Institute of Social Psychology Societal Psychology PS443 Lecture 5 Cultural Norms, Attributions and Responsibility Bradley Franks

Slide 1

Institute of Social Psychology

Societal Psychology PS443

Lecture 5Cultural Norms, Attributions and Responsibility

Bradley Franks

12

23rerum cognoscere causas


to know the causes of things


to know the causes of things

to understand how commonsense explains social action

5Outline of LectureIntroduction

Attribution Research

Attribution Errors and Culture

Attribution and Social Explanation

Summary and Conclusions661 IntroductionAttribution and Responsibility

Social life involves making sense of other people and their behaviour by making attributions (explanations) of the cause of their behaviour

In doing so, we often make assessments regarding responsibility, allocating praise and blame for actions

We make attributions not only regarding the behaviour of individuals, but also of groups of individuals and other social entities, such as organisations, governments, football teams, committees, and so on

771 IntroductionAttribution and Responsibility

Policies of governments, plans for social change by NGOs, strategies for change for corporations and so on depend on attributional assumptions about:

Who is responsible for the problems of the status quo

Who is responsible for generating solutions to those problems

Who can and should take actions to solve the problems881 IntroductionAttribution and Responsibility

However:We shouldnt hold people responsible for their behaviour unlessthat behaviour is intentionally caused by them, and unless those individual intentions are all that matters in causing the behaviour

And there may be reason to raise questions:Are we accurate in assessing whether peoples behaviour is intentionally caused? Or are our assessments error-prone (or biased)?99PS?? Attributions and Responsibility 2010/111 IntroductionHeider (1958): Social Attribution

We make attributions like amateur or naive scientists, with the aim of understanding the social world:Explaining others behaviourPredicting their future behaviour

The specific reasons or causes offered for a behaviour are often less important than where the cause is located: i.e., Internal attributions (in qualities of the person) versus External attributions (in qualities of the situation)101011http://www.psych.lse.ac.uk/h_and_s/

Heider & Simmel (1944):The automaticity of causal attribution112 Attribution ResearchThe Four Ages of Attribution Research

Attribution research since Heider has gone through several ages, which reflect different conceptions of people as engaged in causal attribution:

(1) The nave scientist 1960s(2) The flawed perceiver 1970s(3) The cognitive miser 1980s(4) The motivated tactician 1990s and onwards12122 Attribution ResearchThe Four Ages of Attribution Research

(1) The Nave Scientist 1960se.g., Kellys Covariation theory; Jones & Davies Correspondent Inference theory

People as intuitive scientists seek to understand causality by combining information according to rational principlesThese principles may reflect the methods used in experimental psychology and data analysis techniques (e.g., ANOVA)Errors and biases in attribution are departures from the norm for competent performers13132 Attribution ResearchThe Four Ages of Attribution Research

(2) The Flawed Perceiver 1970se.g., Jones & Nisbett on Actor-Observer differences

People have different perspectives on events that are related to their being actors or observersThese different perspectives are both perceptual and cognitive, and each reflects only partial information about the situation Errors and biases in attribution arise from partial perceptual access to information, and so are departures from adaptive or optimal processing14142 Attribution ResearchThe Four Ages of Attribution Research

(3) The Cognitive Miser 1980se.g., Gilberts two-step/discounting model

Cognitive economy (the tendency to conserve mental effort) favours heuristics or rules of thumbBiases in attribution involve heuristics that usually (but not always) provide a useful answer Errors and biases may arise from cognitive economy minimising effort by using flawed but reasonable assumptions

15152 Attribution ResearchThe Four Ages of Attribution Research

(4) The Motivated Tactician 1990s onwardse.g., Hasleton & Funders (2006) evolutionary error management theory

People have access to a range of cognitive resources for making causal inference, which differ in their required cognitive effortPeople use effortful cognitive resources (e.g., inference rules) tactically Some errors (low cost ones) may be a normal, adaptive aspect of cognition

1616

3 Attribution Errors and Culture

The Fundamental Attribution Error (FAE)

Attribution Errors

Everyday attribution is beset with errors and biases so it may not be a sound basis for assessing others responsibility

A key example is the Fundamental Attribution Error: Ross (1977): The tendency to overestimate the importance of the actor and to underestimate the situation as a determinant of action

1717


Explaining the FAE?A 1970s style perceptual/informational explanation? The actor is more salient perceptually/informationally, while situational causes of actors behaviour are less salient and may be unknown. A 1980s style cognitive processing explanation? A two-step process (e.g., D. T. Gilbert, 1989): First step (normally non-conscious) automatic internal attributionSecond step (effortful and conscious) consider possible situational causes, possibly discount the first steps internal attributionFAE: people only proceed to the second step if situational information is very salient, and it usually is not

Neither fully offers a role for the impact of culture on the FAE1818


Cultural Impact on the FAEFletcher & Ward (1988): Does the FAE depend on Culture?The FAE may be an error but it is not really fundamental it may be present in some cultures (e.g., the West) but not others (e.g., East Asia)

Miller (1984): The FAE and culture USA and Hindu Indian children made similar numbers of internal and situational attributions for the everyday actions of othersAs they grew older, they diverged:USA adults explained behaviours largely via personality traits/attitudesIndian Hindu adults explained the same behaviours via external factors1919


Cultural Impact on the FAE expressed by relevant proverbs?Behind an able man there are always other able menGood fences make good neighboursThe nail that sticks up will be hammered downThe squeaky wheel gets the grease The hawk with talent hides its talons Dont hide your light under a bushelLife is for one generation, a good name is forever Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt meA single arrow is easily broken, but not ten in a bundleIf you cant beat them, join themSpilled water will never return to the cupYou cant fit a square peg in a round holeEast Asian proverbs in blueUSA proverbs in red2020


Cultural Impact on the FAE Some Possible Explanations

Different Prevalent Values or Ideology

Different Default Ways of Thinking

Different Default Self-Construals2121



(1) Different Prevalent Values or Ideology - Hofstede (1981); Ichheiser (1949), Farr & Markova (1995):

Western individualism valuing individual autonomy and uniqueness, personal responsibility, praise and blameEast Asian collectivism valuing group membership and conformity, individual-relative-to-group responsibility, praise and blameIndividualism produces a tendency to locate causes of behaviour in individualsCollectivism produces a tendency to locate causes of behaviour outside individuals

2222



(2) Different Default Ways of Thinking - Nisbett (2003):

Western atomismemphasis on construing events and objects in terms of their own internal qualities, leading to clear binary category judgements and essentialismEast Asian holismemphasis on understanding the contextual relations of events and objects, viewing them in a more holistic mannerAtomism produces a tendency to prioritise person information in attributionHolism produces a tendency to prioritise situation information in attribution2323



(3) Different Default Self-Construals - Markus & Kitayama (1992):

Western independencesocialisation towards a sense of self as context-insensitive, unique and separate East Asian interdependence socialisation towards a sense of self as context-dependent, similar and connected Independence produces a tendency to consider the individual as causally separate from the situationInterdependence produces a tendency to consider the individual as causally dependent on the situation

2424


Cultural Impact on the FAE has it been overstated?

Choi & Nisbett (1999); Nisbett (2006): USA versus China, JapanIf situational information is not made salient, Japanese and Chinese = USA in making FAEis made salient, Japanese and Chinese FAE is reduced (USA FAE is not)Implications:The FAE may be a common starting point across cultures Different cultures may make situational information more or less salient, leading to different tendencies to reduce or commit the FAEThis is consistent with Gilberts two-step theory (where culture controls the second step), and with Error Management Theory2525


Cultural Impact on the FAE has it been overstated?

Haselton & Nettle (2006): Error Management Theory FAE is fundamental but it is not an error it is an evolutionary design feature that aims to commit errors which are less costly in reproductive terms

FAE leads to False Positive errors in judgments about bad behaviour = avoiding social partners who act badly once, for fear they might repeat this in future [cf., negativity bias in impression formation]FAE is less risky/costly than False Negative error, which = assuming a persons bad action does not indicate bad disposition when it in fact does

Cultures which encourage lower FAE have stronger normative controls on individuals performing negative social acts (e.g., via values or cultural sense of self), thereby reducing the scope for committing False Positives26264 Attribution and Social ExplanationSocietal Psychology: Does Attribution Theory Over-Simplify Social Explanation?

Different explanations within cultures?

(2) Mind reading of intentions versus position/role reading?

(3) Individual intentions versus collective/joint intentions?

(4) Social explanation versus social evaluation?

274 Attribution and Social ExplanationDoes Attribution Theory Over-Simplify Social Explanation?

(1) Different explanations within cultures?

Moscovici (2002); Jovchelovitch (2007); Legare, Gelman & Rosengren (2010)Attribution theory suggests an inflexible view of social explanation Alternative views (including Social Representations Theory) propose multiple or situated rationalities (cognitive polyphasia):People draw on different systems of beliefs to explain a single event, and thus may entertain contradictory explanations for a single action internal, external or interactive

Attribution is not just about fitting the facts, but rather about fitting the facts filtered through norms associated with systems of beliefs that can vary within a culture and are drawn on for specific purposes284 Attribution and Social ExplanationDoes Attribution Theory Over-Simplify Social Explanation?

(2) Mind reading of intentions versus reading of social positions or roles?Gillespie (2005); Mead (1934); Franks & Dhesi (2011); Chen-Idson & Mischel (2001)Attribution theory suggests we read mental states by observing peoples actions Alternative views suggest we read others mental states by understanding their actions in the context of patterns of norms about social roles, positions and activitiesWe often assume others have mental states consistent with the normsReading beliefs and intentions depends on seeing the person in the context of the situation and its norms, rather than as separate/separable from it29294 Attribution and Social ExplanationDoes Attribution Theory Over-Simplify Social Explanation?

(3) Individual intentions versus collective/joint intentions?Searle (1996); Tomasello (2009); Tuomela (2002); Franks (2011)Attribution theory focuses on actions motivated by intentions to act as an individual, and with the individual as the subject: I intend Alternative views suggest that (e.g., collaborative) actions may also be explained by joint or collective intentions, with a plural subject: we intendWe also hold groups or collections of people per se responsible, without assuming that every member has the same beliefs or intentions

Neither we intentions held by individuals, nor explaining the behaviour of groups or collections, seems to involve only I intentions of individuals

30304 Attribution and Social ExplanationDoes Attribution Theory Over-Simplify Social Explanation?

(4) Social explanation versus social evaluation?Hamlyn, Wynn & Bloom (2007); Vaish, Grossmann, & Woodward (2008)Heiderian Attribution theory: focus on explanation of action, with moral and affective aspects as separable (e.g., values as an influence on attribution) Alternative focus suggests an innate capacity for social evaluation moral and affective judgement of other people in terms of praise and blameCapacity for social evaluation of others actions is present by 6 months (before the ability to infer others action-intentions as explanations)

Attribution may be as much about social evaluation (assigning moral praise and blame) as about social explanation and prediction313132http://www.yale.edu/infantlab/socialevaluation/Helper-Hinderer.html Hamlyn, Wynn & Bloom (2007):The automaticity and early infant development of social moral judgement325 Summary and ConclusionsThe commonsense process of making causal attributions may not be a sound basis for judging the responsibility of other people Because attribution is imbued with deeply-held cultural assumptions about how responsibility for actions is understood: e.g., the individualistic culture/ideology of the West not only focusing on person rather than situation, but also focusing on I rather than we So culture has a major impact on attribution: the FAE may be in part a Western cultural constructBut the ultimate explanation of the FAE may also connect with evolutionary dispositions . and this connects attribution intrinsically to social and moral evaluation33335 Summary and ConclusionsTraditional Attribution Theory Commonsense dualism about the causes of behaviour

Societal PsychologyInteractional basis for individual intentions and behaviours34345 Summary and ConclusionsTraditional Attribution Theory Commonsense dualism about the causes of behaviourConsistent and accurate sets of explanations of behaviour

Societal PsychologyInteractional basis for individual intentions and behavioursDifferent sets of beliefs support multiple, situated explanations for the same behaviour35355 Summary and ConclusionsTraditional Attribution Theory Commonsense dualism about the causes of behaviourConsistent and accurate sets of explanations of behaviour

Everyday interaction involves reading actors mental states

Societal PsychologyInteractional basis for individual intentions and behavioursDifferent sets of beliefs support multiple, situated explanations for the same behaviourAssume mental states fit the norms of the roles enacted36365 Summary and ConclusionsTraditional Attribution Theory Commonsense dualism about the causes of behaviourConsistent and accurate sets of explanations of behaviour

Everyday interaction involves reading actors mental statesIndividual intentions as the key to social action

Societal PsychologyInteractional basis for individual intentions and behavioursDifferent sets of beliefs support multiple, situated explanations for the same behaviourAssume mental states fit the norms of the roles enactedCollective or joint intentions also explain social action37375 Summary and ConclusionsTraditional Attribution Theory Commonsense dualism about the causes of behaviourConsistent and accurate sets of explanations of behaviour

Everyday interaction involves reading actors mental statesIndividual intentions as the key to social actionAttribution primarily for predicting and explaining social action

Societal PsychologyInteractional basis for individual intentions and behavioursDifferent sets of beliefs support multiple, situated explanations for the same behaviourAssume mental states fit the norms of the roles enactedCollective or joint intentions also explain social actionAttribution also for social and moral evaluations of action38385 Summary and ConclusionsA Societal Psychology of attribution might therefore suggest

an integral role for evolved dispositions, culture and group relations in understanding the situated, affective and evaluative aspects of causal explanations

3939

Documents

Institute of Social Psychology Societal Psychology PS443 Lecture 5 Cultural Norms, Attributions and Responsibility Bradley Franks