Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ten reasons why ANOVA theory and research fail to explain attribution processes: 1. Conceptual problems

  • Published:
Current Psychological Reviews

Abstract

Ten reasons are proposed to explain why Kelley’s attribution theory and related questionnaire research fail to account for the cognitive processes underlying ordinary explanations of behaviour. In this first paper, five salient conceptual problems of the ANOVA model are reviewed: the inadequate analysis of behaviours and their contexts, and the inferences to which they give rise; deployment of the vague and ambiguous internal-external distinction; the normative view of people as poor social scientists; the crude analogy between ordinary reasoning and statistical procedures; and, fundamentally, the naive conceptualization of cognitive processes. Schank’s computational theory of social inference is identified as a sophisticated process model which avoids the conceptual problems inherent in the ANOVA model.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Antaki, C. (ed.) (1981). The Psychology of Ordinary Explanations of Social Behaviour. London: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartlett, F.C. (1932). Remembering: a Study in Experimental and Social Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, J.B. & Bower, G.H. (1980). Story understanding as problem solving. Poetics, 9, 223–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boden, M. (1977). Artificial Intelligence and Natural Man. Hassocks: Harvester Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bower, G.H., Black, J.B. & Turner, T.J. (1979). Scripts in memory for text. Cognitive Psychology, 11, 177–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruce, B. (1980). An analysis of interacting plans as a guide to the understanding of story structure. Poetics, 9, 295–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruce, B. & Newman, D. (1978). Interacting plans. Cognitive Science, 2, 195–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buss, A.R. (1978). Causes and reasons in attribution theory: a conceptual critique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1311–1321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buss, A.R. (1979a). On the relationship between causes and reasons. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1458–1461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buss, A.R. (1979b). A Dialectical Psychology. London: Halsted Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Canter, D. & Brown, J. (1981). Explanatory roles. In C. Antaki (ed.), The Psychology of Ordinary Explanations of Social Behaviour. London: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carbonell, J. G. (1980). Toward a process model of human personality traits. Artificial Intelligence, 15, 49–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charniak, E. (1975). A partial taxonomy of knowledge about actions. Proceedings of the Fourth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Tbilisi, USSR.

  • Colby, K.M. (1981). Modelling a paranoid mind. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 4, 515–560.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, M. (1979). Perceiving Others: the Psychology of Interpersonal Perception. London: Methuen.

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Andrade, R.G. (1981). The cultural part of cognition. Cognitive Science, 5, 179–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiske, S.T. & Linville, P.W. (1981). What does the schema concept buy us? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6, 543–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forsyth, D.R. (1980). The functions of attributions. Social Psychology Quarterly, 43, 184–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gruenich, R. & Trabasso, T. (1981). The story as social environment: children’s comprehension and evaluation of intentions and consequences. In J. H. Harvey (ed.), Cognition, Social Behavior and the Environment. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, V.L. (1980). Intuitive psychologist or intuitive lawyer? Alternative models of the attribution process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 767–772.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harré, R. (1981a). Expressive aspects of descriptions of others. In C. Antaki (ed.), The Psychology of Ordinary Explanations of Social Behaviour. London: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harré, R. (1981b). Rituals, rhetoric and social cognition. In J.P. Forgars (ed.), Social Cognition: Perspectives on Everyday Understanding. Academic Press: London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, J.H. (1981). Cognition, Social Behavior, and the Environment. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, J.H., Ickes, W.J. & Kidd, R.F. (1976). New Directions in Attribution Research, Volume 1. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, J.H., Ickes, W.J. & Kidd, R.F. (1978). New Directions in Attribution Research. Volume 2. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, J.H., Ickes, W.J. & Kidd, R.F. (1981). New Directions in Attribution Research. Volume 3. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hastie, R., Ostrom, T., Ebbesen, E., Wyer, R., Hamilton, D. & Carlston, D. (eds.) (1980). Person Memory: the Cognitive Bases of Social Perception. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heider, F. (1958). The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, E.T., Herman, C.P. & Zanna, M.P. (eds.) (1981). Social Cognition: the Ontario Symposium on Personality and Social Psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaspars, J., Fincham, F. & Hewstone, M. (eds.) (1982). Attribution Theory: Essays and Experiments. London: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, E.E. (1978). Update of ‘From acts to dispositions: the attribution process in person perception’. In L. Berkowitz (ed.), Cognitive Theories in Social Psychology. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, E.E. & Davis, K.E. (1965). From acts to dispositions: the attribution process in person perception. In L. Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Volume 2. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, E.E. & Nisbett, R.E. (1972). The actor and the observer: divergent perceptions of the causes of behaviour. In E.E. Jones et al (eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the Causes of Behaviour. Morristown: General Learning Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, E.E., Kanouse, D.E., Kelley, H.H., Nisbett, R.E., Valins, S. & Weiner, B. (eds.) (1972). Attribution: Perceiving the Causes of Behaviour. Morristown: General Learning Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, H.H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. In D. Levine (ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Volume 15. Lincoln, NB: University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, H.H. (1972a). Attribution in social interaction. In E.E. Jones et al (eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the Causes of Behaviour. Morristown: General Learning Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, H.H. (1972b). Causal schemata in the attribution process. In E.E. Jones et al (eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the Causes of Behaviour. Morristown: General Learning Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, H.H. (1973). The processes of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28, 107–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, G.A. (1964). The language of hypothesis: man’s psychological instrument. Journal of Individual Psychology, 20, 137–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kruglanski, A.W. (1975). The endogenous-exogenous partition on attribution theory. Psychological Review, 85, 387–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kruglanski, A.W. (1977). The place of naive contents in a theory of attributions: reflections on Calder’s and Zuckerman’s critiques of the endogenous-exogenous partition. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 3, 245–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kruglanski, A.W. (1979). Causal explanation, teleological explanation: on radical particularism in attribution theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1447–1457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kruglanski, A.W. (1980a). Lay epistemo-logic — process and contents: another look at attribution theory. Psychological Review, 87, 70–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kruglanski, A.W. (1980b). The field of social cognition: the theses of pluralism and irrationalism reconsidered. Paper presented at the Conference on Developments in Attribution Theory, University of Oxford.

  • Lalljee, M. (1981). Attribution theory and the analysis of explanations. In C. Antaki (ed.), The Psychology of Ordinary Explanations of Behaviour. London: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Locke, D. and Pennington, D. (1982). Reasons and other causes: their role in attribution processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 212–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McArthur, L.A. (1972). The how and what of why: some determinants and consequences of causal attribution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 22, 171–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, F.D., Smith, E.R. & Uleman, J. (1981). Measurement and interpretation of situational and dispositional attributions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 17, 80–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minsky, M. (1975). A framework for representing knowledge. In P.H. Winston (ed.), The Psychology of Computer Vision. New York: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monson, T.C. & Snyder, M. (1977). Actors, observers and the attribution process: toward a reconceptualization. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 17, 80–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newcombe, R.D. & Rutter, D.R. (1982). Ten reasons why ANOVA theory and research fail to explain attribution processes: 2. Methodological problems. Current Psychological Reviews, 2(2).

  • Nisbett, R. & Ross, L. (1980). Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgement. New York: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Omanson, R.C., Warren, W.H. & Trabasso, T. (1978). Goals, inferential comprehension, and recall of stories by children. Discourse Processes, 1, 355–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pylyshyn, Z.W. (1980). Computation and cognition: issues in the foundation of cognitive science. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 3, 111–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rieger, C.J. (1975). Conceptual memory. In R.C. Schank (ed.), Conceptual Information Processing. Amsterdam: North Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: distortions in the attribution process. In L. Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Volume 10. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabini, J. & Silver, M. (1980). Baseball and hot sauce: a critique of some attributional treatments of evaluation. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 10, 83–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schank, R.C. (ed.) (1975a). Conceptual Information Processing. Amsterdam: North Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schank, R.C. (1975b). Using Knowledge to understand. In R.C. Schank & B.N. Nash-Webber (eds.), Theoretical Issues in Natural Language processing. Proceedings of the Workshop of Association for Computational Linguistics, Arlington, Vancouver.

  • Schank, R.C. (1980). Language and memory. Cognitive Science, 4, 243–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schank, R.C. & Abelson, (1977). Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding: an Inquiry into Human Knowledge Structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schank, R.C. & Carbonell, J.G. (1979). Re: the Gettysburg address: representing social and political acts. In N. Findler (ed.), Associative Networks. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schank, R.C. & Lebowitz, M. (1980). Levels of understanding in computers and people. Poetics, 9, 251–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schank, R.C. & Riesbeck, C.K. (1981). Inside Computer Understanding: Five Programs plus Miniatures. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schank, R.C., Lebowitz, M. & Birnbaum, L. (1980). An integrated understander. American Journal of Computational Linguistics, 6, 13–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, C.F. (1976). Understanding human action: recognizing the plans and motives of other persons. In J.S. Carroll & J.W. Payne (eds.), Cognition and Social Behaviour. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, C.F., Sridharan, N.S. & Goodson, J.L. (1978). The plan recognition problem: an intersection of psychology and artificial intelligence. Artificial Intelligence, 11, 45–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, D.J., Hastorf, A.H. & Ellsworth, P.C. (1979). Person Perception, 2nd edition. London: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schutz, A. (1953). Common-sense and scientific interpretation of human action. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 14, 1–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Semin, G. (1980). A gloss on attribution theory. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 19, 291–300.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaver, K.G. (1975). An Introduction to Attribution Processes. Cambridge, MA: Winthrop.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sloman, A. (1978). The Computer Revolution in Philosophy: Philosophy, Science and Models of Mind. Hassocks: Harvester Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, S.E. & Crocker, J. (1980). Schematic bases of social information processing. In E.T. Higgins, C.P. Herman & M.P. Zanna (eds.), Social Cognition: the Ontario Symposium on Personality and Social Psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, S.E. & Fiske, S.T. (1981). Getting inside the head: methodologies for process analysis in attribution and social cognition. In J.H. Harvey, W.J. Ickes & R.F. Kidd (eds.), New Directions in Attribution Research, Volume 3. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warren, W.H., Nicholas, D.W. & Trabasso, T. (1979). Event chains and inferences in understanding narratives. In R. Freedle (ed.), New Directions in Discourse Processing, Volume 2. Horwood, NJ: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weary, G. (1981). The role of cognitive, affective and social factors in attributional biases. In J.H. Harvey (ed.), Cognition, Social Behavior, and the Environment. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiner, B. (1974). Achievement Motivation an Attribution Theory. Morristown: General Learning Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiner, B. (1979). A theory of motivation for some classroom experiences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 3–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wilensky, R. (1978). Understanding goal-based stories. Research Report 140, Department of Computer Science, Yale University.

  • Wilensky, R. (1980). Points: a theory of story content. Memo No. UCB/ERL M80/17, Electronics Research Laboratory, California University.

  • Wilensky, R. (1981). Meta-planning: representing and using knowledge about planning in problem solving and language understanding. Cognitive Science, 5, 197–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wyer, R.S. (1981). An information-processing perspective on social attribution. In J.H. Harvey, W.J. Ickes & R.F. Kidd (eds.), New Directions in Attribution Research. Volume 3. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wyer, R.S. & Carlston, D.E. (1979). Social Cognition, Inference and Attribution. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wyer, R.S. & Srull, T.K. (1980). The processing of social stimulus information: a conceptual integration. In R. Hastie et al (eds.), Person Memory: the Cognitive Bases of Social Perception. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman, M. (1978). Actions and occurrences in Kelley’s cube. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 647–656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Social Psychology Research Unit, University of Kent at Canterbury, Beverley Farm, Canterbury, Kent, UK

    R. D. Newcombe & D. R. Rutter

Authors
  1. R. D. Newcombe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. D. R. Rutter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Newcombe, R.D., Rutter, D.R. Ten reasons why ANOVA theory and research fail to explain attribution processes: 1. Conceptual problems. Current Psychological Reviews 2, 95–107 (1982). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02684457

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02684457

Keywords

Search

Navigation