Attribution theory

Question 1

Types of attribution?

Answer 1

· To physical phenomena – an act of God? People might hold different views, e.g. climate change. Might change your behaviour, e.g. pray more or help the environment
To life events – e.g. star signs are responsible for your life outcomes whereas others might say hard work determines outcome

Question 2

A simple attribution model:?

Answer 2

· E.g. exam failure
· Individual (internal) + stable = ability (e.g. not very smart)
· Individual (internal) + unstable = motivation (not reflective of their ability)
· Situation (external) + stable = task difficulty (nothing to do with the person)
· Situation (external) + unstable = luck (e.g. if a room was noisy)
Internal – the person, external – the environment

Question 3

Attribution theory: definition?

Answer 3

· A theory (or a group of theories)
· About how common sense operates
· About how people explain events/ behaviours
· About the psychological consequences of such explanations
Forsterling, 2001

Question 4

Basic assumptions of attributions?

Answer 4

· We are all ‘naïve psychologists’ (Heider, 1958) – assume it’s caused by something, want to try and predict future behaviour
· Attributions allow us to
o Predict future behaviour
Influence events – like to have control

Question 5

When do people make spontaneous attributions?

Answer 5

· All the time, but particularly for some events:

· Weiner, 1985: Search for cause elicited by: unexpected events and non-attainment rather than attainment of goal

Question 6

4 classic attribution theories?

Answer 6

· Heider (1958) – theory of naïve psychology
· Jones & Davies (1965) – theory of correspondent inference
· Kelley (1967; 1972) - covariation model
Weiner (1979, ‘85) – attribution model

Question 7

Heider and Simmel (1944)?

Answer 7

· Social attribution
· Showed participants short video, they had to explain what was going on in the video
See if they would attribute personality to the shapes, assumed the small shape was trying to get into the house but the big shape wouldn’t let them

Question 8

Fritz Heider (1958) ?

Answer 8

· People look for what motivates behaviour
· Construction of causal theories to predict and control world
· Preference for unchanging explanations – prefer stable attributes
Distinction between: personal factors and environmental factors

Question 9

Jones and Davis (1965)?

Answer 9

Correspondence inference theory
· Social perceivers infer that an individual’s behaviour is caused by (corresponds to) a trait
· i.e., we look for stable, underlying qualities in other people
o Inferences particularly likely if act…
o Freely chosen (intentional), assume someone intended to act that way
o Produced non-common (unusual) effects, unlikely to see the type of behaviour
o It is socially undesirable, e.g. making a weird noise
o Has direct impact on us – hedonic relevance
Seemed intended to affect us - personalism

Question 10

Trait inference and situational correction (Gilbert & Malone 1995)?

Answer 10

· Inferring traits automatic and effortless (first trait is identified and attributed to actor)
· Situational corrections not automatic, but are effortful and happen later
· We are biased towards inferring dispositions
Event: A punches B – seen as acceptable if person B has stolen person A’s wallet

Question 11

Kelley’s covariation model

Answer 11

· Also referred to as the ANOVA model – said we do it in our head everyday
· Individuals identify factors that co-vary with behaviour and assign the factor a causal role – on a spectrum (internal vs external)
· Assess 3 types of information (factors):
- Consistency - Does X always react like this to stimulus Y?
- Distinctiveness - Does X react like this to all stimuli?
- Consensus - Do other people react to stimulus Y the same way as X does?

Question 12

Kelley’s covariation model continued?

Answer 12

· If consistency low:
DISCOUNT (look for different cause) e.g. if a person has only done it once
· If consistency high:
· But distinctiveness and consensus are low
INTERNAL (Person) e.g. seen a person do this behaviour a few times and no one else does it, you assume it’s just that person who does
But distinctiveness and consensus high à EXTERNAL (Entity/ Stimulus) e.g. behaviour which other people also do in a particular situation, must be the environment

Question 13

Evidence for Kelley’s model: Kassin (1979)?

Answer 13

· Gave participants this scenario
· Event: John laughs at comedian Charlie
· Almost everyone who hears Charlie laughs at him
· John does not generally laugh at comedians
· In past, John has almost always laughed at Charlie
· Why did John laugh at comedian Charlie? Participants had to decide:
· A. Something about John
· B. Something about comedian
· C. Something about the particular circumstances
D. Some combination of A, B and C

Question 14

When the covariation principle fails – insufficient information and false perceptions?

Answer 14

· Often information (e.g. about consistency) is incomplete!
· False consensus effect:
o People assume others agree with them
o Ross et al. asked ppts: Would you spend 30 mins going around campus advertising this cafe?
o Those who agreed thought most would agree
Those who disagreed thought most would disagree

Question 15

When the covariation principle fails – critiquing Kelley?

Answer 15

· Do people really sift through information that rationally and mechanically? What about:
· Systematic errors – even when we know a lot of information, we can make errors
· Biases – we assume how certain people will behave
· Motivation/Emotions
· CAUSAL SCHEMATA – ready made beliefs about what can be expected

Question 16

Weiner’s (1985) attributional model?

Answer 16

· Locus
· Stability
· Controllability
Understanding successes and failures

Question 17

Attribution errors and bias

Answer 17

· FAE/ correspondence bias & AOE
· Attributions to justify/protect one’s worldview
· Self-serving attributions: Individual & group
· Attributions to explain different views
Attributions to create an illusion of control

· Attributions are not always objective, unbiased or without error 
· Perhaps do not behave as naïve scientists  Instead use heuristics to make attributions – cognitive shortcuts

Question 18

Fundamental Attribution Error (FAE)/correspondence bias?

Answer 18

· Observers underestimate influence of situational factors
· Observers overestimate influence of dispositional factors
· Jones & Harris, ’67: experimental paradigm
o Ppts hear pro- or anti-Castro essay
o Told authors had either voiced their own opinion or were instructed to write pro/anti
o Dispositional attributions also made in ‘instructed’ condition, i.e. people thought authors had pro/anti-Castro attitudes even if they knew authors had followed instructions!

Question 19

Causes of correspondence bias?

Answer 19

· Gilbert and Malone (1995) suggest 4 mechanisms of correspondence bias:
· Lack of awareness (situational invisibility)
· Unrealistic expectations
· Inflated categorisations – exaggerate the way people are likely to behave in certain situations
Incomplete corrections

Question 20

Other examples of FAE?

Answer 20

· Attributing road accidents to fault of the driver rather than road conditions or vehicle
Attributing poverty to individual’s laziness instead of social conditions

Question 21

Actor-Observer Effect (AOE)?

Answer 21

· When individual is the actor FAE reverses
· People attribute other’s actions to dispositions
· They attribute their own actions to situational factors
· WHY?
· Perceptual focus (can’t see yourself behaving so seems less important than the situation)
· Informational differences (know own background)
(Gilbert & Malone, 1995; Storms et al, 1973)

Question 22

Attribution to justify/protect worldview:

Answer 22

· E.g. unemployment
· People on the political left tend to attribute unemployment externally
· People on the right tend to attribute unemployment internally
· Biases on what we already assume
E.g., Pandey et al., 1982

Question 23

Self-serving attributions

Answer 23

· Self-handicapping
· If you think you will fail the exam, you tell everyone that you have not prepared!
Attributions are motivated, not objective

Self-serving biases (e.g., Johnson et al, 1964)
· Attribute own positive behaviour to dispositional factors and negative behaviour to situational factors
· To enhance or protect self esteem
Group-serving biases
· The Ultimate Attribution Error (Pettigrew, ’79):
· Negative outgroup behaviour dispositionally attributed
· Positive outgroup behaviour externally attributed
The reverse is true for in-group behaviour

Question 24

Attributions as explanations for different world views (Pronin et al, 2004)?

Answer 24

· When someone has a different opinion from us… assume they’re bias in some way
· Attribute to lack of/ incorrect information
If this not plausible, attribute to bias or self- interest

Question 25

Attributions to create an illusion of control?

Answer 25

· Lerner’s (’77) ‘Just World Belief’: things happen because we want there to be a balance
· People like to believe that good things happen to good people, and bad things to bad people
· Sense of controllability and security, ability to determine own destiny
Victims deemed responsible for misfortune (e.g. famine, domestic violence)

Question 26

Cross cultural differences (Miller, 1984)?

Answer 26

· Attribution patterns are culturally specific!
· Compared north Americans with hindu Indians, 8-11 years both cultures made situational attributions
· By 15 years, Americans make more dispositional attributions than Indians
Individualistic and collectivist societies

Question 27

Choi and Nesbitt (1998)?

Answer 27

· Examined attitude attributions in Korean and Americans
· Using jones and Harris paradigm – both groups displayed correspondence bias in no-choice condition
· But, when situational constraints were made more salient (asked to write down own essay regardless of genuine attitude, Korean’s correspondence bias decreased
Koreans were also less susceptible to actor-observer bias

Question 28

Attributions and relationship success?

Answer 28

· Successful relationships: Partners attribute negative behaviour
o External – it’s not their personality
o Unstable – it can be changed
o Specific
o Uncontrollable
· If the opposite is the case, your relationship is in trouble
· Attributions have a causal impact on subsequent relationship satisfaction
E.g. Fincham & Bradbury, ‘91, ‘93; Fletcher & Thomas, 2000; Fletcher & Fincham, ‘91

Question 29

Role of emotions/internal states?

Answer 29

· Depressive Attributional Style
· Attribute aversive events
· Internal
· Stable – difficult to change, the way that they are
· Global (generalizable to other situations)
Seligman, 2002

Question 30

Other applications of attribution theory?

Answer 30

· Loneliness 
· Intergroup conflict
· Divorce
· International relations
Depression