Social Psychology Theories Checklist PDF

Social Psychology Theories checklist Social cognition and social thinking 1. Ash’s configured traits 2. Biases 3. Cognitive algebra Schema 1. Prototype 2. Exemplar 3. Development Social reference 1. Regression 2. Base-rate information 3. Illusory correlation Heuristics 1. representative heuristics...

Social Psychology Theories checklist Social cognition and social thinking 1. Ash’s configured traits 2. Biases 3. Cognitive algebra Schema 1. Prototype 2. Exemplar 3. Development Social reference 1. Regression 2. Base-rate information 3. Illusory correlation Heuristics 1. representative heuristics 2. Availability heuristics 3. Anchoring and adjustment positive Recency Primacy Heuristics rividness social salience social ways change How acquire & cues of selecting schemas cognition social pinstruct Implici impression algebra thinking Types social a - personality I - Cognitive I change script forming negative - forming , schemas schemas of ↑ inference social use - biases encoding to ↑ impression , to ↑ schemas of schemas categories prototypes family resemblance stereotyping trait Lecture 1 TB social cognition a ch2 : Human Thought. Cognition thought Internal · . · · · conscious : -> social feeling thinking behaviour - ame of language be could we Automatic of it Unaware Unlikely characterise computer it in language/symbol program Cognition - Thought human mind mental mediate and Understand cognition activity ppl out there ppl subsequently do between what understand of how why people behave in do -> and ways they Social cognition cognition and is how behaviour affected cognition . by affects social contexts our social 4th TB p 44 . Forming impression of other people Social Asch's The Empressionformatioa cognition model configured target generate contained person favourable a Ppts Experiment with are adjectives only , · · When warm So Result warm' polite ' asked , and "cold" and "blunt' is more influential on evaluate replaced by impression was far less marked center Apply - · on a lecturer students less blunt' and : are . likely to ask , pieces of information peripheral "Cold" lecturer unsociable pieces of information , impression is the trait Harold Kelley 1950 self-centred questions warmth cold is the central trait dimension influences on impression formation how individuals conform to group opinions or social pressure . central trait is the other polite' ppl same one were -> the contained "cold" is contained "Warm' and "cold' : to differ another : than "cold" with 2 model word Warm one impression list of a Configural . TBp . 45 Biases order The can Prim of affect Positive ect eff"4 forming in ↳ early information the Recency . You g But later person Positivity People · you , You . . impact more learnt that to you / cues earlier to tired/not motivated are that information than earlier attend to carefully may attend more someone need to work with to cues . negativity 2 tend to assume the best of others Positive first changed ⑧ has information e impression central like attention more later information effect presented is person impression information acts ppl pay a presented disproportionately final the abt subsequent adjective influence impressions Negative with ↳ to be difficult impression with subsequent negative information first subsequent negative attention importance impression and on assume difficult to information positive information not tends to . attract disproportionate impression be more changed Personal construct personal implicit personality theories & construct resistant construct Idiosyncratic other e . g . You forming I · think George Kelly 1955 think people humour first personal ways of important for most the is impression overtime and . intelligent Develop change to P #G *** # characterising theories ↓ ↳ Personal Implicit personality + . is important more adaptive as form of . personal perception Implicit · · personal philosophy human principles general characteristics types · of theories shared of abt go personality within Idiosyncratically nature together cultures = what , sort to of form certain differ within culture personal experiences 7B p 46 . Physical appearance Hellman and Stopeck 1985 Female of their appearance Primacy effect · We assume marked e . g . the In 1 . 88 Stereotypes • accurate physically on US influential very very impact promoted been because . is and impression · had executive , enduring is 'good' . attractive affiliation in ppl attraction and love professional male taller 10 % higher salary , received m . than . Haire and Grune 1950 Ppt were asked to write a story to describe a ‘working man’ from stereotypeconsistent information. • Ppt ignored the fact that he was intelligent or distorted the description. • Promoted the man from worker to supervisor Base on membership · ↳D 4) social · group ethnicity e . g . sex Stereotype - judge-ability - Perception of judge , a If whether , judgeable polarised unless arget is impression socially acceptable to , is deemed judgements then ** class judgeability it + , , consistent specific target the race to are socially more E legislation encourage such behaviour . Cognitive · · refer How general we It evaluation formulation impression positive/negative assign these combine we study to how to attributes to · algebra approach an pluses and minuses valence into a . Information Integration Theory Anderson, 1971, 1981 3 of models principals summation : averaging weighted averaging · Summation Refer to is cumulative the scale where process a of each sum goes the (-3) from very overall -> (+ 3) -> very negative . e g . = Intelligent (=2). (2 + humous = (4 + 5) 3 sincere (+3) 1) (+ 5) - = 9 impression information positive boring (-1) + = of piece TEI 4 . Every to information counts project impression a favourable . Avera ing 9 · Refer is to process a cumulative where average the of overall each piece impression of info e.g. initial impression would be ( +2 +3 -1)/ 3 = +1.33 But if humour (+1) -> ( +2 +3 -1 + 1)/4 = 1.25 it is worsen the impression To project a favourable impression, to present only your single best facet In this example, only write ‘sincere’ (+3), the impression is +3. Weighted averaging • two context weight in different way: Potential ‘friend’ and potential ‘politician’ sincere e.g. Potential ‘friend’. -> Potential ‘Politician’ ((+2 x 2 ) + (+3 x 3) + (-1 x 3)) /3 = +3.33. intelligent to ↓ weight 20 <E]/ NEE "H*7 E ((+2 x 3 ) + (+3 x 2) + (-1 x 0)) /3 = +4 ↓ I IE a ↓ weight ↓ NISE [E]/ NEE'ERE E 20 • Context may influence the relative importance of pieces of information • Depend on the context of the impression - formation task • Additional information with different weighting might affect the overall impression. limitations: 1. reflect subjective importance of pieces of information, negative information may be weighted more heavily Cognitive algebra 1. Focus on quantitative aspect of traits and impression . Social schemas and categories Schema Cognitive structure that represent knowledge about a concept or type of stimulus, including attributes and the relation among those attributes. • Quickly make sense of a person, situation, event or a place. • Certain cues activate a schema -> fill in the missing details. E.g. arrival of a restaurant invokes ‘restaurant schema’ A set of assumptions about what ought to occur • someone take you to a seat, you study the menu, someone take your order… Script A schema about an event E.g. if the waiter in the restaurant speaks an unusual accent of English, we will have a whole assumptions about his attitudes and behaviour. • Facilitate top-down, concept-driven or theory-driven processing • Fill in gaps with prior knowledge and preconceptions Bartlett 1932 memories are active constructed and organised to facilitate understanding and behaviour. Asch 1946 Configural modal of impression formation Heifer 1958 balance theory of person perspective Brunswik 1956 and Koffka 1935 Gestalt psychology Above give a holistic cognitive representations of the social world for interpretations of stimuli and the planning of actions. Types of schema Personal Schema • individualised knowledge structures about specific people e.g. a personal schema about a best friend, she is kind and intelligent. Role Schema • knowledge structure about role occupants e.g. airline pilots should not be drinking alcohol in cabin doctors are allowed to ask personal information Social groups schemas are shared as social stereotypes Script • Schema about event • lack of relevant scripts may cause feelings of disorientation, frustration and lack of efficacy encounter by sojourners (immigrants) in foreign countries. Content-free Schema • no rich information about a specific category • limited number of rules of processing information e.g. if you like John, but John likes Tom so you need to like Tom to maintain a balance Self-Schema • People have schema about themselves • Represent and store information about themselves in a complex and varied way than others. • Form people’s concept of who they are, the self-concept Categorise and Prototypes Family resemblance 相似物 • an instance are typical with a range of attributes 標準 Prototype Ludwig Wittgenstein 1953 • abstracted or constructed from instances but also vary in prototypically • Cognitive representation of the typical/ ideal defining features of a category • Not always represent the categories, depend on circumstances/ social categories/ group norms • a schema defined by the specific features of a particular type of person/ situation Categories are hierarchical. • more inclusive: categories with more members and attributes are on the top of hierarchy e.g. european -> British and Italian • less inclusive: categories with less members and attributes are at the bottom • People rely more on the intermediate-level categories e.g. English, Scottish Prototype as typical member e.g. typical environmentalist Prototype as an extreme member e.g. radical environmentalist good example - • in competition: e.g. environmentalist VS developers • explained how people conform to more extreme or polarised group norms e.g. people describe ‘car’ as a prototype, but not ‘vehicle’ (too inclusive), or ‘BMW convertible (too exclusive). Basic-level categories is the default option • common in social perception, contextual and motivational factors dominate the choice of level of categorisation. Exemplars • Specific instances of a member of a category Prototype VS Exemplars To categorise new instances: use exemplar’s rather than prototypes • Brewer 1988 people become more familiar with a category • shift from prototypical to exemplar representation • Judd and Park 1988 use both prototypes and exemplars to represent groups to which they belong, only use exemplars to represent outgroups. • Social psychologists not certain abt the conditions of use of prototypes VS exemplars. Associative networks • linked attribute such as traits, beliefs, behaviour Schemas VS category Once a person, event or situation is categorised, a schema is invoked. • Schema and prototype are used interchangeably • Prototype is unorganised fuzzy representation of a category • Schema is highly organised specification of features and interrelationships Categorising and stereotyping Stereotype Walter Lippman 1922 simplified mental images that act as templates to interpret the social world Features of stereotyping: 1. fairly crude= simple common attribute 2. slow to change 3. change to a wider social, political or economic changes 4. acquired at an early age 5. become pronounced= noticeable and hostile = aggressive in social tension and conflict 6. to make sense of particular inter group relations Perceptual accentuation & Henri Taifel 1957, 1959 • making judgement on some focal dimension, ppl rely on any other peripheral= outer dimension —> how the mind make sense of the world • experiment e.g. if a red wine is coloured red & a white wine is coloured red -> ppl use the colour of the wine to help them judge the taste Focal dimension & Peripheral dimension Taifel and Wilkes 1963 • experiment e.g. ppt were asked to judge the length of a series of lines presented one at a time/ a number of times/ in a varying order results: Three conditions: 1. randomly labelled A or B 2. all the shorter lines were labelled A & all the longer ones B 3. no labels Findings: tended to underestimate the average length of A-type lines and overestimate the average length of B-type lines Categorisation produce stereotypes e.g. To judge the singing ability of Welsh/English (Wales people) Ppl have social stereotype of Welsh singing beautifully Ppl categorised Welsh/ English produces a (perceptual dimension) on the singing ability (focal dimension). Accentuation principle (pay attention on) the categorisation of stimuli 1. A perceptual accentuation of intra-category similarities and inter-category differences on dimension is correlated with the categorisation 2. the accentuation effect is enhanced where the categorisation has importance, relevance or value to the ppt. 3. the accentuation effect is noticeable when ppl are uncertain abt the dimension of judgement. e.g. Belgians using CM / American using inches (familiar units) Accentuation 8th TBP. 57 • general theory • social representations • attributes of other people inertia (inactive) of stereotype • stereotype presist if they are readily accessible to us in memory • make a good sense of ppl’s attitude and behaviour Functions of stereotype (motivation) • help with cognitive parsimony (認知上孤寒）tendency to favour low-effort • reduction of self-uncertainty • clarify social roles • power • intergroup conflicts • justify status • contribute to a positive sense of ingroup identity Using schemas 8th TBP. 59 1. intially access subtypes 2. access social stereotypes and role-schemas 3. use schemas that are cued by easily detected features 4. habitually used or salient in memory 5. schemas that are relevant to oneself in that context, more likely to be invoked 6. cue-mood- congruent 7. schemas based on earlier rather than later information (primacy effect) Schema use 4th TB. P.56 cues of selecting schema: • easily cued by detected features e.g skin colour, dress, physical appearance • important, salient in memory, habitually used to process person information • mood-congruent schemas based on earlier information e.g. primacy effect For immediate interactive purposes, • To use accurate schemas: depend on the data in hand The cost of being wrong: outcomes (rewards, punishment) depends on the action and attitude of others. e.g. people will be more focus on schema-inconsistent information, attend more carefully to people • important when people need to be accountable, need to justify their decisions or actions. The cost of being indecisive: people need to make quick decision to form a quick impression • Factors: performance pressure, time pressure, distraction and anxiety Individual differences 1. Attributional complexity: people vary in complexity 2. Uncertainty orientation: people vary in interest in gaining information 3. Need of cognitive: people differ in how much they like to think deeply abt things 4. Cognitive complexity: people differ in cognitive processes and representation attributes are important to self-schema and in the schematic perception of others. Acquisition, development and change A schema process: schema development features 1. More abstract: less tied to concrete instances 2. Ricer, complex as more instances are encountered: greater experiences with a particular person or event produces a more complex schema of that person/ event. 3. Increased complex and tightly organised: complex link between schematic elements 4. More resilient: able to incorporate exceptions, might threaten the validity of the schema 5. All the things are equal: make schema accurately mapping social reality. Changing Schema Ross, Lepper, Hubbard 1975 Persistent false information experiment: • Ask ppt to form impressions of a target individual on the basis information that the target made good or poor decisions (they get 24 or 10 items out of a total 25) • Although ppt were told that the information is false, ppt maintained their impression • e.g. inadmissible evidence an impression formed from inadmission 不可接受evidence will not vanish (fade) just because the judge immediate discard the evidence the impression lingers Way to change schema Rothbart 1981 The three processes of schema change: 1. Bookkeeping: a slow process of gradual change in response to new evidence 2. Conversion: disconfirming information gradually accrues until sth like a critical mass, sudden and massive change 3. Subtyping: change their configuration to disconfirming證明為不確 4. instances, by the formation of subcategories e.g. a woman believe all men are violent, through encountering many non-violent men, she develops a subtype of non-violent men to contrast with the violent men. - schema change depend on： 1. logically disconfirmable: change by disconfirming evidence e.g. my schema to Paul is honest, then evident of him has cheated will likely to change my schema. 1. practically disconfirmable: ↑ - IX can be changed easily, when the likelihood of encountering discrepancy instances is high e.g. friendliness, because it is often displayed in daily life. less opportunity to display cowardice, a cowardly schema is less practically disconfirmable. Social encoding stages Barth 1984 • external social stimuli are represented in the mind of the individual 1. Pre-attentive analysis: automatic and non-conscious scanning 2. Focal attention: once noticed, stimuli are consciously identified and categorised 3. Comprehension: stimuli are given meaning. 4. Elaborative reasoning: stimulus is linked to other knowledge to allow for complex inferences. Depend on what captures our attention attention is influenced by salience, vividness and accessibility Salience (obvious) • Property of a stimulus that make it stand out relative to other stimuli. Criteria: 1. novel (different): e.g. single man, pregnant women / figural: bright T-shirt 2. behaviour do not fit prior expectation 3. important to your goal dominate your visual field or you have been told to focus on Salient people attract more attention than non-salient people -> dominate our thoughts -> increase coherence (organisation & consistency) of our impression e.g. if you generally don’t like tall men. If you go to a party and see a tall man, you may feel very negative abt him and feel he dominated conversation vividness • an intrinsic property of the stimulus itself features: 1. emotionally attentions-grabbing: e.g. terrorist attack 2. concrete and image-provoking : e.g. a gory and detailed description of a terrorise attack 3. close to you in time and place: very recent terrorist attack in your city limitation: 1. Research has not confirmed vivid and salience are similar 2. May be more entertaining 3. Apparent effects of vividness can also be affected by co-occur factors e.g. vivid stimuli may convey more information, may be the information and not the vividness that influence social cognition. Accessibility • attention is by accessibility: categories or schemas that we already have Priming activation of accessible categories or schemas in memory that influence in how we process new information e.g. people may concern about sex discrimination so they see sexism everywhere because use it to interpret the world e.g. some categories are chronically accessible depression may be attributed in part of accessibility of negative self-schemas experiment: Ppt were exposed to particular categories unconsciously. 1. show ppt cue words ‘adventurous or reckless’ 2. ask ppt to interpret ‘shooting rapids in a canoe’ result: the interpretation of the behaviour is different depend of the category primed by the cue words. category-consistent manner • once primed -> a category tends to encode stimuli by interpreting them e.g gender is an accessible category that is primed, and used to interpret behaviour category- incongruent category when ppl aware of a category has been primed, they often contrast stimuli e.g. gender primed, you might make a special effort to interpret behaviour in a non-gendered way. skipped 8thTb P. 65-70 person memory Social inference 8thTB P.70 Departure from normality 1. overlook information that is potentially useful 2. exaggerate the importance of information that is misleading “clinical judgement” : reliance on person schemes, suboptimal inferences and judgements “law of small number”: overly influenced by extreme examples and small samples e.g. europe substantial media coverage of hate speech of ‘Islamists’ promotes anti-western violence -> ppl in the world infer that all Muslims behave like this. regression • tendency for initial observations of instances from a category to be more extreme than subsequent observations • To the population mean • e.g. the first time visiting a restaurant is extremely good the second time visiting the restaurant is moderately good (initial observation) I subsequent observation) the third visit is fairly average = the restaurant is a actually moderately good. • it will not be apparent in only one visit, but a number of visit • forming impression is to be conservative and cautious in making inferences from limited information • - F7 to make conservative inferences: • the initial information is less diagnostic (demonstrative) by the presence of other information • e.g. Hans kicks a cat -> form negative impression • if kicking the cat is less diagnostic of being a nasty person, this piece of information is diluted by other information such as writes poetry. -> the nasty impression becomes less extreme base-rate information • generally information, factual and statistical about the entire class of events. • ppl use base-rate information only when it is relevant than other information covariation and illusory correlation covariation judgement of how strongly two things are related I • ppl influenced by prior assumption and search for schema-consistent information illusory correlation • when people assume that the relationship exists between two variables, they tend to overestimates the degree of correlation. Chapman 1967 experiment: a list of pair words: lion/tiger, lion/eggs, bacon/eggs, blossom/ notebook and notebook/ tiger. 1. ppt were asked to recall how often each word was paired with each other word. 2. each word was paired an equal number of times result: ppl overestimated meaningful pairing (bacon/eggs) and distinctive pairing (blossom/ notebook) Two bases for illusory correlation: 1. associative meaning: items are seen as belonging together because they ought to on the basis of prior expectation 2. pair distinctiveness: items are thought to go together because they share some uncommon features. Hamilton and Gifford 1976 1. ppt were asked to recall statement to describe group A and B 2. ppt wrongly recalled more negative statements (less common statement) to the group B (the less common group) result: negative events are distinctive, minority groups are distinctive people often have relatively few contacts with them experiment proved the conditions of distinctiveness-based illusory correlation limitations: 1. when people make memory-based rather than on-line judgement belong togethe base on prior expectation 2. ppl have to remember distinctiveness or associative information in order to make illusory uncommon feature correlations paired uncommon with group 3. ppl have to differentiate in groups from out groups in ways that bias favour the in group. Heuristics • cognitive short-cut: reduce complex problem-solving to simpler judgemental operations three key heuristics: 1. representativeness 2. availability 3. anchoring and adjustment 1. representativeness • a cognitive short-cut is assigned to categories on the basis of overall similarity to the category. • disregard base-rate information, sample size, quality of information and other normative principles • e.g. Steve is shy and withdrawn, helpful but with little interest in people. A meek and tidy soul, he has a need for order and structure… = the representativeness heuristic would be he is a librarian than then a farmer/ surgeon 2. availability • a cognitive short-cut in which the likelihood or frequency of the event is based on how quickly instances or associations come to mind. • instances are readily available tend to inflate frequencies • e.g. media reports of violent muslims extremists will make that information available and will tend to inflate 抬⾼the overall frequency of violent muslims. • e.g. Forming impression • Paul with short hair. wear big boots and carries a cane. You might overestimate the likelihood that he will be violent because you have watched the file A clockwork orange. availability is adequate as a basis for making inferences. limitation: availability is subject to bias as it is not control for factors e.g. idiosyncratic (specific) exposure to unusual samples. 3. anchoring and adjustment • a cognitive short-cut that ties to initial standards or schemas • inferences about other people are anchored in belief about ourselves • we decide how intelligent, kind and artistic someone is with references to our self-schema Greenberg, Williams and O’Brien 1986 1. Ppt were instructed to contemplate 計議 the harshest verdict as an anchor -> make small change only -> a harsh verdict was delivered 2. Ppt were instructed to consider the most lenient verdict 裁定 as an anchor -> a lenient verdict was delivered • Anchoring and adjustment make up the process of estimating some value by starting with some initial value and then adjusting it to the new instance. e.g. Judging how hard a friend studies by how hard you yourself study. (P.89 Taylor) Summary L1 Chap 2 Social Cognition & Social thinking 1. Forming impression: Asch’s Configured Model Central trait: centre pieces of information Peripheral trait: Other pieces of information Warmth is the central trait dimensions influences on impression formation 2. Biases in forming impression Primacy: Positive adjective influence final impression early information -> central trait -> attention to earlier information Recency: Later information -> peripheral trait influences earlier information 3. Positive and negative Positive first impression: difficult to be affected by negative information Negative first impression: not difficult to be affected by positive information 4. Cognitive algebra how we assign positive/ negative valence to attributes (general evaluation) - summation - averaging - weighted averaging 5. Social schema and categories Schema: cognitive framework that represent knowledge about concepts/ stimuli, understand attributes/ relation among attributes. Script: a schema about an event 6. Types of schema 1. Personal schema: about people 2. Role schema: about role occupant 3. Content-free schema: limited number of rules about specific category 7. Categories and Prototypes Prototype: cognitives representation of the typical/ ideal, defining features of a category exemplar: specific instances of a member of a category prototype is unorganised representation/ schema is organised representation cue of selecting schema: 1. Detect feature 2. Habitually used to process information 3. Mood- congruent; base on earlier information The cost of being wrong: outcome: depends on the action and attitude of others, accountable, justify to make decision/ actions The cost of being indecisive: make a quick decision to form a quick impression 8. Social inferences Departure from normality 1. Overlook information 2. Exaggerate importance of information 3. Regression: initial observations from a category to be more extreme than subsequent observation 4. Conservation inferences: initial inference is less demonstrative when there is other information 9. Illusory correlation covariation: - two variables affect each other. Prior assumption and look for schema-consistent information Illusory correlation: • overestimate meaningful word/ distinctive pairing associative meaning: meaning similar items belong together because of prior expectation pair distinctiveness: items belong together because they share some uncommon features 10. Heuristic cognitive short-cut: reduce complex problem-solving to simpler judgement 1. representation: assign to similar category 2. availability : readily available to mind to inflate frequency 3. anchoring and adjustment: starting with initial value-> reference to self-schema -> adjust to new instances -B I - 0x ! - , E -↳ - G . & S ⑤ Si I 5 D - S I S S I : S - S S - Seein ⑤ - S " . S - 1 ↳ .- 1 * Es -- S ·i Lecture 2 Attribution theories 1. Heider’s 1958: Theory of native psychology 2. Jones and Davis’s 1965: Theory of correspondent inference 3. Kelley’s 1967 : covariation model 4. Weinter’s 1979, 1985: attributional theory 5. Deschamp’s 1983, Hewstone’s 1989 and Jaspars’s 1982, 1984: inter group perspective 1. Heider’s 1958: Theory of native psychology • ppl are intuitive psychologists who construct causal theories of human behaviour Three principles: 1. Look for the causes for other’s people’s behaviours to discover their motives • people common needs for casual explanation , elaborate causal explanation for the origin and meaning of life 2. To predict and control the environment • look for stable and enduring properties of the world 3. Distinguish personal factors and environmental factors • internal factors: dispositional attribution • external factors: situational attribution 2. Jones and Davis’s 1965: Theory of correspondent inference 17EHE = 15 • causal attribution of behaviour to underlying dispositions 安排 • how people infer that a person’s behaviour corresponds to an underlying disposition or personality traits • e.g. a friendly action is due to an underlying disposition to be friendly. • a dispositional cause is a stable cause to make people’s behaviour is predictable To make a corespondent inference, 5 sources of information: 1. freely chosen behaviour: • = 44 (Taylor P. 48) behaviour is more informative about a person’s underlying characteristics than is behaviour that is not chosen. e.g. if you are a reporter of a student newspaper, you are asked to write a story about the right to bear arms （軍火）, readers will unwise to infer that you hold positive attitude about the use of guns. BUT, if you are free to choose to write either side of the story, you still choose to write in favour of keeping guns in the home, readers will confidently infer that your story reflect your true attitude. 2. Non-common effect: • = ** = - 42 effects of behaviour that are relatively exclusive to that behaviour rather than other behaviour • this non common behaviour tell us more about dispositions • outcome bias: behaviour was performed intentionally to produce the non-common effect e.g. if behaviour A produces only terror, behaviour B produces only joy, then the choice of behaviour does tell us something about the person’s dispositions. 3. socially desirable behaviours: • = HE social desirable behaviours tell us a little person’s dispositions because it could be under social norms. • social undesirable behaviour is counter-normative so it is better for making a correspondent inference. FRE*** = HEA 4. hedonic 快樂的relevance: • other’s behaviours has important consequences for ourselves 5. personalism • directly intended to benefit or harm us /- y , E 3. Kelley’s 1967 : covariation model • people assign the cause of behaviour to the factor that covaries most closely to the behaviour • To make decisions, people access 3 classes of information associated with the cooccurrence of a certain action by a specific person with a potential cause. 1. consistency information: high consistency: a behaviour ALWAYS happens with a stimulus X e.g. Does Tom ALWAYS laugh at this comedian? low consistency: Does Tom SOMETIME laugh at his comedian? 2. distinctiveness information: high distinctiveness: a reaction only respond to one stimuli e.g. Does Tom laugh at this comedian? low distinctiveness: a reaction respond to many stimuli e.g. Does Tom laugh at every thing? 3. consensus information: other people only react in the same way to a stimulus X. high consensus: Do other people also laugh at this comedian? low consensus: Is it only Tom who laughs at this comedian? 4. Weinter’s 1979, 1985: attributional theory an achievement attribution, consider 3 performance dimensions: 1. Locus of control - the performance caused by the actor (internal) or by the situation (environment). 2. Stability - the internal or external causes a stable (permanent) or unstable one (temporary). 3. Controllability • the future task performance under the action’s control internal Stable Unstable Ability effort Within yourself external · task difficulty Cannot be changed can be changed luck uncontrollable Implications of attributions (Not found on TB P.92) 1. reward and punishment - emotion: angry if the case is internal and controllable e.g. an old strayed man stay on the street = less pity because he chose to be a stray man Pity if the cause is external and uncontrollable e.g. a young boy stayed home by himself = more pity because he cannot choose 2. stigma - identifiable condition or feature that makes an individual subject to social rejection e.g. attribution to gene reason (internal, stable, uncontrollable) = less stigma 3. self-serving bias - attribute success to internal causes, favourable to yourself e.g. hard working - attribute failure to external or unstable or uncontrollable causes e.g. smart person 4. hopelessness - Attributional style questionnaire (ASQ) -> measure explanation that people give for aversive unpleasant events in 3 aspects: 1. Internal/ external, 2. stable/ unstable, 3. global/ specific Global/ specific refer to how wide or narrow a range of effects a cause has - e.g. ppl attribute aversive events internal, stable and global -> depressive attribution style Half-glass is empty e.g. someone being redundant -> due to ‘the economy’ (global) closing of a specific business -> (specific reason) 5. Illusion of control 1. people assume that they have control but in fact they don’t outcome > chance probability e.g. gambling, ppl throw dice/ take a card = feel sense of control = mostly probability -> illusion 2. Depressive realism - depressive ppl are more realistic in estimating chance event with ‘skill’ cue understand they have no control of the world -> having no control > more depress - non-depressive ppl are overestimate degree of control 3. Reward and punishment - more rewards/ punishment if the causes are internal and controllable - less rewards/ punishment if the causes are external and uncontrollable Attribution bias 1. fundamental attribution error • Ross 1977 : tendency for people to make dispositional attributions for other’s behaviours even there are environment/ external causes - internal dispositional attribution: freely chosen to behave. I write supportive speech to a politician if I support him. I write anti-speech if I against him. - ppt disregarded exclusively external cause and preferred a dispositional explanation • outcome bias: ppl assume that a person behaving in some particular way intended all the outcomes of that behaviour • essentialism: behaviour is considered to reflect underlying and immutable, often innate, properties of people or the groups they belong to. 3 explanations of correspondence bias: 1. fundamental attribution error 1A: focus of attention: disproportionately salient in cognition, the actor behaviour stand against the background/ situation -> over-represented causally 1B: Differential forgetting: tend to forget situational causes than dispositional causes 1C Linguistic facilitation: construction of the English language makes it relatively easy to describe an action and the actor in the same terms, but more difficult to describe the situation in the same way. 1. Cultural and 2. developmental factors affect correspondent bias • western culture: young children develop dispositional attribution in late childhood • Hindu Indian: children do not drift towards dispositional explanation at all but towards situational explanation. • different culture norms and social expectation • western children: independent self • non-western children: interdependent self 2. actor-observer bias (self-other effect) • tendency for people to attribute others’ behaviour internally to dispositional factors and their own behaviour externally to environmental factors. • people make disposition attribution for socially desirable , irrespective of who the actor is • actors are dispositional attributing positive behaviour • actors are situational attributing negative behaviour • can be reversed or erased if the actor think as an observer / an observer think as an actor 2A: perceptual focus : different perspectives on the behaviour 2B: information differences: actors have a wealth of information to draw on about how they behaved in other circumstances. 3. false condense effect Kelly 1972 • people see their own behaviour as typical and assume under similar circumstances, other would behave in the same way. Inter group attribution process of assigning the cause of one’s own or others’ behaviour to groups memberships 2 functions: in-group bias and self-esteem 1. ethnocentrism • evaluate preference for all aspects of our own group relative to other groups. Internally attributed to dispositions (group enhancing bias is stronger and consistent) • in-group member: socially desirable positive behaviour (+) • out-group member: social undesirable negative behaviour (-) externally attributed to situation factors • in-group member: social undesirable negative behaviour (-) • out-group member: socially desirable positive behaviour (+) ultimate attribution error (for attribution out-group behaviour) • Ross 1979 • negative outgroup behaviour is dispositionally attributed • positive outgroup behaviour is external attributed or explained • in-group member: 1. (+) positive behaviour to internal • 2. (-) negative behaviour to external out-group member: 1. (+) positive behaviour to external 2. (-) negative behaviour to internal Lecture 3 Self and Identity Schier 1981 1. private self: private thoughts, feelings and attitudes 2. public self : how other people see you, your public image 1. Private self-awareness: your internalised standard 2. Public self-awareness: presenting yourself to others Negative effects of being self aware: 1. Anxious, make mistakes on tasks, paranoid Positive effects of being self aware: 1. Make us feel good when the standard we compare ourselves are not too exacting (threatening) 2. Self-introspection self- discrepancy theory Higgins 1987 - 1 actual self: how we currently are - 2 ideal self: how we would like to be - 3 ought self: how we think we should be • Self guide: Ought self and ideal self e.g. A goal to be ‘prosperity’ ideal self: strive to be prosperous ought self: strive to avoid not being prosperous • Actual- ideal self discrepancy: feel disappointed and dissatisfied • Actual- ought self discrepancy: feel anxious, threat Self- regulatory focus theory Higgins 1987 • Promotion system: attainment of one’s hopes and ideals. • - Adopt approach strategic means to attain goals e.g. seek ways to improve grades, find new challenges and treat problems as interesting obstacles to overcome Characteristics: 1. recall information relating to the pursuit of success by others 2. look for positive inspiration to positive role models 3. frame tasks in terms of gain and non-gains • Prevention system: Fulfilment of one’s duties and obligations • -Avoidance strategic means to attain their goals e.g. prevention-focused students would avoid new situations or new people and concentrating more on avoiding failure than on achieving the highest possible grade. Characteristics: 1. recall information relating to the avoidance of failure by others 2. most inspired by negative role models 3. frame tasks in terms of losses and non-losses Intergroup and outergroup connection • Positive emotion related bias and behavioural tendencies toward ingroups • negative emotion related bias and behavioural tendencies against out groups Self perception theory Daryl Ben 1967 - gain knowledge about ourselves only by making self-attribution e.g. infer our own attitudes from our own behaviours I know that I enjoy eating curry, I eat curry of my own free will and in preference to other foods, and not everyone likes curry Over- justification effect - when no obvious external determinants of our behaviour, we assume that we freely choose the behaviour because we enjoy it. e.g. if someone is induced to perform a task by either enormous rewards or fearsome penalties, task performance is attributed external factor, thus motivation is reduced. Social comparison and self-knowledge Festinger 1954 describe how people learn about themselves through comparison with others - comparing our behaviours and opinions with those of others in order to establish the correct or socially approved ways of thinking and behaving. - seek similar others to validate perceptions and attitudes - Downward comparison: deliver an evaluatively positive self -concept - Upward comparison: have a harmful effect on self-esteem Self-evaluation maintenance model Tesser 1988 • when people are constrained to make esteem-damaging upward comparison can underplay or deny d to the target. e.g. bronze awardee looks more satisfied than the silver awardee BIRGing • name-dropping to link yourself with desirable people or groups and improve people’s impression of you e.g. lowered / raised self-esteem of a general knowledge test lowered self-esteem tend to associate themselves with winning ‘We’ Self- complexity • people with many independent aspects of self have higher- self-complexity Marilynn brewer • defined in group terms (social identity) and the relationship among identities • people have a complex social identify if they have a discrete/ separate social identity that do not share many attributes • people have a simple social identity if they have overlapping social identities that share many attributes Types of self and identity Turner 1986 Social identity define self in terms of group memberships Personal identity define self in terms of idiosyncratic (individual) traits and close personal relationships Self - esteem • feeling about and evaluations of oneself • depend on culture: Japanese society stresses interconnection and engages in selfcriticism / Western society stresses overt self-enhancement Self-monitoring : Controlling how we present ourselves • Impression management : people behave differently in public than in private • high self-monitoring: adopt strategic self-presentation to protect the impression they feel their audience or the situation demand • low self-monitoring: adopt expressive self-presentation strategies because their behaviour is less responsive to changing contextual demands Lecture 4 Chapter 5 Attitudes 1. Three components of attitudes 2. Measuring attitudes • self report • physiological • unobtrusive measures 3. Persuasion • Heuristic systematic model Chaiken (HSM) • Elaboration Likelihood Model Petty and Cacioppo (ELM) 4. Effects of behaviours on attitudes • Cognitive dissonance theory • Over-justification theory • Self-perception theory 5. Attitude- Behaviour Link Attitude 1. enduring organisation of beliefs, feelings and behavioural tendencies towards socially significant objects, groups, events or symbols. 2. general feeling or evaluation- positive and negative about some person, objects or issue Attitude structure TBP. 155 One component attitude model : consist of affect towards or evaluation of the object e.g the degree of positive or negative associate with psychological objects do you like the object or not? Two component attitude model: consist of mental readiness to act. Guide evaluative judgement responses. • influence how we decide what is good or bad, desirable or undesirable Three component attitude model: consists of cognitive, affective and behavioural components - stresses thoughts, feelings and action as basic to human experiences. cognitive affect behaviour Measuring attitudes 1 Self-report measures 1. Likert scale • how strongly people agree/ disagree with favourable / unfavourable statement • 5-point response scale to indicate how much degree or agree with a series of statements • ‘agree’ positive attitudes 2 Semantic differential Osgood scale • Focus on connotative 隱藏 meanings of words • the good or bad implied by the word • e.g. ‘friend’ tends to be good. ‘enemy’ tends to be bad. • the evaluation dimension corresponds to our definition of an attitude. • ‘7 point scale’ / reliability increases as more semantic scales are used. • Evaluative factor: good/ bad • Potency factor: strong/ weak • Activity factor: active/ passive Physio-logical measures TBP. 184 Skin resistance / heart rate / pupil dilation strong Galvanic skin response greater teeve a res th greate as indicate arousal Skin resistance : how sweaty the skin is, how clean etc Advantages: 1. people don’t realise they are being assessed, can’t control their responses e.g. ‘Polygraph’ or ‘lie detector’ use in criminal investigations Disadvantages: 1- Sensitive to variables other than attitudes, only reflect intensity of feeling love/hate 2- can be changed in the presence of inconsistent stimuli but not related to attitude 3 - totally oppose people who feel equally strongly about an issue cannot be distinguished detect attitude intensity but not valence 44 = ! Facial muscle movements Cacioppo and his colleagues - facial muscle movement of people agree with a speech they were listening is different from those of people who disagree with the speech - different pattern of muscle movement is recorded associated with agreement - facial movement is used to distinguish people with favourable attitudes from those with unfavourable attitudes detect attitude intensity and valence Social neuroscience - intensity and form of electrical activity and where it occurs in the brain should indicate of what attitude is Measures of overt：explicit behaviour TBP. 186 Unobtrusive 不明顯的 measures - Observational approaches that neither intrude 闖入⼲涉on the processes being studied nor cause people to behave unnaturally e.g. Non-verbal behaviours such as people who like each other tend to sit closer together limitation: 1. Not as reliable as self-reported attitudes Solution: 1. Use both self-report and unobtrusive measures to correlate the data Measures of covert/ implicit attitudes - an implicit method assess an attitude that people are not actually aware of - people have tendency to conceal their underlying attitudes by responding in socially desirable way Bias in language use TBP.187 - positive ingroup and negative outgroup language bias: more likely to talk in abstract terms about undesirable characteristics of an out-group more likely to talk in concrete terms about desirable characteristics of an out-group - indicate of prejudiced attitudes towards a particular group Powerpoint lecture L4: 1. Measure sensitive issues 2. Unmatched count technique Can attitude predict behaviour? TBP. 160 LaPiere 1934 Purpose: To study ethnic attitude • revealed a glaring inconsistency between what people do and what they say • LaPiere and his two Chinese friends have been to 188 restaurants, only 2 restaurant didn’t accept them into the restaurants • LaPiere sent questionnaire to all the restaurants they have been to • 92% said No to accept them; Only 1 % restaurants said they will accept them • A written reply from erstwhile hosts directly contradicted the way they had actually behaved results: 1. the answers sent from the hotels may not be sent from those who dealt face to face with the Chinese customers 2. they may response differently if they know the Chinese couples were educated and dressed = LaPiere provided an early challenge to the validity of the concept of attitudes. Specific Attitudes Ajzen and Fishbein • behaviours was better predicted by measuring attitudes that were very specific to the behaviour specific attitudes predicting specific behaviours e.g. student’s attitude toward a psychology exam how diligently he or she studies for exam general attitude predicting a general behaviour e.g. a general class of behaviour would be attitudes towards psychology as a whole predicting the behaviour generally relevant to learning more about psychology such as S reading articles or talking with your tutor S 9 9 Theory of reasoned action TBP. 163 Ajzen and Fishbein A specific attitude that has normative support predicts an intention of actual behaviours. Three processes of beliefs, intention and action include the following 4 components: 1. Subjective norms - what the person thinks others believe - significant others provide direct or indirect information about ‘what the proper thing to do’ 2. Attitude towards the behaviours - person’s belief about the target behaviour and how these beliefs are evaluated 3. Behavioural intention - an internal declaration 敘述 to act 4. Behaviour - the action performed, behaviour will be performed - the person’s attitude and social norm are favourable Theory of planned behaviour Ajzen 1991 • to consider the role of behavioural control • perceived behavioural control is a person’s belief, based on past experience and present obstacles , that it is easy or difficult to perform a behaviour. e.g. students want to get an A in the exam (attitude) family want students to get A (subjective norm) prediction of actually getting A will be unreliable unless the student’s perceptions of their own ability is taken into account Theory of planned behaviour modified theory of reasoned action • predicting a behaviour from an attitude measure is improved if people believe they have control over that behaviour Answer the question ‘what do you think?’ Beck and Ajizen self -report of how dishonest they had been in the past = measuring the perception of control that student thought they had over these behaviours improved the accuracy of prediction of future behaviour, the actual performance of the act Madden, Ellen, Ajizen 1992 planned action VS planned behaviour measure student’s perception of control in relation to nine behaviours e.g. exam cheating = the results were calculated to compare predictive power by squaring the correlation coefficient between each of the two predictors (sleep and vitamins) and each of the outcomes (intentions and actions) = perceived control improved the prediction accuracy for both intentions and actions Summary Lecture 4 Attitude: - enduring organisation of belief, feelings and behaviour tendency. - general feeling / evaluation Attitude structure: 3 components 1(affect), 2 (affect + behaviour) , 3 (affect +behaviour + cognitive) Measure attitudes: 1. Likert scale 2. Semantic differential 3. physiological measures (Skin resistance + Facial muscle movement) Measure covert / overt behaviour: Measure overt : explicit behaviour 1. observation approach: no intrude/ cause anyone behave unnaturally Measure covert : implicit behaviour 1. access an attitude that no people are aware of 2. bias language use: abstract terms (undesirable behaviour) concrete terms (desirable behaviour) = out-group can Attitude change behaviours? ethnic attitude : inconsistency between what people say and what they do specific attitude: specific attitude to measure specific behaviour (target an individual) general attitude to measure general behaviour (target a group of individuals) 1. Theory of reasoned action • specific attitude predict an intention of actual behaviour belief of behaviour y -> evaluation of consequence attitude ↳ intention ↑ normative -> norm subjective norm ↑ Motivation comply to to specific referent 2. Thoery of planned behaviour attitude subjective norm & - intention -> ↑ perception of control behaviour -> behaviour Lecture 5 Chapter 6 persuasion and attitude change Dual- processing models Attitude Change TBP. 211 1 Elaboration-likelihood model (ELM) • people attend to a message carefully, use central route to process it. Otherwise, they use peripheral route. • this model competes with heuristic systematic model • Persuasion depend on 2 routes: whether people expend a great deal or a little cognitive effort on the message 1. Follow the message closely (a great deal of cognitive effort) = use central route • the points in the message need to be put convincingly, required to expend considerable cognitives effort - to work hard on them • e.g. your doctor tells you need to do a major surgery, you take a considerable amount of convincing and listen carefully to what the doctor says • Peripheral route : not working hard on the message, focus on a superficial thought e.g. focus on an advertisement in which the product is used by an attractive model 2. Heuristic-systematic model (HSM) • when people attend to a message carefully, they use systematic processing • otherwise they process information by using heuristic, ‘mental short-cuts’ • Systematic processing occurs when people scan and consider available arguments • heuristic processing occurs when we do not indulge in careful reasoning but use cognitive heuristic e.g. thinking that longer arguments are stronger • people enjoy cognitive heuristic to simplify the task of handling information e.g. people judge reliability of a message on truism ‘statistic don’t lie’ ‘don’t trust a politician’ an easy way to make up your mind : - this system is actively exploited by advertising companies when they try to influence consumers by selling their products as supported by scientific research or expert opinions Sufficient threshold ⾨檻/開端: judging heuristic or systematic procession 1 heuristic is used when the messages satisfy our need to be confident in the attitude that we adopt 2. systematic is used when lack of confidence priciple of sufficiency + principle of efficiency = confidence 3 Communication Theory TBP. 198 Hovland , Janis and Kelly ‘Who says what to whom and with what effect?’ 3 general variables involved in persuasion: 1. WHO the communicator/ the source - expertise : more persuasive - popularity and attractiveness: more effective - speech rate : speak faster is more persuasive = impression ‘I know what Im talking’ 2. WHAT the communication/ the message - perceived manipulation: the message is persuasive when we think the msg is not intended to manipulate us - linguistic power: powerless linguistic style e.g. hesitation is less persuasive - fear : message arouse fear can be very effective = optimal fear (not too much/little) 3. TO WHOM the audience - self-esteem: low self-esteem are easily persuaded than high self-esteem persuaded ↓ low self-esteem ~simple - distraction: persuaded when distracted and the message is simple ~distracted - age: younger is easily persuaded ~high quality argument - when the argument in a msg is high quality: high self-monitors are persuaded more by someone who is an attractive person low self-monitors are persuaded more by expert of 4 steps in persuasion process: 1. attention 2. comprehension 3. acceptance 4. retention 記憶⼒ Effects of behaviour on attitudes TBP. 221 Cognitive dissonance and attitude change Festinger 1957 - a group of attitude theories stresses that people try to maintain internal consistency, order and agreement among their various cognitions. -> reduce tension from inconsistency among attitude, beliefs, behaviours Methods: 1. Changing one or more of the inconsistent cognition e.g. person having an external affair ‘What’s wrong with a little fun if no one finds out?’ 2. Looking for more evidence; bolster onside or the other e.g. My partner doesn’t understand me 3. Derogating 減損 the source of one of the cognitions 3rd variable e.g. Fidelity 忠誠度 is a construct of religious indoctrination 教化 = the greater the dissonance, the stronger the attempts to reduce it = determine by the feel of physiologically in the electrical conductivity of the skin 4 Self perception theory TBP. 230 • gain knowledge of ourselves only by making self-attributions e.g. infer attitudes from our own behaviour Latitude 寬容度 of attitude acceptance and rejection around your attitudes -> mostly we act within our own latitudes of acceptance SPT best apply when your action fall within your range of acceptance CDT best apply when you find yourself acting outside your previous range of exceptance 例外 -> reduce dissonance by changing our attitude Selective exposure hypothesis • people tend to avoid potential dissonant information • people are choosy when dissonance information is on the horizon • exception are when their attitude are either: 1. very strong, they are integrate or argue against contrary information 2. very weak, better to discover the truth now and make appropriate attitudinal and behavioural change for example Frey and Roach 1984 experiment: Purpose: to terminate or continue the employment of a ‘manager’ Procedure: - half ppt were told their attitude was reversible - half ppt were told their attitude was irreversible - select as many additional information as they wish from a pool containing five items of consonant information and five items of dissonance information result: ppt chose consonant than dissonances, the effect was greatly magnified in the irreversible condition (Attitude or behaviour change) other examples: 1. People’s feeling of regret and changes of attitudes after making a decision 2. Their patterns of exposing themselves to and searching for new information 3. Reason why people seek social support for their beliefs 4. Attitude change in situation where lack of support from fellow in-group member acted as dissonance cognition 5. Attitude change when a person has said or done sth contrary to their customary beliefs 6. Attitude change to rationalise hypocritical behaviour 5 Cognitive dissonance theory Features of CDT: 1. generate non-obvious predictions abt how people make choices when faced with conflictin