c82sad: social cognition and social thinking. social cognition and information processing what is...
TRANSCRIPT
C82SAD: Social Cognition and Social Thinking
Social cognition and Information Processing
• What is social cognition? Social Cognition is how...
• Attitudes• Perceptions of ourselves and others (representations)• Judgements• Expectations
…influence our beliefs, intentions and behaviour Assumes a rational, reasoned decision maker Information processing perspective
What is Social Cognition?
• Comprises a set of cognitive structures and processes that affect and are affected by social context
• People are assumed to be ‘cognitive misers’
• Cognitive ‘short-cuts’ tend to be adopted
• Toward ‘cognitive economy’
• Stereotypes are good examples
Social Cognition: Key Points
• Cognitive processes for understanding how people construct own social world = social cognition (Bless et al, 2004; Fisk & Taylor, 1991).
• Applies theories and methods from cognitive psychology e.g. memory, attention, inference and concept formation for understanding perceptions of others
Experience and Categorisation
• World provides too much information• Parts of perception recorded from
environment - attention• People devise short-cut strategies to
simplify nature of the incoming information• Categorisation - way of simplifying
perceptions
Categorisation
• Grouping of objects - treated in similar way e.g. square is a square, lecturer is a lecturer– Promotes cognitive economy
• Object either belongs to a category or does not (Bruner et al, 1956)
• But: Categories not all or none• Prototypical approach (Barsalou, 1991)
– Members share something in common - not completely identical for membership
How are Categories Represented?
• Schemata - how categories are represented• Cognitive representation of the prototype• People generalise in time and in space about
objects characteristics and properties• Dependent on individual’s personal experiences
involving object – actual, imagined or implied• Generalisation process and outcome (i.e.
categorisation) called schema
Schema
• Organised sets of information about people, behaviours, groups of people, yourself etc.
• Once evoked or ‘activated’ schemas tend to bias all aspects of information processing and inference
• Schemas can be implicitly activated and affect judgement and behaviour very easily beyond our conscious awareness
• Similar schema will be activated at the same time• Guide how we encode (attend, interpret), remember and
respond (judge and interact)• For example, Bargh, Chen, & Burrows
Automaticity Example
• Subliminal priming of the old-age stereotype (Bargh, Chen & Burrows, 1996)– worried, Florida, old, lonely, gray
• Walked more slowly to hatchway at end of corridor compared to neutral primed participants
• Therefore people behave according to the primed schema = ‘old-age stereotype’
How Schemas Work: Sagar & Schofield’s (1980) Racial Bias Study
• Purpose: Demonstrate that stereotypes bias intepretation of ambiguous events
• Participants: 40 African American (AA), 40 White (W)• Method: Participants presented with ambiguous
drawings (e.g. bumps, asks for cake, pokes, takes pencil) with ‘actors’ depicted as W or AA, participants rated behaviour as mean, threatening, playful, friendly
• Results: Both AA and W participants rated behaviour as more threatening when the actor was AA
• Conclusion: Schemas influence the interpretation of ambiguous events
Remembering
• Schemas represented in memory as:– lists of linked features - associative memory
model• nodes for concepts and links to related nodes e.g.
doctorcaringnurse
– prototype or ideal instances model• central examples clustered around prototype• peripheral examples of the prototype further away
in mental space
The Naive Scientist
• How people think about other people (Heider, 1958)
• Inferring unobservable causes from observable behaviour or other perceived information
• Cause-effect processing of social information– dispositions (internal e.g. traits) & situations (external)
• Attribution of causes for behaviour from stimuli perceived (Kelley, 1972; Gilbert, 1998; Jones & Davis, 1965, etc)
• Impression formation – social perception (Asch, 1946)
Impression Formation
• Certain information more important in forming an impression– Central and peripheral traits (Asch, 1946; Kelley, 1950).
• First vs. more recent impressions count.– Accounting for the primacy-recency effect (Asch, 1946;
Luchins, 1957). • Earlier information is the ‘real’ person• Later information dismissed - it’s not viewed as typical /
representative (Luchins, 1957)• Attention at a maximum when making initial impressions
(Anderson, 1975)• Early information affects ‘meaning’ of later information (Asch,
1946) - consistency
The Cognitive Miser
• Social perception as a problem solving task
• Cognitive ‘laziness’ - cognitive miser (Fisk & Taylor, 1991)
• Rely on heuristics for decision making and interpersonal perception
• Process salient information - that which stands out
Heuristics
• Availability of information - judging frequency of event based on number of instances brought to ‘mind’ of that event
• Anchoring and adjustment - using information about a similar event to infer causes
• Simulation - ease of imagining alternatives through mental simulation
• Representativeness - whether person is an example of a particular stored schema (Stereotype).
Stereotypes
• “.....widely shared assumptions of the personalities, attitudes and behaviour of people based on group membership....” (Hogg & Vaughan, 1995, p. 56).
• “.....inclination to place a person in categories according to some..... characteristics.... and then to attribute... qualities believed to be typical to members of that category...” (Tagiuri, 1969)
Stereotypes
• Overall impressions (attitudes) of other people and their behaviour tends to be dominated by stereotypes
• Organised sets of information, characteristics, first impressions and idiosyncratic personal constructs (e.g.,
• People’s impressions are made through ‘averaging’ these components but they tend to be dominated by particular ones (e.g., potential threat)
Stereotyping Process
• Assign individual to a group - categorise– Based on accessible characteristic e.g.
gender, race, age.
• Activate belief that all members of this group behave etc. in same way
• Infer that individual must posses stereotypical characteristics
• Respond to individual on this basis
Stereotyping Process
• Automaticity in stereotyping (Macrae & Bodenhausen, 2000)– fast acting, difficult to change, no intentional control of
operations, no conscious awareness– Encountering stimulus in environment (or even
internally generated) categories are activated automatically (Lepore & Brown, 1997; Bargh, 1999; Banaji & Greenwald, 1995)
– Heightened accessibility of material following prime e.g. “hospital” primes “nurse”, “caring” etc.
Theories of Attribution
• Internal and external attributions (Rotter, 1966)• Naïve scientist model (Heider, 1958)• Correspondent inference theory (Jones & Davis,
1965)• Attributional bias model (Kelley, 1967)• Attribution theory (Weiner, 1986)• Attribution of emotions (Schacter & Singer,
1962)
Attributional Bias
• Fundamental attribution error (Jones & Harris, 1967; Ross, 1977)
• Actor-observer effect (Jones & Nisbett, 1972)
• Attributional bias (Kelly, 1950)
• Self-serving bias (Miller & Ross, 1975)
Definition
Attribution is the process of assigning causes for our own behaviour to that of others
Hogg & Vaughan (2005)
Heider’s Naïve Scientist
• Suggests that people create ‘theories’ of other people based on observation of behavior
• Inferring unobservable causes from observable behaviour or other perceived information
Everyone is a Naïve Scientist
• Internal (dispositional) attributions– personality characteristics– beliefs
• External (situational) attributions– situational pressure/influence
• Example: Student turns in papers late– Internal:
Everyone is a Naïve Scientist
• Internal (dispositional) attributions– personality characteristics– beliefs
• External (situational) attributions– situational pressure/influence
• Example: Student turns in papers late– Internal:lazy, partying all the time
Everyone is a Naïve Scientist
• Internal (dispositional) attributions– personality characteristics– beliefs
• External (situational) attributions– situational pressure/influence
• Example: Student turns in papers late– Internal:lazy, partying all the time– External:
Everyone is a Naïve Scientist
• Internal (dispositional) attributions– personality characteristics– beliefs
• External (situational) attributions– situational pressure/influence
• Example: Student turns in papers late– Internal:lazy, partying all the time– External:family problems, working,
boy/girlfriend
Everyone is a Naïve Scientist
• Internal (dispositional) attributions– personality characteristics– beliefs
• External (situational) attributions– situational pressure/influence
• Example: Student turns in papers late– Internal:lazy, partying all the time– External:family problems, working,
boy/girlfriend
Self-Serving Bias
• Aim to protect our ‘self-esteem’
• Consistent with social cognitive theories on motivation for consistency
• Tendency to ‘serve ourselves’
• Take credit for success (attribute internally)
• But not for failure (attribute externally)
• Maintains control and consistency
Self-Serving Bias
• E.g. student will take credit for doing well in an exam
• Student will blame test difficulty or lecturer’s tough marking policy for failure
• Miller & Ross (1975) cognitive explanation due to restricted information NOT because they are motivated to protect or enhance the self
Actor-Observer Effect
• OBSERVER-->Internal attribution
• ACTOR-->External attribution
• What is salient in the perceptual field?
• i.e. what INFORMATION is available for the observer and the actor?
• For OBSERVER: The actor
• For ACTOR: Everything but the actor (i.e., the situation)
Actor-Observer Effect• Harré, Brandt & Houkamau (2004)• The attributions of young drivers for their
own and their friends' risky driving • Dispositional attributions e.g., "Showing
off, acting cool" used more for friends than self
• Situational attributions e.g., "In a hurry, late" used more for self than friends
• Participants also rated their friends as taking more risks than themselves
Correspondent Inference TheoryJones & Davis (1965):• People make attributions based on:• Underlying traits• Based on freely chosen behaviour• Observed behaviour is matched with traits
regardless of:– Situation– Consequences– Personal or public– Socially desirable
• Does not account for past experience, stereotypes• Does not look at non-intentional behaviour
The Fundamental Attribution ErrorRoss (1977) when observing behaviour
people tend to:• Overestimate the significance of DISPOSITIONAL
factors• Underestimate the significance of SITUATIONAL
factors• Also indicative of the actor-observer effect (Jones
& Nisbett, 1972) – we know we are different across situations– Perspective hypothesis– Information availability
• Jones and Harris’ (1967) classic experiment illustrated this bias
Jones and Harris (1967): Study Design
Pro-Castro Anti-Castro
ChosenChoice, Pro-Castro
Choice,
Anti-Castro
Not Chosen
No Choice,
Pro-Castro
No Choice,
Anti-Castro
IV2: Writer’s Position
IV1: Writer’s Abilityto Chose position
Hypothesised Summary of Results
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Pro-Castro Anti-Castro
Choice
No Choice
Results
Pro-Castro Anti-Castro
Chosen 59.6 17.4
Not Chosen
44.1 22.9
IV2: Writer’s Position
IV1: Writer’s Abilityto Chose position
Summary of Results
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Pro-Castro Anti-Castro
ChoiceNo Choice
• Built on Heider’s (1958) ideas about attributions of cause of others behaviour
• Key point: Attribution of cause to the person or environment in situations is a major problem
• Heider (1958) suggested that if behaviour seems ’appropriate’ in a given situation, then people tend to make a situational attribution
• Kelley (1967) outlined WHEN a situational or dispositional attribution is made and WHY
Kelley’s (1967, 1973) Attributional Bias
• Three key questions in a given situation:– Does the person regularly behave this way in
this situation? (consistency)– Do other people regularly behave this way in
this situation? (consensus)– Does this person behave this way in other
situations? (distinctiveness)
Kelley’s (1967, 1973) Attributional Bias
Distinctiveness?Consistency?
Consensus?
Kelley’s (1967, 1973) Attributional Bias
Attributional problem: You are in a long queue in a shop with your friend. He/she is getting increasingly irritated with how long it’s taking. Does your friend’s frustration tell us something about their personality?
Key question
s
Attribution
Yes No
No Yes Yes No
Attribution
Attribution
Attribution
Attribution
No basis for attributing frustration to either situation or personality. May be a one-off.
Situational attribution: People DO tend to get frustrated in long queues
Personality attribution, general: Your friend does the tendency to get frustrated in these sorts of situations. (Stay out of his/her way!)
Personality attribution, particular: Your friend tends to get frustrated in queues. (Don’t go shopping with him/her on busy days!)
Q1: Does your friend usually get frustrated when standing in long queues?
Q2: Do other people generally get frustrated when standing in long queues?
Q3: Does your friend generally get frustrated in other situations involving long waits?
Emotional Lability Theory
• Schacter and Singer’s (1962) classic experiment• Subjects were:
– Injected with epinephrine (‘suproxin’), euphoric condition
– Injected with epinephrine (‘suproxin’), anger-evoking condition
– Injected with placebo, euphoric condition– Injected with placebo, anger-evoking condition
• Further condition added – information about injection consistent with side effects, inconsistent with side effects
Schachter and Singer’s Experimental Design
• Euphoria– Placebo– Epinephrine Informed– Epinephrine
Uninformed– Epinephrine
Misinformed
• Anger– Placebo– Epinephrine Informed– Epinephrine
Uninformed
Emotional Lability Theory
• Schacter and Singer’s (1962) classic experiment
• Expectation: Epinephrine subjects would experience more arousal than controls, unless they were told consistent side effects in which case they would correctly attribute their feelings to the drug and have no change in their emotions
Schacter and Singer’s Results
Euphoria Anger
Placebo 16 0.79
Epinephrine Informed
12.7 -0.18
Epinephrine Uninformed
18.3 2.28
Epinephrine Misinformed
22.6
Schacter and Singer’s Results
0
5
10
15
20
25
Observed emotion
Euphoria
Induced emotion
Placebo
Epinephrine -InformedEpinephrine -UninformedEpinephrine -Misinformed
Schacter and Singer’s Results
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Observed emotion
Anger
Induced emotion
Placebo
Epinephrine -InformedEpinephrine -Uninformed
Attributions –inferences about causes Achievement behavior depends on how
previous successes and failures are interpreted People make causal attributions for their
behavioural outcomes Attributions affect thoughts, feelings, and
behaviour
Weiner’s (1972) Attribution Theory
• Draws from Rotter’s (1966) theory of internal and external attributions
• Rotter developed a questionnaire to measure ‘locus of control’
• People tended to attribute causes of events to internal (personal control over behaviour)
• Or external (occurrences due to environment or chance out of personal control)
• Weiner (1972) included further dimensions of attribution = stability and controllability
Weiner’s (1972) Attribution Theory
People tend to attribute successes or failures to any of four ‘typical’ causes:
Ability
Effort
Difficulty
Luck
Weiner’s (1972) Attribution Theory
Weiner (1972) Attributional Dimensions
Locus of causality Locus of controlStability
Basic Attribution Categories
Attribution Dimensions Attributions can be classified along three
dimensions:1) Locus of Causality-Is the cause internal or external?
2) Stability
-Is the cause stable or unstable?
3) Locus of control-Does the person have control over the
outcome?
Attribution Theory
Attribution Theory
Attributed causes according to Internal-External (Locus of Causality), Stability and Controllability continuums
AbilityInternal, stable, uncontrollable
EffortInternal, unstable, controllable
DifficultyExternal, stable, controllable/uncontrollable
LuckExternal, unstable, uncontrollable
Weiner (1972) Attributional Dimensions
Sta
bilit
y
Locus of Causality
StableExternal
StableInternal
UnstableInternal
UnstableExternal
Ability Difficulty
Effort Luck
Weiner (1972) Attributional Dimensions
StableInternalControllable
StableExternalControllable
UnstableInternalControllable
UnstableExternalControllable
Sta
bilit
y
Locus of Causality Contro
llabil
ity
StableExternalUncontrollable
UnstableExternalUncontrollable
StableInternalUncontrollable
UnstableInternalUncontrollable Stable
ExternalControllable
StableInternalControllable
UnstableInternalControllable
UnstableExternalControllable
Ability Difficulty
Effort Luck
?
?
?