DELTA STATE UNIVERSITY, ABRAKA

FACULTY OF SOCIAL SCIENCE

DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

AN ASSIGNMENT

BY

ETA STEPHEN
FSS/22/23/286514

ASSIGNMENT QUESTION
1.DEFINE ATTRIBUTION THEORY
2.DESCRIBE TWO TYPES OF ATTRIBUTION WE MAKE
3.EXPLAIN THE CORRESPONDENCE INFERENCE THEORY
4.EXPLAIN THE COVARIATION THEORY
5.LIST AND EXPLAIN TYPES OF COGNITIVE ERRORS WE MAKE IN
RELATION TO EXPLAINING BEHAVIOR

COURSE CODE: PSY 214

COURSE TITLE: INTRODUCTION TO SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

MAY, 2024

1
1. DEFINE ATTRIBUTION THEORY
Attribution theory is a psychological framework that explores how individuals interpret and assign
causes to events and behaviors, both their own and those of others. It focuses on the cognitive
processes involved in understanding why things happen, seeking to understand the reasons behind
actions and outcomes. The theory was initially developed by Fritz Heider in the 1950s, who
proposed that people are driven to comprehend the world in terms of cause and effect. According
to Heider, individuals naturally act as "naive psychologists," constantly analyzing their
environment to attribute reasons for successes and failures, which can be categorized into internal
(dispositional) factors and external (situational) factors.

Further refinement of attribution theory was advanced by psychologists Harold Kelley and Bernard
Weiner. Kelley introduced the concept of covariation, where people assess how consistently an
effect is linked to a cause across different situations and contexts. He suggested three key
dimensions for making these assessments: consistency, distinctiveness, and consensus.
Consistency refers to whether the behavior occurs regularly over time. Distinctiveness considers
whether the behavior is unique to a particular situation, and consensus looks at whether others
behave similarly in the same context. Weiner expanded on this by focusing on the perceived
stability and controllability of the causes people attribute to events. He identified three dimensions
of causal attribution: locus (internal vs. external), stability (stable vs. unstable), and controllability
(controllable vs. uncontrollable). These dimensions help explain how people evaluate their own
performance and that of others, influencing their emotions and future behaviors.

Attribution theory has broad applications in various fields, including psychology, education,
organizational behavior, and interpersonal relationships. In educational settings, for example,
teachers' attributions for students' successes or failures can affect their expectations and
interactions with those students. Similarly, in organizational contexts, managers' attributions
regarding employees' performance can influence their decisions on rewards, promotions, and
support. By understanding the principles of attribution theory, individuals and organizations can
better navigate social interactions and create environments that foster more accurate and
constructive interpretations of behaviors and events

2
2. DESCRIBE TWO TYPES OF ATTRIBUTION WE MAKE

Attribution theory distinguishes between two primary types of attributions: internal (dispositional)
attributions and external (situational) attributions. Each type involves different processes and
implications for understanding behavior and outcomes.

Internal (Dispositional) Attributions

Internal attributions refer to explanations that ascribe behavior to personal characteristics, traits,
or abilities. When people make internal attributions, they believe that an individual's behavior is
caused by inherent qualities such as personality, mood, effort, or intelligence. For instance, if a
student excels in an exam, one might attribute their success to their intelligence or diligence
(Weiner, 1985). This type of attribution is often influenced by the observer's perception of
consistency in the individual's behavior across different situations. If a person consistently
performs well in various contexts, observers are more likely to attribute this to stable, internal traits
(Kelley, 1967). Internal attributions can significantly impact interpersonal relationships and self-
perception. For example, attributing one's success to personal effort can enhance self-esteem and
motivation, whereas attributing failures to a lack of ability can lead to feelings of inadequacy and
helplessness (Weiner, 1986).

External (Situational) Attributions

External attributions, on the other hand, assign the cause of behavior to factors outside the
individual's control, such as environmental influences, luck, social pressures, or task difficulty.
When individuals attribute actions to situational factors, they are recognizing the role of context
in shaping behavior. For example, if the same student who performed well on an exam did so
because the exam was particularly easy, or they had access to excellent study resources, these are
external attributions (Heider, 1958). Situational attributions consider the variability of behavior
across different environments and situations, emphasizing the external context rather than the
individual's stable traits. This type of attribution can affect judgments of responsibility and
accountability. In organizational settings, for instance, if an employee fails to meet a target due to
unforeseen market conditions rather than lack of effort, managers are likely to view the situation
differently, possibly offering support rather than reprimand (Kelley & Michela, 1980).

3
Understanding the balance between internal and external attributions helps in forming fair and
constructive evaluations of behavior and performance.

Both internal and external attributions are crucial for comprehending the complexity of human
behavior. They not only influence how we perceive and react to others but also shape our own
self-concept and responses to personal successes and failures. Recognizing the interplay between
dispositional and situational factors allows for a more nuanced and empathetic approach to
interpreting actions and outcomes in various domains of life.

3. EXPLAIN THE CORRESPONDENCE INFERENCE THEORY

Correspondent inference theory, developed by Edward E. Jones and Keith E. Davis in 1965, is a
framework in social psychology that explains how observers infer the intentions and dispositions
of others based on their actions. The theory posits that people make correspondent inferences when
they conclude that a person's behavior directly corresponds to underlying, stable qualities, such as
personality traits or attitudes (Jones & Davis, 1965).

Key Concepts of Correspondent Inference Theory

1. Analysis of Noncommon Effects: The core idea behind correspondent inference theory is
the analysis of noncommon effects. This concept involves comparing the outcomes of a
person's chosen action with the potential outcomes of alternative actions. Observers look
for distinctive effects that could not be produced by other actions to infer the person's
intentions and dispositions. For instance, if a person chooses to work late hours instead of
socializing with friends, observers might infer a high level of commitment or a strong work
ethic. The noncommon effects of this choice, such as career advancement opportunities,
highlight the underlying motive of the individual (Jones & Davis, 1965).

2. Social Desirability: The theory also considers the social desirability of the behavior.
Behaviors that are socially desirable are less informative about a person’s dispositions
because they are more likely to be influenced by social norms and expectations.
Conversely, socially undesirable behaviors are more likely to be attributed to the
individual’s internal characteristics because they deviate from what is typically expected.

4
 For example, if someone returns a lost wallet, this action, while commendable, might be
attributed to social norms rather than a unique personal trait. However, if someone makes
a significant personal sacrifice to help a stranger, this behavior might be seen as a strong
indicator of altruistic disposition (Jones & Davis, 1965).

3. Choice and Intentionality: The level of choice perceived in the behavior also influences
correspondent inferences. Actions that are freely chosen are more likely to be attributed to
the actor’s dispositions than those that are coerced or influenced by external constraints. If
an employee chooses to volunteer for additional tasks without any external pressure,
observers might infer a high level of motivation or dedication. On the other hand, if the
employee is assigned these tasks by a supervisor, the inference about their disposition
might be less strong (Jones & Harris, 1967).

4. Hedonic Relevance and Personalism: Hedonic relevance refers to the impact of the
actor's behavior on the observer, while personalism pertains to the perception that the
actor’s behavior is intentionally directed at the observer. When a behavior has a significant
positive or negative impact on the observer, or when the observer feels personally targeted
by the action, correspondent inferences are more likely to be made. For instance, if a
manager praises an employee publicly, the employee may infer that the manager genuinely
values their contributions if the praise is perceived as personal and impactful (Jones &
Davis, 1965).

Applications And Implications

Correspondent inference theory has broad applications in various fields, such as organizational
behavior, legal judgments, and interpersonal relationships. In the workplace, understanding how
correspondent inferences are made can help managers and employees navigate perceptions of
performance and intent. For example, employees who engage in proactive behaviors might be seen
as inherently motivated and competent, influencing promotion decisions and peer evaluations
(Shaver, 1985).

In legal settings, jurors might use correspondent inferences to determine a defendant’s guilt or
innocence based on their actions and perceived intentions. Understanding these inferences can
provide insights into biases and decision-making processes in legal contexts (Kruglanski, 1975).

5
In interpersonal relationships, correspondent inferences play a critical role in how partners
perceive and interpret each other’s behaviors, impacting relationship satisfaction and dynamics.
Accurate or inaccurate inferences about a partner’s intentions can significantly influence
relationship outcomes (Fiske & Taylor, 1991).

4. EXPLAIN THE COVARIATION THEORY

Covariation theory, developed by Harold Kelley in 1967, is a comprehensive model within

attribution theory that explains how people determine the causes of behavior by examining the
pattern of correlation between behavior and different factors across various situations. This theory
posits that individuals make causal inferences by observing the covariation between the behavior
and potential causes, considering three key types of information: consistency, distinctiveness, and
consensus.

Key Components of Covariation Theory

1. Consistency Information

Consistency refers to the frequency with which the behavior occurs across time and situations.
High consistency means that the behavior regularly occurs in the same context, while low
consistency indicates that the behavior is not reliably present in similar situations. For example, if
an employee is always late to work regardless of the day or circumstance, this high consistency
might lead observers to attribute the tardiness to the individual's disposition or stable traits, such
as poor time management (Kelley, 1967). Conversely, if the employee is only occasionally late,
observers might consider external factors such as traffic or specific events causing the delay.

2. Distinctiveness Information

Distinctiveness involves examining whether the behavior is unique to a particular situation or

occurs across a variety of contexts. High distinctiveness suggests that the behavior is specific to a
certain situation, indicating that the cause is likely external or situational. For instance, if a student
performs exceptionally well only in math class but not in other subjects, the high distinctiveness
suggests that the student might have a special talent or interest in math, or that the math class is
particularly engaging or well-taught. Low distinctiveness, where the behavior occurs across many

6
different contexts, might lead to an internal attribution. For example, if the student excels in all
subjects, observers might attribute this to the student's overall intelligence or work ethic (Kelley,
1973).

3. Consensus Information

Consensus looks at how other people behave in the same situation. High consensus occurs when
many people exhibit the same behavior in similar circumstances, suggesting that the cause is likely
situational. For example, if all employees in a company are late due to a severe snowstorm, the
high consensus would lead to the conclusion that the lateness is due to the external condition of
the snowstorm rather than individual dispositions (Kelley, 1967). Low consensus, where few or
no others exhibit the same behavior, might lead to an internal attribution. For instance, if only one
employee is late while everyone else is on time, observers might attribute the tardiness to that
employee's personal characteristics.

Application of Covariation Model

To make a causal attribution using the covariation model, observers systematically evaluate the
consistency, distinctiveness, and consensus information. This approach allows them to distinguish
between internal (dispositional) and external (situational) causes. For example, consider a scenario
where a student (John) fails a test. An observer might ask:

• Consistency: Does John usually fail tests? (High consistency would suggest an internal
cause, like lack of ability; low consistency might suggest an external cause, like a
particularly difficult test).

• Distinctiveness: Does John fail only this particular test or also others? (High distinctiveness
would suggest an external cause specific to this test; low distinctiveness might suggest an
internal cause).

• Consensus: Did other students also fail the test? (High consensus would suggest an external
cause, such as the test being too hard; low consensus would suggest an internal cause
related to John specifically).

7
Theoretical Implications and Limitations

Kelley's covariation theory provides a robust framework for understanding how people attribute
causes to behavior, emphasizing the systematic collection and analysis of information across
different dimensions. It underscores the rational, analytical nature of human cognition in making
causal inferences. However, the theory assumes that individuals have access to and use sufficient
information to make accurate attributions, which may not always be the case in real-world
scenarios. People might lack the necessary information or may rely on cognitive shortcuts and
biases, such as the fundamental attribution error, where they overemphasize dispositional factors
and underestimate situational influences (Ross, 1977).

Conclusion

Covariation theory offers a detailed and methodical approach to understanding causal attributions
by examining the relationships between behavior and various situational factors through
consistency, distinctiveness, and consensus information. This model highlights the importance of
systematic observation and analysis in making accurate causal inferences, while also
acknowledging potential limitations in real-world application due to information availability and
cognitive biases.

5. LIST AND EXPLAIN TYPES OF COGNITIVE ERRORS WE MAKE IN RELATION

TO EXPLAINING BEHAVIOR
When explaining behavior, individuals often fall prey to several types of cognitive errors. These
errors can distort our understanding of why people act as they do, leading to biased or inaccurate
conclusions. Here are some key cognitive errors related to attribution:

1. Fundamental Attribution Error (FAE)

The fundamental attribution error refers to the tendency to overemphasize dispositional or

personality-based explanations for others' behavior while underestimating the influence of
situational factors. For example, if someone cuts you off in traffic, you might immediately think
they are a rude or reckless person, rather than considering that they might be rushing to an
emergency (Ross, 1977).

8
2. Actor-Observer Bias

Actor-observer bias is the tendency to attribute our own actions to situational factors while
attributing others' actions to their dispositions. When we observe our own behavior, we are more
aware of the external factors influencing us. For instance, if you arrive late to a meeting, you might
blame traffic, but if a colleague is late, you might think they are disorganized (Jones & Nisbett,
1971).

3. Self-Serving Bias

Self-serving bias is the tendency to attribute our successes to internal factors (like our own
abilities) and our failures to external factors (like bad luck or difficult circumstances). This bias
helps protect our self-esteem. For example, if you get a promotion, you might attribute it to your
hard work, but if you are passed over, you might blame office politics or an unfair boss (Miller &
Ross, 1975).

4. False Consensus Effect

The false consensus effect is the tendency to overestimate the extent to which others share our
beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors. This cognitive bias can lead to erroneous conclusions about
others' actions. For example, if you prefer working in a quiet environment, you might assume that
most of your colleagues do too, potentially misinterpreting their behavior if they seek out different
work settings (Ross, Greene, & House, 1977).

5. Confirmation Bias

Confirmation bias involves seeking out, interpreting, and remembering information that confirms
our pre-existing beliefs while ignoring or discounting evidence that contradicts them. This bias
can lead to skewed attributions because we selectively gather and emphasize information that
supports our expectations. For instance, if you believe a coworker is lazy, you might pay more
attention to instances where they are not working hard and overlook their productive moments
(Nickerson, 1998).

8. Anchoring Effect

The anchoring effect is the tendency to rely heavily on the first piece of information encountered
(the "anchor") when making decisions or judgments. This can lead to biased attributions if the

9
initial information is not representative. For example, if you first hear that a colleague is difficult
to work with, you might interpret all their actions through this negative lens, even if they later
show collaborative behavior (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974).

Understanding these cognitive errors can help individuals recognize potential biases in their
attributions and strive for more accurate and balanced interpretations of behavior. By being aware
of these tendencies, people can work to mitigate their effects and improve their social perceptions
and interactions.

REFERENCES

Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social Cognition. McGraw-Hill.

Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. (1965). From acts to dispositions: The attribution process in person
perception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 2, pp.
219-266). Academic Press.

Jones, E. E., & Harris, V. A. (1967). The attribution of attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 3(1), 1-24.

Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska

Symposium on Motivation (Vol. 15, pp. 192-238). University of Nebraska Press.

Kelley, H. H. (1973). The processes of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28(2), 107-128.

Kelley, H. H., & Michela, J. L. (1980). Attribution theory and research. Annual Review of
Psychology, 31, 457-501.

Kruglanski, A. W. (1975). The endogenous-exogenous partition in attribution theory.

Psychological Review, 82(6), 387-406.

Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution
process. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 10, pp.
173-220). Academic Press.

Shaver, K. G. (1985). The Attribution of Blame: Causality, Responsibility, and Blameworthiness.

Springer-Verlag.

10