Covariation, discounting, and augmentation: Towards a clarification of attributional principles

Abstract

Two experiments were conducted to examine the interrelation of the attributional principles of covariation, discounting, and augmentation. In Experiment 1 the presence (vs. absence) of covariation information was manipulated orthogonally to the number of plausible causes for an effect (one vs. two). In Experiment 2 the number of plausible causes for an effect (one vs. two) was manipulated orthogonally to the presence (vs. absence) of an inhibitory factor. The major findings of this research were interpreted to mean that the covariation principle may be appHed concomitantly with the discounting principle and that the latter principle pertains to a different aspect of the attributional process than does the augmentation principle. Implications of these findings for the further development of attribution theory were considered.Attribution theory (Kelley, 1967) is concerned with the manner in which persons analyze cause-effect relations. Kelley (1971) has suggested that in carrying out such analyses the naive attributor rehes on a number of principles. The purpose of the research reported herein was to clarify the theoretical relations among three such principles, covariation, discounting, and augmentation, and to explicate the role of each principle in the attribution process. Covariation and DiscountingThe covariation principle states that "an effect is attributed to the one of its possible causes with which, over time, it covaries"

Organizational Control Systems and Pay-for-Performance in the Public Service

“…Consequently, they only fulfil their duty when external incentives exist. Related to self-determination theory is the 'theory of over-justification' (Kruglanski, Schwartz, Maides, & Hamel, 1978) or the 'goal framing theory' (Lindenberg 2001;Lindenberg & Foss, 2011). Substituting external incentives for intrinsically motivating rewards may shift the attention from the task or from normative goals to the reward.…”

Selective hypothesis testing

“…Although several plausible causes were suggested, the subjects tended to seek evidence that clarified the role of an implicated focal cause. Other experiments show that estimations ofthe effect of a focal cause on an outcome are typically attenuated or discounted when alternative causes are considered (see, e.g., Kruglanski, Schwartz, Maides, & Hamel, 1978). For example, Van der Plight, Eiser, and Spears (1987) found that the perceived contribution of any particular technology (e.g., nuclear power) to the overall supply of energy in the United Kingdom was attenuated when a multiplicity oftechnologies, as opposed to a single technology, were rated.…”

Discounting Attributions and Multiple Determinants

“…The Jr,irrntrl of Generul P.yvchology present (Einhorn & Hogarth, 1983;Hansen & Hall, 1985;Kruglanski, Schwartz, Maides, & Hamel, 1978;Rosenfield & Stephan, 1977). Several of these studies also examined the effect on discounting of covariation information that defines the co-occurrence of each cause and the effect on previous occasions.…”