Attribution is the act of explaining why something happens or why a person acts a particular way.

Abstract

Causal attributions explain why events and behaviors occur. Researchers typically distinguish between dispositional attributions (something about the person caused the event) and situational attributions (something about the environment caused the event). The current article reviews classic attribution theories and contemporary dual process models of person perception. It presents common attributional biases such as the correspondence bias, actor–observer effect, and self-serving attributions, and describes the conditions under which perceivers are motivated and are able to correct for such biases. Individual and cultural differences in attribution are considered. Lastly, the implications of attributions for motivation, well-being, academic performance, and marital satisfaction are discussed.

1.2 Causal Attributions

Causal attributions, or beliefs regarding the causes of events, were the second major focus in The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. Attribution theory was even more impactful than Heider's balance ideas, and became the dominant theme in social psychology for nearly fifteen years, between 1970–1985.

Heider postulated that people are motivated to understand and to master their environment—understanding is adaptive and instrumental to future behavior, and also there is a basic curiosity and desire ‘to know.’ Understanding and mastery require knowledge of the causes of events.

Pursuing the distinction in his thesis between thing versus medium, Heider stated that we are often only in contact with immediate facts or raw date (the ‘medium’) but we search for the underlying core processes or dispositional properties to explain these facts (the causal ‘things’). These perceived causes are generally enduring aspects of the world. Covariation information regarding the presence and absence of the inferred cause and the effect are important sources of causal knowledge. But when explaining the actions of persons, Heider reasoned that we often ascribe their behavior to some stable dispositional quality or trait, rather than to situational factors. The underestimation of the situation as a perceived cause of the behavior of others, and over-attribution to the person, subsequently was labeled ‘the fundamental attribution error.’

Although the topics of balance and attribution have been treated separately in the psychological literature, Heider saw them as intertwined. He reasoned that balance principles guide causal attributions. Thus, we infer that a good act was done by a good person, and ascribe success more than failure to the self (the ‘hedonic bias’), for in both of these examples the inferences result in balanced states or simple structures.

Attribution Style

The kind of causal attributions that people make about a situation will have an effect on efforts toward the behavioral performances in relation to that situation. What is attribution and what kind of process is it? In what way do attributions influence people’s efforts and willingness to solve or deal with a problem? How do attributions about a problem situation affect the problem-solving process itself?

Attribution is defined by Westen (1999) as the process of making an inference about the causes of people’s mental states or behaviors. In daily life, people meditate on and explore the causes of their own and other people’s behaviors and psychological states. Generally, when people make an inference about the causes of their own and other people’s behaviors, they attribute the causes to external factors (state focused, e.g., the client behaved angrily because today the weather was very hot) or to internal factors (person focused, e.g., the client behaved angrily because he is an impulsive person). The attributions people make may directly affect their performances on a task or behaviors.

According to the attribution theory of Weiner (1986), the attributions students make to their academic failures or successes are directly related to academic performance. According to the theory, students who attribute academic success or failure to effort work harder on academic tasks than students who attribute success and failure to ability. Research findings from the theory also show that students infer that they lack ability when teachers offer sympathy or pity in case of a failure, whereas they infer the need to work harder when teachers tell them to be more persistent on a subject.

Another theory related to attribution theory is the theory of explanatory style (Peterson, Buchanan, & Seligman, 1995; Peterson & Seligma, 1984). According to this theory, people’s explanatory style of negative events has an effect on their psychological health. People who use pessimistic explanatory style for negative life events are more likely to suffer from depression. When people who display pessimistic explanatory style are faced with a negative event, they explain it in a way that adversely affects their emotional states. For this theory, when confronted with negative life events, depression-prone individuals make internal, stable, and global attributions. For example, a person who experiences an academic failure may attribute it to internal/personal factors (i.e., inability and low intelligence) rather than to external factors. And they see these reasons as stable and unchangeable. Furthermore, these individuals perceive the failure as an overall characteristic of themselves.

The attribution style and the explanatory style theories encompass a series of effects giving direction to and shaping human behavior in the process of problem solving. A person’s attribution and explanatory styles following their efforts to solve the problems they encounter will have an effect on their psychological condition. They will also determine whether the problems will get resolved and whether the efforts to solve the problem will be maintained or not. The knowledge of people’s causal attributions and explanations about an issue may be taken as a possible predictive factor for the success or the failure of the problem-solving process. In other words, within the context of problem solving, attributes contain judgments and inferences that people make in relation to whether or not they will be successful in solving the problem.

Attribution and explanatory styles are important during two stages in the problem-solving process. They are important first during the individual’s initial encounter with the problem and second after the individual’s attempts to solve it. When one encounters the problem for the first time, one appraises both the problem and one’s skills and abilities in relation to the problem. As a result of this appraisal, the individual will arrive at a judgment. For instance, the individual who thinks that the problem he or she encounters is impossible to solve will not even attempt to solve it. Such an attribution will lower the person’s self-esteem and will make it impossible to solve the problem. The person with a low self-esteem will stay away from any attempt to solve the problem. On the other hand, the individual may perceive the problem situation as difficult but his or her skills and abilities as adequate. In that case, this person will be able to make an attempt to solve the problem.

In the second, let us assume that after the first assessment the person decided to make an attempt to solve the problem, that this attempt did not result in the resolution of the problem, and that the situation got even worse. In this case, the assumptions and the explanatory styles of the person will have an effect on the possible solution and the person’s emotional state. For instance, if a problem-solving process results in a failure and the individual reaches the judgment that the failure was caused by his or her stupidity, the feeling of self-efficacy will show a sharp decline. The person with this kind of explanatory style will easily fall into depression. With a lowered self-esteem, a depressed mood, and a pessimistic way of explaining personal failures, this person may not engage in new problem-solving attempts in the future.

People’s attributions about the problems they encounter play an important role in whether or not they will attempt to solve a problem. The attributions in question will be able to motivate and activate the individual facing a problem. What are then the attribution styles of people who can and cannot solve the problems effectively? Baumgardner, Heppner, and Arkin (1986) investigated this subject. The results of their study showed that people who thought that they could effectively solve their problems were more likely to think that the problem situation was under their control and that the problem situation was the result of their lack of effort.

The attributions people make of the problem situation and of their skills and abilities may have a determining effect on the problem-solving process. For this reason, the knowledge of the client’s attributions of the problem situation and his or her skills will have an effect on the result of the PST. Therefore, there is a need for the assessment of attribution and explanatory styles of clients during PST. One of the covert goals of PST is to enable the clients use functional or adaptive attributions.

Pain–Depression Relationships

There has been much debate about the causal attribution between depression and pain. An earlier theory suggested that chronic pain is a form of “masked depression” (Blumer & Heilbronn, 1982). That is, patients' reports of pain reflect underlying depression because it may be more acceptable to complain of pain than to acknowledge depression, although this judgment process does not necessarily occur at a conscious level. Although there is no scientific evidence to substantiate it, the claim remains a popular notion in public and very unfortunately even among some clinicians. Many patients experience undue distress upon facing the assumption that their chronic pain is “all in their head” or that their pain is not taken seriously because “it is just your depression.”

Alternatively, there is some support that depression follows the development of chronic pain (Brown, 1990). A recent study following people with a history of remitted depression (Gerrits et al., 2014) revealed that the recurrence of depression was predicted by pain severity but not by chronic disease status per se. Some studies also suggest that the pain–depression relationship is not linear but rather is mediated by how individuals with chronic pain view their plight. For example, we (Rudy, Kerns, & Turk, 1988; Turk, Okifuji, & Scharff, 1995) demonstrated that the relationship was mediated by a cognitive appraisal that patients exercise in evaluating their condition. The interaction between cognition and mood in chronic pain makes sense given the presence of individual differences in depression among patients with the same diagnoses and comparable pain and physical findings and led us to ask, given the impact of pain on all aspects of functioning, “Why aren't they all depressed?” (Okifuji, Turk, & Sherman, 2000).

There is also some support that the presence of depression places people at risk of developing chronic pain. It is well established that depressed people report significant degrees of pain (Stahl, 2002). Longitudinal studies (Dworkin et al., 1992; Gureje, Simon, & Von Korff, 2001; Jarvik et al., 2005) suggest that depression may be a risk factor for reporting chronic pain. One study (Leino & Magni, 1993) followed 607 individuals and found that their depressed mood at the baseline and 5-year follow-up was related to the development of pain symptoms at the 10-year follow-up. However, these results do not necessarily represent a causal relationship; they simply show the sequential association. It is also likely that pain and depression influence one another reciprocally. Hamelsky and Lipton (2006) reported a bidirectional increase in the likelihood of predicting one from the other between migraine pain and depression. There are a number of factors that present vulnerability and protective factors that mediate the relationship (see Figure 1 for a pictorial representation and Table 1 for a list of the factors). We will now review specific factors.

Table 1. Vulnerability and Resilience Factors for Depression in Chronic Pain

1. Attributions to the First or Last Event

D. T. Miller and Gunasegaram (1990) found that people made causal attributions to the last event of a sequence. They told subjects to imagine that Jones and Cooper were each to toss a coin; if the two coins came up the same (either both heads or both tails), they would each win $1000; however, if the two coins came up different, they would each receive nothing. Jones tosses a head and then Cooper tosses a tail. Almost all of the subjects said that Cooper would feel more guilt for the outcome (86%), that Jones would blame Cooper more for the outcome (92%), and that it was easier to imagine changing the outcome by imagining Cooper's toss being different rather than Jones's toss being different (89%). Although none of these questions directly asks “who was more of a cause of the outcome,” all of the questions appear to measure causal attributions indirectly, and those attributions were made to the last event.

In another experiment in which it also seems that the first and last players contribute equally to the outcome, Vinokur and Ajzen (1982) found that people made causal attributions to the first event of a sequence. Their subjects read about teams of players that tried to solve 20 multiple-choice problems. Each problem had four alternative answers. The first half of the team was responsible for narrowing down the choice from four to two possible answers; the second half of the team was responsible for selecting the final correct answer from the two handed over by the first half of the team. Subjects were told the team's total number correct (either 8 or 17) and asked how much each half of the team had caused the final outcome. A control group of subjects rated the two tasks as equally difficult, but experimental subjects attributed greater causality for the total number correct to the first half of the team.

3.2 Attribution as Causal Judgment

The second major strand of attribution research was inspired by Kelley's (1967) model of causal attribution. Focusing on Heider's insight that causal judgments are pivotal in social perception, Kelley proposed that such judgments are based on a simple information-processing rule: people infer those causes that covary with the event in question. Specifically, when an agent A behaves toward object O, the cause of the behavior is perceived to lie in A (internal attribution) if few other people behave as A does (low consensus), if A behaves the same way toward O over time (high consistency), and if A behaves the same way toward other objects (low distinctiveness). By contrast, the cause of the behavior is perceived to lie in O (external attribution) if most other people behave as A does (high consensus), if A behaves the same way toward O over time (high consistency), and if A behaves differently toward other objects (high distinctiveness). For Kelley, the principles of covariation applied equally to behaviors (whether intentional or unintentional) and physical events. His model was therefore embraced by causal reasoning researchers in both social and cognitive psychology.

Empirical tests of the covariation model tended to support it, although this support was limited to experimental settings in which explicitly presented co-variation information had an effect on judgments. At the turn of the twenty-first century, no studies had demonstrated that people spontaneously, in everyday situations, seek out covariation information before answering a why question. Moreover, the covariation model makes no predictions about situations in which people lack covariation information (e.g., single observations) or in which they are not motivated to make use of the information (e.g., under time pressure). For those instances, Kelley later proposed additional rules of causal reasoning (‘causal schemata’). One of them is the discounting principle, which states that, under certain circumstances, a second cause weakens the plausibility of a first cause. For example, if a student aces a difficult exam, we might explain it by assuming that he studied hard; but upon hearing that he cheated we may no longer believe that he studied hard, thereby discounting the previous explanation.

The problem that Kelley's causal attribution models tried to address was the ‘causal selection problem’—how perceivers select particular causes for explaining a given behavior or event. Even though Kelley's models themselves did not completely solve this problem (alternative models were developed later), Kelley's work profoundly influenced attribution research by assuming that (a) people break down causes into internal ones (something about the agent) and external ones (something about the situation) and (b) that the internal–external dichotomy generally applies to all behaviors and events alike. This dichotomy proved to be a compellingly simple dependent variable that allowed researchers to explore a variety of interesting phenomena. One of these phenomena is the self-serving bias in explanations (see Miller and Ross 1975)—the tendency for people to explain their own positive and negative outcomes so as to maintain favorable self-perceptions or public impressions. For example, students would be expected to explain a good grade by citing internal causes (e.g., ability or hard work) and a bad grade by citing external causes (e.g., bad luck or an unreasonable teacher). Another important phenomenon is the actor–observer asymmetry, which is the tendency for people to explain their own behaviors and other people's behaviors in systematically different ways. Specifically, Jones and Nisbett (1972) argued, and later studies confirmed, that people tend to explain their own behaviors by reference to external factors (e.g., ‘I chose psychology as my major because it's interesting’) but explain other people's behavior by reference to internal attributes (e.g., ‘He chose psychology as his major because he wants to help people’).

Some researchers proposed alternatives to the internal–external dichotomy of causes. For example, Weiner introduced two additional distinctions—one between stable and unstable causes and one between controllable and uncontrollable causes—and thereby improved predictions for people's emotions and motivations in the wake of explaining achievement outcomes, health outcomes, and deviant social conduct (see Weiner 1995). Abramson et al. (1978) introduced another distinction, between global and specific causes, to describe a hopeless explanatory style in depression (see Depression). However, most attribution work at the beginning of the twenty-first century still uses a single internal–external (or sometimes trait–situation) distinction.

The focus on internal vs. external causal attributions to all behaviors and events alike can be contrasted with Heider's claim that ordinary people sharply distinguish between (a) attributing intentional actions to the actor's motivation and (b) attributing unintentional behaviors (e.g., failure, depression) to causal factors internal or external to the agent. Heider felt, as an interview in 1976 reveals, that people's attributions of events were adequately depicted in Weiner's model, but that attributions of actions to motives were inadequately treated by contemporary research (Ickes 1976). A second limitation of contemporary research is that it developed primarily cognitive models of the attribution process, whereas Heider demanded careful attention to the communicative functions of attributions and the language of causality. Theoretical developments of the 1990s tried to address both of these potential limitations.

9.03.3.6 Integrated Biopsychosocial and Holistic Treatment Approach

Mental health care utilization and help-seeking behaviors appear to be complicated by somatization of emotional problems, variations in causal attribution to depression, and the burden of comorbid physical conditions (Kwong et al., 2012). Mental health professionals need to provide integrated biopsychosocial interventions to Asian patients who may not seek conventional mental health treatment. Such interventions can play an important role in alleviating life stress and issues that patients reported as the causes of mental illness. Some Asian immigrants view mental health services as less relevant to their concerns because Western interventions focus on symptom relief and lack a holistic perspective to health that integrates social, emotional, and spiritual well-being (Kwong et al., 2012). Western medicine endorses a biopsychosocial model of understanding mental illness, and medication and psychotherapy are perceived as common forms of treatment (Kleinman, 1981). Traditional ways of understanding mental illness, and healing persist in many Asian cultures. The use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine/Therapy for physical and mental health purposes is high in contrast to low rates of Westernized mental health service utilization among Asian Americans (Choi and Kim, 2010).

Compared to the general population in North America, East Asian immigrants may be less likely to recognize and label mental illness using psychiatric diagnoses, have different knowledge about the causes of mental health problems, have more negative views about mental health services, and are more likely to rely on self-help treatments (Na et al., 2016). Knowledge and recognition of mental illness needs to encompass the use of alternative expressions, labels, idioms, and explanations of mental health issues that differ from Western psychiatric constructs and presentations (Na et al., 2016). Simply providing the psychiatric diagnosis may not make sense to some immigrants. Therapists' use of alternative explanations of illness and beliefs about causes of mental illness that are reflective of diverse Asian cultural values of East Asian immigrants may be more helpful in promoting their help-seeking behaviors.

Na et al. (2016) conducted a systematic literature review and proposed a culturally responsive model for mental health literacy for East-Asian immigrants. Therapists are advised to use terms such as “emotional distress” or “stress” rather than “depression,” because these terms may acknowledge help-seeking needs of Asian clients. Including somatic idioms of distress may also be helpful (Na et al., 2016). The mental health literacy model adopted in the US postulates that mental health problems can be regarded as physical illnesses, and that the individual with a mental health concern has a disease. The underlying assumption is that individuals who have knowledge about mental illness will approach it like a physical illness, and if they are able to recognize symptoms, they will seek appropriate health care services. Interventions that aim to assess or to increase mental health literacy among East Asian immigrants need to be critical of these underlying assumptions and to consider ways to address cultural diversity in illness knowledge, attitudes and help-seeking. The culturally response model needs not focus exclusively on transmitting knowledge consistent with the views of Western mental health professionals. Modifications need to incorporate the diverse beliefs, values, and understandings of mental health concerns, and to include alternative help-seeking options that are perceived as important in East Asian community (Na et al., 2016). These include consideration of cultural variations in the expression, recognition and labeling of symptoms, notions of illness explanations, patterns of help-seeking, and strategies for self-help coping and social support. Such approach would respect traditional explanatory models of illness, acknowledge diverse forms of help, and empower individuals to seek appropriate help based on their needs.

3.1 Causal Attributions

Parents try to find explanations for why their children have behaved in a particular way, that is, they make ‘causal attributions.’ Although people make causal attributions in a variety of contexts, parents are probably particularly likely to make them because they need to understand their children so that they can effectively influence them. Dix and Grusec (1985) have outlined some of the features of parents' thinking in this context. In the search for explanation, parents can make internal or dispositional attributions that find the source of action in the child's personality or character. Alternatively, they can make external attributions that locate the source of action in the external situation or environment. When a negative action is attributed to dispositional factors it is most often seen as intentional and under the child's control. In this case parents have been shown to react punitively, possibly both because of their accompanying anger and because a Western ethical system dictates that intentional misdeeds should be punished. Parents who make external attributions, believing their child was tired or provoked or did not know any better, are likely to respond in a more benign way, e.g., by reasoning in an attempt to guide their child's future actions. When the attributions are accurate, parental behavior is likely to be appropriate for modifying the child's actions. When the attribution is inaccurate, however, parenting will be ineffective, given that children who lack knowledge, for example, are merely punished and do not learn what correct actions are, or children who have knowledge do not experience the negative consequences of their actions.

Carcinogenesis:

see also Preclinical testing (Ch. 3). Mechanisms of carcinogenesis are complex; prediction from animal tests is uncertain and causal attribution in humans has finally to be based on epidemiological studies. The principal mechanisms are:

Alteration of DNA (genotoxicity, mutagenicity). Many chemicals or their metabolites act by causing mutations, activating oncogenes; those substances that are used as medicines include griseofulvin and alkylating cytotoxics. Leukaemias and lymphomas are the most common malignancies.

Immunosuppression. Malignancies develop in immunosuppressed patients, e.g. after organ transplantation and cancer chemotherapy. There is a high incidence of lymphoid neoplasm. Chlorambucil, melphalan and thiotepa present particular high relative risks. The use of immunosuppression in, e.g., rheumatoid arthritis, also increases the incidence of neoplasms.

Hormonal. Long-term use of oestrogen replacement in postmenopausal women induces endometrial cancer. Combined oestrogen/progestogen oral contraceptives may both suppress and enhance cancers (see Ch. 38). Diethylstilbestrol caused vaginal adenosis and cancer in the offspring of mothers who took it during pregnancy in the hope of preventing miscarriage. It was used for this purpose for decades after its introduction in the 1940s, on purely theoretical grounds. Controlled therapeutic trials were not done and there was no valid evidence of therapeutic efficacy. Male fetuses developed non-malignant genital abnormalities.19

Carcinogenesis due to medicines follows prolonged drug exposure,20 i.e. months or years; the cancers develop most commonly over 3–5 years, but sometimes years after treatment has ceased. There is a higher incidence of secondary cancers in patients treated for a primary cancer.

Causal Attribution

When their expectations are contradicted, people are more likely to engage in causal thinking than when their expectations are met. Unexpected events or behaviors thus evoke more causal attribution than expected events and behaviors. This particularly holds true for events and behaviors that depart from the prior expectations in an undesirable sense. In this case, causal reasoning often takes the form of counterfactual reasoning contrasting alternative series of events to what has actually happened (‘what if …’).

One implication of the effect of expectations on causal reasoning is that the extent to which people causally explain events or behaviors reveals to some extent whether they had expected these events or behaviors. Within this context, for instance, the notion ‘stereotypic explanatory bias' has been coined to describe the relative tendency to explain stereotype-inconsistent behaviors and to leave stereotype-consistent behaviors unexplained. The stereotypic explanatory bias has been at the basis of the development of a measure of stereotypes that does not require asking people about their stereotype-based expectations (a so-called indirect or implicit measure of expectations). Like other indirect measures, it is particularly useful to avoid the social desirability concerns that often plague self-report measurements.