 |
Psychology, 5/e Wortman, Loftus & Weaver | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Online Learning Center |
 |
|||||
|
Psychology, 5/e Wortman, Loftus & Weaver | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Online Learning Center |
|
|||||
The prison experiment conducted by Philip Zimbardo consisted of randomly assigning young men to the role of "guard" or "prisoner." Within six days, the experiment had to be discontinued because the students were taking their roles too seriously. This indicates the strong influence of social situations on behavior and attitudes.
An attitude is a disposition to respond favorably or unfavorably toward some person, thing, event, place, idea, or situation (often called an attitude object). Attitudes have three components: the cognitive (what you believe about something), the emotional (how you feel about it), and the behavioral (how you act). Although sometimes all three components of an attitude are consistent with each other, at other times they are not. The correspondence of people’s cognitive and emotional components with their behavior is surprisingly weak, in part because many forces influence behavior.
To improve our ability to predict behavior from beliefs and feelings, it is best to investigate beliefs and feelings that are specifically relevant to behavior, and to solicit information about opinions that are clearly and strongly held, and about which the person is knowledgeable.
Persuasive communications are constructed to change the recipient’s attitudes. The most persuasive speakers are expert and trustworthy. Their trustworthiness can be enhanced when they are accidentally overheard or when they appear to be arguing against their own self-interest. Body language plays an important role, as constantly smiling and nodding, hand gestures, and frequently touching hair or face are considered signs of deception. Speakers who are physically attractive also tend to be more persuasive.
With regard to message content, it is usually wiser to acknowledge another’s claims against you and counter them than not to address them at all. Fear-arousing campaigns can also produce attitude change, although studies do not agree on the amount of fear that produces the greatest attitude change. It seems that increased fear produces the appropriate action only if the fear does not become excessive and if steps to avoid the feared consequences are clearly specified.
It is also important to consider the audience being reached by a message when predicting persuasiveness. The levels of intelligence and self-esteem of an audience can influence how easily it is persuaded. The mood (positive or negative) of the audience also determines how easily it can be persuaded.
Richard Petty and John Cacioppo have argued that a clearer way to understand persuasive communication is to view it as taking two routes: the route of systematic analysis, a strong and enduring message which focuses on the accuracy and logic of the message; and the heuristic route, which is used when a message is overly complex or seemingly unimportant and which focuses on peripheral and easily evaluated cues in the message (such as physical attractiveness of the communicator).
Another approach to attitude change involves cognitive consistency, the tendency of people to keep their cognitions in relative agreement with one another. Consistency theorists believe that incompatible thoughts and actions put us in a state of physiological tension. We seek to reduce this tension by changing our thoughts or our actions so we can perceive them as compatible.
Cognitive dissonance theory is a consistency theory that focuses on perceived differences between one’s thoughts and behaviors. Persons who believe they have done something contrary to their beliefs ("I’m a good person and I just robbed a bank") will reduce the cognitive dissonance, or unpleasant tension, aroused by this inconsistency by changing their attitudes about some aspect of the situation or by changing their behavior so it is consistent with their beliefs and feelings.
Cognitive dissonance theory is strengthened by experiments showing that when participants are induced to tell a lie for a small or a large amount of money, more attitude change occurs when the participants are paid the small amount. Apparently, the participants who were paid a large sum could justify their lying and thus did not feel the greater dissonance felt by the participants who lied for less. Similar research shows that punishment operates in a similar fashion: If you want to induce another person to dislike an object, mildly punish the person for approaching the object. (Although strong punishment will also prevent approach, it will not produce long-lasting attitude change.)
Cognitive dissonance theory is not without its critics, however. For example, impression-management theory explains the results of dissonance experiments by stating that, instead of being motivated to reduce the tension associated with cognitive dissonance, people simply want to appear to act in a manner consistent with their attitudes. The self-affirmation theory argues that those who change attitudes as a result of dissonance do so to avoid the damaged self-image that would result from knowing they had behaved badly.
Cognitive dissonance theory appears to apply only when the behavior in question is voluntary, when it involves negative consequences, and when the person feels responsible for it. Some researchers suggest that the attitude change produced results not from cognitive inconsistency at all, but rather from guilt or remorse generated from negative consequences.
Daryl Bem points out that the results of cognitive dissonance experiments could be explained in yet another way. He believes that people are not routinely aware of their own attitudes. When asked what they believe, people reflect on their behavior and conclude what their attitude must have been for that behavior to have been appropriate. ("Why did I lie for a little money? I must not have lied to begin with.") Thus, although dissonance theory and Bem’s self-perception theory both make the same predictions, they explain these results in different ways.
Both theories have received considerable support. Dissonance theory is based on the notion that cognitive inconsistency involves an unpleasant state of arousal, a finding supported by research. Bem’s theory, however, can explain the result that when people are paid a large sum to do something they like to do, their attitude about the task becomes less positive. Dissonance theory cannot account for this result, since the two original attitudes are not discrepant and should therefore arouse no dissonance. Self-perception theory also explains how we tend to form attitudes as a result of our actions: If we are nice to a man, we tend to like him; if we are not, we don’t.
Social cognition is the process of trying to make sense of other people. It involves both impression formation and attribution.
The primacy effect is a label for our tendency to place more value on the first information we receive than on later information. Consequently, first impressions are often very influential in determining our attitudes about a person, both because they focus attention on the first piece of information and because they influence what additional information we will consider.
In order to interpret information related to people, we use schemas, or sets of integrated cognitions about objects, people, or events. A person schema describes what a person is like; a self-schema describes what you are like; and a social stereotype is a set of beliefs about how members of a group think and act. We develop schemas to simplify information so it can be managed by our limited-capacity information-processing system. We use schemas to fill in missing details about people, even though this approach sometimes leads us to faulty conclusions. Similarly, we do not easily change our schemas to suit new information; rather, when we encounter information that contradicts a schema, this actually tends to strengthen the original schema and we consequently find a way of discrediting the information.
Confirmatory hypothesis testing is the tendency of people to seek out information that confirms our existing schemas. Thus, because people tend to validate their schemas by selecting only consistent information, schemas are resistant to change. Individuals whose characteristics violate a schema tend to be seen as "exceptions," and schemas are unlikely to change unless many nonconforming examples are presented.
Priming is the unconscious activation of a schema, which then encourages ideas associated with that schema to come to mind, even though the person is unaware of the prime (Theme 3). A self-fulfilling prophecy involves one’s acting as one is expected to act. Thus, when we expect a person to possess certain characteristics (e.g., stinginess), we act toward that person as if he or she were stingy, and that person in turn reacts with stingy behavior. First impressions are indeed important in establishing attitudes.
First impressions, however, do not account for all our inferences about people. As we get to know someone better, we begin to make causal attributions (explanations for what causes behavior) based on the person’s behavior. Two approaches have been advanced to explain how we infer the causes of other people’s behavior. One theory, proposed by Jones and Davis, argues that unexpected or unusual behaviors are the ones which give us most information about what causes people to act.
Harold Kelley, on the other hand, argues that even repetitive or initial behaviors can be informative if we have time to compare them to other things. For Kelley, the consistency factor is generally examined first: Is the behavior repeated in many similar situations? If consistency is high, distinctiveness may be considered: Is the response limited to this one situation? Finally, consensus is examined: Do others respond the same way in this situation? If not, the behavior may be attributed to a personality trait.
Both Jones and Davis’s and Kelley’s views describe causal attribution as a logical process. However, we do make attribution errors. Probably the most common of these, the fundamental attribution error, involves attributing others’ actions to their personalities rather than to their situation. This error is probably the result of our perspective in viewing another’s behavior: since the person is usually more salient than the surroundings, we automatically attribute the cause or action to the person’s disposition. Causal attribution may be a two-step process: The first step is a quick attribution to the person, but, if we have time, we sometimes reconsider the situation more carefully and logically and consider situational factors as well. Thus, the fundamental attribution error is less likely when we can assess circumstances more fully and when we know we will be held accountable for our judgments, since here we are prodded into taking the second step.
This tendency to attribute others’ behaviors to their personal dispositions also figures into the actor-observer bias, which includes our opposite tendency to attribute our own behavior to environmental causes rather than personality factors. The observer has less information than the actor about the situation and is therefore more likely to attribute behavior to personality traits. The actor-observer bias is most pronounced when the effects of the behavior are negative and least pronounced when they are positive.
The self-serving bias operates when the actor takes credit for his or her good deeds and finds situational excuses for bad ones. One way to make the self-serving bias especially convincing is self-handicapping, or claiming at the onset that you are starting out at a disadvantage so that if you fail, you have a ready excuse. Self-serving biases and self-handicapping can be positive in that they help us maintain our self-esteem, but they are also negative when they prevent us from doing our best.
Physical attractiveness has a powerful effect on how we evaluate another person. Indeed, in an experiment disguised as a dance with computer-matched dating, only attractiveness (not intelligence or personality) had an impact on how favorably dates were evaluated. Apparently, a person who is beautiful is also assumed to have many additional positive traits. Moreover, people who associate with beautiful people reap the benefit of having positive traits attributed to them. Physical attractiveness is more important to us in the choice of a mate than in the choice of a same-sex friend, and this tendency is stronger in men who are attracted to beautiful women than it is in women, who are more likely to consider a man’s economic status. Physical proximity is one of the most important factors in forming friendships. Research shows that the closer together two people live and the more they interact, the stronger their friendship. Apparently, people tend to like things to which they are repeatedly exposed, perhaps because the repeated exposure leads us to feel comfortable in the other person’s presence. Familiarity and proximity, however, are not all that is needed to form a close friendship. Generally, we become friends with people who hold attitudes similar to our own, perhaps because their similar attitudes confirm and reinforce ours. Finally, we are also attracted to people who like us. Shy people suffer a disadvantage here because their shy behavior can be interpreted as unfriendliness, which is then met with aloofness. Thus, a self-fulfilling prophecy may develop.
Love is an intense, positive feeling toward another person. Robert Sternberg has identified three components of loving: intimacy (the feeling of closeness and confidence), passion (the drive to be physically united), and commitment (the decision to be and stay together). Best friends have companionate love, sharing intimacy and commitment but not passion; "infatuated love" is characterized by passion but no intimacy or commitment. Commitment without passion or intimacy is "empty love"; and consummate love, the most difficult to achieve, is characterized by all three components. Some people view love as a progressive relationship, characterized first by the emotional highs and lows of passionate love, which may develop into consummate love, or, as passion fades with time, a warm, affectionate companionate love.
Prejudice can be conceptualized as a negative and inflexible attitude based on erroneous or incomplete information. It is generally directed at an entire group as well as individual group members. Prejudice is often resistant to change. A stereotype, or cluster of preconceived expectations about a particular group, underlies prejudice. Thus, anyone who exhibits a particular key trait (for example, a woman who is emotional) is assumed to have all the expected traits (to be dependent, sensitive, and so on). Discrimination, the behavioral expression of prejudice, is often justified by these erroneous stereotypes. Individuals who violate the stereotype are usually dismissed as exceptions, and in this way the stereotype is maintained. Some prejudiced people have subcategories within a stereotype into which they can group the more "desirable" members of an "undesirable" group. These subcategories enable these people to maintain their prejudiced attitudes in the face of exceptions. People tend to look for reasons to confirm their stereotypes, rather than discard them (Theme 4).
Racism is prejudice directed toward members of certain racial groups. Although polls show that the majority of White Americans support racial equality, fewer support programs designed to promote racial equality. Also, White Americans are more likely to feel comfortable in casual contact with Blacks, but become more uncomfortable when the contact becomes more frequent or closer. Some Whites continue to hold extremely negative stereotypes about racial minorities.
Many psychologists believe that overt racism has been replaced by disguised racism, characterized by a belief in racial equality but also by acceptance of negative stereotypes of Blacks. This view is supported by research showing that reaction times of White participants are slower when responding to positive traits associated with Blacks than with Whites. It is also supported by research which found that White participants gave more intense shocks to Black than to White accomplices when the shocks were not overtly linked to the race of the accomplice.
People with an authoritarian personality, characterized by rigid adherence to conventional values, preference for strong, undemocratic leaders, and fear and hatred of anyone different, are more likely to have racist views. However, not all racists have authoritarian personalities, and social factors are undoubtedly involved.
Several explanations of the causes of racism have been proposed. One argument suggests that economic competition turns prejudice toward the lowest socioeconomic group. In one experiment, the researchers created prejudice by dividing boys at camp into two groups and placing them in situations involving fierce competition. Other people believe that prejudice is the result of projecting anger and aggression caused by frustration onto a powerless group. Indeed, frustration has been demonstrated to increase prejudice against a minority group. We also tend to see members of our in-group of friends as being unique, whereas we see members of an out-group (to which we do not belong) as being all the same. We tend, then, to treat all members of a racial out-group as alike in every way, even to the point of having more trouble discriminating their faces. Social identity theory argues that we derive our self-esteem by favoring our in-group relative to out-groups. When our self-esteem is low, we take it out on out-group members. Finally, racial prejudice may be learned as a cultural norm, and we then avoid members of other racial groups whom we are taught to dislike.
Simply arranging contact among members of different racial groups does not appear to reduce prejudice, because stereotypes are so resistant to change. However, when contact occurs under conditions of equal status for all participants, when people get to know each other well, and when situations engender cooperation and interdependence, racism can be reduced through contact.
As throughout history, today women are still the primary victims of sexism, prejudice directed at one sex, even in the United States. Most people believe that the differences between the sexes are much greater than they actually are. Furthermore, people of all ages hold essentially the same sex stereotypes. Sex-related characteristics probably begin to develop shortly after birth through differential treatment of boys and girls. These messages are reinforced by teachers, TV programs, advertisements, and other socializing agents. When women do achieve in a male-dominated field, stereotypes often hamper their progress. Because "femaleness" is unusual in predominately male fields and thus a salient cue, a woman’s achievements are often attributed to her sex, rather than to her real abilities. Also, sex stereotypes encourage people to act in sex-appropriate ways, even in job situations. When a job calls for "typical" masculine behaviors, a woman may feel conflict in filling this role. Thus, sex stereotypes perpetuate themselves.
Psychologists are very interested in what causes romantic relationships to endure and what produces satisfaction with those relationships. Shaver and Hazan have studied adults’ styles of romantic love and have found that it closely parallels the three attachment patterns found in infants: secure attachment, anxious-avoidant attachment, and anxious-ambivalent attachment. Shaver and Hazan noted that secure adults tended to trust their loved ones and feel loved by them. Avoidant adults often found becoming close to someone difficult, and anxious-ambivalent adults seemed to want to find "real" love, but were unable to do so. It is also important to consider how partners attribute causes to each other’s behavior. Happy couples tend to attribute each other’s positive actions to lasting dispositions, while excusing negative actions as results of present circumstances. Unhappy couples tend to attribute each other’s positive actions to temporary situations, and negative actions to enduring dispositions. Other studies have indicated that couples which let out their anger or dissatisfaction with the relationship tend to be happier than those which keep their emotions inside.
MHHE Home | About MHHE | Help Desk | Legal Policies and Info | Order Info | What's New | Get Involved
