Differentiating explanations of attitude-consistent behavior: The role of perspectives and mode of perspective taking

Scandinavian Journal of Psychology

Volumn 46, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 97-106

  Dimdins, Girts ^a   Montgomery, Henry ^a   Austers, Ivars ^b  

^a STOCKHOLM UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LATVIA   (Latvia)

Author keywords

Causal explanation; False polarization; Perspective taking; Shared reality

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; LATVIA; MALE; PERCEPTION; POLITICS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY;

ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ATTITUDE; FEMALE; HUMANS; LATVIA; MALE; POLITICS; PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; SOCIAL IDENTIFICATION; SOCIAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 15744369515     PISSN: 00365564     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9450.2005.00440.x     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Abrams, D., Wetherell, M., Cochrane, S., Hogg, M. A. & Turner, J. C. (2001). Knowing what to think by knowing who you are: Selfcategorization and the nature of norm formation, conformity and group polarization. In M. A. Hogg & D. Abrams (Eds.), Intergroup relations: Essential readings (pp. 270-288). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
2. Austers, I. (2002). Ability to take an out-group's perspective in explaining positive and negative behaviors. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 43, 407-412.
3. Austers, I. & Montgomery, H. (2001). Explaining an out-group's 'political behavior from four different perspectives. Journal of Baltic Psychology, 2, 23-33.
4. Billig, M. (1991). Ideology and opinions. London: Sage.
5. Dawes, R. M., Singer, D. & Lemons, F. (1972). The contrast effect and its implications for intergroup communication and the indirect assessment of attitude. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 21, 281-295.
6. Dimdins, G., Montgomery, H. & Austers, I. (2003a). The false polarization effect in explanations of attitudinal behavior. Current Research in Social Psychology, 8, 275-301.
7. Dimdins, G., Montgomery, H. & Austers, I. (2003b). False polarization when imagining others' explanations of attitudinal behavior. Manuscript submitted for publication.
8. Gilovich, T. & Eibach, R. (2001). The fundamental attribution error where it really counts. Psychological Inquiry, 12, 23-26.
9. Hardin, C. D. & Higgins, E. T. (1996). Shared reality: How social verification makes the subjective objective. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins, (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition. (Vol. 3, pp. 28-84). New York: The Guilford.
10. Hewstone, M. (1989) Causal attribution: From cognitive processes to collective beliefs. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
11. Hewstone, M. (1990). The "ultimate attribution error"? A review of the literature on intergroup causal attribution. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 311-335.
12. Kellner, D. & Robinson, R. J. (1997). Defending the status quo: Power and bias in social conflict. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1066-1077.
13. Kemdal, A. B. & Montgomery, H. (2000). Seeing it from the other side: Perspectives and attitudes towards animal experimentation. Unpublished manuscript, Stockholm University.
14. Kemdal, A. B. & Montgomery, H. (2001). Explaining own and others' behavior in a controversial issue: Animal experimentation. Journal of Social Psychology, 141, 693-713.
15. Kenworthy, J. B. & Miller, N. (2002). Attributional biases about the origins of attitudes: Externality, emotionality, and rationality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 693-707.
16. Kray, L. J., Robinson, R. J. (2001). Partisanship and the status quo. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 321-335.
17. Kruger, J. & Gilovich, T. (1999). "Naïve cynicism" in everyday theories of responsibility assessment: On biased assumptions of bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 309-326.
18. Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480-498.
19. Malle, B. F. (1999). How people explain behavior: A new theoretical framework. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 23-48.
20. Malle, B. F. (2000). F. Ex: A coding scheme for folk explanations of behavior ( Version 4.0) [On-line]. Retrieved December 17, 2002, from: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~interact/fex.html
21. Malle, B. F., Knobe, J., O'Laughlin, M. J., Pearce, G. E. & Nelson, S. E. (2000). Conceptual structure and social functions of behavior explanations: Beyond person-situation attributions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 309-326.
22. Miller, D. T., Monin, B. & Prentice, D. A. (2000). Pluralistic ignorance and inconsistency between private attitudes and public behaviors. In D. J. Terry & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Attitudes, behavior, and social context: The role of norms and group membership (pp. 95-113). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
23. Prentice, D. A. & Miller, D. T. (1996). Pluralistic ignorance and the perpetuation of social norms by unwitting actors. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 28, pp. 161-209). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
24. Pronin, E., Gilovich, T. & Ross, L. (in press). Objectivity in the eye of the beholder: Divergent perceptions of bias in self versus others. Psychological Review.
25. Pronin, E., Lin, D. Y. & Ross, L. (2002). The bias blind spot: Perceptions of bias in self versus others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 369-381.
26. Pronin, E., Puccio, C. & Ross, L. (2002). Understanding misunderstanding: Social psychological perspectives. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin & D. Kahnemen (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgement (pp. 636-665). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
27. Robinson, R. J., Keltner, D., Ward, A. & Ross, L. (1995). Actual versus assumed differences in construal: "Naïve realism" in intergroup perception and conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 404-417.
28. Ross, L. (2001). Getting down to fundamentals: Lay dispositionism and the attributions of psychologists. Psychological Inquiry, 12, 37-40.
29. Ross, L. & Ward, A. (1996). Naive realism in everyday life: Implications for social conflict and misunderstanding. In T. Brown, E. Reed & E. Turiel (Eds.), Values and knowledge (pp. 103-135). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
30. Rouhana, N. N., O'Dwyer, A., Morrison Vaso, S. K. (1997). Cognitive biases and political party affiliation in intergroup conflict. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 37-57.
31. Sabini, J., Siepmann, M. & Stein, J. (2001). The really fundamental attribution error in social psychological research. Psychological Inquiry, 12, 1-15.
32. Tajfel, H. (1978). Social categorization, social identity and social comparison. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 61-76) London: Academic Press.
33. Turner, J. C. (1991). Social influence. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.