PSC151 Notes MT2 PDF

Preview

Summary

Lecture notes for the second midterm of Social Psychology taken in Fall 2018 with Professor Amber Sanchez at UC Davis....

Description

Lecture 6 (October 19, 2018): Attitudes ● Why study attitudes? ○ Attitudes are ubiquitous ■ We are not neutral observers ■ We evaluate what we encounter ○ Lay belief is that attitudes predict behavior ■ And that altering attitudes is the key to changing behavior ● Definition ○ Attitude–an evaluation of a person, object, or idea. ■ (i.e. the attitude object) ○ “A psychological tendency that is expressed by evaluating a particular entity with some degree of favor or disfavor” ■ Attitudes can be positive, negative, or even somewhere in between (ambivalent) ○ Attitudes are functional ■ Provide “valenced summaries of one’s environment” that serve to direct approach/avoidance responding ■ Attitudes help us know what to avoid and what to approach ● Types of Attitudes ○ Although attitudes have all three components, one component may be central: ○ Affectively-based attitude–centered  more on emotional reaction ○ Behaviorally-based attitude–centered  on how one responds to an object ○ Cognitively-based attitude–centered  on beliefs and thoughts about object ● Ex: ABC model ○ Attitude: I don’t like smoking ■ Affect: emotional reaction ● “I hate smoking” → “Cigars smell gross” ■ Behavior: actions/observable behavior ● “I don’t smoke” → “I look at smokers with disdain” ■ Cognition: thoughts & beliefs ● “Smoking causes cancer and is expensive” ○ It’s possible for all three to be present, but usually one is stronger ● Types of Attitudes ○ Explicit attitudes–attitudes  that we consciously endorse and can easily report ■ Usually based on more recent experiences ○ Implicit attitudes–attitudes  that involuntary, uncontrollable, and (sometimes) unconscious ■ More based on past experiences

■ Happen very quickly and you feel like you don’t have control over it; automatic ■ Hold implicit attitudes towards all types of attitude objects because overtime we develop learned associations between an evaluation and a particular object ● The Study of Attitudes ○ Measuring attitudes ■ Explicit measures: Self-report ● Self-report measures ○ E.g. likert scales: numeric scale used to assess attitudes, includes a set of possible answers with labeled anchors on each end ● Bogus pipeline ○ Participants self-report their attitudes while connected to a “lie-detector” ○ Participants think they’re hooked up to a polygraph and they answer questions; called bogus because researcher lies saying that they “know” their true attitudes ■ Covert (subtle) measures ● Indirect measures that do not involve self-report (nonverbal behavior; typically physiological measures) ○ Facial electromyography (EMG) ■ Detects movement in facial muscles ■ To get an emotional reactions ○ EEG, fMRI ■ Detect and identify what lights up in the brain and what activity is going on when you’re evaluating attitude objects ○ Implicit Association Test ■ A common measure ■ Not an implicit attitudes  measure ■ Between attitude object and evaluation (positive vs. negative) ■ Measures the strength of an association between a concept (object, belief, etc) and an evaluation ● Implicit Association Test (IAT) ○ Assumes that we associate the words “good” and “bad” with targets that we like and do not like ○ Associations can be measure in a reaction-time task

○ Connecting a concept to an evaluation is easier and faster with pre-existing associations ○ If a concept is paired with an evaluation that we learned over time, we tend to be faster at it ■ Called congruent (stronger association) ■ Puppy = Good ○ If it’s paired with something the opposite of what you learned, as in a weaker association, it makes us slower ■ Called incongruent (weaker association) ■ Puppy = Bad ● Attitudes and Behavior: The Saga ○ Do attitudes actually predict behavior ○ LaPiere (1934) ■ Took a japanese couple to 251 restaurants and hotels. After doing so and waiting 6 months, researcher sent a questionnaire to each establishment asking if they would accept japanese patrons. He got about a 50% response rate and of that, 90% said they would not accept them. But when he actually went with the japanese couple to the establishments, they were only refused service once. ■ Attitudes didn’t really predict behavior in this study. The attitude didn’t match up with their behavior; meta analysis (result seen through a series of studies) showed that attitudes and behavior are only weakly correlated ○ WHEN d o attitudes predict behavior? ■ When the attitude is strong ■ When the attitude is accessible ■ When the behavior is less controlled ■ When the attitude object is specific ○ Attitude strength ■ Strong attitudes are better predictors of behavior ■ Factors that influence attitude strength ● Personal importance ○ (self interest; affects me) ● Connectedness ○ (to other attitudes, values) ○ Ex: political attitude, caring about the environment, religion ● Internal consistency ○ (how intergrated the attitude is within itself – affects other attitude)

● Relationship relevance ○ (concerns close relationships- gay rights highly tied to family member who is gay; affects people I care about) ○ Implicit vs. Explicit attitudes ■ Explicit attitudes = more controlled, consciously endorsed and voluntarily reported ■ Implicit attitudes = automatic evaluations ■ Explicit attitudes predict deliberate  behavior ● If you are consciously aware of your attitude and you have a specific goal in mind, your explicit attitude will predict that behavior ● “Should I sign up to tutor high school students” ● “Which candidate should I vote for” ■ Implicit attitudes predict spontaneous  behavior ● “Who do I sit next to on the bus” ● “Do I reach for a cookie while I’m reading” ● If you have an automatic evaluation that a cookies are good, you’re more likely to do it without realizing (i.e. spontaneously ● Theory of Planned Behavior ○ Attitudes predict behavior when they are about the behavior . ○ Attitudes are only one determinant of performing behavior. To predict behavior, must also consider: ■ Subjective norms–perceived  social pressure to perform or not to perform the behavior ■ Perceived control ● Theory of Planned Behavior ○ Ex: Drinking ■ You may have an attitude about drinking: “I’m in favor of getting drunk ■ The subjective norm seems to be your friends encourage you to get drunk. ■ Perceived control here is that it’s possible that there’s nothing standing in your way, you have nothing coming up, you don’t have to worry about getting hung over, etc. ■ You have all three of these things that say that this is a good idea, so you drink. ■ This intention then guides you to a specific behavior ● Persuasian ○ Persuasion–the active and conscious effort to change attitude through transmission of message ○ Two routes to Persuasion

●

●

●

●

■ People process communication in two ways ■ Systematic thinking (“central route”): ● People are influenced by the strength and quality of the message ■ Heuristic thinking (“peripheral route”): ● People do not think critically about the contents of the message, but focus instead on other (more superficial) cues ● Mental shortcuts Systematic Thinking (Central Route) ○ Requires motivation and cognitive capacity ■ Only occurs when you’re motivated and able to think critically about the message ○ Involves systematically considering issue ○ Persuasion depends on strength and quality of message ○ Systematic thinking is not  always objective ■ Confirmation bias Heuristic Thinking (Peripheral Route) ○ Does not require motivation or capacity ○ Involves using mental shortcuts (heuristics) or rules of thumb to evaluate the message ○ Depends on mental shortcuts that are activated and used ○ Can bias systematic processing ■ These two modes of thinking are NOT mutually exclusive ● Heuristics may lead you to process only certain types of information systematically Example: Vote for Governor? ○ Heuristic: Favored by their party ■ Oh this one is a democratic, I’ll vote for him ○ Systematically: What are the pros and cons? ■ Let me think carefully about his position on various issues Which Route(s)? ○ Is the message recipient motivated to think carefully about the message? ■ Is it personally relevant ■ Does the person like thinking carefully about things? ○ Is the message recipient able to think carefully about the message? ■ Do they have time

●

●

●

●

■ Are they stressed out or busy with other things Factors that influence Persuasion ○ “Who says what to whom ○ The source ○ The message ○ The audience Source Factors ○ 2 factors ■ Credibility (not always required for a persuasive message) ● Expertise ● Trustworthiness ■ Likeability ● Similarity ● Physical attractiveness The Sleeper Effect ○ Lack of credibility will result in this ○ A delayed in increase in the persuasive impact of a non-credible source ○ Source credibility influences immediate acceptance of message...but over time, remember message and forget source ○ An initially unconvincing message from an unreliable source becomes more persuasive with the passage of time ○ In conclusion, the source matters at the moment but not later on (this is why lies spread so fast) Message Factors ○ Heuristics thinking (peripheral route) ■ If you’re thinking heuristically, you’re relying on mental shortcuts, so if you don’t have time to think systematically, you’ll believe: ● Length is strength ● Statistics = true ○ Systematic thinking (central route) ■ Argument quality ○ Message Effectiveness: Discrepancies ■ How discrepant should a message be from the audience’s position to have the greatest impact ● Most attitude change occurs at moderate discrepancy rather than an extreme one ● Large discrepancies produce more critical processing, counter-arguments ○ Message Effectiveness: Fear

■ Fear increases the incentive to change and to consider the arguments more systematically ■ Picture on slide started as a message emphasizing “affordable health care” ● Fear led people to quickly switch to “Death panel” label ■ But fear appeals are also scary ■ Effectiveness depends on: ● The strength of the arguments ○ Intense amounts of fear may backfire the message ● Whether the message contains a solution ○ If you don’t have a solution, the audience has nothing to guide their behavior ● Audience Factors ○ “Match” between the message and audience ○ Type of appeal should match up to the type of attitude ■ “I’m happy so I must like this message or this particular attitude object” ○ Need for Cognition–personality  variable reflecting how much people enjoy complex cognitive activities ■ High quality arguments work best with people high in need for cognition ■ People with low in need for cognitions will think more heuristically ○ Mood ■ Affect as information–use  current mood to inder attitude ■ BUT often misattribute the source of our emotions ■ For cognitively-based attitudes, use rational  arguments ■ For affectively-based attitudes, use emotional  appeals ● Ex: Ads that matched the source of people’s attitudes were more effective ● Salient individuals and groups ○ The mere presence (real or imagined) of others can influence our attitudes, often outside of awareness ○ Our attitudes automatically align with: ■ Salient social groups ■ Communication partners ■ Significant others ■ Total strangers Lecture 7 (October 22, 2018): Dissonance and Justification ● Cognitive Dissonance ○ Cognitive Dissonance–a  state of mental conflict ■ Leads to an unpleasant arousal state that people are motivated to reduce

■ Occurs when thoughts are inconsistent ● Ex: You SAID you oppose climate change but you don’t DO  much to stop it ● Cognition: I support being environmentally friendly ● Behavior: I drive an SUV ○ We are motivated by a desire for cognitive consistency, so beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors are all compatible ○ Cognitive Dissonance Theory ■ Inconsistent cognitions produce a psychological tension that people are motivated to reduce ■ Conflicting thoughts, feelings, and/or behavior need to be reconciled ■ Notes that when dissonance happens, people will change their thoughts/attitudes as opposed to their behavior ■ Festinger & Carlsmith (1959) ● People who were paid very little to lie said they liked the task more ● Dissonance and Justification ○ External Justification–a  reason/explanation for dissonant personal behavior that resides outside the individual ■ Ex: receive awards, avoid punishment ■ No dissonance! ○ Internal Justification–the  reduction of dissonance by changing something about oneself ■ Will seek out if no obvious justification ■ Change their attitude or the way they view the task ■ Ex: Lying is wrong VS I wouldn’t lie for $1, so I must have really liked the the task ○ Insufficient Justification–if  you perceive little or no reason for your voluntary behavior, you experience more dissonance ○ Insufficient Deterrence–if  you refrain from a desirable activity after only mild threat, produces greater attitude change ■ Dissonance aroused when individuals lack sufficient external justification for resisting a desired activity ■ Ex: Preschoolers and toy choice ● Told couldn’t play with most appealing toy ● Threatened with mild vs. severe punishment ● Left alone with toy ● Preschoolers that were given a severe punishment were more attracted to the toy whereas preschoolers that were given a mild

punishment were led to a conclusion that they didn't like the toy after all ■ Large reward/severe punishment > external justification (I do or think this because i have to) > temporary change ■ Small reward/mild punishment > internal justification (I do or think this because I have convinced myself that it's right) > lasting change ● Ways to reduce dissonance ○ 3 general strategies ■ Change the inconsistent behavior ● Not always possible; harder ■ Change the inconsistent attitude or belief ■ Justify the inconsistency by adding consonant attitudes or beliefs ○ Change the inconsistent cognition ○ Self-persuasion–attitude change from attempts at self-justification ■ “Saying is believing” ■ Attitude be weak or malleable (self-perception theory) ■ But may not be capable of changing an established cognition ○ Change attitude ■ “Climate Change isn’t THAT big a deal” ○ Change beliefs ■ “I don’t actually believe humans contribute to climate change” ○ Justify the inconsistency by adding consonant cognitions or denying/distorting reality ■ Rationalize in some way (confirmation bias can help) ■ Ex: change how situation is construed, minimize the importance of the conflict, or reduce perceived choice ○ Minimize the importance ■ “I’m just one person and I don’t drive it around that much” ○ Reduce the perceived choice ■ “I had to buy it to fit my lifestyle and protect my family” ○ Adding consonant cognitions ■ “At least I got the model that uses the least amount of gas” ● Justifying difficult decisions ○ Whenever we make difficult decisions, we feel dissonance ■ “Difficult”: alternative courses of action are similarly desirable ○ Increased motivation to reduce  the dissonance ○ Ex: We rationalize the correctness of our decision by exaggerating (a) the positive features of the chosen alternative and (b) the negative features of the non-chosen alternative (aka motivated reasoning)

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

■ Motivated reasoning ● We aren’t always capable of reasoning objectively Decisions and Dissonance ○ We may start rationalizing before we even make the decision in the first place! ■ If have a slight preference, distort subsequent information to support initial preference (confirmation bias) Justifying effort by changing attitudes ○ Justification effect–tendency  for individuals to increase their liking for something that was costly to attain ■ Can be time, effort, or money Justifying effort ○ Sunk-cost fallacy–if  we’ve invested resources in something, we don’t want to “waste” them but instead keep going ■ Ex: relationships, time, terrible tv shows Belief in a just world ○ Want to perceive ourselves as rational and consistent ○ Belief in a just world: want to perceive the world as rational, consistent, fair ○ Motivated to believe that people get what they deserve and deserve what they get System justification theory ○ Psychological tendency to defend and support status quo ○ Motivated to accept and perpetuate features of existing social arrangements, even if they are accidental, arbitrary, or unjust ■ People rationalize the status quo simply because it exists Blaming the victim ○ Tend to assume that victims did something to deserve their negative outcomes ■ Victims of crimes or accidents often seen a causing their fate Complementary stereotyping ○ Members of high and low status groups are seen as possessing complementary sets of positive and negative characteristics ○ Derogate losers and elevate winners on traits that seem causally related to their status ■ Ex: gender stereotypes of competence ○ Compensate by enhancing losers and down-grading winners on causally unrelated traits ■ Ex: gender stereotypes of warmth Complementary stereotypes: examples ○ Men are agentic by not communal, women are communal but not agentic ○ Poor people are incompetent but happy (and honest), rich people are competent but unhappy (and dishonest)

○ Powerful people are intelligent but unhappy ○ Obese people are lazy but sociable ● Meritocratic beliefs ○ The idea that hard work and determination lead to success ○ Tends to increase victim blaming ○ Can reinforce status quo ● Consequences of system justification ○ Tend to blame low status groups (including our own) for negative outcomes ○ People (from both advantaged and disadvantaged groups) less likely to challenge the status quo ○ Harder to change society to be more fair if refuse to acknowledge its unfairness Lecture 8 (October 24, 2018): Conformity and Social Influence ● Social influence ○ Social influence–the  ways in which people are affected by the real or imagined presence of others ○ Can range from being automatic to interpersonal social influence ○ Conformity ○ Compliance ○ Obedience ● Automatic, Interpersonal Social Influence ○ We unwittingly mimic each other all the time ○ Mimicry facilitates social interaction ○ The “Chameleon Effect”–the ingratiation via mimicry ○ Mimicry as an automatic response to social exclusion ■ Mimicry and social exclusion ● IV: Included vs. excluded in Cyberball game ● DV: Proportion of time mimicked confederate’s behavior (foot shaking) ● Concluded that participants who felt excluded were more likely to mimic the confederate ○ Social tuning–we  often automatically adjust our attitudes and behaviors to match those around us ■ Mere presence of others (e.g. salient family members, expected communication partners) ■ Ex: Participants automatically adopt the views of people they like (but not those they don’t) ○ Self-perception & behavior–when  participants are motivated to affiliate, their self-judgements and behaviors tune toward expected partner’s views

● Conformity ○ Conformity–the tendency to change our perceptions, opinions, or behaviors in ways that are consistent with group names ○ Do you ever conform? ■ Would you wear shorts and a t-shirt to a wedding? ■ Would you remain seated during the national anthem ■ Would you sit right next to a stranger in a relatively empty movie theater? ○ Line Judgement Task (Asch, 1955) ■ Virtually all participants were accurate when alone ■ Participants went along with the clearly incorrect majority 37% of the time ■ 25% never conformed ■ 50% conformed for at least half of the critical presentations ○ Why do People Conform? ■ Normative social influence–social  pressure to fit in with group ● Motivated by a desire to be liked and accepted ● “Don’t look   stupid!” ● Socially adaptive ■ Informational social influence–using  others as a source of information to guide our behavior ● Believe others’ interpretation of situation is more correct than our own ● Motivated by a desire to be correct ● “Don’t be   stupid!” ● Knowledge ■ Two types of conformity ● Private acceptance–conforming  because genuinely believe others are correct ○ Informational influence ● Public compliance–conforming  without necessarily believing in what one is...