ATTRIBUTION, THEORIES OF ATTRIBUTION AND ATTRIBUTION BIAS :

 Attribution refers to the the thought processes we employ in explaining the behavior of other people and our own as well. Attribution implies an explanation for the cause of an event or behavior. Attribution theory explains how individuals pinpoint the causes of their own behavior or that of others. We are preoccupied with seeking, constructing and testing explanations of our experiences and to render it orderly, meaningful and predictable for adaptive action. Fritz Heider is considered the father of attribution theory. He believed that people are like amateur scientists, trying to understand other people’s behavior by piecing together information until they arrive at a reasonable cause.

He proposed a simple dichotomy for people’s explanations: internal attributions, in which people infer that a person is behaving a certain way because of something about that person (e.g., a trait or attitude) versus external attributions, in which people infer that a person is behaving in a certain way because of the situation that he or she is in. Heider also noted that people seem to prefer internal attributions 46 The Two-Step Process of Making Attributions There are two steps involved in the process of attribution. First step : Here people analyze another’s behavior, they typically make an internal attribution automatically. 

Second step : Here they think about possible situational reasons for the behavior. After engaging in the second step, they may adjust their original internal attribution to take account of situational factors. Because this second step is more conscious and effortful, people may not get to it if they are distracted or preoccupied. People will be more likely to engage in the second step of attributional processing when they consciously think carefully before making a judgment, when they are motivated to be as accurate as possible, or if they are suspicious about the motives of the target. Research has demonstrated that spouses in happy marriages make internal attributions for their partner’s positive behaviors and external attributions for their partner’s negative behaviors, while spouses in distressed marriages display the opposite pattern. Internal and external attributions can have dramatic consequences on everyday interactions. How you react to a person's anger may be dependent on whether you believe that they are having a bad day or that they dislike something about you - the ripples flow into the future and influence how you treat that person henceforth. Jones and Davis's (1965) correspondent inference theory explains how people infer that a person's behaviour corresponds to an underlying disposition or personality trait. Dispositional (internal) cause is preferred as it is stable and renders people's behaviour more predictable and increases sense of control. 

Theory of Causal Attribution : According to this theory in the case of Single-Instance Observation the following principles are used in making attributions. Discounting principle works on the idea that we should assign reduced weight to a particular cause of behavior if there are other plausible causes that might have produced it. Augmentation principle works on the idea that we should assign greater weight to a particular cause of behavior if there are other causes present that normally would produce the opposite outcome. 47 In the case of multiple observations the co variation principle centering on the idea that we should attribute behavior to potential causes that co-occur with the behavior is used. People act as scientists and assign causes of behaviour to the factor that co varies most closely with the behaviour. 

The Covariation Model : The Co-variation Theory assumes that people make causal attributions in a rational, logical fashion, like detectives, drawing inferences from clues and observed behaviours. By discovering covariation in people's behaviour you are able to reach a judgment about what caused their behaviour. The covariation model of Kelley (1967) focuses on how people decide whether to make an internal or an external attribution and on instances where there are multiple observations of behavior. It explains the attribution process as a search for information about what a particular behavior is correlated (covaries) with: When behaviour is correlated with the Situation it is called external attribution. When behavior is correlated with the person it amounts to internal attribution The theory views people as naive scientists who rationally analyze the world. According to Kelly,in order to form an attribution about what caused a person’s behavior, we note the pattern between the presence (or absence) of possible causal factors and whether or not the behavior occurs. The most fundamental observation we make about a person's behavior is whether it is due to internal or external causes (Is the behavior determined by the person's own characteristics or by the situation in which it occurs?). The possible causal factors we focus on are 

1)consensus information, or information about the extent to which other people behave the same way towards the same stimulus as the actor does; 

2)distinctiveness information, or information about the extent to which one particular actor behaves in the same way to different stimuli i.e., is concerned with whether the behavior occurs in other, similar situations; and (

3)consistency refers to whether the behavior occurs repeatedly;. When these three sources of information combine into one of distinct patterns, a clear attribution can be made. 

1.Low Consensus, Low Distinctiveness and High Consistency leads people to make an internal attribution of the actor. 

2.High Consensus, High Distinctiveness, and High Consistency lead people to make an external attribution. It is something about the situation or target. 48 

3.Finally when Consistency is Low we cannot make a clear internal or external attribution, and so resort to a special kind of external or situational attribution. 

A)So when there is a Low Consensus, and High Distinctiveness, it is due to an actor and situation interaction that uniquely causes the outcome. 

B)When there is High Consensus, and Low Distinctiveness, it is either an actor attribution or a situation attribution. You basically don't know in this situation. Several studies have shown that people often make attributions the way Kelley's model say they should with one exception. In research studies, people don't use consensus information as much as Kelley's theory predicted; they rely more on consistency and distinctiveness information when forming attributions. People are most likely to make an internal attribution when consensus and distinctiveness are low but consistency is high; they are most likely to make an external attribution when consensus, distinctiveness, and consistency are all high. When these dimensions are coupled with the internal and external labels a powerful tool comes into place to make judgments that influence decisions. For example, high consistency can be associated with both internal and external attributes, while high distinctiveness aligns with external attributes and high consensus with internal attributes. The covariation model assumes that people make causal attributions in a rational, logical fashion. Several studies generally confirm that people can indeed make attributions in the way that these models predict, with the exception that consensus information is not used as much as Kelley’s model predicts. Also, people do not always have the relevant information they need on all three dimensions. Covariation is not causation. Making co-variation judgments requires multiple observations, often this information is not available. We need to be aware that attributes are only inferences. The initial causes of behavior may never be known, what we are doing is guessing. 

Attribution Theory in Education: Also, known as the Attribution Theory of Motivation, this theory describes how a person's reasons, alibis, and vindications about self or others influence motivation. One of the most prominent psychologists who focused on The Attribution Theory of Education was Bernard Weiner. Mr. Weiner said that all the factors influencing achievement or motivation can be classified as effort, ability, luck, and level of task difficulty. These factors mainly provide details of the things that are under or beyond our control; effort, an unstable factor on which we exercise a great deal of control; ability, a stable factor on which we do not have much control; luck, an unstable factor over which we exercise little control and level of difficulty, a stable factor which is beyond our control. 

Attribution Biases : In psychology, an attribution bias is a cognitive bias that affects the way we determine who or what was responsible for an event or action (attribution). It is natural for us to interpret events and results as the consequences of the purposeful actions of some person or agent. This is a deep-seated bias in human perception which has been present throughout human history. Our ancestors invariably attributed natural events like earthquakes, volcanoes, or droughts to the angry retaliation of gods. Attribution biases are triggered when people evaluate the dispositions or qualities of others based on incomplete evidence. Attribution biases typically take the form of actor/observer differences: people involved in an action (actors) view things differently from people not involved (observers). These discrepancies are often caused by asymmetries in availability (frequently called "salience" in this context). For example, the behavior of an actor is easier to remember (and therefore more available for later consideration) than the setting in which he found himself; and a person's own inner turmoil is more available to himself than it is to someone else. As a result, our judgments of attribution are often distorted along those lines. The attribution bias causes us to under-estimate the importance of inanimate, situational factors over animate, human factors. For instance, we might talk to a person from another country who mentions they only venture outside the house for outdoor recreation only once a week, and assume this means that they are a person who loves the indoors. However, we may be unaware that they live in a cold location where it is freezing outside for most of the season. 

The fundamental attribution error (also known as correspondence bias ) describes the tendency to over-value dispositional or personality-based explanations for the observed behaviors of others while under-valuing situational explanations for those behaviors. It is most visible when people explain the behavior of others. It does not explain interpretations of one's own behavior - where situational factors are often taken into consideration. This 50 discrepancy is called the actor-observer bias. Fundamental Attribution Error refers to the tendency to make attributions to internal causes when focusing on someone else’s behavior. When looking at the behavior of others, we tend to underestimate the impact of situational forces and overestimate the impact of dispositional forces. Most people ignore the impact of role pressures and other situational constraints on others and see behavior as caused by people's intentions, motives, and attitudes. 

Self-Serving Attributions : Self-serving attributions are explanations for one’s successes that credit internal, dispositional factors and explanations for one’s failures that blame external, situational factors. Self-serving bias is a tendency to attribute one’s own success to internal causes and one’s failures to external causes. This pattern is observed in the attributions that professional athletes make for their performances. It has been found that lessexperienced athletes, more highly skilled athletes, and athletes in solo sports are more likely to make self-serving attributions. One reason people make self-serving attributions is to maintain their self-esteem. A second reason is self-presentation, to maintain the perceptions others have of one self. A third reason is because people have information about their behavior in other situations, which may lead to positive outcomes being expected and negative outcomes being unexpected (and thus attributed to the situation). People often blame themselves for their own misfortune. Because otherwise, they would have to admit that misfortune was beyond their control, and they would be unable to avoid it in the future. 

Defensive attributions are explanations for behavior or outcomes (e.g., tragic events) that avoid feelings of vulnerability and mortality. One way we deal with tragic information about others is to make it seem like it could never happen to us. We do so through the belief in a just world, a form of defensive attribution wherein people assume that bad things happen to bad people and that good things happen to good people. Because most of us see ourselves as good, this reassures us that bad things will not happen to us. The belief in a just world can lead to blaming the victim for his or her misfortunes. Culture also influences attributional bias. With regard to the belief in a just world, in cultures where the belief is dominant, social and economic injustices are considered fair (the poor and disadvantaged have less because they deserve less). The just world belief is more predominant in cultures where there are greater extremes of wealth and poverty. 51 Our attributions may not be always accurate under many circumstances. First impressions, for example, are not very accurate. However, the better we get to know someone, the more accurate we will be about them . One reason our impressions are wrong is because of the mental shortcuts we use in forming social judgments.. Another reason our impressions can be wrong concerns our use of schemas, such as relying on implicit theories of personality to judge others. Attribution errors are the most pervasive and ultimately the most destructive of the cognitive deficits. Avoiding the attribution bias can be difficult. One strategy is to simply give other people the benefit of the doubt. Another would be to inquire into the background behind the circumstances of a situation, to clarify whether a dispositional explanation is really most plausible. Yet another would be to ask oneself how one would behave in a similar situation. Eliminating the attribution bias completely seems impossible, as it is built into human nature. However, through reflective thinking, it appears possible to minimize its effects. To improve accuracy of your attributions and impressions, remember that the correspondence bias, the actor/observer difference, and defensive attributions exist and try to counteract these biases.