Bias toward making dispositional attributions based on other’s behaviors (Heider: Behavior tends to engulf the field --- more salient) Self-Generated Reality Are people unknowing architects of their own social reality? 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 (e.g., motivation, awareness of “chronic” stimulus features, social comparisons) Inducer Responder

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 (correspondent bias) Study 1 Procedure? Self-Generated Reality

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 Liberal and conservative responders were viewed as more extreme on the crossover items; earlier responses produced a “halo” (or label) that affected future attributions even though they were different than the initial impressions!

Control for: Self-orientation, average public orientation, memory Study 2 Purpose(s)? Origin Inducers Instrumental Inducers Do origin inducers differ from instrumental inducers in preferring dispositional attributions? False Consensus Effect: The tendency to overestimate the degree of agreement between one’s own beliefs, behaviors, and characteristics (especially if they are negative) (“Everyone does it,” “Everyone feels that way about …”)

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 Behavior Automatic dispositional attribution Infer causation by considering by considering situational and behavioral cues (this process is often insufficient to offset dispositional bias)

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

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 1 st 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

General Findings: People interpret behavioral events with person, stimulus, and circumstance information in mind Each piece of information is compared to these patterns and makes interpretations of behavior Overall, highly consistent information leads to a person (dispositional) attribution Consistency information is inferred (used more and is more powerful) in the attributional process than either consensus or distinctiveness When consistency is low, circumstance attributions rise Greater consistency regarding tasks than people (e.g., preference, past interpersonal interactions) 2 views on course difficulty vs. lunch partner