Revealing Attributions Through Analyses of Readers' Responses

Theories of reader response prominent in contemporary literary criticism argue against the traditional notion that texts have a single meaning, for which authority lies with the author. Reader response theories suggest instead that many possible meanings of texts are constructed through interaction between textual characteristics and characteristics of readers themselves. This view of reading poses serious challenges for attributional research, much of which relies on presentation of verbal stimuli typically assumed to constitute identical stimuli for all subjects. In this study we assess the variability in readers' responses to a published short story. We also explore whether interpretations of this story are influenced by traditional attributional variables. Analyses of transcribed interviews with readers reveal substantial evidence of spontaneous trait attribution but little evidence of spontaneous causal attribution. We find that causal attributions are consistent with predictions based on Kelley's covariational model of attribution, but that neither this covariational model nor Jones and McGillis's model of dispositional inference adequately characterizes the process of trait attribution. There is also striking evidence of the prevalence and complexity of interpersonal causal and trait attributions. We conclude that attributional researchers have much to learn from close analysis of the possible multiple interpretations of social stimuli.