Background[edit]Psychological research into attribution began with the work ofFritz Heider, often described as the "father of attribution theory",[2]during the early years of the 20th century. Fritz Heider was born in Vienna, Austria in 1896. As a teenager, he had a deep love of the arts and would often spend time painting. However, his father, an architect, encouraged him to choose a more practical career. Fritz then tried his hand at architecture and law, but nothing truly provoked his interest until he enrolled in the University of Graz in 1916, where he became drawn to philosophy and psychology. By 1919, he began writing his thesis on the subjectivity of sense qualities[3]and was eventually awarded a doctorate in 1920 for his findings. In his 1920's dissertation Heider addressed a fundamental problem ofphenomenology: why do perceivers attribute the properties of an object they sense, such as its color, texture and so on, to the object itself when those properties exist only in their minds? Heider's answer was to consider the object being perceived and the physical media by which it is sensed the ticking of a watch causing vibrations in the air for instance to be quite distinct, and that what the perceiver's senses do is to reconstruct an object from its effect on the media, a process he calledattribution. "Perceivers faced with sensory data thus see the perceptual object as 'out there', because they attribute the sensory data to their underlying causes in the world."[4]In 1927, Heider accepted a position at University of Hamburg and then took of leave of absence at Smith College. Heider ended up moving to the United States permanently. In 1947, he accepted a position at University of Kansas and retired in 1966 as a Distinguished Professor of Psychology.

Heider subsequently extended his ideas to the question of how people perceive each other, and in particular how they account for each other's behavior, person perception. Motives played an important role in Heider's model: "motives, intentions, sentiments... the core processes which manifest themselves in overt behavior". Heider distinguished between personal causality such as offering someone a drink and impersonal causality such as sneezing, or leaves falling. Later attribution theorists have tended to see Heider's fundamental distinction as being between "person(or internal) causes andsituation(or external) causes of behavior.[5]Types[edit]Explanatory attribution[edit]People make explanatory attributions to understand the world around them and to seek reasons for a particular event. With explanatory attributions, people can make judgments as to what was the cause of a certain event, even if it turns out the proposed cause is unrelated to the event. For example, if Jacobs car tire is punctured he may attribute that to a hole in the road; by making attributions to the poor condition of the highway, he can make sense of the event without any discomfiture that it may in reality have been the result of his bad driving.

Interpersonal attribution[edit]Sometimes, when your action or motives for the action are questioned, you need to explain the reasons for your action. Interpersonal attributions happen when the causes of the events involve two or more individuals.[6]More specifically, it is likely that one will always want to present oneself in the most positive light in interpersonal attributions.[citation needed]For example, if a sibling were to accidentally break their mothers favorite tea pot, the sibling will be more likely to blame the other sibling in order to shift blame away from him/herself.[citation needed]Theories[edit]Common sense psychology[edit]From the bookThe Psychology of Interpersonal Relations(1958), Fritz Heider tried to explore the nature ofinterpersonal relationship, and espoused the concept of what he called "common sense" or "nave psychology". In his theory, he believed that people observe, analyze, and explain behaviors with explanations. Although people have different kinds of explanations for the events of human behaviors, Heider found it is very useful to group explanation into two categories; Internal (personal) and external (situational) attributions.[7]When an internal attribution is made, the cause of the given behavior is assigned to the individual's characteristics such as ability, personality, mood, efforts, attitudes, or disposition. When an external attribution is made, the cause of the given behavior is assigned to the situation in which the behavior was seen such as the task, other people, or luck (that the individual producing the behavior did so because of the surrounding environment or the social situation). These two types lead to very different perceptions of the individual engaging in a behavior.[8]Correspondent inference theory[edit]Correspondent inferences state that people make inferences about a person when his or her actions are freely chosen, are unexpected, and result in a small number of desirable effects.[1]According toEdward E. Jonesand Keith DavisCorrespondent Inference Theory, people make correspondent inferences by reviewing the context of behavior. It describes how people try to find out individuals personal characteristics from the behavioral evidence. People make inferences on the basis of three factors; degree of choice, expectedness of behavior, and effects of someones behaviors.

Covariation model of attribution[edit]Co-variation principle states that people attribute behavior to the factors that are present when a behavior occurs and absent when it does not. Thus, the theory assumes that people make causal attributions in a rational, logical fashion, and that they assign the cause of an action to the factor that co-varies most closely with that action.[9]Harold Kelley'scovariation modelof Attribution looks to three main types of information from which to make an attribution decision about an individual's behavior. The first isconsensus information, or information on how other people in the same situation and with the same stimulus behave. The second isdistinctive information, or how the individual responds to different stimuli. The third isconsistency information, or how frequent the individual's behavior can be observed with similar stimulus but varied situations. From these three sources of information observers make attribution decisions on the individual's behavior as either internal or external. Kellys theory and the examples of prediction are represented in the diagram.

The diagram also reveal several levels in the covariation model: high and low. Each of these levels influence the three covariation model criteria. High consensus is when many people can agree on an event or area of interest. Low consensus is when very few people can agree. High distinctiveness is when the event or area of interest is very unusual, whereas low distinctness is when the event or area of interest is fairly common. High consistency is when the event or area of interest continues for a length of time and low consistency is when the event or area of interest goes away quickly.

Three-dimensional model of attribution[edit]Bernard Weiner[10]proposed that individuals have initial affective responses to the potential consequences of the intrinsic or extrinsic motives of the actor, which in turn influence future behavior. That is, a person's own perceptions or attributions as to why they succeeded or failed at an activity determine the amount of effort the person will engage in activities in the future. Weiner suggests that individuals exert their attribution search and cognitively evaluate casual properties on the behaviors they experience. When attributions lead to positive affect and high expectancy of future success, such attributions should result in greater willingness to approach to similar achievement tasks in the future than those attributions that produce negative affect and low expectancy of future success.[11]Eventually, such affective and cognitive assessment influences future behavior when individuals encounter similar situations.

Weiner's achievement attribution has three categories:

1. stable theory (stable and unstable)

2. locus of control(internal and external)

3. controllability (controllable or uncontrollable)

Stability influences individuals' expectancy about their future; control is related with individuals' persistence on mission; causality influences emotional responses to the outcome of task.

Bias and errors in attributions[edit]While people strive to find reasons for behaviors, they fall into many traps of biases and errors. As Fritz Heider says, our perceptions of causality are often distorted by our needs and certaincognitive biases.[12]The following are examples of attributional biases.

Fundamental attribution error[edit]Thefundamental attribution errordescribes the tendency to overvalue dispositional or personality-based explanations for behavior while under-valuing situational explanations. The fundamental attribution error is most visible when people explain and assume the behavior of others. For example, if a person is overweight, a persons first assumption might be that they have a problem with overeating or are lazy and not that they might have a medical reason for being heavier set.[13]The core process assumptions of attitude construction models are mainstays of social cognition research and are not controversialas long as we talk about "judgment". Once the particular judgment made can be thought of as a person's "attitude", however, construal assumptions elicit discomfort, presumably because they dispense with the intuitively appealing attitude concept.[14]Culture bias[edit]People inindividualistcultures, generallyAnglo-Americaand Anglo-Saxon European societies, value individuals, personal goals, and independence. People incollectivistcultures see individuals as members of groups such as families, tribes, work units, and nations, and tend to value conformity and interdependence. This cultural trait is common in Asia, traditional native American societies, and Africa.

Research shows that culture, either individualist or collectivist, affects how people make attributions.[15]People from individualist cultures are more inclined to make fundamental-attribution error than people from collectivist cultures. Individualist cultures tend to attribute a persons behavior to his internal factors whereas collectivist cultures tend to attribute a persons behavior to his external factors.

Research suggests that individualist cultures engage inself-serving biasmore than do collectivist cultures, i.e. individualist cultures tend to attribute success to internal factors and to attribute failure to external factors. In contrast, collectivist cultures engage in the opposite of self-serving bias i.e. self-effacing bias, which is: attributing success to external factors and blaming failure on internal factors (the individual).

Actor/observer difference[edit]People tend to attribute other peoples behaviors to their dispositional factors while attributing own actions to situational factors. Basically, even in the same situation, peoples attribution can differ depending on their role(actor or observer).[16]For example, when a person gets a low grade on a test, he/she finds situational factors to justify the negative event such as saying that the teacher asked a question that he/she never went over in class. However, if other people get low grades on the test, he/she attributes the results to their internal factors such as laziness and inattentiveness in classes. The actor/observer bias is used less frequently with people one knows well such as friends and family since one knows how his/her close friends and family will behave in certain situation, leading him/her to think more about the external factors rather than internal factors.

Dispositional attributions[edit]Dispositional attributionis a tendency to attribute peoples behaviors to their dispositions; that is, to their personality, character, and ability.[17]For example, when a normally pleasant waiter is being rude to his/her customer, the customer will assume he/she has a bad temper. The customer, just by looking at the attitude that the waiter is giving him/her, instantly decides that the waiter is a bad person. The customer oversimplifies the situation by not taking into account all the unfortunate events that might have happened to the waiter which made him/her become rude at that moment. Therefore, the customer made dispositional attribution by attributing the waiters behavior directly to his/her personality rather than considering situational factors that might have caused the whole rudeness.[18]Self-serving bias[edit]Self serving biasis attributing dispositional and internal factors for success and external, uncontrollable factors for failure. For example, if a person gets promoted, it is because of his/her ability and competence whereas if he/she does not get promoted, it is because his/her manager does not like him/her (external, uncontrollable factor). Originally, researchers assumed that self-serving bias is strongly related to the fact that people want to protect their self-esteem. However, alternativeinformation processingexplanation came out. That is, when the outcomes match peoples expectations, they make attributions to internal factors; when the outcome does not match their expectations, they make external attributions.[12]People also use defensive attribution to avoid feelings of vulnerability and to differentiate himself from a victim of a tragic accident.[19]An alternative version of the theory of the self-serving bias states that the bias does not arise because people wish to protect their private self-esteem, but to protect their self-image (a self-presentational bias). Note well that this version of the theory can predict that people attribute their successes to situational factors, for fear that others will disapprove of them looking overly vain if they should attribute successes to themselves.

For example, people believe injust-world hypothesisthat good things happen to good people and bad things happen to bad people to avoid feeling vulnerable. This also leads to blaming the victim even in a tragic situation.[12]When a mudslide destroys several houses in a rural neighborhood, a person living in a more urban setting might blame the victims by blaming them for choosing to live in a certain area or not building a safer, stronger house. Another example of defensive attribution isoptimism biasin which people believe positive events happen to them more than to the others and that negative events happen to them less than to the others. Too much optimism leads people to ignore some warnings and precautions given to them. For example, smokers believe they are less likely than other smokers to get lung cancer.[20]Defensive attribution hypothesis[edit]Thedefensive attribution hypothesisis asocial psychologicalterm referring to a set of beliefs held by an individual with the function of defending themselves from concern that they will be the cause or victim of a mishap. Commonly, defensive attributions are made when individuals witness or learn of a mishap happening to another person. In these situations, attributions of responsibility to the victim or harm-doer for the mishap will depend upon the severity of the outcomes of the mishap and the level of personal and situational similarity between the individual and victim. More responsibility will be attributed to the harm-doer as the outcome becomes more severe, and as personal or situational similarity decreases.[21]An example of defensive attribution is thejust-world hypothesis, which is where "good things happen to good people and bad things happen to bad people". People believe in this in order to avoid feeling vulnerable to situations that they have no control over. However, this also leads to blaming the victim even in a tragic situation.[12]When people hear someone died from a car accident, they decide that the driver was drunk at the time of the accident, and so they reassure themselves that an accident will never happen to them. Despite the fact there was no other information provided, people will automatically attribute that the accident was the driver's fault due to an internal factor (in this case, deciding to drive while drunk), and thus they would not allow it to happen to themselves.

Another example of defensive attribution isoptimism bias, in which people believe positive events happen to them more often than to others and that negative events happen to them less often than to others. Too much optimism leads people to ignore some warnings and precautions given to them. For example, smokers believe that they are less likely to get lung cancer than other smokers.[20]Application of attribution[edit]Learned helplessness[edit]Learned helplessnesswas first found in animals when psychologistsMartin Seligmanand Steven F. Maier discovered that the classically conditioned dogs that got electrical shocks made no attempt to escape the situation. The dogs were placed in a box divided into two sections by a low barrier. Since one side of the box was electrified and the other was not, the dogs could easily avoid electrical shocks by hopping to the other side. However, the dogs just stayed in the electrified side, helpless to change the situation.[22]This learned helplessness also applies to human beings. People feel helpless when they feel powerless to change their situation. This happens when people attribute negative results to their internal, stable and global factors leading them to think they have no control over their situation. Making no attempt to avoid or better the situation will often exacerbate the situations that people are faced with, and may lead to clinical depression and related mental illnesses.[23]Perceptual salience and attribution[edit]When people try to make attributions about another's behavior, their information focuses on the individual. Their perception of that individual is lacking most of the external factors which might affect the individual. The gaps tend to be skipped over and the attribution is made based on the perception information most salient. The most salient perceptual information dominates a person's perception of the situation.[24]For individuals making behavioral attributions about themselves, the situation and external environment are entirely salient, but their own body and behavior are less so. This leads to the tendency to make an external attribution in regards to their own behavior.[25]Criticism[edit]Attribution theory has been criticized as being mechanistic andreductionistfor assuming that people are rational, logical and systematic thinkers.[citation needed]It turns out however that they arecognitive misersandmotivated tacticiansas demonstrated by the fundamental attribution error. It also fails to address the social, cultural and historical factors that shape attributions of cause. This has been addressed extensively bydiscourse analysis, a branch of psychology that prefers to use qualitative methods including the use of language to understand psychological phenomena. Thelinguistic categorization theoryfor example demonstrates how language influences our attribution style.[citation needed]References[edit]Notes1. ^Jump up to:abKassin, Fein, Markus.Social Psychology. Wadsworth: Cengage Learning, 2008

2. Jump up^Sanderson, Catherine (2010).Social Psychology. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. p.112.ISBN9780471250265.

3. Jump up^Heider, Fritz (2013).The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. The Psychology Press. p.2.ISBN9781134922185.

4. Jump up^Malle 2004, p.7

5. Jump up^Malle 2004, pp.78

6. Jump up^Hewstone, Fincham, Jaspars. Attribution Theory and Research: Conceptual Developmental and Social Dimensions. Academic Press, 1983

7. Jump up^Lilienfeld, Scott O.; Lynn, Steven Jay; Namy, Laura L.; Woolf, Nancy J. (2010), "11",Psychology: A Framework For Everyday Thinking, Pearson Education Incorporated, p.380,ISBN978-0-205-65048-48. Jump up^Aronson.Social Psychology106-108

9. Jump up^Kelley, Attribution theory in social psychology. Levine,Nebraska Symposium on Motivation10. Jump up^Weiner, B. (1992), Human Motivation: Metaphors, Theories and Research, Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.ISBN 0-7619-0491-311. Jump up^Munton, Silvester, Stratton, Hanks. Attributions in Action. John Wiley&Sons, 1999

12. ^Jump up to:abcdForsyth Donelson. Social Psychology. Brooks/Cole Publishing,1987

13. Jump up^Sanderson, Catherine (2010).Social Psychology. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. p.118.ISBN9780471250265.

14. Jump up^Schwarz, N. (2006). Attitude research: Between ockhams razor and the fundamental attribution error.Journal of Consumer Research,33, 19-21

15. Jump up^Hongyin Wang. Introduction to the Cross-Culture Psychology. Shanxi Normal University Press,1993

16. Jump up^Jones, Nisbett. The Actor and the Observer:Divergent Perceptions of the Causes of Behavior.New York: General Learning Press,1971

17. Jump up^Pettigrew, 1979

18. Jump up^Graham, Folkes. Attribution Theory: Applications to Achievement, Mental Health, and Interpersonal Conflict. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1990

19. Jump up^Simpson, King. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. American Psychological Association.1970,Vol 14(2)p.101-113.

20. ^Jump up to:abRoesch and Amirkham, 1997

21. Jump up^Shaver, K. G. (1970). "Defensive Attribution: Effects of severity and relevance on the responsibility assigned for an accident.".Journal of Personality and Social Psychology14(2): 101113.

22. Jump up^Maier, Seligman. Learned Helplessness:Theory and Evidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, Vol105(1)p3-46,1976

23. Jump up^Seligman, Martin. Helplessness: On Depression, Development, and Death. Freeman/Times Books/Henry Holt&Co,1975

24. Jump up^Aronson.Social Psychology113-114

25. Jump up^Huffman,Psychology in Action622

Bibliography Malle, Bertram F. (2004),How the Mind Explains Behavior: Folk Explanations, Meaning, and Social Interaction, MIT Press,ISBN978-0-262-13445-3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_theoryName(s):Attribution TheoryAuthor:Fritz Heider (1920's) ; Bernard Weiner (1935) ; Harold Kelley (1967- 1973) and many others.Classification:Hedonic or Pleasure Motivational TheoriesYear:1920s

Pro's Provides predictability and order in our lives to help us cope with all of what life as to offer.

Effective at predicting behaviours when the cause was properly identified.

Con's Inaccurate inferences can lead to erroneous assessments.

Can lead to expecting a particular behaviour from yourself or others that might not become a reality.

Other causes might be ignored.

Our inferences are most likely biased as they tend to preserve our self-image.

Overview

At its origin, the dissertation of Fritz Heider, an Austrian psychologist, on the Attribution Theory was attempting to explain why the perceivers attribute the properties of an object they sense to the object itself when these properties only exist in their minds. It is only later that Heider introduced the question of how people perceive each other and how they account for each other's behaviours. In addition, the Attribution theory is complimented by Heider's earlier theory, the psychological balance theory. Hence the perceivers orders his or her perceptions based on the concepts presented within the psychological balance theory, meaning that a relationship is balanced when the results of the multipliers are positive.

The attribution theory attempts to explain behaviours by indicating a cause. More specifically the theory looks at how an average person will assess the meaning of a particular event based on the motives for finding the cause as well as his or her understanding of the environment. It's important to note that Heider focused on the day to day events that occurs on a conscious level as opposed to the more deeply rooted subconscious one.

In order for one to properly asses the meaning of a particular event, one needs to make inferences about others and yourself, in addition to those we need to make about environmental factors and those that we are making which could explain why an individual would behave in the manner he or she did or will do.

According to Heider's attribution theory there are two kinds of causalities: Personal and Impersonal. The personal causalities are the ones within our control, like saying good morning to your co-workers in the morning. The impersonal causalities are outside of our control, such are rain or snow falling.

Later, in 1958, in Fritz Heider book "The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations", he introduces the concepts of "Common sense" or "naive psychology".

Discussion

There are many models that were developed around the attribution theory. In fact, one could even consider the attribution theory as being a main category by itself. This isn't surprising because we, human's want and need to explain the world around us and making attributions is the only way we can have the belief that we fully understand the events as well as people that surround us, while making ourselves feel good!

Common sense psychology

Correspondent inference theory

Covariation model of attribution

Three-dimensional model of attribution

High Level Timeline of Major ContributionsFritz Heider (1920's)Heider introduced the question of why people attribute the properties they sense to the object itself.Bernard Weiner (1935)Weiner introduces the theoretical framework which interprets causes to events or behaviors. More specifically he's focused on understanding how people explain academic success and failures. In general the framework can be summarized by:A. Attribution is a three stage process:

1. Behaviors are observable;2. Behaviors are deliberate;3. Behaviors are attributed to either an internal or external cause.B. Achievement can be attributed to:

1. One's Efforts;2. One's Abilities;3. The difficulty of the task;4. Luck.C. Causal dimensions of behavior are;

1. Locus of control (Internal or External) ;2. Stability (Stable or Unstable);3. Controllability (Within one's control or not).Fritz Heider (1944 & 1958)In 1944 Heider published two articles that lead the way for the concepts of social perception and causal attribution. Later, in 1958, he published the book "The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations" where he presented that social perception follows many of the same rules of physical object perception. In addition, he made the point that the order that people put on their perceptions are the same as he originally stated in his psychological balance concept.The most influential notion in "The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations" is how people see the causes of behaviors and how they explain it. This being what, Heider calls "Attributions".

Fritz Heider was also the first in making the argument that perceivers were more inclined to value internal and dispositional causes over external causes. Ross in 1977 called this phenomenon "fundamental attribution error. Fiske and Taylor, in 1991, referred to it as the correspondence bias.

Critique

The attribution theory is somewhat reductionist in nature as it assumes that people are logical as well as rational beings. In addition the theory is self-limiting as it doesn't account for social, cultural and historical factors that play in our attribution of cause. The fact that people will always attempt to preserve their self-image and thus will generally attribute their successes to controllable variables and failures to un-controllable ones introduces subjectivity into their analysis which could lead to a wrongful interpretation of either their or someone else's motives.

For scholar and researchers, the translation process of taking causal attributions and transposing them onto the causal dimension has its degree of error. For example, when listening or reading a general comment like "They were better than us" where does the causality lies? Within their own team or the opponents?

Future of theory

The development of taxonomy of situational configurations would be a good direction to proceed. As a following step, in would be valuable to better understand how one's attributions affect their own behavioral patterns. Even more importantly, how do the erroneous interpretations modify one's future attributions within a similar situation?

Share your thoughts

Sharing your motivating thoughts or your motivational tips will benefit every leader. Motivation is what give them the energy to constantly seek to improve their self-motivation as well as motivating other. Consequently increase our leadership influence.

Top of Form

Enter Your Title

Click here to see the rest of the form and complete your submission.Bottom of Form

References1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Kelley#Attribution_Theory

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Weiner

3. http://www.learning-theories.com/weiners-attribution-theory.html

4. Dan Russell, The Causal Dimension Scale: A Measure of How Individuals Perceive Causes, 1982, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1982, Vol. 42, No. 6, 1137-1145

Read more:http://www.leadership-central.com/attribution-theory.html#ixzz2u04v4dv5_1454557451.unknown