Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Kelley proposed that people are more likely to make dispositional attributions when consensus is low (most other people do not behave in the same way), consistency is high (a person behaves this way across most situations), and distinctiveness is low (a person's behavior is not unique to this situation).
Fritz Heider discovered Attribution theory during a time when psychologists were furthering research on personality, social psychology, and human motivation. [5] Heider worked alone in his research, but stated that he wished for Attribution theory not to be attributed to him because many different ideas and people were involved in the process. [5]
When we observe other people, the person is the primary reference point while the situation is overlooked as if it is nothing but mere background. As such, attributions for others' behavior are more likely to focus on the person we see, not the situational forces acting upon that person that we may not be aware of.
Due to situational factors standing out to us, we may be more likely to make attributions based on that (therefore making situational attributions). Versus when we are judging someone else's behaviour, they are the focal point. What they are doing is most salient to us rather than what is occurring in the around them, which may explain more ...
Harold Kelley's covariation model (1967, 1971, 1972, 1973) [1] 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 (Kelley, 1973).
Actors of a task exhibit the self-serving bias in their attributions to their own success or failure feedback, whereas observers do not make the same attributions about another person's task outcome. [2] Observers tend to be more objective in their tendency to ascribe internal or external attributions to other people's outcomes.
Research to support this can be displayed by the following example: when given a choice between two brands of popcorn, participants were more likely to choose the one with the superior alignable differences, such as "pops in its own bag" compared with "requires a microwaveable bowl" than the one with superior non-alignable differences, such as ...
American participants were more likely to make dispositional attributions whereas Indian participants more often made situational attributions. Indian participants seemed to place emphasis on understanding the driver's social role in the situation was extremely import when making these attributions.