write an essay on kelly's theory of attribution

Attribution Theory in Psychology: Definition & Examples

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

Attribution theory is concerned with how ordinary people explain the causes of behavior and events. For example, is someone angry because they are bad-tempered or because something bad happened?

A formal definition is provided by Fiske and Taylor (1991, p. 23):

“Attribution theory deals with how the social perceiver uses information to arrive at causal explanations for events.  It examines what information is gathered and how it is combined to form a causal judgment”.

Heider (1958) believed that people are naive psychologists trying to make sense of the social world. People tend to see cause-and-effect relationships, even where there is none!

Heider didn’t so much develop a theory himself to emphasize certain themes that others took up.  There were two main ideas that he put forward that became influential: dispositional (internal cause) vs. situational (external cause) attributions.

Dispositional vs Situational Attribution

1. dispositional attribution.

Dispositional attribution assigns the cause of behavior to some internal characteristic of a person rather than to outside forces.

When we explain the behavior of others, we look for enduring internal attributions, such as personality traits. This is known as the fundamental attribution error .

For example, we attribute the behavior of a person to their personality, motives, or beliefs.

2. Situational Attribution

When we try to explain our behavior, we tend to make external attributions, such as situational or environmental features.

Jones & Davis Correspondent Inference Theory

Jones and Davis (1965) thought that people pay particular attention to intentional behavior (as opposed to accidental or unthinking behavior).

Jones and Davis’ theory helps us understand the process of making an internal attribution.  They say that we tend to do this when we see a correspondence between motive and behavior.  For example, when we see a correspondence between someone behaving in a friendly way and being a friendly person.

Dispositional (i.e., internal) attributions provide us with information from which we can make predictions about a person’s future behavior. The correspondent inference theory describes the conditions under which we make dispositional attributes to the behavior we perceive as intentional.

Davis used the term correspondent inference to refer to an occasion when an observer infers that a person’s behavior matches or corresponds with their personality.  It is an alternative term to dispositional attribution.

So what leads us to make a correspondent inference?

Jones and Davis say we draw on five sources of information:

Choice : If the behavior is freely chosen, it is believed to be due to internal (dispositional) factors.

Accidental vs. Intentional Behavior : Behavior that is intentional is likely to be attributed to the person’s personality, and behavior which is accidental is likely to be attributed to situation / external causes.

Social Desirability : Behaviors low in sociable desirability (non-conforming) lead us to make (internal) dispositional inferences more than socially undesirable behaviors.  For example, if you observe a person getting on a bus and sitting on the floor instead of one of the seats. This behavior has low social desirability (non-conforming) and is likely to correspond with the personality of the individual.

Hedonistic Relevance: If the other person’s behavior appears to be directly intended to benefit or harm us.

Personalism : If the other person’s behavior appears to be intended to have an impact on us, we assume that it is “personal” and not just a by-product of the situation we are both in.

Kelley’s Covariation Model

Kelley’s (1967) covariation model is the best-known attribution theory.  He developed a logical model for judging whether a particular action should be attributed to some characteristic (dispositional) of the person or the environment (situational).

The term covariation simply means that a person has information from multiple observations at different times and situations and can perceive the covariation of an observed effect and its causes.

He argues that people act like scientists in trying to discover the causes of behavior.

More specifically, they take into account three kinds of evidence:

• Consensus : the extent to which other people behave in the same way in a similar situation. E.g.,  Alison smokes a cigarette when she goes out for a meal with her friend.  If her friend smokes, her behavior is high in consensus. If only Alison smokes, it is low.
• Distinctiveness : the extent to which the person behaves in the same way in similar situations.  If Alison only smokes when she is out with friends, her behavior is high in distinctiveness. If she smokes at any time or place, her distinctiveness is low.
• Consistency : the extent to which the person behaves like this every time the situation occurs.  If Alison only smokes when she is out with friends, consistency is high.  If she only smokes on one special occasion, consistency is low.

Let’s look at an example to help understand his particular attribution theory.  Our subject is called Tom. His behavior is laughter.  Tom is laughing at a comedian.

1. Consensus

2. distinctiveness, 3. consistency.

If Tom always laughs at this comedian, the consistency is high.  If Tom rarely laughs at this comedian, then consistency is low.

Now, if everybody laughs at this comedian if they don’t laugh at the comedian who follows, and if this comedian always raises a laugh, then we would make an external attribution, i.e., we assume that Tom is laughing because the comedian is very funny.

On the other hand, if Tom is the only person who laughs at this comedian, if Tom laughs at all comedians, and if Tom always laughs at the comedian, then we would make an internal attribution, i.e., we assume that Tom is laughing because he is the kind of person who laughs a lot.

So what we’ve got here is people attributing causality based on correlation.  That is to say, we see that two things go together, and we, therefore, assume that one causes the other.

One problem, however, is that we may not have enough information to make that kind of judgment. For example, if we don’t know Tom that well, we wouldn’t necessarily have the information to know if his behavior is consistent over time.  So what do we do then?

According to Kelley, we fall back on past experience and look for either

1) Multiple necessary causes . For example, we see an athlete win a marathon, and we reason that she must be very fit, highly motivated, have trained hard, etc., and that she must have all of these to win

2) Multiple sufficient causes . For example, we see an athlete fail a drug test, and we reason that she may be trying to cheat, or have taken a banned substance by accident, or have been tricked into taking it by her coach. Any one reason would be sufficient.

Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition (2nd ed.) . New York: McGraw-Hill

Heider, F. (1958). The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations . New York: Wiley.

Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. (1965) From acts to dispositions: the attribution process in social psychology, in L. Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Volume 2, pp. 219-266), New York: Academic Press

Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. In D. Levine (ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (Volume 15, pp. 192-238). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

• TOP CATEGORIES
• AS and A Level
• University Degree
• International Baccalaureate
• Uncategorised
• 5 Star Essays
• Study Tools
• Study Guides
• Meet the Team
• Developmental Psychology

"Critically evaluate Kelley's ANOVA model of attribution".

Amy Nottage

“Critically evaluate Kelley's ANOVA model of attribution”.

Attribution theories involve the use of social and psychological research to explain how we interpret the events and behaviours we see around us. When observing behaviour, our own or other peoples, we attempt to provide explanations for its occurrence, these explanations are usually situational or dispositional. Thus, attributions are personal expressions about causal factors of events or behaviours. Theories have offered important insights into the ways in which people explain their own actions and the actions of others.

Many theoretical models have been suggested; they usually involve a search for the cause of the behaviour, and an attempt to determine whether this is internal or external, followed by a decision as to whether the behaviour is logical or rational.  Some of the most prominent theories are initially Heider’s (1948) Model, which highlighted the fact that all behaviours have both internal and external causes. There is also Jones and Davis’ (1965) Correspondent Inference Theory that is concerned with how we move from observing behaviour, to understanding the intention of the actor, to concluding the disposition which caused the intention. There is also Kelley’s (1967) ANOVA model, which is concerned with what information we use to arrive at a causal attribution. In this essay, I shall attempt to further discuss and evaluate Kelley’s model, as it is one of the most recent and widely discussed. Inevitably, all of these theories have been further formalized and extended by later psychologists.

The key question for Kelley (1967) was ‘what type of information does the person use in order to make a causal attribution?’ (Scott and Spencer, 1998). He saw the person as a ‘naïve scientist’ who weighs up several pieces of information before arriving at an explanation for events causes. Kelly believes that in order to determine the origins of a behaviour, for example ‘Nicola argued with her dad’, we need three types of information; distinctiveness, consensus and consistency. Distinctiveness refers to information we require about the stimulus, which in this case is Nicola’s dad. If Nicola only argues with her dad the distinctiveness is high, however, if she argues with everyone the distinctiveness, of her dad, is low. The second type of information that is needed is consensus details about Nicola herself. There is high consensus for Nicola’s argumentative behaviour if many people argue with her dad and low consensus if it is only she. Finally, consistency information, about the circumstances surrounding the argument, needs to be considered. For example, there is high consistency if Nicola argues with her dad in many situations, but low consistency if Nicola has only argued with her father on this specific occasion.  When all of this information has been obtained we use the principle of covariation, deciding what factor is always present with this behaviour, to determine what was the cause of the argument. By considering the different levels of distinctiveness, consensus and consistency one can attribute the cause of the argument to; the stimulus, Nicola's dad, the person, Nicola, or the circumstances. Although this is actually a complex statistical process, the table below summarizes process that takes place:

This is a preview of the whole essay

Although Kelly’s theory has to be given recognition for being a positive development in the area of attribution theories, debate nonetheless still is evident in considering if it details the methods we use in everyday life. Research that has aimed to test the model tends to generally conclude that the model is not a correct description of how we determine the causes of behaviours. However, a study carried out during our laboratory class seemed to suggest findings in support of the ANOVA model. The aim was to compare how well Kelley’s model predicted attributions for simple opposed to complex behaviours using constrained and unconstrained responses, (full details of the experiment can be seen in the appendix). It was discovered that when responses were constrained; 84 percent responses for simple problems and 92 percent of responses for complex problems used Kelly’s categories to assess the problems. And that that when responses were unconstrained; 61 percent responses for simple problems and 64 percent of responses for complex problems used Kelly’s categories to assess the problems. Although very little statistical difference was found between the simple and complex conditions, the research nonetheless shows that a majority of people use Kelley’s ANOVA model. The research is clearly supports the notion that the model is a valid working concept.  

McArthur (1972) conducted one of the first experimental tests on Kelley’s model and her results were supportive, although it was discovered that consensus information is not used comparatively as much. This study and our own laboratory class findings are examples of the small amount of data available in total support of Kelley’s ANOVA model, there is much more empirical evidence which highlights the problems with the model.

Beattie and Anderson (1995), on the basis of detailed research, concluded that consistency, distinctiveness and consensus information are not usually asked for in everyday situations, this is specifically when they are asked open-ended questions. Furthermore it has been suggested that we do not always have this information available to us when making an explanation of an event. The model is criticised for being for being overly rational and deliberative and for ignoring the importance of culture and self-esteem in decision-making. Scott and Spencer (1998) suggest that it is best to consider Kelley's model as a ‘normative model’, models of how information ought to be used but in real life actually is not. There are biases and errors in the way people actually process information. These preconceptions and inaccuracies are exemplified in numerous different problems which have been studied separately by different psychologists. Who then pose alternative explanations of how everyday attributions are made, Kelley's ANOVA model fails to provide adequate explanations in all of these areas.

Initially Kelley failed to consider what is called the fundamental attribution error (Ross et al, 1977). This context refers to the tendency to underestimate situational factors and overestimate dispositional factors in making attributions. Ross et al (1977) carried out a study including quiz masters and contestants, they found that even though the quiz masters were in a position where they could ask any questions they wanted, people thought automatically that the quiz masters were more knowledgeable.  This fundamental attribution error may also serve to explain why we tend to blame road accidents on the driver not the conditions.  However even the concept of fundamental attribution errors is not completely ubiquitous as it has been proven by Miller (1984) that cultural differences are evident, with individualistic societies, such as Americans, paying more attention to dispositional factors and collectivist cultures, such as Indians emphasising situational factors. Linguistic differences in the West also play a role in this; the English language contains more terms that describe a person’s dispositions than we do to describe different situations. Even though the fundamental attribution error is not a universal concept itself, it is a major flaw in Kelley’s theory that it is not considered at all.

Furthermore Kelley’s theory did not include any evidence of Actor Observer Differences, which are a tendency for actors to attribute their behaviour to the situation and for observers to attribute the observed behaviours to the individual. An example of this is seen in Jones and Nisbett’s (1972) study where they found that male students were more likely to describe their own choice of girlfriend and course at university in terms of external factors, however on describing their best friends choices these were attributed to dispositional factors. In another study it was discovered that people were more likely to say their behaviour depends on the situation than other peoples behaviours Therefore, attributions can not solely be made in the way that Kelley described, as distinctiveness information is considered differently and different attributions would be assumed. This and other evidence suggests that there is a different focus of attention for actors and observers, and actors know how their own behaviour varies across contexts. Kelley's model is also flawed in that it does not take into account any differences in perceptual focus. Any given event is usually a completely different experience for the actor and observer.

It has further been suggested that the ANOVA model fails to incorporate or acknowledge the existence of the false consensus effect. This is where we have a tendency to use our own attitudes and behaviours for deciding the consensus for a specific behaviour and furthermore to overestimate the number of people who share our beliefs and habits. The evidence available suggests that people do not, as Kelley suggested, search for consensus information, we assume all people share our own individual beliefs. Ross et al (1977) gave empirical support to this argument in their finding that when respondents were interviewed they believed over 60 percent of people, would give the same response as them. False attributions are clearly evident, one only has to think about when people who achieve high grades tell others about them and a distinct tendency to underestimate others success is apparent.  The existence of the false consensus effect clearly shows that Kelley was incorrect to assume that consensus information played such a distinct role in making attributions.

Kelley’s ANOVA model is further undermined by the existence of a self-serving bias, which is a tendency to attribute success to internal causes and failure to external causes. For example Williams et al (1979) found that success in exams was attributed to ‘intelligence and work ethic but failure was attributed to unreasonable lecturers and bad luck’, thus participants in this experiment clearly did not use Kelley’s modal of attribution, as their attributions were varied dependant on whether it made them look good or not. The ANOVA model does not take into account the existence of any self-centred bias either.

Kelley’s model did not highlight the existence of unrealistic optimism on the part of an individual. This refers to the belief that ‘I am at least slightly better than average’ and that good things will happen to oneself and bad things will not. For example Manstead et al (1992) found that even car drivers who had been hospitalised after an accident believed that they were ‘better than average’ drivers. Overall there is a mass of evidence for the presence of self serving biases, thus, when making attributions there is a strong motivational basis to protect or enhance ones self esteem; which Kelly did not integrate into his model.

The literature in general does not seem to support the use of the ANOVA model in everyday situations; although elements may be used they are not descriptions of actual processes that people normally go through. When making attributions, ‘our explanations are not affected by the information we have available, they are also influenced by the culture we live in, what seems to be most salient to us at the time, and by our need for self-esteem,’ (Scott and Spencer, 1998). The ANOVA model does not take into account the fact that we rely more on biased background information than details of the event and factors specified by the theory. The main criticism of the model is that it is overly rational and deliberative, and that it ignores the importance of culture and self-esteem, as previously explained (Hewstone, 1989 cited in Scott and Spencer, 1998). There is also evidence to suggest that we are not able to handle such complex statistical procedures as suggested by the model, as we lack cognitive resources; consequently, we often rely on cognitive heuristics instead.

        Kelley’s model is ultimately flawed, although it is possibly a good account of how people should use information, it is not through enough to explain what happens in everyday life. However it deserves credit for being one of the most through and useful models devised at the time. It has also stimulated further research into the topic and models devised later by other psychologists have helped to make the theory more workable. For example, Forsterling’s (1992) formulation of Kelley’s ANOVA model was based on the statistical anova parameter of effect size, and thus accounted for discounting augmentation as well as covariation.

        The results from our laboratory class and other pieces of research that have been in support of the ANOVA model cannot be ignored. However, with so much evidence to suggest that the MODEL is not an effective working model, one has to question whether supportive research evidence may have been flawed. As even with the introduction of Kelley’s causal schemas the theory is still unworkable. Overall the theory seems to complex and rigid to be part of everyday attributions, however in an ideal world it may be helpful to use Kelley’s ANOVA model to make unbiased, correct and thought through assumptions.  

Bibliography

Scott, Peter and Spencer, Christopher (1998). PSYCHOLOGY: A CONTEMPORY INTRODUCTION . Oxford, Blackwell Publishing.

EXPERIMENT 1

Compare how well Kelley’s model predicts attributions for simple versus complex behaviours using constrained responses.

Condition 1: Simple behaviour: “Sue is afraid of the dog.”

Condition 2: Complex behaviour: “The Conservative Party called Tony Blair a liar about promises of investment in the NHS.”

Condition 1 (Simple behaviour and response constrained)

Sue is afraid of the dog

• Other people are also afraid of the dog
• Sue is not afraid of any other dog
• In the past, Sue has always been afraid of this dog

Why did this happen?

• Something about Sue?
• Something about the dog?
• Something about the particular occasion?

Condition 2 (Complex behaviour, responses constrained)

The Conservative Party called Tony Blair a liar about promises of investment in the NHS.

• Other political parties have also called Tony Blair a liar about promises of investment in the NHS.
• The Conservative party have not called Tony Blair a liar about other issues.
• In the past, the Conservative Party have frequently called Tony Blair a liar about promises of investment in the NHS.
• Something about the Conservative Party?
• Something to do with the issue of investment in the NHS?

EXPERIMENT 2

Compare how well Kelley’s model predicts information search (unconstrained response) for simple versus complex behaviours.

Condition 1 : Simple behaviour: “Sue is afraid of the dog.”

Condition 2 : Complex behaviour: “The Conservative Party called Tony Blair a liar about promises of investment in the NHS.”

Condition 1 (Simple behaviour, unconstrained response)

What information do you need to decide that this happened because of….?

Condition 2 (Complex behaviour, unconstrained response)

What information do you need to decide that this happened because of…?

Document Details

• Word Count 2536
• Page Count 10
• Level AS and A Level
• Subject Psychology

Related Essays

15 Attribution Theory Examples

Attribution theory believes that people attempt to understand events and actions by attributing intentions, beliefs, and feelings to the events. It also holds that we tend to place causation into two categories: internal (dispositional) factors and external (situational) factors.

The book The Psychology of Interpersonal Relationships by Fritz Heider (1958) is usually considered the seminal work which sparked this area of study.

Heider suggested that people will explain the actions of both others and themselves in terms of either internal dispositional factors or external situational factors .

Since Heider’s work, other theorists have proposed models that attempt to explain how and why people explain the outcomes they experience directly and the behaviors of others they observe (Jones & Davis, 1965; Kelley, 1967; Weiner, 1985).

Why do we Attribute Causation to Behaviors?

It is believed that we attempt to attribute causation to events in order to feel a sense of control over the environment. It overcomes our cognitive dissonance .

For example, a person with a hostile attribution bias will attribute others’ behaviors as being hostile to themselves in order to prevent themselves from getting hoodwinked by strangers – better to think everyone is ill-intentioned so you’ll never let anyone fool you!

Attributional behaviors can also help us to come up with a course of action that can either maintain or improve that environment.

Over the last 50+ years, attribution theory has played a prominent role in education, social psychology, clinical psychology, and management theory.

Attribution Theory Examples

• After losing 9 out of their last 10 games, the team is beginning to doubt the coach’s leadership skills.     
• Stella believes her child is incredibly smart, but her teacher is not very good and is holding her back.  
• Hakeem’s friend is late again. Rather than get upset, he just accepts the fact that punctuality is not one of his friend’s priorities in life .  
• Jasmine walks by a homeless person and speculates that they probably grew up in a very dysfunctional household.
• The fans are really upset after losing a close match. They immediately blame the refs for bad officiating.  
• Kumar earned the highest grade in class on the chemistry final, which he attributes to all the time he spent studying.  
• Years after going through a messy divorce, both Beth and Andrew blame each other for their failed marriage.
• Evita won another gymnastics competition, which her parents attribute to her excellent genes and natural talent.       
• Ben cannot understand why his “best friend” keeps talking bad about him behind his back.
• Mr. Jones drives by the local food bank and blames corrupt politicians and greedy corporations for moving all the jobs overseas.   

Case Studies of Attribution Theory

1. the self-serving attribution.

People have a basic psychological need to view themselves in a positive light. In fact, being negative towards oneself is a depressive symptom and can be psychologically unhealthy.

Heider (1976) believed the self-serving attributional bias was pervasive. As he stated,

“One is inclined to attribute to oneself good things, but one suffers when one has to attribute to oneself something that is not so good…” (p. 16).

Mezulis et al. (2004) conducted a meta-analysis of 266 studies on self-serving attributions. The researchers were able to calculate an effect size for each study, which is essentially an index of how strongly one variable effects another variable.

They looked at studies of how much people provide positive internal attributions and negative external attributions .

The results of the meta-analysis were robust:

“The overall effect size of the attributional bias was large (d = 0.96) and may represent one of the largest effect sizes demonstrated in psychological research on cognition to date” (p. 738).

2. Biased Attributions in the Courtroom

Presenting evidence regarding the character of the defendant can lead jurors to commit a fundamental attribution error . It makes jurors more likely to see the defendant as responsible.

According to Dominioni et al. (2920), the European legal system relies on judges to arrive at verdicts, while the American system puts the responsibility in the hands of jurors:

“Legal scholars debate on which of these two systems is better…” (p. 261).

The researchers conducted a study using vignettes that provided character evidence or no character evidence to university law students and judges-to-be.

To paraphrase: Results revealed that participants in the character evidence condition were more inclined to attribute the incident to the defendant’s conduct (or less inclined to attribute to the situation) than participants in the no character evidence condition.

This analysis also reveals that law students were more inclined to attribute the incident to the defendant’s conduct (or less inclined to attribute to the situation) than judges-to-be (p. 254).   

3. The Actor-Observer Bias

The actor-observer bias is the tendency for people to attribute situational factors for their own behavior, but more trait-based attributions for others.

This tendency was demonstrated in a study by Nisbett et al. (1973). Researchers asked college students to think of their behavior and a person they knew, such as their mother or roommate.

They were then instructed to circle a term that best describes that person’s behavior. Those terms varied in regards to being trait-based or situation-based. 

The results indicated that students were more likely to circle situation-based terms for their own behavior, but trait-based terms for others.

There are several possible explanations for the actor-observer bias. One centers on the availability of information.

For instance, we are far more aware of the various factors that affect our own decisions than that of other people and may simply be observing from a distance.

4. Kelly’s Covariation Model

Sometimes we have considerable information about another’s person behavior. This is where Kelly’s covariation model of attribution comes into play. It examines the influence of several factors that affect how we explain the behavior of others.

According to Kelly, we consider three main variables:

• Consensus: this has to do with how other people behave in the same way in a similar situation. If Raj acts upset about an exam and other students are also upset, then Ray’s behavior is high in consensus.
• Distinctiveness: this refers to how the person acts in other situations. If Jim gets upset in other situations, this distinctiveness is low.
• Consistency: this has to do with how the person acts at other times in response to the same situation. If Raj gets upset after every exam, then consistency is high.

For example, if Raj always laughs when watching a particular show (high consistency), doesn’t laugh that much at other shows (high distinctiveness), and other people also laugh at that show (high consensus), then we will attribute Raj’s behavior to external factors (the show is funny).

However, if most people don’t laugh at that show (low consensus), Raj laughs at a lot of shows (low distinctiveness), and Raj frequently laughs at that show (high consistency), then we might attribute Raj’s behavior to internal factors (Raj likes to laugh).

5. Weiner’s Locus of Causality

Bernard Weiner (1985) focused his theory of attribution on how people explain success and failure. According to his theory, explanations can be based on personal factors such as ability or effort, and situational factors such as luck or task difficulty.

This led to a 2 x 2 categorization scheme:

“Ability was described as internal and stable, effort as internal and unstable, task difficulty was thought to be external and stable, and luck was considered external and unstable” (p. 551).

However, because of the shortcomings of this scheme, a third dimension labeled controllability was added.

Although ability was previously considered internal and stable, that may not be entirely true. For example, in the case of sports, it is possible to improve one’s ability with practice.

Similarly, while initially Weiner considered effort to be internal and unstable, this is not always so; as in the case of a person that is lazy or generally unmotivated.

Only by taking into account all three dimensions of causality is it possible to develop a conceptual framework with true explanatory power.

See the related concept: Locus of Control Theory

Attribution theory attempts to explain how and why people explain the behavior of others, and themselves. Several prominent theories have been developed and consistent results obtained over several decades of research.

One of the most robust findings is that people engage in self-serving attributions which give them credit for success, but deny responsibility for failure.

While we generally explain our behavior in terms of situational factors, we tend to see the actions of others as stemming from dispositional factors such as their personality.

Although seemingly harmless in everyday life, attributional biases can have substantial ramifications in the legal system. Jurors may be more inclined to see a defendant as being responsible for their actions and apply less credibility to situational factors.

Dominioni, G., Desmet, P., & Visscher, L. (2020). Judges versus jurors: Biased attributions in the courtroom. Cornell International Law Journal, 52, 235- 265.

Heider, F. (1958). The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations . New York: Wiley.

Heider, F. (1976). A conversation with Fritz Heider. In J. H. Harvey, W. J. Ickes, & R. F. Kidd (Eds.), New Directions in Attribution Research (Vol. 1, pp. 3-18). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. (1965) From acts to dispositions: The attribution process in social psychology, in L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 219-266), New York: Academic Press.

Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (Volume 15, pp. 192-238). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Mezulis, Amy & Abramson, Lyn & Hyde, Janet & Hankin, Benjamin. (2004). Is there a universal positivity bias in attributions? A meta-analytic review of individual, developmental, and cultural differences in the self-serving attributional bias. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 711-47. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.130.5.711

Nisbett, R. E., Caputo, C., Legant, P., & Marecek, J. (1973). Behavior as seen by the actor and as seen by the observer. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27 (2), 154–164.

Weiner, B. (2010). Attribution Theory. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470479216.corpsy0098

Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92, 548-73. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.92.4.548

Dave Cornell (PhD)

Dr. Cornell has worked in education for more than 20 years. His work has involved designing teacher certification for Trinity College in London and in-service training for state governments in the United States. He has trained kindergarten teachers in 8 countries and helped businessmen and women open baby centers and kindergartens in 3 countries.

• Dave Cornell (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/dave-cornell-phd/ 25 Positive Punishment Examples
• Dave Cornell (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/dave-cornell-phd/ 25 Dissociation Examples (Psychology)
• Dave Cornell (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/dave-cornell-phd/ 15 Zone of Proximal Development Examples
• Dave Cornell (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/dave-cornell-phd/ Perception Checking: 15 Examples and Definition

Chris Drew (PhD)

This article was peer-reviewed and edited by Chris Drew (PhD). The review process on Helpful Professor involves having a PhD level expert fact check, edit, and contribute to articles. Reviewers ensure all content reflects expert academic consensus and is backed up with reference to academic studies. Dr. Drew has published over 20 academic articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education and holds a PhD in Education from ACU.

• Chris Drew (PhD) #molongui-disabled-link 25 Positive Punishment Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) #molongui-disabled-link 25 Dissociation Examples (Psychology)
• Chris Drew (PhD) #molongui-disabled-link 15 Zone of Proximal Development Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) #molongui-disabled-link Perception Checking: 15 Examples and Definition

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Kelley’s Covariation Model (Definition + Examples)

Why do people behave the way that they do? It’s an age-old question that psychologists have been studying for centuries. But you don’t have to be working in a research lab to ask yourself that question. In fact, we try to answer this question every single day. You might try to explain someone’s behavior at the bus stop, at work, or while you’re watching the news. 

In addition to understanding human behavior, psychologists want to understand how we explain the behaviors of others and ourselves. The larger theory exploring this idea, Attribution Theory, is an umbrella with many other ideas, theories, and models below it. Here, we’re going to talk about one of the most well-known models within Attribution Theory: Kelley’s Covariation Model.  

What Is Kelley's Covariation Model?

“Covariation” is a term that basically means that two or more variables are present. Kelley’s covariation model takes a look at how we attribute behaviors based on multiple variables or pieces of information. The conclusion that we make, according to Kelley’s Covariation Model, is that of situational or dispositional attribution. 

The major assumption of Kelley's Covariation Theory is that as people gather information to make judgements, they attribute behaviors with logic and rationality. 

• Attribution Theory

Again, attribution theory looks at one big idea: what we attribute to other people’s behaviors. In other words, how do we determine the cause of another person’s behavior? Do we think the guy who gave us side-eye on the bus is a jerk, or is he just having a bad day? Is the guy who gave us side-eye on the bus a jerk, or did we do something to offend him? 

As a whole, attribution looks at the information that we gather in order to come to these conclusions. The man on the bus giving us side-eye: does he look like a jerk? Have we seen him giving side-eye to us before? Does he appear to be giving side-eye to other people? Is it a rainy day? Is the bus driver playing music that is annoying everyone on the bus? What are other people doing? Attribution theory attempts to classify, categorize, and understand all of these factors and put together ideas about what we may name as the cause of someone else’s behavior. 

Dispositional vs. Situational Attribution 

In general, psychologists believe that we attribute someone’s behavior to one of two things. This is known as the distinction between dispositional attribution and situational attribution. 

Dispositional attribution is the process in which we blame another person’s behavior on their disposition, or their character. For example, we may see the man on the bus giving us side-eye and think, “That guy is just rude.” That is part of his character. If we saw him curse out another passenger or fail to tip at a restaurant, this may enforce the dispositional attribution and enforce the idea that the man just has bad character traits. 

Situational attribution is the process in which we blame another person’s behavior on external factors, or the situation. There are a number of reasons why the man could be giving side-eye that have nothing to do with his character. Maybe he has mistaken you for someone who was rude to him before. Maybe he was just having a bad day. Maybe the music on the bus is too loud and he is hangry. None of these things put a stain on the man’s character. We may think that he is probably a nice guy who was behaving as a response to whatever is going on around him. 

You can probably think of a situation in which you attributed someone’s behavior to their disposition or to the outside situation. The photo above shows how easily we could make a judgement using dispositional (left) or situational (right) attribution.

Maybe you have found yourself attributing the same behavior to internal or external factors, depending on the person who is displaying the behavior. You may excuse your friend getting too drunk at the bar because they are having a bad day, but judge the person next to them who is similarly getting too drunk and believe that they have a drinking problem or make bad choices. 

We do this all the time. It’s not necessarily bad to come to different conclusions regarding the same behavior or different behaviors displayed by the same person. 

So why do we do it? Why do we come to a different conclusion about two friends behaving in the same way? This is what Kelley’s Covariation Model attempts to explain. 

Kelley's Covariation Model

Harold Kelley is a social psychologist who spent much of his career looking at how groups interact with each other. He is best known for this covariation model, and this model is also one of the most well-known ideas within the larger study of attribution theory. 

When do we decide that a behavior comes from someone’s character, and when do we decide that the behavior is just an anomaly, influenced by external factors? 

Kelley believed that we rely on three factors: consensus, distinctiveness, and consistency. Based on what the “data” tell us about these factors, we come to a conclusion. In a way, Kelley’s Covariation Model suggests that we are all psychologists, using data and research to come to conclusions about human behavior. 

The first factor is consensus. How does a person behave in relation to the people around them? If their friends jumped off a bridge, would they follow, or would they stray from the pack? Based on the answer, we attribute a high consensus or low consensus to the behavior. 

Here’s an example. You’re at a bar on a date and everyone around you is ordering tequila shots. If your date also orders a tequila shot, consensus is high. If your date decides that they are going to stick to water, consensus is low. 

Distinctiveness

Next is distinctiveness. How distinctive is the behavior to the situation? Is it considered “normal” or customary for the person to perform that behavior in the situation? Whether a behavior is distinctive may also depend on the location where the behavior is performed or the culture of where you are. 

Let’s go back to the tequila shot example. If you notice that your date tends to order tequila shots whenever you’re in a bar on a Friday night, distinctiveness is low. If the date typically sticks to non-alcoholic beverages at a bar but that night decides to order a tequila shot, distinctiveness is high. 

Consistency 

Last but not least is consistency. How often is this behavior performed over time, regardless of the situation? Holidays, special events, or celebratory occasions may throw off someone’s consistency. We all know someone who might deviate from their normal behavior because it’s a special time of year or because relatives are making their annual visit. 

If you continue to date the person from this example and you notice that they are always the first person to recommend shots at parties, bars, or weddings, consistency is high. If they tend to stick to non-alcoholic beverages, but decide to take shots for special occasions, consistency is low. 

Kelley's Covariation Model Examples

So we gather all of this information as we observe our friends, neighbors, colleagues, or new romantic partners. How do we come to a conclusion? 

In some cases, one or two of these factors tell us all we need to know to come to a conclusion. If someone acts inconsistently, we are likely to attribute their behavior to external factors. They are getting more rowdy than normal because they are at a wedding; they always tip really well because it is just in their nature to be generous. 

Other psychologists have built onto this theory, putting together combinations that lead to one of two (or three) conclusions: 

Low Consensus, Low Distinctiveness, and High Consistency lead us to come to the conclusion that the behavior has a Dispositional Attribution.

High Consensus, High Distinctiveness, and Low Consistency lead us to come to the conclusion that the behavior has a Situational Attribution. 

What If We Need More Information?

The whole idea behind the Covariation Model is that we have multiple points of data to form a correlation and come to a conclusion. But what if we don’t know someone that well? What if we’re on a first date, and trying to determine whether the date ordering a tequila shot was a sign of their tendency to party or a bundle of nerves? 

Kelley believes that when we don’t have enough information, we rely on past experience. What do we know about other first dates who have ordered tequila shots? How have we behaved on first dates? What else has this person said or done that could explain their behavior? We look for multiple necessary causes or multiple sufficient causes. 

This Is Just a Theory 

While Kelley’s Covariation Model can shine a light on how we assign causes to another person’s behavior, it’s not perfect. We may jump to conclusions without a lot of data points. We may choose to ignore certain data points in order to reach a conclusion that is favorable to us. We may make assumptions about past behaviors or use past experiences that don’t exactly apply to the situation we are analyzing. All of these things can happen because we are human. There are still many questions to answer about human behavior, how we see that behavior, and the conclusions we make about people who we know or don’t know that well.

Related posts:

• Misattribution of Arousal (Definition + Examples)
• Situational Attribution (Definition + Examples)
• Fundamental Attribution Error (Definition + Examples)
• Dispositional Attribution (Definition + Examples)

Reference this article:

About The Author

Free Personality Test

Free Memory Test

Free IQ Test

PracticalPie.com is a participant in the Amazon Associates Program. As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Follow Us On:

Youtube Facebook Instagram X/Twitter

Psychology Resources

Developmental

Personality

Relationships

Psychologists

Serial Killers

Psychology Tests

Personality Quiz

Memory Test

Depression test

Type A/B Personality Test

© PracticalPsychology. All rights reserved

Privacy Policy | Terms of Use

Attribution Theory: The Psychology of Interpreting Behavior

• Archaeology
• Ph.D., Psychology, University of California - Santa Barbara
• B.A., Psychology and Peace & Conflict Studies, University of California - Berkeley

In psychology,  attribution is a judgment we make about the cause of another person's behavior. Attribution theory explains these attribution processes, which we use to understand why an event or behavior occurred.

To understand the concept of attribution, imagine that a new friend cancels plans to meet up for coffee. Do you assume that something unavoidable came up, or that the friend is a flaky person? In other words, do you assume that the behavior was situational (related to external circumstances) or dispositional (related to inherent internal characteristics)? How you answer questions like these is the central focus for psychologists who study attribution.

Key Takeaways: Attribution Theory

• Attribution theories attempt to explain how human beings evaluate and determine the cause of other people's behavior.
• Well-known attribution theories include the correspondent inference theory, Kelley's covariation model, and Weiner's three-dimensional model.
• Attribution theories typically focus on the process of determining whether a behavior is situationally-caused (caused by external factors) or dispositionally-caused (caused by internal characteristics).

Common Sense Psychology

Fritz Heider  put forward his theories of attribution in his 1958 book The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations . Heider was interested in examining how individuals determine whether another person's behavior is internally caused or externally caused.

According to Heider, behavior is a product of capacity and motivation. Capacity refers to whether we are able to enact a particular behavior—that is, whether our innate characteristics and our present environment make that behavior possible. Motivation refers to our intentions as well as how much effort we apply.

Heider contended that both capacity and motivation are necessary for a particular behavior to occur. For example, your ability to run a marathon depends on both your physical fitness and the weather that day (your capacity) as well as your desire and drive to push through the race (your motivation).

Correspondent Inference Theory

Edward Jones and Keith Davis developed the correspondent inference theory . This theory suggests that if someone behaves in a socially desirable way, we do not tend to infer much about them as a person. For example, if you ask your friend for a pencil and she gives one to you, you are not likely to infer much about your friend's character from the behavior, because most people would do the same thing in a given situation—it is the socially desirable response. However, if your friend refuses to allow you to borrow a pencil, you are likely to infer something about her innate characteristics due to this socially undesirable response.

Also according to this theory, we do not tend to conclude much about an individual's internal motivation if they’re acting in a particular  social role. For example, a salesperson might be friendly and outgoing at work, but because such a demeanor is part of the job requirements, we will not attribute the behavior to an innate characteristic.

On the other hand, if an individual displays behavior that is atypical in a given social situation, we tend to be more likely to attribute their behavior to their innate disposition. For example, if we see someone behaving in a quiet, reserved manner at a loud and boisterous party, we’re more likely to conclude that this person is  introverted .

Kelley’s Covariation Model

According to psychologist Harold Kelley’s covariation model, we tend to use three types of information when we’re deciding whether someone’s behavior was internally or externally motivated.

• Consensus , or whether others would act similarly in a given situation. If other people would typically display the same behavior, we tend to interpret the behavior as being less indicative of an individual's innate characteristics.
• Distinctiveness , or whether the person acts similarly across other situations. If a person only acts a certain way in one situation, the behavior can probably be attributed to the situation rather than the person.
• Consistency , or whether someone acts the same way in a given situation each time it occurs. If someone’s behavior in a given situation is inconsistent from one time to the next, their behavior becomes more difficult to attribute.

When there are high levels of consensus, distinctiveness, and consistency, we tend to attribute the behavior to the situation. For example, let's imagine that you've never eaten cheese pizza before, and are trying to figure out why your friend Sally likes cheese pizza so much:

• All of your other friends also like pizza (high consensus)
• Sally doesn't like many other foods with cheese (high distinctiveness)
• Sally likes every pizza she's ever tried (high consistency)

Taken together, this information suggests that Sally's behavior (liking pizza) is the result of a specific circumstance or situation (pizza tastes good and is a nearly universally enjoyed dish), rather than some inherent characteristic of Sally's.

When there are low levels of consensus and distinctiveness, but high consistency, we’re more likely to decide the behavior is due to something about the person. For example, let's imagine that you’re trying to figure out why your friend Carly likes to go sky-diving:

• None of your other friends likes to go sky-diving (low consensus)
• Carly likes many other high-adrenaline activities (low distinctiveness)
• Carly has been sky-diving many times and she's always had a great time (high consistency)

Taken together, this information suggests that Carly's behavior (her love of sky-diving) is the result of an inherent characteristic of Carly's (being a thrill-seeker), rather than a situational aspect of the act of sky-diving.

Weiner’s Three-Dimensional Model

Bernard Weiner’s model suggests that people examine three dimensions  when attempting to understand the causes of a behavior: locus, stability, and controllability.

• Locus  refers to whether the behavior was caused by internal or external factors.
• Stability  refers to whether the behavior will happen again in the future.
• Controllability  refers to whether someone is able to change the outcome of an event by expending more effort.

According to Weiner, the attributions people make affect their emotions. For example, people are more likely to feel  pride  if they believe that they succeeded due to internal characteristics, such as innate talent, rather than external factors, such as luck. Research on a similar theory, explanatory style, has found that an individual's explanatory style people is linked to their  health  and levels of stress.

Attribution Errors

When we try to determine the cause of someone’s behavior, we are not always accurate. In fact, psychologists have identified two key errors that we commonly make when attempting to attribute behavior.

• Fundamental Attribution Error , which refers to the tendency to over-emphasize the role of personal traits in shaping behaviors. For example, if someone is rude to you, you may assume that they’re generally a rude person, rather than assuming that they were under stress that day.
• Self-Serving Bias , which refers to the tendency to give ourselves credit (i.e. make an internal attribution when things go well, but blame the situation or bad luck (i.e. make an external attribution) when things go poorly. According to recent research, people who are experiencing depression may not show the  self-serving bias , and may even experience a reverse bias.
• Boyes, Alice. “The Self-Serving Bias - Definition, Research, and Antidotes.”  Psychology Today Blog  (2013, Jan 9).  https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/in-practice/201301/the-self-serving-bias-definition-research-and-antidotes
• Fiske, Susan T., and Shelley E. Taylor.  Social Cognition: From Brains to Culture . McGraw-Hill, 2008.  https://books.google.com/books?id=7qPUDAAAQBAJ&dq=fiske+taylor+social+cognition&lr
• Gilovich, Thomas, Dacher Keltner, and Richard E. Nisbett.  Social Psychology . 1st edition, W.W. Norton & Company, 2006.
• Sherman, Mark. “Why We Don't Give Each Other a Break.”  Psychology Today Blog  (2014, Jun 20).  https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/real-men-dont-write-blogs/201406/why-we-dont-give-each-other-break
• What Is Cognitive Bias? Definition and Examples
• What Is the Law of Effect in Psychology?
• What Is Flirting? A Psychological Explanation
• Understanding Self-Efficacy
• What Is Deindividuation in Psychology? Definition and Examples
• What Is Self-Concept in Psychology?
• Psychodynamic Theory: Approaches and Proponents
• Criminology Definition and History
• How Psychology Defines and Explains Deviant Behavior
• What Is a Master Status?
• The Psychology of Compulsive Behavior
• The Importance of Historic Context in Analysis and Interpretation
• What Is Operant Conditioning? Definition and Examples
• How Our Aligning Behavior Shapes Everyday Life
• What Is the Recency Effect in Psychology?
• The Life of Carl Jung, Founder of Analytical Psychology

• Free Samples
• Premium Essays
• Editing Services Editing Proofreading Rewriting
• Extra Tools Essay Topic Generator Thesis Generator Citation Generator GPA Calculator Study Guides Donate Paper
• Essay Writing Help
• About Us About Us Testimonials FAQ
• Studentshare
• Kelley's Attribution Model

Kelley's Attribution Model - Essay Example

• Subject: Management
• Type: Essay
• Level: Undergraduate
• Pages: 7 (1750 words)
• Downloads: 0

Extract of sample "Kelley's Attribution Model"

• Social Psychology
• Cited: 0 times
• Copy Citation Citation is copied Copy Citation Citation is copied Copy Citation Citation is copied

CHECK THESE SAMPLES OF Kelley's Attribution Model

Attribution theory and its relevance to management practice, an integrative attribution perspective of empowerment and learned helplessness, organizational behaviour in the context of herzberg's theory of motivation and attribution theory, utilitarian model, moral rights model, justice model, garbage can model, and bounded rationality, managing under uncertainty - japan exchange teaching program, what are the main kinds of attrition, job satisfaction and employee turnover, integrative approach to managing people issues arising from implementing a new performance.

• TERMS & CONDITIONS
• PRIVACY POLICY
• COOKIES POLICY

Kelly’s cognitive theory Analytical Essay

Human personality has been a complex issue for long and has inspired theorists to create ideas to enhance the understanding of the subject. The theorists have made several attempts to understand and explain how the personalities are developed, their variations, how they affect human interactions with the world and their relationships with different psychologically-related disorders.

George Kelly is one of the proponents of the cognitive theory which is the focus of this study. The center of Kelly’s cognitive theory is the manner in which individuals think because their thoughts affect their feelings and actions.The thoughts and feelings of individuals determine their personalities. Kelly identifies the major role in which the human cognition element plays in determining personality.

This aspect forms the foundation of the terminology of personal constructs which refers to the different ways in which individuals collect information and with the support of their understanding, use it to predict events (Kelly, 2006). The individual interacts with the world based on the outcome of his prediction and this interaction becomes his personality.

Kelly’s incisive evaluation on individuality is informed by the need to equate individuals to scientists. He postulates that the objectives of scientists can be linked to those of other beings. He suggests that in the same way that scientists build hypotheses and conduct experiments to establish their validity, people also develop theories based on their personal constructs and consequently employ various theories to predict events.

However, the constructs may at times be influenced by the individuals’ past experiences that may not be relevant to their present societal circumstances hence rendering the constructs invalid. The distorted constructs cannot be used to predict events because they cannot hold new data entry due to their unchangeable nature.

Given that constructs are limited in nature and cannot therefore be employed in all situations, individuals may at times be required to revise their constructs to accommodate data that is created by new experiences. The choice that an individual makes in order to change his construct is what Kelly calls “constructive alternativism”.

The premise of his theory is based on the fact that “a person’s processes are psychologically determined by the ways in which he anticipates events” (Van der Kolk, & Fisler, 2005). This proposition is known as the fundamental postulate, meaning that individuals’ actions determine their worldly expectations especially those which are founded on past experiences.

A child who has previously experienced abuse from his parent can neither expect nor become appreciative of affection from another guardian. Kelly also categorizes 11 corollaries under the postulate to expound the process of information interpretation which include expectation, experience and action.

The construction corollary

The individuals’ construction of anticipation is founded on their interpretation of replication meaning that their expectations are based on past happenings.

The experience corollary

Here, the construction system of an individual differs with his understanding of replication meaning that when events are not as anticipated, their constructs are altered or reconstructed.

The dichotomy corollary

The constructs are stored experiences which the individuals use to perceive the world and “guide” their actions. These constructs are usually unique to every individual hence the term, “personal constructs”.

The organization corollary

An interrelation exists between the constructs in regard to associational networks and chains of command in that the associations may be strong or weak.

The range corollary

The effectiveness of constructs is limited to several situations meaning that certain constructs can be extensive, whereas others can be narrow.

The modulation corollary

The range of certain constructs can be adjusted so as to hold new information but others cannot, meaning that certain ranges can be expanded and others cannot. The expansion of the range is known as dilation and the narrowing of the range is called constriction.

The choice corollary

The individual has the choice of acquiring new experiences in order to broaden his constructs or reject them and keep them as “safe” but minimized constructs.

The individuality corollary

Due to the fact that individuals’ experiences vary, their constructs also tend to be different.

The commonality corollary

Even though individuals are different, to some extent certain of their experiences are alike leading to similar constructs. This fact is necessitated by the concept that shows that their perception of the world may be similar.

The fragmentation corollary

The variation in situations and positions in which an individual can be destined to be in can bring out divergence in the constructs.

The sociality corollary

This cognitive scope determines how an individual interacts with another depending on their comprehension of their constructs. Kelly’s theory suggests that individuals do not need motivation since they are not inactive nor are they recipients. This fact is enhanced by the idea that individuals may be living and hence destined to move. The only time individuals stop moving is when they die (Target & Fonagy, 2001).

Construction transitions

Kelly’s constructs of transition refer to emotions and occur when an individual alters his construction systems after an experience which can in turn create anxiety, hostility and in certain cases, guilt. However, the construction systems also offer opportunities for reconstruction.

When individuals find themselves in circumstances that their constructs have not earlier foreseen or encountered, they experience anxiety because they realize that their constructs are ineffective. Guilt manifests itself when one does not keep to the constructs that he identifies with. In the event that one’s constructs are not in line with the world, one can attempt to modulate the reality to fit into one’s constructs.

This aspect is known as aggression which can turn into hostility when the individual is persistent in trying to change reality so that it can conform to their constructs instead of their altering the constructs. An individual is said to have a psychological disorder when he refuses to reconstruct.

Subsequently, he may not able to anticipate and accommodate new information. Kelly’s theory has had massive influence on later psychology and movement as it has been applied in disorders like schizophrenia, depression and addiction. The Kellian therapy functions by making individuals to either “relax” their constructs. The constructs are tested to determine their functionality and are used to verify their applicability and movement.

The mentioned steps can be accomplished by employing “role-play”. The psychotherapy is based on reconstruction, which is founded on encouraging the individuals to change their constructs. This aspect is what is referred to as movement. Kelly states that a theory has to be useful to be declared valid.

The fact that his theory has been applicable in psychotherapy and psychology worldwide leads one to determine that his theory is indeed valid. Kelly’s theory is supported by several peer reviewed articles. One of the articles is titled, Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect written by Troy Higgins. It states that the vulnerabilities of emotions are interrelated with different inconsistencies involving “self-state” representations.

It suggests that these inconsistencies are symbolic of the various harmful psychological circumstances related to various anxieties. The variations connecting the real self-concept and the model self-concept indicate that positive results may be inexistent. These inconsistencies and negative results can be related to emotions like hostility, threats and anxiety. The peer reviewed article thus supports Kelly’s constructs of transition.

In another article titled, Personal construct psychology and the cognitive revolution , the writers Brien Graines and Mildred Shaw relate learning and motivation to the psychology of personal constructs. They state that the process of learning conforms to the postulate formulated by Kelly in the sense that an individual needs to alter his constructs to accommodate new information.

In regard to motivation, Kelly includes this aspect within the choice corollary whereby the individual can choose to acquire new information in order to expand his construct (Schultz & Schultz, 2009).

The article by Dr. Christopher L. Heffra titled, Personality perspective on the other hand also validates Kelly’s theory by highlighting its usefulness. It does this by stating the relevance of the cognitive theory in treating psychological disorders like depression and other disorders associated with anxiety. The two “cognitivists” who stand out most in the theories’ application include Aaron Beck and Albert Ellis.

Their application is successful because they concur that by changing the way in which one thinks; actions and feelings can also be changed since the latter aspects are determined by thoughts or constructs and as a result, various negative personality features can be eliminated.

The application of the theory in treatment can be evidenced by Becks evaluation systems; Beck Depression and Anxiety Inventory (BDI and BAI) and Ellis’ ABC technique. Heffra cites the important role that studies have played in bringing out the importance of employing cognitive treatment over medication in dealing with depression as its effects last longer.

Although the theory received a great deal of support through the insights into individuals’ thought processes and perceptions as provided by studies, it did record some faults. Critics term the theory as “weak” because of the theoretical nature of constructs and the lack of consensus in the way the theory is described or applied.

Kelly, G. A. (2006). A Brief Introduction to Personal Construct Theory. In: Perspectives in Personal Construct Theory, Ed. Bannister . London, UK: Academic Press.

Schultz, D.P., & Schultz, S.E. (2009). Theories of personality, 9th ed. Belmont, USA: Wadsworth Publishers.

Target, M., & Fonagy, S. P. (2001). Playing with reality: The development of psychic reality from a theoretical perspective. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 77(3), 459–479.

Van der Kolk, B. A., & Fisler, R. (2005). Dissociation and the fragmentary nature of traumatic memories: Overview and explanatory study. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 8(1), 505–525.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2019, June 10). Kelly’s cognitive theory. https://ivypanda.com/essays/kellys-cognitive-theory/

"Kelly’s cognitive theory." IvyPanda , 10 June 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/kellys-cognitive-theory/.

IvyPanda . (2019) 'Kelly’s cognitive theory'. 10 June.

IvyPanda . 2019. "Kelly’s cognitive theory." June 10, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/kellys-cognitive-theory/.

1. IvyPanda . "Kelly’s cognitive theory." June 10, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/kellys-cognitive-theory/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Kelly’s cognitive theory." June 10, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/kellys-cognitive-theory/.

• The Monroe Doctrine and Its Roosevelt Corollary
• Isolationism & Interventionism in US Foreign Policy
• The Monroe Doctrine and American Interventionism
• Power Generation Asset Valuation - Real Option Method
• Theodore Roosevelt and Contradictions of Imperialism
• Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Code of Ethics
• Ned Kelly as an Iconic Figure
• Kelly’s Business: Planning for Growth
• Kelly Sandwich Stop Company's Growth Planning
• The History of the Kelly Gang: Realistic and Artistic Value
• Emotional Intelligence in Teamwork and Mutual Cooperation
• Best Ways to Study According to Cognitive Psychologists
• The Need to Improve One's Self-Awareness
• Theoretical Models in Understanding Working Memory
• Cognitive and Behavioral Theories

best travel buddy app in india

Discover a new way of traveling to India with JoinMyTrip. Find an awesome travel buddy India and explore the thrilling country together. Join curated group tours, find like-minded travel buddies, and meet experienced TripLeaders and local guides. Here is to an experience like no other!