WEEK 5 - Attribution Theories Flashcards
Overview
Attribution theories:
Definitions and basic principles.
Three theories of attribution:
Heider (1958). ‘Naive psychologist’ model
Jones & Davis (1965). Correspondent inference theory.
Kelley (1967, 1973). Covariation model.
Definition
• Attribution is the process of assigning a cause to our behaviour and the behaviour of others (Hogg & Vaughan)
• Attribution is fundamentally concerned with how people infer causal relationships and the characteristics of other people in the environment (Fiske & Taylor, 2008)
• People construct explanations about different phenomena, and usually look for a cause for the result.
o Make sense of people and situations, predict what is likely to happen, have a sense of order about our social world, Participate successfully in social life.
Heider’s theory of the ‘naïve Psychologist’
• The assumption is that if we can explain a phenomenon, we can also predict it
• We all look for explanations about the social phenomena, so we use our intuition in the same way a psychologist does
o We think behaviour is motivated, not random
o We look for enduring properties in objects and behaviour, so we can establish relationships between causes and effects
o We distinguish between personal causes (internal) and environmental causes (external).
Heider – common sense theories of behaviour
- 2 reasons to investigate this behaviour: actions may be guided by attributions and common-sense theories
- Common sense theories of behaviour may be at least partially correct, providing a starting point for scientific theory of development
Heider & Simmel – Naive psychologist model
- Common sense theories are based on 2 factors – the person and the situation (internal and external)
correspondent inference theory – Jones and David
Goal of attribution processes is to infer that observed behaviour corresponds to some underlying quality in the person
The behaviour observed is caused by (or corresponds) to a particular trait of the person.
Inference about a Behaviour
In order to establish if a behaviour can be attributed to someone, we look for five cues: freedom chosen action, non-common effects, not socially desireable, hedonic relevance (important to me), personalism (behaviour was directed to me).
Internal versus External attributions
o If we can’t see an obvious external cause, we tend to infer an internal / dispositional cause
o We prefer to assume internal causes over external ones perhaps because they infer greater stability (and therefore predictability in the future)
• Jones & Davis (1965) Critical Evaluation
o Research identified three main limitations in this theory:
Some dispositions are inferred from unintentional behaviours (e.g., clumsiness). This theory can only be used on intentional behaviours.
Expectancy confirming behaviour can also be used to infer dispositions (e.g., stereotypes).
Inferring dispositions is not the same as inferring causes.
Kellie’s co variation model of Attribution
What information do we use to attribute behaviour? – we use all available information and look for systematic relationships between events, behaving like scientists.
• Covariation principle
o Effect is attributed to condition that is present when the effect is present and absent when effect is absent.
3 classes of information to reach a decision:
Distinctive = the reaction of the person occurs with specific stimuli or with all stimuli
Consistent = info related to what extent a behaviour always occurs when a stimuli is present
Consensual = the reaction of other people is like the reaction of the person.
Limitations of Kelley’s model
o Correlation doesn’t imply causation
o Model describes and ideal situation where all necessary info is available
o We need more than one observation in order to use covariance
o It assumes that we have the cognitive capacity and motivation to use all this info.
o What about schemas and heuristics? – they’re designed to limit cognitive effort
Kellys configuration model
o If we only have one observation, we do not have the cognitive resources or, in general, ‘incomplete data’, we use ‘causal schemas’.
o We use previous information, experience, beliefs and preconceptions in order to interpret the situation or action, integrating it to the schema.
o Multiple Sufficient Cause (MSC). We use mostly two principles: the discount principle (inhibitory causes) and the augmentation principle (facilitating causes).
Halo effect
o Positive assessment about a person is based on a limited amount of information. It extends to areas that are unrelated to the information we have.
o We tend to attribute positive characteristics to attractive people even if the absence of evidence
o Also horns effect – opposite, attribute negative characteristics to unattractive people.
Self-handicapping
o People create excuses that could explain poor performance of the person
o Before task is performed
o Based on external attribution (going to happen and going to be bad). In extreme form people create obstacles that impair good performance.
Learned helplessness
o Seligman – learn to expect bad things and do nothing about it.
o Conversation research used animals – under some conditions we accept negative outcomes without challenging them.
o He places dogs in cages in which they heard a sound and received electric shocks. - Dog learned he could avoid shocks by jumping up and down. After those shocks where received on both sides and the dog learned helplessness so stopped moving
Actions performed don’t match desired outcome – helplessness is learned.
These models have been applied to humans with depression.
Success and failure in schools
o Wilson & Linville (1982) Identified students who felt their 1st year performance had been a failure.
o Shown video tapes of older students discussing college experiences.
o For half of the participants, older students reported that grading got more lenient as students progressed.
i.e. an unstable, external causal explanation for failure
o Compared to control group, these students later received better grades and were less likely to drop out
o Fishman and Husman (2017) proposed a way in which attributions affect well-being and performance in students
Belief in a just world
o We tend to belief that the world is a good and just place where good things happened to good people and bad things happened to bad people.
o Increases the level of control we have in the world. All I have to do is ‘being good’, ‘I am a nice, good person, therefore I’ll be fine’.
o It helps to justify negative outcomes for others. We tend to think that those who are not doing very well, deserve it. In a similar way, those who are not good at something (or lack something, such as a good job), should be rewarded in a different manner
o The result is that we don’t offer support to change the situation
Attributions in dyads
o Assumption that attributional processes mediate between relationship satisfaction and responses that partners have to each other’s behaviour.
o Comparison between couples defined as ‘distressed’ (self-report and / or contact with therapists) and ‘non-distressed’ couples.
o In ‘distressed’ couples, attributions accentuate the impact of negative partner behaviour and minimise impact of positive partner’s behaviour.
o Internal, stable, global (influential in other areas of relationship) attributions for negative behaviour (she was late because she doesn’t care for me).
o Minimise impact of positive behaviour (he only bought me flowers because he wanted sex).
Attributions in sexual harassment
o Sexual harassment is hard to define and not everyone agrees on its ‘boundaries’
o What constitutes sexual harassment in one case, may not be considered in a different case
o Some particular individual aspects predict whether someone believes an action is sexual harassment
o We tend to look for ‘typical’ (consensual) information in order to consider something as SH
o We can also attribute ‘blame’ to the victim
Can we control our attributions?
● Attributions clearly have important consequences on our interactions and lives
● Fishman (2014) suggests that we can influence our attributions
● He proposed the perceived control of the attribution process (PCAP)
● He suggested 2 main processes
– Perceived Control of Attributions (PCA) which refers to an internal locus of control over determining the cause of outcomes
– Awareness of the motivational consequences of attributions (AMC) refers to an understanding that attributions have psychological and behavioural consequences
● This concept is similar to the idea of Locus of control (Rotter,1964)
PCA
● People who feel capable to think about an event in another way, or to reappraise the situation, are more likely to do it
● Those who believe that they can determine the cause of an event and how it affects them are more likely to alter their causal reasoning about the event
● Although attribution can be highly automatic, people are still capable of driving the process
AMC
● Individuals endorsing the AMC perspective are more likely to understand the consequences of an event and to influence how they behave in response to the event
● Those who do not understand its consequences will more likely dwell on the event itself and prolong the negative consequences following the event
PCPA Model
● PCAP allows individuals to adaptively disengage from the attribution process
● People believe in their ability to influence the process because they are aware of its consequences
● PCA and AMC promote a sense of autonomy
● This theory relates to other well-established processes and theories (e.g., self-determination theory, self-efficacy theory, emotion regulation theory…)
Fundamental Attribution Error
o “Tendency for attributers to underestimate the impact of situational factors, and to overestimate the role of dispositional factors in controlling behaviour” (Ross, 1977 p.183).
o Tendency to explain others’ actions as stemming from dispositions even in the presence of clear situational causes.
o We overestimate the impact of situational factors
Examples: Tendency to attribute poverty to the person rather than their social conditions / Overweight is attributed to the person, even in cases in which a medical condition is present / Over-attribution of accidents to the driver rather than the vehicle and the conditions of the road (Barjonet, 1980).
FAE in groups
o Although attributions are a cognitive process, research has been applied to investigate intergroup relations
o Individuals make attributions of themselves and others in terms of group memberships, usually ingroup (my group) and outgroups (the other groups)
o Ultimate attribution error: Pettigrew (1979) extended the fundament attribution error to groups
o Positive ingroup and negative outgroup attributions are dispositional, while negative ingroup and positive outgroup attributions are situational
o “They are bad (and therefore we are good)”
o “We had a bad day” (They are always bad)”
Attributions in societies
o Attributions are involved in stereotypes, as they are useful in explaining the way groups work. E.g., Organised Germans, The English are always on time…, Italians are not very organised
o Usually, attributions about group members can be used to justify inequalities between groups
o Poverty is explained as ‘lack of ability’. Obesity is explained as ‘lack of effort’
o We can use the UAE to explain some COVID-19 explanations…
