Psychology applied to modern life adjustment in the 21st century, 11e chapter 7

Forming Impressions of Others, continued• As we engage in person perception, “the process of forming impressions of others”, we rely on five key sources of information: 1.. Forming Impr

Chapter 7 Social Thinking and Social Influence

Forming Impressions of Others, continued

• As we engage in person perception, “the

process of forming impressions of others”, we

rely on five key sources of information:

1 Appearance

2 Verbal behavior

3 Actions

4 Nonverbal messages (e.g., facial

expressions, body language, and gestures)

5 Situations

Forming Impressions of Others, continued

• Snap judgments vs systematic judgments

– Snap judgments about others “are those

made quickly and based on only a few bits of information and preconceived notions”

– They are “shortcuts” that rely on automatic processing, and are used when we are not

motivated to form an accurate impression of another person

Forming Impressions of Others, continued

Snap vs systematic judgments, continued

• Systematic judgments require more

controlled processing and tend to occur when forming impressions of others that can affect our happiness or welfare

Forming Impressions of Others, continued

• Attributions are “inferences that people draw

about the causes of their own behavior, others’ behavior, and events” There are two types:

1 Internal attributions – when people attribute

the cause of others’ behavior to personal dispositions, traits, abilities, or feelings

2 External attributions – when people attribute

the cause of others’ behavior to situational demands or environmental constraints

Forming Impressions of Others, continued

– When events are personally relevant

– When we are suspicious about others’

motives

Forming Impressions of Others, continued

• Perceiver expectations

– How we expect others to behave can

influence our actual perceptions of them.– Confirmation bias – “seeking information

that supports one’s beliefs while not pursuing disconfirming information”

– Self-fulfilling prophecies – occur when

“expectations about a person cause the person to behave in ways that confirm the expectations” (see Figure 7.3)

Figure 7.3 The three steps of the self-fulfilling prophecy Through a three-step process, your expectations about a

person can cause that person to behave in ways that confirm those expectations First, you form an impression of someone Second, you behave toward that person in a way that is consistent with your impression Third, the person exhibits the behavior you encourage, which confirms your initial impression.

Adapted from Smith, E.R., & Mackie, D.M (1995) Social Psychology New York: Worth, p 103 Copyright © 1995

Worth Publishing Reprinted with permission.

Forming Impressions of Others, continued

• Cognitive distortions

– Social categorizations – cognitive

“shortcuts” in which we categorize people

on the basis of nationality, race, gender, etc

• People perceive similar individuals to

be members of their ingroup (us) and

dissimilar people to be members of the

outgroup (them).

Forming Impressions of Others, continued

Social categorization, continued

• Categorizing has three important results:

1 People have more negative attitudes

toward outgroup members

2 People see outgroup members as more

alike than they really are (the outgroup homogeneity effect).

3 The visibility of outgroup members is

heightened when they comprise the minority in a crowd

Forming Impressions of Others, continued

• Stereotypes – “widely held beliefs that

people have certain characteristics because

of their membership in a particular group”

• Stereotypes persist because of

– Simplicity They are less effortful,

cognitively But, the trade-off for simplicity

is inaccuracy

– Confirmation bias

– Self-fulfilling prophecy

Forming Impressions of Others, continued

• The fundamental attribution error – refers

to “the tendency to explain other people’s

behavior as the result of personal, rather than situational, factors”.

• Making attributions requires two steps:

1 Focusing on the person (making an

internal attribution)

2 Taking the situation into account (allowing for external attributions)

• The second step is more effortful, so we

often skip it (see Figure 7.5)

Figure 7.5 Explaining the fundamental attribution error People automatically take the first step in the

attribution process (making a personal attribution) However, they often fail to take the second step

(considering the possible influence of situational factors on a person’s behavior) because that requires extra effort The failure to consider situational factors causes observers to exaggerate the role of personal factors

in behavior—that is, they make the fundamental attribution error (Adapted from Brehm, Kassin, & Fein, 2002)

Forming Impressions of Others, continued

• A defensive attribution is “the tendency to

blame victims for their misfortune, so that one feels less likely to be victimized in a similar

way”

Forming Impressions of Others, continued

• Key themes in person perception:

– Efficiency – when forming impressions of

others, we default to automatic processing

– Selectivity – we “see what we expect to see”

by focusing on aspects of the person that confirm our expectations (see Figure 7.6)

– Consistency – First impressions do matter!

Once a perceiver has formed an impression of someone, he or she tunes out subsequent

information This is called the primacy effect.

Figure 7.6 Descriptions of the guest lecturer in Kelley’s (1950) study These two descriptions,

provided to two groups of students before the lecturer spoke, differ by only an adjective But this seemingly small difference caused the two groups to form altogether different perceptions of the lecturer.

The Problem of Prejudice, continued

• Prejudice – “a negative attitude toward

members of a group”

• Discrimination – “involves behaving

differently, usually unfairly, toward the

members of a group”

• Prejudice and discrimination often go together, but this is not always the case (see Figure 7.7)

– Sometimes, we are not even aware of our prejudices as demonstrated by the

Implicit Association Test.

Figure 7.7 Prejudice and discrimination Prejudice and discrimination are highly correlated, but they

don’t necessarily go hand in hand As the examples in the blue cells show, there can be prejudice without discrimination and discrimination without prejudice.

Implicit Association Test

The Problem of Prejudice, continued

• “Old-fashioned” vs modern discrimination

– “Old-fashioned”, or overt, discrimination has

declined in recent years, but a more subtle (“modern”) form of discrimination has

emerged

– Modern discrimination occurs when “people

privately harbor negative attitudes toward minority groups, but express them only when they feel such views are justified, or that it’s safe to do so” (see Figure 7.8)

Figure 7.8 Measuring old-fashioned and modern sexism Research shows similarities between old-fashioned

and modern beliefs about both racism and sexism Janet Swim and colleagues (1995) have developed a scale to measure the presence of both types of sexism Four items from the 13-item scale are shown here Old-fashioned sexism is characterized by endorsement of traditional gender roles and acceptance of stereotypes that portray females as less competent than males In contrast, subtle, modern sexism is characterized by denial of continued discrimination and rejection of policies intended to help women.

From Swim, J.K., Aikin, K.J., Hall, W.S., & Hunter, B.A (1995) Sexism and racism: Old-fashioned and modern

prejudices Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 199-214 Copyright © 1995 American Psychological

Association Reprinted by permission of the author.

The Problem of Prejudice, continued

• Causes of prejudice

1 The authoritarian personality, a

“personality type characterized by prejudice toward any group perceived to be different from oneself”

2 Cognitive distortions and expectations

such as stereotyping, fundamental attribution error, defensive attributions, and expectations

The Problem of Prejudice, continued

Causes of prejudice, continued

3 Competition between groups – perceived

threats to one’s group, such as conflict over scarce resources, causes prejudice against outgroup members

4 Threats to social identity – when the

collective self-esteem of a group is

threatened, two response may occur:

• Ingroup favoritism

• Outgroup denigration

The Problem of Prejudice, continued

• Reducing prejudice

– Cognitive strategies – make an effort to

override stereotypes by using controlled processing

– Intergroup contact

• Superordinate goals – “goals that

require two or more groups to work together to achieve mutual ends” can reduce intergroup hostility

The Power of Persuasion, continued

• Persuasion – “involves the communication

of arguments and information intended to change another person’s attitudes”

– Attitudes – include “beliefs and feelings

about people, objects, and ideas”

The Power of Persuasion, continued

• The elements of the persuasion process

3 The message is “the information

transmitted by the source”

4 The channel is “the medium through

which the message is sent”

Figure 7.12 Overview of the persuasion process The process of persuasion essentially boils down to

who (the source) communicates what (the message) by what means (the channel) to whom (the receiver)

Thus, four sets of variables influence the process of persuasion: source, message, channel, and receiver factors The diagram lists some of the more important factors in each category (including some that are not discussed in the text due to space limitations).

The Power of Persuasion, continued

• Source factors

– Persuasion is more effective when

1 The source has high credibility

Sources are deemed credible if they have expertise and are trustworthy

2 The source is likable Likability is

increased when the source is attractive and/or similar to the receiver

The Power of Persuasion, continued

• Message factors

– Messages are most effective when

1 Two-sided arguments are used This

also increases credibility

2 Persuaders use emotional appeals to

shift attitudes

3 They create positive feelings in the

receiver

The Power of Persuasion, continued

• Receiver factors

1 Mood (optimistic vs pessimistic)

2 The receiver’s need for cognition, or

“tendency to seek out and enjoy effortful thought, problem solving activities, and in-depth analysis”

3 Forewarning, which reduces the impact of

arguments on receivers

4 Receivers are harder to persuade when the message content is incompatible with existing beliefs

The Power of Persuasion, continued

• The whys of persuasion

– According to the elaboration likelihood model, our thoughts about a persuasive

message are most important in determining whether attitudes will change

• Messages can be perceived either

through a peripheral route (not mindful processing) or central route (mindful

processing) (See Figure 7.13.)

Figure 7.13 The peripheral and central routes to persuasion Persuasion can occur via two different

routes The central route, which results in high elaboration, tends to produce longer-lasting attitude change and stronger attitudes.

The Power of Persuasion, continued

Peripheral versus central routes, continued

• Messages perceived through central routes are usually more effective, longer-lasting, and

a better predictor of behavior

• For the central route to override the

peripheral route,

1 The receiver must be motivated to

process the persuasive message

2 Receivers must be able to grasp the

persuasive message

The Power of Social Pressure, continued

• Conformity and compliance pressures

– Conformity – “occurs when people yield to

real or imagined social pressure.”

– The dynamics of conformity

• Solomon Asch’s (1955) classic study

demonstrated that people conformed easily to wrong answers given by others in

a mock perception test (see Figure 7.14)

• Conformity also increased, to a point, as group size increased, peaking at seven members

Figure 7.14 Stimuli used in Asch’s conformity studies Subjects were asked to match a standard line

(top) with one of three other lines displayed on another card (bottom) The task was easy—until

experimental accomplices started responding with obviously incorrect answers, creating a situation in which Asch evaluated subjects’ conformity.

Adapted from illustration on p 35 by Sarah Love in Asch, S (1995, November) Opinions and social

pressure Scientific American, 193(5), 31-35 Copyright © 1955 by Scientific American, Inc.

The Power of Social Pressure, continued

Conformity, continued

• Conformity versus compliance

– Conformity – “occurs when people yield to

real or imagined social pressure.”

– Compliance – “occurs when people yield to

social pressure in their public behavior, even though their private beliefs have not

changed”

The Power of Social Pressure, continued

Conformity, continued

• The whys of conformity

– Normative influence – “operates when

people conform to social norms for fear of negative social consequences”

– Informational influence – “operates

when people look to others for how to behave in ambiguous situations”

The Power of Social Pressure, continued

Conformity, continued

• Resisting conformity pressures

– Pressure can come from normative and

informational influences

– The bystander effect, or “the tendency

for individuals to be less likely to provide help when others are present than when they are alone”, is an example of the

problem of informational influence

The Power of Social Pressure, continued

Conformity, continued

• Tips for resisting conformity pressures

– Pay more attention to social forces

operating on you

– Identify someone in the group whose

views match yours

– Bring along a friend with similar views if you know that you will confront pressure

The Power of Social Pressure, continued

• Pressure from authority figures

– Obedience – “is a form of compliance that

occurs when people follow direct commands, usually from someone in a position of

authority”

– The dynamics of obedience

• Stanley Milgram’s classic study (1963) demonstrated that people’s tendency to obey is strong, even if they are asked to harm another person (see Figure 7.16)

Figure 7.16 Milgram’s (1963) experiment on obedience The photos show the fake shock generator and

the “learner” being connected to the shock generator during an experimental session The results of the study are summarized in the bar graph The vast majority of subjects (65%) delivered the entire series of shocks to the learner.

Photos copyright 1965 by Stanley Milgram From the film Obedience, distributed by The Pennsylvania

State University Reprinted by permission of Alexandra Milgram.

The Power of Social Pressure, continued

Obedience, continued

• The causes of obedience

– Obedience is strongest when

• Demands increase gradually

• Others take responsibility for your actions

• We are motivated to meet the authority figure’s expectations

– Thus, human behavior is determined more

by the power of the situation than by the character of the person