Address Outline: Error Bias

0
0
1829 days ago, 693 views
PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Presentation Transcript

Slide 1

Address Outline: Error & Bias 1. Bem versus Festinger returned to Post-ID input impact 2. Attributional Biases Fundamental Attribution Error Actor Observer Effect Self-Serving Bias Ultimate Attribution Error False Consensus Effect 3. Singular Differences Locus of Control

Slide 2

Bem versus Festinger Zanna & Cooper (1974): Pitted self-observation hypothesis against intellectual discord hypothesis Cognitive cacophony hypothesis upheld by information Examined state of mind change with clear dispositions People take part in self-recognition forms when demeanors not clear Results may have been one-sided for subjective disharmony hypothesis

Slide 3

Post Identification Feedback Study Wells & Bradfield (1999) Examined mentality change when state of mind not clear Background Post-recognizable proof input impact A witness' certainty that s/he accurately distinguished the genuine execution os expanded by criticism from someone else that she/he got the perfect individual.

Slide 4

Post Identification Feedback Study Wells & Bradfield (1999) 1. Witnesses see a line-up

Slide 5

Post Identification Feedback Study Wells & Bradfield (1999) 2. Witnesses distinguish who they trust the genuine culprit is Sometimes genuine culprit is in the line-up right recognizable proof run of the mill Other times genuine culprit is not in the line-up off base ID ordinary

Slide 6

Post Identification Feedback Study Wells & Bradfield (1999) 3. Police give witnesses affirming criticism: "You got the right one!" Feedback builds certainty that genuine culprit was recognized post-distinguishing proof input impact Police/legal counselors more prone to charge presume if witnesses are sure

Slide 7

Post Identification Feedback Study Wells & Bradfield (1999) Purpose of study: Examine why affirming criticism expands certainty Prediction: Witnesses induce certainty from affirming input in light of the fact that real certainty indistinct Attitude = Confidence Behavior = Feedback

Slide 8

Post Identification Feedback Study Wells & Bradfield (1999) at the end of the day… . Witnesses derive their demeanor (their certainty) from the conduct (the affirming input).

Slide 9

Post Identification Feedback Study Wells & Bradfield (1999) Procedures : Watched a shooter kill a security protect Showed line-up Identified who they accepted was the genuine killer Real killer not in line-up

Slide 10

Post Identification Feedback Study Wells & Bradfield (1999) Experimental Manipulation : No-Thought Condition Identified suspect from line-up Feedback given Rated certainty at time of recognizable proof

Slide 11

Post Identification Feedback Study Wells & Bradfield (1999) Experimental Manipulation (con't) : Prior-Thought Condition Identified suspect from line-up Privately considered certainty at time of distinguishing proof Feedback given Rated certainty at time of ID

Slide 12

Post Identification Feedback Study Wells & Bradfield (1999) What is the contrast between conditions ?

Slide 13

Post-Identification Feedback Study Wells & Bradfield (1999) Confidence

Slide 14

Post Identification Feedback Study Wells & Bradfield (1999) Consistent with self-discernment hypothesis: Participants surmised demeanor (certainty) from conduct (input) when state of mind was not clear (no earlier thought condition)

Slide 15

Fundamental Attribution Error Definition : Underestimate impact of situational elements on others' conduct Overestimate impact of dispositional components on others conduct

Slide 16

The Quiz Game Study Ross, Amabile & Steinmetz (1977) Three gatherings of members Questioners Contestants Observers

Slide 17

The Quiz Game Study (Ross et al.,1977) Questioners Composed 10 troublesome things to ask hopefuls Contestants Answered the inquiries Observers Watched the association

Slide 18

The Quiz Game Study (Ross et al., 1977) Procedures : Participants assumed their part making inquiries noting questions watching collaboration Participants then appraised the general learning of examiner & contender

Slide 19

The Quiz Game Study (Ross et al., 1977) Fundamental Attribution Error : Underestimate impact of situational elements on conduct Overestimate impact of dispositional variables on conduct

Slide 20

The Quiz Game Study (Ross et al., 1977) Prediction : Rate examiners' general information higher than competitors general learning

Slide 21

The Quiz Game Study (Ross et al., 1977) Results : Contestants and onlookers evaluated examiner more educated than candidates Rating of Contestant Rating of Questioner Role of Rater 67 41 Contestant 83 49 Observer

Slide 22

The Quiz Game Study (Ross et al., 1977) Conclusion : Behavior credited to dispositional qualities Behavior not ascribed to members' part in study Fits the FAE Overestimate dispositional elements Underestimate situational elements

Slide 23

Fundamental Attribution Error Why do individuals fall prey to the FAE? Others' conduct extremely notable Situation confronted by others not as notable Fundamental Attribution Error is hearty, but rather not all inclusive Not apparent in youthful youngsters More clear in Western societies More likely under a few conditions

Slide 24

Actor-Observer Effect Definition : Tendency to ascribe possess conduct to situational components, yet others' conduct to their manner Attributing others' conduct to their attitude = FAE Attributing own conduct to situational variables is what is included

Slide 25

The Quiz Game Study (Ross et al., 1977) Participants fell prey to the Fundamental Attribution Error Contestants and Observers appraised Questioners as having more broad learning than the contenders Results likewise demonstrated the Actor-Observer Effect Contestants saw claim general information more like Questioners' than did Observers

Slide 26

The Quiz Game Study (Ross et al., 1977) Contestants saw possess general information more like Questioners' than did Observers Rating of Contestant Rating of Questioner Role of Rater 67 41 Contestant 83 49 Observer Contestants more touchy to part than were eyewitnesses Fits An O Effect

Slide 27

The Quiz Game Study (Ross et al., 1977) Additional Finding: Questioners' were most delicate to part Rated possess general information equivalent to that of Contestants Rating of Contestant Rating of Questioner Role of Rater Contestant 67 41 Observer 83 49 Questioner 54 51

Slide 28

Actor-Observer Effect Why do individuals fall prey to the Actor-Observer Effect? See self act distinctively crosswise over wide assortment of circumstances

Slide 29

Self-Serving Attribution Bias Definition : Tendency to credit possess constructive conduct to dispositional qualities, bot claim antagonistic conduct to situational Taking duty regarding constructive conduct Self-upgrading predisposition Denying obligation regarding pessimistic conduct Self-defensive inclination

Slide 30

Self-Serving Attribution Bias Causes: Cognitive and Motivational Cognitive People hope to succeed AND tend to ascribe inside causes to expected occasions Motivational People need to like self

Slide 31

Self-Serving Attribution Bias Assumptions of Motivational Cause Attributional style identified with self-regard Lower self-regard individuals hold more practical perspectives of self than high self-regard individuals Lewinsohn et al. (1980) tried second suspicion

Slide 32

The Depression Study Lewinsohn et al., 1980 Prediction: Low self-regard individuals hold more practical self-sees since they don't take part in self-serving predispositions to such an extent

Slide 33

The Depression Study Lewinsohn et al., 1980 Prediction with Depressives more reasonable self-sees than non Depressives grow more unlikely self-sees as despondency lifts

Slide 34

The Depression Study Lewinsohn et al., 1980 Participants: Depressives Psychiatric patients Normals Procedures: Group collaborated Rated claim and others' social fitness

Slide 35

The Depression Study Lewinsohn et al., 1980 Results: Depressives evaluated self as less socially able and others concurred Non-Depressed appraised self as more socially able than others appraised them Over course of treatment, depressives progressively evaluated self more socially skillful than others appraised them Realistic self-see Unrealistic self-see Unrealistic self-see

Slide 36

Ultimate Attribution Error Parallels Self-Serving Bias, however at level of social gatherings In-Group Positive Beh = dispositional cause Negative Beh = situational cause Out-Group Positive Beh = situational cause Negative Beh = dispositional cause

Slide 37

Ultimate Attribution Error Primary Cause Help individuals keep up positive sentiments about in-gathering in contrast with out-gathering

Slide 38

Ultimate Attribution Error Study Chatman & von Hippel (2001) Focused on Negative Behaviors Participants : African American and White Procedures : Approached on grounds Read a candidate's occupation application

Slide 39

Ultimate Attribution Error Study Chatman & von Hippel (2001) Applicant was : African American OR White (in-gathering or out-gathering to member) Applicant was : Fired from last employment Participants asked : For what valid reason candidate lost occupation If cause because of circumstance or aura

Slide 40

Ultimate Attribution Error Study Chatman & von Hippel (2001) Prediction: African American Participants African American occupation candidate White employment candidate Due to circumstance Due to air

Slide 41

Ultimate Attribution Error Study Chatman & von Hippel (2001) Prediction: White Participants African American employment candidate White occupation candidate Due to manner Due to circumstance

Slide 42

Ultimate Attribution Error Study Chatman & von Hippel (2001) More situational attribution More dispositional attribution

Slide 43

False Consensus Effect Definition: Tendency to accept others are more comparative

SPONSORS