© Kip Smith, 2003 Social Perception & Attitudes Chapter 13.
-
Upload
georgiana-copeland -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
2
Transcript of © Kip Smith, 2003 Social Perception & Attitudes Chapter 13.
© Kip Smith, 2003
Social Perception & Attitudes
Chapter 13
© Kip Smith, 2003
Overview
Determining the causes of behavior Biases in attribution
Stereotypes Social comparison Attitudes
Attitudes & behavior
© Kip Smith, 2003
Person Perception & Evaluation
We try to understand the personality characteristics of other people and their attitudes
How do we do this? Behavior
© Kip Smith, 2003
Making Attributions
Attribution—any claim about the cause of someone’s behavior
Is someone’s behavior caused by personality characteristics or by the situation?
Dispositional Attribution Situational Attribution
© Kip Smith, 2003
Attribution Example
You see Jim become angry at a cashier who is taking a long time
What is the cause of the anger at the cashier?
Jim has a short temper (dispositional) Jim is in a hurry and under stress (situational)
© Kip Smith, 2003
The Logic of Attributing Causes of Behavior
Questions:
Attribution:
1. Does Jim regularly get angry at slow cashiers?
No basis for attribution to personality or situation. Fluke?
NO
2. Do many other people get angry at slow cashiers?
YES
Situational Attribution. Slow cashiers make people angry.
YES
NO
3. Does Jim get angry in many other situations?
Personality Attribution, general. Jim is easily angered.
Personality Attribution, specific. Jim can’t tolerate slow cashiers.
NOYES
© Kip Smith, 2003
Biases in Attribution
Fundamental Attribution Error When trying to determine the cause of
another’s behavior, we too often attribute it to personality, when the situation may be the cause
Person bias News anchors assumed to be calm in all
situations We only see them in role of newscasts
© Kip Smith, 2003
How Fundamental is the Fundamental Attribution Error?
Evidence for it comes from studies where participants have:
Clear goal of assessing personality Little motivation or time to consider other
causes of behavior
© Kip Smith, 2003
2-Stage Model of Attribution
Observer’s Goal Automatic Attribution Controlled Attribution
To judge person
To judge situation
Person attribution
Situation attribution
Revision of attribution
Revision of attribution
© Kip Smith, 2003
2-Stage Attribution Example
Observer’s Goal Automatic Attribution Controlled Attribution
What kind of person is Jim?
How stressful is the situation?
Jim has a short-temper
The cashier is too slow & Jim is
in a hurry
Perhaps Jim is angered easily
Jim yells at cashier to “Hurry up!”
Perhaps Jim needs to be somewhere
© Kip Smith, 2003
Cultural Differences
Eastern and Western cultures differ in terms of beliefs in who controls one’s destiny
Western cultures—US, Western Europe Emphasize that individual is in charge of own destiny
Eastern cultures—East Asia, India Emphasize that fate or circumstances are in charge of
destiny
© Kip Smith, 2003
Cultural Differences
People in Eastern cultures less likely to make dispositional attributions of behaviors
More often attribute behavior to the situation
© Kip Smith, 2003
What About Our Own Behavior?
More of a situational bias Actor-Observer Discrepancy
Anger at cashier Self—situational attribution Someone else—dispositional attribution
© Kip Smith, 2003
Explanations for Actor-Observer Discrepancy
More experience observing own behavior than behavior of another given person
See self in more varied situations Own behavior—watch situation; others’
behavior—watch person
© Kip Smith, 2003
Prior Information & Attribution
Schema—organized set of information that we have about any entity or event
Schemas influence how we interpret another’s behavior
E.g., guest lecturer at MIT Participants given description of lecturer before class
½ descriptions said lecturer was “ a rather cold” person ½ descriptions said lecturer was “a very warm” person
© Kip Smith, 2003
Biases Due to Schemas
Attractiveness Bias Attractive people are
judged to be more: Intelligent Competent Sociable Moral
Baby-Face Bias Those with baby-like
facial features are judged to be more:
Naïve Honest Helpless Kind Warm
© Kip Smith, 2003
Stereotypes
Schemas for groups of people Nationalities, ethnic groups, occupations, etc.
More difficult to define specific stereotypes today
People are reluctant to admit holding stereotypic beliefs
© Kip Smith, 2003
Stereotypes
Many social psychologists differentiate 3 levels of stereotypes:
Public—what we say to others about a group Private—what we consciously believe but
don’t say to others Implicit—set of learned mental associations
that can guide our judgments and actions without our awareness
© Kip Smith, 2003
Implicit Stereotypes
Not necessarily consistent with conscious beliefs
We make mental associations from information in the environment
Others’ beliefs, vivid cases, etc.
© Kip Smith, 2003
How Do We Stack Up?
One way to learn about ourselves is through comparison with others
Social comparison Depends on our reference group
Who we choose to compare ourselves with Intelligence: High school classmates vs. MENSA
members Helps us develop self-concept
© Kip Smith, 2003
Social Comparison
Changes in reference groups can lead to changes in self-concept
E.g., moving from high school to college can influence our perceived academic ability
Big-Fish-in-a-Little-Pond Effect—people have higher self concepts when they compare favorably with others
John & Jane have equivalent academic abilities John attends a nonselective school Jane attends a selective school
John will have a higher self-concept
© Kip Smith, 2003
Social Comparison
Better-than-Average Phenomenon Most people rate themselves as better than the average
person Why?
Feedback is generally positive People differ in criteria for success Self-Serving Attribution Bias
Tendency to attribute success to own qualities and failures to the situation
Those poorest at a task overestimate abilities most Don’t realize that they lack competence?
© Kip Smith, 2003
Social Identity
Self-concept has 2 components: Personal identity—self-descriptions that
pertain to the person as a separate individual Tall, short, friendly, shy, talkative, etc.
Social identity—self-descriptions that pertain to social categories or groups that the person belongs to
KSU student, American, Methodist, member of sorority, etc.
© Kip Smith, 2003
Social Identity & Self-Esteem
Feelings about ourselves influenced by accomplishments of groups that we identify with
Even when we play no role E.g., sports fans’ feelings about themselves
vary with favorite team’s success
© Kip Smith, 2003
Identity & Self-Esteem
Our self-esteem also varies when our social groups are successful
E.g., K-State receives award for academic achievement Depends on what part of our self-concept we
focus on Social Identity—feel good about academic ability
Identify with group accomplishment Personal Identity—feel inferior
Social group serves as reference
© Kip Smith, 2003
Group Comparison
We often exaggerate positives of our social groups and put down other groups
Better-than-average phenomenon Self-serving attribution bias
Biases applied even when there is no basis for differences
Groups randomly assigned
© Kip Smith, 2003
Cultural Differences
Individualist Cultures Strengthen personal
identities North America, Western
Europe, Australia Philosophical & political
traditions emphasize: personal freedom self-determination individual competition
Emphasis on self-fulfillment
Collectivist Cultures Strengthen social identities Asia, parts of Africa & Latin
America Philosophical & political
traditions emphasize: Inherent connectedness
and interdependence of people within family, workplace, village, & nation
Emphasis on fulfilling duties to, and promoting welfare of, their groups
© Kip Smith, 2003
Identity & Culture
Individualist cultures People describe themselves more frequently in terms of
individual traits E.g., shy, easygoing, intelligent, ambitious, etc.
Collectivist cultures People describe themselves more frequently in terms of
social groups and their roles within the group E.g., student at KSU, oldest son in the family, etc.
© Kip Smith, 2003
Attitudes
Attitude—any belief or opinion that has an evaluative component
Good or bad Likable or unlikable Moral or immoral Attractive or repulsive
We have attitudes about objects, people, events, and ideas
© Kip Smith, 2003
What Do Attitudes Do For Us?
Value-Expressive Function Part of person’s self-concept Help give meaning to a person’s life
Social-Adjustive Function Shared by one’s social group Help person get along with the social group
Defensive Function Provide sense of consistency and harmony Help calm anxieties and boost self-esteem
Utilitarian Function Guide person’s behavior toward desirable outcomes and away
from aversive ones
© Kip Smith, 2003
Attitudes & Behavior
Behavior is not always consistent with attitudes
LaPiere (1934) study Traveled with Chinese couple to 251
restaurants and hotels in US Later mailed questionnaire to same hotel and
restaurant proprietors asking them if they would accommodate non-White patrons
© Kip Smith, 2003
LaPiere (1934)
128 establishments returned the questionnaire
92% of restaurants said they would NOT serve Chinese patrons
91% of hotels said they would NOT allow Chinese guests
Only 1 of 251 (0.4%) establishments refused service to the author and the Chinese couple
© Kip Smith, 2003
Why the Inconsistency?
Chinese couple may not have matched the stereotype envisioned by proprietors when filling out questionnaires
Flawless English, congenial, well-dressed, charismatic Presence of White man may have elevated
couple’s status in proprietors’ eyes Proprietors had vested interest in making money
Business may have been slow at the time
© Kip Smith, 2003
When Attitudes Strongly Affect Actions
Attitudes have a strong impact on behavior when:
Outside influences on what we say and do are minimal
Attitude is specifically relevant to the behavior We are keenly aware of our attitudes
© Kip Smith, 2003
Theory of Planned Behavior
Attitude—personal desire to behave in a particular way or not
Subjective norm—belief about what others who are important at the moment would think about the action
Perceived control—sense of one’s own ability or inability to carry out the action
© Kip Smith, 2003
Theory of Planned Behavior
Subjective norm
Behavioral intention
Behavior
Perceived behavioral
control
Attitude toward the behavior
© Kip Smith, 2003
Theory of Planned Behavior Example
Beliefs of parents, friends,
church
Intention to use birth control
Use of birth control
“Can I obtain birth control
pills?”
Attitude toward birth control
© Kip Smith, 2003
Actions Can Modify Attitudes
Brain-washing During Korean War, American prisoners asked to carry
out small requests initially E.g., write down trivial statements against the US
government and capitalism Gradually asked to carry out more serious requests
E.g., group discussions regarding US transgressions, public confessions
POWs who were brainwashed were less against communism when returned
© Kip Smith, 2003
How Could Brainwashing Work?
Cognitive Dissonance Theory—argues that people feel discomfort when their actions conflict with their feelings and beliefs
People reduce discomfort by bringing attitudes into line with their actions
Attitude can be changed, past actions cannot POWs may have experienced discomfort
having complied with captors
© Kip Smith, 2003
Cognitive Dissonance Experiment (Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959)
Participants brought into lab to perform boring task
E.g., turning pegs on a pegboard and loading spools into trays
They were then given $1 or $20 to tell the next participant that the task was exciting and enjoyable
Participants later asked to rate how much they liked the experiment
$1 group rated the experiment as more enjoyable Insufficient Justification Effect
© Kip Smith, 2003
For next time
READ:
Ch. 14—Social Influences on Behavior
Solomon Asch, 1955, Opinions and Social Pressure
# 8 in your Scientific American booklet