Causal Attribution and Affective Response as Mediated by Task Performance and Self-Acceptance

Green, Thomas D.; Bailey, Roger C.; Zinser, Otto; Williams, Dale E.

doi:10.2466/pr0.1994.75.3f.1555

Cited by 18 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Teams attribute greater blame to team members when the cause of failure is perceived to be internal rather than external [22]. Evidence for self-serving bias in education and learning contexts is also robust, with people tending to attribute good performance to internal factors and poor performance to external factors [23].…”

Section: B Blame Attributionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Critic, compatriot, or chump?: Responses to robot blame attribution

Groom

Chen

Johnson

et al. 2010

2010 5th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As their abilities improve, robots will be placed in roles of greater responsibility and specialization. In these contexts, robots may attribute blame to humans in order to identify problems and help humans make sense of complex information. In a between-participants experiment with a single factor (blame target) and three levels (human blame vs. team blame vs. self blame) participants interacted with a robot in a learning context, teaching it their personal preferences. The robot performed poorly, then attributed blame to either the human, the team, or itself. Participants demonstrated a powerful and consistent negative response to the human-blaming robot. Participants preferred the self-blaming robot over both the human and team blame robots. Implications for theory and design are discussed.

show abstract

Section: B Blame Attributionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Critic, compatriot, or chump?: Responses to robot blame attribution

Groom

Chen

Johnson

et al. 2010

2010 5th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Similar self-serving effects have been found in numerous studies investigating students' attributions for their aca. demic performance (e.g., Green, Bailey, Zinser, & Williams, 1994). Typically, students are asked to describe the cause of their performance on some kind of academic activ, ity such as an exam.…”

Section: Attributions Of Responsibility: the Self-serving Biasmentioning

confidence: 99%

Don't Blame the Computer: When Self-Disclosure Moderates the Self-Serving Bias

Moon¹

2003

Journal of Consumer Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When consumers use computers to help make purchase decisions, how do they attribute responsibility for the positive or negative outcomes of those decisions? The results suggest that, in general, attributions of responsibility reflect a self-serving bias: Consumers tend to blame computers for negative outcomes and tend to take personal credit for positive ones. However, the results also suggest that, when consumers have a history of intimate self-disclosure with a computer, this pattern of attribution is significantly mitigated: Consumers are more willing to credit the computer for positive outcomes, and are more willing to accept responsibility for negative outcomes. In addition, this research provides evidence that the causal relation between self-disclosure and attributions of responsibility is partially mediated by attraction.Computers often play arole in anumber of stages in the buying process. Consumers frequently rely on them to deliver information about what to buy, to help find what they're looking for, to process payments, and even to provide follow-up service. When computers play such a prominent role in the purchase process, their perceived performance becomes critical. If, on the one hand, consumers decide that a given computer has performed its tasks efficiently and effectively, the likelihood that they will rely on that computer for help with future transactions probably increases. If, on the other hand, they decide that the computer has performed inadequately, the likelihood that they will rely on it again probably decreases.On what basis do consumers retrospectively decide whether or not a computer has performed well? In some cases-say, for example, the computer crashed when the consumer tried to check-out-the answer is obvious. The computer did not perform its tasks well. In other cases, however, the answer is less obvious. Consider the following scenario:Joe Konsoomer decides to buy a stereo but can't decide which one to purchase. Because the choices are almost limitless, he elects to visit a computer Web site that provides information about consumer electronics products. After browsing the information provided by the com-Requests for reprints should be sent to Youngme Moon,

show abstract

“…This is one of the reasons for using analysis of delay discounting as an approach to understanding impulsive choices [31] . The subjective value of delayed rewards decreases as a function of the delay interval.…”

Section: Delay Of Reward Paradigm and Alcoholismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Laboratory Paradigms of Impulsivity and Alcohol Dependence: A Review

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Impulsivity can be defined as choosing a smaller, immediate reward over a larger, delayed reward. From this perspective, addictive behaviors such as substance abuse and pathological gambling reflect a series of impulsive choices. However, impulsivity is not a homogeneous construct. Laboratory measures of impulsivity reflect two types of processes. The first is related to behavioral inhibition and refers to an individual’s ability to appropriately inhibit thoughts or actions. The second is the delay of reward dimension, namely the degree to which immediate (rewarding) consequences have more control over an individual’s behavior than consequences that are delayed. In this review, we describe how alcohol is associated with significant impairments in these paradigms. We also suggest that they may have a role in the development of alcohol dependence. These results are in agreement with a model in which delay of gratification might be a marker for early use and/or abuse of alcohol, whereas impairment in behavioral inhibition might be a marker for maintained use in time and, therefore, for progression towards alcohol dependence.

show abstract

Causal Attribution and Affective Response as Mediated by Task Performance and Self-Acceptance

Cited by 18 publications

References 12 publications

Critic, compatriot, or chump?: Responses to robot blame attribution

Critic, compatriot, or chump?: Responses to robot blame attribution

Don't Blame the Computer: When Self-Disclosure Moderates the Self-Serving Bias

Laboratory Paradigms of Impulsivity and Alcohol Dependence: A Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About