Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Interpersonal attraction wikipedia , lookup
Carolyn Sherif wikipedia , lookup
Social tuning wikipedia , lookup
Self-serving bias wikipedia , lookup
Vested interest (communication theory) wikipedia , lookup
Introspection illusion wikipedia , lookup
Impression formation wikipedia , lookup
Implicit attitude wikipedia , lookup
False consensus effect wikipedia , lookup
Self-perception theory wikipedia , lookup
Social perception wikipedia , lookup
Attitude (psychology) wikipedia , lookup
Sociology 319 Sociological Approaches to Social Psychology Deborah Carr ([email protected]) Thursday February 26, 2009 Attribution & Attitudes Attribution Theory A. What is it? Attribution theory describes the processes through which observers infer the causes of others’ behavior. You might often ask yourself “Why did s/he do that?” In attribution theory, the perceiver tries to take apart the events that occurred, and tries to figure out how and why they happened; by considering a variety of factors - ranging from characteristics of the individual, to the situational context that might have guided the other’s behavior. Heider refers to this concept as the “naive scientist.” In trying to make sense of behavior, and to find explanations, laypersons engage in a quasi-scientific method where they try to “control” extraneous variables. B. Dispositional versus situational attributions. This is the most basic set of “attributions” or explanations we make for others’ behavior. When we seek to find explanations for someone’s behavior, we generally attribute the behavior to one of two causes: disposition or situation. 1. Disposition refers to internal states of the person who performed a given behavior. (e.g., intelligence, kindness, ambition) 2. Situation refers to the factors in a person’s environment that might have impacted his or her behavior. (e.g., uncomfortable test-taking situation, having had a bad day at work) EXAMPLE: A friend is 15 minutes late meeting you for dinner. You can come up with either a dispositional (i.e., s/he is rude and irresponsible) or situational explanation (i.e., s/he must have gotten caught in traffic). 3. How do we decide which type of attribution to make? a. Subtractive rule. This rule states that when making attributions about personal dispositions, the observer will subtract the impact of situational forces from the personal disposition implied by the behavior itself. i. Weigh the strengths of the situational pressure. If there’s a fivemile backup on the highway to due a crash, we’ll likely attribute our friend’s lateness to the traffic jam. But, if the “traffic” problem was simply the usual congestion of Friday 5 p.m. traffic (not a very severe situational constraint), we’ll likely blame our friend for being late and not thinking about rush hour traffic. C. Covariation Principle. The covariation principle (Kelley) states “the effect is attributed to that condition which is present when the effect is present and which is absent when the effect is absent.” 1. We try to figure out whether the behavior of interest occurs when other characteristics are “held constant.” There are three main factors we consider when trying to understand behavior: a. actor - the person performing the behavior b. object - the object of the behavior c. context - the setting in which the behavior occurs. 2. We use three types of information when trying to come up with an explanation or attribution. These three sources of information are: a. Consensus. whether all actors or only a few perform the same behavior. b. Consistency. whether the actor behaves the same way at different times and in different settings. c. Distinctiveness. whether the actor behaves differently towards a particular object than towards other objects. EXAMPLE: Your friend Mary tells you that she went to a comedy club the night before and saw an extremely funny comedian. She laughed hysterically at his jokes, and thought he was the funniest thing she had ever seen. She says you should definitely go see the comedian. Now, you want a casual attribution for her laughter. If the cause is the comedian, then you should follow her advice. But what if it was something about the situation? Or something unique about Mary? The principle of covariation says we should assess each of the above dimensions. A study by McArthur (1972) actually sought to determine how people attribute causation in the above scenario. Subjects were given a variety of conditions, and were then asked to make attributions. The far right column indicates their responses. These three patterns yielded the most consistent attributions. Consensus Distinctiveness Consistency Attribution Low (Few people laughed) Low High Actor (86%) (She laughs at everyone)(She always laughs at him) High (Everyone laughed) High (She rarely laughs) High (She always laughs at him) Object (61%) Low (Few people laughed) High (She rarely laughs) Low (She rarely laughs at him) Context (72%) D. Sources of Bias (or Error) in Making Attributions. The attributions we make are often fraught with error. There are three general classes of bias or error. 1. Correspondence Bias (Jones 1979) - When explaining others’ behavior, we are more likely to attribute outcomes to personal dispositions, and we tend to overlook the role of circumstance. This bias has been found in so many different settings by social psychologists that it has been called the “fundamental attribution error.” This has important ramifications, particularly for social policy. For example, if observers see that individuals are in a disadvantaged position (e.g., poor, unemployed), the problem might be attributed to “disposition” rather than to social structural obstacles. Why do we perceive this way? a. Salience (figure/ground). When we observe another person’s behavior, we tend to focus on his or her actions; the context tends to fade into the background. In general, we overestimate the causal impact of whomever or whatever we focus our attention on. b. We give insufficient weight to situational causes of behavior due to processing limitations. The implication is that situational causes require more cognitive resources, but that people infer traits or attitudes of target people with little or no effort. 2. The Actor-Observer Effect. (“You Fell, I Was Pushed.”) This bias is essentially the reverse of correspondence bias. Here, we tend to attribute our OWN behavior to situational factors, though we attribute others’ behavior to dispositional effects. Why? a. We are very aware of the situational factors affecting our own actions, but are less aware of such factors when we turn our attention to other persons. Thus, we perceive our own behavior as arising largely from situational causes, but that of others as deriving mainly from their traits or dispositions. 3. Self-Serving Bias (“I’m good; you’re lucky”). This bias augments the actorobserver effect. This is the tendency to attribute our own positive outcomes to internal or dispositional causes but negative ones to external or situational factors. For instance, if you get an A+ on your exam, you’ll likely think “I’m smart and hard working.” If you do poorly, you’re more likely to say “the test was too hard,” or “it was bad luck; I studied the wrong things” or “the teacher is unfair.” Why does this happen? a. Cognitive explanations: These explanations refer to how we process social information. An actor’s natural visual perspective is to look at the situation while the observer’s natural visual perspective is to look at the actor. Thus differences in perceptual fields provide an explanation. b. Motivational explanations: The self-serving bias stems from our need to protect and enhance our self-esteem, or the related desire to look good in the eyes of others. We have motives to defend our own beliefs, to increase one’s sense of control over the environment, and to strengthen the favorable impression of oneself that others have. E. Emotional and Behavioral Consequences of Attributions 1. Attributions for achievement behavior. Weiner has argued that how we make attributions for our successes and failures affects both our mental health and our subsequent behaviors. There are two dimensions along which people make attributions: stability of cause, of locus of personal control. a. Stability: Stable and unstable. This tells us whether the cause of one’s success or failure is a relatively permanent feature of either their external environment or of their internal dispositions. Some external causes are quite stable; such as the difficulty level of a task, such as the difficulty level of the LSATs or MCATs. Some external causes are quite unstable, for instance, the number of applications a law or medical school gets each year. b. Controllability determines whether something is under one’s control (i.e., internal versus external). We believe that some factors are within our control, while others are not. Internal causes can be stable or unstable. One’s intellectual ability is stable and internal, (if we believe in innate intelligence). However, one’s ambition or how much effort one puts into a task may vary over time, and is thus internal/unstable. Using these dimensions, we make different types of attributions (see 2 x 2 chart from slides). 2. Implications. Weiner has argued that when failures occur, the most UNHEALTHY attribution to make is to internal stable characteristics, because these are the least resistant to change. Consequently, if one believes that he failed his exam because he lacks ability, then he can’t foresee a way to improve the situation. The sense of futility can lead to depression and hopelessness. a. Major and colleagues argue that external attributions for failure, such as an attribution to discrimination, may protect one’s self-esteem, yet may still engender negative outcomes such as anger or anxiety. I. Attitudes: Attitudes are one of the most important and enduring concepts studied in social psychology. A. Definitions 1. General: a. “an attitude is a predisposition to respond to a particular object in a generally favorable or unfavorable way” 2. Tripartite definitions of attitudes. Attitudes have three parts (a, b, and c): affective, behavioral and cognitive components. a. Affective. This is the evaluative - or positive or negative - assessment that is implicit in an attitude. Generally, an attitude captures how much you like or dislike the attitude object and captures your emotional reaction to the attitude object. b. Behavior. Attitudes also involve a predisposition to respond or a behavioral tendency towards the object. c. Cognitive. When we hold an attitude toward a given object, our attitude is often based on our perceptions - whether correct or incorrect - of that object. This component consists of all the cognitions you have towards a particular object; your opinions, beliefs, and knowledge. EXAMPLE: “I am opposed to smoking.” a. I hate smoke. I think it is disgusting.” This is the affective or evaluative component of my attitude. b. Given my negative attitude towards smoking, it is likely that I will not engage in such a behavior. This represents the behavioral component of my attitude. c. I hold a variety of cognitions or ideas about smoking (e.g., Smoking represents a behavior that causes cancer, that is marketed to young adults, and that turns a profit for tobacco companies while destroying the lungs of their customers.) These cognitions are an essential part of my negative attitude towards smoking. B. Why are attitudes important 1. Perception: Attitudes influence the way people perceive and respond to the world. If we hold a positive attitude towards an attitude object, we will select and filter information and stimuli that is consistent with that attitude. 2. Behavioral influence: Under certain conditions, our attitudes predict our behavior. This topic will be covered extensively at next class. 3. Attitudes reflect social and normative changes that occur in a society over time. C. How do we develop attitudes? 1. Instrumental conditioning. Learning based on direct experience. If we have a positive experience with an attitude object, we will likely develop a positive attitude. Likewise, if a person utters an attitude and it is rewarded, that attitude will persist. Even subtle rewards such as peer approval are seen as a source of molding attitudes. a. Bennington College study. One of the most famous studies of attitude acquisition is the Bennington College study. This study by Newcomb (1943) tracked attitudinal change among women at this elite private college. Most of the students were from wealthy conservative families, yet Bennington was - and is - known for being a very liberal school. The faculty, in particular, held liberal attitudes associated with the New Deal politics of the time. The study tracked a group of freshmen who began college in 1935. Over a four-year period, Newcomb measured the students’ attitudes towards issues such as welfare and labor unions. What he found was a consistent change in student values from the time they entered Bennington until their senior year. Moreover, this attitudinal change lasted for the long-term. A follow-up study of the Bennington grads 25 years later showed that most were far more liberal than other women of their age and social class in 1960. Attitude change did not occur among all however. Those with the greatest change in attitudes were those who were most active in college life and the most popular. Students who maintained close ties with their families and who did not become involved in campus activities remained conservative. Women who became active in the college community and who interacted more frequently with other students gradually became more liberal. Newcomb’s explanation was that it is rewarding to share attitudes with one’s closest significant others. 2. Classical conditioning. 3. Observational learning. D. How do we measure attitudes? 1. Direct measures. These measures directly ask people what their attitudes are. There are a variety of methodologies used by survey researchers. a. Single items - one question administered to a subject. These questions are generally asked in very direct and straightforward language. EXAMPLE: I believe that the legal age at which people can buy alcohol should be reduced from 21 to 18. Yes___ No___ Unsure___ b. Likert scale. This scale is one of the most widely used scales today. It involves presenting subjects with a number of questions which address generally similar topics. We then sum or average their responses across all items. Based on one’s overall score, we can calculate their overall stance towards an attitude object. We can also compare one’s overall score to the score of others. A series of questions is asked of the respondent, and a series of closed response categories are offered. There are usually at least four such response categories and categories are labeled on a scale such as: Strongly Agree, Agree, Neither Agree nor Disagree, Disagree, Disagree Strongly. To ensure that people don’t simply check off one category all the way through, questions are presented using “reverse wording.” 2. Indirect Methods. Direct methods rely on people’s actual reports of their attitudes. Another way to assess attitudes is to infer them from behavior. Observing behavior is an “indirect method” of assessing attitudes. Indirect methods help to circumvent several of the possible problems involved in direct methods of attitude assessment. These problems include: (1) dishonest reports of attitudes, in order to please the interviewer or comply with societal norms; (2) the fact that LACK of an attitude is seldom captured in an attitudinal measure. Thus, experimenters may design studies where behavior is expected to reflect an underlying attitude. a “Wrong number technique.” This technique was developed as a way to assess racial attitudes. In this setting, an “actor” called a series of randomly selected telephone numbers at 9 p.m. at night. In the call, the “actor” asked if he had reached Ralph’s Garage. When the person who answered the phone explained that the caller had the wrong number, the actor would go on to say that his car had broken down, and that he called the wrong number (and had no more change). He then asked if the person on the other end of the phone please call the phone number of Ralph’s Garage, and ask the people at the garage to come pick the motorist up on the road. The caller would provide the phone number and his current location. [The phone number that ostensibly belonged to “Ralph’s Garage” was actually a phone being answered by a research staffer]. In this study, half of the phone callers were white and half were black (and their voices “sounded” black and white). The researchers called more than 500 whites and 500 blacks. The results showed that whites were more likely to help other whites (65 percent) than blacks (53 percent). Blacks where equally likely to help both blacks and whites (63 percent). b. “Lost letter technique”: A technique where stamped envelopes addressed to political organizations are dropped on the street; researchers monitor the proportion from different neighborhoods that are returned to each address. If a high proportion of letters are sent, then this suggests that persons in that neighborhood hold positive attitudes towards the political organization.