A review of the evidence for and against the proposition that self-serving biases affect attributions of causality indicated that there is little empirical support for the proposition in its most general form. The literature provides some support for the contention that individuals engage in self-enhancin g attributions under conditions of success, but only minimal evidence was found to suggest that individuals engage in self-protecti ve attributions under conditions of failure. Moreover, it was proposed that the self-enhancing effect may not be due to motivational distortion, but rather to the tendency of people (a) to expect their behavior to produce success, (b) to discern a closer covariation between behavior and outcomes in the case of increasing success than in the case of constant failure, and (c) to misconstrue the meaning of contingency. We are prone to alter our perception of causality so as to protect or enhance our self esteem. We attribute success to our own dispositions and failure to external forces. (Hastorf, Schneider, & Polefka, 1970,

/pdf/self-serving-biases-in-the-attribution-of-causality-fact-or-zgk70a0tep.pdf

Self-serving biases in the attribution of causality: Fact or fiction?

Do causal attributions serve the need to protect and / or enhance self-esteem? In a recent review, Miller and Ross (1975) proposed that there is evidence for self-serving effect in the attribution of success but not in the attribution of failure; and that this effect reflects biases in information-processing rather than self-esteem maintenance. The present review indicated that self-serving effects for both success and failure are obtained in most but not all experimental paradigms. Processes which may suppress or even reverse the self-serving effect were discussed. Most important, the examination of research in which self-serving effects are obtained suggested that these attributions are better understood in motivational than in information-processing terms.

Attribution of success and failure revisited, or: The motivational bias is alive and well in attribution theory

Self-serving biases in the attribution process: A reexamination of the fact or fiction question.

Meta-analysis was used to examine findings in 2 related areas: experimental research on the physical attractiveness stereotype and correlational studies of characteristics associated with physical attractiveness

https://psycnet.apa.org/journals/bul/111/2/304.pdf

Good-looking people are not what we think.

http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/amp/41/3/246.pdf

Toward an understanding of risk factors for bulimia.

Effects of physical attractiveness, attitude similarity, and sex on various aspects of interpersonal attraction.

In Experiment I, manipulations of similarity (high or low), implied evaluation (positive, negative, or none), sex of other, and physical attractiveness of other (high or low) produced main effects for similarity, implied evaluation, and physical attractiveness as well as a similarity by implied-evalu ation interaction. The similarity-dissimilarity effect was greater in the no-evaluation condition than in the positive- and negative-evaluation conditions. It was further found that in the no-evaluation condition, subjects perceived that the similar other would like them more than the dissimilar other. These results were interpreted as supporting three theoretical models and as ruling out a ceiling effect interpretation. In Experiment II, there were manipulations of similarity (five levels), sex of subject, and sex of other. A division of subjects into those who perceived the other would either like or dislike them versus those subjects who perceived more neutral implied evaluations resulted in an interaction with similarity. Subjects who perceived the evaluative implications of similarity showed a more marked similarity-attraction effect. A parallel analysis for subjects who differentially perceived the anticipated rewards of future interaction did not produce a significant interaction with similarity. The overall results were discussed in terms of their bearing on the three theoretical models, and the data were interpreted as giving the most support to a model implying that similarity causes liking, liking causes implied evaluation, and implied evaluation causes further liking. This model was the only one that predicted that the effect of similarity upon implied evaluation would become nonsignificant when liking was used as

Implied evaluation and the similarity-attraction effect.

Determinants of the self-attribution of having influenced another person.

Each of 320 male subjects was paired with a fictitious female partner with whom they were led to believe they either would or would not interact. Three other variables were manipulated: the partner's attitude similarity, the partner's physical attractiveness, and whether or not the partner would be evaluating the subject. A significant interaction was found between attitude similarity and anticipated interaction. Contrary to predictions from reward-cost theory, the pattern of means in the interaction indicated that attitude similarity had a greater effect upon attraction when no future interaction with the partner was anticipated than when future interaction was expected. The results were interpreted in terms of the amount of information available to the subject at the time the evaluation ratings were administered.

/pdf/anticipated-interaction-and-the-similarity-attraction-effect-v3d6vevykm.pdf

Anticipated Interaction and the Similarity-Attraction Effect*

This chapter focuses on those social situations in which individuals may reasonably be considered as potential causal agents. It attempts to specify a simple framework consisting of two major components and a set of situational considerations for predicting the amount of power attributed to an actor, or to the self, from knowledge of the course of a particular interaction. Attributions of power made by the self, by the person being influenced, and by an outside observer will be examined in the context of this framework. Interpersonal power, as John Schopler has noted, is typically defined as the induction of change in another person. The attribution of interpersonal power—perceiving that person A has caused a change in person B—involves a judgment about how much of the change observed in B was caused by A. Aronson and Linder tested the effects of differing sequences of personal evaluation upon interpersonal attraction.

Bruce D. Layton

Papers

Effects of physical attractiveness, attitude similarity, and sex on various aspects of interpersonal attraction.

Implied evaluation and the similarity-attraction effect.

Determinants of the self-attribution of having influenced another person.

Anticipated Interaction and the Similarity-Attraction Effect*

Attributions of Interpersonal Power