RESEARCH METHODS IN SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

Transcription

1 Social Psychology 2.1 Research methods in Social Psychology LESSON - 2 RESEARCH METHODS IN SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 2.0. Objectives 1. To have a clear idea of the various research methods used by social psychologists. Structure 2.1 Theory as an essential guide to research. 2.2 Experimental method. 2.3 Correlational Method. 2.4 Ethical Safeguards. 2.5 Summary 2.6 Technical Terms 2.7 Model Questions 2.8 Reference Books 2.1 Theory as an essential guide to research Ideas for research projects are often suggested by observation of the social world around us. Researchers notice some aspect of social behaviour that is puzzling or surprising, and plan investigations to shed new light upon it. Successful experiments tend to raise more questions than they answer. Theory is the most important single source of research in social psychology. Theory represents efforts, by scientists in any field, to answer the question why? In short, it involves attempts to understand precisely why certain events or processes occur as they do. In this sense, theory goes beyond mere observation or description of various aspects of social behaviour; it seeks to explain them. The development of comprehensive, accurate theories is a major goal of all science and social psychology is no exception to this basic rule. Thus, a great deal of research in our field is concerned with efforts to construct, refine and test such frameworks. Once a theory has been formulated, a crucial process begins. First, predictions are derived from the theory. These are formulated in accordance with the basic principles of logic, and are known as hypotheses. Next, such predictions are tested in actual research. If they are confirmed, confidence in the accuracy of the theory is increased: it is viewed as providing an adequate explanation for the phenomena with which it deals. If, instead, such predictions are disconfirmed, confidence in the theory is weakened. Then, the theory itself may be altered so as to generate new predictions, and these, in turn, can be subjected to test. Theories are useful, from a scientific point of view, only to the extent that they lead to testable predictions. Indeed, if they do not generate hypotheses that can be examined in actual research, they should not be viewed as scientific in nature. 1

2 Centre for Distance Education 2.2 Acharya Nagarjuna University 2.2. Experimental Method A researcher who decides to employ the experimental method generally begins with a clear-cut goal; determining whether a given factor influences some aspect of social behaviour. In order to answer this question, such a researcher follows two basic steps: she or he (1) varies the presence or strength of this factor in a systematic manner and (2) tries to determine whether these variations have any impact upon the aspect of social behaviour under investigation. If the factor varied does exert such effects, individuals exposed to different levels or amounts of the factor should show different patterns of behaviour. That is, exposure to a small amount of the factor should result in one level of behaviour; exposure to a larger amount should result in another level, and so on. The factor systematically varied by the researcher is termed the independent variable, while the behaviour studied is termed the dependent variable. In a simple experiment, then, subjects in different groups are exposed to contrasting levels of the independent variable. The behaviour of these persons is then carefully examined and compared to determine whether it does in fact vary with different levels or amounts of the independent variable. It can be tentatively concluded that the independent variable does indeed affect the form of behaviour being studied. Before we can conclude that an independent variable has affected some form of behaviour, two important conditions must be met. The first involves what is generally termed random assignment or subjects to groups. According to this principle, each person taking part in a study must have an equal chance of being exposed to each level of the independent variable. If subjects are not randomly assigned to each group, it may prove impossible to determine whether differences in their later behaviour stem from differences they brought with them to the study, or from the impact of the independent variable. The second condition is that insofar as possible, all other factors that might also affect subjects behaviour, aside from the independent variable, must be held constant The Correlational method Experimentation is usually the preferred method of research in social psychology. Sometimes, though, it simply cannot be used. Systematic variation of some factor of interest may simply lie beyond a researcher s control. Ethical constraints may prevent a researcher from conducting what might otherwise be a feasible experiment. It may be possible to vary some factor of interest, but doing so would violate basic ethical standards accepted by all social psychologists. When faced with such restrictions, social psychologists often adopt an alternative technique of research known as the correlational method. In this approach, efforts are made to determine whether two or more variables are related by engaging in careful observation of both. If changes in one are found to be consistently associated with changes in the other, evidence for a link between them is obtained. In contrast to the experimental method, no attempt is made to vary one of the factors in a systematic manner in order to observe its effect on the other. Rather, naturally occurring variations in both are observed to determine whether they tend to occur together in some fashion. The correlational method offers several key advantages. It can be employed to study behaviour in many real-life settings. It is often highly efficient and can yield large amounts of interesting data in a short period of time. It can be used to study topics that, because of practical or ethical constraints, simply can t be studied through experimentation. Unfortunately, though, this 2

3 Social Psychology 2.3 Research methods in Social Psychology approach suffers from one major drawback that greatly lessens its appeal: in contrast to experimentation, the findings it yields are often somewhat uncertain with respect to cause-andeffect relationships. That is, the fact that changes in one variable are accompanied by changes in another does not in any sense guarantee that there is a causal link between them that changes in the first caused alterations in the second. Rather, in many cases, a tendency of two variables to rise or fall together simply reflects the fact that both are caused by a third, perhaps less visible, factor. The existence of even a strong correlation between two factors should not be interpreted as a definite indication that they are causally linked. Such conclusions are justified only in the presence of additional confirming evidence Ethical Safeguards There is one technique that seems to be unique to research in social psychology: deception. Basically, this involves efforts by researchers to conceal the true purpose of their studies from the persons participating in them. Many social psychologists are convinced that if subjects know the true purposes behind an investigation, their behaviour will be changed by such knowledge. Then, the research itself will be doomed to fail; it will have little chance of adding to our knowledge of human social behaviour. The adoption of this technique, though, is not without its costs. Deceiving or misleading research participants, no matter how justified this may seem, raises important ethical issues that should not be overlooked. First, it is possible that at least some persons exposed to such treatment will resent having been led astray. As a result, they may adopt a negative attitude toward social research generally. Second, deception, even when temporary, may result in some type of harmful outcome for the persons exposed to it. They may experience discomfort, stress, negative shifts in their self-esteem, or related effects. Finally, there is the very real question of whether scientists, committed to the search for knowledge, should place themselves in the position of deceiving persons kind enough to assist them in this undertaking. Many believe that temporary deception is acceptable, provided certain safeguards are followed. The most important of these are informed consent and thorough debriefing. Informed consent involves providing research participants with as full a description of the procedures to be followed as feasible, prior to their decision to take part in a given study. Thorough debriefing follows rather than precedes each experimental session. It consists of providing participants with a full explanation of all major aspects of the study, including its true goals, the hypotheses under investigation, and an explanation of the need for temporary deception. The basic principle here is that all research participants should leave the session in at least as favourable or positive a state as when they arrived. That informed consent and thorough debriefing go a long way toward eliminating the potential dangers of deception is suggested by the findings of several studies concerned with this issue. First, an overwhelming majority of subjects view temporary deception as acceptable, and do not resent its use. Second, there is some indication that individuals who have participated in studies involving deception actually report more positive feelings about the value of psychological research than subjects who have not taken part in such research. Third, it appears that effective debriefing does eliminate many negative effects experienced by subjects as a result of temporary deception. 3

4 Centre for Distance Education 2.4 Acharya Nagarjuna University 2.5. Summary In selecting the topics of their research and planning specific studies, social psychologists are often guided by theories. These are logical frameworks designed to explain why certain events or processes occur as they do. Predictions derived from theories are tested in ongoing research. If they are confirmed, confidence in the accuracy of the theory is increased. If they are disconfirmed, such confidence is reduced. In conducting their research, social psychologists generally employ either the experimental or the correlational method. The first involves procedures in which one or more factors are systematically varied in order to examine the impact of such changes upon one or more aspects of social behaviour. The second involves careful observation of existing relationships between two or more variables. Social psychologists often attempt to conceal the true purpose of their studies from the persons participating in them. Use of deception raises important ethical issues, but most social psychologists believe that it is permissible, provided proper safeguards such as informed consent and debriefing are adopted Technical Terms Correlational method Debriefing Deception Experimentation Informed consent A method of research based on observation of two or more variables. If changes in one are consistently associated with changes in another, evidence for a link between them is obtained Procedures at the end of an experimental session in which research participants are informed about the true purpose of the study and the major hypotheses under investigation Efforts by researchers to conceal the true purpose of their studies from persons participating in them method of research in which one factor is systematically changed or adjusted in order to determine whether such variations affect a second factor Procedures in which subjects are told, in advance, about the activities they will perform during an experiment. They participate in the study only if they are willing to engage in such activities Model Questions 1. How important is theory for research? 2. Describe the experimental method in social psychology. Compare the experimental and the correlational methods. 3. How important are ethical safeguards in social psychological research? 2.8. Reference Books Baron, R. A., & Byrne, D. (1974). Social Psychology. London: Allyn & Bacon. 4

5 Social Physchology 3.1 Social Perception LESSON - 3 SOCIAL PERCEPTION 3.0. Objectives Structure 1. To have an idea of the processes involved in understanding others. 2. To know about attribution as a determining factor of social perception. 3. To look into a number of theories of attribution. Understanding others Attribution Theories of Attribution Jones and Davi s correspondent inference theory Kelley s model of causal attribution 3.4 Summary 3.5 Technical Terms 3.6 Model Questions 3.7 Reference Books 3.1. Understanding others Accurate knowledge about others current moods of feelings can be useful it helps us interact with them effectively. Yet, where social perception is concerned, it is usually only part of the total picture. In addition, we usually want to know something about others lasting traits the stable characteristics they bring with them from situation to situation. And, more generally, we wish to understand the causes behind their behaviour to know precisely why they have acted in certain ways under certain conditions. The process through which we attempt to gain such information is known as attribution. Because attribution is complex, several theories designed to explain its operation have been proposed Attribution Attribution theory was first proposed by Fritz Heider. However, his version of the theory was not especially amenable to experimental test. Heider s original formulation focused on how we attribute the causes of behaviour. In an analogy with the world of physical causality, he noted that objects behave the ways they do because of the joint influence of their own qualities that dispose them to behave in certain ways and environmental forces. In seeking to explain another person s behaviour, people rely on two general categories of causes: situation and disposition. Situational causes are reasons for behaviour that rest on the demands or constraints of a given social setting. Most situations call for certain kinds of behaviour. For instance, people in a lecture class basically sit, take notes, and ask or answer questions. They don t stand up in the middle of the class and practice yodeling. Likewise, if the setting is a baseball game on a miserably hot day and the home team is behind by six runs, the manager s temper tantrum when a runner is called out is probably due to the situation and not to the manager s temperament. Certain circumstances, then, produce particular kinds of behaviour. The dispositional properties 1

6 Centre for Distance Education 3.2 Acharya Nagarjuna University of some people make them violent in the face of frustration while others would just cry. But even people who are dispositionally violent do not always hit and abuse; there must be a precipitating external force. In contrast, in some situations, behaviour is produced by dispositional causes reasons for behaviour that rest on the personality traits and characteristics of the individual carrying out the behaviour. Some people are habitually friendly, or hostile, or energetic, regardless of the particular situation in which they find themselves. Consequently, when they act friendly, hostile or energetic, respectively, the cause of their behaviour is most likely their disposition. These two kinds of forces, sometimes called internal and external, must be both present for behaviour to occur. However, in a given situation, a perceiver may see behaviour as caused relatively more by one force or another. The behaviour of a violent criminal is likely to be seen as caused by dispositional forces, whereas the ritualized behaviour of a groom at his wedding is more likely to be seen as caused by strong situational forces. So long as we remember that both kinds of forces are necessary for behaviour, it makes a certain amount of sense to see some behaviours as internally or dispositionally caused and others as having been influenced more by the situation. The internal-external cause distinction is important because it allows us to predict and sometimes control the behaviour of others. A general principle about attributions is that behaviour will be attributed to a situational cause when external reasons are more likely or plausible than dispositional causes. Conversely, behaviour will be attributed to dispositional factors when external causes are unlikely. Attribution approaches assume that people make their attributions on the basis of mini experiments that they carry out in the minds. However, because the process of forming attributions is not immune to biases and error, such people are considered naïve scientists by social psychologists. Like trained scientists, laypeople attempt to make systematic use of the social data at hand; like naïve scientists, though, they are not always exact in the methods they use to interpret information Theories of attribution Two major theories of attribution seek to explain the systematic processes people use in forming attributions: Jones and Davis s theory of correspondent inferences, which considers the ways in which we infer intentions, traits, and dispositions; and Kelley s model of causal attribution, which focuses on how we consolidate different sorts of information to make attributions Jones and Davis s correspondent inference theory The theory covers the general case of how we use a person s behaviour to make inferences about enduring personality traits and motivations. The Jones and Davis theory examines correspondent inferences, observers notions of how closely an overt behaviour or action represents a specific underlying disposition, the greater the correspondence between these two factors. According to Jones and Davis, we learn most from behaviours of others that lead to unique or noncommon effects. The theory assumes that any behaviour leads to a particular set of consequences. However, the behaviours that are most helpful in forming correspondent inferences are those that result in consequences that other, alternative behaviours would not have produced. 2

7 Social Physchology 3.3 Social Perception One additional factor that colours our attributions is the social desirability of behaviour the degree to which society encourages and values a behaviour. The greater the social desirability of a behaviour, the more difficult it is to draw a correspondent inference between the act and a disposition. Another basis for making attributions relates to the degree of choice an individual is seen to have in carrying out a behaviour. For instance, if you are assigned by a teacher to argue in favour of capital punishment in a debate, it is unlikely that your classmates will assume that you necessarily believe what you are saying. In contrast, if you choose on your own to argue that side of the issue, then it is a fair assumption that you believe what you are arguing. Jones and Davis s theory of correspondent inferences considers how observers take a small part of a person s behaviour and use it to determine how representative that sample is of the person s underlying traits and other characteristics. But that is only one aspect of the attribution process. Another approach to attribution focuses on how we determine whether behaviour is caused primarily by situational forces or personal factors Kelley s model of causal attribution Social psychologist Harold Kelley suggests that, in attempting to choose among potential causes, people consider three different kinds of information. First, they use consensus information. Consensus information is data regarding the degree to which other people react similarly in the same situation. In addition to consensus information, observers use a second category of data, called consistency information. Consistency information is knowledge regarding the degree to which people react in the same way in a variety of situations. Finally, the third category of data available to an observer is distinctiveness information. Distinctiveness information refers to the extent to which the same behaviour occurs in relation to other people or stimuli. Taking into account information about consensus, consistency, and distinctiveness allows people to attribute certain behaviour either to dispositional factors or to situational factors. More precisely, when consensus and distinctiveness are low and consistency is high, people tend to make dispositional attributions. On the other hand, when consensus, consistency and distinctiveness are all high, people tend to make attributions to external, situational factors. Subsequent research has lent support to Kelley s attribution model. In a typical study, researchers provide participants with differing kinds of information and then trace the kinds of attributions they make. Furthermore, even when some of the three sources of information are absent, people still make causal inferences similar to the ones predicted by the model. For instance, simply knowing that behaviour is of low distinctiveness can lead observers to attribute its cause to internal factors. Learning that there is high consensus associated with a particular behaviour is sufficient to lead an observer to attribute the cause to external factors, even without any other information. However, Kelley s model has certain limitations. Although the theory works well when people have concrete, explicit information regarding consensus, distinctiveness, and consistency, it does not work quite so well when people must seek, find, or recognize the information on their 3

8 Centre for Distance Education 3.4 Acharya Nagarjuna University own. In sum, although the general principles of Kelley s theory appear to be valid, the theory is most accurate in describing how people make attributions when they have clear and unambiguous information on which to base the attributions. It also is most accurate when people encounter unexpected events, which they are unable to explain in terms of what they already know about the person or situation Summary Knowledge about the more lasting causes of others behaviour is gained through the process of attribution. In social perception, we attempt to infer others traits, motives and intentions from observation of their overt actions. In order to determine whether others behaviour stems mainly from internal or external causes, we focus on information relating to three factors: consensus, consistency, and distinctiveness. Detailed causal analysis of others behaviour involves considerable cognitive work Technical Terms Attribution Consensus Consistency Distinctiveness the process through which we seek to determine the causes of others behaviour and gain knowledge of their stable traits and dispositions the extent to which actions shown by one person are also shown by others the extent to which an individual responds to a given stimulus or situation in the same way on different occasions the extent to which an individual responds in a similar manner to different stimuli or different situations 3.6. Model Questions 1. How does attribution help in understanding others behaviour? 2. What are the various theories of attribution? 3.7. Reference Books Baron, R. A., & Byrne, D. (1974). Social Psychology. London: Allyn & Bacon. Argyle, M., & Colman, A. M. (Eds.). (1995). Social Psychology. London: Longman. 4

9 Social Psychology 4.1 Impression Formation and Information LESSON - 4 IMPRESSION FORMATION AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 4.0. Objectives 1. To understand the concept of Impression formation. 2. To have an idea about Impression Management as part of social perception. Structure 4.1 Impression formation Physical appearance Nonverbal behaviour Cognitive Math Order Effects 4.2 Impression Management 4.3 Summary 4.4 Technical terms 4.5 Model Questions 4.6 Reference Books 4.1. Impression formation Physical appearance Although we are taught that appearances can be deceiving, we often act as if we have never heard that advice. Study after study has shown that people use superficial clues, such as clothing, eyeglasses, and jewelry, to form judgments about what others are like. Although people make such judgments every day, they often have no evidence to support those judgments. Physical attractiveness also contributes powerfully to people s judgments of others. Physical attractiveness plays a significant role in determining how much we like people. Even the configuration of a person s face affects the judgments that others make. For example, baby-faced physical characteristics relatively large eyes and small noses are viewed as signs of powerlessness, submissiveness, and social incompetence Nonverbal behaviour In addition to physical appearance, we also use people s nonverbal behaviour that is, actions separate from speech as an indication of their inner feelings. A large body of research suggests that people can accurately identify from facial expressions at least the basic emotions of happiness, surprise, sadness, anger, disgust, and fear. Furthermore, the display of these emotions is universal across cultures, and observers who live in very different cultures identify them with high degrees of accuracy. 1

10 Centre for Distance Education 4.2 Acharya Nagarjuna University On the other hand, people do not invariably show what they are feeling. For instance, people in Asian countries tend to be more restrained in their facial display of emotions than people in Western cultures. Similarly, some research indicates that, in the United State, Caucasians show more restrained emotionality than African Americans, and people living in southern climates are viewed as more emotionally expressive than those living in northern climates. The reason for these differences is that members of various cultural, racial, and ethnic groups hold different display rules, guidelines that govern the appropriateness of nonverbal shows of emotion. Learned during childhood from parents, peers, and the media, display rules may minimize, exaggerate, or mask emotional expressions. Although they may reduce our accuracy in interpreting the true meaning of others nonverbal behaviour, display rules greatly facilitate social interaction. For instance, by learning not to display our actual emotions upon receiving disappointing gifts, we avoid insulting gift givers and thereby preserve our relationship with them. However, people are not invariably able to mask their true feelings, and they may emit subtle, and sometimes perceptible, indications that give their actual emotions away a process called leakage. For instance, there is a slight difference in the specific muscles that are employed to display true and sham smiles, and observers are sometimes able to discern from facial expressions when others are being truthful or deceptive. In addition to facial expressions, other kinds of nonverbal behaviour are sources of information about others. For example, body language, and in particular the gestures that accompany speech, provide data that we use to develop inferences about others. Unlike the basic facial expressions, which observers interpret in fairly similar ways across cultures, gestures have quite different meanings from one culture to another. For example, in North America people interpret the A-OK gesture in very positive terms, meaning everything s great. In contrast, in many other cultures the gesture represents the female sexual anatomy. In Greece, for instance, if a male uses the sign when interacting with a female, it is viewed as sexual proposition. If he gestures in the same way during a conversation with another male, it is considered an insult to the recipient s masculinity. Clearly, the meaning of gestures can differ significantly across cultures Cognitive Math Although such features as appearance and nonverbal behaviour provide clues regarding the personality and character of others, the bits of information are like pieces of an incomplete puzzle, randomly strewn about a tabletop. How do people take these individual pieces and combine them into a full, complete picture? How, in other words, do we form an overall impression of others based on the bits and pieces of cognitive data that we are able to collect? This question has been asked throughout the history of social psychology, and it has received many different answers. One of the first responses came almost years ago, when social psychologist Solomon Asch argued that certain personal attributes, which he termed central traits, played an unusually influential role in determining a general impression. Central traits are characteristics that serve to organize an impression of another person and provide a framework for interpreting other information about that person. 2

11 Social Psychology 4.3 Impression Formation and Information The notion of central traits was not to go unchallenged as the field of social psychology developed. The most immediate disagreement resulted from what has been called the cognitive algebra approach, which argues that perceivers consider each individual trait; evaluate each trait individually, in isolation from the others; and then combine their evaluations into an overall judgment. In this procedure, the meaning of the individual traits is relatively fixed and does not change in response to any other traits that are present. For instance, suppose we encounter a person who appears adventurous and bold, but unintelligent. If we assign values to each trait, we simply combine those values together to form an overall judgment. The positive traits adventurous and bold add to the final impression; the negative trait unintelligent subtracts from it. However, the value of each trait doesn t change as a result of the presence or absence of others. The relative merits of the cognitive algebra and central trait views were hotly debated by social psychologists, and the two approaches became increasingly refined. For instance, cognitive algebra theorists found that our impressions of others are more accurate when we consider the importance of each piece of information. Furthermore, negative information is usually weighted more heavily than positive information. Consequently, a supposedly balanced letter of recommendation that contains equal amounts of positive and negative information about a graduate school applicant is likely to produce an overall negative impression of the applicant. However, neither the cognitive algebra view nor the central trait view emerged as predominant, as it became increasingly clear that neither approach provided a complete account of impression formation. Still, these two approaches generated a considerable amount of research. For instance, they helped explain the puzzling phenomenon that the order in which we receive information about a person influences our ultimate overall impression Order Effects Does it matter whether we initially learn that another person is intelligent, industrious, impulsive, critical, stubborn and envious, or learn the same information but in the reverse order? Although logically it shouldn t matter, the reality is different. According to Asch, people who hear the list with the more positive attributes first form a more positive impression than those who hear it in the reverse order. This finding is consistent with subsequent research, which has shown a strong and pervasive primacy effect in the influence that information has on the recipient. A primacy effect occurs when early information has a stronger impact than later information. Primacy effects are found not only in the realm of traits, but even when a single dimension of behaviour varies over time. For instance, consider school performance. Which ultimately leaves a better impression: doing better initially in class and then declining, or starting off poorly and improving? Experimental results are clear in illustrating a primacy effect: the earliest information plays the dominant role in determining the ultimate evaluation. On the other hand, recency effects, in which later information is given more weight than earlier information, occasionally occur. For example, people who are strongly motivated to pay attention to incoming information are likely to weight later information more heavily. Similarly, if the time span between the receipt of initial and later information is great enough, primacy effects are reduced and recency effects occur. Why are we susceptible to primacy and recency effects? One answer is that we often pay less attention to information as tie goes on. Consequently, as the amount of information we have 3

12 Centre for Distance Education 4.4 Acharya Nagarjuna University available increases, we focus on it less closely, even if it contradicts earlier information. In addition, primacy effects are consistent with Asch s speculation that information received earlier influences our perception of the meaning of additional information. For example, when we first learn that a person is envious, and hear only later that she is intelligent, the information takes on a less positive meaning than if we had initially learned about her intelligence. The existence of both primacy and recency effects suggests that the cognitive algebra approach does not provide a complete account of social cognition. Clearly, if perceivers were simply weighing individual traits and combining them in a mathematical fashion, the order in which the traits were presented would make no difference. Furthermore, neither the central trait nor the cognitive algebra approach fully considers how people uncover the causes of others behaviour, nor how they categorize and organize traits in their own minds Impression management Almost everyone wishes to make a good impression on others when meeting them for the first time. To make a good impression is often to gain social and material rewards, to feel better about ourselves, even to become more secure in our social identities. As a result, many persons engage in fairly elaborate tactics of self-presentation or impression management in such contexts. For example, they flatter others, pretend to agree with them about various issues, or feign great interest in what they are saying all in an attempt to create a favourable first impression. Not surprisingly, persons who are skilled in self-presentation often make better first impressions on others than persons who are less adept in this regard. For example, in one recent study, the higher subjects scored on a measure of this particular social skill, the more they were liked by two accomplices who engaged them in a brief conversation. For some people, making a good impression is a way of life. By continually monitoring their own behaviour and noting how others react, they adjust their social performance when it is not having the desired effect. Those who score high on a scale of self-monitoring tendency act like social chameleons they adjust their behaviour to the situation, they are more likely to espouse an attitude they don t really hold. Being conscious of others, they are less likely to act on their own attitudes. For high self- monitors, attitudes therefore serve a social adjustment function; they help these people adapt to new jobs, roles and relationships. Those who score low in self-monitoring care less about what others think. They are more internally guided and thus more likely to talk and act as they feel and believe. Most of us fall somewhere between the high self-monitoring extreme of the con artist and low self-monitoring extreme of stubborn insensitivity to others. While skillful self-presentation often involves tactics, it may also rest, to an important degree, on the effective use of nonverbal cues. Certain facial expressions, patterns of eye contact, and specific body postures or movements convey liking or positive reactions to others. Persons who are successful at self-presentation seem to be well aware of this fact. Thus, they often seek to manage such impressions by controlling their own nonverbal behaviour. While interacting with target persons, they smile frequently, learn forward, maintain a high level of eye contact, and nod in agreement on many occasions. The result: they often succeed in producing positive first impressions. Of course, a high level of nonverbal expressiveness is not always the result of calculated efforts to curry favour with others. Individuals vary greatly on this dimension, so that some are simply more expressive than others, quite apart from any overt efforts at selfpresentation. In general, such expressiveness seems to be a plus: persons high on this 4

13 Social Psychology 4.5 Impression Formation and Information dimension generally receive more favourable ratings than persons low on this dimension when meeting others for the first time. Despite such large individual differences, though, the emission of many positive nonverbal cues is often a conscious tactic, employed by specific persons to enhance their impression on others. Reliance on such tactics is visible in many different contexts, ranging from blind dates on the one hand through customer-salesperson interactions on the other. But perhaps their impact is most apparent and also most disturbing in formal interviews. Many studies have been conducted to examine the impact of nonverbal cues in such settings, and in general results have been consistent: applicants for various jobs or positions who demonstrate high levels of positive nonverbal cues receive better ratings from interviewers than ones who shoe lower levels of such cues. Additional evidence indicates, however, that where the use of nonverbal cues during interviews is concerned, there can often be too much of a good thing. First, when applicants lay it on too thick and demonstrate too many positive nonverbal cues, they may arouse negative reactions on the part of interviewers, who come to realize that they are being misled or manipulated. Second, it appears that a high level of nonverbal cues will exert positive effects upon the ratings received by applicants only when they also possess relatively good qualifications for the job in question. Therefore, too many efforts at impression management via positive nonverbal cues can often be as bad as too few Summary People use superficial clues to form judgments about what others are like. Physical attractiveness also contributes powerfully to people s judgments of others. In addition to physical appearance, we also use people s nonverbal behaviour as an indication of their inner feelings. A skillful self-presentation often involves tactics and depends, to an important degree, on the effective use of nonverbal cues. However, too many efforts at impression management via positive nonverbal cues can often be as bad as too few Technical terms Impression formation Impression management Nonverbal communication the process of forming judgments about what others are like efforts by individuals to present themselves in the most favourable light to others Communication between individuals that does not involve the content of spoken language 4.5. Model Questions 1. What are the factors, which contribute to impression formation? 2. How important is self-monitoring for impression management? 4.6. Reference Books Baron, R. A., & Byrne, D. (1987). Social Psychology. London: McGraw-Hill. Myers, D.G. (1993). Social Psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill. 5

14 Social Psychology 5.1 Social Cognition LESSON Objectives SOCIAL COGNITION 1. To have an idea of the basic aspects of social thought. 2. To know about the potential sources of errors in social cognition. 3. To understand how thought shapes feelings and feelings shape thought. Structure 5.1 Basic aspects of social cognition Self schemata Person schemata and role schemata Event schemata 5.2 Potential sources of errors in social cognition The representativeness heuristic Base-rate fallacy Availability heuristic Confirmation Biases 5.3 Affect and cognition: how thought shapes feelings and feelings shape thought. 5.4 Summary 5.5 Technical Terms 5.6 Model Questions 5.7 Reference Books 5.1. Basic aspects of social cognition Social cognition is the study of how people interpret, analyze, remember and use information about the social world. One of the main concepts in social cognition is schema. A schema is an organized collection of one s beliefs and feelings about something. Stereotypes, preconceptions, and generalizations are schemata. The mind organizes its contents very carefully and elaborately. Schemata are what the mind uses to organize the wealth of its information about the world. There are many types of schemata, including self-schemata, person schemata, role schemata and event schemata Self schemata The self is in part a schema that helps us process information. The self is something that helps us interpret certain events and understand their implications. Self-schema is a powerful factor in the way people understand their social world. Events that bear on the self attract more attention, produce more thought, and are remembered better than other events. 1

15 Centre for Distance Education 5.2 Acharya Nagarjuna University Person schemata and role schemata Obviously, the self is not the only person about whom an organized impression is formed. For each person whom we know well, we have a person schema that organizes what we know and feel about this individual. Sometimes a person will behave in a way that surprises you, even though that same behaviour would not be so surprising if done by someone else. We also have role schemata, or organized sets of expectations about how people in certain roles are supposed to act Event schemata Organized beliefs about the normal or typical course of events in various familiar situations are called event schemata or scripts. These schemata enable us to know in advance what will happen when we go take an exam, get a haircut, or go on a picnic. Event schemata can often be quite specific and elaborate. Schema affects three main cognitive processes: attention, encoding and retrieval. Attention refers to what you notice. Encoding refers to what gets stored in memory. Retrieval refers to what actually gets remembered later on. A basic principle is that some information gets lost during each of these processes. You notice only a small part of the world that confronts you; you encode only a small part of what you notice; and you retrieve only part of what was previously stored in your memory. Another way to think of this loss of information is that each of the three processes requires selection among all the possible things that could be noticed, encoded, and retrieved. This selection is not random. Rather, the mind has ways of choosing what to notice and remember. This is where schemata enter the picture. Schemata guide the selective processing of social information. Schemata are among the mind s main weapons for coping with information overload. But schemata do not operate simply as cognitive filters. In addition, they play a more active role, changing or distorting incoming information, filling in gaps in such input, and, in general, shaping our comprehension of the social world. Attention comes before encoding and retrieval; obviously, you cannot remember something you never noticed in the first place. Attention is also the hardest of the three processes to study, because it is difficult for a researcher to know whether something was never noticed or was noticed but forgotten. For this reason, we know less about attention than about encoding and retrieval. Still, there is some evidence about how schemata guide attention. A schema tells you what to expect, and things that violate these expectations may stand out. On the other hand, another possible effect of schemata on attention is that the person will ignore whatever does not fit the schema. Not everything that is noticed gets stored in memory. Attention does not lead to encoding in all cases. Instead, much information goes in one ear and out the other. Schemata are a powerful influence over what gets encoded. In general, then, schemata work, as guides as to what should be stored in memory. In many cases you encode whatever information fits your schema best. Sometimes, though, information that clearly or obviously contradicts your schema gets encoded. 2

16 Social Psychology 5.3 Social Cognition Finally, schemata affect what is retrieved from memory on a particular occasion. Out of all the information you have encoded in memory, your mind will select some and distort some in order to fit whatever schema is active at the moment Potential sources of errors in social cognition Although schemas play a central role in the ways we organize our social world, they have their drawbacks. People may act like cognitive misers due to restrictions in their information and may unwittingly value efficiency over accuracy in the ways they come to judgments. Clearly, reliance on schemas may lead people to view the social world in an inaccurate and biased manner. Several other factors related to schemas can also lead to errors in our perception of others The representativeness heuristic Representativeness heuristic is a rule we apply when we judge people by the degree to which they represent a certain category. Although the representativeness heuristic can often be helpful in guiding our judgments of others, it can also lead us astray. In particular, it can lead us to ignore other information that might help us make accurate judgments Base-rate fallacy The reason that most people make the wrong choice is that they ignore base-rate information. Base-rate information is data regarding the frequency with which some event occurs in the general population. Although the use of base-rate information should increase judgmental accuracy, people often ignore it. Disregarding base-rate data is a result of a bias known as the base-rate fallacy. The base-rate fallacy is the tendency to underemphasize base-rate data because of the influence of more prominent, although ultimately less meaningful, information. Base-rate information, then, can help us make more accurate conclusions. This is not true, however, if the information is inaccurate Availability heuristic This is a rule we apply in judging the likelihood of an event by considering the ease with which it can be recalled from memory. The availability heuristic can easily skew our perception of what others believe. Indeed, the tendency to believe that others share our views, generated from the availability heuristic, is so powerful that it can produce another bias: the false consensus effect. The false consensus effect is the tendency to overestimate the degree of agreement for our own opinions, beliefs, and attributes. One reason may be that people want to believe others agree with them, because this belief provides evidence that their own behaviour or choices are reasonable. But there are additional reasons for the effect. For instance, we often remember examples of people who agree with us more readily than examples of people who disagree. Because instances of agreement are easier to recall, we are misled into thinking that more people hold our position than is actually the case. We choose our friends on the basis of similarity of attitudes, beliefs and values. As a result, we are exposed more often to instances of agreement with our positions than with 3

17 Centre for Distance Education 5.4 Acharya Nagarjuna University instances of disagreement. Consequently, we overestimate the degree of agreement in the general population with our particular position leading to the false consensus effect. A variety of additional biases also cloud our views of the social world. For instance, we sometimes view our successes and failures in the social world not just in terms of their current consequences, but also in relation to alternative scenarios that might have occurred had events been different. These alternative hypothetical scenarios may lead us to be unhappy with events that are, objectively, quite positive Confirmation Biases Our tendency to ask questions designed to confirm our beliefs, rather than contradict them, is an example of the conformation bias. Confirmation biases reflect the tendency to seek out, interpret, or formulate information that is consistent with one s current beliefs. Confirmation biases not only colour our judgments of the world, but also can actually produce behaviour in others that reflects those judgments. Once we form expectations about what other people are like, our expectations influence the kinds of interactions we subsequently have with them. In fact, confirmatory hypothesis testing is prevalent, even among those trained to avoid it. On the other hand, sometimes people are sufficiently motivated to be accurate so that they overcome their tendencies to seek confirmatory evidence and instead seek information that is more reliable. Still, people s initial hypotheses about what another person is like can frequently lead them to wrong conclusions. In some cases, confirmation biases are so strong that perceivers are not only victims. Specifically, in certain cases, the perception of reality that we construct takes on a life of its own, as our expectations about the world are transmitted to others and affect their behaviour Affect and cognition: How thought shapes feelings and feelings shape thought Feelings play a role in social cognition. Emotional states affect our judgment and our memory processes. An influential theory of emotion was originally proposed by Schachter and Singer. According to this theory, emotion has two components: bodily arousal and cognitive label. The arousal part is largely the same for all emotions. A pounding heart, a warm and flushed face, and a few tears could apply equally well to someone experiencing anger, distress, or joy. The cognitive label comes from interpreting the situation. One important implication of Schachter s theory is that it is possible to switch emotions by changing the label. Switching works best with similar emotions and with people who may be uncertain of what they are feeling. It may not work at all with very dissimilar or unambiguous emotions. A current debate in social psychology concerns whether cognition is a necessary part of emotion. Schachter s theory clearly included cognition as part of emotion. Zajonc, however, argues that people form emotional preferences they cannot explain and may scarcely be aware of. He concludes that some emotions occur without cognitive processes. Lazarus disagrees with Zajonc, claiming that a certain amount of interpretation is always involved in emotion. Probably this disagreement arises from different meanings of the word emotion. Zajonc thinks of emotion very broadly, as something similar to mood states. He claims that everyone is always in some 4