PSYC 3100 1nd Edition Lecture 12 Outline of Last Lecture I. Festinger and CarlsmithII. Cohen III. Paradigm II: Free Choice IV. Free Choice V. Example 1 VI. Example 2 VII. Example 3 VIII. Something to Think About IX. Familiar Experiences X. Reatance: Preliminary Remarks XI. Reactance: What is it? XII. Important Distinction XIII. What The Theory Does Not Say Outline of Current Lecture I. Reactance: What Determines it’s Magnitude II. Brehm and sensenig III. Weiner and Brehm IV. Brehm, Stires, Sensenig, and ShabanV. S. Brehm and WeintraubCurrent LectureI. Reactance: What Determines it’s Magnitude - AT LEAST THREE THINGS-- Firmness with which freedom is established.- Importance of threatened freedom.- Magnitude of the threat.- Sub-Determinants:- Proportion of freedoms threatened or eliminated.- Implications of the lost of one freedom for the possible loss of another freedom or set of freedoms.- Freedom is on a continuum. Ex: Free to eat or drink in one class and not allowed to eat or drink in another. In the class where it is not allowed, students start bringing drinks and snacks towards the middle of the semester These 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.and the professor never says anything. You are 100% sure of your freedom in the first class but you are only about 60% sure of the freedom in your second class. You will have the strongest elevation of desire in your first class when the president states there should be no consumption of food or drinks in al classes. - All threats are not equally serious. II. Brehm and Sensenig - Study ostensibly concerned with collaborative decision making.- Participants taken to cubicle and led to believe there is another participant in another cubicle.- “Other” participant was to make judgment and then pass that to the (real) participant via a note (slipped under cubicle door).- Note indicated either “I would choose option X” (freedom threat low) or “We should choose option X” (freedom threat high).- The participants are to look at the photos and decide if they person is either apriest or Wall Street journalist based on their perception. The notes had beenprepared beforehand by investigators so the participants did not actually get the notes from their teammates like they had thought.- The phasing of the noted led to the decision. Either “we” or “I” and the participant would go with option X. If the participant received the “we” note, they chose the other option. If they received the “I” note, they would choose the same.- If we feel we have a freedom and then we feel threatened, then we become rebellious. III. Weiner and Brehm- Study designed to examine reactance outside of the laboratory – real world setting.- Investigators first measured sales of a particular product (bread) during baseline week.- Then had an intervention week during which students handed out fliers w/$$to shoppers.- Fliers said either “Today we would like you to try…” (freedom threat low) or “Today you will try…” (freedom threat high).- Compared sales during intervention week to sales during base week.- The low threat had a 50% increase and the high threat had a 25% increase.IV. Brehm, Stires, Sensenig, and Shaban - Tested the proposition that reactance will occur only under conditions where a freedom has been established.- Two session study: In Session I, participants asked to listen to and then rate five record albums.- At the end of Session I, participants told either (a) they would be allowed to choose one of the five albums at the end of Session II, or (b) that they would be assigned one of the five albums at the end of Session II.- CHOICE established freedom to have any album, creating conditions conducive to reactance; ASSIGNMENT did not.- Session II was highly similar to Session I. Participants were asked to listen to same albums and then rate them.- However, just prior to leaving the participants alone, the experimenter noted that a particular album did not arrive in the album shipment this morning and, thus, would not be available.- In whom should this have generated reactance?- CHOICE participants- ASSIGNMENT participants- The participants listened to pieces of music off of albums for 45 minutes. They could spend as much time as they wanted on each record but they had to listen to all five of them. They rated the attractiveness of the records. They were told that if they showed up to the second appointment then they will get an album. They either got to choose or they were assigned an album. When they showed up for the appointment, they were told that a certain album could not be chosen from. The freedom is now threatened and the participants who get to choose their album will now want album 1. - Later, the investigators compared ratings of “unavailable” album to ratings of “available” albums.- More specifically, they examined change for each in Session II compared to Session I.- There was a positive change in attractiveness. V. S. Brehm and Weintraub - DESIGNED TO INVESTIGATE THREE ISSUES:- Magnitude of the threat.- Importance of the Freedom- Reactance as a Learned Response- They used two year old as participants. - There was a high barrier for identical toys, a high barrier for different toys, and a low barrier for different toys.- CREATED THREE EXPERIMENTAL CONDITIONS:- High-Barrier/Identical-Toys (High-Threat/Low-Importance) ---- REACTANCE LOW- High-Barrier/Different-Toys (High-Threat/High-Importance) ---- REACTANCE HIGH- Low-Barrier/Different-Toys (Low-Threat/Low-Importance) ---- REACTANCE LOW- MEASURED LATENCY TO TOUCH- Why were there different situation? - The glass barrier represented a threat and the taller the barrier was, the larger the threat was. The barrier was designed to manipulate the degree of the threat. - Condition two has the strongest reactance response.- How do you measure desire? - They released kids to play with the toy that they wanted to. The desire for the restricted toy- some kids would go touch