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 Model of Attribution
Dispositional Attribution:
Consistency = High
Consensus = Low
Distinctiveness = Low
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)
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.
Behavior in particular has such salient properties it tends to
engulf the total field, rather than be confined to its proper
position as a local stimulus whose interpretation requires the
additional data of a surrounding field— the situation in social
perception" (Heider, 1958, p. 54).
Example –
•Participants had NO choice in reading a Pro Fidel Castro speech
•Others still believe the position reflected that of the person
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
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,
Observers
(Usually have different information
than inducers such as motivation,
awareness of “chronic” stimulus
features, social comparisons)
Bias toward making dispositional attributions based on other’s behaviors (Heider:
Behavior tends to engulf the field --- more salient)
Self-Generated Reality
What would happen if inducers (and observers) were plainly aware of
the attempts to cause the response of others?
Would both parties use the behavior from responders to make
dispositional attributions?
Study 1 Procedure?
• When inducers explicitly asked for the behaviors they received, they made dispositional
attributions for the responder’s behavior (i.e., either liberal or conservative politically)
• Observers who were aware of the procedure followed by the inducer and responder, also
made dispositional attributions
Study 2 Purpose(s)?
Do origin inducers differ from instrumental inducers in preferring dispositional
attributions?
Origin Inducers
[more self-directed (e.g.,
parents, lovers)]
Instrumental Inducers
[following roles, scripts
of others (e.g.,
fundraisers, sales,
police)]
• People were more likely to make dispositional attributions for observed
behavior that they elicited
• There was no difference between origin and instrumental inducers in making
dispositional attributions
Overall conclusions:
Inducers evaluation an actor’s behavior as diagnostic even when the
inducer’s causal role is blatantly obvious
Individuals subscribe to the social realities we construct, even when they are
aware that they have constructed them
The role of salience (i.e., the actor’s behavior) cannot be ruled out but is
questioned. Salience is subjective in nature
Behavior
Automatic
dispositional
attribution
Infer causation by
considering by considering
situational and behavioral
cues (this process is often
insufficient to offset
dispositional bias)
What is the so-called actor-observer effect?
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.
Why does the effect occur?
• Perceptual differences: Actors notice the situations around them that influence
them to act, while observers notice the actors
• Information access: Actors have more information about themselves than do
observers (e.g., how consistent present behavior is to past behavior)
• 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)
~ 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