Attribution Processes

1
Attribution Processes

• Sometimes we wonder Why did (s)he do that?
  Answering that question involves explaining
  someones behavior. That is attribution process.
  
• Attribution is another way of elaborating on
  (going beyond using) available information.
  Explaining the cause of behavior.
• Attribution an inference, but a specific type
  of inference one concerned with causation.

2
Attribution Processes

• Origins in Heider (1958 excerpt Rdng. 17).
• Why would perceiver care about causes for
  persons behavior?
• Effective social interaction
• Predict and control
• Seek invariances
• Framework for thinking about the types of causes
  that might guide behavior. Two important
  distinctions
• Locus of causation internal (person) or
  external (situation)
• Stability of cause stable, unstable

3
Attribution Processes

• Two dimensions combined create four different
  types of causes. For example, consider person
  who wins a tennis match. How can we explain
  that?
• Stability (do they always win?)
• Locus stable unstable
• person ability motivation
• situation easy task luck

4
Attribution Processes

• How does perceiver actually make an attribution
  judgment?
• Kelley (1967) covariation model. An effect is
  attributed to the one cause with which it
  covaries over time. Effect is attributed to
  condition that is present when it occurs and
  absent when it does not occur.
• Ex
• Thunder claps when it rains
• Thunder does not clap when it does not rain
• Therefore, cause of thunder clap rain

5
Attribution Processes

• Person (P) does behavior (B) toward object (O),
  perceiver attributes to person or situation, on
  what basis?
• Scott stole the poker chips last night.
• Three kinds/sources of information
• Consistency Does P always do B to O?
• Does Scott always steal poker chips?
• Distinctiveness Does P do B to other Os?
• Does Scott steal other types of things?
• Consensus Do other people do B to O?
• Did the other players steal poker chips too?

6
Attribution Processes

• Question Why did Scott steal the poker chips?
• Due to something about P (Scott) or about O
  (chips)?
• Pattern of 3 kinds of information drives causal
  attribution. Each can be high (H) or low (L).
  (McArthur, 1972).
• Pattern of Info.
• Consis Distnct Consens Attribution
• H L L
• L H H
• H H H
• L H L

7
Attribution Processes

• Some problems with the covariation model.
• The information needed. We dont always have all
  the info needed for this analysis (how Scott
  behaved in past, how many other players stole
  chips, etc.). Then how make attributions?
• The process logical, rational, thoughtful,
  consuming. Do people really give that much
  thought to it?
• The use of information. Three kinds of
  information to what extent are they used?
  Underuse of consensus information.
• McArthur (1972) consensus info has least impact
  on attributions (used 3x4 grid design from
  previous slide)
• Miller et al. (1973) judgments of persons in
  Milgram procedure

8
Attribution Processes

• Kelley causal schemas general conceptions of
  how particular causes and effects are related to
  each other.
• There could be many reasons someone did
  something. Why did Scott steal the poker chips?
• Noticed that other players were cheating too
• Already losing tons of money, broke
• Was confident he could get away with it

9
Attribution Processes

• Discounting principle
• Multiple sufficient causes. Kelley If aware of
  several possible causes, attribute less influence
  to any one than if aware of only one plausible
  cause.
• Augmentation principle
• Sometimes behavior occurs when it shouldnt, due
  to situational factors.
• Scott was still able to steal the poker chips
  even though there were security cameras and pit
  bosses on site
• Action occurs in presence of inhibitory cause.
  Person has overcome obstacles. Result behavior
  attributed to actor (internal attribution) even
  more strongly.

10
Attribution Processes

• Multiple necessary causes
• Sometimes an effect will not occur unless all of
  several causal forces are present. Achieving
  success requires both ability and motivation.
• Heiders can and try
• Both situational factor and dispositional factor
  must be present in order for action to occur
• Because the security cameras sucked (situational
  factor) and Scott was clever (dispositional
  factor) Scott was able to steal the poker chips.

11
Attribution Processes

• Questioner/contestant game (Ross, Amabile,
  Steinmetz, 1977 Rdng. 20)
• Two participants in different roles in quiz game
• DV ratings of general knowledge self and
  partner
• 2nd study observers rated questioner and
  contestant

12
Attribution Processes

• Results
• Rating of
• Condition Self Partner Difference
• Experimental
• Questioner 53.5 50.6 2.9
• Contestant 41.3 66.8 -25.5
• Control
• Questioner 54.1 52.5 1.6
• Contestant 47.0 50.3 -3.3
• 2nd study observers showed same effect.

13
Attribution Processes

• Attribution process less logical, rational,
  thoughtful than Kelley model suggests. Biases in
  attribution process.
• Fundamental attribution error (FAE). Locus of
  causation actor or situation. Tendency to
  attribute behavior to dispositional qualities,
  rather than to situational factorseven when
  latter can explain behavior.

14
Attribution Processes

• For each trait pair, mark
• A B
  Depends on Situation
• serious happy
• subjective analytic
• energetic relaxed
• reserved expressive
• dignified casual
• realistic idealistic
• intense calm
• skeptical trusting
• quiet talkative
• cautious bold
• conscientious happy-go-lucky
• sensitive tough-minded

15
Attribution Processes

• Actor/observer effect. FAE perceivers
  overattribute to person causes, even when
  situational explanations are readily available.
  Explain behavior in terms of person causes (e.g.,
  traits).
• Especially true of observers.
• Actor/observer differences (Jones Nisbett,
  1972) tendency to explain others behavior in
  dispositional terms, own behavior as due to
  situational factors.

16
Attribution Processes

• Male Ss asked to write answers to 4 questions
  (Nisbett et al., 1973)
• For self
• Why do you like your current girlfriend?
• Why did you choose your major?
• For best friend
• Why does he like his girlfriend?
• Why did he choose his major?
• Results
• Reasons for
• Girlfriend Major
• Entity Dispos. Entity Dispos.
• Self 4.61 2.04 1.52 1.83
• Friend 2.70 2.57 .43
  1.70

17
Attribution Processes

• Ss given 20 three-choice items (Trait A, Trait B,
  Depends on Situation), completed questions for
  self, best friend, father, acquaintance, Walter
  Cronkite
• Mean number of trait ascriptions (out of 20)
• self 11.92
• best friend 14.21
• father 13.42
• acquaintance 13.42
• Cronkite 15.08
• Traits are things other people have.

18
Attribution Processes

• Why do actors and observers make different
  attributions?
• Differences in information available
• Knowledge of internal states
• Knowledge of actors intentions
• Knowledge of antecedent conditions
• Knowledge of actors personal history

19
Attribution Processes

• 2. Differences in what information is salient
• Difference in visual perspective. For observer,
  actor is salient, focus of attention. For actor,
  situation is salient not observing self.
• Salience ? attribution. Hence, for observer,
  FAE. For actor, less attribution to person, more
  to situation

20
Attribution Processes

• Testing the salience/perspective hypothesis.
• Manipulate visual perspective of actors and
  observers (Storms, 1973).
• Two Ps (actors) had get-acquainted conversation.
  Also present two other Ps (observers).
  Conversation videotaped from two points one
  camera focused on each actor.
• All Ps then saw videotape from same or different
  perspective.
• DVs How important were
• personal characteristics
• situational characteristics
• in causing actor to behave as he did?

21
Attribution Processes
22
Attribution Processes

• Results dispositional situational
  attributions
• Perspective
• Same New
• As attr. for own behav.
• Disp 26.10 27.50
• Sit 25.95 20.70
• D S .15 6.80
• Os attr. for matched
• As behavior
• Disp 27.10 25.75
• Sit 22.20 24.15
• D S 4.90 1.60

23
Attribution Processes

• Storms (1973) Physical manipulation of
  perspective -- make actors into observers.
• Regan Totten (1975) Psychological
  manipulation of perspective -- make observers
  into actors. Empathy.
• Ps watch video of conversation. Camera focused
  on one person, behind other.
• IV perspective.
• Control Observe target person
• Empathy try to empathize with
  Margaretconcentrate on how she feels during
  conversationher reaction to information
• DV dispositional situational cause for Ms
  behavior.

24
Attribution Processes

• Results
• Condition
• Attribution Observe Empathy
• Disp 29.8
• Sit 25.2
• D S 4.6

25
Attribution Processes

• Results
• Condition
• Attribution Observe Empathy
• Disp 29.8 25.0
• Sit 25.2 27.8
• D S 4.6 -2.8
• Thus -- empathy ? more situational attributions.

26
Attribution Processes

• Revisit Taylor Fiske (1975)
• Salience as function of visual perspective
• Two confeds interact, observed by 6 Ps seated
  around confeds

27
Attribution Processes

• Taylor Fiske (1975) manipulate perspective of
  observers. Salience effects.

28
Attribution Processes

• Conclusions
• Actors/observers differ in visual perspective
• Perspective ? what info is salient
• Salience ? attribution
• Manipulating perspective changes what is salient
  and hence attributions.

29
Attribution Processes

• Self and attribution processes
• Another bias in attribution self-serving bias.
  Are attributions biased to favor self?
• Earlier talked about attributions for performance
  skill, motivation, task difficulty, luck.
  Questions
• Do attributions differ for success vs. failure
  performance?
• Are such attributions same for self and for
  other?

30
Attribution Processes

• Experimental test (Snyder, Stephan, Rosenfeld,
  1976)
• Pairs of Ss (P O) played competitive matrix
  game against each other. Game was rigged one
  wins, one loses. Ps then rate role of skill,
  effort, task difficulty, and luck in determining
  outcome.
• P loses P wins
• P for O for P for O for
• Ps loss Ps loss Ps win
  Ps win
• skill .54 1.83
• effort .02 1.17
• tsk dffclty .12 .42
• luck 4.62 2.96

31
Attribution Processes

• Experimental test (Snyder, Stephan, Rosenfeld,
  1976)
• Pairs of Ss (P O) played competitive matrix
  game against each other. Game was rigged one
  wins, one loses. Ps then rate role of skill,
  effort, task difficulty, and luck in determining
  outcome.
• P loses P wins
• P for O for P for O for
• Ps loss Ps loss Ps win
  Ps win
• skill .54 1.83 4.38
  2.04
• effort .02 1.17
  3.75 1.50
• tsk dffclty .12 .42
  1.08 1.33
• luck 4.62 2.96
  3.17 4.67

32
Attribution Processes

• Intergroup attributions
• We make attributions about the behaviors of other
  people. Do we also for groups? Group members?
• Perceiving individuals in terms of their group
  identifications.
• Group-serving bias attributions biased to
  enhance ingroup favoritism, outgroup devaluation.
  Parallel to self-serving bias. Ethnocentric bias
  in group-based attributions
• behavior ingroup outgroup
• positive internal external
• negative external internal

33
Attribution Processes

• Magical thinking
• belief in ability to influence events, at a
  distance, no physical explanation.
• Belief in magical powers (Pronin et al., 2006)
  when individuals infer --
• personally caused event
• perception of relation betw. own thoughts and
  subsequent events
• Apparent mental causation having thoughts prior
  to an action, that are consistent with that
  action, that occur in absence of any obvious
  cause ? inference that one caused the action.

34
Attribution Processes

• Voodoo study did you cause his headache?
• Study health symptoms from psychological
  factors voodoo curses P confed
• 2 conditions control, induced evil thoughts
• 2 roles
• witch doctor (P) images of victim, stick pins
  in doll
• victim (C) symptom questionnaire, before (OK)
  after (headache)
• DV P rates extent caused symptom
• Results
• Evil thoughts 3.94
• Control 2.02

35
Attribution Processes

• Basketball study did you influence shooting?
• Success thoughts ? good performance
• Shooter (C) spectator (P)
• 2 conditions
• Exp P visualizes aspects of Cs shooting
• Control P visualizes C lifting dumbells
• C blindfolded, takes series of shots,
  visualization before each C makes 6 of 8 shots
  (while blindfolded? wow!).
• DV influence of thoughts on shooting
• Results --
• Consistent thoughts 2.38
• Inconsistent thoughts 1.63

36
Attribution Processes

• Pronin et al (2006) conclusions
• Feeling of having caused events they didnt
  actually control
• Inference of causal association between prior
  thoughts and observed outcome
• Thoughts are related to (consistent with) outcome
• Apparent mental causation

37
Attribution Processes

• Question -- Dispositional inferences and
  attributions same or different?
• One answer Same.
• Why? They seem the same because
• Both triggered by behavior
• Both are inferences
• dispositonal inference person attribution?
• Both elaborate on stimulus information
• Correspondent Inference Theory an attribution
  theory. Or is it?
• My answer Different.

38
Attribution Processes
39
Attribution Processes

• Behavior person makes rude remark to another
  person.
• Prior expectancy person is nasty or nice.
• If nasty, behavior is expectancy-consistent.
  Result STI. This much is easy.
• If nice, behavior is expectancy-inconsistent.
  More complicated different processes invoked.
• More time processing information
• Retrieve other info from memory
• Triggers causal thinking why did he do that?
• None of these occur following expectancy-consiste
  nt behaviors.
• Note attributional analysis at heart of those
  differences.

40
Attribution Processes

• STIs spontaneous, quick, non-analytic.
• Act ? disposition. Easy following
  expectancy-consistent behavior. Does not include
  analysis of why person acted that way.
• Attributions occur precisely when STIs are less
  likely, i.e., triggered by expectancy-inconsistent
  behaviors. Aimed at answering why person acted
  that way.

41
Attribution Processes

• Can dispositional inference become an
  attribution? Yes. Once STI made, if person then
  considers, Why did person do that?, inferred
  disposition is readily-available explanation.
• What kind of explanation? Dispositional.
• Note these processes bias toward person, rather
  than situation, attributions (FAE).