Attribution Theory

Question 1

ATTRIBUTION DEFINITION

Answer 1

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

Question 2

LAYPERSON = NAIVE SCIENTIST

Answer 2

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

Question 3

CAUSES OF ACTIONS

Answer 3

HEIDER (1958)
- two global forces
- person -> personal causality (human pref)
- situation -> impersonal causality

Question 4

WHY PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS PREF?

Answer 4

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

Question 5

LOC

Answer 5

• internal LOC = motivation/ability
• external LOC = situational factors

Question 6

WEINER’S ATTRIBUTION MODEL (CAUSES OF BEH)

Answer 6

INTERNAL LOC
- stable = ability
- unstable = effort
EXTERNAL LOC
- stable = task difficulty
- unstable = luck

Question 7

HEIDER’S LEGACY

Answer 7

• predictability/control of beh
• inspiration for JONES/DAVIES/KELLEY

Question 8

CORRESPONDANT INTERFERENCE THEORY

Answer 8

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)

Question 9

MULTIPLE EFFECTS

Answer 9

• 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

Question 10

WORKING OUT INTENTIONALITY

Answer 10

1. Does actor have knowledge of action consequences?
2. Does actor wish for these consequences?
3. Is actor capable of achieving desired consequences?

Question 11

INTENTIONALITY LIKELINESS

Answer 11

• desirability of consequences
• noncommon effects
• situational constraint
• is beh normative/unique?
• hedonic relevance of action

Question 12

ATTRIBUTION OF DISPOSITIONS

Answer 12

• what did chosen beh produce that other beh wouldn’t? (ie. choosing uni)
• implications -> infer dispositions more confidently with fewer non-common effects

Question 13

ANALYSIS OF NON-COMMON EFFECTS I

Answer 13

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)

Question 14

ANALYSIS OF NON-COMMON EFFECTS II

Answer 14

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)

Question 15

COVARIATION/CONFIGURATION MODELS

Answer 15

KELLEY (1963)
- situation VS entity attribution
- causal schemas = assumptions based on prior experience

Question 16

KELLEY’S CAUSAL SCHEMA IDEA

Answer 16

• 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

Question 17

CAUSAL SCHEMAS

Answer 17

1. DISCOUNTING PRINCIPLE
2. AUGMENTATION PRINCIPLE

Question 18

DISCOUNTING PRINCIPLE

Answer 18

• 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

Question 19

AUGEMENTATION PRINCIPLE

Answer 19

• 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

Question 20

KELLEY’S ANOVA MODEL

Answer 20

• 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

Question 21

FACTORS HELPING ATTRIBUTE BEH

Answer 21

• 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)

Question 22

! SUMMARY !

Answer 22

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