Source: Textbook Ch. 5
Difficulty: Introductory | Prerequisites: Ch. 4 (Social Cognition), especially schemas and heuristics.
Attribution is how people explain the causes of events and behaviour, both their own and other people's. This chapter builds directly on the cognitive tools from Ch. 4 (schemas, heuristics) and shows how those tools systematically distort causal reasoning. The central question is: do people attribute behaviour to the person (internal/dispositional) or to the situation (external/situational)? The answer has consequences for blame, praise, prejudice, and self-esteem. You will encounter attribution concepts again in stereotyping (Ch. 11), relationships (Ch. 10), and aggression (Ch. 13).
People constantly explain why things happen, and these explanations fall along dimensions of internal vs external, stable vs unstable, and global vs specific. We are prone to overweighting personality and underweighting the situation when explaining others' behaviour (fundamental attribution error), while crediting ourselves for successes and blaming the situation for failures (self-serving bias). Cultural background, stress, and cognitive load all shape these patterns.
Causal attribution
The process of explaining the causes of events and behaviour.
In simple terms, it is the story you tell yourself about why something happened.
Internal (dispositional) attribution
Explaining behaviour by referring to characteristics of the person (personality, ability, effort).
External (situational) attribution
Explaining behaviour by referring to characteristics of the situation (social pressure, luck, task difficulty).
Covariation model (Kelley)
A framework for determining whether behaviour should be attributed internally or externally, based on three types of information: consensus, distinctiveness, and consistency.
Think of it as a mental checklist: Does everyone do this? Does this person do it only here? Do they always do it?
Consensus
Whether most other people would behave the same way in the same situation.
Distinctiveness
Whether the person behaves this way only toward this particular target, or toward many targets.
Consistency
Whether the person behaves this way every time in this situation.
Fundamental attribution error (FAE)
The tendency to attribute another person's behaviour to their dispositional traits while underestimating the influence of the situation.
In simple terms, you see someone trip and think "they're clumsy" rather than "the pavement is uneven."
Self-serving attributional bias
The tendency to attribute one's own successes to internal factors and one's failures to external factors.
Actor-observer difference
The tendency for actors to attribute their own behaviour to the situation, while observers attribute the same behaviour to the actor's disposition. (Note: the lecture flags that this mainly holds for negative outcomes, where it overlaps with self-serving bias.)
Counterfactual thinking
Mentally simulating alternative outcomes: what could, might, or should have happened if something had been done differently.
Think of it as the "if only..." thought process after something goes wrong.
Emotional amplification
The finding that counterfactual emotions are stronger when the alternative outcome is easier to imagine (e.g. missing a flight by 5 minutes vs 2 hours).
Discounting principle
Less weight is given to a particular cause of behaviour when other plausible causes are also present.
Augmentation principle
More weight is given to a particular cause when other causes present would have produced the opposite effect.
Pessimistic attribution style
A habitual pattern of making internal, stable, and global attributions for negative events. Predicts lower grades and poorer physical health.
Just-world belief
The belief that people get what they deserve, which motivates the fundamental attribution error.
Causal attributions vary along three dimensions:
Internal vs External: is the cause about the person or the situation?
Stable vs Unstable: is the cause fixed or temporary?
Global vs Specific: does the cause affect many areas of life or just one?
A pessimistic attribution style (internal, stable, global for negative events) predicts lower academic performance and poorer physical health.
Gender differences in attribution: research suggests boys tend to attribute failure to controllable, malleable causes, while girls more often attribute failure to uncontrollable, fixed causes.
Kelley's model says people use three types of information:
Consensus (actors): would most other people do the same?
Distinctiveness (targets): does the person behave this way toward only this target?
Consistency (settings): does the person behave this way every time?
External attribution is likely when all three are high. Example: if a person yells at a band, everyone else yells at that band too (high consensus), this person only yells at that band (high distinctiveness), and they always yell during that band (high consistency), you would attribute the yelling to the band.
Internal attribution is likely when consensus and distinctiveness are low but consistency is high. Example: a person laughs at a funeral, nobody else laughs (low consensus), they laugh in other solemn settings too (low distinctiveness), and they always do this (high consistency). You would attribute the laughter to something about the person.
Discounting principle: if multiple plausible causes are present, each individual cause is given less weight
Augmentation principle: if a cause produced an effect despite other causes working against it, that cause is given more weight
People make more inferences about others when behaviour is unexpected or unusual
Causal attributions can be formed by comparing real outcomes to imagined alternatives
Counterfactual thinking involves imagining how things could have gone differently.
Emotional amplification: the easier it is to imagine the alternative, the stronger the emotional response
Bronze medallists tend to be happier than silver medallists, because silver medallists can easily imagine winning gold
Violated routines or exceptional circumstances make counterfactuals easier to generate
Feeling more responsible for failure when the alternative was close or easily imagined
People attribute their own successes to internal factors (skill, effort) and failures to external factors (bad luck, unfair test). This protects self-esteem.
The tendency to attribute someone else's behaviour to their personality or character while underestimating situational influences.
Classic demonstration: quiz-show study. Observers rated the quiz-master as more intelligent than the contestant, even though the quiz-master had the advantage of choosing the questions.
Why it happens:
Just-world belief: motivation to believe people get what they deserve
Perceptual salience: people are more visually prominent than situations
Automatic vs controlled processing: dispositional attributions happen automatically; correcting for the situation requires deliberate effort
Stress increases the FAE and dispositional attributions
When it is reduced:
When behaviour is ambiguous and context can help disambiguate, people are more likely to consider both person and situation
When behaviour has clear dispositional implications, the initial automatic characterisation must be deliberately corrected
The textbook version: actors explain their own behaviour situationally, observers explain it dispositionally.
The lecture correction: this mainly applies to negative outcomes, where it overlaps with the self-serving bias. For positive outcomes, actors are happy to claim dispositional credit.
Collectivists are more attuned to situational context than individualists
People of lower socioeconomic status make attributions more similar to collectivists
Students often think the fundamental attribution error means people never consider the situation. In fact, people can and do consider situational factors, but it requires deliberate cognitive effort that is often skipped.
Students confuse the discounting principle with the augmentation principle. Discounting means less weight per cause when several plausible causes exist. Augmentation means more weight when the behaviour occurred despite opposing forces.
Students assume the actor-observer difference is a universal finding. The lecture notes that it primarily applies to negative outcomes and is better understood as an extension of the self-serving bias.
Students think a pessimistic attribution style just means "being negative." It specifically refers to internal, stable, and global attributions for bad events.
⚠️ Be able to apply the covariation model: given a scenario, identify consensus, distinctiveness, and consistency, then predict internal vs external attribution.
⚠️ Know the fundamental attribution error cold, including the quiz-show study and at least two reasons why it occurs.
⚠️ Distinguish the discounting and augmentation principles with an example for each.
⚠️ Understand counterfactual thinking and emotional amplification (bronze vs silver medallist example is a favourite).
⚠️ Be aware of the lecture's correction on the actor-observer difference: it is not a straightforward universal finding.
The three dimensions of causal attribution are __________, __________, and __________. (Internal/External, Stable/Unstable, Global/Specific)
True or False: High consensus, high distinctiveness, and high consistency point to an internal attribution. (False, they point to an external attribution)
The tendency to attribute others' behaviour to personality rather than the situation is called the __________. (fundamental attribution error)
True or False: Silver medallists tend to be happier than bronze medallists. (False, bronze medallists tend to be happier)
Attributing your exam success to intelligence and your exam failure to an unfair test is an example of __________. (self-serving attributional bias)
Q: In the quiz-show study, observers rated the quiz-master as more intelligent than the contestant. Explain which bias this demonstrates and why it occurs.
A: This demonstrates the fundamental attribution error. Observers attributed the quiz-master's apparent knowledge to a dispositional trait (intelligence) rather than recognising the situational advantage (the quiz-master chose the questions). It occurs partly because the quiz-master is perceptually salient and partly because dispositional attributions are made automatically while situational correction requires effort.
Q: Maria always laughs loudly in the cinema. Nobody else laughs that loudly. She also laughs loudly in libraries, restaurants, and funerals. Use the covariation model to explain whether observers would make an internal or external attribution.
A: Consensus is low (nobody else does it), distinctiveness is low (she does it everywhere, not just at the cinema), and consistency is high (she always does it). Low consensus + low distinctiveness + high consistency = internal attribution. Observers would conclude that something about Maria causes the behaviour.
Q: Explain why a silver medallist might feel worse than a bronze medallist, using the concept of counterfactual thinking.
A: The silver medallist can easily imagine the counterfactual of having won gold (the alternative is close and vivid), which produces emotional amplification of disappointment. The bronze medallist's most salient counterfactual is having missed the podium entirely, so they feel relief rather than regret.
Q: A student fails an exam and says, "The questions were unfair." The same student passes the next exam and says, "I studied hard and I'm good at this." What bias is at work?
A: Self-serving attributional bias. The student attributes failure externally (unfair questions) and success internally (effort and ability), protecting self-esteem in both cases.
The fundamental attribution error underpins much of stereotyping and prejudice (Ch. 11): attributing outgroup members' behaviour to their character rather than their circumstances. Self-serving bias connects to cognitive dissonance and self-perception theory (Ch. 7). Counterfactual thinking is relevant to the study of emotions (Ch. 6), particularly regret and guilt.
Social attribution, causal attribution, internal attribution, external attribution, dispositional attribution, situational attribution, fundamental attribution error, FAE, correspondence bias, self-serving bias, actor-observer difference, covariation model, Kelley, consensus, distinctiveness, consistency, discounting principle, augmentation principle, counterfactual thinking, emotional amplification, pessimistic attribution style, just-world belief, Pygmalion effect, perceptual salience, automatic processing, controlled processing