attribution attribution theories examine how people explain the causes of behavior
TRANSCRIPT
AttributionAttribution
Attribution theories examine how people Attribution theories examine how people explain the causes of behavior.explain the causes of behavior.
Theoretical PerspectivesTheoretical Perspectives
1. Heider1. Heider (1958) – People are naïve (1958) – People are naïve scientistsscientists Two types of attributions:Two types of attributions:
InternalInternal (personal/dispositional) – attribute a (personal/dispositional) – attribute a person’s behavior to their internal characteristics person’s behavior to their internal characteristics such as ability, personality, mood, or effort.such as ability, personality, mood, or effort.
ExternalExternal (situational) – attribute a person’s (situational) – attribute a person’s behavior to factors external to the individual such behavior to factors external to the individual such as luck, other people, or circumstancesas luck, other people, or circumstances
Theoretical Perspectives (cont.)Theoretical Perspectives (cont.)
2. Kelley2. Kelley (1967) (1967)
A.A. People use 3 types of info to arrive at either a People use 3 types of info to arrive at either a personal (internal) or situational (external) personal (internal) or situational (external) attribution.attribution. Consistency: does the person act the same way with Consistency: does the person act the same way with
the stimulus at other times?the stimulus at other times? Distinctiveness: does the person act the same way Distinctiveness: does the person act the same way
with other stimuli?with other stimuli? Consensus: do other people act the same way with Consensus: do other people act the same way with
the stimulus?the stimulus?
Kelley’s Attribution TheoryKelley’s Attribution Theory
High consistency, high distinctiveness, High consistency, high distinctiveness, high consensus high consensus situational attribution situational attribution
High consistency, low distinctiveness, low High consistency, low distinctiveness, low consensus consensus personal attribution personal attribution
Mr. Brown can’t start his car. Is it Mr. Brown can’t start his car. Is it Mr. Brown or the car?Mr. Brown or the car?
Consistency info: does he always have Consistency info: does he always have this problem?this problem?
Distinctiveness info: can he start other Distinctiveness info: can he start other cars?cars?
Consensus info: can other people start his Consensus info: can other people start his car?car?
Mr. Brown ProblemMr. Brown Problem
He often has this problem He often has this problem High consistencyHigh consistency
Others have no problem starting his car Others have no problem starting his car Low consensusLow consensus
He can’t start other cars He can’t start other cars Low distinctivenessLow distinctiveness
Attribution?Attribution? Personal attribution Personal attribution Something’s wrong with Something’s wrong with
Mr. Brown.Mr. Brown.
Mr. Brown ProblemMr. Brown Problem
He often has this problem He often has this problem High consistencyHigh consistency
Others can’t start his car either Others can’t start his car either High consensusHigh consensus
He can start other cars He can start other cars High distinctivenessHigh distinctiveness
Attribution?Attribution? Situational attribution Situational attribution Something’s wrong with Something’s wrong with
the carthe car
Sally failed her chemistry test. Is it Sally failed her chemistry test. Is it Sally’s fault?Sally’s fault?
She usually fails chemistry She usually fails chemistry High consistencyHigh consistency
Everyone else passed Everyone else passed Low consensusLow consensus
She fails other tests She fails other tests Low distinctivenessLow distinctiveness
Attribution?Attribution?
Personal (e.g., Sally’s not so smart)Personal (e.g., Sally’s not so smart)
Sally ProblemSally Problem
She usually fails chem. She usually fails chem. High consistencyHigh consistency
Others failed Others failed High consensusHigh consensus
She doesn’t fail in other classes She doesn’t fail in other classes High distinctivenessHigh distinctiveness
Attribution?Attribution?
Situation (e.g., test was difficult)Situation (e.g., test was difficult)
Kelley’s Attribution TheoryKelley’s Attribution Theory
B.B. Discounting principle – we are less likely Discounting principle – we are less likely to attribute a behavior to a given cause if to attribute a behavior to a given cause if other plausible causes are also present.other plausible causes are also present.
e.g., self-handicappinge.g., self-handicapping
Jones and Harris (1967)Jones and Harris (1967)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Chosen Assigned
Pro-Castro Speeches
Anti-Castro speeches
Pro-Castro
Anti-Castro
Jones and Harris (1967)Jones and Harris (1967)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Chosen Assigned
Pro-Castro Speeches
Anti-Castro speeches
Pro-Castro
Anti-Castro
Jones and Harris (1967)Jones and Harris (1967)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Chosen Assigned
Pro-Castro Speeches
Anti-Castro speeches
Pro-Castro
Anti-Castro
Errors and Biases in AttributionErrors and Biases in Attribution
1. The Fundamental Attribution Error (aka, 1. The Fundamental Attribution Error (aka, Correspondence Bias).Correspondence Bias).
Tendency to attribute behavior to Tendency to attribute behavior to persons to a greater extent than to persons to a greater extent than to situations. situations.
Why do People Make the FAE?Why do People Make the FAE?
Automaticity: processing of information Automaticity: processing of information that requires little or no effort, is routine, that requires little or no effort, is routine, and often occurs outside of awarenessand often occurs outside of awareness E.g., driving a car, recognizing a friendE.g., driving a car, recognizing a friend
Gilbert, Pelham, & KrullGilbert, Pelham, & Krull(1988)(1988)
Dual process theory of FAEDual process theory of FAE Step 1: Automatic person attributionStep 1: Automatic person attribution Step 2: Correction for situational causesStep 2: Correction for situational causes
Gilbert et al. (1988)Gilbert et al. (1988)
Participants listened to pro or anti-abortion Participants listened to pro or anti-abortion speech that had been assigned.speech that had been assigned.
Half of the subjects were told that they Half of the subjects were told that they would have to write and read a speech would have to write and read a speech later in the session (cognitive load later in the session (cognitive load condition).condition).
DV: What is the true attitude of the DV: What is the true attitude of the speaker?speaker?
Anti 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ProAnti 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Pro
Gilbert et al. (1988)Gilbert et al. (1988)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Load No Load
Pro-Abortion
Anti-Abortion
Pro-Abortion
Anti-Abortion
Gilbert et al. (1988)Gilbert et al. (1988)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Load No Load
Pro-Abortion
Anti-Abortion
Pro-Abortion
Anti-Abortion
Actor-Observer EffectActor-Observer Effect
Tendency to make situational attributions Tendency to make situational attributions for own behavior, but personal attributions for own behavior, but personal attributions for others’ behavior.for others’ behavior.
Self-Serving AttributionsSelf-Serving Attributions
Tendency to accept credit for success, but Tendency to accept credit for success, but deny responsibility for failure.deny responsibility for failure.
False ConsensusFalse Consensus
Tendency to overestimate the Tendency to overestimate the commonality of our own opinions, beliefs, commonality of our own opinions, beliefs, and behaviors.and behaviors. 3 Explanations3 Explanations::
Self enhancement Self enhancement motivation motivation Selective exposure to others Selective exposure to others cognitive cognitive Salience of own position Salience of own position cognitive cognitive