Cross-National Differences in Attributions of Wealth and Economic Success

Abstract

The influence of social and individual variables on common attributions of wealth was investigated in a cross-national study. Subjects from three countries (Australia, Britain, and the Federal Republic of Germany) provided data about their (a) free-response explanations of the most common sources of wealth, (b) estimates of income levels necessary for “wealth” and for “a decent life,” (c) attribution judgments for the likely causes of wealth in general, and (d) attributions for wealth of specific targets varied by their class and ethnicity. Results suggested broad cross-national similarities in the major explanatory categories but significant differences in the weights given to them. Attributions were dependent on the national and demographic background of the judges, and reactions to target characteristics (class, ethnicity) were also largely nation specific.     

Attributions for affluence

There have been very few psychological studies on explanations for wealth, though there have been a number of studies on explanations for poverty and attributions for success and failure. Previous research on explanations for poverty has indicated that people attributed poverty primarily to societal influences, personal responsibility and fate, and that various demographic factors are associated with different patterns in the explanation for poverty. It was hypothesized that attributions for wealth are of the same kind as those for poverty, but that the salient demographic variables are associated in significantly opposite ways. This study attempted to assess which demographic variables, notably Sex, Education and Voting Pattern, were related to explanations of wealth in Britain. Vote appeared to be a very important variable, with Conservatives rating positive Individualistic explanations, and Labour voters Societal explanations, as most important in explaining wealth. Factor analysis supported the a priori classification of the explanations for wealth. The results are discussed in terms of the psychology of explanations, political socialization and fiscal measures.     

Attributions and politics

Four hundred electors took part in an experiment to test the proposition that political preferences have an effect on how people attribute the determinants of wealth. As predicted, respondents preferred environmental explanations to the causes provided relating to personal qualities. Again as anticipated preferences for environmental interpretations were less pronounced among Conservative party supporters. It was argued that more attention be paid to the attributions of different sections of society and that such findings have important implications both for attribution theory itself and in an improved understanding of the nature of political attitudes.     

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.     

Rich man, poor man: Developmental differences in attributions and perceptions

In an examination guided by cognitive developmental and attribution theory of how explanations of wealth and poverty and perceptions of rich and poor people change with age and are interrelated, 6-, 10-, and 14-year-olds (N=88) were asked for their causal attributions and trait judgments concerning a rich man and a poor man. First graders, like older children, perceived the rich man as more competent than the poor man. However, they had difficulty in explaining wealth and poverty, especially poverty, and their trait perceptions were associated primarily with their attributions of wealth to job status, education, and luck. Fifth and ninth graders more clearly attributed wealth and poverty to the equity factors of ability and effort and based their trait perceptions on these attributions. Although the use of structured attribution questions revealed more understanding among young children than previous studies have suggested, the findings suggest a shift with age in the underlying bases for differential evaluation of rich and poor people from a focus on good outcomes associated with wealth (a good education and job) to a focus on personal qualities responsible for wealth (ability and effort).     

权力对基本归因错误的影响

归因对理解和预测环境有着重要作用。归因的两阶段过程理论认为,自动化加工会衍生内归因,进一步的控制化加工才会导致外归因。社会权力会提升自动化加工倾向,因此,社会权力可能会提升基本归因错误的发生。通过四个研究,对此进行验证。研究1-3通过问卷测量,以特质性权力感作为社会权力的指标,其中研究1通过情境判断测验对基本归因错误进行测量,研究2-3采用自陈量表对基本归因错误进行测量,并对社会经济地位进行了控制。研究4则采用启动的方法启动临时性社会权力,探求社会权力与基本归因错误之间的因果关系。四个研究均得出了一致的结论：高社会权力个体更倾向于内归因。     

Ethnic, gender, and socioeconomic differences in young adults' self-disclosure: who discloses what and to whom?

Self-disclosure of feelings, thoughts, experiences, and beliefs is central to our lives as social beings and has numerous implications for relationships and health. Although prior research suggests that men and underrepresented groups disclose less, ethnicity is conflated with socioeconomic status and there are few data regarding the types of information that different groups disclose and whether this information is disclosed equally to different people. The current study measured self-disclosure in 203 young adults (50% African American, 50% female), in respect of seven domains and 10 interpersonal targets. As expected, disclosure was not lower among African Americans once income was controlled, although both ethnicity and gender interacted with domain of disclosure and interpersonal target. Importantly, young men and African Americans reported disclosing less in the context of more intimate relationships. Together, these results suggest that income may be as important in predicting low disclosure as ethnicity or gender and that lower disclosure in low-disclosing groups is particularly evident in intimate relationships. Results are discussed in terms of their implications for patterns of interpersonal relating and physical and mental health processes.     

Discounting Attributions and Multiple Determinants

The discounting principle in attribution theory was considered a well-established phenomenon until recently, when both the empirical and theoretical basis for discounting have been questioned. Many instances of strong discounting have used measures that constrain explanations, such as a forced-choice and bipolar measures. Two studies were performed simulating Thibaut and Riecken's study of attributions for target persons' compliance to a request, which used a forced-choice measure. In the present studies, a range of measures were used. Responses of two samples of Oxford students and one sample of Oxford teachers indicate that multiple causation was perceived and subjects did not greatly discount either of two relevant causes, but there was nonetheless a compensatory relation between the causes. The results also indicate that the attributions were affected by the social categories of the target person and the subjects.     

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.     

Sampling in developmental science: Situations,shortcomings, solutions,and standards

Sampling is a key feature of every study in developmental science. Although sampling has far-reaching implications, too little attention is paid to sampling. Here, we describe, discuss, and evaluate four prominent sampling strategies in developmental science: population-based probability sampling, convenience sampling, quota sampling, and homogeneous sampling. We then judge these sampling strategies by five criteria: whether they yield representative and generalizable estimates of a study’s target population, whether they yield representative and generalizable estimates of subsamples within a study’s target population, the recruitment efforts and costs they entail, whether they yield sufficient power to detect subsample differences, and whether they introduce “noise” related to variation in subsamples and whether that “noise” can be accounted for statistically. We use sample composition of gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status to illustrate and assess the four sampling strategies. Finally, we tally the use of the four sampling strategies in five prominent developmental science journals and make recommendations about best practices for sample selection and reporting.     

Lay Explanations for Poverty in Turkey and Their Determinants

Abstract

The external and internal causal attributions for poverty in Turkey were examined in an exploratory survey. Factor analysis results confirmed Feagin's 3 conceptual categories (1975) of explanations for poverty, structural, fatalistic, and individualistic. Income, gender, age, and education were important determinants of explanations for poverty. All income groups favored structural (external) explanations. Poor persons preferred more tangible structural explanations, and nonpoor persons gave more abstract structural explanations. Poor persons also favored fatalistic (external) explanations more than higher income groups did. Women and older people offered individualistic and fatalistic explanations more than others. Men and people with higher levels of education preferred abstract structural explanations more than others.     

Social Risk and Attribution: How Considering the Social Risk of Attributions Can Improve the Performance of Kelley's ANOVA Model in Applied Research

Classic models of attribution are increasingly used, despite serious problems with their empirical validation. This study revisits Kelley's (1967 ) ANOVA model of attribution and argues that it will most usefully predict attributions when attributional processes are socially “safe” and have few social consequences. The results demonstrate that attributions are most likely to be inconsistent with Kelley's predictions when attributional information and the attributions themselves are socially consequential or risky, but are more likely to be made as predicted when they are socially safe. Applications of Kelley's model, therefore, should pay attention to the extent to which attributions and attributional information are socially consequential or risky, particularly when analyzing the use of consensus information.     

GRICE'S RAZOR

Abstract: Grice's Razor is a principle of parsimony that states a preference for linguistic explanations in terms of conversational implicature, over explanations in terms of semantic context dependence. Here I propose a Gricean theory of knowledge attributions, and contend on the basis of Grice's Razor that it is superior to contextualism about “knows.”     

Multiple-group membership: warmth and competence perceptions in the workplace

What kinds of stereotypes are evoked when employers review a job application from a 55-year-old Arab woman? Most previous research on stereotypes has focused on single demographic group categories (e.g., race or gender) rather than on their combinations, even though people inevitably belong to multiple group categories simultaneously. The current study examines how different combinations of demographic group categories (ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, and age) are perceived in the context of the workplace, with a focus on two fundamental dimensions of social perception: warmth and competence. The results reveal interesting interactions among the studied demographic group categories such that when stigmatized group categories are added to one another, it does not necessarily produce additive negative effects on warmth and competence perceptions. Rather, one category that is perceived negatively in isolation (e.g., homosexuality) can offset the negative impact of another stigmatized category (e.g., Arab ethnicity). Practical implications for stereotyping and discrimination in the workplace are discussed.

     

Symptomattributionsstile bei Hypochondrie

Background

Somatic symptom attributions are of central importance in cognitive-behavioral models of the development, maintenance and treatment of hypochondriasis. However, the mode of symptom attribution has rarely been systematically investigated in these patients. Is a somatic mode of symptom attribution indeed specific for hypochondriasis and furthermore, how strongly is it associated with “doctor shopping”, a typical behavioral consequence of hypochondriasis?

Patients and methods

In this study 88 hypochondriacal, 52 depressive and 52 healthy persons were asked to complete the symptom interpretations questionnaire and several standardized symptom questionnaires. They also took part in two structured clinical interviews for the diagnosis of hypochondriasis and various other psychological disorders according to DSM-IV.

Results

Somatic symptom attributions were associated specifically with hypochondriasis, while normalizing attributions characterized persons with low health anxiety. When examined as predictors in multiple regression models, in particular somatic attributions and the total of somatoform complaints predicted the intensity of health anxiety (R ²?=?0.69) and “doctor shopping” (R ²?=?0.48).

Conclusion

In the cognitive-behavioral treatment of hypochondriasis, patients should be encouraged to test normalizing explanations as alternatives to habitual somatic attributions of somatic disturbances.     

It’s in your nature: a pluralistic folk psychology

I suggest a pluralistic account of folk psychology according to which not all predictions or explanations rely on the attribution of mental states, and not all intentional actions are explained by mental states. This view of folk psychology is supported by research in developmental and social psychology. It is well known that people use personality traits to predict behavior. I argue that trait attribution is not shorthand for mental state attributions, since traits are not identical to beliefs or desires, and an understanding of belief or desire is not necessary for using trait attributions. In addition, we sometimes predict and explain behavior through appeal to personality traits that the target wouldn’t endorse, and so could not serve as the target’s reasons. I conclude by suggesting that our folk psychology includes the notion that some behavior is explained by personality traits—who the person is—rather than by beliefs and desires—what the person thinks. Consequences of this view for the debate between simulation theory and theory theory, as well as the debate on chimpanzee theory of mind are discussed.     

Using Attributions to Understand the Effects of Explanations on Applicant Reactions: Are Reactions Consistent With the Covariation Principle?1

Research has shown that explanations for selection decisions may influence a variety of applicant perceptions and behavior, but an understanding of how and why this occurs remains largely unknown. This study attempts to understand the effects of explanations by adopting Kelley's (1967, 1972) covariation model of the attribution process. Specifically, explanations that vary on consensus, distinctiveness, and consistency covariation information should produce predictable effects on applicant perceptions and attributions. Results from 2 studies, the first a laboratory study and the second a field study with actual applicants, support the utility of the covariation model for understanding the influence of explanations for selection decisions on locus attributions, fairness, self‐perceptions, and organizational attractiveness. These results suggest that the covariation model may be a useful means to construe the explanation‐attribution‐perception relationship, and thus provide a number of theoretical and practical implications.     

Selective self-disclosure with and without correspondent performance

If people are motivated to elicit attributions from others, are they capable of using attribution theory as a means to this end? To explore this question, subjects were asked to select information to disclose to hypothetical target persons in order to have those target persons make specific attributions about the subjects' traits and abilities. The disclosures conformed well to a model sensitive to the principles of augmentation and discounting. The model considers the causal relevance and value of personal information and whether the self-presenter is given the opportunity to engage in behavior that accomplishes some specific self-presentational objective. The results, in line with the model, showed that subjects having the opportunity to engage in such “correspondent” behavior, are subsequently eager to disclose impediments that highlight the likely presence of highly valued behavioral causes. Subjects without such an opportunity seek to disclose facilitating causal factors that would make an effective performance appear to be more likely should the opportunity later arise.