Show
Recommended textbook solutions Social Psychology10th EditionElliot Aronson, Robin M. Akert, Samuel R. Sommers, Timothy D. Wilson 525 solutions Social Psychology14th EditionNyla R. Branscombe, Robert A. Baron 144 solutions Social Psychology10th EditionElliot Aronson, Robin M. Akert, Timothy D. Wilson 525 solutions Social Psychology10th EditionElliot Aronson, Robin M. Akert, Samuel R. Sommers, Timothy D. Wilson 525 solutions Recommended textbook solutionsSocial Psychology10th EditionElliot Aronson, Robin M. Akert, Samuel R. Sommers, Timothy D. Wilson 525 solutions Social Psychology10th EditionElliot Aronson, Robin M. Akert, Timothy D. Wilson 525 solutions Social Psychology14th EditionNyla R. Branscombe, Robert A. Baron 144 solutions Organizational Behavior13th EditionRicky W. Griffin, Stanley Gully 174 solutions
Attribution TheoryBy Dr. Saul McLeod, published 2012 Attribution theory is concerned with how ordinary people explain the causes of behavior and events. For example, is someone angry because they are bad-tempered or because something bad happened? A formal definition is provided by Fiske and Taylor (1991, p. 23):
Heider (1958) believed that people are naive psychologists trying to make sense of the social world. People tend to see cause and effect relationships, even where there is none! Heider didn’t so much develop a theory himself as emphasize certain themes that others took up. There were two main ideas that he put forward that became influential: dispositional (internal cause) vs situational (external cause) attributions. Dispositional vs Situational Attribution1. Dispositional AttributionDispositional 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 AttributionThe 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 TheoryJones 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:
Kelley's Covariation ModelKelley’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.
Let’s look at an example to help understand his particular attribution theory. Our subject is called Tom. His behavior is laughter. Tom is laughing at a comedian. 1. ConsensusIf everybody in the audience is laughing, the consensus is high. If only Tom is laughing consensus is low. 2. DistinctivenessIf Tom only laughs at this comedian, the distinctiveness is high. If Tom laughs at everything, then distinctiveness is low. 3. ConsistencyIf Tom always laughs at this comedian the consistency is high. If Tom rarely laughs at this comedian, then consistency is low. Now, if everybody laughs at this comedian, if they don’t laugh at the comedian who follows and if this comedian always raises a laugh, then we would make an external attribution, i.e., we assume that Tom is laughing because the comedian is very funny. On the other hand, if Tom is
the only person who laughs at this comedian, if Tom laughs at all comedians and if Tom always laughs at the comedian then we would make an internal attribution, i.e., we assume that Tom is laughing because he is the kind of person who laughs a lot. So what we’ve got here is people attributing causality on the basis of correlation. That is to say,; we see that two things go together and we, therefore, assume that one causes the other. One problem, however, is that we may not
have enough information to make that kind of judgment. For example, if we don’t know Tom that well, we wouldn’t necessarily have the information to know if his behavior is consistent over time. So what do we do then? 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. How to reference this article:How to reference this article:McLeod, S. A. (2012). Attribution theory. Simply Psychology. www.simplypsychology.org/attribution-theory.html APA Style ReferencesFiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Heider, F. (1958). The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York: Wiley. Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. (1965) From acts to dispositions: the attribution proces in social psychology, in L. Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Volume 2, pp. 219-266), New York: Academic Press Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. In D. Levine (ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (Volume 15, pp. 192-238). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. How to reference this article:How to reference this article:McLeod, S. A. (2012). Attribution theory. Simply Psychology. www.simplypsychology.org/attribution-theory.html Home | About Us | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Contact Us Simply Psychology's content is for informational and educational purposes only. Our website is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. © Simply Scholar Ltd - All rights reserved
Which of the following defines Asch effect?ASCH CONFORMITY EFFECT: "A person who raised his or her hand to endorse an answer because the group was endorsing it, even though he or she knew it to be incorrect, had fallen victim to the Asch Conformity Effect. "
Which of the following is an example of selfExamples of self-serving bias
A student gets a good grade on a test and tells herself that she studied hard or is good at the material. She gets a bad grade on another test and says the teacher doesn't like her or the test was unfair. Athletes win a game and attribute their win to hard work and practice.
Which type of persuasion involves logic?Rational persuasion is an influence behavior that appeals to logic using facts, data, and examples. This makes it one of the most effective influencing tactics available to leaders.
Which is the best example of peripheral route persuasion?Instead of focusing on the facts and a product's quality, the peripheral route relies on association with positive characteristics such as positive emotions and celebrity endorsement. For example, having a popular athlete advertise athletic shoes is a common method used to encourage young adults to purchase the shoes.
|
Following an outcome blank are those attributions
Postagens relacionadas
direito autoral © 2024 cemle Inc.
