Psychological contract
A psychological contract represents the mutual beliefs, perceptions, and informal obligations
between an employer and an employee. It sets the dynamics for the relationship and defines the
detailed practicality of the work to be done. It is distinguishable from the formal written contract
of employment which, for the most part, only identifies mutual duties and responsibilities in a
generalized form.
As commercial organizations grew in size and complexity, there was a tendency to standardise
rather than individualize the treatment of labor. Trade unions emerged to offer protection to ever
larger groups of employees. The result was collective bargaining to define pay and conditions by
reference to grades across industries and trades, and in public service. More recently, unions
have lost some of their significance, leaving employees in more direct control. But societies have
developed expectations of a better work-life balance, reinforced by legislation, and employers
have found it in their own best interests to develop practices that respect equal opportunities and
employment rights through professionalized human resource services because:





the workforce has become more feminized;
the workforce is better educated, less deferential to authority and less likely to remain
loyal;
the workforce is required to be more flexible to meet new challenges quickly and
effectively, but this need to change can be a source of insecurity;
the use of temporary workers as well as outsourcing of projects and whole business
functions also changes workers’ expectations as to what they want to get out of their
psychological contracts (e.g., transferable skills now vs. life-time employment before);
and
automation has both empowered a greater percentage of the workforce and allowed the
emergence of teleworking which fragments the old social orders of a single location
workplace and generates greater freedom and flexibility in an ever increasing global
workforce.
The formation of the contract
During the recruitment process, the employer and interviewee will discuss what they each can
offer in the prospective relationship. If agreement is reached, most employers will impose a
standard form contract, leaving the detail of the employee's duties to be clarified "on the job".
But some of the initial statements, no matter how informal and imprecise, may later be
remembered as promises and give rise to expectations. Whether they are incorporated into the
parallel psychological contract will depend on whether both parties believe that they should be
treated as part of the relationship. The better organized employers are careful to document offers
to reduce the risk of raising false expectations followed by disappointment.
In the Common Law jurisdictions, the law implies duties requiring the employees to be loyal and
trustworthy. These are imprecise in their definition and uncertain in much of their operation. But,
in psychological terms, issues as to whether promises and expectations have been kept and met,
and whether the resulting arrangements are fair, are fundamental to the trust between the
employee and the employer. The first year of employment is critical as actual performance by the
employee can be measured against claims and promises made during the interview, and the
management has begun to establish a track record in its relationship with the employee at
supervisor and manager level. Feldhiem (1999) reflects these two strands by dividing the
psychological contract into:

transactional:
this is the economic or monetary base with clear expectations that the organization will fairly
compensate the performance delivered and punish inadequate or inappropriate acts; and

relational: this is a socio-emotional base that underlies expectations of shared ideals and
values, and respect and support in the interpersonal relationships.
[edit] The employment relationship develops
The reality of employment rights and duties emerges through the interpersonal relationships
formed in the workplace. How employers, supervisors and managers behave on a day-to-day
basis is not determined by the legal contract. Employees slowly negotiate what they must do to
satisfy their side of the bargain, and what they can expect in return. This negotiation is
sometimes explicit, e.g. in appraisal or performance review sessions, but it more often takes the
form of behavioral action and reaction through which the parties explore and draw the
boundaries of mutual expectation. Hence, the psychological contract determines what the parties
will, or will not do and how it will be done. When the parties' expectations match each other,
performance is likely to be good and satisfaction levels will be high. So long as the values and
loyalty persist, trust and commitment will be maintained. The map followed by the parties is the
development of an individualized career path that makes only reasonable demands on the
employee, with adequate support from managers and co-workers, for a level of remuneration that
is demonstrably fair for a person of that age, educational background, and experience.
Motivation and commitment will be enhanced if transfers and promotions follow the agreed path
in a timely fashion.
If managed effectively, the relationship will foster mutual trust between the parties, matching the
objectives and commitments of the organization to those of their employees. But a negative
psychological contract can result in employees becoming disenchanted, demotivated and
resentful of authoritarianism within the organization. This will result in an increasingly
inefficient workforce whose objectives no longer correspond to the organization they work for.
The main cause of disappointment tends to be that middle managers are protective of their status
and security in the eyes of their superiors, and this can introduce conflicts of interest when they
are required to fulfill their obligations to their subordinates.
[edit] Breach of the psychological contract
Psychological contract breach may occur if employees perceive that their firm, or its agents, have
failed to deliver on what they perceive was promised, or vice versa. Employees or employers
who perceive a breach are likely to respond negatively. Responses may occur in the form of
reduced loyalty, commitment, and organizational citizenship behaviours. Perceptions that once
psychological contract has been breached may arise shortly after the employee joins the
company or even after years of satisfactory service. The impact may be localized and contained,
but if morale is more generally affected, the performance of the organization may be diminished.
Further, if the activities of the organization are perceived as being unjust or immoral, e.g.
aggressive downsizing or outsourcing causing significant unemployment, its public reputation
and brand image may also be damaged.
Manager-subordinate mismatch may also cause a breach of the psychological contract.
Groupthink is a type of thought within a deeply cohesive in-group whose members try to
minimize conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing, and evaluating ideas.
It is a second potential negative consequence of group cohesion.
Irving Janis studied a number of American Foreign policy 'disasters' such as failure to anticipate
the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor (1941); the Bay of Pigs fiasco (1961) when the US
adminstration sought to overthrow Cuban Government of Fidel Castro; and the prosecution of
the Vietnam War (1964-67) by President Lyndon Johnson. Studying these events that it was the
cohesive nature of these important committees which made these decisions and which prevented
contradictory views being expressed. As defined by Janis, “A mode of thinking that people
engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members' strivings for
unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action”. [1].
Individual creativity, uniqueness, and independent thinking are lost in the pursuit of group
cohesiveness, as are the advantages of reasonable balance in choice and thought that might
normally be obtained by making decisions as a group.[citation needed] During groupthink, members
of the group avoid promoting viewpoints outside the comfort zone of consensus thinking. A
variety of motives for this may exist such as a desire to avoid being seen as foolish, or a desire to
avoid embarrassing or angering other members of the group. Groupthink may cause groups to
make hasty, irrational decisions, where individual doubts are set aside, for fear of upsetting the
group’s balance. The term is frequently used pejoratively, in hindsight. Additionally, it is
difficult to assess the quality of decision making in terms of outcomes all the time, but one can
almost always evaluate the quality of the decision-making process.
A mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group,
when the members' strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise
alternative courses of action.[3]
[edit] Causes of groupthink
Highly cohesive groups are much more likely to engage in groupthink, because their
cohesiveness often correlates with unspoken understanding and the ability to work together with
minimal explanations (e.g., techspeak or telegraphic speech). Vandana Shiva refers to a lack of
diversity in worldview as a "monoculture of the mind" while James Surowiecki warns against
loss of the "cognitive diversity" that comes from having team members whose educational and
occupational backgrounds differ.[4] The closer group members are in outlook, the less likely they
are to raise questions that might break their cohesion.
Although Janis sees group cohesion as the most important antecedent to groupthink, he states
that it will not invariably lead to groupthink: 'It is a necessary condition, but not a sufficient
condition' (Janis, Victims of Groupthink, 1972). According to Janis, group cohesion will only
lead to groupthink if one of the following two antecedent conditions is present:


Structural faults in the organization: insulation of the group, lack of tradition of impartial
leadership, lack of norms requiring methodological procedures, homogeneity of members' social
background and ideology.
Provocative situational context: high stress from external threats, recent failures, excessive
difficulties on the decision-making task, moral dilemmas.
Social psychologist Clark McCauley's three conditions under which groupthink occurs:



Directive leadership.
Homogeneity of members' social background and ideology.
Isolation of the group from outside sources of information and analysis.
[edit] Symptoms of groupthink
To make groupthink testable, Irving Janis devised eight symptoms indicative of groupthink
(1977).
1. Illusions of invulnerability creating excessive optimism and encouraging risk taking.
2. Rationalizing warnings that might challenge the group's assumptions.
3. Unquestioned belief in the morality of the group, causing members to ignore the consequences
of their actions.
4. Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, biased, spiteful, disfigured,
impotent, or stupid.
5. Direct pressure to conform placed on any member who questions the group, couched in terms
of "disloyalty".
6. Self censorship of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.
7. Illusions of unanimity among group members, silence is viewed as agreement.
8. Mind guards — self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information.
Groupthink, resulting from the symptoms listed above, results in defective decision making. That
is, consensus-driven decisions are the result of the following practices of groupthinking[5]
1.
2.
3.
4.
Incomplete survey of alternatives
Incomplete survey of objectives
Failure to examine risks of preferred choice
Failure to reevaluate previously rejected alternatives
5. Poor information search
6. Selection bias in collecting information
7. Failure to work out contingency plans.
Janis argued that groupthink was responsible for the Bay of Pigs 'fiasco' and other major
examples of faulty decision-making. The UK bank Northern Rock, before its nationalisation, is
thought to be a recent major example of groupthink.[5] In such real-world examples, a number of
the above groupthink symptoms were displayed.
[edit] Groupthink and de-individuation
Cults are also studied by sociologists in regard to groupthink and its deindividuation effects. The
textbook definition describes deindividuation as the loss of self-awareness and evaluation
apprehension, which occurs in group situations that foster anonymity and draw attention away
from the individual (Myers, 305)
[edit] Preventing groupthink
According to Irving Janis, decision making groups are not necessarily destined to groupthink. He
devised seven ways of preventing groupthink (209-15):
1. Leaders should assign each member the role of “critical evaluator”. This allows each member to
freely air objections and doubts.
2. Higher-ups should not express an opinion when assigning a task to a group.
3. The organization should set up several independent groups, working on the same problem.
4. All effective alternatives should be examined.
5. Each member should discuss the group's ideas with trusted people outside of the group.
6. The group should invite outside experts into meetings. Group members should be allowed to
discuss with and question the outside experts.
7. At least one group member should be assigned the role of Devil's advocate. This should be a
different person for each meeting.
By following these guidelines, groupthink can be avoided. After the Bay of Pigs invasion fiasco,
John F. Kennedy sought to avoid groupthink during the Cuban Missile Crisis.[6] During
meetings, he invited outside experts to share their viewpoints, and allowed group members to
question them carefully. He also encouraged group members to discuss possible solutions with
trusted members within their separate departments, and he even divided the group up into
various sub-groups, to partially break the group cohesion. JFK was deliberately absent from the
meetings, so as to avoid pressing his own opinion. Ultimately, the Cuban missile crisis was
resolved peacefully, thanks in part to these measures.
[edit] Recent developments and critiques
In 2001, Ahlfinger and Esser described the difficulties of testing Janis' antecedants, specifically
those related to government groups, stating in abstract:
"Two hypotheses derived from groupthink theory were tested in a laboratory study which
included measures of the full range of symptoms of groupthink, symptoms of a poor decision
process, and decision quality. The hypothesis that groups whose leaders promoted their own
preferred solutions would be more likely to fall victim to groupthink than groups with
nonpromotional leaders received partial support. Groups with promotional leaders produced
more symptoms of groupthink, discussed fewer facts, and reached a decision more quickly than
groups with nonpromotional leaders. The hypothesis that groups composed of members who
were predisposed to conform would be more likely to fall victim to groupthink than groups
whose members were not predisposed to conform received no support. It is suggested that
groupthink research is hampered by measurement problems."[7][8]
After ending their study, they stated that better methods of testing Janis' symptoms were needed.
In a broad 2005 survey of post-Janis research Robert S. Baron contends that the connection
between certain antecedents Janis believed necessary have not been demonstrated, and that
groupthink is more ubiquitous and its symptoms are "far more widespread" than Janis
envisioned. Baron' premise is "that Janis’s probing and insightful analysis of historical decisionmaking was correct about the symptoms of groupthink and their relationship to such outcomes as
the suppression of dissent, polarization of attitude and poor decision quality and yet wrong about
the antecedent conditions he specified...not only are these conditions not necessary to provoke
the symptoms of groupthink, but that they often will not even amplify such symptoms given the
high likelihood that such symptoms will develop in the complete absence of intense cohesion,
crisis, group insulation, etc." As an alternative to Janis' model, Baron presents a "strong
ubiquity" model for Groupthink:
"...the ubiquity model represents more a revision of Janis’s model than a repudiation. The social
identification variable modifies Janis’s emphasis on intense-high status group cohesion as an
antecedent condition for groupthink. Similarly, low self efficacy amplifies Janis’s prior
consideration of this factor. The one major shift is that the ubiquity model assumes that when
combined, social identification, salient norms and low self efficacy are both necessary and
sufficient to evoke “groupthink reactions.” Such reactions include Janis’s array of defective
decision processes as well as suppressed dissent, selective focus on shared viewpoints,
polarization of attitude and action and heightened confidence in such polarized views. Note that
such elevated confidence will often evoke the feelings of in-group moral superiority and
invulnerability alluded to by Janis."[9]
Baron says in conclusion that the pervasiveness of “groupthink phenomena” has been
underestimated by prior theoretical accounts.[10][11]
Group decision making
Groups decision making is a situation faced when people are brought together to solve
problems in the anticipation that they are more effective than individuals under the idea of
synergy. But cohesive groups display risky behaviour in decision making situations that led to
the devotion of much effort, especially in the area of applied social sciences.
There are several aspects of group cohesion which have a negative effect on group decision
making and hence on group effectiveness. [1].
Risky-shift phenomenon, group polarisation , and group-think are negative aspects of group
decision making which have drawn attention. [2].
Group-think is one of the most dangerous traps in our decision making. It's particularly because
it taps into our deep social identification mechanisms - everyone likes to feel part of a group and our avoidance of social challenges. But consensus without conflict almost always means that
other viewpoints are being ignored, and the consequences of group-think can be disastrous. [3]
Issues facing any work group concerning decision making are: how should decisions be made?
Consensus? Voting? One-person rule? Secret ballot? [4] Consideration of the various opinions of
the different individuals and deciding what action a group should take might be of help.

[edit] Formal systems

Consensus decision-making tries to avoid "winners" and "losers". Consensus requires that a
majority approve a given course of action, but that the minority agree to go along with the
course of action. In other words, if the minority opposes the course of action, consensus
requires that the course of action be modified to remove objectionable features.

Voting-based methods
o Range voting lets each member score one or more of the available options. The option
with the highest average is chosen. This method has experimentally been shown to
produce the lowest Bayesian regret among common voting methods, even when voters
are strategic.
o Majority requires support from more than 50% of the members of the group. Thus, the
bar for action is lower than with unanimity and a group of “losers” is implicit to this rule.
o Plurality, where the largest block in a group decides, even if it falls short of a majority.

Dictatorship, where one individual determines the course of action.
[edit] Decision making in social setting
Decision making in groups is sometimes examined separately as process and outcome. Process
refers to the group interactions. Some relevant ideas include coalitions among participants as
well as influence and persuasion. The use of politics is often judged negatively, but it is a useful
way to approach problems when preferences among actors are in conflict, when dependencies
exist that cannot be avoided, when there are no super-ordinate authorities, and when the technical
or scientific merit of the options is ambiguous.
In addition to the different processes involved in making decisions, group decision support
systems (GDSS) may have different decision rules. A decision rule is the GDSS protocol a group
uses to choose among scenario planning alternatives.



Gathering involves all participants acknowledging each other's needs and opinions and tends
towards a problem solving approach in which as many needs and opinions as possible can be
satisfied. It allows for multiple outcomes and does not require agreement from some for others
to act.
Sub-committee involves assigning responsibility for evaluation of a decision to a sub-set of a
larger group, which then comes back to the larger group with recommendations for action.
Using a sub-committee is more common in larger governance groups, such as a legislature.
Sometimes a sub-committee includes those individuals most affected by a decision, although at
other times it is useful for the larger group to have a sub-committee that involves more neutral
participants.
Participatory, where each actor would have a say in decisions directly proportionate to the
degree that particular decision affects him or her. Those not affected by a decision would have
no say and those exclusively affected by a decision would have full say. Likewise, those most
affected would have the most say while those least affected would have the least say.
Plurality and dictatorship are less desirable as decision rules because they do not require the
involvement of the broader group to determine a choice. Thus, they do not engender commitment
to the course of action chosen. An absence of commitment from individuals in the group can be
problematic during the implementation phase of a decision.
There are no perfect decision making rules. Depending on how the rules are implemented in
practice and the situation, all of these can lead to situations where either no decision is made, or
to situations where decisions made are inconsistent with one another over time.
[edit]
Moral dimension of decision making
The ethical principles of decision making vary considerably. Some common choices of
principles and the methods which seem to match them include:



the most powerful person/group decides
o method: dictatorship or oligarchy
everyone participates in a certain class of meta-decisions
o method: parliamentary democracy
everyone participates in every decision
o direct democracy, consensus decision making
There are many decision making levels having a participation element. A common example is
that of institutions making decisions that affect those for whom they provide. In such cases an
understanding of what participation level is involved becomes crucial to understand the process
and power structures dynamics.
Control-Ethics. When organisations/institutions make decisions it is important to find the balance
between the parameters of control mechanisms and the ethical principles which ensure 'best'
outcome for individuals and communities affected by the decision. Controls may be set by
elements such as Legislation, historical precedents, available resources, Standards, policies,
procedures and practices. Ethical elements may include equity, fairness, transparency, social
justice, choice, least restrictive alternative, empowerment.
Empowerment is a person's way of expressing control.
[edit] Decision making in healthcare
In the health care field, the steps of making a decision may be remembered with the mnemonic
BRAND, which includes





Benefits of the action
Risks in the action
Alternatives to the prospective action
Nothing: that is, doing nothing at all
Decision
[edit] Decision making in business and management
In general, business and management systems should be set up to allow decision making at the
lowest possible level.
Several decision making models or practices for business include:






SWOT Analysis - Evaluation by the decision making individual or organization of Strengths,
Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats with respect to desired end state or objective.
Analytic Hierarchy Process - widely-used procedure for group decision making
Buyer decision processes - transaction before, during, and after a purchase
Complex systems - common behavioural and structural features that can be modelled
Corporate finance
o The investment decision
o The financing decision
o The dividend decision
o Working capital management decisions
o Cost-benefit analysis - process of weighing the total expected costs vs. the total
expected benefits
Control-Ethics, a decision making framework that balances the tensions of accountability and
'best' outcome.



















Decision trees
o Decision analysis - the discipline devoted to prescriptive modeling for decision making
under conditions of uncertainty.
o Program Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT)
o critical path analysis
o critical chain analysis
Force field analysis - analyzing forces that either drive or hinder movement toward a goal
Game theory - the branch of mathematics that models decision strategies for rational agents
under conditions of competition, conflict and cooperation.
Grid Analysis - analysis done by comparing the weighted averages of ranked criteria to options.
A way of comparing both objective and subjective data.
Hope and fear (or colloquially greed and fear) as emotions that motivate business and financial
players, and often bear a higher weight that the rational analysis of fundamentals, as discovered
by neuroeconomics research
Linear programming - optimization problems in which the objective function and the constraints
are all linear
Min-max criterion
Model (economics)- theoretical construct of economic processes of variables and their
relationships
Monte Carlo method - class of computational algorithms for simulating systems
Morphological analysis - all possible solutions to a multi-dimensional problem complex
optimization
o constrained optimization
Paired Comparison Analysis - paired choice analysis
Pareto Analysis - selection of a limited of number of tasks that produce significant overall effect
Robust decision - making the best possible choice when information is incomplete, uncertain,
evolving and inconsistent
Satisficing - In decision-making, satisficing explains the tendency to select the first option that
meets a given need or select the option that seems to address most needs rather than seeking
the “optimal” solution.
Scenario analysis - process of analyzing possible future events
Six Thinking Hats - symbolic process for parallel thinking
Strategic planning process - applying the objectives, SWOTs, strategies, programs process
Trend following and other imitations of what other business deciders do, or of the current
fashions among consultants.
[edit] Decision-makers and influencers
In the context of marketing, there is much theory, and even more opinion, expressed about how
the various 'decision-makers' and 'influencers' (those who can only influence, not decide, the
final decision) interact. Large purchasing decisions are frequently taken by groups, rather than
individuals, and the official buyer often does not have authority to make the decision.
[edit] Decision Support Systems
The idea of using computerised support systems is discussed by James Reason under the heading
of intelligent decision support systems in his work on the topic of human error. James Reason
notes that events subsequent to The Three Mile accident have not inspired great confidence in
the efficacy of some of these methods. In the Davis-Besse accident, for example, both
independent safety parameter display systems were out of action before and during the event. [5].
Decision making software is essential for autonomous robots and for different forms of active
decision support for industrial operators, designers and managers.
Due to the large number of considerations involved in many decisions, computer-based decision
support systems (DSS) have been developed to assist decision makers in considering the
implications of various courses of thinking. They can help reduce the risk of human errors.[6]
DSSs which try to realize some human/cognitive decision making functions are called Intelligent
Decision Support Systems (IDSS), see for ex. "An Approach to the Intelligent Decision Advisor
(IDA) for Emergency Managers, 1999". On the other hand, an active/intelligent DSS is an
important tool for the design of complex engineering systems and the management of large
technological and business projects, see also: "Decision engineering, an approach to Business
Process Reengineering (BPR) in a strained industrial and business environment".
GROUP DECISION MAKING
Group decision making is a type of participatory process in which multiple individuals
acting collectively, analyze problems or situations, consider and evaluate alternative
courses of action, and select from among the alternatives a solution or solutions. The
number of people involved in group decision-making varies greatly, but often ranges
from two to seven. The individuals in a group may be demographically similar or quite
diverse. Decision-making groups may be relatively informal in nature, or formally
designated and charged with a specific goal. The process used to arrive at decisions may
be unstructured or structured. The nature and composition of groups, their size,
demographic makeup, structure, and purpose, all affect their functioning to some
degree. The external contingencies faced by groups (time pressure and conflicting goals)
impact the development and effectiveness of decision-making groups as well.
In organizations many decisions of consequence are made after some form of group
decision-making process is undertaken. However, groups are not the only form of
collective work arrangement. Group decision-making should be distinguished from the
concepts of teams, teamwork, and self managed teams. Although the words teams and
groups are often used interchangeably, scholars increasingly differentiate between the
two. The basis for the distinction seems to be that teams act more collectively and
achieve greater synergy of effort. Katzenback and Smith spell out specific differences
between decision making groups and teams:

The group has a definite leader, but the team has shared leadership roles

Members of a group have individual accountability; the team has both individual and
collective accountability.

The group measures effectiveness indirectly, but the team measures performance
directly through their collective work product.

The group discusses, decides, and delegates, but the team discusses, decides, and does
real work.
GROUP DECISION MAKING METHODS
There are many methods or procedures that can be used by groups. Each is designed to
improve the decision-making process in some way. Some of the more common group
decision-making methods are brainstorming, dialetical inquiry, nominal group
technique, and the delphi technique.
BRAINSTORMING.
Brainstorming involves group members verbally suggesting ideas or alternative courses
of action. The "brainstorming session" is usually relatively unstructured. The situation
at hand is described in as much detail as necessary so that group members have a
complete understanding of the issue or problem. The group leader or facilitator then
solicits ideas from all members of the group. Usually, the group leader or facilitator will
record the ideas presented on a flip chart or marker board. The "generation of
alternatives" stage is clearly differentiated from the "alternative evaluation" stage, as
group members are not allowed to evaluate suggestions until all ideas have been
presented. Once the ideas of the group members have been exhausted, the group
members then begin the process of evaluating the utility of the different suggestions
presented. Brainstorming is a useful means by which to generate alternatives, but does
not offer much in the way of process for the evaluation of alternatives or the selection of
a proposed course of action.
One of the difficulties with brainstorming is that despite the prohibition against judging
ideas until all group members have had their say, some individuals are hesitant to
propose ideas because they fear the judgment or ridicule of other group members. In
recent years, some decision-making groups have utilized electronic brainstorming,
which allows group members to propose alternatives by means of e-mail or another
electronic means, such as an online posting board or discussion room. Members could
conceivably offer their ideas anonymously, which should increase the likelihood that
individuals will offer unique and creative ideas without fear of the harsh judgment of
others.
DIALETICAL INQUIRY.
Dialetical inquiry is a group decision-making technique that focuses on ensuring full
consideration of alternatives. Essentially, it involves dividing the group into opposing
sides, which debate the advantages and disadvantages of proposed solutions or
decisions. A similar group decision-making method, devil's advocacy, requires that one
member of the group highlight the potential problems with a proposed decision. Both of
these techniques are designed to try and make sure that the group considers all possible
ramifications of its decision.
NOMINAL GROUP TECHNIQUE.
The nominal group technique is a structured decision making process in which group
members are required to compose a comprehensive list of their ideas or proposed
alternatives in writing. The group members usually record their ideas privately. Once
finished, each group member is asked, in turn, to provide one item from their list until
all ideas or alternatives have been publicly recorded on a flip chart or marker board.
Usually, at this stage of the process verbal exchanges are limited to requests for
clarification—no evaluation or criticism of listed ideas is permitted. Once all proposals
are listed publicly, the group engages in a discussion of the listed alternatives, which
ends in some form of ranking or rating in order of preference. As with brainstorming,
the prohibition against criticizing proposals as they are presented is designed to
overcome individuals' reluctance to share their ideas. Empirical research conducted on
group decision making offers some evidence that the nominal group technique succeeds
in generating a greater number of decision alternatives that are of relatively high quality.
DELPHI TECHNIQUE.
The Delphi technique is a group decision-making process that can be used by decisionmaking groups when the individual members are in different physical locations. The
technique was developed at the Rand Corporation. The individuals in the Delphi "group"
are usually selected because of the specific knowledge or expertise of the problem they
possess. In the Delphi technique, each group member is asked to independently provide
ideas, input, and/or alternative solutions to the decision problem in successive stages.
These inputs may be provided in a variety of ways, such as e-mail, fax, or online in a
discussion room or electronic bulletin board. After each stage in the process, other
group members ask questions and alternatives are ranked or rated in some fashion.
After an indefinite number of rounds, the group eventually arrives at a consensus
decision on the best course of action.
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
OF GROUP DECISION MAKING
The effectiveness of decision-making groups can be affected by a variety of factors. Thus,
it is not possible to suggest that "group decision making is always better" or "group
decision making is always worse" than individual decision-making. For example, due to
the increased demographic diversity in the workforce, a considerable amount of
research has focused on diversity's effect on the effectiveness of group functioning. In
general, this research suggests that demographic diversity can sometimes have positive
or negative effects, depending on the specific situation. Demographically diverse group
may have to over-come social barriers and difficulties in the early stages of group
formation and this may slow down the group. However, some research indicates that
diverse groups, if effectively managed, tend to generate a wider variety and higher
quality of decision alternatives than demographically homogeneous groups.
Despite the fact that there are many situational factors that affect the functioning of
groups, research through the years does offer some general guidance about the relative
strengths and weaknesses inherent in group decision making. The following section
summarizes the major pros and cons of decision making in groups.
ADVANTAGES.
Group decision-making, ideally, takes advantage of the diverse strengths and expertise
of its members. By tapping the unique qualities of group members, it is possible that the
group can generate a greater number of alternatives that are of higher quality than the
individual. If a greater number of higher quality alternatives are generated, then it is
likely that the group will eventually reach a superior problem solution than the
individual.
Group decision-making may also lead to a greater collective understanding of the
eventual course of action chosen, since it is possible that many affected by the decision
implementation actually had input into the decision. This may promote a sense of
"ownership" of the decision, which is likely to contribute to a greater acceptance of the
course of action selected and greater commitment on the part of the affected individuals
to make the course of action successful.
DISADVANTAGES.
There are many potential disadvantages to group decision-making. Groups are generally
slower to arrive at decisions than individuals, so sometimes it is difficult to utilize them
in situations where decisions must be made very quickly. One of the most often cited
problems is groupthink. Irving Janis, in his 1972 book Victims of Groupthink, defined
the phenomenon as the "deterioration of mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral
judgment resulting from in-group pressure." Groupthink occurs when individuals in a
group feel pressure to conform to what seems to be the dominant view in the group.
Dissenting views of the majority opinion are suppressed and alternative courses of
action are not fully explored.
Research suggests that certain characteristics of groups contribute to groupthink. In the
first place, if the group does not have an agreed upon process for developing and
evaluating alternatives, it is possible that an incomplete set of alternatives will be
considered and that different courses of action will not be fully explored. Many of the
formal decision-making processes (e.g., nominal group technique and brain-storming)
are designed, in part, to reduce the potential for groupthink by ensuring that group
members offer and consider a large number of decision alternatives. Secondly, if a
powerful leader dominates the group, other group members may quickly conform to the
dominant view. Additionally, if the group is under stress and/or time pressure,
groupthink may occur. Finally, studies suggest that highly cohesive groups are more
susceptible to groupthink.
Group polarization is another potential disadvantage of group decision-making. This is
the tendency of the group to converge on more extreme solutions to a problem. The
"risky shift" phenomenon is an example of polarization; it occurs when the group
decision is a riskier one than any of the group members would have made individually.
This may result because individuals in a group sometimes do not feel as much
responsibility and accountability for the actions of the group as they would if they were
making the decision alone.
Decision-making in groups is a fact of organizational life for many individuals. Because
so many individuals spend at least some of their work time in decision-making groups,
groups are the subjects of hundreds of research studies each year. Despite this, there is
still much to learn about the development and functioning of groups. Research is likely
to continue to focus on identifying processes that will make group decision-making
more efficient and effective. It is also likely to examine how the internal characteristics
of groups (demographic and cognitive diversity) and the external contingencies faced by
groups affect their functioning.
Tim Barnett
Group cohesiveness is the force bringing group members closer together. Cohesiveness has two
dimensions: emotional (or personal) and task-related. The emotional aspect of cohesiveness,
which was studied more often, is derived from the connection that members feel to other group
members and to their group as a whole. That is, how much do members like to spend time with
other group members? Do they look forward to the next group meeting? Task-cohesiveness
refers to the degree to which group members share group goals and work together to meet these
goals. That is, is there a feeling that the group works smoothly as one unit or do different people
pull in different directions?
Factors Influencing Group Cohesiveness The forces that push group members together can be
positive (group-based rewards) or negative (things lost upon leaving the group). The main factors
that influence group cohesiveness are: members’ similarity, group size, entry difficulty, group
success and external competition and threats. Often, these factors work through enhancing the
identification of the individual with the group she/he belongs to as well as their beliefs of how
the group can fulfill their personal needs.
Members’ Similarity The more group members are similar to each other on various
characteristics the easier it would be to reach cohesiveness. Following Social Identity Theory, we
know that people feel closer to those whom they perceive as similar to themselves in terms of
external characteristics (age, ethnicity) or internal ones (values, attitudes). In addition, similar
background makes it more likely that members share similar views on various issues, including
group objectives, how to communicate and the type of desired leadership. In general, higher
agreement among members on group rules and norms results in greater trust and less
dysfunctional conflict. This, in turn, strengthens both emotional and task cohesiveness.
Group Size Since it is easier for fewer people to agree on goals and to co-ordinate their work
smaller groups are more cohesive than larger groups. Task cohesiveness may suffer, though, if
the group lacks enough members to perform its tasks well enough.
Entry Difficulty Difficult entry criteria or procedures to a group tend to present it in more
exclusive light. The more elite the group is perceived to be, the more prestigious it is to be a
member in that group and consequently, the more motivated members are to belong and stay in
it. This is why alumni of prestigious universities tend to keep in touch for many years after they
graduate.
Group Success Group success, like exclusive entry, increases the value of group membership to
its members and influences members to identify more strongly with the team and to want to be
actively associated with it.
External Competition and Threats When members perceive active competition with another
group, they become more aware of members’ similarity within their group as well as seeing their
group as a means to overcome the external threat or competition they are facing. Both these
factors increase group cohesiveness; leaders throughout human history have been aware of this
and focused the attention of their followers on conflicts with external enemies when internal
cohesion was threatened. Similar effects can be brought about by facing an ‘objective’ external
threat or challenge (such as natural disaster).
Attitude (psychology)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
An attitude is a hypothetical construct that represents an individual's degree of like or dislike for
an item. Attitudes are generally positive or negative views of a person, place, thing, or event-this is often referred to as the attitude object. People can also be conflicted or ambivalent toward
an object, meaning that they simultaneously possess both positive and negative attitudes toward
the item in question.
Attitudes are judgments. They develop on the ABC model (affect, behavior, and cognition). The
affective response is an emotional response that expresses an individual's degree of preference
for an entity. The behavioral intention is a verbal indication or typical behavioral tendency of an
individual. The cognitive response is a cognitive evaluation of the entity that constitutes an
individual's beliefs about the object. Most attitudes are the result of either direct experience or
observational learning from the environment.
[edit] Attitude formation
Unlike personality, attitudes are expected to change as a function of experience. Tesser (1993)
has argued that hereditary variables may affect attitudes - but believes that they may do so
indirectly. For example, consistency theories, which imply that we must be consistent in our
beliefs and values. The most famous example of such a theory is Dissonance-reduction theory,
associated with Leon Festinger, although there are others, such as the balance theory.
[edit] Attitude change
see also Attitude change
Attitudes can be changed through persuasion and we should understand attitude change as a
response to communication. Experimental research into the factors that can affect the
persuasiveness of a message include:
1. Target Characteristics: These are characteristics that refer to the person who receives and
processes a message. One such trait is intelligence - it seems that more intelligent people are
less easily persuaded by one-sided messages. Another variable that has been studied in this
category is self-esteem. Although it is sometimes thought that those higher in self-esteem are
less easily persuaded, there is some evidence that the relationship between self-esteem and
persuasibility is actually curvilinear, with people of moderate self-esteem being more easily
persuaded than both those of high and low self-esteem levels (Rhodes & Woods, 1992). The
mind frame and mood of the target also plays a role in this process.
2. Source Characteristics: The major source characteristics are expertise, trustworthiness and
interpersonal attraction or attractiveness. The credibility of a perceived message has been found
to be a key variable here; if one reads a report about health and believes it came from a
professional medical journal, one may be more easily persuaded than if one believes it is from a
popular newspaper. Some psychologists have debated whether this is a long-lasting effect and
Hovland and Weiss (1951) found the effect of telling people that a message came from a
credible source disappeared after several weeks (the so-called "sleeper effect"). Whether there
is a sleeper effect is controversial. Perceived wisdom is that if people are informed of the source
of a message before hearing it, there is less likelihood of a sleeper effect than if they are told a
message and then told its source.
3. Message Characteristics: The nature of the message plays a role in persuasion. Sometimes
presenting both sides of a story is useful to help change attitudes.
Cognitive Routes: A message can appeal to an individual's cognitive evaluation to help change
an attitude. In the central route to persuasion the individual is presented with the data and
motivated to evaluate the data and arrive at an attitude changing conclusion. In the peripheral
route to attitude change, the individual is encouraged to not look at the content but at the source.
This is commonly seen in modern advertisements that feature celebrities. In some cases,
physician, doctors or experts are used. In other cases film stars are used for their attractiveness.
[edit] Emotion and Attitude Change
Emotion is a common component in persuasion, social influence, and attitude change. Much of
attitude research emphasized the importance of affective or emotion components. Emotion works
hand-in-hand with the cognitive process, or the way we think, about an issue or situation.
Emotional appeals are commonly found in advertising, health campaigns and political messages.
Recent examples include no-smoking health campaigns and political campaign advertising
emphasizing the fear of terrorism. Attitudes and attitude objects are functions of cognitive,
affective and conative components. Attitudes are part of the brain’s associative networks, the
spider-like structures residing in long term memory that consist of affective and cognitive nodes.
By activating an affective or emotion node, attitude change may be possible, though affective
and cognitive components tend to be intertwined. In primarily affective networks, it is more
difficult to produce cognitive counterarguments in the resistance to persuasion and attitude
change.
Affective forecasting, otherwise known as intuition or the prediction of emotion, also impacts
attitude change. Research suggests that predicting emotions is an important component of
decision making, in addition to the cognitive processes. How we feel about an outcome may
override purely cognitive rationales.
In terms of research methodology, the challenge for researchers is measuring emotion and
subsequent impacts on attitude. Since we cannot see into the brain, various models and
measurement tools have been constructed to obtain emotion and attitude information. Measures
may include the use of physiological cues like facial expressions, vocal changes, and other body
rate measures. For instance, fear is associated with raised eyebrows, increased heart rate and
increase body tension (Dillard, 1994). Other methods include concept or network mapping, and
using primes or word cues.
[edit] Components of Emotion Appeals
Any discrete emotion can be used in a persuasive appeal; this may include jealousy, disgust,
indignation, fear, and anger. Fear is one of the most studied emotional appeals in communication
and social influence research.
Important consequences of fear appeals and other emotion appeals include the possibility of
reactance which may lead to either message rejections or source rejection and the absence of
attitude change. As the EPPM suggests, there is an optimal emotion level in motivating attitude
change. If there is not enough motivation, an attitude will not change; if the emotional appeal is
overdone, the motivation can be paralyzed thereby preventing attitude change.
Emotions perceived as negative or containing threat are often studied more than perceived
positive emotions like humor. Though the inner-workings of humor are not agreed upon, humor
appeals may work by creating incongruities in the mind. Recent research has looked at the
impact of humor on the processing of political messages. While evidence is inconclusive, there
appears to be potential for targeted attitude change is receivers with low political message
involvement.
Important factors that influence the impact of emotion appeals include self efficacy, attitude
accessibility, issue involvement, and message/source features. Self efficacy is a perception of
one’s own human agency; in other words, it is the perception of our own ability to deal with a
situation. It is an important variable in emotion appeal messages because it dictates a person’s
ability to deal with both the emotion and the situation. For example, if a person is not selfefficacious about their ability to impact the global environment, they are not likely to change
their attitude or behavior about global warming.
Dillard (1994) suggests that message features such as source non-verbal communication,
message content, and receiver differences can impact the emotion impact of fear appeals. The
characteristics of a message are important because one message can elicit different levels of
emotion for different people. Thus, in terms of emotion appeals messages, one size does not fit
all.
Attitude accessibility refers to the activation of an attitude from memory in other words, how
readily available is an attitude about an object, issue, or situation. Issue involvement is the
relevance and salience of an issue or situation to an individual. Issue involvement has been
correlated with both attitude access and attitude strength. Past studies conclude accessible
attitudes are more resistant to change
[edit] Implicit and explicit attitudes
There is also considerable research on implicit attitudes, which are generally unacknowledged or
outside of awareness, but have effects that are measurable through sophisticated methods using
people's response times to stimuli. Implicit and explicit attitudes seem to affect people's
behavior, though in different ways. They tend not to be strongly associated with each other,
although in some cases they are. The relationship between them is poorly understood.
[edit] Jung's definition
Attitude is one of Jung's 57 definitions in Chapter XI of Psychological Types. Jung's definition of
attitude is a "readiness of the psyche to act or react in a certain way" (Jung, [1921] 1971:par.
687). Attitudes very often come in pairs, one conscious and the other unconscious. Within this
broad definition Jung defines several attitudes.
The main (but not only) attitude dualities that Jung defines are the following.






Consciousness and the unconscious. The "presence of two attitudes is extremely frequent, one
conscious and the other unconscious. This means that consciousness has a constellation of
contents different from that of the unconscious, a duality particularly evident in neurosis" (Jung,
[1921] 1971: par. 687).
Extraversion and introversion. This pair is so elementary to Jung's theory of types that he
labeled them the "attitude-types".
Rational and irrational attitudes. "I conceive reason as an attitude" (Jung, [1921] 1971: par. 785).
The rational attitude subdivides into the thinking and feeling psychological functions, each with
its attitude.
The irrational attitude subdivides into the sensing and intuition psychological functions, each
with its attitude. "There is thus a typical thinking, feeling, sensation, and intuitive attitude"
(Jung, [1921] 1971: par. 691).
Individual and social attitudes. Many of the latter are "isms".
In addition, Jung discusses the abstract attitude. “When I take an abstract attitude...” (Jung,
[1921] 1971: par. 679). Abstraction is contrasted with concretism. “CONCRETISM. By this I
mean a peculiarity of thinking and feeling which is the antithesis of abstraction” (Jung, [1921]
1971: par. 696). For example "i hate his attitude for being Sarcastic.
[edit] MBTI definition
The MBTI write-ups limit the use of "attitude" to the extraversion-introversion (EI) and judgingperceiving (JP) indexes.
The JP index is sometimes referred to as an orientation to the outer world and sometimes JP is classified
as an "attitude." In Jungian terminology the term attitude is restricted to EI. In MBTI terminology
attitude can include EI and also JP. (Myers, 1985:293 note 7).
The above MBTI Manual statement, is restricted to EI," is directly contradicted by Jung's
statement above that there is "a typical thinking, feeling, sensation, and intuitive attitude" and by
his other uses of the term "attitude". Regardless of whether the MBTI simplification (or
oversimplification) of Jung can be attributed to Myers, Gifts Differing refers only to the "EI
preference", consistently avoiding the label "attitude". Regarding the JP index, in Gifts Differing
Myers does use the terms "the perceptive attitude and the judging attitude" (Myers, 1980:8). The
JP index corresponds to the irrational and rational attitudes Jung describes, except that the MBTI
focuses on the preferred orientation in the outer world in order to identify the function hierarchy.
To be consistent with Jung, it can be noted that a rational extraverted preference is accompanied
by an irrational introverted preference.
Cognition
Cognition is the scientific term for "the process of thought." Usage of the term varies in different
disciplines; for example in psychology and cognitive science, it usually refers to an information
processing view of an individual's psychological functions. Other interpretations of the meaning
of cognition link it to the development of concepts; individual minds, groups, and organizations.

[edit] Introduction
The term cognition (Latin: cognoscere, "to know", "to conceptualize" or "to recognize") refers to
a faculty for the processing of information, applying knowledge, and changing preferences.
Cognition, or cognitive processes, can be natural or artificial, conscious or unconscious. These
processes are analyzed from different perspectives within different contexts, notably in the fields
of linguistics, anesthesia, neurology, psychology, philosophy, anthropology, systemics and
computer science. Within psychology or philosophy, the concept of cognition is closely related
to abstract concepts such as mind, reasoning, perception, intelligence, learning, and many others
that describe capabilities of the mind. In psychology and in artificial intelligence, cognition is
used to refer to the mental functions, mental processes (thoughts) and states of intelligent entities
(humans, human organizations, highly autonomous machines).
[edit] Psychology
The sort of mental processes described as cognitive are largely influenced by research which has
successfully used this paradigm in the past, likely starting with Thomas Aquinas, who divided
the study of behavior into two broad categories: cognitive (how we know the world), and affect
(feelings and emotions). Consequently, this description tends to apply to processes such as
memory, association, concept formation, language, attention, perception, action, problem solving
and mental imagery.[1] Traditionally, emotion was not thought of as a cognitive process. This
division is now regarded as largely artificial, and much research is currently being undertaken to
examine the cognitive psychology of emotion; research also includes one's awareness of
strategies and methods of cognition, known as metacognition.
Empirical research into cognition is usually scientific and quantitative, or involves creating
models to describe or explain certain behaviors.
While few people would deny that cognitive processes are a function of the brain, a cognitive
theory will not necessarily make reference to the brain or other biological process (compare
neurocognitive). It may purely describe behavior in terms of information flow or function.
Relatively recent fields of study such as cognitive science and neuropsychology aim to bridge
this gap, using cognitive paradigms to understand how the brain implements these informationprocessing functions (see also cognitive neuroscience), or how pure information-processing
systems (e.g., computers) can simulate cognition (see also artificial intelligence). The branch of
psychology that studies brain injury to infer normal cognitive function is called cognitive
neuropsychology. The links of cognition to evolutionary demands are studied through the
investigation of animal cognition. And conversely, evolutionary-based perspectives can inform
hypotheses about cognitive functional systems evolutionary psychology.
The theoretical school of thought derived from the cognitive approach is often called
cognitivism.
The phenomenal success of the cognitive approach can be seen by its current dominance as the
core model in contemporary psychology (usurping behaviorism in the late 1950s).
[edit] Cognition as social process
It has been observed since antiquity that language acquisition in human children fails to emerge
unless the children are exposed to language. Thus, language acquisition is an example of an
emergent behavior. In this case, the individual is made up of a set of mechanisms "expecting"
such input from the social world.
In education, for instance, which has the explicit task in society of developing child cognition,
choices are made regarding the environment and permitted action that lead to a formed
experience. In social cognition, face perception in human babies emerges by the age of two
months. This is in turn affected by the risk or cost of providing these, for instance, those
associated with a playground or swimming pool or field trip. On the other hand, the macrochoices made by the teachers are extremely influential on the micro-choices made by children.
In a large systemic perspective, cognition is considered closely related to the social and human
organization functioning and constrains. Managerial decision making processes can be erroneous
in politics, economy and industry for the reason of different reciprocally dependent sociocognitive factors. This domain became the field of interest of emergent socio-cognitive
engineering.
SELECTIVE PERCEPTION
Selective Perception Selective perception is the personal filtering of what we see and hear
so as to suit our own needs. Much of this process is psychological and often unconscious.
Have you ever been accused of only hearing what you want to hear. In fact, that is quite
true. We simply are bombarded with too much stimuli every day to pay equal attention to
everything so we pick and choose according to our own needs.
Halo Effect The halo effect has to do with judging or evaluating a person, place, or event
by a single trait or experience. This overall impression can be good or bad but will prejudice
our further involvement with the stimulus. Each of us can remember making a snap
judgment about someone based on a first impression. Often we try to perceive further
interaction with the individual based on this first impression, regardless of whether it was
positive or negative. If this impression is incorrect, it often takes considerable pressure to
concede this fact and break the halo effect. Examples are plentiful in business. A plush
office convinces us someone is an important person in the organization and must be taken
seriously. A sloppily typed letter by our new secretary proves to us the individual is going to
be an unsatisfactory employee. The halo effect often shows up most conspicuously on
performance appraisals where our overall good or bad opinion of the workers interferes with
our ability to evaluate weaknesses or strengths accurately on individual job functions.
Selective Perception in Public Assessment of the Press and the Presidential
Scandal
Job the press has
done covering
allegations
Total Republicans Independents Democrats
%%
%
%
%
Excellent/Good
46
Only fair/Poor
51
Don't Know/Refused 3
61
35
4
46
52
2
35
61
4
Total
100
100
100
100
Question: How good a job are news organizations doing at reporting about the allegations against
President Clinton . . . an excellent job, a good job, only a fair job or a poor job?
Source: "Popular Policies and Unpopular Press Lift Clinton Ratings," Pew Research Center for
the People & the Press, News Release dated 2/6/98, p. 4.
Stereotypes / Characterization Frames
What Stereotypes Are
Stereotypes (or "characterizations") are generalizations or
assumptions that people make about the characteristics of all
members of a group, based on an image (often wrong) about
what people in that group are like. For example, one study of
stereotypes revealed that Americans are generally considered to
be friendly, generous, and tolerant, but also arrogant, impatient,
and domineering. Asians, on the other hand, are expected to be
shrewd and alert, but reserved. Clearly, not all Americans are
friendly and generous; and not all Asians are reserved. But
according to this study, others commonly perceive them this
way.[1]
Why Stereotypes Matter
Stereotyping is especially prevalent -- and problematic -- in
conflicts. Groups tend to define themselves according to who they
are and who they are not. And "others," especially "enemies" or
"opponents" are often viewed in very negative ways. The
opponent is expected to be aggressive, self-serving, and
deceitful, for example, while people in one's own group are seen
in generally positive ways. Similarly, if problems occur, blame is
often placed on "the enemy," while one's own contribution to the
problem is ignored. For example, problems may be attributed to
the opponent's lack of cooperativeness, not one's own; or the
enemy's aggressiveness, not their fear of one's own aggressive
stance. Even similarities between parties can be viewed
differently: one's own competitiveness may be seen in a positive
light as "tough, effective negotiating," while the opponent's
competitive actions are seen as "hostile and deceptive."
Such stereotypes tend to be self-perpetuating. If one side
assumes the other side is deceitful and aggressive, they will tend
to respond deceitfully and aggressively themselves. The
opponent will then develop a similar image of the first party and
respond deceptively, thus confirming the initial stereotype. The
stereotypes may even grow worse, as communication shuts down
and escalation heightens emotions and tension.
The Positive Side of Stereotypes
Although stereotypes generally have negative implications, they
aren't necessarily negative. Stereotypes are basically
generalizations that are made about groups. Such generalizations
are necessary: in order to be able to interact effectively, we must
have some idea of what people are likely to be like, which
behaviors will be considered acceptable, and which not.
For example, elsewhere in this system there is an essay about
high-context and low-context cultures. People in low-context
cultures are said to be more individualistic, their communication
more overt, depending less on context and shared
understandings. High-context cultures are more group-oriented.
Their communication is more contextually based, depending more
on shared understandings and inferences.
Such generalizations are, in essence, stereotypes. They allow us
to put people into a category, according to the group they belong
to, and make inferences about how they will behave based on
that grouping. There will still be differences between individuals
from one culture, and with the same individual in different
situations. But the stereotype is reasonably accurate, so it is
useful. Stereotypes are only a problem when they are inaccurate,
especially when those inaccuracies are negative and hostile.
What Can Be Done to Deal with Negative Stereotypes:
The key to reversing negative stereotypes is to contradict them, in
direct interactions between people, in the media, and through
education.
Between Individuals. Once people get to know a person from
"the other side," they often will determine that the other is not
nearly as bad as they originally had assumed. (Though
sometimes they might find out they are just as bad -- or even
worse!)
More often, however, people really are much more reasonable
than their stereotypes would suggest. In that case, getting to
know people personally helps to break down negative images.
This is especially true when people determine that they actually
have things in common with people from the other side. Such
things can range from enjoying the same music, hobbies, or
sports, to having the same worries about children or aging
parents.
Even when people learn that they share fear or sadness, they can
begin to understand each other more. When they come to
understand that the other is afraid of being hurt, or losing a loved
one in war, just as they are, that brings people together. Such
shared emotions make people seem human, while stereotypes
typically "dehumanize" people. Likewise, shared emotions make
empathy possible, which opens the door to new forms of
interaction and trust building, at least among the individuals
involved.
Depending on the context and other interactions, the image of the
group as a whole may become more positive as well. (At other
times, people rationalize that their one new acquaintance is "not
like the others.") But even learning that one person can deviate
from the stereotype is a start. The challenge then is to expand
such transformative experiences beyond the individuals involved
to larger groups, communities, and eventually whole societies.
Developing such mutual understanding is the goal of many
intervention efforts in war-torn areas, and in places rocked by
social unrest. Dialogue groups and problem-solving workshops
are two common ways of doing this. So are joint projects such as
war-reconstruction efforts, children's programs, recreational
programs, medical programs -- any kind of program that brings
individuals from opposing groups together in a cooperative
venture. Although they have additional goals beyond the breaking
of stereotypes, working together cooperatively can do much to
break down negative images people hold of the "enemy."
In the Media. The media also plays an important role in both
perpetuating and in breaking down stereotypes. If they
characterize particular groups of people in certain ways, their
viewers (or readers) are likely to do the same. So if a movie -- or
the motion picture industry in general -- characterizes a group of
people negatively, they are likely to be perpetuating negative
stereotypes and making conflicts worse. If they emphasize the
positive aspects of groups that contradict prevalent stereotypes,
they can have a significant role in building mutual understanding.
In Education. Educational institutions and teaching materials also
have the opportunity to affect stereotypes, and hence influence
inter-group relations. Efforts to teach about different cultures, and
the history of different racial or ethnic groups can help build intergroup understanding if it is done in an effective and sympathetic
way.
However, the opposite is also true. If textbooks teach about the
treachery and villainous actions of the enemy, this, obviously, will
only perpetuate stereotypes from one generation to the next,
entrenching the conflict for many years to come. This does not
mean that history should be ignored. The holocaust, for example,
did occur and must be acknowledged. But it can be
acknowledged as a grave mistake that is now recognized as a
mistake, rather than painted as "typical" or "acceptable" behavior.
What Individuals Can Do to Breakdown Negative Stereotypes
Changing stereotypes is largely the job of individuals. Each of us
should examine the assumptions that we make about others and
ask ourselves where those assumptions come from. Upon what
information are they based? Are they based on personal
experiences with others? In what context? Might "the other" be
different in different situations? Are your assumptions based on
things you have heard from others? Learned from the TV or
movies? Learned in school? Is it possible that some of your
negative images are wrong -- at least for some people?
In most cases, the answer to that last question is likely to be
"yes." Even in the most escalated conflicts, not all of the "enemy"
is as vicious and immutable as they are often assumed to be.
Most groups have moderates and extremists, people who are
willing to listen and work with the other side, and those who are
not. Rather than assuming all of "the enemy" are evil and
unwilling to hear your concerns, try to get to know people as
individuals. Just as that will reduce the stereotypes you hold of
others, it is also likely to reduce the stereotypes others hold of
you.
What the Media Can Do
Steps the media can take to reduce stereotypes are dealt with
elsewhere in this system, but fundamentally, it is important that
the media paint as accurate a picture of both sides of a conflict as
is possible. This generally means painting a complex picture.
While extremists tend to make the most noise and hence the most
news, the media can do much to lessen conflict by focusing
attention on moderates and peacebuilders as well. Heartwarming
stories of reconciliation can replace or at least stand side-by-side
with heart-wrenching stories of violence and loss. Showing that
there is hope -- helping people visualize a better life in a better
world -- is a service the media can do better than any other
institution, at least on a large scale.
What the Educational System Can Do
This, too, is dealt with elsewhere in this system, but the
educational system (teachers, schools, textbooks) needs to also
try to paint a fair and accurate picture of the conflict and the
different people involved, being aware that different sides of a
conflict will view (frame) what is happening very differently.
Through stories, discussions, and exercises, teachers can help
students (of all ages and levels) understand the complexity of the
conflicts that surround them, and develop age- and situationappropriate responses to the current conflicts in their homes,
communities, and nations. To the extent that classrooms contain
students from both sides of the conflict, teachers can help
students learn to understand and appreciate each other better,
while protecting the safety (physical and emotional) of those on
both sides. If the classroom only contains one group, reaching
such intergroup understandings is harder, but still worth the effort
through books and articles, discussions, TV and movies, and
when available, online exercises (such as those provided in the
links below).
Teaching Materials on this Topic:
Online (Web) Sources
"Cultural Diversity in the Classrooms." , 1900
Available at: http://education.indiana.edu/cas/tt/v2i2/cultural.html.
This article suggests steps teachers can take to promote cultural
diversity in the classroom. It also has an exercise that can help
the reader assess their knowledge of cultural diversity and their
beliefs in some common myths and stereotypes that relate to
various cultural and ethnic groups by asking such questions as
"What myths or stereotypes do you hold?"; "How might these
affect your teaching?"; "What do you need to do to be more
sensitive in the classroom?"
Tolerance.org.
Available at: http://www.tolerance.org/.
This is an exceptionally useful and extensive website on
tolerance. It has exercises visitors can take to examine your own
biases, to "deconstruct" biased language and examine history.
Different sets of materials are provided for teachers, parents, and
children. While focused primarily on race relations in the United
States, many of the materials are applicable elsewhere as well.
Attribution (psychology)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article may need to be wikified to meet
Wikipedia's quality standards. Please help by adding
relevant internal links, or by improving the article's
layout. (August 2010)
Attribution is a concept in social psychology referring to how
individuals explain causes of events, other's behaviour, and their
own behaviour.
[edit] Types of attribution
Fritz Heider argued that, as an active perceiver of the events, the
average person continuously or spontaneously makes causal
inferences on why the events occur.[1] Eventually, these
inferences become beliefs or expectations that allow the person
to predict and understand the events that they observe and
experience. As such, attribution theory is concerned with how
individuals interpret events and how these interpretations relate to
their subsequent behaviour.
The two main types of attributions are internal and external
attributions. When an internal attribution is made, the cause of
the given behaviour is assigned to the individual's personality,
attitudes, character or disposition. When an external attribution is
made, the cause of the given behaviour is assigned to the
situation in which the behaviour was seen (that the individual
producing the behaviour did so because of the surrounding
environment or the social situation). These two types of attribution
lead to very different perceptions of the individual engaging in a
behaviour (Personal is Internal and Situational is external).[2]
[edit] Covariation model of attribution
Harold Kelley's covariation Model of Attribution looks to three
main types of information from which to make an attribution
decision about an individual's behaviour. The first is consensus
information, or information on how other people in the same
situation and with the same stimulus behave. The second is
distinctiveness information, or how the individual responds to
different stimuli. The third is consistency information, or how
frequent the individual's behaviour can be observed with similar
stimulus but varied situations. From these three sources of
information observers make attribution decisions on the
individual's behaviour as either internal or external.[3]
[edit] Perceptual salience and attribution
When people try to make attributions about another's behaviour,
their information focuses on the individual. Their perception of that
individual is lacking most of the external factors which might affect
the individual. The gaps tend to be skipped over and the
attribution is made based on the perception information most
salient. The perceptual information most salient dominates a
person's perception of the situation.[4]
For an individual making a behavioural attribution about
themselves, the situation and external environment is entirely
salient for them, but their body and behaviour are less so. This
leads to the tendency to make an external attribution in regards to
one's own behaviour.[5]
[edit] Bias and errors in attributions
[edit] Fundamental attribution error
[6]
A tendency to overestimate the extent to which a person's
behaviour is due to internal, dispositional factors and to
underestimate the role of situational factors.
One plausible reason for this error relates to the perceptual and
cognitive salience of the actor as opposed to the situation: that is,
observers focus their attention on actors, while the situational
causes of the actor's behaviour are less salient and may be
unknown.
[edit] Spotlight effect
[7]
People tend to assume their features and behaviours are more
salient to others than what they generally are. This is termed the
Spotlight effect, the tendency to believe that other people are
paying closer attention to one's appearance and behaviour than
they really are.
[edit] Actor/observer difference
[8]
Tendency to see other people's actions as internally caused,
while focusing more on the role of situational factors when
explaining one's own actions - even when explaining the same
actions. A widespread explanation for the actor/observer
difference is based on similar perceptual-cognitive factors as that
noted for the fundamental attribution error.[9]
[edit] Correspondence bias
[10]
The correspondence bias is the inclination to conclude that
people's behaviours match their personalities; that is, a bias to not
only infer internal causes for behaviour, but to conclude that those
internal causes are stable personality characteristics of the actor.
[edit] Dispositional attributions
[11]
Error in attribution involves attributions not to individuals but to
whole groups of individuals. The tendency to make dispositional
attributions of casualty and correspondent inferences with respect
to groups of people - leading to the assumption that whole groups
have similar dispositions or personality characteristics.
For example, the assumption of positive characteristics causing
the behaviour of members in favoured ingroups, and negative
characteristics causing the behaviour of disfavoured outgroups
has been labelled the ultimate attribution error.
[edit] Self-serving attributions
Self-serving attributions are explanations for one's own successes
that credit internal, dispositional factors and explanations for one's
failures that blame external, situational factors.
People tend to make attributions in line with "bad things happen
to bad people" and "good things happen to good people" in order
to protect their self-esteem and prevent feeling vulnerable. This is
often referred to the just-world hypothesis.[12]
Defensive attributions are one type of self-serving attribution; they
involve explanations for actions or outcomes that are made to
avoid feelings of vulnerability and mortality.
Unrealistic optimism is a form of defensive attribution in which
people think that positive events are more likely to happen to
them than to their peers, and that negative events are less likely
to happen to them than to their peers.
Various explanations have been offered for prevalence of selfserving biases. One is a general motivational desire to maintain
self-esteem.
Another concern self-presentation in social relations, suggesting
that we exercise self-serving attributions in order to maintain the
perceptions others have of us. And a third is a more cognitive
view, which is that, because people have information about their
own behaviours in other situations in which they have had positive
outcomes, this may lead to positive outcomes being expected and
negative outcomes being unexpected.[13]
[edit] Attribution theories
[edit] People as intuitive psychologists
Heider argues that people act as intuitive psychologists,
employing commonsense or naive theories about the world and
about people.
Although all behaviour results from both external and internal
forces or processes, we nonetheless have a tendency to explain
any one behaviour as caused more by either internal or external
factors.
[edit] Correspondent inference theory
[14]
It states that people attempt to make 'correspondent
inferences' about others.
[edit] Covariation theory
[15]
Covariation theory assumes that people make causal
attributions in a rational, logical fashion, and that they assign the
cause of an action to the factor that covaries most closely with
that action.
[edit] Abnormal conditions focus model
[16]
This approach argues that to be attributed as a cause,
something must be judged to be unusual or infrequent.
[edit] Motivational attribution theory
Bernard Weiner[17] proposed that individuals have initial affective
responses to the potential consequences of the intrinsic or
extrinsic motives of the actor, which in turn influence future
behaviour. That is, a person's own perceptions or attributions
determine the amount of effort the person will engage in activities
in the future. Weiner suggests that individuals exert their
attribution search and cognitively evaluate casual properties on
the behaviours they experience. When attributions lead to positive
affect and high expectancy of future success, such attributions
should result in greater willingness to approach to similar
achievement tasks in the future than those attributions that
produce negative affect and low expectancy of future success.
Eventually, such affective and cognitive assessment influences
future behaviour when individuals encounter similar situations.
Weiner's achievement attribution has three categories:
1. stability
2. locus of causality
3. control.
Stability influence individuals' expectancy about their future;
control is related with individuals' persistence on mission;
causality influences emotional responses to the outcome of task.
[edit] Attribution and culture
Different cultures have different attribution tendencies. Collectivist
cultures tend to use situational attribution, while individualist
cultures tend to use dispositional attribution. While there are some
overlap, culture has a large affect on attribution heuristics.[18]
[edit] Causal uncertainty
At times people are not sure why an event happened. This can
threaten their ability to predict and control events.[19]
Sources of Attitudes
Attitudes are acquired from parents, teachers and members of the
peer group. The genetic make-up of a child initially determines his
personality and attitudes. However, as the child begins his
schooling and interacts with people, his attitudes are influenced
by the people whom he admires, respects or fears. Individuals are
more willing to modify their behavior and shape their attitude to
align with the behavior of people whom they look up to. This is the
reason why companies have their products endorsed by popular
personalities such as leading cricket players and film stars. Such
endorsement helps develop a positive attitude toward their
products among the public.
People are generally not as steadfast about their attitudes as they
are about their values. Thus, the attitudes of people can be easily
influenced and altered. Attitudes can be changed by various
means: by providing new information, by coercion or threat, by
resolving differences, and by involving people (dissatisfied with a
situation in the organization) in problem solving. It is only natural
for employees to have a hostile attitude toward change in the
organization. However, if the management helps employees
understand the competitive threat the organization is facing and
makes them realize the need for change and organization
development, the employees will, most likely, overcome their
hostile attitude and agree to bring about change in the
organization.
Attitudes can also be changed by providing the right type of
feedback to employees. If a manager always makes only negative
remarks in his feedback to employees, the employees may
develop a negative attitude towards the job and workplace. The
manager should therefore be trained to give objective feedback
(which includes both positive and negative points) in a manner
that does not de-motivating employees. This will help change the
attitude of employees towards their job and work environment and
will go a long way in preventing job dissatisfaction and turnover.
Persuasion
Persuasion is a form of social influence. It is the process of
guiding oneself or another toward the adoption of an idea,
attitude, or action by rational and symbolic (though not always
logical) means.
[edit] Methods
Persuasion methods are also sometimes referred to as
persuasion tactics or persuasion strategies.
[edit] Weapons of influence
According to Robert Cialdini in his book on persuasion, he defined
six "weapons of influence":[1]

Reciprocity - People tend to return a favor. Thus, the
pervasiveness of free samples in marketing and advertising.
In his conferences, he often uses the example of Ethiopia
providing thousands of dollars in humanitarian aid to Mexico
just after the 1985 earthquake, despite Ethiopia suffering
from a crippling famine and civil war at the time. Ethiopia had
been reciprocating for the diplomatic support Mexico
provided when Italy invaded Ethiopia in 1937.

Commitment and Consistency - Once people commit to
what they think is right, orally or in writing, they are more
likely to honor that commitment, even if the original incentive
or motivation is subsequently removed. For example, in car
sales, suddenly raising the price at the last moment works
because the buyer has already decided to buy.

Social Proof - People will do things that they see other
people are doing. For example, in one experiment, one or
more confederates would look up into the sky; bystanders
would then look up into the sky to see what they were
seeing. At one point this experiment aborted, as so many
people were looking up that they stopped traffic. See
conformity, and the Asch conformity experiments.

Authority - People will tend to obey authority figures, even if
they are asked to perform objectionable acts. Cialdini cites
incidents, such as the Milgram experiments in the early
1960s and the My Lai massacre.

Liking - People are easily persuaded by other people whom
they like. Cialdini cites the marketing of Tupperware in what
might now be called viral marketing. People were more likely
to buy if they liked the person selling it to them. Some of the
many biases favoring more attractive people are discussed,
but generally more aesthetically pleasing people tend to use
this influence excellently over others. See physical
attractiveness stereotype.

Scarcity - Perceived scarcity will generate demand. For
example, saying offers are available for a "limited time only"
encourages sales.
[edit] Relationship based persuasion
In their book "The Art of Woo" G. Richard Shell and Mario
Moussa describe a four step approach to strategic persuasion[2].
They explain that persuasion means to win others over, not to
defeat them. Thus it is very important to be able to see the topic
from different angles in order to anticipate the reaction of others to
a proposal.
Step 1: Survey your situation
This step includes an analysis of the situation of the persuader,
his goals and the challenges he faces in his organization.
Step 2: Confront the five barriers
There are five obstacles that pose the greatest risks to a
successful influence encounter: relationships, credibility,
communication mismatches, belief systems, interest and needs.
Step 3: Make your pitch
People need solid reason to justify a decision, yet at the same
time many decisions are taken on the basis of intuition. This step
also deals with presentation skills.
Step 4: Secure your commitments
In order to safeguard the longtime success it is vital to deal with
politics at the individual and organizational level.
[edit] Propaganda
Propaganda is also closely related to Persuasion. It's a concerted
set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of
large numbers of people. Instead of impartially providing
information, propaganda in its most basic sense presents
information in order to influence its audience. The most effective
propaganda is often completely truthful, but some propaganda
presents facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis, or
gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather
than rational response to the information presented. The desired
result is a change of the cognitive narrative of the subject in the
target audience. The term 'propaganda' first appeared in 1622
when Pope Gregory XV established the Sacred Congregation for
Propagating the Faith. Propaganda was then as now about
convincing large numbers of people about the veracity of a given
set of ideas. Propaganda is as old as people, politics and religion.
[edit] List of methods
By appeal to reason:





Logical argument
Logic
Rhetoric
Scientific method
Proof
By appeal to emotion:







Advertising
Faith
Presentation and Imagination
Propaganda
Seduction
Tradition
Pity
Aids to persuasion:

Body language



Communication skill or Rhetoric
Sales techniques
Personality tests and conflict style inventory help devise
strategy based on an individual's preferred style of
interaction
Other techniques:




Deception
Hypnosis
Subliminal advertising
Power (sociology)
Coercive techniques, some of which are highly controversial
and/or not scientifically proven to be effective:



Brainwashing
Coercive persuasion
Mind control
[edit] Neurobiology of persuasion
Attitudes and persuasion are among the central issues of social
behavior. One of the classic questions is when are attitudes a
predictor of behavior. Previous research suggested that selective
activation of left prefrontal cortex might increase the likelihood
that an attitude would predict a relevant behavior. Using lateral
attentional manipulation, this was supported. [3]
An earlier article showed that EEG measures of anterior prefrontal
asymmetry might be a predictor of persuasion. Research
participants were presented with arguments that favored and
arguments that opposed the attitudes they already held. Those
whose brain was more active in left prefrontal areas said that they
paid the most attention to statements with which they agreed
while those with a more active right prefrontal area said that they
paid attention to statements that disagreed. [4] This is an example
of defensive repression, the avoidance or forgetting of unpleasant
information. Research has shown that the trait of defensive
repression is related to relative left prefrontal activation. [5] In
addition, when pleasant or unpleasant words, probably analogous
to agreement or disagreement, were seen incidental to the main
task, an fMRI scan showed preferential left prefrontal activation to
the pleasant words [6]
One way therefore to increase persuasion would seem to be to
selectively activate the right prefrontal cortex. This is easily done
by monaural stimulation to the contralateral ear. The effect
apparently depends on selective attention rather than merely the
source of stimulation. This manipulation had the expected
outcome: more persuasion for messages coming from the left [7]
Attitudes

01427465546669
FORID:10
An attitude is:
“a relatively enduring organisation of beliefs, feelings, and
behavioural tendencies towards socially significant objects,
groups, events or symbols” (Hogg & Vaughan 2005, p150)
“..a psychological tendency that is expressed by evaluating a
particular entity with some degree of favor or disfavor” (Eagly &
Chaiken, 1993, p. 1)
Structure of Attitudes
Attitudes structure can be described in terms of three
components.
o
o
o
Affective component: this involves a person’s feelings /
emotions about the attitude object. For example: “I am
scared of spiders”.
Behavioural (or conative) component: the way the attitude
we have influences how we act or behave. For example: “I
will avoid spiders and scream if I see one”.
Cognitive component: this involves a person’s belief /
knowledge about an attitude object. For example: “I believe
spiders are dangerous”.
This model is known as the ABC model of attitudes. The three
components are usually linked. However, there is evidence that
the cognitive and affective components of behaviour do not
always match with behaviour. This is shown in a study by LaPiere
(1934).
The Function of Attitudes
Attitudes can serve functions for the individual. Daniel Katz
(1960) outlines four functional areas:
• Knowledge. Attitudes provide meaning (knowledge) for life. The
knowledge function refers to our need for a world which is
consistent and relatively stable. This allows us to predict what is
likely to happen, and so gives us a sense of control. Attitudes can
hep us organise and structure our experience. Knowing a
person’s attitude helps us predict their behaviour. For example,
knowing that a person is religious we can predict they will go to
Church.
• Self / Ego-expressive. The attitudes we express (1) help
communicate who we are and (2) may make us feel good
because we have asserted our identity. Self-expression of
attitudes can be non-verbal too: think bumper sticker, cap, or Tshirt slogan. Therefore, our attitudes are part of our identify, and
help us to be aware through expression of our feelings, beliefs
and values.
• Adaptive. If a person holds and/or expresses socially
acceptable attitudes, other people will reward them with approval
and social acceptance. For example, when people flatter their
bosses or instructors (and believe it) or keep silent if they think an
attitude is unpopular. Again, expression can be nonverbal [think
politician kissing baby]. Attitudes then, are to do with being apart
of a social group and the adaptive functions helps us fit in with a
social group. People seek out others who share their attitudes,
and develop similar attitudes to those they like.
• The ego-defensive function refers to holding attitudes
that protect our self-esteem or that justify actions that make us
feel guilty. For example, one way children might defend
themselves against the feelings of humiliation they have
experienced in P.E. lessons is to adopt a strongly negative
attitude to all sport. People whose pride has suffered following a
defeat in sport might similarly adopt a defensive attitude: “I’m not
bothered, I’m sick of rugby anyway…”. This function has
psychiatric overtones. Positive attitudes towards ourselves, for
example, have a protective function (i.e. an ego-defensive role) in
helping us reserve our self-image.
The basic idea behind the functional approach is that attitudes
help a person to mediate between their own inner needs
(expression, defence) and the outside world (adaptive and
knowledge).
Functions of Attitudes Example
Imagine you are very patriotic about being British. This might
cause you to have an ethnocentric attitude towards everything not
British. Imagine further that you are with a group of like-minded
friends. You say:
“Of course there’s no other country as good as Britain to live in.
Other places are alright in their own way but they can’t compare
with your mother county.”
(There are nods of approval all round. You are fitting in adaptive). The people in the group are wearing England football
shirts (This is the self-expression function).
Then imagine you go on to say:
“The trouble with foreigners is that they don’t speak English. I
went to France last year and they were ignorant. Even if they
could speak our language they wouldn’t do so. I call that
unfriendly.
(Others agree with you and tell you of their similar experiences.
You are making sense of things. This is the knowledge
function). Then someone who has never travelled takes things a
stage further…
“I don’t mind foreigners coming here on holiday…but they
shouldn’t be allowed to live here….taking our jobs and living off
social security. Britain for the British is what I say….why is it
getting so you can’t get a decent job in your own country.”
(Now the others in the room join in scapegoating foreigners and
demonstrating the ego defensive function of attitudes).


Home
Supplementary Resources
1. 1: What is social psychology?
 A definition of social psychology
 Historical trends and current themes in social psychology
 How the approach of this book reflects an integrative perspective
2. 2: Asking and answering research questions
 Research questions and the role of theory
 Testing theories: From theory to research
 The role of ethics and values in research
3. 3: Perceiving individuals
 Forming first impressions: Cues, interpretations, and inferences
 Beyond first impressions: Systematic processing
 The impact of impressions: Using, defending, and changing impressions
4. 4: The self
 Constructing the self-concept: What we know about ourselves
 Constructing self-esteem: How we feel about ourselves
 Effects of the self: Processes of self-regulation
 Defending the self: Coping with stresses, inconsistencies, and failures
5. 5: Perceiving groups
 Forming impressions of groups: Establishing stereotypes
 Using stereotypes: From preconceptions to prejudice
 Changing stereotypes: Overcoming bias to reduce prejudice
6. 6: Social identity
 Categorizing oneself as a group member
 Me, you, and them: Effects of social categorization
 When group memberships are negative
7. 7: Attitudes and attitude change
 Attitudes and their origins
 Superficial and systematic routes to persuasion: From snap judgments to
considered opinions
 Defending attitudes: Resisting persuasion
8. 8: Attitudes and behavior
 Changing attitudes with actions
 Guiding actions with attitudes
9. 9: Groups, norms, and conformity
 Conformity to social norms
 The dual functions of conformity to norms: Mastery and connectedness
 How groups form norms: Processes of social influence
 Conformity pressure:Undermining true consensus
 Minority influence: The value of dissent
10. 10: Norms and behavior
 Norms: Effective guides for social behavior





11.
12.
13.
14.
The norm of reciprocity: Treating others as they treat you
The norm of commitment: Keeping your promises
The norm of obedience: Submitting to authority
Rebellion and resistance: Fighting back
Putting it all together: Multiple guides for behavior
11: Liking and loving
 Initial Attraction
 From Acquaintance to Friend: Relationship Development
 Close Relationships
 Romantic Love and Sexuality
 When Relationships Go Wrong
12: Interaction in groups
 The mere presence of others: The effects of minimal interdependence
 Performance in face-to-face groups: Interaction and interdependence
13: Aggression and conflict
 Aggression, conflict, and human nature
 Interpersonal aggression
 Intergroup conflict
14: Helping and cooperation
 When do people help?
 Why do people help? Helping for mastery and connectedness
 Role of superficial or systematic processing in helping and cooperation
 Prosocial behavior in society
Chapter 7: Attitudes and attitude change
Case Study: The functions of attitudes: The value-expressive function
According to Katz (1960), attitudes serve different functions, one of which is the
value-expressive function
. Value-expressive
attitudes show who we are, and what we stand for.
Consequently, only important and strongly self-related (central)
attitudes should serve the value-expressive function. However,
this relationship between the function and the importance of
attitudes has not previously been studied.
Attitudes differ in strength (see Holland, Verplanken, Van
Knippenberg, & Dijksterhuis, 1999; Pomerantz, Chaiken, &
Tordesillas, 1995). Strong, central attitudes are attitudes that
refer to important attitude objects that are strongly related to the
self. These attitudes are often related to important values.
According to self-affirmation theory, threatened self-esteem can
be repaired by expressing important values. This could also
work for "central" attitudes.
Smeets and Holland (2002) investigated the relationship
between the value-expressive function of attitudes and the
importance of attitudes. In a laboratory study, they assessed
attitude centrality towards Amnesty International and the level
of self-esteem among participants. One week later, they
threatened the participants' self-esteem. After this manipulation,
participants were able to donate money to Amnesty
International.
The results were clear: only people with a central attitude
towards Amnesty International could repair their self-esteem by
expressing their attitude towards this organization. Donating
money to the organization had no effect on the self-esteem of
participants who did not have a central attitude towards
Amnesty International. People with a central attitude who didn't
donate money even showed a lower level of self-esteem than the
other participants.
This research showed a relationship between the functions of
attitudes and the importance of attitudes.
References


Holland, R. W., Verplanken, B., Van Knippenberg, A.,
Dijksterhuis, A. (2000). Centraliteit van attitudes als sterkte
van de associatie tussen attitudes en het zelf. In C. Rutte,
D. Van Knippenberg, C. Martijn, & D. Stapel (Eds.),
Fundamentele sociale psychologie, deel 14. Tilburg, The
Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.
Katz, D. (1960). The functional approach to the study of attitudes.
Public Opinion Quarterly, 24, 163–204.
<ahref="http://www.outofservice.com/bigfive/results/?oR=0.65&amp;cR=0.833&amp;eR=0.438&amp;a
R=0.722&amp;nR=0.625">I'm a O35-C89-E27-A63-N66 Big Five!!</a>
Personality psychology
Personality psychology is a branch of psychology that
studies personality and individual differences. Its areas of
focus include:



Constructing a coherent picture of a person and his or
her major psychological processes [1]
Investigating individual differences, that is, how
people can differ from one another.
Investigating human nature, that is, how all people's
behaviour is similar.
Personality can be defined as a dynamic and organized
set of characteristics possessed by a person that uniquely
influences his or her cognitions, motivations, and
behaviors in various situations [2]. The word "personality"
originates from the Latin persona, which means mask.
Significantly, in the theatre of the ancient Latin-speaking
world, the mask was not used as a plot device to disguise
the identity of a character, but rather was a convention
employed to represent or typify that character.
The pioneering American psychologist, Gordon Allport
(1937) described two major ways to study personality, the
nomothetic and the idiographic. Nomothetic psychology
seeks general laws that can be applied to many different
people, such as the principle of self-actualization, or the
trait of extraversion. Idiographic psychology is an attempt
to understand the unique aspects of a particular individual.
The study of personality has a broad and varied history in
psychology, with an abundance of theoretical traditions.
The major theories include dispositional (trait) perspective,
psychodynamic, humanistic, biological, behaviorist and
social learning perspective. There is no consensus on the
definition of "personality" in psychology. Most researchers
and psychologists do not explicitly identify themselves with
a certain perspective and often take an eclectic approach.
Some research is empirically driven such as the "Big 5"
personality model whereas other research emphasizes
theory development such as psychodynamics. There is
also a substantial emphasis on the applied field of
personality testing. In psychological education and
training, the study of the nature of personality and its
psychological development is usually reviewed as a
prerequisite to courses in abnormal or clinical psychology.

Philosophical assumptions
Many of the ideas developed by historical and modern
personality theorists stem from the basic philosophical
assumptions they hold. The study of personality is not a
purely empirical discipline, as it brings in elements of art,
science, and philosophy to draw general conclusions. The
following five categories are some of the most
fundamental philosophical assumptions on which theorists
disagree:
1. Freedom versus Determinism
See also: Free will
This is the debate over whether we have control over our
own behavior and understand the motives behind it
(Freedom), or if our behavior is causally determined by
forces beyond our control (Determinism). Determinism has
been considered unconscious, environmental, or biological
by various theories.
2. Heredity versus Environment
Main article: Nature versus nurture
Personality is thought to be determined largely by genetics
and biology, by environment and experiences, or by some
combination resulting thereof. There is evidence for all
possibilities. Contemporary research suggests that most
personality traits are based on the joint influence of
genetics and environment. One of the forerunners in this
arena is C. Robert Cloninger with the Temperament and
Character model.
3. Uniqueness versus Universality
The argument over whether we are all unique individuals
(Uniqueness) or if humans are basically similar in their
nature (Universality). Gordon Allport, Abraham Maslow,
and Carl Rogers were all advocates of the uniqueness of
individuals. Behaviorists and cognitive theorists, in
contrast, emphasized the importance of universal
principles such as reinforcement and self-efficacy.
4. Active versus Reactive
Do we primarily act through our own initiative (Active), or
react to outside stimuli (Reactive)? Behavioral theorists
typically believe that humans are passively shaped by
their environments, whereas humanistic and cognitive
theorists believe that humans are more active.
5. Optimistic versus Pessimistic
Personality theories differ on whether people can change
their personalities (Optimism), or if they are doomed to
remain the same throughout their lives (Pessimism).
Theories that place a great deal of emphasis on learning
are often, but not always, more optimistic than theories
that do not emphasize learning.
[edit] Personality theories
Critics of personality theory claim personality is "plastic"
across time, places, moods, and situations. Changes in
personality may indeed result from diet (or lack thereof),
medical effects, significant events, or learning. However,
most personality theories emphasize stability over
fluctuation. The definition of personality that is most widely
supported to date is attributed to the neurologist Paul Roe.
He stated personality to be "an individual's predisposition
to think certain patterns of thought, and therefore engage
in certain patterns of behaviour".
[edit] Trait theories
According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the
American Psychiatric Association, personality traits are
"enduring patterns of perceiving, relating to, and thinking
about the environment and oneself that are exhibited in a
wide range of social and personal contexts." Theorists
generally assume a) traits are relatively stable over time,
b) traits differ among individuals (e.g. some people are
outgoing while others are reserved), and c) traits influence
behavior.
The most common models of traits incorporate three to
five broad dimensions or factors. The least controversial
dimension, observed as far back as the ancient Greeks, is
simply extraversion and introversion (outgoing and
physical-stimulation-oriented vs. quiet and physicalstimulation-averse).

Gordon Allport delineated different kinds of traits,
which he also called dispositions. Central traits are
basic to an individual's personality, while secondary
traits are more peripheral. Common traits are those
recognized within a culture and thus may vary from
culture to culture. Cardinal traits are those by which
an individual may be strongly recognized.

Raymond Cattell's research propagated a two-tiered
personality structure with sixteen "primary factors" (16
Personality Factors) and five "secondary factors."

Hans Eysenck believed just three traits—
extraversion, neuroticism and psychoticism—were
sufficient to describe human personality. Differences
between Cattell and Eysenck emerged due to
preferences for different forms of factor analysis, with
Cattell using oblique, Eysenck orthogonal, rotation to
analyse the factors that emerged when personality
questionnaires were subjected to statistical analysis.
Today, the Big Five factors have the weight of a
considerable amount of empirical research behind
them, building on the work of Cattell and others.

Lewis Goldberg proposed a five-dimension
personality model, nicknamed the "Big Five":
1. Openness to Experience: the tendency to be
imaginative, independent, and interested in
variety vs. practical, conforming, and interested in
routine.
2. Conscientiousness: the tendency to be
organized, careful, and disciplined vs.
disorganized, careless, and impulsive.
3. Extraversion: the tendency to be sociable, funloving, and affectionate vs. retiring, somber, and
reserved.
4. Agreeableness: the tendency to be softhearted,
trusting, and helpful vs. ruthless, suspicious, and
uncooperative.
5. Neuroticism: the tendency to be calm, secure,
and self-satisfied vs. anxious, insecure, and selfpitying [3]
The Big Five contain important dimensions of
personality. However, some personality researchers
argue that this list of major traits is not exhaustive.
Some support has been found for two additional
factors: excellent/ordinary and evil/decent. However,
no definitive conclusions have been established.[3]

John L. Holland's RIASEC vocational model,
commonly referred to as the Holland Codes,
stipulates that six personality traits lead people to
choose their career paths. In this circumplex model,
the six types are represented as a hexagon, with
adjacent types more closely related than those more
distant. The model is widely used in vocational
counseling.
Trait models have been criticized as being purely
descriptive and offering little explanation of the underlying
causes of personality. Eysenck's theory, however, does
propose biological mechanisms as driving traits, and
modern behavior genetics researchers have shown a clear
genetic substrate to them.[vague] Another potential
weakness of trait theories is that they lead people to
accept oversimplified classifications, or worse offer advice,
based on a superficial analysis of their personality. Finally,
trait models often underestimate the effect of specific
situations on people's behavior. It is important to
remember that traits are statistical generalizations that do
not always correspond to an individual's behavior.
[edit] Type theories
Personality type refers to the psychological classification
of different types of people. Personality types are
distinguished from personality traits, which come in
different levels or degrees. For example, according to type
theories, there are two types of people, introverts and
extraverts. According to trait theories, introversion and
extraversion are part of a continuous dimension, with
many people in the middle. The idea of psychological
types originated in the theoretical work of Carl Jung[citation
needed]
and William Marston, whose work is reviewed in Dr.
Travis Bradberry's Self-Awareness. Jung's seminal 1921
book on the subject is available in English as
Psychological Types.
Building on the writings and observations of Jung, during
World War II, Isabel Briggs Myers and her mother,
Katharine C. Briggs, delineated personality types by
constructing the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.[4] This model
was later used by David Keirsey with a different
understanding from Jung, Briggs and Myers.[5] In the
former Soviet Union, Lithuanian Aušra Augustinavičiūtė
independently derived a model of personality type from
Jung's called Socionics.
The model is an older and more theoretical approach to
personality, accepting extraversion and introversion as
basic psychological orientations in connection with two
pairs of psychological functions:


Perceiving functions: sensing and intuition (trust in
concrete, sensory-oriented facts vs. trust in abstract
concepts and imagined possibilities)
Judging functions: thinking and feeling (basing
decisions primarily on logic vs. considering the effect
on people).
Briggs and Myers also added another personality
dimension to their type indicator to measure whether a
person prefers to use a judging or perceiving function
when interacting with the external world. Therefore they
included questions designed to indicate whether someone
wishes to come to conclusions (judgment) or to keep
options open (perception).[4]
This personality typology has some aspects of a trait
theory: it explains people's behaviour in terms of opposite
fixed characteristics. In these more traditional models, the
sensing/intuition preference is considered the most basic,
dividing people into "N" (intuitive) or "S" (sensing)
personality types. An "N" is further assumed to be guided
either by thinking or feeling, and divided into the "NT"
(scientist, engineer) or "NF" (author, humanitarian)
temperament. An "S", by contrast, is assumed to be
guided more by the judgment/perception axis, and thus
divided into the "SJ" (guardian, traditionalist) or "SP"
(performer, artisan) temperament.[5] These four are
considered basic, with the other two factors in each case
(including always extraversion/introversion) less important.
Critics of this traditional view have observed that the types
can be quite strongly stereotyped by professions (although
neither Myers nor Keirsey engaged in such stereotyping in
their type descriptions[4][5]), and thus may arise more from
the need to categorize people for purposes of guiding their
career choice.[6] This among other objections led to the
emergence of the five-factor view, which is less concerned
with behavior under work conditions and more concerned
with behavior in personal and emotional circumstances. (It
should be noted, however, that the MBTI is not designed
to measure the "work self," but rather what Myers and
McCaulley called the "shoes-off self."[7]) Some critics have
argued for more or fewer dimensions while others have
proposed entirely different theories (often assuming
different definitions of "personality").
Type A and Type B personality theory: During the
1950s, Meyer Friedman and his co-workers defined what
they called Type A and Type B behavior patterns. They
theorized that intense, hard-driving Type A personalities
had a higher risk of coronary disease because they are
"stress junkies." Type B people, on the other hand, tended
to be relaxed, less competitive, and lower in risk. There
was also a Type AB mixed profile. Dr. Redford Williams,
cardiologist at Duke University, refuted Friedman’s theory
that Type A personalities have a higher risk of coronary
heart disease; however, current research indicates that
only the hostility component of Type A may have health
implications. Type A/B theory has been extensively
criticized by psychologists because it tends to oversimplify
the many dimensions of an individual's personality.
[edit] Psychoanalytic theories
Psychoanalytic theories explain human behaviour in terms
of the interaction of various components of personality.
Sigmund Freud was the founder of this school. Freud drew
on the physics of his day (thermodynamics) to coin the
term psychodynamics. Based on the idea of converting
heat into mechanical energy, he proposed psychic energy
could be converted into behavior. Freud's theory places
central importance on dynamic, unconscious
psychological conflicts.
Freud divides human personality into three significant
components: the id, ego, and super-ego. The id acts
according to the pleasure principle, demanding immediate
gratification of its needs regardless of external
environment; the ego then must emerge in order to
realistically meet the wishes and demands of the id in
accordance with the outside world, adhering to the reality
principle. Finally, the superego(conscience) inculcates
moral judgment and societal rules upon the ego, thus
forcing the demands of the id to be met not only
realistically but morally. The superego is the last function
of the personality to develop, and is the embodiment of
parental/social ideals established during childhood.
According to Freud, personality is based on the dynamic
interactions of these three components[8].
The channeling and release of sexual (libidal) and
aggressive energies, which ensues from the "Eros" (sex;
instinctual self-preservation) and "Thanatos" (death;
instinctual self-annihilation) drives respectively, are major
components of his theory.[8] It is important to note that
Freud's broad understanding of sexuality included all kinds
of pleasurable feelings experienced by the human body.
Freud proposed five psychosexual stages of personality
development. He believed adult personality is dependent
upon early childhood experiences and largely determined
by age five.[8] Fixations that develop during the Infantile
stage contribute to adult personality and behavior.
One of Sigmund Freud's earlier associates, Alfred Adler,
did agree with Freud early childhood experiences are
important to development, and believed birth order may
influence personality development. Adler believed the
oldest was the one that set high goals to achieve to get
the attention they lost back when the younger siblings
were born. He believed the middle children were
competitive and ambitious possibly so they are able to
surpass the first-born’s achievements, but were not as
much concerned about the glory. Also he believed the last
born would be more dependent and sociable but be the
baby. He also believed that the only child loves being the
center of attention and matures quickly, but in the end fails
to become independent.
Heinz Kohut thought similarly to Freud’s idea of
transference. He used narcissism as a model of how we
develop our sense of self. Narcissism is the exaggerated
sense of one self in which is believed to exist in order to
protect one's low self esteem and sense of worthlessness.
Kohut had a significant impact on the field by extending
Freud's theory of narcissism and introducing what he
called the 'self-object transferences' of mirroring and
idealization. In other words, children need to idealize and
emotionally "sink into" and identify with the idealized
competence of admired figures such as parents or older
siblings. They also need to have their self-worth mirrored
by these people. These experiences allow them to thereby
learn the self-soothing and other skills that are necessary
for the development of a healthy sense of self.
Another important figure in the world of personality theory
was Karen Horney. She is credited with the development
of the "real self" and the "ideal self". She believes all
people have these two views of their own self. The "real
self" is how you really are with regards to personality,
values, and morals; but the "ideal self" is a construct you
apply to yourself to conform to social and personal norms
and goals. Ideal self would be "I can be successful, I am
CEO material"; and real self would be "I just work in the
mail room, with not much chance of high promotion".
[edit] Behaviorist theories
Behaviorists explain personality in terms of the effects
external stimuli have on behavior. It was a radical shift
away from Freudian philosophy. This school of thought
was developed by B. F. Skinner who put forth a model
which emphasized the mutual interaction of the person or
"the organism" with its environment. Skinner believed
children do bad things because the behavior obtains
attention that serves as a reinforcer. For example: a child
cries because the child's crying in the past has led to
attention. These are the response, and consequences.
The response is the child crying, and the attention that
child gets is the reinforcing consequence. According to
this theory, people's behavior is formed by processes such
as operant conditioning. Skinner put forward a "three term
contingency model" which helped promote analysis of
behavior based on the "Stimulus - Response Consequence Model" in which the critical question is:
"Under which circumstances or antecedent 'stimuli' does
the organism engage in a particular behavior or
'response', which in turn produces a particular
'consequence'?"
Richard Herrnstein extended this theory by accounting for
attitudes and traits. An attitude develops as the response
strength (the tendency to respond) in the presences of a
group of stimuli become stable. Rather than describing
conditionable traits in non-behavioral language, response
strength in a given situation accounts for the
environmental portion. Herrstein also saw traits as having
a large genetic or biological component as do most
modern behaviorists.
Ivan Pavlov is another notable influence. He is well known
for his classical conditioning experiments involving dogs.
These physiological studies led him to discover the
foundation of behaviorism as well as classical
conditioning.
[edit] Social cognitive theories
In cognitivism, behavior is explained as guided by
cognitions (e.g. expectations) about the world, especially
those about other people. Cognitive theories are theories
of personality that emphasize cognitive processes such as
thinking and judging.
Albert Bandura, a social learning theorist suggested the
forces of memory and emotions worked in conjunction with
environmental influences. Bandura was known mostly for
his "Bobo Doll experiment". During these experiments,
Bandura video taped a college student kicking and
verbally abusing a bobo doll. He then showed this video to
a class of kindergarten children who were getting ready to
go out to play. When they entered the play room, they saw
bobo dolls, and some hammers. The people observing
these children at play saw a group of children beating the
doll. He called this study and his findings observational
learning, or modeling.
Early examples of approaches to cognitive style are listed
by Baron (1982). These include Witkin's (1965) work on
field dependency, Gardner's (1953) discovering people
had consistent preference for the number of categories
they used to categorise heterogeneous objects, and Block
and Petersen's (1955) work on confidence in line
discrimination judgments. Baron relates early development
of cognitive approaches of personality to ego psychology.
More central to this field have been:

Self-efficacy work, dealing with confidence people
have in abilities to do tasks [9];

Locus of control theory [10] dealing with different
beliefs people have about whether their worlds are
controlled by themselves or external factors;

Attributional style theory [11] dealing with different
ways in which people explain events in their lives.
This approach builds upon locus of control, but
extends it by stating we also need to consider
whether people attribute to stable causes or variable
causes, and to global causes or specific causes.
Various scales have been developed to assess both
attributional style and locus of control. Locus of control
scales include those used by Rotter and later by
Duttweiler, the Nowicki and Strickland (1973) Locus of
Control Scale for Children and various locus of control
scales specifically in the health domain, most famously
that of Kenneth Wallston and his colleagues, The
Multidimensional Health Locus of Control Scale [12].
Attributional style has been assessed by the Attributional
Style Questionnaire [13], the Expanded Attributional Style
Questionnaire [14], the Attributions Questionnaire [15], the
Real Events Attributional Style Questionnaire [16] and the
Attributional Style Assessment Test [17].
Walter Mischel (1999) has also defended a cognitive
approach to personality. His work refers to "Cognitive
Affective Units", and considers factors such as encoding of
stimuli, affect, goal-setting, and self-regulatory beliefs. The
term "Cognitive Affective Units" shows how his approach
considers affect as well as cognition.
Personal Construct Psychology (PCP) is a theory of
personality developed by the American psychologist
George Kelly in the 1950s. From the theory, Kelly derived
a psychotherapy approach and also a technique called
The Repertory Grid Interview that helped his patients to
uncover their own "constructs" (defined later) with minimal
intervention or interpretation by the therapist. The
Repertory Grid was later adapted for various uses within
organizations, including decision-making and
interpretation of other people's world-views. From his 1963
book, A Theory of Personality, pp. 103–104:



Fundamental Postulate: A person's processes are
psychologically channelized by the ways in which the
person anticipates events.
Construction Corollary: A person anticipates events
by construing their replications.
Individuality Corollary: People differ from one another
in their construction of events.









Organization Corollary: Each person characteristically
evolves, for convenience in anticipating events, a
construction system embracing ordinal relationships
between constructs.
Dichotomy Corollary: A person's construction system
is composed of a finite number of dichotomous
constructs.
Choice Corollary: People choose for themselves the
particular alternative in a dichotomized construct
through which they anticipate the greater possibility
for extension and definition of their system.
Range Corollary: A construct is convenient for the
anticipation of a finite range of events only.
Experience Corollary: A person's construction system
varies as the person successively construes the
replication of events.
Modulation Corollary: The variation in a person's
construction system is limited by the permeability of
the constructs within whose ranges of conveniences
the variants lie.
Fragmentation Corollary: A person may successively
employ a variety of construction subsystems which
are inferentially incompatible with each other.
Commonality Corollary: To the extent that one person
employs a construction of experience which is similar
to that employed by another, the psychological
processes of the two individuals are similar to each
other.
Sociality Corollary: To the extent that one person
construes another's construction processes, that
person may play a role in a social process involving
the other person.
[edit] Humanistic theories
In humanistic psychology it is emphasized people have
free will and they play an active role in determining how
they behave. Accordingly, humanistic psychology focuses
on subjective experiences of persons as opposed to
forced, definitive factors that determine behavior. Abraham
Maslow and Carl Rogers were proponents of this view,
which is based on the "phenomenal field" theory of Combs
and Snygg (1949)[18].
Maslow spent much of his time studying what he called
"self-actualizing persons", those who are "fulfilling
themselves and doing the best they are capable of doing".
Maslow believes all who are interested in growth move
towards self-actualizing (growth, happiness, satisfaction)
views. Many of these people demonstrate a trend in
dimensions of their personalities. Characteristics of selfactualizers according to Maslow include the four key
dimensions:
1. Awareness - maintaining constant enjoyment and
awe of life. These individuals often experienced a
"peak experience". He defined a peak experience as
an "intensification of any experience to the degree
there is a loss or transcendence of self". A peak
experience is one in which an individual perceives an
expansion of his or herself, and detects a unity and
meaningfulness in life. Intense concentration on an
activity one is involved in, such as running a
marathon, may invoke a peak experience.
2. Reality and problem centered - they have tendency
to be concerned with "problems" in their surroundings.
3. Acceptance/Spontaneity - they accept their
surroundings and what cannot be changed.
4. Unhostile sense of humor/democratic - they do not
like joking about others, which can be viewed as
offensive. They have friends of all backgrounds and
religions and hold very close friendships.
Maslow and Rogers emphasized a view of the person as
an active, creative, experiencing human being who lives in
the present and subjectively responds to current
perceptions, relationships, and encounters. They disagree
with the dark, pessimistic outlook of those in the Freudian
psychoanalysis ranks, but rather view humanistic theories
as positive and optimistic proposals which stress the
tendency of the human personality toward growth and selfactualization. This progressing self will remain the center
of its constantly changing world; a world that will help mold
the self but not necessarily confine it. Rather, the self has
opportunity for maturation based on its encounters with
this world. This understanding attempts to reduce the
acceptance of hopeless redundancy. Humanistic therapy
typically relies on the client for information of the past and
its effect on the present, therefore the client dictates the
type of guidance the therapist may initiate. This allows for
an individualized approach to therapy. Rogers found
patients differ in how they respond to other people. Rogers
tried to model a particular approach to therapy- he
stressed the reflective or empathetic response. This
response type takes the client's viewpoint and reflects
back his or her feeling and the context for it. An example
of a reflective response would be, "It seems you are
feeling anxious about your upcoming marriage". This
response type seeks to clarify the therapist's
understanding while also encouraging the client to think
more deeply and seek to fully understand the feelings they
have expressed.
[edit] Biopsychological theories
Some of the earliest thinking about possible biological
bases of personality grew out of the case of Phineas
Gage. In an 1848 accident, a large iron rod was driven
through Gage's head, and his personality apparently
changed as a result (although descriptions[19] of these
psychological changes are usually exaggerated[20][21] —
see the article on Gage).
Graphic by Damasio et al.[19] showing how the tamping
iron may have damaged both frontal lobes. (A 2004 study
by Ratiu and colleagues suggests the damage was more
limited.)[22]
In general, patients with brain damage have been difficult
to find and study. In the 1990s, researchers began to use
Electroencephalography (EEG), Positron Emission
Tomography (PET) and more recently functional Magnetic
Resonance Imaging (fMRI), which is now the most widely
used imaging technique to help localize personality traits
in the brain. One of the founders of this area of brain
research is Richard Davidson of the University of
Wisconsin–Madison. Davidson's research lab has focused
on the role of the prefrontal cortex (PFC) and amygdala in
manifesting human personality. In particular, this research
has looked at hemispheric asymmetry of activity in these
regions. Neuropsychological experiments have suggested
that hemispheric asymmetry can affect an individual's
personality (particularly in social settings) for individuals
with NLD (non-verbal learning disorder), which is marked
by the impairment of nonverbal information controlled by
the right hemisphere of the brain. Progress will arise in the
areas of gross motor skills, inability to organize visualspatial relations, or adapt to novel social situations.[clarification
needed]
Frequently, a person with NLD is unable to interpret
non-verbal cues, and therefore experiences difficulty
interacting with peers in socially normative ways.
One integrative, biopsychosocial approach to personality
and psychopathology, linking brain and environmental
factors to specific types of activity, is the hypostatic model
of personality, created by Codrin Stefan Tapu[23].
[edit] Personality tests
There are two major types of personality tests. Projective
tests assume personality is primarily unconscious and
assess an individual by how he or she responds to an
ambiguous stimulus, like an ink blot. The idea is
unconscious needs will come out in the person's
response, e.g. an aggressive person may see images of
destruction. Objective tests assume personality is
consciously accessible and measure it by self-report
questionnaires. Research on psychological assessment
has generally found objective tests are more valid and
reliable than projective tests.
Attitudes
An attitude is:
“a
relatively enduring organisation of beliefs, feelings, and behavioural
tendencies towards socially significant objects, groups, events or
symbols” (Hogg & Vaughan 2005, p150)
“..a psychological tendency that is expressed by evaluating a particular
entity with some degree of favor or disfavor” (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993, p.
1)
Structure of Attitudes
Attitudes structure can be described in terms of three
components.
o
Affective component: this involves a person’s feelings /
emotions about the attitude object. For example: “I am scared of
spiders”.
o
Behavioural (or conative) component: the way the attitude we
have influences how we act or behave. For example: “I will avoid
spiders and scream if I see one”.
o
Cognitive component: this involves a person’s belief /
knowledge about an attitude object. For example: “I believe
spiders are dangerous”.
This model is known as the ABC model of attitudes. The three
components are usually linked. However, there is evidence that
the cognitive and affective components of behaviour do not
always match with behaviour. This is shown in a study by
LaPiere (1934).
The Function of Attitudes
Attitudes can serve functions for the individual. Daniel Katz (1960)
outlines four functional areas:
• Knowledge. Attitudes provide meaning (knowledge) for life.
The knowledge function refers to our need for a world which is
consistent and relatively stable. This allows us to predict what
is likely to happen, and so gives us a sense of control. Attitudes
can hep us organise and structure our experience. Knowing a
person’s attitude helps us predict their behaviour. For example,
knowing that a person is religious we can predict they will go to
Church.
• Self / Ego-expressive. The attitudes we express (1) help
communicate who we are and (2) may make us feel good
because we have asserted our identity. Self-expression of
attitudes can be non-verbal too: think bumper sticker, cap, or Tshirt slogan. Therefore, our attitudes are part of our identify, and
help us to be aware through expression of our feelings, beliefs
and values.
• Adaptive. If a person holds and/or expresses socially
acceptable attitudes, other people will reward them with
approval and social acceptance. For example, when people
flatter their bosses or instructors (and believe it) or keep silent if
they think an attitude is unpopular. Again, expression can be
nonverbal [think politician kissing baby]. Attitudes then, are to
do with being apart of a social group and the adaptive functions
helps us fit in with a social group. People seek out others who
share their attitudes, and develop similar attitudes to those they
like.
• The ego-defensive function refers to holding attitudes that
protect our self-esteem or that justify actions that make us feel
guilty. For example, one way children might defend themselves
against the feelings of humiliation they have experienced in P.E.
lessons is to adopt a strongly negative attitude to all sport.
People whose pride has suffered following a defeat in sport
might similarly adopt a defensive attitude: “I’m not bothered,
I’m sick of rugby anyway…”. This function has psychiatric
overtones. Positive attitudes towards ourselves, for example,
have a protective function (i.e. an ego-defensive role) in helping
us reserve our self-image.
The basic idea behind the functional approach is that attitudes
help a person to mediate between their own inner needs
(expression, defence) and the outside world (adaptive and
knowledge).
Functions of Attitudes Example
Imagine you are very patriotic about being British. This might
cause you to have an ethnocentric attitude towards everything
not British. Imagine further that you are with a group of likeminded friends. You say:
“Of course there’s no other country as good as Britain to live in.
Other places are alright in their own way but they can’t compare
with your mother county.”
(There are nods of approval all round. You are fitting in adaptive). The people in the group are wearing England football
shirts (This is the self-expression function).
Then imagine you go on to say:
“The trouble with foreigners is that they don’t speak English. I
went to France last year and they were ignorant. Even if they
could speak our language they wouldn’t do so. I call that
unfriendly.
(Others agree with you and tell you of their similar experiences.
You are making sense of things. This is the knowledge
function). Then someone who has never travelled takes things a
stage further…
“I don’t mind foreigners coming here on holiday…but they
shouldn’t be allowed to live here….taking our jobs and living
off social security. Britain for the British is what I say….why is
it getting so you can’t get a decent job in your own country.”
(Now the others in the room join in scapegoating foreigners and
demonstrating the ego defensive function of attitudes).