Trait ascription studies have employed a number of response formats, varying the number of possible trait responses given on situation response. The proportion of trait responding that would occur with random responding matches closely the trait-responding frequency of actual subjects. It is hypothesized that subjects are conforming to demands implicit in the response format. This hypothesis was tested in a study that varied the number of both trait and situation options. Results showed significant effects of both manipulations, and trait responding was in all cases close to chance expectancy. It is concluded that the absolute frequencies of trait ascription in these studies are attributable to the methods used, and that no inferences can be drawn from them about natural tendencies in trait ascription frequency. The present results do not, however, call into question the validity of self/other differences in trait ascription.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Funder, D. C. (1980). The "trait" of ascribing traits: Individual differences in the tendency to trait ascription. Journal of Research in Personality, 14, 376-385.
2.
Goldberg, L. R. (1978). Differential attribution of trait-descriptive terms to oneself as compared to well-liked, neutral, and disliked others: A psychometric analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1012-1028.
3.
Goldberg, L. R. (1981). Unconfounding situational attributions from uncertain, neutral and ambiguous ones: A psychometric analysis of descriptions of oneself and various types of others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 517-552.
4.
Herzberger, S. D. , & Clore, G. L. (1979). Actor-observer attributions in a multitrait-multimethod matrix. Journal of Research in Personality, 13, 1-15.
5.
Kerber, K. W. , & Singleton, R., Jr. (1984a). Effects of role dominance on trait and situation attributions. Journal of Social Psychology, 122, 59-66.
6.
Kerber, K. W. , & Singleton, R., Jr. (1984b). Trait and situational attributions in a naturalistic setting: Familiarity, liking, and attributional validity. Journal of Personality, 52, 205-219.
7.
Lenauer, M. , Sameth, L., & Shaver, P. (1976). Looking back at oneself in time: Another approach to the actor-observer phenomenon. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 43, 1283-1287.
8.
Lord, C. G. (1980). Schemas and images as processing aids: Two modes of processing social information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 257-269.
9.
Miller, F. D. , Smith, E. R., & Uleman, J. (1981). Measurement and interpretation of situational and dispositional attributions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 17, 80-95.
10.
Nisbett, R. E. , Caputo, C., Legant, P., & Maracek, J. (1973). Behavior as seen by the actor and as seen by the observer. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27, 154-165.
11.
Watson, D. (1982). The actor and the observer: How are their perceptions of causality divergent? Psychological Bulletin, 92, 682-700.
