payment page
Attributions are inferences that people make about the causes of events and behavior. People make attributions in order to understand their experiences. Attributions strongly influence the way people interact with others. Attributions are broadly categorized into two types: dispositional and situational.
Dispositional attributions (also called internal attributions) assign the cause of behavior to personal traits, abilities, or qualities. Dispositional attributions focus on factors that are within the individual, such as personality, effort, competencies, and attitudes.
Example: Maria’s car breaks down on the freeway. If she believes the breakdown happened because of her ignorance about cars, she is making an internal attribution.
Situational attributions (also called external attributions) assign the cause of behavior to external factors or circumstances. Situational attributions emphasize the influence of physical circumstances, social context, and other external influences on behavior.
Example: Maria’s car breaks down on the freeway. If she believes that the breakdown happened because her car is old, she is making an external attribution.
Explanatory Styles
Explanatory style refers to the ways in which people consistently tend to explain good and bad events in their lives and the lives of others. This cognitive framework influences how individuals perceive their experiences and impacts their emotional well-being, resilience, and behavior. Explanatory styles rely on three attribution dimensions that shape how people interpret events:
Internal versus External: Internal attributions assign the cause to personal factors, such as abilities or effort, while external attributions attribute events to outside circumstances, such as luck or environmental factors.
Stable versus Unstable: Stable attributions suggest that the cause is unchanging and consistent over time, whereas unstable attributions imply that the cause is temporary or situation-specific.
Global versus Specific: Global attributions generalize the cause to many aspects of life, affecting many areas of one’s life. Specific attributions limit the cause, and therefore its impact, to a particular event, situation, or circumstance.
Explanatory styles are categorized into two main types: optimistic and pessimistic.
Optimistic explanatory style attributes positive events to factors that are internal, stable, and global, while viewing negative events as external, unstable, and specific. For example, a person with an optimistic explanatory style might interpret a job promotion as a result of his or her skills (internal) and view a temporary setback, like missing a deadline, as due to a one-time factor such as unexpected traffic (external and unstable). This style fosters resilience and motivation, as individuals believe they can influence positive outcomes and see setbacks as temporary.
Pessimistic explanatory style attributes negative events to factors that are internal, stable, and global while minimizing the significance of positive events. For instance, someone with a pessimistic explanatory style might view a failed test as proof that they are inherently incapable (internal, stable) and believe they will always struggle academically (global). At the same time, they may dismiss a success, like a high test score, as a lucky fluke (external, unstable). This style is associated with higher levels of stress, anxiety, and depression, as individuals may feel incapable of changing their circumstances.
Attribution Bias
People have systematic biases, which lead them to make incorrect attributions. These biases include actor/observer bias, fundamental attribution error, and self-serving bias.
The actor-observer bias refers to the tendency to attribute one’s own actions to external, situational factors while attributing others’ actions to internal, dispositional factors. For example, if a person is late to a meeting, they might blame traffic or an unforeseen delay (situational), but if someone else is late, they might assume that the latecomer is disorganized or careless (dispositional). This bias arises because individuals have more insight into their own circumstances than those of others, leading to a disparity in how behavior is explained.
The fundamental attribution error is the tendency to attribute other people’s behavior to internal factors such as personality traits, abilities, and feelings. For instance, if one driver cuts another driver off in traffic, an observer might assume that the first driver is reckless or rude (dispositional) rather than considering situational factors, such as an emergency or an obstructed view. This bias reflects a tendency to focus on personal characteristics rather than contextual influences when evaluating others’ actions.
It should be noted the actor-observer bias and the fundamental attribution error both involve how behavior is attributed, but they differ in scope and focus. The actor-observer bias specifically contrasts how people explain their own behavior versus others’ behavior. In contrast, the fundamental attribution error applies only to attributions about others’ behavior and reflects a broader tendency to overemphasize dispositional explanations while underestimating situational factors. The key difference is that the actor-observer bias involves both self and others, whereas the fundamental attribution error focuses exclusively on how others’ actions are judged.
The self-serving bias is the tendency to attribute successes to internal factors and failures to situational factors. For example, a student who earns a high grade might credit their intelligence or hard work, but if they fail an exam, they might blame the difficulty of the test or unfair grading. This bias serves to protect self-esteem and maintain a positive self-image, but it can also hinder self-awareness and personal growth. Additionally, this bias tends to increase as time passes after an event. Therefore, the further in the past an event is, the more likely people are to congratulate themselves for successes and to blame the situation for failures.
Cultural Influences on Attribution Style
Research suggests that cultural values and norms affect the way people make attributions. In particular, differences in attribution style exist between individualist and collectivist cultures. People in individualist cultures place a high value on uniqueness and independence, believe in the importance of individual goals, and define themselves in terms of personal attributes. People in collectivist cultures, on the other hand, place a high value on conformity and interdependence, believe in the importance of group goals, and define themselves in terms of their membership in groups. North American and Western European cultures tend to be individualistic, while Asian, Latin American, and African cultures tend to be collectivist.
People in collectivist cultures tend to be less susceptible to the fundamental attribution error than people in individualist cultures. People from collectivist cultures are more likely to believe that a person’s behavior is due to situational demands rather than to personal attributes. People from collectivist cultures are also less susceptible to the self-serving bias.
Locus of Control
The term locus of control refers to people’s perception of whether or not they have control over circumstances in their lives.
People with an internal locus of control tend to believe they have control over their circumstances. For example, students with an internal locus of control might believe their grades depend on how hard they study. This perspective often fosters a sense of autonomy, motivation, and resilience as individuals feel empowered to influence their circumstances. However, an excessively internal locus of control can lead to self-blame when outcomes are unfavorable, potentially contributing to stress or burnout. Having an internal locus of control is associated with better physical and emotional health.
People with an external locus of control tend to believe that fate, luck, or other people control circumstances. For instance, someone with an external locus of control might attribute a job loss to bad luck or an unfair boss rather than their own performance. While this perspective can protect against feelings of guilt in adverse situations, it may also result in feelings of helplessness or passivity, as individuals may perceive that their actions have little impact on outcomes. This perception is linked to lower motivation and, in some cases, an increased risk of learned helplessness or depression.
Locus of control interacts with cultural norms and beliefs. In individualistic cultures, an internal locus of control is often emphasized, encouraging personal accountability and independence. In collectivistic cultures, an external locus of control may be more common, reflecting a belief in interconnectedness and external influences like community or spiritual forces.
Person Perception
Person perception refers to the mental processes individuals use to form impressions and judgments about others. These processes influence how people interpret, evaluate, and respond to the behavior, intentions, and characteristics of those around them.
Mere Exposure Effect
A person’s perception of how much they like something can be influenced by factors beyond their initial reaction or conscious evaluations, as demonstrated by the mere exposure effect. The mere exposure effect refers to the psychological phenomenon in which repeated exposure to a positive or neutral stimulus increases a person’s preference for it. In other words, the more people encounter something, the more likely they are to develop a positive attitude toward it. This effect applies to a wide range of stimuli, including objects, people, music, art, and even abstract patterns.
Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
Self-fulfilling prophecy occurs when a person’s beliefs or expectations about themselves or others influence their behavior, which in turn elicits actions from others that confirm those original beliefs. This phenomenon demonstrates how perceptions can shape social interactions and outcomes, reinforcing initial assumptions.
In the context of person perception, self-fulfilling prophecies often arise when individuals unconsciously behave in ways that align with their expectations. For instance, if a teacher believes a student is highly capable, they may provide more encouragement and challenging opportunities. In response, the student might perform better, reinforcing the teacher’s initial belief. Conversely, negative expectations can also create detrimental cycles. If someone expects a coworker to be uncooperative, that person might act guarded or cold, prompting the coworker to respond similarly, confirming the initial expectation.
One of the most famous studies demonstrating the concept of self-fulfilling prophecy is a study conducted in 1968 by Robert Rosenthal and Lenore Jacobson. In the experiment, researchers gave elementary school teachers false information about their students. They told teachers that certain students were likely to experience an “intellectual growth spurt” in the upcoming school year, based on a fictional test. In reality, these students were randomly selected and had no special intellectual advantage over their peers. At the end of the school year, the students labeled as “intellectual bloomers” showed significantly greater improvement in their academic performance compared to other students. The researchers concluded that the teachers’ expectations about these students’ abilities led them to treat those students differently, providing more encouragement, attention, and opportunities to excel. This behavior, in turn, boosted the students’ performance, confirming the teachers’ initial (but false) expectations. This study provides strong evidence for the power of self-fulfilling prophecy in education and other social settings.
Social Comparison
Social comparison is a process of person perception in which individuals evaluate themselves by comparing their abilities, achievements, and qualities to those of others. This phenomenon plays a significant role in shaping self-concept, influencing emotions, and guiding behavior. People engage in social comparison as a way to assess their progress, validate their beliefs, or gain motivation, and it often occurs in everyday interactions and within broader societal contexts.
Social comparison can be upward or downward. Upward social comparison involves comparing oneself to others who are perceived to be better off, more skilled, or more successful. While this type of comparison can provide inspiration and motivation, it can also lead to feelings of inadequacy or envy if the gap between oneself and the comparison target seems too wide. For example, a student might compare themselves to a top-performing classmate to set academic goals, but this could also lead to self-doubt if the comparison seems overwhelming.
Downward social comparison occurs when individuals compare themselves to others who are perceived to be worse off or less accomplished. This type of comparison can boost self-esteem and provide reassurance by emphasizing one’s relative success or well-being. For instance, a person might feel better about his or her job performance when reflecting on a colleague’s struggles, and as a result experience gratitude or confidence.
Relative Deprivation
Relative deprivation refers to the perception that one is worse off compared to others or to a standard they believe they deserve, often leading to feelings of dissatisfaction, resentment, or frustration. This concept highlights that a person’s sense of deprivation is not based on their absolute circumstances but on a comparison with others in their social or economic group. For example, someone who earns a decent salary may feel deprived by perceiving that his or her peers are earning significantly more or enjoying a better quality of life. Relative deprivation is often linked to outcomes such as lower self-esteem, increased stress, or motivation for social change or protest. It emphasizes the role of social comparison in shaping people’s attitudes and behaviors, emphasizing that feelings of inequality often arise from perceived disparities rather than objective conditions.
