Attribution is a concept in psychology that explains how people understand the reasons behind events in their lives, whether they are caused by things outside themselves or by their own actions. The models that describe this process are known as Attribution theory. Psychologists began studying attribution in the early 20th century with the work of Fritz Heider, and later research was expanded by Harold Kelley and Bernard Weiner. Heider introduced the idea of "locus of causality," which refers to whether a person believes an event is caused by factors beyond their control (external) or by their own actions (internal). These early beliefs are called attributions. Psychologists use attributions to learn more about a person's motivation and abilities. This theory is especially important for employers, who use it to improve workers' motivation, goals, and productivity.
Psychologists have found that people often have biases when explaining why events happen, especially when judging others. The fundamental attribution error is when people explain others' actions by focusing on their personality or character rather than considering outside influences. For example, someone might think another person is responsible for their problems, but blame outside factors for their own issues. Cultural bias occurs when someone assumes another person's behavior is based on their own culture's practices and beliefs.
Attribution theory has been criticized for being too simple, as it assumes people always think logically and systematically. It also does not consider how social, cultural, and historical factors influence how people explain causes.
Background
Fritz Heider developed Attribution theory during a time when psychologists were expanding research on personality, social psychology, and human motivation. He worked alone on his research but expressed a desire for Attribution theory not to be linked only to him, as many other ideas and people contributed to its development. Weiner believed Heider was too modest, and the openness of the theory has helped it remain relevant today. Attribution theory is the main theory from which Harold Kelley's covariation model and Bernard Weiner's three-dimensional model developed. It also influenced other theories, such as Heider's Perceived Locus of Causality, which later led to Deci and Ryan's Theory of Self-determination.
Key theorists
Fritz Heider, a Gestalt psychologist, is often called the "father of Attribution theory" in the early 20th century. In his 1920 dissertation, Heider studied a question about how people understand the world: why do people assign traits like color to objects they see, even though these traits are not real but are created in the mind? Heider explained that people connect what they directly sense, such as sounds or vibrations, to objects they believe are causing those sensations. He said that when people see sensory information, they think the object causing that information is "out there" in the world. Heider applied this idea to how people understand others, such as their motives, intentions, and emotions, which show up in their actions. In the 1940s, Heider began researching how people interact with each other and how they understand others. He wrote a book in 1958 called The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations, which became a major source of knowledge about Attribution theory. In this book, Heider outlined two goals for his research. His first goal was to create a scientific theory based on a system of ideas that could address problems in the field. Many later researchers misunderstood this goal, thinking it focused on dividing people into two groups instead of what Heider actually described. His second goal was to redefine "common-sense psychology" to develop a scientific theory that explains how people understand others. This helped clarify his theory on attribution. Heider studied why people succeed or fail, and he grouped the reasons into three categories: ability, effort, and task difficulty. Heider believed ability and effort were internal factors, while task difficulty was an external factor.
Bernard Weiner did not create Attribution theory, but he expanded it to make it more relevant today. The most important part of Weiner's work was how Attribution theory relates to motivation, which he introduced in 1968. He explained that how people understand past events and actions influences what they do in the future, as past experiences drive future actions. Weiner built on other theories, such as Atkinson's Theory of Motivation, Drive theory, and Thorndike's Law of Effect, which states that behaviors followed by rewards are more likely to be repeated. Weiner argued that Attribution theory is subjective, meaning it is based on a person's thoughts, feelings, and motivations. This means researchers can study emotions, biases, and behaviors in their participants without needing to stay completely objective.
Harold Kelley, a social psychologist, expanded Heider's Attribution theory. Kelley focused on the main ideas Heider discovered, such as how people make internal and external attributions. He also studied whether the process of making these attributions could be connected to scientific methods. Kelley later developed his covariation model, which he described as a way to determine cause and effect by looking at how things change together. Kelley examined how people draw conclusions about causes and tried to explain how different factors influence these conclusions.
Types
External attribution, also called situational attribution, means explaining someone's actions by looking at their environment. For example, if a car tire is punctured, someone might think it was caused by a hole in the road. By blaming the road's poor condition, they can understand the event without thinking it might have been their own poor driving. People often explain bad events by blaming outside factors instead of their own actions.
For example, someone might avoid using hearing aids by blaming outside reasons. This could include: A person cannot afford the cost of hearing aids and chooses not to buy them. Another person believes using hearing aids would make others feel burdened and avoids wearing them. A person does not trust the doctor who prescribed the hearing aids. Lastly, a person thinks other health problems, either their own or someone else's, are more important than needing hearing aids.
Fangfang Wen studied how people react when they blame others or situations for events. The study tested whether blaming people instead of outside factors makes people feel more angry, which could lead to aggressive actions or avoiding others. Researchers looked at real-life events, such as a data leak involving people returning from Wuhan and workers refusing to return from Hubei. In one part of the study, they examined whether changing how blame is assigned (to people or situations) affects emotions and actions. The results showed that when people blame others (internal attribution), they feel more anger and disrespect, which can cause aggression or avoidance. This shows how blaming others can increase negative feelings and influence behavior.
Internal attribution, also called dispositional attribution, means explaining behavior by looking at a person's own traits, such as their personality or motivation, instead of outside factors. This idea is similar to the concept of locus of control, where people believe they are responsible for what happens to them.
For example, someone might avoid using hearing aids by blaming themselves. This could include: A person thinks hearing aids are unnecessary and chooses not to use them. Another person fears being treated differently because of their disability and avoids wearing them. A person finds it hard to use hearing aids in daily life and decides not to wear them. Lastly, a person does not understand how hearing aids can help and chooses not to use them even though they could be beneficial.
Fangfang Wen studied how people who are not directly involved in a situation react to discrimination against workers returning from Hubei. The study found that when people are blamed for problems, they feel more anger, which can lead to avoiding others or acting aggressively. Other feelings, like sadness or tension, stayed the same. This supports the idea that how people interpret situations affects their emotions and actions. Unlike external attribution, where blame is placed on the environment, internal attribution leads to stronger negative emotions and more intense reactions.
Other dimensions of attribution
When attribution theory was used to study clinical depression, the difference between internal and external explanations was expanded by considering other factors. These include whether a cause is seen as lasting a long time or only happening for a short period, and whether the cause is viewed as affecting all areas of a person's life or only specific situations.
Theories and models
Fritz Heider, a psychologist, studied how people understand and explain the behavior of others. He introduced the idea of "common-sense psychology," which describes how people use observations to explain why people act in certain ways. Heider believed that people often explain behaviors using two main types of reasons: internal (personal) and external (situational). Internal attributions mean a person's actions are explained by their own traits, such as their personality, mood, or effort. External attributions mean a person's actions are explained by the situation, such as the environment, other people, or luck. These two types of explanations can lead to very different views of a person’s behavior.
Heider also introduced the idea of "perceived locus of causality," which describes how people see the causes of events as either coming from within themselves or from outside factors. This concept helps explain how people understand the reasons behind actions and how these understandings affect motivation. For example, if someone feels they have control over their actions (autonomy), they may be more motivated to complete tasks. This idea influenced later theories, such as Deci and Ryan’s self-determination theory, which focuses on how people feel motivated by autonomy, relatedness, and competence. Employers and psychologists use these ideas to help improve motivation and performance in different areas. Research shows that people often blame their team’s losses on outside factors but credit their wins to their team’s abilities, a pattern known as the self-serving attribution error.
Correspondent inferences describe how people try to understand someone’s personality by looking at their actions. Edward E. Jones and Keith Davis said that people make these inferences when someone acts freely, unexpectedly, or when their actions have clear positive results. People consider three factors: whether the action was a choice, how surprising the action was, and how many positive effects the action had. For example, someone who gives half their money to charity is seen as more generous than someone who gives a small amount, because the first person’s action is harder to explain without assuming kindness. Another factor is how different an action is from other choices. If a choice is very different from others, it’s easier to guess the person’s traits.
The covariation model explains how people decide the causes of behavior by looking at patterns. Harold Kelley’s model says people use three types of information: consensus (how others act in the same situation), distinctiveness (how a person acts in different situations), and consistency (how often a person acts the same way in similar situations). These clues help people decide if a behavior is caused by the person (internal) or the situation (external). Some researchers say people do not use consensus information enough, but this idea is still debated.
The covariation model has levels that describe how often people agree or disagree about events. High consensus means many people agree on something, while low consensus means few people agree. High distinctiveness means an event is unusual, while low distinctiveness means it is common. High consistency means an event happens often over time, while low consistency means it happens briefly.
Bernard Weiner studied how people react to success or failure based on their beliefs about why things happen. He said that how people explain their successes or failures affects how hard they try in the future. For example, if someone believes they succeeded because of their own effort (internal, stable, and controllable reasons), they may try harder next time. If they believe they failed because of bad luck (external, unstable, and uncontrollable), they may feel less motivated. Weiner’s theory has three categories: stability (whether a cause is long-lasting or temporary), locus of causality (whether a cause is internal or external), and controllability (whether a cause is something a person can change or not). Stability affects how confident people feel about the future, controllability affects how determined they are to keep trying, and locus of causality affects how people feel about the results of their actions.
Bias and errors
People often try to understand why others act the way they do, but they may make mistakes because of biases and errors in thinking. As Fritz Heider said, "our understanding of why things happen is often influenced by our own needs and ways of thinking." Here are some examples of these thinking errors.
One common mistake is called the fundamental attribution error. This happens when people explain others' actions based on their personality or character, instead of considering outside factors. For example, if someone is overweight, others might think they are lazy or eat too much, rather than considering a medical reason. This mistake happens because people usually focus more on the person acting than on the situation around them.
When judging others, people often ignore the situation and instead believe the person's character is the main reason for their behavior. This is because people pay more attention to the person doing the action than to the environment. As a result, people are more likely to blame someone's personality than the situation when explaining behavior.
However, when people look at their own actions, they often blame outside factors for bad results and take credit for good results by saying it was because of their own qualities. For example, if someone fails a test, they might say it was because of the teacher's difficult questions, but if someone else fails, they might say that person was lazy or didn't pay attention.
The way people form opinions about others is a key part of social thinking research. These ideas are not controversial when discussing how people judge things, but they can cause confusion when people think of these judgments as "attitudes."
Differences in culture can affect how people make these mistakes. For example, people from cultures that value individual goals (like many Western countries) are more likely to blame a person's character for their actions. In contrast, people from cultures that value group goals (like many Asian or African countries) are more likely to consider outside factors when explaining behavior.
Culture bias happens when people assume someone acts a certain way based on their own culture's values. For example, individualistic cultures (like those in the United States or Europe) often focus on personal goals, while collectivist cultures (like those in Asia or Africa) often value group goals and teamwork.
People from individualistic cultures are more likely to make the fundamental attribution error than those from collectivist cultures. This is because individualistic cultures often explain behavior based on a person's character, while collectivist cultures consider the situation more.
Research shows that people from individualistic cultures are more likely to use self-serving bias, which means they blame outside factors for failure but take credit for success by saying it was because of their own abilities. In contrast, people from collectivist cultures may use self-effacing bias, where they blame themselves for failure but credit outside factors for success.
Studies also show that in the United States, culture bias can lead to exaggerated views of how culture affects people, especially when minorities are involved. This can make it seem like minorities have less influence on their own psychological growth compared to people from other backgrounds.
People often explain others' actions based on their character, but they explain their own actions based on the situation. For example, if a person gets a bad grade, they might say the teacher asked a question they didn't study. But if someone else gets a bad grade, they might say the person was lazy or didn't pay attention.
This difference in how people explain actions is called the actor-observer bias. It was first studied by E. Jones and R. Nisbett in 1971. They found that people focus on the person when observing others but focus on the situation when they are the ones acting. This bias is less common with people we know well, like family or friends, because we understand their behavior better and consider the situation more.
Dispositional attribution is when people explain someone's actions based on their character or personality. For example, if a usually friendly waiter is rude to a customer, the customer might think the waiter is a bad person. The customer ignores possible reasons, like the waiter having a bad day, and instead assumes the waiter's behavior is due to their personality.
How much people use dispositional attribution depends on their beliefs and culture. Research shows that people's thinking can be influenced by instructions or information given to them, which can guide how they judge others.
Self-serving bias is when people blame their own failures on outside factors but credit their successes to their own abilities. For example, if someone gets a promotion, they might say it was because they are skilled. If they don't get a promotion, they might say it was because their manager didn't like them. Some researchers think this happens because people want to protect their self-esteem, while others believe it happens because people want to protect their self-image or avoid looking bad.
Application
Attribution theory helps explain how people understand the causes of actions and events. In the legal system, jurors use attribution theory to decide if a defendant's behavior was caused by their own choices (dispositional) or by outside circumstances (situational). Jurors who believe a defendant's actions were due to their own choices are more likely to support harsh punishments, such as a death sentence, compared to a life sentence.
Studies show that Black youth are 1.4 times more likely to be placed in secure confinement, the strictest punishment for juveniles, than white youth. Research by Patrick Lowery and John Burrow found that judges and jurors sometimes use societal norms, such as beliefs about stability or consistency, to simplify complex cases. Other factors, like the condition of a juvenile’s home or community, can influence decisions. Juveniles from single-parent homes are more likely to be charged with crimes, and this information may affect how jurors or judges decide cases. The same study noted that socio-economic status may also play a role, as poorer areas have higher arrest rates than wealthier areas.
In marketing, attribution theory helps analyze how consumers understand the reasons behind company actions. It has also been used to study how companies explain their involvement in social causes, such as environmental efforts. Some companies may promote their efforts more than they actually do, a practice called CSR-washing. People may question a company’s true motives if they suspect this behavior. Companies might explain their actions as being influenced by external factors, like environmental issues, or internal factors, like a CEO’s personal values. Studies suggest that companies that openly discuss their social efforts are often seen as more committed to making a difference than those that stay quiet.
In clinical psychology, attribution theory helps explain depression. Researchers found that people who blame failures on internal, unchangeable, and widespread causes (like personal flaws) are more likely to experience depression. This pattern is linked to feelings of hopelessness, poor academic performance, and a belief that negative events are their own fault. These individuals may also value their reputation and social standing highly and may misinterpret others’ actions as hostile. This thinking style may be influenced by the depressive symptoms of their parents.
Some studies suggest that this pattern of thinking may not always lead to depression in all cultures. A study by researchers at Tsinghua University found that Buddhists often have this thinking style due to beliefs like Karma, but they do not show higher rates of depression.
The Attributional Style Questionnaire (ASQ), created in 1996, was used to test if people had this type of thinking linked to depression. However, some researchers prefer a method called Content Analysis of Verbatim Explanation (CAVE), which analyzes people’s writings to assess their thinking style. CAVE is less invasive than surveys or experiments.
Attribution theory is used in sports and health contexts. For example, in children’s physical activity and African soccer, people may attribute success to magical rituals rather than technical skills. In health, older women are often inactive due to internal, unchangeable factors like age. A study with 37 women found that seeing problems as unchangeable reduced their motivation to stay healthy. Retraining them to see external factors as changeable increased their sense of control and reduced feelings of helplessness.
In sports psychology, attribution theory helps explain why athletes think about their performance. Researchers like Heider, Jones, Davis, and Kelley studied how people explain others’ actions. Rotter’s work showed how expectations influence behavior. Weiner’s model explains how people see problems as changeable or unchangeable, which affects their confidence in improving. In combat sports, athletes often blame successes on internal, stable factors and failures on external, changeable ones.
Learned helplessness
The idea of learned helplessness came from studies with animals. Psychologists Martin Seligman and Steven F. Maier found that dogs trained to receive electrical shocks they could not avoid later failed to try escaping similar shocks they could actually avoid. They believed this concept could explain human mental health issues. People who think bad events are caused by things outside their control, that remain unchanged, and affect many areas of life may feel they cannot improve their situation. This lack of effort to change things can worsen sadness and may lead to serious depression and other mental health problems.
Perceptual salience
When people try to explain why someone else behaves a certain way, they often focus on the person themselves. They may not consider outside factors that could influence the person's actions. They often ignore these missing pieces and instead base their explanation on the most noticeable details. The most noticeable details strongly influence how they see the situation.
When people explain their own behavior, they pay more attention to the situation and outside factors, but they notice their own actions and physical state less. This often leads them to believe that outside factors, rather than their own actions, caused their behavior.
COVID-19 pandemic
The start of the COVID-19 pandemic helped researchers study Attribution theory further. A study by Elvin Yao and Jason Siegel explored Weiner's ideas about Attribution theory and how people react emotionally when someone spreads COVID-19 on purpose. The researchers added a factor about whether the person spreading the virus could control their actions. The study found that people felt very angry and frustrated when they believed someone was intentionally spreading the virus. This anger often led to a strong desire to punish the person, especially if that person had full control over their situation and knew what they were doing. Even if the person spreading the virus did not have control over the situation, others still felt angry if they believed the person had clear intentions to spread the virus. This study shows that when people think someone's actions harm society, they tend to respond negatively.
Criticism
Attribution theory has been criticized for being too simple and for assuming that people always think in a logical and organized way. However, the fundamental attribution error shows that people often make quick, incomplete judgments and are influenced by their own goals and desires. This theory also does not explain how social, cultural, and historical influences shape how people assign causes to events. This issue has been studied in detail through discourse analysis, a field in psychology that uses methods like examining language to better understand human behavior. For example, linguistic categorization theory explains how the words people use can affect the way they explain causes of events.