Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Do you feel that fundamental Christian movement is a positive force in the United States? ____ (yes vs. no) Others in this room that agree with you ____ (expressed in %) Do you think there was conspiracy (i.e. an organized efforts to illegally taint the vote-counting) during the presidential election of 2004, to ensure that Bush was re-elected? ___ (yes vs. no) Others in this room that agree with you ____ (expressed in %) Do you think that Sarah Jessica Parker is attractive? ____ (yes vs. no) Others in this room that agree with you ____ (expressed in %) Do you think that Johnny Depp is attractive? ____ (yes vs. no) Others in this room that agree with you ____ (expressed in %) Conspiracy during 2004 election? Actual distribution of attitudes “no, there wasn’t” “yes, there was” 70% no 30% yes Perceived distribution of attitudes 53% yes 47% no Extremely large FCE = +22 34% yes 66% no Fairly accurate Sara Jessica Parker attractive? Actual distribution of attitudes “Yeah—hot!” “No” 57% yes 43% no Perceived distribution of attitudes 64% yes 36% no (Small) FCE = +7 53% yes 47% no Fairly accurate Johnny Depp attractive? Actual distribution of attitudes “Yeah—hot!” “No” 61% yes 39% no Perceived distribution of attitudes 66% yes 34% no Fairly accurate 50% yes 50% no Moderate FCE +11 Fundamental Christian movement a positive force in U.S.? no Actual distribution of attitudes 77% no yes 23% yes Perceived distribution of attitudes 48% yes 52% no 42% yes 58% anti One interpretation: No real FCE here. Rather, all students (regardless of views) perceive WU students as more pro-Fundamental Christian than they really are Famous errors… continued The “fundamental attribution error” (e.g. Jones & Harris, 1967) – What it is Tendency to overestimate influence of dispositional factors when judging others – Why you get it Selective exposure (again) Perceptual salience Different processes underlying attributions – dispositional automatic – Situational controlled Jones and Harris (1967) Estimate of essay writer’s attitude 60% choice No choice pro-Castro anti-Castro Anchoring and adjustment heuristic—insufficient adjustment! Insensitivity to the power of the situation Stages of social perception Observe specific behavior Identification (encoding) Inferences about other traits Inferences about the causes of behavior (attribution) Automatic dispositional attribution Controlled situational “correction”—but only if perceiver has ability and motivation Gilbert, Pelham, & Krull (1988) all participants run in “no choice” condition. Pro “Pro-Abortion” abortion “Anti abortion” Anti- abortion “unbusy” participants “busy” participants Self-serving attributions Usual pattern for self— – Positive events—internal – Negative events—external Reversed for depressed individuals Sports—winners vs. losers – Rams vs. Patriots—2002 Superbowl – Unrealistic optimism (Weinstein, 1980) Basic effect Criticisms of this paradigm – Referent group unclear? Bottom line—effect holds up, even controlling for possible problems Belief in a just world (Lerner, 1980) Good things happen to good people, bad things happen to bad people Two ways of conceptualizing – Cultural belief system – Individual difference variable low high Lambert et al. (1999) Belief in a just world But we find only weakly related to perceived risk—WHY? Buffering hypothesis! – Maybe just world beliefs “only matter” when world is viewed as “threatening” in the first place – Who sees world as threatening? High RWA Right-wing authoritarianism World perceived as a dangerous, scary place? NO YES Belief in a just world Personal buffer against threat? NO HIGH PERCEIVED RISK YES LOW PERCEIVED RISK