Attribution biases I: The correspondence bias Flashcards
The Fidel Castro study (Jones and Harris, 1967)
Lots happening in Cuba in 60s – negative view towards Castro –
Purpose? Ps make use of situational constraints
Method: Ps shown essays that either supported or opposed Castro
Half told essayist chose content (pro or anti)
Half told essayist assigned position (pro or anti) - won’t know what their true opinion is
expected results of the Fidel Castro study
Most people against – assume those assigned to pro are actually against
actual results
Failing to correct for situational norms – didn’t think that most people are anti
what does the Fidel Castro study mean?
Even when ps were led to believe essayist had been assigned a position, they still assumed beliefs were in line with essay
“Our behaviour, even if not freely chosen, is believed to be a reflection of our true attitudes and personality.” (Moskowitz, 2005)
A pretty robust finding - WHY?
objections to the findings
Didn’t get the study
Didn’t realise sometimes in position when you do something you don’t agree with
Essays so good that couldn’t not think that
Feel funny ignoring tone of essay – have to believe it because the researcher wants me to
Wouldn’t write an essay if didn’t believe it
- Wanting dispositions - need for control
Believing we are at the mercy of situations is depressing and scary
a) A dispositionist world view = coping mechanism
b) A dispositionist world = predictability and control
Favour person type words over situation
type words
Miller, Norman and Wright (1978)
Observers watched target play game with player – prisoners dilemma type game
3 kinds of observer: normal (just watched), expectant (watched thinking take part), post-expectant (watched but after surprisingly told then have to play)
All were asked to rate perceived dispositionality of target (bigger the score, greater the perceived dispositionality)
Miller et al. results
See more dispositional type attributes
what does the Miller study mean?
Playing a game with person (or expecting to) increased desire to predict person’s behaviour
Behaviour important because it affects us personally
Attribution of style of play to dispositional characteristics
Prefer to think people are born that way and not made
- Misunderstanding situations
Why should we consistently underestimate the power of situational forces?
a) Situations may be invisible
the Quiz show study
Split into threes
Quizmaster, contestant, or observer
Q think up 10 hard questions (hobby)
Qs ask Cs questions
Os…observe
Then, Q, C and O rate Q and C for dispositional knowledgability…
the quiz show study results
Participants overlooked the role-conferred advantage
- Misunderstanding situs cont
b) If you don’t see situation, can’t subtract it out of behavioural attribution
Watching a quiz show - “I can do better than that!”
“You had to be there”
- misperceiving behav
The inferential link between seeing and interpreting what we see
“Although it feels like we can simply see what behavior is, such seeing is actually a complex inferential process” (p. 115) – not always clear what someone is doing
We identify actions and draw inferences about what they mean … sometimes it goes wrong - when?
Prior expectations; perceptual assimilation
- failing to use info
Some questions to think about
The process of dispositional and situational attributions
The distinction between automatic and effortful processing - are some kinds of attributions more effortful?
Which? How can we test this?
Implications for CB?
recent developments
“Attributional theories have outlined the procedures by which the causal determinants of behavior may be appreciated, but have been silent with regard to the processes by which these procedures are enacted.” (Gilbert, 1989, p. 193)
Development of stage models: Quattrone (1982), and Gilbert (1989)
Gilbert, Pelham and Krull (1988)
Quattrone (1986): Perceivers do not make either or decisions about situational vs dispositional causation - first d (anchor), then correct for s (adjustment)
2 stages…or 3?
Combined Quattrone’s notion of attribution in stages with notion of automaticity
Crux of the model (illustrate)
effortful
takes up cognitive resources
automatic/controlled distinction
Automatic processes require few resources
Implication: Auto processes should not be disrupted by concurrent mental tasks but…
Controlled processes do require lots of energy etc
Implication: Cont processes should be disrupted by CMTs – don’t have mental capacity to do something else
Apply this to Disp (A) and Sit (C) processes…
the ‘sexual fantasies’ exp
Gilbert et al. (1988) showed ps (silent) video of female target
She was biting her finger nails, fidgeting, avoiding eye contact – infer that she is anxious
Ps told: sexual fantasies (anxious topics) or world travel (bland topics)
How dispositionally anxious was she? – as a person in everyday life
sexual fantasies results
Obvious! Bland-topics ps rated her as more anxious than anxious topics
But….only half story - 1/2 ps cognitively busy (rehearsing topics) – should be harder to correct for/notice topic would make a difference to anxious over and above dispositional level
These ps judgements unaffected by type of topic (= anxious) – not taking into account situation when cognitively busy
So…initial disp. inference = AUTOMATIC
Correction for situation = EFFORTFUL
Not very realistic situation
what does it mean to be cognitively busy?
Simple answer = juggling lots of things at the same time
Other possibilities:
* being PREOCCUPIED (impending doom) * trying NOT to do something (Basil) * when we are in the act of DECEIT (trying to be nice)
take home messages
“…dispositional inferences are the size 34 trousers of social perception”
“Dispositional attributions may be easier to make than situational attributions, and because people do not always have the mental energy necessary for lengthy contemplation, they may not move beyond the easiest conclusion.”
