Running head: ACTIVITIES, OBVIOUS SOCIAL STIMULI
1
On Probabilistic Causalities between Activities, Obvious Social Stimuli, Inferences, and
Behavioral Outcomes
Raimo J Laasonen
IARR/BBS
ACTIVITIES, OBVIOUS SOCIAL STIMULI
2
Abstract
The objective of the research was to answer the question: What kinds of causal relationships do
persons construct to figure out another person based on minimal information?
A theoretical, and a corresponding empirical research were done. The theoretical research
produced a hypothesis: Persons, who have an analytic approach to obvious social stimuli, infer
more correctly activities of other persons than persons, who have a holistic approach. The
hypothesis corroborated. Factor Analysis was applicable to the influence of the researcher and,
Householder method, Bayes matrices to the probabilistic causalities. Time reliability was αreliability, and the coefficients of nondetermination laid foundation to the validity of the
observation. The theoretic results indicated. If the persons are able to use the whole outer set of
the stimuli available, and case study like deduction, and induction they have the resolution level
of the inference that enables them to figure out other persons, more probably. Quite the reverse,
if the persons apply to the outer set of stimuli available, partially, employ false generalizations,
and agree deeds with persons without reasoning, they have the resolution level that disables them
to figure out others persons, more probably.
Keywords: probabilistic causality, randomization, Factor Analysis, Householder method, Bayes
matrix, activities, social stimuli, inference, outcomes
ACTIVITIES, OBVIOUS SOCIAL STIMULI
3
On Probabilistic Causalities between Activities, Obvious Social Stimuli, Inferences, and
Behavioral Outcomes
Attribution in social environment has been an intensive object of research in many
decades (Heider, 1958), (Kelley, 1973), (Mallet, 2003). The attribution theories base on a kind
of common sense explanations how persons make sense of behavior of others, and locate reasons
of behavior. Experiential schemata, however, differ between the one who makes conceptual
analysis, and a person “ in the street”, especially subjective semantics. On the contrary, less
attention has paid to behavioral explanations of persons who deal with minimal information in a
social situation. There is research about first impressions but it has concentrated on stimulus
characteristics more than causal explanations. A minimal social situation is definable as a lack
of prior information about a person. In a similar way, a lack of verbal behavior makes it difficult
to infer from a person. It may be interesting to know the locus of the causes in social behavior
but more necessary is to know: What kinds of causal relationships do persons construct to figure
out another person based on minimal information? The reason of the present research was to
shed light on the very question.
A theoretical research preceded an empirical one because of a hypothesis construction.
Methodically, the researches were similar, except in the theoretical research the data formed
from randomized frequencies. The quantifiable concepts were activities of a person, obvious
social stimuli, inference, and outcomes. The activities meant such action as sports,
achievements, and job. The obvious social stimuli were definable as directly seen social stimuli
such as clothing. The inference meant coming to a conclusion from the observable person. The
outcomes purposed progress in the dynamic.
ACTIVITIES, OBVIOUS SOCIAL STIMULI
4
The quantifiable concepts divided into four observation categories. The activities
divided into rare, rather rare, rather common, and common activities. The obvious social stimuli
comprised of the categories: an entire person, an outfit, physical appearance, and body builds.
The inference categorized, stereotypes: ignores individuality, intuits: does not reason. In the
place of deduction, and induction the definitions had to be modified to according to one person,
following. The participant deduces when he or she refers to the whole person, and proceeds to
details for example to soles, and hands. The participant induces when he or she refers to details
first then proceeds to the whole person. The behavioral outcomes were the first wrong person,
the second wrong person then the participant becomes a loser, the participant terminates the
dynamic, and becomes a finisher, and the participant accomplishes the dynamic, and becomes an
accomplisher. The theoretic research resulted in the hypothesis: Persons, who have an analytic
approach to obvious social stimuli, infer more correctly activities of other persons than those,
who have a holistic approach.
Theoretical Research
Method
Construction of Random Matrix
Twenty-four 12 by16 pseudorandom matrices generated with ones, and nulls. The
number of the matrices was the same as the number of the participants (N=24) in the empirical
research. The row number twelve was the potential number of the concluded persons, the
random “participants” could figure out right with the activities. Sixteen was the number of the
categories.
ACTIVITIES, OBVIOUS SOCIAL STIMULI
5
Table 1
Random Frequencies
Activities
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Ra
4
1
4
3
3
4
2
1
3
4
0
3
1
1
2
2
4
2
2
3
2
4
3
0
Rar
4
2
4
1
0
3
2
4
3
4
3
1
1
0
0
0
4
3
2
4
4
4
1
4
Rc
3
3
0
3
1
1
0
4
1
1
4
3
2
2
0
2
0
0
2
0
1
4
2
1
Social stimuli
C
0
4
4
3
0
1
0
0
3
3
3
0
0
1
1
1
4
0
3
1
3
0
2
4
Ep
7
6
7
7
5
5
3
5
7
5
8
8
10
4
4
7
7
5
7
6
7
5
4
7
Of
7
6
6
5
7
7
5
7
6
5
8
4
4
7
7
3
7
8
5
7
4
7
4
3
Pa
4
6
5
6
2
6
7
5
8
8
8
8
5
6
6
7
4
6
5
9
7
6
7
8
Bb
7
6
3
4
4
8
7
6
6
4
5
6
7
7
5
4
7
8
6
7
8
4
6
3
Inference
St
8
6
9
8
7
9
11
7
8
5
8
7
8
3
7
6
5
9
6
5
7
4
8
4
In
9
7
4
7
10
5
5
4
4
6
4
4
7
6
6
3
10
5
6
4
6
6
6
5
De
8
6
7
6
4
5
6
6
8
3
5
4
7
8
3
6
7
3
6
3
6
8
3
8
Outcomes
Id
5
4
5
5
6
6
2
8
3
7
4
4
6
3
5
6
8
7
4
5
5
7
8
4
Fwp
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
Swp
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
Fi
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
Acc
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
ACTIVITIES, OBVIOUS SOCIAL STIMULI
6
In Table 1, the abbreviations mean: Ra= rare, Rar=rather rare, Rc=rather common, and
C=common activities; Ep=entire person, Of=outfit, Pa=physical appearance, and Bb=body
builds as the obvious social stimuli; St=stereotypes=ignores individual differences,
In=intuits=does not reason, De=deduces= refers to the whole person then his or her particulars;
Id=induces=refers to his or her particulars first then the whole person; Fwp= first wrong person,
Swp=second wrong person, Fi=finishes dynamic Acc= accomplishes dynamic.
The activities, and the outcomes were rerandomized in groups of four. The new values replaced
with the earlier randomized frequencies in the first, and last four columns in Table 1. The row
sums of the activities (columns 1, 2, 3, 4) could not exceed 12 because there were 12 observable
persons. The random range of the activities was four, and when the row sum of the frequencies
exceeded 12, it was leveled to 12 with random subtraction in the range four. The sum 12 in the
activities knew that the person was the accomplisher. In a similar manner, in Table 1 the sums of
the last three columns could not exceed 24 because there were 24 participants. The random row
of the outcomes was ones, and nulls row by row. In an ambiguous case, a random number was
generated in the range of three.
Reliability, and Validity of Random Observation
The row correlations were calculated from the matrix, in Table 1. The correlations
were squared, and α-reliability coefficient was assessed. The different variances, the common,
specific, and error variances were calculable by means of α-reliability, and Factor analysis.
Therefore, Q-factor analysis was adequate to get communalities for the calculation of the
variances, and later to assess the influence of the researcher. It is known that one minus αreliability (1-rii=e 2) is error variance,
ACTIVITIES, OBVIOUS SOCIAL STIMULI
7
and one minus communality (1-h2=u2) is unique variance. Consequently, specific
variance is unique variance minus error variance times unique variance s2 =1-(e2∗u2). Reliability
is communality plus specific variance.
Assessment of validity began when one subtracted the squared correlations, which gave
the coefficients of nondetermination or k2. The entire matrix sum was calculated. In the
nondeterminative matrix, the diagonal values were nulls, and the sum of the full
nondetermination was 240 when the coefficients were ones. The error location of the
frequencies derived from subtracting the quotient of the sum of the matrix cells, and 240 from
one. The error location multiplied the total sum of the random frequencies, and 16 divided the
result. It gave the error location on average.
Causal Dynamic
The column frequencies were added in Table 1 resulting in a 4 by 4 matrix where the
variables were in the rows. The frequencies converted into probabilities, row wise before the
matrix transposed, and the row probabilities were calculated, again. The squared Householder
method was adequate to the matrix because the method gives a double stochastic matrix. The
squared Householder matrix was transposed, and decomposed into four vectors. Cartesian
products were calculated between the vectors, and three matrices formed. The sum of the
matrices divided each of the matrices that gave Bayes probabilities from the joint distributions.
A new 12 by 12 matrix was constructed from the Bays matrices where the Bayes matrices were
diagonally. The squared Householder method was applicable to the new matrix. The
Householder matrix was reduced to a matrix that included in the row maxima, only. The last
application of the squared Householder
ACTIVITIES, OBVIOUS SOCIAL STIMULI
8
method gave a matrix of ones, and nulls. The last matrix powered from P0 to P12
because of 12 observable persons. The first matrix in the dynamic was the usual base, and
accordingly, no causalities existed. Thereafter, the causalities were grouped according to the
outcomes in the entire dynamic.
Results
Theoretical Reliability, and Validity
The α-reliability was 0.993, and consistently, error was 0.007. The communalities, the
specific, and the error variances are in Table 2. The sum row before the last row is essential in
Table 2. Division by 24 gave the scaled variances, and at the same time, reliability resulted
when the sum of the communalities, and the sum of the specific variances were added or
1=0.822+0.177+0.001 for the communalities, the specific, and the error variances. The time
reliability followed from 0.882+0.177=0.999.
As with the validity the sum of the nondeterminative coefficients was 224.806, and the
full nondetermination was 240. The error location derived from 1-(224.806/240). The total
amount of the random frequencies was 1378. Therefore, (0.063*1378)/16 gave the wrong
located frequencies, about five frequencies per category.
Theoretic Causal Dynamic
The intermediate phases of dynamic causation lack because they are calculable from
Table 1. On the contrary, the focus is on the hypothesis production. In Table 3, there are
formerly mentioned causalities grouped according to the outcomes, and in the left P: s with
exponents is the observable “persons” in time order. A keener examination of Table 3 reveals
that the “participants” who succeeded during the dynamic deduce, and induce.
ACTIVITIES, OBVIOUS SOCIAL STIMULI
9
Table 2
Communalities, Specific, and Error Variances
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Communalities
.841
.877
.742
.875
.861
.912
.716
.776
.928
.710
.835
.808
.828
.682
.903
.819
.746
.882
.931
.756
.904
.681
.820
.886
2
∑h .j=19.723
Specific Variances
.157
.122
.257
.124
.138
.088
.282
.223
.072
.288
.164
.191
.170
.315
.096
.179
.252
.117
.069
.242
.096
.317
.179
.113
∑Sv.j=4.250
Error Variances
.001
.001
.002
.001
.001
.001
.002
.001
.0005
.002
.001
.001
.001
.002
.001
.001
.002
.001
.0005
.002
.001
.002
.001
.001
∑Ev.j=. 028
∑∑xij=24
ACTIVITIES, OBVIOUS SOCIAL STIMULI
10
They reason from the entire person to his or her details or from his or her details to the
whole person while the “participants” who behave erroneously ignore individual features, and do
not reason. Therefore, two approaches are inferable from the causalities the one, which calls an
analytic approach, the other which calls a holistic approach such as small children have.
Stereotyping, and intuition belong to the holistic approach because they do not analyse parts, and
their relations or details whereas the one-person deduction, and induction represent the analytical
approach. Other patterns are scarce in the random results. The selection of the activities is
scattered. The obvious social stimuli have inverse relationships between the first wrong person,
and the finishers. The losers, and the accomplishers have also an inverse relationship between
the obvious stimuli. Therefore, the incomplete pattern in the pseudorandom results warrants the
hypothesis about the approaches: Persons, who have an analytic approach to obvious social
stimuli, infer more correctly activities of other persons than those, who have a holistic approach.
Empirical Research
Method
Participants
Twenty-four persons, 13 males, and 11 females participated in the dynamic.
Procedure
The task of the participants was to join the observable persons with their activities based on the
obvious social stimuli without verbal behavior. Only autonomous solutions counted. The
occasions were videotaped. One wrong solution did not mean anything but two wrong solutions
meant the end of the dynamic. The participants had a chance to leave the situation whenever
they wanted.
ACTIVITIES, OBVIOUS SOCIAL STIMULI
11
Empirical Reliability, and Validity
The row correlations were calculated from the matrix in Table 4. The correlations were
squared, and α-reliability was assessed from the coefficients of determination. As in the
theoretical research, Q-factor analysis was sufficient for the communalities from which the
specific, and error variances derived. One subtracted the communalities that gave the unique
variances. The error term from the α-reliability multiplied the unique variances, and the values
were subtracted from the unique variances. The procedure gave the specific variances. The
error variance multiplied the unique variances. The α-reliability was 0.885, and accordingly the
error variance was 0.115. The communalities, the specific, and the error variances are in Table
5. The row before the last row includes in the sums of the variances. Division by 24 gave the
scaled variances, and at the same time, reliability resulted when the sums of the communalities,
and specific variances added. The communality sum was 0.791 (rounded value from the fourth
decimal value), the specific variance was 0.185, and the error variance was 0.024. The reliability
coefficient was 0.976. Comparison of the random variances 1.000=0.822+0.177+0.001 with the
empirical variances 1.000=0.791+0.185+0.024 indicated that the common variance diminishes,
the specificity rises, and the error variance increases considerably because of the researcher.
The assessment of validity began subtracting the squared correlations from one, which
gave the coefficients of nondetermination or k2. The matrix sum of nondetermination was
calculated, and it was 224.667. In the nondeterminative matrix, the diagonal values were nulls,
and the sum of the full nondetermination was 240 when the coefficients were ones.
ACTIVITIES, OBVIOUS SOCIAL STIMULI
12
Table 3
Causalities Grouped According to Outcomes from Random Data
First
wrong
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
P6
P7
P8
P9
P10
P11
P12
Finishers
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
P6
P7
P8
P9
P10
P11
P12
Activity
Stimuli
Inference
Losers
Activity
Stimuli Inference
Rare
Common
Rare
Common
Common
RatherC
Common
RatherC
RatherC
Rare
RatherC
Rare
Activity
Common
RatherC
RatherC
Rare
RatherC
Rare
Rare
Common
Rare
Common
Common
RatherC
Physical
Physical
EntireP
EntireP
Physical
Physical
EntireP
EntireP
Physical
Physical
EntireP
EntireP
Stimuli
EntireP
EntireP
Physical
Physical
EntireP
EntireP
Physical
Physical
EntireP
EntireP
Physical
Physical
Intuits
Stereotypes
Intuits
Stereotypes
Intuits
Stereotypes
Intuits
Stereotypes
Intuits
Stereotypes
Intuits
Stereotypes
Inference
Induces
Deduces
Induces
Deduces
Induces
Deduces
Induces
Deduces
Induces
Deduces
Induces
Deduces
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
P6
P7
P8
P9
P10
P11
P12
Accomplishers
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
P6
P7
P8
P9
P10
P11
P12
RatherR
Rare
Common
RatherR
RatherR
Common
RatherC
RatherR
RatherR
RatherC
Rare
RatherR
Activity
RatherC
RatherR
RatherR
RatherC
Rare
RatherR
RatherR
Rare
Common
RatherR
RatherR
Common
Outfit
BodyB
BodyB
Outfit
Outfit
BodyB
BodyB
Outfit
Outfit
BodyB
BodyB
Outfit
Stimuli
BodyB
Outfit
Outfit
BodyB
BodyB
Outfit
Outfit
BodyB
BodyB
Outfit
Outfit
BodyB
Stereotypes
Intuits
Stereotypes
Intuits
Stereotypes
Intuits
Stereotypes
Intuits
Stereotypes
Intuits
Stereotypes
Intuits
Inference
Deduces
Induces
Deduces
Induces
Deduces
Induces
Deduces
Induces
Deduces
Induces
Deduces
Induces
ACTIVITIES, OBVIOUS SOCIAL STIMULI
13
The error location was obtained subtracting the quotient of the sum of the matrix cells,
and 240 from one or 1-(224.667/240). The total amount of the empirical frequencies was 628.
Therefore, 0.064*628/16 gave the wrong located frequencies about three frequencies per
category.
Empirical Dynamic
The column frequencies were added in Table 4, and a 4 by 4 matrix resulted. The
frequencies were converted into probabilities, row wise before the matrix was transposed, and
the probabilities calculated, again. The squared Householder method applied to the matrix
because the method gave a double stochastic matrix, and mapping into the interval of 0-1,
simultaneously. The squared Householder matrix was transposed, and decomposed to four
vectors. Cartesian products were calculated between the vectors, and the result was three
matrices. The sum of the matrices divided each of the matrices, which produced the Bayes
matrices. A new 12 by 12 matrix constructed from the Bays matrices, and the Bayes matrices
were diagonally. The squared Householder method was applied to the new matrix. The
Householder matrix was reduced to a matrix that included in the row maxima, only. The last
application of the squared Householder method gave a matrix of ones, and nulls. The last matrix
was powered from P0 to P12 because of 12 observable persons. The first matrix in the dynamic
was the usual base, and accordingly, no causalities existed. The matrix powers corresponded
with the order of the observable persons. Thereafter, the causalities were grouped according to
the outcomes. The causalities are in Table 6.
ACTIVITIES, OBVIOUS SOCIAL STIMULI
14
Table 4
Empirical Frequencies
Activities
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Ra
3
4
1
4
3
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
3
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
Rar
3
2
3
1
3
0
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
3
1
1
3
3
2
2
2
2
Social stimuli
Rc
0
1
0
0
1
1
2
0
1
1
2
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
2
5
C
1
1
2
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
6
4
3
3
2
Ep
2
5
2
2
5
2
2
1
3
2
7
3
0
4
1
1
1
3
4
6
5
4
5
5
Of
5
1
3
2
1
3
1
4
3
1
1
2
0
2
1
7
5
0
1
1
3
2
2
5
Pa
1
5
2
4
3
1
2
3
4
1
8
4
6
12
3
13
3
4
6
3
1
1
5
2
Inference
Bb
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
2
0
3
3
0
4
4
4
5
2
0
2
1
0
0
1
1
St
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
In
1
4
2
0
4
1
4
2
2
2
1
1
1
6
2
3
1
4
7
10
5
4
4
3
Outcomes
De
7
4
2
0
4
2
1
3
1
1
3
2
2
1
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
3
Id
3
1
1
4
0
1
1
1
2
1
4
1
6
4
0
6
3
0
0
1
3
2
3
4
Fwp
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Swp
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
Fi
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
Acc
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
ACTIVITIES, OBVIOUS SOCIAL STIMULI
15
Table 5
Empirical Communalities, Specific, and Error Variances
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Communalities
.771
.719
.824
.679
.683
.730
.687
.799
.854
.623
.757
.675
.749
.952
.922
.891
.751
.941
.939
.903
.745
.886
.876
.615
2
∑h .j=18.972
Specific Variances
.202
.249
.156
.284
.280
.238
.277
.177
.129
.334
.215
.287
.222
.043
.069
.096
.220
.052
.054
.086
.226
.101
.110
.341
∑Sv.j=4.448
Error Variances
.026
.032
.020
.037
.037
.031
.036
.023
.017
.044
.028
.038
.029
.006
.009
.013
.029
.007
.007
.011
.030
.013
.014
.045
∑Ev.j=. 580
∑∑xij=24
ACTIVITIES, OBVIOUS SOCIAL STIMULI
16
Table 6
Empirical Causalities According to Outcomes
First
wrong
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
P6
P7
P8
P9
P10
P11
P12
Finishers
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
P6
P7
P8
P9
P10
P11
P12
Activity
Stimuli
Inference
Losers
Activity
Stimuli
Inference
RatherC
RatherC
Rare
RatherC
RatherC
Rare
RatherC
RatherC
Rare
RatherC
RatherC
Rare
Activity
Common
Common
Common
RatherR
Rare
RatherC
Common
Common
Common
RatherR
Rare
RatherC
BodyB
Outfit
EntireP
BodyB
Outfit
EntireP
BodyB
Outfit
EntireP
BodyB
BodyB
EntireP
Stimuli
Outfit
PhysicalA
BodyB
PhysicalA
EntireP
PhysicalA
Outfit
PhysicalA
BodyB
PhysicalA
EntireP
PhysicalA
Stereotypes
Stereotypes
Stereotypes
Stereotypes
Stereotypes
Stereotypes
Stereotypes
Stereotypes
Stereotypes
Stereotypes
Stereotypes
Stereotypes
Inference
Induces
Deduces
Induces
Deduces
Induces
Deduces
Induces
Deduces
Induces
Deduces
Induces
Deduces
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
P6
P7
P8
P9
P10
P11
P12
Accomplishers
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
P6
P7
P8
P9
P10
P11
P12
Rare
RatherR
RatherR
Rare
RatherR
RatherR
Rare
RatherR
RatherR
Rare
RatherR
RatherR
Activity
RatherR
Rare
RatherC
Common
Common
Common
RatherR
Rare
RatherC
Common
Common
Common
EntireP
BodyB
Outfit
EntireP
BodyB
Outfit
EntireP
BodyB
Outfit
EntireP
BodyB
Outfit
Stimuli
PhysicalA
EntireP
PhysicalA
Outfit
PhysicalA
BodyB
PhysicalA
EntireP
PhysicalA
Outfit
PhysicalA
BodyB
Intuits
Intuits
Intuits
Intuits
Intuits
Intuits
Intuits
Intuits
Intuits
Intuits
Intuits
Intuits
Inference
Deduces
Induces
Deduces
Induces
Deduces
Induces
Deduces
Induces
Deduces
Induces
Deduces
Induces
ACTIVITIES, OBVIOUS SOCIAL STIMULI
17
Table 7
Juxtaposition of Causalities of First Wrong Person, and of Losers
First
wrong
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
P6
P7
P8
P9
P10
P11
P12
Losers
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
P6
P7
P8
P9
P10
P11
P12
Random
Activity
Dynamic
Stimuli
Inference
First wrong
Empirical Dynamic
Activity
Stimuli
Inference
Rare
Common
Rare
Common
Common
RatherC
Common
RatherC
RatherC
Rare
RatherC
Rare
Activity
RatherR
Rare
Common
RatherR
RatherR
Common
RatherC
RatherR
RatherR
RatherC
Rare
RatherR
Physical
Physical
EntireP
EntireP
Physical
Physical
EntireP
EntireP
Physical
Physical
EntireP
EntireP
Stimuli
Outfit
BodyB
BodyB
Outfit
Outfit
BodyB
BodyB
Outfit
Outfit
BodyB
BodyB
Outfit
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
P6
P7
P8
P9
P10
P11
P12
Losers
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
P6
P7
P8
P9
P10
P11
P12
RatherC
RatherC
Rare
RatherC
RatherC
Rare
RatherC
RatherC
Rare
RatherC
RatherC
Rare
Activity
Rare
RatherR
RatherR
Rare
RatherR
RatherR
Rare
RatherR
RatherR
Rare
RatherR
RatherR
Intuits
Stereotypes
Intuits
Stereotypes
Intuits
Stereotypes
Intuits
Stereotypes
Intuits
Stereotypes
Intuits
Stereotypes
Inference
Stereotypes
Intuits
Stereotypes
Intuits
Stereotypes
Intuits
Stereotypes
Intuits
Stereotypes
Intuits
Stereotypes
Intuits
BodyB
Outfit
EntireP
BodyB
Outfit
EntireP
BodyB
Outfit
EntireP
BodyB
BodyB
EntireP
Stimuli
EntireP
BodyB
Outfit
EntireP
BodyB
Outfit
EntireP
BodyB
Outfit
EntireP
BodyB
Outfit
Stereotypes
Stereotypes
Stereotypes
Stereotypes
Stereotypes
Stereotypes
Stereotypes
Stereotypes
Stereotypes
Stereotypes
Stereotypes
Stereotypes
Inference
Intuits
Intuits
Intuits
Intuits
Intuits
Intuits
Intuits
Intuits
Intuits
Intuits
Intuits
Intuits
ACTIVITIES, OBVIOUS SOCIAL STIMULI
18
Table 8
Juxtaposition of Causalities of Finishers, and of Accomplishers
Finishers
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
P6
P7
P8
P9
P10
P11
P12
Accomplishers
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
P6
P7
P8
P9
P10
P11
P12
Random
Activity
Common
RatherC
RatherC
Rare
RatherC
Rare
Rare
Common
Rare
Common
Common
RatherC
Activity
RatherC
RatherR
RatherR
RatherC
Rare
RatherR
RatherR
Rare
Common
RatherR
RatherR
Common
Dynamic
Stimuli
EntireP
EntireP
Physical
Physical
EntireP
EntireP
Physical
Physical
EntireP
EntireP
Physical
Physical
Stimuli
BodyB
Outfit
Outfit
BodyB
BodyB
Outfit
Outfit
BodyB
BodyB
Outfit
Outfit
BodyB
Inference
Induces
Deduces
Induces
Deduces
Induces
Deduces
Induces
Deduces
Induces
Deduces
Induces
Deduces
Inference
Deduces
Induces
Deduces
Induces
Deduces
Induces
Deduces
Induces
Deduces
Induces
Deduces
Induces
Finishers
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
P6
P7
P8
P9
P10
P11
P12
Accomplishers
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
P6
P7
P8
P9
P10
P11
P12
Empirical
Activity
Common
Common
Common
RatherR
Rare
RatherC
Common
Common
Common
RatherR
Rare
RatherC
Activity
RatherR
Rare
RatherC
Common
Common
Common
RatherR
Rare
RatherC
Common
Common
Common
Dynamic
Stimuli
Outfit
PhysicalA
BodyB
PhysicalA
EntireP
PhysicalA
Outfit
PhysicalA
BodyB
PhysicalA
EntireP
PhysicalA
Stimuli
PhysicalA
EntireP
PhysicalA
Outfit
PhysicalA
BodyB
PhysicalA
EntireP
PhysicalA
Outfit
PhysicalA
BodyB
Inference
Induces
Deduces
Induces
Deduces
Induces
Deduces
Induces
Deduces
Induces
Deduces
Induces
Deduces
Inference
Deduces
Induces
Deduces
Induces
Deduces
Induces
Deduces
Induces
Deduces
Induces
Deduces
Induces
ACTIVITIES, OBVIOUS SOCIAL STIMULI
19
Discussion
The random results warranted the hypothesis: Persons, who have an analytic approach to
obvious social stimuli, infer more correctly activities of other persons than those, who have a
holistic approach. The hypothesis corroborates. As to the random, and empirical dynamic, they
follow up with the real dynamic because the pre process, and the post process matrices are
identity matrices. Therefore, the dynamic returns to the no causation that prevailed before the
dynamic.
A scrutiny in Tables 7, and 8 where the random, and the empirical causal dynamic
juxtapose shows the corroboration. In the random dynamic, upper part in Table 7, there is no
recurrence when the random “participants” infer the person wrong first time. The reverse takes
place in the empirical dynamic. The causalities go through in groups of three, recurrently.
Therefore, it is sufficient to present one cycle. In the place of the first person, the participants
select the rather common activities, and use the body builds as the obvious stimulus but they
ignore the individual features, which leads to the wrong person. When the second person is in
question, the participants select the rather common activities but they apply to the outfit as the
obvious stimulus, and again, annul the individuality that results in the wrong person. In the place
of the third person, the participants select the rare activities, employ in the entire person as the
obvious stimulus, and cancel the individual traits that induce the wrong person. The cycle
repeats itself four times.
The cycle of three occurs when the losers construct the causalities, too. The losers select
the rare activities, and make use of the entire person as the obvious stimulus, and they do not
reason that brings forth the dropout from the dynamic.
ACTIVITIES, OBVIOUS SOCIAL STIMULI
20
Second, the losers select the rather rare activities, find a use of the body builds as the
obvious stimulus but further, they do not reason that causes the drop out the dynamic. In the last
case, the losers also select the rather rare activities, use the outfit as the seen stimulus, and do not
reason that brings with it the end in the dynamic. As with the inferences the holistic approach is
more clear-cut in the empirical dynamic than in the random one because of ignoring the
individuality, and no reasoning.
The dynamic changes when one moves to the finishers, and the accomplishers in Table
8. These times, the empirical dynamic divides into two cycles. The random dynamic has no
formation of the cycles. The finishers begin selecting the common activities, and use the outfit
as the obvious stimulus to reason the person from the details to the entire person. The finishers
continue to select the common activities, and utilize the physical appearance to reason from the
whole person to the details. Again, the finishers select the common activities but use the body
builds to reason from the details to the whole person. In the place of the fourth person, the
finishers select the rather rare activities, and employ on the physical appearance to reason from
the whole person to the details. Thereafter, the finishers select the rare activities, and make use
of the entire person to reason from the details to the whole person. Next, the finishers select the
rather common activities, and find a use for the physical appearance to reason from the whole
person to the details. The cycle repeats itself towards the end of the dynamic.
The accomplishers begin selecting the rather rare activities, and they utilize the
physical appearance to reason from the entire person to
ACTIVITIES, OBVIOUS SOCIAL STIMULI
21
the details. Next, the accomplishers select the rare activities, and find a use for the
entire person to infer from the details to the whole person. In the place of the third person, the
accomplishers select the rather common activities, and utilize the physical appearance to
conclude from the entire person to the details. Thereafter, the accomplishers select the common
activities, and use the outfit to conclude from the details to the whole person. Next, the
accomplishers select the common activities further, and make use of the physical appearance to
reason from the entire person to the details. In the last case of the cycle, the accomplishers select
the common activities, and use the body builds as the obvious stimulus to the individual
induction. The cycle repeats itself.
According to Kammrath, Mendoza-Denton, and Mischel complex causal schemas
originate from intuitive concern of motivation, and intention (2005, p. 12). However, intuition
appears not to be the only way to construct causalities. It seems more probable that persons use
analytical tools such as case wise deduction, and induction to construct causalities about other
persons. On the other hand, dispositions, and intentions has a long tradition in behavioral
philosophy but there emerge chains: intention->overt behavior->intention, disposition->overt
behavior->disposition? The current conclusions imply a fact that there is no need for artificially
complex constructions because they just do not work in practice. If a conceptual apparatus does
not function in reality, the model or theory is to change. The model becomes to a theory when it
gets real substance. It may be that complexity is exaggerated in attribution because serial
information processing is prevailing mode among persons. Therefore, it may be primary
condition to know the constructive causation.
ACTIVITIES, OBVIOUS SOCIAL STIMULI
22
As with the theoretical implications resolution level of inference has importance when
persons have to draw conclusions from deeds of other persons based on outer essence of persons
in minimal social information situations. Summarily, one is able to say. If the persons are able
to use the whole outer set of stimuli available, and case study like deduction, and induction they
have the resolution level of inference that enables them to figure out other persons, more
probably. Quite the reverse, if the persons apply to the outer set of stimuli available, partially,
employ false generalizations, and agree deeds with persons without reasoning, they have the
resolution level that disables them to figure out others persons more probably. The previous
remains to be seen.
ACTIVITIES, OBVIOUS SOCIAL STIMULI
23
References
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Kammrath, L., K., Mendoza-Denton, R., & Mischel, W. (2005). Incorporating if then
Personality signatures in person perception: Beyond the person-situation dichotomy.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 88, (4), 605-618. doi:
10.1037/0022-3514.88.4.605
Kelley, H., H. (1973). The process of causal attribution. American Psychologist (28), 107-128
Mallet, B., M. (2003). Attributions as behavior explanations: Toward a new theory, 1-26.
Retrieved from http:// cogprints.org/3314/1/Explanation theory 03.pdf