Chapter 05 - Social Attribution: Explaining Behavior Flashcards
actor-observer difference
A difference in attribution based on who is making the causal assessment: the actor (who is relatively inclined to make situational attributions) or the observer (who is relatively inclined to make dispositional attributions).
attribution theory
A set of concepts explaining how people assign causes to the events around them and the effects of these kinds of causal assessments.
augmentation principle
The idea that people will assign greater weight to a particular cause of behavior if other causes are present that normally would produce a different outcome.
Can you think of a time when you committed the fundamental attribution error? What happened? Why do you think you made this mistake?
We are all likely to commit the fundamental attribution error, and probably do so regularly. For example, consider when a friend’s new girlfriend comes out with the gang for the first time. If the person is quiet and awkward, it’s easy to assume she is an introverted person, thereby attributing her behavior to her disposition. But being the odd person out in a group of close friends will make almost anyone feel a bit shy, right? Why don’t we take this into account? The fundamental attribution error occurs for many reasons. For example, according to the just world hypothesis, people want to believe that good things happen to good people. Believing that outcomes are determined by who a person is (her disposition) rather than factors outside of her control (the situation)—the fundamental attribution error, in other words—helps people maintain such just world beliefs. Another reason we commit the fundamental attribution error is that a person’s behavior is often more salient or obvious to us than the situational circumstances. We’re more likely to notice the new girlfriend’s awkward behavior than to be aware of the situation and how it will impact her (particularly because the situation is very different for us—comfortable and familiar). In addition, we know that it’s easier to make dispositional attributions; considering the situation takes more energy or effort. We can be lazy, so often the thoughtless dispositional attribution wins out.
Can you think of other aspects of our identity (besides culture, religion, or social class) that might influence the types of attributions we make? How so?
Many other aspects of our identity—such as political affiliation, gender, and age, to name a few—relate to the ways we make attributions. What about personality variables, like attachment style? In one study, participants imagined their romantic partner engaging in a particular behavior and then made attributions regarding why the partner behaved that way. For example, the scenario “your partner brought you dinner when you were sick” could be attributed to “my partner is a caring and thoughtful person” or “my partner feels guilty about something and is trying to make up for it.” Highly avoidant participants, those less comfortable with intimacy in their romantic relationships, were less likely to attribute the partner’s behavior to caring intentions.
Carla is the last person to be picked for dodgeball teams in her gym class. She thinks to herself, “Jeez, no one wants me for their team. I’m terrible at dodgeball. In fact, I’m terrible at all sports. No matter how much I work out or how hard I try, I’m never going to get any better.” What are the three attribution dimensions that make up a person’s explanatory style? Describe where Carla falls on these three dimensions. Overall, what is Carla’s explanatory style? How do you know?
The three attribution dimensions that make up explanatory style are: internal/external, global/specific, and stable/unstable.
In explaining why she gets picked last for the team, Carla says she is terrible at dodgeball. This is an internal attribution.
Carla also says that she is terrible at all sports. Carla is going beyond this specific situation and is therefore making a global attribution.
Finally, Carla says that no matter how much she works out or how hard she tries, she will never get any better. In this way, Carla is making a stable attribution about her athletic abilities.
Overall, Carla is displaying a pessimistic explanatory style. She is explaining a negative event as due to something internal about her something global (it affects other areas of her life), and something stable (it cannot be changed).
causal attribution
Linking an event to a cause, such as inferring that a personality trait is responsible for a behavior.
explanatory style
A person’s habitual way of explaining events, typically assessed along three dimensions:
- internal/external,
- stable/unstable,
- and global/specific.
consensus
A type of covariation information: whether most people would behave the same way or differently in a given situation.
consistency
A type of covariation information: whether an individual behaves the same way or differently in a given situation on different occasions.
counterfactual thinking
Thoughts of what might have, could have, or should have happened “if only” something had occurred differently.
covariation principle
The idea that behavior should be attributed to potential causes that occur along with the observed behavior.
Curtis, a busy guy with good taste in music, has a friend who raves about a new band. Curtis wants to know whether it’s worth his time to listen: Is the band actually awesome (an external attribution) or is his friend not all that discerning about music (an internal attribution)? Curtis recalls that his friend raves about the band every time he listens to them, although none of their other friends rave about the band, and his friend raves about every band. Describe the three components of the covariation principle, and explain how each one applies in this scenario. Based on this information, what should Curtis conclude? Is the band awesome or does his friend simply love all music?
We use the covariation principle to make attributions about a behavior. The three pieces of information we use are consensus (do other people respond similarly when they encounter the situation/stimulus), distinctiveness (does the person respond similarly to other situations/stimuli), and consistency (does the person respond the same way whenever they encounter the situation/stimulus). In this example, there is low consensus (other friends do not rave about the band), low distinctiveness (Curtis’s friend raves about every band), and high consistency (Curtis’s friend raves about the band every time he listens to them). Using this information, Curtis should conclude that the band is probably not awesome. Rather, his friend raves about the band because he simply loves all music—an internal attribution.
discounting principle
The idea that people will assign reduced weight to a particular cause of behavior if other plausible causes might have produced it.
distinctiveness
A type of covariation information: whether a behavior is unique to a particular situation or occurs in many or all situations.
