See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/313967942

Attribution Theory

Chapter · January 2015

DOI: 10.1002/9781118785317.weom090014

CITATIONS READS
5 32,732

1 author:

Julien Schmitt
ESCP Business School
13 PUBLICATIONS 100 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Julien Schmitt on 05 March 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 weom090014 Volume 9 V2 06/18/2014 11:50 A.M. Page 1

attribution theory causes (proper to the person) or to external causes

(linked to the stimulus or to the situation).
Julien Schmitt
Weiner’s model. Weiner’s attribution model
studies the way people explain their success
OVERVIEW
or failure in achieving their goals or fulfilling
Attribution theory is a field of social psychology a task. Weiner identifies two dimensions that
that aims at explaining how individuals deter- describe potential causes of success/failure.
mine the causes of an event or behavior, as well The first dimension is called locus of causality.
as the consequence of such attribution on their It defines the origin of the cause which can
subsequent behavior. Originally introduced by be internal (linked to the person) or external
Heider (1958), the main theoretical frameworks (linked to the situation). Internal causes are the
have been developed by Kelley (1967, 1973); skills displayed by the person, as well as the
Weiner et al. (1971); and Weiner, Nierenberg, effort this person invests in the task. External
and Goldstein (1976). Attribution theory has causes are the difficulty of the task, as well as the
since spread out of social psychology and been luck the person may have. This first dimension
used in numerous fields of management science. determines the pride (or value) that the person
will experience in the event of goal achievement:
THE ATTRIBUTION THEORIES higher value will be derived from an attribution
Attribution theory finds its roots in the concept to internal causes.
of ‘‘naı̈ve psychology’’ developed by Heider The second dimension is called stability and
(1958), the objective of which is to understand defines the constancy of the causes. Such causes
how laypersons determine the causes of specific can be considered as stable or instable, according
events. From this starting point, not one but to whether they are likely to be recurrent or
several ‘‘attribution theories’’ have been devel- not. Stable causes are people’s skills and task
oped. Among them, two main frameworks have difficulty; instable causes are the amount of
been widely adopted within academic literature: invested effort and the luck encountered. This
Kelley’s model and Weiner’s model. second dimension determines the expectancy
that people will develop regarding the proba-
Kelley’s model. According to Harold H. Kelley, bility of their success/failure the next time they
when observing another person’s behavior in are exposed to the same situation. In the case
front of a specific stimulus at a specific moment, of a stable cause, people may expect a similar
one can attribute such behavior to three different outcome, while in the case of an unstable cause
causes: the person itself, the stimulus (referred to people may expect a different outcome.
as the ‘‘entity’’ by Kelley), and/or the circum- Attribution will impact on a person’s future
stances of the moment (referred to as ‘‘time’’ behavior. If a person attributes a failure to a lack
by Kelley). This type of attribution is made of effort (internal, unstable cause), they may feel
through the principle of covariance: ‘‘an effect motivated to do better next time as this cause
is attributed to the one of its possible causes can be changed (unstable) and depends on them
with which, over time, it covaries’’ (Kelley, (internal). Conversely, someone who attributes a
1973). Covariance is qualified by three factors: failure to a lack of ability (internal, stable cause)
consistency (does this person always display may feel depressed and demotivated as this cause
the same behavior in front of similar stimuli would be seen as more difficult to modify.
at different moments in time), consensus (do
other people behave in the same way when Differences between the two models. The main
confronted to similar stimuli), and distinctive- differences between Kelley’s and Weiner’s
ness (does this person display a similar behavior frameworks are the following. First, as indicated
when confronted to different stimuli). According by Martinko and Thomson (1998), the vast
to the levels of consistency, consensus, and majority of Kelley’s studies deal with the way
distinctiveness, observers will attribute causes people attribute causes to the behavior of
of another person’s behavior either to internal other people, while Weiner’s studies are more
 weom090014 Volume 9 V2 06/18/2014 11:50 A.M. Page 2

2 attribution theory
interested in the way individuals analyze the THE USE OF ATTRIBUTION THEORY IN
causes of their own behavior. Secondly, and MARKETING RESEARCH
more importantly, Kelley’s model is focused
on the process of attribution (the psychological Attribution theory has been widely exported to
process explaining the causal attribution), while the field of marketing, particularly since the
Weiner’s model has a greater focus on the 1970s. Those fields that have adopted it to
consequences of such causal attribution (i.e., if the greatest extent are sales force management,
I attribute my failure to my own responsibility consumer behavior, and advertising.
or to an external event, what will my behavior Sales force management. Sales management is
be the next time I am exposed to the same task). one of the fields that have extensively borrowed
Kelley and Michela (1980) differentiate between from attribution theory. This framework is
the two by referring to ‘‘attribution theories’’ as used to analyze the causes to which salespeople
the theories that focus on the process of cause attribute their performance, such as their sales
attribution and to ‘‘attributional theories’’ as skills, the effort they put in to the sales process,
being the ones that focus on the consequences the client’s characteristics, or the quality of
of the attribution process. the product. Numerous researchers have also
ATTRIBUTION BIASES studied the impact of the causal attribution of
the success or failure of salespeople on their
Researchers have found numerous biases in the motivation to carry on and their behavior
process of causal attribution (see Kelley and intentions the next time they are confronted
Michela for a review). Such biases are linked to similar selling situations (Dixon, Spiro,
to the specific motivations that lead people to and Jamil, 2001). Attribution theory has also
attribute causes to events. Among them, one can been used to investigate how sales managers
find the motivation to protect the ego, the need evaluate their supervisees, attribute the causes
to believe in effective control, or the motivation of their failures, and manage the feedback they
to positively present the self to others. provide to them (DeCarlo and Leigh, 1996).
First, it has been determined that one of For a complete review of the contribution
the motivations for attributing causes to events of attribution theory to sales management
would be the protection of one’s self-esteem literature, one can refer to the extensive work of
(Riemer, 1975). To defend their ego, a person Johnson (2006).
would be prone to overestimate the importance
of internal causes in the case of success to build Consumer research. Marketing has also exten-
pride and confidence, and to overestimate the sively used attribution theory to better under-
importance of external causes in the case of stand consumer behavior. It has, for instance,
failure to avoid an effect on their self-esteem. been shown that a consumer’s causal attribution
This is known as the self-serving bias. Second, of product quality impacts on final satisfac-
there is a need to believe in effective control, tion (Tsiros, Mittal, and Ross, 2004). The fact
leading to an attribution bias toward controllable that consumers have the impression of being
causes (Lerner and Miller, 1978). This allows in a coproduction process (such as when they
people to keep making efforts to reach their assemble a piece of IKEA furniture) may have
goals (as they believe that effort leads to goal an impact on the satisfaction they derive with
achievement) and protect themselves by mini- respect to themselves and the product they are
mizing the probability that negative events will using. Another stream of research attempts to
happen to them (Kelley, 1973). Finally, attri- determine the best strategies to make consumers
butions made by an individual may be biased attribute their satisfaction to the product rather
by their desire to appear in a favorable way in than to themselves. It has been, for instance,
front of others, for example, to appear modest shown that the more consumers self-disclose
by playing down internal causes in the case of information about themselves to the company,
success (Feather and Simon, 1971). the less they incline to the self-serving bias. For
 weom090014 Volume 9 V2 06/18/2014 11:50 A.M. Page 3

attribution theory 3
a complete review of the contribution of attribu- Heider, F. (1958) The psychology of interpersonal relation-
tion theory to consumer behavior, one can refer ships, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
to Folkes (1988). Johnson, M.S. (2006) A bibliometric review of the contri-
bution of attribution theory to sales management.
Advertising. Attribution theory has been Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 26,
proved to be useful in the study of persuasion 181–195.
in advertising (Sparkman and Locander, Kelley, H.H. (1967) Attribution theory on social
1980). Indeed, consumers will be more easily psychology, in Nebraska Symposium on Motivations
persuaded by an ad if it can convince them to (ed. D. Levine), University of Nebraska Press,
Lincoln, pp. 192–238.
attribute specific qualities to the product itself
Kelley, H.H. (1973) The processes of causal attribution.
rather than to the desire of the advertiser to sell
American Psychologist, 28, 107–128.
their product. Research has shown, for instance,
Kelley, H.H. and Michela, J.L. (1980) Attribution theory
that carefully selecting some specific attributes and research. Annual Reviews of Psychology, 31,
with respect to which there can be a claim that 457–501.
the product is superior to others will actually Lerner, M.J. and Miller, D.T. (1978) Just world research
make consumers attribute these characteristics and the attribution process: looking back and ahead.
to the product. In this context, researchers Psychological Bulletin, 85, 1030–1051.
have investigated the advertising elements that Martinko, M.J. and Thomson, N.F. (1998) A synthesis
maximize the attribution to the product or the and extension of the Weiner and Kelley attribu-
minimization of consumer reaction to negative tion models. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 20,
word-of-mouth. 271–284.
Riemer, B.S. (1975) Influence of causal beliefs on affect
and expectancy. Journal of Personality and Social
weom090337 See also advertising; consumer perceptions; decision Psychology, 31, 1163–1167.
making; sales force Sparkman, R.M. and Locander, W.B. (1980) Attribu-
weom090383
tion theory and advertising effectiveness. Journal of
Consumer Research, 7, 219–224.
weom090079 Bibliography Tsiros, M., Mittal, V. and Ross, W.T. (2004) The role of
weom090318
attributions in customer satisfaction: a reexamination.
DeCarlo, T.E. and Leigh, T.W. (1996) Impact of sales- Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 476–483.
person attraction on sales managers’ attributions and Weiner, B., Frieze, I.H., Kukla, A. et al. (1971) Perceiving
feedback. Journal of Marketing, 60, 47–66. the causes of success and failure, General Learning Press,
Dixon, A.L., Spiro, R.L. and Jamil, M. (2001) Successful Morristown, NJ.
and unsuccessful sales calls: measuring salesperson Weiner, B., Nierenberg, R. and Goldstein, M. (1976)
attributions and behavioral intentions. Journal of Social learning (locus of control) versus attribu-
Marketing, 65, 64–78. tional (causal stability) interpretations of expectancy
Feather, N.T. and Simon, J.G. (1971) Attribution of of success. Journal of Personality, 44, 52–68.
responsibility and valence of outcome in relation to
initial confidence and success and failure of self and
other. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 18,
173–188.
Folkes, V.S. (1988) Recent attribution research in
consumer behavior: a review and new directions.
Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (4), 548–565.
 weom090014 Volume 9 V2 06/18/2014 11:50 A.M. Page 4

Please note that the abstract and keywords will not be included in the printed book, but
are required for the online presentation of this book which will be published on Wiley’s
own online publishing platform.
If the abstract and keywords are not present below, please take this opportunity to add
them now.
The abstract should be a short paragraph upto 200 words in length and keywords between
5 to 10 words.
Author names(s) and affiliation(s) will appear, as listed below, in a List of Contributors in
the front of the print edition and will also appear in the online version of the book. Please
check that the names(s) and affiliation(s) given below are correct and that you (and any
co-authors) are happy for this information to appear both in the printed book and in the
online version.

Abstract: Attribution theory attempts (i) to explain how people attribute the causes of events or
behavior and (ii) to analyze the impact of such attribution on their future behavior. In the first part, this
article explains the nature of attribution theory. More specifically, it describes how attribution theory
is derived from ‘‘naı̈ve psychology’’ and has been developed through two main theoretical models:
Kelley’s model and Weiner’s model. In the second part, several attribution biases are reviewed and
an explanation is provided as to how individuals misattribute the causes of certain events, either to
protect their self-esteem or to keep up the illusion of having effective control over their life. Finally,
this article shows how attribution theory has spread out of the field of social psychology field to be
adopted by, among others, the marketing field.

Keywords: attribution theory; causal explanation; attribution biases; self-serving bias; sales force
management; consumer behavior; advertising

Author(s) and Affiliation(s):

Julien Schmitt
Aston University, Birmingham, UK

View publication stats