Lecture 4 - Social Cognition and Attribution

Question 1

Define social cognition

Answer 1

The study of “the cognitive processes and structures that influence and are influenced by social behaviour”.

Question 2

Describe the computer analogy

Answer 2

The human mind is analogous to a computer, we process information in a similar way. The brain acts as the CPU, STM acts as RAM and LTM acts as the hard drive.

Question 3

Describe gambler’s fallacy

Answer 3

Gambler’s fallacy - the mistaken belief that if something happens more frequently than normal during a given period, it will happen less frequently in the future (or vice versa).

E.g. H-T-H-T-T-H is more likely than H-H-H-T-T-T

Question 4

What is the false consensus effect?

Answer 4

People see their own behaviour as typical and assume that under similar circumstances others would behave in the same way (Ross, Greene & House, 1977).

Question 5

Describe the study which supports the false consensus effect

Answer 5

University students were asked if they would be willing to walk around their campus for 30 minutes wearing a sandwich board saying: “Eat at Joe’s”. (No information is available about the food quality at ‘Joe’s’, and consequently how foolish students would look.) The results of this study confirmed the previous study. Of those who agreed to wear the sandwich board, 62% thought others would also agree. Of those who refused, only 33% thought others would agree to wear the sandwich board.

Question 6

What is cognitive consistency?

Answer 6

A model of social cognition in which people try to reduce inconsistency amongst among cognitions, because they find inconsistency unpleasant. Cognitive dissonance is the mental discomfort experienced by a person who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values. This discomfort is triggered by a situation in which a person’s belief clashes with new evidence perceived by the person.

Question 7

Who came up with the naive scientist model?

Answer 7

Heider, 1958

Question 8

Describe the naive scientist model

Answer 8

A model of social cognition that characterizes people as using rationale, scientific-like , cause-effect analyses to understand their world. People need to find causes to behavior and events in order to render the world a meaningful place in which to act. Heider believed people are intuitive psychologists who construct casual theories of human behaviour, and because such theories have the same form as systematic scientific social psychology theories, people are intuitive psychologists or naïve scientists.

Question 9

What is external attribution?

Answer 9

Causality is assigned to an outside factor, agent or force. Outside factors fall outside your control. You perceive you have no choice. So your behaviour is influenced, limited or even completely determined by influences outside your control. Therefore you feel not responsible. A generic example is the weather. Also called: Situational Attribution.

Question 10

What is internal attribution?

Answer 10

Causality is assigned to an inside factor, agent or force. Inside factors fall inside your own control. You can choose to behave in a particular way or not. So your behaviour is not influenced, limited or even completely determined by influences outside your control. Therefore you feel responsible. A typical example is your own intelligence. Also called: Dispositional Attribution.

Question 11

Describe cognitive miser

Answer 11

The human mind is considered to be a cognitive miser due to the tendency of people to think and solve problems in simpler and less effortful ways rather than in more sophisticated and more effortful ways, regardless of intelligence.

Question 12

What is motivated tactician?

Answer 12

This refers to an individual who alternates between sloppy thinking and more careful analytical thinking depending on his level of motivation. The idea of the motivated tactician has been used as a model in social psychology to better understand common social behaviour. In some cases, it might make sense for an individual to use cognitive short-cuts to arrive at important decisions, in others they may choose short-cuts in the interest of time or self-esteem.

Question 13

Describe Asch’s (1946) warm vs cold study

Answer 13

Asch presented ppts with a seven-trait description of a hypothetical person in which either the word warm or cold, or polite or blunt appeared. The percentage of ppts assigning other traits to tthe target was markedly affected when warm was replaced by cold, but not when polite was replaced by blunt.

Question 14

Describe Kelly’s (1950) replication of Asch’s study

Answer 14

Kelley replicated Asch’s study in a naturalistic setting. Kelley ended his introduction of a guest lecturer by saying that “People who know him consider him to be a:
1. rather cold, industrious, critical, practical and determined person
2. very warm, industrious, critical, practical and determined person
Condition 1 = lecturer was rated as more unsocialable, self-centred, unpopular, formal, irritable, humourless and ruthless
They were also less likely to ask questions and interact

Influencing factors
• Personal constructs – our own idiosyncratic ways of categorising people (Kelly, 1955)
• Primacy effect – traits listed first have a disproportionate effect (Asch, 1946)
• Negativity – we are biased towards negative information and this is more difficult to change (Fiske, 1980)
• Physical appearance (Park, 1986)
• Physical attractiveness – Heilman and Stopeck (1985) found that attractive male executives were viewed as more able whilst attractive female executives were viewed as less able

Question 15

Describe the eyewitness accounts of the Stockwell tube incident

Answer 15

22nd July, 2005 a man enters Stockwell tube and is asked to stop by the Police but he started to run – people saw:

1. pursued by plain-clothes Police and shot 5 times
2. 10 Policeman with machine guns and 6-8 shots
3. Shots from a silencer gun
4. 20 cops carrying big black guns
5. Man had a bomb with wires and there were 2 shots

Question 16

What are heuristics?

Answer 16

Heuristics play important roles in both problem-solving and decision-making. When we are trying to solve a problem or make a decision, we often turn to these mental shortcuts when we need a quick solution.

Question 17

What are the 3 types of heuristics proposed by Tversky & Kahneman (1974)?

Answer 17

The availability heuristic, the representativeness heuristic and the affect heuristic

Question 18

Describe the availability heuristic

Answer 18

The availability heuristic - involves making decisions based upon how easy it is to bring something to mind. When you are trying to make a decision, you might quickly remember a number of relevant examples. Since these are more readily available in your memory, you will likely judge these outcomes as being more common or frequently-occurring. For example, if you are thinking of flying and suddenly think of a number of recent airline accidents, you might feel like air travel is too dangerous and decide to travel by car instead. Because those examples of air disasters came to mind so easily, the availability heuristic leads you to think that plane crashes are more common than they really are.

Question 19

Describe the representativeness heuristic

Answer 19

The representativeness heuristic - involves making a decision by comparing the present situation to the most representative mental prototype. When you are trying to decide if someone is trustworthy, you might compare aspects of the individual to other mental examples you hold. A sweet older woman might remind you of your grandmother, so you might immediately assume that she is kind, gentle and trustworthy. If you meet someone who is into yoga, spiritual healing and aromatherapy you might immediately assume that she works as a holistic healer rather than something like a school teacher or nurse. Because her traits match up to your mental prototype of a holistic healer, the representativeness heuristic causes you to classify her as more likely to work in that profession.

Question 20

Describe the affect heuristic

Answer 20

The affect heuristic - involves making choices that are strongly influenced by the emotions that an individual is experiencing at that moment. For example, research has shown that people are more likely to see decisions as having higher benefits and lower risks when they are in a positive mood. Negative emotions, on the other hand, lead people to focus on the potential downsides of a decision rather than the possible benefits.

Question 21

What is a social schema?

Answer 21

Social schema - “Cognitive structure that represents knowledge about a concept or type of stimulus, including its attributes and the relations among those attributes” (Fiske & Taylor, 1991; p. 98)
• Inter-related cognitions that allows us to quickly make sense of a person, situation, event or location
• Cues activate a schema that then fills in missing details
• Person schema
• Role schema
• Event schema (script)
• Self schema

Question 22

Describe the ways to change schema proposed by Rothdart (1981)

Answer 22

1. Bookkeeping – gradual schema change through the accumulation of bits of schema-inconsistent information
2. Conversion – sudden schema change as a consequence of gradual accumulation of schema-inconsistent information
3. Subtyping – schema changes as a consequence of schema-inconsistent information , causing the formation of sub-categories

Question 23

What is attribution?

Answer 23

Process of assigning a cause to our own behaviour and that of others.

Question 24

Describe Bem’s (1967, 1972) – self-perception theory

Answer 24

Self-perception theory Describes the process in which people, lacking initial attitudes or emotional responses, develop them by observing their own behaviour and coming to conclusions as to what attitudes must have driven that behaviour.
• We gain knowledge of ourselves only by making self-attributions
• We infer our own attitudes from our own behaviour
• We construct image of ourselves by being able to attribute our own behaviour internally

Question 25

Explain attribution biases

Answer 25

Fundamental Attribution Error - Attributing other people’s behaviour more to internal rather than situational causes (Ross, 1977)
Actor-Observer effect – tendancy to attribute our own behaviours externally and others’ behaviours internally (Jones & Nisbett, 1972)

Attribute bad out-group and good in-group behavior internally
Attribute good out-group and bad in-group behavior internally

Question 26

Explain Jones & Davis (1965) Correspondent Inference

Answer 26

Jones and Davis (1965) thought that people pay particular attention to intentional behaviour (as opposed to accidental or unthinking behaviour).

Jones and Davis’ theory helps us understand the process of making an internal attribution. They say that we tend to do this when we see a correspondence between motive and behaviour. For example, when we see a correspondence between someone behaving in a friendly way and being a friendly person.

Dispositional (i.e., internal) attributions provide us with information from which we can make predictions about a person’s future behaviour. The correspondent inference theory describes the conditions under which we make dispositional attributes to the behaviour we perceive as intentional.

Davis used the term correspondent inference to refer to an occasion when an observer infers that a person’s behaviour matches or corresponds with their personality. It is an alternative term to dispositional attribution.

Question 27

Detail the 5 sources of information according to Jones & Davis (1965)

Answer 27

1. Choice: If a behavior is freely chosen it is believed to be due to internal (dispositional) factors.
2. Accidental vs. Intentional Behavior: Behavior that is intentional is likely to be attributed to the person’s personality, and behavior which is accidental is likely to be attributed to situation / external causes.
3. Social Desirability: Behaviors low in sociable desirability (non conforming) lead us to make (internal) dispositional inferences more than socially undesirable behaviors. For example, if you observe a person getting on a bus and sitting on the floor instead of one of the seats. This behavior has low social desirability (non conforming) and is likely to correspond with the personality of the individual.
4. Hedonistic Relevance: If the other person’s behavior appears to be directly intended to benefit or harm us.
5. Personalism: If the other person’s behavior appears to be intended to have an impact on us, we assume that it is “personal”, and not just a by-product of the situation we are both in.

Question 28

Explain Kelley’s (1973) Covariation Model

Answer 28

Kelley’s (1967) covariation model is the best-known attribution theory. He developed a logical model for judging whether a particular action should be attributed to some characteristic (dispositional) of the person or the environment (situational).

The term covariation simply means that a person has information from multiple observations, at different times and situations, and can perceive the covariation of an observed effect and its causes.

He argues that in trying to discover the causes of behaviour people act like scientists.

Question 29

Explain the three kinds of evidence proposed by Kelley (1967)

Answer 29

1. Consensus: the extent to which other people behave in the same way in a similar situation. E.g., Alison smokes a cigarette when she goes out for a meal with her friend. If her friend smokes, her behaviour is high in consensus. If only Alison smokes, it is low.
2. Distinctiveness: the extent to which the person behaves in the same way in similar situations. If Alison only smokes when she is out with friends, her behaviour is high in distinctiveness. If she smokes at any time or place, distinctiveness is low.
3. Consistency: the extent to which the person behaves like this every time the situation occurs. If Alison only smokes when she is out with friends, consistency is high. If she only smokes on one special occasion, consistency is low.

Question 30

According to Kelley we fall back on past experience and look for either…

Answer 30

1) Multiple necessary causes. For example, we see an athlete win a marathon, and we reason that she must be very fit, highly motivated, have trained hard etc., and that she must have all of these to win
2) Multiple sufficient causes. For example, we see an athlete fail a drug test, and we reason that she may be trying to cheat, or have taken a banned substance by accident or been tricked into taking it by her coach. Any one reason would be sufficient.

Question 31

Describe self-handicapping

Answer 31

Making publicly advance external attributions for our anticipated failure or poor performance (Berglas & Jones, 1978)
Participants solving problems (solvable vs. unsolvable)
- Told they had done very well
- Before continuing with a second-task they were given the choice of taking two drugs - Actavil vs. Pandocrin
• Success solvable puzzles > Actavil
• Success non-solvable puzzles > Pandocrin

Question 32

Explain Weiner’s (1979) theory

Answer 32

Bernard Weiner proposed a theory suggesting that a person’s own attributions in attempt to explain their success or failure determines the effort they are willing to exert in the future. Affective and cognitive assessment influences the behavior in the future when similar situations are experienced.

Weiner pinpointed a specific attribution that aspects like luck, effort, etc, are not as important as the characteristics of the attribution. This was described as the three casual dimensions, which is the reason for Weiner’s Attribution model being called the Three-Dimensional Model.

Question 33

Detail the 3 dimensions of Weiner’s model

Answer 33

1. Locus - Locus dimension refers to the perception of the cause of any event as internal or external. If a learner believes that she failed her math test because she lacked inability, she is referring to her internal attribution. On the other hand, if she blames the teacher to be incompetent, she is referring to the external attribution.
2. Stability - Stability dimension refers to whether the cause of the event is stable or unstable across time and situations. From the previous example, if she believes that she failed her math exam because of her inability in math, the cause is stable. The cause is more stable if she believes that her lack of ability is permanent. On the other hand, if she believes that had she not been sick, she could have aced the test, the cause is unstable, as illness is a temporary factor. Attributions to permanent factors or stable causes are more likely to lead the learner towards success if the learner experiences success. However, in case of failure, attributions to stable causes are likely to decrease the morale and expectations of the learner in the future.
3. Controllability - Controllability dimension refers to whether or not the cause of any event is under the control of the learner. From the aforementioned examples; if she believes that she could have done better in the test had she practiced more, the cause is controllable. On the other hand, if she doubts her ability in math, the cause is uncontrollable. Environmental or external attributions cannot be considered as controllable.

Question 34

Describe the three dimension models association with emotional responses

Answer 34

Locus - This dimension is related to feeling of pride and self-esteem. People feel the sense of pride in their accomplishment, especially when they believe that it was their effort which lead them to success.
Stability - In case of unstable attributions, this dimension is related to feelings of hopelessness or hopefulness. In contrast, for the stable causes, a learner believes that there can be different outcomes I the future.
Controllability - Guilt and shame are the kind of emotions experienced in this dimension. Learners who believe they failed because of their lack of effort experience a sense of guilt. On the other hand, those who deem themselves unworthy are more likely to experience the feelings of shame or similar emotions.

Question 35

Describe the application to depression

Answer 35

• Internals – people believe that they have significant personal control over their destiny (things happen because of them)
• Externals – have little control of what happens to them (chance, luck or external agents)
• People who view aversive events as having internal, stable and global explanation have a depressive attributional style (Abramson, et al. 1986)
• Attributional style is correlated with depression (Sweeney, et al. 1986)

Question 36

Describe the application to relationships

Answer 36

• “I withdraw because you nag”
• “I nag because you withdraw”

• Attributional conflict strongly related to relationship dissatisfaction (Kelley, 1979)
Happily married spouses
– Positive behaviour of partners > explained as internal, stable, controllable.
- Negative behaviour > explained away by attributing it to causes seen as external, unstable, uncontrollable.