바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology

  • P-ISSN1229-0653
  • KCI

ISSN : 1229-0653

Article Contents

Prev Next
e-Submission

Vol.32 No.4

Citation Share

Methodological Errors in Attitude Attribution Paradigm and Their Possible Consequences in Fundamental Attribution Error and Correspondence Bias: Biased Response and Reduced Confidence in Attitude Judgments

Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology / Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, (P)1229-0653;
2018, v.32 no.4, pp.41-64
https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2018.32.4.003


& (2018). Methodological Errors in Attitude Attribution Paradigm and Their Possible Consequences in Fundamental Attribution Error and Correspondence Bias: Biased Response and Reduced Confidence in Attitude Judgments. Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, 32(4), 41-64, https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2018.32.4.003

Abstract

The present research explored the possibility of methodological errors in attitude attribution paradigm and its two possible consequences in examining fundamental attribution error and correspondence bias. It is suggested that participants in the no-choice condition made attitude attributions with normatively irrelevant information due to the restriction of response options, which may have caused participants’ more extreme dispositional attribution as well as the reduced confidence in the attribution. To examine the proposed possibility, two studies were conducted among American college students (N = 236) replicating the attitude attribution paradigm with some adjustments. In the two studies, participants were informed about whether the author had the freedom to choose the direction of an essay (choice vs. no-choice) and read an essay in favor or against the effectiveness of face-to-face communication (pro vs. anti). In study 1, participants answered whether they could correctly make an accurate attribution before making the attribution. In study 2, participants judged the essay's and the author's attitude separately as well as rated their confidence regarding these judgments. The findings supported both the presence of the proposed problems in the attitude attribution paradigm and the overattribution effect. In study 1, more participants in the no-choice condition than in the choice condition answered that an accurate attitude attribution is impossible and such responders did not attribute attitude in the essay to the author. However, more than half of participants still answered that an accurate attribution is possible and such responders showed dispositional attribution. Also, although participants expressed less confidence when situational constraints existed, they still made dispositional attribution.

keywords
fundamental attribution error, correspondence bias, attitude attribution paradigm, a methodological error, biased response for attitude attribution, confidence for attitude attribution, 태도귀인 패러다임, 방법론적 오류, 태도 판단의 편향된 응답, 판단의 확신, 기본적 귀인오류, 대응편향

Reference

1.

권영철 (2012). 국내기업과 외국계기업의 사회적책임 활동에 대한 소비자 집단의 인식 비교분석: 국내 대기업 경영자들에 대한 시사점. 전문경영인연구, 15(1), 25-47.

2.

박순진 (2012). 범죄발생 추세에 대한 일반인의인식: 과장된 인식과 자기 편향을 중심으로. 형사정책연구, 23(3), 233-265.

3.

박재진 (2011). 제품이 정말 좋아서일까? 모델료때문일까? 광고모델이 제품에 대해 가지는실제태도를 유추하는데 있어 소비자들이 가지는 기본적 귀인오류 현상 검증. 광고학 연구, 22(4), 115-136.

4.

박재진 (2012). 기본적 귀인오류현상에 대한 시간적 거리감의 조절 효과: 유명인의 제품보증 차원에서의 검증, 한국언론학보 56(4), 293-310.

5.

성유리, 김종한, Meyersburg. C. A., 박광배 (2013). 일반인의 정당방위 판단에 대한 법문화의영향. 한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격, 27(2), 69-83.

6.

Ajzen, I., Dalto, C. A., & Blyth, D. P. (1979). Consistency and bias in the attribution of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(10), 1871-1876.

7.

Allison, S. T., Mackie, D. M., Muller, M. M., & Worth, L. T. (1993). Sequential correspondence biases and perceptions of change: The Castro studies revisited. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19(2), 151-157.

8.

Asch, S. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgment. In H. Guetzkow (ed.) Groups, leadership and men:Research in human relations (pp. 177-190). Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Press.

9.

Chang, C. Y., Crethar, H. C., Ratts, M. J., & Editors, G. (2010). Social justice: A national imperative for counselor education and supervision. Counselor Education and Supervision, 50(2), 82-87.

10.

Choi, I., & Nisbett, R. E. (1998). Situational salience and cultural differences in the correspondence bias and actor-observer bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(9), 949-960.

11.

Clary, E. G., & Tesser, A. (1983). Reactions to unexpected events: The naive scientist and interpretive activity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9(4), 609-620.

12.

Devine, P. G. (1989). Overattribution effect: The role of confidence and attributional complexity. Social Psychology Quarterly, 52(2), 149-158.

13.

Dripps, D. A. (2003). Fundamental retribution error:Criminal justice and the social psychology of blame. Vanderbilt Law Review, 56(5), 1383-1438.

14.

Erickson, D. J., & Krull, D. S. (1999). Distinguishing judgments about what from judgments about why: Effects of behavior extremity on correspondent inferences and causal attributions. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 21(1), 1-11.

15.

Funder, D. C. (1987). Errors and mistakes:Evaluating the accuracy of social judgment. Psychological Bulletin, 101(1), 75-90.

16.

Gawronski, B. (2003). Implicational schemata and the correspondence bias: On the diagnostic value of situationally constrained behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(6), 1154-1171.

17.

Gawronski, B. (2004). Theory-based bias correction in dispositional inference: The fundamental attribution error is dead, long live the correspondence bias. European Review of Social Psychology, 15(1), 183-217.

18.

Gilbert, D. T., & Malone, P. S. (1995). The correspondence bias. Psychological Bulletin, 117(1), 21-38.

19.

Gill, M. J., Swann Jr., W. B., & Silvera, D. H. (1998). On the genesis of confidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(5), 1101-1114.

20.

Hamilton, D. L. (1988). Causal attribution viewed from an information-processing perspective. In D. Bar-Tal & A. W. Kruglanski (eds.), The social psychology of knowledge (pp. 359-385). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

21.

Hamilton, D. L. (1998). Dispositional and attributional inferences in person perception. In J. M. Darley & J. Cooper (eds.), Attribution and social interaction (pp. 99-114). Washington, DC:American Psychological Association.

22.

Hastie, R. (1984). Causes and effects of causal attribution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(1), 44-56.

23.

Hilton, D. J., Smith, R. H., & Kim, S. H. (1995). Processes of causal explanation and dispositional attribution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(3), 377-387.

24.

Howard, J. A. (1984). Societal influences on attribution: Blaming some victims more than others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(3), 494-505.

25.

Jones, E. E. (1979). The rocky road from acts to dispositions. American Psychologist, 34(2), 107-117.

26.

Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. (1965). From acts to dispositions the attribution process in person perception. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 219-266). Academic Press.

27.

Jones, E. E., & Harris, V. A. (1967). The attribution of attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 3(1), 1-24.

28.

Jones, E. E., Riggs, J. M., & Quattrone, G. A. (1979). Observer bias in the attitude attribution paradigm: Effect of time and information order. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(7), 1230-1238.

29.

Krull, D. S. (2001). On partitioning the fundamental attribution error: Dispositionalism and the correspondence bias. In G. B. Moskowitz (Ed.), Cognitive social psychology: The Princeton symposium on the legacy and future of social cognition (pp. 211-227). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

30.

Lane, R. E. (2000). Moral blame and causal explanation. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 17(1), 45-58.

31.

Macrae, C. N., & Shepherd, J. W. (1991). Categorical effects on attributional inferences: A response‐time analysis. British Journal of Social Psychology, 30(3), 235-245.

32.

Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371-378.

33.

Miller, A. G., & Rorer, L. G. (1982). Toward an understanding of the fundamental attribution error: Essay diagnosticity in the attitude attribution paradigm. Journal of Research in Personality, 16(1), 41-59.

34.

Miller, A. G., Schmidt, D., Meyer, C., & Colella, A. (1984). The perceived value of constrained behavior: Pressures toward biased inference in the attitude attribution paradigm. Social Psychology Quarterly, 47(2), 160-171.

35.

Nier, J. A., Bajaj, P., McLean, M. C., & Schwartz, E. (2013). Group status, perceptions of agency, and the correspondence bias: Attributional processes in the formation of stereotypes about high and low status groups. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 16(4), 476-487.

36.

O'Sullivan, M. (2003). The fundamental attribution error in detecting deception: The boy-who-criedwolf effect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(10), 1316-1327.

37.

Pettigrew, T. F. (1979). The ultimate attribution error: Extending Allport's cognitive analysis of prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5(4), 461-476.

38.

Quattrone, G. A. (1982). Behavioral consequences of attributional bias. Social Cognition, 1(4), 358-378.

39.

Reeder, G. D., Fletcher, G. J., & Furman, K. (1989). The role of observers' expectations in attitude attribution. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25(2), 168-188.

40.

Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 173-220.

41.

Schneider, D. J., & Miller, R. S. (1975). The effects of enthusiam and quality of arguments on attitude attribution. Journal of Personality, 43(4), 693-708.

42.

Smith, E. R., & Miller, F. D. (1983). Mediation among attributional inferences and comprehension processes: Initial findings and a general method. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(3), 492-505.

43.

Tal-Or, N., & Papirman, Y. (2007). The fundamental attribution error in attributing fictional figures'characteristics to the actors. Media Psychology, 9(2), 331-345.

44.

Taslitz, A. E. (2006). Wrongly accused: Is race a factor in convicting the innocent. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 4(1), 121-133.

Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology

e-Submission OA Policy