Introduction
Attribution theory is concerned with how people explain events. Social psychologists have become increasingly concerned with the process by which people explain their own success and failures and those of others. People have an innate need to understand and control their environment and thus they function as naïve psychologists developing causal explanations for significant events (Jain, 2005, p.112). These beliefs about causation influence expectations which in turn influence subsequent behavior. There are three different types of attribution which include those that function to identify the cause of an effect, those that seek to identify the responsibility for an event and those that refer to personal qualities such as leadership or trustworthiness (Jain, 2005, p. 114).
Attribution theory
Attribution theory deals with people trying to make sense out of cause effect relationships. For example, when something like a disaster happens, it is natural that we will always want to attribute it to other related events or actions (Elbogen, 2002, p. 591). This theory states that a man tries to manage his environment in such a way that he is eventually free to be the source of his own behavior. It is through cognitive realization that we are able to determine our behaviors (Bemmels, 1991). The way we view people determines “our perception and judgment of a person’s action” (Robins, Millet & Water- Marsh, 2007, p. 143).
An unexplainable event can leave one in a state of dissonance and this motivates one to try to explain the situation in order to reduce the dissonance. It becomes important to know why a particular event happens, so as to help make decision on how to react (Pearce& Denisi, 1983, p.121). Suppose a supervisor gives one an unpleasant assignment. If one sees the assignment as caused by unfairness, one will be tempted to fight it. If on the other hand he attributes the cause to a higher manager’s wishes, one might have a different reaction to the whole situation.
Types of errors
Typical self attributions for achievement include ability, effort, task difficult or luck. It’s natural that we as human beings find it quite challenging to deal with chances. According to Robins, Millet & Water- Marsh (2007), “most of us like to believe we have control over our world and our destiny” (p.61), something that is not consistently true as sometimes random events control our lives. A person may attribute a failure to be promoted as due to lack of ability whereas another may believe that the failure was primarily due to luck or chance. Several errors occur when making decisions based on attribution theory. These errors include the fundamental attribution error, the actor observer effect and the egocentric bias. In fundamental attribution error people make errors in favour of internal attributions (Curtis, 1994). Rowan makes this mistake where he says that he does not expect the interview to go well or hire Higan. This is because Rowan at one time coached him at local football team and he noted that Hagan was not very open to advice when he was coached. Rowan used internal attributions of Hagan to disqualify him even before he interviewed him.
The other error in the case study was the actor- observer effect. When an actor is functioning in a particular situation his attention is usually focused outwardly. In the case study, Sarah assumed that Vikrim was late because he had difficulties on his way to the interview. His judgment rose from the fact that Vikrim arrived for the interview late, disheveled and out of breath. Something else could have caused his lateness for the interview other than what Sarah assumed. The third error in the case study is egocentric bias. This is a tendency to make self serving assessment in judging personal characteristics and behavior. In the case study, Merel came for the interview wearing a T-shirt with the death metal band slayer on it. Rowan judged the interviewee to be unfriendly and thus prepared himself for a hostile and unfriendly interview. Surprisingly, after the first few questions, Merel turned out to be quite polite and friendly.
Importance of attribution theory to organizational behavior and decision makers
Attribution theory helps one to observe behavior and then attributes causes to it in an organization. This theory helps one to understand why employees behave as they do. The major importance of attribution theory is considered to be causal analysis. Attributions serve such purposes as labeling or description, moral evaluation and self presentation in organizations. Attribution theory helps people to understand processes like leadership, leader member relations, motivation and the performance satisfaction relationship in organizations (Robins, 2003, p.119). Attribution theory helps the managers in decision making because by observing and understanding the behavior of the employees, a manager is able to understand the employees’ capabilities and weaknesses.
To further understand workers’ behaviors, a brief review of attribution theory is useful. Since the way one analyses a situation determines how one may attempt to solve a problem, a study of attribution theory exposes the perceived causal link between antecedent conditions and factors and subsequent behavior. For example, if a trainee is not doing well on the job and one thinks that the poor performance is due to laziness, one will come up with a much different solution than if he thinks the problem is due to unclear job description.
In addition to the relevance of attribution principles, the marketing approach also draws on information processing theory for insights into how rumors might be effectively combated. Consumer researchers and advertising professionals have long used decision making theories in their attempt to accurately predict consumer brand selection and reactions to promotional messages (Jain, 2005, p.119). For example, according to compensatory decision making rules, consumers take note of the attributes that come to mind when thinking about a particular product category. They evaluate each brand in their consideration set in terms of how well the brands rates on each attribute. Consumers, before accepting a salesman’s persuasion to buy a particular product, may ask why the latter insists he buy the car, thus leading to cognitive decision-making process (Mizerski, Golden & Kernan, 1979, p. 89).
Conclusion
Attribution theory helps to explain the causes of events. This article has explained the nature and functions of attribution theory. It has also explained the three errors that arose in decisions made by Rowan and Sarah in the mini case study. Finally, the article has explained the importance of attribution theory in relation to organization behavior and decision makers in an organization.
Reference list
Bemmels, B. (1991). Attribution theory and discipline arbitration. Industrial & Labor Relations Review, Vol. 44, Issue 3, 539- 548.
Curtis, K. A. (1994). Attributional analysis of interprofessional role conflict. Social Science & Medicine, 39(2), 255-263.
Elbogen, E. B. (2002). The process of violence risk assessment: A review of descriptive research. Aggression and Violent Behaviour, 7, 591-604.
Jain, N. (2005). Organizational Behavior. Chicago. Atlantic Publishers & Distributors.
Mizerski, R., Golden, L., & Kernan, J. (1979). The attribution process in consumer decision making. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 6, No. 1, 89-96.
Pearce, J., & Denisi, A. (1983). Attribution theory and strategic decision making: an application to coalition formation- A peer reviewed article. Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 26, No. 1, 119-128.
Robins, S., Millet, B., & Water- Marsh, T. (2007). Organizational Behavior 5th edition. Melbourne. Pearson Custom Publishing.