© Tuan Tran, 2003
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:
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
© Tuan Tran, 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
© Tuan Tran, 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
© Tuan Tran, 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
© Tuan Tran, 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
© 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 Emphasize that fate or circumstances are in charge of
destiny
© Tuan Tran, 2003
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 Self—situational attribution Someone else—dispositional attribution
© Tuan Tran, 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
© 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:
Naïve Honest Helpless Kind Warm
© Tuan Tran, 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
© 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
Others’ beliefs, vivid cases, etc.
© Tuan Tran, 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
© 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
John will have a higher self-concept
© Tuan Tran, 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
© Tuan Tran, 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.
© Tuan Tran, 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
© 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
Social group serves as reference
© Tuan Tran, 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: within family, workplace,
village, & nation Emphasis on fulfilling
duties to, and promoting welfare of, their groups
© Tuan Tran, 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.
© 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
Subjective norm
Behavioral intention
Perceived behavioral
control
Attitude toward the behavior
Behavior
© Tuan Tran, 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
© Tuan Tran, 2003
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 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
© 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
Standard Line
Comparison Lines
12 3
© Tuan Tran, 2003
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: Defector gave correct or incorrect answer Number of conforming confederates (2-14)
© Tuan Tran, 2003
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
After attacker left for good
© Tuan Tran, 2003
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
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
0 1 2 3 4
Number of Others Presumed Available to Help
© Tuan Tran, 2003
Deciding When We Need to Help
Notices incident?
Interprets incident as
emergency?
Assumes responsibility? Attempts
to help
Yes Yes Yes
No help No help No help
No No No
© Tuan Tran, 2003
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
Refusing product would make behavior inconsistent with attitude
© Tuan Tran, 2003
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
Agreeing to buy the product
© Tuan Tran, 2003
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