Trope, Uleman, etc.

50 views5 pages
user avatar
Published on 11 Oct 2011
School
UTSG
Department
Psychology
Course
PSY220H1
Professor
Page:
of 5
Trope Model
Current situation disambiguates behavior - e.g. crying at a funeral. The situati
on often creates discounting - tears at a funeral are not seen as indicative of
a sad person, as tears at a party. But it can also lead to augmentation - crying
at a party means person is sad.
Prior behaviours - you know that the person always cries. Prior behaviours stren
gthen dispositional attributions.
Action identification - tears of sadness.
Dispositional - sad person.
Uleman
People can spontaneosuly make trait attributions without being aware of doing so
.
Experiment:
Participants read about behaviours which implied certain traits. Later - subject
s given cued recll task:
1) Semantic cue - related to something that happened in the sentense but nothing
to do with traits. E.g. Books - >librarian.
2) Trait cue - e.g. helpful
3) No cue
Results - bar graph
Both sem and trait cues imporoved recall equally.
This suggests that when people read a sentence of a person performing an act the
y go beyond the info given and make a dispositional attribution.
Encoding specificity - items or events which are encoded together can serve as r
etrieval cues.
Tulving - remember words in class or underwater study.
Trait info encoded at the time of reading about behaviors. I.e. ppl make spontan
eous trait inferences outside of awereness.
Gilbert
People are also capable of undoing automatic inferences. Many obstacles to this:
Cognitive busyness = cognitive load.
Gilbert Model
1) Automatic behav iden
2) Automatic characterization (Uleman part)
3) Controlled situational correction
The third step requires more effort - harder.
When we are under cognitive load and our resources are depleted, the third steps
gets knocked out.
Study:
see slide - anxious woman
Results:
Low cognitive load - big difference between relaxing and anxious.
If she is acting nervous but talking about relaxing topic - augmentation happens
.
If she is talking about an anxious topic - then she is judged as being less nerv
ous-discounting happens.
High cognitive load - no difference. High cognitive load prevents people from ac
cessing additional info from the situation. Can't correct our initial impression
.
The Fundamental Attribution Error
Overestimate disposition - underestimate situation.
Gilbert - this is especially likely under high cognitive load.
Jones&Harris (1967) Castro Study
Results: Free Choice Forced
Pro Castro 59 44
Anti-Castro 17 23
Whats interesting is that 56-44 is not a big differences - subjects failed to ta
ke into account the situation.
We only get this effect under high cognitive load as we know from Gilbert.
Thus there must have been incidental high cognitve load manipulation in this stu
dy.
Kelley - ppl take into account the situation
Jones - they dont
Gilbert - reconciled the two.
Actor-Observer Effect
Own bad behav - to situation, other bad behav - to disposition and vice versa. E
gocentric bias.
Explanation:
1. Figure-ground
2. More exampls in memory of own diff behav
(Mis)attributiona and Emotion
Schachter & Singer - The Angry vs Elated participant study
People are uncertain about how they feel and turn to their environment to help d
isambiguate their feelings.
Results
Drug informed - no effect
Drug uninformed - angry with angry, elated with elated
Placebo - no change
Also- the suspension bridge study - Aron& Dutton
HOW FUNDEMENTAL IS THE FUNDAMENTAL ATTRIBUTION ERROR REALLY? - culture
Morris&Peng
Found that the english-language papers made more dispositional attritbutions
Choi&Nisbett
When situational info made more salient it made Americans and Koreans take it in
to account more, but Koreans did so more.
Gilbert paradigm - doesn't affect Chinese subjects - bc it is practiced
Hong et al
Evidence for causality argument - that culture causes differences
Results:
Those primed with American symbols made more dispostional attributions and vice
versa for Chinese.
----
AUTOMATICITY
Shneider & Shiffrin
Bargh\
Many behav are automatic or automatized
The Implicit Assoication Test (IAT)
If person likes pepsi he will be faster to categorize pepsi and puppies and cake
together than if dislikes pepsi.
Fazio et al
Sequential priming
Result:
People are quicker to categorize a negative word as negative if primed with a bl
ack face. This racial bias predicts forms of other racial bias as well.
Kawakami - practices causes stereotypes to be unlearned
Results: worked for 24 hours
Devine - stereotyping has two components:
1) Automatic activation
2) Controlled application
Study 1
Results: High and low predudice people did not differ in ther knowledge of stere
otypes

Document Summary

Current situation disambiguates behavior - e. g. crying at a funeral. The situati on often creates discounting - tears at a funeral are not seen as indicative of a sad person, as tears at a party. But it can also lead to augmentation - crying at a party means person is sad. Prior behaviours - you know that the person always cries. People can spontaneosuly make trait attributions without being aware of doing so. Participants read about behaviours which implied certain traits. Later - subject s given cued recll task: semantic cue - related to something that happened in the sentense but nothing to do with traits. Books - >librarian: trait cue - e. g. helpful, no cue. Both sem and trait cues imporoved recall equally. This suggests that when people read a sentence of a person performing an act the y go beyond the info given and make a dispositional attribution.