Dispositional attribution

"Dispositionalism" redirects here. For the Protestant evangelical tradition and theology, see Dispensationalism.

Dispositional attribution (or internal attribution or personal attribution) is a phrase in personality psychology that refers to the tendency to assign responsibility for others' behaviors due to their inherent characteristics, such as their personality, beliefs, ability, or personality, instead of attributing it to external (situational) influences such as the individual's environment or culture.[1] An example of a dispositional attribution is observing a person who performs caring and selfless acts. This could be attributed to them being a generous person.[2]

When a person uses dispositional attributions,[3] they infer that another person is behaving in a certain way or that an event is occurring and try to explain that it is due to factors related to the person's character more than their situational context.[4] Or rather, simplified, dispositional attribution is the act of placing blame on some type of factor or criteria that could be controlled by an individual for the cause of a certain event.[5]

Early research

Attribution theory was developed by Fritz Heider in 1958, who originally examined the process by which people explain the causes of behaviours and events, and if it was caused by internal factors, such as personality or intentions, or external circumstances, like environmental or situational conditions.[6]

Correspondent inference theory

Dispositional, also known as internal, attribution connects our motives and behaviour. Jones and Davis were early researchers that hypothesized the relationship between the two, where they specifically observed the meanings behind intentional behaviour, rather than automatic or situational behaviour. [7] Jones and Davis’s Correspondent Inference Theory (1965) outlines the five sources of information we use to distinguish intentionality to make dispositional attributions.

Choice, having the opportunity and willingness to choose one’s behaviour can show internal attributions. Accidental vs. Intentional behaviour, intentional actions are more commonly related to a person’s character or personality, while accidental actions are typically attributed to situational or external contexts. Social desirability, dispositional behaviours are more likely a result of actions that deviate from social norms, or lower social desirability. For example, observing someone sitting on the floor of a bus instead of a seat, may lead to inferences that the person’s personality drives their unusual choice. Hedonistic relevance, if someone’s behaviour is directly aimed at helping or harming us, it is likely to be assumed as intentional. The perceived relevance determines whether the actions are attributed to internal motives. Lastly, personalism, if an individual’s behaviour is intended to specifically impact us, it is interpreted as personal and deliberate.[7]

Kelley’s covariation model

Developed by Harold Kelley in 1967, the covariation model is a well recognized attribution theory. It provides a structured approach in determining whether actions arise from dispositional or situational factors. This model emphasizes the use of several observations across different times and situations to identify patterns. Covariation reflects the process of examining how behaviour is consistently associated with particular causes, allowing people to infer if their actions stem from the person, the situation, or both.[8]

The key components of this model are three main factors- consensus, distinctiveness, and consistency. This is what determines whether behaviour is internal or external. Consensus refers to whether other individuals behave similarly in a given situation. For example, if Alex laughs loudly at a movie, if the rest of the theatre also laugh, Alex’s behaviour is high in consensus. If no one laughs, then consensus is low. Distinctiveness measures whether a person behaves the same way across different situations. For example, if Alex only laughs loudly at comedies, the behaviour is high in distinctiveness. However, if Alex laughs at all types of movies, then distinctiveness is low. Consistency examines whether a person consistently behaves the same way in recurring situations. If Alex always laughs at a particular comedy whenever he watches it, consistency is high. If he laughs only during this one movie, consistency is low.[8]

Biases and errors

Dispositional attribution is closely related to key biases in attribution theory.

  • Self-serving bias are interconnected with dispositional attribution as one is inclined to attribute good things they do to their own personality. We tend to make dispositional attribution for our own positive behaviors and external attributions for our negative behaviors.[9]
  • Dispositional attribution is related to the Fundamental attribution error which explains how individuals make distorted or incorrect attributions. Fundamental attribution error emphasizes how people tend to overly attribute peoples behaviour to dispositional factors.[10]
  • Dispositional attribution is similarly related to the actor-observer bias. According to the actor-observer bias, dispositional attribution is most likely for others, well situational attribution is more likely for the self.[11]  
  • The confirmation bias is relevant as influences how individuals perceive and process information about others therefore affecting the attribution process.[12] Confirmation bias can reinforce dispositional attribution as it can lead people to selectively focus on evidence that aligns with their pre-existing beliefs about someone’s disposition or personality.

Culture and attribution

Culture is a contributing factor to the strength and extent of dispositional attribution. Studies have found that dispositional attribution is more prominent in Western culture.[13] One such study found that while Americans focus on a central focal object, Asians are able to observe more contextual factors, even when it comes to a visual display where no attribution is inherent, highlighting how Asians are less likely to form dispositional attributions. Another study found that Indian participants were more likely to consider context when making attributions about behavior, while American participants had a tendency to use dispositional attribution and disregard contextual factors.[14][15]

Linguistic category model

Variation in dispositional attribution is also tied to cross-cultural language differences. Established by Semin & Fiedler in 1988, the Linguistic Category Model outlines how language plays a role in systematic cognitive inferences, particularly when it comes to attributions and intergroup relations.[16] This model outlines that while using verbs to describe a person’s behavior is more common in Asian cultures and is tied to situational attribution (eg. "Harry helps Serena"), Europeans typically use more adjectives to make overall statements about the disposition of a person (eg. "Harry is a helpful person").[13] In line with this, Easterners tend to turn adjectives into verbs unconsciously, while Westerners will turn verbs into adjectives, displaying automatic dispositional attribution.

See also

References

  1. ^ "APA Dictionary of Psychology". dictionary.apa.org. Retrieved 2024-10-06.
  2. ^ Cornell (PhD), Dave; Drew (PhD), Chris (2023-04-19). "15 Dispositional Attribution Examples (2024)". helpfulprofessor.com. Retrieved 2024-10-29.
  3. ^ "Internal Attribution." Education Portal. Education Portal, n.d. Web. 01 Dec. 2014. <http://education-portal.com/academy/lesson/internal-attribution-definition-examples-quiz.html#lesson>.
  4. ^ Fiske, Susan T.; Macrae, Colin Neil, eds. (2012). The SAGE handbook of social cognition. Los Angeles London New Delhi Singapore Washington, DC: SAGE. ISBN 978-0-85702-481-7.
  5. ^ "What Is Internal Attribution? Definition and Meaning." BusinessDictionary.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Dec. 2014. <http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/internal-attribution.html Archived 2014-12-05 at the Wayback Machine>.
  6. ^ Harmon, J. (1959-03-01). "THE PSYCHOLOGY OF INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS. By Fritz Heider. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1958. 322 pp. $6.25". Social Forces. 37 (3): 272–273. doi:10.2307/2572978. ISSN 0037-7732. JSTOR 2572978.
  7. ^ a b Jones, Edward E.; Davis, Keith E. (1965), "From Acts To Dispositions The Attribution Process In Person Perception", Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Elsevier, pp. 219–266, doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60107-0, ISBN 978-0-12-015202-5, retrieved 2024-11-29
  8. ^ a b <286::aid-pits2310040321>3.0.co;2-k "Motivation examined. Levine, David (Ed.) Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 1966. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1966, 109 p.,$5.95 (paper)". Psychology in the Schools. 4 (3): 286–287. July 1967. doi:10.1002/1520-6807(196707)4:3<286::aid-pits2310040321>3.0.co;2-k. ISSN 0033-3085.
  9. ^ Bradley, Gifford W. (January 1978). "Self-serving biases in the attribution process: A reexamination of the fact or fiction question". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 36 (1): 56–71. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.36.1.56. ISSN 1939-1315.
  10. ^ Flick, Cassandra; Schweitzer, Kimberly (July 2021). "Influence of the Fundamental Attribution Error on Perceptions of Blame and Negligence". Experimental Psychology. 68 (4): 175–188. doi:10.1027/1618-3169/a000526. ISSN 1618-3169.
  11. ^ Malle, Bertram F. (November 2006). "The actor-observer asymmetry in attribution: A (surprising) meta-analysis". Psychological Bulletin. 132 (6): 895–919. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.6.895. ISSN 1939-1455.
  12. ^ Born, Richard T. (October 2024). "Stop Fooling Yourself! (Diagnosing and Treating Confirmation Bias)". eNeuro. 11 (10): ENEURO.0415–24.2024. doi:10.1523/ENEURO.0415-24.2024. ISSN 2373-2822. PMC 11495861. PMID 39438140.
  13. ^ a b Miyamoto, Yuri; Eggen, Amanda (2013), DeLamater, John; Ward, Amanda (eds.), "Cultural Perspectives", Handbook of Social Psychology, Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, pp. 595–624, doi:10.1007/978-94-007-6772-0_20, ISBN 978-94-007-6772-0, retrieved 2024-11-28
  14. ^ Choi, Incheol; Nisbett, Richard E.; Norenzayan, Ara (January 1999). "Causal attribution across cultures: Variation and universality". Psychological Bulletin. 125 (1): 47–63. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.1.47. ISSN 1939-1455.
  15. ^ Mason, Malia F.; Morris, Michael W. (2010-06-01). "Culture, attribution and automaticity: a social cognitive neuroscience view". Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience. 5 (2–3): 292–306. doi:10.1093/scan/nsq034. ISSN 1749-5024. PMC 2894680. PMID 20460302.
  16. ^ Semin, Gün R.; Fiedler, Klaus (1991-01-01). "The Linguistic Category Model, its Bases, Applications and Range". European Review of Social Psychology. 2 (1): 1–30. doi:10.1080/14792779143000006. hdl:1871/3890. ISSN 1046-3283.