Class notes
PSY2013F Lecture Notes
- Course
- PSY2013F (PSY2013F)
- Institution
- University Of Cape Town (UCT)
All lecture notes from the 2021 UCT PSY2013F
[Show more]
Seller
Follow
Content preview
Lecture 2: Introduction to Social Psychology and Intergroup Relations: Social psychology has its roots in psychology and sociology as well as economics, political science
and history. It studies a wide range of topics influenced by all of the disciplines described, and is
based upon three orientations: individual (USA), social/ environmental (EU) and political
(marginalized communities). Changing definitions reveal the contested, changing nature of social
psychology.
Definitions of the field include “a field of study that focuses on the manner in which the behaviour,
feelings, thoughts of one individual are influenced and determined by the behaviour and/ or
characteristics of others” (Baron & Byrne, 1981) and “the scientific field that seeks to understand the
nature and causes of individual behaviour and thought in social situations” (Baron & Byrne, 1981).
In short, it is the study of how an individual’s thoughts, feelings and behaviour are influenced by the
presence of others – be that actual or imagined. Definitions of this field are not neutral, and are
often contested. They shift between the individual and the social setting, and the discipline as a
whole is transformed across national and other contextual boundaries. Our focus is on intergroup
relations within the South African context.
Intergroup relations and psychology in SA has been studied from a main focus point of race. A shift
among SA psychologists towards the needs of the South African society as a whole has begun in
more recent years, and this has been a more localized and relevant social psychology that
responds to the needs of our people.
Mental testing/ intelligence tests have been adapted for use in South Africa. These tests examine
the intellectual ability of population groups in South Africa, however they have needed to be
carefully adapted so as not to fulfil any oppressive agendas (i.e. one race group coming across as
inferior compared to another due to an unfair testing method). Methodological flaws, applicability of
measures and interpretation of the tests are key.
The “poor white” phenomenon arose in the 1890’s. Increasing impoverishment among white people
was becoming more and more prevalent, and as a result large grants were made available to study
this problem which allowed researchers to question power and agenda setting, as well as research
any preferential or discriminatory practices. Legal, social, economic and political implications of such
studies saw introduction of colour bars in certain jobs, and more recently has allowed for certain
incorrect statistics to be released alongside great sensationalism.
The study of racial attitudes also featured prominently in social psychology in SA. An example is
MacCrone’s work on the attitudes of senior white students towards black people. The use of various
methods including attitude scales did very little research on the attitudes of other racial groups
towards whites, and saw the use of religion to justify the domination of heathen blacks.
Psychological research was used to inform the motivation of soldiers during the war. Psychometric
tests were used to classify and select black mine workers, and naturally there were flaws and biases
in these tests as they were designed to exclude certain population groups.
Authoritarian personality is one of the many theories that emerges when examining prejudiced
behaviour towards black people in SA. It is the attribution of prejudice to a cluster of personality
traits that neglects the socio-cultural and political factors that contribute to racism, and instead
located the issue of prejudice within the individual. It reduces prejudice and labels it as a result of
harsh treatment during childhood/ lack of love in the home. Naturally this theory has been
challenged.
The first contributions by a black SA psychologist appeared only in the 1970’s by Prof. Chabani
Manganvi. Other research on marginality and “coloured” people emerged in response to the
Population Registration Act, and studied the Group Areas Act as well as the passibility of “coloured”
people (whether or not they could pass as white people).
Some controversies in intergroup research include the suppression of research findings (the report
on the African civil servant; the HSRC report etc) as well as methodological controversies in
, intelligence research (interpretation of the studies; ignoring contextual factors). Flawed journal
acceptance and review processes as well as funding allocation for research on only certain topics
also shine a light on the continued policing of research and publication.
Lecture 3: Attitudes
An attitude can be described as an evaluation towards an object or an outlook towards an object.
They are “responses that locate objects of thought on dimensions of judgement” (McGuire, 1985).
“the categorization of a stimulus object along an evaluative dimension based upon or generated
from three classes of information: cognitive information, affective/ emotional information, information
concerning past behaviours or behavioural intentions” (Zanna & Rempel, 1988).
Attitudes consist of two main features: they are categorizations that are represented in memory, and
they are responses that locate. The dimensions of judgement may be universal or specific, for
example you can say all things are either good or bad, but cannot apply to smart or stupid things
(i.e. vegetables).
The definition of attitudes as evaluative replaces the previous ABC model of attitudes. This model
was divided into three classes of responses: affective (our feelings towards an object), behavioural
(our overt behaviour towards an object) and cognitive (our knowledge and beliefs about an object).
Attitudes have four predominant functions (Katz, 1960):
1. Knowledge function: help us to know the world through our memorial representations of an object
and rules about labelling the object.
2. Utilitarian function: help us to know how to respond to an object (avoid/ approach) and help us to
gain rewards or avoid punishment.
3. Value expression: attitudes as public statements of what we believe or identify with, e.g. statements
on billboards, stickers on taxis etc.
4. Ego-defensive: deeply seated, hostile, difficult to change attitudes towards objects or people/
groups, e.g. homophobia or xenophobia.
Attitudes may serve more than one function and may be held for different reasons at different times.
Smith (1956) proposed that attitudes have 3 main functions:
1. Object appraisal: Katz’s knowledge function
2. Externalization: Katz’s ego-defensive function
3. Social adjustment: Katz’s value expression and utilitarian functions
Shavitt’s version (1989, 1990) of the functions of attitudes combines aspects of both Katz and
Smith’s work.
Herek (1986, 1987) proposes two different kinds of attitudes:
1. Evaluative: experiential and specific (based on and restricted to a single object), experiential and
schematic (based on experience with particular objects, but generalized to a class of objects), or
anticipatory 9based on expected rather than direct experience).
2. Expressive: may be social-expressive (based on our need for acceptance), value expressive (based
on our need to define ourselves by aligning with important reference groups and their values), or
defensive (based on our needs to reduce anxiety associated with intra-psychic conflicts).
Why are attitudes so important? Attitudes shape behaviour and cause us to behave in particular
ways. It is not a one-way relationship – it is bi-directional. In other words, our behaviour can also
, inform our attitudes towards certain things. Sometimes however, there is not always consistency
between our attitudes and our behaviour/ actions.
A few variables influence the strength of the attitude-behaviour relationship including direct
experience with the object, and attitudes which are more stable/ have been that way for a long time
and have not changed.
Evidence demonstrating that attitudes lead to behaviour is weak, however evidence demonstrating
that attitudes follow behaviour has been strong.
Cognitive dissonance theory describes a discrepancy between two cognitions (attitude and
behaviour) may cause discomfort – dissonance. People will try to reduce this dissonance by
changing one or both their cognitions, or introducing a new cognition entirely. Hence:
1. Behaviour is changed
2. Beliefs surrounding the behaviour changes (and therefore evidence is challenged)
3. New cognitions are introduced (to justify the behaviour).
Often, it is likely that people shall alter their beliefs/ introduce new cognitions to align with their
behaviour.
Self-perception theory challenges some aspects of the cognitive dissonance theory in that it argues
that we interpret our own actions the same way we interpret other people’s actions. Our beliefs
about how we feel are based on our observations of our own behaviour. We draw attitudes based
on observations of our own behaviour, and how we behave tells us our attitude towards a particular
object or situation.
Theory of reasoned action argues that attitudes do not predict behaviour, and that rather they
predict our behavioural intentions. This means that our intentions towards behaviour along with
subjective norms determine our behaviour. The theory of reasoned action assumes that we think
about and reason every action we take, which is obviously not the case. This is how the theory of
planned behaviour came to be, stating that not every action we take is carefully reasoned just as
much as not every action is out of our control – there is a balance. The theory of planned behaviour
states that intentions towards behaviour + subjective norms + perceived behavioural control =
behaviour. E.g. My intention to smoke, what I believe my significant others believe about smoking,
and my perceived ability to control my desire to smoke/not smoke, all determine whether I will end
up smoking/not smoking.
Lecture 4: Attributions
Attributions are the processes through which we identify specific factors as causes of events/
phenomena. They are how we identify causes for events/ peoples’ behaviour.
When making attributions, we draw on two factors:
1. Dispositional: internal characteristics of the person (someone is late because it is a habit of theirs)
2. External: characteristics of the situation (traffic on the road making someone late)
Our attributions can also be biased. We tend to use dispositional factors to identify the causes for
other people’s behaviour and external factors to identify the causes of our own behaviour, e.g. if a
person in your class is late it is because ‘they’re lazy’ but if we are late it is ‘because of traffic.’
Possible sources of our attributions are cognitive universals (what we know about the situation, our
thought processes etc) and culture (what we know and accept as ways of being and doing).
There are several theories that explain attributions:
1. Heider’s common-sense psychology:
, Heider is described as the founder of the theory of attributions. His work was concerned with
motivation, stating that people are motivated to make sense of the world. It focuses on the common-
sense psychology that underlies our explanations. Heider draws on internal and external causes for
attributions, and identified levels of responsibility:
Responsibility by association: being blamed for someone’s lateness because you did not wake them
up in time, and it is your responsibility to do this as their roommate.
Causal responsibility: causing something without intending to do so (such as using up all the hot
water so that your roommate cannot shower, thus making them late for class).
Intentional responsibility: when you intentionally do something to cause someone else to suffer a
consequence (such as intentionally using up all the hot water because you actually want your
roommate to be late for class).
2. Jones and David’s Correspondent inference:
Argues that we generally do infer that people’s intentions and dispositions or internal characteristics
correspond to their actions (what a person does corresponds with their personality and who they
actually are). This theory specifies the conditions under which we are more likely to attribute causes
to the dispositional characteristics of others, i.e. the conditions under which I am more likely to
blame someone for being late, and not consider their external factors.
3. Kelley’s covariation model:
Considers attributions made to the physical environment (external factors) in addition to the
dispositional/ internal factors. This theory assumes that individuals make attributions by assessing
the relationship between three types of information:
Distinctiveness/ uniqueness: is this the first time someone has been late?
Consistency: how often has this person been late over a period of time?
Consensus: does everyone else also arrive late, or is it just this individual?
Kelley draws on causal schemas to account for how people make causal attributions. These
schemas are influenced by our own cultural norms and values.
Our attributions can lead to either positive or negative emotions. Weiner proposes 3 bases used to
make attributions for causes of success or failure:
1. Locus: is the cause internal or external?
2. Stability: is the cause stable or unstable?
3. Controllability: is it within or outside of my control?
The search for causes influences our expectations about our future success and emotions. How you
feel will be informed by your responses to the questions above surrounding locus, stability and
controllability.
Attributions are influenced by various factors:
1. Culture: individualistic societies are more likely to draw on dispositional factors. Collectivistic
societies are more likely to make attributions to groups and the environment. There are also biases
associated with particular cultural backgrounds.
2. Personality: draws on ‘locus control’ to make sense on certain events. If you have an internal locus
of control, you will feel as though you control your own destiny. If you have an external locus on
control, you will feel as though your destiny is determined by factors external from yourself.
Attribution biases:
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through EFT, credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying this summary from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller mianeethling. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy this summary for R142,00. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
79223 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy summaries for 14 years now