­ foot in the door o Several weeks later, all participants were asked to put large, ugly sign in their  driveway, also said “wear your seatbelt” o Results: the ones that agreed to small sign= 76% agreed to big sign, the ones that  did not agree to small sign= 17% agreed to big sign o People favor acting in a consistent manner: become more of an advocate for  wearing seatbelts because of signs in the yard/window ­ Cognitive dissonance­ tension that arises when one becomes aware of inconsistency  between thoughts, attitudes, and behavior o When you recognize that you’re being hypocritical or inconsistentwe must make it make sense to us Ex. If the people with small signs refused big signs= dissonance o This dissonance/tension motivates changing something.  Ex. People who smoke cigarettes: in public, someone comes up and tells smoker that  smoking kills you (assuming this is new information to smoker)feeling of  dissonanceshould motivate smoker to quit smoking (but more likely to make  excuses to make self feel better while still smoking b/c its addicting)  Cognitive gymnastics­ back and forth with facts and excuses to calm the  dissonance and not to quit smoking but still feel good about self Ex. agreeing to write essay favoring tuition increases (forced vs. “chosen”)  Half of group forced to write pro­increase essay: didn’t change attitude  about tuition, blamed essay on others, “made me do it”  Half of group were coerced but made own choice to write pro­increase  essay: attitude shifted­ more favorable to increase in tuition, can’t blame  others because they made their own choice Cognitive Dissonance Theory ­ Post­Decision Dissonance (Brehm, 1956) o Women rated household objects of similar value (toaster, radio, etc) o Identified 2 objects that rated more similarly and gave them options to choose one of those objects to take home. o Made them re­rate items: rates changed for selected items:  Rated selected (to take home) item higher  Rater other item lower o Shows how we work to justify our decisions. o Spend more time thinking about decision after decision is made than before. ­ Attitude change is more likely is there is insufficient justification for the behavior.  o Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) o Participants turn knobs for an hour o Paid $1 or $20 to tell next person that study is interesting (or no lie­control group) o Measured participants’ attitude toward knob turning after they had to tell the lie  Results:   control­ didn’t like knob turning at all  $1 group­ actually like it the most, much more favorability to knob turning, told self they enjoyed it b/c $1 wasn’t enough reason to  just do it for the money­ must enjoy it to lie about it for just a  dollar  $20 group­ liked it was much as the control group­ not very much,  justify lie to other participants because of the money o Why is this Dr. Gitter’s favorite study? They never gave any of them the money! Cognitive Dissonance and Effort Justification ­    Cognitive dissonance can make you like something you should hate o Hazing­ I went through all this pain, I must be devoted ­    Effort Justification (Aronson and Mills, 1959) o Participants had signed up for a sex discussion group. o Upon arrival, “new recruits” had to:  Control­ do nothing to be allowed in  Experimental­ pass embarrassment test Mild test­ say virgin, prostitute out loud to male experimenter Severe test­ recite obscene words and read from sex novels to male experimenter  o Showed them video of last meeting­ very boring about ant sex; asked how likely  they were to come to the next meeting  Results: Severe test­ wanted to come back to meetings Mild test­ semi­likely to come back to meetings Control group­ didn’t want to go to meetings at all **The harder you work on something, the more favorably you will remember it. Linking to previous content: ­ Many of the strategies we talked about earlier help people to avoid/reduce dissonance.  ­ I’m a smart person, but I failed that test. o It’s someone else’s fault. ­ I have a strong political attitude but I just found out there’s a problem with that attitude. o I seek out information in a confirmatory manner to support my beliefs. Attitude Polarization ­ Some attitudes are very difficult to change.  o Called embedded attitudes­ embedded in a network of thoughts o Tend to be highly polarized attitudes (political beliefs) o Associated with other attitudes ­ Especially if you challenge those attitudes! Attitude Polarization Experiment: ­ Participants recruited to either pro or anti­death penalty. o Asked to read studies about death penalty. ­ Those who pro­death penalty: o Spent more time with and agreed with supporting articles. ­ Those who anti­death penalty:  o Spent more time and agreed with more dissenting articles. ­ Everyone’s attitudes got stronger. ­ Just thinking about an attitude makes it stronger. o Generate new arguments in favor of own attitude (and counterarguments to  support one’s attitude against opposition) o Confirmation bias­ the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of  one’s existing beliefs and theories (Google it) ­ Challenging someone’s attitude (with weak attacks) can actually make it stronger.  o Especially if you are an outgroup member. Beliefs ­    Beliefs tend to be more resistant to change o Beliefs­ explanations (of an event or person) o Attitudes­ evaluations (of an event or person) 10/6/16 Influence Social Influence tactics: ­ Capitalize on human choice o Forceful requests can lead to reluctance (Brehm, 1966) o To avoid reactance, influence attempts to try to use choice rather than force. ­ Influence tactics are often based on Heuristics  o Normally work well for us… o Problem is, we over­rely on them. o Each tactic capitalizes on important goals/motivations.  Ex. salespeople Accuracy ­    Goal #1­ to be accurate­ we want to make the right decision Social Validation: ­ Heuristic: when in doubt, go with majority opinions; do what everyone else does Examples: o Sitcoms and canned laughter o Crowd count­ different news shows reported different numbers to show support or not for candidate o Salting the tip jar­ we tip when other people have already tipped; put money in tip jar o Lines for nightclubs­ makes people want to go into bar o Saying things are “#1 selling”­ more people want to go into bar ­ Especially effective when: o The crowd is similar to you.  o The right behavior is ambiguous.  Informational social influence­ looking to see what others are doing in  order to make your decision Authority ­ Heuristic: people in authority know more than me o Consumer reports, Better Business Bureau, going to the doctor o Note: it is important to look at the type of authority   Pro football player on retirement ad; doesn’t worry about retirement  because he’s got money  “Doctors” smoke camels cigarettes­ wanted people to think camels were  healthier than other brands.  “Doctor recommended”­ failed doctors selling themselves to drug  companies Scarcity ­ Heuristic: something that is scarce has value o Diamonds are more valuable than coal because it’s rarer. o Supply and demand­ more you have, less its worth.  o Sometimes related to social validation­ it’s scarce because people want it Examples: o Limited number tactic: “only so many in stock!” o Deadline technique: “For today only…”, “one day sale!” Managing the self­image ­    Goal #2: to manage our self­image ­    Heuristic: we should be consistent and stick to our commitments ­    4 general tactics: o All resulting from cognitive dissonance   Get us to identify our attitudes/opinions…  …makes us have to comply to be consistent with those attitudes/opinions o Foot­in­the­door­ make small request, follow­up later with a larger, related  request  “Try focus factor for 30 days!” o Low­ball­ initial small cost gets compliance, extra costs tacked on later  “Car only 13k!” (not counting tax, titles, tires, insurance, and engine) o Bait­and­switch­ lured client in with great deal…  “Stereos 50% off!”; then convince them of a better deal; “that’s a piece of  junk, try this one!”; or inform them of the conditions of the deal “that’s  only our low­end models” o Labeling­ “you look like a generous person…would you like to donate money?” **Don’t have to know difference between 4; know that they’re all based on cognitive  dissonance. Approval and Acceptance ­    Goal #3­ Gaining social approval and acceptance  o Reciprocity: (we do this naturally in relationships) ­    Heuristic: you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours Examples: o Hari Krishnas and free flowers­ give out cheap, plastic flowers and ask for  donations; gift first then reciprocity o Sign up for credit card and get a free t­shirt. o Publishers Clearing House­ chance to win millions ­ That’s not all! I have one more reciprocity technique for you! o Remember foot­in­the­door… o Well, door­in­the­face works too!  Stars with initially large request.  Start with initially large request. o Would you mind donating 2 hours of your time per week  for the next 2 years?  Back down and make a concession.  How about just 2 hours this week? o Without initial request­ only 29% compiled o With initial request­ 76% compiled Liking ­ Heuristic: If someone you like asks for a favor, it pays to say yes Exploitation: o “Hi Mr. Gitter, may I call you Seth?”  “That’s Dr. Gitter to you!” o “Oh you’re from Wisconsin, so is my cousin!”  Capitalizing on similarity/shared group membership. o Use of attractive sales people  Sexy fundraisers study o Made in USA signs and Auburn decorations in stores  o Look at all the great friends you’ll have! ­ Finally… o Not all influence techniques use heuristics.  Some actually try to stop their influence.  o The Pique technique­ try to peak person’s interest; get them out of normal routine; homeless people asking for 37 cents instead of just change How do we stop influence? ­ Again, most of these capitalize on useful heuristics. o But we’re over­relying on them.  ­ To stop influence, need to remain aware of the situation and rethink requests salesperson  makes. o Is he really my friend? o Don’t they have sales all the time? o Would I have bought this if I knew how much it would end up costing me? o If this really is a “free gift”, do I really owe you anything? Persuasion ­ Change in people’s private attitude or belief as a result of receiving ­ Different from social influence: change in behavior Cognitive Response Model ­ What is heard is more important than what is said o Focus on self­talk  What type of thoughts are elicited by the message ­ Effectiveness of a message determined by the thoughts evoked by the message. ­ Thoughts dependent on: o Audience (who is listening) o Communicator (who is speaker, gender, race) o The Message (what is being said) Central vs. Peripheral techniques Central ­ Deep processing audience o The message  High quality arguments  Regardless of quantity  Steal thunder o The speaker  Credible and trustworthy speaker Peripheral ­ Superficial processing audience o The message  Many arguments  Regardless of quality  Flashy presentational style  Repetition   Emotional appeals o The speaker  “credible”, “trustworthy”, and powerful speaker Personal Relevance ­ Students presented with arguments for a new comprehensive exam requirement. o Presented with either.   9 week arguments  3 strong arguments o Led to believe that the exam was either.  Relevant­ they would have to take it  Irrelevant­ wouldn’t go into effect until after they completed college  


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

Steve Martinelli UC Los Angeles

"There's no way I would have passed my Organic Chemistry class this semester without the notes and study guides I got from StudySoup."

Anthony Lee UC Santa Barbara

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

Steve Martinelli UC Los Angeles

"There's no way I would have passed my Organic Chemistry class this semester without the notes and study guides I got from StudySoup."


"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.