Identifying Attribution Errors Paper Discussion

November 25, 2022

Identifying Attribution Errors Paper Discussion

Order Number	636738393092
Type of Project	ESSAY
Writer Level	PHD VERIFIED
Format	APA
Academic Sources	10
Page Count	3-12 PAGES

Instructions/Descriptions

Identifying, Attribution, Errors, Paper, Discussion

[Order Now]

Directions

You need to listen to the lecture on memory and attributions before you reply to this post, paying careful attention to the section on “attribution errors.”

https://www.3cmediasolutions.org/privid/230357?key…

https://www.3cmediasolutions.org/privid/230353?key…

POST: Add a new discussion. Please DO NOT upload an attachment. We should be able to read your post in the forum without having to open any additional documents. You will not be able to see your classmates’ posts until after your initial post. In your post, please reflect on and answer the following questions in detail:

Locate and post a brief personal advice column that includes both the letter written to the columnist and the columnist’s answer. (Only one letter and response is needed.) Please only copy and paste it in your response. These should be about personal problems and not advice on how to fix a car or similar. To locate columns, just Google, “advice columns.” Please pick a short letter and response, as some of these questions and answers can be quite lengthy.
Identify at least two attribution errors that you see in the column (Fundamental Attribution Error, Actor-Observer Bias, Self-Serving Bias, or Egocentric Thought.) Before you decide on a column, make sure that it contains multiple attribution errors.
Explain in detail why you believe it shows these attribution errors

REPLY: . to at least two of your peers’ posts. Please include a detailed response to at least one of the following questions in your replies:

Identify an additional attribution error in the column and give an explanation.
Do you disagree with how your classmate interpreted the error(s)? Explain why you agree or disagree. Be kind, we are here to help each other learn!
I usually don’t do this, but I want to give an example to follow: (Teacher’s example)
The Letter Writer Writes:I am looking for impartial advice. My fiancé and I are getting married next month. We have a four-year old together. My mother-in-law has always been good, not interfering, or manipulative. Until now. She is in charge of the rehearsal dinner and instead of having it catered, she decided to host a barbeque. I was disappointed but agreed. My fiancé and I gave her the list of the invitees and now she says that she has family in town, about six people, who she is including at the dinner. She knows my feelings and is blatantly disregarding them. I told her to forget about the dinner, I would host it myself in a restaurant. Now she says that she will not be attending my dinner. My fiancé and I agree that this OUR wedding and we should be able to have things the way WE want them. She has no right to dictate to us. I don’t want my mother in law to walk all over me. I think I deserve an apology.The Columnist Responds: IDO think an apology is in order. I think you should get off your prima-donna high-horse and along with your fiancé, beg your mother-in-law’s pardon for your rudeness. Imagine telling the hosts whom they can invite. This is not how honored guests behave. Just because you are getting married does not mean that the world revolves around you. Your mother-in-law is not walking all over you; she is getting out of your way. My Answer: I see this as actor-observer bias. In this case, the woman who is getting married and wrote the letter is the actor, and the columnist is the observer. The woman who is getting married said her problem is her mother-in-law. (She wants to host a BBQ, she is inviting other people to the rehearsal dinner, she is walking all over us, etc.) She is overstating the external factors and ignoring any dispositional factors and does not see herself as being to blame at all. On the other hand, the columnist says it is the letter writer who is the problem (“Get off your prima-donna high-horse and beg your mother-in-law’s pardon for your rudeness). The columnist has overemphasized the dispositional factors and minimized the situation. This column also shows egocentric thought. The letter writer sees herself as more important and central than she actually is “OUR WEDDING, OUR WAY!” and “She has no right…”

Professional Plagiarism Free Paper in APA/MLA/Harvard/Turabian Format, Instant Delivery, High Quality Submissions, 100% Unique, Turnitin Report Attached

Identifying Attribution Errors Paper Discussion

RUBRIC

Excellent Quality

95-100%

Introduction

45-41 points

The context and relevance of the issue, as well as a clear description of the study aim, are presented. The history of searches is discussed.

Literature Support

91-84 points

The context and relevance of the issue, as well as a clear description of the study aim, are presented. The history of searches is discussed.

Methodology

58-53 points

With titles for each slide as well as bulleted sections to group relevant information as required, the content is well-organized. Excellent use of typeface, color, images, effects, and so on to improve readability and presenting content. The minimum length criterion of 10 slides/pages is reached.

Average Score

50-85%

40-38 points

More depth/information is required for the context and importance, otherwise the study detail will be unclear. There is no search history information supplied.

83-76 points

There is a review of important theoretical literature, however there is limited integration of research into problem-related ideas. The review is just partly focused and arranged. There is research that both supports and opposes. A summary of the material given is provided. The conclusion may or may not include a biblical integration.

52-49 points

The content is somewhat ordered, but there is no discernible organization. The use of typeface, color, graphics, effects, and so on may sometimes distract from the presenting substance. It is possible that the length criteria will not be reached.

Poor Quality

0-45%

37-1 points

The context and/or importance are lacking. There is no search history information supplied.

75-1 points

There has been an examination of relevant theoretical literature, but still no research concerning problem-related concepts has been synthesized. The review is just somewhat focused and organized. The provided overview of content does not include any supporting or opposing research. The conclusion has no scriptural references.

48-1 points

There is no logical or apparent organizational structure. There is no discernible logical sequence. The use of typeface, color, graphics, effects, and so on often detracts from the presenting substance. It is possible that the length criteria will not be reached.