Social Cognition

1. Social Cognition Doneisha Burke, MSc.

2. Trying to make sense of others Social Cognition- is the study of how we perceive and interpret information about ourselves and others. Social Perception is the study of how we form impressions of and make inferences about other people.

3. Social Cognition Four core processes in social cognition�Attention, interpretation, judgment, and memory�this sequence of processes describes the basic flow of information from initial perception to use

4. Three approaches to understanding social perception Person perception approach Schema approach Attribution approach

5. 1. Person perception approach These approaches consider the ways we assess and combine the traits of persons to form overall impressions.

6. 1. Person perception approach Impression Formation & Management How do we form impressions of others? Do first impressions last forever? Are some types of information more important than others?

7. 1. Person perception approach Impression Formation & Management We start judging people even before we meet them Preconceptions Stereotypes Male/Female Fat/Slim Uptown/Downtown Young/Old Urban/Country

8. 1. Person perception approach Impression Formation & Management Impression management is the process through which people try to control the impressions other people form of them. It is a goal-directed conscious or unconscious attempt to influence the perceptions of other people about a person, object or event by regulating and controlling information in social interaction. It is usually synonymous with self-presentation, if a person tries to influence the perception of their image.

9. 1. Person perception approach Impression Formation & Management We try to control the information others receive about us e.g. Women will eat less on a date with an attractive man than they would with their girlfriends

10. Person perception explores the idea that we use people�s outward appearance and behaviour to draw inferences i.e. physical appearance and non-verbal bevhavior/communication (eye contact, gestures etc.)

11. 1. Person perception approach: Impression Formation & Management Solomon Asch (1964)- stated that we can form immediate perceptions or impressions of persons when we encounter them. We do not spend much cognitive energy or time forming this first impression and we tend to maintain it after we receive additional information. This begs to ask �do first impressions last?� Asch formulated a hypothesis which stated that one particular trait, which he called a central trait, could be responsible for impression formed.

12. 1. Person perception approach: Impression Formation & Management Central traits are characteristics that serve to organize an impression of another person and provide a framework for interpreting other information about that person even when other traits are stated.

13. Order Effect in Person Perception/Impression Formation Does it matter what you hear first? List A Intelligent, industrious, impulsive, critical, stubborn, envious Using this list, Asch found that it produces an impression of an able person who possesses certain shortcomings, which are not serious enough to overshadow person's merits.

14. Order Effect in Person Perception/Impression Formation List B Envious, stubborn, critical, impulsive, industrious, intelligent Using this list, Asch found that it produces an impression of a person who is a problem and whose abilities are hampered by his serious difficulties

15. Order Effect in Person Perception/Impression Formation In subsequent studies done two concepts were coined Primacy and Recency Effect Primacy Effect this occurs when early information has a stronger impact than later information Recency Effect People tend to recall items that were at the end on a list rather than items that were in the middle or beginning on a list

16. Order Effect in Person Perception/Impression Formation Taken together the primacy effect and the recency effect predict that, in a list of items, the ones most likely to be remembered are the items near the beginning and the end of the list (serial position effect). EXAMPLE Lawyers scheduling the appearance of witnesses for court testimony, and managers scheduling a list of speakers at a conference, take advantage of these effects when they put speakers they wish to emphasize at the very beginning or the very end of a long list.

17. 2. Schema Approach Schema- Mental frameworks containing information relevant to specific situations or events. (restaurants; funerals; going on a date; taking a test). It enables us to categorize and interpret new information related to the schema i.e. schemas act as filters, straining out information that is contradictory to or inconsistent with the prevailing theme

18. 2. Schema Approach: Social categorization process This is a classification of people into groups based on common attributes. We tend to form impressions through stereotypes. These are fixed ways of thinking about people that puts them into categories.

19. 2. Schema Approach:Value of schemas They influence the ways we understand and interpret information about the social world They are important for when we encounter information that can be interpreted in a number of ways because they provide us with a way of reducing ambiguity:� the more ambiguous information is, the more we use schemas to fill in the blanks

20. 3. Attribution Approach Attributions are inferences that people draw about the causes of events, others' behavior, and their own behavior (self-attribution) In short it refers to the process through which we seek to identify the causes of others� behaviour, as a way to gain knowledge of their stable traits and dispositions

21. 3. Attribution Approach Fritz Heider is considered the father of attribution theory According to Heider, social perception is motivated by the need and desire to see the world in an orderly and predictable manner Heider proposed a simple dichotomy for people�s explanations: a.�internal (dispositional) attributions � in which people infer that a person is behaving a certain way because of something about that person (trait or attitude) b.�external (situational) attributions � in which people infer that a person is behaving in a certain way because of the situation that he or she is in

22. 3. Attribution Approach External or situational attribution assigns the cause to an outside factor, such as the weather. Internal or dispositional attribution assigns the cause to factors within the person, such as their own level of intelligence, motives, mood or other variables that make the individual responsible for the event.

23. 3. Attribution Approach: Theories of Attribution Correspondent Inference Theory CI Covariation Model

24. 3. Attribution Approach: Correspondence Inference Theory Correspondent inference theory argues that we use the consequences of a person's behaviour as a basis for inferring the person's stable dispositions

25. 3. Attribution Approach: Correspondence Inference Theory According to CI theory, what determines the attributions we make? The degree of choice the actor was perceived to have (was the behaviour freely chosen?) Whether the behaviour is expected or typical in the situation (it is more likely to reveal something about the actor�s disposition) Whether the behaviour is socially desirable (if the behaviour is socially desirable it is also less revealing of the actor�s disposition) The number of unique consequences or �noncommon effects� associated with the act (only one explanation)

26. 3. Attribution Approach: Kelley's Co-variation Model Kelley�s (1967) theory of attribution provided an alternative to the correspondent inference model Rather than focusing on how people make dispositional inferences, Kelley�s theory focuses on how people decide whether to make an internal or an external attribution This theory focuses on three sources of information

27. 3. Attribution Approach: Kelley's Co-variation Model Consistency Consensus Distinctiveness

28. 3. Attribution Approach: Kelley's Co-variation Model The sources of information we focus on are: i. consensus information � information about the extent to which other people behave the same way towards the same stimulus as the actor does ii. distinctiveness information � information about the extent to which one particular actor behaves in the same way to different stimuli iii. consistency information � information about the extent to which the behavior between one actor and one stimulus is the same across time and circumstances

29. 3. Attribution Approach: Kelley's Co-variation Model Distinctiveness--behavior can be attributed to cause if it only occurs when that cause is present and does not occur when cause is absent *Why I've never seen John hit anyone else before. He only hits Bill called high distinctiveness; John's behavior is distinct/unique to Bill� Likely attribution? Something about Bill, the stimulus (e.g., Bill's always insulting John) *Why John hits every Tom, Dick, and Harry I know. He doesn't hit Bill only called low distinctiveness; John's behavior is not distinct/unique to Bill� Likely attribution? Something about John, the person (e.g., John's an aggressive bugger)

30. 3. Attribution Approach: Kelley's Co-variation Model Consistency--the person (John) behaves this way across time and situations *Why John hits Bill everytime they are anywhere (in the bar; in a restaurant; at school; at work). called high consistency� Likely attribution? Something about John & Bill probably (they're a volatile mix) *Why John rarely ever hits Bill called low consistency Likely attribution? Something about the circumstance (maybe crowded bar; drunk)

31. 3. Attribution Approach: Kelley's Co-variation Model Consensus--others behave in the same manner toward the stimulus *Why everyone who comes into contact with Bill hits him called high consensus Likely attribution? Something about Bill, the stimulus (he's a real jerk)� *Why no one (except John) hits Bill called low consensus Likely attribution? Something about John, the person (he's the jerk!)

32. 3. Attribution Approach : Kelley's Co-variation Model Internal attribution occurs when consensus and distinctiveness are low but consistency is high External attribution occurs when consensus, distinctiveness and consistency are all high When consensus is low, but consistency and distinctiveness are high, we attribute behaviour to both situational (external) and dispositional (internal) causes.

33. Both correspondent inference theory and the covariation model assume that people make causal attributions in a rational, logical fashion � however, attributions can be distorted by self-serving motives and by biases in reasoning

34. Biases in Attribution The fundamental attribution error Self- serving bias The actor- observer effect

35. Biases in Attribution Fundamental attribution error: You failed; I guess you must be stupid tendency to overestimate role of dispositional/internal/ personal factors Heider said that "Persons are the prototypes of origins" (= causes) Viewing people as the prototypes of origins leads to the fundamental attribution error Due to tendency to focus on the person's behavior, with situational forces ignored or fading into background Not assigning sufficient weight to situational factors This tendency seems to fade with passage of time

36. Biases in Attribution Actor-observer effect--"You fell; I was pushed" Due to different perspectives, different information about the event and the participants� Actors have more information about their own past behaviors, more aware of situational factors than observers� When observers have more information about the person and the situation, they are less prone to this tendency

37. Biases in Attribution Self-serving bias--enhancing the ego We tend to attribute our positive outcomes to internal factors and to attribute our negative outcomes to external factors� Due to expecting to succeed; failure "must" be due to external factors Need to protect and enhance our self-esteem Can be the cause of interpersonal friction Self-serving bias--I do everything around here; you do much less overestimating how much we (relative to others) contributed to a positive outcome