3: Attributions Continued.

Front 1

What are normative models and heuristics:

Back 1

1. Optimal strategies that get objectively correct answers.

2. cognitive shortcuts that get predictable errors.

Front 2

What was Daniel Kahneman's 4 families of heuristics:

Back 2

1. Representativeness

2. Availability

3. Anchoring & adjustment

4. Mental simulation

Front 3

What kind of judgments come from Representativeness:

Back 3

Judgments based on similarity. How similar they are to your schema of certain category.

Front 4

What does Gillovich's hot hand theory show:

Back 4

Representativeness in attribution, with "heating up" and sinking 3's, but instead its just chance.

Front 5

What is availability:

Back 5

Judgements/shortcuts based on ease of retrieval, like black person = criminal. or Mexican = bad hombre

You internally sample from the people you know, e.g. how many Chinese bad drivers are there, personally experience many so think there is many. This is good if your sample is representative of the category.

Front 6

What is salience, priming and accessibility and how does it affect risk assessment and are they more likely to be judged as causal or attributed:

Back 6

Salience = seeing visually

Priming = Priming thought with small info

Accessibility = Ease.

Makes risk assessment hard and are more likely to be judged as causal.

Front 7

What did Taylor and Fiske 1975 experiment show with who was the most dominant speaker and people watching from different angles:

Back 7

Who ever the person could see clearest generally though of them as the more dominant speaker. Equal view causes equal dominant assessment.

Front 8

What is the fundamental attribution error and how did Jones and Harris show it with their Castro experiment of 1967:

Back 8

The tendency to overattribute behaviour to internal factors.

With test where participants were either told that the author had a choice or not on test, they didn't change their attribution much from internal thinking the authors liked him not because of external causes.

Front 9

What is the actor-observer effect:

Back 9

Tendency to make fundamental attribution error more with others than with ourselves.

Front 10

Explain the two-stage model of attribution with anchoring and adjustment:

Back 10

Anchoring is when unknown information is anchored/internally attributed to to some information that we have about it. E.g. if teacher says do you think my salary is more than 20k, internally attribute his salary to be low but more than that. Or if he says is my salary more than 250k anchoring drags our estimation up.

Effortful adjustment is exercised for situational factors if time and cognitive load permit.

Front 11

What was the conclusion drawn from Gilbert, Pelham et al's abortion essay study:

Back 11

The participants that were under a greater cognitive load were more likely to make the fundamental attribution error and think that even though the author was instructed to write that way, they still believed they were anti-abortion.

Front 12

What are counter factuals:

Back 12

The imagining of a scenario that is often incorrect when given brief information. Like man dies from shark, think shark ate him but he bit his leg and he bled out.

Front 13

What is mental simulation in the context of counter factuals:

Back 13

Judgements based on ease of imagining it.

Front 14

Describe errors with actions versus inactions and typical versus unusual events, as these are both counterfactual's in attribution:

Back 14

Actions vs inactions: you're more likely to assume a situation happened because of somebody actions instead of their inaction's.

Typical vs unusual events: Expect typical's more than unusual's.