How can we help?
You can also find more resources in our
Select a category
Something is confusing
Something is broken
I have a suggestion
What is your email?
What is 1 + 3?
Exam 1: Social Perception
nonverbal behavior cues
eye contact, personal space & touching, body language, emotion
wrong cues = words, face
non-controllable = body, voice
anxiety and dishonesty have similar physical symptoms
the order of words determines opinions
first information colors everything else
people maintain beliefs even when they are discredited
we like consistency and being right, evidence is ambiguous
people grab onto whatever evidence supports their pre-existing beliefs (hannah)
tendency to seek (extro/introvert questions), interpret (hannah), and create (late bloomers) info that verifies existing beliefs
1 - expectation, 2 - behave accordingly, 3 - she behaves as expected
snyder et al
dyadic interaction, based on female attractiveness
DVs = how do men/women behave?
IVs = what do men expect about partner?
attribution to actor's internal characteristics
effort to figure out the cause of behavior
attribution to external factors
correspondent inferences theory
can we make a dispositional attribution?
factor 1: choice = more informative
ex. castro essay
factor 2: expectedness = less informative
ex. i hate your class
factor 3: noncommon effects = informative
ex. donald trump/tom cruise
consensus, distinctiveness, consistency
do other people behave the same way towards the target stimulus?
high = people behave the same
keep stimulus same, change actors
does target individual behave the same way towards other stimuli?
high = not with other stimulus
keep target, change stimulus
does target individual always behave this way towards target stimulus?
high = yes
fundamental attribution error
tendency to make personal, dispositional attributions when perceiving others
underestimating power of situation
quiz show study
FAE in judging others' behaviors, often draw in situation explaining our own acts
thin slice judgments
6 seconds of professor = semester
information-processing rules of thumb that enable us to think in ways that are quick and easy but that frequently lead to error
a tendency to estimate the odds that an even will occur by how easily instances pop to mind
people overestimating the extent to which others share their opinions
people are insensitive to numerical base rates, more influenced by graphic, dramatic events
ex. olympic silver vs. bronze
imagining alternative outcomes that might have occurred but did not
olympic medalists, fish background
bicultural identity = what's brought to mind
belief in a just world
tendency to be critical of victims
everyone gets what they deserve, to believe otherwise is to concede that we are vulnerable to twists of fate
summation model = more positive traits = better
averaging model = high average value of all traits = better
recently used concepts come to mind easily and influence how we interpret information
participants primed with rudeness words are more likely to interrupt experimenter