Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Social: L2 - Dual Process Theories of Impression Formation (We are often…

- - - - Weiner (1986) focused on attributions about succeeding or failing on a task. 3 dimensions of causality:
      - Locus refers to whether the cause of success or failure is internal (the individual) or external (the situation)
      - Stability refers to whether the cause is stable or unstable
      - Controllability refers to whether future performance is under the actor’s control or not.
      - E.g. imagine that John is taking an exam & gets a high mark. A range of attributions are open to you based on Weiner’s work.
        1) Attribution of the high scores to John’s ability (he really is intelligent) is to an internal, stable, and uncontrollable cause.
        2) Attribution to John having worked really hard and put in lots of effort is to an internal, stable, controllable cause.
        3) Attribution of the high score to it being an easy exam is an external, stable, and uncontrollable cause.
    - - Key heuristics (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974) suggest not:
      - Representative heuristic - how similar a particular target is to a typical member of that category e.g. footballer – make inferences on how footballers will behave
      - Availability heuristic - associations coming readily to mind considered more common and prevalent than really are (e.g., some groups and terrorism that you’ve seen recently on news) - springs to mind quickly
      - Anchoring and adjustment refers to the fact that impressions are tied to prior perceptions that form a starting point for future social inferences.
  - - - Fundamental attribution error - tendency for people to attribute behaviour to stable personality dispositions (an internal attribution)
        
        Jones and Harris (1967) bias toward making internal attributions on other peoples behaviour. E.g. see someone drop their phone and you think they are clumsy
      - Actor-observer effect - internal attributions (e.g., personality) about others’ behaviour and external causes for our own (e.g., the situation).
- - - - Sometimes we cannot categorise - when heuristic processing is difficult (e.g., when person does not fit categories easily)
      - Individuation - differentiating between group members based on their individual attributes (traits or features). BUT …more effortful than categorisation – very cognitively demanding.
      - Closer to attribution theories.
      - Impressions vary in terms of categorical or individuating information – depending on how well people fit a category
      - Impression formed on a continuum from categorisation to individuation (Fiske & Neuberg, 1990)
- - - - Hutter and Crisp (2006)
        List traits to describe an Oxford educated bricklayer under low or high cognitive load
        
        Emergent traits: those mentioned for combinations, but not constituents
        
        Constituent traits: those mentioned for the constituent categories and combinations
        
        Concurrent RNG should disrupt inconsistency resolution reliant on executive resources, depleting emergent generation
        
        Results: Perceiving incongruent social conjunctions requires executive resources e.g. meeting people whose categorical memberships conflict causes us to think more deeply about how this occurred (Naive scientists)
    - - Hutter, Wood, and Dodd (2011)
        Describe ‘male midwife’ Older [reduced executive] Vs. younger adults. Older more readily categorise.
        Incorporating an incongruent target would involve changing their current categorical structures. Older = less likely as they prefer to maintain categorical boundaries
        Two measures of executive ability:
        Digit Symbol Substitution Test: Attention
        Stroop test: Inhibition
        The older adults used emergent attributes to re-categorise or subtype as distinct from other males...These items were less likely for the younger group
        Older adults employed executive resources to do this, because the target would not fit their existing categorical structures
        Their categorical structures are less flexible
    - - fMRI: Magnetic field and blood flow associated with activation [hemodynamic response] Most useful - but expensive.
      - Mason and MaCrae (2004) showed that individuation relies on temporal and prefrontal cortices, mainly in right hemisphere
      - Cloutier, Turk, and MaCrae (2008) found that judging targets sex was associated with the left fusiform gyrus [part of the temporal cortex]
      - Quadflieg et al. (2011) had all participants view pictures of congruent and incongruent social category conjunctions. For example, male airline pilot vs. female airline pilot. Those undertaking the social task responded more slowly to (categorizing) the incongruent conjunctions
      - Quadflied et al. found processing incongruent led to:
        
        Fusiform face area (FFA)...active for human faces
        
        Extrastriate body area (EBA)...active for human bodies
        
        Fusiform body area (FBA)... also active for human bodies
        
        Dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC)...executive control