Attitudes toward aging obtained in the National Council on Aging national attitude survey are examined in light of recent developments in attributional theory. A specific principle drawn from each of the three major attribution theories is applied to findings from the survey. It is argued that (a) mandatory retirement policies may be attributionally preferable to retirement based on demonstrated incompetence, (b) opinions of older people are shaped by attributions made to the role, and (c) the attributional focus of the helping professions may perpetuate the negative view of aging. Suggestions are made for research on aging.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
National Council on the Aging, Inc., The Myth and Reality of Aging in America, conducted by Louis Harris and Associates, Inc., Washington, D.C., 1975.
2.
JonesE. E.KanouseD. E.KelleyH. H.NisbettR. E.ValinsS. and WeinerB., (eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the Causes of Behavior, General Learning Press, Morristown, N.J., 1972.
3.
ShaverK. G., An Introduction to Attribution Processes, Winthrop, Cambridge, Mass., 1975.
4.
HeiderF., The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations, Wiley, New York, 1958.
5.
WeinerB., Achievement Motivation and Attribution Theory, General Learning Press, Morristown, N.J., 1974.
6.
McArthurL., The How and The What of Why: Some Determinants and Consequences of Causal Attribution, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 22, pp. 171–193, 1972.
7.
ShaverK. G., Defensive Attribution: Effects of Severity and Relevance on the Responsibility Assigned for an Accident, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 14, pp. 101–113, 1970.
8.
ShawM. E. and SulzerJ. L., An Empirical Test of Heider's Levels in Attribution of Responsibility, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 69, pp. 39–46, 1964.
9.
WalsterE. H., Assignment of Responsibility for an Accident, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, pp. 73–79, 1966.
10.
JonesE. E.RockL.ShaverK. G.GoethalsG. R. and WardL. M., Pattern of Performance and Ability Attribution: An Unexpected Primacy Effect, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10, pp. 317–340, 1968.
11.
ThompsonD. D., Attributions of Ability from Patterns of Performance Under Competitive and Cooperative Conditions, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 23, pp. 302–308, 1972.
12.
JonesE. E. and HarrisV. A., The Attribution of Attitudes, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 3, pp. 1–24, 1967.
13.
SnyderM. and JonesE. E., Attitude Attribution When Behavior is Constrained, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, pp. 585–800, 1974.
14.
NisbettR. E. and ValinsS., Perceiving the Causes of One's Own Behavior, Attribution: Perceiving the Causes of Behavior, JonesE. E.KanouseD. E.KelleyH. H.NisbettR. E.ValinsS. and WeinerB., (eds.), General Learning Press, Morristown, N.J., pp. 63–78, 1972.
15.
StormsM. D. and NisbettR. E., Insomnia and the Attribution Process, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16, pp. 319–328, 1970.
16.
ValinsS., The Perception and Labeling of Bodily Changes as Determinants of Emotional Behavior, Physiological Correlates of Emotion, BlackP., (ed.), Academic Press, N.Y., pp. 229–243, 1970.
17.
JonesE. E. and DavisK. E., From Acts to Dispositions: The Attribution Process in Person Perception, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, BerkowitzL., (ed.), Academic Press, N.Y., 2, pp. 219–266, 1965.
18.
KelleyH. H., Attribution Theory in Social Psychology, Nebraska Symposium on Motivation 1967, LevineD., (ed.), University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, Neb., pp. 192–238, 1967.
19.
KelleyH. H., The Process of Causal Attribution, American Psychologist, 28, pp. 107–128, 1973.
20.
WalsterE. H., “Second-Guessing” Important Events, Human Relations, 20, pp. 239–250, 1967.
21.
LernerM. J., The Desire for Justice and Reactions to Victims, Altruism and Helping Behavior, MacaulayJ. R. and BerkowitzL., (eds.), Academic Press, New York, pp. 205–229, 1970.
22.
LernerM. J. and MatthewsG., Reactions to the Suffering of Others Under Conditions of Indirect Responsibility, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5, pp. 319–325, 1967.
23.
LernerM. J. and SimmonsC. H., Observers' Reaction to the “Innocent Victim”: Compassion or Rejection?, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, pp. 203–210, 1966.
24.
NovakD. and LernerM. J., Rejection as a Consequence of Perceived Similarity, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, pp. 147–152, 1968.
25.
ShaverK. G., Intentional Ambiguity in the Attribution of Responsibility: A Reply to Fishbein and Ajzen, College of William and Mary, unpublished manuscript, 1973.
26.
ShaverK. G.TurnbullA. A. and SterlingM. P., Defensive Attribution: The Effects of Occupational Danger and Locus of Control; Perceiver Sex and Self-Esteem, JSAS Catalog of Selected Douments in Psychology, 3, p. 48, 1973.
27.
CalderB. J., Informational Cues and Attributions Based on Role Behavior, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10, pp. 121–125, 1974.
28.
JonesE. E.DavisK. E. and GergenK. J., Role Playing Variations and Their Informational Value for Person Perception, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63, pp. 302–310, 1961.
29.
MessickD. M. and ReederG. D., Roles, Occupations, Behaviors, and Attributions, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10, pp. 126–132, 1974.
30.
TropeY. and BurnsteinE., Processing the Information Contained in Another's Behavior, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 11, pp. 439–458, 1975.
