Ch. 13.1 Social Cognition: How We Think About Each Other

Social cognition = the way we think about other people and the social world.
Primary foci in classic research:
- Attributions (explanations for behavior)
- Attitudes (evaluative stances that link thought & emotion)
- Cognitive dissonance (tension between conflicting cognitions/actions)

Attribution = an explanation of the cause of behavior.
One single behavior can elicit many attributions (e.g., the coffee-shop “thief”).
Two broad categories per attribution theory:
- Dispositional/trait (internal) causes ➜ presume stable personality factors ("cheap," "reckless," "thief").
- Situational (external) causes ➜ temporary, contextual factors (new medication, mobile pre-pay, urgent phone call, etc.).

Definition: systemic bias to overestimate traits and underestimate the situation when judging others’ behavior.
Self/other asymmetry: Our misbehavior → “it’s complicated/situational”; their misbehavior → “simple/trait.”
Classic driving examples:
- "I sped because traffic made me late" vs. "They sped because they’re reckless."
Lab demonstration (Jones & Harris, 1967; Festinger era):
- Participants read pro/con essays assigned to writers ➜ still judged writers’ attitude as matching the essay = FAE.
Cultural moderation:
- Occurs more in individualistic cultures (U.S., Western Europe).
- Collectivistic cultures (many Asian societies) attribute comparatively more to situation.
- Newspaper study: U.S. papers (NYT, Boston Globe) vs. Hong Kong (South China Morning Post) → Asian coverage framed wins/losses situationally (bad calls, opponent’s errors) more often.
Life Hack 13.1: Actively search for situational explanations to counteract FAE.

Attitude = viewpoint integrating cognition & affect that guides responses to people/objects/situations.
Example: Death-penalty stance blends crime-rate statistics + gut feelings about execution.

Strong attitudes predict behavior better than weak ones.
Chicago survey of \approx 400 residents: strength of attitude on 5 issues (affirmative action, immigration, school funding, gentrification, Iraq war) positively correlated with action (petitions, rallies, contacting officials).
Three conditions where prediction falters (meta-analysis):
- Low confidence in the attitude
- Internal inconsistency within the attitude
- Presence of contradictory attitudes
LaPiere’s 1934 study: Chinese couple tolerated in \approx 90 restaurants/hotels → 6 months later surveys said "would NOT serve." Illustrates attitude–behavior mismatch, possibly from prejudice norms or economic pressures.

Explicit: conscious, reportable, orbitofrontal cortex.
Implicit: automatic, emotional, amygdala.
Predictive power: overall roughly equal, yet implicit racial attitudes better forecast subtle/non-verbal discrimination (eye-contact, seating distance).

Central-route persuasion ➜ content-focused; demands high elaboration; yields durable change.
- Car ad listing mpg, safety ratings, leg room.
Peripheral-route persuasion ➜ cue-focused; low elaboration; fleeting change.
- Car ad with celebrity & trendy music.

Foot-in-the-Door (FITD): small → medium → large request sequence.
- E-mail landmine charity study: petition first tripled donations vs. direct ask.
Door-in-the-Face (DITF): huge request rejected → target request seems modest.
- Juvenile-detainee counseling 2 yrs @ 2 h/wk (almost 0\% agree) → then single zoo trip: 50\% comply vs. 17\% baseline.
Lowball Technique: secure agreement at "low price" then raise cost (hidden fees, expansion of moving favors, etc.).

Social role = label or status with norms/expectations.
Role changes trigger attitude & behavior shifts (graduate adopts “professional” clothes/music).
Stanford Prison Experiment (Zimbardo 1971):
- 24 male students → random “guards” vs. “prisoners.”
- Guards rapidly became abusive (food denial, bathroom removal, stripping, fire-extinguishers, etc.).
- Study halted after 6 (vs. planned 14+) days.
Roles can foster heroism too (firefighters 9/11, pilot Sully Sullenberger checking plane twice, teachers shielding students during Parkland 2018).

Definition: psychological discomfort from holding contradictory attitudes/behaviors.
Resolution pathways:
1. Change first cognition
2. Change second cognition
3. Add a justifying third cognition
Example: Keith the runner & new dad → options: quit running, quit fathering focus, or adopt integrative belief (running keeps him healthy for daughter).

Tedious peg task (1 h) then asked to tell next participant "it was fun."
- Paid \$1 group vs. \$20 group.
- \$1 group later reported greater enjoyment ➜ needed to align attitude w/ behavior ("I’m not a liar"). \$20 group could blame money, felt no dissonance.

Eating-disorder prevention: Women praising own bodies in mirror → later fewer disordered-eating attitudes.
Recycling: point out inconsistency between pro-recycling stance & trash behavior → increases recycling (Fried & Aronson 1995).
Credit-card overspending: noticing mismatch between "fiscally responsible" self-image & big bills motivates control (Davies & Lea 1995).

All participants endorsed importance of masks & distancing.
Four groups:
\bullet Dissonance: wrote why guidelines matter and recalled personal non-compliance.
\bullet Safety-only paragraph.
\bullet Failure-only paragraph.
\bullet Control (neither).
One-week follow-up:
- Dissonance group ≈ 2× more mask-wearing/distancing & higher vaccination counts.
- Mechanism: felt dissonance ➜ behavior change to reduce tension.

Attitudes inferred after behavior (“I must value excitement over safety because I'm speeding”).
Sometimes complements rather than replaces dissonance explanation.

Think situationally first to avoid FAE.
Strength + certainty ↑ attitude–behavior alignment.
Elaborative central messages yield durable persuasion; peripheral cues = quick but fragile.
Role labels can unleash both cruelty and heroism.
Dissonance can be harnessed for positive public-health, pro-environment, and financial-wellness interventions.