causal attribution

Question 1

what is causal attribution ?

Answer 1

the process whereby social perceivers arrive at conclusions about the causes of another person’s behaviour

Question 2

what is attribution theory

Answer 2

we explain our own and other’s behaviour by assigning causality to some person, object or situation

Question 3

what is correspondent inference theory (Jones & Davis, 1965)

Answer 3

Observers infer correspondent intentions and dispositions when actors are free to choose what they do
Non-common effects are analysed to infer intentions through comparison of potential action consequences

Question 4

what are the limitations of correspondent inference theory

Answer 4

in practise we focus on what has been done not what could have been done (Nisbett & Ross, 1980)

observers make direct inferences based on immediately observable characteristics (Gilbert & Malone, 1995)

no direct causal conclusions

Question 5

what is the correspondence bias

Answer 5

the tendency to infer a personal disposition corresponding to observed behaviour even when that was determined by the situation

Question 6

what is Jones & Harris’ (1967) Castro Essay Study

Answer 6

Students judging whether the author of pro-castro essays have pro-castro attitudes said that they did even if they are told that the author was requested to adopt pro-castro arguments
People tend to overestimate personal cause of behaviour and underestimate situational ones

Question 7

what is covariation theory

Answer 7

we infer the cause of a behaviour from what (person, object, situation) is covarying with the observable effects

distinctivenss information: different objects
consistency information: different situations
consensus information; different actors

Question 8

what are the problems with covariation theory

Answer 8

too much information to process

when given the opportunity, we don’t ask questions about covariation information when investigating the cause of behaviour

we don’t start from scratch when approaching causal questions, we draw on prior knowledge of causal schemas to create predictions and resolve the difference with outcome

Question 9

what alternative information is there to covariate information

Answer 9

discounting principle: the presence of a causal factor that implies that other potential factors are less influential on observed effects

augmenting principle: assumption that causal factors need to be stronger if an inhibitory influence on an observed effect is present

Question 10

what is attribution bias

Answer 10

Systematic distortions in sampling/processing casual information of a behaviour
Causal inferences depend on
Prior knowledge and expectations (Hilton & Slugoski, 1986)
Learned attributional Styles (Abramson et a., 1978)
Deceptive manipulations (Schacter & SInger, 1962)

Question 11

what is the fundamental attribution error

Answer 11

(Gilbert & Malone, 1995)
Laypeople are naive personality psychologists and perceive behaviour as a reflection of an actor’s internal dispositions even when it is caused by situational factors.

Question 12

how can we explain the correspondence bias

Answer 12

Invisibility problem: some situational factors are subtle and difficult to detect
Construal problem: situational and behavioural constraints alter options
False consensus bias: assumption that other people generally share one’s own personal attitudes and opinions
Inflated categorisation: expectations sensitise us to those details thus inflating their significance
Failure to correct initial inferences: we automatically assume individual disposition is responsible, when cognitive load is high we cannot correct this assumption
Situational inferences engage a wider network of neural processes than dispositional inferences do Kestemont et al. (2013)
e.g mentalisation (TPJ and pSTS) and conflict monitoring (left frontal inferior gyrus)

Question 13

how does Gilbert’s 1988 study demonstrate an effortful correction process

Answer 13

Participants watch a video of a woman talking nervously to a stranger on mute with subtitles indicating topic of conversation (anxious/relaxing topic) and asked to judge the extent to which the woman had an anxious personality
Cognitive load was manipulated such that half the participants had to memories the subtitles
Individuals in the high cognitive load condition did not take into account the situational explanation for nervousness while those in the low cognitive load condition did.

Question 14

what evidence is there for correspondence bias as an automatic process

Answer 14

Smith & Miller (1983)
Participants presented with sentences describing an actor’s behaviour made judgements about the actor’s traits more quickly than they made inferences about the specific causes of the action
Chen, Banerjee, Moons & Sherman (2014)
Similar effects apply to inferences about someone’s social role, e.g as a student or professor
Suggests person-related judgements are automatic

Question 15

what did Ross et al’s (1977) invisible advantage study find

Answer 15

QM devised 10 challenging general knowledge questions based on their personal expertise, giving them a clear situational advantage over contestants.
Contestants and observers rated QMs knowledge as above the average student and much higher than the contestant.

Question 16

what evidence is there that automatic judgements are not necessarily dispositional inferences

Answer 16

Krull (1993): people who were asked to focus on the effects of a situation made automatic situational inferences and attributed anxious symptoms to anxiety-provoking circumstances

Question 17

what is trope & Gaunt’s 2000 two-stage model

Answer 17

Automatic stage: situational and dispositional information integrated
Hypothesis Evaluation: controlled and resource-demanding, biassed by saliency

Question 18

why is the fundamental attribution error not fundamental

Answer 18

Fundamental = inevitable consequence of an automatic process
BUT
Depends on many factors: salient information, current goals
Cultural differences: exacerbated by individualistic cultures

Question 19

what evidence is there for cultural differences in the correspondence bias

Answer 19

Lee, Shimizu, Masuda & Uleman (2017)
Japanese participants made an equal amount of spontaneous trait and situational inferences
European Canadians were more biassed towards spontaneous trait inferences

Choi & Nisbett (1998)
Collectivist participants are more able to engage controlled processing that helps them resist correspondence bias
Korean participants were more likely than North American participants to account for the influence of a salient factor when judging whether a controversial essay reflected the writer’s true opinions.
Members of collectivist cultures are more sensitive to the power of situations so they can correct initial inferences more easily under many circumstances (Choi, Nisbett & Norenzayan, 1999)
Suggests collectivists are more attuned to situational information during automatic activation and more motivated to select situational interpretations
Need assessment of brain activity (Mason & Morris, 2010)

Question 20

what is the actor-observer difference (Jones & Nisbett, 1972)

Answer 20

General tendency for people to explain their own behaviour in more situational terms but other people’s behaviour in more dispositional terms.
Can access a wider range of information about the factors leading to their own actions
What occupies our attention has the most causal influence (Taylor & Fiske, 1978)
English language structure implies subjects of action verbs are responsible for action whereas experience verbs portray objects as being causal (Brown & Fish, 1983).
Meta-analysis show that actor-observer difference is typical when another’s behaviour is presented as idiosyncratic, or when the outcome of your own action is negative (Malle, 2006)

Question 21

how important is accuracy in our judgements

Answer 21

Consistently inaccurate attributions would not help with predictions and control behaviour (Nisbett & Ross, 1980)
Difficult to determine whether attributions are accurate or inaccurate when there is no correct answer - we lack a criterion for truth (Funder, 1987)
Utility of conclusions may be more important than how scientific or correct they are for the layman, as conclusions are oriented to practical concerns (White, 1989).
Incorrect attributions may still be socially appropriate responses to the researchers causal questions - demand characteristics (Schwartz, 1994).