| Abstract: | Five experiments were conducted in which subjects were asked to attribute attitudes to target persons on the basis of opinion statements written under high constraints, i.e., the target persons were instructed to prepare the statements but were given no choice concerning the position to be endorsed. In previous studies it had been observed that reader-subjects tended to attribute attitudes in line with the opinion statement even when the writer obviously had no choice. However, in these earlier studies the opinion endorsements were actually standardized statements prepared by the investigators and they may have contained subtle cues indicating attitude strength. In the present experiments the statements were those actually written by other subjects in response to no choice instructions. Even though the subjects as attributors were well aware of these instructions, and had complied to the same instructions as target persons, attitudes in line with expressed opinions were attributed. In the final experiment, constraints were strengthened even further by the provision of specific arguments that had to be included in the opinion statements. Here the “over attribution effect” finally fell below significance. With the exception of such extreme variants of constraint, the results provide further evidence that people tend to make dispositional attributions to “explain” behavior, underestimating the role of environmental constraints. |
