Evaluation of Two Theories of Attribution

786 Words2 Pages

Evaluation of Two Theories of Attribution One attribution theory is the correspondent inference theory by Jones and Davis (1965). This theory was developed on Heider’s idea that the observer has a general tendency to make an internal attribution. This is because it is easier to say that the cause of someone behaviour is something within the actor as it makes the world seem more stable and predictable, rather than having to make an attribution for a person for every situation this would make the world seem less stable and more unpredictable. Jones and Davis set out to look at grounds we use to make dispositional attribution. There are certain behaviour we expect from certain people because of their job and there social roles. When someone acts in a way that is uncommon and unexpected we tend to say they are acting intentionally. When this occurs we make special kind of person attribution called a correspondent inference. This is an interference that the actor behaviour correspond to there underlying character. Jones and Davis state there are a number of reasons for this: Non-common effects this is when someone has to choose from a number of alternatives the less common they are, the harder it is to make a dispositional attribution. When someone has to choose between alternatives that are similar (have no common effects) then we have to make dispositional attribution. For example, Sarah has two job offers one in advertising another is child care they both offer different thing the only thing that they have in common is that they both offer a good pension scheme. Jane also has two job offers both of them in advertising bu... ... middle of paper ... ...behaviour, it also show that there emotion in the attribution process unlike Kelley, Jones and Davis where attribution are mental calculations. The disadvantage to Weiner theory is that most of the evidence come from the laboratory and are artificial so can these result be generalised beyond the laboratory therefore has low ecological validity. Lastly these finding are not the same in every culture although his theory can be applied to most cultures. For example, Indian participant made more external, unstable and uncontrollable attribution. This is probably because individual powers to control events are limited. Also westerner tend to use person attribution to explain success whereas the Japanese are more like to explain success by situational factor so they’re fore culture plays a big role in how people think.

Open Document