Class Notes (839,590)
Canada (511,419)
Psychology (7,818)
PSYB10H3 (544)
Lecture 3

Lecture 3 Person Perception.docx

12 Pages
124 Views

Department
Psychology
Course Code
PSYB10H3
Professor
Elizabeth Page- Gould

This preview shows pages 1,2 and half of page 3. Sign up to view the full 12 pages of the document.
Description
PSYB10 Sept. 23, 2013 PERSON PERCEPTION & SOCIAL INTERACTION Research Questions Def.: A question you have about the world or how it works Key features:  There will be clear concepts (constructs)  You are usually curious about a specific relationship between the concepts Operationalization How to operationalize your research question: 1. Come up with a way to measure every concept in your research question 2. Identify the correct statistical test for the relationship that you proposed Example Social Psychological Research Question: Are people in romantic relationships happier than people who are not? Operationalize Concepts:  Relationship Status: Are you currently in a romantic relationship? [Yes / No]  Happiness: How happy are you? [1 = Not at All … 7 = Extremely] Identify Statistical Test  The research question asks about average differences in happiness between two groups of people … t-test! Person Perception What Goes Into Person Perception?  Behaviour  Context  Schemas Behaviour Verbal Behaviour: Content of our speech PSYB10 Sept. 23, 2013 Nonverbal Behaviour: Things that are not said. Emblems: Gestures that have well-understood meaning within a culture (they definitely mean different things from culture to culture)  Effectively: nonverbal language  Can’t just be random signal. Has to have a word meaning.  Sign language is not considered an emblem. It is a language. Power of Behavioural Input: “Thin Slices”: An approach within social psychology focused on the attributional power of brief exposure to others. Looking at behaviour from little bits of behaviour. Can you categorize a person into an ambiguous group (a social group that a person may or may not belong, that is not visible) from their face alone?  Population accuracy for ambiguous groups is 64% Example (Interactions): Kraus & Keltner (2009) People were filmed interacting then these videos were given to other participants. From these videos, people had to guess various aspects of the people in participants’ lives. Results: Naive observers accurately detected parents’ income, mothers’ education, and subjective SES  The observers didn’t feel like their ratings were accurate but it turns out that they were pretty accurate in the end. Relative to high SES participants, low SES participants spent less time:  Grooming, doodling, manipulating objects Context Context matters  Provides additional input  Can completely change attribution Schemas What you expect is what you get – we have sets of expectations for other people and we mostly seen people within our expectations, even if they are wrong. PSYB10 Sept. 23, 2013 Attribution Def.: Explanation for an observed behaviour of a social object Ease of Attribution People wrote a human story about the tale of the triangles and circle bouncing around a box.  Because we make attributions so easily, there must be some reason for them. How Automatic is Attribution? Very  Attributions = Pattern Matching Attribution Theory Primary Question: Do we attribute behaviour to something about the person (“internal”) or something about the situation (“external”)? Internal/External Attributions  Internal: Attributing a person’s behaviour to something intrinsic to that person (your personality made you do it) o Personality, disposition, attitude, or character o This is consistent across situations and times  External: Attributing a person’s behaviour to something about the situation in which the behaviour occurred o Specifically not changing beliefs regarding person’s character or personality Correspondence Bias: Tendency to infer that a person’s behaviour corresponds to their disposition, personality, or attitude Fundamental (?) Attribution Error  When perceiving others: o Tendency to overestimate the influence of internal causes for behaviour and underestimate external causes  When perceiving self: o Much more likely to attribute own behaviour to external causes Example: Jones & Harris (1967) PSYB10 Sept. 23, 2013 Participants were given essays to read. One half were given an essay praising Castro while the other was given one that was anti-Castro. Some were also told that the people were told to write the essay and some were given the option. Participants were then asked to rate how pro-Castro the students were. Explanations for the FAE Perceptual Salience: Tendency to overestimate the causal role of information that grabs our attention Anchoring & Adjustment Heuristic: FAE occurs through the same process as Anchoring & Adjustment Heuristic: 1. Make an internal attribution (believe that people are the causes of their own behaviours) 2. Attempt to adjust away from internal attribution by considering situational constraints How fundamental is the FAE? Before, most info came from North America. We assumed that the FAE was fundamental because it applied to most people in North America. We did not factor in other cultures. Gang Lu (卢刚)  Recent Physics Ph.D. from University of Iowa PSYB10 Sept. 23, 2013  On 1991/11/01, he killed 4 faculty, 1 Ph.D. Student, and paralysed a student researcher Morris & Peng (1994) Method: Analysed Chinese- and English-language newspaper articles written about Gang Lu Covariation Theory Assumption:  People are lay statisticians 3 Factors of Attribution:  Consensus: Do other people behave in this way? o Behaviour unique to person  Distinctiveness: Does this person behave like this with other stimuli? o Behaviour unique to situation  Consistency: Does the person behave like this over time? o Behaviour unique to this moment in time 3 Patterns Lead to 3 Attributions: This is based in the person An external stimulus consistently elicits this behaviours. The behaviour has just occurred in this situation PSYB10 Sept. 23, 2013 Self-serving biases Self-Serving Attributions  Positive outcome for Self: o Explain it in terms of internal factors  Negative outcome for Self: o Explain it in terms of external factors Defensive Attributions:  Unrealistic Optimism - Tendency to expect: o Bad things are less likely to happen to you than to other people o Good things are more likely to happen to you than other people  Just World Hypothesis: Belief that good things happen to good people and bad things to bad people o Gives us a sense of control over the world o Leads to rejection and blaming of victims False Consensus Effect: Assumption that more people share your beliefs, attitudes, and preferences than actually do Ultimate Attribution Error: Tendency to make internal attributions about an e
More Less
Unlock Document

Only pages 1,2 and half of page 3 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

Unlock Document
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version

Unlock Document

Log In


OR

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit