* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download File - gainosegerswti
Survey
Document related concepts
Self-enhancement wikipedia , lookup
Psychology of self wikipedia , lookup
James M. Honeycutt wikipedia , lookup
Albert Bandura wikipedia , lookup
Introspection illusion wikipedia , lookup
In-group favoritism wikipedia , lookup
Group dynamics wikipedia , lookup
Self-categorization theory wikipedia , lookup
Impression formation wikipedia , lookup
Impression management wikipedia , lookup
Social tuning wikipedia , lookup
Attitude (psychology) wikipedia , lookup
Self-serving bias wikipedia , lookup
Attribution bias wikipedia , lookup
Social perception wikipedia , lookup
False consensus effect wikipedia , lookup
Transcript
Lecture 2.1: Attribution theory: The Ways and Wherefores of Behaviour Social perception is focus mainly about judgements on people, but is also judgements about behaviour. Attribution Theory: It is a theory about how people interpret behaviour. How they make causal attributions or causal explanations for the behaviour and the behaviour of others. The way you explain behaviour often determines what you will do about it, example if you fail an exam, the next time you will study harder. But if you find the exam to failure you talk to other students or go see lecturer then you will find different solution. Understanding attribution is useful: It can help us avoid conflict It can improve relationships It can increase productivity It can heighten job satisfaction It can lead to self-understanding. Fritz Heider – book – The Psychological of Interpersonal Relations Bernie Wyner and Harold Kelly – develop the Attribution Theory According to Harold Kelly – People explain behaviour into 3 causes: 1. Person – something about the person in question. 2. Entity – something enduring feature of the situation, something outside the behaviour. 3. Time – something about the particular occasion. Causal Attribution are based on: Consensus – do other people response similary? Distinctiveness – do other situations elicit the same behaviour? Consistency – does the same thing happen time after time? Example: Suppose you were the only one who performed well in test over rage of occasions. That would be: - Low consensus (you are the only such person) Low distinctiveness (it happens with a variety of tests) - High consistency (occurs over a range of occasions) Kelly would predict a “Person Attribution” Kelly proposes a framework how people make causal attributions. - Factors that influence causal attributions, whether they accurate or bias and the factor is - SALIENCE SALIENCE: stimulus is one that grabs your attention. Research findings: - That salient stimuli – tend to be view as disproportionally causal. - 1978 – Land mark Paper was published - Shelly Taylor & Susan Fiske – Social Psychologists. - Studies found the link between salience and causal attributions. Salience and Causal Attributions: General the more salient the stimulus it is to be viewed as causal – course Perceptions of causality are partly a one’s attention is directed. And attention is turned a function of is, the more likely of behaviour. function of where salience. Experiment of the prosecutor and the guilty guy: (results) Observers tend to rate the person’s behaviour in the visual field. - Set the tone of the conversation - Been the one who determined the type of information changed. - Caused the other person’s responses. Why does it matter? If we want to make judgements what lead somebody to behave in a certain way or who is responsible or guilty. Why do not want to be influence by where we are looking at the moment we making the judgment. If not careful this can happen: Research by Dan Lassitter: When the camera focus on suspect people are likely to see suspect as guilty. New Zealand law that camera need to focus on suspect and prosecutor. When there is a problem when a team is defeated or group fails – then people who are SALIENT cause they look different or sound different are at risk of becoming “SCATE CODED” – that is blamed because their salient makes them seem more causal more responsible. MAIN POINT: Causal Attribution is not a matter of logical deduction also a matter of sense repreception, what we are looking at the moment or happened to be hearing at the moment. WE COME BACK TO: Psychological Construction of Reality – usually makes logical casual attributions but not always – this will discuss in next topic. Reading 2.1: The Self in a Social World Part 1: Social Thinking: The definition of Social Psychology: the scientific study of how we think about: influence (part 1) and to relate (part 2) and to relate (part 3) how the research and the theories of social psychology are applied to real life. (part 4) Chapter One: Examines the scientific study of how we think about one another also called social cognition. Chapter 2: Explores the interplay between our sense of self and our social worlds. How do our social surroundings shape our self-identities? How does self-interest colour our social judgements and motivate our social behaviour? Chapter 3: Looks at the amazing and sometimes rather amusing ways we form beliefs about our social worlds. Chapter 4: Explores the links between our thinking and our actions, between our thinking and our attitudes and our behavior. Do our attitudes determine our behavior or visa versa? 1.SPOTLIGHTS AND ILLISIONS WHAT DO THEY TEACH US ABOUT OURSELVES? Definition The Spotlight effect: The belief that others are paying more attention to our appearance and behaviour that they are really are. Illusion of transparency: The illusion that our concealed emotions leak out and can be read by others. SUMMING UP: Spotlight and Illusions: What do they teach us about ourselves? Concerned with the impression we make on others, we tend to believe that others are paying more attention to us than they are: the spotlight effect. We also tend to believe that our emotions are more obvious than they are: the illusion of transparency. 2. SELF-CONCEPT: WHO AM I? Understand how, and how accurately, we know ourselves and what determines our self-concept. Definitions: Self-concept: What we know and believe about ourselves. Self-Schema: Beliefs about the self that organize and guide the processing of self-relevant information. Possible selves: Images what we dream of or dread becoming in the future. Social Comparison: Evaluating one’s abilities and oneself with others. opinions by comparing Individualism: The concept of giving priority to one’s own goals over group goals and defining one’s identity in terms of personal attributes rather than group identifications. Independent Self: Construing one’s identity as autonomous self. Collectivism: Giving priority to the goals of one’s group and defining one’s identity accordingly. Interdependent self: Construing one’s identity in relation to others. Planning Fallacy: The tendency to underestimate how long it will take to complete a task. Impact Bias: Overestimating the enduring impact of emotion-causing events. Immune Neglect: The human tendency to underestimate the speed and the strength of the “psychological immune system”, which enables emotional recovery and resilience after bad things happen. Dual Attitude System: Differing implicit (automatic) and explicit (consciously controlled) attitudes toward the same objects. Verbalized explicit attitudes may change with education and persuasion. Implicit attitudes change slowly, with practice that forms new habit. SUMMING UP: Self-Concept; Who am I? Our sense of self helps organize our thoughts and actions. When we process information with reference to ourselves, we remember it well (the selfreference effect). Self-concept consists of two elements: the selfschemas that guide our processing of self-relevant information and the possible selves that we dream of or dread. Cultures shape the self too. Many people in individualistic western cultures assume an independent self. Others, often in collectivistic cultures, assume a more interdependent self. Our self-knowledge is curiously flawed. We often do not know why we behave the way we do. When influences upon our behaviour are not conspicuous enough for any observers to see, we too, can miss them. The unconscious, implicit processes that control our behaviour may differ from our conscious, explicit explanations of it. We also tend to mispredict our emotions. We underestimate the power of our psychological immune systems and thus tend to overestimate the durability of our emotional reactions to significant events. 3.WHAT IS THE NATURE AND MOTIVATING POWER OF SELF-ESTEEM? Understand self-esteem and its implications for behaviour and cognition. Definitions: Self-Esteem: A person’s overall self-evaluation or sense of selfworth. Terror Management Theory: Proposes that people exhibit self-protective emotional and cognitive responses (including adhering more strongly to their cultural world viewers and prejudices) when confronted with reminders of their mortality. SUMMING UP: What is the nature and motivating power of self-esteem? Self-esteem is the overall sense of self-worth we use to appraise our traits and abilities. Our selfconcepts are determined by multiple influences, including the roles we play, the comparisons we make, our social identities, how we perceive others appraising us, and our experiences of success and failure. Self-esteem motivation influences our cognitive processes. Facing failure, high-self-esteem people sustain their self-worth by perceiving other people as failing too, and by exaggerating their superiority over others. Although high-self-esteem is generally more beneficial than low, researchers have found that people high in both self-esteem and narcissism are the most aggressive. Someone with a big ego who is threatened or deflated by social rejection is potentially aggressive. 4.WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO HAVE “PERCEIVED SELF-CONTROL”? Understand self-concept through examination of the self in action. Definitions: Self-efficacy: A sense that one is competent and effective, distinguished from self-esteem, which is one’s sense of self-worth. As sharpshooter in the military might feel high self-efficacy and low self-esteem. Locus of Control: The extent to which people perceive outcomes as internally controllable by their own efforts or as externally controlled by chance or outside forces. Learned Helplessness: The sense of hopelessness and resignation learned when a human or animal perceives no control over repeated bad events. SUMMING UP: What does it mean to have “perceived selfcontrol”? Several lines of research show the benefits of a sense of self-efficacy and feelings of control. People who believe in their own competence and effectiveness, and who have internal locus of control, cope better and achieve more than others. Learned helplessness often occurs when attempts to improve a situation have proven fruitless; selfdetermination, in contrast is bolstered by experiences of successfully exercising control and improving one’s situation. When people are given too many choices, they may be less satisfied with what they have when offered a smaller range of choices. 5.WHAT IS SELF-SERVING BIAS? Explain self-serving bias and its adaptive and maladaptive aspects. Definitions: Self-Serving Bias: The tendency to perceive oneself favourably. Self-Serving Attributions: A form of self-serving bias; the tendency to attribute positive outcomes to oneself and negative outcomes to other factors. Defensive Pessimism: The adaptive value of anticipating problems and harnessing one’s anxiety to motivate effective action. False Consensus Effect: The tendency to overestimate the commonality of one’s opinions and one’s undesirable or unsuccessful behaviours. False Uniqueness Effect: The tendency to underestimate the commonality of one’s abilities and one’s desirable or successful behaviours. Group-Serving Bias: Explaining away outgroup members positive behaviours; also attributing negative behaviours to their dispositions (while excusing such behaviour by one’s own group. SUMMING UP: What is self-serving bias? Contrary to the presumption that most people suffer from low self-esteem or feelings of inferiority, researchers consistently find that most people exhibit a self-serving bias. In experiments and everyday life, we often take credit for our successes while blaming failures on the situation. Most people rate themselves as better than average on subjective, desirable traits and abilities. We exhibit unrealistic optimism about our futures. We overestimate the commonality of our opinions and foibles (false consensus) while underestimating the commonality of our abilities and virtues (false uniqueness). Such perceptions arise partly from a motive to maintain and enhance self-esteem – a motive that protects people from depression but contributes to misjudgement and group conflict. Self-serving bias can be adaptive in that it allows us to savor the good things that happen in our lives. When bad things happen, however, self-serving bias can have the maladaptive effect of causing us to blame others or feel cheated out of something we “deserved”. 6. HOW DO PEOPLE MANAGE THEIR SELF-PRESENTATION? Identify self-presentation and understand how impression management can explain behavior. Definitions: Self-handicapping: Protecting one’s self-image with behaviors that create a handy excuse for later failure. Self-Presentation: The act of expressing oneself and behaving in ways designed to create a favorable impression or an impression that correspond to one’s ideals. Self-Monitoring: Being attuned to the way one presents oneself in social situations and adjusting one’s performance to create the desired impression. SUMMING UP: How do people manage their self-presentation: As social animals, we adjust our words and actions to suite our audience. To varying degrees, we note our performance and adjust it to create the impression we desire. Such tactics explains examples of false modesty, in which people put themselves down, extol future competitors, or publicly credit others while privately crediting themselves. Sometimes people will even self-handicap with selfdefeating behaviors that protect self-esteem by providing excuses for failure. Self-presentation refers to our wanting to present a favorable image both to an external audience (other people) and to an internal audience, those who score high on a scale of self-monitoring adjust their behaviour to each situation, whereas those low in self-monitoring may do so little social adjusting that they seem insensitive. Lecture 2.2: Some twists and turns when explaining behavior Last lecture we discuss, Harold Kelly’s attribution framework: People explain behaviour in terms of: Person Entity Time Causal attributions are based on: Consensus Distinctiveness Consistency Most studies people have supported this framework for one exception: People don’t pay always pay attention to consensus information when they make causal attribution. Attribution and The Psychology of Prediction - 1973 - Nisbett & Borgida Experiment: Why people ignore consensus information Participant were told about two studies One, 32 of 34 people willingly received electric shocks in an experiment supposedly on “skin sensitivity”. In the other, 11 of 15 people failed to help someone who appeared to be having a seizure. Consensus – 32 out of 34 people – consensus information the way people behave. Two Key Questions: On a 7-point scale, would you say that the behaviour of a particular subject (Bill in the shock experiment, who willingly received the most extreme shock or Greg in the seizure experiment, who failed to help at all) was due to that individual’s personality or to the situations? How would you have behaved in you had been a participant in the experiment. MAIN REASERCH FINDING: NISBETT Giving people consensus information did not significantly affect the causal attribution that people make. Even when people knew that the majority of the participants in the original experiments had received a shock or failed to help, they made dispositional attributions. (for Bill and Greg – that is attributions based on the person’s character or disposition). Consensus information also failed to affect judgments of how people thoughts they themselves would have acted if they had been in the original studies. Snapshot Quiz: Suppose a researcher did an experiment using actor who pretended to have a seizure, found out of 15 people did not help the person. If have been in the experiment. What would have happened? Most common answer: I would have helped even other people did not. an that 11 you if FALSE UNIQUENESS EFFECT: False believe that when it comes to our good deeds and desirable behaviour we more unique than we really are. A false believe that we see our self a cut above the pack. THE FUNDAMENTAL ATTRIBUTION ERROR: 1977 L.Ross – The intuitive psychologist and his short comings The fundamental attribution error is the tendency for people “to underestimate the impact of situational factors and overestimate the role of dispositional factors in controlling behaviour”. The FAE is a true error, not simply a bias, even if you can demonstrate the disposition why the behaviour occurred. An early experiment demonstration: 1967 Jones Presents essay written by someone forced to defend unpopular position or who was described as having “free choice” in selecting a position. Even if they knew that author was roped, people still attributed it to the author.. Appreciate the power of the situation. We think behaviour is control by dispositional situations. How fundamental is the error? Does it occur just as often in the East and West? The answer is NO – when situational factors are obvious, east Asians are much less likely than westerns to commit the fundamental attribution error. To extent that the error is “fundamental”, it’s more the case in the west than in the East. Compared to the east, western cultures focus on “rugged individualism” – the self-made person – rather than the group or situation. Actor-observer differences in attributions 2006 B. Malle Finding actors more likely to explain their behaviour as a function of situational factors than are observe. Is a bias - not a right or wrong answer bv. as jy laat is vir werk actors downplay dispositional explanations but mainly when behaviour or outcome is negative. when positive it reversed. are often self-serving bias in which actors avoid dispositional attributions when outcome is negative but not when positive. REASON FOR ACTOR-OBSERVER - PEOPLE DO NOT WANT TO LOOK BAD. Actors and observers differ in what’s salient: The actors, the situation is most salient. To observers, the actors tend to be salient. Relationship between salience and causal attribution can be used to reverse actor-observer differences. Reversing actor-observer differences -1973 - M.Storms – Videotaped and the attribution process: reversing actors. Study 30 sessions, each 4 participants. - Two actors who held a get-acquainted conversation - Two off-camera observers who watched the actors. Two video tapes made: - 1 from actor 1’s perspective looking at actor 2 - 1 from actor 2’s perspective looking at actor 1 3 Conditions -same – orientation condition - new - orientation condition - no – video tape (conditions condition) Findings -when actors watch themselves they tend to make dispositional attributions of behaviour. - when observers watch – they tend to make situational attributions of actors behaviour. IMPORTANT NOT TO CONFUSE THE FUNDAMENTAL ERROR WITH ACTOR-OBSERVER DIFFERNCES IN ATTRIBUTIONS. Visual orientation can affect how people explain behaviour including their own behaviour. Lecture 2.3: Is the Attitude bone connected to the Behaviour bone? Last lectures: focus interpret and explain behaviour. This video - discussion behaviour it self - Question – whether our attitude and actions are closely related to each other. ATTITUDE bone is not connected to the BAHAVIOUR bone Attitudes are quite different than behaviour. Example of attitude behaviour of inconsistency - care about the environment attitude to trash We behave different that the attitudes we hold. Attitude Behaviour Inconsistency Studies – 1934 Visit communities in China Richard La Piere’s Behavioural Observation Observed racial discriminations towards his traveling companions only once in 251 encounters. Judged that his Chinese friends were received with “more than ordinary consideration on 72 occasions. Americans has prejudice in attitude towards Chinese couple. Survey findings: 128 respondents – 118 not accept. 9 depend on circumstances 1 yes helped the Chinese couple People can hold attitude that can hold little to do with behaviour. Limitations: There were not independent ratings of discrimination Couple might have get more discriminations if Richard was not with Only one couple was used in the study. Second study 1973 Darley and Batsen - 47 seminary students give speech - Jobs at which seminary would be effective - The parable of the good Samaritan. Independent variable 1. Topic of the speech - Parable of good Samaritan - Topic unrelated to helping people in need. 2. How much of a hurry the students were in. (in brackets – reasons why students did not help) - High hurry (you are late) - Intermediate hurry (they ready for you) - Low hurry (it will be a few minutes before they ready for you.) Main findings: - Students in hurry were much less to help to offer than the students not in a hurry. - Giving a speech on the parable of The Good Samaritan did not significantly affect the amount of help offered. OUESTION: is it common in behaviour to be inconsistent? ANSWER: YES life for attitudes and Is attitude-behaviour inconsistent common? 1969 Allan Wicker It is considerably more likely that attitudes will be unrelated or only slightly related to behaviour than attitudes will be related to actions. Reasons why so much inconsistency – Allan Wicker What is in the way why they not related? Maybe journals reject reports of consistency Many attitudes relate to one behaviour Many behaviours relate to one attitude Attitude items tend to be more general Attitudes and behaviour are often elicited different conditions under People’s attitudes are measured in surveys and behaviour tend to be publicity observed. Attitude-Behaviour Consistency: When does it go together? Attitudes and behaviour are mostly likely to be related. they closely match each other (e.g. in generally / specificity) attitude are strong or potent (e.g. acquired through experience) attitude is easily to recall and has been stable all the time people are made aware of themselves and their attitudes (e.g. in front of a mirror) outside influences are kept to a minimum. Lecture 2.4: Cognitive Dissonance and Self-Perception Last video: Link between attitude and behaviour Causation – why does attitude shape behaviour or does behaviour shape attitude – THEORY COGNITIVE DISSONANCE Leon Festinger Study: Story about the Jew that own a shop. Every day the children shout JEW JEW and tease him. He decided to give the children a dime who tease him but instead he gave them a nickel and explain that he cannot afford to give them a dime, next day he gave them a penny and so on. Then the children stop teasing him because the reward was too small. According to theory of cognitive dissonance: People are motivated to reduce or avoid inconsistency to monitoring reward. So when the JEW change the game, he make it inconsistent. He change the game motivation from: anti samitism to monitary reward. Dissonant Cognitions: Cognitive dissonance because they lied to another person for a relative small amount of money. Cognition 1: the task were extremely boring Cognition 2: for 1 dollar, the student tell other that the experiment was interesting. 1 dollar – 1 and 2 = lied for no good reason (cognitive dissonance) 20 dollar – lied for large sum of money Dissonant – negative drive state – unpleasant feeling. Key part of Cognitive Dissonance Theory: The act of holding two incompatible thought creates a sense of internal discomfort or “dissonance”. People try to reduce or avoid these feelings of dissonance whenever possible. Cognitive Dissonance Theory could be explain what he called (Daryl J Benn) THE SELF PERCEPTION THEORY Key parts of SELF-PERCEPTION THEORY Dissonance nothing to do with negative drive state, how people infer their believe from their own behaviour. Individuals come to “know” their own attitudes, emotions and other internal states by inferring them from observations of their own behaviour and circumstances in which their behaviour occur. To the extent that internal cues are weak, ambiguous or uninterruptable, the individual is functionally in the same position as an outside observer. Self-perception Theory The person you are observing is yourself. Students who saw themselves tell another person that the task was enjoyable for 1 dollar inferred that they must have enjoyed the task. Students who saw themselves tell another person that the task was enjoyable for 20 dollar explain their behaviour as a result of being paid a large sum of money. SELF-PERCEPTION Focuses on social inference and is attribution in nature. COGNITIVE DISSONANCE THEORY Involves a natural tendency to reduce or avoid inner conflict. SELF PERCEPTION AND COGNITIVE DISSONACE ARE BOTH ACCEPTABLE. QUESTION: According to Leon Festinger and Merril Carlsmith, which students in their famous experiment cognitive dissonance. a) Students in the 20 dollar condition b) Students in 1 dollar condition c) Students in control condition The correct answer is I dollar condition – because they lied to another person for a relative small amount of money. Lecture 2.5: The Flavours of Dissonance: Vanilla and Earth worm: Who, why, how and what are the implications of cognitive dissonance. Two flavours of Dissonance: Pre-decisional dissonance – in which dissonance influences decisions Post-decisional dissonance – dissonance follows a choice that has already been made and efforts to avoid or reduce this dissonance affect later judgements. Dissonance: An uncomfortable feeling that your behaviour and beliefs are inconsistent. Theory predicts: That if you experiencing cognitive dissonance you be motivated to reduce that by behaving in a more non-sexist way. The accident of father and son, father died and son needs operation. Doctor comes in and said ooh no I cannot operate on my son, if you think that this is not possible because the father is dead. You have experience dissonance because the doctor was his mother. Sheman and Gorkin: 1980 College students were assigned to the conditions in an experiment on the relationship between attitudes towards social issues and ability to solve logical problems. - Sex role condition (given female surgeon problem) - Non sex role condition (dots and lines problem) - Control condition (given a problem to solve) An example of post-decisional dissonance: - Research approach people at horse race 1) 69 who went about to the place a bet in next 30 seconds 2) 72 finish in past (last 30 seconds) - 7 points scale – 1 slight excellent 1) About to play bet 3.48 (for a change winning) 2) Finish bet – 4.8 (good chance of winning) 7 of - Less than 60 seconds – they create the winner. Notes before we end 1) How universal is cognitive dissonance? - It is found in Eastern and Western 2) How useful it is to understand cognitive dissonance theory. Does occur across the globe: Westerns tend to be concern about inconsistency that might suggest we are incompetent or bad in same way. Easterners tend to be more concerned about choices and behaviours that could lead to social rejection. usefulness: tax return form – avoid cheating sign form at the beginning. Bonus video: 2.1. A conversation with Elliot Anderson The Scientist and the Humanist Why people hating JEWS so Question. Why people hate me so much? much: Social Psychology Psychology of Prejudice!! Professor: - Did not mark the paper - Reread the paper – dum piece of work - Do over and come to him and said criticising. Scientist each other!! (need to get tested) wrong) and is worth Humanist – hate (answers even not Maslow – inspirational – to do good in the world Festinham – how to do experiments – sell the procedure. Lie about test that not interesting and you get paid – and convince another one that’s interesting – dissonance. Reading 2.2: Two Routes to Attitude Change Two route to persuasion Central route to persuasion Focusing on the arguments. Peripheral Route to persuasion Focusing on cues that trigger automatic acceptance with-out much thinking. One explicit and reflective and the other more implicit and automatic. The Elements of Persuasion: Who says? The Communicator - Credibility Source need to be believable. If people forget the source or the connection of the message, this is called sleeper effect. - Attractiveness Such ads are based on another characteristic of communicator: attractiveness. What is said? The message content - Reason versus Emotion Suppose you were campaigning for world hunger, would be more effective presenting problem with emotion. This argue can both be reasonable and emotion. - The Effect of good feelings Message also become more persuasive association with good feeling. through - The effect of arousing fear Message can also be effective negative emotions. by evoking To who is it said? The Audience - How old are they? One thing Attitude change happens when people grow older. Older people can also hold on to their adopted attitudes. - What are they thinking? Is not about the message but the responses it evokes in a person’s mind. Lecture 2.6: How to be persuasive Attitude follows behaviour rather than cause. Attitude change – PERSUASIVE Three (3) Questions: If you want to be persuasive, it is good to: 1.Discuss counter-arguments to your position? it is better to discuss counter-arguments: - when the counter-arguments are salient. - when receiver highly intelligent or opposed to your position. In such cases, it is best to present a two-sided appeal. Counter-arguments can also build-resistance If you mind criticize the position people hold, it is like immunizing them with a low-dose vaccine. This technique is known as “attitude inoculation” – in a two-sided appeal, you raise counter-arguments and then explain why they are not convincing, whereas attitude inoculation the receiver generates reasons why the objection is not persuasive. 2.Use a central(fact-filled) route of persuasion? Central – based on facts, statistics and arguments, works when receiver is highly involved. Peripheral – uses beautiful music, idyllic settings, attractive models or other incidental cues. When audience not to involve or critical e.g. Marilyn Manroe – mole is Mercedes Benz. 3.Scare the receiver with a dear-based appeal? Fear appeal can be very effective as long as you give specific steps they can take to avoid whatever the thread is. Can scare people without saying how to avoid the thread, fear appeals can backfire and lead to denial of thread. Case of political add, the action to take is clear: vote for the candidate or ELSE!! Politicians use this normally hahahahaha. Lecture 2.7: Secret from the Science of Persuasion 6 Scientific Validated Principles of Persuasion small, practical and costless changes. – for Six shortcuts: 1. Reciprocity Obligation to give when you receive – invites for party and say yes. The next time if you need to give invite to person who also invited you. In restaurant when giving a tip. Key to use in reciprocation – be the first to give and to ensure is personalized and unexpected. 2. Scarcity People want more of those things there are less off. If British Airlines was scares, people wanted it more – benefits & what is unique and what there is to offer. 3. Authority People follow credible knowledge doctor because he got a certificate. Mention expertise in property sales. Ethnical and costless. experts, e.g. 4. Consistency Looking for and asking for commitment that can be made. Drive safely campaign 5. Liking 3 Important factors: - People who are similar to us. - People who pays us compliments - People who co-operate with us. Can it be effective if online – share similarity, genuine compliments before business. 6. Consensus People will look to the actions of others to determine their own behaviour. E.g. if there is a note with statistics in hotel room of the re-use of the towels. Lecture 2.8: The In and Outs of Social Influences You normalize behaviour that you want to change. Some effective Social Influences Techniques: Asking people to imagine or predict doing something Telling a stranger your name before making a request. Hi my name is Scott, I am wondering whether you might do small favour. Engaging people in dialogue rather than a monologue – talking with people rather than at people. Prof. R.B. Cialdini & Scroeder Even a penny will help technique - Study door-to-door raising money for cancer Three (3) of the most famous techniques: 1966 Jonathan Friedman and Scott Fraser 1.The foot in the door technique: First research in 1960 Premise: people are more likely to comply with a large request after a smaller one. Participants = 112 Palo Alto Residents (1-2) - Five conditions (four with a small request) People become, in their own eyes, the kind of person who does this sort of thing. Who agrees to request mad by strangers who co-operate with good causes. Consistent with self-perception theory The technique is most effective when: - The person is labelled help or a stranger - The large request seems to continue the small one. e.g. volunteers ask to work in jail for 2 years, and accept the 2 hours one of voluntary work. 2.The door in the face technique: Main finding: compliance with a small request is much higher if you can first get someone to “slam the door in your face” with a larger request. Effective: - Same person make request - Request are face to face - Requests are pro-social with same beneficiary. 3.The Low Ball Technique Participants were 63 students randomly assigned - Control condition - Experimental (low-ball condition) - After enrolling they were told that they need to be there at 7 am – that is a low-ball technique. Prof. Cialdini Pop up question: Which technique involves only one request rather than a pair of small and large request? Answer: Low-ball technique This Social Influence involves only one request but the cost of complying is increased after people saying yes. In contrast – foot in the door involves – small request followed by large. Door in the face involves – large request followed by smaller. Value of knowing: Protect yourself that people low-ball you. If you want to comply. Be less manipulated.