Week 2 - Social Cognition.pdf

Week 2: PSYU/X 3333 SOCIAL COGNITION August 3, 2023 Part I: Social Cognition Central Social Motives how people experience an event -> what a person brings to the event/pursuit of informa9on Shape our construals, thoughts, emotions, behaviour, relationships… • Belonging: our desire for stable,...

Week 2: PSYU/X 3333 SOCIAL COGNITION August 3, 2023 Part I: Social Cognition Central Social Motives how people experience an event -> what a person brings to the event/pursuit of informa9on Shape our construals, thoughts, emotions, behaviour, relationships… • Belonging: our desire for stable, meaningful connections with others. • Understanding Others and Predicting Accurately: to navigate the world safely and in a way that optimizes our relationships • Control: the autonomy and competence to direct our own actions and make things happen • Self-enhancement: feel self-worth, have social status in community, and have positive reputations – want lives to matter • Trust: cannot survive without trusting other people trus%ng people to behave according to common principles, etc Social Cognition • Way in which people think about themselves and the social world • How we select, interpret, remember, and use social information to make judgments and decisions. – vs Automatic Thinking & Controlled Thinking thinking = a lot of research about automa4c thinking takes less (me + effort takes more *me + effort A story about George & Linda • As she did every morning, Linda got up and made George breakfast. As George was eating, Linda asked “Well, how is it, George?” Typically, George said nothing, continued eating and basically ignoring Linda. Linda sighed and went in the bedroom to get ready for work. As she was sitting, George came in and burped in her face. Linda said, “Well, thanks a lot George!” George turned his back and silently walked out of the room . . . . • • Do they have a good relationship? Will they stay together? A story about Alex • • In company “X”, a computer software firm, there are 20 office staff (administration, secretarial, and sales) and 80 programmers Alex works for company X. She is a tall, attractive woman, age 28, and has worked at X for 5 years. She can type like the wind, communicates well with people, and loves her job. Her hobbies are puzzles, painting, and rock climbing. • What is the likelihood that Alex is a programmer? 0% 100% looking at descriptor of role vs numbers People As Everyday Theorists • Schemas inferred knowledge structures ― Organize knowledge around:  Themes  Topics organise like this while filtering out info we dont need guide how we process, what we pay a2en4on to, etc. ― Contain basic knowledge and impressions of     • Others Ourselves Social roles Events Why do we have them? ― Free-up valuable cognitive resources ― Reduce Ambiguity • Where do they come from? ― Culture matters Cognitive Effects of Schemas • Guide Attention ― Ex: Confirmation Bias – We notice, remember, and accept information that confirms what we already believe, and tend to ignore, forget, and reject information that disconfirms what we believe. ― Filters Information • Are Reconstructive (i.e., memory, inference and interpretation) ― Fill in blanks with information consistent with our schemas Determining which schemas are applied • Accessibility ― Chronic due to past experience ― Temporary due to relevant goal or recent experience (priming) related/similar to schemas Heuristics Mental shortcuts that guide problem solving and decision making • Highly useful • However, do not guarantee accuracy and can be misleading, or result in errors of judgment • When do we use them? ― ― ― ― ― when we don’t have time to think carefully about an issue; when we are so overloaded with information that it becomes impossible to process the information fully; when the issues at stake are not very important to us; when we lack the required knowledge for making a reasoned decision; and when we let our emotions and wishful thinking get in the way. Heuristics Common examples of heuris1cs Mental shortcuts that provide short cuts for problem solving and decision making • Representativeness: classify according to how similar or typical something is ― If you thought Alex was administration/secretary, you used this instead of numbers • Availability: classify according to ease with which something comes to mind • Anchoring & Adjustment: use a number value and adjust from that value • Affect: our feelings can shape our evaluations of people or ideas prototypical Heuristics Mental shortcuts that provide short cuts for problem solving and decision making • Issues: ― False-consensus effect belief that everyone thinks the way you do ― Base-rate Fallacy    If you knew data on how many programmers, you would get this correct… Lottery Influenced by availability & representativeness (anchoring & adjustment) ― Overconfidence (accuracy) ― Counterfactual Thinking  “If only…” imagining be)er outcomes —> lead to nega4ve feelings imagining worse outcomes —> posi4ve feelings Why nega4ve outcomes occurred —> be)er strategies Controlled Social Cognition • • • • Conscious Intentional Voluntary Effortful Controlled Social Cognition • Mental Control & Thought Suppression ― What happens when we are tired or stressed – we don’t have energy to deliberate OR control our thoughts ― Ironic Processes: the more we try NOT TO think about something, are tired, or stressed, the more likely those thoughts will intrude place in larger context e.g., giving up a certain food for diet —> if ou think about it more likely to eat that food Part II: Attribution Causal Attribution: Answering the “Why” Question • Attribution: process through which people seek to identify the causes of others’ (and one’s own) behaviour and to gain knowledge of their stable traits and dispositions ― Inferring from what we observe:  What people are like  What motivates them ― Attributions influence how we treat others ― Determines HOW we respond • Why did the chicken cross the road? ― To get to the other side ― It’s a dumb chicken Theoretical Perspectives 1. Heider (1958) – People are naïve scientists ― Two types of attributions:  Internal (personal/dispositional) –behaviour explained by internal characteristics such as ability, personality, mood, or effort.  External (situational) – behaviour explained factors external to the individual such as luck, other people, or circumstances 2. Jones & Harris (1967) – Correspondence Inference Theory ― Does an Action reflect corresponding behaviour?  Look for internal or external justification ― Use various characteristics to do this including: - Choice in Behaving - Social desirability - Non-common effects Theoretical Perspectives 1. Kelly (1970’s) – People are also naïve scientists, but… • We utilize 3 Types of Information behaviour —> deduce personality ― Consensus  How other people behave toward the same stimulus ― Distinctiveness  How the actor responds to other stimuli ― Consistency  Frequency of the behavior between the same actor & the same stimulus Theoretical Perspectives 1. Kelly • Internal Attribution – Consensus low – Distinctiveness low – Consistency high • External Attribution – Consensus high – Distinctiveness high – Consistency high • Combination Attribution – Consensus low – Distinctiveness high – Consistency high Can predict personality based on specific a2ribu4on Example • You go to Prof. X’s office hours, and she is extremely helpful to you. Why? • • • Consensus: How do other professors treat you in office hours? Distinctiveness: How does Prof. X treat other students in office hours? Consistency: Does Prof. X treat you the same way when you go to her office hours other times? Internal Attribution ― Likely when Low in Consensus, Low in Distinctiveness, and High in Consistency External Attribution ― Likely when Consensus, Distinctiveness, and Consistency are all high. • • Criticisms • • • • • • Doesn‘t work well for circumstance attributions Covariation does not mean causality Participants are given “pre-packaged” info which they might not seek or use in everyday situations Evidence suggests people are poor at assessing covariation between events (Alloy & Tabachnik, 1984) It may appear that the covariation principle was used, but the processing used may be completely different (e.g. Nisbett & Ross, 1980) Requires multiple observations over time- which is not always possible to do Attribution: Configuration • • • Causal Schemas – Preconceptions or theories built up from experience about how certain kinds of causes interact to produce a specific effect Allows one to interpret information quickly by comparing and integrating it with a schema Discounting & Augmenting Discoun)ng: more poten)al causes = put less weight on causes - you discount the things that push you away from the logic decision e.g. her having money doesn’t have that much of an effect on proposal as we associate proposal more with love Augmen)ng: facilita)ve factor assigned greater weight than inhibi)ng behaviour - give more power to the logical decision e.g. he loves her and that’s why he’s proposing not just because she has money Can internal and external attributions be distinguished? • Other categorizations of attributions e.g. multidimensional approach (Weiner, 1986) ― Locus – internal or external? ― Stability – is the cause a stable or unstable one (over time) ― Controllability – to what extent is future task performance under the actor’s control? Internal Stable External Unstable Controllable Typical effort Unusual effort Uncontrollable Ability Mood Stable Consistent help/hindrance from others Task difficulty Unstable Unusual help/hindrance from others Luck Sources of Error in Attribution • Correspondence Bias (FAE) Jones & Harris (1967) ―tendency to explain others’ actions as stemming from dispositions even in the presence of clear situational causes; tendency to overestimate the impact of dispositional factors  This error is more common or stronger in individualist cultures (Western Europe, the United States, and Australia).  This error is committed against groups, as well as individuals. Fundamental Attribution Error • • • Jones & Harris (1967) – Correspondence Bias 2 (Pro/Anti- Castro Essay) x 2 (Author chose/assigned position) Estimate of author’s “real” position Dual Process Model of FAE Gilbert, Pelham, & Krull (1988) • First: Internal Attribution • Then: Consider alternative explanations ― When are we likely to make it to 2nd step?  Time  Energy  Motivation If given a cogni,ve load (e.g. had to listen to speech before answering ques,ons) they were less likely to consider alterna,ve explana,ons The Actor/Observer Effect • Tendency to attribute own behavior mainly to situational causes, but the behavior of others mainly to internal (dispositional) causes – Others: dispositional – Ourselves: situational • Why? – Perceptual Salience – Actors have more information about themselves than observers do. Self-Serving Attributions • • • Explanations for one’s: ― Success  internal, dispositional factors ― Failure  external, situational factors  Cognitive and motivational factors may explain this bias.  This bias is stronger in individualist cultures. Why? ― Self-esteem, presentation, available info False Consensus: Tendency to overestimate the commonality of our own opinions, beliefs, and behaviors. ― Explanations:  Self enhancement  motivation  Selective exposure to others  cognitive  Salience of own position  cognitive Defensive Attributions Explanations for behaviour that avoid feelings of vulnerability or mortality • Unrealistic Optimism ― Good things more likely ― Bad things less likely • Belief in Just World ― Bad things happen to bad people ― Good things happen to good people How accurate are our attributions? Not as accurate as we think – we are often crazy good at it, but also crazy prone to bias and error Have a great week!