Perspective Effects on Causal Attributions of Success and Failure

The performance attributions of actors (participants on a task or in an interaction), active observers (co-actors who make observations of the actor) and passive observers (non-participants who observe but do not interact with the actor) were compared on a task in which actors succeeded or failed after competing or working independently. Contrary to Jones and Nisbett's (1971) divergent perspectives hypothesis, the results indicated that the subjects' person attributions were influenced interactively by the actor's outcome and the subjects' perspective while their situation attributions were influenced interactively by their perspective and the nature of the task. The implications of these findings for the divergent perspectives hypothesis were discussed.     

Empathy and attribution: turning observers into actors.

A laboratory experiment was conducted to test Jones and Nisbett's information-processing explanation of the often-observed tendency for individuals (actors) to provide relatively more situational and less dispositional causal attributions for their behavior than those provided by observers of the same behavior. According to this explanation, aspects of the situation are phenomenologically more salient for actors, whereas characteristics of the actor and his behavior are more salient for observers. To test this explanation, the phenomenological perspective of observers are altered without making available any additional information. Subjects watched a videotape of a get-acquainted conversation after instructions either to observe a target conversant or to empathize with her. As predicted, taking the perspective of the target through empathy resulted in attributions that were relatively more situational and less dispositional than attributions provided by standard observers. The results support Jones and Nisbett's information-processing explanation of actor-observer attributional differences, and shed additional light on the process of empathy.     

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.     

Trait and situational attributions in a naturalistic setting: Familiarity, liking, and attribution validity

Student dormitory advisors (n = 16) made trait/situation attributions to themselves and also identified three friends and three acquaintances. Friends (n = 41) and acquaintances (n = 43) then made attributions to themselves along with attributions and familiarity ratings of the advisors who identified them. The actor-observer effect was obtained for situational but not for trait attributions, both when advisors' self-attributions were compared to attributions made about them by friends and acquaintances (common target) and when the latter's self attributions were compared to their target attributions (common rater). Among friends and acquaintances, target familiarity was positively related to trait attributions and was negatively related to uncertainty attributions. Also, familiarity was positively related to the validity of situational but not of trait attributions. It was concluded that familiarity appears to influence the process of attribution, but differentially for dispositional vs. situational attributions and for actor-observer differences vs. observer variations in attributions. Moreover, increased information about the actor as a result of greater familiarity may lead to both more accurate and more favorable attributions.     

Attitudes and the attribution of mental disorder

Among the problems of understanding mental pathology through a labeling perspective is the need to understand more about the attributional process itself. It is postulated that characteristics of observers, in particular their attitudes, influence the attribution of mental disorder to individuals manifesting deviant behavior. Questionnaire items were factor analyzed to produce several dimensions of attitudes and types of deviance. Tests of seven sub‐hypotheses provide support for the major hypothesis that the probability mental disorder will be attributed by an observer to an actor is positively related to the degree an actor's behavior (implying beliefs or attitudes) differs from the beliefs and attitudes of the observer.     

On the relationship between empathy and the actor versus observer hypothesis

Subjects listened to a tape recording of a dyadic interaction. It was predicted that the observational set instructions received by the subjects (to empathize with one member of the dyad or not to empathize with this person) would create evaluation effects similar to those created for attributions of responsibility by actor-observer differences: The actor would receive credit for his positive outcome and blame for his negative outcome more when evaluated by nonempathizing observers, and the social environment would receive credit and blame for the actor's outcomes more when evaluated by empathizing observers. The predicted three-way interaction was obtained. Additional results are discussed in terms of previous empathy research.     

Why did he do it? attribution of obedience and the phenomenon of dispositional bias

Two studies are reported which demonstrate the influence of perceptual or ‘perspective’ variables in mediating attribution processes. In both studies subjects first observed a re-enactment of Milgram's (1963) experiment of obedience in which a ‘teacher’ obeys an experimenter's request to deliver dangerously high levels of shock. They were then asked to make judgements concerning the magnitude of situational forces acting upon the teacher and also to make inferences about his personality dispositions. Study I showed that passage of time can lead observers to assume more situational control when they were required to think and write about the witnessed re-enactment of the Milgram situation compared with observers who had no time to contemplate or who were prevented from doing so. Study II did not support the notion that focus of attribution is a simple function of what one pays attention to, or a function of the differing perspectives which actors and observers employ. Both of these results seriously challenge Jones and Nisbett's (1972) contention that the differences in attribution tendencies between actors and observers arise from the difference in perspective, Moreover, considerable evidence suggests that changes in situational and dispositional attributions may not follow a simple ‘zero-sum’ model, and that subjects seem to be unwilling to treat the two sources of control as if they were inversely correlated.     

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.     

Effects of other‐profitability and self‐profitability on evaluative judgements of behaviours

Behaviours are judged by their causes (i.e. the actor's intentions) as well as by their consequences. The present study focuses on the effects of the latter. Subjects judged behaviours that were either socially good, socially bad, competent, or incompetent. The consequences of the behaviours were either (a) personal consequences for the actor, (b) interpersonal consequences for others, or (c) not mentioned. Behaviours with interpersonal consequences were judged more extremely than with personal consequences. When no consequences were mentioned, the behaviours were rated similarly as in the condition with interpersonal consequences. These effects emerged regardless of behaviour valence (positive versus negative) and dimension (social versus competence‐related). The results suggest that others' behaviours are judged primarily by their interpersonal implications, and that observers take the perspective of those whose outcomes may be affected by the actor. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

It's all good: Children's personality attributions after repeated success and failure in peer and computer interactions

The present study examined children's use of behavioural outcome information to make personality attributions in social and non‐social contexts. One hundred and twenty‐eight 3‐ to 6‐year‐olds were told about a story actor who engaged in primarily successful or primarily unsuccessful interactions with several different people (social context) or several different computers (non‐social context). Subsequently, children made behavioural predictions and trait attributions about the actor. Findings indicated that participants were more likely to use past information to make behavioural predictions and trait attributions when hearing about primarily successful than primarily unsuccessful interactions, although there were age‐related differences in trait attribution as a function of success and trait type. There was no support for differential use of information across contexts, as participants' predictions and attributions were similar regardless of hearing about interactions with computers or humans. Factors involved in the development of impression formation are discussed.     

Children's Trait and Emotion Attributions in Socially Ambiguous and Unambiguous Situations

Children's attributions about story characters in ambiguous and unambiguous social situations were assessed. One hundred and forty-four 6–7-year-olds and 10–11-year-olds heard about actors who slighted a recipient intentionally or for an undetermined reason and then made causal attributions about the events, an emotion attribution about the recipient, and global personality attributions about the actors and recipient. Relations between perceived self-competence and attribution style were also assessed. Participants were more likely to make negative causal attributions in the unambiguous condition and with increasing age. Older girls and younger boys were more likely than other groups to attribute negative emotions to the recipient. Overall, participants perceived recipients positively and actors negatively. Perceived self-competence was positively correlated with actor attributions, although these differed by age and gender. Implications for children's psychosocial adjustment 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.     

Observed actions affect body-specific associations between space and valence

Right-handers tend to associate “good” with the right side of space and “bad” with the left. This implicit association appears to arise from the way people perform actions, more or less fluently, with their right and left hands. Here we tested whether observing manual actions performed with greater or lesser fluency can affect observers' space–valence associations. In two experiments, we assigned one participant (the actor) to perform a bimanual fine motor task while another participant (the observer) watched. Actors were assigned to wear a ski glove on either the right or left hand, which made performing the actions on this side of space disfluent. In Experiment 1, observers stood behind the actors, sharing their spatial perspective. After motor training, both actors and observers tended to associate “good” with the side of the actors' free hand and “bad” with the side of the gloved hand. To determine whether observers' space–valence associations were computed from their own perspectives or the actors', in Experiment 2 we asked the observer to stand face-to-face with the actor, reversing their spatial perspectives. After motor training, both actors and observers associated “good” with the side of space where disfluent actions had occurred from their own egocentric spatial perspectives; if “good” was associated with the actor's right-hand side it was likely to be associated with the observer's left-hand side. Results show that vicarious experiences of motor fluency can shape valence judgments, and that observers spontaneously encode the locations of fluent and disfluent actions in egocentric spatial coordinates.     

Self-serving Bias and Actor-Observer Differences In Organizations: An Empirical Analysis1

Self-serving attributional bias is the tendency for a subordinate to attribute personal (internal) cause for successful performance but to assign cause for failures to external factors. The actor-observed difference in attribution is the tendency for concerned observers (managers) of a subordinate's performance to attribute cause for the performance to factors internal to the subordinate, in direct opposition to the subordinate's external attribution for the same performance. This research investigated both phenomena. Twenty-four experienced managers served as manager/subjects in simulated appraisal situations. Subjects with prior work experience served as subordinate/subjects. Each manager participated in four separate simulated performance appraisals, under differing conditions of objective performance and work history, for a total of 96 interactions. The results revealed a strong self-serving bias on the part of subordinates. The results also strongly supported the notion of an actor-observer difference in performance attribution. Subordinates tended to attribute more externally and managers tended to attribute more internally (to the subordinate), regardless of performance level. The research also served to delineate and articulate the relationship between self-serving bias and actor-observer differences.     

A Synthesis and Extension of the Weiner and Kelley Attribution Models

Attribution theory and research has centered around 2 basic models: (a) the achievement-motivation model, which has been concerned primarily with self-attributions and is characterized by the work of Weiner and his colleagues (e.g., Weiner, 1986; Weiner et al., 1971), and (b) Kelley's cube, which has been used primarily to describe how observers use information to make attributions for the behavior of others (e.g., Green & Mitchell, 1979). The presence of these 2 distinct models, each with a different area and scope of application, has presented a number of problems for researchers in: comparing self- and social attributions; synthesizing the results of different studies; and examining the leader-member attribution process, particularly with respect to actor-observer biases. This article examines these problems and proposes a synthesized model integrating the dimensions of both models. The synthesis provides a theoretical foundation for classifying and comparing self- and social attributions while explicating the process by which informational cues map onto attributional dimensions and explanations.     

Locus of causality and the use of information in the development of causal attributions1

Two studies were conducted to examine whether attributions made about events may be influenced by individual assumptions regarding causation that are age related. In Study 1, 96 subjects at three age levels (four and five years, eight and nine years, and college students) observed a target actor on videotape select an item from an unseen array, and four other actors either agree (high consensus) or disagree (low consensus) with the choice. Subjects were asked to decide why the actor liked the chosen object best—because of something about the actor (person attribution) or because of something about the item (entity attribution). The results showed that perceived locus of causality shifted from entity to person attributions with age. In addition, subjects at all ages were able to utilize the consensus information when they had no opportunity to form their own impressions about the items in the array. In Study 2, 126 subjects at four age levels (five and six years, seven and eight years, nine and ten years, and high school students) chose an item from among an array for themselves and responded to a person (self)/entity attribution question regarding the locus of their own choice. The entity to person shift with age was again found and was supported by additional measures. The results are discussed in terms of children's causal reasoning capacities and social environmental factors affecting developmental change in social judgments.     

Self-serving biases: The role of perspective-taking

This research explores the role of perspective taking in self-serving biases. Assisted by a confederate, 80 subjects performed an impression-formation task and were given either success or failure bogus feedback. One week later, half of the subjects watched their performance on videotape and provided causal attributions (‘observers’). The other half simply gave causal attributions (‘actors’). Thus, the experiment employed a modified version of the actor/observer paradigm with one group of subjects taking the perspective of observers (‘observers’) and one group of subjects keeping their original perspective (‘actors’). The aim of this study was to test whether the change of perspective would increase dispositional causal attributions both in success and failure conditions. Results showed that subjects gave greater causal weight to internal factors (ability, effort) and less causal weight to external factors (task characteristics, collaboration with the partner) in the success than in the failure condition. Moreover, in a direct comparison task, subjects attributed a greater percentage of responsibility to themselves than to their partner in the success than in the failure condition. However, the type of perspective produced no significant effects, but showed an attenuation of self-serving biases for observers as compared to actors. A motivational explanation of the results is proposed.