Chapter 4: The individual and the group – social identity theory and stereotyping Flashcards
Social cognition
Social cognition is the study of how people understand their social world; how people process, store, and apply information regarding people and social situations.
Cognitive processes we utilize to make sense of our world
According to Baron and Byrne (1997):
Firstly, we must interpret the information processed, and in doing so we try to make sense of it through preconceived knowledge.
Secondly, we much analyze the information more thoroughly – perhaps our initial impression is inaccurate.
Finally, we must be able to recall the information stored – if we were unable to, then how would we make sense of anything?
The principles of social cognition
Gross (2001) and Fiske and Taylor (1991) say that when investigating a person’s thinking in social cognition, they make certain assumptions, which are:
- People are cognitive misers, meaning that people tend to make quick and easy decisions for solving problems, which usually results in a decrease in the accuracy of their decision.
- Humans engage in both automatic and controlled thinking, meaning that humans can perform processes automatically given that they have done it enough times – almost no attention is needed. However, should the thought process be entirely spontaneous, mistakes will be made. Humans are also capable of engaging in deliberating their decisions, which requires more effort and attention.
- Humans seek consistency in behavior, meaning that, should two incongruent thoughts come to mind of a person, they will feel dissonance in their pattern of thinking; they will be uncomfortable and try to reduce their discomfort by establishing consistency in their thoughts, typically through justification. (Leon Festinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance, 1956.)
- Self-esteem guides human behavior, meaning that humans who have higher self-esteem will not underestimate themselves, resulting in better performance on cognitive tasks. In terms of self-efficacy, these people with higher self-esteem will believe that they can follow through with observed behavior and reproduce it. This all depends on the person’s prior experience, social persuasion, as well as their emotional and physical state at the time.
Attribution theories
Attribution theories aim at explaining how humans interpret the world – when interpreting the behavior of others, we tend to attribute the cause of the action to personal (dispositional) and situational (external) factors. We look for consistency, intentionality, and the most simple or accessible explanation. This can explain the way in which many stereotypes are formed, as we generalize an individual’s behavior to a whole population based on a false attribution.
Correspondent inference theory )Jones and David (1965))
The correspondent inference theory deals with how humans tend to judge the behavior of someone and assume that the behavior is representative of their personality without necessarily knowing the full story. They argue that these factors influence the likelihood of someone making dispositional attributions: hedonic relevance (when the person’s behavior affects themselves positively or negatively), free choice (whether or not the person chose to act), and social desirability (whether or not the person’s behavior is socially desirable).
The covariation model (Kelley (1967))
This model is more widely applicable than the correspondent inference theory, however, it does not work for single events. The covariation model deals with how humans judge the behavior of an individual in a new situation based on prior knowledge of this person (dispositional and situational factors). Kelley states that when humans make attributions, they combine three types of information to each of which a high or low value is given: consensus (How do other people behave?), consistency (Does this person usually behave like this?), and distinctiveness (Is this person’s behavior in this situation different from in other situations?).
Causal schemata model (Kelley)
Causal schemata are what humans make use of when the three types of information in the covariation model are not available. They refer to how people consider causal explanations for events based on preconceived knowledge. Using causal schemata allows quick attributions to be made.
Error in attribution
An error in attribution is when people judge a person based on their behavior without knowing of any situational information, which results in inaccurate attributions that can help form stereotypes if generalized.
Fundamental attribution error (FAE)
The fundamental attribution error (FAE) is when people focus entirely on dispositional information and exclude situational information.
Ultimate attribution error (UAE)
The tendency to underestimate situational factors and overestimate personal factors as reasons for behavior, where people attribute negative behavior of the out-group and positive behavior of the in-group to internal causes.
Jones and Harris (1967)
In the Jones and Harris (1967) study, three experiments were conducted in which participants were required to listen to speeches regarding Fidel Castro’s rule of Cuba. The authors of the speeches were either for, against, or “free choice” with regards to Castro, and the participants were aware of this. However, despite knowing of the authors’ positions, they still connected the views of the anti-Castro author seen in the speech with his private life; the FAE is seen here, as the participants are over-reliant on/overestimate the dispositional information.
Ross, Amabile and Steinmetz (1967)
The Ross, Amabile and Steinmetz (1977) study had subjects participate in a quiz where they were a contestant or a questioner (questioners could make their own questions based on their knowledge). At the end of the study, participants and uninvolved observers rated the general knowledge of the contestants and questioners and rated the questioners as having more general knowledge; an example of the FAE, as the observers rely on dispositional information.
Taylor and Jaggi (1974)
Investigated the inter-group causal attribution of Hindu people of southern India, who have a history of conflict with Muslims. Participants were required to read paragraphs describing either socially desirable or socially undesirable situations where the behavior of a Muslim or a Hindu was the case. They then had to attribute the behavior to internal or external causes. Results showed that they tended to attribute positive behavior of their ingroup to internal factors. This was not the case for ingroup negative behavior. For the outgroup, however, they tended to attribute positive behavior to internal factors only 50% of the time. The results of this study support the theory of the ultimate attribution error, as the two groups have had a history of conflict and are therefore more likely to exhibit the UAE, which is seen in that they regard the behavior of the outgroup more negatively, in that they rarely attribute positive behavior of the outgroup to internal factors – which is, perhaps, in accordance with their conceived stereotypes.
Duncan (1976)
Conducted an experiment in which white American college students had to watch a video in which a violent interaction was depicted. The researchers changed the race of the violent protagonist and found that when the protagonist was black, participants were more likely to attribute their behavior to dispositional factors rather than situational factors. For the white protagonist, it was the exact opposite. The study is in line with the UEA.
A Class Divided (1970/1985)
A: to help her students’ understanding of prejudice and racism and how they manifest in society.
M: Repeated measures
P: the brown-eyed and blue-eyed kids were separated, being informed that the blue-eyed were superior, using many examples to highlight this. The brown-eyed children had to wear blue collars, and the two groups were told not to interact with one another. This resulted in discrimination. Later, she reversed the roles, making the brown-eyed children superior. [The children later met as adults in 1985, to see how the experiment affected them.]
R: The behavior of the children changed with the separation; being superior creates higher self-esteem and leads to discrimination. The children also performed better academically when at the top.
C: Prejudice and discrimination are easily accomplished should people be put in positions that create a sense of superiority and inferiority between two groups of people, ultimately separating them. It can lead to violence and other unfair treatment. People of the inferior group will feel highly discriminated and unfairly treated, which can affect their performance on other tasks. On the contrary, people of the superior group like to feel in charge and better than the others.
E: Although students were debriefed, they might have experienced much stress (even though it lasted only two schooldays) and were unable to withdraw. Slightly unethical?
