Download March 14 - Academics

Survey
yes no Was this document useful for you?
   Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Document related concepts

Social dilemma wikipedia, lookup

Milgram experiment wikipedia, lookup

Belongingness wikipedia, lookup

Self-categorization theory wikipedia, lookup

Albert Bandura wikipedia, lookup

Personal identity wikipedia, lookup

Solomon Asch wikipedia, lookup

Group dynamics wikipedia, lookup

In-group favoritism wikipedia, lookup

Introspection illusion wikipedia, lookup

Communication in small groups wikipedia, lookup

Conformity wikipedia, lookup

Attitude (psychology) wikipedia, lookup

Social tuning wikipedia, lookup

Impression formation wikipedia, lookup

Attitude change wikipedia, lookup

False consensus effect wikipedia, lookup

Self-perception theory wikipedia, lookup

Attribution bias wikipedia, lookup

Social perception wikipedia, lookup

Transcript
Social Perception & Attitudes
© Tuan Tran, 2003
Overview

Determining the causes of behavior




Biases in attribution
Stereotypes
Social comparison
Attitudes

Attitudes & behavior
© Tuan Tran, 2003
Person Perception & Evaluation


We try to understand the personality
characteristics of other people and their
attitudes
How do we do this?

Behavior
© Tuan Tran, 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
© Tuan Tran, 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)
© Tuan Tran, 2003
The Logic of Attributing Causes of
Behavior
Questions:
1. Does Jim
regularly get
angry at slow
cashiers?
YES
NO
Attribution:
© Tuan Tran, 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

© Tuan Tran, 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
© Tuan Tran, 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
© Tuan Tran, 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
© Tuan Tran, 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

© Tuan Tran, 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
© Tuan Tran, 2003
What About Our Own Behavior?


More of a situational bias
Actor-Observer Discrepancy

Anger at cashier


© Tuan Tran, 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
© Tuan Tran, 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
© Tuan Tran, 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:





© Tuan Tran, 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
© Tuan Tran, 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
© Tuan Tran, 2003
Implicit Stereotypes

Not necessarily consistent with conscious
beliefs

We make mental associations from information
in the environment

© Tuan Tran, 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
© Tuan Tran, 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

© Tuan Tran, 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

© Tuan Tran, 2003
Tendency to attribute success to own qualities and
failures to the situation
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

© Tuan Tran, 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
© Tuan Tran, 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

© Tuan Tran, 2003
Social group serves as reference
Cultural Differences
Individualist Cultures



Philosophical & political
traditions emphasize:




Strengthen personal
identities
North America, Western
Europe, Australia
personal freedom
self-determination
individual competition
Emphasis on self-fulfillment
© Tuan Tran, 2003
Collectivist Cultures



Philosophical & political
traditions emphasize:


Strengthen social identities
Asia, parts of Africa & Latin
America
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.
© Tuan Tran, 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
© Tuan Tran, 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
© Tuan Tran, 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
© Tuan Tran, 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
© Tuan Tran, 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
© Tuan Tran, 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
© Tuan Tran, 2003
Theory of Planned Behavior
Attitude toward
the behavior
Subjective
norm
Perceived
behavioral
control
© Tuan Tran, 2003
Behavioral
intention
Behavior
Theory of Planned Behavior Example
Attitude toward
birth control
Beliefs of
parents, friends,
church
“Can I obtain
birth control
pills?”
© Tuan Tran, 2003
Intention to use
birth control
Use of birth
control
Outline for 3/14/2003

Finish Up Social Perception & Attitude


Attitude and Behavior
Social Influence




Conformity
Helping
Compliance
Obedience
© Tuan Tran, 2003
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
© Tuan Tran, 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
© Tuan Tran, 2003
Conformity: Asch’s Experiments

Participants brought into lab, ostensibly to
perform a perceptual task
2
3
1
Standard
Line
© Tuan Tran, 2003
Comparison
Lines
Asch’s Experiments

Participant placed in group of other
“participants”




Actually confederates
Gave responses aloud
Participant always second to last
On certain trials


Confederates intentionally gave same wrong
answer
Asch wondered whether participants would
conform by giving same wrong answer
© Tuan Tran, 2003
What did the participants do?

75% of participants conformed on at least
1 of the 12 trials


Some conformed on all trials
Overall, participants conformed on 37% of
the trials
© Tuan Tran, 2003
Informational or Normative
Influence?

Many participants said afterward that they
began to doubt their perceptual abilities


Suggests informational influence
Asch’s 2nd experiment



Same as 1st, but participants write down
answers (confederates responded aloud)
Conformity dropped by two thirds
Suggests normative influence
© Tuan Tran, 2003
Non-Conformists


Asch conducted a third experiment where
1 confederate gave a different answer
than the others
Conformity among participants was ≠ that
of the original experiment

Low conformity regardless of:


© Tuan Tran, 2003
Defector gave correct or incorrect answer
Number of conforming confederates (2-14)
What the Non-Conformist Does

Reduces pressure on participant

Social pressure no longer focused solely on participant



Latané’s Social Impact Theory states that a given source of
pressure has less influence on a particular person when the
pressure is on more than one person
Reduction in normative pressure
Shakes participant’s idea that the group knows
something that he/she doesn’t

“Perhaps the non-conformist sees something that the
rest of the group is missing.”
© Tuan Tran, 2003
Helping Behavior

Kitty Genovese murder




Stabbed and raped outside apartment building
at 3:30 AM
38 of her neighbors heard her screams, but
none helped
Attacker fled, but later returned to stab and
rape her again
No one called police until 3:50 AM

© Tuan Tran, 2003
After attacker left for good
Why Did This Happen?


Commentators and reporters initially
attributed bystanders’ lack of action to
apathy and indifference
John Darley & Bibb Latané suggested a
different cause

Many bystanders present
© Tuan Tran, 2003
Bystander Effect

Seems counterintuitive


More people present  more likely to receive
help, Right?
WRONG



Diffusion of responsibility—a given person has less
responsibility to help when others are present
If everyone thinks that someone else can help, no one
will
Informational and/or normative influences at work
• See others fail to react  must not be an emergency
© Tuan Tran, 2003
Studies on Bystander
Intervention

Darley and Latané (1968)

Students participated in a discussion via
intercom in separate rooms



Led to believe that 1-4 other students present
Confederate participant pretended to have an
epileptic seizure and called for other
participants to help
What did the participants do?
© Tuan Tran, 2003
Darley & Latané (1968) Results
© Tuan Tran, 2003
Deciding When We Need to Help
Yes
Notices
incident?
Interprets
incident as
emergency?
No
No
No help
© Tuan Tran, 2003
No help
Yes
Assumes
responsibility?
No
No help
Yes
Attempts
to help
When Are We More Likely to Help?








Just observed someone else being helpful
Not in a hurry
Victim appears to need and deserve help
Victim is similar to us in some way
In a small town or rural area
Feeling guilty
Focused on others—not preoccupied
In a good mood
© Tuan Tran, 2003
Compliance


Accepting a request to do something
We tend to comply automatically with
simple, direct requests

Often, there is little conscious thinking
involved
© Tuan Tran, 2003
Copy Machine Study

Langer, Blank & Chanowitz, 1978

“Excuse me, I have 5 pages. May I use the
Xerox machine…”




“because I’m in a rush?”—94% complied
Nothing added—60% complied
“because I have to make some copies?”—93%
complied
The word because is enough to elicit
compliance
© Tuan Tran, 2003
Getting You to Spend Your Money

Salespeople often take advantage of
cognitive dissonance



Discomfort when actions conflict with attitudes
Change attitude to align with behavior
Methods


Four-walls technique
Foot-in-the-door technique
© Tuan Tran, 2003
Four-Walls Technique

Questioning strategy



Potential customer is led to make statements
consistent with the notion that owning the
product would be good
Series of questions lead potential customer to
agree to buy the product
Answering “yes” to previous questions makes it
difficult to refuse offer

© Tuan Tran, 2003
Refusing product would make behavior inconsistent
with attitude
Four-Walls Example

Door-to-door encyclopedia sales




Do you feel that a good education is important
for your children?
Do you think that children who do their
homework will get a better education?
Do you believe that a good set of reference
books can help children do their homework?
Well, then, it sounds like you’ll want to hear
about the fine set of encyclopedias I have to
offer at an excellent price. May I tell you about
it?
© Tuan Tran, 2003
Foot-in-the-Door Technique

Potential customer initially grants a small
request

Psychologically prepares customer to grant
subsequent larger request

© Tuan Tran, 2003
Agreeing to buy the product
Foot-in-the-Door Example

Door-to-door encyclopedia salesman asks
for a glass of water and to sit down



Waits for glass of water before telling you that
he’s a salesman
Makes sales pitch while drinking water
Having complied with request, leads
potential customer to believe that
salesperson must be trustworthy

Otherwise, would not have granted request
© Tuan Tran, 2003
Obedience



Nazi soldiers from death camps on trial for
war crimes frequently testified that they
were “following orders”
The world was stunned that people could
carry out atrocities such as the Holocaust
Many believed that the German people
were somehow evil
© Tuan Tran, 2003
Obedience


Stanley Milgram wanted to determine
whether following orders to inflict harm
against innocent people was inherent to
all people or just to Germans
Milgram designed what is probably
considered the most famous study in all of
psychology
© Tuan Tran, 2003
Milgram Studies (1963, 1974)

Two people were brought into the lab at Yale
University, ostensibly for a learning experiment



One person (the participant) was assigned to be the
teacher
The other (actually a trained confederate) was assigned
to be the learner
For every wrong answer, the teacher was to administer
an electric shock to the learner



No actual electric shock was delivered
Teacher and learner in separate rooms
Milgram sat with teacher
© Tuan Tran, 2003