Presentation on theme: "Attribution 1: Theories"— Presentation transcript:
1Attribution 1: Theories Dr Elizabeth SheppardC81INDIndividual in Society
2Attribution TheoryAttribution theory - The conceptual framework within social psychology dealing with lay, or common sense explanations of behaviour.Through life we gradually construct explanations/theories of why people behave in certain ways1.) Naïve psychologist (Heider, 1958)2.) Correspondent inference (Jones & Davis, 1965)3.) Kelley’s model
3Primary questions1.) What are the main characteristics of attributions?2.) How are attributions are made?
4Naïve Psychologist (Fritz Heider,1958) Sets out the foundations of attribution theory “common sense psychology”Individual as a ‘Naïve Scientist’Two important contributions1.) Proposed the idea of internal& external causes of behaviour ) Perceivers ignore part or all situationalfactors when explaining behaviour.(Later theorists who expanded on and developed Heider’s ideas: Kelley,1967; Jones & Davis,1965; Weiner, )
5Correspondent inference (Jones & Davis, 1965) When judging another’s behaviour we use information to draw a correspondent inference where the behaviour is attributed to a disposition/personality characteristicUse various characteristics to do this including:Social desirabilityNon-common effectsImportant historically, but its impact has been limited
6Kelley’s Model (1967,1973)What information is used to arrive at a causal attribution?Developed a logical model for judging whether a particular action should be attributed to some characteristic (internal) of the person or the environment (external)
7What information is used to arrive at a causal attribution? 1.) Covariation - Perceiver has info from multiple observations, at different times and situations, and can perceive the covariation of an observed effect and its causes2.) Configuration - Perceiver is faced with a single observation and must take account of the configuration (i.e.the current info available)
8Covariation: Multiple observations Covariation Principle – An effect is attributed to a condition that is present when the effect is present, and absent when the effect is absent. (e.g. donuts disappear/ Homer)Based on statistical technique ANOVA.Examines changes in a dependent variable(the effect) by varying independent variables(the conditions).
9Analysis of Variance Model of Covariation Does behaviour generalise?Possible single causesTypes of info (IV’s)8 Information combinations 2 x 2 x 2
10Analysis of Variance Model of Covariation (McArthur e.g., 1972) Does behaviour generalise?Possible single causesTypes of info (IV’s)8 Information combinations 2 x 2 x 2
11Analysis of Variance Model of Covariation (McArthur e.g., 1972) Does behaviour generalise?Possible single causesTypes of info (IV’s)8 Information combinations 2 x 2 x 2
12Why did the students fall asleep during the lecture? e.g. The majority of the students fell asleep in Dr. Sheppard’s lecture on theories of attribution. They also fell asleep during her other lectures, but not lectures given by other teaching staff.High consensusHigh consistencyHigh distinctivenessBoring lecturer?
13Why did the students fall asleep during the lecture? e.g. The majority of the students fell asleep in Dr. Sheppard’s lecture on theories of attribution. They never fell asleep during her other lectures, or in lectures given by other teaching staff.High consensusLow consistencyHigh distinctivenessDay after formal ball?Hot lecture theatre?
14But… Works well for person and entity No single clear pattern which can lead to circumstance attributions. These seem to be maximised when consistency is low (Forsterling, 1989; Hewstone & Jaspars, 1987)This can be seen as a limitation to the model
15Main criticisms of covariation principle 1.) Doesn’t work well for circumstance attributions2.) Covariation does not mean causality3.) Participants are given “pre-packaged” info which they might not seek or use in everyday situations (model idealised/normative)4.) Evidence suggests people are poor at assessing covariation between events (Alloy & Tabachnik, 1984)5.) It may appear that the covariation principle was used, but the processing used may be completely different (e.g. Nisbett & Ross, 1980)6.) Requires multiple observations over time- which is not always possible to do
16Configuration: Single observations Causal Schemata – Preconceptions or theories built up from experience about how certain kinds of causes interact to produce a specific effect (abstract-content free i.e. general & apply across content areas)Allows one to interpret information quickly by comparing and integrating it with a schemaE.g. multiple sufficient cause schema – any of several causes can produce the same effect
17Configuration: Single observations Each Schema is associated with a number of principles set out by KelleyDiscounting principle – if different causes can produce the same effect, the role of a given cause in producing the effect is discounted if other plausible causes are presente.g. Why is your flatmate doing the washing up?
18Configuration: Single observations Augmentation principle – The role of a given cause is increased (augmented) if an effect occurs in the presence of an inhibitory cause.e.g. Why did the man in the chicken costume win the race?
19Main criticisms of causal schemata (Fiedler, 1982) 1.) The existence and functioning of causal schemata has not been successfully demonstrated – research supporting it is artificial – can’t prove2.) The idea of schemata is content free and thus too abstract
20Can internal and external attributions be distinguished? Statements implying internal attributions can be rephrased to imply external & vice versaStudents asked to write down why they had chosen their degree subject at uni (Nisbett et al, 1973)Statements such as “I want to make a lot of money” were coded as internal while statements such as “Chemistry is a high paying field” were externalCriticised internal/external categories for being very broad and too heterogeneous (Lalljee,1981)Participants have difficulty understanding the distinction (Taylor & Koivumaki, 1976)
21Can internal and external attributions be distinguished? Other categorisations of attributions e.g. multidimensional approach (Weiner, 1986)Locus – internal or external?Stability – is the cause a stable or unstable one (over time)Controllability – to what extent is future task performance under the actor’s control?InternalStable UnstableExternalAbilityMoodUnusual help/hindrance from othersLuckUnusual effortTypical effortTask difficultyConsistent help/hindrance from othersControllableUncontrollable
22Applications of attribution theory Individual differences & attributional styleRotter (1966) argues people differ in terms of the amount of control they believe they have over reinforcements & punishments received – measures of locus of control related to range of behaviour e.g. political beliefs, achievementInternals – high personal control over destinyExternals – fatalistic, things occur by chanceAttributional style questionnaire (Peterson et al., 1982) – sorts explanations on 3 dimensions: internal/external, stable/unstable, global/specificThose who view aversive events as caused by internal, stable, global factors = depressive attributional style
23Applications of attribution theory Interpersonal relationshipsMost commonly used in relation to marital success e.g. Fincham & O’Leary, 1983happily married individuals tend to credit partners for positive behaviour by citing internal, stable, global & controllable factors to explain themNegative behaviour is explained away by ascribing to external, unstable, specific & uncontrollable causesDistressed couples do the oppositeWomen continuous engage in attributional thought about relationships – men only do so when dysfunctional!!
24SummaryTheories of attribution claim we aim to attribute behaviour to either internal (person) or external (situation) causesKelley proposed models of covariation (data driven) & configuration (theory driven)In reality these may interact i.e. our expectations (schemata) may influence what data are processed i.e. what observations made
25ReferencesHewstone & Stroebe (2001) Introduction to Social Psychology, Chapter 7.Fraser & Burchell (2001) Introducing Social Psychology, Chapter 11.