Lecture 5: Reading

Question 1

Evidence of people forming attitudes from direct experience - Eiser, Shook & Fazio (2007)

Answer 1

Reasearcers created a game called “Beanfest”. This included Ps exploring a map and collecting good and bad beans. Good beans provided energy while bad beans took away energy. If they ran out of energy they died. However the map needs to be explored to understand whats a good bean and bad bean.

Results:
* Ps learned better about which beans were bad compared to beans that were good. Also, Ps were more likely to assume that new beans were bad. Ps feelings about their performance depended on more on how many bad objects they encountered rather than how many good ones they found

Question 2

O’brein & Klein (2017) +ve and -ve info

Answer 2

people reach decisions quicker about changing of an attitude object from small amounts negative info compared to small amounts of positive info. This magnitude of weighting bias for negative information varied across people

Question 3

Evidence of Role play behaviour effecting attitudes (Janis & Mann, 1965)

Answer 3

Had 14 Ps who smoked role play either a lung cancer patient or listen to an audio tape (control)
They found that those who roleplayed the patient reported more negative attitudes towards smoking than the smokers who didn’t participate in role play
High levels of fear and vigilance as a result of experimental condition

Question 4

What is it about role-playing behaviour that causes the change in memory? (Janis & Kin, 1954)

Answer 4

These researchers suggested that role players search their memory for prior knowledge that supports their role. This search leads them to explore arguments that support the position they are advocating, ignoring arguments that contradict the position. They then may base their subsequent attitude on these arguments

Question 5

Bem (1965) study on self-perception

Answer 5

Trained Ps to lie about the funniness of cartoons which have been previously rated as ‘neutral’ by another Ps. They were asked to lie when a certain light flashed (for example a green light) but to tell the truth when another light flashed (for example an amber light). Ps were then asked to rate their true attitudes towards a cartoon on an atttude scale.

Results:
* Ps attitudes were affected by the “accidental” exposure to the truth and lie lights. For example, if a Ps said that the cartoon was funny in the Presense of the truth light, then the Ps subsequently rated the carton funnier than if they made this statement in the presense of the lie light.
* Ps inferred the funniness of the cartoons from their behaviour and the context in which it occurred.

Question 6

Practical demonstrations of Self-Perception theory

Answer 6

• Sales-people using the foot in the door technique
• Teachers and parents to rethink the use of rewards for teaching children (when children are rewarded for behaviour they already like to perform is where there is a problem)
• Consumer decisions - immediately accessible vs hidden and sought after items. The items sought after were rated as more popular: Ge at al.

Question 7

Effort justification effect in cognitive dissonance seems dependent on reaching a certain level of cognitive development - Benozio & Diesendruck (2015)

Answer 7

Showed that this effect occurred in 6 year old s but not 4 year olds. The 4 year olds had not yet developed the cognitive skills to fool themselves.

Question 8

In the Post decision spreading effect, what happens if people have the option to change their mind? - Gilbert & Ebert (2002):

Answer 8

Ps were asked to select one out of 2 art posters that had been rated as equally liked. Some Ps were told that their decision was final while others were told that the could reverse their decision at anytime in the next coming 4 weeks.

Results:
* Irreversible condition showed the classic spreading effect. People in the reversible condition showed the opposite effect and evaluated the chosen poster more negatively than the unchosen print. The researchers argued that this effect arose because having the chance to change your mind makes people more likely to think about the flaws of the selected item.

Question 9

Effects of hypocrisy has been demonstrated for a variety of behaviours

Answer 9

• Discrimination (Son Hing et al., 2002)
• Recycling (Fried & Aronson, 1995)
• Water conservation (Dickerson et al., 1992)
• Donating to an ecological association (priolo et al., 2001)
• Cigarette smoking (peterson et al., 2008).

Question 10

Effects that make hypocrisy more or less likely to occur

3 points

Answer 10

• People avoid seeing their own hypocrisy on topics that are moral (Batson et al., (2002))
• At the person level, research has shown that the magnitude of hypocrisy effects differs as a function of variation across people in constructs such as self esteem (Peterson et al., 2008) and self-concept complexity (McConnell & Brown, 2010).
• At group level research has shown that witnessing the hypocrisy of a member of ones group can affect a persons own attitudes and behaviour

Question 11

Focella et al., (2016) and the effects of in group and outgroup members displaying hypocrisy

Answer 11

Exposed Ps to either a member of an ingroup with which they identified strongly, or a member of an outgroup. The person delivered a message about sunscreen, while making clear that they themselves rarely used it. Ps in the ingroup condition bolstered the percieved group norm (strengthening their attitude towards sunscreen usage, and acting in accordance with that attitude).

Question 12

Goldstein & Cialdini (2007) - paper labelled “the Spyglass self” –> STUDY 1.

Answer 12

Aim to test whether individuals feeling a sense of merged identity with another individual, will come to see themselves as possessing the attributes demonstrated in that other individual’s behavior
* Ppts asked to read a transcript of an interview, and try to take the perspective of the person being interviewed
* Asked q’s about their perceptions of the overview
* Asked q’s about ppts attributes

Results: Ps came to perceive themselves as possessing attributes related to the interviewee’s behavior.

Self-perception only changed for the attribute helpfulness

Question 13

Goldstein & Cialdini (2007) - paper labelled “the Spyglass self” –> STUDY 2.

Answer 13

Replicated study 1 but manipulated the sense of shared identity using attachment related cues
* Brain activity measure via EEG to assess similarities between themselves & person being interviewed
* Ps then viewed a series of images and words
* Merged identity condition: Ps saw a brainwave similarity report created by the computer, which contained a graphical representation of the Ps’ and the interviewee’s brainwave patterns
* No info condition: proceeded to interview without looking at EEG
* Ps heard short interview where research assistant interviewed a undergraduate interviewee on the topic of living on vs. off campus
* Ps then were asked a series of questions about their perceptions of the interview style used by the research assistant after several interruptions (the video they watched was of someone either similar to them or not, being rude to interviewer)

Results:
* Ppts who were informed that their brainwaves overlapped considerably - percieved themselves are more self sacrificing, more sensitive, less complaints
* Same Ps were more likely to agree to help the researchers by completing additional surveys

Question 14

Critical Evaluation of Goldstein & Cialdini (2007)

Answer 14

Limitations:
* None of the behaviour took place longer than 20 mins after the observed behaviour
* Individuals are influenced by ppl in their life regarding helpfulness
* US sample; individualistic society

Future Directions:
* Different attributes  The extent to which vicarious self-perception processes are likely to occur when an observer views a close other willingly engaging in behaviors that the actor perceives to be counter to his or her own self-image

Question 15

Goldstein & Cialdini (2007) - paper labelled “the Spyglass self” –> STUDY 3.

Answer 15

Self-perception to vicarious self-perception
2X2 between subjects design:
* merged identity information: merged identity vs. no information
* attribution: internal vs. external
EEG (same as study 1)
* read a transcript of the interview
* research assistant interviewer asked the interviewee to describe the last interaction that he or she had with a stranger

Results:
* Merged identity– internal attribution participants came to see themselves as being more self-sacrificing and were more likely to agree to help the researchers in comparison to those in the merged identity– external attribution condition

Question 16

Changing behaviours outside of the lab using Hypocrisy (Kantola, Syme & Campbell (1984) - energy conservation behaviour

Answer 16

Looking at energy conservation behaviour.
* Ps were homeowners with positive attitudes towards conservation of electricity and agreed to have their electricity consumption monitored.
* 2-week baseline and then assigned to receive one of four mailings
1. letter stating they were high consumers and that they’d previously said they believed in conservation (dissonance) and received a pamphlet on conservation,
2. letter stating that they were high consumers plus a pamphlet,
3. just the pamphlet,
4. thank you letter.

• All ppts also received a postage-paid card that they could return to receive more info about conservation.

Results
When they measured electricity consumption over a sequential 2-week period:
* Homes assigned to dissonance condition used significantly less electricity compared with other 3 conditions.
When they measured desire to acquire more info by returning card.
* No effect. Unclear, however, whether this reflects the influence of hypocrisy given that ppts didn’t publicly advocate the importance of conservation behaviours prior to receiving the letter.

Question 17

Changing behaviours outside of the lab using Hypocrisy (Fointiat et al., (2004) - safe driving

Answer 17

Tested effects of hypocrisy on motivating people to become safe drivers.
* approached shoppers outside of a supermarket carpark and asked if they’d participate in a road safety study.
* First signed a flyer advocating driving the speed limit. Then, immediately after, ppts in the hypocrisy condition were made mindful of past speeding transgressions by having them write down times in the last 2 months that they had sped and the reasons why.

DV - percentage that then volunteered to have a tachometer installed in their car to record driving behaviour.

Results:
significantly more Ps in hypocrisy condition volunteered to have driving monitored (35% compared to 12%).

Question 18

Evidence of Self-integrity hypothesis during hypocrisy (Stone et al., 1997)

Answer 18

Directly tested the self-integrity hypothesis by inducing hypocrisy about condom use and then simultaneously offering more than one behavioural option for dissonance reduction.

Study:
* ppts made a pro-condom speech and were made mindful of past failures of safe sex.
* Then some ppts were given the opportunity to donate to support a homeless shelter (reduce dissonance via self-affirmation, but would not resolve hypocrisy discrepancy directly).
* Other ppts were offered the opportunity to donate to the homeless shelter but were also offered the opportunity to directly resolve the hypocritical discrepancy by purchasing condoms.

Results:
Supported self-integrity hypothesis.
* When offered only affirmation option, 83% of those in hypocrisy condition used it. However, when affirmation strategy was offered alongside opportunity to restore self-integrity, 78% chose the direct option (condom purchase) and only 13% chose to donate (affirmation option).

Experiment 1, after dissonance was aroused by hypocrisy, significantly more participants chose to reduce dissonance directly, despite the clear availability of a self-affirmation strategy.
Experiment 2, participants again chose direct resolution of their hypocritical discrepancy, even when the opportunity to affirm the self held more importance for their global self-worth.

Question 19

Hypocrisy and Forgiveness (Takaku et al., (2001))

Answer 19

Proposed the dissonance-attribution model of interpersonal forgiveness, which predicts that when people are the victim of another’s misdeed, the attribution and emotions experienced prevent them from accepting an apology and forgiving the wrong doer.
However, you’ll be more likely to forgive the wrong doer if you’re induced to experience hypocrisy about your own transgressions.
When induced to take the perspective of the wrong doer, you become aware of a discrepancy between the normative belief that people should be held responsible for their misdeeds, and your own tendency to blame others or the situation when you yourself transgress.
To reduce the dissonance associated with your hypocrisy, you become motivated to forgive the wrong doer and are more likely to attribute the cause of the transgression to the situation.