Attribution Theory Essay Example

inconsistency if they have never displayed any fear before.

Regarding distinctiveness, it pertains to the person's behavior towards similar stimuli. If the person reacts differently towards similar stimuli, such as not being afraid of other dogs, then their distinctiveness is high. Conversely, if they react similarly towards similar stimuli, then the distinctiveness is low.

According to Kelley, when the consensus is low and the consistency is high, and the distinctiveness is low (LHL), we tend to attribute a person's behavior to themselves. For instance, if someone (person A) is afraid of all other dogs while no one else they know shares the same fear towards dogs, we would attribute their fear to their personality, such as being timid or easily scared.

If consensus, consistency, and distinctiveness are high (HHH), the behavior is attributed to the entity. For instance, if many people are afraid of a particular dog, and person B is only afraid of that dog, then we would attribute that behavior to the dog having an aggressive temperament. Check out the role of cognition in learning. When consensus is low and consistency is low but distinctiveness is high (LLH), the behavior is attributed to specific circumstances.

If only person C was afraid of a particular dog and had never been scared before, while nobody else had fear of that dog, it could be explained that the dog had behaved aggressively towards person C lately despite being usually calm. Experiments have been performed to test the Co-Variation theory, and the results indicated that people made attributions as per Kelley's predictions when the three information pieces were

manipulated. Nonetheless, there are some issues with this theory despite its accuracy.

Garland et al discovered that individuals utilize factors such as temperament and context, in contrast to the components Kelley utilized. Based on a study, people solely rely on consensus, consistency, and distinctiveness data when information regarding the scenario or context is unavailable. Moreover, the theory is relatively demanding to understand as individuals must utilize significant effort to process the consensus, consistency, and distinctiveness, even when the data is accessible. Since people tend to act as "cognitive misers," we require a more efficient method of processing information. Attribution biases refer to perceived distortions or judgments of people's conduct, whether our judgment or that of others.

The Fundamental Attribution Error is the first type of bias and it is characterized by the tendency to overestimate dispositional causes and underestimate situational causes for behavior. Even if both reasons are equally likely, people often choose dispositional reasons over situational ones. According to research, our "cognitive miser" approach is responsible for this bias as it causes us to ignore situational reasons unless they are explicitly stated. Therefore, once we have identified a dispositional reason for someone's behavior, we tend to avoid adding other potential causes. In 1977, Ross conducted an experiment to test this theory.

In a general knowledge quiz, participants were randomly assigned as either questioners or contestants. The questioners used their own specialized knowledge to create difficult questions for the contestants. Observers and contestants were then asked to rate the knowledge of both groups. Interestingly, while the observers and contestants rated the questioners as having high general knowledge, the questioners themselves did not claim superior knowledge.

Ross

argues that in the interaction, both observers and contestants overlooked situational factors and instead concentrated on dispositional factors like the high general knowledge of questioners. Although several studies support this view, some argue that the Fundamental Attribution Error (FAE) is not universal and might be a bias rather than an error. The actor/observer bias is another type of bias where individuals tend to attribute dispositional factors when observing others' behavior.

Although we commonly label someone who falls in the street as clumsy, we tend to attribute our own falls to external factors like loose paving stones, according to Jones and Nisbett. This difference in attribution occurs because actors and observers perceive different information about the behavior.

In terms of behavior, the actor possesses a greater amount of information than an observer. This is evident in the fact that they can provide specific details regarding an incident, such as loose paving stones. Furthermore, actors have a broader understanding of their own past behavior.

Although observers may assume individuals trip frequently, it is commonly known that this behavior is not typical. Actors direct their attention outwardly to the environment and attribute behavior to it, while observers focus on the actor and attribute behavior to them. Self-Serving biases can create exceptions where the actor/observer bias does not apply; for example, actors tend to credit situational factors rather than personal ones when explaining success in a task.

Despite the simplicity of the exam, my proficiency in the subject matter is frequently credited for my achievement. In essence, we have a tendency to ascribe our successes to our personal efforts and feel proud of them - this is called the Self-Enhancing bias.

Self-esteem

is influenced by two biases: the self-protecting bias and the self-enhancing bias. The former entails assigning failure to situational rather than dispositional factors and refusing responsibility for our failures, such as blaming an unfairly difficult exam. This preserves our self-esteem in the face of disappointment. Meanwhile, the latter involves elevating our own self-worth after succeeding. These biases also extend to groups, where attributing success to dispositional factors occurs within the "in-group."

The common bias is to credit the disposition for in-group success (e.g. our team won because they are good) and situational factors for their failure. Conversely, out-group success is attributed to situational reasons while failure is ascribed to dispositional factors (e.g. their team lost because they are bad). The Self-Handicapping bias expands on these tendencies.

In certain circumstances, we take accountability for our shortcomings if we have the ability to improve our actions and avoid similar failures in the future. For instance, individuals may admit that they failed an exam due to their lack of preparation. However, if we are unable to modify our actions, we may attempt to justify our failure beforehand (e.g. stating that we will fail an upcoming exam because of our failure to study). By pre-emptively handicapping ourselves, we create a means of attributing our disappointment to external factors.