Saul McLeodpublished How do we attach meaning to other's behavior or our own?
This is called attribution theory. For example, is someone angry because they are bad-tempered or because something bad happened?
Heider believed that people are naive psychologists trying to make sense of the social world. People tend to see cause and effect relationships, even where Attribution process is none! There were two main ideas that he put forward that became influential. Attribution process Attribution The process of assigning the cause of behavior to some internal characteristic, rather than to outside forces.
When we explain the behavior of others we look for enduring internal attributions, such as personality traits. For example, we attribute the behavior of a person to their personality, motives or beliefs. When we try to explain our own behavior we tend to make external attributions, such as situational or environment features.
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.
The correspondent inference theory describes the conditions under which we make dispositional attributes to the behavior we perceive as intentional. 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: If a behavior is freely chosen it is believed to be due to internal dispositional factors.
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.
He developed a logical model for judging whether a particular action should be attributed to some characteristic internal of the person or the environment external.
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. If her friend smokes, her behavior is high in consensus. If only Alison smokes, it is low.
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. If Alison only smokes when she is out with friends, consistency is high.
If she only smokes on one special occasion, consistency is low. Our subject is called Tom. His behavior is laughter. Tom is laughing at a comedian. Consensus If everybody in the audience is laughing, the consensus is high.
If only Tom is laughing consensus is low. Distinctiveness If Tom only laughs at this comedian, the distinctiveness is high. If Tom laughs at everything, then distinctiveness is low. Consistency If Tom always laughs at this comedian the consistency is high.
If Tom rarely laughs at this comedian, then consistency is low. 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.
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.
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. 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.Trop's two-stage model of attribution process.
Identification: Automatic, Observation action/behavior > Disposition diagnoses. Inference: Controlled. Situational variances adjustment > Actual disposition diagnoses. Gilbert's Model of attribution process. Categorization: Automatic, Perceiving stimuli/action.
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 Author: Saul Mcleod. ATTRIBUTION PROCESS AND THE CAUSES OF BEHAVIOR Attribution is considered to be a three-stage process. First, the behavior of an individual must be observed. Second, the perceiver must determine that the behavior they have observed is deliberate. That is, the person being observed is believed to have behaved intentionally. In social psychology, attribution is the process by which individuals explain the causes of behavior and events. Models to explain this process are called attribution theory.  Psychological research into attribution began with the work of Fritz Heider in the early 20th century, and the theory was further advanced by Harold Kelley and Bernard Weiner.
Attribution is quite an orderly and systematic process because through it we find out the genuine causes behind other’s behaviour and on the basis of these causes we arrive at a decision about the person.
ATTRIBUTION PROCESS AND THE CAUSES OF BEHAVIOR Attribution is considered to be a three-stage process. First, the behavior of an individual must be observed.
Second, the perceiver must determine that the behavior they have observed is deliberate. That is, the person being observed is believed to have behaved intentionally. Attribution theory is a psychological theory that attempts to explain how we explain the actions or behaviors of others; in other words, how we attribute behavior.
Attribution is a 3-step process.
Beneficiaries excluded from this attribution process are not considered for inclusion in the calculation of the claims-based quality outcome and per capita cost measures.
Figure 1 summarizes the two-step attribution process. Study on attribution of attitude. Experimenters had to read a pro-Castro essay written by students who were TOLD to write it. Results - Found that people decided students who had written pro or anti-Castro essays were actually pro or anti-Castro, even when the participants knew students had .