User:BrebreT/sandbox

I have decided to edit a few sentences to make it simpler for readers to understand and also to construct a better flow for the sentence.

Self-serving bias is attributing dispositional and internal factors for success and external, uncontrollable factors for failure.

However, an alternative information processing explanation is that when the outcomes match people's expectations, they make attributions to internal factors; when the outcome does not match their expectations, they make external attributions

The fundamental attribution error describes the tendency to overvalue dis positional or personality-based explanations for behavior while under-valuing situational explanations.

My edits
Self-serving bias is attributing dispositional and internal factors for success, while external and uncontrollable factors are used to explain the reason for failure.

However, an alternative information processing explanation is that when the outcomes match people's expectations, they make attributions to internal factors. For example if you pass a test you believe it was  because of your intelligence; when the outcome does not match their expectations, they make external attributions or excuses. Whereas if you fail a test, you would give an excuse saying that you did not have enough time to study.

The fundamental attribution error describes the habit to misunderstand dispositional or personality-based explanations for behavior instead considering external factors.

Correspondent inference theory[edit | edit source]
Main article: Correspondent inference theory

Correspondent inferences state that people make inferences about a person when their actions are freely chosen, are unexpected, and result in a small number of desirable effects. According to Edward E. Jones and Keith Davis' correspondent inference theory, people make correspondent inferences by reviewing the context of behavior. It describes how people try to find out individual's personal characteristics from the behavioral evidence. People make inferences on the basis of three factors; degree of choice, anticipation of one's behavior, and effects of someone's behaviors. For example, we believe we can make stronger assumptions about a man who gives half of his money to charity, than we can about one who gives $5 to charity. An average person would not want to donate as much as the first man because they would lose a lot of money. By donating half of his money, it is easier for someone to figure out what the first man's personality is like. The second factor, that affects correspondence of action and inferred characteristic, is the number of differences between the choices made and the previous alternatives. If there aren't many differences, the assumption made will match the action because it is easy to guess the important aspect between each choice.

Covariation model[edit | edit source]
Main article: Covariation model

Kelley’s covariation model is also regarded as the best known attribution theory because of his logical model that helped categorize a particular action to internal or external. (Needs citation, try to avoid dusing the best, remember thats an opinion, perhaps use one of the most, or simply most efficient )The covariation model states that people attribute behavior to the factors that are present when a behavior occurs and absent when it does not. Thus, the theory assumes that people make causal attributions in a rational, logical fashion, and that they assign the cause of an action to the factor that co-varies most closely with that action. Harold Kelley's covariation model of attribution looks to three main types of information from which to make an attribution decision about an individual's behavior. The first is consensus information, or information on how other people in the same situation and with the same stimulus behave. The second is distinctive information, or how the individual responds to different stimuli. The third is consistency information, or how frequent the individual's behavior can be observed with similar stimulus but varied situations. From these three sources of information observers make attribution decisions on the individual's behavior as either internal or external. There have been claims that people under-utilize consensus information, although there has been some dispute over this.

There are several levels in the covariation model: high and low. Each of these levels influences the three covariation model criteria. High consensus is when many people can agree on an event or area of interest. Low consensus is when very few people can agree. High distinctiveness is when the event or area of interest is very unusual, whereas low distinctness is when the event or area of interest is fairly common. High consistency is when the event or area of interest continues for a length of time and low consistency is when the event or area of interest goes away quickly.

Culture bias[edit | edit source]
Main article: Culture bias

Culture bias is when someone makes an assumption about the behavior of a person based on their cultural practices and beliefs. People in individualist cultures, generally Anglo-America and Anglo-Saxon European societies, value individuals, personal goals, and independence. People in collectivist cultures see individuals as members of groups such as families, tribes, work units, and nations, and tend to value conformity and interdependence. In other words, working together and being involved as a group is more common in certain cultures that views each person as a part of the community. This cultural trait is common in Asia, traditional Native American societies, and Africa.

Research shows that culture, either individualist or collectivist, affects how people make attributions.

People from individualist cultures are more inclined to make fundamental-attribution error than people from collectivist cultures. Individualist cultures tend to attribute a person's behavior due to their internal factors whereas collectivist cultures tend to attribute a person's behavior to his external factors.[ ] Research suggests that individualist cultures engage in self-serving bias more than do collectivist cultures, i.e. individualist cultures tend to attribute success to internal factors and to attribute failure to external factors. In contrast, collectivist cultures engage in the opposite of self-serving bias i.e. self-effacing bias, which is: attributing success to external factors and blaming failure on internal factors (the individual).

''' What I changed: I added more information to this paragraph about correspondent inference theory and added a citation. I also changed the word usage in my sentences to make it more straightforward. In the Covariation model I found and put citations where they were needed.(Nice, your citations and edits are making the article easier to read, and more credible, Rock )'''

User:Maliyath/sandbox

Display rules are a social group's informal norms about when, where, and how one should express emotions. They can be described as culturally prescribed rules that people learn early on in their lives by interactions and socializations with other people. Because display rules vary greatly across cultures, there is no standard set for display rules. In addition to the cultural aspect, display rules also vary in high-contact cultures, and low-contact cultures. ( Good job adding sources - Brenda)

The way in which emotions are conveyed differ substantially between people in different contexts. (Use less complex words in this sentence, most people don't have such big vocabulary - Brenda) These unique emotional displays can help deduce a person's self and culture. These emotions are able to be pinpointed to a certain behavior in a certain environment. In the presence of others, one's way of behaving may be skewed due to the specific context that they are in. This may vary from person to person, and may run in families.

The understanding of display rules is a complex, multifaceted (No idea what that means, use a simpler term - Brenda) task. Display rules are understood differentially (differently - Brenda) depending upon their mode of expression (verbal/facial) and the motivation for their use (prosocial/self-protective).

Culture

Culture assists in understanding emotional expressions and its influences in regards to similarities and differences. Culture, which is typically depicted by country, is accompanied by nation and territory as well. (Is this sentence really needed? Most people know what a culture is - Brenda) Culture consists of a mixture of different actions, perspectives, merits, and opinions conveyed from past groups. (A transition here would be nice - Brenda) Highly stylized ways of expressing specific emotions are called ritualized displays. A notable example of a ritualized display is the "tongue bite," which is used to express embarrassment in Indian culture but held little emotional significance for U.S. college students in a 1999 study. Cultural diversity fabricates divergence in the display of emotions to distinguish and maintain status which illustrates strains of expressivity (What does that mean? - Brenda). Though, from another perspective, it is extremely complex to eliminate the effects of one another. Another example of cultural differences in regard to display rules is evident through an experiment using Canadian, American, and Japanese University students. The results of the study showed that Japanese display rules allowed the expressions of strong emotions (either positive or negative) such as anger, contempt, disgust, happiness, or surprise far less than either American or Canadian display rules. Evidently, display rules contain such a strong bond with situations and context that without one another there is no relevant value in a cross-cultural context. (Really like the example given - Brenda)