PSYC241 Lecture 7 Notes: Social Cognition, Attributions, Motivated Reasoning, and The Self
Social cognition
Definition: Social cognition is how people think about themselves and others, make judgements based on social information.
Core questions:
How do we understand ourselves and the people around us?
How do we handle and interpret information?
How do we form first impressions of others?
What role do "schemas" (our mental blueprints or templates) play in organizing our world?
What mental shortcuts (heuristics) do we use to think faster?
What biases or errors affect our social thinking?
How do our feelings impact our thoughts, and vice versa?
Automatic processing and information overload:
Our environment gives us too much information to process consciously all the time. So, we often operate on "automatic pilot" to be more efficient.
Our past experiences act like a filter, helping us understand new people and events.
Distortions in processing social information:
We have biases in what we pay attention to and what we remember (e.g., how reliable eyewitness memory is, or the Amadou Diallo case where misinterpreting under stress led to a tragic error).
Powerful but invisible situational cues:
People might report higher life satisfaction on sunny days than on rainy days, but this effect disappears if they are made aware of the weather.
If people are "primed" (subtly influenced) with words related to the elderly, they might walk about 20% slower when leaving the experiment, without even realizing why (this is called the elderly priming effect).
Early research influences:
Lewin (1951): Believed that to understand social behavior, we must consider how a person sees their world. This idea was influenced by Gestalt psychology.
Bartlett (1932): Showed in his "War of the Ghosts" study that memory can be distorted when people recall stories or information that is culturally unfamiliar.
Memory processing styles:
There are two main ways we process information:
Bottom-Up Processing: This is driven by the information itself, starting with raw sensory input (stimulus-based).
Top-Down Processing: This is guided by our existing knowledge, experiences, and schemas.
Von Hippel et al. (1993) memory study:
Participants read a scenario, either with or without a title ("washing cloth"), which influenced how well they remembered word fragments related to the story.
Those given a title solved more word fragments from the scenario.
Results: With the title, they solved 19 fragments; without it, they solved 22 fragments. This difference was statistically significant (that is, ).
Implications: Having a title helps our "top-down" conceptual thinking (understanding the overall meaning) and can sometimes inhibit "bottom-up" sensory processing.
First impressions and cognitive miserliness:
People are "cognitive misers" – meaning we tend to save mental effort. Because there's too much information and not enough time, we use mental shortcuts, relying on existing information and schemas to form quick first impressions.
Schemas and social cognition:
Schemas: These are mental structures stored in our memory. They are often automatic, based on past experiences, reflect cultural norms, and influence what we pay attention to and how we interpret new information. They act as a top-down processing framework.
Schema fit: When new information doesn't match our existing schemas, we often ignore it or misinterpret it. For example, if poetry isn't usually part of a lecture, we might mishear it in that context.
Social schemas and bias under cognitive load:
Schemas become even more influential when our minds are busy (high cognitive load), which can lead to distortions.
They are also resistant to change (this is called the "perseverance effect").
Self-fulfilling prophecies: Our schemas can even guide our behavior in ways that make our expectations come true.
Schema types:
Person schemas: (or prototypes) general ideas about types of people.
Self-schemas: guide how we process information about ourselves.
Role schemas: expectations for how people in certain roles should behave (e.g., a doctor, a teacher).
Event schemas: (or scripts) expectations for how events unfold in specific situations (e.g., what happens at a restaurant).
Priming and schemas:
"Priming" can make certain schemas more noticeable, causing us to use them more quickly and frequently, often without consciously realizing it.
Perception and first impressions:
We form quick impressions from very limited information. Certain traits, called "central traits," influence our impressions more than "peripheral traits."
Asch (1946) and trait centrality:
Asch described someone using a list of traits (e.g., warm vs. cold, generous vs. ungenerous), and how this led people to make different inferences about their personality.
Central traits (like "warm" vs. "cold") have a much greater impact on our overall impression than peripheral traits (like "polite" vs. "blunt").
Examples: Traits like warm/friendly are more powerful in shaping impressions than blunt/polite traits.
Real-world impression formation:
Kelley (1950): Found similar results to Asch's study in real-life situations. A lecturer described as "warm" was seen as more engaging and effective than one described as "cold." Students were more likely to participate in discussions if they believed their lecturer was warm.
Widmeyer & Loy (1988): Also found that "warm" lecturers were rated as better teachers.
Halo effect:
The halo effect (Asch, 1946): Our positive or negative evaluation of someone in one area can influence our evaluation of them in other, unrelated areas.
Example: An attractive person might be judged as more intelligent or capable. A positive halo means attractive people are often seen as happier, more sociable, and more capable; a negative halo has the opposite effect.
Nisbett & Wilson (1977):
Participants who saw a pleasant professor rated them more positively on things like appearance and accent.
Primacy vs. recency in impressions:
Primacy effect: The first information we receive about someone or something often has the strongest influence on our impression.
Recency effect: Sometimes, the most recent information can also have a strong impact.
Primacy experiments and findings:
Asch (1946): His experiments with trait lists (e.g., starting with positive traits then negative, or vice-versa) showed how initial information can significantly shape the overall impression. Later information might modify or reinforce that impression, depending on the order.
Luchins (1957): Confirmed that initial information is very decisive. Changing a first impression requires a lot of new information that strongly contradicts it.
Physical appearance and impressions:
Attractive people are often perceived as more sociable, popular, successful, persuasive, and happier. This is captured by the idea that "what is beautiful is good" (Dion et al., 1972).
Landy & Sigall (1974): Attractive authors received higher grades for their essays. However, later research (Kanazawa & Still, 2010) suggests that the "beauty premium" (benefits of being attractive) shrinks when factors like health, intelligence, and personality traits are taken into account.
Stereotypes and rapid processing:
Stereotypes: These are oversimplified generalizations about groups of people that come with a set of expectations. They are difficult to change and are often learned early in life.
When a stereotype is activated, it can speed up the processing of information related to that stereotype.
While stereotypes can help us make quick judgments, they can also distort our perception and prevent us from making accurate assessments.
Attributions
Attributions are the reasons we come up with to explain our own behavior and the behavior of others. They help us understand situations and actions, and they shape our emotional and behavioral reactions.
Theories of attribution:
Heider's Common Sense Theory: Suggests that people act like "naive scientists," trying to figure out why things happen. Attributions can be internal (due to a person's personality or disposition) or external (due to the situation).
Correspondent Inference Theory (Jones & Davis, 1965): We tend to infer a person's personality from their behavior, especially when that behavior is freely chosen, not socially desirable, or intended to benefit the actor.
Kelley’s Covariation Model: This model says that observers use patterns of covariation (how things go together) across three types of information to explain why behavior occurs: consistency, distinctiveness, and consensus.
Kelley’s Covariation Model (three information dimensions):
Consistency information: Does the person behave this way repeatedly in the same situation? (High vs. Low consistency)
Distinctiveness information: Does the person behave this way only toward this specific thing/person, or toward many different things/people? (High vs. Low distinctiveness)
Consensus information: Do other people behave similarly in the same situation? (High vs. Low consensus)
How covariation leads to attribution
We attribute the cause to whichever dimension most closely "covaries" (changes along with) the behavior across these three cues.
Internal attributions: We conclude the behavior is due to the person's disposition when the cues suggest it (e.g., few others do it (low consensus), they don't do it with other things (low distinctiveness), but they always do it in this situation (high consistency)).
External attributions: We conclude the behavior is due to the situation when the cues suggest it (e.g., many people do it (high consensus) and/or they only do it in this specific situation (high distinctiveness), even if they do it consistently).
Examples from Kelley’s model:
If everyone laughs at a comedian (high consensus) and our target person always laughs at this comedian (high consistency), but they don't laugh at other comedians (high distinctiveness), then we'd likely make an external attribution (the comedian is funny).
If the target person laughs at everyone (low distinctiveness) and not many others laugh at this comedian (low consensus), but they always laugh at this comedian (high consistency), we'd likely make an internal attribution (the person is easily amused).
Critiques and limitations:
Alloy & Tabachnik (1984): People are not always accurate at noticing these covariations. They don't always process all the necessary information systematically, which can lead to biased judgments about causes.
Augmentation principle (Jones, 1964): We give more weight (importance) to a cause if there were other factors present that should have made the opposite outcome happen. For example, Amy's success in starting a business is seen as more impressive ("augmented") if she overcame an abusive marriage first.
Self-attribution (Bem, 1967) / Self-perception theory: We figure out our own internal feelings or beliefs by watching our own behavior, much like we'd watch others' behavior to infer their states.
Quiz prompt example (self-perception): If someone asks which theory explains why you might feel in love because your heart is racing and you miss someone, the answer is self-perception theory.
Attribution biases and errors:
Correspondence bias / Fundamental attribution error: A common mistake where we put too much emphasis on a person's internal traits (disposition) to explain their behavior, and too little emphasis on the external situation (Jones & Harris, 1967).
Actor-observer bias: We tend to explain our own behavior by looking at situational factors, but explain others' behavior by looking at their internal traits.
Self-serving bias: We attribute our successes to our own abilities and efforts (internal factors) and our failures to outside circumstances (external factors).
Egocentric bias: We overestimate our own contributions to joint activities.
Confirmation bias (myside bias): We tend to search for, interpret, and remember information in a way that confirms our existing beliefs.
False consensus effect: We overestimate how common our own beliefs and behaviors are among other people.
Self-handicapping: We create obstacles for our own success to have an excuse (to protect our self-esteem) if we fail.
Just-world belief: The belief that the world is fair and that people generally get what they deserve.
Applications of attribution theory:
Interpersonal relationships: Couples in distress might explain their partner's negative behavior externally and positive behavior internally, which is linked to lower relationship satisfaction. Healthy relationships often show the opposite pattern.
Depression and attributional style: Depressed individuals tend to explain negative events as due to internal, stable (always there), global (affects everything) causes, and positive events as due to external, unstable (temporary), specific (only in one area) causes. Non-depressed individuals show the opposite pattern.
A pessimistic attributional style is linked to worse mental and physical health.
Educational interventions: How we frame attributions can impact math performance (e.g., focusing on effort vs. just providing reinforcement).
Tests and measures in attribution research:
Researchers use self-report scales (e.g., to measure attributional styles) and experimental setups (like the Jones & Harris studies).
Motivated reasoning
Definition: "Seeing what you want to see." This is reasoning that is guided by our desires, goals, or identity, rather than purely by logic or objective facts.
Core idea: We tend to accept information that supports what we already prefer or believe, and we try to find flaws in or dismiss information that goes against it.
Why it occurs:
It's driven by emotions, not just pure analysis, and aims to avoid "cognitive dissonance" (the discomfort of holding conflicting beliefs).
People interpret information in ways that protect their existing beliefs and sense of self, not just to find the most accurate truth.
Examples and domains:
Political debates: Misinformation or misperceptions can be reinforced or corrected depending on a person's political identity.
Health information and risk perception: People might overemphasize risks that are emotionally vivid, even if the evidence suggests they are rare.
Dual-process backing:
Dual-process theories: These theories suggest we have two main systems for thinking:
System 1: Fast, intuitive, emotional, and relies on mental shortcuts (heuristics).
System 2: Slow, deliberate, logical, and rule-based.
Kahneman’s Thinking, Fast and Slow (System 1 vs System 2): System 1 often dominates our thinking and is hard to override.
Reasoning goals and group dynamics:
Our reasoning is often geared toward specific goals: protecting our beliefs, our identity, and our membership in certain groups.
We process information differently if it supports our group's beliefs compared to if it contradicts them. Information perceived as a threat is often processed quickly through System 1.
Risk and perception:
Kahneman suggests people often overestimate threat risks (like terrorism or gun accidents) because they process this information emotionally (System 1) rather than through objective, rational analysis.
Political misconceptions and corrections:
Nyhan et al. (2010): Showed that simply correcting misinformation often fails to change people's deeply held beliefs. Corrections can even "backfire" or be resisted, especially depending on a person's political loyalty.
Study findings:
Study 1: When misinformation about WMDs was corrected, it didn't uniformly reduce belief among liberals; some still held onto their beliefs despite the correction.
Study 2: Conservatives and liberals reacted differently to corrections; corrections were less effective at changing prior beliefs among strong partisans.
Implications for reasoning:
Motivated reasoning suggests that humans are not purely rational problem-solvers. Our 'reasoning' often serves to justify beliefs we already have and the social groups we identify with.
Mercier & Sperber (2011): Argue that reasoning evolved primarily as a tool for social argumentation and persuasion, not just for finding pure truth. They suggest people are skilled debaters, not necessarily perfectly logical thinkers.
Role of emotion and identity:
Emotions directly influence how we assess risks and interpret evidence. Our group identity and personal values shape which information we trust and find believable.
Consequences and cautions:
Motivated reasoning can make it harder to find objective truth in public discussions and policy-making.
The self
Core idea: The concept of "self" is something we build and change through our interactions with others and our surroundings; our "self-concept" is our current understanding of who we are.
Contextual influence on self-definition:
Trafimow et al. (1997): Showed that the language context (e.g., thinking in Chinese vs. English) affects how people describe themselves. Chinese contexts tend to emphasize group membership and connections with others (interdependence), while English contexts emphasize individual traits.
Individual vs. collective self:
Cultures vary in whether they promote an independent self (where the focus is on personal uniqueness, common in individualistic cultures) or an interdependent self (where the focus is on relationships and group harmony, common in collectivistic cultures).
Symbolic interactionism and looking-glass self:
Our self-concept develops from our social interactions. The looking-glass self (Cooley, 1902) suggests we see ourselves partly as a reflection of how we believe others see us.
Self-awareness and private/public self:
Self-awareness theory: When we pay attention to ourselves, it makes us aware of any differences between our actual self and our ideal or desired self. This can either motivate us to change our behavior or make us want to avoid self-awareness.
Self-affirmation theory (Steele, 1988):
When our self-concept is threatened, we can reduce that threat by reminding ourselves of our competence and good qualities in other areas. The effectiveness of this depends on our baseline self-esteem.
Social comparison and self-evaluation:
Festinger (1954): People compare themselves to others to reduce uncertainty about themselves, especially when objective information is not available.
Self-Evaluation Maintenance (SEM) model (Tesser, 1988): The model explains how another person's performance affects our self-concept based on how close we are to them and how important that performance area is to us. BIRGing (Basking in Reflected Glory) is when we feel good about ourselves because someone in our group performs well.
Self-categorization and social identity:
Our "self" is organized into different categories. Our social identities (e.g., being part of a certain group) influence our attitudes and behaviors towards other groups. We have multiple identities, leading to "in-group" and "out-group" dynamics.
Self and identity theory:
Identity refers to our stable, internalized views of ourselves, including the roles we play, the social groups we belong to, and our personal characteristics. Identity theory looks at how social situations shape how we see ourselves and behave.
Self-esteem and self-concept relationships:
Self-esteem: Our overall evaluation of ourselves, which can be global (general) or specific to certain areas. It's influenced by our self-concept and feedback from others.
Self-concept: The organized knowledge structure we have about ourselves.
Marshmallow study and self-regulation:
The ability to delay gratification (as shown in the Marshmallow study by Mischel and colleagues) predicts better long-term outcomes in health and life success. This shows the importance of self-control.
Self-efficacy:
Our belief in our ability to successfully perform a task. This belief predicts how persistent we will be and how well we perform, even when facing negative feedback. Bandura (1971) was key in developing this concept.
Terror-management theory in self-esteem:
Self-esteem helps us cope with anxiety related to death by giving us a sense of belonging to a group and a belief in symbolic immortality.
Self-presentation and self-monitoring:
Self-monitors: Individuals vary in how much they adjust their public presentation of themselves. Those who are high self-monitors are very good at adapting their behavior to fit social situations, which is linked to better leadership and social navigation skills.
Spotlight effect:
We tend to overestimate how much other people notice our appearance or actions. The Barry Manilow t-shirt study is a classic example of this bias.
Self and culture:
Cultural differences play a big role in whether the self is defined more by individual traits (personal attributes) or by relationships and roles within a group.
Trait hope and goal orientation:
Hope, as a personal trait, involves two components: pathways thinking (being able to find ways to achieve goals) and agency thinking (having the motivation to use those pathways).
Trait hope is a strong predictor of success in academics and athletics, with long-term evidence supporting this (e.g., Leeson, Ciarrochi, Heaven, 2008).
Self-esteem measurement:
The Rosenberg self-esteem scale (1965) is a widely used way to measure explicit self-esteem. Implicit self-esteem measures provide additional insights into our unconscious self-worth, which can be less affected by conscious biases.
Self-concept development and behavioral consequences:
Identity theory explains how society influences our self-views and behaviors. We have multiple identities, including roles, social categories, and personal traits.
Practical implications for education and well-being:
Understanding concepts like self-concept, self-esteem, and self-regulation is important for developing interventions that can improve students' resilience, motivation, and overall outcomes.
Notes and references to key studies and concepts
Amadou Diallo case: An example of how bias and distorted perception can occur under stress.
Bartlett (1932) – War of the Ghosts: Showed how cultural schemas can distort memory.
Asch (1946): Research on central vs. peripheral traits (warm vs. cold), and the primacy effect in forming first impressions.
Kelley (1967, 1966) – Covariation model: Research on the three types of information (consensus, distinctiveness, consistency) used to make attributions. Also, the idea that covariation information helps determine causes. Critiques by Alloy & Tabachnik (1984) highlighted limitations.
Jones & Davis (1965) – Correspondent Inference Theory: Explained how we infer personality from intentional, non-desirable, or unique behaviors.
Jones & Harris (1967) – Correspondence Bias: Demonstrated that people infer attitudes from essays even when writers had no choice in their stance.
Ross & Sicoly (1979) – Egocentric bias: Research on overestimating one's own contributions and various self-serving biases.
Nisbett & Wilson (1977): Studied how overall pleasantness influences the perception of specific traits, relating to the halo effect.
Festinger (1954) – Social comparison theory: Introduced the idea that people compare themselves to others to reduce uncertainty.
Tesser (1988) – SEM model: Explained how others' success or failure can affect our self-concept (e.g., BIRGing).
Cooley (1902) – Looking-glass self: Concept that our self-concept reflects how others perceive us.
Bandura (1971) – Self-efficacy concept: Introduced the belief in one's ability to succeed at tasks.
Steele (1988) – Self-affirmation theory: Described how people protect self-worth by affirming competencies in other domains.
Kahneman (Thinking, Fast and Slow) and System 1/System 2 framework (2003): Dual-process theory of fast, intuitive thinking vs. slow, deliberate thinking.
Nyhan et al. (2010): Research on how political corrections often fail to change beliefs, sometimes even backfiring.
Mercier & Sperber (2011): Argued that reasoning's primary function is for social argumentation, not pure truth-seeking.
Greenberg, Solomon, & Pyszczynski – Terror-management theory: Linking mortality awareness to group membership and self-esteem as coping mechanisms.
Snyder (1974) – Self-monitoring: Research on how individuals adjust their behavior to fit social situations.
Gilovich et al. (2000) – Spotlight effect: Demonstrated people's tendency to overestimate how much others notice them.
Mischel & colleagues – Marshmallow paradigm (1990s–2010s): Longitudinal studies showing how delaying gratification predicts long-term success.
Snyder, Uleman, Ross, etc. (various years): Various foundational research on the self and identity.
Summary for exam focus
Social cognition: Understand the difference between automatic and controlled thinking, the role of mental schemas, how priming influences us, the halo effect, and how impressions are formed (especially the impact of central vs. peripheral traits).
Attributions: Know the difference between internal and external causes, how Kelley's covariation model works, the concept of correspondent inferences, common attribution biases and errors, self-attribution, and how these theories apply in real life.
Motivated reasoning: Focus on how our beliefs and identity influence how we process information, dual-process perspectives (System 1/System 2), examples of misperceptions in politics and health, limitations of correcting misinformation, and how emotions drive reasoning.
The self: Understand how the self is built through social interaction, the distinction between self-concept and self-esteem, self-awareness, self-regulation, how we present ourselves (self-presentation) and the spotlight effect, cultural differences in how the self is defined, self-efficacy, self-affirmation, and terror-management theory.