Social Psych Quiz 5

a message induces change in beliefs,attitudes, or behaviors

occurs when interested people focus on the arguments and respond with favorable thoughts

occurs when people are influenced by incidental cues such as a speaker's attractivness

• belivability 
• viewed as an expert and trustworthy
• Gain credibility by:–saying things the audience agrees with
• –arguing against self-interest
• –saying something unexpected having knowledge of the topic (drug use from parents vs. from a doctor

• delayed impact of a message that occurs when an initially discounted message becomes effective such as when we remember the message but forget the reason for discounting it
• People forgot the source of the message; all they remembered was the message
• Remind people of the sources and credibility matters again

having qualities that appeal to an audience. an appealing communicator often someone similar to the audience is the most persuasive on matters of subject preference

other things being equal information presented first usually has the most influence

Information presented last sometimes has the most influence. less common than primacy

the way the message is delivered whether face to face, in writing, on film or in some other way

media influence occurs through opinion leaders who in turn influence others

• the motivation to think and analyze.
• Assessed by agreement with items such as "The notion of thinking abstractly is appealing to me." and disagreement with items such as "I only think as hard as I have to."

• a group characterized by distinctive rituals and beliefs related to its devotion to a god or a person 
• isolation from the surrounding "evil" culture 
• charismatic leader a sect by contrast is spinoff from a major religion

exposing people to weak attacks upon their attitudes so that when stronger attacks come they will have refutations available

motive to increase another's welfare without conscious regard for ones self interest

human interactions are transactions that aim to maximize ones rewards and minimize ones costs

motive supposedly underlying all behavior to increase ones own welfare

expectation that people will help, not hurt, those who have helped them

mutual support and cooperation enabled by a social network

expectation that people will help those needing help

idea that evolution has selected altruism towards ones close relatives to enhance the survival of mutually shared genes

putting oneself in another's shoes

finding that a person is less likely to provide help when there are other bystanders

strategy for gaining a concession. After someone turns down a large request the same requester counteroffers with a more reasonable offer

perception of certain individuals or groups as outside the boundary within which one applies moral values and rules of fairness.

regarding others as within ones circle of moral concern

result of bribing people to do what they already like doing, they may then see their actions as externally controlled rather then intrinsically appealing

• –Source: Who is communicating
• –Message: What is being said
• –Channel: How is it being said
• –Audience: Who is listening

• Elaboration Likelihood Model assumes people want to have the “correct” attitudes
• Important to communicate message to person in a way that they will analyze and attempt to comprehend
• Depends on their willingness to elaborate (think deeply) about what is being sa

• –Make person think carefully about what is being said
• –Best when person can think carefully–Influenced by strength and quality of arguments

• –Influence person through cues that are irrelevant to the actual message
• –Person is unwilling or unable process message content carefully
• –Influence by cues that irrelevant to the message itself (amount of information or attractiveness of communicator)

• §Who is trying to do the persuading?–Credibility and the sleeper effect–Attractiveness
• Especially important when person is not motivated or lacks the ability to process the message carefully
• People arguing with the same exact words can have different effect (Liberal vs. Socialist leaders in Dutch parliament)

• Read article that nuclear-powered submarines were safe
• Written by either Oppenheimer or Pravda
• At first, people were more persuaded when they thought Oppenheimer wrote it
• Four weeks later, Oppenheimer lost persuasive power, while Pravda gained it

• Who is communicating is important
• Credibility matters, especially at the beginning
• Attractive communicators are more persuasive than unattractive ones

• What makes a message persuasive, independent of the source
• –Vividness
• –Fear and humor
• –One-sided vs. two sided arguments–Repeating a message

• use of graphic message as opposed to data and facts to persuade (reason vs. emotion)
• See both on TV (comparing detergents vs. Choosy mothers choose Jif)
• This is your brain on drugs commercials are vivid, but not very fact filled.
• §Vivid and colorful stories can help persuade, especially when facts are dry (energy efficiency study: 15% vs. 61%)
• Well-educated or analytical people are less persuaded by vivid appeals
• §Sometimes vividness can backfire
• Vividness can distract from point of message, especially when the images are incongruent with the theme of the message
• Humor works much the same way. The humor should be related to the message, which leads to more processing

• §can be either vivid or evidence-based
• Mixed evidence for fear appeals
• Examples:–Cigarette smoking–This is your brain on drugs–DWI

• Fear leads to both a self-protective response and an attempt to avoid the fear-arousing threat (Rogers, 1983)
• –threat is serious–
• threat is probable–
• recommendations to avoid threat will be effective–
• have the ability to follow these recommendations
• Need to convince people that they should change (points 1 and 2)
• Able to change (points 3 and 4)

• Mere exposure effect: The more you see something, the more you like it
• Don’t even have to consciously be aware of the stimuli

present only your arguments

• acknowledge opposition’s case and refute it
• more effective when people initially disagree or when they are well-informed
• Two sided messages are better with people who initially disagree
• Also those who are well-informed or going to be exposed to opposing viewpoints in the future
• –Appear fair, objective, and thus more trustworthy

• Convince American soldiers who won the war in Germany of the need to fight in Japan
• One sided vs. two sided argument
• Effectiveness depended on who is listening

• Overlapping vivid information with the theme of the message is most effective
• Fear can also be effective, providing a way of avoid the undesirable outcome is given
• Repeating a message works
• Have to match arguments to audience

• How is the message being sent?
• The medium itself
• Self-generated persuasion
• Rapid speech
• Powerful speech

• Actively created attitudes are stronger and more persuasive (remember section on attitude-behavior link?)
• The more lifelike the medium, the more persuasive, in order: live, videotaped, audiotaped, written
• Messages are best comprehended and recalled when written, so that medium is best for complex messages
• Lifelike messages draw attention to communicator and away from the message itself

• Persuasion can’t change people’s minds; persuasion just sets up the proper conditions where people are willing to change their attitudes
• Have people list their own reasons for changing their attitudes
• Self-generated ideas are highly persuasive–Highly credible source-yourself
• –Very life-like

• Had salesmen either use the self-generated technique or simply listed reasons for having cable
• Less than 20% bought cable when passively given information
• Almost 50% subscribed when they imagined the reasons for owning cable

• People who speak quickly are generally more persuasive because they convey the impression that they are more credible
• Peripheral cue, thus works best when audience is not processing deeply (no time to think of counterarguments)
• When audience is in favor of speaker’s position they can’t process information, so the message is wasted
• Drinking age study (Smith and Shaffer, 1991).–IVs
• Fast, normal or slow speech
• Pro or counter attitudinal speech–DV
• How persuaded were underage drinkers–Outcomes
• Rapid counter attitudinal speech worked
• Rapid pro attitudinal speech had no effect

• Confidence matters
• Powerful vs. powerless speech–Hesitation (um, you know)
• –Disclaimers (I’m not an expert, but)–Qualifiers (sort of, I guess)
• –Tag questions (don’t you think?)

• Women are less likely to use powerful speech
• Men are more persuaded by women using powerless speech, whereas women are more persuaded by women using powerful speech
• Possible solution: use powerful speech with friendly and affiliative non-verbal style

• The medium matters
• Rapid speech can either help or hurt, based on the audience
• Powerful speech increase effectiveness; powerless decreases persuasion

• Who is listening?
• –Mood
• –Age
• –Need for cognition

• Good moods appear to increase persuadability
• Janis (1965) had people read persuasive messages while eating or without snacks. Those eating were more persuaded (also works with music)
• Why?–Mood as information

• Mood as information–Negative moods: something is wrong and action is necessary–Positive moods: everything is okay, no need to think
• People in a positive mood think less hard
• Does not mean that people in a bad mood will react negatively, just that they will think more deeply, need better arguments

• Some other characteristics predict who is most likely to be persuaded
• –Need for cognition
• –Age (life cycle vs. generational arguments)

• The audience is important in determining the outcome of a persuasive message
• Moods affect central vs. peripheral processing
• Individual differences matter (age, need for cognition)

• Many extreme examples of failure to help:–Kitty Genovese murder–New Bedford rape in “The accused”
• Many extreme examples of helping:–Carnegie “Hero” awards–Oskar Schindler in “Schindler’s List”

• Latané & Darley studies
• 1.Notice the event
• 2.Define as an emergency
• 3.Take personal responsibility
• 4.Have ability to help
• 5.Decide to intervene

• Sometimes obvious:
• –Arrive on the scene at a car wreck
• –Professor has seizure
• Sometimes much less so:
• –Is that blind person lost?–
• Is that couple fighting or
• playing?

• Look to other people (Social Comparison):–Do others seem concerned for the blind woman?–Do others seem concerned by the couple fighting?
• If they seem concerned, then I should be concerned
• If not, then I should not be concerned

• What if they are looking to you to determine if this is an emergency?
• –You look calm because they look calm
• –They look calm because you look calm
• This is an example of pluralistic ignorance

• We are doing the same thing, for the same reason, but we think its for different reasons
• Example
• What I think:–I don’t look worried because I don’t want to look foolish–They don’t look worried because there is no emergency
• In truth:–I don’t look worried because I don’t want to look foolish
• –They don’t look worried because they don’t want to look foolish

• No one else is helping--- Must not be an emergency
• Another example: Confusing lectures
• Why didn’t I ask a question
• –I don’t want to look stupid
• Why didn’t anyone else ask a question?
• –They understood the lecture

• Smoke-Filled Room Experiment
• Goal:–Present people with an ambiguous emergency – smoke filling into a room
• Hypothesis:–When alone, more likely to interpret as a fire than with passive bystanders

• Subjects arrive to a room
• Two conditions 
• –Alone
• –Two passive confederates
• After several minutes, smoke
• Dependent Variable:
• –Leave room to report smoke
• Conclusions
• People were less likely to define smoke as an emergency in presence of passive others
• Question: What if the others in the room are not instructed to be passive?

• Additional Condition–Three real subjects
• Results–Real subjects reduced helping
• –Also affected interpretation of smoke
• Conclusion
• The presence of passive others can be interpreted as evidence that event is not an emergency
• Passiveness can arise from pluralistic ignorance in response to ambiguous emergencies
• Remember: Pluralistic ignorance only happens when the event is ambiguous!!

• Even when the event is unambiguous, may not help if they do not feel personally responsible
• Presence of others can lead to diffusion of responsibility
• Latané and Darley – overhearing an epileptic having a seizure
• –This is unambiguously an emergency situation
• –As a result, cannot be pluralistic ignorance

• Presence of others reduces helping even when an event is unambiguous
• This appears to be on account of diffusion of responsibility
• NOTE: The presence of others does not always reduce personal responsibility

• Subject arrives to laboratory
• Experimenter goes to get something from other room
• Hear crash and scream
• “I have broken my foot and I can’t get up”
• Conditions:
• –Alone
• –Passive confederate
• –Another subject (stranger)
• –Close friend

• Why did subjects help more with a friend?
• It was possible to communicate
• Can devise a strategy – lessens diffusion of responsibility
• Conclusions
• More likely to help if take personal responsibility
• Less likely to take responsibility if in presence of others who are:
• –Unresponsive – Epilepsy study
• –Strangers – Experimenter in distress

• How many of you know how to help if: –Professor Muraven starts choking on a chicken bone
• –Professor Muraven “blacks out”
• –Professor Muraven has a heart attack–Professor Muraven falls and experiences a compound fracture
• Conclusion:–It may be an emergency, it may be up to you, but you won’t help if you can’t

• Even if …–Notice
• –Interpret as an emergency
• –Feel personally responsible,–Know how to help …
• –may decide NOT to help:
• If the cost of helping is high
• Embarrassment
• In a hurry
• If the victim does not “deserve” help–Attractiveness/similarity of person

• Seminary students
• All scheduled to give a sermon on the Good Samaritan after the study
• Half were made to run late by study
• On the way to the seminary, encounter someone slumped in a doorway
• Situation is important, not disposition. Example of the fundamental attribution error

• Helpinganother even when no benefits are offered or expected in return
• Isthis altruism?
• –Mary,an attorney, stops to aid the victim of an automobile accident

• –Bill calls the police when he sees his next door neighbor leave the house with a
• handgun

• –Gerald,a volunteer firefighter, is nearly overcome by smoke in a burning building as
• he saves the life of an elderly woman

–Bradand Cynthia donate 20% of their annual salaries to their church

–Yolandaanonymously donates $500 to a local charity

–Markrisks social ostracism to give a complete stranger the Heimlich maneuver, onlyto have everyone at the restaurant think he is a complete idiot

• Selfish reasons
• Genetic benefits
• Social exchange
• Altruistic reasons

why help others if our goal is to ensure our own survival?

• Kin selection(“genetic determinism”):
• –To protect our kin
• –To look after the “pack”
• Positive
• take: Helping is human nature
• Negative
• take: Helping is for personal gain

• NEW YORK – The skeleton of a dwarf who died about 12,000 years ago indicates that
• cave people cared for physically disabled members of their communities …

• Frayer, a professor of anthropology at
• the University of Kansas at Lawrence, said in a telephone interview that the
• youth "couldn’t have taken part in normal hunting of food or gathering
• activities so he was obviously cared for by others”

• Helping is motivated to maximize
• rewards and minimize costs
• We help because there are“rewards”associated with helping
• “Altruism,” then, is simply disguised self-interest

• Reciprocity
• Satisfying relationships
• Positive public image
• Positive private image
• Mood Enhancement

• Cialdini’s negative-state relief
• model: We help to relieve distress
• Helping makes us feel better

• Mood freezing study
• Independent Variables
• –Reminisce about happy, sad or neutral life event
• –Mood is “frozen” or not
• Dependent Variable:
• –Call to recruit blood donors
• Conclusion
• Negative mood leads to helping
• We help to relieve our own distress (and not someone
• else’s)
• Other evidence:
• –The more sadness one feels, more
• one helps
• –However, if one anticipates a future good mood, one does not help
• –Only help when helping is easy and when it will make us feel better

• When people are in a good mood, they act so as to maintain that good mood
• Baron (1997)
• Get people either by Cinnabun or Macy’s at Crossgates
• Ask for change for a dollar
• Conclusion
• Helping often reflects self-interest
• –Negative State-Relief
• –Positive Mood Enhancement
• Dan Batson: There is true altruism
• –Some helping often is self-interested
• –But,true altruism arises from empathy
• Empathy causes us to put others’ concerns over own

• Two reactions to seeing someone suffer
• –Personal distress-preoccupied with our own anxiety
• –Empathy-compassion and tenderness for victim
• Personal distress leads to negative state relief or flight
• Empathy leads to helping, even if there is no personal gain
• How can you tell when a behavioris not motivated by self-interest

• Read about “Carol” who needs lecture notes following a car wreck
• Empathy IV
• –Half instructed to “adopt Carol’s perspective”
• –Half instructed to “be objective and not worry how Carol feels”
• Self-Interest IV
• –Half lead to believe would encounter Carol next week
• –Half lead to believe that they would never meet her
• DV:
• –Helping Carol
• Conclusion
• Empathy can over-ride self-interest
• In subsequent studies, empathy
• effects not eliminated by positive mood
• induction (e.g., $1)