ATTRIBUTION THEORYMoving away from an emphasis on normative
stereotyping, research has considered possible ef-
fects of counter-stereotyping on attributional pat-
terns, and of attributions on changes in stereo-
types. Portrayals of structurally subordinate groups
that counter stereotypical expectations can increase
the perceived credibility of members of those
groups (Power, Murphy, and Coover 1996). Moreo-
ver, an attribution of counterstereotypic behavior
to dispositional factors of clearly typical outgroup
members can modify outgroup stereotypes (Wild-
er, Simon, and Faith 1996).
Cross-cultural research illustrates another as-
pect of societal attributions. This work compares
the extent and type of attributional activity across
cultures. Although there has been some support
for the applicability of Western models of attribu-
tion among non-Western cultures, most of this
research has demonstrated in a variety of ways the
cultural specificity of particular patterns of attribu-
tion (Bond 1988). As noted above, for example,
Joan Miller (1984) provides cross-cultural empiri-
cal evidence that the fundamental attribution er-
ror, the tendency to attribute cause more to per-
sons than to situations, is characteristic of Western
but not non-Western societies. Attributions about
the self also vary across cultures; members of some
non-Western cultures attribute performance more
to effort than to ability; the opposite pattern has
been found in the United States. Cultural patterns
also shape responsibility attributions; V. Lee Ham-
ilton and Shigeru Hagiwara (1992) found that U.S.
(and male) respondents were more likely to deny
responsibility for their own inappropriate behav-
iors than were Japanese (and female) respondents,
who were more likely to apologize for the behav-
iors. Hamilton and Hagiwara argue that the Japa-
nese (and women) were more concerned with
maintaining the quality of the interaction between
the accuser and the accused.
SOCIOLOGICAL APPLICATIONSIt may be useful to identify several sociological
phenomena to which theories of attribution are
relevant. A number of scholars have suggested
integrating attribution theory and labeling theory
(Crittenden 1983). Attribution occurs within an
individual; labels are applied by a group. Judith
Howard and Randy Levinson (1985) offer empiri-
cal evidence that the process of applying a label is
directly analogous to attribution. They report that
the relationships between attribution information
and jury verdicts are consistent with predictions
based on a labeling perspective.
Richard Della Fave (1980) demonstrates the
importance of attribution for understanding a key
but neglected aspect of stratification, namely, how
it is that stratification systems become legitimated
and accepted by those disadvantaged as well as by
those advantaged by those systems. He draws heavily
on attribution theory in developing a theory of
legitimation and in identifying possible sources of
delegitimation.Attribution is a significant social process that
ranges widely from cognitive processes to collec-
tive beliefs. The field is still imbalanced; more
work has been done at the intrapersonal and
interpersonal levels. There is evidence for both
intergroup and societal attributions, however, and
research at these two levels is steadily increasing
(Hewstone 1989). Recent research has demon-
strated connections across areas as diverse as so-
cial cognition, social interaction, intergroup rela-
tions, and social representations; these connections
provide increasing evidence of the importance of
attribution for sociological phenomena. Indeed,
in the next decade it may be that the fruits of
attribution theories will be evident more in re-
search on these other topics, than in research on
attribution alone.REFERENCES
Anderson, Irina, and Geoffrey Beattie 1996 ‘‘How Im-
portant is Kelley’s Model of the Attribution Process
When Men and Women Discuss Rape in Conversa-
tion?’’ (Semiotica 1/2:1–21.
Andrews, Bernice, and Chris R. Brewin 1990 ‘‘Attributions
of Blame for Marital Violence: A Study of Antece-
dents and Consequences.’’ Journal of Marriage and the
Family 52:757–767.
Antaki, Charles, and Ivan Leudar 1992 ‘‘Explaining in
Conversation: Towards an Argument Model.’’ Euro-
pean Journal of Social Psychology 22:181–194.
Bond, Michael H. (ed.) 1988 The Cross-Cultural Challenge
to Social Psychology. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage.
Broman, Clifford L. 1992 ‘‘The Black Experience: At-
tributing the Causes of Labor Market Success.’’ Na-
tional Journal of Sociology 6:77–90.
Crittenden, Kathleen S. 1983 ‘‘Sociological Aspects of
Attribution.’’ Annual Review of Sociology 9:425–446.