Name : Umar Ali

Roll Number : 522

Class # : Bcs 5th Semester

Assignment # : 05

Submitted to : Sir Ihsan

Subject : “Design Analysis of

Algorithm”
 1) Attributions: Interpreting the
Causes of Behavior:
A major influence on how people behave is the way they interpret the events
around them. People who feel they have control over what happens to them are
more likely to accept responsibility for their actions than those who feel control of
events is out of their hands. The cognitive process by which people interpret the
reasons or causes for their behavior is described by attribution theory.

H. H. Kelley, “The Process of Causal Attributions,” American

Psychologist, February 1973, pp. 107–128; F. Forsterling, “Attributional
Retraining: A Review,” Psychological Bulletin, November 1985, pp.
495–512; B. Weiner, Human Motivation (New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, 1980).

Specifically, “attribution theory concerns the process by which an individual

interprets events as being caused by a particular part of a relatively stable
environment.”

Kelley, op. cit., p. 193.

Attribution theory is based largely on the work of Fritz Heider. Heider argues that
behavior is determined by a combination of internal forces (e.g., abilities or effort)
and external forces (e.g., task difficulty or luck). Following the cognitive approach
of Lewin and Tolman, he emphasizes that it is perceived determinants, rather than
actual ones, that influence behavior. Hence, if employees perceive that their
success is a function of their own abilities and efforts, they can be expected to
behave differently than they would if they believed job success was due to chance.

The Attribution Process

The underlying assumption of attribution theory is that people are

motivated to understand their environment and the causes of particular
events. If individuals can understand these causes, they will then be in a
better position to influence or control the sequence of future events. This
process is diagrammed in (Figure). Specifically, attribution theory
suggests that particular behavioral events (e.g., the receipt of a
promotion) are analyzed by individuals to determine their causes. This
process may lead to the conclusion that the promotion resulted from the
individual’s own effort or, alternatively, from some other cause, such as
luck. Based on such cognitive interpretations of events, individuals
revise their cognitive structures and rethink their assumptions about
causal relationships. For instance, an individual may infer that
performance does indeed lead to promotion. Based on this new structure,
the individual makes choices about future behavior. In some cases, the
individual may decide to continue exerting high levels of effort in the
hope that it will lead to further promotions. On the other hand, if an
individual concludes that the promotion resulted primarily from chance
and was largely unrelated to performance, a different cognitive structure
might be created, and there might be little reason to continue exerting
high levels of effort. In other words, the way in which we perceive and
interpret events around us significantly affects our future behaviors.
The General Attribution Process

Internal and External Causes of Behavior

Building upon the work of Heider, Harold Kelley attempted to identify

the major antecedents of internal and external attributions.

He examined how people determine—or, rather, how they actually

perceive—whether the behavior of another person results from internal
or external causes. Internal causes include ability and effort, whereas
external causes include luck and task ease or difficulty.

Kelley’s conclusion, illustrated in is that people actually focus on three

factors when making causal attributions:
Causes of Internal and External Attributions
 Adapted from Nyla Branscombe and Robert A. Baron. Social
Psychology. Fourteenth Edition, 2016, Pearson. (Attribution: Copyright
Rice University, OpenStax, under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license)

1. Consensus. The extent to which you believe that the person being
observed is behaving in a manner that is consistent with the behavior of
his or her peers. High consensus exists when the person’s actions reflect
or are similar to the actions of the group; low consensus exists when the
person’s actions do not.
2. Consistency. The extent to which you believe that the person being
observed behaves consistently—in a similar fashion—when confronted
on other occasions with the same or similar situations. High consistency
exists when the person repeatedly acts in the same way when faced with
similar stimuli.
3. Distinctiveness. The extent to which you believe that the person being
observed would behave consistently when faced with different
situations. Low distinctiveness exists when the person acts in a similar
manner in response to different stimuli; high distinctiveness exists when
the person varies his or her response to different situations.

How do these three factors interact to influence whether one’s

attributions are internal or external? According to the exhibit, under
conditions of high consensus, high consistency, and high distinctiveness,
we would expect the observer to make external attributions about the
causes of behavior. That is, the person would attribute the behavior of
the observed (say, winning a golf tournament) to good fortune or some
other external event. On the other hand, when consensus is low,
consistency is high, and distinctiveness is low, we would expect the
observer to attribute the observed behavior (winning the golf
tournament) to internal causes (the winner’s skill).
In other words, we tend to attribute the reasons behind the success or
failure of others to either internal or external causes according to how
we interpret the underlying forces associated with the others’ behavior.
Consider the example of the first female sales manager in a firm to be
promoted to an executive rank. How do you explain her promotion—
luck and connections or ability and performance? To find out, follow the
model. If she, as a sales representative, had sold more than her (male)
counterparts (low consensus in behavior), consistently sold the primary
product line in different sales territories (high consistency), and was also
able to sell different product lines (low distinctiveness), we would more
than likely attribute her promotion to her own abilities. On the other
hand, if her male counterparts were also good sales representatives (high
consensus) and her sales record on secondary products was inconsistent
(high distinctiveness), people would probably attribute her promotion to
luck or connections, regardless of her sales performance on the primary
product line (high consistency).
Golf
What internal and external attributions can you make about this golfer
who is celebrating a hole in one? (Notice the untied shoe.) (Credit: John
Fink/ flickr/ Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0))

Attributional Bias

One final point should be made with respect to the attributional process.
In making attributions concerning the causes of behavior, people tend to
make certain errors of interpretation. Two such errors, or attribution
biases, should be noted here. The first is called the fundamental
attribution error. This error is a tendency to underestimate the effects of
external or situational causes of behavior and to overestimate the effects
of internal or personal causes. Hence, when a major problem occurs
within a certain department, we tend to blame people rather than events
or situations.
 The second error in attribution processes is generally called the self-
serving bias. There is a tendency, not surprisingly, for individuals to
attribute success on an event or project to their own actions while
attributing failure to others. Hence, we often hear sales representatives
saying, “I made the sale,” but “They stole the sale from me” rather than
“I lost it.” These two biases in interpreting how we see the events around
us help us understand why employees looking at the same event often
see substantially different things.

1. What is attribution theory? Describe the attribution process.

2. What are the internal and external causes of attribution?

3. How do people attribute credit and blame for organizational events?

Attribution theory concerns the process by which individuals attempt to

make sense of the cause-effect relationships in their life space. Events
are seen as being either internally caused (that is, by the individual) or
externally caused (that is, by other factors in the environment). In
making causal attributions, people tend to focus on three factors:
consensus, consistency, and distinctiveness. The fundamental attribution
error is a tendency to underestimate the effects of external or situational
causes of behavior and overestimate the effects of personal causes.
The self-serving bias is a tendency for people to attribute success on a
project to themselves while attributing failure to others.
Attitude Formation Definition

An attitude is a general and lasting positive or negative opinion or feeling about some
person, object, or issue. Attitude formation occurs through either direct experience or
the persuasion of others or the media. Attitudes have three foundations: affect or
emotion, behavior, and cognitions. In addition, evidence suggests that attitudes may
develop out of psychological needs (motivational foundations), social interactions (social
foundations), and genetics (biological foundations), although this last notion is new and
controversial.

Emotional Foundations of Attitudes

A key part of an attitude is the affect or emotion associated with the attitude. At a very
basic level, we know whether we like or dislike something or find an idea pleasant or
unpleasant. For instance, we may say that we know something “in our heart” or have a
“gut feeling.” In such cases our attitudes have been formed though our emotions rather
than through logic or thinking. This can happen through (a) sensory reactions, (b)
values, (c) operant/instrumental conditioning, (d) classical conditioning, (e) semantic
generalization, (f) evaluative conditioning, or (g) mere exposure.

Sensory Reactions

Any direct experience with an object though seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, or
touching will lead to an immediate evaluative reaction. We are experts at knowing
whether we find a certain sensory experience pleas-ant or unpleasant. For example,
immediately upon tasting a new type of candy bar, you know whether you like it or not.
This also applies to aesthetic experiences, such as admiring the color or composition of
an artwork. We form attitudes about objects immediately upon experiencing them.
Values

Some attitudes come from our larger belief system. We may come to hold certain
attitudes because they validate our basic values. Many attitudes come from religious or
moral beliefs. For example, for many people their attitudes about abortion, birth control,
same-sex marriage, and the death penalty follow from their moral or religious beliefs
and are highly emotional issues for them.

Operant Conditioning

Operant or instrumental conditioning is when an attitude forms because it has been

reinforced through reward or a pleasant experience or discouraged through punishment
or an unpleasant experience. For example, a parent might praise a teenager for helping
out at an after-school program with little kids. As a result, the teen may develop a
positive attitude toward volunteer work. Similarly, many people find that broccoli has a
terrible taste, and so they dislike broccoli because of its punishing flavor.

Classical Conditioning

Classical or Pavlovian conditioning happens when a new stimulus comes to elicit an

emotional reaction because of its association with a stimulus that already elicits the
emotional response. The Russian physiologist Ivan Pavlov took dogs, which naturally
salivate to meat powder, and trained them to salivate at the sound of a bell by
continually ringing the bell as the meat powder was presented. In humans, some of our
attitudes have become conditioned in much the same way. For example, some people
have a negative attitude towards “dirty” words. Just the thought of a taboo word will
cause some people to blush. The words themselves have come to elicit an emotional
reaction because their use is frowned upon in our culture in most contexts.
Semantic Generalization

Not only can we become conditioned to a specific stimulus, but this initial conditioning
can generalize or spread to similar stimuli. For example, a bell higher or lower in pitch to
the original conditioned sound may elicit the same reaction. In humans, the initial
conditioning can spread even to words or concepts similar to the original stimulus. As a
result, we can form attitudes about an object or idea without having direct contact with it.
When this kind of generalization occurs, the process is called semantic generalization.
For example, human subjects who have been conditioned to the sound of a bell may
also show a response to the sight of a bell or by the spoken word bell. Semantic
generalization can account for the formation of attitudes, like prejudice, where people
have formed an attitude without having direct contact with the object of that attitude.

Evaluative Conditioning

An object need not directly cause us to feel pleasant or unpleasant for us to form an
attitude. Evaluative conditioning occurs when we form attitudes toward an object or
person because our exposure to them coincided with a positive or negative emotion.
For example, a couple may come to feel positive toward a particular song that was
playing on the radio during their first date. Their positive attitude to the song is a result
of its association with the happy experience of a date.

Mere Exposure

Finally, when we see the same object or person over and over, we will generally form a
positive attitude toward that object or person. This is true for an object or person we feel
neutral or positive about, so long as we are not overexposed to it. For example, many
popular styles of clothing seem bizarre at first, but then as we see more of them we may
come to accept and even like them.

Behavioral Foundations of Attitudes

Sometimes we form attitudes from our actions. This can happen if we do something
before we have an attitude (e.g., going to an art opening of an unknown artist), when we
are unsure of our attitudes (e.g., going with a friend to a political rally), or when we are
not thinking about what we are doing (mindlessly singing along with a random station on
the radio). That is, there are times when just going through the motions can cause us to
form an attitude consistent with those actions. In the previous examples, people may
come to hate the new artist, support free trade, or like classical music because their
actions have led them to engage in these behaviors, which then led to the formation of
an attitude. There are at least four lines of evidence that account for how attitudes may
form out of actions.

First, self-perception theory suggests that we look to our behavior and figure out our
attitude based on what we have done or are doing. Second, cognitive dissonance
theory suggests that we strive for consistency between our attitudes and our actions
and when the two do not match, we may form a new attitude to coincide with our past
actions.

Third, research evidence using the facial feedback hypothesis finds that holding our
facial muscles in the pose of an emotion will cause us to experience that emotion, which
may then color our opinions. For example, participants who viewed cartoons that were
not particularly funny while holding a pen across their teeth—a pose which activates the
same muscles involved in smiling—rated the cartoons funnier than subjects who posed
with a pen in their mouths, which activated the same muscles involved in frowning. As a
result, people may develop positive or negative attitudes toward neutral objects after
moving their facial muscles into smiles or frowns, respectively.

Finally, role-playing, such as improvising persuasive arguments, giving personal

testimony, taking on another person’s perspective, or even play-acting, are all additional
ways that people may come to form attitudes based on their behaviors. For example, in
an early study, women who were heavy smokers participated in an elaborately staged
play where they played the role of a woman dying of lung cancer. Two weeks later,
these women smoked less and held less positive attitudes toward smoking than women
who had not been through this role-play procedure.

Cognitive Foundations of Attitudes

The cognitive foundation of attitudes, what might be called beliefs, comes from direct
experience with the world or through thinking about the world. Thinking about the world
includes any kind of active information processing, such as deliberating, wondering,
imagining, and reflecting, as well as through activities such as reading, writing, listening,
and talking.

If you believe that insects are dirty and disgusting, then you will probably have the
attitude that insects are not food. However, if you read that locusts and other insects are
happily eaten in some cultures, then you may come to believe that locusts may not be
so bad. Your attitude here comes from thinking about the new facts you read.

Additionally, if the National Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) says that
exposure to ultraviolet light is the most important environmental factor involved in the
formation of skin cancers, and you believe that the CDC is a trustworthy expert, then
you might logically reason that excessive sun exposure is not a healthy thing. Here your
attitude comes from logically reasoning about the world.

Suppose you didn’t know how you felt about a topic until you were forced to write an
essay for a writing class. This also would be an example of attitude formation through
cognition, in this case, organizing your thoughts in preparation to write a coherent
essay.
 2) Attitude Formation Definition
An attitude is a general and lasting positive or negative opinion or feeling about some
person, object, or issue. Attitude formation occurs through either direct experience or
the persuasion of others or the media. Attitudes have three foundations: affect or
emotion, behavior, and cognitions. In addition, evidence suggests that attitudes may
develop out of psychological needs (motivational foundations), social interactions (social
foundations), and genetics (biological foundations), although this last notion is new and
controversial.

Emotional Foundations of Attitudes

A key part of an attitude is the affect or emotion associated with the attitude. At a very
basic level, we know whether we like or dislike something or find an idea pleasant or
unpleasant. For instance, we may say that we know something “in our heart” or have a
“gut feeling.” In such cases our attitudes have been formed though our emotions rather
than through logic or thinking. This can happen through (a) sensory reactions, (b)
values, (c) operant/instrumental conditioning, (d) classical conditioning, (e) semantic
generalization, (f) evaluative conditioning, or (g) mere exposure.

Sensory Reactions
Any direct experience with an object though seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, or
touching will lead to an immediate evaluative reaction. We are experts at knowing
whether we find a certain sensory experience pleas-ant or unpleasant. For example,
immediately upon tasting a new type of candy bar, you know whether you like it or not.
This also applies to aesthetic experiences, such as admiring the color or composition of
an artwork. We form attitudes about objects immediately upon experiencing them.

Values

Some attitudes come from our larger belief system. We may come to hold certain
attitudes because they validate our basic values. Many attitudes come from religious or
moral beliefs. For example, for many people their attitudes about abortion, birth control,
same-sex marriage, and the death penalty follow from their moral or religious beliefs
and are highly emotional issues for them.

Operant Conditioning

Operant or instrumental conditioning is when an attitude forms because it has been

reinforced through reward or a pleasant experience or discouraged through punishment
or an unpleasant experience. For example, a parent might praise a teenager for helping
out at an after-school program with little kids. As a result, the teen may develop a
positive attitude toward volunteer work. Similarly, many people find that broccoli has a
terrible taste, and so they dislike broccoli because of its punishing flavor.

Classical Conditioning

Classical or Pavlovian conditioning happens when a new stimulus comes to elicit an

emotional reaction because of its association with a stimulus that already elicits the
emotional response. The Russian physiologist Ivan Pavlov took dogs, which naturally
salivate to meat powder, and trained them to salivate at the sound of a bell by
continually ringing the bell as the meat powder was presented. In humans, some of our
attitudes have become conditioned in much the same way. For example, some people
have a negative attitude towards “dirty” words. Just the thought of a taboo word will
cause some people to blush. The words themselves have come to elicit an emotional
reaction because their use is frowned upon in our culture in most contexts.

Semantic Generalization

Not only can we become conditioned to a specific stimulus, but this initial conditioning
can generalize or spread to similar stimuli. For example, a bell higher or lower in pitch to
the original conditioned sound may elicit the same reaction. In humans, the initial
conditioning can spread even to words or concepts similar to the original stimulus. As a
result, we can form attitudes about an object or idea without having direct contact with it.
When this kind of generalization occurs, the process is called semantic generalization.
For example, human subjects who have been conditioned to the sound of a bell may
also show a response to the sight of a bell or by the spoken word bell. Semantic
generalization can account for the formation of attitudes, like prejudice, where people
have formed an attitude without having direct contact with the object of that attitude.

Evaluative Conditioning

An object need not directly cause us to feel pleasant or unpleasant for us to form an
attitude. Evaluative conditioning occurs when we form attitudes toward an object or
person because our exposure to them coincided with a positive or negative emotion.
For example, a couple may come to feel positive toward a particular song that was
playing on the radio during their first date. Their positive attitude to the song is a result
of its association with the happy experience of a date.

Mere Exposure
Finally, when we see the same object or person over and over, we will generally
form a positive attitude toward that object or person. This is true for an object or
person we feel neutral or positive about, so long as we are not overexposed to it.
For example, many popular styles of clothing seem bizarre at first, but then as we
see more of them we may come to accept and even like them.
Behavioral Foundations of Attitudes
Sometimes we form attitudes from our actions. This can happen if we do
something before we have an attitude (e.g., going to an art opening of an
unknown artist), when we are unsure of our attitudes (e.g., going with a friend to
a political rally), or when we are not thinking about what we are doing (mindlessly
singing along with a random station on the radio). That is, there are times when
just going through the motions can cause us to form an attitude consistent with
those actions. In the previous examples, people may come to hate the new artist,
support free trade, or like classical music because their actions have led them to
engage in these behaviors, which then led to the formation of an attitude. There
are at least four lines of evidence that account for how attitudes may form out of
actions.

First, self-perception theory suggests that we look to our behavior and figure out
our attitude based on what we have done or are doing. Second, cognitive
dissonance theory suggests that we strive for consistency between our attitudes
and our actions and when the two do not match, we may form a new attitude to
coincide with our past actions.

Third, research evidence using the facial feedback hypothesis finds that holding
our facial muscles in the pose of an emotion will cause us to experience that
emotion, which may then color our opinions. For example, participants who
viewed cartoons that were not particularly funny while holding a pen across their
teeth—a pose which activates the same muscles involved in smiling—rated the
cartoons funnier than subjects who posed with a pen in their mouths, which
activated the same muscles involved in frowning. As a result, people may develop
positive or negative attitudes toward neutral objects after moving their facial
muscles into smiles or frowns, respectively.

Finally, role-playing, such as improvising persuasive arguments, giving personal

testimony, taking on another person’s perspective, or even play-acting, are all
additional ways that people may come to form attitudes based on their behaviors.
For example, in an early study, women who were heavy smokers participated in
an elaborately staged play where they played the role of a woman dying of lung
cancer. Two weeks later, these women smoked less and held less positive
attitudes toward smoking than women who had not been through this role-play
procedure.

Cognitive Foundations of Attitudes

The cognitive foundation of attitudes, what might be called beliefs, comes from
direct experience with the world or through thinking about the world. Thinking
about the world includes any kind of active information processing, such as
deliberating, wondering, imagining, and reflecting, as well as through activities
such as reading, writing, listening, and talking.

If you believe that insects are dirty and disgusting, then you will probably have
the attitude that insects are not food. However, if you read that locusts and other
insects are happily eaten in some cultures, then you may come to believe that
locusts may not be so bad. Your attitude here comes from thinking about the new
facts you read.

Additionally, if the National Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) says
that exposure to ultraviolet light is the most important environmental factor
involved in the formation of skin cancers, and you believe that the CDC is a
trustworthy expert, then you might logically reason that excessive sun exposure is
not a healthy thing. Here your attitude comes from logically reasoning about the
world.

Suppose you didn’t know how you felt about a topic until you were forced to
write an essay for a writing class. This also would be an example of attitude
formation through cognition, in this case, organizing your thoughts in preparation
to write a coherent essay.