MAP603_Social Psychology

Theories of Attribution 195 11.1 Introduction Attribution theory is a field of social psychology, which was born out of the theoritical models of Fritz Heider, Harold Kelly, Edward E. Jones and Lee Ross. The theory was first formulated by the Austrian born US Psychologist Fritz Heider (1896-1988) in articles published in 1944 and 1946 and in his book ‘The psychology of Interpersonal Relations in 1958 and it was developed from the 1960s onwards especially by the US psychologist Edward Ellsworth Jones(1926-1993) and Harold H. Kelly (born 1921-2003). Attribution theory is concerned with the ways in which people explain the behaviour of others. It explores how individuals “áttribute” causes to events and how this cognitice perception affects their motivation. Heider believed that people act on the basis of their beliefs. Therefore, beliefs must be taken into account if psychologists were to account for human behaviour. This would be true whether the beliefs were valid or not. Heider also suggested that are could learn a great deal from commonsense psychology. He stressed the importance of taking the ordinary person’s explanations and understanding of events and behaviours seriously. 11.2 Theories of Attribution Frameworks for Understanding How We Attempt to Make Sense of the Social World: There are many theories of attribution. The two most classic theories of attribution are as follows. 1. Theory of Correspondent Inference first proposed by Jones and Davis (1965) and later expanded by Jones and McGillis (1976). 2. Kelly’s Theory of Causal Attributions. 3. Bernard Weiner (1935) of Attribution. 11.3 Kelly Harold Kelley (1967, 1971) has attempted to study the causes of other’s behaviour. His theory is an attempt to find the “Why” of others’ behavior. Very often we are faced with a situation in which we are interested in knowing as to why others have behaved in a given way. For, e.g., CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)

196 Social Psychology  Why your friend (date) did not turn up for a lunch today?  Inspite of leaving several messages why has your uncle not returned your call?  Why have you been denied a promotion, which you were expecting? Theory of causal attribution attempts to explain such questions. In order to make sense of the social world and our surroundings we are often interested in finding out as to why other people have acted as they have or why events have turned out in a specific way. The number of specific causes behind others behavior is very large, however, we want to make a quick assessment as to others have behaved due to their basic nature or have been influenced by social and environmental factors or their behavior is a result of combination of both. Thus, the theory of causal attribution seeks to explain whether other’s behaviour has stemmed mainly from internal causes (i.e., some aspect of the individual such as their intentions, motives, traits, etc.), external causes (some aspect of the social or physical world) or a combination of the two. According to Kelley in our attempt to answer the question “why” about other’s behaviour, we focus on three major dimensions. (a) First, we consider consensus, the extent to which reactions by one person are also shown by others. Does this person react to the given stimulus or situation in the same manner in which others behave. When an individual acts or reacts to a given situation in the same manner as other persons we say that the consensus is high. (b) Second, we consider consistency, the extent to which a particular person reacts to a particular stimulus in the same way on different occasions. In other words does an individual respond in a similar way to a given situation on two or more different occasions? (c) Third, we consider distinctiveness, the extent to which a person reacts in the same manner to other different stimuli. (Note, Please don’t confuse consistency and distinctiveness. Consistency refers to the extent to which an individual reacts in a similar manner to the same stimulus or situation on different occasions. In contrast, distinctiveness refers to the extent to which he or she reacts in a similar manner to CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)

Theories of Attribution 197 different stimulus or situations. If an individual reacts in the same way to a wide range of stimuli, distinctiveness is low). Kelley’s theory, suggests the following:  We are most likely, to attribute other’s behaviour to internal causes under conditions of low consensus, low distinctiveness and high consistency.  We are most likely to attribute another’s behaviour to external causes under conditions of high consensus, high consistency, and high distinctiveness.  We generally attribute an individual’s behaviour to a combination of these factors under conditions of low consensus, high consistency and high distinctiveness. Kelley’s theory has generally been confirmed by the findings of a large number of experiments (e.g., Ferguson and Wells, 1980, McArthur, 1972, Pruit and Insko 1980). When provided with information about consensus, consistency and distinctiveness individuals do generally attribute other’s behaviour to internal causes, external causes or a combination of the two in accordance with the pattern Kelley predicts. Engaging in Causal Attribution: The process of causal attribution described by Kelly is highly time-consuming and requires considerable effort. It requires that we pay close attention to other’s behaviour in order to acquire information about consensus, consistency and distinctiveness. Individuals avoid such cognitive activity, which involves effort. People often put less cognitive efforts in explaining events and are ready to jump to quick and easy conclusions about the causes behind other’s actions. This is largely due to the fact that individuals know from past experience that certain kinds of behaviour generally arise from internal factors, while other kinds of behaviour occur from external factors. Thus, when explaining somebody’s success they attribute it to internal causes such as ability and efforts. In contrast, in order to explain somebody’s laughing behaviour people attribute it to external causes such as some funny joke or action on other’s part as resulting in laughing behaviour. According to Kelly people indulge in the elaborate process of causal attribution as described by him only under following two conditions. (i) When people are confronted with unexpected events—one’s they cannot readily explain in terms as what they know about a specific situation or person and CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)

198 Social Psychology (ii) When they encounter unpleasant outcomes or events. Other dimensions of causal attribution: Two important questions with which the theory of causal attribution is also concerned include:  Are the causal factors that influenced the behavior of an individual likely to be stable over time or to change?  Are these factors controllable, which means can an individual change or influence them if she or he wishes to do so? These two dimensions are independent of the internal external dimensions. Research studies have shown that some internal causes of behavior such as personality traits and temperament, tend to be very much stable over a period of time. In contrast, other internal causes do often change over a period of time. For, e.g., health, fatigue, motives, etc., are internal factors which may change over a period of time. Some internal causes are controllable, such as one’s emotions, temperament, impulses, etc., whereas other internal causes such as illness or certain disability is not, even if one desires to control it. In short, recent research has shown that in order to understand the causes of others’ behavior we take note of the following three dimensions:  Internal – External  Stable – Unstable  Controllable - Uncontrollable Two additional topics related to Causal Attribution which are worth discussing are as follows: 1. Fate versus Personal Actions 2. Action Identification and the Attribution Process Fate versus Personal Actions: How much importance do we give to fate and personal actions in the process of attribution? To what extent we perceive events in our own lives and also in other people’s life as stemming primarily from fate (forces outside an individual’s control) or from our own actions (also called as personal actions). Many factors influence as to whether you will emphasize fate or personal actions. Some of these factors include: CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)

Theories of Attribution 199  Your religious orientation  Socio-cultural factors  Your past conditioning  Level of scientific and rational reasoning adopted by you, etc. Research findings suggest that in the process of attribution we tend to emphasis both, fate as well as personal actions. We believe that both fate and our personal actions shape our lives. However, we do not give these two possible causes equal weights at all times. Rather we tend to swing back and forth between them depending on what Social Psychologists describe as the level of constructual – whether we think about such events abstractly or in more concrete terms. Some researchers (for, e.g., Burrus and Roese, 2006) have proposed that thinking in abstract terms (high levels of construal) lead to emphasise the importance of fate as a factor in our lives while thinking in more concrete terms leads us to downplay the influence of fate. Thus, to conclude we can state that the results of the studies conducted so far reveal that though we often see fate as a powerful causal factor in our lives, we also believe that one’s abilities and actions do influence our outcomes and our lives. However, individuals differ as to what importance he/she gives to fate and personal actions in dealing with certain situations, events or phenomena. Action Identification and the Attribution Process: We often try to understand and find explanations to other’s behaviour/actions. When we see other people perform some actions, we want to know and understand as to why they acted in certain ways. We often interpret their behaviour in various ways. For, e.g., when we see someone putting loose change in a box, how would you explain such a behaviour on their part. There are two broad explanations to this. One is that she wants to avoid loosing a change so she is putting it into a box. Alternatively you can also interpret such a behaviour by stating that the person is putting money in a box so as to save some money for his higher studies. The first interpretation is a low level interpretation that focuses on the action itself and attributes little in the way of planning or long-term goals of the person. The second explanation, in contrast tells us about individual’s plans, intentions and goals. Thus, we can interpret a given behaviour of an individual (for, e.g., saving in a box, etc.) in various ways. The level of interpretation we use is called as Action Identification. Thus, Action Identification CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)

200 Social Psychology refers to the level of interpretation we place on an action. There are two types of interpretation. (a) Low-level interpretations focus on the action itself, (b) while higher-level interpretation focuses on its ultimate goals. Recent research studies reveal that this is the basic aspect of attribution. When we view other’s actions as involving little more than the actions themselves, we also tend to make few attributions, about their intentions, goals or higher-order cognition. When, instead, we view other’s actions as having greater meaning, we attribute much greater mental activity to them. We see their actions not only as produced by the present situation, but also as reflecting much more, i.e., the goals, characteristics and intentions of others. It should be remembered that with respect to attributions it is not only what other people do that counts, but also our interpretations of these actions is crucial. 11.4 Weiner Weiner developed a theoretical framework that has become very influential in social psychology today. Attribution theory assumes that people try to determine why people do what they do, that is, interpret causes to an event or behavior. A three-stage process underlies an attribution: 1. behavior must be observed/perceived 2. behavior must be determined to be intentional 3. behavior attributed to internal or external causes Weiner’s attribution theory is mainly about achievement. According to him, the most important factors affecting attributions are ability, effort, task difficulty, and luck. Attributions are classified along three causal dimensions: 1. locus of control (two poles: internal vs. external) 2. stability (do causes change over time or not?) 3. controllability (causes one can control such as skills vs. causes one cannot control such as luck, others’ actions, etc.) When one succeeds, one attributes successes internally (“my own skill”). When a rival succeeds, one tends to credit external (e.g. luck). When one fails or makes mistakes, we will more CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)

Theories of Attribution 201 likely use external attribution, attributing causes to situational factors rather than blaming ourselves. When others fail or make mistakes, internal attribution is often used, saying it is due to their internal personality factors. 1. Attribution is a three stage process: (1) behavior is observed, (2) behavior is determined to be deliberate, and (3) behavior is attributed to internal or external causes. 2. Achievement can be attributed to (1) effort, (2) ability, (3) level of task difficulty, or (4) luck. 3. Causal dimensions of behavior are (1) locus of control, (2) stability, and (3) controllability. 11.5 Jones and Davis Theory of Correspondent Inference: From Acts to Dispositions: Using Other’s Behaviour as a Guide to Their Lasting Traits: The theory of Correspondent Inference is concerned with how we decide about other’s behaviour, on the basis of other’s overt actions, that they carry with them from situation to situation and that remain fairly, stable over time. The theory is concerned with how we decide, by observing others’ behavior, that they possess specific traits or dispositions, which constitute the stable characteristics about them. The term trait refers to permanent and enduring characteristics of one’s self. The term disposition refers to innate characteristics which are firmly rooted in us and are relatively stable characteristics of one’s self. The theory of Correspondent Inference helps us to describe how we use other’s behavior as a basis for inferring their stable dispositions. According to the theory of Correspondent Inference, in the process of drawing inference about the causes of others behaviour, we focus our attention on certain types of actions. (a) First, we consider only behaviours that seem to have been freely chosen. Those behaviours that were forced upon the others tend to be ignored. (b) Second, we pay careful attention to behaviour that produces unique or noncommon effects. By non-common effects we mean effects produced by a particular factor that could not be produced by any other apparent cause. For e.g., imagine that one of your CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)

202 Social Psychology classmates has got engaged. Her fiancé is very handsome, has a great personality, is widely in love with her and is very rich. What will you think about your classmate’s decision to get engaged with him? There are many good reasons and you may not be able to think of any one. As opposed to this, let use imagine that your classmate’s finance is very handsome, but that he treats her with indifference and is known to be extremely boring, also he has no known means to support her and intends to live on her father’s income. Now if you are asked for the reasons about your classmate’s engagement with him, there are higher chances that you will say that she places more weight on physical attractiveness than on his personality or wealth or other factors. Thus, from this we can see that we usually learn more about other’s from actions on their part that yield non- common effects than from one’s that do not. (c) Finally, we seek to pay more attention, in general, to those behaviors of others that are low in social desirability than behaviors that are high on this dimension. In short, we are usually more willing to draw conclusions about others, from actions they perform, that are not approved or encouraged by society (or required by, specific social roles) than from actions that are approved in this manner. In sum the theory proposed by Jones and Davis suggest that we are most likely, to conclude that other’s behaviour reflects the stable traits (i.e., to reach correspondent inferences about them) when these actions (i) Are perceived as occurring by choice. (ii) Yield distinctive non-common effects and (iii) They are seen as being socially undesirable. Actually, the overall process is a bit more complex than this. The theory of correspondent inference also takes into account two important facts: (a) We are generally willing to reach firm inferences about others when their actions have a direct impact upon us than when they do not, a tendency known as Hedonic Relevance. (b) We also tend to emphasise behaviours that seemed to be intended to harm or benefit us - an effect known as Personalism. CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)

Theories of Attribution 203 11.6 Summary Attribution Theory attempts to explain the world and to determine the cause of an event or behavior (e.g. why people do what they do). In short, recent research has shown that in order to understand the causes of others’ behavior we take note of the following three dimensions:  Internal – External  Stable – Unstable  Controllable - Uncontrollable Two additional topics related to Causal Attribution which are worth discussing are as follows: 1. Fate versus Personal Actions 2. Action Identification and the Attribution Process Kelley’s theory, suggests the following:  We are most likely, to attribute other’s behaviour to internal causes under conditions of low consensus, low distinctiveness and high consistency.  We are most likely to attribute another’s behaviour to external causes under conditions of high consensus, high consistency, and high distinctiveness.  We generally attribute an individual’s behaviour to a combination of these factors under conditions of low consensus, high consistency and high distinctiveness. According to the theory of Correspondent Inference, in the process of drawing inference about the causes of others behaviour. And the theory proposed by Jones and Davis suggest that we are most likely, to conclude that other’s behaviour reflects the stable traits. 11.7 Key Words/Abbreviations  Kelly’s theory: Theory of causal attrubutions.  Jones and Davis: Theory of correspondent inference.  Weiner’s Theory: The most important factors affecting attributions are ability, effort, task difficulty, and luck. CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)

204 Social Psychology  Consistency: Consistency is the extent to which a particular person reacts to a particular stimulus in the same way on different occasions.  Distinctiveness: Distinctiveness, the extent to which a person reacts in the same manner to other different stimuli.  Consensus: The extent to which reactions by one person are also shown by others. 11.8 Learning Activity 1. List a few situation when we ask a ‘why’ question in society. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Give an example of attributing with respect of other’s action. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11.9 Unit End Questions (MCQ and Descriptive) A. Descriptive Types Questions 1. Explain the theory of correspondent inference. 2. Explain the Kelly’s theory of causal attribution. 3. Explain Weiner’s theory of attribution. 4. What are the three major dimensions in our attempt to answer the question ‘Why’ about others behaviour? 5. What are the three actions we focus on, in the process of drawing inference about the causes of others behaviour? B. Multiple Choice/Objective Type Questions 1. The theory of correspondent inference was first proposed by ________ (a) Kelly (b) Weiner (c) Jones and Davis (d) none of these CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)

Theories of Attribution 205 2. _________ theory is an attempt to find the “why”of others behaviour (a) Kelly’s (b) Weiner’s (c) Jones and Davis (d) All of the above 3. Attribution theory is a field of ___________ psychology. (a) Clinical (b) abnormal (c) forensic (d) Social 4. Weiners attribution theory is mainly about ____________. (a) achievement (b) goal (c) attainment (d) social change Answers: 1. (c), 2. (a), 3. (d), 4. (a) 11.10 References 1. Franzoi, S.L (2003), Social Psychology (3rd ed.) New York, Mc Graw Hill Co. 2. Aronson, E. Wilson, T.D and Akert. R.M (2007), “Social Psychology “ (6th Ed.), New Jersey : Pearson Education Prentice Hall. 3. Weiner, B. (1972). Attribution theory, achievement motivation, and the educational process. Review of educational research, 42(2), 203-215. 4. www.learning-theories.com/weiners-attribution-theory.html 5. www.google.com/search?q=Jones+and+Ross+theory+of+attribution&oq=Jones+and+Ro ss+theory+of+attribution&aqs=chrome..69i57j33.45639j1j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF -8 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)