Causal Attributions

Causal Attributions [The reasons for the behavior of others and ourselves; WHY they/we behave a certain way, e.g., the cause of behavior] Fritz Heider: One of the founders of attribution theory Viewed people as amateur (naive) scientists – trying to figure out causes of behavior and assigning responsibility for one’s actions

Causal Attributions Internal External Ability, Intelligence, Personality Traits Task difficulty Stable Luck, Transitory weather conditions Effort, Mood Unstable Also, there are 2 other dimensions: Globalversus Specific

Relationship-Enhancing and Distress-Maintaining Attributions Relationship-Enhancing Attribution Distress-Maintaining Attribution Positive Event My partner takes me out to an expensive dinner My partner is sweet and thoughtful My partner took me out to write the cost off on taxes Internal, stable, global External, unstable, specific Negative Event Something unexpected must have come up My partner is always uncaring and selfish My partner forgot my birthday External, unstable, specific Internal, stable, global

Kelly’s Cube Model of Attribution Dispositional Attribution: Consistency = High Consensus = Low Distinctiveness = Low The behavior to be explained: Seymore makes a pass at Lolita (Consistency) (Distinctiveness) In a classroom At a party At work Sister Mary Teresa Lolita At a bar Marcie Susie Seymore Tom Dick Harry (Consensus)

Sue receive an A on the final paper for Professor Adams. Half the class got A’s on this paper, and the other half got B’s. This is the 1st time that Sue has received an A on a paper; in her other courses she has obtained B’s on her papers. On the last paper for this class, Sue also received an A. Why did Sue get an A? She is an excellent writer Consistency: High or Low Her teacher is an easy grader Consensus: High or Low This paper was especially good Distinctiveness: High or Low Joan received an A on her final paper for Professor Downs. No one else in the class received an A. Joan gets A’s on almost all of her papers she writes in other classes. On the last paper for this class, Joan also received an A. Why did Joan get an A? She is an excellent writer Consistency: High or Low Her teacher is an easy grader Consensus: High or Low This paper was especially good Distinctiveness: High or Low

Fundamental Attribution Error • [Correspondent Bias -- that one’s behavior corresponds to one’s personality] • The tendency to overemphasize internal explanations for the behavior of others, while failing to consider the power of the situation. • Behavior in particular has such salient properties it tends to engulf the total field, rather than be confined to its proper position as a local stimulus whose interpretation requires the additional data of a surrounding field— the situation in social perception" (Heider, 1958, p. 54). • Example – • Participants had NO choice in reading a Pro Fidel Castro speech • Others still believe the position reflected that of the person

Fundamental Attribution Error Role of Perceptual Salience [what we see or pay attention to] Observers thought that the actor they could see better had a greater impact on the conversation

Self-Generated Reality Are people unknowing architects of their own social reality? Responder Inducer Often our role in affecting other’s responses is ambiguous (e.g., personality, physical appearance, social role/position, mannerisms) At other times, we intentionally try to get people to do or say something (e.g., sign petition, donate money, Observers (Usually have different information than inducers such as motivation, awareness of “chronic” stimulus features, social comparisons) Bias toward making dispositional attributions based on other’s behaviors (Heider: Behavior tends to engulf the field --- more salient)

Self-Generated Reality What would happen if inducers (and observers) were plainly aware of the attempts to cause the response of others? Would both parties use the behavior from responders to make dispositional attributions? Study 1 Procedure?

When inducers explicitly asked for the behaviors they received, they made dispositional attributions for the responder’s behavior (i.e., either liberal or conservative politically) • Observers who were aware of the procedure followed by the inducer and responder, also made dispositional attributions

Study 2 Purpose(s)? Do origin inducers differ from instrumental inducers in preferring dispositional attributions? Origin Inducers [more self-directed (e.g., parents, lovers)] Instrumental Inducers [following roles, scripts of others (e.g., fundraisers, sales, police)]

People were more likely to make dispositional attributions for observed behavior that they elicited • There was no difference between origin and instrumental inducers in making dispositional attributions

Overall conclusions: Inducers evaluation an actor’s behavior as diagnostic even when the inducer’s causal role is blatantly obvious Individuals subscribe to the social realities we construct, even when they are aware that they have constructed them The role of salience (i.e., the actor’s behavior) cannot be ruled out but is questioned. Salience is subjective in nature Infer causation by considering by considering situational and behavioral cues (this process is often insufficient to offset dispositional bias) Automatic dispositional attribution Behavior

What is the so-called actor-observer effect? The actor/observer effect: The tendency to see other people’s behavior as dispositionally caused (e.g., ability, personality), while focusing more on the role of situational factors (e.g., task difficulty, bad luck) when explaining one’s own behavior. Why does the effect occur? • Perceptual differences: Actors notice the situations around them that influence them to act, while observers notice the actors • Information access: Actors have more information about themselves than do observers (e.g., how consistent present behavior is to past behavior) • Motivational bias:Explanations for one’s successes that credit internal, dispositional factors, as opposed to failures, which are explained by external, situational factors (e.g., bad luck)

~ Reversing Actors’ and Observers’ Perspectives ~ Actor Observer Observer Actor sees self Other (person actor was talking to) Other Actor sees own behavior as situational. Observer sees actor’s behavior as dispositional (trait). Actor-observer effect Actor sees own behavior as more dispositional. Observer sees actor’s behavior as more situational

Causal Attributions