Using Potential Performance Theory to Test Five Hypotheses About Meta-Attribution

Abstract

ABSTRACT Based on I. Kant's (1991) distinction between perfect and imperfect duties and the attribution literature pertaining to that distinction, the authors proposed and tested 5 hypotheses about meta-attribution. More specifically, violations of perfect duties have been shown to arouse both more negative affect and stronger correspondent inferences than do violations of imperfect duties (e.g., D. Trafimow, I. K. Bromgard, K. A. Finlay, & T. Ketelaar, 2005). But when it comes to making meta-attributions—that is, guessing the attributions others would make—is the affect differential an advantage or a disadvantage? In addition to the null hypothesis of no effect, the authors proposed and tested additional hypotheses about how negative affect might increase or decrease the effectiveness of people's meta-attribution strategies and how even if there is no effect on strategy effectiveness, negative affect could increase or decrease the consistencies with which these strategies could be used.