AttributionAttribution theory explores how individuals attribute, or explain, the causes of their own and others' behaviors. Show
Learning Objectives Compare the various types, models, and errors of attribution Key TakeawaysKey Points
Key Terms
One of the central concerns of social psychology is understanding the ways in which people explain, or "attribute," events and behavior. "Attribution theory" is an umbrella term for various models that attempt to understand this process. Explanatory and Interpersonal Attribution In our attempts to make sense of the world around us, we tend to look for reasons and causes behind events and situations. To do this, we make either explanatory or interpersonal attributions. Internal and External AttributionAttributions can also be classified as either internal or external. Internal attributions emphasize dispositional or personality-based explanations, while external attributions emphasize situational factors. For example, when a person aces a test, an internal attribution might be the conclusion that she must be very smart. An external attribution for the same outcome might be that she must have received extra help before the test or that the test was too easy. Attribution ModelsThere are multiple models that attempt to explain the kinds of attributions we use. Two of the most well-known models are the covariation model and the three-dimensional model. Covariation Model of Attribution The covariation principle states that people attribute behavior to the factors that covary with that behavior. This means that the "causes" they identify are present when the behavior occurs and absent when it does not. This theory assumes that people make causal attributions in a rational, logical
fashion and will assign the cause of an action to the factor that seems most closely associated with it.
Based on these three pieces of information, observers will make a decision as to whether the individual's behavior is either internal or external. For example, if your friend raves about a film, you may consider his response compared to other people's response (consensus), whether your friend raves about other films (distinctive), and whether he always raves about this film (consistency). If other people love the film, your friend does not tend to rave about films, and he consistently praises this film, you might make the external attribution that the film must in fact be good. If no one else loves the film, your friend always raves about films, and he does not consistently praise this particular film, you might make the internal attribution that there must be something specific to your friend that made him enjoy and rave about the film. Three-Dimensional Model of Attribution This model suggests that a person's attributions and perceptions about their own success and failure determines the amount of effort the person will put forth in similar situations in the future. When attributions lead to positive feelings and high expectations of future success, the person will likely be more willing to approach similar tasks in the future. Similarly, attributions that produce negative feelings and low expectations for future success will make the individual
less willing to put forth effort toward similar tasks in the future.
Attribution Biases and ErrorsPeople are susceptible to bias and error when making attributions about themselves and others. A few common such biases include the fundamental attribution error, the self-serving bias, the actor-observer bias, and the just-world hypothesis. Fundamental Attribution Error According to social psychologists, people tend to overemphasize internal factors as explanations for the behavior of other people and do the opposite when explaining our own behavior. That is to say, we tend to assume that the behavior of another person is due to a trait of that person, underestimating
the role of context. For example, when a student fails to turn in his or her homework, a teacher may assume the student is lazy rather than attributing the behavior to external contextual factors such as having a particularly busy schedule that week. This perspective is called the fundamental attribution error and may result from our attempt to simplify the processing of complex information. Fundamental attribution error: The fundamental attribution error explains why when someone cuts us off we assume he or she is bad-natured, but when we cut someone off we believe it is because the situation required it. Self-Serving BiasSelf-serving bias is the tendency of individuals to make internal attributions when their actions have a positive outcome but external attributions when their actions have a negative outcome. This bias lets us continue to see ourselves in a favorable light and protects our self-esteem; we take credit for our successes and pin our failures on other factors. For example, if an individual gets promoted, he may attribute it to his performance; if he fails to get the promotion, he may attribute it to his supervisor possibly having a grudge against him. Actor-Observer BiasThe actor-observer bias explains the phenomenon of attributing other people’s behavior to internal factors while attributing our own behavior to external or situational forces, also known as the fundamental attribution error (Jones & Nisbett, 1971; Nisbett, Caputo, Legant, & Marecek, 1973; Choi & Nisbett, 1998). When we are actors of behavior, we have more information about the situation to help us form an explanation, but when we are merely observers, we have less information; therefore, we tend to default to the assumption that others' actions are based on internal factors rather than the situation. Just-World HypothesisOne consequence of Westerners’ tendency to provide internal explanations for others' behavior is victim-blaming (Jost & Major, 2001). When bad things happen to people, others tend to assume that those people somehow are responsible for their own fate. A common view in the United States is the just-world hypothesis, which is the belief that people get the outcomes they deserve (Lerner & Miller, 1978). In order to maintain the belief that the world is a fair place, people tend to think that good people experience positive outcomes and bad people experience negative outcomes (Jost, Banaji, & Nosek, 2004; Jost & Major, 2001). This worldview allows us to feel that the world is predictable and that we have some control over our life outcomes (Jost et al., 2004; Jost & Major, 2001). Trayvon Martin: Trayvon Martin, a 17-year-old African-American youth, was fatally shot by George Zimmerman, a white volunteer neighborhood watchman, in 2012. His death sparked a heated debate around the country about the effects of racism in the United States. Social psychologists theorize about how different cognitive biases influence different people's perspectives on Martin's death. Cultural Factors Research shows that culture affects how people make attributions. Individualist cultures value personal goals and
independence. Collectivist cultures see individuals as members of a group and tend to value conformity, mutual support, and interdependence. People from individualist cultures are more inclined to make the fundamental attribution error and demonstrate self-serving bias than people from collectivist cultures. This is thought to be because individualists tend to attribute behavior to internal factors (the individual), while collectivists tend to attribute behavior to external factors (the group
and world). AttitudesIn psychological terms, attitude is our positive or negative evaluation of a person, an idea, or an object. Learning Objectives Discuss influences on and motivators of attitude Key TakeawaysKey Points
Key Terms
Attitude is our evaluation of a person, an idea, or an object. Typically, attitudes are favorable or unfavorable, or positive or negative (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). They can also be defined as a learned habit for responding to social stimuli. Attitudes
reflect more than just positive or negative evaluations: they include other characteristics, such as importance, certainty, accessibility, and associated knowledge. Attitudes are important in the study of Components of Attitudes Attitudes are thought to have three components: an affective component (feelings), a behavioral
component (the effect of the attitude on behavior), and a cognitive component (belief and knowledge) (Rosenberg & Hovland, 1960). For example, you may hold a positive attitude toward recycling. This attitude should result in positive feelings toward recycling (such as, “It makes me feel good to recycle,” or “I enjoy knowing that I make a small difference in reducing the amount of waste that ends up in landfills”). This attitude should then be reflected in behavior: you actually recycle as
often as you can. Finally, this attitude will be reflected in favorable thoughts (for example, “Recycling is good for the environment,” or “Recycling is the responsible thing to do”). Explicit vs. Implicit AttitudesPsychologists believe that attitudes can be either explicit (deliberately formed) or implicit (unconsciously formed). People may not be aware of their implicit attitudes, so they must be measured using sophisticated methods that can access unconscious thoughts and feelings, such as response times to stimuli. Explicit attitudes are deliberately formed attitudes that an individual is aware of having, and they can be measured by self-report and questionnaires. Attitude FunctionResearchers attempt to understand the function of attitudes by considering how they affect individuals. There are four primary categories that explain the function of attitudes:
Attitude FormationThere are several factors that affect the ways in which our attitudes are formed. Some researchers believe that learning can account for the attitudes an individual holds. The formation of many attitudes is believed to happen due to conditioning or social learning, and attitudes in general are expected to change with experience. An example of this can be seen with the mere-exposure effect, which describes how an individual will develop positive attitudes toward something or someone simply due to repeated exposure. Cognitive Dissonance and Attitude ChangeIn psychology, "cognitive dissonance" describes the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values. Leon Festinger proposed the cognitive-dissonance theory (1957), which states that a powerful motive to maintain cognitive consistency can give rise to irrational and sometimes maladaptive behavior. According to Festinger, we hold many cognitions about the world and ourselves; when they clash, a discrepancy is evoked, resulting in a state of tension known as cognitive dissonance. For example, if you believe smoking is bad for your health but you continue to smoke, you experience conflict between your belief and your behavior. Since the experience of dissonance is unpleasant, we are motivated to reduce or eliminate it and achieve consonance (agreement). Smoking and cognitive dissonance: Smokers often experience cognitive dissonance: they know that smoking is harmful to their health, but they continue to do it anyway. Most smokers alleviate their psychological discomfort by adjusting their attitudes toward smoking, toward their health, or both, by saying things such as, "I know plenty of 70-year-olds that smoke and they're doing just fine," or "I'm bound to die anyway, might as well enjoy it." When we experience cognitive dissonance, we are motivated to decrease it because it is psychologically, physically, and mentally uncomfortable. We can reduce cognitive dissonance by bringing our cognitions, attitudes, and behaviors in line—that is, making them harmonious. This can be done in different ways, such as:
Persuasion and Attitude ChangePersuasion is an active method of influence that attempts to guide people toward adopting an attitude, idea, or behavior; it is also the process of changing one's own attitude toward something based on some kind of communication. Much of the persuasion we experience comes from outside forces. Numerous variables have been found to influence the persuasion process and are normally presented in four major categories:
The dual-process model is one of the most notable models of persuasion. It maintains that the
persuasive process is mediated by two separate "routes." The central route of persuasion requires the audience to evaluate the merits of a message, and it is likely to be used when an individual is highly motivated. The peripheral route does not involve critically analyzing (or elaborating on) the message. It is a mental shortcut which accepts or rejects a message based on external cues, such as attractiveness or perceived credibility, rather than critical thought. It is likely
to be used in low-motivation conditions. PrejudiceIn psychology, "prejudice" refers to a usually (but not always) negative evaluation of another person or group based on their perceived characteristics. Learning Objectives Assess the origins and impacts of prejudice Key TakeawaysKey Points
Key Terms
Prejudice: Ingroups and Outgroups Prejudice is a baseless and usually negative attitude toward members of a group. Common features of prejudice include negative feelings, stereotyped beliefs, and a tendency to discriminate against members of the group. The word is often used to refer to preconceived, usually unfavorable, judgments toward people based on their
gender, social class, age, disability, religion, sexuality, or other personal characteristics. In psychology, "prejudice" refers to a positive or negative evaluation of another person based on their group membership. It is also important to remember that prejudice is a belief and not a behavior. Although prejudice may lead to discrimination, the two are separate concepts. Motivations Underlying PrejudiceIngroup FavoritismResearchers have found that ingroup favoritism, or preference for members of the group one belongs to, can occur even when the group had no prior social meaning. Experiments have shown that when participants were assigned to groups based on something as trivial as a coin toss, those participants exhibited ingroup favoritism, giving preferential treatment to members of their own group. Outgroup HomogeneityThe outgroup homogeneity effect is the perception that members of an outgroup are more similar than members of the ingroup. This can range from physical to mental characteristics. This kind of prejudice can be seen in times of war or conflict, when each group dehumanizes their enemy. Prejudice and propaganda: Elements of prejudice can often be seen in propaganda. This image emphasizes the individuality of the ingroup (America) and the homogeneity of the outgroup (Slavik communists), demonstrating the principle of outgroup homogeneity. Another example of this phenomenon was noted in a study in which researchers asked 90 sorority members to judge the degree of within-group similarity for their own group and two other groups. It was found that every participant judged their own sorority members to be significantly more dissimilar than the members of the other groups. The Justification-Suppression ModelThe justification-suppression model of prejudice explains that people face a conflict between the desire to express prejudice and the desire to maintain a positive self-concept. This conflict causes people to search for justification for disliking an outgroup and to use that justification to avoid negative self-concept when they express their disdain. Realistic Conflict Theory The realistic conflict theory (RCT) states that competition between limited resources leads to increased negative
prejudices and discrimination. Research has shown this to be the case, even when the resource in question is insignificant—such as a cheap plastic trinket. However, research has shown that the hostilities created in this situation can be lessened once groups are forced to cooperate to achieve a common goal. Social Dominance TheoryThis theory states that society can be viewed as a series of group-based hierarchies. When in competition for scarce resources, such as housing or employment, dominant groups create prejudiced "legitimizing myths" to provide moral and intellectual justification for their dominant position over other groups. This helps to validate their claim over the limited resources. Reducing Prejudice Research indicates that most prejudicial attitudes and biases are
culturally learned and not innate, meaning these beliefs can also be unlearned. In a meta-analysis of 515 studies on prejudice, three important mediating factors were found to reduce prejudice. All factors rely on intergroup contact, or the intermingling of two groups. This contact (1) enhances knowledge about the outgroup, (2) reduces anxiety about intergroup contact, and (3) increases empathy and perspective taking. Licenses and AttributionsCC licensed content, Shared previously
CC licensed content, Specific attribution
Which term refers to the tendency to attribute one's successes to internal causes and one's failures to external causes?The self-serving bias refers to the tendency to attribute internal, personal factors to positive outcomes but external, situational factors to negative outcomes.
Which term refers to the tendency to attribute one's successes to internal causes and one's failures to external causes quizlet?Self-serving bias. The tendency to attribute one's success to dispositional causes and one's failures to situational cause.
Which term refers to the tendency to attribute other peoples behavior to internal rather than external causes?The actor-observer bias is a term in social psychology that refers to a tendency to attribute one's own actions to external causes while attributing other people's behaviors to internal causes. It is a type of attributional bias that plays a role in how people perceive and interact with other people.
What term refers to our tendency to attribute our success?Self-serving bias refers to a tendency to attribute one's successes to personal characteristics, and one's failures to factors beyond one's control. In short, we take credit for our successes but not for our failures.
|