The authors develop a social psychological model, the attributional consistency model, in order to describe the attributions individuals make to explain the activity of groups. The model is then used to suggest how policy makers determine the causes of the action taken by nations in conflict. As an empirical test of the theory, observations on the Middle East conflict made by those who were associated in one of several ways with either Israel or the Arab nations were examined. An argument detailing the value of the model in studying the dynamics of international conflict is also presented.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
CHRISTIANSEN, B. (1959) Attitudes Towards Foreign Affairs as a Function of Personality. Oslo: Oslo Univ. Press.
2.
FESTINGER, L. (1957) A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford Univ. Press.
3.
GEORGE, A. L. (1972) “The case for multiple advocacy in making foreign policy.”Amer. Pol. Sci. Rev.66 (September): 751–785.
4.
GLADSTONE, A. (1959) “The conception of the enemy.”J. of Conflict Resolution3: 132–137.
5.
HARKABI, Y. (1966) Nuclear War and Nuclear Peace. Jerusalem: Israeli Scientific Translations Society.
6.
HEIDER, F. (1958) The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York: John Wiley.
7.
HOLSTI, O. (1968). “Cognitive dynamics and images of the enemy, ” In J. Farrell and A. P. Smith (eds.) Image and Reality in World Politics. New York: Columbia Univ. Press.
8.
JANIS, I. (1972) Victims of Groupthink. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
9.
JERVIS, R. (1968) “Hypotheses on misperception.”World Politics20 (April): 454–479.
10.
JONES, E. E. and R. NISBETT (1972). “The actor and observer divergent perceptions on the causes of behaviour, ” In E. E. Jones, D. Kanouse, H. Kelley, R. Nisbett, R. Valins, and B. Weiner (eds.) Attribution: Perceiving the Causes of Behavior. Morristown, N.J.: General Learning Press.
11.
KELMAN, H. [ed.] (1965) International Behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
12.
LAQUEUR, W. (1974) Confrontation: The Middle East and World Politics. New York: Bantam.
13.
McARTHUR, L. A. (1972) “The how and what of why: some determinants and consequences of causal attribution.”J. of Personality and Social Psychology22: 171–193.
14.
MILLER, D. T. and M. ROSS (1975) “Self-serving biases in the attribution of causality: fact or fiction?”Psych. Bull.82: 213–225.
15.
NISBETT, R. W., C. CAPUTO, P. LEGANT, and J. MARECEK (1973) “Behaviour as seen by the actor and as seen by the observer.”J. of Personality and Social Psychology27: 154–164.
16.
POOL, I. S. and A. KESLER (1969). “The Kaiser, the Tsar, and the computer information processing in crises, ” In J. Rosenau (ed.) International Politics and Foreign Policy. New York: Free Press.
17.
REGAN, D. T. and J. TOTTEN (1975) “Empathy and attribution: turning observers into actors.”J. of Personality and Social Psychology32: 850–856.
18.
SCHELLING, T. C. (1966) Arms and Influence. New Haven, Conn.: Yale Univ. Press.
19.
STAGNER, R. (1961) “Personality dynamics and social conflict.”J. of Social Issues3: 28–45.
20.
STORMS, M. D. (1973) “Videotape and the attribution process: reversing the perspective of actors and observers.”J. of Personality and Social Psychology27: 165–175.
21.
TAYLOR, S. E. and S. FISKE (1975) “Point of view and perceptions of causality.”J. of Personality and Social Psychology32: 439–445.
22.
TAYLOR, S. E. and J. KOIVUMAKI (1975) “Acquaintanceship, affect and actor observer differences.”J. of Personality and Social Psychology33: 403–408.
23.
WHITE, R. K. (1966) “Misperception and the Vietnam war.”J. of Social Issues22 (July): 1–156.
24.
WHITE, R. K. (1965). “Images in the context of international conflict, ” In H. Kelman (ed.) International Behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
25.
WOHLSTETTER, R. (1967) Pearl Harbor: Warning and Decision. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford Univ. Press.
