It is easier to make personal attributions in some cases than others. When a behavior is unusual or unexpected in the party curl situation it occurs in, we can more easily make a personal attribution for it. Imagine this situation, you go to a party and you are introduced to Kate, Kate shakes your hand and says, nice to meet you. Can you readily conclude on the basis of this behavior that the kid is a friendly person? Probably not. Because the social context demands that people act in a friendly way by shaking your hand and saying nice to me.
It is difficult to know whether Kate act is friendly because of the situation or because she's really friendly. But imagine on the other side that instead of shaking your hand, he ignores you and walks away. In such cases, it is easier to interfere that Kate is unfriendly in this case because her behavior is so contrary to what one would expect to test Idea Edward Jones and his colleagues conducted a classic experiment in which participants viewed one of four different videotapes of a man who was applying for a job. For how the participants the video indicated that the man was interviewing for a job as a Submariner, a position that required close contact with many people over a long period of time. It was clear to demand being interviewed, as well as to the research participants that it will be a good Submariner you should be extroverted, for example, you should enjoy being around others.
The other half of the participants saw a video in which demand was interviewing for a job as an astronaut which involved remember the study was conducted in 1961. Being in a small capsule alone for days on end, in this case, it was clear to everyone that in order to be a good astronaut, you should have an introverted personality, your immediate people think 32nd arrival was also many One half of the participants saw the man indicate that he was actually an introvert. He's studying search. I like to work on my own item go out too much. And the other half saw demand see that he was actually an extrovert. He said he's such as I would like to be a salesman, or I always get ideas from others.
After viewing one of the four videotapes, participants were asked to indicate how introverted or extroverted the to the applicants really was. As you can see in this table, when the applicant gave responses that better matched what was required by job, for example, for the Submariner chop the applicants that he was an xo word. And for the Astro job, he said he was an introvert. The participants didn't team his statements were as indicated of his underlying personality as they be to what the applicant said the opposite of what was expected by the job. The idea here is this the statements that were unusual or Unexpected on the basis of the job requirements just seem like they could not possibly have been caused by the situation. So the participants really thought that the interviewee was telling the truth.
On the other hand, when the interviewee made statements that were consistent with what was required by the situation, it was more difficult to be sure that he was telling the truth. Perhaps thinking back to the discussion of strategic self presentation in previous section, he was just seeing these things because he wanted to get a job, and the participants made weaker personal attributions for his behavior. We can also make personal attributions more easily when we know that the person had a choice in the behavior. If a man chooses to be friendly, even in situation which he might not be, this probably means that he's friendly, but if we can determine that he's been forced to be friendly, it is more difficult to know easily For example, you saw a man pointing a gun at another person and then you saw that person give his watch and wallet to the gun then you would probably not inferior did.
The person was generous