ATTRIBUTION THEORYeffects of consistency and distinctiveness informa-
tion and their analogue, target-based expectancies,
present some incompatibilities. This contradic-
tion has been evaluated both conceptually and
empirically (Howard and Allen 1990).
Attribution in achievement situations. Ber-
nard Weiner (1974) and his colleagues have ap-
plied attributional principles in the context of
achievement situations. According to this model,
we make inferences about an individual’s success
on the basis of the individual’s ability to do the task
in question, how much effort is expended, how
difficult the task is, and to what extent luck may
have influenced the outcome. Other possible caus-
al factors have since been added to this list. More
important perhaps is Weiner’s development of,
first, a structure of causal dimensions in terms of
which these causal factors can be described and,
second, the implications of the dimensional stand-
ing of a given causal factor (Weiner, Russell, and
Lerman 1978). The major causal dimensions are
locus (internal or external to the actor), stability or
instability, and intentionality or unintentionality
of the factor. Thus, for example, ability is inter-
nal, stable, and unintentional. The stability of a
causal factor primarily affects judgments about
expectancies for future behavior, whereas locus
and intentionality primarily affect emotional re-
sponses to behavior. This model has been used
extensively in educational research and has guided
therapeutic educational efforts such as attribution
retraining. Cross-cultural research has explored
the cultural generalizability of these models. Paul
Tuss, Jules Zimmer, and Hsiu-Zu Ho (1995) and
Donald Mizokawa and David Rickman (1990) re-
port, for instance, that Asian and Asian American
students are more likely to attribute academic
failure and success to effort than are European
American students, who are more likely to attrib-
ute performance to ability. European American
students are also more likely to attribute failure to
task difficulty. Interestingly, as Asian Americans
spend more time in the United States, they place
less emphasis on the role of effort in performance.
Attribution biases. The theoretical models
described above are based on the assumption that
social perceivers follow the dictates of logical or
rational models in assessing causality. Empirical
research has demonstrated, not surprisingly, that
there are systematic patterns in what has been
variously conceived of as bias or error in the
attribution process (Ross 1977). Prominent among
these is what has been called the ‘‘fundamental
attribution error,’’ the tendency of perceivers to
overestimate the role of dispositional factors in
shaping behavior and to underestimate the impact
of situational factors. One variant of this bias has
particular relevance for sociologists. This is the
general tendency to make inadequate allowance
for the role-based nature of much social behavior.
That is, perceivers fail to recognize that behavior
often derives from role memberships rather than
from individual idiosyncrasy. Again, cross-cultural
research has called into question the generalizability
of this bias. Joan Miller (1984) shows that the
tendency to attribute behavior to persons is mark-
edly more prominent in the United States, among
both adults and children, whereas a tendency to
attribute behavior to situational factors is more
prominent among Indian Hindus, both adults and
children, calling into question the ‘‘fundamentalness’’
of this attributional pattern.A second systematic pattern is the actor-ob-
server difference, in which actors tend to attribute
their own behavior to situational factors, whereas
observers of the same behavior tend to attribute it
to the actor’s dispositions. A third pattern con-
cerns what have been called self-serving or egocen-
tric biases, that is, attributions that in some way
favor the self. According to the false consensus
bias, for example, we tend to see our own behav-
ioral choices and judgments as relatively common
and appropriate whereas those that differ from
ours are perceived as uncommon and deviant.
There has been heated debate about whether these
biases derive from truly egotistical motives or
reflect simple cognitive and perceptual errors.METHODOLOGICAL AND
MEASUREMENT ISSUESThe prevalent methodologies and measurement
strategies within attributional research have been
vulnerable to many of the criticisms directed more
generally at social cognition and to some directed
specifically at attribution. The majority of attributional
research has used structured response formats to
assess attributions. Heider’s original distinction
between person and environmental cause has had
a major influence on the development of these
structured measures. Respondents typically are
asked to rate the importance of situational and