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?

Negative (adverse or threatening) events evoke strong and rapid physiological, cognitive, emotional, and social responses. This mobilization of the organism is followed by physiological, cognitive, and behavioral responses that damp down, minimize, and even erase the impact of that event. This pattern of mobilization-minimization appears to be greater for negative events than for neutral or positive events. Theoretical accounts of this response pattern are reviewed. It is concluded that no single theoretical mechanism can explain the mobilization-minimization pattern, but that a family of integrated process models, encompassing different classes of responses, may account for this pattern of parallel but disparately caused effects.

http://taylorlab.psych.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2014/10/1991_Asymmetrical-Effects_Positive_Negative-Events_Mobilization-Minimization-Hypothesis.pdf

Asymmetrical effects of positive and negative events: The mobilization-minimization hypothesis.

According to our social-role theory of gender and helping, the male gender role fosters helping that is heroic and chivalrous, whereas the female gender role fosters helping that is nurturant and caring. In social psychological studies, helping behavior has been examined in the context of short-term encounters with strangers. This focus has tended to exclude from the research literature those helping behaviors prescribed by the female gender role, because they are displayed primarily in long-term, close relationships. In contrast, the helping behaviors prescribed by the male gender role have been generously represented in research findings because they are displayed in relationships with strangers as well as in close relationships. Results from our meta-analytic review of sex differences in helping behavior indicate that in general men helped more than women and women received more help than men. Nevertheless, sex differences in helping were extremely inconsistent across studies and were successfully predicted by various attributes of the studies and the helping behaviors. These predictors were interpreted in terms of several aspects of our social-role theory of gender and helping.

Gender and Helping Behavior. A Meta-Analytic Review of the Social Psychological Literature

Are we all less risky and more skillful than our fellow drivers

Multiple sets of empirical research findings on guilt are reviewed to evaluate the view that guilt should be understood as an essentially social phenomenon that happens between people as much as it happens inside them. Guilt appears to arise from interpersonal transactions (including transgressions and positive inequities) and to vary significantly with the interpersonal context. In particular, guilt patterns appear to be strongest, most common, and most consistent in the context of communal relationships, which are characterized by expectations of mutual concern. Guilt serves various relationship-enhancing functions, including motivating people to treat partners well and avoid transgressions, minimizing inequities and enabling less powerful partners to get their way, and redistributing emotional distress.

Guilt: An interpersonal approach.

Guilt, perceived injustice, and altruistic behavior.

An experiment tested a need-for-self-esteem notion that people inflate self-appraisals of ability, deny criticism, and overrespond to praise Actors and bystanders rated actors' performances on a nonobjective task after hearing the performance praised or criticized or before hearing it evaluated No evidence of self-enhancement was found; to the contrary, actors compared to bystanders rated themselves harshly, lowered their ratings after criticism equally, and showed relief after praise A second experiment compared actor and bystander ratings of actors who expected evaluation of their performances or who expected no evaluation Results suggested self-derogation by actors as a defense against possible loss of self-esteem

Judith Weiner Regan

Papers

Guilt, perceived injustice, and altruistic behavior.

Do people have inflated views of their own ability.

Liking for evaluators: Consistency and self-esteem theories