Personalism and cognitive labels as determinants of attitude attribution

An experiment was conducted to test hypotheses derived from Jones and Davis’ (1965) theory of correspondent inferences in conjunction with research on emotional misattribution effects. Subjects were informed that they had ingested either a stimulant or a tranquilizer (label). They then read an emotional, counterattitudinal essay which was written either personally for them or for another subject (personalism). The primary dependent variable was the attitude on the issue in question attributed to the author of the communication. The results showed that the subjects who read the more personal communication made more extreme attributions concerning the attitude of the author of the essay than did the subjects who read the less personal communication. In addition, subjects who were informed that they had received a tranquilizer made more extreme attitude attributions than subjects who were informed that they had received a stimulant. The implications of the results of the experiment for Jones and Davis’ principles of personalism and hedonic relevance are discussed.     

Outcome expectancy,locus of attribution for expectancy,and self-directed attention as determinants of evaluations and performance

Are internal versus external attributions of responsibility for prior outcomes important determinants of subsequent performances? or is their effect limited to influencing the affective and evaluative experiences that are associated with the task outcomes? Recent theoretical statements appear to differ on this issue. The present study examined the question, while at the same time testing the influence of self-directed attention on the process under investigation. Subjects attempted a series of mazes in collaboration with an ostensible cosubject (actually a confederate). The pair experienced either three consecutive sucesses or three consecutive failures. Subjects were led to perceive the responsibility for these outcomes as residing primarily with themselves or primarily with their partner. Self-focus was manipulated (by a mirror) prior to attempting a fourth maze and completing a set of rating scales. Success-condition subjects performed better on the fourth maze in the mirror's presence than in its absence, whereas failure-condition subjects tended to perform more poorly in the mirror's presence than in its absence. The manipulation of internal versus external attributions did not influence behavior, but did influence subjects' affective and evaluative reactions to themselves and their partner. Discussion centers on the relationship between these findings and other recent findings in the areas of attribution and achievement-related behavior.     

Perceiving choice and constraint: the effects of contextual and behavioral cues on attitude attribution

We examined how features of the situation and the target's behavior in the attitude-attribution paradigm may lead observers to infer that the behavior was performed purposefully and how these perceptions may contribute to correspondence bias. Experiment 1 demonstrated that cues suggesting that essay assignment resulted from the target's purposeful action lead to correspondent inferences. When these cues were absent, observers' inferences were not correspondent. Experiment 2 demonstrated that observers are sensitive to cues emitted by the target (facial expressions of delight and disappointment) and that those cues' meaning depends on the context in which they take place. When the essay was freely chosen, the expression had little effect; observers judged that the essay accurately reflected the target's attitudes. When the essay assignment was constrained, observers used the expressions to discount the essay when judging the target's attitudes. We discuss the implications of these findings for the study of correspondent inferences and correspondence bias.     

Counselor and client personality as determinants of counselor expectancy effects

Seventy-eight students enrolled in summer-session college courses were randomly assigned to serve either as counselors or as clients for a 20-min, role-played peer counseling session. All of the subjects completed a battery of standardized personality measures. Each counselor interacted with two clients. Prior to the sessions, the counselor was led to believe that one of the clients was especially introverted and that the other client was especially extraverted. Dependent measures were based on clients' change scores on a mood adjective rating scale administered before and after the peer counseling sessions. Analyses showed that counselors who were more successful at biasing their clients in the direction of their expectancies (a) scored higher on measures of Dogmatism, Nurturance, and Social Recognition, (b) scored lower on Impulsivity, and (c) were more likely to be women. Clients who were more susceptible to counselor bias scored higher on the Self-Monitoring Scale, the Self-Monitoring Other-Directedness subscale, and Social Recognition. These results are discussed in light of previous research and their implications for research on interpersonal expectancy effects.     

Cognitive schemas and thought as determinants of attitude change

It was hypothesized that thought would result in greater attitude polarization than distraction and that this effect would be more pronounced with better developed schemas (naive theories) for thinking about the attitude object. In Study 1, it was reasoned that persons have better developed schemas (e.g., implicit personality theories) for thinking about individuals than for thinking about groups. In Study 2, it was reasoned that men have better developed schemas for thinking about football and women have better developed schemas for thinking about women's fashions. In both studies, the hypothesis was significantly confirmed.     

Belief similarity and attitude similarity as determinants of interpersonal attraction

It was predicted that attraction would be a function of both attitude similarity and belief similarity, but that attitude similarity would have the greater influence. In Expt I, 60 subjects were presented with strangers that were either similar or dissimilar on attitude and on belief. Attraction was a positive function of both attitude similarity (p < .05) and belief similarity (p < .01). Experiment II replicated and extended Expt I with the addition of a 50% similar group for both attitude and belief. Attraction was a positive linear function of both attitude similarity (p < .001) and belief similarity (p < .02); departure from linearity was not significant. Attitude similarity also had greater effects on other aspects of interpersonal evaluation than belief similarity. The results were discussed in terms of the locus of reinforcement of attitude similarity and of belief similarity.     

Persuasive argumentation and social comparison as determinants of attitude polarization

Several of our studies indicate that persuasive-arguments theory by itself is an adequate explanation of polarization. Sanders and Baron (Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 1977, 13, 303–314) criticize this research. More generally, they contend that both argumentation and comparison are involved, “with persuasive arguments facilitating the shifts motivated by social comparison.” We feel that their critique is unconvincing. Relevant portions of the standard literature are reviewed to demonstrate that social comparison is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for polarization. Finally, we speculate about how persuasive-arguments theory could be extended to argument-poor settings (e.g., Asch's line comparison situation).     

Exploring sex differences in expectancy,attribution, and academic achievement

Two studies were carried out to explore if sex differences in expectancy and attribution of achievement are related to sex differences in academic performance. Study I investigated expectancy and attribution of achievement, operationalized as grade point index, among 176 male and 116 female college freshmen. Men were found to form higher expectations for future grades. Attributions measured through assigning percentage weights to ability, luck, effort, and difficulty as causal explanations of one's grade point index showed that men make more ability and women more effort attributions. Despite these differences in expectancy and attribution patterns, men and women were found not to differ in their performance. In Study II 120 college freshmen, half of them male, half female, filled out questionnaires before and after a midterm examination. A subsample of 49 also completed the Bem Sex Role Inventory. The results basically confirm the previous study's findings, except in Study II, men and women gave equally high weights to effort as a cause. The results also show that a feminine sex-role orientation is associated with a debilitating pattern of expectancy and attribution and lower performance, especially among women. Implications of the results for unraveling inconsistencies in the attribution literature and for a need to clarify connotations of femininity are discussed.The author wishes to express her gratitude to the members of the Psychology and Guidance Division of the College of Basic Studies, Boston University, for their assistance in preparing the questionnaire and collecting the data for Study I. Research for Study II was supported by grant MH 31181-01 from the National Institute of Mental Health. Mark Nachbar provided assistance in analyzing the data to both studies. Jan Mokros, Joseph Pleck, and Dan Jaquette provided valuable comments on an earlier version of this article.     

Psychological determinants of decision attitude

Decision attitude — an analog of risk attitude — is the propensity to make (or avoid making) a decision: in decision aversion, a person finds it more desirable to receive through fiat the better of two options than to have a choice between them; in decision seeking, the choice is more desirable, even though it can lead to nothing better than the best option. Both decision aversion and decision seeking were found in hypothetical scenarios. Experimental manipulations and subjects' justifications point to anticipated regret, fear of blame for poor outcomes, and desire for equitable distributions as sources of decision aversion. One source of decision seeking (for self) and decision aversion (when deciding for others) appears to be the desire for the self-determination of the affected parties. We consider the implications of our results for personal choice and public policy decisions.