Contextual Influences

CONTEXTUAL INFLUENCES

Most social acts have to be understood in their setting, and lose meaning if isolated.

No error in thinking about social facts is more serious than the failure to see their place and function.

• Solomon Asch (American social psychologist, 1907-1996)

Our behavior is influenced by social situational factors, conditions and circumstances, the structure or description of a problem or choice, and our desires, mood and expectations.

We tend to overestimate personal characteristics and motives when we explain the behavior of others. We underestimate situational factors like social pressure, roles or things over which people have no control. An example is blaming an individual rather than a poorly designed system for failure. Chance also matters. Maybe we sometimes give too much blame to people who had bad luck, and too much credit to those who were simply lucky.

We expect people to be consistent in their behavior. But we behave differently in different situations. For example, we behave differently at home, in school, at work, and among friends; when alone and when in a group; when seen and when anonymous.

"I shouldn't have been so fast judging him as a bad person. Who knows, I may have done the same if put in the same situation."

Extreme circumstances and conditions can cause people to do things they would never do under normal circumstances. Put good people in a bad situation and their normal behavior changes. The Zimbardo prison experiment at Stanford examined behavior in simulated prisoner and guard roles. Students screened as physically and mentally healthy were randomly assigned to the roles for a planned two-week period. Zimbardo reported aggression by guards and helplessness, depression, and extreme stress among prisoners. He interpreted these changes as evidence of the influence of the situation and assigned roles. The experiment ended after six days.

In a statement prepared for the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, the originator of the experiment, Philip Zimbardo, said: "We were horrified because we saw some boys treat other boys as if they were despicable animals, taking pleasure in cruelty, while other boys became servile, dehumanized robots who thought only of escape, of their own individual survival, and of their mounting hatred of the guards."

Often when we are in a role, we tend to act as others expect. Zimbardo said: "Even when they thought they didn't have to meet anyone's expectations, the role of prison guard determined their actions."

An American Indian proverb says: "Don't judge a man until you've walked two moons in his moccasins." How would we behave if we were anonymous, part of a group, tired and exhausted, and others had been labeled as enemies, evil or worthless?

"Why is John tense when people watch his golf swing?"

Are our actions observed or not? People may change their behavior merely because they are being observed.

"No one can see me."

Anonymity can create destructive behavior. Studies show that peaceful students can become aggressive when they are made to feel anonymous by having their identity masked.

The less knowledgeable we are about an issue, the more influenced we are by how it is framed.

The answers we get depend on the questions we ask. The British philosopher Herbert Spencer said: "How often misused words generate misleading thoughts." Consider how a statement, problem, consequence, or question is presented. How is it worded? What is its context? Are we considering certain features and ignoring others? Emotional, selective and appealing frames influence us.

How a choice is presented influences our preferences. For example, we prefer a product that is presented as "95% fat free" rather than "5% fat". We respond differently depending on whether something is presented in terms of gains or in terms of losses. A surgical procedure that has a 40% chance of success seems more appealing than one that has a 60% chance of failure.

Frequencies appeal to our emotions. What is the chance that a mental patient commits an act of violence within 6 months after discharge? Studies show that experienced psychologists and psychiatrists judge the patient as more dangerous when the risk of violence was presented as relative frequencies (e.g., 20 patients out of 100 similar to the patient are estimated to be violent to others...) than when the risk was presented as a probability (e.g., it is estimated that similar patients have a 20% chance of being violent to others ...). One study showed that a disease that kills 1,286 of 10,000 people (12.86%) was rated as riskier than one that kills 24.14 of 100 people (24.14%).

We are influenced by the order, first or last, in which a presentation happens. The key variable is the amount of time that separates the presentations, the time when we have to make a judgment, and which presentation is the most easily remembered.

Assume that two presidential candidates are speaking on an issue, one directly after the other. If some time passes before we have to make a judgment, we are likely to be more influenced by the first presentation. Assume now that some time passes between the first and last presentations, but we have to make a judgment immediately after the last presentation. Then we are more likely to be influenced by the last presentation.

"I put my paycheck in the bank at 4% interest, and borrowed money for a car loan at 10% interest."

We create our own frames by doing mental accounting. We treat assets of the same value differently depending on where they come from or their importance. We put different values on the same dollar, and are more willing to risk money we have won than money we have earned. A gain of $1,000 from playing roulette has less value than $1,000 earned from hard work. "I didn't gamble with my $1,000, I only gambled with the $1,000 I won on the casino." But it is the same amount of money.

In one experiment psychologists found that people who lost a $10 theater ticket on the way to the theatre were reluctant to buy a second ticket. Those who instead lost a $10 bill on the way to buy a $10 theatre ticket saw the loss of the money and the purchase of the ticket as unrelated, so they would buy the ticket. But, in both cases, the loss was the same.

We should view our assets in terms of their entirety. A dollar is a dollar independent of where it comes from. What counts is what we put in or take out of our pocket.

Our behavior may differ when we deal with someone we know, a stranger, or someone observing us in an experiment.

"I expect you to understand what I'm saying. I know you can do this."

"Things are not always what they seem," said the 1st Century Roman philosopher Phaedrus.

Our behavior can be influenced by the expectations of others - teachers, coaches, bosses, etc. For example, to please the observer, a research subject may read in a desired result. A patient may wish to respond to a treatment in what they see as the correct way. We live up to what is expected of us.

Studies show that patients can have faster heartbeats and higher blood pressure when examined by a doctor compared to a nurse.

We often see what we want or expect to see. A doctor may see an effect in a patient because he expects to see it. We often don't see what we don't expect to see.

Do we treat people according to our expectations?

Assume Mary is on her way to meet someone for the first time. Does it matter if this person has been described as friendly or emotionally cold? Yes, it produces a change in Mary's expectations of that individual and a change in her behavior. Mary will expect friendliness or hostility and behave according to her expectations. The person may react to Mary in a way that confirms her expectations. We treat people like we expect them to be. If we expect people to be bad, we treat them in a certain way, which may cause them to behave badly.

Assume that a new teacher is told that half of the class has high IQs and half has low IQs. The teacher is given the names of the supposed intelligent kids and the supposed not so intelligent ones. In reality, someone has randomly selected the two groups. The teacher’s expectations could become self-fulfilling if they change the attention, instruction, or encouragement given to each group. Studies of elementary school students have examined this effect. The example illustrates how expectations can influence performance.

Irrational behavior in one context may cause good results in another.

We aren't stupid - judgments are often a function of context. The judgments of others can be informative, obedience to an authority is important for order, being careful in getting involved in a dangerous situation may save our life.

What about all the evidence from lab experiments?

How well do laboratory findings carry over to everyday situations?

There is a difference between real life and the controlled and somewhat artificial context of the lab. What is happening in some lab experiments may not happen in a natural situation. For example, many experiments are often played anonymously without repetition. What is the structure of the problem? The environment? Assumptions? Importance? Cost of being wrong? Often there exists more than one right answer. The context of the task matters. In a more realistic, concrete, and social context, many tasks are often solved correctly.

Studies show that we are overconfident. Does this mean we are always overconfident? No, the studies only show that some people are overconfident in some tasks in a certain context.