Discounting Attributions and Multiple Determinants

McClure, John; Jaspars, Jos; Lalljee, Mansur

doi:10.1080/00221309.1993.9921187

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our main hypothesis was that the causal explanations would be discounted less as ideal strength increased and would be discounted more as ought strength increased. Causal discounting is typically operationalized as the association between two explanations—the more negative the association, the more discounting takes place (e.g., McClure, Jaspars, & Lalljee, 1993; see McClure, 1998, for a review). Our prediction, then, was that both ideal strength and ought strength would moderate this correlation but in opposite directions.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Promotion and prevention focus on alternative hypotheses: Implications for attributional functions.

Liberman

Molden²,

Idson³

et al. 2001

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

285

254

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Five studies examined hypothesis generation and discounting in causal attribution from the perspective of regulatory focus theory (E. T. Higgins, 1997, 1998). According to this theory, a promotion focus is associated with generating more and simultaneously endorsing multiple hypotheses, whereas a prevention focus is associated with generating only a few hypotheses and selecting 1 hypothesis from a given set. Five studies confirmed these predictions for both situationally induced and chronic individual differences in regulatory focus. In Studies 1, 2, and 3, individuals in a promotion focus generated more hypotheses than individuals in a prevention focus. In Studies 4 and 5, individuals in a promotion focus discounted explanations in light of alternatives less than individuals in a prevention focus. Study 5 also found that in a promotion focus, person explanations were generalized across situations less than in a prevention focus.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Promotion and prevention focus on alternative hypotheses: Implications for attributional functions.

Liberman

Molden²,

Idson³

et al. 2001

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

285

254

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…If OCB is considered part of a job, then it may be less easily recognized and thus have a weaker effect on perceived performance. After all, the discounting principle from attribution theory states that any one cause for a behavior will seem less important to the extent that other possible causes exist (McClure, 1993). But if OCB indeed goes beyond job requirements, then it is more likely to be recognized and thus may have a greater impact on perceived performance.…”

Section: Measurement Of Ocbmentioning

confidence: 99%

Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Performance

Nielsen

Hrivnak

Shaw

2009

Small Group Research

161

105

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most of the research on the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) and performance has been conducted at the individual level. During the past 10 years, however, group-level research on that relationship has begun to appear. This article meta-analytically reviews 38 independent samples ( N = 3,097) in which the relationship between OCB and performance was studied at the group level. The analyses in this study suggest a positive overall relationship between OCB and performance (ρ = .29), as well as the presence of several moderating variables. The theoretical implications of these findings are discussed, and some suggestions for future research are offered.

show abstract

“…The forced-choice measure provides a weak basis for conclusions about discounting. A recent replication that used unipolar attribution measures showed that participants did not greatly discount charitability or pressure for either target person, although ratings of the two causes were negatively correlated (McClure, Jaspars, & Lalljee, 1993). Thibaut and Riecken (1955) are not alone in using measures unsuitable for assessing discounting.…”

Section: Are the Person And The Situation Inversely Related?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Discounting causes of behavior: Are two reasons better than one?

McClure

1998

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Self Cite

121

113

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Several theories propose that people discount a cause of an action when other plausible causes are present. This view has recently been challenged, but the relevant research has not been reviewed. In this article, the author reviews research on factors that affect discounting and the use of conjunctive explanations. Some studies are inconclusive because inappropriate measures are used. Other studies fail to distinguish between the probability, necessity, sufficiency, and relevance of causes. When these distinctions are recognized, patterns of discounting are predictable. When causes are presented sequentially, people may underdiscount the prior cause, suggesting that an anchoring process may limit discounting. In other cases, discounting is absent because people perceive multiple causal influences on actions or because they judge that certain causes are necessary or sufficient. Theory has assumed that causes are negatively associated, but causes may be independent or positively associated. This conclusion challenges analogies between discounting and scientific and legal reasoning.The idea that people apply a discounting principle in their causal explanations has been a cornerstone of attribution theory (Heider, 1958, Kelley, 1972a. The same idea has been applied to many other judgments, including attitudes (Bern, 1967;

show abstract

Discounting Attributions and Multiple Determinants

Cited by 5 publications

References 34 publications

Promotion and prevention focus on alternative hypotheses: Implications for attributional functions.

Promotion and prevention focus on alternative hypotheses: Implications for attributional functions.

Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Performance

Discounting causes of behavior: Are two reasons better than one?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About