More on that "Copying" Study I Mentioned
09/09/16 10:55
Both Siddhartha and Michelle took great initiative to figure out more about that “copying” study I mentioned in class on Thursday.
Siddhartha gave permission to share his results with everyone:
You mentioned in class you heard of this study but hadn't found the source yet. I think it refers to this 1978 Langer paper. A basic summary is here.
It doesn't seem to explicitly compare the effect of the specific word "because,” but rather the effect of giving some sort of explanation (which is where "because" ties in) and the likelihood of the listener to actually process the reason. The lower the magnitude of the request, the more likely people were to accept a bogus (circular logic / redundant) reason for cutting ahead, but as the magnitude of the request increased they were more likely to pay attention and call the confederate out.
(I mentioned that it doesn't focus on "because" specifically because, they don't actually focus on the word; it's either an explanation (realistic or redundant) or not.)
I suppose the tie-in would be that "because" is best at manipulating people into accepting small requests on shaky reasoning. Overall more of a study on information processing.
Here's another study I found while searching that draws from this design.
This one actually focuses on the attribution of the reason, bringing the circumstances vs. personality attribution idea into play. Indicates that folks are less sympathetic towards controllable/personality-based reasons than circumstantial.
Siddhartha gave permission to share his results with everyone:
You mentioned in class you heard of this study but hadn't found the source yet. I think it refers to this 1978 Langer paper. A basic summary is here.
It doesn't seem to explicitly compare the effect of the specific word "because,” but rather the effect of giving some sort of explanation (which is where "because" ties in) and the likelihood of the listener to actually process the reason. The lower the magnitude of the request, the more likely people were to accept a bogus (circular logic / redundant) reason for cutting ahead, but as the magnitude of the request increased they were more likely to pay attention and call the confederate out.
(I mentioned that it doesn't focus on "because" specifically because, they don't actually focus on the word; it's either an explanation (realistic or redundant) or not.)
I suppose the tie-in would be that "because" is best at manipulating people into accepting small requests on shaky reasoning. Overall more of a study on information processing.
Here's another study I found while searching that draws from this design.
This one actually focuses on the attribution of the reason, bringing the circumstances vs. personality attribution idea into play. Indicates that folks are less sympathetic towards controllable/personality-based reasons than circumstantial.