Lecture: Social Perception Flashcards
Correspondent inference theory
Assumptions most of the time explain behavior as something external
But when does internal attribution is justified
Kelley 1967 Covariation model
Needs to see the behavior more than once
External vs person (internal) attribution
But external can be either “entity” (target of behavior) or “time/circumstances” (modality)
What information do you need according to the covariation model to make the question if it is internal or external?
Consensus
Distinctiveness
Consistency
What is distinctiveness?
Target of action people
What is consistency?
Action same across time/circumstance
With the prompt “John steps on Mary’s foot while dancing” what attribution would you have and on who if there is high consensus, high distinctiveness, and high consistency?
Attribution: There’s something about Mary
High, high, high= external/entity attribution
High consensus?
Everyone steps on Mary’s foot
High Distinctiveness
Only Mary’s (target) foot gets stepped on
High consistency?
John always steps on Mary’s foot
With the prompt “John steps on Mary’s foot while dancing,” what attribution would you have and on who if there is high consensus, high distinctiveness, and low consistency?
High consensus?
Everyone steps on Mary’s foot
High Distinctiveness? (feature of target)
Only Mary’s (target) foot gets stepped on
Low Consistency
In the past, John has avoided stepping on Mary’s foot
Attribution: situation
High,high,low = external/circumstances attribution
With the prompt “John steps on Mary’s foot while dancing,” what attribution would you have and on who if there is low consensus, low distinctiveness, and high consistency?
Low Consensus?
Only John steps on Mary’s foot
Low Distinctiveness?
John steps on everyone’s foot
High Consistency?
John always steps on Mary’s foot
Attribution: John
Low, low, high = internal (subject of action)
With the prompt “John steps on Mary’s foot while dancing,” what attribution would you have and on who if there is low consensus, low distinctiveness, and low consistency?
Low Consensus?
Only John steps on Mary’s foot
Low Distinctiveness?
John steps on everyone’s foot
Low Consistency?
In the past, John has avoided stepping on Mary’s foot
Attribution: Situation
Low, low, low = external/circumstances
Fundamental Attribution Error
When explaining behavior, over-weigh person factors/under-weigh situation
This bias to always think it is the person
Jones and Harris 1967: Castro Study
Aim: evidence for fundamental attribution error
Procedures: The participants read essay by a author with a choice of a topic or other without a choice
One had a choice whether pro or anti and the other didn’t have a choice, they were assigned the topic
Participants had to rate the real attitude of the essay writer toward Castro (pro or anti-castro)
Scores range from 10 (anti) to 70 (pro)
Findings: The study shows that to a certain degree, the participants were attributing pro-Castro sentiment to those who wrote a pro-castro essay
Even if it they did not have a choice on the topic of essay they had
Bierbrauer Study
Aim: Fundamental Attribution error
Procedures:
People had to watch the reenactment of Milgram’s study and asked if they would disobey
Participants think 90% would disobey (recall actual was 35%)
Failing to appreciate the situation
Personality Psychologists with attribution
Consistency across time, not situations
Aggregated measurements (get a lot of data)
Criterion can change
Consistent only for certain traits
Some are more consistent than others
Low self-monitor
oriented toward self
High self-monitor
oriented toward other
What is another possibility for consistency of traits?
Number of domains
People would show a trait in more domains (situations) than others
Nobody is going to show a trait in every domain
Who are maximizing?
People who must get the best
Who is satisficing?
People are good with good enough
Taylor & Fiske 1975 study
Asked spectators who played more of a role in the conversation they were watching
Whoever they were watching, they felt that they were the ones leading the conversation (more salient)
Actor-observer difference
Make more dispositional attributions for others than self
We know our own history
We know ourselves in different situations
We only see others in a limited # of situations
What is a reason for FAE?
Insufficient correction
Gilbert 1988 study
Aim: FAE
Procedures: Rate true attitude of essay writer on about abortion
The participants were told that the writer was either forced to write on the subject or they were able to choose
Start with our intentional disposition (stuck)
We start with person attribution (default) and then, if we have sufficient time and cognitive resources, we correct for the situation
But during high load we can’t so we fall to the fundamental attribution error
Morris & Peng 1994
Aim: FAE, collectivist vs individualist
Procedure: Chinese vs American newspapers on mass shootings
Chinese focus (cite) on the situation, American focuses (cite) on the person
More on situational for collectivist than individualistic
Masuda & Nisbet 2001
Aim: FAE, collectivist vs individualist
Procedure: Showed a fish tank, then given a memory test and asked if they saw the fish
They see the fish in the original background but they change the novel background
Changes the response for the Japanese and not the Americans
Shows how the Japanese focus on the background (situation)
What is another for FAE?
Motivated Need: Want to be predictable
Want to live in a just world beliefs
People get what they deserve in life
Thus, deserve what they get
Blaming the victim in bad situations due to wanting the world to be predictable
Might make the world seem safer since we won’t do what they did
