The results of social norm research suggest that although companies, institutions, and court decisions can have an impact on expectations of the status quo and norms, they sometimes (at least initially) have little impact on personal attitudes. Why then is this still suggested as a model for reducing prejudice (hint: see Coca-Cola and Supreme Court)?

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

This question asks why a norms-based approach to reducing prejudice is still proposed as effective, even if initial changes to attitudes may be limited, drawing on examples like Coca-Cola and Supreme Court decisions.
Option 1: 'because personal attitudes lead only to stereotyping, and not prejudice' This claim is incorrect because personal attitudes can drive prejudice and discriminatory behavior; the statement underestimates the link between attitudes, stereotypes, and actual discriminatory actions, and contradicts social-psychological evidence that attitudes influence behavior under certain conditions.
Option 2: 'because personal attitudes are not malleable anyway, so they should not be focused on as a possible prejudice-reduction method' This is false as a general statement: research shows attitudes can be modified through exposure, education, and normative changes; the claim that attitudes are inherently unmalleable is unsupported and undermines the rationale for interventions that target attitudes.
Option 3: 'because personal attitudes do not have a role in stereotyping, prejudice, or discrimination' This is misleading because personal attitudes do contribute to stereotyping and prejudice; if attitudes did not matter, attempts to reduce prejudice via attitude change or norm change would be less justifiable, which contradicts the premise of norm-based strategies.
Option 4: 'because changing norms can have long-term impacts on belief of public social acceptability, this may have eventual impacts on personal attitudes or positive behavior changes.' This aligns with the model that norms shape perceived acceptability in the broader social context; over time, such norm changes can influence personal beliefs and lead to changes in behavior, even if individual attitudes shift slowly initially. It also reflects the idea that high-profile cases (like corporate messaging or legal rulings) can alter what is seen as acceptable, gradually permeating individual attitudes and actions.
Overall, the reasoning centers on the distinction between short-term attitude shifts and longer-term normative influence; the plausible pathway is that norms influence perceived public acceptability, which can eventually translate into changes in personal attitudes and behaviors, even if the effect is gradual at first.

PSYCH 1375 SP2025 (30193) exam 3- Requires Respondus LockDown Browser

查看解析

登录即可查看完整答案

类似问题

Descriptive norms and injunctive norms must always be aligned, and not differ from each other.

Sally is at her first day of school. She sees everyone else sit on the floor with their legs crossed, so she does the same. She would be said to be following a(n):

Goldstein et al.’s (2008) study on environmental messaging found that participants were more likely to engage in pro-environmental behaviors when a sign in their hotel bathroom sign evoked ___________________ by stating that “75% of guests staying in this room number reused their towels."

The behaviour of people in groups is dictated in large part by _____.

Question at position 12 A(n) ______refers to the perception of what most people would do in a given circumstances.dispositional attributioningroup biasdiscriminative stimulusdescriptive normsituational influence

Why is it important to consider social norms when performing safety analysis?

更多留学生实用工具

考试浏览器助手

风格化写作助手

论文查重助手

文献引用助手

课堂转译助手

课堂笔记助手

Quiz搜索助手

学校历年真题

智能刷题助手

智能匹配练习

希望你的学习变得更简单