11.Self Perception Theory :
According to self-perception theory, dissonance findings have nothing to do with a negative drive state called dissonance. They have only to do with how people infer their beliefs from their own behavior. Like dissonance theory, Bem’s self-perception theory has two main prongs:
- First, individuals come to know their own attitudes and emotions and other internal states partially by inferring them from observations of their own behavior and the circumstances in which their behavior occurs.
- Second, to the extent that internal cues are weak, ambiguous, or uninterruptible, the individual is functionally in the same position as an outside observer. It just so happens that the person you’re observing is yourself.
For more information, https://www.learning-theories.com/self-perception-theory-bem.html
The difference between self-perception theory and cognitive dissonance theory is that self-perception theory explains classic dissonance findings in terms of how people infer the causes of their behavior. It is essentially attributional in nature, whereas cognitive dissonance theory explains findings in terms of a natural tendency to reduce inner conflict, tension, dissonance.
Although there are many different flavors of cognitive dissonance, most situations fall into one of two general categories.
- The first is “predecisional dissonance,” in which dissonance or the possibility of dissonance influences the decisions people make. So, in this case dissonance comes before people make a decision.
- The other type is “postdecisional dissonance,” in which dissonance (or again, the possibility of it), follows a choice that’s already been made, and efforts to avoid or reduce this dissonance affect later judgments. So, in this case, dissonance comes after a decision.
12.Secrets from the Science of Persuasion :
Bill McGuire, a Yale attitude researcher, in a landmark research review. McGuire created a matrix with independent variables, or variables under the control of the experimenter. McGuire’s five categories of independent variable were the following:
- Source variables—that is, variables having to do with the persuader, the source of the communication.
- Message variables—that is, variables concerning the way a message is constructed (so, for example, whether it uses humor, or fear appeals, or informative statistics, and so on).
- Channel variables—that is, variables related to whether a persuasive appeal is given in person, on television, in magazine advertisements, the Internet, or other channels of communication.
- Receiver variables, or variables having to do with the audience—the receivers or recipients of the message.
- Target variables, or variables that have to do with the thing you’re targeting for change, such as getting people to wear seat belts or buy a product, vote for a candidate, and so on.
The output variables included things such as paying attention, liking, understanding, agreeing, remembering the message, deciding, acting on it, and so forth.
1.Attitude inoculation :
Whether to acknowledge counter-arguments that is, arguments against your own position. Research tends to show, however, that it’s better to acknowledge and refute counter-arguments even before presenting your own arguments, under a couple of conditions:
- First, when counter-arguments have been made salient by familiarity or controversy—that is, you know that the receivers are going to come in contact with the opposition anyway
- Second, when the receiver is highly intelligent or initially opposed to your position. In other words, if you know from the start that the receiver is smart or doesn’t agree with your position, it’s best to begin by acknowledging counter-arguments to your position, to present what’s known as a two-sided appeal:
The use of counter-arguments can also be effective in building resistance to attitude change when people already hold the position you’re advocating that is, when they’re already on your side. Here’s how. If you mildly criticize the position people hold, enough so that they defend their position and generate reasons for it, but not so much that they change their mind, it’s like immunizing them with a low-dose vaccine.
The difference between a two-sided appeal and attitude inoculation is that in a two-sided appeal, you raise the counter-arguments and then explain why they’re not convincing, whereas in attitude inoculation, you raise a mild objection, and it’s the receiver who generates the reasons why the objection isn’t persuasive.
2.Central route or Peripheral route :
A message that uses a central route to persuasion is a message based on facts, statistics, and arguments. This is the kind of message that someone who’s highly involved with the issue would find persuasive. In contrast, a message that relies on the peripheral route to persuasion is a message that uses beautiful music, idyllic settings, attractive models, or other cues that are really incidental, or peripheral, to the issue at hand. Peripheral cues are most effective when the audience isn’t too involved or critical.
3.Fear :
Fear appeals can be pretty effective as long as you give people specific steps they can take to avoid whatever the threat is. If you just scare people silly without saying how to avoid the threat, fear appeals can actually backfire. They can drive people into a state of denial.
13.Six scientifically validated principles of persuasion:
Six of these shortcuts as universals that guide human behavior.
- reciprocity : Be the first to give personalized and unexpected content.
- scarcity : People want more of less content(benefits + Unique + what they will lose)
- authority : The idea that people follow the lead of credible, knowledgeable experts.
- consistency : People like to be consistent with the things they have previously said or done.
- liking : People prefer to say yes to those that they like. But what causes one person to like another? Persuasion science tells us that there are three important factors.
- We like people who are similar to us.
- We like people who pay us compliments.
- We like people who cooperate with us towards mutual goals
- consensus :Especially when they are uncertain, people will look to the actions and behaviors of others to determine their own
Understanding these shortcuts and employing them in an ethical manner can significantly increase the chances that someone will be persuaded by your request.
14.Social influence techniques :
For instance, research suggests that people are more likely to do something when you get them to imagine doing it or to predict that they’ll do it in the future (say, voting in an upcoming election). Other research has found that mentioning your name before making a request can increase the chances that the other person will say yes by 50 to 100%
Engaging people in a dialogue also leads to greater compliance with a request, presumably because dialogue resembles friendship more than a monologue does. The idea is to talk with people rather than at people
http://socialpsychonline.com/2015/11/donation-psychology-even-a-penny-will-help/
15.Three of the most famous techniques :
1.foot-in-the-door technique :
It was first studied experimentally by Jonathan Freedman and Scott Fraser in the 1960s. The premise is that people are more likely to comply with a large request once they’ve already complied with a smaller one a foot in the door of the larger request.
Freedman and Fraser concluded that once people agree to a request, they become in their own eyes “the kind of person who does this sort of thing, who agrees to requests made by strangers, who cooperates with good causes.” In other words, their explanation was very consistent with Daryl Bem’s self-perception theory. People watch themselves behave a certain way and conclude that they hold values and attitudes that match their behavior.
The technique is most effective when you explicitly label the person as helpful or as a supporter, saying something like “I really appreciate you supporting this effort,” which strengthens the person’s self-perception as a supporter. And the effect is strongest when the large request is presented as a continuation of the smaller request, something that builds on the person’s prior commitment.
2.door-in-the-face technique :
When people reject a large request, they often become more likely to comply with smaller requests down the road smaller, not equally large. That’s key here. When a large request is scaled back, it has the appearance of a concession, and because there are strong social norms encouraging reciprocity, people often feel obligated to make a concession of their own to reciprocate and meet the other person somewhere in the middle.
What Professor Cialdini found is that compliance with a small request is much higher if you can first get someone to “slam a door in your face” with a larger request.
Door-in-the-face technique is especially effective when the same person makes both requests, the two requests are made face-to-face with no delay between them, and the requests are prosocial with the same beneficiary that is, the requests are for the good of others, and the ones who benefit are the same in both requests.
3.low-ball technique :
So, although there are obviously limits, it seems that once people commit themselves to honoring a request, the request can often be increased without them withdrawing from the commitment, just as car dealers often throw a low-ball by adding conveyance fees and other charges after people have agreed to buy a car for a particular price.\
16.Obedience to Authority :
Now, of course, there’s nothing wrong with obedience itself, and there’s certainly nothing wrong with obeying doctor’s orders. The primary danger here is blind obedience in which the authority figure is never questioned at all. To know more,
A. Stanley Milgram’s research on obedience :
A substantial proportion of people do what they are told to do irrespective of the content of the act, and without limitations of conscience so long as they perceive that the command comes from a legitimate authority.
In essence, what Milgram showed was that people might be committing the fundamental attribution error that they were making dispositional attributions when they should have at least considered situational or environmental factors.
17.Conformity :
Conformity is a change in behavior or belief as a result of social pressure, to see an example
%3Amax_bytes(150000)%3Astrip_icc()%2Fwhat-is-conformity-2795889-5be9979846e0fb00510c5c04.png&f=1&nofb=1)
Conformity is when we give in to the group. On some occasions, on many occasions, it can be very, very difficult, very, very negative. So, for instance, when the group is wrong and you’re right, conformity is bad.
A. Solomon Asch Experiment :
Solomon Asch conducted an experiment to investigate the extent to which social pressure from a majority group could affect a person to conform.
People had no good explanation for their group’s behavior, and they feared that the group would be equally at a loss to explain any dissent on their part. And the meta-analysis found that conformity increases as majority size increases, from 2 people all the way up to 13 people. Another thing that Bond and Smith found was that conformity is more likely when the majority is made up of ingroup members (that is, members of your own group for example, friends or family members) than when it’s made up of outgroup members.
One person’s conformity may be another person’s effort to be accommodating or to be supportive of others.
For more Information, https://usingsocialpsychology.weebly.com/conformity.html
B.Serge Moscovici Experiment :
What Moscovici and his colleagues showed is that a consistent minority can have a significant influence even when it’s not particularly powerful or prestigious.
For more information, https://www.simplypsychology.org/minority-influence.html
There was just one key requirement: the minority had to be consistent. If the pair of confederates labeled some slides blue and some green, majority group members were only swayed by the minority 1% of the time. The minority only had a significant influence when it consistently judged all the slides as green.
With Asch, we’ve already seen that just one person dissenting from the majority can dramatically reduce the pressure that people feel to conform. And now with Moscovici, we’ve seen that a consistent minority can get majority group members to judge the color blue as green. So, the message is “individuals count.” Minority perspectives have an effect not always and maybe not immediately but more often that it might seem.
19.De individuation :
According to Festinger and his associates, deindividuation occurs when individuals are not seen or paid attention to as individuals. The members do not feel that they stand out as individuals, and there’s a reduction of inner restraints against doing various things. What are the things? Well, on the positive side they might be uninhibited dancing, singing, or performing without feeling self-conscious. But there’s also a darker side of deindividuation.
A 2010 laboratory study suggested that even the feeling of anonymity might be enough to deindividuate people. In one of the reported experiments, participants in a room with slightly dimmed lighting cheated more than participants in a well-lit room. People in the dimmed room were just told some of the lights were out.
Programmer Prodigy 