11) forming impressions

covariation theory

predicts how you determine a given behaviour is due to an individual’s personal disposition or the situations/circumstances 

based on 3 variables

• consenus — how diff people behave in same situations

• distinctiveness — how same people behaves in diff situations

• consistency — how same person behaves in same situation (at other times) 

situational attribution

blaming someones circumstances/situation for certain behavior

dispositional attribution

blaming someone personality (disposition) for the way they are behaving 

3 variables used to decisde if a behaivour is situational or dispoisitonal

• consenus — how diff people behave in same situations

  • Eg. how do others behave in this situation? Do other people also highly rate this movie? 

    1. If behaviour is HIGH in consensus… and most people behave this way, then charlie’s behaviour is influenced by the movie ⇒ situational attribution 

    2. If behaviour is LOW in consensus… and no one likes the movie, then behaviour is influenced by charlie = dispositional attribution 

• distinctiveness — how same people behaves in diff situations

  • Eg. if someones behaviour in this situation different than their behaviour in other situations? 

    1. Does charlie ū like most media she consumes ⇒ behaviour is low distinctiveness (dispositional)

    2. If charlie ū critical of the media consumed, but likes this one = movie must be really good ⇒ behaviour is high distinctiveness (situational)

• consistency — how same person behaves in same situation (at other times) 

  • Eg. if someone consistency behaves hte same way in the same situation (multiple times) 

    1. If charlie consistently praises this movie every time she watches it = hard to make a situational or dispositional 

       1. Maybe great movie that deserves high praise = situational 

       2. Maybe non-critical person, so she will love movie every time = dispositional 

variables we constantly analyze peoples behaviour on

1. degree of choice — amt of freedome act had in choosing their opinion/behaviour

2. expectation — we gather more information about a person when their actions defy our expectations compared to when their behaviour conforms to a typical part of a social role

3. intended consequences — goals/motives of an actor underlying their behaviour

degree of choice

1. Degree of choice – the amount of freedom the actor had in choose their opinion/behaviour 

   1. Eg. in debate of death penalty, if classmate is arguing in support of it… knowing that if roles were chosen based on free-will ⇒ infer he truly believes in this message, but if you know that roles are randomly assigned, less basis to infer that 

expectation

1. Expectation –  we gather more information about a person when their actions defy our expectations compared to when their behaviour conforms to a typical part of a social role

   1. Eg. you believe you know more about a prof who shows up to lecture in a roller skate and waitress outfit than a prof wearing a suit – bc it defies our expectations, and regular suit = less informative 

intended consequences

1. Intended consequences – goals/motivations of an actor underlying their behaviour 

   1. Eg. watch commercial that advocated lower smoking levels, but it was sponsored by a tobacco company… may suspect that the motive behind message was to look like a caring corporate citizen

fundamental attribution error (FAE)

tendency to OVERESTIMATE disposition factors and UNDERESTIMATE situational factors (of other people) 

⤷ believing that what people do, reflects who they are 

• Eg. rush house in traffic and get cut off by another car 

• Many assume hes an aggressive, inpatient driver (disposiiton), rather than assuming he’s probably late to work or a bad driver  (situational) 

act/observer effect

more considerate of situational factors when observing your own behaviour… but mostly consider dispositional factors of other’s behaviour

FAE across diff culture

• [miller] American

  • 8-11 yo: attribute disposition =  situational 

  • American adults: attribute dispositional > situational 

  • Indian adults: attribute situational > dispositional 

• [morrison and peng] 

  • Americans = ↑ probability to make fundamental attribution error than chinese grad students 

    • Americans = individualist society 

  • Chinese = ↓ probability of making fundamental attribution error

    • Chinese = collectivist societies 

  • Eg. american olympics attribute their gold winning performance to their own determination and talent vs japanese attribute to coaching, family, organization etc. 

self-serving bias

ū identifying self-success thru dispositional reasons and failures bc of situation 

⤷ eg. winning poker game = “its all about personal strategy”... vs loosing = “i was dealt bad cards!” 

above average effect

bias in perception that leads to people thinking you are above average on many things that are important to you (eg. attractiveness, intelligence, social skills)

heuristics

automatically make quick decisions about incoming information from the environment 

representativeness heuristics vs availability

Representativeness heuristic: classify people based on how well their behaviour fits within certain prototype 

Availability heuristic: mental shortcut where people estimate the probability or frequency of an event based on how easily examples come to mind, often driven by recent, emotional, or vivid memories

was a course rated higher/lower if a student had to provide 2 or 10 ways of improvement?

• found that classes had higher rating if they were asked to list 10 ways of improvement (than 2 ways)

  • It was easy to list 2 available flaws (probably had more than that) 

  • Significantly harder to list 10 improvements ⇒ gives impression that there were less problems w the class⇒ impression that there are not many problems overall

attractiveness

someoen who is attractive to u = leave u w a positive impression, and ur likely to want their company

factors that make it more likely to be attracted to someone

1. Proximity – if you live/work closely with (both physical distance and functional distance) 

2. Familiarity — people are more attractive if u more familiar w them (eg. looking at them often)

3. physical attractiveness

4. others opinion of us — ↑ chance of liking someone else after “gaining“ self-esteem (liking those who like us back, esp when our self-esteem is low)

proximity

Proximity means how physically close someone is to us.

• We are more likely to become friends or partners with people we see often.

• Physical closeness increases opportunities for interaction and familiarity.

2 types of distance

1. a) Physical distance (PD)

   • How physically near or far someone is (e.g., same hallway vs. different building).

   b) Functional distance (FD) (low = more interaction)

   • How likely you are to interact with someone.

   • Depends on things like shared spaces, schedules, or routines.

   • More interaction = more liking.

best and worst combos of physical distance and functional distance on attraction

• ✅ Low PD + Low FD = close and interact often → BEST

• ⚠ Low PD + High FD = close but little interaction

• ⚠ High PD + Low FD = far but interact often

• ❌ High PD + High FD = far and no interaction → WORST

mere exposure effect

the tendency to like things more simply because we have seen them before

⟹ explains familiarity

• You tend to like faces you recognize more than unfamiliar faces

• Famous people can seem attractive even if you’ve never met them

• eg. Ads feel more positive after repeated exposure

• eg. why u think u look hot in a mirror but ugly when taking photos w camera (ur used to looking at urself in a reflected manner and ∴ become familiar)

physical attractiveness

• People who are physically attractive are often judged more positively overall (tall, good smile, works out, body etc)

• They are more likely to be perceived as:

  • Kinder

  • Smarter

  • Warmer

  • More outgoing

halo effect

The halo effect occurs when one positive trait (e.g., attractiveness) leads us to assume other positive traits.

others opinion of us

we like people who like us back, esp when we have low self-esteem, and when their opinion of us improves over time (“i used to hate you, but now i love u“)

• lower self-esteem women rate attractive of a guy higher than women w a normal/raise self-esteem

how do we rate other people if their opinions of us change from… pos to neg//vv

like people ⟹ dislike order…

• neg → pos

• pos → pos

• neg → neg

• pos → neg

false consensus effect

cognitive bias where we tend to believe more ppl share our views than they actually do. helps protect our self esteem

illusory correlation

An illusory correlation occurs when people believe two things are related, even though there is little or no actual evidence of a relationship.

• helps create/maintain stereotypes by making some associations stronger than they really are

• » often driven by memorable, coincidental, or biased observations (ignoring the times when the association does NOT occur)

eg. Superstitions: A student wears a specific pair of socks to a test, receives an A, and concludes the socks improve their grade, ignoring all times they performed well without them.

implicit association task

The Implicit Association Test (IAT) is a reaction‑time task used to measure implicit (unconscious) attitudes and stereotypes by examining how quickly people associate different categories with each other.

• if asked to pair a word with another word… if it aligns w a sterotype = fast rxn time

• if asked to pair a word with another word… if it DOESNT align w a sterotype = slow rxn time