Chapter 9: Causal Attribution
Social Psychology by
Tom Giliovich, Dacher
Keltner, and Richard
Nisbett
Why Social Psychologists Study
Attribution
attribution - linking a cause to an instance of behavior -
one’s own or that of other people
1. The Pervasiveness and Importance of Attribution
2. Explanatory Style and Attribution
Explanatory style - a person’s habitual way of explaining
events, typically assessed along three dimensions:
internal/external, stable/unstable, and global/specific
Seligman and colleagues
70
% Remaining after 1 year
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Bottom Bottom Top Top
25% 50% 50% 25%
ASQ
Nonverbal Communication
Nonverbal Communication- an unspoken
language of expressions and body language
Basic channels
facial expressions- reveals current moods/feelings
eye contact- reveals friendliness, shyness, aggression
body language (position, posture, movement)- reveals
emotional states, status, cultural emblems
touching- reveals affection, interest, dominance, caring,
threat, aggression
Facial Expressions of Emotion
Ekman found that
6 facial
expressions were
Anger Fear Surprise recognized
across various
cultures
Disgust Happiness Sadness
Facial Expressions and Social
Thought
● Cognitive tuning model (Schwarz, 1990)
● when others smile, we sense that the current situation
is safe so we process information superficially
(heuristic processing)
● when others frown, we sense that careful thought
about their words is required (systematic processing)
The Processes of Causal Attribution
1. Attribution and Single-Instance Observation
Discounting principle - idea that we should assign reduced
weight to a particular cause of behavior if there are
other plausible causes that might have produced it
Augmentation principle - idea that we should assign
greater weight to a particular cause of behavior if there
are other causes present that normally would produce
the opposite outcome
Attribution Theories
2. Attribution and Single-Instance Observation
Correspondent inference- we can tell something about a
person’s traits from observing their behavior, especially when
behavior:
is freely chosen
person rallying for women’s rights is feminist
is socially undesirable (or unusual)
teacher who wears white hi-tops is free spirit
yields noncommon effects (one cause only)
woman who marries rich, stupid, ugly man is probably
marrying for money
Inferences Using Noncommon Effects
Prestigious School Prestigious School
Clinical Program
Desirable Location Desirable Location
Lots of Requirements Lots of Requirements
Inferences Using Noncommon Effects
Prestigious School Prestigious School
Clinical Program Lots of Requirements
Desirable Location Desirable Location
Attribution Theories (con’t)
3. Attribution and Multiple Observations
Kelley’s Covariation Principle
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
2.8
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
The Processes of Causal Attribution
4. Attribution and Imagining an Alternate Chain of
Events
a. The influence of what almost happened
counterfactual thoughts - thoughts of what might
have, could have, or should have happened “if only”
something had been done differently
Counterfactual Thinking
imagining “what might have been” (mentally
undoing events)
Counterfactual thinking can
– regret over missed opportunities
– increase our understanding of why event happened
– affect our current moods
upward- imagining better outcomes (envy)
– silver medalist who imagines winning gold
downward- imagining worse outcomes (satisfaction)
– bronze medalist who imagines winning no medal at all
The Processes of Causal Attribution
emotional amplification - a ratcheting up of an emotional reaction to an
event that is proportional to how easy it is to imagine the event not
happening
Medvec, et al., (1995) study of counterfactual thinking in
Olympic atheletes
Attributional Errors
Attributional Errors
Fundamental attribution error (correspondence bias)-
tendency to overestimate internal causes of other’s behavior
while ignoring external causes
Actor-observer effect- tendency to attribute own behavior to
external causes, but others to internal
Self-serving bias- tendency to take credit for success and
blame failures on the situation
Western (individualistic) cultures are more susceptible to
these biases than Eastern (collectivistic) cultures
Forward
Applications of Attribution Theory
Attribution and Depression
– depressed persons often show a self-defeating
pattern of attributions opposite of the self-serving
bias
attribute positive events to temporary, external causes
attribute negative events to internal causes
cognitive therapy that reverses pattern is effective
Attribution and Rape
– people with a strong belief in a just world (“bad
things happen to bad people”) are more likely to
blame the rape victim
Errors and Biases in Attribution
c. Causes of the Fundamental Attribution Error
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
3. People are more salient causes than situations
4. Behavioral information is considered first, before
situational factors
5. Because the behavioral (personality) characterization is
rather automatic, it is incorruptible (hard to reverse).
Errors and Biases in Attribution
3. The Actor-Observer Difference in Causal
Attributions
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)
Errors and Biases in Attribution
4. 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
5. The False-consensus effect
false-consensus effect - tendency for people to think that
their behavior (as well as their attitudes, values, or
responses more generally) is relatively common
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?