© Kip Smith, 2003

Social Perception & Attitudes

Chapter 13

© Kip Smith, 2003

Overview

Determining the causes of behavior Biases in attribution

Stereotypes Social comparison Attitudes

Attitudes & behavior

© Kip Smith, 2003

Person Perception & Evaluation

We try to understand the personality characteristics of other people and their attitudes

How do we do this? Behavior

© Kip Smith, 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

© Kip Smith, 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)

© Kip Smith, 2003

The Logic of Attributing Causes of Behavior

Questions:

Attribution:

1. Does Jim regularly get angry at slow cashiers?

No basis for attribution to personality or situation. Fluke?

NO

2. Do many other people get angry at slow cashiers?

YES

Situational Attribution. Slow cashiers make people angry.

YES

NO

3. Does Jim get angry in many other situations?

Personality Attribution, general. Jim is easily angered.

Personality Attribution, specific. Jim can’t tolerate slow cashiers.

NOYES

© Kip Smith, 2003

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 We only see them in role of newscasts

© Kip Smith, 2003

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

© Kip Smith, 2003

2-Stage Model of Attribution

Observer’s Goal Automatic Attribution Controlled Attribution

To judge person

To judge situation

Person attribution

Situation attribution

Revision of attribution

Revision of attribution

© Kip Smith, 2003

2-Stage Attribution Example

Observer’s Goal Automatic Attribution Controlled Attribution

What kind of person is Jim?

How stressful is the situation?

Jim has a short-temper

The cashier is too slow & Jim is

in a hurry

Perhaps Jim is angered easily

Jim yells at cashier to “Hurry up!”

Perhaps Jim needs to be somewhere

© Kip Smith, 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 Emphasize that fate or circumstances are in charge of

destiny

© Kip Smith, 2003

Cultural Differences

People in Eastern cultures less likely to make dispositional attributions of behaviors

More often attribute behavior to the situation

© Kip Smith, 2003

What About Our Own Behavior?

More of a situational bias Actor-Observer Discrepancy

Anger at cashier Self—situational attribution Someone else—dispositional attribution

© Kip Smith, 2003

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

© Kip Smith, 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

© Kip Smith, 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:

Naïve Honest Helpless Kind Warm

© Kip Smith, 2003

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

© Kip Smith, 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

© Kip Smith, 2003

Implicit Stereotypes

Not necessarily consistent with conscious beliefs

We make mental associations from information in the environment

Others’ beliefs, vivid cases, etc.

© Kip Smith, 2003

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

© Kip Smith, 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

John will have a higher self-concept

© Kip Smith, 2003

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

Tendency to attribute success to own qualities and failures to the situation

Those poorest at a task overestimate abilities most Don’t realize that they lack competence?

© Kip Smith, 2003

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

KSU student, American, Methodist, member of sorority, etc.

© Kip Smith, 2003

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

© Kip Smith, 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

Social group serves as reference

© Kip Smith, 2003

Group Comparison

We often exaggerate positives of our social groups and put down other groups

Better-than-average phenomenon Self-serving attribution bias

Biases applied even when there is no basis for differences

Groups randomly assigned

© Kip Smith, 2003

Cultural Differences

Individualist Cultures Strengthen personal

identities North America, Western

Europe, Australia Philosophical & political

traditions emphasize: personal freedom self-determination individual competition

Emphasis on self-fulfillment

Collectivist Cultures Strengthen social identities Asia, parts of Africa & Latin

America Philosophical & political

traditions emphasize: Inherent connectedness

and interdependence of people within family, workplace, village, & nation

Emphasis on fulfilling duties to, and promoting welfare of, their groups

© Kip Smith, 2003

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.

© Kip Smith, 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

© Kip Smith, 2003

What Do Attitudes Do For Us?

Value-Expressive Function Part of person’s self-concept Help give meaning to a person’s life

Social-Adjustive Function Shared by one’s social group Help person get along with the social group

Defensive Function Provide sense of consistency and harmony Help calm anxieties and boost self-esteem

Utilitarian Function Guide person’s behavior toward desirable outcomes and away

from aversive ones

© Kip Smith, 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

© Kip Smith, 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

© Kip Smith, 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

© Kip Smith, 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

© Kip Smith, 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

© Kip Smith, 2003

Theory of Planned Behavior

Subjective norm

Behavioral intention

Behavior

Perceived behavioral

control

Attitude toward the behavior

© Kip Smith, 2003

Theory of Planned Behavior Example

Beliefs of parents, friends,

church

Intention to use birth control

Use of birth control

“Can I obtain birth control

pills?”

Attitude toward birth control

© Kip Smith, 2003

Actions Can Modify Attitudes

Brain-washing During Korean War, American prisoners asked to carry

out small requests initially E.g., write down trivial statements against the US

government and capitalism Gradually asked to carry out more serious requests

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?

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

© Kip Smith, 2003

Cognitive Dissonance Experiment (Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959)

Participants brought into lab to perform boring task

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

$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