Social Psychology - Complete Interactive Lesson
Part 1: Attitudes & Cognitive Dissonance
Social Psychology
Part 1 of 5 — Attitudes & Cognitive Dissonance
An attitude is a learned evaluation (favorable/unfavorable) of a person, object, or idea, with three components (the ABC model):
| Component | Meaning | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Affective | Feelings | "Exercise makes me anxious" |
| Behavioral | Actions/tendencies | "I avoid the gym" |
| Cognitive | Beliefs | "Exercise is exhausting" |
When Do Attitudes Predict Behavior?
Attitudes best predict behavior when they are: specific to the behavior, strong/stable, accessible (easily recalled), and formed by direct experience, and when situational pressures are weak.
Routes to Persuasion — Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM)
| Route | Processing | Persuaded by | Durability |
|---|---|---|---|
| Central | Careful, high effort | Quality of arguments | Lasting, resistant |
| Peripheral | Superficial, low effort | Cues (attractiveness, # of arguments, source) | Temporary |
Motivation + ability to think → central route. Distraction or low involvement → peripheral route.
Cognitive Dissonance (Festinger)
People resolve dissonance by: changing the attitude, changing the behavior, or adding a justification (rationalization).
Counterintuitive finding: SMALLER incentives produce MORE attitude change. With a small reward, there's no external justification for the behavior, so people change their internal attitude to reduce dissonance (Festinger & Carlsmith 20 study).
Attitudes & Dissonance 🎯
Worked Examples — Attitudes & Dissonance
<details> <summary><b>Example 1: Predict the direction of attitude change from incentive size</b></summary>Question: Two groups argue a position they privately disagree with. Group A is paid $50; Group B is paid $2. Which group shifts its private attitude MORE toward the argued position, and why?
Solution:
- Counterattitudinal behavior creates dissonance.
- Group A has ample external justification ("I did it for $50") → little dissonance → little attitude change.
- Group B lacks sufficient justification → strong dissonance → resolves it by shifting their PRIVATE attitude toward the position. ✓
MCAT key: Insufficient justification → greater internal attitude change. This is the signature dissonance result.
</details> <details> <summary><b>Example 2: Diagnose the persuasion route from the manipulation</b></summary>Question: An ad for a drug shows a famous doctor but gives no data; viewers are distracted by background music. A second ad lists clinical trial results to an attentive audience. Which route does each target, and which produces more lasting attitudes?
Solution:
- Ad 1: celebrity cue + distraction (low ability to process) → peripheral route → temporary, easily reversed attitudes. ✓
- Ad 2: substantive evidence + attentive audience → central route → durable, resistant attitudes. ✓
Why it matters: Distraction and low involvement push people to peripheral cues; motivation and ability enable central processing.
</details> <details> <summary><b>Example 3: Identify the dissonance-reduction strategy</b></summary>Question: A smoker who knows smoking causes cancer keeps smoking but says, "My grandfather smoked and lived to 90." Which dissonance-reduction strategy is this?
Solution:
- The conflicting cognitions are "smoking is harmful" and "I smoke."
- The smoker neither quits (behavior change) nor accepts the risk (attitude change).
Key Takeaways — Part 1
- Attitudes = affective + behavioral + cognitive (ABC); best predict behavior when specific, strong, direct-experience, weak situation.
- ELM: central route = argument quality, durable; peripheral route = surface cues, temporary.
- Cognitive dissonance: conflicting cognitions → discomfort → change attitude, change behavior, or add justification.
- Insufficient external justification (small incentive) → GREATER internal attitude change (Festinger & Carlsmith).
Part 2: Attribution Theory
Social Psychology
Part 2 of 5 — Attribution Theory (Explaining Behavior)
Attribution is the process of inferring the causes of behavior — either dispositional (internal: personality, traits) or situational (external: circumstances).
Kelley's Covariation Model
We weigh three kinds of information to decide internal vs. external:
| Dimension | Question | High value implies... |
|---|---|---|
| Consistency | Does the person always act this way here? | (needed for any stable attribution) |
| Distinctiveness | Is the behavior specific to THIS situation? | High → situational |
| Consensus | Do OTHERS act the same way? | High → situational |
- High consistency + high distinctiveness + high consensus → situational attribution.
- High consistency + low distinctiveness + low consensus → dispositional attribution.
Major Attribution Biases
| Bias |
|---|
Part 3: Conformity, Compliance & Obedience
Social Psychology
Part 3 of 5 — Conformity, Compliance & Obedience
These three are distinguished by the SOURCE of social influence.
| Concept | Source of influence | Classic study |
|---|---|---|
| Conformity | Implicit group norms | Asch (line judgments) |
| Compliance | A direct request | Cialdini techniques |
| Obedience | An explicit authority | Milgram (shock study) |
Two Motives for Conformity
| Type | Motive | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Normative | To be LIKED/accepted | Public compliance (may not believe it) |
| Informational | To be CORRECT (uncertainty) | Private acceptance (genuine belief) |
Asch findings: ~33–37% conformity to an obviously wrong majority; conformity DROPS sharply with even ONE dissenting ally and rises with group size (up to ~3–5 members).
Part 4: Prejudice & Discrimination
Social Psychology
Part 4 of 5 — Prejudice, Stereotypes & Discrimination
Distinguish the three carefully — a classic MCAT trap:
| Term | Component | Definition |
|---|---|---|
| Stereotype | Cognitive | Generalized belief about a group |
| Prejudice | Affective | Negative ATTITUDE/feeling toward a group |
| Discrimination | Behavioral | Differential ACTION/treatment of a group |
You can hold a stereotype without prejudice, or feel prejudice without acting (no discrimination), though they often co-occur.
Mechanisms That Sustain Bias
| Mechanism | Description |
|---|---|
| In-group bias / out-group homogeneity | Favor "us"; see "them" as all alike |
| Ethnocentrism | Judge other cultures by one's own standards |
| Stereotype threat | Fear of confirming a negative stereotype impairs performance |
Part 5: Group Dynamics & Prosocial Behavior
Social Psychology
Part 5 of 5 — Group Dynamics, Aggression & Prosocial Behavior
Group Process Phenomena
| Phenomenon | Description | Condition |
|---|---|---|
| Social facilitation | Arousal improves SIMPLE/dominant tasks, impairs COMPLEX ones | When evaluated |
| Social loafing | Less individual effort in a pooled group product | Anonymous contribution |
| Deindividuation | Loss of self-awareness in a group → impulsive acts | Anonymity, arousal |
| Group polarization | Group discussion AMPLIFIES the members' initial leaning | Like-minded group |
| Groupthink | Desire for harmony overrides realistic appraisal | Cohesive, insulated group |
Group Decision-Making Cautions (Groupthink Symptoms)
Illusion of invulnerability, self-censorship, pressure on dissenters, illusion of unanimity. Remedies: assign a devil's advocate, invite outside experts, encourage open dissent.
Bystander Effect & Helping (Latané & Darley)