IV. Attribution Theory
Attribution theory is another area of study within the field of social cognition. Attribution theory tries to explain how people determine the cause of what they observe. For instance, if your friend Charley told you he got a perfect score on his math test, you might find yourself thinking that Charley is very good at math. In that case, you have made a dispositional or person attribution. Alternatively, you might attribute Charley’s success to a situational factor, such as an easy test; in that case you make a situation attribution. Attributions can also be stable or unstable. If you infer that Charley has always been a math whiz, you have made both a person attribution and a stable attribution, also called a person-stable attribution. On the other hand, if you think that Charley studied a lot for this one test you have made a person-unstable attribution. Similarly, if you believe that Ms. Mahoney, Charley’s math teacher, is an easy teacher, you have made a situation-stable attribution. If you think that Ms. Mahoney is a tough teacher who happened to give one easy test, you have made a situation-unstable attribution. Harold Kelley put forth a theory that explains the kind of attributions people make based on three kinds of information: consistency, distinctiveness, and consensus.
Consensus is a particularly important piece of information to use when determining whether to make a person or situation attribution. If Charley is the only one to earn such a good score on the math test, we seem to have learned something about Charley. Conversely, if everyone earned a high score on the test, we would suspect that something in the situation contributed to that outcome. Consistency, on the other hand, is extremely useful when determining whether to make a stable or unstable attribution. If Charley always aces his math tests, then it seems more likely that Charley is particularly skilled at math than that he happened to study hard for this one test. Similarly, if everyone always does well on Ms. Mahoney’s tests, we would be likely to make the situation-stable attribution that she is an easy teacher. However, if Charley usually scores low in Ms. Mahoney’s class, we will be more likely to make a situation-unstable attribution such as this particular test was easy. People often have certain ideas or prejudices about other people before they even meet them. These preconceived ideas can obviously affect the way someone acts toward another person. Even more interesting is the idea that the expectations we have about others can influence the way those others behave. Such a phenomenon is called a self-fulfilling prophecy. For instance, if Jon is repeatedly told that Chet, whom he has never met, is really funny, when Jon does finally meet Chet, he may treat Chet in such a way as to elicit the humorous behavior he expected. A classic study involving self-fulfilling prophecies was Robert Rosenthal and Lenore Jacobson’s (1968) “Pygmalion in the Classroom” experiment. They administered a test to elementary school children that supposedly would identify those children who were on the verge of significant academic growth. In reality, the test was a standard IQ test. These researchers then randomly selected a group of children from the population who took the test, and they informed their teachers that these students were ripe for such intellectual progress. Of course, since the children were selected randomly, they did not differ from any other group of children in the school. At the end of the year, the researchers returned to take another measure of the students’ IQ and found that the scores of the identified children had increased more than the scores of their classmates. In some way, the teachers’ expectations that these students would bloom intellectually over the year actually caused the students to outperform their peers. Attributional Biases Although people are quite good at sifting through all the data that bombards them and then making attributions, you will probably not be surprised to learn that errors are not uncommon. Moreover, people tend to make the same kinds of errors. A few typical biases are the fundamental attribution error, false-consensus effect, self-serving bias, and the just-world belief. Fundamental Attribution Error When looking at the behavior of others, people tend to overestimate the importance of dispositional factors and underestimate the role of situational factors. This tendency is known as the fundamental attribution error. Say that you go to a party where you are introduced to Claude, a young man you have never met before. Although you attempt to engage Claude in conversation, he is unresponsive. He looks past you and, soon after, seizes upon an excuse to leave. Most people would conclude that Claude is an unfriendly person. Few consider that something in the situation may have contributed to Claude’s behavior. Perhaps Claude just had a terrible fight with his girlfriend, Isabelle. Maybe on the way to the party he had a minor car accident. The point is that people systematically seem to overestimate the role of dispositional factors in influencing another person’s actions. Interestingly, people do not evidence this same tendency in explaining their own behaviors. Claude knows that he is sometimes extremely outgoing and warm. Since people get to view themselves in countless situations, they are more likely to make situational attributions about themselves than about others. Everyone has been shy and aloof at times, and everyone has been friendly. Thus, people are more likely to say that their own behavior depends upon the situation. One caveat must be added to our discussion of the fundamental attribution error. The fundamental attribution was named fundamental because it was believed to be so widespread. However, many cross-cultural psychologists have argued that the fundamental attribution error is far less likely to occur in collectivist cultures than in individualistic cultures. In an individualistic culture, like the American culture, the importance and uniqueness of the individual is stressed. In more collectivist cultures, like Japanese culture, a person’s link to various groups such as family or company is stressed. Cross-cultural research suggests that people in collectivist cultures are less likely to commit the fundamental attribution error, perhaps because they are more attuned to the ways that different situations influence their own behavior. TIP: Students often confuse self-serving bias and self-fulfilling prophecies, mainly because they both contain the word self. Be careful of this. Self-Serving Bias Self-serving bias is the tendency to take more credit for good outcomes than for bad ones. For instance, a basketball coach would be more likely to emphasize her or his role in the team’s championship win than in their heartbreaking first-round tournament loss. False-Consensus Effect The tendency for people to overestimate the number of people who agree with them is called the false-consensus effect. For instance, if Jamal dislikes horror movies, he is likely to think that most other people share his aversion. Conversely, Sabrina, who loves a good horror flick, overestimates the number of people who share her passion. Just World Bias Researchers have found that people evidence a bias toward thinking that bad things happen to bad people. This belief in a just world, known simply as the just-world bias, in which misfortunes befall people who deserve them, can be seen in the tendency to blame victims. For example, the woman was raped because she was stupidly walking alone in a dangerous neighborhood. People are unemployed because they are lazy. If the world is just in this manner, then, assuming we view ourselves as good people, we need not fear bad things happening to ourselves. |
Vocabulary to Know
Attribution Theory Self-Fulfilling Prophecy Fundamental Attribution Error Self-Serving Bias False-Consensus Effect Just World Bias People to Know Harold Kelley Robert Rosenthal Lenore Jacobson |
|