Many theories address how the self and communication interact. Here we review one specific theory: Harold Kelley’s (1967) Attribution Theory. In the beginning of this chapter we noted that the perception process underlies all our communication with others, and as we communicate, we’re often asking ourselves about the meaning of our own and others’ behaviors (“OMG, why did I just say that?” “What’s wrong with her? She keeps interrupting me!”).
Attribution Theory addresses the question of how we use perception to answer these questions and make meaning. Kelley’s version of Attribution Theory drew on some themes developed by Fritz Heider (1958). Heider talked about three important areas that inform Kelley’s work: naïve psychologists, internal attributions, and external attributions.
Heider used the term naïve psychologist to express his belief that people try to make sense of their social interactions, sort of like researchers search for explanations for the questions they pose in their studies. People also search for explanations and use their observations to form them. Clearly, this is a simplified version of the social scientific process, and not as rigorous as what researchers undertake. It’s simpler because naïve psychologists are usually satisfied with the first explanation that makes sense to them without doing extensive testing like researchers would (“O.K, I guess she interrupts so much because she’s self-centered”). Deciding that a friend is self-centered as an explanation for their behaviors illustrates making an internal attribution, or an explanation rooted in personality traits. Heider said we’re
likely to attribute the causes of others’ behaviors in this way. On the other hand, an explanation such as “I probably just said that because I’m feeling so pressured right now” exemplifies an external attribution, or a cause for behavior that’s outside a person’s control. Heider argued the fundamental attribution error occurs when we attribute the cause for our behaviors to external factors and the cause for others’ behaviors to internal traits. This fits in with the self-serving bias we described previously.
Many theorists expanded on Heider’s ideas, but we’re focusing on the most popular theory: Harold Kelley’s (1967) Covariation Model of Attribution. Kelley called his model the “covariation model” because he believed when a person has information from many sources at different times and in varied situations (“I’ve seen Hannah interrupt me at work, she interrupted Todd at the game, and she interrupted Olivia when we all went for drinks after work”), then they can observe the ways that the information covaries, or works together.
Kelley agreed with Heider that in trying to discover causes for behavior, people act like scientists. More specifically they take into account three kinds of evidence: consensus, or the degree to which other people behave in the same way in similar situations (maybe everyone interrupts at a football game because they’re excited and all yelling at once); distinctiveness, or whether the individual behaves the same way across situations (maybe Hannah interrupts all the time); and consistency, or how likely it is that an individual does the same thing across time (maybe Hannah only interrupts every time the Packers play).
Kelley believed that each of these types of evidence (consensus, distinctiveness, and consistency) can be measured as either high or low. For instance, if everyone interrupts at a football game, Hannah’s interrupting
behavior is high in consensus, but if only Hannah is interrupting then her behavior is low in consensus. If Hannah always interrupts when she’s at a football game, her behavior is low in distinctiveness. Finally, if Hannah always interrupts when the Packers play but not when other teams do, then her behavior is high in consistency. The model predicts when consensus, distinctiveness, and consistency are all high we’ll make an external attribution. So, in the example above if everyone else is interrupting, Hannah only interrupted when the Packers play, and she does that consistently, we’d make the attribution that she interrupts because of something external (like the excitement of the game and the skill of the Packers football team). If that’s not the case, and there’s low consensus and distinctiveness, but high consistency: i.e. no one else is interrupting, Hannah interrupts at all games, all the time, we’d make an internal attribution (she interrupts because she’s rude or socially inept). Table 3.1 illustrates Kelley’s approach.
Table 3.1 Attribution Theory
Consensus: Consistency: Distinctiveness:
How do other people behave?
How likely is X to behave this way across time?
How unique is X’s behavior to this situation?
HIGH: Most people behave like this.
HIGH: X nearly always behaves like this.
HIGH: X only behaves this way in this situation.
LOW: Few people behave like this.
LOW: X seldom behaves like this.
LOW: X behaves like this in most situations.
High Consensus, High Consistency, and High Distinctiveness = External Attribution
Low Consensus, High Consistency, and Low Distinctiveness = Internal Attribution
Kelley was pointing out that people attribute causality on the basis of correlation. That is to say, we see two things occurring together, and we therefore assume that one causes the other. However, we may not have enough information to make that kind of judgment. For example, if we don’t know Hannah that well we wouldn’t necessarily have the information to know if her behavior is consistent over time. So what do we do then?
According to Kelley, we’ll look for one of two things: multiple necessary causes or multiple sufficient causes. Multiple necessary causes occur when we can come up with a lot of reasons for the behavior (e.g. the game was really close, we were talking about something very exciting, and so forth).
With multiple necessary causes, all of these things must be present for us to make an attribution. Multiple sufficient causes are when we observe a behavior and can think of one satisfying explanation, and that’s all we need to make the attribution (e.g., “I know Hannah hasn’t talked to anyone about this topic, and she’s just bursting to give her opinion”).
Enhancing Your Skills
Throughout this chapter we have emphasized the importance of perception to the communication process. We’ve also noted that while we perceive without much effort, it does take effort to improve our perceptual abilities so that we’re effective in our communication encounters. Now, we offer five suggestions for developing a strong skill set in perception and then provide some specific examples for how one of these skills works in two different contexts: the workplace and with friends.
Let’s first briefly explain the following five skills for enhancing perception:
When you practice the skill of distinguishing between facts and inferences, you understand that saying a friend has crossed her arms and taken a step back from you as you talk is an observation of facts. If you conclude that your friend’s nonverbals mean she is angry with you, you’re making an inference. Inferring, or making meaning, is a critical part of the perception process but you should be careful not to confuse facts with the inferences you draw from them. Secondly, surrounding yourself with positive people is a
distinguish between facts and inferences surround yourself with positive people understand your own vantage point realize the incompleteness of perception check your perceptions
good way to help your self-perceptions. People who are positive, and who provide a positive atmosphere when you’re around them, help you to feel positive too. Positive people are supportive of you and give you honest, clear feedback when you ask for it. They have your best interests at heart.
Communicating with positive people offers good role models for your own communication. Positive people make you feel better about yourself, and provide constructive support aimed toward your self-improvement.
The third skill involves understanding the vantage point from which you make perceptions. When you understand your own vantage point, you acknowledge that your perceptions are influenced by all the things that make you you. When you realize that you “see” a directive from the boss differently than your friend Peter does because you’ve had a bad experience with the boss in the past and Peter hasn’t, you acknowledge your vantage point. Acknowledging your vantage point means that you understand that perceptions are not universal, and it’s possible for two people to perceive the same event or person differently.
Related to that is the fourth skill: realizing the incompleteness of perception. This occurs when you know that the selection process we discussed in this chapter means you don’t pay attention to everything, but rather pick and choose what’s important, based, again, on your vantage point.
This realization leads you to the last skill, checking your perceptions.
Perception checking occurs when you ask others, did you see what I saw and do you interpret it the same way I do? Did the boss seem unusually upset to you? I thought Vanessa seemed really tired, was I wrong about that? You sound angry, Mom, are you?
Next, we’ll illustrate how the last skill, perception checking, can help your communication in two different contexts.
Applying Perception Checking at Work
Leslie is a landscape architect who owns her own small company. She employs four others, and they usually all get along well. Right now, the company is doing a big job for a firm downtown that wants to turn their courtyard into a relaxing environment where their employees can have lunch and take brief breaks during the workday. Leslie has just returned from a frustrating meeting with her contact person at the job site, Don. Don and Leslie disagreed about a critical part of the design and Leslie isn’t sure what her next step should be. Of course, Don is her client and in the end she will have to do what he wants, but the conversation left her feeling uneasy, and nervous that her company could lose the contract.
It might be helpful for Leslie to call a meeting of her employees and explain the conversation she had with Don. One or more of them might hear something in her account that can help her decide what to do next. If her employees tell Leslie that it sounded like she came on too strong with Don, she might consider calling him to clarify her position and the fact that she knows he has the final word on the design. Or she might set another meeting with Don to make that clear. Alternatively, Leslie might want an employee from her company to attend another meeting between her and Don, so she can further check her perceptions of their interactions.
Applying Perception Checking with Friends
Jack and Austin have been friends for 10 years, since they were in high school. They have seen each other through a lot of ups and downs. Jack was the first person Austin called when his mom passed away, and he’s also the first person Austin wants to talk to about good news. Lately, Austin has been thinking that he may want to move to another part of the country to get a change. It turns out that there’s an opportunity at work to make the move.
When he tells Jack, Jack doesn’t seem all that happy for him; he’s curt in his responses and he’s frowning.
Austin could ask Jack immediately what’s wrong, telling him what he’s observing. If Jack confirms Austin’s perceptions, Austin could put himself in Jack’s place and talk about how much he’ll miss the two of them hanging out together. Austin could explain to Jack some of the reasons he feels he needs a move, while being mindful of Jack’s feelings of loss and sharing that it will be a loss for him too. But, Austin needs to be open to hearing Jack say that his frown was unconscious, and he didn’t mean to sound curt. In other words, Austin may have misperceived Jack’s responses.