EXPLAINING BEHAVIOR (Psych 201 - Chapter 5 - Spring 2014)

This Week’s Playlist
Artist Song / Psych Concept
1. Bowling For Soup
Girl All The Bad Guys Want
(Covariation Principle; High Consensus)
2. Carly Rae Jepsen
Call Me Maybe
(Covariation Principle; High Distinctiveness)
3. Cascada
Every Time We Touch
(Covariation Principle; High Consistency)
4. Fun.
Some Nights
(Covariation Principle; Low Consistency)
5. DJ Khaled
All I Do Is Win
(Explanatory Styles; Internal Attributions)
6. Ke$ha
We R Who We R
(Entity Theory)

CHAPTER 5: 
EXPLAINING BEHAVIOR
Melanie B. Tannenbaum, M.A. Psych 201Spring 2014

What’s Going On Here?
http://anthropomorphism.org/img/Heider_Flash.swf
!
Is the large triangle mean?
A) Yes
B) No
C) Can’t Tell

Attribution Theory
Attribution Theory: The general term for theories about how
people explain the causes of the events that they observe
!
Heider & Simmel (1944)

Attribution Theory
People tend to make very complex inferences about
motives and personality based on very small amounts of
information
!
We like to believe in our inferences, but there are many
ways that they can fail us
! The small shapes could have been trying to play with the large
shape, who was just grumpy.
! The small shapes could have been trying to steal something
from the large shape, who was rightfully mad.
!
Also, they are shapes.

Causal Attribution
!
Causal Attributions: Attributions that consist of linking an
instance of a behavior to a cause; an attempt to figure
out why someone did something.
!
!
!
Can form causal attributions about your own behavior or
others’ behavior.

Causal Attribution
Causal attribution is the general process of deciding if you think
that someone’s behavior was caused more by P or by E.
Two Types of Causal Attributions
B = f (P, E)
Behavior is a function of the person and the environment
Internal External
Dispositional Situational
Something about the person Something about the environment.
Behavior primarily caused by P. Behavior primarily caused by E.

Causal Attribution
You can make these attributions for yourself, not just others.
!
The type of attributions that you make for behavior
influence how you respond to the person or situation.
! Construal matters!!
!
For example...
! Why did you get a bad grade on that test?
! Why did you get turned down for that date?
! Why did the instructor bring you candy?

Explanatory Style
!
Explanatory Style
! Your habitual way of making causal attributions
!
!
Three Dimensions
! Internal vs. External: Person or the situation?
! Stable vs. Unstable: Permanent or temporary?
! Global vs. Specific: Every domain or just this one?

Explanatory Style Dimensions
GLOBAL SPECIFIC
Why did you get a bad grade on that test? I’m bad at everything I’m bad at Math
Why did you get turned down for that date? No one likes me He doesn’t like me
Why did the instructor bring you candy? She’s nice She’s nice to students
INTERNAL EXTERNAL
Why did you get a bad grade on that test? I’m stupid The test was unfair
Why did you get turned down for that date? I’m ugly He/she was in a bad mood
Why did the instructor bring you candy? She’s nice It’s Valentine’s Day this week
STABLE UNSTABLE
Why did you get a bad grade on that test? He’s unfair I didn’t study enough this time
Why did you get turned down for that date? She’s rude It wasn’t my best pick-up line
Why did the instructor bring you candy? She’s nice She’s having a good day

I/E S/U G/S Attribution
Internal Stable Global She’s such a genuinely nice person to everyone!
Internal Stable Specific She’s such a genuinely nice person to her students!
Internal Unstable Global She must be feeling nice today.
Internal Unstable Specific She must be feeling nice towards her students today.
External Stable Global She always has extra candy, and always needs to get rid of it.
External Stable Specific She must use candy whenever she has to demo something in class.
External Unstable Global She had a lot of extra candy, so she’s bringing it everywhere with her.
External Unstable Specific She probably brought candy to demonstrate a point in class today.
Why did the instructor bring candy?

I/E S/U G/S Attribution
Internal Stable Global I’m bad at everything, and I always will be.
Internal Stable Specific I’m bad at Calculus, and I always will be.
Internal Unstable Global I just can’t do anything right this semester.
Internal Unstable Specific I just can’t do Calculus this semester.
External Stable Global Final exams are just always unfair or way too hard.
External Stable Specific That professor’s exams are always really unfair.
External Unstable Global Every exam this semester has been really unfair.
External Unstable Specific That professor’s exams have been really unfair this semester.
Why did I fail that final exam?

Some Practice With Explanatory
Styles
All I do is win, win, win no matter what
!
Internal or External?
! A. Internal
! B. External

Styles
!
!
!
!
Stable or Unstable?
! A. Stable
! B. Unstable

Styles
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Global or Specific?
! A. Global
! B. Specific

Styles
!
Internal or External?
! A. Internal
■ Attributes success to himself winning (not to the situation)
!
Stable or Unstable?
! A. Stable
■ He wins no matter what; it doesn’t depend on the situation
!
Global or Specific?
! A. Global
■ He wins in every domain; it is literally all that he does

Pessimistic Explanatory Style
Internal, Stable, Global (for negative events)
!
“It’s my fault,
I can’t change it,
and it happens with everything.”
Internal

!
“It’s my fault,
Stable

!
“It’s my fault,
Global

!
“It’s my fault,
!
People who regularly see negative events this way tend
to be depressed/anxious; they don’t feel like they can
control anything, so they give up

!
!
Your explanatory style is important!
!
!
Having a pessimistic explanatory style
at age 25 predicts physical health for
the rest of your life.

Your explanatory style is important!
!
Having a pessimistic explanatory style at age 25 predicts
physical health for the rest of your life!
Significant correlations between
having a pessimistic explanatory
style at age 25 and physical
health problems at ages 45-60!

The Processes of Causal Attribution

Covariation Principle
Kelley, 1973
!
If you’re trying to form an attribution about what caused some
behavior, you will systematically note the pattern between the
behavior & the presence of certain “causal factors.”
!
Three Parts
Consensus
Distinctiveness
Consistency

Consensus
! Do most people do this in the situation, or is the target person
unique in his/her behavior?
!
Distinctiveness
! Does the target person only do this in this particular situation,
or does he/she do this in every situation?
!
Consistency
! Does the target person do this every time he/she is in this
situation, or did this only happen one (or two) times?

Main Dimension of Interest:
Internal vs. External
!
Internal
! Is this thought, feeling, or behavior best explained by the
actor’s personality, traits, motivations, or personal desires?
!
External
! Is this thought, feeling, or behavior best explained by something
about the environment, situation, or circumstances?

Your friend Dave just recommended a class to take next semester.
Should you take this recommendation seriously?
Is the class actually good, or is it just Dave being Dave?

Consistency should ALWAYS be high!
(You can’t make a very confident attribution if the behavior isn’t consistent.)

REMEMBER: I-L-L!
Internal Attribution (I) = LOW Consensus, LOW Distinctiveness.

...and, I guess, EHH?
External Attribution (E) = HIGH Consensus, HIGH Distinctiveness.

Why does Jack want to date Jill?

Consensus: Low
(No one else asked out Jill)
Distinctiveness: Low
(Jack also asked out Jane)
Consistency: High
(This is the 3rd time Jack
asked out Jill)
A) INTERNAL
B) EXTERNAL
C) DON’T KNOW

Consensus: Low
Distinctiveness: Low
(Jack also asked out Jane)
Consistency: High
(This is the 3rd time Jack
asked out Jill)
Attribution: A) Internal
(Jack is desperate)

Consensus: High
(Josh and John also asked out Jill)
Distinctiveness: High
(Jack has only asked out Jill)
Consistency: High
(This is the 3rd time Jack asked out
Jill)
A) INTERNAL
B) EXTERNAL
C) DON’T KNOW

Consensus: High
(Josh and John also asked out Jill)
Consistency: High
(This is the 3rd time Jack asked out
Jill)
Attribution: B) External
(Jill is desirable)

Consensus: Low
Consistency: Low
(This is the 1st time
Jack asked out Jill)
A) INTERNAL
B) EXTERNAL
C) DON’T KNOW

Consensus: Low
Consistency: Low
Attribution: Interaction
(There is something about Jill
(external) that does it for
Jack (internal))

Consensus: Low
Consistency: Low
Jack (internal))
Note:
When consistency is low, hard to say
for sure what’s happening.

Consensus: Low
Consistency: Low
Jack (internal))
Note:
You will never need to predict
interactions on a quiz/exam. This is
just to answer all possible questions.

Two Important Notes
!
People rely more on consistency and distinctiveness info.
! Remember the fundamental attribution error.
! We’re very eager to attribute behavior to internal causes and
ignore the situation, meaning we don’t always look for what
other people tend to do in the same situation (consensus).
!
People don’t always have all three types of information.
! We either proceed with the information that we have, or make
assumptions about the missing data.

The three different parts can be tricky to remember/apply, but you’re going to have
to do it, either on a quiz or your midterm, or both (hint, hint)
!
Relationships & Playlist Songs
!
Consensus: Does everyone else behave the same way the target person does?
! Girl All The Bad Guys Want
! Does everyone want this person, or just the target person?
!
Distinctiveness: Is the target person picky or not?
! Call Me Maybe
! Do all the other boys try to chase this person, but she is only giving her number to this one
person and asking him to call her (maybe)?
!
Consistency: Does the target person always behave similarly in the given situation?
! Every Time We Touch
! Every time you touch, do you get the same exact feeling?

Consensus: ARE YOU ALONE OR DOES EVERYONE ELSE
ACT/FEEL/THINK THE SAME WAY.
!
!
Distinctiveness: WOULD YOU ACT/FEEL/THINK THAT
WAY IN ANY SITUATION, OR ONLY IN THIS ONE?
!
!
Consistency: DO YOU ALWAYS ACT/FEEL/THINK THE
SAME EXACT WAY ANY TIME YOU’RE IN THIS SITUATION?

Consensus: How unique is your behavior compared to other
people in the same situation.
!
!
Distinctiveness: How unique is your behavior compared to
the way you act in other situations.
!
!
Consistency: How unique is your behavior compared to how
you always act whenever you’re in that same situation.

Covariation Principle:  
Test Your Knowledge
What type of information is this?
!
Maria got an A+ on a recent Biology test. Everyone
else in the class got a B or a C on that Biology test.
! A. Consensus
! B. Distinctiveness
! C. Consistency

Test Your Knowledge
!
Maria got an A+ on a recent Biology test. She also
got an A+ on the last 2 Biology tests.
! A. Consensus
! C. Consistency

Test Your Knowledge
!
Maria got an A+ on a recent Biology test. She got
an A on a recent Engineering test, and an A on a
recent Math test.
! A. Consensus
! C. Consistency

Test Your Knowledge
What type of attribution should you form?
!
Maria got an A+ on a recent Biology test.
Everyone else in the class got a B or a C on that Bio test.
She got an A+ on the last 2 Biology tests.
She got As on her recent Engineering & Math tests.
!
A. Internal Attribution (Maria is smart or good at math/science)
B. External Attribution (This class is really easy)
C. Unsure/Unclear/Not Enough Information/Interaction

Test Your Knowledge
!
Maria got an A+ on a recent Biology test. Everyone
else in the class got a B or a C on that Biology test.
! A. Consensus
! C. Consistency
How does everyone else tend to
act/think/feel in this situation?

Test Your Knowledge
!
Maria got an A+ on a recent Biology test. She also
got an A+ on the last 2 Biology tests.
! A. Consensus
! C. Consistency
Does Maria always behave this
way whenever she encounters this
situation (a Bio test)?

Test Your Knowledge
!
Maria got an A+ on a recent Biology test. She got
an A on a recent Engineering test, and an A on a
recent Math test.
! A. Consensus
! C. Consistency
Does Maria behave this way across
many different situations/classes, or
only in this one?

Test Your Knowledge
!
!
Internal Attribution (Maria is smart or good at math/science)

Test Your Knowledge
!
!
Internal Attribution (Maria is smart or good at math/science)
Low Consensus +
Low Distinctiveness +
High Consistency =
INTERNAL ATTRIBUTION.

Imagining Alternatives
Discounting Principle
! If Possible Causes X, Y, & Z could all have caused the behavior,
we reduce the weight we place on any one of them; there’s no
longer a 1-to-1, so we are less confident in attributions.
!
A. SUZIE
!
Practices the guitar every day.
!
Her Mom gives her ice cream when
she practices
!
She wants to impress a boy in her
class who likes musicians.
B. LAURA
!
Practices the guitar every day.
Who likes playing the guitar more, Suzie or Laura?

Discounting Principle
Possible Cause #1: Liking The Guitar
Possible Cause #2: Liking Ice Cream
Possible Cause #3: Liking Boy
GUITAR PLAYINGSUZIE
1. Liking Guitar
2. Liking Ice Cream
3. Liking Boy
GUITAR PLAYINGLAURA 1. Liking Guitar

!
Out-of-role behavior more informative than in-role.
!
If you act in a way that a role “expects,” people don’t
know if you’re acting that way because it’s how you are,
or just because of the situation.
!
If you act a certain way despite a situation, people will
make more extreme judgments about your traits.

Augmentation Principle
! If X caused a behavior in spite of barriers that should prevent
the behavior from occurring, we can be particularly confident
that X is the reason for the behavior.
If a couple expresses PDA in a
situation where PDA is really not
appropriate, you might assume that
these people are really into each
other! (Or really socially awkward.)

!
Mary acts extraverted in interview for a sales position.
! Was she acting this way because of job expectations?
! Is she just an extraverted person?
! Was she just trying to make a good impression?
!
Amy acts extraverted in interview for an analyst position.
! She must actually be a really extraverted person.

Counterfactual Thoughts
! Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda
! Thoughts of what might have, could have, or should have
happened “if only” something had gone differently

Emotional Amplification
! Emotional reactions to counterfactuals are proportional to how
easy it is to imagine the alternatives.
!
Example: Missing your flight...
! By 2 minutes: “If only I had made that ONE traffic light! If only
I hadn’t stopped to check my e-mail that one last time!”
!
! By 2 hours: It’s hard to imagine how you could possibly have
made it there on time, so it’s less painful.

Silver Medal Syndrome
! Bronze medalists are often happier than silver medalists.

Researchers recorded TV coverage of 1992 Olympics.
RAs viewed the tapes and rated the athletes’ facial
expressions on the medal podium.
!
Silver medalists were objectively rated to appear less
happy than the bronze medalists.
!
Why?!
! Silver Medalist: “If only X, I could have gotten gold!”
! Bronze Medalist: “If only X, I might not have medaled at all!”

People feel even worse than usual if something bad occurs after
doing something unusual, because it is so easy to think of all the
different possible counterfactuals.
!
Examples
! Yiyo the Matador: Last minute subbed for another matador & died.
!
! Multiple Choice Exam: Worse if you had right answer & switched.
!
! Israeli soldiers aren’t allowed to switch missions with other soldiers.
This is specifically because if the swapped soldier happened to die
on that mission, the surviving soldier and the killed soldier’s family
would both feel so awful about it.

Errors and Biases in Attribution

Self-Serving Attributional Bias
The tendency to attribute failures to external causes and
successes to internal causes.
!
This usually occurs because people want to maintain a
positive image of themselves.
!
Think for a moment...
! The last time you got an A, was it because you were smart &
prepared, or because the test was easy?
! The last time you got a C, was it because you weren’t smart or
prepared, or because the test was hard or unfair?

Self-Serving Attributional Bias
After a professional sports game, 80% of statements made
about the victory by coaches/athletes cited internal causes
(“we trained hard”), while 47% of the statements made
about the loss cited external causes (“bad calls”).
!
In shareholder business letters, CEOs claimed credit for 83%
of positive events but only claimed blame for 19% of
negative events.

Fundamental Attribution Error
The tendency to attribute a person’s behavior to personality
while ignoring situational causes.

○ Kurt Lewin
● Father of Social Psych
!
○ B = f (P, E)
● Behavior is a function of the
person and the environment

!
○ People usually don’t think about the situation...
● ...we overweight the importance of personalities
!
○ Fundamental Attribution Error
● People overweight the influence of other people’s personalities on
their behavior and neglect the importance of the situation.
!
○ Bias towards automatically making dispositional
attributions instead of situational ones.

A driver who cuts you off is a
bad driver or a “jerk” (or worse)
Maybe she was in a hurry, had to swerve to avoid hitting
another car, had kids distracting her in the backseat...

B = f (P, E)
Generally, people tend
to overestimate the
influence of P...

B = f (P, E)
...and underestimate
the influence of E.

!
It’s not so surprising that people would want to look at
personality first and foremost; we often want to learn more
about the people around us
!
What is surprising is that even when there are incredibly
obvious situational influences on someone’s behavior, we
still say the behavior was caused by their personality!!!!

Poll
How smart is Alex Trebek?
! A. Extremely Dumb
! B. Pretty Dumb
! C. Average
! D. Pretty Smart
! E. Extremely Smart

Jeopardy Study (Ross et al., 1977)
! Subjects randomly assigned to be questioner or contestant in “quiz game.”
! Questioners get to make up the questions - obvious situational advantage.
! Asked questioners, contestants, and neutral observers to evaluate
everyone’s intelligence.
0
20
40
60
80
Questioner Contestant
Questioner's Rating
Contestant's Rating
Observer's Rating

0
20
40
60
80
5050
Questioner's Rating
Contestant's Rating
Observer's Rating
Questioners realized
that they were probably
about as smart as the
other guy

0
20
40
60
80
40
65
Questioner's Rating
Contestant's Rating
Observer's Rating
Contestants thought
Questioners were a bit
smarter (Qs clearly
knew stuff Cs didn’t)

0
20
40
60
80
40
80
Questioner's Rating
Contestant's Rating
Observer's Rating
Observers (unfairly)
thought Questioner was
MUCH smarter than the
Contestant!

everyone’s intelligence. Observer's Rating
0
20
40
60
80
40
80 Don’t consider the
situation (unfair
advantage in
question making)

Jones & Harris, 1967
!
Participants were given an essay to read; the essay was
either pro-Castro or anti-Castro.
!
Half of the participants were told that the writer of each
essay freely chose the topic, while the other half were told
that the stance was assigned and that the writer had no
choice in what to write about.

0
15
30
45
60
Freely Chosen Stance Assigned Stance
Pro-Castro Essay
Anti-Castro Essay
How Pro-Castro Is The Author?
Even when they knew the
stance was ASSIGNED, they
still thought the “Pro-
Castro” essay guy was
more Pro-Castro!

Observers often don’t consider the situational advantages enjoyed
by those who succeed.
Bill Gates had access to
real-time programming
years before most
people did.

A disproportionate
number of pro hockey
players have January,
February, or March
birthdays.

A disproportionate
number of pro soccer
players have
September, October,
or November
birthdays.

Children born on
opposite ends of the
cutoff date differ by
12% in 4th grade
standardized math &
science scores.

Dual Process Models (Automatic vs. Controlled)
! We make an initial, automatic dispositional attribution
! If we have the motivation and the ability, we then adjust this
attribution based on situational factors.
■ If we are tired, distracted, or unmotivated, we often fail to
adjust for the situation & stick with the dispositional attribution.
!
Typically, we anchor our explanations on
personality and then adjust based on the
situation

Attribution Process: In Theory (Ideal)
Behavior
Context
Interpret the behavior’s
significance/
meaning using the
context
Dispositional
Inference
This is what you would expect based on the discounting principle; given multiple possible causes
(context), you assign weights and make judgments.

Attribution Process: In Reality
Behavior
ID the behavior
Dispositional
Inference
Automatically
characterize the
person
Effortfully adjust
for the context
(maybe)
This is what Gilbert suggests actually
happens.

Dual Process FAE Model In Action
Participants watched a silent video of a woman in an interview
who looked very anxious.
Half of the participants were distracted with a list of words that
they had to memorize.
! This is called cognitive load; it’s an experimental way to lower their
abilities to effortfully correct initial dispositional attributions.
Afterwards, participants were either told that the topics she was
discussing were (a) anxiety-provoking or (b) neutral.
! In the anxiety-provoking condition, there’s a good situational reason
why the woman should have looked anxious (it’s the topic, not her).

0
2
4
6
8
10
Not Distracted Distracted
Anxiety-Provoking Topics
Neutral Topics
How anxious is this woman (dispositionally)?

0
2
4
6
8
10
Neutral Topics
Participants adjusted
their judgments based on
their knowledge of what
she was actually talking
about.

0
2
4
6
8
10
Neutral Topics
Participants whose
attentions were distracted
couldn’t adjust their
automatic attributions &
made dispositional
attributions, no matter what.

1. Perceptual Salience
Other people are usually much more attention-grabbing
than the context or the situation
!
We pay more attention to people than other objects
!
When looking for obvious explanations of behavior, we
immediately go to the things that capture our attention

2. Conceptual Salience
!
!
Information about situational cues is often unavailable, unclear,
or uninteresting.
!
!
If the situation is what we’re interested in, the FAE can actually
become reversed! We make automatic situational attributions, and
then correct for the person.

3. Just World Hypothesis
People assume that bad things happen to bad people and good
things happen to good people
! “People get what they deserve.”
!
Often used to explain random actions and/or luck
! Accidents, natural disasters, and seemingly random violence are
terrifying because they are completely uncontrollable
!
Often appears as “blaming the victim.”
! If you can come up with reasons why a crime victim was targeted
(like “she was asking for it”), it’s easier to view it as avoidable/
preventable instead of random and scary.

!
“Just World” is a way to rationalize unfairness and feel like
you can predict and control seemingly random events, or
else you would be paralyzed by fear every day.
!
!
Unfortunately, there are many studies that support the
theory of people having a “belief in a just world”...

!
People who are high in “belief in a just world” are more
likely to derogate poor people & people with HIV.
!
!
When people evaluated different descriptions of a man
who was injured in a traffic accident, they were more likely
to insult his character or blame him for the accident as
the injury descriptions got more serious.

Participants read one of three paragraphs describing an
interaction between a man and a woman.
!
The only thing that differed between the paragraphs was
the final sentence — it either ended neutrally, with a
marriage proposal, or with the woman being raped.
!
No matter how the story ended, the participants in each
case judged the ending of the story as “inevitable,” and
indicated that the woman had clearly acted in a way that
obviously would have “caused” whatever happened.

4. Actor-Observer Difference
As an observer, you are focused on the actor in the situation. As an
actor, you are focused outward on the situation.
!
Whatever information is most salient is most likely to “receive” the
initial causal attribution
!
Actors and observers have different assumptions about what needs
to be explained.
!
Actors say that their own behavior was caused by the situation;
observers say that an actor’s behavior was due to personality.
!

Memory Study (Frank & Gilovich, 1989)
! Participants recalled memories from a third-person perspective.
! “Melanie was teaching her class and talked about this study.”
!
When people referred to themselves in the third person,
they made more dispositional attributions for their own
behavior!
!
!
People apply the FAE to themselves when they are the
ones who are the observers.

As an actor, you have a lot of consistency and distinctiveness information
about yourself.
!
You know better than anyone else how you act in the same situation
every time you encounter it, and whether or not this is different from
how you act in other situations.
!
When you act strange, you “know” that it was the situation that
motivated your behavior.
!
As an observer, you might not be able to assume that information for
others, so you take the “safe” route and assume it’s just who they are.

Why Attributions Differ
! 1. Different assumptions about what needs explaining.
■ Actors want to understand the situation.
■ Observers want to understand the actors.
!
! 2. Different information is perceptually salient.
■ Actors focus on the situation.
■ Observers focus on the actors.
!
! 3. They have access to different kinds of information.
■ Actors know more about themselves than anyone else!

More FAE Evidence
!
!Participants randomly assigned to be
the questioner or the responder in a
conversation.
!
!
!
!The questioner had to ask a set of
questions about the responder’s
personality, and the responder had
to answer with one of two pre-written
choices (an “altruistic” response and
a “selfish” response)

More FAE Evidence
!After each question that the
questioners asked, they were
actually told to indicate to the
responders which one of the two
answer types they should give.
!
!Questioners judged the
responders as having personalities
that were consistent with the
responses, even though they were
the ones who chose the responses.

Culture and Causal Attribution

Independent vs. Interdependent
The fundamental attribution error is more widespread and
pronounced for Westerners than Easterners.
!
American attributions are less influenced by consensus
information (remember the covariation principle) than
Korean attributions.
! Korean attributions take information about what anyone would
do in that situation into account more than Americans.
!
Asians are less likely to make initial dispositional inferences
than Westerners.

Interdependent cultures pay more attention to context factors
!
“Why did your team win the game?”
! Individualists: “We’re awesome!”
! Collectivists: “The other team had an off day.”
!
“Why did the fish swim in that direction?”
! Individualists: “It wanted to!”
! Collectivists: “The stream was going that way.”
!
Collectivists don’t ignore dispositions, they are just more likely to
give equal weight to the person and the situation, rather than
overweighting the importance of personality.

Copy the line from the
“Target Stimulus” box
into a new box.

Either have to...
! Draw a line that’s exactly the same absolute size (1 inch)
! Draw a line that’s exactly the same relative size (33% of the box)
!
Independent cultures do better with the absolute task.
Interdependent cultures do better with the relative task.

When describing this scene, individualists were more likely to
mention the focal objects, while collectivists described the
scene as a whole.

Japanese participants judged a happy face surrounded by
sad faces as less happy than American participants, and vice
versa for a sad face surrounded by happy faces.

Can You Prime Culture?
Hong Kong participants shown either...
! “US” pictures (the Capitol building, a cowboy, Mickey Mouse)
! “Chinese” pictures (a Chinese dragon, a temple, men writing in Mandarin)
!
Shown the picture of the fish.
!
Priming different cultural schemas influenced their
responses and what they focused on in the pictures.
!
Those primed with the US gave more descriptions having to do with
the motivations of the individual fish.
Those primed with China gave more descriptions having to do with
the other fish or the context.

Social Class and Attributions
!
Socioeconomic Status (SES, Social Class)
! Someone’s wealth, education, and occupational prestige.
!
!
Social class differences mimic cultural differences
! High SES individuals are often highly independent.
! Low SES individuals are often highly interdependent.

Kraus et al., 2009
!
Low SES people generate more situational attributions.
!
“What is driving the spike in US economic inequality?”
!
Low SES: “Lack of equal educational opportunities.”
High SES: “Lack of effort.”

Kraus et al., 2009
!
!
“Why did you get into that graduate program?”
!
Low SES: “Just luck; maybe they were in a good mood.”
High SES: “Because I’m awesome!”

Kraus et al., 2009
!
!
!
Theory: Being a member of a lower-SES group fosters a
more interdependent cultural mindset because people will
be better off if they can “pool resources” and work
together to achieve good/important outcomes.

What are your beliefs?
Do you think that your intelligence is...
!
A. Fixed at birth. You are born either “smart” or “dumb.”
!
!
B. Malleable. You can always improve with hard work.
!
!
C. A mix. You are born with a “set point,” but you can
improve (within limits) with hard work and practice.

Culture and Explanatory Style
Entity vs. Incremental Theories
!
!
Entity (Stable)
! Your personality/abilities are fixed
! No matter what you do, they pretty much stay the same.
!
!
Incremental (Unstable)
! Your personality/abilities are malleable
! If you want to change them, you can do so with enough effort.

Your response to failure greatly depends on these mindsets.
!
!
Entity theorists see failure as a threat.
! If “you are who you are,” failing means that you are a failure.
!
!
Incremental theorists see failure as a cue to work harder.
! If you can change, failing just means you need to put in more effort.

Does this remind you of anything that we’ve already
discussed in class?
!
What kind of theory do you think collectivist/interdependent
cultures are more likely to hold?
!
! A. Entity (Fixed) Theory
! B. Incremental (Malleable) Theory

On average, people in interdependent/collectivist cultures
are more likely to hold incremental theories of ability.
!
Heine et al. (2001)
!
Creativity Task for Japanese and Canadian participants; either
told they were good or bad at it.
!
Japanese participants worked on it more if they were bad.
Canadian participants worked on it more if they were good.

Summary: Chapter 5
Causal Attribution
! Covariation Principle
! Counterfactual Thoughts
Errors & Biases in Attributions
! Self-Serving Attributional Bias
! Fundamental Attribution Error (FAE)
! Actor-Observer Attribution Difference
Culture & Causal Attribution
! Low SES = Interdependent = Attention to situation
! High SES = Independent = Attention to personality
! Collectivist cultures more attuned to the situation, tend to hold incremental
theories of ability (not entity)

Ch. 5: Most Important Points
Actor-Observer Difference
!
! Castro Study
!
Attributional Process (Gilbert)
!
Just World Hypothesis
!
Covariation Theory
! Consensus
! Distinctiveness
! Consistency
3 Dimensions of Explanatory Styles
!
! What are the 3 dimensions?
!
!
Effect of Distraction on FAE
!
Why do actors’ and observers’
attributions differ? (3 reasons!)

EXPLAINING BEHAVIOR (Psych 201 - Chapter 5 - Spring 2014)

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

En vedette

En vedette (20)

Similaire à EXPLAINING BEHAVIOR (Psych 201 - Chapter 5 - Spring 2014)

Similaire à EXPLAINING BEHAVIOR (Psych 201 - Chapter 5 - Spring 2014) (20)

Plus de Melanie Tannenbaum

Plus de Melanie Tannenbaum (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

EXPLAINING BEHAVIOR (Psych 201 - Chapter 5 - Spring 2014)