Psychology 2100: Introduction to Social Psychology

Warren Thorngate, Professor
Psychology Department, Carleton University
1125 Colonel By Drive
Ottawa, Ontario K1S 5B6
Canada
e-mail = warren_thorngate@carleton.ca

copyright 1999-2006 by Warren Thorngate, all rights reserved 

Lecture 3: Cues and social judgements, continued

Review... Sources of cues in forming social judgements: 

• time
• space
• appearance
• possessions
• gestures
• medium
• words
• deeds

Gestures and social judgement

• physical gestures: "body language"
• posture
• facial cues: pupils, gazing, mouth, brows, nostrils, etc.
• body movements: arms, legs, hands, etc.
• greeting and touching rituals across cultures: North versus South America
• double messages: words vs gestures
• context effects: The "pratfall" study
• symbolic gestures
• invitations, thank you notes
• standing, applauding across cultures
• gift giving & ingratiation: cultural differences (gift size, holding of gift in giving, etc.)

The medium and impression formation

• impressions via sight, sound, smell, touch, etc.
• impressions from letters and e-mail
• evolution of emoticons ;-) ;-(
• impressions from TV versus face to face meeting
• cultural differences in preference for medium: Latin American preference for face-to-face contact versus North American preference for written message as "the truth"

Words & impression formation

• Style of speaking: accent, vocabulary, laughter, swearing, please/thanks, jargon
• Style of writing: salutations, grammar, flowery language
• Topics: self/other, facts/opinions, interesting/boring, humourous/serious, defensive/open
• Some sex differences: stating problems, discussing relationships, one-up = one-down, etc.
• Opinions and liking: Fritz Heider's Balance Theory 
• structural bonds: (e.g., in same group, working together = +) versus (in rival groups, competing = - )
• sentiment bonds: (liking = +) versus (disliking = - )
• natural tendency towards "balance" (also called congruity, consonance, harmony, etc.) = 
• part of psycho-logic: "imbalance" creates tension which motivates people to restore balance

Examples of balance and imbalance

Balanced sentiment relations between two people: 

Imbalanced sentiment relations between two people:

Balanced unit-sentiment relations between two people:

Imbalanced unit-sentiment relations between two people:

Balanced relations between two people and an idea...

General rule: Multiply the bonds algebraically. If they multiply to PLUS, the the bonds are balanced. If they multiply to MINUS, then the bonds are imbalanced. 

A complex triad -- is it balanced? (Answer: depends on which person we ask)

Other examples of balanced relations...

• I like you, you like me (+ and +)
• I dislike you, you dislike me (- and -)
• I like you, you like Carleton, I like Carleton (+ + +)
• I hate Carleton, you dislike Carleton, I like you (- - +)
• I dislike you, I like Carleton, you dislike Carleton (- + -) 

and some imbalanced relations...

• I like you, you dislike me (+ and -) 
• I dislike you, you like me (- and +) 
• I like you, I dislike Carleton, you like Carleton (+ - +) 
• I dislike you, I dislike Carleton, you dislike Carleton (- - - ) 

How do we resolve imbalance?

• Change others sentiment (win an argument?)
• Change our sentiment toward topic of imbalance (lose an argument?)
• Change our relationship to the other person

Restoring balance in everyday conversations: The origin of arguments

• Rhetoric, argument and persuasion 
• Stan Schacter's study of "The Case of Jonny Rocco" 
• Lesson: ostracism is the price we pay for disagreement 
• Try it yourself! Disagree with a friend, then listen to what happens 

Some cultural differences in restoring balance: Knox & Storm (UBC) studies in mid-1960s

• gave Aboriginal and WASP children of various ages descriptions of imbalanced situations 
• asked how they would restore balance 
• Aboriginal kids: 
• 1st choice = change other's opinion 
• 2nd choice = change own opinion 
• Lower Mainland kids: 
• 1st choice = change other's opinion 
• 2nd choice = change opinion about other 

Some larger consequences of restoring balance in large groups: The Wang/Thorngate Simulation (2003)

• concerned with what might happen in groups larger than three when restoring balance in one triad (3-person group) might create imbalance in a linked triad.
• Used Heiderian Balance Theory notions in a computer simulation, beginning with random sets of positive, negative and no bonds among 25 people, then waiting while the computer reset these links to be balanced.
• Result: the original group always broke into two sub groups.  Within each group, all people liked each other; between the two groups, all people disliked each other. A disturbing find for those who would like everyone in the world to love one another!

---

Deeds and impression formation

deeds = decisions, actions, activities, etc. 

• deeds and liking: "that was a good deed!" versus "That was terrible thing she did!"
• deeds and words: The consistency between what you say and what you do (& the joys of hypocricy) 
• deeds and causal attribution: going beyond the evidence
• Heider (1958): we have natural tendency to ask "Why?" behaviour occurs 
• examples in informal conversation & among psychologists: the deeper parts of gossip
• examples from courtroom: judgements of blame 

Two demonstrations of causal attribution:

• Walter Michotte's demonstrations of causal attributions (a test of David Hume's ideas)
• Heider and Simmel film and story telling

Heider's distinction between Internal and External causes

• Internal = "I want to" or "I need to" = motivation from self 
• External = "I have to" or "I was forced" = motivation from environment 

Relation between cause and blame: In our culture, we are responsible for internal causes (our "will") but not responsible for external causes 

Fundamental error(s) of attribution 

• We tend to underestimate the importance of external causes of other's behaviour 
• Corrolary: We tend to overestimate the importance of external causes of our own behaviour 

Such fundamental errors are likely the result of at least two factors:

First, our different perspectives: actor-observer biases

• the environment is salient in our own eyes
• the person is salient when viewing others

Second, protection of self concept: defensive attribution

• making excuses for self or group more often than justified to protect a positive view of self = to "save face"
• blaming others more often than justified to protect self and enhance self in comparison

But attribution also depends on outcome of the deed, and individual differences (e.g., sex differences)

Some examples of attribution shifts and biases: 

• I got A+ because I am smart [internal cause]; Mary got A+ because the test was easy [external cause]
• I got F because the Prof. did not motivate me [external cause]; Fred got F because he is stupid [internal cause]. 
• Poor people are stupid or lazy [internal cause]
• Rich people are smart and motivated [internal cause]
• People eventually get what they deserve, if not while alive, then after they die (the "Just World" hypothesis) 

Causal attribution and the outcome of deeds: How would men and women attribute causes? How would left-wing and right-wing people attribute causes? Some interesting trends:

Why might these sex differences in attribution exist?  And if they are biases, can the biases be mitigated in some way?

Biases reflective of protecting a positive versus negative self concept, a sense of self as "me as master of my world" versus "me as a member of community"

Perhaps reversible...

• attribution therapy for women to make them more like men in their attributions. But why attribution therapy for men to make them more like women? 
• empathy training = learning to take the perspective of the other person. modestly successful