Figural emphasis and person perception

Based on Jones and Nisbett's (1972) proposition that actor-observer differences in causal attributions derive from differences in attentional focus, it was hypothesized that observers' focus of attention would influence their causal attributions for an actor's behavior. More specifically, it was predicted that the behavior of an actor who was the focus of attention by virtue of some salient physical attribute would be attributed by observers more to dispositional causes and less to situational causes than would the behavior of a less physically salient actor. The manipulations of physical salience were based upon Gestalt laws of figural emphasis in object perception. They included brightness (Study I), motion (Study II), pattern complexity (Study III), and contextual novelty (Studies IV and V). The results revealed that the salinece of the actors' environments (i.e., the other people present) rather than the salience of the actor him/herself had the most consistent influence on causal attributions. When environmental salience was high, behavior was attributed relatively more situationally than when it was low. Prior research findings are considered in light of the proposition that causal attributions for an actor's behavior vary only with the salience of his/her environment, and additional implications of this phenomenon are suggested. Some ambiguities in the application of Gestalt principles to the perception of people are discussed.     

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.     

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”.     

Mediation and production deficiencies in children's judgments of morality

This study investigated the influence of intentions and consequences on moral judgments. Children's and adults' production of inferences about an actor's intentions was assessed separately from their use of intentions as mediators of moral judgments. Two hundred and sixteen kindergarten, fourth grade and adult subjects viewed one of four videotaped episodes in which an actor either intentionally or accidentally produced a positive or negative result. Participants received one of two prompts to produce inferences about the actor's intentions or received no prompt. Each subject rated the actor's intent and the good-ness-badness of the actor. Results supported a mediational deficiency explanation for children's objective moral judgments. Both 6- and 10-year-old children made reliable, adult-like inferences of intentions. However, children's moral evaluations were based primarily on objective consequences while adults' evaluations were based primarily on the intentions of the actor. Young children did have intentionality information available, yet even with prompting this information did not mediate their judgments in an adult-like way; suggesting that there may be a period in development during which the child understands and produces subjective inferences but does not use this information as a basis for moral judgments.     

Active and passive observers' attraction to a self-disclosing other

Active observer (participant) subjects were induced to make either a high or a low intimacy disclosure about themselves to a partner. Their (videotaped confederate) partner then disclosed either intimately or non-intimately in return. The impressions and attributions of these subjects were compared to the predictions of passive observer subjects (non-participants) who were each furnished with the original instructions, heard a tape recording of a different active observer's disclosure, and watched the same videotape of the confederate that person had seen. As expected, both active observers' responses and passive observers' predictions indicated a preference for the intimate partner. In addition, passive observers' attraction predictions were less positive than active observers' reports. But contrary to the hypotheses, passive observers predicted that active observers would attribute the partner's disclosure more to personalistic causes than was actually the case, and guessed inaccurately that active observers would interpret the partner's intimacy as an indicator of attraction. The methodological implications of these active-passive observer differences for research in self-disclosure and relationships are discussed.     

The actor's behavioral history,his current role,and the divergence between actor and observer responsibility attributions

The actor's behavioral (High or Low) and role (High, Medium, or Low) respectability were varied in an actor-observer attribution study. A scenario described the actor's background combination of behavioral and role respectability and an event in which the actor participated. Subjects assigned actor and situational responsibilities to the event from their own viewpoint and from their perceptions of the actor's viewpoint. Subjects' awareness of the attributional divergence between actors and observers (Jones, E. E. & Nisbett, R. E. In Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior. New York: General Learning Press, 1971) and the information (public versus private) utilized by each were reflected in the results.     

Attibution of attitudes to speakers and listeners under assigned-behavior conditions: Does behavior engulf the field?

A conceptual replication of the assigned-behavior conditions of previous research in attitude attribution was conducted. Participants made attitude attributions about themselves and also about others who had either given, listened to, or not been exposed to either a proattitudinal or counterattitudinal essay. The position adopted in the essay significantly affected the attitudes attributed to those assigned to deliver the essay. Essay position had an equally strong effect upon attitudes attributed to those who merely listened to the essay, however. Thus, the fact that the actor had delivered a particular assigned essay apparently did not in itself convey information to the observers about the actor's attitudes. Experimental results suggested that essay direction affects attitudes attitudes attributed to others in an assigned-behavior setting because observers use their own attitudes to infer the attitudes of others. Since observers' own attitudes change after exposure to different essays, they attribute different attitudes to others.     

Causal attributions for behaviors consistent or inconsistent with an actor's personality traits: Differences between those offered by actors and observers

The present research was designed to investigate differences in the attributions offered from the actor's perspective and the observer's perspective. It was predicted that causal attributions for behaviors inconsistent with an actor's personality traits would be more situational when offered from the actor's perspective than when offered from the observer's perspective. In contrast, it was predicted that causal attributions for behaviors consistent with an actor's personality traits would be more dispositional when offered from the actor's perspective than when offered from the observer's perspective. Consistent with these hypotheses, extraverts explained introverted behaviors and introverts explained extraverted behaviors more situationally from the actor's perspective than from the observer's perspective. Furthermore, extraverts explained extraverted behaviors and introverts explained introverted behaviors more dispositionally from the actor's perspective than from the observer's perspective. These differences in the attributions offered by actors and observers were attenuated but not eliminated when attributors had access to useful situational information with which to apply the discounting principle.     

Observer orientation and actor-observer differences in attributions for failure

In a series of two experiments, male undergraduates either operated or watched another person operate a model racecar set. Instructions varied observers' expectancies about future involvement with the task. The drivers' causal attributions for their performance were compared with those of neutral observers as well as those of involved observers who anticipated running on the track. Predictions, derived from the Jones and Nisbett framework of actor/observer differences, were that actors should make more external than internal attributions and that neutral or “passive” observers should do the opposite. Moreover, the involved or “active” observer groups were expected to display attributional patterns similar to those of the actors. These predictions were confirmed. Results are discussed in terms of information and information-processing differences between groups.     

Processing the information contained in another's behavior

This study investigates attributions based on behavior congruent with situational demands (in-role) and those based on behavior incongruent with situational demands (out-of-role). By analyzing these processes in terms of a Bayesian inference model, it was possible to determine (a) the diagnostic values observers intially assign to behaviors, (b) the actual informational impact of these behaviors, and (c) the degree of optimality in processing information contained therein. The main results can be summarized as follows: (1) The diagnostic value and actual informational impact of out-of-role behaviors were much higher than those of inrole behaviors. (2) Information about out-of-role behaviors was less optimally processed than information about in-role behaviors. (3) Observers assigned smaller diagnostic values to behaviors which were described in great detail than to behaviors which were described in summary statements. (4) Observers' attitudes influenced their initial beliefs about the actors but not the processing of new information about the actor. (5) The Bayesian inference model predicted observers' inferences reasonably well.     

Determinants of social perception in a naturalistic setting

Based upon the assumption that personality traits exist more in the eye of the observer than is actually reflected in the actions of the actor, Jones and Nisbett have proposed that a negative relationship exists between familiarity with an actor's behavioral history and the tendency to attribute traits to that individual. An alternative viewpoint is suggested by the present research. Members of a college fraternity attributed more personality traits to themselves than were attributed to them by their fellow members. In addition, the fraternity members tended to offer more dispositional attributions to other members with whom they were more familiar. Furthermore, evidence is presented that is suggestive of the validity of these attributions. It is concluded that the attribution of personality traits provides attributors with information that is both veridical and useful in guiding social interactions.     

Inferential processes in the forced compliance situation: A Bayesian analysis

The attribution made by an observer (O) to an actor in the forced compliance situation was regarded as a probability revision process which can be described by a Bayesian inference model. Os' perceptions of the forced compliance situation were analyzed in terms of the input components into the Bayesian model: prior probabilities of the relevant attitudes and the diagnostic values of the behaviors which the actor may choose. In order to test propositions made by attribution theory about such perceptions (Kelley, 1967;Messick, 1971), Os viewed actors under conditions of Low Inducement (LI) and High Inducement (HI). Before observing the actor's decision, Os estimated the prior probabilities of the relevant attitudes and the conditional probabilities of compliance and refusal given each of the attitudes. After observing the actor's decision, Os estimated the posterior probabilities of the attitudes. As expected, in the LI condition, compared to the HI condition, compliance was seen as less probable and more diagnostic about the actor's attitudes, and the posterior probability of the corresponding attitude was higher. Contrary to expectations, within both conditions, compliance, compared to refusal, was seen as less diagnostic and more probable.     

Focus of attention and causal attributions of actors and observers

An experiment was conducted to test the hypothesis that actors' and observers' causal attributions are a function of their focus of attention. In the presence of observer-subjects, actor-subjects made a choice among several art works in a supposed decision-making study. The experiment was a 2 × 2 × 2 factorial design with the factors (1) source of attribution (actors, observers); (2) camera (actor videotaped, actor not videotaped); and (3) situational stability (stable, dynamic environment). As predicted by the focus of attention-causal attribution notion, it was found that actors attributed more causality to the situation than observers under normal circumstances, when the camera was not operative, but that videotaping the actor reversed the usual actor-observer pattern such that actors attributed less causality to the situation than did observers. Further, when the environment was stable, actors attributed more causality to the situation in the no camera condition than in the camera condition, while observers attributed less to the situation in the no camera conditions than in the camera conditions. Additionally, both actors and observers attributed more causality to the situation when the environment was dynamic than when the environment was stable.     

Relationships between job evaluation ratings and self-ratings of job characteristics

Self-ratings by 308 shop workers of their job variety, autonomy, task identity, and skill challenge correlate significantly with ratings by observers of the jobs' skill requirements. Self-ratings, however, are unrelated to observers' estimates of the physical demands of the jobs or to environmental conditions of the work. The self-ratings and observer measures provide complementary, not substitute, information. Self-ratings can signal person-job dysfunctions, and more objective job measures can identify possible sources of the dysfunctions. Modifications to job characteristics measures are discussed and suggestions are made to begin a new phase of programmatic job characteristics research.     

Self-evaluative effects of temporal and social comparison

Social and temporal comparisons are two fundamental information sources for evaluating one’s characteristics and abilities. The current study demonstrates that when social comparison (where people’s performance stood in the overall distribution) and temporal comparison (whether performance improved or deteriorated over time) information are both provided, each independently influences actors’ self-evaluations of task performance and ability. In contrast, yoked observer participants paid virtually no attention to temporal comparison information, preferring to evaluate actors based solely on their status relative to others. Furthermore, when the feedback actors received suggested that they were getting worse, their self-evaluation ratings were approximately equal to that of the observers who had access to the same information. However, when their fortunes improved over time, actors used this temporal information as a basis for evaluating themselves more favorably than observers. We argue that both egocentrism and self-enhancement account for the differences between actors’ and observers’ performance evaluations.     

The “false consensus effect”: An egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes

Evidence from four studies demonstrates that social observers tend to perceive a “false consensus” with respect to the relative commonness of their own responses. A related bias was shown to exist in the observers' social inferences. Thus, raters estimated particular responses to be relatively common and relatively unrevealing concerning the actors' distinguishing personal dispositions when the responses in question were similar to the raters' own responses; responses differing from those of the rater, by contrast, were perceived to be relatively uncommon and revealing of the actor. These results were obtained both in questionnaire studies presenting subjects with hypothetical situations and choices and in authentic conflict situations. The implications of these findings for our understanding of social perception phenomena and for our analysis of the divergent perceptions of actors and observers are discussed. Finally, cognitive and perceptual mechanisms are proposed which might account for distortions in perceived consensus and for corresponding biases in social inference and attributional processes.     

Actors' and observers' attributions for success and failure: A comparative test of predictions from Kelley's cube,self-serving bias,and positivity bias formulations

An experiment was conducted to test implications of Kelley's cube, self-serving bias, and positivity bias formulations for attributions associated with success and failure on a test of “abstract reasoning.” Subjects either experienced or observed outcomes on three tasks. They then made attributions for only the third outcome, which was either a success or a failure. The first task was of the same type and had the same outcome as the third task, thus providing the information that the outcome being attributed was high in consistency. The second task was of a different type than the first and third tasks, and its outcome either did or did not differ from their outcomes, thus varying information about the distinctiveness of the outcome being attributed. Consensus was manipulated by presenting false norms, ostensibly from a previous experiment. In contrast to previous research, the present study included thorough checks on all of these informational manipulations. Regardless of attributor role (actor or observer), subjects attributed success more to internal than to external factors and attributed failure more to external than to internal factors. These findings indicate a general bias toward positive evaluations. Discussion centers on possible alternative interpretations of these findings, restrictions on their generality, and the limitations that they seem to impose on the applicability of the other two formulations.     

Audience reaction as a determinant of the speaker's self-persuasion

This paper tests effects of audience feedback on speaker attitudes. One hundred and seven male subjects with initial beliefs on both sides of an issue (women's role) were assigned to speak for or against their own position; then an “audience” provided one of three types of feedback (speaker was sincere, speaker was insincere, no feedback) in a 2 × 2 × 3 design. Subjects who received sincere feedback showed greater change in the direction of their speech than did those who received insincere feedback. No feedback treatments resulted in intermediate change. This sincere > no feedback > insincere ordering of means held for both pro- and counterattitudinal speakers and for both pretest attitudes. A main effect for pretest attitude was also obtained. Two additional control groups allow for a separate analysis of the effects of (1) preparing and delivering the speech, and (2) audience reaction to the speech.     

Children's and adults' integration of information about noise and interest levels in their judgments about learning

This study examined developmental changes in the understanding of distractibility. It focused on how information about both interest level and noise level are used to form judgments of how many items a hypothetical child would learn. A total of 112 subjects from grades K, 2, and 5 and college age used a rating scale to judge the amount of learning in situations generated by a factorial combining of three levels of interest and three levels of surrounding noise. Children at all ages, even kindergarteners, used both noise and interest information in making their judgments. Interest level influenced judgments much more than noise level at all ages, but this imbalance waned somewhat with increasing age. The rules for combining noise and interest were more complex at the older ages. The discussion focused on interpretations of the subjects' belief that interest level heavily influences attentiveness.