Attribution Theory Flashcards
ATTRIBUTION DEFINITION
MOSKOWITZ (2005)
- result of classifying/explaining beh process to arrive at decision regarding beh cause/reason
- aka. WHY SOMEONE ACTS IN THE WAY WE OBSERVE
LAYPERSON = NAIVE SCIENTIST
HEIDER (1958)
- chronic need to see causality (even where there is none)
MALLE (2003)
- perceivers use agency/intentionality language even when describing/explaining abstract movements
- if they appear agentic, they are deemed as such
CAUSES OF ACTIONS
HEIDER (1958)
- two global forces
- person -> personal causality (human pref)
- situation -> impersonal causality
WHY PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS PREF?
HEIDER (1958)
- beh engulfs the field
- personal explanations are stable/clear/concrete causes
- important common sense psych principle
- scientific general theory that we grasp/predict/control reality
- we refer transient/variable beh/events to mostly stable underlying conditions AKA. dispositional properties of the world
LOC
- internal LOC = motivation/ability
- external LOC = situational factors
WEINER’S ATTRIBUTION MODEL (CAUSES OF BEH)
INTERNAL LOC
- stable = ability
- unstable = effort
EXTERNAL LOC
- stable = task difficulty
- unstable = luck
HEIDER’S LEGACY
- predictability/control of beh
- inspiration for JONES/DAVIES/KELLEY
CORRESPONDANT INTERFERENCE THEORY
JONES & DAVIES (1965)
- central CI concept = perceiver’s judgement that actor’s beh caused by/corresponds to trait
- seeking of closure over accuracy
- basic assumption = trait attributions -> stability (daisuki~ <3)
MULTIPLE EFFECTS
- one act can have many consequences/effects
- people use consequences to decide if act = intended/unintended (ie. ending relationship)
- weighing up multiple effects -> perceivers make better inferences about internal actor state
WORKING OUT INTENTIONALITY
- Does actor have knowledge of action consequences?
- Does actor wish for these consequences?
- Is actor capable of achieving desired consequences?
INTENTIONALITY LIKELINESS
- desirability of consequences
- noncommon effects
- situational constraint
- is beh normative/unique?
- hedonic relevance of action
ATTRIBUTION OF DISPOSITIONS
- what did chosen beh produce that other beh wouldn’t? (ie. choosing uni)
- implications -> infer dispositions more confidently with fewer non-common effects
ANALYSIS OF NON-COMMON EFFECTS I
JANE SMITH
- uni X = A/B/C/D
- uni Y = A/C/D
- A = prestigious rep
- B = year abroad option
- C = great social scene
- D = higher grades
CHOICE = X
CONCL = X has year abroad
INFER = Jane wants a year abroad (B = NCE)
ANALYSIS OF NON-COMMON EFFECTS II
JOHN SMITH
- uni W = A/B/C
- uni Y = A/C/D
- A = prestigious rep
- B = year abroad option
- C = great social scene
- D = higher grades
CHOICE = W
CONCL = John wants year abroad OR doesn’t think he’ll get the grades
INFER = Unclear (NCE = 0)
COVARIATION/CONFIGURATION MODELS
KELLEY (1963)
- situation VS entity attribution
- causal schemas = assumptions based on prior experience
KELLEY’S CAUSAL SCHEMA IDEA
- mature individual = abstract idea repertoire about operation/interaction of causal factors
- conceptions let perceivers make economical/fast attributional analysis via framework where relevant info can be fitted for reasonable good causal inferences
CAUSAL SCHEMAS
- DISCOUNTING PRINCIPLE
- AUGMENTATION PRINCIPLE
DISCOUNTING PRINCIPLE
- potential causes discounted if observers = aware of another factor working to observed effect
- IE. cyclist doesn’t need strength to cycle fast DOWN steep hill
- less influence attributed to cycling power when gravity already explains speed
AUGEMENTATION PRINCIPLE
- potential causes augmented if observers aware of another factor working against observed effect
- IE. cyclist NEEDS strength to cycle fast UP steep hill
- more influence attributed to cycling power when gravity normally slows cyclist down
KELLEY’S ANOVA MODEL
- we don’t always use theory driven schemas; sometime we need more careful/data-driven analysis
- need for deliberate/systematic/rational causality
- covariation = variance in one event linked to variance in another
FACTORS HELPING ATTRIBUTE BEH
- consensus = how would others react in same situation? (HIGH VS LOW)
- distinctiveness = how does same actor react to dif entities? (HIGH VS LOW)
- consistency = does action generalise across time (HIGH VS LOW)
! SUMMARY !
ATTRIBUTION THEORY
- how the social perceiver gathers/combines info for causal explanations for events
KEY WORK
- Heider (1958)
- Jones & Davies (1958)
- Kelley (1965)
COMMON FACTORS
- concern w/common sense explanations/answers
- attempt to formalise rules we might use in CA process
