Lecture 6: How Attitudes Influence Information Processing Flashcards Preview

🚫 PSY320H1F: Social Psychology of Attitudes with C. Midgley > Lecture 6: How Attitudes Influence Information Processing > Flashcards

Flashcards in Lecture 6: How Attitudes Influence Information Processing Deck (8)
Loading flashcards...
1

Roskos-Ewoldsen & Fazio (1992) (6)

  • Found that we're more likely to notice objects we have stronger attitudes towards.
  • Participants saw a circle of 6 objects flash on a screen for 1.5s.
  • Wrote down as many objects as possible.
  • Previously assessed accessibility of attitudes towards each object.
    • Made faster attitude judgements for objects they noticed.
  • Objects participants expressed accessible attitudes about were more likely to be noticed later in the array.

2

Knobloch-Westerwick & Meng (2009) (8)

  • Found that we generally pay attention to messages that confirm our views.
    • Even if we look at the other side, it may not be a true effort to understand it.
  • First surveyed attitudes towards 17 political issues on attitude, accessibility, certainty, and importance.
  • Then browsed an online magazine for 5 mins: 8 headlines, 4 issues, 2 sides for both.
  • Participants read more articles that were consistent with their attitudes, and also spent more time reading these articles.
    • Note that people didn't complete ignore attitude-inconsistent articles.
  • More certainty → fewer counterattitudinal articles, and spent more time on consistent articles.
  • High accessibility and importance → more counterattitudinal articles, but didn't spend more time on them.

3

Sawicki & Clark (2013) (6)

  • Participants completed a survey about attitudes toward euthanasia, including ambivalence and issue knowledge.
  • Then presented 2 pro- and 2 anti-euthanasia article titles, and rated how much they wanted to read each article.
  • Lower knowledge: less ambivalent → equally interested.
    • More ambivalent → more interested in articles that would "bolster" knowledge, likely to try and reduce ambivalence.
  • Higher knowledge: less ambivalent → more interested in articles that would "strengthen" their attitude.
    • More abivalent → equally interested, likely because we don't expect the info to reduce our ambivalence.

4

Hastorf & Cantril (1954) (4)

  • Demonstrated how attitudes can influence how we interpret information (e.g. what events have taken place, what others’ intentions are, etc.).
  • Students from Princeton University & Dartmouth College watched a clip of a football game between the two schools.
  • Participants recorded every penalty made by both teams.
  • Princeton students reported more fouls by the Dartmouth team than by the Princeton team, and Dartmouth students reported the opposite.

5

Vallone et al. (1985) (4)

  • Demonstrated how our opinions can serve as filters that influence how we perceive info.
  • Pro-Israel, pro-Palestine, and neutral participants watched news coverage of the conflict in the Middle East.
  • Pro-Israel and pro-Palestine participants evaluated the news stories as being biased against their views.
    • Neutrals viewed stories as being neutral.

6

Lord, Ross, & Lepper (1979) (5)

  • Found that people's attitudes become more polarized, rather than more neutral, after being exposed to balanced, unbiased info.
  • Proponents and opponents of capital punishment read two studies, demonstrating its efficacy and inefficacy.
  • Participants rated each on how well/poorly it was conducted and how convincing it was.
    • Proponents rated the prodeterrence study as more convincing than opponents, and vice-versa for the anti-deterrence study. 
  • Participants' attitudes were measured after every single article, and by the end their attitudes were more extreme than they had  been at the beginning.

7

Houston & Fazio (1989) (3)

  • Found that the more certain and accessible our attitudes, the less likely we are to interpret opposing facts as valid and worthy of consideration.
  • Similar procedure to Lord et al. (1979): asked Ps to evaluate methodology of 2 supposed studies on capital punishment.
  • Attitude polarization only for participants who had strong, accessible attitudes towards capital punishment.

8

Balcetis & Dunning (2006) (4)

  • Demonstrated how we see what we want to see.
  • Participants were shown an ambiguous figure that could either be a letter or a number.
  • Were told that one of these would mean drinking a yummy drink and one would mean drinking a yucky-smelling drink.
  • Participants saw a number or letter depending on which would give them the yummy drink.