In everyday life, people need to interpret others' behaviour in order to navigate themselves in social environment and react appropriately. The explanations of behaviour causes (of both others and our own) are called attributions. We make them to achieve some degree of cognitive control over others; in this way we can both predict their behaviour and get ready to make an appropriate response.
In this post I will talk about two main types of attributions: external and internal. I will also explain the basics of four main theories of attribution. Attribution Errors and cultural variations will also be discussed. So, a lot to go through today - let's get started!
In this post I will talk about two main types of attributions: external and internal. I will also explain the basics of four main theories of attribution. Attribution Errors and cultural variations will also be discussed. So, a lot to go through today - let's get started!
Internal and External types of attributions
There are two main types of attributions: external (situational) and internal (dispositional).
We make an external attribution when we explain someone's behaviour by situation. For example, if we see a person A hitting person B, we could presume that person B must have done something to upset person A, or that person A got drunk, etc. That would be an external attribution.
By contrast, internal attribution is when we explain someone's behaviour as due to somethng inside the individual. We could suggest that a person A is short-tempered by nature or just likes hitting people - that would be an internal attribution.
We make an external attribution when we explain someone's behaviour by situation. For example, if we see a person A hitting person B, we could presume that person B must have done something to upset person A, or that person A got drunk, etc. That would be an external attribution.
By contrast, internal attribution is when we explain someone's behaviour as due to somethng inside the individual. We could suggest that a person A is short-tempered by nature or just likes hitting people - that would be an internal attribution.
Classic theories of attribution
1. Heider (1958)
Heider called all the people 'naive scientists' because we all try to find unobservable causes for the observable. He was the first one to start a psychological research into attribution - and the first one to make a distinction between internal and external ones. According to his theory, they were mutually exclusive, and lied on the same continuum. Thus, Heider suggested that we either make an external or internal attribution - and never both at the same time.
2. Jones & Davis (1965)
This theory only deals with internal attributions, and is sometimes referred to Correspondent Inference theory (correspondent Inference - or CI - is essentially the same as internal attribution). Jones & Davis suggested that people tend to infer that behaviour is due to the one's internal disposition. The likelihood of us to make such an attribution depends on three factors:
1) Is the behaviour unexpected? We are much more likely to make CI if it is.
2) Is the behaviour undesirable? Again, we tend to make CI if it is.
3) Does the actor have a freedom of choice? If we believe he/she does, we are more likely to make CI.
Consider the persons A and B from the earlier example. If a person A had a complete freedom of choice whether to hit a person B or not, but nevertheless choose to do so - we are likely to attribute this behaviour to his inner disposition. But what if he was told by some mafia: 'If you do not hit person B now, I will explode the building!' In this case, we are less likely to make CI.
3. Kelley (1967, 1972)
Kelley developed Covariation Theory of attribution. According to him, people make attributions based on three types of information:
1) Distinctiveness. Is the event is unique to the TARGET of actor's behaviour? In relation to our example, if person A only hit person B, the event has high distinctiveness; if A hits everyone - event is of a low distinctiveness.
2) Consensus. Is the event unique to the ACTOR? If it is only A who hits B then the event has a low consensus; if everyone regularly hits B then the consensus of this particular event is high.
3) Consistency. Is the event unique to the situation? If A only hit B once, then the consistency is low; if A does it all the time, no matter what situation/setting/time it is, then consistency of the event is high.
Kelley developed a Cube Model of Attribution (see below).
Thus, High Distinctiveness, Consensus and Consistency would lead us to make an External attribution, while Low Distinctiveness, Low Consensus and High Consistency - Internal. Low Consistency makes the causes uncertain, thus the attribution that we will make in this case is unstable and less certain.
Heider called all the people 'naive scientists' because we all try to find unobservable causes for the observable. He was the first one to start a psychological research into attribution - and the first one to make a distinction between internal and external ones. According to his theory, they were mutually exclusive, and lied on the same continuum. Thus, Heider suggested that we either make an external or internal attribution - and never both at the same time.
2. Jones & Davis (1965)
This theory only deals with internal attributions, and is sometimes referred to Correspondent Inference theory (correspondent Inference - or CI - is essentially the same as internal attribution). Jones & Davis suggested that people tend to infer that behaviour is due to the one's internal disposition. The likelihood of us to make such an attribution depends on three factors:
1) Is the behaviour unexpected? We are much more likely to make CI if it is.
2) Is the behaviour undesirable? Again, we tend to make CI if it is.
3) Does the actor have a freedom of choice? If we believe he/she does, we are more likely to make CI.
Consider the persons A and B from the earlier example. If a person A had a complete freedom of choice whether to hit a person B or not, but nevertheless choose to do so - we are likely to attribute this behaviour to his inner disposition. But what if he was told by some mafia: 'If you do not hit person B now, I will explode the building!' In this case, we are less likely to make CI.
3. Kelley (1967, 1972)
Kelley developed Covariation Theory of attribution. According to him, people make attributions based on three types of information:
1) Distinctiveness. Is the event is unique to the TARGET of actor's behaviour? In relation to our example, if person A only hit person B, the event has high distinctiveness; if A hits everyone - event is of a low distinctiveness.
2) Consensus. Is the event unique to the ACTOR? If it is only A who hits B then the event has a low consensus; if everyone regularly hits B then the consensus of this particular event is high.
3) Consistency. Is the event unique to the situation? If A only hit B once, then the consistency is low; if A does it all the time, no matter what situation/setting/time it is, then consistency of the event is high.
Kelley developed a Cube Model of Attribution (see below).
Thus, High Distinctiveness, Consensus and Consistency would lead us to make an External attribution, while Low Distinctiveness, Low Consensus and High Consistency - Internal. Low Consistency makes the causes uncertain, thus the attribution that we will make in this case is unstable and less certain.
Note that Kelley's model has some significant limitations. To have a complete information in this case, we would need to observe every person with every other person in every possible setting on the planet. Of course this is impossible, thus Kelley's cube model is an idealised model of real-life attribution process.
In 1972 Kelley introduced a concept of Multiple Sufficient Causes, which stated that any behaviour could have several causes. In this case, people are guided by two principles:
1) Discounting Principle: we put less weight into a potential cause in case when there is another potential cause present.
2) Augmenting Principle: we attach more weight to a potential cause in case an event happens despite inhibitory factors.
Imagine a company is known for its affirmative action policy. Now, consider two events:
a) A woman is hired. Her qualifications may be discounted. ('She got a job due to the company's
policy!')
b) A man is hired. His qualifications may be augmented ('He got a job despite the company's
policy!')
In 1972 Kelley introduced a concept of Multiple Sufficient Causes, which stated that any behaviour could have several causes. In this case, people are guided by two principles:
1) Discounting Principle: we put less weight into a potential cause in case when there is another potential cause present.
2) Augmenting Principle: we attach more weight to a potential cause in case an event happens despite inhibitory factors.
Imagine a company is known for its affirmative action policy. Now, consider two events:
a) A woman is hired. Her qualifications may be discounted. ('She got a job due to the company's
policy!')
b) A man is hired. His qualifications may be augmented ('He got a job despite the company's
policy!')
Modern Theory of Attribution: Malle (2003)
Malle developed a Theory of Explanations. He criticised classic theories for being too cognitive oriented and for not accounting for social factor. Also, he argued that there was no evidence that people made either internal or external attributions; classic theorists assumed they did without having any backing for such claims.
In Malle's theory, behaviours are divided in Intentional and Unintentional; there are several modes of explanation for each. Consider the following behaviour: Ann studied for an exam the whole day.
1) Intentional modes of explanation:
a) Reason: Ann wants to do well in her exam
b) Causal history of reason: Ann is a high achiever
c) Enabling factor: Ann drank the whole case of Red Bull
2) Unintentional modes - causes outside the consciousness of an actor; causes are independent from the actor's will or reasoning.
Malle suggested that we choose the mode depending on three factors:
a) Information that we have (knowledge of context etc.)
b) Features of behaviour that we want to explain (perceived difficulty, intentionality...)
c) Pagmatic goals (our willingness to conform to/impress the audience).
However, people do not stop there; once they decided whether the behaviour is intentional or unintentional, they look for specific causes.
In Malle's theory, behaviours are divided in Intentional and Unintentional; there are several modes of explanation for each. Consider the following behaviour: Ann studied for an exam the whole day.
1) Intentional modes of explanation:
a) Reason: Ann wants to do well in her exam
b) Causal history of reason: Ann is a high achiever
c) Enabling factor: Ann drank the whole case of Red Bull
2) Unintentional modes - causes outside the consciousness of an actor; causes are independent from the actor's will or reasoning.
Malle suggested that we choose the mode depending on three factors:
a) Information that we have (knowledge of context etc.)
b) Features of behaviour that we want to explain (perceived difficulty, intentionality...)
c) Pagmatic goals (our willingness to conform to/impress the audience).
However, people do not stop there; once they decided whether the behaviour is intentional or unintentional, they look for specific causes.
Attribution Errors
People frequently make errors when trying to explain others' behaviour. Fundamental Attribution Error is tendency to attribute someone's behaviour to their internal dispositions due to both overestimation of influence of dispositional factors and underestimation of influence of situational factors.
Why are we making it?
There are four theories which attempt to explain the reasons for FAE.
1. Perceptual Salience
This idea suggests that whatever we pay more attention to is thought to be the cause. The person's behaviour is more salient than all other factors and their role, hence the FAE.
Any evidence?
Taylor & Fiske (1975) devised an experiment, in which six participants observed a conversation of two experimenters from different vantage points, and later were asked a question: 'Who in your opinion was the leader of a conversation?' What they found was, those facing person A thought he was the leader, while those facing person B said the opposite.
2. Gilbert's two-stage Model
According to Gilbert, once we perceive any behaviour we perform the first, spontaneous stage of analysis, in which we make dispositional attribution. Then, we may decide that the behaviour is not of an interest and stop our analysis there (or, we could be cognitively busy to deal with it); in this case, we are very likely to commit FAE. Otherwise, if we are cognitively free, we may choose to proceed to the second, deliberate stage of analysis. In this stage, we analyse possible causes of behaviour and are more likely to make a situational attribution.
3. Actor-Observer Difference
Studies repeatedly showed that we tend to attribute our own behaviour to a situation, while that of others' - to their disposition. Imagine that you failed an exam. I guess most of us will use phrases like 'I got really bad questions', 'It was a bad day', 'I just ran out of time, but I knew staff!' While if others fail - we will tend to think, 'well, you should have studied more!'
Why are we making it?
There are four theories which attempt to explain the reasons for FAE.
1. Perceptual Salience
This idea suggests that whatever we pay more attention to is thought to be the cause. The person's behaviour is more salient than all other factors and their role, hence the FAE.
Any evidence?
Taylor & Fiske (1975) devised an experiment, in which six participants observed a conversation of two experimenters from different vantage points, and later were asked a question: 'Who in your opinion was the leader of a conversation?' What they found was, those facing person A thought he was the leader, while those facing person B said the opposite.
2. Gilbert's two-stage Model
According to Gilbert, once we perceive any behaviour we perform the first, spontaneous stage of analysis, in which we make dispositional attribution. Then, we may decide that the behaviour is not of an interest and stop our analysis there (or, we could be cognitively busy to deal with it); in this case, we are very likely to commit FAE. Otherwise, if we are cognitively free, we may choose to proceed to the second, deliberate stage of analysis. In this stage, we analyse possible causes of behaviour and are more likely to make a situational attribution.
3. Actor-Observer Difference
Studies repeatedly showed that we tend to attribute our own behaviour to a situation, while that of others' - to their disposition. Imagine that you failed an exam. I guess most of us will use phrases like 'I got really bad questions', 'It was a bad day', 'I just ran out of time, but I knew staff!' While if others fail - we will tend to think, 'well, you should have studied more!'
Why are we, people with intellect, doing such simple mistakes?
Firstly, there is an Informational Explanation: we know our own background and history of us acting in the similar situations much better (this is what is called availability heuristics).
Secondly, there is a Perceptual Explanation: we cannot see our own behaviour - it is salient to us! Therefore, we focus our attention on a situation.
4. Self-Serving Biases
Self-Serving Biases is a tendency to attribute own successes to internal dispositions and own failures - to situational causes.
a) Self-enhancing bias: taking credit for success
b) Self-protecting bias: denying responsibility for a failure
Why does this happen?
1) Cognitive account: people expect to succeed and attribute internal dispositions to expected
events
2) Motivational account: maintaining self-esteem
Firstly, there is an Informational Explanation: we know our own background and history of us acting in the similar situations much better (this is what is called availability heuristics).
Secondly, there is a Perceptual Explanation: we cannot see our own behaviour - it is salient to us! Therefore, we focus our attention on a situation.
4. Self-Serving Biases
Self-Serving Biases is a tendency to attribute own successes to internal dispositions and own failures - to situational causes.
a) Self-enhancing bias: taking credit for success
b) Self-protecting bias: denying responsibility for a failure
Why does this happen?
1) Cognitive account: people expect to succeed and attribute internal dispositions to expected
events
2) Motivational account: maintaining self-esteem
Cultural Variations
Joan Miller (1984) conducted a research in which she found that participants from the US were much more likely to make dispositional attributions than participants from India when they were asked to judge same situations - who, on the contrary, were much more likely to make situational attributions. Perhaps even more interesting is that there was almost no difference in attributions given by children; the difference appears only around 11 years old.
This finding suggests that making attributions is a highly social process, and is heavily influenced by cultural factor. Thus, socialisation plays a significant role in attribution heuristics.
Studies also showed that both actor-observer and self-enhancement biases are less apparent in Eastern/Collectivist cultures (e.g. Heine et al., 1999).
This finding suggests that making attributions is a highly social process, and is heavily influenced by cultural factor. Thus, socialisation plays a significant role in attribution heuristics.
Studies also showed that both actor-observer and self-enhancement biases are less apparent in Eastern/Collectivist cultures (e.g. Heine et al., 1999).
Individual Differences
Even within the same culture, there are variations in the way we make attributions.
1) Locus of control
Different people have a different locus of control. Some are internals: that is, more likely to attribute the causes to aspects of oneself. Others are externals: it means they are normally more likely to attribute the causes to aspects of one's environment.
2) Attributional style
Different individuals have different attributional style. There are two basic ones: optimistic attributional style and pessimistic attributional style.
a)Optimistic AS: negative events are explained in terms of external, unstable and specific causes,
while positive events attributed to internal, stable, global causes.
b) Pessimistic AS: vice versa. Thus, positive events are explained in terms of external, unstable
and specific causes, while negative - of internal, stable, global causes.(Here, by stable causes I
mean relatively permanent; by global - the causes which affect more than one area of one's life;
opposite to a specific cause).
1) Locus of control
Different people have a different locus of control. Some are internals: that is, more likely to attribute the causes to aspects of oneself. Others are externals: it means they are normally more likely to attribute the causes to aspects of one's environment.
2) Attributional style
Different individuals have different attributional style. There are two basic ones: optimistic attributional style and pessimistic attributional style.
a)Optimistic AS: negative events are explained in terms of external, unstable and specific causes,
while positive events attributed to internal, stable, global causes.
b) Pessimistic AS: vice versa. Thus, positive events are explained in terms of external, unstable
and specific causes, while negative - of internal, stable, global causes.(Here, by stable causes I
mean relatively permanent; by global - the causes which affect more than one area of one's life;
opposite to a specific cause).