This is two assignments. Fritz Heider (1958) was the first to note the nave scientist in humans?the part that seeks to understand and explain the actions of others, which is the basis of attribution theory. Central to attribution theory is the notion of disposition, understood as a stable individual quality. When people make attributions, they may differ to the extent that they believe a behavior is dispositional or situational (Fiske, 2014). For example, when a person is late to a meeting, is it (a) because he or she is a lazy person, (b) because he or she has a poor work ethic, or (c) because of an external event such as a traffic jam on the way to work?For this Discussion, review this week?s media program, Week 3: The Virtual Office, and select an attribution theory. Consider how the theory explains the behavior of the person in the media program.With these thoughts in mind:Post by Day 3 a brief description of the attribution theory you selected. Then describe how the theory you selected explains the behavior of the person in the media. Finally, describe one limitation of the theory in explaining the behavior of the person you selected and explain why it is a limitation. Use the current literature to support your response.Be sure to support your postings and responses with specific references to the Learning Resources.Read a selection of your colleagues? postings.Respond by Dayÿ5 to your colleagues who selected a different theory than you and discuss whether your theory or your colleague?s theory is more applicable in explaining the behavior of the person you selected. Support your responses with the Learning Resources and the current literature.Return to this Discussion in a few days to read the responses to your initial posting. Note what you have learned and/or any insights you have gained as a result of the comments your colleagues made.References:Fiske, S. T. (2014). Social beings: Core motives in social psychology (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York, NY: Wiley.Return to topDiscussion 2: HeuristicsFiske and Taylor (1984) referred to individuals as ?cognitive misers? because of the mental short-cuts taken in an effort to understand people, their behavior, and social situations. These mental short-cuts or heuristics simplify understanding and save time and mental energy when making decisions. Although use of these heuristics may in fact save mental energy and help a person make a quick decision, they are not always helpful and can sometimes be inaccurate. For example, making educated guesses, using common sense, and using intuitive judgment are examples of heuristics. There are many types of heuristics, such as the representativeness heuristic, the availability heuristic, the false consensus effect, and the anchoring heuristic.For this Discussion, review this week?s Learning Resources and consider when you have used heuristics and under what circumstances you used them, and explain the outcome of using the heuristics.Post by Day 4 a brief explanation of two of the four heuristics (representativeness, availability, false consensus effect, and anchoring heuristic). Then describe one example from work, home, or a social setting of when you found heuristic use to be helpful and one example of when it was not helpful, and explain why. Finally, explain how you might avoid nonhelpful heuristic use, and apply it to the example you previously provided.Be sure to support your postings and responses with specific references to the Learning Resources.Respond by Dayÿ7 to your colleagues? postings in one or more of the following ways:Ask a probing question.Share an insight from having read your colleague?s posting.Offer and support an opinion.Validate an idea with your own experience.Make a suggestion.Expand on your colleague?s posting.Return to this Discussion in a few days to read the responses to your initial posting. Note what you have learned and/or any insights you have gained as a result of the comments your colleagues made.Reference:Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1984). Social cognition. New York: Random House.