<%BANNER%>

Examining the Effects of Perspective Taking on the Hostile Attributional Bias

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0042951/00001

Material Information

Title: Examining the Effects of Perspective Taking on the Hostile Attributional Bias
Physical Description: 1 online resource (46 p.)
Language: english
Creator: LE,BONNIE
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2011

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: ATTRIBUTIONAL -- BIAS -- HOSTILE -- PERSPECTIVE -- TAKING
Psychology -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Psychology thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The current study examined how perspective taking influences the hostile attributional bias. Participants watched two videos of social interactions, with each video involving a target behaving with ambiguous or hostile intent. Target hostility, dispositional attributions for target behavior, situational factors influencing target behavior, the extent to which the target had a hostile personality type, feelings toward the target, and overlap between the self and the target were assessed. It was hypothesized that perspective taking would decrease the hostile attributional bias, decrease dispositional attributions for target behavior, increase situational attributions for target behavior, decrease perceptions of the target having a hostile personality type, increase positive feelings toward the target, and increase perceived overlap with the target when viewing an interaction with a target behaving with ambiguous, as compared with hostile, intent. Results revealed that experimental manipulations of perspective taking did not influence the hostile attributional bias, dispositional attribution, situational attribution, perceptions of the target as having a hostile personality type, feelings toward the target, and perceived overlap between the self and the target when the target behaved specifically with ambiguous, as compared with hostile, intent. However, perceptions of self-other overlap with the target were enhanced and perceptions of the target as having a hostile personality type were decreased, regardless of the target?s intent, as a function of perspective taking. Implications of the study are discussed.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by BONNIE LE.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2011.
Local: Adviser: Chambers, John.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2011
System ID: UFE0042951:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0042951/00001

Material Information

Title: Examining the Effects of Perspective Taking on the Hostile Attributional Bias
Physical Description: 1 online resource (46 p.)
Language: english
Creator: LE,BONNIE
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2011

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: ATTRIBUTIONAL -- BIAS -- HOSTILE -- PERSPECTIVE -- TAKING
Psychology -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Psychology thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The current study examined how perspective taking influences the hostile attributional bias. Participants watched two videos of social interactions, with each video involving a target behaving with ambiguous or hostile intent. Target hostility, dispositional attributions for target behavior, situational factors influencing target behavior, the extent to which the target had a hostile personality type, feelings toward the target, and overlap between the self and the target were assessed. It was hypothesized that perspective taking would decrease the hostile attributional bias, decrease dispositional attributions for target behavior, increase situational attributions for target behavior, decrease perceptions of the target having a hostile personality type, increase positive feelings toward the target, and increase perceived overlap with the target when viewing an interaction with a target behaving with ambiguous, as compared with hostile, intent. Results revealed that experimental manipulations of perspective taking did not influence the hostile attributional bias, dispositional attribution, situational attribution, perceptions of the target as having a hostile personality type, feelings toward the target, and perceived overlap between the self and the target when the target behaved specifically with ambiguous, as compared with hostile, intent. However, perceptions of self-other overlap with the target were enhanced and perceptions of the target as having a hostile personality type were decreased, regardless of the target?s intent, as a function of perspective taking. Implications of the study are discussed.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by BONNIE LE.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2011.
Local: Adviser: Chambers, John.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2011
System ID: UFE0042951:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 EXAMINING THE EFFECTS OF PERSPECTIVE TAKING ON THE HOSTILE ATTRIBUTIONAL BIAS By BONNIE LE A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE O F MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2011

PAGE 2

2 2011 Bonnie Le

PAGE 3

3 To my parents Mai Kim L Minh for all their love, support, hard work, and selflessness in helping me along my academic journey

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank Dr. John R. Chambers for all his guidance on the current research study and for his dedicati on as an adviser. I feel very fortunate to have the opportunity to work with such a great thinker, who over the last couple of years has dedicated great time and energy to helping me develop as an empiricist. Furthermore, I would like to thank Dr. Gregory D. Webster for his guidance and support as a co adviser and Dr. Bonnie Moradi for sharing her insights on the study as one of my committee members I would also like to thank the research assistants in the Social Cognition Lab for all of their feedback on the current study I woul d particularly like to thank Sarena Bhatia, Daniel Davis, and Seth Dornisch for helping me with data collection. And of course I would like to give deep and heartfelt thanks to my family and friends for their continual love, supp ort, and encouragement

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 7 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 8 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 10 The Hostile Attributional Bias ................................ ................................ .................. 12 Di fferences in Self versus Other Attributions for Behavior ................................ ...... 14 Perspective Taking ................................ ................................ ................................ 16 The Current Study ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 18 2 METHOD ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 21 Participants ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 21 Procedure ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 21 Materials ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 21 Video Stimuli ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 21 Experimental Manipulation ................................ ................................ ............... 22 Dependent Measures ................................ ................................ ....................... 23 Hostile attribution ................................ ................................ ....................... 24 Dispositional and situational attribution ................................ ...................... 24 Hostile personality ................................ ................................ ...................... 24 Interpersonal feelings toward target ................................ ........................... 24 Overlap with target ................................ ................................ ..................... 25 Manipulation check ................................ ................................ .................... 25 3 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 26 Hostile Attributional Bias ................................ ................................ ......................... 26 Dispositional Attribution ................................ ................................ .......................... 26 Situational Attribution ................................ ................................ .............................. 27 Hostile Pers onality ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 27 Interpersonal Feelings toward Target ................................ ................................ ..... 28 Overlap with target ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 29 4 DISCUSSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 31 Limitations ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 36 Future Directions ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 36 Co nclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 38

PAGE 6

6 APPENDIX A PERSPECTIVE INSTRUCTIONS ................................ ................................ ........... 39 B DEPENDENT MEASURES ................................ ................................ ..................... 40 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................... 43 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ ............................ 46

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3 1 Means for Each Target T ype and Perspective Condition ................................ ... 30

PAGE 8

8 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Maste r of Science EXAMINING THE EFFECTS OF PERSPECTIVE TAKING ON THE HOSTILE ATTRIBUTIONAL BIAS By Bonnie Le May 2011 Chair: John R. Chambers Major: Psychology The current study examined how perspective taking influences the hostile attributional bias. Part icipants watched two videos of social interactions, with each video involving a target behaving with ambiguous or hostile intent. Target hostility, dispositional attributions for target behavior, situational factors influencing target behavior, the extent to which the target had a hostile personality type, feelings toward the target, and overlap between the self and the target were assessed. It was hypothesized that perspective taking would decrease the hostile attributional bias, decrease dispositional att ributions for target behavior, increase situational attributions for target behavior, decrease perceptions of the target having a hostile personality type, increase positive feelings toward the target, and increase perceived overlap with the target when vi ewing an interaction with a target behaving with ambiguous, as compared with hostile, intent. Results revealed that experimental manipulations of perspective taking did not influence the hostile attributional bias, dispositional attribution, situational at tribution, perceptions of the target as having a hostile personality type, feelings toward the target, and perceived overlap between the self and the target when the target behaved specifically with ambiguous, as compared with hostile, intent. However,

PAGE 9

9 per ceptions of self other overlap with the target were enhanced and perceptions of the intent, as a function of perspective taking. Implications of the study are discussed.

PAGE 10

10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Each day, people engage in interpersonal interactions that can be interpreted and responded to in numerous ways. How one interprets the intent and behavior of others in a given interaction is integral to how one decides to behave in turn. In many social smiles, hugs, and high fives are typically seen as positive gestures that may denote friendliness and warmth, whereas furrowed eyebrows, pu shing, and flipping the middle finger are typically seen as negative gestures that may denote dislike or anger. Though clear and unambiguous, other social situations are more difficult to navigate because hence multiple ways in which one may react and b ehave, either appropriately or intentions. For example, imagine that you are driving to work when a stranger merges into your lane at an uncomfortably close distance to y our car. How would you react if this the other person would lend itself to an appropriate response in the situation. For instance, you may simply shrug your shoulder s and continue driving as usual if you intent as hostile on the other hand (e.g. she cut you off purposely and maliciously), you

PAGE 11

11 might decide to drive more cautiously, keeping distance from the driver to avoid a potential accident. responses, it is n ot always the case that we are accurate in our perceptions of other the part of the stranger, you may continue to drive normally, putting yourself at risk by driving to o closely to a dangerous driver. If you incorrectly perceived hostile intent on the part of the stranger, you may retaliate or provoke an altercation unnecessarily (e.g., by cutting off the driver and putting yourself and a stranger in danger). The current study examines the last misperception discussed: interpreting another the current study focuses on the hostile attributional bias the tendency to interpret intentions as hostile when social cues are ambiguous (Milich & Dodge, 1984) A tendency to interpret hostility when it is not clearly warranted may prompt an individual to retaliate or provoke another person when it is inappropriate, increasing the likeli hood of a negative interpersonal interaction. It is important, then, to examine biases toward social situations may lend themselves to negative outcomes, allowing for the possibility of averting negative interpersonal interactions. To better understand how negative interactions can be avoided, the current study perspectives that is, may it be that people are more susceptible to the hostile attributional bias when they are focused on their own thoughts rather than the thoughts

PAGE 12

12 of the person they are interacting with? If this is the case, then actively taking the perspective of an interaction partner may decrease the likelihood of attributing unwarranted hostility to them. The current study aims to investigate whether consciously attributional bias. The H ostile Attributional Bias The hostile attributional bias has typically been studied by examining how boys varying in chronic levels of aggression 1 interpret social situations ( de Castro, Veerman, Koops, Bosch, & Monshouwer 2002; Dodge, 1980; Dodge & Frame 1982; Dodge & Newman 1981; Milich & Dodge, 1984; Nasby, Hayden, & DePaulo, 1980; Steinberg & Dodge, 1983). Results consistently indicate that in comparison to nonaggressive boys, aggressive boys tend to perceive more hostility and aggression in their pee when social cues are ambiguous whereas nonaggressive boys perceive benign intent under the same circumstances (Dodge, 1980; Dodge & Newman 1981; Milich & Dodge, 1984; Nasby Hayden, & DePaulo, 1980). It is only when social cues are ambiguous that aggressive and nonaggressive boys react differently; intention is unambiguous, both aggressive and nonaggressive boys respond to provocation that is clearly benign or clearly hostile, with restraint and aggression, respectively (Dodge, 1980). A meta analytic examination by de Castro and colleagues (de Castro, et al., 2002) bolsters these findings, showing that over 41 studies conducted on the relationship 1 Aggression levels were typically assessed by teacher and peer ratings. Boys who fell above the median in teacher ratings of aggression and below the median in peer ratings of favorability were categorized as aggressive.

PAGE 13

13 between aggressive behavior and the hostile attributional bias, there is a robust and the hostile attributional bias. Furthermore, this relationship held across nume rous samples (i.e., representative samples of the population, extreme groups samples, referred/non referred samples) 2 with the largest effect sizes observed between aggression and the hostile attributional bias in studies of highly aggressive children. Wh ile there have been many studies that have investigated hostile attributional biases among children, and particularly among boys (de Castro et al., 2002; Dodge, 1980; Dodge & Frame, 1982; Dodge & Newman 1981; Milich & Dodge, 1984; Nasby et al., 1980; Stein berg & Dodge, 1983), there has been limited research conducted on the hostile attributional bias in adults, which both the current research, and studies by Epps and Kendall (1995) and Matthews and Norris (2002) attempt to rectify. 995) study, both male and female college students were first assessed on their levels of aggression using the State Trait Anger Expression Inventory (Speilberger, 1988) and their levels of hostility using the Buss Durkee Hostility Inventory (Buss & Durkee, 1957). These participants then read a set of hypothetical scenarios of people behaving with benign, ambiguous, or hostile intent in various everyday situations. The findings of this study, in concordance with what was found in children, revealed that indi viduals with high self reported levels of aggression were 2 Samples from the general population refers to studies that used samples of children who had never been referred to any intervention (i.e., psychiatric care, special education) and used correlational or median split procedu res to examine the relationship between aggression and the hostile attributional bias. Extreme groups samples denotes studies that compared students at extreme aggression levels (i.e., one standard deviation above and below the average). Referred versus no nreferred samples denotes any studies that compared children who had been referred to any type of intervention to students who had never been referred to intervention.

PAGE 14

14 more likely to attribute hostility to a person acting with ambiguous (rather than unambiguously benign or hostile) intent. Furthermore, whereas previous studies had included only male participants, females and found no gender differences in the hostile attributional bias Matthews and Norris (2002) also studied the hostile attributional bias in adults, focusing specifically on aggressive driving in a c ommunity sample. Participants in this study were assessed on their aggression levels (using the Buss and Perry [1992] Aggression Questionnaire), risky driving behavior (by the Risky Driving Inventory [Donovan & Jessor, 1991]), and hostile attributional bia ses as assessed by essays featuring targets who behaved in either an ambiguous, unambiguously hostile, or unambiguously benign manner. As with previous studies, Matthews and Norris (2002) found that the hostile attributional bias was related to participant aggressiveness, with high aggression individuals, as compared with nonaggressive individuals, being more likely to attribute hostility when assessing an individual behaving with ambiguous intent. Furthermore, they found that high aggression le vel was positively related to risky driving behavior. These findings broadened hostile attributional bias research into the specific real world domain of driving behavior. Differences in Self versus Other Attributions for Behavior The study of the hostile attribution al bias has largely been confined to the field of clinical psychology, which has focused on comparing aggressive and nonaggressive populations, consistently showing that individuals of high aggression levels are more likely to exhibit the hostil e attributional bias under ambiguous circumstances as compared with their nonaggressive counterparts. In social psychology, a ttribution theor

PAGE 15

1 5 ye t to be examined with regard to the hostile attributional bias. Research on attribution suggests that w hereas people tend to see their own behaviors as being influenced by the envi ronment and external forces (e.g ., a situational attribution), they tend to pe rsonality and internal forces (e.g., a dispositional attribution). This perceptual difference is known as the actor observer asymmetry (Jones & Nisbett, 1971) and is a consequence of seeing the world from different perspectives either as actors or observers. This asymmetry leads to a differential salience of personal and situational factors with situational factors being more salient to actors and dispositional factors being more salient to observers (Jon es & Nisbett, 1971). In relation to this asymmetry, Ross, Greene, & House (1977 ) have shown that people are biased toward inferring ehavior. situational attributions for their own behavior, these perceptions are changeable (Regan & Totten, 1975; Storms, 1973). Storms (1973) has shown that by changing a pe perspective from an actor to an observer her attribution patterns can be changed as well. For instance, Storms (1973) showed that b y viewing video footage behavior from the perspective of an observer actors explained their behavior mo re in terms of dispositional rather than situational factors as compared with actors who were shown no video footage or video footage of their behavior from their original (actor)

PAGE 16

16 perspective which resulted in the actors maintaining typical situational at tributions for their own behavior. Self other differences in attributions have been found, then, to be changeable by other differences in attributions can also be changed, though, by cog nitive perspective taking a representations preferences, or evaluations (Batson, Early, & Salvarani, 1997; Epley & Waytz in press). Perspective T aking P erspective taking has been shown to occur through the cognitive process of egocentric anchoring and adjustment ( Epley, Keysar, Van Boven, & Gilovich, 2004) When perspective taking, people tend to anchor on their own perspe ctive and then perspective and their own. However, adjustments tend to be insufficient, and as a o be too occur through a process of e gocentric anchoring and adjustment with both children and adults anchoring on their own perspectives to a similar degree, but with adults being better perspective takers than children because they adjust more sufficiently away from their own perspective than children do (Epley, Morewedge, & Keysar, 2004). Neurological research has shown that repr esentations of the self relative to others results in perspective takers perceiving targets to be more similar to themselves (Ames, Jenkins, Banaji, & Mitchell, 2008). In an fMRI investigation of perspective taking, Ames and colleagues (2008) examined the

PAGE 17

17 role of the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vMPC), a part of the brain known to be involved in self referential mentation, in perspective taking. In their study, i t was found that blood oxygen level dependent patterns of the vMPC revealed less differentia tion between the self and a target of perspective taking suggesting that the self and other become less distinct during perspective taking processes (Ames et al., 2008). Hence, neurological evidence has shown that that perspective taking results in a merg ing of self and other mental representations ( Ames et al., 2008; Davis et al., 1996 ). Perspective taking has been shown to result in a number of cognitive and social outcomes beyond a reversal of the actor observer asymmetry (Regan & Totten, 1975; Storms, 1973). Social cognitive research supports neurological evidence t hat perspective taking results i n a merging of the self and other. Specifically, taking the perspective of a target has been shown to increase perceived similarity in personality attributes b etween the self and target (Davis et al., 1996). Furthermore, taking the perspective of a target has been shown to prompt individuals to exhibit similar behavior to a target (Galinsky, Wang, & Ku, 2008b). For instance, Galinksy and colleagues (Galinsky et al., 2008b) showed that after taking the perspective of an elderly man, perspective takers subsequently walked more slowly down a hallway corridor as compared with those who did not take the perspective of an elderly man. Studies have also documented that perspective taking increases emotional congruence between the self and other (Batson, et al. 1989; Betancourt, 1990), with perspective takers fe eling increased sympathy, unease, and distress for a target they see suffering (Batson et al., 1989).

PAGE 18

18 Perspect target which can result in positive social benefits. One social benefit associated with perspective taking is decreased stereotype expression and ingroup favoritism when one takes the perspective of a target who is an outgroup member, due to seeing this outgroup member as being more similar to oneself (Galinsky & Moskowitz, 2000) Perspective taking has also been shown to prompt individuals to act more altruistically toward a targe t whose perspective they take, often in response to the negative states they feel when taking the perspective of a target who is suffering (Batson et al., 1989; Betancourt, 1990 ). Furthermore, perspective taking has been shown to facilitate negotiation by leading people to see greater compatibility between their own and the also been theorized to facilitate bonding between individuals, leading to smoother interpersonal interactions, and reduced intergroup tension (Galinsky, 2002; Galinsky et al., 2005). Lastly, perspective taking has been shown to decrease interpersonal aggression, with perspective takers being less likely to aggress in response to threats or provocation (Richardson, Hammock, Smith, & Gardner 1994). Thus, perspective taking has been shown to result in numerous social benefits. The Current Study The effects of perspective taking have been studied in respect to changing self other asymmetries in attribution patterns ( Regan & Totten, 1975; Storms, 1973 ), perceived and actual similarity between the self and others (Batson, et al., 1989; Betancourt, 1990; Davis et al., 1996; Galinsky et al., 2 008b), and facilitating positive relationships with others (Galinsky, 2002; Galinsky, et al., 2005; Galinsky & Moskowitz,

PAGE 19

19 2000; Galinsky, et al., 2008a; Richardson et al 1994), but studies have yet to examine whether perspective taking may avert interper sonal hostility and how perspective taking ambiguous. The current study aims to do just this, by examining whether perspective taking may decrease the likelihood of exhi biting the hostile attributional bias in ambiguous social interactions. By perspective taking, it is believed that actors will experience increased self other overlap with a target, namely by feeling more similar and close to a target, and prompting them t o shift from a default egocentric perspective that promotes like attributional pattern expected that th is self other overlap with the target and reversal of attribution patterns will influence perceptions of target hostility, namely by decreasing perceptions of a attrib utional bias. Lastly, this is expected to result in more positive feelings toward the target. The current study will examine how perspective taking influences perceptions of a target behaving with ambiguous, as compared with hostile, intent. Thus, I will t est the hypothesis that c ompared with people who are asked to take a neutral, objective perspective (objective perspective condition) or no perspective at all (no perspective condition) peo ple who take the perspective of a target (other perspective condit ion) acting with ambiguous intent will be (1) less likely to make hostile attributions for the less likely to attribute behavior to dispositional factor s,

PAGE 20

20 (3) more likely to attribute to situational fac tors (4) less likely to indicate the target has a hostile personality type, (5) more likely to report having positive feelings toward the target (i.e., feel less anger toward the target, enjoy the target as a friend, and like the target), (6) and more lik ely to report feeling overlap with the target (i.e., greater similarity and closeness to the target). These predictions are expected to occur when viewing a target behaving particularly with ambiguous intent (the conditions under which the hostile attribu tional bias typically occurs) rather than when viewing a target behaving with hostile intent. When viewing a target behaving with hostile intent, perspective taking is expected to have no effect due to the lack of ambiguity in target intent, which should p rompt individuals to perceive the target relatively similarly, regardless of what perspective they take (i.e., most people should perceive a person behaving with unambiguously hostile intent to be hostile, regardless of what perspective they take) ( Dodge, 1980 ; Epps & Kendall, 1995). Furthermore, the other perspective condition was expected to yield the strongest effect on the dependent measures, followed by the objective perspective condition, then the no perspective condition. Though taking a neutral, obj ective perspective may remove individuals from taking an egocentric perspective, it does not prompt a conscious effort to think of oneself as a target and hence, should not confer to the social benefits of perspective taking. Furthermore, since maintaining perspective (which I expect to occur in the no perspective condition) confers none of the effects that perspective taking does, I expect this condition to show none of the positive social benefits of perspective taking.

PAGE 21

21 CHAPTER 2 METHOD Particip ants Two hundred and ninety two undergraduate students 1 enrolled in general psychology courses at the University of Florida participated in this study. Participants consisted of 97 men and 194 women (with one participant not reporting a gender). Participan M = 18.54, SD = 1.57). The sample included participants of many ethnicities: 10% African American participants, 7.1% Asian (American) participants, 63.8% Caucasian participants, 10.4% Latino participants, 6.2% mix ed race participants, and 2.5% other (did not report). Procedure Participants completed the study on laboratory computers at the University of Florida. The study was administered in half hour sessions with approximately five participants, situated in sepa rate booths, in each session. Upon completion of the study, participants were fully debriefed and given course credit for their participation. Materials Video Stimuli Participants viewed two previously validated videos created to assess Cognitive Appraisal and Understanding of Social Events (CAUSE videos) (Chen & Matthews, 2003). The first video (CAUSE 1) depicts a social interaction with a target behaving with ambiguous intent, conditions under which the hostile attributional bias may be assessed. In this 1 A power analysis was conducted using the program G*Power For a point biserial model w ith a small anticipated effect size ( = .1 to .2), alpha error of .05, and power of .80, there was a desired sample size of approximately n = 300

PAGE 22

22 (the target) math class. After announcing that he had found cheating on the last exam, Mr. Stubbs asks Billy to stay after class; it is unclear whether or not Mr. Stubbs intends to talk to Billy about cheating on the test. The second video (CAUSE 2) depicts a social interaction with a target behaving with unambiguously hostile intent, conditions under which most participants should perceive the target to be acting hostilely. In this video, participants viewed a story about a group of high school students going to a restaurant after an evening playing basketball. When the students arrive at the restaurant, the es to seat time. Experimental Manipulation Before viewing each of the videos, participants received one of three types of perspective instructions on a random bas were told to take the perspective of the target and imagine what he was thinking and neutral, objective perspective, simply told to watch the video. The experimental manipulation was adapted from a previous study on the effect of perspective taking on cognitive representations of the self and other (Davis et al., 1 996). Participants listened to an audio recording of the instructions on head phones while simultaneously reading the instructions on the computer screen. Participants received the same perspective taking instructions for both videos. For example, before v iewing the first video (CAUSE 1), participants in the other perspective condition received the following instructions:

PAGE 23

23 In this video you will be watching a story about Billy, a high school student ke perspective in the story. Clearly and vividly imagine how Mr. Stubbs is feeling and what he is thinking about what is happening. Concentrate on Mr. Stubbs in the experience. Think about Mr. Stubbs concern yourself w ith attending to all the information presented. Just imagine how Mr. Stubbs feels in this situation. Now please watch the following story. Those in the observer perspective condition received the following instructions: In this video you will be watchi ng a story about Billy, a high school student listen to what Mr. Stubbs does and says. Make careful observations of all erisms, posture, movements, facial expressions, speech characteristics, tone of voice, and other behavior. Notice exactly what Mr. Stubbs does, whatever it is. Try to take a neutral perspective, being as objective as possible. Now please watch the followin g story. Lastly, those in the no Identical instruction se ts were used for CAUSE 2, only changing the description of the video for all conditions and the actor and target names for the other and objective perspective conditions (Appendix A). Dependent Measures Participants answered 12 questions after watching ea ch CAUSE video. Participants responded to all but two items (clarified below) on a seven point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much). Questions after each video were correspond to the appropriate videos (Appendix B).

PAGE 24

24 Hostile attribution Two items (adapted from Epps & Kendall, 1995) assessed hostile attributions. The first item asked to what extent the target person (e.g., Mr. Stubbs) acted in a hostile manner. The second item focused on perceived intentions, and asked to what extent the target was being intentionally hostile. Dispositional and situational attribution Two items (adapted from Storms, 1973) assessed dispositional and situational attribution place d in. Hostile personality Two items (constructed for this study) examined perceptions of the target as having a specifically hostile (or non hostile) personality type. The first item asked to what extent the target is the type of person who generally picks on people. The second item asked to what extent the target is a generally hostile person. Interpersonal feelings toward target Three items (adapted from Davis et al., 1996) were included to assess interpersonal feelings toward the target. The first item a sked how angry the participant would be toward the target had the participant been in that given interaction. The second item asked how much the participant would like the target had the participant been in that given interaction. And the third item asked to what degree the participant would enjoy having the target as a friend.

PAGE 25

25 Overlap with target Two items assessed the extent to which participants felt an overlapping identity with the target. One item (adapted from Davis et al. 1996) assessed to what degr ee participants felt similar to the target. The second item was a validated single item measure assessing perceptions of closeness to the target as represented by a series of seven overlapping circles (Aron, Aron, & Smollan, 1992). Manipulation check To en sure that participants followed the perspective taking instructions they had be en given, one manipulation check question was included. The item asked participants what set of instructions they received before watching each video. The current study employe d a 3 (perspective condition: no perspective, objective perspective, other perspective) x 2 (target type: ambiguous intent, unambiguously hostile intent) mixed design, with perspective condition as a between subjects variable and target type as a within su bjects variable. Since the study contains both within and between subjects factors, mixed model factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) analyses 2 were conducted to test the key study hypotheses. 2 Two 1 df focused planned contrasts tests were also conducted to examine the key study hypotheses. Results revealed the same patterns as the 2 d f omnibus tests, therefore the omnibus tests and pairwise comparisons are reported.

PAGE 26

26 CHAPTER 3 RESULTS After excluding participants who failed t o answer the manipulation check question correctly, the final number of participants included in analyses was 240 ( n s = 75,71, 94 in the no perspective, objective perspective, and other perspective conditions, respectively). The mean ratings for each targe t and perspective taking condition are reported in Table 3 1. Hostile Attributional B ias The two items assessing hostile attributions were highly related within each target type ( r = .81 in the ambiguous target condition, r = .75 in the hostile target cond ition), therefore the two items were averaged to create separate indices of hostile attributions, with one index for each target. There was an overall main effect of target type, F (1, 237) = 645.94, p < .001, 2 = .73 indicating that participants perceived the hostile target as acting with greater hostile intent ( M = 5.81, SD = 1.25) than the ambiguous target ( M = 2.74, SD = 1.56). However, there was no overall effect of perspective condition on hostile attributions, F (2, 237) = .27, p = .77, parti al 2 = .002 nor was there an interaction between perspective condition and target type, F (2, 237) = .76 p = .47 partial 2 = perspective taking, and this was true whether the target acted with ambiguous or ho stile intent. Thus, hypothesis 1 was not supported. Dispositional A ttribution factors, there was an overall main effect of target type, F (1, 237 ) = 119.78, p < .001, partial 2 = .34 indicating that participants made more dispositional attributions for the

PAGE 27

27 hostile target ( M = 5.56, SD = 1.26) than the ambiguous target ( M = 4.31, SD = 1.61). di spositional attributions for target behavior, F (2, 237) = .50 p = .61 partial 2 = .004, nor was there an interaction between perspective condition and target type, F (2, 237) = .16 p = .86 partial 2 = .001, indicating that dispositional attributions f behavior were not affected by perspective taking, and this was true whether the target acted with ambiguous or hostile intent. Thus, hypothesis 2 was not supported. Situational A ttribution as caused by situational factors, there was a main effect of target type, F (1 237) = 5.91 p = .02 partial 2 = .02 indicating that participants made more situational attributions for the behavior of the hostile target ( M = 5.10, SD = 1.60) than for the ambiguous target ( M = 4.78, SD = 1.45). However, there was no effect of perspective condition on situational attributions, F (2, 237) = .15 p = .86 partial 2 = .001, nor was there an interaction between perspective condition and target type, F (2, 237) = .47 p = 63 partial 2 = .004, affected by perspective taking, and this was true whether the target acted with ambiguous or hostile intent. Thus, hypothesis 3 was not supported. Hostile P ersonality The two items assessing target hostile personality type were highly related within each target type ( r = .76 in the ambiguous target condition, r = .71 in the hostile target condition), therefore the two items were averaged to create separate indices of hostile personality type, yielding one index for each target. There was an overall main ef fect of target type, F (1, 237) = 248.64, p < .001, partial 2 = .51 indicating that participants

PAGE 28

28 perceived the hostile target to have a more hostile personality type ( M = 3.85, SD = 1.43) than the ambiguous target ( M = 2.15, SD = 1.12). Furthermore, there was a main effect of perspective condition, F (2, 237) = 3.29, p = .04, partial 2 = .03, with those in the other perspective condition rating the target as having a less hostile personality ( M = 2.79, SD = 1.30) than those in the objective perspective con dition ( M = 3.17, SD = 1.22), t ( 163 ) = 2.48, p = .04. 1 However, there was no difference between the other and no perspective conditions, t ( 167 ) = 1.70, p = .27, and objective and no perspective conditions, t ( 144 ) = .80, p = 1.00. Lastly, there was no in teraction between perspective condition and target type, F (2, 237) = .30 p = .7 4, partial 2 = 0 03 indicating that the effect of perspective taking was not specific to targets with ambiguous, as compared with hostile, intent. Thus, hypothesis 4 was not supported. Inter personal Feelings toward T arget The three items assessing interpersonal fee lings toward the target were highly items were averaged to create separate indices o f hostile personality type, yielding one index for each target. There was an overall main effect of target type, F (1, 237) = 722.20, p 2 = .75, indicating that participants reported more positive feelings toward the ambiguous target ( M = 4 .33, SD = 1.09) than toward the hostile target ( M = 2.67, SD = .82). However, there was no overall effect of perspective condition, F (2, 237) = 1.02, p 2 = .01, nor was there an interaction between perspective condition and target type, F (2 237) = 1.03, p 2 = 1 All reported pairwise comparisons were Bonferroni corrected.

PAGE 29

29 .01, indicating that feelings toward the target were not affected by perspective taking, and this was true whether the target acted with ambiguous or ho stile intent. Thus, hypothesis 5 was not supported. Overlap with ta rget The two items assessing overlap with the target were highly related within each target type ( r = .58 in the ambiguous target condition, r = .68 in the hostile target condition), therefore the two items were averaged to create separate indices of overl ap with the target, yielding one index for each target. There was an overall main effect of target type, F (1, 237) = 197.06, p < .001, partial 2 = .45, indicating that participants felt more overlap with the ambiguous target ( M = 3.32, SD = 1.30) as compared with the hostile target ( M = 1.94, SD = 1.04). There was also an overall main effect of perspective condition, F (2, 237) = 11.17, p < .001, partial 2 = .09, indicating that those in the other perspective condition felt more overlap with the target ( M = 2.98, SD = 1.22) than those in the objective condition ( M = 2.52, SD = 1.07), t (163) = 3.40, p = .002, and those in the no perspective condit ion ( M = 2.39, SD = 1.10), t (167) = 4.43, p < .001. There was no difference in perceptions of overlap with the target between those in the objective and no perspective conditions, t (144) = .92, p = 1.00. Lastly, there was no interaction between perspectiv e condition and target type, F (2, 237) = .70, p = .50, partial 2 = .006, indicating that perspective taking affected feelings of similarity to both ambiguous and hos tile targets. Thus, hypothesis 6 was not supported.

PAGE 30

30 Table 3 1. Means for Each Target Type and Perspective Condition Target Type Ambiguous Hostil e Perspective Condition Other Perspective Objective Perspective No Perspective Other Perspective Objective Perspective No Perspective Dependent Measures M ( SD ) M ( SD ) M ( SD ) M ( SD ) M ( SD ) M ( SD ) Hostile attributional bias 2.79 (1.67 ) 2.56 (1.41 ) 2.85 (1.64 ) 5.76 (1.29 ) 5.85 (1.16 ) 5.82 (1.27 ) Dispositional attribution 4.26 (1.66 ) 4.45 (1.44 ) 4.25 (1.70 ) 5.47 ( 1.34 ) 5.63 (1.06 ) 5.59 (1.34 ) Situational attribution 4.72 ( 1 5 3 ) 4.82 (1.25 ) 4.81 (1.52 ) 5.16 (1.08 ) 4.96 (1.58 ) 5.17 (1.59 ) Hos tile personality type 1 .99 (1.08 ) 2.27 (1.16 ) 2.21 (1.08 ) 3.59 (1.27 ) 4.07 (1.27 ) 3.89 (1.54 ) Feelings toward target 4.39 (1.08 ) 4.39 (.99 ) 4.21 (1.18 ) 2.80 (.89 ) 2.60 (.77 ) 2.61 (.78 ) Overlap with target 3.75 (1.31 ) 3.20 (1.25 ) 3.01 (1.21 ) 2.22 (1.13 ) 1 .84 (.90 ) 1.77 (. 99 )

PAGE 31

31 CHAPTER 4 DISCUSSION The current study found that participants distinguished between targets behaving with ambiguous and hostile intents largely in expect ed patterns, namely reporting more positive and less negative perceptions of a target behaving with ambiguous intent. Furthermore, perspective taking had a general effect on perceptions of target hostile personality type and overlap with the target; specif ically, it was found that perspective taking prompts individuals to perceive targets to have a less hostile personality type and to feel more overlap with a target. Lastly, perspective taking had no effect on the hostile attributional bias, dispositional a ttribution, situational attribution, perceptions of target hostile personality type, overall impression of a target, and overlap with a target when a target behaves specifically with ambiguous intent. Thus, perspective taking did not confer positive social benefits in interpersonal interactions that were susceptible to the hostile attributional bias, and there was no support for the study hypotheses. Though the study hypotheses were not supported, the data revealed that participants indeed distinguished be tween individuals behaving with ambiguous and hostile intent in expected patterns by exhibiting less hostile attributional biases, less dispositional attributions for behavior, perceptions of less hostile personality types for the targets, more positive fe elings, and greater overlap with targets acting with ambiguous, as compared with hostile, intent. However, participants reported more behavior, which is surprising g iven that the hostile target behaved with clearly hostile intent (leaving little ambiguity for other explanations of his behavior). Although theoretically it would be expected that someone behaving with unambiguous hostile

PAGE 32

32 intent would not be perceived to be acting as a function of his situation, the unique properties of the scenario participants viewed for the current study may have prompted greater situational attributions for a hostile target (i.e., the target refused to let the students in the restauran factor that may have prompted the target to behave the way he did). This is one possible explanation for why the hostile target in the current study was perceived to be acting as a functio n of both his disposition and situation to a greater extent than the ambiguous target, and it may be that variation in situational attributions would be seen for targets behaving with unambiguously hostile intent under different situational circumstances. Thus, although the pattern of situational attributions was reversed from what would be expected depending on target type, participants largely perceived ambiguous and hostile targets in expected patterns, with more positive perceptions and less negative pe rceptions of ambiguous targets as compared with hostile targets. Regardless of whether participants observed targets behaving with ambiguous or hostile intents, perspective taking had an overall effect on perceptions of the target having a hostile personal ity type and perceptions of overlap with the target. Specifically, participants who took the perspective of the target, as compared with an objective perspective, perceived the target to have a less hostile personality type, regardless of nt. Furthermore, participants who took the perspective of the target, followed by those who took an objective perspective, and then those who took no perspective. Thus, t hough perspective taking did not show positive social effects particularly when viewing a target behaving with ambiguous intent, perspective taking

PAGE 33

33 seemed to decrease the likelihood of perceiving a target to have a hostile personality type and increase fee lings of self other overlap with the target. Perspective taking may have influenced perceptions of the target as having a hostile personality type, but not other perceptions seemingly related to perceiving the target as hostile (i.e., increased hostile and dispositional attributions, more negative feelings toward the target) for a couple of reasons. Firstly, it could be that perceived traits (i.e., a hostile personality type) are distinct from seemingly related attributions or feelings Although one would e xpect individuals to make more hostile attributions and have a more negative impression of the target if he had a hostile personality type, this might not be the case. In our daily lives, we interact with strangers and have close friends and family members minds, personality type does not preclude the possibility of understanding that even those with hostile personalities may not always be acting as a function of their disposition (even if their b ehavior is consistent with their disposition) and hence do not necessarily have more negative feelings toward them (i.e., dislike, anger, not enjoy them as friends) because of their personality type. Perceptions of a target as having a hostile personality type was, in fact, only moderately or weakly related to measures of hostile attribution, dispositional attribution, and feelings toward the in the current sample, which lends some support to this claim. Secondly, it could be that this finding was simply th e result of a type I error, and it would be difficult to know this without replicating the effect or having included convergent measures of perceptions of a target as having a hostile personality type.

PAGE 34

34 Perspective takers consistently reported perceiving m ore overlap with a target regardless of whether the target was behaving with ambiguous or unambiguously hostile intent. Specifically, those who took the perspective of the target felt the most overlap, followed by those who took an objective perspective, t hen those who took no perspective. These results suggest that although participants showed a greater merging of the self with the target when they were perspective taking, which is consistent with past research (Davis et al., 1996; Galinsky et al., 2008b), the current study revealed self hostile intent nor did it generalize to other perceptions of the target or vary as a function of target intent. Perspective taking may not have had a n effect on the hostile attributional bias for a number of reasons. For one, although perspective taking leads to perceptions of shared personality attributes with a target (Davis et al 1996) and acting more similarly to the target (Galinsky et al., 2008 b), this may be distinct from inferring similarity of intent with a target, and (assuming that perspective takers themselves are not behaving with hostile intent), inferring that a target behaved with less hostile intent Inferring personality traits and o bserving (and imitating) behavior are comparatively easier tasks taking may function to enhance perceived similarity of personality and actual similarity in behavior but may not be effective in enhancing similarity in perceived intent due to Furthermore, it could be that taking the perspective of a target and perceiving more overlap with the target prompted participants to understand or sympathize with

PAGE 35

35 why the target behaved as he did, thereby having no effect on hostile attributional bias because by perspective taking, participants may have imagined behaving with similar intent had they been in the same situation. This could explain why perspective taking did not affect attribution patterns and interpersonal feelings toward the target based on intent, though it is difficult to know exactly why perspective taking intent did not influence attributional patterns and interpe rsonal feelings toward a target without further empirical investigation of these questions. Lastly, there is some evidence that the effects of perspective taking are not always positive. For instance, Epley, Caruso, and Bazerman (2006) have shown that when perspective taking in competitive social interactions, individuals are more likely to behave selfishly due to cynical thoughts that others will behave selfishly. Contrary to much of perspective taking research that prompts individuals to take the perspect ive of relatively benign targets, Epley and colleagues examined perspective taking under circumstances in which there was direct competition between individuals (i.e., taking a side of perspective taking (Caruso, Epley, & Bazerman, 2006). The current study examined social interactions that were not clearly benign, but also not directly related to competition, though participants did view social interactions that could be constru ed to be at odds with the target (i.e., defending a test performance, being seated in a restaurant); it could be that nuances within these social situations susceptible to the hostile attributional bias lie somewhere in between benign interactions and comp etitive interactions, leading participants to not fully have more positive perceptions of the target (i.e., more positive feelings) or less negative perceptions of the target (i.e., less hostile

PAGE 36

36 attributional biases), resulting in no differences in the hos tile attributional bias and overall impression, as was seen in the current study. Limitations There were a number of limitations in the current study. For one, the use of video clips, though more realistic than vignettes, may have lacked realism for the pa rticipants, thereby decreasing engagement or effects that may have been observed had a more naturalistic stimuli been used (i.e., interaction with confederates). Also, the video clips that participants viewed contained social interactions that involved a t arget of greater age and authority (i.e., a teacher and restaurant manager) it could be that taking the perspective of targets that differed from participants in age and authority made it more difficult for the participants to identify with those targets. Future Directions Future investigations examining the effect of perspective taking on the hostile naturalistic stimuli, such as interactions with a confederate. Furthermore, future studies may consider employing targets of similar age and status as the participant to see if this would facilitate perspective taking or change the likelihood of exhibiting the hostile attributional bias. Future studies should also examine the con vergence or distinction between perceptions of hostile intent and target hostile personality type to examine whether the effect observed in the current study replicates, indicating that attributions of hostility may be distinct from perceptions of a target having a hostile personality type. Lastly, future studies might consider examining social situations that are susceptible to the hostile attributional bias when actors and targets are in direct competition with one another to examine whether perspective t aking affects target perceptions differently

PAGE 37

37 than in social situations where the actor and target have brief and ambiguous encounters with one another. Future studies should also further examine the differential effects of gender and ethnicity on the effec ts of perspective taking in social situations that are susceptible to the hostile attributional bias. In post hoc exploratory analyses of gender in the current study, it was found that there were gender differences for feelings toward the targe t and overlap with the target, with males feeling more positive feelings and overlap with the target than females did, with the greatest difference seen for the ambiguous target. It is not surprising that males felt more overlap with the targets, consideri ng the targets were both male. Furthermore, men may have had more positive feelings toward the targets as a result of feeling more similarity or possibly because hostility is comparatively more acceptable for men, as compared with women, due to greater so cial acceptability for aggression amongst men In exploratory post hoc analyses of ethnicity effects (examining Caucasian participants compared with minority participants), there were main effects of ethnicity for situational attributions and overlap, with Caucasian participants making more situational attributions and feeling more overlap with the targets ( regardless of intent), as compared with minority participants. Furthermore, there were marginal interactions between ethnicity and target type for the h ostile attributional bias (with Caucasian participants making stronger hostile attributions for hostile targets as compared with minority participants and minority participants making stronger hostile at tributions for ambiguous targets as compared with Caucasian participants ), dispositional attributions (with Caucasian participants m aking stronger dispositional attributions for hostile

PAGE 38

38 targets as compared with minority participants and minority participants making stronger dispositional attributions for ambiguous targets as compared with Caucasian participants ), and hostile personality type (with Caucasian participants perceiving the hostile target to have a les s hostile personality type as compared with minority participants and minority participants perceiving the ambiguous target to have a less hostile personality type as compared with Caucasian participants ). These analyses suggest that the positive effects of perspective taking may occur more for minority participants when they perceiv e an ambiguous target and more for Caucasian participants when they perceive a hostile target. Thus, future research on perspective taking and the hostile attributional bias should examine when perspective taking has differential effects for majority and m inority group members since the exploratory analyses in the current study suggest that cross or same group interactions with targets behaving with ambiguous and hostile intents may yield differences in perceptions as a function of perspective taking. Conc lusion The findings of the current study reveal that although perspective taking results in increased self other overlap and decreased perceptions of target hostility at a general level, it does not affect perceptions of a target behaving specifically with ambiguous intent, conditions under which the hostile attributional bias may occur. The current study builds upon past perspective taking research by showing that although perspective taking results in increased self intent, the positive effects of perspective taking do not generalize into the domain of potentially hostile social interactions.

PAGE 39

39 APPENDIX A PERSPECTIVE INSTRUCT IONS Other perspective condition: In this video you will be watching a story about a group of students hanging out in their neighborhood. As you will soon see, these students decide to visit a restaurant for an evening meal. We see the students, here, and the owner of the restaurant, here. As you watch the video, please imagine how the restauran t owner feels. perspective in the story. Clearly and vividly imagine how the restaurant owner is feeling and what he is thinking about what is happening. Concentrate on the restaurant owner in the expe rience. Think about reactions. Try not to concern yourself with attending to all the information presented. Just imagine how the restaurant owner feels in this situation. Now please watch the following story. Observer perspective co ndition: In this video you will be watching a story about a group of students hanging out in their neighborhood. As you will soon see, these students decide to visit a restaurant for an evening meal. We see the students, here, and the owner of the restau rant, here. As you watch the video, closely look at and listen to what the restaurant owner does and says. Make careful observations of all his behavior. Concentrate your observations on the restaurant mannerisms, posture, movements, facial express ions, speech characteristics, tone of voice, and other behavior. Notice exactly what the rest aurant owner does, whatever it is. Try to take a neutral perspective, being as objective as possible. Now please watch the following story. No perspective conditi on: I n this video you will be watching a story about a group of students hanging out in their neighborhood. As you will soon see, these students decide to visit a restaurant for an evening meal. We see the students, here, and the owner of the restaurant, here. Please watch the following story.

PAGE 40

40 APPENDIX B DEPENDENT MEASURES All questions, besides the final two, were answered on 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much) Likert scales. CAUSE 1: 1. To what extent do you think Mr. Stubbs acted in a hostile manner toward Billy? 2. To what extent do you think Mr. Stubbs was being INTENTIONALLY hostile toward Billy when he asked him to meet after clas s? 3. How confident are you that Mr. Stubbs asked Billy to meet after class because he belie ved Billy cheated on the test? 4. How con fident are you that Mr. Stubbs asked Billy to meet for a reason OTHER than because he believed Billy cheated (for example, to congratulate him on a job well done)? Personality and environment both contribute to a person's actions. For example, someone wit h an "extraverted" personality will tend to act more outgoing and sociable than someone with an "introverted" personality (regardless of the type of situation they are in), illustrating how actions are determined in part by personality differences. At the same time, most people (regardless of their individual personalities) will tend to act more outgoing and sociable in some situations than in others, illustrating how actions are determined in part by the situation. With this in mind: 5. To what extent do you think that Mr. Stubbs's actions towards Billy reflects something about Mr. Stubbs's personality? 6. To what extent do you think Mr. Stubbs's actions towards Billy reflects something about the situation Mr. Stubbs was in? 7. To what extent do you think Mr. Stubb s is the type of person who generally picks on people? 8. To what extent do you think Mr. Stubbs is a generally hostile person? 9. If you were Billy, how angr y would you be with Mr. Stubbs? 10. If you were Billy, how much would you like Mr. Stubbs? 11. If you were Billy to what degree would you enjoy having Mr. Stubbs as a friend? 12. In your opinion, to what degree are you and Mr. Stubbs similar?

PAGE 41

41 13. Above are seven pai rs of circles. The left circle represents YOU, the right circle represents MR. STUBBS. Please choose the number of the picture that best describes how you view you and Mr. Stubbs right now. 14. In the instructions you were given before watching the video, were you told to: a. Simply watch the video b. c. d. Watch the video from a neutral perspective e. None of the above CAUSE 2: 1. To what extent do you think the restaurant owner acted in a h ostile manner toward the students? 2. To what extent do you think the restaurant owner was being INTENTIONALLY hostile toward the students when he told them the restaurant was closed? 3. How confident are you that the restaurant owner told the students the resta urant was closed because he did not want to serve them specifically? 4. How confident are you that the restaurant owner told the students the restaurant was closed for a reason OTHER than because he did not want to serve them specifically (for example, becaus e it was actually time for the restaurant to close)? Personality and environment both contribute to a person's actions. For example, someone with an "extraverted" personality will tend to act more outgoing and sociable than someone with an "introverted" p ersonality (regardless of the type of situation they are in), illustrating how actions are determined in part by personality differences. At the same time, most people (regardless of their individual personalities) will tend to act more outgoing and sociab le in some situations than in others, illustrating how actions are determined in part by the situation. With this in mind: 5. To what extent do you think that the restaurant owner 's actions towards the students reflects something about his personality? 6. To wh at extent do you think the restaurant owner's actions towards the students reflects something about the situation he was in? 7. To what extent do you think the restaurant owner is the type of person who generally picks on people? 8. To what extent do you think the restaurant owner is a generally hostile person? 9. If you were one of the students in the group, how angry would you be with the restaurant owner? 10. If you were one of the students in the group, how much would you like the restaurant owner? 11. If you were one of the students in the group, to what degree would you enjoy having the restaurant owner as a friend?

PAGE 42

42 12. In your opinion, to what degree are you and the restaurant owner similar? 13. Above are seven pairs of circles. The left circle represents YOU, the right circle represents THE RESTAURANT OWNER. Please choose the number of the picture that best describes how you view you and the restaurant owner right now 14. In the instructions you were given before watching the video, were you told to: a. Simply watch the video b. c. d. Watch the video from a neutral perspective e. None of the above

PAGE 43

43 LIST OF REFERENCES Ames, D. L., Jenkins, A. C., Banaji, M. R., & Mitchell, J. P. (2008). Taking another person's perspective increases self referential neural processing. Psychological Science 19 642 644. Batson, C., Batson, J. G., Griffi tt, C. A., Barrientos, S., Brandt, J., Sprengelmeyer, P., & Bayly, M. J. (1989). Negative state relief and the empathy altruism hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 56 922 933. Batson, C., Early, S., & Salvarani, G. (1997). Perspecti ve taking: Imagining how another feels versus imagining how you would feel. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 23 751 758. Batson, C., Sager, K., Garst, E., Kang, M., Rubchinsky, K., & Dawson, K. (1997). Is empathy induced helping due to self ot her merging?. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 73 495 509. Betancourt, H. (1990). An attribution empathy model of helping behavior: Behavioral intentions and judgments of help giving Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 16 573 591. Buss, A. H., & Durkee, A. (1957). An inventory for assessing different kinds of hostility Journal of Consulting Psychology 21 343 349. Buss, A. H., & Perry, M. (1992). The Aggression Questionnaire Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 63 452 459. Caruso, E.M., Epley, N., & Bazerman, M. H. (2006). The good, the bad, and the ugly of perspective taking in groups. In E.A., Mannix, M.A. Neale (Series Eds.) and A.E. Tenbrunsel (Vol. Ed.). Research on Managing Groups and Teams: Ethics and Groups: V ol. 8. Ethics in Groups (pp. 201 224). London: Elsevier. Chen, E., & Matthews, K. A. (2003). Development of the cognitive appraisal and understanding of social events (CAUSE) videos. Health Psychology 22 106 110. Davis, M. H., Conklin, L., Smith, A., & Luce, C. (1996). Effect of perspective taking on the cognitive representation of persons: A merging of self and other. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 70 713 726. De Castro, B.O., Veerman, J.W., Koops, W., Bosch, J.D., Monshouwer, H.J. (200 2). Hostile attribution of Intent and Aggressive Behavior: A Meta Analysis. Child Development, 73 916 934. Dodge, K. A. (1980). Social cognition and children's aggressive behavior. Child Development 51 162 170.

PAGE 44

44 Dodge, K. A., & Frame, C. L. (1982). Soci al cognitive biases and deficits in aggressive boys. Child Development 53(3), 620 635. Dodge, K. A., & Newman, J. P. (1981). Biased decision making processes in aggressive boys. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 90 375 379. Donovan, J.E., & Jessor, R. (1 991). Young Adult Driving Questionnaire Denver, CO: Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado. Epley, N., Caruso, E., & Bazerman, M. H. (2006). When perspective taking increases taking: Reactive egoism in social interaction. Journal of Perso nality and Social Psychology 91 872 889. Epley, N., Keysar, B., Van Boven, L., & Gilovich, T. (2004). Perspective Taking as Egocentric Anchoring and Adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 87 327 339. Epley, N., Morewedge, C. K., & K eysar, B. (2004). Perspective taking in children and adults: Equivalent egocentrism but differential correction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 40 760 768. Epley, N., & Waytz, A. (in press). Perspective taking. I n Harry T. Reis & Susan Sprecher (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Human Relationships Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Epps, J., & Kendall, P. C. (1995). Hostile attributional bias in adults. Cognitive Therapy and Research 19 159 178. Galinsky, A. D. (2002). Creating a nd reducing intergroup conflict: The role of perspective taking in affecting out group evaluations. In H. Sondak, H. Sondak (Eds.), Toward phenomenology of groups and group membership (pp. 85 113). New York, NY US: Elsevier Science. Galinsky, A. D., Ku, G ., & Wang, C. S. (2005). Perspective Taking and Self Other Overlap: Fostering Social Bonds and Facilitating Social Coordination. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 8 109 124. Galinsky, A. D., Maddux, W. W., Gilin, D., & White, J. B. (2008a). Why it pays to get inside the head of your opponent: The differential effects of perspective taking and empathy in negotiations. Psychological Science 19 378 384. Galinsky, A. D., & Moskowitz, G. B. (2000). Perspective taking: Decreasing stereotype expression, stereotype accessibility, and in group favoritism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 78 708 724. Galinsky, A. D., Wang, C. S., & Ku, G. (2008b). Perspective takers behave more stereotypically. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 95 404 419.

PAGE 45

45 Jones, E. E., & Nisbett, R. E. (1987). The actor and the observer: Divergent perceptions of the causes of behavior. In E. E. Jones, D. E. Kanouse, H. H. Kelley, R. E. Nisbett, S. Valins, B. Weiner (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the causes of b ehavior (pp. 79 94). Hillsdale, NJ England: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Matthews, B., & Norris, F. H. (2002). When is believing 'seeing'? Hostile attribution bias as a function of self reported aggression. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 32 1 32. Milich, R., & Dodge, K. A. (1984). Social information processing in child psychiatric populations. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology: An official publication of the International Society for Research in Child and Adolescent Psychopathology 12 471 489. Nasby, W., Hayden, B., & DePaulo, B. M. (1980). Attributional bias among aggressive boys to interpret unambiguous social stimuli as displays of hostility. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 89 459 468. Regan, D. T., & Totten, J. (1975). Empathy and attrib ution: Turning observers into actors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 32(5), 850 856. Richardson, D. R., Hammock, G. S., Smith, S. M., & Gardner, W. (1994). Empathy as a cognitive inhibitor of interpersonal aggression. Aggressive Behavior 2 0 275 289. Ross, L., Greene, D., & House, P. (1977). The false consensus effect: An egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes. Journal of Expe rimental Social Psychology, 13 279 301. Spielberger, C. D., (1988). Manual for the State Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Steinberg, M. S., & Dodge, K. A. (1983). Attributional bias in aggressive adolescent boys and girls. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 1 312 321. Storms, M. D. (1973). Videotape and the attribution process: Reversing actors' and observers' points of view. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 27 165 175.

PAGE 46

46 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Bonnie Le was born in Modesto, California in 1985. She graduated from th e University of California, Berkeley in 2007 with Bachelors of Arts in psychology and integrative biology. Before moving to Gainesville to enroll doctoral program in social psychology, Bonnie interned at the non profit Colleg e Track where she worked to help under resourced high school students in Oakland, California graduate from high school and apply to college. Bonnie received her Master of Science in social psychology from the University of Florida in the spring of 2011. I n her spare time, Bonnie enjoys running and competitive Scrabble.