Transcript March 7 and 10

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:
1. Does Jim
regularly get
angry at slow
cashiers?
YES
NO
Attribution:
© Kip Smith, 2003
No basis for
attribution to
personality
or situation.
Fluke?
2. Do many
other people
get angry at
slow cashiers?
YES
Situational
Attribution.
Slow cashiers
make people
angry.
NO
3. Does Jim get
angry in many
other situations?
YES
Personality
Attribution,
general. Jim
is easily
angered.
NO
Personality
Attribution,
specific. Jim
can’t tolerate
slow cashiers.
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

© Kip Smith, 2003
We only see them in role of newscasts
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
Person
attribution
Revision of
attribution
To judge
situation
Situation
attribution
Revision of
attribution
© Kip Smith, 2003
2-Stage Attribution Example
Jim yells at cashier to “Hurry up!”
Observer’s Goal
Automatic Attribution
Controlled Attribution
What kind of
person is Jim?
Jim has a
short-temper
Perhaps Jim
needs to be
somewhere
How stressful
is the situation?
The cashier is
too slow & Jim is
in a hurry
Perhaps Jim is
angered easily
© 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

© Kip Smith, 2003
Emphasize that fate or circumstances are in charge of
destiny
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


© Kip Smith, 2003
Self—situational attribution
Someone else—dispositional attribution
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


© Kip Smith, 2003
½ descriptions said lecturer was “ a rather cold” person
½ descriptions said lecturer was “a very warm” person
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:





© Kip Smith, 2003
Naïve
Honest
Helpless
Kind
Warm
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

© Kip Smith, 2003
Others’ beliefs, vivid cases, etc.
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

© Kip Smith, 2003
John will have a higher self-concept
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

© Kip Smith, 2003
Don’t realize that they lack competence?
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

© Kip Smith, 2003
KSU student, American, Methodist, member of
sorority, etc.
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

© Kip Smith, 2003
Social group serves as reference
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



Philosophical & political
traditions emphasize:




Strengthen personal
identities
North America, Western
Europe, Australia
Collectivist Cultures



Emphasis on self-fulfillment
© Kip Smith, 2003
Philosophical & political
traditions emphasize:

personal freedom
self-determination
individual competition

Strengthen social identities
Asia, parts of Africa & Latin
America
Inherent connectedness
and interdependence of
people within family,
workplace, village, & nation
Emphasis on fulfilling duties
to, and promoting welfare
of, their groups
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



Social-Adjustive Function



Shared by one’s social group
Help person get along with the social group
Defensive Function



Part of person’s self-concept
Help give meaning to a person’s life
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
Attitude toward
the behavior
Subjective
norm
Perceived
behavioral
control
© Kip Smith, 2003
Behavioral
intention
Behavior
Theory of Planned Behavior Example
Attitude toward
birth control
Beliefs of
parents, friends,
church
“Can I obtain
birth control
pills?”
© Kip Smith, 2003
Intention to use
birth control
Use of birth
control
Actions Can Modify Attitudes

Brain-washing

During Korean War, American prisoners asked to carry
out small requests initially


Gradually asked to carry out more serious requests


E.g., write down trivial statements against the US
government and capitalism
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
© Kip Smith, 2003