PSY220 - 4. Expectancies and Attribution theory

Question 1

Encoding: Hamilton, Katz & Leier (1980).

Answer 1

a. subjects read 30 behaviors describing a target person.
b. Half explicitly told to “form an impression” half told to memorize the list of behaviors.
c. After a delay, recall as many behaviors as possible.

Question 2

Asch (1946): Are there lawful principles that govern the formation of impressions about people?

Answer 2

Make models that are simpler, yet reflective of messy real life. (e.g., trait list paradigm) Elegant control and manipulation. From one study to the next, he made minute changes in the paradigm and eventually certain regularities or “laws” were uncovered.

Question 3

impression formation

Answer 3

the whole is different from the sum of the parts.

Impressions are coherent, are “concepts.”

Question 4

The primacy effect

Answer 4

Impressions, once formed, have a life of their own: able to remember their impression of someone long after the specific behaviors are long forgotten.
Because impressions are somewhat independent of the actual “evidence,” they are difficult to overturn.

Question 5

Two ways of forming an impression

Answer 5

On-line vs. memory-based

Question 6

Hastie & Park (1986)

Answer 6

a. Randomly assigned subjects to either on-line or memory-based conditions.
b. On-line” subjects told to form their impression as they went, updating as they go along. “Memory-based” only asked for their impression after reading the sentences.

Question 7

Hastie & Park (1986)

Answer 7

c.viewed exact same sentences reached very diff judgments of target. mem-based subjects, judgment correlated with recall, for online, judgment not correlated with recall. online, order mattered, for mem-based order didn’t matter.

Question 8

How do people handle unexpected information about someone?

Answer 8

Logically, there are three possibilities:
1)more attention + scrutiny to unexpected info
2)less attention + scrutiny to unexpected info
3)no more/less attention + scrutiny to unexpected info.
Person memory

Question 9

Hastie & Kumar (1979):

Answer 9

Told participants person was intelligent

b. presented participants with list of behaviors by person, an equal amount of intelligent behaviors (“won a chess tournament”), unintelligent behaviors (“same mistake three times”) and irrelevant behaviors (“took the elevator”).
c. After long delay asked to recall as many behaviors as they could.

Question 10

Incongruency Effect

Answer 10

better memory for unexpected information
Irrelevant Consistent Inconsistent
< <

better memory for unexpected + info that can be assimilated to schema of person
Yet ppl clearly sometimes prefer consistent info, too – in accord with “assimilation to a concept” idea

Question 11

So when do people devote more cog resources to consistent and when to inconsistent?

Answer 11

Metaanalysis: identify key variable for when they prefer consistent/inconsistent: depends on perciever’s goal

Question 12

Stangor & McMillan (1992):

Answer 12

GOAL
Accurate Good enough
incongruency effect congruency effect
Confirmation bias: not knowing to look for disconfirming evidence
Thinking more about inconsistent behaviour because trying to make it fit
More cognitive resources for detailed processing which leads to better memory

Question 13

Sherman et al. (1998):

Answer 13

Stereotypes “liberate resources” that often allocated toward inconsistent info (more informative/diagnostic).

Question 14

Plaks et al. (2001):

Answer 14

not necessarily!
Implicit theories of personality
Entity theory: belief ppl’s traits fixed
Incremental theory: traits malleable
artsy or sciency
situationaly prime ppl by making them read phony articles indicating proof of either theory
entity theorists showed congruency effect
incremental theorists showed incongruency effect

Question 15

Another variable that predicts congruency vs. incongruency: familiarity
STANGOR & RUBLE (1989)

Answer 15

1. read behavioral descriptions of members of 2 college fraternities, one frat mostly extraverted, one mostly introverted.
2. Beforehand, ½ of Ps saw a presentation containing 30 behaviors performed by one of the frats.
3. All Ps saw a presentation of 60 behaviors by both frats (30 each).
4. Later memory recall task.

Question 16

Another variable that predicts congruency vs. incongruency: familiarity
STANGOR & RUBLE (1989)

Answer 16

Greater congruency effects for Ps with more information
More they were invested in confirming + less attention to disconfirming info that leads to strong congruency effects + confirmation bias

Question 17

Attribution

Answer 17

Foundation for more complex human behavior (e.g., altruism, aggression).

Question 18

Perception (objects or people)

Answer 18

phenomenology: 1-to-1 correspondence betw “what I see” + “what is the out there” (i“feels” simple, direct, & accurate)
reality: Perception not simple, involves many steps, + often inaccurate (though it is generally lawful ).

Question 19

UNCONSCIOUS INFERENCES

Answer 19

Unconscious inferences from built-in assumptions “fill in the gaps.”
Without assumptions, difficult time making sense of the world.
BUT: sometimes lead to mistakes, illusions.
built in assumptions that disambiguates process that can also lead to illusions

Question 20

HEIDER and the Logical/ Attributional Approach

Answer 20

inferential processes by which we understand ppl based on behaviour/appearance similar to how we understand objects based on their motion/appearance .
Common: Basic principles of causal analysis.

Question 21

Principles of Causal Inference (according to Heider, 1958)

Answer 21

1. Attribution is vital + pervasive. lends meaning + order to what would otherwise be chaotic array of stimuli.
2. Behaviours express stable dispositions. “medium for transmission of psychological characteristics.” Expressing underlying disposition through behaviour

Question 22

Principles of Causal Inference (according to Heider, 1958)

Answer 22

3. Attribution extracts dispositions from behaviour.
   –People have the implicit understanding that behaviour often reflects dispositions.
   –When people see someone act they perform additional step of attribution that establishes causal link between behaviour + disposition.

Question 23

Principles of Causal Inference (according to Heider, 1958)

Answer 23

Aggressive acts attributed to personality unconsciously
4. Attributions can be performed consciously or unconsciously.
–rules of attribution become so automatized over time that we can follow them without awareness.

Question 24

Principles of Causal Inference (according to Heider, 1958)

Answer 24

–Attributions often have a “given” quality; they “feel” like direct perception that has not undergone additional cognitive steps.
Seems to be afforded by behaviour rather than perception
Attribution = causal analysis

Question 25

Heider: How does causal analysis work? What are the assumptions?

Answer 25

1. Behavior is joint product of temporary + enduring causes.
   Aggressive behaviour maybe because of the situation but in general see contribution more from enduring underlying nature
2. Behavior requires actor can + tries to do it. (“Capacity” & “Motivation’)

Question 26

Heider: How does causal analysis work? What are the assumptions?

Answer 26

Capacity = ability + environment (throwing a frisbee into the wind)
Motivation = strategy + effort
4 elements ppl add up in their head
Attribution = “implicit algebra” that describes how these four factors combine to produce behavior. We “solve for the unknown.”

Question 27

Heider: How does causal analysis work? What are the assumptions?

Answer 27

Use info we have to solve for unknown
Success = bad environment + ? (good ability)
The more we can fill in, the more we can characterize person’s behaviour

Question 28

Subsequent Theorizing in the Logical/ Attributional Tradition

Answer 28

Correspondent isolation theory: isolating dispositional properties that distinguish 1 person from another (Law of Noncommon Effects).
people are by considering whether others would have done the same.”

Question 29

Subsequent Theorizing in the Logical/ Attributional Tradition

Answer 29

If behaviour is unusual, then make the ‘correspondent inference .’
most behaviour is dull + bland + doesn’t say much about you
usual behaviour doesn’t provide much information as much as unusual behaviour

Question 30

Harold Kelley (1967, 1972,1973)

Answer 30

naïve scientist” metaphor: Ordinary people use the same logical rules in their ordinary attributions that scientists use in testing hypotheses.

Question 31

Kelley’s Covariation Model

Answer 31

“Naïve” scientists:
–Is the behaviour distinctive ?
–Is the behaviour consistent ?
–Is there consensus about the behaviour?

Question 32

Kelley’s Covariation Model

Answer 32

“Real” scientists:
–Does X occur only in presence of Y (and not Z)?
–Does X always occur in presence of Y?
–Do others replicate your finding?

Question 33

Kelley’s Covariation Model

Answer 33

distinctive: likes all movies/selective? Strong inference if distinctive
consistent: do they stick to the opinion
does everyone else like the movie?

Question 34

The Discounting Principle*

Answer 34

When behaviour covaries with more than one potential cause, observer has less confidence in either cause.
someone did badly on a test, but also very sick: 2 possible causes for effect – reduces confidence in either of the cause.
Augmentation:

Question 35

The Augmentation Principle

Answer 35

When behaviour covaries with a situational factor that increases confidence in a particular cause.
got 100% when the person was sick “all the more so”
Despite the empediment, I can infer they are intelligent: increases confidence in intelligence

Question 36

The Discounting Principle*

Answer 36

Although attribution theories describe the content of thought, they say very little about process .
Cognitive revolution: Interest in mental processes like attention, encoding, retrieval.
What is the sequence of operations? What are the operating characteristics?

Question 37

Basic Operating Sequence:

Answer 37

Identification of behavior - Attribution of dispositions - Integration into impression

Question 38

Identification

Answer 38

How do people translate the “raw material” into “acts”?
–Behaviour identified in terms of actor’s intentions .
–intentions are often ambiguous, although they rarely seem to be (due to construct accessibility).

Question 39

Attribution

Answer 39

Going beyond identifying behavior to understanding the meaning of the behavior.
•Often, meaning = actor possesses a trait.
We pin act of aggression to actor’s underlying nature

Question 40

Why are we so quick to make trait attributions?

Answer 40

1. Person = foreground Situation = background (Person more salient, accessible, and applicable as a cause.)
   movement is more salient as a cause
2. Anchoring-and-adjustment heuristic
   anchor + insufficiently adjust for the situation

Question 41

What Affects Identification and Attribution? (Trope, 1986)

Answer 41

Two factors affect identification and attribution: actor’s prior behavior + current situation .
tears of sadness or joy?: more often when sad so we disambiguates to sad
current situation: funeral – tears of sadness

Question 42

What Affects Identification and Attribution? (Trope, 1986)

Answer 42

both have assimilation effect
if at funeral, can’t conclude they’re a chronically sad person
A: disambiguate
B: what does it mean – accessing prior history + situation
*Prior behaviors affect both I & A in the same way: additive

Question 43

Do we make trait attributions outside of awareness?: Winter & Uleman (1984)

Answer 43

Participants read about different people doing different behaviors. (e.g., “The librarian helped the old lady carry her bags across the street.”) Traits never explicitly mentioned.

Question 44

Do we make trait attributions outside of awareness?: Winter & Uleman (1984)

Answer 44

Later…surprise cued-recall memory test. Experimenters recorded how much of each sentence participants correctly recalled.
Semantic cues: related - books
Trait cues successfully triggered recall.
Taken as evidence of spontaneous trait encoding at the time of reading.

Question 45

Encoding Specificity (Tulving & Thompson, 1973)

Answer 45

Items/events encoded together can serve as retrieval cues for each other. – better recall with situation of test matches situation of learning
both cues help facilitate recall.

Question 46

Encoding Specificity (Tulving & Thompson, 1973)

Answer 46

Rationale is that when I read a sentence about someone + infer a trait, then the trait gets encoded with the sentence so during recall the trait can help recall the sentence because they are linked outside of conscious awareness. Make spontaneous attribution about trait of actor without awareness.

Question 47

Gilbert: “undoing” your thoughts

Answer 47

We might make automatic trait attributions, but we are capable of undoing them + making situational corrections.
We are prevented from making situational corrections by cognitive busyness.

Question 48

The Gilbert, Pelham, & Krull (1988) Multi-stage Model

Answer 48

Automatic Behavior Identification - Automatic
Dispositional - Characterization - Controlled Situational Correction
third step requires more cognitive resources
when we have limited cognitive processes, third step gets knocked out

Question 49

Gilbert, Pelham. & Krull (1988)

Answer 49

1. Ps saw video of woman acting anxiously (biting lip, fidgeting, etc.)
2. ½ told: she’s talking about an anxious topic
   ½ told: she’s talking about a relaxing topic
3. ½ put under cognitive load (memorize a #)
   DV: How anxious of a person is she?

Question 50

Gilbert, Pelham, & Krull (1988): “How anxious of a person is she?”

Answer 50

Low load: discounting + augmenting
Not as anxious just the situation
Discounting principle
In relaxing situation: augmentation

Question 51

Gilbert, Pelham, & Krull (1988): “How anxious of a person is she?”

Answer 51

Kelley confirmed + disappears in high cognitive load
High load: neither
Consistent with model
Cannot perform extra challenge of discounting + augmentation

Question 52

The Fundamental Attribution Error

Answer 52

tendency to overestimate the role of dispositional causes and underestimate the role of situational causes in explaining an actor’s behavior.

Question 53

Jones & Harris (1967)

Answer 53

read an essay either pro-Castro or anti-Castro.
Half told that the person had freely chosen to write the essay; Half told the person assigned to the position by his professor.
Participants asked to estimate writer’s true attitude about Castro.

Question 54

Jones & Harris (1967)

Answer 54

results: whether given free choice or not free choice, this reflected writer’s attitude. Failed to take into account discounting info. Infer that they unwittingly introduced a cognitive load.

Question 55

Actor-Observer Effect

Answer 55

more likely to attribute own bad behavior to situational causes + bad behavior of others to dispositional factors (usually a trait).
reverse is true: attribute their own good behavior to dispositional factors + good behavior of others to situation.

Question 56

What is behind the actor-observer bias?

Answer 56

1. When observing someone else, actor is figure, situation is ground. When observing yourself, since you are the actor, you only have to observe the situation (one thing to keep track of).
2. have more examples in memory of their own different behavior in different situations.

Question 57

(Mis)attribution and Emotion

Answer 57

The prevalent intuition:

Charging bear → Fear

Question 58

Schachter & Singer (1962):

Answer 58

Step 1: ambiguous physiological arousal (heart rate, perspiration, stomach clenching, etc.)
Step 2: attribution that explains source of arousal
need reasoning to understand emotion
Symptoms are similar = ambiguous
Arousal can mean fear or sexually aroused

Question 59

Schachter & Singer (1962)

Answer 59

1. Injected subjects with epinephrine (a drug that produces physiological arousal).
2. ½ of the subjects warned beforehand about the drug’s effect, ½ not forewarned.
3. Additional set of subjects injected with a placebo (harmless drug).
4. Before drug took effect, each subject left alone with a confederate. Confederate introduced as someone who had received the same injection.

Question 60

Schachter & Singer (1962)

Answer 60

5. In ½ of the sessions, confederate behaved in a euphoric manner, for 20 minutes jumped around, rolled up paper and shot “baskets” into the trash, made and flew paper airplanes
6. In ½ of the sessions, confederate behaved in a angry manner, for 20 minutes steamed and stamped around the room in rage, ripped up the questionnaire they were given, etc.

Question 61

Results (2 X 3 Design)

Answer 61

Drug-informed	Drug-uninformed	Placebo
Euphoric confed
no change		euphoric		 
no change
Angry confed		    no change		angry				no change

Question 62

Results (2 X 3 Design)

Answer 62

In drug informed they can perform discounting: drug is most plausible cause of arousal – can’t make formal assessment of arousal
Drug uninformed: take confederates as a cue to disambiguate ambiguous arousal
Placebo: need arousal + attribution to have emotion

Question 63

Aron & Dutton (1974): The suspension bridge over Capilano River Canyon

Answer 63

more of the males called female when on the bridge
misattribution of arousal: 2 sources of arousal – bridge + attractive female. Attribution to attraction to female as opposed to the situation.

Question 64

CULTURE AND PERSON COGNITION

Answer 64

How fundamental is the fundamental attribution error really?
Overarching theme of cross-cultural research: FAE much stronger in US (and Western Europe) than rest of world.
Miller (1984): US and Indian Hindu subjects asked to explain numerous scenarios, e.g., “A university professor stole a student’s idea and presented it as his own.”

Question 65

CULTURE AND PERSON COGNITION

Answer 65

Americans-dispositional answers (“self-absorbed”)
Indians- “She was his student. She would have not had the power to publish it on her own.”
(Thus the situation is what explained the behavior to the Hindus.)

Question 66

Morris & Peng (1994)

Answer 66

Analyzed newspaper reports of crimes in ordinary American newspapers and American, Chinese-language newspapers for dispositional vs. situational explanations for the crime. American newspapers tended to use more dispositional. Chinese newspapers tended to use more situation explanations.

Question 67

Choi & Nisbett (1998)

Answer 67

Replicated Jones & Harris (1967) paradigm with American vs. Korean subjects.
Results: Both Americans and Koreans exhibited the typical lack of situational discounting BUT:
In one additional condition of the study, situational information was made extra salient (described in more detail). Some written in bold

Question 68

Choi & Nisbett (1998)

Answer 68

Both Americans & Koreans now took situational info into account…but K’s did significantly more. Everyone did discounting, but K’s did more
(Important control condition: A’s & K’s did not differ in their explanations for non-social events, e.g., a billiard ball bouncing off of a pool table cushion.)
had to do with more social explanations

Question 69

Knowles, Morris, Chiu, & Hong (1998):

Answer 69

Replicated Gilbert, Pelham & Krull (1988) paradigm with American and Chinese subjects.
Low cog. Load Hi cog. load
A: situational correction little sit. correct
C: situational correction sit. correct

Question 70

Knowles, Morris, Chiu, & Hong (1998):

Answer 70

American:
High cognitive load: lack of situational discounting – failed to take into account situation
Low cognitive load: able to do discounting
Chinese:
Situational discounting in both low cognitive load + high cognitive load
Culturally practice situational discounting – requires less cognitive resources to do so – is automatic

Question 71

Hong, Morris, Chiu, & Benet:

Answer 71

Subjects: English-speaking Chinese (in H.K. & California) – i.e. all subjects were bicultural.

1. Subjects randomly assigned to be surreptitiously primed either with US symbols (Mickey Mouse, Capitol Building) or China symbols (Great Wall, a dragon).
2. All subjects asked to explain various scenarios (e.g., why a child misbehaved in class).

Question 72

Hong, Morris, Chiu, & Benet:

Answer 72

When primed with american symbols, they behaved like americans – described events in more dispositional
Primed with china symbols: behaved like china – described events with more situational explanations
Raising the accessibility of 1 or the other in priming manipulation

Question 73

Hong, Morris, Chiu, & Benet:

Answer 73

Priming of chinese symbols if the person is not bicultural
Need to have both elements present in LTM to be accessible for it to work
Activating a part of one’s identity seems to activate a way of thinking.