LEARNING NOTES FOR: MGT611 -- Asst. Prof. C.K. Barnett
Copyright 1999, Carole K. Barnett All Rights Reserved
"Attributions" are the explanations that people develop to understand the causes of human behavior. Attribution "theory" is actually not a single theory or the work of one person, but rather it is a collection of many social psychological theories that describe how people explain the causes of behavior.
Attribution theory is useful in helping us to understand why people behave the way they do as well as how to change human behavior. We assign the cause of someone's behavior to either (a) some characteristic of the actor (e.g., ability, personality, motivation) or else (b) to factors external to the person (e.g., task difficulty or luck). In the first case, we are attributing behavior to internal causes and in the second case, we are attributing behavior to external causes.
By focusing on decisions about whether someone's behavior is internally or externally caused, attribution theory and the attribution process are concerned with judgement. Accurate attributions are important; if we attribute an actor's behavior to false or unreal causes, serious problems are likely to result.
Sometimes, our attributions for others' behavior can be inaccurate. This is due primarily to human biases. Three biases have been extensively researched:
(1) The fundamental attribution error (FAE) is the tendency to overattribute behavior to internal ("dispositional") rather than to external ("situational") causes. For example, we might judge a banker's behavior to be "truly" conservative in nature, ignoring that his or her employer dictates conservative action. Thus, we might fail to realize that the observed behavior is distinctive to a particular situation.
(2) The self-serving bias is the tendency to take credit and responsibility for successful outcomes of our behaviors and to deny credit and responsibility for our failures. For example, if a marketing director champions a product that turns out to be a success, he might attribute the outcome to his retailing expertise; but if the same marketing process produces a failure, the director might attribute the outcome to the poor performance of the marketing research firm that he used.
(3) The actor-observer effect is the tendency to attribute the
behavior of others to internal causes (i.e., the fundamental attribution
error) and to attribute one's own behavior to external causes. For
example, as actors, we might be particularly sensitive to those environmental
events that lead us to be late to our appointments, but as observers of
the same behaviors in other people, we are more likely to make attributions
pointing to dispositional (internal) causes.
Figure 1: THE ATTRIBUTION PROCESS
Behavior --> Observe -->Determine Intent -->Assign
Occurs Behavior
of Behavior
Reason for Behavior
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
v
v
v
INTERNAL: * EXTERNAL:
Unintended (?) Personal
cause? Situational cause?
(e.g., due to luck (e.g., ability,
(e.g., task difficulty,
or chance)
personality,
luck, etc.)
motivation, etc.)
*"Internal" and "personal" are often used interchangeably
or as substitutes for "dispositional."
Figure 2: ATTRIBUTION THEORY
OBSERVATION INTERPRETATION ATTRIBUTION of CAUSE
| High ("no")-----------------------> | External | ||
| Distinctiveness----------| | |||
| Low ("yes")-----------------------> | Internal | ||
| High ("yes")-----------------------> | External | ||
| "An individual's behaviors" | Consensus----------------| | ||
| Low ("no")------------------------> | Internal | ||
| High ("yes")----------------------> | Internal | ||
| Consistency---------------| | |||
| Low ("no")------------------------> | External |
1. We observe an actor's behavior.
2. We try to determine whether a particular behavioral instance was internally or externally caused, that is, whether it was under the personal control of the actor or the result of situational or "outside" factors.
3. To interpret the behavior, we examine three of its features:
a. Distinctiveness - Does the actor behave this way toward other people or things? If "no" then the behavior is highly distinctive and we attribute its happening to external, i.e., situational causes, rather than to internal or personal causes.IMPLICATIONS FOR MGT611 STUDENTS:b. Consensus - Do other people behave in the same way as the actor in similar situations? If "yes" then the behavior is rated high on consensus and we attribute its cause to external (situational) rather than internal (personal) factors.
c. Consistency - Does the actor behave this way on other occasions? If "yes" then the actor's behavior is highly consistent and we attribute causality to internal (personal) factors rather than to external (situational) factors.
How do you judge people?
Do you ask yourself if the actor behaves this way toward other people?Now think about how significant others in your life might be interpreting (or misinterpreting) your behavior. What process do you think they use to judge your behavior? What biases might be influencing their judgments?
Do you ask yourself if the actor is behaving in the same way that other people behave in this situation?
Do you ask yourself if you have observed the actor behaving the same way on other occasions?
Finally, think about what role judgment plays in management as well as in organizational decision making.
Copyright 1999, Carole K. Barnett All Rights Reserved