SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

Individual Social Behavior

Group 7: Robles, Joeyboy C. Rancio, Mark Simon Ramos, Rhea Regidor, Anna Rose Roxas, Axel Raven Quinilitan, Aldy Mae

1. Perceiving Social Phenomena a .Social Information Processing

A theory proposed by Joseph Walther which is about Computer-Mediated-Communication. It states that CMC users can adapt to restricted CMC mediums such as email, instant messaging or anything text-based and use it effectively to develop close relationship. The theory counter argues about three existing theories at the time. a.) Social Presence Theory suggests that CMC deprives the sense of another actual person involved in the interaction b.) Media richness Theory Purports that CMC bandwidth is too narrow to convey rich relational messages c.) Cues filtered out Interpretation of CMC that regard lack of non-verbal cues as a fatal flaw for using the medium for relationship development. The experiment that supported the counterintuitive idea ran as follows: 28 pairs of students split face-to-face and CMC users, with no prior relationship with one another, were asked to discuss moral dilemmas, and one person of each pairs was confederate with a goal to either be friendly or unfriendly. Afterwards, the non-confederates were asked about their impression of their partners, and it successfully as the ones in the face-to-face. The CMC users employed the text-only medium to convey a level of relational communication that eventually equaled the affect that can be expressed face-to-face through multiple channels.

b. Impression Impact and Impression Formation Impression formation is a psychology term that is used to describe the process by which people form impressions of others that they have just met. It denotes how people use the mannerisms, appearance, and other factors to determine what a person is like on the whole. It suggests that if a person finds that a person is favorable in one area then they will have a favorable idea of them on the whole. The same is true of a negative impression about a person.

The impression formation theory was pioneered by Solomon Asch . Developed to understand how person

impressions are established, Asch found that adjective traits were an important key in an organized process of forming impressions. The theory addresses how people use bits of information and selected cues to form general impressions. Impression formation involves the cognitive, perceptual and affective processes of making judgments and drawing conclusions about a person, an object or environment. Information in isolation has different meanings than information in various contexts. Because of this, information is weighted and averaged with other information in order to form a more complex impression. Impression formation involves four stages: Cue selection, Interpretive inference, Extended inferences and Anticipatory set or verbal report. Impression formation may be affected by (a) a persons objective stimulus characteristics (b) the nature of stimuli and the context in which they are presented (c) perceiver variables (d) social interaction. Most contemporary impression formation work seeks to emphasize cognitive process and representations. The Dual Process model suggests that a person may be perceived either as an individual or as a member of a stereotyped group, with the latter requiring less cognitive effort. The Continuum model suggests that people form impressions based on both overall perceptions as well as on isolated elements. Other contemporary work has shifted attention to the way that impressions are influenced by perceivers states or characteristics. For example, perceivers often form impressions that are relatively congruent with accessible (e.g., primed) trait concepts, prior expectancies, processing goals and motives, moods and self-perceptions. One of Asch's classic experiments was designed as follows: participants were given two sets of traits (for two imaginary people). These sets were identical (included traits such as 'determent', 'intelligent' etc.), however set A had 'cold' listed as one of the traits, while set B had 'warm' instead. Later, participants were asked to rate these individuals' generosity, happiness, wisdom etc. What he found was that those who read a set B rated the person as wiser, happier, more generous etc. - in general, they had much more positive impression than those who had to rate a person A. Halo Effect
The halo effect is a type of cognitive bias in which our overall impression of a person influences how we feel and think about his or her character. Essentially, your overall impression of a person ("He is nice!") impacts your evaluations of that person's specific traits ("He is also smart!").

One great example of the halo effect in action is our overall impression of celebrities. Since we perceive them as attractive, successful, and often likeable, we also tend to see them as intelligent, kind, and funny.

Edward Thorndike, the first researcher to study the halo effect

the halo effect can influence how teachers treat students, but it can also impact how students perceive teachers. In one study, researchers found that when an instructor was viewed as warm and friendly, students also rated him as more attractive, appealing, and likeable. Marketers take advantage of the halo effect to sell products and services. When a celebrity spokesperson endorses a particular item, our positive evaluations of that individual can spread to our perceptions of the product itself. Job applicants are also likely to feel the impact of the halo effect. If a prospective employer views the applicant as attractive or likeable, they are more likely to also rate the individual as intelligent, competent, and qualified. Thorndikes first study of the halo effect was published in 1920. The study included two commanding officers who were asked to evaluate their soldiers in terms of physical qualities (neatness, voice, physique, bearing, and energy), intellect, leadership skills, and personal qualities (including dependability, loyalty, responsibility, selflessness, and cooperation). Thorndikes goal was to see how the ratings of one characteristic affected other characteristics. Thorndikes experiment showed how there was too much of a correlation in the responses of the commanding officers. In Thorndikes review he stated, The correlations were too high and too even. For example, for the three raters next studied the average correlation for physique with intelligence is .31; for physique with leadership, .39; and for physique with character, .28.[1] The ratings of one of the special qualities of an officer tend to start a trend in the rating results. If an officer had a particular negative attribute given off to the commanding officer, it would correlate in the rest of that soldiers results. The correlation in the halo effect experiment was concluded to be a halo error. The halo error showed that the officers relied mainly on general perception of certain characteristics that determined the results of their answers. II. Person Perception -In social psychology, the term person perception refers to the different mental processes that we use to form impressions of other people. This includes not just how we form these impressions, but the different conclusions we make about other people based upon our impressions. -The mental process we use to form judgments and draw conclusions about the characteristics and motive of other people. Primacy Effect: *The first thing we find out about a person often has the most influence on our judgments about them. Also known as "first impressions"

*Primacy effect becomes less important if there's *Prolonged exposure (you know the person for a long time) *Knowledge of primacy effects (you can be taught to ignore your first Impression, personnel workers are taught this sometimes) Actor-Observer Effect: *We think other people do things because of their personalities. *We think we do things because of the situation we're in. *So often the first thing we find out about a person (primacy effect) causes us to decide what their personality is like (actor-observer effect). Social Categorization: Classifying a person into a certain group (a social category) based on something you observe about the person. Once you've classified a person into a certain group, that affects what you notice about them and your judgments of them. -Teacher study -Researchers randomly classified students good or bad. Students labeled as good students get better grades -Hospital study -Normal people who enter mental hospital are diagnosed as mentally ill. Self perception -Self-Perception Theory: Self-Perception Theory, proposed by Daryl Bem, suggests that people develop attitudes and opinions by observing their own behavior and drawing conclusions from it. This theory also downplays the role of internal thoughts and emotions in attitude formation. Lets say, for example, that you are a fan of classical music. According to selfperception theory, you didnt decide that you like classical music because you think its the best type of music or because listening to it makes you feel good. You decided that you like classical music based on the fact that you listen to it a lot. Thus, we learn about ourselves and form self-judgments the same way we learn about and judge others by observation Attribution

-attribution refers to how we infer the causes of behaviors and events. During a typical day, you probably make a number of different attributions regarding your own actions as well as the behavior of others.The attributions we make depend upon a number of factors. We are more likely to attribute our own shortcomings to external forces, while we blame internal causes for other people's failures. For example, if you are late for class, you might attribute your tardiness to the fact that your alarm clock didn't function properly. If a fellow classmate shows up late, you might infer that he doesn't take his commitments seriously. Common sense psychology From the book The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations(1958), Fritz Heider tried to explore the nature of interpersonal relationship, and espoused the concept of what he called "common sense" or "nave psychology". In his theory, he believed that people observe, analyze, and explain behaviors with explanations. Although people have different kinds of explanations for the events of human behaviors, Heider found it is very useful to group explanation into two categories; Internal (personal) and external (situational) attributions. When an internal attribution is made, the cause of the given behavior is assigned to the individual's characteristics such as ability, personality, mood, efforts, attitudes, or disposition. When an external attribution is made, the cause of the given behavior is assigned to the situation in which the behavior was seen such as the task, other people, or luck (that the individual producing the behavior did so because of the surrounding environment or the social situation). These two types lead to very different perceptions of the individual engaging in a behavior. Correspondent inference theory Correspondent inferences state that people make inferences about a person when his or her actions are freely chosen, are unexpected, and result in a small number of desirable effects. According to Edward E. Jones and Keith Davis Correspondent Inference Theory, people make correspondent inferences by reviewing the context of behavior. It describes how people try to find out individuals personal characteristics from the behavioral evidence. People make inferences on the basis of three factors; degree of choice, expectedness of behavior, and effects of someones behaviors.

Covariation model of attribution

When there is low consensus and distinctiveness, people make personal attributions for behaviors that are high in consistency (top row). On the other hand, people make stimulus attributions when there is high consensus and distinctiveness (bottom row). Co-variation principle states that people attribute behavior to the factors that are present when a behavior occurs and absent when it does not. Thus, the theory assumes that people make causal attributions in a rational, logical fashion, and that they assign the cause of an action to the factor that co-varies most closely with that action. Harold Kelley's covariation model of Attribution looks to three main types of information from which to make an attribution decision about an individual's behavior. The first is consensus information, or information on how other people in the same situation and with the same stimulus behave. The second is distinctive information, or how the individual responds to different stimuli. The third is consistency information, or how frequent the individual's behavior can be observed with similar stimulus but varied situations. From these three sources of information observers make attribution decisions on the individual's behavior as either internal or external. Kellys theory and the examples of prediction are represented in the diagram. Three-dimensional model of attribution [Bernard Weiner] proposed that individuals have initial affective responses to the potential consequences of the intrinsic or extrinsic motives of the actor, which in turn influence future behavior. That is, a person's own perceptions or attributions as to why they succeeded or failed at an activity determine the amount of

effort the person will engage in activities in the future. Weiner suggests that individuals exert their attribution search and cognitively evaluate casual properties on the behaviors they experience. When attributions lead to positive affect and high expectancy of future success, such attributions should result in greater willingness to approach to similar achievement tasks in the future than those attributions that produce negative affect and low expectancy of future success. Eventually, such affective and cognitive assessment influences future behavior when individuals encounter similar situations. Weiner's achievement attribution has three categories: 1. 2. 3. stable theory (stable and unstable) locus of control (internal and external) controllability (controllable or uncontrollable)

Stability influences individuals' expectancy about their future; control is related with individuals' persistence on mission; causality influences emotional responses to the outcome of task.

Factors affecting Judgement Moral Framework Manuel Valesquez and colleagues identified five different moral frameworks in his 2006 study for Santa Clara University. These frameworks outline different value systems that people use to evaluate the best outcome for a given scenario. The Utilitarian approach attempts to find the outcome that produces the greatest benefit with the least harm. The Rights approach considers the freedom of all involved individuals as the highest aim. The Fairness approach values equitable treatment of all people in a given ethical situation, while the Common Good values the collective benefit of all people in that same situation. Finally, the Virtue approach evaluates what the most upstanding decision to be made ought to be. In any given scenario, people are operating from at least one of these frameworks that are influencing their ethical decisions. Personal Beliefs

People come from different cultural and experiential backgrounds. A person's prior history plays an important role in the way he evaluates ethical problems and makes decisions. A person's race, gender, religion, and socioeconomic status can lead them to certain conclusions rather than others. International business managers face this dynamic all the time while trying to manage offices on the other side of the world. The Western values of productivity and individualism can sometimes collide with Eastern values of propriety and collectivism, for instance. The collision is simply the difference in cultural vantage points that affect ethical decision-making. Personal value systems only go so far in decision-making. Regardless of a person's ethical framework or cultural background, she also factors in obligations and loyalty to her core relationships. A perceived breach of loyalty may often be weighed against an alternative that is for other reasons a better solution. Since relationships play such a powerful role in ethical decision-making, many workplaces are adopting policies that prohibit relationships that would be inappropriate for unbiased decision-making. Group Dynamics Whether family, friends or co-workers, people generally do not like to "go against the grain." In addition, many decisions are not made in a social vacuum but in a public forum, such as a meeting. In public settings, people are very reluctant to speak contrary to the group, even if they believe the wrong decision is being made. Fear of rejection, isolation or even punishment and retaliation, whether real or imaginary, can affect an individual's ability to make ethical and fair decisions Stereotype is ...a fixed, over generalized belief about a particular group or class of people. (Cardwell, 1996). For example, a hells angel biker dresses in leather. One advantage of a stereotype is that it enables us to respond rapidly to situations because we may have had a similar experience before. One disadvantage is that it makes us ignore differences between individuals; therefore we think things about people that might not be true (i.e. make generalizations). The use of stereotypes is a major way in which we simplify our social world; since they reduce the amount of processing (i.e. thinking) we have to do when we meet a new person. By stereotyping we infer that a person has a whole range of characteristics and abilities that we assume all members of that group have. Stereotypes lead to social categorization, which is one of the reasons for prejudice attitudes (i.e. them and us mentality) which leads to in-groups and out-groups.

Most stereotypes probably tend to convey a negative impression. Positive examples would include judges (the phrase sober as a judge would suggest this is a stereotype with a very respectable set of characteristics), overweight people (who are often seen as jolly) and television newsreaders (usually seen as highly dependable, respectable and impartial). Negative stereotypes seem far more common, however. Prejudice Prejudice is a baseless and usually negative attitude toward members of a group. Common features of prejudice include negative feelings, stereotyped beliefs, and a tendency to discriminate against members of the group. While specific definitions of prejudice given by social scientists often differ, most agree that it involves prejudgments (usually negative) about members of a group. Types of Prejudice Prejudice can be based upon a number of factors including sex, race, age, sexual orientations, nationality, socioeconomic status and religion. Some of the most wellknown types of prejudice include: Racism Sexual Discrimination Classicism Homophobia Nationalism Religious prejudice Ageism Linguistic Discrimination Racism Racism is defined as the belief that races exist, that physical characteristics determine cultural traits, and that racial characteristics make some groups superior. By separating people into hierarchies based upon their race, it has been argued that unequal treatment among the different groups of people is just and fair due to their genetic differences. Racism can occur amongst any group that can be identified based upon physical features or even characteristics of their culture. Though people may be lumped together and called a specific race, everyone does not fit neatly into such categories, making it hard to define and describe a race accurately.

Scientific racism began to flourish in the eighteenth century and was greatly influenced by Charles Darwins evolutionary studies, as well as ideas taken from the writings of philosophers likeAristotle; for example, Aristotle believed in the concept of natural slaves. This concept focuses on the necessity of hierarchies and how some people are bound to be on the bottom of the pyramid. Though racism has been a prominent topic in history, there is still debate over whether race actually exists, making the discussion of race a controversial topic. Even though the concept of race is still being debated, the effects of racism are apparent. Racism and other forms of prejudice can affect a persons behavior, thoughts and feelings, and social psychologists strive to study exactly that. Sexual Discrimination Ones sexual orientation is a predilection for homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality. Like most minority groups, homosexuals and bisexuals are not immune to prejudice or stereotypes from the majority group. They may experience hatred from others because of their sexual preferences; a term for such intense hatred based upon ones sexual orientation ishomophobia. Due to what social psychologists call the vividness effect, a tendency to notice only certain distinctive characteristics, the majority population tends to draw conclusions like gays flaunt their sexuality. Such images may be easily recalled to mind due to their vividness, making it harder appraise the entire situation. The majority population may not only think that homosexuals flaunt their sexuality or are too gay, but may also erroneously believe that homosexuals are easy to identify and label as being gay or lesbian when compared to others who are not homosexual. Research shows that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is a powerful feature of many labor markets. For example, controlling for human capital, studies show that gay men earn 10% - 32% less than heterosexual men in the United States, and that there is significant discrimination in hiring on the basis of sexual orientation in many labor markets. Classism Classism is defined by the World English Dictionary as, ...a biased or discriminatory attitude on distinctions made between social or economic classes. The idea of separating people based on class is controversial in itself. Some argue that economic inequality is an unavoidable aspect of society, so there will always be a ruling class. Some also argue that even within the most egalitarian societies in history, some form of ranking based on social status takes place. Therefore, one may believe the existence of social classes is a natural feature of society. Others argue the contrary. According to anthropological evidence, for the majority of the time the human species has been in existence, we have lived in a manner in which the land and resources were not privately owned. Also, when social ranking did occur, it was not antagonistic or hostile like the current class system. This evidence has been used to support the idea that

the existence of a social class system is unnecessary. Overall, society has yet to come to a consensus over the necessity of the class system, nor has society been able to deal with the hostility and prejudice that occurs because of the class system. Homophobia Encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual ortransgender (LGBT). It can be expressed as antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, or hatred, may be based on irrational fear, and is sometimes related to religious beliefs. Nationalism Nationalism is a sentiment based on common cultural characteristics that binds a population and often produces a policy of national independence or separatism. It suggests a shared identity amongst a nation's people that minimizes differences within the group and emphasizes perceived boundaries between the group and nonmembers.This leads to the assumption that members of the nation have more in common than they actually do, that they are culturally unified, even if injustices within the nation based on differences like status and race exist.Nationalism, during times of conflict between one nation and another, is controversial since it may function as a buffer for criticism when it comes to the nations own problems since it makes the nations own hierarchies and internal conflicts appear to be natural. It may also serve a way of rallying the people of the nation in support of a particular political goal. Nationalism usually involves a push for conformity, obedience, and solidarity amongst the nations people and can result, not only in feelings of public responsibility, but also a narrow sense of community due to the exclusion of those who are considered outsiders. Since the identity of nationalists is linked to their allegiance to the state, the presence of strangers who do not share this allegiance may result in hostility. Religious discrimination While various religions teach their members to be tolerant of those who are different and to have compassion, throughout history there have also been instances where religion has been used to promote hate. Researchers have done various studies explore the relationship between religion and prejudice; thus far, they have received mixed results. A study done with US college students found that those who reported religion to be very influential in their lives seem to have a higher rate of prejudice than those who reported not being religious. Other studies found that religion has a positive affect on people as far as prejudice is concerned. This difference in results may be attributed to the differences in religious practices or religious interpretations amongst the individuals. Those who practice institutionalized religion, which focuses more on social and political aspects of religious events, are more likely to have an increase in

prejudice. Those who practice interiorized religion, in which believers devote themselves to their beliefs, are most likely to have a decrease in prejudice. Ageism It is stereotyping and discriminating against individuals or groups on the basis of their age. This may be casual or systematic. The term was coined in 1969 by Robert Neil Butler to describe discrimination against seniors, and patterned on sexism and racism. Butler defined "ageism" as a combination of three connected elements. Among them were prejudicial attitudes towards older people, old age, and the aging process; discriminatory practices against older people; and institutional practices and policies that perpetuate stereotypes about older people. For example, the on-line dating site Plenty of Fish discriminates by restricting interaction between people of different age groups. Linguistic discrimination Individuals or groups may be treated unfairly treatment based solely on their use of language. This use of language may include the individual's native language or other characteristics of the person's speech, such as an accent, the size of vocabulary (whether the person uses complex and varied words), and syntax. It may also involve a person's ability or inability to use one language instead of another. In the mid-1980s, Linguist ToveSkutnabb-Kangas, captured this idea of discrimination based on language as the concept of linguicism. Kangas defined linguicism as the ideologies and structures used to, "...legitimate, effectuate, and reproduce unequal division of power and resources (both material and non-material) between groups which are defined on the basis of language."

III. Belief and Attitude A. DEFINITION

BELIEF The concept of belief presumes a subject (the believer) and an object of belief (the proposition). So, like other propositional attitudes, belief implies the existence of mental states and intentionality, both of which are hotly debated topics in the philosophy of mind, whose foundations and relation to brain states are still controversial. Beliefs are sometimes divided into core beliefs (that are actively thought about) and dispositional beliefs (that may be ascribed to someone who has not thought about the

issue). For example, if asked "do you believe tigers wear pink pajamas?" a person might answer that they do not, despite the fact they may never have thought about this situation before. That a belief is a mental state has been seen by some as contentious. While some[citation needed] have argued that beliefs are represented in the mind as sentence-like constructs, others[citation needed] have gone as far as arguing that there is no consistent or coherent mental representation that underlies our common use of the belief concept and that it is therefore obsolete and should be rejected. An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists. trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something "a belief in democratic politics

Attitude Psychologists define attitudes as a learned tendency to evaluate things in a certain way. This can include evaluations of people, issues, objects or events. Such evaluations are often positive or negative, but they can also be uncertain at times. For example, you might have mixed feelings about a particular person or issue. Researchers also suggest that there are several different components that make up attitudes. 1. An Emotional Component: How the object, person, issue or event makes you feel. 2. Cognitive Component: Your thoughts and beliefs about the subject. 3. A Behavioral Component: How the attitude influences your behavior. Attitudes can also be explicit and implicit. Explicit attitudes are those that we are consciously aware of and that clearly influence our behaviors and beliefs. Implicit attitudes are unconscious, but still have an effect on our beliefs and behaviors. B. EFFECT S ON BEHAVIOR Belief Beliefs Affect behavior in the following ways: Limiting beliefs limits people's potential: Limiting beliefs affects behavior by preventing people from taking certain actions that they would have otherwise took if the belief was not there. An intelligent child might never study and so fails the exams if he believes that he is not intelligent.

Beliefs and information filtering: Just as a i said before we filter information based on our beliefs and only absorb the information that matches our belief system. This impacts our behavior by making us biased towards what we believe in no matter how many proofs are provided. That's why persuading someone to believe into something against his beliefs is hard Beliefs shape reality: If a guy thinks that he will never find a job (a belief) then he will not become motivated to prepare himself for the job market (change in behavior) and later on when he tries to find a job he will fail (so his belief will become true). That's how beliefs can shape reality Beliefs and self confidence: In the Solid Self confidence program i said that self confidence is no more than a set beliefs that you have about yourself. If those beliefs were positive then you will behave like a confident person while if they became negative your behavior will be changed to the opposite s now clear that beliefs can control your actions, behavior and potential. If you learned how to acquire positive beliefs and how to get rid of negative ones then you will be able to use the tremendous power of beliefs on your side. With a positive and powerful belief system there is no limit to what you can achieve in this world. Attitude We tend to assume that people behave in accordance with their attitudes. However, social psychologists have found that attitudes and actual behavior are not always perfectly aligned. After all, plenty of people support a particular candidate or political party and yet fail to go out and vote. Researchers have discovered that people are more likely to behave according to their attitudes under certain conditions: When your attitudes are the result of personal experience. When you are an expert in the subject. When you expect a favorable outcome. When the attitudes are repeatedly expressed. When you stand to win or lose something due to the issue. In some cases, people may actually alter their attitudes in order to better align them with their behavior. Cognitive dissonance is a phenomenon in which a person experiences psychological distress due to conflicting thoughts or beliefs. In order to reduce this tension, people may change their attitudes to reflect their other beliefs or actual behaviors.

Imagine the following situation: You've always placed a high value on financial security, but you start dating someone who is very financially unstable. In order to reduce the tension caused by the conflicting beliefs and behavior, you have two options. You can end the relationship and seek out a partner who is more financially secure, or you can de-emphasize the importance of fiscal stability. In order to minimize the dissonance between your conflicting attitude and behavior, you either have to change the attitude or change your actions.

C. Attitude formation and Theoretical Framework Theories of attitude formation and change.

1. Functionalist theory. Daniel Katz, a professor in Michigan, proposed a functionalist theory of attitudes. He takes the view that attitudes are determined by the functions they serve for us. People hold given attitudes because these attitudes help them achieve their basic goals. Katz distinguishes four types of psychological functions that attitudes meet. A. Instrumental - we develop favorable attitudes towards things that aid or reward us. We want to maximize rewards and minimize penalties. Katz says we develop attitudes that help us meet this goal. We favor political parties that will advance our economic lot if we are in business, we favor the party that will keep our taxes low, if unemployed we favor one that will increase social welfare benefits. We are more likely to change our attitudes if doing so allows us to fulfill our goals or avoid undesirable consequences. B. Knowledge - attitudes provide meaningful, structured environment. In life we seek some degree of order, clarity, and stability in our personal frame of reference. Attitudes help supply us with standards of evaluation. Via such attitudes as stereotypes, we can bring order and clarity to the complexities of human life. C. Value-expressive - Express basic values, reinforce self-image. EX: if you view yourself as a Catholic, you can reinforce that image by adopting Catholic beliefs and values. EX: We may have a self-image of ourselves as an enlightened conservative or a militant radical, and we therefore cultivate attitudes that we believe indicate such a core value. D. Ego-defensive - Some attitudes serve to protect us from acknowledging basic truths about ourselves or the harsh realities of life. They serve as defense mechanisms. EX: Those with feelings of inferiority may develop attitude of superiority. Katz's functionalist theory also offers an explanation as to why attitudes change. According to Katz, an attitude changes when it no longer serves its function and the individual feels

blocked or frustrated. That is, according to Katz, attitude change is achieved not so much by changing a person's information or perception about an object, but rather by changing the person's underlying motivational and personality needs. EX: As your social status increases, your attitudes toward your old car may change - you need something that better reflects your new status. (For that matter, your attitudes toward your old friends may change as well).
2. Learning theory (which stresses attitude formation).

Ivan Pavlov is known for his studies in classical conditioning, which have been influential in understandinglearning.There are several means by which we learn attitudes. A. Classical conditioning. EX: A father angrily denounces the latest increase in income taxes. A mother happily announces the election of a candidate she worked for. These parents are expressing opinions, but they are also displaying nonverbal behavior that expresses their emotions. For a child watching the parents, the association between the topic and the nonverbal behavior will become obvious if repeated often enough. And the nonverbal behavior will trigger emotional responses in the child: the child feels upset and disturbed when listening to the father and happy when listening to the mother. This is an example of classical conditioning: when two stimuli are repeatedly associated, the child learns to respond to them with a similar emotional reaction. In this case, the stimuli are the attitude topic and the parental emotion. Through repeated association, a formerly neutral stimulus (the attitude topic - taxes or politicians) begins to elicit an emotional reaction (the response) that was previously solicited only by another stimulus (the parental emotion). Whenever tax increases are mentioned, the child feels an unpleasant emotion; when the elected official is mentioned, the child feels a pleasant emotion. EX: Pavlov's dogs. Bell was rung when dogs received food. Food made dogs salivate. Then whenever a bell was rung, dogs salivated even when food was not present EX: When you were a child, parents may have cheered for N.D. football. You may not have even known what N.D. football was, but you liked your parents happy attitude. Now N.D. football evokes that same response in you. EX: Men with bow ties. Meet a bad man who wears bow ties, and you may come to hate all bow ties. COMMENT: This explains why behaviors can persist even after reinforcement is withdrawn. Also helps explain self-reinforcement.

B. Instrumental, or operant, conditioning. Behaviors or attitudes that are followed by positive consequences are reinforced and are more likely to be repeated than are behaviors and attitudes that are followed by negative consequences. EX: People agree with your opinion.

C. Observational learning. Children watch the behavior of people around them and imitate what they see. EX: If a young girl hears her mother denounce all elected officials as crooks, she may repeat that opinion in class the next day. Whether she continues to repeat that opinion depends on the responses of her classmates, teacher, and parents. That is, observations determine the responses we learn, but reinforcement determines the responses we express.

3. Cognitive dissonance theory - stresses attitude change - and that behaviors can determine attitudes. Leon Festinger (1957) proposed cognitive dissonance theory, which states that a powerful motive to maintain cognitive consistency can give rise to irrational and sometimes maladaptive behavior A. Definition: Cognition = individuals perception of own attitudes, beliefs, behaviors. Cognitive dissonance = feelings of tension that arise when one is simultaneously aware of two inconsistent cognitions. For example, when we act contrary to our attitudes; or, when we make a decision favoring one alternative despite reasons favoring another. B. Consistency theories hypothesize that, should inconsistencies develop among cognitions, people are motivated to restore harmony. C. Key propositions of dissonance theory 1. Dissonance theory says relationships among two cognitions can be either consonant, dissonant, irrelevant 2. Cognitive dissonance is a noxious state. It produces unpleasant physical arousal. 3. Individual will attempt to reduce or eliminate dissonance - and will try to avoid things that increase dissonance. EX: Selective observation. 4. Cognitive dissonance can be reduced or eliminated only by (a) adding new cognitions, or (b) changing existing ones. EX: Can change our minds. Decide we were wrong.

EX: Can "make up" information, as in the "When prophesy fails" example. EX: We may seek new information that can restore consonance. EX: Try to discredit source of dissonance in some way - either by making up info or seeking counter-evidence.

D. Sources of dissonance 1. Informational inconsistency. Receive information that contradicts what they already know or believe. EX: Suppose you believe George Bush did not know about Iran-Contra - and then suppose Oliver North testified that he was the mastermind behind it. (Real life example: some Iranians are said to believe George Bush did head up Iran-Contra, since he used to be head of the CIA and they think the CIA runs the country.)

2. Disconfirmed expectations. People prepare themselves for an event that never occurs - or even worse, an event whose opposite occurs. EX: You expect to do well on an exam, and you don't. EX: When prophesy fails. In 1955, Marian Keech predicted that a great flood was going to destroy the Western Hemisphere on Dec. 21. She said she got her information from the planet Clarion. She attracted a band of followers, and received further messages about how the faithful could save themselves. Midnight of the big day came and passed, and nothing happened. At 4:45 a.m., they received a Christmas message informing them that because of their commitment and faithfulness, the earth had been spared. Q: How did the followers behave, both before and after the event? Prior to the big day, they were very secretive, and shunned publicity. After the big day, they called the media, sent out press releases, and recruited new followers. Why? Many of these people had quit their jobs, and broken up with their spouses and friends, based on a belief that had been disconfirmed. This produced dissonance. They couldn't deny their past beliefs - they couldn't say the flood had occurred - they couldn't deny they had quit their jobs. They could have decided they were mistaken, but that would create dissonance with other cognitions, such as their being intelligent people. hence, they convinced themselves they were right all along, and their faithfulness had saved the world. Further, if they could convince others to adopt their views, this would affirm their sense that their views were correct.

3. Insufficient justification for behavior. People do things which they lack justification for. EX: In a classic Festinger experiment, subjects were given a peg board and told to carefully turn each peg 1/4 turn. Then, after doing all the pegs, they were told to turn them another 1/4 turn. Later they had to carefully remove each peg, and then put them all back. After an hour, they were told they were done. The experimenter then said "We are comparing the performance of subjects who are briefed in advance with those who are not briefed in advance. You did not receive a briefing. The next subject is supposed to be briefed, but my assistance who usually does this couldn't come to work today." Subjects were then asked to tell the next student the task was fun and exciting, and were offered either $1 or $20 for doing so. Those who only got paid a $1 were more likely to report they thought the task was interesting, because they lacked a strong justification for their actions.

4. Postdecision dissonance - after every decision, you feel dissonance because you have rejected some good things and accepted some bad. We tend to become more certain of decisions afterwards. EX: Bettors approached after they had placed bets at the racetrack were more sure of their choices than those approached before placing bets. NOTE: This does not mean we never regret a decision. Disconfirmed expectations, new information, or whatever may cause us feel we made a mistake. However, until these new events/information or whatever comes along, we will tend to feel more confident about our decision. Obviously, in the case of the racetrack example, people may have felt more confident after they placed their bets, but after the race was run a lot of them probably didn't feel so confident anymore!

E. Not all inconsistencies result in cognitive dissonance. How is inconsistency possible?

1. Cognitions may not be important to the individual - hence inconsistency does not produce discomfort. 2. Cognitions may not come in contact with each other - contradictions can go unnoticed. Behavior may be mindless. EX: We might enjoy a national park - without realizing we are overtaxing it. NOTE: The following relate primarily to counterattitudinal behavior. 3. Aversive consequences are not perceived. In order for cognitive dissonance to occur, a product must result from the counterattitudinal behavior. That product is the bringing

about, or possible occurrence, of an aversive event. Aversive event = something that goes against your self interest, or that you would rather not have occur. EX: In a variation of the boring tasks experiment, some subjects were led to believe they had actually deceived their fellow student, while others thought they had not deceived them. Only those who thought they had succeeded experienced dissonance. EX: In another variation, subjects were led to like or dislike the other student. The only subjects who changed their attitude about the task were those who successfully convinced a student they liked. Note that the consequences need not actually occur; it is the subjects perceptions that the consequences will result from their actions that is important.

4. Person must feel personally responsible. If the person feels that environmental forces caused the action, or that the unwanted events were unforeseeable, they won't feel dissonance. How voluntary is the behavior? Were the consequences foreseeable. Note that foreseeable is not the same as foreseen - if you could have foreseen it but didn't, you can feel dissonance.

We close with a commonly proposed alternative to dissonance theory. 4. Bem's Self-perception theory. Bem developed the theory of self-perception, which is a competitor to the theory of cognitive dissonance. Says we infer our attitudes from our behavior. There is no tension, rather, behavior just serves an informative purpose. We calmly observe our behavior, and draw reasonable inferences from it, just as we do when observing other people. EX: In the Festinger experiment, those who got $20 would assume their behavior was forced by the environment. Those who only got $1 would assume they did what they did because what they said was true. EX: Bem showed that the results of cognitive dissonance experiments could be replicated quite well by observers. People read descriptions of the procedures, and predicted people's attitudes correctly. EX: "I must have really been tired, I slept a long time."

"I must not like him, I was really rude to him." "I must really like this course, I studied really hard for the exam." It is hard to choose between self-perception and cognitive dissonance theory since both usually make the same predictions. However, there is evidence that, as c. d. theory predicts, physiological arousal (that is, tension) accompanies dissonance conditions. Further, when arousal is eliminated (through the use of drugs or alcohol), attitude change does not occur. On the other hand, self-perception can explain some things dissonance can't. For example, when people are suddenly rewarded for doing something they did before just because they liked it, they can come to like it less. EX: (From Myers): Child was reading 6-8 books a week. Library then started a reading club which promised a party to those who read 10 books in three months. Child started checking out only 1 or 2 books a week. Why? "Because you only need to read 10 books." Myers suggests dissonance theory successfully explains what happens when we act contrary to our clearly defined attitudes. We feel tension, so we adjust our attitudes to reduce it. Dissonance explains attitude change. When attitudes aren't well-formed, selfperception theory explains attitude formation that occurs as we act and reflect. (I think he may be right about the latter point, but I'm not so sure about the first.) Key thing, then, is how discrepant is the behavior with the attitude.

D. Attitude Change and Obstacles and Resistance to Persuasion Attitude Change While attitudes can have a powerful effect on behavior, they are not set in stone. The same influences that lead to attitude formation can also create attitude change.

Learning Theory of Attitude Change: Classical conditioning, operant conditioning and observational learning can be used to bring about attitude change. Classical conditioning can be used to create positive emotional reactions to an object, person or event by associating positive feelings with the target object. Operant conditioning can be used to strengthen desirable attitudes and weaken undesirable ones. People can also change their attitudes after observing the behavior of others. Elaboration Likelihood Theory of Attitude Change: This theory of persuasion suggests that people can alter their attitudes in two ways. First, they can be motivated to listen and

think about the message, thus leading to an attitude shift. Or, they might be influenced by characteristics of the speaker, leading to a temporary or surface shift in attitude. Messages that are thought-provoking and that appeal to logic are more likely to lead to permanent changes in attitudes.

Dissonance Theory of Attitude Change: As mentioned earlier, people can also change their attitudes when they have conflicting beliefs about a topic. In order to reduce the tension created by these incompatible beliefs, people often shift their attitudes.

Real world applications a. Racism. It has often been said you can't legislate morality. Yet, changes in civil rights laws and policies have been accompanied by changes in attitudes. Since Brown vs. Board of Education in 1954, the percentage of white Americans favoring integrated schools has more than doubled. Since Civil rights act of 1964, the percentage of white Americans who described their neighborhoods, friends, co-workers, or fellow students as all white declined by 20 percent for each of these measures. Possible explanations: 1. Disconfirmed expectations. Predicted calamities did not occur. 2. Information inconsistent with previous beliefs led to attitude change. 3. People were forced to behave in a counter-attitudinal manner. People who said they would not comply with laws did. Ergo, they reasoned blacks must not be so bad. 4. Racist attitudes became non-instrumental, because of the high costs of violating laws. You had to interact with blacks, so you might as well like them. 5. Value-expressive - racism became inconsistent with the images most people like to hold, so they adopted anti-racist attitudes. b. Suppose you wanted a friend to support a political candidate. What might you do? 1. Get them to do some small task as a favor to you. Counter-attitudinal actions might influence attitudes; exposure to dissonant info might change their minds; classical or instrumental condition could take place - they receive praise for working for the candidate, which leads to positive attitudes. 2. If friend is for another candidate - provide them with dissonant info. Point out candidate is weak in areas friend likes him. 3. What if friend doesn't change his mind? This could occur because (a) friend discredits the source of the info - you (b) instead of liking the candidate, friend could decide he doesn't like you.

Resisting persuasion Introduction The failure of realizing attitudinal or behavioral change by persuasive attempts is often attributed to bad message design, inappropriate use of communication strategies, or detrimental characteristics of the source. However, it has been acknowledged more and more that message receivers may also play an important role in accounting for the absence of attitudinal and behavioral change. Upon exposure to a persuasive message, people may experience psychological reactance because persuasive messages are perceived as a threat to freedom. This experience of psychological reactance often motivates people to adopt strategies that help them in resisting persuasion. Studying psychological reactance and strategies used to resist persuasive attempts is important in gaining a comprehensive understanding of persuasion processes. It may help explain, for example, why many health, marketing, and political campaigns fail to obtain the anticipated effects. The current bibliography provides an overview of theoretical and empirical literature regarding reactance and resistance toward persuasion. First, psychological reactance and resistance toward persuasion will be defined. Then, strategies that audiences adopt in resisting persuasion will be addressed, followed by techniques that may help audiences to resist persuasion. Moreover, related variables such as persuasion knowledge and skepticism will be discussed, and the article ends with a section on overcoming resistance by narrative persuasion.

Core Texts Several books, book chapters, empirical articles, and theoretical articles have been written on the nature and effects of psychological reactance and resistance. McGuire 1964, on inoculation theory, was one of the first works to discuss the topic of resistance toward persuasion, defining it as a persons ability to withstand a persuasive attack. McGuire was particularly interested in the question of how to increase resistance toward persuasion. Brehm 1980 proposed and discussed the (more general) theory of psychological reactance. This theory offers an explanation for peoples motivation to resist persuasion. Psychological reactance is defined as a motivational state that one experiences upon threats to attitudinal and behavioral freedoms. It is argued that any message aimed at changing ones attitudes or behavior is perceived as a threat to freedom because it limits or eliminates freedom of choice (Brehm and Brehm 1981). This experienced threat of freedom often motivates people to restore their freedom by resisting the persuasive message. Burgoon, et al. 2002 provides an excellent overview of research on reactance theory in the field of communication. Clee and Wicklund 1980, a theoretical article, addresses the many applications for reactance theory, particularly for the field of consumer behavior. A more detailed overview on how people actually resist persuasion and how resistance can be overcome can be found in Knowles and Linn 2004. In this book, resistance toward persuasion is discussed from several perspectives and offers an overview of research that is conducted in this field. In Friestad and Wright 1994, the authors Persuasion Knowledge Model (PKM) proposes that people develop persuasion knowledge about the tactics and strategies marketers use in their persuasive attempt. They explain how this knowledge provides message recipients with control over the persuasive situation, which may subsequently foster resistance toward the message.

E. Consistency Concepts on Belief, Attitudes and Behavior

1. The theory of reasoned action maintains that attitudes guide behavior through a deliberation process that takes into account conscious attitudes toward an object and subjective norms. The theory of planned behavior maintains that the influence of conscious attitudes and subjective norms on behavior depends on people's beliefs that they can perform a given behavior and the behavior will have the desired effects. 2. It can be surprisingly difficult at times to predict behavior from attitudes because (a) attitudes are sometimes ambiguous or inconsistent, (b) attitudes sometimes conflictwith other powerful determinants of behavior, (c) attitudes are sometimes based onsecondhand information about the object, (d) attitudes (for example, toward the environment) and the attitude targets we actually confront (for example, whether to donate to Greenpeace) may be at different levels of generality and may be "about" very different things, and (e) some of our behavior is automatic and can bypass our conscious attitudes altogether. 3. Behavior can have very substantial effects on attitudes. Most of the research showing such effects grew out of cognitive consistency theories, which stress how important consistency of attitudes and behavior is to most people. 4. Balance theory was the earliest consistency theory. It specifies that people desire balance among their beliefs and sentiments, and thus prefer to hold attitudes that "follow from" other attitudes ("my enemy's enemy is my friend"), and prefer to behave in ways that align with their attitudes. 5. Cognitive dissonance theory is based on the idea that people experience dissonance, or discomfort, when attitudes and behavior are inconsistent. People therefore most often try to reduce the dissonance they are feeling by bringing their attitudes in line with their behavior. 6. People engage in dissonance reduction when making decisions. After making a choice between two objects or courses of action they find "hidden attractions" in the chosen alternative and previously undetected flaws in the un-chosen alternative. This reduces the dissonance aroused by having to give up some desired object or action. 7. People also engage in effort justification when they exert effort toward some goal and the goal turns out to be disappointing. They justify their expenditure of energy by deciding that the goal is truly worthwhile. 8. People attempt to reduce dissonance in induced compliance situationsthat is, in situations in which other people prompt them to do or say something that is contrary to their beliefs. For example, when induced by another person to argue for a position at variance with their true attitudes with the promise of some sort of compensation for doing

so, people who are under compensated feel that they must justify their behavior and typically do so by changing their attitudes to better align with their behavior. 9. Dissonance resulting from inconsistency between attitudes and behavior should be felt only when (a) there is free choice (or the illusion of it) to engage in the behavior, (b) there is insufficient justification for the behavior, (c) the behavior has negative consequences either for the self or for another, and (d) the consequences of the behavior were foreseeable. 10. The effects of inconsistency can be reduced if the individual has just had some selfaffirming experience that obviates the need to protect the ego from the unpleasant consequences of foreseeable action. 11. Dissonance is apparently universal, but there are cultural differences in the conditions that prompt people to experience it. For example, the Japanese tend to experience postdecision dissonance only when asked to think about how another person would choose.

12. Self-perception theory originated as an alternative explanation for the results obtained in dissonance experiments. It is based on the premise that people do not move their attitudes into line with their behavior because they are motivated to justify them; they do so merely because they observe their behavior and the circumstances in which it occurs and infer, just as an observer might, what their attitudes must be, given that they behaved as they did.

13. Whereas self-perception may well play a role in generating the effects in many dissonance experiments, some evidence clearly indicates that there is often a motivational component as well. "Mere" self perception appears to account for attitude change in situations in which attitudes are weak or unclear to begin with, whereas more motivated, dissonance reduction processes are invoked when attitudes are more strongly held to begin with.

IV. Value System

Value system is the principles of right and wrong that are accepted by an individual or a social group.It is also a coherent set of values adopted or evolved by a person, organization, or society as a standard to guide its behavior in preferences in all situations. Definition of Values Value is something added to the object by the mind. Whatever is deemed by the mind as a goal worth striving for is its given value. One good example to expound what value means is our money. Money has value because it can be exchanged for a variety of goods. Money can

change in value and can even be said to float. The paper or metal it is made of has little or no value, but value is attributed to money by the people. Shoes, clothes, cars, accessories and other stuffs have value and their value also changes in relation with how desirable they become in a given situation, the desirability varying according to circumstances like rarity of supply. In all of these objects, value is not seen as the object but the value added to these objects by peoples mind is what the object is really all about. Value is something subjective. What is experienced as good by one is not necessarily so experienced by another. The same will hold true for the more abstract goods of life; art, science, politics, freedom, popularity, etc., which are experienced by some as important but not so experienced by others. The Psychological Process of Value Formation Many researchers are making a study nowadays for a better understanding of the process of values formation. It has become clear that one does not teach values like honesty, truthfulness, generosity, marital fidelity, etc., in the same way that one teaches objective things like arithmetic or geography. Some even wonder if values can betaught at all and advocate instead a process of value clarification. What we seem to be looking for at the moment is a way of thinking about value formation, a conceptual model that can help us understand this process whether or not we can do anything to modify or guide it. The purpose of this note is to recall the contributions of two great schools of psychological thought of this century, the Freudianand the Behaviorist, and to propose a synthesis that may help map the process of value learning a bit more realistically.

Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) was an Austrian neurologist who became known as the founding father of psychoanalysis. Freud

made a magnificent contribution to our understanding of the process of values formation. In this process of superego formation, the essential element was "identification." Learning by identification occurs within a relationship. There is a merging of subjectivities. Rather than a conscious objective learning with concepts, much of it is unconscious imitation. He stressed the importance of parents and family. Even today in the Philippines, the questions we ask about a daughter's boyfriend when he begins to get serious are: Does he come from a good family? Are the parents stable? The assumption is that the son's values will reflect those of the parents, and a polygamous father will very likely have a polygamous son.

Behaviorism was the dominant paradigm of American psychology from the 1920's until the 1950's. Since behaviorists did not believe in mind, neither did they believe in values, but instead thought in terms of the probability of behavior. Their principle was: "That behavior will prevail which is most reinforced." Values are not taught by propaganda or by reasoning. Values are not taught directly, the way behavior is taught. Values are not necessarily taught by punishment.

Measurement of Values Social studies do not need to be quantitative in order to qualify as science. Some of the most important experiments in science deal first of all with the description of basic phenomena in a qualitative way. It usually happens that quantitative methods appear with more intensive study. Here we have considered some exploratory attempts to establish a subjective metric for the measurement of values. I have not succeeded in persuading social science students about the fascinating challenge to develop their field as science. To do so, we must free ourselves from the impulse for social action which has no place here. We should avoid problems in which we have an ax to grind. As citizens we have the privilege and the duty to participate in political elections. But when we work as scientists, we should be aloof from the issues of the moment and the chatter of the market place. Only in scientific detachment and objectivity can we eventually be helpful in developing the social studies as science. 5. Interpersonal Attraction Why do we like some people and not others? What determines whom we select as our friends? Perhaps the most general answer is that we like people who reward us and who help us to satisfy our needs. One important type of reward is social approval, and many studies have shown that we tend to like people who evaluate us positively. There also tends to be a reciprocity of attraction: We like people who like us Another general principle comes from social exchange theory: We like people when we perceive our interactions with them to be profitable, that is, when the rewards we get from the relationship ourweigh the costs. Thus, we may like Jonathan because he is smart, funny, and a good athlete, and because these good qualities outweigh his annoying tendency to be late. Social exchange theory also emphasizes that we make comparative judgements, assessing the profits we get from one person against the profits we get from another. With these general principles in mind, we now turn to research on more specific factors that influence interpersonal attraction. Four important determinants of liking are proximity, familiarity, similarity, and personal qualities of the other individual. As we discuss each of these important factors, we will also note occasional exceptions that differ from the general pattern.

a. Major Determinants of Liking Proximity: Liking Those Nearby People who are physically close are more easily available than those who are distant. Obviously, we cannot like or be friends with someone we have never

met. We choose our friends from people we know. The ready availability of people close by also affects the balance of rewards and costs of interacting, a point emphasized by social exchange theory. It takes little effort to chat with a neighbour or to ask her about bus service to the airport. Even if a neighbours company is only moderately pleasant, we come by it cheaply, and so we may find it profitable. In contrast, long-distance relationships require time, planning, and money. When good friends move apart, they often vow to keep in touch regularly. But many find that their contracts dwindle to an occasional birthday card or phone call. A further explanation of the proximity effect is based on cognitive dissonance theory, introduced in Chapter 5. According to this theory, people strive to maintain harmony or consistency among their attitudesto organize their likes and dislikes in a balanced, consistent way. It is psychologically distressing to live or work side by side with someone we dislike, and so we experience cognitive pressure to like those with whom we must associate. We are motivated to like those we are connected to and to seek proximity with those we like. For example, suppose you arrive at college to meet your assigned roommate and instantly dislike him or her. To try to reduce cognitive dissonance, you have two options. You can avoid the roommate as much as possible and try to move to another room. Or you can reevaluate the roommate, trying to see some good qualities on order to avoid conflicts and to make the best of the situation. The issue comes down to which is easier to change. Often it is nearly impossible to break off the relationship. Your dorm counsellor may insist that you cannot change roommates until the term ends. Therefore, you experience pressure to increase your liking for your roommate. Familiarity: Liking Those We See Often Why does familiarity increase liking? Several explanations have been offered, emphasizing both emotional and cognitive processes. Evolutionary psychologists have speculated that humans may have an innate fear of the unfamiliar, because strangers and unfamiliar objects may represent a threat. In contrast, familiar people and things may produce feelings of comfort. Others suggest that repeated exposure improves our recognition of a person, and improved recognition is a helpful step in coming to like that person. As people become more familiar, they also become more predictable. The more we see the new neighbour in our apartment building, the more we learn about her, and the better we can predict how she will behave in the elevator and the laundry room. As a result, we feel more comfortable in her presence. Finally, we may assume that familiar people are similar to ourselves. The study described earlier, in which women attended a social psychology class from 1 to 15 times, addressed the issue. Students rated women who attended class frequently as more similar to them in personality, background, and plans for the future. Similarity: Liking People Like Us Another basic factor in interpersonal attraction is similarity. We tend to like people who are similar to us in attitudes, interests, values, background, and personality

Why is similarity so important for interpersonal attraction? Several mechanisms may be involved. To understand each one, consider why a boyfriend and girlfriend might have similar beliefs about religion: - Selective attraction. One possibility is that each person has strong religious views and uses them to screen potential dates. Only similar partners are acceptable; dissimilar others are rejected. This selection effect could occur very early in the initial choice of friends and dating partners, or later on as partners get to know each other better and decide whether to continue the relationship. - Social influence. Another possibility is that partners are initially different in their attitudes but gradually persuade each other to change their views. As a result, they may become more similar over time. The mechanism here is one of social influence, in which partners attitudes change in the direction of greater similarity. - Environmental factors. A third possibility is that the relationship is strongly affected by shared environmental factors that lead people with similar attitudes to meet. In everyday life, the causes of similarity and matching are complex, and several different mechanisms may work together to produce the often observed association of similarity and liking.

Desirable Personal Attributes: Warmth and Competence Just what is that makes us like one person more than another? There is no single answer to this question. Some people find red hair and freckles irresistible; other dislike them intensely. Some of us prize compassion in our friends; others value intelligence. Individuals vary in the attributes they find most attractive in other people. There are also large cultural differences in those personal qualities that are considered socially desirable. For example, in the United States, many people equate feminine beauty with being thin, but other societies consider plump women the most attractive. Researches have sought to identify some of the general characteristics associated with liking in our US society: Two qualities appear to be particularly important: personal warmth and competence. We feel affection for people who show interpersonal warmth, and we respect people we view as competent. Warmth. What make makes one person seem warm and friendly, whereas another comes across as cold and aloof? We dont yet have a complete answer to this question, but one important ingredient is having a positive outlook. People appear warm when they like things, praise them, and approve of them- in other words, when they have a positive attitude toward people and things. In contrast, people seem cold when dislike thins, disparage them, say they are awful, and are generally critical. Competence. In general, we like people who are socially skilled, intelligent, and competent. The particular type of competence that matters most depends on the nature of

our relationship with the person: We are attracted to friends who are good conversationalists, to mechanics who are good at fixing cars, and to professors who are knowledgeable lecturers. Competent people are usually more rewarding to be with than inept people. Fatal Attractions The personal qualities that initially attract us to someone can occasionally turn out to be fatal flaws in the relationship. A woman who is attracted to a man by his professional success and self-confidence may later find that he is a domineering workaholic. This point has been illustrated in research on so-called fatal attractions in college student romances and marriages think of their most recent romantic relationship that had ended and to list the qualities that had first attracted them to this previous partner. Common responses, in order of frequency, concerned the partners physical appearance(sexy and pretty eyes), having fun with the partner, and the partner being caring, competent, and having similar interests. Later , students may asked to think, in retrospect, about the qualities they had found least attractive in the partner. Physical Attractiveness Although we are told not to judge a book by its cover, we can hardly avoid forming impressions of people based on their physical appearance. A great many studies, both in North America and in other parts of the world, have investigated this topic, and they consistently show that beauty does indeed make a difference in social life. Liking Good-Looking People There seem to be several reasons for the association between physical attractiveness and liking. One reason may be that when meeting new people, we pay more attention to physically attractive individuals, especially women, than to their less good-looking peers. The stereotype that good-looking people have other good qualities as well may also Physical attractiveness may be an important clue to good health and reproductive fitness. In other words, a pretty face may be a marker of good genes. Another reason for liking attractive people is the radiating effect of beauty. People may find it rewarding to be seen with a particularly attractive person because they think it will enhance their own public image. Michael Kennis and Ladd Wheeler hypothesized that this radiating effect of beauty occurs when a person is seen with an attractive friend, but not with an attractive stranger.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Social Psychology(12th edition) by Shelley E. Taylor http://www.philippinestudies.net/ojs/index.php/ps/article/view/943/3995 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_information_processing_%28cognition%29 http://psychology.about.com/od/socialpsychology/f/halo-effect.htm http://blog.lib.umn.edu/housingstudies/hsg8467theory/2013/07/impression-formationtheory.html http://www.ask.com/question/definition-of-impression-formation

http://2knowmyself.com/how_beliefs_affect_behavior http://psychology.about.com/od/socialpsychology/a/attitudes.htm http://www.acrwebsite.org/search/view-conference-proceedings.aspx?Id=6876 http://www.as.wvu.edu/~randes/14/14Unit17.htm

http://www3.nd.edu/~rwilliam/xsoc530/attitudes.html
http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199756841/obo-9780199756841-0127.xml

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/value-system.html#ixzz2lXnIeXpi http://www.2knowmyself.com/how_beliefs_affect_behavior http://psychology.about.com/od/socialpsychology/a/attitudes.htm http://www.acrwebsite.org/search/view-conference-proceedings.aspx?Id=6876 http://www.as.wvu.edu/~randes/14/14Unit17.htm

http://www3.nd.edu/~rwilliam/xsoc530/attitudes.html
http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199756841/obo-9780199756841-0127.xml

http://www.lib.umich.edu/faculty-history/faculty/daniel-katz https://www.boundless.com/psychology/learning/classical-conditioning/pavlov-sresearch/ http://www.simplypsychology.org/cognitive-dissonance.html http://www.goodtherapy.org/famous-psychologists/daryl-bem.html http://explorable.com/halo-effect