Download PS 164A FINAL STUDY GUIDE

Survey
yes no Was this document useful for you?
   Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Document related concepts

Propaganda model wikipedia, lookup

Socialization wikipedia, lookup

False consensus effect wikipedia, lookup

System justification wikipedia, lookup

Transcript
Ingroup Schemas have a positive slant, while outgroup schemas have a negative slant
-
-
-
usually, politicians cannot move partisan bases from one end of a spectrum to the
other
o must mobilize the base to get votes and convince or win over floating
voters
Online Processing Model of Attitudes: a cognitive model, your attitudes towards a
subject, based on valenced beliefs…attitudes can be recorded very quickly
o Have beliefs, but forget reasoning while maintaining valence
o People translate cognition into emotion and use emotions to evaluate
political figures
Dual Processing Model: Automatic process (intuition- mere exposure/recognition
effect & stomatic representations), Controlled Process (reason)
Affective Tag Gets Stored
-
-
-
beliefs largely forgotten, but affective tag
called up and reported
Any new information can update the affective tag
o Highly educated people online process often
Inference Free Sources of Attitudes: mere exposure effect- subliminally exposed
to an object…mere recognition effect- conscious awareness of exposure
If you recognize the name, automatically more favorable
Somatic Representations & Facial Feedback Efects: ex) overt head action
effects- nodding and shaking effects…strong correlation between
positive/negative views…
Body often influences attitudes and beliefs
o Facial Similarity: you like faces that are similar to yours…more likely to
trust and like them…TRUSTWORTHY, NOT LUSTWORTHY
o Facial Characteristics: implicit associational learnings ex) big nostrils and
criminal …make inferences about character based on appearance
o Mood Effects: can greatly influence how you feel about an individual (up
to 8/9 points on a 100 pt scale)…have many feelings that never reach
conscious awareness…when amygdala senses threat, sends information to
dispositin system & relies on habit
o Facial judgments can predict 70% of elections- who looks more
competent?- face of challenger matters more then incumbent
Explicit and Implicit Attitudes:
o Implicit- fully automatic, cannot consciously report feelings that we can’t
or won’t express…must use indirect methods to access these attitudes
because they cannot be reported
 Tested through pairing people with words and timing response
-
-
-
-
-
-
CLASSIC COGNITIVE MODEL
Symbolic Politics Theory: (David Sears)- individuals are classically conditioned
in childhood to have vary positive or negative attitudes towards certain objects
that are understood symbolically…we do not fully understand them and those
attitudes persist over our lifetime
Beliefs shape attitudes
Balance heuristic- when you see a candidate you like, you assume that they agree
with you
when people are made anxious/unsettled they learn…don’t rely on habit, vote on
basis of learning
o prefrontal cortex dictates habitual behavior & if under duress, executive
center will take over.
Cognitive appraisal- emotions are experienced and can be recalled…appraises
circumstance which inspires attitude/emotion about event
Hope is a mixed emotion coupled with anxiety and uncertainty
Valenced beliefs towards objects…assumes that you consciously use all available
information to form beliefs
AFFECTIVE PROCESSING/ INTELLIGENCE THEORY
Emotions correspond to a bundle of discrete beliefs
Cognitive appraisal approach: base emotions either positive or negative- if you
have a target to direct your emotions
o angry people are risk seeking and work through heuristic
processing…anxious people focus on learning and seek control through
piecemeal processing…anxious people are passive and not risk taking,
often overestimating risk, while the opposite can be said for angry people
o (EGGERT ARTICLE) angry people overestimated the change of success
of the Iraq war, while anxious people did not want involvement
o anxiety deals a lot with control over the situation
Social Environment/Influence:
o Obedience/compliance and deference- boss/worker relationship…crimes
of obedience
o Status deference- hight/medium/low status, influenced by people of higher
status, operates outside of environments with institutionalized or
hierarchical organizations
o Conformity- influenced by others regardless of status
o Group Ties- reference groups, defined by race, sex, education etc
MILLIGRIM EXPERIMENT
Unexperienced subject told experiment is about learning, when really it is about
texting obedience to authority
Learner is actually an experimenter, while teacher is subject being tested
o 1- REMOTE: shocking machine in separate room, hears responses but no
feedback to shocks
 65% went to 450 (avg. 405)
o 2- VOICE FEEDBACK: scheduled complaints at certain volts by
confederate learner
 62.5% went to 450 (avg. 375)
o 3- PROXIMITY: sitting in the same room…strict script with scheduled
complaints
 40% went to 450 (avg. 300)
o 4- TOUCH PROXIMITY: subject must move learners arm onto the plate
to deliver shock
 30% went to 450 (avg. 240)
o 5- NEW BASELINE: moved experiment into a less fancy lab (made
experimental environment less impressive)…much more dramatic
schedule of protests- all heard by subject, but in another room)
 65% went to 450
o 6- CHANGE OF PERSONNEL: experimenter no longer as stern looking
 50% went to 450
o 7- EXPERIMENTOR ABSENT: subject given instructions by phone
 20% went to 450…a lot of cheating- lower compliance
o 8- WOMEN AS SUBJECTS:
 65% went to 450
o 9- PRIOR CONDITIONS: confederate subject insists they will participate
only if they stop when learner insists
 40% went to 450
o 10- NEW LABORATORY: creates fictional company, no longer
associated with Yale University
 47.5% went to 450
o 11- SHOCK LEVEL: subjects able to choose shock level
 avg. shock, 75 volts (only one subject went to 450 [2.5%])
o 12- LEARNER DEMANDS TO CONTINUE
 @ 150 volts, experimenter forbids the experiment to continue
100% subjects stop when told to do so
o 13- ORDINARY MAN: assistant gives orders
 20% obey (4/20)
 for the 16 who disobeyed, when the ordinary man tried to
continue the experiment, the subjects would intervene to
stop
o 14- AUTHORITY TO VICTIM: experimenter plays role of learner
because told to do so by confederate
 @ 150 told to stop- slight protest, but 100% subjects immediately
stop
o 15- TWO AUTHORITIES: at 150 volts, authorities begin to disagree
 100% subjects stop w/in one voltage level
o 16- TWO AUTHORITIS, ONE AS VICTIM:
 65% obey
o 17- TWO PEERS REBEL: other peer is actually
confederate…responsibility of crime is shared (peer influence)

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
one peer stops @150, the other @ 210…great deal of subjects stop
because peer actions…only 10% go all the way to the end
o 18- PEER INFLUENCE: peers go all the way to the end, so subjects are
more inclined to do the same…especially because subject is not
administering the shocks
 37/40 go all the way to the end
1-11 studies show that people are not acting dispositionally, but feel compelled to
act in a certain way…12-18 show response to authority
Consistency Theory: actors do things in order to minimize/reduce noxiousness
o Disobey
o Denial I/II/III (knew fake…”punished the idiot”...subjects felt terrible
about themselves)
o Rationalization I/II (find the prime mover- experimenter or person/peer)
o Minimal Compliance (cheating)
o Avoidance (limit sensory response)
o Deflect through physical expression (cry or laugh)
Bureaucratization- influenced by those hierarchically and institutionally above us
(low status v. high status)…rationalization- blame on authority, routinizationfocus on task, not on consequences, organization of authorities
o Men thought to be higher then women
Status deference= will respect higher status more, as determined by wealth/
appearance (ex. more apt to follow a man wearing a 3 piece suit if he jaywalks,
then a homeless looking man)
ASH EXPERIMENT & SIZE OF LINES- people will deny what they see and
submit to group pressure
CONFORMITY & GROUPS:
Primary groups= those you interact with and have deep feelings for (friends and
family)
Reference groups= broad social group which we classify. Place yourself/identify
with group.
People conform for social approval- we are liked more when we conform
o Look to others for cues on how to conform…favor ingroup members to
outgroup members
 Outgroup schemas have more negative inferred traits
o Ex) Conformity to sign petition influenced by WHO signed it (high class
signaled through name) and HOW MANY signed
Realistic Group Conflict Theory= groups are in competition & you share your fate
with the group
o Robber’s Cave Experiment: summer camps play against other summer
camps- ingroup favoritism and outgroup antagonism
o Social identity theory= in the absence of competition, these phenomena
will still occur as a result of categorization
we are social beings whose self concept is tied with a group and self esteem
directly relates to the group
-
-
-
-
-
-
o ex) when allocating money, people would allocate less money to outgroup
as long as the difference was more distinct (50/50 v 45/25)
when changing opinion about lower status:
o mobility
o seek positive distinctiveness
 new dimension of status
 counter argue resolve/revalue low status attribute
o change the outgroup
o acknowledge and challenge subordinate status
group consciousness: acknowledge status difference, believe it to be illegitimate,
sense of shared fate
zero sum conflict exacerbated tensions between groups, especially if competing
for resources…in order to mitigate competition, replace it with a situation that is
not zero sum (all groups win)
o 1- Activate Superordinate Identity
o 2- Activate a Crosscutting Identity- integration v.
segregation….stereotyping goes own because new “we”
POLITICAL SOCIALIZATION:
Most important time for development of self is 18-25
People’s political views change over their lifetime
Changes at the individual level tell us about the changes at the macro level as well
Focus on children and socialization in politics
o Believed that ideas formed in preadult years would exist over lifetime
Population replacement= people die, people are born, yet the % that supports
democracy remains the same produces stability in the polity and continuity at
large
Affect of marriage on political lifespan (spouses tend to be politically similarassortative mating)
o As marriage ages, political differences diminish because primary groups
influence us
 ASYMMETRIC BY GENDER- wife is more likely to
accommodate and acquire political views of husband…those with
more political expertise are influential (historically, men)
 Men are more conservative, as are married women
CHILDHOOD TO ADOLESCENCE
o Personalization  Abstraction: ex) do not understand the role of president
or leaders, but can identify who they are
o Homogenous  Differentiated: - all leaders are equal, then status changes
as the child ages
o Idealized Realistic/Cynical: BENEVOLENT LEADER
PHENOMENON
o Affect  Cognition: people acquire attitudes about parties before they
understand the details
(Greenstein Article)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Social Learning= children acquire images/ understanding through parent
education or schools. Exposed to positive information in home or at school
Transference= movement of feelings from one person/group to another….feelings
towards fathers applied to leaders/father figures
The Malevolent Leader- studied children in Appalachia who lacked father figure
in their household (much less benevolent)
AGENTS OF SOCIALIZATION: parents, peers, teachers, religious leaders, mass
media.
o Parents are the most important: 1) bond of affection- social approval
motive, desire to be harmonious/similar to them 2) most exposed to
parents 3) control exposure/access to other agents during childhood
EXPECTATIONS FROM SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY & TRANSMISSION
SUCCESS
o 1) frequency of cues increases, transmission success increases
o 2) consistency of cues and access to parents increases, transmission
success increases
o 3) consistency of cues across childhood/adolescence over time increases,
transmission success increases.
Class divide reinforced by socialization policies in the home
o Low socioeconomic households tend to stay out of politics, while high
socioeconomic households participate in politics
Transmission dynamics strong for some elements and weak for others between
parents and children…ex) party identification, evaluation of political leaders,
ideology, religion & morality
GENETICS, BEHAVIOR & DEVELOPMENT:
Boys feel more strongly about boy type behavior and identity in childhood
Gender identities & sex type behaviors- interaction of nature and
parenting…awareness of anatomical sex differences…ID with same sex
parent…form gender identity (FREUD)
o SOCIAL LEARNING: exposure to sex typed behavior imitate/ model
o SCHEMA: learning about gender form gender schema become
assimilated and form self schema
Asymmetry to sex-typed behavior- stronger reinforcement of boy
Genetic influence muted while at home, but becomes stronger when outside the
home
identical twins are more politically similar then fraternal twins, gives credibility to
genetic influence BUT identical twins have more similar social processes because
spend more time together and influence each other
the way genes matter is incredible complicated
Impressionable Years: (IYs) 18-25 years…why are IYs so critical to political
development…incredibly dense set of transitions and consequential life
experiences…weak preadult socialization…key developmental moment
early learning shapes later learning through consistency, schema based and self
identification processes
-
-
-
-
-
o Ex) Bennington Study- followed women during college & after for 50
years
Political Generation= group of individuals (cohorts) who came of age and went
through their IYs at a particular period in history, which led to a particular
political imprint in their beliefs and attitudes which persists as they age
Generation Y (Millennial)- Boom mid 1980 and later…2000 IYs much less likely
to vote, less religious, low knowledge of politics (as compared to older groups at
the same time of the life cycle)
Boomers- born in post WWII. IYs 60s and 70s.
Millennial more likely to be political on their own and say involvement in
community is important…more liberal on social issues, more egalitarian…less
likely to understand, in a deep way, the cost of inequality…less likely to join
clubs or groups
Attitudes crystallize with age- become more real and strong
(turnout)
(trust in others)
Change in polity is generally driven by compositional changes
Population is ageing because people live longer…more concern about social
security…more strong, stable attitudes…decline in trust in America at large
IYs after political cleavage: once cleavage exists, people gong through IYs will
bring mindset about issues into alignment (persuaded by party to adopt their issue
position OR opt for a party that best reflects your issue position)
o If of age when cleavage occurs, ideas are stabilized and do not adapt
-
Mercury Theatre on the Air- ALIENS ATTACK ARGHKSLJDSFHSDG!
o Effect of media- maximal effects, fear of broadcast. No research late ‘70s‘80s, research on effects/persuasion of media
-
MEDIA MESSAGES:
Media can:
o 1) Persuade
o 2) Inform
o 3) Provide Source Cues
o 4) Prime
-
o 5) Agenda Set
o 6) Demobilize
o 7) Make Emotional Appeals
o 8) Confer Status
o 9) Frames
media message challenges/ contradicts prior predisposition
PERSUASION- (classic cognitive model) media takes a position that may
persuade individuals who receive that message
Probability Message Accepted
p(Exposure)
P(Persuasion)
-
single message= public’s predispositions are generally weak…”hard issues”
P(Persuasion)= P(Exposure)
-
two messages= one from source A, one from source B…polarizing power
-
“Rally Effects in Politics”- change in approval of President…”rally around the
flag”…surge of patriotism post 9/11 BUT, sometimes approval does not change
(depends on how elites view event)
INFORMING:
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Candidates are better off if they talk about opponent vis-à-vis themselves and cast
opponent in a negative light
Female v. Male Candidates
o F: more trustworthy (as judged by voters)
o F: more likely to self narrate own advertisements…capitalizing on
credibility and trustworthiness (UAE- PERSON OF OUTGROUP IS
SEEN AS MANIPULATIVE)
Election Coverage: horserace v. substantive
1960: 50%
50%
1990: 85%
15%
There is an overwhelming amount of information received about candidates is not
substantial
PRIMARY SEASON FOCUSES ON SUBSTANTIAL INFORMATION…but
most of the public is not paying attention- only schematics and highly informed
are
o Generation X, Y and Millennial are not as involved in politics because
negativity in political coverage in mass media
Soft: Hard:
1960: 35% 65%
2000: 50% 50%
Negative Ad%
Election Coverage (%):
1970s: 20%
1980-25%
1980s: 40%
2000-60%
2000s: 50%
2008: 60%
Voters will learn negative attributes through contrast in negative ads AND $1
towards negative ad will give candidate more airtime
DEMOBILIZING:
Making emotional appeals- experiment held text constant in ad; but changed
visuals and music
CONFERRING STATUS:
status deference
socially constructed ideas of status developed by mass media: role of blacks in
mass media…communication environment shapes people’s understanding of
groups
tone of coverage negative v. positive terms (ex. teens in Philadelphia, coverage
was overwhelmingly negative).
Candidates need to establish themselves in the primary as someone who could
win…frontrunner gets bandwagon support from people who are unsure who to
vote for
FRAMINGAnd problem or policy is very complicated…a frame is a simplified version of
that policy
Media selectively makes decisions to portray some arguments and not others
-
-
-
Ex) Affirmative Action: “discriminates against whites” v “gives African
Americans benefits they haven’t earned”
Ex) Framing of Poverty in the News: to what extent does the mass media depict
poverty as a widespread structural problem OR as a personalized individual story
o PERSONALIZING IS VERY COMMON BECAUSE HUMAN INTEREST
STORIES ARE VIVID AND ENGAGING leads people to explain
poverty in dispositional terms, blames individual and not structural
ineffeciencies
Prospect Theory= study on choice and decision making…theory of choice for
ordinary individuals
decision making by voters and the limitations of voters in that context- nonrational, subtle tendencies…heuristics and shortcuts that lead people to make
irrational decisions
o 1)People are risk averse in the domain of gains & risk seeking in the
domain of loses
o 2) Ratio of differences principle= utility of gain/loss depends on stating
reference baseline point…diminishing return curve (1:2 bigger then 2:3)
 must look at difference in relative v. absolute gains
 NOT a rational framing effect
o 3) People are loss averse: difference in utility from losses is more
extreme than the increase in utility from gains
 ex) gaining $10 has lower utility of losing $10
 Status Quo Bias
if you can find policies that are aligned with status quo, more likely to win:
incumbency advantage…more familiar is more advantageous
ex) EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT:
o Frame 1: help eliminate discrimination against women (LOSS FRAME)
o Frame 2: help improve rights of women (GAIN FRAME) value loss frame
instead of gain eliminating bad generates more support then producing a
good
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Because individuals rely on heuristics to make judgments, they are sometimes
faulty
Voters form predispositions based on trivial information (schema based biases
based on heuristics)
Issue Ownership Theory:
o (i) in the minds of voters, parties have good/bad ownership on certain
issues
 Democrats: good on lowering unemployment
 Republicans: good on crime fighting
o (ii) sample heuristics: if problem faced by country owned by certain party,
vote for that party
source cues= statements about who favors/supports what…voters will make
inferences/judgments on individuals based on what they support or don’t support
o voters who had no information (aschematics) but relied on source cues
made as good a decision as those who were very well informed
o media can tell you which parties and elites hold what positions
centrality- if an attribute is really important to the individual, they will weigh it
more heavily
PRIMING: classic cognitive model, by spending more time on an issue, media
may prime those issues and make them more salient
o Ex. “Seeing Black”- crime is an implicit prime for race
Agenda Setting= priming certain issues, media may also shift the public’s
priorities
Emotional appeals: emotionally charged material affect how people perceive
advertisements
GROUP THINKING
If description suggests a certain outcome, people are more likely to choose that,
EVEN IF less probable
o P(A*B) is thought to be more probable then P(A)…conjunctive fallacy
People select option if it fits logic of what they would expect
Homeopathy heuristic: treat problem w/cure like problem (match)
o Ex) Cold War strategy….US matched missiles with USSR
Illusion of Control- ex. gambling…situation where you have NO controldetermined by chance
o If you are given the illusion of control, you will engage in much riskier
behavior and over estimate the amount of control that you have
Anchoring effect =accessible and available #s (or things/ideas) will come to mind
more quickly and influence the rest of the responses/results
Monotonicity heuristic= if something is good, more is better. If something is
bad, less is better
GROUP THINK: conformity pressures, stereotypes,
o Ex Cuban Missile Crisis…decision makers stereotyped Castro as stupid
and ill prepared- vastly underestimated him conformity to agree with
the plan