causal attribution and social judgment. back to construal misunderstandings across genders—the...
TRANSCRIPT
Causal Attribution and Social Judgment
Back to construal
Misunderstandings across genders—the case of unwanted sexual advances
Back to construal
Misunderstandings across cultures—the Hainan island incident-- collision of Chinese and US jets in 2001
Apology diplomacy Different cultural
perceptions
Outline
1. Causal Attribution—how we make sense of other peoples’ behaviour
2. Self-knowledge—how we make sense of who we are and our own behaviour
3. Social Judgment—strategies, errors and biases in social decision making
Optimistic attributional style predicts future physical health
Even controlling for earlier health
Why Attribution Matters
Attribution –
Explanatory style -
Why Attribution Matters
Optmistic attributional style
Pessimistic attributional style
Optimistic attributional style predicts
Academic achievement Physical health Longevity Relationship satisfaction Likelihood of being elected to office
Attributional Biases Fundamental attribution error: overestimating internal
factors and underestimating external factors when explaining other people’s behaviour “Castro Study”
Jones and Harris (1967) ‘Castro study’
Attributional Biases Fundamental attribution error:
Anxious public speaker Friendly saleswoman Talkative talk show host Deranged suicide terrorist
Research shows Suicide Bombers are not…
Mentally ill Suicidal Poor Suffering from personality disorders But they are: unmarried young adult men Better explanation: group dynamics (recruitment) and
popular support for suicide attacks
Support for “martyrdom attacks”
Regular attenders 1.8 times more likely to support
Wald = 6.42 , 95% CI for OR = 1.16--3.02, P=0.01
No independent effect of prayer frequency
Control variables: prayer frequency, gender, economic satisfaction, education, refugee status, support for Islamic state
Study 1: Palestinian Representative Sample, 1999 (N=1151)Ginges, Hansen, Norenzayan, 2009
Agreement that “Islam encourages or requires martyrdom attacks”
Regular attenders 3.1 times more likely to support
Wald = 8.473, 95% CI for OR= 1.45--6.47, P=0.004
No independent effect of prayer frequency
Controls: prayer frequency, gender, economic satisfaction, education, refugee status and identification with Islamist Palestinian organizations
Study 2: Palestinian University Student Sample 2006 (N=719)
The tombstone of Baruch Goldstein which describes him as “murdered as a martyr of God”. On the 25th of February, 1994 Goldstein died while killing 29 Muslims at prayer, and injuring 60 others, in the “Cave of the Patriarchs”, a site holy to both Muslims and Jews located in Hebron, the West Bank
0
5
10
15
20
25
Prayer Prime No Prime Synagogue Prime
Perc
ent
calli
ng s
uic
ide a
ttack
"extr
em
ely
hero
ic"
P=.09
P=.04
10-Nation BBC Survey of Religious Beliefs
• Mexico (Catholic)• Great Britain
(Protestant)• Russia (Orthodox)• India (Hindu)• Indonesia (Muslim)• Israel (Jewish)
4704 participants
52.7% female
age 18 to over 55
Variation in SES & income
Major religious groupsJoint agreement with:1) “ I am willing to die for my God (beliefs)”2) “I blame other religions for the problems of the world”
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
CA
TH
OL
IC(M
EX
ICO
)
PR
OT
ES
TA
NT
(U
K)
MU
SL
IM(I
ND
ON
ES
IA)
HIN
DU
(IN
DIA
)
JEW
ISH
(IS
RA
EL
)
OR
TH
OD
OX
(RU
SS
IA)
FU
LL
SA
MP
LE
Prayer
Organizedattendance
#
#
**
*
***
***
***
Odds
of
support
ing c
om
bati
ve
mart
yrd
om
Controls: age, sex,SES, education,human dev index
Attributional Biases Fundamental attribution error: explanations
Perceptual:
Cognitive:
Motivational:
Cultural:
Cultural differences in causal attributions
Sports articles: US newspapers, more dispositional attributions
Hong Kong newspapers, more situational attributions
Cultural differences disappeared for editorials
Lee, Hallahan, & Herzog, 1996
The dilemma of the innocent victim
•JWB allows individuals to maintain a sense of purpose and control—bad things couldn’t happen to me•Injustice in the world is a perceived threat•Outcomes reflect personal traits – more FAE•One pernicious consequence: blaming victims
Just World Beliefs(Lerner & Miller, 1978)
Just-world beliefs- “By and large, people deserve what they get in life” “Basically, the world is a just place” “People who do their job will rise to the top” “People who meet with misfortune have often brought it
on themselves”
Just World Beliefs
Blaming the victim—experiments by Lerner & colleagues Participants watch another person suffer (victim) Restore Justice Condition: Participant (or someone else)
can help the victim JWB Condition: participant (or someone else) cannot help
the victim Outcome: Results:
Just World Beliefs
Victim derogation is less likely
Who believes in a just world?
Just World Beliefs: Summary & Clarifications
When one believes in just world AND the victim cannot be helped =
MORE victim blaming Not about self helping victim (empathy) Not about perceived competence of the
victim (VB even when victim is “randomly assigned” to be a victim)
Attributional Biases Actor-observer effect:
Example: perceptions in conflictExplanations:1)
2)
Attributional Biases Self-serving bias:
Self-Knowledge
o How and how much do we know ourselves?
o Barriers to self-knowledgeo Conscious vs. unconscious self-
knowledgeo Strategies for self-knowledge
Escape from the Self
o Our defenses stop us from knowing ourselves, esp. undesirable aspects
We escape self-awareness throughDefensive strategies (suppression, denial)Addictions: alcohol and drug abuse, sex,
eating, TV, suicide, etc.Work, hobbies, other people
Self-Knowledge
o We may have limited ability to know ourselves
o Ways into self-knowledgeo Introspectiono Observing our own behaviouro Learning about how others see us
Introspection
Look inward to observe1) Feelings, thoughts, desires2) Reasons behind our actions
More successful with 1) then 2) The causes behind our tendencies are
not readily visible—psychological research better way to know this
Introspection--do we know the causes of our behavior?
Confabulation: studies with split-brain patients (Gazzaniga & Ledoux)
Pantyhose study (Nisbett & Wilson)
Language centres in Left Hemisphere
Introspection--do we know the causes of our behavior?
Confabulation: studies with split-brain patients (Gazzaniga & Ledoux)
Pantyhose study (Nisbett & Wilson) Cognitive dissonance studies, studies
of discrimination—peoples explanations of their own behaviour have little to do with observed causes
Observing our own behaviour
Self perception theory:
How Others See Us
Our defenses prevents us from wanting to know ourselves
But others who know us well can see through these defenses
They can also be good observers of our behaviour
Ex: my colleague’s hostility in the late afternoon
Strategies that facilitate self-knowledge
Self-acceptance (less defensiveness) Connecting with our feelings and observing
our thoughts without identifying with them Find out how knowledgeable others see us Visualizing our reactions to future situations Psychological research (esp. for reasons
behind our actions)
“Thin slicing”: How first impressions matter
The statue that didn’t look right (see Gladwell, Blink)
First impression in dates, job interviews, consumer choices, …
“Thin slicing”: How first impressions matter
Judging personality traits (Willis & Todorov, 2006)
“Thin slicing”: How first impressions matter
Teacher evaluations (Ambady & Rosenthal, 1993)
10, 5, 2 sec. long videotape of prof’s teaching…predicted student evaluations at the end of
term
“Thin slicing”: How first impressions matter
Do people agree on first impressions?Yes
The 1 million $ chicken-egg question:1) Is the (often biased) first impression coloring
longer term judgment? Or2) accurately perceiving what’s there takes only
seconds?
Prop. of correctly predicted soccer games as a function of expertise and thought, Exp 1 (Dijksterhuis et al 2009)
d
Immed: 20s Consc: 2m Unconsc: 2m distr.
Heuristics in Social Judgment
Heuristic:
Heuristics in Social Judgment
Representativeness heuristic-
Heuristics in Social Cognition
Availability Heuristic:
The statistics
By number of deaths:Deaths due to car transportation: 40,000/yearDeaths due to airline transportation: 200/year
By number of passengersCar: 1/6800 deaths per yearAirline: 1/1.6 million per year
Controlling for distance covered10-40 times more likely to die driving than
flying
The statistics
But media coverage is incredibly skewed:0.02 cancer stories/1000 cancer deaths1.7 murder stories/1000 homicides2.3 AIDS stories/1000 AIDS deaths138 plane crash stories/1000 airplane deaths
Social Cognition: Conclusions
Naïve realism: belief that one’s own perspective reflects objective reality, whereas others are biased
People are not objective observers of the social world; they construe their world in particular ways–heuristics and self-protective defenses to make sense of the social world
These ways of construal have consequences (health, decisions, conflict,…)