Create an account
When you hang around and don't do much. Eg: When working in groups of 5 you're too lazy to work and assume that others will do everything
When you perform better when working in a group. Eg : Runners perform better when they are being watched
How people interpret and explain casual relationships in the social world. Humans have a need to understand why things happens - they want to establish cause and effect.
When people attribute behaviour to internal (personal) reasons Eg: When date is late, the behaviour can be attributed to dispositional factors : "he/she is so insensitive" or "he/she is so forgetful".
When people attribute behaviour to do with external factors. Eg: When date is late, the behaviour can be attributed to situational factors : there was traffic or he/she had an emergency
Fundamental Attribution Error
When people overestimate the role of dispositional and situational factors in an individual's behaviour. Eg: Holocaust Experiment (Suedfeld) Gameshow (Ross et al.)
The audience attributes the behaviour and personality of an actor to how they act in moves (Dispositional Factors) Eg: George Clooney plays roles as a kind male, therefore people attribute these characteristics to his personality.
When people take credit for their successes, attributing them to dispositional factors, and attributing their failures to situational factors. Eg: When football players win they tend to credit their wins to internal factors - hard work, natural talent etc. and their failures to external factors - the field was bad, wasn't a home game, injuries, weather, fouls etc. (Lau & Russel)
Attribute your failures to dispositional factors and your successes to situational factors (self-effacing). Eg: Bond et al
Defensive Attribution Theory
People have the need to "feel safe". Worse something is, you will attribute it more to dispositional factors Eg: The worse a car crash is, the more people will blame the driver because they want to know that something like that couldn't happen to them.
Connects to Just World Hypothesis
Just World Hypothesis
Lerner's theory - the tendency that people have to rationalize any inexplicable injustice that they witness by searching for things that the victim might have done to deserve it.
Social Identity Theory
Assumes that individuals want to improve self-image by trying to enhance their self-esteem based on personal identity or social identities. explains the "us vs. them" response that can happen between groups, leading to an "in-group bias" (when we think our group is the best of all) and we discriminate against the out-group.
Very often we see members of the other group as "always the same." This is called out-group homogeneity. Eg: Europeans (in-group) vs America (out-group).
Connected to Social Identity Theory - When you try to find a group to belong to (MUN, sports team, band) etc. to improve self-esteem and the need to belong.
Maintains the individuals self-esteem - the benefits of belonging to the in-group versus the out-group. High social comparison is "they are better than me at ..." Low comparison is "they are worse than me at...
Two ideas that oppose each other. In order to lessen the dissonance, we rationalize the situation - Eg: Jonestown. When children were beat, they knew their parents love them, and they love them back so they rationalize by saying "I deserved this." Same with parents, when they were forced to have sex with people who were not their partners they said "I'm doing this for the better of the cult"
Principles of SCLOA
1. People are constantly being influenced by other people and by the requirement of society
2. Human behaviour is explained by the social situation more than the individual personality (more by situational factors than dispositional)
3. We are social animals and have a social self. In addition to our individual self we have a self that is defined by groups to which we belong.
Naturalistic vs Lab
Research Method at the SCLOA:
Naturalistic : important that the behaviour of the participants is as realistic as possible to avoid studies lacking ecological validity, therefore + research is naturalistic. However, environment is not controlled leading to intervening variables.
Lab : Strength is that it's a controlled environment, however, runs threat of whether or not experiment is ecologically valid.
Research Method at the SCLOA : You interact with those you are observing
Strength: You get inside information by interviewing those in social setting etc.
Weakness: Hard for observer to stay subjective and they may influence behaviour of people they're observing.
Research Method at the SCLOA : You do not interact with those you are observing
Strength: You do not influence their behaviour and your data does not become subjective
Weakness: You do not receive inside information during your studies; interview, surveys.
Research Method at the SCLOA : You do not inform the participants that they are being observed
Strength: Participants are behaving naturally, there are no demand characteristics of expectancy affect
Weakness: Information often based on memory and writing things down later. From this, observations can be subjective as researcher chooses to write down they think is most important. AND not controlled, resulting in intervening variables ie. everyone gets sick
Ethical consideration : No consent
Leon Festinger (1956)
He studied a cult who thought the world would end on 21 December. When the world didn't end on that day, the cult members rationalized it by saying that their prayers is what stopped it (cognitive dissonance - lessen dissonance by rationalizing) These cult members gave up their family, friends, money so they had to rationalize in order to stay sane.
FAE: 91% of Holocaust survivors attributed their survival to situational factors and Jews who were not involved in Holocaust attributed their survival to dispositional factors because they wanted to believe that if they were in the holocaust they would've had a large chance of surviving.
Quaquebeke & Giessman (2010)
FAE: Experiment - Referees watched videos of fouls with tall and small people fouling. They then had to decide whether it was a foul or a dive. The majority said that the taller people committed fouls than shorter people. Attribution Theory effets the way in which the ref's call fouls.
Theory says that people are depressed when they attribute their ..
Failures : Internal, stable, global
Success' : External, unstable, local
Johnson et al (1964)
Self-Serving Bias: Experiment - People began tutoring kids & when the kids did well the tutors attributed it to dispositional factors, that the child is doing well because of them. When the kids were doing badly, the tutors attributed their failure to situational factors; that it was the kids fault.
Bond, Leung & Wan (1982)
Modesty Bias: Experiment - Showed Chinese people 3 different scenarios where people were making puzzles. The first person was competent when making puzzle, second was incompetent, and the third was incompetent but admitted that they're usually better. The CP preferred the second person and disliked the first person the most.
Ross et al (1977)
FAE: Observers automatically associated the game show hosts intelligence with dispositional factors even though they knew that the game show was simply playing a role. Failed to see that the game show host appeared intelligent only because of the role they were playing; the situation.
3 Components of SIT
Self-esteem based on membership of the group
Tajfel & Turner (1971)
In-Group Bias : Experiment - Kids got art to rate and were then randomly assigned to groups (Kandinsky or KLEE) The kids in the Kandinsky/KLEE group instantly saw themselves as being similar in attitude/behaviour and bonded. Boys were more likely to give higher awards to members of their own group and when asked for ratings on out-group the out-group was rated as less-likable but never as disliked.
Experiment vs Observation
Experiment : Is when a procedure is set up and what you are observing is controlled
Observation : Observing people in their natural environment (important to keep it naturalistic)
Evaluation of SIT
Strength: Appears to be a good way of understanding human behaviour - it has been used to explain social behaviour such as stereotyping, in-group favoritism etc.
Weakness: It describes but does not accurately predict human behaviour and it fails to address the environment that interacts with the "self"
Stereotypes: We learn to have a reflex response from something we had witnessed earlier.
Eg: Staats & Staats - There were two groups, one group got images of a dutch person, then a puppy, then a swedish person, then of an open wound etc. Group 2 got the opposite, image of person of dutch person, then gross image, then image of swedish person, then happy image. Group 1 preferred the Dutch, and group 2 preferred the Swedes - they were conditioned to associate either dutch/swedes with bad/good images.
Stereotypes: Adjusting one's behavior or thinking to match those of other people or a group standard
Eg: Rogers & Frantz (1970s) - Asked people from England to work in Rhodesia with the whites who were living their during the war. Couple days later they asked them what they think of the Rhodesian people and they said that they liked the African culture. After 2 weeks - still like them (kind, creative, polite). After 2 months - they said they hated the Africans and many were not able to say why. They had adopted the prejudices of the white farmers who had survived the war in Rhodesia.
Stereotyping: People tend to pay attention to behaviours that confirm what they believe about a group and ignore those behaviours contrary to their beliefs. Eg: see 1000 Roma downtown, perfectly fine, but then you see 1 Roma pickpocketing & then think "Ah! I knew it, they're all like that"
The Stereotype Threat
When one behaves as expected by stereotypes
Eg: Spencer et al - men/women take math test for math proficiency & the second test for problem solving. Math proficiency : men were better, problem solving : no difference. STEREOTYPE: women aren't good at math
Aronson (1995) - black/white men take IQ test vs problem solving test. IQ test : white men did better, problem solving : no difference. STEREOTYPE : blacks are stupid
Effet of stereotype schemas on our memory :
Eg: Allport & Postman - Showed white people w/ white man stabbing black man and then played Chinese Whisperers. By the end, white audience were saying "black man stabbed white". When it was a black man stabbing a white man it was said to the end w/ no mistakes.
Factors of Social Learning Theory
Identification - age, gender, ethnicity (surfer is 20, I'm 20, I can do it)
Likability - do you like the person
Attention - does it seem interesting eg: action surfing
Reward - if the reward is good, you will imitate behaviour eg: getting nice body and girls (surfing)
Social Learning Theory
Albert Bandura's social learning theory assumes that humans learn behaviour through observational learning - moreover, it's saying that people can learn behavioural norms by observing models and then imitating their actions.
Biological support: mirror-neurons Eg: when one person yawns, everyone else will begin yawning.
Strength: Explains how people can acquire some behaviour without trial-and-error learning.
Weakness: The GAP problem - A child might have acquired some form of behaviour from watching a model, but they may not exhibit this behaviour for a long period of time, therefore you cannot assume that the child's behaviour in their later life is directly a result of something they observed as a child
Aim: If children would imitate aggression modelled by an adult and if children were more likely to imitate same-sex models.
Procedure: Kids (3-6) divided into groups. Kids matched with regard to their aggression. One group was exposed to aggressive adult models by bashing inflatable "bobo doll"; 2nd group observed non-aggressive; third did not see any model. In 1/2 groups some saw same-sex, and some watched opposite-sex.
Findings: Kids who observed aggressive model were more aggressive when playing with toys. Also, children were more likely to observe same sex models.
Implications: Low ecological validity, carried out in a lab. Question of demand characteristics : the children may have acted aggressively because they thought it would please the researcher. Also, undue stress or harm - children observing aggressive behaviour might be frightening to them.
Monitored children's behaviour over 15 years and they found a positive correlation between the # of hours of violence watched on television by elementary school children and the level of aggression demonstrated when they were teenagers.
Argument: Kids who performed aggressive behaviour later on could have performed that for other reasons : environment they live in, family problems, peers
UK psychologists investigated the effect of the introduction of TV on aggression in children at St. Helena. Cameras set up on playgrounds and children's behaviours (3-8) observed before and after intro. of TV. The children at St. Helena were exposed to exactly the same level of violence as kids in UK & they found that there was no increase in antisocial behaviour. The good behaviour had been maintained after 5 years of exposure to violent TV.
Remember: Culture different, people different, climate, environment etc.
Time : record per minute/hour/day : record ever x minutes
Point : Record from person to person, point to point. Eg: what is Eva doing, what is Nick doing, what is Eva doing etc.
Event : Only write down something when it specifically happens.
Please allow access to your computer’s microphone to use Voice Recording.
Having trouble? Click here for help.
We can’t access your microphone!
Click the icon above to update your browser permissions and try again
Reload the page to try again!Reload
Press Cmd-0 to reset your zoom
Press Ctrl-0 to reset your zoom
Please upgrade Flash or install Chrome
to use Voice Recording.
For more help, see our troubleshooting page.
Your microphone is muted
For help fixing this issue, see this FAQ.
Star this term
You can study starred terms together