1. Elaboration Likelihood Model The Elaboration Likelihood Model of persuasion, developed by Richard Petty and John Cacioppo, is essentially a theory about the thinking processes that might occur when we attempt to change a person’s attitude through communication, the different effects that particular persuasion variables play within these processes, and the strength of the judgements that result. At its core, and as the name suggests, the ELM assumes that individuals can differ in how carefully and extensively they think about a message and the position, object or behavior it is advocating. That is, in any given context, the amount of elaboration or thinking a person does about a message or issue can vary from low to high along an “elaboration
Throughout this essay I will examine the aspects of social exchange theory, the pros and cons within the theory and finally how this theory can be connected to real life interpersonal interactions. Social Exchange Theory Summary: As human beings we attempt to gain rewards and avoid punishment so when approaching a relationship we often assess what the individual has to offer us (Tucker; 2015). These benefits are viewed differently by each individual and depend largely on ones desired outcome of the relationship; a positive and productive relationship is
Linear plan is easily said but not done with ease to tackle those strong mental issues by a neat development. According to Myer, James, and Moulton, 2011 merged the previous progression in follow-ups stage models with a structured model, the end product was called a hybrid model for individual crisis intervention that is commonly sequential in its progression but also seen in terms of tasks that need to be done. Some task can be done in different stages of the crisis to improve the circumstances to meet the demands of some task that crisis interventionist does first or later. While, thinking that the task is complete, breaks into pieces and has to be done again multiple
In an article, Warren stated that “We tend to judge ourselves by our intentions and others by their actions” (Warren 1). This is because no one can truly know what a person 's motives are, but they can know their own intentions. It is easier to conclude an idea of a person based on what one can see and know for sure. A person can have good intentions, but the outcome may turn out unfavorable, knowing the final action is simpler to judge because it can be known for sure. Warren also stated that “If we judged ourselves by how our actions are perceived by others, we may become more sensitive and understanding of any hurtful responses by them” (Warren 1).
Bateman and Fonagy (2004) later defined Mentalization as “the mental process by which an individual implicitly and explicitly interprets the actions of himself and others as meaningful on the basis of intentional mental states such as personal desires, needs, feelings, beliefs and reasons” (Bateman & Fonagy, 2009). To effectively “mentalize”, one must imagine the thoughts and feelings of others; hence, mentalization is a mental process. Quality of mentalization is superior when one is genuinely aware that it is not possible to know what is in someone else’s mind (Bateman & Fonagy, 2004). Based on the content and process of mentalizing, Bateman and Fonagy (Bateman & Fonagy, 2004) categorized mentalization into three dimensions: firstly, two modes of functioning (i.e., implicit and explicit), secondly, two objects (i.e., self and other), and
He argues the importance of the believer and how the skills apply to any course because “we need the believing game to help us find flaws in our own thinking” (5). The believing game helps readers examine ideas from the writer’s point of view and seek ways of bettering it so they can understand the text. Professor Elbow’s second idea concerns the doubter, and how this method leads to the development of critical thinking, “the doubting game can reveal flaws or bad logic in arguments that support one position or another” (6). A doubter becomes skeptical of ideas presented to them. They distance themselves from ideas to form a better judgment.
Fritz Heider formulated the attribution theory, which states that we tend to credit someone’s behavior to either external forces (the situation) or the person’s internal disposition (personality). The fundamental attribution error is the overestimation of the effect of internal dispositions on a person’s behavior, and the underestimation of the situation they may be in. Since Western cultures are more individualistic, people that we have autonomy when it comes to our behavior, which is why the fundamental attribution error is more prevalent in these societies. The foot-in-the-door phenomenon is the tendency for people to comply with a large request after having complied to a smaller request. For instance, people who are prompted to put a small
The theory was expanded and modified by Leonard Berkowitz and others in 1962 as revealed by Nnamani (2015:4). The main claim of this theory is that as people with different beliefs, values and expectations live in different parts of the world and interact in the social system, hostility and frustration occurs. This theory believes that when individuals or groups are denied what they feel they desire legitimately, they feel disappointed which will lead to frustration and violent behaviour. The violent behaviour will be directed at those they perceive are responsible directly or indirectly for such denial. It is also upholds that where expectation does not meet attainment, people tend to confront those they feel are responsible for not attaining the expected issues or benefits.
Introduction People living with mental illness are faced with more than one problem. On one hand they are challenged with the symptoms and effects of their illness. On the other hand they are struggling with negative effects of stigma. (...) defines stigma as a mark for disgrace that set a person apart from the rest. People living with mental illness experience many different types of stigma, such as public stigma, self stigma and structural stigma.
Friedkin 's article examined the social influence networks with the attitude-behavior linkage and social diffusion. He illustrated the concept of cognitive orientations to objects. It 's the brain that generate attitude, brain has its own scale for the attitude, which depends on the information you have. There are other sorts of cognitive orientation, which is called the certainty of beliefs, a belief in a truth of something, how certain you are to a particular statement. You can have low confident of belief and high confident belief to that statement.