Attribution & Culture

Sample Presentation for Prosem

Ch. 3, Ordinary Personology: Figuring Out Why People Do What They Do

• What is ordinary personology?• Nonverbal behavior: Understanding feelings• Attribution of dispositions: Understanding traits• Errors & biases in attribution: Controlling & self-enhancing

– Believing someone’s in control: Ignoring hidden power of situation– Explaining the dispositional bias in attributions– Self-enhancing attributions: Feeling good by credit & blame– Normative & descriptive models

• Chapter summary

Explaining the dispositional bias in attributions

• Why?

• Where?

• Who?

• What?

Menon, Morris, Chiu, & Hong, JPSP, 1999

• Hypothesis: Cultures differ in implicit theories of individuals & groups– N. Americans: individuals as free agents, dispositions– E. Asians: individuals constrained & less agentic; social

collectives have dispositions

• Study 1, news articles: "rogue trader" scandals– Focus: U.S. on individual trader; Japanese on organization

• Study 2, vignette: maladjusted team member – U.S. & Hong Kong, replicated

• Study 3, act performed by individual or group

Independent Variables

• Culture (U.S./Hong Kong Chinese)

• Actor (Individual/Group)

Stimulus Example

Recently a community had what was its most destructive fire in ten years. A disturbing event occurred during the fire. From one window of a building that appeared ready to collapse, a little girl was crying for help because she had no means of escape. A fireman [team of firemen] with several years of experience was in full uniform and prepared with the necessary equipment. He [They] heard the child's screams but did not enter the building. In the end, the child died in the fire.

Dependent Variables

Interaction Prediction

• American attribute– disposition to individuals but – situation to groups

• E. Asian – situation to individuals but – disposition to groups

Main Result

Their Conclusion

• Social perception & attribution channeled by cultural theories about relative autonomy of individuals & collectives.– Replicated previous: N. American > E. Asians

attribute causality to individual dispositions– Novel findings: E. Asians > N. Americans

attribute causality to collective dispositions

My Comment

• Clever manipulation of collective/individual

• Nice result of Chinese attribution to collective disposition, relative to Americans

• Results not so clean for Chinese data,– (except relative to American), – but not within Chinese disp v sit, grp v indiv

Chiu, Morris, Hong, & Menon, JPSP, 2000*

• Hypothesis: Need for closure (NFC) & ambiguous social event rely on implicit theories from culture– Hi NFC N. Americans individual disposition

– Hi NFC E. Asians group disposition

• Study 1 & 2, NFC dispositional inferences to group (Chinese) or individual (U.S.)

• Study 3, Manipulated NFC moderate each other

Study 1 Independent Variable

• NFC: Preference for Order, Preference for Predictability, Discomfort With Ambiguity– Individual difference, Chinese higher– But both Chinese & Americans vary w/i culture

• Culture:– Hong Kong students– N. American students

Stimulus Materials Example

144 children aged between 2 months to 6 years were affected in a medicine mix-up in a city medical clinic. They were given mouthwash to drink instead of the prescribed syrup by the pharmacy worker who was dispensing medication. Most of the affected children suffered from diarrhea and vomiting, and two required emergency medical attention. A spokesman from the Medical Board announced later in the week that 144 children were affected in this blunder. At least 101 of them had taken the syrup by the time the error was discovered. Two were sent to the Emergency Room after having taken the "medicine."

Dependent Variables

• 14 attribution items• Half individual agent’s dispositions

– "The pharmacy worker was incompetent and could not handle his work"

– "The pharmacy worker was neglectful"

• Half collective agent’s dispositions – "The clinic was incompetent in maintaining proper usage of the

medical products"– "The clinic had poor management“

• 7-point scale, 1 (not a cause at all) to 7 (most important cause)

My Comment

• American group dispositions data uneven

• Why not situational

Study 2 Independent Variable

• Time pressure situational NFC (Hi/Lo)– Hi pressure: “takes 15 mins., but you have 12

mins.; remind every 3 mins.”– Lo pressure: “takes 9 mins., but you have 12

mins., tell when time is up”

• Culture (Hong Kong/N. American)

• Agency (Individual/Group)

Stimulus A farmer is grazing a small herd of cattle. One day,

things unexpectedly go wrong. At first, a bull [the herd] seemed agitated by something near the farmer. Moments later, the bull [herd] charged directly at the farmer, who fell to the ground as he was hit by its impact. The bull [herd] managed to break free from the enclosed area. It escaped and ran free.

Dependent Variables

• 3 dispositional attributions: – "The bull (herd) was aggressive and dominant" – "The bull (herd) was perceptive" – "The bull (herd) was stubborn and unwilling to follow the

farmer's direction"

• 4 attribution to– Effort: "The bull [herd] worked hard to escape"– Mental state: "The bull [herd] had become crazy" – Situation: "Something provoked the bull [herd]"– Chance: "The escape was accidental"

Main Result

Conclusion

• When people's NFC is elevated, they fall back on the accessible cultural theory.

My Comment

• Really nice parallel of NFC as– Disposition (individual difference)– Situation (manipulation)

• Problem that lo NFC (time pressure) results don’t show standard cultural difference