Social Cognitive Theory
Social cognitive theory (SCT) refers to a psychological model of behavior that emerged
primarily from the work of Albert Bandura (1977; 1986). Initially developed with an
emphasis on the acquisition of social behaviors, SCT continues to emphasize that learning
occurs in a social context and that much of what is learned is gained through observation.
SCT has been applied broadly to such diverse areas of human functioning as career choice,
organizational behavior, athletics, and mental and physical health. SCT also has been applied
extensively by those interested in understanding classroom motivation, learning, and
achievement (Pajares, 1996; Schunk & Zimmerman, 1994; 1998).
SCT rests on several basic assumptions about learning and behavior. One assumption
concerns triadic reciprocal-ity, or the view that personal, behavioral, and environmental
factors influence one another in a bidirectional, reciprocal fashion. That is, a person's ongoing functioning is a product of a continuous interaction between cognitive, behavioral, and
contextual factors. For instance, classroom learning is shaped by factors within the academic
environment, especially the reinforcements experienced by oneself and by others. At the
same time, learning is affected by students' own thoughts and self-beliefs and their
interpretation of the classroom context.
A closely related assumption within SCT is that people have an agency or ability to influence
their own behavior and the environment in a purposeful, goal-directed fashion (Bandura,
2001). This belief conflicts with earlier forms of behaviorism that advocated a more rigorous
form of environmental determinism. SCT does not deny the importance of the environment in
determining behavior, but it does argue that people can also, through forethought, selfreflection, and self-regulatory processes, exert substantial influence over their own outcomes
and the environment more broadly.
A third assumption within SCT is that learning can occur without an immediate change in
behavior or more broadly that learning and the demonstration of what has been learned are
distinct processes. One reason for this separation is that SCT also assumes that learning
involves not just the acquisition of new behaviors, but also of knowledge, cognitive skills,
concepts, abstract rules, values, and other cognitive constructs. This division of learning and
behavior is a shift from the position advocated by behavioral theories that defined learning
stridently as a change in the form or frequency of behavior. It also means that students can
learn but not demonstrate that learning until motivated to do so.
HISTORICAL ORIGINS OF SCT
Born in 1925, Albert Bandura was trained and began his career in the mid-twentieth century
when explanations of human functioning, including classroom learning, were dominated by
behavioral models advocated by researchers such as B. F. Skinner, Clark Hull, Kenneth
Spence, and Edward Tolman. In this context, Bandura, along with his students and
colleagues, initiated a series of studies designed to examine social explanations for why and
when children displayed aggressive behaviors. These studies demonstrated the value of
modeling for acquiring novel behaviors and provided initial evidence for the separation of
learning and performance. They also indicated the importance of the learner's perceptions of
the environment generally, of the person modelling a behaviour specifically, and of the
learner's expectations regarding the consequences of behaviour. In doing so, findings from
1
this systematic research contradicted assumptions within behavioural models that learning
was the result of trial and error learning or that changes in behaviour were due primarily to
the consequences of one's own actions.
Children learn by observing others.JENNY
ACHESON/RISER/GETTY IMAGES.
By the mid 1970s these studies helped form the foundation for what Bandura initially called
observational learning theory and then later social learning theory (Bandura, 1977). This
precursor to SCT established a viable model for understanding how people learned through
observation of models. Additional work during this time expanded aspects of the theory
dealing with abstract modeling, language, and conceptual learning. In the years that followed,
SCT continued to evolve, spurred by the work of Bandura and his colleagues stressing the
processes of goal setting, self-efficacy, and self-regulation. The evolution of SCT also drew
ideas from information processing models of psychological functioning to describe the
cognitive processes that mediate learning. Ultimately, Bandura noted in the preface to his
1986 treatise, Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social-Cognitive Theory, that, in
an effort to be inclusive of these more motivational and cognitive processes, he was using the
label “social cognitive theory” rather than social learning to describe his framework.
Throughout this book, Bandura describes the philosophical and conceptual foundation for
SCT and reviews empirical evidence for its main components. Hence, it provides a concrete
milestone for the birth of contemporary SCT. Since that time, SCT has continued to grow and
expand especially with regard to the work on self-efficacy, self-regulation, and agency
(Bandura, 1997; 2001; Zimmerman, 2000).
CORE CONCEPTS WITHIN SCT
SCT integrates a large number of discrete ideas, concepts, and sub-processes into an overall
framework for understanding human functioning. Five of the central concepts are described
2
below. For a more complete explanation of SCT, readers are directed to works by Bandura
and to the relevant chapters within textbooks on learning.
Observational Learning/Modeling. From its inception one core premise within SCT has
been that people learn through observation. This process is also described as vicarious
learning or modeling because learning is a result of watching the behavior and consequences
of models in the environment. Although observational learning is dependent upon the
availability of models, who or what can serve this role is defined broadly. Live
demonstrations of a behavior or skill by a teacher or classmate, of course, typify the notion of
modeling. Verbal or written descriptions, video or audio recordings, and other less direct
forms of performance are also considered forms of modeling. There also distinctions among
different types of models. Mastery models are proficient when demonstrating a skills,
whereas coping models struggle, make mistakes, and only eventually show proficiency.
Abstract modeling occurs when the skill or knowledge being learned is conveyed only
indirectly, and cognitive modeling occurs when a model verbalizes her thoughts while
demonstrating a cognitive process or skill.
According to SCT, observational learning of novel behaviors or skills is dependent on four
inter-related processes involving attention, retention, production, and motivation. Attentional
processes are critical because students must attend to a model and the relevant aspects of
behavior in order to learn. Retention refers to the processes necessary for reducing and
transforming what is observed into a symbolic form that can be stored for later use.
Production processes are necessary when students draw on their stored codes and make an
effort to perform what they have observed. Finally, motivational processes are key for
understanding why students engage in the prior sub-processes, including whether they ever
attempt to use or recreate the new skills they have observed. Each of these processes,
furthermore, are affected by factors such as the developmental level of the learner and
characteristics of the model and modeled behavior.
Beyond new learning, modeling is also important for understanding when or why previously
learned behaviors are exhibited. Students' may inhibit their engagement in a behavior if they
observe a model suffer consequences they would prefer to avoid. For instance, if a teacher
glares at one student who is talking out of turn, other students may suppress this behavior to
avoid a similar reaction. In a related fashion, students may disinhibit or engage in a behavior
they had initially suppressed when they fail to see any negative consequences accrue to a
model. For example, students may refrain from shouting out answers unless they are called
upon only until they see others do so without repercussions. Finally, through a process
labeled response facilitation, models can simply prompt others to behave in known ways.
Outcome Expectations. Outcome expectations reflect individuals' beliefs about what
consequences are most likely to ensue if particular behaviors are performed. For instance,
children may believe that if they get a hit during a baseball game the crowd will cheer, they
will feel good and will be admired by their teammates. These beliefs are formed enactively
through students' own past experiences and vicariously through the observation of others.
Outcome expectations are important in SCT because they shape the decisions people make
about what actions to take and which behaviors to suppress. The frequency of a behavior
should increase when the outcomes expected are valued, whereas behaviors associated with
unfavorable or irrelevant outcomes will be avoided.
3
Perceived Self-efficacy. Self-efficacy also has emerged as a prominent and influential
concept within SCT. Self-efficacy reflects individuals' beliefs about whether they can achieve
a given level of successful at a particular task (Bandura, 1997). Students with greater selfefficacy are more confident in their abilities to be successful when compared to their peers
with lower self-efficacy. Self-efficacy has proven useful for understanding students'
motivation and achievement in academic contexts. Higher levels of perceived self-efficacy
have been associated with greater choice, persistence, and with more effective strategy use
(Pajares, 1996).
Consistent with the tenets of SCT, self-efficacy is viewed as a product of individuals' own
past performances, the observation and verbal persuasion of others in the environment, and
individuals' on-going physiological state (Bandura, 1997). Rather than directly affecting their
self-efficacy, however, these sources of information are weighed and filtered through a
process known as cognitive appraisal. For instance, a prior failure may not be detrimental to
self-efficacy if students believe there was some no-longer relevant reason for the poor
performance (e.g., prior sickness). Interventions based on SCT and designed to increase selfefficacy in school-aged children have proven effective (Pajares, 1996).
Goal Setting. Goal setting is another central process within SCT (Bandura, 1986; Schunk,
1990). Goals reflect cognitive representations of anticipated, desired, or preferred outcomes.
Hence, goals exemplify the agency view within SCT that people not only learn, they use
forethought to envision the future, identify desired outcomes, and generate plans of action.
Goals are also closely related to other important processes within SCT. For instance, models
can provide goals in the form of specific behavioral outcomes or more general standards for
acceptable levels of performance. Goals also are intricately related to students' outcome
expectations and their perceived self-efficacy. Goals are a function of the outcomes students
expect from engaging in particular behaviors and the confidence they have for completing
those behaviors successfully. Finally, goals are an important prerequisite for self-regulation
4
because they provide objectives that students are trying to achieve and benchmarks against
which to judge progress.
Self-regulation. Research on self-regulation or, when applied to academic contexts, selfregulated learning, blossomed in the 1980s and continued into the early 2000s to expand.
Explanations for students' management or control of their own learning behaviors have arisen
from within many distinct theoretical perspectives (Zimmerman & Schunk, 2001). Many of
the most common models, however, have strong roots in SCT. SCT models of self-regulation
assume that self-regulation is dependent on goal setting, in that students are thought to
manage their thoughts and actions in order to reach particular outcomes (Schunk, 2001;
Zimmerman, 2000). SCT views of self-regulation initially emphasized three sub-processes
(Bandura, 1986; 1991). Self-observation reflects students' ability to monitor or keep track of
their own behaviors and outcomes. Self-judgment is the process through which students'
evaluate whether their actions are effective and allow them to make progress toward their
goals. Finally, self-reaction occurs when students' respond to the evaluations they have made
by modifying their behavior, rewarding it, or discontinuing it.
Self-regulation is a prominent and increasing aspect of SCT that exemplifies the underlying
assumptions regarding agency and the influence of personal factors on behavior and the
environment. As noted above, self-regulation is also dependent on other processes within
SCT, including goal setting and self-efficacy. Unless students have goals and feel efficacious
about reaching them, they may not activate the processes needed for self-regulation.
Modeling can also affect students' self-regulated learning. The skills needed to manage one's
behavior, as well the beliefs and attitudes that serve to motivate self-regulation, can be
obtained through modeling.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ortiz, Michelle, and Jake Harwood (Dec. 2007). “A social cognitive theory approach to the
effects of mediated intergroup contact on intergroup attitudes.” Broadcast Education
Association. Retrieved January 24, 2008, from
www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/article/172978815.html.
Pajares, Frank (2002). Overview of social cognitive theory and of self-efficacy. Retrieved
January 24, 2008, from http://www.emory.edu/EDUCATION/mfp/eff.html.
Smith, Deborah (October 2002). “The theory heard 'round the world.” Monitor on
Psychology. Retrieved January 24, 2008, from
http://www.apa.org/monitor/oct02/theory.html.
Vos Post, Jonathan (1995). “Open Questions on the Correlation Between Television and
Violence.” Magic Dragon Multimedia. Retrieved January 24, 2008, from
http://www.magicdragon.com/EmeraldCity/Nonfiction/socphil.html.
5
Perception
Social perception is a kind of perception that allows one to understand other people,
social cues, and non-verbal cues in their environment.

Social perception is processed through social cognition, a thought process used to
understand and interpret social interactions. It is related to the social cognitions of
attention, or concentration on specifics of the environment, and attribution, or
explaining behavior.

Social perception refers to the first stages in which people process information in
order to determine another individual or group of individual's mind-set and intentions.

Implicit personality theory states that if an individual observes certain traits in
another person, he or she tends to assume that the other person's other personality
traits are concurrent with the initial trait.

Social comparison theory states that individuals evaluate their own opinions and
abilities by comparing themselves to others in order to reduce uncertainty in these
domains and learn how to define the self.

Theory of mind refers to an individual's understanding of other's mental states,
such as beliefs, desires, and knowledge, to allow an individual to make inferences
about other's thoughts, motivations, and emotions.
Broadly defined, perception is the organization, identification, and interpretation of
sensory information in order to represent and understand the environment from
which the information is received. In the field of social psychology, researchers tend
to focus on social perception, which is the kind of perception that allows individuals
to understand other people, social cues, and non-verbal cues in their environment.
This type of perception is processed through social cognition, or a thought process
used to understand and interpret social interactions. It is closely related to the social
cognitions of attention, or concentration on specifics of the environment, and
attribution, or explaining the behavior of one's self and others.
Social Perceptions
While the most simplistic view of social perceptions involves one individual's
perception of another, it can also refer to an individual's perception of a group, a
group's perception of an individual, or a group's perception of another group.
Social perception allows individuals to make judgments and impressions about other
people. These judgments are primarily based on observation, although pre-existing
knowledge influences how observed information is interpreted. Social perception
refers to the first stages in which people process information in order to determine
6
another individual or group of individual's mind-set and intentions. They help to
interpret other's actions so that additional information can be quickly inferred in order
to predict behavior. These perceptions can influence an individual's behaviors and
attitudes.
Theories of Social Perception
Implicit Personality Theory
An implicit personality theory is a collection of beliefs and assumptions that we
have about how certain traits are linked to other characteristics and behaviours.
Once we know something about a cardinal trait, we assume that the person also
exhibits other traits that are commonly linked to that key characteristic.
Implicit personality theory states that if an individual observes certain traits in another
person, he or she tends to assume that the person's other personality traits are
concurrent with the initial trait. This means that an individual may associate one
personality trait, such as kindness, with a group of personality traits they expect to
see exhibited together. If a person observes a stranger being kind, implicit
personality theory suggests they may also assume that the stranger is considerate,
loyal, and easy-going, if the observer's experience suggests that kind people also
tend to exhibit these additional traits.
For example, if you learn that a new co-worker is very happy, you might immediately
assume that she is also friendly, kind, and generous. As with social categorization,
implicit personality theories help people make judgments quickly, but they can also
contribute to stereotyping and errors.
Social Comparison Theory
The theory of social comparison was first proposed in 1954 by psychologist Leon
Festinger. Psychologist Leon Festinger proposed social comparison theory, which
states that there is a drive within individuals to gain accurate self-evaluations. He
believed that we engage in this comparison process as a way of establishing a
benchmark by which we can make accurate evaluations of ourselves. For example,
a music student might compare herself to the star student of the class. If she finds
that her own abilities do not measure up to her peer's talents, she might be driven to
achieve more and improve her own abilities.
According to this theory, individuals evaluate their own opinions and abilities by
comparing themselves to others in order to reduce uncertainty and learn how to
define one's self. Social perceptions of others are compared to self perceptions to
give an individual a better understanding of where he or she falls in society. Social
comparison research has suggested that comparisons with others who are better off
or superior, or an upward comparison, can lower self-regard. However, comparing
one's self to those who are worse off or inferior, a downward comparison, can
elevate self-regard.
7
Theory of Mind
Theory of mind refers to an individual's system of assumptions used to attribute
mental states to his or her self and others, as well as predict behavior. It describes
an individual's understanding of other's mental states, such as beliefs, desires, and
knowledge, to allow an individual to make inferences about such other's thoughts,
motivations, and emotions. It is an essential tool for social perception since it gives
an individual the ability to infer what another may be thinking or experiencing. Theory
of mind also describes imagining another person's perspective to better understand
their situation and behaviors. This is crucial to concepts such as empathy.
Testing Social Perception
The Awareness of Social Inference Test is an audiovisual test designed for the
clinical assessment of social perception. The test assesses the ability to identify
emotions, to judge what a speaker may be thinking or what their intentions are, and
to differentiate between literal and non-literal conversation remarks. The test is
composed of scenes shown to the test taker who is asked to identify the emotions,
feelings, beliefs, intentions, being displayed, as well as the meanings of the
interactions involved.
Source: Boundless. “Perception.” Boundless Psychology. Boundless, 14 Nov. 2014. Retrieved 23
Mar. 2015 from https://www.boundless.com/psychology/textbooks/boundless-psychologytextbook/social-psychology-20/social-cognition-103/perception-390-12925/
Person Perception
In social psychology, the term person perception refers to the different mental processes that
we use to form impressions of other people. This includes not just how we form these
impressions, but the different conclusions we make about other people based upon our
impressions.
Consider how often you make these kind of judgments everyday. When you meet with a new
co-worker, you immediately begin to develop an initial impression of this person. When you
visit the grocery store after work, you might draw conclusions about the cashier who checks
you out, even though you know very little about this person.
What Information Do We Use to Form Impressions of Others?
Obviously, person perception can be a very subjective process that can be impacted by a
number of variables. Factors that can influence the impressions you form of other people
include the characteristics of the person you are observing, the context of the situation, and
your own personal traits.
People often form impressions of others very quickly with only minimal information. We
frequently base our impressions on the roles and social norms we expect from people. For
8
example, you might form an impression of a city bus driver based on how you would
anticipate that a person in that role to behave, considering individual personality
characteristics only after you have formed this initial impression.
Physical Cues can also play an important role. If you see a woman dressed in a professionallooking suit, you might immediately assume that she works in a formal setting, perhaps at a
law firm or bank. Salience of the information we perceive is also important. Generally, we
tend to focus on the most obvious points rather than noting background information. The
more novel or obvious a factor is, the more likely we are to focus on it.
Social Categorization
One of the mental shortcuts that we use in person perception is known as social
categorization. In the social categorization process, we mentally categorize people into
different groups based on common characteristics. Sometimes this process occurs
consciously, but for the most part social categorizations happens automatically and
unconsciously. Some of the most common grouping people use include age, gender,
occupation, and race.
As with many mental shortcuts, social categorization has both positive and negative aspects.
One of the strengths of social categorization is that it allows people to make judgments very
quickly. Realistically, you simply do not have time to get to know each and every person you
come into contact with on an individual, personal basis. Using social categorization allows
you to make decisions and establish expectations of how people will behave in certain
situations very quickly, which allows you to focus on other things.
The problems with this technique include the fact that it can lead to errors and as well as
stereotyping. Consider this example:
Imagine that you are getting on a bus, but there are only two seats available. One seat is next
to a petite, silver-haired, elderly woman, the other seat is next to a burly, grim-faced man.
Based on your immediate impression, you sit next to the elderly woman, who unfortunately
turns out to be quite skilled at picking pockets. Because of social categorization, you
immediately judged the woman as harmless and the man as threatening, leading to the loss of
your wallet. While social categorization can be useful at times, it can also lead to these kinds
of misjudgments.
Reference:
http://psychology.about.com/od/socialpsychology/a/person-perception.htm
9
http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/soccog/soccog.html
Social cognition has its roots in social psychology which attempts "to understand and explain
how the thoughts, feelings, and behavior of individuals are influenced by the actual,
imagined, or implied presence of others" (Allport, 1985, p. 3). It studies the individual within
a social or cultural context and focuses on how people perceive and interpret information they
generate themselves (intrapersonal) and from others (interpersonal) (Sternberg, 1994).
A variety of researchers who started out investigating phenomena from other schools of
thought have moved to this perspective. For example, Albert Bandura (1986) initially studied
learning from a behavioral perspective (e.g., Bandura, 1965), while Jerome Bruner (1990)
initially studied learning from a cognitive perspective (e.g., Bruner, 1957).
Festinger's (1957) cognitive-dissonance theory, Bem's (1972) self-perception theory (see
Greenwald, 1975), and Weiner's (1985) attribution theory are additional examples of how the
perspective of social cognition has been applied to the study of the learning process. A major
implication of this perspective is that effective teaching must be grounded in an appropriate
social environment (e.g., Hannafin, 1997).
One of the most important concepts developed by Bandura (1986) is that of reciprocal
determinism. From this perspective, a person's behavior is both influenced by and is
influencing a person's personal factors and the environment. Bandura accepts the possibility
of an individual's behavior being conditioned through the use of consequences (Skinner,
1938). At the same time he recognizes that a person's behavior can impact the environment
(Sternberg, 1988). The same is true of the relationship between personal factors such as
cognitive skills or attitudes and behavior or the environment. Each can impact and be
impacted by the other.
Two principles of human functioning related to student learning involve the processes of selfefficacy (can this be done; can I do it; see Pajares, 1996) and self-regulation (goals, plans,
perseverance). These issues are sometimes referred to as conative processes. Conation refers
to the connection of knowledge and affect to behavior and is associated with the issue of
10
"why." It is the personal, intentional, planful, deliberate, goal-oriented, or striving component
of motivation, the proactive (as opposed to reactive or habitual) aspect of behavior
(Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Muraven & Tice, 1998; Emmons, 1986; Huitt & Cain, 2005). It is
closely associated with the concept of volition, defined as the use of will, or the freedom to
make choices about what to do (Kane, 1985; Mischel, 1996). It is absolutely critical if an
individual is successfully engage in self-direction and self-regulation.
The Implicit Association Test from the University of Washington and Yale University is an
interactive example of how people's viewpoints of others are studied.
Several authors have recommended that social psychology use the dynamical systems
perspective adopted at this site (e.g., Vallacher & Nowak, 1997; Watters, Ball & Carr, 1996).
Cunia (2005) provides an excellent overview to the social learning and social cognitive
theories of learning.
Festinger’s Cognitive Dissonance theory
Cognitive dissonance refers to a situation involving conflicting attitudes, beliefs or
behaviors.
This produces a feeling of discomfort leading to an alteration in one of the attitudes,
beliefs or behaviors to reduce the discomfort and restore balance etc.
For example, when people smoke (behavior) and they know that smoking causes cancer
(cognition).
Festinger's (1957) cognitive dissonance theory suggests that we have an inner drive to
hold all our attitudes and beliefs in harmony and avoid disharmony (or dissonance).
Attitudes may change because of factors within the person. An important factor here is
the principle of cognitive consistency, the focus of Festinger's (1957) theory of
cognitive dissonance. This theory starts from the idea that we seek consistency in our
beliefs and attitudes in any situation where two cognitions are inconsistent.
Leon Festinger (1957) proposed cognitive dissonance theory, which states that a
powerful motive to maintain cognitive consistency can give rise to irrational and
sometimes maladaptive behavior.
According to Festinger, we hold many cognitions about the world and ourselves; when
they clash, a discrepancy is evoked, resulting in a state of tension known as cognitive
dissonance. As the experience of dissonance is unpleasant, we are motivated to reduce
or eliminate it, and achieve consonance (i.e. agreement).
Cognitive dissonance was first investigated by Leon Festinger, arising out of a
participant observation study of a cult which believed that the earth was going to be
destroyed by a flood, and what happened to its members — particularly the really
committed ones who had given up their homes and jobs to work for the cult — when the
flood did not happen.
11
While fringe members were more inclined to recognize that they had made fools of
themselves and to "put it down to experience", committed members were more likely to
re-interpret the evidence to show that they were right all along (the earth was not
destroyed because of the faithfulness of the cult members).
How Attitude Change Takes Place
According to cognitive dissonance theory, there is a tendency for individuals to seek
consistency among their cognitions (i.e., beliefs, opinions). When there is an
inconsistency between attitudes or behaviors (dissonance), something must change to
eliminate the dissonance.
Dissonance can be reduced in one of three ways:
First, individuals can change one or more of the attitudes, behavior, beliefs etc. so as
to make the relationship between the two elements a consonant one. When one of the
dissonant elements is a behavior, the individual can change or eliminate the behavior.
However, this mode of dissonance reduction frequently presents problems for people, as
it is often difficult for people to change well-learned behavioral responses (e.g. giving up
smoking).
A second (cognitive) method of reducing dissonance is to acquire new information that
outweighs the dissonant beliefs. For example, thinking smoking causes lung cancer will
cause dissonance if a person smokes. However, new information such as “research has
not proved definitely that smoking causes lung cancer” may reduce the dissonance.
A third way to reduce dissonance is to reduce the importance of the cognitions (i.e.
beliefs, attitudes). A person could convince themself that it is better to "live for today"
than to "save for tomorrow." In other words, he could tell himself that a short life filled
with smoking and sensual pleasures is better than a long life devoid of such joys. In this
way, he would be decreasing the importance of the dissonant cognition (smoking is bad
of ones health).
Notice that dissonance theory does not state that these modes of dissonance reduction
will actually work, only that individuals who are in a state of cognitive dissonance will
take steps to reduce the extent of their dissonance. One of the points that dissonance
theorists are fond of making is that people will go to all sorts of lengths to reduce
dissonance.
The theory of cognitive dissonance has been widely researched in a number of
situations to develop the basic idea in more detail, and various factors that been
identified which may be important in attitude change.
This research can be divided into three main areas:
12
1. forced compliance behavior,
2. decision-making,
3. and effort.
We will look at the main findings to have emerged from each area.
Forced Compliance Behavior
When someone is forced to do (publicly) something they (privately) really don't want to
do, dissonance is created between their cognition (I didn't want to do this) and their
behavior (I did it).
Forced compliance occurs when an individual performs an action that is inconsistent
with his or her beliefs. The behavior can't be changed, since it is already in the past, so
dissonance will need to be reduced by re-evaluating their attitude to what they have
done. This prediction has been tested experimentally:
In an intriguing experiment, Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) asked participants to
perform a series of dull tasks (such as turning pegs in a peg board for an hour). As you
can imagine, participant's attitudes toward this task were highly negative. They were
then paid either $1 or $20 to tell a waiting participant (really a confederate) that the tasks
were really interesting. Almost all of the participants agreed to walk into the waiting room
and persuade the subject accomplice that the boring experiment would be fun.
Aim
Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) investigated if making people perform a dull task would
create cognitive dissonance through forced compliance behavior.
Method
In their laboratory experiment, they used 71 male students as participants to perform a
series of dull tasks (such as turning pegs in a peg board for an hour).
They were then paid either $1 or $20 to tell a waiting participant (a confederate) that the
tasks were really interesting. Almost all of the participants agreed to walk into the waiting
room and persuade the confederate that the boring experiment would be fun.
13
Results
When the participants were asked to evaluate the experiment, the participants who were
paid only $1 rated the tedious task as more fun and enjoyable than the participants who
were paid $20 to lie.
Conclusion
Being paid only $1 is not sufficient incentive for lying and so those who were paid $1
experienced dissonance. They could only overcome that dissonance by coming to
believe that the tasks really were interesting and enjoyable. Being paid $20 provides a
reason for turning pegs and there is therefore no dissonance.
Bem, D. J., Self Perception Theory. In L. Berkowitz (ed). Advances in Experimental
Social Psychology, Vol 6, 1972.
"Individuals come to know their own attitudes, emotions and internal states by inferring them
from observations of their own behavior and circumstances in which they occur. When
internal cues are weak, ambiguous, or uninterpretable, the individual is in the same position
as the outside observer".
Attribution Theory (B. Weiner)
Attribution theory is concerned with how individuals interpret events and how this relates to their
thinking and behavior. Heider (1958) was the first to propose a psychological theory of attribution, but
Weiner and colleagues (e.g., Jones et al, 1972; Weiner, 1974, 1986) developed a theoretical
framework that has become a major research paradigm of social psychology. Attribution theory
assumes that people try to determine why people do what they do, i.e., attribute causes to behavior. A
person seeking to understand why another person did something may attribute one or more causes to
that behavior. A three-stage process underlies an attribution: (1) the person must perceive or observe
the behavior, (2) then the person must believe that the behavior was intentionally performed, and (3)
then the person must determine if they believe the other person was forced to perform the behavior
(in which case the cause is attributed to the situation) or not (in which case the cause is attributed to
the other person).
Weiner focused his attribution theory on achievement (Weiner, 1974). He identified ability, effort, task
difficulty, and luck as the most important factors affecting attributions for achievement. Attributions are
classified along three causal dimensions: locus of control, stability, and controllability. The locus of
control dimension has two poles: internal versus external locus of control. The stability dimension
captures whether causes change over time or not. For instance, ability can be classified as a stable,
internal cause, and effort classified as unstable and internal. Controllability contrasts causes one can
control, such as skill/efficacy, from causes one cannot control, such as aptitude, mood, others'
actions, and luck.
14
Attribution theory is closely associated with the concept of motivation. It also relates the work done on
script theory and inferencing done by Schank. Schank (1986) uses script theory as the basis for a
dynamic model of memory. This model suggests that events are understood in terms of scripts, plans
and other knowledge structures as well as relevant previous experiences. An important aspect of
dynamic memory is explanatory processes (XPs) that represent stereotyped answers to events that
involve analomies or unusual events. Schank proposes that XPs are a critical mechanism of
creativity.
Weiner's theory has been widely applied in education, law, clinical psychology, and the mental health
domain. There is a strong relationship between self-concept and achievement. Weiner (1980) states:
"Causal attributions determine affective reactions to success and failure. For example, one is not
likely to experience pride in success, or feelings of competence, when receiving an ‘A’ from a teacher
who gives only that grade, or when defeating a tennis player who always loses...On the other hand,
an ‘A’ from a teacher who gives few high grades or a victory over a highly rated tennis player following
a great deal of practice generates great positive affect." (p.362). Students with higher ratings of selfesteem and with higher school achievement tend to attribute success to internal, stable,
uncontrollable factors such as ability, while they contribute failure to either internal, unstable,
controllable factors such as effort, or external, uncontrollable factors such as task difficulty. For
example, students who experience repeated failures in reading are likely to see themselves as being
less competent in reading. This self-perception of reading ability reflects itself in children's
expectations of success on reading tasks and reasoning of success or failure of reading. Similarly,
students with learning disabilities seem less likely than non-disabled peers to attribute failure to effort,
an unstable, controllable factor, and more likely to attribute failure to ability, a stable, uncontrollable
factor.
Lewis & Daltroy (1990) discuss applications of attribution theory to health care. An interesting
example of attribution theory applied to career development is provided by Daly (1996) who examined
the attributions that employees held as to why they failed to receive promotions.
Attribution theory has been used to explain the difference in motivation between high and low
achievers. According to attribution theory, high achievers will approach rather than avoid tasks related
to succeeding because they believe success is due to high ability and effort which they are confident
of. Failure is thought to be caused by bad luck or a poor exam, i.e. not their fault. Thus, failure doesn't
affect their self-esteem but success builds pride and confidence. On the other hand, low achievers
avoid success-related chores because they tend to (a) doubt their ability and/or (b) assume success
is related to luck or to "who you know" or to other factors beyond their control. Thus, even when
successful, it isn't as rewarding to the low achiever because he/she doesn't feel responsible, i.e., it
doesn't increase his/her pride and confidence.
Principles of attribution
1. Attribution is a three stage process: (1) behavior is observed, (2) behavior is determined to be
deliberate, and (3) behavior is attributed to internal or external causes.
2. Achievement can be attributed to (1) effort, (2) ability, (3) level of task difficulty, or (4) luck.
3. Causal dimensions of behavior are (1) locus of control, (2) stability, and (3) controllability.
15