1
Self Evaluation
Motives
1. Self Assessment- the desire to have/get accurate information about ourselves
2. *Self Enhancement- the need to achieve and maintain a positive sense of self
Taylor and Brown (1988) - people in our culture operate under set of positive
illusions about ourselves
a. abilities-think we have skills better than average
1. Clinton Scandal-people reported low interest but thought others had
high interest in scandal
2. We think we are more helpful and charitable than others
How likely you are to contribute?
How likely are others to contribute?
Accurate for the average student but overestimated how much you
would contribute because you include intension in your answer
3. Self serving bias – FAE other fall prey but we don’t
4. Over Claiming effect- People are asked if they recognize a person or
event – claimed to remember events and people we don’t know to
sound smart and up on events.
b. control
Superstitions- lucky clothes… when we are worried we try and exert more
control then we really have and look for control we don’t have
During the first gulf war= Iraq invaded Kuwait- high and low stress
areas- high stress areas were more likely to engage in superstitious thinking
Lottery- more skill and confidence- people with low SES believe they have
more skill
c. unrealistic optimism about our future holds
We know bad things happen but they won’t happen to me
Positive illusions – give reasons to stride leads to high subjective well
being. (Depression, lower self esteem without them)
Not everyone has them and they are beneficial
Some say a more realistic point of view is better but overall
data says illusions are good to some extent.
Does self Enhancement relate to mental and physical subjective well
being?
Study- those with self enhancing reacted less to stressors and physiologically recover
more quickly.
Study- people who went through negative experience in civil war coped better and
adjusting.
3. *Self Verification- desire consistency in cognitions about self (want others to confirm our
view-we like being right- if we don’t know self who do we know?
How people treat us depends on self therefore we predict and control world if
we know self
Mc Nutty & Swann (1994)- college roommates that just moved in filled out
questionnaires rating self and roommate on attributes, ability, and self esteem.
13 weeks later- re-rate- compare
Reflected appraisal on some characteristics rate self in line with the way the roommate
rated you… adjust rating to roommates. On other characteristics-self verification-
roommate starts to rate you more in line with how you rated yourself- confirms you own
original view- especially on traits of confidence- we want people to see us a certain way..
if you are not confident then you take others point of view.
Implications on relationships- couples are more committed and intimate if
partner confirms and verifies view of self- both negative and positive-verification of
negative feeds into depression and abusive relationships
2
Swann (1997)-
Ultimate goal of psychotherapy is psychological change
People are motivated to maintain their existing views of themselves
Because self perceptions are important to functioning in everyday life, changes in peoples self
views may make them feel uncertain and anxious and lead them to behave less effectively
People prefer to interact with those that confirm their self views
Misinterpret information that is inconsistent with self views
Effective therapist must work within the framework of clients self concept
Once people become confident in their self views they rely on these self views to predict the
reactions of others, to guide behavior, and to organize their conceptions of reality.
People who are particularly likely to seek self verification are those who’s self views are extreme
and firmly held (depression)
With a cognitive load (rushing decision or rehearsing phone number) people with negative views
are less likely to self verify.
To attain and sustain positive self views people must not only gain their own approval they must
also gain the approval and support of certain key interaction partners
Partner may delete work you have done when they go home therefore must consider not only
individual but also the relationships in their life.
Therapists are in a good position to validate their partners shortcomings in a supportive and
accepting way.
Patients benefit for perception that you seem to know all my shortcomings therefore they are
competent in knowing themselves
Implications for therapy- therapist should initially confirm negative qualities of client- can make it
extreme so they rebut it- if client thinks therapist understands them it builds trust and comfort.
General Point- therapists who are interested in changing behavior should recognize that people
have a desire for positive self evaluations may be overridden by desire for self verification.
4. Self Improvement- desire to get better
*strongest due to culture
Sources of Evaluation Feedback
1. Other people-parents, peers
2. Social Comparison- with people who are similar
Regular standards = friends
3. Temporal Comparison- compare our selves over time
Controls for individual differences (within error)
Easy to see yourself as better now then in the past (self
enhancement)
Coping Experience –cope from negative event – adjust
Consequences
May not improve because you already think you are good
May come across as arrogant- self enhancement has a social cost
Optimism- if you assume positive you may not be prepared
Attend less health information, exercise less,
May not realize that there are some tasks that are going nowhere
Gambling- I almost won..
Positive illusions- you might be able to turn this off two different mindsets
Deliberate mindset- try to decide and make choices
Self esteem and mood decrease- no positive illusion
Implemental mindset- illusions come back to increase confidence
Cross Cultural Differences
Markus and kitayama (1991)
3
Independent vs. interdependent construals of self
Independent- autonomous, separate from others- western world-Individualistic
Self focus
Interdependent- connectedness, view world through the relations with others, eastern world, china, Japan,
Korea. Collectivistic. Group focus
Kim et al. –(class summary) patterns of thought is different between westerners and East Asia
background. Talking enhances thought process in western world but impedes thought processes in eastern
world. They don’t connect talking and thinking. Talking decreases performance in easterners.
Study- tasks preformed in silence, talking aloud, or while reciting the alphabet (distraction).
Americans did better when they talked aloud. Asians were impaired while talking aloud over reciting the
alphabet.
Kim: We talk, therefore we think? A cultural analysis of the effect of talking on thinking(article summary)
Many college profs in US are concerned with how Asian American students don’t speak up in
class
Western assumptions
o Talking is a positive act
o Talking is a basic means by which individuals express themselves
o Talking is closely connected to thinking
This research addresses:
o Is the assumption that talking = thinking a product of western society and does not
generalize?
Some points
o Other research found that Japanese middle-class mothers speak less frequently to their
young children than their American counterpoints
o Chinese preschool teachers see quietness as a means of control, not passivity
o Asian cultures see indirect and nonverbal communication of more meaning than
westerners
o Asians tend to adopt a holistic way of reasoning, while western adopt an analytic way of
reasoning, breaking up objects into their componential elements
Hypothesize:
o East Asians who use holistic thinking will be negatively affected by talking, but
European Americans who tend to adopt analytical thinking will not be largely affected by
talking
Study 1
o Are different cultural assumptions on the relationship between talking and thinking
reflected in a difference in the actual effect of talking on cognitive problem solving
o Americans would not be hindered in their performance on a reasoning task by talking
o Asians would be hindered compared to when silent on a cognitive task
o Hypothesis true
Study 2
o What are the connections between cultural assumptions and the effect of talking on
thinking, focusing on the role of cultural beliefs and practices as potential carriers of
cultural assumptions through which psychology is shaped
o Did the groups differ in their explicit beliefs about talking and thinking?
o Do these differences reflect differences in parenting styles?
o Do the groups differ in their self-perceptions of how much they rely on language when
problem solving?
o Found that Americans are more likely to believe that talking is good for thinking, more
likely to interact in verbal manners with their parents, more likely to rely on language
Study 3
o When thinking is more verbal in nature, thinking aloud does not seem to affect thinking
so much, but when it is not verbal, thinking aloud does seem to affect cognitive process
o This might happen to a different degree in Asian vs. American pops
o Used articulatory suppression task (saying alphabet out loud) while thinking
o Found that Americans problem-solving was not different when thinking out loud or
silent, but performance was worse when doing the articulatory suppression task
4
o Asians were worse when problems solving out loud, but were not affected by articulatory
suppression
Taylor, Sherman et al: Culture and Social Support: Who seeks it and why?
Research on stress and coping has shown that one of the most effective means by which
individuals cope with stressful events is through social support
There are cultural differences in expectations/norms about relationships (Asian – collectivist; USA
and Western Europe – individualistic)
Questions:
o How do cultural backgrounds affect how people use social support?
o How is the use of social support interconnected with cultural norms about relationships?
Different types of social support
o Information support: when one individual helps another understand a stressful event
better
o Instrumental support: provision of tangible assistance, such as services, financial
assistance
o Emotional support: warmth, nurturing
At least under some circumstances, the perception of social support that remains unutilized is
more beneficial than social support that is actually mobilized
So social support may be more beneficial in perception than in use – this could be relevant to how
social support is experienced in different cultures
Question: Are people from more interdependent cultures unlikely to respond to stressors by
explicitly enlisting the help of their social support networks compared to independent cultures?
Study 1
o Examined the hypothesis that Asians are less likely to solicit social support than
European Americans
o Open-ended questionnaire – examined strategies for coping in Korean and American
college students
o Koreans were found to rely on social support less often than people from independent
cultures
o Were specific stressors not being standardized the reason for this?
Study 2
o Same thing, but standardized stressors
o Confirmed findings from Study 1
o Cultural differences were stronger for emotional support than instrumental support
Study 3
o Tried to figure out why this is
o Found that Asians are less likely to seek social support because they are concerned about
the possible relational ramifications of seeking support, such as disturbing the harmony
of the group, losing face, receiving criticism, and making the situation worse
Variability in culture in different regions, rural vs. urban, south vs. north.
Independent Interdependent
More knowledge about self More knowledge about others and
relations
More fundamental attribution Less fundamental attribution error-
error more complex attributions
Process stimuli unaffected by *Context bound thinking (more
context situational sensitive
Thinking and talking is linked Don’t link thinking and talking
Less likely to mimic More likely to mimic
(Cameleon effect)
Ego focused emotions- anger, Other focused emotions- sympathy,
frustration, pride shame- more attuned to emotions
5
Different ideal emotions (critical to them)
More internal motives More social related motives
Dislike inconsistency Tolerate more inconsistency
More self serving bias Less self serving bias
Also true of depression
More self enhancement More self criticism
Can generate more everyday Scenarios were more self critical
life situations that impact self
esteem scenarios
More group enhancing bias Less group enhancing bias
More unrealistic optimism More pessimism
Prefer Uniqueness – magazine Prefer conformity – pick the shape
ads prefer themes of that conforms
uniqueness
Typical American kid wants Asians are more motivated if the
to choose stuff themselves choice is made for them.
*-e.g. underwater scene with fish is presented people are then asked if they ever saw the fish- independent
will recognize the fish and separate it from the scene but interdependent will not
Embedded figure test- look in the design and pull out a figure
Clinical Implications-
Emotions are more discrepant between ideal and now in Interdependent
Independents are more likely to seek social support
Self Disclosure is higher in Americans
Self concept has become more complex over time with the change from agricultural to more decisions
about career and future for both men and women.
Self- Esteem
Kuan et al (1997)-
Independent
Self construal ---------.55-----Self Esteem---.45-----Life Satisfaction
Interdependent
Self Construal-------.29----Relationship Harmony -----.44---- Life Satisfaction
There is no difference between satisfactions but the critical mediating factor is different.
Self Esteem Scales- westerners tend to score higher than Asians- because there is a greater awareness of
weaknesses in Asian cultures- and westerners report a greater sense of well being.
Self Esteem- Very studied construct and correlated with everything…When self esteem is high or low you
behave and act differently.
When SE is high and you fail – can move on quickly
When SE is low and you fail- have difficult time because you don’t have anything to fall back on
When SE is high and you succeed- react positively – self verification
When SE is low and you succeed- react with negative emotions and concerns- external sources-
threatens self verification- success increases expectations about the future which worries the low SE.
Social Problems- data does not support link between SE and eating disorders, substance abuse, etc.
relationships are weak.
Aggressive behavior- research says bully has a high but fragile SE
Focus on particular type of SE, e.g. stability, fragile and defensive
Carnis et al.- link between depression and variability of SE- unstable SE is more prone to
depression (fragile and defensive)
6
Contingency and SE- Better that SE is non contingent- people who feel good for who they are not what
they have done.
High Self serving bias, high self handicapping, try to conform, display prejudice in group when
SE is contingent.
Explicit SE vs. Implicit SE
Pelham et al. (2002)- people like letters of their own name and the number of their birthday more
than other letters and numbers.
People are more likely to move to places that share letters in their name.
Why do we need high SE? Twenge et al
Need to belong- socio/meter hypothesis-the SE system monitors others reactions and alerts the
individual to the possibility of social exclusion
What qualities enable you to be accepted? Skills, attractive, good personality
When included SE increases when excluded SE decreases
Social exclusion causes self-defeating behaviors
Twenge, Catanese, and Baumeister
The emotional distress and cognitive disorientation that results from exclusion might lead to self
defeating behavior.
In the following experiments, people were told that they would end up alone for most of their
adult lives, after which several self defeating behavior patterns were measured.
The person is typically seeking some positive outcome, but the pursuit produces a negative effect
as well. Two patterns have been identified: 1. First, some negative outcomes are linked to
positive ones. When the person pursues the positive outcome, the negative comes along with it.
An example of this is cigarette smoking. 2. The second type of self defeating behavior is the use
of a counterproductive strategy that backfires. An example of this is using alcohol to treat ones
own depression. Rather than numb the depression, the alcohol often causes the consumer to be
more depressed. Finally, some self-defeating behavior involves the combination of both patterns.
An example of this is procrastination.
Experiment 1 People were given bogus feedback from a personality test. Some people (future
alone group) were told they would end up alone in life and others (future belonging) were told they’d have
rich social relationships. Another control group (misfortune control) was told they’d be accident prone.
This design had two groups anticipating an unpleasant future, but only one of them involved social
exclusion. Then, subjects were given the option of making a safe bet or taking a long shot in a lottery. The
future alone group had the greatest preference for the long shot, self defeating behavior. This supported the
hypothesis that hurting one’s need to belong will led to self defeating behaviors. However, it also led to
bad moods. These moods did not appear to mediate the self defeating behavior.
Experiment 3 This time, self defeating behavior was measured by giving subjects the option of
healthy or unhealthy snacks and the opportunity to fill out a health questionnaire or just read an
entertainment magazine instead. Finally, the experimenter offered to take either a resting or running pulse
measure. Earlier findings were replicated, with social exclusion leading to unhealthy choices.
Experiment 4 Tested if social exclusion would lead to procrastination. Subjects could practice
for an upcoming test or procrastinate with pleasing distractions. This experiment also used a different
mood scale, the BMIS. Results showed that participants anticipating social exclusion procrastinated more
than the other groups. Again, the mood hypothesis was ruled out.
In sum: Social exclusion led to self defeating behavior. Emotional distress and bad moods did not
play a mediating role. Social exclusion can increase self defeating behavior without emotion really playing
a role. The need to belong is fundamental. Thwarting this need can lead to cognitive disorientation and a
failure of rational thought. This may be what impairs people’s ability to self regulate their behavior to do
things that will be good for them in the long run.
Determine Self Defeating behavior (eating healthy, procrastination, lottery) by Manipulate exclusion
Tell subjects that personality test results indicate
You’ll be alone-less healthy choice
You’ll belong and get accepted
Just bad news
7
When put in disturbing frame of mind you go for quick immediate rewards and fail to delay
gratification. – Self control and regulation
Social Exclusion effects intellectual performance, feel numb (decrease of emotions, increase in
aggressive behavior – common factor in school shootings
Terror Management Theory- humans implicit awareness of their personal vulnerability and inevitable
mortality can lead to a paralyzing terror.
This is managed by means of a two component culturally anxiety buffer consisting of
a. a persons individualized version of the cultural worldview, which provides a set of
concepts for understanding the world and one’s place in it, a set of standards though
which one can attain a sense of personal value, and the promise of literal
immortality, symbolic mortality, or both to those who live up to the standards of
value.
b. SE, or a sense that one is living up to those standards of value.
Ways to manage death anxiety
Invest in culture- if culture lives on it’s a symbolic immortality.
Increase SE- we are valued members of the culture
Research-
1. SE is a buffer against anxiety- boast SE and confront subjects with death and it
buffers their physiological responses
2. world view defense- mortality salience manipulation- when people write about death
they
a. like their in group more
b. like their leaders of the culture more
c. like people who share their same attitudes more
d. more dislike toward sinners
e. increased stereotypes, increase aggression, increase Scrooge effect- People
give more money when in funeral homes, increase commitment in
relationships, increase consumer behavior, increase self worth, increase SE
and self value, act more greedy (harvest more trees)
After terrorist attacks- went shopping (consumer capitalism), massive patriotism, and harsh
criticism of out group
More likely to support an attack on another culture if mortality has been manipulated
Presidential Election – voted for bush is primed with mortality because you support leaders in time
of terror alerts.
Consequences- a large proportion of social behavior is directed toward maintenance of faith in one’s
worldview and SE.
Arndt et al. (2004)
TMT humans cope by employing the same cognitive capacities for abstract and symbolic thought
that led them to awareness of death in the first place. Thus we create and maintain a solution to the
problem of death by creating a culture and putting faith into cultural worldviews
An association between a sense of value and psychological security beings early in life.
Conditional dispensation of parental affection in exchange for adherence to cultural dictates
quickly weaves children into the cultural fabric and is consistently reinforced by a range of
cultural techniques that associate devotion to cultural values with feeling good and secure.
World views and self esteem are socially constructed they exist only to the extent that people
maintain their faith in their validity.
Reminding people of their death should render them especially sensitive to anything that impinges
on their worldview and particularly motivated to invest in and defend that cultural worldview
Sample paradigm – two open ended questions about their death then rate targets that support or
threaten world view.
High self esteem reduced both self reported anxiety and physiological arousal in response to
various types of threats
o Mortality salience increases self esteem striving – even risky behavior that could be a
threat to one’s continued existence can be increased by reminders of death if that
behavior is a source of self esteem
8
Mortality Salience also increases various group identifications when such have positive
implications for self esteem but decreases them when the have negative implications for self
esteem
Model of Cognitive architecture of terror management- thoughts of death assume a central
position within a cognitive network and can be activated by associated events or breakdowns in
the protective mechanism that keeps concern with death at bay. When death thoughts are
explicitly in people’s minds they provoke proximal defenses designed to remove death cognitions
for conscious awareness.
Money is a measure of self worth- urge to splurge is a need to overcome insecurity- Because
awareness of death instigates efforts to augment self esteem concerns about mortality should often
intensify materialistic desires in people for whom such pursuits are a salient barometer of self
worth. And consumerism is deeply woven into the cultural fabric.
Increases the appeal of money and makes people more greedy (over consumption of natural
resources- study they would harvest more land)
Increased the pursuit of attractive appearance- manipulated mortality salience and then gave
participants the opportunity to eat nutritious but fattening food in a product evaluation study.
When threatened with death ate less food.
When thoughts of death are conscious consumer decision may be driven by efforts to reduce
vulnerability to death but when it is outside conscious choices are based on their relevance to self
esteem and cultural worldview.
People may use television and compulsive shopping to avoid self awareness
Self esteem and secure relationship attachments are a protective factor
Future- want to uncover ways to foster alternative belief and value systems that promote greater
health and well being while at the same time maintaining the viability of a global economy.
Positive Psychology- Focus on positives- Longevity and Happiness
How do you live a long life?
1. Conscientious- attention to detail, commitment to duty
Cheerfulness leads to earlier death because optimism leads to not fully taking care of oneself, it is
good in short terms (mixed findings)
2. Intelligence (g) - can manage life in helpful manner.
3. Don’t Catastrophize/ Don’t be pessimistic- which is not the opposite of optimistic
4. Don’t be masculine- internalizing feelings, not seeking social support, less likely to go to doctor,
risk taking
5. Linguistic ability (researched on nuns)- good writing skills
6. Positive Emotions- expressed in writing
7. Don’t have divorced parents
8. have lots of friends-especially women – marriage, help others (men who receive more help are
happier, women who give more help are happier)
9. Religiousness- more important for women – provides social support and way to help others
10. hold positive self perceptions on aging
11. don’t be successful to early- nothing to look forward to, type a personality
12. education- no physical labor jobs, learn how to approach problems
How to be Happy?
1. Focus on intrinsic aspirations instead of extrinsic aspirations
a. Perceived health
b. Materialistic vs. experiences
c. Work orientation
2. Find the good in bad events and count blessing
3. have a strong relationship with friends, family, and romantic partner
4. being or acting extroverted
5. allocentrism- collectivist orientation- within culture focus on others at a personal level
9
6. Cultural variations- finance, home life, esteem (individualistic), In third world countries any
money leads to increased happiness, in developed countries money is less critical and normal life
satisfaction is more critical.
7. Be Old- older people report a higher level of happiness because they have realized what is really
important, no job pressures, just enjoying life.
Happy Days?
Autonomy- feeling of being the author of ones own behavior
Competence- feeling of self efficiency, sense of optimism regarding achieving ones goals
Relatedness- satisfaction thru social activities relating to meaningful talks, feelings being
understood, and appreciated by interaction partners.
Definition-
Attitudes- a learned evaluative response, directed at specific objects which is relatively enduring and
influences behavior in a generally motivated way. ( they way you feel)
Evaluative response- for or against, like/ don’t like, etc.
Attitudes Behavior link-
Do you always act consistent with your attitudes? No
Lapierre (30’) traveled around US with a Chinese couple visiting restaurants and motels.
Everywhere they went they were treated fine but when sent a letter they said not to bring the Chinese
couple there- why? not confrontational, business reasons.
If they don’t predict behavior why do we study them? Attitudes do predict behavior it is when not
if that is the question
Kraus(1995)- overall there is a moderate correlation
Attitudes and behavior has a low correlation when it related to minority groups
perhaps this is due to different norms or social desirability.
Attitudes and behavior has a .58 correlation when it is related to voting
Predicating specific behavior is best to focus on
Accessible attitudes are more likely to predict behavior – environmental issues
70’s energy crisis in the 80’s and 90’s forgot about environment and bought SUV’s now
returning to the environment and acting on it.
Origins of Attitudes
Learned as we develop and grow
Modeling (social learning) Observation of others
Experience
Reinforcement
Operant
Instrumental
Classical-pairing of attitude with stimulus,e.g.TV commercial and pretty person.
Heredity Component- (TV and TV viewing attitudes, attitudes of work environment)
identical twins attitudes are more similar to non identical twins and siblings, adoptive vs. biological parents
Why? Link between attitude and personality- disposition predisposed positive
attitude toward certain stimuli.
Mullen et al. (1986).- 1984 presidential elections, collected video of major news announcers took
sound off and asked people to rate the facial expressions- no bias for Tom or Dan but for Peter showed
more positive for Regan after election a increased percent of Peters viewers voted for Regan people were
effected in an unconscious way – Classical Conditioning- Broadcasters smile is a UCS leading to UCR of
positive affect in viewer, the CS is the Candidate paired with the smile which leads to a Cr of a positive
affect for the candidate.
May effect undecided people or people in the middle
Attitude Change
Propaganda and attitude change- Carl Hobland Yale- School of persuasion
Source of Message
Qualities of Message
Audience Characteristics
Medium – face to face, audio, etc.
Most of these still hold up today but are qualified
What is going on in the mind of the recipient? Petty and Cacioppo-
10
Petty, Heesacker, and Hughes (1997)-
Evidence for the ELM- study
College students were given 4 persuasive arguments
1. compelling argument presented by expert
2. Weak argument presented by expert
3. Compelling argument presented by non expert
4. Weak argument presented by non expert
Motivation was leading students to believe that the proposal would take effect next year or in ten years
Findings- message that was highly relevant –central route
Low involvement of subjects- peripheral route
Variables- Situational and personal factors influence amount of thinking.
School psychologist- wants to engage consultee in an effortful analysis of the merits of various alternatives.
ELM encourages emphasis on the consultee as thinking individuals who is actively attempting to make
sense of the message and integrate the message into existing belief structures. Elaboration of a persuasive
message is essential to the central route attitude change. Elaboration is likely when the recipient is both
motivated and able to think about the issue.
Ways to increase client motivation and ability to think-
1. Create a sense of personal responsibility and involvement
2. elicit counter arguments (corrects misconceptions)
3. Assumes non judgmental stance in order to encourage open sharing of thoughts.
4. Utilizes experts status when applicable
5. use non technical language and present arguments in a clear and organized manner
6. reduce distractions
7. Use moderate repetition which can aid in ability to assimilate argument.
8. Make message personally relevant
9. Generate arguments consistent with existing schemas
10.
ELM - Elaboration Likelihood Model- two routes to processing information
1. Central route- attribution changes results from a careful, thoughtful consideration of
information in a message and quality of the argument is critical.
2. Peripheral route- attribution change results because attribution object has been
associated with positive or negative cures, or a person utilizes a simple decision rule to evaluate a
communication. Attractive person or expert, a person gave a large number of reasons despite what
the reasons are. Source cues (honest and expert), perceptual cues (color and vividness), consensus
information, mood (good mood increases compliance), number of arguments.
Central will occur more when there is increased motivations:
a. personal relevance/involvement
b. personality differences, increased need for cognition (central), or increased
need for closure (peripheral)
c. use of rhetorical questions- triggers thinking
d. multiple sources effect
e. number of people responsible for evaluating the message (few people leads to
increased motivation)
Ability to think about message:
a. distraction is low
b. repetition- presentation from different angels, exposure effect (like familiar)
c. fast taking salesman will go through the peripheral route because increases
expertise
d. more likely to be persuaded after caffeine.
e. medium – face to face greatest impact, reading is more complex, combination
is ideal
f. complexity
g. recipient orientation- match orientation/schema, e.g. Scientific audience
should be given data and research
A lot of cues can operate in both routes in different ways
Source- positive impression –peripheral
11
Credible, knowledgeable, increases motivation to listen- central
Mood- increases mood increases compliance
Positive mood leads to careful consideration
If you want to sell a candidate or program in school shoot for the central route because it
lasts longer, deeper processing, more resistant to subsequent attempts to change it and it is more predictive
or behavior.
Research- Lavine et al (1999)-96 presidential elections between Clinton and dole get people to vote
High Authoritarianism- threat oriented, hostile toward out group, high level of adherence
to conventional values, prejudice/aggression toward out group- submission to established authority figures
Reward related message- focused on advantages of voting
Threat related message- focused on disadvantage if you don’t vote.
Message type
Authoritarianism--.29--perceptions of message --.29--attitudes toward voting--.69--voting
intentions-.26--voting behavior
When high in authoritarianism and get threat messages the thought quality increased since it
matched their orientation, then the attitudes increased and so did intention and behavior of voting.
High sensation seeking teens that used marijuana were given a vivid public service announcement
it changed behavior
If arguments are weak a mismatch orientation is better because people can further scrutinize
messages that match their orientation
With substance abuse in college age students it is tough to get central route because they think it is
unimportant therefore go for the peripheral route
Ernst and Heesacker (1993)-effectiveness of assertiveness training programs
Traditional vs. ELM boaster- added features to increase motivation to carefully
systematically process information – elm program did better on behavioral measures and when roommates
where contacted
When given less reason on vulnerability to heart disease the less reasons group was more
confident in their attitudes.
Other Cognitive Response based Effects
Resisting Attitude Change-
1. Forewarning- decreases the vulnerability to increase change (if you think it doesn’t
work or don’t want it to) – prepare for future and resist persuasion attempts.
Cognitive Dissonance-
Leon Festinger (1957)- An unpleasant state of tension that results from an inconsistence between
cognitive elements. Presumably the individual is motivated to reduce the cognitive dissonance by resolving
the inconsistency.
Research
Aronson and Mills (1959)- hazing made females read a sexually explicit paragraph to get
into a discussion group but the discussion group was actually lame and therefore the women with the serve
initiation rated the group more positively.
Festinger and Carlsmith (1959)- subjects were given tedious task then given a peg board
task. They were then told to lie and say it was fun for either one dollar or twenty dollars the one dollar
condition expressed greatest enjoyment of the task
Zimbardo et al (1965)- army reserve soldiers – asked to task fried grasshoppers
Positive Communicator Negative Communicator
Eaters Less positive Most positive
Non eaters Most negative attitude ratings Less negative attitude ratings
When Dissonance is more or less likely to occur
Applications
Variables Influencing Dissonance-
1. The act is freely chosen
2. Averse Consequences (not essential)
3. Personal Responsibility
4. Involvement of self
12
Self Affirmation boasters self and qualities – if you present people with a health problem they will
downplay health problem and act defensive to protect self- but it you boast self concept …
Caffeine and breast cancer study- women who drank coffee were more defensive but if self affirmed then
They think the article is more meaningful and have a higher intention to change
College student’s video on aids- number of condoms they took
Self Affirmation lessons defensiveness and leaves open to new information
Self Affirmation Theory- proposes that thoughts and actions are motivated by a desire to maintain a self
image and moral, adaptable, and capable. People may not try to decrease dissonance if they can maintain
their self concept by proving that they are competent in other ways.
Must be in a domain that is different from the cognitive dissonance domain
People can deal with cognitive dissonance is self concept is boasters
Defensive information that threatens self- health, attitude issues (capital punishment) because
these are a bog part of the self concept
Research shows that if people are bolstered through self affirmation than they are more willing to change
their attitudes and less mindlessly willing to hold onto arguments, increased likelihood to be persuaded.
Summary for: “Do Messages About Health Risks Threaten the Self? Increasing the Acceptance of
Threatening Health Messages Via Self-Affirmation”
By, Sherman, Nelson, and Steele
Relevance and Defensiveness:
Previous studies have found that those who are at high-risk for a particular illness are more likely to be
defensive when confronted with health communication:
- Heavy smokers are more likely to have a defensive reaction than light smokers to information
about cancer.
- Heavy caffeine consumers were less likely to believe that a link exists between caffeine
consumption and fibrocystic disease (precursor to breast cancer).
Motivational Approaches to Defensiveness:
Motivational strategies have been more effective in fostering awareness and eliciting behavioral change.
Cognitive dissonance: we are likely to experience distress if our behaviors disagree with our cognitive
appraisal. This discrepancy is a catalyst, motivating behavioral change, so that cognitions and behaviors
are congruent.
- College students were made mindful of their failure to use condoms after publicly advocating safe
sex. The dissonance arousal motivated students to buy condoms.
Self-Affirmation and Defensiveness:
Self-affirmation theory suggests that thoughts and actions are motivated by a desire to maintain a self-
image as moral, adaptive, and capable. While people may respond defensively to threatening health
information, self-affirmation theory suggests that if self-image can be affirmed through some other means,
the defensive response will be reduced.
- Optimistic beliefs foster attention to health risks.
- Self-affirming activities may reduce stress and illness.
The Current Study: Hypothesis
Providing an alternative means to reduce the threat in relevant health information via a self-affirmation
should reduce the defensiveness of the relevant message recipients and increase their acceptance of the
message.
Study 1:
Participants completed a personal values survey, and were instructed to read an article addressing the risks
of caffeine consumption. Participants were either provided with a self-affirmation, or were not. The
content of the affirmation was individually assigned based on each participant’s highest ranked value.
Affirmation-condition participants assigned 1-4 points to each affirmation statement, indicating degree of
agreement. Control-condition participants completed a similar survey, except that the content consisted of
values that they had neutral feelings for. All participants were then asked a series of questions assessing
whether they believed that caffeine consumption is a significant health risk.
Results:
13
- Affirmation-condition participants reported feeling better about themselves than did the control.
- Affirmation-condition participants were more accepting of the validity of the article.
- An INTERACTION!! was observed for relevance and affirmation. Within the no-affirmation
condition, coffee-drinkers (high risk) were less accepting of the message than non-coffee drinkers
(low risk). However, within the affirmation condition, coffee drinkers were more accepting of the
article’s message than non-coffee drinkers.
- Affirmed coffee-drinkers predicted greater reduction in caffeine consumption than non-affirmed
coffee-drinkers.
Study 2:
For this study, the authors were interested in whether an affirmation given before the threatening health
information would be as effective, and unlike study 1, study 2 sought to operationalize and measure
behavioral change. Participants completed a personal values survey. Then participants in the affirmation-
condition completed an essay about the value that they believe to be most important and how this is
personally relevant, and participants in the no-affirmation condition completed an essay about their ninth
most important value, and why this might be important to the average student. All participants then viewed
an AIDS educational video consisting of young men and women with AIDS describing their experiences
living with the disease. The video focused on increasing perceptions of personal vulnerability. Participants
then answered questions about their own sexual habits, and how relevant the message was to their own
experiences. Participants were then given the opportunity to take informative brochures and/or buy
condoms. The number of each taken was noted, and participants were debriefed.
Results:
- Women were more likely than men to identify with the informational video (This is logical, as 4
of the 4 women represented in it were heterosexual, while neither of the 2 men were.)
- An interaction of gender and affirmation was observed. Women who completed a self-affirmation
recognized similar risk, while men were not affected.
- Affirmed participants saw themselves to be at greater risk for HIV than non-affirmed participants.
- Affirmed participants were more likely to purchase condoms and take brochures.
Both studies illustrate that self-affirmation increases the acceptance of potentially threatening health
communication. Because the self-affirmation was influential both before and after the threatening
information was received (study 2 and study 1, respectively), it is likely that motivational factors exert
influence throughout the information-processing sequence. One possible explanation for this effect is that
self-affirmation boosts mood. However, dependent measures of mood were not ostensibly affected. It is
more likely that recognition of personal risk when presented with threatening health information evokes the
need to maintain a positive self-image, and defensiveness results. However, if positive self-image
maintenance is achieved through other means the need to process the information defensively may be
reduced.
If we observe a member of our in group giving an argument that is counter to ours we move in the direction
of the attitude presented- we can use this to get people to do what we want.
Axson (1989) –Study 1 runway test
Low Effort High Effort
High Choice Most CD
Low Choice
Choice- elaborate informed consent
The CD occurred because the group was under their own free choice choosing and high effort condition
and therefore the relive cognitive dissonance got better, they had high motivation
Alternative Explanation- Self Perceptions- logical influence process explains high effort but not
misattribution
Study 2 Speech anxious- misattribution is to rate the lab room
14
Low Effort High Effort
Misattribution Opportunity Most CD
absent
Misattribution Opportunity
present
Need to justify the high effort with no opportunity to misattribute it to the room
Application- cognitive dissonance through effort justification- weight loss marketing- difficult cognitive
test condition lost more weight due to the need to justify their effort.
Hypocrisy- fried & Aronson- (1995)- recycling- make speech about recycling and at the end use
slogan never ok to not recycle. Hypocrisy condition thought of times in the last month when they didn’t
recycle and the other condition did not do this- the students in the hypocrisy condition choose to make
phone calls after for recycling
Prejudice- attitudes (usually negative) toward the members of some group based solely on their
membership in that group
Affective and cognitive component
Schema- knowledge structure that influences information processing
Discrimination- action, behavior resulting from negative attitudes
Different characteristics- ethnicity, gender, stigmas, sexual orientation, mental illness, poverty
Better self esteem for non-concealable stigma because thy have it and its out their
Conceivable stigmas- internet helps
Mckenna and Bargh (1998)- looked at chat rooms and the activity level for homosexuals. When
people participated regularly they became more positive and celebrated this increased comfort with
themselves and they outed themselves more.
In overt ways prejudice seems to be lessoned this is through survey report on AA people but beneath the
surface still a negativity- prejudice has taken on different forms
Hebl et al. Formal and Interpersonal Discrimination: A Field Study Toward Homosexual Applicants
Homosexuals wore gay and proud hat or Texan and proud hats and applied for jobs, asked to use
bathrooms, fill out application- there was no significant overt formal measure of discrimination however,
interpersonal non formal subtle discrimination occurred. Word count of conversation was less, time was
shorter and conversation was rated more negatively by hat wearer and by raters who felt manager was not
as nice
In organizational settings discrimination may be manifest in a few ways[ based on Dovidio& Gaertner
2000]
I. Formal-[job-related]-discriminations in hiring, promotions, and resource distribution. This type of
discrimination can result in legal action.
II. Interpersonal-more subtle forms of discrimination- number of words, awkward glances, show
less interest, terminate social interactions sooner, and feel and demonstrate less positively toward
homosexual then heterosexual individuals.
Old Fashioned vs. Modern Forms
Red neck- black and white segregation
Symbolic racisms- wouldn’t consider self to be prejudiced but negativity under surface believes predjuice
isn’t a problem and AA haven’t worked hard enough for equal status this is more of a general ideology and
not based on a particular experience.
Don’t support race policies movements
Prevalent in political conservatives
Averse Racism- political liberals two views
Egalitarian values and ideals
Racial biases derived from normal processing, socialization and historical remnants
15
Ambivalent racism- has both positive and negative views.
Davidio et al (1997)-
Fixation point on screen --subliminally presented AA, white or control---person or house---target adjectives
Responses yes or no could be true of every category.
Positive traits were more quickly responded to for a white face over an AA
Negative traits were more quickly responded to for a AA face over a white
Therefore there is more association between AA and negative and whites and positive
Reaction time Biases
Self report racism scale- reaction time bias is not correlated with self report measure therefore people use
the egalitarian thinking part of the brain to fill out survey and the racial biases in reaction time.
People who participated in an interview with either a AA or white
Nonverbal responses were eye blinking and eye contact and then a rating form.
Self report measures----evaluated white interviewer more positively
Reaction time bias----not correlated with ---interview evaluations
Reaction time bias----higher rating of eye blinking with blacks than white interviewer
Reaction time bias---less visual contact with AA than white
Self report----not correlated with---nonverbal behavior
Subtle racism – implicit
If you use AA sample then this operates in opposite way- in group positive reaction
AA positive to AA
W more positive to W
Familiarity- alternative explanation
Implicit Association Task – IAT- look at computer and asked to do two different things
White face hit right key AA face hit left key
Positive hit right Negative hit left
It is easier for white when positive and whites are on same key
The Police Officer’s Dilemma: Using Ethnicity to Disambiguate Potentially Threatening Individuals -
Correll, Park, Judd, & Wittenbrink
After Abadu Dialo- guns no guns/ black and white
Results Study 1:
1. Participants fired on an armed target more quickly when he was African American than when he
was White, and decided not to shoot an unarmed target more quickly when he was White than
when he was African American.
2. Participants were mostly incapable of recognizing the faces of the targets seen
Study 2
The task was made harder by shortening the amount of time participants had to respond. Results:
1. Participants failed to shoot an armed target more often when that target was White than when he
was African American.
2. If the target was unarmed, participants mistakenly shot him more often when he was African
American than when he was White.
3. If a target was African American, participants generally required less certainty that he was, in fact,
holding a gun before they decided to shoot him.
Study 3
This study tested the hypothesis that although the extent of bias apparent in the authors’ videogame may
have covaried with participants’ prejudice against African Americans, this is not a function of that
prejudice, but instead reflects the deductive application of stereotypic associations between African
Americans and violence.
Results:
1. Shooter Bias was more evident in participants who believed that there is a strong stereotype in
American culture characterizing African Americans as aggressive, violent, and dangerous, and
among participants who reported more contact with African Americans.
16
2. Shooter Bias was related to perception of the cultural stereotype, rather than prejudice or
personally endorsed stereotypes, suggesting that mere knowledge of the stereotype is enough to
induce this bias.
Study 4
To examine further the possibility that knowledge of the cultural stereotype may lead to Shooter Bias, the
authors tested for this bias in a more diverse sample that included African American participants.
Results:
1. Testing both White and African American participants, the authors found that the two
groups display equivalent levels of bias.
General Discussion
1. The results of these studies consistently support the hypothesized effect of ethnicity on shoot/don’t
shoot decisions.
2. Both in speed and accuracy, the decision to fire on an armed target was facilitated when that target was
African American, whereas the decision not to shoot an unarmed target was facilitated when that target
was white.
3. The authors argued that ethnicity influences the shoot/don’t shoot decision primarily because traits
associated with African Americans, namely “violent” or “dangerous,” can act as a schema to influence
perceptions of an ambiguously threatening target.
The relationship between cultural stereotype and Shooter Bias found in Study 3 provides
support for this hypothesis.
The subsequent finding that African Americans and Whites, alike, display this bias further
supports the argument.
The Stroop Effect: The authors’ discussion continues with a consideration of the mechanisms that may
underlie Shooter bias. It is pointed out that target ethnicity, although unimportant to the decision task,
often interferes with participant’s ability to react appropriately to the object in the target’s hand.
According to the authors, this interference is roughly analogous to the Stroop Effect.
(The Stroop Effect is demonstrated by the task when participants are presented with a word
and required to identify the color of the ink in which the word is written. Participant’s
performance may be disrupted when the word itself refers to a different color than the ink. For
instance, when the word red is printed in green ink).
The Stroop Effect paradigm, like the videogame, simultaneously presents participants with info that is
relevant to the judgment at hand, as well as irrelevant info. Although participants don’t need to process the
irrelevant info to perform the task, the presence of incongruent info on the irrelevant dimension interferes
with participant’s ability to process the relevant info. Similarly, the speedy categorization of people into
ethnic categories activates stereotypes and interferes with the unfamiliar and less automatic gun/no-gun
judgment. To the extent that a person spontaneously associates and African American target with violence,
the ethnicity of the target should conflict with the judgment that he is unarmed, and it may therefore inhibit
the “don’t shoot” response.
A Final Point: Before shooting, a participant must (a) perceive the object, (b) interpret the object as a gun
with some degree of certainty, and (c) decide to press the “shoot” button once a criterion of certainty has
been reached. Stereotypic schemata may theoretically affect any or all of these processes.
Selective exposure- AA showed same bias therefore it is a cultural stereotype (AA are more dangerous)
Prejudice is inevitable people can inhibit
Strong egalitarian goals found to inhibit negative stereotypes even in subtle discrimination
Increased motivation can also help
Context matters- situational influenced bias
When AA exemplars were given along with negative white exemplars and then an
implicit test bias is reduced
17
Spend time thinking of counter prejudice things, take a class in diversity, all reduce score
on implicit measures
Reaction time test- evaluate targets of different ethnicities in different settings
Classroom evaluation-highest Asian then whites then AA
Basketball- highest AA then white then Asian
Prejudice begins-
Modeling/learning
Bad experiences –especially dramatic ones
Fear of others/ unknown
Lack of knowledge
Scapegoat (frustration/ aggression hypothesis)
Causes
Realistic Conflict Theory- prejudice stems from competition over scarce resources (oil, land, jobs)
Individual Differences- personality traits (problem is times in history when large population of
people show prejudice)
Authoritarianism- over deferential to authority figures, hostile, toward out group, threat sensitive
Social Dominance Orientation- the degree to which individual’s desire and support group based
hierarchy and the domination of inferior groups by superior
Competition, use whatever means necessary to promote and maintain position of group
Simply being put in a dominant position can lead to this way of thinking- power corrupts
Social Identity Theory- we have both personal and social identities. People are motivated to
evaluate their individual selves positively and consequently when they define themselves in terms of group
membership, they will be motivated to evaluate their own group positively. In other words, people seek a
positive social identity. Groups are evaluated in comparison with other groups. Thus, we develop a
positive social identity by seeing our groups as distinct from and better than others.
If group comes up negative what do you do? Make up stories; focus on different characteristic
(social creativity); social mobility (leave)
*Prejudice may be a byproduct of group membership
Minimal Group Paradigm – assign people to group by purely arbitrary means. Members never
meet other members, they tend to show in group favoritism and discriminate in favor of their own group.
Subject is given simple decision task then assigned to a group with a label. The subject is then
asked to rate the traits of their group vs another group. Allocate more points and money to their in group
than those of other group.
Illusory Correlation- an erroneous judgment about the relation between two variables
Illusory correlation might play a role in the formation of social stereotypes.
See things going together even when they don’t
Minority group engages in negative behavior attention grabbing and therefore two distinct things
are paired, this occurs from media exposure- way we process information we notice some things more than
others.
Conditions that facilitate successful Contact
1. Status of individuals having contact must be equal
2. Contact should be of informal, personal nature
3. Norms of the situation should encourage egalitarian attitudes
4. the situation should be supported by authority figures
5. situation should require cooperative interdependence (super ordinate goals)
6. Interaction should be in ways that allow for the disconfirmation of stereotypical beliefs
7. Persons must view each other as typical of their respective social groups. If they don’t see as
typical, they may subtype as an exception and won’t change their overall stereotype.
6 and 7 are conflicting
Sherif’s summer camp experiment- two groups of children competing leads to name calling, stereotypes etc
but if you create a situation where they have to work together to accomplish a common goal these feelings
decrease and friendships emerge.
In schools a lot of the time the conditions may not be met
Contact hypothesis does work even when all condition are not met but these make it a stronger effect
18
Reduce Stereotypes
1. exposure
2. educate people about other group
3. protest
4. contact hypothesis – bring different groups together reduces feelings
a. brown vs board of education- no school segregation
5. Friendships
6. Extended Contact Effects the reduction of stereotypes
7. Jigsaw classroom- go into classroom and break up into a group – give a collaborative assignment
that must be broken into parts each child is responsible for their part and to teach the others the
information then the children are given a test or paper.
8. Perspective taking
9. Norms- if people don’t think it is ok to be prejudice they will not be but vise Vera
Gerther and Dividio –
Common In group identity model
Separate AAA and Separate BBB
1. Break down barrier and de-categorize the groups – problem is people like their groups and don’t
want to loss positives associated with group identity. Only treat people as individuals
2. re-categorization- keep groups and make a larger category that is common- reduces bias – happens
in natural disasters such as the earthquakes and clean up of Greeks and Turks or tsunamis.
3. Break down separate groups and put into one big group is the worst idea because it increases
negative feelings between groups when people loss positive group identity to be part of a larger
group
Steele and Aronson (1995)-
Stereotype threat- being at risk of confirming, as self characteristic, a negative stereotype about
ones group
AA and performance- verbal GRE some told it was diagnostic of ability to see if the stereotype
threat occurs
Then some were asked their race those in the diagnostic category did not want to put their race
down. AA terms were more present in their mind.
Study one- three conditions
1. diagnostic stereotype threat condition-
2. non-diagnostic non stereotype threat condition- lab test not diagnostic of ability
3. non-diagnostic non stereotype threat condition, motivated- view as a challenge
Results- AA preformed significantly worse than whites when it was a diagnostic test but match
whites when it was non-diagnostic. White slightly outperformed AA in third condition
Study two- gave an anxiety measure this study resulted in the same conclusions as the first study with no
interaction of worry and performance,
Study three- If the difficult diagnostic tasks makes blacks feel more threatened by a specific racial
stereotype then its associated self doubts should be more cognitively activated for blacks in diagnostic
condition. Also participants should be more anxious and therefore self handicap more.
Results- Significantly greater cognitive activation of stereotypes about AA
Greater cognitive activation about concerns
Greater tendency to avoid racially stereotypic preferences
Greater tendency to self handicap
Greater reluctance to link racial identity with performance
Study 4- Have participants record race prior to a non diagnostic test should prime the racial stereotype
Results- AA in race-primed condition preformed worse than all other groups
Less accuracy but not significant
AA completed fewer questions in race primed condition
AA made fewer guess when primed
White made more guesses when race primed
Priming race did lead to AA worse performance on non diagnostic measure
19
However, AA did not show more stereotype threat than blacks in the non primed
condition
Women and math – when exposed to stereotypic gender ads.
SES and academic areas- richer perform better
White males and athletic- test of natural ability perform poorly and self handicap but a test of athletic
knowledge do better.
Why does this happen?
1. increased arousal
2. increased anxiety
3. disruptive mental load
4. working memory
5. overly attend when worried
Not all negative – e.g. Asians and math
In order to get a positive performance must activate it subtly or else it leads to choking.
Reduce this effect by …
Pure knowledge about it
Positive role models (social comparisons)
Coping sense of humor
Stress commonality between people
Quinn et all (2004)-
Mental illness- history of mental illness lead to worse performance than those who didn’t report
the mental illness therefore there is a stigma associated with mental illness
Corrigan and Penn (1999)- Lessons from social psychology on discrediting psychiatric stigma
Reduce stigma through
1. Education
2. Protest- leads to suppression which may actually prime prejudice
3. Contact -
Myths about the mentally ill
They should be feared and kept out of communities
They are irresponsible and their lives need to be controlled by others
They need to be cared for like children
Documentation of stigma –
Less likely to be hired
More likely to press violent crime charges falsely
Results in lowered self esteem, life quality and job satisfaction
Resilience to disconfirmation – stereotypes are resilient to change but that doesn’t mean people
will use it in a negative way
Future- don’t use suppression (it primes stigma and reduces education)
Education needs lectures, discussions and simulations in a hopeful light and focus on
changing of attitudes about behaviors
Contact is best way to reduce stigma
Mentally ill need to cope with impact of stigma
Empowerment groups
Selective disclosure
Help to deal with loss of self esteem and efficiency associated with stigma
Sweater vs. bathing suit-
Men preformed equally to slightly better in a swim suit
Women preformed worse in a swimsuit
Follow up men in Speedos vs. sweater preformed worse in bathing suit
Principles and Techniques of Social Influence
Cialdini
Social influence
one person’s attitudes, cognitions, or behaviors are changed through the doing of others
20
This article focuses on the behavior change
Six psychological principles that influence behavior compliance:
1) return a gift, favor, or service
2) be consistent with prior commitments
3) follow the lead of similar others
4) accommodate the requests of those we know and like
5) conform to the directives of legitimate authority
6) seize opportunities that are scarce or dwindling in availability
This article proposes that rigorous experimentation should not be the primary tool for investigation,
rather one should observe the behaviors of commercial compliance professionals (those individuals
whose business of financial well-being is dependent on their ability to induce compliance)
Reciprocation
Rule: one should be more willing to comply with a request from someone who has previously provided
a favor or concession
People feel obligated to provide gifts, favors, and aid to those who have given them such things first,
sometimes even returning larger favors than those they have received
Door-in-the-face technique – a requester uses this procedure by beginning with an extreme request that
is nearly always rejected and then retreating to a more moderate favor
That’s-not-all technique – similar to door-in-the-face technique, but the target person does not turn
down the first offer before a second better offer is provided
Social validation
Rule: one should be more willing to comply with a request for behavior if it is consistent with what
similar others are thinking or doing
When people are unsure what to do, they look to and accept the beliefs and behaviors of similar others
of what they should do
Based on Festinger’s social comparison theory
List technique – involves asking for a request only after the target person has been shown a list of
similar others who have already complied
Consistency
Rule: after committing oneself to a position, one should be more willing to comply with requests for
behaviors that are consistent with that position
Once a person takes a stand on a position, there is a natural tendency to behave in ways that are
stubbornly consistent with the stand
Foot-in-the-door technique – a solicitor first asks for a small favor that is granted and is then followed
by larger, related favor
Bait and switch procedure – a merchant advertises a product at a low price, but when the customer
arrives the product is sold out; the customer still purchases merchandise because they have already
made a commitment to buying something
Low-ball technique – merchant obtains a commitment and then increases the costs of performing the
action
Legitimization-of-paltry-favors technique (even-a-penny-would-help) – put people in a situation where
to refuse a specific request would be inconsistent with a value that people wish to be known as
possessing
“how are you feeling” technique – telemarketers call and ask how you are; once you have publicly
stated that all is well, it becomes much easier for the solicitor to corner you into aiding those for whom
all is not well
Friendship/liking
Rule: one should be more willing to comply with the requests of friends or other liked individuals
How do salespeople get you to like them?
21
Physical attractiveness – attractive individuals are more persuasive in terms of both changing
attitudes and getting what they request
Similarity – those who wish to be liked in order to increase our compliance can accomplish that
purpose by appearing similar to us in a wide variety of ways
Compliments – the simple information that someone likes us can be a bewitchingly effective
device for producing return liking and willing compliance
Cooperation – those who cooperate toward the achievement of a common goal are more favorable
and helpful to each other as a consequence
Scarcity
Rule: one should try to secure those opportunities that are scarce or dwindling
Psychological reactance theory – when increasing scarcity interferes with our prior access to some
item, we will react against the interference by wanting and trying to possess the item more than before
Limited number technique – customer is informed that membership opportunities, products, or services
exist in a limited supply that cannot be guaranteed to last for long
Deadline technique – an official time limit is placed upon the customer’s opportunity to get what is
being offered
People seem more motivated by the thought of losing something than by the thought of gaining
something of equal value
Authority
Rule: one should be more willing to follow the suggestions of someone who is a legitimate authority
figure
It makes sense to comply with the wishes of authorities; it makes so much sense that people often do
so when it makes no sense (Milgrim experiment – delivering shocks)
Authorities fall into two categories: authorities with regard to the specific situation and more general
authorities
Summary
Six psychological principles of compliance:
1) reciprocity
2) social validation
3) consistency
4) friendship/liking
5) scarcity
6) authority