1. Cognitive Motivation Attribution Approaches
Chapter 10

2. 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

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)

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

5. 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.

6. 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)

7. 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 ) 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)

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

9. 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)

10. 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)

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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?

19. 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?

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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

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

24. 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)

25. 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

26. 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

27. 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

28. 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

29. 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

30. 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

31. 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

32. 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?

33. Applications of attribution theory
Mastery Orientation vs Helplessness Orientation
Attributional training

34. 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

35. 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!!