Read more
Zusatztext 76548251 Informationen zum Autor By Daniel R. Stalder Klappentext A social psychologist focuses on a very common yet rarely discussed bias called the "fundamental attribution error," showing how being aware of this bias can improve our day-to-day understanding of others. Social life involves making judgments about other people. Often these snap judgments turn out to be wrong when we overlook context. Social psychologists call this pervasive bias the "fundamental attribution error." This book explores the many ways in which this error creeps into our social interactions, frequently causing misunderstanding, hurt feelings, and negative treatment of others. Psychologist Daniel R. Stalder examines common examples of this error, from road rage and misinterpreting facial expressions to "gaydar," victim blaming, and prejudice. The common denominator in these diverse examples is that we falsely assume inherent traits or intentions while overlooking situational factors that might explain a person's behavior. Conversely in the actor-observer bias, we explain our own sometimes questionable behaviors by appealing to situational factors. For example, when you tailgate others, there's always a good reason, but when others tailgate you, they are obviously in the wrong. Stalder also reveals little-known information about classic studies of context, considers both the upsides and downsides to bias, and shares numerous strategies to reduce bias. Filled with interesting examples, new insights, and an abundance of research, this informative and entertaining book will help us understand each other and reduce conflict.From the Introduction In our lives with other people, we judge each other. We make social judgments. “Judging” might be considered a dirty word, but sometimes we have to do it. If someone likes you and asks you out on a date to have coffee or to see a movie, and if you’re available, then you have to decide what you think of this person. You have to judge this person. You have to say yes or no or a diplomatic version of no or convey some opinion at some point. You’re not a bad person for judging. A social judgment need not be negative or certain. Maybe give this person a try—go on one date and see what happens. It’s not a marriage proposal. But if someone does propose marriage to you, then you do really have to decide what you think. Certainty in judgment may be more desirable for a marriage proposal compared to a first date. If you decide to exercise a right to vote, then you have to make a judgment about those who are running for office. You can watch the news and speeches and read articles about the candidates to try to make an informed decision, or you can go with your gut. Most of us think we’re making an informed decision when we’re actually doing the gut thing. Jury members have to judge defendants. Interviewers have to judge job applicants. Teachers have to judge students. On Project Runway , celebrities have to judge designers. And so on. Of course, these judgments do not have to cover every facet of the people being judged. Jury members need not judge whether the defendant would be a fun date but rather whether the defendant had motive to commit a crime. A teacher need not judge how extroverted a student is but rather how much the student has learned in a course. Often we can’t help ourselves and we judge outside the required domain. Teachers have a variety of opinions about students (and vice versa). Whatever the judgment domain, one message of this book is that we do judge each other. Sometimes we have to. The rest of the times, we just do. I am not writing this book to tell you to stop judging. Judging is part of being human, although some of us judge more often than others, and some judgments are more consequential than others. One area of social psychology that falls under s...
