The Deferent Self: Attributions of Personal Causality to "Impersonal Forces (original) (raw)
Related papers
Attributions of success and failure for actors and observers
Journal of Research in Personality, 1976
Causal attributions of a person actually experiencing a success or failure (the actor) and someone who read about the situation (the observer) were compared. Results supported Jones and Nisbett (1971). Actors were relatively more likely to perceive their outcomes as caused by external factors (task difficulty), while observers attributed these outcomes more to internal factors (effort). Attributions for both actors and observers were also strongly affected by whether the outcome was a success or failure. Hypotheses concerning sex differences in attributions were not supported.
Temporal effects on attributions for one's own behavior: The role of task outcome
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1985
Previous investigations into how attributions for one's own behavior change over time have resulted in surprisingly inconsistent results. Two experiments were conducted to account for these discrepant findings. In Experiment 1 male undergraduates were given feedback indicating that they had done either well or poorly on a skill-assessment test. Half of the subjects believed they were being videotaped when performing the test, half did not. In addition, half of the subjects completed attribution questionnaires immediately after the feedback, whereas half completed the questionnaires 2 or 3 days later. It was found that subjects who felt they had succeeded on the task made attributions that were more dispositional over time and subjects who felt they had failed made attributions that were more situational over time. No effect for the videotape manipulation was found. Experiment 2 replicated the task outcome effect and provided evidence suggesting that the effect was caused by a selective forgetting of unflattering attributions.
Self-Serving Biases In the Attribution of Causality: Fact or Fiction?
Psychological bulletin, 1975
A review of the evidence for and against the proposition that self-serving biases affect attributions of causality indicated that there is little empirical support for the proposition in its most general form. The literature provides some support for the contention that individuals engage in self-enhancing attributions under conditions of success, but only minimal evidence was found to suggest that individuals engage in self-protective attributions under conditions of failure. Moreover, it was proposed that the self-enhancing effect may not be due to motivational distortion, but rather to the tendency of people (a) to expect their behavior to produce success, (b) to discern a closer covariation between behavior and outcomes in the case of increasing success than in the case of constant failure, and (c) to misconstrue the meaning of contingency. We are prone to alter our perception of causality so as to protect or enhance our self esteem. We attribute success to our own dispositions and failure to external forces. (Hastorf, Schneider, & Polefka, 1970, p. 73) The principle described in the foregoing observation has received considerable attention in social psychology. Variously labeled ego-defensive, ego-protective, or ego-biased attribution, discussions of the phenomenon can be found in source books (
Attributional Effects in Interpersonal Settings
1981
,Res Sarch has shown that attributing 'failure to lack of, ability .e\adsito lower motiv,ation'than does attributing the failure to lack of-effort. An attributional model of motivation and performance following failure was tested with colde0 students (R=63), who were preselected On the basis of, their attributional styles tor interperspnal failures, as measured' by the Attributional Style Assessment Test. Subjects in the two groups (Character style versus Behavioral style attributors) were randomly' assilted to one of three experi,mettal manipulations of-attr'ibntions for failure at an interpersonal+ persuasion task-no manipulation: ability/trait manipulation, or strategy/effort manipulation. Subjects engaged in a telephone blood drive task, trying to persuade other students to donate blood. Success expectancies, ottvation, add actual, perforpance were assessed. Subjects who made strategy/effort type attributions,, whether by experimental manpulation, or pebsalection, expected4more success, expected more improvement,with practice, displayed higher levels of motivation, and performed better at thetask than did subjects who ade,ability/trait type attributions.
The role of social perspective in perceiving the causes of success and failure1
Journal of Personality, 1978
An experiment was conducted to test the hypothesis that observers' causal attributions about an actor's performance at a task would be affected by their social perspective in observing the situation. Observer subjects were either assigned to serve in a role comparable to that of observer-subjects in most actor-observer experiments or were assigned a distinctive role more divergent from the social perspective of the actor. As expected, observers with a similar social perspective to that of the actor made more flattering attributions about the actor's performance than observers with a dissimilar social perspective. We concluded that actor-observer differences in attribution for an actor's performance in any one experiment cannot be taken as definitive evidence either for or against the defensive attribution idea.
Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 1977
The effects of another's attributions for performance on one's own expectations, aspirations, and evaluations of performance were examined. Subject witnessed an other (O) who had attributed his performance (successful or unsuccessful) on an anagram task to luck, task ease or difficulty, effort, or ability. When O had succeeded, subjects expected to perform best if O had attributed his success to the task (rather than to luck, effort or ability); when O had failed, subjects expected to perform worst when O had attributed his failure to the task. In addition, subjects witnessing a successful O were more hopeful if O had made a task attribution, but subjects witnessing an unsuccessful O were more hopeful if O had made an effort attribution. Finally, subjects showed a tendency to attribute their own performance to the same cause to which O had attributed his own performance. Results were discussed in relation to the stabilityinstability and internal-external dimensions of causal attributions, and the need to perceive oneself as exercising effective control over the environment.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1983
The causal structures for each of four types of situations-interpersonal failure, noninterpersonal failure, interpersonal success, and noninterpersonal successwere explored and compared. A first group of subjects generated plausible causes for five specific situations in each of the four general types of situations. A second group of subjects provided similarity data on these causes, which were used in a cluster analysis of the causes. A third group of subjects rated the generated causes on each of six dimensions reported in the attribution literature: changeability, locus, stability, intentionality, globality, and controllability. Analyses of the clusters of causes and the ratings revealed (a) different types of causes were generated for different types of situations, (b) different types of situations led people to generate causes that differ in dimensional location, (c) the various causal dimensions were highly intercorrelated. These findings were applied to A. W. Kruglanski's (Psychological Review, 1980,tV) model of attribution processes. In addition, implications for the study of interpersonal situations and for the cognition-motivation debate over "self-serving" bias in attribution were discussed. Finally, several methodological issues were examined. Making attributions for experienced or observed events is a basic cognitive process. When faced with important, unusual, or unexpected events we search for meaningful explanations of their causes (Heider,
Supplement to Acta Philosophica FORUM Personal Causality in Human Action
The study of causality in the natural sciences has always been posed from observing the eeect and looking for the cause in a previous time. The principle of causality is caught in a vicious circle based on two assumptions of Kantian origin: (() causality is a structuring principle of the human mind. (() In the cause-eeect relation, the cause temporally precedes the eeect. This knowledge, which as a prerequisite of the action is its temporal antecedent, is the result of the said action. We move in a vicious circle, since the causal principle precedes the action; but in order to know the cause, which produces an eeect, the action must be nished. But in the social sciences, the eld in which the individual acts, one has to take into account that the individual pursues a future end which exercises it eeects on the present. The antecedent of the action, the cause, does not precede the action in time, but the cause of the action is the desired reality which is projected into the future and...
The Interpersonal Consequences of Self-Disclosure and Internal Attributions for Successl
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1976
Two experiments were conducted to examine the effects of an actor's internal attributions for success on observers' subsequent treatment of the actor. The actor self-disclosed information of moderate intimacy to some observers, but not to others. In both experiments it was found that when the actor attributed his success to ability he was treated less favorably when he was perceived to be friendly because he had self-disclosed, than when he was regarded neutrally because there had been no opportunity for him to self-disclose. In the first experiment, but not in the second, it was found that when the actor attributed his success to effort, he was treated more favorably when he had self-disclosed than when he had not. The attributions that an individual nakes to account for his success in a competitive situation are likely to have implications for the behavior of other competitors toward the individual. One basis for the reactions of others consists of the discrepancies that exist between successful actors attributions and the attributions of unsuccessful opponents (i.e., Streufert & Streufert, 1969). Snyder, Stephan, and Rosenfield (1975) have found that successful competitors attribute their outcome to ability and effort, while unsuccessful competitors attribute the actor's success to luck. Although several reasons for such discrepancies have been suggested (cf., Miller & Ross, 1975), one of the most common is that it is ego-enhancing to take credit for positive outcomes and, if one has failed, to deny credit to others who have succeeded.