UNIT 3 ASP

APPLYING SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY TO ONE’S OWN LIFE

Applying Social Psychology to Personal Relationships:

To apply social psychology to our relationship experiences, begin by recognizing two practical
realities:

First, human beings are social creatures, who cannot live without closeness to [Link],
the skills we need to succeed in relationships do not come naturally. Like other social
skills,relationship behaviors must be learned. This means effort, mistakes, trial and
error—and a certain mount of luck!

THE NEED TO BE CLOSE:

The forced-choice task requires you to make a series of decisions that may be difficult in
some cases. All of these traits are desirable qualities, but one quality in each pair reflects
more of a social orientation, that is, a greater interest in relating to others (e.g., kindness)
than in developing a personal ability or talent (e.g., strength). (In real life, of course, there is
no reason why you should not cultivate both qualities in each pair.)To score yourself on this
simple assessment of social interest, give yourself one point for choosing each of the
following:

kind, generous, friendly, helpful, and sympathetic. Each of these qualities requires a partner
or recipient—someone to whom you can be kind or generous. Such qualities can be
expressed only in a social situation. If you selected all or most of these traits, this (very
crude)Assessment suggests a stronger social orientation than if you selected none or very
few of [Link] people are more skilled at social interaction than others. But all human
beings are social creatures (Aronson, 2007). Human beings did not evolve to survive alone.
Our earliest human ancestors lived in groups, cooperating in their efforts to obtain food and
shelter and raise their offspring. Without your clan or community, you would be vulnerable,
homeless, and hungry. For this reason, the ancient practice of punishing an offender by exile
was often a death sentence. Recent research confirms a neurological basis for “social pain,”
the suffering that ensues as a result of rejection, loss, or group ostracism (MacDonald &
Jensen-Campbell, 2010).

ATTRACTION

Affiliation is a search for any “warm body”; in contrast, attraction is a pickier process. Feeling
attracted to someone means knowing that not just anyone will do; you want especially to be
with that particular person. The very term attraction suggests almost a force of physics,
powerfully drawing you to another person, regardless of your conscious wishes or
circumstances. In fact, some factors in interpersonal attraction are not a matter of taste or
choice. Such factors as proximity and familiarity demonstrate social psychology’s lesson on
the power of situations.

2 factors of attraction :

Proximity and Familiarity:

Most relationships begin with physical proximity, that is, being near or accessible to another
person. In the opening vignette, Chris reflects on having first met Lee when they sat next to
each other in class. Being near someone makes eye contact easy and conversation natural.
When two people sit near enough to learn about each other—their clothing preferences,
their voice and accent, when and how they laugh, other classes they are taking—they know
when they are likely to see each other [Link] just this way, the beginning of Chris and Lee’s
relationship lay in their proximity, that is, their nearness and frequent interaction and what
they could therefore learn about each other. With proximity comes interaction and the
possibility of a relationship. Like many students, you might uncover the effects of proximity
in relationship formation by considering your [Link] of your friends, especially
childhood friends. Jot down the initials of their (original) last names. Are many of them
“from” the same region of the alphabet as the initial of your own original last name If so,
proximity may have determined some of your friendships.

In grade school and later, pupils are often assigned classroom seats on an alphabetical basis,
so you tend to get to know best those who sit near you: Ts meet other Ts and Ss and Us, and
so forth. Thus, proximity might affect early, even lifelong, relationships.

The proximity effect—the tendency for physical and psychological nearness to increase
interpersonal liking—was identified in a classic study by Leon Festinger and his colleagues
(Festinger, Schachter, & Black, 1950). The researchers asked students in a large university
housing complex who their closest friends were. Although the students had been assigned
living space randomly, they overwhelmingly identified as their friends students who
lived nearby and with whom they had the most frequent contact rather than others with the
same hometown, major, or pastimes.

Some locations make people more approachable or likable than others. For example, if you
live near an exit or elevator, more people will pass your door than if you live at the far end of
a hall. Even such accidental interactions facilitate people’s liking for each other. It isn’t your
nearness to the exit that makes you appealing; it’s the fact that using the exit brings you and
others into regular contact with each other.

Applying the proximity effect:

. This research suggests one obvious application of the proximity effect: If you want to meet
people and form friendships, try to secure a living space, work space, or even parking space
that brings you into contact with as many people as possible. At least some people may be
regular passers-by, and more frequent interactions with them could be the beginning of
something more. In effect, you can use the power of the situation by deliberately
manipulating the locations you frequent and then enjoying the social benefits of situational
influence.

Familiarity breeding contentment.. The more contact you have with an unpleasant person,
the more you will dislike him or her—an effect known as environmental spoiling (Ebbeson,
Kjos, & Konecni, 1976). Ebbeson and colleagues (1976) surveyed residents of a condominium
complex, asking them how much they either liked or disliked fellow residents. Each
respondent’s list of those he or she liked or disliked in particular singled out neighbors living
in the same section of the complex as the respondent.

Increased exposure to someone generally enhances preexisting feelings toward that person,
whether positive or negative (Zajonc, 1968). In the absence of any prejudgment, however,
frequent contact usually increases positive affect. This may be because mere exposure
increases another’s familiarity, a quality most people find reassuring and pleasant. Familiar
faces are comforting; familiar people seem predictable, even after only superficial contact.
And predictability offers a sense of order and control in an age of uncertainty and anxiety.
Frequent contact also increases perceived similarity (Moreland & Zajonc, 1982).

Applying the familiarity effect.

. Don’t “stalk” him or her! Contrived encounters may seem deceptive if not threatening. But
when your contact is spontaneous,express recognition; make eye contact. If the other person
returns eye contact, smile—but don’t push it. If you begin to talk, keep it pleasant. If possible,
be the first one to end the conversation, and do so positively (e.g., “I hope to see you again”).
Your goal is to become associated with all that is good about familiar others: pleasantness,
friendliness, predictability, safety, and so forth. As noted by Zajonc (1968) and Ebbeson and
colleagues (1976), exposure has an amplifying effect and can increase preexisting negative
as well as positive attitudes: Familiarity can indeed also breed contempt. But keep in mind
that the more common outcome of familiarity is liking (Zajonc, 1968,2001). Familiarity alone
is not enough for true closeness, but it is a vital first step in intimacy. Itgenerally breeds not
contempt but increased contentment and acceptance, and it paves the way for real
interaction and communication.

Physical Attractiveness:

In addition to words and actions, most people judge each other to some extent by their looks.
This reliance on physical attractiveness may be a form of the primacy effect, the tendency to
be especially influenced by information that is presented first. Physical appearance is usually
the earliest information you get about another person, someone you have seen but not yet
met. Even if you hear someone’s voice on the phone first or meet through e-mail or web
connections before you ever see each other, it is difficult not to imagine what the other
person looks like.
The computer-match study. More than 40 years ago, researchers at the University of
Minnesota explored reasons for dating choices by inviting new students to a Welcome Week
dance (Walster, Aronson, Abrahams, & Rottmann, 1966). Several hundred first-year student
volunteers signed up to attend. They were told (deceptively) that a computer would use each
student’s personal data to effect the best match for the evening. On arriving at the dance,
the students were paired up for the evening. In exchange for free entertainment and soft
drinks, participants were asked to check in a couple of times during the dance to complete a
few forms. These questionnaires asked the students to provide self-ratings (e.g., about their
self-esteem) and ratings of their partners (e.g., about their physical attractiveness, about
how similar they were to themselves). At the end of the evening participants privately
reported whether they would like to see their “matched” dates again.

When the data were analyzed, only one variable predicted whether a given person wanted
to see his or her date again: the date’s physical attractiveness! Not the date’s conversational
skills, not the two persons’ similarity to each other, and not the respondent’s own
self-esteem. This surprising finding (at the time), confirming a human preference for looks
over other qualities, has been reported countlesstimes in psychology texts and classrooms.
In the decades since the computer-match study, the power of looks in selecting dates and
mates has been supported (e.g., Hatfield & Sprecher, 1986; Sprecher, 1989), although with
some qualifications. For example, men seem to value looks more than do women (Feingold,
1990). What, then, does physical attractiveness “mean” to us? Looks matter. Physical
attractiveness does matter. Attractive people are pleasing to look at. But the importance of
looks extends well beyond the gratifying experience of finding another person attractive.
People associate good looks with other good things about the person. In a seminal study,
Dion, Berscheid, and Walster (1972) found that attractive people are expected, purely on the
basis of their looks, to be better people: sensitive, sexually responsive, interesting, and
sociable.

Three decades later meta-analyses of a large number of studies confirmed Dion and
colleagues’ initial finding that attractive people are judged more positively than
unattractive people (Langlois et al., 2000); in sum, attractive people are regarded as having
better social appeal, interpersonal competence, occupational competence, and adjustment.
Such common assumptions about looks make up the physical attractiveness stereotype: the
general expectation that a physically attractive person has positive qualities while an
unattractive person has negative qualities.

The physical attractiveness stereotype can have powerful consequences.

For example, employers who are offered similar résumés from two people, one good-looking
and the other not, generally prefer attractive job applicants, inferring that they will be better
employees (e.g., Hamermesh & Biddle, 1994). Also,good-looking people tend to get higher
job evaluations than their less attractive peers (Hamermesh & Parker, 2005). In contrast,
people considered unattractive can be passed over for job advancement, and in legal
proceedings can even be assumed to be more capable of criminal behavior (e.g., Efran, 1974;
Esses & Webster, 1988; Hatfield & Sprecher, 1986).But a bias is not a rule, and in the case of
the physical attractiveness stereotype, it isn’t even accurate. Ample research shows that
despite expectations, for virtually every quality and virtue measured (e.g., intelligence,
friendliness, honesty), better-looking people are no better or worse than people of average
looks (e.g., Miller & Perlman, 2009). Still, the attractiveness stereotype is a very strong bias,
as demonstrated in the “computer-match” dance study.

The matching phenomenon:

Think of some celebrities—movie stars, singers, politicians, athletes, and so forth—and list
several whom you consider extremely physically attractive. Then on a scale from 1 (very
unattractive) to 10 (very attractive), assign each celebrity a rating. It can be sobering for
many of us to realize that our looks sometimes do not match the looks of the persons we
find desirable. If you rated yourself a 5—maybe a 6 on a good day—how can you capture the
heart of a 9 or 10, even one you know and have things in common with (e.g., an extremely
good looking classmate)

Fortunately, despite any evolutionary preferences for beauty, most people seek-long-term
partners who do not exceed but rather match their own perceived level of attractiveness..
The matching phenomenon, preferring a long-term partner-who is similar to oneself in looks
(and other qualities), reduces the chances of either rejection or dissatisfaction (Folkes, 1982;
Hitsch & Ariely, 2007).

Test the matching phenomenon yourself. Take a good look at the long-term couples you
know. Do they seem to “belong” together, looks-wise? Now look at couples who have not
been together very-long. A recent experimental investigation in the Netherlands by Van
Straaten, Engels, Finkenauer, and Holland (2009) had university students converse with an
other-sex confederate whose physical attractiveness was varied (high vs. low). Consistent
with the matching phenomenon (and evidence of cross-cultural generalizability), after the
conversation, participants indicated more interest in dating the confederate when they were
similar in attractiveness to the confederate (either both were low or both were high in
attractiveness) than when they were dissimilar (low and high or high and low).

ATTACHMENT:

Infant Attachment

What is happening in these interactions?

The child is reacting to separation, in this case to the loss of the most important person in
his or her life. In the process of attachment, the human infant associates satisfaction and
need gratification with only one or two specific others (Bowlby,1969/1982). Many years later,
the human adult similarly sees an intimate partner as essential to well-being and happiness
and becomes attached to that individual.

If that relationship ends, the adult is likely to express grown-up versions of the symptoms of
infantile separation distress, that is, attention focused on the lost other and extreme
discomfort at that person’s inaccessibility (Weiss, 1975).Many psychologists argue that the
blueprint for later life relationships is drawn when you are still a baby, by your first
experience of being cared for by your parents, particularly your mother or primary caregiver.
To be fed, cuddled, and protected, you must be sure your caregiver is near or signal
yourneed for that person. Missing or losing your attachment figure triggers a series of
[Link], including looking for the person, pleading for contact, moving toward
him or her, or clinging to prevent abandonment (Shaver & Hazan, 1994). This action pattern
evolved as an effective way to bring back a too-distant caregiver.

Individuals differ in how they express separation distress. For all our variety, however,
attachment behaviors have been found to fall into a few basic patterns. Understanding
these patterns—your own as well as other people’s—can help you to achieve more
satisfactory [Link] by developmental psychologist Mary Ainsworth and her
colleagues (Ainsworth, Blehar,Waters, & Wall, 1978) identified among infants three patterns
of attachment behavior. Infants were separated from their mothers by barriers or were
introduced to a strange person or environment—all situations that triggered separation
distress. Although the trigger situation was similar for all the babies, reactions reflected one
style of secure attachment and two styles of insecure attachment.

1. Secure attachment style: Most infants were unhappy while the attachment figure was
away, but were quickly soothed when she returned.

2. Insecure attachment style, anxious/ambivalent: A minority of insecure infants acted

unhappy about being separated but were still fretful and clingy when the attachment figure
returned.

3. Insecure attachment style, avoidant:Most insecure infants behaved as if they were

unconcerned with the presence or absence of the attachment figure. They did not cry when
she left and avoided contact when she returned.

Adult Attachment Styles:

Your infantile attachment was not a matter of choice for you; you were born into a particular
family arrangement. But as an adult, you are not assigned friends and partners; you must
choose them. As an adult making such choices, you know that every relationship entails risks;
to get close to someone else, you must open up, self-disclose, and become vulnerable.

In developing closeness with someone, run two great risks: rejection and betrayal. Another
person may reject you, that is, refuse to become close to you. Or once a person is close, he
or she might betray you, that is, deceive or harm you. Infants’ distinctive patterns of
attachment appear to continue into childhood and later, characterizing adults’ reactions to
love, threat, and loss in their romantic experiences. Shaver, Hazan, and their colleagues
invited adults to provide description of their attachment behaviors in response to newspaper
questionnaires about life, love, and work.

The participants’ attachment patterns fell into patterns similar to those of secure and
insecure infants (e.g., Shaver & Hazan, 1994; Shaver, Hazan, & Bradshaw, 1988).At about the
same time, Main, Kaplan, and Cassidy (1985) used interviews to assess the attachment styles
of parents and to relate these to their infants’ response styles. Combining such techniques as
those used by Main and colleagues and those used by Shaver and colleagues, attachment
researchers have confirmed that in our adult relationships, we replay early-life patterns of
dealing with closeness, separation, and loss.

In 1990, Bartholomew developed more complex assessment techniques,identifying not three

but four styles of adult attachment.

1. Secure: trusting, comfortable with closeness and interdependence2. Preoccupied : needful

of closeness, worried about abandonment3. Fearful:: afraid of rejection, mistrustful, shy4.
Dismissing : self-reliant, independent, uninterested in intimacy

Each of these adult attachment styles balances one’s view of oneself with one’s view of
[Link] individuals have positive views of both themselves and the trust worthiness of
close [Link] individuals have poor views of themselves but want to be close to
others. Fearful persons are unhappy with themselves and do not trust closeness. And
dismissing individuals see themselves as all right, especially if they are untroubled by
closeness with others.

Applying Attachment Lessons:

You can apply research on attachment by considering the dynamics of different combinations
of attachment styles. Suppose, in one couple, a woman has developed a preoccupied
attachment style,whereas her male partner is more dismissing. She seeks his presence,
reaching for him and making plans for their time together. But he feels uncomfortable with
that much closeness and pulls away in order to feel more independent. As he does so,
canceling plans or behaving coolly, she feels threatened and needy. She becomes more clingy,
hoping for warmth and contact—but he only pulls away that much more. Both are unhappy,
but perhaps they are unable to explain their unhappiness or what to do about it.

Identify your feelings about yourself and others, and be realistic about how to meet both
your own and others’ complex needs. Begin a relationship by being honest in your early
interactions and communicating your needs and goals as best you can. If you need
reassurance in relationships, communicate this clearly to the other person; don’t expect
anyone to read your mind. Listen carefully to what your partner says and seeks. The
combination or confrontation of your two styles is also important. If one of you needs
reassurance but the other does not or even cannot make eye contact, both of you will suffer.
THE SELECTION PROCESS

We have already considered some factors that serve as important positive influences on
people’s desire to approach others for the purpose of establishing a relationship, including
familiarity and physical attractiveness. Decades of research have identified several other
such factors, two of which Include if the other person has similar values, beliefs, and
interests and certain personality characteristics, such as warmth, trustworthiness, and
vitality (Finkel & Baumeister, 2010). Even barriers to closeness, such as others’ disapproval,
can serve as challenges that actually intensify mutual desire (Brehm & Brehm, 1981; Driscoll,
Davis, & Lipetz, 1972).

The T-Shirt Study

Long before the Internet made it possible to “meet” others in cyberspace, via anonymous
match making websites, people relied on other strategies: blind dates, friends’
recommendations, and personal ads. Alan Gross (1983) and his colleague India McHale
created an ingenious low-tech study of the first meeting between prospective dates,
combining strategies of two popular sources of information: parties and personal ads. The
200 participants for this study were single, straight college men and women, who first
provided information that a prospective date might want to know, such as their college major,
religion, sports and music preferences, drinking and smoking habits, and personality traits.
The participants attended a mixer, with each donning a T-shirt (yellow for women and blue
for men) custom-printed with his or her own “personal ad” and identifying number. The ad
included the student’s first name, his or her major, and some personal
information/preferences,

something like the following:

Alex

Psychology

Soccer, Rock, Jewish

Movies, Sense of humor!

Each participant’s goal was to speak with as many participants of the other sex as possible
and to identify possible dates. Each was required to interact for no more than five minutes
and then move [Link] an hour of excited number-seeking, participants made their final
rankings of those they would most like to date. They were permitted to exchange contact
information if they hit it off during their five-minute meetings. (Keep in mind that this
innovative approach to attraction research was devised three decades before today’s real-life
“speed dating” programs became popular.)

Among other findings, Gross (1983) discovered that once his participants had engaged in all
their face-to-face “mindset,” physical attractiveness actually lost much of its selection power.
It turned out that participants did not use looks to select each new date—they didn’t need to.
Because each T- shirt displayed the personal information necessary to decide whether to
initiate interaction and what they could talk about; it was not necessary to rely on physical
appearance as an indicator of each person’s date potential. Conversations were easier
because the T-shirts were the introductions. A person’s looks are usually the first information
you get about him or her, so you rely on physical appearance as a filter for choosing others
and forming impressions. But here, participants could consult others’ “labels” as a guide to
their “contents”—eerily similar to deciding what brand to buy based on the information, not
the visual design, of the packaging. Drawing on these findings, Gross (1983) “envision[s]
rooms throughout the social world filled with singles sporting descriptive T-shirts—or at
least lengthy name tags.” Now the web offers us just such lengthy “name tags” in the form of
social network pages, matchmaking sites, chat rooms, and other shortcuts to making
friends and dates. Most of the resulting virtual meetings, just like live interactions, take place
because similar interests and attracting forces bring people together. The protagonists in the
1998 movie You’ve Got Mail first meet in a chat room for book lovers, not realizing they are
both in the bookselling business—and are in fact arch rivals for the same customers. Their
similarities have drawn and kept them together long before they discover and deal with their
differences.

Selection Process Lessons and Applications:

Selection of dating or mating partners is a process. Conversations don’t just

“happen”—people must create and join them. However much one longs for attachment and
however appealing another person is, you or the other person must do or say something to
establish a connection. After all, the T-shirt study suggests that once you learn to enjoy each
other’s company, you can overlook the fact that the other person’s looks rate somewhat less
than a perfect 10.

But even when you do feel well matched to the person who interests you—another 6 to your
own 6, for example, or someone who shares your passion for the same social causes—you
may still hesitate to express your interest. Fear of rejection can overwhelm desire. The longer
it takes for either person to express interest, the less likely anything will happen at all—an
opportunity lost, a road not [Link] “first move” is difficult for both men and women to
make—yet each wishes the other would make it (Regan, 2003). For example, Vorauer and
Ratner (1996) asked men and women to imagine meeting an attractive person and having a
really good conversation, after which neither expressed interest in seeing the other again.
Participants generally blamed their own inaction on fear of rejection, but blamed the other
person’s inaction on lack of interest. Note that this is a classic case of negative attribution
bias. The participants fully blamed themselves (not the other person) for the negative
outcome (no follow-up) by seeing themselves as fearful and also as not encouraging the
interest of the other person. This likely reflects an all-too-common scenario consisting of an
unfortunate set of relationship-undermining negative attributions possessed by two
individuals who have missed a promising opportunity to get to know each other.

CLASSROOM SETTINGS

in social psychology texts seems unusual because the classroom dynamics between
student and teacher involve many important social psychology phenomena and
accordingly many opportunities for students to draw on those phenomena for their
own personal uses/interventions.

In examining social psychology concepts at work in the classroom, two major

categories of phenomena: cognitive errors and self-perceptions.

Cognitive Errors and Student– Teacher Relations

Cognitive errors are errors that people make in their thought processes. Because of
these errors, people make predictable mistakes when interacting with and judging
others. three common cognitive errors they are quite common. However, do pay
attention to these errors so that you may be in a position to try to minimize them in
the future.

Fundamental Attribution Error

Classic study of the fundamental attribution error. Much social psychology research
has dealt with the fundamental attribution error, that is, the tendency people have to
focus on personal causes of other people’s behavior (i.e., to make internal
attributions) and to downplay the influence of situational causes (i.e., to not make
external attributions). if you walk into class late because you had a flat tire on the
way to school, and your teacher concludes that your tardy behavior is due to the fact
that you are a lazy student who overslept, then your teacher is guilty of making a
fundamental attribution error. Assuming that someone assigned to write an
attitudinal essay actually holds that attitude illustrates making a fundamental
attribution error.

Interestingly, people believe that they are less prone to making the fundamental
error than other people; in other words, we believe that we take situational factors
into account more than do our peers. Van Boven, White, Kamada, and Gilovich (2003)
asked subjects about factors that contributed to the Columbine shootings in which
two boys shot and killed 12 classmates and a teacher before committing suicide. The
researchers had subjects rate the relative weight of four factors: the boys’ cruel and
hateful personalities, their evil natures, inadequacies within the boys’ families, and
the boys having been hassled and rejected by their classmates. The first two factors
denoted personal characteristics whereas the last two indicated situational factors.
Subjects also estimated how they thought their classmates would rate the same four
factors. The subjects responded that they would weight situational factors more
heavily than personal factors, but that their peers would weight these two types of
factors more equally. Thus, people believed that they were less likely than their peers
to fall victim to the fundamental attribution error.

Attributions based on lectures.

Coren (1993) had college students read hypothetical lectures and make attributions
about the professors’ attitudes and motivations for lecturing on the specific topics.
Coren found that students made negative attributions about professors who lectured
that genetic factors could explain some racial differences in IQ scores (e.g., that the
professor was racist), and that sex differences in cognitive skills could be due to
genetic factors (e.g., that the professor was sexist). This evidence supports the notion
that students think that faculty members necessarily believe everything they teach.
However, consider this situation logically. Teachers have to cover a good deal of
material that may very well include some ideas or theories that are controversial, or
seem foolish or inappropriate to you. To do an effective job of teaching, faculty
members must be evenhanded in their coverage, seeming to give equal weight and
emphasis to a diversity of topics and viewpoints. Also, to challenge students’ thinking,
instructors may purposely express controversial ideas that they may not personally
agree with (i.e., they play the devil’s advocate). Thus, to assume that faculty
members are proponents of virtually everything they say may be viewed as making
the fundamental attribution error.

Overcoming the fundamental attribution error.

Is there a “cure” for the fundamental attribution error? Certainly, if people could
somehow learn how to guard against a biased mode of viewing others that involves
insufficiently recognizing possible situational determinants of their actions, their
interpersonal understanding and relations would improve. For help, we look to a
study by Gilbert, Pelham, and Krull (1988), who had college students watch a silent
video of a woman talking with a stranger. The woman exhibited several anxious
behaviors, such as twirling her hair and biting her fingernails. The experimenter told
half of the participants that the woman was discussing an “anxious topic” (e.g.,
sexual fantasies, secrets), and told the other half that the woman was discussing a
“relaxing topic” (e.g., vacations, hobbies). The participants who believed that the
woman was discussing an anxious topic rated her lower on the trait of anxiety than
did those who thought that she was discussing a relaxing topic. Thus, participants
made the attribution of “anxious person” when they thought that the woman should
not be anxious. Those participants who believed that the woman was discussing a
sensitive topic apparently attributed her anxiety to the topic (situation) rather than
to her personality. Gilbert and colleagues (1988) hypothesized that the fundamental
attribution error occurs automatically and that people have to devote cognitive effort
to overcome it, for example, by getting additional information or being thoughtful
about the situation. That is, the participants had to make extra effort to look past the
woman’s behavior and take the topic into account. Thus, if you wish to avoid making
the fundamental attribution error about people, try to find out more about their
situations, or try to think of reasons why they might behave the way they do.
Teachers should attempt to find out why their students enter class late, fall asleep in
class, and do not turn in assignments so as to avoid unfairly drawing negative
conclusions about them. Perhaps the undesirable behavior was due to situational
factors that were largely or entirely beyond the students’ control; for example, the
tardiness due to a flat tire, the sleepiness due to holding a night job, and the late
assignment due to caring for a sick child. Likewise, students should attempt to
discover teachers’ motivations for covering class material that seems to indicate a
certain set of attitudes. Although a teacher may lecture on Freud or race differences
in aptitude test performance, such a lecture does not make the teacher a Freudian or
a racist.

Belief Perseverance

Belief perseverance means that people tend to maintain their initial ideas or beliefs
despite exposure to disconfirming evidence. They may discredit, ignore, misinterpret,
or give the disconfirming information little weight, but the effect is the same in that
their ideas or beliefs persist.

Classic study of belief perseverance.

Wegner, Coulton, and Wenzlaff (1985) had college students (referred to as “actors”)
read 25 pairs of suicide notes and guess which one of each pair was genuine. Half of
the actors received success feedback (24 of 25 correct), and half received failure
feedback (10 of 25 correct). While each actor was working, another student observed.
Afterward, the actor and observer were informed that the feedback was not genuine;
that is, it had been predetermined and did not reflect the actor’s actual performance.
Then, both the actor and the observer were asked to predict how well the actor
would perform on an additional 25 trials. Curiously, their predictions were not
affected by learning that the feedback was false. Instead, both actors and observers
predicted that “successful” actors would perform better than failure” actors. Their
initial beliefs about the actors’ ability had persevered and led them to predict future
behavior despite the evidence that their initial beliefs had been based on erroneous
information. The participants’ failure to factor into their predictions the fact that the
initial feedback had been predetermined is similar to what happens with the
fundamental attribution error in which the role of the situation is downplayed.

Belief perseverance in the classroom

. Unfortunately, belief perseverance also takes place in the classroom. If you have
used a word for many years to mean one thing, it may be difficult to learn a different
or more specific meaning for it in a class. For example, psychology students often
confuse negative reinforcement and punishment, despite having encountered the
terms since their first psychology course. Having entered a psychology program with
a long-held belief that negative reinforcement entails the use of punishment, they
cling to that belief despite disconfirmations revealed in lectures and text- books. In
an academic example, Prohaska (1994) found that students with medium or low
grade point averages (GPAs) were prone to overestimate their future grades. Thus,
despite their unsatisfactory performance in the past, low-achieving students
continued to believe that they would get good grades in the future. Lepper, Ross, and
Lau (1986) demonstrated some negative implications of belief perseverance in their
high school classroom research.

. Belief perseverance was beneficial for the students who received the effective
instruction, but was detrimental for the students who received the poor
instruction—they blamed themselves and believed they would continue to do poorly
in a similar situation in the future. These results show just how strong belief
perseverance can be.

There is substantial literature dealing with popular misconceptions about psychology.

Much of the research shows that taking a psychology course does not remove those
misconceptions (e.g., Vaughan, 1977). When students have completed a course, but
still hold the misconceptions with which they entered the course, this problem
illustrates belief perseverance. Gardner and Dalsing (1986) administered a 60-item
“test of common beliefs” (which were actually incorrect) to more than 500 students
taking psychology courses (e.g., “To change people’s behavior toward members of
ethnic minority groups, we must first change their attitudes”; “In love and friendship,
more often than not, opposites attract”). On average, students agreed with more
than 20% of the misconceptions. The only significant drop in misconceptions
occurred for students who had taken at least six psychology courses. Thus, it appears
to take repeated exposure to disconfirm- ing information for students to overcome
belief perseverance.

Reducing belief perseverance.

it is maladaptive for the individual who steadfastly clings to beliefs in the face of
information suggesting that the beliefs may be, or in fact are, wrong. Is it possible to
overcome belief perseverance? An experiment by Hirt and Markman (1995) shed
some light on how it can be done. Hirt and Markman gave introductory psychology
students one of several hypothetical relations (e.g., risky firefighters are more
successful than less risky firefighters, or the exact opposite), and asked them to
generate an explanation for the relationship. Afterward, the experimenters told the
participants that the relationship they had given them was bogus; that is, there was
no truth to it. Then, they asked the participants to decide what the true relation was
between risk taking behavior and firefighting ability. As you would probably predict
from the concept of belief perseverance, the participants tended to presume that the
true relation was the one they previously had heard and explained. In a second study,
Hirt and Markman sought to prevent belief perseverance from occurring. They
presented one of the same hypothetical relations (e.g., risky firefighters are better),
and asked the participants to generate an explanation for it, and an explanation for
any alternative relation (e.g., risky fire- fighters are not better). When these
participants learned that the original relation was not true, they were less likely to
stick with their first impressions when choosing what they believed to be the true
relation. Thus, they showed much lower levels of belief perseverance. You might wish
to guard against belief perseverance when you encounter new ideas or information
in class, both because an open mind better facilitates learning, and to prepare for
upcoming tests. If so, the results of the research by Hirt and Markman (1995) suggest
that you should listen carefully to the instructor’s account of the new information
even though it may conflict with your viewpoint. Then, try to think of an explanation
as to why that new information is correct and why the old information you believed
is incorrect. Hirt and Markman refer to this as adopting an alternative strategy.
Considering an alternative should reduce the tendency to cling to your former belief.
For example, you may cover interpersonal attraction in your social psychology class.
Suppose that all your life, you have believed that “opposites attract” because you
have heard that phrase so often. To get rid of this belief and to avoid belief
perseverance, you should read the available evidence, and think about why
“opposites attract” could be wrong. It would not be surprising if your belief still is
struggling to persevere; that is, if you still have difficulty believing that opposites do
not attract. It is true that someone who is different than you in some ways can be
especially attractive, but “different” is hardly the same as “opposite.” If opposites
truly attracted, then rich people would be attracted to poor people and smart people
would want dumb partners, but these outcomes seldom happen in real life. Indeed,
if your confidence in the opposites-attract notion continues to persevere, you are
encouraged to look through a fascinating book by Lilienfeld, Lynn, Ruscio, and
Beyerstein (2010) titled 50 Great Myths of Popular Psychology: Shattering
Widespread Misconceptions About Human Behavior.
Social Categorization

what should be a mutual adventure of learning between two groups interacting in a

positive manner sometimes can seem like an adversarial experience.

Classic study of social categorization. According to the principle of social

categorization, we tend to classify other people into groups on the basis of certain
social characteristics (e.g., race, gender, status, occupation). Because of social
categorization, as soon as the sorting process begins, we form in-groups and
out-groups. These groupings, in turn, often create an “us versus them” mentality. In a
school setting, one logical set of categories is students and teachers. Which group is
the in-group and which is the out-group depends on the group to which you belong.
From this perspective, if you were at the chapter author’s university, then for you I
would be the out-group, and for me you would be the out-group. One vivid example
of social categorization occurred in a study by Rabbie and Horwitz (1969) in which
the researchers simply flipped a coin to divide junior high school participants into
two groups. Then, they had the participants rate both the groups and the individuals
in the groups on eight characteristics (e.g., responsibility, consideration, fearfulness,
openness, etc.). Rabbie and Horwitz found evidence of in-group/ out-group bias; that
is, students rated their own group more favorably on the characteristics than they did
the other group, and they rated individuals in their group more favorably than they
did individuals in the other group. These ratings occurred despite the fact that the
participants had been divided into groups by the mere flip of a coin. There is
considerable laboratory research and anecdotal evidence of the divisive role of
in-group/out-group biases in intergroup relations (e.g., Brewer & Brown, 1998). It is
certainly likely that social categorization is pertinent to the relations between faculty
members and students.

Another outcome of social categorization is the out-group homogeneity bias, which

is the tendency to perceive less variability among members of an out-group than
among members of the in-group. Thus, when we look at out- groups, we tend to
think that all of their members are similar; they act alike and possibly even “look
alike.” Bernstein, Young, and Hugenberg (2007) showed student participants pictures
of people described as students from the same or a different university as the
participants. When given a picture recognition test later, participants recognized
more of the students who were allegedly from their university than from the other
university.

DeSteno, Dasgupta, Bartlett, and Cajdric (2004) examined the effects of emotion on
prejudice toward out-groups. They artificially created in-groups and out-groups
based on scores from a bogus personality test. They then induced an emotion in the
participants by having them write about an episode in their life that made them very
angry, very sad, or emotionally neutral. The researchers found that subjects
experiencing anger (through the writing task) showed evidence of negative attitudes
toward the out-group, but not toward the in-group. Neither the sad nor emotionally
neutral groups showed negative attitudes toward either group. Thus, DeSteno et al.
concluded that the emotion of anger created automatic prejudice toward out-groups.
This research has direct relevance to the classroom situation. If students and faculty
already automatically perceive each other as out-groups, any experience of anger
could create negative attitudes toward the other group. It is likely the case that
students may get angry when they get grades that are lower than they expect, and
faculty may get angry at students who are pushy, rude, or belligerent. Thus, the
situation is ripe for both groups to form negative attitudes (and probably stereotypes)
of the other group. This result would not be ideal for a learning situation!

Reducing in-group/out-group biases. There is an extensive research literature that

addresses how to ameliorate the negative effects of in- group/out-group biases, and
other factors relevant to intergroup attitudes and relations

. In another classic study, Sherif, Harvey, White, Hood, and Sherif (1961) divided 22
boys, all age 11, into two groups (Eagles and Rattlers) at a summer camp. After a
week of working in their groups, the two groups came together for athletic contests.
Predictably, introducing competition created negative attitudes within each group
toward the other. The researchers then introduced a problem (broken water supply)
that both groups had to work together to solve (a superordinate goal). Once the two
groups worked together to solve the problem, their rivalry, and thus the negative
attitudes, disappeared.

In terms of the interaction between students and teachers, the preceding results
imply that the parties should focus on interaction and communication in an attempt
to overcome their differences in perspective, and to find common ground to have the
best possible class. A cooperative learning relationship between students and faculty
members should facilitate the achievement of this goal. Rather than viewing the
teacher–student relationship as adversarial, students and faculty should work as
partners in learning (see Ferris, 2002, for an application of this approach in a
business school environment). In all aspects of a course (e.g., syllabus, lectures,
interactions with students in class and during office hours), instructors should
embrace and reinforce the concept of a cooperative relationship. Students, as well,
should embrace the idea and take responsibility for engaging in constructive
interactions with instructors both in and out of class. Both parties should understand
that they have common goals (e.g., having students do well in the course), and must
work toward the same ends (i.e., student learning and achievement). On the other
hand, if teachers and students find themselves in an antagonistic “us versus them”
situation, the atmosphere of the class will suffer, and learning (and satisfaction) will
be lower.
In graduate school the working relationship between professors and students often
changes. Students typically work closely with one professor, who acts as his or her
advisor and is expected to provide guidance about research, course work, and career
development. Although graduate students are expected to act professionally, and are
often treated as colleagues by faculty members, problems in professor-student
relationships still occur. good communication, and similar career paths as an
important characteristic of positive relationships. In negative relationships, in
contrast, advisors reported a lack of respect from their students. Open
communication was also listed as an important characteristic of positive
advisor-student relationships. For example, one advisor described a negative
relationship with a student that was characterized by poor communication. In this
case, the advisor felt that she was among the last to find out that her student was
switching to another advisor. In both good and poor relation ships, when conflict
occurred, it was addressed directly, and not swept under the rug. The results of this
study suggest that the issues that exist between students and professors can
sometimes persist in graduate school. These issues can often be overcome by clear
communication and mutual respect.

Self-Perceptions and Their Academic Consequences

In addition to cognitive errors that we make in dealing with other people, social
psychological research has shown that we also make certain predictable errors in thinking
about ourselves. Most of these errors show that we tend to mis- judge our motivations or
ourselves. Not surprisingly, in many cases we judge ourselves more favorably than we
should.

Self-Handicapping

Have you ever found yourself walking into an exam knowing that you studied less than you
should have, or that you spent time with friends instead of studying the night before the
exam? Similarly, have you ever begun a competition (athletic or otherwise) knowing that you
did not prepare enough? If any of these situations describes you at some point in your life,
you may have been guilty of self-handicapping. According to the social psychological concept
of self-handicapping, people act in ways that may undermine their subsequent performances,
thereby having anticipatory excuses for poten- tial failures. In other words, if you studied less
than you know you should have, you have a handy excuse in case your grade is lower than
you would prefer. Table 16.1 includes items from a self-handicapping scale. A person who

tends to engage in self-handicapping would endorse these kinds of items.

Classic study of self-handicapping.

Berglas and Jones (1978) conducted the classic study of self- handicapping. The
experimenters gave college stu- dents analogies to solve, after which all participants were
told that they had performed well—although

some of the analogies were unsolvable. Before working on a second set of analogies, the
students had the choice of taking a performance-enhancing drug, or a
performance-impairing drug. Men (but not women) who had been told they had done well
on the unsolvable analogies chose the drug that would hinder their performance,
presumably because they had no confidence that they would continue to perform well (see
Figure 16.2). According to Hirt, McCrea, and Kimble (2000), subsequent research has shown
that men (but not women) tend to self-handicap through strategies that will actually hamper
their performance (e.g., by failing to practice or study). On the other hand, the research
shows that both men and women tend to claim excuses ahead of time; for instance, prior to
the time of performance, they may point to potentially debilitating stress, or physical illness.
Relatedly, Mello-Goldner and Jackson (1999) dis- covered that female college students who
reported premenstrual syndrome (PMS) symptoms scored higher on a self-handicapping
measure than did women who did not report such symptoms.

Self-handicapping and academics.

There is ample research evidence that self-handicapping takes place in academic settings.
Beck, Koons,

and Milgrim (2000) administered self-report measures of self-handicapping (as illustrated in

Table 16.1) and procrastination to more than 400 college students, and found that
self-handicapping and procrastination were positively correlated. They also found that
self-handicappers (i.e., those who scored high on the self-handicapping measure) not only
began studying for tests later than non-self-handicappers, but also earned lower grades.
Similarly, Zuckerman, Kieffer, and Knee (1998) found that among college students, higher
self-handicapping scores were directly correlated with lower GPAs, less time spent on
academic work, and less efficient exam prepara- tion. Elliot and Church (2003) found that
self- handicapping was positively correlated with fear of failure and negatively correlated
with need for achievement. This finding means that students who scored higher on
self-handicapping tended to be more afraid of failing, but they had lower drive for
accomplishment. More importantly, self-handicapping was associated with not only lower
exam scores, but also with lower GPAs. Thus, it appears that seeking to avoid failure is not an
adequate motivator to perform well in classes. Sikorski and colleagues (2002) found that
roughly 20% of students at two universities admitted to not buying a textbook for an intro-
ductory college course, whereas nearly 80% reported either not reading or reading only
spar- ingly a text they had bought for an introductory course. Clearly, self-handicapping can
be a prob- lem for college students, as it actually results in reducing one’s chances of future
success.

Why might students self-handicap regarding classes and exams? To answer this question,
con- sider the consequences of not self-handicapping. Suppose that a student prepares as
well as he or she can for an exam and then fails the exam (or earns a grade that is below
expectations). How can this student explain this outcome? Having studied hard, a logical and
disturbing answer goes something like “I’m stupid,” or “I’m not smart enough to handle
that kind of exam.” On the other hand, if the student waits until the night before the exam
to begin studying, or goes out for pizza instead of studying, he or she has a

ready-made excuse for not doing well on the exam. In other words, self-handicapping pre-
vents a blow to the student’s self-image. In some cases, faculty members might also try to
protect their self-images. You might be surprised to know that many faculty members would
admit that they have waited until the last minute to begin working on an important paper or
grant application. Perhaps some are motivated by the ego-protective function of
self-handicapping.

Reducing self-handicapping.

Clearly, not every- one is a self-handicapper, although we imagine that most people can
recall at least one or two times when what they did (actually, what they did not do) fit the
meaning of the term. The prob- lem, of course, is that whereas self-handicapping might
protect one’s self-image on a particular occasion, it clearly undermines the possibility of
performing at an optimal level on that occasion. Moreover, people should recognize that
self- handicapping is self-defeating in the long run. Also, other people might not respond to
self- handicapping in a positive manner. For example, Rhodewalt, Sanbonmatsu, Tschanz,
Feick, and Waller (1995) asked college students to evaluate a hypothetical coworker who
gave one of three excuses for performing poorly on a task. The students consistently
evaluated persons making self-handicapping excuses lower on ability, on actual performance,
and on 20 different person- ality traits (e.g., friendly, pleasant, egotistic, etc.). Thus, if you do
tend to self-handicap and give excuses for your poor performance in hopes of getting other
people to “cut you some slack” in their evaluations of you, that type of behavior may
boomerang on you. Instead of creating more positive evaluations of you, you may actually be
creating more negative evaluations.

Is there anything that might lessen self- handicapping? It is important to recognize the short-
and long-term self-defeating aspects of self-handicapping. Even the short-term protec- tion
of one’s self-image is soundly offset by the long-term havoc brought on by repeated under-
performance experiences. Therefore, people with self-handicapping tendencies would be
better off

devoting their energies to preparing for major events than to making excuses ahead of time
for potential poor performances. Siegel, Scillitoe, and Parks-Yancy (2005) found that students
who engaged in a high self-affirming task (writing about values important to them) were less
likely to engage in self-handicapping on a subsequent test than students who engaged in a
low self- affirming task (writing about an unimportant value). Thus, as students prepare for
exams, they should bring to mind their high value for educa- tion and valued career goals—
intentionally thinking about how important school and aca- demic achievement are might
help stop a student from making that late-night pizza run before an exam. Students also
might remember the possible constructive role of social influences and con- sider
surrounding themselves with conscientious and achievement focused (clearly non-
self-handicapping) classmates, especially with the approach of important assignments and
exams.

Self-Serving Bias

It may be expected that, from time to time, you will receive an exam grade that is lower than

you had anticipated. In such a case, whom do you tend to blame for the low grade? Do you
own up to not knowing the material and not studying enough, or do you perhaps blame the
teacher for making an unfair or too difficult exam? Here is a different scenario. Do you ever
get a higher grade on an exam than you expected? If so, whom do you credit for the high
grade? Do you decide that you must have really known the material and did an excellent job
of studying, or do you decide that the teacher made an exam that was too easy or you just
“lucked out”? If you are like most people, you are more likely to blame the teacher for the
low grade, but take personal credit for the high grade. This pattern of explana- tion for good
and bad performances exemplifies the self-serving bias.
Classic study of the self-serving bias. According to the principle of the self-serving bias, we
have a tendency to attribute our positive outcomes to internal causes (e.g., our traits or
characteristics), but to attribute our negative outcomes to external causes (e.g., chance,
difficulty of a task). Thus, we are likely to take credit for our successes, but blame others or
circumstances for our

shortcomings. For example, in an experiment by Streufert and Streufert (1969), pairs of

under- graduate students played a tactical economics game against what they thought was
another team. The other team was actually a computer that was used to provide
standardized success or failure feedback regarding game performance. After playing the
game, participants rated how much of their performance was due to their team or to the
other team. Streufert and Streufert found that participants who had been informed that they
succeeded at the game gave the lion’s share of the credit to their team. Participants who
had been informed that they failed, however, tended to say that the other team was
responsible for the outcome, thereby deflecting the blame for poor play (see Figure 16.3).

Self-serving attributions in academics.

There are several findings in research on the self- serving bias that can spell trouble for
students. Baumeister and Cairns (1992) found that people remembered and paid more
attention to favor- able information about themselves than unfavor- able information. Wills
(1981, p. 245) described a theory of downward comparison in which “persons can increase
their subjective well-being through comparison with a less fortunate other.” Campbell (1986)
found that people tend to con- vince themselves that their good traits are unusual and their
shortcomings are common in others. When we combine these results, we can see that
students would tend to remember their academic successes more than their failures,
favorably compare themselves to weaker stu- dents, and believe that their positive academic
behaviors are rare compared to peers. All of these self-serving attributions would tend to
lead students to believe that they are better students than they might actually be.

In two studies, McAllister (1996) looked for evidence of the self-serving bias in the academic
arena. First, in a laboratory experiment, he paired introductory psychology students and had
them engage in a teacher–learner interaction about reading an article in a psychology
journal. In each student pair, one student was assigned

the role of the teacher, who read and wrote notes on the article, and the other was assigned
the role of the learner, who studied from the notes and took a test about the article. The
learners received false feedback of either failure (50% correct), or success (90% correct). In
their attributions for their performance, learners took credit for their performance in the
success condition and blamed the teachers in the failure condition. In the sec- ond study,
McAllister asked students to think about the most recent courses in which they had received
an A and an F (or their best and worst grades) and to write down the most likely cause of
their performance. The results were virtually identical to those of the laboratory experiment
in that students indicated they had deserved (earned) the high grade, but that the instructor
was the cause of the low grade.

In the same two studies, McAllister (1996) also examined the teacher’s perceptions. In the
laboratory study, the students who served as the teacher in the success conditions believed
that they had played a large role in the student learn- ers’ success. However, teachers who
were in the failure condition believed that the student learn- ers were more responsible for
their poor performance. In the second study, McAllister asked actual college faculty
members to think of the most recent courses in which they had graded students as receiving
an A or an F and to make attributions for those grades. Again, the reversal was present such
that instructors believed that they played a large role in students’ successes, but that the
students were to blame for their failures.

Adaptive nature of the self-serving bias.

Just as with self-handicapping, the self-serving bias can be an adaptive mechanism in terms
of guarding one’s self-image. If we take credit for our suc- cesses, but explain away our
failures, our self- esteem is left intact. In fact, our self-esteem probably becomes somewhat
inflated: Most of us view our lives through rose-colored glasses believing that we are better
than we actually are. Thus, it is a simple matter for faculty members to believe that they are
effective teachers, and that their students should work harder. By the same

token, students tend to think that they are smart and hardworking, but that faculty members
could teach better, or be fairer in their grading.

The self-serving bias can be maladaptive for many students. Often, students believe that
they are quite prepared for an exam until after they have taken the exam. This type of
experience is likely due to self-serving bias, as students over- estimate how well they know
the material beforehand. For example, Prohaska (1994) found that low-GPA students
overestimated their future grades to a greater degree than either medium- or high-GPA
students.

Reducing self-serving bias

. Norem has written about defensive pessimism in which people are pessimistic about their
potential outcomes in a given situation, and are worried and anxious about how they will
perform. Rather than letting the worry and anxiety debilitate their perfor- mance, however,
defensive pessimists take steps to reduce their worry and anxiety by coping effectively with
the situation (Norem & Smith, 2006). Eronen, Nurmi, and Salmela-Aro (1998) compared
Finnish college students with four dif- ferent achievement strategies (optimism, defen- sive
pessimism, impulsiveness, self-handicapping) and found that defensive pessimists completed
more courses than all groups other than the opti- mists. However, the defensive pessimists
per- formed better in their courses than the other groups. Cantor (1990) summarized similar
find- ings with American college students. Thus, to avoid self-serving bias with regard to
academic performance, it seems wise to avoid the unfounded optimism about grades that
most students main- tain. Instead, it would be best to worry about your upcoming
performance, but then ensure that you act on that worry by studying, writing your paper
well ahead of time, or whatever strategy helps reduce your worry in a constructive fashion.

Overjustification Effect

Have you ever wondered why your teachers seem so excited about classroom material that
you have to absorb for the course, but find boring?

Have you ever read a textbook and thought, “This might be a good book if I didn’t have to
read it?” Or, have you ever been aware that peo- ple were raving about a certain book or
movie, but when you read or watched it as a course requirement, you thought it was a drag?
If you have ever had these kinds of experience, you have experienced the overjustification
effect.

According to the overjustification effect, if people see an external reason (e.g., reward or
punishment) for their behavior, they may view the behavior as controlled by the external
reason (i.e., the reward or punishment) rather than see it as intrinsically appealing (i.e.,
something they just like to do). Thus, it is possible that students by virtue of having to learn
about psychology for a course might find the content of psychology less enjoyable than if
they learned about it on their own.

Classic studies of the overjustification effect.

Lepper, Greene, and Nisbett (1973) conducted an oft-cited experiment of the

overjustification effect. They matched preschool children on their interest in drawing and
divided them into three groups. All children had the opportunity to draw pictures with
markers. One third of the children were shown an award they could win by drawing good
pictures, one third were given an unantici- pated award after drawing a picture, and the
other third got no award. Judges, who were unaware of the three conditions, rated the chil-
dren’s pictures for quality. Lepper and colleagues found that the children drawing to win an
award somewhat counterintuitively drew lower-quality pictures. In a follow-up session one
to two weeks later, the experimenters observed the children during free play time (drawing
with markers was one of the free play choices). Children who had originally drawn pictures
to win awards spent less time drawing during this subsequent period. Thus, rewarding the
children for something they already enjoyed doing produced lower-quality output and
undermined subsequent motivation to engage in the activity.
Deci (1971) found similar results in an experi- ment where undergraduates first solved
puzzles;

then some, but not all of the students were paid to solve puzzles; and finally all students
returned to the original condition where nobody was paid. In this condition, the students
worked longer on the puzzles if they had not been paid to solve puzzles. Are faculty
members any different? Perhaps not. At the former college of the chapter author a few years
ago, faculty members formed a voluntary reading group. The group met once a month to
discuss a book of mutual interest. Each month, the leader of the group would bring the next
month’s book to pass around, presumably to pique the members’ interest and curiosity.
Within a matter of a few months, the group members acted just like the examples at the
beginning of this section, where having to engage in an activity required for a course seemed
to sabotage student interest in the activity. They quickly examined each book to see how
large or small the print was and to find out how many pages it had, complain- ing if the print
was too small, or the book was too long. Having to read made it less fun.

Unfortunately, parents appear to be unaware of the overjustification effect. Boggiano,

Barrett, Weiher, McClelland, and Lusk (1987) had parents read scenarios in which elementary
school children showed either high interest or low interest in academic activities. Then the
parents rated several social control techniques as to how good they would be to maintain
the children’s enjoyment or interest in an activity. The parents did not differentiate between
high- and low-interest scenarios; in either case, they opted for the use of reward as the
control tech- nique of choice. The research on overjustification clearly indicates that reward
would be a bad choice for children who already have high interest in academics.

Immunization against overjustification

. There is hope, however, for mitigating the overjustifi- cation effect. Hennessey and
Zbikowski (1993) attempted to immunize fourth-grade children against the effect by showing
them videotapes of target children discussing their work at school. The target children said
that getting rewards was nice, but that the real reason they did their

schoolwork was because of how much they enjoyed it. A day later, the children and a control
group whose members had not seen the video- tapes, took part in an apparently unrelated
study. A researcher asked the children to make up a story to accompany a picture book with
no words (a measure of creativity). Half of the children from the treatment group and the
control group were offered a reward and half were not. The children who had watched the
videotapes of the target children showed higher creativity scores than did those in the
control group. The control group children who had been offered a reward produced the least
creative stories, demonstrating the overjustification effect. Therefore, it appears that
focusing on intrinsic motivation may reduce or eliminate the overjustification effect.

Tang and Hall (1995) reviewed MANY stud- ies of the overjustification effect, and concluded
that contingent reward (reward given only for good performance) can mitigate the
overjustifica- tion effect. Wimperis and Farr (1979) conducted a study with college students
as subjects in which they had both contingent and noncontingent reward situations. Indeed,
they found that sub- jects who received a reward only if they performed well outperformed
subjects in the noncontingent condition, thus avoiding the overjustification effect. Being
rewarded regardless of how well you perform may be the root cause behind the
overjustification effect. Therefore, sports leagues in which all children receive trophies
regardless of their performance may actually undermine intrinsic motivation of the children.

What should people do to avoid the overjusti- fication effect? As an example, let us consider
individuals who may have suffered a decline in enthusiasm for the content of the courses
they are taking. First, they should remind themselves why they have chosen to go to college.
Presumably, they are in college because they are interested in learning new information. If
they behave like they did when they were children—full of curios- ity about the world—they
should be able to avoid the negative effects of overjustification. On the other hand, if they
find themselves working for grades rather than knowledge, overjustification

becomes more likely. Along the same lines, if you are studying psychology because it
interests you, remind yourself of that intrinsic interest when the going gets tough. Focusing
on your internal reasons for studying and learning will help you to avoid focusing on the
external factors that could lead to the overjustification effect.

POSITIVE WELLBEING- FOCUS ON OPTIMISM

Historically, the science and profession of psychology has been negative in orientation. it has
focused much of its attention on human weaknesses, liabilities, and negative mental health.
This lopsided and pessimistic view of human nature is especially true of the subfields known
as abnormal psychology and clinical psychology .

Eventhough social psychologists have given attention to harmful and destructive aspects of
the human condition, they have also studied the positive side of it.

Well-being may be defined as optimal adjustment to life and positive mental health.

OPTIMISM

Introduction to Optimism–Pessimism

Optimism is a type of thinking that requires a person to be mindful about his or her future
goals

Outcome expectancies of optimists and pessimists

•Optimists believe that good things are very likely to happen.

• These people have positive outcome expectancies that significantly influence both their
thinking and their approach to the world.
• The belief that a desirable goal in life (e.g., getting good grades) is attainable can have
incentive value for the individual; that is, it can stimulate or energize both one’s
goal-directed thinking and one’s goal-directed action.
• Positive expectancies also cause people to be more persistent when pursuing their goals.
Persistence or “grit “helps to inoculate people against caving in to the temptation to give
up on their efforts to attain their goals.

• Whereas optimistic expectancies can facilitate constructive actions that are goal congruent,
negative expectancies—those held by pessimists—can have the opposite effect. People who
doubt their chances of attaining desirable goals often withhold effort. Negative outcome
expectancies can act as disincentives.

• They can demotivate people and produce destructive actions that are goal incongruent.
This is why pessimists are sometimes more likely to quit or give up when faced with
obstacles that block their progress toward goals. People have expectancies for attaining a
variety of valued goals in many different areas of their lives . In addition to having academic
aspirations and expectancies, students have aspirations and expectancies for their romantic
lives, social lives, and family lives. They also have career goals and goals for their physical and
mental health

Consequences of outcome expectancies

Particular expectancies for the future can affect the outcomes people achieve and the quality
of their lives. person’s level of optimism influences a wide range of life outcomes people who
hold optimistic expectancies generally enjoy better emotional well-being, better medical
health, and better academic performance.

optimists outperform and even outearn pessimists in work related achievement domains.
Last, but not least, optimists have people in their lives who give them more social
support,and they also enjoy more satisfying romantic relationships.

research suggests that optimists thrive and flourish in a greater number of life domains.
However, as we see, this is not always the case. There can sometimes be value in pessimism,
too. The good life may best be achieved by adopting a balanced approach between optimism
and [Link] : - Take the case of a student who is attending the last year of high school,
but who is (unrealistically) pessimistic about getting into college despite having good grades.
Because of the negative expectancies, the student feels demoralized and does not bother to
apply for higher education.

This example illustrates a Self-fulfilling prophecy - when the way you imagine the future
leads you to behave in a manner that causes the imagined future to come true. Action (or
inaction) follows belief (or disbelief). Self-fulfilling prophecies can have real-life
consequences . People—optimists—who believe their futures will be rosy in a given domain
of life (e.g., relationships, career) are likely to actually take steps toward realizing their
desired futures. For pessimists, however, negative expectancies can act as disincentives,
which demotivate them. As a result, people who believe the future will be dark, cold, and
wet tend to withhold effort, thereby increasing the chances that the undesirable future will
actually happen. The greater motivation of optimists leads them to make a greater number
of constructive efforts that move them closer and closer to their desired futures

Self-Assessment of Optimism–Pessimism

The self assessment inventory is designed to help you to become more mindful of whether
you are optimistic or pessimistic in several life domains (refer text )

The Social Psychology of Optimism

Carver and Scheier’s (2009) expectancy theory, and Seligman’s (2011) learned optimism
theory. Common to both theories is the idea that optimism has little to do with the objective
characteristics of the situation, which can range from dire to ideal. Instead, optimism is a
largely subjective perceptual phenomenon.

• Optimisim- pessiism is commonly referred by “half full – half empty”

• Scheier and Carver (1992) maintain that optimism presupposes that people are able to
identify goals that exist in the future.

• There are two basic kinds of goal: things we want to happen (approach goals), and things
we don’t want to happen (avoidance goals).

When thinking about the future, optimists believe that good things will be plentiful and that
bad things will be Rare. Optimists strongly expect good things will happen in the future. They
believe they will get what they want. , pessimists strongly expect bad things will happen in
the future. They believe they will get what they Fear.

What determines if a person is an opt

Seligman (2011) has modified that theory. His modification is called learned optimism
theory. This theory Identifies factors that determine whether someone is likely to think
about the future in ways that are optimistic or Pessimistic. According to Seligman, your
expectancies for the future depend on the kinds of attributions you make. An attribution is
an inference about why something happened .Seligman’s learned optimism theory classifies
attributions along three dimensions: internal/external, stable/unstable,And global/specific.
The types of attribution that people make affect the degree of optimism that they have for
theFuture

.• Internal attributions occur when individuals attribute events that happen to them
internally, that is, to self-related Causes. In contrast, external attributions occur when
individuals attribute such events externally, that is, to Things that are outside of themselves
and often out of their control, such as luck or other people.
• Optimists tend to make internal attributions for positive events like receiving a good mark
(“I am responsible; Something about me caused the good mark”), and they make external
attributions for negative events likeReceiving a poor mark (“I am not responsible; something
else caused the bad mark”).

• On the other hand, pessimists tend to infer the opposite: They make external
attributions—shun responsibility—For good events, and make internal attributions—assume
responsibility—for bad events.

• Stable attributions are made when people attribute events to things that are not likely to
change (e.g., level of Intelligence, discriminatory practices). In contrast, unstable attributions
are made when people attribute events To factors that are temporary (e.g., a head cold, bad
weather).

• Optimists tend to make stable attributions for good things that happen (i.e., the cause of
this good event will Continue to benefit me), and unstable attributions for bad things that
happen (i.e., the cause is temporary, and Thus unlikely to harm me again). The attributions of
pessimists reflect the opposite pattern where they see the Cause of positive events as
unstable, and the cause of negative events as stable

Global attributions are made when people believe that the cause of an event will have
wide-ranging effects. Specific attributions are made when people believe that the cause of
an event will be limited to that area of life

• Optimists tend to make global attributions for good events (i.e., the cause has benefited
me in this area, and Also can benefit me in other areas), whereas they tend to make specific
attributions for negative events (i.e., theca use has harmed me in this area, but will not in
other areas. Pessimists tend to explain good and bad things That happen to them with the
opposite pattern of attributions.

Ø Peterson and Seligman (1984) suggest that people tend to adopt habitual ways of
explaining why things happenIn their lives – Explanatory style – According to this framework,
differences in explanatory style can help to Account for how people become optimists and
pessimists.

• An optimistic explanatory style (also called positive explanatory style) involves the
following: Individuals Make internal, stable, and global attributions to account for why
good things happen to them (refer text forExample)

• Pessimistic explanatory style (also called negative explanatory style) involves a very
different set of attributions than an optimistic explanatory style. The individual uses external,
unstable, and specific attributions to explain good things that happen to him or her (refer
text for example).

• When bad things happen to the pessimist, he or she accounts for them by making internal,
stable, and global attributions
• When a good thing occurs, optimistic people lay claim to it, see themselves as responsible
for its occurrence, expect to be able to accomplish it again, and expect to accomplish similar
good things in other areas of their lives.

• Pessimists, on the other hand, see something or someone other than themselves as
responsible for the occurrence of the good thing, and think it is unlikely to occur again (or
often) in similar or different situations.

THE BENEFITS OF OPTIMISM

Optimism facilitates adjustment (social, psychological, physical) across a variety of spheres of

life – benefits of optimism in six spheres:

❖ Romantic relationships

optimism has positive effects on the well-being of couples involved in dyadic romantic
relationships. In one study (Assad, Donnellan, & Conger, 2007), greater optimism among
relationship members was associated with better relationship satisfaction, happiness, and
functioning. The findings suggest that the positive outcomes might be due to the fact that
optimistic couples tend to engage in more cooperative problem solving than pessimistic
couples. Compared with more pessimistic women, optimistic women reported that their
partners found them to be more physically attractive, and were more available to give
support and nurturance. Also, relationship disagreement levels were lower in couples with
more optimistic women.

❖ Friendships

The quality of nonromantic friendships has also been found to be higher in friendships
consisting of optimists Compared with pessimist optimism among friends has been shown to
be positively correlated with the perceived Availability of social support and with support
reciprocity, and negatively correlated with levels of interpersonal Conflict

❖ Biomedical health

optimism generally contributes to positive biomedical health outcomes .Lower levels of

Medical symptoms are found in persons who score high on optimism

❖ Work

optimism contributes to better performance and better adjustment in occupational Settings.

Other research has shown that in work situations, job satisfaction, work happiness, and
organizational Commitment are all higher in optimists , whereas distress symptoms and
burnout are lower

Mental and emotional health

Affleck, Tennen, and Apter (2001) investigated emotional wellbeing in persons suffering from
rheumatoid arthritis, asthma, and fibromyalgia. Their results indicated that day-to-day levels
of happiness were positively related to optimism, whereas levels of sadness were inversely
related to optimism. The authors suggested that optimists are better able to regulate their
moods than are pessimists. Similar results have been found with healthy employed adults.

❖ College

Evidence indicates an appreciable connection between the levels of optimism and college
student performance . Chemers, Hu, and Garcia (2001) demonstrated a direct relationship
between positive outcome expectancies (optimism) and college grade . Optimistic students
cope with the stresses of their education more effectively.

A number of studies have examined the roles of optimism and pessimism in the employment
of two basic types of coping strategy:

1. problem focused coping (also known as approach-oriented coping), and

emotion-focused coping (also known as avoidance-oriented coping). Problem
focused coping involves engaging in behaviors (words, deeds, cognitions) that are
aimed at modifying a stressful situation that is perceived by the individual to be
controllable and amenable to change.
2. Emotion-focused coping involves behaviors and cognitions that do not directly
address the source of stress; instead they aim to reduce the individual’s level of
emotional distress. Avoidance strategies involve cognitive or behavioral distraction
or withdrawal
➢ Positive Coaching Exercises Coaching exercises that involve disputing pessimistic
causal attributions (i.e., maladaptive attributions), and replacing them with
optimistic attributions (i.e., adaptive attributions) are commonly referred to as
attribution retraining interventions. Attribution retraining has been shown to
improve many aspects of human functioning