Kelley, H. H., & Michela, J. L. (1980). Attribution theory and research. Annual review of psychology, 31(1), 457-501.
Summary
Attribution theory deals with the perceived causes of behavior, and the differences between how we perceive our own behavioral causes and how others perceive our behavioral causes. Similar to fundamental attribution bias, we attribute failure to external or situational causes and success to internal or dispositional causes. This review examines antecedents of attributions and consequences of attributions.
Antecedents for attribution include information, beliefs and motivation. Amongst other information variables, acting in accordance with cultural norms tends to reduce dispositional attribution. The more unique an action is (noncommon), the more informative it is perceived to be, and the more it is attributed to disposition. Another example is the false consensus effect, which is illustrated by the belief that most people agree with us. Perceptual information that is more salient at the time of an effect is more likely to receive causal attribution (think post WWII cargo cults). Beliefs regard expectations regarding certain causes. For example, there is a general tendency towards belief in consistency with the past. Behavior that is consistent with an actor’s past is attributed internally, while inconsistent action is attributed to situational factors. Behavior that occurs under constraint receives a weaker attribution than does volitional behavior. Motivation is the final element inherent in attribution. When our behavior is consistent with our self-image, we attribute that behavior internally. We are motivated to do so by our desire for internal consistency. We desire control over our environment, and this desire motivates us to make more internal attributions than we might otherwise.
Application
Much of the application can be found in the “Consequences of Attribution” section. For example, excessive monitoring of an employee leads to situational attribution (“they’re only working because I’m watching”). This attribution results in less trust, which generally results in subsequent monitoring. Truly, micromanaging can be a vicious cycle. Another interesting application concerns intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation. The example is given of children who were initially intrinsically motivated to draw with pens. A reward was attached to the behavior (an extrinsic motivation) and the interest in drawing with pens decreased (“play had been turned into work”). This has really interesting implications for incentive structures in organizations.
Comments powered by Disqus.