ZeePedia

ATTRIBUTION:The locus of causality, Stability & Controllability

<< PERSON PERCEPTION: WHEN PERSON PERCEPTION IS MOST CHALLENGING
ATTRIBUTION ERRORS:Biases in Attribution, Cultural differences >>
img
Social Psychology (PSY403)
VU
Lesson 16
ATTRIBUTION
Aims
Introduce the basic concept of causal judgment
Objectives
Compare and contrast the main theories of attribution processes
What is Attribution?
Attribution is the process by which people use information to make inferences about the causes of
behaviour and events.
Attribution Theory is the area of psychology concerned with when and how people ask "why" questions.
Two important psychologists who analyzed attribution theory were Gustav Ichheiser (1943) and Fritz
Heider (1958). Both flee from Austria to USA in the 1930 because of the rise of fascism and anti-
intellectual atmosphere in Europe. Their career diverged in USA; Heider became an influential theorists
and Ichheiser fought mental illness and went into obscurity.
Fritz Heider (1958)
Heider emerged as the most important attribution theorist and shaped the development of this theory. He
maintained that people are motivated by two primary needs:
·
the need to form a coherent view of the world
·
the need to gain control over the environment
To satisfy these needs we act as naive scientists, rationally and logically testing our hypotheses about the
behaviour of others. He talked about one important concept in relation to attribution-locus of causality.
The locus of causality
In making causal attributions, by far the most important judgment concerns the locus of causality.
·  Internal attribution: any explanation that locates the cause as being internal to the person such as
personality, mood, attitudes, abilities, and effort (also know as a person attribution)
·
External attribution: any explanation that locates the cause as being external to the person such as
the actions of others, the nature of the situation, or luck (also know as a situation attribution)
Stability & Controllability:
Weiner (1982, 1986) added another to attribution- stability vs. instability of causes.
Stable vs. unstable causes: permanent and lasting vs. temporary and fluctuating
Although stability and instability of dimension is independent of internal and stable dimension
(dispositional), stability of causes can also be explained in combination with locus of causality. For
example causes may be internal and stable, internal but unstable, external and stable, external and unstable
Controllable vs. Uncontrollable causes
·  Weiner also talked about another dimension of making attribution- controllability and
uncontrollability.
·
They also are independent of locus of causality or stability of causes but can also be explained in
connection with them.
67
img
Social Psychology (PSY403)
VU
·
These three dimensions appear to be the main way people explain events, e.g., stigmatizing AIDS
and cancer (Meyer & Koebl, 1982) and are equally applicable in individualist and collectivist
countries (Hau & Salili, 1991)
Figure 1 describes below how an event can be explained in multiple combination of causality.
Causes of academic achievement due to Locus, Stability and Controllability
External
Controllability
Internal Stable
Internal Unstable
External Stable
Stable
Temporary effort
Some form of
Unusual help
Controllable
Typical effort
exerted for a
teacher bias
from other
particular exam
Uncontrollable
Exerted effort
Mood
Exam Difficulty
Luck
Correspondent Inference Theory (Jones & Davis, 1965)
The theory of correspondent inferences describes how we use certain rules of thumb to infer dispositional
(stable and internal) causes of behaviour. The main characteristics are as under:
·
People try to infer a correspondent inference that the action of an actor corresponds to, or is
indicative of, a stable personality characteristic
·
People prefer dispositional attributions because this type of knowledge is more valuable with
regard to making predictions about people's behaviour
·  However, social behaviour is ambiguous so as a guide people use several heuristics to assess
whether correspondence between behaviour and personality is high
When we make dispositional attributions?
We are especially likely to make dispositional attributions when events are negative or unexpected and this
usually happens under following three conditions:
·
Social desirability: an internal, dispositional attribution more likely when socially undesirable
behaviours are observed
·
Choice: an internal, dispositional attribution is more likely when the actor has freely chosen the
given behaviour(Jones & Harris, 1967)
·
Non-common effects: an internal, dispositional attribution is more likely when the outcome of a
behaviour has a unique (or non-common) effect
The Covariation Model (Kelly, 1967)
The correspondent inference model is limited to single instances of behaviour and focuses on internal
attributions, whereas the covariation model focuses of multiple instances of behaviour. This theory
maintains that for something to be the cause of a particular behaviour it must be present when the
behaviour is present and absent when the behaviour is absent (i.e., covary). According to Kelly people
make attributions by using the covariation principal. Kelley's Covariation Model (1967) states that people
try to see if a particular cause and a particular effect go together across situations. The main elements of
this model are as under:
68
img
Social Psychology (PSY403)
VU
·
The correspondent inference model is limited to single instances of behaviour and focuses on
internal attributions
·
The covariation model accounts for multiple observational points and details the processes that
result in external as well as internal attributions.
·
Attributions are made using the covariation principle: For something to be the cause of a particular
behaviour it must be present when the behaviour is present and absent when the behaviour is absent
(i.e., covary)
·
From multiple potential causes we ascribe causality to the one that covaries with the behaviour to
the greatest extent
The discounting and augmentation principles:
The discounting principle:
The role of a given cause is discounted if other plausible causes are present
(i.e., exam failure but illness - decreased internal attribution); e.g., if a salesperson is nice to us, we don't
necessarily assume he or she is intrinsically friendly
The augmentation principle:
The role of a given cause is augmented if an effect occurs in the presence of an inhibitory cause
(i.e., exam success in spite of illness - increased internal attribution)
Assessing covariation (Kelly, 1967)
In assessing covariation people rely on three kinds of information:
1. Consensus information: the extent to which others react to some stimulus
2. Consistency information: the extent to which the person reacts to the stimulus in the same way on
different occasions
3. Distinctiveness information: the extent to which the person reacts in the same way to other,
different stimuli
·  Although the model is generally supported, all three types of information (consensus,
consistency and distinctiveness information) are not equal (Chen, Yates, & McGinniews,
1988).
·  We attend more to the actor (consistency and distinctiveness information) rather than other
actors in the context (consensus information), Windschild & Wells (1997)
Let's consider Stephen Glass's case, mentioned in Person Perception lectures, for understanding the
co variation model of attribution theory:
Covariation Model
Why did Glass's story contain unverified sources?
Distinctiveness
Conscious
Consistency
Attribution
High ­ A number of
Low ­ No other
Low ­ His stories for
his previous stories
journalist had
other magazines also
Dispositional (lying,
had unverified
deceitful)
problems with
contain unverified
sources.
unverified sources.
sources.
High ­ Many
High ­ A number of
High ­ His stories for
Entity: something
journalists at `New
his previous stories
other magazines do
about `New
Republic' had
had unverified
not contain unverified
Republic'.
problems with
sources.
sources.
unverified sources.
Low ­ No other
High ­ His Stories for
Low ­ None of his
Circumstances /
journalist had
other magazines do
previous stories had
Context (illness,
problems with
not contain unverified
unverified sources.
deadline)
unverified sources.
sources.
Reading
Franzoi, S. (2003). Social Psychology. Boston: McGraw-Hill. Chapter 4.
69
Table of Contents:
  1. INTRODUCTION TO SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY:Readings, Main Elements of Definitions
  2. INTRODUCTION TO SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY:Social Psychology and Sociology
  3. CONDUCTING RESEARCH IN SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY:Scientific Method
  4. CONDUCTING RESEARCH IN SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY:Evaluate Ethics
  5. CONDUCTING RESEARCH IN SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY RESEARCH PROCESS, DESIGNS AND METHODS (CONTINUED)
  6. CONDUCTING RESEARCH IN SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OBSERVATIONAL METHOD
  7. CONDUCTING RESEARCH IN SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY CORRELATIONAL METHOD:
  8. CONDUCTING RESEARCH IN SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY EXPERIMENTAL METHOD
  9. THE SELF:Meta Analysis, THE INTERNET, BRAIN-IMAGING TECHNIQUES
  10. THE SELF (CONTINUED):Development of Self awareness, SELF REGULATION
  11. THE SELF (CONTINUE…….):Journal Activity, POSSIBLE HISTORICAL EFFECTS
  12. THE SELF (CONTINUE……….):SELF-SCHEMAS, SELF-COMPLEXITY
  13. PERSON PERCEPTION:Impression Formation, Facial Expressions
  14. PERSON PERCEPTION (CONTINUE…..):GENDER SOCIALIZATION, Integrating Impressions
  15. PERSON PERCEPTION: WHEN PERSON PERCEPTION IS MOST CHALLENGING
  16. ATTRIBUTION:The locus of causality, Stability & Controllability
  17. ATTRIBUTION ERRORS:Biases in Attribution, Cultural differences
  18. SOCIAL COGNITION:We are categorizing creatures, Developing Schemas
  19. SOCIAL COGNITION (CONTINUE…….):Counterfactual Thinking, Confirmation bias
  20. ATTITUDES:Affective component, Behavioral component, Cognitive component
  21. ATTITUDE FORMATION:Classical conditioning, Subliminal conditioning
  22. ATTITUDE AND BEHAVIOR:Theory of planned behavior, Attitude strength
  23. ATTITUDE CHANGE:Factors affecting dissonance, Likeability
  24. ATTITUDE CHANGE (CONTINUE……….):Attitudinal Inoculation, Audience Variables
  25. PREJUDICE AND DISCRIMINATION:Activity on Cognitive Dissonance, Categorization
  26. PREJUDICE AND DISCRIMINATION (CONTINUE……….):Religion, Stereotype threat
  27. REDUCING PREJUDICE AND DISCRIMINATION:The contact hypothesis
  28. INTERPERSONAL ATTRACTION:Reasons for affiliation, Theory of Social exchange
  29. INTERPERSONAL ATTRACTION (CONTINUE……..):Physical attractiveness
  30. INTIMATE RELATIONSHIPS:Applied Social Psychology Lab
  31. SOCIAL INFLUENCE:Attachment styles & Friendship, SOCIAL INTERACTIONS
  32. SOCIAL INFLUENCE (CONTINE………):Normative influence, Informational influence
  33. SOCIAL INFLUENCE (CONTINUE……):Crimes of Obedience, Predictions
  34. AGGRESSION:Identifying Aggression, Instrumental aggression
  35. AGGRESSION (CONTINUE……):The Cognitive-Neo-associationist Model
  36. REDUCING AGGRESSION:Punishment, Incompatible response strategy
  37. PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR:Types of Helping, Reciprocal helping, Norm of responsibility
  38. PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR (CONTINUE………):Bystander Intervention, Diffusion of responsibility
  39. GROUP BEHAVIOR:Applied Social Psychology Lab, Basic Features of Groups
  40. GROUP BEHAVIOR (CONTINUE…………):Social Loafing, Deindividuation
  41. up Decision GROUP BEHAVIOR (CONTINUE……….):GroProcess, Group Polarization
  42. INTERPERSONAL POWER: LEADERSHIP, The Situational Perspective, Information power
  43. SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY APPLIED: SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY IN COURT
  44. SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY APPLIED: SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY IN CLINIC
  45. FINAL REVIEW:Social Psychology and related fields, History, Social cognition