Groups engage in all different kinds of tasks, with outcomes differing depending on how much effort the group puts in. However, the type of task can also have an effect on the outcome. Ivan Steiner (1972) identified three different types of tasks that groups engage in: additive tasks, conjunctive tasks, and disjunctive tasks. In additive tasks, the outcome depends on the sum of the effort and performance of all the members of the group. In conjunctive tasks, the group can only perform as well as the member with the poorest performance. In disjunctive tasks, the performance of the group can be determined by the group member with the best performance. Steiner (1972) also identified something called process loss, which can occur when group work interferes with performance. For example, process loss would occur in a situation where an individual would be able to perform better by his or herself and is actually hindered by working in a group.
The first thing that comes to my mind when thinking about group tasks and process loss is music. When I was in high school I played electric guitar in several bands. Most consistently, I played electric guitar in the worship band at my church. Playing live music is very much a disjunctive group task, because the band is only as good as its weakest member. For instance, if one person has trouble learning the music, then the rest of the band can't move on with practice until that person has learned the music. The band depends on everyone, and even a band composed of great musicians can be brought down by one member that struggles. We often had the same person have trouble learning music while we were practicing, which could get frustrating at times. I experienced being the weak member myself one time when I was asked to fill in for a band that had great musicians in it. I was definitely not as good of a musician as the rest of the guys, and on top of that I didn't know their music, which caused me to be even more behind. I could definitely see how my slow progress in learning the music slowed the whole band down.
Process loss can also be seen in music, especially in the writing process. I was able to record on three CD's while in high school and during the summer before I came into college. Writing music in a group can be sometimes be good, but it often ends up being pretty frustrating. It seems great at first because you get a chance to bounce ideas off other musicians, but it then becomes easier and easier to fall into social loafing, a concept that Latane (1979) defined as the effect that occurs when members of a group begin to slack and exert less effort. This would often occur as we would be trying to write in a group, and eventually these sessions would end with us deciding to all come up with our own ideas separately and then come together at another time. We eventually found that it worked better when we came together with ideas that we had come up with individually so that we could then have something to work with and merge our ideas together.
References
Latane, B., Williams, K., & Harkins, S. (1979). Many hands make light work: The causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 822-832.
Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group Processes and Productivity. New York: Academic Press.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Bill Clinton vs. Steve martin
We are always trying to make sense of the world around us. We try to make sense of things like events, situations, and people all of the time. This is especially true when making judgments of other people. Fritz Heider (1958) first proposed that we are all scientists that make judgments about the world around us by taking in information, analyzing it, and making a judgment. The theory behind this is called attribution theory because it says that the explanations that we come up with are called attributions. Attribution theorists seek to understand people's perceptions of behavior rather than that actual cause of the behavior.
There are two types of attributions that people use to explain other people's behavior: situational attributions and personal attributions (Heider, 1958). Situational attributions are made about people when we explain their behavior by saying that it was provoked because of situational factors and was not due to their actual personality. Personal attributions are made when we explain behavior as being due to personality rather than situational factors. In other words, situational attributions are made when we think that the behavior is isolated to the certain situation, and personal attributions are made when we think a person will behave in a certain way across all situations.
Several different attribution theories have been developed such Jones's Correspondant Inference Theory and Kelley's Covariation Theory. Jones's theory states that we try to figure out whether or not people's actions correspond with personal characteristics by looking at three different factors: degree of choice in the behavior, expectedness of the behavior, and the intended effects of the behavior (Jones & Davis, 1965). Kelley's theory states that people seek to explain behavior by using consensus information to see how others act in the same situation, distinctiveness information to see how the same person acts in other situations, and consistency information to see how the person acts in the same situation at a different time (Kelley, 1967).
Although it is convenient to think that all of our attributions can be made by taking in information, analyzing it, and making a decision, it doesn't always work that way. We have distractors all around us that prevent us from being able to devote enough time to going through all of these steps, not to mention the fact that many of us are too lazy to go through all of these steps when making an attribution about someone. Because of this, we have to take shortcuts, and we sometimes make mistakes because of what are known as attribution biases. The shortcuts that we use are called cognitive heuristics (Gilovich et al.; 2002, Kahneman et al., 1982; Nisbett & Ross, 1980). One such heuristic that is commonly used is the availability heuristic. The availability heuristic occurs when we estimate the likelihood of something happening based on how easily we can come with instances in which it has happened. Tversky and Kahneman (1973) demonstrated this by asking participants of their study which was more common, words that start with the letter r or words that have the letter r as the third letter. Most people said that there are more words that begin with r, however, that is not the case. This was a classic example of people being able to come up with more instances of one situation than another.
In order to demonstrate this concept myself, I decided to try to get people to fall into the availability heuristic. I did some research and found two famous people with pretty high, but equal IQ's. The people that I chose were Bill Clinton and Steve Martin who both have IQ's very close to 140. I decided that I was going to show people pictures of Clinton and Martin and have them decide which one they thought had a higher IQ. I figured that people would be able to come up with more instances of Bill Clinton acting in a way more closely related to having a higher IQ (as he was president of the United States) and that people would be able to come up with less instances of Steve Martin acting in a way more closely related to having a higher IQ (as most of his stand up routines and movies portray him acting very goofy).
The results came out mostly in the way that I expected them to. Four out of the five people I interviewed in the video said that Bill Clinton had a higher IQ than Steve Martin, even though they both have the same IQ. The one person that chose Steve Martin said he chose him because he did not like Bill Clinton. Most of the people said that they chose Bill Clinton because he was a president, which makes me think that they chose him because of the availability heuristic. None of the people had seen the pictures beforehand, and all of them were forced to make a quick decision based simply on a face and a name. They were forced to come up with whatever information about the person that they could and then make a judgment based on that information. I believe that most people chose Bill Clinton because they more readily thought of him as a president and associated that with a higher IQ and that they thought of Steve Martin as a comedian and associated that with a lower IQ.
References
Gilovitch, T., Griffin, D., & Kahneman, D. (Eds.). (2002). Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.
Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. (1965). From acts to dispositions: The attribution process in person perception. Advances in Experimental Psychology, 2, 219-266.
Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (Eds.) (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kelley, H. H. Attribution in social psychology. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 15, 192-238.
Nisbett, R. E., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgement. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 207-232.
There are two types of attributions that people use to explain other people's behavior: situational attributions and personal attributions (Heider, 1958). Situational attributions are made about people when we explain their behavior by saying that it was provoked because of situational factors and was not due to their actual personality. Personal attributions are made when we explain behavior as being due to personality rather than situational factors. In other words, situational attributions are made when we think that the behavior is isolated to the certain situation, and personal attributions are made when we think a person will behave in a certain way across all situations.
Several different attribution theories have been developed such Jones's Correspondant Inference Theory and Kelley's Covariation Theory. Jones's theory states that we try to figure out whether or not people's actions correspond with personal characteristics by looking at three different factors: degree of choice in the behavior, expectedness of the behavior, and the intended effects of the behavior (Jones & Davis, 1965). Kelley's theory states that people seek to explain behavior by using consensus information to see how others act in the same situation, distinctiveness information to see how the same person acts in other situations, and consistency information to see how the person acts in the same situation at a different time (Kelley, 1967).
Although it is convenient to think that all of our attributions can be made by taking in information, analyzing it, and making a decision, it doesn't always work that way. We have distractors all around us that prevent us from being able to devote enough time to going through all of these steps, not to mention the fact that many of us are too lazy to go through all of these steps when making an attribution about someone. Because of this, we have to take shortcuts, and we sometimes make mistakes because of what are known as attribution biases. The shortcuts that we use are called cognitive heuristics (Gilovich et al.; 2002, Kahneman et al., 1982; Nisbett & Ross, 1980). One such heuristic that is commonly used is the availability heuristic. The availability heuristic occurs when we estimate the likelihood of something happening based on how easily we can come with instances in which it has happened. Tversky and Kahneman (1973) demonstrated this by asking participants of their study which was more common, words that start with the letter r or words that have the letter r as the third letter. Most people said that there are more words that begin with r, however, that is not the case. This was a classic example of people being able to come up with more instances of one situation than another.
In order to demonstrate this concept myself, I decided to try to get people to fall into the availability heuristic. I did some research and found two famous people with pretty high, but equal IQ's. The people that I chose were Bill Clinton and Steve Martin who both have IQ's very close to 140. I decided that I was going to show people pictures of Clinton and Martin and have them decide which one they thought had a higher IQ. I figured that people would be able to come up with more instances of Bill Clinton acting in a way more closely related to having a higher IQ (as he was president of the United States) and that people would be able to come up with less instances of Steve Martin acting in a way more closely related to having a higher IQ (as most of his stand up routines and movies portray him acting very goofy).
The results came out mostly in the way that I expected them to. Four out of the five people I interviewed in the video said that Bill Clinton had a higher IQ than Steve Martin, even though they both have the same IQ. The one person that chose Steve Martin said he chose him because he did not like Bill Clinton. Most of the people said that they chose Bill Clinton because he was a president, which makes me think that they chose him because of the availability heuristic. None of the people had seen the pictures beforehand, and all of them were forced to make a quick decision based simply on a face and a name. They were forced to come up with whatever information about the person that they could and then make a judgment based on that information. I believe that most people chose Bill Clinton because they more readily thought of him as a president and associated that with a higher IQ and that they thought of Steve Martin as a comedian and associated that with a lower IQ.
References
Gilovitch, T., Griffin, D., & Kahneman, D. (Eds.). (2002). Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.
Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. (1965). From acts to dispositions: The attribution process in person perception. Advances in Experimental Psychology, 2, 219-266.
Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (Eds.) (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kelley, H. H. Attribution in social psychology. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 15, 192-238.
Nisbett, R. E., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgement. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 207-232.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
The Norm of Reciprocity
As much as i like to think of myself as a strong-willed individual who doesn't easily allow others to influence me, I fall prey to compliance pretty often. Compliance is a kind of social influence where people alter their behavior because of direct requests. There are many ways to go about trying to elicit compliance in others, but sometimes they will do the work for you because of a rule of social behavior called the norm of reciprocity. The norm of reciprocity is otherwise known as the golden rule. It states that we treat others in the same way that they have treated us (Gouldner, 1960).
The norm of reciprocity can take affect without being purposefully elicited such as when someone feels compelled to go out of their way to return a favor for someone who has done something for them. However, it can also be used in a negative way when others use it against us. They can do this by doing small favors for us simply to get us to do something for them. Greenberg and Westcott (1983) defined people who use the norm of reciprocity to elicit compliance from others as "creditors". A questionnaire that measures reciprocation ideology can be used to identify these types of people. At the opposite end of the spectrum, there are those that are very suspicious of others and will try to not allow others to do favors for them so that there is no way that they can be exploited. A scale that measures reciprocation weariness can be used to measure this trait (Eisenberger et al, 1987).
Now, back to how I can sometimes fall prey to compliance. The times that I fall prey to compliance seem to always happen because of the norm of reciprocity. It only takes affect in certain situations for me, though. If I am dealing with someone that I do not like or that I am meeting for the first time and don't have a good impression of, then I will usually be very suspicious of them and I will try to not let them do me any favors. And, if they do give me something or do me a favor I don't feel compelled to pay them back. However, if I am dealing with someone that I like or that I want to like me then I will always feel compelled to pay them back. For example, last semester my fraternity sold some tickets to an event and a lot of my friends bought tickets and came. Later on in the semester, though, I saw that some of those same friends were selling tickets to an event for their fraternity. Fortunately they didn't try to elicit compliance from me by bringing up the fact that they bought tickets from me. However, I still felt compelled to buy tickets from them to repay them. I went over to the table and found out that the event was going to be on a day when I would not be able to go to it, but because I felt like a needed to repay them I bought a ticket anyway. I felt stupid for buying a ticket to something that I couldn't go to, but I used justification by telling myself that a large amount of the money was going to charity, which helped me feel a little better. I am hoping that learning about these principles of social influence will help me in the future to stay out of these kinds of situations.
References
Eisenberger, R., Cotterell, N., & Marvel, J. (1987). Reciprocation ideology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 743-750.
Gouldner, A. W. (1969). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161-178.
Greenberg, M. S., & Westcott, D. R. (1983). Indebtedness as a mediator of reactions to aid. In J. D. Fisher, A. Nadler, & B. M. DePaulo (Eds.) New directions in helping: Col. 1 Recipient reactions to aid (pp. 85-112). New York: Academic Press.
The norm of reciprocity can take affect without being purposefully elicited such as when someone feels compelled to go out of their way to return a favor for someone who has done something for them. However, it can also be used in a negative way when others use it against us. They can do this by doing small favors for us simply to get us to do something for them. Greenberg and Westcott (1983) defined people who use the norm of reciprocity to elicit compliance from others as "creditors". A questionnaire that measures reciprocation ideology can be used to identify these types of people. At the opposite end of the spectrum, there are those that are very suspicious of others and will try to not allow others to do favors for them so that there is no way that they can be exploited. A scale that measures reciprocation weariness can be used to measure this trait (Eisenberger et al, 1987).
Now, back to how I can sometimes fall prey to compliance. The times that I fall prey to compliance seem to always happen because of the norm of reciprocity. It only takes affect in certain situations for me, though. If I am dealing with someone that I do not like or that I am meeting for the first time and don't have a good impression of, then I will usually be very suspicious of them and I will try to not let them do me any favors. And, if they do give me something or do me a favor I don't feel compelled to pay them back. However, if I am dealing with someone that I like or that I want to like me then I will always feel compelled to pay them back. For example, last semester my fraternity sold some tickets to an event and a lot of my friends bought tickets and came. Later on in the semester, though, I saw that some of those same friends were selling tickets to an event for their fraternity. Fortunately they didn't try to elicit compliance from me by bringing up the fact that they bought tickets from me. However, I still felt compelled to buy tickets from them to repay them. I went over to the table and found out that the event was going to be on a day when I would not be able to go to it, but because I felt like a needed to repay them I bought a ticket anyway. I felt stupid for buying a ticket to something that I couldn't go to, but I used justification by telling myself that a large amount of the money was going to charity, which helped me feel a little better. I am hoping that learning about these principles of social influence will help me in the future to stay out of these kinds of situations.
References
Eisenberger, R., Cotterell, N., & Marvel, J. (1987). Reciprocation ideology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 743-750.
Gouldner, A. W. (1969). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161-178.
Greenberg, M. S., & Westcott, D. R. (1983). Indebtedness as a mediator of reactions to aid. In J. D. Fisher, A. Nadler, & B. M. DePaulo (Eds.) New directions in helping: Col. 1 Recipient reactions to aid (pp. 85-112). New York: Academic Press.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Cognitive Dissonance
Fesinger's (1957) Cognitive Dissonance Theory has been one of the most popular theories in psychology. It is so popular that I had actually heard of it before ever even taking a psychology class, which is more than I can say for any of the other theories I've studied in psychology. Festinger's theory works upon the belief that people are consistency-seekers. In other words, people want their behavior and their attitudes to match up. The theory states that when a person carries out an action or behavior that does not match up with their attitudes, then that person will tend to change their attitudes in order to match up with their behavior. So, instead of the person's attitudes affecting their behavior, their behavior is affecting their attitudes. There are, of course, conditions that are necessary for this to take place. According the Cooper and Fazio (1984) four conditions are necessary: the behavior must produce unwanted consequences, they must feel personal responsibility for the unpleasant outcomes of the behavior, , they must feel physiological arousal, and a person must make an attribution for that arousal to his or her own behavior.
I just recently witnessed a friend of mine experience cognitive dissonance. And I'll attempt to analyze it using the theory. I have a pair of shoes that I have had since my junior year in high school that I still wear all the time. They are Vans slip-on shoes and my friend thinks they are are a stupid type of shoe so he always makes fun of me for wearing them. Recently he bought a pair of shoes exactly like them, saying that he bought them for functional reasons. We both do slacklining (an activity like tight rope walking where you tie a line between two trees and walk across it) and he said that he wanted a pair of flat-bottomed shoes so he wouldn't have to go barefoot all of the time. He said he would only wear the shoes while slacklining and not any other time. When I saw that he bought them I guaranteed him that he would start wearing them all the time because they are so comfortable, but he assured me that he wouldn't. Recently, though, he has started wearing them all the time. When I brought it up to him he told me that he always liked the shoes and that he was just messing with me before. So, his attitude was that the type of shoes was stupid, and his behavior was that he started wearing the shoes, which caused dissonance. Therefore, he had to make a change in order to get rid of the dissonance, so he changed his attitude and said that he liked the shoes all along. Its kind of a stupid story, but I think my friend illustrates cognitive dissonance well.
References
Cooper, J, & Fazio, R. H. (1984). A new look at dissonance theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (vol 17, pp. 229-267). New Yoir: Academic Press.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
I just recently witnessed a friend of mine experience cognitive dissonance. And I'll attempt to analyze it using the theory. I have a pair of shoes that I have had since my junior year in high school that I still wear all the time. They are Vans slip-on shoes and my friend thinks they are are a stupid type of shoe so he always makes fun of me for wearing them. Recently he bought a pair of shoes exactly like them, saying that he bought them for functional reasons. We both do slacklining (an activity like tight rope walking where you tie a line between two trees and walk across it) and he said that he wanted a pair of flat-bottomed shoes so he wouldn't have to go barefoot all of the time. He said he would only wear the shoes while slacklining and not any other time. When I saw that he bought them I guaranteed him that he would start wearing them all the time because they are so comfortable, but he assured me that he wouldn't. Recently, though, he has started wearing them all the time. When I brought it up to him he told me that he always liked the shoes and that he was just messing with me before. So, his attitude was that the type of shoes was stupid, and his behavior was that he started wearing the shoes, which caused dissonance. Therefore, he had to make a change in order to get rid of the dissonance, so he changed his attitude and said that he liked the shoes all along. Its kind of a stupid story, but I think my friend illustrates cognitive dissonance well.
References
Cooper, J, & Fazio, R. H. (1984). A new look at dissonance theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (vol 17, pp. 229-267). New Yoir: Academic Press.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
The effectiveness of persuasion is very much dependent on the source of the information. Sources with high credibility are more persuasive than low-credibility sources (Pornpitakpan, 2004). In order for us to count a source as credible, they must be seen as being competent or having expertise, and they must be trustworthy (Hass, 1981). Therefore, the way that we interpret information is very much affected by the source that we are getting the information from.
Although the sources of our information very much affect how we interpret the information, the actual information itself is more important than the source. According to Pratkanis et al. (1988) we remember messages but we forget the source that they came from. This causes the sleeper effect to occur. The sleeper effect refers to the delayed impact of persuasion from sources that we find to be non-credible. So, in the long run, messages stay prominent in our minds but sources fade away. Recent research has shown that the sleeper effect is reliable as long as people receive information before learning who the source is (Kumkale & Albarracin, 2004). So, if someone hears a message and then hears the source, then the message will tend to remain while the source that it came from will fade. However, if the source is learned first, it will be immediately judged as credible or non-credible, and the information will be interpreted based on that judgment.
I can remember times in high school when I experienced the sleeper effect. My mom had a friend that liked to gossip a lot about things that were going on at my high school. For the purposes of the story, let's call her Lisa. I had a bit of a problem with Lisa and I definitely counted her as a non-credible source of information. I would often hear things from Lisa or my mom would tell me things that she said, and I would usually count them as being non-credible and dismiss the information. However, I can remember many times when I would find myself remembering information that I had heard from somewhere, but not being able to figure out where it came from and having a hard time deciding whether it was good information or not.
Looking back on it now, I think that I was probably experiencing the sleeper effect. I counted my mom as a credible source, but I did not count Lisa as a credible source. I know that my mom would often mention things to me in different ways. Sometimes she would say things like, "Lisa told me..." and then give me some information that I would dismiss because I knew it was coming from Lisa. Other times, though, my mom would just tell me things, and then I would ask her where the information came from after she had already told me. This is why I think I had a hard time figuring out where I got different bits of information from. Those bit of information presented before hearing who the source was would stay prominent in my memory while the source would fade.
Eventually, I began to just tell my mom that I didn't want to hear anything if it was coming from Lisa's mouth. For this reason, actually, I began to hate gossip more than anything. I actually begged my mom to stop being friends with Lisa. It is interesting, though, to look back and realize how, even though I dismissed Lisa as a source, the information that came from her still managed to persevere in my mind sometimes.
References
Hass, R. G. (1981). Effects of source characteristics on the cognitive processing of persuasive messages and attitude change. In R. Petty, T. Ostrom, & T. Brock (Eds.), Cognitive responses in persuasion (pp. 141-171). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kumkale, G. T., & Albarracin, D. (2004). The sleeper effect in persuasion: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 130, (143-172).
Pornpitakpan, C. (2004). The persuasiveness of source credibility: A critical review of five decades' evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 243-281
Pratkanis, A. R., Greenwald, A. G., Leippe, M. R., & Baumgardner, M. H. (1988). In search of reliable persuasion effects: III. The sleeper effect is dead. Long live the sleeper effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 203-218.
Although the sources of our information very much affect how we interpret the information, the actual information itself is more important than the source. According to Pratkanis et al. (1988) we remember messages but we forget the source that they came from. This causes the sleeper effect to occur. The sleeper effect refers to the delayed impact of persuasion from sources that we find to be non-credible. So, in the long run, messages stay prominent in our minds but sources fade away. Recent research has shown that the sleeper effect is reliable as long as people receive information before learning who the source is (Kumkale & Albarracin, 2004). So, if someone hears a message and then hears the source, then the message will tend to remain while the source that it came from will fade. However, if the source is learned first, it will be immediately judged as credible or non-credible, and the information will be interpreted based on that judgment.
I can remember times in high school when I experienced the sleeper effect. My mom had a friend that liked to gossip a lot about things that were going on at my high school. For the purposes of the story, let's call her Lisa. I had a bit of a problem with Lisa and I definitely counted her as a non-credible source of information. I would often hear things from Lisa or my mom would tell me things that she said, and I would usually count them as being non-credible and dismiss the information. However, I can remember many times when I would find myself remembering information that I had heard from somewhere, but not being able to figure out where it came from and having a hard time deciding whether it was good information or not.
Looking back on it now, I think that I was probably experiencing the sleeper effect. I counted my mom as a credible source, but I did not count Lisa as a credible source. I know that my mom would often mention things to me in different ways. Sometimes she would say things like, "Lisa told me..." and then give me some information that I would dismiss because I knew it was coming from Lisa. Other times, though, my mom would just tell me things, and then I would ask her where the information came from after she had already told me. This is why I think I had a hard time figuring out where I got different bits of information from. Those bit of information presented before hearing who the source was would stay prominent in my memory while the source would fade.
Eventually, I began to just tell my mom that I didn't want to hear anything if it was coming from Lisa's mouth. For this reason, actually, I began to hate gossip more than anything. I actually begged my mom to stop being friends with Lisa. It is interesting, though, to look back and realize how, even though I dismissed Lisa as a source, the information that came from her still managed to persevere in my mind sometimes.
References
Hass, R. G. (1981). Effects of source characteristics on the cognitive processing of persuasive messages and attitude change. In R. Petty, T. Ostrom, & T. Brock (Eds.), Cognitive responses in persuasion (pp. 141-171). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kumkale, G. T., & Albarracin, D. (2004). The sleeper effect in persuasion: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 130, (143-172).
Pornpitakpan, C. (2004). The persuasiveness of source credibility: A critical review of five decades' evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 243-281
Pratkanis, A. R., Greenwald, A. G., Leippe, M. R., & Baumgardner, M. H. (1988). In search of reliable persuasion effects: III. The sleeper effect is dead. Long live the sleeper effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 203-218.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Participant Observer Blog
Most people think that they know themselves very well. People like to think that they know themselves better than anyone else, that they know their inner thoughts and feelings better than anyone. However, we may not actually be aware of all of our attitudes. To a certain extent, we are products of our situations and our society. Our parents and peers have a huge influence on our thoughts and attitudes, and, even though we my not be aware of it, our society has a large influence on how we think. These thoughts and attitudes have an influence on our interactions with others whether we like it or not.
To measure people's inner thoughts and attitudes, Implicit Association Tests have been developed. These tests use word associations and word-picture associations to measure people's true inner thoughts. For example, the Race IAT uses pictures of black and white people as well as words that are defined as good and bad. The test asks the participant to associate these pictures and words with different categories (i.e. European American, African American, Good, and Bad). The categories switch sides and order in order to avoid any possible bias.
The first test that I decided to take was probably that most popular one: Race. I'll have to admit that I was a little nervous before taking this test and I thought of copping out and taking another test thought could maybe be a little less detrimental to my self-concept. I do not consider myself to be racist by any means and I do not consider myself to be one who favors any race over another. I feel that I give people an equal chance regardless of color. However, I was still a little nervous about what the test would say.
The results of the test said that I had a slight automatic preference toward white people compared to black people. I do not believe that this is consistent with my conscious beliefs and attitudes, however, I cannot rule out the possibility that the result could have come from some implicit attitudes that I thought I did not have. It is very possible that the result could be due to the fact that I have been exposed to many, many more white people than black people throughout my life. I grew up going to a mostly white school and I attend Southwestern, a mostly white university.
I think taking the IAT has made me a little more aware of the fact that I may have attitudes that I am not aware of that influence my interactions with other people.
The second IAT that I took was the Religion IAT. I guess I was feeling a little edgy when I was taking these tests because I think that this one also touches on a pretty sensitive topic in our society. The results of the test showed that I associate more positively with Christianity and more negatively with Islam, with Hinduism and Judaism being in the middle. These results are consistent with my beliefs simply because I am a Christian. However, I do not like the fact that it said that I associate more negatively with Islam. As a Christian, I believe that everyone deserves to be shown love no matter who they are or what they believe, and that it is not my place to judge those people. So, I am a little disappointed with that result. However, if the result of the IAT is showing my true inner attitude, I am glad that I am now aware of it so that I can make a conscious effort to fix it.
After I went back and retook the Race IAT I was pretty surprised with the result. I didn't consciously change the way that I took the test. I just wanted to see if it would give me the same result, and it didn't. The second time around it said that I have a moderate automatic preference toward African American people compared to White people. Several things could have happened to produce this result. I could have unknowingly made an effort to respond faster to black people than white people. Also, I took the test later at night when I was tired, and I definitely made more errors than the first time. Either one of these things could have contributed to the results.
Overall, my experience with the IAT was very positive. I think that everyone should try it because it is a bit of an eye-opening experience. If anything, it gets you thinking about prejudice and stereotypes. It made me realize that I probably have inner beliefs and attitudes that influence my actions without my knowing it.
References
Greenwald, A. G., & Farnham, S. D. (2000). Using the Implicit Association Test to measure self-esteem and self-concept. Journal of Personality and Social psychology, 79, 1022-1038.
Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 1464-1480.
Fazio, R. H., & Olson, M. A. (2003). Implicit measures in social cognition research: Their meaning and use. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 297-327.
To measure people's inner thoughts and attitudes, Implicit Association Tests have been developed. These tests use word associations and word-picture associations to measure people's true inner thoughts. For example, the Race IAT uses pictures of black and white people as well as words that are defined as good and bad. The test asks the participant to associate these pictures and words with different categories (i.e. European American, African American, Good, and Bad). The categories switch sides and order in order to avoid any possible bias.
The first test that I decided to take was probably that most popular one: Race. I'll have to admit that I was a little nervous before taking this test and I thought of copping out and taking another test thought could maybe be a little less detrimental to my self-concept. I do not consider myself to be racist by any means and I do not consider myself to be one who favors any race over another. I feel that I give people an equal chance regardless of color. However, I was still a little nervous about what the test would say.
The results of the test said that I had a slight automatic preference toward white people compared to black people. I do not believe that this is consistent with my conscious beliefs and attitudes, however, I cannot rule out the possibility that the result could have come from some implicit attitudes that I thought I did not have. It is very possible that the result could be due to the fact that I have been exposed to many, many more white people than black people throughout my life. I grew up going to a mostly white school and I attend Southwestern, a mostly white university.
I think taking the IAT has made me a little more aware of the fact that I may have attitudes that I am not aware of that influence my interactions with other people.
The second IAT that I took was the Religion IAT. I guess I was feeling a little edgy when I was taking these tests because I think that this one also touches on a pretty sensitive topic in our society. The results of the test showed that I associate more positively with Christianity and more negatively with Islam, with Hinduism and Judaism being in the middle. These results are consistent with my beliefs simply because I am a Christian. However, I do not like the fact that it said that I associate more negatively with Islam. As a Christian, I believe that everyone deserves to be shown love no matter who they are or what they believe, and that it is not my place to judge those people. So, I am a little disappointed with that result. However, if the result of the IAT is showing my true inner attitude, I am glad that I am now aware of it so that I can make a conscious effort to fix it.
After I went back and retook the Race IAT I was pretty surprised with the result. I didn't consciously change the way that I took the test. I just wanted to see if it would give me the same result, and it didn't. The second time around it said that I have a moderate automatic preference toward African American people compared to White people. Several things could have happened to produce this result. I could have unknowingly made an effort to respond faster to black people than white people. Also, I took the test later at night when I was tired, and I definitely made more errors than the first time. Either one of these things could have contributed to the results.
Overall, my experience with the IAT was very positive. I think that everyone should try it because it is a bit of an eye-opening experience. If anything, it gets you thinking about prejudice and stereotypes. It made me realize that I probably have inner beliefs and attitudes that influence my actions without my knowing it.
References
Greenwald, A. G., & Farnham, S. D. (2000). Using the Implicit Association Test to measure self-esteem and self-concept. Journal of Personality and Social psychology, 79, 1022-1038.
Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 1464-1480.
Fazio, R. H., & Olson, M. A. (2003). Implicit measures in social cognition research: Their meaning and use. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 297-327.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Yet Another Soccer Example
Stephen Berglas and Edward Jones (1978) first described self-handicapping as a strategy that an individual uses to build an excuse for possible failure in the future. According to the class lecture, individuals can either implement real (behavioral) self-handicapping by which they take actual steps to ensure that they do not succeed, or they can implement feigned (self-reported) handicapping by which they simply downplay their abilities so that others do not expect them to succeed. A common type of feigned self-handicapping is called sandbagging, a self-presentation strategy that people use to ensure that no one expects them to succeed (Gibson & Sachau, 2000). Self-handicapping is useful as a self-presentation strategy because it often creates a win-win situation: if no one expects you to succeed then they won't be surprised or disappointed when you fail, but if no one expects you to succeed and you do succeed then your achievement will look even greater.
I will demonstrated self-handicapping in my own life with another soccer example (I'm beginning to see concepts from social psychology pop up everywhere in sports). As most people at the school know, Southwestern's biggest rival in sports is Trinity University in San Antonio. We play Trinity every year in soccer and have never beaten them. They have a pretty good program as they have won the conference championship for the past seven years with us behind them in second place for four out of those seven. They are usually in the top ten in the nation every year when we play them, and we always give them a good game. In the two years that I have been on the team we have lost to them by one goal both times that we have played them. The first time I played them they were ranked #1 in the nation and they beat us 1-0 at home on an own goal (not by me fortunately). This past season when we played them they were #7 in the nation and they beat us 3-2 in double overtime at their place, with one of their goals coming from a dodgy penalty kick call.
The self-handicapping comes into play because we are never expected to beat them. Although we have a good program (we made it to #20 in the nation this past season), we are always the underdog going into the game. Their high ranking always gives us an opportunity to say something like, "well, they are top ten in the nation, and we are not expected to beat them, so if we lose it won't be a big deal. But if we win it will be huge!" While this isn't a great mindset, it does allow us as players and as a team to create a better self-presentation after the game is over. Personally, every time somebody asks me how the game went against Trinity this past year I always tell them, "we lost 3-2, but they were #7 in the nation so it was still pretty good for us." I also usually throw in a little self-serving bias (attributing failure to external factors) by saying that we would have won had the referee not given them that penalty.
Berglas, S., & Jones, E. E. (1978). Drug choice as a self-handicapping strategy in response to noncontingent success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 405-417.
I will demonstrated self-handicapping in my own life with another soccer example (I'm beginning to see concepts from social psychology pop up everywhere in sports). As most people at the school know, Southwestern's biggest rival in sports is Trinity University in San Antonio. We play Trinity every year in soccer and have never beaten them. They have a pretty good program as they have won the conference championship for the past seven years with us behind them in second place for four out of those seven. They are usually in the top ten in the nation every year when we play them, and we always give them a good game. In the two years that I have been on the team we have lost to them by one goal both times that we have played them. The first time I played them they were ranked #1 in the nation and they beat us 1-0 at home on an own goal (not by me fortunately). This past season when we played them they were #7 in the nation and they beat us 3-2 in double overtime at their place, with one of their goals coming from a dodgy penalty kick call.
The self-handicapping comes into play because we are never expected to beat them. Although we have a good program (we made it to #20 in the nation this past season), we are always the underdog going into the game. Their high ranking always gives us an opportunity to say something like, "well, they are top ten in the nation, and we are not expected to beat them, so if we lose it won't be a big deal. But if we win it will be huge!" While this isn't a great mindset, it does allow us as players and as a team to create a better self-presentation after the game is over. Personally, every time somebody asks me how the game went against Trinity this past year I always tell them, "we lost 3-2, but they were #7 in the nation so it was still pretty good for us." I also usually throw in a little self-serving bias (attributing failure to external factors) by saying that we would have won had the referee not given them that penalty.
Berglas, S., & Jones, E. E. (1978). Drug choice as a self-handicapping strategy in response to noncontingent success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 405-417.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)