Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
19 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
THEORY OF REASONED ACTION
|
-THE DECISION TO ENGAGE IN A PARTICULAR BEHAVIOR IS THE RESULT OF A RATIONAL PROCESS
-WE CONSIDER BEHAVIORAL OPTIONS -CONSEQUENCE OR OUTCOMES OF EACH -REACH A DECISION ON WHETHER TO ACT OR NOT ACT |
|
|
THEORY OF PLANNED BEHAVIOR
|
-EXTENSION OF THE THEORY OF REASONED ACTION
-INDIVIDUALS CONSIDER THEIR ABILITY TO PERFORM THE BEHAVIOR |
|
|
ATTITUDE TO BEHAVIOR PROCESS MODEL
|
-EVENTS AUTOMATICALLY TRIGGER ATTITUDES AND SOCIAL NORMS
-FAZIO 1989 |
|
|
PERSUASION
|
EFFORTS TO CHANGE OTHERS' ATTITUDES THROUGH THE USE OF VARIOUS KINDS OF MESSAGES
|
|
|
SYSTEMATIC PROCESSING
|
-INVOLVES CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF MESSAGE CONTENT AND IDEAS
-REQUIRES EFFORTS & ABSORBS MUCH OF OUR INFO PROCESSING CAPACITY - ARGUMENT STRENGTH MATTERS |
|
|
CENTRAL ROUTE TO PERSUASION
|
ATTITUDE CHANGE RESULTING FROM SYSTEMATIC PROCESSING OF INFO PRESENTED IN PERSUASIVE MESSAGES
|
|
|
HEURISTIC PROCESSING
|
INVOLVES THE USE OF SIMPLE RULES OR MENTAL SHORTCUTS
- ARGUMENT STRENGTH DOES NOT MATTER |
|
|
elaboration-likelihood model
|
-PERSUASION CAN OCCUR IN 2 WAYS
-systematic v. heuristic |
|
|
REACTANCE
|
-NEGATIVE REACTIONS TO THREATS OF ONE'S PERSONAL FREEDOM
- often INCREASES RESISTANCE TO PERSUASION AND CAN EVEN PRODUCE NEGATIVE ATTITUDE CHANGE OR OPPOSITE TO WHAT WAS INTENDED -ONE REASON WHY HARD-SELL PERSUASION ATTEMPTS OFTEN FAIL |
|
|
FOREWARNING
|
ADVANCE KNOWLEDGE THAT ONE IS ABOUT TO BECOME THE TARGET OF AN ATTEMPT AT PERSUASION AND INCREASES RESISTANCE TO THE PERSUASION THAT FOLLOWS
-ALLOWS TO DEVELOP COUNTER ARGUMENTS |
|
|
SELECTIVE AVOIDANCE
|
TENDENCY TO DIRECT ATTENTION AWAY FROM INFO THAT CHALLENGES EXISTING ATTITUDES, WHICH INCREASES RESISTANCE TO PERSUASION
-TUNE OUT, CHANNEL SURF, MUTE WHEN WE SEE SOMETHING THAT IS AGAINST OUR VIEWS |
|
|
INOCULATION
|
EXPOSURE TO ARGUMENTS OPPOSED TO ONE'S ATTITUDES, ALONG WITH ARGUMENTS THAT REFUTE THESE CAN STRENGTHEN PEOPLE'S ORIGINAL ATTITUDES
|
|
|
COGNITIVE DISSONANCE
|
-AN UNPLEASANT INTERNAL STATE
-RESULTS WHEN INDIVIDUALS NOTICE INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN 2 OR MORE ATTITUDES OR BETWEEN THEIR ATTITUDES AND THEIR BEHAVIOR -CAN RESULT IN ATTITUDE CHANGE -WE'RE MOTIVATED TO REDUCE COGNITIVE DISSONANCE |
|
|
COGNITIVE DISSONANCE REDUCTION
|
-CHANGE ATTITUDES OR BEHAVIOR SO THEY'RE CONSISTENT WITH EACH OTHER
-ACQUIRE NEW INFO THAT SUPPORTS ATTITUDE OR BEHAVIOR -ENGAGE IN TRIVIALIZATION |
|
|
TRIVIALIZATION
|
CONCLUDING THAT ATTITUDES OR BEHAVIORS IN QUESTION ARE NOT IMPORTANT SO INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN THEM IS NOT IMPORTANT
|
|
|
SPREADING OF ALTERNATIVES
|
WE TEND TO DOWNPLAY THE ITEM WE DIDN'T CHOOSE AND PROMOTE THE ITEM WE DID CHOOSE
- STRONGER FOR CANADIAN STUDENTS THAN FOR JAPANESE STUDENTS |
|
|
INDUCED OR FORCED COMPLIANCE
|
SITUATIONS IN WHICH WE ARE SOMEHOW INDUCED TO SAY OR DO THINGS INCONSISTENT WITH THEIR TRUE ATTITUDES
|
|
|
LESS LEADS TO MORE EFFECT
|
READ PG.119
|
|
|
HYPOCRISY
|
THE PUBLIC ADVOCATING OF SOME ATTITUDES OR BEHAVIORS AND THEN ACTING IN A WAY THAT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THESE ATTITUDES OR BEHAVIORS
|
