Main content
MCAT
Course: MCAT > Unit 12
Lesson 2: Perception, prejudice, and bias- Perception, prejudice, and bias questions
- Attribution Theory - Basic covariation
- Attribution theory - Attribution error and culture
- Stereotypes stereotype threat and self fulfilling prophecies
- Emotion and cognition in prejudice
- Prejudice and discrimination based on race, ethnicity, power, social class, and prestige
- Stigma - Social and self
- Social perception - Primacy recency
- Social perception - The Halo Effect
- Social perception - The Just World Hypothesis
- Ethnocentrism and cultural relativism in group and out group
© 2023 Khan AcademyTerms of usePrivacy PolicyCookie Notice
Attribution Theory - Basic covariation
Created by Arshya Vahabzadeh.
Want to join the conversation?
- fundamental attribution theory?(5 votes)
- Actually, that's attribution theory. Fundamental attribution error is when an observer tends to overestimate the impact of someone's disposition and underestimate the impact of the situation(7 votes)
- The example where we attribute peoples behavior to internal factors rather than external factors is called fundamental attribution error.(0 votes)
- I disagree. In this example the "flaky friend" canceled repeatedly for weeks. The fundamental attribution error occurs when we place an undue emphasis on the internal characteristics, however, in this example the emphasis we are placing in the internal characteristics is very much deserved. If our "flaky friend" had only canceled once and we still called him "flaky" THEN we would be falling for the fundamental attribution error.
PS this isn't even a question.(11 votes)
- At, the voiceover states "out of character and distinctive". This is a contradiction in terms. "Distinctive" means "characteristic of one person or thing, and so serving to distinguish it from others". If Jim's behaviour was distinctive, that would mean he is usually/mostly an aggressive, angry person. I think what was meant here was that Jim's behaviour was an anomaly, ie: "something that deviates from what is standard, normal, or expected." Jim doesn't usually react in this way, therefore it was an anomaly and probably caused by external factors (situational). 2:59(1 vote)
- Is the above attribution theory the same as Seligman’s Attribution Theory? Or is this different? If so, how?(1 vote)
- Now this is interesting, what if one first thinks of external factors to explain both his own behavior and the behavior of others? How would that be explained? Is there a name for it?(1 vote)
- Are there any well-paying careers related to these types of studies?(1 vote)
- if living in the west then the key to getting away with consistent outbursts is making sure you only do those in public once in a blue moon (every 18 months, haha)?(0 votes)
- Another approach would be to maintain one's composure. Look at the situation from the standpoint of the other person, analize possible reasons why this occurred. Calmly relate your discomfort, articulate the reasons as to why you think the situation occurred and then wait for an explanation. You can go public with this approach every time.(2 votes)
Video transcript
- [Voiceover] So how do we
go about trying to explain the behavior of other people around us? Well, we do it in a few different ways. One of the things that we
do is try and break down our understanding and
explanations of their behavior into factors about them and factors related to their environment
and surroundings. And there's two terms
for each one of these that I want you to know. So, if it's about them, I
want you to know internal. Another word for that
would be dispositional. And also external, and
another word for that would be situational. And what we're really talking about here is a theory called Attribution Theory. And this is how we find explanations for the behaviors of others. And I want you to actually pay
attention to this blue line that I've drawn in the middle. Because in reality, the
behavior of other people is on a spectrum. There may very well be a combination of internal and external factors. So what bits of information
can we use to determine whether we think someone's
behavior is attributed to internal or dispositional
causes, or it's related more to external
factors and their situation? And one of the theories we can use is the covariation model. So, let us take our forever flaky friend, and let us look at a calendar. What we're trying to do with our friend is we're trying to go and watch a movie. And what we find is our
friend forever cancels on us. We can't ever get them to go to the movie. "I have to wash my laundry. "I have to dry my hair. "I have to fix my car." And over the course of
a month, we notice that they have consistently displayed the same behavior over time. And when there's a high
level of this consistent behavior over time, we
are more likely to think that this is related to our friend being a forever flaky friend. It's more likely related
to them as a person, as opposed to the world
working against them to stop them coming and
watching this movie with us. So, when consistency is high, we're more likely to attribute it towards, the behavior,
towards internal factors. Now, let us consider
another one of our friends. So, Jim... Is one our most relaxed, friendly, warm friends. We really don't have a
friend that's more relaxed or more warm than Jim. Now, one of the things we find is one day, Jim goes to get pizza. And what happens is Jim becomes furious. Jim becomes absolutely furious. They get his order wrong. They drop the pizza on the floor. He gets so mad. It's really, really, really out of character and distinctive. And really, we're like, "Wow, this is such "an unusual situation." This is really out of character for Jim. And in this case what
we think is that this is much more related to the situation or the environment that
we find ourselves in. That this is much more
related to the situation of being in a pizza parlor. We don't think that Jim is
naturally this aggressive and hostile person, but his behavior we're going to attribute
to this situational, or these external factors. And finally, in the covariation model, we have a third factor. Have you ever heard of
the term group lateness? You probably haven't, because I kind of just made that term up. But what that means is that if
you arrive late to a meeting, but you're with 20 other
people, and they're all late, there's a high degree of consensus. And what that means is
that a lot of people are demonstrating the same behavior. When a lot of people are
demonstrating the same behavior, we start to think, "You know what? "If everybody's late, it's
probably something to do "with their environment,
something probably to do "with their situation. "There's no parking, the weather was bad, "the elevator got stuck." And in that case, a
high level of consensus means that we're more likely
to attribute the behavior to a situational cause, as
opposed to an internal factor. So these are the three important cues of Kelley's Covariation Model.