Teorie atrybucji by 1ZT8yV

VIEWS: 29 PAGES: 76

									Attribution

 Lecture 5
          Inferring causal relations

                             http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Discourse/N
                             arrative/michotte-demo.swf




Baron Albert Michotte (University of Leuven): The
perception of causality (1945)
                           People see causality everywhere:
                           Fritz Heider & Mary Ann Simmel
                           (mid-40s.)




                           http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Discourse/Na
                           rrative/heider-simmel-demo.swf




Fritz Heider (1896-1988)
                  Attribution

• Beginnings: Fritz Heider (1958) "Psychology
  of interpersonal relationships"
• Atribuere = to ascribe (e.g., to ascribe traits)
• Here attribution = ascription of causes
• Attribution theories = naive theories of
  causality. How people explain own and
  others’ behaviors
ATTRIBUTION vs ATTRIBUTIONAL
          theories
     Kelley i Michela (1980)

Antecedents         Attributions          Consequences
 Information                                 Behaviors


   Beliefs            Perceived              Emotions
                       causes
 Motivation                                 Expectations




     Attribution theories         Attributional theories
   What do we mean when we ask the „why”
                question?

• Intentional (symbol – meaning)
   – What does one mean by that?
• Teleological (goal – means)
   – What does one try to achieve with it?
• Causal (physical causation) (cause – effect)
   – What caused it?
• Functional (function – structure)
   – What function does it play?
• Genetic (genesis – consequence)
   – How came?
• Nomothetic (law – example)
   – Which law can be applied?
         Main attribution theories

• Fritz Heider’s theory (1958)
• Correspondent Inference Theory - Jones &
  Davis (1965)
• Self-attribution theory- Daryl Bem
• Harold Kelley’s attributional cube
• Denis Hilton’s Abnormal Conditions Model
• Theory of Arie Kruglanski
Fritz Heider (1896-1988)




Theory of naive causality
Consistency (balance) theory
               Fritz Heider (1958)

• Initiated interest in naive theories of causality
• Attribution as perception: inference from probablistic
  cues
• Distinction between internal (personal) and external
  (situational) causes
• Actions may be intentional or unintentional.
  Attribution = understanding of intentions.
• Attribution biases, including „fundamental attribution
  error” (1921) “behavior fills whole perceptual field”
   Correspondent Inference Theory
  Edward E. Jones & Keith Davis (1965)

• Attribution - finding correspondence between
  behavior and intentions
• Two stages in inference:
   – Intention identification
   – Attribution of dispositions
   – Dispositions inferred from attributed intentions
• Conditions necessary for inferring intentions:
   – Actor’s knowledge of behavior consequences
   – Actor’s freedom of choice
• Attribution of intentions  attribution of
  disposition
     Factors influencing strength of
        dispositional inferences
• Behaviors
  – Atypical: unconventional, inconsistent with
    expectations
  – Negative
 Experiment by E.E. Jones & Harris
              (1967)
• 60s, war between the US and Cuba
• American students evaluate essays
  (purportedly) written by other students on
  Fidel Castro
• Half – positive, half-negative
• Essays of half of each group presented as
  written under pressure, another half – free-
  willingly
             Conditions
     essay
             Pro-     Anti-Castro
pressure     Castro


  yes




   no
                    Task

• Estimate person’s attitude toward Castro
Estimated attitude towards Castro
        essay
                Pro-     Anti-Castro
   pressure     Castro


     yes         44.1      22.87




      no         59.62     17.38
      Estimated attitude towards Castro

         70
         60
         50

estimated 40                                      pressure
 attitude 30                                      no pressure
         20
         10
          0
               pro-Castro           Anti-Castro
                       essay direction
      Attribution of responsibility

• Hedonism principle: attribution of
  responsibility stronger when
  consequences have hedonic value
• Personalism principle – attribution of
  responsibility stronger when
  consequences are personally relevant
Self-attribution theory
  Daryl Bem (1967)
  • Own attitudes and motivations
    inferred from own behaviors
  • Overjustification effect (Lepper,
    Greene i Nisbett): Information about
    external incentive lowers attribution
    to internal factores
  • External vs. internal motivation
    (Edward Deci)
  • Valins effect
     – Sleeping pills and arousal
  • Walking over bridge and attraction
 „Why do I date X?”
• Mark Zanna et als. study of
  experienced emotions
  – Couples
  – Rubin’s Love Scale
• Replying to one of two questions:
  – (a) „I date him/her because of....."
  – (b) „I date him/her in order to..."
• Again filling Rubin’s Love Scale
• Results: drop in reported love in
  (b)
    Conditions for self-attributional
               effects?
• Attitude strength and self-attribution
  – Stronger effects for weak attitudes
  – Stronger effects for attitudes not yet formed
• Practical consequences: influencing
  people’s attitudes by making people aware
  of their own behaviors
   Inferring own and others’ traits

• Karyłowski & Niewiarowski (2006)
  – Attribution of own traits based on introspective
    information (do I feel honest, wise etc.)
  – Attribution of other people’s traits based on
    observation of behaviors (does the person
    behave honestly, wisely etc.)
  – Attribution of friends’ traits –in between (both
    internal states and behaviors)
Harold H. Kelley
 (1921-2003)
   Harold Kelley’s attribution theory

• Two theories of attribution
  – For replicable events (the „cube”)
  – For unique events (theory of causal schemata)
ANOVA model in perception of
       causality
• Classification of causes


    internal                 external




    person         object         circumstances
  Subject – object and interpretation if
                behavior

             Behavior




Subject                      Object



             circumstances
         Attributional cube

• Subject - object - circumstances: three sides
  of attrubitional cube




             Person
                           Cause

• Person (perpetrator is guilty )
• Object (victim is guilty)
• Circumstances (circumstances made the behavior
  easy)
• Interaction between the factors
   – Person-object (this perpetrator towards this very victim)
   – Person-circumstances (this perpetrator in these specific
     circumstances)
   – Object-circumstances (this victim in these specific
     circumstances)
   – Person-object-circumstances (this perpetrator towards this
     very victim in these specific circumstances)
        Three types of information

• consistency :
  – How consistent is actor’s behavior in different
    times and situations
• distinctivenes:
  – Is the behavior object-specific or does it also apply
    to other objects
• consensus
  – How common is the behavior in tthe population
           Example:

After the first date Ann left Joe for
           somebody else
                     Consistency


      High                          Low


Ann            Joe           Ann             Joe




Ann did it several times     It was their first time
with Joe
                      Distinctiveness

   High                             Low
                  George                           George



      Ann           Joe                Ann            Joe



                     Bill                             Bill


Ann had several steady boyfriends   Ann always leaves her
before, only with Joe it happened   partners after the first date
like this
                          Consensus

              High                             Low
    Keith                         Keith



    Ann             Joe            Ann            Joe



   Sarah                           Sarah


All girls leave Joe after the   It happened only with Ann,
first date                      other girls wanted to date Joe again
Atrribution to interaction person x object




      Consistency- high            Cause:
                               Interaction of
       Distinct – high            traits of
      Consensus - low            Joe & Ann
Attribution to person’s dispositions




   consistency- high           cause:
                             dispositions
     distinct – low          of subject
    consensus - low             (Ann)
      Atrribution to object




Consistency – high               Cause:
                              dispositions
  Distinct – high               of object
 Consensus - high                 (Joe)
Attribution to circumstances




                            Cause:
                        Properties of
                        circumstances
consistency - low            (eg.
                        Atmosphere,
                           customs)
          Tests of Kelley’s model
• McArthur: unequal weights ascribed to the
  three information
  – consistency - 20% variance
  – distinctiveness - 10%
  – consensus - 3%
• Underestimation of consensus information
  (study by Nisbett, Borgida and others)
• Underestimation of consensus information –
  a universal phenomenon?
• Consequences?
         Tests of Kelley’s model

• Other factors influencing attribution:
  – Evaluation of the outcome (positive or
    negative)
  – Whose behavior is being explained (own or
    other’s)
  – Content of behavior (morality or
    competence)
  – Is behavior intentional or not?
Denis Hilton
Abnormal Conditions
Model
     Abnormal Conditions Model
           Denis Hilton


• Reanalysis of the factorial model of Harold
  Kelley
• Which information is missing?
          Why did Ann leave Joe after the first
                        date?
                  Factorial schema
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Person                      Ann                                   Other girls
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Object              Joe                Other boys                Joe            Other boys
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Circumstances today other today other today other today other
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cell
                     1         2          3         4          5         6         7          8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




                 consistency          distinctiveness        consensus                  ???
                        Typicality

          High                             Low
Keith                           Keith               Bill
                 Bill


Ann             Joe              Ann               Joe



Sarah         George             Sarah            George


Other girls leave their                 Other girls do not leave
partners after the first date           partners after the first date
   Attribution process according to
              Denis Hilton
• Only abnormal behavior is explained
• Information about consistency,
  distinctiveness and consensus – cues
  that help identify the causes of
  abnormal states
  – Low consensus: person
  – High distinctiveness: object
  – Low consistency: circumstances
Arie W. Kruglanski
    Theory of causes according to Arie
           Kruglanski (1975)
• Four causes according to Aristotle:
   –   Material – what is it made of?
   –   Formal – how is it made?
   –   Efficient – who or what made it?
   –   Final - what has it been made for?
• Different types of explanation: teleological vs.
  mechanistic
          Arie W. Kuglanski
• ACTIONS versus OCCURRENCES
• Actions:
  – Endogenous – a goal in itself
  – Exogenous – instrumental with respect to the goal
     Attributions for „actions” and
          „occurrences” differ
• Actions – intentional
• Occurrences – nonintentional
• Occurrences – processed according to
  Kelley’s model
  – Information on consensus
  – External attribution more frequent
• Actions
  – Focus on consistency
  – Endogenous actions – more internal attributions
    than exogenous actions
                                 X is a paid murderer      Exo-
X when driving, killed Y



                                     X did it ....         Endo-




            X did not notice Y           X’ wife betrayed X with Y:
                                               X took revenge

            Efficient cause                 Final cause (reason
                                                    for)
        Causes versus reasons

• Cause = why something was done (who
  or what did it)
• Reason = reason why the action was
  taken (what for)
• Distinction: A.R. Buss (1978)
• Locke & Pennington (1982): possible
  causes of behavior
    Causes of behavior according to Locke
            & Pennington (1982)

                                       causes


                                                           (1)
                       internal
                                                         external
                                                    I was asked to

             reasons                  (2)
                                  dispositions   I am an orderly
                                                 person

     (3)              (4)
psychological     situational       Why did you clean your desk?
Could not find   There was a
anything here    mess
Attribution through communication
Brown & Fish (1983): action vs. state
               verbs
• Action verbs – point to the SUBJECT

• State verbs – point to the OBJECT
         Action vs. state verbs


• Keith HELPS Joe (action verb)  Keith is the
  cause
• Keith LIKES Joe (state verb)  Joe is the
  cause
             Action vs. state verbs

• Cause = the factor that better differentiates people
• People differ more in willingness to act (e.g. help
  others) that the disposition to be the recipient of
  the act (e.g. be helped)
• People differ more in the disposition to arouse
  emotions (e.g. be liked) than the disposition to
  experience emotion (e.g. liking others)
            Use in manipulation

• Why do you vote for party X?
  – Cause: the voter
• Why do you like the party X
  – Cause: the party
Biases and errors in attribution
      Assumptions of Kelley’s model

• That information on consistency, distinctiveness
  and consensus has equal weight
• That attributions do not depend on whose behavior
  is explained
• That attributions do not depend on the value of the
  behavior (positive or negative)
• That people can correctly estimate unconditional
  probabilities
       Fundamental attribution error

• Attributing causes of behavior to dispositions
  („he is like that") and intentions („he intended
  to do this") instead of to a situation or to a
  target object
   – Gustav Ischeiser (1949): Misunderstandings in
     human relations. A study in false social
     perception.
   – Fritz Heider (1921) – oral information (1958):
     “Behavior fills the perceptual field”
   – Lee Ross (1977): fundamental attribution error
        1977




       Lee Ross


The fundamental attribution error
 Fundamental attribution error - causes

• Understimating the role of consensus
  information
• Quattrone: anchoring heuristics
  – Attribution anchored in the subject of
    behavior, insufficiently corrected for
    situational information
    Causes (cont)

• Daniel Gilbert & Malone:
  correspondence bias
  – Role of “cognitive business”:
    Correspondence bias smaller when
    cognitive resources were not enaged
  – Replication of the experiment by
    Jones & Harris
• Fundamental attribution error and
  cognitive development
Actor-observer asymmetry

    • E. Jones i R. Nisbett (1972) –
      attributions different for actor
      and for observer
    • Own behavior explained with
      situational factors, others’
      behavior with dispositions
    • Number of internal attributions
      similar for oneself and others
    • I have freedom of choosing my
      behavior, he/she is determined
Causes of the actor-observer asymmetry

• Number of information: more about
  determinants of own than others’ behaviors
• Perspective differences (figure - ground) –
  study by Storms
  – The asymmetry reverses with self-focused
    attention (eg. mirror)
• Buss (1978), Locke i Pennington (1982) :
  causes vs. reasons
  – People explain own rather than others’ behaviors
    with situational reasons
     Language and attributional asymmetry


                • Gun Semin & Klaus Fiedler:
                  verbs vs. adjectives
                  – Own behaviors – described with
                    help of verbs (I did this and that),
Klaus Fiedler
                    others’ behaviors – with help of
                    adjectives (he/she is this or that)
                  – Happy and unhappy couples




    Gun Semin
 Egotistic attributions – success-failure
                asymmetry
• Two components:
  – (a) attributing successes to own dispositions (self-
    enhancement)
  – (b) attributing failures to situational factors (self-
    protection)
• More empirical evidence for (a) than (b):
  attributions for successes more uniform than
  attributions for failures
   Attribution of successes and failures in the past year



          6

          5

          4
średnia




                                            successful
          3
                                            moderate
          2                                 unsuccessful

          1

          0
              government    myself
Explanations of attributional egotism

• Egotism
• Expectation of success – unexpectedness of
  failure
• Kruglanski: actions (successes) vs.
  occurrences (failures)
               Other cultures?




Hazel Markus              Shinobu Kitayama
    H. Markus & S. Kitayama: attributing causes for
               successes and failures

       3,5
         3
       2,5
         2
       1,5                                                        success
         1                                                        failure
       0,5
         0
              ab


                          ef


                                  di


                                               lu


                                                      go
                                    ffi


                                                 ck
                             fo
                 i




                                                        od
                lit


                             rt


                                     cu
                    i




                                                         fo
                     es




                                        l ty




                                                             rm

Ss = Japanese students
Attributional egocentrism

     • Michael Ross:
       – My contribution to common work
         bigger than contributions of
         others
       – Concerns both positive and
         negative outcomes
       Attributional egocentrism

• Explanations:
  – Differential access to information about
    own and other’s contributions
  – Selective encoding of information
  – Selective retrieval of information
  – Motivational factors

  Most evidence – third explanation
        False consensus effect

• Ross, Greene i House (1977):
  Overestimation of own behaviors and
  attitudes in population
• Particularly visible if:
  – we are uncertain of the behavior value
  – The behavior is positive
  – we are in the minority
        False consensus effect -
              explanations
• Different access to own and others’ behaviors
  and attitudes
• Salience and perceptual accessibility of wn
  attitudes and behaviors higher
• Validating own beliefs:
  – if I belive in it  it must be true;
  – if it is true  others have to believe in it as well
• Egotism – The more common behavior, the
  less negative
   1989          Explanations (cont.)

                  • False consensus effect as
                    statistical artifact
                    – Regression to the mean:
                      overestimation of rare
                      behaviors/attitudes,
                      underestimation of frequent
                      behaviors
                    – Robyn Dawes: justified
                      heuristic – in the face of lack of
                      information  inferrring from
                      own attitudes  self-projection
Robyn M. Dawes
           Functions of attributions

• When do people spontaneously ask „why”
  question?
   – Negative events
   – Unexpected events
• Functions of attributions
   – Control
   – Prediction
   – Self-esteem
          Attributional theories

• Attributional theory of achievement motivation
  (Bernard Weiner)
• Attributional theory of emotions (Bernard
  Weiner)
• Attributional theory of depression (Seligman,
  Teasdale & Abramson)
• Attributional explanations of intrinsic
  motivation (E. Deci, R. Ryan)
• Attributional effects in attraction
• Self-handicapping

								
To top