Student Name Directions Read Each Scenario And Answer The Qu
Student Namedirectionsread Each Scenario And Answer The Questions Be
Student Namedirectionsread Each Scenario And Answer The Questions Be
Student Name: Directions: Read each scenario and answer the questions below in the boxes provided (they will expand to fit your answer). All information needed to answer these questions can be found in this week’s readings, along with the scenario details themselves. Try to be thorough in your answers, providing explanations and supporting evidence as necessary. Your answers should be more than one simple sentence. Aim for a few sentences or a short paragraph for maximum credit.
Paper For Above instruction
Scenario A: Classroom Behavior and Perceptions
In a classroom setting, schemas help students and teachers form expectations about typical behaviors and social norms. For students, this includes attending lectures, paying attention, and participating appropriately; for teachers, expecting students to listen, engage, and demonstrate respect. These schemas influence how individuals interpret behaviors—what is considered normal or disruptive—allowing predictability and order within the educational environment.
Mary, who struggles with insomnia, likely perceives Tim’s sleeping as a sign of laziness or disrespect, influenced by her own experiences with fatigue and struggle. Conversely, her teacher, recently discussing a student’s laziness, may be primed to interpret Tim’s behavior negatively due to existing stereotypes or expectations about students’ motivation, regardless of individual circumstances. This illustrates how personal experiences and cognitive priming shape perceptions.
The self-fulfilling prophecy suggests that if the teacher perceives Tim as lazy, she may treat him more dismissively or less leniently, leading Tim to internalize this treatment and possibly behave more apathetically. Ultimately, Tim’s academic performance might decline, fulfilling the teacher’s initial expectation—highlighting the powerful influence of biases on behavior and outcomes.
Regarding base rate information, if the teacher believes that laziness is common among high school students (high base rate), she might interpret Tim’s sleeping as typical and less problematic. Conversely, if she believes laziness is rare (low base rate), she may see Tim’s behavior as a significant deviation, thus reinforcing her negative perception and potentially unfair treatment.
Scenario B: Analyzing Bruno’s Behavior
Using the covariation model, consensus information assesses whether others behave similarly in the same situation. High consensus occurs if most neighbors report that Bruno bites or snaps at them, indicating that Bruno’s aggressive behavior is common among those who encounter him, possibly due to his nature or environment. Low consensus suggests that only Seth has been bitten, implying that Bruno’s behavior is not widely shared.
Distinctiveness refers to whether Bruno exhibits aggressive behaviors specifically towards Seth or in various contexts. If Bruno only bites Seth and not others, then his behavior is high in distinctiveness—indicating that his aggression is situation-specific. If Bruno exhibits hostile behavior consistently in many situations, then his behavior is low in distinctiveness, which suggests a more general aggressive trait.
Consistency evaluation considers whether Bruno’s biting is a repeated pattern over time. If Seth has been bitten repeatedly by Bruno and other neighbors have similar experiences, then Bruno’s behavior has high consistency. If this incident is isolated, then the behavior is low in consistency, perhaps due to a temporary trigger.
Based on these factors, an external attribution (such as Bruno’s environment or provocation) is likely if consensus is high, and distinctiveness and consistency are also high, indicating situational causes. Conversely, if behaviors are low in consensus, high in distinctiveness, and low in consistency, an internal attribution (slike a trait or temperament of Bruno) would be appropriate.
Scenario C: Attribution and Cultural Perspectives on Workplace Success
The Fundamental Attribution Error would lead one to attribute Lydia’s failure to earn the promotion to her personal characteristics—such as lack of ambition, competence, or effort—overlooking external factors like organizational bias or limited opportunities. This perspective simplifies the situation by assigning internal flaws to Lydia.
Using the Two-Step Process of Attribution, one might initially blame Lydia’s qualities, then consider external factors that could have influenced her performance or the decision—such as organizational politics, favoritism, or even potential biases. This process involves consciously adjusting initial internal attributions in light of contextual information, which may lead to a more balanced understanding of why Lydia was passed over.
The likelihood of completing the second step depends on factors such as cognitive capacity, motivation to be accurate, and awareness of situational influences. If someone is motivated to understand the broader context or if they encounter additional information suggesting external factors, they are more likely to adjust their initial attribution.
Individuals from individualistic cultures tend to emphasize personal traits and responsibility when interpreting such events, blaming Lydia’s perceived inadequacies. In contrast, collectivistic cultures are more prone to consider external circumstances and group dynamics, possibly viewing the decision as a result of organizational or social factors rather than personal failings.
Scenario D: Self-Serving Attributions and Just-World Beliefs in Bowling
According to the Self-Serving Attribution theory, Terry would attribute her wins to her skill and effort, maintaining a positive self-view. If she loses, she might attribute the loss to external factors such as bad luck, the unfairness of her opponents, or poor conditions, protecting her self-esteem.
Based on the Belief in a Just World theory, Terry might believe that Phil’s dropping his ball on his toe is a punishment or consequence for his previous taunting. She could interpret this as karma or a form of cosmic justice, aligning with her belief that the world is morally fair and that good things happen to good people while bad things happen to bad people.
People make self-serving attributions for three main reasons: to protect self-esteem, to maintain a positive self-image, and to preserve a sense of control over outcomes. In Terry’s case, attributing her success to her own skill bolsters her confidence, while blaming external factors for her failure shields her from feelings of incompetence. Conversely, her interpretation of Phil’s injury as karmic retribution aligns with her desire to see the world as fair and just, thus reinforcing her worldview.
References
- Heider, F. (1958). The Psychology of Interpersonal Relationships. Wiley.
- Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. (1965). From acts to dispositions: The attribution process. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 219-266). Academic Press.
- Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 173–220). Academic Press.
- Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social Cognition (2nd Ed.). McGraw-Hill.
- Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (Vol. 15, pp. 192-238). University of Nebraska Press.
- Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84(3), 231–259.
- Miller, D. T., & Ross, M. (1975). Self-serving biases in attribution of causality: Fact or fiction? Psychological Bulletin, 82(2), 213–225.
- Kreckel, L. E. (1980). Person and situation factors in causal attribution. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16(5), 434–445.
- Heider, F. (1958). The Psychology of Interpersonal Relationships. Wiley.
- Osswald, S., Birkner, B., & Liebowitz, C. (2017). Cultural influences on attribution: A comparative analysis. International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management, 17(1), 45-64.