9/26 Dispositional Inferences Flashcards
Jones & Davis (1965)
Correspondent Inference Theory (CIT)
When does behavior = characterization of target person?
When does behavior = characterization of target person?
1) Freely chosen. If decisions socially desirable, don’t tell us. Uncommon decisions tell a lot.
2) Few noncommon effects: if X and Y share few consequences, we learn something, but if many, can’t make inference. Think the college picking example one Ivy over another tells something, state school over Ivy could be so many reasons.
3) Social desirability (uncommon says a lot)
Kelley (1967) Covariation Model of Causal Attribution
Type of information and intervnal vs. external attribution bias
Consensus: internal low, external high
Distinctiveness: internal low, external high
Consistency: Internal high, external high
Inconsistency across people, entities, time.
Pervasive Bias Towards Dispositional Inference means that
Perceivers give insufficient weight to situational forces
Called it behavior engulfing and correspondence, but also FUNDAMENTAL ATTRIBUTION ERROR.
Begins with Jones & Harris in 1967
Jones and Harris (1967)
Speeches and assignments
Dispositional Inference Experiment
Pro or anti Castro
Either chosen or assigned by a coach
Less difference between assumed attitudes of pro/anti person in choice group, but still difference in no choice
Salient no choice: told to write speech, experience what it is like not to have a choice. You’d think less likely but still some difference
Pervastic Bias Towards Dispositional Inference:
Ross Amabile Steinmtaz 1977 reearch advantage conferred by what?
Assignment to role of QUESTIONER vs. CONTESTANT
Constestant at disadvantage, yet, say questioner more intelligent. Fail to appreciate random assignment.
2 Models proposed for pervasive bias (fundamental attribution, dispositional inference)
- Resource-dependent correction model of social inference
- Trope’s identification/Interference Model
Gilbert’s resource-dependent correction model of social inference.
- Categorization of behavior (automatic)
- Characterization (automatic, load doesn’t do anything)
- Correct (effortful, load DOES disrupt, John is not really aggressive)
Disrupt with cognitive load, now think John is aggressive all the time, but maybe he just had a bad day
Gilbert 1988
Video: recall what is happening. Watching woman talk to people. No audio. Some embarassing topics. You remember topics.
Question: Do people take into account TOPIC when evaluating anxiety
No load: inferences as we’d expect. More anxious during anxious topics.
However, add some load, then ratings are the same.
Gilbert, Krull, Pelham (1988)
Examine Self-regulation as cognitive load
Act nice to someone you don’t like. Experiment concerns how people encode and decode communications.
Male confederate likable or not, then 1 participant interviewer, 1 participant observer. Read prepared conservative position. Interviewer forced to act nice.
DV = discern true beliefs on topics
interaction between observers vs. interviews and if confederate likeable or not.
Observers: no difference.
Interviewer: very effected. When dislikeable, worked very hard. Thought he was more conservative when dislikable.
Dislikable = more load, more effort.
Trope (1986) Identification/Inference Model
Stage 1: Identification of immediate behavior in terms of category (situational info and background info about actor’s dispostion implicity integrated in this early processing, influence how behavior is identified)
Stage 2: dispositional inference (identified BEHAVIOR evalute hypothesis that actor has disposition against alternative situational hypotheses).
Question: how diagnostic is behavior. Strong situational demands diminish diagnostic value of behavior. Resource dependent. Difference is situational forces influence identification.
Trope’s Identification/Inference Model (1997)
Situational info affects dispositional inference in 2 difference and opposite ways, describe them and how they tested them?
Assimilative Behavior Identification: frightening situation –> target’s reaction as fearful (no resources)
Inferential adjustment: knowledge it was scary attenuates inferences to target’s disposed anxiety. (requires resources )
How did Trope and Alfieri 1997 test Assimilative and inferential?
Stephen under situational pressure to prsent either +/- evaluation (dean’s expectations)
Ambiguous or unambiguously positive evaluation of candidate from fellow student stephen.
Ps under high or no cog load. 8 digit
DV: Behavior: stephen evaluation
Dispositional judgement: stephen’s true attitude
John being tresurer thing.
Results of Trope and Alfieri involving IDENTFICATION
Info about SITUATIONAL DEMANDS make assimilative effect on AMBIGUOUS but not unamibguous evaluation
Situation: dean’s expectations. Ambiguity and demand interaction. More favorable in CONTEXT of dean wanting positive evaluation. NO EFFECT OF LOAD BUT IT MATTERS LATER.
Ambiugous mixed about John: LOAD DOES NOT MATTER. What does matter is Ambiguoity. More positive when positive.
Trope & Alfieri 1997
Dispositional Judgement
Cognitive load diminished the use of situational info for inferential adjustement
LOAD MATTERS
Subtractive effect when no load. Situational demands and judgement, because no load can account for the situation.
Spontaneous Trait Inferences (STI) Winter and Uleman 1984
Encoding specificity paradigm
Trait was activated during ENCODING, should help cue recall behavior
Read sentences describing people performing actions implied traits under memory set instructions.
Plumber slips $50 into purse
Cue: Dispotiional (generous)
Nondispositional semantic associate (pipes)
No cue
Percent recall of sentence parts:
No cue- bad
Dispoitional cue: about the same, lots of sentence parts (point: trait good cue)
Semantic: WAY more for actor than other sentence parrts
Carlston & Skowronski 1994:
Why did they criticize traditional STI studies?
Trait terms might be linked to behavioral prototypes, traits might be associated with Behavior not actor, and if STI exist, should occur regardless of past experiences or processing objectives
Generous = giving, didn’t have anything to do with plummer, just definition.
Carlston & Skowronski 1994
Savings-in-relearning paradigm
To determine if spontaneously make trait inferences from behavior.
Exposure: series of persons and behavior statements, then confusion (interfere with memory) then delay (memory fades), the learning (person-trait paired associates) these are relearning trials, then cued recall, recall trait had been paried with photo
Photo of faithful woman. 2 vs. 7 ays.
Exposure: traits generation vs. general impression.
**No difference between instructions, but relearning more recalled. Effect reduces, but still there 7 days later. **
Carlston Skowronski and Sparks 1995:
Is the effect (S trait Tranference) the same when it describes SOMEONE ELSE?
yeah. John telling about susan, trait associated with John
Brown and Bassili 2002:
Can inanimate object become associated with trait?
Yeah. Banana Superticious banana. Actor bystander, and object.
