Talk:Attribution (psychology)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Psychology (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

What exactly does the causal uncertainty section add to the article? It doesn't seem relevent.Cablemming (talk) 23:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


I don't know to what the references are referencing. I can see a last name and the publication year, like one could find in a publication. However, there doesn't seem to be any universal list of proper citations. Is there a source-list? Thekappen (talk) 04:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Previously Dataless Sections[edit]

The following were a set of other attributions that were listed as headers but possessed not content. They have been moved here until someone can provide actual data to make the headers useful.

"===Explanatory attribution===

Predictive attribution[edit]

===Interpersonal attribution===" Travza (talk) 01:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Spotlight effect error[edit]

I don't see what this has to do with attribution, so I've moved it to here for now.

The spotlight effect error is the tendency of an individual to overestimate the extent to which others are paying attention to the individual's appearance and behavior. That is, people believe that they are in the “spotlight” and that everyone is paying attention to them, as when a person drops a cup in a restaurant and gets embarrassed, believing that everyone has seen it. “The Barry Manilow t-shirt experiment” demonstrates the spotlight effect. Students got self-conscious when they were required to wear a t-shirt with an unpopular picture to classes. The students believed more than 50 percent of their classmates would notice their shirts and judge them, when in fact fewer than 20 percent even noticed the t-shirt.[1]

Malleus Fatuorum 22:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Who? What who? Why? How so?[edit]

The term "you" ("you will always want to present yourself in the most positive light") should not be annotated with a "[who]?" when it's part of a hypothetical. I'm explaining interest: "You have $10.00 in the bank. A year later you have $10.30. This means you earned 3% interest." In such a narrative it doesn't have to be a real "you-who", and I don't have to provide a footnote citing my evidence that you (or someone to whom the word "you" refers) does in fact have $10.03 in the bank year after having had only $10.00 a year earler. It's an illustration. An example. "You" is not a REAL account-holder. The "[who]" and "[citation needed]"s are uncalled-for. Maybe, instead, suggest that "if" or "suppose that" precede some of the language in hyptheticals used for illustration. (talk) 05:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson69.86.131.90 (talk) 05:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Basic Types of Attribution; Fundamental Attribution Error[edit]


there's something I don't understand because the sources are not clearly given: Why are explanatory and interpersonal attribution listed as the two basic types of attribution? It seems Fritz Heider, as is explained in the article, actually identified personal (or dispositional) and situational attributions as the two basic kinds of attribution. This is information I found in "Psychology: A Student's Handbook" by M. W. Eysenck. So why explanatory and interpersonal attribution? Their explanation also seems somewhat thin to me. Plus, the dispositional attribution is listed under the bias and errors section, when actually it is already explained by the fundamental attribution error (it says people tend to overestimate personal reasons and underestimate situational ones). I feel this contributes to the questionable quality of the article.

I suggest listing dispositional and situational attributions as basic types of attribution, explain them properly and leave out "explanatory" and "interpersonal" unless they are meaningfully sourced. Consequently, dispositional attribution should not be listed under the bias and error section, as the pertaining fault in attribution is explained already by the paragraph on the fundamental attribution error. (talk) 14:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ Gilovich, Savitsky, Medvec. “The Spotlight Effect in Social Judgment”.American Psychological Association, Inc.2000