An attitude is a predisposition to assess a person, event, situation or idea in a certain way. We take it for granted that attitudes affect behavior (sometimes they do, sometimes they don't). But you might be surprised to hear that behavior affects attitudes.
An attitude has three components (the ABC Model):
|
I have a negative attitude toward Wal-Mart |
||
|
Affective (Emotional) |
Behavioral |
Cognitive |
|
Feelings |
Actions |
Ideas, thoughts and beliefs |
|
Those big boxes give me the willies. I'm glad that the application for a variance was denied. |
I don't shop at Wal-Mart |
"Those stores are ruining small businesses, eliminating good jobs and providing lower quality goods." |
When does attitude influence behavior?
When you have extreme or strident attitudes.
When your attitudes are based on experience.
When you know a lot about the subject of your attitude.
When you have something at stake (to gain or lose).
When you expect that others will approve.
When does behavior influence attitude?
Zimbardo (from the video last week) carried out a now famous experiment to test Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance.
Subjects were divided into two groups. Both groups were asked (as part of the experiment) to eat fried grasshoppers. One group was asked by a nice experimenter, the other group by a rude experimenter. Assuming that some members of each group actually ate the bugs, which group was more likely to show a changed attitude about insect-eating after the experiment?
In the theory of cognitive dissonance, we observe our own behavior. When that behavior is consistent with the setting and our attitudes, everything is fine. But, if the behavior is inconsistent with setting and attitude, we are uncomfortable. We change to reduce that discomfort.
The group that ate the bugs when urged by the nice experimenter had no dissonance: we will often do something we don't want to in order to please someone who is pleasant to us. The other group had no external explanation: "why would I eat a bug to please that jerk?" To reduce the apparent contradiction, the second group changed their attitudes: "bug eating is not all that bad."
According to cognitive dissonance, people "say as they do" rather than "do as they say."
A soldier who survives boot camp is loyal to the Army (why else would he have endured)?
Smokers believe that cigarettes aren’t that bad.
"Sour grapes" and "sweet lemons": we tend to approve of the alternatives we choose.
A prejudice is a negative attitude about people in a particular group.
Prejudice may be directed toward racial, ethnic or religious groups or toward people of a particular sex, sexual orientation, age, etc.
This is social categorization and implicit personality theory gone crazy.
Prejudices are unfounded:
Social groups are more similar than different.
Differences between members of different groups are less than differences among members of various groups.
Prejudice is related to and partially dependent on stereotypes.
A stereotype is a set of characteristics applied in full to the members of a group. The characteristics are not related to the objective criteria for membership in the group (eg, it is not a stereotype to say that tall people tend to have long legs).
A stereotype may have a grain of truth (eg, based on average differences).
Stereotypes are probably inevitable (they are an extreme example of social categorization) but are dangerous:
Stereotypes short-circuit attempts to find the true causes of behavior.
Stereotypes are hard to break.
We tend to discount, ignore or rationalize away information contrary to our stereotypes.
Factors in Prejudice
In-groups vs out-groups (aka "us" and "them")
The in-group is a group to which you belong, the out-group is any other group.
Out-group homogeneity effect: "all Star Trek fans look alike to me"
We see the variation within our group and see others as similar to each other.
In-group bias: "men are diplomatic, women are sneaky"
We tend to make positive attributions for behavior by in-group members and negative attributions for others.
Perceived Threat
Prejudice may reflect competition for resources, especially in times of shortage or change.
But prejudice is also practiced against out-groups who are not in competition with the in-group.
These groups may pose a perceived threat to the norms and values of the in-group.
Fighting Prejudice
The Robbers Cave experiment:
Sherif (b 1906) studied 11-year old boys at a summer camp at Robbers Cave State Park (Oklahoma).
Boys were randomly assigned to one of two groups that were kept separate for the first week.
After a week, the two groups (calling themselves the Eagles and the Rattlers) met in competition.
There was fierce, almost violent, rivalry between them.
Contact theory held that contact between groups would be sufficient to reduce or eliminate prejudice.
This didn't work: when the boys started eating together, watching movies, etc, the conflict continued.
The experimenters set up a series of problems that the two groups had to work together on to solve (eg, they rigged a problem with the water tank).
After working together toward a common goal on a number of projects, the boys in the two groups lost their hostility toward the others.
The Jigsaw Classroom:
Elliot Aronson carried out a similar experiment in a newly integrated school.
Students were assigned to small ethnically diverse groups. All members of the group had to cooperate to achieve the group's goals.
Students in the jigsaw classroom had higher self-esteem and liked kids with other ethnic backgrounds more than did students in traditional classrooms.
Social Influence (top)
Conformity is altering your behavior in response to real or perceived pressure from others.
Group Pressure
Asch (1907-1996) looked at the extent to which people would conform to group pressure when the group was clearly wrong.
A subject was seated at a table with five confederates (ie, people in cahoots with the experimenter).
The group was asked to state which comparison line matched a sample line in length.
37% of the time, subjects picked the wrong line when it was picked by a unanimous majority. (They only picked the wrong line 1% of the time when the choice was private).
Factors that Promote Conformity
You are more likely to conform:
With a unanimous (but small) majority (~4-5 people)
When you must respond publicly
When you are not on record contradicting yourself
When the task is difficult or vague
When you doubt your own skills
With a group that you really like
Salespeople are interested in bringing about compliance and use a number of research-proven tricks:
- The "foot in the door" trick: We are more likely to comply with a large request after complying with a small request.
- The "door in the face" trick: We are more likely to comply with a small request after hearing a large request (with which we don't comply).
- The "there's more" trick: We may pay more for a set of many worthless things than the sum of what we would pay for each individually.
- The "free sample" trick: We don't believe that we get something for nothing, in fact we expect to give something in return for a "free sample" (we hold to the norm of reciprocity).
Obedience is changing your behavior to comply with direct instructions from an authority figure.
Milgram's Famous Obedience Experiment
Milgram wanted to answer the question "Can someone be coerced by an authority figure to hurt someone else?"
The Set Up:
On the face of it, the experiment looked at learning and had three participants: an experimenter, a teacher and a learner. The teacher and the learner were supposed to be experimental subjects who drew straws to determine roles. In fact, the drawing was rigged so that the one subject was always the "teacher." The learner was always the same person (a 47 year old accountant who had been thoroughly coached on his performance).
The learner was strapped into an electric chair. Both the teacher and the learner were told "Although the shocks can be extremely painful, they cause no permanent tissue damage."
The Lesson:
The teacher sat in a different room where he could hear but not see the learner. The teacher gave the learner a simple word association test. When the learner answered wrong, the teacher was supposed to administer a shock.
The Shock Generator:
Milgram made a very convincing looking gizmo (see picture on p 627 in Feldman) with labeled switches for giving shocks at levels from 15 to 450 volts.
The teacher was given a sample shock using the switch marked 45 volts.
The switches were grouped from "Slight Shock" to "Danger: Severe Shock" (the last two were listed with "XXX").
When the switch was flipped, a red light came on above the switch, there was a click and a buzzing noise.
The Experiment:
Each time the learner made a mistake, the teacher was told to move to the next voltage level. The teacher was supposed to announce the voltage level to the learner then flip the switch.
At various voltage levels the learner expressed discomfort then pain then agony. At 120V, he said "Hey this really hurts; at 270V he screamed and shouted "let me out of here." At 300 V he refused to answer anymore (which of course meant he got the question wrong). After 330V he stopped responding altogether (after complaining about his heart since 150V).
If the teacher did not want to continue, the experimenter said "The experiment requires that you continue" or "You have no choice, you must continue."
The experiment ended when the teacher refused to give any more shocks or 450V had been reached. Once the experiment was over, the set up was explained and the teacher and learner shook hands.
The Results:
26 out of 40 subjects went all the way to 450V. No one stopped before 300V.
The subjects in Milgram's experiment were very distressed (even though they continued) and were greatly relieved when they heard about the hoax.
Milgram's experiment has been confirmed many times over.
Factors that Influenced Obedience in Milgram's Experiment:
- Expectation
- Context
- Gradual escalation
- Displaced responsibility
- Separation from the learner
Factors that reduced obedience:
Milgram tried a number of variations, some of which reduced the likelihood that the teacher would obey.
Prosocial behavior is any behavior that helps someone else.
In 1964, Kitty Genovese was stabbed to death in Queens, NY. When she was attacked and as she lay bleeding to death, she screamed for help. Although someone called the police more than a half hour after the attacks started, 38 people heard her screams and no one came to her aid. Why not?
In the 1960's, Latané and Darley extensively studied prosocial behavior (or the lack of it) in the form of bystander intervention.
They developed a model in which people are likely to intervene if:
- they notice the problem
- they believe help is needed
- they feel some responsibility
- they know what to do
Other social psychologists have expanded this model to include other factors that increase or decrease the likelihood of intervention.
Increase factors:
- The "feel good/do good" effect: People who feel good (successful, happy, fortunate) are more likely to help.
- Guilt: People who feel guilty are more likely to help.
- Social learning: People are more likely to help if they see others helping.
- Deserving victim: People are more likely to help those they feel deserve help.
- Know-how: Those with the knowledge and experience to make a difference are more likely to intervene.
- Personalization: People are more likely to help those that they know (even if only a little bit) than those who are complete strangers.
Decrease factors:
- The bystander effect: People are more likely to help when they are alone, less likely when others are around (diffusion of responsibility).
- Big city/small town: People are less likely to help in a large city (>300,000 people) or a very small town (<5,000 people)
- Ambiguity: People are less likely to help if it is not clear that help is needed.
- Personal cost: People are less likely to help if the perceived personal cost is high (greater than the perceived social benefits).
|
Return to: |
ANTHONY G BENOIT
ROOM 201B
(860) 885-2386
abenoit@trcc.commnet.edu