This is called attribution theory. For example, is someone angry because they are bad-tempered or because something bad happened?
The basis of attribution theory is that people want to know the reasons for the actions that they and others take; they want to attribute causes to behaviors they see rather than assuming that these behaviors are random. This allows people to assume some feeling of control over their own behaviors and over situations.
Psychologist Fritz Heider — first developed attribution theory in his book The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. Heider proposed that what people perceived and believed about what they saw dictated how they would act, even if their beliefs about what they perceived were invalid.
A final development to attribution theory was provided by psychologist Harold Kelley, who examined how consistency, distinctiveness, and consensus could be used by individuals to establish the validity of their perceptions. For instance, managers must often observe employee performance and make related judgments.
Making an inaccurate judgment about the causes of poor performance can have negative repercussions for the organization.
Attributions also may influence employee motivation. Employees who perceive the cause of their success to be outside of their control may be reluctant to attempt new tasks and may lose motivation to perform well in the workplace.
Conversely, employees who attribute their success to themselves are more likely to have high motivation for work. Thus, understanding attributions that people make can have a strong effect on both employee performance and managerial effectiveness. First, the behavior of an individual must be observed.
Second, the perceiver must Attribution process that the behavior they have observed is deliberate. That is, the person being observed is believed to have behaved intentionally.
Finally, the observer attributes the observed behavior to either internal or external causes. Internal causes are attributed to the person being observed, while external causes are attributed to outside factors.
Task difficulty and luck are the external causes of behavior. When perceiving behavior, an observer will make a judgment as to which of these factors is the cause of behavior.
However, when making a determination between internal and external causes of behavior, the perceiver must examine the elements of consistency, distinctiveness, and consensus. Consistency describes whether the person being observed behaves the same way when faced with the same set of circumstances.
If the person being observed acts the same way in the same type of situation, consistency is high; if they act differently each time, then consistency is low.
Distinctiveness is whether the observed person acts the same way in different types of situations. If the person being observed exhibits the same behavior in a variety of contexts, then distinctiveness is low; if they have different behavior depending on the context, then distinctiveness is high.
Finally, consensus is the degree to which other people, if in the same situation, would behave similarly to the person being observed. If the observer sees others acting the same way that the person being perceived acts, then consensus is high.
However, if others behave differently in the type of situation, then consensus is low. Consistency, distinctiveness, and consensus are evaluated when observing behavior, and then a judgment about an internal versus external cause of behavior is made.
When consistency, distinctiveness, and consensus are all high, the perceiver concludes that there is an external cause of behavior. When consistency is high, distinctiveness is low, and consensus is low, the perceiver will attribute the cause of behavior to internal factors.
To better understand consistency, distinctiveness, and consensus, consider a workplace example. Nancy, a manager, has assigned a team of employees to develop a custom sales training program for a client. As the project progresses, Nancy continues to see problems in the work produced by Jim, one of the team members.
meanings have in common is a process of assigning: in attribution as explanation, a behav- ior is assigned to its cause; in attribution as inference, a quality or attribute is assigned to the agent on the basis of an observed behavior. Beneficiaries excluded from this attribution process are not considered for inclusion in the calculation of the claims-based quality outcome and per capita cost measures. Figure 1 summarizes the two-step attribution process. The process of assigning the cause of behavior to some situation or event outside a person's control rather than to some internal characteristic. When we try to explain our own behavior we tend to make external attributions, such as situational or environment timberdesignmag.com: Saul Mcleod.
A review of his past performance appraisals indicates that he has not had prior performance problems when creating custom sales training programs. This would lead Nancy to conclude that there was an external cause of the poor performance. Second, Nancy considers distinctiveness; she wants to know if Jim has performed poorly on different types of tasks.
Finally, Nancy assesses consensus, or the behavior of others in this similar task. In asking the team members about their experiences with the current project, she finds that many of them have had difficulty in developing this custom sales training program.
The prior example illustrated how consistency, distinctiveness, and consensus might point toward an external cause. Nancy, the observer from the previous example, also has experienced difficulties with a secretary named Kelly.
Another manager has complained to Nancy that Kelly has not completed work on time and turns in work full of errors. Nancy observes Kelly for several days and finds that, when given work by this particular manager, Kelly continues to perform poorly, which indicates an internal cause i.
Second, when performing work for other managers on other tasks, Kelly continues to do substandard work; this is distinctiveness, and it again points to an internal cause.
Finally, Nancy observes that when other secretaries perform the work assigned by the manager who complained about Kelly, they are able to successfully perform their duties in a timely manner. This is consensus, and it also points to an internal cause. However, these attributions are not always correct.The process of attribution is subject to several kinds of errors.
However experiences and evidences show biases in the process of attribution. It is a general tendency not to see faults with the situation, but with the person while trying to trace the causes of actions of another person.
Attribution What is attribution? Attribution is an important concept in psychology. Below is one definition of attribution (concerning causal judgments about others): Attribution Definition: Attribution is the process of explaining the behaviors of others.
Attribution Examples: There are two basic ways we may explain the behaviors of others. Attribution What is attribution? Attribution is an important concept in psychology. Below is one definition of attribution (concerning causal judgments about others): Attribution Definition: Attribution is the process of explaining the behaviors of others.
Attribution Examples: There are two basic ways we may explain the behaviors of others. Beneficiaries excluded from this attribution process are not considered for inclusion in the calculation of the claims-based quality outcome and per capita cost measures. Figure 1 summarizes the two-step attribution process.
The process of assigning the cause of behavior to some situation or event outside a person's control rather than to some internal characteristic. When we try to explain our own behavior we tend to make external attributions, such as situational or environment timberdesignmag.com: Saul Mcleod.
Trop's two-stage model of attribution process. Identification: Automatic, Observation action/behavior > Disposition diagnoses. Inference: Controlled. Situational variances adjustment > Actual disposition diagnoses. Gilbert's Model of attribution process.
Categorization: Automatic, Perceiving stimuli/action.