Social Cognition Paper

Alfred Sze

Social Psychology

1/24/2017

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxxKUikZ7YY

Identification of Social Cognition in a Thai Commericial

After an extensive amount of research and online-surfing, I have determined to use a commercial to reflect terms we have learned in the Social Cognition. Instead of focusing merely on the interactions between the characters in the commercial, I have also taken in account the interaction between the commercial and its audience. Commercials – specifically the ones with a plot – often aim to project a certain idea or package a certain product through a distinct plot. In other words, they are succinctly meaningful. The commercial I have chosen touches on the subject of cyberbullying and takes place in a thai open-air market.

The first term that that associates itself with a specific scene is representative heuristic.^[a] Although the dramatic entrance (suspense music, slow motion and knit brow) is an intentional approach by the producer, it is fair to say that representative heuristic is at play because the audience, myself included, most likely already put her in the stereotype of a bully even though no sound evidence has been given to prove that. Thus, the audience takes a mental shortcut and infers that Boss Da fits in the

stereotype of a bully. Another type of heuristic – availability heuristic ^[b]– also becomes conspicuous when the pedestrian (the one that uploads the video online) witnesses Boss Da throwing the scale on the floor and yelling at the merchant. He automatically decided to record this malicious act and titled the video as “Bully Boss Da.” It is clear that his overall impression of Boss Da is dominated solely by his most recent encounter with her – a perfect example of availability heuristic.

Moreover, confirmation bias ^[c]exhibits itself in the online comments. The viewers of the video believe that Boss Da must be hurting the merchant even though the clip does not give direct evidence at all. They are essentially creating a whole story based on their initial impression and then look for more video clips to confirm their first impression and to convince themselves that their assumption is correct. Simultaneously, correspondent inference ^[d]actively dominates the mind of the viewers. The audience exhibits the tendency to attribute Boss Da’s “harmful” behavior to a corresponding characteristic of her, in this case, her abusive and aggressive nature, when, in reality, her actions are for good causes.

As the truth – Boss Da’s seemingly harmful actions are all justified by

respectable intentions – surfaces near the end of the video, it is clear that fundamentally attribution error ^[e]takes place in the process. The audience as well as the virtual viewers

of the video – when first witness the behavior of Boss Da – attribute her action to her personality instead of considering the circumstances which she undergoes (the merchant attempting to cheat his customers on the scale, the other merchanting fainting). The audience overestimates the importance of personality relative to environmental influences when explaining the cause of Boss Da’s social behavior. Furthermore, if these video clips are to be viewed from Boss Da’s perspective, she will certainly attribute her own action to situational factors (loud voice due to the degree of urgency, throwing the scale as a warning to the merchant). She understands her own intention – to make the marketplace a fair and inclusive place; however, the observers – online viewers – attribute the same actions to her consistent rude personality. Thus, actor-observer bias ^[f]occurs^[g].

...