Attribution Theory

Attribution theory is a term used to describe a large array of social cognitive theories that seek to explain why human being behave in the way they do. For example, why do we commit road rage?, Why are we rude to service staff at restaurants?, and Why do we break traffic laws when we know its illegal? These behaviors are often observed every day. Some attribution theories emphasize the social aspects of the situation, some emphasize the affective traits of a person, and some take a mediating approach to both. However, they all seek to answer the grand question of why?

Within attribution theory two theories are two to be included in this assignment. First, we have Heider’s Naive Psychology Theory, and second we have Jones and Davis’s correspondent inference theory. This paper will seek to describe these theories and evaluate how their theoretical constructs can be applied to a situational prompt in which Molly, a 62-year-old Caucasian female is smoking and misses her bus, then begins to think about the social situations of her and her doctors.

First, we have Heider’s Theory of Naïve Psychology, otherwise known as Heider’ Theory of Common-Sense Psychology. The theory was proposed by Heider in 1958 as an application of existing concepts to explain the attributions people give others’ actions (Fiske & Taylor, 2017). Heider’s theory stated that people infer meaning from perceived behaviors. Essentially, an individual will perceive a specific dispositional quality and assume that to be the person’s reason for acting in a certain way (Fiske & Taylor, 2017). To summarize the theory in its most basic concept, the naïve individual will assume that one perceived dispositional trait is what all actions of a person can be attributed to.

Heider’s theory of commonsense psychology, however, isn’t so much a theory itself, as it is a framework for understanding the various aspects of attributions. For Heider, people were “naïve psychologists” (hence the name of the theory) and used both dispositional and situational cues to determine the cause and effect relationships between the intentions of individuals and their behaviors (Mcleod, 2012).

Directly related to Heider’s theory of naïve psychology is the correspondent inference theory developed by Jones and Davis in 1965. Under this theory, individuals search for dispositional traits that will be consistent and informative over time (Fiske & Taylor, 2017). We decide how informative another person’s behaviors are (i.e., how informative about them they are) by determining if their actions are intentional and consistently produced between situations (Fiske & Taylor, 2017). For example, if there are two choices that are similar, one would look at the consequences of the chosen action versus the potential unchosen actions. If there are very few to no similar consequences between the chosen and unchosen, a dispositional inference can be made. In short, Jones and Davis developed this theory to explain why and how individuals will infer other people’s dispositions.

Within the correspondent inference theory, several different concepts are used to classify certain intentions and behaviors, and to infer dispositions (Fiske & Taylor, 2017). First, we have social desirability. The lower the social desirability of a behavior, the more often it is attributed to that person’s disposition, whereas behaviors high in social desirability are seen to reflect social norms of the situation (Fiske & Taylor, 2017). Next we have social roles. Social roles are common patterns of behavior that are essentially expected to occur due to an individual’s membership of a certain social group (Fiske & Taylor, 2017). Behaviors that meet the expectations associated with that particular social role are seen to inform the perceiver of why an action occurred but give little information in the way of disposition (Fiske & Taylor, 2017). Finally, we have noncommon effects. Noncommon effects (or unique effects) are used to determine the disposition of that individual related to the actions they have taken (Fiske & Taylor, 2017). An individual can determine the disposition of an individual through the unique effects present in a chosen action that may be missing from the non-chosen actions (Fiske & Taylor, 2017). Correspondent inference theory also considers the hedonic relevance (whether an action obstructs or promotes the perceiver’s personal interests) as well as the situational constraints placed on the individual acting (Fiske & Taylor, 2017).

So, let’s apply the two theories mentioned above to the following vignette. Vignette number one states:

“Molly exited her doctor’s office and promptly lit a cigarette. In doing so, she missed her bus and would have to wait an additional 30 minutes for the next one. She thought about Dr. Wilson, her primary care physician, who was not too concerned about her smoking. Then, she thought about Dr. Smith, her cardiologist, who had clearly stated that she needs to stop smoking. Waiting for the next bus was no problem for Molly; she could enjoy a second cigarette.”

First, we have Heider’s theory of naïve psychology. In this theory Molly would make dispositional inferences based on perceptions of a certain behavior. Under Heider’s theory, people attempt to see cause and effect relationships where none exist in an attempt to make attributions about behavior (Mcleod, 2012). For Molly, her perceptions of her doctors and their concern for her smoking is what we’ll apply to Heider’s theory to. First, we have her primary care doctor who Molly says was not concerned about her smoking habit. It is a common point of all doctors to tell patients to stop smoking or to at least present concern over the habit. Molly, utilizing her perceptions of Dr. Wilson, her primary care doctor, may have attributed his lack of urgency for his lack of care. Molly is in her 60s, at her doctor’s office, and probably has been going to Dr. Wilson for quite some time. With this being the situational factors influencing the situation, her doctor probably knows that Molly won’t stop smoking just because they tell her to do so. Molly took this lack of urgency, or this lack of effort, as a non-existent concern.

However, then we have her cardiologist who was very concerned about her smoking and told her to quit. This plays into the situational factors as Molly is making no dispositional inference about her cardiologist, however, she is comparing his concern to her primary doctor’s apparent lack thereof. Under Heider’s theory both dispositional and situational factors influence an individual’s “naïve psychology” assumptions about attribution (Fiske & Taylor, 2017) and Molly’s causal inference between her primary doctor’s failure to mention her smoking and his apparent dispositional trait of concern (or lack thereof) is a direct result of that.

Next, let’s apply the correspondent inference theory to Molly’s situation. Jones and Davis’s correspondent inference theory, developed in 1965, states that individuals are social perceivers in that they seek to identify the intentions that underly behavior, which leads to them making a dispositional inference that will be consistent across varied situations (Fiske & Taylor, 2017). For Molly, being a smoker is most likely part of her identity as she is already in her 60s.

With regards to her smoking, she reflects on her primary care doctor and her cardiologist, and their reactions to her smoking. Molly made a dispositional inference about her primary care doctor in that he is not concerned about her smoking habit, in direct opposition to her cardiologist. Why did she infer this disposition towards her smoking habit? Well, she goes to her primary care doctor much more often than her cardiologist. At every doctor’s office that is a specialist, like a cardiologist, they look at everything, including unhealthy habits, and attempt to alter your behaviors by verbal warning. However, a primary care physician will focus on the reason for your visit and forego the gimmick of constantly hounding you about your habits. Even if her primary care doctor does hound her about smoking, Molly has used the concept of noncommon effects that her doctor’s behavior has, which is no concern over smoking.

With regards to her cardiologist, like I said before it is common, even expected, of doctors and specialists to tell you to stop engaging in bad habits. One part of the correspondent inference theory is the concept of social roles. When making an inference, people use social roles to determine the potential dispositional traits of a person related to that action (Fiske & Taylor, 2017). For Molly, the social role of her cardiologist, a healthcare specialist, may have been the underlying cause of his behavior, that is telling her to stop smoking, and so his dispositional inference couldn’t be determined, so she only used her primary doctor’s disposition to judge her actions (smoking at the bus stop).

For Molly, she is used to being with her primary care physician, so any inference she makes might be affected by that familiarity. However, were she to be in a different situation, for instance in a lung cancer clinic instead of a bus stop, she may rethink her dispositional inferences. Furthermore, her cardiologist is the one who told her to stop smoking. However, if it was her primary care physician who told her this, she may rethink the social role aspect of the specialist and listen more closely to her primary physician. The situational constraint of being a doctor at a doctors office could have been a factor limiting the cardiologist’s response options (in Molly’s perception anyway) and the fact that her primary physician’s lack of interest failed to oppose her personal interest in smoking (hedonic relevance) is also important.

So, to summarize, Heider’s theory of commonsense psychology focused on the dispositional factors versus the situational factors of attribution. While Molly was in a familiar place she visits often with her primary physician, her cardiologist is not necessarily familiar with her in the same way, hence a situational difference. Her primary physician’s disposition towards smoking (that is not really being concerned about it) may be in part due to her tendency to perceive certain behaviors as dispositional and neglect the situational influences (maybe her doctor is busy). From correspondent inference theory, her familiarity with her primary physician, the social role that her cardiologist has to fill as a specialist, and the fact that her primary physician’s apparent lack of concern for her smoking aligns with her own interests (hence hedonic relevance) all play into her inference that her primary physician doesn’t mind her smoking, and her cardiologist may not be opposed to smoking, but had to say so.

References

Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (2017). Social cognition: from brains to culture (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.

Mcleod, S. (2012). Attribution Theory. Retrieved from https://www.simplypsychology.org/attribution-theory.htm