Review Questions

What is the availability heuristic?

Information that is most easily assessable or available is seen as more likely to occur

What is the false consensus effect?

The tendency to overestimate the degree of agreement between one’s own thoughts, feelings, behavior, characteristics, etc. especially if they are negative “Everyone does it”

What is counterfactual thinking? What are the 2 basic types of CFT? Give an example of upward CFT.

• Anger

• Happiness

• Surprise

The six major (universal) emotional expressions *

• Fear

• Sadness

• Disgust

What two emotions are hard to distinguish?

Non-Verbal Communication *

1) Emblems: Gestures that have specific meanings within a given culture (e.g., “OK” sign)

Japan = $; Mexico = sex; Ethiopia = homosexuality; Brazil = “flipping the bird”

Thumbs up sign: US = OK; Europe = Excellent; Japan = boyfriend; Iran & Sardinia = obscene2) Illustrators: Gestures that emphasize a point

3) Affect displays: Basic emotional expressions (e.g., sad, happy)

4) Regulators: Gestures that help to foster communication (e.g., opening mouth to indicate one wants to speak, nodding head in agreement, raising eyebrows to indicate interest)

5) Adaptors: Nonverbal behavior (often habitual) that occur under stressful situations (e.g., twirling hair, tapping fingers)

Eye contact:Length of gaze (too little, just right, too much)

Cultural Differences

Non-Verbal Communication (cont.)

Personal space:• Relationship to the other person

• Cultural differences

• Status differences (high status = more personal space)

Touching:• Cultural differences

• Gender Differences

• Status differences

Eye Contact:

In US it is valued (e.g., he/she “did not look me in the eye”) = hiding something

Nigeria, Puerto, Thailand: Children taught to not make eye contact with superiors (e.g., teachers, adults)

Some American Indian tribes: Minimal eye contactJapanese: Overall less eye contactArabs: Lots of eye contact – approaching a gaze

Personal Space and Touching:

“High contact” countries = Middle East, South America, Southern Europe

Low = US, Northern Europe, Asia, Pakistan

Korea, Other parts of Asia, and Egypt = Same sex hold hands

Some Cultural Differences

Causal Attributions [The reasons for the behavior of others and

ourselves; WHY they/we behave a certain way, e.g., the cause of behavior]

Fritz Heider: One of the founders of attribution theory

Viewed people as amateur (naive) scientists – trying to figure out causes of behavior and assigning responsibility for one’s actions Role of Implicit Personality Theory to make attributions regarding behavior of others

Behavior of Others

Implicit Personality Theory [collection of beliers. assumptions, schemas] about what traits go together

CheapUncaring,

Selfish

Warm Nice, Polite

Old Irritable, Inflexible

Internal External

Stable

Unstable

Ability, Intelligence, Personality Traits

Effort, MoodLuck, Transitory

weather conditions

Task difficulty

Also, there are 2 other dimensions: Global versus Specific

Causal Attributions *

Relationship-Enhancing and Distress-Maintaining Attributions

Positive Event

Relationship-Enhancing Attribution

Distress-Maintaining Attribution

My partner takes me out to an expensive

dinner

My partner is sweet and thoughtful

My partner took me out to write the cost off on taxes

Internal, stable, global

Negative Event

My partner forgot my birthday

External, unstable, specific

Something unexpected must

have come upExternal, unstable,

specific

My partner is always uncaring

and selfishInternal, stable,

global

Yells at her regularly

Yells at her when store is empty

Employee-2 (Jamal)

Employee-1 (Sam)

Hannah

Boss Mgr. Coworker

Behavior to be explained: Boss yells at his employee,

Hannah

(Distinctiveness) How the actor (e.g., boss) behaves toward other stimuli (e.g., other people)

(Consistency) How the actor (e.g., boss) behaves toward the same stimulus over time and

circumstances/situations

Kelly’s Cube (Covariation) Model of Attribution

Yells at her when store is full

(Consensus) How others (e.g., those at work) behave toward the stimuli (e.g., Hannah)

Some Cube Theory Examples: *

The boss yells at Hannah virtually every time he sees her (High Consistency)No one else yells at Hannah, only the boss (Low Consensus)The boss yells at everyone (Low Distinctiveness)

The boss yells at Hannah virtually every time he sees her (High Consistency)Everyone yells at Hannah, not just the boss (High Consensus)The boss only yells at Hannah, not at any other employee (High Distinctiveness)External attribution: There is something about Hannah (e.g., poor worker, she’s difficult to work with)

Internal/Trait Attribution. For instance, there is something about the boss – he is mean; an angry person

Typically, we do not have complete information about people on all three of Kelly’s dimensions. Also, research has shown that the dimension of “consistency” is used quite a bit, whereas “consensus” is not used frequently.

Kelly’s Cube Model of Attribution (cont.) *

Fundamental Attribution Error *[Correspondent Bias -- that one’s behavior corresponds to one’s

personality]

The tendency to overemphasize internal explanations for the behavior of others, while failing to consider the power of the situation.

Example –

• Participants had NO choice in reading a Pro Fidel Castro speech

• Others still believe the position reflected that of the person

Self-Generated Reality *

Are people unknowing architects of their own social reality?

Often our role in affecting other’s responses is ambiguous (e.g., personality, physical appearance, social role/position, mannerisms)

At other times, we intentionally try to get people to do or say something (e.g., sign petition, donate money,

InducerRespond

er

Inducer asks responder to respond a certain way (e.g., 16/20 times in a politically liberal or conservative manner)

Later, asked inducers to judge the “real” opinions of the responders --- they made dispositional attributions for the responder’s behavior (i.e., either liberal or conservative politically)

Fundamental Attribution Error * Role of Perceptual Salience [what we see or pay attention to,

visually obvious]

Observers thought that the actor they could see better had a greater impact on the conversation

People from individualistic and collectivistic cultures both demonstrate the correspondence bias.

Members of collectivist cultures are more sensitive to situational causes of behavior and more likely to rely on situational explanations, as long as situational variables are salient. Less likely to commit fundamental attribution error

Culture and the Fundamental Attribution Error (or

Correspondence Bias) *

The actor/observer effect: The tendency to see other people’s behavior as dispositionally caused (e.g., ability, personality), while focusing more on the role of situational factors (e.g., task difficulty, bad luck) when explaining one’s own behavior.

Actor-Observer Effect (Difference)

(Fundamental Attribution Error not applied equally)

• Perceptual salience: Actors notice the situations around them that influence them to act, while observers notice the actors

Information access: Actors have more information about themselves than do observers (e.g., how consistent present behavior is to past behavior) Actor: “That’s the first free throw I’ve missed in 4 games”

• Self-Serving (defensive) attributions: Motivated to explain one’s successes by using internal, dispositional factors, as opposed to failures, which are explained by situational factors (e.g., bad luck).

Self-serving = Self-esteem maintenance

Self-presentation concerns: Look good in the eyes of others

Reasons for the Actor-Observer Difference *

Actor’s focus is on the task Observer’s focus is

on the actor

• A form of self-serving/defensive attribution is to believe that bad things happen only to bad people or only to people who make stupid mistakes or poor choices.

Self-Serving/Defensive Attributions and the Just World Hypothesis *

Basic assumption: People get what they deserve and deserve what they get

Some negative aspects of the belief in a just world:

Victims of crimes, accidents, or poverty can be seen as causing their own fate

Battered wives may be seen as responsible for their husbands’ actions

~ Reversing Actors’ and Observers’ Perspectives ~

Actor sees own behavior as situational. Observer sees actor’s behavior as dispositional (trait). Actor-observer effect

Actor

Observer

Actor sees own behavior as more dispositional. Observer sees actor’s behavior as more situational

Other

Observer

Other (person actor was talking to)

Actor sees self

Quiz Show Game Study (Power of social roles) *

Questioner (writes a set of 10 reasonably difficult questions

Contestant (has to answer the questions by the questioner)

Observers

Ratings of others on a general knowledge rest

• Questioner perceived as more knowledgeable by contestants and observers

Told that this assignment was random; it wasn’t

GPA and External Attributions for Failure

Increasing Retention Rates *

• Higher GPA

• Less absenteeism

• Lower dropout rate

• Greater satisfaction with school

Training session to address issues

facing new student, How to cope with

Problems, Where to go for help, etc.

Giving students realistic reasons for possible poor

1st year performance (e.g., new setting,

more adjustments, harder classes)

• Success is attributed to internal factors (Self-Enhancement Strategy )

• Failure is attributed to external factors (Self-Protective Device)

• Prevalence of internal outcomes for both success and failure (especially unstable ones)

• Unexpected outcomes lead to a greater number of attributions

(e.g., need for greater attributional searching for possible explanations)

Overview

Attributions in the Sports Pages

Attribution Examples in Sports

Self-Attributions

Internal & Unstable (most common in sports for failures)

• "I could not be as aggressive as I wanted to be and kind of flinched a couple of times" -- Golfer Ernie Els on a wrist injury and his 77 final round score

"For this fight I had to lose a lot of weight. I wasn't that strong … “ --- Boxer Floyd Mayweather on beating Jr. Jesus Chavez

• “It was one of those nights. I felt like I couldn’t miss” – Michael Jordan

Self-Handicapping Behavior *

Early assumptions:

A) People wish to have accurate information/feedback regarding their abilities

B) Role of achievement motivation (high versus low)

Motivation for self-handicapping strategies; behaviors that:

A) Enhance external attributions for failure

B) Allow internal attributions for success (e.g., Kelly’s augmentation principle)

Self-Handicapping Behavior (cont.)

"Cause" of self-handicapping

A) Non-contingent reinforcement history, especially for success (e.g., Success not due to one’s

ability or effort)

B) Perception that successful performance cannot likely be repeated

Key: The belief that one deserves or has partially earned their success (e.g., due to themselves) has to exist

Self-Handicapping Behavior (cont.)

Insolvable Task

“Success”

Ability attributions

Males

Males attributed their “success” to ability more than females

Females

Insolvable Task-2 (stakes raised)

Drug Choice

Enhancing drug

Impairing drug

Private

Public

Males much more likely to choose impairing drug – even when only they were told of their initial success (private condition)

Seligman’s Suggestions

A) Allow external attributions for failure (when reasonable)

B) Develop strategies for improvement after failure

C) Failure is not “the end of the world” (learning experience, feedback)

D) Allow development of personal control in early years of life

Misattribution and Speech Anxiety *

Placebo usage ---

a) Cause of one’s arousal is not obvious

b) Misattribution source is salient (obvious, easily observable)

c) Misattribution source is perceived as plausible

Giving a speech (anxiety arousing event)

Subliminal noise to increase anxiety

Subliminal noise to decrease anxiety

Accurate information; e.g., it’s common to be anxious

Less mistakes made during

speech

• Anxiety is partially explained by the noise as well as the person

Motivation: SDT (Self-Determination Theory)

Intrinsic Motivation

Extrinsic Motivation

The activity itself is rewarding; you are

interested, and enjoy doing it

The gains we make from the activity motivate us (e.g.,

money, power, prestige,

endorsements)

A Look at Rewards for Motivation *

• Good jump ropers during recess were chosen and put in three conditions

• Following the intervention, which group will jump rope during recess more?

Expected reward:

Students were told if they did a good job, they would get a “good jumper” badge. All got a badge.

Unexpected reward:

Students were awarded a “good jumper” badge after doing a good job on the task. All got a badge.

Control / No reward:

Students jumped rope, but were not told of a reward, and were not given one.

MostLeast

Top Salaries of Athletes in the United States

Intrinsic Motivation

(“Traditional Belief”) Overall Motivation = Internal + External Rewards

Individuals who intrinsically

enjoy their work

Increase extrinsic (external) rewards

(e.g., pay)

Can lead to lowered

intrinsic motivation

Why? IntrinsicMotivation

Extrinsic Motivation

• Extrinsic (external) factors now partially account for

why individuals are motivated to perform a

given task

• External rewards limit people’s sense of self-

determination Tangible extrinsic rewards reliably undermine intrinsic motivation under most circumstances. The most detrimental reward contingency involves giving rewards as a direct function of people's performance. This is the one most often used in life, and it seems to be the one that is most detrimental to the motivation, performance, and well-being. http://www.psych.rochester.edu/SDT/cont_reward.html

What is the “Spotlight Effect”:

Perception of our behavior as “sticking out”

Others will attend to and notice our behavior as being different (an outlier)

Lonely Guy Restaurant Scene

Spotlight Effect

Overestimating Failure/Harshness Studies *

3 scenarios with social blunders ---

• Setting of library alarm• Forgot to bring gift at

party• Seen with cheap store bag

Ratings (predictions) provided by:

Self (actors)Observers

Scenario Actors’ Observers prediction rating

1. Library incident 4.78 3.01

2. Empty-handed guest 5.26 2.47

3. Spotted at the mall 3.31 1.13

On average, actors believe they will be rated MUCH harsher that they are!