Forming Impressions

Kelley’s Covariation Theory

Predicts how to determine if a given behaviour is due to a person’s disposition or the situation of the circumstance

3 variables of Kelly’s covariation theory

1. Consensus: Different people, same situation (how others behave in a situation)

2. Distinctiveness: Same person, diff situation (how a person behaves in other situations)

3. Consistency: same person, same situation (how a person behaves at diff times in the same situation)

Ex. If a friend comes up to you saying a move you don’t recognize is amazing:

1. Consensus —> Seeing if other people also rave about the movie

   1. high consensus means many people agree and your friend’s behaviour can be attributed to the movie (situational)

   2. low consensus means people don’t agree and the behaviour can be attributed to your friend’s behaviour (dispositional)

2. Distinctiveness —> Does your friend generally enjoy most media consumed?

   1. High distinctiveness indicates your friend doesn’t behave this way in other situations so this movie must be really good (situational)

   2. Low distinctiveness suggests they enjoy media generally (dispositional).

3. Consistency —> Does your friend consistently praise this movie everytime they watch?

   1. High consistency indicates she raves about the movie everytime, but it can be both situational or dispositional.

      1. Situational: If she praises it bc it’s a great movie deserving of praise

      2. Dispositional: She’s non-critical and will love the movie every time

   2. Low consistency indicates she usually critique’s the film but enjoys it today; you need to pair it with consensus and distinctiveness to form an attribution

Patterns of the 2 variables (Kelly)

1. Situational: High consensus, distinctiveness and consistency

2. Dispositional: Low consensus and distinctiveness, high consistency

3. Wider Situational: Low/high consensus and distinctiveness, low consistency

Correspondent Inference Theory

Focuses solely on internal factors influencing a person’s behaviour to understand what motivates the personal behaviours

Variables used to analyze people (Correspondent Inference)

1. Degree of Choice

2. Expectation

3. Intended Consequences

Degree of Choice (CIT)

Amount of freedom the actor had in choosing their opinion/behaviour

Ex. In a debate class, if you could choose sides you’d think the people on a side supports what that side believes in and thinks. However, if you’re randomly placed in sides, you wouldn’t be so quick to believe a person truly believes what they’re arguing for.

Expectation (CIT)

Degree to which an individual’s behaviour in a social role matches our expectation. We learn more about people when they defy our expectations

Ex. Youd think you know more about a professor that shows up in rollerskates vs a suit as rollerskates defy our expectations of a prof

Intended Consequence (CIT)

The goals/motivations of an actor underlying their behaviour

Ex. If a tobacco company puts out an anti-smoking ad, you’d be suspicious of underlying motives versus if your sister said it

Fundamental Attribution Error

• Tendency to over-value dispositional factors for observed behaviours and under-valuing situational ones.

  • Simpler Words: Tendency to assume what people do reflect who they are

  • Ex. When someone cuts you off in traffic, you automatically assume they’re an aggressive driver without considering they could be late for an appointment

• Influenced by culture

  • Americans showed more focus on dispositional factors while Indians showed it for situational

  • Americans showed inc probability of making the FAE compared to the Chinese as China has a more collectivist society

  • American olympic winners attribute their success to their hardwork, whlie Japanese winners attribute it to their coaches and team

Actor/Observer Effect

You consider the situational factors of your own behaviour, but the dispositional factors of other’s behaviour

Self-Serving Bias

• Considering dispositional factors when faced with success, and situational when faced with failure.

• Leads to above average effect, where people think they’re above average in the things that matter to them

Representativeness Heuristic

Using certain information about people to make inferences on them

Ex. Jenny is in an upscale neighbourhood, and she is smart, and interested in social movements. She recently went to one. Is she a bank teller, or is she a bank teller that participates in feminist rallies?

You’d choose the second one due to heuristic, but statistically, it’s more likely for her to be the first option

Availability Heuristics

Making an inference about something with the memory that is most available in your head regarding it

Ex. If Sam taught a class for the first half of them sem when you were eager and motivated, and Sammy taught it in the second half where you were burnt out and barely showing up, you would rate Sammy lower on rate my prof as your memory of his class was worse only bc it was most available to you regarding him

4 factors making it more likely to be attracted to a person

1. Proximity: If you work/live near someone, you are more likely to like them, especially if you get to interact often too

   1. Physical Distance: Low = closer, High = farther

   2. Functional Distance: Low = Interact often, High = Don’t interact often

   3. Low + Low = best attraction, High + High = worst

2. Familiarity: You tend to find faces of people you’ve known more attractive

3. Physical attractiveness: Attractive people are more well-perceived

4. Other’s opinions of us: Associated with self-esteem

   1. someone liking you when you have low self-esteem has a lasting impression

   2. you tend to like people and find them attractive when they like you

   3. also relates to how a person previously thought of you where highest attractiveness was given to people who disliked you first and then liked you

Mere Exposure Effect

• Related to familiarity in attractiveness

• tendency to perceive previous stimuli as more favourable even if you only saw it once or twice before

Halo Effect

• related to physical attractiveness in attractiveness

• Tendency to attribute more positive characteristics to individuals that make a positive impression

Types of Fundemental Attribution Errors

1. Situational: depends on situation (ex. being late bc you didn’t want to be rude and leave someone else midway)

2. Dispositional: Depends on the traits of a person (ex. being late bc you’re disorganized)

3. fundemental: overestimation dispositional attributes, underestimating situation attributes

False Consensus Effect

Your thoughts are similar to others, making us overestimate how much others agree with us. It’s believing that more people share our views than they do, even if it’s a minor belief.

Stereotypes (Cognition)

Beliefs about attributes that are thought to be characteristic of members of particular groups

Prejudice (affect)

A negative attitude or affective response toward a certain group and its individual members.

Discrimination (behaviour)

negative behaviour towards members of a particular group based on their membership in that group.

In-group

positive attitudes; heterogeneity

out-group

negative attitudes; homogeneity

Implicit Association Test (IAT):

• Categorization task where individuals categorize stimuli into four different categories using two response keys

• two categories require one response key, in two different instances.

  • Participant views two categories requiring the response as related: IAT is fast and accurate.

  • Two categories require different responses – IAT performance is slow with more errors.

• We are faster at categorizing words in the compatible pairing (positive – white, negative – black), than in the incompatible pairing (positive – black, negative – white).

Explicit Process

Occur with conscious direction and delibrate thought (controlled)

William’s Syndrome

Amygdala less reactive to social fear associated with reduced racial, but not gender bias

Solution to unconscious bias