Extension of FA: Actor-Observer Bias & Self-Serving Bias#

Returning to our earlier example, Jamie was laid off, but an observer would not know. So a naïve observer would tend to attribute Jamie’s hostile behavior to Jamie’s disposition rather than to the true, situational cause. One reason is that we often don’t have all the information we need to make a situational explanation for another person’s behavior. The only information we might have is what is observable. Due to this lack of information we have a tendency to assume the behavior is due to a dispositional, or internal, factor. When it comes to explaining our own behaviors, however, we have much more information available to us. If we came home from school or work angry and yelled at our dog or a loved one, what would our explanation be? We might say we were very tired or feeling unwell and needed quiet time - a situational explanation. The actor-observer bias is the phenomenon of attributing other people’s behavior to internal factors (fundamental attribution error) while attributing our own behavior to situational forces. As actors of behavior, we have more information available to explain our own behavior. However as observers, we have less information available; therefore, we tend to default to a dispositionist perspective.

Following an outcome, self-serving biases are those attributions that enable us to see ourselves in a favorable light (for example, making internal attributions for success and external attributions for failures). When we do well at a task, for example acing an exam, it is in our best interest to make a dispositional attribution for our behavior (“I’m smart”) instead of a situational one (“The exam was easy”). Self-serving bias is the tendency to explain our successes as due to dispositional (internal) characteristics, but to explain our failures as due to situational (external) factors. Again, this is culture dependent. This bias serves to protect self-esteem. We can imagine that if people always made situational attributions for their behavior, they would never be able to take credit and feel good about their accomplishments

Case Study - World War II Germany#

During World War II, Germany exhibited characteristics of a collectivist culture, particularly under the Nazi regime. While Germany is generally considered an individualistic culture today, the Nazi regime emphasized collective identity, national unity, and obedience to the state, prioritizing the needs of the nation above individual desires. This was achieved through propaganda, strict social control, and suppression of dissent.

Social Roles#

Social Role

A social role is a pattern of behavior that is expected of a person in a given setting or group

Social Norms#

Social Norm

A social norm is a group’s expectation of what is appropriate and acceptable behavior for its members - how they are supposed to behave and think

Each one of us has several social roles. One may be, at the same time, a student, a parent, an aspiring teacher, a son or daughter, a spouse, and a lifeguard. These social roles influence our behaviors.

Scripts#

Application of PSP#

How to Guard Against the Information That Social Proof Provides#

PSP gives us shortcut to make right decisions but not always. The key is to identify the wrong data in the crowd. Purposely falsified social evidence is an example of wrong data. e.g. canned laughter

Physical Attractiveness#

Halo Effects - A halo effect occurs when one positive characteristic of a person dominates the way that person is viewd by others

Physical attractiveness triggers halo effect. We automatically assign to good-looking individuals such as favorable traits as talent, kindness, honesty, and intelligence (we make these judgements without being aware that physical attractiveness plays a role in the process)

Unsettling research indicates that our judicial process is similarly susceptible to the influences of body dimensions and bone structure. e.g. handsome man received lighter sentences in criminal trials

Attractive people are more likely to obtain help when in need and are more persuasive in changing the opinions of an audience.

Similarity#

In addition to physical appearance, we like people who are similar (opinion, personality, background, life-style) to us.

Example

• Dress
• Interests - a strong example: Car salesmen, for example, are trained to look for evidence of such things while examining the customer’s trade-in. If there is camping gear in the trunk, the salesman might mention, later on, how he loves to get away from the city whenever he can; if there are golf balls on the back seat, he might remark that he hopes the rain will hold off until he can play the eighteen holes he has schedules for later in the day; if he notices that the car was purchased out of state, he might ask where the customer is from and report - with surprise - that he (or his wife) was born there, too

Compliments - We are Phenomenal Suckers for Flatter#

The information that someone fancies us can be a bewitchingly effective device for producing return liking and willing compliance. So, often in terms of flattery or simple claims of affinity, we hear positive estimation from people who want something from us

This reflects a lot of phenomenons in our society:

• why you see those celebrities give holiday greetings on TV
• why you see sales people regularly sends you “happy new year” or “I like you” card.

Familiarity - Contact & Cooperation#

For the most part, we like things that are familiar to us.

Why familiarity plays a role in liking? Our attitude toward something is influenced by the number of times we have been exposed to it in the past.

But this does not apply in all cases (Schooling exception). Hence the concept of “cooperation” is introduced. The concept is illustrated in the following experiment:

Children are splited into 2 competing groups -> Groups starts to fight against each other triggered by the grouping itself -> cooperation. e.g. combined forces to fix water problem, pull food truck, and renting a movie -> the common goals ended the battles between groups -> they become friends

My thoughts

• This experiment is very similar to video games in which people form 2 competing groups to fight against each other. The psychological effect is that people will separate each other more and more, which is not a great act
• “The crucial procedure was the experimenters’ imposition of common goals on the groups” - Managing a group of people in organization should focus on the innate personal goals of each individual employees

It is important to know when cooperation is appropriate because sometimes competition has its place, too. It can serve as a valuable motivator of desirable action and an important builder of self-concept.

Done with children experiment, the book states that

1. although the familiarity produced by contact usually leads to greater liking, the opposite occurs if the contact carries distasteful experience with it
2. the evidence that team-oriented learning is an antidote to this disorder may tell us about the heavy impact of cooperation on the liking process.

How does all above apply to the persuasion of product buying? Compliance professionals are forever attempting to establish that we and they are working for the same goals, that we must “pull together” for mutual benefit, that they are, in essence, our teammates

Thoughts

• While choosing from potential employee candidates, organizations must carefully consider the goal alignment between corporate and the individual, so as to let employee do more good tings to their groups.

• I think this is one of the reason for “Mission Statements”
• IMPORTANT - example of Good/Bad Cop P150

Conditioning and Association#

There is a natural human tendency to dislike a person who brings us unpleasant information, even when that person did not cause the bad news. The simple association with it is enough to stimulate our dislike. Vice Versa - establish connection between product and goodies.

e.g.

• Good-looking models standing around car
• Linking of celebrities to products in advertisement
• Congressional representatives traditionally announce to the press the start of federal projects that will bring new jobs or benefits to their home states; this is true even when a representative has had nothing to do with advancing the project or has, in some cases, voted against it
• Luncheon technique - We become fonder of the people and things we experience while we were eating (food is a source of positiveness)
• Pavlov: If the presentation of food to a god was always accompanied by the sound of a bell, soon the dog would salivate to the bell alone, even when there was no food to be had
• Luncheon technique is an application of Pavlov’s experiment: there are many normal responses to food besides salivation, one of the being a good and favorable feeling.

Concentrate on the liking effect rather than preventing it and notice the over-behavior of liking (e.g. the feeling that we have come to like the practitioner more quickly or more deeply than we would have expected).

Application of SP - “Limited-Number Tactic”#

The customer is informed that a certain product is in short supply that cannot be guaranteed to last long.

LN tactic assumes that the things that are difficult to possess are typically better than those that are easy to possess - availability decides on quality.

Application of SP - Fight for Freedom#

e.g.

• Romeo and Juliet
• Cigarette ads via woman rights
• Visitor purchases gun in gun-free city - people want what has been banned and therefore to presume that it is more worthwhile

Extending SP - NEW Scarcity is More Powerful (Cookie Experiment)#

Not only do we want the same item more when it is scare, we want it most when we are in competition for it.

e.g.

• “hurry-to-buy” on e-commerce
• Salespeople fake rich buyer/competitor to indecisive customer

How Do We Say No to Scarcity?#

According to the cookie experiment, the joy is not in experiencing a scarce commodity but in possessing it.

Whenever we confront the scarcity pressures surrounding some item, we must also confront the question of what it is we want from the item. If the answer if that we want the thing for the social, economic, or psychological benefits of possessing something rare, then, fine; scarcity pressures will give us a good indication of how much we would want to pay for it - the less available it it, the more valuable to us it will be. But very often we don’t want a thing purely for the sake of owning it. We want it, instead, for its utility value; we want to eat it or drink it or touch it or hear it or drive it or otherwise use it. In such cases it is vital to remember that scarce things do not taste or feel or sound or ride or work any better because of their limited availability.

Example of Mental Tape - Ask for Favor#

When we ask someone to do us a favor we will be more successful if we provide a reason. People simply like to have reasons for what they do.

The word “because” is a trigger of successful compliance request. e.g. cut in line to make copies (Excuse me, I have five pages. May I use the Xerox machine because I have to make some copies?)

Example of Mental Tape - Expensive = Good#

e.g. jewelry example above

People learned from past experience that normally the price of an item increases along with its worth. Although it is not always correct, over all of the past and future situations of their lives, betting those shortcut odds may represent the most rational approach possible. Rich people are more likely to make rational decisions with less amount of time. The extra earned time can be used for other valuable investments, such as reading.

Why we make such mental shortcuts? Because we don’t have the time, energy, or capacity for it. Instead, we must very often use our stereotypes, our rules of thumb to classify things according to a few key features and then to respond mindlessly when one or another of these trigger features is present. In today’s world, slow = failure. We have to act super quickly on all things to get there faster than others.

“Civilization advances by extending the number of operations we can perform without thinking about them”. Take coupon as an example, we expect discount coupons to do double duty. Not only do we expect them to save us money, we also expect them to save us the time and mental energy required to think about how to do it.

Since most of us know very little about our automatic behavior patterns, they make us terribly vulnerable to anyone who does know how they work.

Contrast Principle#

Contrast Principle - We may be less satisfied with the physical attractiveness of our own lovers because of the way the popular media bombard us with examples of unrealistically attractive models.

Examples of Contrast Principle:

• When a man enters a cloth store to buy an expensive three-piece suit and cheap sweater, the sales person will always guide the man to buy the suit first
• Realty salesman shows undesirable houses first and then good houses