Fritz Heider’s Attribution Theory To Yourself

Communications & Critical Thinking in Information Mgt

Fritz Heider’s Attribution Theory To Yourself

 

            I found out that attribution theory was developed by Fritz Heider, Harold Kelley, Edward Jones and Lee Ross. Such theory suggests that there are several ways that an individual explain his or her behavior as well as of others. Attribution could be situational or dispositional wherein the former are the causality to outside factors while the latter are causality to factors inherent to the individual (Heider, 1958). According to Duval, Mayer and Duval (1983), our consciousness prefers simplicity and this condition is a clear implication that consciousness is a dynamic process, moving to maximize simplicity within its boundaries. The authors referred to simplicity as the inverse function of separate and unconnected elements in consciousness. Causal attribution then is the manifestation of such movement which maximizes simplicity within consciousness (p. 1).

 

            Simply the perceived causes of outcomes, Alexander and Winne (2006) assert that attribution theory explains how people perceive the causes of their and others actions. That people are motivated to seek information to form attributions is the assumption behind the theory, stressing that attributions possess motivational consequences. Essentially, the process of assigning attributions is governed by principles such as locus of control and analysis of action. Other proponents proposed that people attribute based on effective personal force and effective environmental force. Power and abilities make up the personal force, and how these two elements combined with the elements of environmental force influences outcomes (pp. 354-355). 

 

            When it comes to applying the attribution theory to oneself, there are common themes to consider as: behaviors, decision-making, judgment and blaming.

 

Limitations of attribution theory

            Before we proceed, it would be necessary to take note of the limitations of the attribution theory. I figured that this limitation is more inclined on how we perceive ourselves, which is the subject of this paper. Roeckelein (1998, p. 58) argued that there is the inclination to view persons as intuitive psychologists wherein assessment of causes and effects of behaviors is performed. This is because of the perceptions that an individual is an origin or events, leading to the conception that the needs, wishes, dispositions, skills, and motives of others as responsible for both natural and social phenomena. Known as self-attribution, an individual tends to emphasize internal personal character causes. Although this is also known as a fundamental attribution error, Roeckelein (1998) puts it that self-attribution is automatic to an individual. This automacity also reflects the fact that people are observers therefore observation and action affects internal and external self-attribution. This is known as actor-observer discrepancy which stipulates that errors would be less likely to occur when an individual makes about their own behavior than when they make attributions about others’ behaviors (p. 58).

 

Attributional biases or those cognitive biases that affects how we distinguish who or what was responsible for an event or action tend to limit effective causal reasoning. Attributions affect expectancies, emotions and future behaviors. Thus, an individual when it comes to self-perception conforms to outcome-directed attributions. This suggests that attributions could not necessarily apply to behaviors that could be controlled and uncontrolled. Such a notion explains why an individual do not make attributions in specific situations because there are predetermined behaviors, outcomes, causes and themes inherent.

 

Self-attribution and behaviors

            Galanter (1992) asserted that the attribution theory concerns much about how individuals interpret events and how this relates to their thinking and behavior. Cook (1979) explains that people explain their own behaviors in the same way as other have. Important to note is the fact that a person does not have any special insight into his actions or his reasons for them, but tends to rather judge himself in the same way he would judge someone else. Cook noted that if external causes seem sufficient to explain one’s behavior, then one will see it as caused by them. However, when they prove to be insufficient, one could conclude that such behavior is internally caused (p. 76). Bem (1972) states that “self-perception can get us from the stimulus manipulation to the attribution and it cannot get us from the attribution to anything beyond that” (p. 47).

 

            As such, Mower-White (1982) contend that one of the difficulties in attribution theory has concerned how we infer and describe our own feelings, emotions, attitudes and characteristics. Though it may seem strange that we do not immediately know our feelings and attitudes, it is argued that we indeed do not know and that self-descriptions require observation of our own behavior. Self-attributions are then made based on our non-apparent behaviors (p. 60). Bem (1972) also observes that our own behavior and infer about our characteristics from it in the same way as we observe other people’s behavior and make inferences about their dispositions, attitudes and beliefs. Hence, a person attributes his own behavior to situational causes wherein actions will depend on the decision-making of the person.

 

Self-attribution and decision-making

            Galanter (1998) maintains that attribution predicts a sequential effect whereby mediating roles of attributions and emotions is imperative. As such, self-attribution will be based on the influences of attribution itself and the willingness to do something. For me, this is the self-serving tendencies of making attributions where the consequences of decision are important. We should take note that high self-attribution to make decision have positive consequences while low self-attribution has negative consequences. Harris and Harvey (1975) noted that positive and negative consequences of a decision on individuals’ retrospective self-attribution of choice in making the decision (as cited in Harvey, Robert and Ickes, 1976).

 

Self-attribution and judgment

            Galanter (1992) noted that attributions are created based on the information to make inferences about oneself and others. Causal judgments depict that an individual ascribe and respond to events in ways not necessarily in conformance with others although persons observe other people’s judgment. This leads to changes in own self-concept and how a person deals with things. When attributions are unconstructive, an individual perceives this as caused by external factors. Actions are perceived to be beyond the control. Nevertheless, when attributions are affirmative, people do not necessarily attribute such to themselves. This reflects the idea that we do not necessarily judge based on our internal and dispositional causes either effects of attribution are negative or positive.

 

Self-attribution and blaming

            A person’s direct responsibility over events and behaviors is based on internal attribution because of the fact that an internal attributions assigns causality that relates to factors within a person. External attributions, on the other hand, are the ones that assign blame for an effect (Galanter, 1992). People often claim that when unacceptable behaviors exist external forces commonly caused such or motivated for that thing to happen. People likely to attribute external causes especially when the behaviors of others do not conform to what another person thinks as acceptable or those that are uncharacteristic to him or her.

 

References

 

Alexander, P A and Winne, P H 2006, Handbook of Educational Psychology, Routledge, London.

 

Bem, D J 1972, ‘Self-perception theory,’ in L Berkowitz (ed), Advances in experimental social psychology, vol. 6, Academic Press, New York.

 

Cook, M 1979, Perceiving others: the psychology of interpersonal perception, Taylor & Francis, New York.

 

Duval, V H, Mayer, S F and Duval, S 1983, Consistency and Cognition: A Theory of Causal Attribution, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.

 

Galanter, M 1992, Plans and structure of behavior, Holt, New York.

 

Harvey, J H, Kidd, R F and Ickes, W J 1976, New Directions in Attribution Research, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

 

Heider, F 1958, The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations, John Wiley & Sons, New York.

 

Mower-White, C J 1982, Consistency in cognitive social behavior: an introduction to social psychology, Taylor & Francis, New York.

 

Roeckelein, J E 1998, Dictionary of theories, laws, and concepts in psychology, Greenwood Publishing Group.

 

 

 

                   

 

Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com