2008PSY Culture Attitudes and Behavior PDF

STRUCTURE OF ATTITUDE  One component: the affect for or against a psychological object’ and ‘the degree of positive or negative affect associated with some psychological object’  Two component: To Thurstone’s ‘affect’ Allport added a second component – a state of mental readiness....

STRUCTURE OF ATTITUDE  One component: the affect for or against a psychological object’ and ‘the degree of positive or negative affect associated with some psychological object’  Two component: To Thurstone’s ‘affect’ Allport added a second component – a state of mental readiness. Mental readiness is a predisposition that influences how we decide what is good or bad, desirable or undesirable, and so on. An attitude is therefore private and externally unobservable. It can only be inferred by examining our own mental processes introspectively, or by making inferences from what we say and do. You cannot see, touch or physically examine an attitude: it is a hypothetical construct.   WHAT IS AN ATTITUDE? Attitude components o Affective Affect: Affect: “violent “Violent o Behavioural media media make me makes o Cognitive sick” happy” OR Attitude Attitude towards towards Violent Violent Behaviour: media Cognition: media “I avoid “Violent Behaviour: Cognition: violent “I go to “Violent media media and violent media does makes would vote movies/play not make people for violent video people violent” regulations” games” violent”  HOW ATTITUDES VARY  Attitudes vary in: o Valence: Positive and negative Ambivalent attitudes (a mix of positive and negative that balance each other out) o Complexity: Simple / complex o Strength: Weak / strong Stronger (compared to weaker) attitudes: Are more accessible Are more durable – don’t change over time and resistant to persuasion Are more likely to influence how we process information about the attitude object Have a greater effect on behaviour  COGNITIVE CONSISTENCY  Peoplelike to be consistent with their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviours.  Cognitive dissonance theory (discussed in the attitude change week) it the best example of what happens when there is inconsistency.  Themost relevant theory for the current mini lecture is balance theory  BALANCE THEORY Focuses on the P-O-X unit consisting of a person (P), another person (O), and an attitude, object, or topic (X) It is balanced if it has an odd number of positive (+) relationships between its elements There are eight possible combinations of 4 balanced and 4 unbalanced. Balanced triads imply consistency in interpersonal relationships, where liking for an object X is expected to be shared among compatible individuals. Unbalanced triads may lead to tension, motivating individuals to restore balance by changing their attitudes or relationships. are generally less stable and more unpleasant than balanced structures.  COGNITION AND EVALUATION Sociocognitive model defines an attitude as a person's evaluation of an object of thought. An object model is represented in memory by: an object label and the rules for applying that label; an evaluative summary of that object; a knowledge structure supporting that evaluation. Recent research on affect and emotion has helped differentiate between affect (emotional reaction to an attitude object) and evaluation (specific cognitive appraisals and judgments about the object). Attitudes & Behaviour 2008PSY SOCIAL & CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY ATTITUDES & BEHAVIOUR Positive attitudes towards healthy living but loves a Maccas run Negative attitudes towards bullying but behaves as a bystander Hates statistics, but studies psychology Believes social connections are important, but leaves texts unread for a week Has great advice for others, but never follows it themselves…. ATTITUDES-BEHAVIOUR LINK  Attitudes should predict behaviour but they often do not  LaPiere (1934) o Method:  Travelled US with Chinese couple – visited 251 establishments (hotels and restaurants)  Refused service at only 1 establishment  Sent letters to all establishments asking “Will you accept members of the Chinese race as guests in your establishment?” o Results:  128 establishments replied; 92% said no WHY DO ATTITUDES NOT ALWAYS PREDICT BEHAVIOURS?  Methodological factors o Specificity  Need to measure attitudes and behaviour at a similar level of specificity  Use of birth control pills (Davidson & Jacard, 1979) - Attitude towards “birth control”: r =.08 - Attitude towards “birth control pills”: r =.32 - Attitude towards “using birth control pills”: r =.53 - Attitude towards “using birth control pills during the next 2 years”: r =.57  Recycling behaviour (Oskamp, 1991) - Attitudes towards saving the environment don’t predict recycling behaviour, but attitudes towards recycling do WHY DO ATTITUDES NOT ALWAYS PREDICT BEHAVIOURS?  Methodological factors o Aggregation  Many studies observe only one behaviour; measuring multiple behaviours results in stronger associations  Recycling behaviour (Weigl & Newman, 1976) - Attitude towards environment measured - Correlated with 14 environment related actions (e.g., signing a petition, picking up litter, recycling bottles) - Correlations between attitude and a single behaviour: average r =.29 - Correlation between attitude and aggregated behaviour score: r =.62 WHY DO ATTITUDES NOT ALWAYS PREDICT BEHAVIOURS?  Personal factors o There may be several relevant/competing attitudes o The person might be motivated by other needs o The person might not see the link between attitudes and a given behaviour o The cost of behaviour to the person might be excessive  Social factors o Real/implied presence of others might have an effect o Social norms might override attitudes o No other alternative behaviour is available o Unforeseen circumstances can alter behaviour MODERATOR VARIABLES: SITUATIONAL Norms have always been considered important in attitude–behaviour relations, but they have generally been separated from attitudes:  attitudes are ‘in here’ (private, internalised), norms are ‘out there’ (public, external pressures) Terry and Hogg (1996) conducted two longitudinal questionnaire studies of students’ intentions to take regular exercise and to protect themselves from the sun.  Intentions were stronger when participants identified strongly with a self-relevant student peer group whom participants believed took regular exercise or habitually protected themselves from the sun  Students expressed stronger intention to engage in regular exercise when they felt their attitudes towards exercise were normative of a student peer group with which they identified strongly.  MODERATOR VARIABLES: INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES Social psychologists also acknowledge that various individual differences may be moderators that explain how people behaviours Research indicates weak habits lead to stronger relationships between attitudes/intentions and behavior. Mood, affect, and emotion can act as moderators of attitude-behavior correspondence. Cognitive biases, such as self-other discrepancy, can also moderate attitude-behavior relationships, Self-identity, focused on roles in society, influences intentions to act, with people more likely to express intentions aligned with their self- identity Theory of Reasoned Action Theory of Planned Behaviour & Protection Motivation Theory 2008PSY SOCIAL & CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY THEORY OF REASONED ACTION (TRA) Fishbein & Azjen (1975) o General model of the link between attitudes and behaviours o Components include:  Attitudes towards the behaviour  Subjective norm  Behavioural intentions  Behaviour THEORY OF REASONED ACTION (TRA) Outcome Attitude expectancies x towards outcome value behaviour Behavioural Behaviour intention Normative beliefs x Subjective motivation to comply norm THEORY OF PLANNED BEHAVIOUR (TPB)  Azjen (1985) o Modification of the TRA o Addition of perceived behavioural control  Does not assume full volitional control over behaviour  Accommodates beliefs about resources and opportunities o Perceived behavioural control can affect:  Intentions  Behaviour directly THEORY OF PLANNED BEHAVIOUR (TPB) Outcome Attitude expectancies x towards outcome value behaviour Normative beliefs x Subjective Behavioural Behaviour motivation to norm intention comply Beliefs about Perceived resources & behavioural opportunities control Note: Behavioural intentions have less influence on behaviour if perceived behavioural control is low APPLICATIONS OF TRA & TPB  Both theories have generated much research o Smoking cessation (Lee, H-R., Ebesu Hubbard, A. S., O’Riordan, C., K., & Kim, M-S.. Incorporating culture into the theory of planned behavior: Predicting smoking cessation intentions among college students. Asian Journal of Communication, 16, 315-332.) o Unsafe driving behaviour (Sullman, M. J. M., Hill, T., & Stephens, A. N.. Predicting intentions to text and call while driving using the theory of planned behaviour. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 58, 405-413.) o Fruit and vegetable consumption (Brown, D. J., Hagger, M. S., Morrissy, S., & Hamilton, K.. Predicting fruit and vegatable consumption in long-haul heavy goods vehicle drivers: Application of a multi-theory, dual-phase model and the contribution of past behaviour. Appetite, 121, 326-336.) o Bystander intervention for sexual assault (Lukacena, K. M., Reynolds-Tylus, T., & Quick, B. L.. An application of the reasoned action approach to bystander intervention for sexual assault. Health Communication, 34, 46-53.) o Managers’ ethical intentions (Kashif, M., Zarkada, A., & Ramayah, T.. The impact of attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control on managers’ intentions to behave ethically. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, 29, 481-501.)  SMOKING CESSATION (LEE, Participants: H-R., EBESU HUBBARD, A. S., o 255 college students who O’RIORDAN, C. K., KIM, M-S.. were current smokers INCORPORATING CULTURE INTO THE o From the University of Hawaii – THEORY OF PLANNED multicultural participants BEHAVIOR: PREDICTING (many with Asian-Pacific SMOKING CESSATION cultural backgrounds) INTENTIONS AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS. ASIAN JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATION, Procedure: 16, 315-332.) o Completed a survey assessing: o Standard TPB variables – attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioural control, and intentions o Self-construals – independent self and  SMOKING Results: CESSATION (LEE, o Attitudes → intentions H-R., EBESU HUBBARD, A. S., O’RIORDAN, C. K., o Subjective norms → KIM, M-S.. intentions INCORPORATING CULTURE INTO THE o PBC → intentions THEORY OF PLANNED o Independent self- BEHAVIOR: PREDICTING construal → PBC SMOKING CESSATION o Interdependent self- INTENTIONS AMONG COLLEGE construal → subjective STUDENTS. ASIAN norms JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATION, 16, 315-332.)  PROTECTION MOTIVATION THEORY This theory, which grew from health promotion research, argues that adoption of healthy behavioural practices depends on several cognitive processes that lead people to balance health threats and the capacity to cope with a health regimen. Attitudes: Attitude Formation 2008PSY SOCIAL & CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY  ATTITUDE FORMATION Behavioural explanations o Mere exposure effect People develop a preference for things merely because they’re familiar with them Negative attitudes o Classical conditioning o Instrumental/operant conditioning  Before Conditioning: Unconditioned Stimulus Unconditioned Response (i.e., attraction) Neutral Stimulus No Response After Conditioning: Behavioural Explanations: Classical Conditioned Conditioning Stimulus Positive Attitude  A Person Smokes People Respond There is a punishment associated with the response (e.g., losing a BEHAVIOURAL Negati potential date, sitting by EXPLANATIONS: OPERANT ve yourself in a smokers area, CONDITIONING Attitud e etc.) Toward  ATTITUDE FORMATION Cognitive explanations o Self-perception theory Reverses usual view of causality Behaviour → attitudes o Cognitive algebra Integrate information using algebraic operations (e.g., weighted average) ATTITUDE FORMATION Self-perception theory Sam watches Netflix on his computer and doesn’t go to the movies, therefore he has a negative attitude about cinemas. Sally frequently goes to the cinemas to watch the latest release. Therefore she has a positive attitude about cinemas. Behaviour Atttiudes  ATTITUDE FORMATION Cognitive algebra TRAIT RATING WEIGHT Selfless +++++ 2 Committed ++++ 2 Cautious ---- 1 Optimistic +++ 2 Distrustful --- 1 Weighted = [(52) + (42) + (-41) + (32) + (-31)] / 5 averaging = [10 + 8 -4 + 6 – 3] / 5 = 17/5 = 3.4 ATTITUDE FORMATION Social explanations o Social learning/modelling Parents Friends Mass media o Social identity and groups  Attitudes Ideologies & Values 2008PSY SOCIAL & CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY  IDEOLOGIES Integrated/coherent set of attitudes; a worldview Shared cognitive frameworks for interpreting the environment or society Defines both: o A set of goals for society o Ways to attain these goals  Example: Conservative Progressive Intolerance of ambiguity Tolerance of ambiguity Need for order, structure Open to experience Cognitive rigidity Cognitive complexity  VALUES  “Values are multifaceted standards that guide conduct in a variety of ways. They lead us to take particular positions on social issues and they predispose us to favor one ideology over another. They are standards employed to evaluate and judge others and ourselves.” (Rokeach, 1973)  Key aspects: o Global, abstract principles o Judgements as to what is proper, ideal, desirable  Generally, a strong cultural influence o Genesis in childhood  SOCIAL REPRESENTATIONS Social representations are simplified and shared understandings of the world through social interaction. People's attitudes and beliefs are shaped by others' beliefs and shared within their community and social groups. Social representations have a top-down perspective on social behavior, contrasting with American individualist tradition. They can influence the evaluative tone of nested attitudes and embody causal beliefs that influence embedded attitudes. Example: Study of Muslim and Christian students in the UK regarding their representations of the Iraq war (Rafiq et al., 2006). Attitudes Measurement 2008PSY SOCIAL & CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY  MEASURING ATTITUDES Direct measurement o Self-report Present a set of items Rate each on a scale (e.g., from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’) Participant’s score = sum/mean of ratings for all items o Example: 1. Same-sex marriage undermines the meaning of the traditional family 2. Two loving same-sex parents can provide the same quality of parenting and guidance as a man and a woman  MEASURING ATTITUDES  Measures of implicit attitudes o Used to measure attitudes that are implicit (i.e., unconscious) o Can also be used to avoid response bias/social desirability o Implicit Attitude Test (IAT) https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html Measures strength of association between concept (e.g., race) and evaluation Participants asked to sort words (e.g., friend, evil) and images (e.g., black faces, white faces) into categories (e.g., good versus bad; Black versus White) Each response is timed and taken as a measure of implicit attitude Associations that come more easily to the person are reflected in more rapid responses  MEASURING ATTITUDES Example: o If someone has implicit negative attitudes towards Black people, they should be…. Faster to sort items presented in the top screen (category congruence) Slower to sort items presented in the bottom screen (category incongruence)  MEASURING ATTITUDES  Other measures o Physiological measures E.g., heart rate, facial expression Bogus pipeline o Overt behaviour E.g., interpersonal space  FACTORS WHEN MEASURING ATTITUDES CROSS CULTURALLY There are various important factors to consider  Wordingdifferences (meaning of the words can be different)  Response pattern can differ and how individuals approach measures  Extreme response bias  Authorityfollowing differences  Social Desirability  Acquiescence PERSUASION Deliberate attempts by someone to change someone’s attitude Persuasive communication and attitude change is, however, generally narrowly focused and has been most thoroughly applied to advertising and marketing on the assumption that behavioural change ‘obviously cannot occur without [attitude change] having taken place’. Two important questions:  What factors determine whether persuasion will occur?  How does persuasion occur? (covered in mini-lecture 6.2b) THE YALE MODEL Source (who) FACTORS Message (what) INFLUENCING PERSUASION: Channel (how) Audience (to whom) THE YALE MODEL Factors influencing persuasion: Source (who)  Similarity o More persuaded by similar others  Attractiveness o More persuaded by attractive others  Credibility/expertise o More persuaded by people with expertise/credibility THETHE YALE MODEL YALE MODEL Factors influencing persuasion: Message (what)  One-sided vs two-sided o Intelligence of audience: more intelligent - two-sided argument o Initial position of audience: firm position - two-sided argument not effective  Fact vs feeling o Matching of appeal (i.e., cognitive vs affective) to basis on which attitude is held  Fear o Routinely used in advertising (e.g., smoking adds) o Refer to next slide THETHE YALE MODEL YALE MODEL Fear and persuasion  Some studies show that greater fear = less change (e.g., Janis & Feshbach, 1953)  Other studies show greater fear = greater change (e.g., Leventhal, Watts, & Pagano, 1967)  The inverted U-curve between fear and attitude change  As fear increases, so does attitude change, unless the fear is extreme THETHE YALE MODEL YALE MODEL Factors influencing persuasion: Message (what)  Effects of repetition o Advertising agencies have argued it is persuasive though sceptics think it would be irritating o However familiarity does increase liking so can be effective  Framing a message o The way the message is framed changes persuasiveness and effectiveness  The sleeper effect o Routinely used in advertising (e.g., smoking adds) o Refer to next slide THETHE YALE MODEL YALE MODEL Factors influencing persuasion: Channel (how)  Video vs audio vs written  Simple message – video > audio > written  Complex message – written > video & audio THETHE YALE MODEL YALE MODEL Factors influencing persuasion: Audience (to whom) Gender  Females initially considered more persuadable than males, but:  It depends on the topic  Could be compliance, rather than persuasibility Self-esteem  Low self-esteem: uncomplicated messages  High self-esteem: more complicated, well-supported messages Prior beliefs  Arguments incompatible with prior beliefs = scrutinized longer and judged weaker Age  Multiple suggestions however which of these is accurate is still debated THETHE YALE MODEL YALE MODEL The reality = interaction between factors  Source, message, & audience  Aim: THE INFLUENCE  To examine the interacting factors OF SOURCE influencing advertising effectiveness. PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENE Method: SS ON  Participants shown a woman ADVERTISING advocating for a suntan lotion EFFECTIVENES  Attractiveness manipulated (IV1): S: A  attractive woman vs. unattractive FUNCTIONAL woman PERSPECTIVE.  Strength of message manipulated DEBONO, K. G., & TELESCA, C. (1990). (IV2): JOURNAL OF  strong message vs. weak message OCCUPATIONAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL  Self-monitoring measured (IV3): PSYCHOLOGY, 20, 1383- 1395.  high self-monitors vs. low self- monitors  Outcome measure (DV) was attitude toward sunscreen  Results: THE INFLUENCE  Low self-monitors: Attractive woman OF SOURCE more persuasive than unattractive PHYSICAL woman, regardless of message ATTRACTIVENE strength SS ON  High self-monitors: Attractive woman ADVERTISING more persuasive than unattractive EFFECTIVENES woman only for a strong message S: A Low self-monitors High self-monitors FUNCTIONAL 9 8 9 PERSPECTIVE. 7 8 7 Attitude toward DEBONO, K. G., & 6 Attitude toward 6 sunscreen TELESCA, C. (1990). 5 sunscreen Strong 5 Strong JOURNAL OF 4 Weak 4 OCCUPATIONAL AND 3 Weak 3 ORGANIZATIONAL 2 2 PSYCHOLOGY, 20, 1383- 1 1 1395. 0 Attractive Unattractive 0 Attractive Unattractive Guiding principle = know your audience! THE ELABORATION LIKELIHOOD MODEL When are we likely to elaborate on the message itself, rather than be swayed by superficial cues?  Dual-systems model of thinking  Slow, deliberative, conscious (System 2)  Rapid, automatic, unconscious (System 1)  Elaboration likelihood model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1981)  Central route  Peripheral route THE ELABORATION LIKELIHOOD MODEL High Careful Attitude elaboration of processing of change based message information on quality of content arguments Persuasi CENTRAL ROUTE Attitude ve Change Messag e PERIPHERAL ROUTE Little or no Careful Attitude elaboration of processing change based message does not occur on persuasive content cues THE ELABORATION LIKELIHOOD MODEL When is elaboration likely?  Motivation  Importance/personal relevance of issue  Need for cognition (individual difference variable) – a personality trait that describes an individuals inclination for effortful cognitive activities.  Opportunity  Greater time to evaluate the information  Higher cognitive capacity (e.g., not multitasking)  Inconsistency of peripheral cues  Peripheral cues are less likely when they are inconsistent  E.g., unattractive expert THE ELABORATION LIKELIHOOD MODEL Central route  Issue important/relevant, we have time/resources  Typically induces lasting attitude change Peripheral route  Issue unimportant/irrelevant, we don’t have time/resources  Rapid attitude change, but less enduring  If persuasive cues (e.g., attractive source) no longer present, change erodes HEURISTIC–SYSTEMATIC MODEL Shelley Chaiken's Heuristic–Systematic Model (HSM) Systematic Processing: Involves careful consideration of available arguments. Heuristic Processing: Relies on cognitive shortcuts (heuristics) for decision- making. Persuasive messages are not always processed systematically; cognitive heuristics are used to simplify information handling. Heuristics and Simplified Decision Rules Heuristics are mental shortcuts used for decision-making. Examples: "statistics don't lie," "you can't trust a politician." Advertising exploits heuristics by using scientific imagery to enhance credibility. Switching Between Heuristic and Systematic Processing Heuristics used until they provide enough confidence in adopted attitudes. Switch to more effortful systematic processing when confidence is lacking.  HEURISTIC–SYSTEMATIC MODEL Mood's Influence on Message Processing Mood can affect how well we attend to message content. Being in a good mood can shift processing style. Background music in ads creates a mellow feeling but promotes heuristic processing. Good Mood Feeling 'good' can lead to peripheral heuristic processing. Positive mood reduces systematic processing, especially in time-limited situations. Happy mood coupled with congruent message content leads to extensive processing. Interaction between supportive message and happy audience enhances influence. Sad Mood Sad mood increases susceptibility to heuristic processing. Influence is higher when participants are sad and use heuristic processing, especially with strong arguments. Sad mood enhances accuracy in detecting witness inconsistencies. Perception of witness reliability and defendant's culpability improves in a mock court setting. TACTICS FOR ENHANCING COMPLIANCE: INGRATIATION Ingratiation (Jones, 1964) Starts by agreeing and creating likability. Followed by making various requests. Ingratiation actions include appearing similar, paying compliments, making oneself attractive, dropping names, and physical touch. Transparent ingratiation can backfire due to the 'ingratiator's dilemma': obvious intent lessens success. Reciprocity Principle Tactic based on 'treating others how they treat us.' Favor-doers feel obliged to reciprocate. Regan (1971) demonstrated greater compliance from those who received favors. Guilt arousal also increases compliance; guilt-prone individuals more likely to comply with requests. Examples of Reciprocity in Action Real-life scenarios using reciprocity for persuasion. Car windscreen cleaning at traffic lights as subtle pressure for payment. Guiding into parking spaces followed by requests for money. TACTICS FOR ENHANCING COMPLIANCE: MULTIPLE REQUESTS Instead of a single request, a two-step procedure is used, with the first request functioning as a set-up or softener for the second, real request. Three classic variations are the foot-in-the-door, the door- in-the-face and low-balling tactics  ACTION RESEARCH Kurt Lewin's Action Research Lewin focused on engaging participants actively in change processes. Action research emphasized participants' involvement in research and outcomes. Example: Lewin's wartime study on persuading American housewives to feed nutritious foods. Active discussion among housewives more effective than persuasive lectures. Role-Playing and Attitude Change Janis and King (1954) explored effects of role-playing. Participants argued against their beliefs, leading to greater attitude change. Foreshadowed Festinger's cognitive dissonance theory. Action Research and Health Promotion Action research addressed community health issues like smoking, sun exposure, and risky behaviors. SunSmart health promotion program in Australia to change sun exposure attitudes and behavior. SLIP! SLOP! SLAP! campaign promoted sun safety behaviors. Significant changes in sun-related behaviors due to attitude change. COGNITIVE CONSISTENCY COGNITIVE CONSISTENCY People prefer attitudes that are consistent with each other (balance theory; Heider, 1958) P-O-X triads  Can be balanced or unbalanced  Balanced when odd number of positive relations P = person (self) O = other X = attitude object COGNITIVE CONSISTENCY Balanced Triad Unbalanced Triad Chris Chris + + + - Olivia + Dancing + Dancing Olivia COGNITIVE DISSONANCE COGNITIVE DISSONANCE When prophecy fails (Festinger, Reicken, & Schachter, 1956)  Described activities of an end-of-the-world cult active in the mid-50s in North America  Specific date and time for the world to end and for a UFO to collect the faithful  Researchers joined the cult secretly  The world did not end….  What do you think the cult members did?  COGNITIVE DISSONANCE When prophecy fails (Festinger, Reicken, & Schachter, 1956)  A message by automatic writing sent to the leader stating that the God of Earth has decided to spare the planet from destruction.  The group had spread so much light that God had saved the world from destruction  The group had invited the press to publicise a new prediction that spacemen would land in a flying saucer and pick them up.  Some members realised this was a false prophecy and left but most actually reaffirmed their commitment.  Why would normally rational people ignore the evidence? COGNITIVE DISSONANCE Our cognitions are not always “balanced” Cognitive dissonance: A state of psychological tension or discomfort caused by inconsistencies in cognitions (or inconsistencies in cognition and behaviour). CLASSIC COGNITIVE DISSONANCE MODEL (FESTINGER, 1957) Dissonance reduction strategy Arousal of cognitive dissonance YES NO No Attribute responsibility to self? Dissonance YES Attitude-discrepant behaviour COGNITIVE DISSONANCE Dissonance reduction strategies  “I need to lose weight” but I just ate ice-cream Strategy Example Change a cognition Don’t really need to lose weight Change the importance of a cognition/discrepancy It was low fat ice-cream Rationalise cognitions as not Ice-cream doesn’t really relevant to each other affect my weight Add additional consonant I’ll exercise 3 times per cognitions week COGNITIVE DISSONANCE Post-decision dissonance Dissonance experienced after making a decision (twinge of regret; discomfort that the wrong decision has been made).  Can use dissonance-reduction strategies post decision:  E.g., food envy at café  Telling yourself “it reminds me of my grandma’s amazing pasta - I can have pizza any time ” to resolve dissonance with consonant cognitions.  POST- Aim: DECISION  To examine post-decision DISSONANC dissonance E AT POST TIME. Method: KNOX, R. E., &  Participants were either about to INKSTER, J. A. place, or had just placed, a $2 (1968). JOURNAL bet on a horse race OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL  Asked how confident they were PSYCHOLOGY, 8(4, that their chosen horse would PT.1), 319–323. win HTTPS://DOI.ORG/1 0.1037/H0025528  Results: POST-  Post-decision increase in the DECISION attractiveness of the chosen alternative DISSONANC E AT POST 7 TIME. 6 KNOX, R. E., & Chance of winning 5 INKSTER, J. A. (1968). JOURNAL 4 OF PERSONALITY 3 AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 8(4, 2 PT.1), 319–323. 1 HTTPS://DOI.ORG/1 Pre-bet Post-bet 0.1037/H0025528 COGNITIVE DISSONANCE Post-decision dissonance  Dissonance greater when:  The decision is more important  The choices were equally desirable  You perceive you made the choice freely  The choice is irrevocable (i.e., you’re committed!) COGNITIVE DISSONANCE CROSS CULTURALLY Most research has focused on comparing Eastern and Westerners experience of dissonance. Dissonance is experienced in both, but culture shapes the situations in which dissonance is aroused and reduced. For instance, Kitayama and his colleagues have reported differences between Japanese and American participants in their experience of cognitive dissonance. Japanese feel dissonance only when social cues are active, such as becoming aware of their peers’ opinions when making a decision. JUSTIFICATION OF COUNTER-ATTITUDINAL BEHAVIOUR  Doing something contrary to our attitude + insufficient justification for that action and attitude change  COGNITIVE Aim: CONSEQUEN  To examine how participants CES OF would justify counter-attitudinal FORCED behaviour Method: COMPLIANCE  Participants completed simple. motor tasks for 1 hour FESTINGER, L., & CARLSMITH, J. M.  Randomly allocated to one of (1959). THE three groups: JOURNAL OF 1. No dissonance/control – left the ABNORMAL AND SOCIAL experiment after the motor task PSYCHOLOGY, 58(2), 2. Low dissonance – paid $20 to 203–210. HTTPS://D OI.ORG/10.1037/H00 tell the next person the task 41593 was fun 3. High dissonance – paid $1 to tell the next person the task  COGNITIVE Results: CONSEQUEN  Greatest enjoyment CES OF reported in the $1 (high FORCED dissonance) condition COMPLIANCE 2. FESTINGER, L., & CARLSMITH, J. M. 1 Enjoyment of the task (1959). THE JOURNAL OF ABNORMAL AND SOCIAL 0 PSYCHOLOGY, 58(2), Control $1 $20 203–210. HTTPS://D OI.ORG/10.1037/H00 41593 -1 COGNITIVE DISSONANCE Justification of counter-attitudinal behaviour  Example: boring tasks & cognitive dissonance (Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959)  No dissonance/control condition - No conflicting cognitions/behaviours Thought the task was Did not say the task boring was fun COGNITIVE DISSONANCE Justification of counter-attitudinal behaviour  Example: boring tasks & cognitive dissonance (Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959)  Low dissonance condition - Cognition of thinking task is boring conflicts with behaviour of saying task was fun - BUT behaviour of saying task was fun could be justified because of the high associated reward Thought the task Said the task was was boring fun Got paid $20 COGNITIVE DISSONANCE Justification of counter-attitudinal behaviour  Example: boring tasks & cognitive dissonance (Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959)  High dissonance condition - Cognition of thinking task is boring conflicts with behaviour of saying task was fun - Behaviour CANNOT be sufficiently justified by associated reward - Justify behaviour by changing cognition about task Thought the task Said the task was was boring fun Got paid $1 JUSTIFICATION OF COUNTER- ATTITUDINAL BEHAVIOUR Voluntarily spending the night with people who you “Maybe they’re not so bad” really do not like Having a wine with dinner “Maybe I like certain wines” when you don’t like wine Going to University despite “Perhaps I enjoyed school hating studying more than I thought” EFFORT JUSTIFICATION Those who undergo an unpleasant ordeal in order to gain a social object are likely to value the object more than those who don’t suffer.  THE EFFECT OF SEVERITY Aim: OF  To examine how participants react to INITIATION a sex discussion experiment ON LIKING FOR A Method:  Young women volunteered to join a GROUP. discussion group on the psychology of ARONSON, E., & MILLS, J. (1959). THE sex JOURNAL OF  Randomly allocated to one of three ABNORMAL AND groups: SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 1. Severe condition – asked to read 59(2), 177– 181. HTTPS://DOI.OR highly embarrassing words G/10.1037/H0047195 2. Mild condition – asked to read mildly embarrassing words 3. Control – not asked to read anything  THE EFFECT Results: OF SEVERITY  The discussion and group OF members rated most favourably in the severe condition INITIATION ON LIKING 200 FOR A GROUP. 180 ARONSON, E., & MILLS, J. (1959). THE Rating JOURNAL OF ABNORMAL AND 160 SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 59(2), 177– 181. HTTPS://DOI.OR 140 G/10.1037/H0047195 Control Mild Severe EFFORT JUSTIFICATION Tracking down shoes from a photo and waiting 2 weeks for “I can work with that colour” them to arrive Continuing a long-term relationship, even if you are “We have built a life together” unhappy Keeping a tangential paragraph from your essay “It is so well written though” because you spent 2 hours writing it!!! CLASSIC COGNITIVE DISSONANCE MODEL (FESTINGER, 1957) Dissonance reduction strategy Arousal of cognitive dissonance YES NO No Attribute responsibility to self? Dissonance YES Attitude-discrepant behaviour REVISED COGNITIVE DISSONANCE COOPER & FAZIO (1984) MODEL Dissonance reduction strategy YES NO Attribute arousal to own No Attitude behaviour? Change Arousal of cognitive dissonance YES NO No Attribute responsibility to self? Dissonance YES NO Significant negative No consequences? Dissonance YES Attitude-discrepant behaviour REVISED COGNITIVE DISSONANCE COOPER & FAZIO (1984) MODEL Dissonance reduction strategy YES NO Attribute arousal to own No Attitude behaviour? Change Arousal of cognitive dissonance YES NO No Attribute responsibility to self? Dissonance YES NO Significant negative No consequences? Dissonance YES Attitude-discrepant behaviour  Aim: “PRACTICE  To examine changes in children’s risky WHAT YOU playground behaviours PREACH”: INDUCED Method: HYPOCRISY AS Participants: AN  239 children aged 7-13 years INTERVENTION Procedure: STRATEGY TO  Children assigned to a control condition or REDUCE cognitive dissonance intervention condition CHILDREN’S (IV: condition) INTENTIONS TO  Cognitive dissonance intervention involved RISK TAKE ON an induced-hypocrisy manipulation PLAYGROUNDS.  Generated a list of past risky playground Morrongiello, B. A., & Mark, L. behaviours (2008). Journal of Pediatric  Endorse a Safe Play on Playgrounds poster Psychology, 33, 1117-1128.  Make a hypothetical radio commercial advocating for safe playground play  Outcome measure (DV) was change in risk- taking intentions (from pre- to post-  Results: “PRACTICE  Children assigned to the cognitive WHAT YOU dissonance intervention condition PREACH”: showed significant reductions in INDUCED risk-taking intentions compared the HYPOCRISY AS AN control group. INTERVENTION 3.5 Improvement (i.e., reduction) in STRATEGY TO 3 risk-taking intentions REDUCE 2.5 CHILDREN’S 2 INTENTIONS TO 1.5 RISK TAKE ON 1 PLAYGROUNDS. 0.5 Morrongiello, B. A., & Mark, L. (2008). Journal of Pediatric 0 Intervention Control Psychology, 33, 1117-1128. Condition BEHAVIOUR CHANGE THROUGH HYPOCRISY-INDUCTION Promoting condom use by reminding people of negative attitudes towards sexually transmitted infections Encourage your partner to pick-up after themselves by asking them if they want a messy home NOTE: Effects are larger when the endorsement is public, and the reminder of failures is private HOW DO PEOPLE RESIST PERSUASION? Reactance  a psychological state we experience when someone tries to limit our personal freedom.  E.g., resistant to salesperson because you are aware that they will try and be persuasive Forewarning  when prior knowledge of persuasive intent  Rehearsal of counter-arguments: when prior knowledge of persuasive message content HOW DO PEOPLE RESIST PERSUASION? Inoculation effect  Weak attack “builds up” defence against stronger attack  E.g., Political discussion during family dinners will build up resolve and diminish the effects of persuasion during a future election. Attitude Accessibility and Strength  Attitude that is accessible and strong is more resistant to persuasion  TYPES OF SOCIAL INFLUENCE Social influence o Process whereby thoughts, feelings, and behaviours are influenced by the real, imagined, or implied presence of others Conformity Power Obedience  SOCIAL INFLUENCE: CONFORMITY Conformity o Changing one’s behaviour to match the responses of others (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004) Compliance Conformity Superficial, public, and Deep-seated, transitory change in private, and behaviour and enduring change in expressed attitudes behaviour and attitudes SOCIAL INFLUENCE: CONFORMITY Norms o Attitudinal and behavioural uniformities that define group membership and differentiate between groups o Shared beliefs about appropriate conduct for groups Compliance Conformity Superficial, public, and Deep-seated, transitory change in private, and behaviour and enduring change in expressed attitudes behaviour and Alignment with norms attitudes based on power and Alignment with coercion norms based on  SOCIAL INFLUENCE: CONFORMITY Reference groups o Groups that are psychological significant for our behaviour and attitudes Positive: Behave in accordance with group norms (conformity) Negative: Behave in opposition to group norms (OR compliance) Membership groups o Groups to which we belong based on an objective external criterion Example: Hospitality worker vs Actor  SOCIAL INFLUENCE: POWER Power o Capacity to influence others while resisting their attempts to influence o Six major sources of social power have been identified  SOCIAL INFLUENCE: POWER Power Type Definition Example Reward The ability to give or promise rewards An employer provides employees with (e.g., money, approval, love) for a financial bonus if they meet sales compliance targets A parent who cuts off the internet until Coercive The ability to give or threaten their adolescent has cleaned their punishment for non-compliance room A project manager who knows the full Informational The target’s belief that the influencer has more information than oneself scope of a project Expert The target’s belief that the influencer A neurologist called in to treat has greater expertise and knowledge someone who has had a stroke than oneself A judge making a ruling in a court case Legitimate The target’s belief that the influence is authorised by a recognised power structure to command and make An athletics coach who treats all the decisions children they coach fairly Referent Identification with, attraction to, or respect for the source of the influence  SOCIAL INFLUENCE: OBEDIENCE Obedience o Doing as told by someone o Often a direct order from someone in authority  OBEDIENCE When an authority commands us to behave in a certain way and we do Stanley Milgram set out to study obedience as demonstrated by Nazi soldiers  OBEDIENCE Milgram (1963) o Method: Participants assigned to role of “teacher” and confederate to role of “learner” “Teacher” and “learner” separated from one another & “learner” attached to shock apparatus “Teacher” instructed to deliver shocks of increasing intensity to “learner” upon giving wrong answers  OBEDIENCE Milgram (1963) o Results: 12.5% 22.5% 65% stopped stopped obeyed until here here the end  OBEDIENCE Ethical issues o Is the research important? o Is the participant free to withdraw? o Did the participant provide informed consent? Are other research designs available? What is the likelihood of harm? What is the value of what can be learned? Debriefing  Participants: o Adults recruited via community & online advertising OBEDIENCE Procedure: BURGER, J. M. (2009). o Replicated Milgram’s procedure REPLICATING MILGRAM: WOULD PEOPLE STILL o 150V was identified as the critical point OBEY TODAY. AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST, 64, 1-11. in the experiment – no shocks given beyond this o Ethical considerations – participants screened; informed of right to withdraw; supervised by clinical psychologist; immediate debriefing OBEDIENCE Results: o 70% of participants continued to BURGER, J. M. (2009). administer the item after 150V REPLICATING MILGRAM: WOULD PEOPLE STILL o No significant differences based on OBEY TODAY. AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST, 64, 1-11. gender, age, ethnicity, or education  OBEDIENCE Explanation of results o Obedience to authority o Responsibility for harm assigned to the experimenter o Gradual increases in demands o Limited sources of information in a novel situation  OBEDIENCE Factors that reduce obedience Study design % obedience Original study 65% Immediacy of learner Learner in same room 40% Teacher places learner’s hand on 30% electrode Immediacy/legitimacy of experimenter Experimenter phoned instructions 21% Experimenter not in uniform 50% Study conducted in office building (not 48% University)  OBEDIENCE A further explanation of obedience (and disobedience) o Social identity theory perspective (Reicher & Haslam, 2012) Not obedience, but identification Participants could identify with the experimenter or learner Which identification occurred likely influenced by situational factors  OBEDIENCE: CULTURE Study Location % obedience US (Milgram, 1963) Male general population 65% Female general population 65% Australia (Kilham & Mann, 1974) Male students 40% Female students 16% The Netherlands (Meeus & Raaijmakers, 1986) General population 92% Jordan (Shanab & Yahya, 1978) Students 62% India (Gupta, 1983) Students 42%  OBEDIENCE: CULTURE Cross-cultural comparisons are challenging given differences in study designs o Participants, learner, obedience task, instructions, etc However, a substantial number of people in a variety of countries carry out orders from authority BUT Cultural dimensions/values do suggest differences (e.g., Hofstede) o Individualism-collectivism o Power distance Research in the parenting field shows variations in the nation-level popularity of independence and obedience (e.g., Park & Lau, 2016)  OBEDIENCE: CULTURE “Obedience to authority is vital for the success of most human groups and organizations” “The commands of authority often act as the voice of culture” (Ent & Baumeister, 2014) To understand obedience in a culture, the particular social context and the meaning of the orders given may need to be considered CONFORMITY Behaviour intended to avoid standing out from the group Deep-seated, private, and enduring change in behaviour and attitudes due to group pressure  CONFORMITY Involves alignment with group norms o According to Sherif (1936), groups provide a frame of reference o More central positions are typically perceived as more correct o Social norms emerge from convergence to that position  CONFORMITY Sherif (1936) o Method: Study relied on the autokinetic effect – optical illusion that a pinpoint of light in a dark room appears to move Participants asked how much the light moves Tested either: - Alone first and then in groups - In groups first and then alone  CONFORMITY Sherif (1936) o Results: Participants converged on a group norm Participants used this group norm when alone  CONFORMITY Asch (1951) o Method: Participants sat at a table with 6 confederates Asked to indicate aloud which of 3 comparison lines matched the standard line (participant was 2nd last to give answer)  CONFORMITY Asch (1951) C o Method: Standard trial: confederates gave C the same right answer C C Screen C C Stimuli A B C Test  CONFORMITY Asch (1951) ? o Method: Focal trial: confederates gave the A same wrong answer A A Screen A A Stimuli A B C Test  CONFORMITY Asch (1951) o Results: 25% didn’t conform 50% conformed on 6 or more focal trials 5% confirmed on all 12 focal trials Average conformity rate = 33%  CONFORMITY Factors that influence conformity Factor Conformity is greater when: Individual High self-monitoring characteristics High need for social approval/affiliation High social anxiety Low self-esteem Gender Individual is female? Differences small, inconsistent, and limited to certain situations Group size 3-5 person majority (further increases make little difference) Group membership (Note: number of independent sources may be key) Group members are competent Group unanimity Group members are friends Culture Groups are unanimous (conformity decreases with even one dissenter) Culture is collectivist rather than individualist  Participants: o Meta-analysis of 68 papers from 17 different countries, including 4627 CONFORMITY: participants CULTURE BOND, R., & P. B. SMITH. Results: (1996). CULTURE AND CONFORMITY: A META- o Using measures based on both ANALYSIS OF STUDIES Hofstede’s and Schwartz’ approaches to USING ASCH’S (1952B, 1956) LINE JUDGEMENT culture, conformity greater in collectivist TASK. PSYCHOLOGICAL BULLETIN, 119, 111-137. than individualist cultures o Impact of culture was greater than any other variable, including gender, majority size, and relation of majority to participant  CONFORMITY: CULTURE Independent/ Interdependent/ Individualist Collectivist Individual placed Collective placed before before collective individual Individual is the basic Group is basic unit of unit of society society Freedom to reject Following norms is norms essential for group cohesion Conformity (aversion to) Harmony  CONFORMITY A sign of the times? Newer studies (and meta- analyses) show reduced conformity over time, but the effect is still present  CONFORMITY The dual-process dependency model of social influence proposes that two processes underlie conformity Informational Influence Normative Influence Goal of accuracy/effective action: Goal of social approval: conform conform because we believe because we want others to accept others have accurate information and like us Occurs under conditions of Occurs when the group has the subjective uncertainty/ambiguity power to punish/reward Private acceptance/”true” Public compliance (while under influence surveillance) Sherif’s autokinetic study Asch’s line study  CONFORMITY The dual-process dependency model has been criticised for underemphasising group belongingness The social identity perspective proposes a third influence process - referent informational influence o Pressure to conform to a group norm that defines oneself as a group member  CONFORMITY Referent informational influence Self-categorisation Learning norms that accentuate: Similarities amongst in-group Differences between in-group and relevant out-groups Assignment of norms  CONFORMITY a l c e on i ue n at c e fl orm en in f i ve In influ a t r m No nt l r e na e f e ti o R ma ce or e n f in influ  NON-CONFORMITY What happens when people don’t conform? o Pressure to conform o Potential sanctions/consequences  Participants: NON- o Male participants (and male confederates) CONFORMITY SCHACHTER, S., Procedure: ELLERTSON, N., MCBRIDE, D., & GREGORY, D. (1951). o Groups of 8-10 discussed “Johnny AN EXPERIMENTAL STUDY Rocco” issue OF COHESIVENESS AND PRODUCTIVITY. HUMAN o 3 confederates in each group - “deviate”, RELATIONS, 4(3), 229-238. “slider”, “mode” o Communication toward confederates and interpersonal attraction toward confederates measured  Results: o Deviates attracted most communication during discussion NON- o Deviates given lowest interpersonal CONFORMITY attraction ratings post-discussion SCHACHTER, S., ELLERTSON, N., MCBRIDE, D., & GREGORY, D. (1951). AN EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF COHESIVENESS AND PRODUCTIVITY. HUMAN RELATIONS, 4(3), 229-238.  MINORITY INFLUENCE Behavioural style o Minority is more likely to prevail over majority if it has certain characteristics Consistency (across time & within the minority) Investment in its position Autonomy A degree of flexibility  MINORITY INFLUENCE Conversion theory (Moscovici, 1980) o Both majorities and minorities can exert influence, but do so via different processes Superficial Manifest/ Exposure to processing of Public Desire to fit in public majority view majority’s acceptance influence position Deep Intrigue and Exposure to processing of Private Latent/ private desire to minority view minority’s acceptance influence understand position Conversion  MINORITY INFLUENCE Conversion theory (Moscovici, 1980) Superficial Manifest/ Exposure to processing of Public Desire to fit in public majority view majority’s acceptance influence position Deep Intrigue and Exposure to processing of Private Latent/ private desire to minority view minority’s acceptance influence understand position Direction-of-attention hypothesis Majority – interpersonal vs Minority - message  MINORITY INFLUENCE Conversion theory (Moscovici, 1980) Superficial Manifest/ Exposure to processing of Public Desire to fit in public majority view majority’s acceptance influence position Deep Intrigue and Exposure to processing of Private Latent/ private desire to minority view minority’s acceptance influence understand position Content-of-thinking hypothesis Majority – superficial vs Minority - detailed  MINORITY INFLUENCE Conversion theory (Moscovici, 1980) Superficial Manifest/ Exposure to processing of Public Desire to fit in public majority view majority’s acceptance influence position Deep Intrigue and Exposure to processing of Private Latent/ private desire to minority view minority’s acceptance influence understand position Differential-influence hypothesis Majority – public vs Minority - private  MINORITY INFLUENCE Convergent-divergent theory (Nemeth, 1986, 1995) Majority Minority influence influence Convergent Divergent thinking thinking Disagreement with Disagreement with the the majority a stress a minority a no stress a narrowing of focus & no narrowing of focus & inhibits consideration allows consideration of of alternate views alternate views  MINORITY INFLUENCE Social identity and self-categorisation theories (Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Turner, 1991) In-group Majori ty Minority  MINORITY INFLUENCE Social identity and self-categorisation theories (Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Turner, 1991) In-group Out-group Majori ty Minority  MINORITY INFLUENCE Context-comparison model (Crano & Alvaro, 1997) o Factors that are relevant to understanding minority influence Centrality of the targeted belief Weak or unvested Strong or vested attitudes attitudes In-group minority is (a) In-group minority is (a) distinctive, (b) part of distinctive (b) part of the in-group, and (c) no the in-group, and (c) a threat to the in-group threat to the in-group Message receives Leniency contract elaboration Message receives In-group minority has elaboration direct influence In-group minority has  MINORITY INFLUENCE Context-comparison model (Crano & Alvaro, 1997) o Factors that are relevant to understanding minority influence Centrality of the targeted belief The minority/majority status of the source and the target The source’s status as in-group or out-group to the target The subjective or objective nature of the issue The self-relevance of the majority The proximity of the source’s position to that of the target  SOCIAL GROUPS Variations in social groups o Size of membership o Longevity o Concentration o Structure/organisation o Purpose o Decision-making  SOCIAL GROUPS Common attributes o Social interaction o Shared identity o Interdependence o Shared goals o Need satisfaction o Structure o Influence  SOCIAL GROUPS Social Groups Social Aggregates Characteristics as per Gathering of people who previous slide happen to be in close proximity for a short period of time  AUDIENCE EFFECTS An elementary social psychological question concerns the effect of the presence of other people on our behaviour What changes in an individual’s normal solitary performance occur when other people are present? - Gordon Allport (1954)  AUDIENCE EFFECTS Triplett (1898) o Cyclists ride faster when with others than when riding alone o Children – fishing reel study More mixed results Most children faster when racing than when alone, but some were slower Social facilitation or social inhibition?  AUDIENCE EFFECTS Social Facilitation Social Inhibition Improvement in Deterioration in performance in the performance in the presence of others presence of others Well-learned/easy/ Poorly-learned/ simple tasks difficult/complex tasks  AUDIENCE EFFECTS Theories that explain social facilitation and social inhibition o Drive/arousal theory o Evaluation apprehension theory o Distraction-conflict theory They are explained in terms of increased arousal, but differ in terms of whether the arousal is due to: o Mere presence o Evaluation apprehension o Attentional conflict  AUDIENCE EFFECTS Drive/arousal theory (Zajonc, 1965) Dominant  response correct Performance (well- Increased learned/eas tendency y task) Audience Arousal to produce present dominant Dominant response* response incorrect Performance (poorly- learned/ha  Mere rd task) presence of others *Dominant response = the best learned/most habitual response  AUDIENCE EFFECTS Drive/arousal theory (Zajonc, 1965) o Zajonc, Heingartner, & Herman (1969) Studies of cockroaches, running an easy/hard maze with/without an audience  AUDIENCE EFFECTS Drive/arousal theory (Zajonc, 1965) o Zajonc, Heingartner, & Herman (1969) Studies of cockroaches, running an easy/hard maze with/without an audience Easy Maze Hard Maze Cockroaches ran maze Cockroaches ran maze faster with an audience slower with an than without an audience than without audience an audience Social facilitation Social inhibition  AUDIENCE EFFECTS Evaluation apprehension theory (Cottrell, 1972) Dominant response correct (well- learned/easy  Performance Increased task) tendency Audience Arousal to produce present dominant Dominant response response incorrect Performance (poorly- learned/hard  Evaluation task) apprehension AUDIENCE Participants: EFFECTS: o Undergraduate students EVALUATION APPREHENSION Procedure: COTTRELL, N. B., WACK, D. L., SEKERAK, G. J., & o Participants assigned to one of three RITTLE, R. H. (1968). conditions to complete an easy task: SOCIAL FACILITATION OF DOMINANT RESPONSES BY Control/alone PRESENCE OF OTHERS. JOURNAL OF Blindfolded audience/mere PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL presence PSYCHOLOGY, 9(3), 245– 250. Attentive audience AUDIENCE EFFECTS: Results: EVALUATION o No social facilitation in APPREHENSION blindfolded/mere presence condition (when compared to control/alone) COTTRELL, N. B., WACK, D. o Social facilitation in attentive audience L., SEKERAK, G. J., & RITTLE, R. H. (1968). condition (when compared to SOCIAL FACILITATION OF control/alone) DOMINANT RESPONSES BY PRESENCE OF OTHERS. JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 9(3), 245– 250.  AUDIENCE EFFECTS Distraction-conflict theory (Baron, 1986; Sanders et al., 1978) Dominant response correct (well- learned/easy  Performance Increased task) tendency Audience Arousal to produce present dominant Dominant response response incorrect Performance (poorly- learned/hard  Attentional conflict: task) tendency to pay attention to audience vs tendency to pay attention to task  AUDIENCE EFFECTS Distraction-conflict theory (Baron, 1986; Sanders et al., 1978) o Attentional conflict/distraction creates arousal, not mere presence or evaluation apprehension o Consistent with this interpretation – non-social sources of distraction (e.g., flashing lights and buzzers) cause the same kinds of effects as the presence of others  AUDIENCE EFFECTS Non-drive/arousal theories o E.g., attentional consequences of others (Baron, 1986) Narrowing is helpful (well- learned/easy  Performance Narrowing task) Attentional of attention/ Audience overload focus on present central cues Narrowing is problematic Performance (poorly- Attentional conflict: learned/hard task)  tendency to pay attention to audience vs tendency to pay attention to task  AUDIENCE EFFECTS Other factors may have a role to play - e.g.: o If the audience’s reaction can be seen o The relationship between the performer and the audience o Whether or not the task involves interaction  SOCIAL LOAFING A reduction in individual effort when working on a task involving group effort Possible explanations o Coordination loss o Motivation loss  Participants: SOCIAL o Male university students LOAFING INGHAM, A. G., LEVINGER, G., GRAVES, J., & Procedure: PECKHAM, V. (1974). THE RINGELMANN EFFECT: o Participants pulled in groups from 1 STUDIES OF GROUP SIZE (alone) to 6 (with 5 others) AND GROUP PERFORMANCE. JOURNAL o Participants took part in one of two OF EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL conditions: PSYCHOLOGY, 10(4), 371- 384. Real group Pseudo-group  Results: o Both motivation loss and coordination SOCIAL loss occurred LOAFING INGHAM, A. G., LEVINGER, G., GRAVES, J., & PECKHAM, V. (1974). THE RINGELMANN EFFECT: STUDIES OF GROUP SIZE AND GROUP PERFORMANCE. JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 10(4), 371- 384.  Output equity/matching of effort - Expectation that others will loaf SOCIAL LOAFING: Evaluation potential EXPLANATIONS - Reduced identifiability of contribution Matching to standard - Not having a clear sense of the group’s standards  REDUCING SOCIAL LOAFING How, then, do we reduce social loafing?  REDUCING SOCIAL LOAFING Group sizes are smaller There is individual accountability o Individual input is unique o There is the potential for evaluation The task is personally meaningful/involving Group members believe the group will be effective in achieving important goals People place greater values on groups than individuals o Males vs females o Collectivist vs individualistic cultures SOCIAL Participants: LOAFING: o Chinese and American 6th and 9th grade CULTURE students GABRENYA, W. K., WANG, Y., & LATANE, B. (1985). Procedure: SOCIAL LOAFING ON AN OPTIMIZING TASK: CROSS- o Participants were asked to count a series CULTURAL DIFFERENCES of tones presented via headphones either AMONG CHINESE AND AMERICANS. JOURNAL OF (a) alone or (b) in pairs CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY, 16, 223-242. o Comparison of individual versus pair performance (i.e., group) provided a measure of social loafing  Results: 10 9th grade performance (ratio SOCIAL 5 of pair to individual) LOAFING: 0 CULTURE US Chinese -5 -10 GABRENYA, W. K., WANG, Y., & LATANE, B. (1985). -15 SOCIAL LOAFING ON AN OPTIMIZING TASK: CROSS- CULTURAL DIFFERENCES o 9th grade (see graph): US children loafed more than AMONG CHINESE AND AMERICANS. JOURNAL OF Chinese children CROSS-CULTURAL US children performed 11.7% worse in pairs than PSYCHOLOGY, 16, 223-242. individually Chinese children performed 8.7% better in pairs than individually - “social striving” o 6th grade: no difference between US and Chinese children  SOCIAL LOAFING: CULTURE Cultural differences appear dependent on: o Stage of development o Type of task E.g., on a sound production task (shouting & clapping), both Chinese and US students showed social loafing (Gabrenya et al., 1982) o Make-up of the group E.g., Chinese and Israeli managers showed social striving when working with an ingroup versus alone BUT Showed similar performance levels when working with an outgroup versus alone (Earley, 1993)  GROUP SOCIALISATION The process involving an individual and group that begins when the individual first considers joining the group and ends when they leave it  GROUP SOCIALISATION Five-stage Forming Orientation & familiarisation developmental Conflict; members start working sequence that Stormin through disagreements (e.g., goals, g small groups go practices) through (Tuckman, 1965) Norming Consensus, cohesion, and a sense of common identity & purpose emerge Performi Group works smoothly; shared norms ng & goals Adjourni Dissolution of group ng  GROUP SOCIALISATION Another approach considers socialisation from both the individual’s and group’s perspective (Levine & Moreland, 1982,1984) Evaluation Commitment Role Individual – Of individual transition group to group Change in rewards Of group to member’s role Group – individual Governed by individual groups’ & contributions individuals’ criteria GROUP SOCIALISATION  GROUP NORMS Attitudinal and behavioural uniformities that define group membership & differentiate between groups o Mark group boundaries  Participants: GROUP NORMS o Female university students SIEGEL, A. E., & SIEGEL, S. (1957). REFERENCE GROUPS, MEMBERSHIP Procedure: GROUPS, AND ATTITUDE o Participants were randomly assigned to CHANGE. THE JOURNAL OF ABNORMAL SOCIAL one of two types of accommodation: PSYCHOLOGY, 55(3), 360- 364. Sorority (conservative) Dormitory (liberal) o Conservatism measured at the beginning and end of the year  Results: o Exposure to dormitory/liberal norms reduced conservatism GROUP NORMS SIEGEL, A. E., & SIEGEL, S. (1957). REFERENCE GROUPS, MEMBERSHIP GROUPS, AND ATTITUDE CHANGE. THE JOURNAL OF ABNORMAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 55(3), 360- 364.  GROUP NORMS Can be formal or informal Vary in their narrowness/restrictiveness Vary in the attitudes and behaviours they endorse Deviation from the norm can lead to: o Dislike from other in-group members GROUP NORMS Participants: o 1st grade children STORMSHAK, E. A., BIERMAN, K. L., BRUSHCI, C., DODGE, K. A., & COIE, J. D. (1999). THE RELATION BETWEEN BEHAVIOR Procedure: PROBLEMS AND PEER o Assessed: PREFERENCE IN DIFFERENT CLASSROOM Aggressive behaviour (e.g., fights, teases CONTEXTS. CHILD others) DEVELOPMENT, 70(1), 169- Classroom norms for aggression 182. Peer preference  Results: o Classroom norms influenced the association between aggression and GROUP NORMS peer preference STORMSHAK, E. A., BIERMAN, K. L., BRUSHCI, C., DODGE, K. A., & COIE, J. D. (1999). THE RELATION BETWEEN BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS AND PEER PREFERENCE IN DIFFERENT CLASSROOM CONTEXTS. CHILD DEVELOPMENT, 70(1), 169- 182.  GROUP NORMS Can be formal or informal Vary in their narrowness/restrictiveness Vary in the attitudes and behaviours they endorse Deviation from the norm can lead to: o Dislike from other in-group members o Pressure to conform  LEADERSHIP “A process of social influence through which an individual enlists and mobilizes the aid of others in the attainment of a collective goal” (Chemers, 2001, p. 376) Collective Relational (i.e., between Purposeful (i.e., group- (i.e., with a goal) based) leader & followers)  LEADERSHIP Personality Leadership styles Contingency theories (person x situation) Transactional Transformational  LEADERSHIP: PERSONALITY Great person approach o Effective leadership attributed to innate or acquired individual characteristics o Leadership correlated (but not particularly strongly) with: Higher intelligence Better physique (e.g., taller, more attractive) More talkativeness Higher need for dominance  LEADERSHIP: PERSONALITY Great person approach o The Big 5 personality dimensions, overall, have a moderate correlation with leadership Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Emotional stability Openness to experience  LEADERSHIP: STYLES Style Characteristics Autocratic Makes decisions without reference to anyone else (Authoritarian) Produces an aggressive, self-oriented group atmosphere High degree of dependency on leader High productivity only when the leader is present Can create de-motivation and alienation amongst group members Democratic Encourages input in decision-making (Participative) Produce a friendly, group-centred, task-oriented atmosphere Relatively high productivity, regardless of whether leader present or absent Can help motivation, involvement and feeling of ownership of group Laissez-faire and group Group ideas left to own devices (Delegative) Produces a friendly, group-centred, but play-oriented atmosphere Low productivity (increased if the leader is absent) Can be highly motivational as people have control (Lippitt & White, 1943)  LEADERSHIP: STYLES Other classifications o Task-oriented o Interpersonally-oriented  LEADERSHIP: CONTINGENCY Contingency theory (Fiedler, 1967, 1971, 1981) o The effectiveness of particular leadership behaviours/styles is contingent on the properties of the leadership situation o The interaction between type of leader & situational control is key  LEADERSHIP: CONTINGENCY Type of leader o Assessed via the Least-Preferred Co-Worker (LPC) Scale Relationship- Task-oriented oriented Authoritarian, value Relaxed, friendly, non- group success directive Not favourably Favourably inclined inclined towards co- towards co-workers workers if they’re even if they’re performing poorly performing poorly  LEADERSHIP: CONTINGENCY Situational control – depends on: o Quality of leader-member relations (good or poor) o Clarity of task structure (structured or unstructured) o Intrinsic power/authority of leader (high/strong or low/weak) High situational Low situational control control Good relations Poor relations Structured task Unstructured task High power Low power  LEADERSHIP: CONTINGENCY Most successful leadership High o Task-oriented Leadership success Task-oriented leaders – either high or low situational control o Relationship- oriented leaders – Low Relationship-oriented moderate situational Low High control Situational control  LEADERSHIP: TRANSACTIONAL Focuses on the transaction of resources between a leader and followers  LEADERSHIP: TRANSACTIONAL Leader-member exchange (LMX) theory o Effective leadership depends on the ability of