Transcript Social Psychology 2

ATTITUDES:
MAKING SOCIAL
JUDGMENTS
{
Attitudes are positive or negative evaluations of
objects of thought



Cognitive component:
beliefs people hold about
the objects of an attitude
Affective component:
emotional feelings
stimulated by an object of
thought
Behavioral component:
predispositions to act in
certain ways toward an
object of thought
COMPONENTS OF
ATTITUDE



Strength: durable;
powerful impact on
behavior
Accessibility: how often
one thinks about
something; how quickly it
comes to mind
Ambivalence: conflicted
evaluations that include
both pos and neg feelings
about an object of thought
DIMENSIONS OF
ATTITUDE



Attitude does not predict behavior
Stronger attitudes are more predictive
Behavior relies on situational constraints--especially subjective perceptions of how people
expect you to behave
ATTITUDES AND
BEHAVIOR






PERSUASION
Constant
4 basic elements:
Source: sender of
communication
Receiver: to whom the
msg is sent
Message: info
transmitted
Channel: the medium



Persuasion more
effective if source has
credibility
Source should by
trustworthy
Likable: similarity and
physical attractiveness
SOURCE FACTORS




Should you present a
one-sided argument or
two-sided argument
Concentrate on your
strong arguments
Validity effect: repeating
a statement causes it to
be perceived as more
valid or true
Appeal to fear?
MESSAGE FACTORS



Stronger attitudes are
more resistant to
change
Confirmation bias:
arguments that conflict
with beliefs are
scrutinized longer
Observers’ prior
knowledge makes it
difficult to persuade
RECEIVER FACTORS
THEORIES OF
ATTITUDE
FORMATION AND
CHANGE
{




Affective component can be created through
classical conditioning
Operant conditioning comes into play when
you express ideas
Peoples’ responses reinforce your tendency to
repeat a specific attitude
Observational learning: you repeat behavior
you see
LEARNING THEORY



Leon Festinger
Inconsistency among
attitudes propels people
in the direction of attitude
change (counterattitudinal
behavior)
Cognitive dissonance exists
when related cognitions
are inconsistent—that is,
when they contradict each
other
DISSONANCE THEORY



Effort justification: when
people switch attitudes to
justify efforts that did not
work out
Cooper: dissonance occurs
only when individuals feel
personally responsible for
causing aversive events
that were unforeseeable
Steele and Aronson: occurs
when individuals behave in
a way that threatens their
sense of self-worth
DISSONANCE THEORY
CONTINUED



Daryl Bem
People often infer their
attitudes from their
behavior
Very similar to
dissonance
SELF-PERCEPTION
THEORY




Petty and Cacioppo
Asserts there are 2 basic
routes to persuasion:
1) Central route: when
people carefully ponder the
content and logic of
persuasive msgs
2) Peripheral route: when
persuasion depends on
nonmessage factors
(attractiveness or
credibility) or on
conditioned emotional
responses
ELABORATION
LIKELIHOOD MODEL
CONFORMITY AND
OBEDIENCE
{




DEF: when people yield
to real or imagined social
pressure
Solomon Asch
experiments
Group size and unanimity
are key determinants of
conformity
Ambiguous situations
also lead to conformity
CONFORMITY



OBEDIENCE
DEF: form of
compliance that occurs
when people follow
direct commands,
usually from someone
in a position of
authority
Stanley Milgram
studies
Studied tendency to
obey authority figures
BEHAVIOR IN
GROUPS
{
Group: consists of 2 or more individuals who
interact and are interdependent





DEF: people are less likely
to provide needed help
when they are in groups
than when they are alone
Why?
People search their
environments for
behavior clues
If people hesitate,
perception is the situation
is not that serious
When alone,
responsibility rest on you
BYSTANDER EFFECT




Individual productivity
declines in large groups
Due to loss of
coordination
Social loafing: a reduction
in effort by individuals
when they work in
groups as compared to
when they work by
themselves
Due to diffusion of
responsibility
GROUP PRODUCTIVITY
AND SOCIAL LOAFING
DECISION MAKING
IN GROUPS
{

DEF: occurs when group discussion
strengthens a group’s dominant point of view
and produces a shift toward a more extreme
decision in that direction
GROUP POLARIZATION


GROUPTHINK
DEF: when members of a
cohesive group
emphasize concurrence at
the expense of critical
thinking in arriving at a
decision
Group cohesiveness: the
strength of the liking
relationships linking
group members to each
other and to the group
itself