Download File - gainosegerswti

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.