Self-Perception Theory Bem

Self Perception Theory is a behavioral theory. Behavioral theories attempt to explain phenomena without using internal states (such as motivation or drives) to explain behavior.

The original purpose of self perception theory was to explain phenomena covered by cognitive dissonance theory, without using an internal drive state (dissonance) in the explanation

Self perception theory developed into a general theory to explain how people arrive at decisions about the causes of their own behavior.

Self perception theory argues that people examine two things when making decisions about the cause of their own behavior. They examine:

First, The behavior itself

Second, The environmental forces working on the individual

Observed Behavior + Environmental Forces = Attributions for the Cause of the Behavior

Example
Behavior: I am eating asparagus + Environment: I am alone at home = Cause: I like asparagus

The old attribution question arises: Is the cause of the behavior personal or situational?

Since there is no situational (environmental) explanation for my behavior, I must conclude that the cause is personal: I must like asparagus.

Example
Behavior: I am eating asparagus + Environment: A man has a gun pointed at me = Cause: I am eating asparagus because I might otherwise be shot

I might also ask, Why was it necessary for someone to point a gun at me to get me to eat asparagus? I might decide that I must not like asparagus. I end up inferring a different disposition in me.

To Change the Example:

Behavior: I am eating asparagus + Environment: My parents have said that I will not be allowed up from the table until I have finished the asparagus = Cause: I dont like asparagus

Here, there is considerable environmental cause for the behavior, so I must conclude that I am eating asparagus for a situational reason the gun

To summarize what self perception theory is saying about the cause of behavior:

If there is minimal environmental explanation for a behavior, we conclude that the cause is personal (dispositional) If there is strong environmental explanation for a behavior, we conclude that the cause is situational (something in my environment)

Self Perception Theorys explanation for the results of the Festinger and Carlsmith Experiment

Behavior: I told the guy that I liked the experiment + Environment: I got $20 for it = I hated that experiment

In the $20 case, the money is a strong explanation for the behavior. Why should I have to be offered so much money to tell the guy that I liked the experiment? Because I must dislike it. Strong environmental cause implies lack of personal desire to perform the behavior.

Behavior: I told the guy that I liked the experiment + Enviroment: I got $1 for it = Cause: The experiment was okay

Here, there is very little environmental explanation for the behavior, so I must conclude that the cause for my telling the guy that the experiment was fun was personal I said it was okay because it was okay.

The important thing to note is that cognitive dissonance was not used in selfperception theory to explain the behavior. All it took was examination of the behavior and its circumstances. Self perception theory argues that internal drive states are not necessary for explanation of behavior and attributions.

Which Theory is Correct?

We cant say that one theory is better than the other. We can say that these are two different ways to explain the cause of behavior one requiring inference of internal drive states, the other not needing examination of internal drive states.

Overjustification Effect

An interesting sidelight to self-perception theory is the overjustification effect: Definition: minimal rewards lead to high interest in a task; external rewards for tasks lead to low interest in it.

The overjustification effect argues that the more external reward that you are given for doing something, the less becomes your enjoyment of the task. You are performing the task for the reward (environmental cause), not for personal enjoyment (personal cause).

Overjustification Example

Behavior: 9 year old Johnny plays baseball with the neighborhood kids all day. + Environment: He receives no external reward for doing this = Cause: he plays baseball because it is fun

Behavior: 25 year old Johnny is playing baseball in the Major Leagues + Environment: he receives $5 million a year to play baseball = Cause: he is playing for the money (environmental cause) not for pleasure (personal cause)

Question: When Johnny is offered $5 million to play next year, what does he do?

Answer: He refuses the contract and goes to arbitration for more money.

Why: He no longer plays baseball for love of the game; he plays for the money.

Overjustification Effect

Moral of the story: If you want someone to perform a behavior because they personally enjoy it, do not provide oversufficient external cause (e.g., money) for it.

Other Examples:

Getting paid for grades does it cause you to like school more? Getting paid to babysit does it cause you to like babysitting more? Getting paid to mow the lawn does it cause you to like mowing the lawn more?

Defence Attribution Principle

Succuss Failure

credit to internal attribution

credit to external attribution

Foot in the Door Technique

The foot-in-the-door technique involves making an initial smaller request before making a larger request

The classic example would be selling a small product at a very low price (also known as a loss leader), and then later selling the same prospect something more costly. It's more useful for nonprofit sales and many charities use this technique, asking for a small donation and then gradually requesting more and more assistance

Door in the Face Technique

door-in-the-face starts out with a large request that you know the prospect will decline followed immediately by a smaller request (the second request being what you really wanted).

Reason to Success
first, your prospect will often feel bad about having to refuse your initial request, and will be more inclined to agree to the smaller request in order to make it up to you second, in comparison with your very large request, the second request will seem insignificant. Door-in-the-face works only if the second request is made immediately after the first, when the feeling of guilt and the contrast between the two is the

Attribution Toward Others

Attribution Toward Things