Chat with AI
Deck 13: Scenarios
Full screen (f)
Question
Question
Question
Use the following to answer questions
Scenario II
The following scenario contains fabricated results consistent with the following study:
Petty,R.E. ,Cacioppo,J.T. ,& Goldman,R.(1981).Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,41,847-855.
Every day,consumers are exposed to scientifically based sales,marketing,and public relations strategies designed to influence purchasing decisions,change opinions,or win votes.One common sales strategy is the foot-in-the-door technique,a method that involves first making a smaller request that consumers are likely to grant and then following it with a larger request.Another common strategy is the door-in-the-face technique,which involves making an unreasonably large request that consumers will reject and then following it with a smaller request.When persuasion is necessary,it usually takes one of two forms: heuristic persuasion,which involves an appeal to habits or emotion,and systematic persuasion,which involves an appeal to facts and reason.Often,people will rely more on heuristics-simple shortcuts or "rules of thumb"-to make decisions instead of systematically weighing the evidence.
Petty and colleagues (1981)investigated some of these techniques in college students listening to arguments in favor of their college requiring an institution-level comprehensive final examination for graduation.Some students were led to believe that,if adopted,this policy would take place right away,and some were led to believe that the change would take place in a decade.In addition,some of the students were led to believe that they were listening to an argument from a Princeton professor,and others were led to believe that they were listening to an argument from a high-school student.Finally,some students heard strong arguments in favor of the policy,and some heard weak arguments.Thus,the experiment arranged six groups of students.For example,one group of students heard strong arguments from a high-school student about a far-removed policy change.Figure 13.1 shows fabricated results illustrating the major findings of this experiment.
Figure 13.1
(Scenario II)The foot-in-the-door technique works primarily because consumers:
A)feel pressure to reciprocate a concession to the seller.
B)are strongly influenced by the motivation to be consistent.
C)rely on heuristics introduced by the smaller request.
D)are systematically persuaded with each escalating request.
Scenario II
The following scenario contains fabricated results consistent with the following study:
Petty,R.E. ,Cacioppo,J.T. ,& Goldman,R.(1981).Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,41,847-855.
Every day,consumers are exposed to scientifically based sales,marketing,and public relations strategies designed to influence purchasing decisions,change opinions,or win votes.One common sales strategy is the foot-in-the-door technique,a method that involves first making a smaller request that consumers are likely to grant and then following it with a larger request.Another common strategy is the door-in-the-face technique,which involves making an unreasonably large request that consumers will reject and then following it with a smaller request.When persuasion is necessary,it usually takes one of two forms: heuristic persuasion,which involves an appeal to habits or emotion,and systematic persuasion,which involves an appeal to facts and reason.Often,people will rely more on heuristics-simple shortcuts or "rules of thumb"-to make decisions instead of systematically weighing the evidence.
Petty and colleagues (1981)investigated some of these techniques in college students listening to arguments in favor of their college requiring an institution-level comprehensive final examination for graduation.Some students were led to believe that,if adopted,this policy would take place right away,and some were led to believe that the change would take place in a decade.In addition,some of the students were led to believe that they were listening to an argument from a Princeton professor,and others were led to believe that they were listening to an argument from a high-school student.Finally,some students heard strong arguments in favor of the policy,and some heard weak arguments.Thus,the experiment arranged six groups of students.For example,one group of students heard strong arguments from a high-school student about a far-removed policy change.Figure 13.1 shows fabricated results illustrating the major findings of this experiment.
Figure 13.1
(Scenario II)The foot-in-the-door technique works primarily because consumers:
A)feel pressure to reciprocate a concession to the seller.
B)are strongly influenced by the motivation to be consistent.
C)rely on heuristics introduced by the smaller request.
D)are systematically persuaded with each escalating request.
Question
Use the following to answer questions
Scenario II
The following scenario contains fabricated results consistent with the following study:
Petty,R.E. ,Cacioppo,J.T. ,& Goldman,R.(1981).Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,41,847-855.
Every day,consumers are exposed to scientifically based sales,marketing,and public relations strategies designed to influence purchasing decisions,change opinions,or win votes.One common sales strategy is the foot-in-the-door technique,a method that involves first making a smaller request that consumers are likely to grant and then following it with a larger request.Another common strategy is the door-in-the-face technique,which involves making an unreasonably large request that consumers will reject and then following it with a smaller request.When persuasion is necessary,it usually takes one of two forms: heuristic persuasion,which involves an appeal to habits or emotion,and systematic persuasion,which involves an appeal to facts and reason.Often,people will rely more on heuristics-simple shortcuts or "rules of thumb"-to make decisions instead of systematically weighing the evidence.
Petty and colleagues (1981)investigated some of these techniques in college students listening to arguments in favor of their college requiring an institution-level comprehensive final examination for graduation.Some students were led to believe that,if adopted,this policy would take place right away,and some were led to believe that the change would take place in a decade.In addition,some of the students were led to believe that they were listening to an argument from a Princeton professor,and others were led to believe that they were listening to an argument from a high-school student.Finally,some students heard strong arguments in favor of the policy,and some heard weak arguments.Thus,the experiment arranged six groups of students.For example,one group of students heard strong arguments from a high-school student about a far-removed policy change.Figure 13.1 shows fabricated results illustrating the major findings of this experiment.
Figure 13.1
(Scenario II)The door-in-the-face technique works primarily because consumers:
A)feel pressure to reciprocate a concession to the seller.
B)are strongly influenced by the motivation to be consistent.
C)experience a strong state of cognitive dissonance.
D)are systematically persuaded with each escalating request.
Scenario II
The following scenario contains fabricated results consistent with the following study:
Petty,R.E. ,Cacioppo,J.T. ,& Goldman,R.(1981).Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,41,847-855.
Every day,consumers are exposed to scientifically based sales,marketing,and public relations strategies designed to influence purchasing decisions,change opinions,or win votes.One common sales strategy is the foot-in-the-door technique,a method that involves first making a smaller request that consumers are likely to grant and then following it with a larger request.Another common strategy is the door-in-the-face technique,which involves making an unreasonably large request that consumers will reject and then following it with a smaller request.When persuasion is necessary,it usually takes one of two forms: heuristic persuasion,which involves an appeal to habits or emotion,and systematic persuasion,which involves an appeal to facts and reason.Often,people will rely more on heuristics-simple shortcuts or "rules of thumb"-to make decisions instead of systematically weighing the evidence.
Petty and colleagues (1981)investigated some of these techniques in college students listening to arguments in favor of their college requiring an institution-level comprehensive final examination for graduation.Some students were led to believe that,if adopted,this policy would take place right away,and some were led to believe that the change would take place in a decade.In addition,some of the students were led to believe that they were listening to an argument from a Princeton professor,and others were led to believe that they were listening to an argument from a high-school student.Finally,some students heard strong arguments in favor of the policy,and some heard weak arguments.Thus,the experiment arranged six groups of students.For example,one group of students heard strong arguments from a high-school student about a far-removed policy change.Figure 13.1 shows fabricated results illustrating the major findings of this experiment.
Figure 13.1
(Scenario II)The door-in-the-face technique works primarily because consumers:
A)feel pressure to reciprocate a concession to the seller.
B)are strongly influenced by the motivation to be consistent.
C)experience a strong state of cognitive dissonance.
D)are systematically persuaded with each escalating request.
Question
Use the following to answer questions
Scenario II
The following scenario contains fabricated results consistent with the following study:
Petty,R.E. ,Cacioppo,J.T. ,& Goldman,R.(1981).Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,41,847-855.
Every day,consumers are exposed to scientifically based sales,marketing,and public relations strategies designed to influence purchasing decisions,change opinions,or win votes.One common sales strategy is the foot-in-the-door technique,a method that involves first making a smaller request that consumers are likely to grant and then following it with a larger request.Another common strategy is the door-in-the-face technique,which involves making an unreasonably large request that consumers will reject and then following it with a smaller request.When persuasion is necessary,it usually takes one of two forms: heuristic persuasion,which involves an appeal to habits or emotion,and systematic persuasion,which involves an appeal to facts and reason.Often,people will rely more on heuristics-simple shortcuts or "rules of thumb"-to make decisions instead of systematically weighing the evidence.
Petty and colleagues (1981)investigated some of these techniques in college students listening to arguments in favor of their college requiring an institution-level comprehensive final examination for graduation.Some students were led to believe that,if adopted,this policy would take place right away,and some were led to believe that the change would take place in a decade.In addition,some of the students were led to believe that they were listening to an argument from a Princeton professor,and others were led to believe that they were listening to an argument from a high-school student.Finally,some students heard strong arguments in favor of the policy,and some heard weak arguments.Thus,the experiment arranged six groups of students.For example,one group of students heard strong arguments from a high-school student about a far-removed policy change.Figure 13.1 shows fabricated results illustrating the major findings of this experiment.
Figure 13.1
(Scenario II)The results shown in Figure 13.1 suggest that college students were systematically persuaded when the:
A)argument was strong.
B)policy change was far in the future.
C)Princeton professor presented a strong argument about a delayed policy change.
D)high-school student presented a strong argument about an imminent policy change.
Scenario II
The following scenario contains fabricated results consistent with the following study:
Petty,R.E. ,Cacioppo,J.T. ,& Goldman,R.(1981).Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,41,847-855.
Every day,consumers are exposed to scientifically based sales,marketing,and public relations strategies designed to influence purchasing decisions,change opinions,or win votes.One common sales strategy is the foot-in-the-door technique,a method that involves first making a smaller request that consumers are likely to grant and then following it with a larger request.Another common strategy is the door-in-the-face technique,which involves making an unreasonably large request that consumers will reject and then following it with a smaller request.When persuasion is necessary,it usually takes one of two forms: heuristic persuasion,which involves an appeal to habits or emotion,and systematic persuasion,which involves an appeal to facts and reason.Often,people will rely more on heuristics-simple shortcuts or "rules of thumb"-to make decisions instead of systematically weighing the evidence.
Petty and colleagues (1981)investigated some of these techniques in college students listening to arguments in favor of their college requiring an institution-level comprehensive final examination for graduation.Some students were led to believe that,if adopted,this policy would take place right away,and some were led to believe that the change would take place in a decade.In addition,some of the students were led to believe that they were listening to an argument from a Princeton professor,and others were led to believe that they were listening to an argument from a high-school student.Finally,some students heard strong arguments in favor of the policy,and some heard weak arguments.Thus,the experiment arranged six groups of students.For example,one group of students heard strong arguments from a high-school student about a far-removed policy change.Figure 13.1 shows fabricated results illustrating the major findings of this experiment.
Figure 13.1
(Scenario II)The results shown in Figure 13.1 suggest that college students were systematically persuaded when the:
A)argument was strong.
B)policy change was far in the future.
C)Princeton professor presented a strong argument about a delayed policy change.
D)high-school student presented a strong argument about an imminent policy change.
Question
Use the following to answer questions
Scenario II
The following scenario contains fabricated results consistent with the following study:
Petty,R.E. ,Cacioppo,J.T. ,& Goldman,R.(1981).Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,41,847-855.
Every day,consumers are exposed to scientifically based sales,marketing,and public relations strategies designed to influence purchasing decisions,change opinions,or win votes.One common sales strategy is the foot-in-the-door technique,a method that involves first making a smaller request that consumers are likely to grant and then following it with a larger request.Another common strategy is the door-in-the-face technique,which involves making an unreasonably large request that consumers will reject and then following it with a smaller request.When persuasion is necessary,it usually takes one of two forms: heuristic persuasion,which involves an appeal to habits or emotion,and systematic persuasion,which involves an appeal to facts and reason.Often,people will rely more on heuristics-simple shortcuts or "rules of thumb"-to make decisions instead of systematically weighing the evidence.
Petty and colleagues (1981)investigated some of these techniques in college students listening to arguments in favor of their college requiring an institution-level comprehensive final examination for graduation.Some students were led to believe that,if adopted,this policy would take place right away,and some were led to believe that the change would take place in a decade.In addition,some of the students were led to believe that they were listening to an argument from a Princeton professor,and others were led to believe that they were listening to an argument from a high-school student.Finally,some students heard strong arguments in favor of the policy,and some heard weak arguments.Thus,the experiment arranged six groups of students.For example,one group of students heard strong arguments from a high-school student about a far-removed policy change.Figure 13.1 shows fabricated results illustrating the major findings of this experiment.
Figure 13.1
(Scenario II)The results shown in Figure 13.1 suggest that college students were heuristically persuaded when the:
A)argument was strong.
B)policy change was far in the future.
C)Princeton professor presented a weak argument about an imminent policy change.
D)high-school student presented a strong argument about an imminent policy change.
Scenario II
The following scenario contains fabricated results consistent with the following study:
Petty,R.E. ,Cacioppo,J.T. ,& Goldman,R.(1981).Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,41,847-855.
Every day,consumers are exposed to scientifically based sales,marketing,and public relations strategies designed to influence purchasing decisions,change opinions,or win votes.One common sales strategy is the foot-in-the-door technique,a method that involves first making a smaller request that consumers are likely to grant and then following it with a larger request.Another common strategy is the door-in-the-face technique,which involves making an unreasonably large request that consumers will reject and then following it with a smaller request.When persuasion is necessary,it usually takes one of two forms: heuristic persuasion,which involves an appeal to habits or emotion,and systematic persuasion,which involves an appeal to facts and reason.Often,people will rely more on heuristics-simple shortcuts or "rules of thumb"-to make decisions instead of systematically weighing the evidence.
Petty and colleagues (1981)investigated some of these techniques in college students listening to arguments in favor of their college requiring an institution-level comprehensive final examination for graduation.Some students were led to believe that,if adopted,this policy would take place right away,and some were led to believe that the change would take place in a decade.In addition,some of the students were led to believe that they were listening to an argument from a Princeton professor,and others were led to believe that they were listening to an argument from a high-school student.Finally,some students heard strong arguments in favor of the policy,and some heard weak arguments.Thus,the experiment arranged six groups of students.For example,one group of students heard strong arguments from a high-school student about a far-removed policy change.Figure 13.1 shows fabricated results illustrating the major findings of this experiment.
Figure 13.1
(Scenario II)The results shown in Figure 13.1 suggest that college students were heuristically persuaded when the:
A)argument was strong.
B)policy change was far in the future.
C)Princeton professor presented a weak argument about an imminent policy change.
D)high-school student presented a strong argument about an imminent policy change.
Question
Question
Question
Use the following to answer questions
Scenario II
The following scenario contains fabricated results consistent with the following study:
Petty,R.E. ,Cacioppo,J.T. ,& Goldman,R.(1981).Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,41,847-855.
Every day,consumers are exposed to scientifically based sales,marketing,and public relations strategies designed to influence purchasing decisions,change opinions,or win votes.One common sales strategy is the foot-in-the-door technique,a method that involves first making a smaller request that consumers are likely to grant and then following it with a larger request.Another common strategy is the door-in-the-face technique,which involves making an unreasonably large request that consumers will reject and then following it with a smaller request.When persuasion is necessary,it usually takes one of two forms: heuristic persuasion,which involves an appeal to habits or emotion,and systematic persuasion,which involves an appeal to facts and reason.Often,people will rely more on heuristics-simple shortcuts or "rules of thumb"-to make decisions instead of systematically weighing the evidence.
Petty and colleagues (1981)investigated some of these techniques in college students listening to arguments in favor of their college requiring an institution-level comprehensive final examination for graduation.Some students were led to believe that,if adopted,this policy would take place right away,and some were led to believe that the change would take place in a decade.In addition,some of the students were led to believe that they were listening to an argument from a Princeton professor,and others were led to believe that they were listening to an argument from a high-school student.Finally,some students heard strong arguments in favor of the policy,and some heard weak arguments.Thus,the experiment arranged six groups of students.For example,one group of students heard strong arguments from a high-school student about a far-removed policy change.Figure 13.1 shows fabricated results illustrating the major findings of this experiment.
Figure 13.1
(Scenario II)Which example describes systematic persuasion?
A)a political party first asking for an e-mail address,then a $5 donation,then a $25 donation,and finally a $100 donation
B)a car manufacturer marketing its car with commercials suggesting driving it will increase sexual appeal
C)a college student trying to convince his professor to excuse an absence by reminding her of her own teenage years
D)a teenager trying to convince his parents that marijuana is not dangerous by showing them a number of scientific studies that support his argument while conveniently not presenting the ones that show the drug is far from harmless
Scenario II
The following scenario contains fabricated results consistent with the following study:
Petty,R.E. ,Cacioppo,J.T. ,& Goldman,R.(1981).Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,41,847-855.
Every day,consumers are exposed to scientifically based sales,marketing,and public relations strategies designed to influence purchasing decisions,change opinions,or win votes.One common sales strategy is the foot-in-the-door technique,a method that involves first making a smaller request that consumers are likely to grant and then following it with a larger request.Another common strategy is the door-in-the-face technique,which involves making an unreasonably large request that consumers will reject and then following it with a smaller request.When persuasion is necessary,it usually takes one of two forms: heuristic persuasion,which involves an appeal to habits or emotion,and systematic persuasion,which involves an appeal to facts and reason.Often,people will rely more on heuristics-simple shortcuts or "rules of thumb"-to make decisions instead of systematically weighing the evidence.
Petty and colleagues (1981)investigated some of these techniques in college students listening to arguments in favor of their college requiring an institution-level comprehensive final examination for graduation.Some students were led to believe that,if adopted,this policy would take place right away,and some were led to believe that the change would take place in a decade.In addition,some of the students were led to believe that they were listening to an argument from a Princeton professor,and others were led to believe that they were listening to an argument from a high-school student.Finally,some students heard strong arguments in favor of the policy,and some heard weak arguments.Thus,the experiment arranged six groups of students.For example,one group of students heard strong arguments from a high-school student about a far-removed policy change.Figure 13.1 shows fabricated results illustrating the major findings of this experiment.
Figure 13.1
(Scenario II)Which example describes systematic persuasion?
A)a political party first asking for an e-mail address,then a $5 donation,then a $25 donation,and finally a $100 donation
B)a car manufacturer marketing its car with commercials suggesting driving it will increase sexual appeal
C)a college student trying to convince his professor to excuse an absence by reminding her of her own teenage years
D)a teenager trying to convince his parents that marijuana is not dangerous by showing them a number of scientific studies that support his argument while conveniently not presenting the ones that show the drug is far from harmless
Question
Question
Use the following to answer questions
Scenario II
The following scenario contains fabricated results consistent with the following study:
Petty,R.E. ,Cacioppo,J.T. ,& Goldman,R.(1981).Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,41,847-855.
Every day,consumers are exposed to scientifically based sales,marketing,and public relations strategies designed to influence purchasing decisions,change opinions,or win votes.One common sales strategy is the foot-in-the-door technique,a method that involves first making a smaller request that consumers are likely to grant and then following it with a larger request.Another common strategy is the door-in-the-face technique,which involves making an unreasonably large request that consumers will reject and then following it with a smaller request.When persuasion is necessary,it usually takes one of two forms: heuristic persuasion,which involves an appeal to habits or emotion,and systematic persuasion,which involves an appeal to facts and reason.Often,people will rely more on heuristics-simple shortcuts or "rules of thumb"-to make decisions instead of systematically weighing the evidence.
Petty and colleagues (1981)investigated some of these techniques in college students listening to arguments in favor of their college requiring an institution-level comprehensive final examination for graduation.Some students were led to believe that,if adopted,this policy would take place right away,and some were led to believe that the change would take place in a decade.In addition,some of the students were led to believe that they were listening to an argument from a Princeton professor,and others were led to believe that they were listening to an argument from a high-school student.Finally,some students heard strong arguments in favor of the policy,and some heard weak arguments.Thus,the experiment arranged six groups of students.For example,one group of students heard strong arguments from a high-school student about a far-removed policy change.Figure 13.1 shows fabricated results illustrating the major findings of this experiment.
Figure 13.1
(Scenario II)In the Petty and colleagues (1981)experiment,which example BEST describes a heuristic?
A)speaker authority
B)argument quality
C)the time frame associated with the policy change
D)participants' understanding of the arguments
Scenario II
The following scenario contains fabricated results consistent with the following study:
Petty,R.E. ,Cacioppo,J.T. ,& Goldman,R.(1981).Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,41,847-855.
Every day,consumers are exposed to scientifically based sales,marketing,and public relations strategies designed to influence purchasing decisions,change opinions,or win votes.One common sales strategy is the foot-in-the-door technique,a method that involves first making a smaller request that consumers are likely to grant and then following it with a larger request.Another common strategy is the door-in-the-face technique,which involves making an unreasonably large request that consumers will reject and then following it with a smaller request.When persuasion is necessary,it usually takes one of two forms: heuristic persuasion,which involves an appeal to habits or emotion,and systematic persuasion,which involves an appeal to facts and reason.Often,people will rely more on heuristics-simple shortcuts or "rules of thumb"-to make decisions instead of systematically weighing the evidence.
Petty and colleagues (1981)investigated some of these techniques in college students listening to arguments in favor of their college requiring an institution-level comprehensive final examination for graduation.Some students were led to believe that,if adopted,this policy would take place right away,and some were led to believe that the change would take place in a decade.In addition,some of the students were led to believe that they were listening to an argument from a Princeton professor,and others were led to believe that they were listening to an argument from a high-school student.Finally,some students heard strong arguments in favor of the policy,and some heard weak arguments.Thus,the experiment arranged six groups of students.For example,one group of students heard strong arguments from a high-school student about a far-removed policy change.Figure 13.1 shows fabricated results illustrating the major findings of this experiment.
Figure 13.1
(Scenario II)In the Petty and colleagues (1981)experiment,which example BEST describes a heuristic?
A)speaker authority
B)argument quality
C)the time frame associated with the policy change
D)participants' understanding of the arguments
Question
Use the following to answer questions
Scenario II
The following scenario contains fabricated results consistent with the following study:
Petty,R.E. ,Cacioppo,J.T. ,& Goldman,R.(1981).Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,41,847-855.
Every day,consumers are exposed to scientifically based sales,marketing,and public relations strategies designed to influence purchasing decisions,change opinions,or win votes.One common sales strategy is the foot-in-the-door technique,a method that involves first making a smaller request that consumers are likely to grant and then following it with a larger request.Another common strategy is the door-in-the-face technique,which involves making an unreasonably large request that consumers will reject and then following it with a smaller request.When persuasion is necessary,it usually takes one of two forms: heuristic persuasion,which involves an appeal to habits or emotion,and systematic persuasion,which involves an appeal to facts and reason.Often,people will rely more on heuristics-simple shortcuts or "rules of thumb"-to make decisions instead of systematically weighing the evidence.
Petty and colleagues (1981)investigated some of these techniques in college students listening to arguments in favor of their college requiring an institution-level comprehensive final examination for graduation.Some students were led to believe that,if adopted,this policy would take place right away,and some were led to believe that the change would take place in a decade.In addition,some of the students were led to believe that they were listening to an argument from a Princeton professor,and others were led to believe that they were listening to an argument from a high-school student.Finally,some students heard strong arguments in favor of the policy,and some heard weak arguments.Thus,the experiment arranged six groups of students.For example,one group of students heard strong arguments from a high-school student about a far-removed policy change.Figure 13.1 shows fabricated results illustrating the major findings of this experiment.
Figure 13.1
(Scenario II)Which factor is NOT an independent variable in the Petty and colleagues (1981)experiment?
A)degree of agreement or disagreement with the arguments
B)authority of the speaker
C)argument quality
D)time of policy change
Scenario II
The following scenario contains fabricated results consistent with the following study:
Petty,R.E. ,Cacioppo,J.T. ,& Goldman,R.(1981).Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,41,847-855.
Every day,consumers are exposed to scientifically based sales,marketing,and public relations strategies designed to influence purchasing decisions,change opinions,or win votes.One common sales strategy is the foot-in-the-door technique,a method that involves first making a smaller request that consumers are likely to grant and then following it with a larger request.Another common strategy is the door-in-the-face technique,which involves making an unreasonably large request that consumers will reject and then following it with a smaller request.When persuasion is necessary,it usually takes one of two forms: heuristic persuasion,which involves an appeal to habits or emotion,and systematic persuasion,which involves an appeal to facts and reason.Often,people will rely more on heuristics-simple shortcuts or "rules of thumb"-to make decisions instead of systematically weighing the evidence.
Petty and colleagues (1981)investigated some of these techniques in college students listening to arguments in favor of their college requiring an institution-level comprehensive final examination for graduation.Some students were led to believe that,if adopted,this policy would take place right away,and some were led to believe that the change would take place in a decade.In addition,some of the students were led to believe that they were listening to an argument from a Princeton professor,and others were led to believe that they were listening to an argument from a high-school student.Finally,some students heard strong arguments in favor of the policy,and some heard weak arguments.Thus,the experiment arranged six groups of students.For example,one group of students heard strong arguments from a high-school student about a far-removed policy change.Figure 13.1 shows fabricated results illustrating the major findings of this experiment.
Figure 13.1
(Scenario II)Which factor is NOT an independent variable in the Petty and colleagues (1981)experiment?
A)degree of agreement or disagreement with the arguments
B)authority of the speaker
C)argument quality
D)time of policy change
Question
Use the following to answer questions
Scenario II
The following scenario contains fabricated results consistent with the following study:
Petty,R.E. ,Cacioppo,J.T. ,& Goldman,R.(1981).Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,41,847-855.
Every day,consumers are exposed to scientifically based sales,marketing,and public relations strategies designed to influence purchasing decisions,change opinions,or win votes.One common sales strategy is the foot-in-the-door technique,a method that involves first making a smaller request that consumers are likely to grant and then following it with a larger request.Another common strategy is the door-in-the-face technique,which involves making an unreasonably large request that consumers will reject and then following it with a smaller request.When persuasion is necessary,it usually takes one of two forms: heuristic persuasion,which involves an appeal to habits or emotion,and systematic persuasion,which involves an appeal to facts and reason.Often,people will rely more on heuristics-simple shortcuts or "rules of thumb"-to make decisions instead of systematically weighing the evidence.
Petty and colleagues (1981)investigated some of these techniques in college students listening to arguments in favor of their college requiring an institution-level comprehensive final examination for graduation.Some students were led to believe that,if adopted,this policy would take place right away,and some were led to believe that the change would take place in a decade.In addition,some of the students were led to believe that they were listening to an argument from a Princeton professor,and others were led to believe that they were listening to an argument from a high-school student.Finally,some students heard strong arguments in favor of the policy,and some heard weak arguments.Thus,the experiment arranged six groups of students.For example,one group of students heard strong arguments from a high-school student about a far-removed policy change.Figure 13.1 shows fabricated results illustrating the major findings of this experiment.
Figure 13.1
(Scenario II)In the Petty and colleagues (1981)experiment,the purpose of manipulating the time that the policy would go into effect was to:
A)introduce a time heuristic.
B)alter motivation levels to attend to the arguments.
C)use the foot-in-the door technique by first telling students that the policy change was a decade away.
D)use the door-in-the-face technique by first telling students that the change was imminent.
Scenario II
The following scenario contains fabricated results consistent with the following study:
Petty,R.E. ,Cacioppo,J.T. ,& Goldman,R.(1981).Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,41,847-855.
Every day,consumers are exposed to scientifically based sales,marketing,and public relations strategies designed to influence purchasing decisions,change opinions,or win votes.One common sales strategy is the foot-in-the-door technique,a method that involves first making a smaller request that consumers are likely to grant and then following it with a larger request.Another common strategy is the door-in-the-face technique,which involves making an unreasonably large request that consumers will reject and then following it with a smaller request.When persuasion is necessary,it usually takes one of two forms: heuristic persuasion,which involves an appeal to habits or emotion,and systematic persuasion,which involves an appeal to facts and reason.Often,people will rely more on heuristics-simple shortcuts or "rules of thumb"-to make decisions instead of systematically weighing the evidence.
Petty and colleagues (1981)investigated some of these techniques in college students listening to arguments in favor of their college requiring an institution-level comprehensive final examination for graduation.Some students were led to believe that,if adopted,this policy would take place right away,and some were led to believe that the change would take place in a decade.In addition,some of the students were led to believe that they were listening to an argument from a Princeton professor,and others were led to believe that they were listening to an argument from a high-school student.Finally,some students heard strong arguments in favor of the policy,and some heard weak arguments.Thus,the experiment arranged six groups of students.For example,one group of students heard strong arguments from a high-school student about a far-removed policy change.Figure 13.1 shows fabricated results illustrating the major findings of this experiment.
Figure 13.1
(Scenario II)In the Petty and colleagues (1981)experiment,the purpose of manipulating the time that the policy would go into effect was to:
A)introduce a time heuristic.
B)alter motivation levels to attend to the arguments.
C)use the foot-in-the door technique by first telling students that the policy change was a decade away.
D)use the door-in-the-face technique by first telling students that the change was imminent.
Question
Question
Question
Unlock Deck
Sign up to unlock the cards in this deck!
Unlock Deck
Unlock Deck
1/16
Play
Full screen (f)
Deck 13: Scenarios
1
Use the following to answer questions
Scenario I
The following scenario describes research findings discussed in the following review article:
Cameron,C.C. ,& Thaler,R.H.(1995).Anomalies: Ultimatums,dictators,and manners.Journal of Economic Perspectives,9(19),209-219.
In the ultimatum game,two participants are assigned to be either the "Divider" or the "Decider" by a coin flip.The Divider is given a sum of money,such as $10,and is instructed to offer some nonzero portion of it to the Decider.If the Decider accepts,she gets to keep what was offered and the Divider keeps the rest.If the Decider rejects the deal,both players get nothing.Both players are made aware of all of these rules and then the game begins.Under these conditions,Dividers usually offer a little less than $5 and Deciders usually accept this amount.If Dividers offer less,Deciders often reject and both players get nothing.A similar game is termed the dictator game.Players are randomly assigned to be either the "Allocator" or the "Receiver." The Allocator is given a sum of money and makes a decision about how much money she would like to give the Receiver,who must accept this result.Allocators in this game usually offer some money to the Receiver but typically less than they offer the Dividers in the ultimatum game.
(Scenario I)Replications of the ultimatum game with larger pots of money found similar results to the original studies.Which real-world anecdote is consistent with results from a large-stakes ultimatum game?
A)As the economic magnitude of a sale increases,the seller is more likely to adopt a door-in-the-face technique and begin with a high sticker price before negotiating to a fair price.
B)A home seller would rather foreclose and lose everything than accept a low-ball offer from a buyer.
C)Credit card companies vary interest rates and credit limits based on the risk associated with the credit applicant.
D)Rather than risk not being signed by another team as a free agent,a veteran football player accepts a below-league-average salary to remain with his team.
Scenario I
The following scenario describes research findings discussed in the following review article:
Cameron,C.C. ,& Thaler,R.H.(1995).Anomalies: Ultimatums,dictators,and manners.Journal of Economic Perspectives,9(19),209-219.
In the ultimatum game,two participants are assigned to be either the "Divider" or the "Decider" by a coin flip.The Divider is given a sum of money,such as $10,and is instructed to offer some nonzero portion of it to the Decider.If the Decider accepts,she gets to keep what was offered and the Divider keeps the rest.If the Decider rejects the deal,both players get nothing.Both players are made aware of all of these rules and then the game begins.Under these conditions,Dividers usually offer a little less than $5 and Deciders usually accept this amount.If Dividers offer less,Deciders often reject and both players get nothing.A similar game is termed the dictator game.Players are randomly assigned to be either the "Allocator" or the "Receiver." The Allocator is given a sum of money and makes a decision about how much money she would like to give the Receiver,who must accept this result.Allocators in this game usually offer some money to the Receiver but typically less than they offer the Dividers in the ultimatum game.
(Scenario I)Replications of the ultimatum game with larger pots of money found similar results to the original studies.Which real-world anecdote is consistent with results from a large-stakes ultimatum game?
A)As the economic magnitude of a sale increases,the seller is more likely to adopt a door-in-the-face technique and begin with a high sticker price before negotiating to a fair price.
B)A home seller would rather foreclose and lose everything than accept a low-ball offer from a buyer.
C)Credit card companies vary interest rates and credit limits based on the risk associated with the credit applicant.
D)Rather than risk not being signed by another team as a free agent,a veteran football player accepts a below-league-average salary to remain with his team.
A home seller would rather foreclose and lose everything than accept a low-ball offer from a buyer.
2
Use the following to answer questions
Scenario I
The following scenario describes research findings discussed in the following review article:
Cameron,C.C. ,& Thaler,R.H.(1995).Anomalies: Ultimatums,dictators,and manners.Journal of Economic Perspectives,9(19),209-219.
In the ultimatum game,two participants are assigned to be either the "Divider" or the "Decider" by a coin flip.The Divider is given a sum of money,such as $10,and is instructed to offer some nonzero portion of it to the Decider.If the Decider accepts,she gets to keep what was offered and the Divider keeps the rest.If the Decider rejects the deal,both players get nothing.Both players are made aware of all of these rules and then the game begins.Under these conditions,Dividers usually offer a little less than $5 and Deciders usually accept this amount.If Dividers offer less,Deciders often reject and both players get nothing.A similar game is termed the dictator game.Players are randomly assigned to be either the "Allocator" or the "Receiver." The Allocator is given a sum of money and makes a decision about how much money she would like to give the Receiver,who must accept this result.Allocators in this game usually offer some money to the Receiver but typically less than they offer the Dividers in the ultimatum game.
(Scenario I)In the ultimatum game,the decision to reject an offer has been interpreted differently.One explanation is that Deciders seek,on principle alone,to exact retribution on Dividers who offer unfair deals.Another explanation is that rejecting unfair offers is part of a strategy to help ensure more fair deals in the future.Which strategy is the BEST way to evaluate these two explanations?
A)Determine if Deciders are more or less likely to reject an unfair deal in which the Dividers change from trial to trial.
B)Determine if Deciders are more or less likely to reject an unfair deal in multiple-trial games when they are always the Decider versus games in which they alternate between being the Divider and the Decider.
C)Determine if Deciders would be equally likely to reject an unfair deal in the traditional game relative to scenario in which they were told that the Divider usually makes fair deals.
D)Determine if Deciders in multiple-trial games are more or less likely to reject an unfair deal if the deal on the previous trial also was rejected.
Scenario I
The following scenario describes research findings discussed in the following review article:
Cameron,C.C. ,& Thaler,R.H.(1995).Anomalies: Ultimatums,dictators,and manners.Journal of Economic Perspectives,9(19),209-219.
In the ultimatum game,two participants are assigned to be either the "Divider" or the "Decider" by a coin flip.The Divider is given a sum of money,such as $10,and is instructed to offer some nonzero portion of it to the Decider.If the Decider accepts,she gets to keep what was offered and the Divider keeps the rest.If the Decider rejects the deal,both players get nothing.Both players are made aware of all of these rules and then the game begins.Under these conditions,Dividers usually offer a little less than $5 and Deciders usually accept this amount.If Dividers offer less,Deciders often reject and both players get nothing.A similar game is termed the dictator game.Players are randomly assigned to be either the "Allocator" or the "Receiver." The Allocator is given a sum of money and makes a decision about how much money she would like to give the Receiver,who must accept this result.Allocators in this game usually offer some money to the Receiver but typically less than they offer the Dividers in the ultimatum game.
(Scenario I)In the ultimatum game,the decision to reject an offer has been interpreted differently.One explanation is that Deciders seek,on principle alone,to exact retribution on Dividers who offer unfair deals.Another explanation is that rejecting unfair offers is part of a strategy to help ensure more fair deals in the future.Which strategy is the BEST way to evaluate these two explanations?
A)Determine if Deciders are more or less likely to reject an unfair deal in which the Dividers change from trial to trial.
B)Determine if Deciders are more or less likely to reject an unfair deal in multiple-trial games when they are always the Decider versus games in which they alternate between being the Divider and the Decider.
C)Determine if Deciders would be equally likely to reject an unfair deal in the traditional game relative to scenario in which they were told that the Divider usually makes fair deals.
D)Determine if Deciders in multiple-trial games are more or less likely to reject an unfair deal if the deal on the previous trial also was rejected.
Determine if Deciders are more or less likely to reject an unfair deal in which the Dividers change from trial to trial.
3
Use the following to answer questions
Scenario II
The following scenario contains fabricated results consistent with the following study:
Petty,R.E. ,Cacioppo,J.T. ,& Goldman,R.(1981).Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,41,847-855.
Every day,consumers are exposed to scientifically based sales,marketing,and public relations strategies designed to influence purchasing decisions,change opinions,or win votes.One common sales strategy is the foot-in-the-door technique,a method that involves first making a smaller request that consumers are likely to grant and then following it with a larger request.Another common strategy is the door-in-the-face technique,which involves making an unreasonably large request that consumers will reject and then following it with a smaller request.When persuasion is necessary,it usually takes one of two forms: heuristic persuasion,which involves an appeal to habits or emotion,and systematic persuasion,which involves an appeal to facts and reason.Often,people will rely more on heuristics-simple shortcuts or "rules of thumb"-to make decisions instead of systematically weighing the evidence.
Petty and colleagues (1981)investigated some of these techniques in college students listening to arguments in favor of their college requiring an institution-level comprehensive final examination for graduation.Some students were led to believe that,if adopted,this policy would take place right away,and some were led to believe that the change would take place in a decade.In addition,some of the students were led to believe that they were listening to an argument from a Princeton professor,and others were led to believe that they were listening to an argument from a high-school student.Finally,some students heard strong arguments in favor of the policy,and some heard weak arguments.Thus,the experiment arranged six groups of students.For example,one group of students heard strong arguments from a high-school student about a far-removed policy change.Figure 13.1 shows fabricated results illustrating the major findings of this experiment.
Figure 13.1
(Scenario II)The foot-in-the-door technique works primarily because consumers:
A)feel pressure to reciprocate a concession to the seller.
B)are strongly influenced by the motivation to be consistent.
C)rely on heuristics introduced by the smaller request.
D)are systematically persuaded with each escalating request.
Scenario II
The following scenario contains fabricated results consistent with the following study:
Petty,R.E. ,Cacioppo,J.T. ,& Goldman,R.(1981).Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,41,847-855.
Every day,consumers are exposed to scientifically based sales,marketing,and public relations strategies designed to influence purchasing decisions,change opinions,or win votes.One common sales strategy is the foot-in-the-door technique,a method that involves first making a smaller request that consumers are likely to grant and then following it with a larger request.Another common strategy is the door-in-the-face technique,which involves making an unreasonably large request that consumers will reject and then following it with a smaller request.When persuasion is necessary,it usually takes one of two forms: heuristic persuasion,which involves an appeal to habits or emotion,and systematic persuasion,which involves an appeal to facts and reason.Often,people will rely more on heuristics-simple shortcuts or "rules of thumb"-to make decisions instead of systematically weighing the evidence.
Petty and colleagues (1981)investigated some of these techniques in college students listening to arguments in favor of their college requiring an institution-level comprehensive final examination for graduation.Some students were led to believe that,if adopted,this policy would take place right away,and some were led to believe that the change would take place in a decade.In addition,some of the students were led to believe that they were listening to an argument from a Princeton professor,and others were led to believe that they were listening to an argument from a high-school student.Finally,some students heard strong arguments in favor of the policy,and some heard weak arguments.Thus,the experiment arranged six groups of students.For example,one group of students heard strong arguments from a high-school student about a far-removed policy change.Figure 13.1 shows fabricated results illustrating the major findings of this experiment.
Figure 13.1
(Scenario II)The foot-in-the-door technique works primarily because consumers:
A)feel pressure to reciprocate a concession to the seller.
B)are strongly influenced by the motivation to be consistent.
C)rely on heuristics introduced by the smaller request.
D)are systematically persuaded with each escalating request.
are strongly influenced by the motivation to be consistent.
4
Use the following to answer questions
Scenario II
The following scenario contains fabricated results consistent with the following study:
Petty,R.E. ,Cacioppo,J.T. ,& Goldman,R.(1981).Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,41,847-855.
Every day,consumers are exposed to scientifically based sales,marketing,and public relations strategies designed to influence purchasing decisions,change opinions,or win votes.One common sales strategy is the foot-in-the-door technique,a method that involves first making a smaller request that consumers are likely to grant and then following it with a larger request.Another common strategy is the door-in-the-face technique,which involves making an unreasonably large request that consumers will reject and then following it with a smaller request.When persuasion is necessary,it usually takes one of two forms: heuristic persuasion,which involves an appeal to habits or emotion,and systematic persuasion,which involves an appeal to facts and reason.Often,people will rely more on heuristics-simple shortcuts or "rules of thumb"-to make decisions instead of systematically weighing the evidence.
Petty and colleagues (1981)investigated some of these techniques in college students listening to arguments in favor of their college requiring an institution-level comprehensive final examination for graduation.Some students were led to believe that,if adopted,this policy would take place right away,and some were led to believe that the change would take place in a decade.In addition,some of the students were led to believe that they were listening to an argument from a Princeton professor,and others were led to believe that they were listening to an argument from a high-school student.Finally,some students heard strong arguments in favor of the policy,and some heard weak arguments.Thus,the experiment arranged six groups of students.For example,one group of students heard strong arguments from a high-school student about a far-removed policy change.Figure 13.1 shows fabricated results illustrating the major findings of this experiment.
Figure 13.1
(Scenario II)The door-in-the-face technique works primarily because consumers:
A)feel pressure to reciprocate a concession to the seller.
B)are strongly influenced by the motivation to be consistent.
C)experience a strong state of cognitive dissonance.
D)are systematically persuaded with each escalating request.
Scenario II
The following scenario contains fabricated results consistent with the following study:
Petty,R.E. ,Cacioppo,J.T. ,& Goldman,R.(1981).Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,41,847-855.
Every day,consumers are exposed to scientifically based sales,marketing,and public relations strategies designed to influence purchasing decisions,change opinions,or win votes.One common sales strategy is the foot-in-the-door technique,a method that involves first making a smaller request that consumers are likely to grant and then following it with a larger request.Another common strategy is the door-in-the-face technique,which involves making an unreasonably large request that consumers will reject and then following it with a smaller request.When persuasion is necessary,it usually takes one of two forms: heuristic persuasion,which involves an appeal to habits or emotion,and systematic persuasion,which involves an appeal to facts and reason.Often,people will rely more on heuristics-simple shortcuts or "rules of thumb"-to make decisions instead of systematically weighing the evidence.
Petty and colleagues (1981)investigated some of these techniques in college students listening to arguments in favor of their college requiring an institution-level comprehensive final examination for graduation.Some students were led to believe that,if adopted,this policy would take place right away,and some were led to believe that the change would take place in a decade.In addition,some of the students were led to believe that they were listening to an argument from a Princeton professor,and others were led to believe that they were listening to an argument from a high-school student.Finally,some students heard strong arguments in favor of the policy,and some heard weak arguments.Thus,the experiment arranged six groups of students.For example,one group of students heard strong arguments from a high-school student about a far-removed policy change.Figure 13.1 shows fabricated results illustrating the major findings of this experiment.
Figure 13.1
(Scenario II)The door-in-the-face technique works primarily because consumers:
A)feel pressure to reciprocate a concession to the seller.
B)are strongly influenced by the motivation to be consistent.
C)experience a strong state of cognitive dissonance.
D)are systematically persuaded with each escalating request.
Unlock Deck
Unlock for access to all 16 flashcards in this deck.
Unlock Deck
k this deck
5
Use the following to answer questions
Scenario II
The following scenario contains fabricated results consistent with the following study:
Petty,R.E. ,Cacioppo,J.T. ,& Goldman,R.(1981).Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,41,847-855.
Every day,consumers are exposed to scientifically based sales,marketing,and public relations strategies designed to influence purchasing decisions,change opinions,or win votes.One common sales strategy is the foot-in-the-door technique,a method that involves first making a smaller request that consumers are likely to grant and then following it with a larger request.Another common strategy is the door-in-the-face technique,which involves making an unreasonably large request that consumers will reject and then following it with a smaller request.When persuasion is necessary,it usually takes one of two forms: heuristic persuasion,which involves an appeal to habits or emotion,and systematic persuasion,which involves an appeal to facts and reason.Often,people will rely more on heuristics-simple shortcuts or "rules of thumb"-to make decisions instead of systematically weighing the evidence.
Petty and colleagues (1981)investigated some of these techniques in college students listening to arguments in favor of their college requiring an institution-level comprehensive final examination for graduation.Some students were led to believe that,if adopted,this policy would take place right away,and some were led to believe that the change would take place in a decade.In addition,some of the students were led to believe that they were listening to an argument from a Princeton professor,and others were led to believe that they were listening to an argument from a high-school student.Finally,some students heard strong arguments in favor of the policy,and some heard weak arguments.Thus,the experiment arranged six groups of students.For example,one group of students heard strong arguments from a high-school student about a far-removed policy change.Figure 13.1 shows fabricated results illustrating the major findings of this experiment.
Figure 13.1
(Scenario II)The results shown in Figure 13.1 suggest that college students were systematically persuaded when the:
A)argument was strong.
B)policy change was far in the future.
C)Princeton professor presented a strong argument about a delayed policy change.
D)high-school student presented a strong argument about an imminent policy change.
Scenario II
The following scenario contains fabricated results consistent with the following study:
Petty,R.E. ,Cacioppo,J.T. ,& Goldman,R.(1981).Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,41,847-855.
Every day,consumers are exposed to scientifically based sales,marketing,and public relations strategies designed to influence purchasing decisions,change opinions,or win votes.One common sales strategy is the foot-in-the-door technique,a method that involves first making a smaller request that consumers are likely to grant and then following it with a larger request.Another common strategy is the door-in-the-face technique,which involves making an unreasonably large request that consumers will reject and then following it with a smaller request.When persuasion is necessary,it usually takes one of two forms: heuristic persuasion,which involves an appeal to habits or emotion,and systematic persuasion,which involves an appeal to facts and reason.Often,people will rely more on heuristics-simple shortcuts or "rules of thumb"-to make decisions instead of systematically weighing the evidence.
Petty and colleagues (1981)investigated some of these techniques in college students listening to arguments in favor of their college requiring an institution-level comprehensive final examination for graduation.Some students were led to believe that,if adopted,this policy would take place right away,and some were led to believe that the change would take place in a decade.In addition,some of the students were led to believe that they were listening to an argument from a Princeton professor,and others were led to believe that they were listening to an argument from a high-school student.Finally,some students heard strong arguments in favor of the policy,and some heard weak arguments.Thus,the experiment arranged six groups of students.For example,one group of students heard strong arguments from a high-school student about a far-removed policy change.Figure 13.1 shows fabricated results illustrating the major findings of this experiment.
Figure 13.1
(Scenario II)The results shown in Figure 13.1 suggest that college students were systematically persuaded when the:
A)argument was strong.
B)policy change was far in the future.
C)Princeton professor presented a strong argument about a delayed policy change.
D)high-school student presented a strong argument about an imminent policy change.
Unlock Deck
Unlock for access to all 16 flashcards in this deck.
Unlock Deck
k this deck
6
Use the following to answer questions
Scenario II
The following scenario contains fabricated results consistent with the following study:
Petty,R.E. ,Cacioppo,J.T. ,& Goldman,R.(1981).Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,41,847-855.
Every day,consumers are exposed to scientifically based sales,marketing,and public relations strategies designed to influence purchasing decisions,change opinions,or win votes.One common sales strategy is the foot-in-the-door technique,a method that involves first making a smaller request that consumers are likely to grant and then following it with a larger request.Another common strategy is the door-in-the-face technique,which involves making an unreasonably large request that consumers will reject and then following it with a smaller request.When persuasion is necessary,it usually takes one of two forms: heuristic persuasion,which involves an appeal to habits or emotion,and systematic persuasion,which involves an appeal to facts and reason.Often,people will rely more on heuristics-simple shortcuts or "rules of thumb"-to make decisions instead of systematically weighing the evidence.
Petty and colleagues (1981)investigated some of these techniques in college students listening to arguments in favor of their college requiring an institution-level comprehensive final examination for graduation.Some students were led to believe that,if adopted,this policy would take place right away,and some were led to believe that the change would take place in a decade.In addition,some of the students were led to believe that they were listening to an argument from a Princeton professor,and others were led to believe that they were listening to an argument from a high-school student.Finally,some students heard strong arguments in favor of the policy,and some heard weak arguments.Thus,the experiment arranged six groups of students.For example,one group of students heard strong arguments from a high-school student about a far-removed policy change.Figure 13.1 shows fabricated results illustrating the major findings of this experiment.
Figure 13.1
(Scenario II)The results shown in Figure 13.1 suggest that college students were heuristically persuaded when the:
A)argument was strong.
B)policy change was far in the future.
C)Princeton professor presented a weak argument about an imminent policy change.
D)high-school student presented a strong argument about an imminent policy change.
Scenario II
The following scenario contains fabricated results consistent with the following study:
Petty,R.E. ,Cacioppo,J.T. ,& Goldman,R.(1981).Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,41,847-855.
Every day,consumers are exposed to scientifically based sales,marketing,and public relations strategies designed to influence purchasing decisions,change opinions,or win votes.One common sales strategy is the foot-in-the-door technique,a method that involves first making a smaller request that consumers are likely to grant and then following it with a larger request.Another common strategy is the door-in-the-face technique,which involves making an unreasonably large request that consumers will reject and then following it with a smaller request.When persuasion is necessary,it usually takes one of two forms: heuristic persuasion,which involves an appeal to habits or emotion,and systematic persuasion,which involves an appeal to facts and reason.Often,people will rely more on heuristics-simple shortcuts or "rules of thumb"-to make decisions instead of systematically weighing the evidence.
Petty and colleagues (1981)investigated some of these techniques in college students listening to arguments in favor of their college requiring an institution-level comprehensive final examination for graduation.Some students were led to believe that,if adopted,this policy would take place right away,and some were led to believe that the change would take place in a decade.In addition,some of the students were led to believe that they were listening to an argument from a Princeton professor,and others were led to believe that they were listening to an argument from a high-school student.Finally,some students heard strong arguments in favor of the policy,and some heard weak arguments.Thus,the experiment arranged six groups of students.For example,one group of students heard strong arguments from a high-school student about a far-removed policy change.Figure 13.1 shows fabricated results illustrating the major findings of this experiment.
Figure 13.1
(Scenario II)The results shown in Figure 13.1 suggest that college students were heuristically persuaded when the:
A)argument was strong.
B)policy change was far in the future.
C)Princeton professor presented a weak argument about an imminent policy change.
D)high-school student presented a strong argument about an imminent policy change.
Unlock Deck
Unlock for access to all 16 flashcards in this deck.
Unlock Deck
k this deck
7
Use the following to answer questions
Scenario I
The following scenario describes research findings discussed in the following review article:
Cameron,C.C. ,& Thaler,R.H.(1995).Anomalies: Ultimatums,dictators,and manners.Journal of Economic Perspectives,9(19),209-219.
In the ultimatum game,two participants are assigned to be either the "Divider" or the "Decider" by a coin flip.The Divider is given a sum of money,such as $10,and is instructed to offer some nonzero portion of it to the Decider.If the Decider accepts,she gets to keep what was offered and the Divider keeps the rest.If the Decider rejects the deal,both players get nothing.Both players are made aware of all of these rules and then the game begins.Under these conditions,Dividers usually offer a little less than $5 and Deciders usually accept this amount.If Dividers offer less,Deciders often reject and both players get nothing.A similar game is termed the dictator game.Players are randomly assigned to be either the "Allocator" or the "Receiver." The Allocator is given a sum of money and makes a decision about how much money she would like to give the Receiver,who must accept this result.Allocators in this game usually offer some money to the Receiver but typically less than they offer the Dividers in the ultimatum game.
(Scenario I)In a single $10 ultimatum game,if both players behaved independently without cooperating or retaliating and sought to maximize their individual earnings:
A)Dividers would offer exactly $5 and Deciders would accept.
B)Dividers would offer a little less than $5 and Deciders would accept.
C)Dividers would offer a penny and Deciders would accept.
D)Dividers would offer a penny and Deciders would reject.
Scenario I
The following scenario describes research findings discussed in the following review article:
Cameron,C.C. ,& Thaler,R.H.(1995).Anomalies: Ultimatums,dictators,and manners.Journal of Economic Perspectives,9(19),209-219.
In the ultimatum game,two participants are assigned to be either the "Divider" or the "Decider" by a coin flip.The Divider is given a sum of money,such as $10,and is instructed to offer some nonzero portion of it to the Decider.If the Decider accepts,she gets to keep what was offered and the Divider keeps the rest.If the Decider rejects the deal,both players get nothing.Both players are made aware of all of these rules and then the game begins.Under these conditions,Dividers usually offer a little less than $5 and Deciders usually accept this amount.If Dividers offer less,Deciders often reject and both players get nothing.A similar game is termed the dictator game.Players are randomly assigned to be either the "Allocator" or the "Receiver." The Allocator is given a sum of money and makes a decision about how much money she would like to give the Receiver,who must accept this result.Allocators in this game usually offer some money to the Receiver but typically less than they offer the Dividers in the ultimatum game.
(Scenario I)In a single $10 ultimatum game,if both players behaved independently without cooperating or retaliating and sought to maximize their individual earnings:
A)Dividers would offer exactly $5 and Deciders would accept.
B)Dividers would offer a little less than $5 and Deciders would accept.
C)Dividers would offer a penny and Deciders would accept.
D)Dividers would offer a penny and Deciders would reject.
Unlock Deck
Unlock for access to all 16 flashcards in this deck.
Unlock Deck
k this deck
8
Use the following to answer questions
Scenario I
The following scenario describes research findings discussed in the following review article:
Cameron,C.C. ,& Thaler,R.H.(1995).Anomalies: Ultimatums,dictators,and manners.Journal of Economic Perspectives,9(19),209-219.
In the ultimatum game,two participants are assigned to be either the "Divider" or the "Decider" by a coin flip.The Divider is given a sum of money,such as $10,and is instructed to offer some nonzero portion of it to the Decider.If the Decider accepts,she gets to keep what was offered and the Divider keeps the rest.If the Decider rejects the deal,both players get nothing.Both players are made aware of all of these rules and then the game begins.Under these conditions,Dividers usually offer a little less than $5 and Deciders usually accept this amount.If Dividers offer less,Deciders often reject and both players get nothing.A similar game is termed the dictator game.Players are randomly assigned to be either the "Allocator" or the "Receiver." The Allocator is given a sum of money and makes a decision about how much money she would like to give the Receiver,who must accept this result.Allocators in this game usually offer some money to the Receiver but typically less than they offer the Dividers in the ultimatum game.
(Scenario I)In the ultimatum game,the behavior of the _____ is of the most theoretical interest to psychologists and economists because _____.
A)Divider;she demonstrates a form of altruism that may or may not be reciprocated
B)Divider;she attempts to offer the lowest amount deemed acceptable by her partner
C)Decider;accepting any offer less than $5 is the equivalent of paying money to cooperate
D)Decider;rejecting any offer whatsoever is the equivalent of paying money to punish the Decider
Scenario I
The following scenario describes research findings discussed in the following review article:
Cameron,C.C. ,& Thaler,R.H.(1995).Anomalies: Ultimatums,dictators,and manners.Journal of Economic Perspectives,9(19),209-219.
In the ultimatum game,two participants are assigned to be either the "Divider" or the "Decider" by a coin flip.The Divider is given a sum of money,such as $10,and is instructed to offer some nonzero portion of it to the Decider.If the Decider accepts,she gets to keep what was offered and the Divider keeps the rest.If the Decider rejects the deal,both players get nothing.Both players are made aware of all of these rules and then the game begins.Under these conditions,Dividers usually offer a little less than $5 and Deciders usually accept this amount.If Dividers offer less,Deciders often reject and both players get nothing.A similar game is termed the dictator game.Players are randomly assigned to be either the "Allocator" or the "Receiver." The Allocator is given a sum of money and makes a decision about how much money she would like to give the Receiver,who must accept this result.Allocators in this game usually offer some money to the Receiver but typically less than they offer the Dividers in the ultimatum game.
(Scenario I)In the ultimatum game,the behavior of the _____ is of the most theoretical interest to psychologists and economists because _____.
A)Divider;she demonstrates a form of altruism that may or may not be reciprocated
B)Divider;she attempts to offer the lowest amount deemed acceptable by her partner
C)Decider;accepting any offer less than $5 is the equivalent of paying money to cooperate
D)Decider;rejecting any offer whatsoever is the equivalent of paying money to punish the Decider
Unlock Deck
Unlock for access to all 16 flashcards in this deck.
Unlock Deck
k this deck
9
Use the following to answer questions
Scenario II
The following scenario contains fabricated results consistent with the following study:
Petty,R.E. ,Cacioppo,J.T. ,& Goldman,R.(1981).Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,41,847-855.
Every day,consumers are exposed to scientifically based sales,marketing,and public relations strategies designed to influence purchasing decisions,change opinions,or win votes.One common sales strategy is the foot-in-the-door technique,a method that involves first making a smaller request that consumers are likely to grant and then following it with a larger request.Another common strategy is the door-in-the-face technique,which involves making an unreasonably large request that consumers will reject and then following it with a smaller request.When persuasion is necessary,it usually takes one of two forms: heuristic persuasion,which involves an appeal to habits or emotion,and systematic persuasion,which involves an appeal to facts and reason.Often,people will rely more on heuristics-simple shortcuts or "rules of thumb"-to make decisions instead of systematically weighing the evidence.
Petty and colleagues (1981)investigated some of these techniques in college students listening to arguments in favor of their college requiring an institution-level comprehensive final examination for graduation.Some students were led to believe that,if adopted,this policy would take place right away,and some were led to believe that the change would take place in a decade.In addition,some of the students were led to believe that they were listening to an argument from a Princeton professor,and others were led to believe that they were listening to an argument from a high-school student.Finally,some students heard strong arguments in favor of the policy,and some heard weak arguments.Thus,the experiment arranged six groups of students.For example,one group of students heard strong arguments from a high-school student about a far-removed policy change.Figure 13.1 shows fabricated results illustrating the major findings of this experiment.
Figure 13.1
(Scenario II)Which example describes systematic persuasion?
A)a political party first asking for an e-mail address,then a $5 donation,then a $25 donation,and finally a $100 donation
B)a car manufacturer marketing its car with commercials suggesting driving it will increase sexual appeal
C)a college student trying to convince his professor to excuse an absence by reminding her of her own teenage years
D)a teenager trying to convince his parents that marijuana is not dangerous by showing them a number of scientific studies that support his argument while conveniently not presenting the ones that show the drug is far from harmless
Scenario II
The following scenario contains fabricated results consistent with the following study:
Petty,R.E. ,Cacioppo,J.T. ,& Goldman,R.(1981).Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,41,847-855.
Every day,consumers are exposed to scientifically based sales,marketing,and public relations strategies designed to influence purchasing decisions,change opinions,or win votes.One common sales strategy is the foot-in-the-door technique,a method that involves first making a smaller request that consumers are likely to grant and then following it with a larger request.Another common strategy is the door-in-the-face technique,which involves making an unreasonably large request that consumers will reject and then following it with a smaller request.When persuasion is necessary,it usually takes one of two forms: heuristic persuasion,which involves an appeal to habits or emotion,and systematic persuasion,which involves an appeal to facts and reason.Often,people will rely more on heuristics-simple shortcuts or "rules of thumb"-to make decisions instead of systematically weighing the evidence.
Petty and colleagues (1981)investigated some of these techniques in college students listening to arguments in favor of their college requiring an institution-level comprehensive final examination for graduation.Some students were led to believe that,if adopted,this policy would take place right away,and some were led to believe that the change would take place in a decade.In addition,some of the students were led to believe that they were listening to an argument from a Princeton professor,and others were led to believe that they were listening to an argument from a high-school student.Finally,some students heard strong arguments in favor of the policy,and some heard weak arguments.Thus,the experiment arranged six groups of students.For example,one group of students heard strong arguments from a high-school student about a far-removed policy change.Figure 13.1 shows fabricated results illustrating the major findings of this experiment.
Figure 13.1
(Scenario II)Which example describes systematic persuasion?
A)a political party first asking for an e-mail address,then a $5 donation,then a $25 donation,and finally a $100 donation
B)a car manufacturer marketing its car with commercials suggesting driving it will increase sexual appeal
C)a college student trying to convince his professor to excuse an absence by reminding her of her own teenage years
D)a teenager trying to convince his parents that marijuana is not dangerous by showing them a number of scientific studies that support his argument while conveniently not presenting the ones that show the drug is far from harmless
Unlock Deck
Unlock for access to all 16 flashcards in this deck.
Unlock Deck
k this deck
10
Use the following to answer questions
Scenario I
The following scenario describes research findings discussed in the following review article:
Cameron,C.C. ,& Thaler,R.H.(1995).Anomalies: Ultimatums,dictators,and manners.Journal of Economic Perspectives,9(19),209-219.
In the ultimatum game,two participants are assigned to be either the "Divider" or the "Decider" by a coin flip.The Divider is given a sum of money,such as $10,and is instructed to offer some nonzero portion of it to the Decider.If the Decider accepts,she gets to keep what was offered and the Divider keeps the rest.If the Decider rejects the deal,both players get nothing.Both players are made aware of all of these rules and then the game begins.Under these conditions,Dividers usually offer a little less than $5 and Deciders usually accept this amount.If Dividers offer less,Deciders often reject and both players get nothing.A similar game is termed the dictator game.Players are randomly assigned to be either the "Allocator" or the "Receiver." The Allocator is given a sum of money and makes a decision about how much money she would like to give the Receiver,who must accept this result.Allocators in this game usually offer some money to the Receiver but typically less than they offer the Dividers in the ultimatum game.
(Scenario I)Which research finding suggests that participants are more concerned with appearing fair than they are with being fair?
A)Dividers offer about 50% of the pot to the Decider,even when the pot size is substantially increased.
B)Dividers usually increase their next offer if the previous offer was rejected.
C)Dividers offer more money than do Allocators.
D)Allocators offer money to Receivers when it is not required.
Scenario I
The following scenario describes research findings discussed in the following review article:
Cameron,C.C. ,& Thaler,R.H.(1995).Anomalies: Ultimatums,dictators,and manners.Journal of Economic Perspectives,9(19),209-219.
In the ultimatum game,two participants are assigned to be either the "Divider" or the "Decider" by a coin flip.The Divider is given a sum of money,such as $10,and is instructed to offer some nonzero portion of it to the Decider.If the Decider accepts,she gets to keep what was offered and the Divider keeps the rest.If the Decider rejects the deal,both players get nothing.Both players are made aware of all of these rules and then the game begins.Under these conditions,Dividers usually offer a little less than $5 and Deciders usually accept this amount.If Dividers offer less,Deciders often reject and both players get nothing.A similar game is termed the dictator game.Players are randomly assigned to be either the "Allocator" or the "Receiver." The Allocator is given a sum of money and makes a decision about how much money she would like to give the Receiver,who must accept this result.Allocators in this game usually offer some money to the Receiver but typically less than they offer the Dividers in the ultimatum game.
(Scenario I)Which research finding suggests that participants are more concerned with appearing fair than they are with being fair?
A)Dividers offer about 50% of the pot to the Decider,even when the pot size is substantially increased.
B)Dividers usually increase their next offer if the previous offer was rejected.
C)Dividers offer more money than do Allocators.
D)Allocators offer money to Receivers when it is not required.
Unlock Deck
Unlock for access to all 16 flashcards in this deck.
Unlock Deck
k this deck
11
Use the following to answer questions
Scenario II
The following scenario contains fabricated results consistent with the following study:
Petty,R.E. ,Cacioppo,J.T. ,& Goldman,R.(1981).Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,41,847-855.
Every day,consumers are exposed to scientifically based sales,marketing,and public relations strategies designed to influence purchasing decisions,change opinions,or win votes.One common sales strategy is the foot-in-the-door technique,a method that involves first making a smaller request that consumers are likely to grant and then following it with a larger request.Another common strategy is the door-in-the-face technique,which involves making an unreasonably large request that consumers will reject and then following it with a smaller request.When persuasion is necessary,it usually takes one of two forms: heuristic persuasion,which involves an appeal to habits or emotion,and systematic persuasion,which involves an appeal to facts and reason.Often,people will rely more on heuristics-simple shortcuts or "rules of thumb"-to make decisions instead of systematically weighing the evidence.
Petty and colleagues (1981)investigated some of these techniques in college students listening to arguments in favor of their college requiring an institution-level comprehensive final examination for graduation.Some students were led to believe that,if adopted,this policy would take place right away,and some were led to believe that the change would take place in a decade.In addition,some of the students were led to believe that they were listening to an argument from a Princeton professor,and others were led to believe that they were listening to an argument from a high-school student.Finally,some students heard strong arguments in favor of the policy,and some heard weak arguments.Thus,the experiment arranged six groups of students.For example,one group of students heard strong arguments from a high-school student about a far-removed policy change.Figure 13.1 shows fabricated results illustrating the major findings of this experiment.
Figure 13.1
(Scenario II)In the Petty and colleagues (1981)experiment,which example BEST describes a heuristic?
A)speaker authority
B)argument quality
C)the time frame associated with the policy change
D)participants' understanding of the arguments
Scenario II
The following scenario contains fabricated results consistent with the following study:
Petty,R.E. ,Cacioppo,J.T. ,& Goldman,R.(1981).Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,41,847-855.
Every day,consumers are exposed to scientifically based sales,marketing,and public relations strategies designed to influence purchasing decisions,change opinions,or win votes.One common sales strategy is the foot-in-the-door technique,a method that involves first making a smaller request that consumers are likely to grant and then following it with a larger request.Another common strategy is the door-in-the-face technique,which involves making an unreasonably large request that consumers will reject and then following it with a smaller request.When persuasion is necessary,it usually takes one of two forms: heuristic persuasion,which involves an appeal to habits or emotion,and systematic persuasion,which involves an appeal to facts and reason.Often,people will rely more on heuristics-simple shortcuts or "rules of thumb"-to make decisions instead of systematically weighing the evidence.
Petty and colleagues (1981)investigated some of these techniques in college students listening to arguments in favor of their college requiring an institution-level comprehensive final examination for graduation.Some students were led to believe that,if adopted,this policy would take place right away,and some were led to believe that the change would take place in a decade.In addition,some of the students were led to believe that they were listening to an argument from a Princeton professor,and others were led to believe that they were listening to an argument from a high-school student.Finally,some students heard strong arguments in favor of the policy,and some heard weak arguments.Thus,the experiment arranged six groups of students.For example,one group of students heard strong arguments from a high-school student about a far-removed policy change.Figure 13.1 shows fabricated results illustrating the major findings of this experiment.
Figure 13.1
(Scenario II)In the Petty and colleagues (1981)experiment,which example BEST describes a heuristic?
A)speaker authority
B)argument quality
C)the time frame associated with the policy change
D)participants' understanding of the arguments
Unlock Deck
Unlock for access to all 16 flashcards in this deck.
Unlock Deck
k this deck
12
Use the following to answer questions
Scenario II
The following scenario contains fabricated results consistent with the following study:
Petty,R.E. ,Cacioppo,J.T. ,& Goldman,R.(1981).Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,41,847-855.
Every day,consumers are exposed to scientifically based sales,marketing,and public relations strategies designed to influence purchasing decisions,change opinions,or win votes.One common sales strategy is the foot-in-the-door technique,a method that involves first making a smaller request that consumers are likely to grant and then following it with a larger request.Another common strategy is the door-in-the-face technique,which involves making an unreasonably large request that consumers will reject and then following it with a smaller request.When persuasion is necessary,it usually takes one of two forms: heuristic persuasion,which involves an appeal to habits or emotion,and systematic persuasion,which involves an appeal to facts and reason.Often,people will rely more on heuristics-simple shortcuts or "rules of thumb"-to make decisions instead of systematically weighing the evidence.
Petty and colleagues (1981)investigated some of these techniques in college students listening to arguments in favor of their college requiring an institution-level comprehensive final examination for graduation.Some students were led to believe that,if adopted,this policy would take place right away,and some were led to believe that the change would take place in a decade.In addition,some of the students were led to believe that they were listening to an argument from a Princeton professor,and others were led to believe that they were listening to an argument from a high-school student.Finally,some students heard strong arguments in favor of the policy,and some heard weak arguments.Thus,the experiment arranged six groups of students.For example,one group of students heard strong arguments from a high-school student about a far-removed policy change.Figure 13.1 shows fabricated results illustrating the major findings of this experiment.
Figure 13.1
(Scenario II)Which factor is NOT an independent variable in the Petty and colleagues (1981)experiment?
A)degree of agreement or disagreement with the arguments
B)authority of the speaker
C)argument quality
D)time of policy change
Scenario II
The following scenario contains fabricated results consistent with the following study:
Petty,R.E. ,Cacioppo,J.T. ,& Goldman,R.(1981).Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,41,847-855.
Every day,consumers are exposed to scientifically based sales,marketing,and public relations strategies designed to influence purchasing decisions,change opinions,or win votes.One common sales strategy is the foot-in-the-door technique,a method that involves first making a smaller request that consumers are likely to grant and then following it with a larger request.Another common strategy is the door-in-the-face technique,which involves making an unreasonably large request that consumers will reject and then following it with a smaller request.When persuasion is necessary,it usually takes one of two forms: heuristic persuasion,which involves an appeal to habits or emotion,and systematic persuasion,which involves an appeal to facts and reason.Often,people will rely more on heuristics-simple shortcuts or "rules of thumb"-to make decisions instead of systematically weighing the evidence.
Petty and colleagues (1981)investigated some of these techniques in college students listening to arguments in favor of their college requiring an institution-level comprehensive final examination for graduation.Some students were led to believe that,if adopted,this policy would take place right away,and some were led to believe that the change would take place in a decade.In addition,some of the students were led to believe that they were listening to an argument from a Princeton professor,and others were led to believe that they were listening to an argument from a high-school student.Finally,some students heard strong arguments in favor of the policy,and some heard weak arguments.Thus,the experiment arranged six groups of students.For example,one group of students heard strong arguments from a high-school student about a far-removed policy change.Figure 13.1 shows fabricated results illustrating the major findings of this experiment.
Figure 13.1
(Scenario II)Which factor is NOT an independent variable in the Petty and colleagues (1981)experiment?
A)degree of agreement or disagreement with the arguments
B)authority of the speaker
C)argument quality
D)time of policy change
Unlock Deck
Unlock for access to all 16 flashcards in this deck.
Unlock Deck
k this deck
13
Use the following to answer questions
Scenario II
The following scenario contains fabricated results consistent with the following study:
Petty,R.E. ,Cacioppo,J.T. ,& Goldman,R.(1981).Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,41,847-855.
Every day,consumers are exposed to scientifically based sales,marketing,and public relations strategies designed to influence purchasing decisions,change opinions,or win votes.One common sales strategy is the foot-in-the-door technique,a method that involves first making a smaller request that consumers are likely to grant and then following it with a larger request.Another common strategy is the door-in-the-face technique,which involves making an unreasonably large request that consumers will reject and then following it with a smaller request.When persuasion is necessary,it usually takes one of two forms: heuristic persuasion,which involves an appeal to habits or emotion,and systematic persuasion,which involves an appeal to facts and reason.Often,people will rely more on heuristics-simple shortcuts or "rules of thumb"-to make decisions instead of systematically weighing the evidence.
Petty and colleagues (1981)investigated some of these techniques in college students listening to arguments in favor of their college requiring an institution-level comprehensive final examination for graduation.Some students were led to believe that,if adopted,this policy would take place right away,and some were led to believe that the change would take place in a decade.In addition,some of the students were led to believe that they were listening to an argument from a Princeton professor,and others were led to believe that they were listening to an argument from a high-school student.Finally,some students heard strong arguments in favor of the policy,and some heard weak arguments.Thus,the experiment arranged six groups of students.For example,one group of students heard strong arguments from a high-school student about a far-removed policy change.Figure 13.1 shows fabricated results illustrating the major findings of this experiment.
Figure 13.1
(Scenario II)In the Petty and colleagues (1981)experiment,the purpose of manipulating the time that the policy would go into effect was to:
A)introduce a time heuristic.
B)alter motivation levels to attend to the arguments.
C)use the foot-in-the door technique by first telling students that the policy change was a decade away.
D)use the door-in-the-face technique by first telling students that the change was imminent.
Scenario II
The following scenario contains fabricated results consistent with the following study:
Petty,R.E. ,Cacioppo,J.T. ,& Goldman,R.(1981).Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,41,847-855.
Every day,consumers are exposed to scientifically based sales,marketing,and public relations strategies designed to influence purchasing decisions,change opinions,or win votes.One common sales strategy is the foot-in-the-door technique,a method that involves first making a smaller request that consumers are likely to grant and then following it with a larger request.Another common strategy is the door-in-the-face technique,which involves making an unreasonably large request that consumers will reject and then following it with a smaller request.When persuasion is necessary,it usually takes one of two forms: heuristic persuasion,which involves an appeal to habits or emotion,and systematic persuasion,which involves an appeal to facts and reason.Often,people will rely more on heuristics-simple shortcuts or "rules of thumb"-to make decisions instead of systematically weighing the evidence.
Petty and colleagues (1981)investigated some of these techniques in college students listening to arguments in favor of their college requiring an institution-level comprehensive final examination for graduation.Some students were led to believe that,if adopted,this policy would take place right away,and some were led to believe that the change would take place in a decade.In addition,some of the students were led to believe that they were listening to an argument from a Princeton professor,and others were led to believe that they were listening to an argument from a high-school student.Finally,some students heard strong arguments in favor of the policy,and some heard weak arguments.Thus,the experiment arranged six groups of students.For example,one group of students heard strong arguments from a high-school student about a far-removed policy change.Figure 13.1 shows fabricated results illustrating the major findings of this experiment.
Figure 13.1
(Scenario II)In the Petty and colleagues (1981)experiment,the purpose of manipulating the time that the policy would go into effect was to:
A)introduce a time heuristic.
B)alter motivation levels to attend to the arguments.
C)use the foot-in-the door technique by first telling students that the policy change was a decade away.
D)use the door-in-the-face technique by first telling students that the change was imminent.
Unlock Deck
Unlock for access to all 16 flashcards in this deck.
Unlock Deck
k this deck
14
Use the following to answer questions
Scenario I
The following scenario describes research findings discussed in the following review article:
Cameron,C.C. ,& Thaler,R.H.(1995).Anomalies: Ultimatums,dictators,and manners.Journal of Economic Perspectives,9(19),209-219.
In the ultimatum game,two participants are assigned to be either the "Divider" or the "Decider" by a coin flip.The Divider is given a sum of money,such as $10,and is instructed to offer some nonzero portion of it to the Decider.If the Decider accepts,she gets to keep what was offered and the Divider keeps the rest.If the Decider rejects the deal,both players get nothing.Both players are made aware of all of these rules and then the game begins.Under these conditions,Dividers usually offer a little less than $5 and Deciders usually accept this amount.If Dividers offer less,Deciders often reject and both players get nothing.A similar game is termed the dictator game.Players are randomly assigned to be either the "Allocator" or the "Receiver." The Allocator is given a sum of money and makes a decision about how much money she would like to give the Receiver,who must accept this result.Allocators in this game usually offer some money to the Receiver but typically less than they offer the Dividers in the ultimatum game.
(Scenario I)Which factor is studied in the ultimatum game but not in the dictator game?
A)cooperation
B)altruism
C)heuristic persuasion
D)prejudice
Scenario I
The following scenario describes research findings discussed in the following review article:
Cameron,C.C. ,& Thaler,R.H.(1995).Anomalies: Ultimatums,dictators,and manners.Journal of Economic Perspectives,9(19),209-219.
In the ultimatum game,two participants are assigned to be either the "Divider" or the "Decider" by a coin flip.The Divider is given a sum of money,such as $10,and is instructed to offer some nonzero portion of it to the Decider.If the Decider accepts,she gets to keep what was offered and the Divider keeps the rest.If the Decider rejects the deal,both players get nothing.Both players are made aware of all of these rules and then the game begins.Under these conditions,Dividers usually offer a little less than $5 and Deciders usually accept this amount.If Dividers offer less,Deciders often reject and both players get nothing.A similar game is termed the dictator game.Players are randomly assigned to be either the "Allocator" or the "Receiver." The Allocator is given a sum of money and makes a decision about how much money she would like to give the Receiver,who must accept this result.Allocators in this game usually offer some money to the Receiver but typically less than they offer the Dividers in the ultimatum game.
(Scenario I)Which factor is studied in the ultimatum game but not in the dictator game?
A)cooperation
B)altruism
C)heuristic persuasion
D)prejudice
Unlock Deck
Unlock for access to all 16 flashcards in this deck.
Unlock Deck
k this deck
15
Use the following to answer questions
Scenario I
The following scenario describes research findings discussed in the following review article:
Cameron,C.C. ,& Thaler,R.H.(1995).Anomalies: Ultimatums,dictators,and manners.Journal of Economic Perspectives,9(19),209-219.
In the ultimatum game,two participants are assigned to be either the "Divider" or the "Decider" by a coin flip.The Divider is given a sum of money,such as $10,and is instructed to offer some nonzero portion of it to the Decider.If the Decider accepts,she gets to keep what was offered and the Divider keeps the rest.If the Decider rejects the deal,both players get nothing.Both players are made aware of all of these rules and then the game begins.Under these conditions,Dividers usually offer a little less than $5 and Deciders usually accept this amount.If Dividers offer less,Deciders often reject and both players get nothing.A similar game is termed the dictator game.Players are randomly assigned to be either the "Allocator" or the "Receiver." The Allocator is given a sum of money and makes a decision about how much money she would like to give the Receiver,who must accept this result.Allocators in this game usually offer some money to the Receiver but typically less than they offer the Dividers in the ultimatum game.
(Scenario I)Skeptics of the results of the original ultimatum game criticized the research for drawing conclusions based on games involving small amounts of money not representative of important real-life economic decisions.This was a criticism associated with the _____ of the research.
A)reliability
B)internal validity
C)external validity
D)statistical significance
Scenario I
The following scenario describes research findings discussed in the following review article:
Cameron,C.C. ,& Thaler,R.H.(1995).Anomalies: Ultimatums,dictators,and manners.Journal of Economic Perspectives,9(19),209-219.
In the ultimatum game,two participants are assigned to be either the "Divider" or the "Decider" by a coin flip.The Divider is given a sum of money,such as $10,and is instructed to offer some nonzero portion of it to the Decider.If the Decider accepts,she gets to keep what was offered and the Divider keeps the rest.If the Decider rejects the deal,both players get nothing.Both players are made aware of all of these rules and then the game begins.Under these conditions,Dividers usually offer a little less than $5 and Deciders usually accept this amount.If Dividers offer less,Deciders often reject and both players get nothing.A similar game is termed the dictator game.Players are randomly assigned to be either the "Allocator" or the "Receiver." The Allocator is given a sum of money and makes a decision about how much money she would like to give the Receiver,who must accept this result.Allocators in this game usually offer some money to the Receiver but typically less than they offer the Dividers in the ultimatum game.
(Scenario I)Skeptics of the results of the original ultimatum game criticized the research for drawing conclusions based on games involving small amounts of money not representative of important real-life economic decisions.This was a criticism associated with the _____ of the research.
A)reliability
B)internal validity
C)external validity
D)statistical significance
Unlock Deck
Unlock for access to all 16 flashcards in this deck.
Unlock Deck
k this deck
16
Use the following to answer questions
Scenario I
The following scenario describes research findings discussed in the following review article:
Cameron,C.C. ,& Thaler,R.H.(1995).Anomalies: Ultimatums,dictators,and manners.Journal of Economic Perspectives,9(19),209-219.
In the ultimatum game,two participants are assigned to be either the "Divider" or the "Decider" by a coin flip.The Divider is given a sum of money,such as $10,and is instructed to offer some nonzero portion of it to the Decider.If the Decider accepts,she gets to keep what was offered and the Divider keeps the rest.If the Decider rejects the deal,both players get nothing.Both players are made aware of all of these rules and then the game begins.Under these conditions,Dividers usually offer a little less than $5 and Deciders usually accept this amount.If Dividers offer less,Deciders often reject and both players get nothing.A similar game is termed the dictator game.Players are randomly assigned to be either the "Allocator" or the "Receiver." The Allocator is given a sum of money and makes a decision about how much money she would like to give the Receiver,who must accept this result.Allocators in this game usually offer some money to the Receiver but typically less than they offer the Dividers in the ultimatum game.
(Scenario I)Consider the real-world observation that lottery winners tend to give away more of their money to friends and family than self-made millionaires give to theirs.Using the dictator game,which strategy is the BEST way to model this phenomenon in the laboratory?
A)Study differences in Allocator behavior when the sum of money ranges from small to large.
B)Compare typical performance with a modification in which the winner of a game of skill gets to be the Allocator.
C)Study Allocator behavior under conditions where the Receiver is either a friend or a stranger.
D)Compare allocations to Receivers who are either friends or strangers in a game in which the Allocator's own money is used.
Scenario I
The following scenario describes research findings discussed in the following review article:
Cameron,C.C. ,& Thaler,R.H.(1995).Anomalies: Ultimatums,dictators,and manners.Journal of Economic Perspectives,9(19),209-219.
In the ultimatum game,two participants are assigned to be either the "Divider" or the "Decider" by a coin flip.The Divider is given a sum of money,such as $10,and is instructed to offer some nonzero portion of it to the Decider.If the Decider accepts,she gets to keep what was offered and the Divider keeps the rest.If the Decider rejects the deal,both players get nothing.Both players are made aware of all of these rules and then the game begins.Under these conditions,Dividers usually offer a little less than $5 and Deciders usually accept this amount.If Dividers offer less,Deciders often reject and both players get nothing.A similar game is termed the dictator game.Players are randomly assigned to be either the "Allocator" or the "Receiver." The Allocator is given a sum of money and makes a decision about how much money she would like to give the Receiver,who must accept this result.Allocators in this game usually offer some money to the Receiver but typically less than they offer the Dividers in the ultimatum game.
(Scenario I)Consider the real-world observation that lottery winners tend to give away more of their money to friends and family than self-made millionaires give to theirs.Using the dictator game,which strategy is the BEST way to model this phenomenon in the laboratory?
A)Study differences in Allocator behavior when the sum of money ranges from small to large.
B)Compare typical performance with a modification in which the winner of a game of skill gets to be the Allocator.
C)Study Allocator behavior under conditions where the Receiver is either a friend or a stranger.
D)Compare allocations to Receivers who are either friends or strangers in a game in which the Allocator's own money is used.
Unlock Deck
Unlock for access to all 16 flashcards in this deck.
Unlock Deck
k this deck
Unlock Deck
Unlock for access to all 16 flashcards in this deck.
