Attribution Theory

Why do people say what they say and do what they do? What causes behavior? Such questions are common ones in the explanation of human experience and are at the root of attribution [Page 45]theory. Understanding causality and responsibility is pivotal in interpreting social behavior. Attribution theory explains how we assess the causes of our own and others’ behavior. According to attribution theory, in sensemaking interactants reason “backward” from observed behavior to determine underlying causes so that they may be able to predict future behavior or know how to respond in specific interactions.

Although primarily used to examine interpersonal processing, attribution theory has been applied in other contexts. For example, W. Timothy Coombs applied attribution theory to organizations and publics as he examined perceptions of crises, especially as related to organizational reputation. When crisis events occur, individuals strive to explain their causes. If an organization is perceived to be responsible for the crisis, its reputation sustains damage. When conditions of stability (i.e., a history of such problems) and control are believed to exist, organizations are likely seen as responsible. Thus, attribution theory has promise for organizational and public relations research, especially in times of crises. For example, it has recently been employed to examine public support for Haitian earthquake victims and public responses to an oil spill as well as government responses to terrorism.

Three assumptions form the basis of attribution theory: (1) individuals assign causes to behavior, (2) individuals use systematic processes in explaining behavior, and (3) once attributions are made, they influence feelings and subsequent behavior and are resistant to change.

There are two types of attributions: internal and external. Internal (or dispositional) attributions place the cause for behavior within a person, whereas external attributions assign the cause to some factor outside (contextual) the person. In other words, internal attributions focus on the personal aspects of a person, including stable traits or characteristics, such as intelligence or personality; variable behaviors, such as effort; and temporary states, such as mood, stress, or exhaustion. Locating the cause outside the person, external attributions place responsibility on some force or agent in the situation or environment. Such agents include rules and restrictions, task difficulty, resource availability, and chance or luck. Once attributions have been made, they guide individuals in predicting future behaviors.

Considerable research has examined factors affecting the choice between internal and external attributions. For example, Fritz Heider (1958) discussed differences in self versus other attributions. Individuals tend to attribute responsibility for their own failures to external causes (e.g., bad luck) and the failures of others to internal causes (e.g., lack of intelligence or good judgment), and to attribute responsibility for their own successes to internal qualities (e.g., intelligence or good judgment) and the successes of others to external factors (e.g., good luck). Edward E. Jones and Keith E. Davis (1965) discussed three categories of information (i.e., choice, expected behavior, and effects of behavior) that shape whether internal attributions, which they call correspondent inferences, are made. For example, if we believe that someone behaved intentionally, by choice, in a distinctive fashion with low social desirability, we most likely attribute the cause for that behavior internally.

...