Social Identity Theory, ABC Tripartite Model, Attribution Theory, Cognitive Disonance

Social psychology

is the scientific study of how the thoughts, feelings and behaviours of individuals are influenced by the actual, imagined and implied presence of others. it is therefore the psychology of human behaviour when we are in groups.  Some groups are by circumstances, some by choice.

Why do we join groups?

-       For the pleasure of others

-       To feel understood and for connection

-       Social status / power

Characteristics of a group

stable over time, common goals, members have social roles

Self-Concept

The social norms and social roles that we play impact our view of self.

·      A representation of one’s identity

-       Personal identity

-       Social Identity

Self

·      the person including, mental processes, body and personality characteristics.

Social identity

is the sense of self in terms of group membership.

Social Identity Theory – Tajfel (1979)

·      Tajfel (1979) proposed that groups (e.g. social class, family, football team etc.) which people belonged to were an important source of pride and self-esteem.

1. If the group is successful and valued in society / our eyes

2. There is an element of hierarchy, comparison and status to being part of a group that boosts an individual’s self-esteem if the group is doing well.

Tajfel proposed that

stereotyping is based on a normal cognitive process; the tendency to group things together. 

Ingroup:

the group an individual associates with

Outgroup:

•       any group an individual does not belong to.

Social Identity Theory

proposes that members of an ingroup will stereotype members of outgroups by assuming all members of the outgroup are similar and find ways to show them in a poor light to boost their own self-image.

Social Categorization

-       This refers to the tendency of people to classify themselves and others into various social groups based on attributes like race, gender, nationality, or religion.

-       We categorize objects to understand them and identify them. In a very similar way, we categorize people (including ourselves) to understand the social environment. 

-       Categorization helps individuals simplify the social environment but can also lead to stereotyping. If we can assign people to a category, that tells us things about those people.

-       Similarly, we find out things about ourselves by knowing what categories we belong to.  We define appropriate behaviour by referencing the norms of groups we belong to, but you can only do this if you can tell who belongs to your group. An individual can belong to many different groups.

For example, you have categorized yourself as a student, chances are you will adopt the identity of a student and begin to act the ways you believe student act.

Social Identification

-       Once individuals categorize themselves as members of a particular group, they adopt the identity of that group. This means they begin to see themselves in terms of group characteristics and adopt its norms, values, and behaviours.

-       If for example you have categorized yourself as a student, the chances are you will adopt the identity of a student and begin to act in the ways you believe students act (and conform to the norms of the group).

-       There will be an emotional significance to your identification with a group, and your self-esteem will become bound up with group membership.

Social Comparison

- Individuals compare their group to others after categorizing and identifying with a group. This comparison is often biased in favour of one’s group, leading to in-group favouritism.

-       This is critical to understanding prejudice because once two groups identify themselves as rivals, they are forced to compete for the members to maintain their self-esteem.

-       Competition and hostility between groups is thus not only a matter of competing for resources but also the result of competing identities.

Attribution

·        is the process of attaching meaning to our behaviour, or the behaviour of others, by looking for causes to explain the behaviour.

Attribution theory

is important in being able to understand human behaviour and how it influences our perceptions, judgements and interactions with others (evident in prejudice and discrimination). – deals with how the social perceiver uses information to arrive at causal explanations for events, to make sense of the world and why people behave the way they do.

·        It helps up to make sense of the work by assigning causes to the behaviour which can either be dispositional (internal) or situational (external)

Situational (External)

•       Assigning the cause to environmental factors external to the person.

•       Example - social situation, social pressure, socioeconomic status, schooling

•       The process of assigning the cause of behaviour to some situation or event outside a person’s control rather than to some internal characteristic.

•       When we try to explain our behaviour, we tend to make external attributions, such as situational or environmental features.

Dispositional (Internal)

•       Assigning the case of behaviour to internal factors within the person.

•       Example - personality characteristics (introverted, extroverted, narcissistic, emotional regulation), ability and motivation

•       Dispositional attribution assigns the cause of behaviour to some internal characteristic of a person rather than to outside forces.

•       When we explain the behaviour of others, we look for enduring internal attributions, such as personality traits. This is known as the fundamental attribution error.

•       For example, we attribute the behaviour of a person to their personality, motives, or beliefs.

Attribution Theory Bias

•       Self-serving Bias - People tend to attribute their own success dispositional (internal) while attributing their failures to situational (external) factors.

Student may tell their parents they received a high score on their Psychology exam because they studied hard (internal) for it, but if they did not pass it could have been because they were not taught the content (external).

•       Fundamental Attribution Error - leads people to create dispositional (internal) attributions for the behaviour of other people, however for the same behaviour produce situational (external) factors for themselves.

When Jack observes a friend arriving late to class, Jack may assume that Jasper slept in and was not organized (internal), whereas when Jack is late the next day, he will likely blame it on an outside factor, such as the bus being late (external).

Jones & Davis Correspondent Inference Theory

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

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

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

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

Choice:

If the behaviour is freely chosen, it is believed to be due to internal (dispositional) factors.

Accidental vs. Intentional Behaviour:

Behaviour that is intentional is likely to be attributed to the person’s personality, and behaviour which is accidental is likely to be attributed to situation / external causes.

Social Desirability

·        Behaviours low in sociable desirability (non-conforming) lead us to make (internal) dispositional inferences more than socially undesirable behaviours.  For example, if you observe a person getting on a bus and sitting on the floor instead of one of the seats. This behaviour has low _______ (non-conforming) and is likely to correspond with the personality of the individual.

Hedonistic Relevance: 

·        If the other person’s behaviour appears to be directly intended to benefit or harm us.

Personalism:

: If the other person’s behaviour appears to be intended to have an impact on us, we assume that it is “personal” and not just a by-product of the situation we are both in.

Kelley’s Covariation Model

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

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

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

ABC Model of Attitudes/ tri-component model

is a framework in psychology that describes components of attitudes (Eagly & Chaiken 1993) Describes an attitude as being comprised of three components, that are associated with an attitude object.

-       implies that attitudes predict future behaviour, other research suggests thought that attitudes only play a small role if any in foretelling people’s actions

Affective

= the feelings and emotions – I am scared of snakes

this involves a person’s feelings/emotions about the attitude object. For example,  “I am scared of spiders.”

·      refers to the emotional reactions or feelings an individual has towards an object, person, issue, or situation.

·      This component involves feelings or emotional responses like liking, disliking, love, hate, fear, etc.  It is essentially the emotional aspect of an attitude that can influence an individual’s behaviour. Your attitudes affect your behaviour.  They are intimately woven into your actions and views of the world.

·      For instance, if someone feels positive about exercising, this is an effective response that may make them more likely to engage in physical activity.

·      Your tastes, friendships, votes, preferences and goals are all influenced by your attitudes.

·      Attitudes can cause a person to respond in a positive or negative way.

Behaviour

the actions/ past and present activity – If I see a snake, I will run away

(or conative) component  the way the attitude we have influenced how we act or behave. For example,  “I will avoid spiders and scream if I see one.”

·     refers to how one behaves or acts towards an object, person, issue, or situation based on their attitude.

·       It involves an individual’s tendency to behave in a certain way toward the attitude object.

·       For example, suppose a person has a positive attitude toward healthy eating (affective and cognitive components). In that case, the behavioural component of their attitude may be demonstrated by them frequently choosing to eat fruits and vegetables, avoiding fast food, and cooking meals at home.

·       Refers to past behaviours or experiences regarding an attitude object.

·       Infer their attitudes from their previous actions

Cognitive

-       the thoughts and beliefs – I believe that snakes are dangerous

component involves a person’s belief/knowledge about an attitude object. For example,  “I believe spiders are dangerous.”

·       refers to the beliefs, thoughts, and attributes that an individual associates with an object, person, issue, or situation. It involves the mental processes of understanding and interpreting information.

·       For example, suppose a person believes that recycling benefits the environment and effectively conserves natural resources. In that case, this represents the cognitive component of their positive attitude towards recycling.

·       can influence their feelings about recycling (affective component) and their likelihood of engaging in recycling behaviours (behavioural component).

• The knowledge function is intimately tied to the cognitive component of attitudes as it directly influences how we interpret and make sense of our beliefs and perceptions.

• Person’s attitude might be based on the negative and positive attributes with an object.

Attitude

an evaluation made up of feelings, beliefs and behaviours toward a person, social group, event or object. Consists of feelings towards the object or person- how you feel.

Attitude object:

the target of judgement related to an attitude, such as an object, person, event or social group.

Attitude Strength

·      is often a good predictor of behaviour. The stronger the attitude, the more likely it should affect behaviour. ]involves Importance / personal relevance refers to how significant the attitude is for the person and relates to self-interest, social identification, and value.

·      If an attitude has a high self-interest for a person (i.e., it is held by a group the person is a member of or would like to be a member of and is related to a person’s values), it is going to be extremely important.

·      As a consequence, the attitude will have a very strong influence on a person’s behaviour. By contrast, an attitude will not be important to a person if it does not relate in any way to their life.

·      The knowledge aspect of attitude strength covers how much a person knows about the attitude object. People are generally more knowledgeable about topics that interest them and are likely to hold strong attitudes (positive or negative) as a consequence.

·      Attitudes based on direct experience are more strongly held and influence behaviour more than attitudes formed indirectly (for example, through hearsay, reading, or watching television).

Festinger’s (1957) cognitive dissonance theory

suggests that we have an inner drive to hold all our attitudes and behaviour in harmony and avoid disharmony (or dissonance). This is known as the principle of cognitive consistency.

When there is an inconsistency between one’s beliefs and behaviours leading to a state of mental discomfort. The greater this inconstancy the greater the discomfort.

-       When there is an inconsistency something must change to eliminate the dissonance.

-       Dissonance theory does not state that these modes of dissonance reduction will work, only that individuals who are in a state of cognitive dissonance will take steps to reduce the extent of their dissonance.

Avoidance:

This involves avoiding or ignoring the dissonance. People may avoid people or situations that remind them of it, discourage people from talking about it, or distract themselves with consuming tasks.

Reduction:

• This involves undermining evidence of the dissonance. A person may do this by discrediting the person, group, or situation that highlighted the dissonance. For example, they might say it is untrustworthy or biased.

Rationalization:

• This involves limiting the discomfort of cognitive dissonance by belittling its importance. A person may do this by claiming the behaviour is rare or a one-off event, or by providing rational arguments to convince themselves or others that the behaviour is OK.

Forced Compliance Behaviour

When someone is forced to do (publicly) something they (privately) really don’t want to do, dissonance is created between their cognition (I didn’t want to do this) and their behaviour (I did it).

Forced compliance:

when an individual performs an action that is inconsistent with his or her beliefs. The behaviour can’t be changed since it was already in the past, so dissonance will need to be reduced by re-evaluating their attitude toward what they have done. This prediction has been tested experimentally:

Changing their behaviours: 

This involves changing behaviour, so it matches a person’s beliefs. Where a full change is not possible, a person could make compromises. For instance, a person who cares about the environment but works for a company that pollutes might advocate fcor change at work if they cannot leave their job.

Changing their beliefs: 

If a person often behaves in a way that contradicts their beliefs, they may question how important that belief is or find that they no longer believe it. Alternatively, they might add new beliefs that bring their actions closer to their thinking.

Changing their perception of the action: 

If a person cannot or does not want to change the behaviour or beliefs that cause dissonance, they may view the behaviour differently instead. For example, a person who cannot afford to buy from sustainable brands might forgive themselves for this and acknowledge that they are doing the best they can.

Study – Aim Festinger

To investigate whether making people perform a dull task would create cognitive dissonance through forced compliance behaviour (performing an action that is inconsistent with personal beliefs

Participants:

71 male students from a psychology class at Stanford University were selected by convenience sampling.

The pretence for participating in the experiments was so they could be evaluated and improved for future use.

Materials:

-       Spools on a tray, Square pegs on a board, Tape recorder, Self-report measure made-up of 4 questions with rating scales.

Independent Variable:

: amount of reward used to encourage the participants to make a statement conflicting with their personal belief.

Dependent Variable:

strength of the attitude. Measure of cognitive dissonance ranked by how interesting they found the experiment to be.

One experiment was listed as ‘measures of performance’, a 2-hour experiment.

Participants were randomly allocated into three conditions

o   Control group, 1 dollar condition, 20-dollar condition.

Controlled variables

-       All participants completed two boring tasks, two tasks, same amount of time

-       All asked to lie for next participants

-       All asked four same interview questions

Method

1.     Individually taken to the lab and were told they would complete two tasks and then be interviewed.

2.     Participants put 12 spools on a tray, emptied the tray and repeated these actions for an hour.

3.     The second task involved turning 48 square pegs on a board a ¼ clockwise turn each, using one hand.  This continued for 30 minutes while the experimenter pretended to put down notes.

4.     At the completion of the second task the participants were told that the experiment has 2 conditions

o   Participants were not given any introduction to the task and expected to do them immediately

o   Where participants are given an introduction by a student who tells them that the tasks are interesting and enjoyable.

o   Those who were in the control group were taken to the office on the pretense that a student would come to speak with them.

6.     Participants in the $1 and $20 conditions were told the student who normally comes to chat with the participants for the second experimental condition was absent and were asked if they would be willing to speak to the next waiting participant, telling them that the tasks were intriguing and fun to do.

7.     They were paid their respective amounts to speak to the waiting participant.

8.     Those who agreed were taken into the office and introduced to a female ‘participant’, a confederate (actor).

9.     A hidden tape recorder recorded the conversation between the participant and confederate, whereby the confederate acted surprised that the tasks were fun as her friend who had previously participated found it boring.  Participants disagreed, exclaiming the tasks were very interesting and they were sure they would enjoy them.

10.  All participants including those in the control group, were taken to an interviewer who asked four questions that required them to rate on a rating scale from -5 to +5 (0 being neutral).

11.  They were then debriefed at the conclusion of the interview with the experimenter introducing the female student to those in the $1 and $20 conditions.  The true purpose of the experiment was explained, and participants were asked to return the money (all were willing to do so).

Results

from 60 participants is shown below with 20 participants in each group.  Using the control condition as a baseline, participants paid $1 rated the task as more fun than participants who were paid $20 and demonstrated that they were interested in taking part in similar future experiments.

-       Rating scales and interviews so mixed methods, both qualitative and quantitative forms of subjective measures

-       Participants paid $1 experienced cognitive dissonance as their belief that the tasks were boring, and their action of telling the fellow participant that the tasks were fun did not match up.  The small amount of money that they received was not a sufficient incentive to justify lying so they changed their belief instead, convincing themselves that the tasks were interesting and enjoyable after all.  The magnitude of the dissonance for participants paid $1 was greater than those paid $20, therefore the pressure to reduce the mental stress was higher.

-       Participants paid $20 did not experience cognitive dissonance as a large amount of money they were paid was enough to justify lying to their fellow participant.

-       There was a negative relationship between the amount of incentive and the amount of attitude change required.

-       Participants with a high incentive to comply ($20) only slightly changed their attitude.  This demonstrates a low magnitude of dissonance.

Study – Contribution to Psychology

-       Provided inspiration for other researchers to perform alternative studies that demonstrated similar findings therefore resulting in good reliability.

-       Cognitive dissonance can be tested by the scientific method.

Study – Criticisms and Limitations

-       Explicit attitudes were measured using rating scales, rather than implicit attitudes.  This means that unconscious cognitions and emotions were not recorded.

-       Lack of depth by using rating scale

-       Responses are limited to options availability

-       Must have reading abilities to participate.

-       As deception was used in the experiment, to prevent participants knowing the true purpose of the study and effect results, participants could not give informed consent.

-       It is argued that the experiment has poor validity as the tasks used are unlikely to occur in everyday life, difficult to generalise findings.