ATTRIBUTION

the reason why that we are trying to look for when we observe someones behaviour it covaries. Kelley pointed out that there are three kinds of explanation that may be Heider used in explaining behaviour. We can Heider was the first to investigate that & make the attribution to: the processes by which we make this kind The actor (the person whose of judgement. He said that we are behaviour we are trying to explain) motivated to do that by the need to form a The entity (the person who the coherent view of the world and the need to actor is interacting with) gain control over the environment. People The circumstances (the situation are nave psychologists and act on the basis of their beliefs. According to Heider, in which the behaviour takes making casual attributions in a major place) driving force in human social inference. Kelley suggests we rely on the following kinds of information to decide which Jones and Daviss correspondent explanations are the most suitable:

inference theory

Their theory was influenced by Heider. Jones and Davis started with the distinction that he had made between personal and situational factors. They also agreed that before we begin to make attribution to the person we have to be sure that they know what the effects of their actions will be and that they have the ability to carry them out.

Consistency: information about the actors reactions to this person/situation on other occasions. Distinctiveness: information about how the actor behaves with other different persons/situations. Consensus: information about how others react in the same or similar situations.

Correspondent inference
e.g. When we decide that someone meant to do something because hes like that.

Disposition corresponds to the intention!

corresponds

Intention
to the action!

Kelley believes that attributions are made to actor when consistency is high, but distinctiveness and consensus are low. Despite the evidence that people will make attributions predicted by the model, a number of qualifications need to be made: Not all three kinds of information are used equally (Kruglanski consistency > distinctiveness) People would rather seek additional information about the actor or situation rather that these three types of information. Kelleys idea of a person trying to work out reasons for behaviour is too idealised.

Kelleys Covariation Model

Kelley was also influenced by Heider and investigated attribution process. According to Kelley, an effect is attributed to one of its possible causes with which, over time,

Kelleys alternative model

It covered those situations where information about consensus, distinctiveness and circumstances is lacking.

attribution, despite the fact that essayists behaviour was severely constrained by the situation.

Cultural differences in FAE

According to research, there are cultural differences in the fundamental attribution error. Individualistic cultures are more prone to error than collectivistic.

Casual schemata
Generalised beliefs about why people act in certain ways based on previous observations.

Actor/observer effect (AOE)

Jones and Nisbett pointed out that there is a strong tendency for actors to usually see their own behaviour as primarily a response to the situation (the cause is situational/external) and the observer typically attributes the same behaviour to actors intentions and dispositions (the cause is dispositional/internal). The observers attribution to internal causes is, of course the FAE.

Sources process

of

bias

in

attribution

Fundamental attribution error Actors and observers Self-serving attributional bias

Fundamental attribution error (FAE)

As Heider pointed out, we tend to overemphasize the actor (and the dispositional causes) as the cause of an event and underestimate the situation factors. Why? Attributions are usually dependent upon the focus of our attention. We focus on the person within the situation leading to personality-centred attributions, especially when we have little information about the individual to make a balanced judgement.

Storms study (1973)

Aim: Find actor/observer effect Method: Two actor participants engaged in a brief conversation while two observers looked. A questionnaire was distributed to measure actors attributions of their own behaviour and observers attribution of the actor they observed. Visual orientation was manipulated so that: No video (control) group simply completed the questionnaire. Same orientation group simply saw a video of what they saw during the original conversation (before completing questionnaire) New orientation group saw a video, which reversed original orientation: actors saw themselves and observers saw the other actor. (again, before completing questionnaire) Results: in the first two groups AOE was found, but was reversed in the third group, as predicted. Actors made more dispositional attributions than observers.

Jones & Harris study (1967)

Aim: To guess what attitude the writers of the essays really held towards Castro and his government. Method: Participants read essays about Castro that were either supportive or critical. They had to guess the real attitude of the writers. One group was told that the writers had a choice; the other was told that the pro-Castro or anti-Castro role was assigned. Results: Two groups (choice and nochoice condition) both thought that the essays reflected the genuine views of their authors. Observers opted for internal