Turning observers into actors: Differential causal attributions as a function of “empathy”

After being instructed either to “empathize with the actor” or to “picture the events clearly,” two groups of observers read a story describing an actor's behavior, and then gave free-response explanations of that behavior, and rated the importance of personal and situational causal factors. The hypothesis that causal attributions of empathizing observers would be less personal and more situational than those of nonempathizing observers received strong support, both from subjects' free responses and from their scale ratings. These findings provide evidence for an information-processing explanation of actor/observer attributional differences. Some practical applications of increasing the situationality of observers' causal attributions are discussed. The results also suggest a novel operational definition of “empathy”; and are interpreted as evidence for the effectiveness of “interpersonal simulations”.     

Measurement and interpretation of situational and dispositional attributions

Four problems with the measurement of situational and dispositional causality are reviewed. These are: the assumption that dispositional and situational causality are inversely linked; the diversity of the causes considered within the situational and dispositional categories; the difficulties of differentiating between causes internal and external to the actor; and the low convergent validity of various closed-ended attribution measures. A study reaffirms the lack of convergence among closed-ended measures and between closed and open-ended measures as well. In a second study, subjects' ratings of closed-ended attributions are taken as indicators that a freely chosen to not freely chosen dimension may better represent subjects' attributional thought than the internal/external dimension does. Open-ended data from the convergence study are recoded using this scheme and achieve significantly better convergence with closed-ended data. The implications of this redefinition for solving the various measurement problems are discussed.     

A robust attribution error in the personality domain

The error of inferring dispositional causes for constrained behavior was investigated in the domain of personality. Subjects were randomly assigned to write essays presenting themselves as strongly introverted or extraverted. Within groups, subjects exchanged essays and estimated the actual (self-rated) introversion/extraversion of the writer. The procedure minimized the likelihood of certain factors conducive to correspondent inference, e.g., the low salience of constraint or nonrepresentative sample of dispositions among essay writers. The experiment included an instructional set variable which involved accentuating the situational constraint or reinforcing the subjects' inclination to individuate the writer. In all conditions, a significant pattern of correspondent inference occurred, with attributions aligned to the directionality of the essays. The results, consistent with findings from attitude attribution research, suggest that the direction of the essay provides an initial hypothesis of correspondent inference. Subjects may then use their impression of the essay's extremity as a basis upon which to adjust their attribution in accord with the constraint of the position assignment.     

Locus of control,perceived responsibility for prior fate,and helping behavior

One-hundred-and-sixty adolescents participated in two studies designed to investigate the relationship between $\text{I}\text{E}$ and helping behavior as mediated by the perceived cause of another's need. In the first study, Ss were given the opportunity to help, either “indirectly” or “directly,” a supervisor who had been over- or underpaid in a prior similar task. Internals helped more in the “direct” help than the “indirect” help conditions but their helping behavior and their perceptions of their supervisors were not consistent. The perceptions of the externals were relatively consistent with their greater help of the “overpaid” supervisor. In study 2, the Ss were given additional information to increase the possibility of their making causal attributions as a function of the supervisor's prior fate. Once again, the external subjects' helping behavior reflected their perception of their supervisor's merit. The internal subjects exhibited relatively little helping behavior regardless of their supervisors' prior fate or perceived competence.     

The effects of empathy and outcome on attribution: An examination of the divergent-perspectives hypothesis

Based on the theoretical ideas of Jones and Nisbett (Jones et al. Attribution: Perceiving the cause of behavior. New York: General Learning Press, 1971), and the recent findings of Regan and Totten (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 1975, 850–856), the present study assumed that from an attributional standpoint empathic observers and actors are functionally equivalent. On this basis it was predicted that empathic, relative to nonempathic, observers would make outcome attributions which have been typically found for actors themselves: They would attribute an actor's success to dispositional causes, but an actor's failure to situational causes. After instructions to empathize with the target, or to observe him, subjects watched a videotape of a target male attempting to make a good first impression on a female. Subjects later learned that the target had either succeeded or failed at making a good first impression, and were asked to make causal attributions for his outcome. As predicted, instructions to empathize led to dispositional attributions for success and situational attributions for failure, while standard observation instructions resulted in dispositional causal attributions regardless of outcome. The results were interpreted as supporting the contention that differential information processing may sufficiently account for the effects of outcome on causal attributions.     

Attributional inference across cultures: similar automatic attributions and different controlled corrections

Five studies examined the automatic and controlled components of attributional inference in U.S. and East Asian (EA) samples. Studies 1 through 3 used variations of the "anxious woman" paradigm, manipulating the inferential goal (dispositional or situational) and the normative impact of situational constraint information (discounting or augmenting). In each study, U.S. and EA participants under cognitive load produced strong automatic attributions to the focus of their inferential goal (dispositional or situational). Compared with the U.S. cognitive load participants, U.S. no load participants corrected their attributions according to the normative rules of inference. In contrast, EA no load participants corrected in the direction of situational causality, even when the specific content of the situational information provided should have promoted stronger dispositional inferences. Studies 4 and 5 examined and ruled out alternative accounts. Results are discussed in terms of a situational causality heuristic present in EA individuals.     

Causal Attribution and Perceived Realism of Stories

Just as people generate causal explanations for social events around them, story readers usually generate inferences about causality of events when reading a story. The attribution literature suggests that, when judging events that happen to others, people spontaneously generate dispositional explanations for negative events and situational explanations for positive events and the reverse when judging events that happen to themselves. Three experiments examined how these spontaneously generated inferences of causality interacted with causal explanations provided by the text of a story to influence perceived realism. The results indicate that the relationship between spontaneously generated causal attributions and information supplied by the story had little influence on realism judgments about story characters or about other people. When evaluating the story scenario for the self, however, results of all three experiments show that people find information consistent with their own spontaneous attributions more realistic. The results contribute to our understanding of the psychological processes that may drive realism evaluations of stories and possible contrasting mechanisms between attributions in story worlds and the social world.     

Ambiguity of acceptance,social desirability,and dating choice

Male subjects differing in social desirability (likableness, physical attractiveness) chose a date from an array of females of three levels of physical attractiveness. Choices were made under two conditions: one where acceptance was assured regardless of whom subject chose; the other where acceptance was left ambiguous. The findings were as follows: (a) subjects selected a more physically attractive female when assured of acceptance than when acceptance was left ambiguous; (b) subjects estimated that highly physically attractive females were less likely to accept them as a date than were either moderately physically attractive or physically unattractive females; (c) subjects' self-ratings of their likableness were not related to the physical attractiveness of their choices under either choice condition nor to their estimates of their chances that the females would accept them as a date; and (d) subjects' self-evaluated physical attractiveness, although unrelated to the physical attractiveness of the subjects' choices, did relate to subjects' estimates of their chances of acceptance. Highly physically attractive subjects estimated their chances of acceptance as better than did subjects who considered themselves low in physical attractiveness. The implications of the findings for the “matching hypothesis” are discussed.     

Defining the locus of developmental differences in children's causal reasoning

Five experiments were performed in the area of children's causal reasoning to validate a previously reported developmental difference, to examine the role of a possible mediating mechanism, and to test a number of competing theoretical interpretations. As previously, the regularity of a cause-effect pairing influenced the causal attributions of 8- and 9-year-olds but not of 5- and 6-year olds; the results were found not to be artifacts of either a response induced commitment to choosing a particular object or the brevity of the exposure period. The developmental difference also was not explained by discrepant encoding of the term “cause,” by memorial deficiencies, or by differences in criteria for drawing causal inferences. Instead, it appeared that greater perceptual distractibility prevented the younger children from searching for and finding the temporally invariant relationship hypothesized to be crucial to inferring causality in the experimental situation.     

Implications for interaction versus effectance as mediators of the similarity-attraction relationship

The rewards of interaction interpretation of the similarity-attraction relationship implies that this relationship should be stronger when similarity has stronger implications for the quality of interaction. In contrast, the reinforcement-affect (D. Byrne & G. L. Clore, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1967, 6(Whole No. 638)) interpretation suggests that similarity should affect attraction most for characteristics that are most “important” to the perceiver. Three experiments tested these predictions. In Experiments 1 and 2, subjects rated eight strangers who were similar or dissimilar with respect to four opinion categories. With item importance held constant, the magnitude of the similarity-attraction relationship was greater for opinion categories with greater implications for interaction. In Experiment 3, item sets were constructed using subjects' own ratings of item importance and of amount of information conveyed about interaction. The magnitude of the similarity-attraction relationship was significantly related to the interaction ratings of item sets, but not to their importance ratings. The meaning of the concept of item “importance”, and the potential of the rewards of interaction formulation for generation of research are discussed.     

Dispositional attribution: multiple inferences about motive-related traits

This research views dispositional inference as a process whereby perceivers integrate multiple inferences about a target person's motives and traits. The findings suggest that although perceived motives may stimulate extra attributional processing (S. Fein, 1996), the content of the inferred motive is important as well. Perceivers learned about situational forces implying that a target person had free choice, no choice, or an ulterior motive for helpful behavior. Inferences about the target's helpfulness differed depending on whether the target's behavior was attributed to an obedience motive (no-choice condition) or to a selfish motive (ulterior-motive condition). In general, inferences about motives were more predictive of dispositional inferences than were global causal attributions (to situational vs. dispositional forces) or base rate assumptions.     

Fairness and preference

Two equity models were evaluated by fitting them to subjects' judgments of the fairness of payment distributions to “self” and “other” under hypothetical work situations. Neither the E. Walster, G. W. Walster, and E. Berscheid (Equity: Theory and Research, Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1978) equity formulation nor Harris' (Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1976, 12, 194–209) linear model adequately accounted for the fairness judgments regardless of whether self worked more or less than other. Subjects also were asked to indicate their most preferred payment distributions and these preferences were significantly different from the fairness judgments. Results suggested that fairness judgments were influenced by a bias in the direction of overpayment to self.     

Third party instigated aggression as a function of attack pattern and a nonaggressive response option

In the present study, subjects suggested what shock intensity a confederate should set for her opponent in a reaction time competition. Opponents displayed one of three attack patterns: increasing, decreasing, or minimal provocation. Also, for half the subjects a “no shock” option was available. A control group who had the nonaggressive option and for whom the opponent was nonaggressive (always chose “no shock”) was included. Results revealed that subjects' responses were governed by the norm of reciprocity; also the option reduced instigative aggression for subjects encountering increasing and decreasing provocation, while elevating aggressive response when the opponent was minimally provocative. Results are discussed in terms of attribution and locus of control.     

Self-directed attention and the comparison of self with standards

Several theorists have assumed that self-directed attention causes a comparison between one's present behavior or state and whatever is salient and relevant as a standard of comparison. Indirect evidence bearing on this assumption was gathered in a series of four studies by monitoring subjects' tendencies to access concrete information needed to make such behavior-standard comparisons. Self-focus was varied in two of these studies by experimental manipulations: a mirrored surface, and a live observer. In the other two studies, self-focus was operationalized in terms of subjects' dispositional tendencies to direct attention to themselves (self-consciousness). Consistent with expectations, in Experiments 1 and 2, self-directed attention led to increased frequency of referring to drawings of geometric figures when attempting to reproduce them. In Experiments 3 and 4, self-focused attention increased subjects' tendencies to seek out information about ostensible performance norms reflecting the behavior of other subjects, also as predicted.     

Dispositional and situational moderators of female and male causal attributions

To increase understanding of the relationships between gender and causal attributions, dispositional and situational variables were examined to determine if they affected causal attributions differently if the subjects were females or males. Four dispositional variables—locus of control, neuroticism, achievement motivation, and self-esteem—and five situational variables—expectancy of success, self-reported commitment, perceived productivity, perceived task complexity, and actual performance—were examined for their moderating effects on the gender-causal attributional relationships. The dispositional variables did not moderate any causal relationships. By comparison, four situational variables—performance, commitment, productivity, and complexity—moderated at least one of the gender-attribution relationships. It was concluded that more attention should be directed to the identification of situational moderators.     

The response to injustice: Effects of varying levels of social support and position of advantage or disadvantage

This study investigated the effects of varying levels of social support as well as position of advantage or disadvantage on subjects' response to injustice. Conditions of advantage and disadvantage were established by randomly assigning one member of each experimental dyad to a method of working which prevented him/her from earning points for prizes. Three levels of social support (“none,” “peer,” “authoritative”) were created. Advantaged and disadvantaged subjects receiving authoritative support for the possibility of change and disadvantaged subjects receiving peer support in the form of divided opinion statements rated the system as less fair than either group in the absence of support or the advantaged receiving only peer support. Disadvantaged subjects evidenced a tendency to assume personal responsibility for their lower outcomes. Social support reduced this tendency but did not eliminate it.     

Self-attention,concept activation,and the causal self

Two experiments examined the relationship between the accessibility of selfreferent information and attributions of causal responsibility to the self. The first study introduced a priming technique, in which subjects used either first-person or third-person terms in a story construction task, to directly access self-referent or other-referent thought. It was found that self-attributions for hypothetical outcomes were greater for those subjects whose earlier stories were focused on the self. The second study, rather than activate self-referent cognition in a general fashion, sought to explicitly prime the notion of a “causal self.” In addition to self-referent or other-referent words, subjects were also given words that evoked notions of either causality or noncausality to be incorporated into their stories. Contingent activation of both “self” and “causal” notions subsequently resulted in greater self-attributions than any other experimental condition. Recall and recognition data from Experiment 2 were generally consistent with the contention that a specific and differentiated component of the self-schema had been accessed. The results of both studies, as well as the novel “self-priming” technique, are discussed in terms of self-awareness theory.