26th October 2023

Attribution

‘Whether you think you can or you think you can’t – you’re probably right!’ – Henry Ford

Attribution theories

Attribution is a psychological process that refers to how individuals interpret events in the context of their perceived judgments on the cognitions and emotions of others.

The ‘father’ of attribution theory, Fritz Heider (1985), postulated that human beings have an innate drive to understand social phenomena, acting as ‘naïve psychologists’ in the process. This sense-making desire compels us to connect information about our surroundings in a cause-effect fashion, often subconsciously.

Heider distinguished attribution into two key domains:

• Dispositional / Internal Attribution – This is the attribution of personal characteristics to explain a person’s behaviour, e.g., ‘Mark was late to work today because he is lazy’.
• Situational / External Attribution – This is the attribution of environmental factors to explain a person’s behaviour, e.g., ‘Mark was late to work today because there was a lot of traffic’.

Attribution can be further understood using three distinct models – let’s take a closer look at each:

• Correspondent inference theory.
• Kelley’s covariation model.
• Weiner’s three-dimensional model.

Correspondent inference theory

Jones and Davis (1965) investigated dispositional (internal) attribution in more depth, referring to this form of attribution as ‘correspondent inference’. A correspondent inference is made in a situation where we infer that a person’s actions correspond to their personality or disposition.

These social psychologists suggested that when it comes to forming evaluations about motives and actions, intentional actions are more relevant than accidental ones. An intentional action is defined as one in which a person can and chooses to perform the action with full knowledge of the consequences of it.

For example, Sally’s colleague Mark eats a cupcake left at his desk. If Mark finds out that Sally gifted the cupcake to him, Mark is more likely to make a correspondent inference that Sally is generous (a dispositional attribution).

However, if it transpires that Sally left her cupcake on Mark’s desk by accident, Mark is unlikely to infer anything about Sally’s personality.

Jones and Davis highlighted six key factors that influence a correspondent inference or dispositional attribution:

• Non-common effects – A comparison is made between the effects of a person’s chosen action and possible alternative actions. The greater the commonalities between the effects of alternative actions, the harder it is to make an inference about a person’s dispositional traits. For example, if choosing between a holiday in London or Paris, Aisha picks London, it is harder to make an inference about Aisha given that both cities are busy, urban tourist hotspots. However, if given the option between a holiday in London and Mauritius, Aisha chooses London, we are more likely to infer that Aisha is adventure-seeking and prefers city breaks.
• Social desirability – We are less likely to make inferences from socially desirable actions as they are typically expected, but we are likely to make a correspondent inference from an action perceived as having low social desirability. For example, if Anita refuses to conform to the group’s opinion, we can be surer of her beliefs than those who conform, as some individuals in the conforming group may only be choosing to act in a socially desirable way.
• Choice – The more choice a person has in taking an action, the more likely we are to make a correspondent inference and vice versa. For example, Jeremiah’s teacher instructs him to debate a topic for a class assignment, so it would be unreasonable for the class to infer that these are Jeremiah’s beliefs.
• Expectancies – This can be category-based or target-based. Category-based expectancies are preconceived ideas about a group of people, e.g., all teenagers are reckless. Target-based assumptions are preconceived ideas in relation to a specific person, e.g., having strong opinions about a particular political leader.
• Hedonistic relevance – Hedonic relevance refers to how the pleasure or pain experienced by an individual in a particular situation can influence how their behaviour is interpreted and explained by others. For example, a co-worker who appears to enjoy working late at the office might be perceived as a dedicated and enthusiastic employee, while a co-worker who appears stressed or unhappy might be perceived to be working late out of obligation.
• Personalism – When an action directly affects us, we are more likely to view it as intentional and personal. For example, John and Michelle are both taking a long hike. When Michelle eats the last sandwich out of hunger, John infers that Michelle ate this to deprive him of much needed nourishment.

Kelley’s covariation model

Developed by Harold Kelly in 1967, the Covariation Model uses three factors to determine if a behaviour is attributed to a person’s disposition or the situation – consensus, distinctiveness, and consistency.

Consensus – If other people share the same opinion about a behaviour or behave similarly, we are more likely to attribute this behaviour to the situation rather than dispositional factors.

Distinctiveness – If a person’s behaviour or attitude is distinct compared to their behaviour to other stimuli, we are more likely to attribute this to situational factors.

Consistency – If a person’s attitude or behaviour across time and situations is consistent, we are more likely to attribute this to dispositional factors.

Let’s play with an example: Sally forgot to complete her weekly homework. We could ask the following questions:

• How many other students forgot to hand in their homework? (Consensus)
• Does Sally forget to hand in her homework to other classes too? (Distinctiveness)
• Does Sally forget to hand in her homework every week? (Consistency)

Weiner’s three-dimensional model

Bernard Wiener proposed a Three-Dimensional Model whereby attribution is influenced by three factors: Locus of control, stability, and controllability.

Locus of Control – Internal or external – Was the behaviour caused by internal or external factors?

Stability – Transient or permanent – Will the behaviour happen again in the future?

Controllability – Controllable or uncontrollable – Will expending more effort change the situation?

Attributional biases

There are several attribution biases. It is worth learning the table below as these are frequently tested in the MRCPsych Paper A exam.

References

• Cook, D.A., & Artino, A.R. (2016). Motivation to learn: an overview of contemporary theories. Med Educ, 50(10), 997-1014.
• Heider, F. (1985). The psychology of interpersonal relations. John Wiley & Sons.
• Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. (1965). From acts to dispositions: The attribution process in person perception. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 219-266). Academic Press.
• Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. In Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 15, pp. 192-238). University of Nebraska Press.
• Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. Springer