Lecture 3 - Causal attribution 1

Question 1

(lecture):

What was Heider’s 2 assumptions about causal attribution?

Heider, F. (1958). The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York: Wiley.

Answer 1

(lecture):

Assumption 1:
Laypeople are naive scientists and use naive versions of the methods that professional scientists use.

Assumption 2:
The fundamental distinction in causal attribution is the person/situation or internal/external distinction.

Question 2

(lecture):

Describe Kelley’s causal attribution model.

Kelley, H. H. (1973). The processes of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28, 107-128.

Answer 2

(lecture):

is based on the covariation principle: an effect is attributed to the one of its possible causes with which, over time, it covaries.

There are three possible causes: the actor (Ralph), the target (Joan), and the circumstances.

And there are three dimensions of covariation information:

Consensus - how other actors behave with the same target.

Distinctiveness - how the same actor behaves with other targets.

Consistency - how the same actor behaves with the same target on other occasions.

An example:

Ralph trips over Joan’s feet when they are dancing. Why?

We find:

Most other people trip over Joan’s feet - this is high consensus.

Ralph hardly ever trips over anybody else’s feet - this is high distinctiveness.

Ralph almost always trips over Joan’s feet on other occasions - this is high consistency.

Apply the covariation principle: tripping almost always happens when Joan is present and hardly ever happens when Joan is absent. Tripping does not covary with either Ralph or the circumstances. Therefore, the cause of the
tripping is something to do with Joan.

Question 3

(lecture):

What is causal attribution? (an overall summary of the lecture from the synopsis page)

Answer 3

(lecture):

Causal attribution is the study of the ways in which people explain their own or other people’s behaviour. In early research it was thought that people were naive scientists who try to use naive versions of scientific methods to explain behaviour, and it was thought that the main thing people wanted was to judge whether a behaviour was due to something about the person who did it or to something about the situation they were in. Kelley proposed a model of causal attribution based on these principles. In this model people gather covariation information and make an attribution to the thing that covaries with the behaviour they’re trying to explain. However, there are many problems with this approach, two of which are discussed:
1. Causal attributions are prone to many biases, such as the person bias, a tendency to attribute to the person who did the behaviour more than is justified by the covariation information. See lecture 5 for another example of a bias.
2. The distinction that is really fundamental is not between person and situation but between intentional and non-intentional behaviour. Intentional actions are explained mainly in terms of beliefs and desires - e.g., Jane was looking for her kitten under the piano because she wanted to find it (desire) and believed it was there (belief). Nonintentional behaviours are explained in other ways.
In summary, people have theories and other pre-existing knowledge and they make causal attributions by applying those theories on small samples of behaviour.

Question 4

(lecture):

McArthur, L. Z. (1972). The how and what of why: some determinants and consequences of causal attribution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 22, 171-193.

Answer 4

(lecture):

Found that:
Kelley’s model does predict causal attributions that people make in this study quite well. People really are sensitive to covariance information, and use it in appropriate ways to make causal attribution. People are quite scientific in their approach to causal attribution.

Question 5

(lecture):

What are 2 serious problem with Kelley’s causal attribution model?

Answer 5

(lecture):

Problem 1:
People don’t wait to gather covariation information: they make attributions very quickly.

Ambady, N., & Rosenthal, R. (1993). Half a minute: teacher evaluations from thin slices of nonverbal behavior and physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 431-441.

Problem 2:
The person/situation distinction isn’t fundamental. The really fundamental distinction is between intentional action and non-intentional behaviour, and they are explained in different ways.

Bartsch, K., & Wellman, H. (1989). Young children’s attribution of action to beliefs and desires. Child Development, 60, 946-964.

Question 6

(background reading):

Gilovich, T., Keltner, D., & Nisbett, R. E. (2019). Social Psychology (5th Ed.). London: Norton. Chapter 5.

Answer 6

(background reading):

Question 7

(lecture):

What is causal attribution?

Answer 7

(lecture):

Causal attribution is the study of the ways in which people explain things. How people work out why something happened or, more usually in this research, why somebody behaved as they did. How people try to explain their own or someone else’s behaviour.

OVERALL: It is how people give answers to WHY questions.