I. Catrambone, R. & Marcus, H.

A. In the end of the article the authors referred to the schematics as experts and the a-schematics as novices.

0. There was some confusion about these designations.
1. The schematics were categorized as experts only in the domain of independence.
2. Aschematics, who scored low on both dependence and independence have no schema for the domain of independece/dependence)

B. It was also brought into question if aschematics and schematics really are different, in terms of self-rated independence.

1. It turns out, not largely so.
2. Independent-schematics had a mean score of 4.69 vs. a mean of 3.85 for the a-schematics.(pg. 357)

C. Another question pertaining to Catrambone and Markus was: Does the influence of self-concept on judgments of others occur with or without awareness? and: What study could be done to find out? The following were suggestions of the class for further research:

1. We could ask the subjects of how they arrived at the prediction of the others' behaviors.
2. We could also use a distraction task so as not to allow the conscious mind to "use" the self-concept.
3. We could have them talk out loud to express how that they were arriving at their decisions.

D. Somebody also wondered whether the authors had a hypothesis about the idea of self-concept influence occurrence in consciousness or out of the conscious realm.

Author's state that this occurs unconsciously. pg. 364: "An important question for discussion- one that can not be addressed by the data of the current study-is whether the self-concept's influence occurs purposefully with awareness when we think about another, or whether it occurs quite automatically outside of awareness. Numerous studies of the false-consensus bias, projection, and impression formation strongly suggest that the latter may often be the case."

E. How are impressions formed? Is it automatic to form an impression, to predict someone’s behavior and to use self-knowledge in this process? Does this article speak to this? We said:

1. Probably basic features such as gender, age, race, and whether the person is approaching in a positive or negative way register on a slightly aware or unconscious level.
2. On a more conscious level things that you are looking for or situational determined aspects will arise, such as: physical attractiveness, suggestions on how to approach a new colleague, etc.
3. You bring into consciousness those aspects that are important to you in that time and situation (interaction goals).
4. The authors used self-rating and predictions to look at only one aspect: judging others’ personality on a specific dimensions (independence).

F. Other important points from this article.

1. Figure 1-- shows no evidence for projection. If projection did occur, one would expect schematics to have higher independence ratings for both targets than did the aschematics.
2. Among aschematics, not much projection occurred (as expected).

A. False consensus theory-- predicts other's behavior and attitudes from a sample of 1 (the self). For example: I think that I would walk around campus with a sign saying "Eat at Sy's", therefore I predict that many of my classmates will, as well.

1. Could this be attributed to the fact that those around you tend to have similar view, actions and re-actions, and therefore you are drawing on a sample not just of yourself, but with those you associate, as well?
2. Is the false consensus theory a way to avoid feelings of social deviance? The following are some possible tests suggested in class:

1. see if negative characteristics are ascribed by subjects to a minority group.
2. manipulate social expectation of the group and see if you obtain varied results.
3. In more neutral situations see if results are more varied.
4. show their decision as deviant, and re-do the survey. e. Possibly add a self-affirmation task, to diminish the dissonance associated with being different from others. Then, if there is no dissonance, no feelings of deviance will exist, and the false-consensus effect should go away.

B. Would people be sensitive to differences in the people whose behavior they have to predict (e.g., different age, gender, etc.)

We said: should happen (if the person were rational)

C. Dispositional inference: trait ratings about various groups...

1. ratings of the minority group are more extreme
2. One way our minds cope with statistical deviation is to assume minorities have differentiating characteristics so we can explain the differences.

D. The authors express their hypothesis as causal: the way one would act oneself causes one to believe that others would too. What support do they have for this claim?

1. NONE!
2. Instead, they have correlational evidence
3. Intro textbook: CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION!

E. How would we prove causation in respect to the hypothesis?

For example, manipulate the order of asking subjects for own choice and prediction of others. If own choice comes 1st, it should be "primed" (cognitively available) and promote maximum correlation.

This was a philosophical text that the class had trouble comprehending.

A. "Theory theory": The way people ascribe mental states to others is by using abstracts rules about how people "work."

1. Includes a lot of generalizations (i.e.: I know facial expression x, followed by running away and screaming constitute fear)
2. How do theory theorists explain different reactions to the same event? -- they may ascribe it to different backgrounds traits.

B. "Simulation theory": Argues that people ascribe mental states to others by using their own mind as a starting point and simulator. Simulation includes both total projection (automatically assuming that other person perceives or feels the same as I do) and perspective taking (effortful attempt to figure out how other person perceives something even if it is different from what oneself perceives).

C. Grizzly Bear Example (from text)

1. total projection: you are hiking and you friend ahead of you stops, turns, and runs away. In order to know what he is fearing you assume he sees the same as you do, and that must be something fearful. Once you see the grizzly, you understand why he ran away.
2. You tell this story to a friend. Although they are not really scared, they can see why the hiker's is afraid. Do they simulate too? Or do they use general rules about dangerous animals, fear, and running away?

D. Coat on the Chair example

Tells us that simple rules can not predict behavior all the time. Simulation allows for incorporating small details into the prediction — details that no general rule could include.