Thinking About Situational Factors and the FAE Questions

Thinking About Situational Factors and the FAE Questions

Description

 

 

Thinking About Situational Factors and the FAE (25 points)

Instructions: Circle the best answer where appropriate, and complete short-answer items as briefly as
possible. Each item is worth 1 point or as noted.
1. Suppose you’re at the store asking a clerk a question, and the clerk speaks abruptly to you. There are at
least two possible reasons: something about the clerk’s personality or something about the situation. If
you are like most people, you might initially commit the fundamental attribution error and assume that:
A. the clerk is a rude person.
B. the clerk is having a stressful day.
C. you said something that accidentally offended the clerk.
D. either B or C
2. Suppose you’re walking down an alley in a large city and see someone sleeping who appears to be
homeless. You may wonder to yourself, “Why is this person homeless?” If you were to commit the
fundamental attribution error, which of the following explanations might be your answer?
A. The local economy is in bad shape, closing plants and laying off workers.
B. Maybe this person’s home burned down recently, and the government has not yet acted to help.
C. Homeless people tend to be lazy or too irresponsible to hold down a job.
D. Either A or B could be your reason.
3. According to lectures thus far, situational factors might help explain:
A. why some minority group members score lower than Whites on academic achievement tests
B. atrocities such as ethnic cleansing and genocide
C. reckless driving behavior
D. all of the above
4. In addition to the examples above (e.g., homelessness), what are some other predicaments or instances of
suffering that might be caused by situational factors as well as personality characteristics? Provide at
least two examples. (2 pts)
Example #1:
Example #2:
5. For each of the following items, write a number using the 7-point scale below. This is not a research
survey; I mainly want you to begin thinking about the FAE in your daily life.
Not at all 1———2———3———4———5———6———7 A great degree
___ To what degree are you open to the possibility that you yourself might sometimes commit the
FAE when you explain someone’s behavior?
___ To what degree do you desire to “improve” in terms of how you explain others’ behaviors?
___ After learning about the FAE, to what degree do you feel that you can now consider possible
situational factors when someone acts negatively or aggressively against you?
___ To what degree have you thought about the FAE outside of class? Over 

 

6. Some of you may have started thinking about the FAE outside of class. I want all of you to begin doing
so for the purpose of this assignment. The following are some places to think about the FAE and about
the existence of situational factors in explaining others’ behaviors. Place a checkmark next to each place
in which you’ve already thought about these issues. (Feel free to check “none” if that is accurate.)
 while driving  while shopping
 while in other classes  other:
 while spending time with family/friends  none
7. Between now and the due date, pay attention to cases in which someone behaves negatively or
aggressively toward you or otherwise mistreats you in some way (it can be minor or very serious).
Record 5 such instances on the attached sheet. Describe the observed negative behavior against you, and
then list 1 possible cause based on the personality of the “aggressor” and 2 possible situational causes.
Even if the situational cause seems unlikely, if it is possible, go ahead and list it, but try to be realistic
(e.g., if someone cuts you off on the highway, it is possible but not realistic that the driver was receiving
a telepathic communication from an alien at that moment – do not list this possibility). (15 pts)
Keep in mind that explaining mistreatment is not a black-and-white issue. That is, bad behavior can be
caused by a combination of personality and situational factors rather than either one alone, so if you
think that another driver is reckless or stupid, that might be true, but in addition to that factor there might
still be situational causes contributing to the negative outcome (e.g., a medical emergency).
Complete the items below after completing the chart on the attached page.
8. According to lecture, committing the FAE after being mistreated predicts:
A. anger. B. desire to retaliate. C. depression. D. both A and B
9. Research shows that people who commit the FAE are less likely than others to help a homeless or poor
person. In other words, we are less likely to help those in need if we think they are lazy or otherwise
responsible for their predicament. Thus, reducing the FAE might not only reduce conflict and negative
emotions (e.g., anger) but also increase helpfulness and compassion. Do you notice these effects in
yourself? Answer the following items using the 7-point scale below. (2 pts)
Not at all 1———2———3———4———5———6———7 A great degree
___ To what degree has knowledge of the FAE or of situational factors made you less upset or less
defensive in response to someone’s negative behavior toward you (as in your examples above)?
___ To what degree has knowledge of the FAE or of situational factors made you less judgmental
(i.e., less likely to judge the other person negatively)?
___ To what degree do you think the existence of the FAE and of situational factors should make us
less judgmental?
___ To what degree do you think such knowledge can make you feel more compassion for those in
tough predicaments?
___ To what degree would you be willing to consider situational factors to explain terrorist attacks
against Americans (in addition to or in place of the terrorists being “evil”)?
___ To what degree has this assignment made you more reflective in explaining others’ negative
behaviors?

  Excellent Good Fair Poor
Main Posting 45 (45%) – 50 (50%)

Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.

 

Supported by at least three current, credible sources.

 

Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.

40 (40%) – 44 (44%)

Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

 

At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.

 

Supported by at least three credible sources.

 

Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.

35 (35%) – 39 (39%)

Responds to some of the discussion question(s).

 

One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed.

 

Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.

 

Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

 

Post is cited with two credible sources.

 

Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.

 

Contains some APA formatting errors.

0 (0%) – 34 (34%)

Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately.

 

Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria.

 

Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.

 

Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

 

Contains only one or no credible sources.

 

Not written clearly or concisely.

 

Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.

 

Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style.

Main Post: Timeliness 10 (10%) – 10 (10%)

Posts main post by day 3.

0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Does not post by day 3.

First Response 17 (17%) – 18 (18%)

Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.

 

Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.

 

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.

 

Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.

 

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

 

Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.

 

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

15 (15%) – 16 (16%)

Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.

 

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

 

Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.

 

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.

 

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

13 (13%) – 14 (14%)

Response is on topic and may have some depth.

 

Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.

 

Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.

 

Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.

0 (0%) – 12 (12%)

Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.

 

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.

 

Responses to faculty questions are missing.

 

No credible sources are cited.

Second Response 16 (16%) – 17 (17%)

Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.

 

Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.

 

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.

 

Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.

 

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

 

Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.

 

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

14 (14%) – 15 (15%)

Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.

 

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

 

Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.

 

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.

 

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

12 (12%) – 13 (13%)

Response is on topic and may have some depth.

 

Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.

 

Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.

 

Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.

0 (0%) – 11 (11%)

Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.

 

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.

 

Responses to faculty questions are missing.

 

No credible sources are cited.

Participation 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days.

0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days.

Total Points: 100