CAUSES, REASONS AND INTENT: INTEGRATING ATTRIBUTION AND SOCIAL
INFERENCE
A Thesis
Presented to the faculty of the Department of Psychology
California State University, Sacramento
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
in
Psychology
by
Elizabeth Redford
SPRING
2013
© 2013
Elizabeth Redford
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
ii
CAUSES, REASONS AND INTENT: INTEGRATING ATTRIBUTION AND SOCIAL
INFERENCE
A Thesis
by
Elizabeth Redford
Approved by:
__________________________________, Committee Chair
Lisa Harrison, Ph.D.
__________________________________, Second Reader
Larry Meyers, Ph.D.
__________________________________, Third Reader
Rebecca Cameron, Ph.D.
____________________________
Date
iii
Student: Elizabeth Redford
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University
format manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to
be awarded for the thesis.
_____________________________, Graduate Coordinator ___________________
JianJian Qin, Ph.D.
Date
Department of Psychology
iv
Abstract
of
CAUSES, REASONS AND INTENT: INTEGRATING ATTRIBUTION AND SOCIAL
INFERENCE
by
Elizabeth Redford
The current study investigated whether and which conditions of causation contribute to
perceptions of intent. The study used a 2 (locus: internal or external) x 2 (stability: stable
or unstable) x 2 (controllability: controllable or noncontrollable) x 2 (performance:
success or failure) between-groups design. The independent variables were manipulated
by vignettes, which described the causes of a woman’s performance at a job. The
dependent variables were participants’ (N = 308) inferences of the woman’s intent to
succeed, intent to succeed in the future, probability of future success, Conscientiousness,
and Need for Achievement. Performance of a 4-way MANOVA indicated support for 3
of 18 hypotheses. The results suggest which conditions lead to perceptions of behavior as
guided by intent, and has implications for perceived causal powers.
____________________________, Committee Chair
Lisa Harrison , Ph.D.
_______________________
Date
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thanks to my thesis committee: Dr. Harrison, Dr. Meyers, and Dr. Cameron; to
Gali Lavee and Sarah Leavitt for their work on data collection for this study; and to the
limitless support of my family and friends.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables ............................................................................................................... ix
List of Figures ............................................................................................................... x
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................………… 1
Attribution Theory ...........................................................................………… 1
Motivation and Intent ....................................................................................... 4
Explanatory Modes and Stances ...................................................................... 5
Psychological Models of Action ...................................................................... 7
The Current Study .......................................................................................... 11
2. METHOD ............................................................................................................. 16
Participants ...................................................................................................... 16
Materials ......................................................................................................... 16
Procedure ........................................................................................................ 20
3. RESULTS ............................................................................................................. 21
Multivariate Tests .......................................................................................... 23
4. DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................... 34
Explanation of Current Findings ..................................................................... 36
Limitations ...................................................................................................... 37
Future Directions ............................................................................................ 38
vii
Appendix A. Vignettes ............................................................................................. 41
Appendix B. Intent and Outcome Measures ............................................................. 50
Appendix C. Need for Achievement Scale .............................................................. 51
Appendix D. Big Five Inventory for Conscientiousness Measure ………………... 53
Appendix E. Post-Research Questionnaire .............................................................. 54
References ................................................................................................................... 55
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Tables
Page
1.
Pearson Correlation Matrix for Dependent Variables ...………………………. 22
2.
Inferred Initial Intent as a Function of Performance, Locus, and
Controllability (means and standard deviations)………..……………………. 25
3.
Inferred Need for Achievement as a Function of Performance, Locus,
and Controllability (means and standard deviations)……………………….... 27
4.
Inferred Conscientiousness as a Function of Performance, Locus,
and Controllability (means and standard deviations)..……………………….. 29
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figures
1.
Page
Interaction effect of Performance x Locus on Means of
Inferred Future Intent…………………………………………………...……. 31
2.
Interaction Effect of Performance x Controllability on Means of
Inferred Future Intent……………………………………………………..…. 31
3.
Interaction Effect of Performance x Locus on Means of Participant
Judgments of Probability of Future Success ………………………….…….. 33
x
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
How do people explain others’ behavior? Researchers interested in this question
investigate topics such as when intent and reasons are relevant to explaining others’
actions. Such investigations cover a broad area, appealing to research and theory in
attribution, causal learning, social inference, moral evaluation, theory of mind and related
fields. For example, studies in causal learning illuminate processes of causal reasoning
that people implicitly and explicitly subscribe to. Researchers in morality or law often
focus on the influence of normative concerns on ascriptions of intent. In regard to theory
of mind, it is often asked how and at what developmental stage we begin to infer another
person’s mental states. However, the field could benefit from more defined relationships
between aspects of causal attribution and social inference. The current study was
designed to address this by asking which causal conditions contribute to perceptions of
intent, probability of future outcomes, and traits.
Attribution Theory
Attribution theory (Weiner, 1992) is one of the more prominent social
psychological theories regarding how laypeople explain others’ behavior. It is generally
concerned with two broad areas: ascription of traits/dispositions, and causal explanation
of behavior. As this discussion will illustrate, these two areas may not necessarily be
entirely distinct.
2
Heider’s (1958) work was foundational for much thinking in folk psychology,
causal attribution, and social perception (Malle, 2008). Heider’s work began with
perception of objects, finding that participants spontaneously attributed motives to
moving shapes (Heider & Simmel, 1944). This paved the way for the conceptualization
of other people as perceptual objects, leading him to develop a theoretical framework
around causal attributions.
Heider emphasized investigation of the layperson’s “naïve psychology” of
concepts of causal attribution and social inference. In analyzing everyday concepts in
terms of their underlying properties and psychological processes, Heider noted the
concept of “can” to be related to power and ability. Heider also introduced the concept of
“trying” as a fundamental concept to causal understanding, linking intent to personal
causality, with the assumption that intent guides action. Similarly, “wanting” was linked
to motivational factors underlying intent.
Although Heider did not develop a thorough dimensional structure of causal
attribution, his work invited such analysis. Heider noted the distinction between causes
that lie within the actor or within the environment, a property of causes now commonly
referred to as the “locus” dimension of attribution. Since then, other research has
investigated this concept. Rotter conducted studies investigating “locus of control”,
reasoning that dispositional tendencies toward internal or external control represented a
personality variable (Rotter, 1966). Later, Wimer and Kelley (1982) used factor analysis
to examine people’s spontaneous attributions. Allowing participants to rate causes on
broad scales, factor analyses yielded “the Person” as one of five factors. Kelley (1973)
3
also identified “person” as a dimension of causality that referred to whether “some
property, characteristic, or predisposition” of a person caused some action or outcome.
Thus, one of the first well-established dimensions of causal attribution was locus, which
refers to whether a cause is internal or external to the actor.
In a reanalysis of locus of control developed by Rotter, research done by Weiner
(1972) revealed that locus and control were confounded. For example, chance and
experimenter intervention are both external causes of outcomes, but experimenter
intervention is perceived to be under the control of someone (namely, the experimenter)
more so than chance is. Weiner thus empirically disentangled control from locus, forming
a second dimension of attribution: controllability.
Lastly, the stability dimension of attribution concerns whether a cause varies over
time. In Kelley’s (1973) original three-dimensional model, “time” is referred to as a
particular set of circumstances perceived to be causal. Kelley did not explicitly
distinguish between circumstances that may be expected to change and those that may
not. However, later work by Wimer and Kelley (1982) identified “enduring vs transient”
as one of five factors of attribution, and this dimension has since crystallized into the
term “stability” (Weiner, 1985). Some time ago, Wimer and Kelley (1982) noted a lack
of consensus among attribution researchers on categories or dimensions of attribution, but
now the field has generally accepted those three dimensions outlined in Weiner’s (1985)
work: locus, stability, and control.
4
Motivation and Intent
Although Heider’s discussion of “disposition” may be interpreted as referring to
personality traits, Heider in fact referred to motivational states, and was concerned with
observers’ perceptions of intentions and “personal causality”. Heider distinguished
between personal (intentional) and impersonal (nonintentional) causality (Heider, 1958).
However, investigation of intent ascription in attribution theory has often been limited in
scope to topics such as one’s own motivation to make attributions and to defend or
promote one’s self-image (Kelley and Michela, 1980). In 1980, in Kelley and Michela’s
Annual Review on attribution theory and research, the “Motivation” section notes the
limited research available. Weiner did not resolve the question of how and whether to
incorporated intent into attribution theory, and people’s everyday concepts of intent
tended to be neglected in research on explanation (Malle, 2011).
After calls to attention for the logical distinction between causes and reasons (e.g.,
Buss, 1978), more social psychologists began to apply this distinction to understanding
attributional processes (Locke & Pennington, 1982). Since then, research has begun to
highlight “teleological obsession” or “teleological promiscuity”--a general bias toward
intentional accounts of behavior (Csibra & Gergely, 2007; Rosset, 2008). This evidence
fits well with the theory of correspondent inference, which describes a general tendency
to attribute behaviors to dispositions (Gilbert & Malone, 1995). Intentionality bias is also
reflected in the automaticity of goal inference, in which goals and intent are the fastest
and most likely inferences to be made about others (Aarts, Dijksterhuis, & Dik, 2008;
Hassin, Bargh, & Uleman, 2002).
5
Explanatory Modes and Stances
Psychologists define forms of explanation with terminology that parallels that
used in philosophy. A paper by Lombozo (2010) outlines two “modes of explanation”.
She identifies mechanistic explanations with “Aristotle’s efficient cause, Dennett’s
physical stance, and Keil’s physical mode of construal” (p. 304); these are causes that
physically and proximally effect a change. For example, a causal explanation of why a
dropped ball falls to the ground is that gravity caused it to fall. On the other hand,
Lombrozo (2010) identifies teleological explanations with “Aristotle’s final cause,
Dennett’s design stance, and Keil’s teleological mode of construal” (p. 304). Reason
explanations appeal to teleology: that purpose which an action is for. For example, a
teleological explanation of why I dropped a ball is that I wanted to watch it bounce.
Philosopher Daniel Dennett (1987) refers to a third mode that he calls the intentional
stance. For the purposes of this paper, the terms “mechanistic” will be associated with
“cause”, and “intent” or “intentional” with “goal-based”. In keeping with psychological
literature (e.g., Keil, 1995, Lombrozo, 2010), the two relevant forms of explanation will
be referred to as “modes”.
Each mode of explanation focuses on certain aspects of the thing to be explained.
For example, Hinkle and Schmidt (1984) found reason explanations to be used more
when explaining actions than when explaining occurrences. In the same vein, Malle
(1999) asserts that cause explanations are applicable to unintentional behavior and
reasons to intentional behavior, successfully accounting for phenomena such as actorobserver asymmetries (Malle, Knobe, & Nelson, 2007).
6
Necessity and Sufficiency
Enabling mechanistic causes and motivating teleological causes may be
understood as necessary and sufficient for action causation. Necessity holds that some
condition must be true in order for an outcome to obtain; the action would not occur if the
cause were absent (McClure & Hilton, 1997; Wells & Gavanski, 1989). For example, to
purchase something that costs $10, the actor must have $10. Otherwise, the actor will not
purchase the item. Certain preconditions are perceived to be necessary to enable an action
to be accomplished, and difficult actions are seen as more heavily reliant on such
preconditions (McClure, Densley, Liu, & Allen, 2001). On the other hand, sufficiency
holds that some condition necessitates that something obtain; the action will occur if the
cause is present. For example, if the actor (having $10, satisfying the necessary
condition) wants to purchase the item, the actor will necessarily purchase the item.
Empirically, perceivers have been shown to prefer reason explanations when outcomes
are not difficult (that is, necessary preconditions are satisfied), demonstrating an
understanding about how means realize ends (Mazzone, 2011). Thus, at least where lay
explainers are concerned, enabling factors (having enough money) link goals/desires
(wanting something) and accomplishment of goals (e.g., buying something; e.g., see
McClure at al., 2001). Thus, “causes” may be understood as enabling/necessary, and
“reasons” or “intent” as sufficient for action. Preconditions are necessary to enable
action, while intent is sufficient to motivate action (Boonzaier, McClure, & Sutton, 2005).
7
Psychological Models of Action
Rational Agency
These conceptual analyses and empirical findings indicate that perceivers view
actions within a framework of rational agency, assuming that actions realize goals
(Gergely & Csibra, 2003; Kashima, McKintyre, & Clifford, 1998) and holding agents to
conditions of rationality, coherence and consistency. Perceivers hold impressions of
themselves and others to such conditions, preferring coherent accounts of beliefs, desires
and intentions (Kashima, Yoshihisa, McKintyre, & Clifford, 1998). Under the theory of
rational action, reasons are composed of coherent beliefs and desires. Belief refers to the
agent’s belief that accomplishment of the action will contribute to relevant desire
fulfillment, corresponding to Heider’s (1958) concept of “wanting”. These beliefs and
desires rationally correspond to a relevant intent and subsequent action; this corresponds
to Heider’s concept of “trying”, which links intent to action.
This coherent, intelligible network of goals, intentions, and actions is ascribed to
the agent and explains observed behavior. Inferred or observed pieces of this network are
used to sketch out other relevant components: desires, beliefs, intentions, character, skill,
awareness and probable actions. For example, knowledge of an agent’s desire may serve
as a premise upon which traits are inferred, and vice versa. For example, Gergely and
Csibra (2003) found infants to use an implicit theory of rational action to infer goals from
actions.
Psychological models of this network vary in terms of the components
investigated. For example, Fishbein and Ajzen’s (1975) theory of reasoned action is
8
based on the relationship between intent and action, under conditions of volitional
control. Ajzen later modified this idea into the theory of planned behavior to account for
the perception of volitional control, a change that did indeed boost the theory’s predictive
power (Ajzen, 1985). More recent theories are more expansive and emphasize different
methodological approaches, including folk psychology and automaticity.
Folk Psychology
Malle and Knobe (1997) have advocated for the folk psychological approach to
this “network of concepts that people use to make sense of human behavior” (Malle,
2011). Based on studies regarding the folk psychology of intentionality, the authors put
forth a “folk-conceptual” model in which intent takes on a central role. In an exploratory
study, Malle and Knobe (1997) allowed participants to define intentionality, and coded
responses into categories: awareness, desire, intention, belief, and skill. A response
qualified for the “intention” category if it mentioned deciding, choosing, planning,
intending, or meaning to perform an act. The results suggested that belief and desire
contribute to intention, which in turn with skill and awareness, produce relevant action.
This evidence offers powerful support of the theory of rational action.
Sloman, Fernbach, and Ewing (2012) applied a causal modeling approach to the
model specified by Malle and Knobe (1997), extending it to include character/disposition
and outcome/consequence. In this model, the components are organized such that
“character” contributes to “belief” that an action will result in a consequence, and a
“desire” for that consequence. Consistent with folk-conceptual theory (Malle & Knobe,
1997), belief and desire form “intention” toward the relevant action. Where this theory
9
differs and extends beyond the folk-conceptual approach is in its conditions for
translation of intent into action. Given awareness of doing, and the skill to execute the
action, the consequence occurs. In addition, this model describes inference as operating
along the connections in two ways: top-down and bottom up. A bottom-up inferential
process allows one to infer, for example, intent from action or consequence, and character
from intent. A top-down inferential process is presumed to be incurred to use character to
infer a probable intent or action. Other researchers have discussed this bidirectional goalto-action and action-to-goal inferential process (Csibra & Gergely, 2007).
Multiple inference Model
Reeder’s Multiple Inference Model (MIM; 2002) brings intent back into
attribution to offer a more comprehensive and integrated view of social inferences. The
MIM accounts for multiple social inferences, an advantage over models that account only
for single inferences (Gawronski, 2009; Molden, 2009). The general idea is that
perceivers make multiple inferences and then integrate them (Reeder, Hesson-McInnis,
Krohse, & Scialabba, 2001). In an investigation of what Sloman, Fernbach and Ewing
(2012) would term “bottom-up” processing, Reeder (2004) studied inferences from
motive to disposition. Originally interested mostly in inference of disposition, Reeder
later considers both inferential paths: from trait to motive, and motive to trait. He also
incorporates evidence for the occurrence of much processing in parallel rather than in a
rigid sequence, and occurring either analytically or intuitively (Reeder, 2009).
Reeder’s MIM has prompted the emergence of a debate as to whether these
multiple inferences are made in parallel, or in some serial or hierarchical pattern that
10
could be ordered by priority or likelihood of occurrence. For example, a recent study
based on response times suggested spontaneous goal inferences to be inferred faster,
encoded more strongly, and reactivated more quickly than spontaneous trait inferences
(Van Overwalle, Van Duynslaeger, Coomans, & Timmermans, 2012). However, results
of other studies support a view that multiple social inferences occur spontaneously and in
parallel (Todd, Molden, Ham, & Vonk, 2011), and that spontaneous goal inferences
contribute to trait attributions (Reeder & Trafimow, 2005).
These findings offer support for the idea that action is determined by intention,
which is determined by coherent beliefs and desires (Kashima et al., 1998). In summary,
the general structure that emerges from empirical research conforms to the rational action
model. Lay explanations tend to see actors as rational agents acting with reasons
(composed of mental states such as beliefs and desires), which lead to intent, culminating
in the relevant intentional action.
Methodological Themes
Several methodologies have been successfully used to investigate people’s
explanations of behavior. A major methodological paradigm involves participants’
explanatory preferences. Participants are instructed to indicate their preference for
explanations that conform to one of the modes. They may choose mechanistic, enabling
preconditions or reason explanations. Alternatively, participants may be allowed
explanatory pluralism: they may cite both causal and reason explanations in explaining a
single event or action, since both are often applicable in explaining a single event or
action (Keil, 2006). Because either or both explanatory modes may be applicable to the
11
situation described in the current study, participants were not forced to subscribe to either
explanatory mode. The current study instead assessed the extent to which participants
deemed intent to be applicable.
There are several ways that these explanatory preferences may be measured, one
aspect of which concerns whether responses are structured or unstructured. While
acknowledging that open-ended response formats may be useful for some purposes, Elig
and Frieze (1979) offer evidence of higher convergent validity for structured response
formats. Among structured response options, there is not yet consensus regarding the
relative benefits of scales or dichotomous options. Some studies ask whether a behavior
was intentional, offering one response in the positive and one in the negative. However,
those options may not necessarily suggest total certainty. For example, Wright and
Bengson (2009) offer “probably, yes” and “probably, no” as responses to the question of
whether a behavior was intentional. Recent research in the area most commonly uses
seven- or eight-point scales to assess level of intent (e.g., Hughes & Trafimow, 2010;
Ohtsubo, 2007). In addition, studies vary with regard to whether they include more than
one item to assess intentionality. There is not a clear consensus thus far on the reliability
or validity provided by single or multiple item formats. Thus, the current study used a
single item to measure intent, using a seven-point response scale.
The Current Study
Malle and Knobe’s (1997) folk-conceptual theory and the work of Sloman,
Fernbach and Ewing (2012) describe relationships between intent, traits, and actions.
However, these models of actor and action do not indicate how their components interact
12
with aspects of causes. The current study sought to address this by examining what
aspects of causes contribute to perceptions of intent and traits. The study used a 2 x 2 x 2
x 2 between-groups design. The independent variables were locus (internal or external),
stability (stable or unstable) controllability (controllable or noncontrollable, and
performance (success or failure), and were manipulated by vignettes which described a
woman’s performance at a job and the causes of her performance. The dependent
variables of interest were participants’ assessments of the target’s initial intent to succeed
(initial intent), that of the target’s intent to succeed in the future (future intent), and that
of the target’s probability of future success (future success). In addition, measures of trait
inference consisted of participant’s assessment of a target’s Need for Achievement
(NAch) and Conscientiousness. There were 18 hypotheses for this research.
Initial Intent
A three-way interaction of Performance x Locus x Control on inferred initial
intent is expected. The general bias to infer intent for observed behaviors should lead to
an effect of performance on intent (Rosset, 2008). Indeed, data show that goals predict
performance (Hulleman, Durik, Schweigert, & Harackiewicz, 2008). Previous research
on intention in one’s own volitional behavior (Ajzen, 1985), and the reasoning that this
pattern may extend to inferences about others, also suggests that this effect should be
qualified by locus and control. In addition, perceivers have been shown to prefer reason
explanations when outcomes are controllable by the actor (McClure, Densley, Liu, &
Allen, 2001): a state of affairs that may be termed “personal control” or “free will”. Thus
13
participants should perceive outcomes as most intentional when they are results of
internal, controllable causes, but only for successful performance.
Hypothesis 1a. It is predicted that in the success condition, perceived initial intent
will be greater when locus is internal and causes are controllable. This would be
supported by a three-way interaction of Performance x Locus x Controllability.
Hypothesis 1b. It is predicted that in the success condition, internal locus will
produce higher perceived initial intent in the controllable than the noncontrollable
condition.
Hypothesis 1c. It is predicted that in the unsuccessful condition, for unstable
causes, external locus will produce higher perceived initial intent than internal locus.
Hypothesis 1d. It is predicted that in the unsuccessful condition, it is predicted
that internal locus will produce higher perceived initial intent in the noncontrollable than
in the controllable condition.
Need for Achievement
Results for NAch are expected to be similar to those for Conscientiousness. However,
differences in stability may not be as likely to produce differences in the interactions of
the other independent variables on NAch.
Hypothesis 2a. It is predicted that in the success condition, for controllable
causes, internal locus will produce higher NACh scores than external locus.
Hypothesis 2b. It is predicted that in the success condition, for internal causes,
NAch scores will be higher for stable causes than for unstable causes.
14
Hypothesis 2c. It is predicted that in the success condition, for internal causes,
NAch scores will be higher for controllable than for noncontrollable causes.
Hypothesis 2d. It is predicted that in the unsuccessful condition, for stable
causes, scores will be higher for noncontrollable than for controllable causes.
Conscientiousness
A four-way interaction of Performance x Locus x Control x Stability on inferred
Conscientiousness is expected. The correspondence bias (Gilbert & Malone, 1995)
should lead participants to use information about performance to infer the woman’s traits
and dispositions, especially those relevant to accomplishment such as Conscientiousness.
However, when she fails due to external causes, it may be assumed that she still would
have wanted to succeed, so external locus may be expected to result in higher
Conscientiousness scores than internal locus.
Hypothesis 3a. It is predicted that in the success condition, internal locus will
produce higher scores on the Conscientiousness measure than external locus.
Hypothesis 3b. It is predicted that in the success condition, Conscientiousness
scores for internal locus will be higher for stable causes than for unstable causes.
Hypothesis 3c. It is predicted that for the unsuccessful condition,
Conscientiousness scores for external locus will be higher than for internal locus, but
only for stable causes.
Hypothesis 3d. It is predicted that in the unsuccessful condition,
Conscientiousness scores would be higher for noncontrollable than for controllable
causes, but only for stable, internal causes.
15
Future Intent
Stability contributes to assessment of probability of future action (Carroll, 1978), and
intention and “streakiness” are related (Caruso, Waytz & Epley, 2010). Thus, stability is
expected to qualify the effects of other independent variables.
Hypothesis 4a. It is predicted that in the success condition, for controllable
causes, levels of inferred future intent will be higher for internal locus than for external
locus.
Hypothesis 4b. It is predicted that in the success condition, for external causes,
levels of inferred future intent will be higher for stable causes than for unstable causes.
Hypothesis 4c. It is predicted that in the unsuccessful condition, for controllable
causes, external locus will produce higher levels of inferred future intent than internal
locus.
Future Success
Stability influences expectations and perceptions of probable future outcomes (e.g.,
Anderson & Jennings, 1980; Weiner, 1985), contributing to assessment of probability of
future action (Carroll, 1978).
Hypothesis 5a. It is predicted that in the success condition, levels of inferred
future success will be higher for stable than for unstable causes.
Hypothesis 5b. It is predicted that in the success condition, levels of inferred
future success will be higher for internal locus than for external locus.
Hypothesis 5c. It is predicted that in the unsuccessful condition, levels of inferred
future success will be higher for unstable causes than for stable causes.
16
Chapter 2
METHOD
Participants
Participants were recruited from the Psychology Department research pool of a
large public university in Northern California. Participants completed the study for partial
course credit for Psychology courses. A total sample of 330 was collected. This number
was reduced to 308 with deletion of 20 cases in which the participants failed the
manipulation check and six in which packets with condition 15 were misprinted.
Of the 308 cases analyzed, 229 were female and 75 male, and ages ranged from
17 to 58 (M = 21.45, SD = 4.98). There were four cases in which participants did not
specify their gender, and six cases failed to specify age. Participants were ethnically
diverse; 90 (29.2%) identified their ethnicity as White/European American, twenty
(6.5%) as Black/African American, 61 (20.2%) as Asian/Asian American, 67 (22.2%) as
Hispanic/Latino/Latina, one as Arab/Arab American, 35 (11.4%) as other, and 28 (9.1%)
identified themselves as belonging to more than one ethnic group. Six participants did not
specify ethnicity. Fifteen participants identified themselves as lower class, 111 as
working class, 164 as middle class, and 10 as upper class.
Materials
To manipulate the independent variables, fictional vignettes were constructed
regarding a woman’s performance at a job and the causes of her performance. Some of
the vignettes were pilot tested to ensure correspondence to the intended levels of each
17
attributional dimension (locus, stability, and controllability), as well as to provide
guidance in the development of the rest of the vignettes. During the pilot testing,
participants read sample versions of the vignettes, completed the Causal Dimension
Scale, Revised (CDSII; McAuley, Duncan, & Russell, 1992) and answered open-ended
questions concerning their impressions of the vignettes regarding what factors caused the
woman’s success.
The vignettes were used to manipulate performance (successful or unsuccessful)
as well as each of the three attributional dimensions: locus (internal or external), stability
(stable or unstable), and controllability (controllable or noncontrollable), resulting in
sixteen between-group conditions in total (see Appendix A). Each of the sixteen vignettes
content varied only with regard to the manipulation of the independent variables. Each
opened with the same introductory information about a woman and a job she had, and
then went on to describe her performance at the job, how the causes of her performance
were external or internal, and whether they were controllable. Lastly, the causes of her
performance are described as stable or unstable. The vignette ends with a sentence that
summarizes the causes of her career outcome as external or external, controllable or
noncontrollable, and stable or unstable.”
Measure of intent inference and Performance Prediction
Most recently published studies use a single item to explicitly measure perceived
intentionality. These items often use seven- or eight-point response scales (Hughes, 2010;
Ohtsubo, 2007), but alternatively may utilize as few as two response options (Wright,
2009; Knobe, 2003). Hughes (2010), for example, asked participants about intent and
18
traits with items such as “to what extent is Tom honest?” The current study adopted
similar wording in developing the intent inference and performance prediction survey.
Specifically, participants were asked the following questions: “To what extent did the
woman intend to succeed?”, “If given another opportunity at the same job, to what extent
do you believe that the woman would have the intention to succeed?” and “If given
another opportunity at the same job, to what extent do you believe that the woman would
actually succeed?” A seven-point response scale was used (1 = very little and 7 = very
much; see Appendix B).
Measure of Need for Achievement
The Need for Achievement construct regards the extent to which a person strives
to achieve difficult tasks, and may be described as “striving, accomplishing, [and]
capable,” among other achievement-related trait adjectives. Low scores on the Need for
Achievement measure correspond to a person who tends to be less ambitious and may be
described as “unmotivated, indolent, [and] non-capable” (Jackson, 1984).
The measure of Need for Achievement (NAch) used in the current study consisted
of sixteen items, with eight reverse-scored. The researcher adapted the scale by
rewording items from the original first-person format in the Personality Research Form
(e.g., “I enjoy difficult work”; Jackson, 1984) to third-person format in order to reference
the target (e.g., “She enjoys difficult work”; see Appendix C). Participants were
instructed to respond with whether they believed the item to be true about the woman in
the story, and response options were “True” and “False”. Responses of “false” were
coded as 0, and “true” were coded as 1. Scores were totalled, and the total unstandardized
19
scores used for analysis in the current study. A Cronbach’s alpha of .823 was attained,
indicating good reliability.
Measure of Conscientiousness
Conscientiousness has been identified with six facets: achievement, order,
dependability, forward-planning, competitiveness, and traditionalism (Saville et al.,
1984). The current study used the Big Five Inventory (BFI; Costa & McCrae, 1992b) to
measure Conscientiousness, adapting the opening sentence that uses the first person into
the third person to address the woman in the story (see Appendix D). The BFI consists of
44 items, with five response options (1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree). The
current study used the nine items on the BFI that correspond to Conscientiousness (items
three, eight, thirteen, eighteen, 23, 28, 33, 38, and 43). These items were combined to
form a Conscientiousness index for use in the current study. A Cronbach’s alpha of .923
was attained, indicating good reliability.
Post-research Questionnaire
The post-research questionnaire (PRQ, see Appendix E) included a manipulation
check and demographic questionnaire. The manipulation check was included to verify
that participants had understood the information included in the vignette. It asked about
the woman’s performance at the job and offered two response options: “She was
generally successful” or “She was generally unsuccessful”. The PRQ also asked whether
anyone other than the researcher had told the participant anything about the study before
her or his participation. These parts of the PRQ was used to screen participants for having
read the vignette, and for excessive knowledge of the experiment before participating.
20
The demographic questionnaire instructed participants to indicate their sex,
ethnicity/race, age, and family socioeconomic status.
Procedure
Two undergraduate research assistants collected all data for the experiment. Both
research assistants were present for the first few sessions of data collection, and each
research assistant ran sessions independently thenceforth. Research assistants collected
data from up to eight participants per session. Participants first read and signed consent
forms that provided an orientation to the study and indicated voluntary participation.
Following that, the packet of materials was provided in an envelope to the participants,
who were instructed to not place their name or any other identifying mark on the
materials. This packet included in the following order: one of the sixteen vignettes (the
order of which was determined by a randomized block process), the intent inference and
performance prediction survey, the Need for Achievement scale and the BFI (to measure
Conscientiousness). The order of delivery of the NAch and BFI was counterbalanced.
Finally, participants completed the PRQ. After completion, participants replaced the
materials in the envelope, returned the envelope to the researcher, received a full
debriefing and were given course credit for their participation.
21
Chapter 3
RESULTS
No more than 5% of values were missing from any variable, but sample sizes
were unequal. Hair et al. (2010) recommend cell size of 20 cases or more to ensure
adequate statistical power. Thus, the current analyses conducted may be expected to be
relatively conservative. In dealing with unequal cell sizes, the SPSS default method is
most commonly recommended for experimental research with random dropout and equal
importance of cells (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013).
Skewness and kurtosis tests indicated nonsignificant skewness and kurtosis for
initial intent, future intent, future success, Conscientiousness, and NAch (all skewness
and kurtosis scores ranged between .291 and -1.09). Box’s test of equality of covariance
matrices was significant, indicating unequal covariance matrices, M = 421.63, F = 1.66, p
= .000. However, Box’s M is notoriously powerful, and often too strict in multivariate
analysis of variance situations (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013). Levene’s statistic indicated
that the assumption homogeneity of variance was violated by initial intent, F(15, 282) =
3.08, p < .001, future intent, F(15, 282) = 2.69, p = .001, and future success, F(15, 282) =
3.18, p < .001, while the Conscientiousness and NAch measures met homogeneity of
variance standards (Levene’s statistic = ns). A Bonferroni adjustment would ordinarily be
adopted in evaluating the univariate effects. However, given that Box’s M was
statistically significant and that three of the dependent variables violated the assumption
of homogeneity of variance, the following strategy was adopted. For initial intent, future
22
intent, and future success, where heterogeneity of variance was observed, an alpha level
of .005 was adopted; for Conscientiousness and NAch an alpha level of .01 was used
(Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Any effect not meeting the corrected alpha level but
demonstrating a probability of less than .05 was treated as a trend.
Some of the DV intercorrelations were higher than recommended for MANOVA
(Meyers, Gamst, & Guarino, 2013), ranging from .27 to .69 (see Table 1). However, most
of the intercorrelations were in the acceptable range, indicating a MANOVA was
appropriate. Conscientiousness and NAch were the only two DVs measured by scales;
the other DVs were single item measures.
Table 1
Pearson Correlation Matrix for Dependent Variables
Measure
Initial
intent
Future
intent
Future
success
Conscientiousness
Initial intent
--
Future intent
.68**
--
Future success
.56**
.69**
--
Conscientiousness
.66**
.49**
.56**
--
Need for
Achievement
.33**
.27**
.22**
.38**
** Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2 tailed).
Need for
achievement
--
23
Multivariate Tests
A 2 (performance: success, failure) x 2 (locus: internal, external) x 2 (stability:
stable, unstable) x 2 (controllability: controllable, noncontrollable) multivariate analysis
of variance (MANOVA) was performed on the dependent variables: initial intent, future
intent, future success, Conscientiousness, and Need for Achievement. The MANOVA
indicated several significant effects, which are discussed below. Examination of profile
plots and Bonferroni-corrected tests of simple effects revealed the nature of the effect for
each dependent variable. Follow-up tests were designed to use simple effects to test
specific hypotheses; the a priori hypotheses dictated the analyses.
Initial Intent
There were four hypotheses regarding the effects of the independent variables on
initial intent.
Hypothesis 1a. Hypothesis 1a predicted a three-way interaction of Performance x
Locus x Controllability such that in the success condition, participants’ assessments of
the woman’s level of initial intent to succeed would be significantly greater for internal
than for external locus for controllable causes. The three-way multivariate effect of
Performance x Locus x Controllability was significant, F(5, 278) = 3.88, p = .002. Tests
of between-subjects effects were performed, which indicated that the Performance x
Locus x Controllability effect was significant for initial intent, F(1, 282) = 11.17, p =
.001, η2 = .02 (see Table 2). A test of simple effects revealed that scores were higher for
internal than external locus for both controllable causes, F(1, 282) = 20.89, p < .001, and
24
noncontrollable causes, F(1, 282) = 4.29, p = .039, indicating that controllability did not
differentiate the Locus x Performance interaction as expected.
Hypothesis 1b. Hypothesis 1b predicted a three-way interaction effect of
Performance x Locus x Controllability such that in the success condition, internal locus
would produce higher scores in the controllable than the noncontrollable condition. The
three-way multivariate effect of Performance x Locus x Controllability was significant,
F(5, 278) = 3.88, p = .002, so it was followed up with a test of between-subjects effect on
initial intent, which was significant, F(1, 282) = 11.17, p = .001, η2 = .02. However, the
simple effect contrast of interest was nonsignificant, F (1, 282) = 2.89, p = .09.
Hypothesis 1c. Hypothesis 1c predicted a three-way interaction effect of
Performance x Stability x Locus such that in the unsuccessful condition, for unstable
causes, external locus would produce higher initial intent scores than internal locus.
However, the multivariate effect of Performance x Stability x Locus was nonsignificant,
F(5, 278) = .72, p = .61.
Hypothesis 1d. Hypothesis 1d predicted a three-way effect of Performance x
Locus x Controllability such that in the unsuccessful condition, internal locus would
produce higher initial intent scores in the noncontrollable than in the controllable
condition. The three-way multivariate effect of Performance x Locus x Controllability
was significant, F(5, 278) = 3.88, p = .002, so it was followed up with a test of betweensubjects effects. This indicated that the Performance x Locus x Controllability effect was
significant for initial intent, F(1, 282) = 11.17, p = .001, η2 = .02. Simple effects tests
25
indicated the contrast of interest to be significant, F(1, 282) = 28.04, p < .001. Overall,
for initial intent, one of four hypotheses was supported.
Table 2
Inferred Initial Intent as a Function of Performance, Locus, and Controllability (means
and standard deviations)
Performance
Successful
Unsuccessful
Locus
Controllable
Noncontrollable
Controllable
Noncontrollable
Internal
6.26 (1.04)
5.68 (1.54)
2.02 (.96)
3.81 (1.99)
External
4.70 (1.38)
4.95 (1.56)
3.80 (1.63)
4.17 (1.84)
Note. Scale ranged from 1 (“very little”) – 7 (“very much”).
Need for Achievement
There were four hypotheses regarding the effects of the independent variables on
Need for Achievement.
Hypothesis 2a. Hypothesis 2a predicted a three-way interaction effect of
Performance x Locus x Controllability such that in the success condition, for controllable
causes, internal locus would produce higher NAch scores than external locus. The
multivariate interaction effect of Performance x Locus x Controllability was significant,
F(5, 278) = 3.88, p = .002, so it was followed up with between-subjects tests for NAch,
for which the univariate effect of Performance x Locus x Controllability indicated a trend
26
toward significance, F(1, 282) = 6.45, p = .012, η2 = .02 (see Table 3). Tests of simple
effects indicated that the hypothesized contrast was supported, F(1, 282) = 8.89, p = .003.
Hypothesis 2b. Hypothesis 2b predicted a three-way interaction effect of
Performance x Locus x Stability such that in the success condition, for internal causes,
NAch scores will be higher for stable causes than for unstable causes. However, the
multivariate effect of Performance x Locus x Stability was nonsignificant, F(5, 278) =
.72, p = .60.
Hypothesis 2c. Hypothesis 2c predicted a three-way interaction effect of
Performance x Locus x Controllability such that in the success condition, for internal
causes, NAch scores will be higher for controllable than for noncontrollable causes. The
multivariate interaction effect of Performance x Locus x Controllability was significant,
F(5, 278) = 3.88, p = .002, so it was followed up with between-subjects tests for NAch,
for which the univariate effect of Performance x Locus x Controllability was also
significant, F(1, 282) = 6.45, p = .012, η2 = .02. Tests of simple effects indicated that the
hypothesized contrast was marginally significant, F(1, 282) = 3.71, p = .055.
Hypothesis 2d. Hypothesis 2d predicted a two-way interaction of Performance x
Controllability x Stability such that in the unsuccessful condition, for stable causes, NAch
scores would be higher for noncontrollable than for controllable causes. However, the
multivariate interaction effect of Performance x Controllability x Stability was
nonsignificant, F(5, 278) = 1.93, p = .09. Overall, although complete statistical
significance was not achieved, two of four hypotheses demonstrated trends toward
significance.
27
Table 3
Inferred Need for Achievement as a Function of Performance, Locus, and Controllability
(means and standard deviations)
Performance
Successful
Unsuccessful
Locus
Controllable
Noncontrollable
Controllable
Noncontrollable
Internal
9.33 (3.96)
7.51 (3.59)
4.38 (4.14)
6.74 (4.20)
External
6.53 (4.73)
6.76 (3.60)
6.31 (3.46)
6.11 (3.63)
Note. Need for Achievement scores were indexed and ranged from 0 to 16.
Conscientiousness
There were four hypotheses regarding the effects of the independent variables on
Conscientiousness.
Hypothesis 3a. Hypothesis 3a predicted a two-way interaction effect of
Performance x Locus such that in the success condition, internal locus would produce
higher scores than external locus. The multivariate interaction effect of Performance x
Locus was significant, F(5, 278) = 18.32, p < .001, so it was followed up with betweensubjects tests for Conscientiousness, for which the univariate effect of Performance x
Locus was also significant, F(1, 282) = 62.55, p < .001, η2 = .10 (see Table 4). Tests of
simple effects indicated that the hypothesized contrast was supported for both
controllable causes, F(1, 282) = 27.17, p < .001 and noncontrollable causes, F(1, 282) =
10.73, p = .001.
28
Hypothesis 3b. Hypothesis 3b predicted a three-way interaction effect of
Performance x Locus x Stability such that in the success condition, Conscientiousness
scores for internal locus would be higher for stable causes than for unstable causes.
However, the multivariate effect of Performance x Locus x Stability was nonsignificant,
F(5, 278) = .721, p = .61.
Hypothesis 3c. Hypothesis 3c predicted a three-way interaction effect of
Performance x Locus x Stability such that for the unsuccessful condition,
Conscientiousness scores for external locus would be higher than for internal locus, but
only for stable causes. However, the multivariate effect of Performance x Locus x
Stability was nonsignificant, F(5, 278) = .721, p = .61.
Hypothesis 3d. Hypothesis 3d predicted a four-way interaction of Performance x
Locus x Controllability x Stability such that in the unsuccessful condition,
Conscientiousness scores would be higher for noncontrollable than for controllable
causes, but only for stable, internal causes. However, the test of the four-way effect of
Locus x Performance x Controllability x Stability was nonsignificant, F(5, 278) = 1.78, p
= .12. Overall, one of four hypotheses was supported.
29
Table 4
Inferred Conscientiousness as a Function of Performance, Locus, and Controllability
(means and standard deviations)
Performance
Locus
Successful
Unsuccessful
Controllable
Noncontrollable
Controllable
Noncontrollable
Internal
1.27 (.75)
1.03 (.79)
-1.04 (.58)
-.51 (.75)
External
.40 (.78)
.50 (.87)
-.08 (.67)
-.35 (.61)
Note. Conscientiousness analyzed as z-scores.
Future intent
There were three hypotheses regarding the effects of the independent variables on
future intent.
Hypothesis 4a. Hypothesis 4a predicted a three-way interaction of Performance x
Locus x Controllability such that in the success condition, for controllable causes, levels
of inferred future intent would be higher for internal locus than external locus. The
multivariate interaction effect of Performance x Locus x Controllability was significant,
F(5, 278) = 3.88, p = .002, so it was followed up with between-subjects tests for future
intent, for which the univariate effect of Performance x Locus x Controllability
demonstrated a trend toward significance, F(1, 282) = 5.47, p = .02, η2 = .01. This
hypothesis was supported by simple effects tests; scores were significantly greater for
30
internal causes than for external causes across levels of controllability, F(1, 282) = 15.74,
p < .001.
Hypothesis 4b. Hypothesis 4b predicted a three-way interaction effect of
Performance x Locus x Stability such that in the success condition, for external causes,
levels of inferred future intent would be higher for stable causes than for unstable causes.
However, the multivariate effect of Locus x Stability was nonsignificant, F(5, 278) = .72,
p = .60.
Hypothesis 4c. Hypothesis 4c predicted a three-way interaction effect of
Performance x Locus x Controllability such that in the unsuccessful condition, for
controllable causes, external locus would produce higher levels of inferred future intent
than internal locus. The multivariate interaction effect of Performance x Locus x
Controllability was significant, F(5, 278) = 3.88, p = .002, so it was followed up with
between-subjects tests for future intent, for which the univariate effect of Performance x
Locus x Controllability demonstrated a trend toward significance, F(1, 282) = 5.47, p =
.02, η2 = .01. Tests of simple effects indicated that the hypothesized contrast was
marginally significant, F(1, 282) = 3.71, p = .055. Overall, although complete statistical
significance was not achieved, two of three hypotheses demonstrated trends toward
significance.
31
7
6
5
Internal
4
External
3
2
1
Success
Failure
Figure 1. Interaction effect of Performance x Locus on means of inferred future intent.
Note. Standard deviations are indicated by the error bars attached to each column.
6.5
6
5.5
5
Controllable
4.5
Noncontrollable
4
3.5
3
2.5
Success
Failure
Figure 2. Interaction effect of Performance x Controllability on inferred future intent.
Note. Standard deviations are indicated by the error bars attached to each column.
32
Future success. There were three hypotheses regarding the effects of the independent
variables on future success.
Hypothesis 5a. Hypothesis 5a predicted a two-way interaction effect of
Performance x Stability such that in the successful condition, levels of inferred future
success would be higher for stable than for unstable causes. The multivariate interaction
effect of Performance x Stability was significant, F(5, 278) = 4.56, p = .001, and was
followed up with a test of between-subjects effects on future success, for which the
univariate effect of Performance x Stability was not significant, F(1, 282) = 2.67, p = .10.
Hypothesis 5b. Hypothesis 5b predicted a two-way interaction effect of
Performance x Locus such that in the successful condition, levels of inferred future
success would be higher for internal locus than for external locus. The multivariate
interaction effect of Performance x Locus was significant, F(5, 278) = 18.325, p < .001,
and was followed up with a test of between-subjects effects on future success, for which
the univariate effect of Performance x Locus was also significant, F(1, 282) = 48.96, p <
.001 (See Figure 3). Tests of simple effects indicated support for the hypothesized
contrast, F(1, 282) = 26.59, p < 001.
Hypothesis 5c. Hypothesis 5c predicted a two-way interaction effect of
Performance x Stability such that unsuccessful condition, levels of inferred future success
would be higher for unstable causes than for stable causes. The multivariate interaction
effect of Performance x Stability was significant, F(5, 278) = 4.56, p = .001 (see Figure
3), and was followed up with a test of between-subjects effects on future success, for
which the univariate effect of Performance x Stability was not significant, F(1, 282) =
33
2.67, p = .10. Overall, one of three hypotheses regarding probability of future success
was supported. In total, three of 18 hypotheses were supported, with results indicting
trends toward significance for four additional hypotheses.
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
Internal
4
External
3.5
3
2.5
2
Success
Failure
Figure 3. Interaction effect of Performance x Locus on means of participant judgments of
probability of future success.
Note. Standard deviations are indicated by the error bars attached to each column.
34
Chapter 4
DISCUSSION
The current results suggest what kind of information is relevant for making
assessments of intent and trait. Causal dimensions (locus, stability, and controllability)
and performance outcomes are related in lawful, meaningful ways to inferences of intent
and trait. Attribution theory offers some important ways of understanding enabling
preconditions, but causal dimensions and performance alone do not offer a
comprehensive account of human behavior. The differences in intent and trait caused by
different levels of the causal dimensions suggest that intent is a meaningful part of how
laypeople understand behavior. Although not all hypotheses were supported, three of 18
total hypotheses were supported, with results indicting trends toward significance for four
additional hypotheses. Hypotheses for which support was indicated are discussed below.
As predicted, in the unsuccessful condition, internal locus produced higher initial
intent scores in the noncontrollable than in the controllable condition. When she was
successful, the woman in the story was perceived to have relatively high levels of initial
intent to succeed when the causes of her success were internal and controllable, with little
influence from differences in stability. When she was unsuccessful, the woman was
perceived to have relatively high levels of initial intent to succeed when causes were
external and controllable (that is, controlled by someone else), or internal and
noncontrollable.
35
In the success condition, for controllable causes, levels of both trait constructs
(NAch and Conscientiousness) were higher for internal locus than for external locus. This
was in accordance with hypotheses. Overall, the woman was perceived as having
relatively high levels of Need for Achievement when her success was due to internal,
controllable causes or when her failure was caused by internal and noncontrollable
factors. Participants perceived her to be relatively high in Conscientiousness when her
success was due to internal causes (regardless of level of stability or controllability), or in
conditions of external-controllable or internal-noncontrollable causes of failure.
As predicted, in the success condition, levels of both inferred future intent and
inferred future success were higher for internal locus than external locus. Overall, the
woman was perceived to have relatively high levels of both dependent variables when her
success was caused by internal factors (regardless of level of controllability), or when her
failure was caused by factors under someone else’s control.
The current results, in showing the relationship of action (through the independent
variable of performance) and internal control, support the inferential network described
by Malle (2011) and Sloman, Fernbach and Ewing (2012). Recall that in these theories,
as in the theory of rational action, beliefs and desires contribute to intent. A given actor
believes that a given action moves toward fulfillment of a relevant desire--and desires are
defining features of many traits, including Conscientiousness and Need for Achievement.
It is speculated that traits contribute to intent through their carrying of information
regarding belief and desire. In addition, as described by Sloman, Fernbach, and Ewing
(2012), skill to perform an action is necessary to ensure translation of intent into action.
36
Thus, it may be reasoned that the skills implied by Conscientiousness may have some
influence on participants’ assessment of future success.
Explanation of Current Findings
Internal control of outcomes appears to be a key factor in determining intent and
traits. The power of internal, controllable causes to produce higher assessments of Need
for Achievement, Conscientiousness, and initial intent points to the importance of what
some researchers have called “personal control”. It appears that perceivers base trait and
intent judgments on conditions of personal control. Whereas performance influences the
direction of intent or trait ascription, internal control can be said to be the driving force
behind the applicability of these inferences. That is, it appears that rational agency
becomes relevant to explanation under conditions of internal control on the part of the
actor. In addition, the importance of internal-control causes suggests how people come to
judgments of culpable control (Alicke, 2000). The current results indicate that internal
control is important for applications in domains as diverse as legal and moral
responsibility, instances of dehumanization, and achievement settings.
Controllability was influential in participant’s assessments of initial intent,
Conscientiousness, and Need for Achievement, and is a particularly interesting variable
for intent inference. Controllability is related to enabling conditions and constraints on
action. Empirically, perceivers have been shown to prefer reason explanations when
outcomes are controllable, and difficult actions are seen as less controllable (McClure,
Densley, Liu, & Allen, 2001).
37
Recall that reasons are used to explain actions, but not to explain occurrences that
“happen to” someone (Hinkle & Schmidt, 1984). The results of the current study show
that for some outcomes, intent is inferred, implying that those outcomes are considered to
be actions. Thus, the results suggest what kind of causes lead to what are considered
actions, and which causes lead to what are considered occurrences.
Limitations
The failure rate on the manipulation check was 20 of 334 total cases, or about 6%.
This borders Tabachnick and Fidell’s (2013) recommendation regarding missing no more
than about 5% of cases for a given variable. Thus, it was probably not a concern for the
main analysis, but the manipulation check was intended to be a straightforward measure.
The current study could have benefited from a lower failure rate, which would have
maintained more equal sample sizes per cell.
In addition, in the current study, the use of vignettes may impose some limitations
to the ecological validity of the methodology. It may be that the pattern of perceptions of
actions and actors is different when participants read about them in fictional vignettes as
opposed to in alternate media (e.g., newspapers), or observe the behavior in live action.
In addition, certain aspects of the vignettes may not have been controlled with regard to
potentially influential variations. The woman was described in the vignettes as
undertaking a job “collecting economic data”. It could be that such a job is perceived as
inherently more or less effortful, difficult, or rewarding than other jobs that could have
been described. In addition, the woman may have been perceived as less economically or
mathematically skilled than some relevant male counterpart that could have been
38
described in the vignettes. Given the close relationship of action type and gender to
ascriptions of intent and trait, these aspects need to be reconsidered.
Future Directions
The causal dimensions included in the current study were manipulated
dichotomously; that is, causes were internal or external, stable or unstable, and
controllable or noncontrollable. Future research could employ a finer-grained
manipulation, in three levels or more of each dimension. Additionally, it may be desirable
in the future to capture intentionality independently of performance outcome.
Interpretation of results could have been made more intuitive through measurement of
intentionality, not intent to succeed. In the current study, “intent to succeed” is a useful
variable, but also ties the constructs of intentionality to the success-related trait variables.
This conflation explains some of the high DV intercorrelation and similar patterns of
effects among DVs, making it difficult to detect differences among these DVs. A more
sensitive measure (and one more orthogonal to other DVs) would refer to the
intentionality of the woman’s performance; then, the dependent measure would be more
orthogonal to the performance independent variable.
Controllability and Controlledness
The current study’s manipulation of controllability is an important consideration.
The vignettes stated that causes either “could” be controlled or “could not” be controlled,
but provided scenarios in which the causes of performance were controlled or were not
controlled. However, there are cases in which causes are controllable, but not controlled
in practice, and there are some causes that are inherently less controllable than others. For
39
example, participants may have had preexisting ideas about whether job performance,
especially in regard to any one particular job described in vignettes, is actually
controllable. A future study could compare events that are considered inherently
controllable or noncontrollable.
Causal Powers
The results of the current study indicate that participants believe intent and traits
to be present to varying degrees, but not whether these variables were perceived to have
causal powers. Future studies can determine how relevant certain traits, and intent, are for
causing outcomes in different situations. For example, participants could be asked the
extent to which they believe that the woman’s level of Conscientiousness caused her
performance outcome. Such examination of intent, or perhaps of the desires referenced
by such outcome-relevant traits, is especially promising in regard to illuminating how
people view the causal powers of mental states.
To investigate this, future studies might fruitfully take a structural equation
modeling approach to the ideas suggested by the current findings, to provide a richer
view of the relationships between variables and to explore the possibility of some
speculated relationships and new variables. This would allow us to measure and
investigate potentially important relationships between the independent variables that
could not be adequately explored by the current methodology or analysis. This would
also allow researchers to test the directionality, or causal paths, of these inferences. In
addition, future studies could focus on exploring inferential direction. That is, the
experimenter could manipulate intent and traits to explore effects on judgments of likely
40
performance, locus, stability and controllability, and the pattern of relationships could be
compared to those found in the current study. Such investigations may speak to the
existence and/or relative strength of particular inferential flows. For example, how and
when do “top down” inferences occur from performance to Conscientiousness, or
“bottom-up” inferences from Conscientiousness to expected performance? Such
mediation models may be fruitfully tested to expand upon the current findings, which
would further our understanding of the interrelations between trait, intent and action.
41
Appendix A: Vignettes
Base biography: successful performance condition
For Alice Carter’s job, she collected economic data, such as average salaries, that were
reported by businesses. Her un/successful performance at her business career is quite
simple to understand when one considers the causes of it.
Her success at the work is best explained by internal/external causes; the _[in/external
cause]_ came from [within/outside herself].
This cause is also one that could/not be controlled/by anyone. [She/he/no one] was in
control of _[non/controllable cause]_. Thus, he/she/nobody was essentially in control of
her [own] accomplishments [by way of non/controllable cause].
In addition, the cause of her performance can be described as un/changing and un/stable.
___ could/not necessarily always be counted on to _[un/stable cause]__.
Carter’s success at her profession is an illustration of how certain aspects of causes affect
the level of performance. Ultimately, her career outcome is due to causes best described
as in/external, non/controllable, and un/stable.
Base biography: unsuccessful performance condition
For Alice Carter’s job, she collected economic data, such as average salaries, that were
reported by businesses. Her unsuccessful performance at her business career is quite
simple to understand when one considers the causes of it.
Her lack of success at the work is best explained by internal/external causes; the
_[in/external cause]_ came from [within/outside herself].
This cause is also one that could/not be controlled/by anyone. [She/he/no one] was in
control of _[non/controllable cause]_. Thus, he/she/nobody was essentially in control of
her [own] lack of accomplishments [by way of non/controllable cause].
In addition, the cause of her performance can be described as un/changing and un/stable.
___ could/not necessarily always be counted on to _[un/stable cause]__.
Carter’s lack of success at her profession is an illustration of how certain aspects of
causes affect the level of performance. Ultimately, her career outcome is due to causes
best described as in/external, non/controllable, and un/stable.
42
Conditions for each vignette
biography 1: internal, stable, controllable
biography 2: external, stable, controllable
biography 3: internal, unstable, controllable
biography 4: external, unstable, controllable
biography 5: internal, stable, uncontrollable
biography 6: external, stable, uncontrollable
biography 7: internal, unstable, uncontrollable
biography 8: external, unstable, uncontrollable
biography 9: internal, stable, controllable
biography 10: external, stable, controllable
biography 11: internal, unstable, controllable
biography 12: external, unstable, controllable
biography 13: internal, stable, uncontrollable
biography 14: external, stable, uncontrollable
biography 15: internal, unstable, uncontrollable
biography 16: external, unstable, uncontrollable
biography 1
For Alice Carter’s job, she collected economic data, such as average salaries, that were
reported by businesses. Her successful performance at her business career is quite simple
to understand when one considers the causes of it.
Her success at the work is best explained by internal causes; the high level of effort she
puts in comes from within herself. This cause is also one that that could be controlled.
She was in control of her choice to exert herself to complete the tasks given to her. Thus,
she was essentially in control of her own accomplishments by choosing to try very hard.
In addition, the cause of her performance can be described as unchanging and stable.
Alice can be always be counted on give consistently high effort.
Carter’s success at her profession is an illustration of how certain aspects of causes affect
the level of performance. Ultimately, her career outcome is due to causes best described
as internal, controllable, and stable.
biography 2
For Alice Carter’s job, she collected economic data, such as average salaries, that were
reported by businesses. Her successful performance at her business career is quite simple
to understand when one considers the causes of it.
43
Her success at the work is best explained by external causes; help came from a source
outside herself. Her uncle, who was a supervisor, always chose what tasks she was
assigned and personally authored her performance reviews to make sure she would do
well. This cause is also one that could be controlled. He was in control of his efforts to
help her. Thus, he was essentially in control of her accomplishments by looking out for
her. In addition, the cause of her performance can be described as stable and unchanging.
Her uncle could always be counted on to make her perform successfully.
Carter’s success at her profession is an illustration of how certain aspects of causes affect
the level of performance. Ultimately, her career outcome is due to causes best described
as external, controllable, and stable.
biography 3
For Alice Carter’s job, she collected economic data, such as average salaries, that were
reported by businesses. Her successful performance at her business career is quite simple
to understand when one considers the causes of it.
Her success at the work is best explained by internal causes; the effort she put in came
from within herself. This cause is also one that could be controlled. She was in control of
the high level of work she invested in the tasks she was assigned. Thus, she was
essentially in control of her own accomplishments by choosing to put in hard work when
it was needed. In addition, the cause of her performance can be described as changing
and unstable. She could not necessarily always be counted on to put in the same high
level of effort that she did in this situation.
Carter’s success at her profession is an illustration of how certain aspects of causes affect
the level of performance. Ultimately, her career outcome is due to causes best described
as internal, controllable, and unstable.
biography 4
For Alice Carter’s job, she collected economic data, such as average salaries, that were
reported by businesses. Her successful performance at her business career is quite simple
to understand when one considers the causes of it.
Her success at the work is best explained by external causes; efforts to make her perform
successfully came from a source outside herself. The new office manager was also new to
management and wanted his employees to like him. Thus, he went out of his way to do
the most difficult parts of the work, and evaluated employees well in performance
reviews. This cause is also one that could be controlled. He was in control of the efforts
he made. Thus, he was essentially in control of Alice’s accomplishments. In addition, the
cause of her performance can be described as changing and unstable. The actions of
44
management can not necessarily always be counted on to influence her performance like
they did in that particular job.
Carter’s success at her profession is an illustration of how certain aspects of causes affect
the level of performance. Ultimately, her career outcome is due to causes best described
as external, controllable, and unstable.
biography 5
For Alice Carter’s job, she collected economic data, such as average salaries, that were
reported by businesses. Her successful performance at her business career is quite simple
to understand when one considers the causes of it.
Her success at the work is best explained by internal causes; her natural talent for the job
came from within herself. This cause is also one that could not be controlled by
anyone.No one was in control of her naturally high levels of talent. She didn’t choose
how much inborn ability she had. Thus, essentially nobody was in control of her
accomplishments. In addition, the cause of her performance can be described as
unchanging and stable. The traits and abilities she has could always be counted on to
make her perform successfully.
Carter’s success at her profession is an illustration of how certain aspects of causes affect
the level of performance. Ultimately, her career outcome is due to causes best described
as internal, noncontrollable, and stable.
biography 6
For Alice Carter’s job, she collected economic data, such as average salaries, that were
reported by businesses. Her successful performance at her business career is quite simple
to understand when one considers the causes of it.
Her success at the work is best explained by external causes; the easiness of the job came
from outside herself. The tasks required for the job are extremely straightforward. This
cause is also one that could not be controlled by anyone. No one was in control of the
type of work her job required; the tasks involved were standard protocol and simply had
to be done. Thus, essentially nobody was in control of her accomplishments. In addition,
the cause of her performance can be described as unchanging and unstable. The type of
work required by the job could always be counted on to be very simple and easy.
Carter’s success at her profession is an illustration of how certain aspects of causes affect
the level of performance. Ultimately, her career outcome is due to causes best described
as external, noncontrollable, and stable.
45
biography 7
For Alice Carter’s job, she collected economic data, such as average salaries, that were
reported by businesses. Her successful performance at her business career is quite simple
to understand when one considers the causes of it.
Her success at the work is best explained by internal causes; the health condition she
experienced came from within herself. Feeling well at the time was what allowed her to
perform successfully. This cause is also one that could not be controlled by anyone. No
one was in control of her health. Thus, nobody was in control of her accomplishments. In
addition, the cause of her performance can be described as changing and unstable. Her
phase of feeling well could not necessarily always be counted on to make her perform
successfully.
Carter’s success at her profession is an illustration of how certain aspects of causes affect
the level of performance. Ultimately, her career outcome is due to causes best described
as internal, noncontrollable, and unstable.
biography 8
For Alice Carter’s job, she collected economic data, such as average salaries, that were
reported by businesses. Her successful performance at her business career is quite simple
to understand when one considers the causes of it.
Her success at the work is best explained by external causes; the extra resources she had
access to came from a source outside herself. Due to an incident with the office’s
computer network, she happened to find files and documents that had all the information
she needed to complete her assigned project. This cause is also one that could not be
controlled by anyone. No one was in control of this happenstance. Thus, nobody was in
control of her accomplishments. In addition, the cause of her performance can be
described as changing and unstable. This kind of unpredictable good fortune could not
necessarily always be counted on to make her perform successfully.
Carter’s success at her profession is an illustration of how certain aspects of causes affect
the level of performance. Ultimately, her career outcome is due to causes best described
as external, noncontrollable, and unstable.
biography 9
For Alice Carter’s job, she collected economic data, such as average salaries, that were
reported by businesses. Her unsuccessful performance at her business career is quite
simple to understand when one considers the causes of it.
46
Her lack of success at the work is best explained by internal causes; the low level of work
she puts in comes from within herself. This cause is also one that could be controlled. She
was in control of her choice not to exert herself to complete the tasks given to her. Thus,
she was essentially in control of her own lack of accomplishments by choosing not to try
very hard. In addition, the cause of her performance can be described as unchanging and
stable. Alice can always be counted on to give consistently low effort.
Carter’s lack of success at her profession is an illustration of how certain aspects of
causes affect the level of performance. Ultimately, her career outcome is due to causes
best described as internal, controllable, and stable.
biography 10
For Alice Carter’s job, she collected economic data, such as average salaries, that were
reported by businesses. Her unsuccessful performance at her business career is quite
simple to understand when one considers the causes of it.
Her lack of success at the work is best explained by external causes; efforts to make her
perform poorly came from a source outside herself. Her supervisor was an old family
rival and had a bone to pick with her. Thus, he made sure she would fail at the tasks he
assigned to her. This cause is also one that could be controlled. He was in control of his
efforts to sabotage her. Thus, he was essentially in control of her lack of
accomplishments. In addition, the cause of her performance can be described as
unchanging and stable. Her supervisor could always be counted on to make her perform
unsuccessfully.
Carter’s lack of success at her profession is an illustration of how certain aspects of
causes affect the level of performance. Ultimately, her career outcome is due to causes
best described as external, controllable, and stable.
biography 11
For Alice Carter’s job, she collected economic data, such as average salaries, that were
reported by businesses. Her unsuccessful performance at her business career is quite
simple to understand when one considers the causes of it.
Her lack of success at the work is best explained by internal causes; the inadequate level
of work she put in came from within herself. This cause is also one that could be
controlled. She was in control of the low level of work she invested in the tasks she was
assigned. Thus, she was essentially in control of her own lack of accomplishments by
47
choosing not to put in hard work when it was needed. In addition, the cause of her
performance can be described as changing and unstable. She could not necessarily always
be counted on to put in the same low levels of effort that she did in this particular job.
Carter’s lack of success at her profession is an illustration of how certain aspects of
causes affect the level of performance. Ultimately, her career outcome is due to causes
best described as internal, controllable, and unstable.
biography 12
For Alice Carter’s job, she collected economic data, such as average salaries, that were
reported by businesses. Her unsuccessful performance at her business career is quite
simple to understand when one considers the causes of it.
Her lack of success at the work is best explained by external causes; efforts to make her
perform unsuccessfully came from a source outside herself. The new office manager had
a bone to pick with the company and didn’t want it to do well. Thus, he went out of his
way to give the difficult parts of tasks to employees, and evaluated them poorly in
performance reviews. This cause is also one that could be controlled. He was in control
of the efforts he made. Thus, he was essentially in control of her lack of accomplishments.
In addition, the cause of her performance can be described as changing and unstable. The
actions of management can not necessarily always be counted on to influence her
performance like they did in that particular job.
Carter’s lack of success at her profession is an illustration of how certain aspects of
causes affect the level of performance. Ultimately, her career outcome is due to causes
best described as external, controllable, and unstable.
biography 13
For Alice Carter’s job, she collected economic data, such as average salaries, that were
reported by businesses. Her unsuccessful performance at her business career is quite
simple to understand when one considers the causes of it.
Her lack of success at the work is best explained by internal causes; her natural lack of
talent for the job came from within herself. This cause is also one that could not be
controlled by anyone. No one was in control of her naturally low levels of talent. She
didn’t choose how little inborn ability she had. Thus, essentially nobody was in control of
her lack of accomplishments. In addition, the cause of her performance can be described
48
as unchanging and stable. The traits and abilities she has could always be counted on to
make her perform unsuccessfully.
Carter’s lack of success at her profession is an illustration of how certain aspects of
causes affect the level of performance. Ultimately, her career outcome is due to causes
best described as internal, noncontrollable, and stable.
biography 14
For Alice Carter’s job, she collected economic data, such as average salaries, that were
reported by businesses. Her unsuccessful performance at her business career is quite
simple to understand when one considers the causes of it.
Her lack of success at the work is best explained by external causes; the difficulty of the
job came from outside herself. The tasks required for the job are extremely challenging.
This cause is also one that could not be controlled by anyone. No one was in control of
the type of work her job required; the tasks involved were standard protocol and had to be
done by a very early deadline. Thus, essentially nobody was in control of her lack of
accomplishments. In addition, the cause of her performance can be described as
unchanging and stable. The type of work required by the job could always be counted on
to be very complex and challenging.
Carter’s lack of success at her profession is an illustration of how certain aspects of
causes affect the level of performance. Ultimately, her career outcome is due to causes
best described as external, noncontrollable, and stable.
biography 15
For Alice Carter’s job, she collected economic data, such as average salaries, that were
reported by businesses. Her unsuccessful performance at her business career is quite
simple to understand when one considers the causes of it.
Her lack of success at the work is best explained by internal causes; the health condition
she experienced came from within herself. Feeling unwell was what caused her to
perform unsuccessfully. This cause is also one that could not be controlled by
anyone. No one was in control of her health. Thus, nobody was in control of her lack of
accomplishments. In addition, the cause of her performance can be described as changing
and unstable. Her phase of not feeling well could not necessarily always be counted on to
make her perform unsuccessfully.
49
Carter’s lack of success at her profession is an illustration of how certain aspects of
causes affect the level of performance. Ultimately, her career outcome is due to causes
best described as internal, noncontrollable, and unstable.
biography 16
For Alice Carter’s job, she collected economic data, such as average salaries, that were
reported by businesses. Her unsuccessful performance at her business career is quite
simple to understand when one considers the causes of it.
Her lack of success at the work is best explained by external causes; the loss of resources
she experienced came from a source outside herself. Due to an incident with the office’s
computer network, she happened to lose the files and documents needed for the project
she was working on. This cause is also one that could not be controlled by anyone. No
one was in control of this happenstance. Thus, nobody was in control of her lack of
accomplishments. In addition, the cause of her performance can be described as changing
and unstable. This kind of unpredictable misfortune could not necessarily always be
counted on to make her perform unsuccessfully.
Carter’s lack of success at her profession is an illustration of how certain aspects of
causes affect the level of performance. Ultimately, her career outcome is due to causes
best described as external, noncontrollable, and unstable.
50
Appendix B: Intent and Outcome Measures
Instructions: Please circle one number to respond to each question.
To what extent did the woman intend to succeed?
1
2
3
4
5
6
Very little
7
Very much
If given another opportunity at the same job, to what extent do you believe that the
woman would have the intention to succeed?
1
2
3
4
5
6
Very little
7
Very much
If given another opportunity at the same job, to what extent do you believe that the
woman would actually succeed?
1
Very little
2
3
4
5
6
7
Very much
51
Appendix C: Need for Achievement Scale
Think about the woman in the story. Circle “true” or “false” to respond to whether
you believe the statement is true of her or not.
1. She thinks that people should be more involved with their work.
True
False
2. She seldom sets standards which are difficult for her to reach.
True
False
3. She enjoys difficult work.
True
False
4. She has rarely done extra studying in connection with her work.
True
False
5. She will not be satisfied until she is the best in her field of work.
True
False
6. She tries to work just hard enough to get by.
True
False
7. She would work just as hard whether or not she had to earn a living.
True
False
8. She does not let her work get in the way of what she really wants to do.
True
False
9. Her goal is to do at least a little bit more than anyone else has done before.
True
False
52
10. In her work she seldom does more than is necessary.
True
False
11. She often sets goals that are very difficult to reach.
True
False
12. People seldom think of her as a hard worker.
True
False
13. As a child she worked a long time for some of the things she earned.
True
False
14. It doesn’t really matter to her whether or not she becomes one of the best in her
field.
True
False
15. She doesn’t mind working while other people are having fun.
True
False
16. She is not really very certain what she wants to do or how to go about doing it.
True
False
53
Appendix D: Big Five Inventory for Conscientiousness Measure
Instructions: Circle the number to the right of each statement that most closely represents
how true it is of the woman in the story.
54
Appendix E: Post-Research Questionnaire
Post-Research Questionnaire
1. Did anyone other than the researchers tell you anything about the study before you
participated in the study? _________________
If yes, what had you been told?
2. In general, how did the woman perform at the job? Circle one.
She was generally successful
She was generally unsuccessful
3. What is your sex? ______________________________________
4. What is your ethnicity/race? ______________________________
5. What is your age? _______________________________
6. What is your family's socioeconomic status? Circle one.
Lower class
Working class
Middle class
Upper class
55
References
Aarts, H., Dijksterhuis, A., & Dik, G. (2008). Goal contagion: Inferring goals from
others' actions--And what it leads to. In J. Y. Shah, W. L. Gardner (Eds.),
Handbook of Motivation Science (pp. 265-280). New York, NY US: Guilford
Press.
Ajzen, Icek, I. (1986). Prediction of goal-directed behavior: Attitudes, intentions, and
perceived behavioral control. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22(5),
453-474.
Alicke, M. D. (2000). Culpable control and the psychology of blame. Psychological
Bulletin, 126(4), 556-574. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.126.4.556
Anderson, C. A., & Jennings, D. L. (1980). When experiences of failure promote
expectations of success: The impact of attributing failure to ineffective strategies.
Journal Of Personality, 48(3), 393-407. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1980.tb00841.x
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1993). Autonomy as a moderator of the relationships
between the Big Five personality dimensions and job performance. Journal Of
Applied Psychology, 78(1), 111-118. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.111
Bertelsen, P. (2012). Intentional activity and free will as core concepts in criminal law
and psychology. Theory & Psychology, 22(1), 46-66.
Boonzaier, A., McClure, J., & Sutton, R. M. (2005). Distinguishing the effects of beliefs
and preconditions: The folk psychology of goals and actions. European Journal
Of Social Psychology, 35(6), 725-740.
56
Buss, A. R. (1978). Causes and reasons in attribution theory: A conceptual critique.
Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 36(11), 1311-1321.
Carroll, J. S. (1978). Causal attributions in expert parole decisions. Journal Of
Personality And Social Psychology, 36(12), 1501-1511.
Caruso, E. M., Waytz, A., & Epley, N. (2010). The intentional mind and the hot hand:
Perceiving intentions makes streaks seem likely to continue. Cognition, 116(1),
149-153.
Casler, K., & Kelemen, D. (2008). Developmental continuity in teleo-functional
explanation: Reasoning about nature among Romanian Romani adults. Journal Of
Cognition And Development, 9(3), 340-362. doi:10.1080/15248370802248556
Csibra, G., & Gergely, G. (2007). 'Obsessed with goals': Functions and mechanisms of
teleological interpretation of actions in humans. Acta Psychologica, 124(1), 60-78.
doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2006.09.007
Elig, T. W., & Frieze, I. H. (1979). Measuring causal attributions for success and failure.
Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 37(4), 621-634.
Dennett, D. (1987). The Intentional Stance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Dretske, F. (1988). Explaining behavior: Reasons in a world of causes. Cambridge, MA
US: The MIT Press.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An
introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
57
Gergely, G., and Csibra, G. (2003). Teleological reasoning in infancy: The naïve theory
of rational action. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 287–292.
Gilbert, D. T., & Malone, P. S. (1995). The correspondence bias. Psychological Bulletin,
117(1), 21-38. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.1.21
Guglielmo, S., Monroe, A.E., & Malle, B.F. (2009). At the heart of morality lies folk
psychology. Psychological Inquiry, 52: 449–66.
Hair, Jr. J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2010). Multivariate Data
Analysis: A Global Perspective. London: Pearson.
Hassin, R. R., Bargh, J. A., & Uleman, J. S. (2002). Spontaneous causal inferences.
Journal Of Experimental Social Psychology, 38(5), 515-522.
Heider, F. F., & Simmel, M. M. (1944). An experimental study of apparent behavior. The
American Journal Of Psychology, 57243-259. doi:10.2307/1416950
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. Hoboken, NJ US: John
Wiley & Sons Inc. doi:10.1037/10628-000
Hinkle, S., & Schmidt, D. F. (1984). The Buss cause/reason hypotheses: An empirical
investigation. Social Psychology Quarterly, 47(4), 358-364. doi:10.2307/3033638
Hughes, J. S., & Trafimow, D. (2010). Intentionality attributions about perfect and
imperfect duty violations. The Journal Of Social Psychology, 150(2), 198-210.
Hulleman, C. S., Durik, A. M., Schweigert, S. B., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2008). Task
values, achievement goals, and interest: An integrative analysis. Journal Of
Educational Psychology, 100(2), 398-416. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.100.2.398
58
Jones, E.E., & Davis, K.E. (1965). From acts to dispositions: The attributional process in
person perception. In L.Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology (Vol.2). New York: Academic Press.
Jones, E. E. (1979). The rocky road from acts to dispositions. American Psychologist,
34(2), 107-117. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.34.2.107
Kashima, Y., McKintyre, A. & Clifford, P. (1998). The category of the mind: Folk
psychology of belief, desire, and intention. Asian Journal Of Social Psychology,
1(3), 289-313.
Keil, F.C. (1995). The growth of causal understandings of natural kinds: modes of
construal and the emergence of biological thought. In A. Premack &
D. Sperber (Eds.), Causal Cognition (pp. 234–62). New York: Oxford Univ. Press.
Keil, F. C. (2006). Explanation and understanding. Annual Review Of Psychology,
57227-254.
Kelley, H. H. (1973). The processes of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28(2),
107-128. doi:10.1037/h0034225
Kelley, H. H., & Michela, J. L. (1980). Attribution theory and research. Annual Review
Of Psychology, 31457-501. doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.31.020180.002325
Kruglanski, A. W. (1975). The endogenous-exogenous partition in attribution theory.
Psychological Review, 82(6), 387-406. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.82.6.387
Locke, D., & Pennington, D. (1982). Reasons and other causes: Their role in attribution
processes. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 42(2), 212-223.
59
Lombrozo, T. (2010). Causal-explanatory pluralism: how intentions, functions, and
mechanisms influence causal ascriptions. Cognitive Psychology, 61, 303-332.
Madden, T. J., Ellen, P. S., & Ajzen, I. (1992). A comparison of the theory of planned
behavior and the theory of reasoned action. Personality And Social Psychology
Bulletin, 18(1), 3-9. doi:10.1177/0146167292181001
Malle, B. F. & Knobe, J. (1997). The folk concept of intentionality. Journal Of
Experimental Social Psychology, 33(2), 101-121.
Malle, B. F. (2004). How the mind explains behavior: Folk explanations, meaning, and
social interaction. Cambridge, MA US: MIT Press.
Malle, B. F. (1999). How people explain behavior: A new theoretical framework.
Personality And Social Psychology Review, 3(1), 23-48.
Malle, B. F., Knobe, J. M., & Nelson, S. E. (2007). Actor-observer asymmetries in
explanations of behavior: New answers to an old question. Journal Of Personality
And Social Psychology, 93(4), 491-514. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.4.491
Malle, B. F. (2011). Attribution theories: How people make sense of behavior. In D.
Chadee, D. Chadee (Eds.), Theories in social psychology (pp. 72-95). WileyBlackwell.
Maselli, M. D., & Altrocchi, J. (1969). Attribution of intent. Psychological Bulletin,
71(6), 445-454. doi:10.1037/h0027348
Mazzone, M. (2011). Intentions as complex entities. Review Of Philosophy And
Psychology, 2(4), 767-783. doi:10.1007/s13164-011-0076-x
60
McClure, J., Densley, L., Liu, J. H., & Allen, M. (2001). Constraints on equifinality:
Goals are good explanations only for controllable outcomes. British Journal Of
Social Psychology, 40(1), 99-115. doi:10.1348/014466601164713
McClure, J., Sutton, R.M. & Hilton, D.J. (2003). Implicit and explicit processes in social
judgments: The role of goal-based explanations. In J. P. Forgas, K. D. Williams,
W. von Hippel (Eds.), Social judgments: Implicit and explicit processes (pp. 306324). New York, NY US: Cambridge University Press.
Meyers, L. S., Gamst, G., & Guarino, A. J. (2013). Applied multivariate research:
Design and interpretation (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Nadelhoffer, T. (2005). Skill, Luck, Control, and Intentional Action. Philosophical
Psychology, 18(3), 341-352. doi:10.1080/09515080500177309
Ohtsubo, Y. (2007). Perceived intentionality intensifies blameworthiness of negative
behaviors: Blame-praise asymmetry in intensification effect. Japanese
Psychological Research, 49(2), 100-110. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5884.2007.00337.x
Perrin, S., & Testé, B. (2010). Impact of the locus of causality and internal control on the
social utility of causal explanations. Swiss Journal Of Psychology/Schweizerische
Zeitschrift Für Psychologie/Revue Suisse De Psychologie, 69(3), 173-179.
Read, S. J., & Monroe, B. M. (2009). Must judgments about intentionality precede
dispositional inference?. Psychological Inquiry, 20(1), 66-72.
Reeder, G. D., Kumar, S., Hesson-McInnis, M. S., & Trafimow, D. (2002). Inferences
about the morality of an aggressor: The role of perceived motive. Journal Of
Personality And Social Psychology, 83(4), 789-803.
61
Reeder, G. D., Vonk, R., Ronk, M. J., Ham, J., & Lawrence, M. (2004). Dispositional
Attribution: Multiple Inferences About Motive-Related Traits. Journal Of
Personality And Social Psychology, 86(4), 530-544.
Reeder, G.D. & Trafimow, D. (2005). Attributing Motives to Other People. In B. F.
Malle, S. D. Hodges (Eds.) Other minds: How humans bridge the divide between
self and others (pp. 106-123). New York, NY US: Guilford Press.
Reeder, G.D. (2009). Mindreading: Judgments about intentionality and motives in
dispositional inference. Psychological Inquiry, 20(1), 1-18.
Reeder, G. D. (2009). Mindreading and dispositional inference: MIM revised and
extended. Psychological Inquiry, 20(1), 73-83. doi:10.1080/10478400902868565
Rosset, E. (2008). It's no accident: Our bias for intentional explanations. Cognition,
108(3), 771-780. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2008.07.001
Rotter, J. B., & Mulry, R. C. (1965). Internal versus external control of reinforcement and
decision time. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 2(4), 598-604.
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of
reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General And Applied, 80(1), 1-28.
Saville, P., Holdsworth, R., Nyfield, G., Cramp, L., & Mabey, W. (1984). Occupational
Personality Questionnaire manual. Thames Ditton, UK: Saville-Holdsworth, Ltd.
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (2004). General mental ability in the world of work:
Occupational attainment and job performance. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 86, 162–173.
62
Sloman, S. A., Fernbach, P. M., & Ewing, S. (2012). A causal model of intentionality
judgment. Mind & Language, 27(2), 154-180.
Tabachnick, B. G., and Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using Multivariate Statistics, 6th ed. Boston:
Allyn and Bacon.
Todd, A. R., Molden, D. C., Ham, J., & Vonk, R. (2011). The automatic and co-occurring
activation of multiple social inferences. Journal Of Experimental Social
Psychology, 47(1), 37-49. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2010.08.006
Van Overwalle, F. (2004). Multiple person inferences: A view of a connectionist
integration. In H. Bowman & C. Labiouse (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eighth
Neural Computation and Psychology Workshop (Progress in Neural Processing).
London, England: World Scientific.
Van Overwalle, F., Van Duynslaeger, M., Coomans, D., & Timmermans, B. (2012).
Spontaneous goal inferences are often inferred faster than spontaneous trait
inferences. Journal Of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1), 13-18.
Weiner, B., Heckhausen, H., & Meyer, W. (1972). Causal ascriptions and achievement
behavior: A conceptual analysis of effort and reanalysis of locus of control.
Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 21(2), 239-248.
Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion.
Psychological Review, 92(4), 548-573. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.92.4.548
Weiner, B. (2006). Social motivation, justice, and the moral emotions: An attributional
approach. Mahwah, NJ US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
63
Wimer, S., & Kelley, H. H. (1982). An investigation of the dimensions of causal
attribution. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 43(6), 1142-1162.
Wright, J., & Bengson, J. (2009). Asymmetries in judgments of responsibility and
intentional action. Mind & Language, 24(1), 24-50.