University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

How casual attribution influences behavioral actions taken by self-aware individuals

(USC Thesis Other)

How casual attribution influences behavioral actions taken by self-aware individuals

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content HOW CAUSAL ATTRIBUTION INFLUENCES BEHAVIORAL
ACTIONS TAKEN BY SELF-AWARE INDIVIDUALS
by
Neal Lalwani
A Thesis Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF ARTS
{Psychology)
December 1994
Copyright 1994 Neal Lalwani
UNIVERSITY O F SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY PARK
LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 0 0 0 0 7
This thesis, written by
________________________
under the direction of h.±s.....Thesis Com m ittee,
and approved by all its members, has been p re
sented to and accepted by the D ean of The
G raduate School, in partial fulfillm ent of the
requirements fo r the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
— C ,
Dtan
D a te November 29* 1994
Mm^ Ur* w *a a a a a mm a
THESIS COMMITTEE
Chairman
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES iii
ABSTRACT iv
INTRODUCTION 1
METHOD 19
Subjects 19
Procedure 2 0
Camera manipulation 22
Focus on self/focus on 23
standard manipulation
Dependent measures 2 5
RESULTS 2 6
DISCUSSION 34
REFERENCES
45
iii
LIST OF TABLES
Table
1 Means and Standard Deviations for
Perceived Fairness of the Standard
2 Means and Standard Deviations for
Desire to Change the Standard
Page
28
30
3 Means and Standard Deviations for
Performance Change Across
Trials 1 and 2
33
iv
Abstract
Objective self-awareness theory (Duval & Wicklund,
1972) asserts that individuals made self-aware by
external stimuli become aware of existing self/standard
discrepancies and engage in behaviors to alleviate the
negative affect generated by those discrepancies.
According to the original theory, self-aware
individuals reduce negative affect generated by
self/standard discrepancies by engaging in one of two
possible behaviors: 1) bringing self to match the
standard or 2) directing attention away from self. In
more recent work, Duval, Dana & Duval (1986) have
suggested that self-aware individuals can also reduce
self/standard discrepancies by changing standards to
match self. If self-aware individuals locate the source
of any self/standard discrepancy in self, attempts to
change self will occur. If self-aware individuals
locate the source of any self/standard discrepancy in
the standard, attempts to change the standard will
occur.
To test these predictions, we devised a study
examining how attributional processes influence the
self/standard comparison system and the behavior of
self-evaluating individuals. Focus of attention (on
self or standard) was manipulated and performance on a
prose copying task was measured before and after the
focus of attention manipulation. In addition, attitudes
toward the standard were assessed after subjects
performed the task for the second trial. As predicted,
we found that self-aware subjects who focused attention
on the standard perceived the standard as more unfair
and expressed a greater desire to make the standard
easier than self-aware subjects who focused attention
on self. In addition, we found that self-aware subjects
who focused attention on self improved in performance
across trials whereas self-aware subjects who focused
attention on the standard did not. These findings
strongly support the contention that attributional
processes predictably mediate the behavioral actions
taken by persons experiencing increased self-awareness.
1
How Causal Attribution Influences Behavioral Actions
Taken By Self-Aware Individuals
Objective self-awareness theory posits that
certain stimuli in the external world increase the
extent to which self is perceived as an object (Duval &
Wicklund, 1972). Stimuli such as mirrors, video
cameras, and audiences have the propensity to make self
novel in relation to other objects in the field and
thus may increase the extent to which attention is
focused on the object self. When self-focus is
increased by external stimuli, awareness of existing
discrepancies between self and standards also
increases.
Standards are mental representations that
stipulate where self "ought" to be (or "ought" not to
be) and what self "ought" to be doing (or "ought" not
to be doing). Awareness of any discrepancy between self
and standard generates negative affect. As the degree
of discrepancy between self and standard increases, so
does the negative affect the individual experiences.
The presence of negative affect motivates the
individual to engage in behaviors that will reduce or
eliminate this aversive feeling.
Self-awareness theory suggests that the individual
can reduce the negative affect by 1) moving self in the
2
direction of the standard or 2) directing attention
away from self. If the individual chooses to move self
in the direction of the standard, he or she will behave
such that self will be moved where it "ought” to be. If
the individual chooses to direct attention away from
self, he or she will no longer feel as cognizant of
existing discrepancies between self and standard. In
the former case, the individual has chosen to approach
the situation; in .the latter case, the individual has
chosen to avoid the situation.
Duval & Wicklund (1972) did not specify
circumstances under which individuals would be more or
less likely to engage in the two postulated behaviors.
Carver & Scheier (1982) predicted that under conditions
of favorable outcome expectancy, individuals made self-
aware would engage in approach behaviors whereas under
conditions of unfavorable outcome expectancy,
individuals made self-aware would engage in avoidance
behaviors. According to Carver & Scheier (1982),
outcome expectancies refer to assessments of the
likelihood that standards will be met. Favorable
outcome expectancies are associated with an increased
likelihood of meeting standards; conversely,
unfavorable outcome expectancies are associated with a
decreased likelihood of meeting standards.
3
To test the hypothesis that the combination of
high self-focus and favorable outcome expectancy would
predict approach behaviors and that the combination of
high self-focus and unfavorable outcome expectancy
would predict avoidance behaviors, Carver & Scheier had
subjects perform maze tasks in the presence (high self
focus) or absence (low self-focus) of a mirror.
Subjects were then given failure feedback regarding
their performance on the set of maze tasks.
Subjects in the favorable outcome expectancy
condition were told that their poor performance was
predictive of good performance in a follow-up trial.
Subjects in the unfavorable outcome expectancy
condition were told that their poor performance was
predictive of poor performance in a follow-up trial. As
predicted, subjects in the favorable outcome expectancy
condition performed better on the follow-up trial than
subjects in the unfavorable outcome expectancy
condition. In other words, subjects in the favorable
outcome expectancy condition excelled in performance
(moved self in the direction of standard), whereas
subjects in the unfavorable outcome expectancy
condition did not excel in performance (avoided the
situation). Subjects who were not made self-aware did
not differ in performance as a function of expectancy.
4
More recently, Duval, Duval & Mulilis (1992) have
identified variables that delineate the circumstances
under which individuals approach and avoid situations.
More precisely, they have tried to identify the
processes that underlie an individual's decision to
bring self and standard to match or to direct attention
away from self. Duval, Duval & Mulilis (19 92)
hypothesized that assessments regarding the rate of
progress toward reducing the discrepancy between self
and standard would influence behavioral outcome. Duval
et al. (1992) predicted that self-aware subjects made
to feel that their rate of progress toward reducing the
discrepancy between self and standard was adequate
relative to the degree of discrepancy between self and
standard would engage in approach behaviors whereas
self-aware subjects made to feel that their rate of
progress toward reducing the discrepancy between self
and standard was inadequate relative to the degree of
discrepancy between self and standard would engage in
avoidance, behaviors.
To test these hypotheses, Duval et al. (1992) had
subjects participate in a diagnostic test and receive
failure feedback with regard to their performance on
three cognitive dimensions. Following the diagnostic
5
test, subjects high or low in manipulated self-focus
were told that they were 10 or 90 percent deficient
from the standard. Before giving subjects an
opportunity to engage in a remedial task to improve
their deficiency from the standard, subjects were shown
a graph suggesting that the remedial task would improve
their performance across time constantly (low rate of
progress) or rapidly (high rate of progress). Duval,
Duval & Mulilis (1992) found that when assessments of
the rate of progress toward reducing the discrepancy
between self and standard were adequate relative to the
degree of discrepancy between self and standard,
subjects' persistence on the remedial task increased as
the degree of discrepancy from the standard increased.
Conversely, when assessments of the rate of progress
toward reducing the discrepancy between self and
standard were inadequate relative to the degree of
discrepancy between self and standard, subjects'
persistence on the remedial task decreased as the
degree of discrepancy from the standard increased.
These findings suggest that when rate of progress
toward reducing a deficiency from a standard is
perceived as adequate relative to the degree of
discrepancy, individuals will be motivated to bring
self and standard to match. In contrast, when rate of
6
progress toward reducing a deficiency from a standard
is perceived as inadequate relative to the degree of
discrepancy, individuals will be motivated to avoid the
situation.
Dana (1990) examined the role that the attribution
system plays in influencing the behavioral choices of
individuals experiencing objective self-awareness. Once
negative affect is experienced, an individual must
locate the cause of the negative affect (Wong & Weiner,
1981; Duval, Dana & Duval; 1986). The cause of the
negative affect could be located in self or in the
standard because both self and standard are possible
causes for the aversive event (Dana, 1990). The
behavioral strategy chosen by the individual for
dealing with the negative affect would depend on the
source to which the negative affect was attributed.
Attribution of the negative affect to self should
result in attempts to move self in the direction of the
standard; attribution to the standard should result in
attempts to move the standard in the direction of self.
Dana (1989) reasoned that manipulating an
individual's attribution of the negative affect
generated by the self/standard discrepancy to the self
or to the standard would predict the individual's
chosen course of action. If negative affect is
7
attributed to the self, reduction of negative affect
would be achieved by changing self. If negative affect
is attributed to the standard, reduction of negative
affect would be achieved by changing the standard just
as a reduction in cognitive dissonance can be achieved
by changing any of the cognitions that are in a
dissonant relationship with one another.
To test these predictions, Dana (1990) devised an
experiment in which subjects were asked to engage in a
pursuit rotor task. The experimenter told subjects that
the standard for performance on the task was for the
subject to keep the stylus in the exact center of the
disk at all times. After performing the task for the
first trial, all subjects received failure feedback.
Subjects were told that they performed at a level 15
percent below the national average. The failure
feedback was supposed to generate negative affect by
making salient a discrepancy between self and standard.
After the experimenter provided the failure feedback,
the variable that would influence the attribution made
for the negative affect was introduced.
Subjects in the focus on self condition were shown
a transparency on an overhead projector depicting their
"score" on the pursuit rotor task. The experimenter
pointed to a particular dot on the graph of meaningless
8
dots and said, "Your score falls right about here."
Subjects in the focus on standard condition were shown
a transparency that reinstated the standard of
correctness. This overhead was nothing more than typed
text with the words: "You must keep the stylus in the
exact center of the disk at all times."
Because the occurrence of the overhead event was
temporally proximal and focally similar to the negative
affect event that preceded it,, the laws of attribution
predict that the overhead should influence the
explanations subjects made for the experience of the
negative affect event (Duval & Duval, 1986). Thus, Dana
(1990) expected that subjects in the focus on self
condition would attribute the negative affect to self
and that subjects in the focus on standard condition
would attribute the negative affect to the standard.
Following the introduction of the focus of
attention manipulation, subjects performed the pursuit
rotor task for the second trial. Half of these subjects
performed the pursuit rotor task after being exposed to
their image on a TV monitor for two minutes (high self-
aware condition). The other half performed the pursuit
rotor task after being in the presence of a TV monitor
that was turned off for two minutes (low self-aware
condition). Note that self-aware subjects did not see
9
their image on the TV monitor during their actual
performance of the task. However, the experimenter did
lead self-aware subjects to believe that they were
actually being videotaped during the task without the
monitor turned on.
After the second trial of performing the pursuit
rotor task, all subjects completed the dependent
measures. The three critical dependent measures were
the subjects' reported perception of how fair the
standard was, the subjects' reported desire to change
the standard, and the performance change in the pursuit
rotor task across trials one and two. As predicted,
Dana (1990) found that self-aware subjects who focused
attention on the standard following failure feedback
perceived the standard as more unfair than self-aware
subjects who focused attention on self following
failure feedback. Similarly, self-aware subjects who
focused attention on the standard following failure
feedback did not improve on the pursuit rotor task
across trials whereas self-aware subjects who focused
attention on the self following failure feedback did.
Although the means were in the right direction, Dana
(1990) did not find differences in reported desire to
change the standard between self-aware focus on self
10
and focus on standard subjects. No differences between
focus of attention conditions on the three critical
dependent measures emerged under conditions of low
self-awareness.
Taken together, Dana's findings support the
contention that attributional processes mediate the
behavioral strategies pursued by individuals
experiencing negative affect generated by the
discrepancy between self and standard. When made self-
aware, subjects who attributed negative affect that
they experienced to the standard of correctness
devalued the standard (perceived it as being unfair)
instead of attempting to perform at the level necessary
to meet it. On the other hand, self-aware subjects who
attributed negative affect to the self did not perceive
the standard as being unfair relative to the subjects
who attributed the negative affect to the standard.
Instead of devaluing the standard, focus on self
subjects attempted to move self in the direction of the
standard by improving performance across trials one and
two.
Dana (1990) was unable to garner support for the
hypothesis that self-aware subjects focusing attention
on the standard would report a greater desire to change
the standard than self-aware subjects who focused
11
attention on the self. Santoro (19 91) proposed that the
presence of the experimenter may have interfered with
the sensitivity of the "desire to change the standard"
dependent measure.
In the Dana experiment (1990), subjects were asked
to complete the dependent measures ("two brief
questionnaires") following completion of trial two on
the pursuit rotor task. To ensure confidentiality,
subjects were asked to fold their questionnaires and to
carefully seal them with tape after completion. Santoro
argued that the provisions taken to convince the
subjects that their responses would remain confidential
were inadequate. He suggested that the subjects'
reluctance to report a desire to change the standard
may have been a function of failure in confidentiality
provisions. Subjects may have been reluctant to report
that they felt the standard imposed by the experimenter
was unfair if they believed that the experimenter might
see their responses.
To address this concern, Santoro (1991) changed
the experimental procedure Dana used in several ways.
In Santoro's experiment, the experimenter led subjects
to believe that the dependent measures were part of a
questionnaire provided by the University Committee on
Experiments. Subjects were told that the University
12
Committee on Experiments was interested in how
experiments affect the subjects who participate in
them. Since a standard for performance was used in the
task, the experimenter told subjects that the committee
was especially interested in how standards influence
participants in experimental research. After completing
the questionnaires, the experimenter asked the subject
to put the questionnaire in an envelope, seal it, and
put it in the drop box located outside of the room in
which the experiment was conducted. With these
provisions taken, Santoro hoped to reduce the
likelihood that the presence of the experimenter would
interfere with the subject's reported desire to change
the standard.
To further test the hypothesis that an
experimenter effect was responsible for Dana's
nonsignificant findings concerning subjects' perceived
desire to change the standard, Santoro (1991) ran both
a single experimenter and a double experimenter
condition. In the two experimenter condition, a female
confederate acting as a representative from the
University Committee on Experiments actually
interrupted the principle experimenter as he was
setting the stage of the experiment in order to ask him
if he would allow her to administer a routine
13
questionnaire to the subject when he was finished with
his experiment. The confederate then returned at the
end of the experiment to administer the questionnaire
in the same fashion that the single experimenter
administered it. In the two experimenter condition,
Santoro believed that subjects could most freely
communicate their feelings about the standard without
being influenced by the demands of the experimenter.
Santoro (19 91) used an anagram task instead of the
pursuit rotor task in his experiment. Subjects were
asked to complete eleven anagrams during performance
trials. As in Dana's experiment, subjects were provided
with a standard for performance: "to solve all of the
anagrams on the page in 3 minutes." Since Dana (1990)
found no effect under conditions of low self-awareness,
Santoro (1991) only ran a condition in which subjects
were high in self-awareness. Self-awareness was
manipulated by focusing the video camera on the
subjects and exposing them to their faces on a TV
monitor. Santoro decided to keep the TV monitor on
during trials in which subjects performed the anagram
task in order to intensify level of self-focus and
experience of negative affect. In contrast, subjects in
the Dana (19 90) experiment performed the pursuit rotor
task with the monitor turned off.
14
As in Dana's experiment, subjects were provided
with failure feedback suggesting that they were
performing at a level that was 15 percent below the
national average. Failure feedback followed completion
of the first trial on the anagram task and produced the
self/standard discrepancy and negative affect. Subjects
then experienced the focus on self/focus on standard
manipulation. This manipulation was rendered precisely
as it was in Dana's experiment: Subjects in the focus
on self condition saw an overhead transparency of
meaningless dots and the experimenter pointing to their
"score." Subjects in the focus on standard condition
saw a transparency with text that reinstated the
standard: "The standard for performance which you
should meet is to solve all of the anagrams in 3
minutes." After inducing the focus of attention
manipulation, subjects completed a new page of 11
anagrams. Completion of the dependent measures, which
were administered by the single experimenter or the
female confederate, followed completion of trial 2 on
the anagram task.
As predicted, Santoro found significant
differences between the self-aware/focus on self and
self-aware/focus on standard subjects. Subjects focused
on the standard perceived the standard as more unfair
15
than subjects focused on self. Similarly, subjects
focused on the standard reported a greater desire to
change the standard than subjects focused on self.
However, the expected difference in performance change
(greater improvement on the task for focus on self
relative to focus on standard subjects) was not found.
Nor did Santoro find any significant differences
between the single and double experiment conditions.
The finding that single and double experiment
conditions did not differ across the three principle
dependent measures can be explained. As mentioned
earlier, Santoro revised the experimental procedure in
order to ensure that the subjects reporting of desire
to change the standard would not be affected by the
presence of the experimenter. Apparently, the increased
confidentiality rendered by usage of the University
Committee on Experiments rationale and the sealing of
the questionnaires in envelopes made it possible to
obtain the predicted findings even without the presence
of a female confederate. For both the single and double
experiment conditions, self-aware/standard-focused
subjects reported greater perception of the standard's
unfairness and greater desire to change the standard
than self-aware/self-focused subjects.
16
Santoro did not find that self-aware/self-focused
subjects' performance improved more than self-
aware/standard-focused subjects'. This may have been a
function of the anagram solving task he used. Anagram
solving is a task that requires utilization of verbal
skills and abilities. Motoric tasks, such as- the
pursuit rotor task used by Dana (1990), may be more
sensitive to motivational factors than verbal tasks
based on individual ability.
We devised the following study in an attempt to
resolve the discrepancy between the findings of Dana
(1990) and Santoro (1991). To maintain the sensitivity
of the dependent measures, we used the cover story
devised by Santoro. We chose a task that we have found
to be highly susceptible to motivational influence
(Wicklund & Duval, 1971; Gibbons & Wicklund, 1976). As
in the pursuit rotor task, performance on the task we
chose required use of motor skills. As in the anagram
task, performance on the task we chose required use of
cognitive skills as well. The task we chose for our
experiment was copying German prose.
Self-aware subjects were asked to copy German
prose from a typed page during 5 minute trials. The
standard for performance was to copy all of the words
on the page. Subjects were given failure feedback after
17
the first trial. An overhead transparency was used to
manipulate focus of attention (on self or the standard)
and attribution of the negative affect. Subjects then
performed the task for the second trial and completed
the dependent measures.
There were three critical dependent measures, the
first measuring evaluation, the second intention, and
the third behavior. We measured subjects' evaluations
of the fairness of the standard, subjects' desire to
change the standard, and subjects' change in
performance across trials on the copying task. We
expected that subjects in the self-aware/focus on self
condition would attribute negative affect to self and
that subjects in the self-aware/focus on standard
condition would attribute negative affect to the
standard. We hypothesized that:
1) Subjects in the self-aware/focus on standard
condition would perceive the standard as being more
unfair than subjects in the self-aware/focus on self
condition.
2) Subjects in the self-aware/focus on standard
condition would report a greater desire to change the
standard than subjects in the self-aware/focus on self
condition.
18
3) Subjects in the self-aware/focus on self condition
would more substantially improve their performance
across trials relative to subjects in the self-
aware/ focus on standard condition.
19
Method
Subjects. Subjects were 14 male and 19 female
Introductory Psychology students from the University of
Southern California. Subjects volunteered to
participate and received extra credit points for their
participation. All subjects were run individually and
did not speak German. Subjects were randomly assigned
to 2 conditions: focus on self and focus on standard.
Four subjects were dropped from the analyses for the
following reasons: Two subjects failed to understand
the instructions regarding the experimental procedure.
One subject did not believe the failure feedback the
experimenter provided because she had a 3.9 grade point
average in her language courses. Finally, one subject
arrived at the experiment when the overhead projector
was inoperative and thus could not receive the focus of
attention manipulation. An independent samples T-test
revealed that there were no differences between males
and females on the 3 critical dependent measures:
perceived fairness of the standard, desire to change
the standard, and performance change across trials
(£.{31) = . 00 , p=l; £{ 31) = . 42, p=.67; £.(31) = .10,
p=.92, respectively).
20
Procedure. After being greeted by the male
experimenter, the subject was asked to sit down in a
small room on the left wing of the laboratory. The room
had a chair for the subject facing a rectangular table.
On the right side of the table and to the left of the
subject was an overhead transparency machine. When
turned on, the machine would project the graph of the
subject's performance (focus on self condition) or the
reinstatement of the standard (focus on standard
condition) on the wall in front of the subject. On the
left side of the table and to the right of the subject
was a reel-to-reel Sony video recorder hooked up to a
Sony video monitor that faced the subject. In front of
the table in which the subject sat was a smaller table
with the video camera placed on it. The lens of the
camera was pointed directly at the subject.
After seating the subject, the experimenter sat
down across from her and began describing the
experiment. The experimenter told the subject that the
study she had signed up for was a study investigating
the relationship between intense concentration and
focus of attention. She would be asked to "concentrate
on a given problem to the exclusion of all external
stimuli." The experimenter provided a lengthy rationale
for why it would be important for the subject to
21
concentrate intensely. He claimed that focusing
attention on a specific task was related to one's
capabilities to perform well on specific business and
applied tasks. He related to the subject the following
example:
Imagine that you are working in a large
office space that has partitions
between desks but no walls. In these
settings, it can be very noisy and
distracting. In situations such as this,
having the ability to focus attention
and concentrate can be very beneficial.
After providing the rationale for testing the
subject's ability to focus attention intensely, the
experimenter informed the subject that the task that
would be used to measure the subject's ability to focus
attention and concentrate was copying a foreign
language, the language being German. Subjects were told
that they had the ability to do well on this task. The
experimenter had supposedly determined this by gleaning
information from a premeasure packet that the subject
filled out at the beginning of the semester in
Introductory Psychology. The experimenter told the
subject: "I matched the social security number on the
experiment sign-up sheet to your social security number
on the premeasure packet and looked at your responses
to a questionnaire we had added to the packet. Your
responses indicate that you have the ability to do well
22
on this task." This information was given to subjects
in an attempt to prevent a defensive attribution
resulting in withdrawal from the task when given
failure feedback (Duval & . Duval, 1987). The subject was
then told that her performance was going to be recorded
for 2 trials. If the subject had any questions, she
asked them at this time. The experimenter said that on
each of the 2 trials the subject would have 5 minutes
to "copy the German prose as rapidly as you can."
Camera manipulation. All subjects in the experiment
then experienced the camera manipulation. Onset of this
manipulation was justified in the following manner. The
experimenter said:
There is one other thing you need to
know before we begin. We randomly
select some subjects for videotaping
so that we can make sure that we as
experimenters are running our
procedures consistently throughout the
study. After we have ensured that we
are running our procedures
consistently, we erase the tapes. I
need to inform you that you were
randomly selected for videotaping.
So I will need to set up the equipment
so that we can do that. Then you can
begin trial one.
At this point, the experimenter focused the camera,
turned on the video monitor, and asked the subject if
she could see herself on the television screen. When
the subject responded affirmatively, the experimenter
said, "When I close the door, turn over the paper and
23
begin copying. The standard for performance which you
should meet is to copy all the words on the page in 5
minutes." He then pushed the record button on the video
recorder and left the room for 5 minutes.
After 5 minutes, the experimenter returned and
asked the subject to stop working. He turned off the
video equipment and took the page from the subject. He
said to the subject: "I will score this in the other
room and be right back." The experimenter then left the
room for 3 minutes. After 3 minutes, the experimenter
returned to the room and provided the subject with
failure feedback. He told the subject, "According to my
calculations, you have scored 15 percent below the
national average."
Focus on self/focus on standard manipulation. After
providing the subject with failure feedback, the
experimenter placed a transparency on the overhead
machine and turned it on. Subjects in the focus on self
condition saw a graph with a meaningless array of dots.
The experimenter stood behind the subject's field of
vision, pointed to a reasonable position on the graph,
and said, "Your score falls right about here." The
graph had "Number of Words Copied" written below the X-
axis and numbers (intervals of 10) along both the X and
Y axes. In the focus on standard condition, the subject
24
saw a graph with the text, "The standard for
performance is to copy all the words on the page within
5 minutes." The experimenter stood behind the subject's
field of vision, read the overhead to himself, and then
said to the subject authoritatively, "You must clearly
understand the standard for performance. The standard
for performance is to copy all the words on the page
within 5 minutes." All subjects were exposed to the
overhead manipulation for approximately 20 seconds.
Following the focus on self/focus on standard
manipulation, subjects performed the prose copying task
for a second trial. The experimenter gave the subject a
new page of German prose to copy and asked the subject
to follow the same procedure and standard for
performance. The experimenter turned on the video
equipment and left the room for another 5 minutes. When
the experimenter returned, he asked the subject to stop
working, turned off the recording equipment, and told
the subject he would leave to do the "scoring" in a
minute. Before the experimenter left, he described to
the subject the questionnaire provided by the
"University Committee on Experiments." The experimenter
told the subject that the experiment she selected was
25
one that the University Committee on Experiments had
also selected to get information about the "effects
that experiments have on subjects." The experimenter
explained that:
The University Committee on
Experiments is aware that we use a
standard for performance on the prose
copying task and want to see how that
affects participants in the experiment.
Subjects were asked to circle the number on the scale
for each question that indicated their response.
Subjects' confidentiality was emphasized. Subjects were
asked not to put their name or social security number
on the questionnaire. When finished responding to the
items, subjects were to put the questionnaire in an
envelope provided by the experimenter, seal the
envelope, and bring it out to the experimenter who
would show them where the drop box was. When the
subject exited the room with the envelope in hand, the
experimenter informed the subject that the experiment
was over. The subject was thoroughly debriefed and
thanked for her participation.
Dependent measures. The questionnaire contained 8
items. Each had subjects respond on a 6 or 7 point
scale. Six of the items were filler questions. The
remaining 2 items were the critical dependent measures.
In the first item of interest, subjects responded to
26
the question: "I feel the standard of performance was
Subjects answered on a scale of 1 to 6 ranging
from "very unfair" to "very fair." The second item of
interest had subjects respond to the question: "How
would you change the standard of performance? I would
make it Subjects responded on a scale of 1 to 7
ranging from "very much easier" to "very much harder."
The response "no change" was placed at the median.
Change in performance across trials was computed by
subtracting the number of words copied on trial 1 from
the number of words copied on trial 2.
Results
We predicted that self-aware subjects in the
focus on standard condition would perceive the standard
as more unfair than self-aware subjects in the
focus on self condition. Thus, we expected that
subjects who attributed the negative affect generated
by the self/standard discrepancy to the standard would
justify their desire to change the standard instead of
self by perceiving that the standard was unfair. This
effect would be manifested in self-aware/focus on
standard subjects perceiving the standard as more
unfair than self-aware/focus on self subjects.
27
As predicted, self-aware/focus on standard
subjects perceived the standard as more unfair than
self-aware/focus on self subjects, M=4.75 versus
M=3.29, respectively. (Higher mean values denote
perception of the standard as more unfair). An
independent samples T-test revealed that the difference
between these two groups was significant, £{31}=-3.66,
p=.001.
28
Table 1
Means and Standard Deviations for Perceived Fairness
Of. the Standard
Descriptive Statistic
Mean Standard
Deviation
Focus on 3.29 1.21
Self Condition
Focus on 4.75 1.0 6
Standard Condition
Note: The higher the mean value, the greater the
perception of the standard as being unfair.
n=17 for focus on self condition; n=16 for focus on
standard condition.
29
We had also predicted that self-aware subjects in
the focus on standard condition would express a greater
desire to change the standard (make it easier) than
self-aware subjects in the focus on self condition.
Thus, we expected that subjects who attributed the
negative affect generated by the self/standard
discrepancy to the standard would desire to change the
standard as opposed to self, and this would be
reflected in greater expressed desire to change the
standard in the self-aware/focus on standard condition
relative to the self-aware/focus on self condition.
As predicted, the self-aware/focus on standard
group expressed a greater desire to make the standard
easier than the self-aware/focus on self group, M=2.37
versus M=3.41, respectively. (Lower mean values denote
greater desire to make the standard easier). An
independent samples T-test revealed that the difference
between these two groups was significant, £.(31)=3.26,
•o o 3.
30
Table 2
Means and Standard Deviations for Reported Desire tu
Change the Standard
Descriptive Statistic
Mean Standard
Deviation
Focus on 3 .41 .939
Self Condition
Focus on 2 . 37 .885
Standard Condition
Note: The lower the mean value, the greater the
desire to make the standard easier.
n=17 for focus on self condition; n=16 for focus on
standard condition.
31
Finally, we predicted that self-aware/focus on
self subjects would improve across trials, whereas
self-aware/focus on standard subjects would not.
Thus, we expected that subjects who attributed the
negative affect generated by the self/standard
discrepancy to self would attempt to change self in
the direction of the standard. This attempt at
changing self would be reflected in an improvement
in performance on the copying task across trials. In
contrast, we expected that subjects who attributed
the negative affect generated by the self/standard
discrepancy to the standard would attempt to change
the standard in the direction of self. This attempt
at changing the standard would be reflected in a
lack of improvement across trials. In sum, self-
aware/focus on standard subjects were expected to
keep self at its current level and to devalue the
standard instead (perceive it as unfair, desire to
make it easier; change it in the direction of self).
As predicted, subjects in the self-aware/focus
on self condition improved across trials, whereas
subjects in the self-aware/focus on standard
condition did not, M=5.82 versus M=0.94,
respectively. (Performance change was computed by
32
subtracting the number of words copied on the first
trial from the number of words copied on the second
trial). An independent samples T-test revealed that
the difference between these groups was significant,
£.(31) =2 . 56, £=.015.
33
Table 3
Means and Standard Deviations for Performance Change
Across Trials X and 2
Descriptive Statistic
Mean Standard
Deviation
Focus on 5.82 5.48
Self Condition
Focus on 0.94 5.46
Standard Condition
Note: The higher the mean value, the greater the
change in the number of words copied.
n=17 for focus on self condition; n=16 for focus on
standard condition.
34
Discussion
The theory of objective self-awareness (Duval &
Wicklund, 1972) attempts to explain processes that
underlie a person's desire to approach and avoid
situations. Stimuli in the external world that make
self novel relative to other objects in the field
increase the extent to which self is perceived as an
object. When self-focus is increased by external
stimuli such as mirrors, video cameras, or audiences, a
person's awareness of existing discrepancies between
self and standard is also increased. Cognizance of a
discrepancy between self and standard on a dimension
salient to self generates negative affect. Following
the experience of negative affect, the person engages
in negative-affect reducing behavioral strategies.
According to the original theory, the person
experiencing negative affect generated by awareness of
a discrepancy between self and standard is motivated to
1) change self in the direction of the standard
(approach) or to 2) direct attention away from self
(avoid).
Duval S c. Wicklund (1972) did not specify the
circumstances under which persons would be motivated to
engage in one behavior as opposed to the other. Since
the theory's original formulation, researchers have
35
attempted to identify the psychological processes that
mediate the behavioral strategies chosen by person
experiencing negative affect generated by discrepancies
between self and standard {Carver & Scheier, 1982;
Duval, Duval, & Mulilis, 19 92). Carver & Scheier (1982)
have argued that outcome expectancy, an assessment
regarding the likelihood that a standard will be met,
influences the person's decision to bring self and
standard to match or to avoid the situation. When
outcome expectancy is favorable, individuals reduce
self/standard induced negative affect by changing self
in the direction of the standard. In contrast, when
outcome expectancy is unfavorable, individuals reduce
self/standard induced negative affect by directing
attention away from self.
Duval, Duval & Mulilis (1992) have demonstrated
that assessments regarding rate of progress toward
reducing the discrepancy between self and standard
mediate the behavioral strategies chosen by self-aware
individuals. If a person's assessment of the rate of
progress toward reducing the deficiency between self
and standard is adequate relative to the degree of
discrepancy in the system, the person will change self
in the direction of the standard. In contrast, if a
person's assessment of the rate of progress toward
36
reducing the deficiency between self and standard is
inadequate relative to the degree of discrepancy in the
system, the person will direct attention from self and
avoid attempts to bring self and standard to match.
We have argued that specifying the psychological
processes that predict the behaviors engaged in by
individuals experiencing objective self-awareness is
critical. The current study aimed to elucidate how
attributional processes mediate the behavioral
strategies in which self-aware persons engage. We
suggest that the experience of negative affect
generated by self/standard discrepancy on a salient
dimension activates a search for the cause of the
aversive event experienced (Wong & Weiner, 1981). When
negative affect is attributed to a particular object,
the person is motivated to change that object.
Conversely, when positive affect is attributed to a
particular object, the person is motivated to maintain
that object.
Dana (1990) proposed that the cause of the
negative affect could be located in object self, in the
standard, or in an object external to the self/standard
comparison system. According to Dana (1990), the
behavioral strategy chosen by the self-aware person
varies directly as a function of the attribution made
37
for the experience of the self/standard discrepancy
generated negative affect. Locating the cause of the
negative affect in self results in attempts by the
self-aware individual to change object self. Locating
the cause of the negative affect in the standard
results in attempts by the self-aware individual to
change the standard. Specifically, when negative affect
is attributed to self, self-aware individuals are
motivated to change self by moving it in the direction
of the standard. On the other hand, when negative
affect is attributed to the standard, self-aware
individuals are motivated to change the standard and to
disengage from attempts at changing self in the
direction of the standard.
Our current study shows that when the task the
subject engages in is sensitive to motivational
influence and when our dependent measures allow for
honest evaluations of the standard imposed by the
experimenter, self-aware subjects who attribute
negative affect to self change self in the direction of
the standard, and self-aware subjects who attribute
negative affect to the standard attempt to change the
standard in the direction of self. We utilized a task
requiring both cognitive and motoric skills that was
38
highly susceptible to motivational influence. We also
utilized a procedure that protected the subject's
anonymity sufficiently enough to obtain honest
evaluations about the standard.
As predicted, we found that self-aware/focus on
standard subjects 1) perceived the standard as more
unfair than self-aware/focus on self subjects and 2)
expressed a greater desire to make the standard easier
than self-aware/focus on self subjects. Moreover, we
found that self-aware/focus on self subjects improved
their performance across trials on the prose copying
task relative to the self-aware/focus on standard
subjects who did not improve their performance across
trials on the prose copying task. Note that self-
aware/ focus on standard subjects' lack of improvement
across trials on the prose copying task suggests that
desire to change the standard as opposed to self
resulted in subjects' disengaging from attempts to move
self in the direction of the standard imposed by the
experimenter.
Although our results strongly support the
contention that attributional processes mediate the
behavioral actions taken by self-aware individuals, the
results do not provide conclusive evidence as to
whether the attribution of negative affect to the
39
standard actually results in an actual change in the
standard. Standards are elaborately encoded mental
representations that may be highly resistant to change.
We believe that standards are encoded at an early stage
of development and that attempts to change them may be
extremely difficult.
Standards such as "performing at a level that
meets society's expectations1 1 may be especially
difficult to change, especially in the duration of one
laboratory session {1 hour). Our data shows that
persons attributing negative affect to the standard
perceive that the standard is unfair and express a
strong desire to make the standard easier. Whether or
not these findings suggest an actual change in the
standard is an issue of controversy. Nevertheless, a
change in the standard is implied in the data we have
obtained.
To more carefully gauge the extent to which
manipulating attribution of negative affect to the
standard results in an actual change of the standard,
we could have asked subjects in the questionnaire we
had them fill out to provide the experimenter with the
standard that the subject in the next session of the
40
experiment ought to meet. Although a behavioroid
measure such as this one would lend greater support to
the notion that standards are changeable, the support
would still be implicit in nature.
We encourage researchers to employ experimental
procedures comparable to ours in the investigation of
psychological processes that mediate the behavioral
actions taken by individuals experiencing self/standard
discrepancy induced negative affect. In our study,
subjects were made self-aware via exposure to self-
focus inducing stimuli. In addition, subjects were made
aware of a standard for performance. After inducing
self-awareness and imposing the standard, subjects
engaged in the first trial of a task. The task was
sensitive to motivational influence and had impact such
that the failure feedback we had to provide was
credible.
After engaging in the task at trial 1, subjects
were given failure feedback that generated the
self/standard discrepancy induced negative affect.
After inducing negative affect, we provided a
manipulation that activated the psychological process
hypothesized to mediate the behavioral actions engaged
in by the self-aware individual (in our case, the
causal attribution process). This manipulation of the
41
proposed mediational process was followed by
performance on the task for a second trial under
conditions of self-awareness comparable to that at
trial one.
Last, we administered the dependent measures that
in conjunction with the performance measure would
elucidate the influence of the psychological process on
behavioral action. We found this procedure to be an
extremely effective way of exploring the influence of
psychological processes mediating the behavioral
actions taken by persons high in self-awareness. We
hope that researchers find this approach toward
studying the mediational processes underlying
behavioral action a useful one.
In conclusion, we would like to advance a model
positing that percepts regarding the rate of progress
toward reducing self/standard discrepancies and causal
attribution processes jointly predict the behavioral
patterns exhibited by self-aware individuals. According
to the model, percepts regarding an individual's
ability to restore congruity between self and standards
directly influence the attribution system (Duval &
Duval, 1987). When perceived rate of progress toward
reducing the discrepancy between self and standard is
adequate relative to the magnitude of the discrepancy,
42
individuals should locate the source of the negative
affect generated by the discrepancy between self and
standard in the most plausible cause for the negative
affect experienced. As we have demonstrated in the
present study, the most plausible cause to which the
negative affect could be attributed may be the self or
the standard. Attributions of negative affect to self
result in attempts to change self in the direction of
the standard. Attributions of negative affect to the
standard result in attempts to change the standard in
the direction of self.
In contrast, when perceived rate of progress
toward reducing the discrepancy between self and
standard is inadequate relative to the magnitude of the
discrepancy, individuals will make attributions
external to the self/standard comparison system (Duval
& Duval, 1987). This has been called defensive
attribution. In defensive attribution, the costs
incurred on the self/standard comparison system for
attributing negative affect to self or to the standard
(when congruity between the two components is unlikely
to be restored) outweigh the benefits obtained by the
causal attribution system for locating the source of
the negative affect in the most plausible cause (Duval
& Duval, 1987).
43
In the current study, subjects were told prior to
their engaging in the prose copying task that they had
the ability to do well on the task. These instructions
elevated perceived rate of progress toward reducing the
discrepancy between self and standards and allowed the
attribution system to locate causality for the negative
affect generated by the discrepancy between self and
standard in the most plausible cause. When self was
the most plausible cause for the negative affect,
individuals engaged in attempts to change self in the
direction of the standard. When the standard was the
most plausible cause for the negative affect,
individuals engaged in attempts to change the standard
in the direction of self. If subjects in our experiment
had been led to believe that their perceptions of rate
of progress toward reducing the discrepancy between
self and standard were inadequate relative to the
magnitude of the discrepancy, then they would have
attributed the negative affect generated by the
discrepancy between self and standard to a source
outside of the self/standard comparison system. Thus,
attempts to change the self or the standard would not
have occurred. In sum, the model that we are proposing
suggests that perceptions of rate of progress and
44
attributions for negative affect jointly predict
whether self-aware individuals engage in approach or
avoidance behaviors. We hope to further investigate the
implications of this model in the future.
45
R e f e r e n c e s
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1982). Outcome
expectancy, locus of attribution for expectancy,
and self-directed attention as determinants of
evaluation and performance. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology. 18 r 184-200.
Dana, E. R. (1989). Salience of self and salience of
standards: Attempts to match self to standard.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.
Dana, E. R., Duval, T. S. , Duval, V. H., & Schandler,
S. L. (1987, April). External attribution in
objective self-awareness theory: A reformulation.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Western
Psychological Association, Long Beach, CA.
Duval, T. S., Dana, E., & Duval, V. H. (1986). The
intersection of causal attribution and the self-
to-standard comparison system. Unpublished
manuscript, University of Southern California, Los
Angeles, CA.
Duval, T. S., Duval, V. H., & Mulilis, J. P. (1992) .
Effects of self-focus, discrepancy between self and
standard, and outcome expectancy favorability on the
tendency to match self to standard or to withdraw.
Journal of. Personality and Social Psychology, 62.
340-348.
Duval, T. S., & Duval, V. H. (1987). Level of
perceived coping ability and attribution for
negative events. Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology. 5., 452-468.
Duval, T. S., & Wicklund, R. A. (1972). A theory
nf. objective self-awareness. New York: Academic
Press.
Gibbons, F. X., & Wicklund, R. A. (1976) . A
selective exposure to the self. Journal of Research
jn Personality. 10. 98-106.
46
Santoro, S. T. (1991)• The effects of causal
attribution can the tendency to reduce a discrepancy
between self and standard. Unpublished masters
thesis, University of Southern California, Los
Angeles, CA.
Wicklund, R. A., & Duval, T. S. (1971). Opinion change
and performance facilitation as a result of
objective self-awareness. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology. 1, 319-342.
Wong, P. T., & Weiner, B. (1981). When people ask
"Why" questions and the heuristics of attributional
search. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 4J2, 650-663.
INFORM ATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI
films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some
thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may
be from any type of computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the
copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality
illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins,
and improper alignment can adversely afreet reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete
manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if
unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate
the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by
sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and
continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each
original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in
reduced form at the back of the book.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced
xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white
photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations
appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly
to order.
A Bel! & Howell Information Company
300 North Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor. M l 48106-1346 USA
313/761-4700 800/521-0600
UMI Number: 1376472
UMI Microform 1376472
Copyright 1995/ by OMI Company. All rights reserved.
This microform edition is protected against unauthorized
copying under Title 17/ United States Code.
UMI
300 North Zeeb Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48103

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Rationalizing risk: sexual behavior of gay male couples

PDF

Meta-analysis on the misattribution of arousal

PDF

The Müller-Lyer illusion: a new variant, some old and new results

PDF

The relationship between alcoholism and crime: autonomic and neurpsychological factors

PDF

Violent environments and their effects on children

PDF

Children's immediate reactions to interparental conflict

PDF

Effect of affective reactions by an outgroup on preferences for crossed categorization discussion partners

PDF

Perceptions and realities: women, equality and discriminatory barriers in Japanese society and workplace

PDF

Predictors of pretend play in Korean-American and Anglo-American preschool children

PDF

"It was in the air": Adolph Gottlieb, the pictographs, New York, and the Zeitgeist of the 1940s

PDF

Formative influences in the life of Olive Schreiner, Victorian feminist and freethinkier

PDF

An analysis of private and social gains from plastics recycling

PDF

Structural geology of the Chiwaukum schist, Mount Stuart region, central Cascades, Washington

PDF

The analysis of circular data

PDF

Trifluoromethanesulfonates (triflates) for organic syntheses

PDF

Independent process approximation for the coupon collector's problem

PDF

An investigation of the pseudohomophone effect: where and when it occurs

PDF

Fine motor skills of two- to three-year-old drug exposed children

PDF

Work for the masters degree

PDF

The relationship of demographic status, educationl background, and type and degree of disability to transition outcomes in young adults with disabilities: a quantitative research synthesis

Asset Metadata

Creator Lalwani, Neal (author)

Core Title How casual attribution influences behavioral actions taken by self-aware individuals

School Graduate School

Degree Master of Arts

Degree Program Psychology

Degree Conferral Date 1994-12

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest,psychology, personality,psychology, social

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Duval, T. Shelley (committee chair), Earleywine, Mitchell (committee member), Read, Stephen J. (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-2498

Unique identifier UC11357772

Identifier 1376472.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-2498 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 1376472-0.pdf

Dmrecord 2498

Document Type Thesis

Rights Lalwani, Neal

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA