LO 2 Describe social cognition and how we use attributions to explain behavior.

Put yourself in Joe or Susanne’s position. There you are on Match.com, looking at the profile page of someone you find attractive. On a conscious level, you are tallying up all the interests you have in common and scrutinizing every self-descriptive adjective this person has chosen. There is also some information processing happening outside of your awareness. You might not even realize that this person reminds you of someone you know, like your mother or father, and that sense of familiarity makes you more inclined to reach out. Will you contact this person?

Whatever your decision may be, it is very much reliant on social cognition—the way you think about others, attend to social information, and use this information in your life, both consciously and unconsciously. Joe and Susanne used social cognition in forming first impressions of one another. You use social cognition anytime you try to interpret or respond to another person’s behavior. Let’s take a closer look at two critical facets of social cognition: attributions and attitudes.

WHAT ARE ATTRIBUTIONS? Joe and Susanne’s relationship has always been fairly open, with Joe rarely having to wonder what Susanne is thinking and vice versa. This is usually not the case with online dating, or any kind of dating for that matter. The “dating game” typically involves a lot of guesswork about the other person’s behavior: Why didn’t he call back? What did she mean by that yesterday? These kinds of questions have relevance for all human relationships, not just the romantic kind. Just think about how much time you spend wondering why people do the things that they do. The “answers” you come up with to resolve these questions are called attributions.

Attributions are beliefs we develop to explain human behaviors and characteristics, as well as situations. “Why is my friend in such a bad mood?” you ask yourself. Your attribution might be, “Maybe he just got some bad news” or “Perhaps he is hungry.” When psychologists characterize attributions, they use the term observer to identify the person making the attribution, and actor to identify the person exhibiting a behavior of interest. If Joe was trying to explain why Susanne had checked out his profile page, then Joe is the observer and Susanne is the actor.

ATTRIBUTIONAL DIMENSIONS There are many types of attributions, and differentiating among them is quite a task. To make things more manageable, psychologists often describe attributions along three dimensions: controllable–uncontrollable, stable–unstable, and internal–external. Let’s see how these might apply to attributions relating to Joe and Susanne:

Controllable–uncontrollable dimension: Suppose Susanne had been 15 minutes late to meet Joe at Starbucks. If Joe assumed it happened because she got stuck in unavoidable traffic, we would say he was making an uncontrollable attribution. (As far as he knows, Susanne has no control over the traffic.) If, however, Joe assumed that Susanne’s lateness resulted from factors within her control, such as how fast she drove or what time she left her house, then the attribution would be controllable.

Stable–unstable dimension: Why did Joe cook Susanne a delicious dinner of pork chops? Susanne could infer his behavior stemmed from a longtime interest in cooking. This would be an example of a stable attribution. With stable attributions, the cause is long-lasting. If Susanne thought Joe’s behavior resulted from a transient inspiration from watching a really good cooking show, then her attribution would be unstable. With unstable attributions, the cause is temporary.

Internal–external dimension: Why did Joe have trouble meeting suitable single women before Susanne entered his life? If she thought it was because there were few single women living in his immediate area, this would be an external attribution, because the cause of the problem would reside outside of Joe. External attributions are commonly referred to as situational attributions, as the causes exist in the environment. However, if she believed Joe had trouble meeting women because he was reluctant to attend singles events, this would be an internal attribution—the cause is within Joe. With internal attributions, the cause is located inside the person, such as an illness, skill, or attitude.

Dispositional attributions are a particular type of internal attribution in which the presumed causes are traits or personality characteristics. Here, we refer to a subset of internal attributions that are deep-seated, enduring characteristics, as opposed to those that are more transient, like having the flu. If Susanne believed that Joe had trouble meeting other singles because he has a shy, reserved personality (not actually the case, but let’s assume for the sake of example), this would be a dispositional attribution.

LO 3 Describe how attributions lead to mistakes in our explanations for behaviors.

When people make attributions, they are often guessing about the causes of events or behaviors, which of course leaves plenty of room for error. This is particularly true with situational and dispositional attributions. Let’s take a look at four of the most common mistakes (Infographic 14.1, below).

INFOGRAPHIC 14.1

INFOGRAPHIC 14.1

Credits: Waiter silos, © Slobelix/Agefotostock; Glass jars filled with dollar bills, Mike Kemp/Getty Images; Silhouettes of people, Leontura/Getty Images

FUNDAMENTAL ATTRIBUTION ERROR Suppose you are checking out some profiles on a dating Web site. You see someone cute and reach out with ;-) (a “wink”), but never hear back. If you fall prey to the fundamental attribution error, you might automatically assume the person’s failure to respond results from her shyness (a dispositional attribution), but another reason might be that her Internet is down (a situational attribution). This is a common tendency; we often think that the cause of other people’s behaviors is a characteristic of them (a dispositional attribution) as opposed to the environment (a situational attribution) (Ross, 1977; Ross, Amabile, & Steinmetz, 1977). We easily forget that situational factors can also have a powerful effect, and assume that behaviors are the consequence of a person’s disposition (Jones & Harris, 1967). When thinking about what causes or controls behavior, we “underestimate the impact of situational factors and . . . overestimate the role of dispositional factors” (Ross, 1977, p. 183).

How do you think this happens? One suggestion is that we have a tendency to make quick decisions about others, often by labeling them as certain types of people. Imagine how dangerous this could be in a medical setting, when doctors and nurses need to make quick choices about treatment. A nurse seeing a patient who has slurred speech, can’t walk, and is aggressive might assume he is drunk and an “alcoholic,” ignoring other situational factors that might be involved, such as homelessness and severe dehydration (Levett-Jones et al., 2010). Similarly, a doctor might take one look at a patient and decide he is uncooperative, dirty, and just “another homeless hippie,” when in fact the patient is on the verge of a diabetic coma. Doctors should be careful not to let negative stereotypes color their diagnoses, and patients and their families should recognize that doctors are not immune to these types of attribution errors (Groopman, 2008).

Yet we must make do with the information we have—even if that information is biased and based on our own values and belief systems (Callan, Ferguson, & Bindemann, 2013). This tendency also applies to the just-world hypothesis.

JUST-WORLD HYPOTHESIS People who believe the world is a fair place tend to expect that “bad things” happen for a reason. Their thinking is that when someone is “bad,” it should be no surprise when things don’t go well for him (Riggio & Garcia, 2009). Many people blame the actor by applying the just-world hypothesis, which assumes that if someone is suffering, he must have done something to deserve it (Rubin & Peplau, 1975). In one study, researchers told a group of participants about a man who was violent with his wife, slapping and yelling at her. Another group heard about a loving man who gave his wife flowers and frequently made her dinner. Participants who heard about the “bad person” were more likely to predict a bad outcome for him (he will have a “terrible car accident”) than those who heard about the “good person” (he will win a “hugely successful business contract”; Callan et al., 2013).

This belief in a just world, to some degree, may result from cultural teachings. Children in Western cultures are taught this concept so that they learn how to behave properly, show respect for authority figures, and delay gratification (Rubin & Peplau, 1975). For example, in the original tale of Cinderella (Grimm & Grimm, 1884), doves rest on Cinderella’s shoulders prior to her wedding to the Prince. As the bridal party enters and leaves the church, the doves poke out her evil stepsisters’ eyes—a punishment for being cruel to Cinderella. Through this tale, children learn that the stepsisters got what they deserved.

SELF-SERVING BIAS The tendency to attribute one’s successes to internal characteristics and one’s failures to environmental factors is known as the self-serving bias. Before meeting Joe, Susanne dated a guy who tended to blame his failures on external circumstances. If he lost his job, it was because the boss never liked him—not because his performance fell short. This “woe is me” attitude annoyed Susanne, who had learned to take responsibility for what happened in her life. As her mother often told her, “You can be a survivor, or you can be a victim.” Susanne’s ex-boyfriend appears to have been influenced by self-serving bias.

You might be surprised to learn that therapists can also fall prey to this bias (Murdock, Edwards, & Murdock, 2010). When clients end their psychotherapy earlier than therapists recommend, therapists tend to think the causes are due to the client’s situation (lack of finances) or something within the client (resistance to change), as opposed to some factor within themselves (the therapist). But when considering the same situation for another therapist, they tend to identify the opposite pattern, blaming the other therapist for the early termination of therapy.

FALSE CONSENSUS EFFECT When trying to decipher the causes of other people’s behaviors, we overrely on knowledge about ourselves. This can lead to the false consensus effect, which is the tendency to overestimate the degree to which people think or act like we do (Ross, Greene, & House, 1977). And when others do not share our thoughts and behaviors, we tend to believe they are acting abnormally or inappropriately. This false consensus effect is evident in our beliefs about everything from celebrities—Since I love Bradley Cooper, you should, too—to adolescent substance use—Since I like to use drugs, you should, too (Bui, 2012; Henry, Kobus, & Schoeny, 2011). We seem to make this mistake because we have an overabundance of information about ourselves, and often limited information about others. Struggling to understand those around us, we fill in the gaps with what we know about ourselves.

Attribution errors may lead us astray, but we can minimize their impact by being aware of our tendency to fall back on them. Now it’s time to explore another facet of social cognition. Where did you get that attitude?

For many people, including Joe and Susanne, the purpose of online dating is to find someone who shares common values, interests, and lifestyle choices—all variables that are strongly influenced by attitudes. Attitudes are the relatively stable thoughts, feelings, and responses we have toward people, situations, ideas, and things (Ajzen, 2001; Wicker, 1969).

Psychologists suggest that attitudes are composed of cognitive, affective, and behavioral components (Figure 14.2 on page 561). The cognitive aspect of an attitude refers to our beliefs or ideas about an object, person, or situation. Generally, our attitudes include an emotional evaluation, which is the affective component relating to mood or emotion. We often have positive or negative feelings about objects, people, or situations (Ajzen, 2001). Feelings and beliefs guide the behavioral aspect of the attitude, or the way we respond.

WHERE DO ATTITUDES COME FROM? Of all the nature–nurture conversations occurring in the field of psychology, there is at least one arena where nurture appears to dominate: attitudes. Our attitudes develop through experiences and interactions with the people in our lives, and even through exposure to media (via classical conditioning and observational learning).

That being said, genetic factors do play a role. But to what degree? One of the best ways to gauge the relative weights of nature and nurture is through the study of twins. If nature has a substantive effect on attitudes, then the following should be true: Identical twins (who have the same genetic makeup) should have more similar attitudes than fraternal twins (who share about 50% of their genes). Let’s take a look at some research to see if this is the case.

Nature and Nurture

Why the Attitude?

How do you feel about rollercoasters? How about alcohol consumption? Where do you stand on the death penalty? These are just a few of the attitude topics researchers have explored in the context of nature and nurture. One study of several hundred pairs of twins concluded that most of the attitude variation among participants resulted from nonshared environmental factors, or distinct life experiences. But a significant proportion of attitude differences—35%—was related to genes. Those that correlated most strongly with genes centered on abortion, the death penalty, playing sports, riding rollercoasters, and reading books (Olson, Vernon, Harris, & Jang, 2001).

DOES THIS MEAN . . . EACH OF US IS BORN WITH A “PRO-LIFE” OR “PRO-CHOICE” GENE?

Does this mean that each of us is born with a “pro-life” or “pro-choice” gene, and yet another gene that determines how we feel about sports? Highly unlikely. As the researchers point out, genes probably exert their effects indirectly, through personality traits and other genetically determined characteristics. For example, someone who is born with a very athletic physique (muscular frame or quick reaction time, for example) may become fond of sports simply because she is so good at them (Olson et al., 2001). In this case, the physical traits mediate the relationship between genes and attitudes.

All in the Family?
Children and parents frequently have the same attitudes about politics and social issues. To a certain degree, these similarities trace to common personality traits, which are partly inherited (Kandler et al., 2012). But attitudes are more strongly influenced by life experiences (Olson et al., 2001).

Tony Savino/Corbis

More recent research, also involving twins, offers evidence that political attitudes are influenced by genes. As with the earlier twin study, the relationship between genes and attitudes appears to be indirect; personality traits, which are highly heritable, seem to predispose people to certain political attitudes. But as the researchers point out, family members and peers can also mold political inclinations (Kandler, Bleidorn, & Riemann, 2012). It makes good sense if you think about it: If someone important to you takes a certain political stance, it might seem more appealing, or at least tolerable. The bottom line: Nurture may come out ahead in this particular case, but nature holds its own.

We have established that attitudes are shaped by experience and, to a lesser extent, heredity. But what impact do these attitudes have on everyday life?

CAN ATTITUDES PREDICT BEHAVIOR? There are many factors determining whether an attitude can predict a behavior (Ajzen, 2001). The strength of an attitude is important, with stronger, more enduring attitudes having a greater impact (Armitage & Christian, 2003; Holland, Verplanken, & Van Knippenberg, 2002). Specificity is also key; the more specific an attitude, the more likely it will sway behavior (Armitage & Christian, 2003).

Not surprisingly, people are more likely to act on their attitudes when something important is at stake—like money. Imagine your college is holding a meeting to discuss the possibility of increasing student parking fees. What are the chances of your showing up to that meeting if you don’t own a car? The greater the personal investment you have in an issue, the more likely you are to act (Sivacek & Crano, 1982).

We now know that attitudes can influence behaviors, but is the opposite true—that is, can behaviors shape attitudes? Absolutely.

didn’t SEE that coming

Something Doesn’t Feel Right

cognitive dissonance A state of tension that results when behaviors are inconsistent with attitudes.

Most people would agree that cheating on a girlfriend, boyfriend, or spouse is not right. Even so, some people contradict their beliefs by seeking sexual gratification outside their primary relationships. How do you think cheating makes a person feel—relaxed and at peace? Probably not. The tension that results when a behavior (in this case, cheating) clashes with an attitude (cheating is wrong) is known as cognitive dissonance (Aronson & Festinger, 1958; Festinger, 1957). One way to reduce cognitive dissonance is to adjust the behavior (stop fooling around). Another approach is to change the attitude to better match the behavior (Cheating is actually good for our relationship, because it makes me a better partner). Such attitude shifts often occur without our awareness.

APPARENTLY, THE BIG BUCKS MADE IT EASIER TO JUSTIFY THEIR LIES.

The phenomenon of cognitive dissonance was elegantly brought to light in a study by Leon Festinger and J. Merrill Carlsmith (1959). Imagine, for a moment, that you are a participant in this classic study. The researchers have assigned you to a very boring task—placing 12 objects on a tray and then putting them back on the shelf, over and over again for a half-hour. Upon finishing, you spend an additional half-hour twisting 48 pegs ever so slightly, one peg at a time, again and again and again. How would you feel at the end of the hour—pretty bored, right?

Regardless of how you may feel about these activities, you have been paid money to convince someone else that they are a blast: “I had a lot of fun [doing] this task,” you say. “It was intriguing, it was exciting . . .” (Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959, p. 205). Unless you like performing repetitive behaviors like a robot, we assume you would feel some degree of cognitive dissonance, or tension resulting from this mismatch between your attitude (Ugh, this activity is so boring) and your behavior (saying, “I had so much fun!”). What could you do to reduce the cognitive dissonance? If you’re like participants in Festinger and Carlsmith’s study, you would probably adjust your attitude to better fit your claims. In other words, you would rate the task as more interesting than it actually was.

But here’s the really fascinating part: The students who were paid more money ($20 versus $1) were less inclined to change their attitudes to match their claim—a sign that they felt less cognitive dissonance. Apparently, the big bucks made it easier to justify their lies. I said I liked the boring task because I got paid $20, not because I actually liked it.

Page 563

Promises, Promises
Political campaigns are all about making promises. “Vote for me if you want to see your taxes decrease,” says one candidate. “When I get into office, I will fix the health care system,” says the next. Despite good intentions, many politicians do not follow through on their promises once they get into office. How do you think this conflict between beliefs and behaviors affects them? We suspect they experience a bit of cognitive dissonance.

AP Photo/The Canadian Press, Chris Wattie

And now, one final example to drive home this concept of cognitive dissonance. We all know that smoking is bad for the body, but smokers around the world continue to light up. You would think awareness of health risks might lead to negative attitudes about smoking, as well as cognitive dissonance during the act (Smoking is dangerous; I am smoking, and this doesn’t feel right). Reducing the conflict between the attitude and behavior could be accomplished in one of two ways: by changing the attitude or by changing the behavior. Which path do smokers take?

CONNECTIONS

In Chapter 11, we reported that many people smoke in response to stressors. To help people quit smoking, we must consider where they are in the process of smoking cessation (first time trying to quit, tried numerous times, etc.). Here, we see it’s important to consider cognitive dissonance as well.

It appears that smokers often take a third route: thought suppression. They reduce cognitive dissonance by suppressing thoughts about the health implications of smoking. This helps explain why so many smokers don’t change their behavior when concerned friends and family members remind them of the dangers. So what should loved ones do to discourage the habit? One strategy is to reduce beliefs about positive outcomes, like pointing out that smoking is not effective as a social lubricant or relaxation aid (Kneer, Glock, & Rieger, 2012).

We have now learned about cognitive processes that form the foundation of our social existence. Attributions help us make sense of events and behaviors, and attitudes provide continuity in the way we think and feel about the surrounding world. It’s time to shift our attention to behavior. How do other people influence the way we act? Are you ready to meet runner extraordinaire Julius Achon?

Question 1

1. Attributions

2. Confederates

3. Dispositions

4. Attitudes

Question 2

1. characteristics of the situation.

2. factors involved in the event.

3. length of the activity.

4. disposition of the person.

Question 3