Peoples behaviour free essay sample

‘Behaviour’ is a term defined by psychologists as an act done by an animal in response to any stimulus provided by the outside world. An assumption held by many social psychologists when attempting to explain the reasons behind the action of people’s behaviour is that we try to find certain reasons that explain our own and other people’s action towards an environmental stimulus. This is also known as the theory of attribution, ie. We often attribute a cause to certain behaviour. Different factors are accounted for when trying to provide an explanation for our own behaviour, and thus, we would also try to attribute reasons for the behaviour of other people. This essay will attempt to explain different theories of attribution as well as put forth supporting and contradicting evidence and theories in order to provide a more holistic view on how behaviour is explained. In the theory proposed by Heider (1958), he suggested that people are like ‘naive psychologists’ who are constantly trying to make sense of the social world, making a causal relationship for people’s behaviour. He suggests that human beings tend to see cause and effect even when there isn’t any. By examining and interpreting peoples’ behaviour, we try to infer intention and responsibility. When trying to explain behaviour, Heider suggests that it depends on whether we are trying to explain the behaviour of ourselves or other people. The actor-observer effect states that people are more likely to attribute behaviour of others internally, for example, we would be more likely to attribute the behaviour of other people to their personality. This is also known as dispositional attribution. However, when we try to explain our own behaviour, we are more likely to attribute them to external factors such as the environment. This is also known as situational attribution. Through Heider, these two main ideas are proposed which influenced further research such as the correspondent inference theory (Jones and Davis, 1965), the covariation model by Kelley (1967). Jones and Davis (1965) further developed the theory of attribution into what is known as the correspondent inference theory: It states that for an  observer to infer whether the action of the actor depends on dispositional attribution, the social desirability of the action is taken into account. For example, if a famous singer is found to by going to the gym often, observers will be more likely to attribute their behaviour to social desirability rather than as a dispositional aspect. However, if the behaviour is socially undesirable, i. e. smoking, observers will be more likely to attribute the behaviour to the actor’s disposition. However, it is important to note that the theory put forth by Jones and Davis may be quite nomothetic as cultural differences are not accounted for. In a study conducted by Lieberman, Jarcho Obayashi (2005) on American and East Asian participants investigating the â€Å"automatic and controlled components of attributional inference†, participants from both cultures were asked to watch a silent clip of an anxious woman and depending on the information they were given, such as the situation the woman was in, or her personality etc. The participants were then asked to attribute the behaviour of the woman. The results concluded that even though American participants and East Asian participants all show â€Å"automatic attributional habits†, East Asian participants are more likely to disregard situational constraints that are presented to them and would be more likely to say that a person’s behaviour is due to the dispositional attributions. Therefore, it seems plausible to suggest that although attributional processes are present across cultures, people from different cultures undergo a different attributing process, and thus, there is a certain need to individualize theories such as this one. Another model of attribution which originates from Heider’s attribution theory is Kelley’s (1972) covariation theory. This theory states that when an observer judges the actor’s behaviour, information is gathered across three different things: i) across consensus, ii) across distinctiveness and iii) across consistency. Consequently, this theory is different from the correspondent inference theory as Kelley assumes that people are more likely gather information from different scenarios rather than just one situation in order to attribute a cause to certain behaviour. Despite the amount of research conducted towards the attributional process undertaken by people, there are errors when we try to attribute causes to behaviour. These are important because they allow psychologists to gain further understanding towards the complex web of reasons of attributions made. One of the major errors in attribution is the fundamental attribution error. This is when people overestimate the role of dispositional factors and undermines situational factors in people’s behaviour. Social psychologists believe that this occurrence is due to people’s perception of self and others – people are more likely to see themselves as adaptable beings who are able to act differently depending on circumstances. However, when they judge other people’s behaviour, they are more likely to attribute their behaviour to disposition because there is not enough information for an unbiased decision. A study conducted by Ross, Amabile Steinmetz (1977) investigated the fundamental attribution error in participants who were judging actors performing certain roles. Participants were randomly assigned to a game show as a host, contestants, or the audience. The host was allowed to write their own questions to the show and after the show, the audience was asked to rate the intelligence of the people in the game show. The results showed that even though the participants knew that the host was given permission to write their own questions, they still rated him/her as the one with highest intelligence, a dispositional attribute, which shows that the fundamental attribution error has been committed. This experiment reveals the common presence of the fundamental attribution error and how the social hierarchy can be associated with it because experts in a particular field are usually considered intelligent even in other fields as well. It seems like a key fact that we often commit the fundamental attribution error because we’re mentally lazy as Gilbert Malone (1995) argued since FAE involves a two-step attribution process and for people to draw an inference, FAE happens either due to the lack of cognitive resources for behaviour to be explained, or the second step of conscious processing of information is automatically skipped resulting in incorrect attribution. Our attributions often exhibit another form of error – self serving bias (SSB). This type of error is mostly concerned with our individual desire to maintain self-esteem. Zuckerman (1979) SSB is when we explain the cause of our own successes to dispositional factors and blame failures to situational factors. Unlike FAE, SSB is more concerned with how people tend to explain their own behaviour rather than other people; hence it shows the elaborate attributional processes undertaken by people. The presence of SSB can be seen through a study conducted by Lau and Russell (1980) where they interviewed professional athletes and coaches on their successes and failures in football matches. The results shows that athletes and coaches attribute 80% of their wins to dispositional factors, for example, skills. However their losses are usually attributed to external factors, for example, bad weather. This shows that SSB is apparent in a lot of social settings. Another study conducted by Bernstein, Stephan Davis (1979) on students shows that they often attribute good grades to intelligence whilst attributing bad grades to having a bad teacher. Thus, it seems that just as FAE, SSB is evident in the social context, providing an explanation to people’s behaviour. Nevertheless, attribution theories reveal the intricate reasoning and links for observers to provide a cause their own and other people’s behaviour. For social psychologists, these theories may even lead to other problems that are present in the social world; for example, social categorization and stereotyping etc. In fact, Medcof (1990) suggested that all attribution theories are based around a similar concept; and each theory highlight a different point which furthers the understanding of human behaviour. Thus, Medcof believes that the theories will eventually integrate to become complimenting theories of attribution. In conclusion, it appears that humans have the tendency to become psychologists themselves when they attempt to explain their own and other people’s behaviour as Heider (1958) suggested. The attribution processes undergone are often linked to the amount of cognitive resources they have. Yet, it is important to note that by trying to create a causal relationship between dispositional or situational factors to behaviour, attribution errors become more apparent because of varying factors. Although there are flaws in attribution theories an models, as well as the observed errors in attribution, there is a fundamental concept that all attribution theories adhere to: Thus, as Medcof (1990) suggested, it may be that in the end, rather than having separate theories and models, there will be one integrated theory of how people explain their own and other people’s behaviour.