Attribution as a Major Concept in Social Psychology - Essay Example

Social Psychology Social Psychology Introduction Social psychology is an area of study which seeks to explain how individual’s behaviors are influenced by the presence of other people. As a social animal, man does not live a lone, but in the midst of others. Therefore, whenever they interact with or think about others, they experience change in thought behavior and attitudes (Sison, 2008). This paper studies about the attribution as a major concept in social psychology and explains how it can be applied in a real life situation. This is done in reference to the BBC’s MacDonald’s Targeted in Obesity Law Suit publication. Summary of the Case This paper discusses about MacDonald’s Targeted in Obesity Law Suit. This is a news bulleting published by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) on November 22, 2002. Here, there is a court case in which McDonald Inc which id of course the leading fast food distributor was sued by its patients. The case is about a suit filed on behalf of teenagers by their lawyer Samuel Hirsh, at the Manhattan Federal Court. The case was that McDonald had contributed to obesity in these teenagers who had been relying on its food products. Therefore, because these children had been eating food products manufactured and supplied by the company, the company had to be held responsible for their obese status (Moscovici & Markova, 2006). In his argument, Lawyer Hirsh said that McDonald had to be accountable for the agonies faced by these teenagers who had been their clients. In his opinion, McDonald had to take responsibility because its actions demonstrated that it had violated the New York Consumer Laws by engaging in fraudulent activities (Weiner, 2011). By failing to provide adequate information to its clients, the company had definitely infringed the law. If it were law abiding, the company would have disclosed all the important information about the ingredients used in preparing its food products. Also, it would have informed its clientele about the dangers of using its food products (Malle, 2004). Had the company provided adequate and accurate information about its food products, the teenagers and any other client would have known about it. Therefore, they would have taken stern measures about it. This is what led the children to continue using the company’s cheese burgers, sausage, hotcakes, ice creams and chicken. The children had to constantly use these food products because they had made to believe that they are very safe for them. Unfortunately, they did not know that the food products were not nutritious and healthy for them as they had taken them to be (Sewell, 1989). So, the lawyer said that the company knew about this. Meaning, it had to be sued so as to take responsibility for its negligence and lack of concern for the health of its clients. To prove his point, the lawyer used an example of two teenagers who had been victimized as a result of using the company’s products. in the first case, a 15-year old boy had become so overweight. it was surprising that at this tender age, the young boy was weighing a total of 180 kilograms. This was indeed extraordinary because such a young boy could have this kind of body weight at this age (Correll, J. et al., 2002). Nevertheless, since the boy had been feeding on the company’s products for quite some time, his obese condition had to be associated to the food products he had been consuming at the MacDonald’s restaurants. Maybe, if it was not for this, he would have a normal body weight just like the rest of the children (Kassin, S. et al., 2008). In another case, the lawyer held that another teenager who had been using MacDonald’s fast food products had become obese. This would not be an arguable case since the teenager had been eating MacDonald’s foods at the restaurant for three years (Malle, 2004). Hence, if there was any problem caused by food, then the company had to be held responsible because the teenager had been relying on the company for all the daily meals. As a homeless individual, the child could not get an opportunity to prepare his own food or eat anywhere. Instead, he had to take his breakfast, lunch and supper at the company’s outlet. Therefore, when it turned out that this teenager was obese, the company had to be held responsible because it is the only company that had been supplying all his meals for the past three years. Application of Attribution and Attribution Theories to this Case This case is quite relevant for this study. The events surrounding it can be used to understand how the concept of attribution. As a social psychology concept, attribution can help in explaining the causes of this case. The changes in behavior and all the events can be properly understood if related if this concept and its relevant theories are applied. As a matter of fact, the case involves different people who take different positions as far as the explanation of the changes experienced are concerned (Sanderson, 2010). Obviously, these events need to be related and this can only be done by using the concept of attribution. It can be a better way of explaining and justifying why the clients feel that their problems are attributed to the fast food products they ate at the MacDonald’s restaurants. The most preferable way of relating these behaviors is through the application of external attribution. Here, a clear understanding can be obtained to help in justifying how one’s change in behavior can be linked to the kind of situation in which one is. For example, when they realized that they are obese, the teenagers sought to seek a legal redress from the court of law. Since they had been eating food products from the company’s outlets, they believed that the company should take responsibility for their agonies. This clearly indicates how one’s situation can determine one’s behavior. If it were not for their obese conditions, they would not have bothered filing for a suit against the company. Meanwhile, the concept of interpersonal attribution can also be used in explaining about the case between McDonald Company and its clients. As its name suggests, interpersonal implies that it involves more than one person. In this case, there are different parties involved. These include the company, its lawyer, client’s lawyers, client’s parents and the clients themselves. So, after the change in the life conditions of the teenagers, each of these parties had their own opinion regarding it. Whereas the company held that it was innocent, the clients and their allies held the view that the company, as the sole supplier of the fast food products they had been using, was to be held accountable. Attribution Theories Attribution theories can be used to explain much about the changes experienced by the people involved in this case. Some of the theories that can best suit the case are explained herein: Common Sense Psychology Theory: according to this theory, human beings are fond of using explanations in order to observe, explain and analyze conducts. However, since everyone has unique perceptions and worldviews, each person has to have a peculiar explanation for the behaviors. This justifies why each of the people who were involved in the case had a different opinion regarding experienced changes. To explore this theory and effectively relate it to the MacDonald’s case, the concept of external attribution can be applied. It can help in understanding how the changes in behaviors can be related o the situation in which the victims found themselves. In their explanations, each person associated the changes in the teenagers to the situation at hand. As already highlighted, the teenagers believe that they became obese because of the situation in which they had found themselves. Because it is McDonald that was supplying them with the unhealthy fast foods, it was to be regarded as the root cause of their problems. This explains why the teenagers’ lawyer and parents had to put all the blame on the company for not being concerned about the welfare of its clients. At the same time, the homeless child who had been taking all his daily meals at the McDonald restaurant had to accuse the company for contributing to his obese condition. If he had not been in such a situation, he would not have depended on the company’s fast food products. Also, if the company had informed him about the contents of is foods, he would not have used them. So, everything is linked to this situation. Correspondent Inference Theory: According to this theory, logical assumptions can be made about an individual if their actions are unexpected and based on free and unrestricted choice. In other words, conclusions about people are often made based on the results of the review of the context of their behaviors. As explained by Keith Davis and Edward Jones, the real characters of a person can only be uncovered by the analysis of the behavioral evidence about them. However, all these should be pegged on the level of choice, effects and expectedness of the behavior. This theory is so relevant in examining the real characters of the people involved in this case. It can be applied in explaining how the degree of choice enabled them to make decisions and behave in a manner they did. A logical conclusion on the exact behaviors of the teenagers can be explained using this theory. The teenagers, a long side their parents, had to lodge their complaints against McDonald because of the choices that they had. First, the homeless teenager had to use the company’s products on daily basis because it was the only choice (Amber, 2004). If here were other alternatives, he would not have bothered to buy food from the company’s restaurants. On the other hand, McDonald’s management is portrayed to be unconcerned people who are not concerned about the welfare of other people (Reisenzein & Udo, 2008). Otherwise, they would have taken the initiative to inform all their clients about the dangers associated with their products. So, from this explanation, the behavior of all the parties in this case can be properly understood. All of them had to behave in this manner because of the degree of choices and the consequences of their actions (Aronson, E. et al., 2010). Application of the Case to Social Psychology and Real Life The McDonald case is a real example of how social psychology can be used to explain people’s behaviors are influenced by others. As seen in this case, the behaviors of the teenagers, lawyers, teenagers’ parents and the management of McDonald Inc had to be shaped by the presence of one another. If these people were acting in isolation, they would not have behaved in the manner they did (Heider, 2013). However, as the proponents of attribution theory exclaim, the presence of other people had to have a direct impact on how each of these people would be conducting themselves (Allport, 2009). In whatever thought or decision they had, these people had to do it either in response to what had been done by another person sometime before then. Conclusion MacDonald’s Targeted in Obesity Law Suit presents a clear scenario on how the concept of attribution can be applied in a real life situation. By using the theories of Common Sense Psychology and Correspondent Inference, it becomes evident that the behavior change in the people involved in the case was influenced by the presence of other people (Bem, 2008). Although it is a biological occurrence, the teenagers and their parents believed that the company was to be accountable. They had to take a hardliner position and believed that it was McDonald that had directly contributed to their agonies. Similar views were held by their lawyer Samuel who, regardless of his educational and professional background, had to be influenced to join the band wagon. On the other hand, the company had to come out and strongly argue against all accusations (Moskowitz, 2005). To avoid the collapse of the company, the management had to do everything within their capacity to ensure that the case is dismissed. All these are behaviors that were demonstrated in response to that of other people. References Allport, G. W (2009). "The historical background of social psychology". In Lindzey, G; Aronson, E. The Handbook of Social Psychology. New York: McGraw Hill.p.5 Amber, H. (2004). "Psychology from Islamic Perspective: Contributions of Early Muslim Scholars and Challenges to Contemporary Muslim Psychologists", Journal of Religion and Health 43 (4): 357-377 [363]. Aronson, E. et al. (2010). Social Psychology (7 ed.). Prentice Hall. Correll, J. et al. (2002). "The police officers dilemma: Using ethnicity to disambiguate potentially threatening individuals". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 83 (6): 1,314–1,329. Kassin, S. et al. (2008). Social Psychology (7 ed.). Boston, NY: Houghton Mifflin Company. Moscovici, S. & Markova, I. (2006). The Making of Modern Social Psychology. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Moskowitz, G.B (2005). Social Cognition: Understanding Self and Others. Texts in Social Psychology. Guilford. Reisenzein, R. & Udo, R. (2008). "50 Years of Attribution Research". Social Psychology 39 (3): 123–124 Sewell, W. H (1989). "Some reflections on the golden age of interdisciplinary social psychology". Annual Review of Sociology 15. Weiner, B. (2011). Human Motivation: Metaphors, Theories and Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Bem, D (2008). Beliefs, attitudes, and human affairs. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole. Malle, B.F. (2004). How the Mind Explains Behavior: Folk Explanations, Meaning, and Social Interaction. MIT Press. Sanderson, C. (2010). Social Psychology. John Wiley & Sons. p. 112. Sison, E.A (2008). The dynamics of persuasion. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum. Heider, F. (2013). The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. The Psychology Press. p. 2. Malle, B. (2004). How the Mind Explains Behavior: Folk Explanations, Meaning, and Social Interaction. MIT Press. p. 7. Read More