Discuss the errors in attribution
Attribution= how people interpret and explain casual relationships in the world

Attribution theory= ways in which people explain the behavior of others, or themselves with something else. Faulty assumptions, individuals attribute events.
Situational= causality on external factor.
Dispositional= causality on internal factor.
Fundamental Attribution theory
Tendency to over value dispositional factors, undermining situational explanations. Promotes understanding of common errors in explanation. Culturally biased and low in ecological validity.
Jones and Harris (1967)
Aim: investigate whether people would attribute behvaiors which people had a choice in disposition.
Procedure: sample of university students read political student essays that were either pro or anti Fidel Castro. Told some writers freely chose be the pro or anti others were assigned determined by a coin toss. Participants asked to rate how pro/anti the attitudes of the writers were.
Findings: participants believed writers freely chose= rated people who spoke in favor have a more positive attitude towards Castro (dispositional). Determined by coin toss= write in pro= more positive. Participants unable to see the influence of situational restraints placed upon writers could not refrain from dispositional belief even though participants were randomly assigned.
Evaluation: lead to further research, all American sample, and question ecological validity.
Suedfeld (2003)
Attribution made by holocaust survivors. Questionnaire given to survivor groups and age-matched Jewish participants who had not experienced Nazi prosecution. 91% of survivors made situational attributions and 51% in control group. 34% of survivors made dispositional attribution and 71% in control group,

Self-Serving Bias
Attribution exhibits self-serving bias when we explain our successes on the basis of internal factors and failures on external factors. Evaluates our performance and progress more critically. Way to up-hold self esteem (Greenberg et al 1982), occur when people do not have enough information and limit themselves to available information. Explains behavior, culturally biased.
Lau and Russell (1980)
Aim: examine attribution given for American football teams winning and losing games
Procedure: 33 major sporting events as reported in 1977. 594 explanations found from a random sample of coaches, players and sport writers. Used content analysis methodology explanations were coded according to disposition/situational attribution.
Findings: Coaches and players tend to credit their wins through dispositional factors, and their failures to situational factors.
Evaluation; real-life data, reliability of data used may be an issue.

Compliance techniques
Compliance= act of responding favorably to a direct or indirect request.
Low-balling= 2 stage technique. Influencer secures agreement with a request but then increases the size of the request by revealing hidden costs. Unreasonably high value offered at low and replaced by higher after gaining commitment.
Real-life= purchase candy for $4.00 last minute says its for $4.50. Purchasing a car: need ot buy seat covers etc. and not only the car.
Case study: Burger and Cornelius 2003. Students contacted by female caller asking whether they would donate to under-privileged children. 77.6% complied and were secured by low-balling technique.
Foot in the door= influencer sets the stage for the real request by first asking for compliance with a much smaller request. Comply more readily with a large request after they have already agreed to a smaller favor. Leads to the self-perception theory.
Real-life= ask to come shopping for ingredients, convince to bake cupcakes.
Case study: Freedman and Fraser 1966. Volunteer worker asked household in America to put a big ugly safety sign on the road. Only 17% complied. Different set of houses were asked to put a small safety sign on the road (nearly all agreed) two weeks later asked residents to put a bigger sign 76% complied. High in ecological validity.
Dickerson et al (1992): Conservation of water in Santa Cruz dormitories. 1. Asked participants to sign poster regarding short showers. 2. Survey to think about amount of water wasted. Found that the ones that signed the poster claimed to take 3.5 minutes other took significantly longer.

Reciprocity: influencer commits positive action prior, and by asking for compliance is rewarded for his friendly action. Participants oblige to repay what other has provided through arousal of guilt.
Real-life: helped with homework, complied to help them with their work
Case study: Regan 1971- participants told they are taking part in an art appreciation program. Confederates gave partners a soda. Later asked participant to buy a raffle. Subjects shown friendly action prior to the request felt more obliged to reply. Relationship between favors and compliance is mediated.

Factors affecting conformity
Cultural Factors: Differences in culture affects conformity. Individualism (low level of conformity) and collectivism (high level of conformity) influences the conformity.
Bond and Smith
Meta-analysis of 133 Asch’s paradigm study in 17 different countries around the world.
Higher conformity in collectivistic cultures than individualistic cultures. Displayed the effect of culture on conformity. Emic approach= cultural differences.
Unanimity: likelihood of conformity increases when everyone agrees to a point. If one disagrees reduces conformity.
Asch paradigm experiment
Existence of conformity. 6 confederate 1 partipcants in a room. Match line on card with second card. 12/18 times confederates all answered the wrong answers. 75% conformed at least once, 32% more than half and 24% not at all. Low ecological validity, gender and cultural bias.
Minority influences: stem of the original conformity theory, minority consistent enough can influence bigger group.
Moscovici
172 participants. 4 participants and 2 confederates asked to estimate shade of blue. 1. Consistent= green on all slides and 2. Green 24 times and blue 12 times. Participants called the slide green in 8.4% in consistent. 32% reported green at least once. Inconsistent= 1.3% of trials. Low ecological validity.
Group Size: in large groups participants may become resistant to conform. With any expression of doubt a decision takes place.
Janis 1982- claims it occurs in highly cohesive groups where there are strong leaders present.
Group think= individuals work together to maintain cooperation. Power and leadership affects the individuals.
Risky shift= group as a whole is willing to take more risk than individual alone because of the sharing of power. Wallach et al 1964- greater risks are chosen due to diffusion of responsibility, emotions bonds decrease anxieties. Myers and Bishop 1970= students working together discussing racial issues. More prejudiced when put into a group.