1 / 9

SOCIAL COGNITION

SOCIAL COGNITION. How we process information about other people and draw conclusions about them. ATTRIBUTION. Attibution = giving reasons for why things happen Foundations of attribution theories :

damian
Télécharger la présentation

SOCIAL COGNITION

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. SOCIAL COGNITION Howweprocessinformationaboutotherpeople and drawconclusionsaboutthem

  2. ATTRIBUTION • Attibution = givingreasons for whythingshappen • Foundations of attributiontheories: Heider 1944: need to makesense of the social world need to developideas and theoriesabout the causesunderlyingbehaviour - causesarelyingeitherwithin the person (adispositionalattribution) orwithin the situation (a situationalattribution)

  3. DIFFEFENT ATTRIBUTION THEORIES • Based on Heider’sview • Notalternativesbutdifferentinsights to the attributionprocess • Correspondentinferencetheory • Jones and David 1965 • Attributionprocess: Decidingwhether action is deliberateornot Ifyes, matching of a behaviourwith a personalcharacteristic: correspondentinference

  4. Wepreferstablecauses  Weneed to judgewhether an action is intentional  Wemakedistinctionbetweendispositional and situationalattributions • Threemajorfactorsaffectingwhether a dispositionalattribution is made • Principle of non-commoneffects • Personalism • Hedonicrelevance

  5. According to Jones and Davis wehavetendencyto • assumethatactionsaredeliberate • Makedispositionalattributions • Evaluation: • Canonlybeapplied to actionsinterpreted as deliberate • Evidenceagainstthisview: • Guimond and Palmer 1990 (A-Level p.183)

  6. 2) Kelley’scovariationmodel 1967;1973 Whenmakingjudgement on whethercauses for someone’sbehaviouraredispositional of situationalwe look for threekinds of causalinformation: a) consensus: the extent to whichotherpeoplebehave the sameway b) distinctiveness: the extent to whichonebehaves the sameway in comparablesituations c) consistency: the extent to whichone’sbehaviour is stableovertime

  7. Lowconsensus + lowdistinctiveness + highconsistency =>dispositionalattribution • Anyothercombination => situationalattribution • Evaluation of the theory: • Studysupporting the model: • McArthur 1972 (p.185) • Problems: • Peopledon’tseem to useallthreesources of informationequally (Major 1980) • Peoplemayuseotherkinds of informationwhenmakingattributions (Garland et al.1975) • Notthatmucheffort is alwaysput to attribution

  8. Kelleydevelopedhismodel (1972): Whenthereisn’tinformationaboutconcensus, distinctiveness and consistencyweusecausalschemata = general conceptions a person hasabouthowcertainkinds of causesinteract to produce a specifickind of effect • Differentcausalschemata: • Multiplesufficientcauses • Discountingprinciple(whenhaving a reason to believethatoneexplanation is morelikely)  tendency to situationalattribution • Whenbehaviour is ’in role’ wetend to makesituationalattributions • Multiplenecessarycauses

  9. Syllabus: THE LEARNING OUTCOME RELATED TO THE THEORIES OF ATTRIBUTION: Describe the role of situational and dispositionalfactors in explainingbehaviour “Describe: Give a detailed account.” WRITE AN ESSAY ABOUT THIS TOPIC FOR NEXT LESSON!

More Related