The Covariation Theory

Have you ever thought of how people make attributions?
(The process of assigning a cause to our own behaviour, and that of others)?

I'm going to share with you a theory called the Covariation Theory (Kelly, 1972). This theory assumes that people make casual attributions in a rational and logical fashion, and that they will assign the cause of the factor that covaries most closely with that action.

People take into account the pattern formed by three different types of information:
Consistency, Distinctiveness and Consensus.

E.g.
Consistency:
Does Adam always laugh at the comedian's joke?
If yes, consistency is high.
If he laughs occasionally, then consistency is low.

When consistency is low, people discount the potential cause and search for an alternative. The cause of the laughter may be due to other covarying factor. Maybe he's drunk.

Distinctiveness:
Does Adam only laugh at the jokes made by this comedian?
If yes, distinctiveness is high.
If he laughs at every comedian's joke, distinctiveness is low.

Consensus:
Does everybody laugh at the comedian?
If yes, consensus is high.
If it's only Adam, consensus is low.

If consistency, distinctiveness and consensus are all high, then one can make an external attribution (to the comedian)

If consistency is high, distinctiveness and consensus are low, one can make an internal attribution (to Tom's personality). He is easily tickled.

Okay, this is the gist of it. Of course there would be criticisms to this model (I'll be reading about it later). So next time, before you make any quick judgements, try this model to avoid making the Fundamental Attribution Error (the bias in attributing another's behaviour more to internal disposition than external environmental factors).

If you're driving and there's !$@%& who cuts into your lane abruptly at a high speed, don't swear. Have some grace. Who knows, he may be rushing home to a pregnant wife.

That's all for now.