The Socio-cultural Level of Analysis

Understanding Attribution will help us to understand the two concepts of situational and dispositional causes of { behavior

Understanding attribution in order to better understand situational and dispositional factors

Attribution how people interpret and explain causal relationships in the social world. We, as humans have a need to understand why things happen. ATTRIBUTION THEORY - motivational theory looking at how the human beings construct the meaning of an event based on his /her motives to find a cause and his/her knowledge of the environment.

Understanding attribution in order to better understand situational and dispositional factors

Att. Theory basically looks at how people make sense of their world; what cause and effect inferences they make about the behaviors of others and of themselves.
Example: In the middle of the lecture someone walks in class latewe can attribute the student being late to the following reasons-he or she is always late (dispositional), or he or she was in a discussion with a teacher (situational).

Understanding attribution in order to better understand situational and dispositional factors

The purpose behind making attributions is to achieve COGNITIVE CONTROL over one's environment by explaining and understanding the causes behind behaviors and environmental occurrences. Fritz Heider, who coined the phrase in 1958, states that there is a strong need in individuals to understand momentary events by attributing them to people's external factors or to stable characteristics of internal factors.

Understanding attribution in order to better understand situational and dispositional factors

Two basic kinds of attributions made: Internal and External

Internal factors - dispositional External factors - situational

Describe the role of situational and dispositional factors in explaining behavior

What are you being asked to do?

Provide a clear definition of each. Provide a detailed account of the role that each play in explaining behavior. Provide relevant examples of situational and dispositional behavior in society.

Dispositional and Situational Factors of Behavior

Dispositional factors of behavior: The cause of behavior are factors occuring inside the individual (e.g. personality, past experience, cognitive/cultural schemas, biological factors)

Situational factors of behavior: The cause of behavior are factors occuring outside the individual (e.g. situation and context)

Dispositional and Situational Factors of Behavior

Whenever people are interacting with each other or engaging in any group activity, they tend to make quick judgments (attributions) about each other. They judge the motive behind a person's actions and attribute it to dispositional or situational causes.

Dispositional attribution is the assumption that a person's behavior reflects his internal dispositions like his personality, beliefs, attitude etc. Situational attribution is the assumption that a person's behavior is influenced by an external influence from the environment or culture.

Examples of how situational and dispositional factors differ...

You have just taken a mock exam and been told by your teacher that you have not done very well. This surprises you since you had been revising for weeks before the exam. How do you explain your poor performance? Situational or dispositional?

Question of the day...

Does situational or dispositional factors better explain behavior?

The power of the situation

Human behavior is explained by the social situation (situational factors) more than individual personality (dispositional factors). Situations play a greater role in human behavior than most people want to believe (Zimbardo, 1971).
Zimbardo also describes the social situation as the single biggest indicator of understanding human behavior. He asserts that good people can do evil things if the situation calls for it (The Prison study can be mentioned to show this phenomena)

The power of the situation

For example, when a couple of guards were clearly reluctant to push the prisoners, it was a nudge from the experimenters (in their role as wardens and superintendent) that caused them to be more aggressive. The more passive guards were also motivated by the actions of the most aggressive on their shift. This shows that it is possible for people with negative dispositions to situationally impact others.

Does this happen in real life?

The power of the situation

Simply put, we adapt to our situations (This is supported by prinicple 1 and 3). Every situation and setting requires a different set of mannerisms. For example, people act differently in class then when they are around teachers. Class is often a lot more strict and proper and to maintain those expectations, one must carefully consider what they say and what they do.

Both playing a role in behavior

Many social psychologists (Milgram, Zimbardo, Asch) strongly assert that the social situation is more important than a persons disposition. Although dispositions play an important role in how people react to their situation.

Both playing a role in behavior

What is a real world example of two people with contrasting dispositions behaving differently in the same situation?

The power of dispositions on situations

The power of the interaction between these two attributions are evident when a person is compelled do certain activities that he or she does not want to, but does so because of peer pressure. For example, a person might not enjoy going to a party, might not like to drink, and might hate to smoke. However, the peer pressure situationally influences a person to do all these unwanted things.

Can our tendency to over emphasize dispositional or situational factors cause wrongful judgment?

Objective 2.2
Discuss Two Errors in Attributions.

Provide a clear definition of attributions. Identify and define two specific errors associated with attributions. Provide research supporting these errors Provide a personal analysis of each error/research on each error.

What are you being asked to do? (page 36 and 37 of your IB syllabus)

Attributions determine how a person constructs the meaning of an event based on his /her motives to find a cause and his/her knowledge of the environment. In other words, Attributions look at how we make sense of the world; it gives us control of our surroundings.

Attribution: revisited from 2.1

Heider (1958) was the first to propose a psychological theory of attribution. Heider discussed what he called nave or commonsense psychology. In his view, people were like amateur scientists, erroneously trying to understand other peoples behavior by piecing together information until they arrived at a reasonable explanation or cause.

Attribution: revisited from 2.1

As previously noted, the purpose behind making attribution is to achieve cognitive control over one's environment by explaining and understanding the causes behind behaviors and environmental occurrences. Our attributions are, however, significantly driven by our emotional and motivational drives. How can this create errors in attribution?

Formation of attribution error

Research has shown that we have a tendency to make automatic errors in our attributions. There are two important errors or mistakes we tend make when assigning attributions.

Fundamental Attribution Error (FAE) Self-Serving Bias (SSB)

Formation of attribution error

When we overestimate the role of dispositional factors in an individuals behavior-and underestimate the situational factors-it is called the fundamental attribution error.

Fundamental Attribution Error

Briefly describe the following actors personality (as best of you can).

Example of FAE

Will Ferrell

Sylvester Stallone

According to FAE, we attribute these characteristics to their personality (dispositional) and not the fact that these are paid actors who auditioned and were merely imitating these personalities in films (situational).

Example of FAE

Why is this error so common? Some psychologists argue it is because people tend to think of themselves as adaptable, flexible and ever-changing human beings. We do not like to think of ourselves as a type of person. However, when we look at others, we do not have enough information about them (in most cases) to make a balanced decision, so we attribute behavior to disposition (this will help us later understand the formation of stereotypes).

Understanding FAE

Ross et. al. (1977) proposed and demonstrated this error in research that aimed to see if student participants would make FAE even when they knew that all of the actors were simply playing a role. In their study, participants were randomly assigned to one of three roles: a game show host, contestants on the game show, or members of the audience. The game show host were instructed to design their own questions. The audience then watched the game show through a series of questions.

Research into FAE

When the game show was over, the observers were asked to rank the intelligence of the people who had taken part. They consistently ranked the game show host as the most intelligent, even though they knew that this person was randomly assigned to this position, and-more significantly-he or she had written the questions. They failed to attribute the role of the persons situation-that is, being allowed to ask the questions-and instead attributed the persons performance to dispositional factors-in this case, intelligence.

Research into FAE

Although this study was taken from a very small university student sample, it reflects what we see everyday in life. People with social power usually initiate and control conversations (such as teachers, doctors, etc.); their knowledge concerning a particular topic can give others the impression that they are knowledgeable on a large range of other topics as well. Medical doctors and teachers are often seen as experts on topics that are not within their area of expertise.

Research into FAE

Another error in attribution is the self-serving bias (SSB). This is seen when people take credit for their successes, attributing them to dispositional factors, and dissociate themselves from their failures, attributing them to situational factors.

Self Serving Bias

A fundamental attribution error is when people try to find reasons for someone's behavior, they tend to overestimate personality factors and underestimate situational factors. A self-serving bias is when a person describes their own behavior and tend to choose attributions that are favorable to themselves. This means that people like to take credit for their good actions and let the situation account for their bad actions.

What is the difference?

American football coaches and players tend to credit their wins to internal factors-for example, being in good shape, the hard work they have put in, the natural talent of the team-and their failures to external factors-for example, weather, fouls, cheating, etc. Is this true?

SSB

Greenberg et. al (1982) argued that the reason we do this is to protect our self esteem. How does SSB help to maintain selfesteem?

Why do we tend to employ SSB?

If we can attribute our success to dispositional factors, it boosts our self-esteem, and if we can attribute our failures to factors beyond our control, we can protect our self-esteem. In other words, the SSB serves as a mean of self protection. Can this serve an evolutionary purpose? How so?

Why do we tend to employ SSB?

One pair of studies that is a classic example of a study examining the self-serving bias researchy by Wolosin, Sherman, and Till (1973). The aim of the study was to see if participant attributed success internally more than failure, which tends to be attributed to external factors

SSB in research

Participants participated in a decision-making task in which they had to choose among a pairs of geographic locations where the participant thought they were more likely to meet a friend. In one experiment, the participant performed the task in cooperation with another individual, and in the other experiment, the participant was in competition with the other individual. How do you think the participant would attribute the positive feedback? The negative feedback?

SSB in research

After the task was completed, feedback was given to the participant. In the cooperative case, the participants assumed more responsibility when they received positive feedback compared to participants who received neutral or negative feedback. The partner was assigned more responsibility in failure outcomes. In the competitive condition, again the participant exhibited more self-attribution in the success condition, and in the failure conditions, situational factors were given the most responsibility by the participants (Wolosin et al., 1973).

SSB in research

Questions have been raised as to whether the self-serving bias is a legitimate universal concept or not. Most notably in the literature, the questioning by Miller & Ross (1975), examined the self-serving bias as fact or fiction. Not all the studies in the past that were hypothesized to show a self-serving bias demonstrated the effect.

Critics of SSB

Critics of SSB

Also, Miller and Ross claimed they found that there was a fault in some of the older studies methodology. They claimed that there was little support for the concept in the most general form. They argued that the literature provided more support for the idea that people take credit for success and not as much support for people blaming external factors for failure. Also, they claimed that the self enhancing effect could be caused by other factors other than the self-serving bias, such as, the tendency for people to expect success, the tendency for people to notice a correlation between successful events and behavior more than with unsuccessful events, and that people misinterpret contingency (Miller & Ross, 1975).

Critics of SSB

Although many researcher criticize the attribution error, many studies have supported and demonstrated the concept. It has explained the self-seeking nature of humans to protect general idea about ourselves and others.

Introductory discussion
Write down some of the groups that you identify or associate yourself with. If the aforementioned groups call for a specific set of characteristics, explain them. Name at least 4 people in this class who feel you most identify with. Explain this connection.

The argument of self as part of a group.

Do you feel connected or a sense of belongingness to the groups you identify with the most? Are you offended when someone talks negatively about the group(s) you belong to?

Would a piece of YOUR identity be taken away if the group(s) you identify with the most were taken away?

Introductory discussion
Write down some of the groups that you identify or associate yourself with. If the aforementioned groups call for a specific set of characteristics, explain them. Name at least 4 people in this class who feel you most identify with. Explain this connection.

The argument of self as part of a group.

Do you feel connected or a sense of belongingness to the groups you identify with the most? Are you offended when someone talks negatively about the group(s) you belong to?

Would a piece of YOUR identity be taken away if the group(s) you identify with the most were taken away?

Objective 2.3
Evaluate social identity theory, making reference to relevant studies.

What are you being asked to do?

Provide a clear definition of social identity theory (SIT). Present an evaluation of SIT by analyzing assumptions, strengths, and limitations. Make reference to relevant research on SIT.

Social identification
Social identification (SI) is the process by which we define ourselves in terms and categories that we share with other people. In contrast to characterizations of personal identity, which may be highly personal, social identities assume some commonalities with others. In other words, SI refers specifically to those aspects of a person that are defined in terms of his or her group memberships (this directly relates to principle 3).

Social identification
Although most people are members of many different groups, only some of those groups are meaningful in terms of how we define ourselves (as with the example from our discussion). In these cases, our self-definition is shared with other people who also claim that categorical membership, for example, as a woman, as a Muslim, as a marathon runner, or as a IB student.

Examples of social groups

Race Religion Occupation Sport Class (upper, middle, lower) Sexual orientation Club/Organization

Social identity theory

Social identity theory is based on the assumption that individuals have a basic need for positive selfesteem, and that self-esteem is wrapped in both personal and social identities. We all have various social identities, based on the groups to which we belong and with which we identify.

Social identity theory

Social Identity Theory (SIT) was developed by Henri Tajfel in 1979.
The theory was originally developed to understand the psychological basis of intergroup discrimination.

What is intergroup discrimination

Intergroup discrimination
The minimal conditions that would lead members of one group to discriminate in favor of the in-group to which they belonged and against another out-group.

Tajfels research
According to Tajfel, our social identity contributes to how we feel about ourselves so we seek positive social identities to maintain and enhance our self-esteem. Very rarely will we associate ourselves with a group that we do not deem positive. One way of achieving a positive social identity is to compare our group (in-group) with other groups (out-groups). Therefore we develop in-group bias or favoritism.

Tajfels research
Social identity theory predicts that this bias towards ones own group can lead to prejudice and the formation of positive or negative stereotypes (which is a strength in regards to how the theory explains stereotypes). The theory also speaks to the human tendency to conform to groups.

Tajfels research
Tajfel identified three fundamental cognitive processes underlying social identity theory; Categorization: The first is our tendency to categorize individuals, including ourselves into groups. This leads to categorization of the social world into them and us. Categorizing or grouping ourselves can take place with incredible ease as demonstrated in Tajfels famous Minimal Group studies.
Listen to Tajfel discuss his original experiment http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00yw6km Read more on Tajfels Minimal Group Studies http://homepage.ntlworld.com/gary.sturt/tajfel.htm

Tajfels research
Identification: We also adopt the identity of the group we have categorized ourselves as belonging to which means we may adopt some of the values and behaviors of that group. Having this social identity enhances our self-esteem and acceptance to the group.

What is an example of a social group that requires you to adopt a set of values and behaviors?

Tajfels research
Comparison: We enhance the sense of identity by making comparisons with other groups (known as out-groups). Having a positive social identity or positive distinctiveness means drawing favorable comparisons with other relevant groups. It was the assumption of Tajfel that if our self-esteem is to be maintained our group needs to compare favorably with other groups. Social Comparison occurs between our group and other groups that share something in common with us, these are the out group in order to make our in-group seem good, we make unfair negative comparisons to the out group.

Relevant Research
Tajfel and Turner (1979) identified three variables whose contribution to the emergence of in-group favoritism is particularly important. A) the extent to which individuals identify with an in-group to internalize that group membership as an aspect of their self-concept. B) the extent to which the prevailing context provides ground for comparison between groups. C) the perceived relevance of the comparison group, which itself will be shaped by the relative and absolute status of the in-group.

Evaluation of Social identity theory

Assumptions of SIT
In the Social Identity Theory, a person has not one, personal self, but rather several selves that correspond to widening circles of group membership. What does this mean?
Different social contexts may trigger an individual to think, feel and act on basis of his particular social group(Turner et al, 1987). What are examples of this?

Other Assumptions of SIT

After being categorized as being apart of a social group(s), individuals seek to achieve positive selfesteem by positively differentiating their in-group from a comparison out-group on some valued dimension (self-serving bias). Is this true? This quest for positive distinctiveness means that peoples sense of who they are is defined in terms of we rather than I. Is this true? Why or why not?

Strengths of SIT
1.SIT has high experimental support. For example, Tajfels series of studies on minimal groups which tested to see if prejudice and discrimination could be created between people simply because he placed them into distinctive groups. He found that the simple act of grouping was enough to induce prejudice. Similarly, in a series of early studies into prejudice Sherif (1954) found that boys of a similar age and background were quick to become hostile to each other when they were put into two discrete groups during a stay at summer camp.

Strengths of SIT
2) Social Identity Theory has a considerable impact on social psychology.
It is tested in a wide range of fields and settings and includes prejudice, stereotyping, negotiation and language use. The theory has also implications on the way people deal with social and organizational change.

Strengths of SIT
3) A further strength of social identity theory is that it provides explanation for real world behavior.
How do we see in-group bias in the real world?

Strengths of SIT
Furthermore social identity theory can be applied usefully to reduce prejudice by using the common-in-groupidentity model (Gaertner 1993). By re-drawing the group boundary to include rather than exclude the out group, then hostility between the two groups would cease.

Strengths of SIT
For example, in the case of a multi-cultural high school suffering from race related violence, researchers switched the students primary social identity from being race members while at school to being students of the school. There was a marked decrease in inter-racial violence. This is why we are less likely to see racial and other prejudice when two people assumptiously belong to a similar sub-group (such as the lower likelihood of racial discrimination between IB students).

Limitations of SIT
1) Belonging to a group does not necessarily lead to
social identification with that group, since people do reject their social group. What are examples?

Limitations of SIT
2) Many researchers believe that it is too simplistic an account
of group behavior. Prejudice is usually based on historical relationships, rather than simply grouping. Conflict could be due to a history of competition between the groups. This idea is more consistent with Sherifs Realistic Conflict Theory which is an alternative theory of prejudice. Read more:
http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/09/war-peace-and-role-of-power-in-sherifs.php

Limitations of SIT
3) A further criticism of social identity theory is that by
taking a situational approach it does ignore dispositional factors that may lead to prejudice. Perhaps some people are more likely to discriminate because of their up bringing or personality.

Prologue Activity #1: Identify the stereotype that comes to mind when the following picture is shown.

Blonde hair females

Indian students

Objective 2.4 Explain the Formation of Stereotypes and Their Effect on Behavior

What is a stereotype?

What are you being asked to do?

Provide a clear definition of a stereotype. Explain the ways that stereotypes form. Explain how stereotypes effect behavior

How would you define stereotype?

What is a stereotype?
A schema or set of beliefs or expectations about a person based on his or her group membership. In other words, it is placing group disposition on a person based on their identification with a group. It can also be defined as a social perception of an individual in terms of group membership or physical attributes (Crane and Jette).

Understanding stereotypes
Stereotypes are essentially schemas for a group based on social and cultural experiences with members of that group. It is essentially a way to place group information on someone when individual information is not known. To simply state, stereotype is the result of fundamental attribution error, where people attach group disposition to behavior in a situation.

How do we form our stereotypes? (the common sense view)

The formation of stereotypes

Henri Tajfel proposed that stereotyping (i.e. putting people into groups and categories) is because of a human tendency to group things together. In doing so we tend to exaggerate: 1. the differences between groups (intergroup discrimination) 2. the similarities of things in the same group.

The formation of stereotypes

The commonsense answer to the se questions is captured in social learning theory. Simply put, we learn stereotypes from parents (our first and most influential teachers), friends (e.g., peers), and the media.

Research supports commonsense here but also indicates that commonsense does not tell the whole story.

The formation of stereotypes

The commonsense answer to the se questions is captured in social learning theory. Simply put, we learn stereotypes from parents (our first and most influential teachers), friends (e.g., peers), and the media.

Research supports commonsense here but also indicates that commonsense does not tell the whole story.

The formation of stereotypes

Another explanation for how we form stereotypes comes from research in cognitive psychology on the categorization process. People have a tendency to categorize the world, both the social and physical world, into a way that makes it fit into our previous understanding (previously held schema). This can be seen as the unwritten principle of SCLOA (principle 4)

The formation of stereotypes

Tajfel and others showed empirical support for this explanation of stereotypes by theorizing that they develop as a result of what was called social categorization (Tajfel & Turner, 1971&1979).
The Social categorization view of stereotypes is that we essentially think categorically by labeling objects, experiences, and people according to categoriesit assumes that stereotypes are the natural mode of thought.

The formation of stereotypes

Tajfel and others showed empirical support for this explanation of stereotypes by theorizing that they develop as a result of what was called social categorization (Tajfel & Turner, 1971&1979).
The Social categorization view of stereotypes is that we essentially think categorically by labeling objects, experiences, and people according to categoriesit assumes that stereotypes are the natural mode of thought.

The formation of stereotypes

Proponents of Social Identity Theory believe this happens for 2 key reasons.
1.

2.

Cognitive efficiency - once you have categorized you no longer need to consider information about each individual member of the group. How does this apply to stereotypes? It satisfies the need to understand and predict the social world: Maintaining a level of cognitive control over our world and to some extent over others-or what he or she is likely to do (predict).

The formation of stereotypes

Proponents of Social Identity Theory believe this happens for 2 key reasons.
1.

2.

Cognitive efficiency - once you have categorized you no longer need to consider information about each individual member of the group. How does this apply to stereotypes? It satisfies the need to understand and predict the social world: Maintaining a level of cognitive control over our world and to some extent over others-or what he or she is likely to do (predict).

Can stereotypes influence how we behave? How so?

How stereotypes effect behavior

As we have previously learned at the CLOA, schemas can guide our behavior. This means that our social schemas (stereotypes) can consciously or even unconsciously guide our behavior.

Effects of stereotypes (both positive and negative) on behavior

Help us to approach current and future situations (explain this to the reader). Creates a bias towards certain people places, or situations-which can have an evolutionary benefit (explain this). The threat of confirming a group stereotype can also influence behavior.

Stereo threat
Stereotype threat refers to being at risk of confirming, as self-characteristic, a negative stereotype about one's group (Steele & Aronson, 1995). In other words, it is the experience of anxiety or concern in a situation where a person has the potential to confirm a negative stereotype about their social group.

Stereo threat
Individuals (both children and adults) are exposed to negative stereotypes through various outlets (e.g., peers, family, commercials, television shows, magazines) and socialization. Research has suggested that group stereotypes can sometimes positively and or negatively influences motivation, and other decision making.

Stereo threat

The effects of stereotype threat:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2bAlUKtvMk

Questions?