1. Attribution  Attribution theories examine how people explain the causes of behavior.

2. Theoretical Perspectives  1. Heider (1958) – People are naïve scientists  Two types of attributions:  Internal (personal/dispositional) – attribute a person’s behavior to their internal characteristics such as ability, personality, mood, or effort.  External (situational) – attribute a person’s behavior to factors external to the individual such as luck, other people, or circumstances

3. Theoretical Perspectives (cont.) 2. Kelley (1967) A. People use 3 types of info to arrive at either a personal (internal) or situational (external) attribution.  Consistency: does the person act the same way with the stimulus at other times?  Distinctiveness: does the person act the same way with other stimuli?  Consensus: do other people act the same way with the stimulus?

4. Kelley’s Attribution Theory  High consistency, high distinctiveness, high consensus  situational attribution  High consistency, low distinctiveness, low consensus  personal attribution

5. Mr. Brown can’t start his car. Is it Mr. Brown or the car?  Consistency info: does he always have this problem?  Distinctiveness info: can he start other cars?  Consensus info: can other people start his car?

6. Mr. Brown Problem  He often has this problem   High consistency  Others have no problem starting his car   Low consensus  He can’t start other cars   Low distinctiveness Attribution?  Personal attribution  Something’s wrong with Mr. Brown.

7. Mr. Brown Problem  He often has this problem   High consistency  Others can’t start his car either   High consensus  He can start other cars   High distinctiveness Attribution?  Situational attribution  Something’s wrong with the car

8. Sally failed her chemistry test. Is it Sally’s fault?  She usually fails chemistry   High consistency  Everyone else passed   Low consensus  She fails other tests   Low distinctiveness Attribution?   Personal (e.g., Sally’s not so smart)

9. Sally Problem  She usually fails chem.   High consistency  Others failed   High consensus  She doesn’t fail in other classes   High distinctiveness Attribution?  Situation (e.g., test was difficult)

10. Kelley’s Attribution Theory B. Discounting principle – we are less likely to attribute a behavior to a given cause if other plausible causes are also present. e.g., self-handicapping

11. Jones and Harris (1967) Pro-Castro Anti-Castro

12. Jones and Harris (1967) Pro-Castro Anti-Castro

13. Jones and Harris (1967) Pro-Castro Anti-Castro

14. Errors and Biases in Attribution  1. The Fundamental Attribution Error (aka, Correspondence Bias).   Tendency to attribute behavior to persons to a greater extent than to situations.

15. Why do People Make the FAE?  Automaticity: processing of information that requires little or no effort, is routine, and often occurs outside of awareness  E.g., driving a car, recognizing a friend

16. Gilbert, Pelham, & Krull (1988)  Dual process theory of FAE  Step 1: Automatic person attribution  Step 2: Correction for situational causes

17. Gilbert et al. (1988)  Participants listened to pro or anti-abortion speech that had been assigned.  Half of the subjects were told that they would have to write and read a speech later in the session (cognitive load condition).  DV: What is the true attitude of the speaker? Anti 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Pro

18. Gilbert et al. (1988) Pro-Abortion Anti-Abortion

19. Gilbert et al. (1988) Pro-Abortion Anti-Abortion

20. Actor-Observer Effect  Tendency to make situational attributions for own behavior, but personal attributions for others’ behavior.

21. Self-Serving Attributions  Tendency to accept credit for success, but deny responsibility for failure.

22. False Consensus  Tendency to overestimate the commonality of our own opinions, beliefs, and behaviors.  3 Explanations:  Self enhancement  motivation  Selective exposure to others  cognitive  Salience of own position  cognitive