The Effects of Stress and Personality on the Formation of Causal Attributions How we attribute behavior can have a profound effect on our analysis of it. For instance, attribution theory, which attempts to clarify why our explanations for a person’s behavior can differ so drastically, holds that we may attribute his or her behavior to dispositional (inner qualities) or situational (environmental) influences. Other factors such as stress and personality type also affect attribution formation, significantly increasing the number of attributions we make and our sense of control in a situation. Causal Attributions and Stress Attribution theory arose from the work of Fritz Heider. In Psychology of Interpersonal Relationships (1958), he argued that it is essential for us to accurately determine the intent behind behavior in order to maintain or retain control of situations (Keinan & Tal, 2005). Later work by Kelley (1967) expanded attribution theory beyond simple determination of intent to include explaining behavior through one of two possible determinations – dispositional (character traits) or situational causes (Aronson, Wilson, Akert, & Fehr, 2004). For example, if someone pushes us and we believe that he did so due to a dispositional factor such as dislike of us, we may consider his behavior threatening. Conversely, if we believe the shove resulted from situational factors, we would probably believe it was an accident. Stress also affects the formation of attributions. Thus, expanding upon Heider’s work, Keinan & Tal (2005) examined the role that stress and personality type play in the formation of attributions. Working with type A (TAP) and type B (TBP) personalities and basing their approach on Glass’ control model (1977... ... middle of paper ... ...causal attributions when compared to situations where no stress is present? I believe that, when their image is threatened, people act to safeguard it by increasing their causal attributions; thus, they maintain control of who they believe themselves to be. Therefore, I surmise that my need to project a certain image poses a plausible alternative to the stress-personality model, proposed by Keinan & Tal, in explaining my behavior during this game. Works Cited Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., Akert, R. M., & Fehr, B. (2004). Social psychology. Toronto: Pearson Prentice Hall. Glass, D. C. (1977). Behavior patterns, stress, and coronary disease. Hillsdale: Erlbaum. Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Keinan, G., & Tal, S. (2005). The effects of Type A behavior and stress on the attribution of causality.
Does personality determine behavior? Phelps (2015) dived into this discussion in his article by reviewing the perspectives of personality, how psychology relates to behavior and the idea of self, and further, how behaviorists define personality and all of its components. Phelps (2015) compares and contrasts the common beliefs of personality and the view of self as attributed to personality theorists with those characterized by behavioral theorists. A typical understanding of personality is one that defines it as an internal substance that drives behavior, and therefore, by seeking to understand a person's personality we can almost assume their actions (Phelps, 2015). Behavioral theorists, on the other hand, do not lean on vague internal conditions to explain behavior, but rather they evaluate a person's past and present settings to define behavior, according to Phelps (2015). The conclusion is that behaviorists' perspectives on these topics are far more parsimonious in nature and most popular views of personality speak to a more internal and far-reaching position rather than the behavior itself (Phelps, 2015). Likewise, Phelps (2015) addresses the issue of meeting specific criteria for discerning whether a theoretical viewpoint is valid in helping us understand people. He continued to remark that behaviorists' stances meet a large portion of the criteria as presented by Gordon Allport (Phelps, 2015). For example, they have less assumptions, they are consistent, and not to mention, they are testable and falsifiable, Phelps (2015) supports. In my opinion and critical review, this article is useful because it provides an unbiased assessment of a variety of personality theories and definitions of personality and the self. Likewise, it is simple and easy to understand, thus qualifying it as parsimonious. Overall, I think the article did its ultimate job of evaluating different perspectives and
The concept of construal helps us understand what motivates human behaviors, and it shows us the variation in comprehension of the social world. It also brings to light the importance of situational influence and subjective properties, which, in turn, helps us understand the fundamental attribution error, or the tendency to explain behaviors in terms of personality traits instead of situational.
Attribution theory explains people motives by giving an option of disposition or situation, of which we decipher the motive to a behavior. The fundamental attribution error is the tendency to link behaviors with personal characteristics, therefore if someone is murdered a suspect could be someone who really hates them because it gives them a motive. We can characterize a dispositional situation from a situational and come to a conclusion on why someone had a such behavior, and it helps to find a motive based on that. We can infer a motive from a behavior from things like external and internal attributions, so internal traits and responses to things.
...ation, and Attribution Style Among College Students." Individual Differences Research 11.2 (2013): 59-69. Academic Search Complete. Web. 31 Oct. 2013.
Myers, David G. “Chapter 14: Social Psychology.” Psychology. 10th ed. New York, NY US: Worth
This psychology in a film project analyzes abnormal behavior and the psychological concepts that explain what they are and where they come from. In seeking to understand the components of a personality, theorists established many perspectives on what contributes the most to abnormal human behavior. Specifically, two such concepts, explored in this study, are the cognitive affective processing system (CAPS) and attribution theory. As well, this report considers evolutionary and biological approaches to personality. Consequently, research has discovered that they both have commonality in the way they are viewed, where personality comes from: “suggest that important components of personality are inherited (R. S. Feldman, 2013, p. 448).”
Sullivan, M. J., Tripp, D. A., & Catano, V. (1997). The contributions of attributional style, expectancies, depression and self-esteem in a cognition-based depression model. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 29(2), 101. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/220514335?accountid=32521
Fundamental Attribution Error is one of the social psychology theories. This error explains the inappropriate judgment of other individuals (Wortman & Loftus, 1992). People would rather describe behavior of others according to their internal force without thinking about external reasons. Usually, people do not know many factors, which can affect someone and they would like to make a conclusion based on stereotypes or other experiences before. There are might be two phases of Fundamental Attribution Error. The first one is to make quick reasoning about someone’s behavior based on his or her personality. If the person sees a mistake in judgment, he or she can go the next level of analyze. The second phase is to understand deeper and more accurate the reasons for behavior of others. Because of this time taking process people do not consider the second phase as necessity.
For many years, psychologist argued about the roots of the fundamental attribution error. They conclude that the fundamental attribution error
Sollod, R., Wilson J., & Monte C. (2009.). Beneath the mask: An introduction to theories of personality (8th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Two psychological theories used for explaining behavior are behaviorism and social learning theory. Although the two both deal with behavior, they focus on slightly unalike components in their efforts to explain why people act the way they do. Behaviorism and social learning theory have convincing sources of support so there is no well-defined response to which one does a superior job at explaining behavior.
Attribution theory suggests that when we observe an individual's behavior, we attempt to determine whether it was internally or externally caused. That determination depends largely on three factors: distinctiveness, consensus, and consistency. Our perceptions of people differ from our perceptions of inanimate objects.
This study is aimed to test linkages between the reciprocal relationship between self-control depletion and stressful encounters has many implications. For example, self-control depletion may in part explain individuals’ relative vulnerability to stressful events; this knowledge may be useful in helping people learn to avoid stressful encounters in the future by bolstering their self-control resources. Individuals may copy with stress differently, the ones that can manage it have less stressful moments.
We tend to describe and assess the personalities of the people around us on an everyday basis. While our informal assessments of personality tend to focus more on individuals, personality psychologists instead use ideas of personality that can apply to everyone. Personality research has led to the development of a number of theories such as: Erikson with ‘Ego Psychology’, developing the eight stages of ‘Ego strength’, Freud with ‘Psychoanalytical ideology’, developing ‘defense mechanisms’, and Horney with ‘Neurosis’ developing ‘The Etiology of Neuroses in the family.’ These theories like many other help explain how and why certain personality traits develop.
Feist, J., & Feist, G. J. (2009). Theories of Personality, Seventh Edition. Retrieved from http://ecampus.phoenix.edu/content/eBook