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.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

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., Uni v e r s i t y of 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 i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department of Psychology We accept th i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA June, 1979 (c) Donna Marie Haqq, 1979 In presenting th i s thes is in pa r t i a l fu l f i lment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L ibrary sha l l make i t f ree ly ava i lab le for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of th i s thesis for scho lar ly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representat ives. It is understood that copying or pub l i ca t ion of th is thes is fo r f inanc ia l gain sha l l not be al1 owed without my written permission. Department of PSYCHOLOGY The University of British Columbia 20 75 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date JUNE 29, 1979 i i Abstract A laboratory experiment was conducted to explore the r o l e of temporal perspective - p r e d i c t i v e , immediately af-t e r experimental session, and delayed - upon causal a t t r i -butions of actors and observers. The context i n which these a t t r i b u t i o n s were studied was a student/teacher interpersonal influence s i t u a t i o n . I t was proposed that, across conditions, actors would make greater 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 observers, and that actor-obser-ver a t t r i b u t i o n a l differences would increase over time. Neither hypothesis was confirmed, with analyses revealing a trend i n the opposite d i r e c t i o n . Contrary to expecta-t i o n , observers o v e r a l l a t t r i b u t e d greater r e s p o n s i b i l -i t y to the s i t u a t i o n than did actor/teachers• Rather than actor-observer a t t r i b u t i o n a l differences increas-ing over time, an i d e n t i c a l pattern of a t t r i b u t i o n s emerged with both actors and observers a t t r i b u t i n g l e a s t r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to the s i t u a t i o n i n the p r e d i c t i o n con-d i t i o n , greater a t t r i b u t i o n to the s i t u a t i o n i n the de-lay condition, and greatest a t t r i b u t i o n to the s i t u a t i o n immediately a f t e r the experimental session. Results were interpreted as r e f l e c t i o n s of the experimental methodology, informational f a c t o r s ( i . e . , h i s t o r i c a l knowledge; perceptual s a l i e n c e ) , and motivational f a c -tors ( i . e . , need f o r e f f e c t i v e c o n t r o l ; empathy). i i i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract i i Table of Contents i i i L i s t of Tables and Figure v L i s t of Appendices v i Acknowledgement v i i Introduct ion - L i t e r a t u r e Review 1 Hypotheses 15 Method Subjects 16 Design 16 Cover Story 16 Independent Va r i ab le s : Role Manipulat ion and Perspect ive Manipulat ion 17 Procedure 17 Stimulus Words 19 P red i c t i on Condit ion 19 Immediately A f te r Condi t ion - No Video 20 Immediately A f t e r Condi t ion - Video Contro l / 20 Delay Condi t ion - No Video 20 Delay Condi t ion - Video Contro l 20 Debr ief ing 21 Dependent Measures 21 Results Analyses of Free Response Measures 23 Ana lys i s of Time Measurement 23 Analyses of Demographic Var iab les 24 D i f ferences between Actors and Observers in A t t r i b u t i o n s to the S i tua t i on 24 P o l a r i z a t i o n of Actor-Observer 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 i v Page Discuss ion Methodological Considerat ions 35 Actor-Observer D i f ferences 35 P o l a r i z a t i o n Hypothesis 40 Further Cons iderat ions 41 Future Cons iderat ions 45 B ib l iography 47 LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURE Table I. Table II. Table II I. ?Bable IV. Mean A t t r i bu t i on s of Actors and Obser-vers toward Teacher, S i t u a t i o n , and Student Analyses of Var iance Summary Tables f o r A l l Dependent Measures Mean A t t r i b u t i o n s of Actors and Obser-vers toward Teacher and Task Factors Mean A t t r i b u t i o n s of Actors and Obser-vers toward the Student F i gure 1 Diagram of Experimental Se t t ing LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix 1. v i Paoe Appendix 2. Appendix 3. Appendix 4. Appendix 5. Appendix 6. Rac i a l /E thn i c Background of Subjects, Experimenter, and Student/Confederate, Inc luding O v e r a l l D i s t r i b u t i o n fo r Ac -tors/Observers and S p e c i f i c Actor/Ob-server Pa i rs According to Experimental Condi t ion 55 Permission Form and Experimental Booklet 59 Stimulus Words According to Experimental Condi t ion 67 Mean A t t r i b u t i o n s of Actors and Observers According to "No V ideo/V ideo" , Immediate-l y A f t e r and Delay 73 Data Code and Raw Data L i s t i n g 75 Co r re l a t i on Matr ix of Demographic Items and Dependent Measures 79 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to thank my adv i sor , Dr. Dale T . M i l l e r , f o r h i s ass i s tance and guidance i n t h i s re search . I would a l -so l i k e to thank the other members of my committee, Dr. Robert Knox, Dr. Boris Gorza lka, and Dr. Edro S i gno r i , f o r t h e i r va luable comments and suggest ions. I am g r a t e f u l to my husband, Tenny, and my c h i l d r e n , Chr i s topher, Andrea, and Tan ia , f o r t h e i r help and f o r -bearance. A s p e c i a l "thank you" goes to Andrea, who served as the student-confederate i n my thes i s experiment. 1 A t t r i b u t i o n i s the process through which an i n d i v i d u a l attempts to understand and pred ic t o ther s ' and his own t r a i t s , motives, and behaviors. Interest in the a t t r i b u -t i o n a l approach to studying behavior has been great during the l a s t 20 years of s o c i a l psycho log ica l research because a t t r i b u t i o n a l processes play such a c e n t r a l r o l e in s o c i a l behavior (Shaver, 1975). The a t t r i b u t i o n a l approach to understanding behavior gained prominence i n great part through F r i t z He ider ' s (1958) comprehensive work. Acknowledging the t h e o r e t i c a l con t r ibu t i on of Egon Brunswik (eg., Tolman & Brunswik, 1935; Brunswik, 1955), Heider f i r s t ou t l i ned the cond i t ions and e f f e c t s of the percept ion of e n t i t i e s , and then ex-tended his d i scus s ion to the condi t ions and e f f ec t s r e -l a t i n g to person percept ion. By observing others ' behav-i o r , and then i n f e r r i n g s tab le and enduring t r a i t s , mo-t i v e s , and i n ten t i on s , the naive perce iver could opt imize the order, p r e d i c t a b i l i t y and, thus, the funct ion ing of h i s world. How can the naive perce iver come to know which t r a i t s , motives, in tent ions and behaviors stem from d i s p o s i t i o n a l ( i n te rna l ) 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 or environmental (external ) con -s t r a i n t s ? How can he know which c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are s t a -b le and enduring and which are unstable and f l ee t i ng ? De-termining whether an i n d i v i d u a l ' s act ions stem from i n t e r -na l or externa l causes or forces (or combinations thereof) and determining whether these causes are pervasive or s i t -u a t i o n - s p e c i f i c i s the c e n t r a l task of the a t t r i b u t o r . Jones and Davis (1965) out l ined a theory of c o r r e -spondent in ferences which, s tated s imply, says that caus -a l a t t r i b u t i o n w i l l be made to an actor to the extent that he i s not bound by circumstances and i s f r e e , there fore , to choose from a number of behaviora l opt ions . So, f o r example, in ferences based on o u t - o f - r o l e behavior would 2 be pred icted to be higher in correspondence than would i n -ferences based on i n - r o l e behavior (Jones, Davis, & Ger -gen, 1961). Jones and Davis (1965) a l so explained how v a r i a t i o n s i n the relevance of an ac t ion to the perce iver have an e f f e c t on the process of i n f e r r i n g under ly ing d i s po s i t i on s which expla in the a c t i on . The hedonic re levance of an ac -t i o n to the perce iver has been emp i r i c a l l y shown to i n -crease correspondence (eg. , Pepitone, 1949; Jones & de Charms, 1957; K l e i n e r , 1960). An increase i n correspon-dence i s s i m i l a r l y postulated when personal i sm t the a c t o r ' s i n ten t i on to bene f i t or harm the perce i ve r , occurs or i s thought to occur . According to Jones and Davis (1965) and Kanouse (1972) a naive perce iver may be qu i te s a t i s f i e d with a s i n g l e s u f f i c i e n t explanat ion f o r a behavior ra ther than with an explanat ion achieved only a f t e r an extens ive perceptua l / cogn i t i ve search. Contrar iwise, Ke l ley (1967; 1971; 1972; 1973) has l i k -ened the lay a t t r i b u t o r to a good s c i e n t i s t who examines the cova r i a t i on between a given e f f e c t and i t s var ious pos-s i b l e causes. Focusing on the en t i t y ra ther than on the actor as i n Jones ' and Dav i s ' s (1965) theory, Ke l l ey ou t -l i n e d a theory of en 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 to reach causa l a t t r i b u t i o n s , uses the c r i -t e r i a of consensus, the extent to which others act i n the same manner as the person i n quest ion; cons i s tency, the extent to which the person acts i n the same manner on d i f -fe rent occas ions; and d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s , the extent to which the person acts i n the same way in other s i t ua t i on s or on-l y i n th i s s p e c i f i c s i t u a t i o n . Through t h i s process the perce iver may determine whether the act ions of others are a t t r i b u t a b l e to i n t e r n a l f a c to r s ( i . e . , d i s p o s i t i o n s ) , ex-t e r n a l f ac tor s ( i . e . , the s t i m u l i to which others are r e -ac t i n g ) , or t rans ient f ac to r s ( i . e . , something about the 3 s p e c i f i c circumstance or moment i n t ime). A t t r i b u t i o n theory, then, attempts to spec i fy the p ro -cesses wi th in the perce iver that are invo lved in h is ex-p lanat ion and p red i c t i on of behavior. The elements or stages of t h i s a t t r i b u t i o n process can be a f fec ted by any number of v a r i a b l e s , from the perce iver* s l e v e l of i n f o r -mation to the biases inherent i n d i f f e r e n t perceptual or psycho log ica l per spect i ves . One of the most commonly examined var i ab le s i n a t t r i -but ion research i s that of the a t t r i b u t o r ' s per spect i ve . And of these perspect ive v a r i a b l e s , none has been as sy s -temat i ca l l y - s tud ied as the actor -observer perspect ive as f i r s t postulated and supported by Jones and Nisbett (1971). E s s e n t i a l l y , they argued that there i s a "pervas ive t e n -dency fo r actors to a t t r i b u t e t h e i r act ions to s i t u a t i o n a l requirements, whereas observers tend to a t t r i b u t e the same act ions to s tab le personal d i s p o s i t i o n s " (Jones & N i sbe t t , 1971, p. 2) . Empir ica l support f o r t h i s actor -observer a t t r i b u t i o n b ias came from severa l s tud ie s . Actors a t t r i bu ted v a r i a -t ions i n t h e i r own test performance to changes in task d i f f i c u l t y , whi le observers in terpreted these same v a r i a -t ions i n terms of the a c t o r ' s a b i l i t y (Jones, Rock, Shaver, Goethals, & Ward, 1968); observers assigned d i s p o s i t i o n a l a t t r i b u t i o n s to communicator-subjects even though aware that these subjects had been in s t ruc ted to adopt and sup-port a p a r t i c u l a r view (Jones & Har r i s , 1967; Jones, Wor-c h e l , Goethals, & Grumet, 1971); and subjects descr ibed t h e i r best f r i e n d ' s choice of co l l ege major and of g i r l -f r i e n d in terms of d i s p o s i t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e i r f r i e n d s , whi le descr ib ing t h e i r own choices in terms of propert ies of the co l lege major or the g i r l f r i e n d (N i s -bet t & Caputo, 1971; N i sbet t , Legant, & Maracek, 1971). Why should behaving i nd i v i dua l s (actors) exp la in t h e i r own act ions as responses to externa l f a c t o r s , while i n -4 d i v i dua l s watching (observers) a t t r i b u t e th i s same behav-i o r to i n t e r n a l factors? Based in part upon e a r l i e r d i s -cuss ions of Mischel (1968; 1969), Jones and Nisbett (1972) suggested two main reasons: d i f f e rences i n the types of informat ion a v a i l a b l e to actors and observers; and d i f f e r -ences i n informat ion process ing. The observer often bases h is causal a t t r i b u t i o n s s o l e -l y upon what he observes in the immediate s i t u a t i o n . Con-v e r s e l y , the actor has knowledge of h i s own personal h i s -tory against which to judge h i s current behavior. And, in add i t i on , thehactor has knowledge of h i s own in tent ions and f e e l i n g s tates which may d i f f e r e n t i a l l y a f f e c t his a t t r i -butions in a given s i t u a t i o n . Actors and observers process information about a par -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 severa l f a c t o r s . In genera l , the act ion i s more s a l i e n t to the observer than to the actor , f o r whom the s i t u a t i o n has greater s a l i e n c e . A t ten t i ona l d i f f e rences guide the actor to perceive h i s be-hav ior as a response to environmental f o r ce s , while the ob-server i s wont to perceive the a c t o r ' s behavior as the f o -c a l s a l i e n t s t imulus . Several s tud ies have explained a t t r i b u t i o n a l d i f f e r -ences in terms of perceptual focus, or per spec t i ve . I t appears that , i n genera l , an i n d i v i d u a l w i l l a t t r i b u t e c a u s a l i t y to the object or the person upon which or whom h i s a t tent ion i s focused. Several researchers who have explored the r e l a t i o n -ship between a t tent ion /po in t of view and perceptions of c a u s a l i t y are Duval (1972), Duval and Wicklund (1972; 1973), Duval and Cook (1974), Ark in and Duval (1975), and Tay lo r and F i ske (1975; 1978). Duval and Wicklund (1973, Study 2) , f o r example, manipulated s e l f - a t t e n t i o n by p lac ing a large mirror in f ront of experimental subject s . They found that f o r both p o s i t i v e and negative hypothet ica l s i t u a t i o n s , the s e l f - a t t end ing (mirror) subjects assigned d i spropor t ionate 5 c a u s a l i t y to themselves compared with c o n t r o l (no mirror ) sub jec t s . Tay lor and F i ske (1975) enlarged upon Kanouse's (1972) suggestion that when severa l pos s ib le explanations are a v a i l a b l e , a perce iver may hold to the explanat ion which i s most s a l i e n t , by not ing that where one's a t t e n -t i o n i s d i r e c t e d i n one's surroundings in f luences (some-times overrepresentat ive ly ) what information i s percep-t u a l l y s a l i e n t (see Tay lor and F i s ke , 1978, f o r a t ho r -ough up-date on these i s sue s ) . Michael Storms (1973, p. 166) argued: " I f i t i s t rue that a t t r i b u t i o n s are l a r ge l y in f luenced by point of view, i t should be pos s ib le to change the way actors and obser -vers i n te rp re t a behavior by changing t h e i r v i s ua l o r i e n -t a t i o n s . " Indeed, using a videotape rep lay of Actor 1 i n the o r i g i n a l i n t e r a c t i o n , a "get t ing -acqua inted conversa-t i o n " , Storms demonstrated that actors and observers 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 ten reverse the t y p i c a l actor -observer a t t r i b u t i o n pa t te rn . He reasoned that by observing an event from a d i f f e r e n t point of view, both actors and observers may have received t o t a l l y new i n f o r -mation; the sa l i ence of a lready present information may have changed f o r the experimental subject s , thereby a f -f e c t i n g t h e i r a t t r i b u t i o n s ( K i e s l e r , N i sbe t t , & Zanna, 1969); and r eo r i en t a t i on may have produced new response sets f o r the subject s : a " s e l f - d i s c o v e r y " set f o r ac to r s , and an "empathie" set f o r observers. While Storm's (1973) study may have confounded change i n v i s u a l perspect ive with d i f fe rences i n ava i l ab le i n f o r -mation brought about by the videotape manipulat ion, Regan and Totten (1975), using the same "gett ing-acqua inted con -v e r s a t i o n " s i t u a t i o n , sought to a l t e r the perspect ive or o r i e n t a t i o n of observers with no accompanying change i n v i s u a l in format ion. They d id th i s by s h i f t i n g "psycho log-i c a l " per spec t i ve . Some observers were in s t ruc ted to em-path ize with one target conversant ( a f t e r S t o t l and ' s , 1969, 6 "imagine him" i n s t ruc t i ons ) ra ther than to simply observe her . The major hypothesis, that an empathic o r i e n t a t i o n would cause observers to 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 less d i s p o s i t i o n a l a t t r i b u t i o n s f o r an a c t o r ' s behavior than a t t r i b u t i o n s provided by s t an -dard observers, was supported. Moreover, t h e i r r e s u l t s i nd i ca ted that the more time subjects i n the empathy con -d i t i o n spent watching the target person, the more s i t u a -t i o n a l became causa l a t t r i b u t i o n s f o r her behavior. This suggested to the authors that 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 only by a f f e c t i n g what the i n d i v i d u a l a t -tends to, but a l so by a f f e c t i n g how th i s information i s processed. Regan and Totten (1975) explained that empathic i n -s t ruc t i on s made the perspect ive of the observer more s i m i -l a r to that of the ta rget . They suggested the p o s s i b i l i t y that empathic i n s t ruc t i on s may have induced shared emo-t i o n a l experience, leading to shared causa l a t t r i b u t i o n s , i n part by d i r e c t i n g the observer ' s perspect ive toward the environmental cont ingencies perceived by the actor to be s a l i e n t (Schachter & S inger, 1962). Galper (1976) a l so succeeded, through i n s t r u c t i o n s , i n inducing one group of observers to develop an empathic perspect ive toward an actor (who was reported to have saved an in fant from an apartment-house f i r e at great personal r i s k to h imse l f ) . Thus, a t t r i b u t o r s have been a f fec ted both by l i t e r a l changes i n perspect ive , and by f i g u r a t i v e changes i n per spec t i ve . While most of the foregoing experiments emphasized the r o l e of the observer, other i nves t i ga t i ons have em-phasized 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 of c au sa l i t y (eg. , Regan, Gosse l ink, Hubsch, & U l sh, 1975} Federoff & Harvey, 1976). Regan et a l . (1975) examined three pred ic t ions der ived 7 from the general "need f o r high se l f -e s teem" not ion: In -d i v i dua l s should i n f l a t e evaluat ions of t h e i r own a b i l i t y and s k i l l ; they should be l i eve p ra i se ; and they should de -fend against 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 found: actors compared with bystanders rated themselves harshly, lowered t h e i r ra t ings a f t e r c r i t i c i s m equa l ly , and showed r e l i e f a f t e r p r a i s e . The authors noted, however, that actors might not have rated themselves lower than bystanders i f no f u r the r eva luat ion had been an t i c ipa ted (as was the case i n t h e i r "no eva lua -t i o n " feedback c o n d i t i o n ) . Recent s tudies (Aronson & L i n -der, 1965; Mettee, 1971) had suggested that " Se l f - de roga -t i o n as a defense mechanism i s p l au s i b l e only i f holding a low s e l f - o p i n i o n i s less p a i n f u l than the experience of l o s ing se l f -e s teem" (Regan et a l . , 1975, p. 299). A se -cond experiment was performed i n order to tes t th i s ex-p l ana t i on . Results of Experiment 2 showed that actors rated them-se lves less 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 bystanders rated them when they an t i c ipa ted feedback from an in terv iewer . The general conc lus ion of both e x p e r i -ments was that actorsdrated themselves more harshly than observers rated them on an ego- invo lv ing , non-object ive task. These r e s u l t s suggested se l f - de roga t i on by actors as a defense against pos s ib le loss of se l f -es teem. Using a 2x2x2 f a c t o r i a l des ign, Federof f and Harvey (1976) inves t i ga ted the a c t o r ' s a t t r i b u t i o n of c a u s a l i t y f o r the outcome according to the e f f e c t s of a c t o r 1 s ex-pectancies about the outcome of an event ( po s i t i ve or negat ive) , and observat ion of the actua l outcome ( p o s i t i v e or negat ive) , whi le in a s ta te of high or low ob jec t i ve self-awareness (Duval & Wicklund, 1972; 1973). Regarding a t t r i b u t i o n s of c au sa l i t y to s e l f , these were greater i n P o s i t i v e r e l a t i v e to Negative Outcome cond i t i ons , and the d i f f e rences were decidedly more pronounced i n the High than 8 i n the Low Object ive Self-Awareness cond i t i on s . O v e r a l l , however, the data showed no main e f f e c t of self-awareness on a t t r i b u t i o n s to s e l f , as was expected, but d id show that self-awareness i n te rac ted with observed outcome to a f f e c t s e l f - a t t r i b u t i o n s . Thus, i t i s apparent that , i n making a t t r i b u t i o n s , both cogn i t i ve and mot ivat iona l f a c -tor s may be operat ing at any given t ime. The most s tudied mot ivat iona l f a c to r has been the ego-p ro tec t i ve or ego-defensive motive (Hastorf, Schneider, & Po le fka , 1970). M i l l e r and Ross (1975) reviewed the e v i -dence both f o r and against the propos i t ion that s e l f - s e r v -ing biases a f f e c t a t t r i b u t i o n s of c a u s a l i t y and found l i t -t l e empir ica l support f o r the general p ropos i t i on . The major thrust of t h e i r argument was that any se l f -enhanc ing e f f e c t may not be due to mot ivat iona l d i s t o r t i o n , but r a t h -er to the tendency of i n d i v i d u a l s (a) to expect t h e i r behavior to produce success, (b) to d i scern a c l o s e r cova r i a t i on between be-havior and outcomes in the case of increas ing success than i n the case of constant f a i l u r e , and, (c) to misconstrue 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 relevance to th i s thes i s are the i n t e r -personal i n f l uence studies reviewed by M i l l e r and Ross (1975). In these experiments, subjects i n s t ruc ted 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 rece i v ing f e e d -back as to whether th i s target i n d i v i d u a l succeeded or f a i l e d at the task i n quest ion, were asked f o r t h e i r pe r -cept ions of the causal determinants of the target s u b j e c t ' s performance. Three of the studies using an in terpersona l i n f l uence paradigm involved student/teacher r e l a t i o n s h i p s (Johnson, Feigenbaum, & Weiby, 1964; Beckman, 1970;1973). Two of the three s tud ies (Johnson et a l . , 1964; Beckman, 1970) showed that whi le teachers accepted c r e d i t f o r a c h i l d ' s success fu 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 to the s i t u a t i o n or to the d i s -p o s i t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the c h i l d . Beckman (1973) subsequently showed, however, that under c e r t a i n cond i t i on s , teachers may show counter-defens ive a t t r i b u t i o n s : that i s , they may a t t r i b u t e both the c h i l d ' s f a i l u r e and success to themselves more than do observers . In a l a t e r study, Beckman (1976) examined the causa l a t t r i b u t i o n s of both teachers and parents (usua l ly the mother) regarding c h i l d r e n ' s classroom performance. The o v e r a l l r e s u l t s of the study were cons i s tent with the John-son, Feigenbaum, and Weiby (1964) and Beckman (1970) s tud -i e s which reported that teachers mentioned t h e i r own e f -f o r t s more i n accounting f o r c h i l d r e n ' s successes than f o r t h e i r f a i l u r e s . The r e s u l t s provided l i t t l e support f o r two e a r l i e r s tud ies (Beckman, 1973; Ross, B ierbrauer, & P o l l y , 1974) which suggested that counterdefensive a t t r i -but ions occur among teachers. In genera l , there was a greater l i k e l i h o o d f o r parents to mention teaching as a f a c t o r which in f luenced a c h i l d ' s performance. Beckman (1976) ascr ibed a nonmotivational i n t e r p r e t a t i o n to the d i f f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n s of parents and teachers: i n d i -v idua l s have a tendency to a t t r i b u t e c a u s a l i t y to the les s well-known or v a r i a b l e element i n a s i t u a t i o n (Ke l ley , 1973). For the teacher, whose own behavior i n the c l a s s -room may be f a i r l y cons i s tent over students (or at l ea s t perceived to be so) , the c h i l d represents the v a r i a b l e element i n the s i t u a t i o n . In contras t , parents may be more l i k e l y than teachers to see t h e i r c h i l d ' s perform-ance as caused by d i s p o s i t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the teachers . M i l l e r and Ross (1975) a l so reviewed four studies which provide r e l a t i v e l y unambiguous support f o r the hy-pothes i s that a t t r i b u t i o n s of c au sa l i t y are a f fec ted d i -r e c t l y by task performances ( S t reufer t & S t r e u f e r t , 1969; Wortman, Costanzo, & Wi t t , 1973; Wolosin, Sherman, & T i l l , 10 1973, Experiments 1 and 2 ) . Only in the l a t t e r two exper-iments, however, was i t pos s ib le to determine the d i r e c t i o n -a l i t y of any b ias ing e f f e c t I Experiment 2 suggested that i n d i v i d u a l s are i n c l i n e d to make se l f -enhancing a t t r i b u -t ions under cond i t ions of success, but ne i ther Experiment 1 nor 2 suggested that i n d i v i d u a l s sh i rk r e s p o n s i b i l i t y under condi t ions of f a i l u r e . While we are aware that 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 causal a t t r i b u t i o n s , t h i s thes i s w i l l not be s p e c i f i c a l l y concerned with th i s v a r i ab 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 manipulated. In reviewing research where var ious var i ab les i n t e r a c t with a t t r i b u t i o n s of c a u s a l i t y fo l lowing success or f a i l -ure at various tasks, M i l l e r and Ross (1975) noted that an unexpected outcome, whether success or f a i l u r e , was more l i k e l y to be a t t r i bu ted to externa l f a c to r s than was an expected outcome (Feather, 1969; Feather & Simon, 1971a; 1971b; Gilmor & Minton, 1974). Feather used balance theory (Heider, 1958) to i n t e r -pret the e f f e c t of expectat ions of performance l e v e l as more potent determinants of c au sa l i t y a t t r i bu t i on s than the actual performance outcome: A balance theory formulat ion assumes that p o s i -t i v e outcomes (success) w i l l be a t t r i bu ted to s e l f when there i s p o s i t i v e s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n with respect to the performance task (high expectat ions of success ) , but w i l l be a t t r i bu ted to externa l f ac to r s when there i s negative evaluat ion (low expectat ion of success ) . 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 externa l a t t r i b u t i o n s . ( M i l l e r & Ross, 1975, pp. 218-219) M i l l e r (1976) attempted to f i n d more compell ing e v i -dence fo r the idea that s e l f - p r o t e c t i v e and/or s e l f - e n -hancing biases 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 . He i n -troduced an involvement manipulation a f t e r subjects had com-p le ted a bogus s o c i a l perceptiveness te s t (adapted from one 11 used by Wortman et a l . , 1973), but before they rece ived t h e i r performance feedback. In the high involvement con -d i t i o n , the s o c i a l perceptiveness tes t (SPS) was descr ibed as a we i l - e s t ab l i shed v a l i d tes t and the experimenter d i s -played an impress ive, p ro fe s s i ona l l y p r in ted f o l de r l a -beled " Soc i a l Percept ion S c a l e " . In the low involvement cond i t i on , the Scale was descr ibed as recen t l y developed, and the experimenter fu r ther int imated that the tes t had not co r re l a ted so f a r with any of the other f ac tor s known to be associated with s o c i a l percept iveness . A dog-eared man i l l a f i l e f o l d e r was brought i n to augment the low i n -volvement manipulat ion. Consistent with previous research, subjects assumed more personal r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r success than f o r f a i l u r e . Moreover, t h i s 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 perceptiveness test was p r e -sented as be ing. Subjects engaged i n more s e l f - p r o t e c t i v e a t t r i b u t i o n s under the high-involvement than l ow- invo lve -ment f a i l u r e cond i t i on s . That i s , high involvement f a i l -ure subjects a t t r i bu ted more r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e i r pe r -formance to luck and less to t h e i r a b i l i t y and e f f o r t than d id low-involvement f a i l u r e subject s . Some evidence a l so i nd i ca ted that high-involvement success subjects engaged i n more se l f -enhanc ing a t t r i b u t i o n s ( i n d i c a t i n g that t h e i r performance was more a f fec ted by t h e i r a b i l i t y ) than d id low-involvement success sub jec t s . O v e r a l l , however, the involvement manipulation had greater impact upon a t t r i b u -t ions under the f a i l u r e cond i t i on than under the success c o n d i t i o n . In summary, both in format iona l and mot ivat iona l b iases must be taken i n t o account when studying actor -observer a t t r i b u t i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e s . One v a r i a b l e that has rece ived l im i ted a t tent ion i n the l i t e r a t u r e i s the r o l e of temporal perspect ive on caus-a l a t t r i b u t i o n s . Many researchers have examined r e t r o -12 spec t i ve a t t r i b u t i o n s - causa l a t t r i b u t i o n s measured im-mediately a f t e r an experimental event. Indeed, there i s a pervas ive emphasis i n the body of experimental l i t e r a -ture upon post hoc explanations of behav ior . But few so -c i a l s c i e n t i s t s have inves t i ga ted e i the r p r e d i c t i v e a t t r i -but ions or a t t r i b u t i o n s removed i n time from the event i n quest ion. Th i s thes i s w i l l attempt to determine the ex-tent and d i r e c t i o n of pos s ib le actor -observer d i f f e rences i n causal a t t r i b u t i o n a sc r ibab le to v a r i a t i o n s i n the time of measurement. Several i nves t i ga to r s have examined p r e d i c t i v e a t t r i -but ions , but these have genera l l y involved t r a i t a t t r i b u -t i ons (such as ra t ings of a t t rac t i veness ) based upon i n f o r -mation given the subject i n a n t i c i p a t i o n of future i n t e r -ac t i on with the stimulus person, rather than causal a t t r i -butions of observed behavior (eg. , M i re l s & M i l l s , 1964; Lerner , D i l l ehay , & Sherer, 1967; Berscheid, Boye, & Dar-l e y , 1968; E i s e r & T a j f e l , 1972; Stokols & Schopler, 1973; de l a Haye, 1975; Zucker, 1976). But we know that p r e d i c t i v e a t t r i b u t i o n s , or "expec-t a n c i e s " , are a l l - i m p o r t a n t . Such causa l explanations a f -f e c t how we approach an event; how we i n t e r a c t during an event; and how we i n te rp re t an e\jent both during and a f t e r the given experience (Rosenhan, 1973; Regan, Straus, & F a z i o , 1974; M i l l e r & Norman, 1975; M i i l e r & Holmes, 1975; M i l l e r , Norman, & Wright, 1978). I t has a lready been we11-documented that others ' p e r -cept ions of our own behavior can have " s e l f - f u l f i l l i n g " and there fo re , c r i t i c a l e f f e c t s , upon th i s same behavior (Rosen tha i & Jacobson, 1966; Meichenbaum, Bowers, & Ross, 1969; Seaver, 1973). Far more work cons ider ing s e l f - d i r e c t e d percept ions and a t t i tudes ( i . e . , se l f - concept ) has been done (e . g . , Fe l ke r & Stanwyck, 1971; Rosenthal, J . H . , 1973) than r e -search examining o the r -d i rec ted perceptions and a t t i t u d e s . 13 Yet causal expectancies of o ther s ' behavior should have ju s t as important an in f luence upon an i n d i v i d u a l ' s i n t e r -ac t i on with and understanding of h is world as have h i s own se l f - expec ta t i on s• M i l l e r and Holmes (1975), f o r example, examined ex-pectancies w i th in a zeEO-sum game s i t u a t i o n . They modi-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 (PD) game as used, f o r example, by Ke l l ey and S tahe l sk i (1970), to al low p l ay -ers with cooperat ive o r i en ta t i on s to avoid both behav iora l a s s im i l a t i on and exp l o i t a t i on when confront ing p layers with competi t ive o r i e n t a t i o n s . The i r expanded P r i s oner ' s D i -lemma game matrix (EPD), there fore , un l i ke the t r a d i t i o n a l PD matrix, al lowed f o r a defens ive move that was d i s t i n -guishable from an e x p l o i t a t i v e move. The i r experimental f i n d i n g of re levance to t h i s the s i s , however, was the observat ion of a high degree of i n t e r n a l cons istency be -tween the i n t e r a c t i o n patterns observed and p r e - i n t e r -a c t i o n a l perceptual and expectat iona l da ta . Thus, examination of p r e d i c t i v e causa l a t t r i b u t i o n s appears c r i t i c a l when one cons iders that such i n i t i a l a t -t r i b u t i o n s may i n i t i a t e and/or perpetuate, f o r example, e i t h e r cooperat ive or compet i t ive response se t s . D i f f e r -e n t i a l expectat ions may lead to e i the r understanding or misunderstanding i n in terpersona l i n t e r a c t i o n s . The other temporal perspect ive that has rece ived l i t -t l e systematic study i s that of delayed causal a t t r i b u -t ions - a t t r i b u t i o n s made some time a f t e r the event i n ques t ion . I t seems reasonable to conjecture that such a t t r i b u t i o n s may change over time because of changes i n in format iona l and/or mot ivat iona l f a c t o r s . Of re levance to the d i scuss ion of delayed temporal perspect ive i n causa l a t t r i b u t i o n s i s the work of Tesser and h is co l leagues (e .g . , Sadler & Tesser, 1973; Tesser & Conlee, 1975; Tesser & Leone, 1977; and Tesser , 1978). These inves t i ga to r s examined se l f - generated a t t i t ude change, 14 that i s , how simply th ink ing about some a t t i t u d e object a l -te r s an i n d i v i d u a l ' s b e l i e f s and fee l i ng s toward that a t t i -tude ob jec t . The i r main hypothesis i s : "S ince thought tends to make b e l i e f s more eva lua t i ve l y cons i s tent and a t t i -tudes are a func t ion of b e l i e f s , thought w i l l tend to po-l a r i z e a t t i t u d e s " (Tesser, 1978, p. 290). The emp i r i ca l evidence from t h e i r many studies sup-port the,conc lus ion that, with the passage of time, t h i n k -ing about some p a r t i c u l a r a t t i t u d e object i n the absence of any new informat ion w i l l tend to produce a t t i t ude p o l a r i z a -t i o n . I n i t i a l l y p o s i t i v e a t t i tudes 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 tudes become more nega-t i v e over time (e .g . , Sadler & Tesser, 1973). They a l so found a greater p r o b a b i l i t y that thought would r e s u l t i n a t t i t u d e p o l a r i z a t i o n when there was greater development or a r t i c u l a t i o n of a cogn i t i ve schema f o r thought (Tesser & Leone, 1977). Since causal a t t r i b u t i o n i s no less a cog -n i t i v e process than i s a t t i t u d e change (e i the r s e l f or other-generated) , i t seems l o g i c a l to p red i c t that causa l a t t r i b u t i o n s w i l l a l so p o l a r i z e over t ime. s M i l l e r and Haqq ( in preparat ion) recen t l y examined immediate and delayed causa l a t t r i b u t i o n s and found g rea t -er mot ivat iona l b iases i n causa l a t t r i b u t i o n ( i . e . , g rea t -er externa l a t t r i b u t i o n s f o r f a i l u r e ) immediately a f t e r students rece ived t h e i r marks on a S o c i a l Psychology mid-term exam than they found one week l a t e r . In th i s h i gh ly ego- invo lv ing s i t u a t i o n , a t t r i b u t i o n s became less de fen -s i v e over t ime, with students a sc r ib ing more personal r e -s p o n s i b i l i t y at time 2, one week a f t e r the exam (Study 1 ) . Extending M i l l e r ' s and Haqq's ( in preparation) obser -va t i ons , t h i s thes i s considered the r o l e of temporal pe r -spec t i ve - p r e d i c t i v e , immediately a f t e r , and delayed - i n conjunct ion with aetor-observer b iases , on causal a t t r i b u -t i o n s . The context i n which such a t t r i b u t i o n s were s tudied 15 was one f a m i l i a r to a l l subjects - the student/teacher in terpersona l i n f luence s i t u a t i o n . E f f o r t s were made to minimize both deception and ego-threatening f ac to r s i n t h i s experiment. Our hypotheses were based in part upon the a t t r i b u t i o n research that has been conducted i n the past, and i n part upon the in ferences made from research i n re l a ted areas, such as a t t i t u d e change. Because th i s study was p a r t i a l l y exp loratory i n nature, the hypotheses were purposefu l ly more g loba l than the hypotheses which may, h e u r i s t i c a l l y , come from subsequent s tud ie s . The experimental hypotheses were: 1. Across cond i t i ons , actors w i l l make greater s i t u a t i o n a l  a t t r i b u t i o n s than w i l l observers (Jones & N i sbet t , 1971). Due to d i f f e r e n t i a l cogn i t i ve (e .g . , h i s t o r i c a l knowledge) and mot ivat iona l (e .g . , sel f -esteem) f a c t o r s , inc lud ing v a r i a t i o n s i n perceptual and psycho log ica l focus, actors have e m p i r i c a l l y been found to d i f f e r from observers i n t h e i r a s c r i p t i on s of c a u s a l i t y (e .g . , Jones & N i sbet t , 1972; Duval & Wicklund, 1972; 1973; Storms, 1973; Regan & Tot ten, 1975; M i l l e r , 1976; M i l l e r , Norman, & Wright, 1978). 2. Actor -observer a t t r i b u t i o n a l d i f f e rences w i l l increase  over time (Tesser, 1978). In the absence of add i t i ona l in format ion, a t t r i b u t i o n s of actors w i l l become more s i t -ua t iona l over t ime, whereas a t t r i b u t i o n s of observers w i l l become more d i s p o s i t i o n a l over t ime. The r a t i o n a l e f o r t h i s hypothesis stems from the work of Tesser and co l leagues (as summarized, f o r example, i n Tesser, 1978) on p o l a r i -za t i on of se l f - generated a t t i t u d e change. 16 Method Subjects : The subjects were 114 female undergraduates at the Un i ve r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia (mean age = 19.9 years) who were i n i t i a l l y contacted e i t h e r i n person or by t e l e -phone. Most had prev ious ly volunteered t h e i r names f o r the human subject pool i n Psychology. Fourteen of these subjects were subsequently dropped from the analyses: two were roommates, and data from 12 others ( s ix subject pa i rs ) were incomplete. Thus, data from 100 sub jec t s , 10 in each s p e c i f i c cond i t i on , were used i n the analyses. (See Appendix 1 f o r r a c i a l / e t h n i c background of subjects , experimenter, and s tudent/confed-era te . ) Design: The experiment was b a s i c a l l y a 2x3 f a c t o r i a l design with two r o l e perspect ives (ac tor / teacher ; passive obser -ver) and three time perspect ives ( p r e d i c t i o n ; immediately a f t e r experimental sess ion; and delay - one week post ex-perimental sess ion)• A videotape cont ro l cond i t i on was introduced i n the delay cond i t ion as a con t ro l f o r memory. As videotape rep lay a l so introduces a new perspect ive and new informa-t i o n f o r the ac tor / teacher , a videotape con t ro l cond i t i on was a l so added i n the immediately a f t e r cond i t i on . Cover Story: The experiment was descr ibed as a study of the dyna-mics of student/teacher i n t e r a c t i o n . Subjects were t o l d that the student involved i n t h i s student/teacher i n t e r -ac t i on would be the author ' s 10% year o ld daughter. (The student/confederate was paid $1.00 per sess ion and was promised a f i n a n c i a l bonus at the end of the data c o l l e c -t i on . ) A l l subjects were advised of the p o s s i b i l i t y of being asked to re turn f o r a second part of the study one week 17 a f t e r i n i t i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n . Subjects were randomly a s -signed to r o l e and temporal cond i t ion when scheduled to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the experiment. They were not to ld that subjects would be run i n p a i r s . Independent Va r i ab l e s ; Role manipulation and perspect ive manipulat ion: Subjects were randomly assigned to e i t h e r a c t o r / t e a -cher or pass ive observer r o l e s . These ro le s and the tasks per ta in ing to them were thoroughly explained on the i n t r o -ductory page of the experimental book let . At the same time, subjects were randomly assigned i n pa i r s to e i t h e r the p r e d i c t i o n , immediately a f t e r , or de -lay cond i t i ons . Th is manipulation was opera t i ona l i zed tu? through the wording in the experimental booklets together with the experimental procedures. (See Appendix 2 f o r the permission form and experimental booklet as presented i n the experiment.) Procedure: Subjects a r r i ved at the experimenter 's o f f i c e and were subsequently led to the experimental room (Figure 1), accompanied by the student/confederate. They were we l -comed and assigned seats appropr iate to t h e i r r o l e . Each subject gave her wr i t ten consent to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the ex-periment and f i l l e d in the demographic information of age and un i ve r s i t y l e v e l (years at u n i v e r s i t y ) . Teachers were in s t ruc ted to teach the student the meaning of three words - one noun, one verb, and one ad -j e c t i v e . A f t e r learning the meaning of each word, the c r i t e r i o n was f o r the student to use the word in her own o r i g i n a l sentence. I t was emphasized that these words were ones not prev ious ly known by the student. There was no time l i m i t f o r t h i s assignment and the teacher was e n -couraged to use whatever method she thought would be most e f f e c t i v e i n teaching the three words. A blackboard and d i c t i o n a r y were provided f o r her use. CHAIRS T&MIHGR STUDENT TABLE TABLE MONITOR rape o o 7>Fc.K OeSEKVEX CHAIR ExPER/MENTER SCALE / " =. Z.' Figure. /. IDiarrant of e.xf>erimerited seiring-19 Observers were given the same informat ion as the ac -to r / teacher s , but were t o l d , "You have been randomly a s -signed to observe the other subject as she teaches the s t u -dent the meaning of three words." Both were t o l d that t h e i r react ions to the i n t e r a c -t i o n would be tapped a f t e r the teaching sess ion and that the experimenter would be videotaping the i n t e r a c t i o n so that she could review the sess ion at a l a t e r time. (Thus, a l l i n te rac t i on s were videotaped as a con t ro l f o r i n i t i a l d i f f e r e n t i a l processing and reac t ions , but only those sub-j e c t s i n the v ideo condi t ions - e i the r immediately a f t e r or delay - saw the videotape replay. ) The actor / teacher randomly se lected the three words (on one 3x5 index card) from a box, and showed them to the observer before beginning to teach. A l l of the student/teacher i n te rac t i on s i n the immedi-a te l y a f t e r and delay cond i t ions were timed with a s top -watch with the number of minutes recorded rounded to the nearest minute. Stimulus Words: Words were se lected from Computational ana lys i s of A present day American Eng l i sh , by H. Kucera and W.N. F r a n -c i s (1967). From a corpus of 1,014,232 words taken from 15 genres, with each of the 15 samples conta in ing about 2,000 words, the stimulus words used were those not yet understood by the student/confederate ranging from a f r e -quency of occurrence of 45odown through a frequency of two. Stimulus words used in the var ious cond i t ions are appended (Appendix 3 ) . P red i c t i on c o n d i t i o n : A f t e r reading the in t roductory page descr ib ing the experimental task, subjects in the p red i c t i on cond i t ion were t o l d on the fo l lowing page: Before the actua l teaching ses s ion, i t would be he lp fu l f o r us to have your pre l iminary react ions to student/teacher i n t e r a c t i o n s . There are no r i g h t or 20 wrong answers to these quest ions; we are p r imar i l y concerned with your own op in ions . Please answer these quest ions independently. They then completed a l l of the dependent measures i n the experimental booklet . Immediately a f t e r cond i t ion - No v ideo: Upon reading the in t roductory page descr ib ing the ex-perimental task, subjects fo l lowed i n s t ruc t i on s and the actor / teacher taught the student the meaning of the three words while the observer watched the i n t e r a c t i o n . The ex-perimenter videotaped the i n t e r a c t i o n but d id not rep lay the tape before asking the subjects to complete the de -pendent measures. Immediately a f te rdcond i t i on - 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 video c o n d i t i o n , except that the experimenter replayed the videotape of the immediately preceding i n t e r a c t i o n be-f o r e asking the subjects f o r t h e i r r e a c t i o n s . Delay cond i t ion - No v ideo: A f t e r reading the in t roductory page of i n s t r u c t i o n s , the teacher taught the student the three words whi le the observer watched. At the end of the i n t e r a c t i o n , however, these subjects read: This marks the end of th i s part of the study. You are requested to re turn 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 pa r t . Please arrange an appointment with the experimenter that i s conven-ient f o r a l l concerned. Thank you. Upon return ing the fo l lowing week, these subjects completed the dependent measures i n answer to "Reca l l i n g l a s t week's teaching sess ion, i t w i l l be he lp fu l f o r us to have your react ions to the student/teacher i n te rac t i on s i n v o l v e d . . . " . Delay cond i t ion - Video c o n t r o l : The procedure was i d e n t i c a l to the no video delay con -d i t i o n except that return ing subjects read: Before obta in ing your react ions to the student/ 21 teacher 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 to see the videotape replay of the sess ion. . .The e x p e r i -menter w i l l now run the v ideotape. Dependent measures were then completed. Debr ie f ing ; Upon completion of the experimental quest ionnaire a l l subjects were f u l l y debr iefed and asked not to revea l the nature or the p a r t i c u l a r s of the experiment to 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 exper-imental hypotheses and Sop the experimental design was ex-p la ined in d e t a i l . They were thanked f o r t h e i r cooperat ion . Dependent measures: Items on the experimental quest ionna i re cons t i tu ted the dependent va r i ab le s i n t h i s study. These questions addressed the perceived causa l a t t r i b u t i o n s of a c t o r / t e a -cher and observer toward the teacher, the s i t u a t i o n , and the student. (For convenience, examples given use the "Observer - Immediately A f t e r " cond i t ion wording.) For the three p r i n c i p a l dependent measures subjects were asked to cons ider the fo l lowing questions together and apport ion r e s p o n s i b i l i t y according to what they thought occurred (the t o t a l heed not add up to 100%): 1. To what extent was the outcome of the teaching sess ion due to the personal q u a l i t i e s of the teacher - her a b i l i t y , e f f o r t , i n t e r e s t , p re -senta t ion , etc.? - % . 2. To what extent was the outcome due to cha rac te r -i s t i c s of the, s i t u a t i o n - the task, the words drawn, etc .? % . 3. To what extent was the outcome due to cha rac te r -i s t i c s of the student - her learn ing a b i l i t y , mot ivat ion, etc .? %. The fo l lowing fac tor s per ta in ing to the teacher were rated on 5 - p o i n t scales whose end points were labeled "Not at a l l important...Wery important" , f o r items one through four , and "Not 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 -tem f i v e : 22 1. Of what importance was the teacher ' s general teaching a b i l i t y i n determining the outcome of the teaching session? 2. Of what importance was the teacher ' s random s e -l e c t i o n of the three words i n determining the outcome of the teaching session? 3. Of what importance was the teacher ' s i n t e r e s t and e f f o r t i n determining 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 task i n determining the outcome of the teach -ing session? 5. How d i f f i c u l t do you estimate the task to have been? The fo l lowing fac tor s per ta in ing to the student were a l so rated along 5-point sca les whose end-points were l a -beled "Not at a l l important.•.Very important" : 1. Of what importance was the s tudent ' s general scho-l a s t i c a b i l i t y i n determining the outcome of t h i s J-.-v..•>. teaching session? 2. Of what importance was her apt i tude fo r l earn ing word meanings in determining the outcome of t h i s teaching session? 3. Of what importance was her adjustment to a novel •; learn ing s i t u a t i o n i n determining the outcome of t h i s teaching session? 4. Of what importance was the s tudent ' s a t ten t ion and mot ivat iona l l e v e l i n determining the outcome of th i s teaching session? (These preceding student items were adapted from Ross, B ierbrauer, and P o l l y , 1974.) An a d d i t i o n a l open-ended question was asked to see i f other f ac tor s not s p e c i f i c a l l y addressed in the ques t i on -na i re were perceived as important in student/teacher i n t e r -a c t i on s . Subjects were given a page headed: "P lease l i s t or d iscuss any other f ac tor s which you perce ive to be im-portant in any student/teacher i n t e r a c t i o n : " . A f i n a l quest ion asked, "Have you had any experience i n teaching - f o r example, as a classroom teacher, r e l i g i o n teacher, camp leader, sports coach, etc . ? No; Yes I f^ "Yes" , please spec i f y : " . 23 Results A pre l iminary 2x2x2 f a c t o r i a l ana ly s i s (teacher v e r -sus observer; immediately a f t e r versus de lay; no v ideo v e r -sus video) revealed neither main e f f e c t s nor i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s i nvo l v ing the no v ideo/v ideo manipulation (see Ap-pendix 4 f o r no v ideo/v ideo tab le of means). Consequently, t h i s v a r i ab le was dropped from subsequent analyses and a l l f u r the r analyses were based on 2x3 analyses of var iance (actor versus observer; immediately a f t e r versus delay v e r -sus p r e d i c t i o n ) , with subjects i n the no v ideo/v ideo con -d i t i o n s pooled. Thus, data from 40 subjects in the immedi-a t e l y a f t e r cond i t i on , 40 subjects in the delay c o n d i t i o n , and 20 subjects i n the p red i c t i on cond i t ion were inc luded i n the analyses, 50 actor/ teachers and 50 observers i n t o -t a l . (A raw data l i s t i n g and data code may be found i n Ap-pendix 5.) Analyses of Free Response Measures: In answering the request to "Please l i s t or d i scuss any other f a c to r s which you perceive to be important i n any student/teacher i n t e r a c t i o n " , a h igh ly s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r -ence among temporal cond i t ions was found i n the number of words wr i t t en , F (2,94)= 8.1645, p_<%0006. Subjects i n the p red i c t i on cond i t i on generated a mean of 26.300 words; sub-j e c t s in the immediately a f t e r cond i t ion generated a mean of 48.625 words; and subjects in the delay cond i t ion gen-erated a mean of 62.050 words. The experimental manipula-t i o n seemed to produce d i f f e rence s i n a t t r i b u t i o n a l s e t : a f t e r having a c t u a l l y watched the student/teacher i n t e r -a c t i o n , subjects were able to wr i te more on the t o p i c . Experience in teaching had no s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t upon the dependent measures. Ana lys i s 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 to d i f f e rences i n amount of time taken to teach the student the three word meanings (mean fo r immediately a f t e r subjects = 10.5 24 minutes; mean f o r delay subjects « 11.85 minutes). Teach-ing times ranged from 2 through 25 minutes across the two cond i t i on s . Analyses of Demographic V a r i a b l e s : "Age" and "Un i ve r s i t y l e v e l " were modestly c o r r e l a t e d with each other (r = .3382), as One might expect, but were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y re la ted to any of the dependent measures. (See Appendix 6 f o r the c o r r e l a t i o n matrix of demographic items and dependent measures.) D i f ferences between Actors 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 : I t was hypothesized that across cond i t i on s , actors would make greater 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 ob-servers (Jones & N i sbet t , 1971). In f a c t , no s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t emerged, but a strong t rend, F (1,94) = 3.3731, JD < . 0 7 , i nd i ca ted that , contrary to expectat ion, observers o v e r a l l a t t r i bu ted greater r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to the s i t u a t i o n (mean = 37.460) than d id actor/ teachers (mean = 29.540). (See Table I f o r Mean A t t r i b u t i o n s of Actors and Observers toward Teacher, S i t u a t i o n , and Student.) No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e rences between actors and obser -vers were found i n i n d i v i d u a l analyses of a t t r i b u t i o n s to luck or task, both s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s . (See Table II f o r Analyses of Var iance Summary Tables f o r A l l Dependent Mea-sures.) P o l a r i z a t i o n of Actor-Observer A t t r i b u t i o n s : I t was hypothesized that actor -observer a t t r i b u t i o n a l d i f f e rences would increase over time (Tesser, 1978). That i s , a t t r i b u t i o n s of actors would become more s i t u a t i o n a l over time, whereas a t t r i b u t i o n s of observers would become more d i s p o s i t i o n a l over t ime. This hypothesis was not sup-ported ( F < 1 ) . The pattern of a t t r i b u t i o n s to the s i t u a -t i o n over time, however, was i d e n t i c a l f o r both actors and observers: P red i c t i on c o n d i t i o n , mean f o r actors = 24.000, mean f o r observers = 34.300; immediately a f t e r , mean f o r ac -tor s = 32.000, mean f o r observers = 39.750; delay c o n d i t i o n , mean f o r actors = 29.850, mean f o r observers = 36.750 (Ta-b le I ) . A n c i l l a r y Resu l t s : A t t r i b u t i o n s toward the Teacher: A s i g n i f i c a n t temporal d i f f e rence was found in a t t r i -butions toward the teacher ' s general teaching a b i l i t y , F (2,94) m 4.0409, £ < . 0 2 . Both actors and observers a t t r i -buted the most a b i l i t y to the teacher i n the p red i c t i on cond i t i on (mean = 4.4) ; l e s se r a b i l i t y i n the delay c o n d i -t i o n (mean = 3.9); and leas t a b i l i t y i n the immediately a f -te r cond i t ion (mean = 3.7). Analyses showed no other s i g -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 . (See Table III f o r Mean A t t r i b u t i o n s toward Teacher and Task Fac tor s . ) A t t r i b u t i o n s toward the Student: A t t r i b u t i o n toward the s tudent ' s apt i tude f o r l e a r n -ing word meanings r e f l e c t e d a s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n e f -f e c t , F (2,94) •» 3.2862, £ < . 0 4 . For ac tor s , the greatest a t t r i b u t i o n occurred i n the delay cond i t i on (mean « 4.550), fo l lowed by the p red i c t i on cond i t i on (mean = 4.000), and f i n a l l y i n the immediately a f t e r cond i t ion (mean = 3.900). The opposite pattern occurred f o r observers . The i r g rea t -est a t t r i b u t i o n toward the s tudent ' s apt i tude f o r learn ing word meanings occurred in the immediately a f t e r cond i t i on (mean = 4.300), fol lowed by the p red i c t i on cond i t ion (mean 4.200), and l a s t l y by the delay cond i t ion (mean = 4.050). No other s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s regarding student f ac to r s were present . (See Table IV f o r Mean A t t r i b u t i o n s toward the Student.) Summary: Examination of Table I shows that , over time, there was a tendency f o r actor/ teachers to swing from greater a t t r i b u t i o n s toward the teacher (themselves) i n the p r e -d i c t i o n c o n d i t i o n , to greater a t t r i b u t i o n toward the s t u -dent in the delay cond i t i on . Observers ' a t t r i b u t i o n s , o v e r a l l , show less v a r i a -b i l i t y . For observers, a t t r i b u t i o n s toward the teacher and student were more nearly equal i n the immediately a f t e r cond i t i on than i n the p red i c t i on and delay cond i t i ons , where greater r e s p o n s i b i l i t y was ascr ibed to the teacher. 27 TABLE I MEAN ATTRIBUTIONS OF ACTORS AND OBSERVERS TOWARD TEACHER, SITUATION, AND STUDENT (In percentages - t o ta l s need not add up ACTORS to 100%) P red i c t i on Immediately A f t e r Delay (One week) Overa l l Teacher 53.000 49.250 44.400 48.060 S i t ua t i on 24.000 32.000 29.850 29.540 Student 43.000 48.600 54.000 49.640 OBSERVERS P red i c t i on Immediately A f te r Delay (One week) Overa l l Teacher 51.300 51.750 55.000 52.960 S i t ua t i on 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  Ana ly s i s of Var iance 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 In terac t ion 2 600.300000 300.149902 0.8998 0.4127 E r ro r 94 31356.40000 333.578613 T o t a l 99 32636.99000 Ana ly s i s of Var iance f o r S i t ua t i on Source df SS MS F Prob. Role 1 1568.160000 1568.159912 3.3731 0.0660 Time 2 605.675000 302.837402 0.6514 0.5286 In te rac t ion 2 39.015000 19.507492 0.0420 0.9479 E r ro r 94 43700.15000 464.895020 T o t a l 99 45913.00000 Ana lys i s of Var iance for Student Source df SS MS F Prob. Role U 10.240000 10.240000 0.0222 0.8543 Time 2 1054.915000 527.457275 1.1425 0.3239 In terac t ion 2 272.835000 136.417496 0.2955 0.7486 E r ro r 94 43395.85000 461.657959 T o t a l 99 44733.84000 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 In terac t ion 2 1.400000E-01 6.999999E-02 0.0862 0.9101 E r ro r 94 • 76.300000 8.117021E-01 To ta l 99 83.360000 Ana ly s i s of Var iance f o r Random Se lec t i on of 3 Words (Luck)* Source df ss MS F Prob. Time 2 3.900000 1.950000 1.0184 0.3763 Subjects 27 51.700000 1.914814 1.5341 0.1361 Role 1 3.266667 3.266666 2.6172 0.1136 In terac t ion 2 2.033333 1.016666 0.8145 0.4568 E r ro r 27 33.700000 1.248148 T o t a l 59 94.600000 Ana ly s i s of Var iance fo r Teacher ' s E f f o r t * Source df SS MS F Prob. Time 2 6.333333E-01 3.166667E-01 0.3379 0.7203 Subjects 27 25.300000 9.370370E-01 1.5150 0.1432 Role 1 6.666667E-02 6.666666E-02 0.1078 0.7409 In terac t ion 2 2.333333E-01 1.166666E-01 0.1886 0.8287 Er ro r 27 16.700000 6.185185E-01 T o t a l 59 42.933333 * Due to dependency wi th in actor -observer data, " l u c k " , "Tea -c h e r ' s e f f o r t " , and "Student ' s a t tent ion and rootivation", were analyzed by a repeated measures ana lys i s of var iance. 30 Source df SS MS F Prob. Role 1 1.000000 1.000000 1.1576 0.2847 Time 2 4.000000E-02 ;;2.00000GE*02 0.0232 0.9650 In terac t ion 2 1.200000 6.000000E-01 0.6946 0.5064 E r ro r 94 81.200000 8.638297E-01 T o t a l 99 83.440000 Ana lys i s of Var iance fo 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 In terac t ion 2 1.050000 5.250000E-01 0.5659 0.5752 E r ro r 94 87.200000 9.276596E-01 T o t a l 99 * 92.750000 Ana lys i s of -Variance f o r Student ' s General Scho la s t i c A b i l i t y Source df SS MS F Prob. Role 1 Time 2 In terac t ion 2 1.210000 1.209999 1.815000 9.075000E-01 2.815000 1.407499 Er ro r To ta l 94 76.750000 8.164893E-01 99 82.590000 1.4820 0.2243 1.1115 0.3341 1.7238 0.1819 31 Ana lys i s of Var iance f o r Student ' s Apt i tude f o r Words Source df SS MS F Prob. Role 1 Time 2. In terac t ion 2 E r ro r 94 To ta l 99 -5.684342E-14 9.600000E-01 4.300000 61.500000 €.566. 760000 -5.684342E-14 4.800000E-01 2.150000 6.542553E-01 -0.0000 1.0000 0.7337 0.4871 3.2862 0.0407 Ana lys i s of Var iance f o r Student ' s Adjustment to a Novel S i tu at ion Source df SS MS F Prob. Role 1 1.690000 1.690000 1.7592 0.1846 Time 2 2.300000 1.150000 1.1971 0.3067 In terac t ion 2 4.600000E-01 2.300000E-01 0.2394 0.7896 E r ro r 94 90.300000 9.606383E-01 T o t a l 99 94.750000 Ana lys i s of Var iance for Student ' s A t tent ion and Mot ivat ion* Source df SS MS F Prob. Time 2 1.033333 5.166667E-01 Subjects 27 7.700000 2.851852E-01 Role 1 0.000000E+00 0.000000E+00 In te rac t ion 2 7.000000E-01 3.500000E-01 E r ro r 27 9.300000 3.444444E-01 To ta l 59 18.733333 1.8117 0.1810 0.8280 0.6865 0.0000 1.0000 1.0161 0.3771 • Repeated measures ana lys i s of var iance, see p. 29 32 Ana ly s i s of Var iance f o r Words (Free Response Measure) Source df SS MS F Prob. Role 1 930.250000 930.249756 0.8885 0.3509 Time 2 17095.435000 8547.714844 8.1645 0.0006 In terac t ion 2 3172.575000 1586.287354 1.5152 0.2235 E r ro r ^ 94 98412.650000 1046.942871 T o t a l 99 119610.910000 Source df SS MS F Prob. Role 1 1.000000E-02 9.999998E-03 0.0500 0.8077 Time 2 ; . 1.090000 5.450000E-01 2.7250 0.0690 In terac t ion 2 6.900000E-01 3.450000E-01 1.7250 0.1817 E r ro r 94 18.800000 2.000000E-01 T o t a l 99 20.590000 Ana lys i s of Var iance f o r Minutes (Time taken to teach 3 words)** Source df SS MS F Prob. Role 1 Time 1 In terac t ion 1 E r ro r 76 T o t a l 79 -9.094947E-13 36.450000 9.094947E-13 2151.100000 2187.550000 -9.094947E-13 36.449997 9.094947E-13 28.303940 -0.0000 1.0000 1.2878 0.2591 0.0000 0.9505 *• This i s a co l l apsed (no v ideo/v ideo) 2x2 Anova (actor versus observer; immediately a f t e r versus de l ay ) . TABLE III MEAN ATTRIBUTIONS OF ACTORS AND OBSERVERS TOWARD TEACHER  AND TASK FACTORS (Rated on sca le from 1 = Not at a l l important; to 5 = Very important) ACTORS P red i c t i on Immediately Delay O v e r a l l A f t e r (one week) Teacher ' s general teaching a b i l i t y * Random s e l e c t i o n of three words 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? 4,400 1.900 4 ; i o b " 3.500 3.600 3.800 2.600 4.100 3.850 3.000 3.950 2.800 4.200 3.750 3.200 3.980 2 . 540 4:140 3.740 3.200 OBSERVERS Pred i c t i on Immediately Delay Ove ra l l A f t e r (one week) Teacher ' s general teaching a b i l i t y • Random s e l e c t i o n of three words 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? 4.400 2.800 4.200 4.100 3.700 3.600 2.700 4.000 3.850 3.550 3.850 2.700 4.100 3.950 3.350 3.860 2.720 4.080 3.940 3.500 * 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 sca le from 1 = Not a t l a l l important; to 5 = Very important) ACTORS P red i c t i on Immediately Delay O v e r a l l A f t e r (one week) Student•s general s cho l a s t i c a b i l i t y 3.700 3.800 Student ' s apt i tude f o r word meanings* 4.000 3.900 Student ' s adjustment to novel s i t u a t i o n 3.600 3.850 Student ' s a t ten t i on and motivat ion 4.400 4.400 3.900 4.550 4.050 4.650 3.820 4.180* 3.880 4.500 OBSERVERS Pred i c t i on Immediately Delay O v e r a l l A f te r (one week) Student ' s general s c h o l a s t i c a b i l i t y 3.500 3.950 Student ' s apt i tude f o r word meanings* 4.200 4.300 Student ' s adjustment to novel s i t u a t i o n 3.300 3.750 Student ' s a t ten t i on and motivat ion 4.100 4.600 3.300 4.050 3.650 4.700 3.600 4.180 3.620 4.540 * S i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t , F (2,94) = 3.2862, £ .04 35 Discuss ion  Methodological Cons iderat ions: From the methodological point of view, there could be severa l reasons why the hypotheses were not conf irmed. A f i v e - p o i n t r a t i n g sca le may have been i n s e n s i t i v e to f i n e r a r t i c u l a t i o n s of the re spec t i ve a t t r i b u t i o n s obta ined. Psychometr ica l ly - speak ing, a seven-point r a t i ng sca le may have allowed f o r greater v a r i a b i l i t y i n causa l a t t r i b u t i o n s . A l s o , th i s 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 toward the teacher, the s i t u a t i o n , and the student, whi le other actor -observer a t t r i b u t i o n s tudies employing a student/ teacher in terpersona l i n f luence paradigm have used only dichotomous dependent measures, asking only f o r a t t r i b u -t ions toward the " teacher " and a t t r i b u t i o n s toward the " s i t u a t i o n " , with a t t r i b u t i o n s toward the student being subsumed under " s i t u a t i o n " . Examination of the c o r r e l a -t i o n matrix f o r a l l va r i ab le s (Appendix 6) , however, r e -vealed a low c o r r e l a t i o n between " s i t u a t i o n " and " s tudent " ( r = .3020), thereby lending c r e d i b i l i t y to the t r i p a r t i t e approach. As these two va r i ab le s share such a small p e r -centage of var iance in common, i t i s l i k e l y that there are q u a l i t a t i v e d i f f e rences e x i s t i n g between them. Regarding the p o l a r i z a t i o n hypothesis, i t may we l l be that such a phenomenon might be bet ter or more appropr ia te -l y studied using a w i th in - subject rather than a between-subject des ign. Actor-Observer D i f fe rences : The f i nd ing of greatest i n te re s t i n t h i s experiment was the reve r sa l i n the d i r e c t i o n of actor -observer d i f -ferences as pred ic ted by the Jones and N isbett (1971) hy-pothes i s . Across cond i t i ons , actor/ teachers a t t r i bu ted f a r less r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r experimental outcome to the s i t u a t i o n than d id passive observers . The pattern of a t -t r i b u t i o n s to the s i t u a t i o n was the same f o r both actors and observers: the greatest a t t r i b u t i o n to the s i t u a t i o n 36 occurred immediately a f t e r the experimental sess ion; a l e s se r proport ion of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y was a t t r i bu ted to the s i t u a t i o n seven days a f t e r the experimental sess ion; and the least r e l a t i v e a t t r i b u t i o n to the s i t u a t i o n occurred i n the p red i c t i on cond i t i on . I t i s apparently the case that ac to r s ' and observers ' 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 pred ic ted by Jones and N i sbet t (1971). Empi r i ca l evidence from other research as we l l has suggested pos s ib le l i m i t a t i o n s to the Jones and N i sbet t (1971) actor -observer hypothes i s . In some s i tua t i ons a c -tor s a t t r i bu ted more r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to themselves f o r t h e i r own behavior and the consequences of t h e i r behavior than d id observers (e . g . , B e l l , 1974; Langer & Roth, 1975; M i l -l e r & Norman, 1975). In other s i t ua t i on s actors have claimed that they are less in f luenced by s i t u a t i o n a l forces than are other persons (e . g . , B e l l , 1974; Freedman, 1969; Wolosin, Sherman, & Mynatt, 1972). Actors have made more d i s p o s i t i o n a l a t t r i b u t i o n s than have observers and i n some circumstances observers have made more d i s p o s i t i o n a l i n -ferences than have actors ( e . g . , Feather & Simon, 1971a; Wolosin, Sherman, & T i l l , 1973; Ross, B ierbrauer, & P o l l y , 1974; Tay lor & Koivumaki, 1976). Actors , because they know both the h i s t o r i c a l and current antecedents of t h e i r behavior, should be be t te r ab le than observers to c o r r e c t l y i d e n t i f y the causes of t h e i r own behavior. They should be be t te r able to appre-c i a t e the c o v a r i a t i o n (Ke l ley , 1972) between t h e i r behav-i o r and pos s ib le 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 causes, and should a l so be be t te r able to note c r o s s - s i t u a t i o n a l con -s i s t e n c i e s or v a r i a b i l i t i e s i n t h e i r own behavior. On the other hand, actors have been shown to i n c o r r e c t l y mis -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 behavior when i n f a c t th i s behavior had come about as a r e s u l t of s i t u a -t i o n a l manipulations (e .g . , N isbett & Schachter, 1966; 37 V a l i n s , 1966; Davison & V a l i n s , 1969). For s i t ua t i on s where the behavior i n question i s to a great extent d i s p o s i t i o n a l l y determined, actors ought to accurate ly perce ive the d i s p o s i t i o n a l causat ion of t h e i r behavior ( M i l l e r & Norman, 1975). Brickman, Ryan, and Wortman (1975), who sys temat ica l l y studied the a t t r i b u t i o n of personal r e s p o n s i b i l i t y as a funct ion of p r i o r and im-mediate causes, have suggested that the actor should be more l i k e l y than the observer to a t t r i b u t e d i s p o s i t i o n a l reasons fo r behaviors f o r which there are p r i o r d i s p o s i -t i o n a l causes known only to the ac tor . In th i s present study, 37 of the 50 actor/ teachers reported previous teach -ing exper ience. Monson and Snyder (1977), responding to Wachtel ' s (1973) suggestion that the s i t u a t i o n a l forces to which an actor responds i s o f ten of h i s /her own making, proposed that actors w i l l make more d i s p o s i t i o n a l a t t r i b u t i o n s than w i l l observers f o r behaviors undertaken i n s i t ua t i on s cho-sen by the ac to r ; whereas actors 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 behaviors than w i l l observers f o r behaviors undertaken>;,in s i t ua t i on s not chosen by the ac to r . Subjects volunteered f o r t h i s study understanding that the study dea l t with the dynamics of student/teacher i n t e r -a c t i o n , and that the student involved was the author ' s 10% year o ld daughter. Thus, i t was l o g i c a l f o r them to p r e -sume that they had volunteered or chosen to teach some-th ing to a young student. Monson and Snyder (1977, pp. 101-102)^summarize: Only i n s p e c i a l l y constructed laboratory con -texts (or f o r na tura l l y occurr ing events) that per -mit a t t r i b u t i o n s about behaviors that are (a) d i s -p o s i t i o n a l , (b) performed i n s i t ua t i on s chosen and/ or c o n t r o l l a b l e by the ac tor , (c) performed i n the presence of neutra l or i n h i b i t o r y s i t u a t i o n a l f a c -to r s , (d) s i m i l a r to prev ious ly manifested behaviors, (e) cons i s tent with p r i o r a t t r i b u t i o n s , and ( f ) part of a causa l chain with p r i o r d i s p o s i t i o n a l causes, 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 t i o n a l than the a t t r i b u t i o n s of an outs ide observer. Such cond i t ions were apparently perceived by the ac -tor / teachers to e x i s t . Only the actors would have access to in format iona l or h i s t o r i c a l bases regarding t h e i r teach -ing a b i l i t y . Only the actors would have been i n a po s i t i on to perceive personal freedom of choice and cons istency with p r i o r behavior. In add i t ion to these in format iona l bases which might exp la in the a c to r s ' greater r e l a t i v e 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 to themselves, there are a number of mot iva-t i o n a l f ac tor s which should be cons idered. M i l l e r and Norman (1975), using the f a m i l i a r P r i s o n -e r ' s Dilemma game s i t u a t i o n , compared ac to r s ' own per -cept ions with those made by passive observers and found that actors a t t r i bu ted more personal r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to themselves than d id passive observers. These authors con -cluded that the need of the actor to see ^ himself as exer -c i s i n g e f f e c t i v e cont ro l over his environment mediated t h e i r experimental r e s u l t s . The r e s u l t s of th i s thes i s suggest the same type of mot ivat iona l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . Actor/ teachers a t t r i bu ted f a r less r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to the s i t u a t i o n than they a t t r i -buted to e i t h e r themselves or to the student. This i s con -s i s t e n t with an ef fectance motive. The actor/ teachers had a need to see themselves as exerc i s ing or having c o n t r o l i n the experimental s i t u a t i o n . The ope ra t i ona l i z a t i on of th i s experiment a l so lent i t s e l f to a presumption of con t ro l on, the part of the a c -to r / teacher . She had an un l imi ted amount of time i n which to teach the three words, and she had access to a d i c t i o n -ary f o r any help i n de f in ing or g iv ing examples f o r a par -t i c u l a r word. Only two of the f i f t y teachers re f r a ined from using the d i c t i ona ry which was placed on the tab le at which both teacher and student were seated. This tendency or need f o r people to be l i eve that they 39 have environmental cont ro l i s an i n t e g r a l concept i n sev-e r a l psycho log ica l t heo r i e s . White (1959) postulated the* not ion of e f fec tance . wherefrom your f ee l i n g s about your ( i n ) a b i l i t y to cope with your environment determines how (un)favorably you view y o u r s e l f . He argued that a sense of competency i s bas ic to the development and s t a b i l i t y of se l f -e s teem. In the same v e i n , DeCharms (1968) has spoken of o r i q i n s h i p , or the origin-pawn dimension of s e l f - c o n -cept , and Rotter (1966) has spoken in terms of locus of  c o n t r o l . Ke l ley (1971) has a l so considered the i n t e r a c t i o n be-tween a t t r i b u t i o n processes and the need to perceive one-s e l f as exerc i s i ng e f f e c t i v e c o n t r o l : " A t t r i b u t i o n p ro -cesses are to be understood, not only as a means of p ro -v i d ing the i n d i v i d u a l with a v e r i d i c a l view of h i s wor ld, but as a means of encouraging and maintaining his e f f e c -t i v e exerc i se of cont ro l i n that world" (Ke l ley , 1971, p.22). An e f fectance motive i s only one of a number of i n -d i ca t i on s of the need to view oneself i n a p o s i t i v e way. Other manifestat ions of t h i s more general need are the d r i ve s f o r self-enhancement, s e l f - p r o t e c t i v e n e s s , and s e l f -cons istency ( c f . Feather, 1969; 1971, ; Heider, 1958; K e l l e y , 1967). M i l l e r and Norman (1975) pointed out that should these motives be i n oppos i t ion to one another, the l i k e l i e s t r e - 1 so l u t i on would be f o r the motive which best promoted a pos-i t i v e image of oneself to tr iumph. Thus, actor / teachers may have maintained 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 as -c r i b i n g a greater proport ion of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to the s t u -dent than they would have by a sc r ib ing more r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to themselves, or a more near ly equal proport ion of r e -s p o n s i b i l i t y between themselves and the student. DeCharms (1968) and others have demonstrated a l so that i nd i v i dua l s who be l ieve that most of t h e i r own ou t -comes depend not on externa l forces but on t h e i r own be-40 havior genera l ly a t t r i b u t e more o r i g i n sh i p to others too. In f a c t , i n the delay cond i t i on of th i s present thes i s ex-periment, actor / teachers ascr ibed more r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to the student than they ascr ibed e i the r to themselves or to the s i t u a t i o n . P o l a r i z a t i o n Hypothesis; For the ac tor / teacher , the student her se l f served as a s t imulus -object during the teaching ses s ion . Tesser and h i s col leagues (e . g . , Tesser, 1978; Sadler & Tesser, 1973; Tesser & Cowan, 1977; Tesser & Conlee, 1975; Tesser & Leone, 1977) have demonstrated that the more time a subject has to think about a st imulus, the more extreme or po l a r i zed the eva luat ion of that st imulus becomes. Just such a phe-nomenon would exp la in why, over time, the ac to r s ' causa l a t t r i b u t i o n s toward the student increased monotonical ly over t ime. In the one week i n t e r v a l between the teaching sess ion and the completion of the dependent measure ques-t i onna i re (delay cond i t i on ) , the actor/ teachers would have had ample time f o r t h e i r a t t i t udes or a t t r i b u t i o n s toward the student, toward whom so much a t tent ion and e f f o r t had been d i r e c t e d , to p o l a r i z e . Actor/ teachers a t t r i bu ted greatest c a u s a l i t y to " s tudent ' s apt i tude f o r learn ing word meanings" i n the delay cond i t i on , whi le a t t r i b u t i n g the leas t c a u s a l i t y in the immediately a f t e r c o n d i t i o n . L i t t l e previous work has been done regarding delayed a t t r i b u t i o n s , but the work of M i l l e r and Haqq ( in prepar -at ion) would suggest that , with the passage of time, a c -tor s become less ego-defensive or ego-enhancing, and more w i l l i n g to share a port ion of the c a u s a l i t y with the s t u -dent, t h e i r partner in the i n t e r a c t i o n . A l so , as Beck-man (1973) and Ross, B ierbrauer, and Po l l y (1974) have suggested, actor/ teachers may have been caut ious about any boastfulness or defensiveness because of po ten t i a l con t rad i c t i ng evaluat ions by the observers witnessing the ses s ion . The presence of the confederate ' s mother -41 the experimenter - a l so may have tempered teacher a t t r i -but ions . Modesty, or at l ea s t shared a t t r i b u t i o n a l c a u -s a l i t y , appeared to fo l low l o g i c a l l y from the s t ruc ture of the s i t u a t i o n . Observers, on the other hand, had l e s se r ego i n v o l v e -ment i n the i n t e r a c t i o n and could therefore focus on the student and other features of the s i t u a t i o n i n a more g l o -ba l or general f a sh ion . The student served as a moire s a -l i e n t stimulus f o r observers immediately a f t e r the teach -ing ses s ion . Both actors and observers ascr ibed greater c a u s a l i t y to " t eacher ' s general teaching a b i l i t y " i n the p r e d i c t i o n cond i t i on than i n the other two cond i t i on s . The l i k e l i -est explanat ion f o r th i s would simply be t h e i r greater personal knowledge of un ivers i ty -aged i n d i v i d u a l s ' a b i l i -t i e s r e l a t i v e to knowledge of e i t he r s i m i l a r s i t ua t i on s or 10% year o ld students. A t t r i b u t i o n s toward " t eache r ' s general teaching a b i l i t y " were lower i n the delay c o n d i -t i o n and s t i l l lower i n the immediately a f t e r c o n d i t i o n . A f t e r viewing the i n t e r a c t i o n , other causa l explanations may have competed with actors* and observers ' i n i t i a l p r e -d i s p o s i t i o n to a t t r i b u t e to the e n t i t y best-known to them -the teacher. In any case, i t would appear that f o r judge-ment or a t t r i b u t i o n toward " teacher ' s general teaching a b i l i t y " the passage of time produced a le s s extreme view, i n con t rad i c t i on to Tes ser ' s (1978) hypothes i s . Further Cons iderat ions : Tay lor and F i ske (1978, p. 256) reminded: I f the d i f f e rences between a c t o r s ' and observers ' a t t r i b u t i o n s are mediated by the information that en -gu l f s one 's v i s u a l f i e l d , then whatever one attends to wi th in one ' s environment should i n f l uence the percep-t ions of c a u s a l i t y . I f one attends to a part of the environment to the r e l a t i v e exc lus ion of another, the information from that part should be most s a l i e n t . Tinas in format ion, in turn , should provide a bas i s f o r the explanat ion one adopts i n dec id ing who caused what i n the s i t u a t i o n . Our o v e r a l l hypothes is , then, i s 42 that point of view or a t tent ion determines what i n -formation i s s a l i e n t ; perceptua l l y s a l i e n t in forma-t i on i s then overrepresented i n subsequent causa l ex-p lanat ions . This hypothesis extends the sa l i ence 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 actor -observer comparison. Evidence f o r th i s hypothesis comes from studies on both the percept ion of others and the percept ion of s e l f . (Taylor & F i s k e , 1978, p. 256) Tay lor and F i s k e ' s (1978) p ropos i t i on , then, i s that people respond to the most s a l i e n t s t i m u l i i n t h e i r e n v i -ronment (an hypothesis that o r i g ina ted with Brunswik, 1955, and Heider, 1958) and that , there fore , the Jones and N i s -bet t actor-obserVer e f f e c t (1971) i s s u b s t a n t i a l l y a mani-f e s t a t i o n of perceptual s a l i e n c e . Thus, to the extent that s i t ua t i on s are made s a l i e n t , s i t ua t i on s should be perceived as more causa l l y re levant ; to the extent that actors are made s a l i e n t , actors should be perceived as more cau sa l l y re levant (e . g . , Storms, 1973; Tay lor & F i s k e , 1975; Tay lo r , F i s k e , C lose, Anderson, & Ruderman, 1977). Regarding 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 Duval, Wicklund, and col leagues ( e . g . , Duval & Wicklund, 1972; 1973; Wicklund, 1975; Duval & Hensley, 1977) have shown that when the s e l f i s s a l i e n t , s e l f - a t t r i b u t i o n s of c au -s a l i t y are exaggerated. Evidence f o r increases in both negative s e l f - r e l e v a n t thoughts (Duval & Wicklund, 1972) and p o s i t i v e s e l f - r e l e v a n t thoughts (Wicklund, 1975) have been found under condi t ions of s e l f - f ocu sed a t tent ion (ob-j e c t i v e se l f -awareness ) . Object ive self-awareness was a l so enhanced by both mirror-manipulat ion and audience presence i n a study by Carver and Sefee&erf i!9c78). I t i s pos s ib le that our experimental set-up (see F i g -ure 1), with the videotape equipment i n view about 8% feet away from the actor / teacher and student, served as a man-i p u l a t i o n f o r sel f -awareness, leading actors to a t t r i b u t e p ropor t i ona l l y greater c a u s a l i t y to themselves and to the student than to the s i t u a t i o n . The observer sat jus t to the r i gh t of the video cam-43 era and shared e s s e n t i a l l y the same perspect ive as the ex-perimenter. She was a l so qu i te aware of the video equ ip -ment which, f o r most people, cons t i tu tes a novel s t imulus . Cogn i t ive psychology research has shown that novel s t i m u l i e l i c i t a t tent ion (e .g . , Ber lyne, 1958; 1970). Therefore, d i f f e r e n t i a l a t ten t ion to the novel s t i m u l i should e l i c i t r e l a t i v e l y greater causal a t t r i b u t i o n s ( in t h i s case, to the s i t u a t i o n ) . Not being engrossed i n the actua l teach -ing of the three words to the student, the observer had as much or more opportunity to attend to the video equ ip -ment as had the ac tor / teacher . Apropos of the novelty cons idera t i on , McArthur and Post (1977) manipulated severa l phys ica l va r i ab les i n a s e r i e s of experiments using the "gett ing-acquainted con -ve r s a t i on " context . Manipulations of phys i ca l s a l i ence inc luded br ightness (Study 1), motion (Study 2), pattern complexity (Study 3), and contextua l novelty (Studies 4 and 5) . In s tud ies 1, 2, and 3, McArthur and Post (1977) d iscovered that a s a l i en t actor ( i . e . , the stimulus pe r -son e i the r seated i n a br i ght l i g h t , rocking i n a rocking c h a i r , or wearing a bo ld ly patterned s h i r t ) was viewed les s s i t u a t i o n a l l y than a nonsal ient a c to r . However, the oppos i te pat tern resu l ted from manipulations of novelty ( i . e . , st imulus person in a novel s h i r t - f o r example, a red s h i r t when others in the group a l l wore blue s h i r t s , Study 4; or a so lo male or female - f o r example, a s i n g l e black man i n a group of four , Study 5 ) . The novel sub-j e c t s behavior was viewed more s i t u a t i o n a l l y than that of the nonnovel subject! McArthur and Post (1977) resolved the apparent r e v e r -sa l s wi th in the sa l ience f ind ings by suggesting that c au -s a l i t y i s a t t r i bu ted to d i spo s i t i on s when a t tent ion i s f o -cused upon the ac tor , and to s i t u a t i o n a l f ac to r s when the  s i t u a t i o n or environment i s s a l i e n t . E s p e c i a l l y f o r the observers, whose a t tent ion seemed more d i f f u s e than that 44 of the actors , our en t i r e experimental s i t u a t i o n l i k e l y ap-peared novel and therefore e l i c i t e d a greater percentage of the causal explanat ion f o r the experimental outcome. Simply by having the student/teacher i n t e r a c t i o n v i d -eotaped by the experimenter, who remained i n the e x p e r i -mental room along with the teacher, the observer, and the student, a l l present were made aware of the t o t a l s i t u a -t i o n , e s p e c i a l l y as i t ex i s ted f o r the ac to r / teacher . Such an awareness seemed to induce a " s e l f - d i s c o v e r y " set f o r ac to r s , and an "empathy" set f o r observers (Storms, 1973; K i e s l e r , N i sbe t t , & Zanna, 1969). Regarding the "empathy" cons idera t ion , severa l types of per spect ive - tak ing have been examined in the l i t e r a t u r e : cogn i t i ve per spect i ve - tak ing invo lv ing understanding of the other i n d i v i d u a l ' s in tent ions and plans f o r future ac t i ons ; a f f e c t i v e perspect ive - tak ing invo lv ing apprec ia t ion of the o t h e r ' s f e e l i n g s ; and v i s u a l perspect ive - tak ing i nvo l v ing knowledge of the o ther ' s percept ions . Tt has been found that observers have made more a c t o r - l i k e ( i . e . , s i t u a t i o n a l ) a t t r i b u t i o n s a f t e r e i the r viewing the experimental i n t e r -ac t i on from a new perspect ive (Storms, 1973) or being i n -s t ruc ted to empathize with a target subject (Regan & Tot ten, 1975; Galper, 1976). Two a d d i t i o n a l s tudies may c l a r i f y c e r t a i n re levant p o i n t s . Johnson (1975) s tudied cooperativeness and s o c i a l per spect i ve - tak ing i n 4th grade ch i l d ren and found no r e -l a t i o n s h i p between p red i spo s i t i on to cooperate and a b i l i t y to take the phys i ca l perspect ive of other i n d i v i d u a l s , but found a strong r e l a t i o n s h i p between p red i spo s i t i on to coop-era te and a b i l i t y to take the emotional perspect ive of o t h -er i n d i v i d u a l s . The r e s u l t s of h i s study a l so i nd i ca ted that perceptual and a f f e c t i v e perspect ive - tak ing were un-r e l a t e d : c h i l d r e n s k i l l e d at one type of pe r spec t i ve - t ak -ing were not neces sa r i l y s k i l l e d at the o ther . More r e c e n t l y , T josvo ld and Sagaria (1978) examined 45 the e f f e c t s of r e l a t i v e power on cogn i t i ve per spec t i ve -tak ing and found that as r e l a t i v e power decreased, i n t e r -est i n the o t h e r ' s cogn i t i ve perspect ive increased. Th i s r e s u l t fol lowed l o g i c a l l y from the work of both cogn i t i ve developmental i sts (e .g . , Kohlberg, 1969) and symbolic i n -t e r a c t i o n i s t s ( e . g . , Sh ibutan i , 1961) who have suggested that persons dependent upon another f o r outcomes are mo-t i v a t e d to take the o the r ' s cogn i t i ve per spec t i ve . Of i n -t e re s t to t h i s thes i s as we l l was the f i n d i n g of T josvo ld and Sagaria (1978) that those subjects with absolute pow-er (the f i v e l e v e l s of r e l a t i v e power were opera t i ona l i zed through three 3-choice mixed motive matr ices) were more i n te re s ted i n the o ther ' s a f f e c t i v e perspect ive than sub-j e c t s i n the four other power cond i t i on s . I t could we l l be that observers i n t h i s thes i s exper-iment were i n te re s ted i n both the cogn i t i ve and a f f e c t i v e perspect ives of the ac tor s . Though both actors and obser -vers were t o l d that they would be asked f o r t h e i r r e a c -t ions to the experimental s i t u a t i o n afterwards, they d id not know s p e c i f i c a l l y what types of quest ions would be asked. Nor could they know what r e l a t i o n s h i p would sub-sequently ex i s t between thenu Several observers remarked a f t e r the experimental sess ion that they thought that t e a -cher-observer r o l e s would be reversed and that they, i n tu rn , would have to teach the student three word meanings. To the extent that observers an t i c ipa ted switching r o l e s , or to the extent that observers expected eva luat ion from the ac tor / teachers , an apprec ia t ion of the a c t o r ' s cog -n i t i v e and a f f e c t i v e perspect ives would have been f a c i l i -t a t i v e (Pepitone, 1949). Future Cons iderat ions ; Researchers - i n : the fu ture 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) as a covar i a te i n a t t r i b u t i o n research. Measures of cogn i t i ve and a f f e c -t i v e perspect ive - tak ing (Johnson, 1975; T josvo ld & Sagar ia , 4 6 1978) and/or se l f -mon i to r ing (Snyder & Monson, 1975) might a l so be p r o f i t a b l y examined. I t may be va luable to examine d i f f e rences in temporal perspect ive using w i th in - subject rather than between-sub-j e c t designs. Data for the p o l a r i z a t i o n hypothesis (Tes-se r , 1978), e s p e c i a l l y , may be meaningful ly obtained using a repeated-measures experimental des ign. In teres t ing d i f f e rences might r e s u l t i f t h i s same study were r e p l i c a t e d , but with a ten-minute time l i m i t so that 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 ac to r / teacher . A l t e r n a t i v e l y , a less th rea ten -ing experimental s i t u a t i o n might be s t ruc tured by using a younger student-confederate and, ergo, s impler st imulus words. In summary, most researchers would agree with Monson and Snyder (1977) who suggest ' 'that emp i r i ca l researchers turn from attempts to • v e r i f y ' the hypothesis of Jones and N isbett (1972) to systematic i nves t i ga t i ons of the 'when', •why', and 'w i th what imp l i ca t ions f o r a t t r i b u t i o n theory ' of d i f f e rences between actors and observers " (Monson & Sny-der , 1977, p. 107). 47 Bibl iography A r k i n , R.M., & Duval, S. Forms of a t ten t i on and causa l a t -t r i b u t i o n of actors and observers. Journa l of E x p e r i -mental S o c i a l Psychology. 1975, 11, 427-438. Aronson, E., & L inder , D. Gain and loss of esteem as d e t e r -minants of in terpersona l a t t r a c t i venes s . Journa l of Ex- perimental Soc i a l Psychology. 1965, 1, 156-171. Beckman, L. E f f e c t s of s tudent ' s performance on teacher ' s and observer ' s a t t r i b u t i o n s of c a u s a l i t y . Journa l of  Educat ional Psychology, 1970, 61, 76-82. Beckman, L. Teachers ' and observers ' perceptions of cau -s a l i t y f o r a c h i l d ' s performance. Journa l of Educa-t i o n a l Psychology. 1973, 6J5, 198-204. Beckman, L. Causal a t t r i b u t i o n s of teachers and parents r e -garding c h i l d r e n ' s performance. Psychology i n the Schools. 1976, 13, 212-218. B e l l , L.G. Inf luence of need to con t ro l on d i f f e rences i n a t t r i b u t i o n of c a u s a l i t y by actors and observers (Doc-t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , Duke Un i ve r s i t y , 1973). D i s s e r t a -t i on Abstracts I n te rna t i ona l , 1974, 34, 4401. (Univer-s i t y M icro f i lms No. 74-1122). Ber lyne, D.E. At tent ion as a problem i n behavior theory. In D.I. Mostofsky (Ed. ) , A t ten t i on : contemporary the -ory and ana l y s i s . New York: App leton-Century-Crof t s , 1970. Ber lyne, D.W. The in f luence of complexity and novelty i n v i sua l f i gu res on o r i e n t i n g responses. Journal of Ex-perimental Psychology, 1958, 5JS, 289-296. Berscheid, E., Boye, D., & Dar ley, J .M. E f f e c t of forced a s soc ia t ion upon voluntary choice to a s soc ia te . J o u r -nal of Per sona l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 1968, 8, 13-19. Brickman, P., Ryan, K., & Wortman, C.B. Causal cha ins : 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 as a funct ion of immediate and p r i o r causes. Journa l of Per sona l i t y and S o c i a l  Psychology. 1975, 32, 1060-1067. Brunswik, E. Representative design and p r o b a b i l i s t i c theory. Psycho log ica l Review. 1955, 62, 193-217. Carver, C.S., & Scheier , M.F. The s e l f - f o c u s i n g e f f e c t s of d i s p o s i t i o n a l se l f - consc iousness , mi r ror presence, and audience presence. Journa l of Per sona l i t y and S o c i a l  Psychology. 1978, 36, 324-332. ! Davison, G.C., & Va l i n s , S. Maintenance of s e l f - a t t r i b u t e d and drug -a t t r ibuted behavior change. Journal of Person-a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 1969, 11, 25-33. 48 DeCharms, R. Personal causat ion. New York: Academic Press, 1968. de l a Haye, A. Recherches sur 1• interact ion a n t i c i p e e . Annee Psycholoqie, 1975, 75.» 153-168. Duval, S. Causal a t t r i b u t i o n as a funct ion of focus of a t t e n t i o n . In S. Duval & R.A. Wicklund (Eds. ) , A the -ory of ob jec t i ve se l f -awareness. New York: Academic Press, 1972. Duval, 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 func* t i on of the r e l a t i v e durat ion of the focus of a t t e n -t i on and quant i t a t i ve and q u a l i t a t i v e novelty of an ob jec t . Unpublished manuscript, Un i ve r s i t y of Southern C a l i f o r n i a , 1974. Duval, S., & Hensley, V. Extensions of ob jec t i ve se l f - aware -ness theory: The focus of a t tent ion -causa l a t t r i b u t i o n hypothesis. In J . H . Harvey, W.J. Ickes, & R.F. Kidd (Eds. ) , New d i rec t i on s i n a t t r i b u t i o n research. V o l . 1. H i l l s d a l e , N . J . : Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc ia tes , 1977. Duval, S., & Wicklund, R.A. A theory of ob jec t i ve se l f - aware - ness. New York: Academic Press, 1972. Duval, S., & Wicklund, R.A. E f f ec t s of ob jec t i ve se l f - aware -ness on a t t r i b u t i o n s of c a u s a l i t y . Journa l of E x p e r i -mental S o c i a l Psychology. 1973, 9, 17-31. 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 information i n dy-adic i n t e r a c t i o n . Journa l of Per sona l i t y and S o c i a l  Psychology, 1972, 23. 340-345. ! Feather, 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 valence of success and f a i l u r e i n r e l a t i o n to i n i t i a l conf idence and task performance. Journa l of Persona l i ty and Soc i a l  Psychology, 1969, 13, 129-144. Feather, N.T. Organizat ion and discrepancy in cogn i t i ve s t ruc tu re s . Psycho log ica l Review, 1971, 78, 355-379. Feather, N.T., & 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 and valence of outcome i n r e l a t i o n to i n i t i a l conf idence and success and f a i l u r e of s e l f and o ther . Journa l of Persona l i ty and Soc i a l Psychology, 1971, 18, 173-188 (a). Feather, N.T., & Simon, J . G . Causal a t t r i b u t i o n s f o r suc -cess and f a i l u r e i n r e l a t i o n to expectat ion of success based upon s e l e c t i v e or manipulat ive c o n t r o l . Journa l  of Pe r sona l i t y , 1971, 39, 527-541 (b) . Federo f f , N., & Harvey, J . H . Focus of a t t en t i on , se l f -es teem, and the a t t r i b u t i o n of c a u s a l i t y . Journa l of Research in Per sona l i t y , 1976, 10, 336-345. 49 F e l k e r , D.W., & Stanwyck, D.J. General se l f - concept and s p e c i f i c s e l f - eva l ua t i on s a f t e r an academic task. Psycho log ica l Reports, 1971, 29, 60-62. Freedman, J . Role p lay ing : Psychology by consensus. J o u r -nal of Per sona l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 1969, 13, 107-114. Galper, R.E. Turning observers in to ac to r s : D i f f e r e n t i a l causal a t t r i b u t i o n s as a funct ion of "empathy". J o u r -nal of Research i n Per sona l i t y , 1976, 10, 328-335. Gilmor, T.M., & Minton, H.L. In terna l versus externa l a t -t r i b u t i o n of task performance as a funct ion of locus of c o n t r o l , i n i t i a l conf idence, and s u c c e s s - f a i l u r e outcome. Journa l of Per sona l i t y , 1974, 41, 159-174. Hastorf , A. , Schneider, D., & Polefka,a-J. Person percept ion . Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1970. Heider, F. The psychology of in terpersona l r e l a t i o n s . New York: Wi ley, 1958. Johnson, D.W. Cooperativeness and s o c i a l perspect ive tak -i ng . Journa l of Per sona l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 1975, 31, 241-244. Johnson, T . J . , Feigenbaum, R., & Weiby, M. Some determinants and consequences of the teacher ' s percept ion of causa-t i o n . Journa l of Educat iona l Psychology, 1964, 55_, 237-246. Jones, E.E.,~&;Davis, K.E. A theory of correspondent i n f e r -ences: From acts to d i s p o s i t i o n s . In L. Berkowitz (Ed.) Advances-in experimental s o c i a l psychology. New Yorle: 1965, 2,c219-266. Jones, E .E. , Davis, K.E., & Gergen, K . J . Role p lay ing v a r i -at ions and t h e i r in format iona l va lue f o r person percep-t i o n . Journa l of Abnormal and S o c i a l Psychology, 1961, 63,;' 302-310. : Jones, E .E . , •& de Charms, R. Changes i n s o c i a l percept ion as a func t i on of the personal re levance of behavior. Sociometry, 1957, 2j0, 75-85. Jones, E .E. , & Har r i s , V.A. The a t t r i b u t i o n of a t t i t u d e s . Journal of Experimental S o c i a l Psychology, 1967, J3, 1-24. Jones, E .E. , & N i sbet t , R.E. The actor and the observer: Divergent perceptions of the causes of behavior. New York: General Learning Press, 1971. Jones, E.E.j & N i sbet t , R.E. The actor and the observer: Divergent perceptions of the causes of behavior. In E.E. Jones, D.E. Kanouse, H.H. Ke l l ey , R.E. N i sbet t , S. Va l in s &.B. Weiner, A t t r i b u t i o n : Perce iv ing the causes of be?? hav ior . New Jersey : General Learning Press, 1972. 50 Jones, E.E. , RockjiL., Shaver, K•, Goethals, G., & Ward, L . Pattern of performance and a b i l i t y a t t r i b u t i o n : An un-expected primacy e f f e c t . Journa l of Per sona l i t y and So-c i a l Psychology, 1968, 10,.317-340. Jones, E.E., Worchel, S., Goethals, G., & Grumet, J . P r i o r expectancy and behaviora l extremity as determinants of a t t i t ude a t t r i b u t i o n . Journa l of Experimental Soc ia l 1 1  Psychology, 1971, 7, 59^-80. 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 : Perce iv ing the causes of  behavior. Morristown, New Jer sey : General Learning Press, 1972. K e l l e y , H.H. A t t r i b u t i o n theory in s o c i a l psychology. In D. Levine (Ed. ) , Nebraska symposia on mot ivat ion. U n i -v e r s i t y of Nebraska Press, 1967, 192-240. K e l l e y , H.H. A t t r i b u t i o n i n s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n . New York: General Learning Press, 1971. K e l l e y , H.H. A t t r i b u t i o n i n s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n . In E.E. Jones et a l . (Eds. ) , A t t r i b u t i o n : Perce iv ing the causes  of behavior. Morristown, New Jer sey : General Learning Press, 1972. K e l l e y , H.H. The processes of causal a t t r i b u t i o n . Amer i -can Psycho log i s t , 1973, 28, 107-128. K e l l e y , H.H., & S t ahe l sk i , A . J . Errors i n percept ion of i n -tent ions i n a mixed-motive game. Journa l of E x p e r i -mental S o c i a l Psychology, 1970, 6, 379-400. K i e s l e r , C.A., N i sbet t , R.E., & Zanna, M.P. On i n f e r r i n g one's b e l i e f s from one's behavior. Journa l of Person-a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 1969, 11, 321-327. K l e i n e r , R.J. The e f f ec t s of threat reduct ion upon i n t e r -personal a t t r a c t i venes s . Journal of Per sona l i t y , 1960, 28, 145-156. Kohlberg, L. Stage and sequence: The cogn i t i ve deve lop-mental approach to s o c i a l i z a t i o n . In D.A. Gos l i n (Ed.) , Handbook of s o c i a l i z a t i o n theory and research. Chicago: Rand-McNally, 1969. Kucera, H., & F ranc i s , W.N. Computational ana lys i s of p re -sent day American Eng l i s h . Providence, R.I.: Brown Un iver s i t y Press, 1967. Langer, E . J . , & Roth, J . Heads I win, t a i l s i t ' s chance: The i l l u s i o n of con t ro l as a funct ion of the sequence of outcomes i n a purely chance task. Journa l of Per -sona l i t y and Soc ia l Psychology, 1975, _32, 951-955. 51 Lerner , M .J . , D i l l ehay , R.C., & Sherer, W. S i m i l a r i t y and a t t r a c t i o n i n s o c i a l contexts . Journa l of Per sona l i t y  and Soc i a l Psychology, 1967, 5_, 481-486. McArthur, L . , & Post, D. F i g u r a l emphasis and person pe r -cep t i on . -Journal of Experimental S o c i a l Psychology, 1977, 13, 520-535. Meichenbaum, D.H., Bowers, K.S., & Ross, R.R. A behav iora l ana lys i s of teacher expectancy e f f e c t . Journa l of Per -sona l i t y and Soc i a l Psychology, 1969, 13, 306-316. Mettee, D.R. Changes i n l i k i n g as a funct ion of the magni-tude and e f f e c t of sequent ia l eva lua t ions . Journa l of  Experimental Soc i a l Psychology, 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 success and f a i l u r e . ® Journal of Persona l i ty and Soc i a l P sycho 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 with tem-pora l de lay: As time goes by. ( i n p repara t ion ) . M i l l e r , D.T., & Holmes, J . G . The r o l e of 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 prophecies: A the -oret ica laar id empi r i ca l extension of Ke l l ey and S t a -h e l s k i ' s t r i a n g l e hypothes i s . Journa l of Per sona l i t y  and S o c i a l Psychology, 1975, 31, 661-673. M i l l e r , D.T., & Norman, S.A. Actor -observer d i f f e rences i n percept ions of e f f e c t i v e c o n t r o l . Journa l of Person-a l i t y and Soc i a l Psychology, 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 iases in the a t t r i -bution 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., & Wright, E. D i s t o r t i o n i n pe r -son percept ion 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 . Journa l of Persona l i ty and Soc i a l Psy-chology, 1978, 36, 598-607. M i r e l s , H., & M i l l s , J . Percept ion of the pleasantness and competence of a par tner . Journal of Abnormal S o c i a l  Psychology, 1964, 68, 456-459. M i s che l , W. Persona l i ty and assessment. New York: Wi ley, 1968. M i s che l , W. Cont inu i ty and change i n p e r s o n a l i t y . American  Psycho log i s t , 1969, 11, 1012-1018. Monson, T . C . , & Snyder, M. Ac tor s , observers , and the a t t r i -bution process . Journa l of Experimental Soc i a l P sycho l - ogy, 1977, 13, 89-111. N i sbe t t , R.E., & Caputo, G.C. Persona l i ty t r a i t s : Why o t h -er people do the things they do. Unpublished manu-s c r i p t , Ya le Un i ve r s i t y , 1971. 52 N i sbe t t , R.E., Legant, P., & Maracek, J . The causes of be-havior as seen by actor and observer. Unpublished man-u s c r i p t , Yale Un i ve r s i t y , 1971. N i sbe t t , R.E., & Schachter, S. Cogn i t ive manipulation of pa in . Journa l of Experimental S o c i a l Psychology, 1966, 2, 227-236. Pepitone, A. Mot ivat iona l e f f e c t s i n s o c i a l percept ion . Human Re la t ions j 1949, 3, 57-76. Regan, J.W., Gosse l ink, H., Hubsch, J . , & U l sh, E. Do peo-p le have i n f l a t e d views, of t h e i r own a b i l i t y ? Journa l  of Per sona l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 1975, 31, 295-301. Regan, D.T., Straus, E., & Faz i o , R. L i k i n g and the a t t r i -bution process . Journa l of Experimental Soc i a l P sycho l - ogy, 1974, 10, 385-397. Regan, D.T., & Tot ten, J . Empathy and a t t r i b u t i o n : Turn -ing observers in to a c to r s . Journa l of Per sona l i t y and  Soc i a l Psychology, 1975, 32, 850-856. Rosenhan, D. On being sane i n insane p l aces . Sc ience, 1973, 7_9, 250-252. Rosenthal, J . H . Self -esteem i n dys lex i c c h i l d r e n . Academic  Therapy, 1973, 9, 27-39. Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. Teachers ' expectancies: De-terminants of p u p i l s ' i n t e l l i g e n c e . Psycho log ica l Re- ports . 1966, 19, 115-118. Ross, L., B ierbrauer, G., & P o l l y , S. A t t r i b u t i o n of edu-ca t i ona l outcomes by p ro fe s s i ona l and non-profess iona l i n s t r u c t o r s . Journa l of Persona l i ty and Soc i a l Psy-chology, 1974, 29, 609-618. Rot ter j J . B . Genera l ized expectancies f o r i n t e r n a l versus externa l con t ro l of re inforcement. Psycho log ica l Mono-graphs, 1966, 80 (1, Whole No. 609). Sad ler , 0 . , & Tesser , A. Some e f fec t s of sa l i ence and time upon in terpersona l h o s t i l i t y and a t t r a c t i o n during so -c i a l i s o l a t i o n . Sociometry, 1973, 36_, 99-112. Schachter, S., & Singer, J . E . Cogn i t i ve , s o c i a l ^ and p h y s i -o l o g i c a l determinants of emotional s t a t e . P sycho log i -c a l Review, 1962, 69, 379-399. Seaver, W.B. E f f e c t s of na tu ra l l y induced teacher expec-tanc ie s . Journa l of Persona l i ty and Soc i a l Psychology, 1973, 28, 333-342. Shaver, K.G. An in t roduct ion to a t t r i b u t i o n processes. Cambridge, Mass.: Winthrop Pub., Inc . , 1975. Sh ibutan i , T. Soc iety and pe r sona l i t y . Englewood C l i f f s , N .J . : P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1961. 53 Snyder, M., & Monson, T .C . Persons, s i t u a t i o n s , and the con-t r o l of s o c i a l behavior. Journal of Persona l i ty and  Soc i a l Psychology, 1975, 32, 637-644. S toko l s , D., & Schopler, J . Reactions to v ic t ims under con -d i t i on s of s i t u a t i o n a l detachment: The e f f e c t s of r e -s p o n s i b i l i t y , s eve r i t y , and expected future i n t e r a c t i o n . Journa l of Persona l i ty and Soc i a l Psychology, 1973, 25, 199-209. Storms, M.D. Videotape and the a t t r i b u t i o n process: Re-vers ing actors'-sand observers ' points of view. Journa l  of Per sona l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 1973, ,27, 165-175. S to t land, E. Exploratory inves t i ga t ions of empathy. In L. Berkowitz (Ed. ) , Advances i n experimental s o c i a l psy-chology, V o l . 4, New York: Academic Press, 1969. S t r e u f e r t , S., & S t reu fe r t , S.C. E f f ec t s of conceptual s••k^ s t ruc tu re , f a i l u r e , and success on a t t r i b u t i o n of cau -s a l i t y and in terpersona l a t t i t u d e s . Journa l of Person-a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 1969, 11, 138-147. Tay lo r , S.E., & F i ske , S.T. Point of view and percept ions of c a u s a l i t y . Journa l of Persona l i ty and Soc i a l Psy-chology, 1975, 32, 439-445. Tay lo r , S .E. , & F i s ke , S.T. Sa l ience, a t ten t i on , and a t t r i -but ion: Top of the head phenomena. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.) , Advances in experimental s o c i a l psychology. V o l . 11, New York: Academic Press, 1978, 249-288. Tay lo r , S.E., F i s k e , S.T., C lose, M., Anderson, C , & Rud-erman, A. Solo status as a psycho log ica l v a r i a b l e : The power of being d i s t i n c t i v e . Unpublished manu-s c r i p t , Harvard Un i ve r s i t y , 1977. Tay lo r , S .E. , & Koivumaki, J . H . The percept ion of s e l f and others : Acquaintanceship, a f f e c t , and actor -observer d i f f e r e n c e s . Journa l of Persona l i ty and Soc i a l Psy-chology. 1976, 33, 403-408. Tesser, A. Se l f -generated a t t i t u d e change. In L. Berko-witz (Ed. ) , Advances in experimental s o c i a l psychology. V o l . 11, New York: Academic Press, 1978, 289-338. Tesser, A. , & Conlee, M.C. Some e f f ec 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 . Journal of Persona l i ty and  Soc i a l Psychology, 1975, 31, 262-270. Tesser , A. , & Cowan, C.L. Some e f f ec t s of thought and num-ber of cogn i t ions on a t t i t u d e change. Soc i a l Behavior  and Pe r sona l i t y , 1975, 3, 165-173. Tesser, A. , & Leone, C. Cogn i t ive schemas and thought as de-terminants of a t t i t ude change. Journa l of Experimental  Psychology, 1977, 13, 340-356. 54 T jo svo ld , D., & Sagar ia, S.D. E f fec t s of r e l a t i v e power on cogn i t i ve per spec t i ve - t ak ing . Per sona 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 causa l texture of the environment. Psycho log ica l Review, 1955, 42, 43-77. V a l i n s , S. Cogn i t i ve e f f e c t s of f a l s e hear t - ra te feedback. Journa l of Persona l i ty and Soc i a l Psychology, 1966, 4, 400-408. Wachtel, P. Psychodynamics, behavior therapy, and the im-p lacable experimenter: An inqu i ry i n to the cons i s tency of p e r s o n a l i t y . Journa l of Abnormal Psychology, 1973, 82, 324-334. White, R.W. Mot ivat ion recons idered: The concept of com-petence. Psycho log ica l Review, 1959, 66, 297-333. Wicklund, R.A. Object ive se l f -awareness. In L. Berkowitz (Ed. ) , Advances in experimental s o c i a l psychology, V o l . 8, New York: Academic Press, 1975. Wolosin, R., Sherman, S . J . , & Mynatt, C.R. Perceived s o c i a l in f luence in a conformity s i t u a t i o n . Journal of Person- a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 1972, 2_3, 184-191. Wolosin, R .J . , Sherman, S . J . , & T i l l , A. E f f ec t s of cooper-a t ion and competit ion 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 -te r success and f a i l u r e . Journal of Experimental So-c i a l Psychology, 1973, 9, 220-235. Wortman, C.B., Costanzo, P.R., & Wit t , T.R. E f f ec t of An-t i c i p a t e d performance on the a t t r i b u t i o n s of c a u s a l i t y to s e l f and others . Journa l of Per sona l i t y and S o c i a l  Psychology, 1973, 27,7 372-381. Zucker, E.C. The e f f e c t of an t i c ipa ted performance on the causal a t t r i b u t i o n s of actors and observers f o r success and f a i l u r e . Unpublished doctora l d i s s e r t a t i o n , Un iver -s i t y of Rochester, N.Y., 1976. 5 5 APPENDIX 1. Rac ia l /E thn ic Background of Subjects, Experimenter, and Student/Confederate - i nc lud ing Overa l l D i s t r i b u t i o n  f o r Actors/Observers and S p e c i f i c Actor/Observer Pa i r s  According to Experimental Condi t ion 5 6 Rac i a l /E thn i c Background of Subjects* , Experimenter, and  Student/Confederate Ove ra l l D i s t r i b u t i o n f o r Subjects Background Actors Observers To ta l Northern European (Eng l i sh , Scot - 37 34 71 t i s h , I r i s h , Ukra in ian, Ger -man, Danish, Swedish, Dutch, French) Southern European or Middle Eas t - 7 4 11 ern (Spanish, I t a l i a n , Jew-i s h , East Indian) Chinese/Japanese 5 11 16 part Negro 1 1 2 50 50 100 Experimenter 's Background: I t a l i a n / S i c i l i a n Student/Confederate 's Background: I t a l i a n / S i c i l i a n and East Ind ian/Tai (Siamese) * Data s p e c i f i c to th i s top ic were not c o l l e c t e d at the time of the experimental sess ions, but were l a t e r c a l c u -l a ted by the experimenter from l a s t names and v i s u a l mem ory of subject p a r t i c i p a n t s . 57 Rac i a l / E thn i c Background of Actor/Observer Pa i r s According  to Experimental Condit ion P red i c t i on Cond i t ion : Ac to r , I t a l i a n Observer, Chinese Ac to r , Eng l i sh Observer, I r i s h Ac to r , Chinese Observer, Eng l i sh Ac to r , German Observer, Eng l i sh Ac to r , Eng l i sh Observer? French Ac to r , Eng l i sh Observer, Eng l i sh Ac to r ; Danish Observer, Spanish Ac tor , Eng l i sh Observerj Eng l i sh Ac to r , Eng l i sh Observer; Eng l i sh Ac to r , Chinese Observer; I r i s h Immediately A f t e r - No Video Cond i t ion: Ac to r , Eng l i sh Observer; Eng l i sh Actor , Eng l i sh Observer, Eng l i sh Ac to r , Engl ish, Observer; Eng l i sh Ac tor , Chinese Observer, Chinese Ac tor , I t a l i a n Obse rve r , I l r i s h Ac tor , Eng l i sh Observer, Eng l i sh Ac tor , Chinese Observer, Chinese Ac to r , Eng l i sh Observer, Eng l i sh Ac to r , Spanish Observer, Eng l i sh Ac tor , Eng l i sh Observer, Eng l i sh 58 Immediately A f t e r - Video Cond i t ion ; Ac tor , Eng l i sh Observer, Eng l i sh Ac tor , German 0 bs erver|, E ng1i s h Ac to r , Eng l i sh Observer, Jewish Ac to r , Swedish Observer, Japanese Ac to r , Eng l i sh Observer, Eng l i sh Ac to r , Eng l i sh Observer, Chinese Actor , Dutch Observer, Eng l i sh Ac tor , Eng l i sh Observer, part Negro Ac to r , Eng l i sh Observer, Japanese Ac tor , Eng l i sh Observer, Chinese Delay - No Video Condi t ion; Ac to r , Spanish Observer, I r i s h Ac to r , Eng l i sh Observer, Spanish Actor i Ukra in ian Observer, Chinese Ac to r , Eng l i sh Observer,SEngl i sh Ac to r , East Indian Observer, I t a l i a n Delay - Video Condit ion: Ac to r , Eng l i sh Observer ,sEng l i sh Ac to r , Eng l i sh Observer, Eng l i sh Ac to r , I t a l i a n Observer, Swedish Ac tor , Eng l i sh Observer, French Ac to r , Japanese Observer, Chinese Ac to r , Jewish Observer, Chinese Ac tor , Eng l i sh Observer, Chinese Ac tor , Eng l i sh Observer, Eng l i sh Ac tor , Eng l i sh Observer, I r i s h Actor , Eng l i sh Observer, Eng l i sh Ac to r , Eng l i sh Observer, Eng l i sh Ac to r , S co t t i sh Observer, Eng l i sh Ac tor , Ukra in ian ' Observer, Eng l i sh Actor , part Negro Observer, Eng l i sh Ac tor , Eng l i sh Observer, Eng l i sh 59 APPENDIX 2 . Permission Form and Experimental Booklet. f o r Observer, Immediately A f t e r Cond i t ion . Name; Un i ve r s i t y l e v e l ; years Date,; Time: . 62 We are in te res ted i n the dynamics of the learning s i t u -a t i o n . Research has shown that both the teaching method and the in terpersona l s t y l e of the teacher have an i n f l uence upon l ea rn ing . The react ions of the student are a l so important in the learning process . Our purpose i s to gain an o v e r a l l p i c tu re of the learn ing s i t u a t i o n so as to i d e n t i f y those f ac to r s which might p r o f i t -ably be studied at a l a t e r t ime. The aim of these s tud ies i s to d i scover the best ways to f a c i l i t a t e l ea rn ing . You have been randomly assigned to observe the other sub-j e c t as she teaches the student the meaning of three words. The goal i s f o r the student to be able to use each of the three words c o r r e c t l y i n a sentence. (When the student understands what a word means, she i s to make up her own o r i g i n a l sentence using that word.) There w i l l be no time l i m i t f o r t h i s assignment. The o t h -er subject (the teacher) i s to f e e l f r e e to use whatever meth-od she persona l ly thinks w i l l be most e f f e c t i v e in teaching these words. She may use the blackboard and/or d i c t i o n a r y i f she wishes. A f t e r the sess ion, we w i l l ask both of you f o r your r e -act ions so that we may be helped fu r ther i n our i nve s t i g a t i on of student/teacher v a r i a b l e s . The experimenter w i l l be v ideotaping the i n t e r a c t i o n so that she can review the sess ion l a t e r on. We apprec iate your help with th i s research. I f you are in te res ted i n hearing about the f i n a l r e s u l t s of the study, the experimenter w i l l be able to provide you with d e t a i l s at the end of A p r i l . Her *phone number i s 228-6487. The teacher w i l l now randomly s e l e c t the three words (on one 3x5 index card) from the box, and show them to you as w e l l . Please wait f o r f u r ther i n s t r u c t i o n s . . . 63 A f te r t h i s teaching ses s ion, i t w i l l be he lp fu l f o r us to have your react ions to the student/teacher i n te rac t i on s i nvo l ved . There are no r i g h t or wrong answers to these ques-t i o n s ; we are p r imar i l y concerned with your own op in ions . P lease answer these questions independently. Consider the fo l lowing questions together and apport ion r e s p o n s i b i l i t y according to what you think occurred (the t o t a l need not add up to 100%): 1. To what extent was the outcome of the teaching sess ion due to the personal q u a l i t i e s of the t e a -cher - her a b i l i t y , e f f o r t , i n t e r e s t , p resenta t ion , e tc . ? % . 2. 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 s i t u a t i o n - the task, the words drawn, e tc . ? % . 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 learn ing a b i l i t y , mot ivat ion, e tc . ? %• Please turn the page.. . 6 4 Consider the fo l lowing f ac to r s per ta in ing to the t e a -cher and ra te the items accord ing ly by p lac ing an "X" at the appropr iate space on the s c a l e . For example: 1. Of what importance was the teacher ' s general teaching a b i l i t y i n determining the outcome of the teaching session? Not at a l l Very important I i i ! • limportant 2 . Of what importance was the teacher ' s random s e l e c t i o n of the three words in determining the outcome of the teach -ing session? Not at a l l Very importanti _ i i I 1 limportant 3. Of what importance was the teacher ' s i n t e r e s t and e f f o r t i n determining the outcome of the teaching session? Not at a i l Very important C i i i i l important 4. 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 determining the outcome of the teaching session? Not at a l l Very importanti i r i i (.important 5 . How d i f f i c u l t do you estimate the task to have been? Not at a l l Very d i f f i c u l t ! I t I L _ r _ _ t . d i f f i c u l t P lease turn the page. . . . i 65 Consider the fo l lowing f ac to r s per ta in ing to the s t u -dent and ra te the items accord ing ly by p lac ing an "X" at the appropr iate space on the s c a l e . For example: | i i ^ l i 1 1. Of what importance was the s tudent ' s general s c h o l a s t i c a b i l i t y in determining the outcome of th i s teaching session? Not at a l l Very important I 1 1 1 1 1 important 2 . Of what importance was her apt i tude f o r learn ing word meanings i n determining the outcome of t h i s teaching session? Not at a l l Very important i \ > i i i important 3. Of what importance was her adjustment to a novel l e a r n -ing s i t u a t i o n in determining the outcome of t h i s teach -ing session? Not at a l l Very important i i I i i L important 4 . Of what importance was the s tudent ' s a t tent ion and mot i -vat ion l e v e l i n determining the outcome of t h i s teaching session? Not at a l l Very important l, i I I i I important Please turn the page. 6 6 Please l i s t or d iscuss any other f a c to r s which you perce ive to be important in any student/teacher i n t e r a c t i o n : Have you had any experience in teaching - f o r example, as a classroom teacher, r e l i g i o n teacher, camp leader, sports coach, etc .? No; Yes I f "Yes " , please spec i f y : 67 APPENDIX 3 Stimulus Words According to Experimental Condition PREDICTION CONDITION Nouns Rank L i s t i n g 1. v i ce 41-09-008 2. desegregation 40-04-005 3. controversy 26-09-022 4. dilemma 25-09-018 5. regime 23-07-018 6. mason 23-06-007 7. inventory 23-06-013 8. merger 21-06-009 9. desegregation 40-04-005 10. autonomy 18-06-008 Verbs 1. benef i t s 33-07-019 2. confronted 32-12-031 3. condit ioned 20-06-009 4. f o i l 20-09-010 5. assert 19-04-014 6. compromise 20-07-015 7. lodge 19-07-010 8. prosecute 02-02-002 9. lease 10-06-008 10. dominate 08-07-008 Adjec t i ves 1. organic 38-05-015 2. p r im i t i ve 38-11-029 3. marginal 25-06-015 4. enthus ia s t i c 24-11-029 5. pert inent 21-07-021 6. a r b i t r a r y 21-07-018 7. economical 22-04-018 8. monotonous 08-06-008 9. prominent 40-13-032 10. per i lous 08-05-008 * The entry v i c e , 41-09-028, means that the word v i c e occurs 41 times in the whole corpus of 1,014,230 words of natural- language text , and can be found in 9 of the genres or categor ies of wr i t i ng and in 28 of the 500 samples. IMMEDIATELY AFTER - NO VIDEO CONDITION Nouns Rank L i s t i n q 1. en terpr i se 31-07-024 2. emission 32-01-003 3, panel 31-08-017 4. t e x t i l e 28-05-008 5. amendment 23-05-015 6. imp l i ca t ions 22-08-017 7. r e h a b i l i t a t i o n 22-04-008 8. a g r i cu l t u re 23-07-019 9. l i n g u i s t 13-03-004 10. t a c t i c s 20-08-016 Verbs 1. subjected 24-10-018 2. storm 26-11-020 3. champion 23-07-013 4, buck 20-06-011 5. d i s t i n g u i s h 19-04-014 6. regiment 25-06-018 7. welch or welsh 14-01-001 8. assert 19-04-014 9. antagonize 01-01-001 10. adhere 04-02-004 Adj ec t ives 1. excess ive 30-10-024 2. remote 32-11-026 3. municipal 28-07-020 4. soph i s t i ca ted 26-09-021 5. s t r a teg i c 23-06-012 6. i d e o l o g i c a l 20-06-011 7. f e a s i b l e 15-06-011 8. re levant 23-06-020 9. manifold 13-02-013 10. demographic 12-02-002 IMMEDIATELY AFTER - VIDEO CONDITION Nouns Rank L i s t i n g 1. i l l u s i o n 37-07-016 2. r a t i o 36-04-018 3. eva luat ion 31-04-018 4. conception 32-07-023 5. technology 43-08-027 6. ob ject ives 39-06-027 7. r i t u a l 25-08-012 8. c l a r i t y 28-09-020 9. assumptions 23-05-016 10. pa l f rey 26-01-001 Verbs 1. encountered 30-10-026 2. rendered 28-09-021 3. an t i c ipa ted 23-10-021 4. bridges 26-06-012 5. harbor 37-11-022 6. dec l i ne 37-07-021 7. pursue 20-07-018 8. resolved 21-08-016 9. exceed 19-05-011 10. crop 20-07-014 Adject ives 1. c l a s s i c a l 33-10-024 2. i n e v i t a b l e 33-11-025 3. ecumenical 29-02-002 4. e laborate 32-11-029 5. l e g i s l a t i v e 40-07-029 6. binomial 36-01-001 7. pre l iminary 24-09-020 8. aes thet i c 26-04-017 9. ambiguous 22-06-016 10. r a t i o n a l 25-04-016 DELAY - NO VIDEO CONDITION Nouns Rank L i s t i n g 1. diameter 45-05-018 2. gesture 32-12-024 3. tangent 26-01-002 4. f l ux 30-04-008 5. conspiracy 22-06-012 6. a l l i a n c e 20-06-013 7. renaissance 20-07-012 8. curr icu lum 16-05-010 9. contours 15-07-012 10• polynomia1 28-01-001 Verbs 1. der ived 39-10-026 2, blanche 25-04-005 3* dominated 20-08-018 4. despair 21-09-019 5. s c r u t i n i z e 03-03-003 6. r e l i s h 08-05-008 7, imp l i ca te 02-02-002 8. congregate 02-02-002 9. ag i ta te 01-01-001 10. smart 21-09-018 Adject ives 1. comparable 41-07-037 2. conservat ive 31-07-025 3. subt le 25-08-022 4. pulmonary 27-01-002 5. binding 20-07-011 6. luminous 12-06-007 7. therapeut ic 13-04-007 8. i n t e g r a l 13-06-012 9. r igorous 07-04-007 10. mutual 26-08-020 DELAY - VIDEO CONDITION Nouns Rank L i s t i n q 1. harmony 33-09-017 2. d ispute 34-06-015 3. dens i ty 30-08-016 4. dimensions 30-07-020 5, i n t e r v a l s 25-09-023 6. dilemma 25-09-018 7. U t o p i a 24-03-004 8. patents 19-04-007 9. chaos 17-07-011 10, r e c i p i e n t 07-04-006 Verbs 1. marshal 26-07-012 2. conceived 27-10-024 3. c r a f t 23-10-016 4. resumed 23-11-021 5. lobby 20-07-013 6. f o i l 20-09-010 7. stake 20-07-015 8, d i s t o r t 04-02-004 9. emancipate 02-02-002 10. subs id ize 04-03-003 Adjec t i ves 1. curt 32-02-002 2. thermal 33-03-010 3. optimal 28-01-004 4. profound 27-11-027 5. e x p l i c i t 24-07-019 6. metaphysical 16-06-009 7. empir ica l 23-04-009 8. c y l i n d r i c a l 11-02-006 9. j u d i c i a l 16-04-009 10. ambivalent 06-05-006 73 APPENDIX 4 Wean A t t r i bu t i on s of Actors and Observers According to  "No V ideo/V ideo" , Immediately A f t e r and Delay Condit ions 74 Mean A t t r i bu t i on s of Actors and Observers According to  "No V ideo/V ideo" , Immediately A f t e r and Delay Condit ions ACTORS IMMEDIATELY AFTER DELAY No video video No video Video Teacher S i t ua t i on Student 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 s c h o l a s t i c a b i l i t y Student ' s apt i tude f o r word meanings Student ' s adjustmt to nove l * s i t ua t i on Student ' s a t t n . and motivat ion 52.5 46.0 50.0 38.8 27.0 37.0 30.5 29.2 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 1 4.4 4.4 4.5 4.8 OBSERVERS IMMEDIATELY AFTER DELAY No video Video >-No video Video Teacher S i t ua t i on Student 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 s c h o l a s t i c a b i l i t y Student ' s apt i tude f o r word meanings Student ' s a d j . nov. Student ' s a t t n . Mt. 4*7 JS: 34.0 54.0 3.5 3.9 3.8 3.7 4.0 4.2 3.8 4.6 56.0 45.5 51.5 3.7 4.1 3.9 3.4 3.9 4.4 3.7 4.6 54.5 41.5 57.0 4.1 4.2 4.2 3.2 3.3 4.1 3.7 4.6 55.5 32.0 44.6 3.6 4.0 3.7 3.5 3.3 4.0 3.6 4.8 APPENDIX 5  Data Code and Raw Data L i s t i n g 76 DATA CODE Column Number(s) Descr ip t ion of Item 1,2 Subject numbers (1-10) f o r repeated measures 3-5 Subject numbers 6,7 Age 8 Un iver s i t y l e v e l (years at un i ve r s i t y ) 9 Role: Actor = 1; Observer = 2 10 Time: Immediately a f t e r =» 1; Delay = 2; P red i c t i on *> 3 11 No video = 1; Video «* 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 toward Teacher ( in percentage) 14, 15 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 toward S i t u -at ion ( i n percentage) 16, 17 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 toward S tu -dent ( i n percentage) (The fo l lowing teacher, task, and student items were rated on 5-point ra t ing sca les with 1 = Not at a l l important; 5 = Very important, or 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 a b i l i t y 19 Random s e l e c t i o n of three words ( luck) 20 Teacher ' s e f f o r t 21 Importance of d i f f i c u l t y of task 22 How d i f f i c u l t was task? 23 Student 's general s c h o l a s t i c a b i l i t y 24 Student&s apt i tude f o r learning word meanings 25 Student 's adjustment to a novel s i t u a t i o n 26 Student 's a t tent ion and motivat ion 2 7-29 Prof =» mean of teacher ' s general teaching a b i l i t y + teacher ' s e f f o r t 30 Random s e l e c t i o n of three words ( luck) 31-33 Task = mean of Importance of d i f f i c u l t y l e v e l of task + How d i f f i c u l t was task? 77 Column Number(s) Descr ip t ion of Item 34-37 Pup i l = mean of a l l four student items (columns 23-26) 38-40 Number of words answering f ree response query, "P lease l i s t or d iscuss any other f ac tor s which you perce ive to be impor-tant i n any student/teacher i n t e r a c t i o n " » 41 Yes = 1; No = 2, i n answer to ''Have you had any teaching experience? ••LAST SIGHOB IAS: 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 78 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 0102519211150 20404344234344.033.03.50040103 22 02027181111601S904345155354.033.04.50038105 23 030291911115050803544444453.554.04.25000119 24 040311921118515503144 233443.513.03.50047109 25 050 3321311140204041533433 54.513.03.750711 14 26 060351911115050703343355543.533.04.75042209 27 070371921117010205355322345.034.02.75096116 28 080391811113525404134245343.513.04.00010120 29 090411811111515702535355452.554.04.75011215 30 100432021117050903354354344.033.54.00015110 31 010262022115500454154324454.513.53.75032103 32 020282032115035702334343 242.533.53.25061105 33 030301812112550253435445443.044.54.25047119 34 040322022116020S05455455455.044.54. 75044109 35 OS0341812114010S05443445454.543.54.50082214 36 060 361922115025852122455552.013.05.00058109 37 070381812117560504244542554.024.54.00090116 38 0804020221180 808542534444 44.523.54.00044220 39 09042212211 1025502 345345453.034.04.500212 15 40 100 442332113035304443344244.043.03.50023110 41 010492021123030604344444454.034.04.25038104 42 0205147211230 60254334433 433.534.03.25035109 43 030531911123075005344454554.534.04.75051111 44 040551811126005774254335554.523.54.50076108 45 05057212112 55104 54452554344.543.54.00098212 46 0605919211250 30503134344 453.013.54.25000205 47 070611811125075505154445455.014.04.50039108 48 080632131124510355243234444.522.53.75068112 49 090652321125070054444332544.043.53.50122211 50 100672111126005353143223443.512.53.25033210 51 010502022123040 503143445553.513.54.75045204 52 02052181212808 5804534434453.554.04.000462 09 53 030541922126050303444434243.544.03.25052211 54 040561812127020 202355555553.535.05.00110208 55 050581812129050804145345554.014.04.75019112 56 060602022122550753345255453.533.54.75041105 57 070622232125015255443345344.543.04.00029108 58 080641912124525305253233355.022.53.50060112 59 090661922124040504243444234.023.53.25081111 60 100682022127080754144344454.013.54.25030110 61 010732031217530754144355554.013.55.00092107 62 0207519212150 25503252144454.0 21.54.25149108 63 030771911213530354344445444.034.04.25015119 64 040791921214020 405244335354.523.54.00045210 65 050811811217050104454432334.544.02.75071111 66 060832241215070905555555555.055.05.00050113 67 070851811213040504544425554.054.04.25038113 68 080872141213000704245545554.025.04.75055112 69 090892121216530554142145544.011.54.50125106 70 100912131215510354244345444.023.54.25047119 71 010742012218065854 445345454.044.04.50031107 72 020761922218070705355345555.034.0 4.75035208 73 030781812215020603435424 453.044.53.75034219 74 040 802422215020804243223444.022.53.25000110 75 0508 21812217580855455344455.044.04.25157111 76 060841812211565153425434242.544.53.25033113 77 070861812216050 705354443445.034.03.75061113 78 0808820222150 302034 43234343.542.53.50017112 79 0909 01912216005355253 335255.023.03.75045106 80 100 921812212510 504254444554.524.04.50076119 81 010972321224015405242355 244.522.54.00079125 82 02099 2311223510554344415 554.034.04.00016208 83 031011811224030604344355454.033.54.75052110 84 041031921226050704244 344354.023.54.00079102 85 0510518112230307042 44343554.023.54.25101114 86 0610719112268 57904545345354.054.04.25083114 87 071092031225010405154454355.014.04.25117209 88 081111911223520453444555343.544.54.25104223 89 09113 241122 2030S02332134S52.531.54.2S042209 90 101151921221040503454245554.043.04.75079105 91 010961812226070504532524553.553.54.00075125 92 020981922225030304143333454.013.03.7S071108. 93 031001812229075965152 245355.012.04.25087110 94 041022132224020354255433554.524.54.00048102 95 051041922225020 503143444343.513.53.75041114 96 061061912226010201155 224353.013.53.50090114 97 071082832222S353S2134444442.514.04.00023109 98 081101822228040505425444253.544.53.75091123 99 091121812226010305444445454.544.04.50020109 100 1011*1922224010503254334354.023.53.75008105 E1D Of FILB 79 APPENDIX 6 C o r r e l a t i o n Matr ix of Demographic Items and Dependent Measures 1 U 0 D B i i . m j s s o r r u i i c u u n NAME MEAN STD.DEV. NAME MEAN STD.DEV. NAME MEAN STD.DEV. AGE 19.7030 3.82242 EFFORT 4 .06931 0.897301 ATTNMT 3. 97525 0 .804289 UNIV 1. 77228 0.858850 IMPDIF 3 .80198 0.990150 PROP 2. 60396 1.30445 TBACHB 50.0099 18. 7518 HOWDIF 3 .31683 1.0 19 12 THREE 3. 5594 1 0 .813287 SITU 33.1683 21. 6850 SGABIL 3 .67327 0.980907 TASK 4. 00000 0 .665207 STUDBT 49.1*653 21. 7267 / 4 .13861 0.916339 PUPIL 49 .0396 34.9342 T/ABIL 3.88119 0.992846 APTWRD 3 .71287 1.04246 WORDS 1. 27 72 3 0 .471568 LUCK 2.60396 1.30445 ADJNOV 4 .47525 0.729302 TESNO 8. 85149 6.53052 CORRELATION MATRIX VARIABLE AGE UNIT TEACHR SITU STUDNT T/ABIL LUCK EFPORT IMPDIF HOWDIF SGABIL AGE 1. 0000 OBIV 0. 3904 1. 0000 TEACHB -0. 0715 -0. 0949 1. 0000 SITU 0. 1204 -0. 1042 0. 3156 1. 0000 STODBT -0. 0117 0. 0052 0. 3828 0. 3257 1.0000 T/ABIL 0. 1619 0. 0970 0. 3293 0. 1328 0.0638 1.0000 LUCK 0. 1105 -0. 1081 -0. 0460 0. 3046 0.0690 0.0946 1. 0000 BFFOHT 0. 1256 0. 0856 0. 2781 -0. 0458 0. 1127 0.4471 0. 0151 1. 0000 IMPDIF 0. 1375 0. 0523 0. 1461 0. 2065 0.1768 0.1284 0. 3413 0. 1619 1. 0000 HOWDIF 0. 1913 0. 1632 0. 0354 0. 1930 -0.0162 0.2352 0. 2633 0. 0414 0. 3105 1.0000 SGABIL 0. 1152 0. 1957 0. 0475 0. 1794 0.3061 0.1754 0. 1011 0. 1737 0. 1798 0.2246 1. 0000 / 0. 1374 0. 0659 0. 0121 0. 0305 0.3632 0.1611 0. 2220 0. 1098 0. 2729 0.1773 0. 4956 APTWHD 0. 1967 -0. 1184 0. 0692 0. 1340 0.2576 0. 11 16 0. 0773 0. 2888 0. 1866 0.1524 0. 1812 ADJNOV 0. 1121 -0. 0330 0. 1613 0. 0935 0.3671 0.2445 0. 1368 0. 3923 0. 3255 0.1452 0. 3171 ATTNMT 0. 1700 0. 1076 0. 3584 0. 0564 0. 1022 0.8666 0. 0668 0. 8338 0. 16 96 0.1683 0. 2051 PROF 0. 1105 -0. 1081 -0. 0460 0. 30*6 0.0690 0.0946 1. 0000 0. 0151 0. 3413 0.2683 0. 101 1 THREE 0. 2036 0. 1341 0. 1111 0. 2466 0.0975 0.2256 0. 3759 0. 1245 0. 8033 0.8156 0. 2502 TASK 0, 1976 0. 0394 0. 0930 0. 1548 0.4395 0.2309 0. 1815 0. 3225 0. 3226 0.2434 0. 6973 PUPIL -0. 0230 -0. 0210 0. 2364 0. 1213 0.0609 0.0950 0. 0295 0. 2299 0. 0121 -0.0004 0. 1203 WORDS 0. 1515 0. 0093 -0. 0139 -0. 0056 -0.0264 0.0070 0. 1315 0. 0014 0. 0973 0.2943 0. 0464 TESNO 0. 0255 -0. 2022 -0. 0157 0. 1317 0.0701 -0.0752 0. 2630 -0. 0716 0. 0542 0. 1424 0. 1053 COBBELATIOS MATRIX VARIABLE / APTWHD ADJNOV ATTNMT PBOF THREE TASK PUPIL WORDS TESNO / 1. 0000 APTWHD 0. 2932 1. 0000 ADJNOV 0. 4688 0. 4970 1. 0000 ATTNMT 0. 1607 0. 2300 0. 3697 1. 0000 PBOF 0. 2220 0. 0773 0. 1368 0. 0668 1.0000 THREE 0. 2772 0. 2090 0. 289 1 0. 2087 0.3759 1.0000 TASK 0. 7706 0. 6958 0. 7472 0. 3224 0. 1815 0.3489 1. 0000 PUPIL -0. 0636 0. 0632 0. 1527 0. 1869 0.0295 0.0071 0. 0891 1. 0000 WORDS 0. 2109 0. 1229 0. 1655 0. 0051 0.1315 0.2434 0. 1833 0. 0048 1. 0000 TESNO 0. 0903 0. 0789 0. 1241 -0. 0864 0.2630 0.1222 0. 1 352 0. 3034 -0. 0612 1.0000 * END OF CONTROL SET * BXECUTION TERMINATED 17:01:31 T=.692 RC=0 $.85 $SIG 

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}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0100286/manifest

Comment

Related Items