Attribution theories

Attribution theories are concerned with how a person perceives the causes of
his or her own behavior and the behavior of others. Attribution theories place
emphasis on the role of cognition. They assume that people strive to explain,
understand and predict events. There is no one unified, comprehensive attribution
theory; rather there is a network of perspectives and models.

According to Hilgard, “attribution is the process through which we seek to

identify how people understand the causes of other’s and their own behavior”. In
seeking to explain another person’s behavior, people have two general categories
of causes: situation and disposition. Situational causes are reasons for behavior that
rest on the demands of a given social setting, i.e., certain circumstances produces
particular kinds of behavior. Dispositional causes are reasons for behavior that rest
on the personality traits.

The general principle of attribution is that behavior will be attributed to a

situational cause when external reasons are more likely. Conversely, behavior will
be attributed to dispositional factors when external causes are unlikely.

1. Heider’s theory:

Attribution theory outlined initially by Fritz Heider in 1958.

According to his theory external events do not directly motivate behavior, rather,
the perceived causes of our successes and failures determine how we will act.
Heider’s attribution theory had two fundamental assumptions.

a). People use similar principles in the perception of other persons and the
perception of physical objects.

b). People strive for prediction and understanding of their world.

Using these two assumptions, Heider observed that a person imposes

stability and predictability on both the interpersonal and the physical environments
by attributing transient events to invariant underlying conditions. These underlying
conditions are called “dispositional properties”. These properties dispose or cause,
persons and objects to act in certain ways under certain circumstances. Heider says
that outcomes – success or failure at a task – are attributed to effective personal
force and effective environmental force. Effective personal force has two
components: power and motivation. Power is determined by ability. Ability is
necessary for motivated behavior to produce a successful outcome. The
motivational component of personal causality is called trying, and it in turn has
two components: intention and exertion. Intention, the qualitative component,
represents “what” the person is trying to do. Exertion, the quantitative component,
represents “how hard” a person is trying. To sum up: personal force requires both
ability and trying, and trying is composed of intention and exertion.

The main component of effective environmental force is task difficulty and

luck. Task difficulty is stable and the luck is less stable and unpredictable. Heider
reasoned that the outcome of any behavior is attributable to some combination of
personal characteristics (ability, trying) and environmental contingencies (task
difficulty, luck). That is, an outcome is due to some personal force plus some
environmental force; even if one of the forces is zero, there will be an outcome. He
also reasoned that the personal component was a multiplicative function of ability
and trying. These two relations are depicted in the following equation:

Outcome = f (personal force + impersonal force), where personal force = ability ×

trying.

Heider’s analysis of the attribution process is the corner stone of modern

attribution theory. Some of the concepts and processes proposed in Heider’s theory
have received empirical support. The major short coming of the theory is its
neglect of specific, operationally defined hypothesis that can be investigated in the
experimental laboratory.

2. Jones and Davis correspondent inferences theory:

Jones and Davis (1965) have developed an “act –to disposition”
model of the attribution process which considers how an observer infers
the causes of behavior.
Jones and Davis describe the attribution process as an act-intention-
disposition sequence. The behavior and its effects are first observed. The
observer then attempts to infer the acting person’s intentions. Finally, the
inference of intention results in the observer’s attributing personal
dispositions to the actor. Such dispositions might include personality
 traits. The attribution process thus proceeds from an act to intention to
disposition.
To explain their act to disposition mode of attribution process, they
formulated a theory of correspondent inferences. Correspondent
inferences mean observer’s notions of how closely an overt behavior or
action represents a specific underlying intention or disposition. The more
a behavior appears to reflect the underlying disposition, the greater is the
correspondence between these two factors.
The degree of correspondence between a behavior and an attribution
is affected by two principal variables.
a). Social desirability: observing that someone’s behavior has
desirable effects tells one very little about the person’s true intentions,
only that the observed behavior is normative. Behaviors that are socially
desirable therefore do not elicit strong, confident attributions. For that
reason, the theory of correspondent inferences predicts that highly
correspondent attributions will arise from behaviors that are departing
from the norm.
b). Non common effects: according to Jones and Davis we learn more
from behaviors of others that lead to unique or non-common effects. The
theory assumes that any behavior leads to a particular set of
consequences. However, the behaviors that are most helpful in forming
correspondent inferences are those that result in consequences that other
alternative behaviors would not have produced.

3. Kelley: processes of multiple causal attribution:

The most significant contributions to attribution theory in recent years
have been made by Kelley (1967). Kelley’s central theme is that causal
attribution is generally a complex process that takes into account the joint
influence of multiple causes to produce a given effect. Kelley has
developed two sets of concepts – covariation concepts and configuration
concepts.
The covariation model of attribution: it applies to situations in which the
attributor has information from multiple observations with which to make
an inference. Kelley suggests that a number of questions must be
considered before we can formulate a causal attribution. The answer to
these questions tells us to which factors we should attribute our success
or failures.
a). Distinctiveness: one question is about the distinctiveness of our
experience. Is our success or failure unique to this setting or has it
occurred in many situations? According to Kelley, we are more likely to
attribute an experience to an external factor if we believe that it is unique
than if we believe that it has happened in many settings.
b). Consensus: we also ask about the experiences of others: have others
had a similar experience, or are we alone in succeeding at a certain task?
Kelley suggests that we are more likely to attribute an experience to an
external factor if we believe that others have also succeeded at this task
than if we know that we are alone in the experience.
c). Consistency: we also ask whether or not we typically succeed or fail
in similar settings. Information about consistency allows us to determine
the stability of factors to which we attribute our experiences.
Taking into account information about consensus, consistency, and
distinctiveness, allows people to attribute a certain behavior either to
dispositional factors or to situational factors. When consensus and
distinctiveness are low and consistency is high, people tend to make
dispositional attributions. When consensus, consistency and
distinctiveness are all high, people tend to make attributions to external,
situational factors.

The configuration model of attribution: it applies to situations in which

the attributor has information from only a single observation. In this
configuration model the attributor utilizes causal schemata. A causal
schema is a cognition or way of thinking about particular behaviors and
their alternative causes. It derives from one’s prior experience. The
schema permits causal attributions on the basis of minimal data that can
be provided through a single observation. This configuration or
schematic model of the attribution process yields two principles.
❖ The discounting principle: is that, “the role of a given cause in
producing a given effect is discounted if other plausible causes are
also present”. This principle suggests that internal attributions will
 be weakened if possible external causes are also present and
conversely that external attributions will be weakened if possible
internal causes are also present.
❖ The augmentation principle: it predicts enhancement of an internal
attribution when the behavior takes place in a context containing
considerable external obstacles.

Kelley’s view of the attribution process is significant for its emphasis on

multiple causes. His establishment of a clear continuity between causal
attributions for self and other broadens the scope of attribution theory
immensely.