Running head: ACTIVITIES, OBVIOUS SOCIAL STIMULI 1. On Probabilistic Causalities between Activities, Obvious Social Stimuli, Inferences, and

Transcription

1 Running head: ACTIVITIES, OBVIOUS SOCIAL STIMULI 1 On Probabilistic Causalities between Activities, Obvious Social Stimuli, Inferences, and Behavioral Outcomes Raimo J Laasonen IARR/BBS

2 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 α- reliability, 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

3 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.

4 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.

5 ACTIVITIES, OBVIOUS SOCIAL STIMULI 5 Table 1 Random Frequencies Activities Social stimuli Inference Outcomes Ra Rar Rc C Ep Of Pa Bb St In De Id Fwp Swp Fi Acc

6 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 α- reliability (1-r ii =e 2 ) is error variance,

7 ACTIVITIES, OBVIOUS SOCIAL STIMULI 7 and one minus communality (1-h 2 =u 2 ) is unique variance. Consequently, specific variance is unique variance minus error variance times unique variance s 2 =1-(e 2 u 2 ). Reliability is communality plus specific variance. Assessment of validity began when one subtracted the squared correlations, which gave the coefficients of nondetermination or k 2. 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

8 ACTIVITIES, OBVIOUS SOCIAL STIMULI 8 method gave a matrix of ones, and nulls. The last matrix powered from P 0 to P 12 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 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= for the communalities, the specific, and the error variances. The time reliability followed from = As with the validity the sum of the nondeterminative coefficients was , and the full nondetermination was 240. The error location derived from 1-( /240). The total amount of the random frequencies was 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.

9 ACTIVITIES, OBVIOUS SOCIAL STIMULI 9 Table 2 Communalities, Specific, and Error Variances Communalities Specific Variances Error Variances h 2.j= Sv.j =4.250 Ev.j =. 028 x ij =24

10 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.

11 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 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 (rounded value from the fourth decimal value), the specific variance was 0.185, and the error variance was The reliability coefficient was Comparison of the random variances 1.000= with the empirical variances 1.000= 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 k 2. The matrix sum of nondetermination was calculated, and it was In the nondeterminative matrix, the diagonal values were nulls, and the sum of the full nondetermination was 240 when the coefficients were ones.

12 ACTIVITIES, OBVIOUS SOCIAL STIMULI 12 Table 3 Causalities Grouped According to Outcomes from Random Data First wrong Activity Stimuli Inference Losers Activity Stimuli Inference P 1 Rare Physical Intuits P 1 RatherR Outfit Stereotypes P 2 Common Physical Stereotypes P 2 Rare BodyB Intuits P 3 Rare EntireP Intuits P 3 Common BodyB Stereotypes P 4 Common EntireP Stereotypes P 4 RatherR Outfit Intuits P 5 Common Physical Intuits P 5 RatherR Outfit Stereotypes P 6 RatherC Physical Stereotypes P 6 Common BodyB Intuits P 7 Common EntireP Intuits P 7 RatherC BodyB Stereotypes P 8 RatherC EntireP Stereotypes P 8 RatherR Outfit Intuits P 9 RatherC Physical Intuits P 9 RatherR Outfit Stereotypes P 10 Rare Physical Stereotypes P 10 RatherC BodyB Intuits P 11 RatherC EntireP Intuits P 11 Rare BodyB Stereotypes P 12 Rare EntireP Stereotypes P 12 RatherR Outfit Intuits Finishers Activity Stimuli Inference Accomplishers Activity Stimuli Inference P 1 Common EntireP Induces P 1 RatherC BodyB Deduces P 2 RatherC EntireP Deduces P 2 RatherR Outfit Induces P 3 RatherC Physical Induces P 3 RatherR Outfit Deduces P 4 Rare Physical Deduces P 4 RatherC BodyB Induces P 5 RatherC EntireP Induces P 5 Rare BodyB Deduces P 6 Rare EntireP Deduces P 6 RatherR Outfit Induces P 7 Rare Physical Induces P 7 RatherR Outfit Deduces P 8 Common Physical Deduces P 8 Rare BodyB Induces P 9 Rare EntireP Induces P 9 Common BodyB Deduces P 10 Common EntireP Deduces P 10 RatherR Outfit Induces P 11 Common Physical Induces P 11 RatherR Outfit Deduces P 12 RatherC Physical Deduces P 12 Common BodyB Induces

13 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-( /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 P 0 to P 12 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.

14 ACTIVITIES, OBVIOUS SOCIAL STIMULI 14 Table 4 Empirical Frequencies Activities Social stimuli Inference Outcomes Ra Rar Rc C Ep Of Pa Bb St In De Id Fwp Swp Fi Acc

15 ACTIVITIES, OBVIOUS SOCIAL STIMULI 15 Table 5 Empirical Communalities, Specific, and Error Variances Communalities Specific Variances Error Variances h 2.j= Sv.j =4.448 Ev.j =. 580 x ij =24

16 ACTIVITIES, OBVIOUS SOCIAL STIMULI 16 Table 6 Empirical Causalities According to Outcomes First wrong Activity Stimuli Inference Losers Activity Stimuli Inference P 1 RatherC BodyB Stereotypes P 1 Rare EntireP Intuits P 2 RatherC Outfit Stereotypes P 2 RatherR BodyB Intuits P 3 Rare EntireP Stereotypes P 3 RatherR Outfit Intuits P 4 RatherC BodyB Stereotypes P 4 Rare EntireP Intuits P 5 RatherC Outfit Stereotypes P 5 RatherR BodyB Intuits P 6 Rare EntireP Stereotypes P 6 RatherR Outfit Intuits P 7 RatherC BodyB Stereotypes P 7 Rare EntireP Intuits P 8 RatherC Outfit Stereotypes P 8 RatherR BodyB Intuits P 9 Rare EntireP Stereotypes P 9 RatherR Outfit Intuits P 10 RatherC BodyB Stereotypes P 10 Rare EntireP Intuits P 11 RatherC BodyB Stereotypes P 11 RatherR BodyB Intuits P 12 Rare EntireP Stereotypes P 12 RatherR Outfit Intuits Finishers Activity Stimuli Inference Accomplishers Activity Stimuli Inference P 1 Common Outfit Induces P 1 RatherR PhysicalA Deduces P 2 Common PhysicalA Deduces P 2 Rare EntireP Induces P 3 Common BodyB Induces P 3 RatherC PhysicalA Deduces P 4 RatherR PhysicalA Deduces P 4 Common Outfit Induces P 5 Rare EntireP Induces P 5 Common PhysicalA Deduces P 6 RatherC PhysicalA Deduces P 6 Common BodyB Induces P 7 Common Outfit Induces P 7 RatherR PhysicalA Deduces P 8 Common PhysicalA Deduces P 8 Rare EntireP Induces P 9 Common BodyB Induces P 9 RatherC PhysicalA Deduces P 10 RatherR PhysicalA Deduces P 10 Common Outfit Induces P 11 Rare EntireP Induces P 11 Common PhysicalA Deduces P 12 RatherC PhysicalA Deduces P 12 Common BodyB Induces

17 ACTIVITIES, OBVIOUS SOCIAL STIMULI 17 Table 7 Juxtaposition of Causalities of First Wrong Person, and of Losers Random Dynamic Empirical Dynamic First Activity Stimuli Inference First wrong Activity Stimuli Inference wrong P 1 Rare Physical Intuits P 1 RatherC BodyB Stereotypes P 2 Common Physical Stereotypes P 2 RatherC Outfit Stereotypes P 3 Rare EntireP Intuits P 3 Rare EntireP Stereotypes P 4 Common EntireP Stereotypes P 4 RatherC BodyB Stereotypes P 5 Common Physical Intuits P 5 RatherC Outfit Stereotypes P 6 RatherC Physical Stereotypes P 6 Rare EntireP Stereotypes P 7 Common EntireP Intuits P 7 RatherC BodyB Stereotypes P 8 RatherC EntireP Stereotypes P 8 RatherC Outfit Stereotypes P 9 RatherC Physical Intuits P 9 Rare EntireP Stereotypes P 10 Rare Physical Stereotypes P 10 RatherC BodyB Stereotypes P 11 RatherC EntireP Intuits P 11 RatherC BodyB Stereotypes P 12 Rare EntireP Stereotypes P 12 Rare EntireP Stereotypes Losers Activity Stimuli Inference Losers Activity Stimuli Inference P 1 RatherR Outfit Stereotypes P 1 Rare EntireP Intuits P 2 Rare BodyB Intuits P 2 RatherR BodyB Intuits P 3 Common BodyB Stereotypes P 3 RatherR Outfit Intuits P 4 RatherR Outfit Intuits P 4 Rare EntireP Intuits P 5 RatherR Outfit Stereotypes P 5 RatherR BodyB Intuits P 6 Common BodyB Intuits P 6 RatherR Outfit Intuits P 7 RatherC BodyB Stereotypes P 7 Rare EntireP Intuits P 8 RatherR Outfit Intuits P 8 RatherR BodyB Intuits P 9 RatherR Outfit Stereotypes P 9 RatherR Outfit Intuits P 10 RatherC BodyB Intuits P 10 Rare EntireP Intuits P 11 Rare BodyB Stereotypes P 11 RatherR BodyB Intuits P 12 RatherR Outfit Intuits P 12 RatherR Outfit Intuits

18 ACTIVITIES, OBVIOUS SOCIAL STIMULI 18 Table 8 Juxtaposition of Causalities of Finishers, and of Accomplishers Random Dynamic Empirical Dynamic Finishers Activity Stimuli Inference Finishers Activity Stimuli Inference P 1 Common EntireP Induces P 1 Common Outfit Induces P 2 RatherC EntireP Deduces P 2 Common PhysicalA Deduces P 3 RatherC Physical Induces P 3 Common BodyB Induces P 4 Rare Physical Deduces P 4 RatherR PhysicalA Deduces P 5 RatherC EntireP Induces P 5 Rare EntireP Induces P 6 Rare EntireP Deduces P 6 RatherC PhysicalA Deduces P 7 Rare Physical Induces P 7 Common Outfit Induces P 8 Common Physical Deduces P 8 Common PhysicalA Deduces P 9 Rare EntireP Induces P 9 Common BodyB Induces P 10 Common EntireP Deduces P 10 RatherR PhysicalA Deduces P 11 Common Physical Induces P 11 Rare EntireP Induces P 12 RatherC Physical Deduces P 12 RatherC PhysicalA Deduces Accomplishers Activity Stimuli Inference Accomplishers Activity Stimuli Inference P 1 RatherC BodyB Deduces P 1 RatherR PhysicalA Deduces P 2 RatherR Outfit Induces P 2 Rare EntireP Induces P 3 RatherR Outfit Deduces P 3 RatherC PhysicalA Deduces P 4 RatherC BodyB Induces P 4 Common Outfit Induces P 5 Rare BodyB Deduces P 5 Common PhysicalA Deduces P 6 RatherR Outfit Induces P 6 Common BodyB Induces P 7 RatherR Outfit Deduces P 7 RatherR PhysicalA Deduces P 8 Rare BodyB Induces P 8 Rare EntireP Induces P 9 Common BodyB Deduces P 9 RatherC PhysicalA Deduces P 10 RatherR Outfit Induces P 10 Common Outfit Induces P 11 RatherR Outfit Deduces P 11 Common PhysicalA Deduces P 12 Common BodyB Induces P 12 Common BodyB Induces

19 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.

20 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

21 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.

22 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.

23 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), doi: / Kelley, H., H. (1973). The process of causal attribution. American Psychologist (28), Mallet, B., M. (2003). Attributions as behavior explanations: Toward a new theory, Retrieved from cogprints.org/3314/1/explanation theory 03.pdf