Download or read book Actor-observer Differences in Casual Attribution and Sanctioning Evaluation written by Tamara Jocelyn Ferguson and published by . This book was released on 1980 with total page 0 pages. Available in PDF, EPUB and Kindle. Book excerpt: This dissertation examined the link between causal attributions for, and sanctioning evaluations of, actors' success and failure on an interpersona1 task. In Study 1, 110 (58 males, 52 females) college students were randomly assigned to one of eight conditions of a 2 (actor vs. observer perspective) X 2 (public vs. private evaluation context) X 2 (causal attribution judgments preceded vs. followed by sanctioning assessments) factorial design, in which the outcome was always failure. In Study 2, 212 (104 males, 108 females) college students were assigned to one of 12 conditions of a 2 (actor vs. observer perspective) X 2 (success vs. failure outcome) X 3 (high vs. low vs. no task difficulty information provided) factorial design, in which the evaluation context was always public. The c1ient-therapist paradigm was used in both experiments, in which the actor counselled a presumed client, while an observer viewed the c1ient-therapist exchange. Measures of personal and situational attribution, ascriptions of credit/blame, perceptions of reward deservingness, and decision-time were included in both studies. The results of the first study showed that actors relative to observers accepted less personal causal responsibility, less blame, and recommended awarding themselves more money for failure when these evaluations were public rather than private. The opposite pattern of results was found in the private condition. The results of the first study, a pilot study, and a replication experiment {n = 28) indicated that the effects of evaluation context were not due to concerns for accuracy, cautiousness, or modesty. The replication experiment also confirmed the idea that actors and observers experience difficulty in the assuming the role of their counterpart and that observers' judgments may have been affected by how they thought actors would respond. The results of the second study replicated those found in Study 1 under public conditions. Actors, relative to observers, accepted more personal causal responsibility and credit for success than for failure. Low task difficulty information reduced the extent to which actors made self-serving assessments of their success and failure. However, actors' judgments reflected the perception that success was improbable, whereas observers' judgments reflected the perception that success was probable. Observers also evaluated actors more harshly than was expected on the basis of the provided task difficulty informat ion. Both experiments indicated strong support for the link between causal attribution and sanctioning evaluation, even within an ability-based paradigm. Observers' harsh judgments indicated a need to consider how the interpersonal vs. intrapersonal nature of the outcome affects responsivity to causally-relevant information. Responsivity to causally-relevant information may diminish the more the observed behavior implicates the well-being of another person. There is also a need to reconsider the mechanisms underlying self-serving biases in causal attribution. Self-protection concerns may be aroused only under relatively public conditions or when the actor expects to perform the task in the future. Finally, the traditional actor-observer attribution difference may more accurately reflect participants' perceptions of what other people in the situation believe than participants' private beliefs regarding causality.