17757037

Social Psychology 324

N. du Toit

Why are our social perceptions often inaccurate?

Funder & Nisbett
The accuracy of our social judgements and perceptions is a debate based on
comparing the conceptual definitions of the terms error and mistake,
measured within and without experimental conditions. Funders article evaluated
the accuracy of our social perceptions and judgements and distinguishes
between these two concepts. According to Funder, an error is an inaccurate
judgement made in laboratory conditions, which deviates from a preconceived
model of what the correct from of the specific judgement should be. A
mistake, in contrast, is described as an incorrect judgement in a social context
in the real world, where the criteria for making correct judgements is not clear in
comparison to experimental conditions. As the criteria are specific and clear in
experimental conditions, it is easy to identify to which extent the persons
judgement is considered as an error. This can be measured by identifying to
which extent the judgement deviates from the pre-conceived model. However, in
social situations, the criteria are somewhat different and unclear, which means
that people are likely to make different social judgements in these contexts, than
in the laboratory.
The criteria in experimental conditions are normative models which describe the
logical and ideal structure of how people should approach a judgement, by
producing rules for how people should formulate their social judgements. When
asked to make a judgement, it often happens that people deviate from the
normative models and then produced what is called an error. Subjects in these
cases failed to follow the given guidelines and their judgements skewed from the
experimental stimuli. The visual perception study was used to investigate these
errors. This emphasized the idea of a dual-reality and how an experiment in
social psychology provides a two-dimensional and three-dimensional (real life)
perception of the situation for the subject. This led to the phenomena, the
Muller-Lyer illusion. This is when the subject perceives that the two lines are
different lengths, when exposed to a two-dimensional illusion, producing an
inaccurate judgement (error). However, the underlying process of this
misperception could lead to a correct perception when applied to real social
context (three dimensional). This leads to the conclusion that, although the
subjects judgment was incorrect in experimental conditions, it could still be
correct in a real life social setting or three-dimensional context.
An example demonstrated by Humphrey, referred to the article of Ross and
Nisbett, emphasized that people do in fact make inaccurate inferences from
behaviour. These are called attribution errors that have arisen from studies
conducted in Social Psychology (experimental conditions), which implies that
individuals would make such inaccurate judgements even in real life social
situations. In this example, they created a business office in the laboratory, in
which random subjects were assigned manager and clerk positions. Managers
were given manuals to study, which contained high-skill level tasks, whereas

17757037

Social Psychology 324

N. du Toit

clerks were only given less complex tasks to memorize. They had to work in
these conditions for two hours.
After this period, both the managers and clerks had to rate themselves and
others on role-related traits. Managers rated themselves and the other managers
higher than their fellow clerks. Clerks rated managers higher in general. These
results indicate that the subjects clearly ignored the fact that their roles were
assigned, when they had to rate each other on role-related traits. They assumed
the dispositional traits were true to the subjects, rather than assigned role-traits
and thus clouded their judgements. In this experiment it is clear that when there
is limited information, people make judgements based only on this information.
Thus, it does not imply that people would make this same errors in real social
contexts, as they might have more information available to them.
Funder also supports this statement mentioned above. Generally, the
experimenter gives the participants (managers and clerks) only that information
that is relevant to make a judgement. Thus, in the example by Humphrey, the
subjects were only given such limited information: the assigned roles and their
experience in the business office. Thus, it is not surprising that they would
make the predicted judgement error, according to the obvious criteria. This
criterion refers to the prepared roles that the managers and clerks had to
perform, which led them to rate performance based on only this criteria. In
normal social context (three-dimensional), there are various rules that exist for
people to make judgements. This implies that there would be a varying degree of
accuracy in making judgements. A persons individual opinions and collective
experiences in social situations would determine their degree of accuracy. Their
judgement would more likely to be accurate when there is an abundance of
information available, in a real life social context.
If the manager and clerk situation was applied to real life, the subjects would
have realized that they made a judgement error due to the limited information
given in the experiment, opposed to more information available in real life. This
suggests that this judgement would not have been a mistake in real social
contexts, due to situational factors and real life consequences. Funder further
supports this implication by stating that normative models are restricted to
experimental conditions and could not be applied to normal social situations.
Although subjects in experimental conditions could make accurate judgement
based on these normative models, it does not necessarily lead to accurate
judgements in real life.
We must take in account that experimental errors as well as real life mistakes
could be made by using a specific criteria. Sometimes individuals tend to make
inaccurate judgements by applying only one or the wrong criteria to situation,
although there is enough criteria and information available. For example, in
situations where an in-group member has to make a judgement about an outgroup member, the individual would most likely use the criteria induced by the
in-group. This leads to a mistake in evaluating the out-group members
behaviour as not normative to the in-groups perspective. In conclusion, our

17757037

Social Psychology 324

N. du Toit

social perceptions and judgements depend on the information we gather in our

social experiences throughout our lives. We assimilate information and construct
our schemas on which we rely on to make judgements of others behaviour.
Inaccurate judgements are thus a result of inaccurate schemas or information,
which forms the various criteria we use.

Summary
Par 1

The accuracy of our social judgements and perceptions is a debate based

on comparing the conceptual definitions of the terms error and
mistake, measured within and without experimental conditions.
Funders article evaluated the accuracy of our social perceptions and
judgements and distinguishes between these two concepts.
According to Funder, an error is an inaccurate judgement made in
laboratory conditions, which deviates from a preconceived model of what
the correct from of the specific judgement should be.
A mistake, in contrast, is described as an incorrect judgement in a social
context in the real world, where the criteria for making correct judgements
is not clear in comparison to experimental conditions.
As the criteria are specific and clear in experimental conditions, it is easy
to identify to which extent the persons judgement is considered as an
error.
This can be measured by identifying to which extent the judgement
deviates from the pre-conceived model.
However, in social situations, the criteria are somewhat different and
unclear, which means that people are likely to make different social
judgements in these contexts, than in the laboratory.

Par 2

The criteria in experimental conditions are normative models which

describe the logical and ideal structure of how people should approach a
judgement, by producing rules for how people should formulate their
social judgements.
When asked to make a judgement, it often happens that people deviate
from the normative models and then produced what is called an error.
Subjects in these cases failed to follow the given guidelines and their
judgements skewed from the experimental stimuli.

17757037

Social Psychology 324

N. du Toit

The visual perception study was used to investigate these errors.

This emphasized the idea of a dual-reality and how an experiment in
social psychology provides a two-dimensional and three-dimensional (real
life) perception of the situation for the subject.
This led to the phenomena, the Muller-Lyer illusion. This is when the
subject perceives that the two lines are different lengths, when exposed to
a two-dimensional illusion, producing an inaccurate judgement (error).
However, the underlying process of this misperception could lead to a
correct perception when applied to real social context (three dimensional).
This leads to the conclusion that, although the subjects judgment was
incorrect in experimental conditions, it could still be correct in a real life
social setting or three-dimensional context.

Par 3

An example demonstrated by Humphrey, referred to the article of Ross

and Nisbett, emphasized that people do in fact make inaccurate inferences
from behaviour.
These are called attribution errors that have arisen from studies conducted
in Social Psychology (experimental conditions), which implies that
individuals would make such inaccurate judgements even in real life social
situations.
In this example, they created a business office in the laboratory, in
which random subjects were assigned manager and clerk positions.
Managers were given manuals to study, which contained high-skill level
tasks, whereas clerks were only given less complex tasks to memorize.
They had to work in these conditions for two hours.

Par 4

Par 5

After this period, both the managers and clerks had to rate themselves
and others on role-related traits.
Managers rated themselves and the other managers higher than their
fellow clerks. Clerks rated managers higher in general.
These results indicate that the subjects clearly ignored the fact that their
roles were assigned, when they had to rate each other on role-related
traits.
They assumed the dispositional traits were true to the subjects, rather
than assigned role-traits and thus clouded their judgements.
In this experiment it is clear that when there is limited information, people
make judgements based only on this information, e.g. the assigned roles
and what they experienced.
Thus, it does not imply that people would make this same errors in real
social contexts, as they might have more information available to them.

17757037

Social Psychology 324

N. du Toit

Funder also supports this statement mentioned above. Generally, the

experimenter gives the participants (managers and clerks) only that
information that is relevant to make a judgement.
Thus, in the example by Humphrey, the subjects were only given such
limited information: the assigned roles and their experience in the
business office.
Thus, it is not surprising that they would make the predicted judgement
error, according to the obvious criteria.
This criterion refers to the prepared roles that the managers and clerks
had to perform, which led them to rate performance based on only this
criteria.
In normal social context (three-dimensional), there are various rules that
exist for people to make judgements.
This implies that there would be a varying degree of accuracy in making
judgements.
A persons individual opinions and collective experiences in social
situations would determine their degree of accuracy.
Their judgement would more likely to be accurate when there is an
abundance of information available, in a real life social context.

Par 6

If the manager and clerk situation was applied to real life, the subjects
would have realized that they made a judgement error due to the
limited information given in the experiment, opposed to more information
available in real life.
This suggests that this judgement would not have been a mistake in real
social contexts, due to situational factors and real life consequences.
Funder further supports this implication by stating that normative models
are restricted to experimental conditions and could not be applied to
normal social situations.
Although subjects in experimental conditions could make accurate
judgement based on these normative models, it does not necessarily lead
to accurate judgements in real life.

Par 7

We must take in account that experimental errors as well as real life

mistakes could be made by using a specific criteria.
Sometimes individuals tend to make inaccurate judgements by applying
only one or the wrong criteria to situation, although there is enough
criteria and information available.
For example, in situations where an in-group member has to make a
judgement about an out-group member, the individual would most likely
use the criteria induced by the in-group.
This leads to a mistake in evaluating the out-group members behaviour as
not normative to the in-groups perspective.

17757037

Social Psychology 324

N. du Toit

In conclusion, our social perceptions and judgements depend on the

information we gather in our social experiences throughout our lives.
We assimilate information and construct our schemas on which we rely on
to make judgements of others behaviour.
Inaccurate judgements are thus a result of inaccurate schemas or
information, which forms the various criteria we use.