UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Temporal perspective in actor-observer attribution Haqq, Donna Marie 1979

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1979_A8 H36.pdf [ 4.86MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0100286.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0100286-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0100286-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0100286-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0100286-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0100286-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0100286-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0100286-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0100286.ris

Full Text

TEMPORAL PERSPECTIVE IN ACTOR-OBSERVER ATTRIBUTION by DONNA MARIE HAQQ B.A., U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, 1976 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department o f Psychology We a c c e p t t h i s  t h e s i s as conforming  to the required  standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA June, 1979 (c)  Donna M a r i e Haqq, 1979  In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s  thesis  in p a r t i a l  f u l f i l m e n t o f the requirements f o r  an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, the L i b r a r y s h a l l  make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e  I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n  I agree  that  f o r r e f e r e n c e and study.  f o r e x t e n s i v e copying o f t h i s  thesis  f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the Head o f my Department o r by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . of  this  thesis  It  i s understood that copying o r p u b l i c a t i o n  f o r f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l  written permission.  Department of  PSYCHOLOGY  The University of B r i t i s h 20 75 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5  Date  JUNE  29,  1979  Columbia  not be al1 owed without my  ii Abstract A l a b o r a t o r y experiment was r o l e of  temporal p e r s p e c t i v e - p r e d i c t i v e ,  t e r e x p e r i m e n t a l s e s s i o n , and b u t i o n s of a c t o r s and these a t t r i b u t i o n s interpersonal attributions  observers.  The  influence  to the  proposed  situational actor-obser-  confirmed, with analyses  opposite d i r e c t i o n .  situation  that  than d i d  C o n t r a r y to greater  over time, an  actor/teachers•  i d e n t i c a l p a t t e r n of  emerged with both a c t o r s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to the lay condition,  and  immediately a f t e r were i n t e r p r e t e d  i n the  to the  Rather  as  r e f l e c t i o n s of  knowledge; p e r c e p t u a l s a l i e n c e ) , (i.e.,  prediction  the  de-  situation  Results  historical  motivational  need f o r e f f e c t i v e c o n t r o l ;  con-  experimental  (i.e.,  and  least  i n the  to the  experimental s e s s i o n .  methodology, i n f o r m a t i o n a l f a c t o r s tors  increas-  attributions  situation  greatest a t t r i b u t i o n the  expecta-  observers a t t r i b u t i n g  situation  d i t i o n , greater a t t r i b u t i o n  revealing  responsibil-  than a c t o r - o b s e r v e r a t t r i b u t i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e s ing  that,  would i n c r e a s e over t i m e .  t i o n , observers o v e r a l l a t t r i b u t e d ity  I t was  than would o b s e r v e r s , and  a t r e n d i n the  attri-  c o n t e x t i n which  a c t o r s would make g r e a t e r  N e i t h e r h y p o t h e s i s was  af-  a student/teacher  situation.  attributional differences  the  immediately  d e l a y e d - upon c a u s a l  were s t u d i e d was  across conditions, ver  conducted to e x p l o r e  empathy).  fac-  iii TABLE OF CONTENTS  Page ii  Abstract T a b l e of Contents  iii  L i s t of T a b l e s and F i g u r e List  v  of Appendices  vi  Acknowledgement Introduction  vii  - L i t e r a t u r e Review  1  Hypotheses  15  Method Subjects  16  Design  16  Cover S t o r y  16  Independent V a r i a b l e s : Role M a n i p u l a t i o n and P e r s p e c t i v e Manipulation  17  Procedure  17  S t i m u l u s Words  19  Prediction Condition  19  Immediately A f t e r C o n d i t i o n - No V i d e o  20  Immediately  20  A f t e r C o n d i t i o n - Video C o n t r o l /  Delay C o n d i t i o n - No V i d e o  20  Delay C o n d i t i o n - V i d e o C o n t r o l  20  Debriefing  21  Dependent Measures  21  Results A n a l y s e s of F r e e Response Measures  23  Analysis  23  o f Time Measurement  A n a l y s e s of Demographic V a r i a b l e s D i f f e r e n c e s between A c t o r s and O b s e r v e r s  24 in  A t t r i b u t i o n s to the S i t u a t i o n  24  P o l a r i z a t i o n of A c t o r - O b s e r v e r A t t r i b u t i o n s  24  A t t r i b u t i o n s toward the Teacher  25  A t t r i b u t i o n s toward the Student  25  Summary  25  iv Page Discussion Methodological Considerations  35  Actor-Observer Differences  35  P o l a r i z a t i o n Hypothesis  40  Further Considerations  41  Future Considerations  45  Bibliography  47  LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURE Table  I.  Mean A t t r i b u t i o n s of A c t o r s and O b s e r v e r s toward T e a c h e r , S i t u a t i o n ,  and  Student Table  II.  A n a l y s e s of V a r i a n c e Summary T a b l e s All  Table  III.  for  Dependent Measures  Mean A t t r i b u t i o n s o f A c t o r s and O b s e r v e r s toward Teacher and Task F a c t o r s  ?Bable  IV.  Mean A t t r i b u t i o n s of A c t o r s and O b s e r v e r s toward the Student  Figure 1  Diagram of E x p e r i m e n t a l S e t t i n g  vi L I S T OF APPENDICES Appendix  1.  Paoe  Racial/Ethnic  Background  E x p e r i m e n t e r , and  of  Subjects,  Student/Confederate,  Including Overall Distribution tors/Observers server Pairs  and S p e c i f i c  for Ac-  Actor/Ob-  According to Experimental  Condition  55 59  Appendix  2.  P e r m i s s i o n Form and E x p e r i m e n t a l Booklet  Appendix  3.  Stimulus  Words A c c o r d i n g t o E x p e r i m e n t a l  Condition Appendix  4.  Mean A t t r i b u t i o n s  67 of A c t o r s  and Observers  A c c o r d i n g to "No V i d e o / V i d e o " ,  Immediate-  l y A f t e r and Delay  73 75  Appendix  5.  Data Code and Raw Data L i s t i n g  Appendix  6.  Correlation Matrix  of Demographic  and Dependent Measures  Items 79  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I his  wish t o thank my a d v i s o r ,  assistance  and guidance  Dr. Dale T . M i l l e r ,  in this  research.  for  I would  so l i k e t o thank  the o t h e r members of my committee,  Robert Knox,  B o r i s G o r z a l k a , and D r . Edro S i g n o r i ,  Dr.  al-  Dr. for  t h e i r v a l u a b l e comments and s u g g e s t i o n s . I  am g r a t e f u l  to my husband, Tenny, and my c h i l d r e n ,  C h r i s t o p h e r , A n d r e a , and T a n i a , f o r t h e i r h e l p and f o r bearance. as  A special  "thank y o u " goes to Andrea, who s e r v e d  the s t u d e n t - c o n f e d e r a t e i n my t h e s i s  experiment.  1 Attribution is  the p r o c e s s  through which an i n d i v i d u a l  attempts to understand and p r e d i c t o t h e r s ' t r a i t s , motives,  and b e h a v i o r s .  t i o n a l approach to s t u d y i n g  Interest  processes  b e h a v i o r (Shaver,  i n the a t t r i b u -  p l a y such a c e n t r a l r o l e i n  p a r t through F r i t z  (1958) comprehensive work.  Acknowledging  c o n t r i b u t i o n of Egon Brunswik  ior,  (eg.,  1955), H e i d e r f i r s t  Heider's  the t h e o r e t i c a l  Tolman & Brunswik, o u t l i n e d the c o n d i t i o n s  to the c o n d i t i o n s  to person p e r c e p t i o n .  and e f f e c t s  By o b s e r v i n g  others'  rebehav-  and then i n f e r r i n g s t a b l e and enduring t r a i t s ,  tives,  and i n t e n t i o n s ,  mo-  the n a i v e p e r c e i v e r c o u l d o p t i m i z e  the o r d e r , p r e d i c t a b i l i t y and, thus, his  behavior  the p e r c e p t i o n of e n t i t i e s , and then e x -  tended h i s d i s c u s s i o n lating  social  1975).  g a i n e d prominence i n g r e a t  and e f f e c t s of  during  r e s e a r c h because  The a t t r i b u t i o n a l approach to u n d e r s t a n d i n g  1935; Brunswik,  own  b e h a v i o r has been g r e a t  the l a s t 20 y e a r s of s o c i a l p s y c h o l o g i c a l attributional  and h i s  the f u n c t i o n i n g  of  world. How can the n a i v e p e r c e i v e r come to know which  motives,  i n t e n t i o n s and b e h a v i o r s  (internal)  stem from  dispositional  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of another person and which  stem from s i t u a t i o n a l o r e n v i r o n m e n t a l ( e x t e r n a l ) straints?  traits,  con-  How can he know which c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a r e  sta-  b l e and enduring and which a r e u n s t a b l e and f l e e t i n g ? t e r m i n i n g whether an i n d i v i d u a l ' s n a l o r e x t e r n a l causes or f o r c e s  actions  stem from i n t e r -  (or combinations  thereof)  and d e t e r m i n i n g whether t h e s e causes a r e p e r v a s i v e o r uation-specific is  spondent i n f e r e n c e s which, s t a t e d s i m p l y ,  corre-  says t h a t  caus-  a t t r i b u t i o n w i l l be made t o an a c t o r t o the e x t e n t  he i s  sit-  the c e n t r a l task o f the a t t r i b u t o r .  Jones and Davis (1965) o u t l i n e d a t h e o r y of al  De-  not bound by c i r c u m s t a n c e s and i s  free,  t o choose from a number o f b e h a v i o r a l o p t i o n s .  that  therefore, So,  for  example, i n f e r e n c e s based on o u t - o f - r o l e b e h a v i o r would  2 be p r e d i c t e d t o be h i g h e r i n correspondence than would  in-  f e r e n c e s based on i n - r o l e b e h a v i o r ( J o n e s , D a v i s , & G e r gen,  1961). Jones and Davis (1965) a l s o e x p l a i n e d how v a r i a t i o n s  i n the r e l e v a n c e of an a c t i o n to the p e r c e i v e r have an e f f e c t on the p r o c e s s of i n f e r r i n g u n d e r l y i n g which e x p l a i n the a c t i o n .  dispositions  The hedonic r e l e v a n c e o f an a c -  t i o n to the p e r c e i v e r has been e m p i r i c a l l y shown t o i n c r e a s e correspondence ( e g . , Charms,  P e p i t o n e , 1949; Jones & de  1957; K l e i n e r , 1960).  dence i s  similarly  An i n c r e a s e i n c o r r e s p o n -  p o s t u l a t e d when p e r s o n a l i s m  t  the  actor's  i n t e n t i o n t o b e n e f i t o r harm the p e r c e i v e r , o c c u r s o r thought  is  to o c c u r .  A c c o r d i n g t o Jones and Davis (1965) and Kanouse a n a i v e p e r c e i v e r may be q u i t e s a t i s f i e d w i t h a  (1972)  single  s u f f i c i e n t e x p l a n a t i o n f o r a b e h a v i o r r a t h e r than w i t h an e x p l a n a t i o n a c h i e v e d o n l y a f t e r an e x t e n s i v e p e r c e p t u a l / cognitive  search.  Contrariwise, Kelley  (1967; 1971; 1972; 1973)  has  lik-  ened the l a y a t t r i b u t o r t o a good s c i e n t i s t who examines the c o v a r i a t i o n between a g i v e n e f f e c t and i t s s i b l e causes.  various  pos-  F o c u s i n g on the e n t i t y r a t h e r than on t h e  a c t o r as i n J o n e s '  and D a v i s ' s  (1965) t h e o r y , K e l l e y  out-  l i n e d a theory of e n t i t y a t t r i b u t i o n whereby an i n d i v i d u a l , i n attempting  t o reach c a u s a l  t e r i a of consensus,  attributions,  uses the  the e x t e n t t o which o t h e r s a c t i n  same manner as the person i n q u e s t i o n ; c o n s i s t e n c y , e x t e n t t o which the person a c t s ferent occasions; the person a c t s ly in this  a t t r i b u t a b l e to i n t e r n a l f a c t o r s the s t i m u l i  or t r a n s i e n t f a c t o r s  (i.e.,  dif-  or on-  Through t h i s p r o c e s s  p e r c e i v e r may determine whether the a c t i o n s  acting),  the  the e x t e n t t o which  i n the same way i n o t h e r s i t u a t i o n s  (i.e.,  the  i n the same manner on  and d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s ,  specific situation.  ternal factors  cri-  the  of o t h e r s  dispositions),  are ex-  to which o t h e r s a r e r e -  (i.e.,  something about  the  3 s p e c i f i c c i r c u m s t a n c e or moment i n  time).  A t t r i b u t i o n t h e o r y , t h e n , attempts  t o s p e c i f y the p r o -  c e s s e s w i t h i n the p e r c e i v e r t h a t are i n v o l v e d i n h i s p l a n a t i o n and p r e d i c t i o n of b e h a v i o r . s t a g e s of t h i s  ex-  The elements o r  a t t r i b u t i o n p r o c e s s can be a f f e c t e d by any  number of v a r i a b l e s ,  from the p e r c e i v e r * s l e v e l of  mation to the b i a s e s  inherent i n d i f f e r e n t perceptual or  psychological  infor-  perspectives.  One of the most commonly examined v a r i a b l e s bution research i s  t h a t of the a t t r i b u t o r ' s  And of these p e r s p e c t i v e v a r i a b l e s ,  in  attri-  perspective.  none has been as  sys-  t e m a t i c a l l y - s t u d i e d as the a c t o r - o b s e r v e r p e r s p e c t i v e first  p o s t u l a t e d and supported by Jones and N i s b e t t  Essentially,  they argued t h a t  dency f o r a c t o r s  there i s  (1971).  a "pervasive  to a t t r i b u t e t h e i r actions  to  as  ten-  situational  r e q u i r e m e n t s , whereas o b s e r v e r s tend to a t t r i b u t e the same actions 1971, p.  to s t a b l e p e r s o n a l d i s p o s i t i o n s " 2).  E m p i r i c a l support f o r t h i s b i a s came from s e v e r a l s t u d i e s . tions  actor-observer  in  task  i n t e r p r e t e d t h e s e same v a r i a -  i n terms o f the a c t o r ' s  ability  ( J o n e s , Rock,  G o e t h a l s , & Ward, 1968); o b s e r v e r s a s s i g n e d attributions  attribution  Actors a t t r i b u t e d v a r i a -  i n t h e i r own t e s t performance t o changes  d i f f i c u l t y , while observers tions  (Jones & N i s b e t t ,  t o communicator-subjects  Shaver,  dispositional  even though  aware  t h a t these s u b j e c t s had been i n s t r u c t e d t o adopt and p o r t a p a r t i c u l a r view (Jones & H a r r i s , c h e l , Goethals,  1967; J o n e s , Wor-  & Grumet, 1971); and s u b j e c t s  described  t h e i r best f r i e n d ' s c h o i c e of c o l l e g e major and of f r i e n d i n terms of d i s p o s i t i o n a l f r i e n d s , while describing  1971; N i s b e t t ,  as responses  their  t h e i r own c h o i c e s i n terms of Legant, & Maracek,  Why should behaving i n d i v i d u a l s own a c t i o n s  girl-  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of  p r o p e r t i e s of the c o l l e g e major or the g i r l f r i e n d b e t t & Caputo,  sup-  (actors)  (Nis1971).  explain  to external f a c t o r s , while  their  in-  4 d i v i d u a l s watching  (observers)  i o r to i n t e r n a l factors? cussions  of M i s c h e l  attribute this  Based i n p a r t upon e a r l i e r  dis-  1969), Jones and N i s b e t t  (1972)  (1968;  suggested two main r e a s o n s :  d i f f e r e n c e s i n the types  i n f o r m a t i o n a v a i l a b l e to a c t o r s ences i n i n f o r m a t i o n  and o b s e r v e r s ;  l y upon what he observes  and d i f f e r -  attributions  t o r y a g a i n s t which to judge h i s c u r r e n t b e h a v i o r .  his-  And,  which may d i f f e r e n t i a l l y a f f e c t h i s  in a given  in  attri-  i n f o r m a t i o n about a p a r -  t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n d i f f e r e n t l y because of s e v e r a l general,  and  situation.  A c t o r s and o b s e r v e r s p r o c e s s In  Con-  t h e h a c t o r has knowledge of h i s own i n t e n t i o n s  feeling states butions  sole-  i n the immediate s i t u a t i o n .  the a c t o r has knowledge of h i s own p e r s o n a l  addition,  of  processing.  The o b s e r v e r o f t e n bases h i s c a u s a l versely,  same behav-  the a c t i o n i s more s a l i e n t  factors.  t o the o b s e r v e r  t o the a c t o r , f o r whom the s i t u a t i o n has g r e a t e r  than  salience.  A t t e n t i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e s g u i d e the a c t o r t o p e r c e i v e h i s  be-  h a v i o r as a response to e n v i r o n m e n t a l f o r c e s , w h i l e the o b s e r v e r i s wont t o p e r c e i v e the a c t o r ' s cal  salient  b e h a v i o r as the f o -  stimulus.  Several studies  have e x p l a i n e d a t t r i b u t i o n a l d i f f e r -  ences i n terms of p e r c e p t u a l f o c u s , o r p e r s p e c t i v e . appears t h a t , causality his  i n g e n e r a l , an i n d i v i d u a l w i l l  It  attribute  t o the o b j e c t o r the person upon which o r whom  attention is  focused.  S e v e r a l r e s e a r c h e r s who have e x p l o r e d the r e l a t i o n s h i p between a t t e n t i o n / p o i n t o f view and p e r c e p t i o n s causality  are Duval  Duval and Cook  (1972),  Duval and Wicklund (1972;  (1974), A r k i n and Duval  and F i s k e (1975;  1978).  (1975),  Duval and Wicklund  1973),  and T a y l o r  (1973, Study  f o r example, manipulated s e l f - a t t e n t i o n by p l a c i n g a m i r r o r i n f r o n t of e x p e r i m e n t a l s u b j e c t s .  of  They found  large that  f o r both p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e h y p o t h e t i c a l s i t u a t i o n s , self-attending  (mirror)  subjects  assigned  2),  the  disproportionate  5 causality subjects.  t o themselves compared w i t h c o n t r o l (no m i r r o r ) T a y l o r and F i s k e (1975) e n l a r g e d upon K a n o u s e ' s  (1972) s u g g e s t i o n t h a t when s e v e r a l p o s s i b l e are a v a i l a b l e ,  explanations  a p e r c e i v e r may h o l d t o the e x p l a n a t i o n  which i s most s a l i e n t , by n o t i n g t h a t where o n e ' s  atten-  t i o n i s d i r e c t e d i n one's surroundings  (some-  influences  times o v e r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e l y ) what i n f o r m a t i o n i s p e r c e p tually salient  (see T a y l o r and F i s k e , 1978, f o r a t h o r -  ough u p - d a t e on t h e s e  issues).  M i c h a e l Storms (1973, p. 166) a r g u e d : t h a t a t t r i b u t i o n s are l a r g e l y it  "If  it  is  i n f l u e n c e d by p o i n t o f  true view,  should be p o s s i b l e to change the way a c t o r s and o b s e r -  v e r s i n t e r p r e t a b e h a v i o r by changing tations."  orien-  Indeed, u s i n g a v i d e o t a p e r e p l a y of A c t o r 1 i n  the o r i g i n a l tion",  their visual  interaction, a "getting-acquainted conversa-  Storms demonstrated t h a t a c t o r s and o b s e r v e r s  given  a new v i s u a l o r i e n t a t i o n w i l l o f t e n r e v e r s e the t y p i c a l actor-observer attribution pattern.  He reasoned t h a t by  o b s e r v i n g an event from a d i f f e r e n t p o i n t o f view,  both  a c t o r s and o b s e r v e r s may have r e c e i v e d t o t a l l y new i n f o r m a t i o n ; the s a l i e n c e of a l r e a d y p r e s e n t i n f o r m a t i o n may have changed f o r the e x p e r i m e n t a l s u b j e c t s , fecting their attributions  thereby  af-  ( K i e s l e r , N i s b e t t , & Zanna,  1969); and r e o r i e n t a t i o n may have produced new response s e t s f o r the s u b j e c t s :  a " s e l f - d i s c o v e r y " set f o r  actors,  and an " e m p a t h i e " s e t f o r o b s e r v e r s . While S t o r m ' s (1973) study may have confounded change i n v i s u a l p e r s p e c t i v e with d i f f e r e n c e s i n a v a i l a b l e  infor-  mation brought about by the v i d e o t a p e m a n i p u l a t i o n , Regan and T o t t e n (1975),  using  the same " g e t t i n g - a c q u a i n t e d  con-  v e r s a t i o n " s i t u a t i o n , sought t o a l t e r the p e r s p e c t i v e o r o r i e n t a t i o n of o b s e r v e r s w i t h no accompanying change visual ical"  information. perspective.  They d i d t h i s by s h i f t i n g  in  "psycholog-  Some o b s e r v e r s were i n s t r u c t e d t o em-  p a t h i z e w i t h one t a r g e t c o n v e r s a n t ( a f t e r S t o t l a n d ' s ,  1969,  6 " i m a g i n e him" i n s t r u c t i o n s )  r a t h e r than t o simply o b s e r v e  her. The major h y p o t h e s i s ,  t h a t an empathic o r i e n t a t i o n  would cause o b s e r v e r s t o make r e l a t i v e 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 and r e l a t i v e l y l e s s d i s p o s i t i o n a l  attributions  f o r an a c t o r ' s b e h a v i o r than a t t r i b u t i o n s p r o v i d e d by d a r d o b s e r v e r s , was s u p p o r t e d .  Moreover, t h e i r  stan-  results  i n d i c a t e d t h a t the more time s u b j e c t s i n the empathy c o n d i t i o n spent watching the t a r g e t p e r s o n , the more s i t u a t i o n a l became c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s f o r her b e h a v i o r .  This  suggested t o the authors t h a t empathic o r i e n t a t i o n a f f e c t s a t t r i b u t i o n not o n l y by a f f e c t i n g what the i n d i v i d u a l tends t o , but a l s o by a f f e c t i n g how t h i s  information  atis  processed. Regan and T o t t e n (1975) e x p l a i n e d t h a t empathic i n s t r u c t i o n s made the p e r s p e c t i v e of the o b s e r v e r more s i m i l a r t o t h a t of the t a r g e t .  They suggested the  possibility  t h a t empathic i n s t r u c t i o n s may have induced shared emot i o n a l e x p e r i e n c e , l e a d i n g t o shared c a u s a l  attributions,  i n p a r t by d i r e c t i n g the o b s e r v e r ' s p e r s p e c t i v e toward the e n v i r o n m e n t a l c o n t i n g e n c i e s p e r c e i v e d by the a c t o r t o be salient  (Schachter & Singer,  1962).  G a l p e r (1976) a l s o succeeded, through  instructions,  i n i n d u c i n g one group of o b s e r v e r s t o d e v e l o p an empathic p e r s p e c t i v e toward an a c t o r (who was r e p o r t e d to have saved an i n f a n t from an apartment-house f i r e at g r e a t risk  to h i m s e l f ) .  both by l i t e r a l changes  personal  Thus, a t t r i b u t o r s have been a f f e c t e d  changes i n p e r s p e c t i v e , and by f i g u r a t i v e  in perspective.  While most of the f o r e g o i n g experiments emphasized the r o l e of the o b s e r v e r , o t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n s p h a s i z e d s e l f - p e r c e p t i o n and a t t r i b u t i o n o f (eg.,  Regan, G o s s e l i n k ,  Harvey,  Hubsch, & U l s h ,  have em-  causality  1975}  Federoff &  1976).  Regan et a l .  (1975) examined t h r e e p r e d i c t i o n s d e r i v e d  7 from the g e n e r a l "need f o r h i g h s e l f - e s t e e m " n o t i o n : dividuals and s k i l l ;  In-  s h o u l d i n f l a t e e v a l u a t i o n s o f t h e i r own a b i l i t y they should b e l i e v e p r a i s e ; and they s h o u l d d e -  fend a g a i n s t c r i t i c i s m .  In  f a c t , i n Experiment 1, no e v i -  dence of self-enhancement was f o u n d :  a c t o r s compared w i t h  b y s t a n d e r s r a t e d themselves h a r s h l y ,  lowered t h e i r r a t i n g s  a f t e r c r i t i c i s m e q u a l l y , and showed r e l i e f  after praise.  The authors n o t e d , however, t h a t a c t o r s might not have r a t e d themselves lower than b y s t a n d e r s  if  no f u r t h e r e v a l u a t i o n  had been a n t i c i p a t e d (as was the case i n t h e i r "no e v a l u a t i o n " feedback c o n d i t i o n ) . der,  Recent s t u d i e s  (Aronson & L i n -  1965; M e t t e e , 1971) had suggested t h a t  t i o n as a d e f e n s e mechanism i s a low s e l f - o p i n i o n i s losing  "Self-deroga-  p l a u s i b l e only i f  holding  l e s s p a i n f u l than the e x p e r i e n c e of  s e l f - e s t e e m " (Regan e t a l . , 1975, p. 299).  A se-  cond experiment was performed i n o r d e r t o t e s t t h i s  ex-  planation. R e s u l t s of Experiment 2 showed t h a t a c t o r s r a t e d themselves  l e s s p o s i t i v e l y (though not s i g n i f i c a n t l y  so)  than  b y s t a n d e r s r a t e d them when they a n t i c i p a t e d feedback from an i n t e r v i e w e r .  The g e n e r a l c o n c l u s i o n of both e x p e r i -  ments was t h a t a c t o r s d r a t e d themselves more h a r s h l y o b s e r v e r s r a t e d them on an e g o - i n v o l v i n g , task.  These r e s u l t s  than  non-objective  suggested s e l f - d e r o g a t i o n by a c t o r s  as a defense a g a i n s t p o s s i b l e  l o s s of s e l f - e s t e e m .  Using a 2x2x2 f a c t o r i a l d e s i g n , F e d e r o f f and Harvey (1976) i n v e s t i g a t e d the a c t o r ' s a t t r i b u t i o n of  causality  f o r the outcome a c c o r d i n g t o the e f f e c t s of a c t o r s 1  p e c t a n c i e s about the outcome of an event ( p o s i t i v e negative),  and o b s e r v a t i o n o f the a c t u a l outcome  exor  (positive  o r n e g a t i v e ) , w h i l e i n a s t a t e of h i g h o r low o b j e c t i v e self-awareness  (Duval & W i c k l u n d , 1972; 1973).  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 ,  Regarding  t h e s e were g r e a t e r  in  P o s i t i v e r e l a t i v e to N e g a t i v e Outcome c o n d i t i o n s , and the d i f f e r e n c e s were d e c i d e d l y more pronounced i n the High than  8 i n the Low O b j e c t i v e S e l f - A w a r e n e s s  conditions.  however, the d a t a showed no main e f f e c t of on a t t r i b u t i o n s  to s e l f ,  that self-awareness  Overall,  self-awareness  as was e x p e c t e d , but d i d show  i n t e r a c t e d w i t h observed outcome t o  affect self-attributions. making a t t r i b u t i o n s ,  Thus, i t  is  apparent t h a t ,  both c o g n i t i v e and m o t i v a t i o n a l  t o r s may be o p e r a t i n g at any g i v e n  in fac-  time.  The most s t u d i e d m o t i v a t i o n a l f a c t o r has been the  ego-  p r o t e c t i v e o r e g o - d e f e n s i v e motive ( H a s t o r f , S c h n e i d e r , & P o l e f k a , 1970).  M i l l e r and Ross (1975) reviewed the  dence both f o r and a g a i n s t the p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t ing biases  affect attributions  of c a u s a l i t y  self-serv-  and found  t l e e m p i r i c a l support f o r the g e n e r a l p r o p o s i t i o n . major t h r u s t of t h e i r argument was t h a t any  evilit-  The  self-enhancing  e f f e c t may not be due to m o t i v a t i o n a l d i s t o r t i o n , but r a t h e r to the tendency of  individuals  (a) t o expect t h e i r b e h a v i o r t o produce s u c c e s s , (b) t o d i s c e r n a c l o s e r c o v a r i a t i o n between b e h a v i o r and outcomes i n the c a s e of i n c r e a s i n g s u c c e s s than i n the c a s e of c o n s t a n t f a i l u r e , and, (c) t o m i s c o n s t r u e the meaning of c o n t i n gency. ( M i n e r & Ross, 1975, p. 213) Of p a r t i c u l a r r e l e v a n c e t o t h i s personal influence studies (1975).  In  thesis  a r e the i n t e r -  reviewed by M i l l e r and Ross  these experiments, subjects  i n s t r u c t e d another  i n d i v i d u a l on a p a r t i c u l a r task and, upon r e c e i v i n g back as to whether t h i s  target  feed-  i n d i v i d u a l succeeded o r  f a i l e d at the task i n q u e s t i o n , were asked f o r t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s of the c a u s a l d e t e r m i n a n t s o f the t a r g e t  subject's  performance. Three of the s t u d i e s u s i n g  an i n t e r p e r s o n a l i n f l u e n c e  paradigm i n v o l v e d s t u d e n t / t e a c h e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s  (Johnson,  Feigenbaum, & Weiby, 1964; Beckman, 1970;1973). the t h r e e s t u d i e s  (Johnson et a l . , 1964; Beckman,  showed t h a t w h i l e t e a c h e r s accepted c r e d i t f o r a  Two o f 1970) child's  s u c c e s s f u l performance, they avoided blame f o r a c h i l d ' s  9 f a i l u r e by a t t r i b u t i n g i t  t o the s i t u a t i o n o r to the  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 of the c h i l d .  dis-  Beckman (1973)  s u b s e q u e n t l y showed, however, t h a t under c e r t a i n c o n d i t i o n s , t e a c h e r s may show c o u n t e r - d e f e n s i v e a t t r i b u t i o n s : they may a t t r i b u t e both the c h i l d ' s  that  is,  f a i l u r e and s u c c e s s  to  themselves more than do o b s e r v e r s . In  a l a t e r study,  attributions mother)  Beckman (1976) examined the c a u s a l  o f both t e a c h e r s and p a r e n t s  regarding  overall results  (usually  the  c h i l d r e n ' s classroom performance.  The  of the study were c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the J o h n -  s o n , Feigenbaum, and Weiby (1964) and Beckman (1970)  stud-  i e s which r e p o r t e d t h a t t e a c h e r s mentioned t h e i r own e f f o r t s more i n a c c o u n t i n g f o r c h i l d r e n ' s s u c c e s s e s their failures.  The r e s u l t s  two e a r l i e r s t u d i e s Polly,  than  p r o v i d e d l i t t l e support  (Beckman,  for  for  1973; Ross, B i e r b r a u e r , &  1974) which suggested t h a t c o u n t e r d e f e n s i v e  attri-  b u t i o n s o c c u r among t e a c h e r s .  In g e n e r a l , t h e r e was a  greater l i k e l i h o o d f o r parents  to mention t e a c h i n g as a  f a c t o r which i n f l u e n c e d a c h i l d ' s  performance.  Beckman  (1976) a s c r i b e d a n o n m o t i v a t i o n a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n t o the differential viduals  a t t r i b u t i o n s o f p a r e n t s and t e a c h e r s :  have a tendency t o a t t r i b u t e c a u s a l i t y  well-known o r v a r i a b l e element i n a s i t u a t i o n 1973).  to the  p e r c e i v e d t o be s o ) ,  over s t u d e n t s  less  (Kelley,  For the t e a c h e r , whose own b e h a v i o r i n the  room may be f a i r l y c o n s i s t e n t  indi-  (or at  classleast  the c h i l d r e p r e s e n t s the v a r i a b l e  element i n the s i t u a t i o n .  In  contrast,  p a r e n t s may be  more l i k e l y than t e a c h e r s t o see t h e i r c h i l d ' s ance as caused by d i s p o s i t i o n a l  perform-  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of  the  teachers. M i l l e r and Ross (1975) a l s o reviewed f o u r which p r o v i d e r e l a t i v e l y unambiguous pothesis  that a t t r i b u t i o n s  r e c t l y by task performances Wortman, C o s t a n z o , & W i t t ,  studies  support f o r the h y -  of c a u s a l i t y  are affected d i -  (Streufert & Streufert, 1973; W o l o s i n ,  1969;  Sherman, & T i l l ,  10 1973, Experiments 1 and 2 ) . i m e n t s , however, was i t a l i t y of any b i a s i n g individuals  Only i n the l a t t e r two e x p e r -  possible  effect I  to d e t e r m i n e the d i r e c t i o n -  Experiment 2 suggested  a r e i n c l i n e d t o make s e l f - e n h a n c i n g  that  attribu-  t i o n s under c o n d i t i o n s of s u c c e s s ,  but n e i t h e r Experiment  1 nor 2 suggested t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s  shirk  under c o n d i t i o n s  of  responsibility  failure.  While we a r e aware t h a t s u c c e s s / f a i l u r e outcomes may evoke d i f f e r e n t i a l c a u s a l  attributions,  this  thesis  will  not be s p e c i f i c a l l y concerned w i t h t h i s v a r i a b l e as  success/  f a i l u r e w i l l not be d i r e c t l y m a n i p u l a t e d . In  r e v i e w i n g r e s e a r c h where v a r i o u s  with a t t r i b u t i o n s ure at v a r i o u s  of c a u s a l i t y  tasks, M i l l e r  following  variables  interact  success o r  fail-  and Ross (1975) noted t h a t  an  unexpected outcome, whether success or f a i l u r e , was more likely  to be a t t r i b u t e d to e x t e r n a l f a c t o r s  than was  expected outcome ( F e a t h e r , 1969; F e a t h e r & Simon, 1971b; G i l m o r & M i n t o n ,  an  1971a;  1974).  F e a t h e r used b a l a n c e t h e o r y ( H e i d e r ,  1958)  to i n t e r -  p r e t the e f f e c t o f e x p e c t a t i o n s of performance l e v e l more potent d e t e r m i n a n t s of c a u s a l i t y  attributions  as  than  the a c t u a l performance outcome: A b a l a n c e theory f o r m u l a t i o n assumes t h a t p o s i t i v e outcomes ( s u c c e s s ) w i l l be a t t r i b u t e d to s e l f when t h e r e i s p o s i t i v e s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n w i t h r e s p e c t to the performance task ( h i g h e x p e c t a t i o n s of s u c c e s s ) , but w i l l be a t t r i b u t e d t o e x t e r n a l f a c t o r s when t h e r e i s n e g a t i v e e v a l u a t i o n (low e x p e c t a t i o n of s u c c e s s ) . S i m i l a r l y , with f a i l u r e , negative s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n s produce i n t e r n a l a t t r i b u t i o n s , and p o s i t i v e s e l f - e v a l uations y i e l d external a t t r i b u t i o n s . ( M i l l e r & Ross, 1975, pp. Miller  218-219)  (1976) attempted t o f i n d more c o m p e l l i n g  evi-  dence f o r the i d e a t h a t s e l f - p r o t e c t i v e and/or s e l f - e n hancing b i a s e s  may a l t e r a t t r i b u t i o n s  of c a u s a l i t y .  t r o d u c e d an involvement m a n i p u l a t i o n a f t e r s u b j e c t s p l e t e d a bogus s o c i a l p e r c e p t i v e n e s s t e s t  He i n had com-  (adapted from one  11 used by Wortman e t a l . , 1973), but b e f o r e they r e c e i v e d t h e i r performance f e e d b a c k . dition,  the s o c i a l  In  the h i g h involvement  perceptiveness test  (SPS)  con-  was d e s c r i b e d  as a w e i l - e s t a b l i s h e d v a l i d t e s t and the experimenter  dis-  p l a y e d an i m p r e s s i v e , p r o f e s s i o n a l l y  printed folder  beled "Social  the low involvement  condition,  Perception S c a l e " .  In  la-  the S c a l e was d e s c r i b e d as r e c e n t l y d e v e l o p e d ,  and the experimenter f u r t h e r i n t i m a t e d t h a t  the t e s t  not c o r r e l a t e d so f a r w i t h any of the o t h e r f a c t o r s t o be a s s o c i a t e d w i t h s o c i a l  perceptiveness.  m a n i l l a f i l e f o l d e r was brought  had known  A dog-eared  i n t o augment the low i n -  volvement m a n i p u l a t i o n . Consistent with previous research, subjects more p e r s o n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y Moreover, t h i s  f o r success  than f o r f a i l u r e .  outcome e f f e c t was more pronounced the more  v a l i d and important the s o c i a l s e n t e d as b e i n g . attributions  assumed  Subjects  p e r c e p t i v e n e s s t e s t was  engaged i n more s e l f - p r o t e c t i v e  under the h i g h - i n v o l v e m e n t  ment f a i l u r e c o n d i t i o n s .  That i s ,  than  low-involve-  h i g h involvement  u r e s u b j e c t s 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  fail-  for their per-  formance t o l u c k and l e s s t o t h e i r a b i l i t y and e f f o r t d i d low-involvement f a i l u r e s u b j e c t s . i n d i c a t e d that high-involvement  subjects  (indicating  performance was more a f f e c t e d by t h e i r a b i l i t y ) success  subjects.  than  Some e v i d e n c e a l s o  success  i n more s e l f - e n h a n c i n g a t t r i b u t i o n s low-involvement  pre-  engaged that  their  than d i d  O v e r a l l , however,  the  involvement m a n i p u l a t i o n had g r e a t e r impact upon a t t r i b u tions  under the f a i l u r e c o n d i t i o n than under the  success  condition. In  summary,  both i n f o r m a t i o n a l and m o t i v a t i o n a l  must be taken i n t o account when s t u d y i n g  biases  actor-observer  attributional differences. One v a r i a b l e t h a t has r e c e i v e d l i m i t e d a t t e n t i o n  in  the l i t e r a t u r e i s  the r o l e o f temporal p e r s p e c t i v e on c a u s -  al attributions.  Many r e s e a r c h e r s have examined r e t r o -  12 s p e c t i v e a t t r i b u t i o n s - c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s measured i m m e d i a t e l y a f t e r an e x p e r i m e n t a l e v e n t . a p e r v a s i v e emphasis scientists  of b e h a v i o r .  have i n v e s t i g a t e d  butions or a t t r i b u t i o n s question.  is  litera-  But few  so-  either predictive a t t r i -  removed i n time from the event  in  T h i s t h e s i s w i l l attempt t o determine the e x -  t e n t and d i r e c t i o n of p o s s i b l e  actor-observer differences  i n c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n a s c r i b a b l e to v a r i a t i o n s of  there  i n the body of e x p e r i m e n t a l  t u r e upon p o s t hoc e x p l a n a t i o n s cial  Indeed,  i n the time  measurement. Several investigators  have examined p r e d i c t i v e a t t r i -  b u t i o n s , but t h e s e have g e n e r a l l y i n v o l v e d t r a i t tions  (such as r a t i n g s of a t t r a c t i v e n e s s )  attribu-  based upon i n f o r -  mation g i v e n the s u b j e c t i n a n t i c i p a t i o n of f u t u r e i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h the s t i m u l u s  p e r s o n , r a t h e r than c a u s a l  b u t i o n s of observed b e h a v i o r ( e g . , M i r e l s  & Mills,  attri1964;  L e r n e r , D i l l e h a y , & S h e r e r , 1967; B e r s c h e i d , Boye, & D a r ley,  1968; E i s e r & T a j f e l ,  de l a Haye, 1975; Z u c k e r ,  1972; S t o k o l s & S c h o p l e r ,  1973;  1976).  But we know t h a t p r e d i c t i v e a t t r i b u t i o n s , o r " e x p e c tancies",  are a l l - i m p o r t a n t .  Such c a u s a l  explanations  f e c t how we approach an e v e n t ; how we i n t e r a c t d u r i n g  afan  e v e n t ; and how we i n t e r p r e t an e\jent both d u r i n g and a f t e r the g i v e n e x p e r i e n c e (Rosenhan, Fazio,  Straus,  &  1974; M i l l e r & Norman, 1975; M i i l e r & Holmes,  M i l l e r , Norman, & Wright, It  1973; Regan,  1975;  1978).  has a l r e a d y been we11-documented t h a t o t h e r s '  per-  c e p t i o n s of our own b e h a v i o r can have " s e l f - f u l f i l l i n g " t h e r e f o r e , c r i t i c a l e f f e c t s , upon t h i s  same b e h a v i o r  t h a i & J a c o b s o n , 1966; Meichenbaum, Bowers, & Ross, Seaver,  and  (Rosen 1969;  1973).  F a r more work c o n s i d e r i n g s e l f - d i r e c t e d p e r c e p t i o n s and a t t i t u d e s  (i.e.,  F e l k e r & Stanwyck,  self-concept)  has been done  1971; R o s e n t h a l , J . H . , 1973)  (e.g., than r e -  s e a r c h examining o t h e r - d i r e c t e d p e r c e p t i o n s and a t t i t u d e s .  13 Yet c a u s a l e x p e c t a n c i e s of o t h e r s ' just  behavior should  have  as i m p o r t a n t an i n f l u e n c e upon an i n d i v i d u a l ' s  a c t i o n w i t h and u n d e r s t a n d i n g  inter-  o f h i s w o r l d as have h i s  own  self-expectations• Miller  and Holmes  (1975),  f o r example, examined e x -  p e c t a n c i e s w i t h i n a zeEO-sum game s i t u a t i o n . f i e d the t r a d i t i o n a l P r i s o n e r ' s  Dilemma  f o r example, by K e l l e y and S t a h e l s k i ers with cooperative o r i e n t a t i o n s assimilation  lemma game m a t r i x guishable  (1970),  game as  used,  to allow  play-  t o a v o i d both b e h a v i o r a l  and e x p l o i t a t i o n when c o n f r o n t i n g p l a y e r s  competitive o r i e n t a t i o n s . PD m a t r i x ,  (PD)  They m o d i -  T h e i r expanded P r i s o n e r ' s  with  Di-  (EPD), t h e r e f o r e , u n l i k e the t r a d i t i o n a l  a l l o w e d f o r a d e f e n s i v e move t h a t was from an e x p l o i t a t i v e move.  f i n d i n g of r e l e v a n c e to t h i s  T h e i r experimental  thesis,  o b s e r v a t i o n of a h i g h degree of  distin-  however, was  the  internal consistency  be-  tween the i n t e r a c t i o n p a t t e r n s observed and p r e - i n t e r a c t i o n a l p e r c e p t u a l and e x p e c t a t i o n a l  data.  Thus, e x a m i n a t i o n of p r e d i c t i v e c a u s a l appears c r i t i c a l when one c o n s i d e r s  that  attributions  such i n i t i a l  at-  t r i b u t i o n s may i n i t i a t e a n d / o r p e r p e t u a t e , f o r example, e i t h e r c o o p e r a t i v e o r c o m p e t i t i v e response s e t s . ential  Differ-  e x p e c t a t i o n s may l e a d to e i t h e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g  misunderstanding  in interpersonal  or  interactions.  The o t h e r temporal p e r s p e c t i v e t h a t has r e c e i v e d tle  systematic  tions  study i s  that of delayed causal  attribu-  - a t t r i b u t i o n s made some time a f t e r the event  question.  It  seems r e a s o n a b l e t o c o n j e c t u r e t h a t  and h i s c o l l e a g u e s Conlee,  (e.g.,  of d e l a y e d temporal is  the work of  Sadler & Tesser,  Tesser  1973; T e s s e r &  1975; T e s s e r & Leone, 1977; and T e s s e r ,  These i n v e s t i g a t o r s  in  factors.  Of r e l e v a n c e t o the d i s c u s s i o n perspective in causal attributions  in  such  a t t r i b u t i o n s may change over time because o f changes i n f o r m a t i o n a l and/or m o t i v a t i o n a l  lit-  1978).  examined s e l f - g e n e r a t e d a t t i t u d e  change,  14 that i s ,  how s i m p l y  t e r s an i n d i v i d u a l ' s tude o b j e c t .  t h i n k i n g about some a t t i t u d e o b j e c t b e l i e f s and f e e l i n g s  T h e i r main h y p o t h e s i s  is:  toward t h a t "Since  larize attitudes"  (Tesser,  thought w i l l  1978, p.  atti-  thought  tends t o make b e l i e f s more e v a l u a t i v e l y c o n s i s t e n t tudes a r e a f u n c t i o n of b e l i e f s ,  al-  and  atti-  tend t o p o -  290).  The e m p i r i c a l e v i d e n c e from t h e i r many s t u d i e s  sup-  p o r t t h e , c o n c l u s i o n t h a t , w i t h the passage of time,  think-  i n g about some p a r t i c u l a r a t t i t u d e o b j e c t i n the absence of any new i n f o r m a t i o n w i l l tend t o produce a t t i t u d e p o l a r i z a tion.  Initially  p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e s become more p o s i t i v e  over time; i n i t i a l l y negative a t t i t u d e s t i v e over time ( e . g . , S a d l e r & T e s s e r ,  become more n e g a 1973).  They a l s o  found a g r e a t e r p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t thought would r e s u l t  in  a t t i t u d e p o l a r i z a t i o n when t h e r e was g r e a t e r development o r a r t i c u l a t i o n o f a c o g n i t i v e schema f o r thought Leone, 1977).  Since causal  n i t i v e process  than i s a t t i t u d e change  other-generated),  it  attribution is  seems l o g i c a l  (Tesser &  no l e s s a c o g -  (either self  to p r e d i c t t h a t  or causal  a t t r i b u t i o n s w i l l a l s o p o l a r i z e over t i m e . s  M i l l e r and Haqq ( i n p r e p a r a t i o n ) immediate and d e l a y e d c a u s a l er motivational biases  r e c e n t l y examined and found  great-  in causal attribution ( i . e . ,  great-  er external attributions  attributions  for failure)  immediately  after  s t u d e n t s r e c e i v e d t h e i r marks on a S o c i a l Psychology term exam than they found one week l a t e r . ego-involving  situation,  this  ascribing  highly defen-  more p e r s o n a l  re-  a t time 2, one week a f t e r the exam (Study  Extending M i l l e r ' s vations,  this  a t t r i b u t i o n s became l e s s  s i v e over t i m e , w i t h s t u d e n t s sponsibility  In  mid-  and Haqq's ( i n p r e p a r a t i o n )  1).  obser-  t h e s i s c o n s i d e r e d the r o l e o f temporal p e r -  s p e c t i v e - p r e d i c t i v e , immediately a f t e r , and d e l a y e d conjunction with aetor-observer biases,  on c a u s a l  in  attribu-  tions. The c o n t e x t i n which such a t t r i b u t i o n s were s t u d i e d  15 was one f a m i l i a r  to a l l subjects  - the s t u d e n t / t e a c h e r  interpersonal influence situation.  E f f o r t s were made t o  m i n i m i z e both d e c e p t i o n and e g o - t h r e a t e n i n g  factors  in  this  experiment. Our hypotheses were based i n p a r t upon the a t t r i b u t i o n r e s e a r c h t h a t has been conducted i n the p a s t ,  and i n  upon the i n f e r e n c e s made from r e s e a r c h i n r e l a t e d such as a t t i t u d e change.  Because t h i s  study was  part  areas, partially  e x p l o r a t o r y i n n a t u r e , the hypotheses were p u r p o s e f u l l y more g l o b a l  than the hypotheses which may,  come from subsequent  heuristically,  studies.  The e x p e r i m e n t a l hypotheses were: 1.  Across c o n d i t i o n s ,  attributions  a c t o r s w i l l make g r e a t e r  than w i l l o b s e r v e r s  Due t o d i f f e r e n t i a l c o g n i t i v e and m o t i v a t i o n a l variations  situational  (Jones & N i s b e t t ,  (e.g., h i s t o r i c a l  (e.g., self-esteem)  factors,  i n p e r c e p t u a l and p s y c h o l o g i c a l  1971).  knowledge)  including  focus,  actors  have e m p i r i c a l l y been found t o d i f f e r from o b s e r v e r s their ascriptions  of c a u s a l i t y  ( e . g . , Jones & N i s b e t t ,  Duval & W i c k l u n d , 1972; 1973; Storms, 1975; M i l l e r , 2.  1976; M i l l e r , 1978).  Norman, & W r i g h t , In  1978).  the absence of  increase  additional  i n f o r m a t i o n , a t t r i b u t i o n s o f a c t o r s w i l l become more u a t i o n a l o v e r t i m e , whereas a t t r i b u t i o n s become more d i s p o s i t i o n a l this (as  hypothesis  over time.  1972;  1973; Regan & T o t t e n ,  Actor-observer a t t r i b u t i o n a l differences w i l l  o v e r time ( T e s s e r ,  in  sit-  of observers  The r a t i o n a l e  stems from the work of T e s s e r and  will  for  colleagues  summarized, f o r example, i n T e s s e r , 1978) on p o l a r i -  z a t i o n of s e l f - g e n e r a t e d a t t i t u d e  change.  16 Method Subjects: The s u b j e c t s were 114 female undergraduates U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia  (mean age = 19.9  at  the  years)  who were i n i t i a l l y c o n t a c t e d e i t h e r i n person o r by  tele-  phone.  for  Most had p r e v i o u s l y v o l u n t e e r e d t h e i r names  the human s u b j e c t pool i n  Psychology.  F o u r t e e n o f these s u b j e c t s were subsequently from the a n a l y s e s : others  (six  two were roommates,  subject pairs)  from 100 s u b j e c t s ,  dropped  and d a t a from 12  were i n c o m p l e t e .  Thus,  data  10 i n each s p e c i f i c c o n d i t i o n , were  used i n the a n a l y s e s . background o f s u b j e c t s ,  (See Appendix 1 f o r  racial/ethnic  e x p e r i m e n t e r , and s t u d e n t / c o n f e d -  erate.) Design: The experiment was b a s i c a l l y w i t h two r o l e p e r s p e c t i v e s ver)  (actor/teacher;  and t h r e e time p e r s p e c t i v e s  a f t e r experimental session; perimental  a 2x3 f a c t o r i a l  design  passive  (prediction;  obser-  immediately  and d e l a y - one week post  ex-  session)•  A v i d e o t a p e c o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n was i n t r o d u c e d i n d e l a y c o n d i t i o n as a c o n t r o l f o r memory.  As  the  videotape  r e p l a y a l s o i n t r o d u c e s a new p e r s p e c t i v e and new i n f o r m a t i o n f o r the a c t o r / t e a c h e r , a v i d e o t a p e c o n t r o l was a l s o added i n the immediately a f t e r Cover  condition  condition.  Story: The experiment was d e s c r i b e d as a study o f the d y n a -  mics of s t u d e n t / t e a c h e r that  the s t u d e n t  interaction.  involved i n t h i s  a c t i o n would be the a u t h o r ' s  S u b j e c t s were t o l d  student/teacher  inter-  10% year o l d d a u g h t e r .  (The  s t u d e n t / c o n f e d e r a t e was p a i d $1.00 per s e s s i o n and was promised a f i n a n c i a l bonus at the end o f the data c o l l e c tion.) All  s u b j e c t s were a d v i s e d of the p o s s i b i l i t y  of  being  asked t o r e t u r n f o r a second p a r t of the study one week  17 after i n i t i a l participation. signed  S u b j e c t s were randomly  as-  to r o l e and temporal c o n d i t i o n when scheduled  p a r t i c i p a t e i n the e x p e r i m e n t . s u b j e c t s would be run i n Independent  that  pairs.  Variables;  Role m a n i p u l a t i o n Subjects  and p e r s p e c t i v e  manipulation:  were randomly a s s i g n e d t o e i t h e r a c t o r / t e a -  c h e r or p a s s i v e pertaining  They were not t o l d  to  observer r o l e s .  These r o l e s  t o them were t h o r o u g h l y  d u c t o r y page of  the e x p e r i m e n t a l  and the t a s k s  e x p l a i n e d on the  intro-  booklet.  At the same time, s u b j e c t s were randomly a s s i g n e d pairs  t o e i t h e r the p r e d i c t i o n , immediately a f t e r , o r d e T h i s m a n i p u l a t i o n was o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d tu?  lay conditions.  through the wording  i n the e x p e r i m e n t a l b o o k l e t s  w i t h the e x p e r i m e n t a l p r o c e d u r e s .  together  (See Appendix 2 f o r  p e r m i s s i o n form and e x p e r i m e n t a l b o o k l e t as p r e s e n t e d the  in  the in  experiment.)  Procedure: Subjects  a r r i v e d at the e x p e r i m e n t e r ' s o f f i c e and  were subsequently  l e d to the e x p e r i m e n t a l room ( F i g u r e  accompanied by the s t u d e n t / c o n f e d e r a t e .  They were w e l -  comed and a s s i g n e d s e a t s a p p r o p r i a t e t o t h e i r r o l e . s u b j e c t gave her w r i t t e n consent l e v e l (years  at  Each  to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the e x -  periment and f i l l e d i n the demographic and u n i v e r s i t y  1),  i n f o r m a t i o n of  age  university).  Teachers were i n s t r u c t e d t o teach the student  the  meaning of t h r e e words - one noun, one v e r b , and one a d jective.  After learning  the meaning o f each word,  c r i t e r i o n was f o r the student original  sentence.  It  the  t o use the word i n her own  was emphasized t h a t  these words  were ones not p r e v i o u s l y known by the s t u d e n t .  There was  no time l i m i t f o r t h i s assignment and t h e t e a c h e r was  en-  couraged t o use whatever method she thought would be most e f f e c t i v e i n t e a c h i n g the t h r e e words. d i c t i o n a r y were p r o v i d e d f o r her u s e .  A blackboard  and  CHAIRS  T&MIHGR  STUDENT  TABLE  TABLE  OeSEKVEX  CHAIR MONITOR  rape  o o 7>Fc.K  ExPER/MENTER  SCALE  Figure.  /. IDiarrant  of  e.xf>erimerited  / " =. Z.' seiring-  19 Observers were g i v e n the same i n f o r m a t i o n as the tor/teachers, signed  but were t o l d ,  "You have been randomly  to observe the o t h e r s u b j e c t as she teaches  dent the meaning of t h r e e  as-  the  t o the i n t e r a c -  t i o n would be tapped a f t e r the t e a c h i n g s e s s i o n and the experimenter would be v i d e o t a p i n g  that  the i n t e r a c t i o n  t h a t she c o u l d review the s e s s i o n at a l a t e r t i m e . i n t e r a c t i o n s were v i d e o t a p e d as a c o n t r o l f o r  differential  processing  stu-  words."  Both were t o l d that t h e i r r e a c t i o n s  all  ac-  and r e a c t i o n s ,  j e c t s i n the v i d e o c o n d i t i o n s o r d e l a y - saw the v i d e o t a p e  so  (Thus, initial  but o n l y those  - e i t h e r immediately  sub-  after  replay.)  The a c t o r / t e a c h e r randomly s e l e c t e d the t h r e e words (on one 3x5 index card)  from a box, and showed them t o the  o b s e r v e r b e f o r e beginning  to t e a c h .  A l l of the s t u d e n t / t e a c h e r i n t e r a c t i o n s  i n the immedi-  a t e l y a f t e r and d e l a y c o n d i t i o n s were timed w i t h a watch with the number of minutes nearest  stop-  r e c o r d e d rounded t o  the  minute.  Stimulus  Words:  Words were s e l e c t e d from Computational  analysis  of  A  p r e s e n t day American E n g l i s h ,  by H. Kucera and W.N. F r a n -  cis  1,014,232 words  (1967).  15 g e n r e s ,  From a corpus of  w i t h each of the 15 samples  2,000 words,  the s t i m u l u s  taken from  containing  about  words used were those not  understood by the s t u d e n t / c o n f e d e r a t e r a n g i n g  yet  from a f r e -  quency of o c c u r r e n c e of 45odown through a frequency of Stimulus (Appendix  words used i n the v a r i o u s  conditions  two.  are appended  3).  Prediction condition: A f t e r reading  the i n t r o d u c t o r y page d e s c r i b i n g  experimental task, subjects  i n the p r e d i c t i o n  the  condition  were t o l d on the f o l l o w i n g page: B e f o r e the a c t u a l t e a c h i n g s e s s i o n , i t would be h e l p f u l f o r us to have your p r e l i m i n a r y r e a c t i o n s to student/teacher i n t e r a c t i o n s . There a r e no r i g h t o r  20 wrong answers to these q u e s t i o n s ; we are p r i m a r i l y concerned w i t h your own o p i n i o n s . P l e a s e answer these q u e s t i o n s i n d e p e n d e n t l y . They then completed a l l of the dependent measures the e x p e r i m e n t a l Immediately  booklet.  a f t e r c o n d i t i o n - No v i d e o :  Upon r e a d i n g  the i n t r o d u c t o r y page d e s c r i b i n g  perimental task, subjects  followed i n s t r u c t i o n s  a c t o r / t e a c h e r taught the s t u d e n t  the e x -  and the  the meaning of the t h r e e  words w h i l e the o b s e r v e r watched the i n t e r a c t i o n . p e r i m e n t e r v i d e o t a p e d the i n t e r a c t i o n but d i d not t h e tape b e f o r e a s k i n g the s u b j e c t s pendent  in  The e x replay  t o complete the d e -  measures.  Immediately  a f t e r d c o n d i t i o n - Video c o n t r o l :  The procedure was i d e n t i c a l to the immediately  afterry  no v i d e o c o n d i t i o n , except t h a t the experimenter r e p l a y e d the v i d e o t a p e of the immediately p r e c e d i n g i n t e r a c t i o n b e f o r e asking the s u b j e c t s  for their  reactions.  Delay c o n d i t i o n - No v i d e o : After reading  the i n t r o d u c t o r y page of  the t e a c h e r taught the s t u d e n t o b s e r v e r watched. these subjects  instructions,  the t h r e e words w h i l e  At the end of the i n t e r a c t i o n ,  the  however,  read:  T h i s marks the end of t h i s p a r t of the s t u d y . You a r e r e q u e s t e d to r e t u r n one week from now i n o r der to p a r t i c i p a t e i n a second p a r t . Please arrange an appointment w i t h the experimenter t h a t i s c o n v e n i e n t f o r a l l c o n c e r n e d . Thank y o u . Upon r e t u r n i n g the f o l l o w i n g week, t h e s e completed the dependent measures l a s t week's  teaching session,  have your r e a c t i o n s  i n answer t o  it will  subjects "Recalling  be h e l p f u l f o r us  t o the s t u d e n t / t e a c h e r  to  interactions  involved...". Delay c o n d i t i o n - V i d e o c o n t r o l : The p r o c e d u r e was i d e n t i c a l to the no v i d e o d e l a y c o n d i t i o n except t h a t r e t u r n i n g s u b j e c t s Before obtaining  read:  your r e a c t i o n s  t o the  student/  21  t e a c h e r i n t e r a c t i o n you may f i n d i t h e l p f u l t o see the v i d e o t a p e r e p l a y of the s e s s i o n . . . T h e e x p e r i menter w i l l now run the v i d e o t a p e . Dependent measures were then c o m p l e t e d . Debriefing; Upon c o m p l e t i o n of the e x p e r i m e n t a l q u e s t i o n n a i r e s u b j e c t s were f u l l y d e b r i e f e d and asked not t o r e v e a l n a t u r e o r the p a r t i c u l a r s  of  all the  the experiment t o anyone who  was a p o t e n t i a l p a r t i c i p a n t .  The r a t i o n a l e f o r the e x p e r -  i m e n t a l hypotheses and Sop the e x p e r i m e n t a l d e s i g n was plained in d e t a i l . Dependent  They were thanked f o r t h e i r c o o p e r a t i o n .  measures:  Items on the e x p e r i m e n t a l q u e s t i o n n a i r e the dependent v a r i a b l e s  in this  addressed the p e r c e i v e d c a u s a l  study.  constituted  These  attributions  questions  of  actor/tea-  c h e r and o b s e r v e r toward the t e a c h e r , the s i t u a t i o n , the student.  ( F o r c o n v e n i e n c e , examples g i v e n use  " O b s e r v e r - Immediately  and  the  A f t e r " c o n d i t i o n wording.)  F o r the t h r e e p r i n c i p a l dependent measures were asked t o c o n s i d e r the f o l l o w i n g and a p p o r t i o n r e s p o n s i b i l i t y  questions  according  o c c u r r e d (the t o t a l heed not add up t o  subjects together  t o what they  thought  100%):  1.  To what e x t e n t was the outcome of the t e a c h i n g s e s s i o n due t o the p e r s o n a l q u a l i t i e s of the t e a c h e r - her a b i l i t y , e f f o r t , i n t e r e s t , p r e sentation, etc.? - %.  2.  To what extent was the outcome due t o c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the, s i t u a t i o n - the t a s k , the words drawn, e t c . ? %.  3.  To what extent was the outcome due to c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the student - her l e a r n i n g a b i l i t y , motivation, etc.? %.  The f o l l o w i n g  factors  pertaining  t o the t e a c h e r were  r a t e d on 5 - p o i n t s c a l e s  whose end p o i n t s were l a b e l e d  at a l l  important",  four,  ex-  important...Wery and "Not  tem f i v e :  f o r items one  "Not  through  at a l l d i f f i c u l t . . . V e r y d i f f i c u l t " f o r  i-  22 1.  Of what importance was the t e a c h e r ' s g e n e r a l t e a c h i n g a b i l i t y i n d e t e r m i n i n g the outcome of the t e a c h i n g s e s s i o n ?  2.  Of what importance was the t e a c h e r ' s random s e l e c t i o n of the t h r e e words i n d e t e r m i n i n g the outcome of the t e a c h i n g s e s s i o n ?  3.  Of what importance was the t e a c h e r ' s i n t e r e s t and e f f o r t i n d e t e r m i n i n g the outcome of the teaching session?  4.  Of what importance was the d i f f i c u l t y l e v e l of the t a s k i n d e t e r m i n i n g the outcome of the t e a c h ing session?  5.  How d i f f i c u l t do you e s t i m a t e the task t o have been?  The f o l l o w i n g also  rated along  b e l e d "Not at a l l  factors  5-point  p e r t a i n i n g t o the student were  s c a l e s whose e n d - p o i n t s were  important.•.Very  la-  important":  1.  Of what importance was the s t u d e n t ' s g e n e r a l l a s t i c a b i l i t y i n d e t e r m i n i n g the outcome of teaching session?  2.  Of what importance was her a p t i t u d e f o r l e a r n i n g word meanings i n d e t e r m i n i n g the outcome of t h i s teaching session?  3.  Of what importance was her adjustment t o a n o v e l •; l e a r n i n g s i t u a t i o n i n d e t e r m i n i n g the outcome o f t h i s teaching session?  J-.-v..•>.  4.  schothis  Of what importance was the s t u d e n t ' s a t t e n t i o n and m o t i v a t i o n a l l e v e l i n d e t e r m i n i n g the outcome of t h i s t e a c h i n g s e s s i o n ?  (These p r e c e d i n g s t u d e n t items were adapted from Ross, Bierbrauer,  and P o l l y ,  1974.)  An a d d i t i o n a l open-ended q u e s t i o n was asked t o see other factors  not s p e c i f i c a l l y addressed  i n the q u e s t i o n -  n a i r e were p e r c e i v e d as important i n s t u d e n t / t e a c h e r actions. or discuss  if  S u b j e c t s were g i v e n a page headed:  "Please  interlist  any o t h e r f a c t o r s which you p e r c e i v e t o be i m -  p o r t a n t i n any s t u d e n t / t e a c h e r i n t e r a c t i o n : " . A f i n a l q u e s t i o n asked,  "Have you had any e x p e r i e n c e  i n t e a c h i n g - f o r example, as a c l a s s r o o m t e a c h e r , camp l e a d e r , s p o r t s If^"Yes", please specify:  coach, e t c . ?  teacher, No;  religion Yes ".  23 Results A p r e l i m i n a r y 2x2x2 f a c t o r i a l a n a l y s i s  (teacher v e r -  sus o b s e r v e r ; immediately a f t e r v e r s u s d e l a y ; no v i d e o v e r sus video)  r e v e a l e d n e i t h e r main e f f e c t s nor i n t e r a c t i o n  effects involving  the no v i d e o / v i d e o m a n i p u l a t i o n  pendix 4 f o r no v i d e o / v i d e o t a b l e of means). t h i s v a r i a b l e was dropped from subsequent f u r t h e r analyses  (see A p -  Consequently,  analyses  were based on 2x3 a n a l y s e s  of  and  variance  ( a c t o r v e r s u s o b s e r v e r ; immediately a f t e r v e r s u s d e l a y sus  p r e d i c t i o n ) , with subjects  ditions  pooled.  i n the no v i d e o / v i d e o  Thus, d a t a from 40 s u b j e c t s  a t e l y a f t e r c o n d i t i o n , 40 s u b j e c t s and 20 s u b j e c t s  Analyses In  con-  i n the immedi-  i n the d e l a y c o n d i t i o n ,  50 a c t o r / t e a c h e r s and 50 o b s e r v e r s  (A raw d a t a l i s t i n g  pendix  ver-  i n the p r e d i c t i o n c o n d i t i o n were i n c l u d e d  i n the a n a l y s e s , tal.  all  in  to-  and d a t a code may be found i n A p -  5.) of F r e e Response answering  Measures:  the r e q u e s t to " P l e a s e  list  or d i s c u s s  any o t h e r f a c t o r s which you p e r c e i v e t o be important i n any student/teacher i n t e r a c t i o n " , a highly  significant  differ-  ence among temporal c o n d i t i o n s was found i n the number of words w r i t t e n , F (2,94)= 8.1645, p_<%0006.  Subjects  i n the  p r e d i c t i o n c o n d i t i o n generated a mean of 26.300 words;  sub-  j e c t s i n the immediately a f t e r c o n d i t i o n generated a mean o f 48.625 words;  and s u b j e c t s  e r a t e d a mean of 62.050 words.  i n the d e l a y c o n d i t i o n g e n The e x p e r i m e n t a l m a n i p u l a -  t i o n seemed t o produce d i f f e r e n c e s i n a t t r i b u t i o n a l  set:  a f t e r having a c t u a l l y watched the s t u d e n t / t e a c h e r i n t e r action,  s u b j e c t s were a b l e to w r i t e more on the t o p i c .  E x p e r i e n c e i n t e a c h i n g had no s i g n i f i c a n t  e f f e c t upon  t h e dependent measures. Analysis  of Time Measurement:  There were no s i g n i f i c a n t  e f f e c t s due t o d i f f e r e n c e s  i n amount of time taken t o t e a c h the s t u d e n t  the t h r e e  word meanings (mean f o r immediately a f t e r s u b j e c t s = 10.5  24 m i n u t e s ; mean f o r d e l a y s u b j e c t s « 11.85 m i n u t e s ) . i n g times ranged from 2 through 25 minutes a c r o s s  Teachthe two  conditions. A n a l y s e s of Demographic  Variables:  "Age" and " U n i v e r s i t y l e v e l " were modestly c o r r e l a t e d w i t h each o t h e r ( r = . 3 3 8 2 ) , as One might e x p e c t , but were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y  r e l a t e d t o any of the dependent measures.  (See Appendix 6 f o r the c o r r e l a t i o n m a t r i x o f  demographic  items and dependent measures.) D i f f e r e n c e s between A c t o r s and Observers i n A t t r i b u t i o n s  to  the S i t u a t i o n : It  was h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t a c r o s s c o n d i t i o n s ,  actors  would make g r e a t e r s i t u a t i o n a l a t t r i b u t i o n s than would o b s e r v e r s (Jones & N i s b e t t ,  1971).  In  f a c t , no  significant  main e f f e c t emerged, but a s t r o n g t r e n d , F (1,94) = 3.3731, JD<.07,  i n d i c a t e d t h a t , c o n t r a r y to e x p e c t a t i o n , o b s e r v e r s  o v e r a l l a t t r i b u t e d g r e a t e r r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o the s i t u a t i o n (mean = 37.460) (See T a b l e I  than d i d a c t o r / t e a c h e r s (mean = 2 9 . 5 4 0 ) .  f o r Mean A t t r i b u t i o n s o f A c t o r s and O b s e r v e r s  toward T e a c h e r , S i t u a t i o n , and S t u d e n t . ) No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between a c t o r s and o b s e r v e r s were found i n i n d i v i d u a l a n a l y s e s l u c k or t a s k , both s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s .  of a t t r i b u t i o n s (See T a b l e II  to for  A n a l y s e s o f V a r i a n c e Summary T a b l e s f o r A l l Dependent Measures.) P o l a r i z a t i o n of A c t o r - O b s e r v e r A t t r i b u t i o n s : It  was h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t a c t o r - o b s e r v e r a t t r i b u t i o n a l  d i f f e r e n c e s would i n c r e a s e over time ( T e s s e r , is,  1978).  That  a t t r i b u t i o n s o f a c t o r s would become more s i t u a t i o n a l  o v e r t i m e , whereas a t t r i b u t i o n s o f o b s e r v e r s would become more d i s p o s i t i o n a l over t i m e . ported ( F < 1 ) .  T h i s h y p o t h e s i s was not  The p a t t e r n o f a t t r i b u t i o n s t o the s i t u a -  t i o n over t i m e , however, was i d e n t i c a l f o r both a c t o r s observers:  supand  P r e d i c t i o n c o n d i t i o n , mean f o r a c t o r s = 24.000,  mean f o r o b s e r v e r s = 34.300; immediately a f t e r , mean f o r tors  ac-  = 32.000, mean f o r o b s e r v e r s = 39.750; d e l a y c o n d i t i o n ,  mean f o r a c t o r s ble  = 29.850, mean f o r o b s e r v e r s  = 36.750  I).  Ancillary  Results:  Attributions  toward the T e a c h e r :  A significant butions  temporal d i f f e r e n c e was found i n  attri-  toward t h e t e a c h e r ' s g e n e r a l t e a c h i n g a b i l i t y ,  (2,94) m 4.0409, £ < . 0 2 . buted the most a b i l i t y c o n d i t i o n (mean = 4 . 4 ) ; t i o n (mean = 3 . 9 ) ;  Both a c t o r s  and o b s e r v e r s  lesser a b i l i t y  Attributions  and l e a s t  i n the immediately  Analyses  showed no o t h e r Factors.)  aptitude for  •» 3.2862, £ < . 0 4 .  learn-  interaction  For a c t o r s ,  a t t r i b u t i o n o c c u r r e d i n the d e l a y c o n d i t i o n  the  ef-  greatest  (mean « 4 . 5 5 0 ) ,  f o l l o w e d by the p r e d i c t i o n c o n d i t i o n (mean = 4 . 0 0 0 ) ,  and  i n the immediately a f t e r c o n d i t i o n (mean = 3 . 9 0 0 ) .  The o p p o s i t e p a t t e r n o c c u r r e d f o r o b s e r v e r s . attribution  toward the s t u d e n t ' s  Their  aptitude for  word meanings o c c u r r e d i n the immediately a f t e r (mean = 4 . 3 0 0 ) , 4.200),  for  Student:  i n g word meanings r e f l e c t e d a s i g n i f i c a n t  finally  af-  sig-  (See T a b l e III  A t t r i b u t i o n toward the s t u d e n t ' s f e c t , F (2,94)  condi-  ability  toward Teacher and Task  toward the  attri-  i n the d e l a y  n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s f o r teacher f a c t o r s . Mean A t t r i b u t i o n s  F  to the t e a c h e r i n t h e p r e d i c t i o n  t e r c o n d i t i o n (mean = 3 . 7 ) .  est  (Ta-  learning  condition  f o l l o w e d by the p r e d i c t i o n c o n d i t i o n  and l a s t l y  by the d e l a y c o n d i t i o n  No o t h e r s i g n i f i c a n t present.  great-  e f f e c t s regarding  (See T a b l e IV  (mean  (mean = 4 . 0 5 0 ) .  student f a c t o r s  f o r Mean A t t r i b u t i o n s  toward  were  the  Student.) Summary: Examination  of T a b l e I  shows t h a t ,  was a tendency f o r a c t o r / t e a c h e r s attributions  o v e r time,  there  t o swing from g r e a t e r  toward the t e a c h e r (themselves)  i n the p r e -  d i c t i o n c o n d i t i o n , to g r e a t e r a t t r i b u t i o n toward the dent i n the d e l a y Observers' bility.  stu-  condition.  attributions,  For observers,  o v e r a l l , show l e s s  attributions  varia-  toward the t e a c h e r  and student were more n e a r l y equal i n the immediately c o n d i t i o n than i n the p r e d i c t i o n and d e l a y c o n d i t i o n s , g r e a t e r r e s p o n s i b i l i t y was a s c r i b e d to the t e a c h e r .  after where  27 TABLE  I  MEAN ATTRIBUTIONS OF ACTORS AND OBSERVERS TOWARD TEACHER, SITUATION, AND STUDENT (In  percentages -  totals  need not add up t o 100%)  ACTORS Prediction  Immediately After  Delay  Overall  (One week)  Teacher  53.000  49.250  44.400  48.060  Situation  24.000  32.000  29.850  29.540  Student  43.000  48.600  54.000  49.640  Delay  Overall  OBSERVERS Prediction  Immediately After  (One week)  Teacher  51.300  51.750  55.000  52.960  Situation  34.300  39.750  36.750  37.460  Student  44.300  52.750  50.800  50.280  28 TABLE  II  ANALYSES OF VARIANCE SUMMARY TABLES FOR ALL DEPENDENT MEASURES A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e f o r Teacher Source  df  SS  MS  F  Prob.  Role  1  600.250000  600.249756  1.7994  0.1796  Time  2  80.040000  40.019989  0.1200  0.8825  Interaction  2  600.300000  300.149902  0.8998  0.4127  Error  94 31356.40000  333.578613  Total  99 32636.99000  A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e f o r Source  df  Situation  SS  MS  F  Prob.  1568.159912  3.3731  0.0660  605.675000  302.837402  0.6514  0.5286  39.015000  19.507492  0.0420  0.9479  Error  94 43700.15000  464.895020  Total  99 45913.00000  Role  1 1568.160000  Time  2  Interaction  2  A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e f o r Source  df  Student  SS  MS  F  Prob.  10.240000  10.240000  0.0222  0.8543  Time  2 1054.915000  527.457275  1.1425  0.3239  Interaction  2  272.835000  136.417496  0.2955  0.7486  Error  94 43395.85000  461.657959  Total  99 44733.84000  Role  U  29  Source  df  SS  MS  F  Prob.  Role  1  3.600000E-01  3.600000E-01  0.4435  0.5143  Time  2  6.560000  3.280000  4.0409  0.0204  Interaction  2  1.400000E-01  6.999999E-02  0.0862  0.9101  8.117021E-01  Error  94 •  76.300000  Total  99  83.360000  A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e f o r Random S e l e c t i o n o f 3 Words ( L u c k ) * Source  df  ss  MS  F  Prob.  2  3.900000  1.950000  1.0184  0.3763  27  51.700000  1.914814  1.5341  0.1361  Role  1  3.266667  3.266666  2.6172  0.1136  Interaction  2  2.033333  1.016666  0.8145  0.4568  Error  27  33.700000  1.248148  Total  59  94.600000  Time Subjects  A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e f o r T e a c h e r ' s E f f o r t * Source  df  SS  MS  F  Prob.  2  6.333333E-01  3.166667E-01  0.3379  0.7203  27  25.300000  9.370370E-01  1.5150  0.1432  Role  1  6.666667E-02  6.666666E-02  0.1078  0.7409  Interaction  2  2.333333E-01  1.166666E-01  0.1886  0.8287  Error  27  16.700000  6.185185E-01  Total  59  42.933333  Time Subjects  * Due t o dependency w i t h i n a c t o r - o b s e r v e r d a t a , " l u c k " , c h e r ' s e f f o r t " , and " S t u d e n t ' s a t t e n t i o n and rootivation", a n a l y z e d by a r e p e a t e d measures a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e .  "Teawere  30  Source  df  Role  1  Time  2  SS  MS  1.000000  F  Prob.  1.000000  1.1576  0.2847  4.000000E-02 ;;2.00000GE*02  0.0232  0.9650  0.6946  0.5064  Interaction 2  1.200000  6.000000E-01  Error  94  81.200000  8.638297E-01  Total  99  83.440000  A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e f o r How D i f f i c u l t Was Task? Source  df  SS  MS  F  Prob.  Role  1  2.250000  2.250000  2.4255  0.1186  Time  2 :  2.250000  1.124999  1.2127  0.3020  Interaction 2  1.050000  5.250000E-01  0.5659  0.5752  Error  94  87.200000  9.276596E-01  Total  99 * 92.750000  A n a l y s i s o f -Variance f o r S t u d e n t ' s G e n e r a l S c h o l a s t i c Source  df  SS  MS  F  Ability  Prob.  Role  1  1.210000  1.209999  1.4820  0.2243  Time  2  1.815000  9.075000E-01  1.1115  0.3341  Interaction 2  2.815000  1.407499  1.7238  0.1819  Error  94  76.750000  8.164893E-01  Total  99  82.590000  31 A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e f o r S t u d e n t ' s A p t i t u d e f o r Words Source  df  SS  MS  F  Prob.  Role  1  -5.684342E-14  -5.684342E-14  -0.0000  1.0000  Time  2.  9.600000E-01  4.800000E-01  0.7337  0.4871  Interaction 2  4.300000  2.150000  3.2862  0.0407  6.542553E-01  Error  94  61.500000  Total  99  €.566. 760000  A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e f o r S t u d e n t ' s Adjustment to a Novel at ion Source  df  SS  MS  F  Situ  Prob.  Role  1  1.690000  1.690000  1.7592  0.1846  Time  2  2.300000  1.150000  1.1971  0.3067  Interaction 2  4.600000E-01  2.300000E-01  0.2394  0.7896  Error  94  90.300000  9.606383E-01  Total  99  94.750000  A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e f o r S t u d e n t ' s A t t e n t i o n and M o t i v a t i o n * Source Time  df  SS  MS  F  Prob.  2  1.033333  5.166667E-01  1.8117  0.1810  27  7.700000  2.851852E-01  0.8280  0.6865  1  0.000000E+00  0.000000E+00  0.0000  1.0000  Interaction 2  7.000000E-01  3.500000E-01  1.0161  0.3771  3.444444E-01  Subjects Role  Error  27  9.300000  Total  59  18.733333  •  Repeated measures a n a l y s i s  of v a r i a n c e , see p. 29  32 Analysis  of V a r i a n c e f o r Words ( F r e e Response  Source  df  SS  MS  Measure) F  Prob.  Role  1  930.250000  930.249756  0.8885  0.3509  Time  2  17095.435000  8547.714844  8.1645  0.0006  Interaction  2  3172.575000  1586.287354  1.5152  0.2235  94  98412.650000  1046.942871  Error  ^  Total  99 119610.910000  Source  df  Role  1  Time  2;.  Interaction 2  SS  MS  0.0500  0.8077  1.090000  5.450000E-01  2.7250  0.0690  6.900000E-01  3.450000E-01  1.7250  0.1817  2.000000E-01  94  18.800000  Total  99  20.590000  A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e f o r Minutes df  Prob.  9.999998E-03  1.000000E-02  Error  Source  F  SS  (Time taken t o t e a c h 3 words)** MS  F  Prob.  -9.094947E-13 -0.0000 1.0000  Role  1  -9.094947E-13  Time  1  36.450000  36.449997  Interaction  1  9.094947E-13  9.094947E-13  Error  76  2151.100000  28.303940  Total  79  2187.550000  1.2878 0.2591 0.0000  * • T h i s i s a c o l l a p s e d (no v i d e o / v i d e o ) 2x2 Anova v e r s u s o b s e r v e r ; immediately a f t e r v e r s u s d e l a y ) .  0.9505  (actor  TABLE  III  MEAN ATTRIBUTIONS OF ACTORS AND OBSERVERS TOWARD TEACHER AND TASK FACTORS (Rated on s c a l e from 1 = Not a t a l l i m p o r t a n t ; to 5 = Very important) ACTORS Prediction  Immediately After  Delay  Overall  (one week)  Teacher's general teaching a b i l i t y *  4,400  3.800  3.950  3.980  Random s e l e c t i o n o f t h r e e words  1.900  2.600  2.800  2 . 540  4;iob"  4.100  4.200  4:140  Importance of d i f f i c u l t y of task  3.500  3.850  3.750  3.740  How d i f f i c u l t task?  3.600  3.000  3.200  3.200  Teacher's  effort  was  OBSERVERS Prediction  Immediately After  Delay  Overall  (one week)  Teacher's general teaching a b i l i t y •  4.400  3.600  3.850  3.860  Random s e l e c t i o n o f t h r e e words  2.800  2.700  2.700  2.720  4.200  4.000  4.100  4.080  Importance of d i f f i c u l t y of t a s k  4.100  3.850  3.950  3.940  How d i f f i c u l t task?  3.700  3.550  3.350  3.500  Teacher's  effort  was  * S i g n i f i c a n t temporal e f f e c t , F (2,94) = 4.0409, £  .02  34 TABLE IV MEAN ATTRIBUTIONS OF ACTORS AND OBSERVERS TOWARD THE STUDENT (Rated on s c a l e from 1 = Not a t l a l l i m p o r t a n t ; t o 5 = Very important) ACTORS Prediction  Immediately After  Student•s g e n e r a l scholastic a b i l i t y Student's  3.800  4.000  3.900  aptitude  f o r word meanings* Student's  3.700  adjustment  to novel s i t u a t i o n  3.600  3.850  Student's attention and m o t i v a t i o n  4.400  4.400  Delay  Overall  (one week)  3.900  3.820  4.550  4.180*  4.050  3.880  4.650  4.500  OBSERVERS Prediction  Immediately After  Student's  general  scholastic a b i l i t y  3.500  Student's aptitude f o r word meanings* 4.200 S t u d e n t ' s adjustment to novel s i t u a t i o n 3.300 Student's attention and m o t i v a t i o n 4.100 * Significant  Delay  Overall  (one week)  3.300  3.600  4.050  4.180  3.750  3.650  3.620  4.600  4.700  4.540  3.950 4.300  i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t , F (2,94)  = 3.2862, £  .04  35 Discussion Methodological  Considerations:  From the m e t h o d o l o g i c a l  p o i n t of view, t h e r e c o u l d be  s e v e r a l reasons why the hypotheses were not c o n f i r m e d . five-point rating articulations  s c a l e may have been i n s e n s i t i v e  of the r e s p e c t i v e a t t r i b u t i o n s  Psychometrically-speaking, this  to f i n e r  obtained.  a s e v e n - p o i n t r a t i n g s c a l e may  have allowed f o r g r e a t e r v a r i a b i l i t y Also,  A  in causal  attributions.  study asked f o r t r i p a r t i t e a t t r i b u t i o n s  the t e a c h e r , the s i t u a t i o n ,  toward  and the s t u d e n t , w h i l e o t h e r  actor-observer attribution studies  employing a s t u d e n t /  t e a c h e r i n t e r p e r s o n a l i n f l u e n c e paradigm have used o n l y dichotomous dependent measures, tions  asking only f o r a t t r i b u -  toward the " t e a c h e r " and a t t r i b u t i o n s  " s i t u a t i o n " , with a t t r i b u t i o n s subsumed under " s i t u a t i o n " . t i o n matrix f o r a l l v a r i a b l e s  toward the  toward the s t u d e n t  Examination of the c o r r e l a (Appendix 6 ) ,  however,  v e a l e d a low c o r r e l a t i o n between " s i t u a t i o n " and ( r = .3020), approach.  being re-  "student"  t h e r e b y l e n d i n g c r e d i b i l i t y t o the t r i p a r t i t e  As t h e s e two v a r i a b l e s  centage of v a r i a n c e i n common, i t qualitative differences existing  share such a s m a l l is  per-  l i k e l y that there are  between them.  Regarding the p o l a r i z a t i o n h y p o t h e s i s ,  i t may w e l l be  t h a t such a phenomenon might be b e t t e r o r more a p p r o p r i a t e l y s t u d i e d u s i n g a w i t h i n - s u b j e c t r a t h e r than a betweensubject  design.  Actor-Observer Differences: The f i n d i n g of g r e a t e s t  interest in this  experiment  was the r e v e r s a l i n the d i r e c t i o n o f a c t o r - o b s e r v e r f e r e n c e s as p r e d i c t e d by the Jones and N i s b e t t pothesis.  Across c o n d i t i o n s ,  actor/teachers  dif-  (1971)  hy-  attributed  f a r l e s s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r e x p e r i m e n t a l outcome t o t h e s i t u a t i o n than d i d p a s s i v e o b s e r v e r s . tributions  The p a t t e r n o f  to the s i t u a t i o n was the same f o r both  and o b s e r v e r s :  the g r e a t e s t  a t t r i b u t i o n t o the  at-  actors  situation  36 o c c u r r e d immediately a f t e r the e x p e r i m e n t a l s e s s i o n ;  a  l e s s e r p r o p o r t i o n of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y was a t t r i b u t e d t o the s i t u a t i o n seven days a f t e r the e x p e r i m e n t a l s e s s i o n ;  and  the l e a s t r e l a t i v e a t t r i b u t i o n t o the s i t u a t i o n o c c u r r e d i n the p r e d i c t i o n c o n d i t i o n . that actors'  and o b s e r v e r s '  It  is  a p p a r e n t l y the c a s e  a t t r i b u t i o n s do d i f f e r , but  not always i n the manner p r e d i c t e d by Jones and N i s b e t t (1971). E m p i r i c a l e v i d e n c e from o t h e r r e s e a r c h as w e l l suggested p o s s i b l e  limitations  has  t o the Jones and N i s b e t t  (1971) a c t o r - o b s e r v e r h y p o t h e s i s .  In  some s i t u a t i o n s  ac-  t o r s 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 t o themselves f o r t h e i r own b e h a v i o r and the consequences of t h e i r b e h a v i o r than d i d observers  (e.g.,  Bell,  l e r & Norman, 1975).  1974; Langer & Roth, 1975; M i l -  In o t h e r s i t u a t i o n s  actors  have  c l a i m e d t h a t they a r e l e s s i n f l u e n c e d by s i t u a t i o n a l than are o t h e r persons  (e.g.,  W o l o s i n , Sherman, & Mynatt, dispositional  Bell,  1972).  forces  1974; Freedman, 1969; A c t o r s have made more  a t t r i b u t i o n s than have o b s e r v e r s and i n some  c i r c u m s t a n c e s o b s e r v e r s have made more d i s p o s i t i o n a l  in-  f e r e n c e s than have a c t o r s  ( e . g . , F e a t h e r & Simon,  1971a;  W o l o s i n , Sherman, & T i l l ,  1973; Ross, B i e r b r a u e r , & P o l l y ,  1974; T a y l o r & Koivumaki,  1976).  A c t o r s , because they know both the h i s t o r i c a l and c u r r e n t a n t e c e d e n t s of t h e i r b e h a v i o r , s h o u l d be b e t t e r a b l e than o b s e r v e r s to c o r r e c t l y i d e n t i f y t h e causes t h e i r own b e h a v i o r .  of  They s h o u l d be b e t t e r a b l e t o a p p r e -  c i a t e the c o v a r i a t i o n ( K e l l e y ,  1972) between t h e i r behav-  i o r and p o s s i b l e 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 c a u s e s , s h o u l d a l s o be b e t t e r a b l e t o note c r o s s - s i t u a t i o n a l s i s t e n c i e s o r v a r i a b i l i t i e s i n t h e i r own b e h a v i o r .  and  conOn the  o t h e r hand, a c t o r s have been shown to i n c o r r e c t l y m i s a t t r i b u t e d i s p o s i t i o n a l causes f o r t h e i r b e h a v i o r when i n fact  t h i s b e h a v i o r had come about as a r e s u l t o f  t i o n a l manipulations  situa-  ( e . g . , N i s b e t t & S c h a c h t e r , 1966;  37 Valins,  1966; Davison & V a l i n s ,  1969).  F o r s i t u a t i o n s where the b e h a v i o r i n q u e s t i o n i s  to  a g r e a t e x t e n t d i s p o s i t i o n a l l y d e t e r m i n e d , a c t o r s ought  to  a c c u r a t e l y p e r c e i v e the d i s p o s i t i o n a l c a u s a t i o n of  their  b e h a v i o r ( M i l l e r & Norman, 1975).  and  Brickman, Ryan,  Wortman (1975), who s y s t e m a t i c a l l y s t u d i e d the a t t r i b u t i o n o f p e r s o n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y as a f u n c t i o n o f p r i o r and i m mediate c a u s e s ,  have suggested t h a t the a c t o r s h o u l d be  more l i k e l y than the o b s e r v e r t o a t t r i b u t e d i s p o s i t i o n a l reasons f o r b e h a v i o r s f o r which t h e r e a r e p r i o r d i s p o s i t i o n a l causes known o n l y t o the a c t o r . study,  In  this  present  37 of the 50 a c t o r / t e a c h e r s r e p o r t e d p r e v i o u s t e a c h -  ing experience. Monson and Snyder (1977),  responding t o W a c h t e l ' s  (1973) s u g g e s t i o n t h a t the s i t u a t i o n a l f o r c e s to which an a c t o r responds i s  o f t e n of h i s / h e r own making,  t h a t a c t o r s w i l l make more d i s p o s i t i o n a l will  proposed  attributions  than  o b s e r v e r s f o r b e h a v i o r s undertaken i n s i t u a t i o n s  cho-  sen by the a c t o r ; whereas a c t o r s w i l l 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 about t h e i r b e h a v i o r s than w i l l o b s e r v e r s b e h a v i o r s undertaken>;,in s i t u a t i o n s  for  not chosen by the a c t o r .  S u b j e c t s v o l u n t e e r e d f o r t h i s study u n d e r s t a n d i n g  that  the study d e a l t w i t h the dynamics of s t u d e n t / t e a c h e r i n t e r action,  and t h a t the student i n v o l v e d was the a u t h o r ' s  year o l d daughter.  Thus, i t was l o g i c a l f o r them t o  10%  pre-  sume t h a t they had v o l u n t e e r e d o r chosen to teach somet h i n g t o a young  student.  Monson and Snyder (1977, pp.  101-102)^summarize:  Only i n s p e c i a l l y c o n s t r u c t e d l a b o r a t o r y c o n t e x t s (or f o r n a t u r a l l y o c c u r r i n g events) t h a t p e r mit a t t r i b u t i o n s about b e h a v i o r s t h a t a r e (a) d i s p o s i t i o n a l , (b) performed i n s i t u a t i o n s chosen and/ or c o n t r o l l a b l e by the a c t o r , (c) performed i n the presence of n e u t r a l o r i n h i b i t o r y s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s , (d) s i m i l a r to p r e v i o u s l y m a n i f e s t e d b e h a v i o r s , (e) c o n s i s t e n t w i t h p r i o r a t t r i b u t i o n s , and ( f ) p a r t of a c a u s a l c h a i n w i t h p r i o r d i s p o s i t i o n a l c a u s e s , w i l l an a c t o r ' s s e l f - a t t r i b u t i o n s be more d i s p o s i -  38 tional  than the a t t r i b u t i o n s of an o u t s i d e  observer.  Such c o n d i t i o n s were a p p a r e n t l y p e r c e i v e d by the a c t o r / t e a c h e r s to e x i s t .  Only the a c t o r s would have  t o i n f o r m a t i o n a l o r h i s t o r i c a l bases r e g a r d i n g ing a b i l i t y .  access  their teach-  Only the a c t o r s would have been i n a  position  t o p e r c e i v e p e r s o n a l freedom of c h o i c e and c o n s i s t e n c y prior  with  behavior. In  a d d i t i o n to these i n f o r m a t i o n a l bases which might  e x p l a i n the a c t o r s ' sponsibility  g r e a t e r r e l a t i v e a t t r i b u t i o n of  t o themselves,  t h e r e are a number of  re-  motiva-  t i o n a l f a c t o r s which should be c o n s i d e r e d . Miller er's  and Norman (1975),  Dilemma game s i t u a t i o n ,  using  the f a m i l i a r  compared a c t o r s '  Prison-  own p e r -  c e p t i o n s w i t h those made by p a s s i v e o b s e r v e r s and found t h a t a c t o r s a t t r i b u t e d more p e r s o n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y themselves  than d i d p a s s i v e o b s e r v e r s .  These authors  c l u d e d that the need of the a c t o r to see ^ h i m s e l f cising  as  The r e s u l t s motivational  exer-  results.  of t h i s  thesis  interpretation.  less responsibility  suggest the same type o f  Actor/teachers attributed  to the s i t u a t i o n  than they  buted t o e i t h e r themselves o r t o the s t u d e n t . s i s t e n t w i t h an e f f e c t a n c e m o t i v e . i n the e x p e r i m e n t a l  attri-  This i s  con-  The a c t o r / t e a c h e r s  a need to see themselves as e x e r c i s i n g o r having  had  control  situation.  The o p e r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n o f t h i s experiment a l s o itself  con-  e f f e c t i v e c o n t r o l o v e r h i s environment mediated  t h e i r experimental  far  to  lent  to a presumption of c o n t r o l on, the p a r t of the a c -  tor/teacher.  She had an u n l i m i t e d amount of time i n which  t o t e a c h the t h r e e words,  and she had a c c e s s  to a d i c t i o n -  a r y f o r any h e l p i n d e f i n i n g o r g i v i n g examples f o r a p a r t i c u l a r word. from u s i n g  Only two of the f i f t y t e a c h e r s r e f r a i n e d  the d i c t i o n a r y which was p l a c e d on the t a b l e  a t which both t e a c h e r and s t u d e n t were s e a t e d . T h i s tendency o r need f o r people t o b e l i e v e t h a t  they  39 have e n v i r o n m e n t a l c o n t r o l i s  an i n t e g r a l concept i n  eral psychological  White (1959) p o s t u l a t e d  theories.  n o t i o n of e f f e c t a n c e . wherefrom your f e e l i n g s (in)ability  about  sevthe*  your  to cope w i t h your environment determines how  (un)favorably  you view y o u r s e l f .  He argued t h a t a sense  o f competency i s  basic  self-esteem.  the same v e i n , DeCharms  In  to the development and s t a b i l i t y (1968) has  o f o r i q i n s h i p , o r the o r i g i n - p a w n dimension of c e p t , and R o t t e r  of  spoken  self-con-  (1966) has spoken i n terms of l o c u s  of  control. Kelley  (1971) has a l s o c o n s i d e r e d the i n t e r a c t i o n b e -  tween a t t r i b u t i o n p r o c e s s e s self  and the need t o p e r c e i v e o n e -  as e x e r c i s i n g e f f e c t i v e c o n t r o l :  "Attribution pro-  cesses  are t o be u n d e r s t o o d , not o n l y as a means o f  viding  the i n d i v i d u a l w i t h a v e r i d i c a l view of h i s  but as a means of encouraging  and m a i n t a i n i n g  his  t i v e exercise of c o n t r o l i n that world" (Kelley, An e f f e c t a n c e motive i s  world, effec-  1971,  o n l y one of a number of  d i c a t i o n s of the need to view o n e s e l f i n a p o s i t i v e Other manifestations  pro-  inway.  of t h i s more g e n e r a l need a r e the  d r i v e s f o r s e l f - e n h a n c e m e n t , s e l f - p r o t e c t i v e n e s s , and consistency  (cf.  p.22).  self-  F e a t h e r , 1969; 1971, ; H e i d e r , 1958; K e l l e y ,  1967). M i l l e r and Norman (1975) p o i n t e d out t h a t should motives be i n o p p o s i t i o n t o one a n o t h e r ,  these  the l i k e l i e s t  re-  1  s o l u t i o n would be f o r the motive which b e s t promoted a p o s i t i v e image o f o n e s e l f  to t r i u m p h .  Thus,  actor/teachers  may have m a i n t a i n e d a more p o s i t i v e s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n by c r i b i n g a greater proportion of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y  to the  asstu-  dent than they would have by a s c r i b i n g more r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o themselves, sponsibility DeCharms  o r a more n e a r l y equal p r o p o r t i o n of  re-  between themselves and the s t u d e n t . (1968) and o t h e r s have demonstrated  that i n d i v i d u a l s  who b e l i e v e t h a t most of  also  t h e i r own o u t -  comes depend not on e x t e r n a l f o r c e s but on t h e i r own b e -  40 havior generally In  a t t r i b u t e more o r i g i n s h i p  f a c t , i n the d e l a y c o n d i t i o n of t h i s  to others  too.  present t h e s i s  ex-  p e r i m e n t , a c t o r / t e a c h e r s a s c r i b e d more r e s p o n s i b i l i t y  to  the student than they a s c r i b e d e i t h e r t o themselves o r the  to  situation.  Polarization  Hypothesis;  F o r the a c t o r / t e a c h e r , the student h e r s e l f s e r v e d a s t i m u l u s - o b j e c t d u r i n g the t e a c h i n g s e s s i o n . his colleagues  (e.g., Tesser,  T e s s e r & Cowan, 1977)  T e s s e r and  1978; S a d l e r & T e s s e r ,  1977; T e s s e r & C o n l e e , 1975; T e s s e r & Leone,  t o t h i n k about a s t i m u l u s ,  becomes.  J u s t such a p h e -  nomenon would e x p l a i n why, over time, the a c t o r s ' over time.  toward the s t u d e n t i n c r e a s e d In  causal  monotonically  the one week i n t e r v a l between the t e a c h i n g  s e s s i o n and the c o m p l e t i o n of the dependent measure t i o n n a i r e (delay c o n d i t i o n ) ,  to p o l a r i z e .  greatest causality word meanings"  Actor/teachers  to " s t u d e n t ' s  aptitude for  learning attributing  i n the immediately a f t e r c o n d i t i o n .  L i t t l e p r e v i o u s work has been done r e g a r d i n g but the work of M i l l e r and Haqq ( i n  delayed prepar-  would suggest t h a t , w i t h the passage of t i m e ,  become l e s s e g o - d e f e n s i v e or e g o - e n h a n c i n g ,  willing  d e n t , t h e i r p a r t n e r i n the i n t e r a c t i o n .  Also,  man (1973) and Ross, B i e r b r a u e r , and P o l l y  as  o r d e f e n s i v e n e s s because of  contradicting evaluations the s e s s i o n .  by the o b s e r v e r s  stu-  Beck-  (1974) have  a c t o r / t e a c h e r s may have been c a u t i o u s  any b o a s t f u l n e s s  ac-  and more  t o s h a r e a p o r t i o n of the c a u s a l i t y w i t h the  suggested,  had  attributed  i n the d e l a y c o n d i t i o n , w h i l e  the l e a s t c a u s a l i t y  ation)  toward  toward whom so much a t t e n t i o n and e f f o r t  been d i r e c t e d ,  attributions,  ques-  the a c t o r / t e a c h e r s would have  had ample time f o r t h e i r a t t i t u d e s o r a t t r i b u t i o n s the s t u d e n t ,  has  the more extreme or p o l a r i z e d  t h e e v a l u a t i o n of t h a t s t i m u l u s  tors  1973;  have demonstrated t h a t the more time a s u b j e c t  attributions  as  about  potential  witnessing  The presence of the c o n f e d e r a t e ' s mother  -  41 the experimenter - a l s o may have tempered t e a c h e r butions. sality, of  the  Modesty,  o r at l e a s t  attri-  shared a t t r i b u t i o n a l c a u -  appeared t o f o l l o w l o g i c a l l y  from the s t r u c t u r e  situation.  Observers,  on the o t h e r hand, had l e s s e r ego  involve-  ment i n the i n t e r a c t i o n and c o u l d t h e r e f o r e f o c u s on the s t u d e n t and o t h e r f e a t u r e s of the s i t u a t i o n b a l or general f a s h i o n . l i e n t stimulus ing  i n a more g l o -  The student s e r v e d as a moire s a -  f o r observers  immediately a f t e r the t e a c h -  session. Both a c t o r s  and o b s e r v e r s a s c r i b e d g r e a t e r  to " t e a c h e r ' s general teaching a b i l i t y "  causality  i n the p r e d i c t i o n  c o n d i t i o n than i n the o t h e r two c o n d i t i o n s .  The  likeli-  e s t e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h i s would simply be t h e i r g r e a t e r p e r s o n a l knowledge of u n i v e r s i t y - a g e d  individuals'  t i e s r e l a t i v e t o knowledge of e i t h e r s i m i l a r o r 10% year o l d s t u d e n t s .  Attributions  abili-  situations  toward  "teacher's  g e n e r a l t e a c h i n g a b i l i t y " were lower i n the d e l a y c o n d i t i o n and s t i l l A f t e r viewing  lower i n the immediately a f t e r c o n d i t i o n . the i n t e r a c t i o n , o t h e r c a u s a l  may have competed w i t h a c t o r s * disposition the teacher.  explanations  and o b s e r v e r s '  In  any c a s e ,  i t would appear t h a t f o r  judge-  teaching  the passage of time produced a l e s s extreme view,  i n c o n t r a d i c t i o n to Tesser's Further  pre-  t o a t t r i b u t e to the e n t i t y best-known t o them -  ment o r a t t r i b u t i o n toward " t e a c h e r ' s g e n e r a l ability"  initial  (1978)  hypothesis.  Considerations:  T a y l o r and F i s k e (1978, p. 256) reminded: I f the d i f f e r e n c e s between a c t o r s ' and o b s e r v e r s ' a t t r i b u t i o n s a r e mediated by the i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t e n g u l f s o n e ' s v i s u a l f i e l d , then whatever one a t t e n d s t o w i t h i n o n e ' s environment should i n f l u e n c e the p e r c e p tions of c a u s a l i t y . I f one a t t e n d s t o a p a r t o f the environment t o the r e l a t i v e e x c l u s i o n of a n o t h e r , the i n f o r m a t i o n from t h a t p a r t should be most s a l i e n t . Tinas i n f o r m a t i o n , i n t u r n , should p r o v i d e a b a s i s f o r the e x p l a n a t i o n one adopts i n d e c i d i n g who caused what i n the s i t u a t i o n . Our o v e r a l l h y p o t h e s i s , t h e n , i s  42 t h a t p o i n t of view o r a t t e n t i o n determines what i n formation i s s a l i e n t ; perceptually s a l i e n t informat i o n i s then o v e r r e p r e s e n t e d i n subsequent c a u s a l e x planations. T h i s h y p o t h e s i s extends the s a l i e n c e p r i n c i p l e both beyond the d i s p o s i t i o n a l - s i t u a t i o n a l d i s t i n c t i o n and beyond the a c t o r - o b s e r v e r c o m p a r i s o n . Evidence f o r t h i s h y p o t h e s i s comes from s t u d i e s on both the p e r c e p t i o n of o t h e r s and the p e r c e p t i o n o f self. ( T a y l o r & F i s k e , 1978, p. 256) T a y l o r and F i s k e ' s  (1978) p r o p o s i t i o n , t h e n , i s  p e o p l e respond t o the most s a l i e n t s t i m u l i i n t h e i r ronment (an h y p o t h e s i s  envi-  t h a t o r i g i n a t e d w i t h Brunswik,  and H e i d e r , 1958) and t h a t ,  f e s t a t i o n of p e r c e p t u a l s a l i e n c e . a r e made s a l i e n t ,  substantially  a mani-  Thus, t o the e x t e n t  situations  are  a c t o r s should be p e r c e i v e d as more c a u s a l l y  r e l e v a n t ( e . g . , Storms,  1973; T a y l o r & F i s k e , 1975; T a y l o r ,  F i s k e , C l o s e , Anderson, & Ruderman, Regarding  that  s h o u l d be p e r c e i v e d  as more c a u s a l l y r e l e v a n t ; t o the e x t e n t t h a t a c t o r s made s a l i e n t ,  1955,  t h e r e f o r e , the Jones and N i s -  b e t t a c t o r - o b s e r V e r e f f e c t (1971) i s situations  that  1977).  s e l f - p e r c e p t i o n , data c o l l e c t e d by D u v a l ,  W i c k l u n d , and c o l l e a g u e s  ( e . g . , Duval & W i c k l u n d , 1972;  1973; W i c k l u n d , 1975; Duval & Hensley, t h a t when the s e l f  is salient,  s a l i t y are e x a g g e r a t e d .  1977)  have shown  s e l f - a t t r i b u t i o n s of c a u -  E v i d e n c e f o r i n c r e a s e s i n both  n e g a t i v e s e l f - r e l e v a n t thoughts  (Duval & W i c k l u n d ,  and p o s i t i v e s e l f - r e l e v a n t thoughts  (Wicklund,  1972)  1975)  have  been found under c o n d i t i o n s of s e l f - f o c u s e d a t t e n t i o n jective self-awareness).  O b j e c t i v e s e l f - a w a r e n e s s was  (obalso  enhanced by both m i r r o r - m a n i p u l a t i o n and audience p r e s e n c e i n a study by C a r v e r and Sefee&erf i!9c78). It  is  p o s s i b l e t h a t our e x p e r i m e n t a l s e t - u p (see  Fig-  u r e 1 ) , w i t h the v i d e o t a p e equipment i n view about 8% f e e t away from the a c t o r / t e a c h e r and s t u d e n t , s e r v e d as a mani p u l a t i o n f o r self-awareness,  leading actors to a t t r i b u t e  proportionally greater causality  to themselves and t o the  s t u d e n t than to the s i t u a t i o n . The o b s e r v e r sat  just  t o the r i g h t  of the v i d e o cam-  43 e r a and shared e s s e n t i a l l y perimenter.  the same p e r s p e c t i v e as the e x -  She was a l s o q u i t e aware of the v i d e o e q u i p -  ment which, f o r most p e o p l e , c o n s t i t u t e s C o g n i t i v e psychology elicit  stimulus.  r e s e a r c h has shown t h a t n o v e l  attention (e.g.,  differential  a novel  B e r l y n e , 1958; 1970).  Therefore,  a t t e n t i o n to the n o v e l s t i m u l i should  r e l a t i v e l y greater causal a t t r i b u t i o n s the s i t u a t i o n ) .  Not being engrossed  stimuli elicit  (in t h i s case,  i n the a c t u a l  i n g of the t h r e e words to the s t u d e n t ,  to  teach-  the o b s e r v e r had  as much o r more o p p o r t u n i t y t o a t t e n d to the v i d e o e q u i p ment as had the a c t o r / t e a c h e r . Apropos of the n o v e l t y c o n s i d e r a t i o n , McArthur and Post (1977)  manipulated s e v e r a l p h y s i c a l v a r i a b l e s  s e r i e s of experiments u s i n g versation" context. included brightness  in a  the " g e t t i n g - a c q u a i n t e d  Manipulations  of p h y s i c a l  con-  salience  (Study 1 ) , motion (Study 2 ) ,  pattern  c o m p l e x i t y (Study 3 ) , and c o n t e x t u a l n o v e l t y ( S t u d i e s and 5 ) .  In  studies  1, 2, and 3, McArthur and Post  discovered that a s a l i e n t  actor  son e i t h e r s e a t e d i n a b r i g h t  (i.e.,  light,  situationally  than a n o n s a l i e n t  stimulus  per-  rocking in a rocking was viewed  actor.  o p p o s i t e p a t t e r n r e s u l t e d from m a n i p u l a t i o n s (i.e.,  (1977)  the s t i m u l u s  c h a i r , o r wearing a b o l d l y p a t t e r n e d s h i r t ) less  4  person i n a n o v e l s h i r t  However, of  the  novelty  - f o r example, a  r e d s h i r t when o t h e r s i n the group a l l wore b l u e  shirts,  Study 4; or a s o l o male o r female - f o r example, a  single  b l a c k man i n a group of f o u r , Study 5 ) .  sub-  jects  b e h a v i o r was viewed more s i t u a t i o n a l l y  o f the nonnovel  that  r e s o l v e d the apparent r e v e r -  s a l s w i t h i n the s a l i e n c e f i n d i n g s is  than  subject!  McArthur and Post (1977) sality  The novel  by s u g g e s t i n g t h a t c a u -  a t t r i b u t e d to d i s p o s i t i o n s  when a t t e n t i o n i s  cused upon the a c t o r , and t o s i t u a t i o n a l s i t u a t i o n o r environment i s  salient.  fo-  f a c t o r s when the  Especially for  o b s e r v e r s , whose a t t e n t i o n seemed more d i f f u s e than  the that  44 of  the a c t o r s ,  our e n t i r e e x p e r i m e n t a l s i t u a t i o n  likely  ap-  peared novel and t h e r e f o r e e l i c i t e d a g r e a t e r percentage of the c a u s a l e x p l a n a t i o n f o r the e x p e r i m e n t a l outcome. Simply by having the s t u d e n t / t e a c h e r i n t e r a c t i o n  vid-  eotaped by the e x p e r i m e n t e r , who remained i n the e x p e r i mental room along w i t h the t e a c h e r , the o b s e r v e r , and the s t u d e n t , a l l p r e s e n t were made aware of the t o t a l tion,  e s p e c i a l l y as i t  e x i s t e d f o r the a c t o r / t e a c h e r .  an awareness seemed to i n d u c e a " s e l f - d i s c o v e r y " actors,  situa-  and an "empathy" s e t f o r o b s e r v e r s  set  Such for  (Storms,  1973;  Regarding the "empathy" c o n s i d e r a t i o n , s e v e r a l  types  Kiesler, Nisbett,  & Zanna,  1969).  of p e r s p e c t i v e - t a k i n g have been examined i n the l i t e r a t u r e : cognitive perspective-taking other i n d i v i d u a l ' s  intentions  involving  and p l a n s f o r f u t u r e  affective perspective-taking involving other's feelings;  and v i s u a l  attributions  of  the  actions;  a p p r e c i a t i o n of  perspective-taking  knowledge o f the o t h e r ' s p e r c e p t i o n s . that observers  understanding  the  involving  T t has been found  have made more a c t o r - l i k e ( i . e . ,  situational)  a f t e r e i t h e r v i e w i n g the e x p e r i m e n t a l i n t e r -  a c t i o n from a new p e r s p e c t i v e (Storms, 1973) s t r u c t e d t o empathize w i t h a t a r g e t s u b j e c t 1975; G a l p e r ,  or being  in-  (Regan & T o t t e n ,  1976).  Two a d d i t i o n a l s t u d i e s may c l a r i f y c e r t a i n r e l e v a n t points.  Johnson (1975) s t u d i e d c o o p e r a t i v e n e s s and s o c i a l  p e r s p e c t i v e - t a k i n g i n 4 t h grade c h i l d r e n and found no r e l a t i o n s h i p between p r e d i s p o s i t i o n t o c o o p e r a t e and  ability  t o take the p h y s i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e of o t h e r i n d i v i d u a l s , found a s t r o n g  r e l a t i o n s h i p between p r e d i s p o s i t i o n t o c o o p -  e r a t e and a b i l i t y er i n d i v i d u a l s .  but  t o take the emotional p e r s p e c t i v e o f The r e s u l t s  oth-  o f h i s study a l s o i n d i c a t e d  t h a t p e r c e p t u a l and a f f e c t i v e p e r s p e c t i v e - t a k i n g were u n related:  c h i l d r e n s k i l l e d at one type o f  perspective-tak-  i n g were not n e c e s s a r i l y s k i l l e d at the o t h e r . More r e c e n t l y , T j o s v o l d and S a g a r i a (1978) examined  45 t h e e f f e c t s of r e l a t i v e power on c o g n i t i v e taking est  perspective-  and found t h a t as r e l a t i v e power d e c r e a s e d ,  inter-  i n the o t h e r ' s c o g n i t i v e p e r s p e c t i v e i n c r e a s e d .  result  followed l o g i c a l l y  developmentalists teractionists  This  from the work of both c o g n i t i v e  (e.g., Kohlberg,  (e.g., Shibutani,  1969)  and s y m b o l i c  in-  1961) who have suggested  t h a t persons dependent upon another f o r outcomes a r e mot i v a t e d t o take the o t h e r ' s c o g n i t i v e p e r s p e c t i v e . t e r e s t to t h i s  thesis  as w e l l was the f i n d i n g of  Of  in-  Tjosvold  and S a g a r i a (1978) t h a t t h o s e s u b j e c t s w i t h a b s o l u t e  pow-  e r (the f i v e l e v e l s of r e l a t i v e power were o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d through t h r e e 3 - c h o i c e mixed motive m a t r i c e s )  were more  i n t e r e s t e d i n the o t h e r ' s a f f e c t i v e p e r s p e c t i v e than  sub-  j e c t s i n the f o u r o t h e r power c o n d i t i o n s . It  c o u l d w e l l be t h a t o b s e r v e r s i n t h i s  thesis  exper-  iment were i n t e r e s t e d i n both the c o g n i t i v e and a f f e c t i v e p e r s p e c t i v e s of the a c t o r s .  Though both a c t o r s and o b s e r -  v e r s were t o l d t h a t they would be asked f o r t h e i r r e a c tions  t o the e x p e r i m e n t a l s i t u a t i o n a f t e r w a r d s ,  they d i d  not know s p e c i f i c a l l y what types of q u e s t i o n s would be asked.  Nor c o u l d they know what r e l a t i o n s h i p would  s e q u e n t l y e x i s t between thenu  Several observers  a f t e r the e x p e r i m e n t a l s e s s i o n t h a t they thought  sub-  remarked that  c h e r - o b s e r v e r r o l e s would be r e v e r s e d and t h a t t h e y , t u r n , would have t o teach the student t h r e e word To the e x t e n t t h a t o b s e r v e r s  roles,  o r t o the e x t e n t t h a t o b s e r v e r s expected e v a l u a t i o n the a c t o r / t e a c h e r s , an a p p r e c i a t i o n of the a c t o r ' s t a t i v e (Pepitone, Future  in  meanings.  anticipated switching  n i t i v e and a f f e c t i v e p e r s p e c t i v e s would have been  tea-  from cog-  facili-  1949).  Considerations;  Researchers - i n : t h e f u t u r e may p r o f i t a b l y measure need f o r e f f e c t i v e c o n t r o l (from :Rofeter, 1966) in attribution research. tive perspective-taking  as a c o v a r i a t e  Measures of c o g n i t i v e and a f f e c (Johnson, 1975; T j o s v o l d & S a g a r i a ,  4  1978)  and/or s e l f - m o n i t o r i n g  (Snyder & Monson,  1975)  6  might  a l s o be p r o f i t a b l y examined. It  may be v a l u a b l e to examine d i f f e r e n c e s i n temporal  p e r s p e c t i v e u s i n g w i t h i n - s u b j e c t r a t h e r than between-subj e c t designs. ser,  Data f o r the p o l a r i z a t i o n h y p o t h e s i s  1978), e s p e c i a l l y , may be m e a n i n g f u l l y o b t a i n e d  (Tesusing  a repeated-measures e x p e r i m e n t a l d e s i g n . Interesting  d i f f e r e n c e s might r e s u l t i f  this  s t u d y were r e p l i c a t e d , but w i t h a t e n - m i n u t e time  same limit  so t h a t s u c c e s s / f a i l u r e would be more s t r i c t l y dependent upon the a c t o r / t e a c h e r .  A l t e r n a t i v e l y , a less  threaten-  i n g e x p e r i m e n t a l s i t u a t i o n might be s t r u c t u r e d by u s i n g a younger s t u d e n t - c o n f e d e r a t e and, e r g o ,  simpler  stimulus  words. In summary, most r e s e a r c h e r s would agree w i t h Monson and Snyder (1977)  who suggest ''that e m p i r i c a l r e s e a r c h e r s  t u r n from attempts t o • v e r i f y ' Nisbett  (1972)  the h y p o t h e s i s of Jones and  to systematic i n v e s t i g a t i o n s  of the ' w h e n ' ,  •why', and ' w i t h what 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 t h e o r y ' o f d i f f e r e n c e s between a c t o r s and o b s e r v e r s " (Monson & S n y der,  1977, p.  107).  47 Bibliography A r k i n , R.M., & D u v a l , S. Forms o f a t t e n t i o n and c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n o f a c t o r s and o b s e r v e r s . Journal of E x p e r i mental S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y . 1975, 11, 427-438. A r o n s o n , E . , & L i n d e r , D. G a i n and l o s s o f esteem as d e t e r minants o f i n t e r p e r s o n a l a t t r a c t i v e n e s s . Journal of Exp e r i m e n t a l S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y . 1965, 1, 156-171. Beckman, L . E f f e c t s o f s t u d e n t ' s performance on t e a c h e r ' s and o b s e r v e r ' s a t t r i b u t i o n s o f c a u s a l i t y . Journal of E d u c a t i o n a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1970, 61, 76-82. Beckman, L . T e a c h e r s ' and o b s e r v e r s ' p e r c e p t i o n s o f c a u s a l i t y f o r a c h i l d ' s performance. J o u r n a l o f E d u c a t i o n a l P s y c h o l o g y . 1973, 6J5, 198-204. Beckman, L . C a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s o f t e a c h e r s and p a r e n t s r e g a r d i n g c h i l d r e n ' s performance. Psychology i n t h e S c h o o l s . 1976, 13, 212-218. B e l l , L . G . I n f l u e n c e o f need t o c o n t r o l on d i f f e r e n c e s i n a t t r i b u t i o n o f c a u s a l i t y by a c t o r s and o b s e r v e r s (Doct o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , Duke U n i v e r s i t y , 1973). Dissertat i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 1974, 34, 4401. (Univers i t y M i c r o f i l m s No. 74-1122). B e r l y n e , D . E . A t t e n t i o n as a problem i n b e h a v i o r t h e o r y . In D.I. Mostofsky ( E d . ) , A t t e n t i o n : contemporary t h e ory and a n a l y s i s . New Y o r k : Appleton-Century-Crofts,  1970.  B e r l y n e , D.W. The i n f l u e n c e o f c o m p l e x i t y and n o v e l t y i n v i s u a l f i g u r e s on o r i e n t i n g r e s p o n s e s . Journal of Exp e r i m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1958, 5JS, 289-296. B e r s c h e i d , E . , Boye, D., & D a r l e y , J . M . E f f e c t of forced a s s o c i a t i o n upon v o l u n t a r y c h o i c e t o a s s o c i a t e . Journ a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1968, 8, 13-19. Brickman, P., Ryan, K., & Wortman, C . B . C a u s a l c h a i n s : A t t r i b u t i o n o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y as a f u n c t i o n o f immediate and p r i o r c a u s e s . J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y . 1975, 32, 1060-1067. Brunswik, E. R e p r e s e n t a t i v e d e s i g n and p r o b a b i l i s t i c P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review. 1955, 62, 193-217.  theory.  C a r v e r , C . S . , & S c h e i e r , M . F . The s e l f - f o c u s i n g e f f e c t s o f d i s p o s i t i o n a l s e l f - c o n s c i o u s n e s s , m i r r o r p r e s e n c e , and audience p r e s e n c e . J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y . 1978, 36, 324-332. !  D a v i s o n , G . C . , & V a l i n s , S. Maintenance o f s e l f - a t t r i b u t e d and d r u g - a t t r i b u t e d b e h a v i o r change. Journal of Persona l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1969, 11, 25-33.  48 DeCharms, R. Personal causation. P r e s s , 1968.  New Y o r k :  de l a Haye, A. Recherches s u r 1 • i n t e r a c t i o n Annee P s y c h o l o q i e , 1975, 75.» 153-168.  Academic anticipee.  D u v a l , S. C a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n as a f u n c t i o n of f o c u s o f attention. In S. Duval & R.A. Wicklund ( E d s . ) , A t h e ory of o b j e c t i v e s e l f - a w a r e n e s s . New Y o r k : Academic P r e s s , 1972. D u v a l , S., & Cook, M. A t t r i b u t i o n of c a u s a l i t y as a f u n c * t i o n of the r e l a t i v e d u r a t i o n of the f o c u s of a t t e n t i o n and q u a n t i t a t i v e and q u a l i t a t i v e n o v e l t y o f an object. U n p u b l i s h e d m a n u s c r i p t , U n i v e r s i t y of Southern C a l i f o r n i a , 1974. D u v a l , S., & H e n s l e y , V. E x t e n s i o n s of o b j e c t i v e s e l f - a w a r e ness t h e o r y : The f o c u s of a t t e n t i o n - c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n hypothesis. In J . H . Harvey, W . J . I c k e s , & R.F. K i d d ( E d s . ) , New d i r e c t i o n s i n a t t r i b u t i o n r e s e a r c h . V o l . 1. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum A s s o c i a t e s , 1977. D u v a l , S., & W i c k l u n d , R.A. A theory of o b j e c t i v e n e s s . New Y o r k : Academic P r e s s , 1972.  self-aware-  D u v a l , S., & W i c k l u n d , R.A. E f f e c t s of o b j e c t i v e s e l f - a w a r e ness on 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 E x p e r i mental S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y . 1973, 9, 1 7 - 3 1 . E i s e r , R . J . , & T a j f e l , H. A c q u i s i t i o n of i n f o r m a t i o n i n d y a d i c i n t e r a c 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 P s y c h o l o g y , 1972, 23. 340-345. !  F e a t h e r , N.T. A t t r i b u t i o n of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and v a l e n c e of success and f a i l u r e i n r e l a t i o n t o i n i t i a l c o n f i d e n c e and task performance. 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 P s y c h o l o g y , 1969, 13, 129-144. F e a t h e r , N.T. O r g a n i z a t i o n and d i s c r e p a n c y i n c o g n i t i v e structures. P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review, 1971, 78, 355-379. F e a t h e r , N.T., & and v a l e n c e and s u c c e s s Personality  Simon, J . G . A t t r i b u t i o n of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of outcome i n r e l a t i o n t o i n i t i a l c o n f i d e n c e and f a i l u r e of s e l f and o t h e r . J o u r n a l of and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1971, 18, 173-188 ( a ) .  F e a t h e r , N.T., & Simon, J . G . C a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s f o r s u c cess and f a i l u r e i n r e l a t i o n to e x p e c t a t i o n of s u c c e s s based upon s e l e c t i v e o r m a n i p u l a 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 , 1971, 39, 527-541 ( b ) . F e d e r o f f , N., & Harvey, J . H . Focus of a t t e n t i o n , s e l f - e s t e e m , and the 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 Research i n P e r s o n a l i t y , 1976, 10, 336-345.  49 F e l k e r , D.W., & Stanwyck, D . J . G e n e r a l s e l f - c o n c e p t and s p e c i f i c s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n s a f t e r an academic t a s k . P s y c h o l o g i c a l R e p o r t s , 1971, 29, 60-62. Freedman, J . Role p l a y i n g : Psychology by consensus. Journ a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1969, 13, 107-  114.  G a l p e r , R.E. T u r n i n g o b s e r v e r s i n t o a c t o r s : Differential c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s as a f u n c t i o n o f "empathy". Journ a l o f Research i n P e r s o n a l i t y , 1976, 10, 328-335. Gilmor, T . M . , & Minton, H.L. I n t e r n a l versus e x t e r n a l a t t r i b u t i o n o f task performance as a f u n c t i o n o f l o c u s of c o n t r o l , i n i t i a l c o n f i d e n c e , and s u c c e s s - f a i l u r e outcome. J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y , 1974, 41, 159-174. H a s t o r f , A . , S c h n e i d e r , D., & Polefka,a-J. Person p e r c e p t i o n . Reading, M a s s . : Addison-Wesley, 1970. Heider, F. York:  The psychology W i l e y , 1958.  of interpersonal r e l a t i o n s .  New  Johnson, D.W. C o o p e r a t i v e n e s s and s o c i a l p e r s p e c t i v e t a k ing. J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1975,  31,  241-244.  J o h n s o n , T . J . , Feigenbaum, R., & Weiby, M. Some d e t e r m i n a n t s and consequences o f t h e t e a c h e r ' s p e r c e p t i o n o f c a u s a tion. J o u r n a l o f E d u c a t i o n a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1964, 55_, 237-  246.  J o n e s , E . E . , ~ & ; D a v i s , K . E . A theory o f c o r r e s p o n d e n t i n f e r ences: From a c t s t o d i s p o s i t i o n s . I n L . Berkowitz (Ed.) Advances-in experimental s o c i a l psychology. New Yorle:  1965, 2,c219-266.  J o n e s , E . E . , D a v i s , K . E . , & Gergen, K . J . Role p l a y i n g v a r i a t i o n s and t h e i r i n f o r m a t i o n a l v a l u e f o r person p e r c e p tion. J o u r n a l o f Abnormal and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1961,  63,;' 302-310.  :  J o n e s , E . E . , •& de Charms, R. Changes i n s o c i a l p e r c e p t i o n as a f u n c t i o n o f t h e p e r s o n a l r e l e v a n c e o f b e h a v i o r . S o c i o m e t r y , 1957, 2j0, 75-85. J o n e s , E . E . , & H a r r i s , V . A . The a t t r i b u t i o n o f a t t i t u d e s . J o u r n a l o f E x p e r i m e n t a l S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1967, J3, 1-24. J o n e s , E . E . , & N i s b e t t , R . E . The a c t o r and t h e o b s e r v e r : D i v e r g e n t p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e causes o f b e h a v i o r . New York: G e n e r a l L e a r n i n g P r e s s , 1971. J o n e s , E . E . j & N i s b e t t , R . E . The a c t o r and t h e o b s e r v e r : D i v e r g e n t p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e causes o f b e h a v i o r . In E . E . J o n e s , D . E . Kanouse, H.H. K e l l e y , R . E . N i s b e t t , S. V a l i n s &.B. Weiner, A t t r i b u t i o n : P e r c e i v i n g t h e causes o f be?? havior. New J e r s e y : G e n e r a l L e a r n i n g P r e s s , 1972.  50 J o n e s , E . E . , RockjiL., Shaver, K•, G o e t h a l s , G . , & Ward, L . 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 u n expected 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 P s y c h o l o g y , 1968, 1 0 , . 3 1 7 - 3 4 0 . J o n e s , E . E . , W o r c h e l , S., G o e t h a l s , G . , & Grumet, J . Prior expectancy and b e h a v i o r a l e x t r e m i t y as d e t e r m i n a n t s of attitude attribution. J o u r n a l of E x p e r i m e n t a l S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1971, 7, 59^-80. 1 1  Kanouse, D.E. Language, l a b e l i n g , and a t t r i b u t i o n . In E . E . Jones, et a l . , A t t r i b u t i o n : P e r c e i v i n g the causes o f behavior. M o r r i s t o w n , New J e r s e y : General Learning P r e s s , 1972. K e l l e y , H.H. A t t r i b u t i o n theory i n s o c i a l psychology. D. L e v i n e ( E d . ) , Nebraska symposia on m o t i v a t i o n . v e r s i t y of Nebraska P r e s s , 1967, 192-240. K e l l e y , H.H. Attribution in social G e n e r a l L e a r n i n g P r e s s , 1971.  interaction.  In Uni-  New Y o r k :  K e l l e y , H.H. Attribution in social interaction. In E . E . Jones et a l . ( E d s . ) , A t t r i b u t i o n : P e r c e i v i n g the causes of b e h a v i o r . M o r r i s t o w n , New J e r s e y : General Learning P r e s s , 1972. K e l l e y , H.H. The processes of c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n . can P s y c h o l o g i s t , 1973, 28, 107-128.  Ameri-  K e l l e y , H.H., & S t a h e l s k i , A . J . E r r o r s i n p e r c e p t i o n o f i n t e n t i o n s i n a mixed-motive game. J o u r n a l of E x p e r i mental S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1970, 6, 379-400. K i e s l e r , C . A . , N i s b e t t , R.E., & Zanna, M.P. On i n f e r r i n g o n e ' s b e l i e f s from o n e ' s b e h a v i o r . Journal of Persona l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1969, 11, 321-327. Kleiner, R.J. The e f f e c t s of personal a t t r a c t i v e n e s s . 28, 145-156.  t h r e a t r e d u c t i o n upon i n t e r J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y , 1960,  K o h l b e r g , L. Stage and sequence: The c o g n i t i v e d e v e l o p mental approach to s o c i a l i z a t i o n . In D.A. G o s l i n ( E d . ) , Handbook of s o c i a l i z a t i o n theory and r e s e a r c h . Chicago: Rand-McNally, 1969. K u c e r a , H., & F r a n c i s , W.N. Computational a n a l y s i s o f p r e sent day American E n g l i s h . P r o v i d e n c e , R.I.: Brown U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1967. L a n g e r , E . J . , & Roth, J . Heads I win, t a i l s i t ' s c h a n c e : The i l l u s i o n of c o n t r o l as a f u n c t i o n of the sequence of outcomes i n a p u r e l y chance t a s k . 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 P s y c h o l o g y , 1975, _32, 951-955.  51 L e r n e r , M . J . , D i l l e h a y , R.C., & S h e r e r , W. S i m i l a r i t y and attraction in social contexts. 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 P s y c h o l o g y , 1967, 5_, 481-486. McArthur, L . , & P o s t , D. F i g u r a l emphasis and person p e r c e p t i o n . - J o u r n a l of E x p e r i m e n t a l S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1977, 13, 520-535. Meichenbaum, D.H., Bowers, K.S., & Ross, R.R. A behavioral a n a l y s i s o f t e a c h e r expectancy 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 P s y c h o l o g y , 1969, 13, 306-316. M e t t e e , D.R. Changes i n l i k i n g as a f u n c t i o n of the magnitude and e f f e c t of s e q u e n t i a l e v a l u a t i o n s . J o u r n a l of E x p e r i m e n t a l S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1971, 2» 157-172. M i l l e r , D.T. Ego involvement and a t t r i b u t i o n s f o r s u c c e s s and f a i l u r e . ® J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l ogy, 1976, 34, 901-906. M i l l e r , D.T., & Haqq, D.M. A t t r i b u t i o n a l s h i f t s w i t h temporal delay: As time goes by. (in preparation). M i l l e r , D.T., & Holmes, J . G . The r o l e o f s i t u a t i o n a l r e s t r i c t i v e n e s s on s e l f - f u l f i l l i n g p r o p h e c i e s : A t h e o r e t i c a l a a r i d e m p i r i c a l e x t e n s i o n of K e l l e y and S t a h e l s k i ' s triangle hypothesis. 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 P s y c h o l o g y , 1975, 31, 661-673. M i l l e r , D.T., & Norman, S.A. Actor-observer differences in p e r c e p t i o n s 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 P s y c h o l o g y , 1975, 31, 503-515. M i l l e r , D.T., & Ross, M. S e l f - s e r v i n g b i a s e s i n the a t t r i b u t i o n of c a u s a l i t y : Fact or f i c t i o n ? ' t P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 1975, 82, 213-225. M i l l e r , D.T., Norman, S.A., & W r i g h t , E. Distortion in person p e r c e p t i o n as a consequence of the need f o r e f f e c t i v e c o n t r o l . J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1978, 36, 598-607. M i r e l s , H., & M i l l s , J . P e r c e p t i o n of the p l e a s a n t n e s s and competence of a p a r t n e r . J o u r n a l of Abnormal S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1964, 68, 456-459. M i s c h e l , W. 1968.  Personality  and assessment.  New Y o r k :  M i s c h e l , W. C o n t i n u i t y and change i n p e r s o n a l i t y . P s y c h o l o g i s t , 1969, 11, 1012-1018.  Wiley, American  Monson, T . C . , & Snyder, M. A c t o r s , o b s e r v e r s , and the a t t r i bution process. J o u r n a l of Experimental S o c i a l P s y c h o l ogy, 1977, 13, 89-111. N i s b e t t , R.E., & Caputo, G . C . Personality t r a i t s : Why o t h e r people do the t h i n g s they d o . U n p u b l i s h e d manus c r i p t , Y a l e U n i v e r s i t y , 1971.  52 N i s b e t t , R . E . , L e g a n t , P., & Maracek, J . The causes of b e h a v i o r as seen by a c t o r and o b s e r v e r . U n p u b l i s h e d manu s c r i p t , Y a l e U n i v e r s i t y , 1971. N i s b e t t , R.E., & S c h a c h t e r , S. Cognitive manipulation pain. J o u r n a l of E x p e r i m e n t a l S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 2, 227-236.  of 1966,  Pepitone, A. Motivational effects in social perception. Human R e l a t i o n s j 1949, 3, 57-76. Regan, J . W . , G o s s e l i n k , H., Hubsch, J . , & U l s h , E. Do p e o p l e have i n f l a t e d views, of t h e i r own a b i l i t y ? Journal o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1975, 31, 295-301. Regan, D.T., S t r a u s , E . , & F a z i o , R. L i k i n g and the a t t r i bution process. J o u r n a l of E x p e r i m e n t a l S o c i a l P s y c h o l ogy, 1974, 10, 385-397. Regan, D.T., & T o t t e n , J . Empathy and a t t r i b u t i o n : Turning observers i n t o a c t o r s . J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1975, 32, 850-856. Rosenhan, D. On being sane i n i n s a n e p l a c e s . 7_9, 250-252.  Science,  Rosenthal, J . H . Self-esteem i n d y s l e x i c c h i l d r e n . Therapy, 1973, 9, 2 7 - 3 9 .  1973,  Academic  R o s e n t h a l , R., & J a c o b s o n , L . Teachers' expectancies: t e r m i n a n t s of p u p i l s ' i n t e l l i g e n c e . Psychological p o r t s . 1966, 19, 115-118.  DeRe-  Ross, L . , B i e r b r a u e r , G . , & P o l l y , S. A t t r i b u t i o n of educ a t i o n a l outcomes by p r o f e s s i o n a l and n o n - p r o f e s s i o n a l instructors. J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1974, 29, 609-618. Rotterj J.B. Generalized expectancies f o r i n t e r n a l versus e x t e r n a l c o n t r o l of r e i n f o r c e m e n t . P s y c h o l o g i c a l Monographs, 1966, 80 (1, Whole No. 6 0 9 ) . S a d l e r , 0 . , & T e s s e r , A. Some e f f e c t s of s a l i e n c e and time upon i n t e r p e r s o n a l h o s t i l i t y and a t t r a c t i o n d u r i n g s o cial isolation. S o c i o m e t r y , 1973, 36_, 99-112. S c h a c h t e r , S., & S i n g e r , J . E . C o g n i t i v e , s o c i a l ^ and p h y s i o l o g i c a l d e t e r m i n a n t s of emotional s t a t e . Psychologic a l Review, 1962, 69, 379-399. S e a v e r , W.B. E f f e c t s of n a t u r a l l y induced t e a c h e r e x p e c tancies. J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1973, 28, 333-342. S h a v e r , K.G. An i n t r o d u c t i o n t o a t t r i b u t i o n p r o c e s s e s . Cambridge, Mass.: Winthrop Pub., I n c . , 1975. Shibutani, T. S o c i e t y and p e r s o n a l i t y . N.J.: P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1961.  Englewood  Cliffs,  53 Snyder, M., & Monson, T . C . P e r s o n s , s i t u a t i o n s , and the c o n t r o l of s o c i a l b e h a v i o r . J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1975, 32, 637-644. S t o k o l s , D., & S c h o p l e r , J . R e a c t i o n s t o v i c t i m s under c o n d i t i o n s of s i t u a t i o n a l detachment: The e f f e c t s o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , s e v e r i t y , and expected f u t u r e i n t e r a c 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 P s y c h o l o g y , 1973, 25, 199-209. Storms, M.D. V i d e o t a p e and the a t t r i b u t i o n p r o c e s s : Rev e r s i n g actors'-sand o b s e r v e r s ' p o i n t s of view. Journal of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1973, ,27, 165-175. S t o t l a n d , E. E x p l o r a t o r y i n v e s t i g a t i o n s o f empathy. In L. Berkowitz ( E d . ) , Advances i n e x p e r i m e n t a l s o c i a l p s y c h o l o g y , V o l . 4, New Y o r k : Academic P r e s s , 1969. S t r e u f e r t , S., & S t r e u f e r t , S . C . E f f e c t s of c o n c e p t u a l s••k^ s t r u c t u r e , f a i l u r e , and success on a t t r i b u t i o n o f c a u s a l i t y and i n t e r p e r s o n a l a t t i t u d e 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 P s y c h o l o g y , 1969, 11, 138-147. T a y l o r , S.E., & F i s k e , S.T. P o i n t of view and p e r c e p t i o n s of c a u s a l i t y . J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1975, 32, 439-445. T a y l o r , S.E., & F i s k e , S.T. S a l i e n c e , a t t e n t i o n , and a t t r i bution: Top of the head phenomena. In L. B e r k o w i t z ( E d . ) , Advances i n e x p e r i m e n t a l s o c i a l p s y c h o l o g y . V o l . 11, New Y o r k : Academic P r e s s , 1978, 249-288. T a y l o r , S . E . , F i s k e , S . T . , C l o s e , M., Anderson, C , & Ruderman, A. S o l o s t a t u s as a p s y c h o l o g i c a l v a r i a b l e : The power o f being d i s t i n c t i v e . U n p u b l i s h e d manus c r i p t , Harvard U n i v e r s i t y , 1977. T a y l o r , S . E . , & Koivumaki, J . H . The p e r c e p t i o n of s e l f and others: A c q u a i n t a n c e s h i p , a f f e c t , and a c t o r - o b s e r v e r differences. 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 P s y c h o l o g y . 1976, 33, 403-408. T e s s e r , A. S e l f - g e n e r a t e d a t t i t u d e change. In L . B e r k o w i t z ( E d . ) , Advances i n e x p e r i m e n t a l s o c i a l p s y c h o l o g y . V o l . 11, New York: Academic P r e s s , 1978, 289-338. T e s s e r , A . , & C o n l e e , M.C. Some e f f e c t s of time and thought on a t t i t u d e p o l a r i z a t i o n . J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1975, 31, 262-270. T e s s e r , A . , & Cowan, C . L . Some e f f e c t s of ber of c o g n i t i o n s on a t t i t u d e change. and P e r s o n a l i t y , 1975, 3, 165-173.  thought Social  and numBehavior  T e s s e r , A . , & Leone, C . C o g n i t i v e schemas and thought as det e r m i n a n t s of a t t i t u d e change. J o u r n a l of E x p e r i m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1977, 13, 340-356.  54 T j o s v o l d , D., & S a g a r i a , S.D. E f f e c t s of r e l a t i v e power on cognitive perspective-taking. P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology B u l l e t i n , 1978, 4, 256-259. Tolman, E . C . , & Brunswik, E. The organism and the c a u s a l t e x t u r e of t h e environment. P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review, 1955, 42, 4 3 - 7 7 . V a l i n s , S. Cognitive e f f e c t s of f a l s e h e a r t - r a t e feedback. J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1966, 4, 400-408. W a c h t e l , P. Psychodynamics, b e h a v i o r t h e r a p y , and the i m p l a c a b l e e x p e r i m e n t e r : An i n q u i r y i n t o the c o n s i s t e n c y of p e r s o n a l i t y . J o u r n a l of Abnormal P s y c h o l o g y , 1973, 82, 324-334. W h i t e , R.W. M o t i v a t i o n r e c o n s i d e r e d : The concept of competence. P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review, 1959, 66, 297-333. W i c k l u n d , R.A. Objective self-awareness. In L . B e r k o w i t z ( E d . ) , Advances i n e x p e r i m e n t a l s o c i a l p s y c h o l o g y , V o l . 8, New Y o r k : Academic P r e s s , 1975. W o l o s i n , R., Sherman, S . J . , & Mynatt, C.R. Perceived s o c i a l influence in a conformity s i t u a t i o n . Journal of Persona l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1972, 2_3, 184-191. W o l o s i n , R . J . , Sherman, S . J . , & T i l l , A. E f f e c t s of c o o p e r a t i o n and c o m p e t i t i o n on r e s p o n s i b i l i t y a t t r i b u t i o n a f t e r s u c c e s s and f a i l u r e . Journal of Experimental Soc i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1973, 9, 220-235. Wortman, C . B . , C o s t a n z o , 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 performance on the a t t r i b u t i o n s o f c a u s a l i t y t o s e l f and o t h e r 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 P s y c h o l o g y , 1973, 27, 372-381. 7  Z u c k e r , E.C. The e f f e c t of a n t i c i p a t e d performance on the c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s o f a c t o r s and o b s e r v e r s f o r s u c c e s s and f a i l u r e . Unpublished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of R o c h e s t e r , N.Y., 1976.  5 5  APPENDIX Racial/Ethnic  1.  Background of S u b j e c t s ,  and S t u d e n t / C o n f e d e r a t e - i n c l u d i n g O v e r a l l f o r Actors/Observers  Experimenter, Distribution  and S p e c i f i c A c t o r / O b s e r v e r P a i r s  A c c o r d i n g to E x p e r i m e n t a l  Condition  5 6  Racial/Ethnic  Background  of S u b j e c t s * ,  Experimenter,  and  Student/Confederate Overall Distribution  for  Subjects  Background  Actors  Observers  N o r t h e r n European ( E n g l i s h , S c o t t i s h , I r i s h , Ukrainian, German, D a n i s h , Swedish, Dutch, French)  37  34  71  Southern European o r M i d d l e E a s t ern ( S p a n i s h , I t a l i a n , Jewi s h , E a s t Indian)  7  4  11  Chinese/Japanese  5  11  16  p a r t Negro  1  50 Experimenter's  Background:  Student/Confederate's  Data s p e c i f i c  Background:  to t h i s  1  2  50  100  Italian/Sicilian Italian/Sicilian  East Indian/Tai  *  Total  and  (Siamese)  t o p i c were not c o l l e c t e d at  the  time of the e x p e r i m e n t a l s e s s i o n s , but were l a t e r c a l c u l a t e d by the experimenter from l a s t names and v i s u a l mem ory of subject  participants.  57 Racial/Ethnic  Background  to Experimental Prediction  of A c t o r / O b s e r v e r  Condition  Condition:  Actor, Italian Observer, Chinese Actor, English Observer, I r i s h A c t o r , Chinese Observer, E n g l i s h A c t o r , German Observer, E n g l i s h Actor, English Observer? F r e n c h Actor, English Observer, English A c t o r ; Danish Observer, Spanish Actor, English Observerj E n g l i s h Actor, English Observer; E n g l i s h A c t o r , Chinese Observer; I r i s h Immediately A f t e r - No V i d e o  Condition:  Actor, English Observer; E n g l i s h  Actor, English Observer, English  Actor, English, Observer; E n g l i s h  A c t o r , Chinese O b s e r v e r , Chinese  Actor, Italian Observer,Ilrish  Actor, English Observer, E n g l i s h  A c t o r , Chinese Observer, Chinese  Actor, English Observer, English  A c t o r , Spanish Observer, E n g l i s h  Actor, English Observer, E n g l i s h  Pairs  According  58 Immediately A f t e r - Video  Condition;  Actor, English Observer, E n g l i s h  Actor, English Observer, Chinese  A c t o r , German 0 bs erver|, E ng1i s h  A c t o r , Dutch Observer, E n g l i s h  Actor, English Observer, Jewish  Actor, English O b s e r v e r , p a r t Negro  A c t o r , Swedish O b s e r v e r , Japanese  Actor, English O b s e r v e r , Japanese  Actor, English Observer, E n g l i s h  Actor, English Observer, Chinese  Delay  - No V i d e o  Condition;  A c t o r , Spanish Observer, I r i s h  A c t o r , Jewish Observer, Chinese  Actor, English Observer, Spanish  Actor, English Observer, Chinese  Actori Ukrainian Observer, Chinese  Actor, English Observer, E n g l i s h  Actor, English Observer,SEnglish  Actor, English Observer, I r i s h  A c t o r , East I n d i a n Observer, I t a l i a n  Actor, English Observer, E n g l i s h  Delay  - Video  Condition:  Actor, English Observer,sEnglish  Actor, English Observer, E n g l i s h  Actor, English Observer, E n g l i s h  Actor, Scottish Observer, E n g l i s h  Actor, Italian O b s e r v e r , Swedish  Actor, Ukrainian' Observer, E n g l i s h  Actor, English Observer, French  A c t o r , p a r t Negro Observer, E n g l i s h  A c t o r , Japanese Observer, Chinese  Actor, English Observer, E n g l i s h  59 APPENDIX Permission f o r Observer,  2.  Form and E x p e r i m e n t a l  Immediately  Booklet.  After Condition.  Name;  University level; Date,; Time: .  years  62 We are i n t e r e s t e d i n the dynamics of the l e a r n i n g ation.  situ-  Research has shown t h a t both the t e a c h i n g method and  the i n t e r p e r s o n a l s t y l e of the t e a c h e r have an i n f l u e n c e upon learning.  The r e a c t i o n s of the student a r e a l s o i m p o r t a n t  the l e a r n i n g  in  process.  Our purpose i s  to g a i n an o v e r a l l p i c t u r e of the l e a r n i n g  s i t u a t i o n so as t o i d e n t i f y those f a c t o r s which might p r o f i t a b l y be s t u d i e d at a l a t e r t i m e .  The aim of these s t u d i e s  is  t o d i s c o v e r the best ways t o f a c i l i t a t e l e a r n i n g . You have been randomly a s s i g n e d t o observe the o t h e r s u b j e c t as she teaches the s t u d e n t the meaning of t h r e e words. The g o a l i s  f o r the student t o be a b l e t o use each of the t h r e e  words c o r r e c t l y i n a s e n t e n c e . what a word means, she i s using  that  (When the student  t o make up her own o r i g i n a l  sentence  word.)  There w i l l be no time l i m i t f o r t h i s e r s u b j e c t (the t e a c h e r ) i s  assignment.  t h e s e words.  The o t h -  t o f e e l f r e e t o use whatever meth-  od she p e r s o n a l l y t h i n k s w i l l be most e f f e c t i v e i n she  understands  teaching  She may use the b l a c k b o a r d a n d / o r d i c t i o n a r y  if  wishes. A f t e r the s e s s i o n , we w i l l ask both of you f o r your r e -  a c t i o n s so t h a t we may be h e l p e d f u r t h e r i n our  investigation  of student/teacher v a r i a b l e s . The e x p e r i m e n t e r w i l l be v i d e o t a p i n g the i n t e r a c t i o n so t h a t she can r e v i e w the s e s s i o n l a t e r o n . We a p p r e c i a t e your h e l p w i t h t h i s r e s e a r c h .  If  you a r e  i n t e r e s t e d i n h e a r i n g about the f i n a l r e s u l t s of the s t u d y , the e x p e r i m e n t e r w i l l be a b l e to p r o v i d e you w i t h d e t a i l s the end of A p r i l .  Her *phone number i s  228-6487.  The t e a c h e r w i l l now randomly s e l e c t the t h r e e words one 3x5 index c a r d )  at (on  from the box, and show them t o you as w e l l .  Please wait f o r f u r t h e r i n s t r u c t i o n s . . .  63 After this  teaching s e s s i o n ,  i t w i l l be h e l p f u l f o r  t o have your r e a c t i o n s t o the s t u d e n t / t e a c h e r involved.  T h e r e are no r i g h t  us  interactions  o r wrong answers t o t h e s e  ques-  t i o n s ; we a r e p r i m a r i l y concerned w i t h your own o p i n i o n s . P l e a s e answer t h e s e q u e s t i o n s  independently.  C o n s i d e r the f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n s responsibility  a c c o r d i n g t o what you t h i n k o c c u r r e d ( t h e  need not add up t o 1.  t o g e t h e r and a p p o r t i o n  100%):  To what e x t e n t was the outcome of the t e a c h i n g s e s s i o n due to the p e r s o n a l q u a l i t i e s of the c h e r - her a b i l i t y , etc.?  2.  total  effort, interest,  tea-  presentation,  %.  To what e x t e n t was the outcome due t o c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the s i t u a t i o n - the t a s k , the words drawn,  etc.?  %. 3.  To what extent was the outcome due t o c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the student - her l e a r n i n g a b i l i t y , etc.?  motivation,  %•  P l e a s e t u r n the  page...  6  C o n s i d e r the f o l l o w i n g  f a c t o r s p e r t a i n i n g to the  c h e r and r a t e the items a c c o r d i n g l y by p l a c i n g an "X" a p p r o p r i a t e space on the s c a l e .  1.  teaat  teaching  a b i l i t y i n d e t e r m i n i n g the outcome of the t e a c h i n g  2.  i  i  the  F o r example:  Of what importance was the t e a c h e r ' s g e n e r a l  Not at a l l important I  4  !  session?  Very limportant  •  Of what importance was the t e a c h e r ' s random s e l e c t i o n o f the t h r e e words i n d e t e r m i n i n g the outcome of the t e a c h ing  session?  Not at a l l importanti 3.  _ i  i  I  Very limportant  1  Of what importance was the t e a c h e r ' s i n t e r e s t and e f f o r t i n d e t e r m i n i n g the outcome of the t e a c h i n g  Not at a i l important C 4.  i  i  i  Very limportant  i  Of what importance was the d i f f i c u l t y l e v e l of the task i n d e t e r m i n i n g the outcome of the t e a c h i n g  Not at a l l importanti 5.  session?  i  i  r  session? Very (.important  i  How d i f f i c u l t do you e s t i m a t e the task t o have been?  Not at a l l difficult!  I  t  I  P l e a s e t u r n the  Very L_ __t.diff icult r  page....  i  65 C o n s i d e r the f o l l o w i n g  f a c t o r s p e r t a i n i n g to the s t u -  dent and r a t e the items a c c o r d i n g l y by p l a c i n g an "X" a p p r o p r i a t e space on the s c a l e . |  1.  i  i  ^  the  F o r example: l  i  Of what importance was the s t u d e n t ' s ability  at  1  general  i n d e t e r m i n i n g the outcome o f t h i s  scholastic  teaching  session? Not at a l l important I 2.  1  1  1  Very 1 important  1  Of what importance was her a p t i t u d e f o r l e a r n i n g word meanings i n d e t e r m i n i n g the outcome of t h i s  teaching  session? Not at a l l important i 3.  >  i  Of what importance was h e r adjustment ing s i t u a t i o n ing  i  Very i important  to a novel l e a r n -  i n d e t e r m i n i n g the outcome of t h i s  teach-  session?  Not at a l l important i 4 .  \  i  I  i  Of what importance was the s t u d e n t ' s vation level  i  Very L important  a t t e n t i o n and m o t i -  i n d e t e r m i n i n g the outcome of t h i s  teaching  session? Not at a l l important  l,  i  I  I  i  P l e a s e t u r n the page.  Very I important  6 6  Please l i s t  o r d i s c u s s any o t h e r f a c t o r s which you  p e r c e i v e t o be important i n any s t u d e n t / t e a c h e r i n t e r a c t i o n :  Have you had any e x p e r i e n c e i n t e a c h i n g - f o r example, as a c l a s s r o o m coach, etc.? If  "Yes",  t e a c h e r , r e l i g i o n t e a c h e r , camp l e a d e r , No;  please specify:  Yes  sports  67 APPENDIX 3 S t i m u l u s Words A c c o r d i n g t o E x p e r i m e n t a l C o n d i t i o n  PREDICTION CONDITION Rank L i s t i n g  Nouns 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.  vice desegregation controversy dilemma regime mason inventory merger desegregation autonomy  41-09-008 40-04-005 26-09-022 25-09-018 23-07-018 23-06-007 23-06-013 21-06-009 40-04-005 18-06-008  benefits confronted conditioned foil assert compromise lodge prosecute lease dominate  33-07-019 32-12-031 20-06-009 20-09-010 19-04-014 20-07-015 19-07-010 02-02-002 10-06-008 08-07-008  Verbs 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.  Adjectives 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. *  organic primitive marginal enthusiastic pertinent arbitrary economical monotonous prominent perilous  38-05-015 38-11-029 25-06-015 24-11-029 21-07-021 21-07-018 22-04-018 08-06-008 40-13-032 08-05-008  The e n t r y v i c e , 41-09-028, means t h a t the word v i c e  o c c u r s 41 times i n the whole corpus o f 1,014,230 words of n a t u r a l - l a n g u a g e  t e x t , and can be found i n 9 o f the  genres o r c a t e g o r i e s o f w r i t i n g and i n 28 o f the 500 samples.  IMMEDIATELY AFTER - NO VIDEO CONDITION Nouns 1. 2. 3, 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.  Rank L i s t i n q enterprise emission panel textile amendment implications rehabilitation agriculture linguist tactics  31-07-024 32-01-003 31-08-017 28-05-008 23-05-015 22-08-017 22-04-008 23-07-019 13-03-004 20-08-016  subjected storm champion buck distinguish regiment welch o r welsh assert antagonize adhere  24-10-018 26-11-020 23-07-013 20-06-011 19-04-014 25-06-018 14-01-001 19-04-014 01-01-001 04-02-004  Verbs 1. 2. 3. 4, 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.  Adj e c t i v e s 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.  excessive remote municipal sophisticated strategic ideological feasible relevant manifold demographic  30-10-024 32-11-026 28-07-020 26-09-021 23-06-012 20-06-011 15-06-011 23-06-020 13-02-013 12-02-002  IMMEDIATELY AFTER - VIDEO CONDITION Nouns 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.  Rank L i s t i n g illusion ratio evaluation conception technology objectives ritual clarity assumptions palfrey  37-07-016 36-04-018 31-04-018 32-07-023 43-08-027 39-06-027 25-08-012 28-09-020 23-05-016 26-01-001  encountered rendered anticipated bridges harbor decline pursue resolved exceed crop  30-10-026 28-09-021 23-10-021 26-06-012 37-11-022 37-07-021 20-07-018 21-08-016 19-05-011 20-07-014  Verbs 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.  Adjectives 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.  classical inevitable ecumenical elaborate legislative binomial preliminary aesthetic ambiguous rational  33-10-024 33-11-025 29-02-002 32-11-029 40-07-029 36-01-001 24-09-020 26-04-017 22-06-016 25-04-016  DELAY - NO VIDEO CONDITION Rank L i s t i n g  Nouns 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10•  diameter gesture tangent flux conspiracy alliance renaissance curriculum contours polynomia1  45-05-018 32-12-024 26-01-002 30-04-008 22-06-012 20-06-013 20-07-012 16-05-010 15-07-012 28-01-001  derived blanche dominated despair scrutinize relish implicate congregate agitate smart  39-10-026 25-04-005 20-08-018 21-09-019 03-03-003 08-05-008 02-02-002 02-02-002 01-01-001 21-09-018  Verbs 1. 2, 3* 4. 5. 6. 7, 8. 9. 10.  Adjectives 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.  comparable conservative subtle pulmonary binding luminous therapeutic integral rigorous mutual  41-07-037 31-07-025 25-08-022 27-01-002 20-07-011 12-06-007 13-04-007 13-06-012 07-04-007 26-08-020  DELAY - VIDEO CONDITION Nouns 1. 2. 3. 4. 5, 6. 7.  8. 9. 10,  Rank L i s t i n q harmony dispute density dimensions intervals dilemma patents chaos recipient  33-09-017 34-06-015 30-08-016 30-07-020 25-09-023 25-09-018 24-03-004 19-04-007 17-07-011 07-04-006  marshal conceived craft resumed lobby foil stake distort emancipate subsidize  26-07-012 27-10-024 23-10-016 23-11-021 20-07-013 20-09-010 20-07-015 04-02-004 02-02-002 04-03-003  U t o p i a  Verbs 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8, 9. 10.  Adjectives 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.  curt thermal optimal profound explicit metaphysical empirical cylindrical judicial ambivalent  32-02-002 33-03-010 28-01-004 27-11-027 24-07-019 16-06-009 23-04-009 11-02-006 16-04-009 06-05-006  73 APPENDIX 4 Wean A t t r i b u t i o n s of A c t o r s and Observers A c c o r d i n g "No V i d e o / V i d e o " , Immediately A f t e r and Delay  to  Conditions  74 Mean A t t r i b u t i o n s  of A c t o r s and Observers A c c o r d i n g  "No V i d e o / V i d e o " , Immediately  A f t e r and Delay  to  Conditions  ACTORS IMMEDIATELY AFTER No v i d e o  video  DELAY No v i d e o  Video  Teacher  52.5  46.0  50.0  38.8  Situation  27.0  37.0  30.5  29.2  Student  59.0  38.2  51.0  57.0  3.5  4.1  4.1  3.8  4.1  4.1  4.3  4.1  4.1  3.6  3.8  3.7  2.6  3.4  3.3.  3.1  4.0  3.6  3.8  4.0  4.0  3.8  4.6  4.5  3.5  4.2  4.3  3.8  4.4  4.4  4.5  4.8  Teacher's general teaching a b i l i t y Teacher's e f f o r t Importance o f d i f f i c u l t y of task How d i f f i c u l t was task? Student's general scholastic a b i l i t y Student's aptitude f o r word meanings S t u d e n t ' s adjustmt to n o v e l * s i t u a t i o n S t u d e n t ' s a t t n . and motivation  1  OBSERVERS IMMEDIATELY AFTER No v i d e o  Video  DELAY >-No v i d e o  Video  Teacher  4*7 JS:  56.0  54.5  55.5  Situation  34.0  45.5  41.5  32.0  Student  54.0  51.5  57.0  44.6  3.5  3.7  4.1  3.6  3.9  4.1  4.2  4.0  3.8  3.9  4.2  3.7  3.7  3.4  3.2  3.5  4.0  3.9  3.3  3.3  4.2  4.4  4.1  4.0  3.8 4.6  3.7 4.6  3.7 4.6  3.6 4.8  Teacher's general teaching a b i l i t y Teacher's e f f o r t Importance of d i f f i c u l t y of task How d i f f i c u l t was task? Student's general scholastic a b i l i t y Student's aptitude f o r word meanings S t u d e n t ' s a d j . nov.. S t u d e n t ' s a t t n . Mt.  APPENDIX 5 Data Code and Raw Data  Listing  76 DATA CODE Column Number(s)  D e s c r i p t i o n of Item  1,2  S u b j e c t numbers (1-10)  3-5  Subject  6,7  Age  f o r r e p e a t e d measures  numbers  8  University  level  (years  at  university)  9  Role:  A c t o r = 1; Observer = 2  10  Time:  Immediately  a f t e r =» 1; Delay = 2;  P r e d i c t i o n *> 3 11  No v i d e o = 1; V i d e o «* 2  12, 13  A t t r i b u t i o n of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y (in  14, 15  percentage)  A t t r i b u t i o n of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ation (in  16, 17  toward Teacher Situ-  toward  Stu-  percentage)  A t t r i b u t i o n of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y dent ( i n  toward  percentage)  (The f o l l o w i n g  t e a c h e r , t a s k , and s t u d e n t  items were r a t e d on  5-point  s c a l e s w i t h 1 = Not at a l l  important;  rating  5 = Very  i m p o r t a n t , o r 1 = Not at a l l d i f f i c u l t ; 5 = Very d i f f i c u l t . ) 18  Teacher's general teaching  ability  19  Random s e l e c t i o n of t h r e e words  20  Teacher's  21  Importance  22  How d i f f i c u l t was  23  Student's  general s c h o l a s t i c  24  Student&s  a p t i t u d e f o r l e a r n i n g word meanings  25  Student's  adjustment  26  Student's  a t t e n t i o n and m o t i v a t i o n  2 7-29  Prof =» mean of t e a c h e r ' s g e n e r a l  (luck)  effort of d i f f i c u l t y of  task  task?  a b i l i t y + teacher's  ability  t o a novel  situation teaching  effort  30  Random s e l e c t i o n of t h r e e words  31-33  Task = mean of Importance  (luck)  of d i f f i c u l t y  l e v e l o f task + How d i f f i c u l t was  task?  77 Column Number(s)  D e s c r i p t i o n of Item  34-37  P u p i l = mean of a l l f o u r student (columns  38-40  items  23-26)  Number of words answering f r e e  response  query, " P l e a s e l i s t  any o t h e r  or discuss  f a c t o r s which you p e r c e i v e t o be i m p o r tant i n any s t u d e n t / t e a c h e r i n t e r a c t i o n " » 41  Yes = 1; No = 2, i n answer t o ''Have you had any t e a c h i n g e x p e r i e n c e ?  ••LAST SIGHOB I A S : 17:01:24 USEE «&OQ0" SIGHED 01 AT 17:09:00 01 XBO JOB 28/79 SLIST *SO0BCE» 1 010 0118113150 20305145434344.514.53.S01072 2 020 031911317540604223435443.023.54.000222 3 030051921314020404243344354.023.04.000221 4 040071811317050505154443455.014.04.000001 5 050091921316020 404344 244444.0 33.04.000131 6 060111811316520354344455554.034.05.000091 7 070132031314010 504144534344.014.53.500322 8 080 IS 1921315015355353333345.033.03.250231 9 090172341313020404252344354.522.54.000211 10 1001920 21315025505143444444.513.54.000111 11 010 021812315020304353434444.533.53.750001 12 020042342314060404425555143.045.03.750262 13 030062032315025253133423143.013.52.500372 14 040 0818123160406052 45344344.524.03.750321 15 0501019223140 204054544*4445.044.04.000202 16 0601218123150 20305253244455.022.54.250102 17 0701420423150 35504245445434.024.54.000111 18 080162022319065854455324344.544.03.251021 19 090182522313333335555435555.054.54.500112 20 100202022315025505143444444.513.54.000172 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100  0102519211150 20404344234344.033.03.50040103 02027181111601S904345155354.033.04.50038105 030291911115050803544444453.554.04.25000119 040311921118515503144 233443.513.03.50047109 050 3321311140204041533433 5 4 . 5 1 3 . 0 3 . 7 5 0 7 1 1 14 060351911115050703343355543.533.04.75042209 070371921117010205355322345.034.02.75096116 080391811113525404134245343.513.04.00010120 090411811111515702535355452.554.04.75011215 100432021117050903354354344.033.54.00015110 010262022115500454154324454.513.53.75032103 020282032115035702334343 242.533.53.25061105 030301812112550253435445443.044.54.25047119 040322022116020S05455455455.044.54. 75044109 OS0341812114010S05443445454.543.54.50082214 060 361922115025852122455552.013.05.00058109 070381812117560504244542554.024.54.00090116 0804020221180 808542534444 44.523.54.00044220 09042212211 1025502 345345453.034.04.500212 15 100 442332113035304443344244.043.03.50023110 010492021123030604344444454.034.04.25038104 0205147211230 60254334433 433.534.03.25035109 030531911123075005344454554.534.04.75051111 040551811126005774254335554.523.54.50076108 05057212112 55104 54452554344.543.54.00098212 0605919211250 30503134344 4 5 3 . 0 1 3 . 5 4 . 2 5 0 0 0 2 0 5 070611811125075505154445455.014.04.50039108 080632131124510355243234444.522.53.75068112 090652321125070054444332544.043.53.50122211 100672111126005353143223443.512.53.25033210 010502022123040 503143445553.513.54.75045204 02052181212808 5804534434453.554.04.000462 09 030541922126050303444434243.544.03.25052211 040561812127020 202355555553.535.05.00110208 050581812129050804145345554.014.04.75019112 060602022122550753345255453.533.54.75041105 070622232125015255443345344.543.04.00029108 080641912124525305253233355.022.53.50060112 090661922124040504243444234.023.53.25081111 100682022127080754144344454.013.54.25030110 010732031217530754144355554.013.55.00092107 0207519212150 25503252144454.0 21.54.25149108 030771911213530354344445444.034.04.25015119 040791921214020 405244335354.523.54.00045210 050811811217050104454432334.544.02.75071111 060832241215070905555555555.055.05.00050113 070851811213040504544425554.054.04.25038113 080872141213000704245545554.025.04.75055112 090892121216530554142145544.011.54.50125106 100912131215510354244345444.023.54.25047119 010742012218065854 445345454.044.04.50031107 020761922218070705355345555.034.0 4.75035208 030781812215020603435424 4 5 3 . 0 4 4 . 5 3 . 7 5 0 3 4 2 1 9 040 802422215020804243223444.022.53.25000110 0508 21812217580855455344455.044.04.25157111 060841812211565153425434242.544.53.25033113 070861812216050 705354443445.034.03.75061113 0808820222150 302034 43234343.542.53.50017112 0909 01912216005355253 335255.023.03.75045106 100 921812212510 504254444554.524.04.50076119 010972321224015405242355 2 4 4 . 5 2 2 . 5 4 . 0 0 0 7 9 1 2 5 02099 2311223510554344415 554.034.04.00016208 031011811224030604344355454.033.54.75052110 041031921226050704244 344354.023.54.00079102 0510518112230307042 44343554.023.54.25101114 0610719112268 57904545345354.054.04.25083114 071092031225010405154454355.014.04.25117209 081111911223520453444555343.544.54.25104223 09113 241122 2030S02332134S52.531.54.2S042209 101151921221040503454245554.043.04.75079105 010961812226070504532524553.553.54.00075125 020981922225030304143333454.013.03.7S071108. 031001812229075965152 245355.012.04.25087110 041022132224020354255433554.524.54.00048102 051041922225020 503143444343.513.53.75041114 061061912226010201155 224353.013.53.50090114 071082832222S353S2134444442.514.04.00023109 081101822228040505425444253.544.53.75091123 091121812226010305444445454.544.04.50020109 1011*1922224010503254334354.023.53.75008105  E1D Of FILB  78  79 APPENDIX 6 C o r r e l a t i o n M a t r i x of Demographic Items and Dependent Measures  1U0  NAME AGE UNIV TBACHB SITU STUDBT T/ABIL LUCK  DBii.mjss  STD.DEV.  19.7030 1. 77228 50.0099 33.1683 49.1*653 3.88119 2.60396 MATRIX AGE 1. 0000 0. 3904 - 0 . 0715 0. 1204 -0. 0117 0. 1619 0. 1105 0. 1256 0. 1375 0. 1913 0. 1152 0. 1374 0. 1967 0. 1121 0. 1700 0. 1105 0. 2036 0, 1976 - 0 . 0230 0. 1515 0. 0255  COBBELATIOS VARIABLE / APTWHD ADJNOV ATTNMT PBOF THREE TASK PUPIL WORDS TESNO  MATRIX / 1. 0000 0. 2932 0. 4688 0. 1607 0. 2220 0. 2772 0. 7706 -0. 0636 0. 2109 0. 0903  $SIG  r u i i c u u n  MEAN  CORRELATION VARIABLE AGE OBIV TEACHB SITU STODBT T/ABIL LUCK BFFOHT IMPDIF HOWDIF SGABIL / APTWHD ADJNOV ATTNMT PROF THREE TASK PUPIL WORDS TESNO  BXECUTION  o r  TERMINATED  NAME EFFORT IMPDIF HOWDIF SGABIL / APTWRD ADJNOV  3.82242 0.858850 18. 7518 21. 6850 21. 7267 0.992846 1.30445  4.06931 3.80198 3.31683 3 .67327 4.13861 3 .71287 4.47525  TEACHR  SITU  STUDNT  T/ABIL  1. 0000 -0. 0949 -0. 1042 0. 0052 0. 0970 -0. 1081 0. 0856 0. 0523 0. 1632 0. 1957 0. 0659 -0. 1184 -0. 0330 0. 1076 -0. 1081 0. 1341 0. 0394 -0. 0210 0. 0093 -0. 2022  1. 0000 0. 3156 0. 3828 0. 3293 - 0 . 0460 0. 2781 0. 1461 0. 0354 0. 0475 0. 0121 0. 0692 0. 1613 0. 3584 - 0 . 0460 0. 1111 0. 0930 0. 2364 - 0 . 0139 - 0 . 0157  1. 0000 0. 3257 0. 1328 0. 3046 -0. 0458 0. 2065 0. 1930 0. 1794 0. 0305 0. 1340 0. 0935 0. 0564 0. 30*6 0. 2466 0. 1548 0. 1213 -0. 0056 0. 1317  1.0000 0.0638 0.0690 0. 1127 0.1768 -0.0162 0.3061 0.3632 0.2576 0.3671 0. 1022 0.0690 0.0975 0.4395 0.0609 -0.0264 0.0701  1.0000 0.0946 0.4471 0.1284 0.2352 0.1754 0.1611 0. 11 16 0.2445 0.8666 0.0946 0.2256 0.2309 0.0950 0.0070 -0.0752  APTWHD  ADJNOV  ATTNMT  PBOF  THREE  17:01:31  1. 0000 0. 3697 0. 1368 0. 289 1 0. 7472 0. 1527 0. 1655 0. 1241 T=.692  RC=0  1. 0000 0. 0668 0. 2087 0. 3224 0. 1869 0. 0051 -0. 0864  ATTNMT PROP THREE TASK PUPIL WORDS TESNO  0.897301 0.990150 1.0 19 12 0.980907 0.916339 1.04246 0.729302  UNIT  1. 0000 0. 4970 0. 2300 0. 0773 0. 2090 0. 6958 0. 0632 0. 1229 0. 0789  NAME  STD.DEV.  MEAN  1.0000 0.3759 0. 1815 0.0295 0.1315 0.2630  * END OF CONTROL SET * $.85  1.0000 0.3489 0.0071 0.2434 0.1222  LUCK  1. 0000 0. 0151 0. 3413 0. 2633 0. 1011 0. 2220 0. 0773 0. 1368 0. 0668 1. 0000 0. 3759 0. 1815 0. 0295 0. 1315 0. 2630 TASK  1. 0000 0. 0891 0. 1833 0. 1 352  STD.DEV.  MEAN 3. 97525 2. 60396 3. 5594 1 4. 00000 49 .0396 1. 27 72 3 8. 85149  EFPORT  1. 0000 0. 1619 0. 0414 0. 1737 0. 1098 0. 2888 0. 3923 0. 8338 0. 0151 0. 1245 0. 3225 0. 2299 0. 0014 -0. 0716 PUPIL  1. 0000 0. 0048 0. 3034  0 .804289 1.30445 0 .813287 0 .665207 34.9342 0 .471568 6.53052  IMPDIF  1. 0000 0. 3105 0. 1798 0. 2729 0. 1866 0. 3255 0. 16 96 0. 3413 0. 8033 0. 3226 0. 0121 0. 0973 0. 0542  WORDS  1.0000 -0. 0612  HOWDIF  1.0000 0.2246 0.1773 0.1524 0.1452 0.1683 0.2683 0.8156 0.2434 -0.0004 0.2943 0. 1424  TESNO  1.0000  SGABIL  1. 0000 0. 4956 0. 1812 0. 3171 0. 2051 0. 101 1 0. 2502 0. 6973 0. 1203 0. 0464 0. 1053  

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:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0100286/manifest

Comment

Related Items