Lay epistemo-logic—process and contents: Another look at attribution theory.

A theory of the lay epistemic process is outlined. According to this theory knowledge-seeking behavior is initiated by a purpose that a person has for reaching a given inference and consists of the stages of problem formulation and of problem resolution, the latter stage being governed by the principle of logical consistency. Major attributional formulations are interpreted within the lay epistemic framework. It is concluded that such formulations have typically addressed particular instances of epistemic (inferential) behavior rather than the underlying epistemic process. In this sense, the attributional formulations may be considered special cases of the present model applied to specific contents of knowledge. The present lay epistemic paradigm thus provides an integrative framework that allows us to consider diverse attributional models in common theoretical terms and to derive the necessary applicability conditions of different such models.

[1]  A. Buss.  On the relationship between causes and reasons. , 1979 .

[2]  A. Kruglanski.  Causal explanation, teleological explanation: On radical particularism in attribution theory. , 1979 .

[3]  J. Harvey,et al.  On problems with the cause-reason distinction in attribution theory. , 1979 .

[4]  A. Buss,et al.  Causes and reasons in attribution theory: A conceptual critique. , 1978 .

[5]  Arie W. Kruglanski,et al.  Covariation, discounting, and augmentation: Towards a clarification of attributional principles , 1978 .

[6]  I. Ajzen.  Intuitive theories of events and the effects of base-rate information on prediction. , 1977 .

[7]  I. Ajzen,et al.  Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research , 1977 .

[8]  A. Kruglanski.  The endogenous-exogenous partition in attribution theory. , 1975 .

[9]  I. Ajzen,et al.  A Bayesian analysis of attribution processes. , 1975 .

[10]  Dale T. Miller,et al.  Self-serving biases in the attribution of causality: Fact or fiction? , 1975 .

[11]  B. Weiner.  Achievement Motivation and Attribution Theory , 1974 .

[12]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[13]  Alice H. Eagly,et al.  Readings in attitude change , 1974 .

[14]  A. Tversky,et al.  On the psychology of prediction , 1973 .

[15]  L. A. McArthur.  The how and what of why: Some determinants and consequences of causal attribution. , 1972 .

[16]  R. Nisbett,et al.  Perceiving the causes of one's own behavior , 1972 .

[17]  D. Bem.  Self-Perception Theory , 1972 .

[18]  P. Tannenbaum,et al.  Theories of cognitive consistency: a sourcebook. , 1968 .

[19]  H. Kelley.  Attribution theory in social psychology , 1967 .

[20]  Chester A. Insko,et al.  Theories of attitude change , 1967 .

[21]  E. E. Jones,et al.  From Acts To Dispositions The Attribution Process In Person Perception1 , 1965 .

[22]  M. E. Shaw,et al.  AN EMPIRICAL TEST OF HEIDER'S LEVELS IN ATTRIBUTION OF RESPONSIBILITY. , 1964, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[23]  J. Singer,et al.  Cognitive, social, and physiological determinants of emotional state. , 1962, Psychological review.

[24]  E. E. Jones,et al.  Role playing variations and their informational value for person perception. , 1961, Journal of abnormal and social psychology.

[25]  F. Heider.  The psychology of interpersonal relations , 1958 .

[26]  L. Festinger.  A Theory of Social Comparison Processes , 1954 .

[27]  S. Asch.  Forming impressions of personality. , 1946, Journal of abnormal psychology.