College Research Papers

If you order your custom term paper from our custom writing service you will receive a perfectly written assignment on Ode to be accepted. What we need from you is to provide us with your detailed paper instructions for our experienced writers to follow all of your specific writing requirements. Specify your order details, state the exact number of pages required and our custom writing professionals will deliver the best quality Ode to be accepted paper right on time.

Our staff of freelance writers includes over 120 experts proficient in Ode to be accepted, therefore you can rest assured that your assignment will be handled by only top rated specialists. Order your Ode to be accepted paper at affordable prices!

INSTRUCTIONS Arbitrarily decide on a day to do this assignment. Select a day when you will be interacting with a variety of people. You are going to record two interactions one in which you know the other fairly well, and the other in which you do not know the other very well. It may help you to keep a diary during the day and make notes of the interactions after they have occurred so you can go back and make comparisons. If you feel the interactions of which you are part are unnatural (in other words, prompted solely by this assignment), wait and record an instance that is more spontaneous.

INTERACTION 1

1. Interactants

a. Gender Composition (circle) M/M F/F M/F

Cheap Custom Essays on Ode to be accepted

b. Familiarity with each other (circle)

1 4 5 6 7

Not at Very

all familiar Familiar

c. Age of Pair (circle)

• Within 1- years

• More than years, but less than 5 years

• More than 5 years difference in age

d. Status

• About the same

• You have higher status

• Other has higher status

e. Cultural Background

• Similar

• Somewhat different

• Very different

f. Describe the content of communication

The interaction I had with this person would be considered dyadic communication. This individual and myself had a casual conversation at a bar/restaurant one night to catch up with each other and discuss how school and life in general had be going. We conversed for around an hour about many different topics.

g. Describe the (setting) of interaction (Formal/informal; private/public; loud/quiet, etc)

The setting of this particular interaction was very informal. The restaurant/bar was very laid back and the atmosphere was likewise. The setting was for the most part private even though it took place in a very public venue. Our table was somewhat isolated so there were not too many distractions. This followed for the noise factor being that it was fairly quiet. There was background music as well as background noise from other tables but the bar was starting to shut down so for the most part things were not too loud.

. Attribution

a. Explain your judgments about whether you attributed the person's behavior to internal or external causes. Make sure you address the issues of consensus, consistency, distinctiveness, and controllability.

In our conversations, I found that the attributions I made on the person's behavior were due to internal causes as well as external. The person was of high consensus, high consistency, low distinctiveness, and seemed to act on a high controllability.

Consensus I concluded that the person with which I was having this conversation had a high consensus. This person acted in ways very similar to most everyone at the bar. The person was dressed relatively the same, carried on in relatively the same manor, and had a general laid back attitude much like most everyone at the setting. This led me to the conclusion that in dealing with consensus this person's behaviors were governed by external forces.

Consistency -- As far as consistency goes, the person seemed to act for the most part the same throughout the duration of the conversation. However, as a few drinks were consumed actions changed in the slightest bit but not enough to say that the actions were mainly controlled by external forces. From beginning to end the person with whom I was conversing was jovial, interested, and casual which with the exception of the slight changes by alcohol led me to the conclusion that this high consistency was attributed to internal causes.

Distinctiveness -- I found that the person with whom I was conversing was of low distinctiveness. I found this to be true because the manor in which this person acted was very similar to the ways in which they had acted in many different situations/conversations we had previously had. This person had a few drinks like they had always done in the past in different situations and carried on a care free attitude as this person normally does in most every situation they encounter. The person did not let the situation change the way they acted in the least. They also expected me to pick up the tab….as usual. Due to these, I found that the person's low distinctiveness was attributed to internal forces.

Controllability The person's control of situations seemed to be high. Most everything that happened in our conversation was controllable. Our topics to which we talked were mostly interjected by the person as was the setting in which we met. This person let few external forces dictate the situation which led me to conclude that the person's controllability issues were governed by mostly internal forces. However, our conversation did come to an end due to the external cause of the bar shutting down.

b. How did your attributions affect the way in which you listened to the person?

These attributions did have effects on how I listened to the person but had far fewer due to the fact that I was quite familiar with this person. I found that I was more in to talking to the person because they were of high consistency with their attitudes and personality which I previously liked. Thus I was glad to further carry on conversations with them. Also I liked that the person was in control of their actions and did not let external forces come in the way of our conversation. Also the fact that the person was of low distinctiveness reassured me that the person was who I thought they were and acting as I had liked in previous situations.

. Reflect on your motivations for forming you perceptions and making your attributions about the other person.

I found that most of my motivations for forming my perceptions were influenced by the fact that I had a general like for the person with whom I was conversing and thus I seemed, in so many words, to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Consider your motivations in terms of the following

a. Self-serving bias I think this bias held true in my conversation. I found that anything the person had discussed in which they had done well or something to which I agreed or liked that I perceived this to be due to their internal forces as did I find that anything bad they had done was because of external forces. They spoke of a test on which they had done well and I perceived this to them being smart, and not the teacher being easy. Also we spoke of them getting in the sorority they wanted and I concluded that this was also due only to internal forces.

b. Overattribution -- I don't feel that I had this attribution error. I knew the person well enough that I did not let characterisitics about one situation influence that on others. I feel I looked in this manor at the person fairly objectively.

c. Fundamental Attribution Error I feel that I may have made this error as well but not to too much of a degree. As I stated earlier I found that most of the situations were influence by internal causes not external ones, which is a product of this error. Because of the extent to which I knew this person I concluded that they did things because of who they are not because of the things around them.

4. How did these affect your perceptions and attributions? Why do you think this occurred?

I believe that these errors/biases affected my perceptions and attributions in the fact that I gave this person credit for who they were because of past experiences and because of mainly the belief of their internal forces. I believe my judgements were also made accordingly. This person received for the most part every benefit of the doubt and would have had to have done a lot to change my perspectives. I believe this occurred because of my past experience and relationships with the person as well as my general like and fondness of the person. I believe sometimes we let what we want to think take over what we actually think even if it is true or not.

Interaction

1. Interactants

a. Gender Composition (circle) M/M F/F M/F

b. Familiarity with each other (circle)

1 4 5 6 7

Not at Very

all familiar Familiar

c. Age of Pair (circle)

• Within 1- years

• More than years, but less than 5 years

• More than 5 years difference in age

d. Status

• About the same

• You have higher status

• Other has higher status

e. Cultural Background

• Similar

• Somewhat different

• Very different

f. Describe the content of communication

The interaction took place at a party for rush in which I was trying to get to know a few of the new people who might join the fraternity this fall. The conversation was for the most part small talk getting to know one another and discussing home towns, school, sports, people, and just general topics.

g. Describe the (setting) of interaction (Formal/informal; private/public; loud/quiet, etc)

The conversation took place at a party in a very informal setting. The setting was also very public being that there were a very large number of other people around. Also, the conversation took place in a relatively loud setting where there was much commotion and many other conversations going on around us. The conversation was for a fairly brief stint of time but much dialog took place.

. Attribution

a. Explain your judgments about whether you attributed the person's behavior to internal or external causes. Make sure you address the issues of consensus, consistency, distinctiveness, and controllability.

As in the first conversation, I found that I attributed the person's behavior to both internal and external causes. I was able to make many attributions in a relatively short period of time and found the first conversation useful to this one after analyzing it. I found the person with whom I was conversing to have a very high consensus, low consistency, low distinctiveness, and low controllability.

Consensus I found this person to have quite a high consensus. The person seemed to act like many of the other people that were in his situation. Other people in that situation in which I had spoken with seemed to act in relatively the same manor. The person started off more shy and opened up as time went on. The person seemed to try to act like others in a try to fit in so that they would feel comfortable. I found that this high level of consensus was most likely attributed to external forces of others.

Consistency In my conversations with this person, I concluded that they had a low consistency. The person to whom I was talking was inconsistent in the fact that they went from being shy to loquacious as the conversation progressed. As time went on in the conversation they grew more and more comfortable and became more and more apt to talk and respond which was quite contrary to the beginning of the conversation where they had little to say. I found this low consistency to be a product of external forces letting how others perceive them render how they interact and respond.

Distinctiveness -- I found that this person was inconsistent in nearly all the similar situations in which they faced which made them of low distinctiveness. In every situation they encountered with and older person to which they were unfamiliar they started off very shy and would later become more talkative. I found that this attribution of low distinctiveness can be attributed to internal forces of wanting to fit in and be accepted by the group or person to which they were talking.

Controllability I also found this person to have low controllability. This person let me dictate nearly every thing that went on and let me control when the conversation began and ended. The person remained very conscious of the events going on outside and let forces outside of his own dictate what actions took place. This attribution can be contributed to external forces as the subject never let any internal forces govern what went on.

b. How did your attributions affect the way in which you listened to the person?

These attributions greatly affected how I listened to this person. Because I did not know this person very well I was quick to judge them on these attributions. I found myself less and less apt to listen to the person because they did not have much to add to the conversation (lack of internal forces). I like to converse with people who step up and take control and don't let all external forces govern what goes on and this fact led me to be less interested in the conversation that took place.

. Reflect on your motivations for forming you perceptions and making your attributions about the other person.

I found that because I did not know this person very well I did not have to much motivation for my perceptions. However, due to this fact I found that I could make much more attributions and perceptions whether they be right or wrong. I feel that I didn't have to much bias in the situation and that my perceptions were fairly accurate.

Consider your motivations in terms of the following

a. Self-serving bias I feel that I didn't have too much of a self-serving bias at the beginning of the conversation. Going into the conversations I didn't have any preconceived notions on this persons character. However, after the conversation progressed I found that this changed a little and I thought that maybe some of the person's internal behaviors were negatively motivated.

b. Overattribution Likewise I feel that going into the conversation I didn't express overattribution. Since I knew little about this person beforehand I felt I didn't have a reason to make an overatrribution. As the conversation progressed I feel I may have done this slightly as I light some negative feelings I may have developed influence other characteristics that the person possessed.

c. Fundamental Attribution Error I feel that in this conversation I may have committed this error quite a bit. I feel that I over emphasized the subjects internal factors and undervalued the external factors. I concluded that many of the things that took place in the conversation were internally motivated but after further deliberation I feel that external influences were quite significant and anyone put in the persons same situation may act accordingly as external influences way heavy on the situation takeing place.

4. How did these affect your perceptions and attributions? Why do you think this occurred?

I believe that these affected my perceptions and attributions in the since that I maybe didn't give this person the benefit of the doubt. The fact that I didn't know them made me less likely to give me a good perception of the person. As I stated in the fundamental attribution error section that I put to much emphasis on the internal characteristics where maybe the external characteristics weighed just as much if not more heavily. I feel that this occurred because of the fact I didn't know this person as well and wasn't as willing to accept the person for who they were.

CONCLUSIONS

1. What were the DIFFERENCES in perception between a familiar and an unfamiliar other?

There were many differences in my perceptions between the familiar and unfamiliar other. First and foremost, I was a lot more apt to give positive perceptions toward the person I knew well and already had formed some positive opinions. The factors to which my perceptions were made, mainly internal and external forces, were quite different between the different cases in which I spoke of earlier. In the first case with the familiar other I was much more likely to give the benefit of the doubt and to give positive attributions and perceptions whereas in the latter I was much more unlikely to do so and was almost looking for a reason to give negative ones. I found that he two cases were different in the cases of consistency and controllability. I also found that in the case of the familiar other I was much more leaniant in my judging and took a lot more time to make conclusions whereas in the unfamiliar case I was quick to judge and much more stern in my perceptions.

. What were the SIMILARITES in perception between a familiar and an unfamiliar other?

There were also a few similarities in my perceptions between the familiar and unfamiliar other. The first similarity that comes to mind is that in both perceptions internal and external forces were used in my conclusions even thought maybe not the same in each case. Both cases were similar in that they had the same instance of high consensus and low distinctiveness. I also find it very important that both cases were similar in the fact that after analyzing the conversations my perceptions were maybe a little different than the ones I initially thought that I had made. After further analyzing each case I found that some behaviors I thought were internal turned out to be external and vise versa. Also I found it similar that in both cases I made critical attribution errors to which I pointed out earlier in the assignment.

GRADE PRESENTATION GRADE

Please note that this sample paper on Ode to be accepted is for your review only. In order to eliminate any of the plagiarism issues, it is highly recommended that you do not use it for you own writing purposes. In case you experience difficulties with writing a well structured and accurately composed paper on Ode to be accepted, we are here to assist you. Your cheap custom college paper on Ode to be accepted will be written from scratch, so you do not have to worry about its originality.

Order your authentic assignment and you will be amazed at how easy it is to complete a quality custom paper within the shortest time possible!