Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
21 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Attribution definition and characteristics
|
Explanations for behavior..situational (external) or internal (personal
Seek to explain behavior that happens around us |
|
|
Dispositional attributions
|
People like to make these more..attribute behavior to the person performing it..dispositional attributions (interchangeable terms
|
|
|
Fritz Heider's _______ ________
|
Fritz Heider's attribution theory
|
|
|
Fritz Heider with attribution theory
|
People make attributions..we tend to either make personal or situational attributions
“Naïve” or “commonsense” psychology His Theory: 1. Most explanations for behavior are personal or situational 2. People prefer personal attributions Implications Interpersonal explanations affect nature of interpersonal relationships |
|
|
Why people want to make dispositional things for behavior
|
want to infer behavior corresponds to personality—makes the person more predictable and experience more controllable
|
|
|
Correspondence inference theory
|
People want to make dispositional inferences for behaviors…want to infer behavior corresponds to personality—makes the person more predictable and experience more controllable
Appropriateness depends on three features of behavior: Depending on three features Choice Freely chosen Don’t make dispositional inference if someone kidnapped to say “USA sucks”..tells me less about kind of person you are Expectedness Non-normative Running around diag with USA sucks sign is not normative (not what you see every day)…but wearing USA t shirt on July 4th..running around diag tells more about a person if abnormal..more likely to lead to dispositional attribution Consequences/Effects Only one positive outcome (few common effects, one non-common effect) A behavior that has many positive outcomes is not as informative about a person’s disposition as one that has only one outcome People consider the consequences of their behavior when they try to determine why they chose to do a particular behavior Kelly choosing example..if one is dangerous and other isnt, a choose dangerous one, then non common effect..one behavior has an effect that is not shared..now that there is non-common effect, kelly’s choice to choose dylan shows that kelly likes dangerous dudes Cant have too many non common effects, and cant have all non common effects (discounting and augmentation) |
|
|
Discounting principle
|
Less weight should be given to a particular cause of behavior if there are other alternative causes present
If lots of feasible reasons for someone doing something, any one reason is not particularly informative |
|
|
Augmentation principle
|
More weight should be given to a particular cause of behavior if the other causes present would have produced an opposite result
More weight is given if other consequences of behavior would have produced opposite result If all negative outcomes, and one positive, then we give weight to positive..must be why he engaged in behavior |
|
|
More about correspondence inference theory
|
people want to make dispositional attributions (they want to figure out the personality)..but in order to do this, they need to take if free choiceher normative or nonnormative, and the consequences of behavior
|
|
|
Covariation theory
|
What covaries with behavior you want to explain?
Observe behaviors over time Every time the behavior occurs, is the cause (personal or situational) never there? Always? Sometimes? Advantage over Correspondent Inference Theory Target’s past behavior Others’ behaviors And update of last theory (some advantages of correspondence) SEEKS TO EXPLAIN HOW MAKE ATTRIBUTIONS..WHAT KIND OF INFO..HAS TO DO WITH OUR OBSERVATION OF WHAT COVARIES OF THE BEHAVIOR YOU WANT TO EXPLAIN (INCLUDES OBSERVING OVER TIME)..last theory doesn’t involve over time If kelly dating someone with sunglasses..is it covary? Or typical?...every time the behavior occurs, is the cause that I think is driving it, is it always there, sometimes there, or never there..most informative when it is always or never there..allows to do over time and compare to other people 3 sources of info when trying to make attribution: next slide |
|
|
3 factors of covariation theory
|
Consistency
Does this person always engage in the behavior in this situation? Consensus Do other people engage in the behavior in this situation? Distinctiveness Does this person engage in the behavior in other, similar situations? |
|
|
Dispositional attribution on covariation theory
|
high consistency, low consensus, low distinctiveness
|
|
|
Situational attribution on covariation theory
|
high consistency, high consensus, high distinctiveness
|
|
|
Fundamental attribution error
|
We tend to underestimate situational influences and overestimate dispositional influences
Also called “Correspondence Bias” |
|
|
Ultimate attribution error
|
Particularly likely to ignore situational information when thinking about negative behaviors of outgroup members
Basis for stereotyping? Failure to take into account, and not just dispositional attributions, but group based dispositional (that is what that group is like) We should remember to consider situational attributions! Entire groups fund attribution error….women are bad drivers because belong to group |
|
|
2 listed explanations of FAE
|
Perceptual salience
What is perceived most readily..what do we focus on..trying to focus on person, so focus on person…WHERE IS YOUR ATTENTION Culture Matters in whether we engage..most common in independent cultures..in independent societies, people tend to play power/root in the person..in interdependent cultures, tend to take more situation into account |
|
|
Dual process model of attributions
|
Our automatic thoughts are dispositional..after we make automatic attribution, we can correct it (make extra step) but it is effortful
Automatic: personal Effortful correction: consider situation Motivation and ability |
|
|
Actor observer effect
|
Dispositional attributions for others, situational attributions for self
Variant of FAE Explanations for AOE Information Have more for self Perceptual salience Focus attention on actor..the person we are trying to attribute their behavior So when observer, focus on person..when actor, might be aware of situation I am in (I am thinking of test items when taking test…observer is just looking at behavior, not test items) |
|
|
2 motivated attributional factors
|
Self-serving attributions
Dispositional attributions for success, situational for failure Motive (self enhancement)..not just attribution of goals of understanding..just enhancing self..disposition for successes, and situational for failures More likely to make situational for other people..but if good, we attribute internally..more likely to happen if self esteem threatened Defensive attributions Explanations that avoid feelings of vulnerability and mortality Belief in a Just World “people get what they deserve” People vary in endorse ideas like this..if see homeless on street, more comforting to think that it is something about him (could not happen to me) |
|
|
Self serving attributions
|
Dispositional attributions for success, situational for failure
Motive (self enhancement)..not just attribution of goals of understanding..just enhancing self..disposition for successes, and situational for failures More likely to make situational for other people..but if good, we attribute internally..more likely to happen if self esteem threatened |
|
|
Defensive attributions
|
Explanations that avoid feelings of vulnerability and mortality
Belief in a Just World “people get what they deserve” People vary in endorse ideas like this..if see homeless on street, more comforting to think that it is something about him (could not happen to me) |
