Social Cognition

Social Cognition How we judge and evaluate other people “You never get a second chance to make a first impression” Why?

Impression Formation Schema (Schemata is plural) Set of beliefs or expectations based on prior experience Presumed to apply to all members of the category Primacy effect Earlier impressions are more impactful than later knowledge Self-fulfilling prophecy Expectation elicits behavior from another that confirms the expectation

Piaget Cognitive development as a process Cognitive changes Social cognition Social behavior Socialization

Attribution Attribution Theory Heider (1958) – Behavior attributed to internal or external causes, not both Laziness or traffic (not lazy + traffic) Kelley (1967) – we consider three types of information about behavior to determine its cause Distinctive – behavior of the other towards third party Consistent – behavior of the other towards you Consensus – behavior of the other similar to others’ behavior

Attribution Biases of Attributions Fundamental attribution error Tendency to attribute the behavior of others to causes within themselves Schindler helped Jews escape Nazi concentration camps because he cared (internal); Schindler believed he was simply doing what needed to be done (external) Efficacy One’s belief in one’s ability to accomplish a particular task

Self-Efficacy Efficacy One’s belief in one’s ability to accomplish a particular task Behavior (performance) influenced greatly by perception of control over a circumstance. “Mom” tells you success is based on hard work. VS “Mom” tells you success is based on luck.

Self-Efficacy Learned Helplessness Seligman (1965)

Attribution Biases of Attribution Defensive attribution We are motivated to present ourselves well Impress others Feel good about ourselves Self-serving bias Tendency to attribute personal failure to external factors and personal success with internal factors I failed the test because Mr. Willis is a jerk. I aced the test and didn’t even study! (AKA I’m really smart!) Just-world hypothesis People get what they deserve ‘Protects’ us from those things happening to us.

Attribution Attributions across cultures Most studies of attribution have been done on Western societies Eastern collectivist societies attribute more personal successes and others’ failures to external factors Self-serving bias seems to be common to all groups

Social Identity Theory Tajfel & Turner (1979) No one “personal self”, but several selves of widening circles of group membership. Different social contexts may trigger an individual to think, feel and act on basis of his personal, family or national “level of self.” Social identity is the individual’s self-concept derived from perceived membership of social groups (Hogg & Vaughan, 2002) individual-based perception of what defines the “us” associated with any internalized group membership. This can be distinguished from the notion of personal identity which refers to self-knowledge that derives from the individual’s unique attributes.

Social Identity Theory Group membership creates ingroup/ self-categorization and enhancement in ways that favor the in-group at the expense of the out-group. Categorizing as group members leads them to display ingroup favoritism. Seek positive self-esteem by separating ingroup from an outgroup Positive distinctiveness of ‘us’ People’s sense of who they are is defined in terms of ‘we’ rather than ‘I’. Three main variables of ingroup favoritism Extent to which individuals identify with ingroup to internalize group membership as aspect of self-concept. Extent to which prevailing context provides ground for comparison between groups. Perceived relevance of comparison group, Shaped by relative and absolute status of the ingroup. Individuals are likely to display favoritism when an ingroup is central to their self-definition and a given comparison is meaningful or the outcome is contestable.

Social Identity Theory Schoolboys were assigned to groups, which were intended as meaningless as possible. Assigned randomly, excluding roles of interpersonal discrimination such as history of conflict, personal animosity or interdependence. Assigned points to anonymous members of both their own group and the other group. Conclusions even the most minimal conditions were sufficient to encourage ingroup-favoring responses. Participants picked a reward pair that awarded more points to people who were identified as ingroup members. In other words, they displayed ingroup favoritism.

Stereotypes A set of characteristics believed to be shared by all members of a social category Most common Sex Race Occupation Physical appearance Place of residence Group or organization membership

Stereotypes Can easily become self-fulfilling prophecies Snyder, Tanke, & Berscheid (1977) College-aged men & women paired to have a phone conversation Given a snapshot of their phone-mate Was actually a randomly selected picture (attractive or unattractive) Men responded more warmly to ‘attractive’ phone-mates; coldly to ‘unattractive’ phone-mates, which altered the pleasure of the conversations for both.

Stereotypes Macrae & Bodenhausen (2000) More likely to apply stereotyped schemata in chance encounter than in structured, task-oriented situation Goal pursuit results in more attention to individual signals People consciously or unconsciously suppress stereotypes that violate social norms

Prejudice & Discrimination An intolerant, unfavorable and rigid view of a group of people (Attitude) Discrimination An act or series of acts that denies opportunities and esteem to an entire group of people (Behavior)

Prejudice Sources of Prejudice Frustration-aggression theory (Allport, 1954) Displacement of hostility by exploited, oppressed, or disenfranchised away from proper target and toward lower social groups Authoritarian personality theory (Adorno et al, 1950) Rigidly conventional, rule-following individuals hostile to those that deviate from the norms Cognitive misers Too much cognitive simplification, creates over-generalizations and stereotypes Racism Members of certain racial/ ethnic groups are innately inferior

Interpersonal Attraction Harry Harlow

Interpersonal Attraction The tendency to be attracted to and like someone else Proximity Usually the most important factor The closer they live/work, the more frequently they interact The more they interact, the more they tend to like each other Less to do with convenience than the security & comfort of the familiar (Borstein, 1989)

Interpersonal Attraction Physical attractiveness Generally assume attractive people are more: Intelligent, interesting, happy, kind, sensitive, moral and successful Better traits = better mates = like them more Harvey & Pauwells (1999): We like extreme attractiveness in the abstract, we typically chose those similar to our own level of attractiveness

Physical Attractiveness How is it determined? Many elements culturally specific Weight, tan, hair color More universal stereotypes Feature Symmetry Physical markers of good genes

Symmetry

Symmetry

Physical Attractiveness What are the dangers? Attractive people shown more attention and valued more highly by: Mothers (Langlois et al, 1995) Nurses (Badr & Abdallah, 2001) Teachers (McCall, 1997) Employers (Hosoda, Stone & Coats, 2003) Gives unfair advantages and creates self-fulfilling prophecy of superior moral value

Interpersonal Attraction Similarity Shared attitudes, interests, values, backgrounds, and beliefs Quist & Crano (2003): Voters are more likely to vote for a candidate with whom they share similar viewpoints Opposites attract? Dissimilarities are complementary traits Needs or skills that complete or balance each other

Interpersonal Attraction Exchange People exchange various goods and resources with each other involving both rewards and costs We equally ‘get something out of it’ Reward theory of attraction We like people who make us feel rewarded and appreciated Aronson (1994): gain-loss theory of attraction Increases in rewarding behavior more attractive than constant rewarding

Interpersonal Attraction Intimacy Quality of genuine closeness and trust in another person Created and maintained through continuing reciprocal pattern of trying to know the other and allowing the other to know them (Harvey & Pauwells, 1999) ‘Safe’ topics (weather, sports, shared activities) > personal topics (memories, hopes, failures) Pacing is important Too much, too soon is unattractive