Social Psychology

1
Social Psychology

• Attribution Theory

2
Attribution

• How do we attach meaning to others behavior, or
  our own? This is called attribution.
• E.g. is someone angrybecause something
  badhappened, or because they are bad-tempered?

3
A definition

• AT deals with how the social perceiver uses
  information to arrive at causal explanations for
  events. It examines what information is gathered
  and how it is combined to form a causal judgment
  (Fiske Taylor, 1991)
• Attribution theory is concerned with how and why
  ordinary people explain
• events as they do.

4
Primary questions

• 1.) What are the main characteristics of
  attributions (explanations of events)?
• 2.) How are attributions are made?
• Next Complete the Attribution Questionnaire

5
Attribution theory

• Jones Nisbett (1971)
• - Ordinary people really do have a
  simplistic view of human behaviour and attribute
  behaviour to either one sort of cause or the
  other.
• Two types of attributions (internal/dispositional
  and external/environmental)
• When I explain my own behavior, I rely on
  external explanations, I fell over because the
  floor was wet. External attributions assign
  causality to factors outside of a person (e.g.,
  situational)
• When I explain others behavior, Im more likely
  to attribute it to personality and disposition,
  he/she fell over because he/she is clumsy.
  Internal attributions assign causality to factors
  within a person (e.g., personality, i.e.
  dispositional).

6
A few examples

• Why were you late for class?
• Why was Joe Bloggs late for class?
• Why did you fail your driving test?
• Why did Joe Bloggs fail his driving test?
• Why did for fail your psychology exam?
• Why did Joe Bloggs fail his psychology exam?

7
Attribution Theories
These are theories which try to explain and
predict what leads us to make situational
(external) or dispositional (internal)
attributions in any particular case.

• There is no unifying theory of attributions.
• Three central mini-theories
• Theory of Naive Psychology
• Correspondent Inference Theory
• Covariation Model

• Two highly influential mini-theories
• Theory of Emotional Lability
• Self-Perception Theory

8
Heider (1958) - The Layperson as Naive
Psychologist

• Main Premise People naturally see cause-effect
  relationships, even where there is none!
• Attributions can be external or internal
• People tend to make
• external attributions for own behaviour
• internal for others behaviour

9
Jones and Davis (1965) Correspondent Inference
Theory

• Main Premise Jones and Davis thought that people
  pay particular attention to intentional behaviour
  (as opposed to accidental or unthinking
  behaviour)
• Dispositional (i.e. internal) attributions
  provide us with information from which we can
  make predictions about a persons future
  behaviour.
• The correspondent inference theory describes the
  conditions under which we make dispositional
  attributes to behaviour we perceive as
  intentional.
• Davis used the term correspondent inference to
  refer to an occasion when an observer infers that
  a persons behaviour matches or corresponds with
  their personality. It is an alternative term to
  dispositional attribution.
• Key Study Jones et al. (1961)

10
Factors Affecting Attribution

• The factors which Jones and Davis believe people
  pay particular attention to include
• Choice
• Accidental vs. Intentional Behaviour
• Social Desirability
• Non-common effects
• Hedonistic Relevance
• All these factors provide us with information to
  decide if a behaviour is affected by internal
  (dispositional) or external (situational)
  factors.

11
Correspondent Inference Theory

• Factor
• - Behaviour accidental vs. intentional
• Prediction
• - Intentional behaviours lead to
  (internal) dispositional inferences more than
• accidental behaviours.
• i.e. behaviour that is intentional is likely to a
  attributed to the persons personality and
  behaviour which is accidental is likely to be
  attributed to situation / external causes.

12
An Example
Behaviour corresponds with personality /
intentional (internal cause) Imagine, Melissa, a
school student, has observed that her Biology
teacher is often angry with pupils and their
parents. When he is angry with Melissa, she is
likely to infer that his behaviour corresponds
with his personality. She is likely to attribute
his behaviour dispositionally, to the extent that
Melissa may not feel guilty about what she did to
anger him.
13
An Example
Behaviour does not correspond with personality /
accidental (external cause) Melissa has also
observed that her History teacher is hardly ever
angry with anyone. But today, he is very angry
with Melissa. She is likely to attribute his
behaviour situationally and will probably
assume that the annoying situation is affecting
her behaviour.
14
Correspondent Inference Theory

• Factor
• - Behaviour Socially desirable or
  undesirable
• Socially desirable means conforming to the rules
  of society
• Prediction
• - Behaviours low in sociably
  desirability (not conforming) lead us to make
  (internal) dispositional inferences more than
  socially undesirable behaviours
• E.g.
• If you observe a person getting on a bus
  and sitting on the floor instead of one of the
  seats. This behaviour has low social desirability
  (non conforming) and is likely correspond with
  the personality of the individual.

15
Kelley (1967) Covariation Model

• What information is used to arrive at a causal
  attribution?
• Developed a logical model for judging whether a
  particular action should be attributed to some
  characteristic (internal) of the person or the
  environment (external).

Covariation - Perceiver has info from multiple
observations, at different times and situations,
and can perceive the covariation of an observed
effect and its causes. Key Study McArthur
(1972)
16
Kelley (1967) Covariation Model

• Kelley believed that there were three types of
  causal information which influenced our
  judgements. Low factors dispositional
  (internal) attributions.
• Consensus the extent to which other people
  behave in the same way in a similar situation.
  E.g. Alison smokes a cigarette when she goes out
  for a meal with her friend. If her friend smokes,
  her behaviour is high in consensus. If only
  Alison smokes it is low.
• Distinctiveness the extent to which the person
  behaves in the same way in similar situations. If
  Alison only smokes when she is out with friends,
  her behaviour is high in distinctiveness. If she
  smokes at any time or place, distinctiveness is
  low.
• Consistency the extent to which the person
  behaves like this every time the situation
  occurs. If Alison only smokes when she is out
  with friends, consistency is high. If she only
  smoke on one special occasion, consistency is
  low.

17
Example
Eric (actor) got depressed after talking with
Diane (entity). Is this due to Eric or to
Diane? Distinctiveness Does Eric get depressed
when he talks with people other than Diane?
(Yes) Consistency Does Eric get depressed every
time he talks with Diane? (Yes) Consensus Do
other people also get depressed when they talk to
Diane? (No) Erics depression has something to
do with him.
18
Analysis of Variance Model of Covariation
(MacArthurs e.g., 1972)
Does behaviour generalise?
Possible single causes
Types of info (IVs)
8 Information combinations 2 x 2 x 2