Attribution (psychology)
InternalFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Internal attribution, or dispositional attribution, refers to the process of assigning the cause of
behavior to some internal characteristic, like ability and motivation, rather than to outside forces.
[6]:104 This concept has overlap with the Locus of control, in which individuals feel they are
personally responsible for everything that happens to them.
Theories and models
Common sense psychology
From the book The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations (1958), Fritz Heider tried to explore the
nature of interpersonal relationship, and espoused the concept of what he called "common sense" or
"naïve psychology". In his theory, he believed that people observe, analyze, and explain behaviors
with explanations. Although people have different kinds of explanations for the events of human
behaviors, Heider found it is very useful to group explanation into two categories; Internal
(personal) and external (situational) attributions.[7] When an internal attribution is made, the cause
of the given behavior is assigned to the individual's characteristics such as ability, personality,
mood, efforts, attitudes, or disposition. When an external attribution is made, the cause of the given
behavior is assigned to the situation in which the behavior was seen such as the task, other people,
or luck (that the individual producing the behavior did so because of the surrounding environment
or the social situation). These two types lead to very different perceptions of the individual
engaging in a behavior.[8]
Correspondent inference
Main article: Correspondent inference theory
Correspondent inferences state that people make inferences about a person when their actions are
freely chosen, are unexpected, and result in a small number of desirable effects.[2] According to
Edward E. Jones and Keith Davis' correspondent inference theory, people make correspondent
inferences by reviewing the context of behavior. It describes how people try to find out individual's
personal characteristics from the behavioral evidence. People make inferences on the basis of three
factors; degree of choice, expectedness of behavior, and effects of someone's behaviors. For
example, we believe we can make stronger assumptions about a man who gives half of his money to
charity, than we can about one who gives $5 to charity. An average person would not want to donate
as much as the first man because they would lose a lot of money. By donating half of his money, it
is easier for someone to figure out what the first man's personality is like. The second factor, that
affects correspondence of action and inferred characteristic, is the number of differences between
the choices made and the previous alternatives. If there aren't many differences, the assumption
made will match the action because it is easy to guess the important aspect between each choice.[9]
Covariation model
Main article: Covariation model
The covariation model states that people attribute behavior to the factors that are present when a
behavior occurs and absent when it does not. Thus, the theory assumes that people make causal
attributions in a rational, logical fashion, and that they assign the cause of an action to the factor that
co-varies most closely with that action.[10] Harold Kelley's covariation model of attribution looks
to three main types of information from which to make an attribution decision about an individual's
behavior. The first is consensus information, or information on how other people in the same
situation and with the same stimulus behave. The second is distinctive information, or how the
individual responds to different stimuli. The third is consistency information, or how frequent the
individual's behavior can be observed with similar stimulus but varied situations. From these three
sources of information observers make attribution decisions on the individual's behavior as either
internal or external. There have been claims that people under-utilise consensus information,
although there has been some dispute over this.[11]
There are several levels in the covariation model: high and low. Each of these levels influences the
three covariation model criteria. High consensus is when many people can agree on an event or area
of interest. Low consensus is when very few people can agree. High distinctiveness is when the
event or area of interest is very unusual, whereas low distinctness is when the event or area of
interest is fairly common. High consistency is when the event or area of interest continues for a
length of time and low consistency is when the event or area of interest goes away quickly.[11]
Three-dimensional model
Bernard Weiner proposed that individuals have initial affective responses to the potential
consequences of the intrinsic or extrinsic motives of the actor, which in turn influence future
behavior.[12] That is, a person's own perceptions or attributions as to why they succeeded or failed
at an activity determine the amount of effort the person will engage in activities in the future.
Weiner suggests that individuals exert their attribution search and cognitively evaluate casual
properties on the behaviors they experience. When attributions lead to positive affect and high
expectancy of future success, such attributions should result in greater willingness to approach to
similar achievement tasks in the future than those attributions that produce negative affect and low
expectancy of future success.[13] Eventually, such affective and cognitive assessment influences
future behavior when individuals encounter similar situations.
Weiner's achievement attribution has three categories:
1. stable theory (stable and unstable)
2. locus of control (internal and external)
3. controllability (controllable or uncontrollable)
Stability influences individuals' expectancy about their future; control is related with individuals'
persistence on mission; causality influences emotional responses to the outcome of task.
Bias and errors
While people strive to find reasons for behaviors, they fall into many traps of biases and errors. As
Fritz Heider says, "our perceptions of causality are often distorted by our needs and certain
cognitive biases".[14] The following are examples of attributional biases.
Fundamental attribution error
Main article: Fundamental attribution error
The fundamental attribution error describes the habit to misunderstand dispositional or personality-
based explanations for behavior, rather than considering external factors. The fundamental
attribution error is most visible when people explain and assume the behavior of others. For
example, if a person is overweight, a person's first assumption might be that they have a problem
with overeating or are lazy and not that they might have a medical reason for being heavier set.[15]
When evaluating others' behaviors, the situational context is often ignored in favor of the
disposition of the actor to be the cause of an observed behavior. This is because when a behavior
occurs attention is most often focused on the person performing the behavior. Thus, the individual is
more salient than the environment and dispositional attributions are made more often than
situational attributions to explain the behavior of others.[5] However, when evaluating one's own
behavior, the situational factors are often exaggerated when there is a negative outcome while
dispositional factors are exaggerated when there is a positive outcome.[5]
The core process assumptions of attitude construction models are mainstays of social cognition
research and are not controversial—as long as we talk about "judgment". Once the particular
judgment made can be thought of as a person's "attitude", however, construal assumptions elicit
discomfort, presumably because they dispense with the intuitively appealing attitude concept.[16]
Culture bias
Main article: Culture bias
Culture bias is when someone makes an assumption about the behavior of a person based on their
cultural practices and beliefs. People in individualist cultures, generally Anglo-America and Anglo-
Saxon European societies, value individuals, personal goals, and independence. People in
collectivist cultures see individuals as members of groups such as families, tribes, work units, and
nations, and tend to value conformity and interdependence. In other words, working together and
being involved as a group is more common in certain cultures that views each person as a part of
the community. This cultural trait is common in Asia, traditional Native American societies, and
Africa. Research shows that culture, either individualist or collectivist, affects how people make
attributions.[17]
People from individualist cultures are more inclined to make fundamental-attribution error than
people from collectivist cultures. Individualist cultures tend to attribute a person's behavior due to
their internal factors whereas collectivist cultures tend to attribute a person's behavior to his external
factors.[18]
Research suggests that individualist cultures engage in self-serving bias more than do collectivist
cultures, i.e. individualist cultures tend to attribute success to internal factors and to attribute failure
to external factors. In contrast, collectivist cultures engage in the opposite of self-serving bias i.e.
self-effacing bias, which is: attributing success to external factors and blaming failure on internal
factors (the individual).[19]
Actor/observer difference
People tend to attribute other people's behaviors to their dispositional factors while attributing own
actions to situational factors. In the same situation, people's attribution can differ depending on their
role as actor or observer.[20] For example, when a person scores a low grade on a test, they find
situational factors to justify the negative event such as saying that the teacher asked a question that
he/she never went over in class. However, if another person scores poorly on a test, the person will
attribute the results to internal factors such as laziness and inattentiveness in classes. The theory of
the actor-observer bias was first developed by E. Jones and R. Nisbett in 1971, whose explanation
for the effect was that when we observe other people, we tend to focus on the person, whereas when
we are actors, our attention is focused towards situational factors. The actor/observer bias is used
less frequently with people one knows well such as friends and family since one knows how his/her
close friends and family will behave in certain situation, leading him/her to think more about the
external factors rather than internal factors.[original research?]
Dispositional attributions
Main article: Dispositional attribution
Dispositional attribution is a tendency to attribute people's behaviors to their dispositions; that is, to
their personality, character, and ability.[21] For example, when a normally pleasant waiter is being
rude to his/her customer, the customer may assume he/she has a bad temper. The customer, just by
looking at the attitude that the waiter is giving him/her, instantly decides that the waiter is a bad
person. The customer oversimplifies the situation by not taking into account all the unfortunate
events that might have happened to the waiter which made him/her become rude at that moment.
Therefore, the customer made dispositional attribution by attributing the waiter's behavior directly
to his/her personality rather than considering situational factors that might have caused the whole
"rudeness".[22]
Self-serving bias
Main article: Self-serving bias
Self-serving bias is attributing dispositional and internal factors for success, while external and
uncontrollable factors are used to explain the reason for failure. For example, if a person gets
promoted, it is because of his/her ability and competence whereas if he/she does not get promoted,
it is because his/her manager does not like him/her (external, uncontrollable factor). Originally,
researchers assumed that self-serving bias is strongly related to the fact that people want to protect
their self-esteem. However, an alternative information processing explanation is that when the
outcomes match people's expectations, they make attributions to internal factors. For example, if
you pass a test you believe it was because of your intelligence; when the outcome does not match
their expectations, they make external attributions or excuses. Whereas if you fail a test, you would
give an excuse saying that you did not have enough time to study.[14] People also use defensive
attribution to avoid feelings of vulnerability and to differentiate themselves from a victim of a tragic
accident.[23] An alternative version of the theory of self-serving bias states that the bias does not
arise because people wish to protect their private self-esteem, but to protect their self-image (a self-
presentational bias). This version of the theory would predict that people attribute their successes to
situational factors, for fear that others will disapprove of them looking overly vain if they should
attribute successes to themselves.[citation needed]
For example, it is suggested that coming to believe that "good things happen to good people and
bad things happen to bad people" will reduce feelings of vulnerability[citation needed]. This belief
would have side-effects of blaming the victim even in tragic situations.[14] When a mudslide
destroys several houses in a rural neighborhood, a person living in a more urban setting might
blame the victims for choosing to live in a certain area or not building a safer, stronger house.
Another example of attributional bias is optimism bias in which most people believe positive events
happen to them more often than to others and that negative events happen to them less often than to
others. For example, smokers on average believe they are less likely to get lung cancer than other
smokers.[24]
Defensive attribution hypothesis
Main article: Defensive attribution hypothesis
The defensive attribution hypothesis is a social psychological term referring to a set of beliefs held
by an individual with the function of defending themselves from concern that they will be the cause
or victim of a mishap. Commonly, defensive attributions are made when individuals witness or
learn of a mishap happening to another person. In these situations, attributions of responsibility to
the victim or harm-doer for the mishap will depend upon the severity of the outcomes of the mishap
and the level of personal and situational similarity between the individual and victim. More
responsibility will be attributed to the harm-doer as the outcome becomes more severe, and as
personal or situational similarity decreases.[23]
An example of defensive attribution is the just-world hypothesis, which is where "good things
happen to good people and bad things happen to bad people". People believe in this in order to
avoid feeling vulnerable to situations that they have no control over. However, this also leads to
blaming the victim even in a tragic situation.[14] When people hear someone died from a car
accident, they decide that the driver was drunk at the time of the accident, and so they reassure
themselves that an accident will never happen to them. Despite the fact there was no other
information provided, people will automatically attribute that the accident was the driver's fault due
to an internal factor (in this case, deciding to drive while drunk), and thus they would not allow it to
happen to themselves.
Another example of defensive attribution is optimism bias, in which people believe positive events
happen to them more often than to others and that negative events happen to them less often than to
others. Too much optimism leads people to ignore some warnings and precautions given to them.
For example, smokers believe that they are less likely to get lung cancer than other smokers.[24]
Application
Attribution theory can be applied to juror decision making. Jurors use attributions to explain the
cause of the defendant's intent and actions related to the criminal behavior.[25] The attribution made
(situational or dispositional) might affect a juror's punitiveness towards the defendant.[26] When
jurors attribute a defendant's behavior to dispositional attributions they tend to be more punitive and
are more likely find a defendant guilty[26] and to recommend a death sentence compared to a life
sentence.[27]
In clinical psychology
Attribution theory has had a big application in clinical psychology.[28] Abramson, Seligman, and
Teasdale developed a theory of the depressive attributional style, claiming that individuals who tend
to attribute their failures to internal, stable and global factors are more vulnerable to clinical
depression.[29] The Attributional Style Questionnaire (ASQ) has been developed to assess whether
individuals have the depressogenic attributional style.[30] However, the ASQ has been criticized,
with some researchers preferring to use a technique called Content Analysis of Verbatim
Explanation (CAVE) in which an individual's ordinary writings are analysed to assess whether s/he
is vulnerable to the depressive attributional style.[31]
Learned helplessness
Main article: Learned helplessness
The concept of learned helplessness emerged from animal research in which psychologists Martin
Seligman and Steven F. Maier discovered that dogs classically conditioned to an electrical shock
which they could not escape, subsequently failed to attempt to escape an avoidable shock in a
similar situation.[32] They argued that learned helplessness applied to human psychopathology. In
particular, individuals who attribute negative outcomes to internal, stable and global factors reflect a
view in which they have no control over their situation. It is suggested that this aspect of not
attempting to better a situation exacerbates negative mood, and may lead to clinical depression and
related mental illnesses.[33]
Perceptual salience
Main article: Perceptual salience
When people try to make attributions about another's behavior, their information focuses on the
individual. Their perception of that individual is lacking most of the external factors which might
affect the individual. The gaps tend to be skipped over and the attribution is made based on the
perception information most salient. The most salient perceptual information dominates a person's
perception of the situation.[34]
For individuals making behavioral attributions about themselves, the situation and external
environment are entirely salient, but their own body and behavior are less so. This leads to the
tendency to make an external attribution in regard to their own behavior.[35]
Criticism
Attribution theory has been criticised as being mechanistic and reductionist for assuming that
people are rational, logical, and systematic thinkers.[citation needed] The fundamental attribution
error, however, demonstrates that they are cognitive misers and motivated tactician. It also fails to
address the social, cultural, and historical factors that shape attributions of cause. This has been
addressed extensively by discourse analysis, a branch of psychology that prefers to use qu
alitative methods including the use of language to understand psychological phenomena. The
linguistic categorization theory for example demonstrates how language influences our attribution
style.[citation needed]
See also
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This article possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the
claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research
should be removed. (February 2015) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
It has been suggested that this article be merged with Attribution bias. (Discuss)
Proposed since April 2019.
Humans are motivated to assign causes to their actions and behaviors.[1] In social psychology,
attribution is the process by which individuals explain the causes of behavior and events. Models
to explain this process are called attribution theory.[2] Psychological research into attribution
began with the work of Fritz Heider in the early 20th century, and the theory was further advanced
by Harold Kelley and Bernard Weiner.
Contents
• 1 Background
• 2 Types
• 2.1 External
• 2.2 Internal
• 3 Theories and models
• 3.1 Common sense psychology
• 3.2 Correspondent inference
• 3.3 Covariation model
• 3.4 Three-dimensional model
• 4 Bias and errors
• 4.1 Fundamental attribution error
• 4.2 Culture bias
• 4.3 Actor/observer difference
• 4.4 Dispositional attributions
• 4.5 Self-serving bias
• 4.6 Defensive attribution hypothesis
• 5 Application
• 6 In clinical psychology
• 6.1 Learned helplessness
• 7 Perceptual salience
• 8 Criticism
• 9 See also
• 10 References
• 11 Further reading
Background
Gestalt psychologist Fritz Heider is often described as the early-20th-century "father of attribution
theory".[3]
In his 1920s dissertation, Heider addressed the problem of phenomenology: why do perceivers
attribute the properties such as color to perceived objects, when those properties are mental
constructs? Heider's answer that perceivers attribute that which they "directly" sense – vibrations in
the air for instance – to an object they construe as causing those sense data. "Perceivers faced with
sensory data thus see the perceptual object as 'out there', because they attribute the sensory data to
their underlying causes in the world."[4]:7
Heider extended this idea to attributions about people: "motives, intentions, sentiments ... the core
processes which manifest themselves in overt behavior".[4]:7–8
Types
External
External attribution, also called situational attribution, refers to interpreting someone's behavior as
being caused by the situation that the individual is in. For example, if one's car tire is punctured, it
may be attributed to a hole in the road; by making attributions to the poor condition of the highway,
one can make sense of the event without any discomfort that it may in reality have been the result of
their own bad driving.[5]
