Psych 135 UCLA TEST #2

Heider and simmel 1944

video with geometric shapes moving against a white background. most people inferred that the large triangle was "mean" character fighting with the nice small shapes. these statements about motives(causes) like being mean or nice or mischievous are the result of causal attribution. We use the clues from the video to infer the invisible mental states of shapes. We AUTOMATICALLY engage in causal reasoning even when there's little reason to do so

Causal attribution

The process of trying to explain one's own and others' behavior by linking an event (e.g., a behavior) to a cause (e.g., a personality trait)

internal causal attribution

the character linking a characteristic to themselves

external causal attribution

the characters linking their behavior or others with luck and things other than themselves

Importance of causal attributions

The type of attribution made will influence how you respond to the situation. Inferring the causes of our own and others' behavior (e.g., thoughts, feelings): • Determines our own thoughts, feelings and behavior (i.e., how we react) • Influences our expectations for the future • Helps us to predict and control our environment

explanatory style

a person's habitual way of explaining events, typically assessed along three dimensions: internal/external, stable/unstable, and global/specific

Dimensions of Explanatory Style

internal/external, stable/unstable, global/specific

Internal vs. External

Degree that cause is linked to the self or to the external situation.

Example: internal would be studying a lot

Example: external easy, lucky

Stable vs. Unstable

Degree that the cause is seen as fixed or as something that is temporary.

Example: stable -never changes, intelligence

Example: unstable, can change, study

global vs specific

Degree that the cause is seen as affecting other domains in life or is restricted to affecting one specific domain

Example: global, smart

Example: specific, good at math

pessimistic explanatory style

Internal, stable, global attributions habitually made for negative events.

"It's my fault"; "I'm never going to be able to"; "I am no good at anything".

Pessimistic attribution style predicts lower grades and poorer physical health later in life, and is a vulnerability factor for depression.

example of pessimistic

example of what?

"I have no basketball skills, I will never get better at basketball, and in fact, I'm bad at all sports."

The processes of causal attributions

• Kurt Lewin pointed out that behavior is always a function of both the person and the situation.

Theories of causal attribution explain and predict the weight that people give to these 2 causes (person, situation) when explaining their own and others' behavior

covariation principle

The notion that behavior should be attributed to potential causes that occur along with (i.e., that covary with) the observed behavior.

Psychologists believe that three types of covariation information are particularly significant: Consensus, Distinctiveness & Consistency

consensus

a type of covariation information: what most people would do in a given situation; that is, whether most people would behave the same way, or few or no other people would behave that way

Distinctiveness

a type of covariation information: what an individual does in different situations; that is, whether the behavior is unique to a particular situation, or occurs in all situations

Consistency

a type of covariation information: what an individual does in a given situation on different occasions; that is, whether next time, under the same circumstances, the person would behave the same or differently

high consensus example

Everyone else behaves the same way. (External)

high distinctiveness example

This person does not usually behave this way in different situations.

high consistency example

your friend frequently raves about rave about the class

Attribution and Imagining Alternative Actors and Outcomes

Our judgments are sometimes based not on what happened, but on what we IMAGINE might have happened under different circumstances or if a different individual had acted.

We combine counterfactual thinking with our prior knowledge the world to infer the likely causes of others' behavior.

discounting principle

the idea that people should assign reduced weight to a particular cause of behavior if other plausible causes might have produced it

discounting principle example

Smiling at a job interview isn't a good indicator that someone is friendly (most people would try to seem personable in that context)

argumentation principle

The idea that people should assign greater weight to a particular cause of behavior if other causes are present that normally would produce a different outcome

augmentation principle example

Reaching the top of Mount Everest is a good indicator that someone is a talented mountain climber (it's a very tough climb and most people would not be able to complete it)

emotional amplification

an increase in an emotional reaction to an event that is proportional to how easy it is to imagine the event not happening.

May feel more personally responsible for failure depending on how easy it is to imagine the alternative

the role of imagined outcomes in causal attribution (wine example)

when the alternative did not contain wine, they were more responsible for her death, then when alternative also contained wine.

Counterfactual thinking at the Olympics

Although it seems counterintuitive, bronze medalists are often more satisfied with their accomplishment than silver medalists

• Silver medalists may imagine a gold medal as the alternative

• Bronze medalists may imagine receiving no medal as the alternative

Attribution and Imagining Alternative Actors and Outcome

Another determinant of how easy it is to imagine an event not happening is whether the event resulted from a routine action or a departure from the norm

• Tragedies that result from departures from the norm seem more tragic because it's easy to imagine circumstances where the tragedy wouldn't have occurred

The increased emotional impact of such events makes them more memorable and feeds superstitions about "tempting fate" by breaking routines/switching spots

Attribution and Imagining Alternative Actors and Outcomes exmaple

Soldiers in the Israeli army are forbidden to trade missions because if a soldier is killed on a mission he or she was not "supposed" to go on, his or her family will feel even greater anguish at the "needless death" and the soldier who "should" have gone may feel guilty about still being alive.

Emotional Effects of Counterfactual Thinking:

Emotional reactions to events tend to be more

intense if the event almost didn't happen - if it's easy to imagine how things might have turned

out differently.

Errors and Biases in Attribution

Our causal attributions are occasionally subject to predictable errors and biases

self-serving attributional bias

The tendency to attribute failure and other bad events to external circumstances, and to attribute success and other good events to oneself.

For instance, athletes may attribute losses to bad referees but victories to talent and hard work

post-victory

"We don't give up... Everyone gave 100%.... My team's good!"

"We can win on any given night.... It came down to the best team." situation does not matter

post defeat

"I don't think [the other team] was better than us." "We just weren't put in the right situation to win this game." situation matters

External attributions

We tend to make external attributions for our failures ("The questions were ambiguous on the test"; "The ref made a bad call")

internal attributions

We tend to make internal attributions for success ("I'm smart"; "The hard work paid off")

the fundamental attribution error

the failure to recognize the importance of situational influences on behavior, and the corresponding tendency to overemphasize the importance of dispositions on behavior.

For instance, inferences may be made about someone's true personality even when we are aware that their behavior resulted from an assigned role

jones and harris, 1967

A sample of university students read political science students essays that were either Pro Castro or Anti Castro essays.

A: investigate making the FAE even when told roles are assigned

P: participants read either pro or anti Castro essays; half the participants were told the positions were assigned, half were told free choice

R: people made the FAE even when they knew the positions were assigned. Wrongly assumed that the writers action were caused by their disposition other than by their situations

The FAE persists even when we ourselves direct other people's behavior!

Questioner reads a question • e.g., "Do you consider yourself to be sensitive to other people's feelings?" • Questioner indicates which of 2 pre-scripted responses the respondent should read aloud (altruistic or selfish response)

Participants made inferences about their partners personality based on their partners responses even when they has dictated those responses.

The Fundamental Attribution Error in Everyday Life

An inferential problem we face in our daily lives is deciding how much credit to give to those who are succeeding in life and how much blame to direct at those who are not

• Because we tend to commit the FAE, we give too much credit to other people for their successes and blame people in difficult situations too much for their failures

Causes of the FAE

Just world hypothesis—The belief that people get what they deserve in life and deserve what they get • Good things happen to good people, bad things to bad people • Fundamental attribution errors may be reassuring because we feel less vulnerable to external factors influencing our life outcomes

. Perceptional salience and causal attributions • Influences whether a potential cause springs to mind or how readily it springs to mind • Fundamental attribution errors may occur because people are often more salient than the surrounding context

Dispositional attributions happen automatically • People automatically characterize actors when observing their behavior • Adjusting for context comes afterward and is effortful

Anxious women experiment

Participants who were kept cognitively busy (made to memorize words while watching the video) failed to correct for their initial automatic impression that the woman was anxious (i.e., did not take into account the uncomfortable nature of the material being discussed). Adjusting for context when making attributions is cognitively effortful.

actor-observer difference

a difference in attribution based on who is making the causal assessment: the actor (who is relatively inclined to make situational attributions) or the observer (who is relatively inclined to make dispositional attributions)

The Actor-Observer Difference in Causal Attributions

Like the fundamental attribution error, the actor-observer difference has no single cause • Assumptions about what needs explaining can vary for actors and observers • The perceptual salience of the actor and the surrounding situation is different for the actor and the observer • Actors and observers differ in the amount and kind of information they have about the actor and the actor's behavior

attribution theory

a set of concepts explaining how people assign causes to the events around them and the effects of people's causal assessments

casual attribution

casual attribution is central to much of social life, ranging from off the cuff speculation to formal decision making situation such as a trial. Often the core question the jury must answer is what caused a given event or series of events. linking an event to a cause such as inferring that a personality trait is responsible for a behavior.

augmentation principle

the idea that people should assign greater weight to a particular cause of behavior if other causes are present that normally would produce a different outcome

counterfactual thinking

thoughts of what might have, could have, or should have happened "if only" something had been done differently

fundamental attribution error

the tendency for observers, when analyzing another's behavior, to underestimate the impact of the situation and to overestimate the impact of personal disposition

the influence of perceptual salience on causal attributions

people who are more salient- bigger, more brightly lit, more distinctively dressed- are typically seen as more influential in outcomes.

social class

the amount of wealth, education, and occupation prestige individuals and their families have

counterfactual thoughts

thoughts of what might have, could have, or should have happened "if only" something had occurred differently

just world hypothesis

the belief that people get what they deserve in life and deserve what they get

elaboration likelihood model

a model of persuasion maintaining that there are two different routes of persuasion: the central route and the peripheral route

Heuristic-Systematic Model of Persuasion

a model of persuasion that maintains that there are two different routes of persuasion: the systematic route and the heuristic route

central (systematic) route

a route to persuasion wherein people think carefully and deliberately about the content of a persuasive message, attending to its logic and the strength of its arguments, as well as to related evidence and principles

peripheral (heuristic) route

a route to persuasion wherein people attend to relatively easy-to-process, superficial cues related to a persuasive message, such as its length or the expertise or attractiveness of the source of the message

little cognitive effort • attention to peripheral cues • little or no conscious elaboration • alters AFFECT, which then influences behavior • RESULTING ATTITUDE: Weaker or more susceptible to changes/ adjustments later on

central route

focus on content, factual information and logic to change attitudes, systematic processing

cognitive effort • attention to content • conscious elaboration about product/ outcomes • alters BELIEFS, which then influence behavior • RESULTING ATTITUDE: More enduring and resistant, more predictive of future behavior

THE ROLES OF MOTIVATION AND ABILITY

What determines whether we will engage in central or peripheral processing in response to a persuasive message?

• Motivation (relevant to me right now?)

• Ability (distracted? tired?)

• Everyone takes the central route sometimes, and the peripheral route other times.

For persuasion to occur via the central route, we have to be both motivated and able to engage in more in-depth processing. If either (or both) is lacking, persuasion generally relies on peripheral cues

• For long-lasting attitude change, persuasion through the central route is preferable

the Yale school approach to persuasion

Persuasive messages have three components: • The who, or the source of the message

• The what, or the content of the message

The whom, or the target of the message

source characteristics

characteristics of the person who delivers a persuasive message, such as attractiveness, credibility, and certainty

(the who source)

Attractiveness

Having qualities that appeal to an audience. An appealing communicator (often someone similar to the audience) is most persuasive on matters of subjective preference. peripheral route (source characteristics)

credibility

the quality of being trusted and believed in. source characteristics. Persuasive messages have three components: • The who, or the source of the message • The what, or the content of the message • The whom, or the target of the message

sleeper effect

an effect that occurs when a persuasive message from an unreliable source initially exerts little influence but later causes attitudes to shift

certainty

source characteristics.

Sources who express their views with certainty and confidence tend to be more persuasive • If your goal is to persuade someone, be sure to express lots of confidence

message characteristics

aspects, or content, of a persuasive message, including the quality of the evidence and the explicitness of its conclusions

(the what).

• High-quality messages are more persuasive in general, especially for people who are strong in motivation and ability • More attitude change will result if the conclusions are explicit in the message

When information is vivid—colorful, interesting, and memorable—it tends to be more effective

Vividness

When information is vivid—colorful, interesting, and memorable—it tends to be more effective

identifiable victim effect

the tendency to be more moved by the vivid plight of a single individual than by a more abstract number of people. "A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic." Joseph Stalin

message characteristic fear

Fear messages contain vivid information and can be very persuasive • But fear messages are most effective when combined with instructions on how to avoid negative outcomes

Example of message characteristics: fear

• Anti-Smoking Campaign Experiment (Leventhal) • 3 Conditions: • Just instructions group: Received a pamphlet with tips and instructions for quitting smoking • Just fear group: Watched a graphic film on the effects of lung cancer • Fear + instructions group: Received pamphlet & watched film

results: fear and instructions was most effective treatment, then fear, and last was just instruction

inducing hypocrisy for attitude change

example of the cigarette individuals not allowing younger children smoke when asked.,

audience characteristics

characteristics of those who receive a persuasive message, including need for cognition, personal relevance, and ability to process

personal relevance

The extent to which a topic has important consequences for a person's well-being. • The more personally relevant an issue is, the more willing people are to pay attention to the arguments in a speech, and thus more likely to take the central route to persuasion.

need for cognition

AUDIENCE CHARACTERISTICS: NEED FOR COGNITION • Drive to think deeply about judgments • People high in need for cognition are more persuaded by central route messages than by peripheral route messages

ability to process

how capable the receiver is to elaborate on the persuasive message

• Is the message clear? • Is the audience distracted? Rushed? • Is the audience intelligent? Adults?

ability to process the arguments a and w third pounder burger

• A&W ordered more taste tests and focus groups, and found out that the marketing campaign had failed because it assumed that everyone understood fractions: ABILITY TO PROCESS THE ARGUMENTS "More than half of the participants in the... focus groups questioned the price of our burger. "Why," they asked, "should we pay the same amount for a third of a pound of meat as we do for a quarter-pound of meat at McDonald's? You're overcharging us." Honestly. People thought a third of a pound was less than a quarter of a pound. After all, three is less than four!"

which route is better for persuasion?

It depends... • Central route: Attitude change is more lasting and more resistant to counterattacks • Peripheral route: Best option if your argument is weak or you know your audience cannot process centrally (distracted, unmotivated)

WHAT IF YOU WANT CENTRAL PROCESSING?

Make it relevant (motivation) • Teenagers aren't motivated to quit smoking by statistics about old people dying • "Cigarettes make you smell bad" • "Tobacco companies are 'the Man'" •

Make it understandable (ability) • Cut out the jargon • Give people a road map: "This is what you can do"

Metacognition

Secondary thoughts that are reflections on primary thoughts (cognitions).

self-validation hypothesis

the idea that feeling confident about our thoughts serves as a form of validation for them, making it more likely that we'll be swayed in their direction

agenda control

efforts of the media to select certain events and topics to emphasize, thereby shaping which issues and events people think are important

thought polarization hypothesis

the hypothesis that more extended thought about a particular issue tends to produce a more extreme, entrenched attitude

attitude inoculation

small attacks on people's beliefs that engage their preexisting attitudes, prior commitments, and background knowledge, enabling them to counteract a subsequent larger attack and thus resist persuasion

social influence

the many ways people affect one another, including changes in attitudes, beliefs, feelings, and behavior resulting from the comments, actions, or even the mere presence of others

Conformity

changing one's own behavior in response to explicit or implicit pressure (real or imagined from others

example of conformity

fashion trends implicit pressure, peer pressure (explicit pressure)

CONFORMITY IS NOT ALWAYS BAD

The human tendency conform is not always a bad thing

• Conformity plays a big role in getting people to....

• Form lines at ticket booths and cash registers

•Suppress anger/act civilly in public

• Stay to the right on sidewalks, stairways, and escalators to prevent collisions and make travel more efficient

INFORMATIONAL SOCIAL INFLUENCE & SHERIF'S CONFORMITY EXPERIMENT

Even our most basic perceptions are influenced by frames of reference • e.g., the Muller-Lyer illusion (left)

• Are our perceptions also influenced by social context (i.e., our social frame of reference)?

Procedure: • Made use of the autokinetic illusion (a stationary point of light appears to move when presented in an otherwise completely dark environment) • On each trial, participants estimated how far a point of light had moved by calling out a distance (e.g., "2 inches") • First people answered in a room alone, and then participants completed the experiment again in groups of 3

Results: peoples judgements about the movement of the light converged over time

informational social influence

the influence of other people that results from taking their comments or actions as a source of information about what is correct, proper, or effective

more likely when: • Situation is ambiguous or difficult • We feel low in knowledge or competence about the topic

NORMATIVE SOCIAL INFLUENCE & ASCH'S CONFORMITY EXPERIMENT

The tendency to conformity in our society is so strong that reasonably intelligent and well meaning young people are willing to call white black. This is a matter of concern. It raises questions about our ways of education and about the values that guide our conduct.

Why did Asch's subjects conform? • Public compliance without private acceptance • Control condition: answer alone, 98% correct • Control condition: written answers, conformity declines to 1/3 that observed in the original experiment • Compliance wasn't about gaining information

normative social influence

the influence of other people that comes from the desire to avoid their disapproval and other social sanctions (ridicule, barbs, ostracism)

CANDID CAMERA CLIP: ELEVATOR CONFORMITY DEMO

Informational and normative social influence aren't always mutually exclusive forces.

The effect of group unanimity on conformity: The tendency of people to go along with a majority that is clearly wrong drops dramatically once there is even one other person willing to dissent.

The effect of group size on conformity: As the number of people in a majority increases, so does the tendency to conform, but only up to a unanimous majority of three or four. After that, conformity levels off

SUMMARY: CONFORMITY STUDIES

It's hard to maintain that you perceive something that no one else does due to: • Normative social influence • Informational social influence • Group pressure can make most people "see" something that's clearly inaccurate • Group pressure can be alleviated by • Having even just one "ally" • Responding privately

Obidence

In an unequal power relationship, submitting to the demands of the person in authority

OBEDIENCE: THE MILGRAM EXPERIMENTS

How did Nazi Germany happen?

Participants were individuals from the general population (e.g., teachers, salespeople, welders, businessmen), since Milgram wanted to see how ordinary people would behave in this context.

Psychiatrists' prediction: <1% of people would demonstrate "genuinely sadistic behavior" and go all the way to 450 V

Actual behavior: ~63% of people go to 450 V Avg. max shock: 360 V 80% continue after screaming begins

turning out the victim

Missiles can be fired from drone (pilotless) aircraft by a person located thousands of miles away. This distance can make the harm less vivid and more abstract, and therefore orders to fire less likely to be questioned.

"A DIAL ON HUMAN NATURE"

Tuning in the learner • Variations of the Milgram experiment varied the proximity of the learner: No visual or audio feedback; audio feedback; same room (visual and audio feedback); and touch proximity • In a "touch-proximity" condition, participants were required to force the learner's hand onto the shock plate, which reduced the participants' obedience rates • As the learner became more present (increased feedback and proximity), the rate of obedience (shocks delivered) decreased • If participants just have to TELL another person to give a shock rather than giving it themselves, about 90% go all the way to 450 Volts ('chain of command')

Tuning out the experimenter • Variations on the social power of the experimenter: Experimenter gives orders over telephone; experimenter has lower status; experimenter is contradicted by another experimenter • As the social power of the experimenter decreased, and as the strength of the signal from the experimenter decreased, rates of obedience decreased

WOULD YOU HAVE OBEYED?

Milgram's results were surprising • High percentages of Americans showed obedience to authority to the extent that they could have harmed another person • Many people find it difficult to believe that they would ever personally be capable of doing so • But there are many historic examples of ordinary people acting in ways they'd never expect • Nazi Germany, ethnic cleansing, Abu Ghraib Prison abuses

Release from responsibility

Feeling of responsibility for one's actions is transferred to other people

In the Milgram study, the experimenter stated that he was responsible for everything that happened • The participants could reduce feelings of distress because the experimenter provided a cover for their actions (for example, "It was his fault; I was following orders") • Responsibility was sometimes transferred to the victim: "Well, he volunteered for this