Social Cognition 380 X

1
Social Cognition 380 X

• Welcome
• Lecture Outline
• Review syllabus
• Attribution theory

2
Syllabus

• Required Textbooks
• Fiske, S. T., Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social
  cognition (2nd Ed). NY McGraw-Hill, Inc.
• 2) Nelson, T. D. (2002). The psychology of
  prejudice. Boston, MA Allyn Bacon.
• Cautionary Statement
• The Fiske Taylor text is dense.
• Dont leave all of the reading to the last
  minute.

3
Syllabus

• Prerequisites
• Psychology 101 OR Psychology 280
• Lectures
• 16 lectures, each 2.5 to 3 hours.
• Each lecture equivalent to two regular lectures
• Reading requirements and lecture content have
  been adjusted to fit this schedule

4
Syllabus

• Grading
• Class participation
• 10 of grade
• based on participating in in-class activities
• no make-ups
• Exams
• 90 of grade
• Midterm (March 13th)
• Final (May 8)
• Both exams multiple choice

5
What is Social Cognition?

• Interface between social and cognitive psychology
• Examines how people understand and make sense of
  their world, themselves and others

6
Introductions

• Please stand up and introduce yourself to a
  fellow student close to you. Be sure to tell the
  student

• your name

• your major

• why you signed up for this course

7
Why did I have you do this?
Answer To demonstrate what an ATTRIBUTION is
8
Attribution Theory

• An attribution is an explanation for an event.
• Event Go on a date. Your date says s/hell call
  you for a second date, but does not.
• You ask yourself Why didnt s/he call me for a
  second date? Here are some attributions you might
  make
• Attribution 1 I am boring
• Attribution 2 s/he lost my number

9

• Why do people generate attributions, or
  explanations for events?
• Predict future events
• If you know why something happened, youll be in
  a better position to predict its likelihood of
  occurring in the future.

• If you believe that your date did not call you
  because you are boring, then most likely you will
  bore the next person you go out with too, and
  s/he wont call you for a second date either.

10

• People also generate attributions to
• control future events
• If you know why something happened, youll be in
  a better position to control its occurrence in
  the future.

• If you believe that your date did not call you
  for a second date because you are boring, then
  perhaps next time you go out with someone you can
  present yourself in a more interestingly way in
  the hopes of getting a second date.

11

• Two kinds of attributions
• Internal attribution event caused by a factor
  internal to the person making the attribution

My date did not call me for a second date
because I am boring-- being boring is internal
to you

• External attribution event caused by a factor
  external to the person making the attribution

My date did not call me for a second date
because S/he lost my number--somebody losing
your number is external to you
12
Summary

• Attributions are explanations for events

• People make attributions to predict and control
  the future

• Internal attributions are explanations for events
  that are internal to the person making the
  attribution

• External attributions are explanations for events
  that are external to the person making the
  attribution

13
Why Is Any of This Important?

• Because the
• kind of attribution
• a person makes
• influences how they
• behave!

14
Miller, Brickman Bolen (1975)

• Study 1 Use internal attributions to teach kids
  not to litter and to clean up after others
• Three groups of 5th graders
• attribution group
• persuasion group
• control group

15
Miller et al. (1975)

• Step 1 Measured base-line neatness
• Researchers gave students candy in paper wrappers
• Counted how many wrappers in garbage versus on
  floor
• More wrappers on floor than in garbage

16
Miller et al. (1975)

• Step 2 Administered Treatment
• Attribution group repeatedly told that they were
  neat and tidy people
• Persuasion group repeatedly told that they
  should be neat and tidy
• Control group not told anything

17
Miller et al. (1975)

• Step 3 Measured neatness after treatment
• Researchers gave students candy in paper wrappers
  again
• Counted how many wrappers in garbage versus on
  floor

• Results
• Attribution group more wrappers in garbage than
  on floor after treatment than before treatment
• Persuasion and Control groups no difference in
  number of wrappers in garbage vs. on floor before
  and after treatment

18
Miller, Brickman Bolen (1975)

• Study 2 Use internal attributions to improve
  kids math performance and self-esteem
• Three groups of 2nd graders
• attribution group
• persuasion group
• positive reinforcement group

19
Miller et al. (1975)

• Step 1 Measured base-line math ability
• Researchers assessed students math ability with
  a math test

• Teachers made statements to students
• about their math ability for 8 days

20
Kinds of Statements Made
Miller et al. (1975)

• Attribution Group
• You seem to know your math assignments very well
• You really work hard in math
• Youre trying more, keep at it!

21
Kinds of Statements Made
Miller et al. (1975)

• Persuasion Group
• You should be good at math
• You should be getting better grades in math
• You should be doing well in math

22
Kinds of Statements Made
Miller et al. (1975)

• Reinforcement Group
• Im proud of your work
• Im pleased with your progress
• Excellent progress

23
Results
Miller et al. (1975)

• Math Achievement
• Attribution group outperformed persuasion and
  reinforcement groups on math test
• Attribution group had more gains in self-esteem
  than other groups
• Why?
• Because kids attributed their performance to
  internal factors (e.g., their own ability)

24
External Attributions

• Lepper, Greene, Nisbett (1975)

Step 1 Observed that 3-5 year olds loved playing
with magic markers
Step 2 Created three groups of kids
25
Lepper et al. (1975)

• Expected reward group
• Expected a reward for playing with magic markers
  at end of week

External Attribution Attributed playing with
magic markers to the reward
26
Lepper et al. (1975)

• Unexpected reward group
• Did not expect reward for playing with magic
  markers, but got reward at end of week

Internal Attribution Attributed playing with
magic markers to liking of the activity
27
Lepper et al. (1975)

• No reward group
• Neither expected nor received a reward for
  playing with magic markers at end of week

Internal Attribution Attributed playing with
magic markers to liking of the activity
28
Lepper et al. (1975)
Result Kids who expected a reward decreased how
much they played with the magic markers in
comparison to the other two groups.
Read Fiske Taylor pages listed on syllabus for
next week