Attribution Theory PDF

Attribution Theory Human beings have a natural need to understand and explain the behavior of others. Indeed, we often spend considerable time thinking about why others behave as they do. Social psychologists refer to the explanations we offer for the behavior of others as attributions. We generall...

Attribution Theory Human beings have a natural need to understand and explain the behavior of others. Indeed, we often spend considerable time thinking about why others behave as they do. Social psychologists refer to the explanations we offer for the behavior of others as attributions. We generally attribute the behavior of others to either internal or external causes. The first kind of explanation, referred to as a dispositional attribution, focuses on internal causes of behavior, such as temperament, personality, and character traits. The cause of the behavior, in other words, resides within the person. The second kind of explanation, known as a situational attribution, emphasizes external causes---that is, factors in the environment beyond the person's control. If, for example, we merge into a lane of traffic and another motorist responds in a rude or hostile manner, we can attribute that behavior to either internal (dispositional) or external (situational) causes. If we conclude that his behavior is the result of internal factors (personality or character)---for example, "This guy is an idiot" or "What a jerk"---we have made a dispositional attribution. On the other hand, if we decide that his behavior is the product of external factors beyond his control (for instance, he was just fired from his job and is still upset), we have made a situational attribution. The kinds of attributions we make about others, including their motives, intentions, and character, are important because they influence how we interpret and respond to their behaviors. Because we have a tendency to jump to conclusions while assuming the worst, we need to be careful about the kinds of attributions we make. To complicate matters further, we often respond very differently to the same behavior depending on our attributions. It is one thing for a person who is having an especially bad day to behave rudely, but another thing altogether for a "bad" person to behave rudely. As most of us can testify from experience, we treat "bad" people very differently than we treat "good" people who are simply having a bad day. One problem with dispositional attributions is that the more harshly we judge the other person's character, the easier it is to justify our own bad behavior. When we make a dispositional attribution, we judge a person's character based on a single incident of behavior. For example, if a person is rude or hostile in one instance, we conclude that she is a "rude" person---that is, behaving rudely or hostilely toward others is part of her character or personality. The same is true of a person who is courteous or polite. We assume that if she acted kindly in one instance, acting kindly is part of her character or personality. Perhaps the greatest problem with dispositional attributions is our tendency to downplay the importance of situational variables (factors beyond the person's control) and to focus instead on the person's character or personality. Indeed, our tendency to look exclusively to dispositional factors to explain the behavior of others is so pervasive that psychologists have labeled this phenomenon the fundamental attribution error. Despite our natural tendency to offer broad, sweeping indictments of others based on single events, it is virtually impossible to assess a person's character properly based on an isolated incident of behavior. In a famous study on "Good Samaritans," researchers recruited a group of religious seminary students to test the effects of situational and dispositional variables on helping behavior. The subjects first completed personality questionnaires about their religion. Later, they were told to go to another building to continue the experiment. The researchers varied the amount of urgency and the task before sending the subjects to the other building. One task was to prepare a talk about seminary jobs, while the other was to prepare a talk about the story of the Good Samaritan. On the way to the other building, each subject encountered a man slumped in an alleyway whose condition was unknown---similar to the biblical account in the New Testament of a man lying near the roadway in need of help. In one experimental condition, the subjects were told that they were already late for the task; in the other condition, the subjects were told that they had a few minutes but should get going anyway. As the subjects walked to the other building, they encountered the man in the alleyway, who moaned and coughed twice. Overall, 40% of the subjects offered some help to the man. Much to the researchers' surprise, they found no correlation between religion and helping behavior. Rather, the single most important predictor of whether or not the subjects stopped to render aid was the amount of "hurriedness." In other words, the greater the urgency to arrive at the other building, the less likely the subject was to render assistance. Of all the subjects, those who described themselves as being on a religious "quest" were least likely to render meaningful assistance. There is little doubt that the subjects in the experiment were good people. Why else would someone choose a life dedicated to helping others? Yet, despite their good character and best intentions, the situational variable of time available, or "hurriedness," had the greatest impact on their decisions to stop and to render assistance. The results of this experiment do not cast doubt on the character of the subjects; rather, they serve as a stark reminder of the powerful effects of situational factors on behavior. Choice and Intention The kinds of attributions we make about the behaviors of others are influenced by two factors: choice and intention. To begin with, we are more likely to hold someone responsible for his behavior if we conclude that he chose it freely than if we believe that it was caused by something outside his control (that is, by something in the environment). If someone bumps into us in a crowded market, for example, we are more likely to express anger if we decide the person did so deliberately. The way we evaluate behavior is also influenced by our perception of the person's intentions. If someone hurts us, we are more likely to experience anger if we believe the person did so intentionally than if we determine the harm was unintentional. In the example of the bump in the market, if we fall because the person deliberately pushed us, we are more likely to be angry than if we conclude that the person bumped us accidentally because of factors beyond his control, such as being struck by another person's shopping cart that knocked him off balance. While we typically blame the behaviors of others on internal factors, we tend to be more generous about our own mistakes. When we are at fault, we are more likely to blame our bad behavior on external, environmental factors than on internal, dispositional factors. If, for example, a motorist cuts into our lane of traffic, we tend to label her discourtesy as part of a larger character flaw or personality deficit. However, if we cut into somebody's lane a few miles down the road, we blame the situation (for example, we had no choice because of heavy traffic). One reason that we are so quick to blame the behavior of others on internal factors is perspective. The way we observe others is different from the way we observe our own behavior. To begin with, we are aware of the many situational factors that influence our behaviors. To cite the previous example, if we cut into another motorist's lane, we excuse our bad behavior by pointing to heavy traffic and other drivers who refused to allow us the space necessary to merge safely. If the other drivers had been more courteous, we would not have found it necessary to change lanes so abruptly. We also stress the fact that cutting in front of others is not part of our normal driving habits. In other words, we are a "good" person who did a bad thing because of situational factors beyond our control. On the other hand, when we observe the behavior of another person, we know almost nothing about the situation. As a result, we focus exclusively on the person and attribute whatever happens to her personality, character, or other internal factors.