PSYCH 350 1st Edition Lecture 16Outline of Last Lecture I. Attitudesa. Ab. Bc. CII. Measuring attitudesIII. AttitudesbehaviorsIV. 3 factors of TPBV. BehaviorsattitudesOutline of Current Lecture I. Behaviorsattitudesa. Foot in the doorb. Low ballc. Door in the faceII. Theoriesa. Cognitive dissonancei. Festinger’s studyii. Insufficient justificationb. Self-perception theoryc. Impression-management theoryd. Self-affirming theoryIII. Comparing theoriesCurrent Lecture -Behaviors--->AttitudesoAttitudes are a weak predictor of behavior oRoles: set of norms that define how to behaveoRoles- the part that each person plays-affects attitudes-Stanford Prison Study oFoot in the door-Comply w/ a small request-->comply with a large requestoLow ball-Compliance with original request after its been increased-Car salesmanThese notes represent a detailed interpretation of the professor’s lecture. GradeBuddy is best used as a supplement to your own notes, not as a substitute.oDoor in the face-A persuader makes a large request, expecting you to reject it, and then presents a smaller request-Asking parents for 1000 bucks at end of semester, they say no, you ask for 100 so they say yes b/c they are comparing it to the large request-TheoriesoCognitive dissonance -Experience inconsistent cognitions-->psych arousal-->the motivation to reduce dissonance -On a diet but you voluntarily eat cake-Conflict causes dissonance b/c there is a discrepancy -5 techniques to reduce dissonance-Change your attitude (I wasn’t really committed to that diet anyway)-Change your perception of the behavior (yeah I ate that cake but it wasn’t really a big piece of cake)-Add consonant cognitions (chocolate cake is made with milk & milk is healthy for me)-Minimize the importance of the conflict (life's support eat dessert first approach)-Reduce perceived choice (my mom would have been offended if I didn’t try a piece of the cake)-Festinger's classic Study-Participants turned pegs in a peg board for an hour-Walking out door researcher asked "will you tell the next participant waiting to do this experiment how enjoyable it was"-Attitude discrepant behavior -1 condition offered $1-Other condition offered $20-Then asked to rate how enjoyable task was-Found:-$1-More enjoyable -Changed attitudes so that they were more in line with the behavior -$20-Less enjoyable-Insufficient justification-High cognitive dissonance leads to this-We cant use our attitude to justify the way we acted-We change our attitude to be in line with the way we acted-With sufficient justification we don’t experience dissonance; we have a reason to act in a way contrary to our attitudesoSelf-perception theory -Instead of dissonance, perhaps we simply infer our attitudes from our behaviors-Explaining Festingers results-Attitude-incongruent behavior requires analysis: "if I said it, I must've enjoyed it"-Attitude-congruent behavior doesn’t require analysis: "I said it because I was paid to, not because I really enjoyed it"oImpression-management theory-We're motivated to appear consistent in attitudes and behaviors -Explaining festingers results-Participants in the $1 condition self-reported a more positive attitude to appear consistent -Not a true change of attitudeoSelf-affirming theory -We confirm the integrity of our self-concepts-Akin to values affirmation when discussing stereotype threat-Just as stereotype threat is erased with values affirmation, dissonance (and the resulting attitude change) is avoided by affirming things that are central to us-Comparing theories Cognitive DissonanceSelf-perceptionImpression managementSelf-affirming Motivation to reduce discomfort? yes no yes yesIs there a real change in attitude? yes yes no yesDoes the attitude have to change because of an incongruent behavior?yes yes yes