Research Korner: Attribution Theory Essays

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.

Fritz Heider's Attribution Theory To Yourself

Communications & Critical Thinking in Information Mgt Fritz Heider's Attribution Theory To Yourself I found ...

Attribution Theory and Underlying Principles

Attribution Theory               Exploring attribution theory directs on understanding perception among people. Since organisational management involves a lot of instances where people need to communicate with each other, it is very important to have a grasp of how they act and react on specific situations. Behaviours are intrinsically divergent among people. Thus, it is assumed that actions and reactions vary. This paper discusses attribution theory and underlying principles. It specifically looks on the function of perception and making judgment among others.             Perception             Robbins and Judge (2007) define perception as the process occurring among people when they organize and interpret sensory impressions to give meanings to what is happening in their immediate environment. However, it is argued that what is considerably perceived by a person is substantially different from the objective reality. There is often disagreement. It is basic to understand that the ways people behave are based on their individual perception of what is real and what is not. As stated, the world as it is perceived is the world that is behaviourally important. There are several factors that affect perception and as follows: factors in the perceiver, factors in the situation, and factors in the target. The factors in the perceiver include attitudes, motives, interests, experience, and expectations. Meanwhile, the factors in the situation involve time, work setting, and social setting. Factors in the target, on the other hand, are consist of novelty, motion, sounds, size, background, proximity, and similarity. These factors functions as something to shape or sometimes distort the process of perception. It is then considered that with these factors, the process of perception is clearly understood. Understanding perception, particularly on the perspective of organisational behaviour is rooted on the significant reason that people’s behaviour is based on what reality is, not on reality itself. As stated, perceptions of individual responsibility are influenced by various variables including freedom of choice, personal initiative and intentionality, prudence, and the knowledge of what is right and what is wrong. With this, perceptions can never go wrong.     Attribution Theory             Earlier literatures (e.g. Jones et al., 1972) adhere that this theory necessitates highly cognitive and rational understanding of man. The attribution theory is predicated on the following set of assumptions: Þ    Considering that errors are inevitable, every person possesses a natural desire to honestly understand the various occurrences in their immediate environment. In turn, a person needs to have potent information that will enlighten them. Þ    There are “causes” that every person has in mind to use in explaining various occurrences in logical manner. Þ    The specific “cause” that the person strongly believes will significantly affects subsequent feelings and behaviours. In simpler terms, attributions are perceptions of causality, or inferences made by a person that something has caused something else.               According to Ashkanasy (2002), attribution theory is consequential from Fritz Heider's (1954) thought about people as “naive scientists”. This thought describes how people keenly look for underlying explanations of observed behaviour, and come up with hypotheses that explain its causes. The resulting causal attributions determine, in turn, cognitive, affective, and behavioural responses toward the actor. Robbins and Judge (2007) believe that the perceptions of every person are divergent. These perceptions affect the way each person behaves. In attribution theory, it is “when individuals observe behaviour, they attempt to determine whether it is internally or externally caused” (Robbins et al. 2008). The same authors identify three determinants of attribution, these are: Þ    Distinctiveness - shows different behaviours in different situations. Þ    Consensus - response is the same as others to same situation. Þ    Consistency - responds in the same way over time. These determinants are expected to occur so as to consider that an attribution is occurring or had occurred.               Attribution theories are deemed to generally fall into two categories: intrapersonal and interpersonal (Martinko 1995 cited in Schaffer 2002, p. 103). Intrapersonal category includes theories relating to identified ways used by people to make evaluations of their personal successes or defeats. On the other hand, interpersonal category looks on the identified ways on how people assign accountability for the outcomes of others. In general concepts, attribution theory suggests that the observation of a person’s behaviour leads to the attempt to determine whether the shown behaviour was caused internally (by the people) or caused externally (by the context or the situation) (Schaffer 2002). The most basic consideration of any attribution theory is the internal or external distinction. It is always emphasised that there is no single or dominant theory of attribution. Instead, a variety of perspectives is applied in evaluating how people behave and act or react in specific conditions and circumstances. Despite the differences in people’s perspectives, a common theme in attribution theory is that discrepancy leads to attributions of cause as originally specified by Heider. The application of attribution theory in organisational setting can be seen on the effectiveness of causal reasoning process that can provide insight into how the cognitions and emotions of functional and dysfunctional people (particularly on managers and leaders) can influence the quality of their working relationships with others.               A common or perhaps, the simplest example of attribution process is performance. It is very known that all organisations hold performance goals to be achieved at a given period of time and particular conditions and specifications. In the process of attribution, when performance goals neither are nor met (a discrepancy), involved individuals and parties are more likely to develop attributions of cause. This leads to coming up with reasons like attributing responsibility for poor performance to either personal or situational factors. This is also the main controversy in organisational theory, most especially on the case of organisational behaviour.   Errors and Biases of Attributions             Researches on attribution theory adhere that there are errors or biases that misrepresent attribution (Gerber et al. 2004). Like in general application, people blame others first, rather than the situation. The fundament attribution error, as defined by Robbins and colleagues (2008), is “the tendency to underestimate the influence of external factors and overestimate the influence of internal factors when making judgments about the behaviour of others”. On other cases, people attribute theor success to the effort that they exerted. When they fail, they say otherwise or either attributes it to the condition itself. This is called self-serving bias or the “the tendency for individuals to attribute their own successes to internal factors while putting the blame for failures on external factors” (Robbins et al. 2008). There are also some frequently used shortcuts in judging others including selective perception, hallo effect, contrast effects, projection, and stereotyping.               The application of attribution theory in organisational behaviour is the fact that people possess different line of thinking or perspectives. In reality, we are all guided by our own perception of reality. The uniqueness of every individual is acknowledged by attribution theories. However, the process of attribution identifies the conditions on why such behaviour, action, or reaction occurred. The organisational setting is characterised by different people. The motives and purposes of people are seen on how they react on specific situations. Cognitive processing and the attribution of such behaviour to either internal or external causes are considered interpersonal (Yagil 2005). Judging others is another lesson of the attribution theory. Practically speaking, the ways in which we view other people affects our relationship with them. The common case of stereotyping in the organisation is explicated by attribution theory. It is expected that people should have knowledge of what is acceptable and what is not. On the case of stereotyping, attribution theory discourages this practice. Instead, the uniqueness of a person and the group he/she belongs is appreciated and used towards advantageous position.               Attribution theory is known to explain the rationale when a person observe behaviour and determine if whether or not it is internally or externally motivated. While organisational management usually encourages employees to aim, achieve, and take pride in success, it often strives to develop their ability to acknowledge flaws in their performance, learn from them, and improve. Human perception is the lock. Attribution theory is the key.               References   Ashkanasy, NM (2002) ‘Studies of Cognition and Emotion in Organisations: Attribution, Affective Events, Emotional Intelligence and Perception of Emotion’, Australian Journal of Management, 27; 2, pp. 11+   Gailey, JA and Lee, ΜΤ (2005) ‘An integrated model of attribution of responsibility for wrongdoing in organizations’, Social Psychology Quarterly, 68, 338-358   Gerber, GL, Cronin, JM, and Steigman, H (2004) ‘Attributions of blame in sexual assault to perpetrators and victims of both genders’, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 2149-2165   Robbins, SP and Judge, TA (2007) Organizational Behavior, 12th ed. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ   Robbins, SP, Judge, TA, Millet, B and Waters-Marsh, T (2008) Organisational Behaviour, 5th ed., Pearson Education, Australia   Schaffer, BS (2002) ‘Boards assessment of managerial performance: an analysis of attribution process’, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17; 2, pp. 95-115   Yagil, D (2005) ‘Employees' Attribution of Abusive Supervisory Behaviors’, The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 13; 4, pp. 307-326

Attribution Theory and Underlying Principles

Attribution Theory Exploring attribution theory directs on understanding perception among people. Since organisational ma...

Top