HPS204 Lecture Notes - Lecture 3: Trait Theory, Social Cognition, Intentionality
HPS204 WEEK 3
Attribution
Describe and critique the major attributional theories and extensions of attribution
theory;
An attribution is the process of assigning a cause to our own behaviour and that of others.
Many theories aim to discern the cognitions underlying this process. Some theories include:
Theory of naïve psychology: Proposed by Heider, this model of social cognition
characterises people as using rational, scientific-like, cause-effect analyses to understand
their world. Heider based this theory on three notions: (1) because we feel our own
behaviour is motivated rather than random, we tend to look for the causes and reasons for
other people’s behaviour in order to discover their motives (2) because we construct causal
theories in order to be able to predict and control the environment, we tend to look for
stable and enduring properties of the world around us, and (3), in attributing causality for
behaviour, we distinguish between personal factors (e.g. personality stability), and
environmental factors (e.g. situations, and social pressure). The former are examples of
internal/dispositional attributions, and the latter of external/situational attributions.
Theory of correspondent inference: Explains how people infer that a person’s behaviour
corresponds to an underlying disposition or personality trait. To make a correspondent
inference, we draw on five sources of information: if the act was freely chosen, if the act
produced was a non-common effect /not expected, if the act was not considered socially
desirable, if the act had a direct impact on us (hedonic relevance), or if the act seemed
intended to affect us (personalism). A correspondent inference is drawn from these cues to
deduce that the act reflects some ‘true’ characteristic of the person (trait, motive, intention,
attitude etc.). There are some limitations to this theory, causing it to lose some momentum.
Firstly, the theory states that correspondent inference depends to a great 3extent on the
attribution of intentionality, yet unintentional behaviour (e.g. carelessness) can be a strong
basis for correspondent inference (e.g. that person is a careless person). Also, we may not
calculate non-common effects accurately, as people do not attend to non-occurring
behaviour.
The covariation model: Kelley’s theory of causal attribution attends to how people assign
the cause of behaviour to the factor that correlates most closely with behaviour. In order to
assess situations, three factors are considered. Firstly, there is consistency information. For
example, in assessing if something Tom says is funny, is actually funny, does Tom always
laugh at this comedian (high consistency), or only sometimes laugh at this comedian (low
consistency). Second, there is distinctiveness information. Does Tom laugh at everything
(low distinctiveness), or only at the comedian (high distinctiveness)? Lastly, there is
consensus information. Does everyone laugh at the comedian (high consensus), or is it only
Tom who laughs (low consensus)? Low consistency leads to the attribution being discounted
(search for another cause). High consistency, distinctiveness, and consensus leads to an
external attribution, i.e. the comedian is funny. High consistency in combination with low
distinctiveness and consensus leads to an internal attribution, i.e. only Tom thinks he is
funny. Issues with this model include: people are poor statisticians, i.e. bad at assessing co-
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
