PYSC 3100 1st Edition Lecture 2 Outline of Last Lecture I. What is Social PsychologyA. Definition of Social PsychologyII. Implicit A. Distinction among three responses or outcomes III. Situation VS. Disposition A. Situation B. Disposition IV. Lewinian View: People are like Rolling RocksV. A Little History VI. Controversies A. Situation vs. Disposition B. Laboratory vs. Field Research C. Cold Cognitive Processes vs. Warm Feeling Processes D. Conscious vs. Non-Conscious Processes VII. Social PerceptionOutline of Current Lecture I. Social Perception (Personology) II. Screw Ups: Getting it Wrong III. Why? Determinants can be complex and, thus, hard to discernIV. Why? We sometimes are uninformed (ignorant) as analysts V. Why? We sometimes think lightly when reflecting VI. Has been invoked to at least partially explain Correspondence Bias or Fundamental Attribution Error VII. Also has been invoked to explain an opposing bias for Actors to explain outcomes in situational termsCurrent Lecture I. Social Perception (Personology) - Contemporary study can be traced to Fritz Heider, an Austrian who moved to the US because of WWII. Heider is known as the father of Social Psychology.- Heider sketched the rudiments of what came to be known as “attribution theory”. The attribution theory is a collection of ideas.These notes represent a detailed interpretation of the professor’s lecture. GradeBuddy is best used as a supplement to your own notes, not as a substitute.- Question of interest was “How do we come to understand (i.e., explain) actions and other outcomes associated with ourselves and others”? For example, how do we come to understand tears in the eyes of a friend (sad?; happy?; an onion? An eye disorder?) or an outstanding grade on the exam of a student (smart?; easy test?; cheat?). II. Screw Ups: Getting it Wrong - Scientists and lay people are interested in social perception in large part because it is so fraught with error. The main focus in this area is in screw ups. We are often of the mark quite a bit.- Although we draw many correct conclusions, we also draw many incorrect ones. Why? III. Why? Determinants can be complex and, thus, hard to discern - At minimum, we have to distinguish between internal (dispositional) and external (situational) causes, bearing in mind that we, personally, can exert apowerful situational influence. This is one reason determinants are hard to discern- they are hugely complex. We must find out if the situation or distribution caused the outcome.- We also have to consider changes that can occur over time and why they might have occurred –changes in people and in the situations that they face.We can be situational influences on another person’s behavior. Ex: Rex’s cousin had interpersonal (social) problems and he had come to Rex saying that other students were being mean to him. Rex did not think the other students were mean, but he realized that the other students could be mean around his cousin and not him. - Disposition can change over time, but it may not be different. Also, different aspects of yourself can change.- People can have different values, beliefs, anxieties, hostilities, etc. at Time B than they had at Time A. Teenagers can experience different pressures at different points in history.- Thus, even if we were powerfully motivated “personology” experts, we wouldstill be expected to make errors from time to time. IV. Why? We sometimes are uninformed (ignorant) as analysts - We might be unaware, for example, of a cultural influence (e.g., regarding expressive restraint), a relevant event (e.g., death of a loved one), or a relevant condition (e.g., dyslexia). Ex: A child dies and the father shows no emotion. People may think that the father does not have any emotion or does not have love for the child, but their culture may respond different to situations than ours. Therefore, we would be drawing an incorrect conclusion.- We also might be unaware of the impact of relevant factors. Thus, for example, we may not realize just how powerful a cultural or emotional influence can be. We may not know the extent, may underestimate the cultural influence.- Note: Projecting from our own experience can be misleading.- If we are unaware of relevant influences or their impact, we cannot appropriately take the influences into account. V. Why? We sometimes think lightly when reflecting - Are thought to do this when it is unimportant for us to be correct.- When we think lightly, we tend to interpret behavior in terms that are readily available or easily brought to mind. When we are light mode thinking, we tend to cruise through-Heuristic processing mode. In this mode, we are not too interested in getting the outcome right, and we only invest a small amount over an event.- Thus, for example, we are likely to use stereotypic assumptions (“She did poorly on the statistics exam because women are not good at math.”), suggestions from others (“I heard she is lazy.”), or casual memories of personal experience (“I took that class and it was easy for me.”). - In Systematic processing, we evaluate relevant information clearly. We are intensively engaged when the situation is personal, relevant, or high interest to us. - It is arguable that we spend most of our time in light thinking mode; not interested to do much and we are more likely to make errors. In intensive thinking, we are more likely to be successful. VI. Has been invoked to at least partially explain Correspondence Bias or Fundamental Attribution Error. - Fundamental Attribution Error: Pervasive tendency for Observers to explain outcomes in dispositional, rather than situational, terms. It is due to perspective.- Dispositional factors are more salient (accessible) than situational factors.- As a result, they are more readily accepted under light thinking conditions VII. Also has been invoked to explain an opposing bias for Actors to explain outcomes in situational terms - Actor/Observer Effect: Difference between this bias and the dispositional bias seen in Observers. We are not the observers, but the actors, and we try to understand why we have outcomes linked to us.- Among the better demonstrations is experiment by Michael Storms, which varied the visual perspective of participants observing an interpersonal exchange. Michael Storms provided an elegant demonstration of asymmetry. He had one person in one chair