how thoughts, feelings and behaviours are influenced by surroundings
Explanations for events or actions
situational: behavior is determined by the environment
dispositional: behavior is determined by internal factors
when there is a situational explanation for someone's behavior we tend to favor dispositional explanations
ex: pro/anti hitler essays
- very clear situational explanation for why schmimon might have written a pro hitler essay, yet, he'd be rated to be pretty pro hitler regardless
people from collectivist cultures tend to be less likely to commit correspondance bias than individualist cultures
- can still commit it though
- more likely to correct when the situation is highlighted
-- people from individualist cultures tend to not correct when highlighted tho
For other people's behaviour, we make a correspondance bias as the observer
- Cause --> GPS wasn't working (situational)
- Attribution --> what an Asshole (dispositional)
For our own behaviour, we make the correct situational attribution
- Cause --> GPS wasn't working (situational)
- Attribution --> GPS wasn't working (situational)
Self success--> dispositional
oppositions success --> Situational
- opposite is true for failures
ex: your team wins vs the opps win
***in the final exam there will be no clear situational explanation for his questions***
MESSENGER
If the messenger is credible, then it is easier to be persuasive
attractiveness increases persuasiveness also
MESSAGE
when a message is subtle, it is seen as more important
- important but not obvious
sidedness; helps when someone is already on your side
timing; primacy vs recency
- things at the beginning (primacy) and end (recency) are more potent
AUDIENCE
the person needs to be medium skeptical
- if someone's not skeptical, they don't really care
- if it's too much, they won't care
medium intelligence
- high intelligence people will think of counter arguments
- low intelligence people will see opposing views as threatening to their ego
medium self esteem
- people with low self esteem will use projection and regression to opposing views
CENTRAL ROUTE
critically engaging with the material
based on logic and reason
stronger arguments = better
PERIPHERAL
do not critically engage
use heuristics (rules of thumb)
- who is telling the message?
- what emotions are associated
- positive characteristics
EX: Snoop Dogg's hot pockets
both lead to attitude changes, central route is more resistant to counter persuasion and longer lasting
we want to behave consistently, because we want to have correct attitudes
ex: asking for a one day extension, then a one week extention --> more successful than askiing for one week outright
Asking for something comically large, then "conceding" when rejected and asking for what you really want
you've conceded, the person granting the favor feels like they should too
not very close, r = 0.30
uncomfortable mental state when you hold inconsistent attitudes/behaviours
- bringing future behaviour in line with attitude (stop smoking)
- rationalize/deny our descrepant attitudes (8 years lungs can recover)
- add a new cognition (smoking helps with my depression)
- bring attitudes in line with behaviour (I like R&B)
the tendency to do what powerful people tell us to do
neither, 65% of men and women went on to administer the full shock in the experiment
stronger moral development
1. experimenter is close
2. seen as legit
3. no defiers
4. learner was farther away
in the acsh study; 37%
- groups of 3+ people
- everyone agrees
- feeling incompetent/insecure
- admiring group status
- no prior commitment to the response
- cultures that emphasise social respect
NORMATIVE SOCIAL INFLUENCE:
- we want to fit in with the group
- behaviour change, no attitude change
INFORMATIONAL SOCIAL INFLUENCE:
- we are not sure what reality is/expected behaviour, so we look to others to define reality
- behaviour and attitude change
- ex; checking rate my prof to see if you wanna take a course
what you do well, you'll do better around others
Things you do not so well, you'll do worse around others
social loafing:
1. no accountability (for easy tasks)
- we all get the same grade
2. if rewards are spread equally/proportionally
3. the more group members, the larger the social loafing
4. decreases for difficult tasks where efforts are anonymous
groups reach consensus about a decision to keep harmony
ignore/silence people who disagree
people feel they cannot disagree
moral superiority