logging in or signing up Social Psychology Tibald Download Post to : URL : Related Presentations : Let's Connect Share Add to Flag Embed Email Send to Blogs and Networks Add to Channel Copy embed code: Embed: Flash iPad Dynamic Copy Does not support media & animations Automatically changes to Flash or non-Flash embed WordPress Embed Customize Embed URL: Copy Thumbnail: Copy The presentation is successfully added In Your Favorites. Views: 4820 Category: Education License: All Rights Reserved Like it (0) Dislike it (0) Added: January 17, 2008 This Presentation is Public Favorites: 5 Presentation Description No description available. Comments Posting comment... By: aminejuventus (41 month(s) ago) good ppt Saving..... Post Reply Close Saving..... Edit Comment Close Premium member Presentation Transcript Social Psychology:(At least) Attitude Change/Persuasion & Group Behavior: Social Psychology: (At least) Attitude Change/Persuasion & Group Behavior CSCW January 28, 2004Teams: Teams Su, Rob, Mary, Yvonne: Blackboard Prasant, Jing, Sirong: CommunityZero Guarav, Chetan, Chris Will, Angie, Arul, JasonWhat’s the difference between Attitude Change and Persuasion?: What’s the difference between Attitude Change and Persuasion? ?Persuasion: Persuasion Reciprocity Commitment & Consistency Social Proof Liking Authority ScarcityReciprocity: Reciprocity Door-in-the-face Technique Ask people for a big concession; They say no; Ask them for a smaller concession; They are more likely to say yes. Ex:Chaperoning problem adolescents on a two-hour trip to the zoo vs. First asking them to work as volunteers in the Country Juvenile Detention Center, 2 hours/week for 2 years. 17% vs. 50% agreed to chaperon. (Cialdini) The reciprocity in this is….. Asker must be viewed as reasonable, same person for both requests, happen quickly.Consistency: Consistency Foot-in-the-door Technique Initial small request followed by a bigger request. Large, obtrusive sign in front yard saying “Drive Carefully” vs. first sign petition in favor of safe driving, then a different person two weeks later asked about sign (17% vs. 50%). The consistency in this is …… Social Proof: Social Proof Other People Do It. Kitty Genovese: no one else helping her. (Bandura) Show nursery aged children who are very afraid of dogs another child playing with dogs happily for 20 minutes/day. After 4 days, 67% willing to climb into a playpen with a dog and remain their while every else left the room. Works if video of child playing with dog. Works better if video of different children playing with dogs.Liking: Liking Physical attractiveness Similarity Compliments Familiarity: mere exposure Cooperation: Jigsaw Method (Aronson) Eagles vs. Rattlers (Sherif) Rivalry: Separating boys into two cabins; Giving the groups different name Shared Goal: pulling truck out of the mud. Conditioning and Association (weathermen, bad weather)Authority: Authority Obedience: A major concern of social psychology (influenced by WWII). Milgram Obedience Experiment Stanford Prison Experiment A little known fact: Had screened out all people with strong pacifist or strong pro-war opinions (e.g. dissenters). Connotation, not content (Britney Spears for Pepsi; that’s funny, it used to be Micheal Jackson) Titles (“Psychologist”) Clothes Scarcity: Scarcity My landlady: “I want to sell right away. Final price.” Group Behaviors: Group Behaviors Non-social groups Social groups Behavior: Anonymity Decisions: Type of task Conformity Group think Group polarization Process loss Leaders What makes a leader? Fiedler’s contingency theory of leadership What is a group?: What is a group? Nonsocial groups Mere Presence (social facilitation vs. social loafing) Evaluation, arousal, task complexity Presence of others Indiv. effort can be evaluated. Indiv. effort can not Be evaluated. arousal relaxation Enhanced Simple tasks Enhanced Complex tasks Impaired Simple tasks Impaired Complex tasks SOCIAL FACILITATION SOCIAL LOAFINGSocial Groups: Conformity: Social Groups: Conformity Solomon Asch 8 people in each group---7 confederates Judgments about line lengths, e.g. 1. 2. 3. Which line is the same length as the following?Conformity: Conformity All confederates instructed to make the same wrong choices on certain trials. Errors of majority ranged between 1/2 “ and 1 ¾”. 68% of “critical subjects” reported the objectively correct answer. 32% conformed to the majority. Extreme individual differences Majority of three enough to produce influence. One partner reduces effect to 10% yielding.Anonymity: Anonymity Anonymity is associated with asocial behavior. Deindividuation Ku Klux Klan Destroying cars (Zimbardo) Decisions: Decisions Are groups better or worse than individuals at making decisions?Decisions: Type of Task: Decisions: Type of TaskDecisions: Type of Task: Decisions: Type of TaskProcess Loss: Process Loss = any aspect of group interaction that inhibits good problem solving Can occur because: The most competent member of the group has low status and is not taken seriously. Most competent member might have concerns about evaluation by others Communication problems in group. Answer not simple or clear cut.Shared Vs. Unshared Information: Shared Vs. Unshared Information 85% Prefer Candidate 24% Prefer Candidate Why?: Because people only talk about the SHARED INFORMATION.Conformity: Conformity Group Think (Janis, 1982, 1972) Bay-of-Pigs (Kennedy administration) = a kind of thinking in which maintaining group cohesiveness and solidarity is more important than considering the facts realistically.GroupThink: Antecedents, Symptoms & Consequences: GroupThink: Antecedents, Symptoms & Consequences Cohesive Isolated fm. other opinion Directive leader High stress Poor decision making process Illusion of invulnerability Belief in moral correctness Outgroup viewed in simplistic ways Self-censorship Direct pressure on dissenters. Illusion of unanimity Mindguards Incomplete survey of alternatives Failure to examine risks Poor Information search Failure to develop contingency plansConformity:Group Polarization: Conformity:Group Polarization Choice Dilemmas Questionnaire A low-ranked participant in a national chess tournament, playing an early match against a highly favored opponent, has the choice of attempting or not trying a deceptive but risky maneuver that might lead to quick victory if it is successful or almost certain defeat if it fails.Choice dilemmas questionnaire: Choice dilemmas questionnaire Please indicate the lowest probability of success that you would accept before recommending that the chess player play the risky move: __ 1 chance of success in 10 __ 3 chances of success in 10 __ 5 chances of success in 10 __ 7 chances of success in 10 __ 9 chances of success in 10 __ I would not recommend the alternative no matter how high its likelihood of success.Group Polarization: Group Polarization Roger, a young married man with with two children, has a secure but low-paying job and no savings. Someone gives him a tip about a company stock that will triple in value if the firm’s new product is successful, but will plummet if the new product fails. Should Roger sell his life insurance policy and invest in the company?Group Polarization: Group Polarization Please indicate the lowest probability of success that you would accept before recommending that Roger sell his life insurance policy and invest in the company: __ 1 chance of success in 10 __ 3 chances of success in 10 __ 5 chances of success in 10 __ 7 chances of success in 10 __ 9 chances of success in 10 __ I would not recommend the alternative no matter how high its likelihood of success. Group Polarization: Group Polarization The tendency for groups to make decisions that are more extreme than the initial inclinations of its members. Risky Shift is a term for when they take greater risks. Culture-value theory: Americans (for example) value risk more than (for example) people in Uganda and Liberia. Another kind of conformity in groups.Leaders: Leaders What makes a leader? Leaders: Leaders By studying leaders: Intelligence, morality, motivation, family size, height, personality traits Fiedler’s contingency theory of leadership: Fiedler’s contingency theory of leadership Leadership & Stress: Leadership & Stress You do not have the permission to view this presentation. In order to view it, please contact the author of the presentation.