Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
11AEPSY: Attitudes & Stereotypes - Coggle Diagram
11AEPSY: Attitudes & Stereotypes
Attitudes
function
implicit
unconscious, automatic beliefs we are usually unaware of
ex.
"I believe in gender equality (explicit), but I unconsciously expect men to lead more often (implicit)"
may influence behaviour
explicit
conscious, deliberate beliefs that we are aware of and can express
ex.
"I don't want to hire the gays"
aligned with behaviour
tripartite model
attitudes have 3 parts
affective
emotional response
"I like cats"
behavioural
what actions are done
"I adopted a cat"
cognitive
thoughts and beliefs
"cat owners are happier"
beliefs can be verified or not
verifiable beliefs are more easily changed than non-verifiable beliefs
effect of attitudes on behaviour
cognitive dissonance
Cognitive consequences of forced compliance (Festinger and Carlsmith, 1959)
effect on behaviour
avoidance
people avoid new info/situations that could increase dissonance
reduction
dissonance is continually reduced to produce a balance between expectations & reality
eg. hating country music, but all ur friends like it so u grow to appreciate it over time to reduce the inconsistency.
rationalisation
individuals try to justify their behaviour to reduce dissonance
magnitude
the intensity of the inconsistency
greater magnitude = greater discomfort
greater discomfort = greater motivation to resolve dissonance
predicting amount of discomfort:
the value placed on either cognition
the maximum amount of dissonance an individual can tolerate before needing to reduce the discomfort
reducing dissonance
change behaviour
change perception of action
people change own perception of behaviour or the consequences of their actions
rationalisation
change beliefs
a state of discomfort and psychological tension arising from holding conflicting or inconsistent beliefs
principles
cognitive inconsistencies = feeling of dissonance
dissonance = unpleasant; individual is motivated to remove dissonance
individuals avoid info/situations that increase dissonance
difference in cognitions = greater dissonance = greater motivation
causes
forced compliance behaviour
decision making
effort
spending great effort to achieve goals or items, but then evaluating it negatively
expectations ≠ reality
theory
strengths
can be applied to variety of situations
wide ranging theory; has generated many other studies
limitations
cannot physically observe dissonance = can't objectively measure it
doesn't predict how dissonance will be reduced
a belief/evaluation of a certain group or person
attitudes are learned
formed when knowledge and experience interact with what we already think about something, to produce a modification of that idea
attitude formation
factors
direct instruction
teachers
parents
relationships with friends/peers
attitudes tend to be stronger if reinforced by others
upbringing
media
measuring attitudes
observational
self reports
interviews
focus groups
likert scales
Attribution Theory
attributions
situational
attributing people's behaviour to their situation
ex.
she's speeding, she must be late for an important meeting
dispositional
attributing people's behaviour to their character/disposition
ex.
she's speeding, she must be an impatient asshole
"how individuals interpret the cause of another's behaviour."
action-observer bias
the attribution we use tends to be influenced by whether we are
performing
and action or
observing
someone else
fundamental attribution error
when judging others, we:
overestimate
dispositional factors
underestimate
situational factors
ex.
someone trips
instead
of thinking
"the floor must be slippery"
we think
"oh, they're clumsy"
biases
self-serving
failure:
"I failed the test because it was hard"
success:
"I passed the test because I'm smart"
group-serving
failure:
"we lost because the game was unfair"
success:
"we won because we're good"
we selectively interpret what we attribute to our behaviour
we do this to boost self-esteem
failure = situational
success = dispositional
Social Identity Theory
stereotypes
function
a cognitive shortcut
allows us to quickly assess situations
a generalised belief/assumption about a group of people
a form of social categorisation
3 components
social categorisation
social identification
social comparison
we compare our group with others to boost self-esteem
seeing our group as superior contributes to a positive self-concept
we identify with a certain group (our ingroup) and not with others (the outgroup)
we adopt the group's identity as part of our self-concept
we use stereotypes to categorise people into groups
Tajfel & Turner, 1979
a person's sense of self based on the groups they belong to
theory
strengths
explains group behaviour
practical applications
emphasises self-esteem
limitations
oversimplified; poor predictive power
limited scope
lack of generalisability
Prejudice & Discrimination
prejudice
causes
just world phenomenon
the belief that people get what they deserve
social influence
social categorisation
reducing prejudice
contact hypothesis
intergroup contact
the idea that
contact between groups
under the
right conditions
can reduce prejudice
superordinate goals
groups must cooperate to solve a common problem
mutual interdependence
different groups must rely on each other to succeed
a negative attitude towards a person because of their membership to a group
discrimination
the difference
prejudice = thoughts
discrimination = actions
direct
conscious, obvious, deliberate
indirect
appears neutral but disadvantages or targets a particular group
an action or behaviour driven by prejudice
Robbers Cave experiment (Sherif et al., 1954)