Page 1 :
Mr.Azhar Patel, Maulana Azad College, , INTRODUCTION TO SOCIAL PSYCHOILOGY, Attitude, A favorable or unfavourable evaluative reaction toward something or someone (often, rooted in one’s beliefs, and exhibited in one’s feelings and intended behavior)., , Tricomponent view of attitudes: Three components represent the basic building blocks of, attitudes., Consider for example, my attitude towards swimming. Because I believe that it is an excellent, form of exercise, I feel liking towards it, and therefore intend to swim every day (at least in, summers!). These dimensions are known as the ABCs of attitudes: affect (feelings), behaviour, (tendency to act), and cognition (thoughts), , Affective Component: The emotional reactions or feelings an individual has towards an object,, person, group, event or issue, Behavioural Component: The way in which an attitude is expressed through our actions (or, how we might behave should the opportunity arise, Cognitive Component: The beliefs we have about an object, person, group, event or issue, , I. HOW DO OUR ATTITUDES DETERMINE OUR BEHAVIOR?, i., , Are we all hypocrites?, People’s expressed attitudes hardly predicted their varying behaviors, o Student attitudes toward cheating bore little relation to the likelihood of their cheating, o Self-described racial attitudes provided little clue to behaviors in actual situations, If people don’t walk the same line that they talk, it’s little wonder that attempts to change, behavior by changing attitudes often fail. Warnings about the dangers of smoking affect, only minimally those who already smoke. Increasing public awareness of the desensitizing

Page 2 :
Mr.Azhar Patel, Maulana Azad College, , and brutalizing effects of television violence has stimulated many people to voice a desire, for less violent programming—yet they still watch media murder as much as ever. We are,, it seems, a population of hypocrites., , ii., , When does our behavior affect our attitude?, The reason to why our behavior and our expressed attitudes differ is that both are, subject to other influences, •, , When social influences on what we say are minimal, Social psychologists never get a direct reading on attitudes. Rather, measure like other, behaviors, expressions are subject to outside influences. Means for minimizing social, influences on people’s attitude is traditional self-report measures of explicit (conscious), attitudes with measures of implicit (unconscious) attitudes., o Implicit association test (IAT): Computer driven test uses reaction times to, measure how quickly people associate concepts (Greenwald, & others)., IATs completed online reveals that explicit (self-report) and implicit, attitudes both help predict people’s behaviors and judgments., -, , Example, measure implicit racial attitudes by assessing whether White, people take longer to associate positive words with Black than with, White faces., , •, , -, , Caution! - reliability and validity may be questionable, , -, , Implicit biases are pervasive, , -, , People differ in implicit bias, , -, , People are often unaware of their implicit biases, , When other influences on behavior are minimal, Not only our inner attitudes that guide us but also the situation we face. social influences, can be enormous enough to induce people to violate their deepest convictions. So,, would averaging many occasions enable us to detect more clearly the impact attitudes?, Example, people’s general attitude toward religion poorly predicts whether they will go, to worship services during the coming week (because attendance is also influenced by

Page 3 :
Mr.Azhar Patel, Maulana Azad College, , the weather, the worship leader, how one is feeling, and so forth). But religious attitudes, predict quite well the total quantity of religious behaviors over time, , A principle of aggregation: The effects of an attitude become more apparent when we, look at a person’s aggregate or average behavior than when we consider isolated acts., •, , When attitudes specific to the behavior are examined, o when the measured attitude is a general on, an attitude toward Asians and the, behavior is very specific, a decision whether to help a particular Asian in a particular, situation—we should not expect a close correspondence between words and, actions. ---- Attitudes did not predict behavior., o Individual’s attitudes about the costs and benefits of jogging are a fairly strong, predictor of whether he or she jogs regularly------attitudes did predict behaviour, o, , “Theory of planned behavior,” is knowing people’s intended behaviors, and their, perceived self-efficacy and control. Icek Ajzen, working with Martin Fishbein, has, shown that one’s (a) attitudes, (b) perceived social norms, and (c) feelings of control, together determine one’s intentions, which guide behavior., , Attitude towards behaviour: “I’m for, physical fitness.”, Subjective norm: “My neighbors seem to be, jogging and going to the gym.”, Percieved behavioural control: “I could, easily do this.”, Intension: “I’m going to start next week.”, Behaviour: starts jogging, , •, , When attitudes are potent, Much of our behavior is automatic. Such mindlessness is adaptive. It frees our minds, , to work on other things. For habitual behaviors—seat belt use, coffee consumption,, intentions hardly are activated

Page 4 :
Mr.Azhar Patel, Maulana Azad College, , o Bringing Attitudes to Mind.:, -, , Prompting to think about attitudes before acting, would we be truer to, ourselves., , -, , Our attitudes become potent if we think about them., , -, , Self-conscious people usually are in touch with their attitudes That suggests, another way to induce people to focus on their inner convictions:, , -, , Making people self-aware- by having them act in front of a mirror promotes, consistency between words and deeds, , o, , Forging strong attitudes through experience., -, , The attitudes that best predict behavior are accessible (easily brought to mind), as well as stable and when attitudes are by experience, are more accessible,, more enduring, and more likely to guide actions., , II. WHEN DOES BEHAVIOR DETERMINES ATTITUDES?, i. Role Playing, The word role is borrowed from the theater and refers to actions expected of, those who occupy a particular social position., The act of role playing often results in changing of the behaviour of the person, who plays that role., Stanford prison experiment that demonstrated the potent effect of role playing., Twenty-four undergraduate males were selected out of 70 (on the basis of their, psychological stability and health) to play the role of either a guard or a prisoner in a, mock prison in the basement of the Stanford psychology building. Roles were assigned, based on a coin toss. One-third of the guards exhibited sadistic tendencies, while many, prisoners were emotionally traumatized and two had to be removed from the, experiment early. The experiment had to be terminated only six days after it began, instead of the fourteen it was supposed to have lasted. Zimbardo concluded that both, prisoners and guards had become too grossly absorbed in their roles—i.e. they, internalized their roles. It seemed that the situation caused the participants’ behaviour,, rather than anything inherent in their individual personalities., The effect of behaviour on attitude appears even in theatre. The actor, at times, becomes so absorbed in his role that he experiences genuine emotions of the character, that he is playing.

Page 5 :
Mr.Azhar Patel, Maulana Azad College, , ii., , Saying Becomes Believing, People often adapt what they say to please their listeners and they adjust their, message toward their listener’s position and, having done so, to believe the altered, message. When there is no compelling external explanation for one’s words, saying, becomes believing, When induced to give spoken or written support to something they doubt,, people will often feel bad about their deceit. Nevertheless, they begin to believe what, they are saying, Example: (Tory Higgins and his colleagues). They had university students read, a personality description of someone and then summarize it for someone else, who, was believed either to like or to dislike that person. The students wrote a more positive, description when the recipient liked the person. Having said positive things, they also, then liked the person more themselves. Asked to recall what they had read, they, remembered the description as more positive than it was. In short, people tend to adjust, their messages to their listeners., , iii., , Foot in the Door Phenomenon, , o Tendency for people who have first agreed to a small request to comply later with a, larger request. Perceived ‘free will’ also necessary., o Low-ball technique:, A tactic for getting people to agree to something. People who agree to an initial request, will often still comply when the requester ups the ante. People who receive only the, costly request are less likely to comply with it., EX: Marketing researchers and salespeople have found that the principle works even, when we are aware of a profit motive. A harmless initial commitment—returning a, postcard for more information and a “free gift,” agreeing to listen to an investment, possibility—often moves us toward a larger commitment. Because salespeople, sometimes exploited the power of those small commitments by trying to bind people to, purchase agreements., The foot-in-the-door phenomenon is a lesson worth remembering. Someone, trying to seduce us—financially, politically, or sexually—will often use this technique, to create a momentum of compliance. The practical lesson: Before agreeing to a, small request, think about what may follow.

Page 6 :
Mr.Azhar Patel, Maulana Azad College, , iv., , Evil and Moral Acts, -, , Evil sometimes results from gradually increases commitments. A small evil act, can shape down one’s moral sensitivity, making it easier to perform a worse act., , -, , After telling a “white lie” and thinking, “Well, that wasn’t so bad,” the person, may go on to tell a bigger lie., , -, , Another way in which evil acts influence attitudes is the fact thatwe tend not, only to hurt those we dislike but also to dislike those we hurt., , -, , The phenomenon appears in wartime- Prisoner-of-war camp guards would, sometimes display good manners to captives in their first days on the job, but, not for long. Soldiers ordered to kill may initially react with revulsion to the, point of sickness over their act. But not for long, , -, , Attitudes also follow behavior in peacetime- Moral action, especially when, chosen rather than forced, affects moral thinking, , -, , Killing Begets Killing. Students who initially perceived themselves as killing, several bugs, by dropping them in this apparent killing machine, later killed an, increased number of bugs during a self-paced killing period., , -, , v., , Moral action, especially when chosen rather than coerced, affects moral, thinking, , Interracial Behavior and Racial Attitudes, -, , Racial behaviors help shape our social consciousness If moral action feeds, moral attitudes, will positive interracial behavior reduce racial prejudice—much, as mandatory seat belt use has produced more favorable seat belt attitudes?, , -, , Legislate moral action, we can, under the right conditions, indirectly affect, heartfelt attitudes., , -, , Following the Supreme Court decision, the percentage of White Americans, favoring integrated schools jumped and now includes nearly everyone., , vi., , Social Movements, -, , Political and social movements may legislate behavior designed to lead to, attitude change on a mass scale, , -, , society’s laws and, therefore, its behavior can have a strong influence on its, racial attitudes. A danger lies in the possibility of employing the same idea for

Page 7 :
Mr.Azhar Patel, Maulana Azad College, , political socialization on a mass scale. For many Germans during the 1930s,, participation in Nazi rallies, displaying the Nazi flag, and especially the public, greeting “Heil Hitler” established a profound inconsistency between behavior, and belief. Historian Richard Grunberger (1971) reports that for those who had, their doubts about Hitler, experienced . . . discomfort at the contradiction, between their words and their feelings. Prevented from saying what they, believed, they tried to establish their psychic equilibrium by consciously, making themselves be live what they said”, -, , Many people assume that the most potent social indoctrination comes through, brainwashing., , III. WHY DOES OUR BEHAVIOR AFFECT OUR ATTITUDES?, i., , Self-Presentation: Impression Management, -, , People, especially those who self-monitor their behavior hoping to create good, impressions, will adapt their attitude reports to appear consistent with their actions, , -, , Self-Presentation: defined as the organisation of the presenting person’s cues so as to, elicit desired responses in other. These cues may be verbal, nonverbal (posture, gesture,, eye gaze, etc.), stylistic (use of clothing, arrangement of hair, household or even, decorative items with which one surrounds oneself, and even type of people with which, one surrounds oneself., , -, , People express their changed attitudes even to someone who has no knowledge of their, earlier behavior., , ii., , Self-Justification: Cognitive Dissonance, -, , It assumes that we feel tension, or a lack of harmony (“dissonance”), when two, simultaneously accessible thoughts or beliefs (“cognitions”) are psychologically, inconsistent. To reduce this unpleasant arousal, we often adjust our thinking., , -, , Dissonance theory pertains mostly to discrepancies between behavior and attitudes. We, are aware of both. Thus, if we sense some inconsistency, perhaps some hypocrisy, we, feel pressure for change., EX: The classical example of cognitive dissonance is The Fox and the Grapes, in which, a fox sees some high-hanging grapes and wishes to eat them. After several failed

Page 8 :
Mr.Azhar Patel, Maulana Azad College, , attempts at reaching the grapes, he decides that the grapes are probably not worth eating, anyway (that they are not yet ripe or that they are too sour)., o Insufficient justification: Reduction of dissonance by internally justifying one’s, behavior when external justification is “insufficient. Dissonance theory predicts that, when our actions are not fully explained by external rewards or coercion, we will, experience dissonance, which we can reduce by believing in what we have done., -, , Cognitive dissonance theory focuses not on the relative effectiveness of rewards and, punishments administered after the act but, rather, on what induces a desired action. It, aims to have Joshua say, “I am cleaning up my room because I want a clean room,”, rather than, “I am cleaning up my room because my parents will kill me if I don’t.”, , -, , Dissonance theory insists that encouragement and inducement should be enough to, elicit the desired action (so that attitudes may follow the behaviour., , -, , The principle: Attitudes follow behaviors for which we feel some responsibility., , o Dissonance After Decisions, -, , When faced with an important decision—what college to attend, whom to date, which, job to accept—we are sometimes torn between two equally attractive alternatives., you became painfully aware of dissonant cognition., , -, , After making important decisions, we usually reduce dissonance by upgrading the, chosen alternative and downgrading the unchosen option. Big decisions can produce, big dissonance when one later ponders the negative aspects of what is chosen and the, positive aspects of what was not chosen., , iii., -, , Self-Perception, When we are unsure of our attitudes, we infer them much as would someone observing, us, by looking at our behavior and the circumstances under which it occurs. Selfperception theory (proposed by Daryl Bem, 1972), , -, , The pioneering psychologist William James proposed a similar explanation for emotion, a century ago. We infer our emotions, he suggested, by observing our bodies and our, behaviors.

Page 9 :
Mr.Azhar Patel, Maulana Azad College, , -, , EX: At a college where I am to give a lecture, I awake before dawn and am unable to, get back to sleep. Noting my wakefulness, I conclude that I must be anxious., , •, , Expressions and Attitude, Viewing one’s expressions in a mirror magnifies the self-perception effect, ” If our feelings are not intense, this warm behavior may change our whole attitude. It’s, tough to smile and feel grouchy., , -, , If our expressions influence our feelings, then imitating others’ expressions help us, know what they are feeling. Acting out the person’s emotion enabled the observers to, feel more empathy., , -, , To sense how other people are feeling, let your own face mirror their expressions., , -, , Observing others’ faces, postures, and voices, we naturally and unconsciously mimic, their moment-to-moment reactions We synchronize our movements, postures, and, tones of voice with theirs. Doing so helps us tune in to what they’re feeling., , -, , Our facial expressions also influence our attitudes., , -, , Postures also affect performance., , o Over justification and Intrinsic Motivations, -, , Self-perception theory explanation: People explain their behavior by noting the, conditions under which it occurs., , -, , Self-perception theory states Contrary to the notion that rewards always increase, motivation, it suggests that unnecessary rewards can have a hidden cost. Rewarding, people for doing what they already enjoy may lead them to attribute their action to the, reward. If so, this would undermine their self-perception that they do it because they, like it., , -, , Over justification effect. Pay people for playing with puzzles, and they will later play, with the puzzles less than will those who play for no pay. Promise children a reward, for doing what they intrinsically enjoy (for example, playing with Magic Markers), and, you will turn their play into work., , -, , Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation: When people do something they enjoy, without, reward or coercion, they attribute their behaviour to their love of the activity. External, rewards undermine intrinsic motivation by leading people to attribute their behavior to, the incentive.

Page 10 :
Mr.Azhar Patel, Maulana Azad College, , -, , As self-perception theory implies, an unanticipated reward does not diminish intrinsic, interest, because people can still attribute their actions to their own motivation, , -, , The over justification effect occurs when someone offers an unnecessary reward, beforehand in an obvious effort to control behavior. What matters is what a reward, implies: Rewards and praise that inform people of their achievements—that make them, feel, “I’m very good at this”—boost intrinsic motivation. Rewards that seek to control, people and lead them to believe it was the reward that caused their effort—“I did it for, the money”—diminish the intrinsic appeal of an enjoyable task, , iv., , Comparing the Theories, -, , Self-Perception Theory (explains attitude formation) : self-perception -theory, assumption that we observe our behavior and make reasonable inferences about our, attitudes, much as we observe other people and infer their attitudes., , -, , Dissonance Theory (explains attitude change) The dissonance -theory assumption that, we justify our behavior to reduce our internal discomfort,, These two explanations seem to contradict each other., , -, , It is not unusual in science to find that a principle, such as “attitudes follow behavior,”, is predictable from more than one theory. Like different roads leading to the same place,, different sets of assumptions can lead to the same principle. If anything, this strengthens, our confidence in the principle., , o Dissonance as Arousal, Dissonance is, by definition, an aroused state of uncomfortable tension. To reduce that, tension, we supposedly change our attitudes. Self-perception theory says nothing about, tension being aroused when our actions and attitudes are not in harmony. It assumes

Page 11 :
Mr.Azhar Patel, Maulana Azad College, , merely that when our attitudes are weak to begin with, we will use our behavior and its, circumstances as a clue to those attitudes, -, , Dissonance-related arousal is detectable as increased perspiration and heart rate, , o self-affirmation theory: A theory that (a) people often experience a self-image threat,, after engaging in an undesirable behavior; and(b) they can compensate by affirming, another aspect of the self. Threaten people’s self-concept in one domain, and they will, compensate either by refocusing or by doing good deeds in some other domain., o .Self-perceiving when not self-contradicting, Dissonance procedures are uncomfortably arousing. That makes for self- persuasion, after acting contrary to one’s attitudes. But dissonance theory cannot explain attitude, changes that occur without dissonance. When people argue a position that is in line with, their opinion, although a step or two beyond it, procedures that eliminate arousal do not, eliminate attitude change, -, , Dissonance theory also does not explain the over justification effect, since being paid, to do what you like to do should not arouse great tension. And what about situations, where the action does not contradict any attitude—when, for example, people are, induced to smile or grimace? Here, too, there should be no dissonance. For these cases,, self-perception theory has a ready explanation., , In short, it appears that dissonance theory successfully explains what happens when we act, contrary to clearly defined attitudes: We feel tension, so we adjust our attitudes to reduce it., Dissonance theory, then, explains attitude change. In situations where our attitudes are not well, formed, self-perception theory explains attitude formation. As we act and reflect, we develop, more readily accessible attitude to guide our future behavior