Do you think that Sarah Jessica Parker is attractive? ____ (yes vs. no)

1. Do you feel that fundamental Christian movement is a positive force in the United States? ____ (yes vs. no) • Others in this room that agree with you ____ (expressed in %) Do you think there was conspiracy (i.e. an organized efforts to illegally taint the vote-counting) during the presidential election of 2004, to ensure that Bush was re-elected? ___ (yes vs. no) Others in this room that agree with you ____ (expressed in %) • Do you think that Sarah Jessica Parker is attractive? ____ (yes vs. no) • Others in this room that agree with you ____ (expressed in %) • Do you think that Johnny Depp is attractive? ____ (yes vs. no) • Others in this room that agree with you ____ (expressed in %)

2. Actual distribution of attitudes “no, there wasn’t” 70% no “yes, there was” Conspiracy during 2004 election? 30% yes Perceived distribution of attitudes 66% no 53% yes 47% no 34% yes Extremely large FCE = +22 Fairly accurate

3. Actual distribution of attitudes “Yeah—hot!” “No” 57% yes 43% no Sara Jessica Parker attractive? Perceived distribution of attitudes 64% yes 53% yes 47% no 36% no Fairly accurate (Small) FCE = +7

4. Actual distribution of attitudes “Yeah—hot!” “No” 61% yes Johnny Depp attractive? 39% no Perceived distribution of attitudes 66% yes 50% yes 50% no 34% no Moderate FCE +11 Fairly accurate

5. no 77% no Actual distribution of attitudes yes Fundamental Christian movement a positive force in U.S.? 23% yes Perceived distribution of attitudes 58% anti 52% no 48% yes 42% yes One interpretation: No real FCE here. Rather, all students (regardless of views) perceive WU students as more pro-Fundamental Christian than they really are

6. Famous errors… continued • The “fundamental attribution error” (e.g. Jones & Harris, 1967) • What it is • Tendency to overestimate influence of dispositional factors when judging others • Why you get it • Selective exposure (again) • Perceptual salience • Different processes underlying attributions • dispositional  automatic • Situational  controlled

7. 60% Jones and Harris (1967) choice No choice Estimate of essay writer’s attitude pro-Castro anti-Castro Anchoring and adjustment heuristic—insufficient adjustment! Insensitivity to the power of the situation

8. Stages of social perception Observe specific behavior Identification (encoding) Inferences about other traits Inferences about the causes of behavior (attribution) Automatic dispositional attribution Controlled situational “correction”—but only if perceiver has ability and motivation

9. Gilbert, Pelham, & Krull (1988)all participants run in “no choice” condition. Pro abortion “Pro-Abortion” “Anti abortion” Anti- abortion “unbusy” participants “busy” participants

10. Self-serving attributions • Usual pattern for self— • Positive events—internal • Negative events—external • Reversed for depressed individuals • Sports—winners vs. losers • Rams vs. Patriots—2002 Superbowl

11. Unrealistic optimism (Weinstein, 1980) • Basic effect • Criticisms of this paradigm • Referent group unclear? • Bottom line—effect holds up, even controlling for possible problems

12. Belief in a just world (Lerner, 1980) • Good things happen to good people, bad things happen to bad people • Two ways of conceptualizing • Cultural belief system • Individual difference variable low high

13. Lambert et al. (1999) • Belief in a just world • But we find only weakly related to perceived risk—WHY? • Buffering hypothesis! • Maybe just world beliefs “only matter” when world is viewed as “threatening” in the first place • Who sees world as threatening? • High RWA

14. Right-wing authoritarianism Belief in a just world World perceived as a dangerous, scary place? Personal buffer against threat? YES NO HIGH PERCEIVED RISK YES NO LOW PERCEIVED RISK