Advertising is powerful, and people are surprisingly susceptible to its influence.
This line real stuck out to me as someone who studies PR and Advertising at UT. It reminds me of the subtle cues used in ad campaigns or videos. Color, music, slogans, design, or shocking add ins can reach components of attitude that most people don't even realize.
Some decisions and behaviors are less spontaneous, however. We might take our time and deliberate, for example, when it comes to matters such as where to go to college, whether to accept a job offer, and which public behaviors are safe enough to engage in during a pandemic.
This reminds me of the video on Elaboration Likelihood Model. People that use the Central Route Process think deeply about things and are able to weigh the pros and cons to make this decisions and behaviors.
Sometimes our attitudes are based primarily on the relevant facts, such as the objective merits of a car. Does it run on gas or electricity? What are its safety features? How much does it cost? To the extent that an evaluation is based primarily on beliefs about the properties of an attitude object, we say it is a cognitively based attitude.
I wonder how advertisers use information about cognitively based attitudes to help target different people and draw up different interest in there audience.
Descriptive norms also tell us that relatively few people donate blood and that only a certain percentage of registered voters actually vote. In other words, descriptive norms have to do with what people actually do in a given situation
This is a good point that shows these low participation rates might unintentionally make people not want to engage with these behaviors that are positive. Framing these statistics differently might affect the way people interact with negative descriptive norms.
On a Friday in April in 2004, a man called a McDonald’s restaurant in Mount Washington, Kentucky, and identified himself as a police detective. He told the assistant manager she had a problem: One of her employees had stolen from the restaurant.
The case talked about in this closely parallels Milgram's obedience study video. Similarly to the orders to administer electric shocks the Mcdonalds employees abided the companies of the caller. Both examples show the power of authority and shows the dangers of blind obedience.
There is, however, another, more chilling possibility: Maybe many of us would have acted the same way had we been exposed to the same long-standing, powerful conformity pressures as were the members of Heaven’s Gate.
I took a class on cult studies and learned a lot abut the Heaven's Gate cult and how they conformed. I think that the brain can trick itself when being brainwashed by others to think that there is only one way and one answer. I often think about if I would be susceptible to the same forms of brainwashing and would I have done the same thing as the people in that cult.
people can make themselves feel better by adopting hostile attitudes toward another group, and, unfortunately, some meat eaters do this by characterizing
I feel like this may be why we can become so defensive when our behaviors are challenged by others. I feel like we don't always fully disagree rather we are just hurt and feel personally attacked. Like in the crash course cigarette example, you recognize it's wrong but still hold the belief that you still smoke so you just continue on.
The theory that self-esteem serves as a buffer, protecting people from terrifying thoughts about their own mortality
It’s really interesting that people with high self-esteem are less bothered by thoughts of mortality. I guess the idea that when you feel good about who you are and your place in the world the idea of life ending doesn’t feel as overwhelming. It makes me wonder if people with lower self-esteem experience more anxiety or fear about death because they feel uncertain about their purpose in life!
understand why the Heaven’s Gate people, having bought a telescope that failed to reveal a spaceship, concluded that the telescope was faulty
The telescope example really showed me the power of cognitive dissonance. I can see how once you’ve invested so much even the smallest pushback can feel unbearable to acknowledge. This really makes me think about how easily I might ignore the truth when I’m really invested in something!
On the one hand, the woman could be telling the truth and really need someone to help her out, but on the other, she could be making the whole thing up to get money to buy drugs or alcohol. Will you decide to help her? As we have just seen, when faced with ambiguous situations such as this one, people rely on schemas that are accessible in their minds. If the schema of helpfulness was just primed—maybe you just saw a clerk in the store go out of her way to help someone—you will be more likely to help the stranger
Understanding this process in the brain is helping me understand the reasons I make decisions for myself and what I base that off of. Usually when the situation comes up like in the part of the chapter, I would probably not give the person money and walk away just to be safe because you never know how people are. There are those times when there will be situations where I do try and help out give someone money or water or food and it is probably because someone primed me with extra kindness that day like explained int the reading. I also often find that when the environment im in is safe, welcoming and kind I will kind of adapt to that energy and do extra acts of kindness.
This finding suggests that people in all cultures are capable of thinking holistically or analytically (they have the same tools in their mental toolbox), but that the environment in which people live, or even which environment has been recently primed, triggers a reliance on one of the styles
This part of the chapter really peaked my interest because I am currently preparing to go on a trip with Cultural Immersion to Rwanda. Although not an East Asian culture we have been spending a lot of time talking about Rwandans and Americans thinking in different ways. When talking about Americans we always said words like selfish, materialistic and greedy which tie in with thinking a more self centered mindset. On the other end Rwandans are all about community and learning from the people who have come before them which can lead to more Holistic way of thinking within their community.
More formally, people use schemas, which are mental structures that organize our knowledge about the social world. These mental structures influence the information we notice, think about, and remember (Bartlett, 1932; Heine, Proulx, & Vohs, 2006; Markus, 1977). The term schema is general; it encompasses our knowledge about many things—other people, ourselves, social roles (e.g., what a librarian or an engineer is like), and specific events (e.g., what usually happens when people eat a meal in a restaurant). In each case, our schemas contain our basic knowledge and impressions that we use to organize what we know
This reminds me of the Automatic vs Controlled thinking slides. There are a few slides that are tricks on your mind like reading something that says "don't read" or naming the colors written down in different colors. I wondered why these activities were so confusing and why sometimes social situations feel the same. These Schemas help explain why I will only pick up on certain cues during some situations. Along with why the norms in our society affect the way we subconsciously act based on previous information.