social perception Flashcards

Question

explain the video activity of Brown's mom in class and what it showed us

Answer 1

``` watched video of woman in class with no sound and had to rank qualities: extroversion, fluctuation of emotions and conscientious (detail oriented) -people looked at movement, eye contact, laughter, body language and were able to make correct judgments about the woman ``` "thin slices"

Answer 2

with brief exposure (thin slices) of information about another person, we can make quite accurate inferences - with just a little information about a person (seeing them talk, not hearing them) we are good at telling things about a person (better than chance) * *Some traits express themselves better than others, for example extroversion**

Answer 3

ratings for person on 15 second video of a professor matched quite well to their perceptions ratings after multiple weeks

Answer 4

political views, gender, ethnicity, etc

Answer 5

two random guys, but it was a unanimous decision as to who you would let borrow your car certain facial features are depicted as trustworthy, others as untrustworthy

Answer 6

trustworthy: high inner eyebrows, shallow indentation, wide chin, pronounced cheekbones, wide eyes, feminine nose, lips curling up untrustworthy: low inner eyebrows, thin chin, deep indentation, shallow cheek bones, narrow eyes, masculine nose, lips curving down - baby faces seen as more trustworthy - resting bitch face, people are not actually angry just born with a face that makes it look like they are feeling a certain way **These variables cannot be changed but affect likelihood of people trusting you**

Answer 7

Wilson and Rule looked at criminal sentences (death penalty or years in jail) and how harsh the crime was (same crime different punishment) - had people rate the faces for trustworthiness (of the ones who committed crimes) results: faces of people who got death penalty were rated less trustworthy than those in jail - facial trustworthiness predicted harshness of sentence for people convicted of crime

Answer 8

correlational so temporal precedence was not met -could be poor faces are more likely to get harsh penalty or those who are more likely to get the harsh penalty (commit worse crimes) are more likely to have poor faces innocence project: people sent to jail or death penalty, but then DNA comes out and they are actually innocent (a lot of the times related to racial bias) - researchers got individuals who were innocent but convicted of crime - showed participants the individuals and the faces of less trustworthiness were rated that they should get the death penalty even though all were innocent (rules out those more likely to commit worse crimes are likely to have poorer faces)

Answer 9

evidence for thin slicing but also evidence for bias -could we treat people with untrustworthy faces differently which makes them more likely to do bad things? (self-fulfilling prophecy)

Answer 10

hiding poker face, lying research: poker championships, looked at strength of hand and videos of persons face or hands as they're making move (ante or raise) - participants asked to look at videos to rate how strong they think players cards are - participants are better at guessing strength of cards when looking at hands rather than face

Answer 11

-we put a lot of emphasis on hiding facial expressions that we do not think about what hand is doing or other body parts nonverbal leakage: non-verbal behaviors that are difficult to control

Answer 12

- people had to record videos of telling a truth or lie - participants had to say if truth or lie by looking at 1) face only, 2) face and body, 3) body only accuracy scores were a lot greater for body only, lowest for face only **if you want to see if someone is lying look at body**

Answer 13

the process by which people try to explain the causes of behaviors or events

Answer 14

1) internal vs. external | 2) stable vs. unstable

Answer 15

internal: something internal (inside a person) that caused behavior or event (the persons personality or goal/intention), intentions are linked to reasons external: something outside of the person (luck/chance/fate, influence by other people, strong situation, God is controlling everything) ex. coffee meme: wife to husband: so if it is good its the pot, if its bad its me (internal and external factors)

Answer 16

stable: likely to happen again unstable: unlikely to happen again

Answer 17

external, stable (can also be internal if you frame it that the person should've left earlier because there is always traffic)

Answer 18

- person is upset over something which makes them late | - person's grades, receiving a bad grade

Answer 19

when we try to explain behavior we look at the past and how other people behave covariation means two things occur together

Answer 20

1) distinctiveness - is the persons behaviors unique to this situation? (high) - does the person behave this way in other situations (if yes, then low) 2) consistency - does the person always behave the same in this situation? (if yes, high. if no, low) 3) consensus - does everyone behave this way in this situation? (if yes, then high. if no, then low)

Answer 21

person attribution: low distinctiveness, high consistency, low consensus stimulus attribution: high distinctiveness, high consistency, low consensus situation attribution: high distinctiveness, low consistency, low consensus

Answer 22

distinct is this situation vs others | consistency is this situation over time

Answer 23

explain..... chart on paper to check

Answer 24

the chart seems so complicated, but we do these attributions automatically in our head to decide why we think something occurred

Answer 25

contribute the reason of something to the wrong cause

Answer 26

the tendency to make external internal attributions for one's own failures, but to make internal attributions for one's own successes ex. get job -> I crushed the interview don't get job -> they were biased against me

Answer 27

a sign of depression, self serving bias makes us feel good

Answer 28

make us feel good | -but if not accurate it can lead to more failures in the future

Answer 29

US has strong self serving bias, Japan does not (Japan credits their successes to other people and failures to themselves)

Answer 30

how coaches explain teams wins or losses - analyzed coaches interviews after wins/losses - 80% of wins were internal attributions (ex. we trained really hard) - 53% of losses were internal attributions (most were: the other team is really good)

Answer 31

college students tutoring elementary school kid who eventually takes test 1) in one group the kid does well on the test 2) in other group the kid does not do well - in group 1 students made internal attributions "I am such a good tutor" - in group 2 student made external attributions "the kid just didn't get it"

Answer 32

1) this is a logical argument (to make the external attribution because failure happened while we were trying to succeed, so blame failure on something else) - when we succeed we are trying to succeed, when we fail we fail regardless of our efforts to succeed - looking at outcome relative to intention 2) impression management - we want to look good - when we do poor on a test we tell our parents it wasn't our fault 3) feels good - psychological angle, improves psychological well-being

Answer 33

claims people make dispositional attributions for other people's errors - because of who that person is, that is why they did this - internal, stable attribution by observer for other people's behavior

Answer 34

no, rarely occurs | -conflicts with: if we see a person we assume their behavior reflects something going on in head

Answer 35

- minimal evidence that people refer to stable traits when explaining behaviors (5-10% of explanations) - most explanations (68%) refer to mental states (ex. intentions, goals, feelings), these could be stable but no conclusion that is is

Answer 36

there is evidence that people can incorrectly infer traits from behaviors produced by situation ex. person becomes late because of traffic, but it still leaves an impression or lingers with us inferring traits is different than explaining them through traits (because of this behavior i think person is trait X, not this behaviors is because the person is trait X) fundamental attribution error is not the same as correspondence bias

Answer 37

incorrectly inferring traits from behaviors produced by situation because of this behavior i think person is trait X

Answer 38

method: participants read essay written by another "participant" about Fidel Castro, essay was either pro Castro or anti Castro (Americans usually do not like Castro so those essays stood out) 1st manipulation: pro Castro vs. anti Castro 2nd manipulation: if the author chose to write about the topic or if the experimenter made them choose topic 2x2 study: 4 possible conditions -participants asked: what do you think the author actually thinks about Castro? results: (interaction on graph) participants still think author has positive attitudes toward Castro (not as much as choice condition, but still) - think if a person wrote all of this even if they were told to they must still like Castro, could be because the authors still thought of arguments - correspondence bias, assumed author's attitudes corresponded with behavior

Answer 39

ex. participants watch quiz between two people, one asking and one answering - questions were given to questioner and correct or incorrect answers given to answerer to say (had a pre-determined response) - participants still believed those who answered incorrect questions were less intelligent ex. participants watch an individual give scripted positive or negative answers to questions, the questions were "would you help a person who needed it?" - participants viewed those giving negative answers as less nicer **participants knew everything was scripted and still altered their answers, assumed authors traits corresponded with behavior**

Answer 40

ex. behavior: frowning man pushes past you to get to airline ticket counter -> Step 1: correspondent inference/personal attribution: you judge him to be inconsiderate or rude = attribution: his behavior reflects his dispositions Step 2: (only occurs if we have time energy and motivation) situational attribution: you consider possible unknown reasons for behaviors = attribution: his behavior is probably caused by external factor

Answer 41

participants watched video of woman being interviewed (silent video and woman appeared anxious) manipulations: 1) situational reason for anxiety present or absent, present: the topic of interview is she is being interviewed about sexual fears and desires, absent: describing vacation 2) cognitive load high or low, high: few mental resources, remember sequence of numbers and quiz of the numbers at the end (distraction), low: participants simply watched video - participants were asked at the end what they thought of woman- high or low anxiety? - present: she is anxious, absent: she is not - high: said she was anxious without valid reason for anxiety **people will adjust if they have mental resources, without the mental resources there is correspondence bias**

Answer 42

participants watch footage from the study and knew why people acted the way they did (obedience) and everything about the study -still formed negative opinions on the people doing the study, negative impression still existed

Answer 43

-built on fundamental attribution error, we as actors say the situation caused us to do it but as observers we think someone did it because of their personality **this does not exist because we do not make assumptions based on personality**

Answer 44

- we notice different things than other people - you always know what you are doing, but don't know what roommates are doing - actors know 100% of their actions, observers only know what happened while they were there

Answer 45

minimal evidence that actors make situational attributions for their own behaviors more than observers do

Answer 46

trait, situation (reason), casual history (people in US are always late) -most people gave situation reasons

Answer 47

- reason asymmetry | - belief marker asymmetry

Answer 48

actors provide reasons for their behavior (situation) more than observers do - use their reason explanation as fact - when trying to explain behaviors as observers we will moreso explain them with causal history or potential traits

Answer 49

given situation and have to explain why someone did what they did ex. Kim did not vote situation: she thought the candidates were untrustworthy causal history: did not realize every vote counted trait: she is lazy results: when it is ourselves (actors more likely to come up with reason) when its someone else (observers more likely to use causal history)

Answer 50

- telling observers to "make the person look good in front of an audience" reduces this asymmetry (observers began to give more reason explanations) * *shows we use reason explanations to make ourselves look good** -if the person was there while making explanation they will still use causal history explanation

Answer 51

observers mark beliefs about reasons, actors only state reasons ex. why did you turn on the sprinkler? because the plants were dry why did she turn on the sprinkler? because she thought the plants were dry **saying thought makes it less legitimate**

Answer 52

omit belief markers as much as actors do -Brown crossing street hurrying to make the sign, people crowding around elderly man who fell, person crossing street stopped and saw, asked to explain why one person helped would say "the man was hurt" a person not present would say "they probably realized the man was hurt"

Answer 53

- perceptual salience - information asymmetry - false consensus - sometimes, motivation

Answer 54

- certain things stand out to us more and we focus on what stands out - when our attention is drawn to something we emphasize it ``` ex. study two people in conversation 1) person wears bright orange shirt 2) more light shining on one person 3&4) camera is on one person and the other person's back is showing (happens to both participants) ``` results: when one person is made perceptually salient participants will say this person is more important to conversation, when something is more perceptually salient we think of it as more important

Answer 55

- different access to information, know what happened when you were present but now when you aren't present ex. you know when you do the dishes in your apartment but when roommate does them you might not know because you did not see it (information asymmetry) and clean sink does not draw as much attention as dirty sink (perceptual salience)

Answer 56

we think our behavior makes sense and assume anyone else in same situation would do what you did ex. study participants had to wear sandwich board (advertising) that says "repent", ask participants if they would be willing and after they answered asked what % of people they think would wear it results: the group that agreed to it said that 64% of other people would wear it, the group that did not agree to it said 23% of other people would wear it **people thought most other people would make the same decision they did**

Answer 57

belief in a just world: people believe that others get what they deserve and deserve what they get - affect the decisions we make, try to say that bad things that happen to a person happen because of something bad that person did - threatening to think bad things can happen to good people (de-motivating) and good things happen to bad people ex. happens with rape, maybe the girl drank too much

Answer 58

cultural difference -individualistic cultures (western) notice contexts less, East Asian cultures (collectivistic) notce contexts more western=foreground, eastern= background ex. study Masuda et al participants look at photos of people showing different expressions (matched with ethnicity of nation), asked people to rank happiness of person (who was smiling) in middle of group of people 1) other people were happy 2) the other people were sad East asian cultures perception of people depended on people around her, woman was viewed as less happy when other people were sad this difference did not exist in western society **foreground focuses more on one person, background also focuses on context**

social perception Flashcards

(82 cards)