Intro Psych Chapter 17

peripheral route processing

Message interpretation characterized by consideration of the source and related general information rather than of the message itself. "I like that person presenting that argument." basis of factors unrelated to the nature or quality of the content of a persuasive message. Instead, factors that are irrelevant or extraneous to the issue, such as who is providing the message, how long the arguments are, or the emotional appeal of the arguments, infl uence them (Petty et al., 2005; Wegener et al., 2004; Warden, Wu &TSai 2006

central route processing

Message interpretation characterized by thoughtful consideration of the issues and arguments used to persuade. "I understand and agree with that argument." Recipients' receptiveness to persuasive messages relates to the type of informationprocessing they use.occurs when the recipient thoughtfully considers the issues and arguments involved in persuasion. In central route processing, people are swayed in their judgments by the logic, merit, and strength of arguments

stereotype

A set of generalized beliefs and expectations about a particular group and its members. What do you think when someone says, "He's African American," "She's Chinese," or "That's a woman driver"? If you're like most people, you'll probably automatically form some sort of impression of what each person is like. Most likely your impression is based on a stereotype, a set of generalized beliefs and expectations about a specifi c group and its members. Stereotypes, which may be negative or positive, grow out of our tendency to categorize and organize the vast amount of information we encounter in our everyday lives. All stereotypes share the common feature of oversimplifying the world: We view individuals not in terms of their unique, personal characteristics, but also in terms of characteristics we attribute to all the members of a particular group. Stereotypes can lead to prejudice, a negative (or positive) evaluation of a group and its members. For instance, racial prejudice occurs when a member of a racial group is evaluated in terms of race and not because of his or her own characteristics or abilities. Although prejudice can be positive ("I love the Irish"), social psychologists have focused on understanding the roots of negative prejudice ("I hate immigrants"). Common stereotypes and forms of prejudice involve race, religion, ethnicity, and gender. Over the years, various groups have been called "lazy" or "shrewd" or "cruel" with varying degrees of regularity by those who are not members of that group. Even today, despite major progress toward reducing legally sanctioned forms of prejudice, such as school segregation, stereotypes remain (Eberhardt et al., 2004; Pettigrew, 2004; Hunt, Seifert, & Armenta, 2006). Even people who on the surface appear to be unprejudiced may harbor hidden prejudice. For example, when white participants in experiments are shown faces on a computer screen so rapidly that they cannot consciously perceive the faces, they react more negatively to black than to white faces—an example of what has been called modern racism (Dovidio, Gaertner, & Pearson, 2005; Liu & Mills, 2006; Pearson, Dovidio, & Pratto, 2007). Although usually backed by little or no evidence, stereotypes can have harmful consequences. Acting on negative stereotypes results in discrimination —behavior directed toward individuals on the basis of their membership in a particular group. Discrimination can lead to exclusion from jobs, neighborhoods, and educational opportunities, and it may result in lower salaries and benefi ts for members of specifi c groups. Discrimination can also result in more favorable treatment to favored groups—for example, when an employer hires a job applicant of his or her own racial group because of the applicant's race (Avery, McKay, & Wilson, 2008; Pager & Shepherd, 2008). Stereotyping not only leads to overt discrimination, but also can cause members of stereotyped groups to behave in ways that refl ect the stereotype through a phenomenon known as the self-fulfi lling prophecy . Self-fulfi lling prophecies are expectations about the occurrence of a future event or behavior that act to increase the likelihood the event or behavior will occur. For example, if people think that members of a specifi c group lack ambition, they may treat them in a way that actually brings about a lack of ambition (Oskamp, 2000; Seibt & Förster, 2005; Madon, Willard, & Guyll, 2006).

prejudice

A negative (or positive) evaluation of a particular group and its members.No one has ever been born disliking a specifi c racial, religious, or ethnic group. People learn to hate in much the same way that they learn the alphabet. According to observational learning approaches to stereotyping and prejudice, the behavior of parents, other adults, and peers shapes children's feelings about members of various groups. For instance, bigoted parents may commend their children for expressing prejudiced attitudes. Likewise, young children learn prejudice by imitating the behavior of adult models. Such learning starts at an early age: Children as young as 6 months judge others according to their skin color, and by 3 years of age they begin to show preferences for members of their own race (Ponterotto, Utsey, & Pedersen, 2006; Dovidio & Gaertner, 2006; Bronson & Merryman, 2009). The mass media also provide information about stereotypes not just for children but for adults as well. Even today, some television shows and movies portray Italians as Mafi a-like mobsters, Jews as greedy bankers, and African Americans as promiscuous or lazy. When such inaccurate portrayals are the primary source of information about minority groups, they can lead to the development and maintenance of unfavorable stereotypes (Coltraine & Messineo, 2000; Ward, 2004; Do, 2006). Other explanations of prejudice and discrimination focus on how being a member of a specifi c group helps to magnify one's sense of self-esteem. According to social identity theory, we use group membership as a source of pride and self-worth. Social identity theory suggests that people tend to be ethnocentric, viewing the world from their own perspective and judging others in terms of their group membership. Slogans such as "gay pride" and "Black is beautiful" illustrate that the groups to which we belong give us a sense of self-respect (Tajfel & Turner, 2004; Hogg, 2006). However, the use of group membership to provide social respect produces an unfortunate outcome. In an effort to maximize our sense of self-esteem, we may come to think that our own group (our ingroup ) is better than groups to which we don't belong (our outgroups ). Consequently, we infl ate the positive aspects of our ingroup— and, at the same time, devalue outgroups. Ultimately, we come to view members of Like father, like son: Social learning approaches to stereotyping and prejudice suggest that attitudes and behaviors toward members of minority groups are learned through theoutgroups as inferior to members of our ingroup (Tajfel & Turner, 2004). The end result is prejudice toward members of groups of which we are not a part. Neither the observational learning approach nor the social identity approach provides a full explanation for stereotyping and prejudice. For instance, some psychologists argue that prejudice results when there is perceived competition for scarce societal resources. Thus, when competition exists for jobs or housing, members of majority groups may believe (however unjustly or inaccurately) that minority group members are hindering their efforts to attain their goals; this belief can lead to prejudice. In addition, other explanations for prejudice emphasize human cognitive limitations that lead us to categorize people on the basis of visually conspicuous physical features such as race, sex, and ethnic group. Such categorization can lead to the development of stereotypes and, ultimately, to discriminatory behavior (Mullen & Rice, 2003; Weeks & Lupfer, 2004; Hugenberg & Sacco, 2008). The most recent approach to understanding prejudice comes from an increasingly important area in social psychology: social neuroscience. Social neuroscience seeks to identify the neural basis of social behavior. It looks at how we can illuminate our understanding of groups, interpersonal relations, and emotions by understanding their neuroscientifi c underpinnings (Cacioppo, Visser, & Pickett, 2005; HarmonJones & Winkielman, 2007). In one example of the value of social neuroscience approaches, researchers examined activation of the amygdala, the structure in the brain that relates to emotionevoking stimuli and situations, while viewing white and black faces. Because the amygdala is especially responsive to threatening, unusual, or highly arousing stimuli, the researchers hypothesized greater activation of the amygdala during exposure to black faces due to negative cultural associations with racial minorities (Lieberman et al., 2005; Lieberman, 2007). As you can see in Figure 1, the hypothesis was confi rmed: The amygdala showed more activation when participants saw a black face than when they saw a white one. Because both blacks and whites were participants in the study, it is unlikely that the amygdala activation was simply the result of the novelty of viewing members of a racial minority. Instead, the fi ndings suggest that culturally learned societal messages about race led to the brain activation. observation of parents and other individuals. How can this cycle be broken?

obedience

A change in behavior in response to the commands of others Compliance techniques are used to gently lead people toward agreement with a request. In some cases, however, requests aim to produce obedience, a change in behavior in response to the commands of others. Although obedience is considerably less common than conformity and compliance, it does occur in several specifi c kinds of relationships. For example, we may show obedience to our bosses, teachers, or parents merely because of the power they hold to reward or punish us. To acquire an understanding of obedience, consider for a moment how you might respond if a stranger said to you: I've devised a new way of improving memory. All I need is for you to teach people a list of words and then give them a test. The test procedure requires only that you give learners a shock each time they make a mistake on the test. To administer the shocks, you will use a "shock generator" that gives shocks ranging from 15 to 450 volts. You can see that the switches are labeled from "slight shock" through "danger: severe shock" at the top level, where there are three red Xs. But don't worry; although the shocks may be painful, they will cause no permanent damage. Presented with this situation, you would be likely to think that neither you nor anyone else would go along with the stranger's unusual request. Clearly, it lies outside the bounds of what we consider good sense. Or does it? Suppose the stranger asking for your help was a psychologist conducting an experiment. Or suppose the request came from your teacher, your employer, or your military commander—all people in authority with a seemingly legitimate reason for the request. If you still believe it's unlikely that you would comply—think again. The situation presented above describes a classic experiment conducted by social psychologist Stanley Milgram in the 1960s. In the study, an experimenter told participants to give increasingly stronger shocks to another person as part of a study on learning (see Figure 2). In reality, the experiment had nothing to do with learning; the real issue under consideration was the degree to which participants would comply with the experimenter's requests. In fact, the "learner" supposedly receiving the shocks was a confederate who never really received any punishment (Milgram, 2005). Most people who hear a description of Milgram's experiment feel it is unlikely that any participant would give the maximum level of shock—or, for that matter, any shock at all. Even a group of psychiatrists to whom the situation was described predicted that fewer than 2% of the participants would fully comply and administer the strongest shocks. However, the actual results contradicted both experts' and nonexperts' predictions. Some 65% of the participants eventually used the highest setting on the shock generator—450 volts—to shock the learner. This obedience occurred even though the learner, who had mentioned at the start of the experiment that he had a heart

conformity

A change in behavior or attitudes brought about by a desire to follow the beliefs or standards of other people.Subtle or even unspoken social pressure results in conformity. The classic demonstration of pressure to conform comes from a series of studies carried out in the 1950s by Solomon Asch (Asch, 1951). In the experiments, the participants thought they were taking part in a test of perceptual skills with six other people. The experimenter showed the participants one card with three lines of varying length and a second card that had a fourth line that matched one of the fi rst three (see Figure 1). The task was seemingly straightforward: Each of the participants had to announce aloud which of the fi rst three lines was identical in length to the "standard" line on the second card. Because the correct answer was always obvious, the task seemed easy to the participants.Indeed, because the participants all agreed on the fi rst few trials, the procedure appeared to be simple. But then something odd began to happen. From the perspective of the participant in the group who answered last on each trial, all the answers of the fi rst six participants seemed to be wrong—in fact, unanimously wrong. And this pattern persisted. Over and over again, the fi rst six participants provided answers that contradicted what the last participant believed to be correct. The last participant faced the dilemma of whether to follow his or her own perceptions or follow the group by repeating the answer everyone else was giving. As you might have guessed, this experiment was more contrived than it appeared. The fi rst six participants were actually confederates (paid employees of the experimenter) who had been instructed to give unanimously erroneous answers in many of the trials. And the study had nothing to do with perceptual skills. Instead, the issue under investigation was conformity. Asch found that in about one-third of the trials, the participants conformed to the unanimous but erroneous group answer; about 75% of all participants conformed at least once. However, he found strong individual differences. Some participants conformed nearly all the time, whereas others never did.

discrimination

Behavior directed toward individuals on the basis of their membership in a particular group. How can we diminish the effects of prejudice and discrimination? Psychologists have developed several strategies that have proved effective. • Increasing contact between the target of stereotyping and the holder of the stereotype . Research consistently shows that increasing the amount of interaction between people can reduce negative stereotyping. But only certain kinds of contact arelikely to reduce prejudice and discrimination. Situations in which contact is relatively intimate, the individuals are of equal status, or participants must cooperate with one another or are dependent on one another are more likely to reduce stereotyping (Dovidio, Gaertner, & Kawakami, 2003; Tropp & Pettigrew, 2005; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). • Making values and norms against prejudice more conspicuous . Sometimes just reminding people about the values they already hold regarding equality and fair treatment of others is enough to reduce discrimination. Similarly, people who hear others making strong, vehement antiracist statements are subsequently more likely to strongly condemn racism (Czopp & Monteith, 2006; Ponterotto, Utsey, & Pedersen, 2006; Tropp & Bianchi, 2006). • Providing information about the targets of stereotyping . Probably the most direct means of changing stereotypical and discriminatory attitudes is education: teaching people to be more aware of the positive characteristics of targets of stereotyping. For instance, when the meaning of puzzling behavior is explained to people who hold stereotypes, they may come to appreciate the actual signifi cance of the behavior (Isbell & Tyler, 2003; Banks, 2006; Nagda, Tropp, & Paluck, 2006). • Reducing stereotype threat. Social psychologist Claude Steele suggests that many African Americans suffer from stereotype vulnerability, obstacles to performance that stem from their awareness of society's stereotypes regarding minority group members. He argues that African-American students who receive instruction from teachers who may doubt their abilities and who set up special remedial programs to assist them may come to accept society's stereotypes and believe that they are prone to fail (Aronson & Steele, 2005; Nussbaum & Steele, 2007). Such beliefs can have devastating effects. When confronted with an academic task, African-American students may fear that their performance will simply confi rm society's negative stereotypes. The immediate consequence of this fear is anxiety that hampers performance. But the long-term consequences may be even worse: Doubting their ability to perform successfully in academic environments, African Americans may decide that the risks of failure are so great it is not worth the effort even to attempt to do well. Ultimately, they may "disidentify" with academic success by minimizing the importance of academic endeavors (Steele, 1997; Stone, 2002). However, Steele's analysis suggests that African Americans may be able to overcome their predicament. Specifi cally, schools can design intervention programs to train minority group members about their vulnerability to stereotypes and provide them with self-affi rmation that reinforces their confi dence in their abilities and thereby inoculates them against the fear and doubt triggered by negative stereotypes (Cohen et al., 2006; Wilson, 2006).

compliance

Behavior that occurs in response to direct social pressure.When we refer to conformity, we usually mean a phenomenon in which the social pressure is subtle or indirect. But in some situations social pressure is much more obvious with direct, explicit pressure to endorse a particular point of view or behave in a certain way. Social psychologists call the type of behavior that occurs in response to direct social pressure compliance. Several specifi c techniques represent attempts to gain compliance. Those frequently employed include: • Foot-in-the-door technique . A salesperson comes to your door and asks you to accept a small sample. You agree, thinking you have nothing to lose. A little later a larger request comes; because you have already agreed to the fi rst one, you have a hard time turning it down. The salesperson in this case is using a tried-and-true strategy that social psychologists call the foot-in-the-door technique. In the foot-in-the-door techniqu e, you ask a person to agree to a small request and later ask that person to comply with a more important one. It turns out that compliance with the more important request increases signifi cantly when the person fi rst agrees to the smaller favor. Researchers fi rst demonstrated the foot-in-the-door phenomenon in a study in which a number of experimenters went door to door asking residents to sign a petition in favor of safe driving (Freedman & Fraser, 1966). Almost everyone complied with that small, benign request. A few weeks later, different experimenters contacted the residents and made a much larger request for the residents to erect a huge sign on their front lawns that read, "Drive Carefully." The results were clear: 55% of those who had signed the petition agreed to the request to put up a sign, whereas only 17% of the people in a control group who had not been asked to sign the petition agreed to put up a sign. Why does the foot-in-the-door technique work? For one reason, involvement with the small request leads to an interest in an issue; taking an action—any action—makes the individual more committed to the issue, which thereby increasing the likelihood of future compliance. Another explanation revolves around people's selfperceptions. By complying with the initial request, individuals may come to see themselves as people who provide help when asked. Then, when confronted with the larger request, they agree in order to maintain the kind of consistency in attitudes and behavior that we described earlier. Although we don't know which of these two explanations is more accurate, it is clear that the foot-in-the-door strategy is effective (Burger & Caldwell, 2003; Bloom, McBride, & Pollak, 2006; Guéguen et al., 2008). • Door-in-the-face technique . A fund-raiser asks for a $500 contribution. You laughingly refuse and tell her that the amount is way out of your league. She then asks for a $10 contribution. What do you do? If you are like most people, you'll probably be a lot more compliant than you would be if she hadn't asked for the huge contribution fi rst. In this tactic, called the door-in-the-face technique, someone makes a large request, expects it to be refused, and follows it with a smaller one. This strategy, which is the opposite of the foot-in-the-door approach, has also proved to be effective (Pascual & Guéguen, 2005, 2006; Turner et al., 2007; Ebster & Neumayr, 2008). In a fi eld experiment that demonstrates the success of this approach, experimenters stopped college students on the street and asked them to agree to a substantial favor—acting as unpaid counselors for juvenile delinquents 2 hours a week for 2 years (Cialdini et al., 1975). Not surprisingly, no one agreed to make such an enormous commitment. But when they were later asked the considerably smaller favor of taking a group of delinquents on a 2-hour trip to the zoo, half the people complied. In comparison, only 17% of a control group of participants who had not fi rst received the larger request agreed. The use of this technique is widespread. You may have tried it at some point yourself by perhaps by asking your parents for a large increase in your allowance and later settling for less. Similarly, television writers, by sometimes sprinkling their scripts with obscenities that they know network censors will cut out, hope to keep other key phrases intact (Cialdini & Sagarin, 2005). • That's-not-all technique . In this technique, a salesperson offers you a deal at an infl ated price. But immediately after the initial offer, the salesperson offers an incentive, discount, or bonus to clinch the deal. Although it sounds transparent, this practice can be quite effective. In one study, the experimenters set up a booth and sold cupcakes for 75¢ each. In one condition, the experimenters directly told customers that the price was 75¢. In another condition, they told customers that the price was originally $1 but had been reduced to 75¢. As we might predict, more people bought cupcakes at the "reduced" price—even though it was identical to the price in the other experimental condition (Burger, Reed, & DeCesare, 1999; Pratkanis, 2007). • Not-so-free sample. If you ever receive a free sample, keep in mind that it comes with a psychological cost. Although they may not couch it in these terms, salespeople who provide samples to potential customers do so to instigate the norm of reciprocity. The norm of reciprocity is the well accepted societal standard dictating that we should treat other people as they treat us. Receiving a not-so-free sample, then, suggests the need for reciprocation—in the form of a purchase, of course (Cialdini, 2006; Park & Antonioni, 2007; Burger et al., 2009). The persuasive techniques identifi ed by social psychologists can be seen in practice at auto dealerships. feL82795_ch17_576-615.indd Page 594 8/5/10 3:21 PM user-f465 /Users/user-f465/Desktop Module 53 Social Infl uence and Groups 595 Companies seeking to sell their products to consumers often use the techniques identifi ed by social psychologists for promoting compliance. But employers also use them to bring about compliance and raise employees' productivity in the workplace. In fact, industrial-organizational (I/O) psychology, a close cousin to social psychology, considers issues such as worker motivation, satisfaction, safety, and productivity. I/O psychologists also focus on the operation and design of organizations; they ask questions such as how decision making can be improved in large organizations and how the fi t between workers and their jobs can be maximized.

Attitudes

Evaluations of a particular person, behavior, belief, or concept.. For example, you probably hold attitudes toward the U.S. president (a person), abortion (a behavior), affirmative action (a belief), or architecture (a concept) (Brock & Green, 2005; Hegarty & Massey, 2007; Simon & Hoyt, 2008.Message source. The characteristics of a person who delivers a persuasive message, known as an attitude communicator, have a major impact on the effectiveness of that message. Communicators who are physically and socially attractive produce greater attitude change than those who are less attractive. Moreover, the communicator's expertise and trustworthiness are related to the impact of a message— except in situations in which the audience believes the communicator has an ulterior motive (Ariyanto, Hornsey, & Gallois, 2006; McClure, Sutton, & Sibley, 2007; Messner, Reinhard, & Sporer, 2008). • Characteristics of the message . It is not just who delivers a message but what the message is like that affects attitudes. Generally, two-sided messages—which include both the communicator's position and the one he or she is arguing against—are more effective than one-sided messages, given the assumption that the arguments for the other side can be effectively refuted and the audience is knowledgeable about the topic. In addition, fear-producing messages ("If you don't practice safer sex, you'll get AIDS") are generally effective when they provide the audience with a means for reducing the fear. However, if the fear that is aroused is too strong, messages may evoke people's defense mechanisms and be ignored (Perloff, 2003). • Characteristics of the target . Once a communicator has delivered a message, characteristics of the target of the message may determine whether the message will be accepted. For example, intelligent people are more resistant to persuasion than those who are less intelligent. Gender differences in persuasibility also seem to exist. In public settings, women are somewhat more easily persuaded than men, particularly when they have less knowledge about the message's topic. However, they are as likely as men to change their private attitudes. In fact, the magnitude of the differences in resistance to persuasion between men and women is not large (Wood, 2000; Guadagno & Cialdini, 2002).

situational causes (of behavior)

Perceived causes of behavior that are based on environmental factors.? Situational causes are those brought about by something in the environment. For instance, someone who knocks over a quart of milk and then cleans it up probably does the cleaning not because he or she is necessarily a neat person but because the situation requires it. In contrast, a person who spends hours shining the kitchen floor probably does so because he or she is a neat person

dispositional causes (of behavior)

Perceived causes of behavior that are based on internal traits or personality factors. Hence, the behavior has a dispositional cause —that is, it is prompted by the person's disposition (his or her internal traits or personality characteristics). In our example involving Barbara Washington, her fellow employees attributed her behavior to her disposition rather than to the situation. But from a logical standpoint, it is equally plausible that something about the situation caused the behavior. If asked, Barbara might attribute her accomplishment to situational factors and explain that she had so much other work to do she just had to get the project out of the way or the project was not all that diffi cult and was easy to complete ahead of schedule. To her, then, the reason for her behavior might not be dispositional at all; it could be situational.

cognitive dissonance

The conflict that occurs when a person holds two contradictory attitudes or thoughts (referred to as cognitions). If you agree to help the experimenter, you may be setting yourself up for a state of psychological tension. If you participate in the situation just described, you are left with two contradictory thoughts: (1) I believe the task is boring, but (2) I said it was interesting with little justification ($1). These two thoughts should arouse dissonance. How can you reduce cognitive dissonance? You cannot deny having said that the task is interesting without breaking with reality. Relatively speaking, it is easier to change your attitude toward the task—and thus the theory predicts that participants will reduce dissonance by adopting more positive attitudes toward the task (Cooper, Mirabile, & Scher, 2005; Cooper, 2007; Rydell, McConnell, & Mackie, 2008)

social psychology

The scientific study of how people's thoughts, feelings, and actions are affected by others.Social psychologists consider the kinds and causes of the individual's behavior in social situations. They examine how the nature of situations in which we find ourselves influences our behavior in important ways. The broad scope of social psychology is conveyed by the kinds of questions social psychologists ask, such as: How can we convince people to change their attitudes or adopt new ideas and values? Why do some people display so much violence, aggression, and cruelty toward others that people throughout the world live in fear of annihilation at their hands? And why, in comparison, do some people place their own lives at risk to help others? In exploring these and other questions, we also discuss strategies for confronting and solving a variety of problems and issues that all of us face—ranging from achieving a better understanding of persuasive tactics to forming more accurate impressions of others. We begin with a look at how our attitudes shape our behavior and how we form judgments about others. We'll discuss how we are infl uenced by others, and we will consider prejudice and discrimination by focusing on their roots and the ways we can reduce them. After examining what social psychologists have learned about the ways people form friendships and relationships, we'll conclude with a look at the determinants of aggression and helping—two opposing sides of human behaviorWhy do some people display so much violence, aggression, and cruelty toward others that people throughout the world live in fear of annihilation at their hands? And why, in comparison, do some people place their own lives at risk to help others? In exploring these and other questions, we also discuss strategies for confronting and solving a variety of problems and issues that all of us face—ranging from achieving a better understanding of persuasive tactics to forming more accurate impressions of others. We begin with a look at how our attitudes shape our behavior and how we form judgments about others. We'll discuss how we are infl uenced by others, and we will consider prejudice and discrimination by focusing on their roots and the ways we can reduce them. After examining what social psychologists have learned about the ways people form friendships and relationships, we'll conclude with a look at the determinants of aggression and helping—two opposing sides of human behavior

attribution theory

The theory of personality that seeks to explain how we decide, on the basis of samples of an individual's behavior, what causes that behavior.In contrast to theories of social cognition, which describe how people develop an overall impression of others' personality traits. The general process we use to determine the causes of behavior and other social occurrences proceeds in several steps illustrated in Figure 4. After fi rst noticing that something unusual has happened—for example, tennis star Roger Federer has played a terrible set of tennis—we try to interpret the meaning of the event. This leads us to formulate an initial explanation (maybe Federer stayed up late the night before the match). Depending on the time available, the cognitive resources on hand (such as the attention we can give to the matter), and our motivation (determined in part by how important the event is), we may choose to accept our initial explanation or seek to modify it (Federer was sick, perhaps). If we have the time, cognitive resources, and motivation, the event triggers deliberate problem solving as we seek a fuller explanation. During the problem formulation and resolution stage, we may try out several possibilities before we reach a fi nal explanation that seems satisfactory to us (Malle, 2004; Brown, 2006).