Attribution Flashcards
Attribution definition
process of identifying a cause for an outcome
Attribution bias definition
distortion or error in process of making an attribution
Heider, 1958 - attribution theory
looked at how attribution met basic human needs
find out why outcomes occur, especially if negative so we can avoid occurrence of it again
look at internal versus external attributions
process of making attribution in everyday life is similar to that used in professional science - construction of causal theories - we are all naive psychologists
Internal vs external attributions
internal = assign cause of behaviour to internal characteristic external = assign cause of behaviour to situation/event outside of the person's control
Ichheiser, 1943 - attribution bias
contributed to attribution bias
develop notion that culturally located ideas shape our attribution process
more radical as an approach
argues social psychologists are unknowingly biased
so people have a bias towards making dispositional attributions rather than situational attributions
this is not just a cognitive phenomenon - it is a result of ideology - because we live in an individualistic culture we make individual attributions
Jones and Davis, 1965 - correspondent inference theory
people pay particular attention to intentional behaviour
theory helps understanding of internal attribution process
- we do this most when correspondence between motive and behaviour (intention)
5 sources to allow us to make correspondent inference
- choice, accidental/intentional behaviour, social desirability, hedonistic relevance and personalism
Hewstone, 1989
sees correspondent inference theory as key to their own theory
want to distinguish between motivation and cognitive biases
motivational = arising from interests, intentions
cognitive = information-processing issues or limitations
Critical evaluation of correspondent inference theory
Hewstone, 1989 - raises question about emphasis on intent and non-chosen behaviour - questions whether or not trait attributions should be considered equivalent to causal calculations
CIT is template for much other research into attributions - so good in that sense
Does little to outline how we calculate and choose between alternative attributions of behaviours
Covariation model of causal attribution
Kelley, 1967
arguable most influential model of attribution
idealised model of how we can and should make attributions when we have enough time, information and motivation
to understand the model you need to understand different reasoning dimensions - consensus, distinctiveness and consistency
Consensus, distinctiveness and consistency 1
part of covariation model - Kelley, 1967
model aims to express precisely the reasoning processes behind ideal attributions
like Heider we look at internal or external cause
subdivision of external cause - stimulus and circumstance
3 types of causal information influence judgement - CDC
Consensus, distinctiveness and consistency 2
consensus - extent to which other people behave in the same way
distinctiveness = extent to which person’s reaction/behaviour is same in similar situations
consistency = extent to which person and others react in same way to stimulus
low consistency = discounting attribution
high consensus, distinctiveness and consistency = external attribution
low consensus, distinctiveness and consistency = internal attribution
Critical evaluation of covariation model
process leads to an attribution in which there were either multiple necessary causes or multiple sufficient causes - what about attributions that cannot be placed in these boxes?
this issue is addressed in Kelley’s following model - configuration model, 1972 - addresses the issue that original model was not useful in making everyday attributions
Configuration model - Kelley, 1972
looks at the way we look for a broad fit between outcome and rough configuration of possible causes of that outcome
uses a causal schema
exceptional occurrences = number of different contributory causes are necessary –> multiple necessary cause schema needed
common occurrences = one cause may be sufficient –> multiple sufficient cause schema needed
in cases where we do not have all information we use this model
Critical evaluation of Kelley’s two models
experiments are not representative of everyday attribution processing - covariation experiments give all the information needed (not representative)
experiments split information into consensus, distinctiveness and consistency - not done in real life
internal vs external causes - people want to know more than just this - internal or external attribution does not identify specific cause of outcome explanation
configuration model says multiple causes can be sufficient - then no one case is identified alone
McArthur, 1972 - there may be deviations from this rational ideal, pps likely to under-use consensus information
Attribution bias
influential biases include: fundamental attribution error (FAE) actor-observer differences self-biases inter-group biases
Fundamental Attribution Error
distinction between internal and external causes is essential to FAE
attributions tend to have extra value placed on internal factors - overestimating them - and less value on external causes - underestimating them
we make internal attributions even when there is clear external explanation
Jones and Harris, 1967 - Castro study - shows this bias
Jones and Harris, 1967
support for FAE
pps rate attitudes of speechwriters (how pro or anti Castro they were)
half pps told writer had choice in direction of speech, half pps told opposite
those believing they had a choice believed pro-Castro speeches to be written be pro-Castro people and vice versa
those told of no choice still largely believed the attitude of speech reflected individual attitude
highlights underestimation of external factors
Cognitive explanation for FAE
emphasis on information-processing constraints - ways in which our cognitive limitations may give rise to error
Rholes and Pryor, 1982 - people notice and focus on person not situation
Peterson, 1980 - dispositional shift - emphasis on dispositional factors for longer before making attribution - limitations in coping with all information leads to this overestimation
Lerner, 1980 - motivated to hold certain beliefs - preference in most societies for believing individuals are responsible
Criticism of FAE
certain features of experiments themselves may lead to demand characteristics
cross-cultural research challenges notion that FAE is universal or fundamental
emphasis on attribution as purely cognitive phenomenon can be questioned by approaches that pay attention to what attribution talk can be found to do in interaction
Actor-observer differences
idea that people emphasise internal causes but only when accounting for behaviour of others
external attributions made for our own behaviours
Nisbett et al., 1973 - perhaps because we have more information about our own situations - greater knowledge of another equated with situational attributions for them
Regan and Totten, 1975 - empathic attribution - where our empathy lies whether we make internal or external attribution to others
Alternative account for actor-observer differences
our perceptual focus is important
we blame what we see - we attribute only to what we can observe
actors see the situation, while the visual field of observers may be dominated by the other person
Criticisms of actor-observer differences
a/o/d = actor-observer differences
Watson, 1982 - causes of differences in attribution researched, maybe should look at effects of differences in situational attributions - less radical bias
Demand characteristics in experiences
Malle et al., 2007 - meta-analysis of studies into a/o/d - variations in results suggest findings not robust - only for negative outcomes - reversed for positive outcomes
- folk-conceptual model - important to distinguish reason explanations from causal history explanations
Self-biases
argues attributions vary according to explaining successes or failures
self-serving bias - most well known
–attribute personal success to internal cause
–attribute personal failure to external cause
different types of self-serving bias
— self-enhancing - success to internal cause, take credit
— self-protecting - failure to external cause, deny responsibility
— self-effacing - success to external cause and failure to internal cause
Kingdon, 1967
support for self-serving bias
examined politician talk
internal causes if politician had been successful and vice versa
Mezulis et al., 2004
support for self-serving bias
meta-analysis of 266 studies addressing issue of self-serving bias
support for importance of a self-serving bias
found some variation in self-serving bias depending on culture
western cultures had higher self-serving bias than Asian cultures
Fiske and Taylor, 1991
idea of schema can conceptualise how self-serving bias can identify attributions
schemas = structures of information about any given feature so out attributions about ourselves may be consistent with these schemas
Critical evaluation of self-bias
has support from studies but may not account for significant discrepancies
issues of cross-cultural differences - attributions to success and failures may reflect specific cultural perspective not universal feature of attribution process
Inter-group biases
perception of identity of person to be attributed biases our processing
group-relevant outcomes may be shaped by sense of our own and other’s group identities - can link to FAE
looks at the way in which our sense of the group that person belongs to can shape our attributions
Taylor and Jaggi, 1974
Pettigrew, 1979
Hewstone, 1989
Taylor and Jaggi, 1974
model of ethnocentric attribution
positive behaviours for in-group members attributed to internal causes but for out-groups to external causes
negative behaviours for in-group attributed to external causes but for out-groups to internal causes
Pettigrew, 1979
developed inter-group bias framework
out-group successes seen as due to luck - external factors
biased inter-group attributions can maintain presumed negative view of the out-group and positive view on the in-group
Hewstone, 1989 - inter-group biases
only way to challenge negative expectations of out-groups to reduce inter-group conflict depends on exposing group members to experiences of positive out-group behaviour and enabling them to see such behaviours as common
Inter-group biases - sex stereotypes
encouraging stereotype-consistent phenomena is likely to result in the in-group and out-group stereotypical attributions
Deaux, 1976 - found major attributional differences depending on sex
– male success attributed to ability
– female success attributed to luck or effort
Critical evaluation of inter-group biases
broadens attribution theory by looking at group perspective
Deaux’s work questions extent to which attribution is determined by whether or not the target of attribution is seen as member of in-group or out-group
Societal attributions
Ichheiser - sees what has become known as FAE as reflection of ideology within societies that emphasise self-determination
Societal representations
idea of socially shared understandings that change over time
Moscovici, 1976
- idea of shared frameworks for making sense of world is not simple top-down indoctrination but far more subtle
- social representations often entail attributional or explanatory elements
- major importance in the interactional context of representations
