IB Psychology I (3A)
Kelja Stevenson & Dru Davis
Investigate whether knowledge of allocated social roles in a quiz show would affect participants' judgements of people's expertise.
36 students from an introductory class at Stanford Infer the age range was years old
18 pairs of students, 1 assigned questioner, 1 assigned contestant randomly. 24 observers watched the quiz Questioners composed 10 questions based on knowledge & contestants asked to answer them.
Contestants were given 30 seconds to answer If not answered correctly, the questioner provided the correct answer. After completed, all participants were asked to rate the "general knowledge" of contestants & participants
Majority of contestants rated the general knowledge of the questioners as "superior" Observers did the same Gave the opportunity for attributions like biased because the questioners made their OWN questions, which was know by everyone
The contestants & observers attributed the questioners' abiltity to answer the questions to dispositional factors Failed the realize that the questioners' had the advantage because they came up with the questions.
Brianna Hennessey and Sierra Weight
To see how Self Serving Bias (SSB) is applicable in real life situations like football in how coaches, players, and the media credited their wins
American football players, coaches, and reporters who were unaware of being studied (covert study)
They asked football coaches and players about their wins and losses during the latest season. After they got the results from the coaches and players they asked the same question to sports writers who had the opposite responses.
1. The players and coaches credited their wins to internal/ dispositional factors like hard work and natural talent.They credited their losses to external/ situational factors like weather and injuries. 2. Sports writers credited the wins to situational factors and losses to dispositional factors.
By: Austin Bennett
-Student participants make the fundamental attribution error even when they knew actors were playing a role -Roles were: Host, contestant, audience A. Randomly assigned B. Both genders considered C. Ethical measures were considered
-Sample (aka student participants) A. Professors seen as the "authority" B. Not very representative of a chunk of the overall population
-role was not attributed to the person's (role player) to dispositional factors- intelligence -the game show host as the smartest -We rate those of "authority" as smarter no matter what because they are above us
-Authority figures (i.e. Teachers, doctors, big brothers, etc.) misunderstood to be knowledgeable in areas even when they do not understand them -Actors on TV judged not by who they are but roles they play
-People with social power control as well as initiate conversations A. Makes then seem knowledgeable B. Their ideas are not challenged C. Influence is taken into an account more so than anyone else's -Those involved underestimated situational factors; however, they also overestimated dispositional intelligence (the show host's intelligence)
/ /
By: Anthony Recinos
S elf S erving B ias ● Rainy game loss F undamental A ttribution E rror ● Car swerved randomly
Strengths ● Feel good about themselves ● Don't hold themselves accountable ● Helps explain why people from individulistic societies explain their failures on situations Limitations ● Have to be able to blame something wrong on someone/something else ● Culturally biased; doesn’t explain why some cultures use modesty bias (self-effacing attribution)
Strengths ● Quickly come up with an explanation ● Can do this for multiple scenarios ● Promotes understanding of common erros in explanation of what happens in the world ● Theory is supported by many research studies Limitations ● Usually assumptions (don't know the person) ● Dependent on what you see ● Culturally biased with too much focus on individualism ● Research has been conducted in labortories/controlled settings with student samples (hard to generalize findings)