1. Social Cognition 380 X n Welcome n Lecture Outline nReview syllabus nAttribution theory

2. Syllabus n 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. n Cautionary Statement: –The Fiske & Taylor text is dense. –Don’t leave all of the reading to the last minute.

3. Syllabus n Prerequisites OR –Psychology 101 OR Psychology 280 n 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

4. Syllabus n 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

5. What is Social Cognition? n Interface between social and cognitive psychology n Examines how people understand and make sense of their world, themselves and others

6. Introductions n 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

7. Why did I have you do this? Answer: To demonstrate what an ATTRIBUTION is

8. Attribution Theory n 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

9. n Why do people generate attributions, or explanations for events? –Predict future events whyIf 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.

10. n People also generate attributions to: –control future events whyIf 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.

11. n Two kinds of attributions: –Internal attribution: event caused by a factor internal to the person making the attribution I am boring 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 S/he lost my number My date did not call me for a second date because: S/he lost my number--somebody losing your number is external to you

12. Summary nAttributions are explanations for events nPeople make attributions to predict and control the future nInternal attributions are explanations for events that are internal to the person making the attribution nExternal attributions are explanations for events that are external to the person making the attribution

13. Why Is Any of This Important? Because the kind of attribution a person makes influences how they behave!

14. Miller, Brickman & Bolen (1975) n 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

15. n 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)

16. n 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)

17. n Step 3: Measured neatness after treatment –Researchers gave students candy in paper wrappers again –Counted how many wrappers in garbage versus on floor n 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

18. Miller, Brickman & Bolen (1975) n 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

19. n 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)

20. Kinds of Statements Made n 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)

21. Kinds of Statements Made n 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)

22. Kinds of Statements Made n Reinforcement Group –I’m proud of your work –I’m pleased with your progress –Excellent progress Miller et al. (1975)

23. Results n Math Achievement –Attribution group outperformed persuasion and reinforcement groups on math test –Attribution group had more gains in self- esteem than other groups n Why? –Because kids attributed their performance to internal factors (e.g., their own ability) Miller et al. (1975)

24. External Attributions n Lepper, Greene, & Nisbett (1975) Step 1: Observed that 3-5 year olds loved playing with magic markers Step 2: Created three groups of kids

25. Expected reward group: Expected a reward for playing with magic markers at end of week Lepper et al. (1975) External Attribution: Attributed playing with magic markers to the reward

26. 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)

27. 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)

28. Result Kids who expected a reward decreased how much they played with the magic markers in comparison to the other two groups. Lepper et al. (1975) Read Fiske & Taylor pages listed on syllabus for next week