Attribution Theory

● People thus attribute behavior to particular factors—usually either to consistent personality

characteristics (termed dispositions) or to aspects of the social situation of the persons involved.
● Attribution theory rests on three basic assumptions. First, it assumes that we do attempt to
determine the causes of both our own behavior and that of others.
● The second assumption underlying attribution theory is that the assignment of causes to behavior
is not done randomly; that is, rules exist that can explain how we come to the conclusions we do
about the causes of behavior
● The final assumption that attribution theories rest upon is that the causes attributed to particular
behaviors will influence subsequent emotional and nonemotional behaviors.
● attribution theories propose that we are motivated to try to understand the environment in which
we are immersed. This environment includes people with whom we interact and situations in
which those interactions occur
Heider’s Naive Psychology
● Heider, we can attribute the other driver’s behavior to dispositional factors (e.g., “he is a jerk,” or
“he is a bad driver”). Alternatively, we could attribute the behavior to situational factors (e.g.,
“maybe he didn’t see me,” or “he might have been distracted”).
● Heider suggested that as a rule we tend to attribute behavior to dispositional as opposed to
situational causes. According to Heider, the attribution rules are biased toward personal causation
● The tendency to attribute behavior to stable, internal characteristics has been termed the
fundamental attribution error
● They contend that our desire for balance can motivate us to make certain attributions rather than
others. For example, if you discover that the person who cut you off in traffic is a close friend,
you may change your dispositional attribution (e.g., “he’s a jerk”) to a situational one (e.g., “he
didn’t see me”) so that your mutually positive relationship with your friend stays in balance
The Jones and Davis Correspondent Inference Theory
● Jones and Davis (1965) agreed with Heider that dispositional attributions are more frequent than
situational ones.
● factors that we consider before we make a dispositional attribution such as this one.
● First, the person’s behavior must reflect some degree of choice.
● If a person has little or no choice, we are likely to attribute his or her behavior to the
situation.For example, suppose Seth’s vehicle was blocked by the woman’s car on a narrow
street, and the only way Seth could have continued on his way was if he helped her. Thus, Seth
did not have much choice except to help. In this case, we are less likely to make a dispositional
attribution because Seth’s choice of behavior was highly constrained by the situation
● Jones and Harris (1967) conducted several studies that support the contention that freely chosen
behaviors lead to dispositional attributions.Jones and Davis believe that two other factors are
considered in our attribution decision. One is the level of social desirability associated with the
behavior. A socially desirable behavior is one that is approved of and performed by most people.
According to Jones and Davis, because socially desirable behaviors are common, they don’t tell
us as much about a person’s disposition as do less socially desirable behaviors
● Because Bill’s behavior was high in social desirability, an observer would have difficulty forming
a dispositional attribution about him.
 ● Jones and Davis suggested that another factor we consider when we make decisions about the
causes of behavior is what they termed noncommon effects.Davis’s terms, the noncommon
correspondences provide information to us about the causes of the behavior
● But the second and, in this case, non common effect is only accomplished by the interview.
Similarly, if Seth simply wanted to leave the situation he could have driven around the woman’s
car. But if he found her attractive and wanted to exchange phone numbers with her, this
noncommon effect is best accomplished by helping her. According to Jones and Davis, the
noncommon effects tell us more about the actor’s intention, which then allows us to make a
correspondent inference about their disposition.
Kelley’s Covariation Theory
● Kelley believed that we have a need to control the environment in which we interact
● Causal attributions are regarded as the result of a complex interaction between several possible
causal agents. Kelley argued that when we make attributions about events, we choose the
explanations that best fit the observations. This is true whether we are making attributions about
our own behavior or that of others. For Kelley, making attributions can be likened to generating a
series of hypotheses concerning the causes of a particular event, then, through our observations
and logical processes, eliminating alternatives until we reach the most logical explanation for the
event.
● A major principle used in the attribution process is that of covariation. Covariation (or
correlation) across time is an important way in which we are able to make a judgment about
causality. Although not all events that correlate with one another reflect a causal relationship, all
causal relationships are correlational. Thus, if events do not correlate with each other, they cannot
be causally linked.
● Because there are usually several possible causes for any outcome, only those events that are
consistently related to a particular outcome are likely to be causal
● Kelley articulated three dimensions of past behavior that are particularly relevant in helping us
decide what type of attribution to make. The first of these dimensions is distinctiveness, which
refers to the degree to which the behavior is unique
● Kelley’s second dimension is consensus, which means that we examine other people’s behavior
in the same situation.? If we know of no one else who has been cheated, then consensus is low
and we may be tempted to make a dispositional attribution about.The third dimension is
consistency, which refers to the frequency with which the actor engages in the specific behavior
in question
● Behaviors that are high in consistency could lead to dispositional or situational attributions,
depending on the other information that we have available.
● pirate, according to Kelley’s model. The attribution theories of Heider, Jones and Davis, and
Kelley emphasize the information processing aspects of human behavior. We accumulate
information and, based on that information, attribute the causes of behavior in various ways.
Thus, these theories focus on the assumptions that a) we do attempt to determine the causes of
behavior and b) that we do this based on a series of rule
Weiner’s Attributional Analysis of Achievement Behavior
● Weiner broadened the question to include the attributions that we make when attempting to
explain past successes and failures and how these attributions influence our emotions,
expectancies of future success/failure, and subsequent behavior
 ● The elements are ability, effort, task difficulty, and luck.s. Past successes will lead us to conclude
that we have certain abilities in certain areas, while past failures will reduce our beliefs in our
abilities.
● We apparently judge task difficulty primarily via social comparison, though objective
characteristics of the task also play a part. We infer the difficulty of a task by observing the
percentage of other people who succeed. When many or most others succeed, we judge the task to
be easy; observing that most others fail leads us to infer that the task is very difficult. Luck is
assumed to be involved in a task when we have no control over the outcome of the task. For
example, we tend to ascribe the attainment of a particular goal to luck when we can detect no
relationship between our behavior and the successful attainment of that goal
● three causal dimensions: locus, stability, and controllabilWeiner called attribution independent
effect. That is, the outcome itself triggers happiness or sadness, depending on whether the person
succeeded or failed. No attribution has been made at this point. Once an attribution has been
formed, however, a different set of emotions is possible, depending on the causal dimensionality
● Both ability and effort can be regarded as internal characteristics. We tend to regard our abilities
and the effort we expend in working toward a goal as dispositional in character. Conversely, the
difficulty of the task and luck can be considered situational factors, which are external to the
individual. Thus attributions concerning outcomes that involve task difficulty or luck will tend to
be situational rather than dispositional
● Finally, some causes are controllable and some are uncontrollable by one’s self or by others..
Ability is internal, stable, and uncontrollable; effort is internal, unstable, and controllable; task
difficulty is external, stable, and controllable; and luck is external, unstable, and uncontrollable
● These more specific emotions are attribution dependent; they are determined by the salient causal
dimensions which are, in turn, the result of the attribution.For example, success attributed to
ability (internal, stable, and uncontrollable) led to choices of words that denoted confidence and
competence whereas success attributed to luck
● The attribution of independent emotions such as unhappiness and displeasure were common, as
predicted. It does not seem to matter why we fail; failing is simply an unpleasant outcome.The
results of the Weiner et al. study indicate that the relationship between attribution and emotion is
complex and that the commonsense view that success at achievement-related activities always
leads to feelings of pride and that failure leads to feelings of shame seems oversimplified
● Failure resulting from lack of intense effort does elicit guilt and shame as emotionally toned
association.Conversely, failure due to lack of ability may result in shame, hopelessness, and lack
of motivation.He thus attributes his failure to (a lack of) ability—he just does not think he can
diet successfully. Recall that ability is an internal, stable, and uncontrollable cause
● Thus, she attributes her failure to a lack of effort, which is an internal, unstable, and controllable
cause. In terms of psychological consequences, she may regret the lost opportunity, but she
should still expect to succeed the next time she tries. This combination of regret and expectancy
may cause her to be even more motivated to start the diet anew, which is a positive behavioral
consequence
Biases in Attribution
● The Self-Serving Bias-. Christine passes and Mary fails. Christine could attribute the result to a
disposition (e.g., “I am a good driver”) or to the situation
 ● Researchers have long known about the self-serving bias, or the tendency to take credit for
success and to avoid responsibility for failure.In addition they found that, although the bias exists
in all age groups, it is highest in childhood and late adulthood.
● One explanation involves the motives of self-assessment and self-enhancement.We are motivated
to accurately assess our abilities, but we are also motivated to maintain a positive self-image. So,
if given a choice, we will make.Thus, the self-serving bias may be influenced by both
motivational and cognitive factors
● Thus it appears that unbiased attributions require conscious effort while biased attributions are
more reflexive. Responsibility for one’s failures can protect one’s self image, but it can also lead
to a sense of unrealistic optimism. On the other hand, the absence of the self-enhancement motive
can lead one to depression if one over attributes failures internally and successes externally
● The False Consensus Effect- This refers to our tendency to believe that most other people think
and act the same way that we do.Although prevalent across many domains, the false consensus
effect is especially likely to occur when an individual’s attitude or behavior is unpopular or
deviant from the majority of his or her reference.The motives to gain social support and to bolster
self-esteem appear to be operating in false consensus estimate
● Because we tend to associate with others who share similar interests, it is reasonable to assume
that drug users are likely to associate with one another. This selective exposure may produce
inflated estimates of people who share our interests
The Actor–Observer Bias
● Rather, we are more likely to attribute our own behavior to situational factors (e.g., “I was
distracted,” or “I didn’t see him.”). This tendency to infer dispositional attributions of others’
behavior but situational attributions of our own behavior is known as the actor–observer bias
● an actor is aware of his or her own background and past experiences, while It should be noted
that there is a disagreement about whether the term binge drinking is the best way to describe
heavy alcohol consumption.
● The actor focuses attention on environmental cues because those are what must be attended to in
order to interact successfully.. Actors will tend to see their own behavior as resulting from these
cues rather than from some dispositional characteristic.actors are less likely to make dispositional
attributions for negative events than are observers, so the valence of the behavior is one
moderator of the effect
● Thus, they are more likely to make situational attributions about their workplace behavior,
particularly if consistency is low.
The Fundamental Attribution Error (Correspondence Bias)
● the fundamental attribution error (FAE). This refers to our tendency to attribute the behavior of
others to stable, internal characteristics, and thus to underestimate the influence of situational
factors.It is also sometimes known as the correspondence bias
● Castro, and the participants were led to believe that the student who wrote the essay either took a
position freely (Choice condition), or that they were instructed by their professor which position
they had to tak.
● These factors correspond to the 4 steps of the attribution process, which are situation perception,
behavioral expectation, behavior perception, and attribution, with or without correction.
According to Gilbert and Malone, the FAE can occur because a) we may not be aware of the
situational factors that weigh on the actor (i.e., poor situation perception); b) we may be aware of,
 but fail to fully appreciate, the magnitude of the situational influences (unrealistic behavioral
expectation); c) our experiences may affect our perception of the actor’s behavior (biased
behavior perception); and d) we may be unable or unwilling to fully consider the impact of the
situation
● Thus, according to Gilbert and Malone’s dual process model, we are generally biased to an initial
dispositional attribution, but sometimes correct for situational factors if we are motivated and
able to do so
What Is the Real Fundamental Error?
● behavior is the result of an interplay between internal and external factors.; it doesn’t make sense
to try to tease out one or the other and anoint it as the cause.They contend that we do not have a
particular bias toward or away from dispositional causes. Rather, we have a tendency to
underestimate the power of certain important motives called channel factors. These include a
motive to “save face,” or to avoid embarrassment of ourselves and other
Application of Research on Attributions
● Achievement-She and colleagues have found that our attributions clearly influence our future
expectancies of success as well as the emotions we experience as a result of success and failure
● Individuals with a mastery orientation tend to set challenging goals for themselves in order to
increase competence. Those with a helpless orientation avoid challenging goals and tend to give
up easily. Prior to performing a task that they would subsequently fail, there were no differences
between the attributions offered by the two types of children
● The children classified as helpless attributed their failure to uncontrollable factors; the mastery-
oriented children did not appear to have defined themselves as failing at all but, from their
verbalizations, appeared to be searching for solutions for their failure
● The mastery oriented children maintained positive attitudes about the task and continued to
believe that they could do well in the future. The helpless children, on the other hand, developed
negative attitudes about the task and sought to escape from the situation
● The helpless children, for example, seemed to remember their successes less than the mastery-
oriented children because they consistently underestimated the number of problems they had
correctly solved. Additionally, the helpless children rated their children rated their success as
lower than what they expected other children would do, while the mastery-oriented children rated
their success as higher than that of most other children
● This latter finding suggests that the helpless children attributed their success in such a way that it
was not an especially rewarding event.Although mastery-oriented children are likely to attribute
their successes to ability, helpless children are not.Furthermore, when helpless children
experience success followed by failure, they discount the success more than do mastery-oriented
children
● Dweck (1986) and Dweck and Elliot (1983), identified two different goal strategies. Helpless
individuals seek performance goals,while mastery-oriented individuals seek learning
● indicates that participants who viewed their intelligence as fixed tended to adopt performance
goals in order to prove their ability. Individuals who viewed their intelligence as malleable, on the
other hand, tended to adopt learning goals as a way of further developing that intelligence
● Some people view themselves and others as acting on the basis of fixed traits ,while other people
view themselves and others as acting on the basis of malleable traits (called incremental theorists
by Dweck et al. [1993]). These two types of individuals view the world quite differently. For
 example, entity theorists tend to make more global inferences, and tend to rely more on
dispositional evidence when making judgments. Incremental theorists, on the other hand, make
inferences that are more context specific in nature. Moreover, incremental theorists are more
likely to attribute their failures to unstable factors like effort and to modify these factors in an
attempt to increase performance
● The entity versus incrementalist perspective has also proven useful in explaining social behavior.
For example, children with an entity perspective are more likely to desire to seek revenge in
response to negative social interactions such as bullying.students with an incrementalist
perspective about morality are more likely to trust another after an apology for untrustworthy past
behavior
● Learned Helplessness- helplessness and depression result from the perceived non-contingency
between personal acts and the environment; that is, people become helpless when they believe
that they have no control over what happens to them.One was that it could not account for the
depressed individual’s generally low self-esteem; a second problem was the well-known fact that
depressed persons typically blame themselves for their lack of control. The original learned
helplessness theory of depression also could explain neither why some depressions are short-lived
and others continue for some time, nor why in some cases the observed helplessness is rather
specific while at other times it is quite general.attribution of personal helplessness will lead to
lowered self-esteem.
● attribution leads to feelings of low self-worth. The lowered self-esteem and self blame of the
depressed individual can be understood, Seligman argued, as the result of attributions of personal
helplessness.
● some depressions are characterized by little effort on the part of individuals to change their
behavior; the depressed individuals tend to make global attributions and come to believe that
nothing they do will have any effect on their environment
● From an operant perspective, hospitalization presents a situation where reinforcement
contingencies are such that independent, active, and control taking behaviors are discouraged,
while passive, dependent behaviors are encouraged. If rewards are consistently tied to
passiveness and punishments to active control taking, then it is not surprising that as the length of
hospitalization becomes greater, helpless behavior increases.
● Role theory proposes that expectations, in the form of rules regarding appropriate behavior, can
lead to behaviors appropriate for the role being played.As a result, when people play “patient,”
their expectations of appropriate patient behavior lead them to act in a passive and dependent
way.
● hopelessness theory of depression. This model proposes to explain a specific subtype of
depression that they call hopelessness depression
● Hopelessness depression is, they believe, typified by two basic expectations: (a) highly valued
outcomes are unobtainable or highly aversive outcomes cannot be avoided, and (b) the individual
is helpless to change these situations. Thus helplessness becomes a component of hopelessness in
the model
● Specifically, internal, stable, and global attributions of positive life events are related to decreased
hopelessness and diminished symptoms of depression in psychiatric inpatient