| Abstract: | It is hypothesized that causal explanations for an occurrence vary as a function of the causal background against which the occurrence is considered. Three experiments are presented that test propositions regarding the operation of the causal background in the selection of causal explanations. Findings indicate that factors previously shown to affect subjects' attributions—specifically, role (actor vs. observer), covariation information (consensus and distinctiveness), and quality of performance (positive vs. negative)—may do so by guiding subjects' selection of a causal background. Evidence indicates that these factors may not have the predicted effect on subjects' attributions when competing cues, such as context or wording of the causal question, suggest the relevance of conflicting causal backgrounds. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved) |
