Causal attribution and dispositional inference: Evidence of inconsistent judgments

Two experiments examined whether individuals who ascribe the disparity in the performances of two actors to situational constraints adequately adjust their dispositional inferences to reflect their own perceptions of causality. Using the quiz-game format of L. D. Ross, T. M. Amabile, and J. L. Steinmetz (1977, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 485–494), the effects of the subjects' awareness of the role-determined, self-presentation advantage of the questioner on their dispositional inferences concerning the quiz-game participants are noted. It is hypothesized that subjects who indicated full awareness of the determining force of the situation would nevertheless draw more favorable dispositional inferences about the questioner than about the contestant. The prediction is confirmed. Although the situationally aware subjects rate the questioner and contestant more similarly than do the other subjects, they still rate the questioner higher in knowledge, memory, and education. The results of Experiment 2 indicate that increasing the salience of the subjects' assessment of the situational advantage of the questioner does not eliminate the disparity. It is proposed that the fudamental attribution error represents more a failure to adjust trait inferences for causal attributions than a misperception of causality. Implications concerning the relationship between knowledge of causality and social judgment and the utility of the distinction between “perceived causality” and “higher order causal inferences” are discussed.     

Causal internalization of academic performance as a function of self-esteem and performance satisfaction

In the present investigation, we integrated self-theories (specifically, theories of cognitive consistency and self-esteem) with attribution theory. Our intent was to clarify the effects of different levels of self-esteem and performance satisfaction on causal internalization of academic performance. Subjects were 162 university students who attributed causality for their individual performances on a midterm examination. Attributions to four internal and four external causal sources were analyzed with a 2 × 2 (Self-Concept × Performance Satisfaction) MANOVA and with follow-up univariate F ratios. Most of the findings support the predictions based on self-esteem theory; i.e., satisfaction with performance, rather than consistency of performance with self-esteem, served as the primary influence on internalization of causality, with students internalizing satisfying outcomes more than dissatisfying outcomes. Cognitive-consistency theory and B. Weiner's (1979, Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 3–25) attribution proposal regarding maintenance of a stable self-concept also received support, as attributions to the internal and stable causal sources of ability and general effort were a function of an interaction of self-esteem and performance satisfaction. Hence, neither self-theory adequately anticipated the effects of self-esteem and performance satisfaction on causal internalization. Rather, a consolidation of theories is needed to explain the results.     

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.     

Effect of perceived choice,expected outcome,and observed outcome of an action on the causal attributions of actors

An experiment was conducted to test the hypothesis that actors' causal attributions for success and failure would be affected by the degree of perceived choice they had in taking an action. Actors either were assigned, or selected one of four therapeutic outlines which were expected to have either a positive or a negative effect, and which actually had either a positive or negative outcome on a purportedly phobic person. For negative outcomes, it was predicted that perceived choice would induce a sense of personal responsibility when a positive outcome was expected, and lead actors to attribute more responsibility to themselves as a result. Results supported this prediction. For positive outcomes, however, actors attributed responsibility to themselves regardless of expectancy or choice. Actors were also found to attribute generally more responsibility to themselves for positive than negative outcomes. Results were discussed in terms of self-esteem motivation and the information available to the actor.     

THE ROLE OF GENERALISED EXPECTANCIES IN DETERMINING CAUSAL ATTRIBUTIONS FOR SUCCESS AND FAILURE IN TWO SOCIAL CLASSES

Summary . The sources of discrepancies in causal attributions for success and failure and for self and other attributions of outcome may become clearer when specific research attention is paid to the role of generalised expectancies in the attributional process. The present study hypothesised that when information about task and outcome is standardised, the attributions of both actors and observers will tend to reflect generalised expectancies, evoked in this study by two levels of SES in both actor and observer conditions, more than they will self-serving biases. 230 sixth grade Jewish Israeli pupils of two SES levels were assigned to one of three experimental conditions. All pupils received eight anagrams, four soluble by all and four insoluble. Those in the self-attribution condition attributed their own outcomes to various causes, while those in the similar and different other conditions attributed the same outcomes for pupils of apparently similar or different social class, after having first completed the anagrams themselves. The results indicated that while pupils of high SES tended to attribute both their own and others' outcomes in ways consistent with high generalised expectancy for success, pupils of low SES attributed their own outcomes more to external, unstable factors, and differentiated consistently in their attributions for the self, for similar and for different others. It was argued that these differences reflect undifferentiated, global perceptions of causality among high SES pupils, whose patterns of attribution are consistent both with teacher values and their own experience. Low SES pupils have more differentiated perceptions of causality since uncertainty as to the real causes of their learning outcomes motivates them to greater, but not always adaptive, attributional activity.     

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.     

Attributions of success and failure for actors and observers

Causal attributions of a person actually experiencing a success or failure (the actor) and someone who read about the situation (the observer) were compared. Results supported Jones and Nisbett (1971). Actors were relatively more likely to perceive their outcomes as caused by external factors (task difficulty), while observers attributed these outcomes more to internal factors (effort). Attributions for both actors and observers were also strongly affected by whether the outcome was a success or failure. Hypotheses concerning sex differences in attributions were not supported.     

An experimental investigation of the labelling effect of psychiatric diagnosis

Eighty-six college students in four different classes were shown a videotaped, staged group situation. Two classes viewed a version in which one of the actors behaved in a 'neurotic' fashion. The other two viewed a tape where all actors behaved 'normally'. One class from each of these conditions was told that the actor had been described as severely neurotic, resulting in a total of four experimental conditions. Ratings of subjects' questionnaire data indicated more attribution of psychological disorder when the 'neurotic' label was used. A significant difference between the two tape conditions was also found, indicating a successful behavior manipulation on the tapes. The label also appeared to influence subjects' evaluation of the actor's past.     

Attribution at the wire: Consistency and outcome finish strong

The present study used videotaped horse races to test Kelley's attribution theory of the way people perceive the causes of behavior. The subjects (81 college students) were given programs containing specially constructed information about the horses before each race and afterward completed a questionnaire indicating their perceptions about the horses' performance. As predicted, the performances of winning horses, as well as performances consistent in outcome with the horse's previous races were attributed more to the actor, the horse, and less to circumstances. Winning performances were less attributed to external factors (i.e., the field of horses). significant, but relatively small, consistency by outcome interactions also were found.     

The role of social perspective in perceiving the causes of success and failure1

An experiment was conducted to test the hypothesis that observers' causal attributions about an actor's performance at a task would be affected by their social perspective in observing the situation. Observer subjects were either assigned to serve in a role comparable to that of observer-subjects in most actor-observer experiments or were assigned a distinctive role more divergent from the social perspective of the actor. As expected, observers with a similar social perspective to that of the actor made more flattering attributions about the actor's performance than observers with a dissimilar social perspective. We concluded that actor-observer differences in attribution for an actor's performance in any one experiment cannot be taken as definitive evidence either for or against the defensive attribution idea.     

Focus of attention,self-esteem,and the attribution of causality

An experiment was conducted to investigate how actors' attributions of causality are affected by their expectancy about the outcome of an action and their observation of the actual outcome while in a state of high or low objective self-awareness. In the presence or absence of a camera, subjects delivered therapeutic instructions which were expected to have a positive or a negative effect and which resulted in a positive or a negative effect on a supposedly phobic patient. Principal findings were that (1) attributions to self were greater under high objective self-awareness for positive relative to negative outcomes, (2) attributions to the patient were relatively great under high objective self-awareness when a positive outcome was expected but a negative outcome actually occurred. The results are discussed in terms of the joint role of focus of attention and self-esteem processes in the attribution of causality and in terms of their relationship to Duval and Wicklund's (1973) “focus of attention” attributional analysis.     

An informational analysis of actors' and observers' belief attributions in a role-playing situation

An actor's belief in a proposition was inferred by both the actor himself and an observer on the basis of information concerning (a) the actor's preparation and delivery of a speech on the proposition to an unseen audience, and (b) the audience's belief in the proposition. The availability of this information to judges was systematically varied. The position advocated by the actor in his speech and the audience's opinion affected both the actor's belief in the test proposition and the belief attributed to the actor by a disinterested observer. However, neither effect depended upon whether or not other belief-relevant information was also available. These results were interpreted as more consistent with a summative model of information integration than with an averaging model. Actors' behavior had similar effects upon both actors' estimates of how the audience would judge their beliefs and observers' actual estimates of these beliefs. However, these effects were both greater than the effect of their behavior on their own estimates of their beliefs. The apparent strength of the audience's belief in the target proposition had a positive influence upon both actors' beliefs in the proposition and observers' estimates of actors' beliefs, but had a negative, or contrast effect upon actors' expectancies for how the audience would judge their beliefs. Results were more consistent with the differential perspective hypothesis of actor-observer differences proposed by Jones and Nisbett than with the hypothesis that actors and observers differentially weight the implications of their past experience in formulating their judgments. Results had additional implications for the assumptions that persons make when using their behaviors as indications of their beliefs.     

Judgments of Decision Effectiveness: Actor-Observer Differences in Overconfidence

Subjects playing the role of psychiatrists (actors) engaged in a simulated medical decision-making task in which they attempted to bring the value of a patient indicator variable into a desired range. For each treatment recommended by the actor, both the actor and an observer subject playing the role of a nurse assessed the probability that the treatment would be effective. Both actors and observers were overconfident. Actors were more confident in their treatment recommendations than were observers, but this difference was eliminated when observers were given the opportunity to offer their own alternative recommendation. Under the latter circumstances, actors and observers were equally confident in the actors' decisions but observers were more confident than actors in the observers' decisions. These findings suggest that while control over the outcome of the decision has little influence on actor-observer differences in confidence, feedback regarding this outcome plays a crucial role.     

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.     

Responsibility attribution by groups and individuals: The effects of the interaction episode

Studied the effects of formal and informal interaction styles on the extremity of responsibility attribution judgements by groups. The stimuli were eight scenarios describing typical ‘life dilemmas’, incorporating the manipulation of the following two variables in a 2 × 2 design: (a) the risky-cautious decision taken by the actor in response to the dilemma, and (b) the outcome of the decision (success-failure). Subjects (N = 130) provided judgements about the attributed responsibility of the actor, and their perception of the actor and the situation first as individuals, followed by (a) formal or (b) informal group discussion, leading to consensus judgements. Results showed that group attributions were significantly more extreme than individual attributions, but only following the informal group interaction. The actors' riskiness and success were also significantly related to the size of the extremity shift. The findings are discussed in terms of the importance of the social context and the specific interaction episode in attribution judgements, and the possible implications of the results for such real life decision-making groups as committees and interviewing panels are considered.     

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.     

Attributed intentions and informational selectivity

Three experiments tested the hypothesis that ascribing a specific intention to an actor prior to witnessing his behavior leads an observer to preferentially recall action bearing on the intention. In each case, subjects were exposed to an action sequence which mixed elements appropriate to more than one intention. Recall of action was compared among different observers who were led to attribute different intentions to the same actors. Selective remembering favoring intent-relevant action is demonstrated in all three studies. The second experiment offers evidence that selectivity operates during observation of an actor rather than retrospectively. The third experiment suggests that attributions about intentions are more potent determiners of such selectivity than are characteristics of an actor related to his behavior but not bearing on his intention and indicates that observer characteristics interact with attributed intentions to determine recall. Interpretation of the findings suggests that accurate attribution of intentions can facilitate social exchange by attuning partners to the planned aspects of each other's behavior, while misapprehension of intentions can preclude coordinated interaction by misdirecting attention to irrelevant action or to responses coerced by the observer.     

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.