WK4Assign1sdixon z

Running head: APPLICATION OF THEORIES

1

Application of Theories

Student

Social Cognition

APPLICATION OF THEORIES

2

Abstract

People have a basic need to understand others and

themselves. This is the driving foundation in which people seek

to apply reasoning and meaning to the behaviors of others,

themselves, and situations. How people perceive the behavior of

others and give account of their own behavior can be best

explained through attribution theories. As observers and social

perceivers, people make daily inferences to make sense of their

social world. These inferences can have positive and negative

attributes. The attribution theory is concerned about how people

make these inferences, the process in which information is

gathered, used, and then combined to make causal judgments. Two

models of attribution theories will be discussed, Jones and Davis

Correspondent Inference Theory (1965) and Kelley's Covariation

Model (1967). An analysis of the two theories will be rendered.

Key constructs of these two theories will be applied to a


3

vignette of a woman who smokes and her potential behavior

outcome.

Attribution theory - Kelley's Covariation Model - Jones and DavisCorrespondent Inference Theory – Inferences

Application of Theories

Attribution Theory

Fritz Heider founded the attribution theory in 1957.

Heider studied how the non-psychologist, ordinary people think

about each other. This is how they come to make casual inferences

about others, themselves and events. The Attribution theory


4

assumes that people make efforts in the most determine manner to

find out why others do what they do. People seeking to understand

why another person act in certain manners may attribute one or

more causations to that behavior. Heider contends that a person

can make two attributions. These are internal and external

attribution. The internal attribution is the inference that a

person is behaving in a certain way because it is disposition

factors such as attitude, character or personality. The external

attribution is the inference that a person is behaving a certain

way because of a situational factor (Fiske, 2012; Moskowitz,

2005a). Heider contends that there is tendency for people to

attribute behavior based on disposition or nature of the person;

however, people are also able to consider the extent to which

social pressures or forces at work can be the cause of the

person’s behavior. Heider referred to this as effective force of

the environment (Moskowitz, 2005a). Thus the person and their

situation can impact behavioral outcomes. Heider’s theory set the

path for subsequent attribution theories.

Brief Analysis of Theories


5

Jones and Davis introduced another attribution theory

in 1965 called correspondent inference model. The fundamental

assumption posed by Jones and Davis in their model of

arrtibution examines the specific rules and conditions that

perceivers follow when engaging in effortful and systematic

assessment of others behaviors (Moskowitz 2005a). Information

obatined from McLeod (2010) further explains the correspondent

inference theory contends that people pay special attention to

intentional behavior and less to unintentional behaviors

(accidental or unthinking behavior). People tend to make this

type of attribution when they see correspondence between motive

and a person’s behavior (McLeod, 2010). For example, when people

do not smile and the non- verbal body language appears rigid; the

perception is that they are not a friendly person. McLeod (2010)

notes that Davis relates the term correspondent inference to the

occurrence when percievers makes an inference about the observed

person’s behavior matching their personality. Additional

information from Crisp & Turner (2010) explains when people make


6

social inferences, they most often try to infer that the

behavior of the other person(actor) that cooresponds to or is a

result of a stable personality characteristic. The idelogogy is

that people prefer internal, dispositional, attributions factors

over external (situational) because “the former type knowledge

is more valuable with regard to making predictions about

behaviour” (Crisp & Turner, 2010, p. 46). In the Jones and Davis

model there are five sources of information that can lead people

to make a correspondent inference (McLeod, 2010). These are:

people operate in freewill; if a behavior is freely chosen the

belief is internal (dispositional) factors are driviving force

(McLeod, 2010). Accidental vs. Intentional behavior is defined

as intentional behavioral acts that are more likely attributed to

the person’s personality, whereas behavior which is accidental

is attributed to situational causes (exteranl) (McLeod, 2010).

Social Desirability is when behaviors that are low in sociably

desirability may cause the observer/ percievers to make

(internal) dispositional inferences. More than those with

socially undesirable behaviors. For example, observing a person


7

getting on a train and they laid on the floor verses sitting in a

seat. This is a socially undesirable and non conforming

behavior. The likley inference would be the person’s behavior is

caused by their personality and /or internal trait (McLeod,

2010). The non-common effects is described as another person’s

behavior having important consequences for the

observer/perciever. An example is when the observer is asked out

on date by the observed person, the assumption or inference is

made as to likeablity ( by the observer) versers availablity

being the reason asked out (McLeod, 2010). Hedonistic

Relevance: the other person’s behavior appears to be directly

intended to benefit or to harm the perciever, there is an

assumption that it is personal; and not seen just as by-product

of cirsumstances that perciever and the person observed is in

(McLeod, 2010).

The Covariation Model

The attribution theory introduced by Harold Kelley in 1967

known as the Covariation Model; outlines a logical method for

judging whether people’s particular actions should be attributed


8

to characteristics or dispositional traits of the person

(internal) or the environment (external). The Covariation model

assumes people make casual attributions in a rational, logical

manner they make inferences from clues and observed behaviors

(Fiske, 2012). Kelly theory suggests the causation for an effect

or an outcome is believed to be located either within the person

acting (internal) or within the environment they are acting in

(external) (Moskowitz, 2005a). Kelly’s model outlines similarly

to Heider theory there are internal and external factors for

behavioral actions. Kelly’s model considers repeated

observations and encounters with the behavior. This also

includes multiple observations; the different times, situations

and the frequency of the behavior. The consistency of the

behavior over time identifies the association of an observed

effect and its causes (Fiske, 2012) The three types of causal

information/independent variables which influenced people’s

judgments in accordance with Kelly model are: Time- consistency,

the extent to which a person’s behavior is the same every time

the situation occurs (Fiske, 2012);Entity- distinctiveness, the

http://everything2.com/title/logical

http://everything2.com/title/rational


9

extent to which a person behaves in the same method in similar

situations(Fiske,2012) and Actor – consensus, the extent in which

the person behaves in the same manner when they are in similar

situations (Fiske, 2012). The observer evaluates effects

associated with three different independent variables. An example

is when a woman drives the same route to work for the last two

years. The section of the road always has construction signs and

crews flagging traffic to move from the right lane that is near

the shoulder of the road. When the woman pasts the section as

normal the next day and she notices a car with the construction

crew near the vehicle on the shoulder of the road. The woman

makes an assumption or inference the car did not follow the

crew’s road instruction; the covariate component was the road,

the car and the construction crew.

Key Constructs of Theory Applied to the Vignette One

In vignette one, there are several things going with Molly

and her possible addiction to smoking. From the observer

/perceiver several elements could be ascribed as to why Molly

smokes even with conflicting doctor reports. The Jones and Davis


10

model outlines the observer/ perceivers consider the freewill of

people (Moskowitz, 2005a); Molly makes a free choice of own will.

Molly was at the bus stop, no one is there is demanding she

smokes or offers her a cigarette. She has the ability and is

capable of being responsible for own behavior whether to smoke or

not. Molly has made a choice to continue to smoke after

reflecting back on the different viewpoints of both doctors.

Molly behavior seems to be intentional; it is not based coercion,

a threat, or inducement. Molly is not smoking by accident. One

may attribute smoking to internal dispositional factor; although

the situation of waiting on bus without anything else to do may

cause smoker to light a cigarette. Attributions are specially

driven by emotions and /or motivation (Moskowitz, 2005a).

Depending on the observer/perceiver smoking could be perceived

not socially desirable. Taking this view Molly behavior with the

smoking would be less socially desired which lead to internal

disposition trait of someone who smokes. The non-common effects

of the model applied as an perciever that Molly more likely will

continue to smoke without regard to concerns about her health.


11

This is expected behavior of Molly. The Jones and Davis model

concludes people make internal attributions about the person

being observed, when there limited alternative actions for their

behvior (Moskowitz, 2005a). To the extent that Molly behavior

would be costly or benefical to the observer would determine if

the behvaior has hedonistic relevance. Molly smoking is only

relevent in an indirect manner and therefore may not be

consisdered as part of the inference. Although, as an observer/

perciever of someone who smokes often there are inferences

assoicated with health cost. The perciever may caterorize Molly

and/or her behavior with certain charaterics of those who smoke.

In an attempt to undertsand why Molly smokes, the perciever

would not only make inferenes from categorization regarding her

behavior, but “analyze the multiple effects that emerge from the

behavior” (Moskowitz, 2005a, p. 242). Additionally,the preciever

would not not just look at the consequences of Molly behavior,

but would examine and compare consequences if Molly acted in

different fashion making the choice not to smoke. In accordance

with Jones and Davis attribution theory percievers can also


12

infer based on the observed behavioral consequences; this is

what can transpire from the actions of person that perfromed the

behvaior (Moskowitz, 2005a). The observation of Molly smoking

can lead to thoughts or inferences regarding health issues to

include why does she desire to smoke at her age and not consider

the cardilogist warning. This could lead way to a negative or

undesirable view of Molly. Perceivers use the poteintial

consequences of the actions they observe to help them make

inferences about the intent of the actor ( Molly) (Moskowitz,

2005a).

The perspective of Kelly’s Covariation Model addresses

Molly’s behavior based on three key factors. An

observer/perceiver observing Molly behavior smoking two

cigarettes in short period of time would more likely cause an

logical inference that Molly had characteristics of someone who

smoked frequently; although this may extend to when smokers get

nerves they smoke more often. The initial inference may lead to

when in similar situation Molly would smoke and therefore act in

accordance with how smokers act. This is based on the number of


13

times in a short period of times Molly smokes; the assumption if

the bus was late Molly may continue smoking. That is possibly

taking a smoke whenever there is available chance to do so and

ongoing. The action coming from a doctor’s office and lighting

up a cigarette, being of a mature age, may cause negative

inferences of lack of concern about health issues (this depends

on the perceiver personal view or experience as well). Kelly’s

model outlines observers/perceiver tend to infer based on what is

in their perception. Observers essentially analyze effects that

are associated with three different independent variables afore

mention (Fiske, 2012).

Molly’s Situational Factors

The perspective of Molly’s situation related to the Jones

and Davis model of attribution would be Molly is face with a

health situation and she is attempting to make sense of what

doctors have said. Dr. Wilson (primary care physician) is not

too concern with her health related to smoking and Dr. Smith

(cardiologist) with absolute certainty tells Molly she must stop

smoking. Molly ponders from within about what the doctors have


14

said and then makes a conscious decision to smoke. Molly appears

to have internal desire to smoke so much that she misses the

first bus; this was no problem because she will enjoy another

cigarette. Molly potentially has a problem with quitting. Molly

exercises her free choice to continue smoking. Molly’s act of

smoking is intentional; although, her doctors have different

views of smoking on her health. Molly concludes that smoking is

not a health concern for her. Molly seemingly has made an

inference about Dr. Wilson, that he is correct in his analogy

that smoking is not a major issue; this align with her desire to

continue smoking. Molly’s smoking may have a unique consequence

relating to major health issues. Molly has likely inferred that

Dr. Wilson knows best; he has seen her overtime and she has no

reason to doubt him now. Molly believes that she received a

positive report from Dr. Wilson; otherwise he would tell her if

smoking was major problem. Molly has attributed that Dr. Wilson

and his advice is the authority on her health issues. Dr. Smith,

the cardiologist may be new to the doctor patient relationship;

she rejects his advice although smoking may be harmful and


15

cardiologist is in much better position to advise on the effects

of smoking. Molly battles with smoking and her behavior is

related to her internal trait and her external attribution

(situational factor) is related to having two different reports

negative and positive to include rejecting Dr. Smith and his

advice. Molly’s circumstances may be constraining her therefore

she continues to smoke at the bus stop.

Kelly’s Covariation Model

Molly is seeing two doctors a cardiologist (Dr. Smith)

and a primary care physician (Dr. Wilson). The situation reveals

that Molly may be having health issues and most likely is related

to her smoking. The other apparent element is Molly may be having

issues with trying to stop smoking. There is an internal conflict

going on within Molly; she has gotten what she may deem as

positive and negative reports regarding smoking. Molly used

reflexive consciousness as she waits for the bus. Molly thinks

about what the doctors have said about her smoking. Molly

perceives the situation and her own behavior. Molly’s impulse to

smoke overrode her executive self (Baumeister, 1998). Kelly’s


16

Covariation Model can be applied in the following manner Molly

has consistently seen her primary care doctor (Dr. Wilson); he is

not too concerned about her smoking. Molly has seen him on a

frequent basis and likely believes his report overall. The number

of times and the frequency can be a source of her inference about

smoking and that Dr. Wilson has the right advice. The

assumption is whenever she visits Dr. Wilson he tells her the

same advice; time, consistency and frequency have been developed.

The doctor’s response remains the same that smoking is not too

much of a problem for her; because Dr. Wilson message is the same

about her health Molly continues to smoke as this aligns with her

desire. Dr. Wilson has been her primary care doctor, the

assumption can be made he has had the longest relationship with

Molly. The cardiologist Dr. Smith is probably a new doctor

relationship and is result of her smoking. Molly was informed by

the cardiologist (Dr. Smith) she has to stop smoking, this is a

conflict with Dr. Wilson advice; to include her potential desire

to continue smoking. The newness of the relationship with Dr.

Smith may be why his advice is discounted. Molly takes the advice


17

of the doctor who known her longer although he is not a

cardiologist. Molly attribute that the primary care doctor

viewpoint is correct. Molly rationalizes that she does not have

to be concern about her overall health and she can continue to

enjoy smoking. Dr. Wilson advice is a source of positive

reinforcement she does not need to worry; this aligns with her

desire. Molly may have concluded in accordance with the

Covariation model, that the doctor’s behavior is the same every

time she visited. The extent the doctor acted in the same manner

and if seen him in similar situation he would have given the same

advice; it is assumed (her thoughts leads one to believe) it was

more than once he stated he was not too concern to include the

day at the bus stop. The causation of Molly’s outcome and /or

behavior to smoke that day can be attributed to the personal

traits (internal), the stimulus conflicting doctor advices

(external), and the circumstance or situation waiting for the

bus.

The Vignette


18

There are several other elements that can be considered

with vignette one. The two attribution theories shed light;

however, there are many facets to behavior displayed in the

vignette. Moskowitz (2005d) outlines two types of motivated

strategies in how people handle positive and negative

information. People tend to maintain their positive view of self

and ward off any negativity through what is called motivated

skepticism. There is a tendency to be skeptical and critically

examine information that people do not want to receive; but they

will readily accepted information they want to hear without

critically thinking about it (Moskowitz, 2005d). Molly reflected

about what both doctors said. She embraced what Dr. Wilson and

after critically examining Dr. Smith advice with skepticism who

would knew best she discounted. Molly readily accepts Dr. Wilson

advice positive news that aligns with what she may have wanted to

hear about smoking. Molly uncritically accepts the advice of Dr.

Wilson. The negative news to stop smoking Molly sees as invalid

(Dr. Smith advice). This is a form of self- bias and/or self-

denial; while some skepticism is good; Molly case seems unlikely.


19

Molly may be faced with serious life threating disease down the

road. Additional information retrieved from Moskowitz (2005d)

explains when people experience an inconsistency between two

cognitions, this evokes an aversive drive state; this cause

people to be motivated to eliminate it and bring back a balance

state. This is referred to as cognitive dissonance. People have

a desire to have a positive view of self. When negative

information is received they do not ignore it; as they start to

encounter aversive and disturbing effects. This will ignite the

motivation to eliminate it. However this only occurs when people

feel the effects in an aversive significant manner. This is when

the magnitude of dissonance impacts self-concept they will be

motivated to start dissonance reduction (Moskowitz, 2005d).

Molly seemingly understood the negative information from Dr.

Smith and she does not ignore it. There was some aversive

thinking implied; however, Molly does not seem to be

significantly impacted yet; she smokes two cigarettes as if all

is well. Cognitive dissonance has occurred and Molly is trying

to hold on to the positive self –view. Most often when people are


20

told they have health issues or told they need to stop a habit

that is detrimental this can affect the positive self- view.

Molly has not reached aversive significant level in which she has

the motivation to reduce dissonance.

Molly Behavioral Outcomes

Molly’s behavior may have been different if both doctors had

conferred with each other and discussed with her the dangers of

smoking. Dr. Wilson could have advised Molly that Dr. Smith

specialized in heart issues and smoking may be problematic. Molly

could have attended the doctor’s office with someone who she

trusted and engaged in a conversation about what both doctors

said; they may be a support source to inform her the danger she

was putting herself in by continuing to smoke. Molly may have

been offered solutions to assist with stop smoking. When people

have the ability to reflect in an environment that is not

distracting critical thinking may occur. Molly could have went

in a non- smoking restaurant and thought about what the doctors

said this may afforded deeper thoughts of self-reflection

regarding her health; and second thoughts about smoking that day.


21

This could have also afforded her to think in terms of the types

of doctors she was seeing and why. The difficulty is often when

people smoke and it affects their health they need others to

support them and be in an environment that is not conducive to

being able to smoke. Molly’s overall behavior and outlook could

have been different if she accepted she had a health issues with

smoking and though critically about Dr. Smith assessment of her

smoking. Molly’s inference about the situational aspects and her

internal thoughts seem in error.

Reference

Baumeister, R. (1998). The self. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, & G.

Lindzey, Handbook of social psychology (4th ed) (pp. 680-740). New

York: McGraw-Hill.


22

Crisp, J., & Turner, R. (2010). Chapter 2: Attribution. In J.

Crisp, & R. Turner, In Essential social psychology (2nded.)

(pp. 42-61). Los Angeles: Sage.

Fiske, S. (2012). Social Beings Core Motives in Social Psychology

Second Edition. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc

McLeod, S. (2010). Social psychology attribution theory.

Retrieved from Simply psychology:

http://www.simplypsychology.org/attribution-theory.html

Moskowitz, G. (2005a). Attribution. In G. Moskowitz, In social

cognition: Understanding self and others (pp. 233–266). New

York: Guilford Press.

Moskowitz, G. (2005b). Correspondence bias and spontaneous trait

inferences. In G. Moskowitz, In Social cognition: Understanding

self and others (pp. 267–309). New York: Guilford Press.

Moskowitz, G. (2005d). Shortcomings and biases in person

perception. In G. Moskowitz, In social cognition: Understanding

self and others (pp. 310-352). New York: Guilford Press.

.


23

Documents

WK4Assign1sdixon z