Attribution Interpersonal Perception

Attribution and Interpersonal Perception

It is said that we often attribute our own and others ' behaviour to personal dispositions when the behaviour was in fact caused by the situation. Why and when is this so? Refer to the function of attributions; attribution errors; interpersonal perceptions and interactions. You may use personal examples to illustrate these biases.

1 Background 2
2 Introduction 2
3 Attributional Theories 2
3.1 Correspondent Inference 3
3.2 Causal Attributions 3
3.3 Behaviour as a function of Disposition or Situation 4
3.4 Augmenting and Discounting 5
4 Attributional Sources of error: 5
4.1 Correspondence Bias: Overestimating the Role of Dispositional causes. 6
4.1.1 Wanting Dispositions 7
4.1.2 Misunderstanding
Situations 7
4.1.3 Misperceiving Behaviour 9
4.1.4 Failing to Use Information 9
4.2 The Actor- Observer Effect: “You fell; I was pushed.” 10
4.3 The Self-Serving Bias: “I’m Good; You are Lucky.” 11
4.4 Cognitive and Motivational Bases for Explanations 11
4.5 Interpersonal Perception as a source of mistaken attributions: 11
4.5.1 Matching Reactions 12
4.5.2 Providing Opportunities 14
4.5.3 Setting Norms 15
4.5.4 Perceived-Induced Constraints 15
5 Attribution applied to Groups 17
5.1 Cultural Issues in Intergroup Attributions 18
5 Conclusion: 19
6 References: 19

1 Background
Through attribution we attempt to understand the causes behind others ' behaviour.
Because we cannot "see" their covert feelings, reasons and intentions, we have to infer them from what we can "see"-- their overt behaviour. We make our attributions about ourselves in much the same way. Often our own emotions, attitudes, traits, and abilities are unclear and ambiguous to us. (Why did I overreact?) In self-perception, as in our perception of others, we search for plausible causes of our behaviour. If we are aware of strong external factors pushing us, we are likely to make situational attributions. But when there are no clear external forces we are likely to make dispositional attributions. This distinction between situational and dispositional causes of behaviour is fundamental to all attribution theories. Many discussions of casual attribution seem to suggest that attribution is a highly rational, logical and objective process. This is not always the case -- often our attributions are subject to biases that lead us to incorrect conclusions regarding the reasons behind others ' (and our own) behaviour. Attributions cannot tell us why a person behaved in a certain way. That is not their function. Rather their function is to describe the psychological operations that underlie such attributions. The prescribed literature for this assignment contributes to an understanding of these psychological operations.

2 Introduction
Attribution is defined as the process through which we
seek to identify the causes of others’ behaviour and so gain knowledge of their stable traits and dispositions (Baron, R.A., Byrne, D. & Branscombe 2006). From this definition it can be seen that with attribution we want to understand “why” or the underlying “cause” of the behaviour. There are a number of theories that have been proposed to explain the operation of attribution.

3 Attributional Theories
In order to understand the why or the cause the following theories provide possible explanation.
3.1 Correspondent Inference
Jones and Davis’s (1965) theory of correspondent inference- asks how we use information about others’ behaviour as a basis for inferring that they possess various traits (Baron, R.A., Byrne, D. & Branscombe 2006). This theory is concerned with how we decide, on the basis of others’ overt actions, that they posses’ specific trait or dispositions likely to remain fairly stable over time (Baron, R.A., Byrne, D. & Branscombe 2006). However, people often act in certain ways not because doing so reflects their own preferences or traits, but rather because of external factors. Therefore in order to determine people’s traits (and thereby correspondent inference) we focus our attention on the following three types of actions:
1. We consider whether the behaviour was freely chosen
2. Whether the behaviour reflects distinctive, noncommon effects, where the effect can be caused by one specific factor but not by others
3. We pay greater attention to actions that are low in social desirability than to actions that are high on this dimension. That is we will learn more form others actions when the actions are somehow out of the ordinary than from actions that are very much like those of most others.

3.2 Causal Attributions
According to Kelly (1980) (as cited by Baron, R.A., Byrne, D. & Branscombe 2006) we focus on three major types of information when trying to understand “why” people behave in a particular manner. These three types of information are:
1. Consensus- the extent to which other persons react to some stimulus or even in the same manner as the person we are considering. By comparing to others would allow for an external comparison.
2. Consistency - the extent to which an individual responds to a given stimulus or situation in the same way on different occasions (i.e. across time). By looking at the individual across time and not comparing to others, the focus is internal.
3. Distinctiveness - the extent to which an individual responds in the same manner to different stimulus or events. Once again by looking at the individual and not comparing to others, the focus is internal.

By applying these three types of information in our attempt to understand the most likely cause for people’s behaviour we would most likely attribute the behaviour to internal causes when consensus and distinctiveness are low but consistency is high. This is due to the fact that others (consensus) is low and is therefore indicative of this person’s unique or distinctive behaviour. In contrast, we are most likely to attribute another’s behaviour to external causes when consensus, consistency and distinctiveness are all high. Finally we usually attribute another’s behaviour to a combination of internal and external factors when consensus is low (external) but consistency and distinctiveness are high (internal). (Kelly (1980) as cited by Baron, R.A., Byrne, D. & Branscombe 2006)

In addition to an understanding of whether the causal factors are internal or external we are also influenced and interested in two other questions:
1. Stable- whether the causal factors that influenced the behaviour likely ot by stable over time or change; and
2. Controllable – can the individual change or influence them if they wish to do so.

Applying the concept of stability and controllability to internal attributions can lead to depression in a self-defeating pattern or not depressed in a self-serving bias situation. For example where someone attributes negative outcomes to lasting (stable), internal causes, such as their own traits or lack of ability, of which they have no control over, a state of depression can occur. These same people could attribute positive outcomes to temporary (not stable), external causes, such as good luck or special favours from others. As a result they perceive that they have little or no control over what happens to them.

3.3 Behaviour as a function of Disposition or Situation
The Jones and Davis’s (1965) correspondent inference theory was concerned with how we decide, on the basis of others’ overt actions, that they posses’ specific trait or dispositions likely to remain fairly stable over time. Whereas Kelly focused on whether the behaviour was internal (disposition) or external (situation). Kurt Lewin devised an attributional equation or the Lewinian equation that acknowledges the fact that a person’s behaviour (B) is thought to be the joint function of the situation that the person is in (S) and the person’s unique predispositions to act (D).

D = B – S
This equation suggest that if we want to know if a person has a disposition to behave in a certain way, we should observe their behaviour and then try to subtract out the situation in which the behaviour took place. We should try and figure out how much of the behaviour can be explained by the situation; if anything is left after we have performed this subtraction, then we can conclude that the person has a disposition to behave as they did. For ex, if both B and S were given the value 8, then D would be nil – there is no disposition because the behaviour was exactly what the situation demanded. If D equalled 3, then there is a disposition because the behaviour is more extreme than the situation demanded (Gilbert 1995:103-104).

The one “decision rule” common to all attribution theories: An observer should not conclude that a person has a unique predisposition to behave when the person does exactly what the situation demands.
In other words, an observer should not assume D to be positive or negative when S and B are equal. Called the discounting principle, this principle suggests that when we try and estimate a person’s dispositions, the person’s behaviour should be “discounted” or ignored when it is precisely the behaviour required by the situation. Such behaviour is said to be non-diagnostic and tells us nothing about the person’s tendencies to behave (Gilbert
1995:104).

3.4 Augmenting and Discounting
When we identify that there may be a number of causes, how do we handle for these multiple potential causes? We tend to apply either an augmenting or discounting principle. The Augmenting principle applies when we attach greater importance to a potential cause of behaviour if the behaviour occurs despite the presence of other inhibitory causes. In contrast we apply the Discounting principle when we attach less importance to one potential cause of some other behaviour when other potential causes are also present (Baron, R.A., Byrne, D. & Branscombe 2006)

Having discussed the possible sources of why people behave as they do, we need to recognise that we cannot “judge a book by its cover” and therefore we may make errors in our attributions.