Difficulty: Introductory to Intermediate | Prerequisites: Chapters 1 and 3 notes (construal, schemas, fundamental attribution error).
Chapter 4 (Social Perception) and Chapter 5 (The Self) are where the course turns personal. Chapter 4 asks: how do we form impressions of other people, and why do we so often get it wrong? It covers nonverbal communication, attribution theories (internal vs. external), and the biases that distort our judgements, including the fundamental attribution error, the actor-observer difference and the just-world belief. Chapter 5 flips the lens inward: how do we come to know ourselves, and what keeps our self-image intact? It covers self-concept, self-esteem, self-enhancement strategies and the major theories of self-knowledge. These two chapters are closely linked: the biases we apply to others (Chapter 4) and the biases we apply to ourselves (Chapter 5) often stem from the same underlying motives.
We read other people through nonverbal cues and attribution processes, but we are systematically biased: we over-credit personality and under-credit situations (FAE), we explain our own successes and failures self-servingly, and we assume the world is just even when it is not. Turning inward, our self-concept is shaped by culture, introspection and social comparison, and we work hard to maintain a positive view of ourselves through strategies like self-handicapping, BIRGing and downward comparisons.
Social perception
The study of how we form impressions of and make inferences about other people.
Nonverbal communication
The way people communicate without words: facial expressions, tone of voice, gestures, body position, touch and gaze. These cues are largely universal, though culture can affect display rules.
Affect blend
A facial expression in which one part of the face registers one emotion while another part registers a different emotion. This is one reason we can misread faces.
Naive realism
The conviction that we perceive things "as they really are." In simple terms, the belief that our view is the objective truth.
Internal attribution (dispositional attribution)
The inference that a person is behaving a certain way because of something about them, such as their attitude, character or personality.
External attribution (situational attribution)
The inference that a person is behaving a certain way because of the situation they are in.
Covariation model (Kelley)
We make attributions based on three types of information: consensus (do others behave this way?), distinctiveness (does this person behave this way in other situations?) and consistency (does this person behave this way every time in this situation?).
Two-step attribution process
First, we make an internal attribution automatically. Then, if we have sufficient time, energy, motivation and cognitive resources, we adjust by considering situational factors. Cognitive busyness impairs the second step.
Self-serving attribution
Crediting internal factors for our successes and blaming external factors for our failures. Driven by the desire to maintain self-esteem and look good to others.
Actor-observer difference
We tend to attribute our own behaviour to situational factors (because we know our situation) and others' behaviour to dispositional factors (because we focus on the person).
Perceptual salience
The seeming importance of information that is the focus of our attention. We attribute causality to whatever is most prominent in our visual field.
Just-world belief (BJW)
The assumption that people get what they deserve and deserve what they get. It helps us feel safe but leads to victim-blaming.
Self-concept
The overall set of beliefs that people have about their personal attributes.
Independent view of the self
Defining oneself in terms of one's own internal thoughts, feelings and actions. More common in Western cultures.
Interdependent view of the self
Defining oneself in terms of one's relationships to others. More common in East Asian and other non-Western cultures.
Self-esteem
People's evaluation of their own self-worth, the extent to which they view themselves as good, competent and decent.
Self-enhancement
The desire to see oneself favourably. Manifests through self-serving cognitions, self-handicapping, BIRGing and downward comparisons.
Self-handicapping
Actions people take to make success difficult, building in excuses for failure. If you succeed despite the handicap, the success feels bigger; if you fail, the handicap takes the blame.
BIRGing (basking in reflected glory)
Associating yourself with successful teams or people to boost your self-image. The opposite is CORFing (cutting off reflected failure).
Self-perception theory
When our attitudes or feelings are uncertain or ambiguous, we infer them by observing our own behaviour and the situation in which it occurs.
Self-awareness theory
When people focus attention on themselves, they evaluate and compare their behaviour to their internal standards and values.
Two-factor theory of emotion
Emotional experience is the result of two steps: first, physiological arousal; then, seeking an appropriate explanation for that arousal.
Social comparison theory
We learn about our own abilities and attitudes by comparing ourselves to other people. Upward comparisons (with those doing better) set aspirations; downward comparisons (with those doing worse) boost optimism.
Overjustification effect
The tendency to view one's behaviour as caused by external reasons, making one underestimate intrinsic motivation. In simple terms, adding an external reward can undermine interest in an activity you previously enjoyed for its own sake.
People communicate without words through facial expressions, tone of voice, gestures, body position, touch and gaze. Six basic emotions are universally encoded and decoded with comparable accuracy: anger, happiness, surprise, fear, disgust and sadness.
We can misread faces because:
People display affect blends (mixed emotions on different parts of the face).
People may deliberately mask emotions.
Cultural display rules vary.
The belief that we perceive things "as they really are." This conviction makes it hard to accept that other people's interpretations are just as valid as our own.
Internal vs. external attributions
Internal (dispositional): the person's character, personality or attitude caused the behaviour.
External (situational): the circumstances caused the behaviour.
Kelley's covariation model says we use three cues:
Consensus: Do other people behave the same way in this situation?
Distinctiveness: Does this person behave this way in other situations?
Consistency: Does this person behave this way every time in this situation?
Internal attribution: low consensus, low distinctiveness, high consistency. External attribution: high consensus, high distinctiveness, high consistency.
Two-step attribution process
We automatically make an internal attribution.
If we have enough time, energy, motivation and cognitive resources, we then adjust by considering situational factors.
Cognitive busyness (being preoccupied) blocks the second step, leaving the internal attribution uncorrected.
Self-serving attributions
We credit our successes to internal factors and blame our failures on external factors. Three reasons:
Maintain self-esteem.
Present ourselves well to others.
We have more information about our own situational constraints than about other people's (actor-observer effect).
The FAE is the tendency to overestimate dispositional causes and underestimate situational causes for other people's behaviour. The actor-observer difference is the broader pattern: we attribute our own behaviour to situations and other people's behaviour to dispositions. The FAE is one manifestation of the actor-observer difference.
Perceptual salience drives much of this: when we watch someone else, the person is the focus of our attention, so we overweight their personality. When we think about ourselves, we are aware of the situation around us.
Our focus of attention is on the person, not the situation.
Situational causes are often invisible or difficult to interpret.
Even when we know the situation, we may not know how to weight it.
The assumption that people get what they deserve. It serves a protective function: it lets us believe tragic events could not happen to us. The downside is that it leads to victim-blaming, making internal attributions for someone's suffering rather than acknowledging situational or systemic causes.
Individualistic cultures (typically Western) emphasise personal responsibility and internal attributions.
Collectivistic cultures (typically East Asian) recognise a broader picture of situational and relational causes.
Jones & Harris (Castro study): Participants attributed pro-Castro attitudes to essay writers even when told the writers were assigned to argue that position, demonstrating the FAE.
Gilbert, Pelham & Krull (1988): Showed that cognitive busyness prevents adjustment in the two-step attribution process.
Attributions about poverty: Illustrates how the FAE and the just-world belief lead people to blame the poor for their circumstances.
Self-recognition develops around 18 to 24 months of age. By adolescence, the self-concept becomes far more complex, developing into a full set of beliefs about one's personal attributes.
The mirror test / dye test: Researchers placed a mirror in an animal's cage, then anaesthetised the animal and painted a red spot on its forehead. Great apes (chimpanzees, orangutans) touched the marked area upon seeing their reflection; lesser apes (gibbons) did not. This demonstrates self-recognition.
Independent view of the self (Western cultures): Defining oneself in terms of one's own internal thoughts, feelings and actions, separate from others.
Interdependent view of the self (East Asian and other non-Western cultures): Defining oneself through one's relationships to others, recognising that behaviour is often shaped by those around us.
Self-esteem is the evaluation of one's own self-worth. High self-esteem protects against negative self-thoughts and motivates perseverance. Self-schemas (beliefs about oneself in specific domains) feed into the broader self-concept.
People have a strong desire to see themselves favourably. This plays out through several strategies:
Self-serving cognitions: Believing we have more strengths than weaknesses; thinking we are above average.
Self-handicapping: Deliberately creating obstacles to success so that failure can be attributed to the obstacle rather than to lack of ability. Success despite the handicap feels amplified.
BIRGing (basking in reflected glory): Associating with successful teams or people. The American football study found that after a school win, more students wore school-branded clothing. The opposite is CORFing (cutting off reflected failure): distancing from failing groups.
Downward social comparisons: Comparing ourselves to people who are worse off to feel better about our own situation. Cancer patients, for instance, often compare themselves to those with worse prognoses.
Self-perception theory: When attitudes or feelings are unclear, we infer them by observing our own behaviour and the context in which it occurs.
Self-awareness theory: When attention is focused on ourselves (e.g. seeing our reflection), we evaluate our behaviour against our internal standards and values. This can be uncomfortable when behaviour falls short.
Two-factor theory of emotion: We first experience physiological arousal, then search for an explanation. The label we give the arousal becomes the emotion we feel.
Social comparison theory: We learn about ourselves by comparing ourselves to others.
Upward comparisons: Comparing to those doing better, which sets higher aspirations.
Downward comparisons: Comparing to those doing worse, which boosts optimism.
Introspection is the process of looking inward to examine our own thoughts and feelings. It is sometimes unreliable because the real reasons for our feelings and behaviour can be hidden from conscious awareness.
The overjustification effect occurs when an external reward undermines intrinsic motivation. If you were doing something for the enjoyment of it, adding a reward can make you reframe the behaviour as externally driven, reducing your interest once the reward is removed.
Mirror test / dye test: Self-recognition in great apes and human infants.
American football BIRGing study: Students wore more school clothing after a team win.
Cancer patient downward comparison study: Patients compared themselves to those with worse outcomes to maintain well-being.
Students often confuse the fundamental attribution error with the actor-observer difference. The FAE is specifically about overweighting disposition for other people's behaviour. The actor-observer difference is the broader asymmetry: we explain our own behaviour situationally and others' behaviour dispositionally.
Many students think self-serving attributions are just about ego. There is also an informational component: we know more about our own situational constraints than we know about other people's.
Students sometimes believe that self-handicapping always helps. It protects self-esteem in the short run but can become self-destructive if it leads to genuine underperformance.
A common error is thinking the two-factor theory of emotion says we experience the emotion first and the arousal second. The sequence is arousal first, then the cognitive label.
⚠️ Be able to distinguish the FAE from the actor-observer difference and provide examples of each.
⚠️ Know the covariation model: given consensus, distinctiveness and consistency information, determine whether an internal or external attribution is appropriate.
⚠️ Understand the two-step attribution process and what blocks the second step (cognitive busyness).
⚠️ Know self-serving attributions and the three reasons behind them.
⚠️ Be prepared to explain the just-world belief and how it leads to victim-blaming.
⚠️ Know cultural differences in attribution (individualistic vs. collectivistic).
⚠️ The Jones & Harris (Castro) study and the Gilbert, Pelham & Krull study are likely exam material.
⚠️ Know all four self-knowledge theories (self-perception, self-awareness, two-factor theory of emotion, social comparison) and when each applies.
⚠️ Be able to define and give examples of self-handicapping, BIRGing, CORFing and downward comparisons.
⚠️ Understand the overjustification effect and how extrinsic rewards can undermine intrinsic motivation.
True or false: The six basic emotions are universally expressed but culturally decoded in completely different ways. (False. Both encoding and decoding are largely universal, though cultural display rules can affect expression.)
Fill in the blank: When consensus and distinctiveness are low but consistency is high, we make a(n) __________ attribution. (Internal.)
True or false: The just-world belief helps explain victim-blaming. (True.)
Fill in the blank: __________ is when we associate ourselves with successful groups to boost our self-image. (BIRGing, basking in reflected glory.)
True or false: According to the two-factor theory of emotion, we first label an emotion and then experience physiological arousal. (False. Arousal comes first; the label follows.)
Q: In the Jones & Harris (Castro) study, participants read essays that were either pro- or anti-Castro. Some writers chose their position; others were assigned it. What did participants conclude, and what does this demonstrate?
A: Participants assumed the essay reflected the writer's true attitude even when told the position was assigned. This demonstrates the fundamental attribution error: people default to dispositional explanations and fail to adjust for clear situational constraints.
Q: Explain the two-step attribution process. What happens when someone is cognitively busy?
A: Step 1: We automatically make an internal attribution. Step 2: We adjust by considering situational factors. When cognitively busy (distracted, overloaded), we lack the resources for Step 2, so the initial internal attribution goes uncorrected.
Q: How does the actor-observer difference differ from the fundamental attribution error?
A: The FAE refers specifically to overestimating dispositional causes for other people's behaviour. The actor-observer difference is broader: we tend to see our own behaviour as situationally driven (we know our circumstances) and other people's behaviour as personality-driven (we focus on them). The FAE is one consequence of this asymmetry.
Q: A student deliberately goes out the night before an exam. If they fail, they blame the late night; if they pass, they feel especially competent. What self-enhancement strategy is this?
A: Self-handicapping. By creating an obstacle to success, the student has a built-in excuse for failure and an amplified sense of achievement for success.
Q: According to social comparison theory, when would you make an upward comparison and when would you make a downward comparison?
A: Upward comparisons (comparing to those doing better) happen when you want to set higher standards and aspirations. Downward comparisons (comparing to those doing worse) happen when you want to feel more optimistic or protect self-esteem.
Q: A child who loves drawing is given a gold star every time she draws. After the reward programme ends, she draws less than before it started. What concept explains this?
A: The overjustification effect. The external reward (gold star) caused the child to reframe her behaviour as externally motivated, undermining her original intrinsic interest in drawing.
The fundamental attribution error introduced in Chapter 1 receives its full treatment here in Chapter 4, alongside the actor-observer difference and self-serving attributions. Attribution biases connect directly to schemas and heuristics from Chapter 3: the two-step attribution process relies on the same automatic-then-controlled distinction. Chapter 5's self-enhancement strategies (BIRGing, self-handicapping, downward comparisons) are driven by the same need to feel good about ourselves that Chapter 1 identified as a core motive in social psychology. Social comparison theory in Chapter 5 also links to the judgmental heuristics of Chapter 3, because we use comparisons as mental shortcuts for evaluating our own abilities.
Social perception, nonverbal communication, affect blend, facial expressions, basic emotions, naive realism, internal attribution, external attribution, dispositional attribution, situational attribution, covariation model, Kelley, consensus, distinctiveness, consistency, two-step attribution, cognitive busyness, self-serving attribution, actor-observer difference, actor-observer effect, perceptual salience, fundamental attribution error, FAE, correspondence bias, just-world belief, just-world hypothesis, victim-blaming, individualism, collectivism, cultural attribution, Jones and Harris, Castro study, Gilbert Pelham Krull, self-concept, independent self, interdependent self, mirror test, dye test, self-recognition, self-esteem, self-enhancement, self-serving cognitions, self-handicapping, BIRGing, CORFing, basking in reflected glory, cutting off reflected failure, downward comparison, upward comparison, social comparison theory, self-perception theory, self-awareness theory, two-factor theory of emotion, Schachter and Singer, overjustification effect, intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, PSY 101, NYU social psych, Chapters 4 5 exam review