Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Reading - Coggle Diagram
Reading
-
Attribution theory extensions- more on task performance- Weiner- people first determine if someone’s done well or not then have subsequent good or bad emotion- then make causal attribution for performance which gives more specific emotions (eg pride for having succeeded due to ability) then future expectations- yet while some evidence some critical if controllability is as important and how much people analyse performance this way in real world
As a result of criticism Weiner elaborated- emphasised judgement of responsibility- going off of causal attribution- judgement made of responsibility which causes behavioural reaction instead of causal attribution itself- figure this out
Applications of attribution - idea that (people need to discover cause of own and others’ behaviour to plan their own actions has had sig impact on social psych)- already achievement attributions and reattribution of arousal but also 2 more
- Attributional style - an individual predisposition to make a certain kind of causal attribution for behaviour) - individual differences and attributional styles - research shows people differ in kinds of attribution they make- attributional style- differ in (amount of control they feel they have over reinforcements and punishments they recieve- internals= believe in personal control over destiny- external believes more in chance, luck or external factors- measurement of locus of control- Rotter 29 item scale- relates locus of control to behaviours including political stance/ achievement behaviours/ reactions to illness
Problem w/ scale- (may not measure unitary construct eg one personality dimension- instead various individual perspectives to do w/ control)
attributional style has caused lots of questionares- eg ASQ p93- measures people’s explanations for sucky occurrences- on 3 dimensions- internal/ external, stable/ unstable, global/ specific- global= how wide or narrow range of effects a cause has ‘economy’ as exp for being fired= global but listing occurrence in certain company= specific- global, stable, internal view- ‘depressive attribution style’- glass half empty- might relate to other mental health conditions eg depression/ helplessness- references p93
Issues w/ idea of attribution style as personality trait- unable to find (cross situational/ stable) attribution style for individuals- eg may think one things more up to chance than other thing? - also limited evidence for correlation between attribution style and depression- hard to establish causality- can’t induce depression
Attribution applications 2 interpersonal relationships-attributions big role in interpersonal (especially close) relationships - as people discuss attributions eg to (explain/ justify behaviour or attribute blame and instil guilt) 3 phases of relations- formation, maintenance, dissolution- formation- more attributions given to help communication/ clear understanding of relationship- maintenance less attributions as (stable personalities and relationship has been established p)- dissolution- increase in attributions (to regain understanding of relationship)
Fairly common feature is where partners give differing causal views for behaviour- disagree over which atrtribution to take on- sometimes count agree on causality- eg withdraw because nags vs nags because of withdrawal- research- p94- in happier couples positive features explained w/ stable, global and controllable reasons and negative acts described w/ external, unstable, specific and uncontrollable- less happy couples- opposite way round- also women think fairly regularly about relationship- men only reflect when relationship becomes dysfunctional
Causality attributions in relationships- (do attributional dynamics produce marriage dysfunction or do dysfunctional relationships distort attributional dynamic- research p94 found attributions made on first occasion reliably predicted marriage satisfaction around year later but only for wives) also other longitudinal studies
Biases in attribution- attributions biased in terms of personality, interpersonal relationships and to meet communication needs- also cog processes leading to attribution has flaws- are we always logical naive scientists- Kelley’s model= idealised- takes multiple observations (consistency) over time-
correspondence inference model is biased ( correspondence bias)due to a intensity in viewing behaviours as a reflection of their stable personality attributes- eg in politics maybe spend more time focussing on personality of politician than on policy landscape politician represents -
Also fundamental attribution error- used interchangeably w/ correspondence bias but different- (bias in attributing another’s behaviour more to internal than to situational causes-eg Jones and Harris- ppts read essays pro or anti Castro ppts told writers had either chosen topic or had no choice and ppts asked to guess attitude of writer toward Castro- in both conditions ppts assumed writers choice of essay reflected the writers own opinions - internal attribution about essay writ
So scientists or motivated tacticians? Kruglanski- people = flexible social thinkers- choose between multiple cog strategies (speed, ease, accuracy etc) based on goals, motives, needs so both scientists and tacticians- contemporary dual processes theories allow for this (Brewer, 1988; Fiske and Neurberg date on ppt) motivated by- time- cog resources- end of list on ppt
Other forms of attribution bias close to correspondence/ fundamental attribution includes= outcome bias- believing someone who committed act would be aware of all outcomes of behaviour-essentialism (Essentialism is the belief that categories of things (like people, animals, or concepts) have an underlying, inherent essence that makes them what they are)-AI need to change up- believe behaviour to reflect this essence of people or groups (can be seen in social groups where people believe groups share same essence that causes shared characteristics- lead to stereotypes)
Essentialism seems to be more underlying essence of someone or a group- like dog will always have dog essence about them ? whereas correspondence bias seems to focus on seeing behaviour as personality attributes - see more on difference between two
Essentialism can be more than that- can be (process of social determinism) people believe behaviour determined by (essentialist social factors) eg culture/ religion also evidence groups can (discriminate out groups sing essentialism) eg people see groups w/ negative characteristics is worse if they see characteristics as unchangeable or genetically induced
Self serving bias (attributional distortion to protect or enhance self esteem or perception of self) make attributions that satisfy self serving biases- take credit for positive behaviours/ successes - take credit for this saying it’s internal/ our intention to do good (self enhancing bias) - or there’s also explaining negative behaviours due to (coercion, normative constraints and other external factors)- self protection serving clearly ego related but also cog elements if tried hard for something believe success= own effort - generally exaggerate amount of control they had over situation-( cog factors may encourage may encourage internal attribution of success)
Although does serving more common than self protection those w/ low self esteem seem to attribute internally rather than externally- biases can be reduced with wish to not seem over boastful/ lie abt failures- another self serving bias= self handicapping- publicly making advance of external attributions for our anticipated failure or poor performance in forthcoming event
Self serving attribution- another example is when attribution of responsibility affected by outcome bias- attribute greater responsibility to greater results eg may give more responsibility for spilling big supertanker than a few ml of oil although degree of responsibility may be same- effect reflects people’s illusion of control (belief we have more control over our world than we really do) by believing in just world (belief that world is a just and predictable place where good things happen to ‘good people’ and vice versa)- can result in attribution of people being responsible for misfortune- victims ‘deserve it’- some victims eg rape regularly lose this just world sense
Different explanations of correspondence bias- 1- focus of attention - actor more noticeable than situation- actor and actor’s behaviour form (causal unit)- procedures that take away focus from actor cause more external attributions to be made
2- attribution requires (causal info in memory) but more likely to remember internal than external- causes (dispositional shift) over time- others argue opposite (direction on shift relies on focus of info processing- occurs immediately after behaviour being attributed)
3-linguistic facilitation- easier to tie actor to action when speaking whereas action to situation- harder eg honest person acts honestly less honest situation
references (facilitate dispositional explanations)
Cultural- attributions- correspondence bias originally called fundamental attribution error- og thought was for all automatically- but children tend to look at situational factors first then develop internal- western children found to first describe in specific external then get more familiar with internal- outside of western eg Hindu children said to not lean toward internal really at all go even more toward external- difference in development of attribution making
False consensus effect- seeing our own behaviour as more common than it truly is- eg when I truly believed people would not vote trump again for office- was so confident and for what- Kelley believed we look at consensus info when leaking attributions- McArthur believed we didn’t much really- but later found we do consider consensus info but build our own consensus info- why- seek out others similar to us- own behaviour so salient eclipses idea of other opinions- want to ground/ validate opinions in (perceived consensus- build stable world for selves) - more important views are to us more similarly we think people will act - references p99