Maria Virginia F.

Caraca
Attribution Theory

I. Background of the proponent

In 1958, Fritz Heider, a well-known psychologist in Vienna Austria, published a book called
“The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations”. It became his most famous work and remained as
his most significant contribution to the field of social psychology. Before the publication, he
earned his Ph.D from University of Graz at the age of 24 for his innovates study and his work
called “Thing and Medium”. Later on, he moved to Berlin and worked in a Psychology institution
together with a few great psychologists whose works contributed on the attribution theory.
Becoming a giant in his field, his book had a great impact on the readers and it continues up to
the 21st century. In his book, wide-ranging analysis of the conceptual framework and the
psychological processes that undergird human social perception were written. He provided an
explanation on how individuals interpret events and how this relates to their thinking and
behavior. With the way people attach and assume meanings to other’s behavior in the daily life,
the developed theory based on this attribution was created and was called the Attribution theory.
This theory is deeply rooted to the works of Bernard Weiner (1974) and further developed by
Harold Kelly, Edward E. Jones, and Keith Davis (1965).
II. Main propositions/ components of the theory
Heider’s Attribution Theory
According to Heider, how a person understands the event and how the event is related
to the person’s thinking process and their behavior. It is the conceptual framework within social
psychology dealing with common sense explanations of behavior or what he calls the “Naïve
Psychology”. Attribution theory tends to explain certain basic question of individuals “How others
do and what they do”. A person interprets with themselves “why others do something which may
cause attribute of one’s behavior. Through life, people gradually construct explanations of why
people behave in certain ways. Most of our attributions are driven by our emotional and
motivational impulses. Fritz Heider classified the attribution theory into two types as Internal
Attribution and External Attribution.
 In Internal attribution, when a person is motivating for a certain action and questioned
about it, the person needs to explain the reason for the question or action. A person always wants
to show him as much as positive. Internal attributions are driven by motives and emotional
attitudes of an individual.
On the other hand, in External Attribution, a person wants to understand the world
through events which happens around him and a person seeks reason for that particular event
by using external events.
A three-stage process underlies an attribution (1) the person must perceive or observe
the behavior, (2) the person must believe that the behavior was intentionally performed, and
(3) then the person must determine if they believe the other person was forced to perform
the behavior (in which case the cause is attributed to the situation) or not (in which case the
cause is attributed to the person).
Weiner’s Attribution Theory
Weiner focused his attribution theory on achievement. He identified ability, effort, task
difficulty, and luck as the most important factors affecting attributions for achievement.
Attributions are classified along three causal dimensions: locus of control, stability, and
controllability. The locus of control dimension has two poles: internal vs. external locus of
control. The stability dimension captures whether causes change over time or not. For
instance, ability can be classified as stable, internal cause, and effort classifies as unstable and
internal. Controllability contrasts one can control, such as skill/efficacy, from causes one
cannot control, such as aptitude, mood, others’ actions, and luck.
Weiner’s attribution theory model
Dispositional vs Situational Attribution

1. Dispositional Attribution
Dispositional attribution assigns the cause of behavior to some internal characteristic of a
person, rather than to outside forces.
When we explain the behavior of others we look for enduring internal attributions, such as
personality traits. This is known as the fundamental attribution error.

For example, we attribute the behavior of a person to their personality, motives or beliefs.
2. Situational Attribution
The process of assigning the cause of behavior to some situation or event outside a person's
control rather than to some internal characteristic.
When we try to explain our own behavior, we tend to make external attributions, such as
situational or environment features.

Jones & Davis Correspondent Inference Theory

Jones and Davis (1965) thought that people pay particular attention to intentional
behavior (as opposed to accidental or unthinking behavior).

Jones and Davis’ theory helps us understand the process of making an internal
attribution. They say that we tend to do this when we see a correspondence between motive
and behavior. For example, when we see a correspondence between someone behaving in a
friendly way and being a friendly person.

Dispositional (i.e., internal) attributions provide us with information from which we can
make predictions about a person’s future behavior. The correspondent inference theory
describes the conditions under which we make dispositional attributes to the behavior we
perceive as intentional.

Davis used the term correspondent inference to refer to an occasion when an observer
infers that a person’s behavior matches or corresponds with their personality. It is an alternative
term to dispositional attribution.
So, what leads us to make a correspondent inference? Jones and Davis say we draw on five
sources of information:

1. Choice: If a behavior is freely chosen it is believed to be due to internal (dispositional)

factors.

2. Accidental vs. Intentional Behavior: Behavior that is intentional is likely to be attributed

to the person’s personality, and behavior which is accidental is likely to be attributed to
situation / external causes.

3. Social Desirability: Behaviors low in sociable desirability (non-conforming) lead us to

make (internal) dispositional inferences more than socially undesirable behaviors. For
example, if you observe a person getting on a bus and sitting on the floor instead of one
of the seats. This behavior has low social desirability (non-conforming) and is likely to
correspond with the personality of the individual.

4. Hedonistic Relevance: If the other person’s behavior appears to be directly intended to

benefit or harm us.

5. Personalism: If the other person’s behavior appears to be intended to have an impact on

us, we assume that it is “personal”, and not just a by-product of the situation we are both
in.

Kelley's Covariation Model

Kelley’s (1967) covariation model is the best-known attribution theory. He developed a

logical model for judging whether a particular action should be attributed to some characteristic
(dispositional) of the person or the environment (situational).

The term covariation simply means that a person has information from multiple
observations, at different times and situations, and can perceive the covariation of an observed
effect and its causes.

He argues that in trying to discover the causes of behavior people act like scientists. More
specifically they take into account three kinds of evidence.
  Consensus: the extent to which other people behave in the same way in a similar situation.
E.g., Alison smokes a cigarette when she goes out for a meal with her friend. If her friend
smokes, her behavior is high in consensus. If only Alison smokes, it is low.

 Distinctiveness: the extent to which the person behaves in the same way in similar
situations. If Alison only smokes when she is out with friends, her behavior is high in
distinctiveness. If she smokes at any time or place, distinctiveness is low.

 Consistency: the extent to which the person behaves like this every time the situation
occurs. If Alison only smokes when she is out with friends, consistency is high. If she only
smokes on one special occasion, consistency is low.

According to Kelley we fall back on past experience and look for either:

1) Multiple necessary causes. For example, we see an athlete win a marathon, and we reason
that she must be very fit, highly motivated, have trained hard etc., and that she must have all of
these to win

2) Multiple sufficient causes. For example, we see an athlete fail a drug test, and we reason that
she may be trying to cheat, or have taken a banned substance by accident or been tricked into
taking it by her coach. Any one reason would be sufficient.

Kelley's Covariation Model

III. Strengths and limitations of the theory
Despite the expansive and diverse domains and questions to which Attribution Theory
has been applied, the theory is not without its problems, and Attribution Theory has received
its share of critical review (e.g., Newcombe & Rutter, 1982; Semin, 1980). There are many
criteria by which theories can be evaluated. We focus here on (a) explanatory power, (b)
scope and generality, (c) conditionship specification, and (d) verifiability or falsifiability to
show some of the strengths and limitations of Attribution Theory (Spitzberg, 2001).
1. Explanatory power refers to the most essential requirement of any theory: how well
does it explain, or make sense of, phenomena? It is a near paradox that a theory
explaining how people explain is itself required to be a good explanation. Attribution
theories have the advantage of making good intuitive sense, developed as they were
to account for laypersons as naïve scientists (Heider, 1958). Most of the dimensions
and principles of attribution theories are recognizable immediately in everyday
interactions.
2. Scope and generality refer to the breadth of phenomena and contexts in which a
theory applies. A theory that only applies to a particular time, place, or behavior is
narrow in scope and not very generalizable. Attribution Theory was developed
originally as a universal theory of human sense-making, but research has limited its
scope. Most research investigates contexts in which conscious attributional efforts
are most likely: contexts involving actual or potential negative consequences and
violations of expectations. For example, researchers have centered on shyness,
loneliness, conflict, relationship satisfaction, accounts, abuse, anger, shame,
achievement motivation, moral responsibility, and relationship breakups. Attributions
may or may not work the same way in other contexts where the importance of making
attributions is less necessary. Furthermore, there is increasing evidence that
attributional thought processes may be culturally moderated to some extent.
3. Conditionship specification refers to the extent to which a theory articulates clearly
the nature of the relationship among its concepts. Even some of the original theorists
claim some strict parameters for the theory. For example, Heider’s (1958) original
 propositions were quite formulaic. Weiner (2004) claimed boldly that “there are three,
and indeed only three, underlying causal properties that have cross-situational
generality… locus, stability, and controllability” (p. 17). Bradbury and Fincham (1990)
summarized their extensive review as indicating that “the dimensions of locus,
stability, control, and globality are necessary and sufficient for assessing causal
attributions in marriage” (p. 17). Yet, their own coding of research results indicates
that many studies find no or only partial support for these dimensions. The fact is that,
almost 50 years after its inception, it is still not entirely clear how much the results of
Attribution Theory support these condition specifications. This raises a significant
question of the verifiability and falsifiability of this theory.
4. Verifiability is the extent to which evidence in support of a theory can be generated
through observation and investigation.
5. Falsifiability is the extent to which evidence that contradicts a theory can be
generated through observation and investigation. Consider the following proposition:
all conflicts are blamed on the partner more than on self. A verification strategy would
take any evidence that conflicts tend to be blamed on the partner more than on the
self as evidence in support of the proposition. In contrast, a falsification strategy
would take any evidence that it sometimes does not happen as evidence that the
proposition is incorrect and must be modified or replaced.
IV. The applicability/ Applications of the theory
Weiner’s theory has been widely applied in education, law, clinical psychology, and the
mental health domain. There is a strong relationship between self-concept and achievement.
Weiner (1980) states: “Causal attributions determine affective reactions to success and failure.
For example, one is not likely to experience pride in success, or feelings of competence, when
receiving an ‘A’ from a teacher who gives only that grade, or when defeating a tennis player who
always loses…On the other hand, an ‘A’ from a teacher who gives few high grades or a victory
over a highly-rated tennis player following a great deal of practice generates great positive affect.”
Students with higher ratings of self-esteem and with higher school achievement tend to attribute
success to internal, stable, uncontrollable factors such as ability, while they contribute failure to
either internal, unstable, controllable factors such as effort, or external, uncontrollable factors
such as task difficulty. For example, students who experience repeated failures in reading are
likely to see themselves as being less competent in reading. This self-perception of reading ability
reflects itself in children’s expectations of success on reading tasks and reasoning of success or
failure of reading. Similarly, students with learning disabilities seem less likely than non-disabled
peers to attribute failure to effort, an unstable, controllable factor, and more likely to attribute
failure to ability, a stable, uncontrollable factor.

Lewis & Daltroy (1990) discuss applications of attribution theory to health care. An interesting
example of attribution theory applied to career development is provided by Daly (1996)
who examined the attributions that employees held as to why they failed to receive promotions.

V. References
Culatta, Richard (2019). Attribution Theory (B. Weiner). Retrieved September 8, 2019.
https://www.instructionaldesign.org/theories/attribution-
theory/?fbclid=IwAR2Q6UhEyvFpgPHtDs9ZL_0gl6eHcnO8SnoG5hlImkL_Ms2YnhMBq6_svl0
Zellner, Matt (2018). Atrributions Theory. Retrieved September 8, 2019.
https://thork.people.uic.edu/fair/attributions.pdf
McLeod, Saul (2012). Attributions Theory. Retrieved September 8, 2019.
https://www.simplypsychology.org/attribution-
theory.html#targetText=Heider%20(1958)%20believed%20that%20people,themes%20that
%20others%20took%20up.