View
104
Download
1
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
Attributions & Beliefs
Melanie Tannenbaum, M.A. Sociology 463/663
Spring 2015
This Week
Attributions
Attribution Theory
Attribution Training
Beliefs about Intelligence
Implicit Theories
Consequences
This Week
Attributions
Attribution Theory
Attribution Training
Beliefs about Intelligence
Implicit Theories
Consequences
Attributions
What’s Going On Here?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FIEZXMUM2I
!
Is the large triangle mean?
Yes
No
Can’t Tell
Attribution Theory
Theories about how people explain the causes of the events that they observe.
Attribution TheoryPeople tend to make very complex inferences about motives and personalities based on very small amounts of information.
!
We like to believe inferences, but there are many ways that they can fail us.
The small shapes could have been trying to play with the large shape, who was just grumpy.
The small shapes could have been trying to steal something from the large shape, who was rightfully mad.
!
Also, they are shapes.
Attributions
Subjective explanations
(causal judgments)
for why things are happening.
Attributions: What?
B = f (P, E)
Behavior is a function of the person and the environment. !
Causal attribution is the process of deciding if you think that someone’s behavior was caused more by P or by E.
!You can make these attributions for others and you can also
make these attributions for yourself.
Attributions: When?
When things go wrong
When important things happen
When expectancies are violated
But…
Often spontaneous and implicit assumptions of causality!
Attributions
“Causal attributions answer ‘why’ questions, such as ‘Why did I fail this exam?’ or ‘Why don’t any of my classmates like me?’ It is intended that these examples describe situations of failure because we are more likely to want to know ‘why’ given negative, unexpected, or atypical outcomes.”
- Graham, 1991
Attributions: Why?
Fritz Heider
People are “naive scientists”
Goal is to accurately assess reasons
Distinction between internal and external causes
Internal: Ability, personality, effort, preferences
External: Luck, task difficulty, circumstances
Weiner: Three Dimensions
ControllabilityStabilityLocus
Internal or
External
Constant or
Varying
Controllable or
Uncontrollable
Ability or Effort?
EffortAbility
Internal Stable
Uncontrollable
Internal Unstable
Controllable
Why did I fail that final exam?
Locus of Causality
Internal External
Stability
Stable Ability I’m stupid and bad at Calculus.
Task Difficulty Calculus is really hard.
Unstable Effort I didn’t work as hard as I should have.
Luck This was a really tricky test.
Person Blame vs.
System Blame
Sources of Info
Prior performance history
!
Social norms
!
Teachers
Teacher Responses
Teachers respond to student performance…
Unintentionally & Spontaneously (Nonverbal)
Deliberately (Praise, blame, helping)
Students learn from teachers’ reactions…
About themselves
About their peers
Reactions to Others’ Outcomes
Assumptions about teacher feedback
When the teachers sees…
Success and attributes it to high ability he/she responds with praise
Success and attributes it to high effort he/she responds with praise
Failure and attributes it to low ability he/she responds with pity
Failure and attributes it to low effort he/she responds with anger/blame
Ability vs. Effort
Naive theory of ability & effort as compensatory
Ability makes up for lacking effort and vice versa
“Smart students don’t have to study as much”
Help-seeking
“Avoid the kind of effort that implies a concession of lack of ability.”
If two students achieve the same outcome, the one who tried harder is often seen as lower-ability.
Barker & Graham, 1987Children watched videos of a pair of students working on easy
math problems. !
Half of the children saw a video where both students solved all of the problems. One student received lots of praise and the
other student received only neutral feedback (“Correct.”) !
The other half saw a video where both students failed all of the problems. One student was criticized and the other student
received only neutral feedback (“Not correct.”) !
The students praised for success and the students not blamed for failure were both judged as likely lower-ability than their counterparts.
Attributional ConsequencesResponses to poor performance…
Pity?
Implies that student could not have changed the outcome
Low ability inference
Anger/Blame?
Implies that the student could have changed the outcome
Low effort inference, but often also a high ability inference!
Graham, 1984
Sixth graders tried (and failed) a novel puzzle task. !
A female experimenter posing as a teacher responded with pity, with anger, or with no emotion.
!
Children were most likely to attribute their failure to low ability when the teacher conveyed pity, and most likely to attribute their failure to insufficient effort when the
teacher conveyed anger.
Attributional Consequences
Responses to good performance
Positive feedback sustains motivation
But…too much for low difficulty tasks?
Signals low expectations
Low ability inferences
Attributional ConsequencesUnsolicited help?
Low ability inferences
Blame?
High ability inferences
Naive Theories
“Help is given to those who cannot help themselves”
“Those who are blamed can help themselves”
Graham & Barker, 1990Participants watched a video of two students
working on math problems as their teacher walked around their desks.
!
The teacher provided one student with unsolicited help very early on, before the student could even really be struggling. The teacher simply looked at
the other student’s paper and kept walking. !
Participants assumed that the helped student was likely lower in ability than his unhelped counterpart.
Attributional ConsequencesCompared to letter grades, written feedback elicits…
Greater task (mastery) orientation
Focus on process of learning (mastery goals)
Less ego-involvement
Focus on grades, etc. (performance goals)
Explanatory Styles“Trait”-like ways that we explain things
Do you tend to see events as internal/external? Stable/unstable? Controllable/uncontrollable?
Pessimistic Explanatory Style: Internal, Stable, Uncontrollable for negative events/failures.
Significant correlations between having a pessimistic explanatory
style at age 25 and physical health problems at ages 45-60!
Fundamental Attribution ErrorThe tendency to attribute a person’s behavior to personality while ignoring situational causes.
Fundamental Attribution ErrorA driver who cuts you off is automatically a jerk or a
bad driver (or worse…)
Maybe she was in a hurry, had to swerve to avoid an object in the street, had kids pulling her hair…
Fundamental Attribution ErrorObservers often don’t consider the situational
advantages enjoyed by those who succeed.
Bill Gates had access to real-time programming
years before most people did.
Fundamental Attribution ErrorObservers often don’t consider the situational
advantages enjoyed by those who succeed.
A disproportionate number of pro hockey players have January, February, or March
birthdays.
Fundamental Attribution ErrorObservers often don’t consider the situational
advantages enjoyed by those who succeed.
A disproportionate number of pro soccer
players have September, October,
or November birthdays.
Fundamental Attribution ErrorObservers often don’t consider the situational
advantages enjoyed by those who succeed.
Children born on opposite ends of the cutoff date differ by
12% in 4th grade standardized math &
science scores.
Students trying to look good
Desirable: High Ability
Self-serving biases
Taking credit for successes
Deflecting blame for failure
Problem: Claiming high ability in light of failure
“What’s so great about self-esteem?”
Self-Serving Attributional BiasThe tendency to attribute failures to external causes and successes to internal causes.
This usually occurs because people want to maintain a positive image of themselves.
Think for a moment…
The last time you got an A, was it because you were smart & prepared, or because the test was easy?
The last time you got a C, was it because you weren’t smart or prepared, or because the test was hard or unfair?
Self-Serving Attributional Bias
After a professional sports game, 80% of statements made about the victory by coaches/athletes cited internal causes
(“we trained hard”), while 47% of the statements made about the loss cited external causes (“bad calls”).
!
In shareholder business letters, CEOs claimed credit for 83% of positive events but only claimed blame for 19% of
negative events.
Reactions to Own Outcomes
When I experience….
Success and attribute it to high ability I feel pride
Success and attribute it to high effort I feel contentment
Failure and attribute it to low ability I feel shame
Failure and attribute it to low effort I feel guilt
Consequences of Attributions
Motivations & expectations depend on attributions
Ability vs. Effort
How will I do next time?
What do I need to do next time?
Amount of effort/studying needed
Should I seek help or not?
What To Do?Perry et al., 2010
Two types of dysfunctional attributional thinking
Relinquished Control
Bad luck, low ability, test difficulty, and poor teaching
Rely on uncontrollable causes
Devalued Control
Discount effort & strategy
Rely on controllable causes
Bad Starts and Better Finishes Perry et al., 2010
Attributional Re-Training
Three components administered in a 1-hour session
Causal Search Activation
Attribution Induction
Attribution Consolidation
First-year students in Intro Psych class after 1st exam
Bad Starts and Better Finishes Perry et al., 2010
Attribution Consolidation
Attribution Induction
Causal Search Activation
Initiate attributional thinking about causes of success & failure
after feedback on 1st exam !
10-item survey assessing various attributions
!“If I study in appropriate ways, I will be able to learn the material
in my courses.” !
Estimates roles of ability & effort in exam performance
10-minute videotape !
Encourages controllable causal attributions for bad
performance !
Two students talking about how poor performance can be
changed & how their performance can improve with
hard work & effort, with a professor agreeing at the end
GRE-type aptitude test; intentionally difficult.
!Rated own perceptions of
success/performance on test. !
Discussion of the videotape, highlighting adaptive &
maladaptive attributions. !
1-page handout summarizing good attributions; encouraged to keep it close as a reference.
Bad Starts and Better Finishes Perry et al., 2010
Students who got Attributional Retraining performed better on second exam, got better final grades, and had higher overall GPAs at the end of the semester!
These benefits happened only in the low- and average-performance groups, not the high-performance groups
Attributional retraining has the most potential benefit for the students who need the most help.
Bad Starts and Better Finishes Perry et al., 2010
Bad Starts and Better Finishes Perry et al., 2010
Discussion Questions!
If children are praised just for effort and how hard they are trying, does that remove motivation to actually complete a task/succeed/do well?
How can teachers & parents “train” good attributions?
What are other ways that teachers communicate ability/effort inferences in the classroom & through feedback?
This Week
Attributions
Attribution Theory
Attribution Training
Beliefs about Intelligence
Implicit Theories
Consequences
Beliefs About Intelligence
What is Intelligence?
Scientific Study of Intelligence
What is it?
Where does it come from?
How stable/flexible is it?
How measurable is it?
The Origin Story of IntelligenceAlfred Binet
Creator of the Intelligence Quotient (IQ)
Divide “intelligence age” by actual age
Devised tests for identifying weak students
Remedial instruction
Why?
Advances in statistical techniques
Need for classification in the US Army during WWI
Issues
How can we really measure “intelligence”?
What does “intelligence” look like?
One global intelligence? (Spearman, g)
Multiple intelligences? (Gardner)
Genetic vs. Environmental bases?
Cultural influences?
Wisconsin Model RevisitedSES of Origin
Family Structure
Ability
Educational Attainment
Academic Performance
Influence of significant others
Educational Ambition
Wisconsin Model RevisitedSES of Origin
Family Structure
Ability
Educational Attainment
Academic Performance
Influence of significant others
Educational Ambition
Intelligence
Predictive Power of Intelligence
Life Outcomes
Intelligence
Socioeconomic Status
Parenting Style
What Kinds of Beliefs?
Naïve Theories of IntelligenceCarol Dweck: Implicit Naïve Theories
Entity vs. Incremental Theories
Intelligence is fixed
Intelligence is malleable
Why are they important?
Shape inferences/attributions about own ability
Shape inferences/attributions about others
Implicit TheoriesCore assumptions about the malleability of personal qualities
Incremental or Malleable
Entity or Fixed
Things like intelligence, personality traits, or abilities are fixed, unchangeable, and innate.
Things like intelligence, personality traits, or abilities can be grown or
developed over time.
Implicit Theories
Entity (Stable)
Your personality/abilities are fixed No matter what you do, they pretty much stay the same.
!Incremental (Unstable)
Your personality/abilities are malleable If you want to change them, you can do so with enough effort.
Implicit Theories
The entity theory world is about measuring your ability, and everything (challenging tasks, effort, setbacks) measures your ability.
It is a world of threats and defenses. !
The incremental world is about learning and growth, and everything (challenges, effort, setbacks) is seen as being helpful to learn and grow.
It is a world of opportunities to improve.
Why Do Beliefs Matter?
ResilienceGood outcomes in spite of
serious threats to adaptation or development (Masten, 2001)
Any behavioral, attributional, or emotional response to an academic or social challenge that is
positive and beneficial for development, such as seeking new strategies, putting forth greater effort,
or solving conflicts peacefully (Yeager & Dweck, 2012)
Entity vs. Incremental Theories
Your response to failure greatly depends on these mindsets.
!
Entity theorists see failure as a threat.
If “you are who you are,” failing means that you are a failure.
Incremental theorists see failure as a cue to work harder.
If you can change, failing just means you need to put in more effort.
Implicit Theories of IntelligenceFixed Malleable
Student Goal Look smart (even if you sacrifice learning)
Learn new things (even if it’s hard or risky)
Failure Implications Low Intelligence Low Effort/Poor Strategy
Effort Implications Low Intelligence Activate & Grow Intelligence
Post-Difficulty Strategy Less Effort More Effort
Self-Defeating Behavior High Low
Post-Difficulty Performance Impaired Equal or Improved
Implicit Theories & IQ Performance
Cury, Da Fonseca, Zahn & Elliot (2008) JESP
Entity Theory
High Worry
Lower IQ Test Performance
Low Willingness to Practice
Incremental Theory
Low Worry
Higher IQ Test Performance
High Willingness to Practice
Snyder et al., 2014 Giftedness Beliefs & Self-Handicapping
110 participants at a private, elite university
Performed problem-solving sets & received feedback
Manipulated…
(1) Theory of Intelligence (Entity vs. Incremental)
(2) Problem-Solving Experience (Success vs. Failure)
Performed second pattern-completion task
Would they self-handicap?
Snyder et al., 2014 Giftedness Beliefs & Self-Handicapping
Entity Message
A lot of research suggests that giftedness is strongly fixed through genetics. It’s either something you have or you don’t have. So as expected, we’ve found in our own research that high ability, like what we’ve identified in you, results in fairly stable
performance. It’s the kind of thing that results in really consistent performance across our different study tasks.
Snyder et al., 2014 Giftedness Beliefs & Self-Handicapping
Incremental Message
We’ve found that achieving at such a high level, like you have, requires not just high ability but also hard
work and persistence. Things like effort, really sticking it out during a difficult task — those things are really important so that you can continually improve even from your high skill level. We’re actually pretty excited about these findings. It means that effort is
still important, even for gifted students like you.
Snyder et al., 2014 Giftedness Beliefs & Self-Handicapping
Success
I can see you’ve done really well on these problems and you got [#] correct. That’s really great and right in line with the other
participants we’ve had in the gifted study.
Failure
It looks like you had some trouble with these problems. You didn’t get any correct…usually our gifted participants get at least three of
these questions right. I don’t really know if the gifted label actually applies now but let’s just move on to the next gifted task.
Snyder et al., 2014 Giftedness Beliefs & Self-Handicapping
Claimed Self-Handicapping on Task #2
14 factors like test anxiety, illness, fatigue, etc.
“How likely is ___ to negatively impact your performance?”
Behavioral Self-Handicapping on Task #2
Allowed to choose the level of light on a dimmer
Told that bright light would help, low light would hurt
Snyder et al., 2014 Giftedness Beliefs & Self-Handicapping
Claimed Self-Handicapping: Women
Snyder et al., 2014 Giftedness Beliefs & Self-Handicapping
Claimed Self-Handicapping: Men
Snyder et al., 2014 Giftedness Beliefs & Self-Handicapping
Snyder et al., 2014 Giftedness Beliefs & Self-Handicapping
How Are Beliefs Formed… And Can They Be Changed?
The Role of PraiseAbility Praise
(“You’re so smart!”)Effort Praise
(“You worked so hard!”)Promoted Theory of
Intelligence Entity/Fixed Incremental/Malleable
Student Goal Look smart (even if you sacrifice learning)
Learn new things (even if it’s hard or risky)
Failure Implications Low Intelligence Low Effort/Poor Strategy
Post-Difficulty Enjoyment & Persistence Low High
Defensiveness (Denial, Lying, etc.) High Low
Post-Difficulty Performance Impaired Improved
Interventions!
Aronson et al., 2002: Intervention group increased GPA by ≈ 0.23 grade points
!
Good et al., 2003: Intervention group had significantly higher math & verbal achievement scores
Blackwell et al., 2007 Implicit Theories & Adolescence
40% of respondents in 1 study rated adolescence as the worst time of life - more than any other stage
Core beliefs can set up different patterns of response to challenge & setbacks
Longitudinal study of students in junior high school
373 students in 4 consecutive 7th-grade classes
Blackwell et al., 2007 Implicit Theories & Adolescence
Time 1: Motivational Questionnaire
Intelligence theories, goals, effort beliefs, responses to failure
Entity vs. Incremental Theories
Mastery vs. Performance Goals
Beliefs that effort leads to positive outcomes (or is ineffective)
Responses to Failure
Helpless: Ability-Based, Uncontrollable
Positive: Effort-Based
Subsequent Measures
Math Grades
Blackwell et al., 2007 Implicit Theories & Adolescence
Incremental Theory Correlates With…
Positive effort beliefs (r = 0.54)
Learning goals (r = 0.34)
Fewer helpless attributions (r = 0.44)
More positive response strategies (r = 0.45)
Higher math achievement scores
Blackwell et al., 2007 Implicit Theories & Adolescence
Blackwell et al., 2007 Implicit Theories & Adolescence
99 low-achieving 7th-graders in NYC
Time 1: Achievement, motivational questionnaire
Intervention
Time 2: Achievement, motivational questionnaire
Blackwell et al., 2007 Implicit Theories & Adolescence
Both Groups
Sessions 1 & 2 !
The Brain - Structure & Function
Sessions 5 & 6 !
Anti-Stereotyping Lesson Study Skills & Time Management Lesson
Eight 25-minute periods 1 period each week
Blackwell et al., 2007 Implicit Theories & Adolescence
Attribution Consolidation
Control
Sessions 3 & 4 !
Memory Lesson Activity: “Grocery Store Tricks”
Sessions 7 & 8 !
Discussion on how learning makes you smarter & smart/dumb labels
should be avoided
Sessions 3 & 4 !
Incremental Theory Intervention Activity: “Neural Network Maze”
Sessions 7 & 8 !
Discussion on academic difficulties & successes, memory, and the brain
Blackwell et al., 2007 Implicit Theories & Adolescence
4
4.25
4.5
4.75
5
Control Group Intervention Group
Pre-InterventionPost-Intervention
Endorse Incremental Theory
Blackwell et al., 2007 Implicit Theories & Adolescence
0
10
20
30
40
50
Control Group Intervention Group
Teachers Spontaneously Citing Positive Change
Blackwell et al., 2007 Implicit Theories & Adolescence
Teachers Spontaneously Citing Positive Change
“L., who never puts in any extra effort and doesn’t turn in homework on time, actually stayed up late working for hours to finish an assignment early so I could review it and give him a chance to revise it. He earned a B+ on the assignment (he had
been getting C’s and lower).”
Blackwell et al., 2007 Implicit Theories & Adolescence
Is It Just About Intelligence?
Peer ExclusionAdolescents increasingly seem to believe that social labels,
once acquired, are fixed entities that cannot change. (Birnbaum et al., 2010; Diesendruck & haLevi, 2006; Killen et al, 2010)
Peer Exclusion
!
People with entity theories of personality are more likely to see their own & others’ negative behaviors as
stemming from fixed, personal deficienies. (Chiu et al., 1997; Erdley et al., 1997)
Yeager et al., 2011 Implicit Theories & Peer Conflicts
High school students
Entity vs. Incremental Theories of Personality
“Bullies and victims are types of people that really can’t be changed.”
Write about a time a peer upset or hurt you
Rate your desire for vengeance
Teens with higher entity theories reported significantly higher desires for revenge & a reduced desire to forgive the peer.
Yeager et al., 2011 Implicit Theories & Peer Conflicts
High school students
Read a story about a student who was bullied
1/2 of students learned that people’s characteristics can be developed and are not fixed (intervention)
Students in the intervention group were significantly less likely to endorse aggressive, vengeful responses to the bullies
Yeager et al., 2011 Implicit Theories & Peer Conflicts
Entity Shame after Exclusion
Revenge & Punishment
Incremental Less Shame Less Need for Revenge
Incremental intervention = less aggressive retaliation, more prosocial action towards the excluder/aggressor
Yeager et al., 2011 Implicit Theories & Peer Conflicts
We have found that what students need the most is not self-esteem boosting or trait labeling; instead, they need mindsets that represent challenges as things that they can take on and overcome over time with
effort, new strategies, learning, help from others, and patience. !
When we emphasize people’s potential to change, we prepare our students to face life’s challenges resiliently.
MotivationsMotivations to hold different theories of intelligence?
!
Theories
Conflict Theory
Human Capital Theory
Policies
Tracking/Ability Grouping
Open Access Policy
DiscussionIf people aren’t “vengeful” towards aggressors, how does that motivate change? Is it always best to be forgiving?
Do you have more of an entity or incremental mindset? Why do you think this is the case?
Do you think that there are any benefits of entity mindsets or disadvantages of incremental mindsets?
What does it mean to “underachieve” as discussed in the Snyder article? Is “underachieving” more about objective standards, other-perceptions, or self-perceptions?
Do you think gender plays a role in mindset/belief development? Race/ethnicity? SES? If so, how and why?
Recommended