End of Trimester exam - lecture content

Festingers Cognitive dissonance model An aversive state where competing attitudes are present. Balance theory We prefer our attitudes to be consistent, can be visualised as a triangle. When the triangle is balanced we have consistent attitudes towards the other and the attitude object. P - person O - Other X - attitude object Unbalanced triangle leads to cognitive dissonance. What happened to cult members after the predicted apocalypse failed? Most stayed and reaffirmed their belief in the cult due to cognitive dissonance Post decision dissonance cognitive dissonance that occurs after a decision is made, worse when the decision is important, or when choices are equally desired, made freely or irrevocable. Dissonance reduction strategies Change cognition Change the importance of cognition Rationalise cognitions as not related Add consonant cognitions Justifying counter attitudinal behaviour Festingers task Paid - $1 or $20 Unpaid ratings were lowest for unpaid, neutral for $20 and high for $1. Justified being in study with money for $20 group, but for $1 couldn't. Effort justification after going through an unpleasant experience to gain a socially valued object we will value the object more than those who didn't. e.g. the sex discussion experiment Those in the group that suffered most embarrassment rated the group most favourably Cooper and Fazio Cognitive dissonance model Hypocrisy induction We can motivate behaviour change by pointing out hypocrisy. E.g. person says they agree with an attitude. Then point out that they have acted against this attitude. Works best when the endorsement was public and reminders is private Yale model of persuasion Source: - similarity - attractiveness -credibility Message: - Complexity (One sided for set attitudes, two for intelligence people) - Fact vs feeling (match to the basis of attitude) - fear (inverted U curve) Channel - video best for simple messages - Written best for complex messages Audience - Gender (depending on topics) - Self esteem (low prefers uncomplicated messages, high prefers complicated) - Prior beliefs (prefer arguments that align with beliefs) How does self monitoring affect persuasion High self monitors are persuaded by attractiveness when a message is strong, but not when it is weak. Low self monitors are persuaded solely by attractiveness Elaboration likelihood model Central vs peripheral route Central: - content is elaborated on - careful processing used - argument quality predicts change Peripheral: - No elaboration - processing fast - Peripheral cues predict change When is elaboration likely? When we are motivated to engage in it due to importance, when we have time or cognitive capacity to evaluate or there is inconsistency between peripheral cues. How can we resist persuasion? When there is forewarning that there will be persuasion When we can rehearse counter arguments Inoculation effect - weak attack prepares us for stronger one later. Audience effects Facilitation - improved performance, for simple and well learnt tasks Inhibition - Worse performance, for complex tasks Drive/arousal theory Presence of audience leads to dominant response being activated - for easy or learnt tasks this is the right response, for poorly learnt or complex it's wrong. e.g. zajonc cockroach study - easy vs hard maze while other cockroaches watched Evaluation apprehension theory Same model as drive arousal theory. Effect is not caused by presence but by concern over evaluation by others. E.g. cottrell study - blindfold group saw no effect, however when audience was attentive there was an effect Distraction conflict theory Performance inhibited by conflict between attention for the task and the audience. Other distractions will have similar effects on task performance. Social loafing We reduce own effort when working in a group. There is some loss due to coordination issues (5-10%) but much more due to loss of motivation (10-15%). May be due to: Matching our effort to others own effort not needed Evaluation potential Meaningfulness of the task Reducing social loafing Smaller groups less susceptible Accountability for individuals Make each input unique. Group believes it is effective Values of the group Social striving Opposite of loafing. Related to culture, more collective e.g. chinese = more effort for group tasks. Gabrenya study shows this appears some time after 6th grade due to development Conformity processes Informational: - Accuracy of info - uncertainty - Private acceptance - e.g. autokinetic study (sherif) Normative: - Social approval - Group can punish or reward - Public compliance - Asch's line study Sherif's autokinetic study When moved from alone to group, answers converged quickly when moved from group to alone, people retained their same answers developed in group measurement Asch's conformity study 76% conformed at least once 33% conformity rate over all. appears to have reduced over time but is still present Factors for greater conformity Individual: - High self monitors - need social approval - Social anxiety Gender: - cross gender effect for tasks (men conform when doing female tasks and vice versa) Group size: - 3-6 has largest effect Membership: - members friends - members competent Group unanimity Culture: - Collectivist - biggest effect (Bonds meta analysis) Non-conformity Those who don't conform to group norms or beliefs receive most attention from other members and are rated as least interpersonally attractive. E.g. Johnny Rocco Study Deviate - Always against group norm Slider - against group norm then joins Mode - with group how do minorities influence the majority When there is consistency amongst the minority members and across time when there is demonstrated autonomy and investment in their position When there is some flexibility from minority members Conversion theory Majority view desire to be liked superficial processing Public acceptance Public influence Minority view desire to understand Deep processing private acceptance Private influence Obedience Not the same as conformity. More about following orders of authority figures. Milgram study - 65% went to end of the shocks Burger study - 150V critical cuttoff - 70% continued past 150V Why? Obeying authority? Demands increase gradually? New situation, limited information? Reducing obedience If the learner was in the same room as the teacher obedience dropped to 40%. Was even lower (30%) if the teacher had to put the learner hand on the electrode. Social identity theory on Milgram study we identify with the researcher or with the student. Situation and in/out group also influence. Social identity approach Composed of the social identity theory and the self categorisation theory Social identity theory Categorisation We see people as members of social group automatic and based on knowledge of categories Comparison We competitively compare our in group with out groups Positive social identity maintain our positive social identity by assessing our group as being positively distinct from other groups Minimal group paradigm A group created based on the most arbitrary characteristics. Often shows in group bias across many types of task. e.g. distributing coins, will tend to support their 'in-group' more than the out group, despite not having met any other members of their in group. How do we improve our perception of our group Social mobility - changing groups social creativity - change the metric of comparison e.g. change the dimension, change the value assigned to the dimension, change the comparison group Social competition - improve our own group when do we use? When boundaries are flexible social mobility when boundaries inflexible, but status quo is legitimate social creativity otherwise use social competition Self categorisation theory Self categorisation we group ourselves with similar others, then contrast with other groups Meta-contrast principle We view within group differences as being small, and between group differences as being large. We hold a prototype of the group, represented as a person who holds typical characteristics of the group. depersonalisation Begin self stereotyping, we view our beliefs and attitudes and behaviours as being typical of the group Small group characteristics Mutual awareness and influence between members Enduring relationships, can be short or long term Common goals, either formal or informal Feeling of belonging cultural differences on group membership behaviour Collectivist - focus on own group, however not for arbitrary groups - tend to mock out group when in group underperforms individualistic - focus on competition between in and out group, even when groups arbitrary - will dissociate from group when performance is poor What is ethnic identity based on? Physical characteristics - skin colour linguistic characteristics - language behavioural characteristics - religion environmental characteristics - place of origin Acculturation orientation model Model indicating how a bicultural person may combine their two heritages. High on both cultures = integration High on new culture only = assimilation high on old culture only = separation low on both cultures = marginalisation Socialisation process in small groups Process between individuals and a group that begins when they join and ends when they leave. Small group norms and roles Norms Shared belief about conduct formal vs informal deviating leads to dislike or pressure to conform Roles formal vs informal Task vs relation oriented benefits the group when there is little ambiguity and the roles match abilities of the members Leadership Process involving social influence Gets others to help achieve a collective goal Collective relational purposeful Great person approach Effective leadership is attributed to individual characteristics evidence - weak correlations with: higher IQ better physique more talkative extraversion dominance Situational leadership Anyone can lead if the situation is correct Contingency theory of leadership Effectiveness of leadership styles is dependent on the situation. Type: relationship - relaxed, non directive - favourable to co-workers regardless of performance task - authoritarian - opinion of co-workers relies on performance Situational control: High - Good relations - task structured - leader has power Low - poor relations - task unstructured - low leader power Transformational leadership How a leader transforms group goals via charsima Stereotypes Rigid, general, simple and often incorrect schema of a social group Stereotype content model 2 dimensions: warmth - influenced by how competitive the group is Competence - influenced by goup status Act as X and Y axis. high both = admiration warmth only = pity competence only = envy low both = contempt