Fritz Weider is prominent for developing and proposing attribution theory in the 20th century. However, it was subsequently developed by other social psychologists, most notably Harold Kelly and Bernard Weiner leading to multiple complementary, and at times overlying theories of attribution. According to attribution theory people attempt to ascertain why individuals do what they do (Mirsadeghi, 2013). The model looks at the information one employs in making casual references, and the manner in which people deal with information to respond to a casual question. In that way, this means that when an individual knows reasons for different behaviors, he or she is better placed to predict future actions, and hence protect themselves from any surprises (Mirsadeghi, 2013). This search for interpretations behind behavior makes it possible for people to explain various causes to events. Attributional theories demonstrate a diverse and pioneering field of study, and exploring of attributions has helped people to understand the different forms of feelings and behaviors in an extensive array of context. Tendencies for specific attributions do contribute to many decisions ranging from individual choices to social policy issues. For that reason, I choose attribution theory because it makes sense of my world by identifying causes for the behavior and events I will experience.
Communication plays a dual role in the concept of attribution. The first part involves the notion that people borrow the meaning of personalities from direct conversations (Surra & Bartell, 2011). This function performs close attention to the advent of purpose from communication. The second role is to go as planned, simplify, or amend disagreeing or equivocal connotations (Surra & Bartell, 2011). While the theory recognizes the second function, it has received relatively less focus. Although attribution actions were considered previously as the domain of psychologists, the last two decades have witnessed specific focus on attributions by communication scholar (Manusov & Spitzberg, 2008).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The available wealth of research helps to promote communication scientists to deal with the nature of attributions. Some researchers conceptualize that attributions as the interpretation that is given for social behaviors, such as communication behaviors. This view on attribution, communication associate identifies attributions as an overall form of making sense, which is probably to take place when the cause or source of behaviors requires to be determined (Manusov & Spitzberg, 2008). The process the required interpretation has always been a distinct one including why an individual achieves or fails a goal. However, attributions are also designed for communication behavior, such as facial expression aimed toward one person to another (Surra & Bartell, 2001). In that way, it becomes easy to see communication behavior as taking place for various reasons. Robinson (2016) exemplifies the conceptualization of attributions as interpretations of communicative action. For example, Robison (2016) found that biases, as well as societal pressure to withhold articulating negative opinion of others, can create barriers to far-reaching discussion of attribution theory and prejudice within the classroom. As such, Robison (2016) states that these factors prevent students from fully engaging with the variances between personality and situation attributes, particularly when acknowledging that a biased predisposition mirrors negatively on the student. In this context, communication messages with particular positive content can play an integral part in the development of a positive relational identity, but communicating messages with specific positive content might encourage the development of negative interpersonal identity. On the contrary, Surra & Bartell (2011) opine that marital attributions can be eroded by the communication of the negative message, negative beliefs about marriage, or uncertainty regarding the eligibility of the relationship.
Attribution not only assist people in explaining communication behavior, but they might also help them understand the diversity of connotations that individuals proffer to any communicative action (Mirsadeghi, 2013). That is to say, in reviewing the content of attributions made for communication there is the possibility of seeing the multiple aspects of attributions, such as casual locus, responsibility, control, among other considerations (Manusov & Spitzberg, 2008).
Several groupings of these factors result in different conclusions concerning what something implies. For example, an article by Coombs (2007) shows ways in which individuals gave social support to another in the event of a crisis and observed that once the crisis was attributed as the responsibility of the organization, the reputation will suffer. According to Coombs (2007) stakeholders might leave the relationship or commence negative word-of-mouth. Attribution also focuses on the content of attribution. Instead of assisting in locating the cause of the difference in explanation for communication behavior, the existing line of studies has examined dialogue and ways in which articulated attributions mirror the meaning that individuals give a communication action (Surra & Bartell, 2011). That is, people can consult attributions to find out what behavior means, and what message value it has for someone (Manusov & Spitzberg, 2008). In that way, are not designed to happen for communication behaviors; instead they also compose some of what people communicate about. To this end, these premises mirror a robust interrelatedness between attribution and communication. They result from a wealth of framework-focused scholarship carried out by communication scientists with a keen interest in the interpersonal nature of attributions.
According to Weiner (2010), not all attribution revolves around the issue of the cause of a behavior. When people are making sense of things, they frequently pay attention to who or what was responsible for that action or consequence. Significantly, studies following this line thought has explored the potential outcomes of responsibility attributions, and these consequences might be wide-ranging. For example, Smith & Willner (2007), a person is twice likely to feel sympathetic to an individual with intellectual disabilities is that person is perceived as not accountable for his or her predicament. Therefore, attribution for responsibility might have critical consequences. On the other hand, researchers have also observed there are from time to time systematic bias in how someone makes attributions (Robison, 2016). For example, self-serving bias is the predisposition to think of positive experiences as resulting from internal attributions, and negative experiences stem down to external attributions (Robison, 2016).
These findings from communication scholars are relevant in my own experiences in one way or another. First, I tend to attribute things in ways that allow me to make future predictions. Second, I also use explanatory attributions to assist me in making sense of the world around me. For example, I have an optimistic explanatory style. Next, when I blame external factors for disappointment helps protect my self-esteem. Furthermore, this research has helped me to learn that communication performance measures rest with the causal local locus domain. Besides, attribution making influences predictability to process, action and the consequences and that effective communication is more likely to result from high communication competency skills. This project has also revealed to me that communication is associated with interpretation for behaviors or acts. Also, it was evident attributions are considered as essential for communication cues.
References
Coombs, W. T. (2007). Attribution Theory as a guide for post-crisis communication research. Public Relations Review , 33(2), 135–139.
Manusov, V., & Spitzberg, B. (2008). Attribution Theory: Finding Good Cause in the Search for Theory. In L.A. Baxter & D.O. Braithwaite (Eds.), Engaging Theories in Interpersonal Communication: Multiple Perspectives (pp.37-49). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publishing.
Mirsadeghi, S. (2013). A Review on the Attribution Theory in the Social Psychology. Journal of Humanities and Applies Social Science , 74-76.
Robinson, J. A. (2017). Exploring attribution theory and bias. Communication Teacher , 31(4), 209–213.
Surra, C.A., & Bartell, D.S. (2011). Attribution, Communication Behavior, and Close Relationships. In V. Manusov & J.H. Harvey (Eds.), Attribution, Communication Behavior, and Close Relationships: Advances in Personal Relationships (pp.93-112). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Weiner, B. (2010). The Development of an Attribution-Based Theory of Motivation: A History of Ideas. Educational Psychologist , 45(1), 28–36.
Willner, P., & Smith, M. (2008). Attribution Theory Applied to Helping Behavior Towards People with Intellectual Disabilities Who Challenge. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities , 21(2), 150–155.
