Introduction to Social Psychology

● Social Psychology:
● Investigate social behaviour.
● Norms, Roles, & Culture.
● Group Behaviour:
● Helping Behaviour, Cooperation, Conformity & Obedience.
● Social Cognition:
● Information processing affects social behaviour.
● Social Perception: explanations of behaviour.
● Attitudes: evaluations of people/things.
● Cognitive Dissonance: Attitude/behavioural change.

Social Norms

Rules that help us behave in our communities. Imagine these rules as a kind of
guidebook that everyone follows to make sure we get along and stay safe.

First, we have laws. These are like big, important rules that everyone in a whole
country or state has to follow. They're there to keep us safe and make sure things run
smoothly. For example, there's a rule that says we need to drive on the right side of
the road. That way, everyone knows where to go, and we don't crash into each other.
Another rule is the handshake – it's like saying, "Hello, nice to meet you!" in a friendly
way.

Now, some rules are about how we should act in specific situations. Like, we know
that it's not okay to drink and drive because it can be really dangerous. These rules
might change a bit depending on where you live or the time you're in – what's normal
in one place might be different somewhere else.

There are two types of norms – injunctive norms and descriptive norms. Injunctive
norms tell us what we should do based on what's common. For example, in some
universities, binge drinking might be something people do a lot, but it doesn't mean
it's the right thing to do. On the other hand, descriptive norms describe what people
usually approve or disapprove of in a situation. So, even if binge drinking is common,
it doesn't mean everyone thinks it's a good idea.

Then we have things like reciprocity and prohibition. Reciprocity is like a golden rule
– if someone does something nice for you, it's a good idea to do something nice
back. It's like a friendly way of saying, "Thanks!" Prohibition is the opposite – it's a
rule saying we shouldn't do something. For example, we all agree that stealing is not
okay, so there's a rule or norm saying we shouldn't do it.

Social Roles

First, we've got something called social position, which is like your role or job in the
big group of people around you. Think of it like being a player on a sports team. You
have certain rules to follow, and everyone expects you to act a certain way.

Now, there are different kinds of roles. We've got sex roles, which are like the things
people expect boys or girls to do. So, it's like having certain expectations just
because of whether you're a boy or a girl.

Then, there are family roles. In a family, everyone has their own job or role. Maybe
someone is the parent, someone is the sibling, and everyone has different things
they're supposed to do.

And guess what? When you grow up, you get an occupational role. That's like the job
you have when you're an adult. Maybe you're a doctor, a teacher, or an astronaut –
that's your occupational role.

But here's the cool part – sometimes, you have multiple roles. It's like being a
superhero with different costumes for different situations. Depending on where you
are or what's happening, you might act differently.

Now, let me tell you about this interesting study called the Zimbardo Prison Study.
Some researchers set up a fake prison in the basement of a psychology department.
They got some students to be prisoners and others to be guards, just for an
experiment.

But here's where it got really interesting – the students who were playing the guards
started acting like they had all the power, being bossy and mean. The ones playing
prisoners got really upset and rebellious because of how the guards were treating
them.

This went on for just six days because it got so intense, and they had to stop. People
got really worried about how the students were treating each other, and they raised
ethical concerns, which means they were concerned about whether it was right or
fair to keep the study going.

So, this study taught us that the roles we're in can really influence how we behave.
Weiner's Attribution Model
Weiner's Attribution Model is like a tool that helps us understand why things happen,
and it's kind of like giving credit or blame to different parts.

So, there are two big categories: dispositional and situational. Dispositional is about
you – your personal stuff like skills, feelings, or how you usually act. Situational is
about what's happening around you, like the game rules or how tricky the level is.

Now, let's talk about stable versus unstable. Stable means something that sticks
around for a long time, like if you're always really good at a particular game. Unstable
is like something that changes quickly, maybe you were tired that day and didn't play
your best.

Let's put it all together. Imagine you win a game. If you think it's because you're
generally good at that game (that's dispositional), and you're usually good at games
(that's stable), then you might feel like a success! But if you think it's just because the
game was easy that day (that's situational), or you were lucky (that's unstable), then
it might not feel like as big of a deal.

Now, think about losing a game. If you think it's because you're just not good at
games in general (that's dispositional and stable), you might feel a bit down. But if
you think it's because you were tired that day (that's situational and unstable), it
might not feel so bad.

Here's a cool part – high achievers, like those who do really well in school or games,
usually think their success is because of their own skills and efforts (that's internal
and stable). But if they mess up, they might blame something outside of themselves,
like the game being too hard (that's external and unstable).

On the other hand, low achievers or people feeling a bit down might do the opposite.
They might think their successes are just luck or something easy (external and
unstable), but if they fail, they might say it's because they're not smart (internal and
stable).

Fundamental Attribution Bias

Sometimes we might not fully understand why people do the things they do. There's
this thing called the Fundamental Attribution Error, and it's like a common mistake
our brains make.

So, imagine your friend does something, and you think it's because that's just the
kind of person they are – that's dispositional, like part of their personality. But
sometimes, it might actually be because of the situation they're in – that's
situational, like something happening around them.

Now, here's the tricky part. We tend to think too much about a person's character and
not enough about what's happening around them when trying to figure out why they
did something. It's like we're giving too much credit to their personality and not
enough to what's going on in the moment.

This mistake is more likely to happen when our brains are busy with lots of things –
like when you're trying to play a game and someone's talking to you at the same
time. Our brains get a bit lazy and don't pay enough attention to the situation.

Even if there are clear reasons why someone is acting a certain way, like if they're
writing an essay about Castro because they were told to (that's the situation), we
might still jump to thinking it's just their personal opinion (that's dispositional).

One reason this happens is because thinking about someone's personality is kind of
automatic for our brains – it's like a quick shortcut. But thinking about the situation
takes more effort, and our brains sometimes prefer to be a bit lazy, like saving
energy.

Now, here's another interesting thing – when it comes to ourselves, we often do the
opposite. If we do something great, like winning a game, we might say it's because
we're awesome (that's internal, like dispositional). But if we mess up, we might
blame it on something outside of us, like the game being too hard or luck not being
on our side (that's external, like situational). This is called the Self-Serving Bias – it's
like being a bit biased in favor of ourselves.

Just-World Belief
Imagine it's like a story some people tell themselves – they believe that good things
happen to good people, and bad things happen to bad people. It's kind of like
thinking the world is fair, like a superhero comic where the hero wins because they're
good, and the bad guy loses because they're, well, bad.

So, why do some people really like this idea? Well, it helps them feel like the world is
predictable and fair. If you do good things, good stuff will happen to you – that's the
idea. It's like having a roadmap for life, where you know what to expect.

But here's where it gets a bit tricky. Sometimes, bad things happen to good people,
and that doesn't really fit with the "just world" idea. When something really bad, like a
disaster, happens, it can shake this belief. It's like, "Wait, if this bad thing happened to
them, does that mean the world isn't fair?"

Now, some people don't like feeling uncertain or not knowing what's going to happen.
So, when something really bad happens, instead of thinking the world might not be
fair, they might try to find a reason for it. And here's where it gets a bit unfair –
sometimes, they end up blaming the person who had something bad happen to
them.

For example, if someone's house gets broken into, instead of thinking it could
happen to anyone, they might say, "Well, they must have been careless with their
things." Or if someone loses their job, instead of thinking it could be due to lots of
reasons, they might say, "Oh, they must have been bad at their job."

It's like trying to make sense of a world that suddenly feels unpredictable and scary
by blaming the person who had something bad happen to them. This isn't really fair,
though, because sometimes bad things just happen, and it doesn't mean the person
did something wrong.

And you know what's really not fair? When people blame the victim in really serious
situations, like saying someone was raped because they dressed a certain way.
That's not okay. Sometimes, people do this because they want to believe the world is
just and predictable, but it's really important to remember that it's not fair to blame
someone for something bad that happened to them.

So, the "just world" belief is like a story people tell themselves to make the world feel
fair, even when it's not always that simple.

Cultural Differences in Attributions

Let's talk about cultures and how they shape the way people think about themselves
and others. There are two big types: individualistic and collectivistic.

In individualistic cultures, like in North America and Western Europe, it's all about
personal goals. People there really value being unique, standing out, and doing their
own thing. Independence is a big deal, and everyone wants to feel good about
themselves, which we call self-esteem.

Now, on the flip side, collectivistic cultures, found in places like Asia, South America,
and Africa, focus more on group goals. People there care a lot about fitting in and
working together. Instead of standing out individually, they emphasize shared values
and cooperation. So, in these cultures, being part of the group is super important.
One interesting thing is that self-esteem, or feeling good about yourself, is a bit
different in these two types of cultures. In individualistic cultures, it's a big deal. But
in collectivistic cultures, they don't put as much emphasis on personal self-esteem.
It's not that they don't care about feeling good, but they often focus more on how well
they're doing as a group.

Now, let's talk about two cool biases – the modesty bias and the self-serving bias. In
collectivistic cultures, people tend to downplay their successes. Instead of saying, "I
did awesome!" they might credit the group or luck. It's kind of like being modest and
not wanting to stand out too much because it's more about the team than the
individual.

On the other hand, the self-serving bias happens in individualistic cultures. When
things go well, people there tend to take credit for their successes and say, "Yeah, I
did that!" But if something goes wrong, they might blame external factors, like saying
it was bad luck or someone else's fault. It's like wanting to keep a positive image of
themselves.

So, in a nutshell, individualistic cultures are more about personal goals and standing
out, while collectivistic cultures focus on group goals and fitting in.

Culture and Self-Esteem

Let's dive into this interesting study by Heine and his colleagues from 2001. They
were curious about how self-esteem plays out in individualistic and collectivistic
cultures, so they looked at students from Japan and Canada.

First, they had these students take a "creativity" test, but here's the twist – the test
was secretly rigged to be either super easy or really tough. After the test, the
students were asked to compare their performance to what they thought the group
norms were. Group norms are like the average or typical performance of everyone
else in their group.

Now, the cool part came next. The students were given another test, and this one
was set at a medium level of difficulty. The researchers wanted to see how the
students would approach this new challenge based on how they thought they did on
the first rigged test.

Here's what they found:

​ Japanese Students (from a collectivistic culture): When the Japanese

students thought they did well on the first test, they tended to compare
 themselves to the group norms and aimed for a more modest performance on
the second test. It's like they didn't want to stand out too much from the
group.
However, if they believed they didn't do well on the first test, they actually
worked harder on the second test, maybe to catch up or prove themselves.
​
​ Canadian Students (from an individualistic culture): On the other hand, the
Canadian students had a bit of a different approach. If they thought they did
well on the first test, they aimed for an even higher performance on the
second test – like trying to outdo themselves.
​
But if they believed they didn't do well on the first test, they tended to aim for a
more average performance on the second test, not wanting to stick out too
much when they thought they hadn't done great initially.

Attitudes

Let's talk about attitudes! Imagine attitudes as your feelings and thoughts about
different things – it could be people, activities, or even objects. Now, attitudes can be
positive (when you like something) or negative (when you don't).

Here are a few examples: You might not like Twitter, smoking, or saxophones, but
you really like grilled cheese sandwiches. Those are your attitudes toward those
things.

Attitudes can be in two forms: explicit and implicit. Explicit attitudes are the ones
you're aware of – like, you know you dislike Twitter. Implicit attitudes, on the other
hand, are kind of like feelings you have without even realizing it. For example, you
might have an implicit attitude, like prejudice, without being fully aware of it.

Now, attitudes have three components:

​ Cognitive Component: This is like what you think about something. For
instance, if you think people on Twitter are deceptive jerks, that's the cognitive
component.
​ Affective Component: This is about how you feel. If Twitter makes you angry,
that's the affective component – it's all about your emotions.
​ Behavioral Component: This is how your attitude affects what you do. So, if
you use Twitter as an example to show a negative attitude, that's the
behavioral component.
Now, here's where it gets interesting. Attitudes can sometimes predict behavior, but
not always. It works best when your attitude is strong, you're aware of it (explicit),
and there's a match between what you think and what you do – we call this the
"correspondence principle."

For example, if you really, really dislike smoking (strong attitude), you're aware of it,
and then you avoid being around people who smoke (matching behavior), your
attitude predicts your behavior.

But here's the catch – your attitude should be at the same level as your behavior. If
you just mildly dislike smoking but strongly avoid being around it, it might not match
up well.

So, attitudes are like little guides for your feelings and thoughts about things, and
they can give us a clue about how we might behave in different situations.

Cognitive Dissonance

Let's dive into the fascinating world of cognitive dissonance – a term that might
sound complex but is really about the uncomfortable feeling you get when your
thoughts and actions don't match up.

Imagine you're trying to balance on a tightrope between two thoughts or behaviors

that don't quite fit together. That uncomfortable feeling you get, that's dissonance.

Now, in 1959, two researchers named Festinger and Carlsmith did a cool experiment
that helps us understand dissonance better. They asked people to do a really boring
task – turning pegs. Afterward, they were paid either $1 or $20 to tell the next person
that the task was super fun.

Here's where it gets interesting: Those who were paid only $1 felt this dissonance
because they were kinda lying about the task for a small reward. To make
themselves feel better and reduce the discomfort, they actually started convincing
themselves that the boring task wasn't so bad after all. So, they ended up saying they
liked it more than those who were paid $20!

This is a great example of "insufficient justification." When the external reward (the
money) is not enough to justify the behavior (lying about the task), our brains try to
make things less uncomfortable by changing our attitude to match our behavior.
Now, why is this so cool? Well, it goes against what we might expect. We might think
that people would like a task more if they were paid more money, but nope, the
opposite happened. It also challenges classical conditioning, the idea that we learn
through associations, and our expectations about external rewards. It turns out our
minds are pretty clever in trying to make things make sense, even if it means
changing how we feel about something!

So, cognitive dissonance is like a little mental tug-of-war that happens when our
thoughts and actions don't match, and our brains try to resolve it by changing one of
them.

Forbidden Toy Experiment

Let's talk about another interesting study done by Aronson and Carlsmith in 1963,
which helps us understand how warnings can sometimes have unexpected effects.

So, imagine you're a kid, and you really, really love this awesome toy. Now, the
researchers told some kids a mild warning, like, "If you play with that toy, I'll be a bit
annoyed." To other kids, they gave a more severe warning, saying, "If you play with
that toy, I would be very angry, and I might even take my toys and go home."

Now, you'd think that the kids who got the strong warning would be more scared and
not play with the toy, right? Well, surprise! The opposite happened. The kids who got
the mild warning, the less scary one, actually played with the toy more later on than
the kids who got the strong warning.

Why did this happen? It's a bit like reverse psychology. When the warning was severe,
the kids might have been too scared to play with the toy, thinking it would make the
person really mad. But for the kids who got the mild warning, it wasn't so scary. It's
like their brain thought, "Eh, it's not that big of a deal," and they played with the toy
more later.

So, this study shows that sometimes, if you make a warning too strong, it might
actually have the opposite effect and make people more likely to do the thing you're
warning them against.
Postdecisional Dissonance
Let's talk about something called "post-decision dissonance." Imagine you have to
make a decision, like choosing between two options. Now, after you make that
decision, there's this feeling that creeps in – a bit of discomfort or doubt. It's like, "Did
I make the right choice?"

This feeling happens because you're now stuck between two things: the decision you
made and the possibility that maybe, just maybe, the other option was a better one.

Now, our brains don't really like this uncomfortable feeling, so something interesting
happens. To make ourselves feel better about the choice we made, we start
convincing ourselves that our chosen option is really great. It's like, "I chose this, and
it must be awesome!"

At the same time, we kind of downplay or weaken our feelings about the option we
didn't choose. It's a way for our brains to say, "Hey, the one I didn't pick wasn't that
great anyway."

Let me give you a couple of examples:

​ Betting: Let's say you decide to place a bet on a sports game. After you make
the bet, you might start feeling more confident in your team winning. It's like
you're convincing yourself that you made the right choice, even if it's not a
sure thing.
​ Voting: Imagine you go and cast your vote for a candidate in an election. After
you vote, you might feel even more strongly in favor of the person you chose.
It's a way of reducing that uncomfortable feeling that maybe you didn't pick
the best candidate.
​ Major purchases: Consider buying a new phone. After you make the purchase,
you might start thinking that the features of your chosen phone are the best,
and you might downplay the cool things about the phones you didn't choose.

So, post-decision dissonance is like our brain's way of making us feel better about
the choices we make. It's interesting how our minds work to protect our confidence
and make us feel good about the decisions we've made, even if there was a bit of
doubt at the beginning.

Arousal
let's talk about how our emotions and physiological reactions, like arousal, play a role
in something called cognitive dissonance.
First off, arousal here means a state of heightened physiological or emotional
activity. So, when we talk about arousal in cognitive dissonance, it's like the
uncomfortable feeling or tension we might experience when our thoughts and
actions don't match up.

Now, imagine you're asked to write an essay expressing an opinion that goes against
what you actually believe. It creates this mismatch between what you think and what
you're doing, and that can make you feel a bit uncomfortable – that's the arousal.

In studies, scientists have measured this arousal by recording physiological

reactions, like changes in heart rate or skin conductance, while people write these
essays. The idea is to see if there's a physical response to the internal conflict
created by the mismatch between what you believe and what you're doing.

Now, here's where it gets interesting. The theory is that this arousal, this
uncomfortable feeling, might actually motivate our brains to resolve the
inconsistency. It's like our minds want to get rid of that tension.

So, scientists conducted an experiment where they gave people a tranquilizer to

reduce this arousal while they were writing the counter-attitudinal essay. What they
found was that when the arousal was lowered, the attitude change (changing their
belief to match the essay they wrote) was also reduced. It's like taking away the
discomfort took away some of the motivation to change their attitude.

Persuasion
Let's dive into the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) and break it down.

Imagine you're trying to convince someone about something. The Elaboration

Likelihood Model is like a guide that helps us understand when and how different
kinds of information are more likely to be convincing.

​ Central Route:
● What it is: This is when the actual content of the message is super
important – the facts, logic, and detailed information.
● How it works: When someone is motivated and has the time to really
think about the message, they use the central route. It's a systematic
and deliberate process – like carefully considering all the information.
● Effect: If someone elaborates on the message and really thinks about
it, the belief they form tends to be strong and lasts for a long time. But,
it requires effort, motivation, and time.
 ​ Peripheral Route:
● What it is: Here, it's not so much about the actual content of the
message but more about things around it – like how many arguments
there are or how attractive the person delivering the message is.
● How it works: When someone is not very motivated or doesn't have the
time to really think deeply about the message, they take the peripheral
route. It's a quick and automatic process – forming an impression
without putting in a lot of effort.
● Effect: Even if the arguments in the message are weak, people might
still be persuaded if the peripheral cues, like the number of arguments
or the attractiveness of the messenger, are strong. It's like making a
quick judgment without diving into the details.

Central Route
Let's talk about something called the Psychological Distance Theory, and it's all
about how we react to information based on how far or close it feels to us.

Imagine information is like different planets, and we're standing on Earth. Now, some
planets are closer to us, and others are farther away. In the same way, information
can feel closer or farther depending on certain factors.

​ Specific vs. Abstract Information:

● Closer: When information is specific and detailed, it feels like it's right
next to us. It's like looking at a detailed map of your school – you can
see everything clearly.
● Farther: On the other hand, abstract information, like general ideas
without many details, might feel more distant. It's like trying to imagine
a place you've never been to – it's a bit fuzzier.
​ Personal vs. Others' Information:
● Closer: Information that involves us personally or talks about people
we know feels close. It's like hearing a story about your best friend –
you're really interested because it's about someone you're close to.
● Farther: Information about other people might feel a bit more distant.
It's like hearing a story about someone you've never met – it's not as
engaging because it's not about someone close to you.
​ Concrete vs. Vague Details:
● Closer: Concrete details, like specific facts and examples, bring
information closer to us. It's like having a clear picture in your mind.
 ● Farther: Vague details, like general information without many specifics,
might feel more distant. It's like trying to imagine something blurry –
you can't see all the details.

Now, think of distance in different ways:

● Geographic Distance: If the information is about a place close to you, it feels

nearer. If it's about a faraway land, it feels more distant.
● Temporal Distance: If the information is about something happening now or
in the near future, it feels close. If it's about something far in the past or future,
it feels more distant.
● Social Distance: If the information involves people you know well, it feels
close. If it involves people you don't know or aren't close to, it feels more
distant.

Central Route

Let's talk about a cool aspect of persuasion: one-sided vs. two-sided messaging.

Imagine you're trying to convince someone of something – maybe why pizza is the
best food ever. Now, there are two ways to go about it:

​ One-sided messaging:
● What it is: This is when you only talk about the good stuff about pizza.
It's like listing all the amazing toppings, the cheesy goodness, and how
it's the perfect meal.
● Why it works: One-sided messaging can be pretty effective if the
audience already agrees with you or if they're not likely to hear
opposing arguments.
​ Two-sided messaging:
● What it is: Here, you not only talk about how awesome pizza is, but you
also acknowledge some of the arguments against it – like maybe it's
not the healthiest option.
● Why it works: Surprisingly, two-sided messaging can be even more
persuasive, especially when you acknowledge the opposing arguments
and then counter them. It shows you've thought about the other side
and still believe your point is strong.

Now, here's the interesting part: Sometimes, people use something called "straw man
arguments." It's like building a scarecrow that looks like an opposing argument but is
actually weak or even made up. It might sound logical and convincing, but it's a bit
sneaky.

But here's the twist: Listeners can become more resistant to change later on when
they encounter real opposing arguments. It's like if someone told you pizza was the
best, but then you find out they left out the fact that it's not the best choice for every
meal. You might feel a bit misled, right?

Peripheral Route

Let's talk about authority and how it can influence people, even in unexpected ways.

Imagine you have a teacher or an expert in a subject you really admire. That person
is an authority figure, someone you trust and believe knows a lot about what they're
talking about. Now, authority can affect us in a couple of interesting ways:

​ Source of Information (Central Route):

● What it is: When an authority figure provides information, especially in
their area of expertise, it's like taking the central route. You're really
paying attention to what they're saying, considering the facts and logic.
● Example: If your science teacher talks about a cool scientific discovery,
you're likely to believe it because they're an authority on the subject.
​ Influence Beyond Expertise (Status over Experience):
● What it is: Sometimes, authority figures can influence us even outside
their area of expertise, just because of their status. It's like if a famous
scientist talks about their favorite book – you might be more inclined to
check it out just because they said so.
● Example: If a celebrity chef recommends a book on gardening, people
might be more likely to read it, even though the chef isn't known for
gardening.

Now, here's a quirky study to illustrate how authority can influence us in unexpected
ways:

● Dressing with Authority (Lefkowitz et al., 1955):

● What it is: Researchers wanted to see if how a person dressed affected
how others followed their actions, even for something simple like
jaywalking.
● Findings: More people were likely to follow a man jaywalking when he
was dressed in a suit compared to when he was dressed casually. It's
like the authority conveyed by the suit made people more inclined to
 follow him, even in a situation where it wasn't directly related to his
expertise or status.

Peripheral Route

Let's talk about attractiveness and how it can affect the way people perceive and
respond to others.

Imagine you meet two people, and one of them is conventionally attractive – you
know, someone you might consider good-looking. The other person might not fit
society's standard definition of attractive. Now, here's what researchers have found
about how attractiveness can influence our judgments:

​ Persuasion:
● What it is: People tend to find physically attractive messengers more
persuasive.
● Example: In a study with the American Heart Association, researchers
found that attractive fundraisers raised more donations compared to
less attractive ones. It's like people were more willing to give money if
the person asking for it was attractive.
​ Voting in Elections:
● What it is: In elections, physically attractive candidates often receive
more votes than less attractive ones.
● Example: During the Canadian Federal Election in 1972, researchers
found that attractive candidates tended to get more votes. It's like
voters were influenced by the candidate's appearance, even if it had
nothing to do with their political abilities.
​ Halo Effect:
● What it is: The Halo Effect is when we tend to see physically attractive
people as possessing positive traits, even if we don't have evidence for
it.
● Examples: People might assume that attractive individuals are happier,
more honest, more competent, more intelligent, more successful, and
have more positive personalities, just based on their looks.
​ Early Impressions:
● What it is: Even infants pay attention to attractiveness. They stare at
adults wearing an attractive mask longer than those wearing an
unattractive one.
● Example: It's like babies are drawn to what they find visually appealing,
showing that our preference for attractiveness starts early.
 ​ Bias in Judgment:
● What it is: Adults might also show bias based on attractiveness. For
instance, they might attribute harsh punishments more to unattractive
children.
● Example: In a study, adults were more likely to think that unattractive
children deserved harsher punishments, showing how appearances
can influence our judgments.

Peripheral Route

Let's talk about something called social proof, and how it's like using the actions of
others to help us decide what's cool or good.

​ What is Social Proof?

● Explanation: Social proof is when we look at what other people are
doing to figure out what's popular or a good idea.
● Examples: If a book is a bestseller, a song is a hit, a restaurant is
crowded, a movie has top box-office earnings, or something has won
awards, we might think, "Hey, lots of people like this, so it must be
good!"
​ Reciprocity:
● Explanation: Reciprocity is when we feel like we should repay others
when they've done something for us.
● Examples: Ever get a free sample at the store? Or maybe a free trial for
a streaming service? Even the "no obligation" offers create a sense of
reciprocity – you got something for free, and now you might feel like
you should give something back.
​ Door-in-the-Face Technique:
● Explanation: This is a bit sneaky! It's when someone asks for
something big, like a huge favor, and then follows it with a more
reasonable request.
● Examples: Let's say a friend asks to borrow $100, and you're like,
"Whoa, that's too much!" Then, they say, "Okay, how about $20?"
Suddenly, $20 seems way more reasonable, and you might be more
likely to agree.
Let's talk about the need for consistency and how it plays out with a clever technique
called the foot-in-the-door.

​ Need for Consistency:

● Explanation: People generally like to be consistent with their words,
beliefs, and actions. Once we commit to something, we tend to stick
with it.
● Example: If you tell your friend you'll help them with homework, you'll
likely follow through because you want to be consistent with what you
said.
​ Foot-in-the-Door Technique:
● Explanation: This is a trick where someone asks for a small favor or a
small commitment first, then follows it up with a bigger request.
● Example: Imagine someone asks you to sign a petition for cleaner
parks. That's a small request. Later, they might come back and ask you
to volunteer for a weekend to clean up a park. Because you already
agreed to the small thing, you might be more likely to agree to the
bigger request to stay consistent.
​ Old Sales Trick:
● Explanation: Salespeople often use the foot-in-the-door technique.
They might start by asking if you have a moment to answer a quick
question (small request), and before you know it, you're considering
buying a product (bigger request).
● Example: Ever had someone call you, asking if you have time for a
short survey, and by the end, they're suggesting you buy something?
That's the foot-in-the-door at work.
​ Cognitive Dissonance:
● Explanation: Cognitive dissonance is that uncomfortable feeling we get
when our beliefs or attitudes clash with our actions. We naturally want
to reduce this discomfort.
● Example: Let's say you agree to volunteer for a small event, and then
someone asks you to help with a much larger project. You might feel a
bit uneasy saying no because it conflicts with your initial commitment,
and you want to stay consistent.