Download Sociology 530 - rci.rutgers.edu

Sociology 319
Sociological Approaches to Social Psychology
Deborah Carr ([email protected])
Thursday February 26, 2009 Attribution & Attitudes
Attribution Theory
A. What is it? Attribution theory describes the processes through which observers infer
the causes of others’ behavior. You might often ask yourself “Why did s/he do that?” In
attribution theory, the perceiver tries to take apart the events that occurred, and tries to figure out
how and why they happened; by considering a variety of factors - ranging from characteristics of
the individual, to the situational context that might have guided the other’s behavior. Heider
refers to this concept as the “naive scientist.” In trying to make sense of behavior, and to find
explanations, laypersons engage in a quasi-scientific method where they try to “control”
extraneous variables.
B. Dispositional versus situational attributions. This is the most basic set of “attributions”
or explanations we make for others’ behavior. When we seek to find explanations for someone’s
behavior, we generally attribute the behavior to one of two causes: disposition or situation.
1. Disposition refers to internal states of the person who performed a given
behavior. (e.g., intelligence, kindness, ambition)
2. Situation refers to the factors in a person’s environment that might have
impacted his or her behavior. (e.g., uncomfortable test-taking situation, having had a bad day at
work)
EXAMPLE: A friend is 15 minutes late meeting you for dinner. You can come up with either a
dispositional (i.e., s/he is rude and irresponsible) or situational explanation (i.e., s/he must have
gotten caught in traffic).
3. How do we decide which type of attribution to make?
a. Subtractive rule. This rule states that when making attributions about
personal dispositions, the observer will subtract the impact of situational forces from the personal
disposition implied by the behavior itself.
i. Weigh the strengths of the situational pressure. If there’s a fivemile backup on the highway to due a crash, we’ll likely attribute our friend’s lateness to the
traffic jam. But, if the “traffic” problem was simply the usual congestion of Friday 5 p.m. traffic
(not a very severe situational constraint), we’ll likely blame our friend for being late and not
thinking about rush hour traffic.
C. Covariation Principle. The covariation principle (Kelley) states “the effect is
attributed to that condition which is present when the effect is present and which is absent
when the effect is absent.”
1. We try to figure out whether the behavior of interest occurs when other
characteristics are “held constant.” There are three main factors we consider when trying to
understand behavior:
a. actor - the person performing the behavior
b. object - the object of the behavior
c. context - the setting in which the behavior occurs.
2. We use three types of information when trying to come up with an explanation
or attribution. These three sources of information are:
a. Consensus. whether all actors or only a few perform the same behavior.
b. Consistency. whether the actor behaves the same way at different times
and in different settings.
c. Distinctiveness. whether the actor behaves differently towards a
particular object than towards other objects.
EXAMPLE: Your friend Mary tells you that she went to a comedy club the night before and saw
an extremely funny comedian. She laughed hysterically at his jokes, and thought he was the
funniest thing she had ever seen. She says you should definitely go see the comedian. Now, you
want a casual attribution for her laughter. If the cause is the comedian, then you should follow
her advice. But what if it was something about the situation? Or something unique about Mary?
The principle of covariation says we should assess each of the above dimensions. A study by
McArthur (1972) actually sought to determine how people attribute causation in the above
scenario. Subjects were given a variety of conditions, and were then asked to make attributions.
The far right column indicates their responses. These three patterns yielded the most consistent
attributions.
Consensus
Distinctiveness
Consistency
Attribution
Low
(Few people laughed)
Low
High
Actor (86%)
(She laughs at everyone)(She always laughs at him)
High
(Everyone laughed)
High
(She rarely laughs)
High
(She always laughs at him)
Object (61%)
Low
(Few people laughed)
High
(She rarely laughs)
Low
(She rarely laughs at him)
Context (72%)
D. Sources of Bias (or Error) in Making Attributions. The attributions we make are often fraught
with error. There are three general classes of bias or error.
1. Correspondence Bias (Jones 1979) - When explaining others’ behavior, we
are more likely to attribute outcomes to personal dispositions, and we tend to overlook the
role of circumstance. This bias has been found in so many different settings by social
psychologists that it has been called the “fundamental attribution error.” This has important
ramifications, particularly for social policy. For example, if observers see that individuals are in
a disadvantaged position (e.g., poor, unemployed), the problem might be attributed to
“disposition” rather than to social structural obstacles. Why do we perceive this way?
a. Salience (figure/ground). When we observe another person’s behavior,
we tend to focus on his or her actions; the context tends to fade into the background. In general,
we overestimate the causal impact of whomever or whatever we focus our attention on.
b. We give insufficient weight to situational causes of behavior due to
processing limitations. The implication is that situational causes require more cognitive
resources, but that people infer traits or attitudes of target people with little or no effort.
2. The Actor-Observer Effect. (“You Fell, I Was Pushed.”) This bias is essentially
the reverse of correspondence bias. Here, we tend to attribute our OWN behavior to
situational factors, though we attribute others’ behavior to dispositional effects. Why?
a. We are very aware of the situational factors affecting our own actions,
but are less aware of such factors when we turn our attention to other persons. Thus, we perceive
our own behavior as arising largely from situational causes, but that of others as deriving mainly
from their traits or dispositions.
3. Self-Serving Bias (“I’m good; you’re lucky”). This bias augments the actorobserver effect. This is the tendency to attribute our own positive outcomes to internal or
dispositional causes but negative ones to external or situational factors. For instance, if you
get an A+ on your exam, you’ll likely think “I’m smart and hard working.” If you do poorly,
you’re more likely to say “the test was too hard,” or “it was bad luck; I studied the wrong things”
or “the teacher is unfair.” Why does this happen?
a. Cognitive explanations: These explanations refer to how we process
social information. An actor’s natural visual perspective is to look at the situation while the
observer’s natural visual perspective is to look at the actor. Thus differences in perceptual fields
provide an explanation.
b. Motivational explanations: The self-serving bias stems from our need to
protect and enhance our self-esteem, or the related desire to look good in the eyes of others. We
have motives to defend our own beliefs, to increase one’s sense of control over the environment,
and to strengthen the favorable impression of oneself that others have.
E. Emotional and Behavioral Consequences of Attributions
1. Attributions for achievement behavior. Weiner has argued that how we make
attributions for our successes and failures affects both our mental health and our subsequent
behaviors. There are two dimensions along which people make attributions: stability of cause, of
locus of personal control.
a. Stability: Stable and unstable. This tells us whether the cause of one’s success
or failure is a relatively permanent feature of either their external environment or of their internal
dispositions. Some external causes are quite stable; such as the difficulty level of a task, such as
the difficulty level of the LSATs or MCATs. Some external causes are quite unstable, for
instance, the number of applications a law or medical school gets each year.
b. Controllability determines whether something is under one’s control (i.e.,
internal versus external). We believe that some factors are within our control, while others are
not. Internal causes can be stable or unstable. One’s intellectual ability is stable and internal, (if
we believe in innate intelligence). However, one’s ambition or how much effort one puts into a
task may vary over time, and is thus internal/unstable. Using these dimensions, we make
different types of attributions (see 2 x 2 chart from slides).
2. Implications. Weiner has argued that when failures occur, the most UNHEALTHY
attribution to make is to internal stable characteristics, because these are the least resistant to
change. Consequently, if one believes that he failed his exam because he lacks ability, then he
can’t foresee a way to improve the situation. The sense of futility can lead to depression and
hopelessness.
a. Major and colleagues argue that external attributions for failure, such as an
attribution to discrimination, may protect one’s self-esteem, yet may still engender negative
outcomes such as anger or anxiety.
I. Attitudes: Attitudes are one of the most important and enduring concepts studied in social
psychology.
A. Definitions
1. General: a. “an attitude is a predisposition to respond to a particular object in a
generally favorable or unfavorable way”
2. Tripartite definitions of attitudes. Attitudes have three parts (a, b, and c): affective,
behavioral and cognitive components.
a. Affective. This is the evaluative - or positive or negative - assessment that is
implicit in an attitude. Generally, an attitude captures how much you like or dislike the attitude
object and captures your emotional reaction to the attitude object.
b. Behavior. Attitudes also involve a predisposition to respond or a behavioral
tendency towards the object.
c. Cognitive. When we hold an attitude toward a given object, our attitude is often
based on our perceptions - whether correct or incorrect - of that object. This component consists
of all the cognitions you have towards a particular object; your opinions, beliefs, and knowledge.
EXAMPLE: “I am opposed to smoking.”
a. I hate smoke. I think it is disgusting.” This is the affective or evaluative
component of my attitude.
b. Given my negative attitude towards smoking, it is likely that I will not engage
in such a behavior. This represents the behavioral component of my attitude.
c. I hold a variety of cognitions or ideas about smoking (e.g., Smoking represents
a behavior that causes cancer, that is marketed to young adults, and that turns a profit for tobacco
companies while destroying the lungs of their customers.) These cognitions are an essential part
of my negative attitude towards smoking.
B. Why are attitudes important
1. Perception: Attitudes influence the way people perceive and respond to the world. If
we hold a positive attitude towards an attitude object, we will select and filter information and
stimuli that is consistent with that attitude.
2. Behavioral influence: Under certain conditions, our attitudes predict our behavior. This
topic will be covered extensively at next class.
3. Attitudes reflect social and normative changes that occur in a society over time.
C. How do we develop attitudes?
1. Instrumental conditioning. Learning based on direct experience. If we have a positive
experience with an attitude object, we will likely develop a positive attitude. Likewise, if a
person utters an attitude and it is rewarded, that attitude will persist. Even subtle rewards such as
peer approval are seen as a source of molding attitudes.
a. Bennington College study. One of the most famous studies of attitude acquisition is the
Bennington College study. This study by Newcomb (1943) tracked attitudinal change among
women at this elite private college. Most of the students were from wealthy conservative
families, yet Bennington was - and is - known for being a very liberal school. The faculty, in
particular, held liberal attitudes associated with the New Deal politics of the time. The study
tracked a group of freshmen who began college in 1935. Over a four-year period, Newcomb
measured the students’ attitudes towards issues such as welfare and labor unions. What he found
was a consistent change in student values from the time they entered Bennington until their
senior year. Moreover, this attitudinal change lasted for the long-term. A follow-up study of the
Bennington grads 25 years later showed that most were far more liberal than other women of
their age and social class in 1960.
Attitude change did not occur among all however. Those with the greatest change in
attitudes were those who were most active in college life and the most popular. Students who
maintained close ties with their families and who did not become involved in campus activities
remained conservative. Women who became active in the college community and who interacted
more frequently with other students gradually became more liberal. Newcomb’s explanation was
that it is rewarding to share attitudes with one’s closest significant others.
2. Classical conditioning.
3. Observational learning.
D. How do we measure attitudes?
1. Direct measures. These measures directly ask people what their attitudes are. There are
a variety of methodologies used by survey researchers.
a. Single items - one question administered to a subject. These questions are generally
asked in very direct and straightforward language.
EXAMPLE: I believe that the legal age at which people can buy alcohol should be reduced from
21 to 18. Yes___ No___ Unsure___
b. Likert scale. This scale is one of the most widely used scales today. It involves
presenting subjects with a number of questions which address generally similar topics. We then
sum or average their responses across all items. Based on one’s overall score, we can calculate
their overall stance towards an attitude object. We can also compare one’s overall score to the
score of others.
A series of questions is asked of the respondent, and a series of closed response
categories are offered. There are usually at least four such response categories and categories are
labeled on a scale such as: Strongly Agree, Agree, Neither Agree nor Disagree, Disagree,
Disagree Strongly. To ensure that people don’t simply check off one category all the way
through, questions are presented using “reverse wording.”
2. Indirect Methods. Direct methods rely on people’s actual reports of their attitudes. Another
way to assess attitudes is to infer them from behavior. Observing behavior is an “indirect
method” of assessing attitudes. Indirect methods help to circumvent several of the possible
problems involved in direct methods of attitude assessment. These problems include: (1)
dishonest reports of attitudes, in order to please the interviewer or comply with societal norms;
(2) the fact that LACK of an attitude is seldom captured in an attitudinal measure. Thus,
experimenters may design studies where behavior is expected to reflect an underlying attitude.
a “Wrong number technique.” This technique was developed as a way to assess racial
attitudes. In this setting, an “actor” called a series of randomly selected telephone numbers at 9
p.m. at night. In the call, the “actor” asked if he had reached Ralph’s Garage. When the person
who answered the phone explained that the caller had the wrong number, the actor would go on
to say that his car had broken down, and that he called the wrong number (and had no more
change). He then asked if the person on the other end of the phone please call the phone number
of Ralph’s Garage, and ask the people at the garage to come pick the motorist up on the road.
The caller would provide the phone number and his current location. [The phone number that
ostensibly belonged to “Ralph’s Garage” was actually a phone being answered by a research
staffer]. In this study, half of the phone callers were white and half were black (and their voices
“sounded” black and white). The researchers called more than 500 whites and 500 blacks. The
results showed that whites were more likely to help other whites (65 percent) than blacks (53
percent). Blacks where equally likely to help both blacks and whites (63 percent).
b. “Lost letter technique”: A technique where stamped envelopes addressed to political
organizations are dropped on the street; researchers monitor the proportion from different
neighborhoods that are returned to each address. If a high proportion of letters are sent, then this
suggests that persons in that neighborhood hold positive attitudes towards the political
organization.