Self-Perception Theory

Bem
 Self Perception Theory is a behavioral
theory.

 Behavioral theories attempt to explain

phenomena without using internal states
(such as motivation or drives) to explain
behavior.
 The original purpose of self perception
theory was to explain phenomena covered
by cognitive dissonance theory, without
using an internal drive state (dissonance)
in the explanation
 Self perception theory developed into a
general theory to explain how people
arrive at decisions about the causes of
their own behavior.
 Self perception theory argues that people
examine two things when making
decisions about the cause of their own
behavior.

 They examine:
 First,

 The behavior itself

 Second,

 The environmental forces working on the

individual
  Observed Behavior
+
 Environmental Forces
=
 Attributions for the Cause of the Behavior
 Example
 Behavior: I am eating asparagus
+
 Environment: I am alone at home
=
 Cause: I like asparagus
 The old attribution question arises:

 Is the cause of the behavior personal or

situational?
 Since there is no situational
(environmental) explanation for my
behavior, I must conclude that the cause
is personal: I must like asparagus.
 Example
 Behavior: I am eating asparagus
+
 Environment: A man has a gun pointed at
me
=
 Cause: I am eating asparagus because I
might otherwise be shot
 I might also ask, “Why was it necessary
for someone to point a gun at me to get
me to eat asparagus?”

 I might decide that I must not like

asparagus. I end up inferring a different
disposition in me.
 To Change the Example:
 Behavior: I am eating asparagus
+
 Environment: My parents have said that I
will not be allowed up from the table until
I have finished the asparagus
=
 Cause: I don’t like asparagus
 Here, there is considerable environmental
cause for the behavior, so I must conclude
that I am eating asparagus for a
situational reason – the gun
 To summarize what self perception theory
is saying about the cause of behavior:
 If there is minimal environmental
explanation for a behavior, we conclude
that the cause is personal (dispositional)

 If there is strong environmental

explanation for a behavior, we conclude
that the cause is situational (something in
my environment)
 Self Perception Theory’s
explanation for the results of the
Festinger and Carlsmith Experiment
 Behavior: I told the guy that I liked the
experiment
+
 Environment: I got $20 for it
=
 I hated that experiment
 In the $20 case, the money is a strong
explanation for the behavior. Why should
I have to be offered so much money to
tell the guy that I liked the experiment?
Because I must dislike it.

 Strong environmental cause implies lack of

personal desire to perform the behavior.
 Behavior: I told the guy that I liked the
experiment
+
 Enviroment: I got $1 for it
=
 Cause: The experiment was okay
 Here, there is very little environmental
explanation for the behavior, so I must
conclude that the cause for my telling the
guy that the experiment was fun was
personal – I said it was okay because it
was okay.
 The important thing to note is that
cognitive dissonance was not used in self-
perception theory to explain the behavior.
All it took was examination of the behavior
and its circumstances.
 Self perception theory argues that internal
drive states are not necessary for
explanation of behavior and attributions.
Which Theory is Correct?
 We can’t say that one theory is better
than the other.

 We can say that these are two different

ways to explain the cause of behavior –
one requiring inference of internal drive
states, the other not needing examination
of internal drive states.
 Overjustification Effect
 An interesting sidelight to self-perception
theory is the overjustification effect:

 Definition: minimal rewards lead to high

interest in a task; external rewards for
tasks lead to low interest in it.
 The overjustification effect argues that the
more external reward that you are given
for doing something, the less becomes
your enjoyment of the task. You are
performing the task for the reward
(environmental cause), not for personal
enjoyment (personal cause).
 Overjustification Example
Behavior: 9 year old Johnny plays baseball
with the neighborhood kids all day.
+
 Environment: He receives no external
reward for doing this
=
 Cause: he plays baseball because it is fun
  Behavior: 25 year old Johnny is playing
baseball in the Major Leagues
 +
 Environment: he receives $5 million a year
to play baseball
 =
 Cause: he is playing for the money
(environmental cause) not for pleasure
(personal cause)
 Question: When Johnny is offered $5
million to play next year, what does he
do?
 Answer: He refuses the contract and goes
to arbitration for more money.
 Why: He no longer plays baseball for love
of the game; he plays for the money.
 Overjustification Effect
 Moral of the story:

 If you want someone to perform a

behavior because they personally enjoy it,
do not provide oversufficient external
cause (e.g., money) for it.
 Other Examples:

 Getting paid for grades – does it cause

you to like school more?
 Getting paid to babysit – does it cause you
to like babysitting more?
 Getting paid to mow the lawn – does it
cause you to like mowing the lawn more?
 Defence Attribution Principle

 Succuss credit to internal attribution

 Failure credit to external attribution

 Foot in the Door Technique
 The foot-in-the-door technique involves
making an initial smaller request before
making a larger request
 The classic example would be selling a small
product at a very low price (also known as a
loss leader), and then later selling the same
prospect something more costly. It's more
useful for nonprofit sales and many charities
use this technique, asking for a small donation
and then gradually requesting more and more
assistance
 Door in the Face Technique
 door-in-the-face starts out with a large
request that you know the prospect will
decline followed immediately by a smaller
request (the second request being what
you really wanted).
 Reason to Success
 first, your prospect will often feel bad about
having to refuse your initial request, and
will be more inclined to agree to the smaller
request in order to make it up to you
 second, in comparison with your very large
request, the second request will seem
insignificant. Door-in-the-face works only if
the second request is made immediately
after the first, when the feeling of guilt and
the contrast between the two is the
Attribution Toward Others
Attribution Toward Things