Week 5: PSYU/X 3333 Social Perception PDF

Week 5: PSYU/X 3333 SOCIAL PERCEPTION: ATTITUDES & INFLUENCE August 24, 2023 Part I: Part II: Attitudes Persuasion (Others’ Influence) Attitudes: The ABC’s • What’s an attitude? ― Evaluation of a person, place, object, event, idea, or behavior ― Attitudes may be implicit or explicit • Compone...

Week 5: PSYU/X 3333 SOCIAL PERCEPTION: ATTITUDES & INFLUENCE August 24, 2023 Part I: Part II: Attitudes Persuasion (Others’ Influence) Attitudes: The ABC’s • What’s an attitude? ― Evaluation of a person, place, object, event, idea, or behavior ― Attitudes may be implicit or explicit • Components ― Affective  Emotions or feelings toward ― Behavioral  Actions or observable behaviors that results from ― Cognitive  Knowledge, thoughts, beliefs about 3 Functions • Utilitarian ― Know our likes and dislikes. ― Alert us to potential rewards, costs, or threats in the situation • Value-expressive ― Attitudes help us express cherished beliefs and values ― Guide identification with reference groups that reinforce those values • Ego-defensive ― Attitudes may allow us to maintain cherished beliefs about ourselves and our world ― Attitudes also allow us to defend those beliefs when they are threatened • Knowledge ― Attitudes help us organize information ― Know what we want to pay attention to, remember, and recall Where Do Attitudes Come From? • Genetic origins? ― Twin studies ― Indirect function of our genes  Temperament, personality • Social experiences ― Though all attitudes have ABC components, any given attitude can be based more on one type of experience than another.     Exposure to attitude objects Rewards and punishments Attitudes that our parents, friends, and enemies express The social and cultural context Basis: ABC’s • Affective: based more on feelings and values than on their beliefs about the nature of an attitude object. ― Sometimes we simply like something, regardless of relevant facts. ― Are NOT a result of:  Examining facts or rational examination  Not governed by logic ― Often result from:  Values  Sensory or Aesthetic Reactions  Conditioning Basis: ABC’s AFFECTIVE: CONDITIONING 7 Basis: ABC’s • Behavioral: based on observations of how one behaves toward an attitude object. ― Sometimes people do not know how they feel until they see how they behave  Self-Perception Revisted (Bem) • People infer their attitudes from their behavior only under certain conditions: ―When initial attitude is weak or ambiguous. ―When no other plausible explanation for behavior. Basis: ABC’s • Cognitive: based primarily on people’s beliefs about the properties of an attitude object. ― Sometimes our attitudes are based primarily on the relevant facts. ― Example—a car  How many km to the tank does it get?  Does it have driver assist technology?  What is it’s safety rating? Explicit Versus Implicit Attitudes • Explicit Attitudes ― Attitudes that we consciously endorse and can easily report. • Implicit Attitudes ― Attitudes that are involuntary, uncontrollable, and at times unconscious. Measuring Attitudes • Self-report ― Attitude scale ― Bogus pipeline • Covert ― Videotape ― Facial electromyograph (EMG) ― Brain imaging • Implicit Association Test (IAT) or GNAT Attitudes and Behavior Is the assumption that attitudes influence behavior a valid one? The Role of Culture Attitudes and Behavior • Is the assumption that attitudes influence behavior a valid one? ― Attitudes as Poor Predictors of Behaviour?  LaPiere (1930s); Meta-analyses 1960s  Attitudes may conflict with other influences on behavior  Attitudes may be inconsistent  Attitudes may be based on secondhand information  General attitudes may not match specific targets • Specific attitude better predicts specific behaviour  Automatic Attitudes and Behavior • Attitudes as Better predictors of behaviour? • Spontaneous Behavior: Highly accessibility • Deliberate Behaviour: Theory of Planned Behaviour • Intention, specific attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control Attitudes and Behavior • Attitudes may be poor predictors of behaviors, but behaviors can be good predictors of attitudes • Consistency Principle – People will change their attitudes, beliefs, perceptions, and actions to make them consistent with one another • Balance Theory - People try to maintain a balance between their thoughts, feelings, and sentiments ― Inconsistencies between ABCs create an unpleasant mental state (cognitive dissonance) that motivates mental efforts to resolve them Cognitive Dissonance Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959 Cognitive Dissonance Discomfort that people feel when two cognitions (beliefs, attitudes) conflict, or when they behave in ways that are inconsistent with their conception of themselves Cognitive Dissonance Reduction • Changing our behavior to bring it in line with the dissonant cognition • Justifying our behavior through changing one of the dissonant cognitions • Justifying our behavior by adding new cognitions • Rationalizing decisions • Rationalizations can occur before or after the decision is made Cognitive Dissonance • Post-decision Dissonance: • Dissonance aroused after making decision, typically reduced by enhancing attractiveness of chosen alternative and devaluing rejected alternatives. • More important decisions = More dissonance • Greater permanence = More dissonance • Permanence of decision - How difficult it is to revoke • Dissonance increases • Motivation to reduce dissonance increases Advances in Cognitive Dissonance Four steps are necessary for both the arousal or reduction of dissonance (Cooper and Fazio, 1984): • An attitude-discrepant behavior must produce unwanted negative consequences • A feeling of personal responsibility for the unpleasant outcomes of behavior • Physiological arousal that produces a state of discomfort and tension that the person seeks to reduce • A person must make an attribution for that arousal to his or her own behavior Advances in Cognitive Dissonance • Cognitive dissonance results from challenges/threats to people’s sense of themselves as rational, moral, and competent • Self-affirmation • Boosting our self-esteem and identity by focusing on important aspects of the self • Impression-management theory • What matters is not a motive to be consistent but rather a motive to appear consistent • Self-Evaluation Maintenance Theory • Self-Perception • The role of an unpleasant arousal is the critical difference between cognitive dissonance theory and self-perception theory • CD may occur when behavior doesn’t fit a preexisting attitude and the attitude is important to the self-concept • SP may occur when attitudes are weak or ambiguous • SP may reflect aspects of how the mind is constructed How Do Attitudes Change? • Often due to social influence ― Attitudes are social phenomena. • Aside from dissonance, can be influenced by others as well ― Communication (e.g., a speech or television ad) advocating a particular side of an issue • Yale Attitude Change Approach ― “Who said what to whom”  Who: the source of the communication  What: the nature of the communication  Whom: the nature of the audience Source Characteristics • Attractiveness & Likability ― Attractive spokespeople are more persuasive, even for topics completely unrelated to attractiveness ― Effects of attractiveness are through the peripheral route: attractive people are rated more favorably, and those favorable feelings become associated with the message • Credibility ― People who are seen as knowledgeable and trustworthy are more persuasive ― However, non-credible sources can change attitudes through the sleeper effect Sleeper Effect: Source • A delayed increase in the persuasive impact of a non-credible source. • Discounting cue hypothesis: People immediately discount the arguments made by non-credible communicators, but over time, they dissociate what was said from who said it. Message Characteristics • Messages appearing not overtly persuasive in intent • High-quality messages ― Explain desirable yet novel outcomes of acting in response to the message  More effective • when conclusions are explicit and directly refute opposing views • for people who find the message personally relevant • when source argues against personal self-interest (2-sided) • Vivid information ― Vivid information can be more persuasive than statistical facts ― Identifiable victim effect: Tendency to be more influenced by information about one specific individual than about large amounts of people ― Fear-based persuasion: Most effective when combined with instructions on how to avoid negative outcomes • In debate – First or Last? ― Primacy effect (Immediate decision) ― Recency effect (Delayed decision) Receiver Characteristics • Personality: Need for cognition  People high in need for cognition are more persuaded by central route messages than by peripheral route messages • Mood: Messages more persuasive when they match mood of the receiver  Optimistic messages work best on happy people • Age: ― Younger people are more persuadable than older people (18 – 25)  Older people may have strong and long-held attitudes • Attention: Distracted more persuadable • Intelligence: lower more persuadable • Self-esteem: moderate most persuadable (vs low or high) Elaboration Likelihood Model Petty & Cacioppo, 1986; Petty et al., 2005 • Central Route (Systematic) ― People elaborate on a persuasive communication  when people have both ability and motivation to listen carefully • Peripheral Route (Heuristic) ― People do not elaborate on arguments in a persuasive communication  instead swayed by peripheral or surface cues. Central and Peripheral Routes • Central routes are effective for persuasion when ― ― ― ― ― Personally relevant to us Have some knowledge about the topic Feel responsibility for some related outcome Highly motivated and capable of processing message High need for cognition • Peripheral routes are effective when ― Motivation and/or capacity to process the message low ― Low need for cognition ― When unable to pay close attention to arguments, swayed by peripheral cues  Status of communicator, Liking/trusting communicator  A weak argument can still be persuasive if distract audience ELM+: Heuristics • Heuristic–Systematic Model of Persuasion ― Systematically processing the merits of the arguments ― When using peripheral route  Use mental shortcuts (heuristics) • e.g., “Experts are always right”  Use emotions/moods as heuristic • “How do I feel about it?” • Misattribution of arousal? • Several studies have shown that it is best to “fight fire with fire”: ― If an attitude is cognitively based  Try to change it with rational arguments ― If it is affectively based  Try to change it with emotional appeals • Fabrigar & Petty, 1999; Shavitt, 1989; Snyder & DeBono, 1989 Resisting Persuasive Messages • Attitude Inoculation ― Making people immune to attempts to change their attitudes by initially exposing them to small doses of the arguments against their position • Product Placement ― Advertisers increasingly place messages about their products shows  incorporate their product into the script • Know cause: Resistance to peer pressure in adolescence − Peer pressure operates on values and emotions; Liking and acceptance by peer group − Not based in logical arguments − Attitude inoculation that focuses on inoculating against emotional appeals Resisting Persuasive Messages • Last word… ― Reactance Theory Part II: Persuasion (Others’ Influence) Social Influence: Beyond Persuasion Forms of Influence • Conformity ― Change perceptions, opinions, or behavior in ways that are consistent with social or group norms.  with or without explicit pressure from others • Compliance ― Following the request of another person, regardless of that person’s status • Obedience ― Compliance that occurs in response to an authority figure or someone who is higher in social power than oneself Conformity: Automaticity • Some forms of conformity may be automatic • Why do we unconsciously mimic others? ― Ideomotor action  Principle that thinking about an action increases the likelihood of doing that action • Preparation for social interaction: • The Chameleon Effect ― Mimicry stronger for people with a drive to affiliate with others ― People like individuals that mimic them better ― People who are mimicked engage in more prosocial behavior afterward ― Mimicry may build social rapport and lead to pleasant social interactions Informational Social Influence (Sherif) • 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 • Autokinetic illusion study Informational Social Influence (Sherif) • Informational social influence more likely when ― Situational Ambiguity: Situation is ambiguous or difficult ― Others seen as experts: We feel low in knowledge or competence about the topic ― Crisis Situations • Private Acceptance ― Conforming to other people’s behavior out of a genuine belief that what they are doing or saying is right ― Informational social influence often results in private acceptance! • Public Compliance ― Conforming to other people’s behavior publicly without necessarily believing in what we are doing or saying Normative Social Influence • Conformity based on the desire to be liked or socially accepted • Line judgment study (Asch, 1956) ― A full 75 percent of participants conformed at least once ― Overall, participants conformed 37 percent of the time ― 24% never conformed Normative Social Influence Most Likely • Commitment to group • Group size ― Conformity rates increase as group size increases, up to a point • Group unanimity ― More conformity when group is unanimous  BUT if they have at least one ally who dissents, then conformity dramatically decreases • Expertise and status ― High status or expert group members have more social influence Other Factors Influencing Conformity • Gender (binary) ― Women conform more on stereotypically male tasks, while men conform more on more stereotypically female tasks • Culture ― Higher rates of conformity in interdependent cultures  more concerned about fitting into social context • Anonymity ― When decisions can be made anonymously, less susceptible to NSI • Explanations for behavior ― Conform less when we understand the reasons for others’ behaviors Other Factors Influencing Conformity • People who assert beliefs against the majority generally seen as competent and honest, but also often disliked and roundly rejected. • Nonconformists can act as agents of social change by using strategies for exerting minority influence. • Dissent: ― Sparks innovation ― Forces others to think more carefully, more openly, in new and different ways, and more creatively about a problem ― Enhances the quality of a group’s output Other Factors Influencing Conformity • Minority Influence: dissenters produce change in group  Often good to conform, then dissent (credibility)  Lone individuals must exhibit “authentic dissent”—not merely play “devil’s advocate,” a tactic that actually bolsters a majority’s position. ― Moscovici: Nonconformists derive power from STYLE of behaviour  Minority opinions have greatest influence when the opinion is consistent, forceful, persistent • But also appear flexible and open-minded.  More influence when others identify with them and perceive them to be in similar ways that are relevant and desirable. Other Factors Influencing Conformity • Majority vs. Minority Influence ― Majorities have greater influence on factual questions ― Majorities have a decisive upper hand on direct or public measures of conformity. ― Minorities exert equal impact on opinion questions. ― Minorities exert a strong impact when measured indirectly or privately, when attitude issues are related but not focal to point of conflict, or after passage of time. Compliance • Compliance ― Agreeing to the request of another person regardless of that person’s status • Can social norms be used to induce people to conform to correct, socially approved behavior? ― First, identify the norm that is operating in the situation. ― Injunctive norms:  Perceptions of what behaviors are approved or disapproved of by others ― Descriptive norms:  Perceptions of how people actually behave in given situations, regardless of judgement by others ― Invoking descriptive plus injunctive most successful  Descriptive can backfire Compliance • Norm of reciprocity dictates that we treat others as they have treated us. ― Leads us to feel obligated to repay others for acts of kindness ― Can also be used to sanction retaliation against those who cause us harm ― People may feel compelled to reciprocate, but that feeling—at least for small acts of kindness—is relatively short-lived. Compliance: Large to small • Door-in-the-face ― two-step compliance technique in which an influencer prefaces the real request with one that is so large that it is rejected. ― Followed by smaller (real) request ― Why it works: reciprocal concession; “You compromised with me, so I’ll compromise with you.” • That’s-not-all ― two-step compliance technique in which the influencer begins with an inflated request, then decreases its apparent size by offering a discount or bonus. ― Why it works: we feel like we are getting more than expected; the added bonus increases pressure to reciprocate Compliance: Small to Large • Lowballing ― two-step compliance technique in which the influencer secures agreement with a request but then increases the size of the request by revealing hidden costs. • Foot-in-the-door ― two-step compliance technique in which an influencer sets the stage for the real request by first getting a person to comply with a much smaller request. ― Why it works: need for consistent self-perception; agreeing to the first request makes it easier to agree with a second request Compliance and Affect • Positive and (some) negative moods can increase rates of compliance • Positive moods ― Mood maintenance ― Different construals of the request  More likely to trust someone’s intentions in a positive mood • Negative moods ― Negative state relief  May be more likely to agree 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 Obedience • Obedience is a social norm ― Universally valued • Without obedience there would be chaos • We are socialized to obey (perceived) legitimate authority figures ― Internalize social norm of obedience  Obey even if authority figure isn’t present • e.g., traffic lights • Obedience can have serious, tragic consequences. ― Obey the orders of an authority figure to hurt or even kill other human beings Milgram’s Study of Obedience • Experiment described as a “study of learning” • Participants instructed to shock another participant for wrong answers ― Other participant is a confederate (no real shocks) • Shock level increased for each wrong answer ― Shock levels ranged from 15 to 450 volts • During the experiment, the confederate begins to scream in pain and demand the experiment end ― Later confederate stops making sounds, indicating he may be possibly injured or dead • Experimenter in a white lab coat instructs participant to continue ― Please continue (or please go on); The experiment requires that you continue; It is absolutely essential that you continue; You have no other choice; you must go on. Milgram: What would you do? • Milgram asked psychiatrists, college students, and middleclass adults to predict how they would behave. ― On average, these groups estimated they would quit at 135-volts. ― Not a single person said they would go to the 450-volt level. ― Psychiatrists estimated that only 1/1,000 would exhibit extreme obedience. Milgram: What would you do? • ~65% completed the experiment ― Participants of different ages and social classes all obeyed ― Everyone went up to at least 300 volts (when confederate began pounding on wall) • Several variations of the Milgram experiment have been conducted exploring which aspects of the situation most influence obedience rates Milgram: The Obedient Participant “I observed a mature and initially poised businessman enter the laboratory smiling and confident. Within 20 minutes he was reduced to a twitching, stuttering wreck, who was rapidly approaching a point of nervous collapse. He constantly pulled on his earlobe and twisted his hands. At one point he pushed his fist into his forehead and muttered, “Oh God, let’s stop it.” And yet he continued to respond to every word of the experimenter and obeyed to the end. (Milgram, 1963, p. 377)” Milgram: Factors That Influence Obedience Milgram: Modern Day • Analogous experiment (Meeus and Raaijmakers, 1995) in which participants were ordered to cause psychological harm. ― Harass a job applicant taking a test during a job interview • When the applicant pleaded with the participant to stop: ― In control group, no one persisted ― In experimental group, 92% exhibited complete obedience despite seeing the task as unfair and distasteful.