Causal attribution and emotion

Causal attribution and emotion The attribution of causality is one of the most important and well-researched appraisal dimensions. The philosopher Hume (1938, 1960) wrote that the way that humans think about causation is the cement of how the universe is understood. Causation enters all levels of cognitive processing, from perception to abstract reasoning, and is used for the understanding of all kinds of phenomena, from complex human behaviors to the interaction between billiard balls. Social psychologists such as Heider (1958), Kelley (1967), and Weiner (1979) were interested in the causal attributions individuals make in various situations and sought to understand individual differences in these perceptions. Heider, for example, believed that individuals wished to develop a coherent and logical world and thus attributed causality and meaning to most events. Kelley noted that individuals generally believed that the world is predictable and controllable and found that most humans analyzed failures more intensely than successes. Similarly, Weiner (1986), in a review of the experimental attribution literature, found that the search for and importance of causality was most marked in failure situations, especially if they were unexpected. Weiner is considered to be one of the most important precursors of modern appraisal theory (Schorr, 2001) “…primarily concerned with causation and agency, focusing on a somewhat more limited domain of emotions, but sharing general agreement with other theorists in that domain” (Ellsworth & Scherer, 2003, pp. 573). Weiner (1986) developed a comprehensive model to explain how attribution and emotions are related in an achievement context. In essence, emotions are instigated following a positive or negative event, usually an achievement-related success or failure, and then cognitions of increasing complexity enter the emotion process to further refine and differentiate the experience. More specifically, an individual will first evaluate the outcome of an event as either positive or negative. If the event is negative, unexpected, and / or important, then causal search and more differentiated emotions are likely, and these attributions are evaluated according to three major dimensions: 1.) internal (to self) versus external (to others); 2.) controllable versus uncontrollable outcomes; and 3.) stable (due to the person) versus unstable (due to the situations). Finally, specific emotions will be reported based upon the individual’s causal attribution analysis of the achievement event, predictions that have been empirically tested 18 and verified in numerous studies (Försterling, 2001). Figure 1.1 below, based on Weiner (1986), schematizes this model. Outcome Outcome evaluation General positive or negative emotion Causal attribution and dimensions Distinct If the event is evaluated emotions as negative, unexpected, and / or important Figure 1.1 : Model illustrating the relationship between attribution and emotion based on Weiner (1986, pp. 122) Weiner and his colleagues primarily studied success and failure in achievement situations, and the model, the predictions, and the empirical evidence are relatively specific to this context2. A complete description of the theory or model, however, is beyond the scope of this review, and we will only briefly describe the findings and prediction important for our work. First, Weiner, Russel, and Lerman (1979) found that in failure situations, the most reported emotions were anger, depression, fear, and frustration. Concerning the object of the causal attribution, Weiner (1986) identified anger, pity, and gratitude as other-directed emotions and guilt and shame as self-directed emotions. In addition, Weiner, Graham, and Chandler (1982) carefully manipulated the internal, external, stable, and unstable attribution dimensions in a vignette study and found that anger was chosen primarily in situations that were due to external and stable factors. Thus, in the terms of Weiner’s model, anger will occur in negative, unexpected, and important failure situations, when causality is directed towards an external agent. The predictions and results for anger are therefore similar to those made by the other appraisal theorist described above, but this time are placed into an achievement context. The literature reviewed above seems to show that anger is primarily associated with the attribution of causality to an external agent. The internal/external agency appraisal dimension therefore seems particularly appropriate for the study of individual differences, 19 and compels us to briefly discuss the emotions generally associated with internal causal attribution, namely shame, guilt, and embarrassment (also called self-reflective and self-conscious emotions, Lewis & Haviland, 1993; Haidt, 2003; Tangney & Fischer, 1995). In particular, shame and guilt are both negatively valanced emotions that typically arise in response to some personal failure (Mascolo & Fischer, 1995; Roseman, 2001; Scherer 2001; Weiner, 1986). Thus, they both involve internal attribution for negative, goal relevant events, and similar to anger, these emotions typically arise in interpersonal contexts (Tangney, 1995). Embarrassment rarely makes the list of predicted emotion in the appraisal lists, and is often studied in relation to facial expression (Keltner & Buswell, 1997). For our purposes, however, evaluative embarrassment will be considered as a less intense form of shame (Lewis, 1995). Despite the differences between these emotions, we will only consider them in relation to their similarity concerning the causal object, and will generally discuss these three emotions as internal emotions (see Tangney & Fischer, 1995, for an in-depth understanding of these three rather complex emotions).