Attribution theory

Question 1

attribution definition

Answer 1

“…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”

Question 2

examples of attribution

Answer 2

Patti Hearst

The skinhead (again)

Why did you fail your driving test?

Question 3

Patti Hearst

Answer 3

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

Question 4

Heider (1958) - the layperson as naiive scientist

Answer 4

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)

Question 5

what causes do we give to the action of others

Answer 5

Two global forces…

Distinction between personal and impersonal lost over years – responsibilities lie in different places

We may tend towards explanations of personal causality

Question 6

2 global forces

Answer 6

Person => personal causality

Situation => impersonal causality

Question 7

why do we go for person explanations?

Answer 7

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.”

Question 8

LOC

Answer 8

Where is the responsibility of a particular behaviour located?

Question 9

internal LOC

Answer 9

motivation and ability

Question 10

external LOC

Answer 10

situ factors - not personally responsible

Question 11

possible causes of behav

Answer 11

see notes

Question 12

Heider’s legacy

Answer 12

What does this give us? Predictability and control

His work => Jones and Davis; Kelley (inter alia)

Question 13

Jones and Davis (1965) - Correspondent Inference Theory

Answer 13

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?

Question 14

multiple effects

Answer 14

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

Question 15

how do you work out intentionality?

Answer 15

need to know:

1. Does actor have knowledge of consequences of action?
2. Does actor want to bring about these consequences?
3. Is actor capable of bringing about desired consequences?

At back of mind when trying to explain persons behaviour

Question 16

when is CI more likely?

Answer 16

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

Question 17

more on attribution of dispositions

Answer 17

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

Question 18

Kelley (1963) - covariation and configuration models

Answer 18

Situation vs entity(person explanation) attribution

Causal schemas - assumptions based on prior experience – help us make sense others behaviour

Question 19

Kelley’s causal schema idea

Answer 19

“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.”

Question 20

2 types of causal schemas (rules)

Answer 20

Discounting principle

Augmentation principle

Question 21

discounting principle

Answer 21

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

Question 22

augmentation principle

Answer 22

behaviour even in presence inhibiting factor – augmented – attributed to act more strongly than normal

Question 23

Kelley’s ANOVA model

Answer 23

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?

Question 24

covariation

Answer 24

variance in one event is linked to variance in another

Question 25

factors to help attribute behaviour

Answer 25

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)

Question 26

e.g. Bill and Monica

Answer 26

Why did Bill Clinton have an affair with Monica?

Distinctiveness information?

Consensus information?

Consistency information?

Pretty ambiguous…