Attribution Theory in Communication

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Summary of Key Concepts of the Attribution Theory
Implications for Communication Practice
Pros and Cons of the Attribution Theory
Conclusion
Works Cited

Introduction

The given assessment will primarily focus on the attribution theory with an emphasis put on its summative analysis, implications for communication practice, and pros and cons assessment. It is important to note that attribution theory deals with the meaning projection and comprehension of individuals when faced with new situations, behaviors, and information. Since communication is heavily reliant on the involvement and exchange of information between at least two parties, the attribution theory can provide invaluable insight and perspective on the field of communication practice.

Summary of Key Concepts of the Attribution Theory

It should be noted that human beings are highly social creatures which are constantly involved in the meaning-making process when it comes to interactions. Attribution is a concept that explains humans’ attempts to explain and understand a particular behavior by attributing and projecting internal and external conditions, factors, and influences. Therefore, attribution can be highly useful and insightful, but it is also prone to errors, mistakes, and false assumptions since it heavily relies on a receiving and interpreting observer. Historically, Fritz Heider was the first psychologist to develop the foundation of attribution theory, who established two main aspects of the theory, which are still used today (Shaver 22). These include dispositional attribution and situational attribution, where the former refers to internal explanations and the latter involves external elaborations. For example, an individual might be observed as being angry, for which the dispositional attribution could be that this particular person is simply hot-tempered and has anger management issues. However, the situational or external attribution would focus on external factors, where the angry person might as such due to losing something valuable or experiencing some form of injustice. Therefore, a behavior can be explained through two different perspectives, which are dispositional or internal and situational or external.

One of the core concepts of the attribution theory is actor-observer bias. The given phenomenon addresses the human tendency to attribute external factors to one’s own behavior and attribute internal factors to other individuals’ behavior (Shaver 62). In other words, a person tends to be less judgmental of his or her own character compared to other people. For example, if a male person A regularly fails to get the top grades in his classes, he is more likely to attribute the causes as being external, such as incompetence of an educator, poor class format, or the lack of conditions for proper studying. However, if another person B observes person A and sees his grades, the former is more likely to attribute the failure to get top grades to person A’s internal factors, such as laziness, low intelligence, and lack of diligence. Therefore, the attribution is highly biased, depending on whether the actor or observer is performing the attribution of the behavior.

Moreover, the internal attribution is also more likely to occur depending on the degree of freedom possessed by the actor when exhibiting the behavior, which is the prime focus of the correspondent inference theory (Shaver 84). Thus, people are more likely to attribute behavior to one’s character if the actor is free to do otherwise. For example, observers are more likely to attribute the frugality of a person with low socioeconomic status to his or her situation, such as poverty, whereas the frugality of a wealthy person is more likely to be attributed to his or her character, such as being greedy. In addition, there are other factors that make the use of internal attributions more likely, which include directly helpful and harmful behaviors, behaviors directed at an individual, and particularly unusual behaviors (Shaver 101). For example, if woman A is walking down the street, and a man B starts to catcall her, she is more likely to attribute the behavior to man B’s character rather than external factors. The main reason is that catcalling is harmful, directed at a specific person, and unusual or abnormal; thus, the behavior is most likely to be attributed to one’s personality.

Another key concept of attribution theory is Kelley’s covariation model. The given framework provides a more in-depth analysis of correspondent inference theory. A person is more or less likely to make internal attributions on the basis of three major factors: consensus, distinctiveness, and consistency (Shaver 107). When a behavior is low on both consistency, consensus, and distinctiveness, the attributions are made to the circumstances and situations. However, when there is high consistency and low distinctiveness and consensus, the attribution is made towards characters or dispositions. Consensus refers to the behavioral pattern as well as its outcome of surrounding individuals or other people. Consistency refers to the consistent exhibition of similar behavior in similar circumstances. Distinctiveness refers to how distinct the given behavior is from other behaviors exhibited by the person. For example, if person A gets an A+ grade on the history exam while others get lower grades, then the consensus is low. If person A also always performed well in all other classes and performed excellently through the history class, his distinctiveness is low, and consistency is high. Under such conditions, the attribution should be and will most likely be made to person A character or internal factors. Therefore, the variation of these three factors gives influences the target of the attribution from disposition to a situation.

Implications for Communication Practice

The implications of the attribution theory are massive in regard to communication practice, especially in a professional context. The first case representative of the attribution concept is the German automotive company Volkswagen AG (VW). In 2015, it was involved in a scandal for using software cheat to underreport its diesel emissions (Painter and Martins 204). The incident led to a major crisis both for the company and the automotive industry since it became possible that other companies might have been doing a similar activity. For the given case, the attribution theory “will inform understanding of the crisis management strategies used by VW to mitigate the effects of the emissions scandal in terms of customer response and legal liability” (Painter and Martins 206).

The main reason for utilizing this particular theoretical framework is manifested in the fact that the theory explains the cause for behavior by showing whether or not the action is due to disposition or situation. For example, VW could have positioned the company as a victim of situational factors or the company’s internally poor management of its technical measurements. The analysis reveals that “attributions regarding the origins of the software deceit are for the most part internal: they are either attributions to individual employees or attributions of disposition with respect to the company itself” (Painter and Martins 214). In other words, the crisis management response primarily used internal factors as the core rhetoric when describing the cause of such deceit. VW was unable to highlight situational factors since the consensus level was low because no other company was involved in the scandal. In addition, the behavior was low on consistency but high on distinctiveness, which makes the situation unambiguously inclined towards disposition. Therefore, it is evident that the role of the attribution theory played a critical role in the response of VW to the scandal, where it chose to attribute the deceit to the company itself rather than pinpointing circumstantial factors.

The second case of the attribution theory is centered around the blame attribution among European citizens in regard to its governance on both national and European levels in the context of populist messages. It is stated that “previous research on attributions of responsibility—a concept strongly related to populist blame attribution—indicates that citizens’ political attitudes are affected by messages that emphasize who should be blamed for causing political problems” (Hameleers et al. 872). In other words, the factor of attribution plays a critical role in determining whether or not politically perceived problems will be attributed to the government or external factors. The emphasis of the given case is put on emotional blame attribution. It is stated that “with the exception of blame perceptions toward the EU, identity attachment functioned as a perceptual screen, moderating the effects of populist blame attributions on perceptions toward the political establishment” (Hameleers et al. 884). The findings suggest that a citizen with a strong national identity was more likely to attribute the blame to the EU rather than the national government, whereas individuals with a weaker national identity were more eager to accept the blame on the local governance.

It is also stated that “populist communication that attributes blame to the national government needs to use an emotional style to be effective, whereas populist communication influences blame perceptions toward the EU by mentioning that the EU is responsible for causing the problems of the heartland” (Hameleers et al. 890). In other words, the element of attribution can be affected by external forces in order to promote more or less disposition, which, in this case, is the blame of the national government. Populist messages and communication increase or decrease a perceived degree of consensus, which can impact the inclined pathway of attribution. For example, a German citizen might either attribute the cause of social issues to the German government, which is a disposition, or to the EU, which is external. The judgment of attribution is influenced by the factors of consensus, consistency, and distinctiveness of a social problem in the national context. Populist communication might be able to persuade that such events are common in all other EU nations, which would increase consensus and thus promote EU blame. However, if populist messages precisely highlight the German issue as a key narrative, then one would be inclined to blame the national government. It should be noted that a multitude of factors also influence the attribution process, such as national identity since a patriotic person will most likely blame the EU even under low consensus factors.

The third case is focused on the attribution patterns of global consumers in regard to corporate social responsibility or CSR initiatives. It is stated that “individuals with a dispositional attribution style responded more favorably to evidence-based CSR messages than to belief-based messages, while those with a situational attribution style responded more favorably to belief-based messages than to evidence-based messages” (Lim et al. 11). In other words, a person can attribute a CSR initiative to either a company’s inherent disposition or external forces, such policies mandating a company to implement in this manner. The results are indicative of the fact that people with dispositional inclinations need facts to attribute a CSR initiative to the company’s internal factors, whereas individuals with non-dispositional stances need to see a company’s beliefs and values. It is evident that such a framework has major implications in professional communication, especially in regard to public relations or PR.

Pros and Cons of the Attribution Theory

Pros

Although the attribution theory is a comprehensive framework, which has strong predictive capabilities in regard to attribution, it is important to highlight and identify its key strengths and weaknesses. The main advantage of the theory is the most prominent when the cause is known but needs to be communicated. In other words, communication professionals can use the attribution framework to address or attribute the cause by communicating in accordance with the tendencies of individual dispositions or external attributions. For example, a company helped a vulnerable community in the region of interest, which means that a communication professional knows the cause of such action to be the company itself and not some government mandate or policy. In this case, professional communication needs to communicate dispositional attribution towards the company, not external forces, which can be done by adhering to low consensus, distinctiveness, and consistency.

Another strength of attribution theory is rooted in the fact that it can identify a probable cause when assessing an unknown party of interest. For instance, a company wants to better understand its customers and consumers in the market by identifying the likely cause of the current consumer behaviors. A communication professional can assess the common behaviors and change the marketing and PR narrative to influence these behaviors if the cause is situational or external. In other words, the attribution theory expands the capabilities of professional communication specialists to be able to find novel solutions in addition to the standard ones. The attribution theory is of greatest importance during crisis management when communication professionals need to defend the organization or minimize the effect of public distrust and blame.

Moreover, the attribution theory can help to identify potential biases during cross-cultural communication and eliminate them to improve the communication process conducted by professionals. The concept of attribution plays a critical part in the communication process and practice, particularly in cross-cultural communication and interpersonal one in professional environments. In the case of the former, the cultural differences create a large gap for potential bias and causal errors in interpreting one’s actions. In the case of the latter, interpersonal communications contain a higher degree of detailed information about each party, which makes a more in-depth use of the attribution theory. The success of intercultural communication, including professional communication, largely depends not only on the level of proficiency in a foreign language but also on the adequate perception of the communication partner and the correct interpretation of his communicative behavior. At the same time, the criterion of the effectiveness of cross-cultural communication is the achievement of mutual understanding by partners in the process of intercultural dialogue.

However, such mutual understanding is not always possible due to the fact that in the course of intercultural interaction, the student inevitably faces the problem of communicative failures if there are obstacles in the transmission and adequate perception, understanding, assimilation, and assessment of the message by intercultural communicants. The factors contributing to the emergence of communication barriers and, accordingly, interfering with the correct perception and assessment of partners in intercultural communication can be attributed to social and perceptual factors that characterize any communication and factors that characterize exclusively cross-cultural interaction. The first group includes the inability to determine the motives and intentions of people in a specific communication situation, the presence of predetermined attitudes, beliefs, assessments, the presence of formed ethnic stereotypes, and the underdevelopment of the ability for empathy. The second group of factors includes ignorance of the characteristics of the national character of the communication partner and dominant features of verbal and non-verbal behavior inherent in his type of culture.

Cons

The primary weakness of the attribution theory is its “either-or” format in regard to causes. It is important to note that many behaviors and actions can be the result of a multitude of factors, some of which are attributable to personality and others to situations. However, the attribution theory is blind to these complex cases, which is why overreliance on such a simplistic measure might yield simplistic communication with no special attention paid to key details. For example, the attribution theory fails when discussing controversial behaviors, such as why women choose to abort a baby or want the abortion to be legal and accessible. It is evident that it would be inaccurate to attribute such behavior to women’s disposition or situation since this action is influenced by a range of factors.

Another weakness of the attribution theory is the difference in perception between an actor and observer, which results in a possibility of attribution bias. Since the attribution theory focuses on the cause of behavior, such as external or internal, it can be blind to non-evident biases, which is why communication professionals should be aware of not promoting or increasing the degree of biases by not being able to identify their nature.

The phenomenon of attribution is of great importance for understanding the causes of communication failures in the process of cross-cultural communication. In the theory of intercultural communication, this concept came from social psychology, where attribution is the act of attributing some directly, not perceived property, to some object, person, or phenomenon. If the attribution of causes to events and actions observed and experienced by an individual is characterized as incorrect and unreasonable, especially in situations where these actions seem unusual or different from the expected, which are called attribution errors. In intercultural communication, attribution errors are usually associated with misinterpretation of the motives of the behavior of communicative partners. The personal qualities of communication partners, the relationship of communicants, as well as the attitude of communication partners to the communication situation can be interpreted erroneously. At the same time, the reasons for behavior are seen exclusively in personal factors, in internal dispositions, and the influence of general cultural norms inherent in a particular linguistic culture, situational and group factors are underestimated.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the attribution theory is a highly comprehensive framework that aims to understand the cause of behavior through the attribution dynamics and patterns. The attributions can be either external or internal, such as attributing behavior to one’s personality or circumstances. Consensus, distinctiveness, and consistency play a critical role in determining the attribution of behavior, where low levels in each create a disposition.

Works Cited

Hameleers, Michael, et al. “‘They Did It: The Effects of Emotionalized Blame Attribution in Populist Communication.” Communication Research, vol. 44, no. 6, 2017, pp. 870–900.

Lim, Rachel Esther, et al. “Connecting with Global Consumers Through Corporate Social Responsibility Initiatives: A Cross-Cultural Investigation of Congruence Effects of Attribution and Communication Styles.” Journal of Business Research, vol. 88, 2018, pp. 11-19.

Painter, Christopher, and Jorge Tiago Martins. “Organisational Communication Management During the Volkswagen Diesel Emissions Scandal: A Hermeneutic Study in Attribution, Crisis Management, And Information Orientation.” Knowledge and Process Management, vol. 24, no. 3, 2017, pp. 204-218.

Shaver, Kelly G. An Introduction to Attribution Processes. Routledge, 2018.

Click Here To Order Now!