Components of social perceptions

Components of social perceptions

Components of social perceptions

What are the components of social perceptions ?

Answer the following questions in 90 to 175 words each.

Components of social perceptions

1. Select two categories of psychological disorders, and outline the main symptoms associated with each disorder.

2. Choose and describe two treatment options for psychological disorders.

3. What are the components of social perceptions? How do they affect human behavior?

4. What are some effects of group influences on human behavior, especially in the workplace?

5. Describe organizational culture. Why is understanding this important when managing complex organizational problems, including group performance and high-level decision making?

Copyright © XXXX by University of Phoenix. All rights reserved.

Copyright © 2017, 2016, 2015 by University of Phoenix. All rights reserved.

Authentic

Low integrity 5.44a 3.26d 6.00ac

High integrity 6.29b 2.91d 6.29bc

Beneficent

Low integrity 5.17ad 3.11 5.17ac

High integrity 5.53bd 2.37 5.77bc

Likable

Low integrity 4.69 3.75 5.44

High integrity 5.71a 2.90 6.41a

Effective

Low integrity 5.14 4.54a 5.77

High integrity 5.80 4.16a 6.56

Intelligent

Low integrity 5.14ad 3.75 5.45ac

High integrity 5.47bd 3.21 6.18bc

Spiritual (vs. Materialistic)

Low integrity 4.50ab 2.20 4.32a

High integrity 4.61b 1.43 5.48

Similar to Self

Low integrity 4.98ac 2.89 4.95c

High integrity 5.72ab 1.54 6.14b

Characters’ Retrospective

Reactions

Low integrity 4.22c 4.24bc 6.66a

High integrity 5.00a 3.80b 6.85a

Ethical Evaluations of the Act

Low integrity 6.11 2.60 6.78a

High integrity 6.76b 1.73 6.77ab

Note: Integrity was entered in the analyses as a centered, continuous variable.

Numbers represent GLM estimates of the values of the low (� 1 SD) and high (11 SD) integrity within each of the ethical event conditions. Means without a common

letter subscript differ significantly, po.05. Differences between high and low levels of integrity were based on tests of simple slopes. Within rows, differences between

ethical events within low and high levels of integrity were based on tests of planned

contrasts.

344 Schlenker, Weigold, & Schlenker

Manipulation Checks

The outcome and ethicality manipulations were successful. Only a

main effect of condition was found on ratings of success in accom- plishing career-related goals, F (2, 150)5 67.71, po.0001 (Ms5 2.94, 5.84, and 6.48 for the ethical-failure, unethical-success, and

ethical-success conditions; each success condition differed signifi- cantly from the failure condition, pso.001, and marginally from one another, p5 .06, as the unethical nature of a success may have tar- nished the outcome). A main effect of condition and an interaction

of integrity and condition were found on the ethicality of the conduct (Table 4). The conduct was seen as unethical when it involved un-

ethical-success (M5 2.17) and ethical when it involved either an ethical-failure or ethical-success (Ms5 6.44 and 6.77, respectively; both differ from the unethical-success condition but not from one

another). Those high in integrity evaluated the ethical-success and ethical-failure equally positively without regard to consequences,

whereas those low in integrity took consequences into account and preferred the ethical-success to the ethical-failure (Table 5). Those

high in integrity also were more negative toward the unethical-suc- cess and more positive toward the ethical-failure than those low in

integrity.

Evaluations of the Central Character

Consistent patterns emerged on evaluations of the central character. Overall, the central character was evaluated more positively after an

ethical act that failed than an unethical success, but this distinction was more pronounced for respondents high rather than low in in-

tegrity. As shown in Tables 4 and 5, the interaction of integrity by event, and more specifically the key interaction contrast of integrity

by ethical-failure/unethical-success, was significant on all evaluative ratings. Those higher in integrity showed a stronger preference for an ethical act that failed over an unethical one that succeeded.

Comparisons of the ethical-success and ethical-failure conditions provide another way of gauging the impact of the consequences of

the decision on judgments. Those high in integrity generally rated the central character comparably regardless of whether an ethical act

produced a success or failure. For those high in integrity, the two ethical-outcome conditions did not differ significantly on any of the

What Makes a Hero? 345

evaluative dimensions except effectiveness and materialism; the

latter realistically acknowledged the success. In contrast, those low in integrity found the successful ethical character more likable and

effective than the unsuccessful ethical character and also evaluated the conduct itself as ethically better. These patterns support the hy-

pothesis that those high in integrity will emphasize the adherence to principles and largely ignore the consequences of the act, while those

low in integrity take consequences more into account. When ethics and outcomes conflict, those high in integrity expressed preferences that primarily reflected ethics whereas those low in integrity reflected

a mix of ethics and expediency. In the context of an unethical success, being true to self may reflect

getting what one wants regardless of the means, and this should be an example of a situation in which principles and authenticity di-

verge. In support, correlations between ratings of the characters’ commitment to principles and authenticity were insignificant in the

unethical-failure condition (r5 .17, p5 .21) but were quite signifi- cant in the ethical-success and ethical-failure conditions (rs5 .62 and .68, respectively, pso.0001; the latter correlations differ significantly from the former, pso.001). Although principles and authenticity often go together, they become dissociated when people pursue

personal goals that conflict with ethical principles.

Retrospective Reactions of the Central Character

Participants projected their personal evaluations of the conduct onto the characters. Those high in integrity believed that when the central

characters looked back on the decision, they would be more satisfied with the ethical-failure than the unethical-success conditions, where-

as those low in integrity believed the character would be equally satisfied regardless (see Tables 4 and 5).

Discussion

When conduct was both ethical and successful, people usually

evaluated it similarly regardless of their own level of integrity, at least on measures most relevant to morals. However, when principles

and outcomes were opposed, those higher in integrity were guided by principles regardless of the outcome. Those lower in integrity were

consistently influenced by the outcome, showing less condemnation of an unethical act that succeeded, less praise for an ethical act that

346 Schlenker, Weigold, & Schlenker

failed, and a smaller distinction between unethical-success and

ethical-failure conditions as compared to those higher in integrity. These patterns show that integrity is not simply associated with more

or less favorable evaluations across the board. Instead, when actions are relevant to ethical decision making, those higher in integrity are

more admiring of those who behave ethically and more condemning of those who behave unethically regardless the outcome.

People who score lower on the Integrity Scale do not regard themselves as unprincipled or unscrupulous (Miller & Schlenker,

2007; Schlenker, 2007). Instead, they describe themselves as gener- ally principled but are readily able to provide self-serving rational- izations for violating ethical and legal codes. They are willing to

excuse and justify a wider range of unethical and illegal behavior (e.g., lying, stealing, cheating on one’s taxes or one’s spouse) to de-

flect morally the blame for transgressions from themselves and to cheat to perform well on a test even when there are no obvious in-

centives for so doing (Schlenker, 2007). In short, they lack the degree of commitment to ethical principles, with its attendant rejection of

deviations and rationalizations, shown by those who score higher. In Study 2, those low in integrity did not disregard ethics because they generally preferred an ethical act that failed to an unethical one that

succeeded; they were just more willing to allow expediency to play a role in their assessments.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

People’s ethical ideologies play an important role in self-regulation.

People who profess greater commitment to ethical principles have a more stringent set of standards for right and wrong, chronically ac-

cess this information in memory and use it in their choices, and be- lieve that these standards are binding, and so excuses and justifications become unacceptable ways to avoid the negative re-

percussions of transgressions. The present findings show that integ- rity successfully predicts the selection of heroes and the judgment of

others who resolve ethical dilemmas by taking the principled versus expedient road. These results add to a growing list of studies doc-

umenting integrity’s usefulness in predicting behaviors that are considered virtues and vices.

What Makes a Hero? 347

Ethical ideologies and heroes go hand in hand and probably

reciprocally influence each other. The heroes people admire can affect their own ethical ideologies, as people identify with their he-

roes’ perceived personal qualities and try to emulate their conduct. As models, heroes play important roles in the development of atti-

tudes and identity. Social learning theory (Bandura, 1986) and so- cioanalytic theory (Hogan, 1982) document the importance of

significant reference others for forming attitudes and self-schemas. Lickona (2004) argued that the development of character is accom- plished through positive models who value and exemplify integrity,

responsibility, self-discipline, and other-oriented virtues such as re- spect, compassion, and cooperation. Consistent with these lines of

theory and research, one of the stronger predictors of helping in the real world is having a parent who served as a model for altruism and

instilled