| Abstract: | The "knowledge structure" approach in attribution theory suggests that events interpretable as serving an actor's goals may dispose toward conjunctive explanations. In 2 studies, 68 undergraduates were presented vignettes about an individual undertaking goal-related activities and were asked to assign probability ratings to single explanatory reasons and to their conjunctions. Conjunctive explanations were rated more probable than one or more of their components for both mundane and important actions, for triple as well as simple conjunctions, for both goal-based and precondition-based reasons, and for various average probability levels. Conjunction effects were not found, however, for explanations of why an actor failed to take an action. Three theoretical approaches that might account for these results are compared, and it is concluded that a knowledge structure approach is less problematic than either a multiple-necessary and multiple-sufficient schema approach, or one based on H. J. Einhorn and R. M. Hogarth's (1983) model of causal strength. An attempt is made to reconcile conjunction effects with the "discounting principle" of classical attribution theory. (25 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved) |
