Understanding People Through Attribution Theory: Case Study
Attribution theory helps individuals understand how people perceive the causes of events,
assess responsibility for outcomes, and evaluate the personal qualities of the
people involved.
It is especially concerned with whether the assumption is that
an individual’s behavior, such as poor performance, has been internally or externally caused. Internal causes are believed to be under an individual’s control—
you believe Jake’s performance is poor because he is lazy. External causes are
seen as coming from outside a person—you believe Kellie’s performance is poor
because the software she’s using is out of date.
According to attribution theory, three factors inl uence this internal or external
determination of causality: distinctiveness, consensus, and consistency. Distinctiveness considers how consistent a person’s behavior is across different situations. If
Jake’s performance is typically low, regardless of the technology with which he is
working, we tend to assign the poor performance to an internal attribution—there’s
something wrong with Jake. If the poor performance is unusual, we tend to
assign an external cause to explain it—there’s something happening in the work
context.
Consensus takes into account how likely all those facing a similar situation are to respond in the same way. If all the people using the same technology as Jake perform poorly, we tend to assign his performance problem to an
external attribution. If others do not perform poorly, we attribute Jake’s poor
performance to internal causation. Consistency concerns whether an individual responds the same way across time. If Jake performs poorly over a sustained period of time, we tend to give the poor performance an internal attribution. If his low performance is an isolated incident, we may well attribute it
to an external cause.
Schermerhorn, John R. (2011-12-01). Organizational Behavior, 12th Edition (Page 87). Wiley. Kindle
assess responsibility for outcomes, and evaluate the personal qualities of the
people involved.
It is especially concerned with whether the assumption is that
an individual’s behavior, such as poor performance, has been internally or externally caused. Internal causes are believed to be under an individual’s control—
you believe Jake’s performance is poor because he is lazy. External causes are
seen as coming from outside a person—you believe Kellie’s performance is poor
because the software she’s using is out of date.
According to attribution theory, three factors inl uence this internal or external
determination of causality: distinctiveness, consensus, and consistency. Distinctiveness considers how consistent a person’s behavior is across different situations. If
Jake’s performance is typically low, regardless of the technology with which he is
working, we tend to assign the poor performance to an internal attribution—there’s
something wrong with Jake. If the poor performance is unusual, we tend to
assign an external cause to explain it—there’s something happening in the work
context.
Consensus takes into account how likely all those facing a similar situation are to respond in the same way. If all the people using the same technology as Jake perform poorly, we tend to assign his performance problem to an
external attribution. If others do not perform poorly, we attribute Jake’s poor
performance to internal causation. Consistency concerns whether an individual responds the same way across time. If Jake performs poorly over a sustained period of time, we tend to give the poor performance an internal attribution. If his low performance is an isolated incident, we may well attribute it
to an external cause.
Schermerhorn, John R. (2011-12-01). Organizational Behavior, 12th Edition (Page 87). Wiley. Kindle