Advanced Code of Influence

Book 2

Table of Contents
BOOK 2: ATTRIBUTIONS ......................................................................................................................... 3
The Role of Attribution in Peoples Lives ................................................................................................ 3
Kinds of Attribution .................................................................................................................................. 6
The How and Why of Attribution ............................................................................................................. 9
Self-Serving Attributions ........................................................................................................................ 22
The Importance of Social Representations ............................................................................................. 30

BOOK 2: ATTRIBUTIONS
The Role of Attribution in Peoples Lives
Imagine going to work one day feeling
extremely happy because you got some good
news. Naturally, you want to spread the good
cheer to your office mates, so you make eye
contact with an office mate that you rarely talk
to and smile to him.
You wave your hand a little to say hi to the
person. In return, your officemate literally slams
down his hands and storms out of the office,
leaving papers and pens scattered in his cubicle.
Your office mate is visibly upset by something.
Was it you who did that? What could have
triggered such behavior from your office mate?
As you think of the reasons why a person would
behave in such a manner, you are actually

attributing potential causes of the other persons

reaction and behavior.
Attribution is the foundation of social cognition
or how folks like you and me think about other
folks. At the outset, attribution itself is more
about rationalization than epistemology.
Attribution is more concerned with linking
together what you already know than generating
new knowledge about a particular even.
Humans, being critical and rational beings,
engage in attribution due to two basic reasons:
1.People need to come up with a perspective
of their society and its members that would
make complete sense to them.
2.Attribution
demystifies
events
and
interactions with other people which in turn
reduce the strangeness of the world at large.
Rationalization,
coupled
with
better
understanding, can give a person more

control over his own life and the actual

reality that he is in.
People feel the need to attribute in everyday life
because the process of attribution produces not
only potential reasons why an event happened
the way it did but because this process also
actively gives meaning to the world that we live
in. Meaning itself can only be possible if a
person thinks about something.
Meaning does not exist in a vacuum, to be
picked up by people as they please. You have to
think in order to make sense of something that is
in front of you. People create meaning; meaning
does not find a person. If a person says that the
meaning of life revealed itself to him in a dream
it is more likely that he has been obsessing
about this topic for quite some time and his
brain finally gave him an answer.

Kinds of Attribution
There are two general categories of human
attribution: internal attribution and external
attribution. When people try to make sense of
an event, they can either attribute the event to
internal traits and characteristics or they can
attribute it to external forces and circumstances.
Heres an example: imagine that you were
walking in a quiet street when all of a sudden, a
car screeches out of control and parks itself on
the sidewalk. All its lights are flashing but it
didnt hit the small store that was standing a few
inches from its bumpers. You observe how the
driver nonchalantly backs up his car and drives
away after the frightening display. You try to
figure out what just happened and you come up
with these causes:

Internal attributions:
Maybe the driver is just plain crazy!
The driver has to be drunk to do that kind of
stunt.
The guy has to be in a really bad mood.
Maybe he the guy is just learning how to
drive.
That guy doesnt know how to park properly!

External attributions:
Maybe he got spooked by a big truck
somewhere.
The guys brakes got jammed, probably.
The car is old, maybe thats why he cant
control it well.
Maybe this just wasnt a good day for him.

Internal and external attributions can also be

further sub-categorized as being stable or
fluctuating. For example, an attribution that
someone has poor driving skills means you are
invoking stability or natural ability while an
attribution that the guy has probably had one too
many drinks means you are invoking temporary
or fluctuating conditions. Both types of
inference or attribution are affected by varying
degrees of controllability (i.e. drinking alcoholic
beverages versus not drinking any alcohol
before driving).

The How and Why of Attribution

There are two main theories regarding the
process of attribution in varying social contexts:
the correspondent inference theory and the covariation model. Both these theories are helpful
in figuring out how people are able to create
their own explanations of events and situations
that they meet every day.
Correspondent Inference Theory
The first theory of attribution stipulates that
people make inferences about other people that
are indicative of internal traits and
characteristics,
instead
of
external
circumstances. Why do people choose to think
of internal characteristics instead of external
circumstances?
The answer lies in peoples general preferences
for stability. For example, if you meet a waiter
who was not very helpful when you wanted to

order something special for yourself and your

partner, it is likely that your first attribution to
such a behavior is that the waiter was simply
incompetent.
Since the waiter has already been tagged
incompetent, the tag of incompetence will
remain in the future. So in essence, you have
been able to exert some degree of control over
the situation since you will be avoiding the
waiter in the future to avoid inconvenience.
People dont usually attribute things based on
external circumstances. For example, if you did
not get the kind of service that you wanted from
a restaurant, you wont think that maybe the
waiter is just having a bad day or maybe the
management was evil because they did not train
the waiter adequately.

The instant tendency is people attribute internal

characteristics to behavior, actions, speech, etc.
Since we are always on the lookout for even
more stability in our lives, such inferences gives
us the kind of knowledge and control that we
want because internal characteristics such as
incompetence or rudeness are essentially
unchanging attributes. We attempt to associate
behavior and peoples personalities based on
three groups of facts:
- Social desirability
- Choice
- Non-common effects
Lets discuss these three fact groups. Social
desirability refers to the desirability of a
persons behavior compared to what is
considered
acceptable/normal/agreeable
or
desirable in society in specific contexts.

People believe that when people show

undesirable behavior, this undesirable behavior
is linked to an internal trait or internal
characteristic. People use this fact group to
create attributions because people usually want
to stay within the bounds of acceptable behavior
at all times.
When a person stays within the bounds of what
is considered normal or acceptable, he will not
be excluded in any way. Inversely, a person who
chooses to act beyond the bounds of what is
considered acceptable may be excluded or
ridiculed for what he has done.
This ridicule itself has a function in a way, it
forces a person to cease from performing the
same unacceptable behavior and return to what
is considered normal. Now, let me ask you: do
socially desirable behaviors tell us what type of
person we are actually dealing with?

The answer is: not necessarily. You see, people

perform acceptable behavior on a regular basis
so they can avoid exclusion. In a way, this is
one form of self-preservation.
If Person As car was slightly scratched by
another motorist, he will accept the apology and
attempt to fix the situation with the least amount
of hullabaloo because this is the acceptable
mode of behavior in such a situation.
However, this behavior does hide the fact that
Person A may have felt like being aggressive
and violent when his car was damaged. What
about people who show undesirable behavior?
Its the direct opposite when you are dealing
with people who openly show to the public
unacceptable behavior. Since these folks are not
even thinking of socially acceptable behavior
anymore, their behavior may be indicative of
their actual internal traits and personalities.

The second fact group involves free choice.

People can make inferences about another
persons behavior by evaluating whether or not
the other persons action was freely and
consciously chosen or not.
If a person freely chose to do something then by
virtue of his conscious choice he is actually
revealing a part of himself to the public eye.
Why would a person freely choose to do
something? The answer is simple: the decision
resonates with his personality and beliefs.
The third fact group deals
consequences. When an action
results in a unique consequence,
classify the same as having a
effect.

with unique
or behavior
a person can
non-common

Events that have unique consequences or noncommon effects are most likely caused by

internal traits (i.e. a person who screams at

people at the slightest provocation will be
despised by people; that person will also be
classified as being anti-social and aggressive
and ultimately, he should be avoided by others).
The Co-variation Model
The obvious limitation of the first theory is that
you would only be able to analyze singular
events or behaviors. You wont be able to take
into account behavior patterns and multiple
behaviors. The co-variation model of attribution
handles the limitations of the first theory. The
co-variation model, unlike the first theory, takes
into account internal traits/characteristics as
well as external circumstances. The core
principle of the co-variation model is simple: for
something to cause or trigger a particular
behavior, it must be present when a person is
exhibiting the behavior. On the flipside, the
behavior must not exhibit itself when
the potential cause is absent.

Three types of information are vital to the covariation model:

- Consensus
- Consistency
- Distinctiveness
All three clusters of information are used by a
person to create an internal attribution or
external attribution. Consensus refers to similar
behavior of people around the target subject.
Are other people exhibiting the same behavior
as the subject? Consistency on the other hand
answers the question: does the person behave in
the same way in other occasions?
Distinctiveness (the third cluster) refers to the
frequency of a particular behavior in other
contexts and situations (i.e. will a rude person
stay rude if he was doing volunteer work?)

The following table explores how people make

attributions based on the three clusters:
Cluster

Degree

Consensus

High
consensus

Type
of
Attribution
Situational

Example:
Everyone
is
driving
strangely.
Low consensus Dispositional
Example:

Consistency

Only Person A
is
driving
strangely.
High
Dispositional
consistency

Example:
Person
A
drives
strangely all
the time.
Low
Situational
consistency
Example:
Person
A
drove strangely
today.
Distinctiveness High
Situational
distinctiveness
Example:
Person
A
drove strangely
on Monday.
Low
Dispositional
18

distinctiveness
Example:
Person A has
always driven
strangely
around
the
city.

Not every situation will be analyzed with these

three distinct clusters of information.
Sometimes, people just stick to one or two
clusters and attribute causes to behavior without
bothering with the third cluster.
The presence (or absence) of any of these
clusters will dictate whether a situational
(external) or dispositional (internal) attribution
will result from a persons analysis of a
situation.

If a person sees that everyone in the

environment is doing the exact same thing (i.e.
students in a whole auditorium is wearing a red
cap) then the attribution will most likely be
situational.
However, if only the speaker is wearing a red
cap, then the attribution will most likely be
dispositional (i.e. the speaker likes wearing red
caps). It should be noted also that not everyone
performs analysis based on the co-variation
model. In fact, when you look at the covariation model, it actually resembles a
conscious train of thought that requires utmost
attention.

20

This doesnt mean that the model is wrong; it

just means that at any given time, a person can
be using other methods of deduction to
understand the world at large. The two theories
we have just discussed are by no means strict
rules that people follow.
According to researchers, people often react to
situations based on gut feel or what people like
to call their instincts. People wont spend a lot
of time thinking whether or not a person should
be trusted. If a person is threatened by another
person, he will instinctively avoid that person
because he will be acting instinctively.
In a way, this is how people engage in selfpreservation. And this is also how people show
that they will always choose the path of least
resistance when interacting with people,
especially people who are showing behaviors
that are not socially acceptable. In short: people
like shortcuts when it comes to the process of
making attribution and analyzing things.

Self-Serving Attributions
When we hear self-serving we usually think
of something negative or selfish; Im here to tell
you today that in the context of attribution, the
word self-serving actually has a more positive
connotation.
You see, when people analyze situations, they
do it without referring to themselves. For
example, if a person was driving down a quiet
street and a guy in a motorcycle suddenly
appeared from nowhere and nearly hit the
persons car, the person in the drivers seat
would probably think that the motorcycle driver
didnt have any road manners and didnt have
any knowledge of road safety at all.
But if you look at it from a broader perspective,
the person in the car probably has had his share
of bad driving over the years. If the driver had
thought the motorcycle driver was incompetent,
would he also attribute his own bad driving in

the past to incompetence or lack of proper

knowledge? Of course not.
In the first situation, the driver of the car would
be making an internal attribution and in the
future, should he see the same motorcycle driver
again, he would probably do his best to avoid
the other person for his own safety.
We dont realize that as we create attributions
about other people, we also suspend certain
parameters so we can maintain our self-esteem
and our self-confidence. When someone does
something wrong, we dont reflect on our own
mishaps in the past and use the same strategy of
attribution (internal attribution).
Instead, we would most likely use a self-serving
attribution. Self-serving attributions were meant
to preserve a persons image of himself.
Because lets face it, we want to keep ourselves
as ideal as possible in all aspects.

So if we drove badly in the past, we wont

attribute our bad driving to being incompetent.
We will attribute it to something else, like bad
road conditions or someone suddenly calling
your cellular phone while you were trying to
negotiate a sharp turn.

Other
people'
s
behavi
or

Your
negativ
e
behavi
or
and/or
failures

Ordinary
process
of
attributi
on

Internal
attributio
n or
external
attributio
n

Selfserving
attributi
on

Externa

l
attributi
on

Your
positiv
e
behavi
or
and/or
succes
s

Selfserving
attributi
on

Externa

l
attributi
on

Attributions are essentially shortcuts to

understanding and taking control of the reality
that we live in. If there was a car crash near our
home, we would immediately make attributions
and make decisions based on those attributions.
We wont approach the car and ask the driver if
he is a safe driver or not. We wont stick around
long enough near the accident scene to
determine whether or not it was still safe to have
the kids play in the street. We would
immediately make personal decisions based on
what we attribute to the situation.

Now lets talk about something closer to home

personal attributions or attributions about
ourselves. Often we like to think that we are
very objective fellows and we dont mind
criticizing ourselves. But the real question here
is: how inclined are we to make internal
attributions about our own negative behaviors
and failures?
If you make a mistake, would you make a
dispositional (internal) attribution or a
situational (external) attribution? You dont
have to feel guilty or anything because its a
natural tendency to attribute personal failures to
external circumstances. It is also natural if we
bask in the glory of our successes by attributing
our successes to internal traits.
Why do we do this in the first place? Well, as I
have mentioned earlier, we do everything we
can to preserve and support our self-concept.
Only a crazy person would intentionally destroy
his self-concept because that goes directly

against the instinctual drive to protect ourselves

and survive no matter what it takes.
And thats how other people deal with their own
situations. If something good happens to another
person, he will attribute the success or positive
event to an internal trait. If something bad
happens, you can be sure that there will be
external attributions.
Lets try to apply the two modes of attribution
to certain situations:
Situation # 1: You failed a math exam.
Possible attributions:
I wasnt able to study hard because of my
rowdy roommate.
I didnt have enough money and I was so
worried that I wasnt able to study.
The professor didnt motivate me in this course
subject.

My neighbors have been partying like crazy

these past few weeks and I barely have enough
sleep every night.
Situation # 2: You got promoted to a higher
paying position, complete with a new office and
signature furniture.
Possible attributions:
They loved what I did with the last project!
I am the best in what I do.
I am the only one in my team who knows what
hes doing.
I deserve this promotion because I am the most
hardworking person in this office.
Note that both external and internal attributions
can have a factual basis. However, factuality
doesnt really matter to people when it comes to
their own attributions about themselves.

For example, if a person did fail in a Math

exam it is possible that he wasnt able to study
because of noisy neighbours but it is also
possible that this person was never really
interested in studying hard
If a person got a promotion and he was given a
new office to work in, it is possible that he was
the most hardworking person in the office but it
is also possible that the promotion was given to
him because there was no one else to hold the
position after a previous employee was fired for
not doing his job correctly. We have this
particular attribution tendency because we want
to boost positive feelings about ourselves and
we want to avoid feeling bad or depressed about
ourselves as often as possible.

The Importance of Social Representations

Humans are social beings; we know this now for
a fact. Everything about our self-concepts is
intimately associated with the public sphere. We
can be private individuals but in the end, we
cannot help but look outward to social groups
and the larger society that we belong to.
A person can pretend to ignore society but his
own thought patterns and behaviors are still
molded by both personal and public
expectations. That is why we now turn to social
representations so we can zero in on one of the
most important aspects of the social being us.
Social representations, unlike theories of
attribution are studied qualitatively by social
scientists because it is nearly impossible to
come up with a bulletproof quantitative or
statistics-based analysis of peoples beliefs and
tendencies.

Knowledge itself cannot be measured accurately

even in small populations because knowledge
eludes the common coordinates used in
statistics. So we have to shift our framework a
little to accommodate the fact that knowledge
and causal relations (the core of human
understanding) are transmitted by people and to
people through informal communication.
In an ideal society, everyone would have the
opportunity to have the same knowledge as
everyone else. In such a utopian society, people
would be given the chance to receive equal
amounts of knowledge. Accurate measurement
of competence and knowledgeableness would
also be possible since everyone was educated in
the same way.
In the reality that we live in, this is simply
impossible so humans have devised ways to
transmit knowledge in a more informal way. Of
course, we cannot expect knowledge to be full
transmitted through informal discussions.

You will have to expect some level of dilution

when knowledge is passed down literally from
one person to another. Despite the nature of
common epistemic transfer, we have to
remember that mass culture, popular culture and
even elite culture are created and bound by
social representations.
Do not be confused by the term social
representations. Often people think that social
representations can only be used for politicians
and historic figures. In reality, social
representations can be about anything from
warm donuts to what you have to do to avoid
toe fungus.
Social representations are in the way we eat and
how we choose a new formal dress for that
luncheon meeting. Social representations are in
the way we choose to be called in online social
networking platforms and chat rooms.

We cannot escape social representations any

more than we can escape communicating with
other people through verbal and physical
language. Social representation exists because
people agree about the causal relations of
things.
For example, it is widely held that a person who
is shy and keeps to himself is an introverted
person. People who espouse this knowledge
may not have heard of Freud or psychoanalysis,
but the remark that a shy person may be an
introverted person is essentially correct.
Knowledge from the academe has filtered down
to popular/common usage through word of
mouth. The knowledge is diluted and is
somewhat incomplete, but people believe in this
knowledge wholeheartedly because other people
believe in it to.
You can imagine how powerful this concept can
be when you think of how people tend to accept
new information more easily if other people

have already validated that what is being said is

acceptable and true. Think about this the next
time that want to influence a large group of
people.
Again, you dont have to exert a tremendous
amount of effort to convince each and every one
of the people in your audience. You just have to
convince one or two people but you have to do
it in a way that will draw in the rest of your
audience so that they will more readily agree
with what you are saying.