DEVELOPMENTAL-CHANGES IN THE FORMATION AND ORGANIZATION OF PERSONALITY ATTRIBUTIONS
DEVELOPMENTAL-CHANGES IN THE FORMATION AND ORGANIZATION OF PERSONALITY ATTRIBUTIONS
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/j.1467-8624.1981.tb03096.x
复制
发表时间：
1981-01-01
影响因子：
4.6
通讯作者：
BERNDT, TJ
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
HELLER, KA;BERNDT, TJ
幼儿园儿童、三年级学生、六年级学生和大学生被讲述了两个故事，其中同一个演员有两次自私行为。在控制条件下，他们只被告知了演员S的年龄和性别。然后，他们被要求在10种情况下预测演员S的行为，这些情景提供了慷慨行为的机会，以及其他与慷慨相似的行为(例如，帮助，聪明的行为)。在另一次实验中，受试者被要求根据与预测相符的特征对演员进行评分。在各个年龄段，与慷慨有关的预测和评分都与演员S过去的行为一致，这表明被试以原著故事为基础，对演员S的慷慨进行了倾向性归因。对慷慨和自私演员的预测和评分在各个年龄段都有显著差异，但只有大学生在控制条件下区分慷慨演员和自私演员。受试者对与最初故事不太相似的行为和特征做出了较不确定的预测和评级，表明从慷慨到其他特征的归因是基于相似性的。对平均分的分析表明，幼儿园和大学生对自私演员的归因组织方式同样复杂。对回答的因素分析表明，大学生在社会评价(好-坏)和智力评价(聪明-愚蠢)之间做出了明确的区分，而儿童则没有。
Kindergarten children, 3rd graders, 6th graders and college students were told 2 stories in which the same actor behaved selfishly on 2 occasions. In a control condition, they were only told the actor''s age and sex. Then they were asked to predict the actor''s behavior in 10 situations that provided opportunities for generous behavior as well as other behaviors that varied in their similarity to generosity (e.g., helping, intelligent behavior). In another session subjects were asked to rate the actor on traits that paralleled the predictions. At all ages predictions and ratings related to generosity were consistent with the actor''s past behavior, suggesting that subjects used the original stories as a basis for a dispositional attribution about the actor''s generosity. Predictions and ratings for the generous and selfish actors differed significantly at all ages, but only college students differentiated between the generous actor and the actor in the control condition. Subjects made less certain predictions and ratings for behaviors and traits that were less similar to the initial stories, demonstrating that attributions from generosity to other characteristics were organized on the basis of similarity. Analyses of mean ratings suggested that attributions about the selfish actor were organized in an equally complex way by the kindergarten and college students. Factor analyses of the responses suggested that college students made a clear distinction between social evaluations (good-bad) and intellectual evaluations (smart-stupid) and children did not.