Cognitive Motivation Attribution Approaches Chapter 10

Social Cognition How people interpret, analyze, remember, and use information about the social world All interpretation, analyses of the information from the social world triggers some action known as Social Motivation 3

Attribution Theory Attribution theory - The conceptual framework within social psychology dealing with lay, or common sense explanations of behaviour. WHY????? Through life we gradually construct explanations/theories of why people behave in certain ways 1.) Naïve psychologist (Heider, 1958) 2.) Correspondent inference (Jones & Davis, 1965) 3.) Kelley’s model (1967, 1971, 1972, 1973)

Motivational Nature Behaviors are attributed either to Dispositional/Stable Factors-Personality Unstable/Situational Factors-Weather

Assumptions of Attributions We are always motivated to find out causes of our own and others behaviors because Helps us understand Gain a sense of control Gives evolutionary advantage Assignment of causes is not done randomly, rules exist Causes attributed to a particular behavior will influence subsequent emotional and non-emotional behaviors.

Primary questions 1.) What are the main characteristics of attributions? 2.) How are attributions are made? 1.) Naïve psychologist (Heider, 1958) 2.) Correspondent inference (Jones & Davis, 1965) 3.) Kelley’s model (1967, 1971, 1972, 1973)

Naïve Psychologist (Fritz Heider,1958) Sets out the foundations of attribution theory “common sense psychology” Individual as a ‘Naïve Scientist’ or an Average Person Two important contributions 1) Proposed the idea of internal & external causes of behavior 2) Perceivers ignore part or all situational factors when explaining behavior (Personal Causation). (Later theorists who expanded on and developed Heider’s ideas: Kelley,1967; Jones & Davis,1965; Weiner, 1979)

Dispositional (internal) Attribution Abilities Motives-intent and exertion Attribution choice Situational (external) Attribution Task Difficulty Luck

Correspondent inference (Jones & Davis, 1965) Correspondence between observed behavior, intent of the person and person’s disposition. Choice (e.g. helping out a person stranded in snow): Social desirability (acts socially approved) Non-common effects (unique aspects of the situation)

Kelley’s Model (1967,1973) What information is used to arrive at a causal attribution? Developed a logical model for judging whether a particular action should be attributed to some characteristic (internal) of the person or the environment (external)

Kelley’s Model (1967,1973) To explain other’s behavior we use: consensus- extent others behave in same way consistency- extent person always behaves this way distinctiveness- extent person acts differently in other situations

What information is used to arrive at a causal attribution? Covariation - Perceiver has info from multiple observations, at different times and situations, and can perceive the covariation of an observed effect and its causes

Dimensions of Past Behaviors Distinctiveness: Behavior is unique. In Being picky, distinctiveness high being non-picky (situational) distinctiveness is low (dispositional) e.g. Being cheated by online scams

Dimensions of Past Behaviors Consensus-Other people’s behavior in the same situation. Other people don’t get cheated-Low consensus (dispositional) Consistency-Frequency with which the actor engages in specific behavior

Analysis of Variance Model of Covariation Does behaviour generalise? Possible single causes Types of info (IV’s) 8 Information combinations 2 x 2 x 2

Analysis of Variance Model of Covariation (McArthur e.g., 1972) Does behaviour generalise? Possible single causes Types of info (IV’s) 8 Information combinations 2 x 2 x 2

Analysis of Variance Model of Covariation (McArthur e.g., 1972) Does behaviour generalise? Possible single causes Types of info (IV’s) 8 Information combinations 2 x 2 x 2

Why did the students fall asleep during the lecture? e.g. The majority of the students fell asleep in Dr. Sheppard’s lecture on theories of attribution. They also fell asleep during her other lectures, but not lectures given by other teaching staff. High consensus High consistency High distinctiveness Boring lecturer?

Why did the students fall asleep during the lecture? e.g. The majority of the students fell asleep in Dr. Sheppard’s lecture on theories of attribution. They never fell asleep during her other lectures, or in lectures given by other teaching staff. High consensus Low consistency High distinctiveness Day after formal ball? Uninteresting content of the lecture that day? Hot lecture theatre?

Internal vs. External Attributions Internal attribution (e.g., Scott is good climber) made if: Low consensus: others have difficulty climbing this cliff High consistency: Scott has successfully climbed cliff in past Low distinctiveness: Scott has climbed easier/more difficult cliffs External attribution (e.g., restaurant is good) made if: High consensus: others like the food High consistency: Ann liked the food every time High distinctiveness: Ann doesn’t like many restaurants 2

But… Works well for person and entity No single clear pattern which can lead to circumstance attributions. These seem to be maximised when consistency is low (Forsterling, 1989; Hewstone & Jaspars, 1987) This can be seen as a limitation to the model

Main criticisms of covariation principle 1.) Doesn’t work well for circumstance attributions 2.) Covariation does not mean causality 3.) Participants are given “pre-packaged” info which they might not seek or use in everyday situations (model idealised/normative) 4.) Evidence suggests people are poor at assessing covariation between events (Alloy & Tabachnik, 1984) 5.) It may appear that the covariation principle was used, but the processing used may be completely different (e.g. Nisbett & Ross, 1980) 6.) Requires multiple observations over time- which is not always possible to do

Weiner’s Theory Initially Applied to Achievement Motivation Ability Effort Task difficulty Luck

Weiner’s Theory Causal Dimensions in Achievement Motivation Locus-internal (ability and effort) or external locus (task difficulty or luck) Stability (changeability) Controllability (task difficulty and effort) vs uncontrollable (ability and luck)

Can internal and external attributions be distinguished? Other categorisations of attributions e.g. multidimensional approach (Weiner, 1986) Locus – internal or external? Stability – is the cause a stable or unstable one (over time) Controllability – to what extent is future task performance under the actor’s control? Internal Stable Unstable External Ability Mood Unusual help/hindrance from others Luck Unusual effort Typical effort Task difficulty Consistent help/hindrance from others Controllable Uncontrollable

Errors and Biases in Attribution Self Serving Bias -Taking credit for own success and avoiding responsibility for failure 1. Self Assessment (motivated assess ourselves) 2. Self enhancement (motivated to maintain a positive self image) Persist even when cognitive factors are controlled

Errors and Biases in Attribution The False-Consensus Effect - tendency for people to think that their behavior (as well as their attitudes, values, or responses more generally) is relatively common Motives Bolster self esteem Gain social support Selective Exposure

Errors and Biases in Attribution The Actor-Observer Bias differences in attribution based on who is making the causal assessment: the actor (who is relatively disposed to make situational attributions) or the observer (who is relatively disposed to make dispositional attributions) Attribution to disposition for others vs situational factors to judge us

Errors and Biases in Attribution Processes that give rise to the Actor-Observer Effect: 1. Assumptions about what it is that needs explaining can vary for actors and observers 2. The perceptual salience of the actor and the surrounding situation is different for the actor and the observer 3. Actors and observers differ in the amount and kind of information that they have about the actor and the actor’s behavior

Errors and Biases in Attribution Fundamental Attribution Error (FAE)is also known as correspondence bias (corresponds to internal disposition)-Attribute others behaviors to stable characteristics and underestimate situational factors Causes of the F A E 1. Dispositional inferences can be comforting 2. People tend to attribute behavior to dispositions (they are motivated to do this) just-world hypothesis - the belief that people get what they deserve in life and deserve what they get

Causes of the Fundamental Attribution Error Continued 1. People are more salient causes than situations 2. Behavioral information is considered first, before situational factors 3. Because the behavioral (personality) characterization is rather automatic, it is incorruptible (hard to reverse).More frequency in individualistic cultures

Culture and the Fundamental Attribution Error 1. Cultural Differences in Attending to Context 2. Causal Attribution for Independent and Interdependent Peoples 3. Priming Culture 4. Dispositions: Fixed or Flexible?

Applications of attribution theory Mastery Orientation vs Helplessness Orientation Attributional training

Applications of attribution theory Individual differences & attributional style Rotter (1966) argues people differ in terms of the amount of control they believe they have over reinforcements & punishments received – measures of locus of control related to range of behaviour e.g. political beliefs, achievement Internals – high personal control over destiny Externals – fatalistic, things occur by chance Attributional style questionnaire (Peterson et al., 1982) – sorts explanations on 3 dimensions: internal/external, stable/unstable, global/specific Those who view aversive events as caused by internal, stable, global factors = depressive attributional style

Applications of attribution theory Interpersonal relationships Most commonly used in relation to marital success e.g. Fincham & O’Leary, 1983 happily married individuals tend to credit partners for positive behaviour by citing internal, stable, global & controllable factors to explain them Negative behaviour is explained away by ascribing to external, unstable, specific & uncontrollable causes Distressed couples do the opposite Women continuous engage in attributional thought about relationships – men only do so when dysfunctional!!