Page 139 - The Social Animal

Social Cognition 121

hat? Beth’s consistency would probably lead you to conclude that the
reason Beth kissed Scott is that Beth is a very affectionate person.
But suppose you found out that almost everybody kisses Scott. The
consensus would suggest that the reason Beth kissed Scott is that
Scott is a very kissable person who everybody likes. Finally, if Beth
kisses only Scott and no one else kisses Scott, the distinctiveness of
the kissing is due to some special relationship between Beth and
Scott; either they are in love or Scott has done something especially
deserving of a kiss.
Of course, the way we use information to make attributions can
underlie far more important decisions than deciding why one person
kisses another. Teachers must decide why students fail. Juries must
decide innocence or guilt. Nations must decide how to respond to the
provocations of other nations. In all such cases, a systematic weigh-
ing of consensus, consistency, and distinctiveness information can be
highly valuable and extraordinarily important.
But do people really think this way? Are we as rational as Ben-
tham and Kelley suggest we are? There is little argument that we are
7
capable of such behavior. For example, Benjamin Franklin reports
that he routinely performed a felicific calculation by writing down
the pros and cons for major decisions.There are times when many of
us behave in the same way—as when purchasing a new car or decid-
ing which college to attend. And the ease with which you could gen-
erate conclusions about Beth and Scott when given the appropriate
covariation information indicates that it is at least possible to think
like a naive scientist. However, rational thought requires at least two
conditions: (1) the thinker has access to accurate, useful information;
and (2) the thinker has the mental resources needed to process life’s
data. These conditions almost never hold in everyday life.
We do not possess a “God’s-eye” view of the world—a perspec-
tive that is all-knowing and free from bias. Consider something as
simple as my car purchase. I probably do not know all the facts. If it’s
a new model, long-term repair data simply do not exist. Further-
more, my view of the car is bounded by my own limited perspective;
I hear about the car primarily from advertisers, who are motivated to
exaggerate its positive features. I have limited experience with the
car—a 10-minute dealer-supervised test drive as opposed to long-
term driving in all kinds of hazardous road and weather conditions.
If something as common as a new-car purchase can be fraught with