Correspondent Inference

Содержание

Слайд 2

Correspondent Inference Theory

Behaviour that is

Freely chosen
Non common in its effects
Low in social

Correspondent Inference Theory Behaviour that is Freely chosen Non common in its
desirability

Somehow forced
Common in its effects
High in social desirability

Originates from the person’s stable traits

Originates from the situational effects

Слайд 3

Kelley’s covariation theory derived principally from Heider’s covariation principle, which states that

Kelley’s covariation theory derived principally from Heider’s covariation principle, which states that
people explain events in terms of things that are present when the event occurs but absent when it does not.

Kelley’s Covariation Model

Слайд 4

Attributions based on 3 kinds of info, which represent the degree to

Attributions based on 3 kinds of info, which represent the degree to
which:
Consensus …other actors perform the same behavior with the same object.

Kelley’s Covariation Model

Слайд 5

Consistency …the actor performs that same behavior toward an object on different occasions.

Consistency …the actor performs that same behavior toward an object on different occasions. Kelley’s Covariation Model

Kelley’s Covariation Model

Слайд 6

Distinctiveness …the actor performs different behaviors with different targets.

Kelley’s Covariation Model

Distinctiveness …the actor performs different behaviors with different targets. Kelley’s Covariation Model

Слайд 8

High Consensus (Everyone hits Steve)
High Consistency (Bob always hits Steve)
High Distinctiveness (Bob only hits Steve)

Kelley’s

High Consensus (Everyone hits Steve) High Consistency (Bob always hits Steve) High
Attribution Model: External

Слайд 9

Low Consensus (Only Bob hits Steve)
High Consistency (Bob always hits Steve)
Low Distinctiveness (Bob hits everyone)

Kelley’s

Low Consensus (Only Bob hits Steve) High Consistency (Bob always hits Steve)
Attribution Model: Internal

Слайд 10

Consensus
The extent to which an individual’s response is similar to one shown

Consensus The extent to which an individual’s response is similar to one
by others

Consistency
The extent to which an individual responds to a given situation in the same way as on different occasions

Distinctiveness
The extent to which an individual responds in the same way as to different situations

Low

High

Low

High

High

High

Internal Causes

External Causes

Theory of Causal Attribution

Слайд 11

Cross-cultural Variations in Attributional Bias

Cross-cultural Variations in Attributional Bias

Слайд 12

Difficult to discern the cause of behaviour, therefore we use shortcuts or

Difficult to discern the cause of behaviour, therefore we use shortcuts or
heuristics.
This leads to errors and biases

Errors in Attribution

Слайд 14

Tendency to attribute others’ behaviour to enduring dispositions (e.g., attitudes, personality traits)

Tendency to attribute others’ behaviour to enduring dispositions (e.g., attitudes, personality traits)
because of both:
Underestimation of the influence of situational factors.
Overestimation of the influence of dispositional factors.

Fundamental Attribution Error

Слайд 15

Four possible explanations:
Behavior is more noticeable than situational factors.
Insignificant weight is assigned

Four possible explanations: Behavior is more noticeable than situational factors. Insignificant weight
to situational factors.
People are cognitive misers.
Richer trait-like language to explain behavior.

Fundamental Attribution Error

Слайд 16

There is a pervasive tendency for actors to attribute their actions to

There is a pervasive tendency for actors to attribute their actions to
situational requirements, whereas observers tend to attribute the same actions to stable personal dispositions

Actor/Observer Bias

Слайд 17

Tendency to attribute:
Personal success  Internal
Personal failure  External
Other’s success  External
Other’s

Tendency to attribute: Personal success  Internal Personal failure  External Other’s
failure  Internal

Self-serving bias

Слайд 18

Self-serving bias

Self-serving bias

Слайд 19

Motivational: Self-esteem maintenance.
Social: Self-presentation and impression formation.
Cultural: Effects are less prevalent in

Motivational: Self-esteem maintenance. Social: Self-presentation and impression formation. Cultural: Effects are less
Eastern/Collectivistic cultures

Self-serving bias

Слайд 20

FAE applied to in- and out- groups, i.e., Bias towards:
internal attributions for

FAE applied to in- and out- groups, i.e., Bias towards: internal attributions
in-group success and external attributions for in-group failures
Opposite for out-groups

Ultimate Attribution Error

Слайд 21

The tendency to test a proposition by searching for evidence that would

The tendency to test a proposition by searching for evidence that would
support it.
○ If you want to support a particular viewpoint/candidate/etc., you look for material that supports this POV and ignore material that does not.
○ People are more likely to readily accept information that supports what they want to be true, but critically scrutinize/discount information that contradicts them.
○ However, it is not necessarily this ideologically motivated; it can just mean that people only test hypotheses by trying to confirm them, not by trying to reject them.

CONFIRMATION BIAS

Слайд 22

Snyder & Swann, 1978
○ Introduced a person to the participants of the

Snyder & Swann, 1978 ○ Introduced a person to the participants of
experiment
○ Had to ask questions to get to know him/her better.

CONFIRMATION BIAS: PERSON PERCEPTION

Слайд 23

When people were asked to determine if someone was introverted, asked questions

When people were asked to determine if someone was introverted, asked questions
like, “Do you enjoy being alone?”
When people were asked if someone was extraverted, asked questions like, “Do you enjoy large groups of people?”
If you really wanted a rational judgment, you should ask both kinds of questions, regardless of how the prompt was framed.

CONFIRMATION BIAS: PERSON PERCEPTION

Слайд 24

○ We pay more attention to negative information than positive information (often

○ We pay more attention to negative information than positive information (often
deliberately, sometimes automatically).
○ If I get 10 positive teacher evaluations and 1 negative one, I will likely overweight/pay more attention to the negative evaluation and remember the feedback as being more negative overall than it really was.

NEGATIVITY BIAS

Слайд 26

Evolutionary Rationale
● Threats need to be dealt with ASAP
● Rewards can be

Evolutionary Rationale ● Threats need to be dealt with ASAP ● Rewards
delayed until it is safe to indulge them

NEGATIVITY BIAS

Слайд 27

1. Schemas Guide Attention
○ Attention is a limited resource.
○ We automatically allocate

1. Schemas Guide Attention ○ Attention is a limited resource. ○ We
attention to relevant stimuli.
○ We are also very good at ignoring irrelevant stimuli.
○ What is relevant? What is irrelevant?
● That’s decided by your activated schemas.
○ Classic Examples: selective attention test, The Monkey Business Illusion
○ Real Life Examples:
● Motorcycle Safety: You’re looking for cars, not bikers
● Lifeguarding: You’re looking for troublemakers, not drowning children

INFLUENCE OF SCHEMAS

Слайд 28

2. Schemas Guide Construal
○ New information almost always processed with top-down influences.

2. Schemas Guide Construal ○ New information almost always processed with top-down
Example: The “Donald Study”
● Participants were primed with two different word sets
○ ADVENTURE: Independent, Persistent, Self-Confident
○ RECKLESS: Aloof, Stubborn, Conceited
● They then read a story about Donald, who does something ambiguous (like cross the Atlantic alone in a tiny sailboat)
○ When they evaluated Donald, they rated him higher on traits consistent with the schemas they were exposed to.
● Those who saw “adventure” words judged him as adventurous.
● Those who saw “reckless” words judged him as reckless.

INFLUENCE OF SCHEMAS

Слайд 29

We remember schema-consistent information better than schema-inconsistent behavior.
● Because schemas influence attention,

We remember schema-consistent information better than schema-inconsistent behavior. ● Because schemas influence
also influence memory.
● We remember stimuli that capture the most of our attention.
Caveat: Behavior that is heavily schema-inconsistent will also be remembered very well (because it is surprising, which also captures attention).

SCHEMAS AND MEMORY

Слайд 30

Cohen, 1981
● Participants watched video of a husband & wife having dinner.

Cohen, 1981 ● Participants watched video of a husband & wife having
Half were told that the woman was a librarian, half a waitress.
● The video included an equal number of “events” that were consistent with either “librarian” or “waitress” stereotypes.
● Students later took a test to see what they remembered.
○ Was the woman drinking wine or beer?
○ Did she receive a history book or a romance novel as a gift?
People remember stereotype-consistent information much more than stereotype-inconsistent information

SCHEMAS AND MEMORY

Слайд 31

INTUITION AND HEURISTICS

INTUITION AND HEURISTICS

Слайд 32

Common “intuitive system” processes
● A grab-bag of mental processes that are

Common “intuitive system” processes ● A grab-bag of mental processes that are
commonly used to make quick and efficient judgments & decisions
The most famous/popular heuristics:
1. Representativeness Heuristic
2. Availability Heuristic
3. Simulation Heuristic
4. Anchoring and adjustment Heuristic
+
5. Gaze Heuristic

HEURISTICS

Слайд 33

Heuristics

Uncertanity

Gather all information necessary for rational judgment

Decision

Heuristic

Heuristics Uncertanity Gather all information necessary for rational judgment Decision Heuristic

Слайд 34

Heuristics

Uncertanity

Gather all information necessary for rational judgment

Decision

Heuristic

In certain situations, heuristics lead to

Heuristics Uncertanity Gather all information necessary for rational judgment Decision Heuristic In
predictable biases and
Inconsistencies (Porter, 2008).

Bias

Слайд 35

Availability heuristic

The availability heuristic is a phenomenon (which can result in a

Availability heuristic The availability heuristic is a phenomenon (which can result in
cognitive bias) in which people predict the frequency of an event, or a proportion within a population, based on how easily an example can be brought to mind.

Слайд 36

Availability heuristic

Availability heuristic

Слайд 37

Availability heuristic

Availability heuristic

Слайд 38

Availability heuristic - example

Someone is asked to estimate the proportion of words

Availability heuristic - example Someone is asked to estimate the proportion of
that begin with the letter "R" or "K" versus those words that have the letter "R" or "K" in the third position. Most English-speaking people could immediately think of many words that begin with the letters "R" (roar, rusty, ribald) or "K" (kangaroo, kitchen, kale), but it would take a more concentrated effort to think of any words where "R" or "K" is the third letter (street, care, borrow, acknowledge); the immediate answer would probably be that words that begin with "R" or "K" are more common. The reality is that words that have the letter "R" or "K" in the third position are more common. In fact, there are three times as many words that have the letter "K" in the third position, as have it in the first position.

Слайд 39

Representativeness heuristic - example

Linda is 31 years old, single, outspoken, and very

Representativeness heuristic - example Linda is 31 years old, single, outspoken, and
bright. She majored in philosophy. As a student, she was deeply concerned with issues of discrimination and social justice, and also participated in antinuclear demonstrations. Please check off the most likely alternative.
Linda is a bank teller.
Linda is a bank teller and is active in the feminist movement.

Слайд 40

Representativeness heuristic - example

(Porter, 2008)

Representativeness heuristic - example (Porter, 2008)

Слайд 41

The tendency to judge frequency or likelihood of an event by the

The tendency to judge frequency or likelihood of an event by the
extent to which it “resembles” the typical case.

Representativeness Heuristic

Слайд 42

The tendency to judge the frequency or likelihood of an event by

The tendency to judge the frequency or likelihood of an event by
the ease with which you can imagine (or mentally simulate) an event.
Example:
In the Olympics, bronze medalists appear to be happier than silver medalists, because it is easier for a silver medalist to imagine being a gold medalist.

Simulation Heuristic

Слайд 43

The tendency to judge the frequency or likelihood of an event by

The tendency to judge the frequency or likelihood of an event by
using a starting point (called an anchor) and then making adjustments up and down from this starting point.
Example:
If one party in a negotiation starts by suggesting a price or condition, then the other party is likely to base its counteroffer on this anchor.

Anchoring and adjustment Heuristic

Слайд 44

● Representativeness often works
● Group prototypes are formed in the first place

● Representativeness often works ● Group prototypes are formed in the first
by averaging across everyone in the group, so there is a kernel of truth
Representativeness Mantra:
“This seems like...”

Why do we have this heuristic?

Слайд 45

○ Group Projects
● Because you worked on your portion of a group

○ Group Projects ● Because you worked on your portion of a
project, it’s easy for you to recall exactly what you worked on
● Because you didn’t work on your partners’ portions, it’s not easy for you to recall exactly what they worked on
Result: People tend to overestimate their own
contributions to joint projects.

AVAILABILITY HEURISTIC: APPLIED

Слайд 46

Marriage & Chores (Ross & Sicoly, 1979)
● Married couples were asked to

Marriage & Chores (Ross & Sicoly, 1979) ● Married couples were asked
give the percentage of the household chores that they did
○ Not surprisingly...estimates added up to over 100%
○ Both husbands and wives tended to think that they did more of the chores!

AVAILABILITY HEURISTIC: APPLIED

Слайд 47

The gaze heuristic is a heuristic used in directing correct motion to achieve a goal

The gaze heuristic is a heuristic used in directing correct motion to
using one main variable. An example of the gaze heuristic is catching a ball. The gaze heuristic is one example where humans and animals are able to process large amounts of information quickly and react, regardless of whether the information is consciously processed.
The gaze heuristic is a critical element in animal behavior, being used in predation heavily. At the most basic level, the gaze heuristic ignores all casual relevant variables to make quick gut reactions.

Gaze heuristic

Слайд 48

Gaze heuristic

Gaze heuristic

Слайд 49

Gaze heuristic

Gaze heuristic

Слайд 50

Gaze heuristic

Gaze heuristic

Слайд 51

Gaze heuristic

Gaze heuristic

Слайд 52

When a man throws a ball high in the air and catches

When a man throws a ball high in the air and catches
it again,
he behaves as if he had solved a set of differential equations in predicting the trajectory of the ball... At some subconscious level, something functionally equivalent to the mathematical calculation is going on.
Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene

Слайд 53

gaze heuristic

gaze heuristic
Имя файла: Correspondent-Inference.pptx
Количество просмотров: 159
Количество скачиваний: 0