Attribution theory Flashcards
attribution definition
“…the end result of a process of classifying and explaining observed behaviour in order to arrive at a decision regarding the reason or cause for the behaviour - a decision as to why a person has acted in the fashion that we have witnessed”
examples of attribution
Patti Hearst
The skinhead (again)
Why did you fail your driving test?
Patti Hearst
kidnapped by rebel group and became one of them – caught and tried – did she do it because she was victim of situ or because she wanted to do it and was a wicked person – one side painted picture that she had no choice – other said SLA offered to release her but she fell in love with one and was rebellious person – sentenced to 25 years in prison
Heider (1958) - the layperson as naiive scientist
What got him started?
Heider & Simmel (1944)
We have a chronic need to see causality, even where there is none
“Perceivers use the language of agency and intentionality even when describing and explaining abstract movements, as long as they LOOK like agentic behaviour” (Malle, 2003)
what causes do we give to the action of others
Two global forces…
Distinction between personal and impersonal lost over years – responsibilities lie in different places
We may tend towards explanations of personal causality
2 global forces
Person => personal causality
Situation => impersonal causality
why do we go for person explanations?
Reasoned explanation for what is going on
Behaviour engulfs the field – behaviour perf is what you notice – makes behaviour and person more salient – don’t always notice situational stuff – find explanations that give us predictability and control
Person explanations are a stable, clear and concrete cause
According to Heider (1958)
“It is an important principle of common sense psychology, as it is of scientific theory in general, that man grasps reality, and can predict and control it, by referring transient and variable behaviour and events to relatively unchanging underlying conditions, the so-called dispositional properties of his world.”
LOC
Where is the responsibility of a particular behaviour located?
internal LOC
motivation and ability
external LOC
situ factors - not personally responsible
possible causes of behav
see notes
Heider’s legacy
What does this give us? Predictability and control
His work => Jones and Davis; Kelley (inter alia)
Jones and Davis (1965) - Correspondent Inference Theory
Central concept of CI = perceiver’s judgement that actor’s behaviour is caused by/corresponds to a trait
We seek closure, sometimes at the expense of accuracy – fix on explanation that’s plausible but don’t sift through all alternatives
Basic assumption = we like stability…trait attributions give us that - why?
multiple effects
An act can have many consequences (effects)
People use consequences to decide whether act was intended or unintended
Example - ending a relationship
By weighing up multiple effects, perceivers can make better inferences about internal state of actor
how do you work out intentionality?
need to know:
- Does actor have knowledge of consequences of action?
- Does actor want to bring about these consequences?
- Is actor capable of bringing about desired consequences?
At back of mind when trying to explain persons behaviour
when is CI more likely?
Desirability of consequences – undesirable behaviour not what we expect most of the time
Non-common effects
Situational constraint – make us reconsider whether person engaged in behaviour because of dispositional reason
Is behaviour normative or unique? – more diff action from average = more likely to see as dispositionally caused
Hedonic relevance of action
more on attribution of dispositions
Analysis of non-common effects - an explanation
What did the chosen behaviour produce that some other behaviour would not have? – find unique explanation
An example - choosing a university degree
Implications - infer dispositions more confidently when there are fewer non-common effects
Harder to come up with trait inference when more than one explanation for behaviour
Kelley (1963) - covariation and configuration models
Situation vs entity(person explanation) attribution
Causal schemas - assumptions based on prior experience – help us make sense others behaviour
Kelley’s causal schema idea
“The mature individual has a repertoire of abstract ideas about the operation and interaction of causal factors. These conceptions (enable perceivers to make) economical and fast attributional analysis by providing a framework within which bits and pieces of relevant information can be fitted in order to draw reasonably good causal inferences.”
2 types of causal schemas (rules)
Discounting principle
Augmentation principle
discounting principle
decide which causes responsible for it – harder to draw non-common effect – e.g. fail stats exam – discount role of given cause if more plausible causes present – facilitative cause
augmentation principle
behaviour even in presence inhibiting factor – augmented – attributed to act more strongly than normal
Kelley’s ANOVA model
We don’t always uses theory-driven schemas, sometimes we engage in more careful, data-driven analysis…
We may want to be deliberate, systematic and rational
Covariation
So, what factors might we look at to help us?
covariation
variance in one event is linked to variance in another
factors to help attribute behaviour
Consensus - how would others react in same situation? (High vs Low)
Distinctiveness - how does same actor react to different entities (High vs Low) – does behaviour vary
Consistency - does the action generalise across time (High vs Low)
e.g. Bill and Monica
Why did Bill Clinton have an affair with Monica?
Distinctiveness information?
Consensus information?
Consistency information?
Pretty ambiguous…
