Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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.
The "situational" explanation is created at the intersection of high-perceived controllability of act and external control of the act. An outgroup member's positive outcome is not rooted in their effort or ability, but a result of external situational factors that are, at least in some part, influenced by others.
Inferences can occur spontaneously if the behavior implies a situational or dispositional inference, while causal attributions occur much more slowly. [41] It has also been suggested that correspondence inferences and causal attributions are elicited by different mechanisms.
[1] Durkheim says that a social fact is a thing that many people do very similarly because the socialized community that they belong to has influenced them to do these things. [2] Durkheim defined the social fact this way: "A social fact is any way of acting, whether fixed or not, capable of exerting over the individual an external constraint; or:
An example of this is the convoy model of support, this model uses concentric circles to describe relationships around an individual with the strongest relationships in the closet circle. As a person ages, these relationships form a convoy that moves along with the person and exchanges in support and assistance through different circumstances ...
Close relationships: Families and dyads In families or other close relationships, an individual's legitimate expertise would be recognized, which might help with implicit attributions based on gender. However, status hierarchy and expectation states theory may also influence close relationships, particularly if the situation is new or unusual.
A person with an external locus of control will tend to believe that their present circumstances are not the effect of their own influence, decisions, or control, [8] and even that their own actions are a result of external factors, such as fate, luck, history, the influence of powerful forces, or individually or unspecified others (such as ...
Soon after the publication of the actor–observer hypothesis, numerous research studies tested its validity, most notably the first such test in 1973 by Nisbett et al. [14] The authors found initial evidence for the hypothesis, [14] and so did Storms, [15] who also examined one possible explanation of the hypothesis: actors explain their behaviors because they attend to the situation (not to ...