Actor and observer attributions in a multitrait-multimethod matrix

Herzberger, Sharon D.; Clore, Gerald L.

doi:10.1016/0092-6566(79)90036-9

Cited by 29 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The convergent validity problem. Herzberger and Clore (1979) found lack of convergence among various measures of personal and situational attribution, a finding repeated and extended by Miller et al (1981, Study 1). According to Miller et al, these results indicated that "many subjects do not think about dispositional and situational causality as theorists expect" (p. 86).…”

mentioning

confidence: 49%

“…One would not expect two measures to show convergence if one measures attributions of internal or external reasons and the other measures internal or external deterministic causes. Measures that take account of this distinction, and capture the same side of it, should show higher convergent validity than those used by Herzberger and Clore (1979).…”

Section: Discussion Of Both Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Ambiguity in the internal/external distinction in causal attribution

White

1991

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

mentioning

confidence: 49%

Section: Discussion Of Both Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ambiguity in the internal/external distinction in causal attribution

White

1991

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…As Watson (1982) noted, the generally inconclusive results in the actor-observer literature may be due to the fairly low level of reliability and construct validity that characterize the dispositional-situational forced-choice explanatory format (cf. Herzberger & Clore, 1979;Miller et al, 1981). In addition, dispositional and situational attributions do not vary inversely as has been presumed (Solomon, 1978;Taylor & Koivumaki, 1976).…”

Section: Methodological Limitations Of Previous Researchmentioning

confidence: 75%

A Naturalistic Test of Two Fundamental Propositions: Correspondence Bias and the Actor‐Observer Hypothesis

Lewis¹

1995

Journal of Personality

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research examines factors which influence the layexplainer in everyday life. Correspondence bias (cf. Gilbert & Joties, 1986) and Jones and Nisbett's (1971) actor-observer hypothesis are reviewed. Descriptions and explanations of behavior were obtained in everyday life via experience sampling. Traits as explanations were accessed minimally. The only significant difference between actor and observer was that actors used the person explanation more than observers did. Whether actor or observer, situational explanations were preferred most, then person, and finally purpose. Actions were explained significantly more by purpose and somewhat less by situation than were emotions. Reasons for such findings are discussed, along with the importance of description (e.g., an action-emotion descriptive con-The research reported herein is based partly on a doctoral dissertation submitted to the Department of Behavioral Sciences. Committee on Human Development.

show abstract

“…There have been a number of studies that have used the MTMM approach to examine the validity of multiple methods of eliciting causal attributions (Elig & Frieze, 1979;Herzberger & Clore, 1979;Howard, 1987;Lichtenstein & Bearden, 1986). In general, little evidence for convergent and discriminant validity of measures has been found, except in one study which compared responses to two questionnaire-based measures (Howard, 1987).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

How valid are measures of beliefs about the causes of illness? The example of myocardial infarction

French¹,

Marteau²,

Senior³

et al. 2005

Psychology & Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Multi-Trait Multi-Method (MTMM) studies of causal attributions for laboratory events, there is little evidence of convergent and discriminant validity for attribution measures. We report the first MTMM study to investigate the validity of two methods of eliciting causal beliefs for an illness, specifically, myocardial infarction. Adult respondents (N = 107) listed causes of MI, then completed questionnaire rating scales for causal beliefs for MI. Measures were compared using both Campbell and Fiske's approach to MTMM. analyses, and a Confirmatory Factor Analysis approach. Neither single item measures causal beliefs, nor scales of causal beliefs derived using exploratory factor analysis provided much evidence of convergent and discriminant validity. Confirmatory factor analysis showed that a model containing only causal belief factors provided a moderately good fit to the data. Adding a questionnaire method factor significantly improved the fit of the model, as well as substantially changing the pattern of factor loadings: loadings of questionnaire items on causal belief factors were markedly reduced. These results highlight major problems with the measurement of causal beliefs, and in particular question the validity of factor analysis of questionnaire measures of causal beliefs. They also suggest that at least some of the MI causal belief factors reported in the literature are artefacts of common questionnaire method variance

show abstract

Actor and observer attributions in a multitrait-multimethod matrix

Cited by 29 publications

References 10 publications

Ambiguity in the internal/external distinction in causal attribution

Ambiguity in the internal/external distinction in causal attribution

A Naturalistic Test of Two Fundamental Propositions: Correspondence Bias and the Actor‐Observer Hypothesis

How valid are measures of beliefs about the causes of illness? The example of myocardial infarction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About