Understanding Discursive Psychology, Attitudes and Attribution

Discursive Psychology

Discursive psychology was initially developed by Potter and Wetherell in 1987. It emerged from the broader "turn to language" in the social sciences during the 1980s. This approach represents a significant shift in the study of psychological phenomena, both in past and present research. It recognizes the importance of focusing on the analysis of talk and text as valuable research subjects in their own right, rather than merely as tools for accessing underlying cognitive processes. Unlike traditional methods that treated language primarily as a means to access internal cognitive processes, discursive psychology emphasizes the importance of examining language as a form of social action (McMullen, 2021). In discursive psychology, discourse (text and speech) is not merely seen as a reflection of mental states but as an active component of social interaction. This perspective is grounded in the idea that language plays a crucial role in constructing reality, managing relationships, and performing various social actions (McHoul & Rapley, 2001). Discursive psychology’s emphasis on the social functions of language aligns closely with the principles of Critical Social Psychology. Both approaches critique traditional psychology's focus on internal mental states, such as attitudes and attributions, and instead emphasize how psychological phenomena are shaped by social, cultural, and political contexts.

With time the approaches to discursive psychology have changed and evolved as it now has shifted from focusing on interviewing and interpretative repertoires to a more focused approach into sequential analysis informed by conversation analysis principles (Kent & Potter, 2014; Locke & Budds, 2020). Potter (2002) argues that interviews are designed to elicit specific interactions from participants, resulting in a co-constructed reality. While interviews are useful for collecting data, it is important to recognize their limitations, as the situation is intentionally set up for the interaction to occur. Consequently, naturally occurring everyday discourse is preferable for discursive psychology (O'Reilly & Kiyimba, 2015). This preference reflects discursive psychology’s alignment with Critical Social Psychology’s focus on understanding how psychological phenomena are situated within and influenced by broader socio-cultural and political contexts. Both approaches seek to reveal how psychological processes are not merely individual but deeply intertwined with social practices and structures.This shift reflects the field’s focus on understanding discourse within its natural context to better capture how language functions in real-life social interactions.

Discursive psychology applies principles from discourse analysis to psychological topics, focusing on how people use language to negotiate meaning, establish social norms, and influence others. Language is viewed as a tool for performing a range of actions, such as making requests, giving orders, blaming, justifying, or constructing identities, rather than simply conveying thoughts or emotions (Potter, 2003). This approach highlights the role of language in organizing and managing social interactions, rather than seeing it solely as a reflection of internal mental states. To fully understand discourse, it is essential to analyze it within its actual context, considering the specific situational factors in which it occurs. Discourse must be examined as it unfolds in real-time, paying attention to how individuals use language to construct interpretations of the world and what happens around them (Edwards & Potter, 2018). These interpretations not only shape individuals' thoughts and beliefs but also influence their actions and the events around them. By analyzing how people talk about various topics, researchers can uncover how these linguistic practices shape perceptions and impact social practices and interactions (Potter & Wiggins, 2007; Wiggins, 2017).

Mainstream psychology often assumes that language is merely a way of conveying pre-existing thoughts and feelings. In contrast, discursive psychology demonstrates how language itself is a form of action that shapes and manages social realities. Potter (2012) argues that discursive psychology offers a significant opportunity for mainstream psychology to rethink traditional concepts. By incorporating discursive psychology, traditional psychology could benefit from a broader understanding of how language and expression are influenced by cultural and environmental factors. Discursive psychology views what people colloquially refer to as having an “attitude” not just as an internal psychological state but as different kinds of evaluations people make and the contexts in which these evaluations are used. This perspective reveals that discourse is organized and conditioned by sociohistorical, cultural, social, political, economic, and institutional contexts (Crawford & Valsiner, 1999). These social constructionist presuppositions make discourse analysis relevant and useful for exploring psychological processes and their dynamic interrelationships with culture. Integrating discursive psychology into mainstream approaches can thus offer valuable insights and enrich our understanding of psychological phenomena.

Discursive psychology has several limitations, particularly regarding data collection and analysis. Analyzing discourse in everyday life scenarios requires extensive time to understand the context behind spoken words. Potter (2002) argues that achieving a complete understanding in practice is challenging and suggests that researchers should either be actively involved as co-participants in data creation or remain entirely detached from data generation (O'Reilly & Kiyimba, 2015). Potter's preference is based on the notion that talk should be analyzed within the specific context of its occurrence. However, he acknowledges that naturalistic material may not always be suitable, and interviews can be appropriate for some research issues.

Another limitation of discursive psychology is the difficulty in generalizing findings from specific contexts to broader populations or different settings. The context-specific nature of discourse can lead to inconsistencies when applying insights across varied contexts. However, qualitative studies that use discursive data can still yield coherent and definitive sociological accounts (Wooffitt, 2005). Gilbert and Mulkay (1984) proposed a four-step procedure to address variability in qualitative research:

Obtain statements through interviews or observations in a natural setting.

Identify broad similarities between the statements.

Treat frequently occurring similarities as accurate reflections of what is happening.

Construct a generalized version of participants’ accounts and present this as an analytic conclusion.

This approach can help overcome some of the challenges associated with discursive psychology and enhance the reliability of its findings.

Enhancing practices in discursive analysis could better align with the principles of critical social psychology, which emphasize the role of social contexts in understanding psychological processes. With these improvements, discursive psychology could become a valuable tool for refining our approach to other psychological practices aimed at better comprehending human behavior and social constructions of communication. In this context, it is crucial to examine how discursive psychology addresses attitudes and attributions, as it reveals that these constructs are not merely internal states but are actively shaped through social interactions and rhetorical practices. This perspective highlights the dynamic nature of attitudes and attributions, emphasizing that understanding them requires a focus on how they are managed and framed within conversations.

Attitudes and Attributions

Attitudes and attributions are fundamental concepts in psychology that refer to how individuals perceive, interpret, and respond to the world around them. Attitudes are evaluations of people, objects, or ideas that can be positive, negative, or neutral, and influence their behavior and decision-making. Attributions, on the other hand, are the explanations people create for the causes of their own and others' behaviors (Jones & Harris, 1967). It is in part how we make sense in everyday life to the social world. The deeper study of attitudes and attributions has the potential to offer great ways of gathering information regarding individuals behaviors, how they act and respond to social events while making sense of the world around them. Although it seems to have the potential for great impact the sole importance and certainty that is given to attitudes and attributions has led to wide divergences between mainstream and critical social psychologists as to how they should be understood, what they tell us about individuals, and how they relate to the social world (McVittie & McKinlay, 2017) To gain a better understanding of human behavior, significant improvements are needed in the practices surrounding the study of attitudes and attributions.

In mainstream psychology, the appeal of studying attitudes was based on the idea that these were an essential part of an individual and revealed deeply rooted and consistent aspects of their inner selves. Attitudes were seen as predictors of people's behaviors across different types of social situations, maintaining a level of consistency (McVittie & McKinlay, 2017). However, over time, it became evident that attitudes do not straightforwardly predict behavior, as many other factors need to be considered when examining why a person displays certain behaviors. Due to the inconsistencies found in attitudes predicting behaviors, contemporary approaches have redefined attitudes as multidimensional constructs that encompass affective, behavioral, and cognitive components (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). Theories such as the Theory of Reasoned Action and the Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977; Ajzen, 1985) now suggest that attitudes are just one of several factors influencing behavior, along with social norms and perceived behavioral control. These models acknowledge that while attitudes may inform behavioral intentions, they do not solely determine actual behavior, highlighting the nuanced and context-dependent nature of attitudes. While mainstream psychology has traditionally focused on internal mental states, such as attitudes, the study of attributions has also evolved to reveal the limitations of this approach.

The study of attributions has evolved significantly since its inception. A major influence on mainstream approaches to attribution was Kelley’s (1967) covariation model. Kelley proposed that people try to understand others’ behavior by collecting and organizing information based on three factors: consensus, distinctiveness, and consistency. Consensus refers to whether others behave similarly in comparable situations, distinctiveness involves whether the person behaves differently across various contexts, and consistency considers whether the person’s behavior is stable over time in similar contexts. By analyzing these factors, people decide whether to attribute behavior to the individual or to the situation. However, a limitation of Kelley’s model is that it assumes individuals are more rational and deliberate in their explanations than they actually are, as people often fail to consider all relevant information before making attributions. Consequently, mainstream approaches sometimes overlook how attributions are influenced by the broader context, leading to biased evaluations (McVittie & McKinlay, 2017). Research has shown that people often attribute their own actions to the context, while observers tend to attribute those same actions to the individual performing them (Nisbett et al., 1973). This suggests that attributions are more complex and context-dependent than traditional models account for.

Mainstream approaches to studying attitudes and attributions focus on inner mental processes and treat language as a tool for expressing these internal states. They assume that language merely reflects what happens internally and that social phenomena exist independently of individual perspectives. These approaches often consider attributions as explanations of an objective reality, even though they may be biased (McVittie & McKinlay, 2017). While these theories have contributed significantly to understanding human behavior, they have several limitations. They tend to view attitudes and attributions as stable and consistent, overlooking their fluidity and the influence of context. They also fail to consider how power dynamics, social structures, and cultural factors shape attitudes and attributions. As a result, while these approaches have contributed to understanding human behavior, they miss important complexities and contextual influences.

Critical social psychology critiques mainstream approaches to studying attitudes and attributions by challenging the assumptions of people’s individualism, internal consistency, and context independence. With mainstream approaches often treating attitudes and attributions as stable, internal constructs that are consistent across different contexts it is clear that there are many aspects that aren't being taken into account when it comes to understanding human behavior. Data collection and analysis regarding attitudes and attribution rely heavily on quantitative methods like surveys and experiments to measure these constructs, assuming that language merely reflects internal states and that social phenomena exist independently of individual perspectives (McVittie & McKinlay, 2017). In contrast, critical social psychology and discursive psychology emphasize that attitudes and attributions are not merely mental states but are actively constructed through language and social interactions. Discursive psychology examines how language shapes meaning, social norms, and interactions, viewing it as an active tool rather than just a reflection of internal thoughts (Potter, 2003). It focuses on analyzing language in its real-life context to understand how it influences perceptions and actions (Edwards & Potter, 2018).

Further critiques of critical social psychology to mainstream views and takes on attitudes and attributions argue that attitudes are often ambivalent and reflective of broader social realities rather than fixed internal states (McVittie & McKinlay, 2017). Methodologically, critical psychology advocates for qualitative methods, such as discourse analysis, which capture the nuanced, context-dependent nature of these constructs. As previously mentioned, discursive psychology seeks to observe discourse in natural, everyday contexts, rather than relying solely on quantitative data collection, which does not always provide the most nuanced understanding of human behavior in different contexts. For example, the Likert scale, which allows responses ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree (Collaborators, 2024), provides a simplified view of attitudes but does not account for the broader situational and contextual factors influencing individuals’ responses and behaviors. critical psychology provides a more dynamic and context-sensitive understanding of attitudes and attributions. It allows for a deeper exploration of how people negotiate contradictory attitudes and behaviors depending on social norms and power dynamics (Haslam et al., 2010).

Incorporating a more critical social psychology approach to studying and analyzing attitudes and attributions has the potential to improve research and understanding of human behavior. By using methodologies that provide a more comprehensive view of how these constructs are shaped by social, cultural, and historical contexts, we can achieve a more nuanced analysis of their variability and complexity, leading to a fuller understanding of attitudes and attributions. Additionally, this approach emphasizes the importance of power dynamics and social structures in shaping attitudes and attributions, highlighting how these constructs are often used to maintain social hierarchies and inequalities. Furthermore, it offers methodological flexibility by employing qualitative methods that capture the richness and complexity of social interactions.

A study by Finlay and Faulkner (2003) illustrates this approach by examining how attributions are managed in conversation within the context of sports psychology. Their research challenges the traditional view of attributions as fixed cognitive categories by demonstrating that attributions are actively constructed and negotiated during interactions. In their study, Finlay and Faulkner (2003) employed conversation analysis to explore how athletes discuss their performance and manage attributions in real-time. They found that attributions are not simply reflections of internal cognitive states but are shaped by the context of the conversation and the interactional goals of the speakers. The study highlights that attributions are dynamic and context-dependent, and they often shift based on who is speaking, to whom, and the immediate social context. Finlay and Faulkner's (2003) work demonstrates that discursive psychology provides a more nuanced view of attributions by focusing on the practical use of language in managing social interactions. Instead of viewing attributions as fixed internal states that can be measured through self-report questionnaires, discursive psychology emphasizes how people use language to negotiate meaning and manage social relationships. This approach reveals how attributions are strategically framed to achieve interactional goals, such as maintaining modesty, justifying behavior, or aligning with social norms.

However, using critical social psychology methods also has its limitations and disadvantages. One limitation is that qualitative methods, such as discourse analysis, can be time-consuming to collect and may lack the generalizability of quantitative methods. Additionally, critical social psychology's focus on context-specific analysis can make it challenging to apply findings across different contexts or populations. Finally, the emphasis on language and discourse may overlook other important factors, such as unconscious biases or physiological processes, that can also influence attitudes and attributions (Burman, 2017).

Discursive psychology offers a transformative approach to understanding psychological phenomena by emphasizing the role of language in shaping social interactions and realities. Unlike mainstream psychology, which often treats language as a passive reflection of internal states, discursive psychology views language as an active component in managing and constructing social realities. This perspective provides valuable insights into concepts such as attitudes and attributions, showing them as dynamic constructs shaped through discourse rather than fixed internal entities. Although discursive psychology faces challenges related to data collection, context-specific analysis, and generalizability, integrating its methods with mainstream and Critical Social Psychology approaches can enhance our understanding of psychological processes. By acknowledging the socio-cultural and contextual factors influencing attitudes and attributions, discursive psychology contributes to a more nuanced and context-sensitive analysis of human behavior, offering a richer and more comprehensive view of how people navigate and interpret their social worlds.

References

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84(5), 888–918. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.84.5.888

Collaborators, Q. (2024, January 30). Agree Disagree Questions: Definition, Crafting & Challenges. QuestionPro. https://www.questionpro.com/blog/agree-disagree-questions/

Crawford, V. M., & Valsiner, J. (1999). Varieties of Discursive Experience in Psychology: Culture Understood through the Language Used. Culture & Psychology, 5(3), 259–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067X9953008

Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.

Finlay, S.-J., & Faulkner, G. (2003). “Actually I Was the Star”: Managing Attributions in Conversation. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, Vol 4, No 1 (2003): Qualitative Methods in Various Disciplines IV: Sport Sciences. https://doi.org/10.17169/FQS-4.1.745

Gilbert, G. N., & Mulkay, M. J. (1984). Opening Pandora’s box: a sociological analysis of scientists’ discourse. Cambridge University Press.

Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S. D., & Platow, M. J. (2010). The New Psychology of Leadership (0 ed.). Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203833896

Jones, E. E., & Harris, V. A. (1967). The attribution of attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 3(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(67)90034-0

Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 15, 192–238.

Kent, A., & Potter, J. (2014). Discursive psychology. In T. Hargreaves (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of language and social psychology (pp. 295–316). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Locke, A., & Budds, K. (2020). Applying critical discursive psychology to health psychology research: a practical guide. Health Psychology and Behavioral Medicine, 8(1), 234–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/21642850.2020.1792307

McMullen, L. M. (2021). Conceptual foundations of discursive psychology. In Essentials of discursive psychology (pp. 3–14). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000220-001

McHoul, A. W., & Rapley, M. (2001). How to analyse talk in institutional settings: a casebook of methods. Continuum.

Nisbett, R. E., Caputo, C., Legant, P., & Marecek, J. (1973). Behavior as seen by the actor and as seen by the observer. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27(2), 154–164. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034779

O’Reilly, M., & Kiyimba, N. (2015). Advanced Qualitative Research: A Guide to Using Theory. SAGE Publications Ltd, Chapter 4. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781529622782

Potter, J. (2003). Discursive Psychology: Between Method and Paradigm. Discourse & Society, 14(6), 783–794. https://doi.org/10.1177/09579265030146005

Potter, J. (2012). How to study experience. Discourse & Society, 23(5), 576–588. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926512455884

Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes and behaviour. Sage Publications, Inc.

Potter, J. and Wiggins, S. (2007) Discursive psychology. In: Handbook of qualitative research in psychology. Sage, pp. 73-90. ISBN 978-1-85433-204-2

Wiggins, S. (2017). Discursive Psychology: Theory, Method and Applications. SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473983335

Wooffitt, R. (2005). Conversation Analysis and Discourse Analysis. SAGE Publications Ltd. https://www.cur.ac.rw/mis/main/library/documents/book_file/digital-65ca29d5cbc795.39104640.pdf

Activity