İlkokul Öğrencilerinde Sosyal Yargı Süreçleri: Hayat Bilgisi Dersi Bağlamında Temel Yükleme Hatasının İncelenmesi

Abstract

Bu çalışma, ilkokul öğrencilerinin sosyal çatışma durumlarını yorumlarken sergiledikleri Temel Yükleme Hatası (TYH) eğilimini ve bu eğilimin 2024 Hayat Bilgisi Dersi Öğretim Programı (HBÖP) ile ilişkisini incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Araştırma, İstanbul’daki bir devlet ilkokulunda amaçlı örnekleme ile belirlenen çalışma grubuyla yakınsak karma desen çerçevesinde yürütülmüştür. Çalışma grubu birinci, ikinci ve üçüncü sınıf düzeylerinden 30 öğrenciden oluşmuştur. Nicel ve nitel veriler eşzamanlı olarak resimli vinyetlere verilen kapalı ve açık uçlu yanıtlar yoluyla toplanmış; ayrıca HBÖP doküman analizi gerçekleştirilmiştir. Nicel veriler Ki-Kare ve Fisher–Freeman–Halton testleriyle; nitel veriler tematik analizle çözümlenmiş ve bulgular yorumlama aşamasında bütünleştirilmiştir. Bulgular, sınıf düzeyi yükseldikçe öğrencilerin davranışları daha sık içsel özelliklere atfetme ve etiketleyici açıklamalar yapma yönünde betimsel bir artış gösterdiğini; ancak bu farklılaşmanın istatistiksel olarak anlamlı olmadığını ortaya koymuştur. Cinsiyete göre anlamlı bir farklılaşma saptanmamıştır. Nitel bulgular, üst sınıf düzeylerinde kalıcı kişilik temelli gerekçelerin belirginleştiğini göstermiştir. Doküman analizi ise HBÖP’nin süreç ve durumsal farkındalık vurgusuyla bu eğilime karşı pedagojik bir karşılık sunduğunu ortaya koymuştur. Sonuç olarak çalışma, gelişimsel olarak güçlenen etiketleme eğilimi ile programın bağlamsal anlama hedefleri arasındaki pedagojik gerilime işaret etmektedir.

Keywords

• Temel Yükleme Hatası
• Sosyal Yargı
• Hayat Bilgisi
• Karma Yöntem

Social Judgment Processes in Primary School Students: An Investigation of Fundamental Attribution Error in the Context of Life Studies Course

Abstract

This study aims to examine elementary school students’ tendency toward the Fundamental Attribution Error (FAE) when interpreting social conflict situations and to explore how this tendency relates to the 2024 Life Studies Curriculum (LSC). The research was conducted in a public primary school in Istanbul using a convergent mixed-methods design with a purposively selected sample. The study group consisted of 30 students from the first, second, and third grade levels. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected simultaneously through students’ closed- and open-ended responses to illustrated vignettes; in addition, a document analysis of the LSC was carried out. Quantitative data were analyzed using Chi-square and Fisher–Freeman–Halton tests, while qualitative data were examined through thematic analysis, and findings were integrated during the interpretation phase. Results indicate a descriptive increase in students’ tendency to attribute behaviors to internal characteristics and to produce labeling explanations as grade level increases; however, this difference was not statistically significant. No significant differences were found with respect to gender. Qualitative findings revealed that dispositional, personality-based justifications became more pronounced at higher grade levels. The document analysis demonstrated that the LSC adopts a process-oriented and context-sensitive perspective that provides a pedagogical counterbalance to this tendency. Overall, the study highlights a pedagogical tension between the developmentally strengthening labeling tendency and the curriculum’s emphasis on contextual understanding.

Keywords

• Fundamental Attribution Error
• Social Judgment
• Life Studies
• Mixed Method

References

1. Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., & Akert, R. M. (2020). Sosyal psikoloji. Kaknüs Yayınları.
2. Arkonaç, S. A. (2005). Sosyal psikoloji. Alfa Yayınları.
3. Avramova, Y. R., Stapel, D. A., & Lerouge, D. (2010). The influence of mood on attribution. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(10), 1360-1371.
4. Bauman, C. W., & Skitka, L. J. (2010). Making attributions for behaviors: The prevalence of correspondence bias in the general population. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 32(3), 269-277.
5. Choi, I., & Nisbett, R. E. (1998). Situational salience and cultural differences in the correspondence bias and actor-observer bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(9), 949-960. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167298249003
6. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education. Routledge.
7. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage Publications.
8. Flick, C., & Schweitzer, K. (2021). Influence of the fundamental attribution error on perceptions of blame and negligence. Experimental Psychology, 68(4), 175–188. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000526

9. Gough, D. (2007). Weight of Evidence: a framework for the appraisal of the quality and relevance of evidence. Research Papers in Education, 22(2), 213–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671520701296189
10. Heider, F. (2015). The psychology of interpersonal relations. Martino Fine Books.
11. Hogg, M. A., & Vaughan, G. M. (2007). Sosyal psikoloji. Ütopya Yayınevi.
12. Hopthrow, T., Hooper, N., Mahmood, L., Meier, B. P., & Weger, U. (2017). Mindfulness Reduces the Correspondence Bias. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70(3), 351-360. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2016.1149498
13. Hortaçsu, N. (2003). Çocuklukta ilişkiler. İmge Kitabevi.
14. Hortaçsu, N., & Ekinci, B. (1992). Children's reliance on situational and vocal expression of emotions: Consistent and conflicting cues. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 16(4), 231-247.
15. Kağıtçıbaşı, Ç. (2012). Günümüzde insan ve insanlar. Evrim Yayınları.
16. Kelley, H. H. (1973). The processes of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28(2), 107–128. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034225
17. Krull, D. S., Loy, M. H. M., Lin, J., Wang, C. F., Chen, S., & Zhao, X. (1999). The fundamental fundamental attribution error: Correspondence bias in individualist and collectivist cultures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(10), 1208-1219.
18. Liberman, N., Trope, Y., & Stephan, E. (2007). Psychological distance. A. W. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (Eds.) içinde, Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (ss. 353–381). The Guilford Press.
19. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE.
20. Livesley, W. J., & Bromley, D. B. (1973). Person perception in childhood and adolescence. John Wiley & Sons.
21. Ma-Kellams, C. (2020). Cultural variation and similarities in cognitive thinking styles versus judgment biases: a review of environmental factors and evolutionary forces. Review of General Psychology, 24(3), 238-253. https://doi.org/10.1177/1089268019901270
22. Maxfield, M., Pyszczynski, T., Greenberg, J., & Bultmann, M. N. (2017). Age differences in the effects of mortality salience on the correspondence bias. The International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 84(4), 329-342. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091415016685332
23. McPherson, M. B., & Young, S. L. (2004). What students think when teachers get upset: Fundamental attribution error and student‐generated reasons for teacher anger. Communication Quarterly, 52(4), 357–369. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463370409370206
24. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. Sage Publications.
25. Miller, A. G., Ashton, W. A., & Mishal, M. (1990). Beliefs concerning the features of constrained behavior: A basis for the fundamental attribution error. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(4), 635.
26. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı. (2024). Hayat Bilgisi Dersi Öğretim Programı - Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli. 26.07.2025 tarihinde https://tymm.meb.gov.tr/ogretim-programlari/hayat-bilgisi-dersi adresinden erişilmiştir.
27. Miyamoto, Y., & Kitayama, S. (2002). Cultural variation in correspondence bias: The critical role of attitude diagnosticity of socially constrained behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(5), 1239–1248. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.5.1239
28. Nayır, F., Sarı, T., & Sarıdaş, G. (2024). Karma yöntem araştırma sorularının doğasını keşfetmek. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, (60), 361-372.
29. Ogletree, S. M., & Archer, R. L. (2011). Interpersonal judgments: moral responsibility and blame. Ethics & Behavior, 21(1), 35–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2011.537569
30. Ormrod, J. E. (2015). Öğrenme psikolojisi. Nobel Yayın.
31. Piaget, J. (2015). Çocuğun ahlaki yargısı. Pinhan Yayıncılık.
32. Riggio, H. R., & Garcia, A. L. (2009). The Power of Situations: Jonestown and the Fundamental Attribution Error. Teaching of Psychology, 36(2), 108-112. https://doi.org/10.1080/00986280902739636
33. Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. L. Berkowitz (Ed.) içinde, Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10, ss. 173-220). Academic Press.
34. Samuels, S. M., & Casebeer, W. D. (2005). A social psychological view of morality: why knowledge of situational influences on behaviour can improve character development practices. Journal of Moral Education, 34(1), 73–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240500049349
35. Schutz, P. A., Courtney, B. C., & DeCuir, J. T. (2003). Multimethods research. K. deMarrais & S. D. Lapan (Eds.), Foundations for research içinde, ss. 267-283. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers.
36. Shapiro, M. A., Barriga, C. A., & Beren, J. (2010). Causal attribution and perceived realism of stories. Media Psychology, 13(3), 273–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2010.502874
37. Stevens, D. D., & Levi, A. J. (2012). Introduction to rubrics. Routledge.
38. Taylor, S. E., & Fiske, S. T. (1975). Point of view and perceptions of causality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(3), 439–445. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0077095
39. Tetlock, P. E. (1985). Accountability: a social check on the fundamental attribution error. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48(3), 227–236 https://doi.org/10.2307/3033683
40. Trope, Y., & Gaunt, R. (2000). Processing alternative explanations of behavior: Correction or integration? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(3), 344–354. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.3.344
41. Walker, D., Smith, K. A., & Vul, E. (2022). Reconsidering the “bias” in “the correspondence bias”. Decision, 9(3), 263–284. https://doi.org/10.1037/dec0000180
42. Weiner, B. (1985). “Spontaneous” causal thinking. Psychological Bulletin, 97(1), 74–84.
43. Yarritu, I. (2023). Moral elevation affects the causal attributions about others’ behavior. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 19(3), 430–441. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2023.2239773