Social Psychology #2 Flashcards
Attribution
Attributions
The explanations we come up with to describe why other people have acted the way they have or why events have turned out in a specific way.
We come up with explanations of with why people do what they do, which are not necessarily accurate ## Circle and Triangle
Heider & Simmel (1944)
“Most observers developed elaborate stories about the circle and the little triangle being in love, about the big-bad grey triangle trying to steal away the circle, about the little triangle fighting back and rescuing the circle.”
Big: mean, vengeful, people conjure up love story and such. Also always a he
Reasons for making attributions
Effectance motivation
Anthropomorphizing Study (Waytz et al. 2010)
Why attribute human thoughts, desires, & character traits onto objects and non-human animals?
Study 1 & 2: More likely to give human attributes to gadgets that were malfunctioning or unpredictable
Study 3: More likely to anthropomorphize object when asked to predict the objects next move.
Study 6: Ps instructed to anthropomorphized shapes reported greater understanding and predictability for stimuli.
Effectance motivation – desire for understanding, predictability, and control over one’s environment
Why make attributions?
Attributions allow us to:
- Understand past/present behaviors
- Predict future behavior
- Respond in appropriate ways
Types of attributions
Types of Attributions
1. Personal (internal/dispositional) attributions
– The causes of a person’s behavior are located “inside” that person (e.g., their personality, preferences).
*We are more likely to make personal attributions to others
2. Situational (external) attributions
– The causes of a person’s behavior are located in the
person’s environment.
How do we determine what attribution?
Why does it matter?
When are you more likely to help this person?:
A) If she’s homeless because she’s lazy
B) If she’s homeless because a tornado destroyed her house
People overwhelmingly choose B, as this is situational
C) If she’s homeless because she is an alcoholic
More likely to help if we attribute another’s problem to uncontrollable situational factors (Weiner, 1980)
Controllability: choice or not is important.
Disease more likely to help, choice less likely
Kelley’s Covariation Model
# Kelley’s Covariation Model Theory of attribution
• Three kinds of covariation are useful:
Consensus: How are other people reacting in the same
situation?
Distinctiveness: Is the person’s behavior consistent across
different situations?
Consistency: Is the person’s behavior in this situation the
same across time?
Low consensus, low distinctiveness, high consistency - Internal
Tom is the only person laughing
(Low Consensus)
Tom laughs in all his classes.
(Low Distinctiveness)
Tom always laughs in this particular class.
(High Consistency)
This supports an Internal/personal attribution.
e.g., Tom is the kind of guy who laughs a lot.
High consensus, high distinctiveness, high consistency - External
Everyone is laughing.
(High Consensus)
Tom only laughs in this class.
(High Distinctiveness)
Tom always laughs in this class.
(High Consistency)
Then we should make an external attribution.
e.g., This professor is funny / funny looking.
Correspondent Inference Theory
Castro Study
Infer behavior represents personal trait when the behavior:
– is freely chosen (not situationally constrained)
• Who are you more likely to assume is a feminist?
– is not expected
• Who are you are you likely to call stingy?
– produces few rather than many desirable outcomes
• Who are you more likely to call a gold digger?
Two husbands: Rich, smart, kind, or rich, mean, narcissist
We are more likely to point to the latter
Castro Study (Jones & Harris, 1967)
- Participants read another person’s essay.
- IV1: Essay is Pro-Castro OR Anti-Castro
- IV2: Essay author described as freely choosing to write essay OR forced to write essay
- DV: Perceptions of author’s attitude toward Castro
Result: even forced, not by choice, respondents still attribute internally, just to a less degree
Fundamental Attribution Error (FAE)
Quiz Study
Fundamental Attribution Error (FAE)
• When people explain the behavior of others, they tend to:
– underestimate the role of external factors and overestimate the role of internal factors
• Make person attributions even when powerful situational forces are at play
Also, more likely to make FAE when coginitively taxed
Quiz Study (Ross et al., 1977)
• Participants randomly assigned to different roles in a “quiz show”:
– Questioner: Make up hard questions
– Contestant: Try to answer them
– Observer: Audience
Results: questioners rated themselves and contestants as equally intelligent, but observers rated questioners significantly more intelligent
Questioners naturally know the little-known area of their own, but observers attribute it to their intelligence
Culture and Causality
Culture and Causality
Americans tend to see the fish leading the others (a personal attribution).
Chinese see the fish being chased by the others (a situational attribution).
Another study: the older an American, more likely to make dispositional attributions, the older an Indian, more likely to make situational
Difference larger into adulthood, reinforced by culture
Western cultures emphasize the individual (Figure is salient)
– Resulting in more personal attributions
East Asian cultures focus on background or field surrounding
– Resulting in more situational attributions
Attributional Motivational Biases
Motivational Biases
Defensive Attribution Hypothesis: People are motivated to make attributions that serve to defend their preferred beliefs about self, others, and the world.
Self-Serving Attribution Bias (SSB)
Protection of self-esteem, group-serving, self-serving
Self victory: self, internal
Self failure: other, external
Just World Hypothesis
Just World Hypothesis
Need to believe that we live in a world where people get what they deserve, and deserve what they get
Bringing things onto themselves, thinking they deserve it
This can motivate people to make internal attributions for people who experience negative outcomes
Victim-blaming of sexual assult
“Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans because it was planning a sinful homosexual rally” –Hagan
Experimental Evidence
• Lerner & Simmons (1966):
– Watched another student get shocked
– If participants were unable to compensate victim, they
evaluated victim more negatively
Participants convinced they are randomly picked, if unable, then assign blame to victim
Lincoln & Levinger (1972): Participants derogated an innocent victim of a police attack unless they were given the opportunity to lodge a complaint against the police.
Jones & Aronson (1973): Participants assign more responsibility to a rape victim if she was a virgin or married than if she was a divorce
Virgin or married seen as more tragic, divorced seen as less so, as divorce was less accepted in the 70s
Face Preference
Nature Arguments
Threat Detection
Face to Trait Perception
Face Preference
We instinctively see faces in things that have no faces in themselves
Is this nature or nurture?
Nature Arguments
Face preference in infancy
• Infants have innate sensitivity to faces (Goren et al., 1975)
Specialized Brain Regions for Face Perception
- Fusiform Facial Area (FFA): Invariant features
- Superior Temporal Sulcus (STS): variant features
Just need to understand that there are areas in the brain dedicated to this
Basic universal emotions: Anger, Fear, Disgust, Surprise, Joy, Sadness
Underwear or fist: context, not just face matters
Body language, surroundings
Threat Detection
People are faster at seeing angry faces and more accurate
Also more sensitive
People have similar inferences from the same faces, even if very briefly, very automatic
Face to Trait Perception (Willis & Todorov, 2006)
– Ps viewed unfamiliar faces
– Manipulated duration of presentation: • 100ms, 500ms, or 1,500ms
– Judged degree to which person was:
• E.g., Attractive, likeable, competent, honest, extraverted etc.
Two axes: dominance, warmth
Face perception: Ecological Perspective
Halo Effect
Ecological Perspective
• Adults w/ baby-faced (vs. mature-faced) perceived:
– Less dominant, weaker, less intelligent, naïve, honest, kind, warm
– Similar across diverse cultures
• Possible explanations:
– Programmed to respond gently to infantile features
– Learn to associate infantile features with helplessness and then generalize to baby-faced adults
Nice or Strong Face Study (Cogsdill et al., 2014)
– Different age groups:
• 3-4 year-olds, 5-6 year-olds, 7-10 year-olds and adults
– Presented pair of images:
• Which of these people is very nice?
Results:
High consensus with niceness across age groups
3 to 4 years-old are a little lower
Somewhat of a learning effect
Halo Effect
• Perception of one trait influences the perception of other traits in a person or object
Physical attraction is a great example
Video: height influences one’s perception, much differences in perceived income and personality
• Halo Effect Accuracy Study (Kleisner et al, 2014)
– Photographed 40 men and 40 women then had them take IQ test
– Other participants rated intelligence and attractiveness of targets
Results:
Rate strong correlation, men’s slope lower than women
Actual: zero correlation
Real World Consequences
• Hamermesh & Biddle (1994)
– Lifetime earnings; $230,000 more for people at high end of attractiveness spectrum
• Todorov et al. (2005)– Using competence judgments from faces predicted 70% of U.S.
Congressional Election Winners
• Blair et al. (2004)
– More Afrocentric facial features predicted stiffer criminal sentences including increased likelihood of capital punishment
First Impressions, Primacy Effect & Belief Persistence
Lay Epistemics
First Impressions, Primacy Effect & Belief Persistence
Primacy study (Luchins, 1957)
• Ps read 2 paragraphs about “Jim”– One paragraph depicted Jim as reserved and quiet
– One paragraph depicted Jim as popular and social
- IV: Manipulated paragraph order
- DV: Measured Jim’s perceived Introversion/Extraversion
Result:
Outgoing then withdrawn: more withdrawn
Withdrawn then outgoing: more outgoing
Primacy Effect: Explanation #1
- Once impression is formed, we pay less attention to subsequent information.
- Lay Epistemics (Kruglanski & Freund, 1983)– Collect just enough data to form coherent impression/explanation
– “Seize” on that impression/explanation
• More likely to “seize” (exhibit primacy effect) if:
– Cognitive resources are limited (e.g., cognitively fatigued or busy)
– Need for closure is high (individual difference)
Primacy Effect: Explanation #2
• Change of Meaning Hypothesis
– Impression effects interpretation of later information
• Misinterpretation Study (Lange et al., 2011)
– Ps listened to degraded recording of someone speaking
– IV: Told tape was of job candidate or criminal suspect
I hugged him just for the money.
I made sure I wasn’t around while they were being filled.
I left him there all muddy, lyin’ on the floor.
I mugged him just for the money.
I made sure I wasn’t around while they were being killed.
I left him there all muddy, dyin’ on the floor.
Perseverance of Beliefs
Confirmatory Hypothesis Testing
Perseverance of Beliefs
- Belief Perseverance: The tendency to maintain beliefs even after they have been discredited.
- E.g., Firefighter Study
Firefighter are risktakers, or fire fighters are cautious. End of the study, told them that’s a lie, but they still believe it
• How do we reduce this effect?
– Consider why an alternative theory might be true
- Confirmation Bias: The tendency to seek, interpret and create information that verifies existing beliefs
- Confirmatory Hypothesis testing
– Prepare Q’s for interview w/ stranger
– IV: Initially told that interviewee was either Introvert or an Extrovert
– DV: Assessed type of questions participants asked interviewee
Confirmatory Hypothesis Testing Study
Introvert Q: e.g., “what factors make it hard for you to really open up to people?”
Extravert Q: e.g., “What kind of situations do you seek out if you want to meet new people?”
Phone Study, self-fulfilling prophecy
Phone Study (Snyder et al., 1977)
Male conversant shown fake picture of female conversant, attractive or not
Male conversant talked to female conversant, while listener listens to recording of conversation
RESULTS:
Male conversant Judged women as more sociable, humorous, friendly when shown attractive picture
Listener Also judged women as more sociable, humorous, friendly in attractive photo condition
The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy as a Three-Step Process
Perceiver’s expectations → Perceiver’s behavior toward the target → Target’s behavior toward the perceiver → Step 1
Stereotype and Cognitive schemas
Stereotype: Shared representations about the characteristics, attributes, and behaviors of members of various groups.
Association of certain things
The brain makes connections and associations, automatically activate stereotypes
• Cognitive schemas: help organize information about people on the basis of their membership in certain groups
Stereotypes are types about social groups, happened to be more influential impactful
- When are stereotypes used?
- What functions do they serve?
- What affect do they have on our attitudes & behaviors?
- Why are they so resistant to change?
Knowledge = Prejudice?
Influence behavior? Donald study
• Stereotype Knowledge Study (Devine, 1989)
– Measure of explicit racism (modern racism scale)
– Listed stereotypes of African Americans
– Rated extent to which each stereotype was true
• Results:
– High & low prejudiced, equal # of stereotypes
– Low (high) prejudiced people rejected (accepted) stereotypes
• Stereotype Knowledge Study 2
– Modern racism scale
– IV: Subliminal exposure to social category
• 20% or 80% of words identified social category of African-American or a stereotypical associate (e.g., black, afro, jazz)
Hostility is a stereotypes of blacks
– Read ambiguous paragraph about Donald, who isn’t even black
– DV: Rated Donald’s hostility
Results: 80% condition rated Donald as more hostile. (Same for High and Low prejudice)
What does this research tell us?
- Knowledge of stereotypic beliefs does not necessarily mean an individual is prejudiced
- Stereotypes can be accessed without our awareness
- Stereotypes can influence our impressions of others, even if we do not endorse them
Steps to Stereotyping
- Categorization
- Activation
- Application
Stereotyping Categorization
Situation influences
Person behavior
Prototypicality
Categorization
Nerds, jocks, punks, the prototypes in every high school movie, we identify them quickly and effortlessly, with high consensus. This is an effective strategy in the world
• Situational Influences
– Social context matters (Mitchel et al., 2003)
• E.g., “Solo Status”
We identify the trait that differentiates the person from other people
These are automatic processes
In a majority, a certain identity would not be salient
For a minority, it would be salient
– Target person’s behavior (Macrae et al., 1995)
• Asian woman categorized by gender/race based on behavior
Using chopsticks, or putting on makeup
• Prototypicality
– How well does a person fit a particular category?
– More prototypical = more readily categorized
- e.g. Racial Phenotypical Bias (Maddox, 2002)
- Greater prototypicality → increased stereotyping (Blair, 2002)
Stereotype Activation
Weapon/Shooter
CEO/Secretary
Shoving Study
Automatic Stereotype Activation Study
– Presented with black or white faces
– Word stem completion task
- Hos___
- Ste___
- Wel___
People more likely to activate bad sords
Effects of Stereotype Activation
• Weapon Study (Payne, 2006)
– P’s asked to discriminate between Guns and Tools
– Primed with White or Black face – DV: Reaction time
• Results: Ps detected guns faster following a black face
Shooter Study (Correll et al. 2002)
- Photos of armed and unarmed Black and White men
- Decide to “shoot” / “not shoot”
- DVs: Errors; Speed to respond accurately
Results:
People are more likely to wrongly choose SHOOT if black
More likely to wrongly choose NOT SHOOT if white
SHOOT faster for black, NOT SHOOT faster for white
*Police do better than college students, but still have a bias
Also, external validity is in questions: how much does this translate into external situations
CEO/Secretary Study (Biernat & Kobrynowicz, 1997)
– Review resume of male or female applicant
– Job is masculine (“chief of staff”) or feminine (“executive secretary”)
– DV: Perceived competence in position
Results:
Males judged more competent for chief of staff, women more competent for secretary
*This is a more deliberate decision, rather than a split-second one. The only difference is sex
Stereotype fit: how prototypical it is how much it fits
“41 Shots”: A Focus on the Tragic Shooting of Amadou
Diallo The shooting of an unarmed African man by New York City
police officers triggered a great deal of controversy and
inspired social psychology experiments designed to contrib-
ute to an understanding of the issues involved.
- Several studies have found that perceivers tend to be more
biased toward seeing an unarmed man as holding a weapon
and posing a threat if he is black than if he is white. - Training may be effective in reducing the tendency of civilians
or police officers to exhibit this bias. - This bias is evident even among perceivers who do not endorse
negative stereotypes or prejudiced attitudes. Awareness of the
stereotype seems to be a key factor.The Hoodie and the Gun: Revisiting the Trayvon Martin
Killing Social categorization, distrust of outgroup members, preva-lence of particular stereotypes in the culture and through the
media, confirmation biases, illusory correlations, and auto-
matic stereotype activation all may have contributed to the kill-
ing of Trayvon Martin and to some of the reactions to the case.
Shoving Study
- Video of interaction between a White and Black man (argument & one shoves the other)
- IV: Race of the shover
– White OR Black
DV: Characterization of the “shove”
–. . . as violent
- Black shover: 75%
- White shover: 17%
–. . . as playful
- Black shover: 6%
- White shover: 42%
*Ambiguous situation: we draw on stereotypical image
Stereotype Application Cognitive Resource Motivated Stereotyping: Asian Woman Memory Bias: John Time of Day Refencing
Effect of Stereotypes: Attributions
Participants asked to explain the successful performance of man or woman on “masculine” task
Result:
Males attributed their performance on masculine tasks more to their ability, less to luck (I think)
Attribution reinforce stereotype, which causes more attribution of this kind
Stereotype Activation vs. Application
- Social Categorization→Stereotype Activation
- Does Activation always→Stereotype Application?
- If not, why & when?
Cognitive resource model
Cognitive effort uses resources→mental fatigue/resource depletion
Stereotype suppression requires cognitive resources
Model Prediction: Stereotype use should increase when cognitive resources are strained
Time of day example
Morning people: morning few stereotypes, afternoon and night more stereotypes
Evening people: morning more stereotypes, afternoon and night fewer stereotypes
Motivated Stereotyping
– View tape of Asian woman in office
– Ps asked to form impression of her life and career choices or not
– Results: Those asked to form impression described the woman using more stereotypically Asian traits
• Conclusion?
They need to form an impression but can’t, so they draw on the stereotypes
John Example
There’s 5 that correspond to the gangster, 5 to the doctor, people remember the ones that correspond better to the ones they remember
Memory Bias: remember things that fit our memory and stereotype better
Makes it hard to get rid of stereotypes, shapes the way you see the world
“Refencing”
- What happens when we are presented with someone who appear to disconfirm the stereotype?
- We often perceive stereotype inconsistent individuals as exceptions to the rule
And ignore the inconsistency
Stereotype: Self-fulfilling Effects White black interview Stereotype Threat Black IQ test Women Calculus test
Self-Fulfilling Effects
Automatic activation of negative stereotypes → Treat target poorly → Target behaves poorly in response → Negative stereotype confirmed → Step 1
• E.g., Word et al. (1974)
- White participants sat further from black interviewee, made more speech errors, held shorter interviews
- Result: black candidates performed objectively worse
Stereotype Threat
An individual’s fear of supporting a negative performance stereotype can ironically impair their performance, thus supporting the stereotype.
• Effects of stereotype threat reflect interrelated mechanisms:
– physiological stress
– thinking about one’s performance is distracting
– suppressing negative thoughts/emotions requires a great deal of effort
Stereotype Threat Study: Steele & Aronson (Study 1, 1995)
- Participants:
- African American
- Caucasian American
- Procedure:
- Completed a 30 Verbal-SAT items
- Manipulation:
- Valid test of IQ
- Invalid test (laboratory exercise)
- DV: number correct on test
Results:
AA did worse in valid test of IQ, but did just as well in invalid test
Golf Strokes
Condition: kinds of stereotype threat
Natural abilities, sport intelligence, control
Results:
Natural abilities: white had more strikes
Sports intelligence: blacks had more strikes
Control: whites had more strikes
Why are stereotypes so difficult to get rid of?
Stereotypes are self-maintaining
Biased information processing
Affect what we attend to and remember, and how we interpret ambiguous information
Attribution & Subtyping
Self-Fulfilling Prophecies
Stereotypes affect both behavior towards members of stereotyped groups as well as the behavior of stereotyped group members
Stereotype Threat
- Stricker & Ward (2004)
- Male & Female students took AP calculus test
- Manipulated the order of demographics questions
– Indicated gender before or after test
• DV: Test Performance
Results:
Inquiry before test: girls did worse than boys
After: less difference
• In 2004, there were 88,809 boys, 81,521 girls
who took the exam
- All other things equal, 4,763 more women would receive AP Calculus AB credit if the timing were changed.
- Each year.
Prejudice and Psychology ABC
Affect (prejudice) - Behavior (discrimination) - Cognition (stereotype)
Overt Recism
Over the years, the percentage of people saying they are willing to admit blacks to employment, as a friend, neighbor, kinship increased significantly
