Attribution Theory
Attributions - are the reasons we we give
for our own and others behaviors.
People are motivated to understand the
causes of behavior. Attribution theory
seeks to explain how and why people
make these causal attributions.
Why is this baby smiling?
• Fritz Heider argued that there are two
general types of attributions that people
make:
–Personal attributions
–Situational attributions
Personal attributions
• Explanations in terms of personal
characteristics. For example:
– “The baby must be a happy baby.”
• Other examples:
– “He scored well on the exam
because he is smart.”
– “She tripped because she is clumsy.”
Situational attributions
• Explanations in terms of situational factors.
For example:
– “Someone must have just played with the
baby .”
• Other examples:
– “He scored well because it was an easy
test.”
– “She tripped because a squirrel ran in front
of her.”
The Fundamental Attributon Error
is that we overestimate the power
of the person and underestimate
the power of the situation.
The availability heuristic
partly explains why this error occurs.
Why do people make the
fundamental attribution error?
• The situation is not salient when people
make attributions for the behavior of others,
but the situation is salient when making
attributions for one’s own behavior.
• Thus, people are more inclined to take the
situation into account when explaining their
own behavior.
Self-serving bias
• People do not make objective situational /
personal attributions for their own behavior,
though.
• They tend to attribute their successes to
dispositional factors, and their failures to
situational factors.
• For example: “I did well on the test because I am
smart,” or “I did poor on the test because I didn’t
get enough sleep.
How do people make attributions?
• Kelley argued that people take three factors
into account when making a personal vs.
situational attribution:
– Consistency: Is the baby always smiling?
– Distinctiveness: Are there occasions on which
the baby doesn’t smile?
– Consensus: Do all babies smile?
• If consistency is high, and distinctiveness /
consensus are low, then a personal attribution is
more likely:
– “The baby is always smiling, never displays other
emotions (like crying), and this is not typical of babies
in general. Therefore, this baby must have a happy
disposition.”
• If consistency is high, and distinctiveness /
consensus are also high, then a situational
attribution is more likely.
– “The baby is always smiling when tickled, but displays
different emotions in other circumstances. Smiling
when tickled is typical of all babies. Therefore, this
baby is smiling because it was tickled”
Example
• A researcher assigned participants to read out loud
either a pro-Castro essay or an anti-Castro essay. A
group of listeners rated the extent to which the
reader held pro-Castro or anti-Castro beliefs.
• Even though the listeners knew that the readers had
no choice in which essay to read, the raters judged
the pro-Castro readers as being more pro-Castro
than the anti-Castro readers.
• The listeners failed to take into account the strong
situational factor present (that the readers had no
choice about which essay to read).
Choice leads to stronger
attributions of liking.
Cognitive dissonance theory
•People strive for consistency in their thoughts.
•Seems simple, but this idea lead to very
counter-intuitive findings.
•Festinger and Carlsmith had participants
complete a very boring task (turning screws ¼
turn at a time, for a long time). One group was
paid $1 to do this, and a separate group was
paid $20. Which group should like the task
more?
Result:
• Participants paid $1 enjoyed the task more than
participants paid $20. The $20 group had
consistent cognitions (“This is stupid, but I’m
being compensated for doing it.”). The $1 group
had inconsistent cognitions (“This is stupid, and I
have no reason to do it.”).
• Participants in the $1 group resolved the
dissonance by changing their attitude about the
task (“I’m not being adequately compensated for
this, but that’s OK. This is actually fun!”).
Self-perception theory
• Bem suggested that another way to think about
this research is in terms of attribution.
• All participants observed their behavior (doing the
boring task) and made a causal attribution for their
own behavior. Participants in the $20 group
observed their own behavior and thought (“I’m
doing this task because I’m getting paid.”).
Participants in the $1 group observed their own
behavior and thought (“I’m doing this task
because I must enjoy it.”).
"By altering actors and observers
perspectives through videotape
replays, mirrors, or other methods,
one can correspondingly alter the
actors' and observers' causal
assessments."
- Human Inference
Nisbett & Ross 1980