LEC 1

Social cognition: the study of how people make sense of other people and themselves (how
ordinary people think and feel about people, including themselves)

Phenomenology: description of how ordinary people say they experience their world

Naïve psychology (lay theories): people hold theories about how and why social interactions
function

Solomon Asch (1946) theorized the “we experience other people as a psychological unit, that
we fit the person’s various qualities (traits) into a single unifying theme (impression)
 Asch proposed two ways this could be accomplished

 Configural model (Holistic): people form a unified overall impression of other people;
this unifying force alters individual elements (traits) to bring them in line with the
overall impression.  there is a pressure toward unity that changes the meaning of
individual elements to fit better in context
 Algebraic Model (Elemental): people evaluate each individual element in isolation then
combines the evaluations into a summary evaluation

Lewin emphasized the influence of the social environment, as perceived by the individual,
which he called the psychological field
 An individual exists within a psychological field with a host of forces acting upon them
o Cognition (perceivers interpretations of the world): cognitions help determine
what a person will do but do not determine it
o Motivation (motor that drives behavior): drive to act on their cognitions
o Restraining forces: other features of the environment that alter either
cognitions or motivations

Donald Broadbent proposed an information processing account of how people acquire

knowledge
 Information processing: the idea that mental operations can be broken down into
sequential stages
o Specify the steps between stimulus and response (check slide 13. On how
information is retrieved after understanding message which in this case is a
question asked)

The Role of Motivation

 While all theories provided insight into the types of processing people may engage in,
they were silent on why people engage in these processes at all
o With exception of Lewin’s inclusion of motivation, however motivation was not
specified
Consistency seekers: people are motivated by perceived discrepancies between cognitions
 perceived inconsistency is hypothesized to produce an aversive state that individuals are
motivated to reduce or eliminate; dissonance theory
Naïve scientist: people are motivated to have an accurate view of their world. Want to be able
to understand the causal nature of reality
 assumes that, given enough time, people will act fairly rationally (like scientists) to
distinguish between potential causes and reach the most logical conclusion; attribution theory

Cognitive miser: people have a limited capacity to process information, so they take mental
shortcuts whenever possible
 Thinking is hard work! want to minimize effort expenditure
 The capacity-limited thinker searches for rapid, adequate solutions
 Adopt strategies the simplify complex problems

Motivated tactician: a fully engaged thinker with multiple cognitive strategies available, who
can choose among strategies (either consciously or unconsciously) based on their goals,
motives, and needs

Do we need the “social” in social cognition  People are not things:

. People intentionally influence the environment. Objects are not intentional agents
. People perceive back – social cognition is mutual cognition
. Social cognition implicates the “self” - target may provide information about you
. You can be the target of social cognition
. People change overtime
. People are much more complex

DUAL-PROCESS MODELS

 Dual-process models are ubiquitous in psychology

 Automatic processes that make thinking efficient (Type 1)

o Thought to trigger different sets of cognitions that guide subsequent processing
or behavior

 Controlled processes that make thinking flexible (type 2)

o Automatic processes may be the default response, but controlled processes can
intervene to alter outcomes
o Default-interventionist model (thinking its automatic)

TODOROV & ULEMAN (2003): SPONANEOUS TRAITS INFERENCES

Imagine you’re out for a midnight stroll in the city occasionally sighting strangers…
- Spontaneous Trait Inferences (STIs): the process of binding traits to actors
Past research has found that reading about or observing a single behavior is sufficient to trigger
trait inferences

1) Are STIs from. People’s behavior merely about the behavior or about the actor
performing the behavior
2) How efficiently are such trait inferences linked or bound to an actor

Study 1: Method

False recognition of traits task

- Stage 1: learning phase; each participant presented w 60 stimulus pairs, face +
behavioral sentence (1/3 contained a trait; 2/3 described behavior)
- Stage 2: recognition phase; picture paired with a trait; participants had to indicate
whether the trait had appeared w the pic in the learning phase (1/3 of traits appear, 1/3
of traits didn’t appear but were implied in by behavior (STI), 1/3 traits were controls so
neither appeared nor implied)
RESULTS: People were kind of accurate in assessed presented traits, a few implied traits were
identified too in self pace presentations; however, in 2 secs presentation, people implied a lot
more traits almost to the same extent as they identified presented traits

Study 2 & 3: But under instructions given in study 1, participants can pursue variety of
strategies that may include elaborating on the pictured person’s personality; it is therefore
possible that the task itself triggered automatic impression formation goals… meaning that the
trait inferences are not spontaneous but are goal directed (automatic goals)

 study 2: Shallow-processing condition:

- Participants told the study was about how people process grammatical information in
the context of faces
- Told to count and indicate the number of nouns in each sentence
o Shallow-processing has been shown to result in poor memory performance
o Does not facilitate the formation of links between studied material that can
serve as retrieval cues in later tests
- Controls the type of rehearsal strategy participants will use; Ensures that any trait
inference is not the result of automatic impression formation goals

study 3: cognitive load condition:

- Participants told the study was about how people process two types of information
simultaneously
- Told a 6-digit number would be presented for 2 seconds followed by a face and a
sentence for 5 seconds
- Their task was to immediately start rehearsing the number and read the sentence
presented with the face
- Participants then asked to recall the number
Load condition interferes with any controlled (non-automatic) processing; ensures that any trait
inference the result of automatic and not controlled processing

RESULTS: In study 2 & 3, they still closely identified implied traits as much as presented traits, it
was closer in shallow processing and cognitive load than in the memory condition. They
identified less implied traits in the memory condition

Study 4: But we still don’t know if STIs are linked to actors or only to their behavior; if false
recognition of implied traits reflects spontaneous PERSON inferences then it should be
predicted by explicit PERSON judgements; if false recognition of implied traits reflects
spontaneous BEHAVIOR inference then it should be predicted by EXPLICIT behavior judgements
Default-interventionist model: thinking its automatic
Control: neither imply nor peer so just random traits

- Recruited participants from studies 1, 2 & 3; therefor, already had their false recognition
score
- Assigned to either the “person” condition or the “behavior” condition

Are false recognition scores more strongly correlated with “person” judgements or “behavior”
judgements?

RESULTS: There are stronger correlations for false recognition scores with “person”
judgements rather than “behavior” judgements

*Memory condition: no instructions

Shallow processing: count nouns
Cognitive lad: remember number (occupies working memory)

CONCLUSION: Even if we do not intend to make a person-judgement or to form a

person impression, but simply attend to another person’s behavior, this is
sufficient to trigger inference about the person. These inferences occur even if
the behavior presented is very brief, if we do not attend carefully to the meaning
of the behavior, and if our attention is several constrained by a secondary task.
These inferences are about the person and have specific implications for our
representation of that person

LEC 2: ATTENTION, ENCODING & MEMORY REPRESENTATION

What do we notice in the first place?

Attention and encoding are the first steps in mental representation  before any internal
information management can occur, the stimuli outside the person have to be represented in
the mind
 - Encoding: The process of transforming a perceived external stimulus into an internal
representation; the instant a stimulus registers on the senses, the process of encoding
beings  some details are lost, others are altered, and others may be misperceived
- Attention: Selectively concentrating on discrete aspect of information while ignored
other perceivable info; allocation of limited cognitive processing resources
o Internal attention: Attention occupied by info retrieved from memory
o External attention: attention occupied by external objects

Features of the stimulus:

1. Salience: the extent to which a target draws attention of observer
2. Vividness: extent that stimulus is (a) emotionally interesting, (b) imagery-provoking, (c)
proximate in a temporal or spatial way
3. Accessibility: recently and/or frequently activated ideas come to mind more easily than
ideas that have not been activated
a. Bruner (1957): much social info is inherently ambiguous making social
perception heavily influenced by accessibility of concepts, categories, etc…

Gaze cues and Visuospatial orienting

 Quadflief et al.

 Where people are looking has considerable signal value:

o Can compute objects of social importance
o Can make inferences abt behavioral intentions, desires and preferences
 Posener (1980): demonstrated “reflexive visual orienting”
o Stimuli that were presented in the direction of another’s gaze were detected
more rapidly
 Questions remain:
o Dos identity of cue provider impact emergence of “reflexive visual orienting”
o Do we respond to any eyes or only human eyes?

Study 1: Standard cuing paradigm

 Cue provider: person, chimpanzee, owl or tiger
 Valid cue: letter appears where target is looking
 Invalid cue: letter appears when target not looking
 Task: as quickly as possible indicate (by hitting different keys) if letter is L or T

RESULTS: Participants returned faster responses on valid cue trials compared to invalid cue
trials; the cue provider has no significant effect on reaction time

Study 2: But maybe it’s not eyes specifically but eyes that are connected to animate objects (i.e.
people and animals); eyes on inanimate objects would not have the same effect
 Same cuing paradigm as study 1 but with a small twist
 Cue provider: animate (person, chimp) inanimate (apple, glove)
  160 valid trials (80 animate, 80 inanimate)
 160 invalid trials (80 animate, 80 inanimate)

RESULTS: Participants returned faster responses on valid cue trails compared to invalid cue
traits; the cue provider still has no significant effect on reaction time

Study 3: But still not convinced it is something “special” about eyes; any directional indicator
(like an arrow instead of an eye) will lead to the same results
 Similar cuing paradigm as study 1 & 2 but only inanimate objects (glove); cue
manipulation: eyes v arrows
 80 valid trials (40 eyes; 40 arrows)
 80 invalid trials (40 eyes, 40 gloves)

RESULTS: Reaction times were a lot slower when stimuli was arrow rather than eyes

Discussion:
 Eye gaze shifts visual attention
 Identity of cue provider does not matter (person, animal, inanimate object)
 Eyes are especially salient

They all look the same unless they’re angry

 Ackerman et al

In social situations, people attend more closely to some people than to others
 Cognitive resources are selectively alocate to those who appear to have the greatest
implication for perceivers
 Therefore, more likely to allocate attentional resources to in-group members than out-
group members
What could shift attention toward out-group members?
 Anger? Communicates aggressive intend; fleeting and therefore an unusual occurrence
(salient)

Study:
- 2 (target race: black, white) X 2 (Target expression: neutral, angry)
- Experiment consisted of two phases
Learning phase: participants viewed face for 3000 ms, then watched 5-min vid of landscapes
Recognition phase: participants were presented with faces that has seen in the learning phase
as well as new faces; indicated whether they had seen the face during the learning phase (1=
definitely did not see; 6= definitely did see)

RESULTS: Participants better able to recognize neutral white (in-group) faces than neutral out-
group (black) faces; recognition accuracy was better for angry black faces than for angry white
faces
Discussion:
 Previous results suggest we are less likely to focus our attention toward out-group
members
 However, this research shows that when outgroup members are made more salient (via
emotional expression) the effect is eliminated
 To sum up: attention wise, eyes grab our attention and emotions grab our attention

Attention-grabbing power of negative social information

 Pratto & John (1992)

There is a fundamental asymmetry in people’s evaluations of positive and negative info

 In general, people assign greater weight to negative info then positive
Why?
 Urgent and impactful
 Signals a change in current state
Automatic vigilance hypothesis
 Mechanism that serves to direct attentional capacity to undesirable stimuli
 In terms of person perception, attention should be allocated to undesirable over
desirable traits

Study 1:
- Modified Stroop task
o Classic Stroop task participants asked to name the color of letters
o Reactions times much slower when color of letters did not match word
o If via automatic vigilance, attention is directed toward negative stimuli then
participants should take longer to name the color of the letters when the word is
a negative trait
- Traits
o 40 desirable and 40 undesirable traits were selected and matched on valence (80
trials total)
o Equal number of traits from each of the big five personality dimensions

RESULTS: Undesirable traits produced a significant interference effect; response times were
significant slower for undesirable traits than desirable traits

Study 2: But it could be the case that participants really don’t want to think about undesirable
traits; therefore, the interference effect is not due to reallocation of attention but from
cognitive effort required to try and keep the negative trait out of consciousness (perceptual
defense argument)
Rationale:
- If perceptual defense argument is true, then participants are trying to prevent trait from
entering their memory; recall of these traits should be significantly impaired
 - Automatic vigilance predicts that more attention will be allocated to undesirable traits
leading to more processing; increased processing will lead to increased memory recall of
undesirable traits

 Modified Stroop task: Same as study 1, 80 trials

 Free recall task: After completing all of the trials, participants were asked to recall as many
of the traits as they could

RESULTS: Replicated the results from study 1, undesirable traits had interference effect leading
to slow reaction times; participants were able to recall significantly more undesirable traits,
results support automatic vigilance and not perceptual defense

Study 3: But in general people are expected to behave in socially desirable ways and therefore
people assume that other have desirable traits; therefore, undesirable traits are more
uncommon and atypical. Allocation of attention has nothing to do with the valence of the trit but
with how common the trait is

Modified Stroop method

 Using pretesting participants were asked to estimate a base rate for each of the traits
 Now each trait has a valence score and a base rate (commonness) score

RESULTS: Significant effort of valence; effect of base rate and the interaction between valence
and base rate were not significant

Point of view and perceptions of causality

 Taylor & Fiske

Salience and perceiver’s attention are two conditions hypothesized to relate to forming causal
attributions
- Salient features of the environment (objects that engulf our visual field) grab out
attention
- Objections or information that we attend to will then be overrepresented in subsequent
causal explanations

Study 1: 38 students, groups of 6, 2 confederates

- Experimenter selected the 2 confederates to take part in a “getting to know you” exercise
- Participants were seated around the (confederates)
o Observers  could only see face of one confederate
o Control  could see face of both confederates
- Who do you think had more control in the conversation?

RESULTS:
 significant interaction between viewpoint and confederate; participants thought the
confederate they were facing had controlled the conversation significantly more than the
 confederate they were not facing; control participants rated the confederates as having
equally controlled the conversation
o No effect of viewpoint or confederate on measures of (friendliness, talkativeness
or nervousness)
o No effect of viewpoint or confederate no amount of information recalled
 This effect is greater control of the conversation is not reducible to different trait
perceptions or information recall

Study 2:
- Participants watched videos of a conversation between two people
o Randomly assigned to 1 of 3 conditions (left side of the screen covered/ right side
on the screen covered/ control: both people visible)
- Participants then completed same questions as study 1

RESULTS: Significant interaction between view and confederate; participants thought the
confederate they could see had controlled the conversation significantly more than the
confederate they could not see; participants who could see both participants rated control of the
conversation as equal

Discussion: the most salient individual in a social interaction was rated as being more in control
of the conversation; effect is not reducible to different trait perceptions or information recall

Camera perspective alters verdicts in simulated trials

 Lassiter et al.

Study 1:
Trial simulation: Full Trial simulation video on student convicted of manslaughter of partner
Manipulation:
- Suspect focus: camera straight in front of suspect
- Equal focus: profiles of suspect and detective equally visible
Procedure:
- Participants randomly assigned to each manipulation condition
- Manipulated the instructions given by judge
DVs:
- Guilty v not guilty
- Confidence the confession was voluntary

RESULTS: Suspect view associated w increased proportion of guilty verdict; suspect view also
associated w increased perception the confession was voluntary

Study 2: Equal focus changed the perception of confession

What abt detective view: best change to identify any coercive behavior, chance for jurors to put
themselves in suspect’s shows
Procedure same as study 1 but equal focus v detective focus

RESULTS: detective focus was associated w decreased proportion of guilty verdicts compared to
equal focus; detective view also associated w decreased perception that confession was
voluntary

Discussion:
- when suspect was made more salient (directly in line of sight) was associated w more
guilty verdicts  perceptions of control (taylor & fisk)
- suggests that there are extremely important implications of salience – position in the
field of vision could be the difference between being found innocent or guilty

stalking the elusive “vividness” effect

 taylor & Thompson (1982)

Vividness: stimuli that is likely to attract and hold our attention and to excite imagination
 emotionally interesting
 Imagery-provoking
 proximate in sensory, temporal or spatial
Conceptualized as a communication characteristic inherent in the stimulus itself

Why expect a vividness effect?

 Anecdotes: empirical info fades but details of interesting stories remain
 Attention: vivid info should grab attention leading to more processing and greater
availability
 Ease of retrieval: concrete nature of the information made it easy to to retrieve

BUT THEY DON’T; VIVIDNESS IS A HOAX:

 Conceptualization: emotion, direct experience, case histories  all might affect people
diff
 Mediation process (vividness probably triggers something that THEN has direct effects):
like with attention, relevance…
 Vividness applied to people and salience applied to people; we are more critical of
people rather than messages

Accessibility: recently or frequently activated ideas come to mind more easily than ideas
that have not been activated
Priming: Occurs when knowledge is activated (becomes accessible) and influences
perceptions of a currently attention stimulus
o Assimilation effect: when participants are primed w (+) / (-) stimuli, they often
interpret relevant ambiguous stimuli to match the prime (most priming research)
 o Contrast effect: when participants are presented w a blatant prime they may
avoid it or rate the stimuli in the opposite (contrasting) direction  when people
are aware of the prime, they may resist its all to obvious influence

Effectiveness of a prime

1. Degree of overlap: primes that are similar to stimulus (high overlap) will lead to
assimilation effect. A contrast effect results when there is little overlap or extreme
primes are used
2. Target ambiguity: an ambiguous target easily assimilates to a prime. With an
unambiguous target, a lack of fit between prime and target is obvious leading perceivers
to contrast prime and target
3. Perceiver’s goals: epistemic goals (i.e accuracy goals) or affiliative goals (being accepted
by others) can interact w a prime leading to either assimilation or contrast depending on
context

Social priming  primes activate certain concepts

 if target is a person, then primed concepts will influence our perception of
that person [*social priming, effective priming, semantic priming]

Physical warmth promotes interpersonal warmth

- Being perceived as warm leads to increased favorability readings
- Theory suggests that concepts of “warm” personality linked to physical warmth
 Therefore, holding a warm mug might activate memories of trust and comfort

Study 1:
- Asked participants oi hold cup while they wrote down participants info; cup was either
cold or warm
- Rating task: given description of person then asked to rate on series of traits (half
related to warmth-coldness; half unrelated to warmth-coldness)
RESULTS: no significant dif for traits not related to warm-cold; Simply holding a warm mug
influence ratings of warmth toward a new target; not a global boost in positive ratings (increase
only seen for traits related to warmth-coldness)

Study 2: extend findings from study 1 to behavior. Add behavioral component (participants
given choice of reward for their participation)
RESULTS: same results; physical contact to warmth induces pro-social behavior

Replication fails: Failure to replicate social priming studies have been hurt a lot; misreplication
doesn’t mean there’s no effect, just means that this particular method used isn’t effective

Representation in memory
What we attend to is more likely to be encoded and stored in memory;
Basic Model of associative networks
Proposition: “Janet is wearing a red scarf”
- Nodes: representation of a specific idea (noun, verb, adjective)
- Links: link nodes together to form a complete proposition
Spreading activation: recall starts at one node (janet) and moves out along links to other nodes
- The strength of the links between nodes get stronger w repeated activations
- The more links created; the more retrieval routes available to recall info
The more links (associations) from other concepts to any given concept in memory; the easier it
is to remember said concept
Schema: network of nodes and links that represent a concept’s attributes and the relations
among them
Top-down processing: concept or theory driven processes. How new info is perceived is heavily
influenced by one’s prior organized knowledge
Bottom-Up processing: Stimulus or data driven processing

Long-term memory  vast store of info that could potentially be brought to mind
Short-Term memory info that one is considering at any given moment
Memory retrieval consists of activating the appropriate nodes in LTM which bring them into
stm

Storage and retrieval in person memory

Memory for people is similar to memory for objects w a few exceptions
1) social info processing tends to be top-down (rarely approach people as a “blank
state”; we come to social interactions w some interpersonal goal)
2) we do not record new pieces of info independently (we actively look for
relationships between pieces of info for a unified impression

Storage and retrieval in person memory

 Srull et al (1985)
. Bc of prior expectancy, we need to account for processing of info that is: congruent,
incongruent and irrelevant
. For congruent or irrelevant info, little processing is required – no update needed (won’t attend
to specifics of info)
. Incongruent info signals a need to update the associative network (likely to be more deeply
processed and therefore easier to recall w more specificity)

Study 1: Manipulate participants motivation (memory vs anticipated interaction)

GOAL= identify an experimental manipulation that effects integration of discrepant info and
examine dif effects on recall
RESULTS:
 incongruent behaviors > congruent behaviors > irrelevant behaviors; anticipated
interaction > memory; suggests that incongruent info generated more associative links
leading to better recall
  Memory set: congruent and incongruent info more easily recalled; amt of recall
decreases w # of repetitions (impairing associative link formation)
 Anticipated interaction: incongruent > congruent> irrelevant; recall decreased w
repetition but most sharply for incongruent behavior
 Incongruent items generally lead to more associative links
 Forcing the subject to take up processing capacity interferes w formation of such links

Study 2: Manipulate need for cognition (=need to understand and make sense of world)
Goal= will individual difs in need for cognition predict recall for incongruent info;
RESULTS: incongruent behavior > congruent behavior > irrelevant behavior; high NFC > Low
NFC (effect strongest for incongruent items); suggests that incongruent info generated more
associative links leading to better recall (this is especially true for people who are motivated by
a need to understand the world

Threatened by the unexpected:

 Mendes et al (2007)
Discrepant info get preferential treatment in memory but how does this inconsistency-
preference impact people’s reactions to others? Interacting w new people can be stressful –
and we come to each interaction with some expectation abt how the interaction will go (what if
the expectation is violated? Do people find that threatening?)

Study 3: White undergrad students listening to female white and female Asian women speak,
twist is they have a southern accent;
- Heart activity recorded; threat constellation;
o Less VC (ventricular contraction)
o Less CO (cardiac output)
o Increased TPR (total peripheral resistance)
RESULT: More threat response for Asian confederates w an accent; 2/3 measure Asian
confederates w an accent most threatening

LEC 3: “SELF” IN SOCIAL COGNITION

 Self concept definition

 Self-schemata (specific events  general representation derived from repeated
categorization and evaluation of one’s behavior)
 Slide 4 is agenda
 Study 1:
- 1st clarify if you identify as independent, dependent or aschematic
- Then task 1: declare if set of adjectives describe you or not
- Task 2: for adjectives chosen, supply behavioral evidence
- Task 3: predict likelihood of behavior on a set of behaviors
 Self-esteem (high SE, low SE, defensive SE, secure SE)
Defensive self-esteem  low implicit SE; high explicit  narcissism  ingroup bias to self-
enhance
High self-esteem  high implicit and explicit SE
 Self-regulation
Dissonance reduction for low SE beings
 Down-ward social comparison
 Upward social comparison
 Holier than thou/self enhancemen

LEC 4: ATTRIBUTION

 HOW WE MAKE SENSE OF WORLD

Asch conformity studies; under what conditions do individuals conform to group: uniform vs
heterogenous; public vs private; attribution comes into making sense of why that is

How we make sense of people’s actions

1. Naïve psychology
Hold theories abt types of signal that reliably indicate whether person has a particular trait.
Tendency to believe we see the world around us objectively
2. Perceivers draw causal inferences
3. Gestalt principles organize impressions
Perceivers search for meaning behind actions, fill in the gaps
Naïve perceivers stress dispositional causes over situational causes; try to match cause with its
effects; bad acts caused by bad people
4. Attributions are biased by perceiver motivations
When seeking an explanation for outcome, perceivers likely to choose cause or reason that 1.
Fits their own wishes 2. Fits the available data; though we may not have all info

 Theory of correspondent inferences

What info we look for:
Act is socially undesirable
Act is freely chosen
Act is done for clear reason

 Attribution of attitudes
Perceivers looking for sufficient explanation that accoutns for behavior
Not all observations provide diagnostic info
- Diagnostic value high if: free choice; low probability of act occurring (unique)
- Diagnostic value low if: free choice constrained; high probability of act occurring

Castro essay study: pro castro, anti castro, pick a side

Participants believed pro-castro writers actually held pro-castro views regardless of instruction;
however we see more variance for people who had no choice but still wrote a pro-castro essay:
doubt;

- Independent of whether target had choice in view they expressed, participants

perceived attitudes to correspond with what they had written
- Underlying probability of observing a response was taken into account; manifested is
the difference in sd between conditions
- Despite taking underlying probability of a perspective into account, content of essay
weighted more heavily than any other factor
Jones and davis: suggested that one can make stronger inferences about a person if their
chosen action has few effects  if an action has only one possible effect, we can infer that
actor intended that specific effect

Covariation model of attribution:

Sources of information to know if its situational or dispositional: distinctiveness, consistency,
sonsensus
If its external, then: distinctiveness high, consensus high, consistency low
If it’s internal: low distinctiveness, low consensus, high consistency
Example with sugar and children

- Attribution theory of motivation and emotions

Dimensions of causality
 Locus of causality (internal vs external)
 Stability
o Among internal causes, some fluctuate while others are more stable (aptitude
[internal and stable] vs effort [internal and unstable]
o Same is true for external causes (task difficulty [external and stable] vs luck
[external and unstable]
 Controllability (some causes, both internal and external, are controllable and others
aren’t)

- Attribution process
Three-Stage Model of Attribution
1) Categorize or identify actions of others (Roger is criticizing Henry)
2) Characterize or draw dispositional inferences about the actor (Roger is a critical person)
3) Correct or adjust characterizations based on the situation (Roger has been under significant
stress so maybe not so critical after all)

• Categorization and Characterization are automatic processes and generally happen outside
awareness
• Correction is an effortful, deliberate form of reasoning that requires substantial cognitive
resources
• Individuals who become involved in activities that are cognitively demanding should “correct”
less often
LEC 6: ATTITUDES & SOCIAL COGNITION

What are attitudes?

“Attitudes categorize a stimulus along an evaluative dimension. As such, attitudes dispose

people to react positively or negatively, s inferred from their cognitive, affective, and behavioral
responses” (Fiske, 2018)
“Attitudes are the most distinctive and indispensable concept in contemporary social
psychology” (Allport, 1935)

Social cognition approach to attitudes

“Who says what to whom in what channel with what effect”

- “Who says what to whom…”

 Characteristics of the communicator
 Characteristic of the audience
 Interaction /b/ communicator and audience

- “… in what channel…”
 What is the context in which this communication is taking place
 In what modality is the interaction taking place

- “… with what effect.”

 Changing cognitive structures?
 Changing individual attitudes and behavior?

Balance theory (Heider, 1958)

An unbalanced relationship creates pressure to change toward balance
 Therefore, perceptions of the relationships will be altered in an attempt to restore
balance

Attitude alignment in close relationships (Davis & Rusbult, 2001)

- Attitude alignment: interacting individuals change their opinions to achieve greater
attitudinal congruence
o People experience discomfort when their attitudes are inconsistent with a close
partner

Davis & Rusbult (2001)

study 1
 Heterosexual couples; completed questionnaires on relationship closeness and
attitudes; experimenter selected 8 attitudes where the couples disagreed [salient
 condition = couples discussed 4 of these issues for 3 minutes; non-salient condition =
the remaining 4 issues were not discussed]; completed the same attitudes questionnaire
a second time
 For non-salient (not discussed) issues, attitudes didn’t change; However, for the salient
issues, attitudes became more aligned  this was especially true when the attitude was
central (important) to the partner but peripheral (not important) to the self

*Dyadic adjustment scale: assesses couple well-being such as companionship, shared activities,
effective problem solving, emotional and physical intimacy

Study 2
Some basic design as study 1 but wanted to fully test the role of “centrality”
RESULTS
Attitudes came into greater alignment if they were central (important) to the partner; this was
especially true if the attitude was less important (more peripheral) to the self

Study 3
Some basic design as study 1 but wanted to compare attitude change for couples vs strangers

 look at graphs throughout and draw conclusion yourself

Social category priming and personal attitudes (Kawakami et al., 2003)

 Similarity of attitudes lead to more positive impressions and is a powerful predictor of
interpersonal attraction
 Similarity of attitudes predict group cohesion and relationship stability
 Therefore, specific attitudes associated w a social category may become automatically
activated when exposed to the category

Kawakami et al. (2003)

Study 1
Participants randomly assigned to one of 2 conditions (write hobbies, personality traits and
general character of: 1. Elderly women; 2. Young woman); Participants then rated attitudes
presumed to be held by the elderly (“I think more money should be given to health care”;
“there is too much nudity on TV”)
Study 2
Similar design to study 1 except proper control group (no prime); types of attitudes (personal
attitudes; most people’s [universal] attitudes)
RESULTS
“Most people’s attitudes” were not influenced by the prime; elderly prime brought attitudes
more inline w stereotypical elderly person
Study 3
Prime used in study 1 & 2 could be too explicit (demand); study 3 addressed this issue by using
subliminal priming task; lexical decision task (word vs non-word; elderly [old/gray] or neutral
[door, lamp]) prime shown for 17ms before each decision
Participants randomly assigned to one of 2 conditions (write the hobbies, personality traits, and
the general character of elderly woman or young woman); participants then rated attitudes
presumed to be held by the elderly (I think more money should be given to health care; there’s
too much nudity on tv)

Study 4
But there must be a boundary condition, what if the social category is disliked?
 Write the hobbies, personality traits, and general character of a skinhead
 Control: no priming task
 DV: Attitude scales
o Modern racism scale (I think minorities ask for too much in their demands for
equal rights)
o Control items (I think they should make driving more expensive)
RESULTS:
For control attitudes there was no effect of the prime; however, for racism scale items the
skinhead prime lead to more racist attitudes; this suggest that attitude alignment occurs even
when the social category is negative

Dissonance theory (Festinger, 1957)

Inconsistency between attitudes or between attitudes and behavior cause an aversive state
(dissonance), that motivates the individual to reduce or eliminate the inconsistency
 How is this accomplished?
o Change your beliefs
 Increase the ratio of consonant to dissonant beliefs
 Add consonant beliefs
 Reduce dissonant beliefs
o Trivialize dissonant beliefs
o Change behavior

If the experience of dissonance is aversive then people ought to be motivated to avoid

information that will create a dissonant state
This is accomplished through selective perception
 Selective exposure: seeking consistent information and avoiding inconsistent
information
 Selective attention: attending to consistent information and ignoring inconsistent
information
 Selective interpretation: translating ambiguous information in an attitude consistent
manner
*Political polarization & media habits (sl 26-28)

The gaze of the optimist (Isaacowitz, 2005)

Optimists are happier, less likely to become depressed, cope better with stressful situations,
and recover more quickly from physical stress; why?
 Spin-doctor perspective: interpret the world in a fundamentally different way from
pessimists
 Selective attention: being an optimist influences what you attend to in the first place

. Participants were show images of skin cancer [images are negative and potentially self-
relevant; eye-tracking used to measure where participants were looking while exposed to the
image]
. Life orientation test (scheier & carver 1985) – measure of optimism

 Top-panel = more optimistic participants

o These participants spent less time looking at the cancerous growth
o Majority of fixations around periphery
 Suggests that optimists, at least in some cases, are controlling the information they
attend to

Myside Bias (Stanovich & west, 2007)

 Critical thinking requires the thinker to decouple their prior beliefs and opinions from
the evaluation of evidence
 However, people seem to evaluate evidence, generate evidence, and test hypotheses in
ways biased toward their own opinion
Participants rated the statements in the direction of their status; interestingly, this effect was
not moderated by their cognitive ability (SAT scores, actively-openminded thinking; need for
cognition)

Science denial across the political divide (washburn & skitka, 2018)
 Science denial has been traditionally an accusation made against political conservatives
 However, a “selective” approach suggests this effect should be bipartisan
 Are liberals prone to science denial as well? (sl 36-40)

WHAT ARE PROTECTIVE FACTORS?

New look at selective exposure (olson & zanna, 1979)

 While at first glance “selective exposure” has face validity research quickly realized the
story is more complex
 Sears (1965) subjects preferred information opposing their preliminary beliefs in a
“criminal trial” context

- Participants ranking from most to least favorite, 20 postcard sized paintings (pair 1= 3 &
15; pair 2= 5 & 17)
- Manipulation
Experimental: subjects told they would take home reproductions of the chosen paintings
Control: told they would indicate which pair of paintings they like best
DV: after participants made their choice, experimenter waited for 75 seconds – where
participants were looking during this time is the DV

- Individual difference:
Repressions sensitization
Repressors: Look for positive or reassuring info about themselves and the envmt; should ignore
info about the paintings they did not choose
Sensitizers: do not look for positive or reassuring info; should show no info bias
*sl 45-47

 When the stakes were higher (taking home the paintings chosen), “repressors” were
much more likely to seek confirming information (looking at the positive picture they
chose and the negative picture they avoided)
 Suggests selective exposure moderated by individual differences and stakes of decision

Feeling validated vs being correct (hart et al., 2009)

- Conducted meta-analysis of all available studies on “selective exposure”
- Confirmation bias effect; d=0.36
- Effect moderation;
Defensive motivation: disconfirming info is ignored when strong commitment to attitude
Accuracy motivation: disconfirming information favored when useful

Attitudes and the role of motivation

Katz (1960) argues attitudes are held to serve different functions
 Knowledge function: gives meaning to objects and helps us to understand and make
sense of the world
o Epistemic motivation: motivated to gain knowledge and insight
o Individuals high in epistemic motivation are more concerned w accuracy of their
attitudes
o Therefore, are likely to engage in more effortful info gathering when forming an
attitude
Need for cognition and external information search (Verplanken, 1993)
When faced with a choice (forming an attitude) we have to determine what strategy to employ:
- Simple, low effort strategy
- Comply, high effort strategy

- Need for cognition: the tendency for an individual to engage in and enjoy thinking. Tend
to scrutinize information more. Attitudes based on issue-relevant thoughts as opposed
to superficial cues
o Need for cognition scale:
 I prefer complex to simple problems
 I prefer my life to be filled with puzzles that I must solve
 o Information display board technique: participants told they were to make a
decision about which fridge to buy; 20 – face down card (columns = fridge
models; rows = attribute like prize, size, energy use); participants could flip over
any of the cards to see the information

RESULTS:
High NFC inspected the same amount of info regardless of the presence of time pressure; low
NFC inspected much less info when under no time pressure, inspected much more info when
under time pressure (not adaptive – more frantically turning over info cards)

 Value-expressive function: attitudes that relate to deeply held values and convictions
o Motivated to have attitudes that are consistent w our most deeply held values
o Dark side of these attitudes is that they can blind us to other potentially
important concern
o Attitudes are less likely to be changed in the face of new attitude

When due process is of no consequence (Skitka & Houston, 2001)

- Moral mandates are central to personal identity
o To know who I am, is to know where I stand
o Mandates result from heavily internalized norms, are stable, difficult to change,
and highly motivating
- A commitment to a moral value allows perceivers to classify actions of institutions,
authorities, in-group and out-group members, and themselves into mutually exclusive
categories
- Therefore, outcomes and procedures will be seen as legitimate or fair to the degree
they are consistent with the individuals’ moral values
- When people have a moral mandate about an outcome (i.e. the outcome of a trial)
procedural fairness will become much less important
- When individuals are not morally invested in an outcome, procedural fairness is used
heuristically to decide whether an outcome was appropriate

Study 1
- Pretested had determined that when it comes to criminal cases, people hold moral
mandates “the guilty must be convicted and the innocent must be acquitted”
- Participants read about the murder of a young married couple during a murder that was
now at the trial stage
- Apparent guilt or innocence of the defendant
 Guilty = known to police, bragged about committing the crime
 Innocent = unknown to police, friend of defendant had bragged about
committing the crime
 Ambiguous = investigators deeply divided about the guilt of the
defendant
- Proper procedures: investigator lied to get a search warrant; investigator followed
procedure to get search warrant
RESULTS
Participants were insensitive to the use of proper procedure

Study 2
Procedure similar to study 1 except; trial + vigilante justice (read on sl 61)

RESULTS
participants were insensitive to the use of proper procedure

 Social-adjustive function: attitudes that related to our desire to be accepted by others

o High self-monitors: individuals that are concerned w tailoring their attitudes and
behavior to fit social and interpersonal contexts
o Low self-monitors: attitudes and behavior guided by inner sources such as
feelings, values and dispositions

De Bono (1987)
Participants told they would listen to a top academic argue for institutionalization of the
mentally ill
- Value-expressive condition
o Support for institutionalization related to supportive and loving attitudes toward
the mentally ill
o Support for deinstitutionalization related to being courageous
o Expert sees pros and cons for both stances
- Social-adjustive condition
o Reliable and representative polling data suggest 70% of people support
institutionalization of the mentally ill
o Heard same pros and cons as the value-expressive condition
- Control
o No argument presented

RESULTS

High self-monitors
 show more variability in responding suggesting that they are taking context into account
when expressing their attitude; particularly sensitive to information about majority view of
institutionalization
 remembered significantly more pro/con arguments in the social-adjustive condition;
suggests that these individuals processed the arguments more deeply when information about
what others think was provided

Low self-monitors
 Attitudes to deinstitutionalization do not vary by condition
 show the same level of recall regardless of the condition

 Ego-defensive function: protect the self from threatening truths

o Moral identity: people generally want to see themselves as good – yet we all
have experiences of not living up to our own standards (creates dissonance)
o This dissonance can be relieved by changing our beliefs about our “questionable
actions” (justify; attribute to external causes; dehumanize victims; distort the
consequences)

Dishonest Dead, Clear conscience (Shu et al., 2011)

Participants read a story about the fact that they missed an exam. The prof doesn’t change for
the make-up exam so it’s the same. In the honest condition, you don’t ask about questions that
appeared on the exam and you take it with the same knowledge as when everyone did. In the
dishonest condition, you ask your classmates for questions and answers and arrive at the exam
fully prepared.  they then complete the measure of moral disengagement

RESULTS
When behaving honestly, moral disengagement was low and did not vary between “self” and
“other”; when behaving dishonestly, moral disengagement was significantly high when the
“self” was the target; acting dishonestly triggers moral disengagement to defend sense of “self”

Study 2: participants complete more disengagement scale before and after reading scenario; if
acted honestly, moral disengagement decreased from baseline; if acted dishonestly, moral
disengagement increased from baseline

Study 3: participants given 20 math pb to solve + earn cash for each solved; condition 1:
experimental grades and pays; condition 2: self-grading + self-pay; half of participants read
honor code before completing task

Opportunity to cheat when given chance to cheat, reported performance on task magically
goes up; reading honor code reduce the level of cheating but did not return it to actual level of
performance; no opportunity to cheat  no effect of honor code

RESULTS
Overall, moral disengagement was greater when opportunity to cheat was present; opportunity
to cheat made participants more lenient; overall, moral disengagement was greater when no
honor code was read  honor code reminder made participants more stringent

Study 4: cheating was inferred via comparison in performance to the control group (no
opportunity to cheat); but what about ppl that had opportunity to cheat but didn’t? study 4
captured this by making tweak to design that allowed reported and actual performance.

RESULTS
Moral disengagement only increased when participant had the opportunity to cheat and
actually cheated; + added new clause: no honor code; read honor code; signed honor code
Those who signed honor code with opportunity to cheat, did not cheat.
LEC 7 – STEREOTYPING & PREJUDICE
Biases in All Shapes and Sizes
Stereotypes not always negative; some stereotypes have both + and - content

Why use social categories at all?

Categorization is fundamental to human cognition bc
- Organizes and structures our knowledge abt the world
- Prevents info overload
o We encounter countless objects over course of our life that needs to be
managed efficiently
- Knowledge abt categories helps us to make predictions abt interactions w an object
belonging to a category
o Infer goals and intentions
o Infer individual’s attitudes and beliefs
o Infer personality traits
- Allows us to connect w others that share our group membership

In principle when perceiving complex social world, forming stereotypes can be seen as
functional and adaptive but in order for stereotypes to be truly functional they must also be
accurate

Are stereotypes accurate? Yes and no

Stereotypes vs. prejudice

Stereotype
 Cognitive component of intergroup bias
 Beliefs about groups
o Typical attributes of members of a particular group
o Beliefs about how similar(or ≠) members of a specific group are
o Variability of attributes
Prejudice
 Affective (emotional) component of intergroup bias
 Evaluation or feelings about specific groups
o How warm/cold we feel towards a particular group
Discrimination
 Behavioral component of intergroup bias
 Using cognitive and emotional pieces of intergroup bias to justify treating others ≠
o How we behave towards members of that group

1. Acquire stereotypes
2. To categorize or not to categorize
3. Category selection
 4. Use (/avoiding use) of categories

1. Acquiring stereotypes
developmental intergroup theory (DIT)

Three main focuses of DIT:

- How do children establish the importance of some person attributes?
- How do children categorize individuals on these salient dimensions?
- How do children dvp stereotypes and prejudice abt salient groups?

Four factors are hypothesized to affect the establishment of psychological salience of attributes
1. Perceptual discriminability
- Ease w which ≠ b groups can be seen (age; gender; race)
- Features that are not readily distinguishable (religion, nationality)

Native language phonetic perception 6-12 months (Kuhl et al., 2006)

. Perceptual narrowing should also result in a lack of sensitivity to sounds that do not occur in
one’s native language
[. phonetic contrast  present in English; not present in Japanese
. Therefore, American infants should show an increasing ability to discriminate between “r” and
“l” sounds while Japanese infants should not
. 32 American infants (Seattle)  16 6-8 mths old; 16 10-12 mths old
. 32 Japanese infants (Tokyo)  16 6-8 mths old; 16 10-12 mths old]

- Conditioned head turn (HT):

Infants conditioned to turn their head (for a visual stimulus reward) whenever a background
speech sound changed to a target speech sound (sounds produced every 2 seconds; half
participants /ra/ background sound and /la/ the target sound; half participants /la/ background
sound and /ra/ target)
Will children make HT when the sounds change from /ra/ to /la/?

RESULTS
At 6-8 mths Japanese and American infants showed equal ability to discriminate between /ra/
and /la/ sounds; however, at 10-12 mths American infants were much better and discriminating
b /ra/ and /la/ sounds; Japanese infants actually became worse at discriminating between /ra/
and /la/ sounds

Nature and Nurture in Own-Race Faxe Processing (Bar-Haim et al., 2006)

. Language is not the only feature of the environment that could signal ingroup membership
- Contact or differential experience hypothesis
Infants are more likely to be in contact w individual w physical features similar to their own and
therefore this increased exposure could lead to a processing advantage
 - Hypothesis 1
Infants should show a preference for pictures of individuals from their own racial category
- Hypothesis 2
This preference should be diminished when infants have been exposed to a diverse set of racial
categories
- Differential looking task: Examples of two ≠ categories (≠ races in this case) are
presented simultaneously and compete for the infants’ interest. Preference can be inferred if
the infants spends more time looking at one of the categories presented

[Participants  36 infants, = abt 14 weeks yrs old; causasion Israeli (n=12) from general Israeli
population living in primarily Caucasian environment; African Ethiopian (n=12) families living in
addis ababa and gonder Ethiopia, living in primarily African environment; African Israeli (n=12)
Israeli born infants of Ethiopian origin w extensive cross-race contact]

RESULTS:
Infants in predominately Caucasian or African environments were more likely to prefer
Caucasian and African faced respectively; infants in environments w a diverse range of racial
groups showed no preference for Caucasian or African faces

2. Proportional group size

- Children are sensitive to the relative size of groups w minority groups being more salient

Stereotype Formation and Endorsement (Brown & Bigler, 2002)

What is the effect of relative group size within the classroom on children’s intergroup
attitudes? Group size disparities lead to more attention toward the minority group ( group
distinctions become particularly salient)

[Participants: 60 children (5-11yrs) middle-class, attending summer camp; Procedure: prior to

experiment children assigned to 1 of 6 classrooms w the same age peers; children were then
assigned to either majority or minority ( Blue shirt vs. yellow shirts; minority = 15-18% of the
class)]

Study 2
. Peer ratings: (friendly, good, nice, dirty, selfish, naughty)
. Group evaluations: would you like to change groups? Which group would a new student like to
be in?
. Perceived similarity
. Peer preferences: identify 5 peers you like to play with and 5 you don’t like to play with.

RESULTS
  Peer ratings: peer ratings revealed that the minority group showed more ingroup
favoritism; majority group peer ratings did not differ from neutral
 Group evaluation: group evaluations revealed that those in the majority wanted to
remain in the group; a much lower percentage of minority group members wanted to
remain in their group
 Perceived Similarity: minority group members perceived less similarity to other
members of their group; majority group members perceived significantly more similarity
w members of their group
 Peer preferences: Children assigned to the minority were significantly more likely to
select other ingroup members as favored playmates; children assigned to the majority
did not distinguish between ingroup and outgroup members when selecting favored
playmates

3. Explicit labelling
- Children play close attention to characteristics that adults mark (verbally or nonverbally)
as important
- Not simple imitation
Children’s Attention to Messages About Groups (Patterson & Bigler,. 2006)
- Children are inherently motivated to determine which human attributes are important
for grouping
- Authority figures’ labelling and use of particular social categories lead children to adopt
those particular dimensions as the basis for classifying individuals
- In turn, stereotypes and prejudice can develop along those dimensions
o Groups differ on certain nonobvious properties (essences) that give rise to
observable differences

[Participants: 87 preschool children, 4-5-year-olds, majority white (n=64); procedure:

participants randomly assigned to a. red squares shirts b. blue triangles shirts; environmental
message, experimental condition  teachers made frequent references to group membership
“good morning reds and blues”, control condition  no reference to group membership]

RESULTS:
 Peer ratings: ingroup ratings were most favorable when teachers explicitly highlighted
group membership
 Importance of group membership: when group membership was made salient, children
rated their group membership as being more important
 Happiness with group membership: how happy would a new person be to join your
group? Participants in the experimental group felt that a new person would be more
happy to join their group

4. Use by social groups:

- Children are sensitive to perceptual similarities of those grouped together and infer that
these individuals are separated bc of these salient features
Categorization

Prototype or family resemblance (Rosch, 1978): categories are defined by a set of prototypic
features, and perceptions of category membership are governed by the degree of similarity
between the target and the prototype

Exemplar view (Medin & Schaffer, 1978): A category is represented by the features that
characterize salient individual exemplars

Organization of attributes (sl.32-33)

 “Causal status”:
o Attributes that we link to groups are not simply a laundry list of features
o These attributes are embedded within causal theories that provide an
explanation for why the category is the way it is
o Attributes w “causal status” explain other attributes (“effect features”)
 Attributes w causal status assume greater performance in judgements
about category membership and inferences made about category
members (Rehder & Hastie, 2001)
Essentialism
 Why is group-Q “hard-working” ? infinite-regress
 Therefore, there must exist an ultimate cause to explain why the group has a certain set
of attitudes
 Psychological essentialism: the ultimate cause of a group’s features is a defining inner
essence  what differentiate groups from each other is their essence

Stereotype Formation and Endorsement (Levy et al., 1998)

 Entity theorists: individuals that believe that people’s traits are fixed  people are
differentiated by essential traits that cannot be change
 Incremental theorists: individuals that believe traits are malleable

Would entity theorists differ in their judgements of groups?

- More readily affix trait labels to groups?
- More strongly agree w stereotypical info?
- Would entity theorists expect less variability in a group’s behavior?
[Participants: 78 undergrads; procedure: implicit person theory measure  “the kind of person
someone is, is something basic about them that can’t be changed very much”, “people do
things ≠ but the important parts of who they are can’t be changed”; truth of stereotypes ]

RESULTS:
 Entity theorists  rated all stereotypes ( + or - ) as more true than incremental
theorists, w several of these ≠ being significant
 Suggest entity theorists are more prone to think stereotypic info is true
Study 2 – RESULTS
Study 2 focused on African American Stereotypes
Entity theorists  rated all stereotypes (+ and -) as more true than incremental theorists

Study 3
[What about novel groups? Will entity theorists make more extreme judgments based limited
info?
Participants: 121 undergrads; procedure: implicit person theory measure, group manipulation
(positive group: 12 positive behaviors, 6 neutral; negative group: 12 negative behaviors, 6
neutral) group ratings ( bad – good; unlikeable – likeable; mean – kind)]

RESULTS
Entity theorists  when faced w minimal info abt a novel group, entity theorists made more
extreme judgments compared to incremental theorists
 compared to incremental theorists, entity theorists felt the info they were
provided was sufficient to make their judgments

Study 4
[can entity theory be primed?
Participants: 155 undergrads; procedure: entity-incremental induction  participants read a
vivid and detailed scientific article that showed a. “personality is like plaster, stable over” b.
“personality is changeable and can be developed”; endorsement of stereotypical traits 
different ethnic groups (Africans, Asians, latinx) different occupations (teachers, lawyers,
doctors, politicians)]

RESULTS
Entity primed participants more strongly endorsed stereotypical traits; entity priming only
influenced endorsement of stereotypical traits  entity theory is not global endorsement of
traits

Person theories and Attention Allocation (Plaks et al., 2001)

 Perceivers can follow one of three processing strategies when faced w stereotype-
consistent or inconsistent information
1) Disengage from stereotypical info
2) Engage w stereotypical inconsistent info to debunk or reinterpret it  increases
stereotype persistence
3) Engage w stereotype-inconsistent info in order to update stereotype  undermines
stereotype persistence

 Assumptions about the nature of personality are likely to possess ≠ criteria for the
usefulness of incoming social info
 Entity theorists focus on inferring essential traits  focus on stereotype-consistent info
  Incremental theorists acknowledge context and psychological variable in determining
behavior  should pay at least equal attention to stereotype inconsistent info

Study 1; sl. 47 about details – RESULTS

 Entity theorists  much slower to react when stereotype-consistent info was present;
entity theorists more engage w stereotype-consistent info
 Incremental theorists  much slowed to react when stereotype-inconsistent info was
present; incremental theorists more engaged w stereotype-inconsistent info

Study 2; RESULTS
Study 2 attempted to replicate effect of study 1 w a memory recall task
 Entity theorists remembered more stereotype-consistent info
 Incremental theorists remembered more stereotype-inconsistent info

Stereotype content model (SCM); fiske et al., 2002

When you encounter an unfamiliar group, you must immediately answer two questions
1) Friend or foe – warmth (trustworthiness)  concerned w group’s goals and intentions
toward the self, positive (helpful) vs. negative (harmful)
2) Able to enact their intentions? – competence; does this group have the means, skills,
and abilities required to effectively meet their goals or intentions

Behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes (Cuddy et al., 2007)

Not all outgroups are the same  systematically vary in perceived warmth and competence;
therefore, how an individual feels and behaves toward an outgroup member ought to vary
based on SCM classification

We can think of behaviors as varying on 2 dimensions:

- Active – passive (s. 52 illustration)
o Active behaviors are those that are conducted w directed effort to overtly affect
(positively or negatively) a target group
o Passive behaviors as those conducted w less directed effort but still have less
repercussions for a target group
- Facilitation – harm
o Facilitation leads to favorable outcomes or gains for a target group
o Harm leads to detrimental outcomes or losses for the group

Study 1; sl.53 for details – RESULTS

 Higher warmth ratings were associated w: more active facilitation, less active harm,
more passive facilitation
 High competence ratings were associated w: less passive facilitation, less passive harm
 The behavioral tendency toward a group is a function of the emotions the individual
feels toward the group (sl.55-56-57 graph important)
Study 2
 used an experimental design to attempt to establish causality; systematically manipulated
the warmth and competence of a fictitious potential immigrant; DV: behavioral tendencies
measure from study 1

RESULTS (s.59)
 Warmth ratings were associated w “active” behaviors
o High warmth targets received more active facilitation and less active harm
o Low warmth targets showed the opposite pattern, less active facilitation and
more active harm
 Competence ratings were associated w “passive” behaviors
o High competence targets received more passive facilitation and less passive
harm
o Low competence targets showed the opposite pattern, less passive facilitation
and more passive harm

2. To Categorize or Not to Categorize

To Categorize or Not to Categorize?

Fundamental Tension b
1) Viewing others categorically: as a group member who are functionally interchangeable
2) Viewing others as individuals: characterized by a unique constellation of personal
qualities

Relevance of a Representation (ROAR) Framework (Eitam & Higgins, 2010)

 Provide a framework for when an accessible concept or category will be applied to a
given target
 Whether a category is used during impression formation depends on whether the
category has “motivation relevance”
o Category is perceived as useful and/or important
o Category is relevant to goal achievement or blockage
o Category has a strong positive or negative value attached to it

Category is perceived as useful and/or important

Consensus at zero-acquaintance (Kenny, 1992) ; sl.65

Rule et al. 2008; study 3

. Hair only, mouth only, and eyes only significantly increase accuracy above
. Participants in the hair only condition provided the most accurate ratings  hair is sufficient
to increase accuracy above zero
Category is relevant to goal achievement or blockage

Collective Action Against Immigrant Group (Shepherd et al., 2018)

 Advantaged groups are motivated to maintain their distinct and prestigious advantage
 gain collective self-esteem
 Disadvantaged groups can threaten the distinct and prestigious status of advantaged
groups
 Such threats increase prejudice toward the disadvantaged groups  take collective to
maintain collective self-esteem

Shepherd et al., 2018 ; sl.69-71; RESULTS, sl. 72

“Poor but happy” and “poor but honest” (Kay & Jost, 2003)
 Does exposure to stereotype exemplars lead to an increase in perception that society is
fair and inequality legitimate?  poor but happy; rich but miserable
 Does embracing these stereotypes help people to feel better about the society they love
in?

Kay & Jost (2003) study 1 s.l 74

RESULTS
 when exposed to the “rich” character, participants rated society as more fair and
legitimate when the character was unhappy compared to happy
 when exposed to the “poor” character, participants rated society more fair and
legitimate when the character was happy compared to unhappy

study 2 – RESULTS
 used the same methodology to test the stereotypes: poor but honest, rich but dishonest
Same results  participants rated society as more fair and legitimate when “rich” was paired w
“dishonest” and “poor” was paired w “honest”

Study 4
Studies 1 + 2 had used explicit measures of system justification; would being exposed to “poor
but honest” or “poor but honest” influence reaction time to “justice” related words?

RESULTS
No ≠ in reaction time for neutral worlds; participants reacted faster to justice related word
when exposed to the “noncomplementary” condition
- being exposed to the “noncomplementary” condition threatens participant’s sense of a
just world
- this threat increases sensitivity to justice related concerns leading to faster reaction
times for justice related words
 3. Category selection
Contextual Moderation of Racial Bias (Barden et al., 2004)
 Early research suggested that biases were activated automatically
 More recent research has suggested that manipulation of the social context can
moderate automatic racial bias
 Understanding the contexts that moderate automatic racial bias is important
o Social roles

SOCIAL ROLES
- Observers use facial features to automatically categorize individuals according to
important social categories
- Social role categories provide critical additional meaning, coloring and influencing the
interpretation of the activated categories

Study 1, sl.82 details – RESULTS

Explicit evaluation: in the “student role” Asian targets were rated most favorably; in the
“basketball role” black targets were rated most favorably
 In the “student role” positive adjectives were reacted to most quickly for Asian target 
suggests an association between positive adjectives and Asian targets in the context of a
technical classroom
 Negative adjectives were reacted to most quickly for black targets  suggests an
association between negative adjectives and black targets in the context of a technical
classroom
 In the “basketball role” positive adjectives were reacted to most quickly for black targets
 suggests an association between positive adjectives and black targets in the context
of a basketball court
 Negative adjectives were reacted to most quickly for Asian targets  suggests an
association between negative adjectives and Asian targets in the context of a basketball
court

Study 3, sl.86 details – RESULTS

Explicit evaluation: in the “prisoner role” white targets were rated most favorable; in the
“lawyer role” black targets were rated most favorably
Bias index
- Computed using RT from the evaluative priming task
- In the “prisoner role” bias favoring white targets
- In the “lawyer role” bias favoring black targets

Extending the Benefits of Recategorization (Dovidio et al., 1997)

Common ingroup identity model
 Proposes that it is possible to engineer a recategorization of perceived group boundaries
in ways that reduce intergroup conflict
  If members of different groups are induced to conceive of themselves as a single group
attitudes toward former outgroup members will become more positive

Study details sl 90  92; RESULTS:

 Participants in the one-group condition reported feeling like one group when the two
original groups were combined
 Participants in the two-group condition rated their ingroup members more favorably
than outgroup members
 Participants in the one-group condition rated ingroup and outgroup members equally
 Participants in the two-group condition made more detailed self-disclosures when
paired w an ingroup member
 Participants in the one-group condition made equally detailed self-disclosures when
paired w either an ingroup or outgroup member

(view slide 96)

4. Avoiding or reducing stereotyping & prejudice

With Help from My Cross-Group Friend (Page-Gould et al., 2008)

Contact hypothesis (allport, 1954)

 Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination can be reduced through intergroup contact
under the appropriate conditions
 Equal status: both groups must engage equally in the relationship
 Common goals: work on a common goal that can only be achieved via cooperation
 Intergroup cooperation: absence of competition
 Support of authorities: leaders encourage friendly, helpful, and egalitarian attitudes and
condemn ingroup-outgroup comparisons

Based on this idea Page-Gould et al,. (2008) could suggest that cross-group friendship can
reduce stereotyping and prejudice
- Cross-group interactions provide systematic disconfirmation of negative expectations
about the outgroup
- This process of disconfirmation gradually reducing anxiety associated w cross-group
interactions, which in turn improve the quality of cross-group interactions

Study details sl.100  102; RESULTS:

 Sl 103: Participant’s feelings of closeness towards their partners increased w each
meeting
 Sl. 104: Cortisol lvls (experienced stress) remained the same for individuals low in race-
based rejection sensitivity
 However, those high in race-based rejection sensitivity saw a dramatic decrease in their
cortisol lvls at each subsequent meeting  minority groups are more likely to score high
on race-based rejection sensitivity and therefore, minority individuals experienced less
stress overtime
 S. 105: individuals who score low on the IAT (no implicit bias) showed no change in
cortisol lvls
 Individuals who scored high on the IAT (strong implicit bias) showed a significant
decrease in cortisol lvls overtime  majority individuals are more likely to score high on
the IAT. This suggests more biased individuals find interactions less stressful overtime
 Sl.106: the number of self-initiated cross-group interactions was the same for
individuals paired w either a same or cross-group friend and who scored low on the IAT
 However, individuals that scored high on the IAT and were paired w a cross-group friend
initiated significantly more cross-group interactions compared to those who were paired
w a same-group friend
LEC 8 – AFFECT & SOCIAL COGNITION
- Functional/physiological theories of emotion  emotions are the result of biology:
minimal role for socialization
- Appraisal theories; two-factor theories; biocultural theories  emotions are a result of
complex interaction of biology and socialization
- Social construction theories of emotion  emotions are a social construction; minimal
role for biology

What is an emotion?
 Functionalist/ Evolutionary Approach: Darwin  emotions provide a repertoire of
adaptive behaviors that facilitate human survival
 James-Lange theory of emotion  our bodies respond to stimuli in the world by
preparing us to react in a survival-facilitating manner and our emotions are bodily
changes that signal how we should behave; physiological responses are products of the
autonomic nervous system (i.e. changes in heart-rate, breathing, pupil dilation, blood-
flow etc.); “what would joy, rage, love be without the heart palpitations, muscle
tension…)
o Suggests the emotions we experience have been selected for by natural
selection
o Therefore, emotional experience should be universal and experienced across
cultures
 Cannon-bard Theory of Emotion  ANS response is too slow and underspecified to
account for the range of emotions humans experiences; therefore emotions cannot be
reduced to a pattern of ANS activation – need another component
 Two-Factor / Appraisal Theory of Emotion  the emotion experienced is a function
how one appraises bodily reaction to a stimulus

Universal Facial Expressions (Ekman & Friesen, 1971)

 “Neurocultural” theory of emotion
Emotions evolved as a rapid and coordinated response system to quickly and efficiently
respond to events that affect their welfare
Facial expressions are part of this response system (therefore, humans ought to universally
demonstrate the same expression of these basic emotions)
Culture may modify these expressions via cultural learning that specifies when these
expressions should expressions should be displayed or hidden

 Emotions are universal

 Also vary by culture  display rule; ingroup advantage to those able to identify
emotions of ingroup members accurately
  Emotions have functional role  help organism respond effectively to environment
(adaptive advantage)  disgust to prevent contamination; fear to respond to threat,
fight or flight
 Social referencing  process of using emotional expression of others to regulate one’s
behavior (infant experiment to refer to parent expression to know how to feel especially
when stimulus ambiguous = attempt to disambiguate situation)
 Guides us to understand others  face/emotion you make when taking an action
influences how we see you. Negative emotional expression  positivity of intention no
different for prosocial or harmful actions; positive emotional expression  intentions
rated more positively when acted pro-socially;
o As frequency of action increased, affective display no longer matters
 Embodied cognition theories suggest people decode facial expression of others by
simulating perceived expression in one’s own facial musculature  impairing ability to
mimic should impact ability to accurately identify emotional expression of others
 Perception-action model of empathy  when observing other person, person’s actions
and expressions activate observers neural networks of the same action or expression/
adopting outer states of target allows observer to experience target’s state; subject to
ingroup outgroup bias; less empathy (no mu suppression) for outgroup members  less
mu suppression (less activity in motor cortex) associated w higher score on racism scale
 Participants made more trusting decisions when partner was smiling; no difference b
smiling and neutral expression for women
 Fear recognition strongest predictor when examining other predictors, they could
contribute to attractiveness (prosocial) ratings; not everyone recognizes fear to same
extent (prosocial-antisocial behavior)
 We feel less empathy for people who we believe deserve to be punish. Women however
feel a bit more empathy than men
 Misattribution of emotion: if physiological thesis is true then you attributed arousal to
emotion that is fear; if appraisal theory is true then you attribute unidentified arousal to
attraction  result more people called the assistant under fear bridge
How are we affected by someone else’s emotions?
 Emotional contagion  natural tendency to mimic others leads us to experience the
perceived emotion of the target leading us to alter our appraisal of the situation
 Social appraisal  target’s emotion alters our appraisal of situation which in turn
generate our experienced emotion

- Participants anxiety/excitement were significantly related to the reference persons’

anxiety/excitement -> participants emotion affected by reference person
- Participants appraisal of response options were significantly related to reference
person’s emotions  the emotions of others influenced appraisal of the response
options
BUT reference person emotion was still a significant predictor of participant emotion when
controlling for appraisal  more consistent with the emotion-contagion sequence
 Peak-end rule  the decisions we make tend to work on the hedonic principle  we
repeat response options that were pleasant’ we avoid response options that we
unpleasant
 process relies on memory so “how accurate are these evaluations of past experiences”
o Pain rating was same for both long and short trials  length of event or duration
of an experience doesn’t factor in evaluation of its pleasantness
o More participants chose the long trial; if minimizing pain is the overall goal the
percentage choosing the long trial should be 0  rules out decision being made
to minimize pain
o Suggests that the level of pain experience at the end of the situation influenced
memory and subsequent decision
o Subjective report: long trial produced overall less discomfort, less cold at the
most extreme moment; shorter than short trial => all factually wrong
= suggests this effect is not driven by a conscious process
 Real life test: Participants in the modified treatment condition rated procedure less
painful’ individuals that rated colonoscopy as more painful were less likely to return for
subsequent treatment/evaluation; modified procedure had no effect on return rates of
those whose colonoscopy revealed an abnormality; modified procedure boosted follow-
up rates of patients whose colonoscopy was normal

 Affective forecasting  ability to accurately predict how one will respond emotionally in
response to an event; research indicated we have poor insight when asked to predict
magnitude of distress following an emotional event  inaccuracy of these forecasts
have potential to bias decision making

 The dissolution of a romantic relationship is likely to be an emotional aversive

experience; important to understand the forecasts people make and their actual
response;
o Overall, participants reported significantly more distress than they actually
experienced
o Affective forecasting errors were more likely if participant was “in love” w their
partner; affective forecasting error was especially likely for participant who felt it
was unlikely they would begin a new relationship in the next two-week period

1) What is an emotion
2) Understanding emotion of others
3) Emotion and social interaction
4) When emotions lead us astray
LEC 10 – SOCIAL COGNITION & MORALITY

 Naïve definition of morality: extent to which action is right/wrong; distinction b

right/wrong; good/bad... system of values + principles of conduct held by person or
society
 Morality philosophically  descriptive definition (code of conduct put forward by
society/group of people/accepted by an individual) ; normative definition (code of
conduct that would be put forward by all rational people)
 Moral realism  position that ethical sentences express  refer to objective features
of world (independent of subjective opinion); true to the extent that features are
reported accurately
 Moral relativism  descriptive moral relativism (holds that some people do disagree
abt what is moral); meta-ethical moral relativism (in such disagreement, nobody is
objectively right or wrong); normative moral relativism (bc nobody is right/wrong; we
ought to tolerate behavior of others even when we disagree abt morality of it)
 Function definition: morality emerges to solve adaptive challenge, guide conviviality in
society; provide set of rules and guidelines for behavior; provide sense of justice for
dealing w transgressor  therefore, moral code variation expected across different
cultures/societies to extent that they experienced ≠ adaptative challenges
 Psychological definition: beliefs or attitudes that are generalizable; obligatory;
unalterable; authority independent; transgressors sanctioned (punishment through
social exclusion or retribution)

 Morality is evolutionary, even apes have a sense of fairness. Infants as well

o Infants studies: they looked longer at unequal condition scene; there was no
difference in looking time for inanimate condition ruling out asymmetry novelty
effect; also no different in cover control ruling out novelty of similar character
effect; no matter whether rewards mentioned explicitly or not, infant look
longer when reward given to an individual who didn’t do any work
o Young infants preferred helper to hinderer; prefer prosocial to antisocial
behavior
 Source of morality? Emotion or reason
o Rationalist  moral judgement reached via reasoning + reflection; moral
reasoning: conscious mental activity that consists of transforming info to reach a
moral judgement  we reach different stages at different parts of our lives; it
develops as we grow in age
 Level 1 pre-morality: stage 1 punishment and obedience orientation;
stage 2 hedonistic orientation
 Level 2 conventional morality: stage 3 interpersonal concordance
orientation; stage 4 law and order orientation
 Level 3 post conventional morality: stage 5 social contract or legalistic
orientation; stage 6 universal ethical principles orientation
  Malle’s model of choosing degrees of blame (intentional? Could it be
avoided? What were the reasons...)
 Support for rationalism Our moral judgement become more complex
as we develop; manipulating individual components of an event alters
our perception of responsibility
o Intuitionist  moral judgements result from quick flashes of emotion; moral
intuition: sudden appearance in consciousness of a moral judgement, w/o having
gone through steps of searching, weighting evidence, or inferring conclusion
 Evidence of morality in apes and children so complex reasoning not a
possible explanation for those moral acts
 Feelings as information  emotions serve as informational cues that
influence judgement (individuals in high arousal condition made more
severe moral judgements compared to those in low arousal condition)
 Support for intuitionism  evolutionary evidence suggest we are born w
set of “moral intuitions”; severity of moral judgments affected by
incidental arousal

 Normative ethics
Deontology  morally correct action is the one that upholds roles, duties, and obligations
Upholding rule > mxmz “good”
Consequentialism/utilitarianism  morally correct action is the one that mxms overall good; it
is morally correct to violate a rule if it maximizes overall good
o TPR greatest when participants performed the harmful actions; TPR lowest when
participants completed the no harm actions; TPR was moderate when witnessing
another person perform the harmful actions
o Participants were then given a series of dilemmas to evaluate; participants who
experienced higher levels of TPR were more likely to make deontological moral
judgments
o How morally acceptable it would be for you to throw this person overboard in
order to save the lives of the remaining passengers  completely unacceptable
– deontology ;  completely acceptable – consequentialist
 Physiological arousal and ability to visualize are associated w more deontological
judgments
o Participants who scored higher on the visual (vs verbal) working memory task
were more likely to make deontological moral
o Participants who scored higher on the verbal (vs. visual) working memory task
were more likely to make consequentialist moral judgments

 Cognitive Reflective Test (CRT)  individuals who scored higher on CRT (ability to
override intuitive responses) was associated w more consequentialist judgments
 consequentialist judgments rely on overcoming baseline aversion to harm
 how? Cognitive control (ability to guide attention, thought and action in accordance w goals,
and intentions especially in the face of competing pressures)
When do we engage in cognitive control  when we experience internal conflict
- Consequentialist judgement associated w increased DLPFC activity for difficult dilemmas
(longer response time)  suggest more cognitive control for difficult dilemma
Central tension principle: deontological judgment supported by automatic emotional
response while consequentialist judgement supported by conscious reasoning and allied
processes of cognitive control

- Moral machine game on who should automatic car spares; minimize lives; spares by
age? Spare by culture? Racial biases?  differences in response across 3 cultures
(western, eastern and south/central America)

World Values Survey: Cultural differences

- Traditional (importance of religion, parental ties, deference to authority, reject divorce,
abortion, euthanasia…) vs secular-rational (opposite) values
- Survival (economic + physical security; ethnocentric outlook, low levels of trust +
tolerance) vs self-expression (personal liberty + equality; tolerant of foreigners + high
demand for political representation) values
 [Inglehart and Welzel] Closer a country is to another, the more their values overlap;
countries and cluster that are least similar will be on diagonal from each other
Read sl.82  Moral foundations theory, several universal values (Harm; fairness; ingroup;
authority; purity)  extreme conservatism value all of them almost at same level; liberalist
value most harm (so care) + fairness (equality); less loyalty (so ingroup/racism) + less purity
(also ingroup/racism/homophobia)

1) Evidence of “proto-morality” in apes + infants = we are born with “intuitive ethics”

2) Rationalist view = our moral thinking becomes more complex w time
3) Intuitionism = moral judgment driven by emotion
4) Rational + intuitive processes lead to ≠ moral conclusions
5) ≠ moral values can be explained by differential endorsement of moral foundations
LEC 9 – BEHAVIOUR & SOCIAL COGNITION

 Who to imitate? Be selective about who you refer to for the purpose of learning
 Prestige bias  preference for inferring cultural info from whomever receives more
attention and/or freely conferred deference from others
o Children behavior imitate more prestigious model, but no difference in
desirability of both models and predictions of friends
o Children more likely to use age compared to expertise, to decide who to imitate
o Children more likely to imitate reliable model; very young children able to
discriminate b individuals who should/shouldn’t be imitated based on knowledge
abt prior behavior
 Chameleon effect  mimicry helps learn from experience of conspecifics or ingratiate
yourself to others; allows for dvpmt of interpretive schemas (how to understand
behavior of others) and behavioral schemas (how to behave in response to others)
o Participants more likely to rub face when confederate rubs face; more likely to
shake foot when confederate shakes foot
o Participants liked partner (confederate) more in mimic condition compared to
control (neutral) condition; participants felt interaction w their confederate went
more smoothly in mimic condition compared to control condition [external
judges rated interactions b participant and confederate equally across both
conditions; like eye contact, smiling frequency, friendliness…]
o Perspective-taking: ability to take on/understand perspective of other; high
perspective-takers mimicked confederate more than low perspective takers

 Do we have a natural strong tendency to imitate others (innate)  test it in competitive

scene where purpose is NOT to imitate opponents, proof of difficulty inhibiting a
proneness to imitate others
o More draws in blind-sighted condition than in blind-blind (more imitation for
rock and scissor)
 Behavior: act/series of acts executed in order to achieve a goal; goal: outcome we desire
to attain  thinking about the outcome prepares and directs action associated w the
outcome

 How to explain gap b attitude and behavior?( only 40% priests stopped to help
victim; most restaurants say they won’t accept Chinese in their restaurants, but they did
accept them and treated them)
 Behavior = 2 stage process: deliberation; implementation
o When participants made choice, their thoughts had significantly more
deliberative content than volitional; regardless of whether chose or were
assigned the set of photos, more volitional concerns were expressed after the
set of photos had been determined
 Individuals in deliberative state more receptive to new info + more oriented toward
wider gathering of info
 In deliberative stage scored better on memory span task compared to
baseline score + compared to those in volitional (post-decision) phase
 No ≠ b baseline and critical scores for volitional stage
 Fujita et al 1: no big ≠ in recognition accuracy b deliberative mindset and
implemental mindset; big ≠ in reaction time to accurately recognize
words presented during task
 Fujita et al 2: ≠ in recognition accuracy; no big difference in response
times
 Fujita et al 3: deliberative mindset more accurate compared to
implemental + neutral; + faster a recognizing words so faster reaction
time
o Deliberative mindset increase sensitivity to incidental info compared to
implemental + neutral;

 Goal shielding theory: inhibiting alternative goals is required for effective self-
regulation; shield focal pursuits from potential distraction of other goals; inter-goal
inhibition is an overlearned tendency applied automatically and unconsciously
o when goal commitment low, no ≠ in nb of alternative goals list; goal
commitment high, individuals who rated themselves high in goal tenacity listed
fewer alternative goals  these individuals suggest they were shielding focal
goal from other goals
o is process conscious/unconscious? When primed w goal attribute, response time
for other goal attribute slower than when primed w control word = when primed
w a goal attribute, other accessibility to other goal attributes was inhibited =
automatic process
o goal inhibition strong from high tenacity participants
o when primed w goal activity response time for other goal activities slower than
when primed w control word = goal inhibition occurring for mundane as well as
meaningful goals

 theory of planned behavior (behavioral beliefs attitude + normative beliefs 

subjective norm + control beliefs  perceived behavioral control  behavioral
intention)
o attitude toward selfie, subjective norms, perceived control predicted behavioral
intentions; behavioral intentions predicted actual selfie posting behavior
 sometimes intention not enough  vital to get specific and form implementation
intention (when, where, how you intend on doing it)
 implementation intention subordinate to goal intention; representation of anticipated
situational cue becomes highly accessible when implementation is formed; heightened
accessibility of cue make it more likely that people will recognize good time to act
(=strategic automatization)
 o no ≠ b implementation intention conditions; participants in implementation
condition performed better on task than individuals in control condition
o does better cue detection come at cost of impaired cue discrimination? False
positive? factoring irrelevant cues?
 Those in implementation condition slowed responses to other
(ambiguous) stimuli = carefulness to identify correct stimuli/cue
 + made fewer errors for single digit compared to those familiarized =
implementation intention made participant more sensitive to specific cue
and not more sensitive generally
 Implementation intention increase cancer screening  theory of planned
behavior components predicted attending the screening
 No ≠ on components of theory of planned behavior b implementation
intention condition and control group; despite that implementation
intention group more likely to attend screening

1) Humans mimicking machines

2) As we dvp, connection b thoughts + feelings + behavior weakens
3) To be able to predict behavior: deliberation vs implementation? Has strong intention to
act formed? Has implementation intention been formed?