LECTURE 7 Explaining behavior Jiri Cenek ASSIGNMENT Will

LECTURE 7 Explaining behavior Jiri Cenek

ASSIGNMENT Will give you feedback + give mark (evaluate/return the work) today/tomorrow Your presentation tomorrow can move the mark ↑↓ Schedule 26. 4. : 13: 00 – 14: 20 presentations 14: 30 „Communication with Chinese“

SELF-PERCEPTION AND SOCIAL COGNITION How do we see and explain others? (S-C) How do we see and explain ourselves? (S-P)

PART I: SOCIAL COGNITION Definition: The manner in which we receive, interpret, analyze, remember and use information about the social world.

PART I: SOCIAL COGNITION Object vs. Social perception and cognition People behave, objects don’t Interaction between individuals can change behavior We can most often see clearly what the characteristics of an object are We infer or attribute characteristics to people

FIRST IMPRESSIONS

PART I: SOCIAL COGNITION https: //www. youtube. com/watch? v=E 3 h-T 3 KQNx. U

FIRST IMPRESSIONS COUNT Impressions can be formed in first fifteen seconds They are influenced by what we have been told and past experience (perceptual set) Impressions guide how we act towards/feel about people Impressions can often be wrong – based on stereotypes/prejudice Give an overview of person – we select information we use

CENTRAL AND PERIPHERAL TRAITS Asch (1946) Configural Model We form a global (overall) first impression Central traits � Fundamental to whole impression � We make inferences based on these Peripheral formation traits less important in impression

WHAT TRAITS ARE CENTRAL/PERIPHERAL FOR YOU?

HALO EFFECT AND HORNS EFFECT Halo Effect (positive) “A tendency to allow an overall impression of a person or one particular outstanding trait to influence the total rating of that person”. (Reber, 1995) Horns Effect (negative) Negative impression formed from perception of less favourable traits Why? Want to perceive constancy in people

PART I: SOCIAL COGNITION Attribution theory (F. Heider, 1958) � Analyzes how we explain peoples behavior. � Assumptions: We seek to make sense of our world. We attribute peoples actions to internal or external causes. We do this in fairly logical, consistent ways. Causes: Internal (persons disposition) b) External (persons situation) a) Example: � The Failing exam student is not clever enough. � His parents go through divorce this week.

PART I: SOCIAL COGNITION Information integration: Rules by which we combine pieces of information about a person into an overall image. � Importance � Primacy � Negativity Example: Person we dont know is supposed to be: � kind, �a sportsman, � ambitious, � intelligent

POSITIVITY AND NEGATIVITY If we don’t hear negative information we form a positive impression We focus on negative information we hear, they seem more important in impression formation Negative first impression more resistant to change (Hodges, 1974), even when positive information follow, more so than other way round (Hamilton and Zanna, 1974) All of these can affect and distort judgement in interpersonal encounters

ATTRIBUTION ERRORS

ATTRIBUTION ERRORS Forming impressions is mostly logical and reasonable, BUT people make often errors in attribution. The fundamental attribution error Example: Helping old lady

ATTRIBUTION ERRORS The fundamental attribution error � Definition: The tendency for observers to underestimate situational influences and overestimete dispositional influences. � Unconscious � Unintentional Real life examples: � Medical doctors often presumed to be experts on all sorts of medical questions. � Students overestimate the brilliance of their teachers.

REASONS OF MAKING AE 1. 2. 3. Actor-observer effect Conserving mental effort Expectation-confirmation

REASONS OF MAKING AE 1. Actor-observer effect � Access to inner thoughts � Different perspective in observing and acting We act: Attention to the enviroment (situation) Others acting: Attention to the person/people (disposition)

2. CONSERVING MENTAL EFFORT The social world is fast-paced → need to make quick effective decisions (no time to use effortful conscious thinking processes) Do we really analyze behavior in a rational, logical manner? Do we really have the time, motivation, or cognitive capacity for such elaborate and mindful processes? The answer? � Sometimes yes…Sometimes no. Often, what we do instead is develop cognitive strategies which give “good enough” judgments with little mental effort

2. CONSERVING MENTAL EFFORT Cognitive heuristics � Enable us to think in ways that are quick and easy � Problem is that using cognitive heuristics can frequently lead to error

2. CONSERVING MENTAL EFFORT Cognitive heuristics = mental shortcuts 1. Availability: the ease with which a particular idea can be brought to mind; dramatic (and sometimes infrequent) events can be brought to mind more easily Example: people overestimate their likelihood of dying in the act of terrorism/earthquake 2. Anchoring: when estimating number; already available number serves as an anchor, ten we move up or down. Example: Is the probability of dying in a terrorist attack more or less then 1 %? = 1 in 3. 6 million = 0. 000000028% (USA)

2. CONSERVING MENTAL EFFORT Two-stage model of attribution

3. EXPECTATION CONFIRMATION STRATEGIES We pay attention to behaviors relevant to our expectations We interpret ambiguous events/behaviors in ways that support our expectations We remember people and events consistent with our expectations

3. EXPECTATION CONFIRMATION STRATEGIES Harold Kelley (1950), a psychology professor once arranged for a guest lecturer to teach his class… � Half the students in the class were given a page of notes that described the lecturer as a "rather cold person, industrious, critical, practical, and determined" � The other students got notes describing him as a "rather warm person, industrious, critical, practical, and determined"

3. EXPECTATION CONFIRMATION STRATEGIES "cold" description: lecturer was � unhappy � irritable � didn’t volunteer in class discussion "warm" description: lecturer was � happy � good-natured, � took part in discussion Why didn’t they wait to form there own opinion…our expectations often lead us to errors in judgment

CULTURALLY UNIVERSAL TRENDS IN ATTRIBUTION

CROSS-CULTURAL TRENDS IN SOCIAL ATTRIBUTION 1. 2. Groups to which we belong we percieve as more heterogenous. Scarification - people with scars are percieved: � Less sociable � Less attractive � More dishonest

CROSS-CULTURAL TRENDS IN SOCIAL ATTRIBUTION Babyface overgeneralization effect People with „baby-face“ are percieved: 3. � More: innocent, submissive, warm, cooperative, compassionate, gullible, honest, trusting Less: manipulative competitive ruthless powerful ….

CROSS-CULTURAL TRENDS IN SOCIAL ATTRIBUTION 4. Accent: listeners judge other people according to whether they speak with accent or not. � Competence � Social status � Social atractiveness � Personality characteristics Openess Honesty Assertiveness…. � Standard-accented speakers (TV-speakers): Higher evaluation of: Intelligence, wealth, education, success

CROSS-CULTURAL TRENDS IN SOCIAL ATTRIBUTION Differences: Collectivistic cultures tend to make less often the fundamental attribution error (focus on the dispositions rather than situation Cause: Independent/interdependent self-construal

PART II: SELF-PERCEPTION

PART II: SELF-PERCEPTION 1. 2. 3. 4. Self-concept Self-perception Self-presentation Self-esteem 2 -4 Reading !!!!!

CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN SELF-PERCEPTION US: Individualism Japan: Collectivism Trafimow et al. (1997) � Participants were from Hong Kong that used English as a second language… Half given the “Who am I” test in English and half given it in Chinese Results: �English: Personal traits �Chinese: Group affiliation � Interpretation of these results? ? ?

SELF- CONCEPT AND AGE

SELF- CONCEPT AND AGE

As children get older, their views of self become more differentiated.

SELF- CONCEPT AND AGE

PART III: ATTRIBUTION OF SUCCESS AND FAILURE

LOCUS OF CONTROL Which one do you more strongly believe? In the long run people get the respect they deserve in this world. OR Unfortunately, peoples worth often passes unrecognized no matter how hard they try. What happens to me is my own doing. OR Sometimes I feel that i dont have enough control over the direction my life is taking.

LOCUS OF CONTROL Internal and external LOC

ATTRIBUTION OF SUCCESS AND FAILURE Application of LOC theory (Rotter, 1966): � How people explain their success and failure? What did you say to your friends the last time you failed an exam? 3 common explanations: � Individual abilities („I have/do not have skills. “) � Effort („I tried hard/I didnt try. “) � Task difficulty („It was too difficult. /It wasnt difficult. “)

ATTRIBUTION OF SUCCESS AND FAILURE Self-serving/-centered bias: � Tendency to percieve oneself favorably. � We attribute our failures to difficult situations and our succeses to our skills.

LOCUS OF CONTROL Self-disparagement People tend to disparage their behavior, appearance abilities…+ praise others � Reason: Reassuring „strokes“: „I wish i werent so fat. “ → „Come on. You are not fat at all. “ In sport: Coaches publicly praise their opponents. Win: We made a big achievement. Loss: The opponent was just too good. Self-handicapping strategy

LEARNED HELPLESSNESS Martin Seligman experiment

LEARNED HELPLESSNESS Effort has no effect = LH � Apathy � Resignation � Paralysis Reading! of will

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION

FURTHER READING AND SOURCES Myers, Chapter 3 http: //www. all-about-psychology. com/solomonasch. html