What are the 3 big ideas of social psychology?

Social Thinking, Social Influence, and Social Behavior . Social psychology focuses on three main areas: social thinking, social influence, and social behavior.

What is the role's of social psychology in psychology?

Social Psychology Applied Social psychologists study how social influence, social perception and social interaction influence individual and group behavior . Some social psychologists focus on conducting research on human behavior.

Is social psychology credible?

Social psychology lacks credibility In the social sciences, these building blocks are based on statistical inferences that come with the risk of false positive results. Only convergent evidence across multiple studies can provide solid foundations for theories of social behavior.

Who is the author of social psychology?

Kurt Lewin was an early leader of group dynamic research and is regarded by many as the founder of modern social psychology.

What are the 3 key issues in psychology?

Psychology as a Science Key features of science include: objectivity (all sources of bias are minimized); collection of empirical data to support or refute a hypothesis; and predictability .

What are the 3 core concepts of social learning theory?

Social learning theory is the philosophy that people can learn from each other through observation, imitation and modeling . The concept was theorized by psychologist Albert Bandura and combined ideas behind behaviorist and cognitive learning approaches.

What are the main ideas of social psychology?

Social psychologists observe how an individual or a group's behaviour can be influenced by the beliefs and actions of others, which contribute to a person's decision-making process . Social psychology provides insight into how social dynamics can be improved and altered for general health and wellbeing.

What is social psychology in simple words?

Social psychology is the study of how individual or group behavior is influenced by the presence and behavior of others . The major question social psychologists ponder is this: How and why are people's perceptions and actions influenced by environmental factors, such as social interaction?

How social psychology help us in daily life?

Social Psychology of Everyday Life focuses on the relationship between the individual and society and thus, on how people's practice as individuals and as participants in groups, relate to their socio-cultural conditions .

Why is social psychology criticized?

Much research in social psychology has consisted of laboratory experiments on social behaviour, but this approach has been criticized in recent years as being too stultifying, artificial, and unrealistic . Much of the conceptual background of research in social psychology derives from other fields of psychology.

What are the negatives of social psychology?

Social Psychology Social Psychology Advantages High Ecological Validity Useful Participant Observation - lowers demand characteristics/socially desirable answers Disadvantages Generalisability Lack Aetological validity? Lacks control Low ethics 2 more rows Mar 25, 2014

What are two criticisms of social psychology?

Social psychology faces two contradictory criticisms: first, that it is trivial because it documents the obvious; second, that it is dangerous because its findings could be used to manipulate people . One problem with common sense is that we invoke it after we know the facts.

Who were the 1st two people who wrote on social psychology?

During the 1940s and 1950s, the social psychologists Kurt Lewin and Leon Festinger refined the experimental approach to studying behavior, creating social psychology as a rigorous scientific discipline.

Who are the fathers of social psychology?

Lewin is sometimes known as “the father of social psychology” because he initially developed many of the important ideas of the discipline, including a focus on the dynamic interactions among people.

Who is the best psychology author?

10 Psychology Books Everyone Should Read Predictably Irrational – Dan Ariely. ... Thinking, Fast and Slow – Daniel Kahneman. ... Bad science – Ben Goldacre. ... The Invisible Gorilla – Christopher Chabris and Daniel Simons. ... Influence: Science and Practice – Robert Cialdini. More items... Nov 8, 2021

Bordens - Social Psychology 3e HQ

Social psychology and the understanding of the social. Behavior 2. A model to … provide teachers and students with a book that covers important research findings.

social psychology

Social Psychology Third Edition

Kenneth S. Bordens

Irwin A. Horowitz

Indiana University – Purdue University Fort Wayne

Oregon State University

Social Psychology, 3rd Edition Copyright ©2008 by Freeload Press Cover illustrations © 2008 JupiterImages Corporation ISBN 1-930789-04-1 No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic , mechanical, recording, photocopy or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher. Printed in the United States of America by Freeload Press.

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

foreword

1 Understanding social behavior 2 The social self

3 Social perception: understanding of other people 61 4 Prejudice and discrimination 5 Attitudes

103

155

6 belief and attitude change

185

7 compliance, compliance and obedience 8 group processes

231

281

9 Interpersonal Attraction and Close Relationships 315 10 Interpersonal Aggression

357

11 Glossary of Prosocial Behavior and Altruism

401

G-1 R-1

Index of names I-1 Subject index

I-11

foreword

understand social behavior

Manage self-presentations

A model for understanding social behavior 3 Extension of the Lewin model 5

Social psychology and related social psychological research 9

The Impression We Make on Others 56 The Life of James Carroll, Revisited 57 Chapter Review 58

Experimental research 10 Correlation research 15 Settings of social psychological research 16 The role of theory in social psychological research 16 What can we learn from social psychological research? 20 Social-ethical and psychological research 21

Rick Rescorla and 9/11 Revisited Chapter 24 Revision 2

the social self

self concept

Automatic processing 63

The impression others make on us: How do we “read” people? 69

How accurate are our impressions? 69 Building trust and impression 70 If you don't like someone at first, you may never like them 70 Person perception: face reading and lie detection 71

Self-awareness: How did we meet? 30 The self and memory 32 Religion and the self 34 The self: the influence of groups and culture 35

The attribution process: deciding why people act the way they do 74 Heider's early work on attribution 74 Corresponding inference theory 75 Covariation theory 76 Dual process models 78 Intentionality and attributions 79

Internal Influences on Self-Esteem 41 Self-Esteem and Stigma 44 Self-Esteem and Cultural Influences 45 What's Good About High Self-Esteem? 45 Implicit and explicit self-esteem 46

Self-Control: How people regulate their behavior

Attribution Bias 46

Get an impression of others.

Self-Service Insights 49 Maintaining Self-Consistency 50

self-consciousness

False attributions 80 The fundamental attribution error 81 Actor-observer bias 83 False consensus bias 84

Self-Regulation and Self-Regulation 46 The Costs and Ironic Implications of Self-Regulation 48

think of ourselves

Social perception: understanding other people 61

Impression formation: automatism and social perception 63

Self-esteem: evaluation of the self

Self-esteem and impression management 53 Self-control and impression management 53 Self-expression and manipulation strategies 54 Self-deprivation 54

Understand social psychology and social behavior 2

The Importance of First Impressions 84 Schemas 85 Confirmation Bias 87 Shortcuts to Reality: Heuristics 88

Self-knowledge and self-awareness 52

VIII

Contents

VIII

Positive Psychology: Optimism, Cognition, Health, and Life 90 Optimism and Cognition 90 Optimism and Health 90 Optimism and Happiness 91 Cognitive Optimism: An Evolutionary Interpretation Conclusion 95

Revision of Vincennes chapter revisited 96

elimination of prejudices

The Mormon Experience Revisited Chapter 150 Review

4 Prejudice and Discrimination 103

What are settings?

Prejudice 104 Stereotypes 106 Discrimination 112

Persistence and recurrence of prejudice and stereotypes 112 Individual differences and prejudice: personality and gender 114 The authoritarian personality 114 Orientation towards social domination 116 Openness to new experiences and friendliness 117 Gender and prejudice 117

118

The Cognitive Roots of Prejudice: From Categories to Stereotypes 123 Ingroup Identification 125 The Role of Language in Maintaining Prejudice 128 Confirmation Bias 132 Out-Group Homogeneity Bias 132 The Difference Between Biased and Unbiased Threats 136 Collective Threats 140 Expectation of Being Biased 141

dealing with prejudice

141

enhancing the value of a stigmatized group 141 making comparisons within the group 142 anticipating and countering prejudice 142 compensating for prejudice 143

157

Allport's Definition of Settings 157 Structures of Settings 158 Settings as Expressions of Values 159 Explicit and Implicit Settings 160

How are attitudes measured?

135

161

The Attitude Survey 161 Behavioral Measurements 162 Cognitive Measurements: The Implicit Association Test (IAT) 163

How are attitudes formed?

Modern racism 120 Changes in social norms 122

The Consequences of Prejudice

149

5 settings 155

The dynamics of prejudice, stereotypes and discrimination 104

The social roots of prejudice

144

Cross-Group Contact 144 Personalizing Out-of-Group Members 146 Reducing Prejudice through Social Norms 146 Reducing Prejudice through Training 147 A Success Story: Disabling Racism in the U.S. Military 148

164

Sheer exposure 164 Direct personal experience 165 Operant and classical conditioning 165 Observational learning 166 The effect of the media 167 The heredity factor 169 The importance of groups and networks 170 Social networks 172

attitudes and behavior

172

An Early Study of Attitudes and Behavior 173 Theory of Planned Behavior 174 The Importance of Belief 175 The Nonrational Actor 177

Why We Dislike Dissenters: Naive Realism and Attitudes 179 IDA Tarbell Review 181 Chapter Overview 181 6 Belief and Attitude Change

The Yale Communication Model The Persuasion Process 186

186

The Communicator 187 The Message and the Audience 192

185

Contents

The cognitive approach to persuasion 199

disobedience

o o o o

Elaboration Probability Model 199 Effect of Humor on Processing 201 Effect of Personal Relevance on Processing 204 Effect of Attitudinal Accessibility on Elaboration 205 Are living messages more persuasive than non-living messages? 206 Need for knowledge: Some like to take it the hard way 207 The heuristic model of belief 208

Cognitive dissonance theory: a model of self-belief 209 217

Convince the masses with propaganda.

220

Propaganda: A Definition 220 Characteristics of Propaganda 220 The Objectives of Propaganda 221 Techniques of Propaganda 222 Hitler's Seizure of Power 223

Jury Room Kapitel 274 Review

273

8 group processes 281

What is a group?

282

Properties of groups 283 What holds a group together? 284

284

Fulfilling basic needs 284 roles in groups 285

How do groups influence the behavior of individuals? 286 The impact of an audience on performance 286

Group performance: conditions that decrease or increase motivation of group members 288 groups, self-identity and intergroup relationships 292 226

7 Observance, compliance and obedience 231

Fulfillment: Going with the crowd

233

Informational and regulatory social influence Social norms: the key to compliance 234 Classic studies on compliance 235 How does social influence promote compliance? 238 Factors influencing compliance 239

influence of minorities

269

Breaking with Authority 269 Reassessing the Legitimacy of Authority 270 Strength is in Numbers 271

How and why are groups formed?

Cognitive dissonance theory 209 Alternatives to cognitive dissonance theory

Review of the revised chapter of the Leopold and Loeb case 226

233

group performance

296

Individual and group decisions 296 The harder the problem, the better the group 298 The impact of leadership style on group decision-making 300

Factors influencing the decision-making ability of a group 302

243

Can a minority influence the majority? 244 Majority and Minority Influence: Two Processes or One? 245

Fulfillment: Response to a direct request

Punitive power of groups: social exclusion 293 Deindividuation and anonymity: violent power of groups 295

247

Feet-in-the-door technique 247 Door-in-the-face technique 251 Compliance techniques: to the point 253

Obedience 254 Obedience Defined 255 Destructive Obedience and the Social Psychology of Evil 256 The Milgram Experiments on Obedience 259 The Role of Gender in Obedience 264 Obedience or Aggression? 265 Obedience Across Culture, Situation, and Time 266 Reassessment of Milgram's Findings 267 Criticism of Milgram's Research 267

Composition of Group 302 Size of Group 304 Cohesion of Group 304

The Dynamics of Group Decisions: Decision Rules, Group Bias, and Groupthink 305 Group Decisions: How Groups Mix up Individual Choices 305 Group Bias 306 Groupthink 307

Challenger 310 Explosion Revised Chapter Review

309

9 Interpersonal attraction and close relationships 315

The Roots of Interpersonal Attraction and Close Relationships 317 Belonging and Intimacy 317

Loneliness and Social Anxiety Loneliness 318 Social Anxiety 319

318

Contents

x Love and close relationships

Men prone to sexual assault: Psychological characteristics 390

320

Love triangle 320 Types of love 322 Formation of intimate relationships 324

Determinants of Interpersonal Attraction

reducing aggression

Reducing aggression with intervention and cognitive therapy 392

327

Physical closeness: Being in the right place 327 Similarity 329 Physical attractiveness 330

dynamics of close relationships

Beltway Sniper Case Kapitel 394 Review

338

What is aggression?

Why do people help?

Emergency Response: A Five-Step Decision Model 410 Stage 1: Aware of the Situation 411 Stage 2: Call the Situation an Emergency 412 Stage 3: Take Responsibility to Help: The Bystander Effect 413 Stage 4: Decide How to Help 418 Stage 5: Act on the Aid resolution 418

357

358

Levels and Types of Aggression 358 Gender Differences in Aggression 360 Explanations of Aggression 361

Biological explanations for aggression.

Increase Chances of Help 426 Brave Resistance and Heroism 426

361

Courageous Resistance and Heroism Explained: The Role of Personality 428 Righteous Saviors in Nazi-Occupied Europe 429 A Synthesis: Situational and Personality Factors in Altruism 434

Ethology 362 Sociobiology 362 Genetics and aggression 363 Physiology of aggression 364 Alcohol and aggression 366 Physiology and aggression: summary 369

The frustration-aggression connection

403

Empathy: helping to alleviate another's suffering 403 Empathy and selfishness: two ways to help 404 Biological explanations: helping to preserve our own genes 408

350

10 Interpersonal Aggression

393

11 Prosocial Behavior and Altruism 401

Developing Relationships 339 Evaluating Relationships 340 Theories of Exchange 340 Love Over Time 343 Shaping a Relationship 343 Responses to Conflict 345 Love in the Laboratory 347 Friendships 348

Gertrude y Alice Revisited Chapter Review 350

391

Reduction of aggression in the family 391

Application of the five-step decision-making model for long-term help 437

369

Components of the frustration-aggression sequence 370 Factors mediating the frustration-aggression association 371

The social learning explanation for aggression

373

The Socialization of Aggression 374 Aggressive Scripts: Why and How They Form 376 The Role of the Family in the Development of Aggression 377 Child Abuse and Neglect 380 Family Disorganization 380 The Role of Culture in Violent Behavior 381 The Role of Television in Mediating Aggression 385 Exposure to violent video games 387

See Sexual Violence: The Impact on Aggression 388 The Impact of Sexually Violent Material on Attitudes 389

Recognizing the situation 437 Labeling the situation as an emergency 438 Taking responsibility to help 438 Deciding how to help 438 Implementing the decision to help 438

Altruistic behavior from the recipient's perspective 439 Seeking help from others 439 Responding to help when it is given 441

Chapter overview Irene Opdyke revisited 444 Glossary

G-1

references

R-1

Index of names Index of topics

I-1 I-11

444

When we set out to write the first edition of Social Psychology, our goal was to provide teachers and students with a book that concisely covers the important theoretical and research areas of social psychology. In the second edition, we deviated somewhat from that original goal, but managed to produce a solid, research-based text for the Introductory Social Psychology course. In this third edition, we have returned to our original purpose and simplified the book while preserving its scholarly integrity. Social psychology has become a diverse field, and any attempt to provide a comprehensive overview of its entire range of content would be difficult to achieve in a single volume or course. Instead, we take the approach of presenting students with information on three questions: 1. What is social psychology? 2. What do we know about social psychological phenomena? 3. How do we know what we know about social psychological phenomena? This third edition of social psychology retains the basic structure of the second edition: eleven chapters deal with the central themes of social psychology. By maintaining a centralized organization and breadth, we believe the entire book can be covered in a semester or quarter. Each chapter has been updated to include citations of new research, and new topics have been added where appropriate. The most obvious change in the third edition is the new publication format. The first and second editions were "traditional" textbooks published the old-fashioned way. However, this third edition is published by an online publisher and is free for students. However, it retains the scholarly, academic, and pedagogical integrity of the second edition. Social psychology is important, interesting, relevant to today's world and exciting. This is truly the golden age of social psychology, with many bright and energetic people doing very interesting work. We hope to convey to this generation of social psychology students the excitement that we, aspiring social psychologists, feel when we first hear about Milgram's obedience research or Darley and Latané's intervention research. Intrigued by the results of such studies, we began to wonder how they might be applied to real-world situations that each of us faces on a daily basis. In this issue, we convey the fascination of the field so that students new to the field are as fascinated by social psychological research and theory as we are. Most social psychological texts approach the field from a theoretical and research-oriented perspective, using real-life examples to illustrate social psychological phenomena. This approach often fails to leave students with a full understanding of the applications of social psychology. With applications we refer to xi

foreword

not only general topics of applied social psychology, which are interesting in their own right, but also social psychology theory and research, which can be used to understand the complexities of cultural, historical and current events. Social psychology can help us understand how we as individuals fit into the larger social environment. Students will leave this text feeling that they are truly social beings, subject to the influence of their social and physical environment.

Changes in the third edition As mentioned above, the most drastic change in the third edition is the method of publication and distribution. The chapters are now in PDF format and, like the second edition, are black and white. However, we have retained the organization, order, and chapter structure of the second edition. Therefore, instructors moving from the second edition to the third should find the perfect transition. Some elements of the second edition have been removed. For example, there are no photos in the third edition. While photos can add to the book's appeal, they have little educational value and add significantly to the book's cost. Additionally, the recommended reading lists that ended each chapter in the second edition were discarded. We felt that these were of little value to most students and that any student wishing to review would use the citations/references in the chapters themselves as a guide. The Internet activities that appeared at the end of each chapter in the second edition have also been removed from the book. These can now be found in the student study guide that accompanies the third edition. Key pedagogical elements of the second edition have been retained, such as opening chapter bullet points, opening questions, interpretive glossary, and specific chapter summaries. Some important changes to the existing chapters include the following: Chapter 3, “Social Awareness: Understanding Other People” – Second Edition, information on optimism and coping with life events has been updated and reorganized into a new section on positive psychology. Chapter 4 “Prejudice and Discrimination”: The core content of this chapter on prejudice has been retained. However, the new material discusses how we need to be careful when defining bias, given that popular and media concepts of the term differ from a scientific concept. Added material to the section on implicit stereotypes on the “shooter paradigm”, which is a way to measure the influence of subtle stereotypes on explicit behavior. We've also added material on how "thinking differently" can mitigate the effects of negative stereotypes. The personality correlates of bias section has been expanded to include information on right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and the Big Five model. The Stereotype Threats section has been updated with new research on the topic. Added new Bias Reduction and Crowd Threats sections that address the effects of training on bias reduction. Chapter 5, "Settings": Added new sections on Naive Realism and Agenda Setting. We also include information on how exposure to violent video games is related to attitudes towards violence and how groups and social networks are related to attitudes. Chapter 6, “Persuasion and Attitude Change”: A new Communicator Gender section has been added to the Communicator section of the Yale Communication Model. The cognitive dissonance theory material has been updated to include new research on topics such as post-decision dissonance. A subsection on action-based theory has been added to the section on alternatives to cognitive dissonance theory.

foreword

Model. The discussion of mass persuasion now includes a more focused discussion of propaganda (its historical context, definition, characteristics, goals, and techniques). Chapter 7, "Conformity, Conformity, and Obedience": A new section on the social psychology of evil will help students understand this concept from a social psychological perspective (rather than a religious or philosophical perspective). The Banality of Evil section has also been updated with new research. Chapter 9, “Interpersonal Attraction and Intimate Relationships”: The loneliness section has been updated to include research on the cultural aspects and health effects of loneliness. Internet dating material has been expanded with new topics and searches. Added new forgiveness information to the Responses to Conflict in a Relationship section. Chapter 10, "Interpersonal Aggression" - A new opening chapter panel focuses on "Waist Shooters". Added definitions of indirect aggression, direct aggression, and relational aggression to the section on defining aggression. Debates about gender and aggression, culture and aggression, and the effects of televised aggression have been updated with new research. New sections examine the relationship between genetics and aggression, the effect of heat (including a discussion of the general model of affective aggression), and the effects of violent video games. Chapter 11, "Prosocial Behavior and Altruism" - An opening vignette to a new chapter tells the story of Irene Gut Odyke, a young woman who helped save Jews from the Nazis. Updated the Taking Responsibility section to include information on social status relationships and new research on the limits of the bystander effect. New discussions address the role of gratitude for helping behavior, courageous resistance, and heroism associated with research into the saviors of Jews from the Nazis and the connection between gender and rescue.

Helpers An extensive computerized test database of exam questions is available. The test bench questions were written by the authors and not by someone who paid a small fee per question. We hope that these questions prepared by the author will be useful for the instructor. As with the second edition, the printed study guide has been replaced with a free online study guide. Students can download materials for each chapter, print them out, and use them as they please. The online study guide includes chapter summaries, key questions, practice questions, and online activities.

Acknowledgments A project of this magnitude requires a lot of work and the support of many people. First, we would like to thank our wives, Ricky Karen Bordens and Kay F. Schaffer, for giving us much-needed love and support as we worked on this book. We'd also like to thank Ed Laube, Editor at Freeload Press; Victoria Putman of Putman Productions, LLC; and Daphne Loecke of Laurel Arts Design Studio.

XIII

Understanding Social Behavior Few people are able to express opinions that differ from the prejudices of their social environment with composure. Most people are still unable to form such opinions. -Albert Einstein

The events of September 11, 2001 bring back many memories and images of what happened on that fateful day. Most of us have vivid memories of where we were and what we were doing when we first learned about the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. We can also recall the images of jet planes crashing into buildings in large balls of orange fire, bringing destruction and death with them. We can imagine the poor souls who chose to jump to their deaths rather than be burned alive in the towers of the World Trade Center. We can still relive the horror when these two majestic towers collapsed and turned to ash, killing around 2,700 people. On September 11, 2001, we witnessed the worst of human behavior: 19 young men deliberately launched fuel-laden jets into buildings where unsuspecting people were going about their daily lives. On that day, however, we also witnessed the best that human behavior has to offer. Many people, police officers, firefighters and civilians risk their lives to save others. One of those people was Rick Rescorla, who saved about 3,000 lives that day. Who was Rick Rescorla and what did he do to save so many lives? Rick Rescorla was Vice President of Corporate Security at Morgan Stanley Dean Witter and Company. On September 11, he started his day as usual: getting up at 4:30 am. m., says goodbye to his wife and takes the train to work. He was at his desk on the 44th floor of the South Tower of the World Trade Center at 7:30 am. I was there when the first jet crashed into the North Tower. He was told to stay and not leave the South Tower. He called his friend Dan Hill and told Hill that "dumb sons of bitches told me not to evacuate." In typical Rescorla fashion, he ignored those orders and told Hill, "I'm going to get my people... out of here." and win 1

Key Questions As you read this chapter, find answers to the following questions: 1. What is social psychology? 2. How do social psychologists explain social behavior? 3. How does social psychology relate to other disciplines that study social behavior? 4. How do social psychologists approach the problem of explaining social behavior? 5. What is experimental research and how is it used? 6. What is correlation research? 7. What is the correlation coefficient and what does it say? 8. Where is social psychological research conducted? 9. What is the role of theory in social psychology?

10. What can we learn from social psychological research? 11. What ethical standards must social psychologists follow when conducting research?

social psychology

Your people did it! Using a megaphone, he led more than 2,600 of his employees out of the south tower according to an evacuation plan he had developed. Once Rescorla had his employees out of the building and satisfied that they were safe, he returned to the south tower, now hit by the second plane, to chase down any stragglers. No one knows how many times he has returned or how many stragglers he has saved. Rick Rescorla was killed when the south tower collapsed. What we do know is that only six Morgan Stanley employees lost their lives that day as a result of Rick Rescorla's actions. Due to his help in evacuating the South Tower and a building across the street, Rescorla is credited with saving nearly 3,000 people.

Understanding Social Psychology and Social Behavior The events of 9/11 in general, and the actions of Rick Rescorla in particular, raise many questions about why things happened the way they did. After 9/11, many questioned the motives of the hijackers (both official and unofficial). We were intrigued as we tried to figure out why 19 young men sacrificed themselves to murder 3,000 strangers. What internal and social forces can explain such behavior? We also marvel at the behavior of people like Rick Rescorla. Why did he rush back to the burning south tower to save those in need? This leads us to wonder if we would have the courage to do something like this ourselves. Most of us are content to offer so-called reasonable explanations for events like 9/11. For example, we refer to hijackers as "evil" or "disturbed" or just "crazy". We conclude that Rick Rescorla was a special person, imbued with qualities that enabled him to do what he did in the face of death. As is so often the case, however, these simple, reasonable explanations do not provide us with definitive answers to our questions. The behavior is simply too complex to explain in terms that are too simple. So we turn to science to better understand and explain events like 9/11. One science that can help us understand the things that happen to us and around us is psychology, which is the study of behavior and the motives and insights underlying that behavior. By studying "abnormal psychology," "personality psychology," and other branches of psychology, we can begin to piece together rational explanations for events like 9/11. One branch of psychology that can give us a unique perspective on behavior and perhaps help us better understand the events happening inside and around us: social psychology. Social psychology is the scientific study of how individuals think. Social Psychology The scientific study of how and how individuals feel, interact and affect each other, individually and in groups. It's about what individuals think, what they interact with, and the branch of psychology that studies social behavior: the thinking and behavior of others and how they affect each other. individuals when interacting with other people. Social psychology offers tools to help you understand the things that are happening in your personal life. It can help you understand your daily interactions: your friendships, romantic relationships, work interactions, and academic performance. For example, this could give you insight into why your last romantic relationship didn't work out and why you're attracted to one person but not another in your afternoon math class. It can also help you understand why you might act aggressively when someone interrupts you in the cafeteria line, or why you become irritated when someone interrupts you.

Chapter 1

understand social behavior

sits next to you in a theater when there are many other seats available. Social psychology can also help you understand why other people act the way they do. For example, social psychology can help us understand the forces that led to the September 11 attacks and the heroism of Rick Rescorla. Your life is also affected by events beyond your immediate daily affairs, events happening in the community and in the country. Even though these events are more distant, you may still have strong feelings about them and find a connection between them and your personal life. For example, if your friend's father is very ill, you can share information about a man whose determination has kept him alive for six years. Perhaps the story encouraged him to move on with his life. If there were a terrorist attack in your hometown, you would experience the immediate consequences as radical ideologies drive young people to commit murder. You are likely to hear many people condemning terrorism and discussing ways to deal with such acts. In one way or another, all of the events of 9/11 represent recurring themes in human history. Terrorism dates back hundreds, maybe thousands, of years. As soon as people began to claim ownership of the territory, they began to fight among themselves. Humans have always been aggressive and disinterested in each other. Humans have always had to find ways to live with each other. We always work together in groups; had romantic relationships; tries to convince others of our point of view; followed or rebelled against authority; and sought ways to resolve conflicts, either through negotiation or coercion. We help each other and we hurt each other. We demonstrate prejudice and discrimination; We even try to kill entire populations. History is a tapestry of the best and worst that humans can do. Social psychology can help us understand these human social events in their infinite variety. However, it is important to note that social psychologists are not limited to questioning and speculating about social behavior. Instead, they use scientific methods, which involve carefully designed and conducted research studies, to explain complex and uncertain social problems. Social psychology is first and foremost a science. Through theory, research, and the careful application of concepts and principles to real-world situations, social psychologists provide insight into everyday events, both past and present, as well as the monumental events that are the raw material of history. More than any other branch of psychology, social psychology offers a broad perspective on human behavior. Instead of focusing on individuals' personal histories (like a personality psychologist would do) or how individuals respond to their environment (like a strict behaviorist would do), look at how people interact and relate to one another in social contexts . . A wide range of behaviors and events fit into these social contexts.

A Model for Understanding Social Behavior Social psychologists are interested in the forces acting on individuals that cause them to engage in certain social behavior situations. But social behavior is often complex and has many causes. Consequently, explaining social behavior is a difficult task. To simplify this task, we can classify the multiple causes of social behavior into one of two broad categories: situational and individual. According to a formula first proposed by Kurt Lewin (1936), one of the first major figures in social psychology, social behavior is a function of the interplay of situation and characteristics of the individual, or behavior = f (social situation × individual characteristics)

social psychology

Lewin's model of social behavior was inspired by his observation that individuals' perception of a situation is influenced by the tasks they are required to perform. Lewin was a soldier in the German Wehrmacht during World War I. He noticed that his view of the world changed the closer he got to the battlefield. Where before he had seen beautiful flowers and inviting forests, he now saw rocks in which to hide and ravines from which to ambush the enemy. Lewin came to believe that a person's perception of the world is influenced by what they have to do in that situation. He called the combination of individual needs and situational factors the psychological field in which the individual lives (Pratkanis & Aronson, 1992). According to this view, people with different needs and tasks would come to view the same event differently (Pratkanis & Aronson, 1992). Although Lewin analyzed the needs and tasks of the individual, he emphasized the importance of the social context in generating the forces that guide the actions of the individual. Lewin was aware that situational factors are often not considered when we try to explain why people behave the way they do (Ross & Nisbett, 1991). For example, there were undoubtedly other youths with backgrounds similar to those of the 19 kidnappers. However, their different needs and interpretations of the social situation did not manifest themselves in open mass murder. There were probably many onlookers on 9/11 who heard the people in the burning towers cry out for help. However, those screams didn't resonate with them as well as they did with Rick Rescorla. So far we have seen that situation and individual characteristics are fundamental to understanding social behavior in general. How do social psychologists define situation and individual characteristics? Let's take a closer look. The social situation The social situation includes all influences on behavior that lie outside of the individual. A situational factor can be any aspect of the physical and/or social environment (the real or imagined presence of other people) that influences behavior. Different people react differently to the social situation. Sometimes the situation affects us in subtle ways. We can change our behavior even when there is no pressure on us. We can imagine or believe that we are expected to act in a certain way in a certain situation, and these beliefs can be just as strong as the situation itself. Suppose you are at a restaurant with a group of friends. You are trying to decide what to order. They lean towards buffalo pan, but the roasted rabbit looks good too. When the waiter arrives at the table, order the last one to taste the buffalo. However, each of his friends asks about the rabbit. When it's your turn, order the rabbit too. You changed your behavior based on your friends' actions because you didn't want to look different. You felt the peer pressure yourself and responded to it! Situational or social determinants of behavior exist simultaneously at multiple levels. Sometimes the social environment leads to temporary changes in behavior, as was the case at the restaurant. Ordering the rabbit may be specific to this situation; You'll never be able to ask about rabbits again. In other cases, the social environment is a pervasive influence and can lead to relatively permanent and long-lasting patterns of behavior. The culture in which a person lives has a lasting influence on a wide variety of behaviors. Culture affects the foods we like, how we interact with members of the opposite sex, the amount of personal space we need (the space immediately around us that we claim and defend), what we plan and hope for in life to reach, and a host of other behaviors. It can also affect a person's decision to fly planes into occupied buildings.

Chapter 1

understand social behavior

Individual Traits Individual traits include gender, age, race or ethnicity, personality traits, attitudes, self-image, ways of thinking, etc. In short, individual traits consist of whatever is internal to the person that can influence behavior. Physical characteristics are individual characteristics that are relatively permanent and, for the most part, known to others. Personality traits also tend to be permanent but are not necessarily obvious to others. Personality is an area of growing interest in contemporary social psychology (Larsen & Ketelaar, 1991). Other inner traits such as attitudes, opinions, self-image, etc. may change over time. People generally have some choice about how much of these areas they reveal to others. Think again about Rick Rescorla. What about the other people at the scene who didn't respond to others' calls for help? These individuals faced the same situational stresses as Rick Rescorla. However, they did not act altruistically. Was a combination of personal characteristics (e.g., desire for self-preservation) and attitudes (e.g., it's the police and fire department's job to rescue victims) mixed with the situation (e.g., flames roaring? in the building). to generate this difference behavior? Because the situation was similar for others on 9/11, we looked at individual characteristics such as personality traits to understand why some acted violently and others did not. Another important individual trait that is somewhat different from personality traits is the particular way each individual perceives and thinks about their social world. Social cognition refers to a general process we use to make sense of social events, which may or may not involve other people. For example, when you saw the events of 9/11 on the news, you probably started interpreting them and trying to determine the reason for the hijackers' behavior. Eventually he probably began to infer and form impressions of the motives of the people involved. Social psychologists call this process social perception. For example, if you think about Rick Rescorla, who gave his life to save others, you might conclude that he was a very sensitive and caring person, and not just doing his job as vice president of security. After deducing these traits and gaining the impression that he was a caring and compassionate person, identify these inner traits as the primary motivation for his behavior. Social cognition and social perception are fundamental to our interpretation of situations. When we are faced with a certain situation, our reaction depends on how we interpret that situation. Social cognition gives direction to our interpretation. The decisions we make based on our perception and cognition influence our reaction. Each individual has a slightly different worldview because everyone has unique personal characteristics and a unique history of life experiences. Because each of us actively constructs our own view of our social world based on interpretations of social information.

Extending Lewin's model Lewin's model tells us that both the social situation (physical environment, the presence of other people, real or imagined) and individual characteristics (physical characteristics, personality traits, habitual attitudes and ways of thinking, mental processes, etc.) are perceivable and cognitive functions, needs and tasks) influence social behavior. However, Lewin's model does not indicate how situational factors and individual characteristics fit into a broad and general model of social behavior. We need to extend Lewin's original model to gain a better understanding of the forces that shape social behavior. An extension of Lewin's original model is shown in Figure 1.1.

Social cognition The general process we use to make sense of social events, which may or may not involve other people. Social Perception The social processes through which we understand other people's behavior, words, and actions.

social psychology

Figure 1.1 An extended model of social behavior. How we act in a given situation depends on the input of the situation and individual characteristics, mediated through the processes of cognition and social perception and the formation of an intention to behave in a certain way.

As shown in this model, the input of social situation and individual characteristics does not directly affect social behavior. Rather, both contribute to how we process information through mechanisms of social cognition and social perception. The way in which this information is processed leads to a particular assessment of the situation. For example, after 9/11, the controversy revolves around how the World Trade Center site should be used. Some want to rehabilitate the area and build a new office tower to replace the collapsed towers. Others consider the site a sacred place, stating that the site was primarily intended to serve as a memorial to those who were killed or injured. Even those who want to build a monument cannot agree on what this monument should look like. A person (individual characteristics) opposed to the commercial redevelopment of the World Trade Center site may interpret the situation (social cognition) as meaning that building a new office tower is sacrilegious for the dead and injured. Another person can focus on the area's economy by supporting the construction of a new office tower. As shown in Figure 1.1, our appraisal of the social situation does not immediately translate into overt social behavior. Instead, we form a behavioral intention based on our assessment of the situation. For example, a family of a 9/11 victim may choose to sue the owners of the World Trade Center, blaming inadequate security in the buildings for the loss of their loved one. Another family may be keen to focus their energies on raising money to help children who lost their parents on 9/11. In these cases, the same event generates different intentions. Thus, a behavioral intention is the immediate and proximate cause of social behavior. It is important to realize that just because we form an intention to behave does not mean that we will act in accordance with that intention. For example, a person may intend to sue but never do so, thinking it could do more harm than good. This view of social behavior implies that it is a dynamic process. Our monitoring of the social situation does not end with an assessment of the situation or the formation of a social intention or social behavior. Instead, we constantly monitor social media.

Chapter 1

understand social behavior

situation (our own behavior and that of others) and may change our assessment from time to time. This is how we adjust our behavioral intentions to the point where we engage in social behavior. Although the various processes underlying social behavior are presented in a series of discrete boxes in Figure 1.1, they are fairly fluid and involve constant updating of our assessment of the situation. One final aspect of this model needs to be addressed. Notice that in Figure 1.1 a dotted arrow leads from social behavior to social situation. In any social situation in which we are directly involved, our own behavior affects the social environment and is likely to lead to changes in the behavior of others. For example, imagine you are talking to someone you just met. Based on the first thing he says, you realize he's not very friendly. As a result, you become defensive (cross your arms, walk away from her) and react coldly. She notices his behavior and grows colder. This cycle continues until one of you ends the conversation. How would this situation have developed if you had interpreted his initial behavior as nervousness and reacted positively? Maybe you found a new friend. Therefore, their own interpretations and behaviors had a profound impact on the situation.

Social Psychology and Related Fields We have seen that social psychology is a field of study that attempts to understand and explain social behavior: how individuals think and act towards other people. But many other disciplines also deal with the thinking and actions of people, both individually and in groups. How does social psychology differ from its two main disciplines, sociology and psychology? And how is it similar and different from other fields of study like biology, anthropology, and history? To see how these camps differ in their approaches, consider a single question: Why do groups of people, including nations, show hostility to one another? Although social psychologists are interested in this social problem, they do not have exclusive rights to it (or to any other). Biologists, psychologists, anthropologists, sociologists, historians, and others have explanations for the endless cycle of human violence. Let's look first at the areas that look at the causes of violent behavior in the individual, and then move on to areas that are increasingly concerned with environmental factors. Many biologists say that the answer to the enigma of human violence lies not in our social situations, organizations, or personalities, but in our genetic makeup. For example, scientists have identified a small genetic defect that appears to predispose some men to violence. The researchers studied a large Dutch family with a history of violent and erratic behavior among many, though not all, of the men. They found that violent males had an enzyme deficiency due to a mutation in a gene on the X chromosome (Brunner, Nelon, Breakefield, Ropers & van Oost, 1993). Because males only have one X chromosome, they were the only ones to show the defect. Females can carry the deficiency but are protected from expressing it by their second X chromosome with its backup copy of the gene. Geneticists don't argue that genetic defects are the sole cause of violence, but they do say these factors play a definite role in who is violent. Another biologically oriented view of this question comes from developmental psychologists (who study human development throughout life). They suggest that people may have an innate fear of strangers. They point out that about 4 or

social psychology

By 5 months, babies begin to react anxiously to new or unusual stimuli, such as B. the faces of strangers (Hebb & Thompson, 1968). Between 6 and 18 months, babies can experience intense anxiety around strangers. These psychologists, as well as some biologists, argue that fear of strangers may be part of our genetic makeup. Early humans who possessed this trait were more likely to have survived than those who didn't, and they have passed it down to us. At the group or societal level, this innate distrust of outsiders can turn into hostility, aggression, or even war. However, other psychologists are not convinced that the fear of romance is innate (Hebb & Thompson, 1968). Likewise, anthropologists (who study the physical and cultural evolution of the human species) have documented that some tribal societies view strangers with suspicion and may even attempt to kill them. Some anthropologists argue that hostility toward outsiders may have benefited early human groups by helping them unite against outside threats. Other scholars emphasize the psychological makeup of individuals as a way to explain behavior. Personality psychologists suggest that aggressiveness (or any other behavioral trait) is a trait of the individual. The person carries the trait from one situation to another and expresses it in many different circumstances (Derlega, Winstead, & Jones, 1991). Personality psychologists would argue that some intrinsic traits drove Rick Rescorla to behave altruistically on 9/11, just as other personality traits influenced the behavior of the hijackers. A researcher studied the aggressive behavior of adolescent boys in Sweden for three years (Olweus, 1984). He found that children who were aggressive (arguing, bullying) in sixth grade were also physically aggressive in ninth grade. Personality researchers see this as an indication that individual factors are an important determinant of aggression. In the 3 years the children had different teachers, were in different buildings and had different classmates. However, despite changes in their social situation, their behavior remained consistently aggressive (Derlega et al., 1991). Social psychologists examine the individual in the social situation. They are concerned with determining which characteristics of a situation increase or decrease the potential for violence. In examining the problem of intergroup hostility, social psychologists focus on the forces, both in individuals and in situations, that lead to this outcome. While psychology (including social psychology) focuses on the role of the individual, other areas look to the causes of behavior in more impersonal and general causes outside of the individual. For example, sociologists are primarily, though not exclusively, concerned with larger groups and systems in society. A sociologist interested in violence might examine the development of gangs. Possible investigative methods would include interviewing gang members, observing gang activity, or even joining a gang as a participant if possible. Although sociology and social psychology are related, there are important differences between them. The sociologist asks what it is about the structure of society that encourages violence; the social psychologist, on the other hand, sees the particular social situation of the individual as a possible cause of violence. The social psychologist is primarily interested in the behavior of individuals or small groups such as a jury. Sociology can be empirical in the sense that it seeks to gather quantitative information. A sociologist could compare rates of violent behavior in two societies and then try to determine how those societies differ. Social psychology is largely a laboratory-based experimental science. Historians have an even broader view of intergroup hostility than sociologists. They are primarily concerned with the interaction of major forces such as economic, political and technological trends. For example, historians have shown that a nation can express itself

Chapter 1

understand social behavior

compared to other nations only if it has sufficient economic resources to support its armed forces and has developed an adequate technological base to support them (Kennedy, 1987; O'Connell, 1989). One historian has documented the importance of a single technological advance, the invention of stirrups, in accelerating intergroup violence in the early Middle Ages (McNeill, 1982). Before the invention of stirrups, horsemen were not very effective fighters. But once settled in the saddle, they could deliver a mighty blow with a spear at full gallop. The use of stirrups quickly spread across Europe, leading to the emergence of cavalry as an instrument of military power. History and sociology focus on how social forces and social organizations affect human behavior. These fields typically have a top-down perspective; The main unit of analysis is the group or institution, be it a nation, corporation or neighborhood organization. Psychology, with its emphasis on individual behavior and perspectives, offers a bottom-up perspective. Social psychology offers a different perspective on social behavior. Social psychologists analyze how social forces influence an individual's thinking and behavior. Although the field takes a bottom-up perspective and focuses on the individual as a unit of analysis, behavior is always studied in social situations. Social psychology therefore seeks to consider individual factors such as personality, as well as the social and historical forces that have shaped human behavior. As mentioned above, social psychology is a science. The use of scientific methods is social psychology's main contribution to understanding complex and uncertain social behaviors, such as B. Intergroup hostility.

Social Psychological Research In January 1992, a celebrity basketball game was held in New York City. Seating was available in a college basketball arena with just over 4,000 seats. Therefore, the first people in the arena would get the best seats. As the crowd outside the arena grew into the thousands, anticipation grew. People started pushing and shoving to get closer to the doors. As the crowd moved toward the arena, the situation spiraled out of control and nine people were killed in the ensuing scuffle. Even if you only read about it in the newspaper, you are probably wondering how this happened and trying to find an explanation. You may be wondering: were there thousands of very aggressive, mean individuals waiting to see the game? That would be hard to believe. Now, could this explain the fact that the event took place in New York City? That also seems unlikely given that similar things have happened in smaller, more reputable cities like Cincinnati, Ohio. Or did the celebrity presence, limited good seating and excitement of the event somehow affect the behavior of the crowd and caused them to behave in a way they wouldn't individually? This seems more likely, but is it true? When we find explanations for events like these based on our prior knowledge and experience, our attitudes and prejudices, and the limited information the newspaper provides, we don't know whether they are accurate or not. These common-sense explanations, simplified explanations of social behavior based on what we believe to be the truth of the world (Bordens & Abbott, 2005), serve us well in our everyday lives and provide simple ways of explaining complex events. People would get hopelessly stuck trying

scientific method A method of developing scientific explanations that involves four steps: identifying a phenomenon to be studied, developing a testable research hypothesis, designing a research study, and conducting the research study. Hypothesis An experimental and testable statement about the relationship between variables.

experimental research research in which a variable suspected of affecting behavior is manipulated to see how that change affects behavior; the results show causal relationships between the variables. Correlation research Research that measures two or more dependent variables and looks for a relationship between them; Causal relationships between the variables cannot be established.

social psychology

understand the events when these explanations have not occurred to them and move on to the next concern in their life. Unfortunately, common sense explanations are often inadequate; That is, there is no evidence or evidence identifying the true causes of the events. The goal of social psychology is to provide valid and reliable explanations for events like that in New York City. Rather than relying on guesswork, hearsay, and simplistic arguments, social psychologists approach the problem of explaining complex social behavior in a systematic, scientific way. They develop explanations for phenomena using the scientific method, which generally involves the four steps shown in Figure 1.2. First, identify a phenomenon to study. This may come from observing everyday behavior, reading research literature, or your own previous research. Next, a testable research hypothesis must be formed. A hypothesis is a preliminary statement about the relationship between variables. The third step is to design a research study to test your hypothesis. Finally, the study is conducted and the data analyzed. Only after applying this method to a problem and doing thorough research will a social psychologist be satisfied with an explanation. In this book we refer to and describe the research that social psychologists have conducted to test their ideas, gather information about events, and discover the causes of social behavior. We now turn to some of the basic principles of research, including the main research methods, the role of theory in research, the framework for research in social psychology, and the importance of ethical behavior in research involving human participants. The main goal of the science of social psychology is to find scientific explanations for social behavior. A scientific explanation is an interpretation of the causes of social behavior based on objective observation and logic, and subject to empirical testing (Bordens & Abbott, 2005). To this end, social psychologists use a variety of techniques to study social behavior. They generally favor two research strategies in their quest for scientific knowledge: experimental research and correlational research. Let's look at the characteristics of each of these methods along with their pros and cons.

Experimental Research One of the goals of research in social psychology is to understand the causes of social behavior. The researcher usually has an idea they want to test how a certain factor influences an event or behavior, i.e. whether a certain factor causes a certain behavior. To establish a causal relationship between factors, researchers must use the research method known as experiment. Because experimental research is the only type of study that can establish causality, it is the preferred method of most social psychologists. An experiment has three essential characteristics: manipulating a variable, ensuring that the groups making up the experiment are equivalent at the start of the experiment, and exercising control over extraneous variables. Variable manipulation In an experiment, a researcher manipulates or changes the value or nature of a variable. For example, Sturmer, Snyder, and Omoto (2005) conducted an experiment to determine whether individuals were more likely to help a member of their own group (ingroup) than a member of another group (outgroup). The heterosexual students were randomly assigned to one of two conditions. In the first condition, participants were made to believe that they were communicating with a heterosexual student (in-

Chapter 1

understand social behavior

Figure 1.2 The scientific method used in social psychology begins by identifying a problem to study and then proceeds to formulating testable hypotheses. A research study will then be designed and conducted.

group state), who stated that he had just found out that his new girlfriend had hepatitis. In the second condition, participants were made to believe that they were communicating with a homosexual student (out-of-group condition) who indicated that he had just found out that his new partner had hepatitis. Results showed that empathy was a significant predictor of helping intentions in the in-group condition but not in the out-group condition. In this experiment, Stürmer et al. (2005) manipulated the type of information given to participants (communication with a member of the group or outside the group). This variable that the researcher manipulates is called the independent variable. The researcher wants to determine whether changes in the value of the independent variable cause changes in participants' behavior. To this end, the researcher is given a certain level of behavior. Striker et al. measures the participants' willingness to help the other student. This second variable is called the dependent variable: it is the measure that the researcher evaluates to determine the influence of the independent variable on the participant's behavior. The essence of experimental research is to manipulate one independent variable (or two or even more independent variables) and look for related changes in the value of the dependent variable. Group Equivalence The second essential characteristic of an experiment is that it involves at least two groups that are comparable at the beginning of the experiment. In the simplest type of experiment, a group of participants receive a treatment (eg

Independent Variable The variable that the researcher manipulates in an experiment. Dependent variable The measure that the researcher uses to determine the influence of the independent variable on the participants' behavior.

experimental group A group of participants who receive the experimental treatment in an experiment. control group A group in an experiment composed of participants not receiving any experimental treatment.

random assignment A method of assigning participants to groups in an experiment in which each participant has an equal chance of being in the experimental or control group.

Extraneous variable Any variable not controlled by the investigator that can affect the results of a study.

social psychology

there are vacancies). Participants receiving the experimental treatment form the experimental group. To be sure that an experimental treatment (the independent variable) has a specific effect, you need to compare the behavior of participants in the experimental group with the behavior of participants not receiving the treatment (they are not informed of the disposition) . the seating). . . Participants not receiving any experimental treatment form the control group. A simple example of this strategy is an experiment testing the effects of a drug on behavior. Participants in the experimental group received a dose of an active drug (e.g., norepinephrine), while participants in the control group did not receive the drug. The researcher then compares the behavior of participants in the experimental and control groups. Essentially, the control group provides a baseline of no-treatment behavior against which the behavior of the treated participants is compared. In the real world of research, the distinction between experimental and control groups may not be so obvious. For example in Stürmer et al. (2005) on in-group versus out-group help, there is no real control group in the actual sense of the concept. Instead, participants in both groups received 'treatment' (i.e. information inside or outside the group). Most of the experiments you will find follow this model. In order to establish a clear cause-and-effect relationship between the independent and dependent variables in an experiment, the participants in the groups must have the same characteristics at the beginning of the experiment. For example, in the norepinephrine and aggression experiments, you would not want to assign short-tempered subjects to the 15 mg group. If you do this and find that 15 mg evokes the highest levels of aggression, it could be argued that the increased aggression is because all of the participants in that group were hotheads. The best way to ensure that two or more groups are comparable at the start of an experiment is to randomly assign individuals to groups, which means that each participant has an equal chance of being assigned to the experimental or control group. Investigators can then be fairly certain that participants with similar characteristics or backgrounds are distributed among the groups. If two or more groups in an experiment are comparable from the outset, the experiment is said to have internal validity and a causal relationship can legitimately be demonstrated. Researchers are also concerned with another type of validity known as external validity or generality. When researchers study how experimental treatments affect groups of participants, they want to be able to generalize their findings to larger populations. To do this, they must be reasonably confident that the participants in their experiments are representative (typical) of the population to which they wish to generalize their results. For example, if the participants in a study were all male science students at a small religious college, the researchers could not legitimately generalize the results to include female or mixed populations, the younger or older, or music majors. Once the researchers have obtained a representative sample of their population of interest, they can reasonably generalize the results to that population, and the study is considered externally valid. Controlling for extraneous variables The aim of each experiment is to demonstrate a clear and unambiguous causal relationship between the independent and dependent variables. To demonstrate such a relationship, the researcher must ensure that no other variable affects the value of the dependent variable. The researcher must strictly control any external variables that may affect the value of the dependent variable. A foreign variable is any variable that does not

Chapter 1

understand social behavior

controlled by the investigator, which may affect the results. For example, if the temperature in the room where an experiment is taking place fluctuates significantly, this can affect the behavior of the participants. In hot weather, participants can become irritable and impatient. When it's cold, participants can become lazy and disinterested in the task at hand. As we just described, external variables affect the outcome of an experiment by adding a random impact to the behavior. In short, extraneous variables make it difficult to establish a causal relationship between your independent and dependent variables. In some cases, an external variable can have a systematic impact on the outcome of an experiment. This happens when the external variable varies systematically with the independent variable. The result is that there is a confounding variable in the experiment. Suppose you are conducting an experiment on the relationship between frustration and aggression. Participants in the experimental group solve a puzzle that has no solution (frustration group), while participants in the control group solve a puzzle that can be solved (no frustration group). It turns out that on the days the experimental group runs, the room they use is hot and humid, while on the days the control group runs, the temperature and humidity are normal. Suppose you find that participants in the experimental group have higher levels of aggression than participants in the control group. You want to attribute the difference in aggression between your two groups to frustration levels. However, it could be that the higher levels of aggression recorded in the experimental group were due to the high temperature and humidity rather than the frustrating task. In the real world of research, confusion is seldom as obvious and overt as in our example. Most of the time, the results are misleading because a researcher is careless in designing an experiment. Confounding variables are often introduced into experiments because the independent variables are not clearly defined and applied. The presence of confounding variables in an experiment renders the results unusable. The confounding variable provides an alternative explanation for each outcome that occurs. For this reason, a clear causal relationship between the independent and dependent variables cannot be established. Consequently, it is important for the investigator to identify potential sources of confusion and take steps to avoid them. The time for this is during the design phase of an experiment. Careful attention to detail when designing an experiment can go a long way toward achieving an experiment free of confounding variables. Factorial Experiments An important aspect of real-world research is that experiments are often more complex than the simple experimental/control group design we discussed earlier. In fact, the vast majority of social psychological research has two or more independent variables. These are called factorial designs. As an example of a simple factorial experiment, consider an experiment by Patricia Oswald (2002) that examined the effects of two independent variables on willingness to help. Oswald had the participants watch a videotape of a person, introduced as an older adult (Michelle), who discussed some of her thoughts and feelings about returning to college. The first independent variable was whether participants were instructed to focus on Michelle's thoughts (cognitions) or emotions (affects) while viewing her on video. The second independent variable was the type of affect (positive or negative) and cognitions (positive or negative) that Michelle displayed on the videotape. Participants performed several actions after viewing the videotape, including asking how much time they would be willing to spend helping the student featured on the videotape. Before we get to Oswald's results, let's look at the benefits of a factorial design.

confounding variable An extraneous variable in an experiment that varies systematically with the independent variable, making it difficult or impossible to establish a causal relationship between the independent and dependent variables.

factorial experiment Experimental design in which two or more independent variables are manipulated, allowing a causal relationship to be established between the independent and dependent variables.

Interaction When the effect of an independent variable in a factorial design changes within one second, indicating a complex relationship between the independent variables.

social psychology

The main advantage of a factorial design compared to separate one-way designs (that is, each having an independent variable) is that you get more information from the factorial design. For example, we can determine the independent effect of each independent variable on the dependent variable. In Oswald's experiment, we determined the effect of participants' focus (Michelle's focus on affect or cognition) on helpfulness. This is called the main effect of an independent variable on the dependent variable. We could also independently determine the main effect of the second independent variable (positive or negative cognition or affect) on the dependent variable. The main advantage of the factorial design lies in the third piece of determinable information: the interaction between independent variables. An interaction occurs when the effect of an independent variable (e.g., attentional focus) changes every second (e.g., type of affect shown). The presence of an interaction indicates a complex relationship between independent variables. In other words, an interaction shows that there is no simple effect of an independent variable on the dependent variable. For this reason, most social psychological experiments are designed to discover interactions between independent variables. Let's go back to Oswald's experiment to see what he found. First, Oswald found a statistically significant main effect of focusing on helpfulness. Participants who focused on Michelle's affect spent more time than those who focused on Michelle's cognitions. If that were all Oswald discovered, we'd settle for the conclusion that focus determines help. However, Oswald also found a statistically significant correlation between the focus of attention and the type of affect (positive or negative) that Michelle displayed. This interaction is shown in Figure 1.3. As you can see, the focus of attention had a significant effect when Michelle showed positive emotion, but not when she showed negative emotion. Given this interaction, would you still trust the general conclusion that focus affects help? Probably not, because whether focus affects help depends on the type of emotion shown. Evaluation of Experiments Most of the research studies described in this book are experimental studies. As you evaluate these experiments, ask yourself the following questions:

• • • •

What was the independent variable and how was it manipulated?

•

Were there any confounding variables that could provide an alternative explanation for the results?

•

What was found? That is, what changes in the dependent variable were observed as a result of manipulating the independent variable?

•

What type was the sample used? Was the sample representative of the general population, or was it demographically restricted, such as age, gender, culture, or other characteristics?

What were the experimental and control groups? What was the dependent variable? What methods were used to test the hypothesis? Were the methods robust?

Chapter 1

understand social behavior

Cognitive focus of attention

affect

Average Volunteer Time

120 100 80 60 40 20 0

Positive

negative kind of affection

Correlational Research Although most research in social psychology is experimental, some research is correlative. In correlational research, researchers do not manipulate an independent variable. Instead, they measure two or more dependent variables and look for a relationship between them. When changes in one variable are associated with changes in another, the two variables are said to be correlated. When the values of two variables change in the same direction, increasing or decreasing their value, there is a positive correlation between them. For example, if you find that crime increases as the temperature rises, there is a positive correlation. If the values change in opposite directions, one rising and one falling, there is a negative correlation between the variables. For example, if you find that in an emergency, less help is provided as the number of bystanders increases, there is a negative correlation. If one variable does not change systematically with the other, they are uncorrelated. But even if correlations are found, a causal relationship cannot be concluded. For example, height and weight are correlated (the larger one is, the larger the other is usually), but an increase in one does not lead to an increase in the other. Changes in both are caused by other factors such as growth hormone and diet. Correlation research indicates whether changes in one variable are related to changes in another, but does not indicate why the changes are related. Cause and effect can only be proven experimentally. In correlational studies, researchers are interested in both the direction of the relationship between variables (either positive or negative) and the degree or strength of the relationship. They measure these two factors using a special statistical test known as the correlation coefficient (symbolized as r). The magnitude of the correlation coefficient, which can range from -1 to 0 and +1, shows the degree of the relationship. A value of r close to -1 to +1 indicates a stronger relationship than a value closer to 0.

Figure 1.3 The interaction between type of affect and focus of attention. Based on data from Oswald (2002).

correlation coefficient A statistical method of determining the direction and strength of a relationship between two variables.

sixteen

positive correlation The direction of a correlation where the values of two variables increase or decrease in the same direction. negative correlation The direction of a correlation where the value of one variable increases while the value of a second decreases.

social psychology

In Figure 1.4, the five plots illustrate correlations of varying strength and direction. Figure 1.4A shows a correlation of 0: the points are randomly scattered within the plot. Figures 1.4B and 1.4C show positive correlations of varying strength. As the correlation increases, the points begin to align (Figure 1.4B). A positive correlation occurs when the values of two variables increase or decrease in the same direction. With a perfect positive correlation (r = +1), all points align along a straight line (Figure 1.4C). Note that when the correlation is positive, the points are aligned along an upward sloping line, starting at the lower-left corner of the chart and ending at the upper-right corner. A negative correlation (shown in Figures 1.4D and 1.4E) follows the same rules for strength as positive correlation. However, with a negative correlation, as the value of one variable increases, the value of a second decreases. Figure 1.4E shows a perfect negative correlation (-1). An excellent example of a correlation study is that of Del Barrio, Aluja and García (2004). DelBarrio et al. examined the relationship between personality traits and a person's ability to empathize with someone in need. DelBarrio et al. administered Spanish adolescents a measure of empathy and a personality inventory measuring the "Big Five" personality dimensions (energy, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, and openness). DelBarrio et al. found that “sympathy” correlated more strongly with empathy in both boys and girls. High scores on the sympathy dimension are associated with higher empathy scores. They also found that "energy", "conscientious" and "openness" were positively correlated with empathy towards girls and boys, although not as strongly as "nice". "Emotional stability" did not significantly correlate with empathy. From this brief summary, it can be seen that six variables were measured: five dimensions of personality and empathy. Note, however, that del Barrio and his colleagues did not manipulate any of the variables. Therefore, there were no independent variables. Although correlation research does not prove causal relationships, it plays an important role in science. Correlation search is used in situations where it is not possible to manipulate variables. Any examination of individual characteristics (age, sex, race, etc.) is correlative. After all, you can't manipulate a person's age or gender. Correlation research is also used when it would be unethical to manipulate the variables. For example, if you were interested in how alcohol consumption affects the human fetus, it would be unethical to expose pregnant women to various doses of alcohol and see what happens. Instead, you could measure alcohol consumption and the birth defect rate and look for a correlation between these two variables. Finally, correlation research is useful when you want to study variables as they occur naturally in the real world.

Settings for Research in Social Psychology Social psychological research is conducted in one of two settings: in the laboratory or in the field. Laboratory research is conducted in a controlled environment created by the investigator; Participants enter this artificial environment to participate in research. Field research will be conducted in the participant's natural environment; The researcher goes to the participant and practically takes the study with him on the street. Observations are made in the participant's natural environment; sometimes even independent variables are manipulated in this environment.

Chapter 1

understand social behavior

Laboratory Research Most research in social psychology is done in the laboratory. This allows the researcher to exercise tight control over extraneous (undesirable) variables that can affect the results. For example, the researcher can keep lighting, temperature, humidity and noise levels constant in a laboratory environment. This tight control over the environment and external variables allows the researcher to be reasonably confident that the experiment has internal validity, meaning that any observed variation in the dependent variable was caused by manipulation of the independent variable. However, this tight control also comes at a price: the investigator loses some opportunities to apply the results beyond the strictly controlled laboratory environment (external validity). Research done in tightly controlled laboratories may not generalize very well to real-world social behavior, or even to other laboratory studies. Field research Field research comes in three varieties: the field study, the field investigation, and the field experiment. In a field study, the researcher unobtrusively observes the participants without making direct contact or interfering in any way. The researcher simply watches from afar. In its pure form, participants should not know that they are being observed, since observing itself tends to change participants' behavior. The researcher avoids contaminating the research situation by introducing changes in the natural environment of the participants. Jane Goodall's original research on chimpanzee behavior was a field study. Goodall studied chimpanzee social behavior by remotely observing groups of chimpanzees, initially without interacting with them. However, as Goodall grew

Figure 1.4 Scatterplots showing correlations of different directions and strengths: (a) 0 correlation indicated by randomly placed dots; (b) strong positive correlation; (c) perfect positive correlation (+1) indicated by perfectly aligned dots, descending from bottom left to top right; (d) strong negative correlation; (e) Perfect negative correlation indicated by perfectly aligned points slanted from top left to bottom right. Field Study A descriptive research strategy in which the researcher discreetly observes the participants without making direct contact or interfering in any way.

Field research A descriptive research strategy in which the researcher approaches participants directly and asks questions.

Field experiment A research setting in which the researcher manipulates one or more independent variables and measures behavior in the participant's natural environment.

theory A set of coherent statements about the causes of social behavior that help organize research, make predictions about the impact of particular variables, and guide future social research.

social psychology

accepted by the chimpanzees, she began to interact with them and even feed them. Can we be sure that Goodall's later observations are characteristic of chimpanzee behavior in the wild? Probably not, because it altered the chimps' environment by interacting with them. In field research, the researcher approaches the participants directly and asks them questions. For example, he or she might stop people at a mall and gather information about what make of car they want to buy next. The ubiquitous political polls we see all the time, especially in election years, are examples of field polls. Field studies and surveys allow us to describe and catalog behavior. Political polls can help us, for example, to find out which candidate is ahead, whether a proposal is likely to be adopted, or how voters feel about important campaign issues. However, they cannot tell us what causes the observed differences between voters, since we would need to run an experiment to investigate the causes. Fortunately, we can conduct experiments in the field. The field experiment is probably the most notable and useful field technique for social psychologists. In a field experiment, the researcher manipulates independent variables and collects readings of the dependent variable (the participant's behavior). In this sense, a field experiment is like a laboratory experiment. The main difference is that in the field experiment, the researcher manipulates independent variables under natural conditions. The main advantage of the field experiment is that it has greater external validity, meaning that the results can be generalized beyond the study in a more legitimate way than the results of a laboratory experiment. Suppose you are interested in whether the race of a person in need of help influences potential helpers. You could consider a field experiment where someone, an accomplice of yours (an accomplice is someone who works for the researcher), pretends to pass out on a subway train. In the experiment you use two different accomplices, one black and one white. The two are as similar as can be (age, clothes, etc.) apart from skin color, of course. Then you see how many people help each man and how quickly they do it. Such an experiment would be very realistic and would have high external validity. Consequently, the results would have broad generality. A disadvantage of the field test is that the researcher cannot control extraneous variables as well as in the laboratory. Therefore, internal validity can be compromised. For example, in the subway experiment, you have no control over who the participants are or what experimental condition (black or white companion) they enter. Consequently, the internal validity of your experiment, the legitimacy of the causal relationship it discovers, may suffer. The experiment also has some ethical issues, one of which is that the people who bought a ride on the subway did not voluntarily agree to participate in an experiment. We will discuss research ethics in a later section of this chapter.

The role of theory in social psychological research In many places in this book we refer to the theories of social psychology. A theory is a series of coherent statements or claims about the causes of a particular phenomenon. Theories help social psychologists organize research, make predictions about how certain variables affect social behavior, and guide future research. In this way, social psychological theories play an important role in understanding complex social behaviors.

Chapter 1

understand social behavior

There are a few important points to keep in mind when reading these theories. First, a theory is not the last word on the causes of social behavior. Theories are developed, revised, and sometimes discarded based on how well they fit the research findings. Rather than telling us how things are in the absolute sense, theories help us understand social behavior by giving us a specific perspective. Consider attribution theories: theories about how people decide what caused others (and themselves) to behave a certain way in certain situations. Attribution theories don't tell us exactly how people attribute or attribute causality. Rather, they propose rules and make predictions about how people will reach such conclusions under different circumstances. These predictions are then tested with surveys. The second important point about social psychological theories is that often more than one theory can be applied to a given social behavior. For example, social psychologists have developed a number of attribution theories that help us understand how we make decisions about the causes of behavior. Each theory helps provide a piece of the puzzle of social behavior. However, no single theory can explain all aspects of social behavior. A theory helps us understand how we infer another individual's intrinsic motivations; A second theory examines how we understand the social situation in which this individual's behavior occurred. Theory and the Research Process Theories in social psychology are often tested by research, and much research is theory-driven. Research aimed at testing a specific theory or model is called basic research. In contrast, research that aims to address a real-world problem is referred to as applied research. However, the distinction between these two categories is not rigid. The results of basic research can often be applied to real-world problems, and the results of applied research can affect the validity of a theory. For example, research into how stress affects memory may be fundamental research at its core, but the findings of that research relate to a real problem: a witness's ability to accurately recall a violent crime. Likewise, research on how juries process evidence in complex processes (e.g., Horowitz & Bordens, 1990) has implications for the predictions of different theories about how people think and make decisions in different situations. Both types of research have their place in social psychology. Theory and Application The application of basic theoretical ideas can take many forms. For example, consider the idea that it is healthy for people to directly confront and deal with past psychological trauma. Although several clinical theories have made this assumption, supporting evidence is scant. In one study, social psychologist Jamie Pennebaker (1989) measured the effects of disclosure on the mind and body. Research has shown that participants' immune function improved and their skin conductance indices decreased when they confronted past trauma, either by writing or talking about it. The latter measure reflects a reduction in the activity of the autonomic nervous system, which indicates a reduction in psychological stress. In other words, people let go by fully disclosing their feelings about those past traumas. Those who had difficulty revealing important thoughts about the event, unable to shake off the trauma, had higher skin conductance. Pennebaker's work shows that the act of trusting someone protects the body from internal stress caused by repressing these unspoken traumas. This is an example of basic research that has found clear applications in real-life situations.

Basic research Research whose primary goal is to test a theory or model empirically. applied research research whose main objective is to tackle a real problem.

social psychology

What have we learned from research in social psychology? Two criticisms are generally leveled at social psychological research. One is that social psychologists examine what we already know, the "intuitively obvious." The other is that since exceptions to the search results can almost always be found, many results must be wrong. Let's consider the merits of each of these points.

Hindsight Bias Also known as the "I knew it all along" phenomenon; shows that everything seems obvious in hindsight.

Do social psychologists study the obvious? William McGuire, a leading social psychologist, once suggested that social psychologists appear to study "Bubba psychology," things we learned on our grandmother's lap. That is, social psychologists examine what is already obvious and predictable, based on common sense. Although it may appear so, it is not the case. Search results only seem obvious when you already know what they are. This is known as hindsight bias or the always-known phenomenon (Slovic & Fischoff, 1977; Wood, 1978). In retrospect everything seems clear. For example, after the September 11, 2001 attacks, some commentators questioned why President Bush or the CIA would not "connect the dots" and predict the coming attacks. Unfortunately, these points were not as clear in the months and years leading up to the attacks. In retrospect, the signs seemed to point to an attack, but before the incident the situation was not so clear. In fact, the 9/11 Commission has found that hindsight can affect our perception of events: In a commentary on Pearl Harbor, Roberta Wohlstetter noted that "after the event, it is much easier to distinguish the relevant signals from the irrelevant ones. After the event there is of course always a crystal clear signal; Now we can see what disaster was waiting for us since the disaster happened. But before the event, it is murky and full of contradictory meanings. As time goes by, more documents become available and the simple facts of what happened become even clearer. However, the picture of how these things happened becomes more difficult to re-imagine as the bygone world recedes with its worries and insecurities and the remaining memories are colored by what happened and what was later written. (Commission report of September 11, 2004)

Although the results of some surveys may seem obvious, studies show that people who are given survey descriptions without results are no better than chance at predicting the outcome of the survey (Slovic & Fischoff, 1977). In other words, the results weren't so obvious when they weren't already known. Do the exceptions mean the search results are wrong? Often, when describing research findings in social psychology, someone will point out a case that is an exception to the finding. Suppose a particular study shows that a person is less likely to get help when multiple bystanders are present than when only one is present. You can probably imagine a situation where you got help with many viewers. Does this mean the survey is wrong or doesn't apply to you? To answer this question, you may recall that in a social psychology experiment, groups of participants are exposed to different levels of the independent variable. For example, in an experiment investigating the relationship between the number of spectators and the likelihood of receiving help, a group of participants are given the opportunity to help a person in need without the presence of other spectators. A second group of participants has the same opportunity, but with three spectators present. We say

Chapter 1

understand social behavior

Table 1.1 Results of a hypothetical study of helping behavior Number of participants

no spectator

three spectators

does not help

Help

does not help

Help

does not help

Help

does not help

Help

does not help

Help

does not help

Help

does not help

Help

does not help

that our results in this hypothetical experiment are similar to those in Table 1.1. Seven out of 10 participants in the no-viewer condition helped (70%), while only 2 out of 10 in the 3-viewer condition (20%) helped. From this we can conclude that you are more likely to get help when there are no other bystanders than when three bystanders are present. Note, however, that we're not saying you'll never get help when there are three spectators present. In fact, two participants helped in this condition. We also don't say to always get help when there are no spectators around. In fact, in three cases no help was provided. The moral of the story is that the results of experiments in social psychology represent differences between groups of participants, not differences between specific individuals. Based on the results of social psychological research, we can say that groups differ on average. Within these groups there are almost always participants who do not behave like the majority of the participants. We can appreciate that there are often exceptions to survey results, but that doesn't mean the reported results are incorrect.

Ethics and Research in Social Psychology Unlike research in chemistry and physics, which do not involve living organisms, research in social psychology uses living organisms, both animals and humans. Because social psychology studies living organisms, researchers must consider the ethics of research. They need to address the treatment of their research participants and the potential wide-ranging impact of the research on the well-being of the participants. In all social psychological studies, researchers must make the well-being of research participants their top priority. Questions of ethics have been raised in some of the most famous research ever done in social psychology. For example, you may be familiar with the obedience experiments conducted by Stanley Milgram (1963; detailed in Chapter 7). In these experiments, participants were asked to give painful electric shocks to a person who was performing poorly on a learning task. Although no shock was actually administered, participants believed they were inflicting severe pain

Informed Consent An ethical research requirement that requires participants to be informed of the nature of the study, the requirements for participation, any risks or benefits associated with participation in the study, and the right to opt-out or withdraw from participation without penalty .

social psychology

unintentional victim. After the experiment, participants reported feelings of guilt and low self-esteem, as well as anger at the researchers. The question this and other experiments involving human participants raise is how far researchers can and should go to gain insights. Research conducted by social psychologists is governed by a code of ethics developed by the American Psychological Association (APA). The basic principles of the APA Code (2002) are summarized in Table 1.2. Please note that the Code states that participation in psychological research is voluntary. This means that participants cannot be forced to take part in the research. Investigators must also obtain the participants' informed consent, which means that they must inform them of the nature of the study, the requirements for participation, and any risks or benefits associated with participating in the study. Subjects must also be informed that they have the right to refuse or withdraw from participation without penalty. In addition, the APA code restricts the use of research fraud. Deception occurs when researchers tell their participants that they are studying one thing, but are actually studying something else. Deception can only be used when there is no other viable alternative. If researchers use deception, they must inform participants of the deception (and the reasons for it) as soon as possible after participation. Compliance with ethical codes of conduct protects people from harm. In this sense, ethical codes support the research process. However, the practice of ethical research sometimes clashes with the demands of science. For example, in a field grant experiment, it may not be possible (or desirable) to obtain consent from participants prior to participating in the study. When such conflicts arise, the investigator must weigh the potential risks to the participants against the benefits to be achieved.

Rick Rescorla and 9/11 Revisited How can we explain Rick Rescorla's behavior on 9/11? Social psychologists would begin by pointing out the two factors that contribute to social behavior: individual characteristics and the social situation. Was there something about Rescorla's personality, attitudes, or other traits that made him act altruistically? Or was the social environment the most important thing? Social psychologists focus on the latter. Rescorla's experiences in Vietnam, where he lost several men under his command, certainly helped shape his conduct on 9/11. Close associates indicate that he was determined never to lose the people he was responsible for. Of course, there were others who experienced the same kind of loss as Rescorla, but they didn't translate it into altruism. His unique way of looking at the social situation drove him to do what he did. Social psychology is not the only discipline interested in explaining the behavior of Rick Rescorla and the 9/11 hijackers. Biologists studying ethology would view Rescorla's behavior in light of what altruism does to help a species survive. Sociologists can point out that poverty and lack of education contribute to terrorist attacks. Each discipline has its own way of gathering information on interesting topics. Social psychology would have to face the daunting task of explaining Rescorla's behavior (and the behavior of the kidnappers) through carefully designed research. Through the scientific method, it is possible to isolate the variables that contribute to aggressive acts and altruistic acts like the ones that took place on September 11, 2001.

Chapter 1

understand social behavior

Table 1.2 Summary of APA 2002 Ethical Principles Applicable to Participants in Human Research 1. Research proposals submitted to institutional review boards must contain accurate information. Once approved, investigators must conduct their research within the approved protocol. 2. Where informed consent is required, the informed consent must include: (1) the purpose of the investigation, the expected duration and the procedures; (2) Your right to refuse participation and withdraw from the study once participation begins; (3) the foreseeable consequences of the refusal or withdrawal; (4) reasonably foreseeable factors that may affect your willingness to participate, such as B. potential risks, discomfort or side effects; (5) potential benefits of research; (6) limits of confidentiality; (7) incentives for participation; and (8) whom to contact if you have questions about the research and the rights of research participants. They offer potential participants the opportunity to ask questions and receive answers. 3. When conducting intervention research and involving experimental treatments, participants must, at the outset of the research, be aware of (1) the experimental nature of the treatment; (2) the services available or not available to the control group(s), if any; (3) the means by which assignment to treatment and control groups is made; (4) available treatment alternatives if a subject chooses not to participate in the research or to withdraw after the study has started; and (5) the compensation or monetary cost of participation, including, if applicable, whether any reimbursement is required from the participant or from a third-party payer. 4. Informed consent must be obtained when recording voices or images as data, unless (1) the research consists solely of observations of nature in public places and it is not expected that the recording will be used in a way which could cause identification or personal injury, or (2) the research design involves deception and consent to use the recording is obtained during the debriefing session. 5. When psychologists conduct research with clients/patients, students, or subordinates as participants, psychologists take steps to protect potential participants from the adverse consequences of refusing or withdrawing from participation. Where participation in research is a course requirement or an opportunity for additional credits, the prospective participant will be offered a choice of equivalent alternative activities.

6. Informed consent may be waived only (1) where the research is not reasonably expected to cause distress or harm and (a) involves the study of normal educational practices, curricula, or teaching methods conducted in educational settings; (b) only anonymous questionnaires, scientific observations or archival research where disclosure of responses would not expose participants to risk of criminal or civil liability or harm their financial condition, employability or reputation would be protected, and confidentiality; or (c) research into work-related factors or organizational effectiveness conducted in organizational settings where there is no risk to the employability of participants and confidentiality is protected, or (2) as permitted by law or federal or institutional regulations 7. Psychologists will make reasonable efforts to avoid offering excessive or inappropriate financial or other incentives for participation in research when such incentives are likely to compel participation. By offering professional services as an incentive to participate in research, psychologists clarify the nature of the services, as well as the risks, responsibilities, and limitations. 8. Research deception should only be used when they have determined that the use of deception techniques is justified by a significant anticipated scientific, educational, or applied value of the study and that effective, non-deceptive alternative methods are not feasible. Deception will not be used if the research can reasonably be expected to cause severe physical pain or emotional distress. Psychologists will explain to participants as soon as possible, preferably after the completion of their participation but no later than the completion of data collection, any errors that are an integral part of the design and conduct of an experiment and allow participants to remove their data. 9. Participants should have an immediate opportunity to obtain adequate information about the nature, results and conclusions of the research and should take reasonable steps to correct any misunderstandings of the participants known to the psychologists. When scientific or human values justify delaying or withholding this information, psychologists take reasonable steps to reduce the risk of harm. When psychologists learn that research procedures have harmed a participant, they take reasonable steps to minimize the harm.

social psychology

Review of Chapter 1. What is Social Psychology? Social psychology is the scientific study of how we think, feel, interact, and affect one another. It is the branch of psychology that focuses on social behavior, specifically how we interact with other people in our social world. Social psychology can help us understand everyday things that happen to us, as well as past and present cultural and historical events. 2. How do social psychologists explain social behavior? One of the first models of social behavior proposed by Kurt Lewin proposed that social behavior is caused by two factors: individual characteristics and the social situation. Since then, this simple model has been extended to better explain the forces shaping social behavior. According to modern views of social behavior, social situational inputs act in concert with individual characteristics to affect social behavior through the action of social cognition (the general process of thinking about social events) and social cognition (how other people perceive them). Based on our processing of social information, we assess the social situation and form an intention to behave in a certain way. This behavioral intention may or may not translate into social behavior. We engage in social behavior based on our ever-changing assessment of the situation. Once we behave in a certain way, it can have an impact on the social situation, which in turn will affect future social behavior. 3. How does social psychology relate to other disciplines that study social behavior? There are many scientific disciplines that study social behavior. Biologists, developmental psychologists, anthropologists, personality psychologists, historians, and sociologists are all interested in social behavior. Although social psychology shares common interests with these disciplines, unlike biology and personality psychology, social psychology focuses on the social situation as the main cause of social behavior. While sociology and history focus on the situation, social psychology takes a narrower perspective, looking at the individual in the social situation rather than the larger group or society. In other words, history and sociology take a top-down approach to explaining social behavior, placing a group or institution at the center of the analysis. Social psychology takes a bottom-up approach, focusing on how the situation affects individual behavior.

Chapter 1

understand social behavior

4. How do social psychologists approach the problem of explaining social behavior? Unlike the layperson, who formulates reasonable explanations of social behavior based on limited information, social psychologists rely on the scientific method to formulate scientific explanations—provisional explanations based on observation and logic that can be empirically tested. The scientific method involves identifying a phenomenon to study, developing a testable research hypothesis, designing a research study, and conducting the research study. Only after applying this method to a problem and doing thorough research will a social psychologist be satisfied with an explanation. 5. What is experimental research and how is it used? Experimental research is used to discover causal relationships between variables. Its main features are (1) manipulating an independent variable and observing the effects of that manipulation on a dependent variable, (2) using two or more initially comparable groups, and (3) exercising control over the strange and confusing variable. Variables Each design contains at least one independent variable with at least two levels. In the simplest experiment, one group of participants (the experimental group) is exposed to an experimental treatment and a second group (the control group) is not. The researchers then compare the behavior of the participants in the experimental group with the behavior of the participants in the control group. Independent variables can be manipulated by varying their quantity or quality. Researchers use random assignment to ensure groups in an experiment are comparable before applying a treatment to them. The basic design can be extended by adding additional levels of an independent variable, or by adding a second or third independent variable. Experiments that include more than one independent variable are called factorial designs. 6. What is correlation research? In correlation research, researchers measure two or more variables and look for a relationship between them. When two variables change in the same direction, increasing or decreasing in value, they are positively correlated. If they change in opposite directions, with one increasing and the other decreasing, they are negatively correlated. If one variable does not change systematically with the other, they are uncorrelated. Even if a correlation is found, a causal relationship cannot be concluded.

social psychology

7. What is the correlation coefficient and what does it say? Researchers assess correlational relationships between variables using a statistic called the correlation coefficient (symbolized as r). The sign of r (positive or negative) indicates the direction of the relationship between the variables; the magnitude of r (from -1 through 0 to +1) indicates the strength of the relationship between the variables. 8. Where is social psychological research conducted? Social psychologists conduct research in the laboratory or in the field. In laboratory research, researchers create an artificial environment in which they can control external variables. This tight control allows researchers to be fairly confident that any observed variation in the dependent variable was caused by manipulation of the independent variable. However, results obtained in this way are sometimes legitimately generalized beyond the laboratory setting. There are different types of field research. In the field study, the researcher observes the participants but does not interact with them. In field research, the researcher has direct contact with the participants and interacts with them. Both techniques allow the researcher to describe the behavior, but the causes cannot be discovered. In the field experiment, the researcher manipulates an independent variable in the participant's natural environment. The field experiment increases the general validity of the research results. However, extraneous variables can obscure the causal relationship between the independent and dependent variables. 9. What is the role of theory in social psychology? A theory is a set of coherent statements or claims about the causes of a phenomenon that help organize research, make predictions about how certain variables affect social behavior, and guide future research. A theory is not the last word on the causes of social behavior. Theories are developed, revised, and sometimes discarded based on how well they fit the research findings. Theories don't tell us how things are in the absolute sense. Rather, they help us understand social behavior by providing a specific perspective. Often more than one theory can be applied to a particular social behavior. Sometimes one theory provides a better explanation for one aspect of a particular social behavior and another theory provides a better explanation for another aspect of the same behavior. Certain research work, referred to as basic research, is designed to test predictions of theories. Applied research is conducted to study a real-world phenomenon (e.g. jury decisions). Basic research and applied research are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Some basic research has applied implications and some applied research has theoretical implications.

Chapter 1

understand social behavior

10. What can we learn from social psychological research? Two common criticisms of social psychological research are that social psychologists study things that are intuitively obvious and that many findings must be wrong since exceptions to research findings can almost always be found. However, these two criticisms are not valid. The results of social psychological research may seem intuitively obvious in hindsight (the hindsight bias), but people cannot predict how an experiment will turn out unless they already know the results. Also, exceptions to a search result do not override that result. Social psychologists study groups of individuals. Variations in behavior occur within a group. Social psychologists examine mean differences between groups. 11. What ethical standards must social psychologists follow when conducting research? Social psychologists deal with research ethics: how participants are treated within a study and how their participation affects them in the long term. Social psychologists adhere to the code of research ethics established by the American Psychological Association. The ethical treatment of participants includes several important aspects, such as: B. informing the participants about the nature of a study and the participation requirements before participation (declaration of consent), protecting the participants from short-term and long-term damage and guaranteeing anonymity.

The Social Self Although I'm not inherently honest, sometimes I happen to be. - William Shakespeare

James Carroll is a bestselling author, novelist and journalist. He comes from a remarkable family whose members played important, sometimes pivotal, roles in the events of the late 20th century. Carroll's life illustrates how the intertwined influences of birth, family life, upbringing, and historical forces affect the development of a person's sense of identity. Carroll's father was the most important influence in his life. His father's dream was to become a priest and James lived that dream for his father. He was an altar boy who became a university priest and chaplain. Carroll loved his life as a priest. However, Carroll's life soon took an unexpected and traumatic turn. These events created a rift between the son and the father, a rift that was only partially closed before the father's death. It's easy to see why Carroll's father was such an influence on him growing up. He was a figure of mythic proportions; He led a life almost only possible in the movies, certainly a figment of Hollywood's imagination. As a young lawyer, Carroll's father caught the attention of FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover and became a top agent. When the Vietnam War began, the US Air Force recruited the FBI agent and appointed him director of the agency that selected bombing targets in Vietnam. James' father, now General Carroll, was improbably responsible for the US Air Force's war against North Vietnam. The Vietnam War forced young Carroll to face his person. On the one hand, his father helped run the war in Vietnam, and James' brother, who was an FBI agent, tracked down fare dodgers and kept tabs on anti-war protesters. James' superiors in the Catholic Church were also strong supporters of the war. But Carroll, as a young seminarian, opposed the war his father was waging. In a moving account of his crisis of conscience and self-identity, Carroll, on Jan

Key Questions As you read this chapter, find answers to the following questions: 1. What is the Self? 2. How do we know the Self? 3. What is the theory of distinctiveness? 4. How is the self-organization? 5. What is autobiographical memory? 6. What is self-esteem? 7. How do we evaluate ourselves? 8. What is good about high self-esteem? 9. What are implicit and explicit self-esteem? 10. What is Emotional Intelligence? 11. What is Self-Evaluation-Maintenance Theory (SEM)? 12. How has self-improvement helped some 9/11 survivors cope with their trauma?

13. How do we present ourselves to others? 14. What is self-control? 15. What is self-sabotage? 16. How exactly do we evaluate the impression we give? 17. What is the focus effect? 18. What is the illusion of transparency?

social psychology

his memoir An American Requiem (1996) recounts his conflict with the church hierarchy, the government, his father, and most importantly with himself. The son, who still admired and loved his father, the general, began to associate with anti-war protesters , conscientious objectors and Catholic anti-war radicals. In Memorial Bridge, Carroll's gripping Vietnam War-era novel, the author artfully and perfectly painted an almost fictional picture of the conflict between himself and his father, a conflict that forever changed the way he understood himself. Carroll recalls attending the famous anti-war rally at the Pentagon and looking up at the sixth floor of the building knowing his father was seeing his son, the protester, the radical who had just left the priesthood, mocked. But perhaps the most defining moment of Carroll's life was an earlier event, the moment he publicly and irrevocably created a self-identity separate and distinct from his father, much of his family, and his life experience. When Carroll, as a newly ordained priest, celebrated his first Mass at an air force base in front of his family and his father's peers, the generals who led the Vietnam War, he expressed his moral outrage at his behavior and took advantage of that moment to express clearly — a Clarity he may later have regretted - his personal identity versus his family's image of him. In Carroll's life we can see the interaction of the different parts of the self: the personal self - one's own beliefs, knowledge, and principles - and the part of the self that is influenced by one's relationships with family, friends, and church. Finally we see the impact of the great social events of the time. No wonder novelist Carroll is poignant and passionate about the impact of family, church and country on self-understanding. Carroll notes that he was very similar to his father and that he was trying to live his father's dream, but events conspired to break their hearts both (Carroll, 1996).

Self Concept How do we develop a coherent sense of who we are? The cartoon depicting James Carroll suggests that our personal experiences, interactions with others, and cultural forces all play a role in how we define ourselves. Who am I? The answer to this question is the driving force of our lives. If you were asked to define yourself, you would probably use sentences containing the words "I", "I", "my" and "myself" (Cooley, 1902; Schweder, Much, Mahapatra & Park, 1997) . The self can be viewed as a structure that contains the organized and stable contents of one's personal experiences (Schlenker, 1987). In this sense, the self is an object, something within us that we can evaluate and look at. The I is "I", the sum of what I am. A significant part of what we call the self is knowledge. All the ideas, thoughts, and information we have about ourselves, about who we are, what qualities we have, what our personal history has made us, and what we can become, make up our self-image.

Reflected Appraisal A source of social information that includes our view of how other people respond to us.

Self-awareness: How did we meet? We use various sources of social information to forge our understanding of ourselves. One comes from our perception of how other people react to us. These reflected assessments shape our self-image (Cooley, 1902; Jones & Gerard, 1967). A second social source is the comparisons we make with other people (Festinger, 1950). self-knowledge comes

Episode 2

the social self

the process of social comparison, in which we compare our own responses, abilities, and characteristics to those of others (Festinger, 1950). We do this because we need accurate information to be successful. We need to know whether we are good athletes, students or racers in order to make rational decisions. Social comparison is a control tool because it makes our world more predictable. A third source of information is self-knowledge, which we get from observing our own behavior. Daryl Bem (1967) suggested that people don't really know why they do something, so they simply observe their behavior and assume that their motives are consistent with their behavior. Someone who rebels against authority may simply observe their behavior and conclude, "Well, I must be a rebel." Thus, simply by observing our behavior, we can gain insight into ourselves and conclude that our private beliefs must be consistent with our public actions. Another way to get to know yourself is through introspection, examining our own thoughts and feelings. Introspection is a technique we all use to understand ourselves, but there is evidence that we can form a somewhat distorted picture of our own inner state. Thinking about our attitudes and the reasons we hold them can sometimes be disturbing and confusing (Wilson, Dunn, Kraft, & Lisle, 1989). More generally, the process of introspection, looking into our own thoughts instead of just behaving, can have this effect. For example, when you're forced to think about why you like your romantic partner, it can be confusing when you can't think of a good reason for this relationship. That doesn't mean you don't have reasons, but they may not be accessible or easy to fix. Much depends on the strength of the relationship. If the relationship isn't strong, it can be unsettling to think about the relationship because we may not come up with many positive reasons to support the relationship. If it is very strong, reasoning can make it even stronger. The stronger our attitude or belief, the more likely it is that thinking about it will increase the correspondence between the belief and our behavior (Fazio, 1986).

31 social comparison process A source of social knowledge about how we compare our reactions, abilities, and characteristics to others.

Introspection The act of examining our own thoughts and feelings in order to understand ourselves, which can result in a somewhat distorted picture of our own inner state.

Personal Traits and Self-Concept Now that we've seen some of the methods we can use to form and access our self-concept, let's look at what's inside. What kind of information and feelings are contained within the self? First, the self-concept contains ideas and beliefs about personal characteristics. A person may consider themselves female, American, young, intelligent, compassionate, single parent, good basketball player, reasonably attractive, moody, artistic, patient, and a movie buff. All of these qualities and many more flow into your self-image. Researchers have examined the self-concepts of American schoolchildren by asking them the following types of questions (McGuire & McGuire, 1988, p. 99):

• • • •

tell us about yourself Tell us what you are not. Tell us about the school. Tell us about your family.

These open surveys revealed that children and young people often define themselves through unique or unmistakable characteristics. Participants who possessed a characteristic trait were much more likely to mention that attribute than those who were less characteristic on that dimension (McGuire & McGuire, 1988).

Personal Traits An aspect of self-concept that includes the traits we believe we have.

social psychology

Distinctness Theory The theory that suggests that individuals see themselves in terms of those attributes or dimensions that distinguish them from others, rather than attributes that they share with others.

According to distinction theory, people consider themselves to be different in terms of those attributes or dimensions that distinguish them from one another, rather than in terms of attributes they share with others. For example, people who are taller or shorter than others, wear glasses, or are left-handed are likely to incorporate this trait into their self-image. People are generally aware of the qualities they share with other people. A man who goes to an all-boys school knows he is a man. But being a man may not be a defining part of who you are because everyone around you shares the same trait. He will define himself by the attributes that set him apart from other men, such as being a debater or a soccer player. Undoubtedly, it can also be important in another societal context, such as when taking part in a debate about changing gender roles. People who do not belong to dominant or minority groups are more likely to include their gender, ethnicity, or other identity in their understanding of themselves than people from dominant majority groups (e.g., white males). Among the students in the study (McGuire & McGuire, 1988), boys living in predominantly female households were more likely to report their gender, as were girls living in predominantly male households. Of course, not all knowledge of the self is conscious at the same time. At any one time, we tend to be aware of only parts of our overall self-concept. This functional self-concept varies according to the nature of the social situation and how we are currently feeling (Markus & Gnawers, 1986). So when we're depressed, our work self-concept likely includes all those thoughts about ourselves that have to do with failure or negative traits. Although the self-concept is relatively stable, the notion of a functional self-concept suggests that the self may vary from situation to situation (Kunda, 1999). For example, as the late Ziva Kunda (1999) noted, if you are shy but are asked to give examples of when you have been very outgoing, you may feel less shy than usual, at least temporarily. However, the ease with which the self can change can depend on how the self-awareness is organized and how important the behavior is.

autobiographical memory Remembering information about yourself that plays an important role in remembering events.

The Self and Memory In addition to personal attributes, the self-concept contains memories, the basis of self-knowledge. The ego is concerned with maintaining positive feelings, thoughts, and evaluations. One way to do this is by affecting memory. Anthony Greenwald (1980) has suggested that the ego acts as a kind of unconscious monitor, allowing people to avoid disturbing or distressing information. The Self demands that we preserve what we have, especially what makes us feel good. According to Greenwald, self-employment uses prejudices that work a bit like the mind control techniques used in totalitarian countries. In these countries, the government controls the information and interpretation of the facts, so the leadership is never threatened. Likewise, we try to control the thoughts and memories we have about ourselves. The self is totalitarian in the sense that it records our good behaviors and ignores, or at least rationalizes, the bad ones. The self is a personal historian, observing and recording information about itself, especially information that makes us look good. Like totalitarian government, Greenwald says, the self tends to see itself as the source of all good things and denies ever having done anything wrong. Is it true, as Greenwald predicted, that the self is a kind of feel-good filter, gathering information for its own benefit and filtering out information that baffles us? The study of autobiographical memory - memory for related information

Episode 2

the social self

for the ego – shows that the ego plays an important role in remembering events (Woike, Gerskovich, Piorkowski & Polo, 1999). The ego is a particularly powerful memory system because events and attributes stored in the ego have many associations (Greenwald & Banaji, 1989). For example, suppose you are asked to recall whether you have done anything in your life that exemplifies a quality such as honesty or creativity. A search of your automatic memory system may bring up a recent event in which you found a creative solution to a problem. Remembering this event can trigger similar memories from earlier periods in your history. It's likely that you can create a flood of these memories. It takes most people only about 2 seconds to answer questions about their characteristics (Klein, Loftus, & Plog, 1992). That's because we have a kind of summary knowledge about our personal characteristics, especially the most obvious ones. Such a useful synopsis, however, makes it difficult to access memories that contradict our positive self-concept. As noted above, memories that conform to a person's self-concept are more easily recalled than those that contradict that concept (Neimeyer & Rareshide, 1991). If you think of yourself as an honest person, you will have a hard time discovering memories of dishonest behavior. A survey study of everyday social memory among college students confirmed these findings (Skowronski, Betz, Thompson, & Shannon, 1991). Participants were asked to keep two journals: in one they noted events that took place in their own lives, and in the other they noted events that occurred in the life of a family member or close friend, someone they saw daily. Students had to get the other person's consent and record the events discreetly. Participants kept journal entries for themselves and others for about 10 weeks, the length of the academic quarter. At the end of the quarter, participants completed a memory test on the events recorded in the two diaries. They were presented with the events recorded in the diaries in random order and were asked to indicate how well they remembered the event, the date it occurred and whether it was a single episode. The researchers found that participants recalled recent events faster than earlier ones, with older episodes recalled faster than intervening ones. They also found that pleasant events were remembered better than unpleasant episodes, and extreme events, both pleasant and unpleasant, were remembered better than neutral episodes. Pleasant events that particularly fit the person's self-image were remembered more easily. The self then monitors our experiences and processes the information to make us look good to ourselves. We selfishly interpret, organize, and remember interactions and events primarily by remembering pleasurable and relevant events that fit our self-concept. Apparently, this built-in bias affects how we understand our social world and how we interact with other people. Without realizing it, we constantly construct a worldview that is biased in our favor. Autobiographical Memories and Emotions Some of you may be thinking as you read this, “These results don't match what happens to me when I think about my past.” It is true that memories are positive, pleasant, or those that convey good feelings nourish, not always be restored. In fact, sometimes the exact opposite is the case. McFarland and Buehler (1998) investigated how negative mood states affect autobiographical memory. In general, the memories you can recall seem to match your mood. The explanation for this mood-congruent memory is that our mood makes it more likely that we will find memories of events that match that mood: positive mood, positive memory; Negative mood, negative memory. People who experience a lot of negative moods can do this

social psychology

They enter a self-destructive cycle in which their negative moods stimulate or activate negative memories, which in turn cause the individual to feel even sadder or more depressed. Why do some people with negative moods keep that mood going and others feel better? It seems that the focus on how we retrieve these memories is crucial (Lyubomirsky, Caldwell, & Nolen-Hoeksema, 1998). When you adopt a focused, reflective attitude, which means you're able to admit you failed at this task, explore why you're feeling bad, and work to regulate that state of mind. This is in contrast to people who think about their state of mind. That is, they neurotically and passively focus on negative events and feelings (McFarland & Buehler, 1998). Of course, our experiences throughout our lives can very well change our sense of identity, sometimes dramatically. When that change is significant, we can look back and ask ourselves if we really are the same people we used to be. William James (1890), the renowned 19th-century psychologist and philosopher, stated that the self was both a 'knower' ('I') and an object ('I'). For college students, the transition from high school to college can create a conflict between the current sense of self and the other person who existed before the transition: "I'm not the same person I was two years ago." Psychologists Lisa Libby and Richard Eibach (2002) examined what happens when people think about behaviors that contradict their current self-concept. When this happens, the individual refers to their "old self" in the third person, as if it were an object that is no longer part of the psyche. Autobiographical memory is therefore not static, but can be changed by our current self-concept. For example, someone who recalls past overeating may turn that piece of autobiographical memory into a motivation not to overeat on Thanksgiving (Libby & Eibach, 2002). Big life changes often require people to put their past behind them. For example, imagine the religious experiences of being “born again,” or surviving terminal cancer or divorce, and the resulting radical lifestyle change. These events can lead people to “de-identify” with their autobiographical memories of their past (Libby & Eibach, 2002). It's not like we're creating a new me, we're putting the old one in some kind of cold storage.

Religion and the Self Peers, school experiences, and participation in religious activities and institutions can have a profound impact on self-esteem. As we indicated in the previous section, self-concept is not an immutable vault of personal information, but rather is heavily influenced by social, situational, and cultural forces. We have seen the influence of the Church in the life of Priest James Carroll. In writer Carroll's books after he left the priesthood, we can see that the Church still exerts a tremendous influence on his thinking and view of himself and the world. Bruce E. Blaine and his colleagues studied the impact of religious beliefs on self-concept (Blaine, Trivedi & Eshleman, 1998). Blaine pointed out that religion should have a powerful impact on believers' self-image. Religious beliefs often set standards of character and behavior, emphasizing positive behaviors and urging believers to refrain from negative behaviors. Blaine found that people who reported having religious beliefs (Protestant, Catholic, or Jewish) provided more positive and accurate self-descriptions. In Blaine's study, these positive self-descriptions were not only limited to religious areas, but were also linked to positive self-descriptions in the individual's work and social life.

Episode 2

the social self

Blaine and colleagues (1998) have suggested several reasons for these results. First, religious teachings can have clear relevance to the business world in that people with religious beliefs actually apply them to other activities in life. As an example, Blaine points out that the Jewish Torah discourages charging interest on goods sold to fellow countrymen in need. Religion can also be an ordering principle of self-understanding and thus encompass all facets of life.

The Self: The Influence of Groups and Culture So far we have focused on the individual self, the part of the self that deals with our perception of ourselves, including our private thoughts and evaluations of who and what we are. But as we saw in the life of James Carroll, the groups we belong to and the culture in which we live play a crucial role in constructing our sense of self. The collective self is that part of our sense of self that arises from our membership in groups. This collective self is reflected in thoughts such as, "In my family, I am considered the responsible and the hardworking." It reflects the self-assessment by important and specific groups to which the person belongs (Greenwald & Pratkanis, 1984). Basic research on groups shows that group membership has a strong influence on self-concept (Gaertner, Sedikides, & Graetz, 1999). Our behavior is often influenced by what other members of the group ask of us. These two representations, the individual and the collective, do not occupy the same space and influence in the self-concept. The relative importance of each component of the self to a person is largely determined by the culture in which the person lives. In some cultures the individual self dominates. Cultures that emphasize individual effort and achievement—societies that care about people “finding themselves”—produce individuals in which the private selves are highly complex, containing many traits and beliefs. Other cultures may emphasize certain groups, such as family or religious community, and so the collective self is paramount. Collectivist societies exhibit a pattern of close ties between individuals who define themselves as interdependent members of groups such as family, peers, and social groups (Vandello & Cohen, 1999). But the degree of collectivism can also vary within societies. Vandello and Cohen (1999) argued that collectivist tendencies in the United States are greatest in the Deep South because that region still retains a strong regional identity. Vandello and Cohen also thought that the greatest individualistic tendencies were to be found in the West and in the mountain states. Figure 2.1 shows a map identifying regional differences in collectivism. You can see that Vandello and Cohen's predictions have been confirmed. Note that the states with the highest collectivism scores contain many different cultures (e.g. Hawaii) or one strong and dominant religion (e.g. Utah). One way to determine whether the individual or the collective self is the dominant representation of who we are is to look at what happens when one or the other of these self-images is threatened. Is a threat to the individual self more or less threatening than a threat to our collective self? When the status of the large groups to which we belong is threatened, does that worry us more than when our personal, individual selves are attacked? In a series of experiments, Gaertner, Sedikides, and Graetz (1999) attempted to answer these questions by comparing individuals' responses to threats to the collective or individual self. For example, in one study women at a university took a psychological test and were told that they personally did not do very well on the test or that an important group to which they belonged (women at the university) did not do well . . Similar procedures were used in other experiments. Gaertner and his colleagues discovered

Individual Self That part of the self that concerns our self-awareness, including our private thoughts and evaluations of who and what we are. Collective Self That part of our self-concept that results from our membership in groups.

Figure 2.1 Map of the United States showing regional patterns of collectivism. From Vandello and Cohen (1999).

social psychology

that compared to a threat to the collective self, a threat to the individual self resulted in perceptions that the threat was more serious, more negative mood, more anger, and participants' denial of the accuracy or validity of the test or the source of the risk. The results suggest that the individual self is primary and the collective self less so. That doesn't mean, of course, that the collective self isn't crucial. It and our group memberships provide financial and social protection and rewards. But other things being equal, it seems that in America we care more about our individual selves than about our collective selves.

Who am I? The Impact of Culture on Self-Understanding Nothing, it seems, could be more personal and individual than the way we answer the question: Who am I? But it turns out that our reaction is strongly determined by the culture in which we grew up and developed our understanding of ourselves. As we have indicated, some cultures place more emphasis on the uniqueness of the individual, the private self, while others focus on how the individual is connected to significant others, the collective self. In a culture that emphasizes the collective self, as in Japan, individuals define themselves by meeting the expectations of others rather than by meeting their own particular needs. If I asked the Japanese participants to answer the question "Who am I?" (a common technique for examining self-concept) you will find that they provide many more social responses ("I'm an employee of X") than do Americans (Cousins, 1989). Americans, on the other hand, tend to emphasize the content of the individual (private) self and define themselves with statements such as "I have willpower". The Japanese see themselves as part of a social context, while Americans tend to see themselves as having a self that is less dependent on any social relationships (Cousins, 1989; Ross & Nisbett, 1991). Individuals in cultures that emphasize the collective self are also less likely to see themselves as the focus of attention in social interactions (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Ross & Nisbett, 1991). The Japanese seem to see their peers as the center of attention rather than themselves. Consequently, social interactions in Japan are very different than in a society like the United States.

Episode 2

the social self

Individual self-societies emphasize self-actualization over community relationships; Partnerships are more concerned with fulfilling shared commitments and helping others. In Haiti, for example, where the culture emphasizes the collective self, people are willing to share homes and food with family and friends for long periods of time. Regardless of what the dominant sense of self is in any culture, sometimes situational factors determine which self is dominant. Gardner, Gabriel, and Lee (1999) have shown that in a collectivist culture, the individual self can be temporarily more dominant when people focus on personal issues, such as intelligence or life goals. Similarly, people living in an individualistic culture may temporarily focus on collectivistic factors when faced with problems related to group membership ("I am a member of Kappa Kappa Gamma"). Regardless of the impact of transient situational factors, however, it is clear that the thoughts and characteristics that make up the core self of a Japanese or Haitian tend to differ from the content of an American's self. One would expect many more individual attributes to be part of the American identity. Japanese or Haitians are more likely to emphasize attributes that reflect their similarity to others, while Americans are more likely to emphasize attributes that distinguish them from other people. This tendency to emphasize the qualities that make a person stand out in American society, and to blend in rather than stand out in Japanese society, may well stem from historical and cultural processes influencing people's behavior. In the United States, for example, our well-being, our feeling of being happy or content with ourselves, depends largely on being seen as better, more successful, perhaps richer, than other people. But Shinobu Kitayama, a Japanese social psychologist familiar with the United States, points out that well-being in Japan depends less on the attributes that distinguish individuals from others and more on correcting deficiencies and deficiencies (Kitayama, Markus , Matsumoto and Norasakkunkit). . , 1997). Research shows that the psychological and physical well-being of the Japanese can be predicted by the absence of negative traits rather than the presence of positive traits (Kitayama et al., 1997). In contrast, in the United States, our self-esteem is directly related to our personal well-being (Diener & Diener, 1995). Thus, these socio-psychological aspects of self-representation—the individual and collective self—are caused by historical forces that emphasized individuality in the United States and group harmony in Japan. We see in this example both the ubiquitous role of self-concept in directing behavior and the ubiquitous role of culture in determining ideas about self. The self-concept is not just a personal and private construction; Culture plays a role in shaping the deepest levels of an individual's personal knowledge.

Organization of Knowledge: Self Schemas No matter what culture they live in, people do not see themselves as a chaotic mass of attributes and memories. Rather, they organize knowledge and information about themselves and their traits into self-schemas (Markus, 1977; Markus & Zajonc, 1985). A schema is an organized set of related cognitions (knowledge and information) about a specific person, event, or experience. A self-schema is a set of information, thoughts, and feelings about ourselves, including information about our gender, age, race or ethnicity, occupation, social roles, physical attractiveness, intelligence, talents, etc. People have many different self-schemas for different areas of life activities.

Self-Schemas Self-concepts that guide us in organizing and directing our behavior, which includes how we present our thoughts and feelings about our experiences in a particular area of life.

social psychology

Self-schemas serve a very important function: they organize our self-related experiences so that we can respond quickly and effectively in social situations. They help us interpret situations and direct our behavior. Schemas also help us to understand new events (Scheier & Carver, 1988). For example, you may have your own plan of how to behave in an emergency. Based on past experiences and your ideals and expectations of yourself, you may believe that you are a calm, responsible and caring person, or someone who panics and needs the care of others. These beliefs about yourself influence your behavior when an emergency arises in the future. Or maybe you have your own plan for being a runner. When you hear people talk about staying fit or eating the right foods, you know what they're talking about and how it resonates with you. In this way, self-schemas contribute to our sense of control over our social world. Self-schemes also bring order to our past experiences. They direct what we encode (put into memory) and affect how we organize and store that memory. Memories that fit our personal schemas are recalled more easily than those that do not (Neimeyer & Rareshide, 1991). Self schemas also affect how we think we will behave in the future. For example, a person who is considered socially awkward may behave inappropriately in social situations. And because of his past behavior, he expects to behave inappropriately in future social situations. People tend to have elaborate schemes about the areas of life that are important to their self-concept. Markus (1977) observed that people can be schematic or non-schematic in relation to various attributes found in self-concept. The term schema means that the individual has a self-schema organized into an activity that the individual considers important. In other areas of life that are not important to us or do not exist at all, we speak of ashtrays. That is, they do not have an organized self-schema in this area.

Sexuality and Self Schemas Sexual Self Schema How we think about the sexual aspects of the self that stem from past sexual knowledge and experience and that guide future sexual activity.

Sexuality is clearly a fundamental behavior, and as such we expect people to have varying degrees of organization in their sexual self-schemas. A sexual self-schema refers to how we think about the sexual aspects of the self. Sexual schemas are derived from past sexual knowledge and experience and, like all schemas, guide our future (sexual) activity. Cyranowski and Andersen (1998) examined college women's sexual self-schemas and found that four distinct schemas emerged. Women who were schematized, that is, women with well-developed schemas, displayed either positive or negative schemas. These positive and negative schemas reflected their individual past sex history as well as current sexual activity. As the sex schema graph shows, women with positive schema had more prior sexual intercourse (Figure 2.2) and scored higher scores for passionate attachment to their partners (Figure 2.3). These women were more likely to be in a current sexual relationship. Women with a negative sex schema avoided intimacy and passion and were much more eager for sexual activity. Some women had negative and positive aspects of their self-schemas and were referred to as schemas. While flirtatious women see themselves as open, passionate, and romantic (like positive schema women), they differ from positive schema women in that they have a negative view of themselves, and this creates fear of being rejected or abandoned by their partners to become.

Episode 2

the social self

Figure 2.2 The relationship between a person's sexual schema and the number of their first relationships. Based on data from Cryanowski and Anderson (1998).

Figure 2.3 The relationship between a person's sexual schema and their passionate love value. Based on data from Cryanowski and Anderson (1998).

Ashematic women, like negative schema women, have fewer romantic attachments, experience less passionate feelings about love, and avoid emotional intimacy. Women with asthma tend to avoid sexual situations and are afraid of sex. An important difference between women with asthma and women with negative schema is that women with asthma do not hold negative beliefs about themselves. They are just less interested in sexual activity. Table 2.1 summarizes these results. While women express sexual self-schemas that fit broadly into categories, men's sexual self-schemas appear to flow along a continuum ranging from highly schematic to non-schematic (Andersen, Cyranowski, & Espindle, 1999). Men who are schematic have

social psychology

Table 2.1 Sexual schemas and sexual behaviors Schema of sexual behaviors

Positive

Negative

Co-Schema

aschematic

previous sexual experiences

Many

Passionate

Alt

Low

Alt

Low

privacy

Alt

Low

Angst

Low

Alt

Autos

Positive

Negative

Moderate

Some

Moderate

Some

sexual schemas reflecting strong feelings of passion and love, attributes shared with positive schema women. However, these men appear strong and aggressive and have liberal sexual attitudes (Andersen et al., 1999). Schematic men have varied sex lives, they can engage in very casual sex, but they are also capable of strong commitment. At the other end of the scale, we find men with asthma who have very restricted sex lives and have few or no sexual partners. The more diverse and complex we are ourselves, the more schemas of ourselves we have. We can see that both men and women have sexual self-schemas of varying degrees of organization, and these schemas reflect their sexual past and guide their current (and future) sexual behavior. These cognitive representations, or self-schemas, reflect both the importance of the behavior being represented and the emotional tone of the behavior. People vary in the number of attributes, memories, and schemas they have of themselves that are part of their self-concept. Some people have very complex personalities, others much less complex. Self-complexity is important in influencing how people react to good and bad life events. For example, someone who is an engineer, an opera lover, a mother, and an artist can inflict a blow on himself without damaging his overall self-image (Linville, 1985, 1987). Though her latest artistic ventures have received negative reviews, this woman's sense of identity is tempered by the fact that she represents so much more than just being an artist. She is still a mother, an engineer, an opera lover and much more. People with low self-complexity can be devastated by negative events because there is little buffer otherwise.

Self-Esteem: Assessment of Self-Esteem Self-Esteem Individual self-assessment, which can be positive or negative.

The self is more than a knowledge structure. The self also has a greater sense of our overall worth, a component made up of both positive and negative self-evaluations. This is called self-esteem. We value, judge, and have feelings about ourselves. Some people have high self-esteem: They think highly of themselves and are generally content with who they are. Others have low self-esteem, feel less worthy and good, and may even feel like a failure and incompetence. Self-esteem is influenced both by our beliefs about how we measure up to our own standards and our ability to control our self-esteem in interactions with others. Both processes, one primarily internal and the other primarily external, have important implications for how we feel about ourselves.

Episode 2

the social self

Internal Influences on Self-Esteem Our feelings about ourselves come from many sources. Some, perhaps most, we have carried with us since childhood, when our basic conceptions of ourselves were formed through interactions with our parents and other adults. Child development research shows that from these early relationships and experiences, people develop underlying feelings of trust, security, and self-esteem, or distrust, insecurity, and worthlessness.

Self-Esteem and Emotional Intelligence Our emotions are important sources of information. Emotions are a kind of early warning system, bells and whistles that tell us important things are happening around us. Social psychologists have recently begun to scientifically analyze the concept of emotional intelligence, a person's ability to perceive, use, understand, and manage emotions (Salovey & Grewal, 2005). It seems that emotionally intelligent people are more successful in personal and professional relationships. According to Salovey and Grewal (2005), emotionally intelligent people are able to monitor their own emotions and those of the people they interact with. They are able to use this information to control their thinking and behavior. Therefore, the emotionally intelligent person knows when to express anger and when not to. These individuals are also good at manipulating their moods. For example, certain tasks and interactions are more manageable when sad than when they are in a good mood, and these people seem to know how to manipulate their own mood to achieve their goals. They are also very good at reading other people's feelings. In other words, some people trust their emotions and use them as information. Others "don't let their emotions guide them" because they feel emotions are unreliable. Lopes, Salovey, Cote, and Beers (2005) examined the relationship between individuals' emotional intelligence, their ability to regulate their emotions, choose good interaction strategies, and read the emotions of others closely, and the quality of their friendships and interactions. People with high emotional regulation ability (high emotional intelligence) were rated better by their friends and acquaintances and were more likely to be described as sensitive and helpful towards others by their peers. What does that have to do with self-confidence? The connection could be the discovery that people with high self-esteem are more aware of their emotions than people with low self-esteem. Emotions appear to be very helpful in a variety of areas, including understanding other people, creative thinking, and even good health (Harber, 2005; Salovey & Mayer, 1990). It appears that emotional intelligence is strongly related to self-esteem (Harber, 2005). Research showing that self-esteem is positively related to effective emotional information processing suggests that emotions serve as an important source of information for people with high self-esteem. It is certainly true that most of the time we do not know the facts of the situation and can only rely on our "gut feeling". Well, people with high self-esteem use their emotions. That's good? Well, that depends. There is evidence that people with high self-esteem are much more likely to respond to their anger (Harber, 2005). In other words, they sometimes pay too much attention to inner emotional cues and not enough to what's going on in the environment. As Kent Harber puts it bluntly, "How we think about our emotions can be affected by how we think about ourselves" (p. 287).

Emotional Intelligence A person's ability to perceive, use, understand, and manage emotions.

social psychology

Maintaining Self-Esteem in Interactions with other people There are two main motives for relating to self in dealing with others: increasing self-esteem and maintaining self-consistency (Berkowitz, 1988). Obviously, people have a strong need to feel good. They prefer positive reactions from the social world. They become anxious when their self-esteem is threatened. What measures do you take to maintain and increase your self-esteem? Self-Evaluation-Maintenance Theory (SEM) A theory that explains how other people's behavior affects how you feel about yourself, particularly when they engage in behaviors that are important to your self-concept.

Self-Improvement According to Abraham Tesser's (SEM) (1988) self-evaluation theory, the behavior of other people, both friends and strangers, influences how we feel about ourselves, especially when the behavior is in an important area. according to our own understanding. The ego carefully manages emotional responses to events in the social world, based on how threatening it perceives those events. Tesser used this example to illustrate his theory: For example, suppose that Jill considers herself an expert in mathematics. Jill and Joan are close friends; Joan gets a 99 and Jill gets a 90 on a math test. Because math is important to Jill, comparison is important. So Joan's best effort is a threat, especially since Joan is such a close person. There are a variety of things Jill can do about this threat. You can reduce the relevance of Joan's performance. If math weren't important to Jill's self-definition, she might delight in reflecting on Joan's achievement. Jill can also decrease her closeness to Joan, making Joan's appearance less important. Finally, Jill might try to influence her relative performance by working harder or doing something to hurt Joan (Tesser & Collins, 1988). This story perfectly captures the basic elements of SEM theory. The key question Jill asks about Joan's performance is: What impact does Joan's behavior have on my self-assessment? Notice that Jill compares herself to Joan in behaviors that are important to her self-image. If Joan excelled at bowling and Jill cared no less about knocking over pins with a big ball, she wouldn't feel threatened when Joan bowled a 300-pin game or won a bowling championship. In fact, she would bask in the reflected glory (BIRG) of her friend's performance; Jill's self-esteem would increase because her friend was doing so well. The matching process begins when it comes to someone close to you. If you found that the top 10% of high school students who completed the math SAT did better than you did, it would have less of an emotional impact on your self-esteem than knowing that your best friend scored a perfect 800 , meaning him or her at the top of all test-takers (as long as math skills were important to their self-image). SEM theory deals with responding to threats to the self, the types of social threats one encounters in everyday life. Tesser formulated the SEM theory by examining people's responses to social threats in terms of the two dimensions just described: the relevance of the behavior to the participant's self-concept and the participant's closeness to the other person (Tesser & Collins, 1988) . Participants were asked to recall and describe social situations in which someone close or distant performed better or worse than them. Half the time the task was important to the participant's self-concept and half the time the task was not important. Participants also reported the emotions they felt during these episodes. Results show that emotions were amplified when behavior was viewed as self-relevant. When participants fared better than others, far or near, they felt happier, and when they did worse, they felt more personal disgust, anger, and frustration. When the behavior was not particularly relevant to oneself, emotions varied depending on the closeness of the relationship. When a close friend has outdone you

Episode 2

the social self

Participant, the participant was proud of this achievement. Not surprisingly, participants were less proud of a distant person's achievement and, of course, less proud of their friend's achievement when the behavior was relevant to them. One conclusion we can draw from this research and SEM theory is that people are willing to make some sacrifices for accuracy if it means gaining self-esteem. People certainly want and need accurate information about themselves and how they differ compared to important others, but they also show an equally strong need to feel positive about themselves. This need for self-improvement suggests that we tend to exaggerate our positive qualities when evaluating our own performance and presenting ourselves to others. In summary, then, one way the self can maintain its esteem is by adjusting its responses to social threats. When a friend does better than us at something we are proud of, we experience a threat to that part of our self-image. Our friend's performance suggests that we may not be as good as we thought in one important area. To maintain the integrity and consistency of self-concept and to keep self-esteem high, we may try to downplay the achievements of others, put more distance between ourselves and others to make us feel less threatened by achievement, or try to befriend our friends to harm. In each case, the self subtly adjusts our perceptions, emotions, and behaviors to increase self-esteem.

Self Improvement and Coping with the Disaster: Survivors of September 11, 2001 An estimated 2,800 people lost their lives in the World Trade Center (WTC) buildings on that horrible and traumatic day in 2001. Thousands of others had survived in or near the WTC but had suffered physical and emotional trauma. Bonnanno, Rennicke, and Dekel (2005) examined how some survivors coped with this massive trauma. These researchers took a keen interest in those people who, despite being directly exposed to the attacks, showed little psychological impact from their experience. The study focused on those "resistant" individuals who employed some sort of unrealistic self-improvement strategy to cope with the trauma. In fact, these people have used self-improvement strategies their entire lives in order not to change their approach to dealing with 9/11. The researchers wanted to know whether these self-improving "resistances" really had their emotions under control or were just whistling in the dark, so to speak. Self-improvement in this context refers to the tendency to have overly positive or unrealistic selfish biases (Bonnanno et al., 2005). Many researchers think that self-improvement biases are actually very good things and lead to many positive outcomes, including increased survival from serious and life-threatening diseases (Taylor, Lerner, Sherman, Sage, & McDowell, 2003). Promoters who were directly exposed to the attack on the WTC showed fewer post-traumatic symptoms and less depression than those who were at the 9/11 crime scene. full control over yourself. You tend to project very positive feelings. Are these feelings real, or are they just a facade for underlying issues? Bonanno et al (2005) found that while other people were quite upset by "resistant" stimulators and their remarkably optimistic attitude in the face of tragedy, these stimulators seemed unaware and actually recovered from the situation. Trauma faster than most, with less psychological scarring. So, if you don't mind if your boyfriend doesn't like your attitude, self-improvement seems like a good approach to life's vicissitudes.

social psychology

Self-Esteem and Stigma We have seen that people often define themselves in terms of attributes that set them apart from others. Sometimes these attributes are positive (“I've always been the best athlete”) and sometimes negative (“I've always been overweight”). Some people have stigmatized traits shaped by society and therefore run the risk of being rejected every time they recognize these aspects about themselves. One would expect culturally defined stigmas to affect a person's self-esteem. Frable, Platt, and Hoey (1998) questioned the impact of visible or hidden stigma on self-esteem. These researchers asked Harvard University graduate students to rate their self-esteem and current feelings in everyday situations in their lives. Some of these students had hideable scars; that is, these culturally defined defects remained hidden from the viewer. The subjects were homosexual, bulimic, or came from poor families. Others had more socially visible stigmas; were African American, stuttered, or were 30 pounds overweight. Frable and her collaborators thought that people with hidden stigmas were more likely to have low self-esteem because they were rarely around people with similar stigmas. Other people who belong to the 'tagged' group may provide social support and a more positive perception of belonging to the stigmatized group than non-members. For example, cancer patients who belong to self-help groups and others who have strong social support generally have better prognosis than patients who remain isolated (Frable et al., 1998). In fact, these researchers found that those who were gay, poor, bulimic, or had other hidden stigmas had lower self-esteem and more negative feelings about themselves than those with visible stigmas or people without any social stigma at all. This suggests that belonging to a group that can offer support and positive feelings increases our self-esteem and protects us from negative social judgments. Although the Frable study indicates that overt stigmas have less of a negative impact on self-esteem than hidden stigmas, overt stigmas, such as being overweight, also clearly have negative effects on self-esteem. From an early age in life we have a feeling for our physical being. Western culture places particular emphasis on physical attractiveness, or lack thereof, and it should come as no surprise that our sense of physical appearance affects our self-esteem. As an aspect of appearance, body weight plays an important role in self-esteem. Just look at the diet books and magazines at the supermarket checkout to reaffirm the importance of body types in our society. Miller and Downey (1990) studied the relationship between self-esteem and body weight. They found that people classified as "heavy" (to distinguish these people from people who are obese due to glandular problems) reported low self-esteem. This finding was particularly true for women, but heavy men also tended to have low self-esteem. Interestingly, the people who were actually heavyweight but didn't think they were didn't have lower self-esteem. This suggests that what matters is whether the person feels dishonored and stigmatized in their own eyes. It could be that those who are heavyweights but don't feel they fit an ideal body type don't carry the same psychological burden as other heavyweights. This suggests that feelings about ourselves stem from our evaluations of ourselves in relation to our internal standards, our self-guides. Overweight people who had higher self-esteem were likely to have a better match between their ideal and real selves than other overweight people.

Episode 2

the social self

Self-Esteem and Cultural Influences Self-esteem is thought to be influenced by factors other than personal experience. After all, we live and identify with specific groups, small and large. We are students or professors at certain colleges and universities, we support different sports teams, we have different religious, social and national affiliations. All of these things affect our self-esteem. Schmitt and Allik (2005) examined the relationship between culture and "global self-esteem, defined as a general sense of one's worth as a person". These researchers used a commonly used measure of self-esteem known as the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RESS). They translated this tool into 28 different languages and tested it on 17,000 people in 53 different countries. Researchers Schmitt and Allik (2005) found that people of all nations generally have positive self-esteem. It seems that positive self-esteem seems to be culturally universal. Further analysis of their data led these researchers to conclude that while people in all of these 53 countries had significant ideas about what self-esteem meant, there was also evidence that in some countries (African and Asian cultures) it was less likely was Participate in self-evaluation, which of course is the basis of self-esteem. However, positive self-esteem appears to be universal, and the assumption that self-esteem is generally higher or more positive in individualistic cultures (e.g., the United States) than in collectivist cultures (e.g., Indonesia), where the group tends to be more important does not seem to be true (Schmitt & Allik, 2005). What good is high self-esteem? What can we conclude from our discussion of self-esteem? It seems that high self-esteem has positive effects and low self-esteem has negative effects. Recently, researchers such as Jennifer Crocker have challenged these conclusions and, based on further analysis of the research, have suggested that the actual benefits of high self-esteem are "small and limited" (Crocker & Park, 2004). Baumeister, Campbell, Krueger, & Vohs (2003) also argued that high self-esteem can induce good feelings and make people more resourceful, but it does not lead to high academic achievement, good job performance, or leadership abilities; Also, low self-esteem does not lead to violence, smoking, alcohol use, drug use, or sexual activity at a young age. Crocker, Campbell, and Park (2003) examined the effects of self-esteem quests, rather than just examining who has low or high self-esteem. Most people tend to judge their own worth by what they have to do to be seen as valuable and valuable. In other words, they judge their self-esteem by external reactions. It often means measuring yourself against others. This explains, to some extent, the observation that people with high self-esteem are quick to react violently when their self-esteem is questioned. As Roy Baumeister (2001) notes, although we tend to think of high self-esteem as something really good, we have not looked closely at the positive and negative effects that self-esteem has on behavior. In fact, there is evidence that people with high self-esteem are more likely to become violent when their self-esteem is threatened (Baumeister, 2001). This striving obviously brings only temporary emotional benefits, but comes at a high cost. Crocker et al. (2003) argue that the quest for self-esteem "impairs relationships with other people, learning, personal autonomy, self-regulation, and mental and physical health".

social psychology

Others pointed out that while high self-esteem is linked to all sorts of positive behaviors, since self-esteem appears to be based on what people think is the best way to live (their “worldview”), high self-esteem can also be a cause for terrible and tragic events not unlike September 11, 2001. Finally, in one worldview, "heroic martyrdom" is a good thing (Pyszczynski, Greenberg, Solomon, Arndt & Schimel, 2004, p. 461). Therefore, high self-esteem is neither good nor bad in and of itself. It depends on how the person behaves (Pyszczynski et al., 2004).

implicit self-esteem An efficient system of self-assessment that lies beneath our consciousness.

Explicit Self-Esteem Self-esteem that arises primarily from interacting with people in our day-to-day lives.

Implicit and Explicit Self-Esteem The solution to the question of what high self-esteem is lies in imagining that there are actually two types of high self-esteem. The first is the kind of self-esteem that lies beneath our consciousness. Implicit self-esteem refers to a very efficient system of self-evaluation that lies beneath our consciousness (Jordan, Spencer, & Zanna, 2005, p. 693). As you can imagine, implicit self-esteem comes from parents who nurture their children but are not overly protective of them (DeHart, Pelham, & Tennen, 2006). This type of self-esteem is unconscious and not controlled by the individual (Dehart et al., 2006). Implied self-esteem is automatic and less likely to be influenced by everyday events. In comparison, the kind of high self-esteem we're talking about, more specifically, overt self-esteem, arises mostly from interacting with people in our day-to-day lives. One might expect the two self-values to be related, but this does not appear to be the case (DeHart et al., 2006). High implicit self-esteem is related to very positive social and health characteristics, while explicit self-esteem appears to be more of a fragile or defensive self-esteem, explaining the emotional responses induced by threats in these individuals.

Self-Control: How People Regulate Their Behavior Maintaining self-esteem is a very powerful motive. However, an equally powerful car maintains self-control - a good indicator of success in life.

Real Self A person's current concept of self. ideal self The mental representation of what a person wants to be or how their partner wants them to be. should be A mental representation of what a person believes it should be.

Self-Control and Self-Regulation The social psychologist E. Troy Higgins (1989) proposed that people see themselves from two different perspectives: their own perspective and that of another significant person, such as a parent or close friend. He also suggested that humans have three selves that guide their behavior. The first is the true self, the person's current concept of self. The second is the ideal self, the mental representation of what the person wants to be or what an important person wants to be. The third is the self that should be, the mental representation of what the person believes they should be. Higgins (1989) posited that people are motivated to achieve a state in which the true self is consistent with the ideal self and ought self. Therefore, the last two selves serve as guides for behavior. In Higgins' self-discrepancy theory, when there is a discrepancy between the real self and the self-directed self, we are motivated to try to bridge the gap. That is, when our true selves don't meet our internal expectations and standards, or when someone judges us in a way that doesn't meet our standards, we try to fill the gap. We try to adapt our behavior to our self-guides.

Episode 2

the social self

The process we use to make these adjustments is known as self-regulation, which is our attempt to adjust our behavior or self-regulation to meet the expectations of others and is a critical control mechanism. Not only individuals differ in their need for self-regulation, but also people living in different cultures. Heine and Lehman (1999) found that while residents of the United States and Canada showed a strong tendency to conform to the expectations of others, Japanese residents were less likely to seek self-regulation. Heine and Lehman found that their Japanese participants were much more self-aware than their American counterparts and had larger discrepancies between their actual selves and their ideal or ought selves, but these differences were less distressing to the Japanese and did not motivate them to change. The more aligned our various self-concepts are, the better off we feel. Also, the more information we have about ourselves and the more confident we are with it, the better off we feel. This is especially true when the self-attributes we trust most are most important to us (Pelham, 1991). Our ability to self-regulate, to adjust our performance to our expectations and standards, also affects our self-esteem. So, in summary, we tend to have high self-esteem when we are very similar; strong and sure knowledge about ourselves, especially when it includes attributes we value; and the ability to self-regulate. We know that the inability to regulate ourselves leads to negative emotions. Higgins (1998) examined the emotional consequences of good versus mismatches. When there is a good match between our true selves and our ideal selves, we experience feelings of contentment and high self-esteem. When there is a good match between our true selves and our ought selves, we experience a sense of security. (Remember that the true self is what you or someone else currently believes you have; the ideal self is the mental representation of the qualities that you or someone else have or desire in you; and the self should be the person be who you are or others think it should be). Good partners can also allow people to focus their attention outside of themselves on other people and activities. But what happens if we fail to close the discrepancy gap? Sometimes, of course, we just aren't able to behave according to our expectations. We may not have the ability, the talent, or the courage. When this happens, we may need to adjust our expectations about our behavior. And sometimes it seems that we shouldn't focus on ourselves; This can be very painful or interfere with our work. In general, however, when these discrepancies are significant, they lead to negative emotions and low self-esteem. As with good matches, the exact nature of the negative emotional response depends on which self-guide we think is mismatched (Higgins & Tykocinsky, 1992). Higgins, Shah, and Friedman (1997) reported that the greater the differences between the real and ideal selves, the more discouraged and disappointed individuals felt, but only if they were aware of that difference. The greater the gap between real self and imagined self, the more agitated and tense people feel, just as the theory predicts. Again, this only applied to those who were aware of the discrepancy. These results mean that when self-leaders are prevalent in people's minds, when people focus on those leaders, the emotional consequences of not meeting those leaders' expectations are stronger. For example, people who reported that their parents punished or criticized them for not being who they were supposed to be reported that they often felt anxious or restless (Higgins, 1998).

47 Self-Regulation A critical control mechanism used by individuals to conform behavior to their own internal standards or to the expectations of others.

social psychology

It turns out that the discrepancies between who you are and who you would like to be can serve as a very positive motivating force. For example, Ouellette and his colleagues studied the effect of possible selves on training. They argued that a possible self is a person's idea of what they could become. Now that can be both good and bad. If I don't get through college, I might have to work in a factory. This is a possible me. But the image these researchers were dealing with was one in which individuals were motivated by a possible self projecting an image of significant positive physical and mental changes that would occur as a result of an exercise program. They asked participants to imagine what it would mean for them to successfully complete such a program. The results showed that these health images had a significant impact on the behavior of these individuals. The possible self motivated them to actually achieve this image (Ouellette, Hessling, Gibbons, Reis-Bergan, & Garrard, 2005). Of course, if we are unaware of the discrepancies between who we are and what we want or should be, the negative emotions that self-discrepancy theory predicts will not occur (Philips & Silvia, 2005). Research has shown that discrepancies go unnoticed when people aren't particularly focused on themselves. One can imagine that a combat soldier would not mind these psychological differences. However, when self-esteem is high, the discrepancies become very noticeable (Philips & Silvia, 2005). Positive self-esteem does not mean that people have only positive self-evaluations. not you. When normal people with positive self-esteem think about themselves, about 62% of their thoughts are positive and 38% negative (Showers, 1992). What is important is how these thoughts are organized. People with high self-esteem mix the positive and negative aspects of their self-concept. A negative thought tends to trigger a positive counter-thought. For example, a person who discovers they are "socially awkward" might think, "But I'm a loyal friend." This integration of positive and negative thoughts about themselves helps control feelings about themselves and maintain positive self-esteem . But some people group positive and negative thoughts separately. The thought "I'm socially awkward" triggers another negative thought, such as "I'm insecure." This is what happens to people who suffer from chronic depression: One negative thought sets off a chain reaction of other negative thoughts. There are no positive thoughts available to act as a buffer.

The Ironic Price and Effects of Self-Control We have seen that the ego has the ability to engage in strenuous behavior in order to cope with the outside world. Now, it is very likely that the part of the ego that performs this executive function does so mostly automatically and unconsciously, and is neutral about the world (Bargh & Chartrand, 1999). But when the ego has to actively control and direct behavior, a lot of effort is required. Baumeister et al (1998) wondered whether the ego has a finite amount of energy to carry out its tasks. If so, what would be the implications of self-energy as a finite resource? To investigate the possibility that expending energy on one self-centered task would decrease an individual's ability (energy) to perform another self-centered task, Baumeister and colleagues conducted a series of experiments that required people to exercise self-control. . . or to make an important personal decision or to suppress an emotion. For example, in one study, some people forced themselves to eat radishes instead of very tempting chocolates. This, as you can imagine, was an exercise in self-control. Others were allowed to eat the chocolates without trying.

Episode 2

the social self

Figure 2.4 Persistence in an unsolvable puzzle as a function of the type of food eaten. Based on data from Baumeister and colleagues (1998).

to quell your cravings and without having to eat the radishes. Then everyone was asked to work on unsolvable puzzles. As Figure 2.4 shows, those who suppressed cravings for chocolate and ate radishes fell off the puzzle earlier than those who did not suppress cravings for chocolate. Baumeister argued that the "radish people" had exhausted their own energy. Baumeister calls this ego depletion, using the Freudian term (ego) for the executive of the ego. We've all had the experience of seeing a particularly heartbreaking movie and walking out exhausted. Research shows that people who watch a highly emotional film experience a decrease in physical endurance (Muraven, Tice & Baumeister, 1998). In a related study, participants were given a difficult cognitive task and asked to suppress all thoughts of a white bear. Research shows that trying to suppress thoughts takes a lot of effort (Wegner, 1993). Try not to think about a white bear for the next 5 minutes and you'll see what we mean. After completing this task, subjects watched a funny movie but were instructed not to show it was funny. People who previously expended energy trying to suppress thoughts were unable to hide their amusement compared to others who did not have to suppress thoughts before seeing the film (Muraven et al., 1998). All of this suggests that active behavioral control is costly. The irony of control efforts is that the end result can be exactly what we are trying so desperately to avoid. We have to expend a lot of energy to regulate the self. Research shows that there are finite limits to our ability to actively regulate our behavior.

Ego Exhaustion The loss of self-energy that occurs when a person is dealing with a difficult cognitive or emotional situation.

Thinking of Ourselves Selfish Insights In the mythical city of Lake Woebegon in Garrison Keillor, all women are strong, all men are handsome, and all children are above average. By thinking so highly of themselves, Lake Woebegon residents demonstrate the selfish bias that causes people to attribute positive results to their own efforts

Self-serving bias Our tendency to attribute positive outcomes of our own behavior to internal dispositional factors and negative outcomes to external situational forces.

social psychology

negative consequences for situational forces beyond your control. A person often thinks: I'm good at exams because I'm smart; or I failed because it was an unfair test. We celebrate success and deny responsibility for failure (Mullen & Riordan, 1988; Weiner, 1986). There has long been a controversy as to why the selfish bias occurs in the attribution process (Tetlock & Levi, 1982). One approach, the motivational strategy, assumes that people need to protect their self-esteem and therefore take credit for success (Fiske & Taylor, 1984). We know that protecting and enhancing self-esteem is a natural function of the self, which selfishly filters and shapes information. Another view of selfish bias emphasizes information processing strategies. When people expect to do well, success meets their expectations; When success comes, it makes sense and they appreciate it. However, this bias does not always occur and is not always “selfish”. Sedikides and his colleagues found that people in intimate relationships did not display selfish bias. The bias, these researchers say, takes an elegant turn toward those close to them, and is reflected in the following quote: "When more than one person is responsible for a miscalculation and the people are close, both are to blame" (Sedikides, Campbell, Reeder and Eliot, 1998). This means that neither you nor your partner are more likely to get credit for success, nor are you or your partner more likely to blame the other for failures. However, less close colleagues exhibit a selfish bias (acknowledging success or blaming failure). The closeness of a relationship presents a barrier to an individual's need for self-improvement, as evidenced by selfish bias.

Self-Verification A method of supporting and confirming one's identity.

Maintaining Self-Consistency Another motive that motivates the self in social interactions is the maintenance of high self-consistency: the correspondence between the concept we have of ourselves and the opinions that others have of us. We all have a lot invested in our self-concepts, and we do what we can to support and validate them. Motivated by the need for self-verification—affirmation of our self-concept by others—we tend to behave in ways that make others see us as we see ourselves (Swann, Hixon, & De La Ronde, 1992). The need for self-verification is more than just a preference for consistency over inconsistency. Self-evaluation brings order and predictability to the social world and makes us feel in control (Swann, Stein-Seroussi, & Giesler, 1992). People try to validate their self-concepts, regardless of whether the ideas of others are positive or negative. One study showed that people with poor self-concept tended to choose roommates who had negative impressions of them (Swann, Pelham, & Krull, 1989). In other words, people with negative self-concepts preferred to be around people who had negative impressions of them that were consistent with their own beliefs about themselves. Another study tested the idea that people seek partners to help them verify themselves (Swann, Hixon, & De La Ronde, 1992). Half of the participants in this experiment had positive self-concepts and the other half had negative self-concepts. All participants were told that they would soon have the opportunity to speak to one of two people (an "evaluator") and that they could choose either of them. Each participant saw the comments that these two people made about the participant. A number of comments were positive; the other sentence was negative (all comments were fictitious). People with a negative self-concept were more likely to interact with a rater who made negative comments, while people with a positive self-concept preferred someone who made positive comments. Why would anyone prefer a negative?

Episode 2

the social self

appraiser? Here is one participant's explanation: “I liked the (positive) review, but I'm not sure if that's, oh right, maybe. Sounds good, but the (unfavorable reviewer)...seems to know more about me. Then I choose the (unfavourable) reviewer” (Swann et al., 1992, p. 16). Another study found that positive self-concept spouses are more committed to their marriage when their partners value them highly. There's no surprise there. But according to self-verification theory, spouses with negative self-concepts were more attached to their partners when they thought less of them (Swann et al., 1992). People with low self-esteem value positive reviews but ultimately prefer to interact with people who see them as they see themselves (Jones, 1990). It's easier and less complicated to be yourself than to live up to someone else's impression of you, which is flattering but inaccurate. Individuals tend to seek self-verification in fairly narrow areas of self-concept (Jones, 1990). You're not looking for information to confirm whether you're a good or bad person, but you can look for information to confirm that your voice isn't very good or that you're not really a world-class speaker. If your self-concept is complex, this negative feedback provides accurate information about you but doesn't seriously harm your self-esteem. People not only choose to interact with others who are examining their self-concepts, but also seek out situations that serve that purpose. For example, if you consider yourself a treasure trove of general knowledge, you might be the first to join a Trivial Pursuit game. You are in control of this type of situation. But if you're the kind of person who can't remember a lot of trivial information or doesn't care that FDR has a dog named Fala, being forced to play Trivial Pursuit is a loss of control. Finally, remember that most people have a positive self-concept. Therefore, when they self-assess, they essentially improve their self-image because they generally receive positive feedback. Therefore, for most of us, self-evaluation does not contradict the need for self-improvement. But as Swann's research shows, humans also need to live in predictable and stable worlds. This last requirement is met by our need for self-verification.

Self-awareness Self-evaluation suggests that we are, at least at times, very conscious of how we behave and how others evaluate us. In fact, in some situations we are fully self-aware, monitoring, evaluating, and perhaps adjusting what we say and do. Although our behavior is irrational and thoughtless at times, we probably spend a surprising amount of time monitoring our own thoughts and actions. Of course there are situations that force us to be more confident than others. For example, when we are in a minority position in a group, we focus on how we react (Mullen, 1986). Other situations that improve autofocus include looking in a mirror, standing in front of an audience, and looking at a camera (Scheier & Carver, 1988; Wicklund, 1975). As people become more confident, they are more likely to try to align their behavior with their inner beliefs and standards. In one study, two groups of participants, one in favor of the death penalty and the other against, had to punish another participant, an accomplice of the researcher (Carver, 1975). Some participants held a small mirror in front of their face while administering an electric shock (in fact, no shock was administered).

Self-centeredness The extent to which someone is more self-aware in certain situations (e.g., when they are in the minority within a group).

social psychology

When participants focused on themselves (looking in the mirror), they were more true to their beliefs: their attitudes and actions were more harmonious. Highly punitive individuals (those who were in favor of the death penalty) caused much more excitement when the Confederacy made mistakes than less punitive individuals who were against the death penalty. These differences did not exist when participants did not focus on themselves. Self-focus means that individuals tend to be more cautious about their own behavior and more concerned with themselves than with others (Gibbons, 1990). Egocentric individuals are concerned about what is right and appropriate according to their self-guides. Self-focused people are likely to have a higher need for precision and try to adjust their behavior to suit self-direction. That is, they try to be more honest or moral. Focusing itself can produce positive or negative outcomes, depending on how difficult it is to align performance with one's own standards and the expectations of others. Sometimes, for example, sports teams perform better away, especially in big games, than on their home pitch or stadium. There is a clear home advantage, i.e. teams usually win more home games than away games. However, baseball teams win fewer World Series Finals than expected when playing in their home stadiums (Baumeister, 1984). Their performance drops due to the pressure of expectation from local fans (“suffocation”). Does public pressure always lead to suffocation? It depends on whether the artist is more concerned with controlling audience perception or meeting internal standards. When it comes to pleasing the audience, the pressure can negatively impact performance. When it comes to meeting personal standards, public pressure will be less effective (Heaton & Sigall, 1991).

Self-Awareness and Self-Awareness Accurate information about ourselves as we really are is essential for effective self-regulation (Pelham & Swann, 1989). Such knowledge can lead us to adjust our self-management, lowering our expectations or standards, for example to narrow the distance between who we are and who we want to be or think we are. While adjusting our standards is difficult, it is important to minimize discrepancies between true selves and others. Small discrepancies, i.e. good matches between the true self and the self-directed, foster a strong sense of who we really are (Baumgardner, 1990). This knowledge is gratifying because it helps us to accurately predict how we will respond to other people and situations. Therefore, it is in our interest to have accurate information about ourselves (Pelham & Swann, 1989). Research confirms that people want accurate information about themselves, even when that information is negative (Baumgardner, 1990). This helps them know which situations to avoid and which to look out for. For example, if you know you're lazy, you're probably avoiding a course that promises to fill your days and nights with library research. However, there is evidence that people prefer a little sugar to negatively rated drugs; they want others to rate their negative traits slightly more positively than they do (Pelham, 1991). People who are unsure of their characteristics can make serious social mistakes. If you don't know that your singing voice has the same effect on people as someone scratching a fingernail on a blackboard, maybe someday you'll find yourself trying to be a choir and making a fool of yourself. A better knowledge of his vocal limitations would have spared him considerable humiliation and disrepute.

Episode 2

the social self

Dealing With Self-Expression After all, we all try to some degree to deal with the impressions that others have of us. Some of us are very concerned about putting on a good face, others not so much. Various factors, both situational and personal, influence how and when people try to manage the impressions they make on others. Situational factors include variables such as social context, importance of the situation, and audience support. Personal factors include variables such as: B. whether the person has high or low self-esteem and whether the person has a greater or lesser tendency for self-control to be very aware of how they come across to other people.

Self-Esteem and Impression Management A research study examined how people with high and low self-esteem differ in their approaches to making a good impression (Schlenker, Weigold, & Hallam, 1990). It has been shown that people with low self-esteem are very cautious when trying to make a positive impression. Generally, they just don't trust their ability to pull it off. When introducing themselves, they focus on minimizing their negative points. On the other hand, people with high self-esteem tend to focus on their strengths when presenting themselves. Not surprisingly, people with low self-esteem are less selfish than people with high self-esteem. When describing a success, they tend to share the credit with others. People with high self-esteem take credit for success even when others have helped them (Schlenker, Soraci, & McCarthy, 1976). Interestingly, all humans seem to have a selfish bent; that is, they present themselves as responsible for the success, whether they are or not. Social context makes a difference in how people present themselves differently to those with high and low self-esteem. When asked to make a good impression in front of an audience, people with high self-esteem presented themselves very selfishly and arrogantly, emphasizing their excellent qualities (Schlenker et al., 1990). In this high-pressure situation, people with low self-esteem have less selfish tendencies and become more anxious. It appears that as social risks rise, people with high self-esteem are more interested in improving their self-expression, while their low-self-esteem counterparts are more interested in protecting themselves from further beatings against themselves (Schlenker, 1987). . Self-Control and Impression Management Another factor affecting impression management is the degree to which a person engages in self-control, that is, focusing on how they appear to other people in different situations. Some people constantly collect data about their own actions. This high level of self-control is very sensitive to the social demands of any situation and tends to adjust their behavior accordingly. They are always aware of the impression they make on others; low self-control is far less concerned with impression management. High self-control is concerned with how others see things. For example, they tend to choose physically attractive romantic partners (Snyder, Berscheid, & Glick, 1985). Low self-control is more concerned with meeting people with similar personality traits and interests. Most people with high self-control are aware that they adapt their behavior to the expectations of others. If they made a self-assessment like the one shown in Table 2.2, they would agree with the “high self-control” statements (Snyder, 1987).

Selfish Bias The tendency to present yourself as responsible for success, whether you are or not, and the tendency to believe those positive presentations.

Self-Control The degree, from low to high, to which a person focuses on their behavior in a given social situation.

social psychology

Table 2.2 Self-Control Scale 1. I would probably be a good actor. (H) 2. My behavior is often an expression of my true inner feelings. (L) 3. I was never good at games like charades or improv. (L) 4. I'm not always who I seem to be. (H) 5. I can fool people by being friendly when I really don't like them. (H) 6. I can only discuss ideas that I already believe in. (L) 7. I find it difficult to imitate other people's behavior. (L) 8. In order to get by and be liked, I tend to be what people expect me to be and no more. (H). Source: Adapted from Snyder and Gangestad (1986).

Not surprisingly, people with high self-control are more likely to discriminate on the basis of gender when they are able to hire someone in a business situation. When hiring for jobs of a sexual nature (a male- or female-dominated job), highly self-monitored human resources (HR) professionals were much more likely to hire the physically attractive candidate than an equally or more likely candidate. classified as less attractive (Jawaher & Mattson, 2005). Oddly enough, this was only for a sex job. For gender-neutral positions, HR people hired the best candidate, regardless of appearance. Again, high self-control appears to be heavily influenced by the notion of who “should” be in the workplace based on appearance, rather than judging people based on less obvious but more important internal facts, such as their ability to do the job complete. Work.

Self-expression and manipulation strategies When people engage in impression management, their goal is to make a favorable impression on others. We have seen that people work hard to make a positive impression on others. However, we all know people who seem determined to make a bad impression and behave in a way that is detrimental to them. Why can these behaviors occur?

Self-deprivation Self-destructive behavior when unsure of your success or failure at a task to protect your self-esteem from failure.

Self Harm Have you ever worried before an important exam because you knew you had to study? Or have you ever relaxed with sports, even though a big game is coming up? If you've done that, and most of us have at one point or another, you've engaged with what social psychologists call self-control (Berglas & Jones, 1978). People hurt themselves when they are unsure of future success; By putting an obstacle in their way, they protect their self-esteem when they perform poorly. The purpose of self-determination is to obscure the connection between achievement and ability in case you fail. If you don't do well on the test because you didn't study, the evaluator doesn't know whether your poor grade is due to lack of preparation (the handicap) or lack of ability. Of course, if you are successful despite your disability, others will rate you much more positively. It's a way of controlling how people perceive you, regardless of the outcome.

Episode 2

the social self

Although the purpose of self-punishment is to protect self-esteem, it has some dangers. After all, what do you do with those who go to the movies instead of studying for a final exam? In one survey, college students rated negatively the character of a person who was not studying for a major (Luginbuhl & Palmer, 1991). Self-disabled individuals were successful in their self-presentations in that the student reviewers were unsure whether the self-disabled individuals' poor grades were due to lack of skill or lack of preparation. But the students didn't think much of someone who wasn't studying for an exam. So self-sabotage has mixed results for impression management. Still, people are willing to make this trade. They are probably aware that their self-punishment will be viewed negatively, but they would rather people see them as lazy or irresponsible than stupid or incompetent. One study found that people with disabilities who failed at a task had higher self-esteem and were in better spirits than people without disabilities who failed (Rhodewalt, Morf, Hazlett, & Fairfield, 1991). Self-restraint can take two forms (Baumeister & Scher, 1988). The first occurs when the person really wants to be successful but has doubts about the outcome. That person will apologize on their behalf. An athlete who claims to have an ongoing injury despite knowing they are capable of winning uses this type of impression management strategy. People will be really impressed if you win despite your injury; If you lose, they will blame the problem on the Achilles tendon. The second way is also to create obstacles to success, but it is more counterproductive. In this case, the individual fears that some success is an accident or a mistake and finds ways to undermine it, usually by harming themselves in destructive and internal ways. For example, a person who suddenly finds fame as a movie star might be late for rehearsals, screw up their lines, or get into an argument with the director. It could be because he doesn't really think of himself as a good actor, or it could be because he's afraid he won't be able to live up to his new status. Maybe being rich and famous isn't your self-image. Consequently, he harms himself in some way. Alcohol and drug abuse can be an example of self-reduction (Beglas & Jones, 1978). Abusers may be motivated by the need to have an excuse for failure. They would rather have others blame their (expected) failure on substance abuse than lack of ability. Like the athlete with the injured leg, they want skill to be dismissed as the reason for failure but recognized as the foundation of success. Because self-control will be embarrassed if the excuse that obscures the connection between performance and outcome is absurd, it is important that the excuse is reasonable and believable. Self-sabotage is therefore another way people try to control how others perceive them.

Self-harm in academia While self-rewarding can have short-term benefits (if you fail at something, it's not really your fault because you have an excuse), this behavior has some long-term downsides. Zuckerman, Kieffer, and Knee (1998) conducted a longitudinal study of individuals who employed self-harm strategies and found that self-impaired individuals performed poorer academically and had lower adjustment scores due to poor study habits. They tended to have more negative feelings and withdraw from other people than from other people who did not self-disenfranchise. As you might have predicted, all this negativity set in motion a vicious cycle that led to more self-harm.

social psychology

Edward Hirt and his colleagues at Indiana University thought that perhaps self-punishment really was an impression-management technique. That is, people make up an excuse so that when they fail or just get it wrong, they don't blame the failure on the ability of the self-limiter. If I skip the practice test offered by the teacher and go to the cinema the night before the test, my poor performance cannot be attributed solely to my lack of academic ability. Indeed, Hirt, McCrea, and Boris (2003) created such a scenario and found that although other students did not attribute failure to the student's (lack of) ability, their overall ratings of the student were very negative. Therefore, the viewer's attempt to process the impressions that others have of him has at least partially failed. As Hirt and his colleagues have shown in a series of three studies, there are pros and cons to using the subsistence strategy. In a way, it serves the person's goal of avoiding the donkey hat: I didn't do it right because I'm an idiot, but at least I'm not stupid. But there are serious interpersonal difficulties for self-punishment. People observing the actions of a student who does not study and gets drunk the night before the big exam conclude that he is being irresponsible or, just as likely, that he is trying to manipulate others' perceptions of his behavior (Hirt et al . , 2003).

The impression we make on others.

Spotlight Effect A phenomenon that occurs when we overestimate the ability of others to read our apparent demeanor, demeanor, and clothing, suggesting that we think others are noticing and paying attention to what we are doing.

How exactly do we evaluate the impression we convey? In general, most people seem to have a good sense of how they make an impression on others. In a study designed to explore this issue, participants interacted with peers they had not previously met (DePaulo, Kenny, Hoover, Webb, & Oliver, 1987). After each interaction with their partner, participants were asked to report the impressions they had conveyed to their partner. The researchers found that participants generally correctly reported the type of impression their behavior conveyed. They were also aware of how their behavior during interaction changed over time and how it changed over time with different partners. Another study also found that people are fairly accurate at recognizing how they are perceived by others (Kenny & Albright, 1987); they also give the same impression over time (Colvin & Funder, 1991). However, people tend to overestimate how favorably they are viewed by other people. When they fail, it's because they think they made a better impression than they actually did. However, sometimes we can expect other people to recognize how we really feel, especially when we wish they didn't. Based on research by Thomas Gilovich and his collaborators, we seem to think that our inner feelings show more than they actually do (Gilovich, Savitsky, & Medvec, 1998). In general, we seem to overestimate the ability of others to "read" our apparent behavior, how we behave and how we dress. Gilovich and his colleagues dubbed this the spotlight effect, suggesting that as actors we think we're being spotlighted by others and notice and pay attention to what we're doing. This heightened sense of self seems to underlie adult shyness: shy people are so aware of their actions and weaknesses that they believe others (the focus of attention) are on them and little else. The reality of social life is very different, and most of us would be relieved to know that few in the crowd care what we do or think. For example, in one study, college students wore a t-shirt with the much-loved Barry Manilow on the front, and users overestimated the likelihood that the t-shirt would be noticed by others. The limelight isn't as bright as we think it is.

Episode 2

the social self

Gilovich and colleagues (1998) believe that we share the same concern (that others notice and pay attention to our outward actions and appearance) regarding our hidden inner feelings. They called this the illusion of transparency, the belief that observers can read our private thoughts and feelings because they somehow "leak through". In one of the studies aimed at testing the illusion of transparency, Gilovich and his colleagues hypothesized that the participants who were asked to tell lies in the experiment thought the lies were more obvious than they actually were. In fact, this was the result. In a second experiment, participants had to taste something unpleasant but maintain a neutral facial expression. For example, if your host presents a dish at a dinner party that you really didn't like, you can try to politely eat on the side rather than express displeasure. How successful are you at disguising your true feelings? The tasters at Gilovich's studios thought they would not be very successful. Rather, observers would likely not notice that the tasters were dissatisfied with the food or drink. Once again, people overestimated the ability of others to determine their true inner feelings. While most people seem to have a good sense of the impression they make on others, some don't. In fact, some people don't even realize they're making a bad impression. In a study designed to examine why some people do not seem to notice signs that they are making a bad impression, individuals were observed who interacted with people who consistently made a good or bad impression (Swann, Stein-Seroussi, & McNulty, 1992). Swann and his collaborators found that participants generally said the same positive things to both types of people. However, they acted differently towards the two types of people. They directed fewer nonverbal signals of approval (e.g., walking away when nice things were said) to people with negative impressions than to those with positive impressions. The researchers concluded that there are two reasons people who consistently make a bad impression don't learn to change. First, we live in a "white lie" society where people are generally polite, even to someone acting like an idiot. Second, the signals people use to indicate dissatisfaction may be too subtle for some people to recognize (Swann et al., 1992).

Looking Back at the Life of James Carroll In our brief look back at the life and work of bestselling author James Carroll, we had the opportunity to see how the author's private life - his family, his teachers and his religion, as well as the important social events that took place during his formative years - shaped and influenced his personal and social self. Indeed, these events provided Mr. Carroll with ample material for his writing, including 10 books of fiction and non-fiction.

Illusion of Transparency The belief that observers can read our private thoughts and feelings because they somehow leak through.

social psychology

Review of Chapter 1. What is the Self? The self is in part a cognitive structure that contains ideas about who and what we are. It also has an evaluative and emotional component because we judge ourselves and think of ourselves as worthy or unworthy. The self guides our behavior as we try to align our actions with our ideas about ourselves. Ultimately, the self guides us as we try to manage the impression we make on others. 2. How do we know the Self? Various sources of social information help us forge our understanding of ourselves. The first is our perception of how others respond to us. From earliest childhood and throughout life, these reflected appreciations shape our self-image. We also gain insights into ourselves through comparisons with other people. We engage in a process of social comparison, comparing our reactions, skills, and personal attributes to others because we need accurate information to be successful. The third source of information about ourselves is observing our own behavior. Sometimes we simply observe our behavior and assume that our motives align with our behavior. Finally, one can get to know oneself through introspection, the examination of one's thoughts and feelings. 3. What is the theory of distinctiveness? Distinctness theory suggests that people see themselves in terms of characteristics or dimensions that distinguish them from others, rather than characteristics that they share with others. A person is likely to integrate the perceived differentiator into their self-concept. Distinguishing features shape our self-image. 4. How is the self-organization? People organize knowledge and information about themselves into schemas of themselves. A self-schema contains information about gender, age, race or ethnicity, occupation, social roles, physical attractiveness, intelligence, talents, etc. Self-schemas help us interpret situations and our behavior to steer. For example, a sexual self-schema refers to how we think about the sexual aspects of the self. 5. What is autobiographical memory? The study of autobiographical memory (memory information related to the self) shows that the self plays an important role in remembering events. The researchers found that participants recalled recent events faster than older ones, pleasant events faster than unpleasant and extreme events, both pleasant and unpleasant, faster than neutral episodes. Pleasant events that particularly fit the person's self-image were remembered more easily. 6. What is self-esteem? Self-esteem is an assessment of our overall worth made up of positive and negative self-assessments. We value, judge, and have feelings about ourselves. Some people have high self-esteem, think highly of themselves, and are generally content with who they are. Others have low self-esteem, feel less worthy and good, and may even feel like a failure and incompetence.

Episode 2

the social self

7. How do we evaluate ourselves? We evaluate the self by continually adjusting perceptions, interpretations, and memories: the self works tirelessly behind the scenes to maintain positive self-evaluations, or high self-esteem. Self-esteem is influenced both by our beliefs about how we measure up to our own standards and our ability to control our self-esteem in interactions with others. Positive self-evaluations are reinforced when there is a good match between who we are (the real self) and what we think we want to be (the ideal self) or what others think we should be (the assumed self). Self). When there are differences between our true selves and what we want or should be, we engage in self-regulation, our attempts to align our behavior with what the ideal requires or what we should be. 8. What is good about high self-esteem? Researchers found that while high self-esteem can lead to feeling good and making people more resourceful, it does not lead to high academic achievement, professional achievement, or leadership abilities. Also, low self-esteem does not lead to violence, smoking, alcohol use, drug use, or sexual activity at a young age. 9. What are implicit and explicit self-esteem? Implicit self-esteem refers to a very efficient system of self-evaluation that lies beneath our conscious mind. Implicit self-esteem comes from parents who care for their children but are not overprotective. This type of self-esteem is unconscious and automatic and less likely to be influenced by everyday events. The best-known notion of self-esteem, explicit self-esteem, on the other hand, arises primarily from the interaction with people in our everyday lives. High implicit self-esteem is related to very positive social and health characteristics, while explicit self-esteem appears to be more of a fragile or defensive self-esteem, explaining the emotional responses that threats evoke in these individuals. 10. What is Emotional Intelligence? ? ? Emotional intelligence is a person's ability to perceive, use, understand, and manage emotions. Research shows that emotionally intelligent people are more successful in personal and professional relationships. These individuals are very aware of their own emotional states, use them for information, and are very good at reading other people's emotions. 11. What is Self-Evaluation-Maintenance Theory (SEM)? According to Abraham Tesser's Self-Evaluation-Maintenance-Theory (SEM), high performance of a close person in an area relevant to them is perceived as a threat. In response, we may underestimate each other's accomplishments, put more distance between ourselves and others, work hard to improve our own performance, or try to harm the other.

Social Perception: Understanding Other People No one outside of a stroller or a judge's office believes in an unbiased view. —Lillian Helman

In July 1988, the US guided-missile frigate Vincennes was patrolling the Persian Gulf. The Vincennes, a state-of-the-art ship with the latest radar and guidance systems, was involved in a skirmish with some small Iranian Navy patrol boats. During the battle, Captain Will Rogers III received word from the radar room that an unidentified aircraft was heading towards the ship. The intruder was on a downward path, radar operators reported, and appeared hostile. It did not respond to IFF (Identification Friend or Foe) transmissions from the ship, nor were there any other attempts to successfully radio it. Captain Rogers, after asking permission from his superiors, ordered the firing of surface-to-air missiles; The missiles hit and destroyed the plane. The plane was not an Iranian fighter. It was an Iranian Airbus, a commercial airliner that flew twice a week to Dubai, a city across the Strait of Hormuz. The Airbus was completely destroyed and all 290 passengers died. After the tragedy, Captain Rogers defended his actions. But Commander David Carlson of the nearby frigate Sides, 20 miles away, reported that his crew accurately identified the Airbus as an airliner. His crew saw on their radar screens that the plane was climbing from 12,000 to 14,000 feet (as later confirmed on the tapes) and that its flight pattern resembled that of a civilian aircraft (Time, August 15, 1988). The Sides crew did not interpret the aircraft's actions as threatening, nor did they believe an attack was imminent. When Commander Carlson learned that the Vincennes had fired on what must have been an airliner, he was so shocked he nearly vomited (Newsweek, July 13, 1992). Carlson's opinion was

Key Questions As you read this chapter, find answers to the following questions: 1. What is print training? 2. What are automatic and controlled treatments? 3. What does a cognitive miser mean? 4. What evidence is there for the importance of unconscious choices? 5. How does automatism affect behavior and emotions? 6. Are our impressions of others correct? 7. What is sample bias? 8. Can we catch liars? 9. What is the award process? 10. What are internal and external orders? 11. What is the theory of appropriate inference and what factors go into forming an appropriate inference?

12. What are the theory of covariation and the principle of covariation? 13. How does consensus, consistency, and distinctness information lead to internal or external attribution? 14. What is the dual-process attribution model and what does it tell us about the attribution process? 15. What does attribution bias mean? 16. What is the basic attribution error? 17. What is actor-observer bias? 18. What is false consensus bias? 19. How important is the first impression? 20. What are schemas and what role do they play in social cognition? 21. What is a self-fulfilling prophecy and how is it related to behavior? 22. What are the different types of heuristics that often guide social cognition? 23. What is meant by metacognition? 24. How are optimism and pessimism related to cognition and social behavior? 25. How do stressful events affect happiness? 26. What does evolution have to do with uptrends?

social psychology

aided by the fact that the "intruder" from the U.S.S. Forrestal, aircraft carrier and flagship of the mission (Newsweek, July 13, 1992). What happened during the Vincennes incident? How could the crew of the Vincennes "see" an airliner as an enemy attack aircraft on their radar screen? How could the captain order the missiles to be fired so quickly? And why did others - like the Sides and Forrestal crews - see things so differently? The answers to these questions lie in the nature of human cognition. The captain and crew of the Vincennes have constructed their own view of reality based on their past experiences, their expectations of what is likely to happen and their interpretations of what is happening at the moment, as well as their fears and anxieties. All of these factors were in turn influenced by the context of current international events, which included a bitter feud between the United States and what Americans perceived as an extremist Iranian government. The captain and crew of Vincennes recalled a fatal attack on a US warship in the same area the previous year. They firmly believed they were likely to be attacked by enemy aircraft, likely with advanced missiles that would be very fast and accurate. When that happened, the captain knew he had to act quickly and decisively. The radar team saw an unidentified aircraft on their screen. Suddenly they shouted that the plane was descending and positioning itself to attack. The aircraft did not respond to its radio transmissions. Captain Rogers weighed the available evidence and decided to shoot the intruder. The Side commander and crew had a different take on the incident. They viewed the incident through the filter of their belief that the Vincennes were hungry for a fight. In his view, a passenger plane was shot down and 290 people died due to the crew's overly aggressive firing response. These differing perspectives and understandings highlight a crucial aspect of human behavior: each of us constructs a version of social reality that corresponds to our perception and interpretation of events (Jussim, 1991). We understand our world through the processes of social cognition, the strategies and methods we use to understand other people's motives and behavior. This chapter analyzes the tools and strategies people use to construct social reality. We ask: What cognitive processes are involved when individuals try to make sense of the world? What mechanisms are at play when we form images of others and make judgments about their behavior and motives? How accurate are these impressions and judgments? And what explains the errors of perception and judgment that inevitably occur in social interactions? How do we piece together all of the social information to get a complete picture of our social world? These are some of the questions addressed in this chapter.

Chapter 3

Social Perception: Understanding other people

Impression Formation: Automatism and Social Cognition The process by which we make judgments about others is called impression formation. We are wired by our culture to form impressions about people, and Western culture emphasizes the individual, the importance of "what's inside a person," as the cause of behavior (Jones, 1990). We can also be biologically programmed to form impressions of those who can help or hurt us. It is conceivable that the first surviving humans were better at making accurate inferences about others, had better chances of surviving, and these abilities are part of our genetic heritage (Flohr, 1987). It makes sense that they could have easily formed relatively accurate impressions of each other. Because grossly inaccurate impressions—whether that person is dangerous or not, trustworthy or not, friend or foe—can be life-threatening, humans have learned to make these judgments effectively. Those who could not survive less. Therefore, efficiency and ease of perception are crucial goals of human cognition. Social psychologists interested in cognition are primarily concerned with how individuals attempt to make sense of what is going on in their world under the uncertain conditions that are part of normal life (Mischel, 1999). Much of our social cognition involves automatic processing: the formation of impressions without thinking or paying attention (Logan, 1989). Thoughts that are conscious and require effort are referred to as controlled processing.

Automatic processing Automatic processing is thinking that occurs primarily outside of consciousness. It's simple in the sense that we don't have to use any of our conscious cognitive abilities. We automatically interpret an upturned mouth as a smile and automatically infer that the smiling person is content or happy (Fiske & Taylor, 1991). Such interpretations and conclusions that can be incorporated into our genetic makeup are beyond our conscious control. Throughout all of our social reasoning processes, the methods we use to judge other people, there is a common thread that seems to be part of our human makeup: our tendency to prefer less laborious means of processing social information (Taylor, 1981). That doesn't mean we're lazy or careless; We simply have a limited ability to comprehend information and can only handle relatively small amounts of information at any given time (Fiske, 1993). We tend to be cognitively greedy in the construction of social reality: if we're not motivated to do something else, we'll put in just enough effort to get the job done. In this business of building our social world, we are pragmatists (Fiske, 1992). Essentially we ask ourselves: What is my goal in this situation and what do I need to know in order to achieve this goal? Although automatic processing is the cognitive miser's preferred method, there is no clear boundary between automatic and controlled processing. Rather, they exist on a continuum ranging from fully automatic (unconscious) to fully controlled (conscious), with degrees of more and less automatic thinking in between.

The Importance of Automatism in Social Perception Recall the work of Roy Baumeister discussed in Chapter 2. His work concluded that even small acts of self-control, such as forgoing a tempting bite of chocolate, deplete our self-control resources for later tasks. Builder and Summer (1997)

Impression formation The process by which we make judgments about others.

Controlled processing Careful and considered processing of information that occurs when we are motivated to accurately evaluate the information or when our first impressions or expectations are not confirmed. Automatic Processing The notion that because of our limited information-processing abilities, we construct social impressions without much thought or effort, particularly when we lack the motivation for careful evaluation or when our first impressions are confirmed.

social psychology

suggested that while the conscious self is important, it only plays a causal and active role in about 5% of our actions. This suggests that, despite our belief in free will and self-determination, much, if not most, of our behavior is determined by unconscious or automatic processes (Bargh & Chartrand, 1999). Daniel Wegner and his collaborators have shown that people mistakenly believe they are inducing behavior on purpose when in fact they are being compelled to act by stimuli of which they are unaware (Wegner, Ansfield, & Pilloff, 1998). Wegner and Whealey (1999) suggested that the factors that actually drive us to act are rarely, if ever, present in our consciousness. Bargh (1997) wrote that automatic responses are first learned from experience and then deployed passively, effortlessly, and unconsciously each time we encounter the same object or situation. For example, Chartrand and Bargh (1996) showed that individuals who do not have clear goals for forming impressions of other people may unconsciously achieve those goals. It is possible to present words or images so quickly that the person is unaware that something has been presented to them, and furthermore the person does not report having seen anything (Kunda, 1999). But the stimuli can still affect later behavior. Chartrand and Bargh (1996) used this subliminal stimulus presentation technique in a series of experiments to have the participants "prepared" to form an impression of certain (target) persons by presenting some subjects with words such as judge and evaluate and other training cues presented. These cousins were presented on a screen just below the level of consciousness. Other participants in the experiment were unwilling to form subliminal impressions. Soon after, subjects were given a description of a particular (target) person's behaviors, but were only informed that they would be asked about them later. Chartrand and Bargh reported that those participants primed below the level of consciousness (subliminal) with impression-forming words (judge, evaluate, etc.) had a fully formed impression of the target person. Unprepared subjects with the same description made no impression of the target. This unconsciously prompted participants to form an impression, and this unconsciously goal-oriented subsequent cognitive behavior (formation of the experimenter's presented impression of the target person) was steered.

Unconscious decision-making: sleeping on it Buying a can of peas at the supermarket doesn't usually challenge our intellect. After all, peas are peas. While we may prefer one brand to another, we won't waste too much time making that choice. However, if the decision is about something really important (which car should we buy, who should we marry, where should we live), then we might worry about the choice. But according to new research, that's exactly the wrong way to go. For one thing, difficult decisions often present us with a dizzying array of facts and options. Four Dutch psychologists (Dijksterhuis, Bos, Nordgren & van Baaren, 2006) suggest that the best way to deal with complex decisions is to trust the subconscious. These researchers describe unconscious thinking or decision-making as thinking about the problem while your attention is on something else. In other words, "sleep on it." In part of their research, Dijkersterhuis and his fellow researchers asked shoppers and students to make judgments about simple things (oven gloves) and more complex things (buying a car). Given the characteristics of certain cars, buyers were asked to choose the best car. Problems emerged quickly, and researchers varied the complexity of the problems. For example, for some people

Chapter 3

Social Perception: Understanding other people

Cars had 4 attributes (age, fuel economy, transmission and handling) but for others 12 attributes were presented for each car. Some participants were told to "think carefully" about the choices, while others were distracted from rethinking their choices by asking them to solve anagram puzzles. The results were that given a relatively simple task (four factors), careful thought would lead to a more correct decision than if the subject were distracted. But when the task became much more complex (12 factors), the distraction led to a better decision. what is the explanation The unconscious thinking theory (UTT) suggests that while conscious thinking is precise and allows us to follow strict patterns and rules, its ability to handle a lot of information is limited. Therefore, conscious thinking is required to perform, for example, math, a rule-based exercise, but it may not be as good at tackling complex questions with many alternatives (Dijksterhuis et al., 2006). Should we always rely on our “gut feeling” when making complex and important decisions in life? We don't have a complete answer to this question yet. For example, we don't know exactly how emotions or past events might enter the mix. However, there is a growing body of research that gives us some confidence that thinking too much about our love and careers and other aspects of our lives that are important to us may not be helpful. Social psychologist Timothy Wilson has looked at these questions in a new and even charming way. Wilson (2002) argued and demonstrated that we have a "powerful, sophisticated, and adaptable" unconscious that is critical to survival but largely unknowable to us. Fortunately, Wilson and others have developed experimental methods to probe our subconscious. In one study, Wilson, Kraft, and Dunn asked a group of people to list the reasons their current romantic relationship was going the way it was (described in Wilson, 2005). They were then asked how satisfied they were with this relationship. A second group was only asked to give their "gut feeling" reactions to the questions without thinking about it. Both groups were asked to predict whether they would still be in this relationship several months later. You can now assume that those who have thought about how they feel are more accurate in their predictions (Wilson, 2005). However, those who delved into their feelings and analyzed their relationships did not accurately predict the outcome of those relationships, while those who did little introspection were right. Again, there seems to be a kind of “wisdom” about not overthinking complex issues and feelings. These and other discoveries about the power of the unconscious raise questions among cognitive psychologists about what exactly we mean by consciousness.

Automatism and behavior Just as impressions can be formed unconsciously, behavior can also be influenced by unconscious cues. That is, our behavior can be influenced by signals, stimuli that are below the level of consciousness or that can be quite obvious although we are unaware of their effect on us. Priming can also be used to unconsciously affect perceptions. Psychologists have found that priming, "the unconscious activation of social knowledge," is a very powerful social concept, affecting a wide variety of behaviors (Bargh, 2006). For example, Kay, Wheeler, Bargh, and Ross (2004) found that the mere presence of a backpack in a room leads to more cooperative group behavior, while the presence of a briefcase leads to more competitive behavior. The backpack or briefcase is a “first material,” an object that provokes behaviors after the “first” (executives carry briefcases and compete;

Sixty-five

social psychology

backpackers climb mountains and cooperate). Likewise, 'norms can be prepared', as shown by Aarts and Dijksterhuis (2003) in a study in which people looking at library photos tended to speak softer. Priming influences our behavior in a variety of social situations. Among these “automatic activations” referred to by Bargh (2006) is the well-known “cocktail effect”. Imagine you are at a noisy party and you can hardly hear the people you are talking to. Suddenly, from across the room, you hear your name being called in another conversation. Saying your name automatically draws your conscious attention without any cognitive effort. As another example of unconscious behavior, imagine a couple who have been married a quarter of a century sitting at a table vigorously discussing the day's events. The diner cannot help but notice how man and woman, apparently unconsciously, imitate each other's gestures. The husband emphasizes his remarks by banging the table with his open hand. His wife tends to do the same, although not as vigorously. Both are unaware of the gestures. In fact, there is evidence that such mimicry is common in social interaction (Macrae et al., 1998). Chartrand and Bargh (1999) called this unconscious mimicry the chameleon effect, indicating that we can change our behavior to match that of the people we interact with, just as the chameleon changes color to match its environment. Perception can also automatically trigger behaviors. Chartrand and Bargh (1999) had two people interacting with each other; However, one of the two was an accomplice of the experimenter. The Confederates rubbed their faces or wagged their feet. The facial expressions were also different, mostly smiling or not. The participant and the confederate sat in chairs facing each other, and the entire session was filmed and analyzed. Figure 3.1 shows the results of this experiment. Subjects tended to rub their face when the confederate did it, and subjects tended to move their foot when the confederate did it. Frank Bernieri, John Gillis, and their collaborators also showed that when observers see two people in sync — that is, when their physical movements and postures appear to mimic or follow each other — observers assume the individuals are highly compatible or related (Bernieri). . , Gillis, Davis and Grahe, 1996; Gillis, Bernieri and Wooten, 1995). In another experiment, Chartrand and Bargh demonstrated the social value of such imitation. Individuals whose partner mimicked their behavior were rated as having a smoother interaction and were shown to like their partner more than individuals whose partner did not mimic their expression or behavior. These experiments and others demonstrate the adaptive function of unconscious behavior. Not only does it facilitate social interactions, but it also eliminates the need to actively choose goal-related behaviors in every social encounter. Because our cognitive resources are finite and can become depleted, it's best to save them for situations where we need to process social information in a conscious and controlled manner.

Automatism and Emotions If cognitive activity occurs below the level of consciousness, we may wonder if the same is true of emotions. We all know that our emotional responses to events are often beyond our conscious control. We may not be aware of why we reacted so vigorously to what seemed like a minor insult, or why we "freaked out" about a trifle. We need conscious control to get out of this bad mood or to overcome this reaction. It seems that our emotional responses are not controlled by a conscience.

Chapter 3

Social Perception: Understanding other people

Figure 3.1 Behavior of research participants in relation to the behavior of an experimenter's confederate. From Chartrand and Bargh (1999).

(LeDoux, 1996). As Wegner and Bargh (1998) have indicated, research into cognition and emotion focuses primarily on what we do after we have expressed an emotion, rather than how we decide which emotion to express. Sometimes we are aware of what we are thinking and how those thoughts are affecting us, but we still do not know how the process started or how we can end it. For example, have you ever had a jingle in your head? You can't tell why the jingle started, nor can you get it out of your head no matter how hard you try. You're thinking about other things, and each of these distractions works for a while. But soon the jingle reappears, more urgent than ever. Suppressing an unwanted thought only seems to make you stronger. This phenomenon was clearly demonstrated in an experiment in which participants were asked not to think about a white bear for five minutes (Wegner, 1989). Each time the idea of a white bear came to mind, contestants were encouraged to ring a bell. During the 5 minutes, the subjects rang the doorbell frequently. What was more interesting, however, was the fact that after the 5 minutes had elapsed, the white bears took over in a kind of rebound effect. Subjects who tried to suppress thoughts of white bears could not think of anything else after the 5 minutes were up. The study shows that even if we can successfully banish an unwanted thought for a while, it can soon return to our mind in full force. Because of this powerful rebound effect, repressed thoughts can surface when we least want them. A fanatic who goes to great lengths to hide his prejudices when around members of a particular ethnic group will, to his surprise, say something stupidly fanatic and wonder why he could not suppress the thought (Wegner, 1993 ). This is especially likely when people are under pressure. Automatic processing takes over and reduces the ability to control thoughts. Of course we control some of our emotions, but apparently only after they surface. When our boss makes us angry, we can try to control the expression of that anger. We often try to appear less emotional than we really feel. We can moderate our voice when we are really angry because it would be pointless to express that emotion. However, as Richards and Gross (1999) have shown, suppression of emotions

social psychology

comes at a price These researchers showed that suppressing emotions impairs memory for information during the period of suppression and increases cardiovascular responses. This, like Wegner's work, suggests that suppressing emotions depletes cognitive resources. Emotions: It will never get better Now we can see that unconscious factors influence both our behavior and our emotions. In a series of clever experiments, Daniel Gilbert and his fellow researchers showed that we're just not very good at predicting how emotional events will affect us in the future. For one thing, we tend to overlook the fact that the more intense the emotion, the less staying power it has. We tend to underestimate our tendency to return to balance (homeostasis) in order to lessen the impact of even the most negative or positive emotions. We think if we don't get a particularly good job or if we're rejected by someone we'd like to date, it's going to take us forever to recover. Gilbert, Lieberman, Morewedge, and Wilson (2004) were particularly interested in how individuals thought they would respond emotionally (hedonic) to events that elicited highly emotional responses. These researchers point out that when extreme emotions are triggered, psychological processes are stimulated that serve to neutralize the intensity of emotions, so that intense emotional states can be expected to last less than milder ones. How did this happen? Gilbert and others. (2004) point out that people can react to a highly traumatic event by cognitively dampening the depth of their feelings. They point out that a married person who wants to keep their marriage intact might rationalize their spouse's infidelity, but being messy over a minor annoyance makes their anger last longer. In a series of studies, Gilbert et al. revealed people's prediction of how people would feel after one of several bad things happened to them (shock, romantic betrayal, dented car). Surprisingly, the more serious the event, the stronger the emotional response. But as Gilbert et al. predicted that the stronger the initial emotional response, the faster the emotion resolves. Now that doesn't mean that people learn to love their abusers, but the intensity of the emotion is much lower than people expect.

Controlled Processing As mentioned above, controlled processing involves awareness, attention to the thought process, and effort. It is defined by several factors: first, we know we are thinking about something; second, we are aware of the goals of the thought process; and third, we know what choices we are making. For example, when you meet someone, you may feel that you really need to pay attention to what that person is saying. Therefore, you are aware of your thought process. They will also know that you are doing this because you expect to have dealings with that person in the future. You may want to make a good impression on the person, or you may need to make an accurate assessment. You may also be aware that by focusing on this person you are giving up an opportunity to meet other people. People are motivated to process in a controlled manner, i.e. to use more cognitive energy on perception and interpretation. For example, they may have goals they want to achieve in the interaction, or they may get upset about information that doesn't meet their expectations. Processing becomes more controlled when thoughts and behaviors are intentional (Wegner & Pennebaker, 1993).

Chapter 3

Social Perception: Understanding other people

The impression others make on us: How do we “read” people? So it is clear that we process most social information automatically without much effort. As we said before, maybe only 5% of the time we process them in a controlled and systematic way. What does this mean for an accurate impression?

How accurate are our impressions? How many times have you heard "I know exactly how you feel"? Well, do we really know how another person feels? King (1998) found that the ability to recognize the emotions of others is critical to social interaction and an important marker of interpersonal competence. King found that our ability to accurately read other people's emotions depends on our own emotional socialization. That said, some people have learned through their early experiences and feedback from others that it is safe to express their feelings clearly. Others are more contradictory, insecure and ambivalent when it comes to expressing emotions. Maybe they were punished in some way for their emotional expression and learned to put on a poker face. This personal experience of emotional expression, King thought, should affect our ability to gauge other people's emotional states. King (1998) examined the ability of people who are insecure or ambivalent about emotional expression to accurately read the emotions of others. He found that those who were ambivalent about their own emotional expression tended to be confused by other people's expressions of emotions, compared to people who had no conflict with expressing emotions. When trying to read people in an emotional situation or reading their facial expressions, ambivalent people often infer the opposite of what the people actually felt and reported. Ambivalent people who expend a lot of energy trying to be blank or suppressing emotional responses are easy to conclude that others are hiding their emotions as well and that what they saw was not what was intended. This could simply mean that people who are satisfied with their own emotional expression can read other people's emotional expressions more closely. So King's work suggests that our ability to read other people accurately depends largely on our own emotional lives. Consider another example of this: Weary and Edwards (1994) suggested that people with mild or moderate depression are much more intent on understanding social information than others. That's because depressed people often feel they have little control over their social world and that their efforts to bring about change are having little success. Edwards and his collaborators showed that depressed people are much more attuned to social information and make more effort to figure out why people respond to them the way they do. Depressives are very perceptive processors of social information (Edwards, Weary, von Hippel, & Jacobson, 1999). One would think that the vigilance of depressed people would make them more accurate when reading people. Depressed people often have trouble with social interactions, and this monitoring aims to find out why and perhaps improve those interactions. But here, too, we can see the importance of unconscious behavior. Edwards and his colleagues found that depressed people behave in ways that "put others down." For example, depressed people have problems with eye contact, tone of voice, and other gestures that elicit negative reactions from others. In fact, Edwards and his colleagues suggested that all this processing overhead prevents depressed people from focusing on pleasurable interactions.

social psychology

Building Confidence and Impressions Our ability to read other people may depend on the quality of our own emotional lives, but the confidence we have in our impressions of others seems, not surprisingly, to depend on how much we believe about the other person to know. . Trusting our impressions of other people is important because, like other strongly held beliefs, we are more likely to act on them. For example, if we are certain that our friend will not lie to us, then we make decisions based on that certainty. The Vincennes' captain was certain to interpret the plane's deadly intent on his radar screen. However, trust in our judgment does not necessarily mean that it is correct. Wells (1995) has shown that the correlation between accuracy and confidence in eyewitness identification is very low, and sometimes has no relationship at all. Similarly, Swann and Gill (1997) reported that trust and perceptual accuracy between data and between roommates were not very good. Gill and his colleagues found that when subjects were asked to form a careful impression of an individual, including important aspects of the subjects' lives (intellectual ability, social skills, physical attractiveness, etc.) and accessing those from a record information obtained. Video. interview with the target, they were very confident in their judgments about the target. This is of course not surprising. What may be surprising, however, is that trust did not affect the accuracy of participants' judgments (Experiment 1; Gill, Swann, & Silvera, 1998). In another series of studies, these researchers have extensively demonstrated that when people have a lot of information about a target, they become more confident in their judgments because they can easily and fluently retrieve and apply information about that person. But judgments are no more accurate than when we have far less information about someone. What is most worrying about these findings is that we care most about the situations in which we have a lot of information and a lot of trust. These situations involve intimate relationships of various kinds with very important people in our lives. But research says that even when we're confident and have lots of information, we still make mistakes. Our modest ability to read other people accurately may be due to focusing our attention primarily on obvious, expressive cues at the expense of more subtle but perhaps more reliable cues. In a series of experiments, Bernieri, Gillis and their colleagues showed that observers pay attention to obvious cues, such as when people are outgoing and smile a lot. Bernieri and Gillis suggested that expressiveness (talking, smiling, gesturing) drives social judgment, but that people may not realize that expressiveness drives their judgments (Bernieri et al., 1996). If you don't like someone at first, you may never like them. Sure, that title is an exaggeration, but probably not by much. Let's get down to the obvious: We like to interact with people we have a very positive impression of. And we stay away from those we don't particularly like. That makes sense. But, as Denrell (2005) has indicated, a problem with this approach is that there is a “sampling bias” that occurs when the level of interaction between people is determined by first impressions. This sampling bias goes something like this: Imagine you are a member of a newly formed group and begin to interact with other people in the group. You know Person A who has poor social skills. Your interaction with him is limited, and you understandably tend to avoid him in the future. Now Person B is different

Chapter 3

Social Perception: Understanding other people

different. She has excellent social skills and conversation with her is easy and fluent. Obviously, you experience more of person B's behavior than person A's. Consequently, false negative impressions of person A may never be modified, whereas false positive impression of B could very well be modified if you "try" your behavior more. (Denell, 2005). So, an important point Denrell (2005) makes about impression formation is that if there is sampling bias (the nature and extent of interaction with someone), then there will be systematic biases in impression formation. This can be especially true for people belonging to groups with which we have limited contact. We never have the opportunity to interact with these members in enough situations to form a fair impression based on a cross-section of their behavior. As such, we never have enough evidence to correct a false negative or positive first impression because we rarely re-interact with a person with whom we had an initial negative interaction (Plant & Devine, 2003).

Human Perception: Reading Faces and Catching Liars When we say that we can "read" the emotions of others, what we really mean is that we can "read" their faces. The face is the main stimulus to not only recognize someone, but also to form an impression of that person. Recent research in neuroscience has produced a wealth of information about facial perception and its neural basis. For example, we know that human facial processing occurs in the occipital temporal cortex and that other parts of the brain are involved in determining a person's identity (Macrae, Quinn, Mason, & Quadflieg, 2005). We also know that we are very good at extracting basic information about people from their faces, even under conditions that make optimal perception difficult. For example, in a series of three experiments, Macrae and colleagues presented a variety of facial photos, male and female, some in an inverted position, and despite the "suboptimal" presentation of these stimuli, their subjects were reasonably able to report age. and age, sex of the person. In this case, Macrae et al. suggest that the acquisition of basic facial features (age, sex, race) appears to be automatic. So we know that getting information from faces is hardwired in our brains, and we know where that wiring is. But there are also indications of the early onset of facial perception. Even newborns have rudimentary abilities to distinguish different facial expressions, although infants seem to be able to assign meaning to emotional expressions only towards the end of the first year of life (Gosselin, 2005).

It's hard to catch a liar: spotting lies If, as research shows, we're not very good at reading people, even those with whom we have a close relationship, you might suspect that we're not very good are in discerning lies and liars. . . In general you are right. But some people can learn to spot lies fairly accurately. Paul Ekman and his collaborators asked 20 men (aged 18 to 28) to give their opinions on a range of controversial issues. These men were then asked to speak to an interrogator about the social issue that bothered them most. Some were asked to tell the truth; others were asked to lie about their feelings (Ekman, O'Sullivan, & Frank, 1999). If fortune tellers were believed, they were rewarded with 10 dollars; liars believed received $50, liars caught and truth-telling unbelievers received no reward. So

social psychology

20 men were motivated to do good work. Ekman and his colleagues filmed the faces of the 20 participants and found that there were significant differences in facial movement between the liars and the truthful ones. The researchers were interested in whether people in jobs where lie detection is important were better than average people at detecting outright lies. Ekman tried various professions, including federal officials (CIA agents and others), federal judges, clinical psychologists, and academic psychologists. In previous research, the results suggested that only a small number of US Secret Service agents were better at detecting lies than the average, who are not always good at detecting deception. Figure 3.2 shows that federal officials were more accurate in determining whether a person was telling the truth. Interestingly, these officers were more accurate at detecting lies than the truth. Clinical psychologists interested in deception were the second most accurate and, again, were better at spotting lies than telling the truth. The best detectors didn't focus on one signal, but on a series of signals or symptoms. Ekman points out that none of the clues are reliable revelation. Perhaps the most difficult obstacle to spotting liars is that a particular proposition or set of propositions may not apply in all cases. Every liar is different; Each detector is also different. Ekman found a wide range of accuracy within each group, with many detectors at or below probability levels. If people aren't very good at spotting lies, then they shouldn't be very confident in their ability to do so. But as DePaulo and colleagues have shown, people's confidence in their judgments about whether someone is telling the truth is not reliably related to the accuracy of their judgments (DePaulo, Charlton, Cooper, Lindsay, & Muhlenbruck, 1997). People are more confident in their judgments when they believe the other person is telling the truth, whether that person is telling it or not, and men are more confident but not more accurate than women. The bottom line is that we cannot rely on our sense of trust to reliably tell us whether someone is lying or not. As the work by Gillis and colleagues (1998) discussed above shows, being in a close relationship and knowing the other person well is not very helpful in detecting lies (Anderson, Ansfield, & DePaulo, 1998). However, we can take comfort in research showing that people are less likely to lie to those they are closest to and feel more uncomfortable lying to themselves. When people have lied to people close to them, the lies have been directed at others with the aim of protecting the other person or making things nicer or easier (DePaulo & Kashy, 1999). In a book by neurologist Oliver Sacks, The Man Who Mistook His Hat for His Wife, there is a scene where brain-damaged patients, all of whom have had a stroke, accident, or tumor on the left side of the brain (aphasic) and therefore have speech disorders were seen laughing out loud while watching a speech by President Ronald Reagan on television. Doctor Sacks speculated that patients picked up lies that others could not. There is now some evidence that Sacks' interpretation may be correct. Etcoff, Ekman, and Frank (2000) suggested that language can mask signals that would allow us to detect lies, and therefore those with damage to the brain's language centers are better able to detect lies. There is evidence that the true intent of people who lie is reflected in the upper facial expressions, while the part of the face around the mouth conveys the false emotional state that the liar is trying to project. It could be that aphasics use different brain circuits to detect liars. For the rest of us, it's more or less pure coincidence.

Chapter 3

Social Perception: Understanding other people

Figure 3.2 Accuracy of individuals in different occupations in detecting who is a liar. Based on data from Ekman, O'Sullivan and Frank (1999).

A recent review of more than 1,300 studies on lying showed how weak the characteristics of deception are (DePaulo, Lindsay, Malone, Charlton, & Cooper, 2003). This massive review shows that there are "158" cheat hints, but many of them are weak or counterintuitive, things you might not expect. Therefore, liars talk less than truth tellers and tell less interesting and compelling stories. However, the stories that liars tell us are more complete, more perfect. Obviously, liars think more about what they're going to say than truth tellers. The clues that would allow us to spot a lie are stronger when the liar is deceiving us about something related to his identity (personal possessions) than when the liar is deceiving us about non-personal things. Consider eye contact to illustrate the difficulties. According to DePaulo et al. (2003) Motivated liars avoid eye contact more than truth tellers and unmotivated liars. Therefore, the motivation of the liar is important. To complicate matters further, other potential cues for lying, such as nervousness, may not be of much help in anxious circumstances. Does the liar or the truth teller become more nervous when sentenced to life? Nervousness can be an indicator in traffic courts but not in criminal courts (DePaulo et al., 2003). So we know that the motivation of the liar can be crucial in determining which clues to focus on. Those who are highly motivated may leave few traces of their disappointment. Davis and colleagues (2005) explored DePaulo's question of what signs liars signal when they are at high risk and therefore highly motivated, using videotaped testimony from criminal suspects being interviewed by Assistant District Attorneys (DA). This came after the suspects were questioned by police, who determined these individuals had committed a crime. These were high-profile interrogations because the assistant district attorneys determined the severity of the charges based on the results of the interrogations. All perpetrators claimed some mitigating circumstances (Davis, Markus, Walters, Vorus & Connors, 2005). In this study, investigators knew the details of the crimes, so they generally knew when the offender was lying and could compare his behavior (speech and gestures) with true and misleading statements. Although investigators found that the criminals made many false statements, there was little, limited, and evidence of deception

social psychology

and lexical (e.g. say no and also shake your head) (Davis et al., 2005, p. 699). The lady "protests too much, in my opinion," as William Shakespeare wrote in Hamlet Act III, has a touch of truth, for those criminals who protested too much, repeating phrases and shaking their heads violently, were lying actually. Interestingly, non-lexical sounds (sigh, say umm or er) were indicators of telling the truth. This last finding can be compared with the observation of DePaulo et al. that liars try to present a more ordered story than those who tell the truth. And sometimes the liar can be a believer. True Story: Not long ago, an elderly man was exposed as a liar when his story about winning a medal of honor in combat during World War II was proven false. According to all the newspapers, he was a modest man, but on every commemoration day he wore his medal and led the city parade. The medal was part of his identity, and the city respected his right not to speak about his exploits. It is a federal crime to falsely claim to be a Medal of Honor recipient. Those who questioned the man about his false claims understood that he had played the role for so long that he actually became a part of it, and after a while he stopped cheating. He began to believe who he claimed to be.

The Attribution Process: Deciding Why People Act the Way They Do We make inferences about a person's behavior because we are interested in the cause of that behavior. When someone is late for a meeting, we want to know if they just didn't care or if something beyond their control was causing the delay. Although there is a general tendency to ignore external factors as causes of behavior, your conclusions about that behavior will be more conservative if you conclude that the person was late, say, because of illness at home, than if you determine that person it wasn't late, it was important. (Vonk, 1999). Each of the theories developed to explain the process provides an important piece of the puzzle in how we attribute causes and understand behavior. The purpose of these theories is to shed light on how people decide what caused certain behavior. Theories are not concerned with finding the true causes of a person's behavior. They are concerned with determining how we think in our daily lives and making judgments about the perceived causes of behaviors and events. This section presents two basic influencer attribution theories or models, and additions to these models:

• • •

Theory of Corresponding Inference Theory of Covariation Dual Process Models

The first two, the corresponding inference theory and the covariation theory, are the oldest and most general attempts to describe the attribution process. Others represent newer, less formal approaches to analyzing attribution.

Heider's early work on attribution The first social psychologist to systematically study causal attribution was Fritz Heider. He assumed that individuals who attempted to understand the social world would continue to do so

Chapter 3

Social Perception: Understanding other people

simple rules of causality. The individual or observer acts as a kind of "naïve scientist" applying a set of rudimentary scientific rules (Heider, 1958). Attribution theories are an attempt to figure out exactly what these rules are. Heider distinguished between internal attribution, which causes something about the person, and external attribution, which causes something about the situation. He believed that decisions about whether observed behavior has an internal (personal) or external (situational) source result from our attempt to analyze why others act the way they do (causal analysis). Internal sources include things about the individual: character, personality, motives, dispositions, beliefs, etc. External sources include things about the situation: other people, various environmental influences, social pressures, coercion, etc. Heider (1944, 1958) examined questions about the role of internal and external sources as perceived causes of behavior. His work defined the fundamental questions that future attribution theorists would ask themselves. Heider (1958) pointed out that perceivers are less sensitive to situational (external) factors than to the behavior of the individual they are observing or interacting with (the actor). We now turn to the two theories based directly on Heider's work.

Corresponding inference theory Assigning causes of behavior also means assigning responsibilities. Of course, it is possible to believe that someone caused something and not blame the person for that action. A 5-year-old boy staying in a car with the engine running, getting behind the wheel and driving the car through the frozen section of Joe's Supermarket caused the event but is certainly not responsible, psychologically or legally. . However, social observers are strongly inclined to attribute responsibility to whoever committed the crime: the actor. Let's say your brakes fail, you fail to stop at a red light and you crash into the side of another car. Are you responsible for those impersonal brakes not stopping your car? Well, it depends, right? Under what circumstances would you be responsible and when not? How do observers come to such conclusions? What sources of information do people use when deciding that someone is responsible for an action? In 1965 Edward Jones and Keith Davis proposed what they called the theory of appropriate inference to explain the processes used to make internal attributions about others, particularly when the observed behavior is ambiguous, i.e. when the observer is unsure , how to interpret the behavior of the actor. . We make a relevant inference when we conclude that a person's apparent behavior is caused by, or conforms to, the person's intrinsic characteristics or beliefs. For example, we might believe that a person asked by others to write an essay in support of tax increases actually believes that taxes should be increased (Jones and Harris, 1967). There is a tendency to ignore the fact that the wording was determined by someone else, not the essayist. What factors influence us to draw the appropriate conclusions? According to the corresponding theory of inference, two main factors lead to a corresponding inference: 1. We perceive that the person freely chooses the behavior. 2. We recognize that the person intended to do what they did.

Attribution The process of attributing causes of behavior, both one's own and others'. Internal attribution The process of attributing the cause of behavior to an internal trait rather than to external forces. external attribution The process of attributing the cause of behavior to a situation or event beyond a person's control, rather than to an internal characteristic.

appropriate inference A conclusion that occurs when we conclude that a person's apparent behavior is caused by, or conforms to, the person's intrinsic characteristics or beliefs.

social psychology

At the beginning of the Gulf War in 1991, several US coalition planes were shot down over Iraq. A few days later, some captured pilots appeared on camera and condemned the war against Iraq. From the footage we could see that the pilots were likely hit. Consequently, it was obvious that they did not voluntarily say what they were doing. Under these assumptions, we draw no such conclusion. We assume that the behavior tells us little or nothing about the person's true feelings. For this reason, statements by prisoners or hostages are always viewed with skepticism. The perception that someone was forced to do or say something makes internal attribution less likely. The second factor that contributes to internal attribution is intent. When we conclude that a person's behavior was intentional and not accidental, we are likely to attribute that behavior internally. Saying that a person intended to do something suggests that the person wanted the behavior in question to occur. Saying that someone had no intention of taking an action or was unaware of the consequences of doing so means that the actor is less responsible for the outcome.

Principle of covariation The rule that states that if a reaction is present when a situation (person, object, or event) is present, and absent when the same situation is not present, then the situation is presumed to be the cause the reaction is.

Covariance Theory While the equivalent theory of inference focuses on the process of internal attributions, the theory of covariance proposed by Harold Kelley (1967, 1971) examines external attributions: how we make sense of a situation, factors beyond the person that can cause the behavior. in question (Jones, 1990). The attribution possibilities offered by the covariation theory are similar to those proposed by the corresponding inference theory. What is called internal attribution in the theory of corresponding inference is called person attribution in the theory of covariation. What is called external attribution in the theory of corresponding inference is called situational attribution in the theory of covariation. Like Heider, Kelley (1967, 1971) viewed the attribution process as an attempt to apply some rudimentary scientific principles to causal analysis. In the corresponding inference theory, on the other hand, the perceiver is seen as the moral or legal judge of the actor. Observers consider intent and decision, the same factors that judges and juries consider when assigning responsibilities. Kelley's scout is more scientific: just the facts, ma'am. According to Kelley, the basic rule applied to causal analysis is the principle of covariation, which states that if a response exists when a situation (person, object, event) exists, and does not exist when the same situation does not exist, this situation present is the cause of the reaction (Kelley, 1971). In other words, people decide that the most likely cause of a particular behavior is the factor that most often covaries (occurs at the same time) with the occurrence of that behavior. For example, let's say your friend Keisha saw the hit movie Crash and loved it. You're trying to decide if you would like it too and if you should check it out. The questions you need to answer are: What is causing Keisha's reaction? Why did you like this movie? Is it about the movie? Or is it something about Keisha? To make an attribution in this case you need information and we have three relevant sources or types of information at our disposal: 1. Consensus information 2. Distinctive information 3. Consistent information Consensus information tells us how other people reacted to it or situation. You might ask: How did my other friends like Crash? How are the grades? In general, how did other people react to this stimulus or situation? if you find it high

Chapter 3

Social Perception: Understanding other people

Consensus - everyone liked it - well then it's probably a good movie. In terms of causal attribution, it's the movie that caused Keisha's behavior. A high level of consensus leads to situational attribution. What if Keisha liked the movie but no one else did? So it has to be Keisha and not the movie: Keisha always has odd tastes in movies. Low consensus results in attribution to a single person (nobody liked it except Keisha, so it must be Keisha). The second source or type of data that we use to make attributions is distinctness information. While consensus information relates to what other people think, discriminatory information relates to the situation in which the behavior occurred: we ask if there is something unique or special about the situation that might have caused the behavior. If the behavior occurs when there is nothing unusual or unusual about the situation (low abnormality), then we make a person attribution: if Keisha likes all the movies, then we have a low abnormality: nothing special about Crash, he must be Keisha. . If there is something special about the situation, we make a situation attribution. If this is the only movie that Keisha liked, we hold it up and the movie must be special. Low distinctiveness leads us to a person attribution; high distinctiveness leads us to a situational attribution. If the situation is unique (very high discrimination), then the behavior was likely caused by the situation and not something related to the person. The combination of a high degree of consensus and a high degree of expression always leads to a situational attribution. The combination of low consensus and low expression always leads to the attribution of a person. The third source or type of input is consistency information, which confirms whether the action occurs over time and across situations (Chen, Yates, & McGinnies, 1988). We ask ourselves: is this a specific behavior (low consistency) or does it repeat itself over time (high consistency)? In other words, is this behavior stable or unstable? Consistency is a factor that the corresponding theory of inference does not take into account. What do we learn by knowing how people behave over time? For example, the next time we see Keisha praising Crash again, we have evidence of persistence over time (Jones, 1990). We would have less confidence in your original assessment of the film if you told us that you don't think the film is very good now (low consistency). You'd think that maybe Keisha was in a good mood that night and that her mood affected her rating of the film. Consistency has to do with whether the behavior is a reliable indicator of its cause. The three sources of information used for the mapping are shown in Figures 3.3 and 3.4. Figure 3.3 shows the combination of information (high consensus, high consistency, and high distinctiveness) that leads us to a situational attribution. Watch the movie: everyone likes it (high consensus); Keisha, who likes few or no films, also likes them (high trait of this film); and Keisha always liked it (high behavioral consistency). Figure 3.4 shows the combination of information (poor consensus, high consistency, and little differentiation) that leads us to assign an individual. None of our friends like the movie (low consensus); Keisha likes the movie, but she likes all movies, even The Thing That Ate Newark (low honors); and Keisha always liked that movie (high consistency). Maybe we should watch TV tonight. Not surprisingly, research on covariation theory shows that people prefer to make personal rather than situational attributions (McArthur, 1972). This is consistent with the (correspondence) bias found in correspondence inference theory and again highlights the tendency to overemphasize the person in causal analysis. It also fits with our tendency to be cognitive misers and take the easy route to making causal attributions.

Cognitive miser The idea that suggests that people, due to their limited ability to comprehend information, deal with only small amounts of social information and prefer the least labor-intensive means of processing it.

social psychology

Figure 3.3 Combination of information leading to a situation assignment.

Dual Process Models We emphasize that humans are cognitive misers and use the least effort strategy that is available. But they are not cognitive fools. We know that while most impressions are formed automatically, sometimes they are not. People tend to make attributions automatically, but there are times when they need to make careful and reasoned attributions (Chaiken & Trope, 1999). Trope (1986) proposed an attribution theory that specifically considers when people make careful and reasoned analyzes of the causes of behavior. Trope, like other theorists, posited that the first step in our assessment of attribution is an automatic categorization of the observed behavior, followed by more careful and conscious inferences about the person (Trope, Cohen, & Alfieri, 1991). The first step, identifying the behavior, often happens quickly, automatically, and without much thought. However, the assignment made in this first step can be adjusted in the second step. During this second step, you can review the situation to see if the target was being controlled from something outside. If "something made you do it," then you can hold it less responsible (internally) for the behavior. In these cases, an inferential adjustment is made (Trope et al., 1991). What information does the observer use to make these assignments? Trope plausibly argued that perceivers consider the behavior, the situation in which the behavior occurs, and prior information about the actor. Our knowledge of situations helps us understand behavior even when we know nothing about the person. When someone cries at a wedding, we draw a different conclusion about the cause of that behavior than when the person cries at a funeral. Our prior knowledge of the person may cause us to correct our first impression of the person's behavior. Gilbert (1989, 1991) and his colleagues developed a slightly different model. Influenced by Trope's two-step model, they proposed a three-step model. The first stage is the well-known automatic categorization of behavior (that the action

Chapter 3

Social Perception: Understanding other people

Figure 3.4 Combination of information leading to attribution of an individual.

was aggressive); the second is behavioral characterization (George is an aggressive guy); and the third, Correction, is to adjust that attribution based on situational factors (George was unnecessarily provoked). Gilbert basically divided trope's first step, the identification process, into two parts: categorization and characterization. The third step is the same as the second step of Trope's conclusion fitting. For example, if you say to your boss, "Nice to see you," the statement could be classified as friendly, and the speaker could be characterized as someone who likes the other person; Finally, this last conclusion can be corrected since the utterance is addressed to someone who has power over the speaker (Gilbert, McNulty, Guiliano, & Benson, 1992). The correction is based on the conclusion that you better be nice to your boss. Gilbert suggests that categorization is an automatic process; characterization is not fully automatic, but is relatively easy and requires little attention; but correction is a more cognitively demanding (controlled and laborious) process (Gilbert & Krull, 1988). Of course, we must have the cognitive resources to make these corrections. When we feel overwhelmed or distracted, we are unable to make these harsh corrections, and our default response is to make internal and dispositional attributions and ignore situational information (Gilbert & Hixon, 1991; Trope & Alfieri, 1997).

Intentionality and attributions Malle (2006) filled some gaps in our understanding of how individuals make attributions by exploring the relationship between intentionality (did the person intend to do what they actually did?) and judgments about the causes of the behavior considered. The intention to judge has many implications for our understanding of what defines guilt and morality. The perpetrator who yells, "I didn't know the gun was loaded," even mistakenly reclaims our understanding of intent and guilt. If I thought the gun was unloaded I could not have intended to kill the victim and therefore I am innocent or should be legally if not morally presumed innocent.

social psychology

Malle asked: What constitutes the common people's idea of what a "premeditated" act is? The answers to Malle's question revealed four factors: desire, belief, intention, and awareness. Desire refers to hope for a specific outcome; Belief was defined as thinking about what would happen before the act actually happened; Intention meant that the action had to be carried out; and awareness has been defined as "knowing about the action while the person was performing it" (Malle, 2006, p. 6). However, later research showed that the common notions of intentionality contained a fifth component. We assess whether the person really has the ability or capability to do what was requested. So if I'm a lousy tennis player, which I am, and hit multiple aces in a row, it's clear that even if I wanted to, observers who know my skill level probably wouldn't conclude that I intended it. works so well Note here: There is a difference between intention attributions and intentionality attributions. An intention to do something is defined by wanting to do something (desire) and beliefs about what actions will get me the desired result. But intentionality requires the first two components plus the ability or ability to do what one wants and the intention to do it. Malle presents us with the following situation: A nephew plans to kill his uncle by hitting him with his car. While driving, the nephew accidentally hits and kills a man who, unknown to the nephew, is his uncle. So what we have here is the comparison between actions that were taken as planned (he was planning to kill his uncle) and actions that were unintentional (he accidentally ran over someone who happened to be his uncle). Malle asked people to judge whether or not the murder was intentional. There is no right answer here, but when people do make a murder conviction, it is because they concluded that the intent to kill was there and that the actual event, the accident, was less critical than the attribution of the original intent to kill. Others who voted for "accidental" homicide concluded that the act (running over the uncle) was separate from the intent to kill (Malle, 2006). Although the circumstances of Malle's case are quite unusual, the results show that observers can make attributions based on differing interpretations of intent.

Attribution Bias We know that people can't always accurately gauge how other people really are. While these attribution models assume that people can generally take full advantage of social information, we mostly take shortcuts and make a number of predictable mistakes. These mistakes or prejudices are examples of the cognitive miser as a social observer. We deviate from the rules that a "pure scientist" would apply, as described in the relevant inference, and in particular from the models of covariation. Note, however, that some theorists argue that these biases are a consequence of people using a slightly different attribution model than previous theorists had assumed. In other words, there is no bias in the sense that people get it wrong in the way they make attributions; People just use the models differently than previous theorists thought.

Misattributions A famous example of how our attributions can be misguided is illustrated by a now classic experiment by Schachter and Singer (1962). Schachter and Singer showed that two conditions are necessary for the generation of an emotional response:

Chapter 3

Social Perception: Understanding other people

mental arousal and cognitions that mark arousal and thus identify the emotion to the person experiencing it. Schachter and Singer injected participants with epinephrine, a hormone that produces all the symptoms of physiological arousal: rapid breathing, increased heart rate, palpitations, etc. Half of these people were accurately told that the injection would produce an arousal state, and others were told that the injection was just a vitamin and would have no effect. In addition, subjects in a control group received no drug. The participants were then placed in a room to await another part of the experiment. Some subjects were in a room with an experimenter ally, who was acting happy, excited, and even euphoric, laughing, making paper balls, and throwing the balls in the trash. Others found an accomplice who was angry and throwing things around the room. All subjects thought the Confederates were one more subject. Schachter and Singer (1962) argued that the physiological arousal caused by the injection could be interpreted in different ways. Subjects who were misinformed about the true effects of the injection had no reasonable explanation for their increased arousal. The most obvious stimulus was the behavior of the accomplice. The results showed that agitated subjects behaved angrily in a room with an angry person; those in a room with a lucky accomplice behaved euphorically. What about the subjects in the group who received the injection and were told what it was? These informed subjects had a complete explanation for their emotions, so they just thought the Confederate was weird and waited in silence. Research shows that our emotional state can be manipulated. When we don't have easily accessible explanations for an arousal state, we investigate the environment to find a probable cause. If the cues we find point us to anger or aggression, then we may act that way. When the signals suggest joy or happiness, our behavior can match those signals. It is of course true that this experiment was a temporary and disinterested situation for the subjects. People are more likely to be less likely to misattribute their emotions when they are more motivated to understand the sources of their feelings and when they have a context that is more familiar to them.

The Fundamental Attribution Error A pervasive bias in the attribution process is the tendency to attribute causes to people rather than to situations. This bias is called the fundamental attribution error. If you've ever watched the Jeopardy TV show, you've probably seen the following scenario in various forms: A nervous contestant selects "Russian History" for $500. The answer is: "He was known as the 'Crazy Monk'. '" A contestant calls out and says, 'Who was Molotov?' Alex Trebek, the host, replies, 'Oh no, the right question is, 'Who was Rasputin?' As the show goes on, certain things obviously become a lot of trivial and not such trivial information, they don't seem as smart or as informed as Trebek. Sometimes we make attributions about people without paying enough attention to the roles they play. Sure, Trebek seems smart and, of course he is smart, but he also has all the answers. Unfortunately, this last fact sometimes eludes us. This so-called quiz phenomenon was vividly demonstrated in an experiment in which researchers simulated a quiz show for college students on television, college students (Ross, Amabile & Steinmetz, 1977).

Fundamental Attribution Error The tendency to automatically attribute the causes of another person's behavior to intrinsic rather than situational forces.

social psychology

They had some special skills or information, but it was pure coincidence and they had to ask some pretty difficult but well-known questions. A control group of interrogators asked questions formulated by others. Members of both groups played a fictional question and answer game. After the question-and-answer session, all participants rated their own level of knowledge and that of their partners. Now we all can think of some questions that might be difficult for other people to answer. Who was the Dodgers' third baseman in the 1947 World Series? | Where is Boca Grande? When did Emma Bovary live? The interrogators clearly had one key advantage: they could sift through his trove of knowledge, trivial and deep, and find a few nuggets others didn't know about. When asked to rank the pollsters' level of knowledge compared to the participants, both pollsters and participants rated the pollsters as more literate, particularly in the experimental group, in which pollsters formulated their own questions. Only one candidate rated himself superior in knowledge to the questioner. The basic attribution error can be seen clearly in this experiment: people attribute behavior to internal factors even when they have information suggesting that situational factors are at work. Because the questioners seemed to know more than the participants, the participants thought the questioners were smarter. The vast majority of participants could not explain the situation. The phenomenon of beauty pageants occurs in many social situations. The relationship between doctor and patient or teacher and student can be understood through this effect. When dealing with individuals in positions of high status or authority who seem to have all the answers, we attribute their behavior to positive intrinsic traits such as knowledge and intelligence. Such attribution reinforces his power over us.

Why We Make the Basic Attribution Error Why do we err in favor of internal attributions? Various explanations for the basic attribution error have been offered, but two seem to be the most useful: a focus on personal responsibility and behavioral presence. Western culture emphasizes the importance of individual responsibility (Gilbert & Malone, 1995); We expect people to take responsibility for their behavior. We expect to be in control of our destiny and our behavior, and we expect others to be in control as well. We tend to look down on those who apologize for their behavior. It is not surprising, therefore, that when explaining behavior we tend to regard internal rather than external causes as the primary causes (Forgas, Furnham, & Frey, 1990). The second reason for the prevalence of fundamental attribution errors is behavioral emphasis. In social situations, as in all perceptual situations, our senses and attention are directed outward. The “actor” becomes the focus of our attention. Their behavior is more prominent than the less dominant context or environment. The actor becomes the "figure" (focus in the foreground) and the situation in the "background" (overall background) in a complex figure-ground relationship. An established maxim of perceptual psychology is that the figure stands out from the background and thus attracts our attention. The observer is more likely to be 'swallowed by the behavior' than by the surrounding circumstances (Heider, 1958). When a person behaves maliciously, we conclude that they are an unpleasant person. The factors that may have caused this disease are not readily available or accessible to us, so it is easy, even natural, to overlook or minimize them. Thus, we quickly fall into the fundamental attribution error.

Chapter 3

Social Perception: Understanding other people

Correcting the Fundamental Attribution Error So are we unable to resist this common misattribution of causality? Not necessarily. As you probably already know from experience, the basic attribution error does not always occur. There are circumstances that increase or decrease the likelihood of this error. For example, you are less likely to make the mistake of perceiving information outside of the other person that is relevant to explaining the causes of your behavior. But even under these circumstances, the error does not go away; it only gets weaker. Although the error is strong and occurs in many situations, it can be mitigated when you have complete information about why a person is doing something and are motivated to conduct careful analysis.

The Actor-Observer Bias Actors prefer external attribution of their own behavior, especially when outcomes are poor, while observers tend to internally attribute the same behavior. The actor-observer bias is particularly strong when we try to explain negative behavior, either our own or that of others. This bias alerts us to the importance of perspective when it comes to attribution errors, since different perspectives affect the different constructions of reality that people produce. A simple do-it-yourself experiment demonstrates the prevalence of actor-observer bias (Fiske & Taylor, 1984). Using a list of adjectives as in Table 3.1, rate a friend based on the adjectives listed, and then rate yourself. If you're like most people, you've given your friend higher grades than yourself. Why these results? You probably see your friend's behavior as relatively constant in all situations, while you see your own behavior as rather variable. You probably chose category 0 for yourself, which sometimes shows

absolutely not describe

–1

usually do not describe

Sometimes it describes, sometimes not.

(Video) Mom Installs Camera, Sees Why She’s Always Tired

often describes

describes it perfectly my friend

domineering controlling authoritarian argumentative attentive ambitious outgoing sociable friendly

Auto

Actor-observer bias An attribution bias that shows that we prefer external attribution to our own behavior, especially when the outcomes are negative, while observers tend to make internal attribution to the same behavior of others.

social psychology

They see themselves as aggressive, thoughtful, or warm-hearted, and sometimes not. Depends on the situation. We see other people's behavior as more stable and less dependent on situational factors. The crucial role of perspective in situations of social perception is demonstrated in a creative experiment in which the perspectives of both the observer and the actor were changed (Storms, 1973). Using videotape equipment, the investigator had the actor view his own behavior from an observer's perspective. He showed the actor a videotape of himself that someone else had seen. He also got the viewer to take the actor's perspective by showing them a videotape of what the world looked like from the actor's point of view. That is, the viewer saw a videotape of themselves from the point of view of the actor, the person they were looking at. As observers and actors adopted these new perspectives, their attribution analyzes changed. Observers who took the actors' visual perspective made less personal and more situational attributions. They began to see the world as the actors saw it. When actors took the perspective of observers, they made attributions less situational and more personal. Both observers and actors could see themselves as others saw them, an always instructive if precarious exercise. In this case, you have provided information about the process of root cause analysis.

false consensus bias The tendency to believe that our own feelings and behavior are shared by everyone else.

The False Consensus Bias When we analyze the behavior of others, we often ask ourselves: What would I have done? This is our search for consensus information (What are others doing?) when we lack that information. In doing so, we often overestimate the frequency and popularity of our own worldviews (Ross, Greene, & House, 1977). False consensus is simply the tendency to believe that everyone shares our own feelings and behaviors (Harvey & Weary, 1981). We tend to think that others have similar political views, find the same movies funny, and think that baseball is the quintessential American sport. False consensus bias can be an attempt to protect our self-esteem by assuming our opinions are correct and shared by the majority of others (Zuckerman, Mann, & Bernieri, 1982). That is, the attribution that other people share our views serves as validation and confirmation of the correctness of our views. However, this overestimation of the reliability of our own ideas can be a significant obstacle to rational thinking, and when people make the wrong assumption that their beliefs are universally accepted, the false consensus bias can serve as a justification for forcing their beliefs on others. (Fiske and Taylor, 1991).

Building an Impression of Others Once the attributions are made, it remains to determine what processes observers use to form a complete picture of other people. We know that automatic processing of social information is widespread. We also know how people make attributions and what biases they have in making those attributions. Let's see how they can pull all that social influence together into one coherent picture.

The Importance of First Impressions How many times have you met someone who gave you an immediate positive or negative impression? How did that first impression affect your later ones?

Chapter 3

Social Perception: Understanding other people

interactions with this person? First impressions can have a huge impact on how we perceive others. Researchers have consistently demonstrated a primacy effect in the process of impression formation; H. the tendency for initial information to play a significant role in our final impression of a person. In addition, the first impression can in turn influence the interpretation of subsequent information. This was demonstrated in a study in which subjects watched a person take a test (Jones, Rock, Shaver, Goethals, & Ward, 1968). Some of the observers saw that the candidate did very well at first and then deteriorated as the test progressed. Other observers saw that the candidate performed poorly at first and then got better. Although both test takers finished with the same score, the one who did well at the beginning was rated as more intelligent than the one who did well at the end. In other words, the first impression remained, even if later information began to contradict it. This persistence of belief, the tendency for first impressions to stick despite later conflicting information, explains much of the power of first impressions. A second reason why first impressions last so long is that people often reinterpret incoming information in light of first impressions. We try to organize information about other people into a coherent picture, and later information that doesn't match first impressions is often reinterpreted to fit initial beliefs about that person. If your first impression of a person is that they're kind, you might write off a later encounter where they're abrupt and casual like a freak: "He's just having a bad day." We can see that our personal schemas influenced by the primacy effect of shared social information.

Schemas The goal of social cognition is to obtain enough information to make relatively accurate judgments about people and social situations. Next we need ways to organize the information we have. Perceivers have strategies to help them know what to expect from others and how to respond. For example, if a father hears his little daughter crying, he doesn't have to draw elaborate conclusions about what's wrong. You have an organized set of cognitions (related information) about why babies cry and what you can do about it. Psychologists call these sets of schemas organized cognitions. A schema about crying babies might include cognitions about dirty diapers, empty stomachs, sadness, or anger.

Origins of schemas Where do schemas come from? They are developed from information or experience with specific categories or social events. For example, you can learn about guilds by listening to others talk about them or by joining a guild. The more experience you have with sororities, the more comprehensive and complicated your plan will become. When we initially organize an outline, we first recall the most obvious characteristics of an event or category. When it comes to a schema about a person or a group of people, we start with the physical characteristics that we can see: gender, age, physical attractiveness, race or ethnicity, etc. We have different types of schemas for different social ones situations (Gilovich, 1991). We have self-schemas that help us organize our knowledge of our own personal characteristics and qualities. Personal schemas help us to organize and store in our memory the characteristics of people. People often have a theory, known as the implicit personality theory, about what types of personality traits go together. intellectual qualities,

primacy effect The observation that information found early in the process of impression formation plays an important role in our ultimate impression of a person.

Persistence of Belief The tendency for first impressions to persist despite subsequent conflicting information, which explains much of the power of first impressions.

Schema An organized set of cognitions that help us interpret, evaluate, and remember a wide range of social stimuli, including events, people, and ourselves.

Implicit Personality Theory A common personal schema belief that certain personality traits are interconnected and can help us form a quick impression of someone, but there is no guarantee that the first impression will be correct.

social psychology

for example, they are often associated with cold, and strong and adventurous traits often go together (Higgins & Stangor, 1988). An implicit theory of personality can help us make a quick impression on someone, but of course there is no guarantee that our first impression will be correct.

Self-Fulfilling Prophecy Tendency to expect behavior from ourselves that will result in confirmation of our original expectation.

Behavioral Affirmation A tendency for perceivers to behave as if their expectations were correct and targets responded in ways that confirmed the perceivers' beliefs.

The relationship between schemas and schemas of behavior sometimes leads us to act in ways that serve to validate them. For example, in one study, researchers convinced participants that they would be hostile to someone (Snyder & Swann, 1978). When the subjects interacted with this "hostile" person (who actually had no hostile intent), they behaved so aggressively that they caused the other person to respond in a hostile manner. Thus, the subjects' expectations were confirmed, a result referred to as a self-fulfilling prophecy (Jussim, 1986; Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968). The notion of self-fulfilling prophecy suggests that we often create our own realities through our expectations. For example, when we interact with members of a group that we consider hostile and dangerous, our actions can trigger the very behavior we are trying to avoid. This does not mean that we live in an imaginary world where there is no reality for what we think and believe. It does mean, however, that our expectations can change the nature of social reality. Consider the impact of a teacher's expectations on students. How important are these expectations in influencing student performance? In a study involving about 100 sixth grade math teachers and 1,800 students, researchers found that about 20% of scores on math tests were due to teacher expectations (Jussim & Eccles, 1992). Twenty percent is no small thing: it can mean the difference between an A and a B, or a pass or fail grade. The researchers also found that the teachers displayed clear gender bias. They rated the boys with the best math skills and the girls with the most effort. None of these results seemed correct in this study, but they did show why girls do better in math. The teachers mistakenly thought that the girls worked harder and therefore rewarded them with higher grades due to the girls' perceived greater effort. The other side of the self-fulfilling prophecy is behavioral confirmation (Snyder, 1992). This phenomenon occurs when perceivers behave as if their expectations are correct, and targets respond in a way that confirms the perceivers' beliefs. Although behavioral confirmation is similar to self-fulfilling prophecy, there is a subtle difference. When we speak of a self-fulfilling prophecy, we focus on the behavior of the viewer by causing the expected behavior of the target. When we speak of behavioral confirmation, we consider the role of the target's behavior in confirming the observer's beliefs. In behavior confirmation, the social observer uses the target's behavior (partly shaped by the observer's expectations) as evidence that the expectations are correct. The notion of behavioral affirmation emphasizes that both observers and goals have goals in social interactions. Whether a goal confirms an observer's expectations depends on what both parties expect from the interaction. For example, imagine you start a conversation with a stranger at a party. Without you knowing, she has already assessed you and decided that you are probably not interesting. He's constantly looking around the room while he's talking to you, asks a few questions about you, and doesn't seem to hear some of the things you're saying. Soon you begin to withdraw from the interaction and become more and more distant. As the conversation dies down, she walks away thinking, "How boring!" You turn around and see another stranger smiling at you. He decided you look very interesting. You strike up a conversation and discover that you have a lot in common. she is inter

Chapter 3

Social Perception: Understanding other people

appreciates what you say, looks at you when you speak, and laughs at your funny comments. You will soon be speaking in a relaxed and collected manner, feeling and acting confident and interested. In any case, their behavior tends to confirm the observer's expectations. Because someone shows interest in you, you become interesting. When someone thinks you are unattractive or unattractive, you respond in kind, confirming the observer's expectations (Snyder, Tanke, & Berscheid, 1977). As can be seen, the observer's ability to confirm his preconceived notions depends on what the target makes of the situation. To predict the likelihood of behavioral confirmation, we need to look at the social interaction from the target's perspective. If the goal of the interaction, from the target's perspective, is simply to socialize with the other person, the behavior is likely to be confirmed. When the goal is more important, behavior refutation is likely to occur (Snyder, 1993). Remember that the decision to confirm or not to confirm one's expectations is not always a conscious one.

Accepting new information in a schema Schemas have some disadvantages, as people tend to accept information that fits their schema and reject information that does not. This reduces uncertainty and ambiguity, but also increases errors. In the early stages of forming a schema of people, groups, or events, because we do not have much information, we are more likely to pay attention to information that disagrees with our original ideas (Bargh & Thein, 1985). Everything that doesn't fit into the scheme surprises us and draws our attention. However, once the schema is well-formed, we tend to remember information that conforms to that schema. Remembering the evidence that conforms to the schema is another example of the cognitive miser in action. Humans prefer the less laborious method of processing and absorbing information; helps to simplify a complex world (Fiske, 1993). If new information constantly and strongly suggests that a schema is wrong, the observer will change it. Most of the time we are uncomfortable with inconsistent schema information. We often reinterpret information to fit our scheme, but sometimes we change the scheme because we see it's wrong.

Confirmation Bias When we try to determine the cause or causes of an event, we usually have a hypothesis in mind. Suppose your college football team didn't live up to expectations, or you're asked to explain why American students underperform on standardized tests. Given these issues, we can begin to offer a tentative explanation. We can assume that our football team did poorly because the coach is incompetent. Or we can hypothesize that American college students' poor performance is caused by too much television viewing. How will we test these hypotheses in everyday life? When we make attributions about the causes of events, we routinely overestimate the strength of our hypothesis (Sanbonmatsu, Akimoto, & Biggs, 1993). We do this through the way we search for information about our hypothesis, generally tending to use a search strategy that confirms rather than refutes our hypothesis. This is called confirmation bias. One researcher asked participants to find out which rule is used to represent a series of three numbers, e.g. B. 2, 4, 6. The question was: Which rule does the experimenter use? What is your hypothesis? Suppose the hypotheses are consecutive even numbers. Affairs

Confirmation bias A tendency towards a search strategy that confirms rather than refutes our hypothesis.

social psychology

You could test your hypothesis about the rule by presenting a series of three numbers to see if it fits the rule. The experimenter would tell them if their set conformed to the rule, and then they would tell the experimenter what the rule hypothesis was. How would you test your hypothesis? Most people would present a crowd like 8, 10, 12. Remember that the purpose of the crowd is to confirm the hypothesis, not disprove it. The experimenter would say: yes, 8, 10, 12 corresponds to the rule. what is the rule You would say: Any of the three ascending even numbers. The experimenter would say: This is not the rule. What happened? You were sure you were right. The rule could have been one of the three ascending numbers. If you tried to refute your hypothesis, you would have gained a lot more diagnostic information than just trying to confirm it. If you had said 1, 3, 4 and been told that that was the rule, you could rule out your hypothesis about even numbers. We tend to make narrow hypotheses that ignore a variety of alternative explanations. In everyday life we tend to make attributions for causes that are important to us. If you hate the football manager, you're more likely to find evidence of his incompetence than realize that multiple player injuries have hampered the team's performance. In the same way, instead of looking for evidence that parents don't motivate their children or that academic achievement isn't appreciated by their peers, we can trace the cause of underachievement among American students to their TV viewing habits. Of course, we must keep in mind that there may be times when confirming your hypothesis is as rational as possible. However, if you're only testing confirming hypotheses, you're omitting evidence that you may need to determine the correct answer.

Heuristic rules of thumb that serve as shortcuts to organize and perceive social reality.

availability heuristic A shortcut used to estimate the frequency or likelihood of an event based on how quickly examples of the event come to mind.

Shortcuts to Reality: Heuristics As cognitive misers, we have a collection of tools at our disposal to help us organize our perceptions effortlessly. These shortcuts, rules of thumb that are part of our cognitive arsenal, are called heuristics. Like wishful thinking, heuristics help us understand the social world, but like wishful thinking, they can mislead us.

The Availability Heuristic If you're asked how many of your friends know people who serve in the military in Iraq, you'll quickly think of those who do. The availability heuristic is defined as a shortcut used to estimate the frequency or probability of an event based on how quickly examples of the event come to mind (Tversky & Kahneman, 1973). If service in Iraq is rare in your community, you will be underestimating the total number of soldiers; If you live in a community with many of these people, you overestimate the frequency of military service. The availability heuristic tends to affect our interpretations because the ease with which we can imagine an event affects our estimate of how often that event will occur. Television and newspapers, for example, tend to only report on the most visible violent events. Therefore, people tend to overestimate incidents of violence and crime, and the number of accidental and homicide deaths, because these events are the most memorable (Kahneman, Slovic, & Tversky, 1982). As with all cognitive shortcuts, biased judgments arise because the sample of people and events we remember is unlikely to be fair and complete. The Vincennes crew and captain no doubt had Stark's recent example in mind when they had to make a quick decision on the Iranian Airbus.

Chapter 3

Social Perception: Understanding other people

The Representativeness Heuristic Sometimes we judge the likelihood that an event or person will fall into a category based on how representative that person is of the category (Kahneman & Tversky, 1982). When making such judgments, we apply the representativeness heuristic. This heuristic gives us something very similar to a prototype (an image of the most typical member of a category). To understand how this heuristic works, imagine Steve, a person you describe as ambitious, argumentative, and highly intelligent. Now if you were told that Steve is a lawyer or a rancher, what do you think his profession is? You most likely guessed that he is a lawyer. Steve seems to be more representative of the lawyer category than the dairy farmer category. Aren't there ambitious and quarrelsome dairy farmers? Indeed they exist, but a heuristic is a shortcut to making a decision: a guess. Let's look at Steve again. Now imagine that Steve, still ambitious and argumentative, is one in 100 men; 70 of these men are dairy farmers and 30 are lawyers. How do you imagine your job under these conditions? The study that set out these issues and asked these questions found that most people still think of Steve as a lawyer (Kahneman & Tversky, 1982). Against all odds, they are fooled by the powerful heuristic of representativeness. The subjects who made this mistake did not use base rate data, population information, just individual information. They knew that 70 of the 100 men in the group were farmers; Therefore, there was a 7 in 10 probability that Steve was a pawn, regardless of his personal attributes. This tendency to underuse base rate data and to rely on the unique characteristics of the person or situation is known as the base rate fallacy.

Representativeness Heuristic A rule for assessing the likelihood that an event or person will fall into a category based on how representative that person is of the category.

Counterfactual Thinking The tendency to create scenarios in our heads to create positive alternatives to what actually happened is more likely to occur when we can easily imagine a different, more positive outcome. For example, let's say you leave home a little later than planned on your way to the airport and miss your plane. Does it matter if you miss 5 minutes or 30 minutes? Yes, missing 5 minutes scares you more because you can easily imagine how you could catch up on those 5 minutes and now you could be on your way to Acapulco. Any event that has a negative outcome but allows for a different, easily imagined outcome is susceptible to counterfactual thinking, an imaginary scenario that contradicts what actually happened. As another example, imagine that one day you took a new route home from school because you were fed up with the same old route. On this unknown route he is involved in an accident. You may be thinking, "If I had gone my usual way, none of this would have happened!" You are presenting a positive alternative (non-accident) scenario that is the opposite of what happened. People's propensity to perform these counterfactual mental simulations is widespread, particularly when dramatic events are occurring (Wells & Gavanski, 1989). In general, we are more likely to use counterfactual thinking when we perceive that events can change (Miller, Turnbull, & McFarland, 1989; Roese & Olson, 1997). As a rule, we perceive dramatic or extraordinary events (on a new way home) as more changeable than everyday events (on the normal way). Several studies have found that it is the variability of the event - the event that need not be

Counterfactual thinking The tendency to create positive alternatives to a negative outcome that actually occurred, especially when we can easily imagine a more positive outcome.

social psychology

influences the perception of causality (Gavanski & Wells, 1989; Kahneman & Tversky, 1982). People's responses to their own misfortune and that of others can be largely determined by the counterfactual alternatives that that misfortune creates (Roese & Olson, 1997).

Positive Psychology: Optimism, Cognition, Health, and Life Positive Psychology The field of psychology that focuses on what makes people happy and how optimism and happiness affect the way people think and act.

Metacognition The way we think about thinking, which is mostly optimistic.

Social psychology, after years of studying interesting but rather negative behaviors such as violence and aggression, prejudice and meanness (Zimbardo, 2005) like Ms. Robinson, has searched for a more uplifting image, and that image is called positive psychology. Stimulated by the arguments of Martin Seligman (Simonton & Baumeister, 2005), over the past decade psychologists have begun to study what makes people happy, how optimism and happiness affect the way people think and act. The results suggest that a manifestation of happiness, an optimistic outlook on life, has quite profound effects on our health, longevity, and cognition.

Optimism and Cognition We seem to have an optimistic and confident view of our abilities to navigate our social world, even though we seem to make many mistakes. Maybe it's because our metacognition, the way we think about thinking, is mostly optimistic. We know people believe they're above average on a variety of quests, a logical impossibility because except in Lake Wobegon, Garrison Keillor's mythical hometown, not everyone can be above average. So let's examine the possibility that the pursuit of happiness, or at least optimism and confidence, is a fundamental factor in the construction of our social world. Metcalfe (1998) examined the arguments for cognitive optimism and found from his own and other research that individuals express a consistent pattern of overconfidence in most cognitive activities. Among other things, Metcalfe found that people believe they can solve problems they cannot; that they feel very confident of being able to provide an answer when they are indeed about to make a mistake; who think they know the answer to a question when they don't have one; and they think the answer is on the "tip of the tongue" when there is no right or wrong answer. It's fair to say that optimists and pessimists actually see the world very differently. In a very clever experiment, Issacowitz (2005) used eye tracking to test the idea that pessimists pay more attention to negative stimuli than optimists. College students were asked to track visual stimuli (skin cancer, matching schematic drawings, and neutral faces). The experimenter measured the duration of fixation, the time the students spent tracking the stimuli. Optimists showed "selective inattention" to skin cancer. Optimists look away from negative stimuli to actually wear "rose-colored glasses," or rather, they can take their glasses off when negative stimuli are in their field of vision. This is the optimist's view, says Issacowitz (2005). Optimism and Health We know that optimism is sometimes extremely useful in human affairs. Laughter and good humor appear to help hospital patients cope with their illness (Taylor & Gollwitzer, 1995). An upbeat coping style also appears to help people with recovery.

Chapter 3

Social Perception: Understanding other people

faster and more effective than coronary bypass surgery. Research shows that optimistic bypass patients had fewer problems after surgery than pessimistic patients (Scheir et al., 1986). After surgery, optimists reported more positive family, sexual, recreational, and health-related activities than pessimistic patients. Many people respond to threatening events by developing positive delusions, beliefs that involve unrealistically optimistic ideas about their ability to cope with the threat and achieve a positive outcome (Taylor, 1989). These positive illusions are adaptive in the sense that ill people who are optimistic are persistent and creative in their attempts to deal with the psychological and physical threat of illness. The tendency towards positive delusions has been demonstrated in individuals who have tested positive for the HIV virus but have not yet shown symptoms (Taylor, Kemeny, Aspinwall, & Schneider, 1992). These individuals often expressed a belief that they had developed immunity to the virus and could "cleanse" the virus from their system. They acted on this belief by paying close attention to diet and fitness. However, the cognitive optimism discussed by Metcalfe differs from that of AIDS or cancer patients. In these cases, optimism is both a coping strategy (I can improve and to do that I need to follow medical advice) and a self-shield or even self-deception. Metcalfe argued that in everyday life, however, cognitive optimism is not self-deception, but merely an overly optimistic and flawed methodology. The result of this optimistic bias in perception is that people often give up on a problem because they think they will get the answer or convince themselves that they have actually learned new material when in fact they have not. . Optimism can simply be the way we approach our daily cognitive work. Not only does positive emotion seem to help us fight disease, but some evidence suggests that these positive, optimistic emotions can prevent certain diseases from occurring. Richman and his colleagues studied the effects of hope and curiosity on high blood pressure, diabetes mellitus, and respiratory infections. They argued that positive emotions might be helpful when negative emotions negatively impact disease progression. It is well known that high levels of anxiety are associated with a much higher risk of high blood pressure (hypertension). This study looked at 5,500 patients between the ages of 55 and 69. All patients received scales measuring 'hope' and 'curiosity'. Regardless of other factors affecting patient health, there was a strong association between positive emotions and health. The authors assume that experiencing positive emotions strengthens the immune system. In addition, it is likely that people with hope, curiosity, and other positive emotions can take action to protect their health (Richman, Kubzansky, Kawachi, Choo, & Bauer, 2005). One way to look at these studies is that happy people are resilient. They take measures to protect their health and respond positively to threats and disappointments.

Optimism and Happiness Diener and Diener (1996) found that about 85% of Americans rate their life as above average. In addition, 86% of the population ranks in the top 35% for life satisfaction (Klar & Gilardi, 1999; Lykken & Tellegren, 1996). It's clearly pretty crowded in that top 35%. While the 86% obviously cannot belong in the top 35%, Klar and Gilardi (1999) suggest that people feel this way because they have unequal access to other people's happiness states compared to their own. So when one person says they are truly happy, it is difficult for them to predict that others might be just as happy, and so most people (though certainly not all) can conclude that they are well above average.

Positive delusions Beliefs that involve unrealistically optimistic ideas about people's ability to deal with a threat and achieve a positive outcome.

social psychology

The pursuit of happiness, enshrined in none other than the Declaration of Independence, is a powerful if occasionally elusive motive and goal. But what factors explain happiness? Could it be the usual suspects: money, sex, baseball? Edward Diener's long-standing happiness research suggests that subjective factors (feeling in control, being positive about oneself) are more important than objective factors such as wealth (Diener, Suh, Lucas, & Smith, 1999). Yes, wealth matters, but not as much as you think. For example, one of Diener's studies showed that Americans who make millions of dollars are only marginally happier than those who are less fortunate. Perhaps one reason those who have more are not much happier than those who have less is that bigger and better "toys" only satiate, not more satisfying, and so it always takes more and better to make a positive to achieve result. experience (Lyubomirsky and Ross, 1999). A person's first car, for example, can be more rewarding than the one we buy as long as money is no object. Knutson and his colleagues studied how money affects our happiness. Knutson is a neuroscientist and is therefore interested in how the brain responds to the expectation of money and the actual having it (Kuhnen & Knutson, 2005). Brain scans showed that expecting financial rewards makes a person happier than receiving those rewards. You can be just as happy anticipating future rewards as you are receiving those rewards, and it saves you from trouble. Money can't buy happiness, but it can buy a piece of happiness. How much for a piece? Economists have reported that money and sex can be partially interchangeable goods (Blanchflower & Oswald, 2004). These researchers found that if you only have sex once a month, and if you're lucky, increase it to twice a week, that's the same as making an extra $50,000 a year. That doesn't necessarily mean you'd give up $50,000 to have sex four times as much. Lyubomirsky and Ross (1999) studied how happy and unhappy individuals coped with situations in which they achieved desired goals or were rejected or prevented from achieving those goals, such as admission to a particular university. In one study, these researchers looked at how individuals managed to be accepted or rejected in college. Figure 3.5 shows what happened. Note that happy (self-rated) participants show a significant increase in the attractiveness of their chosen college (the one that accepted them and they in turn accepted), while unhappy (self-rated) participants show no difference after being accepted and in indeed show a slight decline in the desirability ratings of the chosen university. In addition, happy seniors clearly rejected the appeal of colleges that rejected them, while their unhappy classmates did not. These results, according to Lyubomirsky and Ross (1999), illustrate how happy and unhappy people react (accepted or rejected) to the consequences of the choices they make and make. The happy seniors seemed to be doing the best thing in the world: if they got accepted to a university, that was the best place for them. If they were rejected, it might not have been a good choice after all. Unhappy people seem to live in a world of unappealing choices, and it may seem to them that it doesn't matter which alternative they choose or choose. It also seems that when unhappy people are distracted or prevented from thinking - prevented from focusing on the grim state of their world - they tend to react like happy people: Achieved goals get good grades; unreachable options are demoted. It may be a cliché, but even a cliché can be true: Americans are generally optimistic. Chang and Asakawa (2003) found that at least European Americans had an optimistic bias (they expected good things to happen to them), while the Japanese had a pessimistic bias and expected bad events. This cultural difference seems to project the idea that many Americans expect the best while many Japanese expect the worst.

Chapter 3

Social Perception: Understanding other people

The Impact of Heartbreaking and Happy Events on Future Happiness Lou Gehrig, the great Yankees first baseman who suffered from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS, also known as Lou Gehrig's disease), testified to a packed audience at Yankee Stadium in July 1939 that he generally considered himself the luckiest man alive. Gehrig spoke boldly and movingly, but he must have thought his luck had taken a turn for the worse. Maybe not, according to Gilbert and his associates. Gilbert proposed that there is a "psychological immune system," much like its physiological counterpart, that protects us from the ravages caused by bacterial and viral invasions. The psychological immune system fights off pessimism, often under the worst of circumstances (Gilbert, Pinel, Wilson, Blumberg, & Wheatley, 1998). In the classic film Casablanca (which no doubt none of you have seen), Humphrey Bogart's character "Rick" gallantly (stupidly, I thought) gives up Ingrid Bergman so she can be with her Nazi fighter husband. Rick himself was on his way to Brazzaville to join the French fighting the Nazis (that was WWII, for those of you who took a history course). Will she regret giving up handsome Rick? Was she happier with her husband? Gilbert (2006) suggests that either choice would have made her happy. Gilbert asks: Is it really possible that the late actor Christopher Reeve was actually in some ways better off than he was before his horrific and tragic accident, as Reeve claimed? Gilbert says yes it is possible. Gilbert and his colleagues have suggested that the psychological immune system works best when it's neglected because once we become aware of its function, it can stop working. Gilbert points out that we can convince ourselves that we've never really cared for our ex-spouse, but that protective cover won't last long if someone reminds us of the 47 Love Sonnets We Forgot We Were they have written. In an early series of studies, Gilbert and his colleagues asked participants to predict their emotional responses to good and bad events. First, the subjects reported that they were happy. All subjects were asked if they were involved in a romantic relationship and if they had experienced a breakup. People in relationships who have not experienced a breakup (“lucky ones”) were asked to predict how happy they would be 2 months after the breakup. Those who were in a romantic relationship but are no longer

Figure 3.5 Grades of students from the selected school from which they were rejected and from the school from which they were rejected, before and after admission or rejection. Adapted from Lyubormirsky and Ross (1999).

social psychology

("Leftovers") were invited to report how happy they were. Others who are not in a relationship ("single") were asked to predict how happy they would be 6 months into a romantic relationship. First, we found out that being in a romantic relationship is happier than not being in one. Loners thought that 6 months into a relationship they would be just as happy as people in a romantic relationship. So the loners were right in their predictions, because people in a relationship report as much happiness as the loners predicted if they were in a 6-month relationship. But interestingly, the lucky ones weren't happier than the leftovers. The lucky ones thought that if the relationship ended, they would be very unhappy. But those who did experience an outbreak, the cunningly named remnants, were actually very lucky, so the lucky ones were wrong. The college students in the first study made dire predictions about the state of their happiness after a breakup. Gilbert and his colleagues found that professors were denied tenure and voters whose candidate lost a major election overestimated the depth of their future dissatisfaction from the negative outcome and, in fact, were all on the same page about three months later. negative event. In fact, Gilbert's research suggests that even the most damaging events produce the same results. One of the weird things about optimism is that we don't seem to know exactly what's going to make us happy or how happy something is going to make us feel. Wilson, Meyers, and Gilbert (2003) reported that people may overestimate the importance of future events for their happiness. For example, these researchers found that George W. Bush supporters overestimated how happy they would be if Bush won the election. There is also retrospective impact bias, which refers to overestimating the impact of past events on present happiness. People overestimate the permanence of their negative reactions (the "permanence error") and fail to take into account that the psychological immune system tends to regulate our emotional state. Instead, they might explain your ability to bounce back afterwards by saying something like "I can handle things better than I thought" to explain why they mispredicted your long-term emotional responses. It seems that most of us can rely on this immune system to maintain some level of stability through the ups and downs of life. Much research remains to be done, but it is possible that there are significant individual differences in the functioning of the psychological immune system, and this may explain the different perceptions of happiness between individuals (Gilbert, 2006).

The Incompetent, the Inept: Are They Happy? Kruger and Dunning (1999) found in a series of studies that incompetent people are sometimes very confident in their abilities, perhaps even more so than competent people. It seems that the skills required to behave competently are the same as those required to recognize incompetence. If incompetent people could see incompetence, they would be competent. Life is really unfair. For example, students who were the worst performers on a logic test were more likely to overestimate their performance. Those who performed in the bottom 12% of test takers were estimated to have scored in the lower 60th percentile. The less experienced also overestimated their performance in grammar and humor tests. Less competent examinees, when given the opportunity to compare their performance with high achievers, did not recognize the competence: that is, the inept ones thought their own performance was up to date. In contrast, competent examinees corrected when compared with better ones High achievers were confronted with making their own assessments of the work in light of what they saw as the truly competent achievements of others.

Chapter 3

Social Perception: Understanding other people

While these results are intriguing, a few factors can limit them. It may be that the nature of the tasks (including logic, grammar, and humor) was quite vague, so not everyone might have had an intuitive understanding of what was being tested. Also, if you ask people to compare themselves to other "average" people, they may have different ideas of what average is. Anyhow, here's an example of the false consensus effect: Other people need to do just as well as I do, so the 60% level (slightly better than average; think Lake Woebegone) is fine. Alternatively, if you go bowling and hit 20 balls in a row, the proof that you are incompetent is undeniable.

Cognitive Optimism: An Evolutionary Interpretation Of course, we humans do not judge the world around us, or our own place in it, with clear, unbiased eyes. We have listed many cognitive biases and the question arises as to what the purpose of these biases is. Haselton and Nettle (2006) convincingly argue that these biases have an evolutionary purpose. For example, men tend to overestimate the amount of sexual interest they arouse in women. Haselton and Nettle (2006) point out that this is an 'adaptive' bias, since overestimating sexual interest leads to fewer missed opportunities. Consider the sinister attribution error we discussed earlier: This is a type of paranoid cognition in which certain individuals develop a highly paranoid perceptual style. When someone is new to a group or has a different racial or ethnic background than other members of the group, that person is very alert to signs of discrimination, whether subtle or non-existent. These "paranoid" reactions are likely burned into our brains and stem from old environments when moving to a new group or village required special attention to other people's reactions. One mistake and you could be asked to leave, or worse (Haselton & Nettle, 2006). Even the most extreme positive illusions can serve important evolutionary purposes. The adaptive nature of these illusions is revealed when people are confronted with terminal illnesses. The illusion of being able to “beat” the disease is adaptive in the sense that people can actively take health-promoting measures that at least increase their life expectancy even if they do not beat the disease in the long term (Haselton & Brennnessel, 2006). Conclusion Much of what we have discussed in this chapter suggests that as social observers we make predictable mistakes. In addition, much of what we do happens automatically and not under conscious control. The bottom line is that we are cognitive tacticians who expend energy to be precise when necessary, but accept a rough approximation. Perceptual Accuracy is the highest stat, but it's not the only stat; Efficiency and conservation of cognitive energy are also important. And that's why we're willing to make certain concessions when a situation doesn't require absolute precision. The more efficient a system is, the more automatically its activities run. But when we're motivated, when an event or interaction is really important, we tend to break out of this unconscious, automatic mode and try to make accurate judgments. Given the sheer volume of social information we deal with, most of us are pretty good at navigating it.

Ominous Attribution Error The tendency of certain individuals to attribute unreliability to others.

social psychology

The Vincennes Revisited The events leading up to the launch of a missile targeting a U.S.S. Vincennes are clear with hindsight. Vincennes' team built their own vision of reality based on their past experiences, their expectations of what might happen and their interpretations of what was happening in that moment, as well as their fears and anxieties. All of these factors were in turn influenced by the context of current international events, which included a bitter feud between the United States and what Americans perceived as an extremist Iranian government. The crew of the Vincennes had reason to expect an attack from somewhere, and so they interpreted the plane's trajectory. This is despite the fact that further analysis revealed that the aircraft had to be a civil aircraft. The event clearly shows the crucial influence of our expectations and past experiences on our perception of new events.

Chapter Review 1. What is impression formation? Impression formation is the process by which we form judgments about others. Biological and cultural forces drive us to form impressions that can have adaptive meaning for humans. 2. What are automatic and controlled treatments? Much of our social cognition involves the automatic processing or formation of impressions without much thought or attention. Thoughts that are conscious and require effort are referred to as controlled processing. However, when we have important goals to achieve, we will shift to more controlled processing and devote more energy to making sense of social information. Automatic and controlled processing are not separate categories but form a continuum ranging from full automation to full allocation of our psychic energy to understand and control the situation. 3. What does a cognitive miser mean? The notion of the cognitive miser suggests that people process social information in the method that results in the least expenditure of cognitive energy. Much of our time is spent in cognitive greed mode. Unless we are otherwise motivated, we put in just enough effort to get the job done. 4. What evidence is there for the importance of unconscious choices? Recent research suggests that the best way to deal with complex decisions is to trust the subconscious. Conscious thinking is very precise and allows us to follow strict rules and patterns, but its ability to process a lot of information is limited. So conscious thinking is required to do, for example, math, which is a rule-based exercise, but it may not be as good for dealing with complex questions with many alternatives.

Chapter 3

Social Perception: Understanding other people

5. How does automatism affect behavior and emotions? Behavior can be influenced by cues that are below the level of consciousness. There is evidence that priming, "the unconscious activation of social knowledge," is a very powerful social concept and influences a wide variety of behaviors. Recall the research showing that the mere presence of a backpack in a room led to more cooperative group behavior, while the presence of a briefcase encouraged more competitive behavior. It also became clear that our emotional responses to events are often not under conscious control. Researchers have shown that we're not very good at predicting how current emotional events will affect us in the future. For one thing, we tend to overlook the fact that the more intense the emotion, the less staying power it has. We tend to underestimate our tendency to return to balance (homeostasis) in order to lessen the impact of even the most negative or even the most positive emotions. Apparently, extreme emotions are triggered: mental processes that serve to counteract the intensity of emotions are stimulated, so that intense emotional states do not have to last as long as milder ones. 6. Are our impressions of others correct? There are significant differences between social observers in their ability to accurately assess other people. Those who are comfortable with their own emotions are better able to express those emotions and read other people. People who are unsure of their own feelings, who try to hide their feelings from others, are not very good at reading other people's feelings. Despite clear differences in the ability to read others, most of us seem confident that we can do it accurately. This is especially true when we have a large amount of information about that person. However, research shows that our accuracy is less than we think, regardless of what information is available to us. Partly this seems true because we pay attention to the obvious cues, but we don't pay attention to the more subtle non-verbal cues. We are particularly unable to tell when someone is lying, even when someone is very close to us. 7. What is sample bias? Sampling bias suggests that our initial interaction with individuals is critical to the occurrence of further interactions. Imagine you are a member of a newly formed group and begin to interact with others in the group. You know Person A who has poor social skills. Your interaction with him is limited, and you understandably tend to avoid him in the future. Now Person B is different. She has excellent social skills and conversation with her is easy and fluent. Obviously, you experience more of person B's behavior than person A's. Consequently, false negative impressions of person A may never be modified, while false positive impression of B may well be modified by "showing" more than just behavior. That is, the initial interaction determines whether or not you will experience more of that person's behavior. This appears to be particularly true for people belonging to different racial or ethnic groups.

social psychology

8. Can we catch liars? Not very good. A comprehensive review of all the lie detection literature shows that while there are many clues to lying, they are unusual, unexpected, and very subtle. When people lie about themselves, the clues can be a little stronger, but for most of us it's still a guessing game. 9. What is the award process? The attribution process involves attributing causes to the behavior we observe, both our own and that of others. Various theories have been developed to explore how perceivers determine the causes of other people's behavior. The corresponding inference and covariation models were the most general attempts to describe the attribution process. 10. What are internal and external orders? When we make an internal attribution about a person, we attribute the cause of the behavior to an internal source. For example, failing an exam can be attributed to a person's intelligence or level of motivation. External attribution explains the cause of the behavior as an external factor. For example, failing a test can be attributed to the death of a student's parents in a car accident a few days before the test. 11. What is the theory of appropriate inference and what factors go into forming an appropriate inference? The corresponding inference theory helps explain the attribution process when observers are confronted with unclear information. We draw a corresponding inference when we find that a person freely (rather than coercively) engaged in behavior and conclude that the person intended the behavior. In this case, we carry out an internal assignment. Research shows that the observer who acts as a cognitive miser has a strong tendency to draw an appropriate conclusion, attributing the cause of the behavior to the actor and downplaying the situation when the evidence suggests otherwise. 12. What are the theory of covariation and the principle of covariation? The principle of covariation states that people decide that the most likely cause of a behavior is the factor that covaries or occurs concurrently, most often with the occurrence of that behavior. The theory of covariation suggests that people rely on non-consensus (or does everyone?), consistency (does this person behave this way or always?), and discrimination (does this person behave in all situations or hardly any?). . 13. How does consensus, consistency, and distinctness information lead to internal or external attribution? When consensus (everyone acts this way), consistency (the target always acts this way), and distinctiveness (the target only acts this way in a specific situation) are high, we make an external attribution. However, when consensus is low (no one else behaves this way), consistency is high (the target almost always behaves this way), and distinctiveness is low (the target behaves this way in many situations), we do an internal task. .

Chapter 3

Social Perception: Understanding other people

14. What is the dual-process attribution model and what does it tell us about the attribution process? Trope's two-stage model recognized that the initial phase of causal attribution is an automatic categorization of behavior; a second step can lead to a readjustment of this initial categorization, especially when the behavior or situation is ambiguous. Trope's model got theorists thinking about how and when people readjust their initial conclusions. 15. What does attribution bias mean? Both inferential models and the corresponding covariation emphasize that people often deviate from the (causal) analysis of the attribution models they present and make some predictable errors in their causal analyses. 16. What is the basic attribution error? The fundamental attribution error highlights the fact that people prefer internal attributions of behavior to external ones. Basic attribution errors can be part of a general tendency to confirm what we believe to be true and avoid information that refutes our hypotheses. This is called confirmation bias. 17. What is actor-observer bias? Actor-observer bias occurs when observers emphasize internal attributions while actors prefer external attributions. That is, when we observe another person we make the familiar internal attribution, but when we act ourselves we mostly believe that our behavior was caused by the situation in which we acted. This appears to be due to a different perspective. When we look at other people, the most obvious thing is what they do. But when we try to decide why we did something, the external factors, the situation, become more obvious. 18. What is false consensus bias? False consensus bias occurs when people tend to believe that others think and feel the same way they do. 19. How important is the first impression? First impressions can have a huge impact on how we perceive others. Researchers have consistently demonstrated a primacy effect in the process of impression formation; H. the tendency for initial information to play a significant role in our final impression of a person. In addition, the first impression can in turn influence the interpretation of subsequent information. 20. What are schemas and what role do they play in social cognition? The goal of social cognition is to obtain enough information to make relatively accurate judgments about people and social situations. An important way to organize this information is to develop schemas, organized sets of insights about people or events. One type of schema important to social cognition is implicit personality theories, schemas about what types of personality traits go together. For example, intellectual traits are often associated with coolness, and strong and adventurous traits often go hand in hand.

100

social psychology

21. What is a self-fulfilling prophecy and how is it related to behavior? Schemas also influence behavior, as illustrated by the notion of self-fulfilling prophecy. This suggests that we often create our own realities through our expectations. For example, when we interact with members of a group that we consider hostile and dangerous, our actions can trigger the very behavior we are trying to avoid, the behavior confirmation process. This occurs when perceivers behave as if their expectations are correct, and the targets of those perceptions respond in ways that validate the perceivers' beliefs. When we make attributions about the causes of events, we routinely overestimate the strength of our hypothesis about why events happened the way they did. This bias in favor of our interpretations of the causes of behavior arises because we tend to pursue a search strategy that confirms rather than refutes our hypothesis. This is called confirmation bias. 22. What are the different types of heuristics that often guide social cognition? A heuristic is a shortcut or rule of thumb that we use when constructing social reality. The availability heuristic is defined as a shortcut used to estimate the likelihood or frequency of an event based on how quickly examples of the event come to mind. The representativeness heuristic involves making judgments about the likelihood that an event or person will fall into a category based on how representative the person or event is of the category. Simulation heuristics are a tendency to create alternative scenarios in our minds. Counterfactual thinking involves taking a negative event or outcome and running through scenarios in our minds to create positive alternatives to what actually happened. 23. What is meant by metacognition? Metacognition is the way we think about thinking, which can be mainly optimistic or pessimistic. 24. How are optimism and pessimism related to cognition and social behavior? We tend to be optimistic and confident about our abilities to navigate our social world, even when we seem to make many mistakes. Many people respond to threatening events by developing positive wishful thinking, beliefs that involve unrealistically optimistic ideas about their ability to handle the threat and achieve a positive outcome. These positive illusions are adaptive in the sense that optimistic people will be persistent and creative in their attempts to deal with threats or illness. Most people think that they are very satisfied with their lives, certainly happier than others. Happy and unhappy people react differently to positive and negative events. For example, people who would like to be accepted into a university believe that this is the best place for them. When they are rejected, they think maybe it wasn't a good choice after all. Unhappy people seem to live in a world of unattractive options, and it may seem to them that it doesn't matter which alternative they choose or choose. It seems that the incompetent are happy and optimistic because they don't see themselves as incompetent.

Chapter 3

Social Perception: Understanding other people

In fact, it can be said that optimists and pessimists see the world very differently. In a very clever experiment, Issacowitz (2005) used eye tracking to test the idea that pessimists pay more attention to negative stimuli than optimists. Not only does positive emotion seem to help us fight disease, but some evidence suggests that these positive, optimistic emotions can prevent certain diseases from occurring. 25. How do stressful events affect happiness? Research also suggests that we may have a psychological immune system that regulates our reactions and emotions in response to negative life events. Social psychological experiments suggest that this psychological immune system, like its physiological counterpart that protects us from the ravages of bacteria and street invasions, fights pessimism, often under the worst of circumstances. So the effects of negative events wear off after a while, no matter how long people think the effects will last. 26. What does evolution have to do with uptrends? Haselton and Nettle (2006) convincingly argue that these biases have an evolutionary purpose. For example, men tend to overestimate the amount of sexual interest they arouse in women. This is an "adaptive" tendency, where overestimating sexual interest leads to fewer missed opportunities. Or the illusion that one can "beat" a deadly disease can help prolong life longer than anyone would expect.

101

Prejudice and Discrimination If we woke up one morning and found that everyone was of the same race, creed, and color, by noon we would find another source of prejudice. - George Aiken

Conflict and prejudice were sown somewhere in the hills of Palmyra, New York, in 1830. There a young man named Joseph Smith Jr. received a vision from the angel Moroni. Centuries earlier, as a priest of the Nephites, Moroni had written the history of their religion on a series of gold plates and buried them in the hills of Palmyra. When Moroni Smith appeared, he revealed the location of the plates and gave him the opportunity to transcribe the ancient writings into English. This translated text became the Book of Mormon, the cornerstone of the Mormon religion. The Book of Mormon contained many contradictions to the Bible. For example, he suggested that God and Jesus Christ were flesh and blood. Conflicts between this emerging religion and mainstream Christianity inevitably led to hostile feelings and attitudes between the two groups. Persecution of the Mormons began almost as early as Joseph Smith's revelations. The Mormons left Palmyra and established a settlement in Kirtland, Ohio in 1831, but it was a disaster. The Mormons did not fit well into the existing community. For example, the Mormons supported the Democratic Party, while the majority of Kirtland's Christian population supported the Whigs. Mormonism was also a threat to the colonial idea of one religion in one community. At a time when heresy was a serious crime, Mormons were considered outcast heretics. As a result, Mormons have been the subject of scathing newspaper articles that seriously misrepresented their religion. Mormons have been socially marginalized, denied jobs, targeted by economic boycotts, and lived under constant threat of attack. Due to the hostile environment in Kirtland, the Mormons advanced and split into two groups. One group established a settlement in Nauvoo, Illinois and the other in Independence, Missouri. The Mormons found no peace anywhere. For example, near Nauvoo, a Mormon settlement was burned down to 103

Key Questions As you read this chapter, find answers to the following questions: 1. How are prejudice, stereotypes, and discrimination defined? 2. What is the relationship between prejudice, stereotypes and discrimination? 3. What is the historical evidence for the dominance of these three concepts? 4. What are the personality roots of prejudice? 5. How is gender related to prejudice? 6. What are the social roots of prejudice? 7. What is modern racism and what is criticized about it? 8. What are the cognitive roots of prejudice? 9. How do cognitive biases contribute to prejudice?

104

10. Are stereotypes true and can they be overcome? 11. What are implicit and explicit stereotypes? 12. What is the difference between people with prejudice and people without prejudice? 13. What effects does prejudice have on the target persons? 14. How does a person who is the target of prejudice deal with being a target? 15. What to do with prejudice?

social psychology

the ground, and its inhabitants were forced to take refuge in a rain-soaked forest until they could reach Nauvoo. In the 1833 Convention of Independence, Mormon Bishop Edward Partridge was tarred and feathered after refusing to close a shop and printing works that he oversaw. Tensions in Missouri grew so great that then-Governor Lilburn W. Boggs issued the following order: "Mormons are to be treated as enemies and destroyed or expelled from the state, if necessary, for the sake of public peace" (Arrington & Bitton , 1979). Because of the prejudice Mormons suffered from, they became more underground, traded among themselves, and generally kept to themselves. As you can imagine, this infuriated the Christian community who had hoped to benefit financially from the Mormon presence. It was not uncommon for Mormons to be the target of violent physical attacks or even to be expelled from a territory. There was even talk of founding an independent Mormon state, but eventually the Mormons settled in Utah. The fate of Mormons during the 19th century portends ominously to later treatment of other groups (eg, Armenians in Turkey, Jews in Europe, ethnic Albanians in Yugoslavia). How is it possible that Mormons were so mistreated in a country with a constitution that guarantees freedom of religion and is based on the premise of religious tolerance? Attitudes give us a way of organizing information about objects and establishing an affective response to that object (for example, I like it or I don't like it). Under the right circumstances, attitudes predict a person's behavior. In this chapter we examine a particular type of attitude toward groups of people: prejudice. We look for the underlying causes of incidents such as the Mormon experience and the other acts of bias described. We ask: How do prejudices get their views? Is there something about their personality that drives them to perform biased actions? Or are the causes more in social situations? What cognitive processes lead them to have negative attitudes toward those they perceive as different? How ubiquitous and immutable are these processes in humans? What are the effects of prejudice and discrimination? What can we do to break down prejudices and bring our society closer to its ideals?

The Dynamics of Prejudice, Stereotypes, and Discrimination When we consider prejudice, we really need to consider two other interrelated concepts: stereotypes and discrimination. Together, these three form a triad of processes that contribute to negative attitudes, emotions, and behaviors toward members of particular social groups. First, let's define exactly what social psychologists understand by the term prejudice and the related terms stereotyping and discrimination.

prejudice A biased attitude, positive or negative, based on insufficient information and directed towards a group, resulting in prejudice against members of that group.

Prejudice The term prejudice refers to a prejudiced, often negative, attitude towards a group of people. Prejudices include belief structures that contain information about a group of people, expectations about their behavior, and emotions directed at them. When negative prejudice is directed towards a group, it leads to prejudice towards individual members of that group and also negative emotions directed towards them. It is important

Chapter 4

prejudice and discrimination

observe that the type of emotion directed at a group of people depends on the group to which they belong (Cottrell & Neuberg, 2005). In fact, Cottrell and Neuberg created "profiles" that characterize the emotions directed at members of different groups. For example, African Americans (compared to Europeans) have a profile that shows anger/resentment, fear, disgust, and pity. In contrast, Native Americans generally evoked pity with low levels of anger/resentment, disgust, and fear. Prejudice also includes cognitive assessments associated with various emotions aimed at members of stigmatized groups (Nelson, 2002). For example, anxiety can be triggered by being trapped late at night in a neighborhood with a sizeable minority population. On the other hand, you may feel respected if you attend a professional meeting attended by members of the same minority group. In short, we evaluate (evaluate) a situation and experience an emotion consistent with that evaluation. This may explain why we rarely show prejudice towards all members of a stigmatized group (Nelson, 2002). We can show prejudice against some members of a group, but not against others in that group. Of course, the bias can be positive or negative. For example, fans of a particular sports team are often biased in favor of their team. They tend to believe decisions against their team are unfair, even if the referees are impartial. However, social psychologists have been more interested in biases that involve negative biases, that is, when one group assumes the worst about another group and negative behavior can be based on these assumptions. This latter form of prejudice is the subject of this chapter.

Different forms of prejudice Prejudice comes in a variety of forms, the most visible of which are racism and sexism. Racism is the negative evaluation of others mainly because of the color of their skin. It involves the belief that one racial group is inherently superior to another. Sexism is the negative judgment of others because of their gender (Lips, 1993). Of course, there are other forms of prejudice, such as religious and ethnic prejudice and heterosexism (negative attitudes toward gays and lesbians), but racism and sexism are the two most prevalent prejudices in American society. We have to be very careful when approaching the subject of prejudice from a scientific perspective, so as not to get caught up in the tangle of definitions of prejudice circulating in our culture. Partisan political groups and some media outlets have propagated definitions of bias that cover behaviors that a more scientific definition would not. For example, on the Center for the Study of White American Culture website (http://www.euroamerican.org/library/Racismdf.asp) we have the following definition of racism (actually this is just the first of many defining principles of racism) : Racism is a process of ideological, structural and historical stratification by which a population of European descent, through their individual and institutional patterns of suffering, was intentionally able to optimally maintain dynamic mechanisms of upward or downward movement (through fluid state mapping) to the general detriment of a particular one non-white population (on a global scale), using race, gender, class, ethnicity are resource allocation decisions that contribute in some ways to crucial changes in relative racial position that most favor population groups labeled as "white".

105

106

social psychology

Note that this definition combines the notion of racism with the idea of economically disadvantaging certain groups. What is interesting about the definition of racism offered on this page is how close it sounds to a socialist/marxist manifesto. With only minor modifications, the definition looks very similar to such a manifesto. For example, the same definition follows as above with some strategic wording changes (in italics): able to best maintain the dynamic mechanics of upward or downward mobility (the fluid state assignment), with the general disadvantage of the proletariat (on a global scale) that the social Class is used as the primary criterion to enforce different resource allocation decisions that contribute to crucial changes in relative racial position in ways more favorable to the ruling elite. Another thing to watch out for is the over-application of the term racism (or any other –ism) to behaviors that are not generally associated with biased attitudes. Another trend in our culture, by partisan political parties and the media, is to apply the term racism to almost anything they perceive to be contrary to certain political ideas. Table 4.1 shows a list of these applications collected from the Internet. You may qualify as an "-ist" of sorts if you adhere to any of the views listed. What we mean is when resisting political ideas or group goals makes you a racist.

What exactly does race mean? An important note on the concept of race needs to be added here. Throughout the history of the United States, racial categories have been used to distinguish groups of people from one another. However, from a biological point of view, race is an elusive and problematic concept. A person's race is not inherited like a bundle from their parents; Also, biological characteristics such as skin color, hair texture, eye shape, facial features, etc. are not valid indicators of a person's ethnic or cultural origin. For example, consider a person whose mother is Japanese and father is African American, or a person with blond hair and blue eyes who was listed as Native American by the Census Bureau because their maternal grandmother was Cherokee. Attempting to define these individuals by race is imprecise and inappropriate. Although many scientists claim that race does not exist as a biological concept, it does exist as a social construction. People perceive others as members of racial groups and often categorize and act toward them in accordance with cultural prejudices. In this social sense, race and racism are very real and important factors in human relationships. When we refer to race in this book, as when we discuss race-based violence, we refer to this socially constructed concept with its historical, social, and cultural significance.

Stereotypical prejudices are not based on perceived physical differences between people, such as skin color or gender. Rather, prejudice relates more directly to characteristics that we assume are possessed by members of another race, ethnicity, or group. In other words, it refers to the way we think about others. Humans have a strong tendency to classify objects based on their properties or perceptual uses. We classify chairs, tables, desks and lamps as furniture. We classify love, hate, fear, and jealousy as emotions. And we categorize people by their

Chapter 4

prejudice and discrimination

107

Table 4.1 Excessive uses of the concept of bias You may be racist (or somehow -ist) if you: 1. Think that a state should decide whether its flag should display the Confederate flag. 2. Behave in a way that discriminates against minorities, even if the discrimination is unintentional. 3. They like a team mascot that has a racial background (e.g. Native American). 4. They "apply words like backward, primitive, uncivilized, savage, barbaric, or underdeveloped to people whose technology is [less advanced]" (http://fic.ic.org/cmag/90/4490.html). 5. You think monotheism is better than polytheism. 6. You think English should be the official language of the United States. 7. They do NOT believe that all "accents" and "dialects" are legitimate, appropriate, and equal. 8. They reject affirmative action. 9. They are against gay marriage.

Race, gender, nationality and other obvious characteristics. Of course, categorization is adaptive in the sense that it allows us to target similar behavior for an entire class of objects or people. We don't have to choose a new answer every time we come across a categorized item. Categorization does not necessarily equate to bias, although the former process greatly influences the latter. Sometimes we take our tendency to categorize too far and develop rigid and overgeneralized images of groups. This rigid categorization, this rigid set of positive or negative beliefs about a group's characteristics or attributes, is a stereotype (Judd & Park, 1993; Stangor & Lange, 1994). For example, we might believe that all lawyers are smart, a positive stereotype; or we believe all lawyers are corrupt, a negative stereotype. Many years ago, the political journalist Walter Lippmann (1922) aptly called clichés “images in the head”. When we meet someone new who clearly belongs to one group or another, we go back to our memory banks of stereotypes, find the right image, and match the person to it. In general, stereotypes are just part of how we cognitively do business every day. It is part of our cognitive "tool kit" (Gilbert & Hixon, 1991). We have all made judgments about individuals (scout leaders, police officers, students, feminists) solely on the basis of their group affiliation. Stereotypes save time; We review our tool kit, find the right tool and characterize the student. It certainly takes less time and energy than trying to get to know that person (Individuation; Macrae, Milne, & Bodenhausen, 1994). Again, this is an example of the cognitive miser in action. Of course, this means that we will make some very unfair and even destructive judgments about people. We all shy away from the idea that we are being judged solely on the evaluator's idea of belonging to a group.

Stereotype A set of beliefs, positive or negative, about the characteristics or attributes of a group that result in rigid and overgeneralized images of the members of that group.

108

social psychology

The Content of Stereotypes What exactly constitutes a stereotype? Are all stereotypes essentially the same? What emotions do the different stereotypes trigger? The answers to these questions can inform us about the nature of stereotypes. Regardless of the actual beliefs and information underlying a stereotype, there appear to be two dimensions underlying stereotypes: friendship (like or dislike) and competence (respect or disrespect) (Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002) . According to Fiske et al. these two dimensions are combined to define different types of stereotypes. For example, great cordiality and great competition create a positive stereotype that implies admiration and pride. Low warmth and low competence lead to a negative stereotype that implies resentment and anger. Finally, there can be mixed stereotypes that include high competition and low friendliness, or low competition and high friendliness.

Explicit and Implicit Stereotypes Stereotypes, like prejudice, exist at an explicit and implicit level. Explicit stereotypes are those that we are aware of and are under the influence of controlled processing. Implicit stereotypes operate at a subconscious level and are activated automatically when a member of a minority group is in the right situation. How implicit stereotypes work was demonstrated in an interesting experiment performed by Banaji, Harden, and Rothman (1993). Participants first performed a “readiness task” consisting of disentangling phrases suggestive of a male stereotype (aggressiveness), a female stereotype (addiction), or neutral phrases (principal neutrality). Later, in a supposedly unrelated experiment, participants read a story describing a dependent (male or female) or aggressive (male or female) target. Participants then rated the target person in the story based on the stereotyped or non-stereotyped trait. The results of this experiment are shown in Figure 4.1. Note that for both male and female stereotyped traits, if the cousin was neutral, the trait was scored the same, regardless of the gender of the target. However, when Prime activated an implicit gender stereotype, the female stereotyped trait (addiction) was rated higher for female targets than for male targets. The opposite was true for the male stereotype (aggressiveness). The aggressiveness of male targets was rated higher than that of female targets. A chance encounter with a stereotype (the main stereotype in this experiment) can influence the evaluations of a person belonging to a certain social category (e.g. male or female). Participants rated a stereotyped trait as more extreme when the stereotype was activated in a cousin than when it was not. For example, stereotyped information can influence how we judge members of a social group, even if we are not aware of it (Banaji et al., 1993). Explicit and implicit stereotypes operate at two different levels (controlled processing versus automatic processing) and affect judgments differently depending on what type of judgment a person is forced to make (Dovidio, Kawakami, Johnson, Johnson, & Howard, 1997). Dovidio and his colleagues found that when a judgmental task required some cognitive effort (in this experiment, determining whether a black suspect was guilty or innocent of a crime), overt racial attitudes correlated with judgments. However, implicit racist attitudes did not correlate with the outcome of the guilty verdict. On the other hand, for a task that requires a more spontaneous automatic response (in this experiment, a word completion task where an ambiguous incomplete word can be completed in two ways, e.g., b_d can be completed as bad or bett), implicit attitudes correlated strongly with outcome judgments. Thus, explicit and implicit racial attitudes relate to different tasks. Explicit attitudes were more closely related to the guilt-innocence task, which required controlled processing. Implicit attitudes were more related to the word completion task mediated by automatic processing.

Chapter 4

prejudice and discrimination

109

Figure 4.1 Results of an experiment on implicit stereotypes. When a cousin activated an implicit female gender stereotype, a stereotypical female trait (addiction) was valued more highly for the female targets than for the males. The opposite was true for the implicit male stereotype (aggressiveness). Based on data from Banaji, Harden and Rothman (1993).

Can implicit stereotypes be translated into overt differences in behavior towards blacks and whites? In an experiment, Correll, Park, Judd, and Wittenbrink (2002) had college students play a simple video game. The task for the contestants was to shoot only the armed suspects in the game. The target's race varied between white and black, some armed and some unarmed. The results of their first experiment, shown in Figure 4.2, showed that white participants shot a black-armed target faster than a white-armed target. They also decided NOT to shoot an unarmed target faster if the target was white versus black. Correll et al. It also provided evidence that the observed "shooter bias" is more associated with a person holding cultural prejudices about black people as violent and dangerous than personal prejudices or stereotypes. Automatic activation of stereotypes has been characterized as a normal part of our cognitive toolkit that improves the efficiency of our cognitive lives (Sherman, 2001). However, as we have seen, this increase in efficiency is not always a good thing. Can this tendency to automatically activate stereotypes be counteracted? Fortunately, the answer is yes. Automatic stereotyping can be inhibited under a variety of conditions (Sassenberg & Moskowitz, 2005), including thinking about a counter-stereotyped image or when stereotype activation is perceived as a threat to self-esteem. Sassenberg and Moskowitz propose that it is possible to train a person to inhibit the automatic activation of stereotypes at a general level, so that a variety of automatic stereotypes can be inhibited, not just a few specific ones. Sassenberg and Moskowitz (2005) examined the effects of asking participants to 'think differently' when it came to members of minority groups. Thinking differently means "one has a mentality in which one avoids the typical associations with these groups, their stereotypes" (p. 507). In their first experiment, Sassenberg and Moskowitz had the participants adopt one of two ways of thinking. The first mindset was a “creative mindset,” in which participants were instructed to think two or three times that they were creative. The second mindset was a "thinking mindset," in which participants were instructed to think two or three times that they were acting thoughtful.

110

social psychology

Figure 4.2 Response times for shooting armed or unarmed black or white suspects. Based on data from Correll, Park, Judd and Wittenbrink (2002).

Afterwards, all participants completed a stereotype activation task. Sassenberg and Moskowitz found that stereotyping was inhibited when the "creative mindset" was activated but not when the "thinking mindset" was activated. By encouraging participants to think creatively, the researchers were able to prevent the activation of automatic stereotypes about African Americans. Sassenberg and Moskowitz suggest that encouraging people to "think differently" can help them inhibit a variety of automatically activated stereotypes. The “shooter bias” just discussed can also be modified with a little work (Plant & Peruche, 2005). Plant and Peruche found that during early trials involving a computer game involving armed or unarmed white or black suspects, officers showed a propensity to shoot. After several attempts, however, the preload was reduced. The margin of error in shooting an unarmed suspect was different for whites and blacks during the earlier trials but not during the latter. During the early trials, officers were more likely to shoot an unarmed black suspect than an unarmed white suspect. In later trials, the error rate was the same for unarmed black and white suspects. This allowed officers to change their behavior in ways that significantly reduced gunner bias. Finally, two interesting questions revolve around when implicit stereotypes develop and when they differ from explicit stereotypes. A study sheds light on these two questions. Baron and Banaji (2005) conducted an experiment with 6-year-olds, 10-year-olds and adults. Using a modified version of the Implicit Attitudes Test (IAT) for children, Baron and Banaji found evidence of implicit anti-black attitudes even in 6-year-olds. Interestingly, the 6-year-olds also showed high levels of apparent bias. However, while 10-year-old children and adults showed evidence of implicit bias, they showed less explicit bias. Apparently, by the age of 10, children have learned that it is not socially acceptable to openly express stereotypes and prejudices. But the stereotypes and implicit biases are there, and they are expressed in subtle ways.

Chapter 4

prejudice and discrimination

Stereotypes as judgment heuristics Another way in which implicit stereotypes manifest themselves is as judgment heuristics (Bodenhauser & Wyer, 1985). For example, if a person commits a stereotype-consistent crime (compared to a stereotype-consistent crime), observers will impose a higher sentence, remember fewer facts about the case, and use stereotype-based information to investigate to make a judgement. Bodenhauser & Weir, 1985). When negative behavior is consistent with the stereotype, observers generally attribute the negative behavior to stable internal traits. Consequently, the offense or conduct is considered a permanent character defect that may lead to the conduct again. This effect of using information consistent with stereotypes to make judgments is particularly likely to occur when faced with a difficult cognitive task. Recall from Chapter 3 that many of us are cognitive misers and seek the path of least resistance when using information to make a decision. When faced with a situation in which we have both stereotype-consistent and stereotype-inconsistent information about a person, more stereotype-consistent information is likely to be remembered than inconsistent information (Macrae, Hewstone, & Griffiths, 1993). As Macrae and colleagues suggested, "when information processing becomes difficult, stereotypes (like heuristic frameworks) creep in" (p. 79). There are also individual differences in the extent to which stereotypes are formed and used. Levy, Stroessner, and Dweck (1998) suggested that individuals use implicit theories to make judgments about others. That is, individuals use their past experiences to form a theory about what members of other groups are like. According to Levy and his colleagues, there are two types of implicit theories: entity theories and incremental theories. Entity theorists hold the idea that another person's characteristics are fixed and do not change with the situation. Incremental theorists do not regard features as fixed. Rather, they view them as capable of changing over time and between situations (Levy et al., 1998). A central question raised by Levy and colleagues was whether entity and incremental theorists differ in their predisposition to the formation and use of stereotypes. Based on the results of five experiments, Levy and his colleagues concluded that, compared to incremental theorists, entity theorists:

• • •

They tended to use stereotypes.

•

They tend to make more extreme judgments based on little information about the characteristics of members of a stereotyped group.

• •

I noticed that a stereotypical group had less diversity among its members.

They tended to agree wholeheartedly with the stereotypes. Rather, they viewed stereotypes as representing innate and inherent group differences.

Rather, they formed stereotypes.

In addition to the cognitive functions of stereotypes, there is also an emotional component (Jussim, Nelson, Manis & Soffin, 1995). According to Jussim and his colleagues, once one stereotypes a person, one assigns a label that is used to evaluate and judge the members of that person's group. Usually a label attached to a stereotypical group is negative. This negative label creates negative affect and conveys the judgments of stereotyped group members. Jussim and his colleagues pointed out that this emotional component of a stereotype is more important in judging others than the cognitive function (storage and categorization of information) of the stereotype.

111

112

Discrimination Obvious behavior, often aimed negatively at a particular group, and associated with prejudice, which involves behaving differently towards members of different groups.

social psychology

Discrimination Discrimination is the behavioral component that accompanies prejudice. Discrimination occurs when members of a particular group are subjected to behavior that differs from behavior towards other groups. For example, if members of a certain racial group are denied housing in a neighborhood open to other groups, that group is discriminated against. Discrimination takes many forms. For example, in the 19th to mid-20th centuries it was not uncommon to see job advertisements saying "Irish do not need to apply" or "Jews do not need to apply". It was also common practice to restrict access to public places, such as beaches, to Jews and blacks. And in the American South, there were separate restrooms, water wells, and schools, and minorities were denied service in certain businesses. This segregation of people based on racial, ethnic, religious or gender groups is discrimination. It is important to emphasize that discrimination is often the product of prejudice. In the past, negative attitudes and assumptions about people based on their group affiliation were at the root of prejudice. It is clear, therefore, that many instances of discrimination can be directly traced back to underlying prejudices. However, discrimination can also occur without underlying prejudice. For example, imagine a small business owner who lives in a town where there are no minorities. This person hires all white employees. Now the owner can be the most liberal person in the world who would never discriminate based on race. However, her actions would technically qualify as discrimination. In this case, the discrimination is not based on an underlying prejudice. Instead, it's based on the demographics of the area where the business is located.

The Persistence and Recurrence of Prejudice and Stereotypes Throughout history, members of majority groups (those in power) have held stereotyped images of members of minority groups (the powerless). These images supported biased feelings, discriminatory behavior and even large-scale violence against members of minority groups. History teaches us that stereotypes and biased attitudes are fairly constant. For example, some stereotypes of Jews and Africans are hundreds of years old. Prejudice seems to be an integral part of human existence. However, stereotypes and feelings can change, albeit slowly, as the context of our feelings towards other groups changes. For example, during and shortly after World War II, Americans had negative feelings toward the Japanese. For about the next 40 years, the two countries lived in peace and enjoyed a harmonious relationship. This was based on the fact that the post-war (1945-1951) US occupation of Japan was harmless. The Americans helped the Japanese rebuild their war-ravaged factories, and the Japanese began to compete in world markets. But during the difficult economic times of the 1980s and early 1990s, many of the beliefs that characterized Japan-US relations during World War II reemerged, albeit in somewhat modified form. Compared to how the Japanese view Americans, Americans tend to see the Japanese as more competitive, hardworking, critical, and perceptive (see Figure 4.3). The Japanese tend to view Americans as uneducated, lazy, and hardworking. Americans view the Japanese as unfair, arrogant, and overly disciplined, workers who do nothing but work hard because they conform to group values (Weisman, 1991). The Japanese, on the other hand, see the Americans as arrogant.

Chapter 4

prejudice and discrimination

113

Figure 4.3 What Americans and Japanese look like. Both Americans and Japanese have stereotypical views of the other group. Based on data from a 1992 Times/CNN poll cited in Holland (1992).

and lack of racial purity, morality, and devotion (Weisman, 1991). Stereotypes from both sides have been altered and transformed over time, but like short skirts and baggy ties, they tend to be recycled. The periodicity of the stereotypes suggests that they are based on external factors, such as economics and competition, rather than stable characteristics of the group being categorized. Interestingly, the stereotypes and cues used to categorize people change over time. Some historians of the ancient Mediterranean suggest that there was a time before color prejudice. The first meeting of African blacks and Mediterranean whites is the oldest chapter in the history of black-white relations. Snowden (1983) traced the images of Africans seen by the Mediterranean countries, from Egyptians to Roman mercenaries. Mediterranean people knew that these black soldiers came from a powerful independent African state, Nubia, located in what is now southern Egypt and northern Sudan. The Nubians appear to have played an important role in the emergence of Egyptian civilization (Wilford, 1992). Positive images of Africans appear in the art and writings of ancient Mediterranean peoples (Snowden, 1983). The first encounters between blacks and whites were eye-to-eye encounters. Africans were respected for their military prowess and their political and cultural sophistication. Slavery existed in antiquity, but it was not linked to skin color; Anyone captured in war could be enslaved, black or white (Snowden, 1983). Added to this are prejudices, stereotypes and discrimination. The Athenians may not have cared about skin color, but they did care a lot about national origin. Foreigners were barred from citizenship. Women were also restricted and excluded. Only men of a certain age can be citizens and fully participate in society.

114

social psychology

It is not clear when the color distortion first appeared. It may have been with the advent of the slave trade between Africa and the New World in the 16th century. Wherever it began, it is likely that race and prejudice were not linked until real differences in power or status between groups emerged. Although slavery in ancient times was not based solely on skin color, slaves almost always belonged to a different ethnic group, national origin, religion, or political entity than their owners. In the following sections we examine the causes of prejudice, focusing first on its roots in personality and social life and then on its roots in human cognitive functioning.

Individual Differences and Prejudices: Personality and Gender

Authoritarianism A personality trait that relates to a person's unconditional acceptance and respect for authority.

What are the causes of prejudice? With this question, social psychologists have examined not only our mental apparatus, our tendency to categorize, but also the characteristics of the individual. Is there a biased personality? Are men or women more prone to prejudice? We examine the answers to these questions in this section. Social psychologists and sociologists have long suspected a connection between personality traits and prejudice. An important personality dimension related to prejudice, stereotypes and discrimination is authoritarianism. Authoritarianism is a personality trait related to unconditional acceptance and respect for authority. Authoritarians tend to identify closely with authority and are also prone to prejudice.

The Authoritarian Personality In the late 1940s, Adorno and other psychologists at the University of California, Berkeley, studied people who may have been the prototypes of Archie Bunker (a character on the popular 1970s television show All in the Family), people who ethnic groups wanted to be oppressed and degraded, preferably by an all-powerful government or state. Archie Bunker embodied many of the authoritarian personality traits of the authoritarian personality characterized by submissive feelings. A dimension of personality related to authority; rigid and unchanging beliefs; and racism and sexism (Adorno, characterized by the subservient Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson & Sanford, 1950). Rigid Senses of Authority Motivated by the tragedy of the Nazi murder of millions of Jews and other unchanging Eastern and European beliefs, Adorno and his colleagues undertook a comprehensive study of the tendency toward a biased relationship between the authoritarian figure and politics. , postures. Murder of an entire race or group of people. They speculated that the individuals enforcing the policies of mass murder had a personality type that predisposed them to do whatever an authority figure ordered, no matter how perverted or monstrous. The Berkeley researchers' major study, known as The Authoritarian Personality, was fueled by the idea that there is a correlation and connection between the way a person is raised and the various biases they hold. The study assumes that people with prejudice are strongly ethnocentric; that is, they believed in the superiority of their own group or race (Dunbar, 1987). The Berkeley researchers argued that people who are ethnocentric are likely to have prejudices against a range of ethnic, racial, and religious groups in their culture. They found it right that such people should have prejudices against many or all

Chapter 4

prejudice and discrimination

Groups other than themselves. A person who was anti-color tended to be anti-Semitic as well. These people seemed to embody a biased personality type, the authoritarian personality. The Berkeley researchers found that authoritarians had a particularly harsh and punitive upbringing. They grew up in families where children were not allowed to express feelings or opinions except what their parents and other authority figures saw fit. Authority figures are not to be questioned and are rather to be worshiped. The children processed the repressed hostilities towards these oppressive parents by becoming a kind of island and staved off these feelings by inventing very rigid categories and standards. They grew impatient with uncertainty and ambiguity and began to prefer clear and simple answers. The authoritarians had very fixed categories: that was fine; that was bad. Any group that violated their ideas of good and evil was shunned. This rigid upbringing generated frustration and a strong latent anger that could only be vented against those less powerful. These children learned that the authorities had the power to do whatever they wanted. If the authoritarian gained power over someone, the suppressed anger would come out in full anger. The authoritarians sat at the feet of the powerful and at the throats of the less powerful. Repressed anger was usually vented against a scapegoat, a relatively powerless individual or group, and tended to occur more frequently during times of frustration, such as during an economic downturn. There is also evidence that parental attitudes are related to the child's implicit and explicit biases (Sinclair, Dunn, & Lowery, 2005). Sinclaire and others. Parents of fifth and sixth graders completed a measurement of racial attitudes. The children completed measures of strength of father identification and tests of implicit and explicit bias. The results showed that parental bias was significantly related to implicit child bias when the child's identification with the father was high. Thus, it is children who have a strong desire to identify with their parents (inherit their parents' traits) who are most likely to display implicit bias. A similar effect was found when children's explicit bias was taken into account. When the child identified strongly with the father, parental bias was positively associated with the child's explicit bias. This effect was reversed in children who did not identify closely with their parents, possibly indicating a denial of parental bias in this latter group of children. The authoritarian personality, the person who is prejudiced against all groups perceived as different, can be attracted to hate groups. On July 2, 1999, Benjamin Smith was involved in a shooting that killed two people and injured several others. Smith took his own life while being pursued by police. Smith had a history of biased attitudes and actions. Smith came under the influence of the philosophy of Matt Hale, who became the head of the universal church in 1996. Hale's philosophy was that the white race was the world's elite race and that members of any other ethnic race or group (what he called "minor mud races") were the enemy. Smith himself believed that whites should take up arms against these inferior races. Early research on bias emphasized the role of emotions and irrational thoughts, which were an integral part of the biased personality.These irrational emotions, seething in a pot of suppressed anger, were the stuff of prejudice, discrimination, and eventually intergroup violence.Violence became common triggered by frustration, particularly when resources such as jobs were scarce.Social psychologists have also studied whether a biased personality exists (Dunbar, 1995; Gough, 1951).An updated version of the old concept of authoritarianism is right-wing authoritarianism (RWA), a concept , which comes from Altemeyer (1981).

115

116

social psychology

Right-wing authoritarianism is associated with higher levels of prejudice. Gough developed a biased scale (PR scale) using items from the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. Gough (1951) reported that the PR scale correlated with antisemitic attitudes among Midwestern high school students. Dunbar (1995) conducted the PR scale and two other measures of racism among white and Asian students. He also administered a measure of anti-Semitism to see if the PR scale still correlated with bigoted attitudes. Dunbar found that Asian Americans performed better than whites on the public relations scale and on the measure of antisemitism, indicating greater antisemitism among Asians than among whites. However, the only significant relationships on the PR scale between antisemitic and racist attitudes were among white participants.

Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) Desire to have one's own group in a position of dominance or superiority over external groups. A high social dominance orientation correlates with a higher degree of prejudice.

Social Domain Orientation Another dimension of personality associated with prejudice is social domain orientation (SDO). A social dominance orientation is defined as "the extent to which one would like his or her ingroup to dominate or be superior to outgroups" (Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994). In other words, people with high SDGs want to see their group (e.g. racial or ethnic group) in a dominant position over other groups. Research also shows that a person's SDO also correlates with judgmental attitudes. Prato et al. (1994) found that a high SDO score was associated with prejudice against Blacks and Arabs. The higher the SDO score, the more prejudices were shown. In a subsequent study, SDO was found to correlate with a variety of prejudices, including “general and specific prejudices against homosexuals, the mentally disabled, and racism and sexism” (Ekehammar, Akrami, Gylje, & Zakrisson, 2004). In one experiment (Kemmelmeier, 2005), white contentious jurors were asked to try a criminal case in which the accused was black or white. The results showed no difference in how the white participants judged the black or white defendant. However, participants with high scores on a measure of social dominance showed greater bias toward the black defendant than participants with low scores on the social dominance measure. In fact, people with low ODS showed a bias in favor of the black defendant. Interestingly, the measured differences between groups in the SDO dimension are related to the perceived status differences between the tested groups (Levin, 2004). For example, Levin found that among American and Irish participants, people with high SDO scores saw a larger status difference between their ingroup and outgroup (eg, Irish Catholics vs. Irish Protestants). In other words, an Irish Catholic with a high SDO score saw a greater difference in status between Irish Catholics and Irish Protestants than an Irish Catholic with a lower SDO score. A similar but not significant trend was found for the Israeli participants. When we look at the SDO dimension along with authoritarianism, we can identify a pattern that identifies highly biased individuals. In a study by Altemeyer (2004), participants completed SDO and right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) measures. Altemeyer found modest correlations between the SDO scale and the RWA scale and impairment when the scales were considered separately. However, when the two scales were considered together (i.e. identified individuals with high ODS and RWA), stronger correlations with bias were found. Altemeyer concluded that people with ODS and RWA are among the most prejudiced people you will encounter. Fortunately, according to Altemeyer, there are very few such people.

Chapter 4

prejudice and discrimination

There is also evidence that SDO and RWA may refer differently to different forms of prejudice. For example, Whitley (1999) found that SDO orientation was associated with stereotypes, negative emotions, and negative attitudes towards African Americans and homosexuals. However, RWA has been associated with negative stereotypes and emotions aimed at homosexuals but not African Americans. In fact, RWA was associated with positive emotions towards African Americans.

Openness to new experiences and agreeableness A currently popular personality model is the "Big Five" personality model (McCrae & Costa, 1987). According to this approach, personality is based on five dimensions: extraversion/introversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism and openness to experience and culture. As we shall see, two of these dimensions (liking and openness to experience) are related to prejudice. Briefly, kindness is a “friendly dimension” that includes traits such as altruism, trust, and willingness to support others (Gerow & Bordens, 2005). Openness to experience includes curiosity, imagination, and creativity (Gerow & Bordens, 2005), as well as willingness to try new things and divergent thinking (Flynn, 2005). Studies examining the relationship between the Big Five personality dimensions and prejudice have shown that agreeableness and openness to experiences with prejudice are correlated. For example, Ekehammar and Akrami (2003) rated participants using the Big Five dimensions and personality measures of classical bias (overt, old-fashioned bias) and modern bias (subtly expressed bias). Ekehammar and Akrami found that two of the Big Five personality dimensions were significantly correlated with prejudice: agreeableness and openness to experience. Participants with high dimensions of friendliness and openness showed less prejudice. The remaining three dimensions were not significantly correlated with prejudice. In another study consisting of three experiments, Flynn (2005) also further examined the relationship between openness to experience and prejudice. The results of his three experiments confirmed that people who scored high on openness to experience were less biased. For example, people who are open to new experiences rated a black respondent as more intelligent, responsible, and honest than people who are less open to new experiences. Gender and prejudice Another characteristic related to prejudice is gender. Research shows that men tend to have more ODS than women (Dambrun, Duarte, & Guimond, 2004; Pratto et al., 1994). This gender difference seems to be rooted in different patterns of social identity orientation between men and women. Although men and women show group identification at the same level (i.e. men identify with the men's group and women with the women's group), men identify more strongly with the men's group than women with the women's group in a group (Dambrun et al., 2004). Research in this area has focused on men's and women's attitudes towards homosexuality. In general, men have more negative attitudes towards homosexuality than women (Kite, 1984; Kite & Whitley, 1998). Do men and women see gays and lesbians differently? There is evidence that men have more negative attitudes towards homosexuals than towards lesbians (Gentry, 1987; Kite, 1984; Kite & Whitley, 1998). The results for women are less clear. Kite and Whitley, for example, reported this

117

118

social psychology

Women generally do not differentiate between gays and lesbians. However, other research shows that women have more negative attitudes towards lesbians than towards gay men (Gentry, 1987; Kite, 1984). Baker and Fishbein (1998) examined the development of gay and lesbian prejudice in a sample of students in grades 7, 9, and 11. They found that men tended to have more prejudice against gays and lesbians than women, with male participants showing more prejudice against gays as opposed to lesbians. Prejudice against gays and lesbians increased between the 7th and 9th grades for both men and women; However, between grades 9 and 11, homosexual prejudice decreased among female participants while increasing among male participants. Baker and Fishbein suggested that the increase in male prejudice against homosexuals may be rooted in men's increasing defensiveness towards intimate relationships. A key question that emerges from this research is whether there are gender differences in other forms of prejudice. For example, one study confirmed that men show greater ethnic bias towards friendships than women and allow a minority ethnic group to live in the neighborhood. Men and women did not differ when interracial intimate relationships were taken into account (Hoxter & Lester, 1994). There is relatively little research in this area and clearly more is needed to examine the relationship between gender and prejudice for a wide range of prejudices.

The social roots of prejudice Research into authoritarian personality and gender provides an important piece of the puzzle about prejudice and discrimination. However, it is only one piece. Prejudice and discrimination are too complex and pervasive to be explained by a single personality-based cause. Prejudice takes place in a social context, and another piece of the puzzle can be found in the development of feelings, which form the basis of the relationships between the dominant and other groups in a particular society. To explore the social roots of prejudice, consider the situation of African Americans in the United States. In the years leading up to the Civil War, black slaves were considered the property of white slave owners, and this arrangement was justified with the notion that blacks were somehow less humane than whites. His degraded condition was used as proof of his inferiority. In 1863, in the midst of the Civil War, President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation and freed the slaves. But abolition did little to end prejudice and negative attitudes toward black people. The 54th Massachusetts Regiment, for example, was an all-black Union Army unit led by an all-white officer corps. Blacks were said to be incapable of leading; Therefore, no black officers were allowed. Because of these stereotypes and prejudices, members of the 54th were also paid less than their white counterparts in other regiments. Initially, they were also not allowed to assume combat roles; They were used instead of manual work, for example in road construction. Despite the prejudice, some blacks achieved prominent positions. Frederick Douglass, who fled slavery and became a leader and spokesman for African Americans, was instrumental in persuading President Lincoln to issue the Emancipation Proclamation and allow black troops to fight in the Civil War. By the end of the war, more than 100,000 black soldiers were fighting for the North, and some historians claim that the Civil War would have been different without these troops.

Chapter 4

prejudice and discrimination

Over the next hundred years, African Americans made strides in improving their economic and social status. The United States Supreme Court ruled in Brown v. Board of Education that segregated (separate but equal) schools was unconstitutional and ordered the integration of schools and other public entities. Since then, white Americans' feelings toward African Americans have become more positive (Goleman, 1991). This change in attitude and behavior reflects the importance of social norms in influencing and regulating the expression of feelings and beliefs. However, these feelings have a strange nature. White Americans are almost unanimously supportive of broad principles such as inclusion and equality, but generally oppose actions designed to realize those principles, such as obligatory fines or affirmative action (Katz, Wackenhut & Hass, 1986). It may be that white Americans respect the principle of racial equality. They perceive African Americans as neglected by the system and as deviant. In other words, white Americans are aware that African Americans may have gotten a bad deal, but also see them as responsible for their own situation (Katz et al., 1986). Keep in mind that the human tendency to attribute behavior to internal rather than external causes makes people more likely to attribute the reasons for success or failure to the character of an individual or group. While we may no longer have the tar and feathers of members of different groups, prejudice still exists in more subtle forms. When prejudice is caught early enough, it seems to become part of the deepest feelings: many Southerners, for example, have confessed to me that even though they no longer hold prejudice against African Americans, they still get dizzy when they squeeze someone's hand, a African American. These feelings are remnants of what they learned as children in their families. (Pettigrew, 1986, p. 20)

Given the importance of racial issues in United States history and the way people categorically and automatically process information, some observers have suggested that racial feelings are the norm for Americans (Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986). Everyday events seem to support this conclusion. In 2003, conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh drew attention to comments he made in his role as a sports commentator for ESPN. Limbaugh speculated that sportswriters cheered on black quarterback Donovan McNabb's success because McNabb was black. Most experts considered Limbaugh's comments racist, although Limbaugh denied that his comments were racist. In any case, Limbaugh resigned from his position at ESPN due to the uproar over his comments. In July 2006, Sony Corporation was accused of using a racist advertisement for its new White PlayStation Portable game unit in the Netherlands. The ad showed a white woman aggressively grabbing the face of a black woman. The slogan of the ad read "PlayStation Portable White Is Coming". Despite the allegations, Sony stood by the announcement. A Sony spokesman denied that the ad was racist, adding that the women depicted were intended to contrast the new white game system with the existing black system (Gibson, 2006). Even our politicians are not exempt from statements of a racist nature. In 2002, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott made questionable statements at Senator Strom Thurmond's centenary celebration. Thurmond was one of the so-called "Dixiecrats" of the 1940s. The Dixiecrats were a group of Democrats who broke away from the main party for inserting a civil rights plank into the Democratic Party platform. In 1948, Thurmond ran as a third-party candidate for the presidency of the Dixiecrat list. On the occasion of his 100th birthday, Lott said, "I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for President, we voted for him. We're proud of that. And when the rest

119

120

social psychology

of the country had followed our example, we would not have had all these problems over the years. Once again, these statements were branded as racist. Lott denied any racist intent and apologized for his comments (NPR, 2002). Regardless, he was forced to resign as Senate Majority Leader (although he remained a Senator).

Modern Racism While racist beliefs and prejudices still exist, they are certainly less prevalent than before. For example, according to the General Social Survey (1999), attitudes toward blacks improved between 1972 and 1996. Figure 4.4 shows some of the data from this survey. As shown in Figure 4.4, responses reflecting more positive racist attitudes can be seen in questions such as whether whites have the right to black out blacks from their neighborhoods, whether someone would vote for a black presidential candidate (black president) if whites would send their children to a school where more than 50% of the children are black (Send Children) if they voted to change a rule excluding black people from a social club (Change Rule) and if they voted to would support legislation that would prevent housing discrimination (housing law). Despite these achievements, prejudices still persist. Why this contradiction? Since the authoritative personality study was published several decades ago, it has become more difficult (socially and legally) to openly express prejudice against people of certain racial groups. For example, it is not uncommon for someone to be removed from office because of a racist remark. For example, in 1996, New York radio station WABC fired Bob Grant, one of its most popular on-air personalities, for a series of racist remarks. Even calling a racist a racist can get you fired. Alan Dershowitz, a prominent lawyer, was fired from his talk show after calling Grant a scumbag and a racist. Even if racism was not intentional, someone can be fired

Figure 4.4 The changing face of racial prejudice. Between 1972 and 1996, whites showed more positive attitudes towards blacks. Based on data from the General Social Survey (1999).

Chapter 4

prejudice and discrimination

Use of racial (or other ethnic) slurs. Even the appearance of prejudice from someone in an official position is unacceptable today. Some social psychologists believe that many white Americans today are aversive racists, people who genuinely believe they are not being judgmental, that they want to do the right thing, but are actually very uncomfortable and uncomfortable around someone from a different racial group. (Gaertner and Dovidio, 1986). When they are with members of other groups, they smile too much, are too friendly and sometimes very scared. These feelings do not lead the aversive racist to behave negatively towards members of other groups; Instead, they urge you to avoid them. This more subtle prejudice is characterized by an insecurity in feelings and actions towards people of different racial groups. McConahay (1986) termed this configuration of feelings and beliefs modern racism, also known as symbolic racism. Modern racists moderate their reactions to people from different racial groups to avoid apparent bias; they express racism, but less openly than was previously the case. Modern racists would say yes, racism is a bad thing and a thing of the past; The fact is, however, that African Americans "are going too hard, too fast, and in places where they're not wanted" (p. 93). McConahay developed a scale to measure modern racism. In contrast to the older scales, the modern racism scale presents items with a lower level of racism. For example, an item on the modern racism scale might ask participants whether African Americans received more financially than they deserve. On a traditional scale, an article might ask how much you would care if an African American family moved in next door. According to McConahay, modern racists are more likely to be spotted with less racist elements on an outdated scale. McConahay found that the modern racism scale is sensitive enough to detect more subtle differences in a person's racist feelings and behavior than older scales. The modern racism scale tends to show a more evasive and indirect form of racism than older scales. In one of McConahay's experiments, participants (all white) were asked to play the role of a human resource manager in a large corporation. They all subscribed to a modern version of racism. The “Human Resources Manager” received a resume from a college graduate who was an ordinary job seeker. The candidates' race was rigged: half of the candidates were attached with a photo of an African American, and the other half were attached with a photo of a white person. In addition to the candidate's race, another variable was added to the experiment. Half of each group of participants were told that there were no other qualified candidates for the position. This was called an unanchored condition because the hiring managers had no basis for evaluation, no other candidate with which to evaluate the common candidate. The other half of each group looked at the resumes of two other candidates, both of whom were white and vastly superior to the average white or African American candidate. This was called the anchor condition because recruiters now had a basis for comparison. The hiring managers in the four groups were asked to make a decision about the candidate on a scale from “would definitely hire” to “would definitely not hire”. McConahay's findings showed that people who score high on the modern racism scale (indicating they are biased) do not treat white candidates any differently than their non-biased peers. Regardless of whether they are on the scale of 0, 25, or somewhere in between, all participants rate the white candidates in the major and non-major states similarly. Low-scoring participants (close to 0) rated the white candidates almost equally, while high-scoring participants (close to 25) rated the unanchored white candidate slightly higher than the white anchor candidate.

121

aversive racist A person who believes they are not biased but feels uncomfortable and uncomfortable in the presence of someone from a different racial group.

Modern Racism Subtle racial prejudices that are less overt than traditional overt racial prejudices and characterized by insecurity in feelings and actions towards minorities.

122

social psychology

The ratings of the African American candidates are more interesting. For unbiased participants, African Americans, anchored or not, were scored in exactly the same way. But there was a very big difference between the candidates for biased participants. An unattached African-American candidate was disqualified entirely, while the pinned African-American candidate received the highest rank compared to the best-qualified whites. Why these differences? Keep in mind that modern day racists are not sure how to feel or behave in situations involving people of different races or ethnic groups. In particular, they do not want to discriminate if others find out about it and may describe their behavior as racist (Donnerstein & Donnerstein, 1973). Rejecting a very common African-American candidate when there were no other candidates would likely not be considered biased since the candidate was unqualified. Notice how much more favorably the modern racist judged the white candidate under the same basic circumstances. But given the possibility of their behavior being viewed as racist, the modern racist overestimates African Americans. This shows up when there were qualified white candidates (anchor condition). The modern racist goes to great lengths to appear unbiased and therefore gives the average African American candidate the highest rating. Participants with low scores on the modern racism scale felt safe about how to feel and act in racist situations. They do not disturb people of different races; they “name what they see” (Hass, Katz, Rizzo, Bailey & Eisenstadt, 1991). The concept of modern racism has its critics. Some have argued that it is illogical to equate opposition to an African-American candidate or positive action programs with racism (Sykes, 1992). Other critics point out that modern racism researchers have not adequately defined or measured modern racism (Tetlock, 1986). They also point out that there are high correlations (of around r = 0.6 to 0.7) between ancient racism and modern racism. That is, if a person is a modern racist, they are likely to be an old-fashioned racist as well. According to these critics, there simply cannot be two forms of racism. The fact is that race is a complex subject and has many facets. Historically, whites have generally supported or opposed the African American cause, according to opinion polls. But the racial sentiments are more subtle now. One may object to transporting school-age children, but not to an African-American neighbor (Sniderman & Piazza, 1994). A person's racial attitudes are also often influenced by their politics. People who have positive attitudes toward African Americans but find affirmative action unfair may, as a consequence, dislike African Americans (Sniderman & Piazza, 1994).

Changing social norms What explains the changes we are seeing in the expression of racist feelings and the rise of modern racism? Our society has made the open expression of racism undesirable, primarily through its laws. Over the past 30 years, social norms have increasingly dictated the acceptance of members of different racial and ethnic groups in society. Open racism has become socially unacceptable. But for many people, deep-seated racist feelings remain intact. His racism was driven underground by societal expectations and standards. Because of changing societal norms, allegations of prejudice and discrimination are taken seriously by those against whom they are made. In 2002, the Justice Department sued the Cracker Barrel restaurant chain on behalf of several customers who claimed so

Chapter 4

prejudice and discrimination

discriminated against because of their race. In the lawsuit, plaintiffs alleged that Cracker Barrel exhibited a pattern of discrimination against African Americans by refusing service, allowing white waiters not to serve black people, placing black customers in a separate area, and making black customers wait longer as white customers. participate. Sitting (NAACP, 2002). In 2004, Cracker Barrel settled the lawsuit with the Department of Justice. Cracker Barrel agreed to review manager and staff training (Litchblau, 2004). Despite these cases, social norms appear to have changed, allowing for the expression of racial and ethnic animosity and prejudice. A good example of these changing norms is the spread of hate online. It is almost impossible to accurately count the number of hate sites on the internet. However, according to the Anti-Defamation League (1999), hate groups such as neo-Nazis, skinheads and the Ku Klux Klan use the internet to spread their hate messages. The Internet has allowed hate speech and advocacy of violence against minorities to cross national borders. For example, one can read a variety of racist cartoons and buy hate-related products on a website. Hate-based "educational materials" are also readily available on the Internet. A show called The Jew Rats portrays Jews as rats who have been indoctrinated to hate others and rule the world. Racist video games are also available. A game called Bloodbath in Niggeria involves shooting cartoons of Africans appearing in huts. Another called Border Patrol allows players to shoot illegal Mexican immigrants crossing the US border. In addition, the Internet provides a medium that can help organize hate groups more easily. Hate sites can not only organize locally, but also connect hate groups across land and ocean, making the spread of hate and prejudice much easier. On the other hand, there is evidence that attitudes, though not necessarily behaviour, have become more positive towards certain groups. For example, gender stereotypes seem to have declined recently, at least among college students, if not among the elderly (Swim, 1994). Societal norms in favor of greater equality seem to be in force here. Finally, it should be noted that social norms operate on several levels simultaneously. In general, social norms have turned against the open expression of prejudices and prejudices have been reduced as a result. However, standards also work on a more “local” level. Not only are we influenced by social norms, we are also influenced by the norms of those closest to us (e.g., family and friends). If not being biased or expressing prejudice is the norm in your immediate family and friends, then you probably won't be doing it. However, if your family and close friends are biased and expressing bias, you will likely do the same. In general, we strive to be members of 'good groups', which often means that we follow the norms set by that group, whether positive or negative (Crandall, Eshleman, & O'Brien, 2002).

The Cognitive Roots of Prejudice: From Categories to Stereotypes Cognitive social psychologists believe that one of the best ways to understand how stereotypes arise and persist is to study how people process information. As we saw in Chapters 2 and 3, people tend to be cognitively stingy, preferring the less laborious means of processing social information (Taylor, 1981). We have a finite capacity to deal with social information, and so can only handle relatively small amounts at a time (Fiske & Taylor, 1991).

123

124

social psychology

Given these limitations, people try to simplify problems with abbreviations, mainly using category-based processes (Bodenhausen & Wyer, 1985; Brewer, 1988). In other words, it is easier to pay attention to the group someone belongs to than to the person's individual characteristics. It takes less effort and less time for someone to use category-based (group-based) information than to try to deal with people individually (Macrae et al., 1994). For example, when James Byrd was dragged to death in Texas in June 1998, he was targeted simply because of his race. Byrd, a black man, was hitchhiking from a party when three white men stopped to pick him up. The three men beat Byrd, then chained him to the truck and dragged him to his death, all because he was black and in the wrong place at the wrong time. Research studies on the cognitive miser show that when people's ability or motivation to process information wanes, they tend to fall back on available stereotypes. For example, in one study, jurors on complex assignments recalled more negative things about a defendant when the defendant was Hispanic than when the defendant belonged to no identifiable group. When the jury's task was easy, no differences in judgment were found between a Hispanic and non-Hispanic defendant (Bodenhausen & Lichtenstein, 1987). When push comes to shove, people trust these stereotypes. People are more likely to resort to stereotypes when they are not at the peak of their cognitive abilities (Bodenhausen, 1990). Bodenhausen tested participants on whether they were "night people" (people who function best in the afternoon and evening) or "day people" (people who function best in the morning). He then had participants make judgments about a student's misconduct. Sometimes the student was described in non-stereotypical terms (his name was "Robert Garner"), and other times he was portrayed as Hispanic ("Roberto Garcia"), African American, or athlete. The experiment showed that people who are not at their best (morning nights or morning nights) tend to solve problems with stereotypes. As shown in Figure 4.5, the morning types relied on the stereotype to judge the student when the case was presented at night; Night types relapsed into stereotypes in the morning. These results suggest that category-based judgments occur when we lack the ability, motivation, or energy to pay attention to the goal, and this leads to a variety of misconceptions and cognitive errors in people.

Figure 4.5 Ratings of perceived guilt as a function of time of day, personality type, and stereotype activation. When people are not at their cognitive peak, they are more likely to rely on stereotypes to make judgments. Based on data from Bodenhausen, 1990.

Chapter 4

prejudice and discrimination

Ingroup Identification One of the most important cognitive processes common to all humans seems to be the tendency to categorize people as belonging to their own group (us) or to an external group (them). This trend has implications beyond simple categorization. We tend to identify with and favor members of the group. We also tend to attribute more 'human emotions' (eg, affection, admiration, and pride) to the ingroup than to the outgroup (Leyens et al., 2000). Together, these trends form the ingroup bias. This tendency to favor the ingroup is accompanied by a concomitant tendency to identify “others” as belonging to a less favored outgroup that we do not favor. Our tendency to favor the ingroup and denigrate the outgroup is related to the kinds of emotions we feel toward those groups. When we feel good about something the ingroup is doing or with which we are associated and resent what the outgroup is doing, we are more likely to identify strongly with the ingroup (Kessler & Hollbach, 2005). So, for example, when our country is associated with something good (e.g. winning an Olympic medal) and another country is associated with something bad (e.g. an Olympic judges scandal), we feel the greatest group pride and will likely identify strongly with the ingroup. On the other hand, we identify less with the ingroup when it is associated with something bad and the outgroup with something good (Kessler & Hollbach, 2005). In other words, we are likely to enjoy reflected glory (BIRG) when the ingroup is doing good, and eliminate reflected failure (CORF) when the ingroup is doing bad (Kessler & Hollbach, 2005). This could explain why so many people quickly change their minds (e.g. about the 2003 Iraq war) when the news is bad (CORFing). But when things are going well (for example in the early stages of the Iraq war), we feel national pride and are satisfied with our BIRGing. How we perceive and judge members of an outgroup depends, at least in part, on how we perceive the ingroup. The ingroup is typically used as a yardstick by which to judge the behavior of outgroup members (Gawronski, Bodenhausen, & Banse, 2005). In fact, a contrast effect occurs when in-group members and out-group members are compared on the same traits. For example, when ingroup members perceive that their ingroup has a trait, they are likely to perceive the outgroup members as not (Gawronski et al., 2005). In short, how we perceive our own group (the ingroup) has a lot to do with how we perceive the outgroup. Henri Tajfel, a social psychologist, studied the phenomenon of ingroup preference as a way to exploit outgroup hostility. He addressed the issue of genocide, the systematic killing of an entire national or ethnic group. As a survivor of the Nazi genocide of European Jews in 1939–45, Tajfel became interested in the subject both personally and professionally (Brown, 1986). In contrast to previous researchers, who emphasized the irrational thoughts and emotions of the judgmental personality as the source of intergroup violence, Tajfel believed that cognitive processes were involved. He believed that the process of categorizing people into different groups led to loyalty to one's own group, which included those who were perceived to be similar in significant ways. As forms of ingroup solidarity, those who are perceived as different are inevitably identified as members of the outgroup (Allport, 1954; Billig, 1992). Tajfel looked for the minimum social conditions necessary for prejudice to arise. In his experiments with British school children he found that there was no situation so minimal that no form of group solidarity developed. He concluded that the need to favor the ingroup, known as ingroup bias, is a fundamental part of human nature. What are the reasons for this strong bias?

125

Ingroup bias The strong tendency for people to favor the group they belong to over other groups.

126

social psychology

As noted in Chapter 2, we derive important aspects of our self-understanding from our group membership (Turner, 1987). These associations help us build a sense of positive social identity. Consider a seemingly trivial case of group membership: being a supporter of a sports team. If your team wins a big game, you'll get a boost to your well-being (from BIRGing), albeit temporarily. You don't just cheer for the team; You become part of the team. They say, "We defeated them." Think for a moment of the celebrations that took place in Detroit, New York, Boston and other places after local teams won professional sports championships. It's almost as if it wasn't the Tigers or the Mets or the Celtics that won, but the fans themselves. On the other hand, when your team loses the big game, you feel terrible. You are tempted to abandon ship. It is difficult to read newspapers or listen to sports broadcasts the next day. If your team wins, say, "We won." If your team loses, say, "You lost" (Cialdini, 1988). It seems that both the BIRG and the JumpShip serve to protect the individual fan's self-esteem. The gear becomes part of the person's identity.

Social Identity Theory

Social Identity Theory (SIT) An assumption that we all must have a positive concept of self, part of which is imparted to us through identification with certain groups.

Tajfel's (1982) social identity theory posits that people are motivated to value their own group positively and to value them relative to other groups in order to maintain and increase self-esteem. The group provides the individual with a social identity, that part of a person's sense of self that derives from their membership in social groups and their emotional connection to those groups (Tajfel, 1981). Fundamental to social identity theory (SIT) is the idea of categorizing other groups, classifying them, through the use of stereotypes, those general beliefs that most people hold about members of certain social groups (Turner, 1987). People are motivated to have negative outgroup stereotypes; In this way they can maintain the superiority of their own group and thus keep their social (and self-)identity positive. In general, any threat to the ingroup, whether economic, military, or social, tends to reinforce ingroup bias. Additionally, anything that makes a person's membership in a group more conspicuous will reinforce favorability within the group. A series of experiments showed that when people were alone, they tended to judge a group member individually, but when told they belonged to the group by the presence of other members of their group, they were likely to become the person in the group judge. . outgroup based solely on outgroup stereotypes (Wilder & Shapiro, 1984, 1991). The increase in group feelings encouraged judgments about others based on social stereotypes. If group membership is enabled, e.g. For example, if you're watching the Olympics or voting for a political candidate, the group's values and social stereotypes play a bigger role in your response.

self-categorization theory

Self-categorization Theory (SCT) A theory that suggests that people need to reduce uncertainty about whether their perception of the world is "correct" and seek validation of their beliefs from other members of the group.

Increased self-esteem as a result of group membership is central to SIT (Grieve & Hogg, 1999). In order to increase members' self-esteem, the ingroup must show that it is positively different from other groups (Mummenday & Wenzel, 1999). Central to an extension of SIT, Self-categorization Theory (SCT), is the idea that self-categorization is also motivated by the need to reduce uncertainty (Hogg & Mullin, 1999). The basic idea is that people need to feel that their perception of the world is correct, and that correctness is defined by people (group members) who are similar to us in important ways. In a study by Haslam, Oakes, Reynolds, and Turner (1999), emphasizing the Australian category for a group of Australian students tended to reduce uncertainty about the characteristics that make up the social group.

Chapter 4

prejudice and discrimination

Consequently, it regulated and structured the social perceptions of its members. This is consistent with SCT. When reminded of their common status or group affiliation, Australian students were more likely to agree with what it means to be Australian. What are the consequences of insecurity? Grieve and Hogg (1999) showed that when there was high uncertainty (i.e., when group members did not know whether they were performing adequately or whether they would succeed in meeting group goals), groups were more likely to downgrade or discriminate against other groups. In other words, uncertainty is a threat. The uncertainty was also accompanied by increased group identification. So the threat creates a sort of rally around the flag mentality. Thus, self-categorization theory suggests that self-categorization leads to discrimination against other groups only when the world is unsafe (Grieve & Hogg, 1999). Self-categorization theory lends some optimism to its Mother Theory (SIT) perspective, suggesting that categorization does not always lead to discrimination and, if the threat can be managed or mitigated, there is little need for discrimination or antagonism between groups to occur.

A Biological Perspective on Ingroup Bias Tajfel's research has shown us that the formation of ingroup bias satisfies basic personal and social needs, primarily through the maintenance of personal self-esteem. Some scientists, particularly sociobiologists, scientists who take a biological approach to social behavior, believe that ethnocentrism (higher ingroup valorization and outgroup devaluation) has a basis in human biological evolution. They point out that humans have lived in small groups of 40 to 100 members for most of their history (Flohr, 1987). People had to trust the ingroup and be accepted by its members; it was the only way to survive. So it would make sense that a strong group orientation is part of our human heritage: those who lack this orientation would not have survived to pass their traits on to us. Sociobiologists also point out that people of all cultures seem to exhibit a natural xenophobia, or fear of strangers. This fear may also be part of our genetic heritage. Because early populations were isolated from each other (Irwin, 1987), humans may have used similar physical appearance as a marker of consanguinity (Tonnesmann, 1987). Of course, there was always the possibility that people who looked different could pose a threat to food supplies or other survival needs. Sociobiologists argue that it is reasonable to expect people to be willing to cooperate only with those of similar physical appearance and biological heritage and to be suspicious of strangers (Barkow, 1980). In modern times, as Tajfel has shown, we still derive much of our identity from belonging to a group; we fear being excluded from groups (Baumeister & Tice, 1990). Great respect for one's own group often means devaluing other groups. This isn't necessarily a big problem until groups have to compete for resources. Since the world does not seem to offer any surplus resources, competition between groups is inevitable. Of particular interest to sociobiologists is a study by Tajfel (1982) and colleagues who showed that children show a preference for their own national group long before they have any idea of country or nation. Boys aged 6 to 12 were shown pictures of young men and asked how much they liked these men. Two weeks later, the children saw the same images again. They were also told that some of the men were of their nation and some were not. The children had to decide which youngsters were “their” (from their country) and which were not. The researchers found that children were more likely to identify the photos they liked as belonging to their own nation. Thus, group tastes and feelings go hand in hand at an age when children cannot fully grasp the idea of a nation (Flohr, 1987).

127

128

social psychology

In summary, those who offer a biological perspective on intergroup prejudice say that strong ingroup identification can be understood as an evolutionary survival mechanism. We can find examples throughout human history of specific ethnic, racial, and religious groups strengthening their inner ties in response to threats from the dominant group (Eitzen, 1973; Myrdal, 1962). Strengthening these bonds within the group can help the group survive, but this is just one way of looking at group bias. Acceptance of this notion does not require that we neglect our theories of social psychology; it only gives us an idea of the complexity of the issue (Flohr, 1987).

The Role of Language in Maintaining Prejudice Categorization is usually an automatic process. It is the first step in the process of forming an impression. As mentioned above, it is not the same as stereotyping and prejudice, but it greatly influences these other processes. One way categorization can lead to bias is through language. The way we shape our world through the words and labels we use to describe people connects category to prejudice. Social psychologist Charles Perdue and colleagues tested the hypothesis that the use of words describing ingroups and outgroups unconsciously shapes our prejudices and stereotypes (Perdue, Dovidio, Gurtman, & Tyler, 1990). Perdue suggested that the use of collective pronouns (we, we, our, they, you, her) greatly affects the way we think about people and groups. We use these terms to assign people to internal and external groups. In one study, Perdue and his colleagues showed participants a series of nonsensical syllables (xeh, yof, laj) combined with pronouns denoting in-group or outside-group status (we, they). Participants were then asked to rate each of the nonsense syllables they had just seen in terms of whether they liked or disliked the feelings they evoked. As Figure 4.6 shows, nonsense words in combination with group-internal pronouns were rated much more favorably than the same nonsense words in combination with foreign pronouns or control stimuli. Out-of-group pronouns gave a negative meaning to previously absent neuter nonsense syllables. In a second experiment, these researchers showed that ingroup and outgroup pronouns affect information processing about these groups. Participants saw a variety of positive and negative adjectives, such as helpful, smart, competent, irresponsible, careless, and irritable. Well, a positive trait should be positive under all circumstances, and the same should be true for negative traits, don't you think? Skillful is usually positive; sloppy is usually negative. But as Figure 4.7 shows, participants were slower to describe a negative trait as negative when that trait was associated with a pronoun in the group. Also, participants took longer to describe a positive trait as positive when it was associated with a pronoun outside of the group. They took a short time to respond to a positive trait associated with an ingroup pronoun and a negative trait associated with an outgroup pronoun. These results suggest that we have an unconscious tendency (after all, participants were unaware of the associations) to associate in-group labels with positive rather than negative attributes and out-group labels with negative rather than positive attributes. These associations are so strong that they shape the way we later process information. They also seem to run deep and be long-lasting, a fact that might explain why stereotypes are so persistent. spurious correlation An error in assessing the relationship between two variables by assuming that two unrelated events are covarying.

Illusory Correlations The tendency to associate negative traits with outgroups is explained by one of the fundamental cognitive bases of stereotypes, illusory correlation. An illusory correlation is an error in assessing the relationship between two variables, or in other words,

Chapter 4

prejudice and discrimination

129

Figure 4.6 Standardized classifications of target syllables based on pronoun pairings. Syllables paired with ingroup pronouns were considered more agreeable than those paired with outgroup pronouns. From Perdue, Dovidio and Tyler.

Figure 4.7 Response times to descriptors of positive and negative traits depending on the type of pronoun (in-group or out-of-group). Information processing is influenced by in-group and out-of-group thinking. From Perdue, Dovidio, and Tyler (1990).

In other words, the belief that two unrelated events covary (systematically related) (Hamilton & Sherman, 1989). For example, someone may notice that they bowl very well if they wear their old high school bowling shirt when they go bowling. You may think there is a connection between the two events. Even if you believe that members of a minority group are more available than members of a majority group

130

social psychology

a negative trait, then a correlation is seen between group membership and behavior related to that trait (Schaller, 1991). Sometimes this cognitive bias occurs even among trained professionals. For example, a young, married African-American woman was diagnosed by a doctor with chronic pelvic inflammatory disease, a condition that has been associated with a history of sexually transmitted diseases. This diagnosis was made despite the fact that there was no evidence in his medical history that he had ever had such an illness. As it turned out, she did in fact have endometriosis, a disease unrelated to sexually transmitted diseases (Time, June 1, 1992). The doctor's belief that young black women were sexually promiscuous led to a diagnosis consistent with those beliefs. Research supports this anecdote. For example, it was found that participants attributed different abilities to a girl depending on whether she was portrayed as having a lower or higher socioeconomic status (Darley & Gross, 1983). These examples illustrate the human tendency to overestimate the interaction of different pairs of stimuli (Sherman, Hamilton & Roskos-Ewoldsen, 1989). In the case of the misdiagnosis, the presence of two distinct stimuli - a young black woman and a specific pattern of symptoms - led the doctor to conclude that the woman's disorder was related to her sexual history. The tendency to fall into this illusion has been confirmed in other experiments (Chapman & Chapman, 1967). The illusory correlation helps explain how stereotypes are formed. The rationale is as follows: Minority groups are characterized by the fact that they meet relatively infrequently. Negative behavior is also characterized by the fact that it is generally less common than positive behavior. Because the two are different, people tend to overestimate the frequency with which they occur together, ie the frequency with which members of minority groups do undesirable things (Sherman et al., 1989). Research shows that when people are given information about a majority group and a minority group and these groups are paired with rare or common traits, people associate the smaller group with the rarer trait (Hamilton & Sherman, 1989). If both the minority and majority groups share the same negative trait, such as a tendency toward criminal behavior, the negative behavior associated with the minority will be more different than with the majority group. Our cognitive apparatus seems to lead us to make an automatic association between negative behavior and belonging to minority groups. Differentiators also likely play a key role in designing category-based responses. In any gathering of people, we pay the most attention to those who appear to be different from others, such as a white person in a group of blacks or a man in a group of women. Skin colour, gender and ethnic origin are distinctive features. A function of automatic assessment is to flag events that might endanger the observer (Pratto & John, 1991). Certainly sociobiologists would agree with this notion. Human ability to discern friend from foe, safety from danger would be fundamental to survival (Ike, 1987). For example, people automatically responded to an angry (bulging) face in a happy crowd (Hansen & Hansen, 1988). An angry person among friends is dangerous. Another study showed that people automatically draw their attention from a task to words, images, or events that may be threatening (Pratte & John, 1991). Participants tended to emphasize negative traits faster than positive ones. This automatic monitoring can lead people to evaluate the undesirable qualities of their fellow human beings differently than the positive qualities.

Chapter 4

prejudice and discrimination

Therefore, when we meet other groups, it is not surprising that we pay more attention to the bad things about them than to the good ones. Negative social information grabs our attention. This increased attention to negative information can protect us from immediate harm, but it also helps perpetuate stereotypes and can contribute to intergroup conflict (Pratto & John, 1991). From Illusory Connections to Negative Stereotypes Through Fundamental Attribution Errors The fact that we learn negative information about another group does not necessarily lead to discrimination against that group. There must be a correlation between the relevance of negative information and biased behavior. Basic attribution errors, the tendency to overestimate internal attributes and underestimate situational effects, make this connection and play a role in the formation of discriminatory stereotypes. This applies in particular when perceivers do not take into account the roles assigned to the person. Recall the quiz study described in Chapter 3, in which participants thought the quizzers were more intelligent than the participants (Ross, Arnabile, & Steinmetz, 1977), even though roles were randomly assigned. This confusion of internal dispositions and external roles has led to the punishment of negative stereotypes by different groups. Consider just one example, the experience of Jews in Europe over the last hundred years (Ross & Nisbitt, 1991). In the past, many restrictions were imposed on Jews in the countries where they lived. They were prevented from owning land; they often had to be in certain designated areas; they could not enter politics; and many professions remained closed to them. This exclusion from mainstream society left Jews with two choices: convert to Christianity or preserve their own culture. Most Jews chose the latter and lived within the walls of the ghetto (in fact, the word ghetto derives from the Venetian word gheto, which referred to a part of town where iron slag was cooled and dried). live) assigned to them by the Christian majority and have little to do with non-Jews. Exclusion and persecution strengthened their group ties and also led to a majority clan membership. However, one segment of the Jewish population was highly visible to society at large: moneylenders. Moneylending was a profession forbidden to Christians and open to Jews (Ross & Nisbett, 1991). Although despised, it was an essential function in national and international business, especially when capitalism was beginning to develop. Jewish loan sharks became important figures behind the scenes of European affairs. Thus, without exception, the most respected members of the group—those distinguished by their visibility, commercial success, and political importance—were moneylenders. The clearly negative role of money-lending, although limited to a few Jews, began to correlate with Jews in general. Jews were also seen as distinctive because of their minority status, way of life, unique dress, and group solidarity. All of these characteristics were a function of the situation and the roles most ascribed to the Jews, but they were taken to be inherent characteristics of the Jewish people in general through the fundamental error of attribution. These characteristics were then used as a justification for discrimination based on the logic that Jews were different, belonged to clans and were greedy. Jews have been portrayed negatively throughout history. For example, in Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice, Shylock, a Jewish pawnbroker, is portrayed as a bloodthirsty individual who would do anything to get his pound of flesh out to pay off an uncollectible debt. However, these stereotypes persist today

131

132

social psychology

"enlightened" American communities? Film director Steven Speilberg grew up in New Jersey and Arizona but never experienced anti-Semitism until his family moved to Saratoga, California during his senior year of high school: he found children coughing the word Jew into their hands as they died . for him. , hit him and threw pennies at him in the study room. "It's been my six months of personal horror. And to this day I have never gotten over or forgiven any of them. (Newsweek, December 20, 1993, p. 115)

Historically, Jews have not been the only group to suffer from majority exclusion and fundamental attribution errors (Ross & Nisbett, 1991). The Armenians in Turkey, the Indians in Uganda, and the Vietnamese boat people were financial intermediaries who took on this role because they had no other position open to them. All these groups suffered terrible fates.

Confirmation Bias People dealing with Jews in 18th-century Europe or Armenians in early 20th-century Turkey found it easy to confirm their expectations of these groups; the observers could remember the usurers, the strange clothes, the different customs. Stereotypes are self-affirming and resistant to change. Numerous studies show that stereotypes can influence social interactions in ways that lead to their confirmation. In one study, some participants were told that a person they were about to speak to was in psychotherapy; other participants were not informed about the person (Sibicky & Dovidio, 1986). In fact, the people they spoke to were randomly selected undergraduate psychology students; none were in therapy. After the interviews, participants were asked to rate the person they had interacted with. Individuals identified as therapy clients were rated as less trusting, less attractive, and less likable than individuals identified as not in therapy. We can see from this study that once people have a stereotype, they evaluate information in the context of that stereotype. After all, none of the people interviewed in the experiment were in therapy. The differences between ratings were due to participants' stereotypical views of how someone in therapy should be. Describing someone as being in therapy seems to lead to a negative perception of that person. People with negative stereotypes about certain groups may behave in such a way that group members act in ways that confirm the stereotype (Crocker & Major, 1989). Confirmation bias contributes to self-fulfilling prophecies in many cases. If you expect a person to be hostile, your own expectation and the way they behave can trigger that hostility. In the study just described, participants who thought they were interacting with someone in therapy likely had a stereotypical view of all people with mental health problems. It's likely that they behaved in a way that worried them and made them appear less confident.

Outgroup Homogeneous Bias The predisposition to believe that members of an outgroup have similar characteristics or are all the same.

Out-group homogeneity bias An early effect of categorization is that members of a category are assumed to be more similar to one another than when people are viewed as individuals. Because we have a lot of information about the members of our own group (the ingroup), we can tell them apart. But we tend to see members of other groups (outgroups) as very similar (Wilder, 1986). This phenomenon of perceiving outgroup members as equals is called outgroup homogeneity bias (Linville, Fischer & Salovey, 1989).

Chapter 4

prejudice and discrimination

The outgroup homogeneity hypothesis was tested in a study of students from Princeton and Rutgers Universities (Quattrone & Jones, 1980). The participants, who were either Rutgers or Princeton students, viewed a videotape of a student said to be at the other school. The person being filmed had to decide whether to wait alone or with others before participating in a psychological experiment. The actual participant then had to predict what the average student at the target university (Rutgers for Princeton students and Princeton for Rutgers students) would do in a similar situation. Would the participants see the students at the other university similar to the students they saw? Would you predict that most Princeton students (or Rutgers students) would make the same choice as the Princeton student (or Rutgers students) in the movie clip? These questions relate to whether people view members of outgroups as more alike than members of ingroups. In fact, the study showed exactly that, although there was a greater tendency to stereotype Princeton students than Rutgers students. That seems logical because it's probably easier to stereotype a Princeton student. Overall, however, the results supported the notion that outgroup homogeneity biases lead us to believe that outgroup members are more similar to each other than ingroup members. A second result of the outgroup homogeneity bias is the assumption that every behavior of an outgroup member reflects the characteristics of all ingroup members. When an outgroup member does something wrong, we tend to conclude, "They are." Conversely, when a group member does something equally negative, we tend to make a dispositional attribution, blaming the person rather than our own group blame the negative behavior. This has been termed the ultimate attribution error: we are more likely to give ingroup members the benefit of the doubt than outgroup members (Pettigrew, 1979). Once we've built our categories, we tend to cling to them stubbornly, which can be both innocent and destructive. It's innocent because the process will likely be automatic and unconscious. It is destructive because the stereotypes are inaccurate and often harmful; Individuals cannot be adequately described by reference to the groups to which they belong. In general, social psychologists have made no consistent attempt to determine the accuracy of stereotypes. Much of the early research on stereotypes assumed that stereotypes were, by definition, inaccurate. More recently, Judd and Park (1993) have addressed the question of the accuracy of stereotypes. They proposed various technical standards against which the accuracy of a stereotype could be measured. For example, consider the idea that Germans are efficient. A standard that Judd and Park have proposed for measuring the accuracy of this stereotype is to find data that answer the questions: Are Germans really more efficient or less efficient than the stereotype? Is the group attribute (efficiency) exaggerated? Of course, in order to apply these patterns, we need some objective data about the groups. We need to know how groups actually behave in terms of various traits. For some attributes, say kindness or sensitivity, obtaining such information is probably impossible. For others, data may be readily available. McCauley and Stitt's 1978 study of stereotyping accuracy compared estimates of certain African-American population attributes by white participants to public records (cited in Judd & Park, 1993). Attributes estimated were percentage of high school graduates, number of crime victims, and number of welfare recipients. This study showed that whites underestimated the differences between them

133

final attribution error The tendency to give ingroup members, but not outgroup members, the benefit of the doubt for negative behavior.

134

social psychology

African American and yourself in relation to these attributes. In other words, whites thought more African Americans were graduating from high school than was true, and they thought fewer African Americans were victims of crime than the data showed. Is it important to know if a stereotype is true? Technically, this is because many of the previous definitions of stereotypes assumed that imprecision was part of the definition of the concept (Stangor & Lange, 1994). Most stereotypes are unwarranted generalizations; that is, they are not exact. But even when they're true, stereotypes are detrimental to how we perceive others. None of us wants to be judged individually by the worst examples of the group or groups we belong to. In previous chapters we have seen how automatic and controlled processing enters the process of social cognition. Some people use controlled processing to correct other people's first impressions in cases where the new information conflicts with existing categorization (Fiske & Neuberg, 1990; Trope, 1986). Automatic and controlled processing comes into play again when we consider how stereotypes are cultivated and how prejudices and biases differ.

The difference between prejudiced and non-prejudiced people Devine (1989) states that stereotypes are automatically activated when we meet a member of a particular social group. According to Devine, some people can consciously change their biased responses while others cannot. Devine found that those who are interested in not being biased think differently than those who aren't. For example, people with prejudice are more likely to have negative thoughts and behaviors toward members of other races and ethnic groups than people without prejudice. Devine also found that high and low prejudice whites share almost the same stereotypes as African Americans. However, non-judgmental people think these stereotypes are wrong. Devine also found that the main difference between biased and non-biased whites is that non-biased whites are sensitive and carefully monitor their stereotypes. The non-judgmental person wants their behavior to be consistent with their true beliefs, not their stereotypes. When given the opportunity to use controlled processing, unbiased individuals exhibit behavior that is more consistent with unbiased true beliefs than with stereotyped beliefs. Conversely, the behavior of biased people is more likely to be guided by stereotypes. In another study, non-judgmental people were more likely to feel bad than biased people when they had thoughts about gays and lesbians that contradicted their beliefs (Monteith, Devine, & Zuwerink, 1993). When unbiased people express biased thoughts and feelings, they feel guilty about it (Devine, Montieth, Zuwerink, & Elliot, 1991). What happens when automatic processing takes over? According to Devine, activating a stereotype puts a person into an automatic mode when confronted with a person from the stereotyped group. The automatically activated stereotype is influenced by biased and non-biased individuals unless there is an opportunity to use controlled processing (Devine, 1989). Devine found that when participants in an experiment were prevented from switching to controlled processing, biased and non-biased people rated an African American's behavior negatively. We can draw several conclusions from Devine's research. First, biased people have fewer inhibitions about expressing their prejudices than nonjudgmental people. Second, there are no differences between biased and non-biased individuals when stereotype activation is beyond conscious control. Third, unprejudiced people work

Chapter 4

prejudice and discrimination

It is difficult to stop the expression of negative stereotypes when they have the ability to monitor behavior and bring stereotypes under conscious control. Fourth, non-judgmental people recognize that there is a gap between their stereotypes and their general beliefs about equality, and continually work to change their stereotypical mindset. Is it easy to identify a person with prejudice? If you see a person in Ku Klux Klan clothing spreading hate propaganda or burning a cross on someone's lawn, it's very simple. However, many people do not express prejudice in such an obvious way. When we find someone making racist or sexist comments, we can easily identify that person as biased (Mae & Carlston, 2005). Furthermore, we express disgust toward that person even when they express ideas with which we agree (Mae & Carlston, 2005). So it seems that we are very good at identifying people who express negative prejudices. However, when it comes to spotting positive bias, we're less experts. Negatively biased speakers are more likely to be identified as biased than positively biased ones (Mae & Carlston, 2005).

The Consequences of Bias Imagine being woken up several times a night by a phone call full of racial or religious slurs. Imagine you were a second-generation Japanese-American soldier on December 8, 1941 (the day after Pearl Harbor was attacked) and learned that you were no longer trusted to carry a weapon in defense of your country. Imagine you are a recognized war hero who is denied the Medal of Honor because of racial suspicions about your loyalty to the country you just fought for. In each of these cases, a person becomes the target of prejudice, stereotypes and discriminatory behavior directed against them. What effect does being the subject of such prejudice have on a person? Being the target of discrimination certainly generates many negative affects and has serious emotional consequences for the target (Dion & Earn, 1975). Below we examine some of the effects that prejudice has on those it targets.

How Prejudice Can Be Expressed In his monumental work on prejudice entitled The Nature of Prejudice, Gordon Allport (1954) proposed that there are five ways to express prejudice. These are anti-language, speaking in reference to prejudice, or making jokes about an outgroup; avoidance, contact avoidance with members of an outgroup; Discrimination, actively doing something to deny members of an outgroup something they want; physical aggression, beatings, lynching and the like; and extermination, an attempt to eliminate an entire group. One issue we need to address is the response members of an outgroup have when faced with prejudice. It is quite evident that those who face open discrimination, physical attacks and annihilation will react negatively. But what about reactions to more subtle forms of prejudice? What price do you ask a member of a minority? Swim, Cohen, and Hyers (1998) characterized some forms of bias as everyday bias: "recurring and familiar events that can be considered commonplace" (p. 37). This includes short-term interactions like comments and looks, as well as incidents that can be aimed at an individual or an entire group. According to Swim and his colleagues, such incidents can be initiated by strangers or by those with a close relationship with the target and can have a cumulative effect, adding to the target's experience and knowledge of the target.

135

136

social psychology

Prejudice Based Jokes How do encounters with everyday prejudice affect the goal? Let's start with a form of anti-speech discussed by Allport that most people see as harmless: biased jokes. Most of us have heard (and laughed at) jokes that make group members the butt of the joke. Many of us may even have told these jokes, provided they are harmless. But how do the recipients feel? For example, women find sexist jokes less funny and amusing than non-sexist ones (LaFrance & Woodzicka, 1998). They also tend to report being more disgusted, angry, hostile, and surprised by sexist jokes than non-sexist ones. They also tend to roll their eyes (indicates disgust) and touch their faces (indicates embarrassment) in response to sexist rather than non-sexist jokes (LaFrance & Woodzicka, 1998). Ryan and Kanjorski (1998) directly compared men's and women's responses to sexist jokes. They found that, compared to men, women disliked sexist humor and found it less acceptable and more offensive. Interestingly, men and women did not differ in telling sexist jokes. A more ominous finding was that, in men, there were significant positive correlations between enjoyment of sexist humor and acceptance of the rape myth, antagonistic sexual beliefs, acceptance of interpersonal violence, likelihood of engaging in forced sex, and sexual assault. In another study, exposure of men with sexist attitudes to sexist jokes was associated with tolerance for sexism and less negative feelings about sexist behavior (Ford, Wentzel, & Lorion, 2001). These findings may lend some credibility to Allport's (1954) notion that antilocution, once accepted, sets the stage for more serious expressions of prejudice. A study by Thomas and Estes (2004) confirms the link between sexist attitudes and enjoyment of sexist humor. Male participants completed measures on sexism and authoritarianism. They then rated two types of sex jokes. Half of the jokes were demeaning to the women and half to the men. The results showed that male participants who scored high on the sexism scale found women's demeaning jokes funnier and more likely to repeat them than male participants who scored low on the sexism scale. Sexism did not refer to evaluating jokes that demeaned men.

Stereotypic Threat The state of being when an individual is asked to perform a task for which there is a negative stereotype associated with their group and performs it poorly because the task is threatening.

Stereotypic threat As mentioned above, group membership often contributes to a positive social identity. What about belonging to a group that does not confer a positive social identity? Not all social groups have the same social status and perceived value. What happens when a person is presented with a task for which there is a negative stereotype for that person's group? For example, it is well known that blacks tend to underperform whites in academia. What happens when a Black person is presented with a task that indicates academic aptitude? An intriguing hypothesis about why black people might not perform well on standard IQ tests comes from an experiment by Steele and Aronson (1995). According to Steele and Aronson, if a person is asked to perform a task for which there is a negative stereotype associated with their group, that person will perform poorly because the task is threatening. They called this idea a stereotypical threat. To test the hypothesis that group members perform worse on tasks related to prevailing negative stereotypes, Steele and Aronson conducted the following experiment. Black and white participants took a test that included elements from the verbal portion of the Graduate Record Exam. A third of the participants were told that the test was diagnostic of their intellectual ability (diagnostic condition). A third were told the test was a laboratory

Chapter 4

prejudice and discrimination

Tool for investigating problem resolution (non-diagnostic condition). The last third were told that the test was problem-solving and would provide a challenge for the participants (non-diagnostic - challenge condition). Steele and Aronson then determined the average number of items answered correctly within each group. The results of this experiment showed that black and white participants differed significantly when the test was designed to diagnose a person's intellectual abilities, with black participants performing worse than white participants. However, when the same test was presented as nondiagnostic, black and white participants performed equally well. There was no significant difference between blacks and whites in the no-diagnosis challenge condition. In general, blacks performed lower in the diagnostic condition on all three conditions. In a second experiment, Steele and Aronson (1995) obtained even clearer results than in the first. They also found that black participants in the diagnosed state completed fewer tasks and worked more slowly than black participants in the undiagnosed state. Steele and Aronson suggest that this is a pattern consistent with impairments from test anxiety, judgmental anxiety, and competitive pressure. In a final experiment, Steele and Aronson (1995) asked participants to complete word completion tasks (e.g. — —ce; la — —; o — —ack that expressed in racially stereotyped ways (e.g., race; lazy; black ) or a non-stereotyped form (eg, beat, loop, trace). This was done to test whether stereotypes were activated when participants were told that a test was diagnostic or not. Steele and Aronson posed found that there was greater arousal of stereotypes among Blacks in the diagnostic state compared to the non-diagnostic state.They also found that Blacks in the diagnostic state were more likely than whites to employ diagnostic strategies of self-sabotage (i.e., developing behavioral patterns that actually impair performance). , such as insomnia the night before a test.) Blacks and whites did not differ in self-sabotaging behavior. Ion in non-diagnostic state. Pkt around their nature and purpose, diagnostic of a person's intellectual abilities. According to Steele and Aronson's (1995) analysis, when a black person is presented with the prospect of taking a test that diagnoses intellectual ability, the general stereotypical threat that blacks should not do well on academic tests is activated. According to Steele and Aronson, the threat of stereotypes undermines performance by creating judgmental pressures. Recall that participants who were under stereotypic threat in the diagnostic condition spent more time completing fewer tasks. As they grew more frustrated, the performance took a hit. It may also affect future performance as Blacks employ more self-sabotaging strategies when faced with diagnostic tests. In short, the threat of stereotypes leads to an impairment in the ability to process information cognitively appropriately, which in turn impairs performance. Therefore, lower black IQ test scores may be related to activation of stereotyped threats rather than genetic differences between blacks and whites. Steele and his colleagues extended the notion of stereotyped threat to other groups. For example, Spencer, Steele, and Quinn (cited in Aronson, Quinn, and Spencer, 1998) found that men and women of equal math ability performed differently on a math test depending on whether they were told scores were present that they did received no gender differences in test performance (reducing stereotype threat) or information about gender differences (which could activate stereotype threat). In particular, when “no gender-specific differences” were specified, men and women performed equally well in the test. However, once the stereotypical threat was allowed to set in (i.e., women perform worse on math tests than

137

138

social psychology

than men), men performed significantly better than women. Aronson and Alainas reported similar effects for Hispanic versus White and White male versus Asian male participants (cited in Aronson et al., 1998). In a more direct test of the relationship between gender, stereotype threat, and math achievement, Brown and Josephs (1999) told male and female students that they would take a math test. Half of the participants of both genders were told that the test would identify particularly strong math skills, while the other half were told that the test would identify particularly weak math skills. Brown and Josephs argued that the test of strong math ability would be more threatening to men because it fits the stereotype that men are good at math. On the other hand, the weakness test would be more threatening for women because women are stereotypically considered to be weak in math. Their findings were consistent with Steele and Aronson's notion of a stereotypical threat. The men performed poorly on the test, which was designed to measure exceptional mathematical ability. On the other hand, the women performed poorly on the test that identified poor math skills. In both cases, a relevant gender stereotype was activated that inhibited performance. According to Brown and Josephs, the stereotypical threat to mathematical achievement is experienced differently by men and women. Men feel more threatened when they have to prove themselves worthy because of their math skills, while women feel more threatened when faced with a situation that might turn out to be cliche. Stereotype threat also works by lowering the positive expectations a person has when entering a situation. For example, a person may feel confident about doing well on the SATs based on their past experiences and have a positive expectation about their performance on the test. Now suppose that a stereotype of this person's group is activated before they take the test. The resulting stereotyped threat can lower that person's expectations of the test, and the person does not perform well as a result. That this scenario could occur was verified in an experiment by Stangor, Carr, and Kiang (1998). The female participants in this experiment performed an initial word identification task. Some participants were then told that their performance on the task was clear evidence that they had college-level professional aptitude. Other participants were told that the evidence for college performance was unclear. Participants were then told that there was strong evidence that males performed better than females on the second test (stereotype threat) or that there was no gender difference (stereotype threat absent). Before working on the second task, participants were asked to rate their ability to successfully complete the second task. The results of this experiment, shown in Figure 4.8, were clear. When no stereotyped threat was triggered, performance was impacted by feedback after the first task. Participants who believed there was clear, positive evidence of college readiness had higher expectations of success than those who did not receive clear feedback. In the stereotypical threat situation, the two groups did not differ in their expectations regarding the second task. Stereotypical threats fuel not only fear of exam situations but also expectations of one's own performance. Rather, once these negative expectations develop, a self-fulfilling prophecy develops that "as a woman, I will not be expected to do this job well." The poor performance confirms this prophecy. Whether arousal related to a stereotyped threat negatively affects performance depends in part on the type of task the individual is required to perform. A consistent finding in social psychology is that arousal improves performance on a simple task but inhibits performance on a more difficult task (we discuss this effect in detail in Chapter 8). ben zeev,

Chapter 4

prejudice and discrimination

139

Figure 4.8 Task performance as a function of feedback on past performance and stereotyped threat activation. When no threat was activated, participants used performance on a previous task to form expectations about future performance. When a threat was triggered, performance was impacted by what was expected based on the stereotype. By Charles Stangor, Christine Carr and Lisa Kiang (1998).

Fein and Inzlicht (2005) conducted a study to investigate this effect. Participants performed a simple task (italicizing their names multiple times) or a difficult task (italicizing their names backwards) under stereotyped threat or without threat. Ben Zeevet al. found that the arousal associated with the stereotyped threat improved performance on the easy task and inhibited performance on the difficult task. In a second experiment, Ben Zeev et al. found that the way participants attributed the cause of their arousal affected performance. Again, participants were placed in either a stereotyped threat state or a non-threat state. Participants were informed that one of the aims of the study was to examine performance during exposure to subliminal noise. Participants in the misattribution condition were told that subliminal noise would produce physical symptoms such as arousal and nervousness. Control group participants were told that the subliminal noise would not cause any physical side effects. All participants completed a moderate-level math test while being exposed to noise. Results showed that participants in the control group exhibited the usual stereotyped threat effect (performing worse when threatened than when not threatened). However, in the mismatch condition, there was no significant threat effect on performance. So if you can trace your arousal to something other than a cliché, you'll be fine. Stereotyped threat-related arousal appears to be an important mediator of performance, as is arousal's origin. Finally, activating a stereotypical threat doesn't always result in performance degradation. In an experiment, Keller and Bless (2005) manipulated ease of activation of stereotypic information (easy versus difficult) along with activation of stereotypic threat. Participants completed a questionnaire that was thought to assess "emotional intelligence" but actually measured verbal ability. Keller and Bless found the typical threat effect of stereotypes when activation of stereotypic information was easy. That is, when activation was easy, participants who experienced a stereotyped threat performed worse on the verbal ability test than participants who did not.

140

social psychology

The threat of the stereotype. However, when activation was difficult, there was no significant difference in performance between the two stereotyped threat groups. In fact, the results showed a slight reversal of the effect. Keller and Bless propose that if a stereotype can be easily activated, it can reinforce the stereotype's validity in the individual's mind. The supposedly valid stereotype is more likely to inhibit performance than the more difficult (and presumably less valid) one to activate. The effect of a stereotyped threat is also conveyed by the person's location of control. Locus of control is a personality trait that relates to whether a person believes they have control over their outcomes (internal locus of control) or over the outcomes of external events (external locus of control). Cadinu, Maass, Lombardo, and Frigerio (2006) report that individuals with an internal locus of control showed a greater decline in performance under stereotyped threat than individuals with an external locus of control.

Collective threat Previous studies show how targeting a stereotype can affect individual behavior in a very specific context (e.g. testing). Stereotypes can also have a broader and more general impact, making members of stereotyped groups sensitive to the stigmatizing effects of stereotypes. In other words, a person from a stereotyped group may be overly concerned that a transgression by a member of their group might reflect negatively on him or her as an individual (Cohen & Garcia, 2005). Cohen and Garcia refer to this as a collective threat. Collective threat arises from the "awareness that the poor performance of a single individual in a group can be viewed through the lens of a stereotype and generalized into a negative judgment about a group" (Cohen & Garcia, 2005, p.566). Cohen and Garcia conducted a series of studies to assess the impact of collective threat. In their first study, middle and high school students completed a questionnaire that stereotyped collective threat actions (fear that the behavior of other members of a group that posed a collective threat would reflect poorly on the group as a whole). Threat (concern about poor people's awareness that their own behavior reflects poorly on their group) and a more general performance of a member who threatens to become stereotyped (concern that people may judge the participant based on his or her group). be judged on what they think of the racial group). Cohen and Garcia (2005) compare to a stereotype and can be the responses of students representing three racial/ethnic groups: black, white and generalized to a negative judgment about the whole group. Latinos. Garcia and Cohen found that students from minority groups (Black and Latino) were more likely to experience each of the three types of threats than white students. They also found that experiencing crowd threats was negatively associated with self-esteem. The more times a student has experienced the mob threat, the lower their self-esteem, regardless of the student's race. The collective threat was also linked to a drop in student grade point averages. High levels of perceived collective threat were associated with significant decreases in GPA. A series of follow-up experiments confirmed the results of the questionnaire study. Black students randomly assigned to a condition that posed a collective threat (compared to control students) had low self-esteem and also scored lower on a standardized test. Also, students tend to distance themselves from a group member who provoked the collective threat. Finally, Cohen and Garcia (2005) found that the effects of collective threat were not limited to racial groups. In their last reported experiment, collective threat effects were replicated using gender stereotypes (men's lower math skills) rather than racial stereotypes. The women distanced themselves (sat farther away) from another woman, who confirmed the stereotype of math ineptitude.

Chapter 4

prejudice and discrimination

Expectation of being the target of bias Another way that the target of bias can affect behavior is when people find themselves in a situation where they expect to encounter bias. For example, imagine you are a minority student meeting your white roommate for the first time. Could your behavior be influenced by your belief that your white roommate may harbor prejudice and negative stereotypes about your group? The answer to that question is that it would certainly be possible. Research by Shelton, Richeson and Salvatore (2005) confirmed the same effect. They found an association between expecting to face prejudice and their perceptions of interracial interactions. In particular, Shelton et al. found that the more a minority student expected bias from another white student, the more negatively they viewed their interaction with that person. This relationship was found in a diary study (students kept diaries of their experiences with their white roommates) and in a laboratory experiment in which bias was induced. Shellon and others. also assessed white students' perceptions of their studies. Interestingly, they found that the more the minority student expected the white student to be biased, the more positive the encounter was for the white student. This latest finding points to a large discrepancy between the perceptions of white and minority students. Minority students who expect bias (and have likely experienced it in the past) may misinterpret white student behavior as an indication of bias, making the interaction seem more negative than it really is. White students who do not have a history of prejudice may act ignorantly in a state of bliss, not realizing that innocent behavior can be misunderstood by their minority peers.

Dealing with prejudice As should be apparent from our earlier discussion, there are a number of negative consequences of being the target of prejudice. People who face prejudice every day need to find ways to deal with its effects. For example, how can a person who is overweight and constantly exposed to prejudice deal effectively with its consequences? In this section, we examine some strategies people use to deal with prejudice.

Adding Value to a Stigmatized Group One way to deal with prejudice when your group is stigmatized, oppressed, or less valued than other groups is to add value to it. This is done by first convincing the group members of their own worth and then by convincing the rest of society of the worth of the group. The function of all awareness efforts and positive slogans within the group is to convince members of underappreciated or underappreciated groups that they are beautiful, smart, worthy, or competent. This first step in maintaining and increasing self-esteem can be approached in at least two ways (Crocker & Major, 1989; Crocker, Voelkl, Testa, & Major, 1991): by attributing negative events to the biases of the majority and by compare to members of the community. same group. For example, let's first assume that an African American woman is denied a job or a promotion. You can better maintain your self-esteem by attributing this result to the bias of the person evaluating you. Of course, people in general are insecure.

141

142

social psychology

about other people's true motives in such situations. Although rejection by a member of the majority group can be attributed to rater bias, the implications for the minority person's self-esteem are complex. Some of these effects were examined in a study in which African American participants were rated by white raters (Crocker & Major, 1989). When participants thought the raters were not influenced by their race, the positive ratings boosted their self-esteem. But when participants knew that raters were influenced by their race, the positive ratings lowered their self-esteem. Compared to whites, African Americans were more likely to attribute positive and negative reviews to prejudice. Any positive or negative judgment that the recipient thought was based on racism resulted in decreased self-esteem (Crocker et al., 1991). Uncertainty about such evaluations therefore has important consequences for self-esteem. In our society, African Americans are often evaluated primarily by whites, suggesting that they may always feel insecure about the motives of their raters (Crocker et al., 1991). This uncertainty can be exacerbated for African American women being evaluated by white men (Coleman, Jussim, & Isaac, 1991). Even when race (or some other trait) works in our favor, uncertainty or ambiguity in attribution may arise. For example, a member of a minority group who is offered a job that has an incentive program can never know for sure whether they were hired on the basis of qualifications or race. This ambiguity of attribution generates negative affect and motivation (Blaine, Crocker, & Major, 1995). In one study, participants who believed they were given a job out of sympathy for a stigma showed lower self-esteem, negative emotions, and lower work motivation than those who believed they were given the job because of their qualifications (Blaine et al ., 1995). ).

Making comparisons within the group Second, members of disadvantaged groups can maintain their self-esteem by comparing themselves to members of their own group, rather than to members of better or happier groups. In-group comparisons can be less painful and more rewarding for members of stigmatized groups. Research supports this hypothesis in several areas, including salary, ability, and physical attractiveness (Crocker & Major, 1989). Once the group members have increased their worth in their own eyes, the group is better able to compete in society. As the sense of cohesion and belonging within the group increases, there is often an escalation of outgroup hostility (Allport, 1954). History teaches us that self-identification with an ingroup and identification of others with an outgroup underlies many instances of intergroup prejudice and hostility. Anticipating and Confronting Prejudice Swim, Cohen, and Hyers (1998) suggested that another strategy for individuals in a stigmatized group is to try to anticipate situations in which prejudice will arise. This allows the individual to decide how best to respond or minimize the effects of the prejudice. The person may choose to change their behavior, clothing, or even their school or home location to minimize the likelihood of encountering prejudice (Swim et al., 1998). Once a person has made an assessment of an expected harm situation, that person must decide what course of action to take. The person can choose to face the bias and move towards the original goal or choose to avoid the bias.

Chapter 4

prejudice and discrimination

143

situation and find an alternative (Swim et al., 1998). Dealing with prejudice means “a deliberate process aimed at expressing one's dissatisfaction with the discriminatory treatment of an individual or group of individuals responsible for attending a discriminatory event” (Kaiser & Miller, 2004, p. 168). For example, a woman who has just heard a rude and sexist joke may confront the joke teller and point out the inappropriateness of the joke. It may be noble to stand up against prejudice and discrimination, but the reality is that many of us don't. For example, in an experiment in which women were exposed to sexist comments, only 45% of the women confronted the aggressor. In the private sphere, however, the vast majority of women expressed a particular dislike for the comments and the person making them (Swim & Hyers, 1999). Why should women who have experienced sexism be reluctant to confront it? Unfortunately, there isn't much research on this topic. However, one study (Kaiser & Miller, 2004) addressed this issue. The women were asked to recall instances of sexism they had encountered in their lives (e.g. sexism at work, degrading comments, or exposure to stereotyped concepts of gender roles). The women also completed optimism and cognitive assessments to cope with sexism. Results showed that women who found dealing with prejudice cognitively difficult (e.g., not worth the effort, anxiety-provoking) were less likely to report dealing with the sexism they experienced. Kaiser and Miller also found an association between optimism and cognitive ratings. Women with a more optimistic attitude saw the confrontation as less threatening than women with a pessimistic attitude. In short, women with optimistic views are more likely to be biased than those with pessimistic views. Thus, both personality traits and cognitive assessments are involved in the decision to face prejudice. Of course, this conclusion is tentative at this point, and we do not know if similar psychological mechanisms apply to dealing with other forms of prejudice.

Bias Compensation Members of a stigmatized group may also participate in bias compensation (Miller & Myers, 1998). According to Miller and Myers, there are two forms of compensation that a person can participate in. When secondary compensation is used, people try to change the way they think about situations to psychologically protect themselves from bias outcomes. For example, a person who wants to get a college degree but faces biases that may prevent them from achieving the goal would use secondary compensation if they downplay the goal (a college degree isn't that important ) or not identifying with the goal (members of my group don't usually go to college). On the other hand, primary compensation reduces the real-world threats of bias. Coping strategies are developed that allow the bias targets to achieve their goals. For example, the person in the example might increase effort (study harder in school), use latent skills (become more persistent), or develop new skills to achieve goals blocked by bias. When primary compensation is used, the need for secondary compensation is reduced (Miller & Myers, 1998). Interestingly, dealing with bias differs when it comes to individual versus group coping. Mummendey, Kessler, Klink, and Mielke (1999) tested coping strategies in conjunction with two theories related to prejudice: social identity theory and relative deprivation theory. As you read above, social identity theory proposes that individuals derive part of their self-concept from group membership. If the group you join has negative stereotypes, the social identity will be negative. According to the relative deprivation theory, members of

Secondary Compensation A method of dealing with bias that attempts to change the way you think about situations in order to protect yourself psychologically from the effects of the bias. Primary Compensation A method of countering bias that reduces threats by using coping strategies that allow the targets of the bias to achieve their goals.

144

social psychology

A stereotyped group recognizes that they are undervalued and derive fewer benefits from society than more privileged groups. In theory, negative social identity should lead to individual coping strategies, while perceived relative deprivation should lead to group-based coping (Mummendey et al., 1999). To test this hypothesis, residents of the former East Germany completed a questionnaire on social identity and relative deprivation. The questionnaire also measured different identity management strategies. Mummendey and colleagues (1999) found that social identity issues were addressed by managerial strategies (eg, mobility and recategorization of the self to a higher level in the group) that emphasized individual attachment to an ingroup. Management techniques related to relative deprivation became more group-based and focused on group strategies such as collective action to reduce relative deprivation. Furthermore, social identity problems were closely related to cognitive aspects of group membership, while relative deprivation was strongly mediated through emotions such as anger.

Reducing Bias A more somber conclusion that can be drawn from research on cognitive processing of social information is that normal cognitive functioning inevitably leads to the development and maintenance of social stereotypes (Mackie, Allison, Vorth, & Asunción, 1992). Social psychologists have explored strategies that people can use to reduce prejudice and hostility between groups. In the following sections we examine some of these actions.

Contact hypothesis Hypothesis that contact between groups reduces hostility, which is most effective when members of different groups have equal status and a common goal.

Contact between groups In his classic book The Nature of Prejudice (1954), Gordon Allport proposed the contact hypothesis. According to this hypothesis, intergroup contact reduces hostility when the participants have equal status and a common goal. However, evidence for the contact hypothesis is mixed. On the one hand, some research does not support the contact hypothesis (Miller & Brewer, 1984). Even if there is a friendly contact, people manage to defend their clichés. Friendly interaction between individual members of different racial groups is unlikely to affect their prejudices, since the person they are interacting with may be viewed as exceptional and unrepresentative of the outgroup (Horwitz & Rabbie, 1989). On the other hand, some research supports the contact hypothesis (Van Laar, Levin, Sinclair & Sidanius, 2005). VanLaar et al. examined the effects of living with a roommate of a different race or ethnic group. They found that students who were randomly assigned to a roommate outside of the group showed increasing positive feelings over the course of the academic year. The most positive contact effect was found when the outgroup roommate was African American. Even better, growing positive attitudes toward African Americans have been found to be generalizing to Latinos. Interestingly, however, both black and white participants displayed increasingly negative attitudes towards their Asian roommates over the course of the year. In an early study, two groups of boys at a summer camp were made competitive and then hostile to one another (Sherif, Harvey, White, Hood, & Sherif, 1961). At the end of the camp experience, when the researchers attempted to reduce intergroup hostility, they found that intergroup and between-child contact was insufficient to reduce hostility. In fact, the contact only made the situation worse. Was just

Chapter 4

prejudice and discrimination

When the groups had to work together to pull a vehicle out of the mud and continue on a long-awaited ride, hostility subsided. This collaboration towards a goal that was important to both groups is known as an overarching goal, which is essentially identical to Allport's idea of a common goal. Further evidence that contact leads to a positive change in an outgroup member's image in certain circumstances comes from other research. For example, in one study, college students were asked to interact with another student who was described as a former patient in a psychiatric hospital (Desforges et al., 1991). The students were led to expect that the former patient would behave in a manner similar to a typical mental patient. Some of the participants initially had prejudices against the mentally ill, others did not. After working with the ex-patient in a 1-hour collaborative task, the initially evaluative participants showed a positive change in their feelings toward the ex-patient. As shown in Figure 4.9, the participants went through a three-step change. First, they formed an impression based on categories: "This is a former mental patient, and this is how mental patients behave." However, equality and the need for cooperation (Allport's two conditions) forced participants to correct their automatically formed first impressions (Fiske & Neuberg, 1990). This is the second step. Finally, once the adjustment was made, participants generalized the change in feelings to other mental patients (although, as is more common, they could have concluded that this patient was different from other ex-insane patients). Note that the realignment of participants' feelings toward the formerly mentally ill was driven by attention to that person's personal characteristics. In a different setting (a classroom), Eliot Aronson found that using tasks that require each person to solve a part of the problem as a whole reduces bias among students (Aronson, Blaney, Stephan, Sikes, & Snapp, 1978 ). This approach, called the puzzle classroom, requires each member of the group to be responsible for a part of the problem. The members of the group then share their knowledge with everyone else. The concept works because the problem cannot be solved without the efforts of all members; so everyone's worth is appreciated. This technique also tends to boost self-esteem among members of different ethnic groups as their efforts are valued. Does the contact hypothesis work? Yes, but with clearly defined limits. It seems that both parties must have a goal that they want and cannot achieve without the other. This higher purpose must also compel both to conform to the individual qualities of the other. It also seems important that they succeed in achieving this goal. A recent meta-analysis confirms that contact strategies that match ideal conditions have a greater effect on prejudice than those that do not (Tropp & Pettigrew, 2005a). Furthermore, Tropp and Pettigrew (2005a) found that the impact of contact on prejudice reduction was stronger for majority-status groups than for minority-status groups.

145

Figure 4.9 Three stages in the alternation of characteristics attributed to the typical group member and general attitudes towards the group through structured contact with a group member. From Desforges (1991).

146

social psychology

Even when all of these conditions are met, individuals may revert to their previous beliefs when they end the interaction. Palestinians and Israelis meeting in Egypt to resolve differences and negotiate peace may find that their stereotypes of the other side diminish as they engage in direct, equal, and (perhaps) mutually rewarding contact. But when they return home, pressure from other members of their group can force them to return to their old beliefs. Finally, the research looked at how contact breaks down prejudice. Recent evidence suggests that intergroup contact mediates prejudice through emotional channels rather than directly reducing stereotypes and other cognitive aspects of prejudice (Tropp & Pettigrew, 2005b).

Personalizing Outgroup Members According to Henri Tajfel (1982), the Nazis attempted to deny Jews and others their individuality, their identity, by defining them as outside the human category, as subhuman. This dehumanization even made it easy for people to abuse and kill them because they did not see the men, women, and children who were their victims (Horwitz and Rabbie, 1989). If dehumanizing people makes it easier to be prejudiced, to commit even the worst atrocities, then humanizing people, personalizing them, can perhaps reduce clichés and prejudice. For example, people are less likely to use gender stereotypes when they have time to process information that informs them about the characteristics of individual men and women (Pratto & Bargh, 1991). Humanizing members of a group does not necessarily mean that we need to know or understand every individual in that group (Bodenhausen, 1993). It means that we understand that we and they share a common humanity and that we all experience the same joys and pains. Although personalization is not always successful in general, particularly when the person is disliked, it makes it more difficult for people to act in a biased manner (Fiske & Neuberg, 1990). In the 1993 film Schindler's List, an event occurs that illustrates the idea of humanizing the other group. Schindler managed to save 1,200 Jews who would otherwise be destined for the gas chambers by employing them in his factory. Schindler knows that the German guards have orders to kill all Jews when the war ends. When news arrives that the war is over, the guards stand on a balcony overlooking the factory floor and point their guns at the workers. But these Germans had contact with the Jews; they saw how Schindler treated them humanely and heard them pray and observe the Sabbath. Schindler, desperate to save his charges, challenges the Germans: "Do you want to go home as men or as murderers?" The guards hesitate and then slowly walk away. Did the Germans put down their guns out of a sense of shared humanity, or were they just tired of killing people? In any case, the Jews survived. Social Norms Reducing the Expression of Prejudice In the spring of 1989, four African-American students at Smith College received anonymous notes containing racial slurs. The incident sparked protests across campus. It also inspired an experiment aimed at identifying the most effective way to prevent such hate speech (Blanchard, Lilly, & Vaughn, 1991). The answer? Attack the behaviors, the hateful acts themselves, not people's feelings about race. In one experiment, students were asked how they thought the university should respond to these anonymous ratings. Some participants then "heard" an ally of the experimenters express the opinion that if the author of the letter is found out, he should be expelled. Other participants “heard” the Confederates justifying the letters by saying that the Afrikaners

Chapter 4

prejudice and discrimination

American students probably did something to deserve this. The study showed that clear anti-racist statements (the person should be expelled from school) set a tone in other students that discouraged expressing racist feelings. Since, as we have seen, racist stereotypes are automatically activated and resist change, the best way to discourage racist behavior is through strong expression of social norms: disapproval by students, college leaders, and the wider college community (Cook, 1984). . . Another type of prejudice, heterosexism, has been distracted in recent years by appeals to social norms and the threat of social sanctions. The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), which has growing public support, targets pop musicians who sing anti-gay lyrics and make anti-gay statements. In 2004, GLAAD released a statement denouncing singer Beenie Man for his anti-gay lyrics. One of Man's songs contained lyrics such as "I dream of a new Jamaica; we have come to execute all gays” (Testone, 2004). In 2005, due to pressure from gay rights groups, MTV canceled an appearance by Man at its music awards show.

Reducing Bias Through Training Another strategy for reducing bias is to train people to associate positive traits with outgroup members or to separate negative traits from those members. This strategy has been adopted in many contexts. Industry, colleges and universities, and even elementary and secondary school programs emphasize diversity and seek to improve intergroup relationships and break down prejudice and stereotypes. In this section we will see if such strategies are effective. In an experiment by Kawakami, Dovidio, Moll, Hermsen and Russin (2000) evidence was found for the effectiveness of training against stereotypes. Kawakami al. Participants responded to black-and-white photographs of people associated with stereotyped and non-stereotyped traits. Half of the participants received training to suppress the automatic triggering of stereotypes. These participants were trained to respond “No” to a white photograph associated with stereotypically white facial features and “No” to a black photograph associated with stereotypically black facial features. They were also trained to answer "yes" when a photo (black or white) was associated with a non-stereotypic trait. The other half of the participants received the exact opposite training. Results showed that after extensive training, participants who received stereotype suppression training were able to suppress stereotypes that were normally automatically activated. In a similar experiment, Kawakami, Dovidio, and van Kamp (2005) examined whether such training effects extend to gender stereotypes. During the training phase of the experiment, some participants were told that they would see a photo of a face along with two features at the bottom of the photo. Participants were instructed to indicate which of the two characteristics was not culturally associated with the person depicted. For example, a woman's face was shown with the traits "sensitive" (a stereotyped trait associated with women) and "strong" (a non-stereotyped trait associated with women). The correct answer to this test would be to select "strong". Participants in the no training condition did not undergo this procedure. All participants then evaluated four potential job candidates (all equally qualified). Two of the candidates were men and two were women. Participants were instructed to select the best candidate for a position with leading and supervising physicians. Half of the participants in the training state performed the candidate-ranking task immediately after training, while the other half completed a fill-in task before completing the candidate-ranking task (this resulted in a delay between training and the classification task).

147

148

social psychology

Kawakami al. (2005) found that without training and without delay before the ranking task, trainees were more likely to choose a male than a female candidate for the leadership position. These participants displayed sexist preferences. However, when the training and application assessment tasks were separated by a completion task, gender preferences were significantly reduced. Kawakami al. (2005) suggest that when there was no fill-in task, participants may have been overly influenced to select a female candidate. Because of psychological reactance (ie, we don't like doing something), these participants selected male candidates. Reactance was less likely to activate when training and task were separated. How about more realistic training exercises? In a study, Stewart et al. (2003) subjected the participants to a classic exercise in racial sensitivity. This exercise consists of using eye color as a basis for differentiation. For example, blue-eyed are set as the preferred group and brown-eyed are set as the subgroup. During the exercise, blue-eyed people are treated better, given more privileges, and given preferential treatment. Participants in a control group did not participate in this exercise. The results showed that participants in the exercise group had more positive attitudes toward Asians and Latinos than participants in the control group (the exercise generated only slightly better attitudes toward African Americans). Exercise group participants also expressed more dissatisfaction with themselves when they realized they were having judgmental thoughts. Hogan and Mallot (2005) assessed whether students enrolled in a race and gender course experienced prejudice reduction (as measured by the Modern Racism Scale). Study participants were students who were enrolled in the course, had already attended the course, or had not attended the course. Hogan and Miller found that participants currently enrolled in the class displayed less racial bias than participants in the other two groups. The fact that participants who completed the course displayed more bias than those currently enrolled suggested to Hogan and Miller that the race/gender effects of the course were temporary. It is clear from these studies that there is no simple and consistent effect of training on racial prejudice. This conclusion is of course based on some studies. More research is needed to determine to what extent diversity or racial sensitivity training will reduce prejudice.

A Success Story: Defusing Racism in the US Army During the Vietnam War, race relations in the US military were appalling (Moskos, 1991). Fighting between white and African American soldiers was commonplace in army life in the 1970s. In the early 1980s, the army made an organized and determined effort to eliminate racial prejudice and hostility. It seems to have worked admirably. Many of the strategies employed by the military are based on the principles discussed in this chapter. Let's see what they were. An important army strategy was a level playing field (Moskos, 1990, 1991). This means that from basic training onwards, everyone is treated the same: same haircuts, same uniforms, same rules and regulations. This helps to reduce the pros and cons and make everyone the same. The Army also has a basic advancement program that is beneficial to those with leadership skills but an educational deficit. A second factor is a strict non-discrimination policy. Any expression of racist sentiment will result in an unfavorable rating and the end of your military career. This is not to say that officers are devoid of racist sentiments; it just means officers are endangering theirs

Chapter 4

prejudice and discrimination

Breeds to express or react to such feelings. A racist insult can lead to a charge of hate speech and is punishable by imprisonment. The military uses social scientists to monitor the state of race relations. It also runs training programs for equality coaches, whose role is to ensure a level playing field. The Army's ability to enforce a non-racist environment is greatly aided by the hierarchy that exists both within the officer corps and among non-commissioned officers. The social barriers that exist in the military reflect rank, not race. A non-commissioned officer must identify more closely with his fellow non-commissioned officers than with members of the same race in lower ranks. Finally, the army's non-discriminatory environment is visible in its leadership. Many African Americans hold senior positions in the military, including General Colin Powell, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. What lessons can we learn from the US Army experience? First, a fair implementation of the contact hypothesis is a good starting point to reduce bias. Interaction on an equal footing and clear common goals, even higher goals, are essential components of effective contact. Another ingredient is the clear and strong leadership support for the program. Violators suffer. At the same time, positive action is being taken to offset past inequalities. Special army programs ensure that everyone has the same opportunities. Some of these lessons cannot be transferred from the military environment. Civil society lacks the rigid military hierarchy, its control over its members, and its system of rewards and punishments. But the most important lesson might be that race relations are best addressed by reinforcing positive social norms. When social norms are very clear and when there is a clear commitment to non-discrimination on the part of leaders (employers, politicians and heads of state), individual members of society have the opportunity to overcome their prejudices and act in accordance with their common humanity. . .

Revisiting the Mormon Experience We began this chapter with a discussion of the 19th-century Mormon experience. Mormons have been victims of stereotypes (heretical rates), prejudice (negative public and press attitudes toward them), and discrimination (economic boycotts). They were viewed by Christians as an outgroup (the ingroup) when they began to live in their own homogeneous enclaves and even became the target of an extermination order. When the “us” versus “them” mentality prevailed, it was fairly easy for the Christian majority to label Mormons and act toward individual Mormons based on what was believed about them as a group. This is what we would expect from social identity theory and self-categorization theory. By perceiving Mormons as evil and themselves as protectors of all that is sacred, the Christian majority has undoubtedly succeeded in bolstering the self-esteem of their members. Mormon responses to prejudice also fit perfectly with what we know about how prejudice affects people. In threatening conditions, we tend to stick together as a protective mechanism. Mormons became more underground and isolated from mainstream society. This is an example of using primary compensation to treat distortion. The Mormons chose to keep it to themselves, trying not to upset the Christian majority. Unfortunately, this increasing isolation was seen by most as further evidence of stereotypes about Mormons. Eventually, the cycle of prejudice continued until Mormons were forced to settle in Utah.

149

150

social psychology

Review of Chapter 1. How are prejudice, stereotypes and discrimination defined? Prejudice is defined as a biased, often negative, attitude toward a group of people. Prejudices include belief structures that contain information about a group and expectations about the behavior of members of that group. Bias can be positive or negative, with negative bias (dislike of a group) being the focus of research and theory. A stereotype is a rigid collection of positive or negative beliefs about a group's characteristics. A stereotype represents images that we have in our heads. When a biased person meets a member of a group, they activate the stereotype and adapt it to the individual. Stereotypes are not abnormal ways of thinking. Rather, they refer to the natural human tendency to categorize. Categorization becomes problematic when categories become rigid and overgeneralized. Stereotypes can also form the basis of judgment heuristics about the behavior of group members. Discrimination is the behavioral component of a biased attitude. Discrimination occurs when biased feelings become behaviors. Like stereotypes, discrimination is an extension of a natural tendency to distinguish between stimuli. Discrimination becomes a problem when people are targeted simply because they are members of a group. It is important to note that discrimination can occur without prejudice and prejudice can exist without discrimination. 2. What is the relationship between prejudice, stereotypes and discrimination? Prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination are related phenomena that help us understand why we treat members of certain groups with hostility. Prejudice comes in a variety of forms, with sexism (negative feelings based on gender category) and racism (negative feelings based on perceived racial category) being the most common. Stereotypical beliefs about members of a group often lead to prejudice that can lead to discriminatory behavior. Stereotypes can also serve as judgmental heuristics, affecting how we interpret group member behavior. Behavior that is seen as consistent with the stereotype is likely to be internally attributed and judged more severely than behavior that does not conform with the stereotype. 3. From a historical perspective, what evidence is there for the spread of these concepts? History teaches us that clichés, prejudices and discrimination have been with people for a long time. Once formed, stereotypes and prejudices persist over time. Americans' stereotypical views of the Japanese (and vice versa) have persisted from World War II to the present day. Prejudice has also led to religious persecution against groups like Mormons in the United States.

Chapter 4

prejudice and discrimination

4. What are the personality roots of prejudice? One dimension of personality identified with prejudice is authoritarianism. People with authoritarian personalities tend to feel subservient to authority figures and hostile to different ethnic groups. They have rigid beliefs and tend to be racist and sexist. Social psychologists have also studied how members of different groups, such as blacks and whites, perceive each other. An updated version of the authoritarian personality is right-wing authoritarianism (RWA), which is also related to prejudice. Social domain orientation (SDO) is another dimension of personality that has been studied. People with high social dominance want their group to be superior to others. SDO also has to do with prejudice. When viewed together, SDO and RWA are associated with the highest biases. Finally, two dimensions of the "Big Five" approach to personality (sympathy and openness) are negatively related to prejudice. There is also evidence that SDO and RWA may refer differently to different forms of prejudice. SDO is associated with stereotypes, negative emotions, and negative attitudes toward African Americans and gay men, and RWA is associated with negative stereotypes and emotions directed toward gay men but not toward African Americans. 5. How is gender related to prejudice? Research shows that men have more ODS than women and tend to be more biased than women. Research on male and female attitudes towards homosexuality generally shows that males show more prejudiced attitudes towards homosexuals than females. Men tend to have more negative feelings towards homosexuals than towards lesbians. It is not clear whether women show more prejudice against lesbians than against gay men. Some surveys show that women do not differentiate between gays and lesbians, while other surveys indicate greater prejudice against lesbians than against gays. Other research shows that men tend to display more ethnic bias than women. 6. What are the social roots of prejudice? Prejudices must be viewed within the social context in which they exist. Historically, dominant groups have directed prejudice toward less dominant groups. While most Americans accept the notion of fairness and justice toward minorities such as African Americans, they tend to oppose action to achieve these ends and pay only lip service to the notion of fairness. 7. What is modern racism and what is criticized about it? In modern culture, it is no longer acceptable to openly express prejudice, as was the case in the past. However, prejudice is still expressed in a more subtle way: modern racism. Supporters of the notion of modern racism suggest that opposing civil rights legislation or voting for an anti-affirmative action candidate are manifestations of modern racism. Critics of modern racism point out that equating opposition to political ideas with racism is illogical and that the notion of modern racism has not been clearly defined or measured. In addition, the correlation between modern and ancient racism is high. As such, modern and old-fashioned racism may be indistinguishable.

151

152

social psychology

8. What are the cognitive roots of prejudice? Cognitive social psychologists have focused on stereotypes and intergroup perceptions when attempting to understand prejudice. As humans, we have a strong predisposition to categorize people into groups. We do this even when we have a minimal basis for categorization. We classify ourselves and those we perceive as similar to us in the ingroup, and we classify others we perceive as different from us in the outgroup. As a result of this categorization, we tend to show an ingroup bias: we prefer ingroup members over outgroup members. Tajfel proposed his theory of social identity to explain ingroup prejudice. According to this theory, individuals are motivated to maintain a positive self-concept, which stems in part from participation in groups. Identification with the ingroup gives us a social identity. The categorization of various others as members of the outgroup is another aspect of the social identity process. When we feel threatened, group bias increases, improving our self-concept. Self-categorization theory suggests that self-esteem is more likely to increase when group members stand out positively from other groups. Ingroup distortion can also have biological causes. We have a strong distrust of the unknown, called xenophobia, which sociobiologists see as a natural part of our genetic heritage. It may have helped us survive as a species. For example, it is biologically adaptive for a child to be suspicious of potentially dangerous strangers. A bias within a group can serve a similar purpose. There are examples throughout history of different groups increasing their solidarity in response to the hostility of the dominant group in order to ensure the group's survival. So prejudice can be seen as an unfortunate by-product of natural, biologically based patterns of behavior. Because dealing with a person based on group-based stereotypes is less challenging than finding out about that person, categorizing people who use stereotypes helps us conserve our cognitive processing overhead. The rapid categorization of individuals by stereotypes contributes to prejudice and discriminatory feelings. Automatic linguistic associations, where we associate positive words with the ingroup and negative words with the outgroup, contribute to these negative feelings. 9. How do cognitive biases contribute to prejudice? Cognitive biases and errors that lead to biases include illusory correlations, basic attribution errors, confirmation biases, out-group homogeneity errors, and ultimate attribution errors. An illusory correlation is the tendency to believe that two unrelated events are related when they are systematically related. If you believe that members of a minority group have a negative trait, you will see a correlation between group membership and behavior related to that trait. Furthermore, illusory connections help to form and maintain stereotypes. A prejudiced person will overestimate the degree of relationship between a negative trait and a negative behavior. The basic attribution error (the tendency to overestimate the role of intrinsic traits in the behavior of others) also helps perpetuate stereotypes and prejudices. Because of

Chapter 4

prejudice and discrimination

In this fallacy, individuals tend to attribute negative minority behavior to internal dispositions rather than to situational factors. Confirmation bias perpetuates bias because people who hold negative stereotypes about a group look for evidence to confirm those stereotypes. When someone expects a member of a minority to behave negatively, evidence is sought to support that expectation. Outgroup homogeneity bias is the tendency to see less diversity among members of an outgroup than among members of an ingroup. Consequently, the negative behavior of a member of an outgroup is likely to be viewed as representative of the group as a whole. The final attribution error occurs when we attribute a minority group's negative behavior to general characteristics of the people who make it up, while attributing the same group member's behavior to situational factors. 10. Are stereotypes true and can they be overcome? There are studies that show that some stereotypes are sometimes true. True or not, however, stereotypes are still harmful because they give us a harmful perception of others. There is a tendency to judge individuals based on the worst example of a group represented by a stereotype. Stereotypes can be overcome when we use controlled processing instead of automatic processing when thinking about others. 11. What is the difference between people with prejudice and people without prejudice? An important difference between more and less biased people is that the latter are aware of their biases and carefully monitor them. Less biased people tend not to believe in the stereotypes they hold and act on them. Biased people are more likely to use automatic processing and activate stereotypes than less biased people who use controlled processing. But even non-judgmental people will fall prey to stereotypes when the stereotypes are activated outside of their conscious control. 12. How does bias affect who is attacked? There are many ways to express prejudice, some more serious than others. However, it is safe to say that even the lowest level of expression (anti-language) can have demonstrable emotional and cognitive consequences for the bias target. Everyday prejudice has a cumulative effect on a person and contributes to the victim's knowledge and experience of prejudice. Recipients of biased jokes report disgust, anger, and hostility in response to those jokes. Another way in which bias targets are affected is through the stereotype threat mechanism. Once a stereotype about an individual's group is activated, a member of that group can perform poorly on a task related to that threat, a fact that research has confirmed. Another form of threat is collective threat, which occurs when one person in a stereotyped group is overly concerned that a transgression by a member of their group will adversely affect them as individuals. Collective threat arises from the concern that poor performance by one group member might be stereotyped and generalized to all members of that group.

153

154

social psychology

13. How does a person who is the target of prejudice deal with being a target? Usually when people deal with everyday prejudices, they have to find ways to deal with them effectively. If one's group is devalued, stigmatized, or oppressed in relation to other groups, one can counteract prejudice by raising the value of the devalued group. This is done by first convincing the group members of their own worth and then by convincing the rest of society of the worth of the group. Another strategy used by people from a stigmatized group is to anticipate situations in which prejudice will arise. People can then decide how best to respond to prejudice or minimize its effects, for example by changing their behavior, their clothing, or the neighborhood in which they live. A third way to deal with stress is to use compensation. There are two forms of compensation that a person can participate in. When secondary compensation is used, a person attempts to change the way they think about situations in order to psychologically protect themselves from the consequences of the bias. For example, a person who wants to get a college degree but faces biases that may prevent them from achieving the goal would use secondary compensation if they downplay the goal (a college degree isn't that important ) or not identifying with the goal (members of my group don't usually go to college). On the other hand, primary compensation reduces the real-world threats of bias. Coping strategies are developed that allow the target of prejudice to achieve its goals. 14. What to do with prejudice? While prejudice has plagued people throughout history, there may be ways to reduce it. The contact hypothesis suggests that more intergroup contact should increase positive feelings. However, mere contact may not be enough. Positive feelings increase when there is a higher goal that the groups are working toward cooperatively. Another strategy is to adjust the members of the outgroup; This avoids falling into stereotypes. It is also beneficial to increase the frequency of anti-racist remarks people hear to reinforce social norms. A strong expression of social norms, the devaluation of prejudice in all its forms, is probably the best way to discourage and break down prejudice. Prejudice can also be reduced through training programs aimed at decoupling negative traits from members of minority groups. Although these programs have had some success, there is no single, consistent effect of training on racial prejudice.

Attitudes The ultimate determinant in the struggle that will take place around the world will not be bombs and missiles, but a test of will and ideas, a test of spiritual resolve: the values we hold, the beliefs we hold on hearts, and the ideals we hold dear. To. -Ronald Reagan

Ida Tarbell isn't a name most of us are familiar with. A history of American women doesn't give you a single line (Hymowitz & Weissman, 1984). Nonetheless, it was the center of American life for the first three decades of the 20th century. Teddy Roosevelt gave it the derisive nickname "shake". It was a label she eventually wore with pride as she, perhaps more than anyone else, told the American people about the corruption, the conspiracies, the brutal tactics, and the sheer greed that has permeated the "business as usual" around the world corner flowed in . the century. . (Fleming, 1986). Tarbell grew up in Titusville, Pennsylvania. In the last decades of the 19th century it was the center of the thriving oil industry. It was also the city that would make the Standard Oil Company and its founder, John D. Rockefeller, wealthier than anyone could have imagined. Tarbell grew up among derricks and oil drums, in oil-covered fields, under oil-splattered skies. In 1872 his father's business was threatened by a plan devised by Rockefeller and his associates that would allow them to ship their oil by rail at a much cheaper rate than any other producer, putting the competition out of business. Frank Tarbell and the others fought this scheme, forcing the railroads to treat everyone fairly, at least temporarily. Ida was well informed about the conspiracy and was outraged by her father's strong sense of justice. She vowed that given the opportunity, she would make people aware of the greed and dishonesty she had witnessed. She was 15 years old at the time (Weinberg & Weinberg, 1961). In college, Tarbell was a free spirit. She made friends with whomever she wanted, ignored all unwritten social rules, learned to work critically and disciplined and studied natural sciences. After working as a teacher, she went to Paris to become a writer. 155

Key Questions As you read this chapter, find answers to the following questions: 1. What is an attitude? 2. What is the relationship between attitudes and values? 3. What are implicit and explicit settings? 4. How are recruitment surveys conducted? 5. What are the possible sources of bias in a survey? 6. What are behavioral measures of attitudes? 7. What is the Implicit Attitude Test (IAT)? 8. What does the IAT tell us about our prejudices? 9. How are attitudes formed? 10. Can settings be inherited? 11. What is agenda setting? 12. What is naïve realism and how does it affect our political attitudes?

156

13. What influence do social networks have on the formation and change of attitudes? 14. What is the relationship between attitudes and behavior? 15. What is the notion of a non-rational actor? 16. How was the controversy between rational and non-rational actors resolved?

social psychology

For years he wrote articles and biographies, but in 1900 he began writing about oil. He began collaborating with a series of articles about the Standard Oil Company, which supplied almost all the oil used to light American homes before there was electricity. Although Standard Oil has been investigated by authorities for bribery and other illegal tactics for nearly all 30 years of its existence, there has been very little publicly available evidence. Tarbell resolved this by meeting one of the company's vice presidents, Henry Rogers, who gave him access to private records. Rogers has not apologized for his role. He happily admitted that Rockefeller had lied, cheated, cheated, and used violence or the threat of violence to build a highly successful, powerful, and efficient corporation (Fleming, 1986). Tarbell's book The History of the Standard Oil Company, published in 1904, appeared in monthly installments in McClure's Magazine. It was a sensation. It seemed like an exciting story and readers couldn't wait for next month's issue. The book already had a villain: John D. Rockefeller. He was portrayed as a money-hungry scoundrel without a shred of humanity, and that is the image of him that has come down to us 100 years later. After the book was published, he attempted to restore his image by donating an estimated $35 million to charity. At the time, its value was estimated at more than $900 million, a sum that equates to many billions in today's currency. Tarbell's work had a tremendous impact on the nation. This led not only to a series of lawsuits against the oil industry for its monopolistic practices, but also to federal antitrust laws that dismantled the original Standard Oil Company. Today, as a result of Tarbell's work, we have several independent Standard Oil companies (Ohio, New Jersey, etc.). Even more remarkable than what Tarbell did was how he did it. She was totally skeptical of all popular beliefs of her time. She believed neither in the theory of female inferiority that was prevalent in her early life, nor in the turn-of-the-century theory that women were morally superior and evolutionarily more advanced. He did not join any social reform organization or movement. However, she faced the most powerful men in the country and became a formidable opponent (Fleming, 1986). Tarbell was determined, controlled, and fearless, but her attitudes and behavior were also shaped and shaped by her experience. She was raised in a family that supported her independent nature and encouraged her to do what she thought was right. She was strongly influenced by her father, in whom she saw a strong sense of justice. The events that transpired during her formative years motivated and inspired her, forever changing the way she saw the world. The attitudes Tarbell had played a key role in how she perceived the world around her. Like other mechanisms of social cognition, they organized her experiences, guided her behavior, and helped define who she was. We begin by examining what attitudes are and the role they play in our lives. What are the elements involved in settings? How do they flow and express our deepest values? Through what processes do we acquire or develop attitudes? And what is the relationship between attitudes and behaviors in our everyday life? How do attitudes express the relationships between what we think, what we feel, what we intend to do, and what we actually do? These are some of the questions addressed in this chapter.

Chapter 5

Ideas

157

What are settings? The study of attitudes has been a fundamental concern of social psychologists throughout the history of the field. Other topics may come and go, dictated by trends in theory and research and influenced by current events, but interest in attitudes remains. This concern for attitudes is easy to understand. The concept of attitudes is central to explaining our thoughts, feelings and actions towards other people, situations and ideas. In this section we examine the basic concept of settings. First, we examine and develop a classic definition of the term. Next, we look at how attitudes relate to values, what functions attitudes serve, and how attitudes can be measured.

Allport's definition of attitudes The word attitude comes up a lot in our everyday conversation. We're talking about having an attitude towards someone or something. In this usage, attitude generally implies feelings that are either positive or negative. We also speak of someone who has a "bad attitude". For example, you might think that a colleague has an "attitude problem." In this usage, attitude implies a personality trait or pattern of behavior that offends us. Social psychologists use the term attitude differently. In order to examine and measure attitudes, they need a clear and careful definition of the term. Gordon Allport, one of the early attitude theorists, formulated the following definition: “An attitude is an experientially organized mental and neural state of readiness that exerts a direct or dynamic influence on the individual's response to all objects and situations It is related to. is related” (1935). This is a rich and comprehensive definition, and while there have been many redefinitions over the years, Allport's definition still captures much of what is essential about settings (see Figure 5.1). Accordingly, we adopt it here as our central definition. The definition can be divided into three parts, each with some important implications (Rajecki, 1990). First, because attitudes are mental or neural states of readiness, they are necessarily private. Scientists studying attitudes cannot measure them directly in the way, for example, doctors can measure blood pressure. Only those who have a setting can access it directly. Socio-psychological measures of attitude must be indirect.

Attitude Mental and neural state of readiness, organized through experience, that exerts a direct or dynamic influence on the individual's response to all objects and situations with which he interacts.

Figure 5.1 Schematic diagram of Allport's setting definition, showing the important components of a setting.

158

social psychology

Second, when attitudes are organized through experience, they are likely to be shaped through learning from a variety of experiences and influences. For example, our attitudes about the appropriate roles of men and women are shaped by attitudes mediated by our culture, particularly by parents, friends, and other agencies of socialization such as school and television. Keep in mind that society in general didn't support women in non-traditional roles in Ida Tarbell's day, but her parents did. However, the notion that our attitudes arise solely from experience is too limiting. There is also growing evidence that some attitudes also have a genetic element (Tesser, 1993). Finally, since attitudes exert a directive or dynamic influence on a person's response to objects, people, and situations, attitudes are directly related to our actions or behavior.

Attitudinal structure The fact that attitudes have in their basic structure a cognitive, affective and behavioral component.

Attitudinal Structures An attitude consists of four interconnected components: cognitions, affective responses, behavioral intentions, and behaviors. To understand these connections, let's consider the attitude of someone who opposes gun control laws. His attitude can be expressed as follows: “I oppose any kind of law governing gun ownership.” This attitude would be supported by insights or thoughts about the laws and gun ownership. For example, you might think that unlimited gun ownership is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Second Amendment. The attitude would also be supported by affective responses or feelings. You may feel very strongly about your right to do as you please without government interference, or you may be keen on protecting your family from intruders. The attitude and the cognitions and feelings that support them can lead to behavioral intentions and behaviors. Our hypothetical person might intend to send money to the National Rifle Association or call their representative to argue against a gun control law. Eventually, you can turn that intent into real action and wire the money or call the legislature. An attitude is actually a summary of an attitude structure made up of these interconnected components (Zimbardo & Leippe, 1992). So the attitude “I oppose gun control laws” encompasses a set of interconnected thoughts, feelings, and intentions. A change in one component of an attitude structure may well lead to changes in the others (Zimbardo & Leippe, 1992), since an attitude structure is dynamic, with each component affecting the others. For example, if a close relative of yours loses his job because of a new gun control law, a person who advocates strict gun control laws might change their mind. The hiring structure would now be in crisis. New feelings about guns can lead to new thoughts; Intentions can change, and behaviors with them. In general, the affective component dominates attitudes (Breckler & Wiggins, 1989). When we think of a particular object or person, our first reaction is usually an expression of affection, as in "I think women will make good political candidates." We don't just have one attitude toward war, the president, or baseball: we either like those things or we don't. When an attitude is evoked, it is always with a positive or negative feeling, although of course the feeling will vary in intensity. Especially our most intense attitudes are probably primarily affective in nature (Ajzen, 1989). So you can think of an attitude primarily as a response that emphasizes your feelings toward someone or something, primarily as an evaluation of the person or object. But also remember that this evaluation is based on all the thoughts, intentions, and behaviors that are part of the attitudinal structure (Zanna & Rempel, 1988).

Chapter 5

Ideas

Attitudes as an expression of values Our attitudes flow and express our values (Ball-Rokeach, Rokeach, & Grube, 1984). A value is an idea of what is desirable; it is a guide to a person's actions, a pattern of behavior. For example, attitudes that more women and members of different ethnic groups should be elected to public office may stem from the value of equality. The attitude that officials who lie or cheat should be severely punished may stem from the value of honesty. Ida Tarbell held fairness and fairness in high esteem and was outraged by the Standard Oil Company's actions. Note that attitudes are directed toward objects, people, and situations; Values are broad and abstract concepts. Because values are more general than attitudes, there are few values but many attitudes. Just as an attitude can be viewed as a system of cognitive, affective, and behavioral components, a value can be viewed as a set of many interconnected attitudes. The value of equality can lead not only to attitudes such as that there should be more women and members of different ethnic groups in office, but also myriad other attitudes regarding the myriad people, objects, problems and ideas to which one can belong Control thoughts, feelings and behaviors. Milton Rokeach, a social psychologist who has spent most of his professional life studying how people organize their value systems, argued that there are two distinct categories of values (1973, 1979). He named a category of end values. End values according to Rokeach (1973) refer to desired "end states". For example, equality, liberty, a comfortable life, and salvation would be end states. He called the other category instrumental values. Instrumental values derived from our preferred end states can be values such as forgiveness, tolerance, and responsibility. According to Rokeach, two fundamental end values, equality and freedom, are particularly predictive across a range of attitudes. Attitudes about the role of government, for example, can often be predicted by knowing how these two values rank. A person who values equality more would probably want government to take an active role in education, health and other social affairs. A person who values freedom more would probably prefer the government to stand by and let everyone fend for themselves. Think of a person who values equality over freedom. How might this affect their attitudes towards certain issues? A high value placed on equality implies that the individual is more concerned with the common good than with individual freedoms (although freedom may still hold a relatively high value for that person). This person may advocate "taxes on sin" (such as high taxes on tobacco and alcohol) to raise money for the national health system, and may also advocate stricter gun control laws. A person who finds freedom more desirable than equality would probably be against taxes on sin ("It's none of the government's business if people want to kill themselves") and also against government regulation of gun ownership. . Do people justify their attitude to the question by referring to specific values? And do people on opposite sides of a problem have opposite values? In one study, researchers measured participants' attitudes toward two issues, abortion and nuclear weapons (Kristiansen & Zanna, 1988). Next, participants were asked to rank the (personal) importance of 18 values such as freedom, equality, an exciting life, family security, etc., and then match each value with their attitude towards these two issues. People with different attitudes find different values important. For example, pro-choice advocates value certain values (e.g., mature love, wisdom, true friendship, salvation, and a world of beauty) higher than pro-choice advocates. Those who support abortion rights give

159

Value A concept closely related to an attitude, which is a measure of what is desirable in one's actions.

160

social psychology

rank higher than those opposed to abortion rights on other values (e.g., happiness, family security, a comfortable life, joy, an exciting life, and a sense of accomplishment). At the same time, both groups shared many values. Both cataloged freedom, inner harmony and equality as the most important values for their attitude. Differences in the ratings of other securities were small. The results also suggest that people on either side of the volatile problem are a lot closer to value than they think.

explicit attitude An attitude operating at a conscious level through controlled processing.

implicit attitude An attitude that affects behavior automatically, without conscious thought and below the level of consciousness through automatic processing.

Explicit and Implicit Attitudes In many cases, we freely express our attitudes and are aware of them and how they affect our behavior. An attitude that falls into this category is called a manifest attitude. Explicit attitudes operate at a conscious level, such that we are aware of them, aware of their cognitive bases, and aware of how they relate to behavior. They work through controlled processing and require some cognitive effort to activate. For example, you can learn what you think about a particular political candidate and relate your behavior (eg, voting for him or her) to that attitude. It is these apparent attitudes that we often find to have a directing effect on behavior. While many of our attitudes operate at this conscious level, there are others that operate unconsciously. This form of attitude is called implicit attitude. In particular, an implicit attitude is defined as “acts or judgments that are under the control of an automatically activated evaluation without the performer's awareness of this causality” (Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998, p. 1464). In other words, implicit attitudes affect behavior automatically, without conscious thought and below the level of consciousness. For example, a person can quickly react negatively towards a member of a minority group, even though the person expresses a positive and tolerant attitude towards that group. The "gut" reaction occurs without thought and is often uncomfortable for the individual (Wilson, Lindsey, & Schooler, 2000). Wilson, Lindsey, and Schooler (2000) proposed a dual attitude model to explain the relationship between explicit and implicit attitudes. They suggested that when someone develops a new attitude, the new attitude does not erase the old one. Rather, both attitudes coexist. The new setting serves as an explicit setting; the old attitude remains in the memory and takes over the role of the implicit attitude. This implicit attitude can override the explicit attitude when the situation is right. For example, a person who has changed from a racially biased to a non-judgmental attitude may still automatically react negatively to a member of a minority group, despite the newly formed positive attitude. In this case, the underlying unconscious implicit attitude has replaced the explicit attitude. Researchers generally assume that as people develop new attitudes, they tend to override or eliminate old ones. However, Petty, Tormala, Brinol, and Jarvis (2006) found that when attitudes change, the previous attitude can not only be retained in memory, but also influence behavior. Petty and his colleagues conducted several experiments in which they created new attitudes in people and then changed those attitudes in some of the subjects and left them unchanged in others. Researchers found that when participants were primed with new attitudes where the individuals were unaware of the intent to bias, their response to the person or object was ambivalent. In other words, if you were conditioned to like Phil but then received negative words about Phil (presented very briefly, just below the level of consciousness), your attitude should have changed from positive to negative. We can expect the new setting to replace the old one, as Wilson et al. (2000) originally proposed. However, that is exactly what did not happen. the new attitude

Chapter 5

Ideas

161

He was ambivalent about Phil; you liked it and you didn't like it. You weren't sure how you felt about Phil. This suggests that the old attitude hasn't gone away and is still affecting your judgment of Phil. It also suggests that when testing implicit attitudes, discussed later in this chapter, an older biased attitude can be filtered out and fused with a newer, non-judgmental attitude. This may be why many people who take implicit aptitude tests are surprised, even amazed, that they are as biased as the test seems to say.

How are attitudes measured? What happens when researchers want to know people's attitudes towards a certain topic, such as B. affirmative action, illegal immigrants or the death penalty? As mentioned earlier in this chapter, settings are specific; We cannot tell a person's attitudes just by looking at them. For this reason, social psychologists use a variety of techniques to discover and measure people's attitudes. Some of these techniques rely on direct responses, while others are more indirect.

The attitude survey The most widely used method of measuring attitudes is attitude surveys. In an attitudinal survey, the researcher mails or emails a questionnaire to a potential respondent, conducts an in-person interview, or asks a series of questions over the phone. Because respondents indicate their own attitudes, an attitude survey is a self-assessment measure. A respondent indicates their attitude by answering a series of questions. There can be several types of questions in a recruitment survey. Open-ended questions allow respondents to answer in their own words (Oskamp, 1991). For example, respondents could be asked: What qualifications do you think are necessary to be President of the United States? While this type of question provides rich and detailed information, the answers can be difficult to parse. Consequently, most questions in an opinion poll are closed or restricted questions, such as: Are women eligible to be President of the United States? Respondents ticked a box to indicate an answer, e.g. B. Yes, No, or I don't know. Note that this question type forces respondents to choose one of a limited number of options. Another type of survey element is the rating scale, in which respondents indicate the extent to which they agree or disagree with a statement by circling a number on a scale. One of the most popular methods is the Likert scale. Likert items ask a person to agree or disagree on a 5-point scale with attitude statements such as the following: “I believe that women are qualified for national office.” The Likert technique is a summation rating scale so-called , because individuals are assigned a recruitment score based on the sum of their responses. When assessing voting preferences or other attitudes, social psychologists are often interested in the attitudes of a large group. Because it is not possible to survey all members of the group, researchers conducting an attitudinal survey select a sample or small subset of individuals from the larger group or population. Don't think you need a large sample to conduct a valid survey. In fact, most national surveys use a sample of only about 1,500 people. Although a sample need not be large, it does need to be representative. As you will recall from Chapter 1, a representative sample is one that is similar to the population in all important respects. Thus, the sample would include attitudinal categories (e.g., race and ethnicity, socioeconomic class, gender, age) for each category being measured

Attitude survey A self-report method of measuring attitudes by sending a questionnaire to a potential respondent, conducting an in-person interview, or asking a series of questions over the phone.

162

social psychology

the same proportion of people from each group within the category (eg, each racial and ethnic group) as the population whose attitudes are being measured. A representative sample is contrasted with a biased sample, which is biased about one or more characteristics and does not adequately represent the larger population.

Possible trends in hiring surveys Although hiring surveys that contain multiple types of questions are very popular, they have several issues that can invalidate survey-takers' responses. Schwarz (1999) suggested that the way an individual answers a research question depends on a variety of factors, including the wording of the question, the format of the question, and the context in which the question is asked. For example, in March 1993, presidential candidate Ross Perot commissioned a poll that asked: Should legislation be passed to prevent advocacy groups from donating large sums of money to candidates? Ninety-nine percent of people who responded to the survey said yes. A second poll by an independent research firm asked the same question in a different way: Do groups have the right to contribute to the candidate they are supporting? In response to this question, only 40% supported spending limits. This is a classic example of how question formulation can affect survey data (Goleman, 1993). Wording is important, but so are the specific words used in a question. For example, in a survey commissioned by the US stock exchange a few years ago, respondents were asked how many shares they owned. To everyone's surprise, the largest turnout was found in the southwest. Apparently, respondents had four-legged stocks in mind, not Wall Street stocks. The moral is that you should look at the meaning of the words from the perspective of the people answering the questions. Finally, respondents may be lying, or in other words, they cannot remember what they actually did or thought. Williams (1994) and her students asked voters if they had voted in a very recent election; almost everyone said yes. Williams was able to check the actual lists of those who voted (not how they voted) and found that only about 65% of his respondents voted. Well, some may have forgotten, but many just didn't want to admit that they had failed to do something socially desirable: to vote in an election (Paulhus & Reid, 1991).

unobtrusive measurement A method of assessing attitudes in which the people whose attitudes you measure do not notice that you are interested in them.

Behavioral Measurements Because of the problems associated with self-report techniques, social psychologists have developed behavioral techniques to measure attitudes. These techniques, in one way or another, avoid relying on the answers to the questions. Discreet actions evaluate attitudes indirectly; the individual whose attitudes are being measured is simply never aware of it. For example, in one of the first studies, researchers measured voting preferences by counting the number of bumper stickers for a particular candidate on cars in a parking lot (Wrightsman, 1969). Other researchers have measured attitudes towards competing cola brands using trash cans. Others have attempted to determine the most popular exhibit in a museum by measuring the degree of wear on different parts of the carpet (Webb, Campbell, Schwartz, Sechrist & Grove, 1981). Another example of discrete attitude measurements is the missing letter technique (Milgram, Mann & Hartner, 1965). For example, if a researcher wants to measure a community's attitudes toward its foreign residents, they may not get honest responses to a Likert questionnaire. But if you have some stamps and envelopes, you can try the lost letter.

Chapter 5

Ideas

163

Technology. This is what the researcher does: she addresses an envelope to someone with a foreign-sounding name at a local address. He sticks a stamp on the envelope and leaves it on a busy street near the post office so he can easily find and mail it. As a simple check, drop a sealed envelope addressed to someone whose name sounds familiar. Repeat the process as many times as necessary to obtain a large enough sample. Then simply count the envelopes that arrive in the mail and compare the number with names that sound strange to the number with names that don't. This is your measure of this community's attitude towards foreigners.

Cognitive Measures: The Implicit Association Test (IAT) In recent years, a new test has been developed to assess our implicit attitudes, self-concepts, and other important aspects of our cognitive system. The term implicit in this context refers to relatively automatic mental associations (Hofman, Gawronski, Gschwendner, Le, & Schmitt, 2005). The best known implicit measurement test is the Implicit Association Test (IAT) (https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/) developed by Greenwald, McGhee and Schwartz (1998). Implicit attitudes, as we indicated above, are attitudes that we have but are not aware of, so they cannot directly affect that attitude. These implicit attitudes can only be measured indirectly. The IAT aims to determine the strength of the connection between two concepts. For example, the IAT asked subjects to match a stimulus, which could be a word or an image, to a pair of targets as quickly as possible. Consider the following example.

Barry Bonds vs. Babe Ruth As I write this chapter, controversial left fielder Barry Bonds of the San Francisco Giants has overtaken Babe Ruth for second on the all-time home run list. Bonds is African American and Ruth was white and played at a time when African Americans were banned from playing in the major leagues. The IAT website encourages you to respond to various photos of Barry or Babe as soon as possible. Also, it must respond to the word good or bad pairing when used with images of the two stars. Therefore, the strength of the connection (associative strength) between two concepts is assessed by combining a pair of categories, in this case race (African American vs. Caucasian), and a pair of attributes (good-bad). These combine to form compatible (babe - good [probably]) and incompatible (babe - evil) associations. The assessment of these associations can take many different forms, but basically the differences in the time it takes to respond to these pairs (mean response latencies) are a measure of the relative strength between the two pairs of terms (Greenwald, Nosek & Banaji, 2003). ). The basic assumption behind the IAT is that "we don't always 'say what we think'" and, as stated on the IAT website, we may not even know what we think. The IAT is an attempt to access our unconscious associations. It has been used to explore the unconscious bases of prejudice of all kinds.

What has the IAT taught us about our racial and ethnic attitudes? Results from millions of tests on IAT websites showed that 88% of whites were implicitly pro-white or anti-black biased; almost 83% of heterosexuals showed implicit prejudice against heterosexuals towards gays and lesbians; and more than two-thirds of the non-Arab and non-Muslim volunteers showed implicit prejudice against Muslim Arabs. In addition, similar results were obtained for religious, gender, and socioeconomic attitudes. The most interesting finding is that these results not only contrast with what people say about their own attitudes, but also with what they actually believe about their true attitudes. Marajin Banaji, who helped develop the IAT, said: “The

Implicit Association Test (IAT) The most popular measure of implicit attitudes.

164

social psychology

The association test measures the culture fingerprint in our minds. If Europeans had been brought to Africa as slaves, blacks would have the same beliefs about whites that whites now have about blacks” (Vedantam, 2005).

How are attitudes formed? We can now see that attitudes affect how we think, feel, and behave toward a wide variety of people, objects, and ideas that we encounter. Where do our attitudes come from? Do they develop through experience, as Allport suggested? If so, how do our attitudes develop through experience? And are there other ways in which we acquire our attitudes? The term attitude formation refers to the movement we make from having no attitude towards an object to having a positive or negative attitude towards that object (Oskamp, 1991). How you acquire an attitude plays a big part in how you use it. In this section, we examine a number of mechanisms of attitude formation. Most of these mechanisms (mere exposure, direct personal experience, operant and classical conditioning, and observational learning) are based on experience and learning. However, the last mechanism we will look at is based on genetics.

mere exposure The phenomenon of being exposed to a stimulus reinforces generally positive feelings about that object; repeated exposure can lead to positive attitudes.

Mere exposure Some attitudes can be shaped and shaped by what Zajonc (1968) called "mere exposure," meaning that mere exposure to an object reinforces our generally positive feelings about that object. The sheer exposure effect has been demonstrated with a variety of stimuli including food, photographs, advertising words and slogans (Bronstein, 1989). In one of the first studies, researchers placed advertisements with nonsensical words such as NANSOMA in university newspapers (Zajonc & Rajecki, 1969). Later they gave the students word lists with NANSOMA to test. Just encountering a nonsensical word like NONSOMA was enough to give it a positive review. In another study, participants were exposed to nonsense syllables and Chinese characters (Zajonc, 1968). Repeated exposure increased positive scores for both nonsense syllables and Chinese characters. This usually means that familiarity cannot lead to contempt. Familiar faces, ideas and slogans become old friends. Think of those silly ads you sometimes almost hum against your will. In fact, repeated exposures in advertising often work very well. Invented to convince smokers that puffing on a filter cigarette would enhance their masculinity, the Marlboro Man has endured a generation of smokers. (The ad lasted, the original model didn't, he died of lung cancer.) When we walk down the aisle to buy a product, whether it's cigarettes or soapsuds, the familiar brand stands out and says, "buy." for me.” And we do. Now there are limits to the effect, at least in experimental studies. A review of single exposure research concluded that the effect is strongest when it occurs randomly over time, and that multiple exposures actually reduce the effect (Bornstein, 1989). Constant bombardment doesn't work very well. Repeated exposures increase liking when the stimuli are initially neutral or positive. What happens when the stimuli are negative? It appears that continuous exposure to an initially unpleasant object reinforces this negative emotion (Bornstein, 1989;

Chapter 5

Ideas

Perlmann and Oskamp, 1971). For example, suppose a person grew up disliking another ethnic group based on comments from their parents. Then, upon repeated encounters with members of this group, you may react with disgust and increasing negativity. Over time, these negative emotions are likely to lead to hostile beliefs toward the group (Drosnick, Betz, Jussim, & Lynn, 1992). Thus, negative feelings of which a person is barely aware, with repeated exposure to the object of those feelings, can lead to an increase in negative emotions and ultimately a belief system that supports those feelings. The stimuli, ideas, and values we are exposed to shape us in ways that are not always obvious to us.

Direct Personal Experience A second way of forming attitudes is through direct personal experience. For example, if we are mugged on our way home from the cinema on a Saturday night, we can change our attitude towards criminals, the police, personal safety and many other concerns. Or if we have a flat tire and someone stops to help, we can change our attitude about what it's worth doing what we can to help others. When our father's business is in jeopardy because of the dirty tactics of a large corporation like Ida Tarbell's, we will resent those organizations for the rest of our lives. Direct personal experience has the power to create and change attitudes. Attitudes acquired through direct experience are likely to be held strongly and influence behavior. People are also more likely to seek information to support such attitudes. For example, people who had flu vaccination experience gathered more information about vaccinations and were more likely to get vaccinated each flu season (Davison, Yantis, Norwood, & Montano, 1985). People are also less susceptible to someone trying to convince them to give up that attitude. For example, if your attitude about preserving the environment arose from living near a river and observing the effects of pollution directly, you are less likely to be persuaded by even strong counter-arguments (Wood, 1982). . Immediate experiences shape and shape our attitudes throughout our lives. One study examined the impact of direct experience of government agencies on the attitudes of younger and older people towards government (Tyler & Schuller, 1991). Experiences included, for example, job search, vocational training, unemployment insurance, medical and hospital care. Older people changed their attitudes just as much, if not more, than younger people after a positive or negative experience. This result contradicts the impressionable years model, which assumes that young people are more open to new attitudes, and supports the lifelong openness model, which emphasizes that people can develop new attitudes throughout their lives. It should be noted that years later Ida Tarbell met John D. Rockefeller's successor, Judge Gary, who prompted her to write a more affordable second edition of The History of the Standard Oil Company. Operant and Classical Conditioning Most social psychologists would agree that most of our attitudes are learned. That is, attitudes result from our experiences, not from our genetic heritage. Through socialization, individuals learn the attitudes, values, and behaviors of their culture. Important influences in this process are parents, peers, schools and the media. As an example, let us consider the formation of attitudes towards politics. The formation of some of these attitudes begins early, perhaps as young as 6 or 7 years old. In one of the early studies, elementary school students thought the American system was the best and that “America is

165

166

Classical conditioning A form of learning that occurs when a stimulus elicits a response that it did not previously evoke in order to form an attitude.

Operant conditioning A method in which attitudes are acquired by rewarding a person for a particular attitude in the hope that it will be retained or strengthened.

Observational Learning Attitude formation is learned by observing what people are doing and whether they are being rewarded or punished, and then mimicking that behavior.

social psychology

best country in the world” (Hess & Torney, 1967). When children are young, parents have a great influence on their political attitudes, but later on peers and the media have a greater influence. In fact, by the time young adults are in their senior year of high school, there is a fairly low correlation between children's political attitudes and those of their parents (Oskamp, 1991). Parents and children may identify with the same political party, but their attitudes towards politics are likely to be different. Over the course of socialization, a person's attitudes can be shaped through operant and classical conditioning, two well-known learning processes. In operant conditioning, the individual's behavior is strengthened or weakened by reward or punishment. For example, parents can reward their daughter with praise when she expresses an attitude that math is fun. Each time the child is rewarded, the attitude is strengthened. Or parents can verbally reprimand the child if they express the same attitude. In these examples, operant conditioning is used to convey attitudes. Simply rewarding people for expressing an attitude can affect their beliefs. In one study, participants participated in a debate and were randomly assigned to one side or the other of an issue (Scott, 1957). Those debaters who, in turn, were accidentally told they had won were more likely to change their mindset on their side of the issue than those who were told they had lost. In classical conditioning, a stimulus elicits a response that it did not previously elicit. Classical conditioning occurs by repeatedly pairing that stimulus (the conditioned stimulus) with a stimulus that has the power to elicit the response (the unconditioned stimulus). How can attitudes be learned through classical conditioning? In an experiment, when an attitude object (a person) was paired with positive or negative stimuli, participants associated the person with positive or negative emotions (Krosnick et al., 1992). Participants looked at nine different slides in which a target person performed different activities, such as B. walking down the street or getting into a car. Immediately before each slide were very short exposures (13 milliseconds) of either positive slides (e.g. newly married couple, a couple of kittens) or negative slides (e.g. burning face, bloody shark). The participants then reported on their impressions of the person. In general, participants who viewed the person in conjunction with warm, positive stimuli rated the person as having a better personality and more physically attractive than those who viewed the person in conjunction with intense, negative stimuli.

Observational Learning While we often learn attitudes by being rewarded, we can also learn by simply observing. It's common to hear parents, surprised by their children's aggressive attitude and behavior, asking, "Well, where did he get that?" Research shows that children can learn to act aggressively by watching violent films or watching their friends fight (Bandura, 1977). Observational learning occurs when we observe what people are doing and then mimic or imitate that behavior. For example, a child who hears their mother say, "We should keep people like that out of our schools," is most likely expressing some version of that attitude. Observational learning is not based on rewards, but rewards can enhance learning. In the example above, when the child expresses the posture he is imitating, the mother may reward him with an appreciative smile. Also, people are more likely to imitate behaviors that are rewarded. Thus, when aggressive behavior appears to be rewarded and children observe that those who use violence appear to get what they want, they are more likely to imitate it.

Chapter 5

Ideas

When there are discrepancies between what people say and what they do, children tend to copy the behavior. A parent can verbally alert a child that violence is a bad way to resolve conflicts with other children. However, when the child observes the parents intimidating the paperboy into taking the paper to the front door instead of throwing it in the driveway, the child has learned the truth of the matter. The father thinks he is instilling one attitude towards violence, but in fact he is instilling another.

The impact of the media The media play an important role in our society. For example, media heroes often have a major impact on the development of our attitudes towards all sorts of things: race, gender, violence, crime, love and sex. Topics with extensive media presence move more into the public consciousness. For example, the widespread coverage of the 2004 presidential election has elevated politics to a level not always appreciated by ordinary citizens. Television is a particularly ubiquitous medium, with 99% of children aged 2 to 10 living in households with one television and 89% in households with more than one television (Kaiser Family Foundation, 1999). Research shows that children between the ages of 8 and 18 watch television for almost 7 hours a day (Kaiser Family Foundation, 1999). What do you see in these hours? Most experience a constant rate of violence. This violence affects at least some children's attitudes about their interactions with their peers, and the more violence they see, the more aggressive their interaction style is. This effect is stronger for children from neighborhoods where violence is common; TV violence obviously serves as reinforcement. In addition to depicting aggressive models, many television shows emphasize situations involving violence. People who watch a lot of television tend to greatly overestimate the level of violence and crime in the world (Jowett & O'Donnell, 1992). As a result, they are more likely to anticipate violence in their own lives. Anderson, Carnagey, and Eubanks (2003) examined the effects of songs with violent lyrics on listener attitudes and feelings. In a series of five studies, Anderson and colleagues reported that college students who listened to violent music felt more hostile and reported an increase in aggressive thoughts compared to another group who listened to similar but non-violent music (Anderson et al. , 2003, p. 960). Of course, it's not always the letters themselves that bring about these changes in attitude and feeling. Research suggests that tense and intense musical scores also elicit aggressive feelings (Rubin, West, & Mitchell, 2001). In fact, Rubin et al. (2001) reported that college students who preferred heavy metal and rap expressed more hostile attitudes. It is not clear what the causal line is in this case. It's reasonable to argue that people prefer rap because it makes them feel hostile in the first place, and so it's not necessarily the lyrics that cause attitudes. However, as Anderson et al. (2003) each exposure to a violent media event (television, music, violent video games, violent films) is a "learning test of practicing aggressive thoughts and feelings," and these repetitive events make hostile attitudes very clear. and easy to remember and access (Anderson et al., 2003, p. 964). By emphasizing some events and ignoring others, television, movies, and music, along with other mass media, define reality for us. They directly affect how many of us think and feel about the world. In one study, Chinese and Canadian children were asked to pretend they were an animal and then write a story that included themselves as that animal. The results showed that the male children chose dangerous, strong, and ferocious animals. On the other hand, the girls chose safe, weak, and tame animals (Harvey, Ollila, Baxter, & Guo, 1997). In another study, Trepainer and Romatowski (1985) analyzed stories written by boys and girls for 'young' audiences.

167

168

social psychology

author competition. In particular, they analyzed the stories for portrayals of male and female characters. As expected, male writers included more male characters in their stories and female writers more female characters. Overall, the male characters outperformed the female characters. Positive attributes were more likely to be attributed to male characters (74%) than female characters (26%). Both male and female authors assigned fewer professional roles to female characters than to male ones. Also, men tended to be assigned a greater variety of interesting roles than women. Thus, the themes of children's stories reflect the content of the books they are exposed to. The media clearly plays a role in shaping a child's worldview of appropriate gender roles. Wells and Twenge (2005) combined 530 studies that examined more than a quarter of a million people in a "meta-analysis" and found, unsurprisingly, that sexual attitudes and behaviors underwent enormous changes between 1943 and 1999. This analysis showed that the greatest changes occurred in girls and young women. Both young men and women became more sexually active over time, as evidenced by a younger age at first intercourse, which decreased from 19 to 15 years in young women, and the percentage of sexually active young women from 13% to 47% in 1999 ( Wells and Twenge, 2005). Sexual guilt decreased in both men and women. Wells and Twenge point out that their data supports the notion that culture has a major impact on women's sexuality. Why the change? Wells and Twenge (2005) point to the tremendous cultural changes that have taken place over the past 50 years. Changes in sexual attitudes and behavior are among the most notable and surprising of these changes. The authors believe that the media has had a major impact on sexual attitudes and behavior. They note that “TV shows and films regularly mention topics such as teenage pregnancy, abortion, sexually transmitted diseases and rape, while 30 years ago these topics were taboo. This sexual revolution has dramatically changed American culture, especially for women” (Wells & Twenge, 2005).

How video games and other violent media influence attitudes toward aggression and violence Exposure to violent video games has been shown to influence attitudes toward violence and increase aggressive behavior (Anderson, 2006; Barthelow, Sestir, & Davis, 2005). Media consumption is perhaps the favorite pastime of most Americans. At least it takes a lot of time. Barthelow et al. report that the average 17-year-old spends the equivalent of two full workdays per week playing video games. It's not so much about the time spent playing these games as it is about the nature of the games themselves. The content tends to be realistic and graphically brutal (Barthelow, Dill, Anderson & Lindsay, 2003). Barthelow et al. (2005) had college students play violent video games and compared them to other students who played nonviolent video games. These researchers then performed short-term and modest long-term measurements of the effects of playing these games. The results show that those who play violent video games become less empathetic and more hostile towards other people and are more likely to feel and act aggressively. It seems that playing these games affects players' attitudes towards violence. Violence bothers them less; it becomes more acceptable to them. This is called desensitization. Being insensitive to acts of violence lowers the threshold for aggressive acts (Anderson & Carnagey, forthcoming). Anderson, 2002). This bias suggests that violent gamers expect other people to react.

Chapter 5

Ideas

169

to react violently to potential conflicts. In other words, the games condition them to expect others to act violently as well. Bushman and Anderson use the General Aggression Model (GAM) to explain these results. The GAM model suggests that playing a violent video game encourages thinking about violence, increases players' levels of arousal, and elicits feelings of anger (Anderson, 2006; Bushman & Anderson, 2002). What we don't know about the impact of violent video games is the long-term impact on gamers. The experimenters defined “long term” in hours or days, not years. Obviously it is quite difficult to study the participants over a long period of months and years. It is necessary to be able to control the participants' previous level of violence in order to get a pure reading of the effects of video games. Although studies have been conducted showing the long-term effects of violent television broadcasts, similar research on video games has yet to be conducted (Anderson, 2006).

The Media's Role in Setting the Agenda How does Michael Jackson get more media attention as, say, a federal court candidate? That counts? What if these "desperate housewives" get more media space than a discussion of possible changes to immigration laws? Again, does it matter? Communications researchers have long argued that the most prominent issues in the media tend to set the public agenda. This planning occurs because the most prominent topics in the news shape the public's perception, increasing focus on certain topics at the expense of others (Kiousis, McDevitt, & Wu, 2005). And how do these topics get into the media? Sometimes topics are just "hot" because they sell newspapers or magazines. Did actor Robert Blake hire someone to kill his wife or not? Who cares? Well, it seems like a lot of people do, so Blake had his moments of fame. More seriously, some argue that through the process of 'agenda building', different interest groups, policy makers, television and other personalities and media, including newspapers and magazines, determine which issues receive the most attention (Scheufele, 2005). What is important about agenda setting is that it can act as a setup in a social psychological experiment: when a stimulus is activated, it becomes more noticeable and the person can more easily remember everything associated with it. People who cover hot topics in the media have strong opinions on those issues and are more likely to identify with others who believe the same as them. Issues such as abortion, immigration and others are good examples (Kiousis, 2005). In fact, these issues tend to divide the public into several often opposing groups of opinion.

The Heritability Factor Most theories of attitude formation are based on the notion that attitudes are primarily shaped by experience. However, some research suggests that attitudes, like other complex social behaviors, may have a genetic component (Plomin, 1989). When examining the origins of a trait or behavior, geneticists attempt to calculate what proportion may be determined by heredity rather than learning or other environmental influences involved. Heredity refers to the extent to which genetics explains differences between people in a particular trait or behavior. For example, eye color is entirely determined by genetics; there are no environmental or learning influences. When the heritability of a trait is less than 100%, other influences are involved. Height, for example, is about 90% hereditary; Diet also plays an important role.

Heredity An indicator of the extent to which genetics explains differences between people in behavior or traits.

170

social psychology

Eye color and size are clearly based on heredity. But how can complex social structures like attitudes have a genetic basis? The answer is that genetics can have a ripple effect on our attitudes. That is, biologically based traits can predispose us to certain behaviors and attitudes. For example, genetic differences in sensory structures such as hearing and taste can affect our preferences for certain types of music and food (Tesser, 1993). As another example, consider aggression, which research has shown has a genetic component. The level of aggression can influence a whole range of attitudes and behaviors, from watching violent television programs and films, to hostility towards women or members of other groups, to attitudes toward the death penalty (Oskamp, 1991). In this case, a biologically based trait influences the way the person thinks, feels, and acts. Plomin, Corley, Defries, and Fulker (1990) were interested in children's attitudes and behavior toward television. Learning, particularly the influence of parents and friends, certainly plays a role in shaping attitudes and behaviors towards television. Could genetics also play a role? If so, how could we know? To answer these questions, Plomin studied the television viewing habits of adopted children and compared them to the television viewing habits of the children's birth and adoptive parents. The question he asked was: Would the child's behavior be more like that of the birth parents or the adoptive parents? A close resemblance to the birth parents' habits would justify a biological interpretation since the birth parents did not share the child's environment. On the other hand, a strong resemblance to the habits of the foster parents would justify an ecological interpretation. For example, by examining foster children, it was possible to calculate the extent to which television consumption is indirectly genetically determined. Plomin's results were surprising. There was a close resemblance between the way the children watched TV and that of their birth parents. Although the shared environment affected the amount of vision, the genetic component was much larger. That doesn't mean that kids whose birth parents watch a lot of TV are doomed to be glued to the TV for the rest of their lives. It simply suggests that there is something in our genetic makeup that can bias us towards certain behaviors and attitudes. Attitudes that have a high heritability factor may differ in some respects from primarily learned attitudes. In particular, they can be expected to hold tighter. Is this actually the case? There are at least two indicators of the strength of attitude: a person reacts quickly when encountering the object of that attitude and is unlikely to give in to pressure to change attitude. There is evidence that both indicators are indeed present in attitudes that have a high heritability factor (Tesser, 1993). However, genes will express themselves differently in different environments, so speed and compliance are not perfect measures of inheritance. Bourgeois (2002) found that group members also show greater variability the greater the heritability of attitude. So if you're against "freedom" in everyday life, an attitude with a fairly high heritability factor, your neighbors aren't likely to make you change your mind. This explains the greater variability in attitudes with high heritability components (Bourgeois, 2002). In general, groups tend to apply pressures that make people conform, especially on important issues. But those attitudes that carry a high heredity burden appear to be much more difficult to change.

The Importance of Groups and Networks Although we have hitherto emphasized the individual in learning and expressing attitudes, many of our attitudes are learned and consolidated in group contexts. actually new

Chapter 5

Ideas

Research in social psychology has shown that group influence is the most influential factor in which we express our opinions. It should come as no surprise that group membership has a powerful impact on our attitudes and how they are expressed. From this we know that from the age of 12 months we are influenced by the emotional expressions of those around us (Moses, Baldwin, Rosicky, & Tidball, 2001). Geoffrey Cohen (2003) has shown in a series of four intelligent and interrelated studies that a person's stated attitude towards a public issue depends solely on the stated position of the political party to which the person belongs. This applied regardless of the purpose of the policy or one's own position on this policy. In addition, the subjects seemed unaware that the group's position was contrary to what they personally believed. For example, in one study, Cohen presented two versions of welfare policies for liberal and conservative college students. One version of the plan had generous benefits while the other version had very limited benefits. Some students read the generous plan, others read the strict plan. They also received indications that Republicans or Democrats had positioned themselves for or against the plan. So some conservative students might have read the lavish plan and been told Republicans supported it. Some liberal students also read the harsh plan and learned that the Democratic Party supported the plan. The results were impressive. Both the Conservatives and Liberals who participated in this study simply followed the party line. If their party endorsed a policy, so did liberal and conservative students, regardless of their originally expressed beliefs about it. Thus liberals supported strict welfare policies when their party did so, and conservatives supported generous welfare policies when their party did likewise. In follow-up studies, it became clear that, lacking information about their party's position on the issues, Conservatives preferred the least generous plan, while Liberals preferred the most generous. Cohen also found that the group information effect influenced both attitudes and behavior. As we will see in the later chapter on belief, people can perform "bias processing" on information to evaluate that information in a way that favors their group. In another spin on the effect of group membership on our attitudes, Norton, Monin, Cooper, and Hogg (2003) found that people change their attitudes when they see that other members of a group with whom they identify agree with their view, that they identify themselves. with. The group originally disagreed. In this study, college students who strongly opposed the tuition increase heard what appeared to be spontaneous interactions between another student and the experimenter. In fact, it was a mandatory interaction. This other student, who was actually part of the experiment, had the choice of giving their opinion on the tuition increase or leaving the experiment. If the "heard" student had a choice and lobbied strongly for a position opposite to that of the other students (i.e. for a tuition increase), some students would change their minds and support the tuition increase. Which students? These students in particular identify strongly with the student group. Why was the choice important? As we shall see in a later chapter, we are more likely to believe that someone who takes an unusual position and does so of their own free will is much more likely to believe that person firmly believes in that view. It seems that people can change their attitudes to accommodate the fact that someone they identify with (a member of their group) has changed their attitudes about an important issue, and apparently did so voluntarily (remember, that the student had the opportunity to express themselves or no). your attitude or you go).

171

172

social psychology

Social Networks We have seen the importance of groups in our assessment of public affairs. What we do know, of course, is that we do not form or hold attitudes in isolation from large groups. Visser and Mirabile (2004) showed that when you are part of a congruent social network (people with similar views), your attitude to change becomes more resilient because you have strong social support for that attitude. However, when you are immersed in a heterogeneous social network with many people with different viewpoints, you are less resilient to change. It seems that when you are with like-minded people you become more confident and any doubts you may have are dispelled (Visser & Mirabile, 2004). Crandall (1988) studied the behavioral patterns of friendship groups in fraternities. Residents of two fraternity houses completed questionnaires about binge eating and social behavior. Crandall discovered that binge eating was caused by a "social contagion." When a student in a fraternity binge-eating, this behavior increased from fall to spring. That is, the longer someone was in the group, the more the individuals' behaviors converged. Crandall went on to argue that reduced social influence during the summer would result in a dissimilarity in binge eating in the fall, but did not test this hypothesis directly. Of course, it is possible that students with binge eating tendencies may have attended these groups who may be known for such behavior (Crandall, 1988). Social psychologists have observed that individuals adapt or "tune" their beliefs to the apparent beliefs of other people when they want to get along with that person. This type of behavior is known as the affiliative social voting hypothesis (Sinclair, Lowery, Hardin, & Colangelo, 2005). We often change our expressed attitudes so that social interaction in groups is fluid. Thus, people will change their expressed, often automatic (think of the IAT described above) racial attitudes within groups that include people of different races or ethnicities. Sinclaire and others. (2005) showed that automatic attitudes have a social regulatory function, that is, they regulate social interactions to make them less conflictual and more enjoyable. Hence, these automatic racial or ethnic attitudes are sensitive to the social demands of interpersonal interactions. Therefore, automatic attitudes are influenced by the desire to get along with others.

Attitudes and Behavior Intuitively, it makes sense that if we know something about a person's attitudes, we should be able to predict their behavior. In Allport's definition of attitudes, given at the beginning of this chapter, attitudes exert a direct influence on an individual's behavior. There is a rationality bias in all of this: the belief that people will act in accordance with their innermost feelings and ideas. Are we actually behaving according to our attitudes? Early researchers assumed that there was a close connection between attitudes and behavior. However, a review of research on attitudes and behavior paints a rather different picture: attitudes appeared to be, at best, only weak predictors of behavior (Wicker, 1969). We started this section by looking at a previous study that seemed to show little correlation between attitudes and behavior. The social psychologists eventually concluded that there was a relationship, but one that was more complex than they suspected. We look at your attempts

Chapter 5

Ideas

to unravel the complexity and thus show that attitudes can predict behavior. More recently, other social psychologists have argued that our behavior is generally irrational and has nothing to do with our attitudes. We close the section by seeing how rational and non-rational approaches can be reconciled.

An Early Study of Attitudes and Behavior In a well-known study from the 1930s, a young sociologist was traveling through the United States with a young Chinese couple (LaPiere, 1934). They covered 10,000 miles and visited more than 200 locations (Oskamp, 1991). The 1930s was a time of relatively open expressions of prejudice against many groups, including Asians. What did LaPiere and the Chinese couple find? Interestingly, only one company refused service to them throughout the trip. A few months after the trip, LaPiere wrote to all the facilities he and his friends visited, asking the owners if they had any objections to serving a Chinese couple. About half of the establishments replied; Of these, only nine said they would offer the service, and only under certain conditions. The behavior of entrepreneurs was measured during the visits. The follow-up question on service delivery was a measure of attitudes. The attitudes expressed (mostly negative) and behavior (mostly positive) were clearly inconsistent. These kinds of findings have led to great pessimism among attitude researchers about the relationship between attitudes and behavior. But let's take a closer look at the inconsistency. Our behavior is determined by many attitudes, not just one. LaPiere measured homeowners' attitudes toward Asians. He didn't appreciate their attitude towards wasting money or getting in trouble by turning customers away. Also, it's easier to express a negative attitude when you're not face-to-face with the object of that attitude. Imagine how easy it is to tell that aluminum siding salesman over the phone that you never want to hear about aluminum siding again in your life. However, when the person comes to your door, you're likely to be less direct and maybe even listen to the sales pitch. In the case of LaPiere's study, being biased in a letter is easy, but more difficult in person. Taken together, LaPiere's findings do not mean that there is little relationship between attitudes and behavior. They merely pointed out that the presence of the attitude object (in this case the Chinese partner) is not always sufficient to trigger the expression of attitude. Other factors may play a role. There are several reasons why attitudes are not good predictors of behavior. First, the research showed that when researchers attempted to link general attitudes and specific behaviors, the link seemed weak. When researchers looked at a particular attitude, they were often able to find a good relationship between that attitude and behavior. However, when researchers asked people about a general attitude, such as their religious beliefs, and tested specific behaviors related to that attitude, such as praying before eating, they found only a weak correlation (Eagly, 1992). Another reason why attitudes and behaviors may not be strongly related is that a behavior can be related to more than one attitude. For example, whether you vote for a particular candidate may depend on where you stand on a range of issues (eg, abortion, health care, defense spending, civil rights). Measuring a single setting may not predict very well how you will dial. However, when the entire spectrum of attitudes is measured, the relationship between attitudes and behavior improves. Similarly, if only one behavior is measured, your attitude may not correlate very well with that behavior. It is much better if a behavioral trend is measured (various behaviors measured over time). Attitudes tend to relate better to behavioral tendencies than to a single behavior.

173

174

Theory of Planned Behavior A theory that explains attitude-behavior relationships by focusing on the relationship between the strength of our behavioral intentions and our fulfillment of those intentions.

social psychology

The theory of planned behavior Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) proposed the theory of planned behavior. This theory reasonably assumes that the best indicator of how we will behave is the strength of our intentions (Ajzen, 1987). The theory is essentially a three-step process of predicting behavior. The likelihood that individuals will exhibit behavior consistent with an attitude they hold depends on the strength of their intention, which in turn is influenced by three factors. By measuring these factors, we can determine the strength of intent, which allows us to predict the likelihood of the behavior. The first factor affecting behavioral intention is attitude towards the behavior. Be careful here: we're talking attitude toward the behavior, not the object. For example, you may have a positive attitude towards exercise because you believe it reduces stress. Practice is the object of attitude. But you might not like to sweat. In fact, you hate sweating. will you train The theory goes that attitude towards behavior, which includes sweating, is a better predictor of your actions than attitude towards exercise because it influences your intentions. The second factor, subjective norms, relates to how you think your friends and family will evaluate your behavior. For example, you might think, "All my friends exercise, and they'll think it's appropriate that I do the same." In this case, you can exercise even if you don't like it. Your friends' behavior sets the exercise as normative by default. Wellness programs that attempt to change eating and exercise habits are highly dependent on regulatory forces. By dividing people into groups, they encourage them to see a healthy lifestyle as normative (everyone else is involved). Perceived behavioral control, the third factor, relates to a person's belief that the behavior they are considering will be easy or difficult to perform. For example, a person is more likely to adopt preventative health-related behaviors such as dental hygiene or breast self-examination if they believe they can easily do so (Ronis & Kaiser, 1989). In short, the theory of planned behavior emphasizes that behavior follows from attitudes in a rational way. If a person believes that a particular behavior associated with an attitude will produce positive outcomes, that other people would approve of it, and that the behavior can be easily performed, then the person will engage in the behavior (Eagly, 1992 ). People are essentially asking whether they can reasonably expect behavior to meet their individual and social needs. Let's use the theory of planned behavior to analyze voting behavior. Suppose you have a positive attitude towards the vote (the object). are you really going to vote? Suppose you think it is the duty of every citizen to vote. Also, if you don't, your friends will vote and you'll think they'll think less of you (subjective norms). Finally, you feel that you can easily rearrange your schedule on election day (perceived behavioral control). Knowing all of this about you, we can infer that you have a strong intention to vote and can make a fairly confident prediction that given your attitude you are likely to vote. The accuracy of behavioral intentions in predicting behavior is evident in the Gallup poll. The Gallup organization has been conducting polls since 1936, the year Franklin Delano Roosevelt ran against Alf Landon, the governor of Kansas. Figure 5.2 shows the Gallup polling record for the national elections from 1968 to 2001. In general, the polls are fairly accurate. Yes, there have been some exceptions over the last 57 years. They were certainly wrong in 1948: the data showed that Harry Truman didn't have much of a chance of winning. But in the history books we seldom hear any mention of Dewey, the governor of New York, who ran against Truman and was predicted to be the winner.

Chapter 5

Ideas

175

1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 presidential election year

Figure 5.2 Gallup polling data showing projected and actual results for the 1968-2000 presidential election. Gallup polls are remarkably accurate at predicting not only the winner but also the margin of victory. (Note: mean error = -1.93).

Type of expected result

Real

70 60

percentage

50 40 30 20 10 0

In this case, the researchers were mostly wrong because they stopped researching too early. Little did they know that people have other things on their minds besides the election and may not pay much attention to the campaign until a week or so before the actual vote. Researchers will not make this mistake again. Although the question "Who will you vote for, Candidate X or Candidate Y?" appears to be a measure of attitude, it is actually a measure of behavioral intention. Voting is a unique act and can be measured with a single direct question. These are the circumstances in which the match between attitude and behavior is likely to be greatest. Researchers often try to determine the strength of these intentions by asking questions such as: How strong do you feel about your ideal candidate? How intense are your feelings? While such refinements could increase the accuracy of surveys in the future, a concrete way of measuring behavioral intentions is needed. Recent research has reinforced the notion that emotions are critical in transforming attitudes into behavior. For example, Farley and Stasson (2003) examined the relationship between attitudes and blood donation. They found that donors' behavioral intentions to donate blood and their positive emotions about donating blood predicted actual blood donation.

The Importance of Belief So what we saw in the previous section is that the importance of some of our attitudes is a crucial factor in how we act. Some of our attitudes are important to us; others are much less important. One reason researchers have underestimated the relationship between attitudes and behavior is that they have not focused on attitudes that are important to people (Abelson, 1988). Attitudes held with conviction are fundamental to the person who holds them. Examples are attitudes towards racial and gender equality, racism and sexism, patriotism, religious fundamentalism and the occult. Attitudes held with conviction are like possessions (Abelson, 1988). Remember that this is one of the functions of a setting

176

social psychology

defines us; it tells people who we are. You own your attitudes, proudly display them to those who would appreciate them, and defend them against those who would try to take them away. For example, someone who is strongly committed to one side or the other of the abortion issue is likely to defend his or her point against the other side and show solidarity with those on the same side. Such attitudes will be difficult to change as changing would mean a big change in the way the person sees the world. Since highly engaged attitudes are difficult to manipulate in a laboratory experiment, researchers tend to avoid them. As a result, social psychologists have overestimated the ease with which attitudes can be changed and underestimated the relationship between attitudes and behavior. When an attitude is important to people, they hope that behavior consistent with that attitude will help them get what they want. Therefore, important attitudes and behaviors are usually closely related. An attitude held by conviction is easily accessible. This means that when you talk to someone about an issue you have strong feelings about, they are quick to respond and come up with lots of ideas on the subject. Furthermore, attitude accessibility, the ease with which one can remember a particular attitude, increases with consistent use and application of that attitude (Doll & Ajzen, 1992). In a study conducted a few years ago, researchers measured latencies (speed of response) to questions about women's rights, abortion, and racial integration (Krosnick, 1989). Whatever the problem, people who thought an action was important reacted faster than those who thought it was unimportant. Important attitudes are more readily available in memory and more consistent with behavior. If your stance on abortion, women's rights, gun ownership, or the Dallas Cowboys is important, you're more likely to act in accordance with that stance. You can get an idea of how accessible an action is by looking at how long it takes to remember it. For example, notice how long it takes you to remember your attitudes towards: living wills, parent-teacher associations, the death penalty, aisle seats, snakes, water filters, political action committees, ministers, daylight saving time, baseball. Some of these terms quickly brought feelings and thoughts to mind; others maybe not. If attitude accessibility indicates persuasion strength, we might expect attitudes with high accessibility to be better predictors of behavior than attitudes with low accessibility. Fazio, who has studied accessible attitudes extensively, examined this issue in the context of the 1984 presidential election (Fazio & Williams, 1986). Not seen before the election, the potential voters polled each agreed with the following two statements: "A good president for the next 4 years would be Walter Mondale (or a Democratic candidate then)" and "A good president for the next 4 years 4 years." ". 4 years would be Ronald Reagan (the Republican-elect). Respondents had to indicate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed by pressing one of five buttons: strongly agree, agree, don't care, disagree, strongly The researchers measured the time that elapsed before respondents pressed the button The attitude was less accessible.The researchers were not only able to gauge attitudes towards the candidates, but also measured accessibility.After the election, respondents were asked if they voted, and if so, who they voted for. Was there a correlation between latency and voting behavior? That is, attitude towards access predicted the behavior? The answer is yes, it happened. Attitude Accessibility measured June and July 1984, accurate predicted voting

Chapter 5

Ideas

177

behavior in November. Those who responded quickly to Reagan were more likely to vote for him than those who responded more slowly. The same relationship, though not as strong, applied to Mondale supporters.

The non-rational actor theories and ideas about attitudes and behavior have hitherto taken a rather rational, almost calculated approach to behavior. In the theory of planned behavior, if you get measurements of people's attitudes about a behavior, their perceptions of the importance that others may have for or against their behavior, and their sense of control over that behavior, you can predict their intentions. . and hence its probable behavior. If there's one significant criticism of the theory of planned behavior, it's that when you ask people to tell you about the components of their intentions, they know that their answers must be logical. If you reported that you voted but had no interest in the candidates and thought all the candidates were crooks, you would hardly sound like a logical person. Some theories have taken the opposite approach: they assume that people are irrational actors (Ronis & Kaiser, 1989), and that our attitudes can often be completely irrelevant to our behavior. Smoking, for example, is so habitual that it becomes automatic, completely detached from any attitude or behavioral intention the smoker might have. Most of our behaviors are like this (Ronis & Kaiser, 1989). We do them repeatedly without thinking (Gilbert, 1991). You floss, but your attitude and intentions about dental hygiene are only activated when you don't floss. Even if you think flossing is important, and if you remember the sign in your dentist's office that says, "No, you don't have to floss all your teeth, just the ones you want to keep," you have to You Act Now.. After Your Hire Are you ready to get in the car at 11pm? and drive to the store for more floss? When your regular aerobic class becomes uncomfortable, is your attitude towards the importance of exercise strong enough to reorganize your entire schedule? In short, people generally behave habitually without thinking, even without thinking. They only make active decisions when confronted with new situations. Therefore, there is a good chance of inconsistencies between our attitudes and our behavior.

Irrational Behavior in Everyday Life Have you ever come home from work or school and have no memory of how you got there? In everyday life, we often work with a kind of autopilot. Our behavior becomes so routine and automatic that we hardly notice what we are doing. We are in a mental state that Ellen Laner (1989) called inattention, which means decreased attention and loss of active control over day-to-day activities. Inattention occurs when we engage in behaviors that have been overlearned and become routine. In this state, we perform behaviors rigidly, in a preconceived pattern, and without thought or evaluation. Inattention is rampant in our daily interactions. A restaurant cashier asks, "How was everything?" They say your steak was overcooked, your potato was cold and the service was terrible. The cashier replies, "Here's your change, have a nice day." In this example, the cashier's question and answer were automatic; she really didn't care how you tasted your food. Langer was interested in studying this mental state (Langer, Blank & Chanowitz, 1978). He asked a researcher to approach people who wanted to use a photocopier in the library and ask them to use it first. The request was worded differently: "Excuse me, I have to copy five pages. Can I use the machine because I'm in a hurry? "Sorry, I have five

non-rational actor A view that people are not always rational in their behavior and that their behavior may not be consistent with their attitudes.

178

social psychology

to copy pages Can I use the machine? and "Sorry, I need to copy five pages. Can I use the device because I need to make copies?” The researcher also asked to make 20 copies of these three different shapes. Question 2 offers no reason to use the copier first, and Question 3 offers an irrational reason ("because I need to make copies"); only request 1 provides a minimally acceptable reason ("because I'm in a hurry"). In this situation, if the participants treated the request irrationally, they would not be able to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate (or ridiculous) reasons. It turns out that any kind of apology will work, as long as the request is small. When asked to make five copies, people apparently didn't appreciate the quality of the apology while one was offered: having to make copies was as good as being in a hurry. However, people snapped out of their stupid state when the order was placed to make 20 copies. It is clear that people paid more attention to the difference between good and bad excuses when the behavior (the request) had a significant impact. While we tend to pay close attention to the good and bad reasons people behave, asking us to copy five pages may not be worth it. When the stakes are raised to 20 pages, we become more vigilant. The fact that we have a multitude of attitudes without really thinking about it means that if we're forced to think about it, it can have some interesting consequences. Thinking about our attitudes and the reasons we hold them can sometimes be disturbing and confusing (Wilson, Dunn, Kraft, & Lisle, 1989). More generally, the process of introspection, looking into our own thoughts instead of just behaving, can have this effect. The work of Timothy Wilson has shown that thinking about the reasons for our attitudes can often lead us to behave in ways that seem inconsistent with those attitudes (Wilson et al., 1989). For example, if you are forced to think about why you like your romantic partner, you may end the relationship in the near future. Much depends on the strength of the relationship. If the relationship isn't strong, think about why it might be weakening it. If it is very strong, reasoning can make it even stronger. The stronger our attitude or belief, the more likely it is that thinking about it will increase the coherence between it and our behavior (Fazio, 1986). Why does thinking about the reasons for our attitudes sometimes lead to contradictions between our attitudes and our behavior? The basic answer is that if we have never thought about an attitude before, thinking about it can lead us to change it (Wilson et al., 1989). When you're forced to count the ways you love your current partner and it takes you a long time to use all the fingers on one hand, you get an idea of how you really feel about the relationship. This explanation was supported by a study in which people were asked about their attitudes towards social issues such as the death penalty, abortion, and public health insurance in two separate telephone surveys conducted one month apart (Wilson & Kraft, 1988). In the first survey, some people were asked to justify their opinions, while others were only asked their opinions. A month later, people asked for reasons were more likely to change their minds. Therefore, thinking about the reasons seems to lead to changes. Because? The full explanation may lie in the biased sampling hypothesis proposed by Wilson and colleagues (1989). It goes something like this: If you ask people why they believe something, they probably won't say, "I don't know." Instead, they will give reasons that sound plausible but may be wrong or incomplete. That is, because people often do not know their real reasons, they only show a part of those reasons. Thus, they present a biased sample of their reasons. People then assume that the reasons in the biased sample are their real reasons for holding the belief. When these reasons don't seem convincing, thinking about them can persuade people to change their beliefs.

Chapter 5

Ideas

179

Rational and Non-Rational Actors: A Solution Sometimes we are rational actors; sometimes we are irrational actors. Sometimes our behavior is "coupled" to our attitude; sometimes it "decouples" from them. Don't we start here? Let's see if we can resolve the apparent conflict now. It is useful to remember that attitudes and behavior are usually linked, and that the decoupling occurs in two main sets of circumstances. The first circumstance is when you don't particularly care about an attitude. You may not have given much thought to the object of the attitude or have expressed the attitude very often. So in this case you don't really know what you're thinking. It is true that the death penalty and the national health system are important issues. But many of us may not have thought about it. If you are forced to ponder these questions, you may be surprised at what you say. It might make you reconsider your attitude. The second circumstance is a little more complicated. Essentially, it's when you don't have a clear idea of your goals and needs. Let's return to the theory of planned action for a moment. The theory is that if you expect behavior to help you meet your goals and social needs, it will. But people are often unclear about their goals and needs (Hixon & Swann, 1993). If you're not sure what you're trying to achieve, your behavior is relatively unpredictable and may well be separate from your settings. For example, we exercise, but only sporadically because our primary concern is to look good in front of our health-obsessed friends. Our reasons are faint, not clear to us, and therefore our practice behavior is rare and unpredictable. But when we or a friend our age have a heart attack, we develop a much stronger attitude towards exercise. We now know that our reasons for exercising are to improve cardiovascular function, increase our well-being, and ultimately save our lives. We now change our training schedule every day, subscribe to Runner's World magazine, invest in better training shoes, etc. So, in summary, if the attitudes affect an area that is important to us, and if the behavior helps us to meet clear and strong social needs. The attitudes we hold with conviction are not prone to decoupling because we express them in different situations and think deeply about them.

Why We Dislike Those Who Think Differently From Us: Naive Realism and Hodges Attitudes, 2006). A major reason for this observation has to do with the power of what the great Swiss developer Jean Piaget called naïve realism. For Piaget, naive realism was the last stage of a child's cognitive development before adulthood. It was the last vestige of egocentrism when our thought processes are primarily concerned with ourselves and our own view of the world. Naive realism involves three interrelated processes. The first is the belief that we see the world objectively, and the second is that other reasonable people will also see the world as we do. Finally, if these others don't see the world the way we do, then they either don't have the right information or aren't rational and have ulterior motives.

Naïve Realism The belief that we see the world objectively while others are biased, and that if others do not see the world as we do, then they are not rational.

180

social psychology

and bad motives (Reeder, Pryor, & Wohl, & Griswell, 2005). In essence, we are motivated to be free from prejudice and objectivity, and we have what might be called a 'blind spot to prejudice' (Cohen, 2003). So if we examine any hotly debated issue on the American political scene, we see evidence of thinking that contains elements of naïve realism. From the perspective of opponents of the Iraq war, the Bush administration is accused of manipulating the intelligence records to get what it wanted (a reason for invasion) and repeatedly and maliciously lying about the situation on the ground. From the pro-war perspective, anyone could see with open eyes that Saddam was a terrible man, a threat to the United States, and that bringing democracy to the Arab Middle East was a worthy goal. Anyone who contradicts this has motives and trains of thought that are not objective. Remember, from the naïve realist's point of view, your opposition would see the accuracy of your view if they had the right information. In the case of Iraq, anyone who hasn't received information about the war is probably brain dead and doesn't deserve an answer. So the only explanation left to the naïve realist is to question the rationality and motives of his opponents. Roeder and others. (2005) examined the attitudes of Americans and Canadians (who have been almost unanimously opposed to the Iraq war from the start) towards Iraq. Note that this study was conducted in 2004. The researchers were interested in examining people's tendency (actually, bias) to attribute negative motives to those who disagree with them. Indeed, they found that those who opposed Bush administration policies (mainly, but not exclusively, Canadians) viewed their opponents as self-serving and biased. The same general finding applies to issues such as abortion and gay marriage. People on both sides view their opponents as biased and unreasonable. However, as expected, the bias only applied to people who were heavily engaged in the issues. One reason we know this is that respondents in Reeder et al. Studies appear to have formed their own opinions first and then judged their fellow citizens who agreed or disagreed with them (p. 1505). Our tendency to ascribe bad motives to our steadfast opponents on big issues does not mean that we ignore or reject their views. It just means we think they're wrong for the wrong reasons (irrationality and multiple biases). Eagly and his colleagues have challenged the notion that we consider and select information with which we agree, and reject or even ignore information that we feel is inconsistent with our deepest beliefs (Eagly, Kuleas, Chen, & Chaiken, 2001) . Eagleley et al. examined a total of 70 experiments that tested the "fit hypothesis" (that is, we carefully examined only the appropriate information and ignored the rest). They discovered that the assumption was wrong. People pay attention to information that doesn't align with their strong vision. But they test you in a certain way. What they do is a sort of "skeptical and active examination" of the information they agree with, with the goal of confirming sympathy for that information. Our view of the arguments that offend or challenge us is to find out what the "devil" is saying and develop counter-arguments to that view. We know what they are saying, but we will not convince ourselves of it, because that is not the purpose of our examination. We want to know how to defeat those who hold such views. At least some of us see it that way.

Chapter 5

Ideas

Ida Tarbell Revisited Today, Ida Tarbell is not a well-known historical figure, but she held her views with conviction and expressed them boldly. Although she initially disliked being called a whistleblower, she realized there was a lot of "dirt" in American life that needed ironing out. President Roosevelt and the American public came to an agreement. Tarbell followed her beliefs with a strong sense of purpose. Her early experiences, the support of her family, and her strong upbringing and temperament combined to produce a woman whose attitudes and behaviors were consistent. This is certainly an unusual situation. Ida was a rational actor; the union of her attitude and her life's work was wild and unbreakable.

Review of Chapter 1. What is an Attitude? An attitude is an experientially organized mental and neural state of readiness that exerts a direct or dynamic influence on the individual's response to all objects and situations with which he interacts. 2. What is the relationship between attitudes and values? A value is an idea of what is desirable; it is a guide to a person's actions, a pattern of behavior. Our attitudes flow and express our values. Freedom, justice and the like are values, and attitudes towards freedom of expression, voting rights, etc. derive from these values. 3. What are implicit and explicit settings? Explicit attitudes operate at a conscious level, such that we are aware of them, aware of their cognitive bases, and aware of how they relate to behavior. They work through controlled processing and require some cognitive effort to activate. For example, you can learn what you think about a particular political candidate and relate your behavior (eg, voting for him or her) to that attitude. It is these apparent attitudes that we often find to have a directing effect on behavior. Implicit attitudes affect behavior automatically, without conscious thought and below the level of consciousness. For example, a person can quickly react negatively towards a member of a minority group, even though the person expresses a positive and tolerant attitude towards that group. The "gut" response occurs without thinking and is often uncomfortable for the individual. 4. How are recruitment surveys conducted? The most common way to measure attitudes is through attitude surveys. In an attitudinal survey, the researcher sends a questionnaire to a potential respondent, conducts an in-person interview, or asks a series of questions over the phone. Because respondents indicate their own attitudes, an attitude survey is a self-assessment measure. A respondent indicates their attitude by answering a series of questions.

181

182

social psychology

5. What are the possible sources of bias in a survey? Some of the biggest biases in attitude surveys include poorly worded questions and the lack of a large enough random sample. 6. What are behavioral measures of attitudes? Behavioral measurements are used to overcome some of the problems inherent in attitudinal measurements (pencil and paper). The idea is that an individual's actions are the truest reflection of his feelings. For example, instead of asking people what they think about a new ethnic group moving into their neighborhood, a researcher could use the "lost letter technique," in which sealed envelopes are apparently accidentally misplaced near mailboxes. The letters have a foreign-sounding name and the proportion sent is compared to other letters with more conventional names on the envelopes. 7. What is the Implicit Attitude Test (IAT)? The IAT is an online test of implicit attitudes. The IAT measures the associative power relationship between positive or negative attitudes and different racial and ethnic groups. 8. What does the IAT tell us about our prejudices? Results from millions of tests on IAT websites show that a large proportion of test-takers exhibit unconscious biases toward other social, racial, and ethnic groups. 9. How are attitudes formed? The basic mechanisms of attitude formation are the same as in the acquisition of other behaviors: classical and operant conditioning and observational learning. In addition, the media has a profound influence on our attitudes and behavior. Since television arrived in America 50 years ago, it has changed our understanding of everything from our notions of the "good life" to sexual behavior. The survey also showed that changes in music genres and the advent of video games and cell phones have had a significant impact on what people see as acceptable behavior. 10. Can settings be inherited? Yes, indirectly. Genetic differences in sensory structures, such as hearing and taste, can affect our preferences for certain types of music and food. Additionally, aggression, which has a genetic component, can influence a whole range of attitudes and behaviors, from watching violent TV shows and films, to hostility towards women or members of other groups, to attitudes towards the death penalty. Many researchers assume that the most important issues in the mass media tend to set the public agenda. This agenda setting occurs because the most prominent topics in the news shape public perception, increasing focus on certain topics to the detriment of others.

Chapter 5

Ideas

12. What influence do social networks have on the formation and change of attitudes? When you are part of congruent social networks (people with similar views), your attitude becomes more resilient to change because you have strong social support for that attitude. However, when you are immersed in a heterogeneous social network with many people with different viewpoints, people are less resilient to change. It seems that it's not surprising that when you're surrounded by like-minded people, you feel more confident about your attitude and the doubts you may have cleared. 13. What is the relationship between attitudes and behavior? The researchers found only a modest association between attitudes and behavior. One reason is that more than one attitude can play a role in the decision to do or not do something. Second, you may want to express a certain attitude in certain circumstances, but other factors may prevent you from doing so. For example, you might think that your best friend made a big mistake marrying Jane, but you'd have to be an idiot to voice that opinion in your wedding toast. 14. What is the notion of a non-rational actor? Some attitude theorists have criticized the theory of designed behavior for assuming that individuals are always rational when it comes to attitudes. Other theorists claim that humans are non-rational actors and that attitudes are sometimes completely irrelevant to our behavior. In many cases, according to this view, people behave habitually without thinking, and even without thinking about everyday life. 15. How was the controversy between rational and non-rational actors resolved? The short answer is that sometimes we are rational actors and our attitudes are tied to our behavior. In other cases we are non-rational actors and our behaviors and attitudes are decoupled. Dissociation is likely to occur when an attitude isn't particularly important to us or when we don't have a clear idea of our goals and needs. 16. What is naïve realism and how does it affect our political attitudes? Naive realism involves three interrelated processes. The first is the belief that we see the world objectively, and the second is that other reasonable people will also see the world as we do. Finally, if these others don't see the world the way we do, then they either don't have the right information or aren't rational and have ulterior motives.

183

Persuasion and Attitude Change I will argue with reasonable people; I will appeal to people; but with tyrants I will not grant a truce, nor will I squander arguments where they will surely be lost. – Garrison by William Lloyd

Chicago, 1924: Jacob Franks, a wealthy businessman, answers the phone and hears a young but cultured voice telling him that his 14-year-old son, Bobby, has been kidnapped and could pay $10,000 for ransom. The next morning, as Mr. Franks organized the rescue, he was told that his son's bloodied, naked body had been found in a sewer on Chicago's South Side. Franks was pretty sure the morgue guy wasn't Bobby because the kidnappers assured him it was just a business proposition. He sent his brother to the morgue to clear up the misidentification. Unfortunately, the body was that of his son; his head was split open by a blow from a blunt object. The case was quickly resolved. Police found a pair of glasses near the body and led them to Nathan Leopold Jr., the 20-year-old son of a prominent local businessman. Leopold denied any connection to the murder, stating he spent the day with his friend Richard Loeb, the son of a vice president at Sears, Roebuck and Company. However, both men soon confessed. Loeb, it seems, always dreamed of committing the "perfect crime." He recruited Leopold and together they went to the old school playground and followed several different boys. They finally chose Bobby Franks and pushed him to the car. Loeb hit Bobby on the head with a chisel, and then he and Leopold drove slowly to the sewer, stopping for something to eat along the way. The trial was a media circus. The Leopold and Loeb families hired the most famous lawyer of the time, Clarence Darrow, to defend their children. The men had already confessed, so the question wasn't whether they were guilty. It was about whether they would spend the rest of their lives in prison or hanged. The prosecution defended the hanging of the killers. Darrow begged for mercy. 185

Key Questions As you read this chapter, find answers to the following questions: 1. What is belief? 2. What is Yale's Communications Model? 3. What communicator factors influence persuasion? 4. What elements of the message convey the conviction? 5. What is the Persuasion Elaboration Probability Model? 6. How does aliveness affect belief? 7. What is knowledge needed for? 8. What is the heuristic and systematic information model of belief? 9. What is the cognitive dissonance theory and what are its main ideas?

186

10. What is self-perception theory? 11. What is the Self-Affirmation Theory? 12. What is psychological reactance? 13. What is advertising? 14. How are large-scale promotional tactics used?

social psychology

Darrow had an uphill battle: it took all of his persuasion to convince Judge Caverly of his point (no jury was needed). He spoke for 12 hours, attempting to provide the judge with a justification for the men's life imprisonment sentences. He argued that life sentences would serve a better and more humane purpose than bowing to public opinion and hanging these two "mentally ill children." Darrow also claimed to have no interest in the fate of his clients, an interesting ploy for a lawyer who spoke for him from dawn to dusk. In fact, he implied that life in prison would be a fate worse than death. At the end of Darrow's speech, the judge was in tears, as were many of the onlookers. Darrow's arguments hit the mark. Judge Caverly sentenced Leopold and Loeb to life imprisonment for murder and 99 years for kidnapping. Darrow's impassioned and eloquent arguments persuaded the judge to spare his clients' lives (Weinberg, 1957). Clarence Darrow's job was to persuade the judge that his clients' lives should be spared. I knew the judge, like the majority of the American public, was pro-death penalty. If Darrow could not change the judge's attitude, he had to convince him that his attitude should not apply in the case, that is, that he should act against his beliefs.

The Persuasion Process Persuasion A form of social influence that involves changing the thoughts, attitudes, or behavior of others by using rational and emotional arguments to persuade them to accept your position.

Darrow used all his powers of persuasion to sway the judge. Persuasion is the use of rational and/or emotional arguments to persuade others to change their attitudes or behavior. It is a form of social influence that is used not only at court but in all areas of everyday social life. The persuasion process takes place in the classroom, in the church, in politics and in the media. Persuasive messages are so much a part of our lives that we often fail to notice the barrage from billboards, television, radio, newspapers, parents, peers, and public figures. So persuasion is a ubiquitous form of social influence. We all exert social influence when we try to persuade others to change their attitudes or behavior. We are also targets of social influence when others try to persuade or force us to do what they want us to do. In this chapter, we examine the persuasion process and consider the strategies communicators use to change people's attitudes or behavior. We look at the persuasion techniques of a brilliant lawyer like Clarence Darrow. How did Darrow manage to be so effective? He was a famous lawyer, highly respected and highly credible. Was his persuasiveness a function of something inside him? Or was it his argument? What role did your audience, Judge Caverly, play in the persuasion? In what ways might the judge have played an active role in convincing himself of the merits of Darrow's case? And how does persuasion, both interpersonal and mass persuasion, affect us every day as we go about our lives? These are some of the questions addressed in this chapter.

The Yale Communication Model What is the best way to get your ideas across to others and get them to accept your point of view? An early opinion held that the most effective approach to persuasion was to present logical arguments that showed people how they would benefit from changing their attitude. This view was formulated by Carl Hovland, who

Chapter 6

persuasion and attitude change.

He worked for the United States government in their propaganda efforts during World War II. After the war he returned to Yale University, where he assembled a team of 30 people and began to study the process of persuasion systematically. From their efforts emerged the Yale communication model (Hovland, Janis & Kelley, 1953). According to the Yale communication model, the most important factors that make up the communication process are expressed by the question: who says what to whom and by what means? This question suggests that there are four factors involved in belief. The "who" refers to the communicator, the person presenting the persuasive argument. The "what" refers to the organization and content of the persuasive message. The "who" is the target of the persuasive message, the audience. Finally, "media" indicates the importance of the channel or medium through which the message is conveyed, such as television, radio, or face-to-face interpersonal communication. For each factor, there are several variables that can potentially affect the persuasion process. A key assumption of the Yale model is that these four factors (which can be manipulated in an experiment) provide information to three internal mediators: the mediators, attention, understanding, and acceptance. Persuasion, according to the Yale model, occurs when the target of a persuasive message first pays attention to the message, then understands (understands) the content of the message, and finally accepts the content of the message. This means that the Yale model proposes that persuasion is a function of controlled message processing. That is, a persuaded person actively cares about the message, makes an effort to understand the content of the message, and ultimately chooses to accept it. Finally, the four factors that contribute to persuasion are not independent of each other; interact to create a compelling effect. In practice, the content and presentation of the message depends on the communicator, the target group and the channel. Darrow carefully selected his messages based on the arguments that best suited the judge, the audience, the trial environment, and his own preferences. We now turn to the discussion of the four factors, looking at selected variables within each component. We also look at how the factors interact with each other.

187

Yale communication model A model of the persuasion process that emphasizes the role of the communicator (the source of a message), the nature of the message, the audience, and the communication channel.

The Communicator Ever watched a late-night infomercial on TV? These half-hour commercials typically promote a "miracle product," such as B. Car wax, which is said to be able to withstand a direct hit from a hydrogen bomb. The car vaporizes, but the wax survives. There is an "expert" (usually the inventor) who touts the merits of the product. Do you believe what this person tells you? Given the massive amounts of money that are made from infomercials, a lot of people should be doing it. However, many people are obviously unconvinced. If you are not convinced, you can focus on the communicator. You might find yourself questioning this guy's integrity (because you'll benefit by persuading him to buy the atomic car wax) and consequently debunking his claims. In other words, you question their credibility.

Credibility: Experience and Reliability Clarence Darrow knew the importance of credibility, the power to inspire trust. During his closing arguments in the Leopold and Loeb case, Darrow continually attempted to undermine the credibility of the prosecution and bolster his own in the eyes of the judge. For example, Darrow said of his opponent: For the past six weeks I've heard nothing but the screaming of blood. I've heard ugly hatred from the prosecution. I saw a court summonsed. . . Hang two boys before science, before philosophy, before the best and most humane thinking. (Weinberg, 1957, p. 134)

Credibility The credibility (expertise and reliability) of the communicator of a persuasive message.

188

social psychology

Experience A component of the communicator's credibility related to the communicator's credentials and derived from the individual's education and knowledge.

While other variables are important, including a communicator's perceived attractiveness and power, credibility is the most critical variable affecting the ability to persuade. Credibility has two components: experience and reliability. Specialization refers to a communicator's qualification and derives from their education and knowledge. For example, your doctor has the ability to persuade you about health issues because they have the education and experience to give strength to their words. Reliability refers to the audience's assessment of the communicator's character and their motives for getting the message across. We ask, "Why is this person trying to convince us?" Trustworthiness can be compromised when we recognize that the communicator has something to gain by convincing us. For example, you may have more confidence in a Consumer Reports review of a product (which is ad-free and independently tested) than a similar research-based review from the product manufacturer. Experience and reliability do not always go together. A communicator can be high on one but short on the other. A medical researcher discussing a new drug to treat AIDS can gain experience and credibility from this expert knowledge. But if we find out that the doctor is benefiting from the sale of this drug, we will probably question its reliability. We wonder about her character and motives and may no longer consider her a reliable source. One political figure with the unfortunate combination of vast experience and unreliability was former President Bill Clinton. He was a great connoisseur of state affairs, but was not considered very trustworthy. During the "Monica Lewinsky" scandal, there is the lingering image of President Clinton pointing his finger at television cameras and saying he never had sex with "that woman." On the other hand, a source can be very reliable but not very specialized. Such was the case with the late President Ronald Reagan. He often used unfounded statistics when making speeches, prompting his staff to seek sources. However, the general public saw it as credible. People wanted to believe him. Opinion polls have repeatedly shown that the majority of the public viewed President Reagan as personally attractive and likable, and these qualities prompt us to accept a persuasive message (Roskos-Ewoldsen & Fazio, 1992). Reliability is, in part, a judgment of the communicator's motives. If someone tries very hard to persuade us, we are likely to question their motives (Eagly, Wood, & Chaiken, 1978). We may be more confident in the communicator's arguments if we do not believe that he is trying to persuade us (Walster [Hatfield] & Festinger, 1962). This is the theory behind the hidden camera technique used by TV advertisers. Presumably, a person touting the benefits of fabric softener on a hidden camera must be telling the truth. The communicator is not trying to convince us; he or she gives an unbiased testimony. Interestingly, messages coming from a trusted or untrusted source are processed differently (Preister & Petty, 2003). The target of a persuasive appeal from a trusted source is likely to process and mentally elaborate the message content less carefully than the same message coming from an unreliable source. That is, arguments from a credible source are more likely to be taken at face value than those from an unreliable source. Also, the difference between an unreliable and a credible source is greater when the arguments put forward are weak. When strong arguments are made, credible and unreliable sources are equally likely to lead to attitude change (Priester & Petty, 2003).

Reliability A component of the communicator's credibility, which involves our assessment of the communicator's motives for getting the message across.

Chapter 6

persuasion and attitude change.

189

A communicator who appears to be arguing against self-interest is more persuasive than a communicator who takes an expected position (Eagly et al., 1978). Such was the case when then-newly appointed United States Attorney General Janet Reno claimed responsibility for the 1993 attack by federal agents on David Koresh's Davidian headquarters in Waco, Texas. The attack, which the government later realized was ill-planned, resulted in a fiery holocaust that killed most of the cult's members, including many children. At a time when everyone involved in the attack was denying responsibility, Reno publicly claimed responsibility for ordering the attack. Although his statement was not in his own interest, it increased public perception of his character and credibility. Clarence Darrow also appeared to be arguing against his own interests when he suggested to the judge that he did not care about the fate of his clients. Rather, he is very interested in what the verdict means for the future of mankind: “I plead for the future; I pray for a time when hate and cruelty no longer control people's hearts. . . every life is worth saving, and this mercy is the highest quality of man” (Weinberg, 1957, p. 134). Darrow attempted to bolster his credibility by saying that he was not acting out of self-interest or cared about the fate of Leopold and Loeb; he was fighting for a moral cause. Of course, Darrow didn't mention that his fee was one of the highest ever paid to a lawyer. Limits of Credibility: The Sleeper Effect Does a credible communicator have an advantage over an unreliable one in the long run? Apparently not. Research has shown that the influence of a confident communicator has limits. The Yale group found that while the credibility of the communicator is a powerful influence on attitude change, over time people forget who said what, so the credibility effects wear off. First of all, people believe the trustworthy source. But 6 weeks later, they are just as likely to show a change in attitude from an unreliable source as from a credible source. So when you read an article in the National Enquirer, it probably has little impact on you right away. But after a few weeks, despite the unreliability of the source, things can change. The phenomenon that a message has more of an impact on attitude change after a long delay than when first hearing it is called the sleeper effect. The sleeper effect has been demonstrated in a variety of persuasion situations, including politically aggressive courtship (Lariscy & Tinkham, 1999). In their experiment, Lariscy and Tinkham exposed participants to politically attacking television advertisements. Some attendees also viewed a second political ad that questioned the credibility of the attack ad. This defensive gauge was published before or after the attack gauge. Lariscy and Tinkham measured the perceived credibility of the source of the hack ad and how certain participants would vote for the candidate who sponsored the hack ad. The results showed that the negative publicity was effective, although participants reported disliking the negativity. Evidence of a sleeper effect was also found. When the defensive meter ran after the attack meter, the perception of the candidate who sponsored the attack meter was negative. However, after a delay, the Defensive Gauge lost its power to mitigate the effect of the Attack Gauge. Why does the sleep effect occur? A possible reason for the dormant effect could be that the credibility of the communicator does not increase the listener's understanding of the message (Kelman & Hovland, 1953). In other words, people understand messages from trusted and unreliable communicators equally well. As credibility effects fade over time, listeners are left with two equally understood (or misunderstood) messages (Gruder et al., 1979).

Sleeper effect Persuasion phenomenon that occurs when a communication after a long delay has more impact on changing attitudes than when it is first heard.

190

social psychology

Three factors make the sleeper effect more likely to occur (Rajecki, 1990): 1. There is a strong and persuasive argument. 2. There is a clue that makes the recipient doubt the accuracy of the message, e.g. B. lack of credibility of the communicator or new information that contradicts the original message. 3. Enough time passes before the discount proposal and message fall apart and people forget which source said what. A meta-analysis of the dormant literature (Kumkale & Albarracin, 2004) found that two other factors were also relevant to the onset of the dormant effect. First, the sleeper effect is more likely to occur when both the message and the credible information are strong. Second, the sleeper effect is stronger in people who are motivated to process and think carefully about the message and credible information. This latter finding suggests that the sleeper effect requires active and controlled processing of news content and credibility information. Studies also show that the sleeper effect occurs more reliably when recipients receive the discount suggestion after hearing the message than before (Kumkale & Albarracin, 2004; Pratkanis, Greenwald, Leippe, & Baumgardner, 1988). If the discount suggestion comes before the message, the recipient doubts the message even before it is sent. But if the discount suggestion comes after the message and the argument is strong, you've probably already convinced the recipient. Over time, memory of the discount cue "lapses" faster than memory of the persuasive message (Pratkanis et al., 1988). Because the message is buffered before the discount proposal is received, it is less likely to become stale. After a long time, the recipient only remembers the original persuasive message (Figure 6.1).

message only

low credibility

no message 25

Figure 6.1 The sleeper effect in persuasion. When attitudes are measured immediately, a message from a communicator with low credibility is unconvincing. However, after a delay, the communicator with low credibility becomes more persuasive. Based on data from Gruder and Colleges et al. (1979).

settings index

20 15 10 5 0 –5 –10

Immediately

Attitude lag time measurement

Chapter 6

persuasion and attitude change.

191

What can we say about a convincing message after several weeks? If the discount suggestion occurs before the message, the effect of the message is weakened. When the discount suggestion follows the message, the power of the message is amplified. So the lesson for persuaders is that they must attack the opponent before the opponent makes a case or provides a rebuttal.

Gender of the Communicator and Belief Does it matter whether the communicator of a persuasive message is male or female? Unfortunately, there isn't much research on this. Early research provided conflicting results (Flanagin & Metzger, 2003). Sometimes the men were more persuasive and sometimes the women were more persuasive. In fact, the relationship between the communicator's gender and belief is not straightforward, as we shall see below. In one experiment, male and female participants ranked information on a personal website attributed to a male or female author (Flanagin & Metzger, 2003). The participants visited a website specially designed for the experiment. On the website, the participants read a section about the harmful effects of radiation exposure during pregnancy on pregnant women. Participants rated the credibility of the news source. The results showed that the male participants rated the author as more trustworthy than the male author. On the other hand, the female participants rated the male source as more trustworthy than the female source. In another study (Schuller, Terry & McKimmie, 2005), male and female participants rated expert statements (simple or complex) presented by a male or female expert. The results, shown in Figure 6.2, showed that the male expert was more persuasive (resulting in higher prices) than the female expert when the evidence was complex. However, the expert was more persuasive when the evidence was less complex. The male expert has an advantage when the content of the message requires more cognitive effort to process,

Gender of the male specialist

Feminine

400 350

average premium

300 250 200 150 100 50 0

Evidence of low complexity

Alt

Figure 6.2 The relationship between an expert's gender and the complexity of testifying in court. Based on data from Schuller, Terry and McKimmie (2005).

192

social psychology

and the expert has an advantage when the message requires less effort. Thus, gender is used differently depending on the type of cognitive processing required (Schuler et al., 2005). There is also some evidence of a gender dominance effect, meaning that a male communicator may be more persuasive on male issues and a female communicator may be more persuasive on female issues (McKimmie, Newton, Terry, & Schuller, 2004; Schuller, Terry, and McKimmie, 2001). McKimmie et al. (2004) found that a male expert was more persuasive than a female expert when the case was male-biased (a case involving an automotive service company). When the case focused on women (a case involving a cosmetics company), the expert was more persuasive. They also found that juries rated the expert better when he or she testified on a gender-matched case.

The Message and the Audience So far we have seen that the characteristics of the communicator can affect the extent to which we change our attitude in the face of a persuasive message. But what about the message itself? What characteristics of the messages make them more or less persuasive and how do these elements interact with audience characteristics? We address these issues below.

What type of message is most effective? The Power of Fear An important characteristic of the message is whether it is based on rational or emotional appeals. Early research has shown that appealing to a specific emotion, fear, can make a message more effective than appealing to reason or logic. Psychologists first found that an appeal that contained a mild threat and evoked low levels of anxiety was more effective than an appeal that evoked very high levels of anxiety (Hovland et al., 1953). Later research suggested that moderate levels of anxiety might be more effective (Leventhal, 1970). That means you need enough fear to get people's attention, but not so much that you make them run for their lives. If the message is boring, people don't pay attention to it. If they are too violent, they will be repelled. Persuaders, however, need to do more than frighten the audience; You must also offer a possible solution. If the message is that cigarette smoking poses major health risks, and if the communicator doesn't offer smokers a method to quit, attitudes or behavior are unlikely to change. The smoker is motivated to change their behavior when they are offered effective ways to deal with the threat. This principle corresponds to the Yale group's idea that people accept arguments that benefit them. Of course, people tend to avoid messages that make them uncomfortable. This simple fact needs to be considered when determining a persuasion strategy. For example, a strong appeal to fear on television is not very effective. The message is only present with our consent; We can switch channels at any time. For this reason, the American Cancer Society's most effective anti-smoking advert was a cartoon character called "Johnny Smoke," a long, tall cowboy cigarette. He was repeatedly asked, while fuming from his gun, "Johnny Smoke, how many men did you shoot today?" That was it: no direct threats, no explicit conclusions about the harms of smoking. It was discreet and the public could draw their own conclusions. Despite evidence that strong fear messages tend to repel people, fear appeals are widely used in health education, politics, and advertising. The assumption is that scaring people will convince them to quit smoking or vote for a particular candidate or buy a particular product (Gleicher & Petty, 1992). Does fear work? Sometimes yes.

Chapter 6

persuasion and attitude change.

In a study of the effects of low versus high anxiety, Gleicher and Petty (1992) asked Ohio State University students to listen to one of four different simulated radio reports about campus crime. The transmissions were moderate anxiety (crime was presented as a serious problem) or only moderate anxiety (crime was not presented as a serious problem). In addition to manipulating fear, the researchers varied whether the appeals included a clear assurance that something could be done about the crime (a crime surveillance program) or that little could be done (ie, crime surveillance programs were working). The researchers also varied the strength of the arguments; Some participants heard strong arguments and others weak arguments. In other words, some participants heard strong arguments in favor of crime surveillance programs, while others heard compelling arguments that crime surveillance programs don't work. In the weak argument condition, some participants heard weak arguments in favor of crime watch programs, while others heard equally weak arguments against the effectiveness of crime watch programs. With all of these variations on the persuasive message, the speaker was the same person with the same highly credible track record. The researchers found that under low-anxiety conditions, strong persuasive arguments elicited more attitude changes than weak arguments, regardless of whether the programs were designed to be effective. In other words, when the crime did not appear to be a crisis situation, the students were not very upset by the news or the possible outcome (effectiveness of the crime surveillance program) and were simply swayed by the power of the arguments. However, people who listened to moderately scary shows focused on solutions to the crime problem. When there was a clear expectation that something could be done about crime on campus, strong and weak arguments were equally compelling. If the students were convinced of a favorable outcome, they stopped worrying and investigating the news. But when the effectiveness of crime-fighting programs was questioned, students distinguished between strong and weak arguments. In other words, when there was no clear guarantee that something effective could be done, fear motivated participants to carefully consider the messages, so they tended to be persuaded by strong arguments. Again, concern for the outcome prompted her to carefully examine the messages. What we do know from the study by Petty and Gleicher (1992) is that anxiety initially motivates us to find a calming and readily available remedy. We accept an answer uncritically if you promise that everything will be fine. But if there is no such promise, then we have to start thinking for ourselves. Therefore, fear combined with the lack of a clear and effective solution (in this case, a crime-fighting program) prompts us to carefully analyze possible solutions. Remember, Petty and the likes weren't dealing with really great fear. Ethical considerations prevent researchers from creating such a situation in the laboratory. It could be that very high anxiety blocks critical thinking for most of us. So what do we know about the effectiveness of using fear to persuade? The first point is that when we scare people, it's a good idea to reassure them that they can protect themselves from the threat we pose. The protective motivation explanation of how fear appeals work argues that bullying motivates us to think about ways to protect ourselves (Rogers, 1983). We are willing to take the trouble to weigh the arguments carefully. But according to the cognitive miser's strategy, if we don't have to analyze arguments, we won't do it. What is the conclusion about the effectiveness of fear appeals? Based on the available research, we can conclude that fear appeals are most effective when four conditions are met (Pratkanis & Aronson, 1992):

193

194

social psychology

1. The appeal generates a relatively large amount of fear. 2. The resource provides specific advice on how to avoid the dire consequences described in the resource. 3. The aim of the function is to effectively avoid the serious consequences described in the function. 4. The target of the appeal believes they can take the recommended actions to avoid dire consequences.

The meaning of time: primacy versus actuality

Primacy law The law of persuasion which states that the first persuasive argument received is more persuasive than subsequent persuasive arguments.

Figure 6.3 Conditions favoring a primacy (top) or recency (bottom) effect. Priority or timeliness depends on when a delay is introduced.

The effectiveness of any attempt at persuasion depends on using an effective strategy, including the timing of the message delivery. When is the best time to deliver your message? If you had the opportunity to present your message in a debate before or after your opponent, which would you choose? In general, belief situations such as this are governed by a law of primacy (Lawson, 1969). That is, the message presented first has more impact than the message presented second. However, the law of primacy does not always apply. It depends on the structure of the situation. A primacy effect occurs when two messages follow each other and there is a delay between the second message and the audience's reaction or evaluation. In this situation, the first message has the greatest impact. However, if there is a delay between the two messages and a reply or evaluation occurs shortly after the second message, we see a recency effect: the second message has a greater impact (Figure 6.3). Primacy and recency effects are most evident under certain conditions when both sides have equally strong arguments and when the listeners are reasonably motivated to understand them. When one side has a much stronger argument than the other, listeners are likely to be persuaded by the strong argument, whether it comes first or last (Haugtvedt & Wegener, 1993). When listeners are highly motivated and deeply interested in the topic, they are more likely to be influenced by the first argument (primacy effect) than later listeners (Haugtvedt & Wegener, 1993).

Chapter 6

persuasion and attitude change.

195

Tailoring the Message to the Audience The Yale group was also interested in constructing and presenting persuasive messages. One of his insights was that messages have to be presented differently to different target groups. For example, an educated or highly engaged audience needs a different type of persuasive message than an uneducated or non-engaged audience. Rational arguments are effective with educated or analytical listeners (Cacioppo, Petty, & Morris, 1983). Emotional appeals work better with less educated or less analytical groups.

One-sided versus two-sided messages The type of audience also influences how a message is constructed. For less educated and uninformed audiences, a one-sided message works better. In a one-page message, he only presents his version of the problem and draws conclusions for the audience. For an educated and well-informed audience, a two-way message works best. The more educated audience is probably already aware of the other side of the argument. If you try to convince them with a one-sided argument, they might question your motives. Even well-trained listeners can draw their own conclusions. They will probably resent you if you draw conclusions for them. Thus, a more educated audience will be more likely to be persuaded by a two-sided argument (Hovland, Janis, & Kelley, 1953). Unilateral and bilateral appeals also have different effects depending on the initial public attitude. In general, a one-page message is effective when the audience already agrees with your position. When the audience is against your position, a two-way message works best. When deciding on an approach, you should consider the background of the audience and their level of education. Two-way appeal is best when your audience is educated, regardless of your starting position. A one-sided appeal works best with an uneducated audience that already agrees with you.

Inoculate the audience When presenting a two-sided message, you don't want to inadvertently convince the audience of the other side. Therefore, it is best to present this side in a tinted form to 'vaccinate' the audience against it (McGuire, 1985). When you present a watered-down message, the audience presents their own arguments against it: “Well, that's obviously not true! Any fool can see through this argument! Who do you think they're kidding? The audience is convinced that the argument is wrong. Vaccination theory is based on the medical model of vaccination. People are given a weakened version of a bacterium or virus so they can develop the antibodies to fight the disease themselves. Similarly, by trying to get people on your side, you give them a watered-down version of the counter-argument and allow them to develop their own defense against it. In a study of the effects of vaccination, McGuire and Papageorgis (1961) subjected participants to an attack on their belief that brushing their teeth prevents tooth decay. Obviously, everyone believes that brushing your teeth is beneficial. It's a cultural truism, something we all accept without thinking or questioning. Therefore, if anyone questions these truisms, we may have no defense. Participants in one group heard an attack on the platitude of brushing teeth. A second group received a supportive endorsement that reinforced the concept that brushing your teeth is good for you. A third group was vaccinated, who first heard a mild attack on the platitude and then heard a defense of brushing their teeth. A fourth group, the control group, received no messages. Of the three groups that heard a message, the 'vaccinated' group was the most likely to believe that brushing would be beneficial (Figure 6.4). Indeed folks

Inoculation Theory The theory that when a communicator exposes an audience to a weakened version of an opposing argument, the audience develops counter-arguments to that weakened version and later avoids persuading with stronger arguments.

196

social psychology

Figure 6.4 The effect of vaccination. A persuasive attack on a truism resulted in a decrease in belief in the validity of the truism unless participants were first "vaccinated" with a weakened form of the persuasive message before receiving the attack message. Based on data from McGuire and Papageorgis (1961).

The vaccinated group who received a mild rebuttal of the platitude were more likely to believe in the benefits of brushing their teeth than those who only heard a defense supporting the platitude. Why does vaccination work? The study we just reviewed suggests that vaccination motivates people to develop their own counter-arguments and makes them more likely to believe the persuader's point of view. Forewarned is really armed in this case. Vaccination also appears to work by improving the accessibility of settings, or the ease with which a person can remember a setting (Pfau et al., 2003). According to Pfau et al. Vaccination works by making an attitude more accessible, which increases the strength of that attitude and its resistance to change.

The Role of Dissent Another aspect of the audience that a persuader needs to consider is their pre-existing attitude toward the message the persuader is trying to convey. For example, imagine you are delivering a pro-abortion message to a room full of people with strong anti-abortion sentiments. Obviously, your message is very different from your audience's pre-existing attitudes. This is a high discrepancy situation. On the other hand, if you're trying to convince a whole roomful of people to abortion, your message won't differ much from attitudes that already exist. This is an example of a minor discrepancy. Anyway, I wouldn't expect much persuasion. In the first case, your message is very different from what your audience already has; They will dismiss your message without much thought. In the second case, you're basically saying what your audience already believes, so there won't be much persuasion or changing attitudes. In general, a moderate discrepancy produces the greatest change. The discrepancy interacts with the characteristics of the communicator. A highly trusted communicator can bring about change even when conveying a highly contradictory message, one that we would normally reject or one that contradicts a stereotype. In one study, researchers found that Scottish participants had certain stereotypes of male barbers and "skinheads" (Macrae, Shepherd & Milne, 1992). The male barbers were

Chapter 6

persuasion and attitude change.

197

as tame and skinheads as aggressive. However, a report by a psychiatrist who claimed the opposite, namely that a particular barber was aggressive or a skinhead was docile, changed participants' opinions about these two groups. Of course, a trustworthy communicator can't say anything and expect people to believe it. An effective communicator must be aware of the audience's likely perception of the message. Clarence Darrow cautiously took a position he knew the judge would not reject. He did not argue that the death penalty should be abolished, knowing that the judge would not accept such a position. Instead, he argued that the punishment in this particular case was not appropriate because of the defendant's age and mental state: And I say, Your Honor, by all the laws of humanity, by all the laws of justice. . . . Your Excellency must say that, given the state of mind of these boys, it would be outrageous to subject them to the revenge demanded by the state. (Weinberg, 1957, p. 163)

In other words, even highly credible communicators must consider how their message differs from public opinion. For communicators with less credibility, a moderate amount of disagreement works best. Social Judgment Theory How does discrepancy work? Sherif suggested that viewers should make social judgments about the difference between the communicator's position and their own attitude towards an issue (Sherif & Hovland, 1961; Sherif, Sherif & Nebergall, 1965). This social judgment theory argues that the level of personal involvement in a problem determines how the target person evaluates an attempt at persuasion. Sherif suggested that a person's perception of a message falls into one of three judging categories, or latitudes. The range of acceptance is the set of positions that the public would find acceptable. The margin of rejection is the set of arguments that the audience would not accept. A neutral zone between the other two, the uncompromising leeway includes positions that viewers will neither accept nor reject, but will consider. The range of latitudes is affected by how strongly a person feels about the subject, how involved they are with the ego. As Figure 6.5 shows, as participation increases, the scope for acceptance and non-commitment decreases, but the scope for rejection increases (Eagly and Telaak, 1972). In other words, the more important an issue is, the less likely you are to accept a compelling message unless it fits your position. Only messages that fall within your acceptance or perhaps non-binding scope have a chance of convincing you. As the importance of a problem increases, the number of acceptable arguments decreases. Sherif measured the attitudes of Republicans and Democrats in a presidential election and found that highly committed Republicans and Democrats rejected almost all opposing arguments (Sherif et al., 1965). However, voters who were less radical in their compromise were persuaded. Moderates in both parties generally accepted as many of the opposition's arguments as they rejected. So, as Darrow knew, a persuasive message had to be at least within the audience's evasion in order to be accepted.

Several Viewers' Problem On January 23, 1968, the USS Pueblo was stationed in international waters off the coast of North Korea. The Pueblo was a "spy ship" collecting information about North Korea. On the morning of January 23, a North Korean S0-1 submarine approached

social judgment theory An attitude theory that suggests that the degree of personal involvement in a problem determines how a persuasion target judges an attempt at persuasion. Breadth of Acceptance In social judgment theory, the range of an attitude falls within which messages are accepted. Rejection latitude In social judgment theory, the range of an attitude in which messages will be rejected. Non-binding scope In social judgment theory, the area of an attitude in which messages fall that one will neither accept nor reject.

198

social psychology

Fig. 6.5 The effect of commitment to a topic on the size of the margins of rejection and acceptance in social judgment theory. High participation leads to a higher margin of rejection and a lower margin of acceptance.

Multiple Audience Problem In persuasion, the problem that arises when a communicator delivers the same message to two different audiences and wants to convey different meanings to each.

the city at high speed. Simultaneously, three North Korean torpedo boats approached. Eventually, the North Korean ships fired on and eventually boarded the pueblo. One Pueblo crewman was killed and 82 were captured and held in North Korea. During captivity, crew members were beaten, tortured and starved to death. The North Koreans wanted them to confess that they were in fact in North Korean waters to conduct the spy operation. Propaganda photos of the occupation were taken and widely distributed. The team's films were shot in staged situations that made it appear as if team members were cooperating. Some crew members decided to send a message home explaining that they were made to say and do things. In one example, some crew members prominently displayed the "Hawaiian auspicious sign" (also known as a finger) on their face or on their legs. Captain Bucher read the statements monotonously to make him sound stunned. The dilemma the Pueblo team faced was sending two messages to two different audiences. For one thing, they had to placate their captors by being cooperative. On the other hand, they wanted to let the American public and their family and friends know that they did not agree with what they were being forced to do and say. This is the multi-audience problem: how to convey different meanings in the same message to different audiences (Fleming, Darley, Hilton & Kojetin, 1990; Van Boven, Kruger, Savitsky & Gilovich, 2000). How do people deal with these difficult situations? Researchers interested in this question had communicators send messages to audiences composed of friends and strangers (Fleming et al., 1990). The communicators were motivated to send a message that conveyed the truth to friends but misled strangers. The participants in this experiment were pretty keenly aware when their friends were lying. Strangers weren't so accurate. Remember the basic attribution error and correspondence bias from Chapter 3: We tend to believe that people mean what they say. In general, we are not very good at detecting lies (Ekman, 1985).

Chapter 6

persuasion and attitude change.

199

The friends were also able to pick up on the communicator's hidden message because they shared some common knowledge. For example, one communicator said she was going to Wales, a country her friends knew she loved, and doing her travel shopping at a department store her friends knew she hated. The message was clear to those who knew her: she is lying. The department store reference was a private key understood by close friends. This allows communicators to convey different meanings in the same message. They use special private keys that only the public understands. We often see private keys used in political ads, especially those designed to evoke stereotypes and emotional responses. Another example of the multiple audience problem is when you need to manage different people for different people at the same time. For example, if your boss and a potential date are attending a party you're at, you probably want to project a "professional" personality onto your boss and a more "fun" personality onto your romantic relationship. We can do this? Can we actually hold very different characters simultaneously and successfully communicate to the appropriate target while hiding the other character from the person we don't want to see? The answer seems to be that we can. In an experiment, Van Boven, Kruger, Savitsky, and Gilovich (2000) had participants project a “party” personality onto an observer during an interaction session. The same participant then projected onto a second observer the role of a "serious scholar". In a third interaction session, the participant interacted with both observers simultaneously. The task of the participant was to maintain the right personality at the same time as having the right observer. The results showed that the participants were quite successful with the task. In fact, participants tended to be overconfident in their ability to successfully project both personas onto the appropriate observers.

The Cognitive Approach to Persuasion You may have noticed that in the Yale persuasion model, the audience seems to be nothing more than a target for messages. People just sit back and accept whether they accept the message or not. Cognitive response approaches, on the other hand, emphasize active audience participation (Greenwald, 1968). The cognitive approach examines why people react to a message the way they do, why they say a message is interesting, or why a communicator is biased. Cognitively-oriented social psychologists emphasize that persuasive communication can trigger a set of related experiences, memories, feelings, and thoughts that people use to process the message. Therefore, it is crucial what a person thinks when hearing the persuasive message and how they use those thoughts, feelings, and memories to analyze the message. We now turn to the individual's cognitive response to the persuasive message.

The Elaboration Likelihood Model A well-known cognitive response model is the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM). This model, first proposed by Petty and Cacioppo (1986), makes it clear that the audience is not just a passive recipient, but an active participant in the persuasion process. Your attentiveness, engagement, distraction, motivation, self-esteem, education, and intelligence determine the success of persuasive appeals. The elaboration probability model owes much to the Yale model and incorporates much of Yale's research on key roles.

Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) A cognitive persuasion model that suggests that a target's attention, engagement, distraction, motivation, self-esteem, education, and intelligence influence central and/or peripheral processing of a persuasive message.

200

social psychology

of communicator and message. His main focus, however, is the role of the audience, specifically their emotions and motivations. According to ELM, there are two pathways to persuasion: a central processing pathway and a peripheral processing pathway. Persuasion can be accomplished in any of these ways.

Core Pathway Processing Core Pathway Processing In ELM, information can be processed through controlled and elaborate mechanisms that require attention, understanding, and careful processing of the content of a persuasive message.

Central path processing involves the elaboration of the message by the listener. This type of processing usually occurs when the individual considers the message personally relevant and has pre-existing ideas and beliefs on the subject. The individual uses these ideas and beliefs to create context for the message by reinforcing and elaborating on the new information. Since the message is relevant, the person is motivated to listen carefully and to make an effort to process it. For example, a juror hearing evidence that he understands and finds interesting will generate a variety of ideas and responses. As you take in the message, compare it to what you already know and believe. At Leopold and Loeb's trial, Judge Caverly could have continued Darrow's argument for life imprisonment, recalling that no one had ever been sentenced to death by a voluntary plea in the Chicago courts, and no one as young as the defendants , had been convicted. been hung However, writing a message does not always lead to acceptance. If the message doesn't make sense or doesn't fit the person's knowledge and beliefs, the elaboration can lead to rejection. Judge Caverly, for example, may have focused on the brutal and ruthless attitude Leopold and Loeb took towards Bobby Franks. If Darrow had not assembled a coherent argument to fit the evidence, the judge would likely have dismissed his argument. But the story Darrow told made sense. Emphasizing his clients' "sick minds," aided by the suggestion that they were probably born "perverts," he explained the inexplicable: why Bobby Franks was killed. At the same time, it made Leopold and Loeb seem less responsible. Darrow then provided the judge with credible explanations that he could expand upon in reaching the verdict. Central routing processors construct the message by filling in the blanks with their own knowledge and beliefs. Messages processed in this way become more firmly attached to other attitudes and are therefore more resistant to change. The attitude change that results from processing the core path is stable, long-lasting, and difficult to undo.

Edge Route Processing

Edge path processing ELM can process information using edge or edge to the content message signals.

What if the listener isn't motivated, can't understand the message, or just doesn't like dealing with new or complex information? In these cases, the listener follows a different route of persuasion, a peripheral route. With peripheral route processing, listeners rely on more than just the message to make their decisions; they are persuaded by peripheral or marginal clues to the message. For example, a juror may be favorably influenced by the defendant's appearance. Or maybe you remember when your uncle was in a similar situation and you think, "He or she wasn't guilty either." Emotional cues are very effective in persuading peripheral routing processors (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). Recall the experiment on the effects of fear appeals in campus police messages: a strong emotional appeal offering a reassuring solution was accepted regardless of whether the argument itself was strong or weak. Participants did not process centrally; they paid no attention to the quality of the argument. They simply wanted confirmation, and the existence of a possible solution acted as a peripheral cue, convincing them that the argument must be valid. High or moderate anxiety makes us accept any comforting solution that comes our way.

Chapter 6

persuasion and attitude change.

Familiar phrases or clichés embedded in persuasive messages can serve as peripheral cues for persuasion (Howard, 1997). Howard compared familiar (don't put all your eggs in one basket) and literal (don't risk everything at once) phrases to persuade via the peripheral route. Howard found that familiar phrases evoked more persuasion under conditions of low attitudinal involvement (peripheral pathway) than under conditions of high involvement (central pathway). Familiar phrases were also more effective than literal phrases when the subject was distracted from the message and when the goal of persuasive communication had little need for cognition. Peripheral route processing usually results in a change in attitude, but since the listener has not worked out the message, the change is not very stable and is susceptible to back pressure (Kassin, Reddy, & Tulloch, 1990). A central jury will stand firm in its conclusions about the evidence, but a peripheral jury will be an easy target for the next court persuader (ForsterLee, Horowitz, & Bourgeois, 1993). Although we have distinguished between central and peripheral routes, message processing is not an either/or. In fact, you can process some parts of a message centrally and others peripherally. For example, a jury may be interested in and understand the scientific evidence presented at trial and centrally process that information. However, when an economist takes a stance, the jury may become bored or consider people in bow ties unreliable, and so marginalize the statement.

The effect of humor on processing Many speakers try to get the audience in a good mood before presenting their arguments. They tell a joke or a funny story, or say something designed to make the audience feel positive. Is that a good strategy? Does that make an argument more convincing? It depends. When people are in a good mood, they tend to get distracted. Good mood brings with it many pleasant feelings and memories associated with it. Everything looks pink. People in a good mood are not good at concentrating on the news; they cannot process the information centrally. In a study of the influence of mood, people were placed in a good or neutral mood and given unlimited or very limited time to listen to a message (Mackie & Worth, 1989). The strength of the persuasive messages also varied: one message contained strong arguments; the others only weak arguments. The researchers argued that for participants who were in a good mood, strong and weak arguments were equally effective. As shown in Figure 6.6, this was the case, but only when there was only a limited amount of time to study the news. People in a good mood do not differentiate between strong and weak arguments because they are not processed centrally. However, good feelings do not always prevent central processing. If cheerful people are motivated to carefully evaluate and shape a message and given enough time, they will process it centrally. Good humor does not directly affect their attitude, but can make them think more positively about the message when it is strong and they have time to think about it (Petty, Schumann, Richman, & Strathman, 1993). Good thoughts lead to a positive change in attitude. For those using peripheral signaling pathway processing, good mood does not lead to more positive thoughts and then a positive attitude change. These people don't think about the message and don't work on it. Instead, for them, a good mood leads directly to a change in attitude. Humor can act as a resource and help protect us from the effects of negative information, increasing the likelihood that personally relevant negative information will be centrally processed (Raghunathan & Trope, 2002). According to the humor-as-a-resource hypothesis, good humor acts as a buffer against the emotional effects of

201

Adapted from Mackie and Worth (1989).

neutral mood

Limited positive vibes

Limited

Unlimited

2 1,8 1,6 1,4 1,2 1 0,8 0,6 0,4 0,2 0

conviction

Figure 6.6 The impact of mood and turnaround time on the impact of a persuasive message. When people are in a good mood and have little time to process the message, there is no argument strength effect. With unlimited time, participants are more persuaded by strong arguments. In a neutral setting, participants are more likely to be persuaded by strong than weak arguments, regardless of time constraints.

social psychology

conviction

202

Strong Weak Message strength

Unlimited

2 1,8 1,6 1,4 1,2 1 0,8 0,6 0,4 0,2 0

Strong Weak Message strength

negative information, which allows us to focus on what we can learn from the information (Raghunathan & Trope, 2002). Raghunathan and Trope conducted a series of experiments demonstrating this effect. For example, in one experiment, participants (heavy or low caffeine consumers) were tricked into being in a good or bad mood. They were then exposed to personally relevant negative information about caffeine consumption. The results showed that participants who consumed large amounts of caffeine recalled more negative information about caffeine when they were in a good mood than when they were in a bad mood (there was no such effect in participants who consumed small amounts of caffeine). . In a second experiment, researchers found that negative information about caffeine made caffeine users more persuasive when they were in a good mood. Figure 6.7 shows how good mood affects central and peripheral processors differently. Thus, the relationship between potentially biased factors in persuasion, such as the communicator's humor or sympathy, is complex. The variables that influence the persuasion process are still at work when a person is motivated to centrally process a message (Petty, Wegener, & White, 1998). Petty and Wegener (1993) proposed the Flexible Correction Model (FCM) to understand how bias variables (FCM) affect a model that fixes the persuasion process. According to FCM, people using central route processing (highly motivated) People using the central route are biased by the bias variables because they are unaware of the processing they are being biased by the potential effects of the bias variable. mood) during a belief situation bias variables because (Petty et al., 1998). In addition, the correction for polarization conditions must be performed according to the unknown of the FCM potential under the following influence of the polarization conditions (p. 95): polarization conditions. 1. When a person is motivated to look for bias variables. 2. When a person finds sources of potential bias after a survey. 3. When a person develops ideas or theories about the nature of the bias. 4. When a person is motivated and has the ability to correct the bias variable.

Chapter 6

persuasion and attitude change.

203

Fig. 6.7 The effect of mood on central or peripheral pathway processing. When central path processing is used, good mood leads to the generation of positive thoughts that affect attitudes. When peripheral path processing is used, good mood directly affects attitudes, preventing the generation of positive thoughts. Adapted from Petty, Schumann, Richman and Strathman (1993).

In two experiments, Petty et al. (1998) reviewed the assumptions of the FCM. In their first experiment, Petty and his colleagues varied the liking of a message's source (likable and unpleasant) along with asking whether participants were instructed to correct the liking information. Petty and his colleagues found that in the absence of corrective direction, the sympathetic source resulted in an attitude change toward the position advocated in a persuasive message (positive attitude change), while the evil source resulted in an attitude change toward the opposite led (negative attitude). change). ). change of activity). This is the usual result of manipulating such variables. However, when participants were instructed to correct the source's liking, the results were exactly the opposite. The unpleasant source led to a positive attitude change, while the pleasant source led to a negative attitude change. Also, there were more fixes for the awkward font than for the beautiful font. In their second experiment, Petty and her colleagues added a third variable: whether participants used high- or low-elaboration strategies. When participants used low-elaboration strategies and no corrective instructions were given, the pleasant source generated more persuasion than the unpleasant source. However, when a correction order was given, the sympathetic and awkward sources were equally compelling. The opposite occurred with high-elaboration strategies. Here, in the uncorrected state, the pleasant and unpleasant sources generated equal levels of persuasion, while the unpleasant source elicited more attitude changes than the agreeable source in the correction instruction. The results of both studies suggest that when people become aware of a biasing factor (liking or humor), they are motivated to correct the biasing factor under high- and low-elaboration conditions. Therefore, once humans become aware of such biasing factors, they can no longer influence belief when peripheral route processing is used. Furthermore, such factors must not affect the processing of topic-relevant information contained in a persuasive message when central route processing is used (Petty et al., 1998). It appears that the mechanisms for correcting the bias factor work independently of the mechanisms for processing the message content (Petty et al., 1998).

204

social psychology

high participation

From Cacioppo and Goldman (1981).

weak arguments

strong arguments

0,8

0,6

Average attitude rating

Figure 6.8 The effects of audience participation, source experience, and argument strength.

Average attitude rating

strong arguments

little involvement

0,4 0,2 0 –0,2 –0,4

weak arguments

0,4 0,2 0 –0,2 –0,4 –0,6 –0,8

–0,6

High Low Source of knowledge

The Impact of Personal Relevance on Processing Another factor affecting processing along central and peripheral pathways is personal relevance. When an issue is important to us and affects our well-being, we pay more attention to the quality of the message. In one study, college students were told that the college president wanted all seniors to pass a comprehensive exam before graduation (Petty, Cacioppo, & Goldman, 1981). Attendees who heard the high-profile version of this message were told that the policy would come into effect the following year and would therefore affect them. Participants who heard the low relevance version were told that the directive would not be implemented for several years and therefore would not affect them. Researchers also varied the quality of arguments and the experience of the communicator. Half of the participants heard persuasive arguments and the other half weaker arguments. Half were told the plan was based on a report from a local high school class (low comms experience) and the other half were told the source was the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education (high experience). Results showed that relevance influenced the type of processing participants used (Figure 6.8). Students who thought the change would affect them were more persuaded by the strong than the weak argument. In other words, they carefully examined the arguments using centralized processing. Students who thought the change would not affect them simply trusted the communicator's expertise. They were convinced when they thought the plan was based on the Carnegie Commission report, regardless of whether the arguments were strong or weak. In other words, low relevance increases the impact of the communicator's credibility and increases the likelihood that listeners will use peripheral processing. Does high relevance mean that you are always convinced by well-founded and rational arguments? No way. A topic can be very relevant to you because it implies an important personal value. In this case, even a very convincing argument is unlikely to change your mind. In the current debate on abortion, for example, an extreme position

Chapter 6

persuasion and attitude change.

Both sides are based on core values related to privacy, coercion and the nature of life. The question is certainly relevant to people with extreme views, but no argument is likely to persuade them to change their views. However, when an issue is highly relevant because of a particular outcome rather than its value, a strong and persuasive argument can work (Johnson & Eagly, 1989). If you are strongly opposed to taking a comprehensive final exam, you could include a persuasive message about the outcome, such as: Finally, the impact of a personally relevant message on core path processing is also related to a process called self-affirmation (which we will discuss in more detail later in this chapter). In short, self-assertion means affirming and maintaining one's self-image (Steele, 1988). Assertiveness can be particularly important when personally relevant information is threatening (Harris & Napper, 2005). According to Harris and Napper, self-assertion promotes the processing of threatening information along the central pathway. Harris and Napper demonstrated this in an experiment in which college-age women were exposed to a "health promotion pamphlet" that linked alcohol consumption to breast cancer risk. Some of the participants wrote an essay describing the values that were most important to them and how they affected their daily life (self-affirmation condition), while other participants wrote about their least important values. Based on responses to a pre-experimental alcohol consumption questionnaire, participants were divided into two groups: high-risk women and low-risk women. The results showed that high-risk women who were self-affirmed were more likely to accept the content of the message contained in the health brochure than those who were not self-affirmed. Additionally, women in this group reported a perceived increased risk of developing breast cancer, experienced more negative feelings when reading the package insert, and showed greater intent to reduce alcohol consumption. Interestingly, these effects lasted for weeks. For example, self-affirmation can improve the central processing of a personally relevant threat message (Harris & Napper, 2005) and better assess the merits of the threat message (Correll, Spencer & Zanna, 2004).

The Influence of Attitudinal Accessibility on Processing In addition to the relevance of a persuasive message to an individual, processing of a persuasive message is also influenced by attitudinal accessibility. Attitude accessibility refers to the ease with which an attitude can be automatically activated when the corresponding attitude object is encountered (Fabrigar, Priester, Petty, & Wegener, 1998). Attitude accessibility is a dimension along which the strength of an attitude can be measured. Very accessible attitudes tend to be stronger than less accessible attitudes. Fabrigar and colleagues argued that accessible settings can improve message design because relevant information about settings is more readily available than in less accessible settings. Fabrigar and colleagues (1998) conducted two experiments to examine the role of attitude accessibility in persuasion. In the first experiment, attitude accessibility was measured and participants' attitudes were rated as low, moderate, or high accessibility. Researchers manipulated the quality of arguments presented in a persuasive message about nuclear energy (high or low quality). The results of Experiment 1 confirmed that those with high attitudes towards accessibility were more likely to craft the persuasive message than those with low attitudes towards accessibility. In particular, the quality of arguments improved attitudes between moderate and high

205

206

social psychology

accessible settings, but not for low accessibility settings. This effect was stronger in people with very accessible attitudes. The data from the second experiment confirmed the first. The conclusion is that attitude accessibility conveys the amount of elaboration a person will exhibit when exposed to a persuasive message. A high level of accessibility (high attitude strength) is associated with increased checking of the message content (central path processing). When attitude accessibility is low (a weak attitude), a person is less likely to carefully examine the content of the persuasive message.

Are living messages more persuasive than non-living messages? How does aliveness affect belief? Does it make a difference in our attitude or our behavior? Advertisers and other persuaders certainly believe that vivid messages presented in attractive or enticing terms are persuasive. Social psychologists interested in this question have observed: "Everyone knows that information presented vividly is powerful and persuasive" (Taylor & Thompson, 1982, p. 155). However, when these researchers examined the living literature, they found very weak evidence for the persuasiveness of living materials. In a study of the liveliness effect, people were given live and non-live versions of crime stories in the news (Collins, Taylor, Wood, & Thompson, 1988). The lively versions used colorful language and delivered bizarre detail. People listened to a living or non-living story and then rated its quality in terms of emotion, imagery, interest, etc., as well as its persuasiveness. In a second study, people also had to predict how others would react to the stories. The studies found no evidence of a vitality effect; living messages were almost as persuasive as non-living messages. However, people believed that living messages influenced other people. What influenced the participants if aliveness didn't? Interest: When the message included an interesting topic, people thought the message was more effective. Keep in mind the implications of personal relevance when building your belief probability model. On the other hand, some messages like political ads seem to benefit from liveliness; maybe they work because they interest people and force them to pay more attention than usual. One study examined the impact of descriptive language in litigation between a contractor and a subcontractor on a construction project (Wilson, Northcraft, & Neale, 1989). The jury viewed various videotapes of the trial. One version had lively sentences; the other non-living language (p. 135): 1. There was a network of cracks in the plate. (lively) There was a network of cracks in the plate. (not lively) 2. The slab was uneven and needed sanding. (alive) The tile was rough and needed sanding. (not animated) Jurors tended to award plaintiff more money when they heard animated sentences. So is there a vibrancy effect or not? Based on the evidence, it appears that living messages have an initial impact, especially when little else competes with them. In the trial situation, illustrative information had a strong impact when the jury was presented with a lot of evidence that was not directly relevant to their decision, such as:

Chapter 6

persuasion and attitude change.

207

a history of the construction project and photos of the construction site. The jury then heard the animated language ("a network of cracks in the slab"). Given the background of irrelevant information, they were influenced by a vivid message or two they heard. How can we reconcile the seemingly conflicting results on the impact of aliveness? One approach suggests that the impact of vividness depends on the amount of cognitive resources expended in processing a persuasive message (Meyers-Levy & Peracchio, 1995). According to Meyers-Levy and Peracchio, the impact of living information depends on the degree of match between the resources available to a person to process a message and the resources required to adequately process the information. According to Myers-Levy and Peracchio, vivid language or illustrations should have the greatest impact when a persuasive message requires relatively few resources and a person is highly motivated to process the message. On the other hand, for a highly motivated individual and a compelling message that requires a high level of resources, vibrant content may not have much impact. When a person is not highly motivated to process a message, liveliness serves as a peripheral cue and has a significant impact on belief. Myers-Levy and Peracchio (1995) performed two experiments to confirm these predicted relationships. In their first experiment, they found that for highly motivated people, a sophisticated persuasive message (an advertisement for a bicycle) was more effective when the intensity was low (a black-and-white photograph of the bicycle and model was used). For a less demanding message, a vivid message (a full color display) was more effective. In the second experiment, low-motivated and high-motivated subjects were included. They found that for people with low motivation, a vivid message was more effective than a less vivid message. For highly motivated people, the effect of vividness (color) depended on the level of resources required to process the message (as described above). These results were supported by three experiments by Keller Punam and Block (1997). In a situation where a lot of information has already been provided (low demand) or when the audience is particularly interested in the topic, a vivid message may not have a significant impact. However, when people aren't particularly interested, a vibrant message can have a significant impact. In other words, liveness is a peripheral signal. If people find the message interesting and personally relevant, they process it centrally, and vividness has little effect. But when the cognitive miser is at work, a vivid message can have a significant impact on attitudes.

Need for insight: Some like to do it the hard way Some people prefer centralized route processing, regardless of the situation or the complexity of the evidence. These people have a high need for cognition (NC). According to Cacioppo, Petty, and Morris (1983), people with high NC enjoy tackling difficult and time-consuming problems. On a scale that assesses this cognitive trait, they agree with statements such as "I really enjoy a task that elicits new problem solving" and disagree with statements such as "I only think about what I have to." People high in CN are concerned about the validity of the messages they receive, suggesting that they rely primarily on central processing pathways (Cacioppo et al., 1983). People with high NC also organize information in a way that allows them to remember messages and use them later (Lassiter, Briggs, & Bowman, 1991). Those with low cognitive needs tend to pay more attention to the speaker's physical characteristics, indicating peripheral processing (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986).

Need for Cognition (NC) A dimension of individual belief differences regarding the degree to which individuals prefer to process information with effort.

208

social psychology

People with high CL are also better able to discern the authenticity of persuasive information than people with low CL (Engleberg & Sjöberg, 2005). Engleberg and Sjöberg showed individual high and low NC films on the risks of nuclear power. One of the films was the feature film The China Syndrome, the other the film Chernobyl: The Final Warning, based on a book by a bone marrow specialist. Engleberg and Sjöberg found that subjects with high CL were more likely to identify Chernobyl as an actual event than subjects with low CL. Interestingly, however, both high and low NC subjects rated the risks of nuclear power at the same level, regardless of which movie they watched. Research also shows that people with high CL are less likely to deviate from a course of action that has a disappointing outcome than people with low CL (Ratner & Herbst, 2005). Ratner and Herbst report that people tend to walk away from a disappointing strategy based on emotional responses, rather than focusing on more cognition-based beliefs. Apparently, people with high cognitive needs are more likely to focus on cognitive aspects and are not driven by emotional responses. Research into probabilistic models for elaboration shows that people who need to process information centrally (people with a high NC) accept and resist persuasive arguments differently than people with a low need for cognition. Because they process centrally, they create the messages they hear. They are influenced by the qualities of the tone or product advertised rather than peripheral cues (Haugtvedt, Petty, & Cacioppo, 1992). On the other hand, people with low NC are more likely to focus on peripheral aspects of information or an announcement (Sicilia, Ruiz, & Munuera, 2005). Finally, individuals with high NC hold on to newly formed attitudes longer and are more resistant to counter-talk (Haugtvedt & Petty, 1992).

Heuristic and systematic information processing model (HSM) A cognitive persuasion model that suggests that of the two routes to persuasion, systematic and heuristic, people are more likely to use heuristics or peripheral cues.

The Heuristic Belief Model A second cognitive belief model is the heuristic and systematic information processing model (HSM). The HSM proposed by Chaiken (1987) has much in common with the ELM. As with ELM, there are two ways of processing information: systematic and heuristic. Systematic processing in HSM is essentially the same as central processing in ELM, and heuristic processing is the same as peripheral processing. As you recall from Chapter 3, heuristics are simple guides or shortcuts that people use to make decisions when something is getting too complicated or when they are too lazy to process it systematically. The main difference between the two theories lies in the HSM's assertion that reliance on heuristics is more common than is generally believed (Chaiken, Liberman, & Eagly, 1989). When motivation and understanding are not high, people mostly rely on heuristics. Some of these heuristics might be: "Experts can be trusted." "The majority must be right." “She's from the Midwest; you have to trust her. "If it was on the evening news, it must be true." The heuristic processing can be compared to scanning newspaper headlines. The information you receive is minimal and the accuracy or relevance of the title is determined by these simple rules. "Congress fails to agree on budget," reads the headline. Your answer would be to quickly check the available heuristics that might explain the title. Here it is: "Politicians are incompetent." Next title please. The HSM suggests that people are more likely to agree with communicators who are experts and messages with which most people agree. Once again we see the cognitive miser in action.

Chapter 6

persuasion and attitude change.

209

Cognitive Dissonance Theory: A Model of Self-Persuasion Direct persuasion by a communicator is not the only way to change attitudes or behavior. Attitude changes can also occur when we find that our existing attitudes conflict with new information or when our behavior is inconsistent with our beliefs. Festinger (1957) observed that people try to appear coherent. When we act against what we believe or think, we have to justify the contradiction. In other words, if we say one thing and do another, we need a good reason. We often convince ourselves that we have a good reason, even if it means changing our previous attitudes. Inconsistency is therefore one of the main motivations for changing attitudes.

Cognitive dissonance theory Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance posits that we experience an uncomfortable state of arousal called cognitive dissonance when there are contradictions between our attitudes or between our attitudes and our behavior (Festinger, 1957). Dissonant arousal motivates us to change something, our attitudes or behavior, to reduce or eliminate the uncomfortable arousal. Releasing tension helps us achieve consonance, a state of psychological balance. The theory of cognitive dissonance is like the homeostatic theory in biology. Consider what happens when you're hungry: your brain senses an imbalance in blood sugar levels and triggers a physiological state of hunger. He is motivated to reduce this uncomfortable state of arousal by finding and eating food. Likewise, when cognitive consonance is disturbed, tension is felt and motivated to release it. The five main assumptions of the cognitive dissonance theory can be summarized as follows: 1. Attitudes and behavior can be in a consonant (consistent) or dissonant (inconsistent) relationship to one another. 2. The inconsistency between attitudes and behavior leads to a negative motivational state known as cognitive dissonance. 3. Because cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable condition, people are motivated to reduce the dissonance. 4. The greater the amount of dissonance, the greater the motivation to reduce it. 5. Dissonance can be reduced by rationalizing the inconsistency or changing attitudes or behavior.

How does cognitive dissonance lead to attitude changes? How exactly does cognitive dissonance change attitudes? To find out, imagine you were volunteering to take part in a social psychology experiment. He is instructed to sit in front of a tray of items and repeatedly empty and refill the tray over the next hour. To add even more excitement to your day, you will then be asked to thread the pins into the holes one by one. When they complete their tasks, they are asked to tell the next participant how interesting and enjoyable their tasks were. For this, you receive the princely sum of $1. Unnoticed by you, other participants are having the same experience and are also asked to tell an incoming participant how interesting the tasks are, but they receive $20 each.

cognitive dissonance theory A theory of attitude change that states that when there is an inconsistency between our attitudes or between our attitudes and our behavior, we experience an uncomfortable state of arousal called cognitive dissonance, which we are motivated to reduce or eliminate.

210

social psychology

When this classic experiment was conducted in 1959, almost all participants agreed that it misrepresented the fun of the experiment (Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959). A few weeks later, a third party contacted the participants and asked if they liked the study. As it turned out, their answers depended on how much money they received. You could predict that participants who received $20 said they enjoyed the experience more than those who received only $1. Well, that's not the case. Participants who paid $20 said the tasks were boring, and those who paid $1 said they enjoyed the tasks. A third group, the control participants, received no reward and were not informed that no one else had. Like the $20 group, they said the tasks were boring. The cognitive dissonance theory states that changes occur when people experience dissonance. Where is the dissonance in this experiment? Receiving a dollar, even in 1959 a paltry sum, was certainly not sufficient justification for a lie. If a $1 participant viewed the situation logically, it would look like this: "I lied to someone because the researcher asked me to, and I only got $1." Conclusion: "Either I'm a liar or I'm stupid." None of the conclusions fit what we generally think about ourselves. The dissonance is between what we want to think of ourselves and how we behave. So how does the participant resolve the dissonance? The behavior cannot be undone, so the participant convinces himself: “I'm not a liar or a fool, so I must have meant it. I enjoyed the experience.” The $20 participant has an easy-to-find, if not very flattering, justification for the lie: “I needed the money.”

The Reverse Incentive Effect The implications of this study and many others that have replicated the effect over the years are intriguing. One concept that emerged from the original study is the reverse incentive effect: when people are paid a lot for something, they infer that the activity must be difficult, tedious, or risky (Freedman, Cunningham, & Krismer, 1992). Professional athletes who used to gamble for fun can now claim to gamble for $5 million a year. People seem suspicious when they're paid large sums of money to do something they've loved doing to begin with. They feel somewhat anxious and develop a less positive view of the activity (Crano & Sivacek, 1984). Thus, dissonance theory argues that the less reward or threat of punishment is used to get people to behave against their attitudes, the more people have to provide their own justifications for their behavior. The more they have to convince themselves that the behavior is right, the more likely it is that their attitude will change.

The Importance of Free Choice An important condition for the activation of dissonance is whether the behavior was freely chosen or forced. In another study of cognitive dissonance, participants were asked to write an essay in which they took a position that contradicted their actual beliefs (Elkin & Leippe, 1986). Furthermore, they practiced this act of contradictory stance when they felt they had freely chosen to do so. Dissonance theorists call this situation induced complacency. The researchers found that when participants wrote an essay contrary to their beliefs, participants showed greater physiological arousal than if they had written an essay consistent with their beliefs. This finding is consistent with the predictions of cognitive dissonance theory, specifically that dissonance increases feelings of tension (physiological arousal). This study reinforced the finding that people do not experience dissonance unless they choose inconsistent behavior (Brehm & Cohen, 1962). When compelled to do something, coercion is sufficient external justification for the action.

Chapter 6

persuasion and attitude change.

deviant actions. If they don't have to justify their behavior to themselves, there is no self-persuasion. This suggests that attribution processes may play a role in mediating activation and reducing dissonance. We will examine this possibility later in this chapter.

Dissonance after the decision Free choice refers to dissonance in another way, when you have to choose between two equally attractive but different, mutually exclusive alternatives (e.g. between two cars or two jobs). Once a choice is made, dissonance is experienced. It's important to note that post-decision dissonance is not the same as pre-decision conflict, in which you vacillate between the two alternatives. Dissonance after the decision comes after your decision. Here's how it works: Suppose you have enough money to buy a car. There are two cars you are considering that are equally attractive to you. There are a number of positive findings for each car. After you make your choice (assuming you chose Car 1), any positive findings associated with the chosen alternative are consistent with your choice. However, any positive cognitions associated with the non-chosen alternative are now inconsistent with his choice. Dissonance theory predicts that you will take steps to reduce the dissonance associated with the unchosen alternative. One way to reduce the dissonance would be to change your decision (i.e. choose Auto 2). Of course, that won't work, because now all of the cognitions associated with Auto 1 will disagree with your new decision, and the dissonance will remain. You will most likely start thinking negative things about the car you didn't choose to reduce the dissonance. For example, you might think that your insurance costs are higher, the color isn't exactly what you want, and the warranty isn't that good. At the same time, you can also think of more positive things about your chosen car. For example, you can highlight how comfortable the seats are, how good the stereo sound is, and how the color suits you perfectly. The emergence of dissonance after the decision and its subsequent reduction was demonstrated in a classic experiment by Brehm (1956). In this experiment, female participants first rated the convenience of various household products (eg, a toaster). Brehm then offered the women one of two products that were rated either very similarly or very differently. After the women made their choices, they rated the products again. Brehm found that when the two choice alternatives were similarly desirable (a difficult decision), the ratings of the chosen alternative became more positive compared to the original ratings. At the same time, reviews of the unselected product became more negative. This effect was less pronounced when choosing between two products that differed more in terms of convenience (easy decision). In general, the greater the separation between alternatives, the less dissonance there is after a decision is made. After all, choosing between a highly desirable product and an undesirable product is easy. On the other hand, the closer the alternatives are to each other (assuming they are not identical), the more difficult the decision becomes and the more dissonance there is after the decision. Therefore, the greatest post-decision dissonance is realized when you have to choose between two mutually exclusive alternatives (you can only have one) that are equally attractive but different. How do we explain these situations of dissonance of free choice? Shultz and Lepper (1999) suggested that an analogy can be made between dissonance phenomena and the workings of artificial intelligence neural networks. The cognition networks underlie the consonance and dissonance states and are activated by a set of constraints imposed by a problem. For example, when choosing between two cars, you may be constrained by finances, model preference, and color suitability. According to Shultz and Lepper, we try to meet as many constraints as possible with our decision. Meager,

211

212

social psychology

"The motivation to increase cognitive consonance, and thereby reduce dissonance, arises from the various limitations of the beliefs and attitudes that a person holds at any given time" (p. 238). Consonance occurs when similar cognitions are activated and inconsistent cognitions are inhibited. Thus, in the situation of free choice, the connections between positive cognitions associated with an alternative produce consonance. However, for the unchosen alternative, the connections between inconsistent elements (the unchosen alternative and the associated positive cognitions) create dissonance. Shultz and Lepper (1996) performed computer simulations of Brehm's (1956) original experiment and obtained results that agreed very well with Brehm's results. That is, the ratings for the alternative not chosen became more negative, and the ratings for the alternative chosen became only slightly more positive. However, Shultz and Lepper found that participants in Brehm's experiment always made a difficult choice (two products rated very similarly) and between two highly desirable products. Schultz and Lepper found that when participants had to choose between two similarly rated but undesirable products, their ratings of the selected product became much more positive, but their ratings of the unselected product became only slightly more negative. An experiment by Shultz, Leveille, and Lepper (1999) attempted to compare the results of computer simulations of free-choice experiments with the actual behavior of individuals. Participants in this experiment were given a choice of two posters after using a rating scale to indicate how much they liked each poster. The selection parameters varied in difficulty. The choice was easy between two posters: one with a high starting rating and one with a low starting rating. In the "high level of difficulty" condition, you had to choose between two posters, which were rated very positively by the participants. In the “not very difficult” condition, the participants finally had to choose between two poorly rated posters. After the selection process, the participants rated the posters again. The results corresponded to the computer simulations. In the high difficulty condition, the ratings for the non-chosen alternative became significantly more negative, while the ratings for the chosen alternative became only slightly more positive. In the low difficulty condition, the opposite happened; The evaluations of the chosen alternative became significantly more positive. However, the ratings for the alternative that was not chosen became somewhat more negative. These results are consistent with the Shultz and Lepper (1996) constraint agreement satisfaction model. Finally, the way post-decision dissonance works may depend in part on one's culture (Hoshino-Browne et al., 2005; Kitayama, Snibbe, Markus, & Suzuki, 2004). In Western culture, personal dissonance reduction dominates. This means that when we choose between two alternatives for ourselves, we are likely to experience dissonance and resolve it in the manner predicted by dissonance theory. However, in Eastern cultures (e.g. Japan) personal choices are not as dissonant as in Western cultures. Rather, interpersonal dissonance tends to be more important. Interpersonal dissonance occurs when one person is forced to choose another person. In Hoshino-Browne et al. (2005), for example, European Canadians (i.e. Canadian-born Canadians) and Asian Canadians (Canadians born in an Asian country) were asked to rate 10 Chinese dishes that would be served in an on-campus restaurant. The classifications were made under two conditions. In one condition, participants were instructed to rank the entries based on their own personal preferences (self-preferences). In the other condition, participants were instructed to rank the entries based on their best friend's preferences (other preferences). After completing a few more steps, contestants received two gift certificates for the entries they qualified for (their fifth and sixth choices were given away). Participants had to choose one of the gift vouchers for themselves (according to their own preference)

Chapter 6

persuasion and attitude change.

European

213

Asian

difference of 0

0,8 0,6 0,4 0,2 0 –0,2

Gift chosen for

or your friend (in the other preferential condition). The results, as shown in Figure 6.9, showed that dissonance decreased more for European Canadians making a choice for themselves than when making a choice for their friend. The opposite was true for Asian Canadians. They showed a greater reduction in dissonance when they chose their friend than when they chose their own.

Responsibility: Another View of Cognitive Dissonance Another view suggests that cognitive dissonance occurs only when our actions have negative consequences (Cooper & Scher, 1992). According to this view, it is not so much inconsistency that causes dissonance as our sense of personal responsibility when bad things happen (Cooper & Fazio, 1984). For example, let's say you wrote a really good essay to support something you believe in, like not raising school fees. Did you know that the essay can be submitted to the school board of trustees, the body that sets tuition fees? She then learned that her essay was being used to persuade the board to increase tuition. Or maybe you've been asked to write an essay taking a position you don't believe in: raising college tuition. He later learned that the essay convinced the board to increase tuition. How would you feel? According to this view of responsibility, simply doing something contrary to your beliefs will not create dissonance unless there are negative results. If you are against tuition increases and are writing an essay for them, but there are no increases, you don't experience dissonance. In several similar studies, people were asked to write essays advocating a position (increasing tuition fees) that contradicted their beliefs. As fees were charged and essayists felt responsible for the outcome, they resolved the dissonance by changing their attitude towards the outcome. That is, they started saying that they are more in favor of a fee increase now than they were before writing the essay. When students wrote essays for a fee increase and did not increase the fees, they did not experience dissonance and did not change their attitude. If there is no tension, there is no change in attitude.

Fig. 6.9: Dissonance in choosing for yourself or a friend between Asian and European Canadians. Based on data from Hoshino-Browne et al. (2005).

214

social psychology

(Video) Karrie's Choice | Full Episode

So what creates dissonance, inconsistency or a sense of responsibility? There have been hundreds, perhaps thousands, of experiments supporting the basic ideas of cognitive dissonance theory that inconsistency leads to attitudinal change. The fact that there are valid alternatives simply means that the theory may need to incorporate these ideas and be further revised.

Attribution and dissonance processes We have already mentioned that dissonance is unlikely to occur when a person has sufficient external justification (attribution) for their deviant attitudinal behavior. An experiment by Cooper (1998) emphasized the role of attribution processes in mediating dissonant responses. Cooper had the participants write a counter-stance essay defending the 7:00 a.m. institution. Face-to-face teaching (something the students were opposed to). They wrote the attempts under either a high-choice condition (participants were asked to write the essay "if they wanted to") or a low-choice condition (the phrase "if she was ready" was omitted). Participants were also randomly assigned to either a mismatch condition (a statement that inconsistent lighting makes many tense and excited) or a mismatch condition (a statement about excluding lighting effects). The main measure was the evaluation of the participants (positive or negative) about the institution at 7:00 am. classes. Cooper found that a greater change in attitude occurred in the high-choice condition. This confirms our earlier statement that dissonance and attitude change are more likely to occur under conditions of free choice. In addition, there were fewer changes in attitude towards process behavior in the misattribution condition than in the no misattribution condition. Participants in the misattribution condition had an external explanation for their arousal (dissonance) and were therefore less likely to change attitudes. The greatest change in attitude towards writing was found in the high choice (participants chose to write the letter)/no misattribution condition. In a follow-up experiment using a different task, Cooper found that participants who had previously incorrectly attributed their arousal to illumination did not show attitudinal changes consistent with dissonance. Attribution style is also related to dissonance arousal. Stalder and Baron (1998) investigated the relationship between attributional complexity (AC) and dissonance-induced attitude change in a series of experiments. Specifically, attribution complexity refers to how complex a person's attributions are in explaining behaviors and events. People with high AC are the ones who typically do extensive attribution research to uncover insights. Therefore, a person with high AC spends a lot of time searching for the source of arousal in a particular situation (e.g. a situation that induces dissonance). A person with low AC is less likely to participate in such a quest. The results of their first experiment supported the idea that high AC individuals show little dissonance-related attitude change, probably because they are able to generate a variety of possible causes of dissonance-related arousal (Stalder & Baron, 1998). After the arousal has been attributed to something other than the dissonant arousal situation, the high AC person is not expected to show a large change in attitude. In their second experiment, Stalder and Baron found that people with low AC exhibited the typical dissonance-related attitude change after waking up from dissonance. The two experiments just discussed strongly suggest that dissonance-related attitude changes are mediated by attributions via the dissonance situation. If an alternative to dissonance is provided to explain dissonant arousal, the typical dissonance outcome will not occur. Stalder and Baron's study shows us that there are individual differences in attribution styles that correlate with attitudes toward dissonance.

Chapter 6

persuasion and attitude change.

change. Those who are highly motivated to find the causes of their arousal show fewer dissonance-related attitude changes because they make an alternative attribution for their arousal than a person who is not as motivated.

Lessons from Cognitive Dissonance Theory What can we learn about persuasion techniques from cognitive dissonance theory? The first lesson is that cognitive inconsistency often leads to change. So one persuasive technique is to point out to people how their behavior goes against their beliefs. Presumably people will change if they are aware of their inconsistencies. Persuasion can also occur when people are aware that their behavior may lead to a negative outcome (Cooper & Scher, 1992). A second lesson is that whenever you can get someone to publicly engage in behavior that goes against their beliefs, the likely result is a change in attitude. One of the reasons for the change is that people use their public behavior as a kind of heuristic, a rule that says people defend their public actions and take personal responsibility for them (Baumeister & Tice, 1984; Zimbardo & Leippe, 1992). . In other words, the rule is, "If I did it, I meant it."

Cognitive Dissonance and Cult Association Cognitive dissonance plays an important role in the formation and maintenance of cults. Once people publicly profess a leader and a movement, it is difficult for them to admit their doubts. Instead, they must invest increasing amounts of resources to maintain their commitment, even when it is obvious to others that loyalty is misplaced. This phenomenon has occurred many times in human history. It happened in 1978 in Guyana, in Jonestown, the "utopian" church of Reverend Jim Jones. At his orders, his followers committed mass suicide by drinking cyanide-laced Kool Aid. Most recently it happened again in Waco, Texas. In March 1993, a religious cult called the Branch Davidians attracted national attention early in its confrontation with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF). The cult was led by David Koresh, who claimed to take orders from God. Koresh created the social reality of the group. It differentiated the members of the sect from the rest of the world, both physically and psychologically. He told them that he was Jesus and that "others" would deny the fact and try to destroy the cult. The Davidians stockpiled weapons, food, and ammunition in preparation for the apocalypse and confrontation with the outside world. Koresh's predictions seemed to come true when ATF agents arrived to confiscate the cult's automatic weapons. Guns were fired from both sides, killing and wounding several officers. A siege began on the complex, which lasted almost 2 months. Federal officials were increasingly concerned about the well-being of the many children inside and the lack of progress in negotiations with Koresh. Eventually, experts asserted that the Davidians would not commit mass suicide if threatened, and officials fired tear gas into the compound to force them out. However, fires broke out in the buildings, apparently started by the sect. 86 members of the sect, including 23 children, were cremated. Apparently the Davidians preferred self-destruction to the destruction of their reality. Why were the members so impressed by Koresh's outrageous claims? How did they become so committed to the cult? All cults share many characteristics. The key trait is a charismatic leader. He or she takes on an otherworldly aura and convinces the members of the group to devote their lives and fortune to the cult. Koresh was a charismatic person who could win over large groups of people through clever arguments and persuasive appeals. For

215

216

social psychology

For example, he refuted skeptics by claiming he understood only Scripture, frequently changing interpretations to keep cult members constantly insecure and dependent on him. Koresh used charm and authority to gain control over the lives of his followers. However, charisma alone is not sufficient to explain Davidic behavior. We also need to look at the cognitive dynamics of individual members to see how committed they were to Koresh and his ideals. Joining the cult was no easy task. At first only a few requests were made, but after a while the members had to give more. In fact, members routinely surrendered all of their possessions, including homes, insurance policies, and cash. Once in the group, life was hard enough. Koresh imposed strict (and ever-changing) rules on all aspects of members' lives, including personal rationing of all food, imposing celibacy on men while taking women as wives and concubines, and imposing physical abuse. In short, the residents of the complex had to go to great lengths to become partners. All membership requirements are directly related to what we know about attitudes and behavior from dissonance theory. For example, dissonance research shows that the more people have to work to join a group, the more they value that group (Aronson & Mills, 1959). By giving up all their possessions, the members irrevocably committed themselves to the sect. Once such a commitment is made, people are unlikely to abandon positive attitudes toward the group (Festinger, Riecken, & Schachter, 1982). After so much effort, questioning commitment would lead to cognitive dissonance (Osherow, 1988). It is contradictory to show devotion to a faith by donating all one's possessions and then renouncing that faith. In other words, cult members are largely self-convincing. The dissonance theory predicts that Davidians hold the group in high esteem and would be disinclined to question Koresh. Indeed this has happened. Interestingly, cult members do not lose faith when the situation begins to deteriorate. In fact, sometimes there is an increase in the strength of your engagement. One study examined a "doomsday" society, a group that predicted the end of the world (Festinger et al., 1982). The study found that when a prophecy failed, members of the group became more committed. There are five conditions that must be met before this effect occurs. 1. Faith must be held with deep conviction and reflected in the believer's open conduct. 2. The believer must have taken a step toward making a commitment that is difficult to reverse, such as giving all his money to the group. 3. The belief must be specific and closely related to real world events in order to be disproved or proven false; for example, the prediction that the world will end on a certain day. 4. There must be indisputable evidence that the belief is wrong (the world doesn't end). 5. The individual believer must have social support for his belief after refutation. Most, perhaps all, of the five conditions were present in the Waco tragedy. The members were committed to their faith and gave everything they had to Koresh. There were indications that the situation was unstable; Several members had left the cult, and some were even speaking to federal officials. And when it started to become obvious

Chapter 6

persuasion and attitude change.

217

Koresh was not invincible, the members had each other for social support. As negotiations deteriorated, Koresh changed his rhetoric to emphasize doomsday visions and rationalize the cult's destruction and self-sacrifice. The cult members probably came to believe that their destiny was to die if necessary. The power of persuasion shows in the tragic results.

Alternatives to cognitive dissonance theory Not all social psychologists believe that cognitive dissonance theory is the best way to explain what happens when cognitive inconsistencies arise. Other theories have been proposed to explain how people deal with these discrepancies. In the following sections, we examine some alternatives to the traditional theory of cognitive dissonance.

Self-Awareness Theory Daryl Bem, a student of the great behavioral psychologist BF Skinner, challenged the theory of cognitive dissonance because, he claimed, it could explain people's behavior without examining their inner motives. Bem (1972) proposed the self-perception theory, which explains atypical behavior simply by assuming that humans are not self-conscious information processors. People observe their own behavior and assume that their attitudes must match that behavior. When you eat a big dinner, assume you must be hungry. When you're publicly addressing an issue, the rule of thumb of self-perception theory is, “I said that, so I must have meant it.” We don't look at our motives; We simply process the information and conclude that there is no inconsistency. Bem supported his theory with some interesting experiments. In one, he trained people to tell the truth when a "truth" (green) light came on and to lie when a "lie" (red) light came on. When the green light came on, people had to say something about themselves that was true. When the red light was on, people had to lie about themselves. Well, he asked the participants to make other statements that were true or false, both in the light of truth and falsehood. Participants who told lies when the light of truth was on came to believe that those false statements were true. Likewise, subjects who made truthful statements when the lie light was on reported lying. The point of self-awareness theory is that we make inferences about our behavior in the same way that an outside observer would. If you observed the experiment, you would reasonably conclude that everything someone said on red was a lie and everything they said on green was true. The participants also accepted this. According to the self-perception theory, something does not have to happen “inside” the person for the contradictions to be resolved: there is no tension, no motivation to reconcile attitudes and behavior, only information processing.

Justification Imagine a group of cigar smokers sitting in a tobacconist and discussing the potential health hazards of their cigar smoking. There is ample evidence that smoking cigarettes poses health risks. There is also evidence that smoking cigars may pose some health risks as well. How do smokers resolve the conflict between health risks and continuing to smoke? The cognitive dissonance theory predicts that dissonance would be aroused in this situation. The fact that millions of people smoke is evidence that dissonance does not always result in behavior change. So how to continue smoking and know the health risks? The answer is that smokers often participate

Self-perception theory A theory that suggests that we learn about our motivations by evaluating our own behavior, which is particularly useful in the area of attitude change.

218

social psychology

Rationalization. Smokers convince themselves: "Nothing will happen to me", "I'll quit at 40" or "My grandfather was 80 and smoked like a chimney". Rationalizations are important to maintain a coherent self-concept. An interesting study was conducted by DeSantis (2003) that illustrates this rationalization process. DeSantis, himself a cigar smoker, was part of a group of regular customers who meet at a cigar shop in Kentucky to smoke their cigars and talk sports. DeSantis decided to probe the inner workings of this group using a method of participatory observational ethnography. DeSantis remained a member, but also carefully studied the interactions between group members (with her knowledge and permission). DeSantis noted that given the evidence of its harmful effects, members came up with five rationales in support of smoking. These rationalizations are listed in Table 6.1, along with a brief explanation of each. Interestingly, these rationalizations continued even after one of the members died of heart disease. In fact, streamlining can be a powerful thing.

self-assertion theory

Self-affirmation theory The theory that individuals cannot attempt to reduce dissonance if they can maintain (affirm) their self-concept by showing that they are morally appropriate in other respects.

Dissonance can threaten a person's self-concept with negative implications, making the person appear stupid, unethical, or lazy (Steele, 1988). Non-smokers are likely to view smokers as all three. So why don't people change their behavior in dissonant situations? In the case of smoking, much of the answer lies in the highly addictive nature of nicotine. Many people try to quit smoking, fail, or cannot face the prospect of never smoking again. So you're stuck in dissonance. Self-affirmation theory suggests that people may not try to reduce dissonance when they can.

Table 6.1 Five rationalizations of cigar smokers (based on data from Desantis, 2003) Rationalization

explanation

Things done in moderation will not harm you

Participants said that smoking in moderation is not harmful. Some reported cutting down or smoking only in certain limited situations. Some said their doctors said it was okay to smoke cigars in moderation.

Smoking has health benefits

Participants noted the stress-reducing effects of smoking. Some saw the stress-reducing effect as a legitimate trade-off for any health risks.

Cigars aren't as bad as cigarettes.

Participants dispute that research on the health risks of smoking does not apply to cigars, pointing out that cigars are smoked less frequently than cigarettes and non-inhaled cigars.

Research on the health effects of smoking is flawed

Ignoring research on the effects of smoking on the grounds that the research is methodologically flawed. Two shortcomings cited: lack of adequate research and conflicting nature of the results.

life is dangerous

Relative comparisons between cigar smoking and other hazards (eg, air pollution, driving). Dangers of smoking minimized in relation to other dangers.

Chapter 6

persuasion and attitude change.

219

Maintain (affirm) their self-image by demonstrating that they are appropriate in other ways: “Yes, I may be a smoker, but I am also a good mother, a respected professional, and an active citizen in my community.” Remove these self-affirmations the sting inherent in a dissonant situation (Zimbardo & Leippe, 1992). People face a threat to an aspect of self by asserting an unrelated part of self (Steele, 1988).

The Action-Based Model Some recent research has questioned the applicability of self-affirmation theory to cognitive dissonance (Harmon-Jones, 2000). According to Harmon-Jones, "Self-assertion following dissonance-provoking behaviors appears to be dependent on resolving the specific discrepancy caused by the behavior" (2000, p. 132). Alternatively, Harmon-Jones suggests that one need not stray too far from the original cognitive dissonance theory to understand discrepancy reduction. Harmon-Jones proposed the action-based model to reduce cognitive dissonance. According to this model, “cognitive discrepancy generates dissonant motivation because cognitive discrepancy has the potential to impair effective non-conflict action” (Harmon-Jones, Petertson, & Vaughn, 2003, p. 69). According to the model, everything that increases the prospect of conflict-free and effective action should increase the reduction of cognitive dissonance. An experiment by Harmon-Jones and Harmon-Jones (2002) clearly demonstrated this. Participants made a difficult decision (between two equally-rated physical exercises that they had previously rated positively) or an easy decision (between a high-rated and low-rated physical exercise) under one of two mindsets. Half of the participants in each decision condition wrote down seven things they could do to improve their behavior towards the chosen alternative (action-oriented thinking). The other half of the participants in each decision condition wrote about seven things they do on a typical day (neutral thinking). After making their choices, participants again rated the comfort of the exercises. The researchers predicted that the greatest reduction in dissonance (evidenced by the greatest change in evaluation of alternatives before and after the decision) would occur when the decision was difficult and an action-oriented mindset was adopted. The results confirmed this prediction. The greatest post-decision variability was found when the decision was difficult and an action-oriented mindset was adopted.

Action-Based Model A model of cognitive dissonance that states that cognitive discrepancy creates dissonance motivation because cognitive discrepancy has the potential to impair effective action without conflict.

Psychic reactance Psychic tension can be relieved in a number of ways. Sometimes, when people realize they have been forced to do or buy something against their will, they try to regain or reassert their freedom. This reaction is called psychological reactance (Brehm & Brehm, 1981). Psychological reactance theory, an offshoot of cognitive dissonance theory, suggests that when some part of our freedom is threatened, we are excited and motivated to restore that freedom. The Coca-Cola Company discovered this in 1985 when trying to replace the traditional Coca-Cola formula with "New Coke". The company conducted an in-depth marketing study of the new product, which included 200,000 taste tests. The tests showed that people really liked New Coke. The company went ahead with plans to retire the old formula and put New Coke in its place. The problem wasn't the taste, however; it was a perceived choice. People resented having no choice and responded by buying traditional Coca-Cola like it was manna from heaven never to be seen again. Some people even started Old Coke Clubs. The company received more than 1,500 angry calls and letters every day. Coca-Cola had to change its marketing plans, and "Classic Coke" still has one

psychological reactance A psychological condition that occurs when people feel that their agency is threatened because other people are forcing them to do or say things that make them less likely to attempt to influence society.

220

social psychology

a place of honor on the supermarket shelf (Oskamp,1991). It didn't matter if consumers liked New Coke. His emotional attachment to the old Coca-Cola was important, as was his freedom to buy it. New Coke just wasn't for these people.

Convince the masses with propaganda.

Propaganda A deliberate attempt by any means available to get people to think the way the source intended.

Advertising: A Definition We now turn to the large-scale application of persuasion techniques. History is replete with examples of persuasion techniques aimed at changing the attitudes and behavior of entire populations. This mass persuasion can take many forms. Advertisers regularly create compelling messages, which we call ads, to get you to choose one product over another. Various persuasive public service messages try to get us to change a variety of behaviors, including not driving drunk, practicing safe sex, wearing seat belts, and avoiding illegal drugs. Perhaps the most controversial application of mass persuasion techniques is the use of advertising. Propaganda is “a deliberate attempt by any available means to persuade people to think as the source intends” (Taylor, 2003, p. 7). Throughout human history there are many examples of the use of advertising to influence the attitudes and behavior of many people. For example, propaganda was widely circulated during the American Revolution to sell the colonists' cause and demonize the British. It was also used extensively by the Germans and the Allies during World War I. Perhaps the best example of the use of propaganda, however, was that of the Nazis in the years leading up to and during World War II. While it is true that propaganda was used by both sides during World War II, the Nazis, under the leadership of Josef Goebbels, took propaganda to unprecedented levels. There are a few things you need to understand about advertising before we continue our discussion. First, it is common to characterize propaganda as a bundle of lies used by the enemy to manipulate attitudes and behavior. While it is true that propaganda is often directed against the enemy, it is also often used to influence the attitudes and behavior of its own citizens. And as mentioned above, it is also used by the "good guys". For example, during World War II, the US government engaged in propaganda to increase the domestic war effort. Hollywood films such as Wake Island (1942) portrayed the marines on the island fighting to the last man against the Japanese attack. Indeed, there was no such heroic last stand. Many of the marines and civilians were captured and large numbers of them killed by the Japanese army. The film was intended to give house morale a much-needed boost, and it did. Second, advertising isn't always a "bunch of lies." On the contrary, modern advertising tries to stay as close to the truth as possible (Taylor, 2003). This is not to say that lies are never used; they are. However, a good propagandist knows that credibility is an important asset. Caught in a lie, this credibility suffers. After all, advertising is neither good nor bad. It is simply a means to an end (Taylor, 2003). Characteristics of advertising Ellul (1965) defines two main characteristics of advertising. The internal characteristics of the ad relate to the characteristics of the target of the ad. According to Ellul, a good propagandist must know the "psychological terrain" on which he is treading. This means that the propagandist needs to know which attitudes and behaviors are easy to manipulate. Usually the propagandist stays away

Chapter 6

persuasion and attitude change.

beliefs and focuses on those that are more malleable. For example, in Cold War Poland, communist propaganda avoided attacks on the Catholic Church and religion. This was because Catholicism and the Catholic Church were extremely important to the Polish people. On the other hand, Nazi propaganda used existing anti-Semitism to shape the attitude of the German population towards Jews. External characteristics of the ad refer to the characteristics of the ad itself. A key point Ellul makes is that to be effective, propaganda must be organized and thorough. "Organized" means that the ad is the result of a collaborative effort to shape attitudes and behaviors. It's not a make-or-break proposition. The good propagandist has a clear plan in mind and uses propaganda to carry out that plan. As an example, consider the fact that at the start of World War II in 1939, the Nazis were spending about a million dollars (in 1939 dollars) a day on propaganda. "Totally" means that the masses must immerse the populace in propaganda. Because of this second feature, advertising works best in situations where the advertiser can control all advertising channels. For example, at that time Josef Goebbels had full control over all media: newspapers, radio and films. In addition, Nazi propaganda permeated all areas of life in Germany. The stamps people put on their letters showed Nazi images, children's books stereotyped Jews, museums were full of Nazi art, and pro-Nazi plays filled theaters. Another external feature is the fact that the propaganda is aimed at the individual in the context of the masses (Ellul, 1965). That is, the propagandist targets the propaganda at individuals but uses the masses to disrupt individual thought. An individual cut off from the masses will offer much resistance to propaganda (Ellul, 1965). For this reason the Nazis held large rallies (usually at night so that critical thinking skills were not at their peak). Imagine how difficult it would be for you to argue against Nazi ideas when you are part of a large crowd that pledges undying support for those ideas. In short, Nazi propaganda aimed to make each individual feel part of something much bigger. A number of other features are typical of advertising. They are listed in Table 6.2.

The Purposes of Propaganda As mentioned earlier, propaganda became widespread during the American Revolution. For example, Paul Revere made a print of the "Boston Massacre" that misrepresents the event (go to http://www.mediaworkshop.org/csd18/csd18web_site/pat/html/attucksphotolink.htm to view the print and display a list of engraving errors). The British were shown on a picket line, with their commander giving behind them

Table 6.2 Additional features of propaganda Chasing emotions Avoids critical analysis of issues

221

222

social psychology

the command to shoot. The scene was shown in clear weather in an open space between rows of buildings. The colonists were portrayed as passive and peaceful, only to be mercilessly exterminated by the evil Britons. In fact, the actual event was quite different. The colonists were armed and insulted the British. There was a lot of confusion in a confined space. And there is evidence that the settlers fired the first shot. In fact, a colonial jury acquitted the British soldiers of any wrongdoing in the case. (The photo at http://www.historywiz.com/bostonmassacre.htm is a more accurate account of the event.) Despite his inaccuracies, Revere's pressure became widespread in the colonies and was successful in his aim of inciting hatred against the British. Samuel Adams was working for the Boston Globe at the time and organized a propaganda team called the Committee of Correspondence. The committee compiled the story and reported it to Adams, who then sent his version of events to other newspapers (Jowett & O'Donnell, 1986). Adams had a reputation as an agitator. However, he had a clear vision of his cause (separation from England) and how to achieve it. Adams developed five advertising goals (Jowett & O'Donnel, 1986). They apply today as they did then: 1. The purpose of the matter must be justified. 2. The benefits of winning must be clear and known. 3. People must be goaded into action by inciting hatred of the enemy. 4. The enemy's logical arguments must be rejected. 5. All questions must be worded clearly and concisely in black and white.

Propaganda Techniques The techniques used by propagandists may vary from case to case. However, the goal is the same: to convince the masses. Common propaganda techniques include the following (Brown, 1967): • Use of stereotypes: Propagandists often take advantage of our natural tendency to stereotype people. After all, advertising can mislead us into thinking of a group of people rather than individual people. • Name Substitutions: Propagandists often use derogatory names to refer to groups they dislike. The victims of propaganda are dehumanized and made easier to prosecute. • Selection of facts: propagandists do not represent a balanced picture of facts. They select concrete facts that support their point of view. • Outright lying: Untruths are used to persuade others. • Repeat: The same message is repeated several times. Repeated exposure eventually leads to acceptance of the message. • Statement: Propagandists have no interest in debates. Instead, they forcefully state their point of view. • Identify an Enemy: Propaganda is most effective when it is possible to identify an enemy who poses a threat to everyone. This removes aggression or blame from the propagandists and strengthens the group's sense of togetherness and solidarity. This technique plays on the "us versus them" mentality.

Chapter 6

persuasion and attitude change.

• Appeal to Authority: Propagandists often refer to their leaders or refer to their leaders as higher sources of authority. This can mean a higher political authority (e.g. the approval of a revered leader) or a higher power (e.g. God). In both cases, the propagandists give the impression that their leader has the support and blessing of a higher authority. Fritz Hippler, head of the Nazi film industry, captured the essence of successful propaganda. He summarized advertising in two main techniques: simplification and repetition. All messages used in advertising must be presented in simple terms so that even the least intelligent members of a society can understand the message. The message, once formulated, is repeated so that it is familiar to the ad recipients.

Hitler's Rise to Power Looking back to the years between 1924 and 1945, when darkness fell over Europe, it is obvious to see the aftermath of Nazism and Hitler's rise to power in Germany. But how did a failed painter, a corporal, and then a political prisoner rise to the top of power in Germany in just nine years? Part of the answer, of course, is the fact that the Nazi Party had a well-organized paramilitary wing that effectively intimidated or eliminated opposition parties like the Communist Party. However, such a street force cannot fully explain how a large part of the German people came to accept and support Hitler and Nazism. To answer this question, we must look at how the Nazis, through Josef Goebbels, used propaganda to gain power, consolidate it, and prepare the German people for war and the extermination of the Jews. In the years following the end of the First World War, the German population and economy suffered greatly. War reparations caused widespread economic depression. Inflation destroyed the economy. In this context, Adolf Hitler was to become the most powerful man in Germany. But that didn't happen immediately. On September 9, 1923, Hitler and his followers attempted to overthrow the Bavarian government in Munich. The so-called "Beer Hall Putsch" was a complete failure. The Bavarian government refused to capitulate, and no popular uprising followed. Instead, Hitler and his followers were imprisoned in Lansberg prison. That was on April 1, 1924. At that time, the NSDAP lay in ruins. Its leaders were arrested, the party newspaper was shut down, and the party was declared illegal. In prison, Hitler dictated his manifesto Mein Kampf to Rudolph Hess. On December 24, 1925, Hitler was released from prison. His release offered one of the first propaganda opportunities for his propagandists. Release from prison was quite common. So a photo was taken elsewhere showing an imposing gate and a big black car waiting for Hitler to appear. Mein Kampf appeared shortly after publication. Even so, the party was in trouble. In fact, on March 9, 1925, the government issued an order forbidding Hitler from speaking in public. This provided the Nazis with another early propaganda opportunity. A poster was distributed showing Hitler taped over his mouth. The caption read, "Only he out of 2 billion is banned from speaking." It was to take a while, but the ban was finally lifted in September 1928. But the party was still not very strong, even though things were going on. In 1929 Hitler was the leader of the NSDAP. Josef Goebbels gave the party a better image through his skilful use of propaganda. Then, on October 29, 1929, the German economy (and the world in general) collapsed and entered the Great Depression. An already unstable German economy was devastated. People who had secure jobs in the past became unemployed and starved. This gave Hitler and the Nazis their best chance of seizing power. The National Socialist message began to resonate better and better with many poor Germans. the party has started

223

224

social psychology

grow and on September 14, 1930, the NSDAP won 107 seats in the Reichstag (the German parliament). In April 1932, Hitler lost the runoff to the immensely popular President Hindenburg, but won 36% of the vote. Despite Hindenburg's landslide victory, there was still political unrest. With the German government on the brink of collapse and Hitler struggling for power, on January 30, 1933, the 85-year-old Hindenburg reluctantly named Hitler Chancellor of Germany. Just a few weeks later, in March 1933, Hitler consolidated his power and became Reich Chancellor. As the absolute ruler of Germany, the Reichstag was burned and Germany entered the darkest period of its history, a history that included the persecution and extermination of Jews and other Eastern Europeans in death camps and would involve the loss of nearly 80 million people around the world. Second War.

The Power of Propaganda in Nazi Germany Let us turn our attention to how Josef Goebbels used propaganda at various points in the Nazi rise to power and sold Nazi ideas to the German public and the world. We will organize our discussion around the propaganda techniques discussed above. For each technique, we will briefly examine how Goebbels used propaganda to shape mass attitudes and behavior. (See http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa for examples of Nazi propaganda.) • Use of Stereotypes: As mentioned above, propagandists play on the tendency to stereotype people. Nazi-era propaganda used this technique to marginalize and demonize Jews. Various anti-Semitic posters were used in many cases. Typically, these Jews are portrayed as evil, hook-nosed characters bent on controlling the German people and the world. For example, one of these posters showed a caricature of a wicked Jew calling people to war, with the caption "The Jew. The instigator of war, the protractor of war." Another poster, titled "The String Puller," showed a caricature of a Jew as a puppeteer pulling the strings of the German people. German propaganda films were also used to convey negative stereotypes about Jews and to instill fear and hatred against them in the German people. The most notorious of these films was Fritz Hippler's The Eternal Jew, which compared Jews to rats and other vermin and cruelly portrayed Jewish rituals (such as the kosher killing of animals). Children's books also contained anti-Semitic imagery and themes, the best-known of which was the children's book series "Toxic Mushroom".As in other propaganda materials, Jews were portrayed as cunning, evil, and hook-nosed characters who often took advantage of innocent Germans.Name substitution: Nazi propaganda succeeded , characterizing Jews and Eastern Europeans as subhuman A cartoon published in February 1930 in d he Nazi newspaper Der Stürmer showed a giant black spider with a Star of David on its torso sucking up Germans who hung in its dry web, with the caption "Sucked Out." On posters contrasting the perfect Aryan with the Eastern European half-breed, Eastern Europeans were often referred to as “subhumans”. • Selection of facts: Even when the war was not going well, Goebbels painted an optimistic picture of what was happening by deliberately publishing information. For example, in a 1943 article, Gobbels said:

Chapter 6

persuasion and attitude change.

Was there ever a nation that was as well positioned after five years of war as we are today? The front is intact. The homeland is morally and materially able to withstand the terror of the bombing raids. A stream of war material is leaving our factories. A new weapon against enemy air attacks is being prepared. Countless skilled hands work on it day and night. We have a tough test of patience ahead of us, but the reward will come one day. The German farmer brings in a good harvest.

What he failed to mention was that the German military industry was almost constantly attacked by the Allied air forces, the wonderful weapons he spoke of were of little tactical value, and the German army suffered defeats on all fronts. • Obviously lying: Hitler apparently wanted an excuse to invade Poland in 1939. So on August 31, 1939, SS officers took Polish prisoners out of a concentration camp, dressed them in Polish army uniforms, and shot them. Their bodies were scattered in front of a German radio station, constituting a planned attack on a German radio station on the border with Poland. In fact, Hitler said: “Ordinary Polish officers fired into our area. We've been returning fire since 5:45 am.” The German invasion of Poland began shortly after Hitler's hoax. • Repetition: Nazi propaganda produced the same messages and images over and over again. For example, various propaganda posters portrayed Hitler as the savior of Germany and a veteran military leader. Claim: Despite the fact that the tide of the war turned against Germany, Josef Goebbels continued to claim in 1943 that Germany would win the war. In a speech on New Year's Eve 1943, he stated: "Our wartime position has become more rigid than it was at the end of 1942, but it is more than enough to guarantee us an ultimate victory." He listed the failures of the Allied Army and stated that the facts were in favor of a German victory. • Identify an Enemy: Propaganda works best when it's aimed at something. An old saying goes that nothing unites people like a common enemy. The enemy becomes the focus of negative thoughts and emotions, and serves to deflect criticism from the propaganda group. Nazi propaganda identified two enemies: the Jews and the enemy countries. Goebbels wrote of the Jews in 1941: “Every Jew is our enemy in this historic struggle, regardless of whether he languishes in a Polish ghetto or continues his parasitic existence in Berlin or Hamburg or blows the war trumpet in New York or Washington. . All Jews, by birth and race, are part of an international conspiracy against Nazi Germany." A poster showed a fist crushing the bodies of enemies (one with a prominent British flag on his back) with the caption "Dust off all enemies of Germany • Appeals to authorities: Even when Hitler came to power in 1933, he still had an image problem. The people, politicians and military leaders were skeptical about Hitler and his party. It was therefore important to show that Hitler had the blessing of a human being, who was held in high esteem by the German people. Nazi propagandists went to work to convey to the German people the idea that Hitler had the support and blessing of the much-loved President Hindenburg. A propaganda poster showed the "Corporal and the Field Marshal" together. In reality, Hindenburg despised Hitler and only gave him the chancellorship if he didn't had other choice. Additionally, Nazi art often depicted Hitler in divine poses and settings, giving the impression that he too had the endorsement of a supreme being.

225

226

social psychology

The Leopold and Loeb case reopened Clarence Darrow used all his powers of persuasion to save his clients Leopold and Loeb from execution. As an experienced communicator, he knew the importance of building and maintaining your credibility. Many of his arguments were aimed, sometimes subtly, sometimes not, at destroying his opponent's credibility and bolstering his own. Darrow also understood that a communicator who appears uninterested in persuading their audience is often more successful than one who is clearly trying to persuade. He assumed high morals and argued that it would be inhumane to execute two young men who were not entirely responsible for their actions. Darrow did not neglect his audience, the trial judge and the public. He carefully structured and presented his arguments so that they had the greatest possible impact on her. Darrow knew that arguments far outside the judge's "margin of admissibility" would be unsuccessful. He did not argue against the death penalty (although he personally opposed it), only against the death penalty in this particular case. He knew that Judge Caverly listened carefully to his arguments, explained them, and placed them in the context of American criminal justice. I knew the world was listening too. The case of the "exciting murder" of Leopold and Loeb became one of the most notorious incidents in American history, when Americans were shocked by the spectacle of two wealthy young men killing just to see what it would be like. Judge Caverly announced his decision on September 10, 1924. Leopold and Loeb were sentenced to life imprisonment for murder and 99 years for kidnapping. Loeb died in a prison fight in 1936; A model prisoner, Leopold was released at the age of 70 and spent the rest of his life in Puerto Rico helping the poor.

Chapter Overview 1. What is belief? Persuasion is a form of social influence in which a communicator uses rational and/or emotional arguments to persuade others to change their attitudes or behavior. 2. What is Yale's Communications Model? The Yale Communication Model is a theoretical model that guides persuasion tactics. It is based on the assumption that persuasion occurs when a persuader presents a logical argument that illustrates the benefit of changing attitudes. 3. What communicator factors influence persuasion? The Yale model focuses on the credibility of the communicator, an important factor in the likelihood that persuasion will occur. The components of credibility are experience and reliability. Although an important factor in the persuasiveness of a message, the communicator's credibility may not have a lasting impact. Over time, a message from an unreliable source can be just as persuasive as one from a trusted source, a phenomenon known as the sleeper effect. This is more likely when there is a strong persuasive argument, a discount proposal is given, and enough time has passed for people to forget who said what. Other communicator factors that increase persuasion include physical attractiveness, similarity to the target, and a quick and fluid speaking style.

Chapter 6

persuasion and attitude change.

4. What elements of the message convey the conviction? Messages that contain a mild to moderate appeal to fear appear to be more persuasive than others as long as they provide a solution to the fearful situation. The timing of the message is another persuasive factor, as is the structure of the message and the extent to which the communicator attempts to tailor the message to the audience. Research supports the vaccination theory, which states that giving people a watered-down version of an opposing argument is an effective persuasion approach. Good communicators also know their audience well enough not to deliver a wildly mixed message. If this cannot be avoided, e.g. B. when there is an issue with multiple audiences, communicators use hidden messages, private keys and codes to get their point across. In addition, the magnitude of the discrepancy between the content of a message and the listener's existing attitudes makes a difference. According to social judgment theory, persuasion is related to the degree of a person's personal involvement in an issue. A message can fall within a person's acceptance range (positions are considered acceptable), rejection range (positions are considered unacceptable), or non-commitment range (positions are neither accepted nor rejected, but should be considered). 5. What is the Persuasion Elaboration Probability Model? Cognitive response models focus on the active role of the audience. They claim that people respond to persuasive messages by connecting them to their own knowledge, feelings, and thoughts related to the subject of the message. The Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM), which examines how individuals respond to a persuasive message, proposes two pathways to persuasion. The first, central path processing, is used when people have the ability and motivation to understand the message and analyze it critically and conscientiously. Central routing processors construct the message by connecting it to their knowledge and feelings. Sometimes this elaboration convinces the recipient, depending on the strength of the message. Central path processors tend to experience more permanent attitude changes. The second path to persuasion is peripheral route processing. This occurs when individuals lack the motivation or interest to process with effort. Instead, they rely on cues other than merits of the message, such as the attractiveness of the communicator. Whether an individual uses central or peripheral signal processing depends on several factors, including mood, personal relevance, and language use. The flexible correction model increases the probability of modeling. This suggests that individuals using central path processing are influenced by bias factors when they are unaware of the potential impact of those factors, such as when they are in a good mood. Under these conditions, the polarization factors are corrected.

227

228

social psychology

6. How does aliveness affect belief? In general, the effect of message vividness on persuasion is not very strong. However, studies show that when people were exposed to vivid messages about an issue important to them, they felt that the vivid messages were effective. Liveliness can be beneficial in political ads or court cases. For example, juries have awarded a plaintiff more money when the evidence they heard was persuasive rather than insubstantial. Illustrative information is most effective when a persuasive message requires few resources and a person is highly motivated to process the message. For a message with a highly motivated goal that requires a lot of resources, liveliness has no impact on persuasion. 7. What is knowledge needed for? The need for cognition (NC) is an individual difference variable that mediates belief. People with high cognition need will process persuasive information along the central pathway, regardless of the situation or the complexity of the message. On the other hand, people with low cognitive needs pay more attention to peripheral cues (e.g. physical characteristics of the speaker) and are more likely to use peripheral path processing of a persuasive message. 8. What is the heuristic and systematic information model of belief? The heuristic and systematic information processing model (HSM) focuses more on the importance of heuristic or peripheral cues than the elaboration probability model. This model indicates that problems are often too complex or too numerous for systematic and detailed processing to be practical. 9. What is the cognitive dissonance theory and what are its main ideas? The theory of cognitive dissonance posits that people experience uncomfortable tension when their attitudes or their attitude and behavior are inconsistent. This psychological discomfort is called cognitive dissonance. According to the theory, people are motivated to reduce this stress, and a change in attitude is a likely outcome. Dissonance theory suggests that the less rewarded people are for a behavior, the more compelled they feel to provide their own justification, particularly when they believe they chose to do so voluntarily. The more they are rewarded, the more likely they are to conclude that the behavior is suspicious. The latter is called the inverse incentive effect. Furthermore, the theory of cognitive dissonance states that a person experiences dissonance after making a choice between two mutually exclusive and equally attractive alternatives. This is called post-decision dissonance. Another, more recent view suggests that cognitive dissonance results not so much from inconsistency as from the sense of personal responsibility that arises when inconsistent action has negative consequences.

Chapter 6

persuasion and attitude change.

10. What is self-perception theory? An alternative to cognitive dissonance theory is self-perception theory, which argues that behavior and attitude changes can be explained without assuming that people are motivated to reduce the stress supposedly generated by the inconsistency. Rather, self-perception assumes that people are not self-aware information processors. They simply observe their own behavior and assume that their actions must conform to that behavior. 11. What is the Self-Affirmation Theory? Another alternative to cognitive dissonance, self-affirmation theory explains how people deal with stress caused by dissonant thoughts or behaviors. Self-affirmation theory suggests that people may not try to reduce dissonance if they can maintain their self-concept by showing themselves appropriate in other ways, i.e. by affirming a positive, unrelated part of themselves. 12. What is psychological reactance? People can also reduce psychological stress in other ways. When people realize they have been forced to do or buy something against their will, they sometimes try to regain or reassert their freedom. This reaction is called psychological reactance. 13. What is advertising? Propaganda is defined as the intentional attempt, by any means available, to get people to think the way the source intended. The internal characteristics of advertising relate to the psychological composition of the advertising recipients. For propaganda to be effective, the propagandist must know which attitudes, feelings, and behaviors are easily manipulated. Deeply held beliefs are often pushed aside. External characteristics of the ad refer to the characteristics of the ad itself. For propaganda to be most effective, it needs to be organized and thorough. 14. How are large-scale promotional tactics used? Propagandists use a variety of techniques to persuade the masses. These include the use of stereotypes, name substitutions, fact selection, outright lying, repetition, assertion, identification of an enemy, and appeals to authority.

229

Conformity, Conformity, and Obedience If you think about mankind's long, dark history, you realize that more heinous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than ever in the name of rebellion. -W p snow

The jury was subpoenaed to hear State v. Leroy Reed. Reed, a parolee felon, was arrested for carrying a gun. Karl, a firefighter, sat on the jury box listening and watching intently. The prosecutor argued that the defendant should be found guilty of violating his probation, despite any sympathy the jury might have felt for him. Defense attorneys argued that although Reed had purchased a gun, he should not have been found guilty. According to the defense, Reed bought the gun because he believed he needed it for a correspondence detective course he had enrolled in. Reed wanted to better his life and thought becoming a private investigator was just what he needed. He greatly admired real detectives. He told a district court police officer that he was learning to be a detective and bought a gun. The detective was in disbelief and told Reed to go to his house to find him. Reed did so and was promptly arrested because carrying a felon's gun is a felony. The evidence also showed that Reed could only read through fifth grade and probably didn't understand that he was violating his probation by buying a gun. The judge told the jury that under the law they should convict Reed if he owned a gun and knew he owned a gun. When he entered the jury room, Karl was convinced that Reed was guilty. After all, the prosecution had presented enough evidence on the legal issues that the judge believed had to be met for a conviction. Reed bought a gun and knew with certainty that he owned that gun. As the deliberations began, however, it became clear that not all of the jurors agreed with Karl. The results of an initial vote by the coroner showed that nine jurors favored an acquittal and only three, including Karl, favored a conviction. After further discussion, two of the sentencing jurors changed their 231

Key Questions As you read this chapter, find answers to the following questions: 1. What is compliance? 2. What is the source of the pressure leading to compliance? 3. What research evidence is there for compliance? 4. What factors influence compliance? 5. Do women conform more than men? 6. Can the minority influence the majority? 7. How does minority influence work? 8. Why do we sometimes do things we would rather not do? 9. What are compliance techniques and why do they work?

232

social psychology

wishes. Only Karl maintained his belief in the guilt of the accused. As the deliberations progressed, the other jurors tried to convince Karl that an acquittal was the fairest verdict. This pressure made Karl very anxious and upset. Again and again he put his face between both hands and closed his eyes. Continued efforts to persuade Karl to change his sentence failed. Psychologists define evil. After some time, however, Karl, still unconvinced, decided to revise his judgment. and bad deeds were done? He told the other jurors that he would change their verdict to not guilty, but bad people? that he "just would never feel right about it". 12. What investigations were carried out? Why did Karl change his mind even though he was dissatisfied with his performance in the obedience study? fellow judges? This case brought to vivid life in the PBS film Inside the Jury 13. What factors influence Room and force us not only to look at Karl's behavior, but also to speculate about obedience? our own. Would any of us be willing to compromise our beliefs in the face of this? 14. Is there a unanimous gender majority that thinks differently? Under what conditions can our obedience deviate? Can behavior be changed by others? These questions are at the heart of what distinguishes social psychology from other branches of psychology: the impact 15. Do Milgram's findings apply to other cultures? others in our behavior. In Chapter 6 we saw how persuasive arguments from others can influence our behavior. Karl has certainly been subjected to such arguments. 16. What criticism of the Milgram experiments, however, did he not accept as a basis for changing his judgment. Did they volunteer instead? Karl changed his sentence in response to knowing that all of his fellow jurors believed Leroy Reed should be found not guilty. As Karl's case shows, 17. How does disobedience come about? Sometimes we change behavior as a result of perceived pressure from others rather than through a process of accepting what they say. Like Karl, we are often influenced by what the people around us are doing. For example, if you sit in a classroom, you will find that most people behave in a similar way: they take notes and listen to the teacher. In social situations, such as the classroom, the behavior of others often defines the range of appropriate behavior. This applies in particular if the situation is new or unclear. For example, what would happen if the fire alarm went off while you were in class? Would you get up and leave immediately, or look around to see what everyone else is doing? Most people insist that he would get up and leave. However, experience teaches us otherwise. If your colleagues sat quietly in their chairs, you would probably do the same. The social influence processes you encounter in the classroom can also be applied to understanding situations such as Karl's change of judgement. In this chapter, we examine three types of social influence: conformity, compliance, and compliance. We ask ourselves: How does social influence sometimes lead us to do or say things that we don't necessarily believe in, as was the case with Karl? Why was Karl able to fight back when others were on his side, but finally relent when he was the sole supporter of the sentencing? What other factors and types of situations make us more or less likely to adapt? When we conform, do we always conform to the majority, or can a minority sometimes make us conform to their point of view? Under what conditions do we respect or accept a direct request? Finally, what are the factors that lead us to obey the direction of an authority figure? These are some of the questions addressed in this chapter. 10. What do social psychologists understand by the term “obedience”?

Chapter 7

Compliance, compliance and obedience

233

Compliance: Going With The Crowd As a jury member, Karl found himself in an uncertain position because of conflicting information about the situation. He received word of the law from the judge and prosecutors that convinced him that Reed was guilty and that it was his responsibility as a jury to convict him of violating his probation. However, he received a different message from his fellow judges, which made him doubt this conclusion. The other jurors told him they thought Reed should be found not guilty despite the evidence. They believed extenuating circumstances, including Reed's lack of intention to commit a crime, made a not guilty verdict reasonable. Also, Karl was aware that he was the only juror awaiting his conviction. The compulsive nature of the social situation eventually caused Karl to change his judgement, although he secretly disagreed with most of his fellow judges. Karl became a victim of social influences. If Karl had been solely responsible for deciding Reed's fate, he would have condemned him. But once in a social context, he had to reconsider his personal views in light of the views of others. He gave in to peer pressure even though he felt the group was wrong. Karl's behavior exemplifies what social psychologists call conformity. Conformity occurs when we change our behavior in response to real or imagined pressure from others. Note that no one directly asked or directed Karl to change his judgment. Instead, he was responding to subtle and not-so-subtle pressure from his fellow judges.

Informative and normative social influence What about the social situation might make us change our minds, even if we feel that such a change of mind is wrong? To adequately address this problem, we must distinguish between two types of social influence: informational and normative (Deutsch & Gerrard, 1955). Sometimes we change our behavior in response to information we receive from others. This is called informational social influence. In many social situations, other people provide important information through their actions and words. Put yourself in the shoes of one of Karl's jury members, for example the jury representative. You believe the defendant is guilty, but nine of your fellow jurors disagree. They try to convince you of the innocence of the accused by giving you their views on the evidence. A judge can remind you of important information you may have missed; someone else might share an interpretation of the defendant's behavior that hasn't occurred to you. If you change your mind as a result of this new or reinterpreted information, you are responding to informational social influence. The persuasion process discussed in Chapter 6 illustrates informational social influence. That's what happened to the President in the Reed case. First, he was among the three jurors who voted in favor of a conviction. But after listening to the group discuss the issues and evidence, he saw the crime and the circumstances in a different light. Based on his reinterpretation of the evidence, he decided to change his sentence. He did so in direct response to what was said and what other jurors were saying. In general, we are subject to informational social influence because we want to be accurate in our judgments. We use the opinions of others as a source of information to test the validity of our own judgments. We commit ourselves because we recognize that

Conformity A process of social influence in which behavior is modified in response to real or imagined pressure from others, rather than in response to a direct request or command from another person.

Informative social influence Social influence created by an individual's response to information provided by others.

234

normative social influence Social influence in which a person changes their behavior in response to pressure to conform to a norm. Norm An unwritten social rule, existing at a broad cultural level or at a smaller, situation-specific level, that suggests what is appropriate behavior in a situation.

social psychology

others have correct information (Campbell & Fairey, 1989). Changes in opinion based on informational social influence are the result of the exchange of arguments and factual information (Kaplan & Miller, 1987). Changes in opinion and behavior essentially occur through the type of persuasion process discussed in Chapter 6. Conformity also occurs as a result of normative social influences. In this type of social influence situation, we change our behavior in response to a norm, an unwritten social rule that suggests what constitutes appropriate behavior in a given situation. Our behavior is guided not only by rational consideration of the problem at hand, but also by the discomfort we feel when we disagree with others. We are motivated to conform to the implicit norms and expectations of others in order to gain social acceptance and avoid appearing different or being rejected (Campbell & Fairey, 1989). During the deliberations, Karl was not directly influenced by the information content of the jury deliberations. Instead, the fact that others disagreed with him became crucial. The arguments and opinions of the other jurors suggested that the prevailing norm was that the law did not apply in this case; Reed should be acquitted despite evidence pointing to his guilt. Karl changed his judgment to conform to this standard. In a situation of normative social influence, at least two factors are relevant. First, the information we receive from others serves as a guide to the nature of the current norm at a given point in time (Kaplan & Miller, 1987). Karl was surprised when he found out what the norm was in the jury room. Second, the size and unanimity of the majority reflect the strength of current rule. As we will see later in this chapter, these two variables are important in determining the likelihood and magnitude of behavior change in a socially influential situation. While both informational and normative social influence can exert powerful controls over our behavior, their effects are different. Changes caused by informational social influence tend to be stronger and more enduring than those caused by normative social influence (Burnstein & Sentis, 1981). Because changes through new information or a reinterpretation of existing information can be persuasive and persuasive. As we saw in Chapter 6, the changes in opinion that result from belief often stem from our accepting the information, processing it, and changing our attitudes and behavior accordingly. This type of information processing tends to result in fairly stable and long-lasting changes. For normative social influence to occur, we do not need to be convinced that our opinions are wrong. We react to our perception of what we think others expect of us. Consequently, a change in opinion, attitude or behavior brought about by regulatory pressure is often fragile. Once the regulatory pressure eases, we'll likely revert to our earlier views. Karl agreed with the other jurors, but he didn't really think they were right. In fact, Karl stated that he would agree with the majority but "never had the right feeling about it". Because norms play such an important role in our behavior, and because normative social influence is such a crucial element in conformity and other forms of social influence, we now turn to a more detailed discussion of these important forces.

Social Norms: The Key to Compliance Norms play an important role in our daily lives. These unwritten rules determine a large part of our social behavior. People seem predestined to set standards and stick to them even in the most insignificant situations. Norms exist on many levels, from general cultural norms to smaller, situation-specific norms. We have culture

Chapter 7

Compliance, compliance and obedience

Norms about how close we are to another person when we speak, how men and women interact in business settings, and what clothes we wear. We have certain rules of conduct in class or in court. The breach of the rules makes us uncomfortable. We get embarrassed if we show up to a wedding party in casual clothes and find everyone else dressed up, or if we show up to tennis camp dressed in white and everyone else is wearing the camp t-shirt. In general, one thing people don't like is standing out from the crowd, being the only one who is different. To get a better idea of how norms evolve and how normative social influence works, imagine you are participating in an experiment. You are sitting in a completely dark room, waiting for a point of light to appear on the wall opposite where you are sitting. After the light is triggered, you will be asked to rate the distance the light has traveled (in inches). In fact, light is imperceptibly stationary and only appears to be moving, a phenomenon called the autokinetic effect. What will happen when you are asked to make sequential judgments about the magnitude of the movement you perceive? Will your judgments vary widely or show some consistency? When you have to do the same task with two others, do your judgments remain independent or do they merge with the others? These questions were formulated by Sherif (1936, 1972) in his classic studies of norm formation. As the participants completed the task themselves, Sherif discovered that their judgments eventually reflected an internalized pattern that limited their estimates of how far the light traveled. That is, rather than being random, individual participants showed evidence that they established a range and norm to guide their judgments. When these participants were placed in a group context, the individualized domains and norms were merged into a single group norm. The results of this experiment showed that the subjects who performed the task alone displayed a wide range of judgments (from 1 inch to 7.5 inches). But after three sessions of the subjects judging distance in groups, their judgments converged, producing a funnel-shaped graph. According to Sherif, this convergence shows that the group developed a group norm without specific direction. Interestingly, this group norm persisted even when participants repeated the task a year later.

Classic compliance studies The convergence of judgments shown in Sherif's study should not come as a surprise. The autokinetic effect is tricky, so the task was ambiguous and based on subjective estimates of the distance traveled by a light. Individual judgments eventually converged into a group norm that demonstrated conformity. But what if the task is less ambiguous? Do the participants still conform to a group norm? Or do they keep their independence? These are some of the questions that Solomon Asch addressed in a classic series of experiments (1951, 1955, 1956).

The Ash Paradigm Imagine that you have signed up for an experiment examining perceptual judgments. When he arrives at the lab, he finds that several other participants are already present. They take up the only space left. They are told that the experiment consists of assessing the length of the lines presented on a map at the front of the room. You need to look at each of the three lines and decide which one matches the pattern shown on the left (Figure 7.1). The experimenter says that each of you will give your verdict verbally, one at a time. Since you are sitting in the last chair, you will make your judgment last.

235

236

social psychology

Figure 7.1 A line judgment task possibly used by Asch in his compliance experiments. The participant was asked to select a line on the right that matched the standard line on the left.

The experiment begins without incident. Each member of the group gives what they think is the correct answer and then gives their answer. But soon others are giving you answers that you think are wrong, and you have to decide what to do. Should you give the correct answer (which is obvious) or follow others who are wrong? Before we see what happened, let's take a look at the Ash paradigm. The “other participants” were not really participants. They were the experimenter's accomplices who were instructed to give wrong answers on various "critical tests". The misinformation provided by the false majority puts the true participant in a bind. On the one hand you have the evidence from your own senses telling you what the correct answer is. On the other hand, it has majority information about what is right. The participant finds himself in a situation where he must choose between these two competing sources of information. These competing sources of information create pressure on the participant. Now, when presented with a situation such as that created in Asch's experiments, there are two ways to test reality to determine which line actually matches the pattern. You can jump up, take the tape measure out of your pocket, run to the front of the room and measure the lines. This directly tests your perceptions against reality. However, you probably won't do this because it would offend your sense of the prevailing social norm: how you should act in the situation. The other option is to test the accuracy of your perceptions relative to those of others through a process of social comparison (Festinger, 1954). The Asch paradigm strongly favors the latter. Since the participants in these experiments are unlikely to measure the lines, what do they do with the conflict between the information from their own senses and the information from the majority? Conformity in Asch's experiments. Asch's experimental paradigm contrasted the participants' own perceptions with the opinions of a unanimous majority that held a clearly wrong judgment. Asch participants erred in the wrong majority direction by more than 33%

Chapter 7

Compliance, compliance and obedience

237

of critical evidence. Asch showed a completion rate of 33% in his line judgment task. Almost all participants knew the correct answer. When they completed the same task alone, the error rate (line deviation with pattern) was 7.4%, a quarter of the error rate when other participants were present. However, many changed their views to conform to the group's judgment. In this way, even with a simple perception task, an individual can give up his own judgment and follow the majority. Why should we do this? As we will see below, there are various reasons why people settle or remain independent. Pathways to Conformity and Independence Based on his findings and interviews with participants, Asch classified them as submissive (conforming) or independent (nonconforming) (Asch, 1951). Of those participants who gave in, some (but relatively few) gave in to the majority completely. These participants experienced perceptual bias and believed the majority judgments to be correct. They seemed to think that the wrong line was actually the right one. The largest group of compliant participants displayed biased judgment. These participants gave way because they lacked confidence in their own judgments: "I'm not sure anymore." Without this trust, they were unable to maintain their own awareness and remain independent. Eventually, some profitable participants experienced a stock market distortion. Here, participants knew the majority were wrong but resigned themselves to appearing no different than the other participants—“I follow” (Figure 7.2). That's what happened to Karl. Interestingly, there was a remarkable consistency among the productive participants. Once bound to the majority, they stayed on the path of conformity. Of the independent participants, about 25% remained completely independent and never agreed with the false majority (Asch, 1955). These participants were very confident in their own judgment and fully resisted pressure from the majority. Other independent participants stayed because they felt a strong need to remain self-sufficient; others remained independent because they wanted to do the job well. Asch's interviews show us that there are many paths to conformity or independence. Some participants remain independent because they trust their own senses, while others remain independent because they feel a strong need to do so. These latter participants appear to remain independent because of psychological reactance (Brehm, 1966).

Figure 7.2 Based on post-experiment interviews, Asch found that there was no path to conformity. Different participants settled for different reasons.

238

social psychology

As described in Chapter 6, psychological reactance occurs when individuals feel that their freedom to choose or act is threatened because other people are forcing them to do or say things (Brehm & Brehm, 1981). To restore independence, they reject the pressure of the majority and go their own way. But even when people choose to remain independent, they still feel the pressure of the false majority. Resisting the pressure of the majority is not easy. Independent players can take this pressure and maintain their own perception.

How does social influence create conformity? What about social influence situations that cause conformity? If your opinion differs from the unanimous majority, you face a dilemma. On the one hand, your senses (or belief system) are suggesting one thing; on the other hand, the social situation (usually) suggests something quite different. In such a situation one experiences a conflict that is psychologically uncomfortable (Moscovici, 1985). When dealing with this conflict, one pays more attention to the opinion of the majority. However, once the influence of the majority is removed, attention is returned to the stimulus (e.g., the line judgment in Asch's studies). Once the influence of the majority is removed, he will revert to his earlier judgments (Moscovici, 1985). The effects of dividing attention between the majority and the stimulus were demonstrated in a study in which participants were asked to rate how similar two sounds were in loudness (Tesser, Campbell, & Mickler, 1983). Participants performed this task under high social pressure conditions, when three members of the majority disagreed with the participant's noise assessment, or under low social pressure conditions, when only one person disagreed. Under high social pressure, participants responded by paying too little or too much attention to the stimulus being assessed. Under low social pressure, participants paid moderate attention to the stimulus. Researchers speculated that high social pressure would lead to high arousal. This arousal stems from competing tendencies to pay attention to both the stimulus and the source of social influence, other people. The net result is that a person engages in criminal behavior. Those who are strongly conformist can resolve the conflict by adopting the majority point of view. Others, who are less susceptible to the effects of social influence, can increase their attention to the stimulus to resolve the conflict. By focusing on the stimulus, they distract from social pressure. Like Karl in the jury room, some participants in Asch's studies plug their ears or eyes to avoid hearing or seeing what others are saying. It was the only way they could resist indulgence. Another way to approach this question is to examine the effects of consensus or agreement with others on our perceptions and behavior. Attitudes and behaviors that match those of others are a powerful source of social reinforcement. We like it when our attitudes and behaviors are scrutinized. The perception that our beliefs have social support is related to higher self-esteem (Goodwin, Costa, & Adonu, 2004). In addition, we are quicker to take a consensus stance than one against the majority. This is known as the slow minority effect (Bassili, 2003). The larger the majority, the quicker we will be willing to express an opinion consistent with that majority (Bassili, 2003). It doesn't matter if attitudes are important to us (e.g. political attitudes) or less important (e.g. the foods we like); we express attitudes that differ from the majority more slowly than those that do not (Bassili, 2003).

Chapter 7

Compliance, compliance and obedience

It is well known that we tend to compare our attitudes and behaviors with those of others (Prentice & Miller, 1993). Social norms, once they become popular, take on a life of their own and become “self-replicating” (Conway & Schaller, 2005). Conway and Schaller offer two explanations for the impact of consensus on behavior. The first is simply the old conformity rooted in our desire not to be different from others, as Asch's experiments show. Second, the attitudes and behaviors of others give us important information about the world and provide “social evidence” for commonly held beliefs. In other words, we tend to adopt commonly accepted attitudes and behaviors. So not only do we feel repelled by being an outcast among those around us, we also feel drawn to those whose beliefs we share.

Factors Affecting Compliance We have found that the opinions of others can influence our behavior. However, we have yet to examine how variables such as the nature of the task, the size of the majority, and the impact of another person's consent affect compliance. Next, we examine several variables related to the level of compliance observed in social influence situations.

Task Type The first variable that can affect the observed level of compliance relates to the task itself. One variable affecting completion rates is task ambiguity. The more ambiguous (ie, less obvious) the task faced by the individual, the greater the conformity (Crutchfield, 1955). Asch's task was simple, to judge the length of the lines, and he achieved an agreement rate of about 33%. Compliance surveys conducted with ambiguous stimuli show even higher levels of compliance. For example, Sherif's (1936) rule formation experiment using the autokinetic effect (an extremely ambiguous task) found compliance rates of about 70%. Other surveys that included hiring questions with no clear right or wrong answers yielded compliance rates similar to Sherif's. In one study, highly independent professionals, such as army officers and experienced engineers, were led to believe that other professionals would react differently to an opinion than they did (Crutchfield, 1955). For example, army colonels were told that other colonels agreed with the point "I often doubt that I would make a good leader". Now that's blasphemy for army officers trained to lead. However, before a false majority, 70% of officials said they agreed on this point. In private, they did not agree. The type of task facing a group can also determine the type of social influence (informational or normative) that comes into play. For example, informational social influence should be stronger when participants are presented with an intellectual question to which they can use factual information to arrive at a clearly correct answer (Kaplan & Miller, 1987). The normative social influence might be more decisive in a question of judgment. An appraisal question is based on moral or ethical principles where there are no clear right or wrong answers. Therefore, solving the problem depends on opinions, not facts. Kaplan and Miller (1987), in a moot jury study examining the use of informational and normative social influence, formed six-member juries to file a civil suit. The jury should award the plaintiff compensatory and punitive damages. Damages are awarded to the plaintiff for suffering and loss resulting from the conduct of the defendant. In general, awarding damages is a fact-based intellectual exercise. For example, if your lawnmower explodes because No Pain, No Gain Lawn Mower Company misplaced the gas tank, it's easy for the jury to add the cost of the lawnmower plus the medical costs incurred.

239

240

social psychology

attack. Punitive damages, on the other hand, are awarded to deter the defendant from repeating such acts in the future. The question of awarding punitive damages is a matter of discretion. How much should you fine the manufacturer to stop making exploding lawnmowers? The results of the study indicated that jurors performing an intellectual task (awarding damages) were more likely to use informational social influence than normative social influence. When the task has a clear pattern, it is the information that members of the majority can present that convinces the other judges. On the other hand, jurors performing a trial task were more likely to use normative influence. When there is no clear answer, majority judges try to persuade the minority to agree by pressuring them to conform to the group (majority) decision.

The Size of the Majority The size of the majority also affects compliance rates. To some extent, as the majority increases, so does conformity (Asch, 1951, 1956; Milgram, Bickman, and Berkowitz, 1969). As shown in Figure 7.3, there is generally a non-linear relationship between majority size and compliance. That is, the influence of the majority increases significantly until a critical majority size is reached. After that, adding more majority members doesn't significantly increase compliance. For example, Milgram and colleagues (1969) found that increasing the number of people (research partners) on a sidewalk looking up at the sky increased compliance (the percentage of pedestrians looking up) to a majority size of five and a half and then increased to the level. (see Figure 7.3). There is no absolute critical size of a majority after which adding majority members does not significantly increase compliance. Milgram and his colleagues found that compliance leveled off after a majority of five. Asch (1951) used his line judgment task to find that conformity leveled off after a majority of three. Regardless of the critical majority size, the general nonlinear relationship between majority size and compliance is well established.

Figure 7.3 The effect of majority size on compliance. Compliance initially increases but eventually levels off. Adapted from Milgram, Bickman, and Berkowitz (1969).

Chapter 7

Compliance, compliance and obedience

241

Why does compliance level off after a critical majority? Two explanations have been proposed (Baron, Kerr, and Miller, 1992). First, if majority members are added past the tipping point, the person in compliance may suspect that additional majority members are added to avoid problems in the group. If the individual Maker perceives this as a reason for joining the majority, the power of other majority members is reduced. Second, each new member of the majority is likely to become less inconspicuous as the size of the majority increases. That is, the person is more likely to add a third person to a majority of two than to add a tenth person to a majority of nine. An increase in majority size is more likely to lead to greater conformity in situations of normative social influence when the situation causes us to question our perceptions and judgments (Campbell & Fairey, 1989). When the majority is against us and we do not receive adequate information about the stimuli to judge, we settle. This is exactly what happened in the Asch experiment. Normative social influence also breeds conformity when judgment is easy and the individual is sure the group is wrong but cannot resist pressure from the majority. That's what happened to Karl in the jury room. The informative influence was nil. The other judges couldn't offer any information that Karl didn't already have. They did not dispute the evidence. They ruled that the law, not the evidence, was wrong. The jury wanted Karl to meet that standard. Eventually, as we know, he did. When you know you are right and the rest of the group is wrong, there is more conformity when the majority consists of three members than when it consists of just one (Campbell & Fairey, 1989). This makes sense because it is the normative influence that is at work in this situation. But what if you're not sure if the majority is right or wrong? In this case, you are looking for information that can support your decision, information that will help you make the right choice. The influence of information counts here. Few people, perhaps even one person, can convince you through informative social influence if your information is persuasive (Campbell & Fairey, 1989).

Having a real partner Changes caused by the forces that ensure compliance are often fragile and easily disrupted. This is the case when we discover that there is another person supporting our perceptions and actions in a particular social situation. For example, imagine you are invited to an elegant wedding at a fancy club on a Saturday night. When an invitation calls for a black tie, it is common for men to wear tuxedos and women to wear formal dresses. Now let's say you don't want to dress formally, but feel obligated because everyone else does (normative social influence). But suppose you're speaking to a friend who's also attending, and he doesn't want to wear a tuxedo or formal attire either. Both agree to wear less formal attire and are happy with their choice. Next weekend you're invited to another black tie event, but this time your friend isn't going. what will you do this time They decide to dress formally. This example illustrates an important social psychological phenomenon. The true partner effect occurs when we realize that there is someone who supports our position; then we are less likely to conform than if we were alone in the face of a unanimous majority. This effect was first demonstrated empirically by Asch (1951). In a variation of his experiment, Asch generated a real mate at some point during his compliance experiment. Given a verdict, the true partner would break with the false majority and support the verdicts of the true participant. The result of this manipulation was

true partner effect The phenomenon in which one person's tendency to conform to a majority position is reduced when there is another person who supports the nonconforming person's position.

242

social psychology

Impressive: Compliance has dropped by almost 80%! As in the example of black tie parties, we are better able to resist the powerful forces of normative social influence when we have a real partner. Why is this happening? There are many possible explanations. For example, if we break a norm ourselves, we draw attention to ourselves as deviant. Keep in mind that some of the Asch candidates settled down because they didn't want to look different. Apparently we are very uncomfortable when others perceive us as different. When we have a true partner, we can take the pressure off by reassuring ourselves that we're not the only ones breaking a rule. Another explanation of the royal mate effect is based on the process of social comparison (Festinger, 1954; Kruglanski & Mayseless, 1990). As discussed in Chapter 2, social comparison theory proposes that we compare our thoughts, beliefs, and actions to those of others to see if we agree. When we find that we agree, we feel validated; it is gratifying to receive this confirmation. Our confidence in our beliefs grows because we share them with others. Think of the second gala party. Without an actual partner, you conform your behavior to the prevailing norm: formal attire. Asch (1951) found exactly the same thing when he got the true partner to withdraw his support from the participant. If the participant was dropped, their compliance returned to the previous level. The true partner effect applies in the jury's deliberations; We have seen that Karl experienced great torment when he was the only one who resisted damnation. At the beginning of the deliberations, Karl had other members of the jury (real partners) who supported his point of view. When those jurors changed their votes, their support for Karl disappeared. Now Karl faced not only a unanimous majority, but one that included two formerly true partners. Would it have been different if a different juror had picked Karl? Perhaps. Courts have recognized that compliance pressures are greatest when one person is the sole advocate of a particular point of view.

Gender and Conformity In addition to examining the situational forces that affect conformity, social psychologists have studied how individual characteristics affect conformity. Early research suggested that women were more likely to conform than men (Eagly and Carli, 1981). For example, 43% of studies published before 1970 reported this phenomenon, compared to only 21% published after 1970. Have changes in cultural climate made women less likely to conform? Or were early compliance studies male-dominated, reflected in male tasks and a male-dominated environment? The research shows that the type of task was not important in eliciting the observed gender differences, but the sex of the experimenter was. In general, the largest gender differences are found when a male performs the compliance experiment. When a woman performs the experiment, no sex difference is found (Eagly & Carli, 1981). Analysis of the research also shows that there are conditions under which women are more likely to conform than men and others under which men are more likely to conform than women (Eagly & Chrvala, 1986). For example, women are more likely than men to adapt in peer pressure situations, that is, under conditions of normative social influence, than in persuasion situations in which informational social influence is exercised (Eagly, 1978; Eaglely and Carl, 1981). Two explanations for gender differences in compliance have been proposed (Eagly, 1987). First, gender can serve as a status variable in newly formed groups. Traditionally, the female gender role is considered weaker than the male. In everyday life, men are more likely to occupy positions of high status and power than women. Men are more likely to be in the position of “influencers” and women in the position of “influencers”. EITHER

Chapter 7

Compliance, compliance and obedience

The lower value placed on the female role may contribute to women's greater adaptability, particularly in situations of societal pressure. Second, women tend to be more sensitive than men to pressures to conform when their behavior is scrutinized, that is, when they have to speak their minds publicly (Eagly , Wood & Fishbaugh, 1981). When women have to make their opinions public, they are more likely to conform than men. In Asch's paradigm, participants had to express their opinions publicly; this favors conformist women more than men.

Historical and cultural differences in compliance Asch conducted his classic compliance experiment in the United States in the 1950s. The socio-cultural climate that existed at the time favored conformism. The country was still under the influence of "McCarthyism," which questioned people who did not conform to "normal" American ideals. This climate may have contributed significantly to the levels of compliance observed by Asch (Larsen, 1982; Perrin & Spencer, 1981). Researchers working in England have not been able to obtain such strong conformity effects as Asch's (Perrin & Spencer, 1981). This raised a question: were Asch's discoveries limited to a specific time and culture? Unfortunately, there is no simple answer to this question. There is evidence that compliance rates vary across the United States depending on the socio-political climate (Larsen, 1974, 1982). The compliance rate in the early 1970s was 62.5% (i.e. 62.5% of participants conformed at least once in an Asch experiment) compared to a rate of 78.9% in the early 1980s (Larsen, 1982). Compare this to Asch's (1956) rate of 76.5%. Findings such as these suggest that compliance rates may be linked to the prevailing cultural climate at the time of a study. The evidence for cross-cultural influences is less clear. Several studies suggest that conformity is a fairly ubiquitous phenomenon across cultures. Conformity has been established in European countries such as Belgium, the Netherlands, and Norway (Doms & Van Avermaet, 1980; Milgram, 1961; Vlaander & van Rooijen, 1985) as well as in non-Western countries such as Japan, China, and some countries. countries of North and South America (Huang & Harris, 1973; Matsuda, 1985; Sistrunk & Clement, 1970). In addition, some research suggests that there may be cross-cultural differences in conformity when comparing North Americans to non-Americans (see Furnham, 1984 for a review) and between other non-American cultures (Milgram, 1961). Conformity differences have also been found in Asian cultures (Korean vs. Japanese) (Park, Killen, Crystal & Wanatabe, 2003). What is the bottom line? It's safe to say that the Asch conformity effect is fairly general across cultures. However, some cultural groups can adapt to different levels than others. It also seems self-evident that cultural groups should not be viewed as uniformly conforming. Conformity also seems to vary in magnitude over time within a culture.

Minority Influence In the classic film Twelve Angry Men, Henry Fonda played a juror who firmly believes the accused is innocent. The only problem was that the other 11 jurors believed the defendant was guilty. As the jury began deliberating, Fonda remained steadfast in her belief in the innocence of the accused. As the film progressed, Fonda convinced each of the other 11 jurors that the defendant was innocent. The jury ultimately returned a not-guilty verdict.

243

244

social psychology

In this fictional depiction of a group at work, a single unwavering individual could not only resist the pressure to conform, but convince the majority that they were wrong. Such an event would be extremely rare in a real trial (Kalven & Zeisel, 1966). With an 11-to-1 split, the jury would almost always lean toward the majority (Isenberg, 1986; Kalven & Zeisel, 1966). However, the film raises an interesting question: can an unshakable minority change the majority? Almost 35 years after Sherif's original rule-making experiments, that question remained unanswered. It was not until 1969 that social psychologists began to study the influence of the minority on the majority. This line of research has been pursued more by European social psychologists than by American social psychologists.

Can a minority influence the majority? In the first published experiment on minority influence, the researchers created a compliance situation similar to that of Asch. Participants were fooled into participating in a color perception study (Moscovici, Lage & Naffrechoux, 1969). Participants looked at a series of slides and were asked to name the color on the slide. Unnoticed by the actual participants (four, who form the majority), two Confederates (who form the minority) were ordered to fail on certain tests, such as calling a blue slide green. The researchers found that 8.42% of actual participants' judgments were in the minority's direction, compared to just 0.025% of judgments in a control condition where there was no false minority. In fact, 32% of the participants formed the wrong minority. Therefore, a minority can have a surprisingly powerful effect on the majority. In this experiment, the minority participants were consistent in their judgments. Researchers have theorized that behavioral consistency is a strong determinant of the social influence that a minority can exert over the majority (Moscovici et al., 1969). It can be seen that a minority person who consistently expresses a dissenting opinion has a high level of confidence in their judgments. In the color perception experiment, most participants rated minority members as more confident in their judgments than they were. The consistent minority caused the majority to question the validity of their own judgments. What is it about consistency that helps a minority influence the majority? The different perceptions and attributions of consistent and inconsistent minorities are important factors. A consistent minority is generally perceived as more trusting and less willing to compromise than an inconsistent minority (Wolf, 1979). A persistent minority can also be perceived as highly competent, especially when it is a relatively large minority (Nemeth, 1986). In general, we assume that an opinion shared by several people must be correct. Perceived competition also increases as minority size increases (Nemeth, 1986). While research shows that consistency increases the power of a minority to influence the majority, consistency needs to be carefully defined. Will a minority that takes a firm stand and remains adamant be as persuasive as a more flexible one? Two styles of coherence have been distinguished: rigid and negotiating (Mugny, 1975). In the rigid style, the minority takes a position that contradicts the norm accepted by the majority, but does not want to show flexibility. When it comes to negotiation style, the minority, although consistent, shows a willingness to be flexible. Each of these styles contributes to the image of the minority in the eyes of the majority (Mugny, 1975). the rigid

Chapter 7

Compliance, compliance and obedience

The minority is perceived less favorably than a bargaining minority, possibly leading to the perception that the goal of the rigid minority is to block the majority. On the other hand, it can be seen that the negotiating minority is aiming for a compromise. In general, research suggests that a more flexible minority has more influence over the majority than a rigid one, as long as the minority's perceived coherence is preserved (Mugny, 1975; Nemeth, Swedlund, & Kanki, 1974). The minority's perception also depends in part on the extent to which they are willing to change their position in response to new information. A minority that adapts to new information is more influential than a minority that takes a position independent of additional information (Nemeth et al., 1974). A minority also has more power to influence the majority when the majority is aware that people have changed to the minority's point of view. However, the effect leveled off after three minority transitions (Clark, 1999). Clark concluded that the influence of minorities depended on the quality of the arguments they made against the majority point of view and the number of defectors from the majority. In a subsequent experiment, Clark (2001) used the “12 angry men paradigm” to further test this effect. In the 12 Angry Men paradigm, the jury is subjected to arguments contrary to the majority judgment of a single minority or multiple jurors, some of whom were members of the majority. Clark found that minority influence increased when the original member of the dissenting minority was accompanied by a member of the majority. Another interesting aspect of minority influence is that a minority is more likely to express a dissenting opinion when anonymous (e.g. via a computer) than when communicating face to face (McLeod, Baron, Marti and Yoon, 1997). . Interestingly, however, a minority has more power to influence the majority in face-to-face communication. Ironically, media that increase the likelihood that a minority will express dissent also decrease the minority's ability to influence the majority (McLeod et al., 1997). In another ironic twist, the degree to which a majority carefully processes a persuasive minority message is inversely proportional to the size of the minority. The smaller the minority, the more likely it is that the majority will carefully process the minority's message (Martin, Gardikiotis & Hewstone, 2002). A majority only needs a 50% split to be accepted by a minority (Martin et al., 2002).

Majority and Minority Influence: Two Processes or One? Social influence, as we have seen, works in two directions: from the majority to the minority and from the minority to the majority. The discovery of minority influence raised the question of the underlying social psychological processes that control majority and minority influence. Do two distinct processes control majority and minority influence, or is there a single process that controls both?

Two process model judgments made by a minority are more likely to make people think about the arguments presented (Moscovici, 1980). This suggests that two distinct processes are at work: majority influence, which occurs almost exclusively at the public level, and minority influence, which appears to operate at the private level. The majority influencing takes place according to the two-process approach through the application of pressure. People agree with the majority because of public pressure, but often don't really accept the majority opinion on a private level. The fact that the majority exerts great psychological pressure is reflected in the finding that people are very anxious when they disagree with the majority (Asch, 1956; Nemeth, 1986). However, as soon as

245

246

social psychology

Majority pressure is removed, people return to their original beliefs. In this model, majority influence is like normative influence: it does not necessarily have a lasting effect. For example, in the Leroy Reed case, Karl changed his sentence in response to peer pressure. However, he probably went home still believing deep down that Reed should have been convicted. Minority influence works according to the two-process approach, making people think more deeply about the minority position (Nemeth, 1986). In doing so, they evaluate all aspects of the minority opinion. The majority agrees with the minority because they have converted to their position (Nemeth, 1992). Minority influence is like information influence. Played by Henry Fonda, the character in Twelve Angry Men convinced members of the majority to change their voices through informational social influence. Unlike the majority, who used regulatory pressure to influence Karl in the Reed case, Fonda changed the minds of the other jurors by using persuasive informational arguments.

A unique process model: Social Impact Theory

social impact theory A theory that holds that social influence is a function of the combination of power, immediacy, and number of sources of influence.

The dual process model suggests that there are distinct psychological processes underlying majority and minority influence. A competing view, the single-process approach to social influence, suggests that a psychological process is responsible for both majority and minority influence. The first theory to explain majority and minority influence with a single underlying process was proposed by Latané (Latané, 1981; Latané & Wolf, 1981). Latané's social impact theory suggests that social influence processes are the result of the interplay of force, immediacy, and the number of sources of influence. This model can be summarized with the formula: Influence = ƒ(SIN)

where S represents the strength of the source of influence, I represents the immediacy (or proximity) of the source of influence, and N represents the number of sources of influence. Latané (1981) proposed an analogy between the effect of social influence and the effect of lightbulbs. For example, if you have a lamp of a certain wattage (e.g. 50 watts) and you place it 3 meters from a wall, it will project a light of a certain intensity against the wall. Moving the fixture closer to the wall (immediacy) increases the intensity of the light on the wall. If you move it away from the wall, the intensity will decrease. Increasing or decreasing the wattage of the lamp (the wattage of the source) also changes the intensity of the light cast on the wall. Finally, if you add a second (number) lamp, the light intensity increases. Likewise, the amount of social influence increases as the strength of a source of influence increases (e.g., as the credibility of the source improves), as the immediacy of the source increases, or as the number of sources of information increases. Latané also suggested that there is a non-linear relationship between the number of sources and the magnitude of influence. According to Latané, adding a second source of influence to a single source has a greater impact than adding source 101 to 100 sources. Social impact theory predicts that influence increases rapidly between zero and three sources and then decreases beyond that point, consistent with majority size effects research. Social impact theory can be used to explain minority and majority influence processes. In a situation of minority influence, the forces of social influence act on both the minority and the majority, taking the place of the other (Latané, 1981).

Chapter 7

Compliance, compliance and obedience

247

Latané proposed that minority influence depends on the strength, immediacy, and number of sources of influence on the minority, as well as the influence of the majority. Therefore, a minority of two should have more influence over the majority than a minority of one, a prediction that has been empirically supported (Arbuthnot & Wayner, 1982; Moscovici & Lage, 1976). An experiment by Hart, Stasson and Karau (1999) supports the explanation of the social effects of minority influence. In their experiment, Hart et al. The strength of the minority source (high or low) and the physical distance between the minority member and the majority (close or distant) varied. The results showed that in the "close" condition, the high and low strength minority had an equal impact. However, in the “distant” condition, the low-intensity source had little impact, while the high-intensity minority had a strong impact. Thus, two factors inherent in social impact theory affect the extent of minority influence. While there is still some disagreement about the precise mechanisms underlying minority influence, it is fair to say that there is more support for the single process model. However, there is also evidence that supports the dual process model.

Compliance: Responding to a Direct Request Compliance occurs when you change your behavior in response to a direct request from another person. In compliance situations, the person making the request does not have the authority to compel you to do what they are asking. For example, your neighbor might ask you to move your car so he can back up a truck in your driveway. However, assuming your car is legally parked, she has no legal authority to compel you to move your car. If you get out and move your car, you have (voluntarily) complied with your request. In this section, we examine two engagement strategies: the foot-in-the-door technique and the door-in-the-face technique. We'll start with the foot-in-the-door technique.

Foot-in-the-door technique Imagine you are shopping in a mall and someone approaches you. The lawyer asks you to sign a petition condemning drinking and driving. Now most people would like to sign such a petition. After all, it's for a cause that most people support and requires minimal effort to sign a petition. Next, imagine that you agree to this first request and sign the petition. After signing the petition, the attorney asks for a $5 donation to PADD (People Against Drunk Driving). You reach into your wallet to contribute a $5 bill. Imagine a different scenario. He's back shopping at the mall when someone from PADD approaches him asking for a $5 donation to help fight drink driving. This time, instead of picking up his wallet, he tells the lawyer to go and get back to his purchases. These two scenarios illustrate a common compliance effect: the foot-in-the-door (FITD) technique. In the first scenario, you are first asked to do something small and effortless, sign a petition. Then he was asked for a donation, a slightly more expensive request than simply signing a petition. Once he agreed to the first, smaller request, he was more inclined to agree to the second, larger request. This is the essence of the FITD technique. When people accept a small request before a larger request is made, they are more likely to accept the larger request than if the larger request were made alone.

Compliance Process of social influence consisting of changing behavior after accepting a direct request.

Foot in the Door Technique (FITD) A process of social influence in which a small request is made before a larger request, resulting in a higher compliance of the larger request than if the larger request were made alone.

248

social psychology

In the experiment that first demonstrated the FITD technique (Freedman and Fraser, 1966), participants were contacted at home by a representative of a fictitious market research firm under four different conditions: (1) Participants were asked if some participants would be willing to answer a few simple questions about the soap products used in their household (a request to which most participants agreed). Questions were only asked if the participant consented. This was referred to as a "performance condition". (2) Other participants were also asked if they would be willing to answer a few simple questions, but when they agreed, they were told that the company was only recruiting participants for a survey and would contact them later. This was referred to as an "agreement only" condition. (3) Other participants were contacted, informed about the questionnaire and told that the call was only to introduce people to the marketing company. This was the "accustomed" condition. (4) A last group of participants was only contacted once. This was the single contact (control) condition. Participants in the first three conditions were recalled a few days later. This time a larger order was placed. Participants were asked if they would allow a team of five or six people to enter their homes for two hours and inventory soap products. In the single contact condition, participants received only this request. The results of the experiment, shown in Figure 7.4, were surprising. Note that more than 50% of subjects in the performance condition (that is, the FITD technique) agreed with the second key requirement, compared to only about 22% of subjects in the single contact group. Also note that simply accepting the minor notification or being familiar with the company was not enough to significantly improve compliance with the larger notification. The FITD effect only occurs when the side quest is actually completed. Since this groundbreaking experiment, conducted in 1966, many other studies have confirmed the FITD effect. It even works in an online environment with websites to place small and large orders (Guéguen & Jacob, 2001). Researchers quickly turned their attention to investigating the underlying causes of the effect.

Figure 7.4 Fulfillment of a large request due to the nature of a smaller initial request. The highest level of conformance for a large request was achieved after participants first made a smaller request, demonstrating the "foot-in-the-door" technique. Based on data from Freedman and Fraser (1966).

Chapter 7

Compliance, compliance and obedience

Why It Works: Three Hypotheses Self-perception theory provides an explanation for the FITD effect (Bern, 1972). Remember from Chapter 6 that we sometimes learn about ourselves by observing our own behavior and making inferences about what causes that behavior. According to the self-perception hypothesis, FITD works because accessing the first query causes changes in our self-perception. Once we have accepted the original minor request, we see ourselves as the type of person to help in that particular situation and as such are more likely to offer similar help in the future. In a direct test to explain self-perception, Burger and Caldwell (2003) paid some participants $1 to sign a petition to help the homeless (the first petition in an FITD process). Other participants were given a marker that said “It's great to see someone caring for those in need” (increased self-confidence). Two days later, participants received a call asking them to volunteer to sort items in a panel to help the homeless. Results showed that participants in the enhancement condition were more likely to agree to the second request than those who received $1. Burger and Caldwell explain that in the enhancement condition, participants showed a change in their self-perception by perceiving themselves as people who help. Those who paid $1 showed no such change. In general, other research has provided support for explaining the self-awareness of the FITD technique (Dejong, 1979; Goldman, Seever & Seever, 1982; Snyder & Cunningham, 1975). Originally, it was believed that simply agreeing to an initial request was enough to produce the FITD effect. However, today we know that it is different. The FITD effect works when the initial request is large enough to create a commitment in a person, and the person attributes the commitment to internal and dispositional factors. That is, the person argues, "I'm the type of person who works with people who do market research" (or contributes to the PADD, or helps in certain situations). Although self-perception theory has been widely accepted as an explanation for the FITD effect, another explanation has also been proposed. This is the perceptual contrast hypothesis, which suggests that the FITD effect occurs because the lowest initial order acts as an "anchor" (a reference point) against which other orders are measured (Cantrill & Seibold, 1986). The subsequent query can be assimilated or contrasted with the anchor. Theoretically, in the FITD situation, the second principal order is considered equivalent to the anchor (the first ancillary order) and is considered less onerous than if it were presented alone. That is, the second and largest request is considered more appropriate based on the first request that the person has already agreed to. Although this hypothesis has attracted some interest, it does not have as much support as the self-perception explanation. Another explanation for the effectiveness of the FITD effect focuses on the thought processes of its recipients. Information about applicant and recipient behavior has been suggested to influence adherence to the FITD effect (Tybout, Sternthal, & Calder, 1983). According to this view, FITD targets experience changes in attitudes and cognitions about the requested behavior. Fulfillment of a second request depends in part on the information available on the subject in the participant's memory (Homik, 1988). This hypothesis was tested in a field experiment that included requests for contributions to the Israel Cancer Society (ICA; Hornik, 1988). The participants were first asked to fulfill a small request: distribute ICA flyers. Participants who accepted this request were given a sticker to put on their door. One version of the label advertised the participant's continued involvement in the ICA campaign. a second version

249

250

social psychology

indicated that the participants had fully complied with their obligation. Ten days later, the participants were contacted again and asked to make a donation to the ICA. In addition, the control group of participants was contacted for the first time. The results of this study confirmed the power of the FITD technique to induce adherence (compared to the control group). Participants who received the continued commitment label for the ICA showed greater compliance with the subsequent prompt than those who received the commitment label or those in the control group. Participants in the continued engagement group were likely to have attitudes about themselves, available information, and self-perceptions that indicated continued engagement. This resulted in higher compliance.

Limitations of the FITD Technique As you can see, the FITD technique is a very powerful tool to achieve compliance. Although the effect has been reproduced many times, it has its limitations. A major limitation of the FITD technique is that the demands made must be socially acceptable (Dillard, Hunter & Burgoon, 1984). People don't respond to requests they find offensive. Another limitation of the FITD technique is the cost of the required behavior. When costly behavior is required (eg, blood donation), the FITD technique does not work very well (Cialdini & Ascani, 1976; Foss & Dempsey, 1979). Does this mean that the FITD technique cannot be used to encourage socially desirable but costly behaviors such as blood donation? Not necessarily. A small modification of the technique can be effective: adding a moderately heavy request between the initial small requests and the final large requests. The addition of such an intermediate indicator increases the power of the FITD technique (Goldman, Creason & McCall, 1981). A gradually increasing and incremental series of requests can transform potential donors' self-perceptions, which are strongly associated with increasing adherence to the FITD paradigm. Interestingly, although the FTTD technique does not significantly increase blood donation, it can be used to induce people to become organ donors (Carducci & Deuser, 1984). However, there are also some limits here. In an experiment by Girandola (2002), participants were exposed to a FITD procedure under one of four conditions. Some participants received the second order immediately after the first, others with a delay of 3 days. Half of the participants received the second request (indicate how willing they were to become an organ donor) from the same person who made the original request or from a different person. As shown in Figure 7.5, the FITD process was effective in increasing willingness to become an organ donor under all conditions except when the second request was made immediately by the same person who made the first request. Why the difference between blood and organ donation? It may be that the two behaviors imply different levels of engagement. Donating blood takes time and involves some pain and discomfort. Organ donation made after death is not. Donating blood requires action; Organ donation only requires consent. It seems that blood donations are considered more expensive than organ donations. In such expensive conditions, the FITD technique does not work very well in its original form. Finally, the FITD technique does not work equally well for everyone. For example, it works better for individuals who have a greater need to maintain cognitive consistency than those who have a weaker need (Cialdini, Trost, & Newsome, 1995; Guadango, Asher, Demaine, & Cialdini, 2001). Furthermore, individuals who have a clear sense of self-concept (high self-concept clarity) were more affected by FITD manipulation than those with low self-concept clarity (Burger & Guadango, 2003).

Chapter 7

Compliance, compliance and obedience

251

Second equal applicant

Anders

average premium

12 10 8 6 4 2 0

Immediate moment of the second request

Afternoon

Door-in-Face technology Imagine you are sitting at home reading a book when the phone rings. The caller is an attorney for a charity that gives out food baskets to needy families on Thanksgiving. The caller describes the charity program and asks if you would be willing to donate $250 to feed a family of 10. Like many people, you react to this request: “Wha! I can't give that much! In response, the caller offers several other alternatives, each requiring a smaller and smaller donation (eg, $100, $50, $25, and $10). Each time the caller asks for an alternative, you feel more and more like Ebenezer Scrooge and eventually agree to provide a $25 shopping basket. Note the attorney's tactics. First he got a big request, which he thought was unreasonable, and then a smaller one, which he agreed to. The technique used by applicant was the exact opposite of what would occur with the FITD technique (a small application followed by a larger one). In this example, you have been the victim of Door-to-Face (DITF) technology. After being tricked into buying a candy bar from a Boy Scout using the DITF technique, a researcher decided to investigate the power of this technique to induce obedience (Cialdini, 1993). Participants were approached and asked if they would be willing to accompany a group of 'juvenile delinquents' to a local zoo (Cialdini et al., 1975). As expected, most participants declined this request. But in the DITF edition, this request was preceded by an even bigger request to work as a juvenile delinquent counselor for at least 2 years, 2 hours a week! Even less surprising is that this application was denied. However, when the request to escort offenders to the zoo followed the larger request, the obligations to travel to the zoo increased dramatically (Figure 7.6). Subsequent studies confirmed the power of the DITF technique to induce adherence (eg, Cialdini & Ascani, 1976; Williams & Williams, 1989). Like the FITD technique, the DITF technique works in an online environment (Guéguen, 2003).

Figure 7.5 The relationship between the timing of a second request and the identity of the person making the second request. Based on data from Girandola (2002).

Door-in-the-face technique (DITF) A process of social influence in which a large request is made before a smaller request, resulting in a higher compliance of the smaller request than if the smaller request were made alone.

252

social psychology

Figure 7.6 Fulfillment of a small order depending on the type of initial order. Participants responded better to a second, smaller request when it followed a larger request, demonstrating the gate-in-the-face technique. Based on data from Cialdini and colleagues (1975).

Reciprocity norm A social norm that says you should help those who help you and not harm those who help you.

Some researchers have suggested that the DITF technique works because the target of the influencing attempt feels compelled to comply with the attorney's concession (from the first large request to the second small request) (Cialdini et al., 1975). The socio-psychological mechanism at work here is the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960). The rule of reciprocity states that we must help those who help us. Do you remember Aesop's fable about the mouse that hit a lion with a thorn in its foot? Despite the obvious danger to itself, the mouse helped the lion by removing the thorn. Later, when the lion approached the mouse for help, the lion responded by helping the mouse. This is an illustration of the reciprocity rule. The norm of reciprocity is obviously a very powerful force in our social life (Cialdini, 1988). Inherent in this original standard statement is the idea that if we perceive someone else to be making a concession, we may feel compelled to retaliate. This rule helps to explain the DITF effect. It goes something like this: if an attorney first makes a big request and immediately backs down, if we decline and come back with a smaller request, we perceive the attorney as making a concession. We feel the pressure to retaliate by also making a concession. Our concession is to accept the lesser request, because refusing the lesser request would jeopardize our well-being, which is subject to the norm of reciprocity. Thus, in the DITF technique, our attention is focused on the behavior of the attorney who appears to have made a concession (Williams & Williams, 1989). If we don't reciprocate, we may later feel guilty or fear that we will appear unreasonable and petty given the attorney's admission. The power of the reciprocity rule has been demonstrated in empirical research. For example, one study found that more participants agreed to buy tickets from someone who had already done them a favor (who the participant had bought a soda pop) than from someone who had not done them a favor (Regan, 1971). In this study, the norm of reciprocity exerted a greater influence than general liking for the attorney. Research has also shown that the reciprocity norm is central to the DITF effect (Cialdini, 1993; Cialdini et al., 1975; Goldman & Creason, 1981). When an attorney makes more than one award

Chapter 7

Compliance, compliance and obedience

(when an attorney reads a list of progressively smaller requests), approval is higher than if the attorney only makes a concession (Goldman & Creason, 1981). This is especially true when the intermediate query is moderate (Goldman, Creason, & McCall, 1981). While there is support for the role of reciprocity in the DITF effect, some researchers have questioned its validity and proposed alternative explanations for these situations. One such alternative is the perceptual contrast hypothesis. As discussed above, this hypothesis focuses on the difference in size between the first and second requests. Applied to the DITF effect, the perceptual contrast hypothesis suggests that people agree to the second (small) request because it seems more reasonable given the first (big) request. The person may find the second request less distressing than the first. Although some evidence contradicts this view of initial seller loyalty, it is likely that it will follow (Burger & Petty, 1981). There is evidence that an obligation to a person (e.g., a salesperson) is more important than an obligation to conform (e.g., when buying a car) (Burger & Petty, 1981). Therefore, if you negotiated first with the seller and then with the sales manager, you may not be as inclined to buy the car as if you continued negotiations with the original seller. Engagement influences our behavior in two ways. First, we tend to look for reasons to justify a commitment after we have made it (Cialdini, 1993). This is consistent with the theory of cognitive dissonance discussed in Chapter 6. Typically, we create justifications that support our decision to buy the car. Second, we also have a desire to maintain coherence between our thoughts and actions and between our actions (Cialdini, 1993; Festinger, 1957). If the seller comes back with a higher offer, we may be inclined to accept the offer since a refusal would conflict with all the insights and justifications we develop during the cooking phase. Finally, the self-presentation statement suggests that the rejection of the initial application in the DITF process can lead to the applicant perceiving the target as worthless. To avoid this perception, the target agrees to the second request in order to project a more positive image onto the requester (Pendleton & Batson, 1979). There is some evidence for this explanation. Millar (2002) found that the DITF effect is stronger when the requests come from a friend of the target than from a stranger. Millar also reported that the target of the request was more concerned with introducing themselves when the request was from a friend than a stranger. Unfortunately, there is also evidence against the self-expression explanation (Reeves, Baker, Boyd, & Cialdini, 1993). Therefore, self-expression may be involved in the DITF effect, but may not be the best explanation for the effect.

Compliance Techniques: Summary We have described and discussed two different compliance techniques. Are they all equally effective or are some more effective than others? Research shows that the DITF technique causes more adherence than the FITD technique (Brownstein & Katzenv, 1985; Cialdini & Ascani, 1976; Rodafinos, Vucevic & Sideridis, 2005). There is also evidence that a combined FITD-DITF strategy results in greater adherence than either technique alone (Goldman, 1986). Another two-step technique called low-balling can be more effective in achieving compliance than the FITD or DITF techniques (Brownstein & Katzenv, 1985). In low-ball, an initial request or offer is made that seems too good to be true. Once you accept this request, a higher request will be made. In one experiment, participants were stopped and asked to donate money to a museum fundraiser. The order has been placed

253

254

social psychology

Table 7.1 Different compliance techniques Compliance technique

Description

foot in the door

The small order is followed by a larger order. You are more likely to accept the larger request after accepting the smaller request.

door in the face

The large (rejected) order is followed by a smaller order. You are more likely to agree to a smaller request after the larger one.

steel balls

An initial offer is made that seems too good to be true (e.g. a low price for a car). This bid is later withdrawn and replaced by a higher one. The person will likely accept the highest offer.

that's not all effect

Extras are added to initial offers (e.g. "Buy now and we'll add another product for free") that appear like spontaneous generosity offers. A person is more likely to buy the original product than if no add-ons are included.

even a cent helps

After a request for a donation is refused, an attorney might say, "Even a dime would help." If the target person cannot donate, he or she will feel cheap, so the target person donates something.

under FITD, DITF, low ball or a control condition. The average amount of money donated was higher in the low-ball conditions than in the FITD, DITF, and control conditions (which were not significantly different from each other). Although we have focused on two compliance techniques, you should be aware that there are other techniques that are used to trick you into donating money or buying products. Space does not permit a full discussion of all of these techniques. We summarize the various enforcement techniques in Table 7.1. All of these compliance techniques have been and are used to trick people into buying products (some of which they want and some they don't). The psychological mechanisms of reciprocity, attachment, consistency, and perceptual contrast operate to varying degrees to produce conformity. Because we all share these mechanisms, we all occasionally find ourselves doing something we really don't want to do. Sellers of all types use fulfillment techniques to sell their products (Cialdini, 2000). The best way to protect yourself from these techniques is to recognize and understand them when they are being used.

Obedience In 2003, US soldiers running Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq subjected prisoners to various forms of abuse and humiliation. When the military's actions came to light in 2004, those directly involved were arrested and subjected to military justice. One soldier, Lynndie England, 21, was among those arrested. In a now famous photograph, England is shown holding a naked Iraqi prisoner in a dog collar. When asked to explain his actions, England repeatedly said he was following orders

Chapter 7

Compliance, compliance and obedience

255

your manager. In his words, he was following instructions from "people in my higher chain of command" and that "higher-ranking people were telling me to stay there, hold that leash and look at the camera." When England sought instructions from their superiors to explain their behavior , it continued a long tradition of people in similar positions. In fact, senior Nazis claimed they were following orders when they committed heinous crimes against Jews, Roma and Eastern Europeans during World War II. The question we will examine in this section is whether an ordinary person can be made to do something extraordinary when ordered by a person in authority.

Obedience Definition Obedience occurs when we change our behavior in response to a direct command from someone in authority. Most of the obedience we observe daily is constructive obedience because it promotes the functioning and well-being of society. Certainly no group, no society, could last long if it could not get its members to obey laws, rules, and customs. In general, obedience is not a bad thing. Traffic flows much easier when there are traffic rules, for example. But when the rules and regulations that people must obey are negative, obedience is one of the plagues of society. This type of obedience is called destructive obedience. Destructive obedience occurs when a person obeys an authority figure and behaves against accepted standards of moral behavior, behavior that is contrary to the demands of conscience. It is this latter form of obedience that has been studied by social psychologists. Unfortunately, destructive obedience, the form of obedience that interests us most in this chapter, is a recurring theme throughout human history. Throughout human history, there are many instances where people have carried out orders that have resulted in the harm or death of others. In addition to the Lynndie England case just mentioned, many Nazi leaders at the Nuremberg Trials after World War II resorted to the explanation that they were following orders. More recently, in ethnic violence between Serbs and Bosniaks in the former Yugoslavia, Serb soldiers were allegedly ordered to rape Muslim women in captured towns or villages. Islamic tradition condemns women who have been raped or who have become illegitimate; These orders were intended to destroy the fabric of Muslim family life. Serbian soldiers were ordered to behave in patently immoral and illegal ways. More recently, mass killings have taken place in Kosovo at the behest of Serbian leaders. Destructive obedience does not only arise in such large situations. Destructive obedience can also take the form of threats to your day-to-day activities. For example, Tarnow (2000) cites evidence that excessive obedience to captain's orders can be responsible for up to 25% of all aviation accidents. One form of compliance appears to be particularly problematic: when the non-flying crew member (co-pilot) does not carry out supervision properly and later questions a pilot error. This type of mistake is made in 80% of aviation accidents (Tarnow, 2000). Tarnow suggests that the atmosphere in the cabin is one of a captain's absolute authority. The captain has these powers by law. However, more power derives from the captain's greater flight experience than the co-pilot (it takes at least 1,500 flight hours to become a captain vs. 200 hours for a first officer). Derived power from the law and greater experience make it difficult for junior officers to challenge the captain, even in cases where the captain's decision is obviously wrong (Tarnow, 2000). The consequences of this obedience dynamic can be tragic.

obedience A process of social influence in which behavior is modified in response to a command from an authority figure.

256

social psychology

Destructive Obedience and the Social Psychology of Evil There is a tendency to attribute destructive acts of obedience to some abnormal intrinsic characteristic of those who commit them. We often refer to individuals like Adolph Eichmann (the "architect" of the Holocaust) as "evil." The concept of evil has been used extensively throughout history and contemporary culture. For example, in his 2002 State of the Union address, President George Bush referred to Iran, Iraq and North Korea as the "Axis of Evil" for their pursuit of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. In 1983, the late President Ronald Reagan referred to the former Soviet Union as an "evil empire" and the focus of all evil in the world at the time. And, of course, Osama bin Laden is commonly nicknamed "evil." What does the term evil actually mean? Traditionally, concepts of evil have been left to philosophers and theologians. Recently, however, social psychologists have paid attention to the concept and developed social psychological concepts of evil. In contrast to the traditional notion of evil, which permeates a person with deviant inner characteristics, social psychologists prefer a situational definition of evil with a focus on overt behavior. For example, Zimbardo (2004) defines evil as "the intentional act or inducement of others to act that demeans, dehumanizes, harms, destroys, or kills innocent people" (p. 22). According to this definition, a wide range of behaviors, including terrorism, genocide, and even corporate misconduct, can be considered evil (Zimbardo, 2004). How does a socio-psychological definition of evil relate to obedience? Following an order from someone in authority can lead to poor results. For example, under the orders of his Nazi superiors, Adolph Eichmann was directly responsible for the extermination of millions of innocent people. Obedience has the power to turn ordinary people into people who are willing to do things they would not normally do (Zimbardo, 2004). Zimbardo identified 10 inherent principles of obedience that can bring about this transformation. These are shown in Table 7.2. What are the deeper roots of evil? Of course, this question can be approached from many perspectives, including the philosophical and the religious. However, we limit ourselves to a psychosocial answer to the question. Baumeister and Vohs (2004) identify four causes of misconduct. They are: 1. Instrumentality: use of force to bring about an end or resolve a conflict. 2. Threat of Selfishness: Violence in response to contested honor or injured pride. 3. Idealism: Evil actions performed to attain a greater good. 4. Sadism: Pleasure in hurting others (reported more by victims than perpetrators). According to Baumeister and Vohs, the four roots form a causal chain that drives a person to commit evil deeds. However, a final link between the four roots and actual evil behavior is the loss of self-control (Baumeister & Vohs, 2004). When one loses one's normal restraints against bad deeds (e.g., mass violence), evil is more likely to result. When self-control mechanisms are maintained, misconduct is less likely. Staub (1989) proposes three other roots of evil. These are: more difficult living conditions, cultural and personal requirements and socio-political organization. Staub points out that misconduct is often committed under difficult living conditions, such as economic depression and social disorganization. For example, the dismal economic conditions in Germany after World War I undoubtedly contributed to the rise of the Nazi Party and the subsequent damage inflicted on Jews and others. Cultural and personal factors are embedded

Chapter 7

Compliance, compliance and obedience

Table 7.2 Ten Inherent Principles of Obedience That Can Lead Obedience to Wickedness 1. Provide an acceptable reason for the offensive act. 2. Agree on a written or verbal contract to run the promotion. 3. Give people meaningful roles (e.g. prison guards). 4. Develop rules to be followed that serve to justify actions. 5. Change the language so that the person believes they are not actually hurting the victim. 6. Provide opportunities to delegate responsibility to others (diffusion of responsibility), thereby freeing individuals from direct personal responsibility for actions. 7. Begin the obedience process with small acts first and later demand larger acts. 8. Gradually increases damage to victims over time. 9. Gradually change the nature of authority from appropriate to unreasonable. 10. Make it difficult to disobey and increase the cost of disobedience. Based on Zimbardo (2004, p. 28).

about individual self-concept and traditional ingroup/outgroup divisions in a culture. When a person's self-esteem is threatened, that person will strive to regain a sense of control and power. This can be achieved by building a sense of ingroup superiority over outgroups. This is exactly what happened in Nazi Germany. After all, certain socio-political organizational structures are more likely to lead to misconduct than others. Totalitarian and authoritarian systems that institutionalize prejudice and discrimination are more likely to lead to evil deeds. Again, this is exactly what existed in Nazi Germany prior to the implementation of the "Final Solution" to the Jewish problem, which resulted in the murder of millions.

The Banality of Evil: The Eichmann Fallacy It would be a relief if those engaging in destructive acts of obedience were deviant individuals prone to antisocial behavior. Unfortunately, history tells us that those who commit evil are often quite ordinary. William Calley, who commanded the squad that carried out a massacre in the Vietnamese town of My Lai, was common before and after My Lai. So did Mohammad Atta, the leader of the 9/11 hijackers. Like Adolph Eichmann, one of the architects of the Holocaust and Nazi officer responsible for sending European Jews to concentration camps during World War II. Eichmann's job was to ensure that the death camps had a steady stream of victims. He secured the cattle cars needed to transport the human cargo. His work was administrative, bureaucratic; He often had to fight competing German interests to obtain enough wagons. After the war ended, Eichmann, one of the most wanted war criminals, fled to Argentina. From 1945 to 1961 he worked as a laborer outside of Buenos Aires. His monotonous existence ended in 1961 when he was captured by Israeli secret agents and taken to Israel. There he was charged with crimes against humanity. After a lengthy trial, Eichmann was found guilty and subsequently hanged.

257

258

The Eichmann fallacy The belief that bad deeds are only committed by bad people.

social psychology

The Israelis built a special clear bulletproof pedestal for Eichmann to appear during his trial. They feared that someone in Israel would decide to apply personal justice. What did the man in the glass booth look like? Eichmann was a short, bald man whose glasses fell off his nose from time to time. You could walk past him hundreds of times on the street without noticing him. During the trial, Eichmann presented himself as a man eager to please his superiors and aspiring to promotion. Killing people was an uncomfortable but necessary part of his job. Personally, I didn't really hate Jews. I was just following orders. The philosopher and social critic Hannah Arendt observed Eichmann in the dock. He was struck by the huge gap between the man's normality and the brutal acts he was accused of. In her book Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil (1963), Arendt essentially accepted Eichmann's defense. His analysis of Eichmann suggests that evil is very common. Those who commit acts of destructive obedience are usually ordinary people like you and me. One was surprised by the analysis of Eichmann and Arendt. They expected a Nazi war criminal to be the epitome of evil. The prevailing belief was that bad people commit bad deeds, a belief known as the Eichmann fallacy (Brown, 1986). Sometimes persons committing evil deeds are quite common, as Eichmann seems to have been. Unsurprisingly, not everyone agrees with the common notion of the banality of evil. For example, Calder (2003) argues that a person can have an "evil character" and still have ordinary appearance and behavior. However, Calder admits that it is possible for ordinary people to commit evil deeds even if they are not of evil character. In an interesting distinction, Calder proposes that some people, like Adolf Hitler, commit evil acts of their own accord, without guidance from anyone else (autonomous evil). Calder classifies people in this category as moral freaks. Moral monsters like Hitler are particularly condemned for their active role in initiating and directing evil deeds (Calder, 2003). Others, like Adolph Eichmann, do evil at the behest of others (non-autonomous evil). People in this category are moral idiots. We may be more apt to label moral nerds as genuinely evil than moral idiots. However, it is possible to characterize the actions of moral idiots as truly evil when those actions are particularly egregious and follow a consistent pattern. Our discussion of the nature of evil leads us to a central question: are evil actions the product of evil character (internal attribution) or are they motivated more by aspects of the social situation (external attribution)? This brings us to the main question, which we will consider in the following sections: Do bad deeds always lead to a bad person? Although we may feel better if the answer to this question is yes, in this chapter we see that unfortunately things are not that simple.

Who is ultimately liable for misconduct? After World War II, the Allies tried many of the high-ranking Nazis who, like Eichmann, pleaded not guilty. Their main defense was to shift responsibility to their superiors: they were just following orders. Recently, a former East German border guard, Ingo Heinrich, was tried for his role in preventing East German citizens from fleeing to the West during the height of the Cold War. Heinrich, along with his fellow border guards, had orders to shoot anyone trying to escape across the Berlin Wall. Henry did just that. But some of his comrades, under the same order, shot the fugitives' heads. After the fall of the Berlin Wall and the reunification of Germany, Heinrich was arrested and charged with murder. He was eventually found guilty and sentenced to 3.5 years in prison.

Chapter 7

Compliance, compliance and obedience

The Eichmann and Heinrich cases raise some important questions about liability. Is "I was just following orders" a valid defense? Is personal liability excluded? Or should individuals be held accountable for their behavior, even if they followed orders? On the surface, Eichmann and Heinrich appear to be personally responsible for their behavior. However, a closer look at authority and its impact on behavior suggests a more complex, multi-faceted picture. These questions and questions served as the trigger for what is arguably the most famous of obedience experiments.

Milgram's obedience experiments How do you test destructive obedience in a laboratory? The late Stanley Milgram created a simple but powerful situation. Before we look at that, let's consider the socio-historical "climate" of the United States at the time. The year is 1962. Vietnam was just a dot on the back pages of the newspapers. There hadn't been the Kennedy assassination, the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr., Watergate, or the riots on the streets of Newark, Detroit, and Watts. This was America before the early 1960s, still retaining some of the innocence, albeit illusory, of the 1950s. This context is important to keep in mind because it may have influenced people's behavior in the experiments. Milgram.

The Participants' Perspective Let's start by considering what these experiments looked like from the participants' perspective (Elms, 1972). Imagine you live in New Haven, Connecticut. One day he sees an ad in the newspaper asking for volunteers for a learning and memory experiment at nearby Yale University. The researchers are clearly aiming for a good representation of the general population. The ad piques your curiosity and you decide to sign up for the experiment. When you come to the experiment, a young man, Mr. Williams, an associate of Dr. Milgram, write each of you a check for $4.50. Williams says little is known about the effects of punishment on learning, and that's what this experiment is all about. You're a little worried when Williams says that one of you will be a student and the other will be a teacher. Your fear of punishment quickly dissipates when you draw lots and choose the role of teacher. Preparations aside, Williams leads the two into a room past a sinister-looking device that reads "Shock Generator, Thorpe ZLB. . . Output 15 volts - 450 volts” (Milgram, 1974). The student, Mr. Wallace, is instructed to sit in a straight-backed metal chair. Williams coldly tells you to help tie Wallace's arms to prevent "excessive movement" during the experiment, which you do. Williams then applies a white paste, which he describes as electrode paste, to Wallace's arms "to prevent blisters and burns." Wallace is now concerned and asks if there is any danger. Williams says, "Although the shocks can be extremely painful, they do not cause permanent tissue damage" (Elms, 1972, p. 114). In front of the student is a set of buttons that you use to answer your questions. Williams reports that a light board in the other room will record the student's responses. If their answers are correct, tell them as a teacher. If wrong, it will deliver an electric shock from the shock generator. It's time to start the experiment. You leave Wallace strapped to the shock generator and follow Williams into the next room. It puts you in front of a control panel with 30 levers, each with a small red light and a large purple light above it. The lights are labeled 15 volts, 30 volts, 45 volts, etc. up to 450 volts at the top. Over there

259

260

social psychology

There are also descriptions of the shock levels printed above the labels: Mild Shock, Moderate Shock, Major Shock, Major Shock, Extreme Shock, and finally on the last few buttons in Red Danger: Major Shock XXXXX. At this point Wallace might be expected to be smarter than he appears (Elms, 1972). Before beginning the experiment, Williams applies a 45-volt sample shock, which causes a small jerk. He is then told that his job is to teach Wallace various lists of word pairs, such as Blue Box, Good Morning, Wild Duck. You read the entire list of word pairs and then test one pair at a time, specifying the first word of each pair. At first the test runs smoothly; Wallace doesn't make mistakes. Then he makes his first mistake and you have to shock him with 15 volts. Williams says that for each additional failure, you need to increase the discharge by 15 volts. On later attempts, Wallace often makes mistakes. As you reach 105 volts, you hear Wallace yell through the wall, "Hey, that really hurts!" Williams, calm as ever, doesn't seem to notice. You certainly do. At 150 volts, Walace's wails yell, "Experimenter, get me out of here!" I will no longer participate in the experiment. I refuse to go on!" (Olmos, 1972, p. 115). You look at Williams. He says softly but firmly, "Keep it up." Williams brings up more lists of word pairs. You begin to wonder what you and Wallace are for Got $4.50 Now you're at 255 volts, intense shock Wallace yells after every volley Every time you ask Williams if you can stop, he tells you to continue At 300 volts you ask wondering if Wallace is going to die."But," you think, "they wouldn't let that happen at Yale . . . or would they? "Hey, Mr. Williams," you say, "whose responsibility is that? What if Do you die or get seriously injured? Williams doesn't blink: "It's my responsibility, not yours, just keep going with the experiment." It's finally over. No more crash switches to throw. You're sweaty, restless. Wallace comes from the other room. It's alive and looking good. You apologize. He tells you to forget it, he would have done the same if he was in your place. He smiles and rubs his aching wrists, everyone shakes hands and you and Wallace walk away together.

Behavior and Expected Results in the Milgram Experiment How do you think you would behave in the Milgram experiment? Most people think that he would refuse to follow the investigator's orders. Milgram was interested in this question, so he asked a wide range of people, both experts (psychiatrists) and non-experts (students and non-college adults), how they thought the participants would behave in this situation. They all predicted that they would end the experiment and challenged the experimenter. The psychiatrists predicted that if the student started protesting at 150 volts, the participants would stop. So if you think you would defy the experimenter and refuse to inflict pain on another person, you are not alone. Another study independent of Milgram examined the role of various variables in predicting obedience in a Milgram experiment (Miller, Gillen, Schenker, & Radlove, 1974). Mueller and others. provided participants with verbal descriptions and a slide show describing the Milgram experiment. Mueller and others. analyzed two classes of variables: perceptual variables (gender and normative information [some participants received the benchmark Milgram experiment results and others did not]) and stimulus-person variables (gender and physical attractiveness). The dependent variable was the

Chapter 7

Compliance, compliance and obedience

expected level of shock that would be delivered in the situation. The results showed that participants believed that men delivered stronger shocks than women and that unattractive people delivered stronger shocks than attractive people. This last finding was particularly true of download managers. Interestingly, males showed greater agreement between predictions of another person's obedience behavior than did females. The participants believed that they themselves would deliver fewer shocks than someone else in the same situation. The assumption underlying these predictions is that individual characteristics will be stronger determinants of behavior than situational factors. Milgram's participatory predictions reflect the notion that moral knowledge predicts moral behavior; in other words, if you know what is right, you will do it. However, the results of Milgram's first "baseline" experiment (in which there was no feedback from victims) do not support these optimistic predictions. Most participants (65%) went up to 450 volts. In fact, the average shock level that participants gave in this first experiment was 405 volts! We can conclude from this result that most of us would probably also reach 450 volts under the right circumstances. Of course, Wallace, who was actually a professional actor acting from a script, was not electrocuted. However, the Milgram participants were unaware that the entire situation was fabricated.

Situational Determinants of Obedience Milgram himself was surprised by the level of obedience observed in his first experiment. He and others performed several additional experiments to examine the situational factors affecting compliance levels. In the following sections, we examine some of these situational factors. Victim Proximity In his first series of experiments, Milgram tested the limits of obedience by varying the proximity between teacher and student (victim). The conditions were: 1. Victim removed. Teachers and students were in separate rooms. There was no feedback from the victim to the teacher. That is, Wallace did not speak, moan, or scream. 2. Voice feedback. The teacher and student were in separate rooms, but Wallace began to protest the shocks as they intensified. This is the experiment just described. In one version of the voice feedback condition, Wallace makes it clear that he has a heart condition. After receiving 330 volts, he yells, “Get me out of here. let me out of here My heart troubles me” (Milgram, 1974, p. 55). 3. Proximity. The teacher and student were in the same room, sitting just a few feet apart. 4. Tap Proximity. The teacher and student were in the same room, but the student was only shocked when his or her hand was placed on a shock pad. Once the student refused to keep his hand on the plate. The teacher was instructed to hold the student's hand while administering the shock. The master often had to wrestle with the victim to ensure the hand was properly positioned on the crash pad.

261

262

social psychology

These four conditions reduce the physical distance between teacher and student. Milgram found that decreasing the distance between teacher and student affected the degree of obedience (Figure 7.7). In the remote victim condition, 65% of the participants obeyed the experimenter and rose to 450 volts (mean shock intensity was 405 volts). As you can see in Figure 7.7, the compliance in the voice feedback state was not significantly reduced. Under this condition, compliance was reduced by only 2.5% to 62.5% at an average shock intensity of 368 volts. Therefore, even if the student indicates that his heart is bothering him, verbal feedback from the student is not very effective in reducing compliance. Significant decreases in obedience rates were observed as the distance between teacher and student further decreased. In the proximity condition, where the teacher and student were in the same room and a few feet apart, 40% of participants went to 450 volts (at an average shock intensity of 312 volts). Finally, when the teacher was asked to hold the student's hand on the shock pad in the near-touch state, only 30% agreed and went to 450 volts (the average shock intensity was 269 volts). Why does bridging the gap between teacher and student have such a dramatic effect on obedience? Milgram (1974) offered several explanations. First, reducing the distance between teacher and student increases the student's empathetic signals, signals of distress, such as distress. B. Screaming or hitting the wall. In the remote sacrifice condition, the teacher does not receive any feedback from the student. There is no way for the master to gauge the degree of the disciple's suffering, facilitating the master's awareness of doing harm. Under feedback conditions, however, the student's suffering is undeniable. The teacher has a greater opportunity to observe the student in the voice, proximity, and tactile feedback states than in the distant victim state. However, it is interesting to note that even in the proximity contact condition, a significant percentage of the participants (39%) were willing to fully obey the experimenter. Obviously there are some among us who are willing to reject empathic signals and

Figure 7.7 The effect of the student approaching the teacher. Compliance was higher in the remote condition. Adding voice feedback did not significantly reduce compliance. Only when students and teachers were in the same room did compliance decrease. The lowest level of compliance occurred when the teacher was asked to touch the student to administer the electric shock. Based on data from Milglam (1974).

Chapter 7

Compliance, compliance and obedience

continue to harm others in a situation of close personal contact. For example, in the early stages of the Holocaust there was no shortage of Nazis willing to shoot Jews at close range. Milgram also suggested that there is "narrowing of the cognitive field" or cognitive narrowing in the remote victim state. That is, the teacher can forget about the student and concentrate on the learning task. As the victim becomes more observable, this pinch becomes more difficult and compliance decreases. These results suggest that it is more difficult to harm someone who can be seen, heard, or touched. That's why it's probably easier to drop bombs on a city of 500,000 from 30,000 feet than to strangle a person with your bare hands. Situational Power A second variable Milgram examined was the nature of the institution behind the authority. The original studies were conducted at Yale University. To test the possibility that the participants were intimidated by the school's power and prestige, Milgram rented a loft in downtown Bridgeport, Connecticut and conducted the experiment under the name Research Associates of Bridgeport. He also had the experimenter act as a high school biology teacher. Under these conditions, compliance decreased to 47.5% compared to 65% in the first reference study. While this 17.5% difference does not meet usual levels of statistical significance, it does suggest that removing some of the legitimacy traps from an authoritative source reduces compliance somewhat. Presence and legitimacy of the authority figure What would happen if the authority figure were physically removed from the obedience situation? In another variation of his original experiment, Milgram had the experimenter issue commands over the phone, varying the immediacy of the authority figure rather than the immediacy of the victim. He found that when the experimenter is absent or trying to give shock delivery instructions over the phone, compliance drops drastically to just 20%. The closer the authority figure, the greater the obedience. After the publication of Milgram's original research, other researchers became interested in aspects of authority that might affect levels of obedience. One line of inquiry sought the perceived legitimacy of the authority figure. Two different studies have examined the effect of uniform on compliance (Bickman, 1974; Geffner & Gross, 1984). In one study (Geffner & Gross, 1984), experimenters approached participants who were about to cross a street and asked them to cross at a different crosswalk. Half of the time the experimenter was in official uniform and the other half of the time the experimenter was not in uniform. The researchers found that participants in uniform were more likely to comply than those without uniform. Mixed Messages of Obedience Milgram also examined the effects of conflicting commands. The participants received these mixed messages in two variations. In one case, the mixed messages came from the student and the experimenter. The student urged the professor to continue administering shocks while the researcher defended stopping the experiment. In the second variant, two authority figures conveyed the mixed messages. One asked the teacher to continue while the other asked the teacher to stop.

263

264

social psychology

When such a conflict arose, the participants chose the path that led to a positive result: to end the harm to the student. When there was a conflict between the sources of authority or between the student and the source of authority, no participant reached 450 volts. Group Effects A fourth variant involved groups of teachers instead of a single teacher. In this variant, a real participant was fooled into believing that two others would act as co-teachers. (These other two were the experimenter's allies.) When the trainee began to protest at 150 volts, one ally decided not to proceed. Defying the investigator's orders, he walked away and sat in a chair across the room. The second Confederate followed at 210 volts. Milgram's results showed that challenging the experimenter by both Confederates significantly reduced compliance. Only 10% of participants responded to 450 volts (average shock intensity 305 volts). Thirty-three percent of the participants quit after the first confederate challenged the experimenter but before the second confederate. Another 33% were broken at the 210 volt level after the second Confederate challenged the experimenter. Thus, two-thirds of the participants who disobeyed the experimenter did so immediately after the Confederates challenged him. Why does it significantly reduce the participant's obedience when he sees two others disobeying the experimenter? One explanation focuses on a phenomenon called the Diffusion of Responsibility. Diffusion of responsibility occurs when a person delegates responsibility for their actions to other people present. In the compliance situation, where two other teachers administered shocks, the participant could tell himself that he was not the only one responsible for inflicting pain on the student. However, when the two Confederates parted ways, he kept the bag; now he was solely responsible for the application of the downloads. When people are able to distribute responsibility for another person's harm, compliance is generally higher than if they had to do harm themselves and could not distribute responsibility (Kilharn & Mann, 1974). In short, when two people challenged the experimenter, the participant was placed in a conflicted position about who was responsible for harming the student. There is another explanation for the group effects observed by Milgram. When the two Confederates abandoned the experiment, a new norm began to form: disobedience. The old norm of obeying the experimenter conflicts with the new norm of disobedience. The disobedience policy is more “positive” in terms of harming the student than the compliance policy. Remember that when participants were given a choice between a positive and a negative command, the majority chose the positive one. However, individual participants in the original studies did not have these conflicting norms and were therefore more apt to respond to the obedience norm. Having role models who challenge authority with impunity clearly encourages us against authority. As new norms are developed, disobedience to oppressive authorities becomes a more viable option.

The Role of Gender in Compliance Milgram's original research used only male participants. In a later rebuttal, Milgram also included female participants and found that males and females conformed at the same level. However, later research has shown that there is a gender difference in obedience. In an experiment conducted in Australia, Kilham and Mann (1974) found that males were more obedient than females. In another study conducted in the United States, Geffner and Gross (1984) found that men were more obedient to uniformed authority than women.

Chapter 7

Compliance, compliance and obedience

265

Another way to address the issue of gender impact on compliance is to determine whether male or female authority figures are more effective in establishing compliance. In the experiment by Geffner and Gross (1984), the effects of the sex of the experimenter, the sex of the participants, and the age of the participants on obedience were examined. The results showed no clear effect of experimenter gender on compliance. Instead, the experimenter's gender and the participant's age interacted, as shown in Figure 7.8. Note that there was no difference between older and younger participants ("younger" participants under 30 and "older" participants over 50) when the experimenter was female. However, when the experimenter was male, the younger participants obeyed the male experimenter more than the older participants.

Obedience or Aggression? The Milgram experiment used an aggressive response as an index of obedience. Could it be that the participants showed aggression toward the student that had little to do with obedience? Such an interpretation seems unlikely. In situations where participants could choose the strength of the shock to be delivered to the student, the average shock delivered was 82.5 volts, with 2.5% being fully compliant. This is a significant voltage drop of 405 volts with 65% full agreement at the reference condition (Milgram, 1974). These results were supported by a repeat of the Milgram experiment by other investigators (Mantell, 1971). Under one of the conditions of this experiment, participants were allowed to define the level of shock the student would receive. Compared to 85% of participants who used the highest shock level when repeating the basic Milgram experiment (without student feedback), only 7% of participants in the self-determination condition did so. These and other results (Kilham & Mann, 1974; Meeus & Raaijmakers, 1986; Shanab & Yahya, 1978) lead us to the conclusion that the participants showed obedience to the experimenter rather than their own aggressive impulses.

Figure 7.8 Obedience as a function of an authority figure's gender and participant's age. Younger participants were more likely to obey a male authority figure than older participants. The youngest and oldest participants equally obeyed a female authority figure. Based on data from Geffner and Gross (1984).

266

social psychology

Obedience Across Culture, Situation, and Time The original Milgram experiments were conducted in the United States using a specific research technique. Would your results hold across cultures and experimental settings? Some critics of Milgram's study, Dutch researchers Meeus and Raaijmakers (1986), argued that the kind of obedience (harming another person physically) called for in Milgram's experiment was unrealistic. Such behavior is rare in everyday life. They argued that people are more often asked to hurt others in more subtle ways. For example, your employer might ask you to do something that makes another employee look bad. would you obey Meeus and Raaijmakers (1986) studied another form of obedience: administrative obedience. The Dutch participants were informed that a university psychology department was tasked with selecting candidates for various state and citizenship offices and that the department used this opportunity to assess the impact of stress on test performance. According to the instructions, the participants made a series of disparaging remarks about a person who was running for public office. Fifteen claims were used, each more disturbing than the one before. The softest statement was: "Your answer to Question 9 was incorrect"; a moderate statement was: "If you continue like this, you will fail the test"; and the strongest statement was, "According to the evidence, I would be better off applying for menial jobs" (p. 323). It is understandable that job seekers became more and more annoyed with every comment. Most Dutch participants agreed; 90% read the 15 statements. This is similar to the Milgram experiment, in which participants had to increase the shock in 15 levels as the victim became more agitated. In Milgram terms, they delivered a whopping 450 volts. When asked about it, they blamed the experimenter for the harassment. In another variant of the Milgram experiment, Australian participants took on the role of transmitters or executors of the experimenter's instructions (Kilham & Mann, 1974). In the transmitter state, participants relayed commands to electrocute a student to an ally of the experimenter who administered the shocks. In the enforcer condition, participants received orders indirectly from the experimenter through an accomplice of the experimenter. The hypothesis was that there would be greater compliance if the participant were the transmitter and not the executor of the commands, presumably because the participant is not directly responsible for harming the victim. The results supported this hypothesis. Participants in the facilitator role showed higher levels of obedience than those in the executor role. The Milgram obedience effect has been supported by other cross-cultural research. For example, compliance was 62.5% among Jordanian adults—comparable to the 65% rate Milgram found among Americans—and 73% among Jordanian children (Shanab & Yahya, 1977). The highest obedience rates were recorded among participants from Germany. In a recreation of Milgram's initial experiment, 85% of German men agreed with the experimenter (Mantell, 1971). In general, obedience seems to be an integral part of human social behavior. Finally, Milgram's insights have stood the test of time. Blass (2000) reviewed replicates of Milgram's experiments conducted over a 22-year period (1963 to 1985) and found that adherence rates ranged from 28% to 91%. However, there was no systematic association between the time a study was conducted and the compliance rate. According to Blass, there appears to have been no lighting effect. An educational effect occurs when the research results are published and behavior is changed. In this case, compliance in later obedience studies should have been lower than in earlier studies (Blass, 2000).

Chapter 7

Compliance, compliance and obedience

Reassessing Milgram's Results Milgram attempted to describe the dynamics of obedience by comparing obedience rates under different experimental conditions. A very different picture of Milgram's results emerges from a careful analysis of Milgram's tapes of almost all sessions of his experiment (Rochat, Maggioni & Modigliana, 2000). Such an analysis by Rochat et al. showed that within an experimental session, obedience tended to develop slowly and gradually through a series of steps. Rochat and colleagues classified the participants' behavior as toleration (accepting the experimenter's demands without comment), verification (the participant asking for clarification of a limited part of the procedure), notification (the participant providing the experimenter with information that may lead to closure). ). . of the experiment). ), questions (the participant openly expresses doubts or requests additional information about the experimenter's demands), objections (the participant openly contradicts the experimenter and gives a personal reason for not proceeding), or denied (the participant openly refuses to proceed). effective disobedience to the experimenter). Rochat and his colleagues found that participants' compliance with the experimenter was relatively short. At the 75 volt level (when the student first indicates pain), 10% of the participants showed a low-level defiant response (minimal control). As the experiment progressed, the resistance increased as a control. At 150 volts 49.7% of the participants checked and at 270 volts all participants checked. Furthermore, 30% of participants questioned, disputed, or rejected the experimenter's commands at or before 150 volts, and another 35% reached this high resistance level between 150 and 330 volts (Rochat et al., 2000). Interestingly, 57% of the participants who ultimately refused to proceed began protesting in front of 150 volts, while none of the fully compliant participants did. Regardless of which path a participant chose, they experienced many conflicts over the course of the experiment. Participants dealt with the conflict created by the demands of the experimenter and the learner by being confused, insecure and showing high levels of stress (Rochat et al., 2000). Some participants dealt with the stress of the situation by rationalizing the student's stress, while others reviewed the remaining levels of shock. According to Rochat and colleagues, the participants resolved their conflicts in two ways. Some participants managed the task up to the 450-volt level "resignedly or mechanically" (p. 170). Others resolved the conflict by becoming opponents of the experimenter, first questioning and/or contradicting the experimenter, and then refusing to proceed despite the experimenter's pressure on the participant (Rochat et al., 2000). Criticisms of Milgram's Research There were aspects of Milgram's experiments and the like that were never precisely defined but likely influenced the degree of obedience. For example, think of the step-by-step requirements placed on the participant. Each 15 volt increase may have made participants a little more "hooked". This corresponds to the foot-in-the-door technique. Following a small, harmless command (dispensing 15 volts) made it more likely that they would obey the next small step, and the next, and so on more easily (Gilbert, 1981). Each step didn't make the next step seem so bad. Imagine that the participant is supposed to supply 450 volts right from the start. It is likely that many more people would challenge the experimenter.

267

268

social psychology

What about protests from many participants? Very few participants went from start to finish without asking if they should proceed or expressing concern for the victim. But they were always told, “You have to move on; You have no choice.” Perhaps, as some observers have suggested, the experiments are as much a study of ineffective and indecisive disobedience as of destructive obedience (Ross & Nisbett, 1991). When participants saw that others were disobedient, they suddenly knew how to do it... well disobedient... and many did. There is another, even more subtle factor here. The experiments have a sort of surreal "Alice in Wonderland" quality (Ross & Nisbett, 1991). Events do not add up Participant's task is to administer increasing electric shocks to a student to examine the effects of punishment on learning The shocks increase when the student makes mistakes Then the student becomes unresponsive (in some variations) Can't learn anything at this point. Why keep going? Furthermore, the experimenter obviously doesn't care that the victim isn't learning anymore. or that the situation really doesn't make sense from the participant's point of view, the participant is confused (Ross & Nisbett, 1991). The participant acts indecisively, unwillingly, or unable to challenge authority. Not knowing what to do, the participant continues to play the role prescribed by the experimenter with great anxiety. This analysis suggests that Milgram's experiments were not so much about slavish obedience to authority as they were about the ability of situational forces to overcome people's more positive tendencies. However, this can be a useless distinction. In any case, had the shock been genuine, the victim would have been injured. Finally, Milgram's research has been criticized for violating ethical research practices. Milgram examined the dimensions of obedience in 21 experiments over a 12-year period, and more than a thousand participants participated in these experimental variations. Because the Milgram participants engaged in behavior that ran counter to accepted moral standards, they were subjected to an "emotional wringer." Some participants had very unpleasant experiences. They “sweated, trembled, stuttered, bit their lip, moaned, dug their nails into flesh” (Milgram, 1963, p. 375). Some had "completely uncontrollable seizures" (p. 375). Nobody likes me. Milgram's research and its impact on participants raises an interesting question about the ethics of research. Should we subject humans to such experiments in the name of science? Was it worth the agony of the participants? Several observers, including Baumrind (1964), have criticized Milgram for continuing the research once he saw its effect on his subjects. Eventually, critics argued, the participants only agreed to participate in an experiment about memory and learning, not about destructive obedience and the limits of human injury. But Milgram never doubted the value of his work. He thought it important to find the conditions that would encourage destructive obedience. He also believed that his participants learned much from their participation; he knew because they had told him. Milgram went out of his way to make sure the teachers knew Wallace wasn't hurt and that he wasn't feeling negatively. He also had the participants interviewed by a psychiatrist about a year after the experiment; the psychiatrist reported no long-term damage (Aron & Aron, 1989). The current rules for using subjects in psychological experiments would make it extremely difficult for anyone in the United States to conduct an experiment like Milgram's. All universities require research proposals to be reviewed by institutional review boards (IRBs), who decide whether the research could harm participants. TO

Chapter 7

Compliance, compliance and obedience

269

The researcher must demonstrate to the IRB that the benefits of the research to science or humanity outweigh any adverse effects on the participants. If a researcher were allowed to conduct an experiment like Milgram's, he or she would be obligated to ensure that the well-being of the participants is protected. In all likelihood, however, we won't see this quest again.

Disobedience Although history shows us that obedience has become an important norm that guides human behavior, there are times when disobedience occurs. In 1955, for example, a black seamstress named Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat to a white passenger on a bus in Montgomery, Alabama. His actions violated a law in force at the time. Parks was arrested, convicted, and fined $10 for her refusal. Parks' disobedience served as a catalyst for the events that shaped the civil rights movement. Two days after his arrest, flyers were distributed in the African American community calling for a one-day strike against the bus line. Martin Luther King Jr. and other African American leaders took up his cause. The one-day bus strike lasted a year. Eventually, laws were changed that required African Americans to sit in the back of the bus or give up a seat to a white passenger. From Rosa Parks' initial disobedience grew a social movement and great societal change.

Breaking with Authority Milgram (1974) suggested that one factor contributing to the maintenance of obedience is that in the obedience situation the individual enters an agent state, meaning that a person breaks their normal moral and ethical standards for the benefit of others gives up. the authority figure. In short, the individual becomes the agent or instrument of the authority figure. Milgram further suggested that a person in this agent state may experience role tensions (concern about compliance behavior) that can weaken the agent state. In a situation of obedience, the limits of the role we play are defined for us by the source of authority. As long as we are comfortable in that role, or at least can tolerate it, obedience will continue. However, if we begin to seriously question the legitimacy of this role, we will begin to experience what Milgram called role tension. In this situation, the agent state individual begins to feel tension, anxiety, and unease about his or her role in the obedience situation. In Milgram's (1974) experiment, participants showed significant signs of role stress in response to authority figure behavior. As Figure 7.9 shows, very few participants were “not tense and nervous at all”. Most experienced moderate or extreme levels of tension and nervousness. Milgram suggested that this tension came from several sources: • The victim's cries of pain, which can lead the perpetrator to question their behavior • The infliction of harm on another person, implying the violation of established moral and social values • The victim's potential for retaliation • The confusion created when the student yells at the teacher to stop while authority tells them to continue • Harmful behavior when that behavior contradicts one's image

Agency State In the agency state, the individual focuses on the source of authority and attunes to the directions being given. Role Tension The uneasiness felt in a situation of loyalty that leads to questioning of the authority figure's legitimacy and weakening of the agent state.

270

social psychology

Figure 7.9 Role tension in the Milgram obedience experiment. Most participants experienced moderate to extreme stress despite the fact that they knew they were not responsible for any harm done to the student. Adapted from Milglam (1974).

number of participants

25 20 15 10 5 0

No way

Moderate reported stress level

Extremely

How can stress be reduced? The participants attempted to deny the consequences of their actions, ignoring the victim's screams and concentrating only on the task of flipping the switches. As mentioned above, Milgram (1974) called this coping method cognitive narrowing. Teachers also tried to cheat by subtly helping the student, that is, by reading the correct answer aloud. These techniques allowed the masters to inflict damage they wished they didn't have to. Other participants released the tension on the paper by disobediently tearing it up. This choice was difficult; People felt that they screwed up the experiment, that they thought it was legitimate. Role tension, of course, can lead to disobedience. However, real-world compliance situations, such as those encountered in military organizations, often bring significant pressure to remain compliant. The Nazi soldiers who made up the mass murder squads (Einsatzgruppen) were trained to obey and bonded closely with those in authority. When people feel role tensions in such a situation, disobedience is difficult, if not impossible. However, this does not necessarily mean that paper tension is neglected. To deal with this, creative psychological mechanisms can be developed. A large number of members of the Einsatzgruppen experienced tensions in their roles. In his study of Nazi doctors, Robert Lifton (1986) found that many soldiers who murdered Jews experienced immediate psychological reactions, such as physical symptoms and anxiety. For example, General Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski (a leading Nazi Einsatzgruppen general) was hospitalized for severe stomach problems, physical exhaustion, and hallucinations in connection with the shooting of Jews (Lifton, 1986). The conflict the soldiers felt was severe: they could not disobey and they could not continue. As a result, they withdrew from the obedience situation and developed psychological problems.

Reassessing the legitimacy of authority In their book Crimes of Obedience, Kelman and Hamilton (1989) point out that authority is often challenged when the individual believes that the source of authority is illegitimate. Remember that when Milgram conducted his experiment in downtown Bridgeport instead of Yale University, he saw a decline in obedience. When an authoritative source loses credibility, disobedience becomes possible.

Chapter 7

Compliance, compliance and obedience

Kelman and Hamilton suggested that two sets of psychological factors precede disobedience. The first involves cognitive factors: the way we think about obedience. In order to disobey, the person involved in a compliance situation must be aware of the alternatives to compliance. For example, Lt. Calley's men in Vietnam do not understand that a soldier can disobey when they have good reason to believe it is an illegal order in violation of the rules of war. Motivational factors also precede disobedience. An obedient human being must be willing to go against the existing social order (either in the real world or in the laboratory) and accept the consequences. Milgram's finding supports the importance of this motivation for disobedience. Participants who saw another person disobey and suffered no consequences often disobeyed. The same factors could explain the behavior of Lithuanians in the early 1990s, when Lithuanians declared their independence from the Soviet Union, disrupting the long-established social order. They were willing to accept the consequences: Soviet sanctions. Lithuanian disobedience came shortly after the domino collapse of communist governments in Eastern Europe. When Lithuanians saw that these people had not suffered any negative consequences, they realized that there was an alternative to submission to the Soviets. In this sense, the Lithuanians behaved similarly to the Milgram participants, who saw the Confederates disobeying the experimenter. According to Kelman and Hamilton (1989), these two psychological factors interact with material resources to generate disobedience. In response, the source of authority will no doubt apply pressure to restore obedience. Those who have money or other material resources will be better able to withstand this pressure. Therefore, successful disobedience requires a certain amount of resources. As long as individuals believe that the authority figure has the most resources (monetary and military), disobedience is unlikely to occur. Consider the events in Tiananmen Square in China in June 1989. Students occupied the square for several days demanding more freedom. At first it seemed as if the students had won and started an irreversible trend towards democracy! The government seemed unable to stem the wave of freedom. However, the government's inability to deal with the students was an illusion. Once the Chinese government decided to act, it used its vastly superior resources to crush the pro-democracy movement quickly and efficiently. Within a few hours, Tiananmen Square was empty. “Social order” was restored at the cost of hundreds of lives.

Strength is in Numbers In Milgram's original experiment, the obedience situation consisted of a one-to-one relationship between the authority figure and the participant. What if this single source of authority tried to influence multiple participants? In a study on the subject, Gamson and his colleagues recruited participants and paid them $10 to attend a group exercise allegedly sponsored by the manufacturers' Human Resources Consultants (MHRC) (Gamson, Fireman, & Rytina, 1982). The participants arrived at a hotel and were taken to a room with a U-shaped table that could seat nine people. There were microphones and television cameras in the room. After some introductory comments, the session coordinator (the experimenter) explained that the MHRC collects information to use in resolving legal cases. The nine participants were informed that a case involving a petrol station manager (Mr. C.) was being discussed in the current group. The gentleman. C had been fired from the parent company for allegedly being involved in an illegal sexual relationship. The experimenter explained that courts

271

272

social psychology

I needed information about "community standards" on such an issue in order to contribute to a reasonable resolution of the case. Participants then signed a "participation agreement" telling them that their discussions would be videotaped. They were then given the details of the case and then asked to consider the first question: 'Would you be concerned if you found out that the manager of the local gas station lives a lifestyle like Mr. C.? (Gamson et al., 1982, p. 46). Before leaving the room, the experimenter visibly turned on a video recorder to record the group discussions. A few minutes later, the experimenter returned to the room, turned off the VCR, and asked the group a second thought-provoking question: "Because of your lifestyle, would you hesitate to do business with someone like Mr. C?" (p. 46). At the same time, the experimenter instructed some members of the group to confront Mr. C., since people were only on the side of the gas station manager. Then he turned the VCR back on and left the room. This process was repeated for a third question. Finally, the researcher returned to the room and asked each person to sign a statement that the recorded tapes could be used as evidence in court. The experimenter left the room, apparently to receive their public seal so that testimony could be made. The measure of obedience was each person's willingness to sign the affidavit. performed so far in this study. Imagine you are taking part in this study. He can be seen on video discussing a certain position (to Mr. C) that he should take. However, since the researcher turned off the VCR each time he entered the room, his instructions for assuming his position are not displayed. A naïve observer, such as a judge or jury in a court where these tapes would be used, would assume that what you say on the tape reflects your actual opinion. The question you need to assess is whether you would sign the statement. Surprisingly, in 16 of the 33 groups of nine, all participants refused to sign. These groups staged a kind of open rebellion against the researcher. Some members even planned to smuggle the statement out of the room to have evidence for future legal action against Mr. C. However, disobedience was not an impulsive decision. Some groups showed signs of reluctance even before the final request, such as during the breaks between recordings. When the VCR was turned off, members of these groups expressed concern about the experimenter's behavior. In addition, there were nine groups, which the researchers referred to as faction successes. In these groups, most participants refused to sign, although some agreed to sign. Four other groups, called Fizzlers, consisted of a majority of members who showed signs of rebellion in the early stages of the experiment. However, when it came time to sign the declarations, these majority members signed them anyway. Finally, four groups labeled treatable never showed any sign of having a majority of rebel members. Therefore, in all but four groups there was a tendency to disobey the experimenter. What are the differences between the Gamson and Milgram studies? The main difference is that Gamson's participants were groups and Milgram's were individuals. The groups could converse, compare interpretations, and agree that this authority was illegitimate. The Milgram participants may have thought the same, but they had no opportunity to confirm their views. An important lesson might be that rebellion is a group phenomenon. According to Gamson, for disobedience to be effective, people must work together. The development of an organized front against authority can be slow. A core of committed individuals can resist, and others will fall into one later

Chapter 7

Compliance, compliance and obedience

drag effect. The 1989 Chinese student uprising is an example. The protest started with a relatively small number of people. As events progressed, more and more people joined until there were hundreds of thousands of protesters. A second factor is the social climate. Disobedience, often in the form of social movements, occurs in a social climate that allows for such challenges to authority. The Milgram studies, for example, were mainly conducted between 1963 and 1968. By the time Gamson and his colleagues conducted their studies in 1982, the social climate had changed dramatically. Confidence in government plummeted after Watergate and the Vietnam War. In addition, the Gamson situation affected a major oil company. In 1982, people's confidence in the honesty of the oil companies reached a very low level. Many non-Laboratory examples illustrate the role of social climate in the rebellion. Thus, communist governments in Eastern Europe were only overthrown after major changes in the political system of the Soviet Union, which had controlled Eastern Europe since 1945 at the end of World War II. Eventually, this climate reached the Soviet Union, which completely disintegrated in 1991. Rebellion against authority can also occur in social climates that do not fully support such rebellion. Resistance movements in France during World War II, for example, helped undermine the German occupying forces, even though most of France was ruled with an iron fist by the Germans. Within Germany itself there was resistance to the Nazi regime (Peukert, 1987). Even the ill-fated Tiananmen Square student uprising took place in a climate of liberalization that had lasted for several years prior to the uprising. Unfortunately, the mood quickly changed. Not all acts of disobedience are rebellious. In some cases, a group of citizens can defend and participate in violations of laws they deem unfair. This is commonly referred to as civil disobedience. Civil disobedience can take many forms, including protests, walkouts, boycotts, breaking the law, and acts of violence that cause physical, economic, or material harm. Civil disobedience can be used in response to restrictions on a person's basic civil rights, or it can be ideologically motivated when a law is deemed unacceptable in one's own interest (Rattner, Yagil, & Pedahzur, 2001). Finally, the most well-known form of civil disobedience occurs when an individual (e.g., Rosa Parks) or a large group of people (e.g., protesters) engage in direct acts of disobedience. However, a new channel of civil disobedience is known as electronic civil disobedience (Wray, 1999). According to Wray, such actions can include blocking of communication channels, physical damage to communication cables, and mass email campaigns aimed at shutting down government offices and/or services. Civil disobedience seems to work best when two conditions are met (Dillard, 2002). First, civil disobedience is most effective when conducted in a nonviolent and nonthreatening manner. Therefore, people who engage in peaceful forms of civil disobedience will have the greatest power to persuade others. Second, participants in civil disobedience must be willing to accept the consequences of their disobedience and share their suffering with others. Note that Rosa Parks' act of civil disobedience, in which she refused to give up her seat on a bus to a white passenger, satisfied both conditions.

Jury room reworked Poor Karl! You never had a chance, did you? I was caught in the middle of a dilemma. On a horn was the judge, a powerful authority figure who told him that if the prosecutor were to prove his case, he must obey the law. This was reiterated by the prosecutor in his closing statement when he reminded the jury of their duty to propose

273

274

social psychology

the law established by the judge. Certainly, in Karl's view, the prosecutor had fulfilled the burden of proof presented by the judge. The second horn comes, which Karl blew when the deliberations began. He began to grapple with the normative and informational societal influence of his fellow jurors. In the first vote, only two judges sided with Karl. Now he had his true partners, and he could have stood his ground and at least hung the jury if those true partners hadn't deserted him. In the end, Karl was left alone in the face of a majority that did everything to get Karl to change his mind. They did this by applying direct pressure through persuasive arguments (informational social influence) and the more subtle channel of normative pressure. Eventually, as we know, Karl decided to disobey the judge's authority. He changed his vote to not guilty. However, based on what we now know about social influence, he wasn't convinced. His behavior change was mainly brought about by normative societal influences. This is reflected in the feeling he expressed just before changing his vow: he changed his vow not to mess with the jury, but "he would never feel right about it".

Chapter overview 1. What is compliance? Conformity is a form of social influence. It occurs when we change our behavior in response to real or imagined pressure from others. Karl, the man who was to serve on a jury in a criminal trial, entered the jury's deliberations and was convinced that the defendant was guilty. Throughout the deliberations, Karl stood by his opinion based on the information he received during the trial. In the end, however, Karl changed his mind. He did so because he felt pressure from the 11 other jurors, not because the evidence convinced him of the innocence of the accused. Karl's dilemma of playing off his own inner beliefs against the beliefs of others is a common one in our lives. We often find ourselves in situations where we need to change our behavior based on what others are doing or saying. 2. What is the source of the pressure leading to compliance? Pressure can come from two sources. We can change our behavior because we are confident in the information provided by others, which is an informative social influence. Or we can change our behavior because we perceive a norm to be followed, an unwritten social rule. This is normative social influence. In the latter case, the information provided by others sets the standard that we follow. Norms play a central role in our social life. Sherif's classic research on the autokinetic effect showed how a norm is formed. 3. What research evidence is there for compliance? Solomon Asch conducted a series of now classic experiments that demonstrated compliance effects with a relatively clear and simple perceptual line assessment task. He found that the participants agreed with an incorrect majority in 33% of the critical judgments, with the majority (consisting of Confederates) making obviously incorrect judgments. In post-experiment interviews, Asch noted that there were a variety of reasons why a person conformed (complied) or not (remained independent).

Chapter 7

Compliance, compliance and obedience

4. What factors influence compliance? Research by Asch and others has found several factors that affect compliance. Success is more likely when the task is ambiguous than when it is clear. In addition, compliance increases as the majority size increases up to a majority size of three. After a majority of three, compliance does not increase significantly when additional majority members are added. Finally, Asch found that compliance levels drop when you have another person on your side against the majority. This is the true partner effect. 5. Do women conform more than men? Although early research suggested that women were more compliant than men, later research did not find such a simple relationship. Research shows that the type of task was not important in producing the observed gender differences. However, women are more likely to conform when the experimenter is a man. When a woman conducts the experiment, no gender differences are found. Furthermore, under conditions of normative social influence, women are more likely than men to adapt than under conditions of informational social influence. Two explanations for gender differences in compliance have been offered. First, gender can serve as a status variable in newly formed groups, with males assigned higher status roles and females lower status roles. Second, women tend to be more sensitive to pressures to conform than men when it comes to voicing their opinions publicly. 6. Can the minority influence the majority? In general, American social psychologists focus their attention on the influence of the majority on the minority. In Europe, however, social psychologists have focused on how minorities can influence majorities. It has been established that a firm and consistent minority is capable of effecting change in the majority's opinion. In general, a consistent but flexible minority that holds to opinions that reflect the current zeitgeist has a good chance of changing the opinion of the majority. A minority will also be more effective when the majority knows that people have shifted to the minority point of view; although this effect fades after three defects. Also, a minority has more power in a direct influence situation and, ironically, is more likely to be taken seriously when the minority is small. 7. How does minority influence work? Some theorists claim that majority and minority influence represent two distinct processes, with majority influence being primarily normative and minority influence primarily informational. However, other theorists argue that a single process can explain situations of majority and minority influence. According to Latané's theory of social effect, social influence is related to the interaction between the strength of the source of influence, the immediacy of the source of influence, and the number of sources of influence. So far, neither the two-process nor the one-process approach can explain all aspects of minority or majority influence, but there is more evidence supporting the one-process model.

275

276

social psychology

8. Why do we sometimes do things we would rather not do? Sometimes we change our behavior in response to a direct request from another person. This is called compliance. Social psychologists have discovered four main techniques that can induce obedience. 9. What are compliance techniques and why do they work? With the foot-in-the-door (FITD) technique, a small request is followed by a larger one. You are more likely to accept the second larger request after accepting the first smaller request. This technique seems to work for three reasons. First, according to the self-perception hypothesis, agreeing to the first request can lead to changes in self-perception. Once you agree to the minor's request, see yourself as a helpful person. Second, the perceptual contrast hypothesis suggests that the large second order appears to be less involved after the small first order. Third, our thought processes may change after accepting the first request. The likelihood of assuming the second order depends on the thoughts we develop from the information about the first order. The door-to-face technique (DITF) reverses the foot-to-door strategy: a large (seemingly unreasonable) request is followed by a smaller one. The second minor request is more likely to be granted when it follows the larger request than when it occurs alone. The door-in-your-face technique works because the reciprocity norm is activated when the requestor makes a "commitment." The door-in-your-face technique can also work because we don't want to appear petty through perceptual contrast or be perceived as a rejection of a good cause. This last explanation is the worthy person hypothesis. A final explanation for the DITF technique is self-expression. According to this explanation, the rejection of the initial application in the DITF procedure can lead to the applicant perceiving the goal as worthless. The target accepts the second request to prevent this realization. 10. What do social psychologists understand by the term “obedience”? Obedience is the process of social influence by which a person changes their behavior in response to direct direction from an authority figure. The authority figure has the power, which can come from various sources, to enforce orders. In general, obedience is not always bad. Compliance with laws and regulations is necessary for the proper functioning of society. This is called constructive obedience. However, sometimes obedience is taken to the extreme and causes harm to others. This is called destructive obedience.

Chapter 7

Compliance, compliance and obedience

11. How do social psychologists define evil? Are bad deeds the work of bad people? From a socio-psychological point of view, evil has been defined as “the intentional conduct or causing of others to act in a way that demeans, dehumanizes, harms, destroys, or kills innocent people” (Zimbardo, 2004, p. 22). Under this broad definition, a variety of acts can be considered bad. Social psychologists have also studied the roots of evil. Baumeister and Vohs (2004) identified four prerequisites for evil: instrumentality (using violence to achieve a goal), menacing egoism (perceived challenges to honor), idealism (using violence as a means to achieve a higher goal), and sadism ( like to do harm others). This sets the stage for evil, but it is a loss of self-control that is directly related to evil. Staub (1989) also points out that difficult living conditions, cultural and personal factors, and sociopolitical factors (authoritarian rule) also contribute to evil. There is a tendency to attribute acts of destructive obedience to abnormal internal characteristics of the perpetrator. In other words, we tend to think that bad people do things like this. Social psychologists have recently attempted to define evil from a psychosocial perspective. One such definition states that evil is defined as "the intentional conduct or causing others to act in a manner that demeans, dehumanizes, harms, destroys, or kills innocent people." While it may be reassuring to think that those who carry out orders to harm others are inhuman monsters, Arendt's analysis of Adolph Eichmann, a Nazi responsible for the deportation of millions of Jews to death camps, suggests that evil is often all too commonplace. Those who commit acts of destructive obedience are usually ordinary people. The misconception that bad deeds can only be committed by bad people is called the Eichmann fallacy. Not everyone agrees with this analysis. Calder (2003) suggests that the evil committed by moral idiots (those who do evil at the behest of others) may be more mundane than the evil committed by moral monsters (those who devise and direct evil acts). becomes. 12. What research has been done to study obedience? Recurring questions about destructive obedience prompted Stanley Milgram to conduct a series of sophisticated laboratory experiments on obedience. The participants believed they were participating in a learning experiment. They were supposed to give progressively stronger electric shocks to a "student" when he made a mistake. When the participant protested that the shocks were becoming too strong, the experimenter ordered him to continue the experiment. In the original experiment, where there was no student-to-participant feedback, 65% of the participants agreed that the experimenter went up to 450 volts.

277

278

social psychology

13. What factors affect obedience? In variations on his original experiment, Milgram found several factors affecting the degree of obedience to the experimenter, such as: B. the approach of the student to the teacher. Explanations for the proximity effect include increased empathic signals from student to teacher and cognitive narrowing that draws attention to the obedience task at hand rather than the victim's distress. The move of the prestigious experiment from Yale University to a downtown display case also resulted in a modest (but not statistically significant) drop in obedience. Post-Milgram research suggests that perceptions of the legitimacy of authority are influential. We are more likely to respond to an order from someone in uniform than someone not in uniform. Also, when the authority figure physically withdraws from the lab and gives orders over the phone, obedience decreases. Conflicting sources of authority can also stand in the way of obedience. Given the choice of obeying an authority figure who says to continue harming the student or obeying one who says to stop, participants are more likely to side with the one who stops saying. Seeing a partner disobeying the experimenter is very effective in reducing compliance. Two explanations have been offered for this effect. The first explanation is the distribution of responsibility: if others are involved in the obedience situation, the participant can distribute the responsibility for causing harm to the student. The second explanation focuses on the development of a new norm of non-compliance when peers refuse to consent to the experimenter. When a norm of non-compliance develops among disobedient Confederates, individuals are likely to disobey the authority figure. 14. Are there gender differences in obedience? Although Milgram's original research suggested that there was no difference in obedience between male and female participants, two subsequent studies suggest that males are more obedient than females and that younger individuals are more obedient to male sources of authority than females. 15. Do Milgram's results apply to other cultures? Milgram's fundamental insights hold up very well across cultures and situations. Cross-cultural research conducted in Australia, Jordan, the Netherlands, and Germany has shown that reduced levels of obedience support Milgram's findings, even when the obedience tasks differ from Milgram's original paradigm. 16. What criticism has been leveled at the Milgram experiments? Milgram's research paradigm has come under scrutiny. Some observers question the ethics of his situation. Eventually, the participants were placed in a very stressful situation and misled about the true nature of the research. However, Milgram was sensitive to these concerns and took steps to avoid negative effects from participating in his experiment. Other criticisms of Milgram's research suggested that using graded shock intensities facilitated participant compliance. The foot-in-the-door effect might have worked.

Chapter 7

Compliance, compliance and obedience

Another criticism of Milgram's investigation was that the whole situation was unrealistic. That is, the situation confuses the participant and causes him to act indecisively. So the Milgram experiments may be more about how a situation can overwhelm the normal positive aspects of behavior than about slavish obedience to authority. Finally, the Milgram experiments have been criticized for violating research ethical standards. The participants were placed in a very stressful situation to which they reacted negatively. However, Milgram was concerned for the well-being of his participants and took steps to protect them during and after the experiment. 17. How does disobedience come about? Historically, acts of disobedience have had profound consequences for the course of society. When Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on the bus, she started a social movement. Disobedience played an important role in the development of social movements and social change. Civil disobedience, or knowing disobedience to the law, is most effective when it is nonviolent and the person using it is willing to face the consequences. Disobedience can occur when role tension reaches a point where a person breaks agent status. When a person in a compliance situation begins to question their compliance, role tension (tension and fear of the compliance situation) can arise. If this is not resolved by the person, it can break agent status. One way people deal with role stress is through cognitive narrowing. Disobedience is likely when a person is strong enough to break authority, has the means, and is willing to accept the consequences. Finally, disobedience research suggests that there is strength in unity. When multiple people challenge authority, disobedience becomes likely.

279

Group Processes Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful and committed people can change the world - in fact, it's the only thing that has ever happened! —Margaret Mead

The mission would be the crown jewel of America's space program. The Challenger mission was intended to show how safe space travel had become and sent Christa McAuliffe, a teacher from Concord, New Hampshire, as the first civilian into space. I was supposed to teach a 15 minute space course. The Challenger mission was to be a success, as were the previous 55 American spaceflights. But what shouldn't have happened actually happened: 58 seconds after the flight the problem started; a plume of smoke rose from one of the solid rocket boosters. Approximately 73 seconds into flight, the Challenger erupted in a massive fireball, scattering debris for miles. The crew cabin crashed to earth and struck the Atlantic, killing all seven astronauts. In front of millions of people, the two solid fuel rockets shot in different directions, turning the image of the letter "y" into smoke. The pattern that formed hinted at the main question on everyone's mind in the days after the tragedy: Why? Indeed, the answer to this question turned out to be complex. The real physical cause of the explosion was clear. The hot gases burned through a rubber O-ring intended to seal two segments of the rocket's solid propellant. Due to the unusually low temperatures on the morning of takeoff, the O-rings became brittle and did not fit properly. The hot gases ignited and ignited the millions of gallons of liquid fuel Challenger was sitting on. It took months to elucidate the underlying cause of the explosion, which is related to the structure and decision-making process of NASA and Morton Thiokol (the maker of the solid fuel rocket). The picture emerged of a faulty decision-making structure that did not promote open communication and the free exchange of data. This failed decision-making structure was the root cause of the Challenger explosion. in the year 281

Key Questions As you read this chapter, find answers to the following questions: 1. What is a group? 2. Why do people join groups? 3. How do groups affect their members? 4. What influence does the audience have on the performance? 5. What declines in motivation affect performance? 6. Which motivation gains result from group interaction? What is the Kohler Effect? 7. What are the possible negative aspects of groups? 8. For problem solving: are groups better than individuals or are individuals better than groups? 9. What are hidden profiles and how do they affect group decision-making?

282

10. What impact do different leadership styles have on group decision-making? 11. How do groups make decisions? 12. What makes a leader legitimate in the eyes of group members? 13. What factors influence a group's decision-making ability and effectiveness? 14. What is group polarization? 15. What is groupthink?

social psychology

At the top of the decision ladder was Jesse Moore, Associate Administrator for Space Flight. It was Mr. Moore who made the final decision to pitch or not to pitch. Also in a high decision-making position was Arnold Aldrich, space shuttle manager at the Johnson Space Center. At the foot of the stairs stood the scientists and engineers of Morton Thiokol. These people didn't have direct access to Moore. Any information they wanted to share about the launch would be shared by executives at Morton Thiokol, who would then communicate with NASA officials at the Marshall Space Flight Center. Some people had one set of facts, others had another set, and sometimes they didn't share them. Thiokol scientists and engineers had serious reservations about launching Challenger. In fact, one of the engineers later said that he "knew" the shuttle was going to explode and felt bad when it did. In addition to communication disruptions, the group involved in decision-making suffered from other decision-making weaknesses, including a sense of invulnerability (after all, all other space shuttle launches have been safe), a negative attitude towards one another (characteristic of scientists and engineers being overly cautious), and an atmosphere which stifled free speech (Thiokol engineer Alan McDonald testified before congressional hearings that he felt pressured to give the go-ahead for launch). What went wrong? Here we had a group of highly intelligent and experienced individuals who made the disastrous decision to launch Challenger in the cold climate that existed at the time of launch. In this chapter we examine the effects of groups on individuals. We asked: What special characteristics distinguish a group like the Challenger Choice Group from a simple collection of individuals? What forces arise within these groups that change individual behavior? Do groups offer significant advantages over individuals acting alone? For example, would it have been better for NASA's launch director to make a decision alone rather than meeting with and relying on an advisory group? And what are the group dynamics that can lead to such wrong and disastrous decisions? These are some of the questions addressed in this chapter.

What is a group?

Group A group of two or more people who interact and influence each other.

Groups have become an integral part of our everyday life. We were born in a group, we play in a group, we work and learn in a group. We have already learned that by participating in groups we gain much of our own identity and self-esteem. But what is a group? Is it just a collection of individuals being in the same place at the same time? Then the people waiting for the bus on the corner would be a group. Your social psychology class has many people, some of whom you may know. Some people interact, some don't. Is a group? Well, it's certainly a gathering, a gathering of people, but it probably doesn't feel like a group to you. Groups have particular social and psychological characteristics that distinguish them from aggregations or assemblages of individuals. Two main characteristics distinguish groups: in a group, the members interact with each other, and the group members influence each other through this social interaction. By this definition, the crowd at the bus stop would not count as a group. While they can affect each other on a basic level (if one person looks up at the sky, others will likely do the same), they don't actually interact. A true group consists of two or more individuals who influence each other through social interaction (Forsyth, 1990). That is, the influence arises

Chapter 8

group processes

283

Information (verbal and non-verbal) that members exchange. The challenger decision group certainly fits this definition. Group members interacted during committee meetings and significantly influenced each other. This definition of a group may seem broad and ambiguous, and indeed it is often difficult to determine whether an ensemble of individuals qualifies as a group. To refine our definition and take a closer look at groups, we will now take a closer look at their properties.

Characteristics of Groups The interaction and mutual influence of the people in the group are just two of the many characteristics that characterize a group. what are the others First, a group usually has a purpose, a reason for being. Groups have many functions, but a general distinction can be made between instrumental groups and affiliate groups. Instrumental groups exist to perform a task or achieve a specific goal. The Challenger group was an instrumental group, as are most decision-making groups. A jury is also an instrumental group. Their sole purpose is to find the truth of the claims in court and render a verdict. Once that goal is achieved, the jury is scattered. Affiliate groups exist for more general, and often more social, reasons. For example, you might join a fraternity or sorority simply because you want to be part of that group: join the people you want to be with. You can very much identify with the values and ideals of this group. You will gain joy, self-esteem, and maybe even prestige by joining the group. A second characteristic of a group is that group members have common ideas about how they should behave. From these shared perceptions, group norms or expectations emerge about what is acceptable behavior. As mentioned in Chapter 7, norms can strongly influence individual behavior. For example, parents of children of a soccer team can form a scrum at the edge of the field. During the season or multiple seasons, they learn what kind of feedback they can give the coach, how much and what kind of parental interaction is expected, how to cheer and support players, how to call during a game, what to wear, what to do Packing for snacks etc. A parent who got into an argument with a referee or coach, or used abusive language, would quickly realize that they were not conforming to the norms of the group. Third, within a real group, each member has a specific task or role in achieving the group's goals. Sometimes these roles are formally defined; For example, the chairman of a committee has specific responsibilities. However, the roles can also be informal (DeLamater, 1974). For example, even when no one has been officially appointed leader, one or two people often step forward to take the lead or gently guide the group. Under football parents, one person may gradually take on additional responsibilities, such as: B. the organization of excursions or the distribution of training information, and thus take on the role of leader. Fourth, group members have affective (emotional) attachments to other group members. These bonds are influenced by how well different members conform to group norms and how much other group members like them (DeLamater, 1974). After all, the group members are dependent on each other. That is, they need each other to meet the needs and goals of the group. For example, a fraternity or sorority will collapse if the members don't follow the rules and stick to the rules to make the members feel comfortable with each other.

Group norms Expectations about the behaviors required of group members.

284

social psychology

What holds a group together? Group Cohesion Once a group is formed, what forces hold it together? Group Cohesion: Strength The strength of the relationships that unite group members (Forsyth, 1990) is essentially what binds members of a group together. what keeps people in the group. Cohesion is influenced by several factors: 1. Mutual attraction of group members. Groups can stick together because members find each other attractive or friendly. Anything that makes people similar increases group cohesion (Levine & Moreland, 1990). 2. Proximity of members (physical proximity, e.g. if they live or work close to each other). Sometimes just being around people regularly is enough to make people feel part of a group. The different departments of an insurance company (marketing, research, sales, etc.) can be viewed as groups. 3. Their adherence to group norms. When members adhere to group norms without resistance, the group is more cohesive than when one or two members differ greatly or many members differ a little. 4. The group's success in achieving its goals. Groups that succeed in achieving their goals are obviously more satisfying for their members, and therefore more cohesive, than those that fail. When groups don't achieve what the members want for the group, they cease to exist, or at least reorganize. 5. Identification of the members with the group: Loyalty to the group: The success of a group will often depend on the level of loyalty of its members to that group. Van Vugt and Hart (2004) examined the role of social identity (how strongly members identify with the group) in the development of group loyalty, defined as remaining in the group when members are better off leaving. In one experiment, high (vs. low) group identifiers expressed a greater desire to remain in the group even when an attractive (vs. unattractive) exit option was present. Other results showed that the high identifier group's loyalty is explained by a highly positive impression of their group membership, although other groups may offer more rewards. Social identity seems to act as a social glue. It provides stability in groups that might otherwise collapse.

How and why are groups formed? We know that humans existed in groups before recorded history began. So groups clearly have survival value. Groups form because they meet needs that we cannot meet on our own. Let's take a look at what those needs are.

Basic needs groups help us meet a variety of needs. In many cases, these needs, whether biological, psychological, or social, are inseparable. There are obvious advantages to being a member of a group. Psychology develops an evolutionary perspective, and evolutionary social psychologists believe that groups select for individual traits that make it more likely that an individual can function and survive in groups (Caporael, 1997; Pinker, 2002). Expressed in terms of natural selection, evolution would favor those who prefer groups over those who prefer to live in isolation.

Chapter 8

group processes

But groups serve more than biological needs. They also take care of psychological needs. We make our first experiences in the context of the family group. Some people believe that as adults, our reactions to groups stem from our feelings toward our family. That is, we respond to group leaders with the same feelings as we did to our fathers or mothers (Schultz, 1983). Many recruits to religious cults that require extreme devotion seek surrogate families (McCauley & Segal, 1987). Groups also meet a variety of social needs, such as B. social support (consolation and advice from others) and protection against loneliness. Groups make it easier to deal with anxiety and stress. Humans are social beings; We don't get along very well when we're isolated. In fact, research shows that social isolation, the lack of meaningful social contact, is as strongly associated with death as smoking or physical inactivity (Brannon & Feist, 1992). Groups also satisfy the human need for social comparison. We compare our feelings, opinions, and behaviors to those of other people, especially when we are unsure how to act or think (Festinger, 1954). We compare ourselves to others like us to get accurate information on what to do. The people in the groups we join often suggest the books we read, the movies we watch, and the clothes we wear. Social comparison also helps us obtain reassuring information (Taylor & Brown, 1988). For example, students can better protect their self-esteem if they know that others in their class also did poorly on a test. B students do well compared to C students, and D students compared to those who failed. To our relief, we found that some others were even worse off than we were. This is a downward comparison, the process of comparing our position to that of the less fortunate. As mentioned above, groups play an important role in influencing individual self-esteem. In fact, individuals derive their self-concept from any group they identify with and are a member of, whether the group is a softball team, a fraternity, or a street gang. Of course, groups are also a handy social invention. Group members can pool their resources, draw on the expertise of others, and solve problems they may not be able to solve themselves. Some groups, like families, form an economic and social whole that functions as a unit in the larger society.

Roles in Groups Not all members are expected to do the same things or follow exactly the same rules. The group often has different expectations of different members of the group. These shared expectations help define individual roles, such as B. Team captain (a formal role) or freshman (an informal role) (Levine & Moreland, 1990).

The members of the Newcomers Group can perform different roles depending on their seniority. Newcomers are expected to conform to the group's rules and norms of behavior (their norms) and show a commitment to being good members (Moreland & Levine, 1989). Older members have 'idiosyncratic' credit and may occasionally deviate from group norms (Hollander, 1985). They have proven their worth to the group and "accredited" this credit. From time to time, it's okay to deviate from acceptable behavior and spend that credit. New members do not have this credit. The best chance for a new member to be accepted by a group is to behave passively and fearfully.

285

286

social psychology

Detours What happens when new members find that the group did not meet their expectations, or older members feel that the recruit did not meet the group's expectations? The group may attempt to take corrective action by pressuring the member to conform. Groups spend a great deal of time persuading someone who does not conform to group norms to change (Schachter, 1951). If the deviant does not appear, the group rejects him. However, the deviant usually succumbs to peer pressure and conforms to group norms (Levine, 1989). Deviants are more likely to be rejected if they disrupt group functioning (Kruglanski & Webster, 1991). Imagine an adviser to NASA's launch director who refuses to launch Challenger after the decision has been made. No matter how persuasive the person's objection to release is, it is highly likely that the dissenter was ordered to remain silent; he or she would interfere with the group's ability to get the job done. Experimental research has found that when a group member objects to a group decision shortly before the group's deadline for solving a problem, the objector is more likely to be convicted than if the objection is raised earlier (Kruglanski & Webster, 1991).

How do groups influence the behavior of individuals? We consider why people join groups and what role individuals play in groups. Now let's look at another question: what are the effects of group membership on individual behavior and performance? Does group membership lead to self-improvement as people who join groups seem to think? Does it have other effects? Some social psychologists have been particularly interested in exploring this question. They examined not only the effects of belonging to real groups, but also the effects of being judged by an audience, in an audience, and in a crowd. Remember that groups influence how we think and act, even if we only wonder how they will react to us. When practicing giving a speech, just imagining that there is a large audience in front of you is enough to get you nervous. The actual presence of an audience influences us even more. But how? We will see.

social facilitation The effect on behavior of improving the performance of others; Simple, well-learned behavior is often facilitated by the presence of others. social inhibition The adverse effect on an audience's or performer's performance of the behavior; In general, complex and poorly learned behaviors are inhibited in the presence of other people.

The Effects of an Audience on Performance Does the audience improve your performance? Or is it "drowning" you? The answer seems to depend, at least in part, on how good you are at what you do. The presence of others seems to help when the performer is doing something he or she is good at: when acting is a dominant, well-learned skill, a behavior that is simple or familiar (Zajonc, 1965). For example, if you're an A-class tennis player, your serve might be better when people are looking at you. The performance-enhancing effect of an audience on their behavior is referred to as social facilitation. However, if you're performing a non-dominant skill that isn't very well learned, the presence of an audience will detract from your performance. This effect is called social inhibition. The social facilitation effect, the reinforcement of a dominant response due to the presence of others, has been demonstrated in a variety of species including cockroaches, ants, chicks, and humans (Zajonc, Heingartner, and Herman, 1969). People who perform a simple task perform better in the presence of others. On a more difficult task, the presence of others inhibits performance.

Chapter 8

group processes

287

Why is it happening? How does an audience make us play better or worse than when no one is watching? Psychologists have several alternative explanations.

Increased arousal Zajonc (1965) argued that an artist's effort in the presence of others is always increased due to increased arousal. Increased arousal increases exertion; The resulting increase in effort improves performance when the behavior is dominant and degrades it when the behavior is nondominant. If you're good at tennis, the increased excitement and therefore increased effort will make you play better. Unless you're a good tennis player, increased excitement and exertion are likely to affect your performance (Figure 8.1).

Evaluation Concerns An alternative explanation for an audience's impact on performance focuses less on the increased effort that comes from arousal and more on the evaluations we perceive of our performance from others. The audience of a theatre, for example, does not simply absorb a play passively. Instead, viewers judge the actors, even if they're just salon critics. The type of excitement this situation creates is called anxious apprehension. Some social scientists believe that evaluation anxiety causes the differences in performance when an audience is present (Figure 8.2). Proponents of evaluation anxiety as an explanation for social facilitation and social inhibition propose that the presence of others will evoke arousal only if they can reward or punish the performer (Geen, 1989). The mere presence of others does not appear to be sufficient to explain social facilitation and social inhibition (Cottrell, 1972). In an experiment where the audience consisted of blindfolded or distracted people,

Evaluative apprehension An explanation for social facilitation by proposing that the presence of others evokes arousal only if they can reward or punish the performer.

Figure 8.1 The arousal model of social facilitation. The presence of other people is a source of excitement and greater effort. This increase in arousal and exertion makes a simple, well-learned task easier, but inhibits a complex, poorly-learned task.

288

social psychology

Fig. 8.2 Apprehension model of the evaluation of social facilitation. According to this model, audience-related arousal is caused by fear of judgment.

There was no social benefit facilitation. That is, when the audience could not see or care about the performance, there was no evaluation anxiety, no social relief, and no social inhibition (Cottrell, Wack, Sekerak, & Rittle, 1968).

The distraction-conflict effect Conflict-distraction theory Social facilitation theory that suggests that the presence of others is a source of distraction that leads to attentional conflict between an audience and a task that impacts performance.

Another explanation for the effect of the presence of others is the distraction conflict theory (Baron, 1986). According to this theory, arousal results from a conflict between the attention demands of the task and the attention demands of the audience. There are three main points in the theory. First, the presence of other people distracts from the task. Our tennis player receives all kinds of signals demanding attention (rewards and punishments) from those watching him play. He might be aware of his parents, his ex-girlfriend, his tennis coach, an attractive stranger, and his annoying little brother in the crowd. Wreaks havoc with mediocre service. Second, distraction creates conflict in your attention. Our tennis player has a great attention span. All of these skills must focus on shooting the ball up and hitting the net. But her attention also goes to those she meets in the crowd. Third, the conflict between these two requests for attention stresses the actor and increases arousal (Figure 8.3).

Group performance: conditions that decrease or increase group members' motivation We have seen that observation influences our performance. Let's go one step further and examine how group membership affects our performance. We mentioned earlier that people who join groups do so primarily to improve themselves: they believe that joining a group will improve them in some way. They become better speakers, better citizens, better soccer players, better dancers or singers; they go

Chapter 8

group processes

289

Figure 8.3 The social relief and distraction conflict model. According to this model, the source of arousal in the facilitation situation is related to the conflict between the simultaneous attention to the task and the audience.

meet people and expand your social circle; You make a contribution to a cause, to a political candidate or to society. Does Group Membership Really Lead to Better Performance? Or does it reduce individual effort and performance and give people the opportunity to underperform? Both effects are documented.

Improved Performance Imagine you are a cycling enthusiast. You walk 20 miles three times a week, which takes just over an hour. One day you meet a group of cyclists and decide to ride with them. If you look at your time for the 20 miles, you'll see that your time is 1 hour and 10 minutes faster than your previous best time. How do you explain your increased speed? Did other cyclists just serve as windbreaks for you so you could push less and ride faster? Or is there more to this situation than aerodynamics? Has the mere presence of others influenced your behavior in any way? This question was asked by Norman Triplett, one of the first figures in social psychology (1898). Triplett, a cycling enthusiast, decided to test the theory that the presence of other people was enough to increase performance. He used a laboratory in which alternative explanations for the improvement in driving time (e.g. cyclists other than the windshield) could be ruled out. He also conducted what was perhaps the first experiment in social psychology. He had the children take part in a mock race on a miniature track. Ribbons were tied to fishing reels. By winding the spools, children could pull ribbons across a miniature racetrack. Triplet had the children complete the task alone or in pairs. He found that children who played in the presence of another child completed the task faster than children who played alone. The improvement in children's and cyclists' performance when participating in a group rather than alone provides some evidence that groups improve individual performance.

290

social psychology

Social lounging and free travel

Social laziness The underachievement effect of group work that involves slacking off in individual effort based on the belief that others will fill the gap.

opportunistic members of the group who do not do their part of the group work.

Is it true that the presence of others is always stimulating and that belonging to a group always leads to better individual performance? Maybe not. In fact, the opposite can happen. Sometimes when we are in a group situation, we let our efforts down and trust others to make up for it. This effect is known as social loafing. Sometimes people stop trying in the presence of others; indeed, they may be lazy when working with others in a group (Harkins & Szymanski, 1987; Latané, Williams & Harkins, 1979; Williams & Karau, 1991). In one experiment, participants were asked to shout as loudly as possible to test the effects of sensory feedback on the group's ability to produce sounds. The researchers compared the sound made by people thinking they were shouting or clapping alone with the sound they made when they thought they were in a group. If the groups were doing as well as the individuals, then the group output would be at least equal to the sum of the individual outputs. However, the results of the study showed that groups did not produce as much noise as the total amount of noise produced by individuals (Latané et al., 1979). Some members of the group didn't do everything they were able to do individually: they lounged. Therefore, in some cases, the involvement of others in the task (e.g., in a tug-of-war) decreases individual motivation and decreases task performance. In short, people sometimes put in less effort when working on a task in a group (Harkins & Petty, 1982). Why would the group reduce individual performance in some cases and improve it in others? The nature of the task may encourage social loafing. Who cares if you don't pull the rope as hard as you can in a tug-of-war? If you don't scream as loud as you can, what difference does it make? You cannot accurately assess your own contribution, nor can other people assess your performance. In addition, fatigue increases social laziness. Hoeksema-van Orden and her collaborators had a group of people work continuously for 20 hours, individually or in groups. These researchers found that fatigue increased social loitering in groups, while individuals were less likely to roam even when tired (Hoeksema-van Orden, Gallard & Buunk, 1998). Social loitering tends not to occur on very important tasks. However, many of our daily tasks are repetitive and monotonous, and prone to social loafing (Karau & Williams, 1993). Regardless of the task, some individuals work harder than others in groups (Kerr, 1983). Hitchhikers don't do their share of the work. Why not? They are cynical towards other members; They think others will hold back, so they hold back too. People don't want to be stupid and do more than their fair share while others take it easy. Even when they know their colleagues are contributing and competent, people may seek a ride (Williams & Karau, 1991). The larger the group, the more common are social loitering and hitchhiking. In large groups, it is more difficult to determine individual efforts and contributions. People tend to feel more responsible for the outcome in smaller groups (Kerr, 1989). Of course, not everyone in a group complains, nor do people in all group situations complain. Motivational Gains in Groups: Social Compensation and the Kohler Effect Although social loitering shows that being in a group can reduce the achievement motivation of some members, this is not always the case. What Reduces the Likelihood of Social Loafing? It is less likely to occur when individuals find it important to compensate for other, weaker members of the group (Williams & Karau, 1991). When the task is important and the motivation to perform it high, the social reward (working harder to compensate for the weaknesses of others) seems to trump the tendency to socially idle and take time off.

Chapter 8

group processes

Social loafing is also less likely when individual posts can be positively identified. When individuals can be identified and cannot easily blend into the background of other workers, they are generally less likely to loiter (Williams, Harkins, and Latané, 1981). For example, members of an automobile manufacturing team are more meticulous about their tasks and less willing to pass on defective work if they have to sign off for every part they make. When accountability for shortcomings is clear, when positive effort and contribution are rewarded, and when opportunists are punished by management, social absenteeism will continue to decrease (Shepperd, 1993). Similarly, Shepperd and Taylor (1999) showed that social loafing does not occur and free riders do not exist when group members perceive a strong relationship between their effort and a favorable group outcome. Social loafing is a very robust phenomenon and occurs in a variety of settings and cultures (Forgas, Williams, & von Hippel, 2004; Karau & Williams, 1993). It has been found to be more common in males than females and in Eastern versus Western cultures. These cultural and gender differences seem to be related to values. Many women and many people in Eastern cultures place more emphasis on group harmony and on group success and happiness. Many men, especially in Western cultures, place a higher value on individual progress and rewards and evaluations from other people. Groups tend to mask individual differences. Because of this, Western men may be less inclined to perform well in group situations. The result is social vagrancy (Karau & Williams, 1993). Karau and Williams showed that groups do not necessarily create conditions that suppress the motivation of individual members to perform well. Kerr and colleagues recently rediscovered another motivational gain in groups, known as the Kohler effect (Kerr & Tindale, 2005; Kerr, Messe, Parke, & Sambolec, 2005; Messe et al., 2002). These researchers rediscovered the work of Kohler (1926), in which the researcher reported that a less able member of a group of two people (a dyad) working together on a task would work harder and perform better than expected when the Product of The Group must be the result of the joint (conjunctive) effort of the two members. This seems to be the opposite of social loafing. The weaker member of the group, instead of hitchhiking or slacking off, actually increases their effort. For example, Kohler found that members of a Berlin rowing club worked more on a physical performance task as part of a team of two or three than individually. Hertel et al. (2000) Kohler called this motivational gain. Now the question arose as to how Kohler's motivation came about. In a small group (and two or three is the lowest possible number) it is possible for the least competent member to “know” that their performance is critical to the group's success. Or maybe the weaker member feels they are competing with the other members. These were just two of the possible reasons for the Kohler effect that Kerr et al. (2005) examined in their research. Kerr and his colleagues argued that the amount of feedback people get about their performance might be the deciding factor. For example, if you are not as good at the task as other members, information about the performance of the best should affect your effort and performance. So Kerr et al. (2005) varied the amount of feedback individuals received. The results showed that for the Kohler effect (increased performance of the weakest member of the dyad), knowledge of the level of performance (feedback) was not necessary. However, when group members were anonymous and received absolutely no performance feedback, the motivational gain was removed.

291

Kohler effect The effect whereby a less competent member of the group increases performance in a dyad when group performance depends on collective effort.

292

social psychology

Without information about the effect of the weaker member's contribution and without the possibility of recognition, there is no gain in motivation. Well, that's not surprising. Thus, it appears that motivational gains in groups are due in part to social comparison effects, where there is some competition between two group members, as well as the weaker member's personal motivation to see how well that member can perform (Kerr et al. , 2005).

Groups, self-identity and intergroup relations

Self-Identity Theory (SIT) A theory that proposes that a variety of factors predict a group's response to competing groups, and concerns what may arise from identification with a social category.

Groups not only affect our performance, they also affect our individual sense of worth, our sense of self, which in turn affects a group's relationship to other groups in a society. In 1971, Tajfel and his colleagues showed that group categorizations, together with ingroup identification, are necessary and sufficient conditions for groups to discriminate against other groups (Rubin & Hewstone, 1998). Recall that Tajfel showed in Chapter 4 that even when people were randomly assigned to a group (minimal group categorization), they tended to favor members of that group by handing out very small rewards (ingroup bias; Tajfel, Billig, Bundy and Flam, 1971). For example, in a minimal group experiment (“You overestimate the number of points in a structure and therefore you are in a superestimating group”), children spend more money on their group (or in-group) members than on the members of the group. the underestimate group (the outgroup). Therefore, even the slightest group situation seems to be enough for in-group bias (preferably your group members) to arise. Tajfel's findings suggested to him that individuals derive part of their self-concept, their social identity, from members of their group and that they try to cultivate a positive social (group) identity in order to increase their own self-esteem. Successful groups that are held in high esteem in society increase the esteem of their members. The opposite is also true. All of this depends on social comparison with relevant external groups on issues that are important to both (Mummendey & Wenzel, 1999). Favorable comparisons enlarge the group and its members. Social identity is thus a definition of the self in terms of belonging to a group (Brewer, 1993; Caporael, 1997). Changes in the fate of the group imply changes in the self-image of the individual members. Tajfel's theory is called Self-Identity Theory (SIT) and proposes that a number of factors predict a group's response to other competing groups in society. It refers to what can arise from identification with a social category (belonging to a social, political, racial, religious group, etc.). It does not mean that once we identify with one group, we will inevitably discriminate against other groups. However, the SIT sets out the conditions under which such discrimination can occur. In general, the SIT assumes that the possibility that one group will tend to discriminate against or belittle another group is influenced by four factors: 1. the intensity with which the members of the group identify with their group, 2. of the importance of the social category group is in represents the group 3. The dimension on which the groups compete (the more important the dimension, the greater the potential for conflict) 4. The relative status of the group and the difference in status between the in-group and the Out Group -Group (Oakes, Haslam & Turner, 1994)

Chapter 8

group processes

So if members identify strongly with the group; whether the group constitutes a crucial identification category, e.g. race, religion or other related groups, e.g. B. a social organization; when the competition is on a crucial dimension (jobs, college prospects, intense sporting rivalries); and if the outcome is expected to affect the status of the group in relation to its competitor, the SIT contemplates intergroup discrimination. Low or threatened self-esteem reinforces discrimination between groups based on the need to strengthen social identity (Hogg & Abrams, 1990). Groups that are successful at discriminating between groups will strengthen social identity and self-esteem (Rubin & Hewstone, 1998). When self-esteem is threatened by group failure, people tend to respond in ways that maintain their positive identity and sense of reality. For example, Duck and his colleagues studied the reaction of groups in a hotly contested political campaign. These researchers found that people who identified strongly with their political party were more likely to view media coverage of the campaign as biased and positive toward the other side (Duck, Terry, & Hogg, 1998). This was particularly strong for members of the weaker political party, as the SIT would predict, as the weaker party was most threatened. However, when the weaker party won, they became less likely to believe the media was biased, while the stronger, losing party began to believe the media was biased against them. A member who threatens a group's success also threatens the group's positive image. This leads to the black sheep effect, the observation that while an attractive member of one's own group is rated higher than an attractive member of the other group, an unattractive member of one's own group is perceived more negatively than a member of one's own group. the outgroup. (Marqués & Páez, 1994). The SIT conclusion is that the unattractive ingroup member poses a serious threat to the ingroup's image (Mummendey & Wenzel, 1999).

The Power of Groups to Punish: Social Ostracism While groups can serve to bolster our self-esteem by strengthening our social identity, groups have the power to inflict painful, even horrifying, punishments. Baumeister and Leary (1995) observed that few things in life are as frightening as being excluded from groups we care about. Most of us spend a lot of time around other people. The presence of others not only offers us opportunities for positive interactions, but also risks of being ignored, excluded, and rejected. Kipling Williams (Williams, Fogas & von Hippel, 2005; Zadro, Williams & Richardson, 2004) provided an innovative approach to study the effects of group ignorance or rejection. Such behavior is called social ostracism, and Williams defined it as the act of excluding or ignoring other individuals or groups. This behavior is ubiquitous and universal. Williams noted that organizations, employers, colleagues, friends, and family can ignore or withdraw from people (the silent treatment) to punish, control, and release anger. The prevalence of exclusion is reflected in a study by Williams et al. which showed that 67% of respondents said they had used the silent treatment (deliberately not speaking to a person in their presence) on a loved one, and 75% said they had been silently treated by a loved one (Faulkner & Williams, 1995). As you can imagine, silence is a sign that a relationship is falling apart. From the victim's perspective of this silence, social ostracism is the perception of being ignored by others in the victim's presence (Williams & Zadro, 2001).

293

Black sheep effect The phenomenon whereby an attractive ingroup member is rated more highly than an attractive outgroup member and an unattractive outgroup member is rated more negatively than an unattractive outgroup member.

Shunting The ubiquitous and universal behavior of excluding or ignoring other individuals or groups.

294

social psychology

Williams and his colleague Sommer identified different forms of ostracism (Williams & Sommer, 1997). First, they distinguish between social and physical ostracism. Physical ostracism includes solitary confinement, exile, or time off from elementary school. Social ostracism is reduced to phrases we all know: coldness, silence. In the field of social psychology, punitive ostracism and defensive ostracism are among the various forms ostracism can take. Punitive ostracism refers to behavior (ignoring, avoiding) that the victim perceives as intentional and harmful. Sometimes, according to Williams and Sommer, people also engage in defensive ostracism, a kind of pre-emptive strike when they think someone harbors negative feelings toward them. The goal of ostracism from the ostracist's point of view is clear: to control the behavior of the victim. Ostrakists also report being rewarded when they see their tactics working. Certainly, defensive ostracism, ignoring someone before they can harm or ignore them, seems to increase the ostracist's self-esteem (Sommer, Williams, Ciarocco, & Baumeister, 1999). Williams developed a number of creative methods to make laboratory experiments appear excluded. Williams and Sommer (1997) used a ball tossing game in which two people working as experimenters' accomplices socially included or excluded a participant during a 5-minute tossing game. Participants waiting for a group activity to start were placed in a waiting room with various objects, including a ball. Three people were involved, the two accomplices and the unknown research participant. All participants received the ball in the first minute, but the outcasts did not receive the ball in the remaining 4 minutes. The experimenter then repeated the second part of the study. After the ball toss was completed in the Williams and Sommer (1997) experiment, participants were asked to think of as many uses for an object as possible within a given time. They performed this task in the same room either jointly (where they were told that only the group's efforts would be recorded) or under duress (where their own individual performance was compared to other group members) with the two Confederates. Williams and Sommer predicted that ostracized targets, those excluded from the field, would attempt to regain a sense of belonging by working comparatively harder at the collective task, thereby contributing to the group's success. Williams and Sommer found support for this hypothesis, but only for the female participants. Regardless of whether they were ostracized at the Toss task, the men demonstrated social idleness by being less productive at collective labor than at forced labor. The females, on the other hand, behaved very differently depending on whether they were included or excluded. When locked in, they worked collectively just as hard as under duress, but when excluded, they were actually more productive working collectively than when working under duress. Females also indicated that they were interested in making them feel like a valued member of the group by showing non-verbal engagement (i.e. leaning forward, smiling), while males tended to use face-saving techniques such as hair combing or through the eyes looking at handbags and the manipulation of objects, all in the service of "kindness" and to show that they are not affected by the ostracism. We can conclude that ostracism threatened the sense of belonging for both men and women, but marginalized women attempted to regain their sense of belonging while men acted to regain their self-esteem (Williams & Sommer, 1997; Williams et al., 2005). ).

Chapter 8

group processes

295

Ostracism is not limited to personal contact. The power of ban is even evident in computer games where a player is banned from a ball throwing (Internet) computer game called Cyberball (Zadro et al., 2004). At a predetermined point in the game, one of the players will be eliminated. That is, the other players no longer "throw" the ball to this person. Players who are banned report a loss of self-esteem. A study by Smith and Williams (2004) also reported that the negative effects of exclusion are not limited to face-to-face contact. The power of ostracism can also be felt through cell phone text messages. Smith and Williams (2004) created a three-way interaction via mobile phones in the SMS study, first involving all three people in the text message. However, in one of the study conditions, a participant is cut off from the conversation. That person stopped receiving direct messages or looking at the messages exchanged between the other two text messages. Those excluded reported lower levels of belonging, control, self-esteem, and “meaningfulness” (Smith & Williams, 2004).

Deindividuation and Anonymity: The Power of Groups to Use Violence While ostracism essentially refers to psychological methods of group exclusion, other, more dangerous behaviors emerge in group situations. We have seen that when certain individuals feel that they cannot be identified by their actions or accomplishments, they tend to back off. This is a common group effect. A decrease in individual identity seems to mean a decrease in a person's sense of responsibility. Anonymity can change people's ethical and moral behavior. Observers of group behavior have long known that certain types of groups have the potential to cause great harm. Groups at sporting events became embroiled in murder and mayhem when their football teams lost. One element present in these groups is that the individuals are not easily identifiable. People get lost in the crowd and seem to lose their identity and self-confidence. Social psychologists have termed this loss of inhibition in one group deindividuation (Zimbardo, 1969). Deindividualized people seem to become less aware of their own moral standards and are much more likely to respond to violent or aggressive cues (Prentice Dunn & Rogers, 1989). In fact, non-individuals are quick to respond to any suggestion. Research suggests that when people are embedded in a group, they become impulsive, agitated, and caught up in the cues of the moment (Spivey & Prentice-Dunn, 1990). Your action is determined by everything the group does. Groups and organizations whose main objective is violence often try to de-individualize their members. Certainly the white sheets covering the members of the Ku Klux Klan are a clear example of this. The same applies to the training methods of most military organizations. The uniforms serve to break down shyness and make it easier to react to aggressive signals. There is evidence that the larger the group, the more likely it is that individual members of the group will disconnect. Differences have been found in the behavior of larger and smaller crowds gathering when a person in trouble threatens to jump off a building or bridge (Mann, 1981). In 10 of the 21 cases studied, the crowd caused the victim to jump, while in the remaining 11 the victim was not offended and often rescued. What was the difference between these two types of cases? Bait crowds tended to be larger: 300+ people. Decoy episodes were more likely to occur after dark, and the victim was generally located higher up, usually above the 12th floor

Deindividuation Phenomenon occurring in large group situations in which individual identity is lost in the anonymity of the large group, possibly leading to decreased inhibition towards negative behavior.

296

social psychology

most likely it was a provocation. All of these factors (the size of the crowd, the distance between the crowd and the victim, the anonymity conferred by the darkness) contributed to the deindividuation of the crowd members. And the longer these deindividualized people waited, the angrier they got. Another study found that when a crowd is prone to violence, the larger the crowd, the more perverse the behavior (Mullen, 1986). The largest crowds and smallest numbers of victims can lead to atrocities such as hanging, torture and rape.

Group Performance Individual Decisions vs. Group Decisions First, let's consider whether group decisions are better than individual decisions. Is it better for a medical team to decide whether our CT scan indicates we need surgery, or is it better to leave that decision to an individual surgeon? Did NASA's launch manager benefit from the group's work, or would it have been wiser to just reflect on the situation?

Is a group better than average?

transactive memory systems systems within groups that are collections of individual memories that enable group members to learn about each other's experiences and assign memory tasks based on them.

In general, research shows that groups outperform individuals, at least the average individual, in many jobs and tasks (Stasser, Kerr, & Davis, 1989). Three reasons have been proposed for the observed superiority of groups over the average person. First, groups do a better job than average because they see the truth faster—accept the right answer. Second, groups are better able to reject mistakes: rejecting wrong or implausible answers (Laughlin, 1980; Laughlin, VanderStoep, & Hollingshead, 1991; Lorge & Solomon, 1955). Third, groups have a better and more efficient memory system than individuals. This allows them to process information more effectively. However, the groups do not seem to be realizing their potential. That is, its output appears to be less than the sum of its parts (ie, individual members [Kerr & Tindale, 2005]). So let's keep that in mind as we look at the advantages that groups have over individuals. Groups can have what is called transactive memory systems, a common system for storing (encoding) events, storing those memories, and retrieving that information. Wegner (1996) used the example of a shared directory computer network to explain the three legs of a transactive memory system: 1. Directory updating, where people discover what other members of the group know is delivered to the person who knows how t

Bordens - Social Psychology 3e HQ - MOAM.INFO (2023)