Causal Attribution and Social Judgment

1. Causal Attribution and Social Judgment

2. Back to construal • Misunderstandings across genders—the case of unwanted sexual advances

3. Back to construal • Misunderstandings across cultures—the Hainan island incident-- collision of Chinese and US jets in 2001 • Apology diplomacy • Different cultural perceptions

4. Outline • Causal Attribution—how we make sense of other peoples’ behaviour • Self-knowledge—how we make sense of who we are and our own behaviour • Social Judgment—strategies, errors and biases in social decision making

5. Optimistic attributional style predicts future physical health Even controlling for earlier health

6. Why Attribution Matters Attribution – Explanatory style -

7. Why Attribution Matters Optmistic attributional style Pessimistic attributional style

8. Optimistic attributional style predicts • Academic achievement • Physical health • Longevity • Relationship satisfaction • Likelihood of being elected to office

9. Attributional Biases • Fundamental attribution error:overestimating internal factors and underestimating external factors when explaining other people’s behaviour • “Castro Study”

10. Jones and Harris (1967) ‘Castro study’

11. Attributional Biases • Fundamental attribution error: • Anxious public speaker • Friendly saleswoman • Talkative talk show host • Deranged suicide terrorist

12. Research shows Suicide Bombers are not… • Mentally ill • Suicidal • Poor • Suffering from personality disorders • But they are: unmarried young adult men • Better explanation: group dynamics (recruitment) and popular support for suicide attacks

13. Study 1: Palestinian Representative Sample, 1999 (N=1151) Ginges, Hansen, Norenzayan, 2009 Support for “martyrdom attacks” Regular attenders 1.8 times more likely to support Wald = 6.42 , 95% CI for OR = 1.16--3.02, P=0.01 No independent effect of prayer frequency Control variables: prayer frequency, gender, economic satisfaction, education, refugee status, support for Islamic state

14. Study 2: Palestinian University Student Sample 2006 (N=719) Agreement that “Islam encourages or requires martyrdom attacks” Regular attenders 3.1 times more likely to support Wald = 8.473, 95% CI for OR= 1.45--6.47, P=0.004 No independent effect of prayer frequency Controls: prayer frequency, gender, economic satisfaction, education, refugee status and identification with Islamist Palestinian organizations

15. The tombstone of Baruch Goldstein which describes him as “murdered as a martyr of God”. On the 25th of February, 1994 Goldstein died while killing 29 Muslims at prayer, and injuring 60 others, in the “Cave of the Patriarchs”, a site holy to both Muslims and Jews located in Hebron, the West Bank

16. P=.04 P=.09

17. 10-Nation BBC Survey of Religious Beliefs • Mexico (Catholic) • Great Britain (Protestant) • Russia (Orthodox) • India (Hindu) • Indonesia (Muslim) • Israel (Jewish) 4704participants 52.7% female age 18 to over 55 Variation in SES & income Major religious groups Joint agreement with: 1) “ I am willing to die for my God (beliefs)” 2) “I blame other religions for the problems of the world”

18. Controls: age, sex, SES, education, human dev index Odds of supporting combative martyrdom

19. Attributional Biases • Fundamental attribution error:explanations • Perceptual: • Cognitive: • Motivational: • Cultural:

20. Cultural differences in causal attributions Sports articles: US newspapers, more dispositional attributions Hong Kong newspapers, more situational attributions Cultural differences disappeared for editorials Lee, Hallahan, & Herzog, 1996

21. The dilemma of the innocent victim • JWB allows individuals to maintain a sense of purpose and control—bad things couldn’t happen to me • Injustice in the world is a perceived threat • Outcomes reflect personal traits – more FAE • One pernicious consequence: blaming victims

22. Just World Beliefs(Lerner & Miller, 1978) Just-world beliefs- • “By and large, people deserve what they get in life” • “Basically, the world is a just place” • “People who do their job will rise to the top” • “People who meet with misfortune have often brought it on themselves”

23. Just World Beliefs Blaming the victim—experiments by Lerner & colleagues • Participants watch another person suffer (victim) • Restore Justice Condition: Participant (or someone else) can help the victim • JWB Condition: participant (or someone else) cannot help the victim • Outcome: • Results:

24. Just World Beliefs Victim derogation is less likely Who believes in a just world?

25. Just World Beliefs: Summary & Clarifications • When one believes in just world • AND the victim cannot be helped = MORE victim blaming • Not about self helping victim (empathy) • Not about perceived competence of the victim (VB even when victim is “randomly assigned” to be a victim)

26. Attributional Biases • Actor-observer effect: • Example: perceptions in conflict • Explanations: • 1) • 2)

27. Attributional Biases • Self-serving bias:

28. Self-Knowledge • How and how much do we know ourselves? • Barriers to self-knowledge • Conscious vs. unconscious self-knowledge • Strategies for self-knowledge

29. Escape from the Self • Our defenses stop us from knowing ourselves, esp. undesirable aspects • We escape self-awareness through • Defensive strategies (suppression, denial) • Addictions: alcohol and drug abuse, sex, eating, TV, suicide, etc. • Work, hobbies, other people

30. Self-Knowledge • We may have limited ability to know ourselves • Ways into self-knowledge • Introspection • Observing our own behaviour • Learning about how others see us

31. Introspection • Look inward to observe • 1) Feelings, thoughts, desires • 2) Reasons behind our actions • More successful with 1) then 2) • The causes behind our tendencies are not readily visible—psychological research better way to know this

32. Introspection--do we know the causes of our behavior? • Confabulation: studies with split-brain patients (Gazzaniga & Ledoux) • Pantyhose study (Nisbett & Wilson)

33. Language centres in Left Hemisphere

34. Introspection--do we know the causes of our behavior? • Confabulation: studies with split-brain patients (Gazzaniga & Ledoux) • Pantyhose study (Nisbett & Wilson) • Cognitive dissonance studies, studies of discrimination—peoples explanations of their own behaviour have little to do with observed causes

35. Observing our own behaviour • Self perception theory:

36. How Others See Us • Our defenses prevents us from wanting to know ourselves • But others who know us well can see through these defenses • They can also be good observers of our behaviour • Ex: my colleague’s hostility in the late afternoon

37. Strategies that facilitate self-knowledge • Self-acceptance (less defensiveness) • Connecting with our feelings and observing our thoughts without identifying with them • Find out how knowledgeable others see us • Visualizing our reactions to future situations • Psychological research (esp. for reasons behind our actions)

38. “Thin slicing”: How first impressions matter • The statue that didn’t look right (see Gladwell, Blink) • First impression in dates, job interviews, consumer choices, …

39. “Thin slicing”: How first impressions matter • Judging personality traits (Willis & Todorov, 2006)

40. “Thin slicing”: How first impressions matter • Teacher evaluations (Ambady & Rosenthal, 1993) • 10, 5, 2 sec. long videotape of prof’s teaching • …predicted student evaluations at the end of term

41. “Thin slicing”: How first impressions matter • Do people agree on first impressions? • Yes • The 1 million $ chicken-egg question: • 1) Is the (often biased) first impression coloring longer term judgment? Or • 2) accurately perceiving what’s there takes only seconds?

42. d Prop. of correctly predicted soccer games as a function of expertise and thought, Exp 1 (Dijksterhuis et al 2009) Immed: 20s Consc: 2m Unconsc: 2m distr.

43. Heuristics in Social Judgment • Heuristic:

44. Heuristics in Social Judgment • Representativeness heuristic-

45. Heuristics in Social Cognition • Availability Heuristic:

46. The statistics • By number of deaths: • Deaths due to car transportation: 40,000/year • Deaths due to airline transportation: 200/year • By number of passengers • Car: 1/6800 deaths per year • Airline: 1/1.6 million per year • Controlling for distance covered • 10-40 times more likely to die driving than flying

47. The statistics • But media coverage is incredibly skewed: • 0.02 cancer stories/1000 cancer deaths • 1.7 murder stories/1000 homicides • 2.3 AIDS stories/1000 AIDS deaths • 138 plane crash stories/1000 airplane deaths

48. Social Cognition: Conclusions • Naïve realism: belief that one’s own perspective reflects objective reality, whereas others are biased • People are not objective observers of the social world; they construe their world in particular ways–heuristics and self-protective defenses to make sense of the social world • These ways of construal have consequences (health, decisions, conflict,…)