Governing Body- Please Examine This Post

by openminded 7 Replies latest jw friends

  • openminded
    openminded

    Causes of the Bias

    So our attributions are often egocentric. After a failure performance, we formulate different set of explanations than
    we might after success. We know this. The next question, and the one that has been burning up the journal pages for
    the last decade is, Why? What is the cause of this egocentric bias?

    At least three perspectives can account for the impact of outcomes on attributions (Forsyth, 1980). First, a number of
    researchers feel that these attributional asymmetries are self- serving: when people succeed they can increase their
    confidence and sense of personal worth by attributing their performance to internal, personal, or dispositional factors.
    In constrast, when people fail, they can avoid the esteem-damaging consequences of their performance by denying
    responsibility for their performance.

    Second, a logical, information processing explanation like that proposed by Feather (1969; Feather & Simon, 1971)
    emphasizes the relationship between anticipated outcomes and actually performance. According to this approach, if
    people' outcomes match their expectations--they expect to succeed and pass or expect failure and flunk--then they
    tend to attribute their outcomes to stable, internal factors such as ability. If, however, their outcomes violate their
    expectations, then they attribute their outcomes to unstable factors; for example, luck, mood, or a more difficult test.
    However, as Miller and Ross (1975) note, most people usually expect to do well since the covariation between (1)
    their own behavior and positive outcomes and (2) the environment and negative outcomes is attributionally salient.
    Thus, individuals tend to see themselves as the cause of positive performances, since negative expectations are rare.
    Although it is likely that in instances of extreme and repeated failure a specific negative expectation will overwhelm
    the generalized positive one, Miller and Ross maintain that in most achievement situations success, and not failure, is
    expected.

    Bradley (1978) has added a third possible explanation that emphasizes the interpersonal implications of attributions.
    Since people' performances are often public and the subject of considerable discussion, people (1) attribute poor
    grades to external factors to avoid the embarrassment of academic failure and (2) attribute good grades to their own
    personal effort or ability to management the impression of competence. From Bradley (1978, p. 63): attributions are
    "mediated by a desire to maintain or gain a positive public image (e.g., a public public motive) rather than by a concern
    for one's private image".

    These three explanations of the success-internal/failure- external pattern are not incompatible. Forsyth, in 1980,
    presented a functional model of attributions that argued they fulfull four basic functions: explanation, predictive,
    self-serving, and interpersonal. When ego-involvement or need for achievement is high then attributions may be biased
    by self-serving motivations. However, people may also need to understand the causes of their outcomes if they are
    going to improve after a failure, or maintain a level of success in the future. Therefore, they formulate explanatory,
    adaptative attributions that explain the outcome, and suggest behavioral strategies for improvement or maintenance.
    Lastly, if people wish to project a public image of ability and competence, then they may wish to make certain that
    their teachers and classmates do not blame them for their failure, but do credit them with their successes. When
    attributions fulfill an interpersonal function, then people can explain "What rotten luck!" or "The test was too hard"
    after failure, and "I'm glad I worked as hard as I did!" or "Good, fair test" after success. This functional view of
    attribution thus suggests that, dependent upon the circumstances, all three processes can combine to determine
    attributions after success and failure.

    This functional approach explains some inconsistencies in the literature dealing with the causes of self-serving biases.
    First, the dimensions that we found when measuring unitary attributions didn't correspond to theoretical dimensions.
    Attributions are evaluatively tinged: luck is either good or bad; ability is either high or low; tests are either good or bad.

    Second, both the strict information integration view and the self-serving view overlook the emotional intensity of
    reactions after success and failure.

    Third, neither model can explain why egocentrisms are so pervasive. We defend any failure, even on the most
    ridiculous of tasks.

    Fourth, if externalization after failure insulates the self, then we should be able to find evidence of some benefit to the
    self among individuals who do display this tendency.

  • Fredhall
    Fredhall

    Openminded,

    What is your point?

  • philo
    philo

    Tssmughhee. That's the first time you got me laughing, Fred.

    philo

  • openminded
    openminded

    Well stated Fred.

  • larc
    larc

    openminded,

    As a project, you might want to do a content analysis of the WT language before and after 1975 regarding the blessed date as well as the language before and after 1925. There are several sites that have these quotes. Festinger did an earlier study with a different religion called "When prophecy fails". This would be a nice replication. Also, interviews with old timers who remember 1975, and how their perceptions are different from then and different for those here who won't distort reality. You can get lots of input from us. There was a thread awhile back where many here discribed their own situation back then. Lots of very detailed, personal case studies.

  • larc
    larc

    One other thing,

    I am familiar with the technical language you are using, but for others here, you might want to translate into more everyday verbiage. Just a suggestion.

  • Prisca
    Prisca

    I'm with larc, and I also agree with Fred - (now THAT's scary!

    What is this all supposed to mean? If you put it in more common language, I believe you may get more replies (even though you addresses it to our Bethel buddies).

    Prisca, of the Keep-It-Simple-Silly Class

  • Yerusalyim
    Yerusalyim

    I second Fred's notion, what the HEL* are you talking about?

    YERUSALYIM
    There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
    Shakespere: Hamlet

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit