態度 Attitudes.

Presentation on theme: "態度 Attitudes."— Presentation transcript:

1 態度 Attitudes

2 Definition A predisposition to respond to a particular object in a generally favorable or unfavorable way A person’s attitudes influence the way in which he or she perceives and responds to the world. (Allport, 1935; Thomas and Znaniecki, 1918)

3 The components of an attitude
Cognition (knowledge) A set of cognitions or knowledge structure associated with that label Evaluation (affection) Directions, Intensity Behavioral predisposition (practice) Consistency—Stability--Persuasion

4 態度 Atti-tude 價值 Value 信念 Belief 意見 Opinion

5 蹺課情況 Frequency PercentValid 沒有 14 8.2 很少 98 57.3 偶爾 40 23.4 好多次 15 8.8
沒有 很少 偶爾 好多次 常常 Total

6 遲到 Frequency Percent 沒有 15 8.8 很少 91 53.2 偶爾 47 27.5 好多次 14 8.2
沒有 很少 偶爾 好多次 常常 Total

7 為什麼態度研究在 社會心理學佔重要地位 態度與行為有關 經濟因素: 商業, 消費 政治因素: 宣傳, 民主競選
軍事因素: 宣傳, 提升士氣, 心戰

8 Attitude formation Social learning and socialization
Classical conditioning Instrumental conditioning Observational learning More complicated learning and socialization processes (educational effects on attitudes)

9 Functions of attitudes
Heuristic (instrumental) Schematic (knowledge) Define the self and maintain self-worth Protective, direct anger toward minority

10 Functions of Attitudes
Value-Expressive function enable us to express who we are and what we believe in Ego-defensive function enable us to project internally-held conflicts onto others (e.g., homophobia) Knowledge function enable us to know the world Utilitarian Function Enable us to gain rewards and avoid punishment

11 Cognitive consistency
Balance theory Cognitive dissonance theory Festinger

12 Theory of cognitive dissonance
Postdecision dissonance Counterattitudinal behavior Dissonance effect Incentive effect When Prophecy Fails: a social and psychological study of a modern group that predicted the destruction of the world 1964

13 Ready to turn some pegs?? Students spent hour turning pegs in holes (really boring) Paid either $1 or $20 Who enjoyed the task more (when asked later)? Why $1 people  $20 was justification enough, $1 wasn’t – I must have really liked turning pegs! (Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959)

14

15

16 Post-decisional dissonance
被選的 沒被選的 選擇

17 Post-decision Confidence
After bet is placed Waiting in line bet

18 社會影響與說服 Social Influence and Persuasion

19 社會影響的定義和類別 一個人的行為使得另外一個人的想法或行動因而有所改變是為社會影響。 社會影響的類別
態度變遷（Attitude Change） 順從（Compliance） 服從（Obedience）

20 態度變遷（即說服 Persuasion） 影響來源者（Source)用訊息（message, information）改變了目標對象（Target）對議題、對人、或對情況的態度和信念（beliefs） Who (Source) says what (Message) to whom (Target) to gain what effect? 許多其他作者態度與態度變遷和社會影響的主題是分開的。

21 順從（Compliance） 影響來源者（Source）經由獎勵（reward）或懲罰（punishment）來鼓勵（promise）或威脅（threat）目標對象（Target）改變行為 Source顯然控制是否給予獎懲的力量

22 服從（Obedience） 影響來源者是以命令（order）來要求目標對象接受權威的正當性（authority’s legitimacy）。
Order is ligitimate.

23 來源 訊息 目標 效果 專業 可信度 吸引力 差距 訴諸恐懼 單向或雙向 改變態度 拒絕訊息 反駁 暫停 貶損來源 智力 涉入 預受警

24 影響來源 專業性（expertise） 支持通過消費者保護法 同樣的訊息內容，不同的人來說 1. 哈佛畢業的律師，在消費者議題上很熟悉
2. 一位關心消費者的民眾 原先反對者表示接受那位律師的說法比較多 --目標對象對議題的涉入與知識也有影響

25 可信賴度（trustworthiness）
說服者若違反對自己的利益就最有說服力 說服者身份的影響，若說服者被認為和目標對象有相類似的目標，就愈有說服力

26 吸引力 個人外表的吸引力影響說服力 說服者若美貌有吸引力會讓人更注意到說服的訊息，注意力會促成說服的效果。 吸引力和論辯強弱
論辯強（strong argument），吸引力影響更大

27 多種來源的效果 社會影響論（social impact theory）
影響力（the impact of influence attempt）是強度（strength, social status or power）、可及性（immediacy, physical or psychological distance）、和來源數（number of influencing sources）的函數。 論辯來自多源，說服力比較大，強論辯尤其如此。 獨立多源 有上限

28 訊息（message) 訊息差距

29 引發恐懼（fear arousal） 訴諸理性和訴諸情緒 訴諸恐懼有說服力（中度） 太強太極端，使人受到嚴重威脅，就無效 強調若改變行為，就會有嚴重後果 顯示負面後果很可能發生的證據 要提出有效避免嚴重後果的明確做法

30 (Hovland et al., 1949) The message Opinion change
Persuaders face another practical issue: how to deal with opposing arguments. Once again, common sense offers no clear answer. Acknoweding the opposition might confuse the audience and weaken your case; on the other hand, being even-handed might increase your credibility. After Germany's defeat in WWII, the Army did not want soldiers to relax and think that the war with Japan would now be easy. So Hovland and colleagues designed two broadcasts arguing that the war would last at least two more years. One argument was one-sided, and did not acknowledge contradictory viewpoints (such as, the advantage of fighting one rather than two enemies). The other argument was framed with several opposite viewpoints. The effectiveness of these messages depended on the listener: A one-sided appeal was most effective with those who already believed the war would be long; a two-sided approach was better among those who thought the war would be over soon. Later experiments confirm that if the audience is aware of counter-arguments, then a two-sided presentation is more effective and enduring. Again, think about it in ATTRIBUTION terms... (Hovland et al., 1949) The message

31 目標對象（涉入，involvement）

32 認知的需求（Need for cognition）
中樞途徑 分心（distraction） 邊緣指標，途徑

33 順從 威脅與獎勵，信譽 SEV（subjective expected value）

34 嫌犯困境遊戲 受試者選擇 1 2 實驗者同謀 1 4，4 -5，5 選擇 2 5，-5 -4，-4

35 威信 懲罰強度

36 社會權力（social power） 1.Promise of reward 2.Coercion through threat
3.Referent power 4.Legitimate power 5.Information 6.Expertise

37 服從（Obedience） Obedience
compliance of person is due to perceived authority of asker request is perceived as a command Milgram interested in unquestioning obedience to orders (blind obedience) This photo of Stanley Milgram was scanned in from the Myers text, NOT on the CD

38 Stanley Milgram’s Studies
Teacher to another room with experimenter Shock generator panel – 15 to 450 volts, labels “slight shock” to “XXX” Asked to give higher shocks for every mistake learner makes Figure adapted from Hockenbury 12.4, was on CD

39 Stanley Milgram’s Studies
Learner protests more and more as shock increases Experimenter continues to request obedience even if teacher balks 120 150 300 330 “Ugh! Hey this really hurts.” “Ugh! Experimenter! That’s all. get me out of here. I told you I had heart trouble. My heart’s starting to bother me now.” (agonized scream) “I absolutely refuse to answer any more. get me out of here You can’t hold me here. Get me out.” “(intense & prolonged agonized scream) “Let me out of here. Let me out of here. My heart’s bothering me. Let me out, I tell you…” This table was adapted from Hockenbury, Table 12.3 Instructor could also tape the confederate’s responses instead of using this table

40 Obedience How many people would go to the highest shock level?
65% of the subjects went to the end, even those that protested This figure is from the Myers text, adapted from the CD version

41 Percentage of subjects who obeyed experimenter
Obedience Slight (15-60) Moderate (75-120) Strong ( ) Very strong ( ) Intense ( ) Extreme intensity ( ) Danger: severe ( ) XXX ( ) Shock levels in works Percentage of subjects who obeyed experimenter This figure is from the Myers text, adapted from the CD version

42 Follow-Up Studies to Milgram
Original study Different building Teacher with learner Put hand on shock Orders by phone This figure is adapted from the CD version of figure 12.5 in Hockenbury Ordinary man orders 2 teachers rebel Teacher chooses shock level Percentage of subjects administering the maximum shock (450 volts)

43 抗拒影響與說服 免疫（inoculation）McGuire 預先警告（Forewarning）
抗拒（reactance）獨立和自由受到威脅

44 Inoculation Theory McGuire and Papageorgis (1961) proposed that people who are educated about opposing arguments are more resistant to those arguments later on.

45 “Everybody should get a chest x-ray each year in order to detect tuberculosis”
“Everybody should brush their teeth after every meal if at all possible.” Participants received an essay that included counterarguments against the health beliefs. Attitudes were measured in four experimental groups.

46 Control group. No counterarguments.
Inoculation group. Informed about counterarguments and information to undermine it. Additional support. Received further information supporting the attitude. No defense. No additional information to defend against counterarguments.

47 Inoculation Effect on Resistance to Counterarguments

48 The Elaboration-Likelihood Model of Persuasion (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986)
Central Route to Persuasion Yes Attitude Change Persuasive Communication Ability & Motivation to pay attention? Peripheral Route To persuasion No