Understanding Attribution And Social Norms In Social Psychology

As we expect you to use the feedback from the first lab report to help you prepare for and write this report, there is less guidance for it than for Lab Report 1. You will complete the same five stages as you did for Lab Report 1, in addition to writing the Introduction and the Abstract. You will: 

1. read the background information and find articles or use those suggested on the course page and / or in the recommended reading list through the Open Polytechnic library
2. get ready to conduct the experiment
3. recruit participants and conduct the experiment
4. write a lab report including the Abstract, Introduction, Method, Results, Discussion, References

Attribution in Social Psychology

Daily, we encounter many social interactions. People interact in various ways corresponding to different scenarios. In social context, the impressions formed on our minds makes us attribute the behavior of other people to either internal or external causes. The way we perceive, or interpret, an individual’s behavior highly depends on the situation. Also, it depends on internal circumstances or external situations.

Attribution involves attaching meaning to other people’s behavior.it deals with how we use perceivable information to make judgement on events (causal judgement). Attribution in social psychology, refers to the process in which the causes of behavior and events is explained (Kelley, 1973).

External attribution

This is also called situational attribution. In this case, someone's behavior is described to have been caused by the circumstance that the individual is in.

Internal attribution

This involves attributing the cause of a person’s behavior to internal characteristic. In this concept, individuals feel they are responsible for everything that happens to them.

Social Norms

These are natural principles guiding the behavior of people.  They outline the ideas of how individuals are to behave in a certain culture or social group. Social norms provide critical understanding particularly in regard to conformity and social influence. These are the general expected conduct of groups, which vary from relationships to work groups, to countrywide levels.  When a person behaves in a way in which these norms are fulfilled is called conformity.

Through the roles and norms, we can understand and predict a person’s next act. These norms define appropriate individual’s conduct for particular social group. For instance, patients, workers and students know of the social norms governing their behavior. These norms provide order in social relationships and understanding of people’s actions. This provides the main reason why people conform to some predefined social principles (Thibaut, 2017).

According to Saul McLeod, attribution refers to how we attach meaning to how people behave. “Attribution theory deals with how the social perceiver uses information to arrive at causal explanations for events.  It examines what information is gathered and how it is combined to form a causal judgment” ( (Taylor, 1981)). The theory primary concerns with people’s explanation of events as they occur.

According to (Buss, 1978), people are curios psychologists who are trying to judge social relationships. They tend to perceive cause and effect relationships. His idea was that people assign the cause of behavior to internal characteristics, instead of the situation (internal attribution), which include their beliefs, motives and personality. On the other hand, individuals tend to assign various causes of behavior to external event or situation (external attribution).

External and Internal Attribution

Weiner’s attribution theory assumes that people interpret causes to an event or situation according to three-stage process; Perception of behavior, the behavior is intentional and attributed to either internal or external causes. This theory is majorly about achievement. According to Weiner, factors affecting attributions are, effort, difficulty, ability and luck. Which are classified depending on; locus of control (internal or external), stability and controllability (causes that can be controlled or the ones which cannot be controlled such as others’ actions) (Weiner, 1995).

The covariation model states that behavior is attributed to the present factors at the occurrence of a behavior and absent when it doesn’t. Therefore, this theory assumes that causal attributions are made in a logical and rational fashion, relating to the cause of an action to the co-varying factor closely with that event. According to Harold Kelley's covariation model of attribution, the following aspects of information are by which we make an attribution decision about a person’s behavior; how other people behave in the same situation and with the same stimulus (consensus information) (Stangor, Sechrist, & Jost, 2001). The second is how the person responds to various stimuli (distinctive information) (Hege & Dodson, 2004). The third is how often the person’s behavior can be observed with the same stimulus but different situations (consistency information) (Orvis, Cunningham, & Kelley, 1975). Corresponding to these three information sources, observers attribute on the person’s behavior as either internal or external. It has been claimed that people do not fully utilize consensus information, although many disagree with this. The covariation model has high and low levels. These levels influence the three covariation model criteria (Hesketh, 1984). When many people agree on a situation or area of interest, it is termed as high consensus. When very few individuals can agree to an event, then it is termed as low consensus. For a very unusual event or area of interest, it is termed as highly distinctive. On the other hand, low distinctness refers to when the area or event of interest is common. When the area of interest or event is continuous for a long period of time, it shows a high consistency and when the event or area of interest occurs quickly, it is termed as low consistency (Kelly, 1980).

This is a cognitive bias referring to the systematic errors made when people evaluate or try to find reasons for their own and others' behaviors. Often, people make attributions about the cause of their behaviors and that of others (Doukas & Petmezas, 2007). Always, attributions do not precisely reflect real situations. Apart from being objective perceivers, most people make perceptual errors leading to biased interpretations of the social relations (Gilbert, 1995).

Social Norms and Conformity

In the 1950s and 60s is when attribution biases were first discussed. This was done by Fritz Heider and other psychologists, who studied attribution theory (Buss A. R., 1978). These biases give a description of specific tendency which perceivers exhibit when giving reason about the cause of various behaviors psychologists, such as Ed Jones and Harold Kelley, expounded on the subject by identifying different conditions and circumstances by which individuals are more or less likely to make various attributions accordingly (Hewstone, 2005).

From the literature review and research work by various psychologists, it is hypothesized that the perception of social behavior is attributed by how people behave. This is either caused by internal attribution or external circumstance or situation, which make people behave how they do. Otherwise, these ideas encounter errors which are biases in social and individual psychology.

Participants

In order to conduct the experiment successfully and effectively, five participant were recruited. The selection of participants was done randomly and three men and two ladies were selected. The participants’ age range from 23 to 28 years with an average of 25 years, each having attained higher education.

Materials

For this experiment, a number of materials were used to collect data for the research analysis. The following are the materials which were used;

The assignment two manual which contained the guidelines of how to conduct the experiment and to write a lab report. The library books, articles and other reading materials were relevant for the background information.

Five copies of the demographic sheet for collection of personal information of the participants.

Scenario forms which entails the specimen for the situation or occurrence. From this forms, the participants made their judgement after reading the different selected scenarios purposefully for this study.

Worksheets which was used to collect data on the participants number, rating or judgement on the scenarios, reasons for the rating given and expected attribution.

Other worksheets were involved for data analysis. They include slots for scenario or occurrence, number of internal and external attribution or both with an example for each.

Procedure

Before meeting the participants, a thorough preparation was done by reading the instructions given in the research guide.

A quiet place was identified where to conduct the experiment. After the participant(s) were selected, they were requested to fill the consent form.

When the participants were ready to be tested, they were given the scenario forms, one at a time.

The instruction given in the manual was then read to the participants on what is expected of them.

Attribution Theories

The instructions were carefully followed for each participant.

After the participants were done in filling the forms, they were given briefing and any other necessary information and questions.

The participants were appreciated for their time and cooperation.

Having the data from the experiment, it was prudent to arrive at conclusions. This was only possible if a comprehensive analysis was done to arrive to an average results of the responses from the participants, and how they perceive the different scenarios. The responses on the scenario, how normal or abnormal the situation was and the reasons given to justify the responses were tabulated. This was very useful in the in the analysis of data in three comprehensive tables as follows;

Table 1; Rating of the behavior scenario

Scenario	Very normal	Fairly normal	Slightly normal	Not at all normal
Embrace at airport	4	1
Embrace at classroom			2	3
Shout at ballet			3	2
Shout at rugby	1	3	1
Cry in the office			1	4
Cry in the library		3	1	1

Table 2; Attributions to the scenarios.

scenario	Number of internal attributions and one example per scenario	Number of external attributions and one example per scenario	Number of both internal and external attributions and one example per scenario
Embrace at airport	5 They must be so affectionate to each other.
Embrace at classroom	5 Something unusual has happened to her
Shout at ballet	4 He is probably stressed	1 The unexpected game results.
Shout at rugby		5 The outcome of the game is not in favor of his expectations
Cry in library	1 She must be in pain.	4 It’s expected of her to behave that way because of what she is going through.
Cry in office	4 Something must be wrong with her.		1 Work pressure, or maybe she is in some pain.

Table 3; Attributions

Internal to external	Embrace at airport to embrace at classroom	Shout at ballet to shout at rugby	Cry in the library to cry in the office
External to internal	5	1	4
Internal to internal		4	1
Both to both

From the research findings, it is evident that people perceive a scenario and attribute behavior to the actors depending on circumstance or internal attributions. This judgement tend to change when additional information is given about the actor or the situation.

This research is in harmony with Fiske and Taylor’s theory of attribution i. e the social perceiver uses information to arrive at causal explanations for events (Fiske, 2013). It also affirms Heider and Wiener’s theory of attribution, where people tend to perceive cause and effect relationships (Weiner, Searching for the roots of applied attribution theory, 1990).

Design flaws and limitations

The research design and outcome encountered the following possible systematics errors;

The sample participants and choice of scenarios doesn’t ideally represent the entire population and events.

The degree of choice and expected behavior were also the possible error that affected the research.

Other possible errors include thee actor-observer bias, ultimate attribution and correspondent inference (Shipman, 2014).

Conclusion and future research

In conclusion, the research affirms the hypothesis that the perception of social behavior is attributed by how people behave (Kelley, The processes of causal attribution , 1973). Which is evidently caused by either internal attribution or external circumstance or situation, which make people behave how they do. A more articulated research design should be employed to make a more effective conclusions, free from the design flaws and errors mentioned above.

References:

Buss, A. R. (1978). Causes and reasons in attribution theory: A conceptual critique. Journal of personality and social psychology, 36.

Buss, A. R. (1978). Causes and reasons in attribution theory: A conceptual critique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36.

Doukas, J. A., & Petmezas, D. (2007). Acquisitions, overconfident managers and self?attribution bias. European Financial Management, 13(3), 531-577.

Fiske, S. T. ( 2013). Social cognition: From brains to culture. Sage.

Gilbert, D. T. (1995). The correspondence bias. Psychological bulletin. Psychological bulletin, 21.

Hege, A. C., & Dodson, C. S. (2004). Why distinctive information reduces false memories: evidence for both impoverished relational-encoding and distinctiveness heuristic accounts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30(4), 330-339.

Hesketh, B. (1984). Attribution theory and unemployment: Kelley's covariation model, self-esteem, and locus of control. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 24(1), 94-109.

Hewstone, M. E. (2005). Psychology. Blackwell Publishing.

Kelley, H. H. (1973). The processes of causal attribution . American psychologist, 107.

Kelley, H. H. (1973, 2 28). The processes of causal attribution. American psychologist, 107.

Kelly, H. H. (1980). Annual review of psychology. In Attribution theory and research (pp. 457-501).

Orvis, B., Cunningham, J. D., & Kelley, H. H. (1975). A closer examination of causal inference: The roles of consensus, distinctiveness, and consistency information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(4), 605.

Shipman, M. D. ( 2014). The limitations of social research. Routledge.

Stangor, C., Sechrist, G. B., & Jost, J. T. (2001). Changing racial beliefs by providing consensus information. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(4), 486-496.

Taylor, S. E. (1981). Methodologies for process analysis in attribution and social cognition. In Getting inside the head (pp. 459-524).

Thibaut, J. W. (2017). The social psychology of groups. Routledge.

Weiner, B. (1990). Searching for the roots of applied attribution theory. In Attribution theory;Applications to achievement, mental health, and interpersonal conflict (pp. 1-13).

Weiner, B. (1995). Judgments of responsibility: A foundation for a theory of social conduct. . Guilford Press.