Intergroup Attribution

Author(s):  
Thomas F. Pettigrew

Intergroup attribution refers to causal attributions that people make about the behavior of out-groups and their own in-group. Attribution theory began in the late 1950s and 1960s. This initial interest was limited to how individuals causally interpreted the behavior of other individuals. But in the 1970s social psychologists began to consider causal attributions made about groups. The guiding theory for research in this area has been largely structured by the predictions of the ultimate attribution error (more accurately described as the intergroup attribution bias). Its principal contentions flow from phenomena already uncovered by attribution research on individual behavior. It holds that group attributions, especially among the highly prejudiced, will be biased for the in-group and against out-groups. Ingroup protection (explaining away negative ingroup behavior as situationally determined – “given the situation, we had to act that way”) is typically a stronger effect than ingroup enhancement (accepting positive ingroup behavior as dispositionally determined – “as a people, we are kind and compassionate toward other groups”). Many moderators and mediators of the effect have been uncovered. Asian cultures, for example, tend to be less prone to the intergroup attribution bias, while strong emotions can induce either more or less of the bias. Similarly, empathy and special training can significantly reduce the bias. Together with such closely related processes as the fundamental attribution error and actor-observer asymmetry, the intergroup attribution bias has proven highly useful in a great variety of applications. Moreover, the intergroup attribution bias serves as an integral component of the intergroup prejudice syndrome.

Author(s):  
Aike C. Horstmann ◽  
Nicole C. Krämer

AbstractSince social robots are rapidly advancing and thus increasingly entering people’s everyday environments, interactions with robots also progress. For these interactions to be designed and executed successfully, this study considers insights of attribution theory to explore the circumstances under which people attribute responsibility for the robot’s actions to the robot. In an experimental online study with a 2 × 2 × 2 between-subjects design (N = 394), people read a vignette describing the social robot Pepper either as an assistant or a competitor and its feedback, which was either positive or negative during a subsequently executed quiz, to be generated autonomously by the robot or to be pre-programmed by programmers. Results showed that feedback believed to be autonomous leads to more attributed agency, responsibility, and competence to the robot than feedback believed to be pre-programmed. Moreover, the more agency is ascribed to the robot, the better the evaluation of its sociability and the interaction with it. However, only the valence of the feedback affects the evaluation of the robot’s sociability and the interaction with it directly, which points to the occurrence of a fundamental attribution error.


2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas H. Stone ◽  
I. M. Jawahar ◽  
Ken Eastman ◽  
Gabi Eissa

1981 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 747-754 ◽  
Author(s):  
John McCartney ◽  
Patrick J. O'Donnell

SynopsisThe perception of and attitude to drinking patterns in recovering problem drinkers (N= 29) is analysed, utilizing a similar methodology to that of Richard & Burley (1978). Fault is found, however, in the latter study both in a failure to define variables and in the authors' statistical handling of the results. In the present study, it was found that controlled drinking is only seen as close to the problem drinker's concept of himself when it entails reasonably high levels of consumption. The importance of this finding for therapy is outlined. The possible negative effects of role conflict are mentioned. It is also found that problem drinkers perceive themselves as having quite different characteristics from those they themselves attribute to alcoholics. This finding is interpreted in terms of the fundamental attribution error (Jones & Nisbett, 1972).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document