* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download March 14 - Academics
Survey
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
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
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