Anticipated Discussion of Interpretation Eliminates Actor-Observer Differences in the Attribution of Causality

Wells, Gary L.; Petty, Richard E.; Harkins, Stephen G.; Kagehiro, Dorothy K.; Harvey, John H.

doi:10.2307/3033531

Cited by 34 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…McGuire & Millman 1965) has demonstrated that the mere expectation of persuasive attack can pro duce movement in the direction of the communication. Within the period of the present review, results consistent with a strategic view of anticipatory shifts have been obtained in experiments employing typical laboratory attitude topics , causal attributions (Wells et al 1977), judicial judgments (Saltzstein & Sandberg 1979), and personality factors (Turner 1977). Their conclusion was based on three fe atures of the effects: (a) the shifts appear to be attempts to move toward the defensible and admirable moderate positions of the attitude scale; (b) subjects "snap back" to their preexperimental positions when they no longer expect to receive the communication; and (c) shifts in the direction of the expected communication only occur when the issue is not a personally important one fo r the subjects.…”

Section: The Consistency Mo Delsupporting

confidence: 56%

Attitude and Attitude Change

Cialdini¹,

Petty²,

Cacioppo³

1981

Annu. Rev. Psychol.

352

180

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: The Consistency Mo Delsupporting

confidence: 56%

Attitude and Attitude Change

Cialdini¹,

Petty²,

Cacioppo³

1981

Annu. Rev. Psychol.

352

180

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…However, in previous research which demonstrated that increased decision time has an effect on the bias, subjects were required to re-rate their attributions after a one-week delay . Also, the research which demonstrated an effect for anticipated discussion had observers expect to discuss their attributions with a researcher, presumably more expert than another subject (Wells et al, 1977). Thus, the manipulations of decision time and expected discussion in previous studies were probably more robust than those used in the current study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 58%

“…Our prediction was based, in part, on consideration of some previous studies. First, a study by Wells, Petty, Harkins, Kagehiro, and Harvey (1977) demonstrated that observers who expected to discuss their attributions of an actor's behavior made less dispositionally-biased attributions for the actor's behavior than did observers who did not anticipate discussing their attributions. Second, Bierbrauer (1 979) found that observers who were asked to think about an actor's behavior for an extended period of time tended to explain the behavior in more situational terms than did observers who evaluated the actor after a short deliberation period.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Does Group Discussion Attenuate the Dispositional Bias?

Wright

Wells

1985

J Applied Social Pyschol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Attribution researchers have considered the dispositional bias to be pervasive even though it has never been examined as a function of group discussion. Group discussion is a common context for attributions (e.g., jury deliberations) and there are reasons to expect such discussions to affect the bias. The current experiment examined this issue within an attitude attribution paradigm. Because group discussion necessitates a time delay between presentation of information and the attribution dependent measures, subjects in three control conditions were asked to estimate an essayist's attitudes after little deliberation, much deliberation, or after merely preparing for a discussion. The 472 male and female participants were assigned randomly to one of 16 conditions in a 2 (pro vs. con essay) × 2 (choice vs. no choice) × 4 (immediate judgment vs. delayed judgment vs. delayed plus anticipated discussion judgment vs. group discussion judgment) between‐subjects factoral design. Results indicated that group discussion significantly attenuated the dispositional bias but neither prolonged deliberation nor anticipated discussion had such effects. The fact that actual discussion was required to eliminate the dispositional bias, rather than the mere anticipation of such discussion, suggests that there is something about the sharing of arguments that helps attributors to avoid the dispositional bias. Analyses of the discussion transcripts, however, failed to reveal the content of the arguments that produced the attenuation effect.

show abstract

“…Thus any officiating decision that is potentially ambiguous is likely to be biased in the corresponding direction. Nonetheless, we conclude that the disparity in the attributions regarding the role of officials in the HFA is reflective of officials engaging in a self-serving bias (Taylor & Koivumaki, 1976;Wells, Petty, Harkins, Kagehiro, & Harvey, 1977), according to which actors deflect blame and emphasize other ''legitimate'' situational factors. This assessment, in turn, may generate in officials a measure of control and autonomy so needed in their profession because they ought to be ''neutral'' actors.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 84%