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.     

Actors' and Observers' attributions,self-serving bias and positivity bias

An experiment was conducted to investigate the influence of evaluative factors upon preference for situational and dispositional attributions. Subjects listened to a tape recording of a group discussion on smoking, two actors presenting arguments in favour of smoking and two actors arguing against smoking. Subjects were then asked to explain in attributional terms the actors' behaviour and their own smoking behaviour, their evaluation of smoking being separately assessed. Results provided no support for a general self-other attributional difference; subjects did not explain their own behaviour in more situational terms while explaining the behaviour of others in more dispositional terms. Findings indicated that individuals generally attributed positively evaluated behaviour to dispositional factors and negatively evaluated behaviour to situational factors, regardless of attributor role (actor or observer). The results are interpreted as offering support for a positivity bias in attributional preference.     

Remembering less and inferring more: effects of time of judgment on inferences about unknown attributes

Perceivers often infer the values of unknown attributes from evaluative expectancies. In 2 experiments, inferences about unknown attributes of a target made shortly after initial processing tended to be moderate, as perceivers presumably adjusted for the lack of directly relevant evidence. However, stronger inferences were drawn with the passage of time as memory of the absence of information faded. Expertise moderated this effect, as subjects highly knowledgeable of the target domain were much less likely than low or moderate knowledge subjects to draw extreme inferences over time. Memory-based inferences about unknown attributes were also found to be held with greater confidence than inferences made shortly after stimulus presentation.     

The relationship between expertise and evaluative extremity: the moderating role of experts' task characteristics

Past research has yielded contradictory results with regard to the relationship between expertise and evaluative extremity. The authors suggest that this apparent contradiction is due to the task characteristics of the expert activity. The primary task of certain experts is to formulate overall (configural) judgments and to generate clear, unambiguous answers. These experts tend to give relatively extreme evaluations. Other experts generally communicate the implications of the different choice alternatives and explain featural aspects of the stimuli. These experts are characterized by relatively moderate evaluations. The research reported in this article shows that experts whose expert activity involves configural judgments tend to make more extreme evaluations than experts who generally provide others with featural explanations. It also demonstrates that experts' task characteristics affect the way they store stimulus-relevant attributes in memory.     

Effect of prolonged deprivation on attributional style

The effects of prolonged deprivation and outcome on attributional style were examined in a 2 x 2 factorial design with two levels of deprivation (high and low) and two levels of outcome (good and bad). Indian subjects (N = 80) were selected on the basis of extreme scores on a prolonged deprivation scale; they provided an attributional style scale of good and bad outcome situations. High-deprived subjects attributed bad outcomes to more internal, stable, and global causes compared with low-deprived subjects. In addition, high-deprived subjects showed internal attributions of a stable and global type for both bad and good outcomes.     

Judging risk behaviour and risk preference: The role of the evaluative connotation of risk terms

Two experiments investigate the impact of the evaluative connotation of risk terms on the judgment of risk behaviour and on risk preference. In the first experiment we focus on (1) the evaluation congruence of the risk terms with a general risk norm and (2) with subjects' individual risk preference, and its effects on the extremity of judgments of risk behaviour. In the second experiment we address (3) the effects of evaluative connotation of risk terms on risk preference. In the first experiment subjects were presented with four decision problems, each with a risky and a cautious decision option, and were required to judge options. Results showed that the judged discrepancy between the risky and cautious option was larger on scales which were evaluatively congruent with the general risk norm for that specific decision problem or with subjects' individual preference. More specificly, in decision problems for which there was considerable consensus about the risk-norm judgments were more extreme on scales which were congruent with the risk norm, in those problems lacking a clear-cut risk-norm judgments were more extreme on scales congruent with subjects' individual risk preference. In the second experiment we studied the reverse relation between the evaluative connotation of risk terms and risk preference. This experiment demonstrates that using evaluatively biased risk terms can affect risk preference. Using terms which imply a positive evaluation of risk-taking and a negative evaluation of risk avoidance led to increased risk preference, and vice versa. Results are discussed in the context of accentuation theory.     

When violations of perfect duties do not cause strong trait attributions

It is well documented that violations of perfect duties (duties that can never be violated by moral agents) cause strong trait attributions. Brown, Trafimow, and Gregory (2005) found an exception to this general principle when the violation is performed under extreme circumstances. In the present research, we hypothesized that extreme circumstances are not necessary to weaken the attributional effect of violations of perfect duties provided that the violations were performed to help another person. Two experiments were performed in which target people violated perfect or imperfect duties for an unspecified reason or to help a third party. As expected, perfect duty violations did not result in strong trait attributions when they were performed to help someone, although they did result in strong trait attributions otherwise. Thus, the data support that the motive to help is sufficient to eliminate correspondent inferences to perfect duty violations.     

Trust and communicated attributions in close relationships

The attributional statements intimate partners communicate to one another were examined as a function of trust. In discussions by 35 married couples, 850 attributions and corresponding events were coded on dimensions of valence, globality, and locus. Results of regression and contingency analyses indicate that attributional statements expressed in high-trust relationships emphasized positive aspects of the relationship. Medium-trust couples actively engaged issues but focused more on negative events and explanations. Low-trust couples expressed more specific, less affectively extreme attributional statements that minimized the potential for increased conflict. Results could not be accounted for by relationship satisfaction. These findings also highlight the importance of focusing on features of the events for which attributions are expressed.     

Language and Implicit Attributions in the Nuremberg Trials Analyzing Prosecutors’and Defense Attorneys’Closing Speeches

The attributional implications of prosecutors’and defense attorneys’language strategies were investigated, using the protocols of the historical Nuremberg trials. Statements from both perspectives about four German Nazi generals were coded at the sentence level with regard to three aspects: the reference of the sentence subject to the defendant (specific vs. diffuse), the linguistic category of the sentence predicate (action verbs, state verbs, adjectives), and the evaluative tone of the utterance (negative, neutral, positive). Distinct language patterns were demonstrated for the opposing parties, reflecting theoretical predictions about the attributional implications of specific linguistic tools. Apart from the fact that the same defendant's behavior was described in more positive terms by defense attorneys than prosecutors, the two sides used a number of less obtrusive, more subtle strategies. In particular, defense attorneys tended to raise positive defendant attributes to a higher level of linguistic abstractness, avoided direct person references for negative statements, and projected unavoidable negative statements onto the prosecution. In contrast, prosecutors produced the highest rate of action verbs, which implicitly suggest internal attributions of responsibility. In addition to direct negative references to the individual defendant, they also used global references to the defendant's Nazi in-group to convey the inherently negative meaning of the defendant's behavior. In general, these findings mirror previous results on the role of language in interpersonal and intergroup settings.