Transcript Social Perception - University of Massachusetts Amherst

Social Perception: Overview
• How do we make attributions about social behavior?
– Internal versus External attributions
• Do people make attributions in a logical, rational
way? Or, do we make some consistent errors?
– Fundamental attribution error
– Actor-observer bias
• How do we make inferences about another person
from nonverbal behavior?
– Social Interpretations Task (SIT; Archer & Costanzo; Archer
& Akert)
– How well can we detect deception and lying?
Attributions
• How do we make social inferences,
from both verbal and nonverbal
behavior, to understand WHY a person
might be behaving in a particular way?
Example
•
Janet and Michael go on a date and, at
the end of the evening, he promises to call
her tomorrow. Tomorrow comes along, but
Michael doesn’t call. In thinking about this
situation, Janet might come up with
different explanations for his behavior.
What are some possible explanations for
Michael’s behavior?
Causal attributions
• Internal attribution: Explain in terms of
something about the person (e.g., Michael
is rude and unreliable)
• External attribution: Explain in terms of
something about the situation (e.g.,
Michael couldn’t call because he’s in the
hospital and unconscious)
2 big questions
• How do people explain another’s
behavior?
– Role of subjective vs. objective
• What kinds of errors do people make
when explaining another’s behavior?
Two attributional biases
• Fundamental attribution error
• Actor-observer difference
Fundamental attribution error
• Fundamental attribution error: the
tendency to overestimate the impact of
internal, personality causes and to
underestimate the impact of situational
causes when explaining another person's
behavior.
Jones & Harris (1967)
• Observers readily attribute another's
behavior to personality even when
situational factors clearly important
• Read essays or listened to speeches
supposedly written by members of
debating team. Speech supported or
attacked Fidel Castro.
Jones & Harris
• IV #1: Observers were told that the
debater chose or was assigned the pro- or
anti-Castro position
• IV #2: Speech was Pro or Anti
• DV: Observers estimated debater’s true
opinion
Example
• Choose 20 students from class and
randomly assign 10 to read a pro-choice
speech and 10 to read an anti-abortion
speech. Class estimates their true
opinions.
Fundamental Attribution Error
(Ross, Amabile, & Steinmetz, 1977)
Demonstrates how people ignore the
situation, and attribute behavior to
dispositions.
Simulated quiz game
Randomly assigned Stanford students to
role of questioner or contestant
Questioners: Generate difficult trivia
questions
Variables
• IV: Role of questioner or contestant
• DV: Rate general knowledge (relative to
average Stanford student) of contestants
and questioners
Causal Attributions
• The Correspondence Bias: People as
Personality Psychologists
The Two-Step Process of Attribution occurs
when people analyze another person’s
behavior by first making an automatic
internal attribution, and only then thinking
about possible situational reasons for the
behavior, after which one may adjust original
internal attribution.
Causal Attribution
• The Actor/Observer Difference
The actor/observer difference is the
tendency to see other people’s behavior
as dispositionally caused, but focusing
more on the role of situational factors
when explaining one’s own behavior.
Example
• Imagine you are working on a group
project and one of the other students does
not complete her part.
• Your view: She’s lazy, inconsiderate, not
motivated. (internal, personal)
• Her view: I’m taking 5 classes, working 30
hours/week, my boyfriend cheated on me,
and my grandmother is seriously ill.
(external, situational)
Causal Attribution
• The Actor/Observer Difference
One reason for the actor/observer
difference is perceptual salience (figure
vs. ground): actors notice the situations
around them that influence them to act,
while observers notice the actors.
Causal Attribution
• The Actor/Observer Difference
The actor/observer difference also occurs
because actors have more information
about themselves than do observers.
How do we make inferences about
another person from nonverbal
behavior?
• Body language, facial expressions,
touching, tone of voice
• Nonverbal cues can provide a range of
information (e.g., information about a
person’s relationship to another person, or
about whether a person is lying)
How well do you perceive others?
• Social Interpretations Task (SIT) developed by
Dane Archer and colleagues (AKA as
“Interpersonal Perception Test)
Lie Detection Rate Among Different Groups
(Ekman & O’Sullivan, 1991)
In this study, Ps had a 50-50 chance of guessing
accurately. Chance = 50%
Group
Accuracy Rate
College students
52.8
CIA, FBI, military
55.7
Police investigators
55.8
Trial judges
56.7
Psychiatrists
57.6
U.S. Secret Service Agents
64.1
• Do men and women differ in their scores
on the Social Interpretations Task?
Scores are fairly stable over time
•
The IPT is stable – reliability coefficients
around .70 (e.g., over 2 wks)
IPT
•
•
•
Correlates modestly with personality measures
High self-monitors (who attend to
social/situational cues) tend to score higher
on the IPT. (r = .25, p < .05) than those who
are low self-monitors (who are less likely to
change their behavior in response to
situational cues).
Extraverts also are somewhat better than
introverts (Akert & Panter, 1986).
What does the IPT demonstrate?
• People attend to multiple channels of
nonverbal and verbal behavior in order to
decode and understand a social situation
• They do so with a reasonable (above
chance) accuracy
• Some people – those who seem to
practice this skill (extraverts, high selfmonitors, women) – do better than others.
• More on lying and deception….video clip
Lying by College Students & Community
Members in Everyday Life (DePaulo et al.,
1996)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Number lies/week
% lied to/week
% said told no lies
Reasons for lying
Self-centered
Other-oriented
Neither
10.4
34%
5%
51%
25%
24%
Lies, Lies (DePaulo et al., 1996)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
How was lie delivered?
Face to face
By telephone
In writing
Was lie discovered?
No
Yes
Don’t know
Unclassified response
% said would tell the lie again
79%
20%
1%
59%
19%
19%
3%
77%