Programming Common Sense: Analytic Consequences of Heider's Naive Analysis of Action

Abstract

Following recent claims in social psychology, it is suggested that many hypotheses in the discipline do not lend themselves to empirical investigation. Certain studies in attribution theory are particularly vulnerable to this criticism. From this perspective, it is claimed that Heider's naive analysis of action should be taken as an a priori explication of common sense accounting practices, rather than as a basis for experimental study. A computer model, NANA CT, of the naive analysis of action is presented and this is used to demonstrate that several attribution theory results follow logically from Heider's analysis. It is argued that analytic investigation into such a system is preferable to the empirical investigation currently fashionable. Furthermore, the increasing availability of computers and modeling software means there is now an appropriate representational technology within which to carry out such investigations.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

BLAKAR, R. M. Psychopathology and familial communication. In M. Brenner (Ed.), The structure of action. Oxford: Basil Blackwell , 1980.

BLAKAR, R. M. Familial communication: A framework for understanding deviant behaviour and psychopathology . Paper presented to the British Psychological Society (Social Section) conference, Oxford, 1981.

BODEN, M. A. Artificial intelligence and natural man. Hassocks: Harvester Press , 1977.

BOND, M. H. LEUNG, K. , & WAN, K. The social impact of self-effacing attribution: The Chinese case . Journal of Social Psychology, 1982, 118, 157-166 .

BURTON, A. M. Investigations into the relationship between empirical and non-empirical hypotheses in social psychology. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Nottingham, 1983.

FRIEZE, I. H. The role of information processing in making causal attributions for success and failure. In J. S. Carrol & J. W. Payne (Eds.), Cognition and social behaviour. Hillsdale, N. J.: Erlbaum Press , 1976.

FRIEZE, I. H. , & WEINER, B. Cue utilisation and attributional judgments for success and failure . Journal of Personality, 1971, 39, 591-606 .

GERGEN, K. J. Toward transformation in social knowledge. New York: Springer-Verlag , 1982.

HEIDER, F. The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: John Wiley and Sons , 1958.

10.

JONES, E. E. , & HARRIS, V. A. The attribution of attitudes . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1967, 3, 1-24 .

11.

JONES, E. E. , DAVIS, K. E. , & GERGEN, K. J. Role playing variations and their informational value for person perception . Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1961, 63, 302-310 .

12.

KELLEY, H. H. Attribution in social interaction. In E. E. Jones , D. E. Kanouse , H. H. Kelley , R. E. Nisbett , S. Valins , B. Weiner , (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the Causes of Behaviour. Morristown, N. J.: General Learning Press , 1971.

13.

KELLEY, H. H. , & MICHELA, J. L. Attribution theory and research . Annual review of Psychology, 1980, 31, 457-501 .

14.

LAING, R. D. , & ESTERTON, A. Sanity, madness and the family. London: Tavistock Publications , 1964.

15.

McARTHUR, L. A. The how and what of why: Some determinants and consequences of causal attribution . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1972, 22, 171-193 .

16.

ORVIS, B. R. , CUNNINGHAM, J. D. , & KELLEY, H. H. A closer examination of causal inference: The role of consensus, distinctiveness and consistency information . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 32, 605-616 .

17.

OSSORIO, P. G. Never smile at a crocodile . Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 1973, 3, 121-140 .

18.

OSSORIO, P. G. Conceptual-notational devices. In K. E. Davis (Ed.), Advances in descriptive psychology (Vol. 1). Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press , 1981. (a)

19.

OSSORIO, P. G. Notes on behaviour description. In K. E. Davis (Ed.), Advances in descriptive psychology (Vol. 1). Connecticut: JAI Press , 1981. (b)

20.

POPPER, K. Objective knowledge, an evolutionary approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press , 1972.

21.

ROSS, L. The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10). New York: Academic Press , 1977.

22.

SHOTTER, J. D. Telling and reporting: Prospective and retrospective uses of self-ascriptions. In C. Antaki (Ed.), The psychology of ordinary explanations of social behaviour. London: Academic Press , 1981.

23.

SHOTTER, J. D. , & BURTON, A. M. Common sense accounts of human action: The descriptive formulations of Heider, Smedslund and Ossorio. In L. Wheeler & P. Shaver (Eds.), Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 4). London: Sage , 1983.

24.

SMEDSLUND, J. Bandura's theory of self-efficacy . Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 1978, 19, 1-14 .

25.

SMEDSLUND, J. Between the analytic and the arbitrary: A case study of psychological research . Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 1979, 20, 129 .

26.

SMEDSLUND, J. Analysing the primary code: From empiricism to a priorism. In D. R. Olson (Ed.), The social foundations of language and thought. New York: W. W. Norton & Co. , 1980.

27.

SMEDSLUND, J. The logic of psychological thought . Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 1981, 22, 65-77 .

28.

SUMPTON, R. , & GREGSON, M. The fundamental attribution error: An investigation of sensitivity to role-conferred advantages in self-presentation . British Journal of Social Psychology, 1981, 20, 7-11 .

29.

WEINER, B. Human motivation. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston , 1980.

30.

WEINER, B. , & KUKLA, A. An attributional analysis of achievement motivation . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1970, 15, 1-20 .