This document discusses social perception and attribution theory. It defines attribution as explaining the causes of behaviors and events. There are two types of attribution: internal attribution, which attributes behaviors to internal factors like personality; and external attribution, which attributes behaviors to external situational factors. Two influential theories are discussed: Jones and Davis' theory of correspondent inference, which outlines factors like behavior being freely chosen that lead to internal attributions; and Kelley's covariation model, which uses three factors - consensus, distinctiveness, and consistency - to determine if a behavior is attributed to internal or external causes. Common attribution errors like the correspondence bias and actor-observer effect are also outlined.

1. Social Perception
Lesson 004
Part II

2. Attribution
Understanding The Causes Behind Other’s Behavior
• When we observe other people we observe their non-verbal
behavior and base our impressions of that.
• We usually want to know more about other’s moods or feelings :
– To understand other’s lasting traits
– and to know the causes behind this behavior, that is, to
understand their motives, goals and intentions.
• Our basic desire is to understand “cause and effect” relationships
in the social world.
• We don’t want to know “how” others have acted.
• We want to understand why they have done so because “why”
will help us predict their behavior in future.

3. Definitions of Attribution
• Attribution is an explanation for an event, outcome, behavior, or
trait.
• “Attribution refers to:
– understanding the causes behind other’s behavior
– and on some occasions----the causes behind our behavior too.”
• “Attribution is the process by which people use information to
make inferences about the causes of behavior and events.”
• Fritz Heider is considered the father of attribution theory.
• He believed that people are like amateur scientists, trying to
understand other people’s behavior by piecing (patching)
together information until they arrive at a reasonable cause.

4. Types of Attribution
• Internal Attribution
—In which people infer that a
person is behaving a certain
way because of something
about that person
—i.e.
– personality, mood, attitudes,
character, abilities, and
effort (dispositions)
• It is also know as:
– A person attribution
– or dispositional attribution.
• External Attribution
– in which people infer that a
person is behaving in a certain
way because of the situation
that he or she is in.
– i.e.
– the actions of others,
– the nature of the situation,
– or luck
• It is also know as:
– a situation attribution
• For example:
• you might wonder you did not get
promotion because:
– You did not work hard (internal
cause), or
– Because your boss is unfair and
biased against you (external
cause), or perhaps
– Because of both factors.

7. Two-Step Process of Attribution
• Fritz Heider
• There are two steps involved in the process of attribution.
• First step : Make an internal attribution
– Here people analyze another’s behavior, they typically make
an internal attribution automatically (Assume that a person’s
behavior was due to something about that person).
– Occurs quickly, spontaneously
• Second step : Adjust attribution by considering the situation
– Here they think about possible situational reasons for the
behavior.
– After engaging in the second step, they may adjust their
original internal attribution to take account of situational
factors.
– Requires effort, conscious attention

8. Two-step process of attribution (Cont’d)
• This second step is more conscious and effortful, people may not
get to it if they are: distracted or preoccupied.
• People will be more likely to engage in the second step of
attributional processing --
– when they consciously think carefully before making a
judgment,(You consciously slow down, think carefully before
reaching a judgment)
– when they are motivated to be as accurate as possible in
passing judgments,
– or if they are suspicious about the motives, intentions of the
target.

10. Theories Of Attribution
a. Jones And Davis Theory Of Correspondent Inference
b. Kelley’s Theory Of Causal Attribution

11. Jones And Davis Theory Of Correspondent Inference
• This theory was formulated/proposed by Edward E. Jones and Keith
Davis in 1965.
• Correspondent inference: attribution of an actor’s behaviour to some
disposition or personality characteristic
• Theory of correspondent inference describes how we use
information about another person’s behavior---- as a basis---- for
inferring that they possess various traits (i.e. behaviour is attributed
to a character or personality characteristic ).
• People prefer internal dispositional attributions, over -----external
situational ones as they are more valuable with regard to -------
making predictions about behaviour.
• Jones & Davis believe people prefer making dispositional
attributes .

12. • Factors considered in Correspondent inference
• Jones and Davis(1965) state that:
– we assess whether there is a correspondence (here it means
correlation) between personality and behaviour
– by processing three types of information.
i. Behavior is freely chosen.
ii. Behavior yields non-common effect.
iii. Behavior is low in social desirability

13. i. Behavior Is Freely Chosen
• Consider behavior that is freely chosen than being imposed on the
person.
• We are more likely to draw a correspondent inference if:
– the behaviour appears intentional (freely chosen) than when it is
unintentional (is imposed)
• If a behavior is freely chosen it is believed to be due to internal
(dispositional) factors.
Example:
 You go to a restaurant and a young woman greets you with a smile,
makes you sit on a place and acts in a very friendly manner. Does this
mean this woman is a friendly person who likes people? Maybe--- but
the situation requires her to do so, means her job requirement (here it
means it is unintentional. It is associated with situational factors).
• If a behavior is freely chosen it is believed to be due to internal
(dispositional) factors.
• If a behaviour is unintentional i.e. being imposed, it is believed to be
situational factors.

14. Example:
 If a student were assigned to argue a position in a classroom
debate (e.g. for or against liberalism), it would be unwise of their
audience to infer that their statements in the debate reflect their
true beliefs – because they did not choose to argue that particular
side of the issue. (situational factors)
 If, however, they had chosen to argue one side of the issue, then it
would be appropriate for the audience to conclude that their
statements reflect their true beliefs.(internal dispositions)
• Using other’s behavior as a guide to know their traits or motives
can be misleading in making perceptions about them.
• Situations like this are common in our daily lives. So according to
Jones and Davis, this misleading shall be avoided, that is, we shall
focus our attention to actions that prove to be informative.

15. ii. Behavior Yields Non-common Effect
Pay careful attention to non-
common effects, that is, effects that
can be caused by one specific factor
but not others.
Example:
• Situation 1:
• Your male friend got engaged to
a girl,
 Who is pretty (attractive)
 Has great personality
 Is wildly in love with your friend,
and Is rich
• What do you learn about your
friend from his decision to marry
this girl? Not much. Means you
cannot infer something about
your friend because you cannot
choose from so many reasons.
• Situation 2:
• Your friend got engaged to a girl,
 Who is attractive
 But she treats your friend lowly
 Is boring as well
 She is in debt and spends a lot.
• Now what do you learn about
your friend, why he is marrying
this girl? Your answer would
probably be that he cares more
about physical beauty than about
personality or wealth.

16. • Non-Common Effects refers to:
– an internal dispositional attribution is more possible when
the outcome of that behaviour results in a unique
consequence.
Example:
• A person chooses to go to Caribbean for vacation instead of
Brazil. The choice here is quite similar, as both the places are
close to the ocean and feature plenty of beaches.
• Since both the spots are ideal for beach vacation, it becomes
harder for a perceiver to infer the dispositional attributes of the
person behind his reasons to go to Caribbean.
• However, if a person chooses Caribbean instead of Nepal, then
inference becomes significantly easier.
• Two places are completely different, and it can be concluded that
the actor prefers beaches and summer rather than the
mountains and natural beauty of Nepal

17. Non-common Effects Principle: Which Car Will You Buy?
• Car A
• Lead-free petrol
• Power steering
• Air bag
• Expensive to service
• Car B
• 4-star petrol
• Power Steering
• Air bag
• Cheap to service
• Car C
• Diesel
• Power Steering
• Air bag
• Cheap to service
• If you buy Car A, we can infer that lead-free petrol is important to
you. You will not have made your decision because of the power
steering or air bags, as they are common to the other two cars.
• We might then infer that you also care about the environment.

18. iii. Behavior Is Low In Social Desirability
• Social Desirability ----refers to whether the behaviour observed is
consistent to social norms or against social norms .
• Behaviour that is low in sociably desirability or that deviates from
socially expected norms of behaviours leads us to make
dispositional inferences.
• We pay greater attention to actions by others that are low in social
desirability than to actions that are higher on social desirability.
• Means we learn more about other’s traits from actions that they
perform are somewhat not ordinary, not common than from
actions that are most liked by other people.
For example:
• If we are sitting in a formal gathering and there is the other person
who is talking loudly about his achievements, stuff, his purchases
and all.
• What we all will say is that he is a show-off.
• As the gathering is such which does not require such conversation.

19. For example:
 When people in a particular social role (e.g. police officer, priest,
or teacher) behave in ways that are not the socially expected
'norms' for that particular role.
 A doctor, or a teacher behaving in a normal way, like they should,
does not tell us anything about how they really are.
 However, if a teacher behaves unusually harsh to his/her students,
then it might be more expressive of their personal attributes.
 Likewise, a bus passenger sitting on the floor rather than the seat
depicts his personality.
• Social Desirability ----refers to whether the behaviour observed is
consistent to social norms or against social norms.
• People have a tendency to follow social norms to avoid exclusion;
therefore behaviour that is socially desirable does not tell us much
about people’s personalities (i.e. internal dispositional attribution)

21. Internal Dispositional
Attribution
External Situational
Attribution

22. Kelley’s (1972) Theory Of Causal Attribution
Example:
• Situation 1: You arranged a meeting with a friend in a restaurant
but he/she did not arrive.
• Situation 2: You leave several messages for a friend but he/she
does not respond or call back.
• Situation 3: You expect a promotion in your job but don’t receive
it.
• In all these situations, you would wonder why these events have
occurred.
• We want to know why other people have acted as they have or
why events have occurred in a specific way.
• If we understand the causes behind other’s actions or events we
can make sense out of social world.

23. Kelley’s (1972) Theory Of Causal Attribution
• Kelley's covariation model (1972) is a theory of Causal attribution
in which people make causal inferences to explain why other
people and ourselves behave in a certain way.
• According to Kelly, behavior can be attributed to:
– dispositional (internal)
– or Situational (external) factors
Three Types of Information (Covariation Factors)
• The covariation model states that three types of information
(possible causal factors) are crucial for arriving at an internal or
external attribution. These three factors/variables are:
i. consensus
ii. distinctiveness
iii. consistency

24. Three types of Information (Covariation Factors)
CONSENSUS
The extent to which other
people behave the same
way toward the same
stimulus as the actor does
The higher the percentage
of people who react in
the same way, higher is
the consensus.
e.g.
Ali, Adnan, Ahmed and so
on react the same way
towards the given
stimulus or event.
CONSISTENCY
The extent to which the
person in question react
to the stimulus or event in
the same way on other
occasions or time.
e.g.
boss yells at Ali every time
he sees him.
DISTINCTIVENESS
The extent to which one
particular actor ((the
person whose behavior
we are trying to explain)
behaves in the same way
to different stimuli
E.g.
boss yells at all other
employees or just Ali.

25. When Internal Attribution Occurs
• Internal attribution occurs when
– Consensus = Low
• Behavior is unique to the
person
– Distinctiveness = Low
• Person displays same
behavior with different
targets and in different
situations
– Consistency = High
• The person’s behavior occurs
reliably across occasions
When External Attribution Occurs
• External attribution occurs when
– Consensus = High
• Other people behave similarly
in the same situation
– Distinctiveness = High
• The person’s behavior is
specific to that situation or
target
– Consistency = High
• The person’s behavior occurs
reliably across occasions

26. Evaluation of the Covariation Model
• Information about all three dimensions may not
be available
– People still make attributions
• Consistency and distinctiveness used more than
consensus

28. Example:

30. Attribution Errors
Correspondence Bias
• Correspondence bias is the tendency to infer that people’s behavior
corresponds to their dispositions (personality).
• We tend to perceive others as acting as they do because they are “that
kind of person” rather than because of many external factors that may
influence their behavior.
• We pay attention to people, not situation and we tend to think that they
alone cause their behavior.
Actor-observer Effect
• The tendency to attribute our own behavior to situational causes
(external) but that of others to dispositional causes (internal).
• We believe our behavior arises due to situational causes but that of
others from their traits or dispositions. You fell; I was pushed.
The Self-serving Bias
• The tendency to attribute positive outcomes to internal causes (e.g.
one’s own traits, intelligence) but negative outcomes to external causes
(e.g. chance, luck, task difficulty).
• When we succeed, we give credit to our own internal factors but, if we
fail we blame the external factors.