Making sense of people
What we think we know of ourselves
and others
 Constructive nature of human memory
Ratings of probability of ending: Historical event (war)
Fischhoff, B. (1975). Hindsight ≠ foresight: The effect of outcome knowledge on judgment
under uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and
Performance, 1, 288–299.
GROUP:
Probab. of
Ending 1
Probab. of
Ending 2
Probab. of
Ending 3
Probab. of
Ending 4
Ending not stated
33.8 21.3 32.3 13.4
Ending 1 57.2 14.3 15.3 10.5
Ending 2 30.3 38.4 20.4 10.5
Ending 3 25.7 17.0 48.0 9.9
Ending 4 33.0 15.8 24.3 27.0
Ratings of probability of ending: Historical event (riot)
Fischhoff, B. (1975). Hindsight ≠ foresight: The effect of outcome knowledge on judgment
under uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and
Performance, 1, 288–299.
GROUP:
Probab. of
Ending 1
Probab. of
Ending 2
Probab. of
Ending 3
Probab. of
Ending 4
Ending not stated
11.2 30.8 43.8 14.2
Ending 1 30.6 25.8 23.3 20.3
Ending 2 5.5 51.8 24.3 18.5
Ending 3 3.9 23.9 50.8 21.4
Ending 4 16.7 31.9 23.4 27.9
Ratings of probability of ending: Therapy outcome 1
Fischhoff, B. (1975). Hindsight ≠ foresight: The effect of outcome knowledge on judgment
under uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and
Performance, 1, 288–299.
GROUP:
Probab. of
Ending 1
Probab. of
Ending 2
Probab. of
Ending 3
Probab. of
Ending 4
Ending not stated
26.6 15.8 23.4 34.4
Ending 1 43.1 13.9 17.3 25.8
Ending 2 26.5 23.3 13.4 36.9
Ending 3 30.6 14.1 34.1 21.3
Ending 4 21.2 10.2 22.6 46.1
Ratings of probability of ending: Therapy outcome 2
Fischhoff, B. (1975). Hindsight ≠ foresight: The effect of outcome knowledge on judgment
under uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and
Performance, 1, 288–299.
GROUP:
Probab. of
Ending 1
Probab. of
Ending 2
Probab. of
Ending 3
Probab. of
Ending 4
Ending not stated
27.4 26.9 39.4 6.3
Ending 1 33.6 20.8 37.8 8.0
Ending 2 22.4 41.8 28.9 7.1
Ending 3 20.5 22.3 50.0 7.3
Ending 4 30.6 19.5 37.7 12.3
Fischhoff also found that:
 The bias persisted when participants were told to
ignore the actual ending or guess the estimate of
a person who did not know the actual ending
 HINDSIGHT BIAS = tendency to perceive the
already-known outcomes of an event as much
more predictable than they really were + feeling
that we have actually known it all along (or at
least “had a hunch”)
Dutton, D. G., & Aron, A. P. (1974). Some evidence for heightened sexual attraction
under conditions of high anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30(4),
510-517.
Dutton, D. G., & Aron, A. P. (1974). Some evidence for heightened sexual attraction
under conditions of high anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30(4),
510-517.
Asked to respond to pictures by an experimenter:
Filled the
questionnaire
Accepted the
number
Wobbly bridge ♀ 22/33 78.3%
Stable bridge ♀ 23/33 72.7%
Wobbly bridge ♂ 22/42 27.3%
Stable bridge ♂ 23/51 30.4%
Dutton, D. G., & Aron, A. P. (1974). Some evidence for heightened sexual attraction
under conditions of high anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30(4),
510-517.
Asked to respond to pictures by an experimenter:
Sexual / romantic
content in stories
Called the
experimenter
Wobbly bridge ♀ 49.4% 9/18 50.0%
Stable bridge ♀ 28.2% 2/16 12.5%
Wobbly bridge ♂ 12.2% 1/6 16.7%
Stable bridge ♂ 16.0% 2/7 28.6%
 Emotional experience has two components: physiological
changes (arousal) and cognitive interpretation of the
situation
 If a person experiences arousal, s/he will attribute this
arousal to the most “meaningful” interpretation available at
the moment = risk of misattribution of arousal
 Later research – also works with false feedback (i.e. being
provided false information about one’s actual physiological
state)
Schachter, S., & Singer, J. (1962). Cognitive, social, and physiological determinants of
emotional state. Psychological Review, 69(5), 379-399.
 Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959
Group A:
 Asked to do a tedious task
for more than 1 h
 Asked to do a „favour“ for
the experiementer:
 Persuade next participant
that the task was interesting
 Paid $ 20
Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced
compliance. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58(2), 203-210.
Group B:
 Asked to do a tedious task
for more than 1 h
 Asked to do a „favour“ for
the experiementer:
 Persuade next participant
that the task was interesting
 Paid $ 1
Ratings of task after payment:
Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced
compliance. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58(2), 203-210.
Enjoyable?
Again?
Control Group
$ 20
$ 1
 Aronson & Mills, 1959
 Aronson & Mills, 1959
Aronson, E., & Mills, J. (1959). The effect of severity of initiation on liking for a
group. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 59(2), 177-181.
Group A:
 Ready to join a discussion
group
 Initiation: Reading sexrelated
text
 Asked to rate conversation
of the group they joined
Group B:
 Ready to join a discussion
group
 Initiation: Reading
embarrassing
pornographic text
 Asked to rate conversation
of the group they joined
Ratings of recorded (boring) conversation:
Aronson, E., & Mills, J. (1959). The effect of severity of initiation on liking for a
group. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 59(2), 177-181.
Interesting discussion?
Control Group
Low
embarrassment
High
embarrassment
 When our actions are in conflict (dissonance) with our
beliefs, values, or primary motives we are inclined to
change either the belief or the behaviour
 Which of these changes depends on which one is
easier to change (e.g. we cannot change our past
actions  we tend to change our belief)
 Other behaviours are difficult to change: bad habits,
impulsive behaviour, conforming to group behaviour…
IS THIS YOU?
 You have a great need for other people to like and
admire you.
 You have a tendency to be critical of yourself.
 You have a great deal of unused capacity which
you have not turned to your advantage.
 While you have some personality weaknesses, you
are generally able to compensate for them.
 Your sexual adjustment has presented problems
for you.
 Disciplined and self-controlled outside, you tend to
be worrisome and insecure inside.
 At times you have serious doubts as to whether
you have made the right decision or done the
right thing.
 The Forer effect / Barnum effect / personal
validation fallacy = tendency to see highly
universal statements that are true of most people
as highly accurate and personalized descriptions
of one’s own personality
Forer, B. R. (1949). The fallacy of personal validation: A classroom demonstration of
gullibility. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 44(1), 118-123.
Rating of profile
accuracy
0 1 2 3 4 5
No. of subjects - - 1 4 18 16
HOW DOES IT WORK?
 Generality of interpretation – true of almost all
people but allow “projection” of many different
experiences that are unique
 Interpretation presented as personalized – people
fail to think about the generality of statements when
these are presented as personal descriptions of their
personality
 Favourability – statements suggesting positive
characteristics (care for others, sensitivity, “rich” and
strong personality…) are more likely to be seen as
accurate descriptions (generally accepted attributes of
a good person)
 “Revelations” – may point to issues that are common
to all people but are considered very private
Jones, E. E., & Harris, V. A. (1967). The attribution of attitudes. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 3(1), 1-24.
Ratings of to what extent the author of the essay was
himself a “pro-Castro”:
Pro-Castro essay Anti-Castro essay
Author could
choose viewpoint 59.62 17.38
Author could not
choose viewpoint 44.10 22.87
 We tend to overestimate the causal impact of stable
characteristics when evaluating other people’s
behaviour
 WHY?
 Is this always the case?
Later research and meta-analyses revealed a more
compelx pattern:
ME OTHER
Positive
behaviours Trait Situation
Negative
behaviours Situation Trait
Self-serving bias = tendency to interpret situations in
ways that protect or enhance one’s self-esteem
= a tendency of our first impression of a person to
“frame” our global impression of him/her in the future
Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). The halo effect: Evidence for unconscious
alteration of judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(4), 250-256.
Students asked to evaluate a new psychology instructor
with French accent
Physical
attractiveness
Mannerisms
likeable
Accent
likeable
Teacher presented
as likeable 70% 60% 50%
Teacher presented
as cold 30% 40% 30%
Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). The halo effect: Evidence for unconscious
alteration of judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(4), 250-256.
“Did the teacher’s behaviour influence your ratings?”
Physical
attractiveness
Mannerisms Accent
Teacher presented
as likeable No No No
Teacher presented
as cold No No No
Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). The halo effect: Evidence for unconscious
alteration of judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(4), 250-256.
“Did the teacher’s attractiveness/mannerisms/accent
influence your ratings of his behaviour?”
Physical
attractiveness
Mannerisms Accent
Teacher presented
as likeable Not too much
Maybe a little,
in a positive
way
Might have
Teacher presented
as cold
Yes,
negatively
Yes,
negatively
Yes,
negatively
= people usually associate with physical attractiveness but it
can also be the other way round!!! (first impression of behaviour
influences perceptions of physical attractiveness)
Ross, L., Greene, D., & House, P. (1977). The “false consensus effect”: An egocentric
bias in social perception and attribution processes. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 13(3), 279-301.
 Participants tended to overestimate the extent to
which other people share their opitions, decisions,
habits, preferences, hobbies, fears, chracteristics,
etc. (systematic differences in subjects choosing option
A vs. option B by ca. 10% on average)
 The estimate of how much others will share their
opinion was in most cases larger than the actual
distribution in the group
 Is this a problem? When?
Watch the “Class Divided” video in the interactive syllabus
 Quiz 6 should be available this night
 Please watch Class Divided before taking Quiz 6
 What should we do with those who skipped one of the
quizzes?
 Colloquium dates available in the IS – all requirements
must be met (quizzes + attendance)
 Let me know IMMEDIATELY if there are any problems (no
sessions available / cannot make it for serious reasons)
 Instructions on how to get to Building U will be available
 Colloquium questions will be available today or tomorrow in
the final module of the interactive syllabus (depending on
how long Quiz 6 will take me to finish…)
What we think we know of
ourselves and others