The Ladder of Inference Model from Action Science is a representation of different ways that individuals make sense of and deal with everyday events. Individuals select and process certain aspects of events, and introduce elements from this processing into their thinking, feeling, and interactions. These elements include inferences, attributions, and evaluations that may have considerable error relative to objective observations of the same events. The further an individual moves or extrapolates from the actual, original data (i.e., the verbatim words spoken and observable actions made by individuals), the greater is the potential error. This model can be useful in helping individuals reduce such errors and the resulting interpersonal problems.
We can consider various numbers of steps on the ladder of inference, starting with the data (the actual statements and actions) and moving progressively further away from the data, e.g., as illustrated in the following steps (read from bottom to top):
5. EVALUATION (of the other person's statements and/or actions)
4. ATTRIBUTION (assumed cause or motive of the other)
3. INFERENCE (interpretation & conclusion about what we think happened)
2. SELECTIVE & PARTIAL FOCUS (on some part of what was said or done)
1. DESCRIPTION (accurate recounting of the observed actions and/or verbatim statements of the other)
0. DATA (verbatim words said or the specific actions taken)
In the following illustration of this model, we consider a situation in which two individuals, X and Y, were participants - and then we consider a range of possible interpretations and responses by X to the actions of and verbatim words spoken by Y (i.e., "the data"). Briefly, the data are:
X and Y are both VPs, reporting to the president of a company. In an executive staff meeting X has just made a proposal to develop a new line of business. Y leans forward and speaks, rather loudly: "Certainly the company needs some new business options. This is a creative, interesting idea, but I have a lot of questions. What is the basis for your conclusion that this project would break-even in less than one year?"
Now, let's consider a range of possible ways that X might make sense of this brief interaction. Four different possibilities are summarized below, in order of increasing distance or extrapolation from the original data. These possibilities are referred to as different steps up the "ladder of inference," a model in which increasing extrapolation beyond the original data is represented by taking additional steps up the ladder.
1. X could possibly describe (report objectively and accurately) what Y said and did (step 1 above); however, it is likely that X would operate at one or more steps removed from the verbatim data to select and derive meaning (make sense) of what happened. It is likely that X will at least move to step 2 on the ladder of inference, in which X selects a portion of Y's observable actions and verbatim words for attention, e.g., X might select and focus on Y's statement:
"... but I have a lot of questions..." and that Y was speaking loudly.
2. X may move further beyond the data to step 3 on the ladder of inference. At this step X might infer or attribute meaning, which may be different from the verbatim statements and likely goes beyond the common cultural meaning of the utterance. Inferences at this level are quite specific to the individual. One possible example of X's thinking could be:
Y is trying to make me look bad and shoot down my proposal.
3. X may move even further beyond the data to steps 4 and 5 of the ladder of inference by developing conclusions, including attributions about Y's motives and evaluations of Y's actions and utterances. One possible example is:
Y is a {expletives deleted} lazy bureaucrat who wouldn't know a good idea if it hit him in the face! He's not willing to hustle and make things happen, but doesn't want anyone else to make him look bad by their accomplishments. The president should have fired him years ago!
It should be clear that, each time X moves further up the ladder of inference, she/her moves further from the actual data about what occurred in the event and, therefore, he/she is more prone to error. Also, as one moves further up the ladder, it is increasingly likely that the inferences, attributions, and evaluations of different participants will differ. For example, an alternative inference at the step 3 (which might be the inference made by a different individual observing the same event) is:
Y is asking some important questions that X didn't address adequately in his presentation. Y is really looking after the company's interests and future.
The Ladder of Inference Model can be used to help individuals recognize the kinds of inferences they are making, the assumptions implicit in these inferences, the conclusions they lead to, and the effects that acting on these inferences have in the individuals' organizational settings. Then, it can help individuals consider that there are other alternative inferences, learn to inquire and check out potential inferences, and ultimately act in more effective ways. For example, individuals can be helped to slow down and focus on the inferential steps and implicit assumptions they are using in abstracting conclusions from the original data of an event. Usually, these inferential processes are done quickly, skillfully, without awareness - so an individual may need assistance in reconstructing his/her implicit steps and reexamining the inferences and attributions made along the way. This kind of off-line analysis can help individuals learn about their typical response patterns and become more skillful in recognizing and avoiding such ineffective patterns as they deal with future events.
You May Also Find These Documents Helpful
-
Social cognition is the study of how people form attribution or judgments about themselves and the social world from the social information they received from their environment (Chapter Review, 2010). However, it was discovered often marked by apparent errors and biases. People make quick judgment based on their past experiences, hence at times leading to tragic endings.…
- 2174 Words
- 9 Pages
Powerful Essays -
Although Social Action Theorists do look very much as individual behaviour, they also take into account the fact that we are aware of the people around us, they argue that our behaviour is influenced by how other individuals react to us and behave, so society is made up because people come together and interact. We are able to react to each other’s behaviour in this way because we have learnt how to expect what people should and shouldn’t do, and how to interpret behaviour. We have meanings for various symbols during interactions, for example, someone frowning may show confusion or anger, and someone swearing with a hand gesture may be insulting, because of these codes and symbols, we are able to anticipate behaviour, and judge how people are feeling. This also gives us a knowledge about what behaviour is and isn’t appropriate in certain situations. These different situations can also affect how we behave and what behaviour is acceptable, for example shouting and swearing may be seen as acceptable at a football match, but this would be highly inappropriate in the middle of a supermarket or library.…
- 941 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
In the most basic turns, the social cognitive theory refers to the view that one learns by watching the behavior of others. With mass media becoming more and more relevant in today’s society, understanding how symbolic communication influences human thought, affect, and action is essential (Bandura, 2002, p. 265). In this transactional view, personal factors such as cognitive, affective, and biological events, behavioral patterns, and environmental events, work simultaneously and operate as interacting determinants that influence each other (Bandura, 2002, pg. 266). The theory has been applied in varied and diverse areas of life, including one’s career choice, organizational behavior, athletics, and even mental and physical health (Pajares,…
- 1243 Words
- 5 Pages
Better Essays -
-Passer, M. W., & Smith, R. E. (2008). _Psychology: The science of mind and behavior_ (4th ed.). New York, USA: McGraw-Hill.…
- 2265 Words
- 8 Pages
Powerful Essays -
Information social event and representation methods like "Talking with" and registering the "likelihood appropriations" on the base of "master judgment"…
- 1477 Words
- 5 Pages
Powerful Essays -
Zatrow, C. &.-A. (210). Understanding human behavior and social enviornment (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.…
- 814 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
When an individual anticipates or predicts an event, they base it on observation and experimentation. This anticipation or prediction form constructs, which may very well change or stabilize as the individual gains more experience or proves his or her speculation true. The idea of constructs is shared through words from individual to individual, however the details of the constructs are more meaningful to one individual or the other depending on who shared that particular constructs (McAdams, 2006). This is how individuals develop his or her personal constructs.…
- 564 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
Interpretations & Inferences statements that makes something clear; an opinion based on reasoning one comes to…
- 318 Words
- 2 Pages
Satisfactory Essays -
reasoning has a conclusion (implied or explicit) and at least one (and typically more than…
- 5131 Words
- 19 Pages
Powerful Essays -
Social psychologists interested in social perception and cognition have an ‘intuitive scientist’ model of how people understand their worlds – people seek ‘truths’ in a logical and rational way (as cited in Buchanan et al, 2007, p.106). They suggest that in order for people to have a sense of control over their social interactions, they make inferences and assumptions about people’s behaviour and events that they encounter. This concept falls under the ‘attribution theory’ umbrella, which means; assigning cause to our own or other peoples behaviour. Fritz Heider (cited in Buchanan et al, 2007) was the first to propose a psychological theory of attribution. Heider discussed what he called “naïve” or “commonsense” psychology. In his view, people were like amateur scientists, trying to understand other people’s behaviour by piecing together information until they arrived at a reasonable explanation or cause. However, there is also evidence that suggests that this is not the case and that people do not always behave in ‘rational’ or ‘objective’ ways as expected. This essay therefore aims to evaluate both sides of the argument whilst concluding whether the ‘lay scientist’ view is realistic or not.…
- 1613 Words
- 7 Pages
Better Essays -
Zastrow, C. H., & Kirst-Ashman, K. K. (2010). Understanding human behavior and the social environment (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.…
- 1751 Words
- 8 Pages
Better Essays -
When observing the behavior of other people people tend to comprehend and imitate that behavior, especially in cases where people experience positive observational experinces or if it includes rrewards to their. (Razieh Tadayon Nabavi jan 2012)…
- 1419 Words
- 6 Pages
Good Essays -
For psychology to have any validity as a science, research must show there is a common way to think, react, and feel amongst humans; uniform mental processes. So far, research has shown that one can study the behaviors of a small group and compare them to a larger population; however, some people’s thought processes might not fall along these lines of normal. Likewise, some thought processes are considered abnormal in human thinking.…
- 1228 Words
- 5 Pages
Better Essays -
Deductive inferences . . . start with general knowledge and predict a specific observation. For example if, from reading the hierarchy of facts about the machine, the mechanic knows…
- 697 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
| Students will be able to make inferences, draw conclusions, and form opinions based on information gathered from text and cite evidence to support.…
- 667 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays