Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Effect of target on actor and observer causal attributions Rank, Darylynn Starr 1976

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1976_A8 R35.pdf [ 3.88MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0093898.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0093898-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0093898-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0093898-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0093898-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0093898-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0093898-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0093898-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0093898.ris

Full Text

EFFECT OF TARGET ON ACTOR AND OBSERVER CAUSAL ATTRIBUTIONS by DARYLYNN STARR RANK B.A., U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1974 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ART i n the.Department of Psychology We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the req u i r e d standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September, 1976 (c^Darylynn S t a r r Rank, 1976 In presenting th i s thes is in pa r t i a l fu l f i lment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L ibrary sha l l make it f ree ly ava i lab le for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of th is thesis for scho lar ly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representat ives. It is understood that copying or pub l i ca t ion of th is thesis for f inanc ia l gain sha l l not be allowed without my writ ten permission. Department of The Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 11 ; ABSTRACT This study was designed to i n v e s t i g a t e actor-observer d i f f e r e n c e s i n causal a t t r i b u t i o n to e i t h e r s i t u a t i o n a l or d i s p o s i t i o n a l f a c t o r s . A c r i t i c a l review of the l i t e r a t u r e suggests that s t a b l e d i r e c t i o n a l d i f f e r -ences may not e x i s t . I t was hypothesized that the i n f o r m a t i o n a l needs of the audience hearing the a t t r i b u t i o n would be a major determinant of the nature of actor-observer d i f f e r e n c e s . S p e c i f i c a l l y , as p r e d i c t e d , d i f -ferences between s e l f and other a t t r i b u t i o n s disappeared when the audience was a stranger. The i m p l i c a t i o n s of these r e s u l t s were discussed w i t h reference to the actor-observer a t t r i b u t i o n a l l i t e r a t u r e and theory as w e l l as to a t t r i b u t i o n research i n general. i i i TABLE OF CONTENTS LITERATURE REVIEW . . . . 1 ! . • . • T h e o r e t i c a l Review • 1 Supporting Research C i t e d by Jones and N i s b e t t 4 Studies I n v o l v i n g M o t i v a t i o n a l Factors 12 Non-Motivational A t t r i b u t i o n Research . 18 Review of Information Processing D i f f e r e n c e s 22 A Reconsideration of Actor-Observer D i f f e r e n c e s . . . 28 An A l t e r n a t i v e Model ..' 31 METHOD 41 Subjects : . . 41 Design ; 41 Procedure . . • • • 43 Dependent Measures • • 45 RESULTS AND. DISCUSSION . . . 47 Planned Orthogonal Comparisons . . . . . . . . 47 A n a l y s i s of Variance on Four Independent V a r i a b l e s . . . • • • 52 E f f e c t s of Target 52 E f f e c t s of Person 53 E f f e c t s of Sex 55 E f f e c t s of Topic . . . . . . . . 57 S o c i a l D e s i r a b i l i t y Scale Results . . . . . . . . 57 Conceptual Complexity Results 57 General D i s c u s s i o n 58 REFERENCES 61 APPENDIX I. Graphs of Planned Orthogonal Comparisons 64 APPENDIX I I . I n s t r u c t i o n s f o r Target Groups . . 69 APPENDIX I I I . Post-experimental Questionnaires 74 LIST OF TABLES TABLE I. Mean percentages of a t t r i b u t i o n s to d i s p o s i t i o n a l and s i t u a t i o n a l statements by Persons w i t h i n 49 t a r g e t TABLE I I . Mean Percentages of A t t r i b u t i o n s by Target Groups TABLE I I I . Mean Percentages of A t t r i b u t i o n s to S e l f and Other • • • • 56 LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX I . Graphs of Planned Orthogonal Comparisons 64 j . Figure 1 Mean Percentages of a t t r i b u t i o n s to d i s p o s i t i o n a l and s i t u a t i o n a l statements i n the s e l f and other c o n d i t i o n s w i t h i n the Diary category 65 Figure 2 Mean percentages of a t t r i b u t i o n s to d i s p o s i t i o n a l and s i t u a t i o n a l statements i n the s e l f and other c o n d i t i o n s w i t h i n the Stranger category 66 Figure 3 Mean percentages of a t t r i b u t i o n s to d i s p o s i t i o n a l and s i t u a t i o n a l statements i n the s e l f and other c o n d i t i o n s w i t h i n the Fr i e n d category 67 Figure 4 Mean percentages of a t t r i b u t i o n s to d i s p o s i t i o n a l and s i t u a t i o n a l statements i n the s e l f and other c o n d i t i o n s w i t h i n the U n s p e c i f i e d category . 6 8 APPENDIX I I . I n s t r u c t i o n s to Target Groups . . . . 69 I n s t r u c t i o n s to Diary Group 70 I n s t r u c t i o n s to Stranger Group . . . . . . 71 I n s t r u c t i o n s to F r i e n d Group 72 I n s t r u c t i o n s to U n s p e c i f i e d Group 73 APPENDIX I I I . Post-experimental Questionnaires 74 Diary Group 75 Stranger Group 77 Friend Group 79 Un s p e c i f i e d Group ; 81 v i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would l i k e to express my s i n c e r e a p p r e c i a t i o n to Peter Suedfeld f o r h i s help at every stage i n the pr e p a r a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s , and at every stage i n my pr e p a r a t i o n f o r t h i s t h e s i s . I o f f e r s p e c i a l thanks f o r h i s p a t i e n t e d i t i n g of t h i s manuscript and hope someday to have the opportunity to r e t u r n the fav o r . Ralph Hakstian has given generously of h i s time and s k i l l s on the s t a t i s t i c a l p o r t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s . This was e s p e c i a l l y appreciated because of the rat h e r complex.nature of the design. Don Dutton was very h e l p f u l i n the planning stages of the experiment and h i s ideas were incorporated i n t o the design. Thanks a l s o go to Tannis W i l l i a m s , Jim Johnson and Tim McTiernan f o r t h e i r help. This t h e s i s was financed by Peter Suedfeld's U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia research grant. One f i n a l thank you goes to Dennis Rank:—for everything. I -I LITERATURE REVIEW Theoretical Review: Recently, i n the a t t r i b u t i o n l i t e r a t u r e , an attempt has been made to i d e n t i f y differences between an actor's perception of and subsequent causal a t t r i b u t i o n to a behaviour and an observer's perception of and a t t r i b u t i o n to that same behaviour. Bern (1972) conceives of two major s i m i l a r i t i e s between s e l f and inter-personal perception. He suggests that the "process of inferences" i s the same for both the actor and the observer; and that they both "share c e r t a i n sources of evidence—overt behaviour, etc.—upon which . . . a t t r i b u t i o n s can be based." Bern then goes on to c i t e four ways i n which s e l f and other a t t r i b u -t i o n can d i f f e r . F i r s t , what he c a l l s Insider-Outsider differences are those differences concerning various i n t e r n a l states such as e f f o r t , to which the observer has no d i r e c t access. Second, Intimate vs. Stranger differences involve information about the actor's antecedent behaviour and t h i r d , S e l f - vs. Other-differences involve motivational factors such as face-saving or self-esteem. F i n a l l y , Bern discusses actor-observer differences due to d i f f e r i n g perceptual perspectives as suggested by Jones and Nisbett (1971) i n a previous paper. I t i s important to note that Bern emphasizes the convergent nature of s e l f and other* perception and * " s e l f " and "other as well as "actor" - "observer" w i l l be used to r e f e r to the general d i s t i n c t i o n between the two classes as opposed to Bern's l a b e l l i n g of s p e c i f i c types of d i s t i n c t i o n s . 1 a t t r i b u t i o n and r e f e r s , i n f a c t , to se l f - p e r c e p t i o n as a " s p e c i a l case of Interpersonal perception" (Bern, 1965, p. 184). He maintains that actors observe t h e i r own behaviour i n much the same way an observer does. He cities several studies, including the now c l a s s i c Schachter and Singer (1967) noradrenaline experiment, i n which actors perceived t h e i r own behaviour and made judgments according to the same external cues one would expect an observer to use. Jones and Nisbett (1972), however, emphasize a more divergent view of s e l f and other a t t r i b u t i o n s and argue that "there i s a pervasive tendency f o r actors to a t t r i b u t e t h e i r actions to s i t u a t i o n a l requirements, whereas observers tend to a t t r i b u t e the same actions to stable personal d i s p o s i t i o n s . " They ascribe t h i s d i f f e r e n c e to several causes, the f i r s t of which i s differences i n the information a v a i l a b l e to the actor and observer. These differences include what Bern r e f e r s to as the i n s i d e r -outsider d i f f e r e n c e , which involves i n t e r n a l states. S p e c i f i c a l l y , Jones and Nisbett discuss " e f f e c t data" which i s information about what the actor experiences such as pleasure or anger and "cause data" which i s information about the actor's intentions and motives. The observer does not have d i r e c t access to these sources of information. They also discuss differences i n " h i s t o r i c a l data" which i s Bern's "Intimate vs. Stranger" category. This re f e r s to information about the actor's past h i s t o r y and h i s general mode of behaviour. This d i f f e r e n c e . i n " h i s t o r i c a l data" robs the observer of two types of information as discussed i n K e l l y ' s analysis of variance model of a t t r i b u t i o n (1967). Some " d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s information" i s not a v a i l a b l e to the observer: t h i s i s information r e l a t i n g to whether or not the actor as well as other actors behave the same way i n response to various other s t i m u l i . Some "consistency information" i s also unavailable to the observer: t h i s r e f e r s to information about whether or not the actor and other actors behave i n the same way to a given stimulus across both s i t u a t i o n s and times. The second major category of differences Jones and Nisbett r e f e r to i s information processing differences that e x i s t " f o r the basic reason that d i f f e r e n t aspects of a v a i l a b l e information are s a l i e n t for actors and observers and t h i s d i f f e r e n t i a l salience a f f e c t s the cause and out-come of the a t t r i b u t i o n process" (p. 85). Jones and Nisbett's usage of the term "information processing" seems to re f e r to how i n d i v i d u a l s s e l e c t which information to attend to as well as to how they assess and organize incoming data. F i r s t , Jones and Nisbett state that action i s more s a l i e n t to the observer because i t involves perceptible movement and chang and i s thus dynamic while the environment i s stable and contextual to the observer. . The actor, since h i s receptors cannot record the nuances of his own behaviour, focuses his attention outward so that he sees h i s behaviour as a response to the environment which t r i g g e r s and guides i t . Another major feature of the proposed information processing d i f -ferences has to do with what Jones and Nisbett c a l l "the tendency to regard one's reactions to e n t i t i e s as based on accurate perceptions of them" (p. 86) rather than merely the perceiver's understanding of these e n t i t i e s . This d i f f e r e n c e r e f e r s to a confusion between what i s inher-ent i n the object and therefore " r e a l " and what i s merely one's reaction to i t ; consequently, the observer sees the actor's behaviour as a " r e a l " manifestation of the actor and the actor perceives the environment as the " r e a l " e l i c i t i n g stimulus. Neither takes into account the subjective, evaluative nature of these perceptions. Last, Jones and Nisbett suggest an o v e r a l l tendency for actors to perceive others i n terms of stable d i s p o s i t i o n a l a t t r i b u t e s while main-ta i n i n g for themselves a view of "acting i n accord with the demands and opportunities inherent i n each new s i t u a t i o n " (p. 92), Supporting Research Cited by Jones and Nisbett: In the chapter describing t h i s model, the authors c i t e several studies which o f f e r support to or at le a s t are consistent with t h e i r presentation. The f i r s t of these i s a study by Jones, Rock, Shaver, Goethals and Ward (1968) which examined an observer primacy e f f e c t on an IQ t e s t . Subjects who took a test and received random error feedback rated confederates who answered questions c o r r e c t l y on the f i r s t part of the same test as opposed to the l a s t part as more i n t e l l i g e n t , as having performed better o v e r a l l , and as having the p r o b a b i l i t y of a higher future performance. The r e s u l t s were i n t e r -preted as showing a strong primacy e f f e c t . A second study was done to see i f an i n d i v i d u a l would i n t e r p r e t h i s own performance i n the same way. In t h i s study the subject, rather than a confederate, was given either ascending error feedback (mistakes at the end of test) or descending error feedback (mistakes at beginning of test) along with assurances that a l l items were equally d i f f i c u l t . Contrary to the r e s u l t s i n the f i r s t study, subjects i n Study II did not accept the disclaimer that a l l questions were equally d i f f i c u l t ; rather, they thought that questions got harder and easier i n the ascending and descend-ing conditions, r e s p e c t i v e l y . Subjects i n the ascending condition predicted they would do better i n future, while subjects i n the descending condition predicted they would do worse, which reverses the r e s u l t s of the f i r s t study. No e f f e c t on t h e i r judgment of t h e i r o v e r a l l i n t e l l i g e n c e was found. The r e c a l l measure of how well one performed, however, s t i l l showed a. primacy e f f e c t . Jones and N i s b e t t suggest t h i s as support f o r the idea that observers a t t r i b u t e performance to d i s p o s i t i o n ( a b i l i t y ) w h i l e actors a t t r i b u t e d performance to the s i t u a t i o n (task d i f f i c u l t y ) . I t i s important to note that observers i n the f i r s t study were given d i f f e r e n t personal i n f o r m a t i o n than a c t o r s i n the second study. Observers were t o l d v i a random e r r o r feedback that a l l the items were equal i n d i f f i c u l t y f o r them. One assumes that an observer w i l l b e l i e v e i n f o r m a t i o n from h i s own experience more r e a d i l y and f u l l y than informa-t i o n from someone he does not even know. The observer has no reason to assume that the items do change i n d i f f i c u l t y because he has h i s own experience plus the assurance of the experimenter that the items are e q u a l l y d i f f i c u l t . When making a judgment about the confederate, l o g i c would l e a d the subject to assume d i f f e r e n t i a l a b i l i t y . In t h i s case, the d i r e c t i o n of the judgment i s i n f l u e n c e d by a strong.primacy e f f e c t . An a c t o r , of course, judges task d i f f i c u l t y again on h i s own experience; an o p i n i o n which, i n t h i s case, i s at v a r i a n c e w i t h the experimenter's d i s c l a i m e r . According to h i s experience the items do get harder or e a s i e r , depending on which group c o n d i t i o n he i s i n , to the extent that one would judge d i f f i c u l t y from feedback. Unless one assumes that one can get smarter or l e s s smart i n the course of a ten-minute task, the only l o g i c a l assumption i s that the questions get harder or e a s i e r . This i s supported by the f a c t that there was no e f f e c t of c o n d i t i o n on a subject's e v a l u a t i o n of h i s o v e r a l l i n t e l l i g e n c e . A f i n a l p o i n t about t h i s study i s one which occurs f r e q u e n t l y i n s t u d i e s of t h i s kind and, i n f a c t , i s a major methodological problem i n many types of s t u d i e s : demand c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the experimental s i t u a -t i o n . In the f i r s t study, subjects were asked to r a t e the confederate's a b i l i t y on a scale ranging from "well below average Duke student" to "well above average Duke student." In a non-experimental s i t u a t i o n one could e a s i l y imagine a simple shrug of the shoulders or "who knows?" response by an i n d i v i d u a l when asked to rate the i n t e l l i g e n c e of someone he has as l i t t l e knowledge about as i n the experiment. In the experiment, however, the subject i s being asked to give an answer—to make a decision.: There appears to be an i m p l i c i t assumption that the subject does indeed have enough information to give an answer. Under normal conditions, assumptions of sincere communication (Turnbull, 1975) suggest that one • would not ask a question of someone knowing that the person does not have the information necessary to give a response. The subject i n t h i s experiment i s consequently made to f e e l that he should be able to give an answer. The subject, of course, does j u s t that and l i k e any reasonable information processor, uses whatever information he has a v a i l a b l e ; i n t h i s case, as influenced by a primacy e f f e c t . In summary, what Jones and Nisbett take to be support for self - o t h e r differences i n a t t r i b u t i o n could be simply reasonable and l o g i c a l usage of a v a i l a b l e information i n both the actor and observer r o l e s i n the p a r t i c u l a r experimental conditions used i n that study. Jones and Nisbett also c i t e the Jones and Harris (1967) study on judgments of subjects concerning the r e a l a t t i t u d e of students giving speeches. Written pro- or anti-Cuba speeches were presented and subjects were t o l d whether or not the student who supposedly wrote the speech had had a choice i n s e l e c t i n g which side of the question to support. Sub-j e c t s were then asked to judge the degree to which they thought the speaker would agree with various statements about Cuba. In t h i s study, behaviour appears to "engulf the f i e l d " ; that i s , the actual behaviour of the student i s the major determinant of s u b j e c t s ' p r e d i c t i o n s . Of course, however, the a t t r i b u t i o n of a t t i t u d e s on the ba s i s of speech content i s s t r o n g l y modified by the choice/no choice c o n d i t i o n . Jones and N i s b e t t c i t e t h i s study to show that observers make a d i s p o s i t i o n a l judgment without t a k i n g the s i t u a t i o n s u f f i c i e n t l y i n t o account. Again, a question i s posed w i t h an i m p l i c i t assumption that the subject w i l l have an answer. The subject looks at the i n f o r m a t i o n a v a i l -able. In t h i s case, he reads or hears a s i n g l e statement p e r t a i n i n g to the choice or no choice c o n d i t i o n and then reads or hears a 200-word essay. The subject answers the question on the ba s i s of whatever i n f o r m a t i o n he has. As noted, the choice-no choice c o n d i t i o n s do have strong d i f f e r e n t i a l e f f e c t s . For example, confederates g i v i n g a pro-Cuba speech i n the no choice c o n d i t i o n are rated as l e s s pro-Cuba than confederates i n the choice s i t u a t i o n . They are s t i l l , however, rated as pro-Cuba. Although behaviour may indeed tend, to engulf the f i e l d i t i s not r e a l l y very s u r p r i s i n g t h a t , . i f " f o r c e d " to make a judgment on the b a s i s of "incomplete or d i s t o r t e d " (Jones and H a r r i s , 1967, p. 7) i n f o r m a t i o n , an i n d i v i d u a l i n an experimental s i t u a t i o n w i l l use whatever i n f o r m a t i o n he has a v a i l a b l e to make that judgment. One wonders what the e f f e c t would be i f subjects were given a speech to present i n choice and no choice c o n d i t i o n s . Would the subject's a t t i t u d e s even about h i s own p o s i t i o n be a f f e c t e d by g i v i n g a no-choice speech? The l i t e r a t u r e on a c t i v e p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n a t t i t u d e change o f f e r s a p o s s i b l e answer to t h i s question (Hovland, 1953). In these experiments the subject gives a speech contrary to h i s own a t t i t u d e . R e s ults show t h i s to be one of the more s u c c e s s f u l persuasion techniques. Perhaps the subject observes h i s 8 own behaviour and uses t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n when making an a t t r i b u t i o n about h i s a t t i t u d e . Jones and N i s b e t t imply that an act o r would not make the same inferences as an observer i n the Jones and H a r r i s study. The persuasion l i t e r a t u r e suggests that he might. Jones and N i s b e t t next c i t e a study done by McArthur (1970) which they s t a t e gives only p a r t i a l support s i n c e i t deals only w i t h observers. They suggest an i n t u i t i v e leap to the response an act o r would g i v e . In t h i s study, McArthur gave her subjects one-sentence d e s c r i p t i o n s of an act and asked them to a t t r i b u t e cause to e i t h e r the person doing the ac t , the object to which the act was being done or the p a r t i c u l a r circum-stances i n v o l v e d . Among the sentences were, f o r example, "While dancing, Ralph t r i p s over Jan's f e e t " and "George t r a n s l a t e s the sentence i n c o r -r e c t l y . " F o r t y - f o u r percent of the answers were pure person a t t r i b u t i o n s (e.g., "Something about George probably caused him to t r a n s l a t e the sentence i n c o r r e c t l y . " ) . Apart from the obvious methodological problems which Jones and N i s b e t t e x p l i c i t l y r e f e r t o , such as the h i g h l y a r t i f i c i a l .nature'of. the task and the p o s s i b i l i t y that more in f o r m a t i o n might make a d i f f e r e n c e , I would l i k e to suggest two other problems. The f i r s t deals w i t h the nature of the language used for. t h i s experiment, and the second w i t h the f a c t that only observers were st u d i e d . With reference to the f i r s t problem, the reader looks at the sentence and reads about a person doing an a c t i o n . Ralph i s the one who t r i p p e d . With no other i n f o r m a t i o n a v a i l a b l e , one i s prodded toward s t a t i n g , s i n c e Ralph d i d i t to the o b j e c t , that he i s the reason i t i s being done. McArthur used another set of sentences which lends support to t h i s argument. In t h i s case, they were statements about emotional experiences such as "Tom i s e n t h r a l l e d by the p a i n t i n g . " In t h i s p a r t , the largest number of a t t r i b u t i o n (45%) were i n the person-stimulus category (e.g., Tom l i k e s pretty paintings and t h i s painting i s p r e t t y ) . These sentences were a l l l i k e the example given, that i s , a subject  reacted to an object instead of a subject did something to an object. In the l a t t e r , by the nature of the language, the actor i s the "prime mover." In the former, the actor i s reacting to an o b j e c t — " i s enthralled by the painting." A reaction, as opposed to an action, implies that the object i s part of the cause. A d e f i n i t i o n of react i s , i n f a c t , "undergo change due to some influence" (Fowler, 1964). And so, based on the information given i n the statements, the subject a t t r i b u t e d the cause to both the person and the stimulus. The subject based the a t t r i b u t i o n on the a v a i l a b l e information. With reference to the second problem mentioned above, only "observers" were studied i n t h i s experiment. Jones and Nisbett suggest that i n t u i t i v e l y one would expect actors to give such answers as " I t was dark and Jane doesn't cha-cha the way I do." Given the information they have that would be quite an informational leap for observers to make. As McArthur predicted, when consistency, consensus, and d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s information were manipulated the r e s u l t s changed d r a s t i c a l l y . . For example, when t o l d that "most people translated that p a r t i c u l a r sentence i n c o r r e c t l y , " subjects were more l i k e l y to a t t r i b u t e cause to the d i f f i -c u l t y of the sentence. Jones and Nisbett then go on to discuss a series of experiments done by Nisbett, Caputo, Legant and Marecek (1973). The f i r s t study involved an actor and an observer. The actor was asked to volunteer for a task and was offered either $.50/hour or $1.50/hour. Both actors and observers were then asked what were the most important reasons for 10 v o l u n t e e r i n g . Although money was, i n f a c t , one of the major determinants of who volunteered (68% volunteered at $1.50 whereas only 24% volunteered at $.50) n e i t h e r the a c t o r s nor the observers rated i t as an important reason f o r the behaviour. Before going on, i t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note that i n t h i s case a c t o r s do not appear to have been q u i t e as s e n s i t i v e to s i t u a t i o n a l s t i m u l i as Jones and N i s b e t t suggest i n t h e i r model. No d i f f e r e n c e was found between a c t o r s and observers i n t h e i r d e c i s i o n as to why a c t o r s volunteered: the. r e s u l t s of t h i s d e c i s i o n c o n s t i t u t e the causal a t t r i b u t i o n i n t h i s study. The reasons rated as important by both a c t o r s and observers were " d e s i r e to h e l p " ( d i s p o s i t i o n a l ) , "the i n t e r e s t of the a c t i v i t i e s " ( s i t u a t i o n a l ) and "the fun of meeting people" ( s i t u a t i o n a l ) . This aspect of the r e s u l t s , which i s a d i r e c t c o n t r a d i c t i o n of Jones and N i s b e t t ' s hypotheses, i s however, not discussed i n the N i s b e t t et a l . a r t i c l e as being the causal a t t r i b u t i o n . The dependent v a r i a b l e discussed i s p r e d i c t e d l i k e l i h o o d that the a c t o r would volunteer f o r a c h a r i t y campaign i n the f u t u r e . On t h i s question observers d i d make p r e d i c t i o n s more on the b a s i s of whether or not the actor had volunteered than d i d a c t o r s . I f the a c t o r had volunteered once, he was judged by observers as being more l i k e l y to v o l u n t e e r i n the f u t u r e . Again, a s i d e from the problem of demand c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s (there was no response s t a t i n g simply " I don't know"), there i s the c r i t i c i s m that observers judged on the basis of the only i n f o r m a t i o n they had. Observers did not know the subjects or anything about them except whether or not they had volunteered. Jones et a l . agree that t h i s dearth of i n f o r m a t i o n and the a r t i f i c i a l i t y of the s i t u a t i o n might account f o r the r e s u l t s . Study I I was done to explore t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y . As one component of the study being presented i s a r e p l i c a t i o n of Study I I , i t w i l l be discussed l a t e r i n t h i s paper. The t h i r d study i n t h i s series (Nisbett et a l , 1973) was designed to examine the idea that actors are more w i l l i n g to ascribe t r a i t s to others than to themselves. Each subject was asked to f i l l out t r a i t inventories for himself and four other people. The questionnaires were presented as 20 b i p o l a r scale t r a i t names (e.g., serious-gay and intense-calm) and a t h i r d option of "depends on the s i t u a t i o n . " "Depends on the s i t u a t i o n " was used s i g n i f i c a n t l y more for s e l f than for others. There was a non-significant tendency to ascribe more t r a i t names for Walter Cronkite, "the older, more unfamiliar stimulus," than for father, best f r i e n d , acquaintance or s e l f . The authors then discuss the p o s s i b i l i t y that subjects are using the "depends on the s i t u a t i o n " not to deny that they had t r a i t s but rather to assert "that they occupied an i d e a l middle ground on the t r a i t dimension"—the reasoning being, I assume, something l i k e "I react with the appropriate t r a i t i n the appropriate s i t u a t i o n . " Nisbett et a l . (1973) did a further study to explore t h i s p o s s i b i l -i t y using a si x - p o i n t t r a i t continuum to see i f subjects would i n fact check the middle. Nisbett et a l . suggested that checking the middle of the continuum more for s e l f than f o r other would indi c a t e that subjects were t r y i n g to assert that they occupied an i d e a l middle ground. The "depends on the s i t u a t i o n " category was again used but only scales for s e l f and best f r i e n d were presented to the subject. Subjects were s t i l l more l i k e l y to use the "depends on the s i t u a t i o n " category for s e l f than for f r i e n d but i f they checked the continuum "were no more l i k e l y to use the middle two categories for themselves than for t h e i r f r i e n d " (p. 162). Jones et a l . concluded from t h i s that subjects "probably checked the depends on the s i t u a t i o n a l t e r n a t i v e not because they wished to present 12 themselves as possessing t r a i t s i n moderation, but because they perceived themselves as possessing fewer t r a i t s . " ! Another possible explanation, however, i s that checking the middle i of a continuum i s i n fa c t completely d i f f e r e n t from checking "depends on the s i t u a t i o n . " I suggest that "depends on the s i t u a t i o n " implies, as stated above, an i d e a l adaptiveness concept whereas checking i n the middle of a continuum on t r a i t s can have f a r more negative implications such as simply being wishy-washy—neither here nor there. The second study there-fore does not appear to have properly explored the p o s s i b i l i t y that the r e s u l t s are due to an ego-enhancing motivational f a c t o r . This concludes those studies c i t e d as support i n Jones and Nisbett's paper. The review of other l i t e r a t u r e i n t h i s area which follows, w i l l be done i n two parts. The f i r s t w i l l include studies on s e l f - o t h e r a t t r i b u t i o n In general and the second w i l l cover studies on the perceptual focus aspect of s e l f - o t h e r a t t r i b u t i o n s . Studies Involving Motivational Factors: Some of the general studies seem to involve differences between s e l f and other a t t r i b u t i o n s which may be due to various types of ego or motivational involvement. One of these, a study by Beckman (1970), involved subjects as pseudo-teachers and observers Teachers were to l d how well a c h i l d had performed on a t e s t . A f t e r f i v e minutes of i n s t r u c t i o n by the teacher the student supposedly took the test again and h i s grade on t h i s t r i a l was given to the teacher. The perform-ance of the c h i l d being taught either improved from the f i r s t t r i a l to the second t r i a l (low-high), stayed the same (high-high, low-low), or d e t e r i -orated (high-low). No d i f f e r e n c e was found between causal a t t r i b u t i o n s of the actors and observers except i n the improved performance category, 13 where actors a t t r i b u t e d more c a u s a l i t y to t h e i r teaching performance than did observers., thus a t t r i b u t i n g success to themselves. A differ e n c e was also found i n amount of reward to be given to and a f f e c t i v e state about the c h i l d , such that the chi l d r e n i n the high-low condition were rated more highly by the observers than c h i l d r e n i n the other conditions. Actors, however, evaluated the chi l d r e n i n the low-high condition more p o s i t i v e l y than c h i l d r e n i n the other conditions. Other differences of a s i m i l a r type were also found, suggesting a bias on the part of the actor toward ego-defense or enhancement. Several methodological flaws, which Beckman r e c o g n i z e s — i n c l u d i n g the fact that observers merely read a des-c r i p t i o n of the s i t u a t i o n — c r e a t e doubt about the i n t e r n a l v a l i d i t y of thi s study. A study by Stephan (1975) also seems to tap motivational differences between the actor and the observer. In th i s study an actor was asked to help an experimental confederate to look for a l o s t contact lens. After the actor had f i n i s h e d t r y i n g to locate the lens he was t o l d that he had helped f o r 50% more or 50% less time that a ( f i c t i o n a l ) average subject. The actors and the observers both made more s i t u a t i o n a l a t t r i b u t i o n s about the cause of the actors'* behaviour i n the High Helping condition than i n the Low. Observers made s i t u a t i o n a l a t t r i b u t i o n s for p o s i t i v e behaviour and d i s p o s i t i o n a l a t t r i b u t i o n s for negative behaviour, while actors made s l i g h t l y more s i t u a t i o n a l a t t r i b u t i o n s for the High- than f o r the Low-helping conditions. Stephan suggests that the actors' r e s u l t may be due to the actor making a s o c i a l l y desirable modesty response for the benefit of the experimenter. The observers on the other hand, i n accordance with Jones and Davis' model of a t t r i b u t i o n theory, may acquire more information about the actor when he performs i n a non-socially desirable manner than 14 when he acts i n a s o c i a l l y d e s i r a b l e manner, and thus use t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n i n t h e i r a t t r i b u t i o n s . i A study by A p s l e r and Friedman (1975) on the J u s t World hypothesis i (Lerner, 1970, 1971) examined actor-observer a t t r i b u t i o n s on a rewarded or non-rewarded task.: While the J u s t World hypothesis was p a r t i a l l y sup-ported, no d i f f e r e n c e s were found between ac t o r s and observers. Both groups r a t e d performances higher i n the reward c o n d i t i o n than In the non-reward c o n d i t i o n and rated c e r t a i n p e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s more p o s i t i v e l y i n the reward c o n d i t i o n . Thus, i t would appear that both groups were motivated to the same extent by a b e l i e f i n a j u s t world. Another study l o o k i n g at m o t i v a t i o n a l f a c t o r s was done by Regan, Strauss and Fazio (1974). In t h i s study, l i k i n g or d i s l i k i n g of the a c t o r / confederate by the observer, as w e l l as task d i f f i c u l t y , was manipulated. The r e s u l t s supported the hypothesis that a c t i o n s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h a f f e c t (good performance by l i k e d actor) were a t t r i b u t e d to d i s p o s i t i o n w h i l e i n c o n s i s t e n t a c t i o n s (bad performance by l i k e d actor) were a t t r i b u t e d s i t u a t i o n a l l y . These r e s u l t s r e l a t e d i r e c t l y to balance theory (Heider, 1946). I t seems that i f the sentiment r e l a t i o n s are balanced ( f i r s t case) then observers i n f e r a u n i t r e l a t i o n between a c t o r s and performance. I f , however, the sentiment r e l a t i o n s are not balanced (second case) the observer denies the u n i t r e l a t i o n . A study done by Harvey, H a r r i s and Barnes (1975) examined a c t o r -observer d i f f e r e n c e s i n the perception of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and freedom. This study i n v o l v e d a M i l g r a m - l i k e t e a c h e r - l e a r n e r design. In t h i s case the teacher was the a c t o r and the l e a r n e r was a confederate. An observer was a l s o present. Shocks were administered at two l e v e l s of i n t e n s i t y , moderate and high. The r e s u l t s showed that a c t o r s a t t r i b u t e d more 15 . r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to themselves i n the moderate shock condition than i n the severe shock condition. Observers a t t r i b u t e d more r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to the actor i n the severe than i n the moderate condition. Harvey et a l . concluded that the actor attempts to protect h i s ego i n the severe condi-t i o n . The observer, not wanting to condone the s o c i a l l y very undesirable behaviour (high shock), protects his own ego,, since i f he. said i t was the s i t u a t i o n he might f e e l he was implying that he would do the same. It i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note, although i t i s not discussed, that the means for the' a t t r i b u t i o n s for actors and observers i n the moderate condition—where presumably ego-defense motivation does not a p p l y — a r e almost i d e n t i c a l , 6.2 and 6.5 (the means are c i t e d since s i g n i f i c a n c e r e s u l t s were not reported). Another study dealing with what t h i s author f e e l s are motivational aspects i s one by Wartman, Costanzo and Witt (1973) on the e f f e c t of anticipated performance on causal a t t r i b u t i o n s . In t h i s study, an actor and an experimental confederate (always successful) performed a s o c i a l perceptiveness task. The actors either passed or. f a i l e d the test and were told that they either would or would not be doing an a d d i t i o n a l s o c i a l perceptiveness task. In the f a i l u r e condition, subjects tended to view themselves as being less lucky, as having l e s s clear information, as hav-ing a more d i f f i c u l t task, etc., than subjects i n the success condition, thus protecting t h e i r self-esteem. When making a t t r i b u t i o n s about t h e i r successful partner, however, " f a i l u r e s " saw the partner as having l e s s c l e a r information and more d i f f i c u l t questions than the successful subjects did. Feedback from the experimenter indicates to the subject i n the f a i l u r e condition that the questions were indeed d i f f i c u l t , since he 16 couldn't answer them. Not s u r p r i s i n g l y t h i s subject also judged the confederate's questions as d i f f i c u l t . A successful subject received feedback that indicated the questions were not excessively d i f f i c u l t — : h e could answer them—and so he judged the confederate's questions i n the same way. Both groups thus made judgments compatible with the information they had. . . Subjects who were to l d they would be doing an a d d i t i o n a l task . ( a n t i c i p a t i o n group) a t t r i b u t e d t h e i r score more to luck than subjects who did not an t i c i p a t e another task (non-anticipation group). Subjects i n the a n t i c i p a t i o n group also saw the questions as more d i f f i c u l t and the information as les s adequate. The motivations involved here are discussed rather f u l l y i n Wartman et a l . ' s a r t i c l e . Several s i g n i f i c a n t s e l f - o t h e r a t r r i b u t i o n e f f e c t s were found to be due almost e n t i r e l y to the a n t i c i p a t i o n manipulation. Sub-j e c t s i n the a n t i c i p a t i o n condition viewed t h e i r own case as more d i f f i -c u l t and more confusing than the other's. They also a t t r i b u t e d t h e i r own successful performance more to luck and the other's more to differences i n s o c i a l perceptiveness. No self- o t h e r differences were found for the non-a n t i c i p a t i o n group. These are the same o v e r a l l e f f e c t s as were found i n the. a n t i c i p a t i o n - n o n - a n t i c i p a t i o n group generally. For example, subjects i n the a n t i c i p a t i o n group viewed t h e i r own case as more d i f f i c u l t and more confusing than the confederate's, while no differ e n c e was found f o r sub-j e c t ' s a t t r i b u t i o n s to t h i s p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e i n the non-a n t i c i p a t i o n group. Wartman et a l . suggest that this i s due to the in d i v i d u a l s exaggerating the worthiness of an "opponent" (p. 380) so that i n h i s second test the subject i s protected both ways. I f he f a i l s i t was because the other had an easier task, less confusing information and was 17 b e t t e r i n the f i r s t p l a c e , whereas i f he succeeds he i s b e t t e r than an able opponent. This argument i s supported by the f a c t that no s e l f - o t h e r d i f f e r e n c e s were found i n the n o n - a n t i c i p a t i o n group where no such moti-v a t i o n i n reference to the "opponent" e x i s t s , s i n c e he won't be performing again. . • . A f i e l d experiment by West, Gumm and Chernicky (1975) a l s o attempted to d i s t i n g u i s h between the causal a t t r i b u t i o n s of actors and observers. In t h i s f a s c i n a t i n g and i n t r i c a t e l y planned study, actors were contacted and asked to p a r t i c i p a t e i n a Watergate-like b r e a k - i n . Observers were given a booklet d e s c r i b i n g the request and the r e s u l t a n t d e c i s i o n , as w e l l as questionnaires w i t h the dependent v a r i a b l e s . The actors were asked to e x p l a i n why they d i d or d i d not agree to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the b r e a k - i n . The r e s u l t s support Jones and N i s b e t t ' s hypothesis that actors a t t r i b u t e more to s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s while observers a t t r i b u t e more to d i s p o s i t i o n a l f a c t o r s . There are, of course, methodological problems i n s o f a r as the observers d i d not observe anything but merely read a w r i t t e n d e s c r i p t i o n of the s i t u a t i o n and the behaviour, whereas the a c t o r s were i n the middle of the s i t u a t i o n without knowing that i t was an experiment. Another problem i s that observers wrote t h e i r a t t r i b u t i o n s on an anonymous piece of paper while actors explained t h e i r reasons o r a l l y to a second party. In the l a t t e r s i t u a t i o n an i n d i v i d u a l might very w e l l want to put the "blame" on e x t e r n a l f a c t o r s , and thus save face or at l e a s t not expose himself, to t h i s strange person who had j u s t asked him to do a robbery: f o r example, saying, " I won't do i t because i t ' s too dangerous" r a t h e r than "because I'm scared," A tendency was n o t i c e d , i n f a c t , f o r an a c t o r to make more d i s p o s i t i o n a l a t t r i b u t i o n s when he agreed than when he refused to p a r t i c -i p a t e i n the robbery, which lends support to the above suggestion. The 18 d i f f e r e n t i a l e f f e c t s of the written d e s c r i p t i o n vs. " l i v e d through" exper-ience are d i f f i c u l t to know but i t c e r t a i n l y seems possible that the impact of the s i t u a t i o n , and i t s constraints, were not r e a l l y as v i v i d f o r the observer as for the actor. A l a s t point i s the method of a n a l y s i s . Responses were coded and an analysis of variance done with "1" = d i s p o s i t i o n a l , "2" = a combination, and "3" = s i t u a t i o n a l . A combination score would appear to be completely d i f f e r e n t from 1 or 3, and not a middle p o s i t i o n on the continuum. Any of the r e s u l t s , therefore, could either r e f l e c t a preponderance of com-bined d i s p o s i t i o n a l - s i t u a t i o n a l a t t r i b u t i o n s which.would not support the hypothesis, or they could r e f l e c t a bimodal d i s t r i b u t i o n of both s i t u a t i o n a l and d i s p o s i t i o n a l statements with a higher proportion of the appropriate statement as indicated by the magnitude of the number. Since the means a l l c l u s t e r around 2.0 with the highest being 2.39 and the lowest being 1.76, the r e s u l t s are e s p e c i a l l y d i f f i c u l t to i n t e r p r e t . In summary, i t seems clear that motivational factors are a major, cause of differences between s e l f and other a t t r i b u t i o n s , whether intended, as i n the Regan and Beckman studies, or not intended as i n the Wortman et a l . and the West et a l . studies. In t h i s group of experiments there i s l i t t l e or no support for any overriding actor-observer differences other than the various motivational and methodological factors discussed. Non-Motivational A t t r i b u t i o n Research: A few experiments have also been done to explore s e l f - o t h e r a t t r i b u t i o n s i n a s i t u a t i o n that attempts to look at differences not obviously affected by motivational f a c t o r s . M i l l e r (1975) examined actor-observer differences i n a learning s i t u a t i o n . In the f i r s t of four studies, he found that observers rated the task as 19 more d i f f i c u l t , a t t r i b u t e d more a b i l i t y to the l e a r n e r , judged the perform-ance to be more g e n e r a l i z a b l e , rated the learner' as l e s s motivated, and railed the performance higher. These d i f f e r e n c e s , M i l l e r suggests, sup-port Jones and N i s b e t t ' s p o s i t i o n that there are s e l f - o t h e r d i f f e r e n c e s i n a t t r i b u t i o n s . I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note, however, that the higher task d i f f i c u l t y r a t i n g i s a s i t u a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e and that a t t r i b u t i n g l e s s moti-v a t i o n to actors does not i n d i c a t e a tendency f o r observers to make more d i s p o s i t i o n a l a t t r i b u t i o n s than a c t o r s . The g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y scores do o f f e r support f o r Jones and N i s b e t t ' s p o s i t i o n that observers are more l i k e l y than a c t o r s to make a t t r i b u t i o n s to s t a b l e d i s p o s i t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r -i s t i c s . Observers would t h e r e f o r e be more l i k e l y to p r e d i c t f u t u r e behav-io u r on the b a s i s of these s t a b l e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . I would suggest, how-ever, that performance on t h i s task i s the only i n f o r m a t i o n the observers have about the ac t o r ' s a b i l i t y i n any s i t u a t i o n . Therefore, when asked to make a judgment about performance on other t a s k s , subjects w i l l simply use the inf o r m a t i o n they have. A second set of r e s u l t s M i l l e r was i n t e r e s t e d i n was the r o l e * feedback i n t e r a c t i o n . He p r e d i c t e d that observers would make stronger inferences than actors about the ac t o r ' s a b i l i t y (a d i s p o s i t i o n ) from the feedback. Thus, an observer would be more l i k e l y than an actor to r a t e the actor's a b i l i t y as high when he performed w e l l and low when he per-formed poorly. M i l l e r a l s o p r e d i c t e d a r o l e x feedback i n t e r a c t i o n f o r r a t i n g s of task d i f f i c u l t y (a s i t u a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e ) . In t h i s case, the actor was expected to make stronger inferences than the observer on the bas i s of performance feedback. Only two out of ten i n t e r a c t i o n s were found to be s i g n i f i c a n t . In f a c t , both' actors and observers tended to make these types of corresponding inferences on a b i l i t y based on feedback, .20 although observers d i d i t to a l a r g e r extent. I t i s not p o s s i b l e to discus s the r e s u l t s of the causal a t t r i b u t i o n f a c t o r i n a f a i r l y extensive study by M i l l e r and Norman (1975) on a c t o r -observer d i f f e r e n c e s on a game task, as there appears to be a confusion i n t h e i r dependent v a r i a b l e s as to what c o n s t i t u t e d d i s p o s i t i o n a l v s . s i t u a t i o n a l a t t r i b u t i o n s . S p e c i f i c a l l y , when an act o r (A) and an observer are both a t t r i b u t i n g causes of A's behaviour i n a game wi t h B, one would assume that a t t r i b u t i o n to A as the cause of A's behaviour would be t h e . d i s p o s i t i o n a l statements and a t t r i b u t i o n s to B or the game would be the s i t u a t i o n a l statements. In the study, however, the questions that are asked of both the actor (A) and the observer are the f o l l o w i n g : (a) "How r e s p o n s i b l e ( i s ) P l a y e r A f o r P l a y e r B's behaviour?" and (b) "How re s p o n s i b l e ( i s ) the game s i t u a t i o n f o r Pl a y e r A's behaviour?" These appear to be i n c o r r e c t . An i n t e r e s t i n g p a i r of v a r i a b l e s that they d i d look, at c o r r e c t l y were the f o l l o w i n g : (a) "How a c c u r a t e l y d i d P l a y e r A's behaviour r e f l e c t her (your) p e r s o n a l i t y " and (b) "How much could be learned about A from her (your) behaviour i n the game?" In t h i s case a c t o r s b e l i e v e d that t h e i r behaviour r e f l e c t e d t h e i r p e r s o n a l i t y more than d i d observers and a l s o b e l i e v e d that more could be learned about them from t h e i r behaviour. M i l l e r and Norman do not s p e c i f y what type of response was e l i c i t e d . Low numbers might mean e i t h e r that the actor's behaviour d i d not r e f l e c t h i s p e r s o n a l i t y or that the subject d i d n ' t know how much the a c t o r ' s behaviour r e f l e c t e d h i s p e r s o n a l i t y . In any case, the r e s u l t s as reported c o n t r a d i c t Jones and N i s b e t t ' s p o s i t i o n that observers are more l i k e l y to i n f e r p e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s from a behaviour than a c t o r s . Lay, Z i e g l e r and H e r r s k f i e l d (1974) studied d i f f e r e n c e s i n the 21 p e r c e p t i o n of s i t u a t i o n a l consistency i n behaviour between actors and observers. An inventory of anxiousness and one of h o s t i l i t y , comprised of f i f t e e n p o t e n t i a l l y anxiety or h o s t i l i t y arousing s i t u a t i o n s , were given to each subject as w e l l as to a f r i e n d and an acquaintance of the s u b j e c t . The study was designed to examine the hypothesis that the s e l f - p r e d i c t i o n s of r e a c t i o n s to the s i t u a t i o n s would show l e s s consistency across s i t u a -t i o n s than the others' p r e d i c t i o n s about the s u b j e c t . The r e s u l t s sup-ported the hypothesis. Two things are of i n t e r e s t here. F i r s t , the p r e d i c t i o n items are mostly of the f o l l o w i n g nature: "Heart beats f a s t e r " ; "Want to avoid the s i t u a t i o n " ; "Mouth gets dry"; "Want to h i t something" (the i t a l i c s have been added). Since these are i n t e r n a l s t a t e s , as i n Bern's i n s i d e r vs. o u t s i d e r category, one would expect subjects to have more informa t i o n about them. A second point to note, which w i l l become important l a t e r on i n t h i s paper, i s that a continuum was found so that the v a r i a b i l i t y was most pronounced with s e l f , then wit h f r i e n d , and then with the acquaintance. This would seem l o g i c a l to the extent that the more one knows someone the c l o s e r one i s to being an i n s i d e r and thus having the necessary i n f o r m a t i o n . I t i s d i f f i c u l t to draw any conclusions from t h i s set of s t u d i e s . On the one hand, i t seems to suggest that i n c r e a s i n g the amount of i n f o r -mation one has about a person can increase the s i m i l a r i t y of s e l f and other a t t r i b u t i o n s . This i s not e n t i r e l y i n agreement w i t h N i s b e t t , Caputo, Legant and Marecek's (1973) f i n d i n g s i n the f i r s t p art of t h e i r t r a i t l i s t s s t u d i e s where they had the actor e v a l u a t i n g s e l f as w e l l as four others. The hypothesis i s , however, i n accordance w i t h an e x t r a a n a l y s i s done i n N i s b e t t et a l . ' s follow-up study. They compared the length of time the subjects had known t h e i r best f r i e n d and the tendency to a s c r i b e more t r a i t s to f r i e n d than to s e l f , and obtained a c o r r e l a t i o n of .45 (p < .01). So w i t h more inf o r m a t i o n acquired through more f a m i l -i a r i t y , o t h e r - a t t r i b u t i o n s became more l i k e s e l f - a t t r i b u t i o n s . • M i l l e r ' s study o f f e r e d support f o r s e l f - o t h e r d i f f e r e n c e s i n a t t r i -butions but d i d not f i n d the s i t u a t i o n a l - d i s p o s i t i o n a l s p l i t Jones and Ni s b e t t hypothesized. On the g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y i s s u e , "Others" appeared to be working w i t h the inf o r m a t i o n they had. The r e s u l t s of Wortman et a l . ' s study seem to support a m o t i v a t i o n a l f a c t o r e x p l a n a t i o n , and judg-ments by subjects on the b a s i s of t h e i r o p i n i o n of the task. The i n t e r -p r e t a b l e r e s u l t s of M i l l e r and Norman do not support Jones and N i s b e t t ' s hypothesis. Review of Information Processing D i f f e r e n c e s : The f i n a l group of s t u d i e s to be analyzed deals w i t h what Jones and N i s b e t t r e f e r to as an informa-t i o n processing d i f f e r e n c e i n s e l f - o t h e r a t t r i b u t i o n . This processing d i f f e r e n c e r e l a t e s to the perceptual focus and t h e r e f o r e s a l i e n c e of a behaviour. As explained p r e v i o u s l y , Jones and N i s b e t t maintain that an observer w i l l focus on the actor because he i s the dynamic and more v i v i d element i n the s i t u a t i o n w h i le the a c t o r , p a r t l y because of the p o s i t i o n of h i s sensors, w i l l focus on the s i t u a t i o n . I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note that they do not mention the f a c t that the actor i s c o n s t a n t l y g e t t i n g a l l s o r t s of p h y s i o l o g i c a l feedback from h i s body i n c l u d i n g a u d i t o r y feedback as w e l l as heart r a t e , s k i n s u r f a c e , body p o s i t i o n , e t c . , and that there-f o r e , Jones and N i s b e t t are i n r e a l i t y t a l k i n g only about r e l a t i v e l y low v i s u a l feedback. A few s t u d i e s have been done, however, to examine t h i s phenomenon. A study by Storms (1973) used a videotape technique to refocus the ac t o r ' s 23 and observer's a t t e n t i o n . The procedure i n v o l v e d a 5-minute g e t t i n g acquainted conversation. A f t e r the conversation subjects were shown e i t h e r the opposite view of what they had seen ( f o r example, the a c t o r : i . would see a videotape of h i m s e l f ) , the same view (the a c t o r would see a videotape of the other a c t o r ) , or nothing. In the two.control groups, No-Videotape and Same-orientation videotape, a d i f f e r e n c e between a c t o r -observer a t t r i b u t i o n s was found on the s i t u a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e but not on the d i s p o s i t i o n a l v a r i a b l e so only p a r t i a l support was obtained. A f u r t h e r important f a c t i s that observers were t o l d to watch the actor they were assigned to and the t a b l e was set up so that the observer's v i s i o n was d i r e c t e d at the actor and away from the other p a r t i c i p a n t , who i n t h i s case would be the s i t u a t i o n . This set-up, i n f a c t , i s designed to prevent the observer from seeing the t o t a l environment of the a c t o r s ' behaviour as explained above, so i t does not seem s u r p r i s i n g that the observer w i l l a t t r i b u t e more cause to the only t h i n g he i s t o l d to observe. In the experimental c o n d i t i o n , D i f f e r e n t - o r i e n t a t i o n , the p r e d i c t e d r e s u l t s f o r the videotape e f f e c t were again achieved f o r the s i t u a t i o n a l a t t r i b u t i o n s but not f o r 'the d i s p o s i t i o n a l a t t r i b u t i o n s . This r e s u l t , of course, supports the argument that an observer i s l i k e l y to make a t t r i b u -t i o n s to what he observes. When focused on the s i t u a t i o n the observer a t t r i b u t e d cause to the s i t u a t i o n . I t would appear that there i s a strong e f f e c t of v i s u a l o r i e n t a t i o n on a t t r i b u t i o n s , but i t s nature i s question-able. Would there be a s p l i t on a t t r i b u t i o n f o r the observer i f he saw the whole i n t e r a c t i o n ? This question needs to be explored. In any event, there i s l i t t l e support f o r the hypothesis that patterns of normal percep-t i o n create a s t a b l e actor-observer d i f f e r e n c e i n s i t u a t i o n a l a t t r i b u t i o n , and no support-at a l l f o r hypothesized d i f f e r e n c e i n d i s p o s i t i o n a l a t t r i b u t i o n . Two stu d i e s were done by Duval and Wicklund (1973) and A r k i n and Duval (1975) to address t h i s same question. In the f i r s t of these, only s e l f - a t t r i b u t i o n s were s t u d i e d . Rather.than change the a c t u a l o r i e n t a -t i o n of the ac t o r ' s p o s i t i o n , Duval and Wicklund were concerned w i t h e i t h e r f o c u s i n g the a t t e n t i o n of the actor away from s e l f (by having him engage i n a manual d e x t e r i t y task) or l e a v i n g the focus of a t t e n t i o n on s e l f . Results showed that subjects d i d indeed a t t r i b u t e more to the s i t u a t i o n when the focus on s e l f was decreased and more to the s e l f when focus on s e l f was l e f t unaffected. The same r e s u l t s were obtained f o r a study i n which the subjects were, e i t h e r l o o k i n g at a m i r r o r (increased s e l f - f o c u s ) or not. Duval and Wicklund discu s s these r e s u l t s i n terms of a general theory of o b j e c t i v e self-awareness that suggests that the i n d i v i d u a l w i l l make causal a t t r i b u t i o n s to any one object or area of the environment on which he focuses h i s a t t e n t i o n . Jones and N i s b e t t might perhaps argue that the normal or n a t u r a l s e t t i n g f o r observers and actors would leave the a c t o r s focusing on the s i t u a t i o n and the observers focusing on the ac t o r ; t h i s , however, i s not n e c e s s a r i l y t r u e . F i r s t , observers i n most n a t u r a l s e t t i n g s would probably be l o o k i n g a t the whole i n t e r a c t i o n r a t h e r than focusing on e i t h e r the s i t u a t i o n or the a c t o r . Or the observer could be i n t e r e s t e d i n the act i t s e l f — m a k i n g something, f i x i n g s omething—or i n the outcome of behaviour—how the other person i s r e a c t i n g to the actor.. The a c t o r , on the other hand, could e a s i l y be doing something e l s e during the behaviour (as i n the experiment above), or h i s own s t a t e might be most important to him i f he i s uncomfortable or t r y i n g to make a good impression, or t r y i n g to perform a d i f f i c u l t task 25 such as i n a t h l e t i c s where he would be mostly concerned w i t h how w e l l he i s f u n c t i o n i n g . The p o s s i b i l i t i e s are endless and suggest that " s t a b l e " actor-observer d i f f e r e n c e s because of a t t e n t i o n a l focus are not s t a b l e at a l l . The study by A r k i n and Duval (1975) addresses i t s e l f s p e c i f i c a l l y to the actor-observer question, using a videotape technique s i m i l a r to Storms'. Again no s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t was found on d i s p o s i t i o n a l a t t r i b u t i o n and a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t was found f o r only some of the s i t u a t i o n a l a t t r i b u t i o n s . There are major d i f f e r e n c e s between t h i s and the Storms study. F i r s t , the camera c o n d i t i o n was a ruse and except f o r 30 seconds during which the experimenter was " f i x i n g the focus of the camera" the subjects d i d not see t h e i r behaviour on the screen. Second, another manipulation was i n t r o -duced so that there was a s t a b l e environment, s l i d e s and a dynamic environ-ment, videotape of s e v e r a l aspects of a p a i n t i n g . In the s t a b l e environ-ment, as p r e d i c t e d , actors made fewer s i t u a t i o n a l a t t r i b u t i o n s than observ-ers i n the camera c o n d i t i o n . D i f f e r e n c e s between actors and observers were not s i g n i f i c a n t i n e i t h e r the dynamic or the s t a b l e camera c o n d i t i o n . Both of these sets of r e s u l t s deal d i r e c t l y w i t h Jones and N i s b e t t ' s p r e d i c t i o n f o r s e l f - o t h e r d i f f e r e n c e s , and n e i t h e r supports the p r e d i c t i o n . Actors d i d make more s i t u a t i o n a l a t t r i b u t i o n s i n the no camera c o n d i t i o n than i n the camera c o n d i t i o n but only i n the s t a b l e environment. P o s s i b l y i n the dynamic c o n d i t i o n the s i t u a t i o n was compelling enough so that the camera was ignored. As an asid e , Duval suggests that what he r e f e r s to as the marginal camera/no-camera e f f e c t on the observer's a t t r i -butions i n the s t a b l e environment (p_ < .12) and the s i g n i f i c a n t camera/no-camera e f f e c t i n the dynamic environment (p_ < .02) are due to the f a c t that there i s another element i n the s i t u a t i o n , i . e . , the T.V. While 26 t h i s i s one p o s s i b l e and acceptable e x p l a n a t i o n , at l e a s t f o r the s i g n i f -i c a n t r e s u l t , a second p o s s i b i l i t y might be that people expect others' behaviour to be a f f e c t e d by being "on stage" so to speak. This i s prob-i ably a f a i r l y accurate assumption and so observers f e e l that the s i t u a t i o n i which i n c l u d e s the camera i s more r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the a c t o r ' s behaviour than when there i s no camera. I t i s important to note i n t h i s study that the e f f e c t f o r a c t o r s was achieved by simply changing the a t t e n t i o n a l and therefore purely psycholog-i c a l focus without a c t u a l l y changing the perceptual focus as Jones and N i s b e t t ' s argument presupposes. This would tend to o f f e r support to Duval and Wicklunds' (1973) focus of a t t e n t i o n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . O v e r a l l , the actor-observer a t t r i b u t i o n l i t e r a t u r e lends only p a r t i a l support f o r Jones and N i s b e t t ' s hypothesis. F i r s t , there seems to be support f o r the idea that i n f o r m a t i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e s w i l l r e s u l t i n d i f -f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n s , and that the d i r e c t i o n of t h i s d i f f e r e n c e w i l l determine what those a t t r i b u t i o n s are. There appear to be strong motiva-t i o n a l e f f e c t s on a t t r i b u t i o n , i n c l u d i n g such f a c t o r s as ego-enhancement and ego-defense. This i s a point Jones and N i s b e t t c e r t a i n l y acknowledge but do not emphasize. There a l s o appears to be a focus of a t t e n t i o n . v a r i -able which a f f e c t s a t t r i b u t i o n s . That t h i s v a r i a b l e w i l l c o n s i s t e n t l y or even normally r e s u l t i n actors being more s i t u a t i o n a l i n t h e i r a t t r i b u t i o n s and observers being more d i s p o s i t i o n a l has not yet been s a t i s f a c t o r i l y demonstrated. The focus of a t t e n t i o n model, i n a d d i t i o n , i s very d i f f e r e n t i n i t s i m p l i c a t i o n s from what Jones and N i s b e t t ' s speak about as s t a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n processing d i f f e r e n c e s between actors and observers, and i t i s a much more g l o b a l and parsimonious explanation. Jones and N i s b e t t t a l k about another i n f o r m a t i o n processing d i f f e r e n c e 27 which r e f e r s to the realness of various types of ev a l u a t i o n s . For the observer, i t i s the " r e a l n e s s " of p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s w h i l e f o r the act o r s i ' ' ' i t r e f e r s to the " r e a l n e s s " of t h e i r evaluations of the environment. Jones and N i s b e t t s t a t e that " f o r the act o r to i n t e r p r e t h i s behaviour as the r e s u l t of a d i s p o s i t i o n , he would have to . . . regard h i s knowledge about the environment as mere e v a l u a t i o n that may or. may not be shared, and recognize that others might not respond as he does to t h i s p a r t i c u l a r environment" (p. 86). The observer, on the other hand, would have to perceive that h i s d i s p o s i t i o n a l a t t r i b u t i o n of a p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t i s s t r i c t l y an e v a l u a t i o n and th e r e f o r e l o c a t e d w i t h i n himself r a t h e r than the a c t o r . This d i s c u s s i o n , of course, gets i n t o a r a t h e r l a r g e area of contro-versy, f a r beyond the scope of t h i s p r e s e n t a t i o n , which deals w i t h the whole concept of t r a i t s vs. s t a t e s ; that i s , are eva l u a t i o n s and t r a i t s purely c r e a t i o n s of the observer? A l l p o r t and M i s c h e l are only two among many arguing t h i s t o p i c . I w i l l make only two comments. F i r s t , A v e r i l l (1973) a t t a c k s Jones and N i s b e t t ' s p o s i t i o n d i r e c t l y by suggesting that " . . . there are no l o g i c a l or p h i l o s o p h i c a l grounds . . . f o r denying that d i s p o s i t i o n a l q u a l i t i e s as a c l a s s are as much a f u n c t i o n of the object observed as they are a f u n c t i o n of the observer. Of course, not a l l e v a l u a t i o n has a b a s i s i n o b j e c t i v e r e a l i t y , but n e i t h e r do a l l percep-t i o n s and sensations" (p. 280). Since Jones and N i s b e t t suggest i t i s not v a l i d to invoke d i s p o s i t i o n s to e x p l a i n behaviour, A v e r i l l goes on to examine t h i s p o i n t . He gives an example I would l i k e to use here: Suppose John i s a t t a c k i n g B i l l , and a f r i e n d and I , who both know John and h i s i r a s c i b l e nature very w e l l , are watching. I f my f r i e n d turns and asks me "Why i s John a t t a c k i n g B i l l ? " answering that "John i s h o s t i l e " i s a 28 useless e x p l a n a t i o n because we both already have that i n f o r m a t i o n . A s a t i s f a c t o r y answer would be that B i l l had m i l d l y i n s u l t e d John. I f another f r i e n d who didn't know John but had heard the m i l d i n s u l t asked the question, then "Because John i s h o s t i l e " would be a t o t a l l y a p p r o p r i -ate answer. This example brings up two important p o i n t s : f i r s t , that a d i s p o s -i t i o n a l a t t r i b u t i o n can be a p e r f e c t l y appropriate and v a l i d e x p l a n a t i o n of behaviour, depending on the s i t u a t i o n ; and second, that a major deter-minant of what i s appropriate i s the amount of i n f o r m a t i o n possessed by the a t t r i b u t o r and by the person to whom he i s speaking. This l a t t e r p o i n t w i l l be discussed i n more d e t a i l f u r t h e r i n t h i s p r e s e n t a t i o n . My.second comment regarding the t r a i t vs. s t a t e controversy r e f e r s to Bern and A l l a n ' s (1974) research on t h i s t o p i c . Bern and A l l a n d i d f i n d a considerable degree of d i s p o s i t i o n a l consistency across s i t u a t i o n s i f the subject rated himself as being c o n s i s t e n t on a p a r t i c u l a r t r a i t . So here, the strength and appropriateness of saying that a p a r t i c u l a r person has a p a r t i c u l a r d i s p o s i t i o n seems to be a matter of i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e . I t would appear that g e t t i n g an estimate of v a r i a b i l i t y on a s p e c i f i c t r a i t i s an e x c e l l e n t compromise s o l u t i o n to the t r a i t - s t a t e controversy. A Reconsideration of Actor-Observer D i f f e r e n c e s : In order to introduce my own conceptual model f o r one of the mechanisms involved i n s e l f - o t h e r a t t r i b u t i o n , the p r e v i o u s l y postponed d i s c u s s i o n of the study by N i s b e t t et a l . (1973) now f o l l o w s . Their study was designed to be a d i r e c t t e s t of Jones and N i s b e t t ' s hypothesized actor-observer d i f f e r e n c e s i n causal a t t r i b u t i o n . Male subjects were asked t o . w r i t e four b r i e f paragraphs e x p l a i n i n g why they l i k e d the g i r l they had dated most i n the l a s t year; 29 why they had chosen t h e i r major f i e l d of study; why t h e i r c l o s e s t male f r i e n d l i k e d the g i r l he had dated most i n the l a s t year; and why t h e i r c l o s e s t f r i e n d had chosen h i s major f i e l d of study. Responses were coded by counting the number of d i s p o s i t i o n a l statements and the number of s i t u a t i o n a l statements. When e x p l a i n i n g why they l i k e d t h e i r own g i r l f r i e n d , subjects gave s i g n i f i c a n t l y more s i t u a t i o n a l reasons than d i s p o s i t i o n a l reasons, but when e x p l a i n i n g why t h e i r best f r i e n d chose h i s g i r l f r i e n d , subjects gave an equal number of d i s p o s i t i o n a l and s i t u a t i o n a l statements. The r e s u l t s do hot support the hypothesis that more d i s p o s i t i o n a l than s i t u a t i o n a l s t a t e -ments were made about the 'other.' In f a c t , the means appear to be the same f o r s e l f and other a t t r i b u t i o n s w i t h i n the d i s p o s i t i o n a l category. The r o l e x statement i n t e r a c t i o n was s i g n i f i c a n t , but from the means i t appears that t h i s was almost t o t a l l y due to the d i f f e r e n c e i n s i t u a t i o n a l a t t r i b u t i o n s . In the f i e l d of study c o n d i t i o n , subjects gave an almost equal' number of s i t u a t i o n a l and d i s p o s i t i o n a l responses when speaking of s e l f ; but when e x p l a i n i n g t h e i r best f r i e n d s ' reasons, they gave more d i s p o s i t i o n a l reasons than s i t u a t i o n a l ones. Thus, f o r oth e r s , subjects d i d a t t r i b u t e more to d i s p o s i t i o n than to s i t u a t i o n as hypothesized. Since no d i f f e r e n c e was found f o r s e l f - a t t r i b u t i o n , however, the r e s u l t s dp not support the idea that actors g e n e r a l l y make more a t t r i b u t i o n s to s i t u a t i o n s than to d i s p o s i t i o n s . I t appears from the means that there i s no d i f f e r e n c e between s e l f and other on the number of d i s p o s i t i o n a l s t a t e -ments. Again, the i n t e r a c t i o n was s i g n i f i c a n t , and again t h i s appears to be due to the s i t u a t i o n a l category. The only o v e r a l l c o n c l u s i o n i t i s p o s s i b l e to draw from these data i s that i n d i v i d u a l s make more s i t u a t i o n a l a t t r i b u t i o n s to themselves than 30 to others. These r e s u l t s do not support the hypothesis that there i s a "pervasive tendency f o r actors to a t t r i b u t e t h e i r a c t i o n s to s i t u a t i o n a l requirements"; t h i s was true only f o r mate s e l e c t i o n , not f o r f i e l d s e l e c t i o n . They a l s o f a i l to support the hypothesis that "observers a t t r i b u t e the same ac t i o n s to s t a b l e personal d i s p o s i t i o n s " , because again t h i s was true only i n one c o n d i t i o n , the f i e l d of study category. The r e s u l t s do support the hypothesis, which i s not one of Jones and N i s b e t t ' s s t a t e d p r e d i c t i o n s , that a c t o r s tend to a t t r i b u t e more cause to the s i t u a -t i o n than do observers. In a second study, to check on p o s s i b l e problems caused by language i n the f r e e response format, Jones and N i s b e t t used a q u e s t i o n n a i r e format with 12 f i v e - p o i n t s c a l e s r e l a t i n g to reasons the subject and the subject's c l o s e s t f r i e n d had f o r choosing a g i r l f r i e n d (16 reasons) and a major (12 reasons). Jones and N i s b e t t report that the same p a t t e r n as i n the f i r s t study was not found t h i s time f o r the t o t a l number of reasons. On r e s u l t s using the 7 and 4 most f r e q u e n t l y c i t e d as important, reasons f o r choosing a g i r l f r i e n d and a major r e s p e c t i v e l y , the i n t e r a c t i o n was s i g n i f -i c a n t so that i t appears that subjects a t t r i b u t e d more to s i t u a t i o n a l reasons when they were e x p l a i n i n g t h e i r own choices. But again there are no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between d i s p o s i t i o n a l a t t r i b u t i o n s f o r s e l f and other (the means are 3.75 and 3.62) or between d i s p o s i t i o n a l and s i t u a t i o n a l a t t r i b u t i o n s f o r f r i e n d (the means are 3.44 and 3.62). One assumes t h a t , i f there were d i f f e r e n c e s , they would have been reported. In any event, these r e s u l t s do o f f e r p a r t i a l support f o r the concepts behind Jones and N i s b e t t ' s hypotheses. 31 An A l t e r n a t i v e Model: The present study i s designed to examine a somewhat modified model of actor-observer a t t r i b u t i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e s . F i r s t , t h i s author agrees t o t a l l y w i t h the argument advanced by Jones and N i s b e t t (1972) and Bern (1972) that a t t r i b u t i o n s may not and w i l l not be the same f o r a c t o r s and observers because of d i f f e r e n c e s i n a v a i l a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n . I a l s o agree that a t t e n t i o n a l focus can be a major determinant of a t t r i b u -t i o n a l a s c r i p t i o n s but, as discussed p r e v i o u s l y , suggest that t h i s focus does not imply the s t a b l e a t t r i b u t i o n a l tendencies that Jones and N i s b e t t suggest. And, of course, a l a r g e number of d i f f e r e n c e s do e x i s t as a r e s u l t of m o t i v a t i o n a l f a c t o r s , but these a l s o do not n e c e s s i t a t e a p r e d i c -t i o n of the d i r e c t i o n of the d i s t o r t i o n s as suggested by Jones and N i s b e t t . There are three major d i f f i c u l t i e s w i t h the idea that actor-observer d i f f e r e n c e s i n a t t r i b u t i o n are due to a tendency of actors to perceive others more than s e l f i n terms of t r a i t s . F i r s t , i t has not been s a t i s f a c t o r i l y shown that the r e s u l t s supporting t h i s hypothesis are not due to motiva-t i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e s , w i t h the i n d i v i d u a l t r y i n g to p o r t r a y himself as i d e a l l y adaptable when f i l l i n g out a q u e s t i o n n a i r e . I f m o t i v a t i o n a l f a c t o r s are r e s p o n s i b l e f o r these r e s u l t s , t h i s does not n e c e s s a r i l y imply that the i n d i v i d u a l does not i n f a c t perceive himself i n terms of t r a i t c o n s t r u c t s . Second, there i s some support f o r the i d e a , as discussed p r e v i o u s l y , that t h i s tendency i s i n f l u e n c e d by the i n f o r m a t i o n one has about the "other." In t h i s case, the d i s t i n c t i o n can be r e f e r r e d back simply to the category of i n f o r m a t i o n d i f f e r e n c e s , w i t h which I have no argument. T h i r d , Jones and N i s b e t t suggest that the observer e r r s by p e r c e i v -i n g a t r a i t as belonging to the a c t o r r a t h e r than merely r e f e r r i n g to the observer's own perceptions. They a l s o imply that actors aren't as l i k e l y 32 to make t h i s mistake. To support the suggestion about observers i t must be shown that indeed an e r r o r i s being made and that t r a i t s are not r e a l . As has been i n d i c a t e d , a major controversy c u r r e n t l y e x i s t s w i t h respect to t h i s question. With respect to the proposal that a c t o r s w i l l not make t h i s "mistake," Bern and A l l e n (1974) have shown that actors w i l l indeed a t t r i b u t e a t r a i t to themselves when they a s c r i b e low v a r i a b i l i t y to that t r a i t . Consequently, t h i s t h i r d d i f f i c u l t y remains to be r e s o l v e d . In summary, the d i f f e r e n c e s between a c t o r s ' and observers' a t t r i b u -t i o n s a l l seem to be r e l a t e d to. f a r more g l o b a l concepts, such as informa-t i o n a l requirements, or a t t e n t i o n a l focus, r a t h e r than to true q u a l i t a t i v e d i f f e r e n c e s between the r o l e s enacted by actors and observers as i m p l i e d by Jones and N i s b e t t . A l s o , these d i f f e r e n c e s do not s p e c i f i c a l l y p r e d i c t the d i r e c t i o n of the a t t r i b u t i o n s . To the extent that these g l o b a l concepts do account f o r the d i f f e r e n c e s , t h e o r e t i c a l parsimony d i c t a t e s that i t i s more appropriate to examine the g l o b a l i m p l i c a t i o n s of the d i f f e r -ences, such as a t t e n t i o n a l focus. In a d d i t i o n , t h i s author suggests a somewhat modified approach to the i n f o r m a t i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e s category. A few references to K e l l e y ' s a r t i c l e , a cornerstone of the a t t r i b u t i o n l i t e r a t u r e , w i l l serve as an i n t r o d u c t i o n to t h i s approach. He s t a t e s that a t t r i b u t i o n theory " . . . describes processes that operate as i f the i n d i v i d u a l were motivated to a t t a i n a c o g n i t i v e mastery of the causal s t r u c t u r e of h i s environment" (p. 193). This serves as a b r i e f explana-t i o n of the process under study. He then says that " . . .we may expect persons to be d i s s a t i s f i e d w i t h t h e i r i n f o r m a t i o n a l s t a t e when i t f a l l s below the expected l e v e l , and (assuming the task i s of some importance to them) to i n i t i a t e i n f o r m a t i o n seeking a c t i v i t i e s . . . . These a c t i v i t i e s w i l l be d i r e c t e d toward a p a r t i c u l a r source . . . as long as the l e v e l of 33 i n f o r m a t i o n b e l i e v e d to be a t t a i n a b l e there i s higher than that a n t i c i p a t e d i n i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h a l t e r n a t i v e sources." (p. 200). Jones and N i s b e t t ' s argument w i t h reference to i n f o r m a t i o n a l d i f f e r -ences seems to l i e i n the f a c t that s i n c e an i n d i v i d u a l knows more about h i s own modal behaviour ( h i s t o r i c a l d a t a ) , he can dismiss i t as a cause f o r the behaviour under c o n s i d e r a t i o n and thus tends to a t t r i b u t e more cause to the s i t u a t i o n . T h i s , however, appears to be a b i t of a c o n t r a -d i c t i o n . When an i n d i v i d u a l i s performing an a c t , i t i s by d e f i n i t i o n most l i k e l y to be a modal one. 'Modal' i s used here to describe behavi-ours which r e f l e c t the more t y p i c a l or common r e a c t i o n s of an i n d i v i d u a l . Since s t a b l e behaviour patterns i n part define p e r s o n a l i t y or d i s p o s i t i o n , modal behaviours are most f r e q u e n t l y a r e f l e c t i o n of d i s p o s i t i o n a l charac-t e r i s t i c s . An i n d i v i d u a l , t h e r e f o r e , i s most l i k e l y to a t t r i b u t e a modal behaviour to a d i s p o s i t i o n . Jones and N i s b e t t ' s hypothesized outcome of possessing t h i s h i s t o r i c a l data about modal behaviour i s that the i n d i v i d -u a l w i l l dismiss d i s p o s i t i o n a l causes as i r r e l e v a n t . This i m p l i e s that they are speaking mainly of l e s s frequent behaviours. In t h e i r research, however, they do not appear to be studying l e s s frequent behaviours nor do they i n d i c a t e that they should be. None of the s t u d i e s i n t h i s area appear to consider t h i s p o i n t . . Wit h i n Jones and N i s b e t t ' s model, the explanation f o r why you l i k e a p a r t i c u l a r g i r l (based on your s u p e r i o r h i s t o r i c a l information) might reasonably be " I always l i k e i n t e l l i g e n t g i r l s w i t h brown h a i r and brown eyes." This answer i s , of course, d i s p o s -i t i o n a l . The d i s p o s i t i o n a l response here i s what has been r e f e r r e d to above as a 'higher l e v e l ' of inf o r m a t i o n . IndeedKelley s t a t e s that "a person g e n e r a l l y has more inf o r m a t i o n about h i s own motives as they enter i n t o the in f o r m a t i o n process, and th e r e f o r e i s i n a b e t t e r p o s i t i o n to 34 exclude them as i r r e l e v a n t causes of h i s r e a c t i o n s to e n t i t i e s than he i s wi t h respect to other persons . . . " (p. 2 0 7 ) — t h i s c l e a r l y a p p l i e s only to jthose s i t u a t i o n s i n which the d i s p o s i t i o n a l causes are i r r e l e v a n t . i | Jones and N i s b e t t ' s other c a t e g o r i e s of i n f o r m a t i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e s are cause and e f f e c t data. The observer does not know d i r e c t l y about how the a c t o r f e e l s , w h i l e the actor does at l e a s t to some extent. Nor does the observer have as much d i r e c t i n f o r m a t i o n as the act o r about the l a t t e r ' s i n t e n t i o n s . Neither of these d i f f e r e n c e s i n a v a i l a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n accounts f o r the s p e c i f i c d i r e c t i o n a l nature of Jones and N i s b e t t ' s hypothesis. An actor who knows that he i s t i r e d or i s bad at numbers would be l e d to make a d i s p o s i t i o n a l a t t r i b u t i o n about f a i l u r e on an a r i t h m e t i c task, while knowing the o p p o s i t e — h i g h a l e r t n e s s and mathematical a b i l i t y — w o u l d lead him to make a s i t u a t i o n a l response i f he f a i l s . The same i s true of i n t e n t i o n s . I f one t r i e d hard and f a i l e d one would tend to make a s i t u a -t i o n a l a t t r i b u t i o n . I f one d i d not t r y and f a i l e d one wou.l d be more l i k e l y to make a d i s p o s i t i o n a l a t t r i b u t i o n . I t appears, then, that only s p e c i f i c i n f o r m a t i o n about the h i s t o r -i c a l data would enable us to make a d i r e c t i o n a l p r e d i c t i o n . .In the modal case, Jones and N i s b e t t ' s argument would seem to lead to the p r e d i c t i o n that the act o r would a t t r i b u t e more to d i s p o s i t i o n . This i s the d i r e c t opposite of what they do p r e d i c t . Jones and N i s b e t t use another approach to t h e i r model when speaking of t h e i r r e s u l t s , but not when speaking of t h e i r hypotheses. This f a c t may help to e x p l a i n some of the problems with t h e i r i n f o r m a t i o n p r e d i c t i o n s , as discussed above. When d i s c u s s i n g t h e i r r e s u l t s Jones and N i s b e t t r e f e r to the r e l a t i v e amounts of causation a t t r i b u t e d to a behaviour. I have i n d i c a t e d that the r e s u l t of having a l a r g e amount of h i s t o r i c a l data about modal 35 behaviour i s an increased l i k e l i h o o d of actors a t t r i b u t i n g behaviour.more to t h e i r d i s p o s i t i o n s , not l e s s . This would account f o r the f a c t that the p r e d i c t e d tendency f o r a c t o r s to a t t r i b u t e t h e i r own behaviour more to s i t u a t i o n a l causes than to d i s p o s i t i o n a l causes i s seldom found i n the l i t e r a t u r e . What i s found i s that actors a t t r i b u t e r e l a t i v e l y or pro-p o r t i o n a t e l y more causation to s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s than when a t t r i b u t i o n s are being made about others. The a v a i l a b i l i t y of h i s t o r i c a l data e x p l a i n s why so many st u d i e s show that actors make at l e a s t the same number of a t t r i b u t i o n s to d i s p o s i t i o n a l causes as to s i t u a t i o n a l causes [some of N i s b e t t et a l . (1973), Storms (1973), and A r k i n and Duval (1973)]. . These r e s u l t s w i l l depend l a r g e l y on the extent to which the actor does f e e l he i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the behaviour. This suggests then, that the r e s u l t s of va r i o u s s t u d i e s do not show a "pervasive tendency" f o r actors to a t t r i b u t e cause f o r t h e i r own behaviour to s i t u a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s . Rather, as s t a t e d , a c t o r s w i l l a t t r i b u t e r e l a t i v e l y more of t h e i r own behaviour to s i t u a t i o n a l causes than they w i l l when making an a t t r i b u t i o n about another's behaviour. In order to e x p l a i n t h i s f a c t o r I would l i k e to present the f o l l o w -ing e x p l a nation. I agree w i t h the idea that an i n d i v i d u a l has more i n f o r -mation about himself than about the environment. He has a myriad of h i s t o r i c a l data, cause data r e l a t i n g to r e l e v a n t s i t u a t i o n s i n the past, and f a m i l i a r e f f e c t data about i n t e r n a l s t a t e s , i . e . , he has f e l t the same way numerous times i n the past. I suggest that a t t r i b u t i o n making i s , as K e l l e y s a y s , an i n f o r m a t i o n seeking a c t i v i t y . The focus of a t t r i b u t i o n theory i s the layman e x p l a i n i n g h i s own world. I t would seem that most fr e q u e n t l y such explanations are made to on e s e l f , f o r one's own comprehen-s i o n . 36 As K e l l e y s t a t e s w i t h reference to Heider, "In our perception we tend to i n t e r p r e t , analyze and order t h i s ' v a r i a b l e manifold of mediating events' i n order to achieve an understanding of the 'contents of the . d i s t j a l environment'" (1967, p. 197). In t h i s process the i n d i v i d u a l w i l l seek out the in f o r m a t i o n he does have. Such new inf o r m a t i o n becomes more p e r t i n e n t to t h i s seeking process because new in f o r m a t i o n i s a problem to be " i n t e r p r e t e d , analyzed and ordered." Since the acto r already has h i s d i s p o s i t i o n a l causes i n t e r -preted, analyzed and ordered, he w i l l focus on e x t e r n a l causes more when e x p l a i n i n g h i s own behaviour. The language of the a t t r i b u t i o n , when t h i n k i n g f o r h i s own b e n e f i t , w i l l r e f l e c t t h i s focus. S i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s are r e l a t i v e l y more s i n g u l a r l y new wi t h r e l a t i o n to s e l f and other, d i s p o s i t i o n a l and s i t u a t i o n a l components, and th e r e f o r e more important f o r inf o r m a t i o n seeking, when speaking about oneself than when speaking about another. When speaking about someone else, the observer has two cat e g o r i e s of i n f o r m a t i o n that he must analyze and i n t e r p r e t to one or another degree. I do not b e l i e v e , however,, that t h i s language r e f l e c t s a r e a l tendency on the part of the acto r to dis r e g a r d h i s own d i s p o s i t i o n a l c o n t r i b u t i o n s to the cause of the behaviour, or to f e e l that s i t u a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s are neces-s a r i l y more causal to h i s own behaviour than to another's. I t merely r e f l e c t s a shorthand method of " t a l k i n g to h i m s e l f . " He does t h i s t a l k i n g on the ba s i s of h i s own i n f o r m a t i o n a l needs. Since he does not r e q u i r e much new in f o r m a t i o n about h i s d i s p o s i t i o n when c o n s i d e r i n g h i s own behav-i o u r , the actor t a l k s r e l a t i v e l y more about h i s s i t u a t i o n . This model had i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r a v a r i e t y of a t t r i b u t i o n a l phenomena. When making an a t t r i b u t i o n about someone e l s e , the in f o r m a t i o n seeker i s i n a ra t h e r d i f f e r e n t p o s i t i o n from when he i n f e r s a t t r i b u t i o n about h i s own 37 behaviour. There are again two areas of inf o r m a t i o n that he r e q u i r e s to make an a t t r i b u t i o n — i n f o r m a t i o n about the other and inf o r m a t i o n about the s i t u a t i o n i n which the other i s a c t i n g . Here i t i s more d i f f i c u l t to e s t a b l i s h which part of that i n f o r m a t i o n i s the most novel and r e q u i r e s the most a c t i v e a n a l y s i s . I suggest that i t w i l l depend on a t t e n t i o n a l focus, m o t i v a t i o n a l f a c t o r s , and a l l of the general f a c t o r s already d i s c u s s e d , as w e l l as on the i n f o r m a t i o n a l model I have presented. A t t e n t i o n a l focus, and m o t i v a t i o n a l f a c t o r s might o f f e r explanations of the d i s p a r a t e r e s u l t s i n N i s b e t t et a l . ' s data i n the " f r i e n d ' s " behaviour category. When answering questions on mate s e l e c t i o n , subjects gave an equal number of d i s p o s i t i o n a l and s i t u a t i o n a l responses but when answering questions on the "choice of. f i e l d " category, subjects gave more d i s p o s i t i o n a l answers. Since i n the former case the question concerns two people, there may be more of a tendency to focus on both. When l o o k i n g at a f r i e n d and h i s f i e l d of study, i t would appear to be much more d i r e c t and rel e v a n t to focus on the f r i e n d s i n c e a f i e l d of study i s a much more .impersonal and n o n - s p e c i f i c f a c t o r . M o t i v a t i o n a l f a c t o r s might a l s o play a part i n s o f a r as the r e l a t i v e importance to the observer' of the other person and the other person's s i t u a t i o n are i n v o l v e d . One p o s s i b i l i t y might be that a best f r i e n d i s oft e n very f r i e n d l y w i t h the f r i e n d ' s mate and so both people become important to the observer. I t i s d o u b t f u l , however, that a best f r i e n d ' s f i e l d of study i s ne a r l y as important to an observer as the f r i e n d . In terms of the i n f o r m a t i o n a l model one can consider the f o l l o w i n g p o s s i b i l i t i e s . When co n s i d e r i n g a f r i e n d ' s choice of mate there i s a l i k e l i h o o d , as st a t e d p r e v i o u s l y , that the observer i s very f a m i l i a r w i t h the mate as w e l l as the f r i e n d . Even i f t h i s i s not t r u e , i t i s q u i t e 38 l i k e l y that the f r i e n d s have discussed why the p a r t i c u l a r g i r l f r i e n d was chosen. The f r i e n d would have described those of her a t t r i b u t e s that caused him to s e l e c t her. In e i t h e r event, the observer possesses some i i n f o r m a t i o n about both people and so a t t r i b u t e s cause to both. With r e l a t i o n to the f i e l d of study question, the observer has probably been f a m i l i a r w i t h the f i e l d s i n c e at l e a s t high school. Through-out one's l i f e one le a r n s about what a lawyer does, or a policeman or a teacher, banker, businessman, etc. T e l e v i s i o n , movies, books a l l o f f e r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of numerous f i e l d s . Even when making one's own choice one fr e q u e n t l y considers the pros and cons of a v a r i e t y of f i e l d s . The important and new informat i o n to be examined deals w i t h those c h a r a c t e r i s -t i c s of the f r i e n d that made him choose the p a r t i c u l a r f i e l d and so i n t h i s case should be i n t e r a c t i v e . Thus, the inf o r m a t i o n possessed about the t o p i c under d i s c u s s i o n w i l l probably be one of the determinants of the d i r e c t i o n of an a t t r i b u t i o n by an observer. To summarize, there are four i n f o r m a t i o n a l sources when an act o r i s making a t t r i b u t i o n s about h i s own behaviour and about that of another person. The f i r s t two are d i s p o s i t i o n a l and s i t u a t i o n a l a t t r i b u t i o n s about the a c t o r ' s own behaviour. I f the act i s done f o r d i s p o s i t i o n a l reasons, there i s no reason to assume that the actor w i l l ignore t h i s except to the extent that he i s using personal shorthand and seeing the a t t r i b u t i o n as an Information seeking, on-going process. The l a s t two informat i o n sources are d i s p o s i t i o n a l and s i t u a t i o n a l a t t r i b u t i o n s about the other. W i t h i n the normal r e s t r i c t i o n s of non-informational v a r i a b l e s such as m o t i v a t i o n , i t i s d i f f i c u l t to p r e d i t which of these sources w i l l provide the newest and th e r e f o r e the most sought a f t e r i n f o r m a t i o n . Hence, of the four pieces of inf o r m a t i o n , the one which w i l l most l i k e l y and most f r e q u e n t l y o f f e r , 39 r e l a t i v e l y , the most new i n f o r m a t i o n i s the actor's s i t u a t i o n a l causes. Further i m p l i c a t i o n s of t h i s model w i l l be presented i n the d i s c u s s i o n s e c t i o n . ! This model i s , as s t a t e d , based on the concept that the actor i s making a t t r i b u t i o n s f o r h i s own b e n e f i t . To the extent that t h i s i s t r u e , the language of the a t t r i b u t i o n s w i l l r e f l e c t h i s own i n f o r m a t i o n a l needs. I t has been proposed that the actor i s i n no way disparaging h i s own d i s -p o s i t i o n a l c a u s a l a t t r i b u t e s . Rather, the language r e f l e c t s the f a c t that s i t u a t i o n a l a t t r i b u t i o n s w i l l always be a newer source of i n f o r m a t i o n than any other s i n g l e category i n s e l f - o t h e r a t t r i b u t i o n s . Presumably i f one could change those i n f o r m a t i o n a l needs, one could change the a t t r i b u t i o n s . One would, of course, a l s o have to p i n p o i n t the information-seeking aspect of a t t r i b u t i o n making. I have suggested that the reasons f o r many of the d i f f e r e n c e s discussed i s that i n d i v i d u a l s are used to making a t t r i b u t i o n s f o r t h e i r own b e n e f i t . An a c t o r , t h e r e f o r e , considers the reasons w i t h which he i s l e s s f a m i l i a r , and phrases h i s a t t r i b u t i o n s on the b a s i s of those reasons. A c t u a l l y the process i s more of an ongoing i n f o r m a t i o n -seeking a c t i v i t y than a r e a l c o n c l u s i o n . I have proposed the idea that a r e a l c o n c l u s i o n as to cause, which i s not part of an ongoing process, would not r e f l e c t these d i f f e r e n c e s . According to the above argument, i f an i n d i v i d u a l were e x p l a i n i n g h i s or someone e l s e ' s behaviour to a person other than h i m s e l f , there should be a marked change i n the nature of the a t t r i b u t i o n to f u l f i l l the informa-t i o n a l needs of that person. A c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the person whom the a c t o r i s addressing i s one f a c t o r that has been ignored i n a l l of the research on actor-observer d i f f e r e n c e s to date. The model presented here i m p l i e s that i t may be an important f a c t o r . Normally, the i n d i v i d u a l i s accustomed to 40 making an a t t r i b u t i o n f o r h i s own b e n e f i t . When i n an experiment, he i s w r i t i n g answers on a piece of paper; presumably, unless otherwise d i r e c t e d , he would tend to use h i s accustomed mode of behaviour to some degree. i . • • 'That! i s , he would be making a t t r i b u t i o n s as i n f l u e n c e d by h i s own i n f orma- , t i o n a l needs and as part of an ongoing information-seeking process. I f , however, one were making an a t t r i b u t i o n f o r the b e n e f i t s of someone e l s e , the i n f o r m a t i o n a l needs of that person would be d i f f e r e n t and the a c t o r would be more l i k e l y to give an a c t u a l c o n c l u s i o n concerning cause si n c e the other person would not be part of the ongoing search process. For example, the i n f o r m a t i o n a l needs of a t o t a l stranger would be the same whether one i s e x p l a i n i n g one's own behaviour or that of one's f r i e n d . In a d d i t i o n the a t t r i b u t i o n would be more l i k e l y to take the form of a co n c l u s i o n . . This study i s designed to manipulate the in f o r m a t i o n needs of the person f o r whose b e n e f i t the a t t r i b u t i o n i s being made, and to manipulate the nature of the a t t r i b u t i o n so that one can more c l e a r l y d i s t i n g u i s h between i n f o r m a t i o n seeking and co n c l u s i o n making. The study w i l l t e s t the hypothesis that d i f f e r e n c e s between s e l f and other c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s to o n e s e l f , which may e x i s t f o r the number of d i s p o s i t i o n a l vs. s i t u a t i o n a l reasons given, w i l l disappear i f the a t t r i b u t o r i s addressing a stra n g e r . METHOD Subjects: Subjects were 80 students who volunteered i n answer to u n i v e r -s i t y newspaper and poster advertisements o f f e r i n g $2.50 f o r a one-hour experiment. An equal number of women and men were randomly assigned to each experimental group. Design: The study i s a 4 x 2 x 2 x 2 design w i t h two between-subject f a c t o r s , Target and Sex, and two repeated measures, Topic and Person. The design i n c l u d e s four Target groups (Diary, Stranger, F r i e n d and U n s p e c i f i e d ) , two c a t e g o r i e s of Topic (Mate and F i e l d ) , two cat e g o r i e s of Person ( S e l f and Other) and Sex of subjects (Women and Men). 1) Target: Subjects were assigned to one of four target groups i n which the i d e n t i t y of the person to whom the subjects were addressing t h e i r answers was manipulated. A Diary c o n d i t i o n was used to approximate, as c l o s e l y as p o s s i b l e , a t r u l y s e l f - o r i e n t e d response. In order to simulate a s i t u a t i o n i n which one might wish to make a f a i r l y i n t i m a t e d i s c l o s u r e to a t o t a l Stranger (other than a therapeutic environment which would i n c l u d e too many extraneous v a r i a b l e s ) a penpal c o n d i t i o n was used. A p o s s i b i l i t y e x i s t e d that i n t h i s r o l e there would be a tendency to give a s o c i a l l y d e s i r a b l e response. This response might take the form of being more complex, f o r example by g i v i n g a more comprehensive answer which would i n c l u d e a thorough c o n s i d e r a t i o n of a l l the caus a l elements. To v e r i f y that the r e s u l t s were not merely a response to s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y demands, a Friend c o n d i t i o n was incl u d e d . In t h i s c o n d i t i o n , 41 a l e t t e r to a very c l o s e , childhood f r i e n d was simulated. The r e s u l t s from t h i s group would resemble the r e s u l t s from the Stranger c o n d i t i o n i f both r e s u l t s were due to s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y demands. I f the r e s u l t s were due to the perceived i n f o r m a t i o n a l needs of the t a r g e t , one would expect the F r i e n d group p a t t e r n of responses to be most s i m i l a r to the Diary c o n d i t i o n . Another check on the s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y i s s u e i s discussed below. The f o u r t h group r e p l i c a t e d N i s b e t t et a l . ' s procedure i n which the target was l e f t U n s p e c i f i e d . I t was p r e d i c t e d that the r e s u l t s of t h i s group would f a l l somewhere between the r e s u l t s of the Diary and Fri e n d c o n d i t i o n s on the one hand, and the Stranger c o n d i t i o n on the other. 2) Topic: A l l subjects were asked to e x p l a i n the causes of two behavi-o u r s — s e l e c t i o n of b o y f r i e n d / g i r l f r i e n d (Mate) and s e l e c t i o n of major f i e l d of study ( F i e l d ) . 3) Person: A l l subjects made causal a t t r i b u t i o n s about t h e i r own behaviour ( S e l f ) and about t h e i r c l o s e s t f r i e n d s behaviour (Other). 4) Sex: An equal number of men and women were assigned to each group. As a check of the experimental manipulation, a post-experimental q u e s t i o n n a i r e was als o administered asking s e v e r a l questions about the r e l a t i v e amounts of informat i o n subjects f e l t the target had before and a f t e r reading, the response. The r e s u l t s of these q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , however, w i l l not be discussed as the questions were apparently q u i t e confusing. For example, subjects would s t a t e that the penpal i n the Stranger c o n d i t i o n had f a r more inf o r m a t i o n about the subject than about the subject's f i e l d p r i o r to r e c e i v i n g the l e t t e r . 43 Procedure: Subjects were run i n groups of ten w i t h two sessions f o r each of the four target c o n d i t i o n s . Because of the i n t i m a t e nature of some of t h e j i n f o r m a t i o n being asked f o r , subjects were t o l d during the p r e - e x p e r i -mental b r i e f i n g that t h e i r responses would- be t o t a l l y anonymous. They were assigned an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number and the l i s t c o n t a i n i n g t h e i r names was destroyed i n t h e i r presence. Subjects were given a Crown-Marlowe S o c i a l D e s i r a b i l i t y q u e s t i o n n a i r e as a f u r t h e r check that t h e i r answers were not merely determined by wanting to appear complex and f a i r . They were al s o given the Paragraph Completion Test of conceptual complexity (Schroder, D r i v e r and S t r e u f e r t , 1967)'. The author was i n t e r e s t e d i n d i s c o v e r i n g whether t h e . s e l e c t i o n of a p a r t i c u l a r a t t r i b u t i o n a l statement was r e l a t e d to the c o g n i t i v e complexity of the i n d i v i d u a l . C o g n i t i v e complexity, i n p a r t , deals w i t h the a b i l i t y of an i n d i v i d u a l to consider two conceptual c o n s t r u c t s simultaneously. The most l i k e l y p r e d i c t i o n i s that a. p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n would be found f o r percentage of i n t e r a c t i o n a l a t t r i b u t i o n s and c o g n i t i v e complexity. The experimenter then read the i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r the a t t r i b u t i o n manipulation and answered any questions. Subjects wrote t h e i r a t t r i b u t i o n s alone i n p r i v a t e study c u b i c l e s , since one would assume that w r i t i n g i n a d i a r y or w r i t i n g a l e t t e r would most f r e q u e n t l y be done i n s o l i t u d e . A l l subjects answered four questions which covered the two t o p i c s and both the s e l f and other a t t r i b u t i o n s : (1) Why d i d you choose your major f i e l d of study or occupation; (2) Why d i d you choose the person you have dated most i n the l a s t year (or mate or spouse); (3) Why d i d your c l o s e s t f r i e n d (other than spouse, etc.) choose h i s or her major f i e l d of study; (4) Why d i d your c l o s e s t f r i e n d choose h i s or her spouse, e t c . The order of p r e s e n t a t i o n of the s e l f / o t h e r questions was counter-balanced. 44 The f o l l o w i n g i s a summary of the i n s t r u c t i o n s given to each target group (see complete i n s t r u c t i o n s i n Appendix 2). 1) j Diary (D) - Subjects were t o l d that I was i n t e r e s t e d i n studying how i people look at and e x p l a i n the reasons f o r t h e i r own and other people's behaviour to themselves. They were asked to r o l e play that they were w r i t i n g t h e i r answers i n a d i a r y that no one e l s e would ever see. They were t o l d to imagine, as r e a l i s t i c a l l y as p o s s i b l e , that they were t r y i n g to e x p l a i n the behaviours asked about, s t r i c t l y f o r t h e i r own b e n e f i t . Subjects wrote t h e i r answers on d i a r y paper to f a c i l i t a t e the r o l e p l a y i n g . 2) F r i e n d (F) - Subjects were t o l d that I was i n t e r e s t e d i n studying how people e x p l a i n behaviour to other people, s p e c i f i c a l l y a c l o s e f r i e n d who knows them very w e l l . They were asked to r o l e play that they were w r i t i n g a l e t t e r to a c l o s e , childhood f r i e n d who now l i v e d i n another province and whom they hadn't seen s i n c e the d e c i s i o n s asked about had been made. They were to imagine that they s i n c e r e l y wanted t h e i r f r i e n d to understand, as thoroughly as p o s s i b l e , the reasons f o r the behaviours. Subjects wrote t h e i r answer on p l a i n s t a t i o n e r y . 3) Stranger (S) - Subjects were t o l d that I was i n t e r e s t e d i n studying how people e x p l a i n behaviour to t o t a l s t r a n g e r s . They were asked to r o l e play that they were w r i t i n g a l e t t e r , f o r the f i r s t time, to a penpal w i t h whom they r e a l l y , wanted to set up a l e t t e r w r i t i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p . They were to • imagine that they s i n c e r e l y wanted to e x p l a i n the behaviours so that the penpal would t r u l y understand the reasons. Subjects wrote t h e i r answers on p l a i n s t a t i o n e r y . 4) U n s p e c i f i e d (U) - Subjects were simply t o l d that I was i n t e r e s t e d i n studying how people e x p l a i n reasons f o r behaviours. They were asked to e x p l a i n the behaviours as thoroughly as p o s s i b l e . Subjects wrote t h e i r 45 answers on r e g u l a r unlined paper. When subjects completed the a t t r i b u t i o n s , they were given the post-experimental q u e s t i o n n a i r e (see Appendix 3) to f i l l out and were then paid. i ' . • • ' They were t o l d that i f they were i n t e r e s t e d i n f i n d i n g out about the d e t a i l s of the experiment, they could contact me a f t e r a l l sessions were completed. Dependent Measures: A t t r i b u t i o n s were scored f o r the f o l l o w i n g types of statements: (1) D i s p o s i t i o n a l — a n y statement that r e f e r r e d s o l e l y and d i r e c t l y to the d i s p o s i t i o n of the Person, S e l f or Other ( f o r example, " I l i k e a t t r a c t i v e men" or " I l i k e c h a l l e n g i n g problems"; (2) S i t u a t i o n a l — any statement that r e f e r r e d e x c l u s i v e l y to the s i t u a t i o n (such as "My g i r l -f r i e n d i s b e a u t i f u l " or "Philosophy i s profound"). A t h i r d category was included which was not used i n the N i s b e t t et a l . study. In t h e i r s c o r i n g technique, statements which included both a d i s p o s i t i o n a l and s i t u a t i o n a l r e f e r e n c e , such as "We both enjoy s p o r t , " were c l a s s i f i e d as d i s p o s i t i o n a l . No ex p l a n a t i o n was given f o r t h i s and there does not appear to be any con-c e p t u a l or p r a c t i c a l j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r s c o r i n g i n t e r a c t i o n a l statements as d i s p o s i t i o n a l a t t r i b u t i o n s . In order to avoid confounding the d i s p o s i -t i o n a l category by i n c l u d i n g t h i s type of statement, i n t e r a c t i o n a l a t t r i b u -t i o n s were scored as a separate category i n the study presented here. Since the study i s designed to explore d i f f e r e n c e s i n the r e l a t i v e use of each type of a t t r i b u t i o n , the r e s u l t s were analyzed using percentage of t o t a l number of a t t r i b u t i o n s r a t h e r than absolute numbers. This pro-cedure i s al s o more appropriate s t a t i s t i c a l l y , s i n c e i n absolute terms subjects might give longer or shorter explanations depending on the Topic, the Person, or even the Target and t h i s could d i s t o r t the r e s u l t s . A 46 s c o r i n g c r i t e r i o n was e s t a b l i s h e d on 20% of the data when two independent coders agreed on approximately 94% of the scorable statements. j Each of the six-word stems In the Paragraph Completion Test was j • . . . scored on a s c a l e of 1 to 7. The t o t a l score f o r the s i x stems was used i n the a n a l y s i s . The S o c i a l D e s i r a b i l i t y Scale was scored according to Crown and Marlowe's (1964) s p e c i f i c a t i o n s , so that the higher the score, the more in f l u e n c e d the subject was by attempting to appear s o c i a l l y d e s i r a b l e . RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Two types of analyses were performed on the a t t r i b u t i o n data. F i r s t , an a n a l y s i s of va r i a n c e was done on each of the dependent v a r i a b l e s : the number of s i t u a t i o n a l , d i s p o s i t i o n a l and i n t e r a c t i o n a l statements.* Second, i n order to explore d i f f e r e n c e s between the number of d i s p o s i t i o n a l and s i t u a t i o n a l statements, statements were considered as a f i f t h independ-ent v a r i a b l e (2 l e v e l s ) and the percentage of statements i n each category was analyzed. Because of the s p e c i f i c nature of the main hypothesis tested i n t h i s study, four Planned Orthogonal comparisons were done i n t h i s a n a l y s i s . Planned Orthogonal Comparisons: Four major hypotheses r e l a t i n g to the target group manipulation were addressed w i t h i n t h i s design. These were t e s t a b l e by four orthogonal comparisons which d i d not i n c l u d e an a n a l y s i s of e i t h e r the Sex v a r i a b l e or the Topic v a r i a b l e . The same complex compar-i s o n was made between the percentage of d i s p o s i t i o n a l . v s . s i t u a t i o n a l s t a t e -ments i n S e l f and the percentage of d i s p o s i t i o n a l vs. s i t u a t i o n a l statements i n Other f o r each of the four l e v e l s of Target group. The s p e c i f i c comparisons and the p r e d i c t e d r e s u l t s are as f o l l o w s : 1) D i s p o s i t i o n a l - S i t u a t i o n a l / S e l f < D i s p o s i t i o n a l - S i t u a t i o n a l / O t h e r w i t h i n the Diary c o n d i t i o n *The r e s u l t s of the I n t e r a c t i o n v a r i a b l e a n a l y s i s w i l l not be discussed. As discussed e a r l i e r , t h i s category was used to safeguard the d i s p o s i t i o n a l category from p o s s i b l y being confounded. There are, consequently, no conceptual i m p l i c a t i o n s from the i n t e r a c t i o n a l . a t t r i b u t i o n s r e l e v a n t to e i t h e r Jones and N i s b e t t ' s model or to mine. 47 48 2) D i s p o s i t i o n a l - S i t u a t i o n a l / S e l f = D i s p o s i t i o n a l - S i t u a t i o n a l / O t h e r w i t h i n the Stranger c o n d i t i o n 3) | D i s p o s i t i o n a l - S i t u a t i o n a l / S e l f < D i s p o s i t i o n a l - S i t u a t i o n a l / O t h e r W i thin the F r i e n d c o n d i t i o n 4) D i s p o s i t i o n a l - S i t u a t i o n a l / S e l f < D i s p o s i t i o n a l - S i t u a t i o n a l / O t h e r w i t h i n the Un s p e c i f i e d c o n d i t i o n A s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t f o r t h i s comparison would i n d i c a t e that the d i f f e r e n c e between the percentage of d i s p o s i t i o n a l and s i t u a t i o n a l statements i s d i f f e r e n t f o r S e l f than f o r Other. A n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t would i n d i c a t e that there i s no d i f f e r e n c e between S e l f and Other f o r the r e l a t i v e amount of d i s p o s i t i o n a l and s i t u a t i o n a l a t t r i b u t i o n s . The means f o r the comparisons are presented i n Table 1. In the Diary c o n d i t i o n , as p r e d i c t e d , the d i f f e r e n c e between the percentages of s i t u a t i o n a l and d i s p o s i t i o n a l statements was d i f f e r e n t f o r S e l f than f o r Other a t t r i b u t i o n s , F_(l, 72) = 4.046, _p_ < .05. The d i f f e r e n c e between the percentages f o r the statements, however, was not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t between the S e l f and Other c o n d i t i o n s i n the Stranger t a r g e t group, F_(l,72) = 1.82, _p_ < .1. A s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t was found f o r the same comparison i n the Fri e n d c o n d i t i o n F_(l,72) = 6.81, p_ < .05 w h i l e the d i f f e r e n c e i n the Un s p e c i f i e d c o n d i t i o n was not s i g n i f i c a n t , F_(l,72) = 1.52, £ < .1.* These r e s u l t s support the hypothesis that d i f f e r e n c e s would be found between S e l f and Other a t t r i b u t i o n s i n the Diary c o n d i t i o n but that these d i f f e r e n c e s would disappear i n the Stranger c o n d i t i o n . An examination of *Due to the assumption of o r t h o g o n a l i t y e x p l i c i t i n these analyses, a f i n e r breakdown of these r e s u l t s was not p o s s i b l e . A more d e t a i l e d examination of these r e s u l t s as w e l l as a c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the other two v a r i a b l e s (Sex and Topic) w i l l be made on analyses done on each of the dependent v a r i a b l e s ( d i s p o s i t i o n a l and s i t u a t i o n a l ) i n the f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n . TABLE I Mean percentages of a t t r i b u t i o n s to d i s p o s i t i o n a l and s i t u a t i o n a l statements by Persons w i t h i n target Person Target S e l f Other Diary D i s p o s i t i o n a l 32^1 . 46.5 S i t u a t i o n a l 53.1 42.4 D i f f e r e n c e -21.0 4.1 Stranger D i s p o s i t i o n a l 46.8 51.5 S i t u a t i o n a l 37.9 25.8 D i f f e r e n c e 8.9 25.7 F r i e n d D i s p o s i t i o n a l 28.9 47.1 S i t u a t i o n a l 52.9 38.6 D i f f e r e n c e -24.0 8.5 U n s p e c i f i e d D i s p o s i t i o n a l 38.9 49.4 S i t u a t i o n a l 42.2 37.3 D i f f e r e n c e - 3.3 12.1 50 the means and of the graphs (see Appendix, Figures 1, 2, 3, and 4) of these data o f f e r s i n f o r m a t i o n as to the nature of the r e s u l t s . In the Diary c o n d i t i o n ( F i g . 1) there was a much l a r g e r percentage of s i t u a t i o n a l s t a t e -ments than d i s p o s i t i o n a l statements when the subject was a t t r i b u t i n g c a u s a l i t y to hi m s e l f . When a t t r i b u t i n g c a u s a l i t y to another, however, the d i r e c t i o n of the means was reversed, although the d i f f e r e n c e was s m a l l . These r e s u l t s do support Jones and N i s b e t t ' s hypothesis. I n d i v i d u a l s a t t r i b u t e d more cause to s i t u a t i o n a l than to d i s p o s i t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s when they were c o n s i d e r i n g t h e i r own behaviour, but a t t r i b u t e d more to d i s p o s i -t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s than to s i t u a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s when they were c o n s i d e r i n g the behaviour of another. In the Stranger c o n d i t i o n , however, there was no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r -ence between the d i f f e r e n c e s i n the percentage of d i s p o s i t i o n a l and s i t u a -t i o n a l statements f o r the S e l f and Other c o n d i t i o n s . The means showed that although subjects a t t r i b u t e d more c a u s a l i t y to d i s p o s i t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s than s i t u a t i o n a l ones when r e f e r r i n g to another's behaviour ( o t h e r ) , they a l s o a t t r i b u t e d more c a u s a l i t y to d i s p o s i t i o n a l than to s i t u a t i o n a l v a r i -ables when r e f e r r i n g to themselves ( s e l f ) . This l a s t f i n d i n g ( F i g . 2) i s the reverse of the means i n the Diary c o n d i t i o n . On the basis of these r e s u l t s , i t appears that subjects were responding to the i n f o r m a t i o n a l needs of the target person when making an a t t r i b u t i o n . In a d d i t i o n althou; i t i s not p o s s i b l e to determine c o n c l u s i v e l y which c o n d i t i o n represents a r e a l causal a t t r i b u t i o n , i n t u i t i v e l y one would assume that a more f i n a l d e c i s i o n i s presented to the stranger. In other words, as I suggested e a r l i e r , one i s more l i k e l y to view an a t t r i b u t i o n f o r one's own b e n e f i t as part of a con t i n u i n g process that w i l l be reanalyzed as new in f o r m a t i o n comes i n . An explanation to a stranger, however, i s t y p i c a l l y a "once 51 only" occurrence and since i t w i l l not undergo r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n the a c t o r / observer i s more l i k e l y to give a more complete and f i n a l a t t r i b u t i o n . I t i s p o s s i b l e to argue, as indeed N i s b e t t et a l . do, that even lan'guage conventions ( i . e . , the proposed "shorthand" used when speaking to oneself) "would have phenomenal repe r c u s s i o n " (p. 160). They r e f e r to Kanouse's (1971) suggestion "that the language used to des c r i b e an event g r e a t l y a f f e c t s subsequent a t t r i b u t i o n s . When a given causal a t t r i b u t i o n i s s t r e s s e d i n speech, i t i s l i k e l y to become more prominent phenomenally" (p. 160). These r e s u l t s appear to c o n t r a d i c t that p o s s i b i l i t y s i n c e subjects so r e a d i l y changed the language of t h e i r a t t r i b u t i o n s to meet the i n f o r m a t i o n a l needs of the t a r g e t . A language convention of such f l e x i -b i l i t y or s u p e r f i c i a l i t y i s not l i k e l y to have a great deal of i n f l u e n c e on basi c thought processes. The.Friend c o n d i t i o n , as was explained e a r l i e r , was used to explore the p o s s i b i l i t y that subjects would tend to conform to s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y i n f l u e n c e s when addressing someone other than themselves by g i v i n g more comprehensive answers. I f t h i s were t r u e , the r e s u l t s of the F r i e n d condi-t i o n should resemble the r e s u l t s of the Stranger c o n d i t i o n s i n c e s e l f -p r e s e n t a t i o n v a r i a b l e s would be s i m i l a r even though in f o r m a t i o n needs of the target are very d i f f e r e n t . As reported, however, a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r -ence was found between S e l f and Other a t t r i b u t i o n s i n the Friend c o n d i t i o n . The nature of t h i s d i f f e r e n c e can be seen i n F i g . 3 and from the means i n Table I. The p a t t e r n i s the same as i n the Diary t a r g e t , so that there i s a higher percentage of s i t u a t i o n a l statements than d i s p o s i t i o n a l statements i n the S e l f c o n d i t i o n while the means are i n the opposite d i r e c t i o n i n the Other c o n d i t i o n . Since a c l o s e childhood f r i e n d would have more of the same type of inf o r m a t i o n as the " s e l f " i n the d i a r y c o n d i t i o n , these data do not appear to support the contention that the r e s u l t s from the Stranger group are due to a s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y f a c t o r . Rather, these data suggest that subjects are responding to the i n f o r m a t i o n a l needs of the t a r g e t . These r e s u l t s must be c a u t i o u s l y i n t e r p r e t e d , however, si n c e the p o s s i b i l i t y e x i s t s that one might be l e s s i n f l u e n c e d by a need to appear s o c i a l l y d e s i r a b l e when one i s addressing a c l o s e , understanding f r i e n d . The r e s u l t s of the r e p l i c a t i o n of N i s b e t t et a l . ' s study i n the Uns p e c i f i e d c o n d i t i o n d i d not achieve s i g n i f i c a n c e , although the means i n f a c t followed a s i m i l a r p a t t e r n to that of the Diary c o n d i t i o n . That i s , there were s l i g h t l y more d i s p o s i t i o n a l than s i t u a t i o n a l statements i n S e l f and more d i s p o s i t i o n a l than s i t u a t i o n a l statements i n Other ( F i g . 4 ) . One might speculate that subjects do tend to be somewhat i n f l u e n c e d by t h e i r modal behaviour f o r caus a l a t t r i b u t i o n s (which, i n t h i s experiment would be the Diary c o n d i t i o n ) unless the ta r g e t i s c l e a r l y s p e c i f i e d otherwise. As p r e d i c t e d , the means f e l l between the means of the Diary and F r i e n d groups on the one hand and the Stranger group on. the other. A n a l y s i s of Variance on Four Independent V a r i a b l e s : Three separate analyses of vari a n c e were run on percentage of d i s p o s i t i o n a l , s i t u a t i o n a l and i n t e r a c t i o n a l statements. E f f e c t s of Target: There was a s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t of t a r g e t f o r both the D i s p o s i t i o n a l statement and the S i t u a t i o n a l statement analyses, F_(3,72) - 2.77, £ = .048 and F(3,72) = 4.59, £ = .005, r e s p e c t i v e l y . Since no d i f f e r e n c e was found between the Diary and the Friend c o n d i t i o n i n e i t h e r a n a l y s i s , and sin c e t h e o r e t i c a l l y the i n f o r m a t i o n a l needs of both t a r g e t s are s i m i l a r , these two groups were combined and a complex comparison was done on Diary and Friend vs. Stranger f o r the d i s p o s i t i o n a l and the s i t u a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e r e s u l t s . M u l t i p l e comparisons by Scheffe's method ' y i e l d e d s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s f o r both the d i s p o s i t i o n a l , F_(l, 72) = 11.9, p_ = .05 and the s i t u a t i o n a l a n a l y s i s , F_(l,72) = 20.01, p < .01. From the means (Table 2) i t can be seen that more d i s p o s i t i o n a l statements- were used i n the Stranger c o n d i t i o n than i n the Diary and F r i e n d groups. The means f o r S i t u a t i o n a l statements show e x a c t l y the opposite r e s u l t s — t h a t i s , fewer s i t u a t i o n a l statements were made i n the Stranger group. The means f o r the U n s p e c i f i e d group were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from any of the means i n the other three c o n d i t i o n s f o r e i t h e r the S i t u a t i o n a l or D i s p o s i t i o n a l analyses. Both se t s of r e s u l t s o f f e r f u r t h e r support f o r the model. An o v e r a l l smaller percentage of d i s p o s i t i o n a l statements was used when f u l f i l -l i n g one's own or a cl o s e f r i e n d ' s i n f o r m a t i o n a l needs than when addressing a stranger. A c c o r d i n g l y , a l a r g e r percentage of s i t u a t i o n a l statements was made when addressing oneself or a c l o s e childhood f r i e n d . Again as p r e d i c t e d , the means of the Un s p e c i f i e d group f e l l between the D i a r y - F r i e n d c o n d i t i o n s and the Stranger c o n d i t i o n . E f f e c t s of Person: A s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t was a l s o found f o r Person. In the d i s p o s i t i o n a l a n a l y s i s , a higher percentage of statements was made when a t t r i b u t i n g cause to Other than to S e l f , F(l,72) = 13.258, £ = .001 .and a higher percentage of S i t u a t i o n a l statements was made i n S e l f than i n Other, F_(l,72) = 8.89, £ = .004. Since only one of the four target g r o u p s — Stranger—was s t r u c t u r e d so that there would be more d i s p o s i t i o n a l s t a t e -ments made f o r s e l f than f o r others, these r e s u l t s were to be expected. TABLE I I Mean Percentages of A t t r i b u t i o n s by Target Groups D i s p o s i t i o n a l S i t u a t i o n a l Diary 39.28 47.75 Stranger 49.13 31.80 Friend 38.01 45.77 Unsp e c i f i e d 44.097 39.75 55 E f f e c t s of Sex: A main e f f e c t was found f o r Sex i n the a n a l y s i s performed on S i t u a t i o n a l statements, F_(l,72) = 4.25, p_ = .043 but not i n the a n a l y s i s donje on D i s p o s i t i o n a l statements. Fewer s i t u a t i o n a l statements were made by women than by men. Of more i n t e r e s t are the Sex x Person i n t e r a c t i o n s found i n both of the analyses ( D i s p o s i t i o n a l : F_(l,72) = 5.55,. p_ = .021 and S i t u a t i o n a l : _F(1,72) = 4.25, p_ = .043). A Simple Main E f f e c t s a n a l y s i s was performed to i n v e s t i g a t e which mean d i f f e r e n c e s (see Table 3) accounted f o r the i n t e r a c t i o n . A d i f f e r e n c e was found f o r females between the S e l f and Other c o n d i t i o n s , F_(l,72) = 17.98, p_ < .01 i n that they a t t r i b u t e d more c a u s a l i t y to d i s p o s i t i o n i n the Other than i n the S e l f c o n d i t i o n ; the d i f f e r e n c e was not found f o r males. No d i f f e r e n c e was found between men and women f o r S e l f but women made more d i s p o s i t i o n a l a t t r i b u t i o n s than men i n the Other c o n d i t i o n , F_(l,72) = 7.84, p_ < .01. In other words, the i n t e r a c t i o n appears to be due e n t i r e l y to the f a c t that women made more d i s p o s i t i o n a l statements i n the Other than i n the S e l f c o n d i t i o n and ge n e r a l l y more d i s p o s i t i o n a l statements than men. In the a n a l y s i s of the s i t u a t i o n a l data the r e s u l t s show the reverse p a t t e r n . There was no d i f f e r e n c e between men and women w i t h i n S e l f or between S e l f and Other f o r men. There was, however, a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r -ence between S e l f and Other f o r women, F_(l,72) = 12.82, p_ < .01 and between men and women i n the Other c o n d i t i o n , F_(l,72) = '8.56, p_ < .01: women used fewer S i t u a t i o n a l statements than men and made fewer s i t u a t i o n a l a t t r i b u -t i o n s i n Other than i n S e l f . This r e s u l t suggests the main e f f e c t f o r Person i s due l a r g e l y to women, which seems to o f f e r some support.for the idea that women tend to d i f f e r e n t i a t e more s e n s i t i v e l y between v a r i o u s s i t u a t i o n a l and i n t e r p e r s o n a l cues than do men (Solomon and A l i , 1972). TABLE I I I Mean Percentages of A t t r i b u t i o n s to S e l f and Other D i s p o s i t i o n a l S i t u a t i o n a l S e l f Other S e l f Other Female 35.13a* 54.93c • 46.78a . 25.87c Male 38.10ab 42.35b 42.28ab 43.14b *Means which do not share the' same s u b s c r i p t w i t h i n the d i s p o s i t i o n a l a n a l y s i s and w i t h i n the s i t u a -t i o n a l a n a l y s i s are s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t at the .05 l e v e l E f f e c t s of Topic: A greater percentage of d i s p o s i t i o n a l statements was made f o r F i e l d than f o r Mate. The means were 57.62, and 27.64, respec-t ive ly , F_(l,72) = 86.11, £ = .001. This supports the suggestion that the type of behaviour being observed can have an important e f f e c t on the nature of the a t t r i b u t i o n . In t h i s case i t appears that something about choice of f i e l d e l i c i t s more d i s p o s i t i o n a l a t t r i b u t i o n s . Perhaps, as suggested p r e v i o u s l y , s i n c e a f i e l d of study i s such a f a m i l i a r yet impersonal con-cept, the i n t e r e s t i s i n what s p e c i f i c a l l y about the person made him choose i t . I n t e r e s t i n why an i n d i v i d u a l chooses a mate, on the other hand, focuses on the two people i n v o l v e d . S o c i a l D e s i r a b i l i t y Scale R e s u l t s : A s e r i e s of c o r r e l a t i o n a l analyses was performed u s i n g the S o c i a l D e s i r a b i l i t y Scale scores. I f the r e s u l t s i n the Stranger and Fri e n d c o n d i t i o n s were a f f e c t e d by a d e s i r e on the part of subjects to e l i c i t s o c i a l approval, one would expect a s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a -t i o n of the responses i n these c o n d i t i o n s w i t h scores on the S o c i a l D e s i r -a b i l i t y Scale. Pearson product-moment c o r r e l a t i o n s were c a l c u l a t e d f o r both l e v e l s of Person on the percentage of s i t u a t i o n a l statements and on the percentage of d i s p o s i t i o n a l statements f o r each Target group. None of these c o r r e l a t i o n s approached s i g n i f i c a n c e . The l a c k of s i g n i f i c a n c e , however, cannot be o f f e r e d as proof of the absence of s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y i n f l u e n c e s s i n c e , w i t h only twenty subjects per ta r g e t group,' the c o r r e l a t i o n would have to be very strong to achieve s i g n i f i c a n c e . Conceptual Complexity R e s u l t s : C o r r e l a t i o n s were obtained on the t o t a l score f o r Conceptual Complexity w i t h the percentage of D i s p o s i t i o n s t a t e -ments, S i t u a t i o n statements and I n t e r a c t i o n statements, to see i f the type of statement used i n an a t t r i b u t i o n was r e l a t e d to complexity. C o r r e l a t i o n s 58 of the t o t a l c o g n i t i v e complexity score were a l s o performed on each type of statement w i t h i n target groups to t e s t the p o s s i b i l i t y that a d i f f e r e n t i a l s t y l e was used f o r communication purposes than f o r i n t e r n a l processes. None of these c o r r e l a t i o n s approached s i g n i f i c a n c e . I t i s l i k e l y that the number of statements a t t r i b u t e d to a p a r t i c u l a r cause i s not a s e n s i t i v e enough measure to tap complexity. I t would be i n t e r e s t i n g , perhaps, i n f u t u r e s t u d i e s to score the a c t u a l a t t r i b u t i o n s f o r l e v e l of complexity to see i f there are s t y l e d i f f e r e n c e s present when manipulating the t a r g e t . I t would a l s o be i n t e r e s t i n g , i n some f u t u r e s t u d i e s , to see i f the a c t u a l complexity of the a t t r i b u t i o n passage r e l a t e s to the type of statement used to a t t r i b u t e cause. General D i s c u s s i o n : The data from t h i s study o f f e r general support f o r the hypothesis that d i f f e r e n c e s i n actor-observer a t t r i b u t i o n s would be found i n the Diary c o n d i t i o n but that these d i f f e r e n c e s would disappear i n the Penpal c o n d i t i o n . Subjects do seem to be responding to the informa-t i o n a l needs of the t a r g e t . These r e s u l t s , of course, have s e r i o u s i m p l i -c a t i o n s f o r the study of c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n . As reported e a r l i e r i n t h i s paper, the existence of s t a b l e d i f f e r e n c e s between the actor and the observ-er i s only p a r t i a l l y supported i n the l i t e r a t u r e . Now the b a s i s of even those d i f f e r e n c e s that have been found i s i n question. I suggest that the . tendency f o r a c t o r s to make more s i t u a t i o n a l a t t r i b u t i o n s than are made by observers i s due, at l e a s t i n p a r t , to the way i n which the i n d i v i d u a l making the a t t r i b u t i o n deals w i t h o l d and new i n f o r m a t i o n . An analogy might help c l a r i f y t h i s p o i n t . When making an a t t r i b u t i o n f o r h i s own understanding of an a c t , the actor behaves as i f r e l e v a n t d i s -p o s i t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are "givens." One does not t y p i c a l l y reanalyze 59 a given; r a t h e r one acknowledges i t s existence and then goes on to examine the problem at hand. , In the process of examination one t r i e s to f i n d out ex a c t l y how the problem r e l a t e s to the given. The focus i s on the problem, notl because the f i r s t statement ( i n our case, the d i s p o s i t i o n a l cause) i s i r r e l e v a n t but ra t h e r because i t i s already accepted as f a c t . The new info r m a t i o n must now be evaluated and assigned i t s proper place i n the "equation," which i s the causal a t t r i b u t i o n . The observer, of course, does not have the same given and so does not a u t o m a t i c a l l y focus on the s i t u a t i o n . This d i f f e r e n c e does not imply that actors and observers a t t r i b u t e cause d i f f e r e n t l y . I t only i m p l i e s that they d i f f e r i n s p e c i f -i c i t y as they devise explanations f o r the causes of behaviour. The frequency of the behaviour being examined i s another f a c e t of s e l f - o t h e r a t t r i b u t i o n d i f f e r e n c e s that needs to be considered. The d i f -ference between the number of d i s p o s i t i o n a l and s i t u a t i o n a l statements should t h e o r e t i c a l l y be a f f e c t e d by whether or not the behaviour i s modal. As discussed e a r l i e r , i f a behaviour i s modal, the actor should a t t r i b u t e more cause to d i s p o s i t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . I f i t i s not, the act o r would be more l i k e l y to explore those aspects of the s i t u a t i o n which e l i c i t e d the behaviour. I f an observer i s making a causal a t t r i b u t i o n about someone he knows w e l l , the same p a t t e r n e x i s t s . I f h i s f r i e n d normally acts that way, he should be more l i k e l y to make causal a t t r i b u -t i o n s to d i s p o s i t i o n s . I f h i s f r i e n d doesn't normally act that way, the reverse should be t r u e . As noted before, Jones and N i s b e t t m i s i n t e r p r e t e d the probable e f f e c t of these " h i s t o r i c a l data" or consistency i n f o r m a t i o n on s e l f - o t h e r a t t r i b u t i o n . The existence of t h i s consistency i n f o r m a t i o n can be important i n a study concerning, f o r example, task a b i l i t y . Sub-j e c t s who tend to do w e l l on a p a r t i c u l a r type of task might make d i f f e r e n t 60 a t t r i b u t i o n s from subjects who tend to do poorly. The suggestion that one i s more l i k e l y to give a more f i n a l and com-ple|te d e c i s i o n when t a l k i n g to someone other than s e l f has already been d i s -cusised i n d e t a i l w i t h reference to actor-observer d i f f e r e n c e s . I t i s ! important to note, however, that t h i s a l s o has a serious i m p l i c a t i o n f o r a t t r i b u t i o n theory i n general. Researchers seem to assume that when they ask a subject f o r a causal a t t r i b u t i o n they e l i c i t a d e c i s i o n . The exper-imenter then examines the d e c i s i o n and i t s i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r a t t r i b u t i o n theory. Since the subject i s so accustomed to performing t h i s p a r t i c u l a r behaviour as part of an ongoing process, he may not make the necessary d i s -t i n c t i o n between t h i s ongoing process and a once only a t t r i b u t i o n i n an experiment unless t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n i s made c l e a r to him. I f an experimenter i s i n t e r e s t e d i n studying a f u l l causal a t t r i b u t i o n , he should take steps to insu r e that t h i s i s what he i s e l i c i t i n g from the sub j e c t . The experimenter could simply emphasize that he i s i n t e r e s t e d i n a comprehensive response si n c e t h i s w i l l be the experimenter's only opportunity to acquire i n f o r m a t i o n . The s p e c i f i c a t i o n of target a l s o r e l a t e s to the general area of a t t r i -b u t i o n theory. When t h e o r i z i n g about a t t r i b u t i o n s , p s y c h o l o g i s t s seem to be r e f e r r i n g to the everyday behaviour that most commonly occurs as an i n t e r n a l thought process. When doing experiments i n the area, however, t h i s p o i n t i s ignored. No attempt i s made to i n v e s t i g a t e t h i s i n t e r n a l process s p e c i f i c a l l y . I t appears then that most of these s t u d i e s are e x p l o r i n g how subjects e x p l a i n causes to experimenters—not how i n d i v i d u a l s e x p l a i n t h e i r world to themselves and not how people communicate the causes of behaviour to others. The r e s u l t s of t h i s study i n d i c a t e s t r o n g l y that i t i s necessary to consider who i s the target of the a t t r i b u t i o n . 61 REFERENCES A p s l e r , R., & Friedman, H. Chance outcomes and the Just World: a compari-son of observers and r e c i p i e n t s . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l  Psychology, 1975, 31, 887-894. A l l p o r t , G. W. P e r s o n a l i t y : A P s y c h o l o g i c a l I n t e r p r e t a t i o n . H o l t , 1937. A r k i n , R., & Duval, S. Focus of a t t e n t i o n and caus a l a t t r i b u t i o n s of actors and observers. J o u r n a l of Experimental S o c i a l Psychology, 1975, 11, 427-438. A v e r i l l , J . R. The d i s - p o s i t i o n of P s y c h o l o g i c a l d i s p o s i t i o n s . J o u r n a l  of Experimental Research i n P e r s o n a l i t y , 1973, 6_, 275-282. Beckman, L. E f f e c t s of students' performance on teachers' and observers' a t t r i b u t i o n s of c a u s a l i t y . J o u r n a l of Educational Psychology, 1970, 61, 76-82. Bern, D. J . An experimental a n a l y s i s of s e l f - p e r s u a s i o n . J o u r n a l of Exper- imental S o c i a l Psychology, 1965, _1, 199-218 Bern, D. J . S e l f - p e r c e p t i o n : an a l t e r n a t i v e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of c o g n i t i v e dissonance phenomena. P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review, 1967, ^74_, 183-200. Bern, D. J . S e l f - p e r c e p t i o n Theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances i n . Experimental S o c i a l Psychology ( V o l . 6). : New York: Academic Press, 1972. Bern, D. J . , &. A l l e n , A. On p r e d i c t i n g some of the people some of the time: the search f o r c r o s s - s i t u a t i o n a l c o n s i s t e n c i e s i n behaviour. P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review, 1974, 81, 506-520. Crowne, D., & Marlowe, D. The Approval Motive. New York: Wiley, 1964. Duval, S., & Wicklund, R. E f f e c t s of o b j e c t i v e self-awareness on a t t r i b u -t i o n of c a u s a l i t y . J o u r n a l of Experimental S o c i a l Psychology, 1973, 9, 17-31. Fowler, H. W., '& Fowler, F. G., (Eds.). The Concise Oxford D i c t i o n a r y . Oxfor Clarendon Press, 1964. Harvey, J . H., H a r r i s , B., & Barnes, R. D. Actor-observer d i f f e r e n c e s i n the perceptions of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and freedom. J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l - i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 1975, 32(1), 22-28. Heider, F. A t t i t u d e and c o g n i t i v e o r g a n i z a t i o n . The Journal of Psychology, .1946, 21, 107-112. Heider, F. The Psychology of I n t e r p e r s o n a l R e l a t i o n s . New York: Wiley, 1958. 62 Hovland, C. I . , J a n i s , I . L., & K e l l e y , H. H. Communication and Persuasion. New Haven: Yale U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1953. Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. From acts, to d i s p o s i t i o n s : the a t t r i b u t i o n | process i n person perception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances i n Experimental S o c i a l Psychology ( V o l . 2). New York: Academic Press, 1965. ' Jones, E. E., & H a r r i s , V. A. The a t t r i b u t i o n of a t t i t u d e s . J o u r n a l of  Experimental S o c i a l Psychology, 1967 , 3_, 1-24. Jones, E. E., & N i s b e t t , R. E. The a c t o r and the observer: divergent perceptions of the causes of behaviour. In E. Jones, D. Kanouse, H. K e l l e y , R. N i s b e t t , S. V a l i n s and B. Weiner (Eds.), A t t r i b u t i o n : P e r c e i v i n g the Causes of Behaviour. New Jersey: General Learning Press, 1971. Jones, E. E., Rock, L., Shaver, K. G., Goethals, G. R., & Ward, L. M. P a t t e r n of performance and a b i l i t y a t t r i b u t i o n : an unexpected primacy e f f e c t . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 1968, 10, 317-340. Kanouse, D. E. Language and a t t r i b u t i o n . In E. Jones, D. Kanouse, H. K e l l e y , R. N i s b e t t , S. V a l i n s , and B. Weiner (Eds.), A t t r i b u t i o n : ' P e r c e i v i n g the Causes of Behaviour. New Jersey: General Learning Press, 1971. K e l l e y , H. A t t r i b u t i o n theory i n s o c i a l psychology. In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on M o t i v a t i o n . ( V o l . 14), L i n c o l n : U n i v e r s i t y : of Nebraska Press, 1967, Lay, C , Z i e g l e r , M. , H e r s h f i e l d , L. , & M i l l e r , D. The p e r c e p t i o n of s i t u a t i o n a l consistency i n behaviour: assessing the actor-observer b i a s . Canadian J o u r n a l of Behavioural Sciences, 1974, 6_, 376-384. Lerner, M. J . The d e s i r e f o r j u s t i c e and r e a c t i o n s to v i c t i m s . In J . Macaulay and L. Berkowitz, (Eds.). A l t r u i s m and Helping Behaviour. New York: Academic Press, 1970. Lerner, M. J . Observers' e v a l u a t i o n of a v i c t i m : j u s t i c e , g u i l t , and v e r i d i c a l p erception. J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 1971, 20, 127-135. McArthur, L. A. The how and what of why: some determinants and conse-quences of c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l  Psychology, 1972, 22, 171-193. M i l l e r , D. Actor-observer perceptions of the l e a r n i n g of a task. J o u r n a l  of Experimental S o c i a l Psychology, 1975 , _11_, 95-111. 63 M i l l e r , D.,.& Norman, S. Actor-observer d i f f e r e n c e s i n perceptions of e f f e c t i v e c o n t r o l . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 1975, 31, 503-515. M i s c h e l , W. P e r s o n a l i t y and Assessment. Wiley, 1968. N i s b e t t , R. E., Caputo, C , Legant, A., & Marecek, J . Behaviour as seen by the actor and as seen by the observer. J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y  and S o c i a l Psychology, 1973, 27_, 154-164. Regan, T., Straus, E., & F a z i o , R. L i k i n g and the a t t r i b u t i o n process. . J o u r n a l of Experimental S o c i a l Psychology, 1974, J_0_, 385-397. Schroder, H. M., D r i v e r , M. J . , & S t r e u f e r t , S. Human Information Proces- s i n g . New York: H o l t , Rinehart & Winston, 1967. Solomon, D., & A l i , F. A. Age trends i n the p e r c e p t i o n of v e r b a l r e i n f o r c e r s . Developmental Psychology, 1972; 7_, 238-43. Stephan, W. Actor vs. observer: a t t r i b u t i o n s to behaviour w i t h p o s i t i v e or negative outcomes and empathy f o r the other r o l e . J o u r n a l of  Experimental S o c i a l Psychology, 1975, 11_, 205-214. Storms, M. D. Videotape and the a t t r i b u t i o n process: r e v e r s i n g the per-s p e c t i v e of actors and observers. J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and  S o c i a l Psychology, 1973, 27, 165-175. T u r n b u l l , W. Personal communication, A p r i l , 1975. West, S., Gunn, S., & Chernicky, P. Ubiquitous Watergate: an a t t r i b u t l o n a l a n a l y s i s . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 1975, 32, 55-65. Wortman, C. ,. Castanzo, P. R., & W i t t , T. R. E f f e c t of a n t i c i p a t e d p e r f o r -mance on the a t t r i b u t i o n s of c a u s a l i t y to s e l f and others. J o u r n a l  of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 1973, 27_, 372-381. APPENDIX I Graphs of Planned Orthogonal Comparisons 65 Figure 1 Mean Percentages of a t t r i b u t i o n s to d i s p o s i t i o n a l and s i t u a t i o n a l statements i n the s e l f and other c o n d i t i o n s w i t h i n the Diary category 60.0 50.0 40.0 $>-.(/) h-z UJ UJ h-< U) U. o UJ O < l-z UJ u (£ UJ Q. Z < 20.0 S E L F O T H E R 30.0 D I S P O S I T I O N A L S I T U A T I O N A L T Y P E O F S T A T E M E N T 66 Figure 2 Mean percentages of a t t r i b u t i o n s to d i s p o s i t i o n a l and s i t u a t i o n a l statements i n the s e l f and other c o n d i t i o n s w i t h i n the Stranger category h-z u 60.0 50.0 40.0 UJ i -< LL O UJ O < z UJ u UJ a z < y 20.0 s S E L F 30.0 O T H E R D I S P O S I T I O N A L S I T U A T I O N A L T Y P E O F S T A T E M E N T Figure 3 . • Mean percentages of a t t r i b u t i o n s to d i s p o s i t i o n a l and s i t u a t i o n a l statements i n the s e l f and other c o n d i t i o n s w i t h i n the Friend category S E L F O T H E R D I S P O S I T I O N A L S I T U A T I O N A L T Y P E O F S T A T E M E N T 68 Figure 4 Mean percentages of a t t r i b u t i o n s to d i s p o s i t i o n a l and s i t u a t i o n a l statements i n the s e l f and other c o n d i t i o n s w i t h i n the U n s p e c i f i e d category 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 S E L F O T H E R Z w 20.0 D I S P O S I T I O N A L S I T U A T I O N A L T Y P E O F S T A T E M E N T 69 APPENDIX I I I n s t r u c t i o n s f o r Target Groups 70 I n s t r u c t i o n s to Diary Group This study Is being done to investigate how people explain t h e i r own, as well as! other people's, behaviour; that I s , the reasons a person has f o r making certairt decisions about h i s or her own l i f e , as well as the way i n which an i n d i v i d u a l explains the reasons for other people's decisions. I am s p e c i f i c a l l y interested i n the sort of mental process that people go through when they are completely alone and thinking about why they have made a s p e c i f i c decision: not communicating to other people at a l l : but j u s t thinking through, for t h e i r own benefit, the reasons for choosing a p a r t i c u l a r behaviour I am also i n t e r e s t e d i n how one person thinks about another person's reasons for making c e r t a i n decisions; again, t h i s i s when one i s completely alone and thinking f or one's own benefit about the reasons a f r i e n d might have for having made a p a r t i c u l a r choice. What I would l i k e you to do i s imagine that you are w r i t i n g i n your d i a r y . This i s , of course, a locked diary which no one else w i l l ever see. You are tr y i n g to duplicate as c l o s e l y as possible the normal thought processes you would go through when you are explaining to yourself the reasons for your behaviour and for your c l o s e s t friend's behaviour. When you are ready to s t a r t , take about a minute to r e a l l y think about being alone and imagining that you are wr i t i n g i n a diary so that what you writ w i l l be as r e a l a d u p l i c a t i o n of your thought processes as possi b l e . Please do not, however, use your imagination on the actual answers to the questions: i n other words, give the r e a l reasons you or your r e a l closest f r i e n d cho3e your major f i e l d s of study, etc. Use your imagination only for the diary aspect of t h i s ; but otherwise give the actual reasons f o r these actual decisions (include your clo s e s t f r i e n d ' s actual d e c i s i o n s ) . You w i l l be asked to write four separate passages explaining decisions you have made as well as explaining decisions your clo s e s t f r i e n d has made. Please consider and answer each question separately. The questionnaire Is t o t a l l y anonymous so no name i s required. I n s t r u c t i o n s to Stranger Group This study i s being done to i n v e s t i g a t e how people e x p l a i n t h e i r own, as w e l l 3S| other people's- behaviour', t h a t i s , the reasons a person has f o r making cert a i n ! d e c i s i o n s about h i s or her own l i f e , as w e l l as the way i n which an i n d i v i d u a l exi . a in3 the reasons f o r of ler people's deci s ons. I am s p e c i f i c a l l y i r . i e r e i t e d i n the s o r t of communication process that people go through when they are s i n c e r e l y t r y i n g to e x p l a i n to a t o t a l strange -: why they have made a s p e c i f i c decision? thr.t i s , communicating, as w e l l as p o s s i b l e , to someone who i s n ' j at a l l f a n i l . i a r w i t h you or your l i f e s t y l e , t h ~ reasons you have f o r choosinr* a p a r t i c u l a r behaviour. I am a l s o i n t e r e s t e d i n ho'.t one person comuur..Lc£.ces. to a strau 0c.r iJuo^j. a -cuird p-rsou's reasonj f o r making c e r t a i n decisions -, again, t h i s i s wh*n you are e x p l a i n i n g to a complete stranger and r e a l l y t r y i n g to make him or her understand the reasons a f r i e n d might have f o r having made a p a r t i c u l a r choice. What I would l i k e you to do i s imagine that you a r e ' w r i t i n g your f i r s t l e t t e r to a penpal somewhere deep i n the i n t e r i o r of your own country. You have never w r i t t e n to t h i s person before and a l l you know about him i s t h a t he knows nothing about you or your world. You are s i n c e r e l y t r y i n g to e x p l a i n , as w e l l as p o s s i b l e , the reasons f o r your behaviour and f o r your c l o s e s t frier,'. behaviour. When you are ready to s t a r t , take about a minute to r e a l l y t h i n k about having t h i s penpal and imagining that you are w r i t i n g him or her a l e t t e r , so that what you w r i t e w i l l be as r e a l a d u p l i c a t i o n of what you.would w r i t e i n t h i s s i t u a t i o n as p o s s i b l e . Please use your imagination only f o r the "penpal 1' aspect of t h i s ; but otherwise give the r e a l reasons f o r these r e a l l i f e d e c i s i c ( i n c l u d i n g your c l o s e s t f r i e n d ' s r e a l d e c i s i o n s ) . You w i l l be asked to w r i t e four separate passages e x p l a i n i n g d e c i s i o n ^ you have made as w e l l as e x p l a i n i n g d e c i s i o n s your c l o s e s t f r i e n d has made. Please consider and answer each question s e p a r a t e l y . The qu e s t i o n n a i r e i s t o t a l l y anonymous so no name i s r e q u i r - d . 72 I n s t r u c t i o n s to Friend Group T h i 6 study i s being done to i n v e s t i g a t e how people e x p l a i n t h e i r own, as w e l l as other people's, behaviour; that i s , the reasons a person has f o r making c e r t a i n d e c i s i o n s about h i s or her own l i f e , as w e l l a 9 the way i n which an i n d i v i d u a l e x p l a i n s the reasons f o r other people's d e c i s i o n s . I am s p e c i f i c a l l y i n t e r e s t e d In the s o r t of communication process t h a t people go through when they are s i n c e r e l y t r y i n g to e x p l a i n to someone who knows them extremely w e l l , why they have made a s p e c i f i c d e c i s i o n : that i s , communicating, as w e l l as p o s s i b l e , to someone who has known you from childhood, the reasons f o r choosing a p a r t i c u l a r behaviour. I am a l s o i n t e r e s t e d i n how one person communicates to t h i s same childhood f r i e n d about a mutual t h i r d f r i e n d ' s ' reasons f o r making c e r t a i n d e c i s i o n s : again t h i s i s when one i s e x p l a i n i n g to a c l o s e childhood f r i e n d and s i n c e r e l y t r y i n g to make him or her understand the reasons another, mutual f r i e n d might have f o r having made a p a r t i c u l a r choice. What I would l i k e you to do i s imagine that you are w r i t i n g a l e t t e r to a very c l o s e , childhood f r i e n d who l i v e s In a remote community i n Canada. This person knows you and your c l o s e s t f r i e n d extremely w e l l , as you a l l grew up together and were always w i t h each other u n t i l very r e c e n t l y . I t i s only s i n c e the l a s t time the three of you were together that you and your f r i e n d here have chosen your major f i e l d s and met your g i r l / b o y f r i e n d , spouse, e t c . You are s i n c e r e l y t r y i n g to e x p l a i n as w e l l as p o s s i b l e the reasons f o r your behaviour and f o r your f r i e n d ' s behaviour. When you are ready to s t a r t , take about a minute to r e a l l y t h i n k about having t h i s childhood f r i e n d and imagining that you are w r i t i n g him or her a l e t t e r , so that what you w r i t e w i l l be as r e a l a d u p l i c a t i o n of what you would w r i t e i n t h i s s i t u a t i o n as p o s s i b l e . Please use your ima g i n a t i o n only f o r the 'childhood f r i e n d i n a remote community" aspect of t h i s ; but otherwise give the a c t u a l reasons f o r these a c t u a l l i f e d e c i s i o n s ( i n c l u d i n g your c l o s e s t f r i e n d ' s a c t u a l d e c i s i o n s ) . You w i l l be asked to w r i t e four separate passages e x p l a i n i n g d e c i s i o n s you have made as w e l l as e x p l a i n i n g d e c i s i o n s your c l o s e s t f r i e n d has made. Please consider and answer each question s e p a r a t e l y . The q u e s t i o n n a i r e i s t o t a l l y anonymous so no name i s r e q u i r e d . 73 Instructions to Unspecified Group This study i s being done to investigate hox7 people explain t h e i r own, as well as other people's, behaviour; thac i s , the reasons u person has f o r making c e r t a i n decisions about his or her own l i f e , as w e l l as the way i n which an i n d i v i d u a l explains the reasons f o r other people's d e c i s i o n s . I am s p e c i f i c a l l y Interested i n the sort of reasons people have f o r making a p a r t i c u l a r d e c i s i o n or choosing a p a r t i c u l a r behaviour. I am also interested i n how one person explains another person's reasons for making c e r t a i n decisions: that i s , how one person decides on the reasons a f r i e n d might have f o r having made a p a r t i c u l a r choice. You w i l l be asked to write four separate passages explaining decisions you have made as well as explaining decisions your c l o s e s t f r i e n d has made. Please consider and answer each question separately. The questionnaire i s t o t a l l y anonymous so no name i s required. APPENDIX I I I Post-experimental Questionnaires Diary Group 75 1. Please check the item in each pair that you f e l t you had the most information i a b o u t P r i°r to what you wrote in your diary. Check both i f you don't think |there was any difference, you your mate you your major f i e l d of study your friend your friend's mate d. your friend your friend's major f i e l d of study 2. Please rate, on a scale of 0 - 100, how much information you f e l t you had about each of the following, prior to what you wrote i n your diary, where 0 is "did not have any information" and 100 is "had total information." a. b. c. d. c. f. you your mate your major f i e l d of study your friend '. your friend's mate. your friend's major f i e l d of study 3. Please check the item in each pair that you f e l t you had the most information about after what you wrote in your diary. Check both i f you don't think there was any difference. a. you your mate c. your friend b . you your major f i e l d of study your friend your friend's mate your friend'8 major f i e l d of study 76 - 2 -4. Please rate, on a scale of 0 - .100, how much information you f e l t you had about each of the following, after what you wrote i n your diary, where 0 i s "did not have any information" and 100 i s "had t o t a l information." a. you b. your mate c. your major f i e l d of study d. . your friend e. •_ your friend's mate f. your friend's major f i e l d of study 5. On a scale of 0 - 100, how closely do you f e e l your explanations r e a l l y resembled what you would write i n a diary, where 0 i s "did not resemble at a l l " and 100 i s "I d e n t i c a l . " (place number here) 6. Could you b r i e f l y describe i n what ways i t was d i f f e r e n t , i f any? 7. On a scale of 0 - 100, how closely do you f e e l your explanations r e a l l y resembled your normal thought processes, where 0 i s "did not resemble at a l l " and 100 i s " i d e n t i c a l . " (place number here) 8. Could you b r i e f l y describe i n what ways i t was d i f f e r e n t , i f any? Stranger Group 77 1. Please check the item i n each pair that you f e l t your penpal had the most information about p r i o r to what you wrote i n your l e t t e r . Check both i f you don't think there was any d i f f e r e n c e . i 1 a. you b. • you your mate your major f i e l d of study your f r i e n d d. your f r i e n d your friend ' s mate your friend ' s major f i e l d of study 2. Please rate, on a scale of 0 - 100, how much information you f e l t your penpal had about each of the following, p r i o r to what you wrote i n your l e t t e r , where 0 i s "did not have any Information" and 100 i s "had t o t a l information." a. you b. your mate c. your major f i e l d of study d. your f r i e n d e. your friend's mate f. your friend's major f i e l d of study 3. Please check the item i n each p a i r that you f e l t your penpal had the most information about a f t e r what you wrote i n your l e t t e r . Check both i f you don't think there was any d i f f e r e n c e . a. - you b. you • your mate your major f i e l d of study your f r i e n d d. your f r i e n d your friend's mate your f r i e n d ' s major f i e l d of s t " 78 2 -Please rate, on a scale of 0 - 100, how much information you f e l t your penjpal had about each of the following, after what you wrote i n your l e t t e r , where 0 i s "did not have any information" and 100 i s "had t o t a l information " a. b. you your mate your major f i e l d of study. your friend your friend's mate your friend's major f i e l d of study On a scale of 0 - 100, how closely do you f e e l your explanations r e a l l y resembled what you would write i f you were sincerely trying to communicate to a t o t a l stranger, where 0 i s "did not resemble at a l l " and 100 i s " i d e n t i c a l . " (place number here) 6. Could you b r i e f l y describe i n what ways i t was d i f f e r e n t , i f any? Friend Group 79 Please check, the item i n each pair that you f e l t your childhood friend had the most information about prio r to what you wrote i n your l e t t e r . Check both i f you don't think there was any difference. you b. you yrur m?.tn your major f i e l d of study c. ____ your friend d. your friend your friend's mate your friend's major f i e l d of stun1; Please rate, on a scale of 0 - 100, how much information you f e l t your childhood friend had about each of the following, prior to what you wrote i n your l e t t e r , where 0 i s "did not have any information" and 100 i s "had t o t a l information." a. you b. your mate c. your major f i e l d of study d. your friend e. your friend's mate f. your friend's major f i e l d of study Please check the item i n each pair that you f e l t your childhood friend had the most information about after what you wrote i n your l e t t e r . Check both i f you don't think there was any difference. a. you b. . you your rate your major f i e l d of study your friend d. your friend ycur fr:'.c-d's mate ycur friend's major f i e l d of study 8 0 - 2 -Please rate, on a scale of 0 - 100, how much information you f e l t your childhood f r i e n d had about each of the following a f t e r what you wrote i n your l e t t e r , where 0 Is !'did not have any information" and 100 i s "had t o t a l information." a. you b. your mate c. your major f i e l d of study d. your f r i e n d e. your friend's mate f. your f r i e n d ' s major f i e l d of study On a scale of 0 - 100, how c l o s e l y do you f e e l your explanations r e a l l y resembled what you would write i f you were s i n c e r e l y t r y i n g to communicate to a childhood f r i e n d , where 0 i s "did not resemble at a l l " and 100 i s " i d e n t i c a l . " (place number here) Could you b r i e f l y describe i n what ways i t was d i f f e r e n t , i f any? U n s p e c i f i e d Group 81 In the i n s t r u c t i o n s you were asked to explain your reasons as well as your friend's reasons. Did you at any point consider to whom you were making these explanations? never a l i t t l e some a l o t Please b r i e f l y describe what you decided about the above. If you did imagine that you were explaining everything to a particular person, check the item i n each p a i r that you f e l t t h i s person had the most information about p r i o r to your explanation. Check both i f you don't think there was any d i f f e r e n c e . a. you c. . you your mate your major f i e l d of study b. your f r i e n d d. your f r i e n d your friend ' s mate your friend ' s major f i e l d of study Please rate, on a scale of 0 - 100, how much information you f e l t tM.s person had about each of the following, p r i o r to what you wrote l u %• explanation, where 0 i s "did not have any information" and 100 i s "had t o t a l Information." a. you b. your mate c. your major f i e l d of study d. your f r i e n d e. your friend's mate f. your friend ' s major f i e l d of study 82 - 2 -If you did imagine that you were explaining everything to a p a r t i c u l a r person, check the item i n each pair that you f e l t t h i s person had the most information about a f t e r your explanation. Check both i f you don't think there was any d i f f e r e n c e . a. you c. you your mate your major f i e l d of study your f r i e n d your f r i e n d ' s major f i e l d of study Please rate, on a scale of 0 - 100, how much information you f e l t t h i s person had about each of the following, a f t e r what you wrote i n your explanation, where 0 i s "did not have any information" and 100 i s "had t o t a l information." a. you b. your mate c. your major f i e l d of study d. your f r i e n d e. your f r i e n d ' s mate f. your frien d ' s major f i e l d of study b. your f r i e n d d. your friend ' s mate 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0093898/manifest

Comment

Related Items