1
Attributions & Attributional Styles
We are motivated to explain why an outcome or event
occurred, in order to predict future events.
Attributions about an outcome or event:
1. Valence (positive vs. negative)
Attributions about the cause of the outcome or event:
1. Locus (internal vs. external)
2.
Stability (stable vs. unstable)
3.
Controllability (controllable or uncontrollable)
2
The Attributional Style Questionnaire
Each item describes an event and takes into account:
1.
Valence for each event
2.
Locus of control, perceived stability, and
controllability
3
Sample ASQ Item
Instruction: please, try to vividly imagine yourself in the situations that follow. If
such a situation happened to you, what would you feel would cause it? While
events may have many causes, we want you to pick only one - the major cause if
this event happened to you. Please, write this cause in the blank provided after
each event. Next, we want you to answer some questions about the cause and a
final question about the situation.
YOU HAVE BEEN looking for a job unsuccessfully for some time.
1.
Write down the major cause
...................................................................................................................
2.
Is the cause of your unsuccessful job search due to something about you
or to something about other people or circumstances?
Totally due to other people or circumstances 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Totally due to me
3. In the future when looking for a job, will this cause again be present?
Will never again be present 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Will always be present
4.
Is the cause something that you can control, or is cause something over
which you have little or no control?
Little or no control 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Totally in control
4
Optimistic vs. Pessimistic Attributional Styles
Optimistic Styles (self-enhancing pattern, self-serving bias):
Optimists tend to:
1.
Attribute good events to stable & controllable
causes
2.
Form internal attributions for good events
3.
Form external attributions for negative events
6
Pessimistic Styles (Self-effacing pattern):
Pessimists tend to:
1.
Attribute good events to unstable &
uncontrollable causes
2.
Form external attributions for good events
3.
Form internal attributions for negative events
7
Research on Attributional Styles:
Individual Differences Between Optimists and Pessimists
Seligman & Schulman (1986)
Peterson & Barrett (1987)
Kamen-Siegel, Rodin, Seligman, & Dwyer (1991)
Abela, & Seligman (2000)
8
Optimists
Pessimists
•have fewer doctor visits, sick days, •have more doctor visits, sick days,
infectious illnesses
infectious illnesses
•seek treatment when sick
•are more passive when sick
•engage in healthy behaviors more
frequently
•engage in healthy behaviors less
frequently
•live longer
•do not live as long
•have superior immune systems
•show immnosuppression
•perform better than expected in
school
•perform worse than expected in
school
•will seek help with academic
difficulties
•do not seek help with academic
difficulties
•fewer problems with depression
•more problems with depression
9
Cognitive Dissonance Theory
Cognition = element of knowledge
Pairs of cognitions can be:
1.
2.
Relevant
Irrelevant
Relevant cognitions can be:
1.
Consonant = agree with one another, one follows the other
2.
Dissonant = disagree with one another, one is the opposite
of the other
10
Consonance vs. Dissonance
Consonance = consistency between cognitions; a
psychologically comfortable state
Dissonance =
Discrepancy between cognitions; a
psychologically uncomfortable state
The discomfort produced from discrepancy motivates
dissonance reduction.
The greater the magnitude of the dissonance, the greater the
impetus to reduce dissonance.
11
Research on Cognitive Dissonance
Free- Choice
Brehm (1956)
S’s rated eight different products (e.g., toaster or coffeemaker)
for desirability.
S’s were asked to choose ONE product from a set of two that
they would like to keep.
All S’s had to choose between two products that were either:
1.
Close in desirability (difficult decision)
2.
Not close in desirability (easy decision).
After making a choice, S’s were allowed to re-rate the
desirability of the two products.
Chosen
Amount of
Product
Change
Not-Chosen
Product
Easy
Decision
No change
No change
Difficult
Decision
Rated more
desirable
Rated less
desirable
12
Induced-Compliance
Festinger and Carlsmith (1959).
S’s performed a boring task for 1 hr.
S’s were told that there were two groups in the experiment:
1.
No introduction to the task (the one the S was in)
2.
Introduction, where S’s are first told the task is enjoyable
by someone who had just completed it
The S is asked to tell the next person that the task is enjoyable
and paid either $1.00 or $20.00
S’s then asked to evaluate the task by an interviewer:
Ratings of
task enjoyment
Paid $1.00
Rated more
enjoyable
paid $20.00
Rated less
enjoyable
13
Forbidden-toy
Aronson & Carl Smith, (1963)
Young children were given the opportunity to play with toys
and were threatened with severe or mild punishment if they
played with a very attractive toy.
When asked at a later time to evaluate the attractive toy:
Threat of
punishment
Ratings of
toy attractiveness
Mild
Severe
Rated less
attractive
Rated more
attractive
14
Alternative Explanations & Revisions
to Cognitive Dissonance Theory
1.
Self-Perception theory (Bem, 1965, 1972)
2.
Impression-Management Theory
(Tedeschi, Schlenker, & Bonoma, 1971)
3.
Self-Affirmation
(Steele, 1988; Steele, Spencer, & Lynch, 1993).