Psychology for Dummies (45 page)
Read Psychology for Dummies Online
Authors: Adam Cash
Tags: #Psychology, #General, #Body; Mind & Spirit, #Spirituality
With all of this judging going on, it begs the question of whether or not we’re accurate in our attributions. A consistent mistake that all of us make is called the
fundamental attribution error.
Most of the time we underestimate the role of external causes as determinants of other people’s behavior. We have a tendency to see what they do as inherent to them, as actor-caused. We may think that because we lack significant information about their behavior across situations, and so when in doubt, we attribute it to the actor. The more information we have, the better judges we become.
We also have a tendency to see our own behavior as due to external causes more than we see other people’s behavior as due to external causes (Jones and Nisbett). Again, this tendency probably exists because we have access to more information when it comes to ourselves. We also tend to attribute our successes to internal causes and our failures to external causes, and vice versa for other people. If I had won the $50,000 jackpot in Vegas, I’d probably do the same thing as the elderly woman who won — attribute the win to my innate ability to pull a slot handle really well. And she’d probably sit back and laugh at me, thinking it was all luck.
Do the famous people who endorse products on television commercials actually use the products they promote? Does Michael Jordan really wear that brand of underwear? Does Tiger Woods really drive the car he endorses? Maybe they do, and maybe they don’t. I don’t know Michael or Tiger, so all I can do is guess. But let’s just say for the sake of discussion that they do use the products they endorse. If I asked them why they endorse those products, what would they say, and what would these responses tell us about how well they know themselves?
Festinger and Carlsmith performed a classic experiment that gives us some insight into the “Tiger Woods question.” They asked research subjects to perform a dull and boring task and then offered the subjects money to tell other people that the task was really interesting. There were two groups. One group was paid $1 each, and the other was paid $20 each. The subjects that received only $1 reported that the task was more interesting than the $20 subjects did when asked about their true feelings, as opposed to their “endorsement” feelings. The $20 created a larger gap between the subjects’ actions and what they thought they felt. This experiment demonstrates
cognitive dissonance,
the process of changing one’s beliefs to match one’s actions. If I do something that contradicts my beliefs, I will alter my beliefs to match my behavior.
The subjects that were paid $1 must have figured that, if they were only getting bribed with one measly dollar, they must not have been so bored after all. The bigger the bribe, the more we perceive the task as being contrary to our true beliefs. In this case, the extra money represents an easy explanation for our behavior.
What does this tell us about our famous product endorsers? If they do use the products they endorse, they may do so because they don’t want to admit that they only endorse the products for the money. Michael Jordan may not want to admit to himself that he really doesn’t find his underwear comfortable because he loves the money that the manufacturer gives him to say that they are. So, he may change his attitude to match his behavior. In fact, I really don’t know why MJ wears a particular brand of underwear, but it serves as a good illustration.
Cognitive dissonance tells us a lot about how we know things about ourselves and engage in the process of
self-attribution.
Daryl Bem developed a theory of self-perception that states that we know our own attitudes by drawing inferences based on observing our own behavior in the same way that we observe others. We know ourselves in the same way we know others — by observing behavior. When faced with dissonance between what we do and what we believe, we often change our belief because we use observations of our external behavior as a way to know what we believe.
When trying to figure ourselves out and judge our own behavior, a lot of us are guilty of some pretty interesting distortions. Three particularly interesting distortions are
False consensus effect:
This distortion is a tendency to overestimate how common our opinions and behaviors are, especially the undesirable ones. “Everyone’s doing it!” We tend to see a consensus that is consistent with our opinion, whether or not one exists. I bought bright pink high-top sneakers in sixth grade because I thought that they would be the next big thing. They lasted one school day.
False uniqueness effect (FUE):
There’s a saying in Alcoholics Anonymous, “You’re terminally unique!” The phrase is used for people who think that their problems are so different from everyone else’s that no one could possibly understand them. The FUE is the tendency to underestimate how common one’s beliefs are, especially the desirable ones. After I tossed my bright pink shoes, I went out and bought a totally unique pair of $100 kicks. Can you imagine my shock when I saw every other kid at school wearing the same shoes?
Self-handicapping:
When I was in college and I knew I had a tough test coming up, one that I was pretty sure I was going to fail no matter how much I studied, I wouldn’t study for it at all. That way, when I failed it, I could blame it on not studying instead of my lack of ability or intelligence. When people create excuses for failure in order to protect their self-esteem or self-image, they’re engaging in self-handicapping. Sometimes I think professional athletes do this. If they drop the game-winning pass, they may fall on the ground and pretend that they’re injured or cry to the referee that the defender interfered with them. Yeah, yeah, yeah — we know you blew it, plain and simple. But you’re the one that’s got to live with yourself.
One of Ronald Reagan’s nicknames was “The Great Communicator.” Supposedly, he could really get his point across, and people really responded to his speeches. I personally haven’t taken the time to analyze Reagan’s communication skills. But whether you’re the president of the United States or just trying to order a hamburger at the local drive-thru, communication skills are vital to being a socially skilled person.
Hargie, Saunders, and Dickson developed a model of
interpersonal communication
that identified several important components of the communication process. Each person involved in a communication brings with them particular motives, knowledge, attitudes, personality characteristics, and emotions to the situation that influence the communication process. Different situations bring about different styles or aspects of communication. I may communicate differently if I’m in a formal setting, as opposed to an informal one. I usually refrain from profanity in a job interview for example but use it readily when watching a sporting event.
All episodes of communication are goal directed, and several goals may be pursued simultaneously. A conversation varies as a function of the intended goal. If my goal is to visit with an old friend, I may talk about different things than if I’m conducting a psychological evaluation.
There are also several
mediating processes
that shape the communication process. Any psychological process that affects the meeting of a communicative goal or the outcome of communication can be a mediating process. One important processes is called
focusing
(what one pays attention to), which can have a major impact. How you connect current conversational information with previous knowledge is also important, and
inference
— going beyond the surface information being communicated — is also important.
Another important aspect of the communication process is
feedback
— information provided to me by the other person about how effectively I am communicating — and how I use it. I use this feedback to change the way I communicate to better meet the conversation goals. Some people seem to just ramble on, oblivious to signals from the other person in the conversation that they’re not making any sense. These people are not picking up on the feedback. Here’s a hint: When someone falls asleep while you’re talking to her, that’s important feedback.
Being a great communicator involves being good at three specific communication skills: asking questions, explaining, and listening.
An important feature of all effective communication is the process of
questioning
(Hargie, Saunders, and Dickson). Questions are a good way to open a conversation, gather information, and express to the other person that I am interested in what he’s talking about. There are several different types of questions. “Where were you on the night of November 12 at 10:00 p.m.?” Just a little advice if the police ask you this question — call a lawyer. This example is a
recall
question, asking you to remember basic information. Other questions ask the responder to analyze, evaluate, or problem solve.
Closed-ended
questions require just a yes or no or identification response.
Open-ended
questions require description and elaboration.
There’s an art to being a good questioner. Giving the responder a context and structure to frame the question within often helps. You might start out by saying, “I have three main questions.” Something like that often helps. The point is to clue the person in to what you are talking about, kind of like providing a conversational roadmap of sorts. Sometimes we need a cue to answer a question appropriately; this is called
prompting and reviewing.
Previous statements can also help the respondent.