Three Main Attribution Theories example essay topic

'Discuss the extent to which the three main theories of attribution plain how we attribute the behaviour of others. ' The point of attribution theory is to attempt to understand personality from the behaviour of other people. It sets out to explain how individuals perceive the causes for events and their outcomes. When we make an attribution we are attempting to determine a cause for a particular event, essentially we attempt to answer the question "why do people act the way they do?" There are three main attribution theories and each attempt to explain how we attribute personality onto behaviour. Each has different perspectives and each have problems. The first of these theories was developed by Fritz Heider in the 1950's.

Heider is considered the founder of attribution theory. His model is known as causal explanation. He suggested people systematically evaluate causes of behaviour in a commonsense search to understand why things happen. He believed this was because we need to form a coherent understanding of the world. Heider tried to specify the rules we follow, although these rules are unconscious, they allow us to arrive at a personality trait for individuals. What we must determine, in order to arrive at an accurate attribution, is whether the behaviour of a person was forced (externally by the situation or environment) or if it was by choice of the individual (internal).

This is a very important distinction as it greatly effects the attribution. For example if a person works hard, are they forced (external) or if it is of personal desire (internal). Internal attributions consist traits such as friendly or aggressive, hardworking or lazy. External attributions are things such as luck / chance, the situation (beyond a persons control) and the influence of others. The second main attribution theory is the co variation principle devised by Kelley in 1967. It is known as the co variation model because, as mentioned above, whether an internal or external attribution is made depends on how three pieces information co vary to provide an overall picture.

The first of these is distinctiveness where the behaviour is attributed to the cause if it only occurs when that cause is present. There is high distinctiveness if a persons behaviour is unique to a stimulus e.g. another person, so the attribution would be that there is something about that person. If the person acts that way around everyone then there is low distinctiveness and the attribution becomes internal and not related to a stimulus. The second piece of information is consistency, whether or not a person behaves a certain way across time and situations will effect whether an internal or external attribution is made.

If a certain behaviour occurs every time then there is high consistency. If it happens rarely then there is low consistency and we would attribute the behaviour to the circumstances (such as being drunk) rather than attribute it to the individuals. Finally the third piece of information we look at using the co variation principle is consensus. This is looking at whether other people react in a similar manner to a stimulus (e.g. a person). If everyone reacts in the same way to a person, then there is high consensus, meaning the attribution is something to do with the stimulus. If no one else reacts in the same way to a stimulus then there is low consensus and the attribution is internal to the individual.

The co variation model is important when events are unexpected or the outcomes are unpleasant, such as in a fight. The problem with this principle is that we do not always have all the information we need and one instance of bad behaviour can instantly tarnish ones reputation. This is known as consistency of information - Pete Townsend. The final model of attribution we will look at is known as correspondent inference and was developed by Jones and Davies in 1965.

A correspondent inference is made when a behaviour is both low in social desirability and when there are few non-common effects. The three items taken into account in this model are non-common effects, social desirability and freedom of choice. Take the example of a person choosing a university, if they choose a university that is close to home and that fact is non-common to the other choices then the correspondent inference is that the person is a 'home person'. We can look further into this, if everyone tells them that that university isn't particularly good (socially under desirable) but they choose it anyway, this confirms the inference. Finally, the greater the freedom of choice that exists, the greater the correspondent inference becomes. These are the three main attribution theories but there are problems associated with attribution theory as a whole, where the accuracy of attributions and inferences may be compromised.

The main fault of attribution theory is known as Fundamental Attribution Error. This is the tendency to blame people for what happens to them. It comes from an insensitivity to environmental or situational factors, where these are ignored and we rely on our own values, private theories and cultural differences. Defensive attribution is a tendency to blame victims for their own misfortunes. The actor - observer effect describes the 'you fell' (internal), 'I was pushed' (external) scenario. The self serving bias enhances ones ego, attributing to make ourselves feel better.

We also use false consensus and under use consensus information from others. Attribution theory is a valid and useful study. If our attributions are accurate they enable us to predict future behaviour. It allows us to explain past and present behaviour and enables us to make appropriate responses.

It has however been described as 'jumping to conclusions' and our built in biases can distort our perceptions. We are also rarely detached observers and rarely make attributions in a rational or logical manner.