Notes (Week1)

Notes (Week1) - Notes for Week 1 Yzerbyt Corneille Dumont...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Notes for Week 1 I) Correspondence bias – over-application of dispositional attributions in determining the causation of other’s behaviors a. Both the “forced” and “free” writer were seen as supporting their written arguments for Castro’s politics b. Anchoring-adjustment (situational correction) causes some people to suppress their initial tendency to attribute their behavior to dispositional factors and look for situational factors that may have caused it i. Suppression effect – trying to suppress thoughts works in the short term, but the active searching and suppression of those thoughts by the unconscious level makes them more accessible after the person stops trying to suppress them 1. Controlled processes actively try to replace unwanted thoughts with appropriate distracters (mentally taxing) 2. Automatic processes scan for unwanted thoughts and alerts controlled processes to their presence (increases accessibility) ii. This suppression effect is also strengthened with the use distracters, because they consequently become cues for the unwanted thoughts (better to have as few distracters as possible) II) Current model: a. People most often jump to dispositional attributions (especially when there is negative evaluation of the behavior), but this is sometimes initially suppressed so that situational factors can be found i. This initial suppression makes dispositional attributions subsequently more likely when judging another instance of the same behavior III) Studies: a. Participants were first exposed to the verbal positions of either a “forced” or “free” speaker. Participants were then exposed to a second speaker that was not said to be forced. They had to estimate the true attitudes of the two speakers. i. Participants made appropriately low dispositional attributions with the “forced” speaker, but subsequently made much more dispositional attributions with the second speaker b. In order to rule out the possibility of a mere contrast effect, all participants were initially exposed to a “forced” speaker before being exposed to the second speaker. Participants were then asked about their thinking processes when viewing the first speaker i. Those participants who said they had “more concern for unwanted thoughts” when viewing the first speaker subsequently made more dispositional attributions with the second speaker ii. Interestingly, suppression strategies when viewing the first speaker did not affect the perceived freedom of the second speaker c. For further evidence of this effect, participants were again exposed to a “forced” speaker and a second speaker, but half were told to use suppression strategies and the other were told to
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 4

Notes (Week1) - Notes for Week 1 Yzerbyt Corneille Dumont...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online