Responsibility attribution by groups and individuals: The effects of the interaction episode

Studied the effects of formal and informal interaction styles on the extremity of responsibility attribution judgements by groups. The stimuli were eight scenarios describing typical ‘life dilemmas’, incorporating the manipulation of the following two variables in a 2 × 2 design: (a) the risky-cautious decision taken by the actor in response to the dilemma, and (b) the outcome of the decision (success-failure). Subjects (N = 130) provided judgements about the attributed responsibility of the actor, and their perception of the actor and the situation first as individuals, followed by (a) formal or (b) informal group discussion, leading to consensus judgements. Results showed that group attributions were significantly more extreme than individual attributions, but only following the informal group interaction. The actors' riskiness and success were also significantly related to the size of the extremity shift. The findings are discussed in terms of the importance of the social context and the specific interaction episode in attribution judgements, and the possible implications of the results for such real life decision-making groups as committees and interviewing panels are considered.     

The role of social perspective in perceiving the causes of success and failure1

An experiment was conducted to test the hypothesis that observers' causal attributions about an actor's performance at a task would be affected by their social perspective in observing the situation. Observer subjects were either assigned to serve in a role comparable to that of observer-subjects in most actor-observer experiments or were assigned a distinctive role more divergent from the social perspective of the actor. As expected, observers with a similar social perspective to that of the actor made more flattering attributions about the actor's performance than observers with a dissimilar social perspective. We concluded that actor-observer differences in attribution for an actor's performance in any one experiment cannot be taken as definitive evidence either for or against the defensive attribution idea.     

Causal attribution and self-justification as explanations for the consensus expectation of one's social value orientation

This study focuses on explanations for the perceived consensus of one's own social value orientation. The prediction of the triangle hypothesis that the consensus expectation of individualistic and competitive people is higher than that of cooperative people was partially supported. Only individualists expected their own orientation more frequently of other people. According to a causal attribution explanation, it was expected that subjects' causal attributions for their own orientation to internal and external causes influenced their consensus expectations. Only attributions to internal causes differed significantly between subjects with different orientations and corresponded with their consensus estimates. Individualism was attributed least internally, cooperation most internally, and competition in between. Additionally, direct support for the effect of internal attributions on consensus expectations was found. Compared with subjects who attributed their own orientation more internally, subjects who attributed it less internally were more likely to expect their own orientation among other people. According to a self-justification explanation, it was hypothesized that the consensus expectations of individualists and competitors would be higher when first their own social orientation was assessed and then the orientation they expected to predominate among others than in the reversed order. This hypothesis was not supported.     

Attribution and reconstructive memory

Two experiments were conducted to test the effects of making an attribution on later memory for the event that gave rise to the attribution. Subjects in Experiment 1 observed a scenario in which an actor's behavior was associated with high or low variance (distinctiveness) across situations, and high or low congruence (consensus) to the actions of others. Subjects either made attributions for the actor's behavior immediately following the scenario or not. One week later, subjects were asked to recall consensus and distinctiveness for the actor's original behavior. Subjects who made attributions were significantly better at estimating the high-high and low-low combinations of consensus and distinctiveness than were their no-attribution counterparts. It was suggested that making an attribution may allow for a reconstructed memory for the original event, but not enhance direct access to the original event information. A second experiment tested this concept further by having subjects view an edited version of the scenario in which either the distinctiveness or the consensus information was deleted and having subjects make attributions or not. One week later, subjects were asked to indicate their certainty that consensus and distinctiveness information was a part of the original scenario and to estimate the levels of consensus and distinctiveness. Subjects who made attributions were more confident and accurate in estimating the level of consensus or distinctiveness that was given in the original scenario than were no-attribution subjects. However, attribution subjects were also more confident that consensus information or distinctiveness information was contained in the scenario (when it was not) than were the noattributio subjects. Results of the two experiments suggest that eliciting attributions can distort subsequent memory for the event on which the attributions were based.     

Children's Trait and Emotion Attributions in Socially Ambiguous and Unambiguous Situations

Children's attributions about story characters in ambiguous and unambiguous social situations were assessed. One hundred and forty-four 6–7-year-olds and 10–11-year-olds heard about actors who slighted a recipient intentionally or for an undetermined reason and then made causal attributions about the events, an emotion attribution about the recipient, and global personality attributions about the actors and recipient. Relations between perceived self-competence and attribution style were also assessed. Participants were more likely to make negative causal attributions in the unambiguous condition and with increasing age. Older girls and younger boys were more likely than other groups to attribute negative emotions to the recipient. Overall, participants perceived recipients positively and actors negatively. Perceived self-competence was positively correlated with actor attributions, although these differed by age and gender. Implications for children's psychosocial adjustment are discussed.     

It's all good: Children's personality attributions after repeated success and failure in peer and computer interactions

The present study examined children's use of behavioural outcome information to make personality attributions in social and non‐social contexts. One hundred and twenty‐eight 3‐ to 6‐year‐olds were told about a story actor who engaged in primarily successful or primarily unsuccessful interactions with several different people (social context) or several different computers (non‐social context). Subsequently, children made behavioural predictions and trait attributions about the actor. Findings indicated that participants were more likely to use past information to make behavioural predictions and trait attributions when hearing about primarily successful than primarily unsuccessful interactions, although there were age‐related differences in trait attribution as a function of success and trait type. There was no support for differential use of information across contexts, as participants' predictions and attributions were similar regardless of hearing about interactions with computers or humans. Factors involved in the development of impression formation are discussed.     

Acquisition of dispositional attributions: effects of sample size and covariation

Two experiments examined whether dispositional attributions are sensitive to the sample size of the evidence indicating a given level of covariation between person and behavior. Participants were given high or low levels of covariation (i.e. consensus and distinctiveness), and the acquisition of dispositional attributions was monitored by requesting dispositional trait ratings at fixed intervals. The results showed that dispositional attributions were sensitive to sample size, and increased given more evidence on high person‐behavior covariation while they decreased given more evidence on low person‐behavior covariation. Additional analyses suggested that in making dispositional inferences (e.g. about the actor), there was a slight preference for agreement information (e.g. low distinctiveness) over difference information (e.g. low consensus). The effects of sample size are inconsistent with current statistical or probabilistic models of covariation, but are in line with connectionist networks using an error‐correcting learning algorithm. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

A Gricean approach to the use of consensus and distinctiveness in causal attributions of verbally described interpersonal events

Various causal attribution theories, starting with the covariation model, argue that people use consensus, distinctiveness, and consistency information to causally explain events and behaviors. Yet, the visual presentation of the covariation model in the form of a cube is based on the assumptions that these dimensions generally affect attributions independently, symmetrically, and equally. A Gricean analysis suggests that these assumptions may not generally hold in the case of causal judgments for verbally communicated interpersonal events. We had participants judge the causal role of an actor and a patient in interpersonal events that were described through actor‐verb‐patient sentences under high versus low consensus and distinctiveness (Studies 1, 2, and 3) or without such information (Studies 2 and 3). As predicted by Gricean logic, consensus and distinctiveness effects on causality ratings depended on the target whose causal role participants assessed, on the information about the alternative dimension, and, most consistently, on consensus and distinctiveness being high versus low. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

An intrasubject approach to causal attribution

The present investigation draws on the judgment research tradition in order to examine the causal attributions made by individual subjects in an often used attribution task. Formal empirical tests of Kelley's (1967) attribution theory have demonstrated that attributions are influenced by the interaction of consensus, distinctiveness, and consistency information. None of these studies, however, have separately examined attributions made by individual judges. Implicit assumptions about individual differences, for example, have been made by the template-matching model of causal attribution (Orvis, Cunningham, & Kelley, 1975) but have not been scrutinized at the intrasubject level. Log linear modeling of attributions in the present research showed that while subjects were influenced by the causal information in the task, the relation between this information and attributions was more importantly characterized by individual differences than by uniform patterning. The nature of these individual differences and the significance of an idiographic approach to causal analysis are discussed.     

3~5岁儿童对同伴侵害归因的特征研究

以济南市一所普通公立幼儿园的284名3~5岁儿童为被试,采用访谈法考察了儿童对同伴侵害的归因。研究结果表明:(1)3~5岁儿童对同伴侵害的归因包括敌意归因、自责归因、中立归因和无归因四种情况。(2)总体而言,自责归因随年龄增长逐渐增多,无归因逐渐减少,4~5岁是转折期。(3)儿童自责归因和无归因人数比例在财物侵害中最低,中立归因人数比例在财物侵害中最高;无归因人数比例在言语侵害中最高,中立归因人数比例在言语侵害中最低。     

股民股票投资成败归因内容与特征的研究

运用开放式问卷,调查了股民股票投资成败的归因内容,并分别对成功与失败归因的内容及不同特征股民的成败归因内容进行了比较。研究结果表明：股民股票投资成败归因的主要内容是能力、果断、信息、政策等十三项;对于成功和失败,股民所作的能力、果断、政策、运气等九项归因有显著差异;文化程度、股龄及户别,分别对十三项归因中的部分归因有显著影响,这显示了不同特征股民各自的归因特点。     

Retrospective versus prospective explanations of changes in political opinion

Retrospective and prospective causal attributions of one's political opinion changes were compared in light of the distinction between external and internal attributions. Semistructured interviews focusing on three political issues were held with 47 psychology undergraduates. Subjects were asked to explain (a) why they changed opinion in the past, and (b) what would make them abandon their current positions in the future. Two judges estimated independently the importance the subjects attached to four categories of external attributions (firsthand and secondhand information, neutral and persuasive information sources) and two categories of internal attributions (cognitive elaboration and personality characteristics). As a group, subjects explained their past opinion changes by referring to several attribution categories whereas in their explanations of hypothetical future opinion changes they above all referred to (secondhand information on) crucial events. It is concluded that people feel something drastic would need to occur before they would be ready to abandon a political stance.     

Self-image bias in drug use attributions

The aim was to examine the degree to which people's personal drug use affects how they perceive other drug users, with a view to investigating the possibility that drug use attributions are a function of self-image bias. University students (n = 60), categorized post hoc as drug users or nonusers, completed questionnaires assessing locus, control, and stability attributions about their own personal drug use or imagined drug use. Attributions pertaining to presented vignettes of light and heavy drug use by others were also assessed. Heavy drug use elicited the most "addicted" attributions (dispositional locus, low control, and high stability) and drug-using participants made more addicted attributions about their own personal drug use than did nonusing participants about their imagined use. Additionally, attributions made by non-drug users regarding their imagined personal drug use were similar to those they made for the light drug use described in presented vignettes. Conversely, drug users made attributions which were similar for their personal drug use and for the heavy drug-use vignette. These data lend support to conceptualizing addiction as a product of the functional attribution process-"addict" attributions being applied mainly where drug use is more problematic (heavy) and thus in need of explanation. The data also lend support to the notion that a self-image bias is operating in drug use attributions when people can identify with the behavior of others.     

Attribution difficulty and memory for attribution-relevant information

This research compared the processing and retrieval of attribution-relevant information when the attributional inference is easy or difficult to make. Subjects attributed behavioral events to the person or to the situation, based on several items of context information. Each context sentence implied either the person or the entity as causal agent. When the attributional inference was difficult to make (an equal number of context sentences implied actor and entity as the causal agent), subjects recalled more of the behavioral events, recalled more context sentences, and were less confident in their attributions than when the attributional inference was easy to make (most context sentences implied the same causal agent). Subjects also recalled context information that was implicationally incongruent with the majority of the other context sentences with a higher probability than when that same information was implicationally congruent.     

The effects of choice and source of constraint on children's attributions of preference

One hundred and twenty female children (40 each from the first, third, and sixth grades) were presented with videotaped presentations of a female child choosing between two toys. Depending upon condition, subjects then viewed the actor either playing with her initially preferred toy (Unconstrained choice) or being forced to play with her initially non-preferred toy (Constrained choice). Additionally, the source of the actor's freedom or constraint was represented as either adult mediated or environmentally mediated. All subjects rated the actor's liking for each of the toys, how much the actor wanted to play with each toy, and which toy the actor would choose to take home with her. The two major findings which emerged were: (1) Contrary to prediction, children of all three age levels tended to use cues reflecting both the actor's choice and the actor's behavior in inferring her liking for each of the toys. (2) As predicted, the degree to which observers' attributions of toy liking corresponded to inferred attitude of the adult (who either approved or prohibited the actor's choice) was an inverse function of age. The similarities between the findings of this study and the data from studies of adult attitude attribution and children's moral attributions are considered in the discussion.     

Sex differences in attribution: A Norwegian study

A quasi-experimental study was conducted to examine the effect of sex on actor and observer attributions of success and failure. It was predicted that, contrary to American results in similar studies, Norwegian males and females would tend to be largely similar in their attribution of success and failure. Only same-sex attributions were explored. Subjects were asked to attribute causality along a set of six standard causal dimensions. The results showed that sex had a relatively minor effect on attributions, compared to the effects of attributor role and task outcome. Only in their attributions of ability did men and women differ to some degree in that women were more likely to use lack of ability as an explanation for own failure. The study concludes that cross-cultural research is needed in order to better assess the normative impact on attribution.     

Relating covariation information to causal dimensions through principles of contrast and invariance

This paper examines the proposition that covariation information guides judgments about the dimensionality of attributions on the basis of causal principles of contrast and invariance, which are derived from Mill's methods of difference and agreement respectively. It is argued that the standard attribution categories specified in earlier research (e.g. person, occasion and stimulus) represent just one extreme of the attributional dimensions and require the principle of contrast, whereas additional attributional categories reflecting the opposite extreme of the dimensions (e.g. external, stable, general) require the principle of invariance. In three studies, subjects were given covariation information, and were asked to rate the properties of the likely cause along the dimensions of locus, stability, globality and control. In line with the predictions, consensus with others, consistency in time, distinctiveness between stimuli and contingency of one's actions showed the strongest effects on judgments of locus, stability, globality and control respectively. Similar results were obtained in a fourth study, where subjects had to judge the influence of eight causes with varying dimensional properties. Moreover, these judgments were rated somewhat higher given causes requiring the principle of invariance rather than the principle of contrast.     

THE ROLE OF GENERALISED EXPECTANCIES IN DETERMINING CAUSAL ATTRIBUTIONS FOR SUCCESS AND FAILURE IN TWO SOCIAL CLASSES

Summary . The sources of discrepancies in causal attributions for success and failure and for self and other attributions of outcome may become clearer when specific research attention is paid to the role of generalised expectancies in the attributional process. The present study hypothesised that when information about task and outcome is standardised, the attributions of both actors and observers will tend to reflect generalised expectancies, evoked in this study by two levels of SES in both actor and observer conditions, more than they will self-serving biases. 230 sixth grade Jewish Israeli pupils of two SES levels were assigned to one of three experimental conditions. All pupils received eight anagrams, four soluble by all and four insoluble. Those in the self-attribution condition attributed their own outcomes to various causes, while those in the similar and different other conditions attributed the same outcomes for pupils of apparently similar or different social class, after having first completed the anagrams themselves. The results indicated that while pupils of high SES tended to attribute both their own and others' outcomes in ways consistent with high generalised expectancy for success, pupils of low SES attributed their own outcomes more to external, unstable factors, and differentiated consistently in their attributions for the self, for similar and for different others. It was argued that these differences reflect undifferentiated, global perceptions of causality among high SES pupils, whose patterns of attribution are consistent both with teacher values and their own experience. Low SES pupils have more differentiated perceptions of causality since uncertainty as to the real causes of their learning outcomes motivates them to greater, but not always adaptive, attributional activity.