Social Perception and Cognition Notes

Social Perception

  • The Perception Process:
    • Selectively attend to object.
    • Detect object features.
    • Match features against stored mental representations.
    • Identify/classify stimulus.
    • Make inferences about stimulus features not yet detected.
  • Social Objects: Objects with mental processes and behavior; they possess stimulus features that are harder to detect (e.g., internal states, motivations).

Social Schemas

  • Knowledge (including knowledge about social objects and situations) are thought to be organized by the mind into “packages” of interrelated pieces of information.
  • Types of Social Schemas (Fiske & Taylor, 1991):
    • Self: Interrelated information pertaining to the self.
    • Person: Interrelated information pertaining to known individuals.
    • Role: Interrelated information pertaining to different types of social roles.
    • Event/Script: Interrelated information pertaining to the sequence of events that represent re-occurring or common social situations one may encounter.

Social Schemas Organization

  • Schemas are organized sets of information structured around more heavily weighted pieces of information (not “additive”).
  • Schemas are also interconnected with each other at a broader level (schema of the self with schemas of roles that apply to the self).
  • Schemas allow for efficiency in guiding perception and behavior and understanding the world and vary in complexity.
  • Top-Down vs. Bottom-Up Processing:
    • Using previously stored information vs. storing/incorporating new information.
    • Using schemas to guide perception and action (top-down).
    • Building new schemas or modifying existing ones (bottom-up).

Social Schemas: Asch (1946, Studies I, II, and III)

  • Studies (example of non-additive, weighted organization of schemas):
    • Participants: 166 (Study I); 56 (Study II); 46 (Study III); US college students, mostly women.
    • Cover Story: Participants told they would be read a list of words about a person and would be asked to write a brief sketch and rate the person after imagining them.
    • Conceptual Variables:
      • Positivity/negativity of a key trait.
      • Perception of other positive/negative imagined traits.
    • Operational Variables:
      • Word list with “warm” or “cold” (Study I).
      • Word list with “polite” or “blunt” (Study III).
      • No difference in word list (Study II).
      • Selection of other traits not included in original word list (all three studies).
    • Procedure:
      • Laboratory study (experiment).
      • Participants listened to a word list of traits that describe a person (intelligent, skillful, industrious, warm/cold, determined, practical, and cautious in Study I; no warm/cold in word list, but both words included in trait checklist in Study II; blunt/polite substituted for warm/cold in Study III).
      • Then participants wrote sketches of the person they imagined.
      • Then they selected which traits not included in the word list apply to the person they imagined.
    • Results: Difference in key positive/negative traits predicts corresponding selection of other positive/negative traits (Table 2).

Self-Fulfilling Prophecies

  • Process: Observer’s schema (expectation) guides behavior toward receiver in a manner that constrains receiver’s behavior, the receiver’s behavioral response confirms observer’s expectation.

Self-Fulfilling Prophecies: Snyder, Tanke, & Berscheid (1977) Study

  • Study (example of self-fulfilling prophecy):
    • Participants: 51 US college student male-female pairs.
    • Cover Story: Examining processes by which people become acquainted with each other.
    • Conceptual Variables:
      • Positivity stereotype (low vs. high).
      • Positivity of male partner and female partner interaction styles.
    • Operational Variables:
      • Male partner provided picture of attractive vs. unattractive female partner.
      • Male participants’ impression ratings of female partner.
      • Judges’ ratings of how positive the male and female partners’ interaction styles were.
    • Procedure:
      • Laboratory experiment; male and female participants arrived at study but did not meet; put in separate rooms connected by closed-circuit communication system (headphones and mics).
      • All participants completed biographical questionnaire that was shared with partner.
      • Male participants told partners would provide snapshot to each other and researcher took polaroid picture to give to female partner (this was not actually done and female participants told nothing about a snapshot).
      • Male participants given biographical information about female partner and randomly assigned a picture of an attractive or unattractive woman (who they believed was their partner).
      • Male participants then rated female partner on impression questionnaire.
      • Then partners had a 10 minute “getting acquainted conversation”.
      • Judges blind to condition and blind to partner side of conversation listened to recordings and rated male and female interaction.

Self-Fulfilling Prophecies: Rosenthal and Jacobson (1966) Experiment

  • Experiment (example of self-fulfilling prophecy):
    • Participants: Elementary school children 1st through 6th grade (three classrooms per grade); approximately 54 children per grade.
    • Cover Story: Teachers told researchers were investigating intellectual abilities of children.
    • Conceptual variables:
      • Teacher expectancy of children’s intellectual gains (normal vs. high).
      • Change in children’s verbal reasoning IQ.
    • Operational Variables:
      • Teachers told students were expected to be “bloomers” (20% of students) or not in upcoming year.
      • Change in IQ test score from beginning of semester to eight months later.
    • Procedure:
      • Field experiment.
      • Researchers administered IQ test at beginning of semester.
      • Then randomly assigned 20% of classroom students as bloomers and 80% as non-bloomers and informed teachers of these categories of students.
      • Then researchers administered IQ test again 8 months later.
    • Results: Greater IQ score gains in “bloomers” than “non-bloomers” but only for younger students (Table 1).

Attribution

  • Attribution: Trying to infer the cause of another person’s behavior.
    • Internal (Dispositional) Attribution: Inference that behavior is due to the characteristics/attributes of the person.
    • External (Situational) Attribution: Inference that behavior is due to the demands of the situation.

Attribution: Covariation Attribution Model (Kelley, 1967)

  • Attribution is determined by three types of information:
    • Consistency: Extent to which person behaves the same way in the same type of situation.
    • Consensus: Extent to which other people behave the same way as the person in the same type of situation.
    • Distinctiveness: Extent to which the person behaves differently in different types of situations.
  • Information leading to internal vs. external attribution:
    • Internal Attribution: High Consistency, Low Consensus, Low Distinctiveness.
    • External Attribution: High Consistency, High Consensus, High Distinctiveness.

Attribution Biases

  • Fundamental Attribution Error: Bias toward making internal attributions rather than external attributions for others’ behavior.
    • This may be specific to individualistic cultures like the U.S. (Miller, 1984).
  • Actor-Observer Bias: Bias toward making internal attributions for others’ behavior but external attributions for our own behavior.
  • Self-Serving (Ego-Centric) Bias: Bias toward making internal attributions for our successes and external attributions for our failures.

Cognitive Dissonance Theory (Festinger, 1957)

  • Cognitions are relevant to one another or irrelevant.
  • Relevant cognitions may be consonant (consistent) or dissonant (inconsistent).
  • Inconsistency in cognitions leads to aversive arousal (cognitive dissonance) which motivates a person to reduce that aversive arousal.
  • Magnitude of cognitive dissonance is based on the following ratio:
    • importance×number of dissonant cognitionsimportance×number of dissonant cognitions + importance×number of consonant cognitions\frac{\text{importance} \times \text{number of dissonant cognitions}}{\text{importance} \times \text{number of dissonant cognitions + importance} \times \text{number of consonant cognitions}}

Implications of Cognitive Dissonance

  • Post-decisional shift in attractiveness between chosen and unchosen alternatives.
  • Belief justification in response to disconfirming information.

Implications of Cognitive Dissonance: Festinger, Riechen, & Schacter (1956) Study

  • Participants: A group of believers of a prophecy foretold by their leader (who received warning from Planet Clarion via automatic writing).
  • What Happened: Researchers joined with a group who claimed in Lake City Herald (newspaper) that a great flood would submerge the western coast of North America and South America; the time and date of the flood were very specific; two clusters of followers living in different cities; core cluster lived near leader and gathered together routinely, second cluster were students who were more isolated from the core cluster; group prepared for flood and believed they would be rescued by UFO from the planet Clarion at midnight right before flood; no UFO arrived and no flood occurred.
  • Results: Core cluster who gathered together on eve of the prophesied flood despaired but then concluded their faith had saved the world (intervention by “God”) resulting in increased belief; other cluster of followers who were more isolated from other members abandoned belief in the group.

Implications of Cognitive Dissonance

  • Effort Justification: Working hard or suffering to achieve and outcome produces more satisfaction/attractiveness after achieving the outcome
    • Perceived choice in choosing to work hard or suffer is key.

Implications of Cognitive Dissonance: Aronson and Mills (1959) Experiment

  • Experiment (example of effort justification):
    • Participants: 63 female US college students.
    • Cover Story: Participants told research was on dynamics of group discussion process; researcher was running several discussion groups who were discussing psychology of sex; participants were to replace a member who had to leave the group due to scheduling difficulties.
    • Conceptual Variables: Severity of group initiation (no vs. low vs. high); group and discussion liking.
    • Operational Variables: Reading out loud to a male researcher (no word list vs. a word list will mild sex-related words (e.g., virgin, petting) vs. word list with more offensive sex-related words (e.g., fuck, cock); ratings of how much participants liked the group discussion and group members.
    • Procedure:
      • Laboratory experiment.
      • Participants reported to room and told they would listen to discussion group but not participate that week; discussion group occurred over closed circuit audio to ensure group member anonymity.
      • Participants randomly assigned to either listen to discussion group immediately or complete an embarrassment task to ensure they were comfortable joining the discussion group.
      • Embarrassment task required reading out loud from list of mild sex-related words or more offensive sex-related words.
      • Then researcher told participants they qualified to be group member.
      • Then participants listened to same group discussion (actually pre-recorded).
      • Then rated how much they liked the discussion group members and the discussion.
    • Results: Higher liking in the severe condition than in the other two conditions (Table 1).

Implications of Cognitive Dissonance

  • Behavior-Induced Attitude Change: Changing attitudes to be consistent with one’s freely chosen behavior.
    • Perceived choice in performing behavior is key.
    • Issue of external justification.
    • Induced-compliance paradigm.

Implications of Cognitive Dissonance: Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) Experiment

  • Experiment (example of behavior-induced attitude change):
    • Participants: 60 male US college students.
    • Cover Story: Participants told conducting research on measurement of performance; also told that some participants in studies would be surveyed about their study experiences by the department.
    • Conceptual Variables:
      • External justification for lying to another student (none vs. low vs. high).
      • Degree of enjoyment/importance of a boring task.
    • Operational Variables:
      • Monetary payment to lie about a boring task to another participant (no lie vs. $1 to lie vs. $20 to lie).
      • Ratings of task enjoyment and importance.
    • Procedure:
      • Laboratory experiment.
      • Participants reported to room and told would perform task for one hour and were selected for survey by department.
      • Participant placed spools on and off pegs for 30 minutes then spent another 30 minutes turning 48 square pegs one quarter turn over and over again while observed by the researcher.
      • Participants randomly assigned to no lie (control) condition, or to one of two lie conditions.
      • In lie conditions told participant there were two types of study sessions—no information about task and information about task; requested that participant tell next participant about the task and that it was enjoyable, interesting, and fun.
      • Participants asked to lie paid either $1 or $20 to do so.
      • Participants in lie condition left in room briefly with next participant (actually a confederate) to describe task.
      • All participants moved on to a final room where another person interviewed them and asked them to fill out a questionnaire with the enjoyment and importance rating measures.
      • Participants in no lie condition completed survey immediately after finishing the boring task, participants in the two lying conditions completed surveyed after interacting with confederate.
    • Results: Higher ratings of enjoyment, importance, and willingness to participate in similar experiment in the $1 lie condition than in the other two conditions (Table 1). The $1 payment was not sufficient external justification for lying, thus causing more dissonance, resolved by changing their attitude toward the task. The $20 payment provides sufficient justification, thus less dissonance is experienced. The control group was under no pressure to change their attitude since they did not lie. This suggests that when people are induced to do or say something that is contrary to their private attitudes, a change in attitude is more likely to occur when there is minimal justification for doing it. In other words, if you act in a way that conflicts with your beliefs and you can't justify your actions, you're likely to change your beliefs to align with your actions.