Chpt 16 Section 2
ATTITUDES:
MAKING SOCIAL
JUDGMENTS
{ Attitudes are positive or negative evaluations of objects of thought
Cognitive component: beliefs people hold about the objects of an attitude
Affective component: emotional feelings stimulated by an object of thought
Behavioral component: predispositions to act in certain ways toward an object of thought
COMPONENTS OF
ATTITUDE
Strength: durable; powerful impact on behavior
Accessibility: how often one thinks about something; how quickly it comes to mind
Ambivalence: conflicted evaluations that include both pos and neg feelings about an object of thought
DIMENSIONS OF
ATTITUDE
Attitude does not predict behavior
Stronger attitudes are more predictive
Behavior relies on situational constraints--especially subjective perceptions of how people expect you to behave
ATTITUDES AND
BEHAVIOR
Constant
4 basic elements:
Source: sender of communication
Receiver: to whom the msg is sent
Message: info transmitted
Channel: the medium
PERSUASION
Persuasion more effective if source has credibility
Source should by trustworthy
Likable: similarity and physical attractiveness
SOURCE FACTORS
Should you present a one-sided argument or two-sided argument
Concentrate on your strong arguments
Validity effect: repeating a statement causes it to be perceived as more valid or true
Appeal to fear?
MESSAGE FACTORS
Stronger attitudes are more resistant to change
Confirmation bias: arguments that conflict with beliefs are scrutinized longer
Observers’ prior knowledge makes it difficult to persuade
RECEIVER FACTORS
THEORIES OF
ATTITUDE
FORMATION AND
CHANGE
{
Affective component can be created through classical conditioning
Operant conditioning comes into play when you express ideas
Peoples’ responses reinforce your tendency to repeat a specific attitude
Observational learning: you repeat behavior you see
LEARNING THEORY
Leon Festinger
Inconsistency among attitudes propels people in the direction of attitude change
(counterattitudinal behavior)
Cognitive dissonance exists when related cognitions are inconsistent—that is, when they contradict each other
DISSONANCE THEORY
Effort justification: when people switch attitudes to justify efforts that did not work out
Cooper: dissonance occurs only when individuals feel personally responsible for causing aversive events that were unforeseeable
Steele and Aronson: occurs when individuals behave in a way that threatens their sense of self-worth
DISSONANCE THEORY
CONTINUED
Daryl Bem
People often infer their attitudes from their behavior
Very similar to dissonance
SELF-PERCEPTION
THEORY
Petty and Cacioppo
Asserts there are 2 basic routes to persuasion:
1) Central route: when people carefully ponder the content and logic of persuasive msgs
2) Peripheral route: when persuasion depends on nonmessage factors (attractiveness or credibility) or on conditioned emotional responses
ELABORATION
LIKELIHOOD MODEL
CONFORMITY AND
OBEDIENCE
{
DEF: when people yield to real or imagined social pressure
Solomon Asch experiments
Group size and unanimity are key determinants of conformity
Ambiguous situations also lead to conformity
CONFORMITY
DEF: form of compliance that occurs when people follow direct commands, usually from someone in a position of authority
Stanley Milgram studies
Studied tendency to obey authority figures
OBEDIENCE
BEHAVIOR IN
GROUPS
{ Group: consists of 2 or more individuals who interact and are interdependent
DEF: people are less likely to provide needed help when they are in groups than when they are alone
Why?
People search their environments for behavior clues
If people hesitate, perception is the situation is not that serious
When alone, responsibility rest on you
BYSTANDER EFFECT
Individual productivity declines in large groups
Due to loss of coordination
Social loafing: a reduction in effort by individuals when they work in groups as compared to when they work by themselves
Due to diffusion of responsibility
GROUP PRODUCTIVITY
AND SOCIAL LOAFING
DECISION MAKING
IN GROUPS
{
DEF: occurs when group discussion strengthens a group’s dominant point of view and produces a shift toward a more extreme decision in that direction
GROUP POLARIZATION
DEF: when members of a cohesive group emphasize concurrence at the expense of critical thinking in arriving at a decision
Group cohesiveness: the strength of the liking relationships linking group members to each other and to the group itself
GROUPTHINK
