Attribution Theory III: Recent Research Developments

Question 1

THE GILBERT MODEL

Answer 1

identification -> attribution -> automatic dispositional inference -> effortful situational correction

Question 2

TGM: REVISIONS

Answer 2

KRULL (1993); KRULL & ERICKSON (1995)
- applied to situation perception like person perception (ie. Quattrone (1982))
- model suggests characterisation as always relatively effortful dispositional inference; correction = effortful adjustment in inf

Question 3

TGM: ADJUSTEMENTS

Answer 3

• are we always looking for dispositional/personal explanations as default?
• maybe studies set up so perceivers do BUT in alternative settings focus may shift to situational
  KRULL (1993)
• perceivers inferential goals may make model applicable to situation perception

Question 4

SITUATION > PERSON EXAMPLES

Answer 4

• thinking of taking degree course BUT people on it say they did very badly -> is coursework difficult? = situation inf
• thinking of joining army -> why does everyone get up at 5am?
• first tutorial BUT no one answers tutors qs -> is it the norm to stay silent?

Question 5

MIXED MODEL OF SOCIAL INFERENCE

Answer 5

FROM…
dispositional -> situational correction
…TO:
situational -? dispositional correction

Question 6

MIXED SOCIAL INFERENCE EXAMPLE

Answer 6

BOB IS SUCCEEDING AT TASK
- GILBERT = effortlessly automatically categorise Bob as competent
- aka. disposition > situational correction (ie. maybe task is too easy)
- if judgement invited personal attribution, KRULL agrees BUT…
- KRULL = when judgement invites situational attribution -> effortlessly characterise situation as simple
- correction = dispositional (aka. Bob may just be competent)

Question 7

EMPIRICAL DEMONSTRATION

Answer 7

• replication of “sexual fantasies study” BUT comparing 2 dif inferential goals (dispositional/situational)
• results replicated Gilbert’s findings for those in dispositional goal conditions
• opposite pattern found for situational goal conditions

Question 8

GILBERT MODEL REVISION: SUMMARY

Answer 8

MARKUS & KITAYAMA (1991)
- more flexible model can aid understanding of cultural difs (ie. collectivist cultures)
MOLDEN & DWECK (2006)
- help understanding of individual difs (ie. entity VS incremental theorists)
LIEBERMAN ET AL (2002)
- social cognition neuroscience suggests 3 stages may not be sequential
OVERALL: despite revisions, GILBERT = well-established in academic spheres

Question 9

DEVELOPMENTAL ISSUES

Answer 9

• GILBERT developed to explain beh to adults
• BUT how well does it translate onto developmental issues of person perception?
  HAGA ET AL (2014)
• children should categorise/characterise actors/situations (more automatic processes) before using additional info to correct infs about dispositions/situations (more deliberate processes)

Question 10

THE TRAIT STAGE

Answer 10

• aka. how kids develop social inference strategies
  RHOLES ET AL (1990)
• 4 year olds have good trait vocab
  LIU ET AL (2007)
• kids know how to apply trait vocab when faced w/trait implying beh
• BUT researchers don’t conclude kids are drawing dispositional infs w/o evidence of tendencies generalising over time

Question 11

TTS: CORRECTION FOR SITUATION

Answer 11

BALDWIN & BALDWIN (1970)
- evidence of 5 year olds not discounting certain info even when alternatives = possible
FOLMER ET AL (2008)
- kids don’t differentiate between dif explanations
- see effort = ability in importance
- ability appears later

Question 12

SITUATIONAL AWARENESS IN OLDER KIDS

Answer 12

HAGA ET AL (2014)
- hypothesis = older kids shown ability to correct for situational info
- younger kids lack full mastery of effortful correction processes -> more susceptible to CB

Question 13

HAGA ET AL (2014): PROCEDURE

Answer 13

• kindergarten kids watched silent video of sad kid
• punishment condition (mad parents) VS gift condition (pleased parents)
• dispositional ratings (aka. what do you think the kid is like everyday?) = scales across very sad/happy; always crying/never cries/always laughing/never laughs
• understanding situational constraints (aka. how would you feel if you were talking about mad/pleased parents?) = smiley/sad face scale

Question 14

HAGA ET AL (2014): RESULTS

Answer 14

• pps of all ages characterised sad kid as dispositionally sadder when situation couldn’t account for sad beh
• correction appears in older kids BUT not younger

Question 15

! CRITICAL !

Answer 15

• studies using dif paradigms/goals/situational constraints obtained similar results
  HAGA ET AL (2014)
• children show more adherence to GILBERT model w/age

Question 16

UNANWERED QUESTIONS REGARDING KIDS

Answer 16

BUT…
- maybe tasks = harder for younger kids (aka. cognitive business hampers correction)
- why do difs emerge? do older kids have more cognitive resources? do they extract rule discounting at certain point?
- does socialisation teach kids that beh is multiply determing?

Question 17

WHY DOES MINDFULNESS REDUCE CB?

Answer 17

FACTORS ^ CB
- cognitive capacity/mood/need for cognition
- all show relationship between cognitive processing abilities + CB
HOPTHROW ET AL (2016)
- mindfulness characterised by focused/non-evaluative attention to/awareness of present moment
- shown to enhance various cognitive processes ie. attention
- reduces tendency to overlook situational factors (ie. stereotype threat/mindless eating beh)

Question 18

HOPTHROW ET AL (2017): PROCEDURE

Answer 18

• 2 (mindfulness/control) x 2 (for/against nuclear power position) conditions
• positioned determined via coin flip
• 2 questions (to what extent does writer support/oppose nuclear power VS do YOU favour/oppose nuclear power)
• Toronto Mindfulness Scale used to assess if manipulation achieved desired effect (yes)

Question 19

HOPTHROW ET AL (2017): RESULTS

Answer 19

• interaction between condition/essay position = mindfulness attenuated CB; rating dif in M condition between for/against < dif in C condition
• 2nd/3rd study replicated w/tweak to avoid potential boredom effects
• mindfulness OR sustained attention?

Question 20

INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES

Answer 20

SCOPELLITI ET AL (2018)
- some studies develop new individual dif measure ie. Neglect of External Demands Scale/NED
- others test extent to which propensity for CB predicted consequential conceptuality related BUT dif judgements/decisions

Question 21

! CRITICAL 2 !

Answer 21

• NED revealed propensity to make correspondent inferences = discriminated from IQ/decision making/cognitive ability/cognitive reflection/individual difs in cognitive processing/LOC/attributional style
• CB = not just for faulty decision making/poor IQ instance OR individual processing style/control pref/attributional style
• CB propensity determines overconfidence on dispositional attributions reflected uniformly across consequential attribution kinds variety

Question 22

! SUMMARY !

Answer 22

• correspondence bias continues to draw interest
• GILBERT held up well
• situational inferences possibly occasionally come first (more flexible model)
• developmental approaches fit well w/GILBERT (effortful correction comes later after cognitive capacities develop better)
• possible to reduce CB via methods increasing state mindfulness