Chapter 10: Cognitive Motivation: Attribution Approaches

PSY 338: Motivation

Theories that try to determine why people do what they do in order to uncover the feelings and traits that are behind their actions

“Why” was the first word out of many attempting to make sense of the Sandy Hook tragedy

December 14, 2012

Three Basic Assumptions1.We attempt to determine the causes of both our own behavior and that of others

• We are motivated to seek out information that helps us to understand cause-and-effect relationships

• This helps us understand and predict our social world

2.Assignment of causes to behavior is not done randomly• We depend on rules; in a way it is the reverse of expectancy

3.The causes attributed to particular behavior will influence subsequent emotional and nonemotional behaviors

• Attributions activate other motives

Heider (1958) • “Naive” or “commonsense”

psychology• Posits that people are like

amateur scientists, trying to understand other people’s behavior by piecing together information until they arrive at a reasonable explanation or cause

• Heider was intrigued by what seemed reasonable to people and by how they arrived at their conclusions

Fritz Heider(1896-1988)

When trying to decide what causes people’s behavior, we can make one of two attributions: •An internal, dispositional attribution•An external, situational attribution

Internal AttributionThe inference that a person is

behaving in a certain way because of something about the person, such as attitude, character, or personality.

External AttributionThe inference that a person is

behaving a certain way because of something about the situation he or she is in.

The assumption is that most people would respond the same way in that situation.

Satisfied spouses tend to show a particular attributional pattern:

• Internal attributions for their partners’ positive behaviors (e.g., “She helped me because she’s such a generous person”)

• External attributions for their partners’ negative behaviors (e.g., “He said something mean because he’s so stressed at work this week”)

In contrast, spouses in distressed marriages tend to display the opposite pattern:

• Their partners’ positive behaviors are chalked up to external causes (e.g., “She helped me because she wanted to impress our friends”)

• Negative behaviors are attributed to internal causes (e.g., “He said something mean because he’s a totally self-centered jerk”)

Heider (1958) • Although either type of attribution is always

possible, he noted that we tend to see the causes of a person’s behavior as residing in that person (internal explanation)

• We are perceptually focused on people—they are who we notice

• The situation (the external explanation), which is often hard to see and hard to describe, may be overlooked

Heider’s Attributional Model (1958)• Dispositions

• Abilities • Motivations

• Intention • Exertion

• Situational attributions • Task difficulty• Luck

See Figure 10.1 illustrates this model (see p. 305)

Jones & Davis (1965)•People try to infer from an action whether the act itself corresponds to an enduring personal characteristic of the actor•People make inferences based on:

• Person’s degree of choice• Level of social desirability associated with that behavior

• Noncommon effects – if a unique aspect of a behavior is witnessed

Mike RiceFormer Rutgers University

Men’s BB Coach

Click on picture for video

Kelley (1967)• Harold Kelley’s major contribution to

attribution theory was the idea that we notice and think about more than one piece of information when we form an impression of another person.Covariation Model

A theory that states that to form an attribution about what caused a person’s behavior, we systematically note the pattern between the presence or absence of possible causal factors and whether or not the behavior occurs.

The covariation model focuses on observations of behavior across time, place, actors, and targets.

It examines how the perceiver chooses either an internal or an external attribution.

We make such choices by using information on:

• Consensus• Distinctiveness• ConsistencyKelley (1967) Harold Kelley

(1921-2003)

Consensus InformationInformation about the extent to which

other people behave the same way toward the same stimulus as the actor does.

Distinctiveness InformationInformation about the extent to

which one particular actor behaves in the same way to different stimuli.

Consistency InformationInformation about the extent to

which the behavior between one actor and one stimulus is the same across time and circumstances.

Kelley (1967)

Weiner (1972)Explanations for Success and Failure•Internal or External•Stable or Unstable•Controllable or NotAttributions for Success and Failure•Ability•Effort•Task Difficulty•Luck

Bernard Weiner(born in 1935)

Some attributions are erroneous; Perceptions can be incorrect•So, why do we continue to make attributions even though we are often wrong?

Uncertainty leads to being uncomfortable

The tendency to take credit for our successes and to blame external factors for our failures

Kingdon (1967) •Interviewed successful & unsuccessful American politicians about major factors in successes & failures. Tended to attribute wins to internal factors (hard work, reputation) but failures to external (lack of money, national trends)

Actually involves two biases –

1)   Self-enhancing bias (taking credit for success)

2) Self-protecting bias (denying responsibility for failure)

E.g. student will take personal credit for doing well in an exam but the same student will blame test difficulty or lecturer’s tough marking policy for failure

Miller & Ross (1975) •Cognitive explanation due to restricted information NOT because they are motivated to protect or enhance the self

Cognitive explanation

Miller & Ross (1975) •If people intend to succeed, then behavior can be seen to be due to their efforts, then it seems reasonable to accept more credit for success than failure

Motivational explanation

Zuckerman (1979) •Posits that the need to maintain self-esteem directly affects the attribution of task outcomes

Tendency for people to see own behavior as typical & assume that others would do same under similar circumstances

Ross et al. (1977) •asked students if they would agree to walk around campus for 30 minutes wearing sandwich board saying ‘Eat at Joe’s’•Those who agreed estimated 62% of peers would agree•Those who refused estimated 67% of peers would refuse

Cognitive •Our own opinions are more salient to us & displace consideration of alternatives•We seek out company of similar others so encounter more people with similar beliefs, interests etc. – experience inflated consensus

Motivational•We subjectively justify the correctness of our opinions by grounding them in exaggerated consensus – may enable stable perception of reality

The tendency for individuals to judge their own behaviors as caused by situational forces but the behavior of another as caused by his or her personality•OBSERVER-->Internal attribution•ACTOR-->External attribution•What is salient in the perceptual field?•i.e. what INFORMATION is available for the observer and the actor?•For OBSERVER: The actor•For ACTOR: Everything but the actor (i.e., the situation)

Harré, Brandt & Houkamau (2004)•The attributions of young drivers for their own and their friends' risky driving •Dispositional attributions e.g., "Showing off, acting cool" used more for friends than self•Situational attributions e.g., "In a hurry, late" used more for self than friends•Participants also rated their friends as taking more risks than themselves

• Underestimation of the influence of situational factors on others’ behavior

• Overestimation of the influence of dispositional factors on others behavior

In the movie, Bender falls victim to the fundamental attribution error. Bender’s personality is described by most as freeloading, aggressive, and disrespectful. At home, Bender is treated badly. He is constantly being verbally and physically abused and has to fend for himself. In Bender’s case, everyone attributed his actions to his personal disposition and did not take into account his home situation.

The Breakfast Club (1985)

Napolitan & Goethals (1979)Procedures•College students

• Group 1 • Told that woman’s behavior would be spontaneous

• Group 2• Told that woman would pretend to be friendly or

unfriendly so don’t take it personally

Results•No significant differences were found between the groups

Interpretation•Even in the midst of obvious situational influences, we still make the FAE

Leonard Nimoy had to write a book

Fundamental Attribution Error

Ross, Amabile & Steinmetz (1977)Procedure•Two studies using undergraduates asked to play quiz game•Questioners

• Asked to compose 10 difficult but not impossible questions to ask contestants

•Contestants• Answered the questions

•Observers (in a second study this group was added)• Watched the interaction

Ross, Amabile & Steinmetz (1977)Results•Questioners rated themselves and the contestants equally•However, contestants viewed the questioners as having more general knowledge •The second study added a group of observers who watched the quiz game and their attributions mirrored those of the contestants in study 1Interpretation•Clearly another case of FAE

What is the cause of FAE?One possibility relates to salience•Observers tend to focus on the actor’s behavior rather than on the situation•Aspects of the situation are less salient and are given less weight when attributions are madeMuch disagreement with this view•Incomplete; too simplistic

What is the cause of FAE?Gilbert & Malone (1995)These researchers posit four factors:1.We may not be aware of the situational factors that weigh on the actor2.We may be aware of but fail to fully appreciate the magnitude of the situational influences3.Our experiences may affect our perception of the actor’s behavior4.We may be unable or unwilling to fully consider the impact of the situation

Achievement motivation can be defined as the need for success or the attainment of excellenceDierner & Dweck (1978)Procedures•Pretested for mastery or helpless orientation•Then performed a task that they would eventually fail at•Before performing the task, the attributions of the two groups were similar

Achievement MotivationDierner & Dweck (1978)ResultsMastery orientation group•Did not appear to define themselves as failures but rather searched for solutions for there failuresHelpless orientation group•Contributed failure to uncontrollable factorsInterpretation•Attributions clearly influence our future expectations of success

Learned HelplessnessAbramson, Seligman, & Teasdale (1978)•Extended the early theory of learned helplessness to include how the type of attributions one makes is related to this phenomenon •They argue that an individual may attribute his or her own lack of control to either external or internal events

Learned HelplessnessAbramson, Seligman, & Teasdale (1978)•Argued that an individual may attribute his or her own lack of control to either external or internal events related to the following factors:

Universal or personal•Felt that some situations we have no control over are universal; others are more of a personal nature •Only when it is of a personal nature will it affect self-esteemSpecific or global•Global attribution leads to depressed mood and lack of effortStable or unstable•Helplessness as perceived as stable greatly extends the time course of learned helplessness

Some slides prepared with the help of the following websites:

www.napavalley.edu/.../Social%20Psychology%20%20PSYC%20SOCI%...

soculleighton.files.wordpress.com/.../achievement-motivation-and-attribu...

www.psychology.nottingham.ac.uk/staff/lpzes/Attributional_biases.ppt