Attribution Theory II: The Correspondance Bias

Question 1

THE FIDEL CASTRO STUDY

Answer 1

JONES & HARRIS (1967)
PURPOSE: pps make use of situational constraints
METHOD: pps shown essays that supported/opposed Castro
- half told writer chose content (pro/anti); half told writer assigned position (pro/anti)
- asked to assess writer true attitude

Question 2

TFCS: RESULTS

Answer 2

EXPECTED
1. PRO-CASTRO
- choice = 60
- no-choice = 20
2. ANTI-CASTRO
- choice = 15
- no-choice = 20
ACTUAL
- as expected BUT…
- pro-castro no-choice = 44.10

Question 3

TFCS: RESULTS EXPLANATION

Answer 3

• even when pps led to believe writer assigned a position, beliefs still assumed to align with essay
  MOSKOWITZ (2005)
• even when beh is not freely chosen it is believed to reflect true attitudes/personality BUT…
  JONES (1979)
• objects this

Question 4

WHY DO WE ASSUME?

Answer 4

1. NEED FOR CONTROL
2. MISUNDERSTANDING SITUATIONS
3. MISPERCEIVING BEHAVIOUR
4. FAILING TO USE INFO

Question 5

WDWA: NEED FOR CONTROL

Answer 5

• believing we are at situational mercy = depressing/scary
• dispositionist worldview = coping mechanism
• dispositionist world = predictability/control

Question 6

PRISONER’S DILEMMA PARADIGM

Answer 6

MILLER, NORMAN & WRIGHT (1978)
- observers watched target play game w/player
- 3 observers: normal/expectant/post-expectant
- asked to rate target perceived dispositionality (bigger score = greated perceived dispositionality)
RESULTS
- playing/expecting to play a game w/person = +desire to predict beh
- beh = important as it affects us personally
- attribution of play style to dispositional characteristics

Question 7

WDWA: MISUNDERSTANDING SITUATIONS

Answer 7

• why should we consistently underestimate situational force power?
  1. situations may be invisible (ie. Quiz Show Study)
  2. if you don’t see situation, can’t subtract it from beh attribution (ie. watching quiz showing and thinking you can do better)

Question 8

WDWA: FAILING TO USE INFO

Answer 8

• process of dispositional/situational attributions
• distinction between automatic/effortful processing
• are some attributions EFFORTFUL? can they be tested? how?

Question 9

THE QUIZ SHOW STUDY

Answer 9

ROSS, AMABILE & STEINMETZ (1977)
- “practical that always works”
- pps split in 2: quizmaster/contestant/observer
- Q thinks up 10 hard qs (ie. hobby)
- Q asks Cs qs
- Os observe
- Q/C/O rate Q/C for dispositional knowledgability
RESULTS = pps overlooked role-conferred advantage

Question 10

WDWA: MISPERCEIVING BEH

Answer 10

• inferential link between seeing/interpreting observations
• we can’t simple see beh; it’s a complex/inferential process
• we identify actions, drawing inferences about meaning; sometimes it goes WRONG
• prior expectations -> perceptual assimilation

Question 11

SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENTS

Answer 11

GILBERT (1989)
- attributional theories outline procdures via which causal beh determinants can be seen
- BUT silent w/regard to processes by which procedures are enacted
QUATTRONE (1982); GILBERT (1989)
- stage model development
- perceivers don’t make either decisions about situational VS dispositional causation
GILBERT & MALONE (1995)

Question 12

GILBERT, PELHAM & KRULL (1988)

Answer 12

• first dispositional (anchor) -> correct for situational (adjustment)
• 2/3 stages?
• combined QUATTRONE’s (1982) attribution notion in stages w/automaticity notion
  MODEL
  identification -> attribution -> automatic dispositional inference -> effortful situational correction

Question 13

AUTOMATIC/CONTROLLED DISTINCTION

Answer 13

• automatic processes require few resources
• implication = auto-processes shouldn’t be disrupted via concurrent mental tasks BUT require much energy
• implication = controlled processes should be disrupted via CMTs
• apply to dispositional (A)/situational (C) processes

Question 14

SEXUAL FANTASIES EXPERIMENT

Answer 14

GILBERT ET AL (1988)
- showed pps video of female target
- beh = biting finger/nails/fidgeting/avoiding eye contact
- pps told sexual fantasies (anxious topics)/world travel (bland topics)
- HOW DISPOSITIONALLY ANXIOUS IS SHE?
RESULTS
- bland pps rated target >anxious than anxious pps
- BUT 1/2 pps = cognitively busy (rehearsing topics)
- these pps judgements unaffected by topic type
- initial d inference = AUTOMATIC
- situational correction = EFFORTFUL

Question 15

CONCURRENT MENTAL TASKS

Answer 15

• being cognitively busy =
  1. being preoccupied (ie. impending doom)
  2. trying not to do something
  3. acting in deceit (ie. trying to be “nice”)

Question 16

! CRITICAL !

Answer 16

• dispositional attributions = easier to make than situational attributions
• people don’t always have mental energy necessary for lengthy contemplations -> may not move beyond easiest conclusion

Question 17

CROSS CULTURAL DIFFERENCES

Answer 17

MIYAMOTO & KITAYAMA (2002; 2018)
KLEIN ET AL (2018)
- question of comparing individualist/collectivist cultures

Question 18

SUMMARY

Answer 18

JONES & HARRIS (1967)
- Fidel Castro Study
- robust findings
QUATTRONE (1982)
- dispositional inference (anchor) first; correct w/situational (adjustment)
GILBERT (1995)
- combined Quattrone’s (1982) idea w/notion of automaticity
- dispositional inf = automatic
- situational correction = effortful