Textbook Notes (368,317)
Canada (161,798)
Psychology (1,418)
PSYC 215 (296)
John Lydon (79)
Chapter 5

Chapter 5 - Social attribution

12 Pages
Unlock Document

PSYC 215
John Lydon

Chapter 5 – Social attribution The observer is inclined to attribute actions, especially highly distinctive ones, to properties of the actor, such as personality trait and abilities. The actor is more inclined to attribute the same action to situational factors. Causal attribution: the ways that people try to understand why others, as well as they themselves, do the things they do. People engage in causal attribution because they need to draw inferences about others and themselves based on their behaviour, but the true meaning of an action may not be clear. Attribution theory: the study of how people assign causes to the events around them and the effect that people's causal assessment have. From acts to dispositions: inferring the causes of behaviour Causal attribution: linking an event to a cause, such as inferring that a personality trait was responsible for a behaviour (the process people use to explain both their own and others' behaviour. Understanding causal attributions is crucial to understanding everyday social behaviour because we all make causal attributions many times a day, and the attributions we make can greatly affect our thoughts, feelings, and future behaviour. • The pervasiveness and importance of causal attribution Systematic research on causal attribution has shown that people's explanations have tremendous consequences in a number of areas, including health and education. Eg: someone won't go out with you => emotional reactions => she finds you unappealing. Bad grade on an exam => lack of ability => unhappiness and withdrawal Bad grade on an exam => lack of effort => more vigorous attempts to study harder • Explanatory style and attribution Explanatory style: a person's habitual way of explaining events, typically assessed along three dimensions: internal (cause implicates the self) / external (cause does not implicate the self), stable (things will never change) / unstable (things may improve), and global (something that affects may areas of life) / specific (applies to only a few). Seligman & Peterson study 1 - The impact of attributions on academic success by relating a person's explanatory style to long- term academic performance. - the 3 dimensions of internal/external, stable/unstable, and global/specific are combined to form an overall explanatory style index, which is then correlated with an outcome variable of interest, such as student's GPAs. => Students with a pessimistic explanatory style (tendency to explain negative events in terms of internal, stable, and global causes) tend to get lower grades than those with a more optimistic style Peterson & Seligman study 2 - The relation between different explanatory styles and health: whether a person's explanatory style as a young adult could predict physical health later in life (longitudinal study on Harvard's graduating classes from 1942 to 1949) => Explanatory style during young adulthood is a significant predictor of physical health in later life (not at 30 to 40 => most of them are healthy) Explanation => the tendency to make extern, unstable, and specific attributions for failure presumably makes us less prone to despair and encourages more of a can-do outlook that promotes behaviours that can lead to longer life (flossing our teeth, exercising, and visiting the doctor) Attributions about controllability Anderson & Weiner study - people's attributional tendencies have a powerful affect on their long-term outcomes - what's important: an attribution implies that an outcome is controllable or not (vs global or specific) => attributions for failure that imply controllability make perseverance easier because we can always try harder or try e new strategy. Outcomes beyond our control, tempting to simply give up. People can be trained to adopt more productive attributional tendencies for academic outcomes (attribute failure to a lack of effort). Making people believe that can exert control over events that the formerly believed to be outside their control restores hope and unleashes the kind of productive energy that makes future success more likely. Gender and attribution style Dweck study - Elementary school in US - Boys are more likely than girls to attribute their failures to lack of effort, and girls more likely than boys to attribute their failures to lack of ability - Because they are being subtly taught different ways to interpret both their failures and their success - because of teachers' feedback patterns Negative evaluations of girl's performance: intellectual inadequacies Negative evaluations of boy's performance: referred to non-intellectual factors Girls learn that praise is unrelated to the intellectual quality of their performance Boys learn that praise means their intellectual performance was excellent => Girls learn that criticism means they may lack intellectual ability, whereas boys learn that criticism means they haven't worked hard enough. The processes of causal attribution Rules of how we assess the causes of observed or reported behaviour: help us understand the past, illuminate the present, and predict the future. (only by knowing the cause of a given event can we grasp the true meaning of what has happened and anticipate what is likely to happen next) Eg: Our perception of how much control another person has over his or her actions in one important factor in how we judge that person. When a person offers an excuse for problematic behaviour, it typically yields more pity and forgiveness if it involves something beyond the person's control than if it involves something controllable. Determining whether an outcome is the product of something within the person (internal, dispositional cause) or a reflection of something about the context or circumstances (external, situational cause). (Was it primarily because that's who he is, or largely because of the situation he faced?) Eg: You might win at poker because you are a better player (internal cause) or because you were lucky (external cause). Determining whether certain actions are the product of internal vs external causes requires assessments of what most people are like and what most people are likely to do. Eg: You become a rock-and-roll guitarist because of love of the instrument (internal cause, it is not something shared by most people) or because of the desire of fame and fortune (external cause, shared by most people) • Attribution and covariation Covariation principle: the idea that behaviour should be attributed to potential causes that co- occur with the behaviour. Determine what causes covary with the observation or effect we are trying to explain 3 types of covariation information: consensus, distinctiveness & consistency Consensus: what most people would do in a given situation, that is whether most people would behave the same way or few or no other people would behave that way. Eg: everyone raves (+) about the class vs. hardly anyone raves about the class The more an individual's reaction is shared by others (when consensus is high), the less it says about that individual and the more it says about the situation. Distinctiveness: what an individual does in different situations, that is, whether the behaviour is unique to a particular situation or occurs in many situations. Eg: your friend does not rave about many other classes vs your friend raves about all classes The more someone's reaction is confined to a particular situation (when distinctiveness is high), the less is says about that individual and the more it says about the specific situation. Consistency: what an individual does in a given situations on different occasions, that is, whether next time under the same circumstances the person would behave the same or differently (whether the behaviour is the same now as in the past or whether it varies). Eg: your friend frequently raves about the class vs. your friend has raved about today's class only The more an individual's reaction is specific to given occasion (when consistency is low), the harder it is to make a definite attribution either to the person or to the situation. The effect is likely due to some less predictable combination of circumstances. Situational (external) attribution: when consensus, distinctiveness and consistency are all high Dispositional (internal) attribution: when consensus and distinctiveness are low, but consistency is high. • Attribution and imagining alternative actors and outcomes The judgements people make are not always based on what has actually happened; sometimes we also base them on what we imagine would happen under different situations or if a different individual were involved The discounting and augmentation principles Sometimes the information available to us suggests that either of two (or more) causes might be responsible for a given behaviour. When we have not had the opportunity to see how this person behaves in others situations or to witness how other people behave in exactly the same situation, we are not well equipped to make an attribution. => in these situations, we typically use our general knowledge to infer how most people would behave in the situation in question, and we combine that knowledge with a bit of logic (discounting principle) to arrive at an attribution. Extending the logic just a bit leads to a complementary augmentation principle. Discounting principle: the idea that people should assign reduced weight to a particular cause of behaviour if other plausible causes might have produced it. Augmentation principle: the idea that people should assign greater weight to a particular cause of behaviour if other causes are present that normally would produce the opposite outcome. One important implication of the discounting and augmentation principles is that it can be difficult to know what to conclude about someone who behaves "in role", but easy to figure out what to think about someone who acts "out of role". Study job interview (astronaut vs submariner, introverted vs. extraverted) Results: when the behaviour fit the situation, it is difficult to judge whether the behaviour truly reflected the person being interviewed. When the behaviour varied from what the situation called for, it is seen as a clear reflection of the interviewee's true self. The influence of what almost happened In making causal assessments, people sometimes consider whether a given outcome is likely to have happened if the circumstances were slightly different. Our attributions are thus influenced by our knowledge of what has actually happened in the past as well as by our counterfactual thoughts. Counterfactual thoughts: thoughts of what might have, could have, or should have happened "if only" something had been done differently. Eg: If only I had studied harder => lack of effort was the cause of a poor test result If only the Republicans had nominated a different candidate => the candidate (not the party) was responsible for defeat Study Lady allergic to wine, boss orders a dish made of wine, she convulsed and died (Version 1: he considered ordering a different dish without wine, version 2: he had considered an alternative dish with wine) Results: Version 1: people view the boss's choice of meal as causally significant Version 2: people view the boss's choice of meal as less causally significant => people's attribution is influenced not only by what happened in the scenario but by what almost happened. Emotional effect of counterfactual thinking Our attributions influence our emotional reactions to event, and it therefore stands to reason that our counterfactual thoughts do as well. Our emotional reaction to an event tends to be more intense if it almost did not happen. Emotional amplification: a ratcheting up of an emotional reaction to an event that is proportional to how easy it is to imagine the event not happening. The most common determinants of whether a counterfactual event seems like it almost happened are time and distance. (Plane crash, survivor almost made it, death seems more tragic, more worthy of compensation for the family) Eg: silver medalists (focused on what they did not receive, how they could have done better) are less happy than bronze medalists (focus on what they did receive vs 4th place, at least they received a medal) => People react to events based not only on what they are, but also on what they are not. The influence of exceptions vs routines Another determinant of how easy it is to imagine an event not happening is whether it resulted from a routine action or a departure from the norm. Eg: you are injured during a robbery at a grocery store where you usually never go. Death of a matador that served as a last-minute replacement for another matador => reinforce the superstition that switching spots increases the chances of disaster (tempting fate) Errors and biases in attribution The attributions people make are sometimes less than fully rational: - Our hopes and fears sometimes color our judgement - We sometimes reason from faulty premises - We are occasionally misled by information of questionable value and validity • The self-serving attributional bias Self-serving attributional bias: the tendency to attribute failure and other bad events to external circumstances, but to attribute success and other good events to oneself. Richard Lau & Dan Russell study Newspaper accounts of the postgame attributions to one's team were much more common for victories than for defeats. Attributions to external element (bad calls, bad luck…) were much more common for defeats than for victories. => Tendency to attribute success internally and failure externally The self-serving attributional bias might be motivated by the desire to maintain self-esteem. But even a fully rational individual might exhibit a self-serving pattern of attribution because success is generally so much more tightly connected than failure to our intentions and effort. We shouldn't be too quick to accuse others of making del-serving attributions just to make themselves feel good. It can be difficult to tell from the pattern of attributions alone whether someone has made an attribution to protect self-esteem; such a pattern could be the result of a purely rational analysis. • The fundamental attribution error Milgram study A straightforward application of the covariation principle would lead to a situational attribution in this case and not an inference about the participants' character or personalities: they all gave high levels of shock so their behaviour doesn't say much about the individual people involved but rather speaks to something about the situation that made their behaviour common. Fundamental attribution error: the tendency to attribute people's behaviour to element of their character or personality, even when powerful situational forces are acting to produce the behaviour. Experimental demonstration of the fundamental attribution error Duke university study Students had to read a pro or anti Castro essay and to rate the essayist's general attitude toward Castro. Results: they drew inferences about the essayist's attitude according to what they read (pro or anti). => If individuals are assigned to write on a given topic, what they write cannot be taken as an indication of what they really believe. In thinking that the essays reflected the authors' true beliefs, participants showed that they were making the fundamental attribution error. This still occurs even when the study allows plenty of room for distancing behaviours (distancing cues that could help infer the person's true attitude). Participants made inferences about their partner's personality based on their partner's reposes, even when they had dictated those responses. The fundamental attribution error and perceptions of the advantaged and disadvantaged Inferential problem: deciding how much credit to give to those who are succeeding in life and how much blame to direct at those who are not. People tend to assign too much responsibility to the individual for great accomplishments and terrible mistakes and not enough responsibility to the particular situation. => We often fail to see the advantages that some people enjoy in lif
More Less

Related notes for PSYC 215

Log In


Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.