Thursday, November 6, 2008

DAC blog

http://www.youtube.com/v/T0gQWVx4Gko

The Artists' Memo:Let me state for the record that this is my first video project ever, and certainly the first that required me to edit content to create short clips. I edited over 36 minutes of material so this in itself was a great feat! There are very rough transitions, and because I only filmed the screen for one of the participants, sometimes it is difficult to determine which photo they are discussing. Most of the clips start out by showing the participant, but at the end beginning with the girl who says "Partier, knows large groups of people..." the participants are describing the girl in the halloween costume. The pictures that were presented in the powerpoint are placed in the bottom part of this blog.

I adapted a model of Willis and Todorov's 2006 study in which they found that students who were shown pictures of strangers made quick judgments on various measures and that their responses were highly correlated. This phenomenon that we can find the same personality traits by just looking at a person are due to the fact that we are influenced in subtle ways by aspects of peoples appearance. Similarly, the indirect cues such as the setting/environment or props can also affect our judgments (Gosling et al., 2002). I wanted to integrate these two concepts into a similar experiment.

In order to demonstrate this concept that people make snap judgments of personality based on a quick perception, I asked 5 people to observe several photographs and to talk about their impressions of them. I asked leading questions in order for them to elaborate, and also as a way to compare answers on specific aspects of personality. Because I wanted to shape the participants' observations to be more correlational, I picked pictures that were purposefully designed to instill certain images or messages. For example, in one picture a girl is pictured with her dog. In another, the same girl is shown at a party wearing provocative dress and holding the infamous red cup. The participants made completely different assumptions about the same girl because of the setting and indirect cues present in the photograph.

Although many of them felt resisitance because of the social desirability bias, many of them made the same assumptions about people. For example, in the first photograph, 3 people used the exact term "emo" in describing the girls' personality. Also, when asked who they thought a girl (again, the same party/cute dog girl) voted for in the last election all of their answers shifted from McCain when she was pictured with the dog, and for Obama when she was depicted at a party. Similarly, the boy in the hat was described as someone who was funny and used his comedy to fulfill his need to be the center of attention by a few participants, but the same boy when dressed in a sweater was described as someone who was proud and possibly conceited.

References:
Willis, J. & Todorov, A. (2006). First impressions: Making up your mind after a 100-ms exposure to a face. Psychological Science, 17, 592-598.

Gosling, S., Ko, S., Mannarelli, T. & Morris, M. (2002). A room with a cue: Personality judgments based on offices and bedrooms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 379-398.

Wednesday, November 5, 2008

Blog 8

A couple of years ago, it was time for me to trade in my old beater Chevy S10 for a new(er), more gas efficient Honda. Smurfette (my sky blue truck) was good to me, and ran just fine, but she was only a two seater and not the most reliable for making the long haul from Denton to Georgetown. She had several add ons as well, which made her a great truck for someone who needed something to get around town but not for long drives.

When I found my car however, the salesman attempted to use the social psychological technique of low-balling. I was very picky about which type of Accord I wanted, I wasn't too concerned about color, although living in Texas I was hoping to find a white car. My main goal was to find a standard transmission Accord without a million miles on it that was within my price range. Because the ratio of standards to automatics for Accords is 1:40 when I found a low mileage white standard I knew I had to have it. Problem was, the salesman knew how badly I wanted it. He gave me a great price on the car, then went to ask his manager how much they could give me for my truck.

Kiesler (1971) predicts that at this point, the salesman knows that now that I have made the decision to buy the car, I am in the seat opposite his desk justifying my purchase to myself by thinking of all the positives of my car. He can then make me a ridiculous offer for my truck (which he did) in the hope that because I am so in love with the car I'll make any offer to have it. Unfortunately for him, my dad and I were ready for his tricks. Instead of thinking about how great the car was while the salesperson talked to his manager, we discussed the minimum price we would accept for the truck. When the salesperson quoted a price about 750 less than we'd agreed to take, we refused to buy the car until he made a more realistic offer. He did, and by the way I LOVE my Honda :)

Reference:
Kiesler, C. (1971). The psychology of commitment. New York: Academic Press.