Blame-Placing Schemata and Attributional Research

  • Arie W. Kruglanski
Part of the Springer Series in Social Psychology book series (SSSOC)

Abstract

The term “conspiracy theory” is usually considered to denote a more-or-less elaborate schema whereby a given group of people sharing a common ethnic, political national, or religious origin is said to plot against another group. Conspiracy theories may actually be considered a specific variant of a much broader family of schemata in which the unifying theme is the external placing of blame for some highly negative events. In this sense, conspiracy theories are “kissing cousins” of various scapegoating constructions, persecutionary belief-systems, and so forth.

Keywords

Coherence Zucker Havoc Crossbow 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1975). A Bayesian analysis of attribution processes. Psychological Bulletin, 82, 261–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bar-Tal, D. (1985). The Masada syndrome: A case of central belief. In N. Milgram (Ed.), Psychological stress and coping in time of war. New York: Brunner/Mazel.Google Scholar
  3. Beckman, L. (1970). Effects of students performance on teachers’ and observers’ attributions to causality. Journal of Educational Psychology, 61, 75–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Fried, Y., & Agassi, J. (1976). Paranoia: A study in diagnosis. Boston, MA: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
  6. Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Johnson, T.J., Feigenbaum, R., & Weiby, M. (1964). Some determinants and consequences of the teacher’s perception of causation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 55, 237–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jones, E.E., & Davis, K.E. (1965). From acts to dispositions. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  9. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1973). On the psychology of prediction. Psychological Review, 80, 237–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kelley, H.H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
  11. Kelley, H.H. (1971). Attribution in social interaction. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.Google Scholar
  12. Kelley, H.H. (1972). Causal schemata and the attribution process. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.Google Scholar
  13. Kelley, H.H. (1973). The processes of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28, 107–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kruglanski, A.W. (1980). Lay epistemo-logic-process and contents. Psychological Review, 87, 70–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kruglanski, A.W., & Ajzen, I. (1983). Bias and error in human judgment. European Journal of Social Psychology, 13, 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kruglanski, A.W., & Freund, T. (1983). The freezing and unfreezing of lay inferences: Effects on impressional primacy, ethnic stereotyping and numerical anchoring. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 448–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kruglanski, A.W., Friedland, N., & Farkash, E. (1984). Lay persons’ sensitivity to statistical information: The case of high perceived applicability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 503–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Miller, D.T., & Ross, M. (1975). Self serving biases in the attribution of causality: Fact or fiction? Psychological Bulletin, 82, 212–225.Google Scholar
  19. Miller, D.T. (1976). Ego involvement and attributions for success and failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 901–906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ross, M., & Sicoly, F. (1979). Egocentric biases in availability and attribution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 322–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 159–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Weiner, B., Frieze, I., Kukla, A., Reed, L., Rest, S., & Rosenbaum, R. (1971). Perceiving the causes of success and failure. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.Google Scholar
  23. Zuckerman, M. (1979). Attribution of success and failure revisited, or: The motivational bias is alive and well in attribution theory. Journal of Personality, 47, 245–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arie W. Kruglanski

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations