From cognition to behaviour Flashcards
construal and behaviour
The interaction sequence:
o Social interaction can be viewed as a sequence of events – a complex ‘dance’ or set of exchanges between people (Darley & Fazio, 1980)
what are the components of this ‘dance’?
see notes
First step = goals we bring to an encounter
Second step = detect certain features about person, activated expectancies
Predictive veridicality – anticipate behaviour and formulate appropriate behaviour in response to the expected action of others.
Interactant interprets meaning of perceiver’s action and responds with apt response
Perceiver has expectancy confirmed!
This example shows what is termed behavioural confirmation – you may also know it as self-fulfilling prophecy
self-fulfilling prophecy
“the self-fulfilling prophecy is, in the beginning, a false definition of the situation evoking a new behaviour which makes the originally false conception come true. The specious validity of the self-fulfilling prophecy perpetuates a reign of error. For the prophet will cite the actual course of events as proof that he was right from the very beginning (Merton, 1948)
the self-fulfilling prophecy cycle
see notes
famous examples of the self-fulfilling prophecy - Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968)
Pygmalion in the classroom
Planted seed that some children were bloomers – better results than others
Make teachers behave towards children in a different way
o Ask more Qs
o Challenge them more
o Interpret ambiguous answers as more likely to be right
o Providing affirmation
Knock-on effect on the student
Bloomers showed increased IQ
examples of the self-fulfilling prophecy - Rosenhan (1973)
on being sane in insane places
Went to asylum saying they heard voices
Behaved normally
Others believed they acted in line with the SZ behaviour
Snyder et al. (1977) - how minor misconceptions can snowball into major misunderstandings - the halo effect revisited
Male and female undergrads
Separate rooms (intercom)
Given details and photo about the person in the other room
Photo was attractive or unattractive confed
Conversation
Snyder et al. (1977) results - perceiver impressions
Did they form initial impression of target on basis of stereotypes about physical attractiveness and desirable qualities?
Yes indeed.
Ratings after seeing photo but before conversation showed:
halo effect in action
Men who anticipated physically attractive partners thought they’d be more:
o Sociable, poised, humorous and socially adept
o i.e. halo effect
Men who anticipated less attractive partners thought they’d be more:
o Unsociable, awkward, serious and socially inept
OK, but this is just the halo effect … what about self-fulfilling prophecy?
Snyder et al. (1977) more interesting finding
Actual conversation was recorded
Tapes doctored to erase man’s voic
New judges (did not see photos or biography) rated woman based on conversation
Judges also rated thought-to-be-pretty woman more positively than thought-to-be-ugly woman
what this means
Judges had no expectations…so, this is not a case of perceptual assimilation
So, what is going on?
Could it be that the women whose male partners mistakenly thought they were attractive actually behaved more socially, more poised etc?
o That what the person is drawing out of her – they interact with her in a certain way
Example: Scott and Joanne or Barbie
what Snyder et al. conclude
“We regard our investigation as a particularly compelling demonstration of behavioural confirmation in social interaction. For if there is any social-psychological process that ought to exist in stronger form in everyday action than in the laboratory it is behavioural confirmation.”
Barbie and Raquelle
Barbie and Raquelle
The misunderstanding (based on faulty expectancy that Barbie was aloof and Raquelle was mean)
o Raquelle is mean
o Barbie doesn’t get why
o Raquelle forms expectancy Barbie is too popular to be interested in talking to her, starts being offish to Barbie
o Barbie interprets this as Raquelle being a bitch
o They hate each other
o Then they sit down and talk, finally getting the bottom of their rivalry and misunderstanding. They apologize to each other and promise to become friends. Their forgiveness transforms the spheres into real wings for them, because forgiveness lets you fly.
The happy resolution where they realise, they’re wrong
broadening this out to stereotyping
Word et al. (1974) – stereotyped groups
Are stereotypic expectancies about groups linked to specific kind of NVB?
o More positive expectancies = NVB portrays this
o (interpersonal distance, eye contact, leaning forward)
what Word et al. (1974)
Study 1: Obtained diffs in NVB for White person interviewing White or African American (AA) person
o Sat further away, less eye contact, more speech errors when communicating with black P
Study 2: Consequences in terms of SFP
o White confed who acted in positive/negative NV way towards AA/White interviewee
o Judges who just saw interviewee rated his NVB worse if on receiving end of negative NVB
o Interviewer produced behaviours in others that fulfilled negative expectancies (without either party’s awareness)
o Confirm initial negativity
