Dispositional attribution

Last updated

Dispositional attribution (or internal attribution or personal attribution) is a phrase in personality psychology that refers to the tendency to assign responsibility for others' behaviors due to their inherent characteristics, such as their personality, beliefs, ability, or personality, instead of attributing it to external (situational) influences such as the individual's environment or culture. [1] An example of a dispositional attribution is observing a person who performs caring and selfless acts. This could be attributed to them being a generous person. [2]

Contents

When a person uses dispositional attributions, [3] they infer that another person is behaving in a certain way or that an event is occurring and try to explain that it is due to factors related to the person's character more than their situational context. [4] Or rather, simplified, dispositional attribution is the act of placing blame on some type of factor or criteria that could be controlled by an individual for the cause of a certain event. [5]

Early research

Attribution theory was developed by Fritz Heider in 1958, who originally examined the process by which people explain the causes of behaviours and events, and if it was caused by internal factors, such as personality or intentions, or external circumstances, like environmental or situational conditions. [6]

Correspondent inference theory

Dispositional, also known as internal, attribution connects our motives and behaviour. Jones and Davis were early researchers that hypothesized the relationship between the two, where they specifically observed the meanings behind intentional behaviour, rather than automatic or situational behaviour. [7] Jones and Davis’s Correspondent Inference Theory (1965) outlines the five sources of information we use to distinguish intentionality to make dispositional attributions.

Choice, having the opportunity and willingness to choose one’s behaviour can show internal attributions. Accidental vs. Intentional behaviour, intentional actions are more commonly related to a person’s character or personality, while accidental actions are typically attributed to situational or external contexts. Social desirability, dispositional behaviours are more likely a result of actions that deviate from social norms, or lower social desirability. For example, observing someone sitting on the floor of a bus instead of a seat, may lead to inferences that the person’s personality drives their unusual choice. Hedonistic relevance, if someone’s behaviour is directly aimed at helping or harming us, it is likely to be assumed as intentional. The perceived relevance determines whether the actions are attributed to internal motives. Lastly, personalism, if an individual’s behaviour is intended to specifically impact us, it is interpreted as personal and deliberate. [7]

Kelley’s covariation model

Developed by Harold Kelley in 1967, the covariation model is a well recognized attribution theory. It provides a structured approach in determining whether actions arise from dispositional or situational factors. This model emphasizes the use of several observations across different times and situations to identify patterns. Covariation reflects the process of examining how behaviour is consistently associated with particular causes, allowing people to infer if their actions stem from the person, the situation, or both. [8]

The key components of this model are three main factors- consensus, distinctiveness, and consistency. This is what determines whether behaviour is internal or external. Consensus refers to whether other individuals behave similarly in a given situation. For example, if Alex laughs loudly at a movie, if the rest of the theatre also laugh, Alex’s behaviour is high in consensus. If no one laughs, then consensus is low. Distinctiveness measures whether a person behaves the same way across different situations. For example, if Alex only laughs loudly at comedies, the behaviour is high in distinctiveness. However, if Alex laughs at all types of movies, then distinctiveness is low. Consistency examines whether a person consistently behaves the same way in recurring situations. If Alex always laughs at a particular comedy whenever he watches it, consistency is high. If he laughs only during this one movie, consistency is low. [8]

Biases and errors

Dispositional attribution is closely related to key biases in attribution theory.

Culture and attribution

Culture is a contributing factor to the strength and extent of dispositional attribution. Studies have found that dispositional attribution is more prominent in Western culture. [13] One such study found that while Americans focus on a central focal object, Asians are able to observe more contextual factors, even when it comes to a visual display where no attribution is inherent, highlighting how Asians are less likely to form dispositional attributions. Another study found that Indian participants were more likely to consider context when making attributions about behavior, while American participants had a tendency to use dispositional attribution and disregard contextual factors. [14] [15]

Linguistic category model

Variation in dispositional attribution is also tied to cross-cultural language differences. Established by Semin & Fiedler in 1988, the Linguistic Category Model outlines how language plays a role in systematic cognitive inferences, particularly when it comes to attributions and intergroup relations. [16] This model outlines that while using verbs to describe a person’s behavior is more common in Asian cultures and is tied to situational attribution (eg. "Harry helps Serena"), Europeans typically use more adjectives to make overall statements about the disposition of a person (eg. "Harry is a helpful person"). [13] In line with this, Easterners tend to turn adjectives into verbs unconsciously, while Westerners will turn verbs into adjectives, displaying automatic dispositional attribution.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Persuasion</span> Umbrella term of influence and mode of communication

Persuasion or persuasion arts is an umbrella term for influence. Persuasion can influence a person's beliefs, attitudes, intentions, motivations, or behaviours.

Social psychology is the scientific study of how thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are influenced by the actual, imagined, or implied presence of others. Social psychologists typically explain human behavior as a result of the relationship between mental states and social situations, studying the social conditions under which thoughts, feelings, and behaviors occur, and how these variables influence social interactions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fundamental attribution error</span> Psychological phenomenon

In social psychology, the fundamental attribution error is a cognitive attribution bias in which observers underemphasize situational and environmental factors for the behavior of an actor while overemphasizing dispositional or personality factors. In other words, observers tend to overattribute the behaviors of others to their personality and underattribute them to the situation or context. Although personality traits and predispositions are considered to be observable facts in psychology, the fundamental attribution error is an error because it misinterprets their effects.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Attitude (psychology)</span> Concept in psychology and communication studies

An attitude "is a summary evaluation of an object of thought. An attitude object can be anything a person discriminates or holds in mind." Attitudes include beliefs (cognition), emotional responses (affect) and behavioral tendencies. In the classical definition an attitude is persistent, while in more contemporary conceptualizations, attitudes may vary depending upon situations, context, or moods.

Actor–observer asymmetry is a bias one makes when forming attributions about the behavior of others or themselves. When people judge their own behavior, they are more likely to attribute their actions to the particular situation rather than their personality also known as a situational attribution. However, when an observer is explaining the behavior of another person, they are more likely to attribute this behavior to the actors' personality rather than situational factors, also known as dispositional attribution. For example, a politician explaining why they voted against war may say it is because the war is not needed. Whereas a person judging why the politician voted in this way may say it is because the politician is too liberal. Showing how the actor explains their behaviour using the situation, but the observer explains their behaviour using the politicians personality.

In psychology, an attribution bias or attributional errors is a cognitive bias that refers to the systematic errors made when people evaluate or try to find reasons for their own and others' behaviors. It refers to the systematic patterns of deviation from norm or rationality in judgment, often leading to perceptual distortions, inaccurate assessments, or illogical interpretations of events and behaviors.

A self-serving bias is any cognitive or perceptual process that is distorted by the need to maintain and enhance self-esteem, or the tendency to perceive oneself in an overly favorable manner. It is the belief that individuals tend to ascribe success to their own abilities and efforts, but ascribe failure to external factors. When individuals reject the validity of negative feedback, focus on their strengths and achievements but overlook their faults and failures, or take more credit for their group's work than they give to other members, they are protecting their self-esteem from threat and injury. These cognitive and perceptual tendencies perpetuate illusions and error, but they also serve the self's need for esteem. For example, a student who attributes earning a good grade on an exam to their own intelligence and preparation but attributes earning a poor grade to the teacher's poor teaching ability or unfair test questions might be exhibiting a self-serving bias. Studies have shown that similar attributions are made in various situations, such as the workplace, interpersonal relationships, sports, and consumer decisions.

Trait ascription bias is the tendency for people to view themselves as relatively variable in terms of personality, behavior and mood while viewing others as much more predictable in their personal traits across different situations. More specifically, it is a tendency to describe one's own behaviour in terms of situational factors while preferring to describe another's behaviour by ascribing fixed dispositions to their personality. This may occur because peoples' own internal states are more readily observable and available to them than those of others.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Locus of control</span> Concept in psychology

Locus of control is the degree to which people believe that they, as opposed to external forces, have control over the outcome of events in their lives. The concept was developed by Julian B. Rotter in 1954, and has since become an aspect of personality psychology. A person's "locus" is conceptualized as internal or external.

Correspondent inference theory is a psychological theory proposed by Edward E. Jones and Keith E. Davis (1965) that "systematically accounts for a perceiver's inferences about what an actor was trying to achieve by a particular action". The purpose of this theory is to explain why people make internal or external attributions. People compare their actions with alternative actions to evaluate the choices that they have made, and by looking at various factors they can decide if their behaviour was caused by an internal disposition. The covariation model is used within this, more specifically that the degree in which one attributes behavior to the person as opposed to the situation. These factors are the following: does the person have a choice in the partaking in the action, is their behavior expected by their social role, and is their behavior consequence of their normal behavior?

Attribution is a term used in psychology which deals with how individuals perceive the causes of everyday experience, as being either external or internal. Models to explain this process are called Attribution theory. Psychological research into attribution began with the work of Fritz Heider in the early 20th century, and the theory was further advanced by Harold Kelley and Bernard Weiner. Heider first introduced the concept of perceived 'locus of causality' to define the perception of one's environment. For instance, an experience may be perceived as being caused by factors outside the person's control (external) or it may be perceived as the person's own doing (internal). These initial perceptions are called attributions. Psychologists use these attributions to better understand an individual's motivation and competence. The theory is of particular interest to employers who use it to increase worker motivation, goal orientation, and productivity.

Social perception is the study of how people form impressions of and make inferences about other people as sovereign personalities. Social perception refers to identifying and utilizing social cues to make judgments about social roles, rules, relationships, context, or the characteristics of others. This domain also includes social knowledge, which refers to one's knowledge of social roles, norms, and schemas surrounding social situations and interactions. People learn about others' feelings and emotions by picking up information they gather from physical appearance, verbal, and nonverbal communication. Facial expressions, tone of voice, hand gestures, and body position or movement are a few examples of ways people communicate without words. A real-world example of social perception is understanding that others disagree with what one said when one sees them roll their eyes. There are four main components of social perception: observation, attribution, integration, and confirmation.

Harold Kelley's covariation model is an attribution theory in which people make causal inferences to explain why other people and ourselves behave in a certain way. It is concerned with both social perception and self-perception.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ultimate attribution error</span>

The ultimate attribution error is an attribution error made when making in-group and out-group attributions. The error occurs when attributions of outgroup behavior are more negative and attributions of ingroup behavior are more positive. As a cognitive bias, the error results in negative outgroup behavior being more likely to be attributed to factors internal and specific to the actor, such as personality, and to attribute positive behaviors to external factors, such as the context the behavior is exhibited in. The opposite effect is seen for in-group members as they are more likely to attribute their positive acts to dispositional factors, and their negative acts to situational factors. Also, in-group members will 'explain away' out-group success to external factors such as luck or circumstance. The bias reinforces negative stereotypes and prejudice about the out-group and favouritism of the ingroup through positive stereotypes. The Ultimate attribution error is an example of a cognitive bias that shows cross cultural differences, showing up more strongly for individuals in Western cultures than Eastern Cultures.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Optimism</span> Positive mental attitude

Optimism is an attitude reflecting a belief or hope that the outcome of some specific endeavor, or outcomes in general, will be positive, favorable, and desirable. A common idiom used to illustrate optimism versus pessimism is a glass filled with water to the halfway point: an optimist is said to see the glass as half full, while a pessimist sees the glass as half empty.

Hostile attribution bias, or hostile attribution of intent, is the tendency to interpret others' behaviors as having hostile intent, even when the behavior is ambiguous or benign. For example, a person with high levels of hostile attribution bias might see two people laughing and immediately interpret this behavior as two people laughing about them, even though the behavior was ambiguous and may have been benign.

Attitude-behaviour consistency is a central concept in social psychology that examines the relationship between individual’s attitudes and their behaviour. Although, people often act in ways inconsistent with their attitudes, and the relationship has been highly debated among researchers. Many argue that attitudes are not the only factors influencing behaviour; some people behave more in line with their attitudes than do others, and people’s behaviour aligns with their attitudes is some circumstances more than in others.

Puritanical bias refers to the tendency to attribute cause of an undesirable outcome or wrongdoing by an individual to a moral deficiency or lack of self control rather than taking into account the impact of broader societal determinants. An example might be, "These people sit around all day in their apartments on welfare watching TV, but won't take the time to get out and find a job!" In this case, a selection of persons might have existed for some time under dire economic and/or socially oppressive circumstances, but individuals from that selection have been cognitively dis-empowered by these circumstances to decide or act on decisions to obtain a given goal.

Attributions for poverty is a theory concerned with what people believe about the causes of poverty. These beliefs are defined in terms of attribution theory, which is a social psychological perspective on how people make causal explanations about events in the world. In forming attributions, people rely on the information that is available to them in the moment, and their heuristics, or mental shortcuts. When considering the causes of poverty, people form attributions using the same tools: the information they have and mental shortcuts that are based on their experiences. Consistent with the literature on heuristics, people often rely on shortcuts to make sense of the causes of their own behavior and that of others, which often results in biased attributions. This information leads to perceptions about the causes of poverty, and in turn, ideas about how to eradicate poverty.

References

  1. "APA Dictionary of Psychology". dictionary.apa.org. Retrieved 2024-10-06.
  2. Cornell (PhD), Dave; Drew (PhD), Chris (2023-04-19). "15 Dispositional Attribution Examples (2024)". helpfulprofessor.com. Retrieved 2024-10-29.
  3. "Internal Attribution." Education Portal. Education Portal, n.d. Web. 01 Dec. 2014. <http://education-portal.com/academy/lesson/internal-attribution-definition-examples-quiz.html#lesson>.
  4. Fiske, Susan T.; Macrae, Colin Neil, eds. (2012). The SAGE handbook of social cognition. Los Angeles London New Delhi Singapore Washington, DC: SAGE. ISBN   978-0-85702-481-7.
  5. "What Is Internal Attribution? Definition and Meaning." BusinessDictionary.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Dec. 2014. <http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/internal-attribution.html Archived 2014-12-05 at the Wayback Machine >.
  6. Harmon, J. (1959-03-01). "THE PSYCHOLOGY OF INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS. By Fritz Heider. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1958. 322 pp. $6.25". Social Forces. 37 (3): 272–273. doi:10.2307/2572978. ISSN   0037-7732. JSTOR   2572978.
  7. 1 2 Jones, Edward E.; Davis, Keith E. (1965), "From Acts To Dispositions The Attribution Process In Person Perception", Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Elsevier, pp. 219–266, doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60107-0, ISBN   978-0-12-015202-5 , retrieved 2024-11-29
  8. 1 2 <286::aid-pits2310040321>3.0.co;2-k "Motivation examined. Levine, David (Ed.) Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 1966. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1966, 109 p.,$5.95 (paper)". Psychology in the Schools. 4 (3): 286–287. July 1967. doi:10.1002/1520-6807(196707)4:3<286::aid-pits2310040321>3.0.co;2-k. ISSN   0033-3085.
  9. Bradley, Gifford W. (January 1978). "Self-serving biases in the attribution process: A reexamination of the fact or fiction question". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 36 (1): 56–71. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.36.1.56. ISSN   1939-1315.
  10. Flick, Cassandra; Schweitzer, Kimberly (July 2021). "Influence of the Fundamental Attribution Error on Perceptions of Blame and Negligence". Experimental Psychology. 68 (4): 175–188. doi:10.1027/1618-3169/a000526. ISSN   1618-3169.
  11. Malle, Bertram F. (November 2006). "The actor-observer asymmetry in attribution: A (surprising) meta-analysis". Psychological Bulletin. 132 (6): 895–919. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.6.895. ISSN   1939-1455.
  12. Born, Richard T. (October 2024). "Stop Fooling Yourself! (Diagnosing and Treating Confirmation Bias)". eNeuro. 11 (10): ENEURO.0415–24.2024. doi:10.1523/ENEURO.0415-24.2024. ISSN   2373-2822. PMC   11495861 . PMID   39438140.
  13. 1 2 Miyamoto, Yuri; Eggen, Amanda (2013), DeLamater, John; Ward, Amanda (eds.), "Cultural Perspectives", Handbook of Social Psychology, Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, pp. 595–624, doi:10.1007/978-94-007-6772-0_20, ISBN   978-94-007-6772-0 , retrieved 2024-11-28
  14. Choi, Incheol; Nisbett, Richard E.; Norenzayan, Ara (January 1999). "Causal attribution across cultures: Variation and universality". Psychological Bulletin. 125 (1): 47–63. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.1.47. ISSN   1939-1455.
  15. Mason, Malia F.; Morris, Michael W. (2010-06-01). "Culture, attribution and automaticity: a social cognitive neuroscience view". Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience. 5 (2–3): 292–306. doi:10.1093/scan/nsq034. ISSN   1749-5024. PMC   2894680 . PMID   20460302.
  16. Semin, Gün R.; Fiedler, Klaus (1991-01-01). "The Linguistic Category Model, its Bases, Applications and Range". European Review of Social Psychology. 2 (1): 1–30. doi:10.1080/14792779143000006. hdl:1871/3890. ISSN   1046-3283.