Social Cognition 380 X

Welcome

Lecture Outline
Review syllabus
Attribution theory
Syllabus

Required Textbooks:
– Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social
cognition (2nd Ed). NY: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
– 2) Nelson, T. D. (2002). The psychology of
prejudice. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Cautionary Statement:
– The Fiske & Taylor text is dense.
– Don’t leave all of the reading to the last
minute.
Syllabus

Prerequisites
– Psychology 101 OR Psychology 280

Lectures
– 16 lectures, each 2.5 to 3 hours.
– Each lecture equivalent to two regular
lectures
– Reading requirements and lecture content
have been adjusted to fit this schedule
Syllabus

Grading
– Class participation:
– 10% of grade
– based on participating in in-class activities
– no make-ups
– Exams:
– 90% of grade
– Midterm (March 13th)
– Final (May 8)
– Both exams multiple choice
What is Social Cognition?

Interface between social and cognitive
psychology

Examines how people understand and
make sense of their world, themselves
and others
Introductions

Please stand up and introduce yourself
to a fellow student close to you. Be sure
to tell the student:
•your name
•your major
•why you signed up for this course
Why did I have you do this?
Answer:
To demonstrate
what an ATTRIBUTION is
Attribution Theory

An attribution is an explanation for an
event.
– Event: Go on a date. Your date says s/he’ll
call you for a second date, but does not.
– You ask yourself: Why didn’t s/he call me
for a second date? Here are some
attributions you might make:
• Attribution #1: I am boring
• Attribution #2: s/he lost my number

Why do people generate attributions, or
explanations for events?
– Predict future events
• If you know why something happened, you’ll be
in a better position to predict it’s likelihood of
occurring in the future.
•If you believe that your date did not call
you because you are boring, then most
likely you will bore the next person you
go out with too, and s/he wont call you
for a second date either.

People also generate attributions to:
– control future events
• If you know why something happened, you’ll be
in a better position to control it’s occurrence in
the future.
•If you believe that your date did not call
you for a second date because you are
boring, then perhaps next time you go
out with someone you can present
yourself in a more interestingly way in
the hopes of getting a second date.

Two kinds of attributions:
– Internal attribution: event caused by a
factor internal to the person making the
attribution
My date did not call me for a second date
because: I am boring-- being boring is
internal to you
– External attribution: event caused by a
factor external to the person making the
attribution
My date did not call me for a second date
because: S/he lost my number--somebody
losing your number is external to you
Summary
Attributions are explanations for events
People make attributions to predict
and control the future
Internal attributions are explanations
for events that are internal to the
person making the attribution
External attributions are explanations for
events that are external to the person
making the attribution
Why Is Any of This
Important?
Because the
kind of attribution
a person makes
influences how they
behave!
Miller, Brickman & Bolen (1975)
 Study
1: Use internal attributions
to teach kids not to litter and to
clean up after others
– Three groups of 5th graders:
– attribution group
– persuasion group
– control group
Miller et al. (1975)

Step 1: Measured base-line neatness
– Researchers gave students candy in paper
wrappers
– Counted how many wrappers in garbage
versus on floor
– More wrappers on floor than in garbage
Miller et al. (1975)

Step 2: Administered Treatment
– Attribution group: repeatedly told that they
were neat and tidy people
– Persuasion group: repeatedly told that they
should be neat and tidy
– Control group: not told anything
Miller et al. (1975)

Step 3: Measured neatness after treatment
– Researchers gave students candy in paper
wrappers again
– Counted how many wrappers in garbage
versus on floor

Results:
–
Attribution group: more wrappers in
garbage than on floor after treatment than
before treatment
– Persuasion and Control groups: no
difference in number of wrappers in garbage
vs. on floor before and after treatment
Miller, Brickman & Bolen (1975)
 Study
2: Use internal attributions
to improve kids’ math performance
and self-esteem
– Three groups of 2nd graders:
– attribution group
– persuasion group
– positive reinforcement group
Miller et al. (1975)

Step 1: Measured base-line math ability
– Researchers assessed students’ math
ability with a math test
– Teachers made statements to students
about their math ability for 8 days
Miller et al. (1975)
Kinds of Statements Made

Attribution Group
– You seem to know your math assignments
very well
– You really work hard in math
– You’re trying more, keep at it!
Miller et al. (1975)
Kinds of Statements Made

Persuasion Group
– You should be good at math
– You should be getting better grades in
math
– You should be doing well in math
Miller et al. (1975)
Kinds of Statements Made

Reinforcement Group
– I’m proud of your work
– I’m pleased with your progress
– Excellent progress
Miller et al. (1975)
Results

Math Achievement
– Attribution group outperformed persuasion
and reinforcement groups on math test
– Attribution group had more gains in selfesteem than other groups

Why?
– Because kids attributed their performance
to internal factors (e.g., their own ability)
External Attributions

Lepper, Greene, & Nisbett (1975)
Step 1: Observed that 3-5 year olds loved
playing with magic markers
Step 2: Created three groups of kids
Lepper et al. (1975)
Expected reward group:
• Expected a reward for playing with magic
markers at end of week
External Attribution:
Attributed playing with
magic markers to the reward
Lepper et al. (1975)
Unexpected reward group:
•Did not expect reward for playing with magic
markers, but got reward at end of week
Internal Attribution:
Attributed playing with
magic markers to liking
of the activity
Lepper et al. (1975)
No reward group:
•Neither expected nor received a reward for
playing with magic markers at end of week
Internal Attribution:
Attributed playing with
magic markers to liking
of the activity
Lepper et al. (1975)
Result
Kids who expected a reward decreased how
much they played with the magic markers in
comparison to the other two groups.
Read Fiske & Taylor pages
listed on syllabus for next week