Social Perception Attitudes Chapter 13 Kip

Social Perception & Attitudes Chapter 13 © Kip Smith, 2003

Overview l Determining the causes of behavior l l Biases in attribution Stereotypes Social comparison Attitudes l Attitudes & behavior © Kip Smith, 2003

Person Perception & Evaluation l l We try to understand the personality characteristics of other people and their attitudes How do we do this? l Behavior © Kip Smith, 2003

Making Attributions l l Attribution—any claim about the cause of someone’s behavior Is someone’s behavior caused by personality characteristics or by the situation? l l Dispositional Attribution Situational Attribution © Kip Smith, 2003

Attribution Example l l You see Jim become angry at a cashier who is taking a long time What is the cause of the anger at the cashier? l l 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 l Fundamental Attribution Error l l l 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 l © Kip Smith, 2003 We only see them in role of newscasts

How Fundamental is the Fundamental Attribution Error? l Evidence for it comes from studies where participants have: l l 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 l Eastern and Western cultures differ in terms of beliefs in who controls one’s destiny l Western cultures—US, Western Europe l l Emphasize that individual is in charge of own destiny Eastern cultures—East Asia, India l © Kip Smith, 2003 Emphasize that fate or circumstances are in charge of destiny

Cultural Differences l People in Eastern cultures less likely to make dispositional attributions of behaviors l More often attribute behavior to the situation © Kip Smith, 2003

What About Our Own Behavior? l l More of a situational bias Actor-Observer Discrepancy l Anger at cashier l l © Kip Smith, 2003 Self—situational attribution Someone else—dispositional attribution

Explanations for Actor-Observer Discrepancy l More experience observing own behavior than behavior of another given person l l See self in more varied situations Own behavior—watch situation; others’ behavior—watch person © Kip Smith, 2003

Prior Information & Attribution l l Schema—organized set of information that we have about any entity or event Schemas influence how we interpret another’s behavior l l E. g. , guest lecturer at MIT Participants given description of lecturer before class l l © 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 l Attractiveness Bias l Attractive people are judged to be more: l l Intelligent Competent Sociable Moral l Baby-Face Bias l Those with baby-like facial features are judged to be more: l l l © Kip Smith, 2003 Naïve Honest Helpless Kind Warm

Stereotypes l Schemas for groups of people l l Nationalities, ethnic groups, occupations, etc. More difficult to define specific stereotypes today l People are reluctant to admit holding stereotypic beliefs © Kip Smith, 2003

Stereotypes l Many social psychologists differentiate 3 levels of stereotypes: l l l 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 l Not necessarily consistent with conscious beliefs l We make mental associations from information in the environment l © Kip Smith, 2003 Others’ beliefs, vivid cases, etc.

How Do We Stack Up? l One way to learn about ourselves is through comparison with others l l Social comparison Depends on our reference group l l l Who we choose to compare ourselves with Intelligence: High school classmates vs. MENSA members Helps us develop self-concept © Kip Smith, 2003

Social Comparison l Changes in reference groups can lead to changes in self-concept l l 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 l l l John & Jane have equivalent academic abilities John attends a nonselective school Jane attends a selective school l © Kip Smith, 2003 John will have a higher self-concept

Social Comparison l Better-than-Average Phenomenon l l Most people rate themselves as better than the average person Why? l l l Feedback is generally positive People differ in criteria for success Self-Serving Attribution Bias l l Tendency to attribute success to own qualities and failures to the situation Those poorest at a task overestimate abilities most l © Kip Smith, 2003 Don’t realize that they lack competence?

Social Identity l Self-concept has 2 components: l Personal identity—self-descriptions that pertain to the person as a separate individual l l Tall, short, friendly, shy, talkative, etc. Social identity—self-descriptions that pertain to social categories or groups that the person belongs to l © Kip Smith, 2003 KSU student, American, Methodist, member of sorority, etc.

Social Identity & Self-Esteem l Feelings about ourselves influenced by accomplishments of groups that we identify with l l 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 l Our self-esteem also varies when our social groups are successful l l E. g. , K-State receives award for academic achievement Depends on what part of our self-concept we focus on l Social Identity—feel good about academic ability l l Identify with group accomplishment Personal Identity—feel inferior l © Kip Smith, 2003 Social group serves as reference

Group Comparison l We often exaggerate positives of our social groups and put down other groups l l l Better-than-average phenomenon Self-serving attribution bias Biases applied even when there is no basis for differences l Groups randomly assigned © Kip Smith, 2003

Cultural Differences Individualist Cultures l l l Philosophical & political traditions emphasize: l l Strengthen personal identities North America, Western Europe, Australia Collectivist Cultures l l l Emphasis on self-fulfillment © Kip Smith, 2003 Philosophical & political traditions emphasize: l personal freedom self-determination individual competition l 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 l Individualist cultures l l l People describe themselves more frequently in terms of individual traits E. g. , shy, easygoing, intelligent, ambitious, etc. Collectivist cultures l l 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 l Attitude—any belief or opinion that has an evaluative component l l l 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? l Value-Expressive Function l l l Social-Adjustive Function l l l Shared by one’s social group Help person get along with the social group Defensive Function l l l 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 l Guide person’s behavior toward desirable outcomes and away from aversive ones © Kip Smith, 2003

Attitudes & Behavior l l Behavior is not always consistent with attitudes La. Piere (1934) study l l 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

La. Piere (1934) l 128 establishments returned the questionnaire l l l 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? l Chinese couple may not have matched the stereotype envisioned by proprietors when filling out questionnaires l l l 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 l Business may have been slow at the time © Kip Smith, 2003

When Attitudes Strongly Affect Actions l Attitudes have a strong impact on behavior when: l l l 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 l l l 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 l Brain-washing l During Korean War, American prisoners asked to carry out small requests initially l l Gradually asked to carry out more serious requests l l 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? l Cognitive Dissonance Theory—argues that people feel discomfort when their actions conflict with their feelings and beliefs l l l 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) l Participants brought into lab to perform boring task l l l 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 l l $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