Attributions
Attributions refer to the explanations people give for the causes of events, behaviors, and outcomes. These explanations can be internal (attributing the cause to personal traits or characteristics) or external (attributing the cause to situational factors). Attributions play a significant role in understanding how individuals perceive and interpret the world around them, influencing their emotions and behaviors.
8 Key excerpts on "Attributions"
eBook - ePubConsistency in Cognitive Social Behaviour
An introduction to social psychology
- C.J. Mower White(Author)
- 2015(Publication Date)
- Psychology Press(Publisher)
...One of the ways in which this aspect of social psychology has attempted to be concerned with applied fields is in the attribution of success and failure. It is apparent that how one attributes the cause of successful behaviour – whether to oneself or to the situation in which it occurred – may markedly affect similar future behaviour. In the same way the attribution of another person’s successes or failures to himself, or to luck, or to environmental causes may affect his future behaviour. This has been introduced into both clinical and educational fields with some advantage, as will be discussed later in the chapter. A final aspect of attribution which will be considered is relevant to all earlier discussions. It appears that an attribution, once made, is seldom abandoned or changed. This so-called ‘primacy effect’ and its implications will be outlined at the end of the chapter. In conclusion, there will be a consideration of the functions of attribution, in terms of evaluation and consistency, and an analogy will be drawn between a layman’s Attributions and those of the professional psychologist. 2 Basic statements in attribution theory The major concern in attribution theory has been the conditions under which behaviour is attributed to the person as opposed to the situation in which he behaves. The early work introducing this topic was by Heider (1944, 1958) who claimed that people attempt to see the social environment as predictable and therefore controllable. In order to predict the behaviour of another, we look for the conditions which will explain it, such as his ability or his assumed personality, which Heider termed ‘personal causes’ (1958, p.16). Alternatively his behaviour may be attributed to ‘impersonal causes’ such as a different person, or some non-personal event. If behaviour is seen as being controlled by these external or impersonal causes, then Attributions in terms of personality traits are less likely to be made...
eBook - ePub- Donald C. Pennington(Author)
- 2012(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
...People have a very strong tendency to provide a causal explanation for virtually any act or behaviour —quite often this is achieved with little conscious thought. Heider (1958) initiated the development of the attribution approach in social psychology. He proposed that the main reason people make causal explanations is to help them predict and control their social worlds. If we can successfully explain past behaviour, the chances are that the same or similar causes will allow us to predict what people may actually do in future social situations. In this chapter we will consider four important attribution theories: the correspondent inference theory of Jones and Davis (1965), Kelley’s (1967) covariation model, the causal schemata model (Kelley, 1972) and Weiner’s (1979) model of Attributions for success and failure. Following this we will look at differences in how Attributions are made between individuals and cultures. In Chapter 3 we will consider how people actually attribute causes to events and how errors and biases are often revealed. The basics Baron and Byrne (1997) define causal attribution as: The process through which we seek to identify the causes of others’ behaviour and so gain knowledge of their stable traits and dispositions. (p. 50) This is a useful definition, but omits to make reference to both the social situation in which the behaviour takes place, and that people are as concerned to explain their own behaviour (either to themselves or other people) as they are to explain other people’s behaviour. Nevertheless, this definition does highlight the fact that causal explanations are made in relation to personality characteristics, traits and dispositions of the individual. Internal and external causes Consider our first example of the woman killing her husband...
eBook - ePub- Richard Gross, Rob McIlveen(Authors)
- 2016(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
...The chapter then examines four models of attribution, and then moves on to consider errors and biases that people often make. Some consideration is given to how the child develops in terms of attributing causes to behaviour, then moves on to consider the wider social and societal context in which Attributions are made. The chapter concludes by looking at personality and attributional style, and the application of the attribution approach to the understanding and treatment of clinical depression. Figure 5.1 : Key features of the attribution approach in social psychology 5.2 Basic considerations Before looking at theory and research in the attributional approach, it is important to have a good understanding of the underlying concepts, when we are most likely to make Attributions, and when Attributions of cause are made automatically or only after some deliberation (Gilbert, 1989). 5.2.1 Fundamental concepts The conceptual foundation on which theories of attribution have been built was provided by Heider (1944) who offered three principles: 1 behaviour is perceived as being caused; 2 perceptions are important; 3 the locus of the cause(s) of behaviour is perceived to be with the person, the situation, or some combination of both. We will deal with each of these points in turn. Claiming that people perceive behaviour as being caused may seem rather obvious and trite on first acquaintance, however, the important point is that we attribute causes to virtually all human behaviour. People appear to be ill at ease or loath to admit or believe that behaviour happens because of chance events. Everything that others and ourselves do is believed to result from one or a number of specific causes. How behaviour is perceived to be caused, rather than how it is actually caused (if this can ever be known), is of interest to attribution theorists. Consider again the example, given earlier, where you were asked to imagine you performed poorly at a job interview...
eBook - ePubMyth of Addiction
Second Edition
- John Booth Davies(Author)
- 2013(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
...1 Attribution Theory: Explaining Explanation Attribution theory is a general title for a body of theory and research into the ways in which people explain why things happen. By and large the bulk of the work has confined itself to the explanations that people offer for various types of human behaviour, rather than the behaviour of objects, animals or natural forces, and this preoccupation probably reflects Western conceptions and values about the nature of the world. For religious and other reasons, we tend to view ourselves as the focus or centre of the Universe, or as the high point of creation, and hence attribution theory has concentrated on the explanation of human behaviour to the relative neglect of other things. It is clear that from other cultural perspectives, which see humans as part of a larger purposive universal process with a will and/or direction of its own, attribution theory would take a different and rather interesting turn; for example, certain central precepts would simply not make sense from such a perspective (Jahoda 1979). Nonetheless, within our own cultural framework, attribution theory has offered important insights into the ways in which people explain their own actions and the actions of others; and in the course of that process light has coincidentally been shed on the difference between causal explanations as social constructions (reasons) and causal explanations as scientific statements (causes). For example, the ‘reason’ for a particular action is frequently a verbal statement made by an individual when asked a question by a third party, such as ‘Why did you do this?’, or ‘Why did she do that?’. In answering the question the motives, affiliations, intentions and self-perceptions of the person doing the explaining are often reflected in the type of explanation offered...
eBook - ePubAttribution Theory
An Organizational Perspective
- Mark Martinko(Author)
- 2018(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
...For example, attribution theory has addressed the issue of why some individuals are labeled as leaders whereas others are not (Staw and Ross, 1980). Similarly, consumers’ Attributions regarding product characteristics such as quality and reliability have also been the target of attribution theories (Folkes, 1988). Thus, although a large number of attribution theories are concerned with achievement motivation and assessing the actions of others, attribution theories have also been developed to explain other perceptual and behavioral domains. It is important to note that the purposes mentioned above need not be mutually exclusive; in fact, these purposes may often confound each other. Thus, an executive’s account of the prior year’s performance may serve the dual functions of both causal analysis and impression management. As can be inferred from this example, ascertaining the exact nature and purpose of the attribution is an important practical as well as theoretical problem. Attributions AND ATTRIBUTIONAL DIMENSIONS As indicated above, Attributions are specific causal explanations for events. Typical self-Attributions for achievement include ability, effort, task difficulty, or chance/luck. Thus, one person may attribute the failure to be promoted to a lack of ability whereas another may believe that the failure was due primarily to luck or chance. It is generally believed that underlying these specific Attributions are attributional dimensions that represent the individual’s cognitive structure. Thus, for example, Weiner et al. (1971) classified the Attributions above within two dimensions: locus of causality and stability. Locus of causality refers to whether individuals believe the cause resides within themselves or outside of themselves. Stability indicates the degree to which the cause is anticipated to change over time. Stable causes do not change, whereas unstable causes do...
eBook - ePubManagement and Organization Theory
A Jossey-Bass Reader
- Jeffrey A. Miles(Author)
- 2012(Publication Date)
- Jossey-Bass(Publisher)
...Know Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 15, pp. 192–238). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Kelley, H. H., & Michela, J. L. (1980). Attribution theory and research. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 457–501. Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80, 1–28. Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92, 548–573. Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. New York: Springer. Implications of the Theory for Managers Attribution theory examines how people tend to automatically determine the cause of their own and others’ behaviors. The theory looks at how people tend to determine that the causes of behaviors are either internal to the person (for example, effort or ability) or external to the person (for example, luck or task difficulty). Managers tend to automatically determine the cause of their own and their employees’ behaviors and then base their treatment of their employees on those causal Attributions. As a manager, you need to remember that employees tend to make attribution errors. For example, if employees perform successfully, they tend to give themselves credit for their success. However, if employees perform poorly, they tend to blame factors outside themselves (such as their boss) for their failure. You need to be aware of this attribution error and help employees determine the correct causes for their performance levels. You also need to be aware that managers too tend to make attribution errors. If an employee performs successfully, managers tend to attribute that success to themselves (and not to the employee). However, if an employee performs poorly, then managers tend to blame the employee (and not take responsibility for their employee’s poor performance)...
eBook - ePubAttribution
An Introduction to Theories, Research and Applications
- Friedrich Försterling(Author)
- 2013(Publication Date)
- Psychology Press(Publisher)
...They have identified individuals with behaviours and/or attributional habits that were considered to be “undesirable” by, e.g., Weiner’s model of achievement behaviour (e.g., making Attributions to lack of ability), and they have changed the “undesirable” Attributions (e.g., lack of ability) to “desirable” ones (e.g., to lack of effort or bad luck). However, applications of attributional principles to behaviour change have only to a small extent referred to the questions of attribution theory that address the antecedents of Attributions (i.e., how Attributions are formed). Försterling (1986, 1988, 1994) has argued that an integration of attributional principles with theories and research with regard to the antecedents of Attributions (see Part II) allows a more comprehensive application of attribution theory and research to questions of behaviour change in training and therapy. This integration results in a relatively comprehensive approach to therapy and training with various specific techniques and procedures (see Försterling, 1988). The central idea underlying this more comprehensive application is the basic assumption of attribution theory as outlined in Parts I and II that suggests that (1) individuals strive for a realistic causal understanding of events and (2) that such a realistic understanding leads to functional reactions. From this assumption it follows that realistic Attributions should lead to appropriate emotional and behavioural reactions and that unrealistic Attributions should result in inappropriate behaviours and emotions. Take the example of a pupil who failed a task and who blames the failure on the teacher’s selection of items. This pupil might get angry at the teacher and he could protest against the grade. On the other hand, he might blame his low ability for failure and feel resigned and give up working on this topic. This pupil’s Attributions might be correct or incorrect...
eBook - ePubExpectations and Actions
Expectancy-Value Models in Psychology
- Norman T. Feather(Author)
- 2021(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
...That is, outcomes frequently depend on what we can do and how hard we try to do it. A clear conceptual analysis of only ability and effort would greatly add to our knowledge, given an attributional perspective. Before moving on to this conceptual formulation, it should be recognized that Table 6.1 presents only a description of the perceived reasons for success and failure in achievement settings. Although attribution theory often is referred to as a “naive” conception, using the language of the “person on the street,” it also has been appreciated that science has to go beyond mere phenomenology. That is, order must be imposed using scientific terminology that may not be part of the logic of the layperson. This is implicit in, for example, the work of Kelley (1967, 1971). Heider (1958) also clearly acknowledged the distinction between a naive psychology and a scientific psychology, stating: “There is no a priori reason why the causal description [scientific language] should be the same as the phenomenal description [naive language], though, of course, the former should adequately account for the latter [p. 22].” I now turn from the layperson’s perception of causality to the scientific language that is imposed on these causes. In this chapter I completely neglect how causal beliefs are reached, although this is the most common problem in the attributional field and is what is meant by the “attribution process” (see Kelley, 1967, 1971; Weiner, 1974). This void is left so that full space can be devoted to the psychological consequences of perceived causality, the topic most focal to my concerns, and the relation of these consequences to expectancy-value conceptions of motivation, which is the theme of this book. DIMENSIONS OF CAUSALITY Inasmuch as the list of conceivable causes of success and failure is infinite, it is essential to create a classification scheme or a taxonomy of causes...
