Social Psychology - Exam 2

behavior that takes place in a social context and results from interaction between individuals

study of social behavior

tentative predictions or explanations for an observation or phenomenon that can be empirically tested

the extent to which an association between an independent variable and a dependent variable reflects a causal relationship between the two

the extent to which the results of research can be applied to circumstances outside the specific setting in which the research was conducted

environmental cues that make participants aware of what the experimenter expects to find or how participants are expected to behave

subtle cues or signals that are given out by an experimenter who knows the experimental hypothesis

the reanalysis and interpretation of information collected by others for a different purpose

fundamental part of every human, a symbolic construct which reflects our consciousness of our own identity

• psychological state in which people are aware of their traits, feelings and behavior
• realizations of oneself as an individual entity

are of the frontal lobe in the cerebral cortex responsible for monitoring/controlling intentional behavior

when an individual temporarily becomes aware of private, personal aspects of the self

when reflecting on one's feelings intensifies them with private self-awareness

more accurate self-knowledge with private self-awareness

more aware of true beliefs and acting in line with them with private self-awareness

when a person is aware of public aspects of themselves that can be seen and evaluated by others

concern about being evaluated by others in public self-awareness

if a person's actual public image does not match their desired public image, public self-awareness can lead to this

more likely to conform to group norms even if it goes against their normal attitudes in public self-awareness

chronic self-awareness

experience more intense emotions, more likely to remain true to personal beliefs, and have more accurate self-perceptions

more likely to adhere to group norms, avoid embarrassing situations, concerned with own physical appearance, and likely to judge others based on their physical appearances

cognitive structures that represent the knowledge we have about a particular concept or type of stimulus

we are self-schematic on a particular self-schema if it is highly embedded in our self-concept; this is likely to be the case for a self-schema that we are extreme on, that is particularly important to us, and for which we are certain that the opposite is not true

occurs on a dimension if it is not important to you and does not reflect who you are

theory proposing that we use our self-awareness to assess whether or not we are meeting our goals and, if not, make efforts to improve the self in line with these goals

compare the self against one of two standards; public or private based on type of self-awareness

change in behavior in order to meet the chosen standard

re-compare self against public or private standard

if self and standard align with each other, the individual exits the self-regulation loop

according to this theory, we compare the self to two points of reference, the ideal self and the ought self. Discrepancies between actual and ideal self can lead to dejection-related emotions and discrepancies between actual and ought self lead to agitation-related emotions

reflects how we are at present

point of reference which reflects how we would really like to be

represents the traits or characteristics that an individual believes they should possess, based on a sense of duty, responsibility or obligation

theory that proposes that we form a definition of the self by comparing ourselves with those around us

Tesser proposed that comparison with someone who is successful results in self-reflection or social-comparison, depending on whether that success is relevant domain, and on whether we are certain of our own performance in that domain

associating ourselves with the success of close others

comparing our achievements with the achievements of others who we believe are outperforming us

• 1. exaggerate the ability of successful target
• 2. change the target of comparison
• 3. distance the self from successful target
• 4. devalue the dimension of comparison

unique, personal aspects of the self - personality traits and personal preferences

defined by our relationships with significant others

aspects of the self that reflect relationships with other individuals and groups - family status

theory which proposes that when our membership in a particular group is salient, it is our social self rather than our personal self that guides our self-concept, attitudes and behavior - this explains how affiliation to groups influences behavior

reflects idiosyncratic aspects of the self, including our personality traits and our close relationships with other individuals

reflects our membership in a particular group, and incorporates the attitudes, behaviors and social norms associated with that group

a collection of shared beliefs about how group members should think and behave

an extension of social identity theory which proposes that when an individual's social identity is salient they come to see themselves as a depersonalized group member rather than an idiosyncratic individual - they self-stereotype

when group membership is salient, individuals come to see themselves in terms of the shared features that define the group membership, thinking and behaving as a group member rather than as a unique individual

group members exaggerate similarities within the group and differences with other groups

an individual's personal evaluation of their own self-concept

controlling, imposing rules and punishments

warm and supportive

place a lot of demands on their child, imposing rules on them and disciplining them for disobedience but they are also responsive, supportive and warm

overly strict and demanding, failing to be responsive to the child's needs

responsive but not strict enough, indulging their child's every desire

people with high self-esteem are better at regulating their mood than those with lower self-esteem and are better able to react constructively to life events

people are motivated to hold an accurate self-perception and seek out information which will help them to do so

evaluate the performance of an individual and distinguish their performance from the performance of others, when evaluating the self

people are motivated to confirm their existing self-perceptions and so often seek out similar others who are most likely to do so

people are motivated to hold a positive self-image and are selectively biased toward information that helps them to see themselves in a positive light

the idea that people respond to threats to self by affirming positive aspects of themselves, allowing them to maintain a positive self-concept

we have a pervasive tendency to attribute successes to internal, personal attributes and failure to external factors outside of our control

our self-concept cognitively overlaps with the self-concept of close friends and romantic partners

just knowing memebers of the ingroup who have friends in an outgroup reduces prejudice

low status group members compete with the high status group to improve their status relative to that group

low status group members finding new dimensions on which they compare more favorably

strategy which members of a low status group use to maintain a positive self-concept by distancing themselves from the group, disregarding he importance of that group membership

people often derive a positive self-concept from the achievements of other group members even if they were not personally instrumental in those achievements

when a group is unsuccessful, group members may limit damage to their own self-concept by distancing themselves from the group. However, this strategy is only used by individuals for whom the group is not highly important

culture that promotes individual goals, initiative and achievements, encouraging people to view themselves as unique and independent individuals - US, UK

culture that promotes conformity, and actions that promote the best interests of the group rather than its individual members, placing high value on cooperation, social support and respect for others - China, India

people who are adept at dealing with both cultures (their own and their host society's)

an individual may successfully take part in two different cultures by understanding the cultural assumptions that guide attitudes and behavior in both, and switching smoothly between the two depending on the social context

The idea of the naive scientist

Heider, 1958

• The need to form a coherent view of the world
• The need to gain control over the environment

We act as naive scientists, rationally and logically testing our hypotheses about the behavior of others

The basic need to attribute causality

• Asked participants to simply describe the movement of abstract geometric shapes
• Results:
• Participants (all but one) described the movements as actions of animated beings - indicative of human intentions and motives

• Ascribes meaning to our world
• Makes the world clear, definable and predictable, thereby reducing uncertainty

Responsibility

Internal or external causes

• 1. Stable vs unstable causes (stability)
• 2. Controllable vs uncontrollable causes (controllability)

Jones and Davis, 1965

Dispositional because they are more valuable with regard to making predictions about behavior

Process three key types of information: social desirability, choice, and non-common effects

Internal attribution is more likely when socially undesirable behaviors are observed

Internal attribution is more likely when the actor has freely chosen the given behavior

Internal attribution is more likely when the outcome of a behavior has a unique effect

It is limited to single instances of behavior and focuses on internal attributions

• It accounts for multiple observational points and details the processes that result in external as well as internal attributions
• It expands on the correspondent inference theory

For something to be the cause of a particular behavior it must be present when the behavior is present and absent when the behavior is absent

Kelley, 1967

We ascribe causality to the cause that covaries with the behavior to the greatest extent

• Consensus
• Consistency
• Distinctiveness

Cause is internal disposition

Cause is external situation

No, it's idealized and individuals don't put the same amount of weight on each element (people pay more attention to target person information than the context)

Attributional biases

Tendency in particular contexts to make one type of attribution over another

• Fundamental attribution error
• Actor-observer bias
• Self serving attributions

Jones and Harris in 1967

Tendency to make internal rather than external attributions for people's behavior

• Had participants read essays written by fellow students for or against Fidel Castro
• Students either picked their position on Castro or were assigned their position
• Participants were then asked to guess what attitude the person had toward Castro
• Results:
• In choice condition participants reasonably assumed the writer had written based on their own opinion
• Participants also thought that the essay reflected the writer's opinion in the non-choice condition as well

Perceptual salience - person being observed is the most perceptually salient aspect of the situation, so an internal attribution becomes much more accessible

False: less fundamental in non-Western

The actor-observer bias

Storms, 1973

• Two participants as observers and two as conversational actors
• Two actors had a conversation with each other while being observed by the other two
• The observers were then asked to attribute causality and judge whether the opinions reflected by the actors reflected their stable personality or not
• Results:
• Observers focused attention on the actor they were facing
• Observers emphasized dispositional factors when explaining the actor's behaviors, but the actors emphasized situational factors when explaining their own behavior
• This is caused by perceptual salience: actor's attention is away from them (external) and observer's attention is on the actor (internal)
• Note that the actor-observer bias was reversed when the actors were shown videotapes of their opposite perspective before making attributions leading them to make internal attributions instead of the before stated external ones

The pervasive tendency to attribute successes to internal, personal attributions and failure to external factors outside of our control is how we protect and maintain our self esteem

We tend to attribute our group's successes to internal factors and other group's successes to external factors

Can serve to propagate prejudice and discrimination in society

State of mind can sometimes determine if we make an internal or external attribution

Neumann, 2000

• Participants were primed by pairing 20 symbols depicting everyday activities with 20 phrases describing the activities
• They then had to come up with either self or other referent sentences, depending on which condition they had been assigned
• After this, participants were instructed to go to a second lab down the hall and when they entered the lab an experimenter shouted at them to get out
• Results:
• Participants with self-referent mindset were more likely to react with guilt (internal attribution)
• Participants with other-referent mindset were more likely to react with anger (external attribution)
• Suggests that whether we feel guilty or angry after something bad happens may depend on factors entirely unrelated to the situation

Weiner's 1986 idea that anger emerges from external attributions for negative events while guilt from the internal attribution for negative events

Through self perception

When we attribute credibility to people, we believe in them

We are fooled into love because we are making mis-attributions

Moscovici, 1961

Social representation refer to shared beliefs and understandings between broad groups of people and these can include culturally held and transmitted knowledge about causal relations

• Through informal discussion to form a common-place, consensually held belief - a social representation
• This is in line with Heider's assertions that we are all naive scientists, attempting to make sense of the world around us

Yes

True self is often different from self awareness

That we are trapped inside of them

Private self awareness

Public self awareness

Evaluation apprehension

• In our minds
• In our individual perceptions

Schema

• Information stored in your head
• Emotions
• Behaviors

Self schema

Esteem

Self esteem

Our concept of our self

Self motives

Self enhancement

Self verification

Reflexive thought

• Situation
• Personality

Self awareness

around 18 months

Spindle cells

Specialized neurones in the anterior cingulate

Anterior cingulate in the cerebral cortex in the frontal lobe

Anterior cingulate

Make inferences about what other people are thinking and process information about the self

We might make inferences about the thoughts and feelings of others by imagining what our own thoughts and feelings would be if we were in the same situation

Mitchell, Banaji, and Macrae (2005)

• Participants went under an fMRI scan to show activity in different areas of the brain while making judgements about photographs of a series of faces
• Participants either made judgements about the mental state of the person or a nonmental state task
• After the fMRI, participants were shown each photograph again and reported how similar they perceived themselves to be to the person in the photo

• Participants showed mental activity in the prefrontal cortex when they were making inferences about mental states but not when they were making a judgement on the physical appearance of the person
• There was also a correlation between the amount of activity in the cortex and perceived similarity of the participant to the individual when making judgements on mental state

• The prefrontal cortex is specifically used when trying to understand the attributes that other people possess, but not for making more general judgements about others
• When the participants believed they were more similar to the person in the photograph, they believed they were better able to predict the behavior of that individual on the basis of how they themselves would feel in the same situation
• The prefrontal cortex showed greater activation during these times

• When they see their face in a mirror
• When they experience physiological arousal which may lead them to reflect on their emotional state

Feeling even happier

Private self awareness in emotional response

• Had participants read aloud a series of positive statements or a period of negative statements
• They found that participants who looked at themselves in a mirror became more extreme in their emotional responses than participants who had not been looking in a mirror

• Intensified emotional responses
• Clarification of knowledge about self
• Adherence to personal standards of behavior

By focusing on internal events they able to report them with greater accuracy

Private self awareness in clarification of knowledge

• Gave participants a placebo which they were told was a drug that would induce arousal and a number of other side effects
• Results:
• Participants with mirror-induced self awareness reported less arousal and fewer side effects than participants in a control condition who could not see themselves
• Self aware individuals ignored the placebo and focused on how they were really feeling resulting in more accurate self perceptions

Individuals who are more aware of their true beliefs will act in line with those beliefs rather than being influenced by normative pressures

Private self awareness and adherence to beliefs

• Had participants write a counter-attitudinal essay using the theory of cognitive dissonance
• Participants who wrote the essay in front of a mirror showed less attitude change than participants who wrote the essay without the mirror

People feel negative arousal if their attitudes and behavior are inconsistent and often deal with this by changing their attitudes in line with their behavior

When they are being watched by others

• Nervousness
• Loss of self esteem

Adherence to social standards of behavior instead of to personal beliefs

• Chronically heightened private self awareness
• More intense emotions
• More likely to remain true to their personal beliefs
• Have more accurate self perceptions

• Pros:
• Less likely to experience ill health as a result of stress because they pay more attention to their physiological state
• Cons:
• Greater tendency to suffer from depression and neuroticism
• More likely to pay attention to and ruminate about any feelings of unhappiness or discomfort

How they are perceived by those around them

• More likely to adhere to group norms
• More likely to avoid embarrassing situations
• More concerned with their own physical appearance
• More likely to judge others based on their physical appearance

Schemas

Cognitive structures that represent the knowledge we have about a particular concept or type of stimulus

Through our experiences with a stimulus

Our perception of our self, and our experience on that dimension of our self

Markus, 1977

Self schematic

Self aschematic

We acquire more information about the self than about anything else

As well as current self schema, we also hold possible future self schema

• Buffer us from negative events or failures in our lives
• If we have one self schema producing a negative effect, we derive satisfaction from other self schemas to show ourselves in a positive light

Markus (1977)

• Participants who had either previously rated themselves as self-schematic on the trait of dependence or independence (or aschematic on both) completed a reaction-time task
• They were presented with words on a screen associated with independence and dependence and were asked to press a "me" button if this described them or a "not me" button if it didn't
• Results:
• Participants who were self schematic on independence or dependence were much faster at identifying whether a word characterized them than participants who were aschematic on either of the characteristics
• Self schematic participants also had better memory for incidents from the past which demonstrated their dependence or independence

• 1. Control theory of self regulation
• 2. Self discrepancy theory
• 3. Social comparison theory
• 4. Self evaluation maintenance model
• 5. Social identity theory
• 6. Self categorization theory

• Perceptions of how the self should be
• Perceptions of the self to other individuals
• Perceptions of the self to other groups

They both argue that when people are self aware, they can think about whether they are the sort of person they want to be or whether there are ways in which they would like to change

Through self awareness, we are able to assess whether or not we are meeting our goals

The cognitive feedback loop which illustrates four steps involved in self regulation

• 1. Test
• 2. Operate
• 3. Test
• 4. Exit

People compare the self against one of two standards - privately self aware people compare themselves again a private standard and publicly self aware people compare themselves against a public standard

Values she believes to be important

Values held by his friends and family

They put into operation a change in behavior in order to meet the standard

They retest themselves, comparing their self to their values/values of others for the second time

The feedback loop repeats itself

The individual exits the feedback loop for that standard

Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Muraven, and Tice in 1998

• Participants were led to believe the study was about taste perception and were instructed to make sure they had not eaten for at least 3 hours
• They entered a room with an oven in it with the aroma of chocolate and baking
• They were seated at a table with chocolate cookies on one side and a bowl of radishes on the other
• Radishes condition:
• Participants were asked to eat at least 2 or 3 radishes
• Only eat the food assigned
• Chocolate condition:
• Participants were asked to eat at least 2 or 3 cookies
• Only eat the food assigned
• Both conditions:
• They were left alone for five minutes and observed
• After completing the task, participants were asked if they minded helping out the experimenter by taking part in an unrelated experiment on problem solving
• They were instructed to complete a problem solving task, taking as much time as they wanted and were told that they would not be judged on how long they took
• The task had been prepared so it was impossible to solve
• Results:
• Participants in the radishes condition gave up more quickly than those in the chocolate condition
• Participants who previously had to exert self control by only eating the radishes, were less able to persist on the difficult and frustrating puzzle task
• Baumeister et al. argued that we have limited cognitive resources at our disposal to self regulate and when we self regulate in one domain, the resources we have left to self regulate in another domain are temporarily depleted

Higgins, 1987

• Actual self
• Ideal self
• Ought self

That their actual self matches their ideal self and ought self

Associated with the absence of positive outcomes, which result in dejection-related emotions like disappointment and sadness

Associated with the presence of negative outcomes, which results in agitation-related emotions like anger, fear and nervousness

• Identified participants who had previously reported either a low or a high discrepancy between their ideal and their actual and ought selves
• Several weeks later, participants completed a task in which they either had to focus on and describe the difference between their ideal or ought self and their actual self

• Participants with a high level of discrepancy showed an increase in dejection related emotions after thinking about their actual-ideal discrepancies, and an increase in agitation related emotions after thinking about their actual-ought discrepancies
• Participants with low or no discrepancies showed no significant changes in their emotions

By generating negative arousal, discrepancies will motivate people to reduce the discomfort they are experiencing by making changes that reduce discrepancies

We learn about the self by comparing ourselves with other individuals

• That beliefs, feelings, and behaviors are subjective
• There is no objective benchmark against which we can compare them
• By comparing the self with others, we are given an objective benchmark to make comparisons to, providing us with a sense of validation for the way we are

Comparing the self to someone you believe to be better than you

Comparing the self to someone who you believe to be worse than you

Both upward and downward

Tesser in 1988

• Social reflection
• Upward social comparison

• Domain in which the individual is successful must be irrelevant to us and doesn‚Äôt threaten our self concept
• We must be certain about our abilities in that particular domain

• When the domain on which the other person is successful is relevant
• Uncertainty about our own abilities

• 1. Exaggerate the ability of successful target
• 2. Change the target of comparison
• 3. Distance the self from successful target
• 4. Devalue the dimension of comparison

False; made up of many self schemas

• Individual self
• Relational self
• Collective self

Hogg and Abrams 1988 and Tafjel and Turner 1979

Those that reflect idiosyncratic aspects of the self (personality traits)

Broader social groups to which we belong

Which of our many personal or social identities is psychologically salient

Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, and Wetherell, 1987

When it becomes salient, their perceptions of themselves and others become depersonalized and they see themselves more in terms of the shared features that define group membership

Meta-contrast principle

Jetten, Spears and Manstead in 1996

• Participants social identity was made salient by being told they were being assigned to one of two groups, based on the technique they had used during an initial task
• To increase identification, they then took part in what they believed was a group task (which actually had no other members)
• They estimated the number of black squares appearing on a screen and were given false feedback about the estimates of three other group members
• They were then asked to distribute money between members of their own group and members of another group.

Participants were strongly influenced by the norms of their own group, giving a greater proportion of money to members of their own group when their was a norm of discrimination but distributing money more equally between the two groups when there was a group norm of fairness but only when the norm of the other group was also fairness

It varies depending on the context we find ourselves in

• A meta-analysis of 50 self esteem studies showing that over the course of people's lifespan general tendencies to have either high or low self esteem can vary
• They found that self esteem among children aged between 6 and 11 was relatively unstable
• Self esteem was most stable among people in their 20s and remained relatively stable until mid adulthood
• By age 60, self esteem stability declines

People with lower self esteem are less likely to make the effort to feel good than people with higher self esteem

They recorded participants' memories of positive events and found that people with lower self esteem were more likely to dampen the good feelings they experienced by distracting themselves trying to make themselves feel less good and trying to calm themselves, than were people with higher self esteem

• Had participants who had reported a failure in their everyday life to list their immediate plans and reasons for those plans
• Participants with lower self esteem were less likely to express goals to improve their mood
• They found that having a goal to improve one's mood was associated with a greater improvement in mood the following day

• That people with lower self esteem make less effort to regulate their mood
• They do not try to maintain a good mood after a positive life event
• They are not motivated to elevate their mood after a negative life event

Baumeister, Smart and Boden, 1996

Narcissism

Individuals have extremely high self esteem, believing they are special and superior to others, but their self esteem is very unstable

A study on the relationship between narcissism and the tendency to be aggressive

• Told participants they were taking part in a study on how people respond to feedback from others and that they would be working with another participant
• They wrote a one paragraph essay and it was taken away to the other (nonexistent) participant
• Participants marked and gave feedback on the essay of the 'other participant' and were given feedback on their own essay
• Praise condition:
• Participants were given positive ratings and comments
• Negative condition:
• Participants were given negative ratings and comments
• The participants were then told they would be in a competitive reaction time task and whoever failed the trial received a blast of noise
• Results:
• There was a positive relationship between narcissism and aggression but this relationship was particularly strong when there was an ego threat

To reduce uncertainty about our abilities or personal characteristics

Tests which evaluate the performance of an individual and distinguish their performance from the performance of others, when evaluating the self

• Self assessment
• Self verification
• Self enhancement

Swann, Stein-Seroussi and Giesler, 1992

• They asked people who had either a positive or negative self concept whether they would prefer to interact with evaluators who had a favorable impression of them or unfavorable
• Results:
• They found that people with positive self concept were more likely to choose the evaluator who had a favorable impression, but it was the opposite for those with negative self concepts

They seek a compromise between self enhancement and self verification by seeking out individuals who make them feel better about themselves without completely disconfirming their existing negative self concept

• He pitted the three self motives against each other
• Participants completed a self reflection task
• Participants' strongest tendency was to ask themselves questions that focused on positive rather than negative aspects of self
• Results:
• Self enhancement appears to be the most powerful self motive

• Study conducted among Mormon women
• Self concept threat condition:
• The researcher questioning the women commented that Mormons were typically uncooperative with community projects
• Self concept irrelevant threat condition:
• Researcher commented that Mormons were typically unconcerned with driver safety and care
• Self concept affirmation condition:
• Researcher commented that Mormons were typically cooperative with community projects
• Two days later, the women received an "unrelated" phone call from a person in the community asking for help
• Results:
• 65% agreed in the self concept affirmation condition
• 95% agreed in both threat conditions
• Participants who felt threatened wanted to reaffirm a positive aspect of their self concept and did so by publicly demonstrating their community spirit

Mischel, Ebbesen and Zeiss, 1976

• Exposed participants to an equal amount of positive and negative information about their personality and then tested their memory of that information
• Results:
• Participants had a better memory for the positive information than for the negative information

Wyer and Frey, 1983

• They gave participants an intelligence test and then gave either positive or negative feedback
• Participants then had the opportunity to read a report on the validity of intelligence tests which contained a mix of supportive and critical info
• Results:
• Participants who had been told they had performed poorly subsequently judged intelligence tests to be less valid than did participants who had received positive feedback

Including other in the self

The positive feelings and treatment we usually reserve for the self can then be extended to others

They found that greater inclusion of other in the self among dating couples was associated with greater satisfaction, commitment and investment in the relationship

They studied the extended contact effect and found that just knowing members of the ingroup who have friends in an outgroup reduces prejudice

• They led participants to believe they had been assigned to one of two groups based on their performance on an initial task
• Participants then observed an ingroup and an outgroup member interact on a problem solving task
• The relationship between the individuals was either close, strangers of disliked acquaintances
• Results:
• The outgroup was evaluated more positively when the observed interaction was friendly than when it was neutral or hostile

Robert Cialdini and colleagues

• Investigated the behavior of fans of college American football teams
• Students at seven universities were monitored during an intro psych class
• The proportion of students in class wearing university apparel was recorded
• The researchers considered whether the apparel differed depending on if their team had won
• Results:
• Students wore more apparel when their team had won that weekend

Basking in reflected glory

• Compared to groups of college students who performed adequately on a group task, groups who failed on the task were more likely to distance themselves from other members of their group
• They reported a desire to avoid the group

Cutting off reflected failure

Trafimow, Triandis and Goto, 1991

• Had North American and Chinese participants write down 20 self descriptions
• Results:
• North American students wrote down a significantly greater proportion of individual self descriptions than Chinese students

Gardner, Gabriel and Lee, 1999

• Primed American students to temporaily have either a more individualist or more collectivist self concept by having them read a story
• One story used independent pronouns and the other used interdependent pronouns
• Participants then wrote down 20 self descriptions and completed a questionnaire about values that were important to them
• Results:
• Participants primed to hold a personal self concept wrote more individual self descriptions and more strongly endorsed individualist values than the students primed for collectivist self concepts

Bicultural

• Biculturalism in Chinese Americans
• Found that Chinese American bicultural individuals primed with Western or East Asian cues changed their behavior in line with the cued culture

Bicultural individuals felt more at ease interacting with individuals from outside their ethnic minority, and had better problem solving strategies and interpersonal skills

Minority students proficient at communicating with the majority culture had no only higher levels of self esteem but also reported having less experience with racial tension and interethnic conflicts

They have higher cognitive functioning, better mental health and higher self esteem

• Lorenzo-Hernandez (1998) - not committed to their group of origin or dominant group
• LaFromboise and colleagues (1993) - to successfully alternate, they must hold positive attitudes toward both cultures and be able to communicate effectively

A symbolic construct

• Consciousness of our own identity
• Awareness that we exist as an individual, separate from other individuals

A psychological state in which people are aware of their traits, feelings and behaviors

1978

• Put a spot of rouge on the nose of babies and then put them in front of a mirror
• Around 18 months, children recognized that the reflections was themselves

Prefrontal cortex in the anterior cingulate

Mitchell, Banaji, and Macrae (2005)

Private and public

• Intensified emotional response
• Report with greater accuracy
• More likely to adhere to personal standards of behavior

• Evaluation apprehension
• Adherence to social standards of behavior

Having a self-conscious personality trait or not

Heightened

They are concerned with how they are perceived by others

1977

• Private self awareness study
• Participants read aloud positive or negative statements
• Participants who looked in the mirror during this task were more privately self aware and had more extreme emotional responses than those who did not look in a mirror

With self schemas

How we expect ourselves to think, feel and behave in a particular situation

In relevant situations

How we should respond, based on our beliefs of who we are

Traits important to our self concept

Traits that describe our self to some extent

Traits that do not describe our perception of our self

• Self Regulation Theory
• Self Discrepancy Theory

• Social Comparison Theory
• Self Evaluation Maintenance Model

Social Identity Approach

Carver and Scheier, 1981

We examine the self to assess whether we are meeting our personal goals

• The scientific method - start with a self schema, test it, evaluate it, if it passes we move on, but if it doesn't we retest it
• Test-Operate-Test-Exit

Higgins, 1987

People are motivated to ensure that their actual self matches their ideal and ought self

Festinger, 1954

We learn how to define the self by comparing ourselves to others through two different comparisons (upward and downward)

Upward and downward

Tesser, 1988

When someone is more successful than us, it can have a negative effect on our self esteem, so we use self reflection and upward social comparisons to deal with it

• 1. exaggerate the ability of successful target
• 2. change the target of comparison
• 3. distance the self from successful target
• 4. devalue the dimension of comparison

Exaggerating the ability of the successful target

Changing the target of comparison

Distancing the self from the successful target

Devaluing the dimension of comparison

Social identity approach in 1979

• Personal identity
• Social identity

Context dependent

Self esteem

A person's subjective appraisal of him/herself as intrinsically positive or negative to some degree

Sedikides and Gregg, 2003

They vary from time to time

Both

• Disability to adequately regulate mood
• Narcissism

They dampen positive feelings

Following failure, the make fewer goals and plans to improve their mood

• Extremely high self esteem
• Very unstable/fragile self esteem
• Reliant on validation from others

Initially likeable, extraverted, unlikely to suffer from depression and perform well in public

Crave attention, overconfident, lack empathy

Young and Pinksy in 2006

• Self assessment
• Self verification
• Self enhancement

Self enhancement

Sedikides, 1993

Steele, 1975

Self serving attribution bias

We respond to threatened self esteem by publicly affirming positive aspects of the self

• Successes are attributed to internal characteristics
• Failures are attributed to external characteristics
• We have a memory for self enhancing information

• Deriving a positive self image from their group memberships
• Holding a positive collective identity in a group
• Actions of low status group members to enhance themselves

• Join a higher status group
• Social change strategies
• Social creativity strategies
• Dis-identification

Individualistic vs Collectivist

Yes, they are still individual perceptions dwelling in the mind

Individuals who simultaneously hold two cultural identities, their original and the identity of their host society

• Individuals alter their cultural orientation depending on the situation (which culture they are immersed in at the time)
• Possible to have a sense of belonging in two cultures

the way in which perceivers encode, process, remember and use information in social contexts in order to make sense of other people's behavior

a real or imagined scenario including reference to self or others

the way in which we categorize others and use cognitive shortcuts to clarify and understand all of the information bombarding our senses

• 1. the need to form a coherent view of the world
• 2. the need to gain control over the environment

people rationally and logically test out hypotheses about the behavior of others because of a desire for consistency and stability

Heider proposed that we have a basic need to attribute causality as this ascribes meaning to our social world, making it more clear, definable and predictable

the dimension that describes whether people make internal or external attributions

an explanation that locates the cause as being internal to the person, such as personality, mood, abilities, attitudes, and effort

an explanation that locates the cause as being external to the person, such as the actions of others, the nature of the situation, social pressures or luck

a dimension that describes whether the causes of a behavior or event are perceived to be relatively stable and permanent or temporary and fluctuating

a dimension that describes whether the causes of a behavior or event were perceived to be influenced by other or whether they were perceived to have occurred at random

information about whether the behavior observed is consistent with, or counter to, social norms - the more consistent the behavior is with social norms, the more socially desirable that behavior is seen as being

internal attributions are more likely to be made when the person being observed has freely chosen to behave in a particular way

when a behavior has unique consequences, rather than range of possible other consequences, an internal attribution is more likely to be made

information about the extent to which other people in the scene react in the same way as the target person

information about the extent to which the target person reacts int he same way on different occasions

information about the extent to which the target person reacts in the same way in other social contexts

describe the tendency in particular contexts to make one type of attribution over another

tendency to categorize on the basis of the features that are the most salient in a particular situation - fundamental attribution error may be explained by the fact that the person being observed is the most perceptually salient aspect of the situation

tendency to attribute other people's behavior to internal causes and our own behaviors to external causes

we are more likely to make internal attributions for our successes and external attribution for failures

theory that, far from being naive scientists, we are reluctant to expend cognitive resources and look for an opportunity to avoid engaging in effortful thought

time-saving mental short-cuts that reduce complex judgements to simple rules of thumb

tendency to allocate a set of attributes to someone if they match the prototype of a given category

the way in which we organize our social world by putting people into groupings - males and females, old and young, black and white

tendency to ignore statistical information in favor of representativeness information

tendency to judge the frequency of an event in terms of how easy it is to bring to mind examples of that particular event; we use availability as a cognitive short-cut; the easier it is for something to come to mind, the more likely it is that it will affect our behavior

extent to which a concept is readily brought to mind

robust bias we have to overestimate how common one's own opinion is in the general population

tendency to be biased toward the starting value, or anchor, in making quantitative judgements

the idea that people are neither cognitive misers nor naive scientists; instead, they are strategic in their allocation of cognitive resources, deciding whether to be a cognitive miser or a naive scientist depending on the situation

• In heuristic versus systematic processing
• people are more likely to be a cognitive miser when they are short of time; in addition, the longer the time lag between assessing a person's attitude and behavior toward a stimulus, the less likely it is that attitude and behavior will correspond with one another

• In heuristic versus systematic processing
• to be a naive scientist, one must think, analyze and contemplate; people are therefore more likely to be a cognitive miser when they have lots on their mind and do not have the cognitive resources available to think in depth about an issue

• In heuristic versus systematic processing
• if a decision we have to make is important to us, then we are much less likely to use a heuristic and much more likely to be a naive scientist

• In heuristic versus systematic processing
• we can only act as naive scientists if we have all the information we need at hand; where there is lack of information, we are more likely to rely on heuristics to make a decision; possessing more information about an attitude object leads to greater attitude strength and greater correspondence between attitude and behavior

• - the process of understanding what something is by knowing what others things is is equivalent to, and what other things it is different from
• - a way of classifying some collection of objects, events, opinions, attitudes, concepts or people
• - labeling
• - comparing

the most representative or typical object, person, or characteristic in a particular category

prototype of a social category

belief that two variables are associated with one another when there is little or no actual association

term that describes when two things are both infrequent and therefore distinctive, which tends to lead to an illusory correlation

a category that is perceived to be made up of many different sorts of people

a category that is perceived to be made up of only a few types of people who are all very similar to one another

the general tendency that people have to perceive outgroup members to be more homogeneous than ingroup members

the outgroup homogeneity effect may be explained by the fact that we are more familiar with our own group, holding a more detailed and varied impression of it

we tend to categorize on the basis of the features of a category that we encounter first

we tend to categorize on the basis of the features that are the most salient in a particular situation; the fundamental attribution error may be explained by the fact that the person being observed is the most perceptually salient aspect of the situation

some categories, such as age, gender, and race, are used so frequently that they become chronically accessible, and are automatically applied to people in most situations

categorization heightens accessibility of info that is consistent with the category stereotype

information that goes against our normal stereotypical expectation about a member of a particular group; may be better remembered than stereotype consistent info because it is attention getting, but only if people have enough cognitive resources available to process it

even is stereotype inconsistent information is remembered, it may often be discounted as an 'exception to the rule' where the stereotype is concerned; subtyping often preserves and perpetuates the overall stereotype as it negates the impact of disconfirming information

phenomenon whereby when people think about a particular category they can unconsciously begin to act in line with the stereotype associated with that category (elderly = slow)

unconscious activation of knowledge structures, such as traits or stereotypes, which can then have an unintended influence on an individual's subsequent behavior

when a negative stereotype about the group to which we belong is made salient, we tend to show impaired performance on dimensions related to that stereotype

theory that argues when forming impressions of others, people take either a heuristic or a systematic approach

Fiske and Neuberg argue that there is a continuum from category-based (heuristic) processing where people are seen as individuals to attribute based (systematic) processing where people are seen as representative of a group

seeing a person as an idiosyncratic individual with unique characteristics rather than as an interchangeable group member

process by which people switch from forming impressions based on categories to forming impressions based on individual characteristics

the way in which perceivers encode, process, remember and use information in social contexts in order to make sense of other people's behavior

a real or imagined scenario including reference to self or others

the way in which we categorize others and use cognitive shortcuts to clarify and understand all of the information bombarding our senses

• 1. the need to form a coherent view of the world
• 2. the need to gain control over the environment

people rationally and logically test out hypotheses about the behavior of others because of a desire for consistency and stability

theory that, far from being naive scientists, we are reluctant to expend cognitive resources and look for an opportunity to avoid engaging in effortful thought

time-saving mental short-cuts that reduce complex judgements to simple rules of thumb

• tendency to allocate a set of attributes to someone if they match the prototype of a given category
• quick and easy way of putting people into categoires

the way in which we organize our social world by putting people into groupings - males and females, old and young, black and white

• tendency to ignore statistical information in favor of representativeness information
• fallacy of the representative heuristic

tendency to judge the frequency of an event in terms of how easy it is to bring to mind examples of that particular event; we use availability as a cognitive short-cut; the easier it is for something to come to mind, the more likely it is that it will affect our behavior

extent to which a concept is readily brought to mind

• robust bias we have to overestimate how common one's own opinion is in the general population
• tendency to exaggerate how common one's own opinions are in the general population

Kruglanski, 1996

• the idea that people are neither cognitive misers nor naive scientists; instead, they are strategic in their allocation of cognitive resources, deciding whether to be a cognitive miser or a naive scientist depending on the situation
• People are flexible social thinkers who choose between multiple cognitive strategies based on their current goals, motives, and needs

Macrae, Hewstone and Griffiths, 1993

• In heuristic versus systematic processing
• people are more likely to be a cognitive miser when they are short of time; in addition, the longer the time lag between assessing a person's attitude and behavior toward a stimulus, the less likely it is that attitude and behavior will correspond with one another

• In heuristic versus systematic processing
• to be a naive scientist, one must think, analyze and contemplate; people are therefore more likely to be a cognitive miser when they have lots on their mind and do not have the cognitive resources available to think in depth about an issue

• In heuristic versus systematic processing
• if a decision we have to make is important to us, then we are much less likely to use a heuristic and much more likely to be a naive scientist

• In heuristic versus systematic processing
• we can only act as naive scientists if we have all the information we need at hand; where there is lack of information, we are more likely to rely on heuristics to make a decision; possessing more information about an attitude object leads to greater attitude strength and greater correspondence between attitude and behavior

• - the process of understanding what something is by knowing what others things is is equivalent to, and what other things it is different from
• - a way of classifying some collection of objects, events, opinions, attitudes, concepts or people
• - labeling
• - comparing

the most representative or typical object, person, or characteristic in a particular category

prototype of a social category

belief that two variables are associated with one another when there is little or no actual association

term that describes when two things are both infrequent and therefore distinctive, which tends to lead to an illusory correlation

a category that is perceived to be made up of many different sorts of people

a category that is perceived to be made up of only a few types of people who are all very similar to one another

the general tendency that people have to perceive outgroup members to be more homogeneous than ingroup members

the outgroup homogeneity effect may be explained by the fact that we are more familiar with our own group, holding a more detailed and varied impression of it

we tend to categorize on the basis of the features that are the most salient in a particular situation; the fundamental attribution error may be explained by the fact that the person being observed is the most perceptually salient aspect of the situation

some categories, such as age, gender, and race, are used so frequently that they become chronically accessible, and are automatically applied to people in most situations

categorization heightens accessibility of info that is consistent with the category stereotype

• information that goes against our normal stereotypical expectation about a member of a particular group; may be better remembered than stereotype consistent info because it is attention getting, but only if people have enough cognitive resources available to process it
• Salient and attention-grabbing

even if stereotype inconsistent information is remembered, it may often be discounted as an 'exception to the rule' where the stereotype is concerned; subtyping often preserves and perpetuates the overall stereotype as it negates the impact of disconfirming information

phenomenon whereby when people think about a particular category they can unconsciously begin to act in line with the stereotype associated with that category (elderly = slow)

unconscious activation of knowledge structures, such as traits or stereotypes, which can then have an unintended influence on an individual's subsequent behavior

when a negative stereotype about the group to which we belong is made salient, we tend to show impaired performance on dimensions related to that stereotype

theory that argues when forming impressions of others, people take either a heuristic or a systematic approach

• Fiske and Neuberg argue that there is a continuum from category-based (heuristic) processing where people are seen as individuals to attribute based (systematic) processing where people are seen as representative of a group
• They say people begin the process of impression formation by adopting a cognitive miser mode of processing, unless they find there is not a good fit - then they shift to naive scientist mode

seeing a person as an idiosyncratic individual with unique characteristics rather than as an interchangeable group member

process by which people switch from forming impressions based on categories to forming impressions based on individual characteristics

Describes the way people encode, process, remember, and use information in social contexts in order to make sense of other’s behavior

• 1. Time
• 2. Cognitive overload
• 3. Importance
• 4. Information

• Naïve scientist
• Cognitive miser

Processing resources are valuable so we engage in time-saving mental shortcuts when trying to understand the world

Fiske and Taylor, 1991

Heider

• Representativeness
• Availability
• Anchoring
• False consensus effect

• Time-saving mental shortcuts that reduce complex judgments to simple rules of thumb
• Quick and easy, but can result in biased information processing

• Representativeness
• Availability

• Tversky and Kahneman, 1974
• Ajzen, 1996

Tendency to judge the category membership of people based on how closely they match the prototypical member of that category

Kahneman and Tversky, 1973

Quick and easy way of putting people into categories

• The representativeness heuristic is prone to error
• It has a tendency to ignore statistical information in favor of representativeness information

Tendency to judge the frequency or probability of an event in terms of how easy it is to think of examples of that event

Tversky and Kaneman, 1973

Concept of accessibility

• Methods
• Had participants recall 12 or 6 examples of assertive/unassertive behavior, then rate themselves as assertive or unassertive
• Results
• Participants recalled 6 examples of their assertive (or unassertive) behavior subsequently rated themselves as more assertive (or unassertive) than those who had recalled 12 examples
• People attend to the difficulty of retrieving instances of certain behaviors and not just the content – when recalling 12, examples became less available to them so they didn’t believe they were assertive/unassertive

Gross and Miller, 1997

• The false consensus effect
• Methods
• “Would you walk around campus for thirty minutes wearing a large sandwich board saying EAT AT JOE’S”
• Students estimated that the number of students who would make the same choice as them
• Results
• Whatever choice the participant made, they estimated that the majority of other people would make the same choice

Anchoring is the tendency to be biased toward the starting value or anchor in making quantitative judgments

Wyer, 1976

• The anchoring heuristic
• Methods:
• Survey during the Cold War
• Asked either:
• Is there a greater than 1% chance of nuclear war occurring soon?
• Is there less than a 90% chance of a nuclear war occurring soon?
• Results:
• Participants who received the 1% question anchor estimated a 10% chance of nuclear war, while those who received the 90% anchor estimated a 25% chance

In a mock jury study, participants asked to consider first a harsh verdict were subsequently harsher in their final decision than participants asked to first consider a lenient verdict

Our judgments on a range of issues are significantly influenced by the point at which we start our deliberations

• Speed/ease
• Accuracy/logic

Time constraints, cognitive overload, low importance, little information regarding issue = heuristic

• In systematic processing the perceiver acts like a naïve scientist, using rational, logical analysis of available information – higher accuracy
• In heuristic processing the perceiver acts like a cognitive miser making quick and easy analyses – lower accuracy

Systematic

Kruglanski, 1996

• Process of understanding what something is by knowing what other things it is equivalent to, and what other things it is different from
• Way of classifying some collection of objects, events, opinions, attitudes, concepts or people

Bruner, Goodnow, and Austin (1956) – category membership determined via defined features, if one feature was missing, then it was something else

Many categories have uncertain or “fuzzy” boundaries – Rosch, 1978

• Not all or nothing
• Members are more or less typical of a category
• Typicality is variable

Most representative members of a category

May be slower/error-full because they are less available

By prototypes

Stereotypes

• Social learning and exposure
• Illusionary correlations

Stereotypes

Prototypes that are social categories

Two variables are associated with one another when there is little or no actual association

Negative stereotypes associated with minority groups

• Illusory correlations
• Methods:
• Asked participants to read info about people from two made-up groups
• Twice as much info was provided about group A (majority) than group B (minority)
• Twice as much of the info provided for both groups involved desirable behaviors rather than undesirable
• Results:
• More of the undesirable negative behaviors were attributed to group B, than group A
• Participants believed that negative behaviors were more characteristic of the smaller group than the bigger group
• Explained this through shared distinctiveness

• Heterogeneous
• Homogenous

Perceived to be made up of many sorts of people

Perceived to made up of only a few types of people who are all very similar to each group

The general tendency to perceive outgroup members to be more homogenous than ingroup members

• Outgroup homogeneity effect
• Found that white people found it difficult to tell Asian faces apart, and Asian people found it difficult to tell white faces apart

• The outgroup homogeneity effect in how people structure their memory
• People remember more about someone they encounter from their own group than another group

• Saves us time and cognitive processing
• Categorization provides meaning

Frees up cognitive resources for other tasks

• Reduces uncertainty
• Provides prescriptive norms for understanding ourselves in relation to others

• Temporal primacy
• Perceptual salience
• Chronic accessibility

We categorize on the basis of the features we encounter first

• Heightened accessibility of stereotype consistent information
• Categorization and prejudice

Selective encoding of subsequently acquired target information

People recall more positive than negative information about someone from their own group, but more negative than positive information about someone in another group

When people think about categories, they can unconsciously begin to act in line with the stereotype associated with those categories

When people think about categories, they can unconsciously begin to act in line with the stereotype associated with those categories

Prototypes

• Investigated whether priming participants with a social category would lead them to behave in line with the stereotypical traits associated with that category
• Methods:
• Participants were primed with words related to the elderly stereotype vs neutral words using a "scrambled sentence task"
• They were then told the experiment was finished
• The experimenters then timed/observed the participants walking down the hall
• Results:
• Participants who had been primed with the elderly stereotype walked significantly slower from the experimental norm
• The participants behaviorally assimilated to the stereotype they were primed for

The individuals tend to show impaired performance on dimensions related to that stereotype

Your estimation of how effective you are

• Stereotype threat and gender identification
• Methods:
• Female and male participants indicated how important their gender identity was to them at the beginning of the semester
• Two conditions - gender identity relevant condition and gender identity irrelevant
• Participants then took a difficult math test
• Results:
• In the gender identity relevant condition, women performed significantly worse than men if they HIGHLY identified with their gender group, proving the stereotype threat effect

Either a heuristic versus systematic approach is used when forming impressions of others

Cognitive miser and naive scientists

• Categorization (heuristic)
• Individuation (systematic)

A switch from using categorization to individuation (target primarily defined as individual rather than group member)

Individuation because it defines individually instead of in groups

• Methods:
• Showed participants a videotape of a woman having a birthday dinner
• They were told she was a waitress or a librarian
• Results:
• Participants told she was a waitress remembered her drinking beer
• Participants told she was a librarian remembered her wearing glasses
• This illustrates how stereotypes can influence our attention and what we remember from any social scene

Found that white participants were faster to name positive words after they had seen the racial category 'white' compared to 'black'

• On behavioral assimilation
• Found that participants who imagined a typical professor subsequently outperformed those who imagined a typical secretary, on a general knowledge task
• Although priming did not change the participants' actual intelligence, it did temporarily induce participants to behave differently in their reaction to the multiple choice task

Found that African-Americans underperformed on a test when they were told it was indicative of intelligence, but they also found simply asking African-Americans to state their race before taking a test reduced the students' subsequent performance

• set of beliefs that we hold in relation to an attitude object, where an attitude object is a person, thing, event or issue
• a positive or negative evaluation of an object

• mere exposure
• associative learning
• self-perception
• functional reasons

• the more exposure we have to a stimulus, the more positive our attitude is toward it
• tendency to develop more positive feelings toward objects and individuals the more we are exposed to them

True

• Participants were told they were in an experiment to determine how people learn a foreign language, but it was actually to test the mere exposure effect
• Methods:
• 10 Chinese-like characters on the computer screen for 2 seconds each, some were shown a lot, some just once
• The second part of the test, the participants were told the characters were adjectives and they were asked to decide if they were positive or negative
• Results:
• Participants thought the characters they saw more often were positive
• The more exposure they had to the character, the more positive they felt it was
• The more we see something, the more we like it

Mita, Dermer and Knight (1977)

• On the mere exposure effect
• Methods:
• Took a picture of the participants and showed them the picture and the mirror image of the picture
• Also showed both pictures to friends of the participants
• Results:
• Participants preferred the mirror image picture because it's what they saw when they looked in the mirror, while the friend's preferred the original picture because it's what they see when they look at their friend
• Preference was higher for the perspective that was most commonly experienced by the person rating the photo

Brickman, Redfield, Harrison, and Crandall (1972)

• Study on the mere exposure effect
• Methods:
• Undergraduate students listened to 90 second segments of 5 rock and roll songs
• They either listened to each song 0, 1, 2, 5 or 10 times
• At the end, they listened to a 3-5 second segment from the chorus of each song and were asked to rate how much they liked the song
• Results:
• They found a DECREASE in liking with increased exposure
• Participants began with a report of liking rock and roll but at the end of the study they said they didn't like the antiquated style of the music in this experiment
• Brickman et al performed another study in which participants were exposed to abstract paintings they had previously rated very positively, very negatively or neutrally. People with initially neutral impressions liked the paintings more with repeated exposure as did people with initially positive impressions. However, participants with an initially negative attitude liked the paintings less
• The effectiveness of mere exposure for improving attitudes depends on the initial attitude being neutral or positive

That they are novel and neutral

• type of associative learning in which two things become strongly connected because we are repeatedly exposed to them
• When a neutral stimulus is paired with a stimulus that naturally evokes an emotional response - pairing is required

• Staats and Staats
• Methods:
• Paired "Dutch" with negative words and "Swedish" with positive and vice-versa
• Results:
• Repeated associations of the positive words with Dutch or Swedish, led to a more positive evaluation of the group - associative learning

• Cacioppo et al
• Classical conditioning experiment in which they found pairing aversive stimuli with nonsense words created more of a negative association with those words
• This suggests that associative learning may be a more powerful determinant of attitude formation when little knowledge is available about the attitude object

• type of associative learning in which an association forms between a behavior and a consequence
• response-stimulus conditioning (Faraday)
• Behavior is strengthened following rewards and weakened following punishment
• Participants must carry out some action that is either rewarded or punished

• theory proposing that we form attitudes through the observation of our own behavior
• Behaviors can cause attitudes
• We attribute our own behavior as being indicative (caused by) certain attitudes but mainly if little knowledge is available about the issue at hand

• Study on self-perception theory
• Methods:
• Participants were pre-screened to assess their attitude toward pro-environment practices - self-perception of their attitude
• Participants then were asked either pro- or anti-environmental questions about their behaviors
• Then they were asked to indicate their own attitude toward environmental practices
• Results:
• Participants induced to report pro behaviors were more likely to rate themselves as pro-environment and the same happened for anti, but only when they had a weak prior attitude
• If participants had a strong prior attitude, there was no effect on their final reported attitude

• people's own facial expression provides a cue to their attitudes; people who are made to smile form a more positive attitude than people made to frown
• self-perception theory

• Strack, Martin and Stepper (1988)
• Methods:
• Had participants hold a pen between their teeth or between their lips while evaluating a series of humorous cartoon images
• They were asked to form an attitude on how amusing the cartoons were
• Results:
• Participants holding the pen between their teeth evaluated the cartoons as more humorous because their facial expression made them feel like they were smiling
• Facial 'behaviors' can inform subsequent attitudes

• Zajonc, 1993
• alternative explanation offered for the facial feedback hypothesis
• smiling increases blood flow to the brain lowering brain temp, creating a positive mood, and frowning decreases blood flow to the brain increasing brain temp and creating a negative mood

Making vowel sounds that mimicked frowning lowered forehead temperature and mood, whereas vowel sounds that mimicked smiling decreased forehead temperature and elevated mood

attitudes are formed/changed based on the degree to which they satisfy an individual's psychological needs

It is an active attitude theory, rather than passive

• Utilitarian
• Knowledge
• Ego-defensive
• Value-expression

• We sometimes hold a particular attitude because it is useful for us to do so
• Example: Liking your nursing degree because it will help you get a job in the future
• At times our public attitude may be different from our private attitude

• holding particular attitudes helps us to organize and simplify our social world
• our attitudes enable us to predict behavior of others
• Example: Liking your nursing degree because it provides you with useful information in dealing with people
• Kind of like cognitive schemas

• some attitudes help to protect us from acknowledging threatening self-truths, helping us maintain a positive self-image
• Example: Liking your nursing degree because you really wanted to become a doctor but weren't good enough

• some attitudes express values that are of high personal importance to us (politics, environment, religion)
• Example: Liking your nursing degree because it illustrated your commitment to helping people

• On attitudes and behavior matching
• Methods:
• He spent 3 months with a young Chinese couple traveling across the US
• He wanted to know how many restaurants and hotels would refuse service to the couple
• Results:
• Only 1 out of 250 refused to serve the couple
• But, when he sent out letters to same establishments, of the 128 replies, 90% said they would refuse to serve Chinese people
• Attitudes did not predict behavior at all
• This was later linked to a lack of the same specificity between the attitude (general) and behavior (specific Chinese couple)

• Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975
• attitudes and behavior are more likely to correspond if they are at the same level of specificity
• the determinant of attitude-behavior link
• specific attitudes = specific behaviors

the longer the time between attitude measurement and the measurement of behavior, the more likely it is that the attitude will change

Fishbein and Coombs observed that the correlation between attitudes and voting behavior was stronger one week before voting in an election compared to one month before voting

• Privately self-aware individuals behave in line with their own attitude (private attitude predicts private behavior)
• Publicly self-aware individuals behave in line with the attitude they perceive the majority of other people to hold (public attitude predicts public behavior)

• Greater information about attitude object
• Greater personal involvement with attitude object
• Greater direct experience with attitude object
• All lead to greater attitude strength and greater attitude-behavior consistency

• The more accessible an attitude the greater attitude-behavior consistency
• Measured by speed of response to questions concerning the attitude object

The stronger one's attitudes are, the more likely they are to have an influence on behavior

theory developed to explain the processes by which people deliberately decide to engage in a specific action

• Fishbein and Ajzen
• Terry, Hogg and White

• Terry et al said that in some cases subjective norms could be better conceptualized as group norms
• Methods:
• 143 participants from households that had access to recycling bins were asked to report how likely it was that they would engage in household recycling during the following fortnight
• They were also asked how many of their friends and peer they thought would engage in household recycling and how much they thought their friends and peers would approve of them engaging in household recycling
• They were also asked how much they identified with and fit in with their group of friends and peers
• Results:
• Participants who strongly identified with their peer group had stronger behavioral intentions if they believed their group had strong norms concerning recycling and the opposite was true for participants without a strong identity

• Attitude toward behavior
• Subjective norms
• Perceived control

By one's beliefs about the consequences of performing the behavior and one's evaluation of the possible consequences of performing the behavior

perceived expectations of significant others who may approve or disapprove of the planned behavior

person's perception of how easy or difficult it is to perform the behavior

a person's attitude, subjective norms and perceived control over the behavior combine in an interactive way to determine behavioral intention, which in turn determines whether or not the behavior will be carried out

set of shared beliefs about how group members should think and behave

when we have no (or very weak) prior existing attitudes on a particular issues we can infer our attitudes from observing our own behaviors

• Many social behaviors are automatic and do not entail much deliberate thought
• Reasoned action = naive scientist = systematic processing
• Spontaneity = cognitive miser = heuristics

• when people behave in a way that is inconsistent with their existing attitude, they experience discomfort
• to eliminate this discomfort, it is necessary to adjust one's attitude in line with one's behavior

Motivational instead of cognitive

Festinger, 1957

• Cognitive dissonance theory
• Methods:
• Participants had to complete one of two boring tasks for an hour, and then were told to lie to the next participant and tell them it was great
• They were offered $1 or $20, and the control group did not have to lie and were not offered money
• After completing the task, all participants were asked to give their true attitude regarding how fun and interesting the task really was
• Results:
• The $1 participants experienced greater inconsistency between their attitude and behavior than the $20 participants so they changed their attitude to match their behavior, while the $20 participants had enough justification to tell their lie

• Justification
• Choice
• Investment

if people can justify why they behaved inconsistently with their attitudes, they are less likely to change their attitude in line with their behavior

if a person is forced to behave in a way that contravenes their attitudes, they have a justification for their behavior and will therefore be unlikely to change their attitude in line with their behavior

the more invested someone is in their point of view, the stronger the effect of dissonance will be

• Cognitive dissonance will occur when discrepancies are clear and distinct, the attitude in question is important for the self-concept, and when it is not possible to explain away the discrepancy
• When discrepancies are mild and/or the attitude is not particularly important to someone, then self-perception processes are likely to operate

when attitudes change as a result of being influenced by an EXTERNAL message

• models that propose our attitudes can be changed as a result of external messages via two different routes (central and peripheral)
• proved most successful in explaining how, when and why people are or are not persuaded by others

Petty and Cacioppo (1986) argued that attitudes could change via two routes depending on how much an individual elaborates on the message - central or peripheral

Chaiken (1980) argued that when people hear a persuasive communication, they either process it systematically, considering its strengths or weaknesses, or use heuristic 'short-cuts'

• when people are motivated and able to think carefully about the content of a message, they are influenced by the strength and quality of the arguments
• (systematic/naive scientist)

• when people are unwilling or unable to analyze message content, they instead pay attention to cues that are irrelevant to the content or quality of the communication to make a decision more quickly and with less effort
• (heuristic/cognitive miser)

True

• Speed of speech
• Mood
• Involvement
• Individual differences
• Humor

Makes it hard to process the content of the message so the peripheral route is used

• good mood = more willing to help; tend to use peripheral route to persuasion
• bad mood = less willing to help; tend to use central route to persuasion

if a decision we have to make is important to us, or is likely to have personal consequences, we are more likely to think in depth about the issue, taking the central route to persuasion, rather than relying on heuristics

• On importance to self
• Methods:
• Participants in favor of voluntary euthanasia and against single currency in Europe read a counter-attitudinal argument
• Participants either received the message from a minority source or a majority source and read either strong evidence based messages or weak messages on the topic
• Results:
• When the message did not have a very negative personal outcome for participants people receiving info from a minority source were more persuaded by strong message, whereas people receiving info from a majority source were equally influenced by strong and weak message
• In contrast, when the message concerned was perceived as having a very negative personal outcome, people receiving info from a majority source were more persuaded by strong messages
• A MAJORITY SOURCE IS LIKELY TO LEAD TO HEURISTIC PROCESSING WHEREAS A MINORITY SOURCE IS MORE LIKELY TO LEAD TO SYSTEMATIC PROCESSING

• the degree to which an individual is oriented to engaging in effortful thought
• people high in need for cognition are more likely to take the central route to persuasion

• tendency to desire knowledge that is clear, stable and unambiguous, as opposed to confusing and uncertain
• people high in need for closure are more likely to take the central route to persuasion

• some people have a stronger tendency than others to judge the nature of objects, people and situation
• the stronger this tendency, the great the use of the central route to persuasion

• degree to which someone is concerned with what other people think of them
• people high in self-monitoring are more likely to take the central route to persuasion

relevant humor leads to the central route, while irrelevant humor leads to the peripheral route

• Physical attractiveness
• Similarity to self
• Source credibility

we are more likely to be persuaded by someone who is physically attractive than someone who is unattractive

we are more likely to be persuaded by someone who is similar to us in terms of shared attitudes, appearance or social categories

• a key peripheral cue to persuasion
• if the source of a persuasive argument is an expert on the topic, or appears to be unbiased and trustworthy, we are more likely to perceive them to be credible, and to accept their message

• we encode info about the source of the argument as well as the argument but our memory of the source decays over time
• if the source was not credible, we may be persuaded more by the argument over time
• if the source was credible, we may be persuaded less by the argument over time, as we forget info about the source

The delayed effectiveness of a persuasive message from a non-credible source

• Hovland and Weiss, 1951
• Methods:
• Participants read an article stating that nuclear submarines were safe by a credible author or an incredible author
• Results:
• Immediate results = high credibility source had the greater persuasion
• 4 weeks later = effect of source credibility had disappeared (source memory had disappeared) and content was the only thing recalled