ATTRIBUTION:

·       First General explanation

·       Two interrelated classic Experiments of Ash about Implicit Personality Traits

·       Kelley’s Causal Attribution Schemes

·       Kelley’s Experiment of Mutual Fate Control: Replication and Evaluation

·       A famous problem: Prisoner Dilemma

 

Causal Attribution

Attribution of causality explains the manner in which people attribute characteristics and traits.

Causal attribution is sometimes referred to as “person perception” by some scientists.  This is contrasted to the perception of innate objects.

·       Observing people we assume motives in their actions.

·       Through social experience we induce motives and hereby enhances our perception.

·       As effective this attribution is, there are some problems and biases.

 

 

Overhead

Implicit Personality Traits  Asch (1946)

FIRST EXPERIMENT:      How does the introduction of a more general trait influence the attribution of other existing traits?

 

6 Existing Traits:   someone is described as intelligent, skillful, industrious, determined, practical, or cautious.

 

Independent Variable

·       Additional trait:  WARM

·       Alternative additional trait: COLD 

 

Dependent variable:

·       % of subjects choosing 6 measurement traits

generous, wise, happy, good-natured, reliable, important

 

Result: People to whom the description of WARM was added to their original description where seen as more generous, wise, happy, good-natured, reliable and important, than people who had COLD added to their original description.

 

Overhead

SECOND EXPERIMENT:

How does the introduction of a  less general trait influence the attribution of other existing traits?

Independent Variable 1:

• Additional trait: POLITE

• Alternative additional trait: BLUNT

Dependent variable: same as in first experiment.

Result: Using POLITE and BLUNT as additional traits does not cause difference in ratings of the six measurement traits.

---

Overhead

Harold Kelley

There are three important sources of information that we use when attributing the cause to an effect.

Consistency:      past behavior

Distinctiveness:   behavior in similar situations

Consensus:         behavior of other people

 

Overhead

Example: Tom fails the statistics course 

1. Give an example so consistency is low

      What would we attribute in this case?

 2. Give an example so distinctiveness is high

     What would we attribute in this case?

3. Give an example so consensus is high

     What would we attribute in this case?

---

Overhead

Experiment of Mutual Fate Control

Two subjects in separate rooms

Apparatus with which they control their gains is interconnected

Input:

Left button and right button.  The subject does not know which causes a reward for the other

Feedback: 

Reward or no reward as a response from the other

Subjects had total control over the other’s fate (mutual fate control). 

Subjects know of their relation of being interconnected.

·   It was explained to both subjects that they are able to give rewards.

·  Subjects did not know which of the two buttons would give the other person a reward.

Subjects could only communicate through their actions.

 

Replication of this experiment (you can click Thumbnails for enlargement)

one knock for right button, two knocks for left button

Experimenter 1	Experimenter 2
Subject 1	Subject 2

 

 

overhead

Some of Kelley’s cognitive mechanics

The “law of effect”: Loss leads to variation, gain to stabilization of behavior.

Covariation Principle: “An effect is attributed to one of its possible causes with witch, over time, it covaries”.

Persuasion: Our perceived locus is not to change the others behavior, but the other's intention.

Discounting Principle: a cause of an effect is discounted if there are other plausible causes present.

Augmentation Principle: if there is an inhibitory cause and a facilitative cause and an effect, the facilitative cause must have been stronger than the inhibitory cause.

 

Critique:

In their daily affairs of interaction, people are no scientists.  They do not process information cognitively, but affectively.  

It is actually the scientist that attributes her causal logic to the affectively processing human.

A formula of affective information processing:

	Object’s evaluation after the event (Oe')
Constant	0.045
Ae	0.022
Ap	0.019
Aa	‑0.023
Be	0.123
Bp	‑0.033
Ba	‑0.013
Oe	0.622
Op	‑0.021
Oa,	0.008
Interaction Effects
Ae,Be	0.038
Be,Oe	0.044
Ap,Bp	0.002
Bp,Op	‑0.018
Aa,Ba	0.025
Ae,Bp	‑0.009
Ae,Ba	0.005
Ap,Be	‑0.019
Ap,Oa	0.006
Be,Op	0.014
Bp,Oe	‑0.037
Bp,Oa	‑0.034
Ba,Oe	0.014
Ba,Op	0.033

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Strongest determinant on the Objects identity besides her previous identity is the behavior shown toward the object. The strongest interaction effect: what behavior was shown to the object.

 

---