Transcript Causal Attributions [The reasons for the behavior of others and ourselves; WHY they/we behave a certain way, e.g., the cause of behavior] Fritz.

Causal Attributions
[The reasons for the behavior of others and ourselves; WHY
they/we behave a certain way, e.g., the cause of behavior]
Fritz Heider: One of the founders of attribution theory
Viewed people as amateur (naive) scientists – trying to figure out
causes of behavior and assigning responsibility for one’s actions
Causal Attributions
Stable
Unstable
Internal
External
Ability, Intelligence,
Personality Traits
Task difficulty
Effort, Mood
Luck, Transitory
weather conditions
Also, there are 2 other dimensions: Global versus Specific
Relationship-Enhancing and Distress-Maintaining Attributions
Relationship-Enhancing
Attribution
Distress-Maintaining
Attribution
Positive Event
My partner takes me
out to an expensive
dinner
My partner is
sweet and
thoughtful
My partner took
me out to write the
cost off on taxes
Internal, stable,
global
External, unstable,
specific
Something
unexpected must
have come up
My partner is
always uncaring
and selfish
External, unstable,
specific
Internal, stable,
global
Negative Event
My partner forgot my
birthday
Kelly’s Cube (Covariation) Model of
Attribution
The behavior to be
explained: Seymore makes
a pass at Lolita
(Consistency)
In a classroom
At a party
At work
(Distinctiveness)
Sister Mary Teresa
Lolita
At a bar
Marcie
Susie
Seymore Tom Dick Harry (Consensus)
Kelly’s Cube Model of Attribution (cont.)
Typically, we do not have complete information about people on all
three of Kelly’s dimensions. Also, research has shown that the
dimension of “consistency” is used quite a bit, whereas “consensus” is
not used frequently.
Sue receive an A on the final paper for Professor Adams. Half the
class got A’s on this paper, and the other half got B’s. This is the 1st
time that Sue has received an A on a paper; in her other courses she
has obtained B’s on her papers. On the last paper for this class, Sue
also received an A. Why did Sue get an A?
She is an excellent writer
Consistency:
High or Low
Her teacher is an easy grader
Consensus:
High or Low
This paper was especially good
Distinctiveness: High or Low
Joan received an A on her final paper for Professor Downs. No one
else in the class received an A. Joan gets A’s on almost all of her
papers she writes in other classes. On the last paper for this class,
Joan also received an A. Why did Joan get an A?
She is an excellent writer
Consistency:
High or Low
Her teacher is an easy grader
Consensus:
High or Low
This paper was especially good
Distinctiveness: High or Low
Fundamental Attribution Error
[Correspondent Bias -- that one’s behavior corresponds to one’s
personality]
The tendency to overemphasize internal explanations for the
behavior of others, while failing to consider the power of the
situation.
Example –
• Participants had NO choice in reading a Pro Fidel Castro speech
• Others still believe the position reflected that of the person
Self-Generated Reality
Are people unknowing architects of their own social reality?
Responder
Inducer
Often our role in affecting other’s responses
is ambiguous (e.g., personality, physical
appearance, social role/position,
mannerisms)
At other times, we intentionally try to get
people to do or say something (e.g., sign
petition, donate money,
Inducer asks responder to respond a
certain way (e.g., 16/20 times in a
politically liberal or conservative manner)
Later, asked inducers to judge the “real”
opinions of the responders --- they made
dispositional attributions for the
responder’s behavior (i.e., either liberal or
conservative politically)
Fundamental Attribution Error
Role of Perceptual Salience [what we see or pay attention to]
Observers thought that the actor
they could see better had a greater
impact on the conversation
Actor-Observer Effect (Difference)
Fundamental Attribution Error not applied equally)
The actor/observer effect: The tendency to see
other people’s behavior as dispositionally caused
(e.g., ability, personality), while focusing more on
the role of situational factors (e.g., task difficulty,
bad luck) when explaining one’s own behavior.
Reasons for the Actor-Observer Difference
•
Perceptual salience: Actors notice the situations around them that
influence them to act, while observers notice the actors
Observer’s focus is
on the actor
Actor’s focus is on the task (the basket)
Information access: Actors have more information about themselves
than do observers (e.g., how consistent present behavior is to past
behavior) Actor: “That’s the first free throw I’ve missed in 4 games”
•
Motivational bias: Explanations for one’s successes that credit
internal, dispositional factors, as opposed to failures, which are
explained by external, situational factors (e.g., bad luck)
[Self-esteem maintenance; self-presentation reasons]
~ Reversing Actors’ and Observers’ Perspectives ~
Actor
Observer
Observer
Other
Actor sees own behavior as situational.
Observer sees actor’s behavior as
dispositional (trait). Actor-observer effect
Actor sees self
Other (person actor
was talking to)
Actor sees own behavior as more
dispositional. Observer sees
actor’s behavior as more situational
Quiz Show Game Study (Power of social roles)
Questioner (writes a set of 10 reasonably difficult questions
Contestant (has to answer the questions by the questioner)
Told that this
assignment
was random; it
wasn’t
Observers
Ratings of others on a general knowledge rest
• Questioner perceived as more knowledgeable by contestants and
observers
GPA and External Attributions for Failure
Training session
to address issues
facing new student,
How to cope with
Problems, Where to go
for help, etc.
Giving students realistic
reasons for possible poor
1st year performance
(e.g., new setting,
more adjustments, harder
classes)
• Higher GPA
• Less absenteeism
• Lower dropout rate
• Greater satisfaction with school
Attributions in the Sports Pages
Overview
• Success is attributed to internal factors (Self-Enhancement Strategy )
• Failure is attributed to external factors (Self-Protective Device)
• Prevalence of internal outcomes for both success and failure (especially
unstable ones)
• Unexpected outcomes lead to a greater number of attributions
(e.g., need for greater attributional searching for possible explanations)
Attribution Examples in Sports
Self-Attributions
Internal & Unstable (most common in sports for failures)
• "I could not be as aggressive as I wanted to be and kind of flinched a couple of
times" -- Golfer Ernie Els on a wrist injury and his 77 final round score
"For this fight I had to lose a lot of weight. I wasn't that strong … “
--- Boxer Floyd Mayweather on beating Jr. Jesus Chavez
• “It was one of those nights. I felt like I couldn’t miss” – Michael Jordan
Self-Handicapping Behavior
Early assumptions:
A) People wish to have accurate information/feedback regarding their
abilities
B) Role of achievement motivation (high versus low)
Definition of self-handicapping strategies; behavior that:
A) Enhance external attributions for failure
B) Allows internal attributions for success
(e.g., Kelly’s augmentation principle)
Self-Handicapping Behavior (cont.)
"Cause" of self-handicapping
A) Non-contingent reinforcement history, especially
for success (e.g., Success not due to one’s ability or effort)
B) Perception that successful performance cannot likely be repeated
The belief that one deserves or has partially earned their success (e.g., due
to themselves) has to exist
Self-Handicapping Behavior (cont.)
Insolvable Task-2
(stakes raised)
Insolvable Task
“Success”
Private
Public
Drug Choice
Ability attributions
Males
Females
Males attributed
their “success” to
ability more than
females
Enhancing
drug
Impairing
drug
Males much more
likely to choose
impairing drug –
even when only
they were told of
their initial success
(private condition)
Seligman’s Suggestions
A) Allow external attributions for failure (when reasonable)
B) Develop strategies for improvement after failure
C) Failure is not “the end of the world” (learning experience, feedback)
D) Allow development of personal control in early years of life
Misattribution and Speech Anxiety
Placebo usage ---
a) Cause of one’s arousal is not obvious
b) Misattribution source is salient (obvious, easily observable)
c) Misattribution source is perceived as plausible
Giving a speech (anxiety
arousing event)
Subliminal noise to
increase anxiety
Less mistakes
made during
speech
Subliminal noise to
decrease anxiety
Accurate information; e.g.,
it’s common to be anxious
• Anxiety is partially explained by the noise as well as the person
Motivation: SDT (Self-Determination
Theory)
Extrinsic
Motivation
The gains we make from
the activity motivate us
(e.g., money, power,
prestige, endorsements)
Intrinsic
Motivation
The activity itself is
rewarding; you are
interested, and enjoy
doing it
A Look at Rewards for Motivation
• Good jump ropers during recess were chosen and put in
three conditions
• Following the intervention, which group will jump rope
during recess more?
Expected reward:
Unexpected reward:
Control / No reward:
Students were told
if they did a good
job, they would get
a “good jumper”
badge. All got a
badge.
Students were
awarded a “good
jumper” badge after
doing a good job on
the task. All got a
badge.
Students jumped rope,
but were not told of a
reward, and were not
given one.
Intrinsic Motivation
(Traditional Belief) Overall Motivation = Internal +
External Rewards
Individuals who
intrinsically
enjoy their work
Why?
Increase extrinsic
(external) rewards
(e.g., pay)
Intrinsic
Motivation
Extrinsic
Motivation
Can lead to
lowered
intrinsic
motivation
• Extrinsic (external) factors now
partially account for why individuals
are motivated to perform a given
task
• External rewards limit people’s
sense of self-determination
Tangible extrinsic rewards reliably undermine intrinsic motivation under most circumstances. The most
detrimental reward contingency involves giving rewards as a direct function of people's performance. This
is the one most often used in life, and it seems to be the one that is most detrimental to the motivation,
performance, and well-being. http://www.psych.rochester.edu/SDT/cont_reward.html
~ Overestimating
Failure/Harshness ~
What is the “Spotlight Effect”:
Perception of our behavior as “sticking out”
Others will attend to and notice our behavior as being different (an outlier)
Lonely Guy Restaurant Scene
Overestimating Harshness Studies
3 scenarios with social blunders --• Setting of library alarm
• Forgot to bring gift at party
• Seen with cheap store bag
Scenario
Actors’
prediction
Ratings (predictions) provided
by:
Self (actors)
Observers
Observers
rating
1. Library incident
4.78
3.01
2. Empty-handed guest
5.26
2.47
3. Spotted at the mall
3.31
1.13
On average, actors believe they will be rated MUCH harsher that they are!