Basic premise: Who we are is determined by our social interactions

Basic premise: Who we are is determined by our social interactions

• Basic premise: Who we are is determined by our social interactions

• --Past: our social development
• --Present: social influence
• We’ll start with an area of overlap between cognition and social influence; attitudes, including their formation and change

Definition of an attitude (vs. belief) ABC

• Definition of an attitude (vs. belief) ABC

• Affective: including evaluation (+/-)
• Behavioral tendencies policy
• Cognitive (belief)

• Central feature: consistency

• Propaganda and other attitude change mechanisms

We like to maintain consistancy of attitudes:

• We like to maintain consistancy of attitudes:

• selective exposure

• selective interpretation

• selective memory

1. Characteristics of the source of a message

• 1. Characteristics of the source of a message

• --Credibility, expertise, knowledge, prestige

• plus sleeper effect

• Characteristics of the message

• --One-sided vs. two-sided

• --Fear + way out

• --Moderate discrepancy

• Characteristics of the recipient

• --intelligence level

Reciprocity: create an obligation

• Reciprocity: create an obligation

• Low-balling: get commitment, up price

• Foot in the door: start small

• Door in the face: start big!

• That’s not all! –sweeten the deal

• Prestige: Everyone (or famous) doing it

• Exclusive, defining: You are 1 of 3…

• Bait and switch

Explicit attitude: attitudes we are aware of

• Explicit attitude: attitudes we are aware of

• Implicit attitude

• Involuntary, uncontrollable, often unconscious
• IAT (lab)
• But implicit cognitions aren’t all-controlling

Stereotypes

• Stereotypes

• Cognitive component
• Generalization in which identical characteristics are assigned to all members

• Prejudice

• Affective component
• Hostile or negative attitude toward people just because they are a group member

• Discrimination

• Behavioral component
• Unjustified negative or harmful action toward a group member because of their membership

1. Suburban housewife

• 1. Suburban housewife

• 2. Professional football player

• 3. College professor

• 4. Business CEO

• 5. Insurance salesman

• 6. Carpenter

• A. Chevy sedan

• B. Ferrari

• C. Mercedes sedan

• D. Dodge mini-van

• E. Buick Lasalle

• F. Toyota Prius

Jane Elliott: Prejudice can be taught (Demonstration/not exper.)

• Jane Elliott: Prejudice can be taught (Demonstration/not exper.)

• Told students blue-eyed people were better than brown-eyed people
• Brown-eyed children had to wear collars and sit in the back of class
• Over the course of one day: brown eyed children became self-conscious, depressed, and demoralized
• Next day: Elliott switched the stereotypes about eye-color (brown=good)
• Brown-eyed kids exacted their revenge
• So can discrimination and aggression!
• Sherif & Sherif: Robber’s Cave Experiment

Categories enable prediction: Make us feel (rightly or wrongly) that we understand world & what will happen!

• Categories enable prediction: Make us feel (rightly or wrongly) that we understand world & what will happen!

• Illusory correlation

• See correlations where they don’t exist
• Remember confirmatory examples more
• Example: Cheerleaders are outgoing

• Out-group homogeneity effect

• Us vs. them
• “All ______ are alike”
• See others as exemplars of their group

• In-group bias

• Positive feelings for people who are part of our in-group
• Alumni, state residency, affinity (varies with distance)!

Interpret behavior of others as a characteristic of the individual rather than the situation and behavior of self as due to situation

• Interpret behavior of others as a characteristic of the individual rather than the situation and behavior of self as due to situation

• Person unemployed must be a bad worker, if I lose job, bad boss
• If my friend gets a low grade: dumb or lazy friend, if I get low grade: hard exam!

• Maintain stereotypes:

• Attribute confirmatory examples to the individual
• Ignore/attribute to the situation examples which don’t fit or stereotype

Balance Theory (Heider)

• Balance Theory (Heider)

• Cognitive Dissonance Theory (Festinger)

• Self Perception Theory (Bem)

Want to maintain consistency among our attitudes

• Want to maintain consistency among our attitudes

• Prefer to agree with someone I like
• Disagree with someone I dislike
• Three + & one + balanced, 0 + and 2 + unbalanced

What if my attitudes are imbalanced?

• What if my attitudes are imbalanced?

• Change beliefs about the object
• Change beliefs about the person
• Change whichever is easier

Leon Festinger: Two cognitions that are in conflict or dissonant (one implies the opposite of the other) result in pressure to change one or both to bring them into consonance

• Leon Festinger: Two cognitions that are in conflict or dissonant (one implies the opposite of the other) result in pressure to change one or both to bring them into consonance

• In practice, the two are an attitude and a behavior and the attitude changes

Justification of effort:

• Justification of effort:

• --(Aronson & Mills)

• --when prophecy fails (Ms. Keech)

• Inadequate external justification

• --counterattitudinal advocacy (Yale)

• Consequences of a decision (Brehm)

The theory and its relation to cog. diss.

• The theory and its relation to cog. diss.

• Experimental evidence (Bem, Valins)

• Can we know ourselves given all this?

• (Back to Missouri!)

Surprising work of Darley & Latane on the effect of the no. of bystanders

• Surprising work of Darley & Latane on the effect of the no. of bystanders

Moral diffusion

• Moral diffusion

• Lack of clarity--ambiguity of interp. and of action.

• airport/subway crutch--fall 83 vs. 41 % helped, and

• they were people more familiar with the surround.

• 3. Costs of intervention. sometimes they are raised

• by the presence of others (surveillance)

• 4. Rules for behaving: don't stare, unless you know what

• to do/day, keep your mouth shut etc.

• 5) Mood: Isen dime in coin slot mailing letter 10-->90 %

Conformity: Good or bad?

• Conformity: Good or bad?

• Major findings: 2/3 conform 1/3 of time!

• Hard to resist!

• But lots of power!

• Conclusion

Description of Experiment

• Description of Experiment

• Basic findings 2/3 obey

• Field theory explanation (exper. vs. victim force fields)

Foot in the door

• Foot in the door

• Other is responsible (diffusion of resp.)

• Perceived lack of expertise/knowledge

• Aloneness- lack of social support

• Ambiguity about situation/what to do!!!

• Other directedness (Reisman)

Level of compliance and how it was obtained

• Level of compliance and how it was obtained

• The power of social isolation

• Who resisted?

• Solution: inner codes vs. external or situational control

• Conclusion: balance?……a dilemma we all have to solve

https://www.google.com/search?q=Jonestown&client=safari&rls=en&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0CCkQsARqFQoTCJT4v9_unMkCFQyViAodBVkOZw&biw=1480&bih=1115

• https://www.google.com/search?q=Jonestown&client=safari&rls=en&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0CCkQsARqFQoTCJT4v9_unMkCFQyViAodBVkOZw&biw=1480&bih=1115