DMCA
The attribution of attitudes (1967)
| Venue: | J. Exp. Soc. Psychol |
| Citations: | 187 - 0 self |
BibTeX
@ARTICLE{Jones67theattribution,
author = {Edward E. Jones and Victor and A. Harris},
title = {The attribution of attitudes},
journal = {J. Exp. Soc. Psychol},
year = {1967},
pages = {1--24}
}
Share
 |
 |
 |
 |
||
OpenURL
Abstract
Three experiments were conducted within the framework of correspondent inference theory. In each of the experiments the subjects were instructed to estimate the "trueJ ' attitude of a target person after having either read or listened to a speech by him expressing opinions on a controversial topic. Independent variables included position of speech (pro, anti, or equivocal), choice of position vs. assignment of position, and reference group of target person. The major hypothesis (which was confirmed with varying strength in all three experiments) was that choice would make a greater difference when there was a low prior probability of someone taking the position expressed in the speech. Other findings of interest were: (1) a tendency to attribute attitude in line with behavior, even in no-choice conditions; (2) increased inter-individual variability in conditions where low probability opinions were expressed in a constraining context; (3) that this variability was partly a function of the subjectsJ own attitudes on the issue; (4) that equivocation in no-choice conditions leads to the attribution that the equivocator opposes the assigned position. The main conclusion suggested is that perceivers do take account of prior probabilities and situational constraints when attributing ~rivate attitude, but perhaps do not weight these factors as:avily as would be expected by a rational analysis. a person verbalizes an opinion he may or may not hold an underlying attitude that "corresponds " to that opinion. The degree to which opinions and attitudes-or more generally, acts and dispositionsare seen as correspondent is a function of the relative weight assigned to internal a,emus external causal factors (cf. Thibaut and Riecken, 1955). Loosely s tated, a person will be perceived to hold attitudes that corrqond v vith his opinion statements when the statements seem to have L--- IJL'CII Ireel '..--'y offered and not coerced by situational pressures. Jones a nd Davis (1965) have attempted to develop a systematic statenlent of t,he attribution process in person perception which extends this ' This re $ search ' was facilitabd by NSF-G8857. '
Keyphrases
target person no-choice condition person perception situational constraint emu external causal factor re search cii ireel major hypothesis independent variable prior probability inter-individual variability assigned position position v correspondent inference theory reference group low probability opinion situational pressure main conclusion controversial topic opinion statement rational analysis underlying attitude subjectsj attitude systematic statenlent rivate attitude relative weight low prior probability constraining context nd davis
