Paul Mascetta - Advanced Code of Influence PDF

Advanced
CODE OF
INFLUENCE
Advanced Code of Influence
Contents
PART 1: RECOGNIZING THE SELF ........................................................ 7
The Core of Influence: The Self ........................................................... 7
Self-Awareness ................................................................................... 8
The Two Kinds of Self-Awareness ...................................................... 10
Self-Knowledge: The Roadmap to the Self.......................................... 16
How Does the Concept of the Self Come About? ................................ 19
The Four-Step Feedback Method ...................................................... 22
How We Handle Discrepancies .......................................................... 25
Positive Social Reflection vs. Negative Social Comparison .................. 30
Self-Esteem ...................................................................................... 33
The Most Powerful Self-Motive of All ................................................. 38
Self-Enhancement Strategies ............................................................ 40
Developing the Social Self ................................................................. 44
In Focus: Cultural Differences .......................................................... 49
PART 2: ATTRIBUTIONS ...................................................................... 52
The Role of Attribution in People‟s Lives ............................................ 52
Kinds of Attribution .......................................................................... 55
2
The How and Why of Attribution ....................................................... 57
Self-Serving Attributions................................................................... 67
The Importance of Social Representations ......................................... 74
PART 3: COGNITION, HEURISTICS & CATEGORIZATION .................... 78
Social Cognition ............................................................................... 78
The Role of Heuristics ....................................................................... 82
Representativeness Heuristic ............................................................ 83
Availability Heuristic ........................................................................ 87
False Consensus Effect ..................................................................... 88
Anchoring Heuristic.......................................................................... 90
We Are Social Tacticians ................................................................... 92
PART 4: SOCIAL CATEGORIZATON ..................................................... 99
Social Categorization ........................................................................ 99
Exploring Stereotypes & Social Categories .......................................104
The Motivation Behind Social Categorization ...................................108
From Categorization to Individuation ...............................................114
PART 5: HUMAN ATTITUDES .............................................................117
Attitudes .........................................................................................117
How Attitudes Are Formed ...............................................................118
3
The Key Avenues of Attitude Formation ...........................................119
Implicit Conditioning & Operant Conditioning .................................121
The Power of Self-Perception ............................................................125
The Functional Theory .....................................................................126
Why Attitudes Matter ......................................................................133
Exploring the Attitude-Behavior Connection ....................................134
Specificity ........................................................................................134
Self-Awareness ................................................................................135
Attitude Accessibility .......................................................................137
Attitude Strength .............................................................................139
Attitude, Intention & Behavior .........................................................141
Understanding Attitude Changes .....................................................146
Attitude Change & Cognitive Dissonance .........................................147
When Does Dissonance Occur? .......................................................152
PART 6: PERSUASION ........................................................................155
The Ivory Throne: Human Persuasion ..............................................155
Figuring Out Which Route a Person Will Take ..................................157
Exploring the Peripheral Route ........................................................166
PART 7: GROUPS ...............................................................................171
4
Groups ............................................................................................171
The Impact of Groups on Performance .............................................174
The Three Theories of Social Facilitation & Social Inhibition ............176
The Theory of Social Loafing ............................................................178
PART 8: LEADERSHIP ........................................................................180
How Leaders Are Formed .................................................................181
The Task-Focused Leader & the Socio-Emotional Leader .................185
The Transformational Leader ...........................................................188
Leadership Style ..............................................................................189
PART 9: SOCIAL INFLUENCE .............................................................193
Social Norms ...................................................................................194
Conformity: Indirect Influence .........................................................197
Factors That Affect Conformity ........................................................199
Factors that Affect Informational Influence ......................................201
Understanding Obedience................................................................205
PART 10: SOCIAL IDENTITY, AFFILIATION & ATTRACTION ................208
Determinants of Helpful Behavior ....................................................208
Affiliation.........................................................................................210
Determinants of Affiliation ...............................................................211
5
Determinants of Attraction ..............................................................213
Friendship & Love ...........................................................................216
Gender-Related Differences .............................................................217
Types of Love ...................................................................................218
Satisfaction & Commitment .............................................................220
6
PART 1: RECOGNIZING THE SELF
The Core of Influence: The Self
One of the key characteristics that differentiate the human species from
the rest of the animal kingdom is reflexive thought. Reflexive thought
works in two major ways. One, it allows you to think about your present
identity in relation to society and its various components and subgroups
and two, it also allows you to analyze how people see you as a distinct
and unique member of society.
Reflexive thought is the seed of individualism, creativity and excellence
and in many ways, this capability has allowed human to create vast
civilizations within a small timeframe compared to the time spent by
other species that have existed before humans.
The existence of reflexive thought proves that it takes more than
intelligence and the ability to use tools to forge a civilization. More than
anything, self-awareness has made humans what they are in the first
place. Without self-awareness, there will be no concept of survival and
there would be no „race‟ against other members of the species for better
7
living spaces, resources, etc. In short – without reflexive thought, modern
society as we know it will not exist today.
Self-Awareness
With the presence of the self comes the realization that we are all distinct
individuals with peculiar behaviors, drives and desires. This
individuation (which occurs on the most basic levels of human
community and interaction) is defined by self-awareness. Self-awareness
is like your rear-view and side-view mirrors: it gives you a way to
evaluate your own position in relation to others.
With self-awareness, you become more aware of your positionality within
specific contexts or situations. It gives you access to true knowledge
regarding your own thought patterns and behaviors. Without self-
awareness, you will not be able to exert influence over others because
influence requires a mastery of the self, primarily, not of others.
We will come back to this crucial point later on in the book. Suffice to
say, self-awareness plays a very crucial role in the formation of one‟s
identity, which is the cornerstone of influence in society. Now, does self-
8
awareness emerge along with other natural instincts, like suckling or
moving around our arms when feel like we‟re falling from a high place?
The answer is no: self-awareness, though it is peculiar to the human
species, actually develops over a period of time. Babies are not born with
a concept that they are distinct individuals moving about in an
environment with ever changing variables. An old study conducted a few
decades ago proved that at the outset, babies will treat their own mirror
reflections as other individuals.
However, when babies reached at eighteen months of age, they will begin
to react to their reflection in the mirror by performing actions that will
validate that they are indeed the ones in the mirror. For example, if you
place a red dot on an eighteen month old baby‟s nose, that baby will
react by touching the red dot on his nose. That single action marks the
transition from being „just‟ a baby to a being a self-ware individual.
Now, why does this happen in the first place? According to studies in
neurological science, it appears that the frontal lobe (which is
responsible for intentional behavior) begins to develop at an accelerated
pace at this age. During adulthood, there is evidence that there is also
9
increased activity in the frontal lobe when a person chooses to be more
self-aware.
The Two Kinds of Self-Awareness
There are generally two kinds of self-awareness: private self-awareness
and public self-awareness. An individual becomes temporarily self-aware
about his appearance or actions when he sees himself on a mirror or
when he stops to think what he will be doing throughout the day. When
a person chooses to engage in private self-awareness, three things
happen:
1. There is a heightened emotional response
2. There is a more accurate analysis of existing condition
3. There will be reinforcement of familiar beliefs
Let‟s discuss these three consequences. The first consequence revolves
around a person‟s emotions. If a person is happy when he becomes
privately self-aware, the tendency is that he will become even happier.
There is a marked intensification of existing emotional states.
10
Inversely, a depressed individual, upon contemplating his current
circumstances, may become even more depressed. A person‟s state of
mind is affected greatly by self-awareness and contemplation, which is
why it‟s important to shift out of negative emotional states because
negative emotions will only attract more negative emotions.
The second consequence is that a person becomes more aware of what‟s
happening within himself and without. A person who is privately self-
aware will base his analysis on what is truly happening rather than what
is being said by others.
There is an increased drive to clarify new and existing knowledge and the
person becomes more aware of the variables and conditions in his own
situation. The third consequence concerns self-validation more than
anything.
A person who is not self-aware will find it easier to change specific
behaviors if these behaviors have a negative impact on himself; inversely,
if a behavior is proving to be a beneficial behavior, he will continue on
the same path.
11
Self-awareness on the other hand, will allow a person to „stick to his
guns‟ regardless of the impact of the behavior. Normative forces in
society will not affect a person‟s decision to stick to his behaviors.
Influence, therefore, decreases, when a person becomes privately self-
aware.
The second kind of self-awareness (based on a person‟s positionality) is
public self-awareness. Public self-awareness occurs when a person
experiences heightened self-consciousness because he can be evaluated
by another person or by a group of people (i.e. the media, an audience in
a meeting, audience in an academic presentation, etc.)
Anxiety and other negative emotions are common when a person
experiences public self-awareness. When you become too self-aware
when you have to present something to an audience, your body language
and speech will reveal your exact emotions. If you think that you will not
look good when you talk to someone or when you present something to a
large audience, you become even more anxious and nervous.
During periods of public self-awareness, a person also becomes aware of
two different images or projections of himself: the private image (or what
he thinks of himself) and the public image (the image seen by others
12
when he is evaluated by the public). There is a big difference between
what you think you look like and what others see in you.
If there is a big incongruence between these two images, people tend to
think and feel negatively. Public self-awareness, unlike private self-
awareness, has a normative impact on people. Public self-awareness can
force a person to adhere to certain parameters of acceptable behavior.
The kinds of behavior that may be adapted by a public self-aware
individual will vary depending on the situation.
13
Now, it is important to note that it is normal for people to become self-
aware at specific situations. There is nothing wrong with self-awareness;
in fact, with self-awareness, you can discover more about yourself and
you can improve the facets of yourself that have a direct impact on the
persona that you are projecting to the public.
However, if you become too self-conscious and you fail to use this ability
to reflect on your public image and your behavior, you may have to deal
with certain consequences. According to studies, people who have a very
high level of private self-awareness are more likely to develop neuroses or
psychological problems (i.e. depression) because self-aware people tend
to focus on negative aspects of their lives instead of the positive aspects.
This tendency to continually ruminate on the negative has a marked
impact on a person‟s mental health. What about public self-awareness?
Public self-awareness allows a person to adjust his behavior for a
particular group of people.
That‟s why we used the term „normative‟ earlier. However, too much
public self-awareness can also have a negative impact on yourself.
Chronic and heightened public self-awareness may affect you in two
ways. First, you may become obsessed with „fitting in‟. A person who is
14
too preoccupied with „fitting in‟ may sacrifice his creativity and
individuality in the process of fitting in.
So you can imagine putting yourself in a situation where you sport the
same hairstyle, clothes and mannerisms of those around you. In essence,
that‟s what too much normativity does. It homogenizes people and cuts
out the parts of a group that is simply different.
Because of this marked change in the way you think because of
heightened public self-awareness, you may also begin to evaluate other
people based solely on their outward appearance and public projection.
In a way, your perspective of the world changes drastically because you
will no longer be interested in critically analyzing what‟s in front of you.
You will simply look once and examine a „thin slice‟ of the situation
based on physical appearance and other superficial traits.
15
Self-Knowledge: The Roadmap to the Self
Self-awareness is like the doorway that leads directly to who you are.
This type of reflexive thought allows a person to literally examine what
his life has been like and what he can do to improve it.
Now, the human mind thrives on organization. Memories and thoughts
are not store haphazardly; there is a system and self-awareness itself
uses a particular scheme to store information in a way that will make
sense to a person when he is engaged in reflective thought. This scheme
is called the self-schema.
A self-schema can be defined in two ways:
1. A self-schema shows you exactly how you intend to react to
specific situations and events.
2. A self-schema consists of our experiences and traits; specific traits
are bound to different events. Our behavior is defined by the way
we react to people and situations.
16
Here are examples of self-schemas:
Person A has always been an introvert (because he has always been a
quiet person at school and he keeps to himself most of the time).
He is good at sports (he joined the basketball team in high school and
earned an educational scholarship with his basketball prowess).
Person A has always loved Oriental cooking (as evidence by his preference
for Chinese and Japanese cuisine).
Take note that we do not code all of traits, tendencies and behaviors in
one large schema. We create many schemas in our memory and we use
these schemas as needed.
As you can imagine, some self-schemas are more useful and important
than other schemas. Some minor schemas are only used in rare
occasions (i.e. when a person is required to dance in front of others with
a partner; the response to this type of situation is dictated by the
particular schema that a person already has about similar experiences).
17
It is very important to become aware of our self-schemas because these
are the internal codes that we refer to when we need to something.
Without self-schemas, reflective thought and meaningful interaction with
others is simply not possible. When a person is faced with a situation, it
is the self-schema that tells the person directly what to do.
Stimulus/Experience/
Self-Schemas Action
Event
This diagram shows how self-schemas are utilized in every activity and
interaction.
Simply put – you cannot escape your own self-schemas any more than
you can escape the fact that you have to wake up at one point during the
day. It is unavoidable which is why we need to embrace it because you
can actually use self-schemas to improve the way you behave or react in
different situations.
18
How Does the Concept of the Self Come About?
We all know now that we are able to access knowledge about ourselves
by referring to the various self-schemas that we have developed over the
years. But the question now is: how do these self-schemas develop in the
first place?
Modern studies in human behavior and thinking have been able to define
specific contours and boundaries when it comes to the formation of the
concept of the self. Of course, there can be endless debates as to how the
self is actually developed over time.
The concept of the self is so important to so many disciplines that you
will find different models and theories about it across a wide plethora of
fields such as anthropology, philosophy and even literary criticism. But
for the purpose of this book, we will be looking carefully at the concept of
the self as it is applied directly to any social setting.
19
Now, let‟s move on to a concept called self-comparison. Self-comparison is
every important to the concept of the self because without it, there would
be no way for a person to establish coordinates that will allow him to
develop the self over time.
How does self-comparison work? Here‟s a straightforward explanation:
self-comparison works by setting standards that person would model
himself against. These standards may come from an ideal mental image
of the self or from certain standards emanating from one‟s own social
group. The type of comparison taking place in our minds is dependent on
the kind of self-awareness that we have.
If you are always privately self-aware, you are more concerned with
personal standards of appearance, behavior, accomplishments, etc. If
you have a higher level of public self-awareness, you will be more
concerned with what other people think of you and how other see you, so
you are more concerned with extraneous standards of behavior,
appearance, etc.
20
Self-comparison can happen on both conscious and subconscious levels.
So even if you are not consciously thinking that you are trying to satisfy
certain standards in your life, you are actually actively working to fulfill
these standards in your own life.
Only a person with very dim self-awareness will be able to avoid this type
of thinking because any person who wants to at the best position to
influence others and to accomplish his goals in life would want full
access to mental tools that will allow a person to modify his way of
thinking.
21
The Four-Step Feedback Method
According to one theory, people consciously (or unconsciously) use a
four-step feedback method to test whether or not they are attaining
personal goals or satisfying particular standards. You can use this
feedback method too, so you can systematically improve certain aspects
of your life that require your attention. The four-step feedback method
works this way:
Step # 1: Identify a particular goal or standard that you think would help
improve yourself in any way.
Step # 2: Ask yourself – do you already fulfill this standard or have you
attained this goal?
If the answer is “no”, proceed to Step # 4. If the answer is “yes”, proceed
with Step # 3.
Step # 3: What would help you attain this goal or satisfy this
private/personal or public standard? Test your theory and perform the
actions needed to satisfy the standard you had in mind. After testing your
22
theory through action and appropriate decision-making, ask yourself once
again: do you satisfy the standard?
If the answer is “no”, repeat Step # 3. If the answer is “yes”, proceed to
Step # 4.
Step # 4: You have completed the feedback method.
It is crucial that you always ask yourself this vital question when you are
performing the four-step feedback method: am I attaining my goal with
what I am doing? Since you are choosing to consciously perform this
feedback method, I have to remind you gentle folks that you have to go
back to Step # 3 if you still haven‟t satisfied the standard or goal that you
had in mind.
Since this process of self-critique can be quite taxing, I recommend that
you focus on one standard or one goal only whenever you want to
perform this feedback method. Because according to social theory, 9
times out of 10, you will be mentally tuckered out after just one round
23
with the four-step feedback method. So learn to pace yourself and don‟t
focus on other issues when you are actively engaged in this method.
24
How We Handle Discrepancies
As a person develops and adjusts his own identity (or self) to the
constantly changing demands of the world that he lives in, he uses
different tools to reach goals and satisfy beneficial standards. With
constant striving he is able to implement changes to the way he thinks,
interacts and behaves in different situations.
Whenever a person becomes consciously self-aware, he has to contend
with three very different (yet intimately associated) self-schemas: the
actual self, the ought self and the ideal self. The actual self reflects a
person‟s behavior, thought patterns, tendencies and accomplishments at
the present time.
So in essence, it‟s the „basket of goodies‟ that a person carries around
with him wherever he goes. The contents of the basket are already in his
possession. The ought self on the other hand, is composed of self-
schemas that show a person what kinds of traits or goals he should
pursue.
25
The “ought self” is a self-image based on what we think we should do in
life (i.e. an office worker may imagine himself to be a photographer or
artist instead of being „just‟ an office worker). The ideal self is a set of
self-schemas that point to traits and accomplishments that a person
wishes he could possess in the future. It should be noted that the “ought
self” is usually developed using standards and expectations that are
extraneous to oneself.
Here‟s an example: Person B is currently working as a line cook in a
restaurant. Deep down he feels that he wants to be a painter or
photographer. He loves the arts. His parents on the other hand, want
him to pursue a career in engineering. Here‟s how we can break down
the various self-schema groups:
Actual self: line cook
Ought self: Engineer
Ideal self: Artist
Even if Person A did not receive any feedback from his family, the “ought
self” would eventually develop due to the pressures of society itself.
Notice that if you perform a facile analysis of the three group self-
schemas, there is incongruity or discrepancy.
26
Incongruity or discrepancy between groups of self-schemas is very
common – which is why self-aware individuals are almost always working
hard to make sure that the actual self is congruent with the “ought self”
and the “ideal self”.
Now, it is important to note right now that whenever you are trying to
resolve any differences between the three groups of self-schemas, you
have to stay focused on your different goals and you should not let your
emotional baggage get the best of you.
Because according to social psychology when people perform even small
activities that remind them of their “ought self” and “ideal self”, people
are at higher risk for psychological discomfort. There is a tendency for
people to become anxious, agitated, depressed and worried about their
own goals in life.
This shouldn‟t be the case anymore. If you want to create an ideal,
influential identity for yourself, you have to put yourself above the
emotional baggage. You must exert firm control over what you think and
what you feel. Gone are the days that you can be easily swayed by
negative emotions or a „bad day‟.
27
To a person of influence, there is no such thing as a bad day anymore
because he would be too busy working on something that would
ultimately benefit himself. And there really is no reason for you to be
agitated about your other self-schemas.
Why should you be depressed or anxious in any way? These schemas are
yours. You created these schemas. You were the one who accepted these
standards in the first place and if something really isn‟t working out right
now and you feel depressed or agitated because of these self-schemas,
you can choose to either modify or adjust these self-schemas as you see
fit.
In the end, there really isn‟t a fixed ideal representation of what your
identity should be in the first place, because identities were meant to be
created and adjusted based on a person‟s capacities and his present
opportunities.
We create “ought” self-schemas and “idea” self-schemas by comparing
our actual self with the self-schemas of other people. This isn‟t
necessarily a bad thing, in fact, you can learn a lot about personal
28
excellence from people that you look up to in terms of achievement,
accomplishments, etc.
What I‟m trying to point out here is that self-evaluation and self-schemas
should be used to complement your current abilities. If your self-schemas
make you feel anxious and degraded all the time, then your self-schemas
are essentially destructive/counter-productive.
In this kind of situation, there is no other choice but to completely
discard counter-productive self-schemas because in the end, you will
only become paralyzed with all the emotional baggage that these self-
schemas generate.
29
Positive Social Reflection vs. Negative Social Comparison
Social comparison and social reflection can be so powerful that it can
affect your self-esteem. Merriam-Webster defines self-esteem as “a
confidence and satisfaction in oneself”. As you can already imagine, self-
esteem is an absolute necessity if you want to continue pursuing your
current goals.
But here‟s the problem: we can‟t help but engage in social comparison if
we know that another person is succeeding in something that we are
trying to be good in. We can‟t help but compare ourselves to others if we
are essentially threatened by the presence of another person who is
doing extremely well in what we do.
Is positive social reflection even possible? Well, it is – but only if one of
two conditions is present:
1. The other person is in a field of endeavor that does not matter to
you.
30
2. You know that you are also doing extremely well and the success
of other person within the same field of endeavor does not threaten
you at all.
If both of these conditions are absent, upward social comparison will take
place. If you don‟t like the idea of comparing yourself to others so much
because it prevents you from focusing on your own drive to be the best at
what you do, there are four simple strategies that you can use:
Strategy # 1: Mentally exaggerate the skills of the other person so you
wouldn‟t be on the same „playing field‟ anymore. For example, if Person A
is intimated by Person B‟s performance at work, he can say tell himself
that the other person is older and more experienced by far. If the playing
field is made uneven, direct comparison would become irrelevant. The
other person‟s achievements would then become an inspiration instead of
being a threat.
Strategy # 2: Instead of comparing yourself to the person who threatens
you the most, compare yourself to others who are not performing as well
as you do. We are not engaging in fanciful imaginings here – we are
actually consciously changing our perspective and positionality to avoid
31
upward comparison. Because you have to engage in reflective thought
the effort should produce something positive.
Strategy # 3: If the very presence of the other person makes you feel
anxious and worried, why do you have to tolerate the other person‟s
presence? Distance yourself – and focus on you own goals for personal
excellence.
Strategy # 4: Shift the point of comparison. If the other person is good at
persuasive speaking, find another point of comparison where you would
emerge the superior person. For example, Person XYZ may be good at
something else, but that won‟t matter anymore because you have
another excellent set of skills.
32
Self-Esteem
As critical beings with the ability to reflect on our own standing in
society, we spend most of our days accomplishing one goal after another
in the hopes that we will someday become fully satisfied with our various
self-schemas.
Before a person can have enough confidence to carry out his life‟s goals,
he needs a relatively stable level of self-esteem. Now, people have varying
levels of self-esteem, depending on the situation.
A neurosurgeon may feel extremely confident in the operating room but
his self-esteem may drop if he was required to perform social dancing in
front of his colleagues. A person‟s self-esteem is intrinsically tied with his
self-schemas.
Since a person‟s behavior in specific contexts is determined by individual
self-schemas, a person who has mostly negative self-schemas will react
negatively to most situations. Does self-esteem have an effect on a
person‟s valuation of his own concept of the self?
33
Actually, it does: having a low self-esteem means a person has low
valuation of his „self‟. Inversely, a person who has a high level of self-
esteem has a high/positive valuation of his concept of the self.
How does a person‟s self-esteem come about in the first place? Does a
person have a consistent level of self-esteem when is born? Or is it
something that develops over time with the help of people from a person‟s
environment?
According to studies in social psychology, people who have been brought
up by parents who are authoritarian (i.e. parents who consistently
demand specific modes of behavior and actions from their kids) but are
responsive to the needs of their children tend to have higher self-esteem
than folks who have been brought up by parents who are demanding but
are permissive or very indulgent toward their children.
In short – people who have been brought up by parents with expectations
and are able to reinforce these expectations through positive action are
more likely to have a consistent level of high self-esteem.
34
Demanding
Authoritatian
Responsive to
needs
High level of self esteem
Demanding
Authoritarian
Permissiveness
Low self-esteem
35
What impact does self-esteem have on a person‟s ability to face
challenges in life? Well, it appears that people who have high self-esteem
are more adept in mood regulation. Mood regulation is actually an
indicator of how motivated a person is to improve his outlook in life.
A person who has a more positive outlook of the self is more likely to act
upon negative moods. Inversely, a person who has chronic low self-
esteem will most likely dwell on negative emotions and thought patterns.
I must point out at this point in time that there is big difference between
a reasonably high level of self-esteem and false self-esteem – which is
also known as narcissism. Narcissistic individuals appear to have high
self-esteem but their version of self-esteem is actually very unsteady.
Narcissistic individuals are extremely dependent on direct social
validation to keep their self-esteem at a certain level. If social validation
does not produce the type of validation that will complement their high
self-esteem, then a person may become extremely defensive and
aggressive in response to the threat to the ego.
36
A person who has a normal level of self-esteem will not respond with
aggression (or at least, not as frequently as a narcissistic individual).
People with low self-esteem will not react aggressively when their ego is
threatened.
For narcissistic individuals, an aggressive response is the first line of
defense against anyone or anything that stands in the way of a
consistently high self-esteem. This is why people who have narcissistic
tendencies are more likely to become extremely argumentative when
other people disagree with their ideas.
37
The Most Powerful Self-Motive of All
Why do we hold on to the concept of the self all the time? Why do we
continually struggle with private and public standards of achievement,
appearance, etc.? There are three associated motivations with the self:
- Self-verification
- Self-assessment
- Self-enhancement
Among these three associated motivations, no motivation is more
powerful than self-enhancement. The motivation for self-enhancement
pushes a person to seek new information as to how he can improve
himself in different ways.
This self-motive is present in everything that we do unless a person
consciously avoids thinking about himself when he tries to accomplish
things. Self-awareness and self-motive are intimately associated; one
cannot exist without the other.
38
When a person is motivated by self-enhancement, he looks for positive
information that will help him achieve goals or satisfy standards. There is
a big contrast if we compare self-enhancement with self-verification.
Self-verification is primarily concerned with finding differences or
discrepancies between groups of self-schemas. In a way, this leads a
person to focus on negative aspects of himself rather than on positive
aspects. It is alright to seek out genuine weaknesses and areas that you
can improve but I have to warn everybody that you should never dwell on
negative aspects of the self.
Dwelling on something is quite different from acknowledging it and
acting upon a negative aspect to improve that aspect. If you focus on
self-enhancement most of the time, you will be able to modify your
behavior in such a way that you will be able to continually reach your
goals by simply being yourself. The modification of negative traits will
come naturally as you implement plans that you have devised after you
have utilized the self-enhancement motive.
39
Self-Enhancement Strategies
People make use of two main strategies to maintain their positive outlook
in life. The first strategy focuses on self-affirmation. Self-affirmation
usually occurs when a person suffers from low self-esteem, either
because he feels that he has not been able to attain his goals or he his
ego has been threatened in some other way by people or situations.
A person affirms his positive traits and qualities in the face of low self-
esteem to raise his self-esteem and to improve his outlook in life. This
strategy is useful not only for raising your self-esteem but also for
improving the chances of following through with plans and goals.
According to a foundational study, it was discovered that people who
affirmed that they possessed a particular trait or were ready for a
particular undertaking were 95% more likely to respond to a similar
undertaking just so they can re-affirm that they indeed possess this trait
or capability.
40
The second self-enhancement strategy is called selective attribution.
Here‟s how it works:
41
Let me explain how this strategy is actually implemented: when
something good happens to a person, he will immediately attribute his
success to internal factors, like his traits. Inversely, when a person
experiences something bad, like failure, he will attribute the failure or
negative event to extraneous factors (i.e. other people, society,
circumstances, etc.)
42
Here are some examples of how this strategy is used by people to
maintain their level of self-esteem:
“I aced the exam because I have always been clever in Mathematics.”
“I failed the exam because the teacher did not discuss the subject matter
adequately.”
“I got a hole-in-one today because I’ve been working so hard on my swing
these past few months.”
“My golf was horrible today because of the wind speed and we tried out a
new golf course.”
“I sold a lot of products today because of my good marketing skills.”
“I wasn’t able to sell a lot of products because people didn’t have money
and they don’t know how to respond to a great marketer like me!”
43
Developing the Social Self
Each person, whether he likes it or not, belongs to at least on social
group. If you do not belong to any other group in society, you still belong
to the primary social group which is your family.
We possess two distinct identities in this regard; the private self and the
social self. The social self can mature and develop adequately if we are
aware how social groups can impact the way we think, talk, decide and
behave.
If you a person identifies strongly with a particular social group, he
exerts consistent effort to incorporate thinking patterns, behavior,
personal traits and beliefs that his social group is espousing at the
moment.
Because people can easily adapt any behavior being espoused by the
majority of the members of a social group it is important for the social
group to create and maintain a positive group identity.
44
A social group must not only look good from the inside, it must also look
good from the perspective of the public. Because as a group, it is still
being evaluated based on the norms of society itself and people are apt to
categorize social groups based on superficial traits.
How can a social group maintain its cohesion and positive social identity
from the inside? There should be constant comparison and evaluation
between the members of a group to ensure that specific ideals and
standards are followed.
As a group, members can compare themselves to members of other
similar social groups so they can improve discrepancies and weaknesses.
For example, a small group of aspiring photographers would usually
compare their activities with a much older and more established
organization of professional photographers or advanced amateur
photographers to see what they can do to come close to the level of
expertise of the older and more experienced photograph group.
45
It is normal for members of certain social groups to show a bias when it
comes to upward comparison of similar social groups. If a person feels
threatened by another group, his social self will immediately come to the
fore to protect his own social group.
The social self has a great preference for „smaller and smaller social
circles‟. For example, a person who belongs to a large stamp-collecting
club would have an in-group of his own that he would prefer to work
with at all times.
Within that small in-group, that person would have his own pals that he
would prefer over other members of the smaller in-group. As a person
joins smaller and smaller social circles, he is able to gauge his social self
based on comparisons of his sub-group to the main group, the main
group versus other similar groups, etc.
Your social identity has an intimate association with the collective
identity of your social group. If you belong to a group that has a positive
social identity, you would have no problems competing with other groups
because you know that your group looks good from the outside and from
the inside, it is doing what it does best.
46
But what do you do when your group is suffering from a poor public
image? A group with a poor public image cannot compete easily with
other groups because from the perspective of the public, you have a
weaker group. There are some strategies to handle this kind of situation:
1. Your group can try to compete with a higher ranking group in
certain aspects to improve the status of your social group.
2. Your group can try to discover something that you are better at
compared to other groups. This gives the public eye a new
dimension to scrutinize and evaluate positively. If you succeed in
any of these two strategies, your group‟s social identity will become
more positive and members of your group will reap the benefits of
the change.
If your group is not showing any redeeming values a third strategy exists:
leave the group. Leaving a group completely or dis-identifying with a
group allows a person to renew his private identity and find a new social
group to identify with.
47
Now how do you deal with the ups and downs of having a social group?
For example, if you are a member of a particular group of workers within
your company, how can you maintain a more positive self-concept in the
face of variable successes and failures? There are two ways to do this:
1. If your group is successful, you can simply bask in the glory of the
moment because you are part of the group and you are entitled to
the positive social identity that your group has is enjoying because
of its current success.
2. If your group has failed at something, you simply have to look past
the failure and not dwell on it. You should also encourage other
members of your group to do the same – never dwell on negativity
and failures!
48
In Focus: Cultural Differences
We now live in a very multi-cultural and globalist world. Gone are the
days when you have to deal with just one large group of cultural values.
Now we have to contend with economic and cultural forces that are
reshaping the very landscape that we have been so familiar with before.
Why are we discussing cultural differences now?
Well, there are some differences in the concept of the self across various
cultures throughout the world. Differences brought about by culture will
have a large impact on a person‟s ability and mode of interacting with
people from other cultures. To be truly a person of influence, you must
be able to navigate the stream of cultural differences that is becoming
more and more common nowadays.
We don‟t have to engage in a very lengthy discussion of cultural
differences because there are only a handful of vital facts that you have
to be aware of when dealing with people from other countries and
cultures:
1. Countries that are collectively place under the rubric of the
West/Occident usually espouse a dominant ideological tendency of
49
individualism. Individualist cultures champion the importance of
the unique individual and promote fair competition, innovation,
creativity, etc.
2. Countries that have a more collectivist culture emphasize the
importance of belongingness and nationhood. A person coming
from this culture isn‟t just a lone individual with his own private
identity.
He is a member of the nation and everything that he does is a
reflection of the nation that he belongs to as a whole. A person
from a collectivist culture does not enter a foreign country as a
Jane Doe or John Doe, he enters as a member of a foreign
collectivist culture. There is always a reference to the „mother land‟
or „father land‟.
3. Migrants from other countries will often face the problem of
sticking to old cultural values or adopting the cultural values of
the host country. Usually people choose biculturalism instead of
subscribing to just one mode of thinking.
50
A bicultural individual chooses to keep his old cultural values
intact while adapting to new ways of thinking. Biculturalism helps
reduce friction between native peoples and migrants and also helps
migrants find their place in their new society more quickly.
51
PART 2: ATTRIBUTIONS
The Role of Attribution in People’s Lives
Imagine going to work one day feeling extremely happy because you got
some good news. Naturally, you want to spread the good cheer to your
office mates, so you make eye contact with an office mate that you rarely
talk to and smile to him.
You wave your hand a little to say „hi‟ to the person. In return, your
officemate literally slams down his hands and storms out of the office,
leaving papers and pens scattered in his cubicle. Your office mate is
visibly upset by something.
Was it you who did that? What could have triggered such behavior from
your office mate? As you think of the reasons why a person would behave
in such a manner, you are actually attributing potential causes of the
other person‟s reaction and behavior.
Attribution is the foundation of social cognition or how folks like you and
me think about other folks. At the outset, attribution itself is more about
rationalization than epistemology. Attribution is more concerned with
52
linking together what you already know than generating new knowledge
about a particular even.
Humans, being critical and rational beings, engage in attribution due to
two basic reasons:
1. People need to come up with a perspective of their society and its
members that would make complete sense to them.
2. Attribution demystifies events and interactions with other people
which in turn reduce the strangeness of the world at large.
Rationalization, coupled with better understanding, can give a
person more control over his own life and the actual reality that he
is in.
People feel the need to attribute in everyday life because the process of
attribution produces not only potential reasons why an event happened
the way it did but because this process also actively gives meaning to the
world that we live in. Meaning itself can only be possible if a person
thinks about something.
53
Meaning does not exist in a vacuum, to be picked up by people as they
please. You have to think in order to make sense of something that is in
front of you. People create meaning; meaning does not „find‟ a person. If a
person says that the meaning of life revealed itself to him in a dream it is
more likely that he has been obsessing about this topic for quite some
time and his brain finally gave him an answer.
54
Kinds of Attribution
There are two general categories of human attribution: internal attribution
and external attribution. When people try to make sense of an event, they
can either attribute the event to internal traits and characteristics or
they can attribute it to external forces and circumstances. Here‟s an
example: imagine that you were walking in a quiet street when all of a
sudden, a car screeches out of control and „parks‟ itself on the sidewalk.
All its lights are flashing but it didn‟t hit the small store that was
standing a few inches from its bumpers. You observe how the driver
nonchalantly backs up his car and drives away after the frightening
display. You try to figure out what just happened and you come up with
these causes:
Internal attributions:
“Maybe the driver is just plain crazy!”
“The driver has to be drunk to do that kind of stunt.”
“The guy has to be in a really bad mood.”
“Maybe he the guy is just learning how to drive.”
“That guy doesn‟t know how to park properly!”
55
External attributions:
“Maybe he got spooked by a big truck somewhere.”
“The guy‟s brakes got jammed, probably.”
“The car is old, maybe that‟s why he can‟t control it well.”
“Maybe this just wasn‟t a good day for him.”
Internal and external attributions can also be further sub-categorized as
being stable or fluctuating. For example, an attribution that someone has
poor driving skills means you are invoking stability or natural ability
while an attribution that the guy has probably had one too many drinks
means you are invoking temporary or fluctuating conditions. Both types
of inference or attribution are affected by varying degrees of
controllability (i.e. drinking alcoholic beverages versus not drinking any
alcohol before driving).
56
The How and Why of Attribution
There are two main theories regarding the process of attribution in
varying social contexts: the correspondent inference theory and the co-
variation model. Both these theories are helpful in figuring out how
people are able to create their own explanations of events and situations
that they meet every day.
Correspondent Inference Theory
The first theory of attribution stipulates that people make inferences
about other people that are indicative of internal traits and
characteristics, instead of external circumstances. Why do people choose
to think of internal characteristics instead of external circumstances?
The answer lies in people‟s general preferences for stability. For example,
if you meet a waiter who was not very helpful when you wanted to order
something special for yourself and your partner, it is likely that your first
attribution to such a behavior is that the waiter was simply incompetent.
Since the waiter has already been tagged incompetent, the tag of
incompetence will remain in the future. So in essence, you have been
57
able to exert some degree of control over the situation since you will be
avoiding the waiter in the future to avoid inconvenience.
People don‟t usually attribute things based on external circumstances.
For example, if you did not get the kind of service that you wanted from a
restaurant, you won‟t think that maybe the waiter is just having a bad
day or maybe the management was evil because they did not train the
waiter adequately.
The instant tendency is people attribute internal characteristics to
behavior, actions, speech, etc.
Since we are always on the lookout for even more stability in our lives,
such inferences gives us the kind of knowledge and control that we want
because internal characteristics such as “incompetence” or “rudeness”
are essentially unchanging attributes. We attempt to associate behavior
and people‟s personalities based on three groups of facts:
- Social desirability
- Choice
- Non-common effects
58
Let‟s discuss these three fact groups. Social desirability refers to the
desirability of a person‟s behavior compared to what is considered
acceptable/normal/agreeable or desirable in society in specific contexts.
People believe that when people show undesirable behavior, this
undesirable behavior is linked to an internal trait or internal
characteristic. People use this fact group to create attributions because
people usually want to stay within the bounds of acceptable behavior at
all times.
When a person stays within the bounds of what is considered normal or
acceptable, he will not be excluded in any way. Inversely, a person who
chooses to act beyond the bounds of what is considered acceptable may
be excluded or ridiculed for what he has done.
This ridicule itself has a function – in a way, it forces a person to cease
from performing the same unacceptable behavior and return to what is
considered normal. Now, let me ask you: do socially desirable behaviors
tell us what type of person we are actually dealing with?
59
The answer is: not necessarily. You see, people perform „acceptable
behavior‟ on a regular basis so they can avoid exclusion. In a way, this is
one form of self-preservation.
If Person A‟s car was slightly scratched by another motorist, he will
accept the apology and attempt to fix the situation with the least amount
of hullabaloo because this is the acceptable mode of behavior in such a
situation.
However, this behavior does hide the fact that Person A may have felt like
being aggressive and violent when his car was damaged. What about
people who show undesirable behavior?
It‟s the direct opposite when you are dealing with people who openly
show to the public unacceptable behavior. Since these folks are not even
thinking of socially acceptable behavior anymore, their behavior may be
indicative of their actual internal traits and personalities.
The second fact group involves free choice. People can make inferences
about another person‟s behavior by evaluating whether or not the other
person‟s action was freely and consciously chosen or not.
60
If a person freely chose to do something then by virtue of his conscious
choice he is actually revealing a part of himself to the public eye. Why
would a person freely choose to do something? The answer is simple: the
decision resonates with his personality and beliefs.
The third fact group deals with unique consequences. When an action or
behavior results in a unique consequence, a person can classify the same
as having a non-common effect.
Events that have unique consequences or non-common effects are most
likely caused by internal traits (i.e. a person who screams at people at the
slightest provocation will be despised by people; that person will also be
classified as being anti-social and aggressive and ultimately, he should
be avoided by others).
The Co-variation Model
The obvious limitation of the first theory is that you would only be able to
analyze singular events or behaviors. You won‟t be able to take into
account behavior patterns and multiple behaviors. The co-variation model
of attribution handles the limitations of the first theory. The co-variation
model, unlike the first theory, takes into account internal
61
traits/characteristics as well as external circumstances. The core principle
of the co-variation model is simple: for something to cause or trigger a
particular behavior, it must be present when a person is exhibiting the
behavior. On the flipside, the behavior must not exhibit itself when the
potential cause is absent.
Three types of information are vital to the co-variation model:
- Consensus
- Consistency
- Distinctiveness
All three clusters of information are used by a person to create an
internal attribution or external attribution. Consensus refers to similar
behavior of people around the target subject. Are other people exhibiting
the same behavior as the subject? Consistency on the other hand
answers the question: does the person behave in the same way in other
occasions? Distinctiveness (the third cluster) refers to the frequency of a
particular behavior in other contexts and situations (i.e. will a rude
person stay rude if he was doing volunteer work?)
62
The following table explores how people make attributions based on the
three clusters:
Cluster Degree Type of Attribution
Consensus High consensus Situational
Example:
Everyone is driving
strangely.
Low consensus Dispositional
Example:
Only Person A is
driving strangely.
Consistency High consistency Dispositional
Example:
Person A drives
63
strangely all the time.
Low consistency Situational
Example:
Person A drove
strangely today.
Distinctiveness High distinctiveness Situational
Example:
Person A drove
strangely on Monday.
Low distinctiveness Dispositional
Example:
Person A has always
driven strangely
around the city.
64
Not every situation will be analyzed with these three distinct clusters of
information. Sometimes, people just stick to one or two clusters and
attribute causes to behavior without bothering with the third cluster.
The presence (or absence) of any of these clusters will dictate whether a
situational (external) or dispositional (internal) attribution will result
from a person‟s analysis of a situation.
If a person sees that everyone in the environment is doing the exact same
thing (i.e. students in a whole auditorium is wearing a red cap) then the
attribution will most likely be situational.
However, if only the speaker is wearing a red cap, then the attribution
will most likely be dispositional (i.e. the speaker likes wearing red caps).
It should be noted also that not everyone performs analysis based on the
co-variation model. In fact, when you look at the co-variation model, it
actually resembles a conscious train of thought that requires utmost
attention.
65
This doesn‟t mean that the model is wrong; it just means that at any
given time, a person can be using other methods of deduction to
understand the world at large. The two theories we have just discussed
are by no means strict rules that people follow.
According to researchers, people often react to situations based on gut
feel or what people like to call their instincts. People won‟t spend a lot of
time thinking whether or not a person should be trusted. If a person is
threatened by another person, he will instinctively avoid that person
because he will be acting instinctively.
In a way, this is how people engage in self-preservation. And this is also
how people show that they will always choose the path of least resistance
when interacting with people, especially people who are showing
behaviors that are not socially acceptable. In short: people like shortcuts
when it comes to the process of making attribution and analyzing things.
66
Self-Serving Attributions
When we hear “self-serving” we usually think of something negative or
selfish; I‟m here to tell you today that in the context of attribution, the
word „self-serving‟ actually has a more positive connotation.
You see, when people analyze situations, they do it without referring to
themselves. For example, if a person was driving down a quiet street and
a guy in a motorcycle suddenly appeared from nowhere and nearly hit
the person‟s car, the person in the driver‟s seat would probably think
that the motorcycle driver didn‟t have any road manners and didn‟t have
any knowledge of road safety at all.
But if you look at it from a broader perspective, the person in the car
probably has had his share of „bad driving‟ over the years. If the driver
had thought the motorcycle driver was incompetent, would he also
attribute his own bad driving in the past to incompetence or lack of
proper knowledge? Of course not.
67
In the first situation, the driver of the car would be making an internal
attribution and in the future, should he see the same motorcycle driver
again, he would probably do his best to avoid the other person for his
own safety.
We don‟t realize that as we create attributions about other people, we
also suspend certain parameters so we can maintain our self-esteem and
our self-confidence. When someone does something wrong, we don‟t
reflect on our own mishaps in the past and use the same strategy of
attribution (internal attribution).
Instead, we would most likely use a self-serving attribution. Self-serving
attributions were meant to preserve a person‟s image of himself. Because
let‟s face it, we want to keep ourselves as ideal as possible in all aspects.
So if we drove badly in the past, we won‟t attribute our bad driving to
being incompetent. We will attribute it to something else, like bad road
conditions or someone suddenly calling your cellular phone while you
were trying to negotiate a sharp turn.
68
Internal
Other Ordinary
attribution
people's process of
or external
behavior attribution
attribution
Your
negative Self-
External
behavior serving
attribution
and/or attribution
failures
Your
positive Self-
External
behavior serving
attribution
and/or attribution
success
69
Attributions are essentially shortcuts to understanding and taking control
of the reality that we live in. If there was a car crash near our home, we
would immediately make attributions and make decisions based on those
attributions.
We won‟t approach the car and ask the driver if he is a safe driver or not.
We won‟t stick around long enough near the accident scene to determine
whether or not it was still safe to have the kids play in the street. We
would immediately make personal decisions based on what we attribute
to the situation.
Now let‟s talk about something closer to home – personal attributions or
attributions about ourselves. Often we like to think that we are very
objective fellows and we don‟t mind criticizing ourselves. But the real
question here is: how inclined are we to make internal attributions about
our own negative behaviors and failures?
If you make a mistake, would you make a dispositional (internal)
attribution or a situational (external) attribution? You don‟t have to feel
guilty or anything because it‟s a natural tendency to attribute personal
failures to external circumstances. It is also natural if we bask in the glory
of our successes by attributing our successes to internal traits.
70
Why do we do this in the first place? Well, as I have mentioned earlier,
we do everything we can to preserve and support our self-concept. Only a
crazy person would intentionally destroy his self-concept because that
goes directly against the instinctual drive to protect ourselves and
survive no matter what it takes.
And that‟s how other people deal with their own situations. If something
good happens to another person, he will attribute the success or positive
event to an internal trait. If something bad happens, you can be sure
that there will be external attributions.
Let‟s try to apply the two modes of attribution to certain situations:
Situation # 1: You failed a math exam.
Possible attributions:
“I wasn’t able to study hard because of my rowdy roommate.”
“I didn’t have enough money and I was so worried that I wasn’t able to
study.”
“The professor didn’t motivate me in this course subject.”
71
“My neighbors have been partying like crazy these past few weeks and I
barely have enough sleep every night.”
Situation # 2: You got promoted to a higher paying position, complete
with a new office and signature furniture.
Possible attributions:
“They loved what I did with the last project!”
“I am the best in what I do.”
“I am the only one in my team who knows what he’s doing.”
“I deserve this promotion because I am the most hardworking person in
this office.”
Note that both external and internal attributions can have a factual
basis. However, factuality doesn‟t really matter to people when it comes
to their own attributions about themselves.
For example, if a person did fail in a Math exam it is possible that he
wasn‟t able to study because of noisy neighbours but it is also possible
that this person was never really interested in studying hard
72
If a person got a promotion and he was given a new office to work in, it
is possible that he was the most hardworking person in the office but it
is also possible that the promotion was given to him because there was
no one else to hold the position after a previous employee was fired for
not doing his job correctly. We have this particular attribution tendency
because we want to boost positive feelings about ourselves and we want
to avoid feeling bad or depressed about ourselves as often as possible.
73
The Importance of Social Representations
Humans are social beings; we know this now for a fact. Everything about
our self-concepts is intimately associated with the public sphere. We can
be private individuals but in the end, we cannot help but look outward to
social groups and the larger society that we belong to.
A person can pretend to ignore society but his own thought patterns and
behaviors are still molded by both personal and public expectations. That
is why we now turn to social representations so we can zero in on one of
the most important aspects of the social being – us.
Social representations, unlike theories of attribution are studied
qualitatively by social scientists because it is nearly impossible to come
up with a bulletproof quantitative or statistics-based analysis of people‟s
beliefs and tendencies.
Knowledge itself cannot be measured accurately even in small
populations because knowledge eludes the common coordinates used in
statistics. So we have to shift our framework a little to accommodate the
fact that knowledge and causal relations (the core of human
74
understanding) are transmitted by people and to people through informal
communication.
In an ideal society, everyone would have the opportunity to have the
same knowledge as everyone else. In such a utopian society, people
would be given the chance to receive equal amounts of knowledge.
Accurate measurement of competence and knowledgeableness would
also be possible since everyone was educated in the same way.
In the reality that we live in, this is simply impossible so humans have
devised ways to transmit knowledge in a more informal way. Of course,
we cannot expect knowledge to be full transmitted through informal
discussions.
You will have to expect some level of dilution when knowledge is passed
down literally from one person to another. Despite the nature of common
epistemic transfer, we have to remember that mass culture, popular
culture and even elite culture are created and bound by social
representations.
Do not be confused by the term „social representations‟. Often people
think that social representations can only be used for politicians and
75
historic figures. In reality, social representations can be about anything
from warm donuts to what you have to do to avoid toe fungus.
Social representations are in the way we eat and how we choose a new
formal dress for that luncheon meeting. Social representations are in the
way we choose to be called in online social networking platforms and
chat rooms.
We cannot escape social representations any more than we can escape
communicating with other people through verbal and physical language.
Social representation exists because people agree about the causal
relations of things.
For example, it is widely held that a person who is shy and keeps to
himself is an introverted person. People who espouse this knowledge may
not have heard of Freud or psychoanalysis, but the remark that a shy
person may be an introverted person is essentially correct.
Knowledge from the academe has filtered down to popular/common
usage through word of mouth. The knowledge is diluted and is somewhat
incomplete, but people believe in this knowledge wholeheartedly because
other people believe in it to.
76
You can imagine how powerful this concept can be when you think of
how people tend to accept new information more easily if other people
have already validated that what is being said is acceptable and true.
Think about this the next time that want to influence a large group of
people.
Again, you don‟t have to exert a tremendous amount of effort to convince
each and every one of the people in your audience. You just have to
convince one or two people but you have to do it in a way that will draw
in the rest of your audience so that they will more readily agree with
what you are saying.
77
PART 3: COGNITION, HEURISTICS & CATEGORIZATION
Social Cognition
The world we live in makes sense to us because humans are capable of
social cognition. Social cognition is an over-arching term that refers to
how people process and encode information at any given time and how
people recall and utilize the same when they need to understand the
behavior of other people.
It is very important to understand how people actually process
information when they are trying to make sense of other people‟s speech
and actions. Earlier in the book we focused on some primary theories
regarding attribution, self-esteem and so forth.
Attribution is a vital social process that allows people to analyze
behaviors and events easily. However, more recent studies in social
psychology reveal that people do not necessarily engage in
critical/analytic processes all the time.
So it is possible for a person to attribute causal relations but it is also
possible that he is working purely on „gut feel‟. Does this mean that
78
people are just plain lazy because they don‟t like to „think things
through‟? Not necessarily.
We have to remember that people have to face a lot of information on a
daily basis. Analysis and critical thinking are very taxing and people have
limited cognitive resources. Due to the limitations of the human mind
when it comes to processing large volumes of information, people have to
use „shortcuts‟ to arrive at rationalizations that will still help them make
sense of the world at large.
Back in the 70s and 80s, social scientists and psychologists championed
the idea that people were constantly thinking about people and physical
reality. Scientists came up with models that answered some questions
about how people actually attributed causal relations to the things they
encounter on a daily basis.
Social scientists came up with the idea that people were „naïve scientists‟
because they believed that we were always constantly testing our
theories and inferences about reality. Fast forward to the nineties –
younger researchers began seeing the flaws of the earlier models of
attribution.
79
For one, these models were inherently limited because of fixed
coordinates (consistency, frequency, etc.). And statistically there was no
hard data that proved that people were indeed naïve scientists all the
time.
And so they created another theory: that people are actually cognitive
misers. Cognitive misers, as the name implies, do not expend a lot of
effort in trying to critically analyze available information.
Instead, they take shortcuts or they take „thin slices‟ of information so
they can make an analysis of a particular situation instead of using a
longer process of deduction and attribution.
Since humans are essentially limited when it comes to cognitive
resources, it is worthwhile to explore the newer theories of social
cognition because you would be able to apply these in your question for
influence.
We must remember though that even though people have a tendency to
take cognitive shortcuts to make inferences, it doesn‟t mean that they
will be at risk for inaccurate inferences.
80
Amazingly, even though people have a tendency to skip long attribution
processes, they are still able to produce accurate inferences about events
and most importantly, the behavior of the people they meet.
81
The Role of Heuristics
How are people able to create snappy yet accurate judgments without
going through complex mental calculations? How can a person remain
rational or logical even if he is essentially a cognitive miser? The answer
lies in heuristics.
Heuristics works in this manner: people take a large chunk of
information (i.e. casual relations) and create a „rule of thumb‟ based on
what they have understood from the large chunk of casual relations.
After creating the rule of thumb, similar situations will trigger the
memory of the rule of thumb and people can then make quick judgments
based on the rule of thumb alone.
Heuristics: Instant
Information "Rule of judgment/
thumb" inferences
82
It is very easy to create inferences based on pre-formulated rules of
thumb. However, this method „thin slicing‟ information does come with a
downside. Social scientists discovered that no matter how objective a
person is, heuristics still produces biased output (just like attributions).
Now, there are actually two kinds of heuristic cognitive methods:
representativeness heuristic and availability heuristic.
Representativeness Heuristic
This type of heuristic utilizes general categories or prototypes to produce
valid inferences about a situation, thing or behavior. When a person
receives an input (i.e. a peculiar behavior from someone), he will
immediately reach into his reservoir of categories to check if he already
has a schema or category for this type of behavior.
If he is able to match the behavior with a category that already exists in
his memory, he will stick to this category and make a decision based on
what the heuristic method has given him. The representativeness
heuristic is present even in the small things that we do on a daily basis.
Here are some examples:
83
When you go to a clinic, you try to find:
1. A man or woman wearing a scrub suit (NURSE)
2. A man or woman wearing a stethoscope and a white laboratory
gown (DOCTOR)
If you want to find a commodity in an unfamiliar grocery store:
1. You try to find an aisle that has similar products
You are lost and you don‟t know which direction to go:
1. You try to find road signs to more familiar areas
2. You try to find a sign that will lead you to a gas station or
someplace where you can ask directions
The representativeness heuristic is a deeply ingrained skill that every
person has. Though it is still essentially a theoretical model, I can say
with confidence that this heuristic is used by people very frequently and
on a daily basis.
84
Imagine how you can apply this knowledge to increase your influence.
Since people use the representativeness heuristic to make quick
judgments, you can shape your words and behavior so that people would
become confident of what you are trying to convey more quickly, since
you are sending out the right signals that trigger both emotional and
logical responses from the other person.
So for example, if you are trying to sell a product or service to another
person, you won‟t have to think of very complex ways to influence the
other person to trust in what you say. You just have to identify potential
triggers that will convert the other person‟s thinking pattern.
Now, while it is very convenient for a person who is trying to influence
someone to use a particular tendency or weakness (in this case,
representativeness heuristic), we must also remember that the
representativeness heuristic still produces biased inferences or causal
relations.
Each person‟s particular bias to different social representations can
produce desirable or no so desirable valuations of your own words and
actions. For example, if you try to dress up well just before a meeting to
impress your bosses, you may impress your bosses but other members of
85
the meeting (i.e. your team members or project co-workers) may think of
you as a complete braggart because you dressed above them.
The bosses think you are showing your professionalism since you
dressed well before presenting facts to them. However, your co-workers
will think that you might be trying to make them look bad because some
of them are wearing old suits and shirts while you chose to wear new suit
on the day of your big presentation.
Regardless of your actual intentions, people would still use the
representative heuristic to categorize you the moment they see you.
Going back to the presentation/meeting scenario, if you overdress,
members of the upper echelon of your company will immediately
categorize you with terms like “well dressed” or “smartly dressed” while
your co-workers will probably think of you as “over-dressed” or “a
braggart”.
As you can see, when a person makes an inference using the
representative heuristic, he automatically misses out on other potential
inferences that may be more accurate than his first inference.
86
Availability Heuristic
While the representative heuristic is used to analyze people‟s behavior,
the availability heuristic is more frequently used to determine whether or
not an event is likely to happen based on available information about
similar events.
The availability heuristic is intimately associated with informational
accessibility or the degree at which a person can easily recall a situation
or event from his own memory. The big difference between the availability
heuristic and informational accessibility is that there is a subjective
participation when one uses the availability heuristic.
For example, the concept of cookies is easily accessible for most people
but that does not mean that a person would be constantly recalling his
subjective experiences about cookies. The only time that the information
becomes part of s heuristic would be when a person has to recall
something related to cookies when he has to make a decision related to
cookies.
87
The availability heuristic in situations where we feel anxious about doing
something because we have read or heard about something similar. For
example, if there are a string of muggings in your area, you would have a
natural fear to go out alone at night because of the stories that you hear
from your neighbors.
Because of the high accessibility of related information (i.e. stories about
the muggings), you are led to believe that you should not go out at night
alone because you might be mugged, too.
False Consensus Effect
The false consensus effect is a specific bias that usually results from the
use of the availability heuristic. The false consensus effect points to the
tendency of some people to exaggerate the validity of their own opinion
by thinking that the majority of those around them will have the same
opinion.
There is no way to measure whether or not the majority of the population
will agree with a person and therefore, the false consensus effect will
never generate anything that is truly objective/neutral or statistics-
based. People just think that other agree with them. For example, if you
88
ask someone if he likes a particular restaurant, his train of thought
would be something like:
1. “Yes, I like that restaurant it serves really good food at really great
prices.”
2. “I think other people like this restaurant, too”
3. “9 out of 10, people around this area will choose this restaurant over
other restaurants.”
As you can see, a person who has a false consensus effect will defend his
positive or negative statement about something by citing false consensus,
regardless of what other people actually think or feel about something.
The false consensus effect is quite common among people because long
standing beliefs are easily pulled from the conscious memory. Strongly
held beliefs are tied integrally to our own behaviors and tendencies and
therefore, our judgment of other people‟s appearance, behavior,
credibility, etc., are partially influenced by our own behavioral biases.
89
Anchoring Heuristic
The anchoring heuristic has some similarities to the availability
heuristic. First, it is also based on informational accessibility. The more
accessible the information, the more quickly this heuristic is used.
Second, the anchoring heuristic can also result in a false consensus
effect.
However, the big difference between the anchoring heuristic and the
availability heuristic is that with the anchoring heuristic it is not the
informational accessibility that is the primary influence but the order at
which options are given to a person.
The anchoring heuristic is also more commonly used when a person has
to give a quantitative analysis of a situation. Studies regarding the
anchoring heuristic have shown that people are more likely to provide a
higher quantitative estimate if a person was given a higher starting point.
So for example, if you asked a person if there would be a 90% chance of
his favorite team winning (as opposed to asking him if there was more
than a 1% chance of the team winning), he would probably state a higher
quantitative estimate if you use the “90%” anchor.
90
According to social scientists, our own use of the anchoring heuristic is
dependent not only on our own capacity to analyze but also on a peculiar
mechanism in our minds. You see, when something is presented to you
in a series, the first thing that is given to you becomes the most
accessible piece of information in the series.
So in essence, the mind latches on to this first element and slowly, the
mind‟s ability to latch on to the second element, third element and so
forth, is reduced over time (since our cognitive resources are inherently
limited).
91
We Are Social Tacticians
Reading through all the strategies that I have included in this book, you
might be thinking: which strategy is really being used by people? Which
theory is the correct theory? Truth be told, we cannot really pin down a
single social theory when it comes to influence and identity.
In fact, if we were to do that, we would continually hit a brick wall
because people don‟t process information using just one internal
paradigm. People are essentially social tacticians regardless of culture
and education.
Over time, people learn how to use different processing strategies to
protect and enhance their self-concepts. And over time, people are also
able to examine different human behaviors and events using different
theoretical models.
Of course, people don‟t have to read about social attribution, social
representation and all these theories to be able to use them. Always
remember that the social aspects of culture were formed before these
theories were created.
92
These theories only describe the existing social phenomena. Now if we
were to think about how people process information, you might think
that there would be some incongruence between reality and these
theories.
For example, we discussed earlier that people can be cognitive misers
because they make use of „rule of thumb‟ to „thinly slice‟ information to
make quicker evaluations of what‟s in front of them.
While it is true that this situations, people choose to expend their
cognitive resources to come up with a critical appraisal of an event or
situation. What does this all mean? Does this mean that people are
thinking chaotically and that meaningfulness can only be derived
through this chaos? Not necessarily.
What we do know now is that people also evaluate their inferences and
attributions before they can wholeheartedly believe in these and that
there are also other factors that affect a person‟s approach to analysis.
93
People can also make use of a variety of different methods to come up
with a satisfactory analysis of a situation. Now, social scientists have
been able to identify four major factors that affect how a person chooses
his strategies when analyzing social situations:
1. Time availability
2. Cognitive load
3. Importance
4. Informational availability
Let‟s discuss the first factor, which is time availability. If a person is in a
rush and he has to make a quick judgment about something, which
strategy would be most likely? Well, it has been discovered that people
choose heuristics over other methods because this approach offers the
fastest route to a sound and accurate judgment.
I‟m not saying that every decision based on heuristics is a sound one,
but we have to admit that heuristics (anchor, representativeness and
availability) is a fairly easy way to get a good answer to our personal
queries.
94
If a person does not have enough time to think of something critically,
using heuristic methods is the best option because it produces an answer
that would at least be close to a critical answer. The soundness of an
attribution created with heuristics will not be questioned because a
person who is using heuristics would be making use of his long-standing
beliefs and subjective experiences to “thinly slice” a situation.
The next major factor in our list is cognitive load. Cognitive load refers to
the amount of cognitive resources needed to carry out a mental task.
Among all the theories we have discussed so far, heuristics offers the
lowest cognitive load among all the methods.
Inversely, a person who wishes to test his theories about the world at
large would have to expend a lot more mental energy to get satisfactory
answers because he would analyze variables from the target situation
itself, whereas in heuristics, you don‟t even have to analyze the situation
anymore.
95
You just note the event and try to match the event with an existing
experience in your memory. Also, if you have a high cognitive load to
begin with (i.e. you are thinking about your work all the time), you
simply won‟t have any time left to engage in more critical/analytical
thought patterns. The mind would shift gears and choose heuristics over
long attribution processes because you already have something in your
mind that you have to pay close attention to.
The third factor is importance. We all know that not all information is
important. In fact, I‟m willing to bet that 85% of all the information that
you receive on a daily basis is not crucial and does not require your
immediate attention.
This is one unfortunate truth that we have to contend with in our
modern time. With the further evolution of the Internet, things have
changed considerably. Thirty years ago, people were only barraged by
advertisements and other wads of „disposable information‟ when a person
choose to read a newspaper or any other printed medium.
96
With the Internet, information overload is highly likely. The human mind
is extremely efficient. It won‟t allow the information overload to get the
best of it. What it will do is it will simply raise its selectivity level so that
only the most crucial bits of information are processed thoroughly.
For example, if you receive an advertisement for a hair growth solution,
would you think about that more than a call that says that your house
was on fire? Of course not. The mind automatically (and urgently) pulls
to the surface memories and schemas so you make a quick and almost
reflexive decision to disregard the hair growth advertisement because
your house is on fire.
Also, people tend to be more critical if the information at hand is vital to
one‟s career, life, etc. You won‟t be making snap judgments if you
received information that your debt has tripled in the past three months.
You will immediately discard the heuristics in favor of the more critical
thinking process.
97
And finally, the fourth major factor is informational availability. When
someone tells you that a new burger joint down the block is serving the
best food because their hamburgers are extremely fat and juicy, is it
possible to critically analyze the situation? Sadly, no.
There is simply too little information at hand and you don‟t even have
subjective experience yet. So in some instances, it is impossible to be
critical immediately if informational availability is far too low.
In such instances, you will be forced to resort to heuristics to make a
decision. Will you go to the new burger joint? You can only make an
informed decision by pulling out similar experiences and memories and
thus, you would be using heuristics instead of critical attribution.
98
PART 4: SOCIAL CATEGORIZATON
Social Categorization
Social categorization, as the name implies, involves the classification of
things based on similarity and difference. At its very core, this is social
categorization. But I am not saying that social categorization stops here.
Otherwise, everyone would simply be making decisions based on
similarity and difference (and that is just plain strange). Social
categorization thrives of equivalence and differences because this allows
people to make sense of information as it arrives by the boatload every
single day.
Social categorization, like attribution, is an important activity that
directly affects a person‟s self-concept. Because as a person matures and
develops through the years, he amasses his own categorical schemas
that in turn shape his drives and desires.
For example, over time, a person would be able to classify a whole bunch
of activities as desirable. Inversely, this person would also have a schema
of activities that he would never do again because of perceived
99
disadvantages. Without social categorization, there would be no way to
create order in a very chaotic physical reality.
This activity gives a person control over the information that he receives
so he can classify or even discard information as he sees fit. Social
categorization also allows people to directly compare one object to
another object or to a whole group of objects. Relationships of varying
degrees can also be established with the help of social categorization.
For example, if Person A had a preference for Windows-based computers,
he would associate a cellular phone with a Windows-based platform with
the current Windows operating system.
This in turn would encourage a person to buy the cellular phone because
it has an intimate association with that person‟s favorite operating
system. Here‟s another example: if a person was in love with a brand of
fast food, what are the chances of this person buying a condiment (i.e.
barbecue sauce) that has the same fast-food brand?
100
Of course, chances are this person would be converted immediately to
the new barbecue sauce brand because it has a deep connection with the
person‟s favorite fast-food. However, we should remember that the rubric
of social categorization itself does not capture the entirety of human
perception.
Again, we will hit a brick wall if we choose to fit human perception in a
very solid framework. Human perception is very fluid; theories like social
categorization are not. The boundaries of theoretical frameworks need to
be rigid in order to be believed in by social scientists; human perception
is vacuous and is always in a state of flux.
Like mercury in room temperature, it‟s hard to pin down human
perception with just one finger. It will slip and slide effortlessly, eluding
your weary hand. Here‟s a good example: what is the first thing that
comes to mind when you think of the word “pet”? It is likely that you
answered either dog or cat.
101
Some of you may have answered parakeet or turtle. And still some
(though these are rare) would have answered baby octopus and sugar
gliders. If I ask you why you chose a particular animal when you read the
word “pet”, your response would probably be something along the lines
of: the animal is more pet-like than the other animals that I know.
There is nothing wrong with picking other animals; this just reflects the
fact that some people have different schemas for common categories. But
for the majority, the schemas that they are using to utilize social
categorization are actually filled with prototypes or stereotypes.
What are prototypes? Let‟s erase the negative connotation of the word
prototype or stereotype, because this is actually a very important concept
in the realm of human influence. Let me explain: categories are actually
groups of concepts that are associated with each other in varying degrees.
These categories emerge from popular culture and popular knowledge
and we actually learn these categories little by little, as we engage in
informal discussions with different people. And of course we cannot
ignore the impact of popular media like the Internet and television.
102
These outlets of mass culture also play a role in creating and propagating
categories and stereotypes. Now, let‟s go back to the earlier question that
I posed to you. Since social categories are simply interconnected bits of
information (i.e. objects, events, politics, etc.), eventually, there will be a
hierarchy in these sets of information.
Some members of these sets will be more visible and will be more
recognizable, too. The most recognizable members of social sets are
called the stereotypes. Stereotypes are representative members because
the information about these members are highly available to people.
As we have already discussed earlier, people tend to use the most
accessible pieces of information when they need to analyze a situation.
And thus, it is unavoidable for people to use stereotypes because these
are indeed highly accessible pieces of information. Of course, excessive
use of stereotypes can lead to gross errors.
For example, if you believe that only men can be great trial lawyers, you
may become slack jawed to see female trial lawyers on the forefront of
highly controversial criminal trials.
103
Exploring Stereotypes & Social Categories
At present, we have been able to discuss the importance of social
categorization and we have briefly touched upon why people can easily
recall prototypes or stereotypes of different social categories. According to
social scientists, people cannot help but learn about stereotypes because
these prototypes are in the very culture of every country.
Every country has its own set of simple and complex stereotypes and
gradually, these stereotypes are passed on to the next generation
through institutions like the press and the family. Social exposure is a
key factor when it comes to learning stereotypes.
A person would only be able to use a stereotype when processing
information if he has learned about the stereotype. If not, he will create
his own stereotypes based on subjective experience.
Social class also plays a role in the learning and propagation of
stereotypes. While there will be similarities in some broad social
categories, there will be differences in the stereotypes used by people
from low-income earning families and people who have been brought up
in the wealthiest parts of the city.
104
Social groups propagate stereotypes and different social groups will
propagate different stereotypes. And this is when it can get messy.
Because of the variations of stereotypes spread across an uneven
national population, a bias called the illusory correlation emerges.
Illusory correlation is actually a kind of belief that two or more factors or
variables are connected when in objective reality, the variables in
question have no real association or connection. What is the implication
of illusory correlations?
Well, according to some foundational studies, it appears that people were
more likely to assign negative attributes to minority groups. By minority
groups we refer to social groups or categories that are rarely visible and
therefore, are almost never in the consciousness of people.
Visibility of a social category is equivalent to immediate informational
availability and if a social category is not clearly visible unless there is a
cue, then people would more likely assign negative traits to the group if
they were given a chance to assign positive traits and negative traits to a
majority group (a social category that was highly recognizable) and a
minority group (a little known social category).
105
It is important to note that illusory correlations rarely produce accurate
representations or inferences.
For example, if you were invited to attend two book launches, you would
most likely attend the book launch of your favorite author and you will
just discard the other author‟s invitation and regard him as being „one of
the lesser authors of this century‟ even if the author has no real
connection to other authors in the past one hundred years.
In this situation, hard facts are rarely sought out by people. When a
person has already made an illusory correlation, there is no further
motivation to verify the illusory correlation. Illusory correlations usually
come about when a person uses representativeness heuristics to analyze
a situation.
Because highly available information is used, people will use prototypes
and whatever doesn‟t fit in with majority group will be relegated to a
minor group and will be assigned traits that seem to be incongruent with
the majority group.
106
Minority groups and majority groups are almost always binary opposites.
If one group of is good, the other has to be bad, one way or another.
107
The Motivation Behind Social Categorization
We now know that stereotypes emerge because these are the most readily
available pieces of information and to conserve cognitive resources, we
use these stereotypes or prototypes to process information with
heuristics. But the real question here is: why do we engage in social
categorization at all? Why don‟t people use other ways to make sense of
the world?
The answer is actually convenience. Social categorization is a process
that is intimately associated with heuristics. We use social categories
because we don‟t want to expend all our cognitive resources in analyzing
one or two situations.
From the perspective of self-conservation, this makes a lot of sense, too.
Who would want to spend hours thinking of something when a thin slice
of the situation can be used to create a valid inference? No one – because
everyone is preoccupied with more important issues and activities and
there has to be prioritization.
108
Conservation of cognitive resources is just one good reason to stick to
social categories. The second reason is that when a person has a mastery
of many social categories, he is able to organize and process information
more succinctly and more efficiently than folks who do not make use of
social categories more frequently.
Social categories allow us to assign internal traits to specific classes of
objects, events, people, behavior, etc.
Though the use of stereotypes can sometimes be misleading, it still
remains that we are rational individuals who can refine our own
perspective of the world. We can always choose to ignore stereotypes if
we want to; however, this does not mean that everyone else is interested
in discarding stereotypes.
Social categories are so convenient to use that we actually engage in
categorization even if we consciously don‟t want to use categories. For
example, if we meet a foreign student from a faraway country, we try to
suspend our social categories because we know full well that these may
not apply to the foreign student.
109
However, because we have to acknowledge the social categories first
before we can suspend them from conscious thought, we cannot avoid
using these categories even for a few seconds.
Social scientists have been able to identify three unique triggers that
actually encourage a person to use social categories unconsciously:
- Temporal primacy (social categories are triggered when we see
recognizable features in the situation)
- Perceptual salience (when there is something unique in the event or
situation)
- Chronic accessibility (when features or traits are too common to
ignore; for example, race or sex)
The ease at which inferences can be created with the help of social
categorization also means that people have a tendency to refer to social
categories whenever appropriate situations present themselves (i.e. when
a new person is introduced).
110
Since we refer to social categories often, we also have a tendency to
utilize stereotypical information even when we are simply evaluating an
event or a person. There is a tendency for a person to develop selective
memory, too.
For example, if we met someone new and someone told you that this
person was a truck driver; specific traits of this person would be more
accessible than others. For example, if the person was talking on his
cellphone and smoking at the same time, the most striking trait (and
therefore, the most information ally accessible one) would be the smoking
trait since there is a stereotypical association between smoking and
truck drivers (the same way that thick rimmed glasses are associated
with academically inspired individual).
As you can see, social categorization actually affects a person‟s ability to
focus on certain things. If we learned that a person belong to Social
Category A, we would no longer pay attention to traits that belong to
Social Categories B, C & D.
111
So in essence, when a person makes use of social categories, he is
actually making use of different „lenses‟ that modify his perspective of
things. Social categories also have a profound effect on people‟s
impression and assimilation of information as well as their behavior.
Simply put: if a social category is used on a person long enough and if
there is no resistance from the other person, then the social category
would be eventually used as a basis for a new self-schema.
So if a student was always tagged as a “slow learner” and there were
always zero expectations about the student, then eventually, the student
would find no reason to improve himself and he will adapt the traits of
the social category that was being used to classify him.
Inversely, a person who has always been regarded as a successful worker
would find ways to live up to people‟s expectations as this would also
have a positive impact on his self-concept.
There is also neurological proof that social categories/social impressions
and actual actions have a big connection – according to research, one
region of the premotor cortex is activated when a person is regarding
something (i.e. evaluating something) and when he is finally doing what
112
he was simply observing before. Behavioral assimilation, which can result
from a person‟s exposure to social categories and prototypes, can have
an adverse effect on a person‟s academic performance, too.
Negative stereotyping can lead to underperformance as evidence by many
studies that proved that when a person conforms to social categories that
relate to sex, race, etc., they would unconsciously underperform to
conform to the stereotype.
For example, it has been discovered in one study that women tend to
underperform in Mathematics exams because the general stereotype is
that women are better at language than men, but men are better at
mathematics than women.
113
From Categorization to Individuation
Social categorizaton invokes groups and general classes of traits, which
explains why people are able to use social categories very easily because
they can move from one social category to another as they try to match
what they see in front of them with their own collection of social
categories.
However, we note that the process of impression formation is not limited
to social categorization. One theory of social impressions argues that a
person can choose either social categorzation or individuation to when
making impressions about people and situations.
A person can also start off with social categorization (general/category-
based) and later move on attribution (individuated). It is also possible for
a person to use an approach that combines heuristics and systematic
individuated analysis. To illustrate the peculiarity of the dual process
theory, refer to the graphic below:
114
The graphic that you have just seen represents a timeline of cognitive
processing that illustrates the progressive movement from broad social
categorization (i.e. stereotyping) to individuation.
If a person thinks of another person‟s personal traits, he leaves the ambit
of pure social categories and he begins to seek peculiar internal traits.
Why do people shift their own cognitive processes? It all boils down to a
person‟s satisfaction with the inferences they have created.
115
If a social category does not provide a satisfactory explanation of
something, he will shift his mindset to accommodate a more cognitively-
taxing process (i.e. attribution). According to social scientists, the use of
more individuated approaches to creating impressions of people usually
produce fairer and more accurate social representations compared to
impressions created with purely social categories and prototypes.
116
PART 5: HUMAN ATTITUDES
Attitudes
When a person behaves or reacts in a negative way to an event, we say
that the person has a „bad attitude‟ or „negative attitude‟ to that event.
The concept of attitude has been in common usage for so long but few
people actually know what goes into the creation of a person‟s attitude.
If you want to understand how attitudes are born and how these evolve
over time, we have to go to into an in-depth exploration of social
attitudes and how attitudes related to individuals and to society itself.
But first off, what is attitude?
Social psychology defines attitude as a collection of beliefs that a person
associates with a specific object.
By object, we mean anything and everything that a person can focus on,
including other people, events, himself or even the behavior of other
people. Each person has a distinct attitude when it comes to specific
117
stimuli and events. Attitudes, like other personal structures of belief, are
held dearly by individuals.
How Attitudes Are Formed
Social psychology has identified four key avenues of attitude formation in
people. These avenues are:
- Mere exposure
- Associative learning
- Self-perception
- Functional reasons
118
The Key Avenues of Attitude Formation
Each key avenue is distinct because the formational coordinates are also
distinct/different from each other. In mere exposure, it is believed that in
order for a person to develop a more positive attitude toward a particular
object (remember, an „object‟ can be anything that a person can focus
on), that person must be exposed continually to the said object.
So if you can increase the exposure of another person to an object (i.e. a
product, service or business offer), the more positive that person‟s
attitude will be toward that particular object. This is illustrated in a
study made some years ago; test subjects were exposed to characters
that resembled Chinese characters.
The test subjects were told later on that the characters were actually
adjectives. The subjects were then asked if they can guess which
characters represented positive traits.
The study showed that the longer a person was exposed to a character,
the more he associated the said character to a positive trait. A linear (or
consistent upward) trend was noted in the study – which proves that
repetition and continual exposure does have an impact in the way people
119
viewed the world. This key avenue shows that people can assimilate new
objects if they are exposed to the said objects long enough. So remember:
the longer a person sees something, more likely he will like the said
object after a time.
Another interesting study worth noting here is a joint study by Mita,
Dermer and Knight. These three researchers showed test subjects two
photographic prints. One print was a regular photograph of themselves
while the other photograph showed mirror images of themselves.
So one image would be a regular photo while the other one represented
what people saw when they looked into a mirror. After exposing the test
subjects to the different prints, they were asked to choose which print
they liked best.
A majority of the test respondents states that they like the mirror prints
best. There was no other explanation for this trend other than the mirror
prints represented what the test subjects saw more frequently in their
daily life.
120
Though the images were almost indistinguishable from each other, the
test subjects were still able to correctly identify which prints contained
the mirror images.
Implicit Conditioning & Operant Conditioning
The second key avenue is associative learning. Human learning, at its
very core, is really a process of association. Though this is not the only
step in the process, association forms the bedrock for critical thinking
and creates even more space for learning.
121
Due to the fertile groundwork that association produces, social
psychologists have turned their attention to the role of associate learning
in the formation of attitudes. Researchers believe that an attitude toward
an object can be established either through classical/implicit
conditioning or explicit/operant conditioning.
Classical conditioning refers to the process of associating emotionally-
neutral stimuli with stimuli that would most likely invoke an emotional
response in people. For example, the word “American” does not really
invoke any emotional response from people.
However, if we associate the word “hardworking” with the first concept
(i.e. “the hardworking American”), an emotional response would be
invoked.
Researchers have discovered that to some extent, classical/implicit
conditioning may influence a person to form a negative or positive
attitude toward an object to a certain, limited degree. However, it should
be noted that people do not always operate within the bounds of implicit
conditioning.
122
A person can still reject notions about a particular object if he wants to.
If implicit conditioning does not have a large impact on people (especially
people who are knowledgeable about a particular object), why does it still
matter in our own exploration of attitude formation?
The answer lies in the role of implicit conditioning when a person does
not have a significant amount of knowledge about a particular object.
When a person does not know much about an object (i.e. other racial
groups) and someone comes along and tells that person about a negative
„fact‟ about that object, it is possible that the first person will become
implicitly conditioned by the negative information being given by the
second person.
Though there is really no familiarity about the object in question, a
person will begin creating conditioned associations based on whatever
available information there is about the object.
Unless there is a significant need to delve beyond the available
information (i.e. negative attributions about the object), a person with
little or no existing knowledge about the object will continue to use the
available information, which may explain why some folks with prejudiced
123
views about an issue or social group will continue being prejudiced
unless an active agent comes along to change their mind again.
The second type of conditioning that falls under the associative learning
is operant conditioning. Operant conditioning utilizes rewards and
punishment to strengthen or weaken a particular behavior in a person.
In contrast with implicit conditioning, explicit conditioning is active
conditioning because the agent of change must do something to
encourage the adaptation of a belief. In implicit conditioning, the agent of
change does not have to do something.
For example, if you heard that your favorite football team was not going
to do well in the coming season, you may be implicitly adapting this
belief about your favorite team.
The sources of the information (i.e. sports analysts on television) do not
have to do anything else other than give the information once through
the television show. In operant conditioning or explicit conditioning, a
person must receive additional input from agents so that there would be
a reinforcement of beliefs.
124
During operant conditioning, things like praise are likely to boost a
person‟s confidence about himself in relation to a specific situation or
object (i.e. learning a new hobby). Things like ridicule on the other hand,
reduce a person‟s confidence and also discourage a person from
pursuing the activity again.
The Power of Self-Perception
The second key avenue we discussed is reliant on other people. That is,
there has to be an agent involved before any attitude formation can take
place. The theory of self-perception on the other hand, totally changes
the landscape of attitude formation.
Instead of championing operant conditioning and implicit conditioning,
the theory of self-perception champions the ability of people to form their
own attitudes based on the observation of their own behaviors. When
people examine their own opinions about specific objects (such as
issues), attributions are made as to why such opinions exist.
As we have discussed earlier in the book, there are two kinds of
attributions – internal attributions and external attributions. People are
more likely to make internal attributions about their behaviors if the
125
behaviors are performed freely, without coercion or interference from
other people. Inferences are likely to be created when people do not have
readily available information about a particular object.
The Functional Theory
Utilitarian function
• Knowledge function
Ego-defensive function
• Value-expressive function
So far we have explored three key avenues of attitude formation: mere
exposure, the power of self-perception and associative learning. What did
you notice about these three avenues or theories?
That‟s right – these avenues of attitude formation are mostly unconscious
avenues. People don‟t have to think hard in order to adapt a new attitude
about an object through the first three avenues.
126
Most of the cognitive processes needed in the first three avenues don‟t
need a person‟s critical faculties. This commonality between the three
prior theories is a point of contention among social psychologists.
As you can imagine, it is hard to accept that something as important as
attitude formation is just the result of unconscious thought processes –
and so another theory was created. This time, social scientists turned
their attention to attitude formation that results from introspection,
critical thinking and other conscious thought processes.
Do you remember our earlier discussion about people being cognitive
misers and „naïve scientists‟? Well, this theory makes use of the „naïve
scientist‟ approach to analyzing how attitudes are formed.
The first three theories all espoused the basic principle of the cognitive
miser: people generally have limited cognitive resources, which is the
reason why we use „thin slices‟ to understand the world around us.
The „naïve scientist‟ approach to attributions and attitude formation is
the direct opposite. According to the basic principle of the naïve scientist
approach, people like thinking about events and situations. According to
the theory of the naïve scientist, humans have an intrinsic drive to
127
analyze situations and test out their theories about the world around
them.
Of course, this requires a lot of cognitive resources which is why many
social scientists believe that if people can be naïve scientists, people
cannot be naïve scientists all the time because being in this state all the
time will most likely deplete a person‟s limited cognitive resources.
The functional theory of attitude formation presents an angle that is very
different from the key avenues that we have discussed earlier. This
theory showcases four different possible functions for attitude formation,
which is to say that people form attitudes for a particular function or use,
not just because they can. These four potential functions are:
- Utilitarian function
- Knowledge function
- Ego defensive function
- Value-expressive function
128
Let‟s talk about the utilitarian function. Let‟s face it – we live in a tough
world. We have to look out after ourselves, because in the end, we are
the most dependable people around. This may be the core of the
utilitarian function of attitude formation.
We develop an attitude toward an object because the resulting
relationship with that object (which also results from the attitude that we
espouse) will help make our lives more satisfactory and happy. Here are
some examples of how the utilitarian function can be used by people:
1. Person A chooses to like his degree in the University because he‟s
done worse in other degrees and he is not about to let go of the
opportunity to graduate from college.
2. Person B chooses to keep his private life private so his colleagues
at work will not talk about his family problems.
3. Person C chooses to have a positive attitude when it comes to his
parents because they have been completely supportive and
dependable since his childhood.
129
4. Person D chooses to avoid saying certain things in public (in the
presence of other people) even if he feels strongly that he wants to
say those things because he doesn‟t want to be challenged or
ridiculed by other people.
Next is in line is the knowledge function. The knowledge function is really
quite practical. This function states that people have different attitudes
toward objects of interest because people are interested in creating
meaning in their lives.
Simply put: people want to make sense of the world that they live in.
People are almost always uneasy when they do not understand
something; developing an appropriate attitude toward a specific object
gives a person some degree of control over the reality that they are trying
to understand. A good example would be how people use stereotypes to
form attitudes toward sub-groups in society.
If subgroup A has been stereotyped as being rowdy and almost always
involved in crime, people would most likely have a negative attitude
toward subgroup A, even if people have not really interacted with
subgroup A at all.
130
The attitude of avoidance, which results from the stereotyping, gives
people a measure of control over their reality (i.e. if subgroup A is really a
threat to people, people would be able to avoid contact with them).
The third function is the ego-defensive function. The ego-defensive
function acknowledges that people have different psychological needs
and these needs have to be satisfied to keep people happy (or at least, as
far away as possible from emotional instability, depression and chronic
anxiety).
The ego-defensive function acts as a barrier against self-truths that can
threaten a person‟s ego. For example, Person A may not acknowledge the
fact that Person B (who was hired around the same time that Person A
was hired) was promoted to a much higher position within a few months
in Person A‟s company.
Person A will choose to have this peculiar attitude toward the promotion
of Person B because the promotion represents failure once upward social
comparison takes place.
131
The fourth and final function is the value-expressive function. With the
value-expressive function, a person chooses to develop personal attitudes
that reflect his/her personal values in life.
The value-expression function can express both personal beliefs and
general beliefs (that may reflect societal values and mores). Here are
some examples:
1. Person A does not buy software from stores because he prefers
open source software (which is free). He does this because he
believes that technology is democratizing and should be available
to everyone.
2. Person B does not socialize as much than his friends. He does this
because he feels that people are only out to influence you when
you socialize.
3. Person C only buys organic food because he believes that organic
foods are not only good for the health but are also good for the
environment because these agricultural products have not been
produced with the help of harmful chemicals.
132
Why Attitudes Matter
Why are we even spending time talking about people‟s attitudes? Why are
we focusing on this particular facet of the human personality? Well, the
answer is simple: if you want to understand how a person thinks and
acts in a particular way, you have to be familiar with the deeper
processes involved in the formation of attitudes.
Attitudes are the foundation of self-schemas, the source of our personal
conceptualization of the self. Without attitude, people would have no way
of creating fixed coordinates in their lives when they are analyzing their
relationship with people, social groups and society itself.
If you want to predict the behavior of a person and plan ahead, you need
to understand the motivation behind attitude formation. If you are aware
of the motivations behind people‟s behaviors, you would be able to
carefully analyze the various tendencies of people as they interact with
other people.
133
Exploring the Attitude-Behavior Connection
Does attitude truly direct and predict human behavior? If an attitude is a
significant component of a person‟s self-schema, then why is it that
sometimes, it is an inconsistent predictor of behavior?
This part of the book explores the various determinants between a
persons‟ attitudes and his actual behavior (speech, actions, decision-
making, etc.) when he actually needs to interact with a particular object.
Specificity
The specificity determinant states that if an attitude were to predict a
particular behavior, then the two have to be on the exact same level. This
equivalence between the two components will ensure a higher possibility
of someone actually behaving in accordance with his known attitude
toward an object.
For example, if Person A is known to have a preference for Brand Y black
coffee, this does not mean that he will buy Brand XYZ or Brand ABC.
There is a common factor between the objects (the objects are all ground,
black coffee) but it remains that the two other brands are not Brand Y
134
black coffee and therefore, the person is not likely to buy Brand XYZ or
Brand ABC because the specificity of the present condition is different.
But if the conditions were completely identical, we can expect a more
positive outcome. For example, if Person B was offering Person A a
discounted box of Brand Y black coffee, Person A‟s current attitude can
be a predictor of his possible behavior toward the current offer.
Self-Awareness
Remember our earlier discussion of self-awareness? People can either be
privately self-aware or publicly self-aware. Let‟s do a quick review of
these two concepts. When a person is privately self-aware, he is more
likely to judge himself based on his personal standards of conduct and
behavior.
135
Inversely, when a person is publicly self-aware, he will be more
concerned with society’s take on what is acceptable/desirable or
unacceptable/undesirable. What does this have to do with attitudes,
anyway?
Well, if you think about it, a person who is privately self-aware will be
more likely to follow his own attitude toward an object. For example, if
Person B is privately self-aware at the moment and he notices that
Person D was around (a person that he disliked because of the way
Person D talks to other people) then he would probably show signs of
disinterest and complete avoidance.
However, if Person A, D and E were also in the situation and someone
greeted Person D from the distance, Person B would not show his
attitude because others would frown upon such an attitude. “Wearing
one‟s heart on the sleeve” is not an acceptable attitude (at least,
according to society‟s own take on personal relations between people,
because civility is always preferred to hostility or non-tolerance).
The presence of an audience will most likely affect a person‟s behavior –
there can either be suspension or activation of a particular attitude
depending on the kind of attitude that a person has toward an object.
136
If the attitude is generally socially acceptable, then a person would have
no reason to suspend his attitude. Inversely, if his attitude toward
something is not socially acceptable, then he would choose to suspend
the attitude at the moment so that he would be able to exhibit a more
acceptable behavior to the audience (i.e. friends, family, co-workers, etc.)
Attitude Accessibility
Self-awareness also a plays a role in making an attitude (and
consequently, a behavior) more accessible to a person as he interacts
with different objects in society.
A good example of this intimate association between self-awareness and
attitude accessibility is the way social categorization trains a person to
think and react in a particular manner when it comes to common
stereotypes. If a person learns of a negative stereotype that is associated
with a subgroup, then he is actually being implicitly primed to have a
specific attitude toward that subgroup.
137
This attitude will result in a corresponding behavior that will be exhibited
when the conditions are right. If we expand this a bit, you can imagine
how large groups of people react to a single message.
If a message that was communicated to a large audience does not trigger
a common positive response in people, then it will not become an
effective message because people will draw upon the most readily
available attitude toward that message.
If you communicate a message that requires a lot of critical thinking then
it is possible that you will only effectively communicate with a limited
segment of your target group. Inversely, if your message contains all the
components needed to draw a common, positive response, then you are
set to communicate everything persuasively.
138
Attitude Strength
Strong Weak
attitudes attitudes
Behavior is not dictated by availability (or heuristics) alone. Attitude
strength is another factor that should be considered if you want to
predict the attitude, and consequently, the behavior of another person.
Here‟s a good example: we all know that the environment should be
cared for.
Ask any second grader what should be done to protect the environment
and you will get a pretty clear answer. Ask an adult how the environment
can be saved and you will get a longer and perhaps more controversial
answer since the adult has access to materials from local and
international pro-environment movements.
139
But is the availability of all this information sufficient to predict that
everyone who has been taught (either implicitly or explicitly) how to care
for the environment will actually practice what they know on a regular
basis? Not likely – because people evaluate their attitudes based on their
conviction to hold on to specific attitudes.
If a person has a strong conviction about something, he will have a
strong attitude toward the object and it won‟t matter if the attitude is
very accessible or not. If there is conviction, the person will dig deep into
his cognitive reserves to bring this strong attitude to the fore.
There may be more readily available attitudes, but it won‟t matter if the
person has this one strong attitude – he will choose to follow this attitude
than other readily available attitudes from the surface of his
consciousness. Note that attitude strength and attitude accessibility are
independent predictors and have unique implications for a person.
140
Attitude, Intention & Behavior
We know now that attitudes and behaviors have a very complex
relationship indeed – and that attitude alone is not enough to predict the
actual behavior of another person. There is a need to always expand our
thinking when it comes to predicting the attitude or behavior of another
person (or a group of people).
One such theory that sheds light on attitude change and behavioral
prediction is the theory of planned behavior. According to the theory of
planned behavior, evaluating potential intentions is the best way to
understand future behavior. Intention is determined by the complex
interaction of attitudes, subjective norms and behavioral controls.
141
Intention on the other hand, gives rise to the actual behavior. So in
essence, you have a three-step process for determining the future
behavior of a person:
Step # 1: Determine the person‟s current attitude toward the object, the
subjective norms that the person believes in and the behavioral control
that the person perceives from his own point of view. Behavioral control
refers to the difficulty that a person perceives as he analyzes an activity.
142
Step # 2: Determine the intention
Step # 3: Test your theory by comparing the actual behavior with the
behavior that you have been able to map out.
In this regard, a person who wishes to predict the behavior of another
person must be aware of the various tendencies and attitudes of the
other person. In addition, the person must also know where the other
person is coming from.
For example, if you are trying to persuade someone to try your pork dish
and you were not aware that the other person comes from a country that
does not eat pork due to religious reasons, would you be able to handle
the situation adequately, without offending the other person? Would you
be able to handle the refusal properly, without showing signs of distress
or any other negative reaction?
We should always remember that norms, intentions and behavioral
controls interact in a complex manner. This means that you can‟t just
„add up‟ the intentions, norms and behavioral controls and expect a solid
behavioral prediction. Also, you have to remember that each component
of the model is not enough to determine a future behavior.
143
Each component has to be taken into account before the behavioral
intention is determined. Once this is determined, there is a larger
percentage of being able to predict a behavior but a person can still
choose to avoid a behavior if the intention is already present, because
people have free will and we exercise this free will over ourselves and our
decisions every single day.
Difficult
Easy
144
Now among the three components that make up a person‟s behavioral
intention, one component stands out as a powerful predictor in terms of
whether or not a person would actually go ahead and perform something
– and this behavioral component is the perceived behavioral control. You
see, this component precedes behavioral intention but it also has a direct
impact on a person‟s perception of behavioral possibility.
For example, a person who has been drinking alcohol for thirty years will
evaluate first if the act of alcohol cessation would be easy or not. If he
thinks that it is impossible and there is no way that he would survive
such a drastic move, then that perception alone of the end-behavior can
reduce the possibility of ever carrying out the behavior (i.e. stopping the
alcohol habit).
145
Understanding Attitude Changes
The theory of planned behavior is extremely useful in predicting rational
behavior – but it is almost helpless when it comes to sudden attitude
changes. What happens when a person starts exhibiting behavior that
defies the logic of the theory of planned behavior?
Well, we have to think out of the box yet again – and we have to use
other tools to understand why spontaneous changes in behavior are
taking place. We also have to take into account that there are many
human behaviors that take place without conscious thinking.
For example, a person who sees a suspicious individual in his
neighborhood would „automatically‟ lock his doors and windows and if
the suspicious individual shows a negative intention, he might call 911
just in case something happens.
146
All of this is done almost without conscious thinking –and again, the
person is being a cognitive miser instead of being a naïve scientist. In
this type of situation, he is not expending his cognitive resources to come
up with an appropriate response/behavior to the situation.
Attitude Change & Cognitive Dissonance
Now let us turn our attention to the phenomenon of attitude change.
What drives a person to change his attitude and potentially, his intention
to follow through with a specific behavior? One theory called the
cognitive dissonance theory argues that when a person does something
that is not in line with his existing attitude toward the object in question,
a negative experience results.
Now this negative experience is quite relevant because negative
experiences bring a concatenation of negative emotions. As human beings
we have a natural aversion to negative emotions because naturally, we
want to feel whole, happy and positive all the time.
147
Positive feelings lead to positive actions, which in turn satisfy our
psychological, social and physical needs. Negative feelings on the other
hand usually lead to inaction or negative actions, which directly
contradict our various individual needs.
Here‟s a good example of how cognitive dissonance can work in a
person‟s life. Let‟s say that Person W has been a vegetarian for a few
years now. Now because of a special event, this person was forced to eat
chicken meat in the presence of many other friends who were not
vegetarians at all.
The vegetarian eats the food, but later on, he feels guilty and unhappy
because he went against his own beliefs regarding the consumption of
meat. Here‟s another example: let‟s say that Person X is an avowed
supporter of Person C, a candidate for mayor. Person C is actually
Person X‟s good friend for over twenty years.
However, Person X decides to vote for Person Y because Person Y had a
better plan for the city. Though Person X‟s friend was not aware of who
Person X actually voted for, Person X felt terrible because Person C was a
very good friend in the past and has been very helpful on many
occasions.
148
It is normal for human beings to sometimes engage in behavior that is
not completely in line or congruent to our attitudes. This happens for a
variety of reasons. As we have discussed before, people have to take into
consideration the things that they discover or learn as they become
either privately self-aware or publicly self-aware.
There are always expectations, norms, mores and standards that we
have to think about because in the end, humans are social beings that
want to be part of a winning social group. Unless a conscious choice is
made to exclude oneself from any social group, we can safely assume
that people behave in accordance to the standards of the group that they
belong to.
149
So if you want predict the behavior and attitudes of a person, being fully
aware of his social group would help immensely in the process of
analyzing what you have to do to communicate with the other person
effectively. What do we do when our behavior does not satisfy our present
attitudes?
Do we just ignore the negative experience associated with dissonant
behaviors? Or do we do something about it? According to the theory of
cognitive dissonance, people care deeply when their actions do not reflect
their attitudes. Now we know for a fact that attitude strength is a strong
determinant when it comes to the actual implementation or execution of
a behavior.
We can infer from this other theory that negative experiences associated
with dissonant behavior also has varying degrees. If you have a weak
conviction about a certain attitude, then you won‟t care as much when
your behavior does not really reflect the attitude.
But when you do something that completely ignores an attitude that you
hold with strong conviction, then you can be sure that you will feel quite
awful afterward.
150
Naturally, if a person feels negatively about a behavior because of the
discrepancy between the behavior and the actual attitude, then that
person will mostly likely be motivated to remedy the discrepancy or
difference. This can be done in two ways:
Through rationalization or explaining to themselves why it was necessary
to act that way in that specific situation.
Changing the behavior partially or completely so that it will now be
congruent with the existing attitude toward the target object.
151
When Does Dissonance Occur?
Justification
Freedom of
choice
Investment
The first pre-requisite of cognitive dissonance is that a person must feel
very strongly about the discrepancy between the attitude and the
behavior.
This experience is rooted in attitude strength. If the person does not feel
strongly at all about a particular attitude, then it is possible that no
negative emotional experience will occur even if there is a marked
152
discrepancy between the behavior or action and the subjective attitude
that the person has.
There are other factors that should be taken into consideration when you
are trying to figure if a person will experience cognitive dissonance when
he performs a particular action. These three factors are:
 Justification
 Choice
 Investment
With justification, a person tries to rationalize why he/she performed the
behavior in the first place. If the person cannot find a single good reason
why he actually went against his own attitude in the first place, then
dissonance would most likely occur.
If they can explain why they had to go against their own attitude, then
the behavior will be relegated to the box of the past and the behavior will
no longer be a cause of any emotional upheaval. The second factor that
may predict whether or not a person would experience cognitive
dissonance is choice.
153
If a person was forced to do something against his attitudes or principles,
then this is sufficient justification for the actual behavior. The impetus to
do something is external to the person and therefore, it does not really
spring forth from any self-schema. If this is the case, then no cognitive
dissonance will occur.
However, if the person had a choice to do or not do something and he still
chose to go against his present attitude, then of course, dissonance will
result because he had a choice. The third factor is investment.
Investment is a person‟s level of involvement with a particular attitude.
For example, if a person was completely enamored with one brand of
clothing (he has been buying from the same brand for fifteen years) and
he chose to buy a similar product from another brand, then dissonance
may occur. If the attachment or investment in the attitude is smaller,
then the lower the chance of developing cognitive dissonance.
154
PART 6: PERSUASION
The Ivory Throne: Human Persuasion
Persuasion can be considered as one of the great ivory thrones of
influence because with persuasion, you can convince a person to change
his mind and adapt your view.
Persuasion generally comes from without than from within.
Understanding how persuasion works is like finding the key to the
human mind. To understand what goes on in the human mind when you
are trying to persuade someone is like discovering the roadmap to
mastering persuasion.
155
There are many theories regarding persuasion but at the very root of
these theories is the fact that people generally have two ways of
processing information from the outside world: the central route and the
peripheral route.
With the central route, a person who is receiving the stimulus or
information will act like a naïve scientist. He will carefully think about
the input and he will make a decision based on his theories.
With the peripheral route, the person receiving the information or
stimulus will not pursue the critical path. Instead, he will choose to take
a thin slice of the stimulus so he can compare it with whatever readily
available information he has in his memory. In this regard, a person
becomes a cognitive miser yet again.
What‟s the difference between the naïve scientist and the cognitive miser
when it comes to persuasion? There is a big difference!
156
The naïve scientist will pay close attention not only to the message itself
but also to the way it was delivered, etc. The naïve scientist is also
interested in the why and how of the message.
The cognitive miser on the other hand, will do the direct opposite.
Instead of paying close attention to the actual message, cognitive misers
will be more interested in receiving small cues that will tell them whether
or not the message is worth considering or not.
Figuring Out Which Route a Person Will Take
We now know that there are two possible routes when it comes
processing persuasive information – the peripheral route and the central
route.
Earlier in our exploration of heuristics, we discovered that there are
common factors that affect a person‟s decision to become a cognitive
miser instead of being naïve scientist.
While these factors (like lack of time) can be used to determine whether a
person will use heuristics or critical analysis, there are other factors that
come into play. These factors are:
157
- Speech rate
- Mood
- Involvement
- Individual difference
- Humor
Speech rate has a major effect on how a person processes persuasive
information. You know why?
Because if a person cannot follow what you are saying, he will not become
a naïve scientist and in the process, he will choose to ignore most of the
content of your message in favor of cues that will allow him to analyze
only „thin slices‟ of the whole message.
Usually, a person who is unable to follow a speedy persuasive message
will only take note of the number of arguments present and make a
decision based on this number.
158
Happy Persuasive Peripheral

person message route
Unhappy Persuasive Central

person message route
159
Mood, surprisingly, also has a determining role in persuasion. Let us zero
in on two important moods – the happy mood and the unhappy mood.
When you‟re happy, you feel light, carefree and you feel like you are on
top of the world. You will feel like there is nothing in this world (or the
Universe) that can bring you down because you are so happy at the
moment.
Now take this mindset and imagine yourself in a situation where another
person is trying to persuade you to do something.
Will you stop and analyze what the other person is saying to you? Or will
you just barely follow what the other person is saying and just say yes?
The answer of course, is usually the latter.
Happy people tend to choose the peripheral route in processing
persuasive messages. Inversely, unhappy people are more critical. By
„unhappy‟ we refer to individuals who feel sad, depressed, worried,
scared, angry, anxious, etc. A person who is presently experiencing any
negative emotion should be considered an unhappy person.
160
I am placing emphasis on this important distinction because unhappy
people tend to become critical of persuasive messages because deep
down, they are aware that something is not right with their lives.
Deep down, unhappy people are on the alert because something is not
balanced and this incongruence between their reality and their needs
and expectations will awaken the naïve scientist in unhappy people.
I am not saying that you need to make your audience unhappy before
you can convince them to do something.
What I am saying here is that if you find yourself in the presence of a
happy person, there is a bigger chance of being able to persuade that
person because he will most likely take the peripheral route.
That means all you have to worry about at that point in time would be to
relay your message well and provide sound arguments so the other
person will agree more quickly (since he is a cognitive miser at the
moment and he is using heuristics instead of critical processing).
161
Now when you are looking at the involvement factor you are actually
looking at the impact of the persuasive message to the other person‟s
self-concept. To illustrate this point, evaluate the two statements below:
Statement # 1: I have something that might improve your business in two
to three years.
Statement # 2: Do you want to retire a millionaire? How about mansion
in Beverly Hills? An island getaway all to yourself and that special
someone? I have the key – and I can give it to you right now if you want it.
After reading the two statements, which statement do you think has a
more palpable impact to another person‟s self-concept?
Let‟s analyze the two statements. The first statement has a forward-
thinking angle that emphasizes that a business will become stable with
whatever is being offered in a few years.
The second statement opens with a question (this creates instant interest
in the audience because it relates directly to one of basic needs, which is
financial stability and of course, the survival needs) and also offers
tantalizing potential realities to the audience.
162
After presenting all of the goodies, the statement ends with an open-
ended sentence that creates a two-fold impression on the other person.
The other person has two choices. His first choice is he can take the „key‟
and live the millionaire‟s lifestyle, as promised by the statement. The
second choice is he can choose not to take the key and he will gain
nothing.
Notice that all of the components of the second statement focus on
genuine needs and desires of people.
With a touch of extravagance, a persuasive fantasy is created and the
audience is presented with a tantalizing opportunity to rise above the
rest in terms of financial security. And yet, we should remember, the
statement isn‟t even real to begin with.
What‟s real to the audience is the fantasy and emotions that it invokes
instantly – and so the audience will automatically focus on the second
statement more than the first statement because there is much more at
stake in the second statement than the first statement.
Now let us talk about the fourth factor, which are individual differences.
This factor is fairly straightforward: people are different, right?
163
Some people prefer taking the central route (critical thinking) while some
people are more likely to stick with the „default‟ route, which is the
peripheral (auto-pilot) route.
So in essence, some people are naïve scientists most of the time while
some feel that they are better off being cognitive misers because they can
save their cognitive resources for more important times. Naïve scientists
have a higher need for cognition while cognitive misers have a lower
cognition requirement to get through their days.
Cognitive need
of cognitive
misers
Cognitive need
of naive
scientists
It is also worthwhile to note that people who self-monitor more frequently
are more likely to take the critical route in processing persuasive
messages.
164
Self-monitoring is simply the degree at which a person is concerned with
what other people are think about himself. If you are the kind who
doesn‟t really care about what other people think, then you are most
likely a cognitive miser most of the time.
And finally, we have the humor factor. The Merriam-Webster dictionary
defines “humor” as: something that is or is designed to be comical or
amusing. Let‟s face it – we like dropping jokes every now and then.
Laughing makes people feel good and we know for a fact that humor can
be a powerful tool when you are trying to communicate to critical
individuals. So be careful when you are trying to influence people with
your words because the wrong kind of humor can elicit the wrong type of
response from people.
If you want your audience to have critical response to your message (i.e.
you want them to really think about the benefits that you are offering to
them) you have to craft related humorous items so a more critical
response is triggered.
165
If you simply want to put your audience at ease, then you are better off
with non-related humor. That is, you need to drop jokes and humorous
anecdotes that do not relate to the topic/s that you are presently
tackling. Non-related humor does not trigger the usage of the central
route.
Exploring the Peripheral Route
To people like marketers and advertisers, there is a hidden wish for
people to just stick to their “gut feel” (or peripheral route). The reason for
this is quite simple. With the peripheral route, a person is more likely to
respond to cues or signals.
These signals can be given out or expressed in such a manner that the
other person will be led to believe in something or the other person can
be convinced to do something after the persuasive message has been
conveyed.
One of the most powerful peripheral cues that you can use is similarity.
Similarity to your audience can be expressed in many, many ways. I‟ll
leave you to figure out how to create the similarities, but I‟m going to give
you some major clues:
166
- Appearance
- Values
- Attitudes
- Social group
- Social categories
If you can utilize some or all of these forms of similarity, you can be sure
that your persuasive message would have a much larger impact on
people because you are showing them that you are not only persuasive
but you share direct similarities with them.
By expressing similarities to your audience, you are giving them a direct
message that you are not foreign/alien and therefore, you should be
trusted because you share a commonality with each and every one of
them.
Though this approach may sound old (and I‟m not going to hide the fact
that it is one of foundational principles in disciplines like marketing) it
does work and it will continue to work because you are tapping into the
primordial region of someone‟s mind when you use a peripheral cue like
167
similarity. People are hardwired to accept similarity as a sign that the
other person can be trusted.
The second peripheral cue that you should pay attention is
attractiveness. Now don‟t get me wrong: I know that everyone is unique
and there is no real standard of beauty that can be followed each and
every time.
However, it is also true that people who come close to standards of
attractiveness tend to be more persuasive than those who do not make
an effort to make themselves look good.
So if you are always out in the field, you have to do something about the
way you look. You have to exert effort to look really good so people would
be drawn to your message and they would respond more readily to you
because you are attractive. Attractiveness, though it is a physical trait, is
reflected not only by your bone structure but also how you dress
yourself, how you carry yourself in public, etc.
The third peripheral cue that you should never forget is credibility. To be
a credible person, you have to show people that you are unbiased in your
views and you are some that should be trusted by others.
168
One easy way of appearing to be a credible person is by showcasing your
knowledge of a particular topic. So if you are trying to sell a water
filtration system to a company, you will appear more credible if you can
answer all of the client‟s questions and you also have the initiative to
volunteer information to your client.
Now, I know that for some of you, it is very difficult to appear as an
expert because there will always be older and more seasoned competition
around you. Don‟t worry about them.
Just do your homework and do your best to present information the way
an expert would – with no hesitation and with utmost conviction. Even if
the other person is not persuaded by your arguments right now it is
possible that you will be able to persuade that person at a later date.
Why am I saying this? Well, social psychologists have identified a
peculiar tendency in people when it comes to so-called credible sources.
169
It appears that over time, a person‟s conviction that he should only listen
to one source alone decays and eventually, that person will choose to
listen to other sources as long as the other sources are providing clear
information and sound arguments.
170
PART 7: GROUPS
Groups
So far we have been focusing on the individual – as he becomes self-
aware and as he develops the faculties needed to communicate with
others and grow as human being. We now turn our attention to groups –
simple (yet often complex) collections of people that make up the entirety
of the population.
When we view society from the perspective of cultural, political or even
racial sub-groups, the complexity of society intensifies because we have
been used to the idea that there is a binary opposition between the
individual and society itself, but in reality, there was always something in
between in the individual and the larger region of society itself, and that
was the social group.
One of the main characteristics of social group is cohesiveness. We can
say that there is cohesiveness in a social group when members of the
group think, talk and act alike. Cohesiveness can be used as a
measurement of influence, as well.
171
A cohesive social group is a strong and influential group because it can
multiply the individual powers of each member of the group. Inversely, a
group that is loose and does not show any cohesiveness at all, either
formally or informally, can be considered a weak group and it will most
likely never exert any substantial influence over other groups or over
society itself.
It has also been noted that the cohesiveness of a group is very dependent
on its size. As a group becomes larger and larger, its general
cohesiveness weakens.
Group size
Cohesiveness
172
How can one identify groups in the first place? A simple way of
identifying groups is by observing people for entitativity.
Entitativity refers to the degree at which a collection of people show that
they are interconnected to each other and they have similarities to each
other in terms of appearance, beliefs, etc.
One can also look at the goals of the people belonging to a potential
social group; if a majority of people show that they are after the same
end-goal, then they can be classified as a social group.
You can also observe if the purported members of a social group are
actually interacting with one another. Interaction and communication
through various means is a hallmark group trait and behavior. There are
generally three kinds of social groups:
- Loose social groups (i.e. people who listen to rock music)
- Social categories (i.e. racial groups)
- Task groups (i.e. people in the office)
- Intimate groups (i.e. close friends)
173
The Impact of Groups on Performance
Social Social
facilitation inhibition
We are going to do a little detour to loose social groups (i.e. people in an
auditorium or in an examination room) to find out if the presence of other
people have an impact on how efficiently a person can act or behave in a
particular setting.
Social psychologists have long been fascinated with the varied responses
of people to the presence of other people. Out of the academic woodwork,
two strong concepts have emerged: social facilitation and social inhibition.
Social facilitation occurs when a person is able to increase the efficiency
at which he is able perform an activity with the presence of other people.
Social facilitation is considered a positive effect because there is
increased productivity.
174
Social inhibition is the direct opposite of social facilitation. A socially
inhibited person will not be able perform better with a group of people
around.
A good example of this would be when a student has to take an exam
along with many other students. The setup (i.e. a large examination hall
or examination room) will affect the way the student is able answer his
test paper.
Social psychologists have discovered that social facilitation is most
common when a person only has to perform basic tasks like running or
swimming, or even shouting in tandem with others (as in a sports game).
But when a person has to perform more difficult tasks such as solving
physics questions, the presence of others can inhibit a person from
performing the task easily.
175
The Three Theories of Social Facilitation & Social Inhibition
Why do some people become socially inhibited in the presence of others?
Why are other people more likely to excel if they have at least the
presence of other people.
Three theories have been used to explain the complex workings of the
social mind with regard to facilitation and inhibition. These three
theories are:
- Drive theory
- Evaluation apprehension theory
- Distraction conflict theory
The drive theory states that a person who has a well-learned response to
a situation will perform better with the presence of an audience (i.e.
teammates) because the presence of the loose group heightens the
physiological response to the task at hand.
A person with a high drive has the capacity to perform the task at hand
and that is the reason why the presence of a loose social group can help
increase his performance.
176
Generally, people thrive with simpler tasks but that does not mean that
everyone will fail more difficult tasks just because of the nature of the
tasks. What is difficult to me may not be difficult for you – it‟s that
simple.
The second theory, evaluative apprehension theory, argues that although
that the presence of an audience can have an immediate impact on a
person who is about to perform a task, we must not overlook the
possibility that this person is also apprehensive about being evaluated by
the audience. This apprehension of being „graded‟ by the loose group can
have an instant impact on an individual‟s efficiency and productivity.
The third and last theory, distraction conflict theory, centers on the fact
that people can become easily distracted by the presence of others.
This theory points out that humans, as social beings, have a natural
tendency to „tend to everyone‟ even if it‟s just by looking at other people‟s
facial expressions or body language.
There can be physiological arousal but there is also distraction – and we
all know that humans have limited cognitive resources. This explains
177
why people who are not very confident and knowledgeable about the task
that they are about to perform will perform more poorly if an audience is
involved.
The Theory of Social Loafing
We are aware now that an individual with an audience may or may not
perform well, depending on his skill level and the actual task at hand.
We also know that some general tasks are easier to perform with an
audience (i.e. shouting and running) compared to more complex tasks
like answering a complicated physics exam.
But what happens when a task group or team is formed? What happens
to the individual‟s performance when he becomes part of a group that is
expected to produce something within a period of time?
Surprisingly, a reverse trend was discovered when people were put into
groups and group productivity was expected. This reverse trend is called
social loafing. It appears that when people were put into groups, social
facilitation does not occur if people expect that every member of the
group was to do something to contribute to an expected outcome.
178
Since every member in the group was expected to do something, the
previous factors (i.e. social evaluation) no longer applied to the situation,
because now the group/team would be put under scrutiny (not just
individual members of the team).
Why does social loafing occur? According to social psychologists, this
group effect happens because there is a marked diffusion of tasks and
responsibilities within the group. Because of the diffusion of the
responsibility within the group, people become les driven to perform
extremely well because others are expected to do the same.
People feel less responsible for what has to be done because there are
other people who can do it. Does this mean that placing people in teams
is bad and that people should just work alone, to improve productivity?
Not necessarily – you see, social psychologists have also discovered that
diffusion of responsibility can literally dissolve the apprehension
associated with being evaluated by other people in a group. Since
individuals in the group no longer feel extremely responsible for the
outcome, they can relax and people actually work better knowing that the
pressure has been reduced.
179
PART 8: LEADERSHIP
With the birth of the social group came the need for special individuals
who had the talent and the skills to lead. A leader is considered the most
powerful member of a social group. He exerts influence and he is capable
of persuading members of the group to do what he thinks is the best for
the group.
The leaders also determine which direction the social group would take
and how the members of the group will pursue this direction. Now it
should be noted that leadership can take many forms and leaders can
have unique approaches to handling the affairs of a social group.
Some leaders focus on the job at hand while some love communicating
with most of the members of the group. Some like being completely in
control while some leaders prefer delegating work to many other leaders
will be in charge of different facets of the social group.
180
How Leaders Are Formed
How do social groups find leaders? The traditional baseline for leaders is
the unique set of personality traits that literally separated the leaders
from the followers. These personality traits make leaders fitter to lead
others in the group‟s drive to survive and grow.
The greatest leaders in the world (i.e. Alexander the Great) are often
touted to have immense powers of influence over other people. It is as if
great leaders have a natural talent to change people so that they would
think and act in accordance to the wishes of the leader.
A person‟s personality, as social psychologists have discovered, has an
intimate relationship with leadership. Here are some personality traits
that have been anchored firmly with leadership:
1. Being confident about one‟s ability to do something and of course,
being confident about leading other people to a certain goal
2. People who talked a lot were also usually chosen as leaders as
opposed to people who have minimal verbal contribution within the
social group. People who made maximum verbal contribution were
181
easily recognized by other members of the group. Increased
recognition leads to familiarity and this in turn translates to
leadership further down the line.
3. Persons who exhibited higher intelligence than other members of
the group are also hailed as leaders more frequently. Intelligence is
a key trait of a good leader because genuinely intelligent
individuals would have no trouble responding to the needs of the
group. Intelligent folks are also more likely to respond to group-
related problems adequately.
4. If you want to be a leader, you also have to show that you are open
to communicating with other people and you do not shy away from
new experiences. You must also show that you are a reliable
person in terms of problem-solving, performance and general
productivity within the group.
5. Believe it or not, group members are also more likely to choose a
leader that is generally more attractive than the rest.
Attractiveness, as we have discussed in an earlier section of the
book, is a powerful peripheral cue.
182
So always remember that you have to project confidence and
attractiveness anyway possible when you want to convince others
that you are the right leader of the group or team.
Although personality is a powerful tool that can be used to convince
others that you are a fit leader, you must remember that personality is
not the sole criterion for leadership, because even the most charismatic
and attractive leaders can be scrutinized and replaced by people.
Obviously, personality is not the sole determinant of a good leader.
Personality is the first determinant of leadership because it is the group
of traits that people can actually see first in a person. But as I have
already pointed earlier, it is not the sole determinant. There must be
other determinants which would cement the success of a would-be
leader. What about personality?
Doesn‟t personality help a person lead? According to social psychologists,
personality traits can help a leader but only in specific situations. Now,
in addition to the individual traits of a would-be leader, we also have to
analyze the culture that the person comes from.
183
If the person comes from a collectivist culture, then his version of good
leadership would be to encourage better cohesion between individual
members of the group. A collectivist leader would focus on reducing the
friction between the working parts of the machine (i.e. the social group).
A leader from an individualist culture on the other hand, would have a
different take of leadership success. To an individualist leader, the goal is
all that matters. The group must achieve the goal no matter what it takes
– even if that means intense competition between the members of the
group.
184
The Task-Focused Leader & the Socio-Emotional Leader
There are two popular types of leaders: the task-focused leader and the
socio-emotional leader. The task-focused leader is more concerned with
outcome and good results. If there is a goal in the horizon, the task-
focused leader will do everything in his power to ensure that the goal is
reached by the group.
This type of leader sees little else but the goal and the steps that the
group has to take to achieve the goal. The task-focused leader is usually
very knowledgeable about the task and the landscape surrounding the
group.
He is also an expert in giving instructions to the members of the group;
members will never feel lost when a task-focused leader is in their midst
because this leader will keep a close eye on what each member is doing
and he will ensure that the each member is following the steps needed to
achieve the goal.
The downside to having a task-focused leader is he is almost always
distant from members. He sees members as vital parts of the lager whole
but he finds no reason to interact with members of the group on a much
185
deeper level. Everything is formal and distant with the task-focused
leader.
The socio-emotional leader on the other hand, is aware that the group
has its goals but this fact does not stop him from paying close attention
to the way the members are acting as a whole. The socio-emotional
leader ensures first that the members of the group are working
harmoniously with one another and there is little or no conflict in the
group.
A socio-emotional leader also possesses empathy. The Merriam-Webster
dictionary defines empathy as “the action of understanding, being aware
of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts
and experience of another person (either in the past or the present)
without having the feelings, thoughts and experience fully communicated
in an objective manner”.
So if you were to become a leader of a group, which type of leader would
you like to embody? Some people like the cool confidence and the drive of
the task-focused leader.
186
However, the task-focused leader often has a problem dealing with inter-
personal relationships between members of the group; therefore, he is
not the best person to approach if there is conflict between members of
the group.
Some folks would like to be a socio-emotional leader because he
embodies synergy and positivity. The downside of being a purely socio-
emotional leader is that you might not become focused on the actual
goals of the group.
So which type of leadership is better? The answer is actually neither. You
need to be a balanced leader if you want to ensure the success of your
leadership. You need to show empathy as much as the ability to focus on
goals. You need to think deeply about the steps that will lead your group
to success as much as the steps that you need to take to ensure
harmony within the group.
187
The Transformational Leader
The transformational leader is quite distinct from the task-focused leader
and the socio-emotional leader.
The transformational leader exerts a high level of influence, compared to
the task-focused leader and the socio-emotional leader. However, it
should also be noted that a task-focused leader can also become a
transformational leader (this applies to socio-emotional leaders as well).
Transformational leaders have the following traits:
 They are charismatic and they are able to inspire people with their
word and actions
 They have the gift of eloquence; they are able to communicate on a
very high level with people. They are able to connect with people
not only through verbal communication but also through body
language like eye contact.
 Transformational leaders also know how to give individualized
consideration. These leaders respect individual members of a
188
group and they know how to acknowledge achievements of
individual members.
 And finally, a transformational leader likes it when members think
outside of the box. They love innovative ideas and they prefer “out
of the box” thinking when the group is faced with tough challenges
and hurdles.
Leadership Style
According to one theory, a leader becomes truly effective if he is able to
apply a particular leadership style to the needs of the group at the
present time. According to the contingency theory, leaders can either
become socio-economic leaders or task-focused leaders. Whether a leader
will choose to be the former or latter depends on a few things:
- Leader-member relations
- Group task structures
- Legitimate authority over members of the group
A leader has high situational control if there is little or no conflict
between his leadership and the members of the group and if each
189
member of the group is fully aware of should be done to achieve the
group‟s goals. There is also high situational control if the leader is
recognized and acknowledged as the true leader of the group.
As a leader‟s situational control goes up, the need for socio-emotional
intervention is reduced. There is a need to continually shift your
paradigm and approach depending on the needs of the group.
If there is communication breakdown between members of the group,
then you may need to establish harmony between the members of your
group so your power as a leader is also re-established.
Is good leadership truly dependent on just group harmony and the
perceived effectiveness of the leader in handing out directives to each
group member?
One theory called the leader-member exchange theory argues that before
a leader can become efficient in being a socio-emotional leader or task-
focused leader, there has to be a great communication between the leader
and the members first.
190
The leader must not only communicate effectively with the members of
the group but he must also learn how to fairly exchange psychological
resources (i.e. respect) and other types of materials (i.e. improved status
within the group) with members of the group.
Not surprisingly, leaders who have mastered the “skill of exchange” are
better motivators and they are more capable of pushing members to do
their best when it comes to achieving goals for the group.
Effective leadership also has a big impact on the members of the group. If
a member is respected and he is acknowledged within his group in a
positive manner, he will think more often of his social identity as a
member of the group.
For example, if Person A does really well as a web programmer, he will no
longer think of himself as Person A, who lives in ABC Street and has
graduated from University of TUV. He becomes Person A, the genius web
programmer of XYZ Corporation.
191
He is able to shift to this social identity because other people will also
begin to acknowledge his newfound identity as a prototypical member of
a group because of his positive performance as a group member.
192
PART 9: SOCIAL INFLUENCE
At the very pinnacle of human communication and interaction is social
influence or simply, influence. Influence is defined as the emotional and
cognitive change that people experience when they are in presence of
another person or a group of people.
Influence is an overarching term that takes in any kind of change that
occurs when another person (or group) directly or indirectly produces
change in a person. Social psychologists have identified two main forms
of influence: conformity and obedience.
Conformity can be defined as indirect influence because the change that
results in another person stems from following social norms. Obedience
on the other hand, is a more direct form of influence because it is usually
the outcome of a command or order.
193
Social Norms
There are two definitions of “norms” that are usable in our discussion of
social influence. The first definition is that norms are comprised of
“principles of right action that are binding upon members of a social
group and serve to guide, control and regular proper and acceptable
behavior”.
The second definition is that norms are “a patter or trait taken to be
typical in the behavior of a social group”. The first definition emphasizes
that norms are rules to be followed to arrive at an acceptable route or
behavior.
The second definition on the other hand, emphasizes that norms are also
pre-determined patterns of behavior that are followed by specific social
groups. Social groups have different norms. Here are some examples:
1. Rock music enthusiasts are expected to „rock out‟ during concerts.
Fellow enthusiasts expect others to be just as loud and energetic
as the rest of the concert-goers.
194
2. Lovers of literature are expected to know the various authors of
different time periods.
3. Entrepreneurs are expected to know how to balance expenditures
and profit.
As you can see, even loose social groups have norms – and people are
expected to follow these norms if they wish to become part of these social
groups. Now here is my question: why do people follow norms when they
are faced with problems?
The answer lies in how people perceive the binary opposition between the
majority and the minority. In most cases, the view of the majority is
considered „the right thing to do‟ while the view of the minority might be
viewed as „questionable‟, „poorly constructed‟ or „completely biased‟.
Notice how adjectives like “neutral”, “constructive” and “positive” are
always attributed to the majority while negative adjectives like
“inscrutable” and “strange” are attributed to the minority.
195
So there is always a bias when people are unsure about what to do –
there is always an unconscious drive to follow social norm because social
norms represent what the majority would do in a situation.
Now, what is exactly the nature of group norms? Surprisingly, group
norms are a lot like stereotypes. Remember our discussion of
stereotypes? Stereotypes are highly recognizable representations of a
social group.
Usually, we think of stereotypes when it refers to other social groups.
Group norms are comprised of stereotypes that represent one‟s own
group. For example, the XYZ barbecue club might be known for their
mouth-watering barbecues throughout the city because they use a lot of
chili in their sauces.
This is one group norm that is acknowledged strongly by the public and
the members of the group. It should be noted that before a group norm
can be considered a group norm, there should be consensus between the
members of the group. The group norm must be acknowledged and put
into action first before it can be considered a group norm.
196
Conformity: Indirect Influence
Conformity is indirect social influence because no one would be telling
you what to do exactly. But still, behavioral and emotional change can
occur in a person (or in members of a group). Why is this the case with
conformity? The answer lies in two concepts: normative influence and
informational influence.
Informational influence occurs when a person is unable to find any other
way to deal with a situation.
Using heuristics, the person turns to group norms for an answer. If there
is a group norm that directly addresses the person‟s need, then the
person would use the group norm and as he does this, he is able to gain
knowledge and control of the situation through his use of the group
norm.
Normative influence on the other hand, has an intimate association with
a person‟s need to be accepted within a social group. You can‟t be
accepted in a social group if you cannot follow group norms.
197
You will not be acknowledged as a member of a social group if group
norms appear bizarre or unacceptable to you. Conformity to group norms
is associated with comfort and acceptance while straying from group
norms may result in ridicule, pain, exclusion and even punishment.
Do these forms of conformity have an effect on a person‟s attitude?
Normative influences can affect a person‟s projection to the public but it
might not affect his privately held attitude toward specific objects.
For example, a person who is studying law might say to people that every
suspected criminal should still be treated innocent until proven
otherwise. However, deep down, this person might think that every
criminal should be punished immediately.
When there is no change in a person‟s private view and attitude, we call
this type of conformity compliance. Informational influence has an
opposite effect on a person. Because people use heuristics to accept and
apply the group norm, there is a change in the person‟s privately held
attitude toward the object. We call this conversion, which is a much more
striking form of conformity.
198
Factors That Affect Conformity
The degree of social influence varies from one situation to another. You
cannot expect total conformity each and every time. If you want to
produce a high level of conformity, you have to learn how to control the
factors that affect its impact on people. These factors are:
- Group cohesiveness
- Group size
- Social support
Let‟s talk about the first determining factor of conformity, which is group
cohesiveness. Group cohesiveness is actually the measure of how much
each person in a group is able to connect and harmonize with other
members. Group cohesiveness is a hallmark sign that there is indeed a
group to begin with.
When a group shows a high degree of cohesiveness, conformity within the
group takes place at a much faster rate and at a much deeper level. A
loose group with „rebel sub-groups‟ will have a much lower level of
conformity because the members feel that they are extremely
independent individuals who must not follow norms that easily.
199
If you are the leader of a group, you must improve the relationship
between your members and you must also make sure that you are
acknowledged as the group leader.
Group size also has an impact on conformity within a group. Conformity
reaches its peak when the group size reaches three and then it begins to
level off (there is no more significant increase in conformity as the group
size goes beyond three).
If a group is only composed of two people, then conformity is unlikely
because any conflict between the two group members will most likely be
viewed as just personal problems and these troubles will not be viewed
as group issues at all.
The third and last factor is social support. Social support refers to
reinforcement within the group. If a group is composed of a leader, sub-
leaders and members, support from the sub-leaders is crucial in
establishing conformity.
200
If the sub-leaders (who effectively control regions of the group) disagree
with the main leadership, then group norms will be broken. To re-
establish leadership in this situation, the sub-leaders must show that
they are once again supporters of the group norm.
Factors that Affect Informational Influence
There are two factors that have a direct impact on the level of
informational influence on a person:
- Perceived self-confidence
- Situation
Let‟s talk about perceived self-confidence. A person with a high level of
confidence when it comes to a particular task or challenge will feel less
obliged to be influenced by a group norm because he already knows what
to do. If this person uses a heuristic method for finding answers to his
questions, then he will make use of his own existing knowledge and
paradigms instead of following norms.
201
Folks with low self-confidence on the other hand, will not have readily
available paradigms to work with. The most readily available to these
people would be the group norms, so logically; they would turn to norms
for answers. Lack of familiarity leads to informational influence. High
familiarity coupled with high confidence produces the opposite effect.
The second factor is situation. Normally, a person would only be able to
handle a difficult task to a certain degree.
If the task at hand becomes even more difficult than it was before then
the chances of informational influence would increase. As the situation
becomes more challenging, a person‟s confidence in his own persona
paradigms would decay and a renewed trust in group norms would
surface.
Now you should remember that informational influence and conformity
can both be affected by group polarization. Group polarization occurs
when an initial point or perspective is polarized by members of the group
as the members discuss a plan of action.
202
People then resort to identify themselves based on the social identity
generated by their membership in the group. Members of the group may
also begin to identify and express themselves based on the prototypes
within the group itself. To sustain the influence, the leader must
encourage everyone in the group to move toward established group
norms because as people move toward the norms again, members will
experience stability once again.
Now, can the minority actually influence the majority?
Is this even possible, if people are conditioned by society to follow what
the majority thinks is right? The answer is a resounding yes. Minorities
within a group can influence the majority. But there are two basic pre-
requisites before this can become possible: consistency and confidence.
As long as the minority shows that they are consistent with their views
and they are very confident with what they are proposing to the majority,
the majority will view the minority as a credible source.
203
Credibility automatically changes the landscape because if someone was
viewed as credible, he is not really part of the excluded minority
anymore. He becomes a part of the majority, because credibility is
attributed to the majority most of the time.
204
Understanding Obedience
So far we have been able to pay close attention to the idea of indirect
influence through conformity. But what about influence that centers on a
direct command or order – obedience?
According to social psychologists, obedience would only be possible if the
context or situation cues the other person to obey (i.e. if the person was
in a place of power). If not, then obedience itself may not be possible. If
the context draws the right response from the other person, three other
factors affect the degree of obedience:
- Cultural norms
- Agency
- Period of obedience
The first factor is cultural norms. We live in a society where obedience to
authority is always associated with reward and disobedience produces
the opposite, which is pain, exclusion and of course, punishment. The
second factor is agency.
205
When a person is asked to do something and obedience is required of a
person, that person experiences agency. He feels that a new
responsibility has been given to him and he is obliged to do it because an
external authority wants him to do it.
Personal responsibility ends and the responsibility is shifted to the
external source of the command. The final factor is period of obedience.
People can do increasingly difficult tasks if they obey the authority over a
longer period of time. Things that people would find difficult at first would
become easier and more acceptable over time.
Here are some other things that you should consider when you wish to
draw obedience from other people.
1. You must exude confidence in what you are asking and in what
you are doing.
2. If there are sub-leaders within the group, these sub-leaders must
also be obedient to what you are saying. Otherwise, the target
person may resist.
206
3. The location also matters – if you want to close an important deal
in a badly lit and smelly restaurant, you will most likely be met
with resistance. Also, you must pay attention to your physical
appearance and your projection and persona when you ask
someone for obedience with regard to a specific issue.
207
PART 10: SOCIAL IDENTITY, AFFILIATION & ATTRACTION
One of the things that truly make people tick is their own social identity.
Social identity, according to one theory, is the result of a person‟s desire
to have a positive self-concept. This positive self-concept is the direct
result (at least according to the social identity theory) of one‟s affiliation
with social groups that are perceived by positively held by the public.
When a person experiences the advantages of belonging to a group that
has a positive value to society, he will most likely engage in behavior that
will increase or at least maintain the positive image of the social group.
Determinants of Helpful Behavior
Helpful behavior or helpfulness is one of the most striking traits found in
social groups. Helpful behavior allows members of a group to harmonize
with each other.
There can be mutually helpful behavior between group members. But
why do we engage in helpful behavior in the first place? Why do we
bother helping others if we have our own troubles and goals in life?
According to social psychologists, there are several factors at work here:
208
- Similarity
- Group membership
- Attractiveness
- Responsibility for misfortune
The first factor is similarity. Researchers have discovered that a person
would be more motivated to help another person if the other person
exhibits traits or characteristics that are similar to the characteristics of
the would-be helper.
If we belong to a social group and another member of that social group
was in need of help, that single similarity alone would motivate us to
help the other person. As long as there is similarity, there is a rational
ground for helpful behavior.
The second factor is group membership. Again, humans are naturally
more attracted to offering something to members of the same group. This
doesn‟t mean that humans will abandon other humans that belong to
other groups.
209
I am simply pointing out that if a person were given a choice of helping a
person from his own group and a person from another group, the choice
to help one‟s own would be the more logical choice. The third factor is
attractiveness. Attractiveness is a powerful peripheral cue that works in
almost every situation – and apparently, it works when you want to be
helped by someone, too!
The fourth factor is responsibility for misfortune. This simply means that
people are most likely to lend a helping hand if the person who is need is
experiencing circumstances that are beyond his control. Inversely, if a
person is suffering because of his own doing, we would be less motivated
to help that person.
Affiliation
Affiliation is an essential social skill that produces immense benefits.
People who affiliate with other people are happier and they are able to
cope with stress more efficiently than people who do not have the ability
to affiliate regularly.
This social skill is also as natural breathing because it begins to manifest
quite concretely during adolescence and the drive to affiliate continues
210
until late adulthood. We affiliate with people because this skill is tied
closely to survival and growth. Affiliation ultimately helps a person join
social groups that would ultimately contribute to his development as a
human being.
Determinants of Affiliation
Different factors affect our desire for affiliation. The theory of privacy
regulation states that a person who has been isolated for a long time
would naturally want to affiliate with other people because there is a
marked lack in affiliation and interaction. A person who has affiliated too
much may feel that he has been crowded in too much by other people
and he may want to dissociate to regain his privacy and his sense of
personal space.
A second theory called the social affiliation model presents a different
angle on affiliation. This theory states that a person does not really
operate on the basis of what he wants at the moment alone but instead,
he operates so that balance can be regained.
Each person has a particular level of need for affiliation and over time,
each person will want to reach that balance. Reaching that balance
211
would mean that stability has been finally achieved and naturally, any
person who has achieved this would be happier.
The first two theories assume that people have more or less the same
degree of desire for affiliation. The aforementioned theories do not take
into consideration psychological and cultural differences. We have to
take these two other factors into consideration if we want t understand
peculiar variations in the desire to affiliate.
An introverted person is generally more responsive to affiliation. When an
introvert affiliates, he feels an increased need to affiliate. This goes
against his general nature toward social contact and so the introvert
would most likely pull away from increase affiliation so that his internal
equilibrium or homeostasis will no longer be disturbed.
Extroverts on the other hand, respond different to affiliation and social
contact. Extroverts are not easily physiologically aroused by affiliation.
That‟s why they need to continually reach out to other people and to
different social groups to reach their own internal balance.
Cultural differences affect the nature of affiliation. In individualistic
societies, people reach out and affiliate with other people for self-serving
212
reasons. People make friends and other social associations because they
receive advantages and benefits. People who belong to more collectivist
cultures view affiliation in a different manner. In collectivist cultures,
people view affiliation with concepts like obligation and responsibility.
Determinants of Attraction
Time and time again, we encounter attractiveness in our exploration of
persuasion, attribution, etc. Now would be the perfect time to actually
discuss what attraction is and how it can work to increase one‟s
influence.
Social psychologists define attraction as the impetus to approach and
interact with another human being. Without attraction, business
relationships, partnerships, friendships and even romantic relationships
would not be possible at all. Where there is mutual agreement and trust
involved, you need attraction as a stepping stone.
There are several factors that affect attraction:
- Physical traits
- Similarity to the self
213
- Complementary characteristics
- Reciprocity
With physical traits, we are drawn to physical characteristics or traits
that are attractive to us. Make no mistake – there are no true universal
marks of beauty. There are variations from country to country and from
culture to culture. Each time period in history also has its own take on
what is beautiful and what is not.
If you are looking for commonalities across cultures, there are a few. One
of the most reliable commonality is the male preference for women who
have a wide hips and small waists. The hourglass shape that is invoked
by this ratio may be attractive to men because the ratio may signify that
the other person is a healthy female.
Another commonality across cultures is that people are more attracted to
people with increased facial symmetry. The more symmetrical the face,
the more attractive the person becomes. Being free from facial
asymmetry may signal that the other person is not only healthy but also
has good genes. Youthfulness, fertility and health are the hallmarks of
attraction when it comes to physical traits.
214
The second factor is similarity to the self. Now, similarity is not limited to
physical traits. People are also attracted to people who exhibit similar
thinking and similar attitudes. What does this mean?
Well, at first, similarities to physical characteristics are important in the
initial process of attraction. But once a relationship has already been
established, deeper similarities are needed to sustain the relationship.
There is also a tendency to like people who are alike us at least in some
ways because in this way, we avoid negative social evaluation because
the other person would be more or less equal to us in appearance.
We know for a fact that males are more straightforward when it comes to
attraction and finding the right mate and so forth. But can we say the
same thing for women? Apparently not. One theory called the parental
investment theory states that women are generally more reserved when it
comes to attracting potential mates because:
- They can damage their reputation by attracting the wrong types of
males
215
- They can end up investing more into a relationship than may not
continue (i.e. pregnancy, childbirth, parenting)
- Women are generally more reserved with the way they
communicate their interest in potential partners
The third factor is complementary characteristics. Surely, we are attracted
to others with similar traits but we are also attracted to individuals who
have traits that complement our own traits. Complementary traits are
traits that we don‟t have but we value these traits all the same.
The fourth and final factor is reciprocity. The concept of reciprocity is
fairly straightforward. We tend to be more attracted to individuals who
are showing signs that they like us, too. Inversely, if the other person
shows disdain at our interest, we may not be as drawn to the person
anymore.
Friendship & Love
Have you ever thought of how friendships actually work? It starts off with
the process of self-disclosure. After identifying the person that we want to
216
be friends with, we start sharing parts of our self to that person (i.e. our
name and where we studied).
When we discover commonalities with the person, we begin to take an
interest in him or her. We begin sharing deeper thoughts and more
intimate information with the other person. This can be considered the
seed of friendships.
It begins with an exchange of information that pertains directly to the
self. The more you share yourself with the other person, the more you
begin to trust the other person, too. If it doesn‟t work out, social
withdrawal takes place.
You begin to dissociate with the person and the amount of information
that you are sharing with that person begins to dwindle until finally, the
information stops and the connection is finally broken.
Gender-Related Differences
Males and females think differently, no doubt about that – and it is
enlightening to know that there are some quaint differences in the way
males and females handle friendship, too:
217
1. Women tend to develop more intimate relationships with other
people.
2. Women tend to share their thoughts and details of their lives more
regularly than males.
3. Men typically don‟t share as much information because this type of
personal disclosure is linked with vulnerability.
4. Men, surprisingly, engage in more physical contact with friends
than women.
Types of Love
When attraction to another person progresses to love, you must
understand that love actually has three forms:
- Passionate love
- Game-playing love
- Friendship love
218
When people start combining the three primary forms of love, we arrive at
these secondary forms:
- Pragmatic love (friendship love & game-playing love)
- Possessive love (passionate love & game-playing love)
- Altruistic love (passionate love & friendship love)
Passionate love and companionate love have distinct traits, as well:
1. Passionate love is marked by longing for another person. There is
intensity and the longing usually stays with the person for long
periods of time. This is most apparent during the early stages of
romantic love.
There is intensity and certain rawness to the emotions felt by one
or both of the parties involved in the budding relationship. It is
also possible that if a person is drawn to another person via
passionate love, friends and former acquaintances are pushed out
of the picture for the time being.
2. Companionate love is marked by having a somewhat rosy lens
when it comes to the other person. When a person views another
219
person through a rosy lens, he will only see the positive traits and
none of the negative traits.
Companionate love is more lasting than mere passionate love. The
intensity may have been reduced, but at the same time, both the
individuals will feel that they don‟t need that kind of rawness and
intensity anymore because they are bonded to each other on a
much deeper level.
Satisfaction & Commitment
Human relationships are never simple and easy to understand. In fact,
social psychologists are only beginning to understand how to anchor
fixed coordinates on some of the factors and components related to
human relationships. Knowledge of these coordinates will ensure that
you will be able to create meaningful and satisfying relationships,
yourself. Here are some contributing factors to a satisfying relationship:
1. A relationship would most likely be satisfying if both parties are
contributing something to the relationship and the exchange
between the people in the relationship is perceived as equal.
220
2. If there are no secrets between the people involved in the
relationship, there would be heightened trust and therefore, there
would also be satisfaction in the meaningful relationship.
3. Social comparison is also important; if a couple for instance was
able to compare their own relationship with others and they found
out that they had a better relationship; there would of course be
increased satisfaction in the relationship.
4. Each individual has his own social network. It has been discovered
that if there was a connection between these disparate social
networks, both parties in the relationship would be happier.
5. The level of attachment to the other person may also spell a
happier and more satisfying relationship. Researchers have been
able to connect an increase in adult attachment with an increasing
level of satisfaction in a relationship.
221

Paul Mascetta - Advanced Code of Influence PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Paul Mascetta - Advanced Code of Influence PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Paul Mascetta - Advanced Code of Influence PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Advanced

PART 1: RECOGNIZING THE SELF ........................................................ 7

The Core of Influence: The Self ........................................................... 7

The Two Kinds of Self-Awareness ...................................................... 10

Self-Knowledge: The Roadmap to the Self.......................................... 16

How Does the Concept of the Self Come About? ................................ 19

The Four-Step Feedback Method ...................................................... 22

How We Handle Discrepancies .......................................................... 25

Positive Social Reflection vs. Negative Social Comparison .................. 30

The Most Powerful Self-Motive of All ................................................. 38

Self-Enhancement Strategies ............................................................ 40

Developing the Social Self ................................................................. 44

In Focus: Cultural Differences .......................................................... 49

PART 2: ATTRIBUTIONS ...................................................................... 52

The Role of Attribution in People‟s Lives ............................................ 52

Kinds of Attribution .......................................................................... 55

The How and Why of Attribution ....................................................... 57

The Importance of Social Representations ......................................... 74

PART 3: COGNITION, HEURISTICS & CATEGORIZATION .................... 78

Social Cognition ............................................................................... 78

The Role of Heuristics ....................................................................... 82

Representativeness Heuristic ............................................................ 83

Availability Heuristic ........................................................................ 87

False Consensus Effect ..................................................................... 88

We Are Social Tacticians ................................................................... 92

PART 4: SOCIAL CATEGORIZATON ..................................................... 99

Social Categorization ........................................................................ 99

Exploring Stereotypes & Social Categories .......................................104

The Motivation Behind Social Categorization ...................................108

From Categorization to Individuation ...............................................114

PART 5: HUMAN ATTITUDES .............................................................117

How Attitudes Are Formed ...............................................................118

The Key Avenues of Attitude Formation ...........................................119

Implicit Conditioning & Operant Conditioning .................................121

The Power of Self-Perception ............................................................125

The Functional Theory .....................................................................126

Why Attitudes Matter ......................................................................133

Exploring the Attitude-Behavior Connection ....................................134

Attitude Accessibility .......................................................................137

Attitude Strength .............................................................................139

Attitude, Intention & Behavior .........................................................141

Understanding Attitude Changes .....................................................146

Attitude Change & Cognitive Dissonance .........................................147

When Does Dissonance Occur? .......................................................152

PART 6: PERSUASION ........................................................................155

The Ivory Throne: Human Persuasion ..............................................155

Figuring Out Which Route a Person Will Take ..................................157

Exploring the Peripheral Route ........................................................166

PART 7: GROUPS ...............................................................................171

The Impact of Groups on Performance .............................................174

The Three Theories of Social Facilitation & Social Inhibition ............176

The Theory of Social Loafing ............................................................178

PART 8: LEADERSHIP ........................................................................180

How Leaders Are Formed .................................................................181

The Task-Focused Leader & the Socio-Emotional Leader .................185

The Transformational Leader ...........................................................188

Leadership Style ..............................................................................189

PART 9: SOCIAL INFLUENCE .............................................................193

Social Norms ...................................................................................194