Social Psychology Week Eleven Notes
Social Psychology Week Eleven Notes 21198
Popular in Social Psychology
verified elite notetaker
Popular in Department
This 10 page Class Notes was uploaded by Caspar Snyder on Friday November 7, 2014. The Class Notes belongs to 21198 at University at Buffalo taught by Mark Seery in Fall2014. Since its upload, it has received 72 views.
Reviews for Social Psychology Week Eleven Notes
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
Date Created: 11/07/14
Social Psychology Week Eleven Notes More Lowball Cialdini et al 1978 0 Called for 7am psychology study 0 Told up front 24 said yes 0 Didn t tell 56 said yes I Then told given chance to back out what happened 0 No one did 95 showed up 0 Really good attendance rate even today Feel pleased with a poor choice 0 Sound like anything 0 Very similar to a dissonance like process I Attitudes come to match behavior FootintheDoor Opposite of doorin theface but still works First small request target complies Second larger real request 0 More likely to agree after first request Example rummage through house study Freedman and Fraser 1966 0 First take phone survey 0 Household products 0 Three days later second two hour inventory of home 0 Rummage through drawers cupboards etc Results of people who agreed to an inventory of their home 60 50 40 30 I of people who agreed to an inventory of their home 20 10 No Initial Request Small Initial Request More than doubled Why does it Work Based on behavior generate explanations like I m a helpful person 0 Second request helpful people help Selfperception theory we infer attitudes by observing own behavior 0 Same result as dissonance without tension 0 Why not dissonance o No large previous attitudebehavior discrepancy Face versus Foot Time 0 Face short interval between requests 0 Foot can be longer 0 Not limited by timing 0 Relationship with other person doesn t matter Requestor 0 Face same person for both 0 Foot can be different people 0 See yourself in a different way Overall Face seems more effective 0 Power of normative reciprocity 3 Scarcity Opportunities seem more valuable when they are less available 0 For a limited time only West 1975 0 Students rated cafeteria food twice 0 First bad I Typical cafeteria food 0 Second good I Food was exactly the same 0 Why I Before second rating fire had closed it for two weeks 0 Not available Scarcity Why do we care 0 Losing is more motivating than winning equal value 0 Reactance threat of losing freedoms makes us want them more 0 Freedom of opportunity 0 We react against loss of freedom Examples 0 Real estate goosing buyers off the fence 0 Say another buyer is interested 0 Auctions 0 Encourage people to experience scarcity Research Examples Dade County FL banned phosphate detergent Mazis 1975 0 More popular 0 Smuggling and hoarding detergent 0 Believed it Worked better Ads for novel Zellinger et al 1974 0 College students 0 Manipulation Restricted to 21 and up 0 Or nothing 0 Results 0 Wanted adult book more expected to like it more Speech has been banned versus nothing Worch et al 1975 0 Speech opposing coed dorms 0 Participants didn t listen to the speech 0 Results o Agreed more with the speech Petition at supermarket Heilman 1976 0 Favoring federal price controls 0 Shoppers most likely to sign petition when o Told government officials didn t want it released Implications Censorship Prohibition Government restrictions For members of fringe political group 0 best way to get agreement with unpopular views 0 Get it censored Variations of Scarcity Cookies Worchel et al 1975 0 Wanted cookies more and would pay more When o From jar with two cookies versus ten 0 Even more When 0 Switched to jar with two newly scarce versus all along 0 Most of all When 0 Cookies for other subjects demand versus experimenter mistake I Because other people Want it demand 4 Conformity Conformity again 0 Fuzzy overlap with compliance Quick examples 0 Sa1ting the tip jar o Normative pressure 0 Line at club 0 Suggests that it s busy 0 Informational in uence 0 Laugh tracks on TV 0 Laugh longer rate as funnier e g Fuller et al 1974 I Conformity starts you laughing I Consistency could keep you laughing 0 Find a clip of The Big bang Theory Without the laugh track 0 Very uncomfortable Obedience Command versus request We often blindly obey authorities Guy on the street study Bickman 1974 0 Gave random orders to passersby 0 One third obeyed 0 Security guard uniform 0 Nine out of ten obeyed Mi1gram s classic obedience studies 19605 0 Video 0 What Would you do Video To understand how the Germans exterminated the Jews Confederate received a range of shocks as punishment for getting a question wrong 0 Small voltage to extremedeadly The experiment requires you to go on 65 of people hit the highest switch Man pretends to be cop 0 Tells managers at fast food restaurants to strip search employees 0 Do jumping jacks spin in place etc 0 Told to make employee perform a sexual act on the manager s ance o Obeyed Milgram What does this show 0 The power of authority What would you do 0 You never know 2007 replication 0 Stopped at 150 volts 0 Up to that point very similar results 0 Over half still obeyed Group Behavior 1 Jury Deliberation Example of a group 0 Important realworld implications Problem can t observe real jury Solutions 0 Interview real jurors of afterwards 0 Analyze court records 0 Mock juries Jury Leadership Foreperson 0 Liaison between judge and jury 0 Calls for Votes 0 Announces Verdict Foreperson selection who gets picked Jury Leadership Foreperson selection who gets picked 0 High occupational status 0 Post jury experience 0 Table position head Versus side 0 First person to speak 0 Men over Women 0 Kerr et al 1982 179 trials in San Diego 39 50 female jurors 10 forepersons 0 Men take the prominent seats I And often speak first Foreperson in uence 0 More time talking about procedure 0 Less time expressing opinion 0 Moderator not a leader 0 No extra in uence Dynamics of Deliberation Three stages e g Hastie et al 1983 0 1 Orientation 0 Set agenda o Raise questions 0 Explore facts 0 2 Open con ict o Begins with differences of opinion I First Vote 0 More argumentative o Scrutinize evidence construct stories o No agreement in uence holdouts 0 3 Reconciliation 0 Once unanimous verdict achieved o Affirm satisfaction with verdict Outcomes Kalven and Zeisel 1966 225 juries 0 215 in initial majority o 209 97 same final verdict 0 Deliberation clarifies details but outcome mostly determined 0 Most of the time One exception leniency bias 0 Definition tendency for deliberation to produce a tilt towards acquittal 0 Individuals convict more alone versus in group Mock Jury Studies Kerr 1981 In uence How are disagreements resolved Remember two types of in uence 0 Normative 0 Informational 0 Which should a juror ideally respond to o Informational Combos of both 0 But increased normative when 0 Public vote 0 Deadlocked and urged by judge Jury Size US 0 Twelve some states adopted six 0 Advantage o Cheaper with six Upheld by Supreme Court in 1970 0 Argument resistance depends on proportional size of majority o Cited Asch Studies 0 51 sameas 102 0 Believed the people who arrived at this logic wouldn t pass high school Saks 1974 Does this Matter Six person mock juries review by Saks and Marti 1997 0 Less minority representation 0 Less discussion 0 More unanimous verdicts 0 Fewer hung juries I Lose safe guard Worse to convict innocent or free guilt Nonunanimous Verdicts Upheld 5 4 by Supreme Court in 1972 0 Logic even when majority reached discussion continues Hastie et al 1983 mock juries 0 Same murder trial 0 Video 0 Ambiguous 0 Manipulation unanimous versus non unanimous 0 Debate like real jurors Nonunanimous Verdicts Results non unanimous 0 Less discussion 0 More voting 0 More bullying style 0 End discussion when majority reached 0 Rated peers as more close minded 0 Reported less confidence in verdict Court s argument 0 Not sound If you were a defendant Today a few allow criminal many civil