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;
26 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
6 Cues for quick decisions |
1. Reciprocation 2. Consistency 3. Social proof 4.Liking 5. Authority 6. Scarcity |
|
The more listeners work toevaluate a message-
|
-the less they will be influencedby content-irrelevant factors; the greater the effect of content-irrelevantfactors--the less impact the message carries |
|
Motivation for elaboration:
|
Motivated to hold correct attitudes Focus on issues that are personally relevant Requires intelligence and concentration Distraction disrupts elaboration Repetition may increase possibility for elaboration Too much repetition causes people to take peripheral route, though.
|
|
Types of elaboration: Objective:
bottom-up thinking. Considers facts on their own merit. |
-Examines the perceived strength of an argument
-Strong messages = generate favorable thoughts -Thoughtful consideration of strong arguments will produce positive shifts in attitude 1. Change is persistent over time 2. It resists counter-persausion 3. Predicts future behavior |
|
Types of elaboration: Bias
|
Bias: top-down thinking. Occurs when predetermined conclusionscolor the supporting data underneath
|
|
3 overarching dialectics: |
1. Integration-separation
2. Stability-change 3. expression-nonexpression |
|
3 latitudes (degrees of tolerance):
|
1. Acceptance
2. Rejection 3. Noncommitment |
|
Social Judgement Theory
|
At the instant of perception, people compare messages to their present point of view.
|
|
Social Judgement Theory does
|
-Requires highly ego-involved issues
- A highly credible speaker can shrink a listener’s latitude of acceptance -Application raises ethical problems -Has practical utility for persuaders -When something falls in the land of rejection it offers specific predictions and explanations about what happens in the mind -It is falsifiable -SJT is an appealing approach to persuasion |
|
Relational Dialectics
|
A dynamic knot of contradictions in personal relationships; an unceasing interplay between contrary or opposing tendencies |
|
3 overarching dialectics that effect relationships
|
-Integration-separation
-Stability-change -expression-nonexpression |
|
Identify its ontological commitments
|
What’s real?
|
|
Identify its epistemological commitments
|
How we find out about it?
|
|
Identify its axiological commitments
|
What value do we bring to research?
|
|
Post-positivism: Theoretical Perspectives
|
Ontology: Realism, Social Constructionism - Reification equivalent to realism (we create the meanings of the world then treat them as real)
Epistemology: Objective (stand apart/ look at it) Axiology: Value free/ leave values at the door. |
|
Interpretive: Theoretical Perspectives
|
Ontology: social constructionist; meaning arises in interaction; people make the world they live in
Epistemology: Subjective; you bring your ideas about social life to what you study Axiology: Value-neutral; bring your own values and recognize others values without judgement |
|
Critical (both Marxist and Gramscian):
Theoretical perspectives |
Ontology M: Explains human relations
Ontology G: People complicit in their own oppression, false consciousness Epistemology: Marxist- objective Gramscian- subjective (how culture works) Axiology: Value-driven; seek cultural forms and practices that celebrate human worth and human dignity |
|
Accuracy |
getting the right answer each time vs. reliability which is getting the same answer every time
|
|
Falsifiability |
requirement that a scientific theory be stated in such a way that it can be tested and disproved if it’s wrong
|
|
Heuristic value
|
any approach to problem-solving, learning, or discovery that employs a practical method not guaranteed to be optimal or perfect, but sufficient for the immediate goals. Heuristic value: does this theory offer more avenues for future research? Can we explain more with this, or is it done?
|
|
Scope |
little scope = more specific terms of the theory; can the theory be more widely applied? If so, the theory needs to broaden to be more inclusive. By removing extraneous variables, the theory can be streamlined.
|
|
Duh Factor |
The Obvious |
|
Parsimony |
given two plausible explanations for the same event, we should accept the simpler version
|
|
POWER |
-Definition- altering behavior- getting someone to do something they wouldn’t do otherwise
-Power is different than force, power is to the extent you’re offered a choice -Controlling the agenda -Managing perceptions- defining something as a problem or not a problem -Power is a neutral concept |
|
Types of Power |
-Referent: when other people wanna be like you ←- cheap
-Reward: Power to do nice things for people ←- expensive -Coercive: power to punish ←- expensive -Legitimate: power that comes from occupying some social position that gives you power- others expect them to be in charge but it’s fragile ←- cheapest |
|
Types of control (controlling power as a resource) |
-Simple control: altering behavior
-Technological: controlling the agenda or the way work is managed -Bureaucratic: people’s allegiance to the rules, not the person -Concertive: control people exercise over each other- peers enforce the rules over other peers |