DOCSLIB.ORG

ATTITUDES and SOCIAL COGNITION a Disconfirmation Bias

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
ATTITUDES and SOCIAL COGNITION a Disconfirmation Bias ATTITUDES AND SOCIAL COGNITION A Disconfirmation Bias in the Evaluation of Arguments Kari Edwards Edward E. Smith Brown University University of Michigan (Ann Arbor) Two experiments provided evidence for a disconfirmation bias in argument evaluation such that arguments incompatible with prior beliefs are scrutinized longer, subjected to more extensive refu- tational analyses, and consequently are judged to be weaker than arguments compatible with prior beliefs. The idea that people are unable to evaluate evidence independently of prior beliefs has been documented elsewhere, including in the classic study by C. G. Lord, L. Ross, and M. R. Lepper (1979). The present findings contribute to this literature by specifying the processes by which prior beliefs affect the evaluation of evidence. The authors compare the disconflrmation model to several other models of how prior beliefs influence current judgments and present data that provide support for the disconfirmation model. Results indicate that whether a person's prior belief is accompanied by emotional conviction affects the magnitude and form of the disconfirmation bias. When evaluating an argument, can one assess its strength in- whether the death penalty is an effective deterrent against mur- dependently of one's prior belief in the conclusion? A good deal der. They selected two groups of participants, one known to be- of evidence indicates the answer is an emphatic no (e.g., Batson, lieve that the death penalty is an effective deterrent and one 1975; Chapman & Chapman, 1959; Darley & Gross, 1983; known to believe that it is not an effective deterrent. Both Geller & Pitz, 1968; Nisbett & Ross, 1980; Sherif & Hovland, groups were presented with two arguments, one that pointed to 1961). This phenomenon, which we refer to as the prior belief the deterrent efficacy of the death penalty and one that pointed effect, has important implications. Given two people, or groups, to its inefficacy as a deterrent. Each argument consisted of a with opposing beliefs about a social, political, or scientific issue, brief description of the design and findings of a study support- the degree to which they will view relevant evidence as strong ing or opposing the death penalty (e.g., a study showing that a will differ. This difference, in turn, may result in a failure of the state's murder rate declined after institution of the death opposing parties to converge on any kind of meaningful penalty) and was followed by criticisms of the study itself, as agreement, and, under some circumstances, they may become well as rebuttals of these criticisms. The best-known finding as- more extreme in their beliefs. sociated with this study is that the pro-death-penalty and anti- Perhaps the most renowned study documenting the prior be- death-penalty participants became more polarized in their be- lief effect is one conducted by Lord, Ross, and Lepper (1979); liefs—and hence more different from one another—as a result this study served as the starting point for our work. Lord et al. of reading the two arguments. Note, however, that this result is were concerned with people's evaluations of arguments about a logical consequence of another more basic finding obtained by Lord et al.: When participants were asked to rate how con- vincing each study seemed as evidence (i.e., assessments in- volved participants' judgment of the argument's strength rather Kari Edwards, Department of Psychology, Brown University; Edward than their final belief in the conclusion), proponents of the E. Smith, Department of Psychology, University of Michigan (Ann death penalty judged the pro-death-penalty arguments to be Arbor). more convincing or stronger than the anti-death-penalty argu- The research reported in this article was supported by funds provided ments, whereas the opponents of the death penalty judged the by Brown University and by US. Air Force Contract AFOSR-93-0265. We are grateful to Patrick Maher, whose ideas were instrumental to our anti-death-penalty arguments to be more convincing. This is thinking about the normative status of the prior belief effect. We would the prior belief effect, and it has as one of its consequences the also like to thank Thane Pittman and Liz Tighe for their helpful com- polarization of belief. ments on an earlier version of this article, Jon Baron for additional in- Given the importance of the prior belief effect, it is important sights about the normative questions, J. B. Smeltzer for programming to identify the mechanisms that underlie it. Lord et al. suggested assistance, and Hilary Ammazzalorso, Ray Ashare, Craig Malina, and that the effect arises because people tend to accept at face value Silvio Menzano for assistance in running the experiments and coding the protocols. those arguments that are compatible with their prior beliefs but Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Kari tend to scrutinize those arguments that are incompatible with Edwards, Department of Psychology, Brown University, Providence, their prior beliefs. This idea has been proposed by other inves- Rhode Island 02912. Electronic mail may be sent via the Internet to tigators as well (e.g., Ditto & Lopez, 1992; Koehler, 1993; kari [email protected]. Kunda, 1990; Ross & Lepper, 1980). Our objective in the pres- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1 »6, Vol. 71, No. 1.5-24 Copyright 1996 by the American Psychological Association. Inc. 0022-3514/96/53.00 EDWARDS AND SMITH ent article is to move beyond the straightforward and now 1. Because memory searches are time consuming, partici- widely accepted notion that prior beliefs affect the extent to pants should take longer to evaluate arguments that are incom- which relevant information is scrutinized and to specify the patible with their prior beliefs than arguments that are compat- processes by which they do so. We sketch an explicit model of ible with these beliefs. how such differential scrutiny comes about, generate predic- 2. If participants are asked to report what they are thinking tions from this model, and present two experiments on argu- while evaluating an argument, they should report more mate- ment evaluation that support the predictions.1 rial when the argument is incompatible with their beliefs than when it is compatible. This is because there will be substantially Disconfirmation Model more output from the memory search in the case of incompati- ble arguments. Our central thesis is the same as Lord et al.'s (1979): When 3. If participants are asked to report what they are thinking faced with evidence contrary to their beliefs, people try to un- while evaluating an argument, most of the reported material dermine the evidence. That is, there is a bias to disconfirm ar- will be compatible with their prior beliefs. This is because the guments incompatible with one's position. This idea can be de- initial activation of memory presumably retrieves mainly prior veloped into a disconfirmation model by making the following beliefs, whereas the deliberate memory search retrieves mate- assumptions. rial refuting arguments that are themselves incompatible with 1. When one is presented an argument to evaluate, there will the participants* prior beliefs (i.e., the deliberative search re- be some automatic activation in memory of material relevant trieves material supportive of one's beliefs). to the argument. Some of the accessed material will include This set of predictions does not follow from some familiar one's prior beliefs about the issue. alternative models of how prior beliefs influence current judg- 2. If the argument presented is incompatible with prior be- ments. One such alternative, sometimes alluded to but rarely liefs, one will engage in a deliberative search of memory for ma- developed, hinges on the notion that people with different atti- terial that will undermine the argument simply. Hence, "scruti- tudes about an issue have stored different beliefs (e.g., see Nis- nizing an argument" is implemented as a deliberate memory 2 bett & Ross, 1980). When applied to the Lord et al. (1979) search, and such a search requires extensive processing. study, the differential storage account would proceed as follows. 3. Possible targets of the memory search include stored beliefs When presented an argument, all participants search their and arguments that offer direct evidence against the premises memory for relevant material to bring to bear on the evaluation and conclusion of the presented argument. of this argument. Because pro-death-penalty participants have 4. The outputs of the memory search are integrated with mainly pro-death-penalty material stored and anti-death-pen- other (perhaps unbiased) considerations about the current ar- alty participants have mainly anti-death-penalty material gument, and the resulting evaluation serves as the basis for judg- stored, most of the retrieved material will be consistent with ments of the current argument's strength. participants' prior beliefs. In turn, because this material will These four assumptions are embodied in the simple box enter into the evaluation of the current argument, a prior belief model diagrammed in Figure 1. The model readily explains the effect should arise. This account further predicts that if partici- prior belief effect. Specifically, the evaluation of arguments that are incompatible with one's prior beliefs is biased by counter- evidence retrieved during the memory search, whereas the eval- ' The prior belief effect investigated in this article arises in the context uation of arguments compatible with prior beliefs is not biased of inductive reasoning and should be distinguished from a seemingly related effect obtained in studies of deductive reasoning. In the latter by such counterevidence (see Figure 1). case (e.g., Oakhill & Johnson-Laird, 1985), participants are presented In addition to explaining the prior belief effect, the discon- complex arguments (often syllogisms) and asked to determine whether firmation model leads to the following three predictions.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Psychology, Meaning Making and the Study of Worldviews: Beyond Religion and Non-Religion
    Psychology, Meaning Making and the Study of Worldviews: Beyond Religion and Non-Religion Ann Taves, University of California, Santa Barbara Egil Asprem, Stockholm University Elliott Ihm, University of California, Santa Barbara Abstract: To get beyond the solely negative identities signaled by atheism and agnosticism, we have to conceptualize an object of study that includes religions and non-religions. We advocate a shift from “religions” to “worldviews” and define worldviews in terms of the human ability to ask and reflect on “big questions” ([BQs], e.g., what exists? how should we live?). From a worldviews perspective, atheism, agnosticism, and theism are competing claims about one feature of reality and can be combined with various answers to the BQs to generate a wide range of worldviews. To lay a foundation for the multidisciplinary study of worldviews that includes psychology and other sciences, we ground them in humans’ evolved world-making capacities. Conceptualizing worldviews in this way allows us to identify, refine, and connect concepts that are appropriate to different levels of analysis. We argue that the language of enacted and articulated worldviews (for humans) and worldmaking and ways of life (for humans and other animals) is appropriate at the level of persons or organisms and the language of sense making, schemas, and meaning frameworks is appropriate at the cognitive level (for humans and other animals). Viewing the meaning making processes that enable humans to generate worldviews from an evolutionary perspective allows us to raise news questions for psychology with particular relevance for the study of nonreligious worldviews. Keywords: worldviews, meaning making, religion, nonreligion Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank Raymond F.
    [Show full text]
  • Back to the Future of Dissonance Theory: Cognitive Consistency As a Core Motive
    Social Cognition, Vol. 30, No. 6, 2012, pp. 652–668 GAWRONSKI COGNITIVE CONSISTENCY AS A CORE MOTIVE BACK TO THE FUTURE OF DISSONANCE THEORY: COGNITIVE CONSISTENCY AS A CORE MOTIVE Bertram Gawronski The University of Western Ontario In his theory of cognitive dissonance, Festinger (1957) described cogni- tive consistency as a psychological need that is as basic as hunger and thirst. Over the past decades, however, the idea of cognitive consistency as a core motive has been replaced by an increasingly narrow focus on dissonance-related changes in attitudes and alternative accounts that at- tribute such changes to mechanisms of ego-defense. The current article aims at reviving the idea of cognitive consistency as a core motive, arguing that inconsistency serves as an epistemic cue for errors in one’s system of beliefs. Because inconsistency can often be resolved in multiple ways, motivated reasoning can bias processes of inconsistency resolution toward desired conclusions, although motivated distortions are constrained by the need for cognitive consistency. The ubiquity of consistency processes is il- lustrated through its role in various instances of threat-compensation (e.g., victim derogation, self-verification, system justification) and the insights that can be gained from reconceptualizing various social psychological phenomena in terms of cognitive consistency (e.g., prejudice-related belief systems, dispositional inference, stability of first impressions). Festinger’s (1957) theory of cognitive dissonance is arguably one of the most in- fluential theories in the history of social psychology. The theory postulates that inconsistent cognitions elicit an aversive state of arousal (i.e., dissonance), which in turn produces a desire to reduce the underlying inconsistency and to maintain a state of consonance.1 Although Festinger was convinced that the psychological need for cognitive consistency is as basic as hunger and thirst, several revisions 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Social Cognition and Behavior in Relationship Context
    TURUN YLIOPISTON JULKAISUJA ANNALES UNIVERSITATIS TURKUENSIS SARJA - SER. B OSA - TOM. 311 HUMANIORA SOCIAL COGNITION AND BEHAVIOR IN RELATIONSHIP CONTEXT by Kätlin Peets TURUN YLIOPISTO Turku 2008 From the Department of Psychology University of Turku, Finland Supervised by Christina Salmivalli, Ph.D. Professor Department of Psychology University of Turku Finland Ernest V. E. Hodges, Ph.D. Associate Professor Department of Psychology St. John’s University New York, USA Reviewed by Shelley Hymel, Ph.D. Professor Faculty of Education University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Bram Orobio de Castro, Ph.D. Professor Department of Developmental Psychology Utrecht University Utrecht, The Netherlands Opponent Shelley Hymel, Ph.D. Professor Faculty of Education University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada ISBN 978-951-29-3614-4 (PRINT) ISBN 978-951-29-3615-1 (PDF) ISNN 0082-6987 Painosalama Oy – Turku, Finland 2008 3 Social Cognition and Behavior in Relationship Context Kätlin Peets Department of Psychology University of Turku Finland ABSTRACT Social information processing (SIP; Crick & Dodge, 1994) and social-cognitive learning theories have been often used to understand children’s problem behaviors, such as aggression. According to these theories, children’s thinking guides their subsequent behaviors. Although most of us agree that social behavior and underlying thought processes are context-dependent, personality and social development researchers have usually engaged in searching for stable patterns of dispositions and behaviors, ignoring (or treating as error) the variance across different situations and relationship types. This, however, can result in erroneous conclusions and question the interpretation of previous findings. Four studies were conducted to explore the influence of relationship context on children’s social-cognitive evaluations and behavior.
    [Show full text]
  • A History of Implicit Social Cognition 1
    A History of Implicit Social Cognition 1 A History of Implicit Social Cognition: Where Is It Coming From? Where Is It Now? Where Is It Going? B. Keith Payne University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill Bertram Gawronski The University of Western Ontario Within the space of two decades, virtually every In this introduction, we aim to provide a context for intellectual question in social psychology, and many the chapters that follow by highlighting some of the outside of it, has been shaped by the theories and themes that keep surfacing in the field, tracing them to methods of implicit social cognition. Many of those their historical roots, and identifying emerging themes questions are pondered in this volume, involving the role that may guide future research. We hope that our of automatic/implicit/unconscious processes in attitudes historical synopsis will not only provide an orientation (Petty & Briñol, Chapter 18), social judgment and for the in-depth discussions of particular topics in the decision-making (Bodenhausen & Todd, Chapter 15), following chapters, but also circumscribe the goal pursuit (Ferguson & Porter, Chapter 17), prejudice characteristics that define implicit social cognition as a and stereotyping (Amodio & Mendoza, Chapter 19; particular way of studying, understanding, and Trawalter & Shapiro, Chapter 20), self-concepts and self- explaining human behavior. In addition, we hope that our esteem (Schnabel & Asendorpf, Chapter 22; Zeigler-Hill introduction helps illuminate the historical roots of & Jordan, Chapter 21), social-cognitive development previous and ongoing debates, which seems valuable for (Olson & Dunham, Chapter 13), romantic relationships critical appraisals of theoretical interpretations in (Baldwin, Lydon, McClure, & Etchison, Chapter 23), implicit social cognition.
    [Show full text]
  • Social Cognition Is Not Reducible to Theory of Mind
    1 The British Psychological British Journal of Developmental Psychology (2011) Society C 2011 The British Psychological Society www.wileyonlinelibrary.com Social cognition is not reducible to theory of mind: When children use deontic rules to predict the behaviour of others ∗ Fabrice Clement´ 1,Stephane´ Bernard2 and Laurence Kaufmann2 1Institute of Language and Communication Sciences, University of Neuchatel,ˆ Switzerland 2Institute of Social Sciences, University of Lausanne, Switzerland The objective of this paper is to discuss whether children have a capacity for deontic reasoning that is irreducible to mentalizing. The results of two experiments point to the existence of such non-mentalistic understanding and prediction of the behaviour of others. In Study 1, young children (3- and 4-year-olds) were told different versions of classic false-belief tasks, some of which were modified by the introduction of a rule or a regularity. When the task (a standard change of location task) included a rule, the performance of 3-year-olds, who fail traditional false-belief tasks, significantly improved. In Study 2, 3-year-olds proved to be able to infer a rule from a social situation and to use it in order to predict the behaviour of a character involved in a modified version of the false-belief task. These studies suggest that rules play a central role in the social cognition of young children and that deontic reasoning might not necessarily involve mind reading. The prevailing trend in developmental, comparative, and evolutionary psychology is to assimilate social inferences to theory of mind, that is, to the capacity to understand others’ behaviours by ascribing to them the beliefs, knowledge, and desires that are supposed to be the hidden causes of their actions.
    [Show full text]
  • The Link Between Social Cognition and Self-Referential Thought in the Medial Prefrontal Cortex
    The Link between Social Cognition and Self-referential Thought in the Medial Prefrontal Cortex Jason P. Mitchell1,2, Mahzarin R. Banaji1, and C. Neil Macrae2 Abstract & The medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) has been implicated that inferences based on self-reflection should only be made in seemingly disparate cognitive functions, such as under- for similar others, targets were subsequently rated for their standing the minds of other people and processing informa- degree of similarity to self. Parametric analyses revealed a tion about the self. This functional overlap would be region of the ventral mPFC—previously implicated in self- expected if humans use their own experiences to infer the referencing tasks—in which activity correlated with perceived mental states of others, a basic postulate of simulation theory. self/other similarity, but only for mentalizing trials. These Neural activity was measured while participants attended to results suggest that self-reflection may be used to infer the either the mental or physical aspects of a series of other mental states of others when they are sufficiently similar to people. To permit a test of simulation theory’s prediction self. & INTRODUCTION role that this region plays in the human capacity to Recent neuroimaging and neuropsychological research understand the minds of others. In part, characterization has explored the functional neuroanatomy of social of mPFC functioning has been complicated by the cognition—for instance, by examining brain regions that observation that, together with its role in inferring the subserve an understanding of the psychological proper- mental states of others, this region has also been ties of other people, such as their beliefs, feelings, and associated with tasks that require people to reflect on, personalities.
    [Show full text]
  • Social Psychology Circa 2016: a Field on Steroids
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Jagiellonian Univeristy Repository EJSP AGENDA 2017 Social psychology circa 2016: A field on steroids Arie W. Kruglanski*, Marina Chernikova* & Katarzyna Jasko† * University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, USA † Jagiellonian University, Krakow, Poland Correspondence Abstract Arie Kruglanski, University of Maryland, fi College Park, MD 20742, USA. This paper considers the current state of the eld in social psychology. On the E-mail: [email protected] one hand, we have made enormous progress in integrating our research with other disciplines, reaching out to general public and using our knowledge to- ward addressing major societal ills. On the other hand, social psychology has been recently mired in a crisis of confidence concerning the appropriateness http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2285 of our methods and the robustness of our findings. We propose that shifting our attention to theory, method, and application, as well as away from a per- Keywords: social psychology, crisis, vision, vasive “outcome focus,” can extricate social psychology from its current dol- state of the field drums and allow it to realize its potential as an indispensable social science. These days, to be a social psychologist is to likely experi- General, Cognitive Psychology, Cognition, Memory, American ence a bundle of conflicting emotions, pride and a sense Psychologist, Psychological Review, Psychological Bulletin, of accomplishment, admixed with anxiety and fear; and Science, Nature, Psychological Science, Behavioral & Brain excitement about our potential alongside insecurity Sciences, and Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, about our future.
    [Show full text]
  • It Was Social Consistency That Mattered All Along
    Psychological Inquiry An International Journal for the Advancement of Psychological Theory ISSN: 1047-840X (Print) 1532-7965 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hpli20 It Was Social Consistency That Mattered All Along John A. Bargh To cite this article: John A. Bargh (2018) It Was Social Consistency That Mattered All Along, Psychological Inquiry, 29:2, 60-62, DOI: 10.1080/1047840X.2018.1480586 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2018.1480586 Published online: 10 Oct 2018. Submit your article to this journal View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hpli20 PSYCHOLOGICAL INQUIRY 2018, VOL. 29, NO. 2, 60–62 https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2018.1480586 COMMENTARIES It Was Social Consistency That Mattered All Along John A. Bargh Department of Psychology, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut In retrospect, Leon Festinger’s(1957, 1964) cognitive disson- unchosen appliance. Here we have motivated cognition at ance theory could be considered the opening salvo of the work, self-enhancement, causal attribution processes, ration- cognitive revolution in psychology. Its canonical experimen- alization, a cauldron of affect, motivation, and cognition all tal demonstration, Festinger and Carlsmith (1959), was a mixed together as they typically do in real-life situations. knife in the heart of behaviorism as it showed that mental But remember, this was 1956, still very much an era domi- activity could reverse the law of reward. Participants liked a nated by behaviorism, and still a decade away from the full- boring peg-turning or spoon-loading task less when they blown cognitive revolution of the 1960s.
    [Show full text]
  • Social Cognitive Theory of Personality
    1 SOCIAL COGNITIVE THEORY OF PERSONALITY Albert Bandura Stanford University Bandura, A. (1999). A social cognitive theory of personality. In L. Pervin & O. John (Ed.), Handbook of personality (2nd ed., pp. 154-196). New York: Guilford Publications. (Reprinted in D. Cervone & Y. Shoda [Eds.], The coherence of personality. New York: Guilford Press.) 2 Many psychological theories have been proposed over the years to explain human behavior. The view of human nature embodied in such theories and the causal processes they postulate have considerable import. What theorists believe people to be determines which aspects of human functioning they explore most thoroughly and which they leave unexamined. The conceptions of human nature in which psychological theories are rooted is more than a theoretical issue. As knowledge gained through inquiry is applied, the conceptions guiding the social practices have even vaster implications. They affect which human potentialities are cultivated, which are underdeveloped, and whether efforts at change are directed mainly at psychosocial, biological or sociostructural factors. This chapter addresses the personal determinants and mechanisms of human functioning from the perspective of social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986). The recent years have witnessed a resurgence of interest in self-referent phenomena. Self- processes have come to pervade diverse domains of psychology because most external influences affect human functioning through intermediary self processes rather than directly. The self system thus lies at the very heart of causal processes. To cite but a few examples, personal factors are very much involved in regulating attentional processes, schematic processing of experiences, memory representation and reconstruction, cognitively-based motivation, emotion activation, psychobiologic functioning and the efficacy with which cognitive and behavioral competencies are executed in the transactions of everyday life.
    [Show full text]
  • The Power of Social Cognition
    The Power of Social Cognition Geoffrey P. Morgan, Kenneth Joseph, and Kathleen M. Carley Institute for Software Research, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15203 Abstract As human beings, we understand and make sense of the social world using social cognition. Social cognitions are cognitive processes through which we understand, process, and recall our interactions with others. Most agent-based models do not account for social cognition; rather, they either provide detailed models of task-related cognition or model many actors and focus on social processes. In general, the more cognitively realistic the models, the less they explain human social behavior and the more computationally expensive it is to model a single agent. In contrast, in this research an agent-based model containing an explicit model of social cognition is developed. Results from this model demonstrate that adding social cognition both improves the model veridicality and decreases computation costs. Introduction Scholars define social cognition, broadly, as the way humans understand and process their interactions with others (Greenwald & Banaji 1995). This includes interpreting human interaction, drawing inferences from spoken and unspoken communication, and developing an understanding of group dynamics. Like any notion of cognition, social cognition can be studied at various levels of abstraction. At the neurological level, scholars have made inroads in understanding social cognition’s biological origins (Frith & Frith 2008). One level “up” on the abstraction hierarchy, cognitive psychologists have developed models of how stereotypes are embedded within interpretable, but cognitively faithful, mental representations (e.g. Bem 1981, Brashears et al. 2013). Social psychologists have studied how human actions are a function of culturally shared affective meanings, represented as a parsimonious set of numerical values (Heise 2007), and the cognitive turn in sociology has wrought about similar sorts of empirical models of cognition and culture (Goldberg 2011; Lizardo 2014).
    [Show full text]
  • Social Cognitive Theory
    1 SOCIAL COGNITIVE THEORY Albert Bandura Stanford University Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of child development. Vol. 6. Six theories of child development (pp. 1-60). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. 2 Many theories have been proposed over the years to explain the developmental changes that people undergo over the course of their lives. These theories differ in the conceptions of human nature they adopt and in what they regard to be the basic causes and mechanisms of human motivation and behavior. The present chapter analyzes human development from the perspective of social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986). Since development is a life- long process (Baltes & Reese, 1984), the analysis is concerned with changes in the psychosocial functioning of adults as well as with those occurring in childhood. Development is not a monolithic process. Human capabilities vary in their psychobiologic origins and in the experiential conditions needed to enhance and sustain them. Human development, therefore, encompasses many different types and patterns of changes. Diversity in social practices produces substantial individual differences in the capabilities that are cultivated and those that remain underdeveloped. Triadic Reciprocal Determinism Before analyzing the development of different human capabilities, the model of causation on which social cognitive theory is founded is reviewed briefly. Human behavior has often been explained in terms of one-sided determinism. In such modes of unidirectional causation, behavior is depicted as being shaped and controlled either by environmental influences or by internal dispositions. Social cognitive theory favors a model of causation involving triadic reciprocal determinism. In this model of reciprocal causation, behavior, cognition and other personal factors, and environmental influences all operate as interacting determinants that influence each other bidirectionally (Figure 1).
    [Show full text]
  • PSYC UN2640: Introduction to Social Cognition Summer Session A, 2021
    PSYC UN2640: Introduction to Social Cognition Summer Session A, 2021 I. Bulletin description II. A full description of the content of the course III. The rationale for giving the course IV. The reading list and weekly syllabus V. Course requirements I. Bulletin description PSYC UN2640: Introduction to Social Cognition (3 points). Summer Session A, 2021. Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays, 10:45 a.m. - 12:20 p.m. Eastern time, online via Zoom. Prerequisite: An introductory psychology course. An introduction to basic concepts in social cognition, an approach to understanding social judgment and behavior by investigating the underlying mental processes. Topics include attitudes, identity, and prejudice, among others. Instructor: Larisa Heiphetz [email protected] 212-854-1348 355C Schermerhorn Extension Office hours: Tuesdays and Wednesdays, 9:30 a.m. - 10:30 a.m., online via Zoom (same link as our regular course sessions). If you have another class during both sets of office hours, please e-mail me to set up a meeting at another time. Please also let me know which of your classes conflicts with my office hours so that I can consider how best to arrange my office hours around popular courses in future semesters. I am happy to meet with you throughout the semester to discuss anything related to the course. I typically reply to e-mails within 48 hours, although I don’t check my e-mail on Sundays. The TAs and I are happy to meet with you throughout the course of the semester to discuss the course material. If you have questions about course policies and logistics (like when something is due or how to submit an assignment), please e-mail one of the TAs or come to their office hours.
    [Show full text]