Institute of Social Psychology Societal Psychology PS443

1. Institute of Social PsychologySocietal Psychology PS443 Lecture 5 Cultural Norms, Attributions and Responsibility Bradley Franks

3. rerumcognoscerecausas…

4. rerumcognoscerecausas… … to know the causes of things…

5. rerumcognoscerecausas… … to know the causes of things… …to understand how commonsense explains social action

6. Outline of Lecture • Introduction • Attribution Research • Attribution Errors and Culture • Attribution and Social Explanation • Summary and Conclusions

7. 1 Introduction Attribution and Responsibility • Social life involves making sense of other people and their behaviour by making attributions (explanations) of the cause of their behaviour • In doing so, we often make assessments regarding responsibility, allocating praise and blame for actions • We make attributions not only regarding the behaviour of individuals, but also of groups of individuals and other social entities, such as organisations, governments, football teams, committees, and so on

8. 1 Introduction Attribution and Responsibility • Policies of governments, plans for social change by NGO’s, strategies for change for corporations and so on depend on attributional assumptions about: • Who is responsible for the problems of the status quo • Who is responsible for generating solutions to those problems • Who can and should take actions to solve the problems 8

9. 1 Introduction Attribution and Responsibility However: • We shouldn’t hold people responsible for their behaviour unless… • that behaviour is intentionally caused by them, and unless • those individual intentions are all that matters in causing the behaviour • And there may be reason to raise questions: • Are we accurate in assessing whether people’s behaviour is intentionally caused? • Or are our assessments error-prone (or biased)? 9

10. PS?? Attributions and Responsibility 2010/11 1 Introduction Heider (1958):Social Attribution • We make attributions like amateur or naive scientists, with the aim of understanding the social world: • Explaining others’ behaviour • Predicting their future behaviour • The specific reasons or causes offered for a behaviour are often less important than where the cause is “located”: i.e., • Internal attributions (in qualities of the person) versus • External attributions (in qualities of the situation)

11. Heider & Simmel (1944): The automaticity of causal attribution http://www.psych.lse.ac.uk/h_and_s/

12. 2 Attribution Research The “Four Ages” of Attribution Research Attribution research since Heider has gone through several “ages”, which reflect different conceptions of people as engaged in causal attribution: (1) The “naïve scientist” – 1960’s (2) The “flawed perceiver” – 1970’s (3) The “cognitive miser” – 1980’s (4) The “motivated tactician” – 1990’s and onwards

13. 2 Attribution Research The “Four Ages” of Attribution Research (1) The “Naïve Scientist” – 1960’s e.g., Kelly’s Covariation theory; Jones & Davies’ Correspondent Inference theory • People as intuitive scientists seek to understand causality by combining information according to rational principles • These principles may reflect the methods used in experimental psychology and data analysis techniques (e.g., ANOVA) →Errors and biases in attribution are departures from the norm for competent performers

14. 2 Attribution Research The “Four Ages” of Attribution Research (2) The “Flawed Perceiver ” – 1970’s e.g., Jones & Nisbett on Actor-Observer differences • People have different perspectives on events that are related to their being actors or observers • These different perspectives are both perceptual and cognitive, and each reflects only partial information about the situation → Errors and biases in attribution arise from partial perceptual access to information, and so are departures from adaptive or optimal processing

15. 2 Attribution Research The “Four Ages” of Attribution Research (3) The “Cognitive Miser” – 1980’s e.g., Gilbert’s two-step/discounting model • Cognitive economy (the tendency to conserve mental effort) favours heuristics or “rules of thumb” • Biases in attribution involve heuristics that usually (but not always) provide a useful answer → Errors and biases may arise from cognitive economy minimising effort by using flawed but reasonable assumptions

16. 2 Attribution Research The “Four Ages” of Attribution Research (4) The “Motivated Tactician” – 1990’s onwards e.g., Hasleton & Funder’s (2006) evolutionary “error management” theory • People have access to a range of cognitive resources for making causal inference, which differ in their required cognitive effort • People use effortful cognitive resources (e.g., inference rules) tactically → Some errors (low cost ones) may be a normal, adaptive aspect of cognition

17. 3 Attribution Errors and Culture The Fundamental Attribution Error (FAE) Attribution Errors • Everyday attribution is beset with errors and biases – so it may not be a sound basis for assessing others’ responsibility A key example is the Fundamental Attribution Error: Ross (1977): The tendency to overestimate the importance of the actor and to underestimate the situation as a determinant of action

18. 3 Attribution Errors and Culture Explaining the FAE? • A 1970’s style perceptual/informational explanation? • The actor is more salient perceptually/informationally, while situational causes of actor’s behaviour are less salient and may be unknown. • A 1980’s style cognitive processing explanation? • A two-step process (e.g., D. T. Gilbert, 1989): • First step (normally non-conscious) – automatic internal attribution • Second step (effortful and conscious) – consider possible situational causes, possibly discount the first step’s internal attribution FAE: people only proceed to the second step if situational information is very salient, and it usually is not → Neither fully offers a role for the impact of culture on the FAE…

19. 3 Attribution Errors and Culture Cultural Impact on the FAE Fletcher & Ward (1988): Does the FAE depend on Culture? • The FAE may be an error but it is not really fundamental – it may be present in some cultures (e.g., the West) but not others (e.g., East Asia) Miller (1984): The FAE and culture • USA and Hindu Indian children made similar numbers of internal and situational attributions for the everyday actions of others • As they grew older, they diverged: • USA adults explained behaviours largely via personality traits/attitudes • Indian Hindu adults explained the same behaviours via external factors

20. 3 Attribution Errors and Culture Cultural Impact on the FAE – expressed by relevant proverbs? Behind an able man there are always other able men Good fences make good neighbours The nail that sticks up will be hammered down The squeaky wheel gets the grease The hawk with talent hides its talons Don’t hide your light under a bushel Life is for one generation, a good name is forever Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me A single arrow is easily broken, but not ten in a bundle If you can’t beat them, join them Spilled water will never return to the cup You can’t fit a square peg in a round holeEast Asian proverbs inblue USA proverbs inred

21. 3 Attribution Errors and Culture Cultural Impact on the FAE – Some Possible Explanations • Different Prevalent Values or Ideology • Different Default Ways of Thinking • Different Default Self-Construals

22. 3 Attribution Errors and Culture Cultural Impact on the FAE – Some Possible Explanations (1) Different Prevalent Values or Ideology - Hofstede (1981); Ichheiser (1949), Farr & Markova (1995): • Western individualism • valuing individual autonomy and uniqueness, personal responsibility, praise and blame • East Asian collectivism • valuing group membership and conformity, individual-relative-to-group responsibility, praise and blame Individualism produces a tendency to locate causes of behaviour in individuals Collectivism produces a tendency to locate causes of behaviour outside individuals 22

23. 3 Attribution Errors and Culture Cultural Impact on the FAE – Some Possible Explanations (2) Different Default Ways of Thinking - Nisbett (2003): • Western atomism • emphasis on construing events and objects in terms of their own internal qualities, leading to clear binary category judgements and essentialism • East Asian holism • emphasis on understanding the contextual relations of events and objects, viewing them in a more holistic manner Atomism produces a tendency to prioritise person information in attribution Holism produces a tendency to prioritise situation information in attribution

24. 3 Attribution Errors and Culture Cultural Impact on the FAE – Some Possible Explanations (3) Different Default Self-Construals - Markus & Kitayama (1992): • Western independence • socialisation towards a sense of self as context-insensitive, unique and separate • East Asian interdependence • socialisation towards a sense of self as context-dependent, similar and connected Independence produces a tendency to consider the individual as causally separate from the situation Interdependence produces a tendency to consider the individual as causally dependent on the situation

25. 3 Attribution Errors and Culture Cultural Impact on the FAE – has it been overstated? Choi & Nisbett (1999); Nisbett (2006): USA versus China, Japan • If situational information • is not made salient, Japanese and Chinese = USA in making FAE • is made salient, Japanese and Chinese FAE is reduced (USA FAE is not) Implications: • The FAE may be a common starting point across cultures • Different cultures may make situational information more or less salient, leading to different tendencies to reduce or commit the FAE • This is consistent with Gilbert’s two-step theory (where culture controls the second step), and with Error Management Theory

26. 3 Attribution Errors and Culture Cultural Impact on the FAE – has it been overstated? Haselton & Nettle (2006): Error Management Theory FAE is fundamental but it is not an error – it is an evolutionary design feature that aims to commit errors which are less costly in reproductive terms • FAE leads to False Positive errors in judgments about bad behaviour = avoiding social partners who act badly once, for fear they might repeat this in future [cf., negativity bias in impression formation] • FAE is less risky/costly than False Negative error, which = assuming a person’s bad action does not indicate bad disposition when it in fact does • Cultures which encourage lower FAE have stronger normative controls on individuals performing negative social acts (e.g., via values or cultural sense of self), thereby reducing the scope for committing False Positives

27. 4 Attribution and Social Explanation Societal Psychology: Does Attribution Theory Over-Simplify Social Explanation? • Different explanations within cultures? (2) “Mind reading” of intentions versus position/role reading? (3) Individual intentions versus collective/joint intentions? (4) Social explanation versus social evaluation?

28. 4 Attribution and Social Explanation Does Attribution Theory Over-Simplify Social Explanation? (1) Different explanations within cultures? Moscovici (2002); Jovchelovitch (2007); Legare, Gelman & Rosengren (2010) Attribution theory suggests an inflexible view of social explanation → Alternative views (including Social Representations Theory) propose “multiple” or “situated rationalities” (cognitive polyphasia): People draw on different systems of beliefs to explain a single event, and thus may entertain contradictory explanations for a single action – internal, external or interactive Attribution is not just about “fitting the facts”, but rather about fitting the facts filtered through norms associated with systems of beliefs that can vary within a culture and are drawn on for specific purposes

29. 4 Attribution and Social Explanation Does Attribution Theory Over-Simplify Social Explanation? (2) “Mind reading” of intentions versus reading of social positions or roles? Gillespie (2005); Mead (1934); Franks & Dhesi (2011); Chen-Idson & Mischel (2001) • Attribution theory suggests we “read” mental states by observing peoples’ actions → Alternative views suggest we “read” others’ mental states by understanding their actions in the context of patterns of norms about social roles, positions and activities • We often assume others have mental states consistent with the norms “Reading” beliefs and intentions depends on seeing the person in the context of the situation and its norms, rather than as separate/separable from it

30. 4 Attribution and Social Explanation Does Attribution Theory Over-Simplify Social Explanation? (3) Individual intentions versus collective/joint intentions? Searle (1996); Tomasello (2009); Tuomela (2002); Franks (2011) • Attribution theory focuses on actions motivated by intentions to act as an individual, and with the individual as the subject: “I intend…” → Alternative views suggest that (e.g., collaborative) actions may also be explained by joint or collective intentions, with a plural subject: “we intend…” • We also hold groups or collections of people per se responsible, without assuming that every member has the same beliefs or intentions Neither “we” intentions held by individuals, nor explaining the behaviour of groups or collections, seems to involve only “I” intentions of individuals

31. 4 Attribution and Social Explanation Does Attribution Theory Over-Simplify Social Explanation? (4) Social explanation versus social evaluation? Hamlyn, Wynn & Bloom (2007); Vaish, Grossmann, & Woodward (2008) • Heiderian Attribution theory: focus on explanation of action, with moral and affective aspects as separable (e.g., values as an influence on attribution) → Alternative focus suggests an innate capacity for social evaluation – moral and affective judgement of other people in terms of praise and blame • Capacity for social evaluation of others’ actions is present by 6 months (before the ability to infer others’ action-intentions as explanations) Attribution may be as much about social evaluation (assigning moral praise and blame) as about social explanation and prediction

32. Hamlyn, Wynn & Bloom (2007): The automaticity and early infant development of social moral judgement http://www.yale.edu/infantlab/socialevaluation/Helper-Hinderer.html

33. 5 Summary and Conclusions • The commonsense process of making causal attributions may not be a sound basis for judging the responsibility of other people … • … Because attribution is imbued with deeply-held cultural assumptions about how responsibility for actions is understood: • e.g., the individualistic culture/ideology of the West – not only focusing on person rather than situation, but also focusing on ‘I’ rather than ‘we’ • So culture has a major impact on attribution: the FAE may be in part a Western cultural construct • But the ultimate explanation of the FAE may also connect with evolutionary dispositions …. • … and this connects attribution intrinsically to social and moral evaluation

34. 5 Summary and Conclusions Traditional Attribution Theory… Societal Psychology… Interactional basis for individual intentions and behaviours • Commonsense dualism about the causes of behaviour

35. 5 Summary and Conclusions Traditional Attribution Theory… Societal Psychology… Interactional basis for individual intentions and behaviours Different sets of beliefs support multiple, situated explanations for the same behaviour • Commonsense dualism about the causes of behaviour • Consistent and accurate sets of explanations of behaviour

36. 5 Summary and Conclusions Traditional Attribution Theory… Societal Psychology… Interactional basis for individual intentions and behaviours Different sets of beliefs support multiple, situated explanations for the same behaviour Assume mental states “fit” the norms of the roles enacted • Commonsense dualism about the causes of behaviour • Consistent and accurate sets of explanations of behaviour • Everyday interaction involves “reading” actors’ mental states

37. 5 Summary and Conclusions Traditional Attribution Theory… Societal Psychology… Interactional basis for individual intentions and behaviours Different sets of beliefs support multiple, situated explanations for the same behaviour Assume mental states “fit” the norms of the roles enacted Collective or joint intentions also explain social action • Commonsense dualism about the causes of behaviour • Consistent and accurate sets of explanations of behaviour • Everyday interaction involves “reading” actors’ mental states • Individual intentions as the key to social action

38. 5 Summary and Conclusions Traditional Attribution Theory… Societal Psychology… Interactional basis for individual intentions and behaviours Different sets of beliefs support multiple, situated explanations for the same behaviour Assume mental states “fit” the norms of the roles enacted Collective or joint intentions also explain social action Attribution also for social and moral evaluations of action • Commonsense dualism about the causes of behaviour • Consistent and accurate sets of explanations of behaviour • Everyday interaction involves “reading” actors’ mental states • Individual intentions as the key to social action • Attribution primarily for predicting and explaining social action

39. 5 Summary and Conclusions A Societal Psychology of attribution might therefore suggest… … an integral role for evolved dispositions, culture and group relations in understanding the situated, affective and evaluative aspects of causal explanations 39