| Abstract: | A female (A) received feedback about both her own and a male or female other's (B's) performance on an achievement task, and then estimated the likelihood that she and B possessed each of several attributes related to competence, likeableness, and physical attractiveness. The situation was witnessed by a male or female observer who then judged B's attributes and predicted A's and B's ratings of one another. A formulation of social inference processes developed by Gollob was used to identify and compare the informational cues used by actors and observers in making these attributions. The contributions of these cues depended substantially on the type of attribute being inferred, the judge (A or the observer), and whether the judgment was made of A or of B. A's behavior (i.e., her performance on the achievement task) contributed less to her self-attributions than it did either to her predictions of how B would rate her or to observers' actual judgments of her attributes. A's self-attributions tended to be relatively more influenced by her experiences before participating in the experiment. Whereas A appeared to use B's performance as a comparative standard when judging her own competence and expected B to do likewise, observers did not use B's performance in this manner when judging A. Moreover, A did not use her own performance as a standard when judging attributes of B. The article discusses theoretical implications of these results for attribution and self-perception processes. |
