Attribution theory seeks to explain how individuals use information acquired during social interactions to come up with causal explanations for events or behavior. The theory assumes that individuals attribute different causes for behavior shown by other people in a social context (Calder, 1977). It, therefore, explains how and why humans perceive others the way they do in their daily interactions. For instance, if someone is angry, it can be that they are bad-tempered, or it could be that something has happened to cause anger. In this context, a social perceiver may use either a causal explanation to understand this behavior. Three primary attribution theories provide a consistent description of why humans behave as they do as they socialize with each other.
The first theory is known as the Heider's Naïve Psychology theory, also known as Common Sense Psychology. Heider believed that individuals are naïve psychologists who are continually trying to make sense of the social world by explaining the cause of the behavior of others (Malle, 2008). In this theory, Fritz Heider sought to examine how people determine whether internal or external factors cause another person's behavior. Heider put forward the idea of dispositional and situational attributions. Dispositional attribution ascribes the cause of a particular behavior to the personality of an individual. Individuals are, therefore, inclined to portray specific behaviors due to their internal characteristics rather than external forces. Situational attribution, on the other hand, assigns the cause of behavior to the dominant external forces in a given situation. The individuals do not have control of these external forces. When people explain their unpleasant behavior, they often make external attributions such as environmental or situational factors.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Heider further argued that behavior is a product of capacity and motivation. Capacity means that an individual has the personal attributes and an enabling environment to make the behavior possible. Motivation describes how much effort and the intentions that an individual has to make a behavior possible. Heider, therefore, argued that both capacity and motivation are crucial factors that make the occurrence of behavior possible (Hopper, 2018). For instance, an athlete requires physical fitness (their capacity) and a desire to win (motivation) to win. Heider’s ideas influenced other psychologists to come up with other attribution theories.
The second attribution theory is the Correspondent Inference Theory. Edward Jones and Keith Davis developed the theory. Correspondent inference describes a situation where an individual perceives other people’s behavior as corresponding to their personality. In their argument, Jones and Davis suggest that people are more likely to pay attention to intentional behavior as opposed to unintentional behavior shown by other people (Jones & Davis, 1965). The theory further postulates that individuals make an internal attribution when they perceive a correspondence between motive and behavior.
An example is when an individual perceives a correspondence between another person's friendly behavior and having a warm personality. The dispositional attributions of an individual provide other people with information that enables them to predict that individual's future behavior. The theory, therefore, explains the conditions under which people make dispositional attributes of other people's behavior that they see as intentional.
Based on this theory, if an individual portrays a socially desirable behavior, other people are less likely to infer much about that person based on that behavior (Jones & Davis, 1965). For instance, offering a seat to an elderly lady in a public transport bus is socially desirable behavior. People are less likely to infer much about a person's behavior when they offer a seat to an older person. However, if a young person refuses to give a seat to an older adult on a public transport bus may make other people infer to that young person's innate character as ill-mannered. The inference occurs because the behavior is socially undesirable.
Similarly, people may not have dispositional inferences of an individual when they are acting in a specific social role (Hopper, 2018). For example, a salesperson is socially expected to be friendly. Since this is part of their job requirement, people will are less likely to have a dispositional inference of salespeople as friendly people. However, if an individual displays a nonconforming behavior in a social situation, then the dispositional inference is likely to occur. For instance, being overly reserved and quiet in a social function such as a birthday party with loud music may lead to the conclusion that the individual is an introvert.
The fundamental constructs of these two attribution theories can be applied to the first vignette. The vignette describes Molly, a 62-year-old Caucasian American Female. The two theory tenets can be used to explain the smoking behavior portrayed by Molly. First, the idea put forward by Heider that the cause of behavior can either be dispositional or situational applies in this vignette (McLeod, 2012). The smoking behavior can be ascribed to both dispositional and situational causes. Molly promptly lit a cigarette as soon as she left the doctor's office. The fact that she immediately did it outside the doctor's office may infer that she did not care about her health. Molly had just visited the doctor and probably being advised to stop smoking. She, however, portrays that behavior as soon as she is out of sight from the doctor. It would, therefore, prompt a social observer to conclude that Molly was less concerned about her health.
Molly’s behavior can also be attributed to situational causes. Situational attribution assigns the cause of behavior to external forces (McLeod, 2012). In this situation, for instance, Molly lit a second cigarette as she waited for the next bus. The situation had presented her with an opportunity to smoke as she waited for the bus. If she had boarded the first bus, she probably would not have shown the smoking behavior. Also, based on Heider's theory, the constructs of capacity and motivation (Hopper, 2018) can be applied to explain Molly’s smoking behavior outside the doctor’s office. The fact that she had the cigarettes in her pocket and the environment allowed her to smoke gave her the capacity to portray the smoking behavior. The fact that she enjoyed smoking was motivation enough for her to show the behavior in a public setting. The pleasure she drew from smoking made the 30 minutes wait for the bus worth it.
The constructs of the correspondence inference theory can be applied to explain the thoughts that Molly had as she smoked. Molly thought about her primary care physician Dr. Wilson as less concerned with her smoking behavior. She also thought that her cardiologist, Dr. Smith, was much more concerned with her smoking behavior and often warned her to stop smoking. The behavior patterns shown by both doctors can be explained based on the correspondence theory tenets. Dr. Wilson's behavior, for instance, can be described as intentional ignorance of Molly's smoking behavior. As a primary care physician to Molly, it is expected that Dr. Wilson should warn Molly of the detrimental effects that smoking would have on her health. Dr. Wilson, however, seems to be less concerned with Molly's unexpected behavior. A dispositional attribution of the cause of Dr. Wilson’s behavior as an oblivious personality can, therefore, be used to describe him (McLeod, 2012).
Dr. Smith, on the other hand, had warned Molly to stop smoking. Dr. Smith's behavior is I accordance with his social role as a doctor, and therefore dispositional inference of his behavior as maybe caring and concerned is less likely to occur (Hopper, 2018). Warning patients against behavior that puts their health at risk is an expected and socially accepted behavior for doctors. Dr. Smith, therefore, acted expectedly given the social role that she played in Molly's life. Also, the fact that Dr. Smith was a cardiologist, an area that deals explicitly with health risks brought by smoking makes him the best person to warn Molly against smoking. Dr. Wilson, on the other hand, is a general doctor and may, therefore, not be the most appropriate individual to advise Molly to quit smoking. It is, therefore, possible to have correspondence bias when judging the behavior of Dr. Wilson because his situation as a primary physician to Molly maybe did not allow him to tell her what to do.
If the situation was altered, Molly and the two doctors would probably display different behavior. For instance, perhaps, Dr. Smith would not be concerned with Molly's smoking behavior if he was not her cardiologist. Assuming they were just friends, it's probable that he would not have taken the initiative to advise Molly. Also, if Molly had not missed the bus, likely, she would not have displayed the smoking behavior. However, missing the bus allowed her to smoke, not one but two cigarettes as thoughts about the two doctors crossed her mind. Dr. Wilson would most likely also behave differently if the situation is altered. Assuming he was the cardiologist and not the primary care physician, probably he would also have warned Molly against smoking. It is, therefore, likely that correspondence bias occurred when analyzing the vignette (Hopper, 2018).
References
Calder, B. J. (1977). Attribution theory: Phenomenology or science?. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 3 (4), 612-615.
Hopper, E. (2018, October 1). Attribution Theory: The Psychology of Interpreting Behavior . ThoughtCo. https://www.thoughtco.com/attribution-theory-4174631
Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. (1965). A theory of correspondent inferences: From acts to dispositions. Advances in experimental social psychology , 2 (1), 219-266.
Malle, B. F. (2008). Fritz Heider’s legacy: Celebrated insights, many of them misunderstood. Social Psychology , 39 (3), 163-173.
McLeod, S. (2012). Attribution Theory . Study Guides for Psychology Students - Simply Psychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/attribution-theory.html
