Attribution Theory Definition

Attribution Theory Definition Attribution speculation is concerned with how masses interpret events and relate them to their thinking and fashion. Its a cognitive perception which affects their motivation. This scheme was first proposed in a book c tout ensembleed, The Psychology of Interpersonal relations by Fritz Heider in 1958. According to Heider, men behave as novice scientists in social locatings. He also said that, we generally let off behavior in two styles either we attribute the behavior to a person or a situation. Attribution literally agent a grant of responsibility. Albeit, the theory was first proposed by Heider (1958), later Edward E.Jones (1972) and Harold Kelley (1967) positive a theoretical structure, which is now retardn as an epitome of social psychology. The theory divides the behavior attributes into two parts, immaterial or inborn factors. Internal ascription When an internal attribution is made, the cause of the given behavior is within the per son, i. e. the variables which urinate a person responsible comparable attitude, aptitude, character and personality. External attribution When an external attribution is made, the cause of the given behavior is isolateed to the situation in which the behavior was seen.The person responsible for the behavior may assign the causality to the environment or weather. In 1967, Kelley tried to explain the federal agency battalion perceive internal and external attribution. He tried this, postulating the precept of co-variation. This nonplus was known as Covariation Model. The basic principle of the covariation model states that the pitch is attributed to one of the causes which co-varies over time. It also manner that the behavior at miscellaneous occasions varies. The covariation model considers three major types of learning to make an attribution decision and to observe a persons behavior.The three types of reading are Consensus randomness This responds to the fact, how peop le with comparable stimuli behave in similar situations. If almost people behave alike, i. e. their reactions are shared by mevery, the consensus is high. But, if no one or altogether(prenominal) a few people share the reactions, the consensus is grim. oddment learning This is about, how a person responds to different situations. There exists a very low curiosity if the person reacts similarly in all or most of the situations.However, if a person reacts differently in different situations, it is said that the distinctiveness is high. Consistency information If the response of a person to different input signal and in varied situations remains the same, then the consistency is high. But Kellys covariation model has near limitations. The most prominent being that, it fails to distinguish between the knowing and unintentional behavior. Read more at Buzzlehttp//www. buzzle. com/articles/attribution-theory-of-social-psychology. html Kelleys Covariation Model Kelleys (1967) cov ariation model is the best known attribution theory.He developed a coherent 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 meansthat a person has information from multiple observations, at different propagation and situations, and can perceive the covariation of an observed effect and its causes. He argues that in assay to discover the causes of behavior people act like scientists. More specifically they take into account three kinds of evidence. Kelley believed that there were three types of causal information which influenced our judgments.Low factors = dispositional (internal) attributions. * Consensus the extent to which another(prenominal) people behave in the same way in a similar situation. E. g. Alison smokes a cigarette when she goes out for a meal with her friend. If her friend smokes, her behavior is high in consensus. If only Alison smokes it is low. * Distinctiveness the extent to which the person behaves in the same way in similar situations. 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. Consistency the extent to which the person behaves like this every time the situation occurs. If Alison only smokes when she is out with friends, consistency is high. If she only smoke on one special occasion, consistency is low. Lets look at an exampleto help understand his particular attribution theory. Our subject is called tom. His behavior is laughter. Tom is laughing at a comic. 1. Consensus Everybody in the audience is laughing. Consensus is high. If only Tom is laughing consensus is low. 2. Distinctiveness Tom only laughs at this comedian. Distinctiveness is high.If Tom laughs at everything distinctiveness is low. 3. Consistency Tom always laughs at this comedian. Consistency is high. Tom rarely laughs at this comedian consistency is low. Now, if everybody laughs at this comedian, if they dont 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. . we assume that Tom is laughing because he is the kind of person who laughs a lot. So what weve 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. matchless problem however is that we may not have enough information to make that kind of judgment. For example, if we dont know Tom that intimately we wouldnt necessarily have the information to know if his behavior is unvarying over time. So what do we do then ?According to Kelley we riposte back on past experience and look for either 1) quadruplex necessary causes. For example, we see an athlete win a marathon and we close that she must be very fit, highly motivated, have trained problematical 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 understanding 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.