Rationalization and Belief & Attribution: Week 7_2 & 8_1 Flashcards
Bianca is trying to decide between two schools for college. One has a better program for her major, but the other is offering her a better scholarship package. 6 months from now, how will Bianca most likely feel about the school she does not choose?
She will think she made the right choice because that other school really wasn’t nearly as good as the one she chose
- due to dissonant cognitions - she chose something with cons and rejected something with pros, so needs to rationalize decision ( she is like basically convincing herself that she made the right choice)
Why do we have trouble making correct attributions?
- Situations are often invisible so we don’t realize how they influence us
- Our assumptions of how people would act in a specific situation are typically biased
- situations are salient (obvious) when we think about ourselves, but for others they are usually NOT salient as they cause us to make dispositional attributions
- We think we would act different in someone situation but the reality is that we are incorrect about that
What is the main difference between the covariation model and the correspondent inference theory (CIT)?
In the covariation model we consider how a person acts in other similar situations, while for the CIT we only need to know how most people would act in that same situation
Harold Kelley’s Covariaton model
Attribution theory in which people make causal inferences to explain why other people and ourselves behave in a certain way
How does this person act across situations: distinctiveness/Behavior (across situations, L), consensus/general agreement (across people, L), consistency (over time, H)
Correspondent Inference Theory (CIT) formula
CIT formula: D = B - S (dispositional inference = person’s behavior - typical behavior for that
situation)
Your friend Mia has a new boyfriend, Lee. While Mia is really into him, you think he’s kind of obnoxious and don’t get what Mia sees in him. According to balance theory, you could resolve this inconsistency by:
1: Deciding that Mia sees a different side of Lee so he must not be too bad
after all (+)You to Mia (+) You to Leo (+) -> Mia to Lee
2: Deciding that, since Mia has bad taste in men, she’s not as cool as you thought (-) You to Mia (-) You to Leo (+) Mia to Lee
to balance an unbalanced triad, you need to either have all (+)s or 1 (+)and 2 (-)
Dispositional Attribution is concluded by:
- Low Distinctiveness (across dif. situation)
- Low Consensus (across dif people)
- High Consistency (over time)
Rationalization -> Cognitive
- Making excuses in order to have a need to feel (not be) consistent/authentic (Hyp 5)
- However, When we see someone else rationalize you don’t like that bc you want ppl to be authentic
- Use balance theory when trying to rationalize
Balance Theory - Fritz Heider
Premises:
- People want to be consistent
- Liking people who like what we like
My belief, a persons belief, and the relationship between us -> interpersonal theory
Cognitive Dissonance Theory - Leon Festinger (1957)
- Intrapersonal conflict (conflicting belief w/ ourself)
- Two of one’s own cognitions conflict, causing dissonance ( having 2 conflicting beliefs/cognitiions causes dissonance )
- 2 main options for Dissonance Reduction
- change attitude
- justify/minimize conflict
- Make a balanced triad
Inconsistent Beliefs
Having like 2 sides of the same coin, Your belief is inconsistent with one another
ex. Homelessness
Belief #1: I should help
Belief #2: I havent helped
Insufficient Justification : Classic study #1: Festinger & Carlsmith
- Ppl do a boring task and 1/2 is getting told they will get paid $1 if they tell the next person that the test was rlly fun (it actually wasnt), other 1/2 gets paid $20
- After lying, they are asked how much they enjoyed the task
RESULT
- Ppl in the $1 condition ended up reporting that they enjoyed the task more, when you think of it like a balanced triad, they had to MAKE UP reasons why they liked the task bc $1 wasnt enough justification for them. If they convince themselves it was fun, then technically they arent lying anymore
- ppl paid $20 didnt have to try to lie about liking the task so much bc they got $20 so they didnt rlly care
Free choice - Classic Study #2: Brehm (1956)
- Rank 8 items
- Told to choose between items ranked #4 and #5
- Or simply given #4
- Have to rank 8
TESTING: do they change ranks based on their attitude for the one they chose to take home
RESULTS:
They change their ranks chosen higher bc the more we rank the other rejected lower, the better we’ll feel about our chosen alternative
Counterattitudinal Essays
- Change attitude to be more consistent with essay writing behavior
- Dont realize they’ve changed their attitudes
- They misremember their original attitude to be consistent with the current
Misattribution of Dissonance Arousal - Zanna & Cooper (1974)
Given a pill
- “Arousal Pill”
- “Relaxatin”
-No pill
- If given a pill that you believe will relax you, then dissonance induced arousal is surprising and experienced as more intense leading to greater dissonance reduction
- If given a pill that you believe will arouse you, then subjects mistakenly believe that their dissonance-induced arousal is really a result of the pill. Thus, there is no attempt to alleviate this arousal and the attitude is unchanged
PILL DOES NOTHING
