1 / 8

What social factors account for how we explain and justify our actions?

What social factors account for how we explain and justify our actions?. Explaining our actions: Dispositional and situational variables The Stanford Experiment (Philip Zimbardo) Attributional biases Justifying our actions: When there is insufficient justification

caelan
Download Presentation

What social factors account for how we explain and justify our actions?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. What social factors account for how we explain and justify our actions? • Explaining our actions: • Dispositional and situational variables • The Stanford Experiment (Philip Zimbardo) • Attributional biases • Justifying our actions: • When there is insufficient justification • Cognitive dissonance

  2. 90 80 70 60 50 Frequency 40 30 Guards 20 Prisoners 10 0 Resistance Insults Helping Questions Commands Aggression Threats Deindividuating Reference

  3. Relevant factors that influence the type of attribution (dispositional or situational): • Consensus high or low: • Is the response similar, or not, to that of other persons? • Consistency high or low: • Is the response similar, or not, on other occasions? • Distinctiveness high or low: • Is the response specific, or not, to the situation?

  4. + + Consensus Distinctiveness Attribution Consistency = LOW (Few other persons act like this.) ...one of only few students to fail PSY100 test. LOW (Person acts in the same way in other situations.) ..also fails in other situations (courses). “PERSON” (Internal Attribution) ..has low aptitude, hates to study, etc. HIGH (Person acts in the same way at other times.) ..repeatedly fails PSY100 test.

  5. + + Consensus Distinctiveness Attribution Consistency = HIGH* (Many other persons act like this.) Most students fail PSY100 test. HIGH* (Person acts differently in other situations.) ..doesn’t fail in other situations (courses). HIGH (Person acts in the same way at other times.) ...repeatedly fails PSY100 test. “SITUATION” (External Attribution) ..prof. biased, unfair testing methods, etc.

  6. Fundamental attribution error Actor-observer bias Self-serving bias Leon Festinger

  7. 0.7 0.6 0.5 North America Attribution to internal dispositions 0.4 0.3 India 0.2 0.1 0 8 12 16 20 Age (years) Cultural Differences in Attribution

  8. 1.5 1.0 0.5 Rating of task 0 -0.5 -1.0 $1 $20 Control Payment for “selling” the task to others Induced Compliance How enjoyable is the task? How willing am I to do the task again?

More Related