PSY 380
February 01, 2000
Today's Topic: Attribution Theory and Self-Serving Attributions
Announcements
Exam 1 this Thursday Feb 03 11am-12noon
Sections 002-007 here in 1324 East HallSections 008-013 in 1202 SEB (School of Education)
Exam Review Session Tonight 8-9pm, 170 Dennison. Bring questions!
Coffee Talk today after class
Correspondent Inference Theory (Jones & Davis, 1965)
The theory that we make internal attributions about a person when there are
few noncommon effects of the behaviorwhen the behavior is unexpected
Noncommon effects: effects produced by a particular course of action that could not be produced by alternative courses of action
Many Noncommon Effects
Univ. of MI Univ. of Ariz
Few Noncommon Effects
Univ. Job Gallup Org.
Correspondent Inference Theory
Behavior is Unexpected (Jones, Davis, & Gergen, 1961)
Participant listens to taped interview of target applying for astronaut or submariner job
Given descriptions of personality desired for each job
astronaut:submariner:
Target acted either in-line or out-of-line with expectations
Results of Jones, Davis, & Gergen (1961)
"How much did his behavior match his personality?
When people act in a way that is contrary to what is expected in the situation, we are more confident in our trait inferences
Contributions of Heider
Heider proposed that we have a preference for dispositional attributions
FAEcorrespondent inference theory
Heider also proposed the "naive scientist" perspective
Many of our attributions are the result of complex process of logical operations
Kelley's Covariation Model of Attribution
focus on how we make external as well as internal attributions
relies on our perception of the behavior across time and in other situations
in forming attributions, we take in and integrate information from several sources
Types of information used to form attributions
consensus:
consistency:
distinctiveness:
Tom can't program the VCR.
CONSENSUS: Does everyone have trouble with this VCR?
YES:NO:
CONSISTENCY: Does Tom always have trouble with this VCR?
YES:NO:
DISTINCTIVENESS
Can Tom program other VCRs?
YES:NO:
Tom can't program the VCR.
Everyone has trouble with this VCR:
Tom always has trouble with this VCR:
Tom can program other VCRs:
Tom can't program the VCR.
No one else has trouble with this VCR:
Tom always has trouble with this VCR:
Tom can't program any other VCRs:
Kelley's Covariation Model
high consensus, high consistency, high distinctiveness
external attribution
low consensus, high consistency, low distinctiveness
internal attribution
other combinations? special cases, unusual circumstances
So Heider's two proposals about attribution led to the formation of several major theories of attribution
Conclusion that we can be thoughtful and logical in forming attributions, but are also prone to error (e.g., FAE)
We can also be biased in forming attributions
Self-Serving Biases in Attribution
Self-serving bias: Taking personal credit for positive outcomes and blaming external forces for bad outcomes
Sheppard (1993). How well did you do on the SAT?
Self-Serving Biases
Such biases serve to maintain self-esteem
negative outcome => feel bad about self =>build up self-esteem with external attribution
positive outcome => feel good about self => maintain self-esteem with internal attribution
But sometimes we do take credit for bad outcomes
Wortman et al. (1973)
Subjects worked on bogus "social perceptiveness test", then received either success or failure feedback.
Half were told that they were done with testing, while the other half were told that they would be tested again.
Done testing Will test again
Success attribution to less attrib to ability
feedback ability more attrib to circumstances
(2) (5)
Failure attribution to less attrib to circumstances
feedback circumstances more attrib to ability
(8) (5)
Subjects who anticipated further evaluation showed reduced self-serving bias. Why?
In general people show the self-serving bias, but when that positivity has the opportunity to be disproved or is not socially acceptable (seen as bragging), they present more modest or socially acceptable self-attributions.
What matters is that we come out looking good.
Another way we protect self-esteem
Imagine that you have an interview tomorrow for a very prestigious job. You heard that the standards are quite high, and that the interview process is quite grueling. Deep inside, you suspect that you're not quite ready for all this. You're actually quite anxious about your performance.
What would you do the night before?
1. stay up late thinking about and practicing for the interview
2. eat a good dinner and go to bed early
3. stay out late partying with your friends, to "relax and get your mind off it"
Self-handicapping
Engaging in behaviors designed to sabotage one's own performance in order to provide a subsequent excuse for failure
How does this preserve self-esteem?
We are afraid of failing, so we create an obstacle to successif we do fail, we can blame the obstacle
If we actually do succeed, all the better; we succeeded despite the obstacle, so we must be really good
Ways that we self-handicap
overindulging in food and drink prior to performancecomplaining of illness or injury before athletic competition
emphasizing task difficulty beforehand
all help to mask the relationship between ability and performance in the event of failure
Does this strategy really help us to be seen favorably?
Rhodewalt, et al. (1995)
Observers can detect self-handicapping in others
Observers dislike self-handicappers and infer that they do have low ability
Can also increase the probability of failure
Self-handicapping as a self-serving attributional style? More apparent than real.