Introduction to Social Psychology: Attitudes and Behavior PDF

Introduction to Social Psychology Lecture 4: Attitudes and Behavior; Automaticity Hannah Gans What is an attitude?  A favourable or unfavourable evaluative reaction toward something or someone, exhibited in one’s beliefs, feelings or intended behaviour What is an attitude?  A fa...

Introduction to Social Psychology Lecture 4: Attitudes and Behavior; Automaticity Hannah Gans What is an attitude?  A favourable or unfavourable evaluative reaction toward something or someone, exhibited in one’s beliefs, feelings or intended behaviour What is an attitude?  A favourable or unfavourable evaluative reaction toward something or someone, exhibited in one’s beliefs, feelings or intended behaviour  Object: pie What is an attitude?  A favourable or unfavourable evaluative reaction toward something or someone, exhibited in one’s beliefs, feelings or intended behaviour  Object: pie  Person: yourself (self-esteem) What is an attitude?  A favourable or unfavourable evaluative reaction toward something or someone, exhibited in one’s beliefs, feelings or intended behaviour  Object: pie  Person: yourself (self-esteem)  Idea: capital punishment  Can be a mix of positive and negative: ambivalent attitudes What is an attitude? Tripartite Model  A positive or negative evaluation of an object  Affect What is an attitude?  A positive or negative evaluation of an object  Affect  Cognition What is an attitude?  A positive or negative evaluation of an object  Affect  Cognition  Behavior Explicit vs. Implicit Attitudes  Attitudes can be explicit or implicit  Explicit Attitudes ◼ Attitudeswhich we consciously endorse and can easily report Explicit vs. Implicit Attitudes  Attitudes can be explicit or implicit  Explicit Attitudes ◼ Attitudeswhich we consciously endorse and can easily report  Implicit Attitudes ◼ Attitudeswhich are involuntary, uncontrollable, and at times, nonconscious Measuring Attitudes  Likert scale: a numerical scale used to assess people’s attitudes; it includes a set of possible answers with labeled anchors  Just ask how positively or negatively people feel towards an attitude object How much do you like pie? Not at Somewhat Very all much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Measuring Attitudes  Implicit attitude measure: indirect measure of attitudes that does not involve self-report  IAT: measures the strength of associations between concepts by strength of associations between concepts by comparing reaction times ◼ Faster to respond when responses match how they are associated in memory Measuring Attitudes  Implicit attitude measure: IAT Where Do Attitudes Come From?  Attitudes are learned through experience  Ex. conditioning (classical & observational learning) Where Do Attitudes Come From?  Attitudes are learned through experience  Ex. Conditioning (Classical): ◼ Classical: associating stimuli with a positive or negative response ◼ Unconditioned Stimulus (US): The celebrity (e.g., a popular actor or musician) → Unconditioned Response (UR): Positive feelings toward the celebrity. Where Do Attitudes Come From?  Attitudes are learned through experience  Ex. Conditioning (Classical): ◼ Neutral Stimulus (NS): The perfume or brand ◼ Conditioning Process: The ad pairs the neutral stimulus (perfume/brand) with the unconditioned stimulus (celebrity). Conditioned Stimulus (CS): The perfume becomes associated with the celebrity ◼ Conditioned Response (CR): Positive feelings or attitudes toward the perfume/brand, even without the celebrity present. Where Do Attitudes Come From?  Attitudes are learned through experience  Ex. Conditioning (Classical): Where Do Attitudes Come From?  Attitudes are learned through experience  Ex. Conditioning (Observational): ◼ Watching others with a certain attitude → adopt that attitude Where Do Attitudes Come From?  Attitudes are learned through experience  Ex. conditioning (classical & observational learning)  Ex. mere exposure effect ◼ Repeated exposure to a novel stimulus leads to positive evaluations of the stimulus Where Do Attitudes Come From?  Attitudes are learned through experience  Ex. conditioning (classical & observational learning)  Ex. mere exposure effect ◼ Repeated exposure to a novel stimulus leads to positive evaluations of the stimulus  Ex. heuristics How Do Attitudes Become Stronger  Once formed attitudes can become stronger through:  Greater accessibility (repeated activation/use) ◼ Cognitive accessibility ◼ Repeated activation How Do Attitudes Become Stronger  Once formed attitudes can become stronger through:  Greater accessibility (repeated activation/use)  Surrounding oneself with others who share the same attitudes (ex. false consensus effect) ◼ Social validation How Do Attitudes Become Stronger  Once formed attitudes can become stronger through:  Greater accessibility (repeated activation/use)  Surrounding oneself with others who share the same attitudes (ex. false consensus effect)  Gather evidence to confirmation attitude (ex. confirmation bias) How Do Attitudes Become Stronger  Once formed attitudes can become stronger through:  Greater accessibility (repeated activation/use)  Surrounding oneself with others who share the same attitudes (ex. false consensus effect)  Gather evidence to confirmation attitude (ex. confirmation bias)  Greater connection to core values & beliefs (ex. self- concept) When do Attitudes Predict Behavior?  Attitudes do not always predict behaviour  Ex. Batson et al. (1999) & “moral hypocrisy” ◼ Appearing moral without actually being so When do Attitudes Predict Behavior?  Attitudes do not always predict behaviour  Ex. Batson et al. (1999) & “moral hypocrisy” ◼ Appearing moral without actually being so ◼ Researchparticipants assigned themselves and another participant (fictitious) to different tasks ◼ Task 1: described as fun with a chance to win a raffle ◼ Task 2: described as boring with no chance of winning ◼ 70-80% assign themselves the desirable task even though they know it’s immoral When do Attitudes Predict Behavior?  Attitudes do not always predict behaviour  Ex. Batson et al. (1999) & “moral hypocrisy” ◼ Appearing moral without actually being so  Ex. attempts to change behaviour by changing attitudes do not always work ◼ Ex. sex education programs  When do Attitudes Predict Behavior?  When social influences are minimal People may not always honestly report their explicit attitude because they want to present themselves in a positive light (remember impression management)  When do Attitudes Predict Behavior?  When social influences are minimal People may not always honestly report their explicit attitude because they want to present themselves in a positive light (remember impression management) So, we measure their implicit attitudes  When do Attitudes Predict Behavior?  When social influences are minimal People may not always honestly report their explicit attitude because they want to present themselves in a positive light (remember impression management) So, we measure their implicit attitudes ◼Can predict a range of behaviours (both in conjunction with explicit attitudes & uniquely) ◼But debate about validity & reliability of the IAT When do Attitudes Predict Behavior?  When other influences are minimal  Attitude & behaviour are at the same level of specificity ◼ General attitudes: broad evaluations (e.g., "I care about the environment"). ◼ Specific attitudes: narrowly focused (e.g., "I believe recycling plastic bottles is important"). When do Attitudes Predict Behavior?  When other influences are minimal  Attitude & behaviour are at the same level of specificity ◼ Principle of aggregation ◼ The effects of an attitude on behaviour become more apparent when we look at a person’s aggregate (average) behaviour rather than isolated acts When do attitudes predict behaviour?  Theory of planned behaviour  Suggests that the best predictors of a person’s behaviours are their behavioural intentions and, When do attitudes predict behaviour?  Theory of planned behaviour  Suggests that the best predictors of a person’s behaviours are their behavioural intentions and,  Best predictors of behavioural intentions are ◼ Attitudes toward specific behaviours When do attitudes predict behaviour?  Theory of planned behaviour  Suggests that the best predictors of a person’s behaviours are their behavioural intentions and,  Best predictors of behavioural intentions are ◼ Attitudestoward specific behaviours ◼ Subjective norms When do attitudes predict behaviour?  Theory of planned behaviour  Suggests that the best predictors of a person’s behaviours are their behavioural intentions and,  Best predictors of behavioural intentions are ◼ Attitudestoward specific behaviours ◼ Subjective norms ◼ Perceived behavioural control When do Attitudes Predict Behavior? When do Attitudes Predict Behavior? When the attitude is potent  The attitude is accessible When do Attitudes Predict Behavior? When the attitude is potent  The attitude is accessible  Chronic accessibility: always on our mind When do Attitudes Predict Behavior? When the attitude is potent  The attitude is accessible  Chronic accessibility: always on our mind  Temporary priming: cued to be on our mind ◼ Ex. Snyder & Swann (1976) ◼ Ex. Objective self-awareness (& self-consciousness) When do Attitudes Predict Behavior? When the attitude is potent  The attitude is accessible  Chronic accessibility: always on our mind  Temporary priming: cued to be on our mind ◼ Ex. Bargh, Chen, & Burrows (1996) - Priming Politeness and Rudeness ◼ Task 1: scrambled sentence task ◼ Politeness condition: contained words like "respect," "patient," and "courteous." ◼ Rudeness condition: contained words like "bother," "disturb," and "aggressive." ◼ Neutral condition: contained words unrelated to politeness/rudeness ◼ Behavioral observation: do participants interrupt vs. wait When do Attitudes Predict Behavior? When the attitude is potent  The attitude is accessible  Chronic accessibility: always on our mind  Temporary priming: cued to be on our mind ◼ Ex. Bargh, Chen, & Burrows (1996) - Priming Politeness and Rudeness ◼ Primed with politeness: didn’t interrupt ◼ Primed with rudeness: interrupted When do Attitudes Predict Behavior? When the attitude is potent  The attitude is accessible  Chronic accessibility & Temporary priming ◼ Ex. Snyder & Swann (1976) ◼ Ex. Objective self-awareness (& self-consciousness)  Accessible attitudes are more likely to guide behaviour  The attitude is strong  Strong attitudes are more likely to guide behaviour Predicting Behavior from Attitudes: The attitude- behavior problem Predicting Behavior from Attitudes: The attitude- behavior problem  Reasons for discrepancy:  Time Gap (6 months later)  Different People  Presentation of the Couple with Stanford Professor Why Attitudes Are Poor Predictors  Attitudes may conflict with other influences on behavior  Social norms, other conflicting attitudes, and situational factors also influence behavior  Where Attitudes ≠ Behavior  Negative attitude  Inefficient (cognitive component)  Stressful (affective component)  Where Attitudes ≠ Behavior  Negative attitude  Inefficient (cognitive component) + stressful (affective component)  Conflicting components  Attitude:positive attitude towards good grades  Social norms: contribute equally  Situational: approaching deadline Why Attitudes Are Poor Predictors Why Attitudes Are Poor Predictors  Attitudes are often based on secondhand information  Things we learned from other people, the media, or other sources Why Attitudes Are Poor Predictors  Attitudes are often based on secondhand information  Researchshows attitudes based on firsthand experience better predict behavior ◼ Reading a review about a restaurant vs. actually going to the restaurant Why Attitudes Are Poor Predictors  Attitudes are often based on secondhand information  Researchshows attitudes based on firsthand experience better predict behavior ◼ Reading a review about a restaurant vs. actually going to the restaurant ◼ Going to the restaurant = more likely to recommend the restaurant Why Attitudes Are Poor Predictors  Attitudes can be inconsistent  Affective and cognitive aspects conflict Why Attitudes Are Poor Predictors  Attitudes can be inconsistent  Affective and cognitive aspects conflict ◼ Affective: “I really dislike my boss” Why Attitudes Are Poor Predictors  Attitudes can be inconsistent  Affective and cognitive aspects conflict ◼ Cognitive: “My boss provides me with financial stability”  Why Attitudes Are Poor Predictors  Introspection influences attitudes  Sometimes (often?) self-insight is poor  We come up with plausible reasons, not necessarily the right reasons  Why Attitudes Are Poor Predictors  Introspection influences attitudes  Sometimes (often?) self-insight is poor  We come up with plausible reasons, not necessarily the right reasons (Wilson, Lisle, and Kraft (1989)). ◼ Group 1: rate relationship satisfaction ◼ Group 2: think about why you feel the way you do prior to rating relationship satisfaction  Why Attitudes Are Poor Predictors  Introspection influences attitudes  Sometimes (often?) self-insight is poor  We come up with plausible reasons, not necessarily the right reasons (Wilson, Lisle, and Kraft (1989)). ◼ Group1: satisfaction ratings → predicted future behavior  Why Attitudes Are Poor Predictors  Introspection influences attitudes  Sometimes (often?) self-insight is poor  We come up with plausible reasons, not necessarily the right reasons (Wilson, Lisle, and Kraft (1989)). ◼ Group 1: satisfaction ratings → predicted future behavior ◼ Group 2: satisfaction ratings → did not predict future behavior Why Attitudes Are Poor Predictors  Many behaviors are automatic  Automaticinformation processing guides behavior in ways that escape conscious awareness Why Attitudes Are Poor Predictors  Many behaviors are automatic  Automaticinformation processing guides behavior in ways that escape conscious awareness Why Attitudes Are Poor Predictors  Many behaviors are automatic  Automatic information processing guides behavior in ways that escape conscious awareness  Behavior can be influenced by aspects of the situation of which we are not aware Why Attitudes Are Poor Predictors  Behavior can be influenced by aspects of the situation of which we are not aware Why Attitudes Are Poor Predictors  Behavior can be influenced by aspects of the situation of which we are not aware Predicting Attitudes from Behavior  Attitudes may be poor predictors of behaviors, but behaviors can be good predictors of attitudes Behavior Can Affect Attitudes  Our behaviour can also determine our attitudes  When we occupy social roles, over time, we may come to internalize those roles & the associated norms Behavior Can Affect Attitudes  Ex. Zimbardo’s (1972) Stanford Prison Experiment Behavior Can Affect Attitudes  Ex. Gender roles  Men are encouraged to be assertive → internalized  Women are encouraged to be nurturing → internalized Behavior Can Affect Attitudes  When we lack compelling external explanations for our words, saying can become believing (“saying becomes believing”  Public commitments act as catalysts Behavior Can Affect Attitudes  When we lack compelling external explanations for our words, saying can become believing  Esp. when we make public commitments ◼ Ex. when we acquiesce to a request Behavior Can Affect Attitudes  When we lack compelling external explanations for our words, saying can become believing  Esp. when we make public commitments ◼ Ex. when we acquiesce to a request ◼ Also happens with immoral acts ◼ An early, seemingly innocuous, negative act can make it easier for us to perform a worse act later ◼ Harming an innocent victim can lead aggressors to further (& escalating) harmful acts Behavior Can Affect Attitudes  When we lack compelling external explanations for our words, saying can become believing  Esp. when we make public commitments ◼ Ex. when we acquiesce to a request ◼ Also happens with immoral acts ◼ An early, seemingly innocuous, negative act can make it ◼ Shoplifting → guilt → reduced guilt → justify larger acts Why Does Behaviour Influence our Attitudes  Impression Management  Remember that we want to make a favourable impression on others ◼ Engaging in behavior → express consistent attitudes Why Does Behaviour Influence our Attitudes  Impression Management  Remember that we want to make a favourable impression on others ◼ We may (pretend to) express attitudes that are consistent with our behaviour Cognitive Consistency  Cognitive consistency theories  People try to maintain consistency between different beliefs and behaviors  Balance Theory  Cognitive Dissonance Theory Consistency Theories  Balance theory  Theorythat people try to maintain a balance between their thoughts, feelings, and sentiments Balance Theory ◼ “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” would be an example of a balanced triad of sentiments ◼ Harry dislike A (-), and Ron dislikes A (-), then I like Ron (+) ◼ (-) x (-) x (+) = (+) ◼ Balanced triad Balance Theory ◼ Havingtwo good friends that dislike each other would be an example of an unbalanced triad of sentiments ◼I like A (+), and I like B (+), but A dislikes B (-) ◼ (+) x (+) x (-) = (-) ◼ Unbalanced triad Balance Theory  People are motivated to resolve unbalanced triads ◼ If two of your friends dislike each other, you are likely to decide that you like one friend less than the other Cognitive Dissonance Theory  Theory that inconsistencies between thoughts, feelings, and behavior create an unpleasant mental state (cognitive dissonance) that motivates mental efforts to resolve them Cognitive Dissonance Theory  Cognitivedissonance can be reduced by changing thoughts, feelings, or behavior in order to make them consistent Cognitive Dissonance Theory  Behavior(eating meat) conflicts with beliefs (caring about animal welfare) → cognitive dissonance ◼ Trivializethe issue: “my actions won’t make a difference” ◼ Change beliefs: “animal suffering isn’t that bad” ◼ Rationalize: “I only eat organic” Cognitive Dissonance Theory  Cognitive dissonance is reduced by changing beliefs or behaviors to reduce apparent inconsistencies  Usually easier to change beliefs than behavior Cognitive Dissonance Theory  Cognitive dissonance is reduced by changing beliefs or behaviors to reduce apparent inconsistencies  Usually easier to change beliefs than behavior  Because behaviors are (often) in the past, cognitive dissonance often causes changes in thoughts and/or feelings to rationalize behaviors Cognitive Dissonance Theory  Cognitive dissonance is reduced by changing beliefs or behaviors to reduce apparent inconsistencies  Making a purchase: ◼ Buying an expensive item → rationalization Cognitive Consistency Cognitive Dissonance Theory  After having committed a cruel act people may reduce dissonance disliking, derogating or dehumanizing the victim  Believingthe victim deserved it → avoid confronting inconsistency Cognitive Dissonance Theory  After having committed a cruel act people may reduce dissonance disliking, derogating or dehumanizing the victim  May result in the rationalization trap  Potentialfor dissonance reduction to produce a succession of self-justifications that ultimately result in stupid or immoral acts  Can avoid this trap by giving people a chance to self-affirm Cognitive Dissonance Theory  Counter-attitudinal advocacy  theprocess that occurs when a person states an opinion or attitude that runs counter to their private belief or attitude Cognitive Dissonance Theory  Counter-attitudinal advocacy  theprocess that occurs when a person states an opinion or attitude that runs counter to their private belief or attitude ◼ Ifthere is minimum external justification the attitude will change in the direction of the public statement ◼ i.e., the person feels some responsibility Decisions and Dissonance Which job to choose? Decisions and Dissonance Which job to choose? Decisions and Dissonance Which job to choose? Decisions and Dissonance  Decision dissonance typically is resolved by emphasizing the positives and minimizing the negatives of the selected choice  Alsoresolved by emphasizing the negatives of the unselected choices and minimizing the positives Effort Justification  Effort justification  Attempts to reduce dissonance produced by the effort or cost spent to obtain something unpleasant or disappointing  Greater effort expended leads to more dissonance and more attempts to rationalize behavior Effort Justification  Fraternity hazings ◼ Humiliating rituals as necessary Effort Justification  Physicians in training Effort Justification Induced Compliance  Induced compliance (also called forced compliance)  Subtly getting people to act in ways inconsistent with their attitudes  Often leads to a change in attitude in order to resolve dissonance Induced Compliance  Original study of dissonance  Participants first completed a long and boring task  Then participants were either paid $1 or $20 to lie to another person and say the task was really fun  Then participants were asked how much fun they really thought the task was Cognitive Dissonance How enjoyable was the task? Resisting Forbidden Fruit “Forbidden toy” study Resisting Forbidden Fruit  Allchildren resisted playing with the forbidden toy  Later, children were asked to rate the toys again  Children given a mild threat found the toy less desirable than before, but children given a severe threat found the toy more desirable. Why? Resisting Forbidden Fruit  Mild threats of punishment are a weak reason for resisting something that is desired, so attitude changes to match behavior ◼ “That toy isn’t so great after all”  Severethreats are a good reason to resist a behavior but may result in the behavior seeming even more appealing When Does Inconsistency Produce Dissonance?  Free choice  Sense of personal responsibility When Does Inconsistency Produce Dissonance?  Insufficient Justification  Mild threat created greater dissonance  When Does Inconsistency Produce Dissonance?  Negative consequences  More negative the outcome → more discomfort  When Does Inconsistency Produce Dissonance?  Negative consequences  Risky stock investment → Financial loss Is Dissonance Universal?  Culture and decision dissonance  Euro-Canadians (individualists) experienced more dissonance when making a choice for themselves than for a friend Is Dissonance Universal?  Culture and decision dissonance  Euro-Canadians (individualists) experienced more dissonance when making a choice for themselves than for a friend  Asian-Canadians (collectivists) experienced more dissonance when making a choice for a friend than for themselves Is Dissonance Universal?  Culture and decision dissonance  Euro-Canadians (individualists) experienced more dissonance when making a choice for themselves than for a friend  Asian-Canadians (collectivists) experienced more dissonance when making a choice for a friend than for themselves  Collectivists are more likely to experience dissonance when primed with thoughts of how other people would view their choices and behavior Self-Perception Theory  Self-perception theory  Theory that people infer their attitudes from observing their behavior  If the prior attitude is weak or ambiguous, people may use their behavior to understand their attitude Self-Perception Theory  Self-perception theory  Theory that people infer their attitudes from observing their behavior  “I guess I was hungrier than I thought”  “I guess I must like them a little if we’ve gone on three dates…” Self-Perception Theory  Can explain the overjustification effect  The result of bribing people to do what they already like doing; they may then see their action as externally controlled rather than intrinsically appealing Self-Perception Theory  Can explain the overjustification effect  The result of bribing people to do what they already like doing; they may then see their action as externally controlled rather than intrinsically appealing Self-Perception vs. Cognitive Dissonance  Self-perception theory suggests a different interpretation of the cognitive dissonance research  Cognitive dissonance theory: people change attitudes to fit their behavior because inconsistencies are mentally unpleasant  Self-perception theory: an unpleasant mental state is not needed as explanation Self-Perception vs. Cognitive Dissonance  Is it dissonance or self-perception that leads to attitude change?  Ex. Zanna & Copper (1974) Self-Perception vs. Cognitive Dissonance  Is it dissonance or self-perception that leads to attitude change?  Ex. Zanna & Copper (1974) ◼ Group 1: “drug” would have no effect ◼ Group 2: “drug” will make you feel tense ◼ Group 3: “drug” will relax you Self-Perception vs. Cognitive Dissonance  Is it dissonance or self-perception that leads to attitude change?  Ex. Zanna & Copper (1974) ◼ High choice condition: asked to write, but could decline ◼ Low choice condition: required to write the essay Self-Perception vs. Cognitive Dissonance  Is it dissonance or self-perception that leads to attitude change?  Ex. Zanna & Copper (1974) Reconciling Dissonance and Self-Perception  Cognitive dissonance most likely when:  Behavior doesn’t fit a pre-existing attitude  The attitude is important to the self-concept Reconciling Dissonance and Self-Perception  Self-perception most likely when:  Attitudes are weak or ambiguous  No strong prior attitude → no sense of inconsistency → no dissonance  Many attitudes are relatively weak and changeable System Justification Theory  People are motivated to defend and justify the status quo, even at the expense of personal or group interests System Justification Theory  People are motivated to defend and justify the status quo, even at the expense of personal or group interests System Justification Theory  Reduces cognitive dissonance by aligning attitudes with the societal status quo System Justification Theory  Reduces cognitive dissonance by aligning attitudes with the societal status quo  Explains why disadvantaged groups may support as that harm them Automaticity Charlie Chaplin mask illusion Automatic Physiological Processes Heart and respiration rate Automaticity in Social Judgments  Unconscious processing  Speed and efficiency  Stereotyping  Dual-process models Automaticity in Social Judgments  Unconscious processing  Speed and efficiency  Stereotyping  Dual-process models Parallel Feature Searches Feature Conjugation Search Automatic behavior  “Priming”  Activating a concept or association in working memory  Activation affects behaviour Semantic Priming  See “butter”  Fasterto respond to “knife”  See “doctor”  Fasterto respond to “nurse” How Does Priming Work? Medicine Stethoscope Doctor Nurse Hospital How Does Priming Work? Medicine Stethoscope Doctor Nurse Hospital How Does Priming Work? Medicine Stethoscope Doctor Nurse Hospital Why Automaticity?  Functional  Reduces cognitive work Why Automaticity?  Functional  Reduces cognitive work  Often primes appropriate behavior for social situation Why Automaticity?  Functional  Reduces cognitive work  Often primes appropriate behavior for social situation  Can have negative consequences Automatic Stereotyping  Gun or tool? (Payne, 2001)  Participants do a task identifying objects as hand guns or hand tools. The face of a black or white male was shown briefly before each object. Automatic Stereotyping  White participants were quicker to recognize guns after seeing a black face and more likely to mistake a tool as a gun after seeing a black face  Seeing the faces primed stereotypes about black males and made it easier to recognize items linked to the stereotype Automaticity  Flexible activation of situationally-appropriate behavior  What is activated depends on individual’s beliefs, attitudes, knowledge, etc.  Can have negative consequences Mimicry Mimicry  Participant interacts with two confederates, one after the other  Participant and confederate take turns describing photos  Throughout interaction, one confederate shakes her foot, the other touches her face  What does the participant do? Number of times per min. Mimicry Benefits of Mimicry  Participants interact with one confederate on photo description task  Confederate either mimicked the posture and mannerisms of participants or not  Participants report on ‘exit questionnaire’ how much they liked the confederate and how smoothly the interaction went with the confederate Benefits of Mimicry 7 6 5 Mimicked by confed 4 Not mimicked by confed 3 2 1 0 Liking Smoothness Conclusions  Many of the things we do are automatic  Flexible set of responses that help us navigate the social world  Based on learned associations  Sometimes, what usually works gets us into trouble Introduction to Social Psychology Lecture 5: Social Influence & Persuasion Hannah Gans Social Influence  Others influence us and we influence others  Influencecan vary based on the degree of pressure (perceived or otherwise) exerted on an individual Social Influence  Automatic  Sometimes we are influenced by other people without our awareness  Studies show that people mimic each other’s behaviours and moods, perhaps as a way of smoothing social interactions. ◼ The Chameleon Effect Compliance  Compliance  Agreeing to the request of another person regardless of that person’s status  Doing a favor, giving to charity, buying a product Compliance  “Placebic information”  Addingthe word “because” influences compliance Compliance  “Placebic information”  People approached at copier  “Excuse me, I have 5 pages, may I use the Xerox machine?”  No information  Real information “...because I’m in a rush.”  Placebic information “...because I have to make copies.”  Compliance 1 0.93 0.93 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 % compliance 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 No information Real information Placebic information Langer, Blank, & Chanowitz, 1978 Compliance  Automatic processes at play  “Because” serves as a signal → wired to respond ◼ Tend to comply more readily ◼ People tend to stop listening after ‘because’ Reason-based Approaches  Foot-in-the-door technique Make a small request that is accepted, followed by a large request Reason-based Approaches  Initial requests:  Large request: big, unappealing sign on their lawn  Small request: small, post-card sign Foot-in-the Door % Agreeing 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Control Previous small request Norm-Based Compliance  Pluralistic Ignorance  Wrongly believe that our feelings or behaviors are different from those of the group  Norm-Based Compliance  Investigated students’ attitudes towards alcohol consumption  Students own comfort  Students estimated comfort level of the average student and their friend  Norm-Based Compliance  Students felt privately uncomfortable & overestimated their peers’ comfort  Self-perpetuating cycle Norm-Based Compliance  Static and Dynamic Norms  Static: currently in place ◼ Assuming drinking is widely accepted  Dynamic: changing over time ◼ Over the last decade, more couples have started sharing financial decision-making equally. Norm-Based Compliance  Static and Dynamic Norms  Peopleare influenced by the norm as well as how the norm is changing  Descriptive & Prescriptive Norms  Descriptive: descriptions of what is typical  Prescriptive: descriptions of what people should do Norm-Based Compliance  Norm of reciprocity  Feel obligated to give to someone who has given to us.  Even when given something small, we may feel obligated to agree to a later request  Why it works: social norms, feeling obligated; “You gave to me, so I give to you.” Norm-Based Compliance  Reagan Coca Cola study  Experimenter would leave  50% of the time would come back with a soda for the participant  Experimenter asked them to buy raffle tickets  2x more likely to buy raffle tickets if given a soda Norm-Based Compliance  Door-in-the-face  Make a large request that is refused, followed by smaller request  Why it works: reciprocal concession; “You compromised with me, so I’ll compromise with you.” Norm-Based Compliance  Bob Cialdini Raffle Ticket Study  Make a large request (5$ raffle ticket) that is refused, followed by smaller request (1$ candy bar)  Makes the small request seem reasonable Foot in the door vs Door in the face Situation Type Best Strategy Why? One-time request, Uses guilt & obligation to immediate compliance Door-in-the-Face increase compliance. needed Building long-term Gets people to see commitment or behavior Foot-in-the-Door themselves as "the type of change person" who agrees. The second request must Requests must be related Door-in-the-Face seem like a concession. Requests don’t have to be The first request builds a Foot-in-the-Door related sense of commitment. Identification  Influence in an attempt to emulate the communicator if they are liked or admired.  You make the change not because it’s intrinsically satisfying, but because it puts us in a satisfying relationship with the person(s) we’re trying to identify with  You’rejust trying to be like that person  Belongingness Scarcity: Deadlines  A technique for increasing compliance in which target individuals are told that they have only limited time to take advantage of some offer or to obtain some item  “limitedtime offer”  “sale ends today” Scarcity: Deadlines  A technique for increasing compliance in which target individuals are told that they have only limited time to take advantage of some offer or to obtain some item  Why does it work? ◼ Lossaversion ◼ Indecision Internalization  Yielding to influence in situations where the new attitude is intrinsically rewarding – the desire to be accurate  It fits in with one’s views, values, and principles; it’s consistent.  This is the truest form of attitude change. (Message Influence) Internalization  Yielding to influence in situations where the new attitude is intrinsically rewarding – the desire to be accurate  It fits in with one’s views, values, and principles; it’s consistent.  This is the truest form of attitude change. (Message Influence) ◼ Becomes a part of who we are Emotion-based Approaches  Both positive and (some) negative emotions can increase rates of compliance  Positive emotions  Mood maintenance  Different construals of the request Emotion-based Approaches  Both positive and (some) negative emotions can increase rates of compliance  Positive emotions  Mood maintenance ◼ People want to maintain a positive mood so they agree more easily ◼ Feels good to say yes  Different construals of the request Emotion-based Approaches  Both positive and (some) negative emotions can increase rates of compliance  Positive emotions  Mood maintenance ◼ People want to maintain a positive mood so they agree more easily ◼ Feels good to say yes  Different construals of the request ◼ More likely to trust someone’s intentions when you’re feeling positive Emotion-based Approaches Emotion-based Approaches  Negative emotions  Negative state relief ◼ Morelikely to agree to a request when experiencing a negative emotion because it may make us feel better  Guilt Emotion-based Approaches  Negative emotions  Negative state relief ◼ Morelikely to agree to a request when experiencing a negative emotion because it may make us feel better  Guilt ◼ May feel more obligated to help someone if we feel guilty ◼ Better to ask for a donation before someone confesses their sins than afterward Testing Negative State Relief  Participants (except for control group) led to believe they had ruined a student’s research Testing Negative State Relief  Participants (except for control group) led to believe they had ruined a student’s research  No relief: Did another task or sat quietly  Money: Unexpectedly paid $1  Praise: Praised for their excellent performance on a subsequent task  Everyone was then asked to make (uncompensated) phone calls by another experimenter No effect of personal involvement! Cialdini, Darby, & Vincent (1973) Forms of Influence  Obedience  Following the demands of someone who is higher in social power than oneself ◼ Example: following the orders of a police officer Milgram’s Study of Obedience  Classic study showing the power of social influence  Recall experimental setup  Experiment described as a “study of learning”  Participants instructed to shock another participant for any wrong answers ◼ Theother participant is a confederate who never receives any real shocks Milgram Study Results  Despite potential harm to another person, 62.5 percent of participants completed the experiment  Originally it was predicted that less than 1 percent of people would follow instructions until the end  Participants of different ages and social classes all obeyed  Same effects found for women and men Forces Influencing Obedience  “Tuning in” the victim  Variations of the Milgram experiment that varied the proximity of the learner. ◼ No visual or audio feedback, audio feedback, same room (visual and audio feedback), and touch proximity Forces Influencing Obedience  “Tuning out” the authority  Variations on the social power of the experimenter ◼ Experimenter gives orders over telephone, experimenter has lower status, experimenter is contradicted by another experimenter Why People Obeyed  They tried, but failed  Attempts to leave the situation are blocked by the authority  Participants did not wish to harm the learner, so they sought ways to avoid it, but they succumbed to the consistent urging of the experimenter  The experimenter ignored reasons offered by the participant, and the confused participant, in turn, conformed to the rules established by the experimenter Why People Obeyed  The experimenter took responsibility for the actions of the participant  Step-by-step situation  Can arrive at extreme situations in step-by- step process: a “slippery slope” Forms of Influence  Conformity Change in behavior with or without explicit pressure from others Automatic Mimicry  Mindlessly imitating other people’s behaviors and movements Posture, mannerisms, expressions Mimicry  Participant interacts with two confederates, one after the other  Participant and confederate take turns describing photos  Throughout interaction, one confederate shakes her foot, the other touches her face  What does the participant do? Number of times per min. Mimicry Benefits of Mimicry  Participants interact with one confederate on photo description task  Confederate either mimicked the posture and mannerisms of participants or not  Participants report on ‘exit questionnaire’ how much they liked the confederate and how smoothly the interaction went with the confederate Benefits of Mimicry 7 6 5 Mimicked by confed 4 Not mimicked by confed 3 2 1 0 Liking Smoothness Automatic Mimicry Automatic Mimicry  Why do we do this?  Thinking about a behavior → performing that behavior  Facilitates positive social interactions Acceptance  Both acting & believing in accord with social pressure Informational Social Influence  Autokinetic illusion study  Theautokinetic illusion is that a stationary point of light will appear to move in a dark room Sherif’s Studies of Norm Formation  Phase 1  P seated in a dark room, then a pinpoint of light appears (~5m away), after a while it seems to move (autokinetic effect), then disappears  P estimate how much the pinpoint of light has moved (average estimate: 2-6 inches) Sherif’s Studies of Norm Formation  Phase 1  P seated in a dark room, then a pinpoint of light appears (~5m away), after a while it seems to move (autokinetic effect), then disappears  P estimate how much the pinpoint of light has moved (average estimate: 2-6 inch)  Phase 2  P & 2 others seated in dark room, repeat procedure  Convergence of guesses Sherif’s Studies of Norm Formation  Phase 1  P seated in a dark room, then a pinpoint of light appears (~5m away), after a while it seems to move (autokinetic effect), then disappears  P estimate how much the pinpoint of light has moved (average estimate: 2-6 inch)  Phase 2  P & 2 others seated in dark room, repeat procedure  Convergence of guesses  Days 3 & 4  Successive repetitions of the group experiment over the course of a few days Informational Social Influence  Informational social influence more likely when  Situation is ambiguous or difficult Why do people conform?  Informational social influence: conformity based on the desire to be accurate  Use other people as information  Conform because other people are seen as correct or as having more information Normative Social Influence  Conformity based on the desire to be liked or socially accepted Normative Social Influence  Line judgment study (Asch, 1956)  Line judgment task was a very easy task: judging whether two lines were the same length  There was one true participant in group of confederates, who give wrong answers Normative Social Influence Normative Social Influence  A full 75 percent of participants conformed at least once  Overall, participants conformed 37 percent of the time  Conformity on the line judgment task had to be due to desire to not be deviant from the group since the correct answer was obvious Factors Influencing Conformity  Group size  Conformity rates increase as group size increases, but only up to a point ◼ Two people have greater influence than one, but eight people aren’t more influential than four Factors Influencing Conformity  Group unanimity  More conformity when group is unanimous  One person is likely to conform to a group, but if they have at least one other ally who breaks the unanimity, then conformity rates dramatically decrease Factors Influencing Conformity  Group unanimity Factors Influencing Conformity  Expertise and status  High status or expert group members have more social influence  Experts exert more informational social influence  High status people exert more normative social influence Factors Influencing Conformity  Difficulty or ambiguity of task  More susceptible to informational influence for difficult or ambiguous tasks Factors Influencing Conformity  Anonymity  When decisions can be made anonymously, people are much less susceptible to normative social influence Private Acceptance versus Public Conformity  Normative social influence leads to public conformity, but not necessarily private acceptance  People may publically agree with the group opinion in order to avoid social disapproval, but privately believe something different Private Acceptance versus Public Conformity  Informational social influence leads to internalization (private acceptance) of the majority opinion  Theinformation of the group is viewed as accurate and correct Minority Influence  In some cases, a minority opinion can change the majority opinion  Minority opinions have the greatest influence when the opinion is consistent  Minority opinions may cause other members to reconsider their positions Minority Influence  #MeToo Movement and Gender Equality  Climate Change Awareness & Action Persuasion  McGuires Information Processing Approach  To be effective, a persuasive message must clear several hurdles  Remembering one’s own thoughts in response to the message is important Dual Process Approach to Persuasion  Elaboration Likelihood Model Central route ◼Thoughtful consideration Dual Process Approach to Persuasion  Elaboration Likelihood Model Central route ◼Thoughtful consideration Peripheral route ◼Superficial cues Roles of Motivation and ability  College students evaluated a new proposal for a new comprehensive exam that would be required for graduation Roles of Motivation and ability  College students evaluated a new proposal for a new comprehensive exam that would be required for graduation  Message strength: strong vs. weak  Source expertise: Carnegie Commission on Higher Education vs. local high school class  Personal relevance: exam starts before graduation vs. after Roles of Motivation and ability Roles of Motivation and ability  Elements of Persuasion  Source Characteristics Credibility ◼Sleeper effect Attractiveness Certainty  Elements of Persuasion  Source Characteristics Credibility ◼Sleeper effect Attractiveness Certainty  Elements of Persuasion  Message Characteristics Message quality Vividness ◼identifiable victim effect Culture  Elements of Persuasion  Message Characteristics  Using evidence can enhance persuasion ◼ Ex. “dry” statistics vs. vivid images/testimonials  Must be careful to capture attention but not distract the audience from the message  Appealing to reason vs. emotion  Elements of Persuasion  Message Characteristics  Emotion appeals ◼ Positivefeelings can enhance persuasion ◼ Increases positive thinking (positive thoughts/feelings become associated with the message)  Elements of Persuasion  Message Characteristics  Emotion appeals ◼ Fear can be used to enhance persuasion, but ◼ Won’t work if message arouses too little or too much fear ◼ More effective when people led to ◼ fear the severity of threat & their susceptibility to the threat ◼ believe there are solutions & they have self-efficacy Elements of Persuasion Elements of Persuasion  Elements of Persuasion  Message Characteristics  Emotion appeals ◼ Effectiveness depends on audience ◼ Reason more persuasive when audience ◼ Has high knowledge or involvement ◼ Original attitude primarily formed through reason ◼ Emotion more persuasive when audience ◼ Has low knowledge or involvement ◼ Original attitude primarily formed through emotion  Elements of Persuasion  Message Characteristics  Order of presentation  Elements of Persuasion  Message Characteristics  Discrepancy & message sidedness ◼ The audience’s initial attitude matters ◼ Thegreater the discrepancy between the message & the audience’s initial attitudes, the less persuasive the message ◼ But high credibility can make an extreme message more persuasive  Elements of Persuasion  Message Characteristics ◼ One-sided arguments are more persuasive than two- sided arguments if consistent with people’s initial attitude ◼ The reverse is the case if inconsistent with initial attitude  Elements of Persuasion  Channel of Communication  Active experience vs. passive reception ◼ Activeexperience can be more persuasive than passive, but not always  Major influence is personal rather than media influence ◼ But, media influence matters ◼ Two-step flow ◼ Mass media to opinion leaders to general public  Subliminal advertising  Elements of Persuasion  Channel of Communication  Does subliminal advertising work? ◼ In the real world, NO ◼ In the laboratory under controlled conditions, YES  Elements of Persuasion  Audience Characteristics Distractions can enhance  Elements of Persuasion  Audience Characteristics Distractions can enhance Personality influences ◼Need for cognition, self esteem  Elements of Persuasion  Audience Characteristics Distractions can enhance Personality influences ◼Need for cognition, self esteem Mood Age Knowing your audience  The Media and Persuasion  Power of the Media  Shared attention  The Media and Conceptions of Social Reality  Agenda Control  Perceptions of Bias in the Media  Hostile media phenomenon  Misinformation and the Media Putting it all together – Cialdini’s 6 Persuasion Principles Table 5–1 – Six Persuasion Principles Principle Application Authority: People defer to credible Establish your expertise; identify problems you have experts. solved and people you have served. Liking: People respond more Win friends and influence people. Create bonds based affirmatively to those they like. on similar interests; praise freely. Social proof: People allow the example Use “peer power”—have respected others lead the way. of others to validate how to think, feel, and act. Reciprocity: People feel obliged to Be generous with your time and resources. What goes repay in kind what they’ve received. around, comes around. Consistency: People tend to honour their Have others write or voice their intentions. Don’t say public commitments. “Please do this by …” Instead, elicit a “yes” by asking. Scarcity: People prize what’s scarce. Highlight genuinely exclusive information or opportunities. Putting it all together – Cialdini’s 6 Persuasion Principles  Resistance to Persuasion  Attitude certainty  Remember strong attitudes bias information processing through  selective exposure  selective attention  selective perceptions/judgments  selective memory  Resistance to Persuasion  Reactance  Negative reactions to threats to one’s personal freedom ◼ Often increases resistance to persuasion and can produce “negative attitude change”  Strengthen personal commitments  Remember public commitments  Resistance to Persuasion  Attitude inoculation  Isthe process of making people immune to attempts to change their attitudes…  By initially exposing them to small doses of the arguments against their position  Increase knowledge  Ex. forewarning ◼ Generation of counter-arguments ◼ Can be countered by distraction