A. Definition:
The term attribution is defined as a causal explanation for an event or behavior. And the attributional theory is related to the social -psychology field that seeks to explain the cognitive processes in which the individual make explanatory interference regarding the causes of the event.
Fritz Heider (1958) was among the first to analyze the process of attribution. Heider distinguished between two general categories of explanation, internal and external. Internal attributions implicate characteristics of the individual (such as ability, attitudes, personality, mood, and effort) for having caused a particular behavior, whereas external attributions implicate external factors (such as the task, other people, or luck) for causing an event or outcome to occur, whereas Weiner (1995) added another dimension to causal interpretation when he proposed that the steadiness of the cause is also included in the explanation of the outcome of the individual.
The distinction between the variable (stable) causes and the non-variable (unstable) causes was combined by the internal/external dimensions of Heider to form the basis of classifying the performance attribution of the individuals. (Martinko 1998)
According to attribution theory, the explanations that people tend to make to explain success or failure can be analyzed in terms of three sets of characteristics: First, the cause of the success or failure may be internal or external. That is, we may succeed or fail because of factors that we believe have their origin within us or because of factors that originate in our environment. Second, the cause of the success or failure may be either stable or unstable. If we believe that cause is stable, then the outcome is likely to be the same if we perform the same behavior on another occasion. If it is unstable, the outcome is likely to be different on another occasion. Third, the cause of the success or failure may be either controllable or uncontrollable. A controllable factor is one which we believe we ourselves can alter if we wish to do so. An uncontrollable factor is one that we do not believe we can easily alter.
B- Sources of attributional information
Some information comes from the direct cues (Failing a test whereas others passed it), or from indirect cues (a teacher communicate pity to a student who has failed a test). In addition, there may be a bias with some causes given more often:
- Direct Attributional cues; here the students have a direct cue as to their performance. Another source of attribution information comes from comparing one’s performance to that of the others. So when most of the class fails the test then students would be likely attributing their failure to the difficulty of the test but of course not to their ability.
- Indirect attributional cues; Here the student’s attributional interpretation is based on that which the teacher gives to the student through communication and it might be overly or covertly. It may be through praise or blame, which the students receive from the teacher and both, may be negative where a lot of praise may be an indirect indication for the student that they have low-ability whereas no blaming might be a low-ability cue. Teachers should praise students for something challenging and a little bit of blaming might be motivational. Or sympathy and anger that might be a low ability cue so teachers should never make them feel that they are capable, and putting anger on a student is not fair so the teacher must be in the middle and be fair to all students. Unsolicited help is another low ability cue for the students. Graham and barker found that other students judge the student who receives unsolicited help as lower in ability than those that don’t receive help. Also, ability grouping, where the students are defined by labels as high ability, low achievers, average, and honors. Oakes observed that students in the lower track are seen by others and by themselves as dump.
- Attributional bias, based on Weiner, is a predisposition to make certain Attributional judgments that may in error.
Expectancies tend to rise after a success and drop after failure. It was established earlier that the reasons one gives for failure or success have consequences that affect both actions and expectations. Two areas of consequences that are the extreme importance to educators are learned helplessness and help-seeking.
Learned helplessness is when the student has internal and stable factors – the students for example when one has a history with failure and thus his/her expectations would be low and thus gives up. Helplessness is viewed as global which is affecting all domains of one’s life. Recent researches showed that a student might have helplessness in one situation but not in others, like feeling helplessness in math but not in physics.
Whereas help seeking is asking for help from others, it’s positive when students seek assistance in order to name change in the learning process.
C- Attribution: A Three-Step Process:
Attribution is a three- steps process in which we understand others as causal agents. We attribute the actions of others based on the actor-observer bias, fundamental attribution error (judgment of intention), and the self- serving bias.
The actor-observer bias is the phenomenon where the perceived cause of an event follows from the particular perspective of the explainer. An observer of an individual’s behavior displays a tendency to attribute the causes of that behavior to internal characteristics of the actor whereas the person carrying out the act in question explains their own behavior as having resulted from external circumstances (Jones & Nisbett 1971).
The fundamental attribution refers to a general bias on the part of an observer, whereby individuals tend to explain the behavior of others in terms of internal factors to a greater extent than situational factors (Jones & Harris 1967). There are 5 categories that underlie the fundamental attribution, (1) Association: a person is held responsibility for any effect which is connected to him or her. This primitive form of responsibility attribution is typical for young children, but not limited for children. Especially in stress situations adults are inclined to hold other people who were present during the negative event responsibility. For example, helpers who assist an accident victim sometimes held responsibility for the fate of the victim merely because they are associated with the negative outcome. (2) Causality; a person is held responsible for all effect which were cause by that person. (3) Foreseeability; the actor is held responsible for all effects and aftereffects which could be foreseen although they were not necessary intended. (4) Intentionality; the actor is held responsible for all effects and aftereffects which he/she intended to produce and (5) Justifiability; which represents the most sophisticated understanding of responsibility.
Finally, self-serving bias is a common pattern of explanation for personal success or failure and refers to the tendency for individuals to explain success as internally derived and failure as resulting from external, situational factors (Zuckerman 1971).
For example, suppose you stopped on a red light and you saw a man throwing a coke can in the canal before the light becomes green, and you murmur the three thoughts that comes to your mind: (1) I saw that!/ eyewitness “The actor-observer bias”. (2) He meant to do that “the fundamental attribution”. (3) He’s a bad man “self-serving bias”.
*- Common Biases in Judging Intention
Three volumes of attribution research edited by Harvey, Ickes, and Kidd verify the human tendencies described in Heider’s original work.
1. We tend to hold others more responsible for negative results than for positive outcomes. If the first-year student who sits next to us in class flunks a test, he’s stupid. If he aces it, we’re more likely to think he’s lucky.
2. We tend to hold others more responsible for not trying than for incompetence. It’s worse to be lazy than to lack ability.
3. We tend to hold others more responsible when they aim to improve their position rather than avoid loss. For example, we judge more harshly a hungry person who steals food than we do a well-fed person who won’t willingly share it.
4. We tend to hold others more responsible for their outcomes when we fear the same thing may happen to us. A veteran skydiver haughtily claimed that anyone who “bounced’ got what he or she deserved. The skydiver used defensive attribution as reassurance that death by sudden impact always happens to someone else.
5. We tend to hold others more responsible than we hold ourselves. Apparently, we use a double standard as we decide who should be held accountable for mistakes and errors. When things turn out badly for others, we assume it’s their fault; but for our own failures, we tend to blame circumstances or other people. We see others as causal agents, but we give ourselves an excuse.
All our unfair judgments involve a decision between personal and environmental control. This tension is a high ingredient in the third step of attribution.
D- ATTRIBUTIONS DEPEND ON PERCEIVED FREEDOM OF CHOICE
The key issue is choice. If we see others as if they have to work as a result of circumstances that are out of their control, then we won’t assign their behavior for their steady traits of characters. Heider stated that we judge an actor’s freedom as proportional to the difficulty of performing the act.
E- SELF-PERCEPTION: A SPECIAL CASE OF ATTRIBUTION
Bern is concerned with the dispositional labels we assign to ourselves. He claims we don’t have favored status when it comes to figuring out our own general temperaments. Our weak internal signals may give clues to our attitudes, but behavior is the acid test that confirms or rejects our intuition. So we watch ourselves act and then draw conclusions about our inner disposition just like outside observers do.
Conventional wisdom suggests that behavior follows attitude: "I play tennis because I like it." Bern’s radical behaviorism says it works the other way around: "I like tennis because I play it." Bern explains the sequence on the basis of self-perception. We see ourselves put a dollar in a beggar’s cup and decide that we are compassionate.
Reference
- Daryl Bern, "Self-Perception Theory," in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 6, Leonard Berkowitz (ed.), Academic Press, New York, 1972, pp. 2-62.
- Fritz Heider, "Social Perception and Phenomenal Causality," Psychological Review, Vol. 51, 1944, pp. 358-374.
- Graham, S., and Barker, G. P. (1990). The down-side of help: “An attributional-developmental analysis of helping behavior as a low-ability cue”. J. Educate. Psychol. 82: 7–14.
- Jones, E. & Nesbit, R. (1971). “The Actor and the Observer: Divergent Perceptions of the Causes of Behavior”. New York: General Learning Press.
- Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.
- Martinko, M.J. (1998).”The nature and the function of attribution theory within the organizational sciences”. In M.J Martinko (Ed.), attributional theory: An organizational perspective (pg.7-16). Delray Beach, FL: St. Lucie Press.
- Weiner, B. (1995). Judgments of responsibility: A foundation for a theory of social conduct. New York: Guilford.
- Zuckerman, M. (1971).”Dimensions of sensation seeking. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology”, 36(1), 45-52.
-
No comments:
Post a Comment