week 3 Flashcards
perceiving other people
what are thin slices
when you have very little information to draw attributions from
what is the smallest form of thin slices
a photograph
what happens when we look at faces
when people view faces, they do it extremely fast eg. how trustworthy, likeable, attractive etc.
when people view faces do most people either agree or disagree with the attributions given to the face
most people agree with the same given attributes based on someones appearance
does time matter when determining attributes to a face
no Willis and Todorov 2006 found that the attributions given to a face is the same with seconds and unlimited time eg. whether someone looks aggressive or trustworthy
how are people at detecting when someone is lying
we are not good at judging truth and deception, even those with relevant training eg. police, CIA, psychiatrists
what groups of people are better than chance (not just guessing) at detecting lies
secret service agents and clinical psychiatrists with deception experience
why are we bad at detecting lies
we focus too much on peoples facial expressions
alot of the available cues are not good indicators eg. fidgeting or minimal eye contact
what helps indicate lying
their voice
- hesitate and then speed up and raise pitch
there’s cognitive effort in their story
- lying is harder to do than telling the truth so easier to detect if you add a cognitive challenge such as telling the story backwards
attribution theories
correspondent inference theory
covariation model
what is attribution
how people explain the causes of behaviour
eg. the answer to the question why
what was Heider, 1958s idea
people are naive psychologists in their everyday life
why are people naive psychologists
construct theories to explain behaviour
draw upon personal/dispositional and situational explanations (personal or situational attributions)
types of attributions
personal attribution
situational attributions
what is personal attribution
an internal characteristic of the person caused the behaviour
eg. ability, personality, mood, effort
what is situational attribution
an external factor caused the behaviour
eg. the task, weather, other people, luck
what is helpful for predictions and control
attributing outcomes to stable factors eg. someone lost tennis because they’re bad at tennis allows you to assume they will be bad at tennis next game
what is correspondent inference theory
attribute behaviour to a corresponding personality trait or disposition
eg. aggressive action due to aggressive personality
based on correspondent inference theory (Jones and Davis), behaviour is more informative of an enduring disposition when it is:
freely chosen
unexpected, departs from what norms and roles dictate
produces fewer desirable effects
based on correspondent inference theory: Which option reveals more about the actor’s enduring dispositions?
1. Sarah receives a book for her birthday
a) She says it looks great, I can’t wait to read it
b) She says, oh I don’t really like reading
b because it is slightly unexpected as most people even if they didnt like reading would say thank you
based on correspondent inference theory: Chris accepts a job
a) $150K/year, easy commute, interesting work
b) $150K/year, long commute, boring work
b because theres only one positive attribute (the money) so we know chris is likely motivated by money
based on correspondent inference theory: Alex has the vegetarian pasta for his meal on a flight
a) He can choose between the vegetarian pasta or chicken
b) They have run out of everything else
a because we learn more about someone when they have free choice
what did Jones and Harris (1967) supported correspondent inference theory discover
participants made more correspondent inferences regarding speeches that were freely chosen vs. assigned. Therefore finding that it tells you more about a person when they get to choose (free choice)
what did Kelley’s (1967) Covariation Model believe
people are naive scientists (covariation principle)
it looked at whether behaviour would be the same or different with different people, stimuli and occasions
what is the covariation principle
the cause of a behaviour should be present when the behaviour occurs and absent when it does not
example of covariation model
rachel is nice to bart, we need to know if Rachel is nice or if bart is whats causing rachel to be nice.
utilise 3 types of information
1. consensus (do other people react similarly to this stimulus) eg. are other people nice to bart
- if yes then high consensus
2. distinctiveness (does this person react different to other stimuli) eg. is rachel nice to other people
- if no high distinctiveness
3. consistency (does this person react similarly to this stimulus on other occasions) eg. is rachel always nice to bart
if yes high consistency
types of information with covariation model
consensus
distinctive
consistent
what do the 3 types of information with the covariation model lead to
attributions
3 attributions
circumstances
personal
stimulus
if there is a low consensus
low distinctive
high consistent
the attribution is personal
eg. rachel is a nice person
if there is a high consensus, high distinctive and high consistent
the attribution is the stimulus
eg. bart is a nice guy
limitations to kelleys covariation model
- Although we can use the information, we don’t always use it
- Can be poor at determining covariation
- May simply attribute causality to most salient feature
- Requires multiple observations
types of biasing factors
Fundamental attribution error
Belief in a just world
what is fundamental attribution error
tendency to overlook situational factors and instead of make internal attributions for others behaviour
Fundamental Attribution Error jones and harris study found
people thought essays reflected the author’s beliefs even when the situation
could completely explain the behaviour (assigned position)
what does Fundamental Attribution Error
think of poverty
Attribute poverty to the person rather than social conditions
an example of fundamental attribution error
attributing a coworker’s lateness to the fact that they are unreliable rather than that they got stuck in traffic
Why do people ignore the situational factors?
Attribution is a two-step process (Gilbert & Malone, 1995) the situational factors require alot more thought and effort compared to personal attribution
what type of attribution is fast and automatic
personal attribution
People can form quick judgments of others based on
behaviour
when do we adjust for the situation less for attributions
Adjust for the situation less when under cognitive load or unmotivated
Why are dispositional inferences primary?
we attribute events to factors that are perceptually salient/those that stand out to us
eg. person is salient > internal attribution
situation is salient > external attribution
When we perceive another person, the person is usually more salient than the
situation
internal attribution
how can you change the type of attribution
by changing the focus of attention, you can change attributions
where has the fundamental attribution error been demonstrated
in western cultures which have an independent view of the self
when were participants from Eastern cultures were less likely to display the fundamental attribution error than those from Western cultures
when situational constraints were made
salient
when situational constraints were not
salient
both western and eastern cultures demonstrated the fundamental attribution error
when bad things happen to good people it threatens our
belief in a just world
what is meant by a just world
the world is a fair place
good things happen to good people
bad things happen to bad people
what happens when our belief in a just world is threatened
it makes us feel anxious as if that happened to them it could happen to me
what do people tend to do if their belief in a just world is threatened
blame the victim helps us feel safe, in control, like the world is a fair place
what type of attribution is likely if our belief in a just world is threatened
internal attributions in instances of
- more severe damages in an accident
- victims situation is similar to perceivers
- perceiver identifies with victim
- perceiver generally anxious about threats to self
Asch’s configural model on impression formation
Some traits are more useful for constructing an integrated impression
* Central traits (e.g., warm vs. cold) had a larger impact on peoples impressions
2 fundamental social dimensions for impression formation
warmth: whether they have good or ill intent
competence: ability to act on intentions
How do we put together traits to form an overall impression?
what we learn first matters the most (primary effect)
Valence matters
what is the primary effect
earlier info has a bigger impact on impressions
what is valence
Negative info is more distinctive, has a bigger impact
types of confirmation biases
- Perseverance of belief
- Confirmatory hypothesis testing
- Self-fulfilling prophecy
Darley and Gross 83 study on persereverance of beliefs
participants were given background info sbout a child and then watched her take a test.
background: high/low SES
video: always average performance
rated her academic potential before or after the video
results of Darley and Gross 83 study on persereverance of beliefs
before the video: ratings not affected by background info
after video: ratings were affected by background info
what did Darley and Gross 83 study on persereverance of beliefs discover
that expectancies influence perceptions of behaviour
What happens when information disconfirms our beliefs?
When people think about their theories or opinions, it consolidates the viewpoint
* Can provide a solution by asking them to consider an alternative viewpoint
Confirmatory Hypothesis Testing
We actively search for information to confirm our hypotheses
Synder and Swann Confirmatory Hypothesis Testing study
participants were told they were to interview an introvert or extrovert and then chose questions based on this characteristics. eg. what would you do to liven up a party vs what kind of events make you feel like being alone
this would supply evidence that supported their expectations
Self-Fulfilling Prophecy rosenthal and jacobson 68 study
Informed year 1/2 teachers that an IQ test indicated some students were due for an intelligence growth spurt (“bloomers”)
* But “bloomers” were picked randomly
* Came back 8 months later, assessed
children’s IQ
* Bloomers increased more in IQ, compared to other students
what caused the IQ increase in the self fulfilling prophecy study
- teachers tend to create a warmer environment/ are nicer to the children
- teachers teach more to the kids with more favourable expectations
- kids get more of a chance to respond if the teachers expect more of them and let them talk longer
- feedback: if more is expected of the kid the kid will be praised more. if the kid gets the answer wrong they receive more feedback than other kids
