Describe and evaluate studies relating to attribution of causality Essay Example

the discussed theories.

Kelley developed two models, the co-variation model (1973) and the causal schemata model, in order to determine whether a specific action was caused by internal or external factors (Mcleod, 2010). According to Kelley, there are three types of causal information that should be considered: consensus - how others behave in similar situations; consistency - an individual's behavior in the same situation; and distinctiveness - how a person reacts to different stimuli (Cardwell, 1996).

This model has advantages over the correspondent inference theory as it examines three possible attributions (psycology4a, 2006). Garland et al (1975) criticized this theory by stating that in some cases, people use personality and/or the situation to make attributions (Cardwell, 1996). Nisbett and Ross (1980) also criticized the theory by saying that although it may seem that the covariation principle was applied, the information processing could be completely different (Sheppard, 2014).

Kelley introduced the causal schemata model in response to criticisms of the covariation model. According to Kelley, causal schemata are general conceptions that a person has about how certain causes interact to produce a specific effect. This theory is divided into multiple sufficient causes, which means that there can be many causes for a behavior and any one of them will provide a sufficient explanation. Additionally, there are multiple necessary causes, which means that two or more factors are necessary for behavior attributes to be made (Cardwell, 1996).

Fielder (1982) disagreed with the theory mentioned, arguing that the research in this field is restrictive and that the concept of schemata is too abstract (Sheppard, 2014). According to Fielder, people do not always effectively utilize

all available information when processing information to make attributions, resulting in biases. Ross (1977) also criticized the causal schemata theory by claiming that internal attributions are favored over external ones when explaining someone's behavior, even if both could equally contribute to an explanation (Cardwell, 1996).

In conclusion, multiple studies have examined the process and logic behind attributions. It seems that depending solely on one theory is inadequate for understanding a person's behavior. Differentiating between external and internal factors can be difficult, as shown by Nisbet et al (1973), who found that rephrasing a sentence involving an internal factor could change it into an external factor. When making attributions, various biases may distort our perception of the displayed behavior (Cardwell, 1996).