Sheet nodes
Lecture 1
Coercive-persuasive: when you say no to a request, but this has consequences as a result.
As soon as the costs are very high, we often switch to a more controlled processing.
Often price is linked to how we see ourselves (“because you’re worth it”). Marketeers use the values
of how we see ourselves in the marketing of their products.
Complementary products (e.g. free) are valued less and perceived to be inexpensive. If you offer free
products, indicate the price!
Discount coupons result in higher sales, even when no saving are offered: expensive = good and
saving costs.
The effort, time involved in producing is also an indicator of value. You spend the money that you
found on more hedonic stuff in comparison when you earned the money. When you have to invest
more effort to get something, you value it more (e.g. standing in line).
However, effort and arguments – when you need to put a lot of effort in processing an argument,
then you think maybe the argument is not that valid. Slogans in rhyme lead to more positive effects,
which are believed to be more true. They are easier to process, so more likely to be true.
People are also less convinced by clear handwriting in comparison with sloppy handwriting. Complex
writing is also less persuasive.
The likelihood of an event is based on how easy it is to picture mentally risk perceptions. People
also more regret missing outcomes that are easier to imagine near misses.
When adding a third, more expensive option, people take the middle option = compromise. Sales of
expensive options can be increased by adding even more expensive options (contrast).
Elaboration more likely when we are motivated and able to process information. Elaboration model:
Central route: attitude change depends on strength of arguments (high involvement and
high ability).
Peripheral route: attitude change depends on presence of persuasion cues heuristic
processing (low involvement and low ability).
Kahneman’s two systems model:
System 1: intuition
Fast, parallel, automatic, effortless, associative, slow-learning, emotional.
System 2: reasoning
Slow, serial, controlled, effortful, rule-governed, flexible and neutral.
Lecture 2: social proof
We conform because:
To be liked / not to be disliked: normative social influence
To be right: informational social influence often correct behaviour if you look at others.
Injunctive norm: the behaviour perceived to be commonly (dis)approved.
Descriptive norm: the behaviour perceived common. Most effective in changing behaviour.
In a fully littered environment people are more likely to litter (descriptive norm).
, Theory of normative conduct:
The distinction between injunctive and descriptive.
Depends on salience, which social norm is activated.
When the norm is made salient (confederate littering), the difference between littering and not is
even bigger.
Picking litter up from the ground in littered environment injunctive norm salient less littering.
However, giving descriptive norms may backfire when others use more energy average.
Lecture 3: social proof
The presence of others injunctive norm influence. Presence of others in your head can be enough
too.
Doors that are not see-through give a sense of anonymity, so people are more likely to disobey
norms put eyes on the door.
More salient more influence of the norm.
In a littered environment: sign increases littering interplay descriptive-injunctive norm nobody
obeys – descriptive norm.
Spreading effects:
Broken windows theory – slippery slope removing graffiti etc. less criminality.
Alternative: crack most used costs a lot of money criminality.
Goals framing theory
We have various glasses in which we look at the world, they focus us on specific things that
are important to us and omit things that are not important frame our behaviour.
Goals
o Normative (appropriate)
o Gain
o Hedonic (feel good)
Goals can be in conflict.
The goal to act appropriately is weakened when people observe others who didn’t pursue
the goal to act appropriately you will be more hedonically driven if you see other people
behave hedonically and not normatively.
Cross-norm inhibition
When an injunctive norm violation becomes salient, it inhibits the influence of other injunctive
norms on behaviour. When you see a couple of broken windows, you are more likely to transgress
other rules. An example, people little more in an environment with a lot of graffiti. If one injunctive
norm is violated, an other injunctive norm will also be violated.
Shopping carts are not returned people littered. However, less litter than in other study, because a
parking garage is in general cleaner than an ally, and it is indoors.
This spreading effect appears to be a general effect applies to different contexts.
Another example, people picked up and posted the letter more in the clean environment thus, it
also works for social norms that do not involve sanctions.
When there was graffiti and a graffiti prohibition sign, people littered even more!
