Chapter 07 – Social Perception and Attributions
7–26
* * *
Paul Johnson just returned from his probationary performance review, which is given 90
days after initial employment. While he got generally favorable marks from his boss,
Sam, he was disappointed to be marked low in “teamwork and working with others.”
Sam told him he seemed aloof. His coworkers complained that he was unfriendly and
know people’s names, he would look down when he passed someone in the hall. His
feelings of being “out of the loop” were especially pronounced during staff meetings
when everyone else was full of ideas, comments, and humorous remarks. It was hard
for Paul to understand everything people were talking about because he just didn’t have
the background that others did. He remained quiet during staff meetings so that he
1. Using Kelley’s model of attribution, explain how Paul ended up with a low rating
for “teamwork and working with others.”
2. Is there a self-fulfilling prophesy at work here? Explain.
3. What can or should Paul do now if he wants to change his image at this
organization?
Chapter 07 – Social Perception and Attributions
7–27
SUPPLEMENTAL EXERCISE 2: ROBERTA CHALLENGES HER STAFF1
APPLICATION
This is the second installment of the continuing Roberta case. Students should
preferably read “Introduction to Roberta” from Chapter 1 to provide background
information. Other installments may be used in conjunction with each other or
independently. In this installment, Roberta’s staff has become trapped in a self-fulfilling
prophecy. Roberta works to break through their self-set perceptual barriers. This
installment may also be used to demonstrate motivational issues. Students may
discuss the case questions after reading the case, or you may prefer to use it as a
written assignment. Discussion questions are provided at relevant points throughout
the case.
* * *
Roberta was pleased with the changes her department had made in the past three
months. Complaints about the old “Complaint Department,” now renamed the
Customer Service Department, were down to a trickle. Although there was still some
“holdout” behavior from a few members of the group, overall they were working well
together. The department was starting to develop a team attitude.
As Roberta walked down the hall to her boss’s office, she reviewed the successes of the
past months. Her positive thoughts were echoed by Sam Moore as she entered his
office.
“Roberta, I am very pleased with the progress your department has made. Complaints
from our customers have stopped almost entirely, and I hear good comments about the
customer service department from our internal people on a regular basis.”
“Thanks Sam,” responded Roberta. “I have to give a lot of the credit to my team. They
really have begun to pull together.”
“The main reason I called you in today, Roberta, is to discuss the effect our purchase of
Medium Conglomerate, Inc. will have on your department. Since M.C. Inc. has no
customer service department, you won’t have to worry about integration like some of the
other departments. However, we expect this merger to increase sales by 30 percent
over last year. What I need is an estimate of the personnel and cost increases required
to keep your department operating at its current level of performance. We have plenty
of time on this. I’ll need the information by late next month, when the merger is
completed.”
“I will be able to get you that information easily by then,” Roberta stated. “I may need to
speak with the manager of sales at M.C. Inc. to get more information on the type of
product packages they work with and their customer base.”
1 Originally developed and written by Maria Muto, Arizona State University. Cooperatively revised by Maria Muto,
Arizona State University, and Edwin C. Leonard, Jr., Indiana-Purdue University at Fort Wayne.
Chapter 07 – Social Perception and Attributions
7–28
“That will be no problem. I will get you his name and phone number. By the way, I
found an article in this month’s copy of Industry News that I think might be helpful to
you. It looks at customer service departments of five companies in our industry who are
rated tops in customer satisfaction. There are some productivity measures listed. It
might be interesting to compare their figures with ours.”
“Thanks Sam,” said Roberta, “I’ll take a look at this.”
When Roberta got back to her office, she pulled last month’s progress report and
compared their productivity figures to the published data. She was surprised to
discover that her department, even with all the improvements, had a productivity level
that averaged 60 percent of the ones listed. With Sam Moore’s request for the cost and
personnel increases needed to absorb a higher work load, this article was particularly
timely. Maybe her department could increase efficiencies instead of costs. She
decided to bring this up at Monday’s staff meeting.
Monday morning, Roberta walked into the meeting armed with copies of the monthly
productivity totals set next to the averages provided in the article. After explaining the
situation, she asked for input.
“I don’t understand,” Jenny exclaimed, “You said you wanted the customer to get lots of
attention, and now you’re telling us we spend too much time with them. You can’t have
both.”
“I agree,” said Bill, the veteran of the office. “It’s impossible to complete any billing
exchange in less than two hours. No one can go any faster than we do and do a truly
good job.”
Dolores, one of the best performers in the department responded, “You know, Roberta,
we’re pleased with the changes in the department since you came. I’m willing to try
whatever you suggest to improve productivity, but I really don’t see what else we can do
to go faster.”
“I’m going to do some research on the techniques these other departments are using,”
answered Roberta. “All I want is your guarantee to try out new ideas and see how they
work.”
“We’ll try them,” said Jenny, “But I still don’t believe that we can save any more time.”
1. What common perceptual problem did Roberta uncover in her staff meeting?
Explain.
2. What steps could Roberta take to begin to turn around her group’s self–
perception?
Chapter 07 – Social Perception and Attributions
7–29
Roberta knew that her first job was to convince her employees that they were capable
of improving their performance. To break through their static perceptions of how much
they could accomplish, Roberta decided to use a variation on a Total Quality
Management technique, benchmarking. Through contacts with a local professional
association, and from her old school friends, she knew people at three of the five
companies mentioned in the article. Since their product lines were non-competitive,
Roberta was able to arrange for one of her employees to spend a day at each of the
three departments. For the visits, she chose three staff members who were receptive to
new ideas, and who had some influence over the team. Their instructions were to look
for new, more efficient ways of doing things.
In addition, on the days when they were gone, Roberta filled in, discovering several
short-cuts and demonstrating them to the staff at their next meeting. Each staff member
who visited one of the other three companies came back and made a presentation of
the ideas and techniques that could work in their department. Each possibility was
discussed, and some were implemented. As a result, the weekly performance reports
began showing a steady rise in productivity. Roberta knew she had broken through a
barrier when Bill remarked one day, “I guess you were right Roberta, there’s always
room for improvement.”
Roberta had some ideas for continuing to improve the productivity of her department,
but she needed Sam Moore’s support. She walked into his office one day prepared to
lay out a detailed plan for absorbing the workload created by the merger with Medium
Conglomerate, Inc.
“Sam, as you know, we will have to absorb a 35 percent sales increase over the next 8
months due to the gradual consolidation with M.C. Inc. Under my department’s past
productivity levels, I would need seven more customer service representatives in order
to maintain comparable performance with the sales increases. This is based on an
estimate that each of our customer service representatives currently manages 5 percent
of our sales concerns. However, I believe that there is an alternative. I would like to
improve productivity in my department to absorb the increase without increasing staff.
This would move our department productivity levels to within 10%of the norm in our
industry for firms with higher performance and customer satisfaction standards.”
“Sounds good,” said Sam.” That would be a significant cost savings for the company.
But I am concerned. A 35% increase in productivity is ambitious for any department.“
“I know the goal will be a stiff challenge,” Roberta replied.” But based on my research
and the information provided through some benchmarking we’ve done, I think it’s
achievable. Over the past month, we have already reached a 10% productivity
increase, and my people are using the extra time to explore other time-saving options. I
have set a schedule for improvement, and every staff member will get a copy of their
own and the department’s productivity levels on a weekly basis. With tangible,
measurable goals and the ideas for improving productivity, I think this will work. The
Chapter 07 – Social Perception and Attributions
7–30
main concern I have is keeping my group motivated to reach that goal, and that’s where
I need your help.”
“What do you want me to do?” Sam asked.
“Well, because of the problems with this department in the past, merit raises were rare
and turnover high. Consequently, most of my staff are close to the bottom of their pay
scales. I want the company to invest some of the money saved from the productivity
improvements back into my staff.
With your support, I would like to offer them the opportunity to get some of that cost
savings in their paychecks. The amount should be significant for them, so I was
thinking of $500 a year or more per person for every 5% increase in productivity. This
pay raise would be in addition to their standard raises at the end of the year. It would
be something special. Doing this will still cost HRI less than half the salary cost of
adding the new staff, not considering the facilities and benefits expenses. I also believe
that this vote of confidence and support will make a big difference on every aspect of
my staff’s self-perceptions and performance.
“I like the idea,” said Sam after a few minutes of thought.” It is daring but I think you may
be able to make it work. I’ll OK it on one condition: that you keep detailed notes on this
project so we can use it as a pilot study for productivity improvement in other
departments.”
“I will be happy to do that,” Roberta replied.” I am glad you accepted the idea. Before I
go, I do have one other request. I do not expect to be included in the $500 raise aspect
of this, but if I succeed in absorbing the entire 35% sales increase….
“Shall we say a $10,000 raise for you, as additional motivation?” replied Sam, smiling.
“That sounds fair,” answered Roberta.
3. Provide some practical suggestions for tactics that could help Roberta challenge
her staff to improve its productivity. Feel free to draw upon the motivational and
goal-setting concepts presented in Chapters 8 and 9.
SUPPLEMENTAL LECTURETTE 1: WEINER’S MODEL OF ATTRIBUTION APPLIED
TO GENDER DIFFERENCES IN MANAGERIAL EXPECTATIONS2
APPLICATION
This lecturette introduces another popular attribution model – of Weiner’s model of
attribution. Gender differences in causal attributions for success and failure are
discussed.
2 Adapted from P. Rosenthal, D. Guest, and R. Peccei, “Gender Differences in Managers’ Causal Explanations for
Their Work Performance: A Study in Two Organizations” Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology
1996, Vol. 69 No. 2, pp. 145-151; L. Larwood and M. Wood, “Training Women for Management: Changing Priorities”
Journal of Management Development, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 54–64.
Chapter 07 – Social Perception and Attributions
7–31
* * *
Bernard Weiner, a noted motivation theorist, developed an attribution model to explain
achievement behavior and to predict subsequent changes in motivation and
performance. Weiner believes that the attribution process begins after an individual
performs a task. A person’s performance leads him or her to judge whether it was
successful or unsuccessful. This evaluation then produces a causal analysis to
determine if the performance was due to internal or external factors. Weiner proposes
that attributions vary along two dimensions: locus (the extent to which a cause is
internal to the individual or something in the environment) and stability (the extent to
which the cause remains stable over time across similar tasks). (Weiner also discusses
a third dimension – controllability – but the other two factors have received the majority
of the research attention.) Ability and effort are the primary internal causes of
performance and task difficulty, luck, and help from others the key external causes. The
two primary dimensions yield four causes of performance. Ability is internal and more
stable, effort is internal but less stable, luck is external and less stable, and task
difficulty is external and stable. These attributions for success and failure then influence
how individuals feel about themselves. For example, a meta-analysis of 104 studies
involving almost 15,000 individuals found that people who attributed failure to their lack
of ability (as opposed to bad luck) experienced psychological depression. The exact
opposite attributions (to good luck rather than to high ability) tended to trigger
depression in people experiencing positive events.3 In short, perceived bad luck took
the sting out of a negative outcome, but perceived good luck reduced the joy associated
with success.
Note that the psychological consequences can either increase or decrease depending
on the causes of performance. For example, student self-esteem is likely to increase
after receiving an “A” on an exam if he or she believes that performance was due to
ability or effort. In contrast, the same grade can either increase or decrease self–
esteem if the student believes that the test was easy. Finally, the feelings that people
have about their past performance influence future performance. Future performance is
higher when individuals attribute success to internal causes and lower when failure is
attributed to external factors. Future performance is more uncertain when individuals
attribute either their success or failure to external causes.
In further support of Weiner’s model, a study of 130 male salespeople in the United
Kingdom revealed that positive, internal attributions for success were associated with
higher sales and performance ratings.4 A second study examined the attributional
process of 126 employees who were permanently displaced by a plant closing.
Consistent with the model, as the explanation for job loss was attributed to internal and
3 See P. Sweeney, K. Anderson, and S. Bailey, “Attributional Style in Depression: A Meta–Analytic Review” in Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, May 1986, pp. 974-991.
4 See “P. Corr & J. Gray, “Attributional Style as a Personality Factor in Insurance Sales Performance in the UK” in
Journal of Occupational Psychology, March 1996, pp. 83-87.
Chapter 07 – Social Perception and Attributions
7–32
stable causes, life satisfaction, self-esteem, and expectations for reemployment
diminished.5 Furthermore, research also shows that when individuals attribute their
success to internal rather than external factors, they have higher expectations for future
success, report a greater desire for achievement, and set higher performance goals.6
Women still face unequal career progression in management compared to men.
Weiner’s attribution model provides one potential explanation for this state of affairs.
Laboratory studies have found differences when men and women provide explanations
for identical levels of their own performance. Women tend to attribute the cause of their
success less to ability than do men, and be more likely to believe that their failures
result from a lack of ability. If this finding generalizes to an organizational setting, it
could help explain the unequal career progression of men and women. Women may be
less likely to perform the types of self-promoting career development necessary to
advance.
Rosenthal, Guest, and Peccei tested this idea in an organizational setting. They
surveyed junior- and middle-level managers in two organizations: a hospital and the
head office of a financial services firm. Managers were asked to discuss two examples
of their behavior – one representing successful and the other unsuccessful
performance. Then they were asked to make attributions for each outcome.
Attributions were assessed by asking managers to rate the extent to which four key
factors had contributed to the performance outcome. For successful performance, the
factors were (1) your personal skills and abilities, (2) the hard work and effort you
invested in the task, (3) the positive circumstances in which you found yourself, and (4)
the relative ease of the task at hand. In the case of unsuccessful performance, the
factors were (1) deficiencies in your personal skills and abilities, (2) the lack of effort you
invested in the task, (3) the negative circumstances in which you found yourself, and (4)
the relative difficulty of the task at hand.
Results indicated no gender differences in managers’ explanations for unsuccessful
performance. However, female managers attributed their successful performance
significantly less to ability than did male managers. Further anecdotal evidence is also
disturbing. A survey of men and women executives found that women do not expect to
be as financially successful as men. Men expected to be rewarded for their work, and
are indignant and vocal when they are overlooked. Women hope to be recognized, but
they don’t demand or feel entitled. Finally, women want to be chosen for key training
and assignments, but men tend to be more assertive and initiate requests for special
development.
If women managers are more hesitant to attribute their successes to high ability, they
may be setting a self-fulfilling prophecy in motion. Their attributions may constrain
expectancies for future success and in turn affect motivation to succeed, leading to less
successful behaviors.
5 See G. Prussia, A. Kinicki & J. Bracker, “Psychological and Behavioral Consequences of Job Loss: A Covariance
Structure Analysis Using Weiner’s (1985) Attribution Model” in Journal of Applied Psychology, June 1993, pp. 382-94.
6 See B. Weiner, An Attributional Theory of Motivation and Emotion (New York: Springer-Verlag, 1985).
Chapter 07 – Social Perception and Attributions
7–33
SUPPLEMENTAL LECTURETTE 2: SHIFTING STANDARDS AND STEREOTYPE
ACCURACY 7
APPLICATION
This lecturette may be used to expand on the chapter’s coverage of stereotype
formation and maintenance.
* * *
One rationale used to explain the use of stereotypes in social cognition is the shifting
standards model. Briefly, this model suggests that when stereotype holders make
judgments about others on stereotype-relevant issues, they do so by calling to mind a
within-group standard of comparison. For example, male targets are judged relative to
a male standard while female targets are judged according to a female standard. This
model assumes that the use of stereotypes involves perceived between-group
differences, and that the perceiver shifts or alters his or her standards of judgment
depending on the target’s social category. The use of different standards of comparison
may mean that the labels applied to targets from different social groups are not directly
comparable. A commonly held sex-role stereotype might include greater
aggressiveness on the part of men than women. When making judgments regarding
how aggressive an individual man or women is, the perceivers’ standards are likely to
shift according to this expectation. A woman’s aggressive behavior is more inclined to
be perceived as such because this behavior is more likely to surpass the perceiver’s
expectations for the typical aggressiveness of women than of men. This may be the
case even if the aggressive woman’s behavior is less objectively aggressive than the
aggressive man’s. Thus, the label “very aggressive” when applied to a woman
communicates a different meaning than when it is applied to a man.
Is there a way to avoid the inconsistency caused by the use of shifting standards and
come to a common conclusion? Yes, by using a more objective, externally anchored
rule of judgment (e.g., 5’9” rather than ‘average height’). The disadvantage, of course,
is that objective standards are not readily available in many instances in which we make
judgments. The use of (shifting) subjective standards may serve to hide the operation
of stereotypes, while objective scales (which don’t shift) may reveal the existence of
stereotypes. That is, subjective standards may mask the extent to which we are guided
by our stereotypes. Indeed, a number of studies support this conclusion.
As an example, one study asked participants to read a short article attributed to either a
female (Joan) or male (John) author. The article focused on either a masculine (e.g.,
bass fishing), feminine (e.g., cooking) or gender-neutral topic. Readers judged the
monetary worth of the article in either objective (e.g., if you were the editor, how many
7 Adapted from M. Biernat “The Shifting Standards Model: Implications of Stereotype Accuracy for Social Judgment”
in Stereotype Accuracy: Toward Appreciating Group Differences, 1995 Lee, Jussim & McCauley eds., American
Psychological Association: Washington DC, pp. 87-114; M. Biernat and M. Manis “Shifting Standards and Stereotype–
Based Judgments” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1994, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 5-20.
Chapter 07 – Social Perception and Attributions
7–34
dollars would you pay the author?) or subjective (e.g., ‘very little money’ to ‘lots of
money’) terms. As expected, in the objective judgment condition, feminine articles were
viewed more positively when written by Joan than by John (i.e., Joan was paid
significantly more money than John). Masculine articles were judged more positively
when written by John than by Joan. Readers in the subjective judgment condition did
not differentially judge male and female authors by topic.
How might the shifting standards phenomenon appear in real-world judgments? Take
the case of an employer who ascribes to traditional gender stereotypes (e.g., males are
more capable than females) faced with a hiring decision involving two objectively equal
job applicants, one male and one female. Will the employer be affected by his pro-male
bias and thus hire the male? Or will he evoke shifting standards and be impressed that
this individual woman has surpassed his (relatively low) expectations for female
competence and hire her? As often is the case in organizational behavior, the answer
must be “it depends.” One factor which may influence the outcome is the attribution
made for the women’s competence. An ability attribution might sway the decision in the
woman’s favor. Research along this line is continuing to explore factors such as
credibility of the perceiver and knowledge of the perceiver’s standards.