Actor-observer Differences Research Articles

Blases in relapse attributions made by alcoholics and their wives

Although numerous studies have investigated the relapse attributions of alcoholics, few have considered the biases inherent in such attributions. Two sources of bias were investigated in the relapse attributions of 26 alcoholic men and their wives: the passage of time and actor-observer perspective. As predicted: (a) Wives made more dispositional attributions than their husbands (an actor-observer difference); (b) the attributions of the husbands showed a dispositional shift over time, while their wives' attributions showed no temporal effects; and (c) attributional concordance within couples increased over time. Several explanations for these results were considered and implications for couples therapy with recovering alcoholics and their spouses were discussed.

Perception of behavioral contagion of adolescent suicide.

In order to assess perceptions of behavioral contagion of suicide (what people thought a disturbed adolescent would do if the teen knew about a suicide in the community), and to assess actor-observer differences in such perceptions, 142 college students were asked to view a videotaped vignette of a distressed high school student, and then to assess her potential for committing suicide, running away, entering therapy, or abusing alcohol. Subjects who were told that the teenager knew of two recent suicides in the community (contagion group) rated the young woman as more likely to commit suicide or run away than did the subjects who were not told of the suicides (noncontagion group). Subjects who were instructed to imagine that they were the teenager (actors) blamed situational factors, and in particular the teen's parents, more for her distress than did subjects who were instructed just to rate the teenager on the videotape (observers). Contagion/actors rated suicide as more likely than did any other group. Apparently, people believe that behavioral contagion occurs when a suicide is reported, and they especially perceive themselves to be influenced by such information.

ACTORS AND OBSERVERS: ARE THEIR DESCRIPTIONS OF BEHAVIOR INDICATIONS OF THEIR CAUSAL ATTRIBUTIONS?

Although much of the support for the actor-observer causal attribution hypothesis comes from behavior description studies, the difference between behavior description and causal attribution has been neglected in actor-observer research. Behavior descriptions (e.g., trait ratings) are affected by the size and complexity of one's cognitive schemata about the person being described, which may be unrelated to causal attributions. To test this possibility, pairs of subjects engaged in a brief conversation and then made either trait ratings or causal attributions about their own or the other person's behavior. Although observers made more extreme trait ratings than did actors (supporting the schema complexity notion), observers also made stronger external causal attributions than did actors (contradicting the actor-observer hypothesis). It is concluded that actor-observer differences in descriptions of behavior do not necessarily reflect differences in causal perceptions.

Actor and Observer Attributions for Different Types of Situations: Causal-Structure Effects, Individual Differences, and the Dimensionality of Causes

In a within-subjects design, the effects of situation type (interpersonal vs. noninterpersonal success vs. failure) and attribution perspective (actor vs. observer) on open-ended attributions were examined. The results were compared to findings from research on the causal structure of situations, actor-observer differences, and success–failure attributional asymmetries. As expected, observer attributions were virtually identical to the underlying causal structure of the situations, whereas actor attributions were also affected by other attribution-processing factors. In addition, actor attributions were more external and unstable than observer attributions. The motivational-bias position on success–failure asymmetries received no support, as observers showed a more “defensive” pattern of attributions than did actors. Finally, supplementary analyses yielded positive correlations between actor and observer attributional styles, and also revealed that causal dimensions usually treated as orthogonal are actua...

Actor-Observer Differences in the Perceived Stability of Shyness

Individuals tend to view their own actions as externally caused, whereas observers view them as internally caused. Even when actors and observers agree on an internal attribution, the two can differ in their perceptions of behavioral stability. Normally, actors protect their self-esteem by attributing failure to an unstable internal cause (lack of effort) rather than to a stable internal cause (lack of ability). It is proposed, however, that some individuals, specifically those who are anxious about social “tests,” characteristically attribute their interpersonal failures primarily to lack of ability, when observers of those same failures detect primarily a lack of effort. This proposition was tested by asking shy and nonshy students to describe themselves, and then asking their roommates to describe them. These descriptions were compared to personality templates of “the person who fails interpersonally through lack of ability” and “the person who fails interpersonally through lack of effort.” Shy students described themselves differently from nonshy students in ways more related to lack of interpersonal ability; their roommates described them differently in ways more related to lack of interpersonal effort. The results are seen as having implications both for interventions designed to alleviate shyness and for theories of how interpersonal acts come to be viewed as indicative of underlying personality traits.

Actor-Observer Differences in Attributions to Morality

Abstract Male and female undergraduates (N = 130) rated themselves or an actor-confederate on factors influencing them not to cheat on a test when situational variables served to either inhibit or facilitate tendencies to cheat. Results indicated a partial reversal of the actor-observer phenomenon and some evidence that actors' attributions fit the covariance model and observers', the schematic model.

Attributions and moral judgments: Kohlberg’s stage theory as a taxonomy of moral attributions

Individuals who cheated or did not cheat on a test and observers who watched a test taker cheat or not cheat evaluated the causal importance of internal factors, external factors, and factors associated with each of the six stages of Kohlberg’s model of moral development as determinants of the moral or immoral action. The results indicated that cheating was explained more in terms of the lower stages of moral thought, whereas the higher stages were used to account for not cheating, but few actor-observer differences were obtained. Overall, support was found for an attributional model of moral judgments that incorporates Kohlberg’s stage model as a taxonomy of causes of moral and immoral actions, but the findings also suggest that Kohlberg’s assumption that the stages are content free may be invalid.

Jealousy as Related to Attributions for the Partner's Behavior

This study addressed itself to the causes attributed to, extramarital sexual involvement, and the association of these causes with sexual jealousy. The results did not show any significant actor-observer difference; in general both spouses attributed their own and their partners' affairs to similar causes. Most frequently mentioned were situational factors and a need for novelty and excitement. Only one sex difference did show up: a need for sexual variety was more often attributed to males than to females. The attribution of marital deprivation and aggression were significantly related to jealousy. Among males, the attribution of a need for variety was linked to jealousy, while among females, perceived pressure of the extramarital partner appeared to be an important factor. Other situational attributions were not related to jealousy. It is suggested that jealousy has a somewhat different meaning for males andfemales, and that this difference is typical for sex roles in general.

Attitudes to alcohol consumption: the attribution of addiction.

Research on smoking has found actor-observer differences in the attributions of addictions. Non-smokers were much more likely to label the average smoker as addicted than the smokers were prepared to label themselves as such. This study sought to determine whether the findings from the studies on smokers generalized to those drinking alcohol. Subjects, who were classified as heavy, moderate, light and non-drinkers on the basis of their self-reported weakly consumption, completed a questionnaire. Results showed that although there were some similarities between findings on the attribution of smoking and drinking, drinkers were less concerned about stopping drinking and less likely to label themselves as addicted. The results were discussed in terms of lay beliefs about the health factors related to drinking.

Motives and social evaluation: Actor-observer differences in the delineation of motives for a beneficial act

Adequate social evaluation of an intentional act depends on a specification of the actor's motives, that is, the consequences he or she anticipated when performing the purposeful behavior. Prior work in experimental social psychology has often underestimated the important social functions served by motive statements, including how they influence and regulate social conduct, permit adequate social analysis of purposeful behavior, and project desired identities. Two experiments examined actor-observer differences in the delineation of motives for the positive act of helping another person. In both studies, it was found that actors attributed their behavior largely to positive motives (e.g., to help the other) and minimized nonpositive ones (e.g., to make a favorable impression), while observers' attributions showed little or no differentiation as a function of the valence of the motives. Actors' self-enhancing attributions were somewhat more pronounced when the consequences were large, and occurred under private as well as public assessment conditions. Also, a reversal of the “typical” actor-observer effect was found in that actors attributed more personal than situational responsibility, while observers did the opposite. This pattern occurred under private assessment conditions and was even more pronounced when the actors' interpretations would be public. The results suggest the presence of motivational biases in the interpretation of social events, and are difficult to explain through recourse to the standard “logical” information processing alternatives.

Attributions of responsibility for group tasks: The egocentric bias and the actor–observer difference.

Attributions of responsibility for group tasks: The egocentric bias and the actor–observer difference.

Attributions of responsibility for group tasks: The egocentric bias and the actor-observer difference.

Attributions of responsibility for group tasks: The egocentric bias and the actor-observer difference.

Attributions of causality for drinking behavior made by alcoholics and by normal drinkers

Alcoholic individuals often are assumed to deny personal responsibility for their alcoholism and to assign causation to external situational factors. To evaluate this assumption, 20 alcoholics and 14 nonalcoholics made causal attributions for a recent personal drinking episode and for the drinking behavior of three target individuals (an abstinent alcoholic, a nonabstinent alcoholic, and a nonalcoholic). Results showed that both alcoholic and nonalcoholic subjects tended to make external attributions for their own drinking behavior. Subjects' attributions for the target individuals depended on both the targets' and subjects' drinking histories. The results are discussed in terms of their relevance to models of alcoholism and to actor-observer differences in causal attribution processes.

Parent and child causal attributions related to the child's clinical problem.

Parents and children were asked to give causal attributions related to the child's learning or behavior problems and an area of success. Actor-observer differences and tendencies of actors to make differential attributions for their positive and negative outcomes were examined. A significant number of parents and children were in disagreement regarding the cause of the child's problem. Parents made significantly more internal than external attributions for children's presenting problems. In contrast, children were evenly distributed in problem attributions. Both parents and children made significantly more internal success attributions. Research with clinical child populations is highlighted as a valuable way to validate, expand, and refine attribution theory while clarifying its practical applications.

Actor-observer differences in attributions for smoking: introducing ex-actors and attributions for failure to give up.

Actor-observer differences in attributions for smoking: introducing ex-actors and attributions for failure to give up.

Beliefs about the causes of alcohol-related problems among alcoholic and nonalcoholic women.

Both problem drinker and non-problem drinker college students and adult women assigned major responsibility for problem drinking internally to the problem drinker (N = 479). A distressing event and present or past environment received the next highest responsibility ratings in all groups. Actor-observer differences predicted by Jones and Nisbett (1971) did not occur. However, persons were likely to rate several causes as responsible for drinking problems. Female college students were more likely to perceive drinking problems as due to external factors and less likely to believe them due to heredity than were older women.

Actor–observer differences in information inference and causal attribution.

Actor–observer differences in information inference and causal attribution.

Actor-observer differences in information inference and causal attribution.

Actor-observer differences in information inference and causal attribution.

The role of social perspective in perceiving the causes of success and failure1

An experiment was conducted to test the hypothesis that observers' causal attributions about an actor's performance at a task would be affected by their social perspective in observing the situation. Observer subjects were either assigned to serve in a role comparable to that of observer-subjects in most actor-observer experiments or were assigned a distinctive role more divergent from the social perspective of the actor. As expected, observers with a similar social perspective to that of the actor made more flattering attributions about the actor's performance than observers with a dissimilar social perspective. We concluded that actor-observer differences in attribution for an actor's performance in any one experiment cannot be taken as definitive evidence either for or against the defensive attribution idea.

Actor-Observer Differences in Perception of Self-Control

Summary The present study tested the attribution theory hypothesis that relative to observer ratings, actors will perceive more variability in their behavior and attribute responsibility more to themselves than to the environment. Male and female undergraduates (N = 30) came to the experiment in pairs. One 5 performed a self-control task, a cold pressor test, while the other observed him/her through a one-way mirror. They both rated locus of responsibility and perceived variability in the actor's self-control. The hypothesis was confirmed supporting a motivational mechanism underlying actor-observer differences.