View
219
Download
2
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Attribution
Lecture 5
Inferring causal relations
http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Discourse/Narrative/michotte-demo.swf
Baron Albert Michotte (University of Leuven): The perception of causality (1945)
Fritz Heider (1896-1988)
http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Discourse/Narrative/heider-simmel-demo.swf
People see causality everywhere: Fritz Heider & Mary Ann Simmel (mid-40s.)
Attribution
• Beginnings: Fritz Heider (1958) "Psychology of interpersonal relationships"
• Atribuere = to ascribe (e.g., to ascribe traits)• Here attribution = ascription of causes• Attribution theories = naive theories of
causality. How people explain own and others’ behaviors
ATTRIBUTION vs ATTRIBUTIONAL
theories
Antecedents Attributions Consequences
Information Behaviors
Beliefs Perceived
causes
Emotions
Motivation Expectations
Attribution theories
Attributional theories
Kelley i Michela (1980)
What do we mean when we ask the „why” question?
• Intentional (symbol – meaning)– What does one mean by that?
• Teleological (goal – means)– What does one try to achieve with it?
• Causal (physical causation) (cause – effect)– What caused it?
• Functional (function – structure)– What function does it play?
• Genetic (genesis – consequence)– How came?
• Nomothetic (law – example)– Which law can be applied?
Main attribution theories
• Fritz Heider’s theory (1958)• Correspondent Inference Theory - Jones &
Davis (1965)• Self-attribution theory- Daryl Bem• Harold Kelley’s attributional cube• Denis Hilton’s Abnormal Conditions Model• Theory of Arie Kruglanski
Fritz Heider (1896-1988)
Theory of naive causality
Consistency (balance) theory
Fritz Heider (1958)
• Initiated interest in naive theories of causality• Attribution as perception: inference from probablistic
cues• Distinction between internal (personal) and external
(situational) causes• Actions may be intentional or unintentional.
Attribution = understanding of intentions.• Attribution biases, including „fundamental attribution
error” (1921) “behavior fills whole perceptual field”
Correspondent Inference Theory Edward E. Jones & Keith Davis (1965)
• Attribution - finding correspondence between behavior and intentions
• Two stages in inference: – Intention identification– Attribution of dispositions– Dispositions inferred from attributed intentions
• Conditions necessary for inferring intentions:– Actor’s knowledge of behavior consequences– Actor’s freedom of choice
• Attribution of intentions attribution of disposition
Factors influencing strength of dispositional inferences
• Behaviors– Atypical: unconventional, inconsistent with
expectations– Negative
Experiment by E.E. Jones & Harris (1967)
• 60s, war between the US and Cuba• American students evaluate essays
(purportedly) written by other students on Fidel Castro
• Half – positive, half-negative • Essays of half of each group presented as
written under pressure, another half – free-willingly
Conditions
essay
pressurePro-Castro Anti-Castro
yes
no
Task
• Estimate person’s attitude toward Castro
Estimated attitude towards Castro
essay
pressurePro-Castro Anti-Castro
yes
no
44.1
59.62
22.87
17.38
Estimated attitude towards Castro
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
pro-Castro Anti-Castro
essay direction
estimated attitude
pressureno pressure
Attribution of responsibility
• Hedonism principle: attribution of responsibility stronger when consequences have hedonic value
• Personalism principle – attribution of responsibility stronger when consequences are personally relevant
Self-attribution theory Daryl Bem (1967)
• Own attitudes and motivations inferred from own behaviors
• Overjustification effect (Lepper, Greene i Nisbett): Information about external incentive lowers attribution to internal factores
• External vs. internal motivation (Edward Deci)
• Valins effect– Sleeping pills and arousal
• Walking over bridge and attraction
„Why do I date X?”
• Mark Zanna et als. study of experienced emotions– Couples– Rubin’s Love Scale
• Replying to one of two questions:– (a) „I date him/her because of....."– (b) „I date him/her in order to..."
• Again filling Rubin’s Love Scale• Results: drop in reported love in
(b)
Conditions for self-attributional effects?
• Attitude strength and self-attribution– Stronger effects for weak attitudes– Stronger effects for attitudes not yet formed
• Practical consequences: influencing people’s attitudes by making people aware of their own behaviors
Inferring own and others’ traits
• Karyłowski & Niewiarowski (2006)– Attribution of own traits based on introspective
information (do I feel honest, wise etc.)– Attribution of other people’s traits based on
observation of behaviors (does the person behave honestly, wisely etc.)
– Attribution of friends’ traits –in between (both internal states and behaviors)
Harold H. Kelley(1921-2003)
Harold Kelley’s attribution theory
• Two theories of attribution– For replicable events (the „cube”)– For unique events (theory of causal schemata)
ANOVA model in perception of causality
• Classification of causes
internal external
person object circumstances
Subject – object and interpretation if behavior
Subject Object
Behavior
circumstances
Attributional cube
• Subject - object - circumstances: three sides of attrubitional cube
Person circ
umst
ancsO
bje
ctt
Cause
• Person (perpetrator is guilty )• Object (victim is guilty)• Circumstances (circumstances made the behavior
easy)• Interaction between the factors
– Person-object (this perpetrator towards this very victim)– Person-circumstances (this perpetrator in these specific
circumstances)– Object-circumstances (this victim in these specific
circumstances)– Person-object-circumstances (this perpetrator towards this
very victim in these specific circumstances)
Three types of information
• consistency : – How consistent is actor’s behavior in different
times and situations
• distinctivenes:– Is the behavior object-specific or does it also apply
to other objects
• consensus– How common is the behavior in tthe population
Example:
After the first date Ann left Joe for somebody else
Consistency
Ann Joe Ann Joe
High Low
Ann did it several times with Joe
It was their first time
Distinctiveness
Ann
Bill
Joe
George
Bill
Joe
George
Ann
High Low
Ann had several steady boyfriendsbefore, only with Joe it happened like this
Ann always leaves herpartners after the first date
Consensus
Keith
Ann
Sarah
Joe Joe
Sarah
Ann
KeithHigh Low
All girls leave Joe after the first date
It happened only with Ann, other girls wanted to date Joe again
Atrribution to interaction person x object
Consistency- highDistinct – high
Consensus - low
Cause: Interaction of
traits of Joe & Ann
Attribution to person’s dispositions
consistency- highdistinct – low
consensus - low
cause: dispositionsof subject
(Ann)
Atrribution to object
Consistency – highDistinct – high
Consensus - high
Cause:dispositions
of object(Joe)
Attribution to circumstances
consistency - low
Cause: Properties of circumstances
(eg. Atmosphere,
customs)
Tests of Kelley’s model
• McArthur: unequal weights ascribed to the three information– consistency - 20% variance– distinctiveness - 10%– consensus - 3%
• Underestimation of consensus information (study by Nisbett, Borgida and others)
• Underestimation of consensus information – a universal phenomenon?
• Consequences?
Tests of Kelley’s model
• Other factors influencing attribution:– Evaluation of the outcome (positive or
negative)– Whose behavior is being explained (own or
other’s)– Content of behavior (morality or
competence)– Is behavior intentional or not?
Denis Hilton
Abnormal Conditions Model
Abnormal Conditions Model Denis Hilton
• Reanalysis of the factorial model of Harold Kelley
• Which information is missing?
Why did Ann leave Joe after the first date?
Factorial schema--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Person Ann Other girls--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Object Joe Other boys Joe Other boys------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Circumstances today other today other today other today other -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------cell--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 2 63 4 5 7 8
consistency
distinctiveness consensus ???
Typicality
Keith
Ann
Sarah
Joe Joe
Sarah
Ann
Keith
High
Low
Other girls leave their partners after the first date
Other girls do not leavepartners after the first date
Bill
George George
Bill
Attribution process according to Denis Hilton
• Only abnormal behavior is explained • Information about consistency,
distinctiveness and consensus – cues that help identify the causes of abnormal states – Low consensus: person– High distinctiveness: object– Low consistency: circumstances
Arie W. Kruglanski
Theory of causes according to Arie Kruglanski (1975)
• Four causes according to Aristotle:– Material – what is it made of?
– Formal – how is it made?
– Efficient – who or what made it?
– Final - what has it been made for?
• Different types of explanation: teleological vs. mechanistic
Arie W. Kuglanski
• ACTIONS versus OCCURRENCES• Actions:
– Endogenous – a goal in itself– Exogenous – instrumental with respect to the goal
Attributions for „actions” and „occurrences” differ
• Actions – intentional• Occurrences – nonintentional• Occurrences – processed according to
Kelley’s model – Information on consensus – External attribution more frequent
• Actions – Focus on consistency– Endogenous actions – more internal attributions
than exogenous actions
X when driving, killed YX is a paid murderer
X did it ....
X did not notice Y X’ wife betrayed X with Y: X took revenge
Efficient cause Final cause (reason for)
Exo-
Endo-
Causes versus reasons
• Cause = why something was done (who or what did it)
• Reason = reason why the action was taken (what for)
• Distinction: A.R. Buss (1978)
• Locke & Pennington (1982): possible causes of behavior
Causes of behavior according to Locke & Pennington (1982)
causes
internal(1)
external
reasons
(3)psychological
(4)situational
(2) dispositions
Why did you clean your desk?
I was asked to
I am an orderly person
Could not find anything here
There was a mess
Attribution through communication
Brown & Fish (1983): action vs. state verbs
• Action verbs – point to the SUBJECT
• State verbs – point to the OBJECT
Action vs. state verbs
• Keith HELPS Joe (action verb) Keith is the cause
• Keith LIKES Joe (state verb) Joe is the cause
Action vs. state verbs
• Cause = the factor that better differentiates people• People differ more in willingness to act (e.g. help
others) that the disposition to be the recipient of the act (e.g. be helped)
• People differ more in the disposition to arouse emotions (e.g. be liked) than the disposition to experience emotion (e.g. liking others)
Use in manipulation
• Why do you vote for party X? – Cause: the voter
• Why do you like the party X– Cause: the party
Biases and errors in attribution
Assumptions of Kelley’s model
• That information on consistency, distinctiveness and consensus has equal weight
• That attributions do not depend on whose behavior is explained
• That attributions do not depend on the value of the behavior (positive or negative)
• That people can correctly estimate unconditional probabilities
Fundamental attribution error
• Attributing causes of behavior to dispositions („he is like that") and intentions („he intended to do this") instead of to a situation or to a target object– Gustav Ischeiser (1949): Misunderstandings in
human relations. A study in false social perception.
– Fritz Heider (1921) – oral information (1958): “Behavior fills the perceptual field”
– Lee Ross (1977): fundamental attribution error
Lee Ross
The fundamental attribution error
1977
Fundamental attribution error - causes
• Understimating the role of consensus information
• Quattrone: anchoring heuristics– Attribution anchored in the subject of
behavior, insufficiently corrected for situational information
Causes (cont)
• Daniel Gilbert & Malone: correspondence bias – Role of “cognitive business”:
Correspondence bias smaller when cognitive resources were not enaged
– Replication of the experiment by Jones & Harris
• Fundamental attribution error and cognitive development
Actor-observer asymmetry
• E. Jones i R. Nisbett (1972) – attributions different for actor and for observer
• Own behavior explained with situational factors, others’ behavior with dispositions
• Number of internal attributions similar for oneself and others
• I have freedom of choosing my behavior, he/she is determined
Causes of the actor-observer asymmetry
• Number of information: more about determinants of own than others’ behaviors
• Perspective differences (figure - ground) – study by Storms– The asymmetry reverses with self-focused
attention (eg. mirror)
• Buss (1978), Locke i Pennington (1982) : causes vs. reasons– People explain own rather than others’ behaviors
with situational reasons
Language and attributional asymmetry
• Gun Semin & Klaus Fiedler: verbs vs. adjectives– Own behaviors – described with
help of verbs (I did this and that), others’ behaviors – with help of adjectives (he/she is this or that)
– Happy and unhappy couples
Klaus Fiedler
Gun Semin
Egotistic attributions – success-failure asymmetry
• Two components: – (a) attributing successes to own dispositions (self-
enhancement)– (b) attributing failures to situational factors (self-
protection)
• More empirical evidence for (a) than (b): attributions for successes more uniform than attributions for failures
0
1
2
3
4
5
6śr
edni
a
government myself
successfulmoderateunsuccessful
Attribution of successes and failures in the past year
Explanations of attributional egotism
• Egotism• Expectation of success – unexpectedness of
failure• Kruglanski: actions (successes) vs.
occurrences (failures)
Other cultures?
Shinobu KitayamaHazel Markus
H. Markus & S. Kitayama: attributing causes for successes and failures
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
abilities
effortdifficulty
luckgood form
successfailure
Ss = Japanese students
Attributional egocentrism
• Michael Ross:– My contribution to common work
bigger than contributions of others
– Concerns both positive and negative outcomes
Attributional egocentrism
• Explanations:– Differential access to information about
own and other’s contributions– Selective encoding of information– Selective retrieval of information – Motivational factors
Most evidence – third explanation
False consensus effect
• Ross, Greene i House (1977): Overestimation of own behaviors and attitudes in population
• Particularly visible if:– we are uncertain of the behavior value– The behavior is positive– we are in the minority
False consensus effect - explanations
• Different access to own and others’ behaviors and attitudes
• Salience and perceptual accessibility of wn attitudes and behaviors higher
• Validating own beliefs: – if I belive in it it must be true; – if it is true others have to believe in it as well
• Egotism – The more common behavior, the less negative
Explanations (cont.)
• False consensus effect as statistical artifact– Regression to the mean:
overestimation of rare behaviors/attitudes, underestimation of frequent behaviors
– Robyn Dawes: justified heuristic – in the face of lack of information inferrring from own attitudes self-projection
Robyn M. Dawes
1989
Functions of attributions
• When do people spontaneously ask „why” question?– Negative events
– Unexpected events
• Functions of attributions– Control
– Prediction
– Self-esteem
Attributional theories
• Attributional theory of achievement motivation (Bernard Weiner)
• Attributional theory of emotions (Bernard Weiner)
• Attributional theory of depression (Seligman, Teasdale & Abramson)
• Attributional explanations of intrinsic motivation (E. Deci, R. Ryan)
• Attributional effects in attraction • Self-handicapping