SAQ question Outline the role of one situational and one dispositional factor in explaining behaviour. Markbands and Descriptors 0 The answer does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below. 1 ­ 3 There is an attempt to answer the question, but knowledge and understanding is limited, often inaccurate, or of marginal relevance to the question. 4 ­ 6 The question is partially answered. Knowledge and understanding is accurate but limited. Either the command term is not effectively addressed or the response is not sufficiently explicit in answering the question. 7 ­ 8 The question is answered in a focused and effective manner and meets the demands of the command term. The response is supported by appropriate and accurate knowledge and understanding of research. You need to identify one situational and one dispositional factor, using the context of what we have studied in class: Attribution theory Heider’s study – we relate observable behaviors to unobservable causes: • Situational factors – behaviors are attributed to external factors, a result of a particular situation • Dispositional factors – behaviors are attributed to internal (personal) factors, so it is a result of personality Identifying the factors (use 1 of the theories and/or contexts below) In the context of a student failing an exam: A dispositional factor would be that s/he failed the exam because s/he was lazy A situational factor would be that s/he failed the exam because the teacher did not notice that the student was struggling and ensure that the student received extra help. OR Context of the actor‐observer effect (Jones and Nisbett – 1972) Eg. When actors discuss their own behavior – they apply situational factors – I am failing this course because it’s on too early in the morning and I cannot get there on time When actors discuss someone else’s behavior – they apply dispositional factors – He is failing this course because he is lazy OR Jones and Davis: The correspondent inference theory
• Tendency to take someone’s statement of opinion as a sign of what they
believe.
• People tend to attribute to movie actors, (especially to type cast ones), beliefs,
attitudes, and even character traits. We see someone help a student that drops
his lunch, and we assume that he is a kind person (dispositional factor)
• Likely to make dispositional rather than situational attribution about an actor
when the behaviour is intentional (deliberate or voluntary), uncommon, and
low in social desirability.
OR
Kelley: Covariation Rule
When we have information about both how people generally act and about how this
particular person has acted in the past, we use three types of information to balance
our attributions in terms of their dispositional/internal/personal content and their
situational/external/normative content, according to Kelley's (1967) covariation model
(relies on the notion that effects change or co-vary when causes change. A change in
action is assumed to be due to a covarying change in the cause)
Consensus information - do all or only a few people respond to the stimulus in the
same way as the target person?
Distinctiveness information - does the target person respond in the same way to other
stimuli as well?
Consistency information - does the target person always respond in the same way to
this stimulus?
Three combinations of this information – (you could outline 1 +2, or 2+3)
1. High consensus, high distinctiveness, high consistency: The target person's
judgment of the restaurant (it is a good restaurant) should be perceived as
valid if the perceiver knows that 1) other people like the restaurant, 2) the
target person seldom likes restaurants, and 3) the target person enjoys the
restaurant every time he or she goes there. The restaurant is good. (situational
factor)
2. Low consensus, low distinctiveness, high consistency: If a perceiver knows
that 1) most people do not like the target person's restaurant, 2) the target
person likes most restaurants and 3) the target person enjoys the restaurant
each time s/he goes there. Target person's enjoyment at restaurant attributable
to something about him/her (likes to eat out) not something unique about the
restaurant. (dispositional factor)
3. Low consensus, high distinctiveness, low consistency: If a perceiver knows 1)
few other people like the restaurant, 2) the target person seldom likes the
restaurant, and 3) the target person disliked this restaurant in the past. More
than likely the target person's liking this restaurant is attributable to the person
liking the company or wine rather than the food. (dispositional factor)