Download Person Perception

Chapter 16
Social Behavior
Social Psychology






Person perception
Attribution processes
Interpersonal attraction
Attitudes
Conformity and obedience
Behavior in groups
Person Perception: Forming Impressions of Others






Effects of physical appearance
Cognitive schemas
Stereotypes
Prejudice and Discrimination
Subjectivity in person perception
Evolutionary perspectives
Figure 16.2
Examples of social schemas. Everyone has social schemas for various “types” of people, such
as sophisticated professionals or working-class stiffs. Social schemas are clusters of beliefs that
guide information processing.
Figure 16.24
The three potential components of prejudice as an attitude. Attitudes can consist of up to three
components. The tricomponent model of attitudes, applied to prejudice against women, would
view sexism as negative beliefs about women (cognitive component) that lead to a feeling of
dislike (affective component), which in turn leads to a readiness to discriminate against women
(behavioral component).
Figure 16.25
Relationship between prejudice and discrimination. As these examples show, prejudice can
exist without discrimination and discrimination without prejudice. In the green cells, there is a
disparity between attitude and behavior.
Attribution Processes: Explaining Behavior



Attributions
 Internal vs. External
 Kelley’s covariation model
Biases in attributions
 Fundamental attribution error
 Defensive attribution
 Self-serving bias
Cultural influences
Figure 16.3
Examples of attributional analyses using Kelly’s model. In Kelley’s model, high consistency, low
distinctiveness, and low consensus should lead to an internal attribution, whereas high
consistency, high distinctiveness, and high consensus should lead to an external attribution.
These principles are applied here to the example in the text about Bruce’s arguing in class.
Figure 16.4
Weiner’s model of attributions for success and failure. Weiner’s model assumes that people’s
explanations for success and failure emphasize internal versus external causes and stable
versus unstable causes. Examples of causal factors that fit into each of the four cells in
Weiner’s model are shown in the diagram.
Figure 16.5
An alternative view of the fundamental attribution error. According to Gilbert (1989) and others,
the nature of attribution processes favor the fundamental attribution error. Traditional models of
attribution assume that internal and external attributions are an either-or proposition requiring
equal amounts of effort. In contrast, Gilbert posits that people tend to automatically make
internal attributions with little effort and then may expend additional effort to adjust for the
influence of situational factors, which can lead to an external attribution. Thus, external
attributions for others’ behavior require more thought and effort, which makes them less
common than personal attributions.
Close Relationships: Liking and Loving


Key factors in attraction
 Physical attractiveness
 Matching hypothesis
 Similarity
 Reciprocity
Perspectives on love
 Hatfield & Berscheid – Passionate vs. Companionate
love
 Sternberg - Intimacy and commitment
 Hazen & Shaver – love as attachment
 Evolutionary perspectives
 Mating priorities
Figure 16.7
Sternberg’s view of love over time. In his theory of love, Robert Sternberg (1988a)
hypothesizes that the various elements of love progress in different ways over the course of
time. According to Sternberg, passion peaks early in a relationship, whereas intimacy
and commitment continue to build gradually.
Attitudes and Attitude Change



3 components
 cognitive, affective, and behavioral
Factors in changing attitudes
 Source, message, and receiver
Theories of attitude change
 Learning theory
 Dissonance theory
 Self-perception theory
 Elaboration likelihood model
Figure 16.10
The possible components of attitudes. Attitudes may include cognitive, affective, and
behavioral components, as illustrated here for a hypothetical person’s attitude about gun
control.
Figure 16.14
Design of the Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) study. The sequence of events in this landmark
study of counterattitudinal behavior and attitude change is outlined here. The diagram omits a
third condition (no dissonance), in which subjects were not induced to lie. The results in the
nondissonance condition were similar to those found in the low-dissonance condition.
Figure 16.15
Bem’s self-perception theory. The traditional view is that attitudes determine behavior.
However, Bem stood conventional logic on its head when he proposed that behavior often
determines (or causes people to draw inferences about) their attitudes. Subsequent research
on attribution has shown that sometimes people do infer their attitudes from their behavior.
Figure 16.16
The elaboration likelihood model. According to the elaboration likelihood model (Petty &
Cacioppo, 1986), the central route to persuasion leads to more elaboration of message
content and more enduring attitude change than the peripheral route to persuasion.
Yielding to Others: Conformity

Conformity – Solomon Asch (1950s)
 Classic experiment
 Group size and group unanimity
Yielding to Others: Obedience

Obedience – Stanley Milgram (1960s)
 Controversial landmark experiment
 “I was just following orders”
 presence of a dissenter
Behavior in Groups: The Influence of Other People





The bystander effect - Darley and Latane (1968)
 Diffusion of responsibility
Group productivity and social loafing
Decision making in groups
Polarization
Groupthink
Figure 16.22
Group polarization. Two examples of group polarization are diagrammed here. In the first
example (top) a group starts out mildly opposed to an idea, but after discussion sentiment
against the idea is stronger. In the second example (bottom), a group starts out with a
favorable disposition toward an idea, and this disposition is strengthened by group discussion.
Figure 16.23
Overview of Janis’s model of groupthink. The antecedent conditions, symptoms, and resultant
effects of groupthink postulated by Janis (1972) are outlined here. His model of groupthink has
been very influential, but practical difficulties have limited research on the theory. (Adapted
from Janis & Mann, 1977)