Click to edit Master title style
THEORIES OF PUBLIC
RELATIONS
PBPR107
AT T R I B U T I O N T H E O RY
GROUP 1
1
Click to edit Master title style
TOPICS















Brief history and definition of attribution
Assumptions of attribution theory
Internal attributions
External (Situational) attributions
The fundamental attribution error
The Covariation Model
Kelley's Cube
Discounting principle
Correspondent Inference Theory (CIT)
Weiner’s model
Achievement Attribution
Difference between Kelley's and Weiner's Theory
Benefits of attribution theory
Criticisms of attribution theory
References
2 2
BRIEF
AND
DEFINITION
OF ATTRIBUTION
Click toHISTORY
edit Master
title
style
THEORY
The Attribution Theory was first introduced by
Fritz Heider in 1958 and is based on the
assumption that people naturally try to understand
the reasons behind other people's behavior. It
involves determining whether behavior is linked to
the External or Internal factors. Additionally,
people tend to attribute outcomes or achievements
to specific traits or conditions. The Attribution
Theory is applicable in educational settings and can
impact learning motivation, as causal attributions
determine affective reactions to success and failure
3 3
BRIEF
AND
DEFINITION
OF ATTRIBUTION
Click toHISTORY
edit Master
title
style
THEORY part 2
Attribution theory is a psychological concept that helps to explain
how people make judgments about the causes of behaviour. Simply put
it explains how people assess the causes of behaviour.
A formal definition is provided by Fiske and Taylor (1991, p. 23)
“Attribution theory deals with how the social perceiver uses the
information to arrive at causal explanations for events. It examines
what information is gathered and how it is combined to form a causal
judgment”.
4 4
TYPES
ATTRIBUTION
THEORIES
Click toOF
edit
Master title style
According to Heider, "people measure others” behaviours by either
their internal disposition or the external situation that they're in"
(Thompson, 2021).
Internal (Dispositional) attributions refer to factors that are
believed to be under the control of the individual, such as
personality traits, abilities, and efforts. Internal attributions focus
on the personal characteristics of an individual and assume that
their behaviour is driven by their personality, abilities, or effort.
5 5
Internal
Click to attributions
edit Master title style
Three categories of information shape internal attributions:
1. Choice: The degree of choice the individual had in their behaviour.
When people have a choice in their actions, their behaviour is more
likely to be seen as reflecting their characteristics.
2. Expected behaviour: The degree to which the individual's behaviour
is consistent with their personality or social role. If someone's
behaviour is consistent with what is expected of them based on their
personality or social role, their behaviour is more likely to be attributed
to their characteristics.
3. Effects of behaviour: If the consequences of the behaviour are seen as
positive, the behaviour is more likely to be attributed to the individual's
personal characteristics.
6 6
External
(Situational)
attributions
Click to edit
Master title
style
External attributions, refers to factors that are believed to be
outside of the individual's control, such as luck, chance, or
situational factors.
For example, if a student receives a failing grade on an exam, an
external attribution would be that the exam was too difficult, the
teacher did not provide enough resources or feedback, or the
student was experiencing stress or distraction.
7
7
The
Attribution
Error
ClickFundamental
to edit Master
title style
The fundamental attribution error is a cognitive bias that occurs
when people tend to overemphasize dispositional (internal)
explanations for others' behaviour and underestimate situational
(external) factors. In other words, people tend to attribute the
behaviour of others to their personality traits, beliefs, or
motivations, rather than taking into account the situational context
in which the behaviour occurs.
8 8
ASSUMPTIONS
OF ATTRIBUTION
THEORY
Click to edit Master
title style
A. The first assumption is that people tend to assign causes to
behaviour. This means that when people observe someone's
behaviour, they automatically try to figure out why they acted
that way.
B. The second assumption is that people assign causes to
behaviour not randomly but through systematic processes. This
means that people use a set of rules or heuristics (heuristics are
mental shortcuts or rules of thumb that people use to make
judgments or decisions quickly and efficiently, without having
to invest significant time or effort into processing information.
9 9
ASSUMPTIONS
OF ATTRIBUTION
THEORY
Click to edit Master
title style
C. The third assumption holds that when attributions are made,
they influence feelings and subsequent behaviour and are
resistant to change. This indicates that people's emotional
responses and behaviour toward a person or event can be
influenced by the attributions they make.
10 10
Click to edit
MODELS
OF ATTRIBUTION
Master title style
THEORY
Harold Kelley was a social psychologist who
developed several attribution models that help explain
how people make judgments about the causes of
behaviour. Harold Kelley proposed several models in
attribution theory. Here are some of his most wellknown models:
 Covariation Model
 Kelley's Cube
 Discounting Effect/Principles
 Correspondent Inference Theory
11 11
ClickCovariation
The
to edit Master
Model
title style
• Kelley’s (1967) Covariation model is the best-known attribution theory.
• The term Covariation simply means that a person has information from
multiple observations at different times and situations.
• The theory states that to form an attribution about what caused a person’s
behaviour, we systematically note the pattern between the presence or
absence of possible causal factors and whether or not the behaviour occurs.
• He argues that people act like scientists in trying to discover the causes of
behaviour.
12 12
ClickCovariation
The
to edit Master
Model
titlePart
style
2
More specifically, they take into account three kinds of evidence:
A. Consensus: the extent to which other people behave in the same way in a
similar situation. High consensus occurs when many people behave similarly,
while low consensus occurs when only a few people behave in a particular
way.
B. Distinctiveness: the extent to which the person behaves in the same way in
similar situations. If a behaviour is specific to one situation, then
distinctiveness is low, but if the behaviour is generalizable to other situations,
then distinctiveness is high.
C. Consistency: the extent to which the person behaves like this every time the
situation occurs. If a behaviour is consistent over time, then consistency is
high, but if the behaviour varies over time, then consistency is low.
13 13
ClickCovariation
The
to edit Master
Model
titlePart
style
3
14 14
ClickCovariation
The
to edit Master
Model
titlePart
style
4
According to Kelley's theory, when consensus and distinctiveness are
low but consistency is strong, we are more likely to attribute others'
behaviour to internal factors. In contrast, when consensus,
consistency, and distinctiveness are all high, we are more prone to
assume that the other person's behaviour results from outside forces.
15 15
Click to edit
Kelley's
CubeMaster title style
Kelley's Cube is an extension of his Covariation Model that provides a
framework for understanding how people make attributions. The cube
represents the three dimensions of consensus, distinctiveness, and
consistency.
Kelley's cube attribution model and Kelley's Covariation model are used
interchangeably in the literature. The model is used to understand how
people make attributions about others' behaviours based on their
observations of the situation in which the behaviour occurs.
16 16
Click to edit
Kelley's
CubeMaster title style
The Covariation model is one specific version of Kelley's cube model, which
focuses on the role of Covariation, or correlation, between events and
potential causes, in determining causal attributions. Overall, both models
seek to explain how people make causal attributions about others' behaviour
based on their observations of the situation, and are commonly used in the
fields of psychology, sociology, and communication.
17 17
Click to editEffect
Master
title style
Discounting
Principle
• Harold Kelley's discounting principle states that when people have multiple
potential causes for an event, they tend to discount the importance of any one
cause. Essentially, when people know there are multiple possible reasons for
an action or outcome, they are less likely to attribute it to any one specific
cause.
• The discounting effect has important implications in public relations and
communication, as it underscores the importance of clear messaging and
consistent branding. If a company or organization is known for a specific
product or service, but then begins to offer many different products or
services, customers may begin to discount the importance of the original
product or service.
18 18
Click to edit Effect
Discounting
MasterPrinciple
title style
• Overall, the discounting effect highlights the importance of carefully
considering all potential causes for an event or outcome, and of
communicating information clearly and consistently to avoid confusion and
ambiguity.
19 19
Click to edit Master
Correspondent
Inference
title style
Theory
Kelley's Correspondent Inference Theory (CIT) is a model in attribution
theory that explains how people make judgments about others' behaviour.
The CIT suggests that people infer a dispositional attribute (e.g. personality
traits) of another person when the person's behaviour is freely chosen,
uniquely performed, and produces non-common effects.
According to the CIT, people make correspondent inferences when they
perceive a strong correspondence between a person's behaviour and the
person's underlying disposition
20 20
Click to edit Master
Correspondent
Inference
title style
Theory
However, correspondent inferences are not always accurate. In some cases,
the behaviour may not correspond with the person's underlying disposition.
To address this issue, Kelley proposed that people use additional
information to adjust their correspondent inferences. For example, people
may consider situational constraints that could explain the behaviour.
Overall, the Correspondent Inference Theory has important implications
for communication and public relations. By understanding how people
make inferences about others' behaviour, public relations practitioners can
better manage their image and reputation
21 21
Click to edit Master title
Weiner’s
style model
Bernard Weiner suggested that four key factors have a
direct impact on attributions: effort, luck, task
difficulty, and ability. He went on to state that these
factors can be divided into three distinct dimensions:
A. Locus of control
B. Stability
C. Controllability
22 22
Click to edit Master title
Weiner’s
style model
A. Locus of control
This refers to whether the cause is attributed to the person (internal locus) or
the situation (external locus).
B. Stability
This refers to whether the cause is considered to be stable or unstable over
time.
C. Controllability
This refers to whether the cause is something that the individual can control
or not.
23 23
Click to edit Master title
Weiner’s
style model
Achievement of Attribution
According to Weiner, individuals attribute their achievements to four factors:
effort, ability, task difficulty, and chance.
1. Effort attribution refers to the belief that an individual's success is due to the
effort they put into a task. For example, a student who receives an A on a test
may attribute their success to the hours of studying they put in.
2. Ability attribution refers to the belief that an individual's success is due to
their innate abilities or talents. For example, professional athlete may attribute
their success to their natural physical abilities and athletic talent.
24 24
Click to edit Master title
Weiner’s
style model
Achievement of Attribution part 2
3. Task difficulty attribution refers to the belief that an individual's success is
due to the level of difficulty of the task they accomplished. For example, a chef
who creates an elaborate and complex dish may attribute their success to the
level of difficulty of the recipe.
4. Chance attribution refers to the belief that an individual's success is due to
luck or external factors beyond their control. For example, a lottery winner may
attribute their success to being in the right place at the right time or simply being
lucky.
25 25
Click to editbetween
Master title
styleand Weiner's Theory
Difference
Kelley's
The following are the primary distinctions between Weiner's and Kelley's
frameworks.
First, as Martinko and Thomson (1998) point out, while Weiner's studies are
more focused on how people examine the causes of their conduct, the
majority of Kelley's investigations focus on how people attribute causes to
the behaviour of other people.
Secondly, and more crucially, while Weiner's model emphasizes the
outcomes of such causal attribution, Kelley's model is more concerned with
the process of attribution (the psychological process explaining causal
attribution). According to Kelley, attribution theories are those that
concentrate on the act of attributing causes.
26 26
Click to editbetween
Master title
styleand Weiner's Theory part 2
Difference
Kelley's
Kelley's Theory
Weiner's Theory
It focuses on how people
examine the causes of other
people's behaviour.
It focuses on how people examine
the causes of their behaviour.
More focused on the process of
attribution
More focused on the outcomes of
causal attribution.
27 27
Click to editOF
Master
title styleTHEORY
CRITICISMS
ATTRIBUTION
1. It relies on normative models, which assume that people process
information logically and rationally
2. Attribution theory may oversimplify the complex process of making
attributions.
3. The fundamental attribution error (explained earlier)
4. Experiments often rely on artificial manipulations of variables and may
not reflect the complexity and messiness of real-life situation
28 28
Click to edit Master title style
REFERENCES

Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92(4), 548-573.

Weiner, B. (2010). The development of an attribution-based theory of motivation: A history of ideas. Educational Psychologist, 45(1), 28-36.

Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92(4), 548-573.

Gernigon, C., Sauzeon, H., Riviére, J., Rodrigues, J., & Brouillet, D. (2016). A systematic review of attributional style in depression and anxiety:
Do stable attributions for internal, stable and global causes of negative events confer vulnerability? Journal of Affective Disorders, 202, 192-203.

Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 15, 192-238.

Kelley, H. H. (1973). The process of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28(2), 107-128.

Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. In Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 15, pp. 192-238).

Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. Springer Science & Business Media.

Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. In Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 15, pp. 192-238).

Cherry, K. (2021). Kelley's Covariation Model in Psychology. Verywell Mind. https://www.verywellmind.com/kelleys-covariation-model-2795905

Kelley, H. H. (1973). The processes of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28(2), 107-128.

Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. (1965). From acts to dispositions: The attribution process in person perception. Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, 2, 219-266.

Malle, B. F. (2004). How the mind explains behaviour: Folk explanations, meaning, and social interaction. MIT press.
29 29
Click to edit Master title style
REFERENCES
•
Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. (1965). From acts to dispositions: The attribution process in person perception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology
(Vol. 2, pp. 219-266). Academic Press.
•
Martinko, M. J., & Thomson, N. F. (1998). Attribution theory: An organizational perspective. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and
organizational psychology (Vol. 13, pp. 121-155). Wiley.
•
Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology
(Vol. 10, pp. 173-220). Academic Press.
•
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. John Wiley & Sons.
•
Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (pp. 192-238). University of Nebraska Press.
•
Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92(4), 548-573.
•
Benoit, W. L. (2013). Accounts, excuses, and apologies: A theory of image restoration strategies. SUNY Press.
•
Coombs, W. T. (2014). Ongoing crisis communication: Planning, managing, and responding. Sage Publications.
•
Cheney, G., Christensen, L. T., Zorn, T. E., & Ganesh, S. (2010). Organizational communication in an age of globalization: Issues, reflections, practices. Waveland Press.
•
Gyamfi, M. (2020). Communicating about COVID-19 in Ghana: Insights from attribution theory. Journal of African Media Studies, 12(4), 517-531.
•
Asamoah, E. (2019). Corporate social responsibility and corporate reputation in Ghana. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 24(4), 564-579.
•
Nkrumah, K. (2017). Building trust through effective public relations practice: The case of Ghana's public sector. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 8(1),
3030
116-123.
Click to edit Master title style
Thank You
31