Download ppt - C82SAD: Social Cognition and Social Thinking. Social cognition and Information Processing n What is social cognition? Social Cognition is how... Social

C82SAD: Social Cognition C82SAD: Social Cognition and Social Thinkingand Social Thinking

Social cognition and Social cognition and Information ProcessingInformation Processing

What is social cognition?What is social cognition? Social Cognition is how...Social Cognition is how...

AttitudesAttitudes Perceptions of ourselves and others (representations)Perceptions of ourselves and others (representations) JudgementsJudgements ExpectationsExpectations

……influence our beliefs, intentions and behaviourinfluence our beliefs, intentions and behaviour Assumes a rational, reasoned decision makerAssumes a rational, reasoned decision maker Information processing perspectiveInformation processing perspective

What is Social Cognition?What is Social Cognition? Comprises a set of cognitive structures Comprises a set of cognitive structures

and processes that affect and are affected and processes that affect and are affected by social contextby social context

People are assumed to be ‘cognitive People are assumed to be ‘cognitive misers’misers’

Cognitive ‘short-cuts’ tend to be adoptedCognitive ‘short-cuts’ tend to be adopted Toward ‘cognitive economy’Toward ‘cognitive economy’ Stereotypes are good examplesStereotypes are good examples

Social Cognition: Key Social Cognition: Key PointsPoints

Cognitive processes for understanding Cognitive processes for understanding how people construct own social world = how people construct own social world = social cognition (Bless et al, 2004; Fisk & social cognition (Bless et al, 2004; Fisk & Taylor, 1991).Taylor, 1991).

Applies theories and methods from Applies theories and methods from cognitive psychology e.g. memory, cognitive psychology e.g. memory, attention, inference and concept attention, inference and concept formation for understanding perceptions formation for understanding perceptions ofof others others

Experience and Experience and CategorisationCategorisation

World provides World provides too muchtoo much informationinformation

Parts of perception recorded from Parts of perception recorded from environment - attentionenvironment - attention

People devise short-cut strategies to People devise short-cut strategies to simplify nature of the incoming simplify nature of the incoming informationinformation

Categorisation - way of simplifying Categorisation - way of simplifying perceptionsperceptions

CategorisationCategorisation

Grouping of objects - treated in similar way Grouping of objects - treated in similar way e.g. square is a square, lecturer is a lecturere.g. square is a square, lecturer is a lecturer– Promotes Promotes cognitivecognitive economyeconomy

Object either belongs to a category or does Object either belongs to a category or does not (Bruner et al, 1956)not (Bruner et al, 1956)

But:But: Categories not all or none Categories not all or none Prototypical approach (Barsalou, 1991)Prototypical approach (Barsalou, 1991)

– Members share something in common - not Members share something in common - not completely identical for membershipcompletely identical for membership

How are Categories How are Categories Represented?Represented?

Schemata - how categories are representedSchemata - how categories are represented Cognitive representation of the prototypeCognitive representation of the prototype People generalise in time and in space People generalise in time and in space

about objects characteristics and propertiesabout objects characteristics and properties Dependent on individual’s personal Dependent on individual’s personal

experiences involving object – actual, experiences involving object – actual, imagined or impliedimagined or implied

Generalisation process and outcome (i.e. Generalisation process and outcome (i.e. categorisation) called schemacategorisation) called schema

SchemaSchema Organised sets of information about people, behaviours, Organised sets of information about people, behaviours,

groups of people, yourself etc.groups of people, yourself etc. Once evoked or ‘activated’ schemas tend to bias all Once evoked or ‘activated’ schemas tend to bias all

aspects of information processing and inferenceaspects of information processing and inference Schemas can be implicitly activated and affect Schemas can be implicitly activated and affect

judgement and behaviour very easily beyond our judgement and behaviour very easily beyond our conscious awarenessconscious awareness

Similar schema will be activated at the same timeSimilar schema will be activated at the same time Guide how we encode (attend, interpret), remember and Guide how we encode (attend, interpret), remember and

respond (judge and interact)respond (judge and interact) For example, Bargh, Chen, & Burrows For example, Bargh, Chen, & Burrows

Automaticity ExampleAutomaticity Example

Subliminal priming of the old-age Subliminal priming of the old-age stereotype (Bargh, Chen & Burrows, 1996)stereotype (Bargh, Chen & Burrows, 1996)– worried, Florida, old, lonely, grayworried, Florida, old, lonely, gray

Walked more slowly to hatchway at end of Walked more slowly to hatchway at end of corridor compared to neutral primed corridor compared to neutral primed participantsparticipants

Therefore people behave according to the Therefore people behave according to the primed schema = ‘old-age stereotype’primed schema = ‘old-age stereotype’

How Schemas Work: Sagar & How Schemas Work: Sagar & Schofield’s (1980) Racial Bias Schofield’s (1980) Racial Bias

StudyStudy Purpose: Demonstrate that stereotypes bias Purpose: Demonstrate that stereotypes bias

intepretation of ambiguous eventsintepretation of ambiguous events Participants: 40 African American (AA), 40 White (W)Participants: 40 African American (AA), 40 White (W) Method: Participants presented with ambiguous Method: Participants presented with ambiguous

drawings (e.g. bumps, asks for cake, pokes, takes drawings (e.g. bumps, asks for cake, pokes, takes pencil) with ‘actors’ depicted as W or AA, pencil) with ‘actors’ depicted as W or AA, participants rated behaviour as participants rated behaviour as meanmean, , threateningthreatening, , playfulplayful, , friendlyfriendly

Results: Both AA and W participants rated behaviour Results: Both AA and W participants rated behaviour as more threatening when the actor was AAas more threatening when the actor was AA

Conclusion: Schemas influence the interpretation of Conclusion: Schemas influence the interpretation of ambiguous eventsambiguous events

RememberingRemembering

Schemas represented in memory as:Schemas represented in memory as:– lists of linked features - lists of linked features - associative associative

memory modelmemory model nodes for concepts and links to related nodes for concepts and links to related

nodes e.g. doctornodes e.g. doctorcaringcaringnursenurse

– prototypeprototype or or ideal instancesideal instances model model central examples clustered around central examples clustered around

prototypeprototype peripheral examples of the prototype peripheral examples of the prototype

further away in mental spacefurther away in mental space

The Naive ScientistThe Naive Scientist How people think about other people (Heider, How people think about other people (Heider,

1958)1958) Inferring unobservable causes from observable Inferring unobservable causes from observable

behaviour or other perceived informationbehaviour or other perceived information Cause-effect processing of social informationCause-effect processing of social information

– dispositions (internal e.g. traits) & situations dispositions (internal e.g. traits) & situations (external)(external)

Attribution of causes for behaviour from stimuli Attribution of causes for behaviour from stimuli perceived (Kelley, 1972; Gilbert, 1998; Jones & perceived (Kelley, 1972; Gilbert, 1998; Jones & Davis, 1965, etc)Davis, 1965, etc)

Impression formation – social perception (Asch, Impression formation – social perception (Asch, 1946) 1946)

Impression FormationImpression Formation Certain information more important in forming Certain information more important in forming

an impressionan impression– Central and peripheral traits (Asch, 1946; Kelley, Central and peripheral traits (Asch, 1946; Kelley,

1950).1950). First vs. more recent impressions count.First vs. more recent impressions count.

– Accounting for the primacy-recency effect (Asch, Accounting for the primacy-recency effect (Asch, 1946; Luchins, 1957). 1946; Luchins, 1957).

Earlier information is the ‘real’ personEarlier information is the ‘real’ person Later information dismissed - it’s not viewed as typical / Later information dismissed - it’s not viewed as typical /

representative (Luchins, 1957)representative (Luchins, 1957) Attention at a maximum when making initial impressions Attention at a maximum when making initial impressions

(Anderson, 1975)(Anderson, 1975) Early information affects ‘meaning’ of later information Early information affects ‘meaning’ of later information

(Asch, 1946) - consistency(Asch, 1946) - consistency

The Cognitive MiserThe Cognitive Miser

Social perception as a problem Social perception as a problem solving tasksolving task

Cognitive ‘laziness’ - cognitive miser Cognitive ‘laziness’ - cognitive miser (Fisk & Taylor, 1991)(Fisk & Taylor, 1991)

Rely on Rely on heuristicsheuristics for decision for decision making and interpersonal perceptionmaking and interpersonal perception

Process salient information - that Process salient information - that which which stands outstands out

Heuristics Heuristics

Availability of information - judging Availability of information - judging frequencyfrequency of event based on number of instances of event based on number of instances brought to ‘mind’ of that eventbrought to ‘mind’ of that event

Anchoring and adjustment - using information Anchoring and adjustment - using information about a about a similarsimilar event to infer causes event to infer causes

Simulation - ease of imagining alternatives Simulation - ease of imagining alternatives through mental simulationthrough mental simulation

Representativeness - whether person is an Representativeness - whether person is an exampleexample of a particular stored schema of a particular stored schema ((Stereotype)Stereotype)..

StereotypesStereotypes

““.....widely shared assumptions of the .....widely shared assumptions of the personalities, attitudes and behaviour of personalities, attitudes and behaviour of people based on group membership....” people based on group membership....” (Hogg & Vaughan, 1995, p. 56).(Hogg & Vaughan, 1995, p. 56).

““.....inclination to place a person in .....inclination to place a person in categories according to some..... categories according to some..... characteristics.... and then to attribute... characteristics.... and then to attribute... qualities believed to be typical to qualities believed to be typical to members of that category...” (Tagiuri, members of that category...” (Tagiuri, 1969)1969)

StereotypesStereotypes Overall impressions (attitudes) of other people Overall impressions (attitudes) of other people

and their behaviour tends to be dominated by and their behaviour tends to be dominated by stereotypesstereotypes

Organised sets of information, characteristics, Organised sets of information, characteristics, first impressions and idiosyncratic personal first impressions and idiosyncratic personal constructs (e.g., constructs (e.g.,

People’s impressions are made through People’s impressions are made through ‘averaging’ these components but they tend to ‘averaging’ these components but they tend to be dominated by particular ones (e.g., potential be dominated by particular ones (e.g., potential threat)threat)

Stereotyping ProcessStereotyping Process

Assign individual to a group - Assign individual to a group - categorisecategorise– Based on accessible characteristic e.g. Based on accessible characteristic e.g.

gender, race, age.gender, race, age. Activate belief that all members of Activate belief that all members of

this group behave etc. in same waythis group behave etc. in same way Infer that individual must posses Infer that individual must posses

stereotypical characteristicsstereotypical characteristics Respond to individual on this basisRespond to individual on this basis

Stereotyping ProcessStereotyping Process Automaticity in stereotyping (Macrae & Automaticity in stereotyping (Macrae &

Bodenhausen, 2000)Bodenhausen, 2000)– fast acting, difficult to change, no intentional fast acting, difficult to change, no intentional

control of operations, no conscious awarenesscontrol of operations, no conscious awareness– Encountering stimulus in environment (or even Encountering stimulus in environment (or even

internally generated) categories are activated internally generated) categories are activated automatically (Lepore & Brown, 1997; Bargh, automatically (Lepore & Brown, 1997; Bargh, 1999; Banaji & Greenwald, 1995)1999; Banaji & Greenwald, 1995)

– Heightened accessibility of material following Heightened accessibility of material following primeprime e.g. “hospital” primes “nurse”, “caring” e.g. “hospital” primes “nurse”, “caring” etc.etc.

Theories of AttributionTheories of Attribution

Internal and external attributions (Rotter, Internal and external attributions (Rotter, 1966)1966)

Naïve scientist model (Heider, 1958)Naïve scientist model (Heider, 1958) Correspondent inference theory (Jones & Correspondent inference theory (Jones &

Davis, 1965)Davis, 1965) Attributional bias model (Kelley, 1967)Attributional bias model (Kelley, 1967) Attribution theory (Weiner, 1986)Attribution theory (Weiner, 1986) Attribution of emotions (Schacter & Attribution of emotions (Schacter &

Singer, 1962)Singer, 1962)

Attributional BiasAttributional Bias

Fundamental attribution error Fundamental attribution error (Jones & Harris, 1967; Ross, 1977)(Jones & Harris, 1967; Ross, 1977)

Actor-observer effect (Jones & Actor-observer effect (Jones & Nisbett, 1972)Nisbett, 1972)

Attributional bias (Kelly, 1950)Attributional bias (Kelly, 1950) Self-serving bias (Miller & Ross, Self-serving bias (Miller & Ross,

1975) 1975)

DefinitionDefinition

Attribution is the process of assigning Attribution is the process of assigning causes for our own behaviour to that causes for our own behaviour to that of othersof others

Hogg & Vaughan (2005)Hogg & Vaughan (2005)

Heider’s Naïve ScientistHeider’s Naïve Scientist

Suggests that people create Suggests that people create ‘theories’ of other people based on ‘theories’ of other people based on observation of behaviorobservation of behavior

Inferring unobservable causes from Inferring unobservable causes from observable behaviour or other observable behaviour or other perceived informationperceived information

Everyone is a Naïve Everyone is a Naïve ScientistScientist

Internal (dispositional) attributionsInternal (dispositional) attributions– personality characteristicspersonality characteristics– beliefsbeliefs

External (situational) attributionsExternal (situational) attributions– situational pressure/influencesituational pressure/influence

Example: Student turns in papers Example: Student turns in papers latelate– Internal:Internal:




Example: Student turns in papers Example: Student turns in papers latelate– Internal:lazy, partying all the timeInternal:lazy, partying all the time




Example: Student turns in papers lateExample: Student turns in papers late– Internal:lazy, partying all the timeInternal:lazy, partying all the time– External:External:




Example: Student turns in papers lateExample: Student turns in papers late– Internal:lazy, partying all the timeInternal:lazy, partying all the time– External:family problems, working, External:family problems, working,

boy/girlfriendboy/girlfriend




Example: Student turns in papers lateExample: Student turns in papers late– Internal:lazy, partying all the timeInternal:lazy, partying all the time– External:family problems, working, External:family problems, working,

boy/girlfriendboy/girlfriend

Self-Serving BiasSelf-Serving Bias

Aim to protect our ‘self-esteem’Aim to protect our ‘self-esteem’ Consistent with social cognitive Consistent with social cognitive

theories on theories on motivation for consistencymotivation for consistency Tendency to ‘serve ourselves’Tendency to ‘serve ourselves’ Take credit for success (attribute Take credit for success (attribute

internally)internally) But not for failure (attribute externally)But not for failure (attribute externally) Maintains control and consistencyMaintains control and consistency

Self-Serving BiasSelf-Serving Bias

E.g. student will take credit for doing well E.g. student will take credit for doing well in an examin an exam

Student will blame test difficulty or Student will blame test difficulty or lecturer’s tough marking policy for failurelecturer’s tough marking policy for failure

Miller & Ross (1975) cognitive Miller & Ross (1975) cognitive explanation due to restricted information explanation due to restricted information NOT because they are motivated to NOT because they are motivated to protect or enhance the self protect or enhance the self

Actor-Observer EffectActor-Observer Effect

Joe(Observer)

Bob(Actor)

Steve


Joe(Observer)

Bob(Actor)

Steve

Bob hits Steve. Why?


OBSERVER-->Internal attributionOBSERVER-->Internal attribution ACTOR-->External attributionACTOR-->External attribution What is salient in the perceptual field?What is salient in the perceptual field? i.e. what INFORMATION is available for i.e. what INFORMATION is available for

the observer and the actor?the observer and the actor? For OBSERVER: For OBSERVER: The actorThe actor For ACTOR: Everything For ACTOR: Everything butbut the actor the actor

(i.e., the (i.e., the situationsituation))

Actor-Observer EffectActor-Observer Effect Harré, Brandt & Houkamau (2004)Harré, Brandt & Houkamau (2004) The attributions of young drivers for The attributions of young drivers for

their own and their friends' risky driving their own and their friends' risky driving DispositionalDispositional attributions e.g., "Showing attributions e.g., "Showing

off, acting cool" used more for friends off, acting cool" used more for friends than selfthan self

SituationalSituational attributions e.g., "In a hurry, attributions e.g., "In a hurry, late" used more for self than friendslate" used more for self than friends

Participants also rated their friends as Participants also rated their friends as taking more risks than themselvestaking more risks than themselves

Correspondent Inference Correspondent Inference TheoryTheory

Jones & Davis (1965):Jones & Davis (1965): People make attributions based on:People make attributions based on: Underlying traitsUnderlying traits Based on freely chosen behaviourBased on freely chosen behaviour Observed behaviour is matched with traits Observed behaviour is matched with traits

regardless of:regardless of:– SituationSituation– ConsequencesConsequences– Personal or publicPersonal or public– Socially desirableSocially desirable

Does not account for past experience, Does not account for past experience, stereotypesstereotypes

Does not look at non-intentional behaviourDoes not look at non-intentional behaviour

The Fundamental Attribution The Fundamental Attribution ErrorError

Ross (1977) when observing behaviour Ross (1977) when observing behaviour people tend to:people tend to:

Overestimate the significance of Overestimate the significance of DISPOSITIONAL factorsDISPOSITIONAL factors

Underestimate the significance of Underestimate the significance of SITUATIONAL factorsSITUATIONAL factors

Also indicative of the actor-observer effect Also indicative of the actor-observer effect (Jones & Nisbett, 1972) – we know we are (Jones & Nisbett, 1972) – we know we are different across situationsdifferent across situations– Perspective hypothesisPerspective hypothesis– Information availabilityInformation availability

Jones and Harris’ (1967) classic experiment Jones and Harris’ (1967) classic experiment illustrated this biasillustrated this bias

Jones and Harris (1967): Jones and Harris (1967): Study DesignStudy Design

Pro-Pro-CastroCastro

Anti-CastroAnti-Castro

ChosenChosenChoice, Choice, Pro-Pro-CastroCastro

Choice,Choice,


Not Not ChosenChosen

No No Choice,Choice,


No Choice,No Choice,


IV2: Writer’s Position

IV1: Writer’s Abilityto Chose position

Hypothesised Summary of Hypothesised Summary of ResultsResults

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Pro-Castro Anti-Castro

Choice

No Choice

ResultsResults



ChosenChosen 59.659.6 17.417.4

Not Not ChosenChosen

44.144.1 22.922.9

IV2: Writer’s Position

IV1: Writer’s Abilityto Chose position

Summary of ResultsSummary of Results

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Pro-Castro Anti-Castro

ChoiceNo Choice

Built on Heider’s (1958) ideas about Built on Heider’s (1958) ideas about attributions of cause of others behaviourattributions of cause of others behaviour

Key point: Attribution of cause to the person Key point: Attribution of cause to the person or environment in situations is a major or environment in situations is a major problemproblem

Heider (1958) suggested that if behaviour Heider (1958) suggested that if behaviour seems ’appropriate’ in a given situation, then seems ’appropriate’ in a given situation, then people tend to make a situational attributionpeople tend to make a situational attribution

Kelley (1967) outlined WHEN a situational or Kelley (1967) outlined WHEN a situational or dispositional attribution is made and WHYdispositional attribution is made and WHY

Kelley’s (1967, 1973) Kelley’s (1967, 1973) Attributional BiasAttributional Bias

Three key questions in a given Three key questions in a given situation:situation:– Does the person regularly behave this Does the person regularly behave this

way in this situation? (consistency)way in this situation? (consistency)– Do other people regularly behave this Do other people regularly behave this

way in this situation? (consensus)way in this situation? (consensus)– Does this person behave this way in Does this person behave this way in

other situations? (distinctiveness)other situations? (distinctiveness)


Distinctiveness?Consistency?

Consensus?


Attributional problem: You are in a long queue in a shop with your friend. He/she is getting increasingly irritated with how long it’s taking. Does your friend’s frustration tell us something about their personality?

Key question

s

Attribution

Yes No

No Yes Yes No

Attribution

Attribution

Attribution

Attribution

No basis for attributing frustration to either situation or personality. May be a one-off.

Situational attribution: People DO tend to get frustrated in long queues

Personality attribution, general: Your friend does the tendency to get frustrated in these sorts of situations. (Stay out of his/her way!)

Personality attribution, particular: Your friend tends to get frustrated in queues. (Don’t go shopping with him/her on busy days!)

Q1: Does your friend usually get frustrated when standing in long queues?

Q2: Do other people generally get frustrated when standing in long queues?

Q3: Does your friend generally get frustrated in other situations involving long waits?

Emotional Lability TheoryEmotional Lability Theory Schacter and Singer’s (1962) classic Schacter and Singer’s (1962) classic

experimentexperiment Subjects were:Subjects were:

– Injected with epinephrine (‘suproxin’), Injected with epinephrine (‘suproxin’), euphoric conditioneuphoric condition

– Injected with epinephrine (‘suproxin’), Injected with epinephrine (‘suproxin’), anger-evoking conditionanger-evoking condition

– Injected with placebo, euphoric conditionInjected with placebo, euphoric condition– Injected with placebo, anger-evoking Injected with placebo, anger-evoking

conditioncondition Further condition added – information about Further condition added – information about

injection consistent with side effects, injection consistent with side effects, inconsistent with side effectsinconsistent with side effects

Schachter and Singer’s Schachter and Singer’s Experimental DesignExperimental Design

EuphoriaEuphoria– PlaceboPlacebo– Epinephrine Epinephrine

InformedInformed– Epinephrine Epinephrine

UninformedUninformed– Epinephrine Epinephrine

MisinformedMisinformed

AngerAnger– PlaceboPlacebo– Epinephrine Epinephrine

InformedInformed– Epinephrine Epinephrine

UninformedUninformed

Emotional Lability TheoryEmotional Lability Theory Schacter and Singer’s (1962) classic Schacter and Singer’s (1962) classic

experimentexperiment Expectation: Epinephrine subjects Expectation: Epinephrine subjects

would experience more arousal than would experience more arousal than controls, controls, unlessunless they were told they were told consistent side effects in which case consistent side effects in which case they would correctly attribute their they would correctly attribute their feelings to the drug and have no feelings to the drug and have no change in their emotionschange in their emotions

Schacter and Singer’s Schacter and Singer’s ResultsResults

EuphoriaEuphoria AngerAnger

PlaceboPlacebo 1616 0.790.79

Epinephrine Epinephrine InformedInformed

12.712.7 -0.18-0.18

Epinephrine Epinephrine UninformedUninformed

18.318.3 2.282.28

Epinephrine Epinephrine MisinformedMisinformed

22.622.6


0

5

10

15

20

25

Observed emotion

Euphoria

Induced emotion

Placebo

Epinephrine -InformedEpinephrine -UninformedEpinephrine -Misinformed


-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Observed emotion

Anger

Induced emotion

Placebo

Epinephrine -InformedEpinephrine -Uninformed

Attributions –inferences about causes Achievement behavior depends on how

previous successes and failures are interpreted People make causal attributions for their

behavioural outcomes Attributions affect thoughts, feelings, and

behaviour

Weiner’s (1972) Attribution Weiner’s (1972) Attribution TheoryTheory

Draws from Rotter’s (1966) theory of internal and Draws from Rotter’s (1966) theory of internal and external attributionsexternal attributions

Rotter developed a questionnaire to measure ‘locus of Rotter developed a questionnaire to measure ‘locus of control’control’

People tended to attribute causes of events to People tended to attribute causes of events to internalinternal (personal control over behaviour) (personal control over behaviour)

Or Or externalexternal (occurrences due to environment or (occurrences due to environment or chance out of personal control)chance out of personal control)

Weiner (1972) included further dimensions of Weiner (1972) included further dimensions of attribution = attribution = stabilitystability and and controllabilitycontrollability


People tend to attribute successes People tend to attribute successes or failures to any of fouror failures to any of four ‘typical’ ‘typical’ causes:causes:

AbilityAbility

EffortEffort

DifficultyDifficulty

LuckLuck


Weiner (1972) Weiner (1972) Attributional DimensionsAttributional Dimensions

Locus of causality Locus of controlStability

Basic Attribution Categories




Attribution DimensionsAttribution Dimensions Attributions can be classified along threeAttributions can be classified along three

dimensions:dimensions:1) 1) Locus of CausalityLocus of Causality-Is the cause internal or external?-Is the cause internal or external?





Attribution Dimensions Attributions can be classified along three

dimensions:1) Locus of Causality-Is the cause internal or external?

2) 2) StabilityStability

-Is the cause stable or unstable?-Is the cause stable or unstable?

Attribution TheoryAttribution Theory


Sta

bilit

y

Locus of Causality

StableExternal

StableInternal

UnstableInternal

UnstableExternal

Ability Difficulty

Effort Luck




Attribution Dimensions Attributions can be classified along three

dimensions:1) Locus of Causality-Is the cause internal or external?

2) Stability

-Is the cause stable or unstable?

3) 3) Locus of controlLocus of control-Does the person have control over the -Does the person have control over the

outcome?outcome?



StableInternalControllable

StableExternalControllable

UnstableInternalControllable

UnstableExternalControllable

Sta

bilit

y

Locus of Causality Contro

llabil

ity

StableExternalUncontrollable

UnstableExternalUncontrollable

StableInternalUncontrollable

UnstableInternalUncontrollable Stable

ExternalControllable

StableInternalControllable

UnstableInternalControllable

UnstableExternalControllable

Ability Difficulty

Effort Luck

?

?

?


Attributed causes according to Attributed causes according to Internal-Internal-ExternalExternal (Locus of Causality), (Locus of Causality), StabilityStability and and ControllabilityControllability continuums continuums

AbilityAbilityInternal, stable, uncontrollableInternal, stable, uncontrollable

EffortEffortInternal, unstable, controllableInternal, unstable, controllable

DifficultyDifficultyExternal, stable, controllable/uncontrollableExternal, stable, controllable/uncontrollable

LuckLuckExternal, unstable, uncontrollableExternal, unstable, uncontrollable