Nonverbal communication as a function of attribution

Arguing that the function of nonverbal cues in social communication can be elucidated within
an impression formation paradigm, this study tested two hypotheses. The first predicted that
the dominant role of nonverbal cues in social exchange is restricted primarily to the
attribution of attitudes and affect toward others. The second hypothesis predicted that if
subjects were instructed to focus on either the person or the message in making their
judgments of what was being communicated, they would discriminate between judgments of
the speaker and of the speaker's explicitly staled message when the verbal and nonverbal
cues were inconsistent. Clear support for the first hypothesis and partial support for the
second were interpreted as suggesting that nonverbal cues in social communication are
mediated through attributions concerning the character and intentions of the communicator.

Attribution Theory (B. Weiner)

Attribution theory is concerned with how individuals interpret events and how this relates to their
thinking and behavior. Heider (1958) was the first to propose a psychological theory of
attribution, but Weiner and colleagues (e.g., Jones et al, 1972; Weiner, 1974, 1986) developed a
theoretical framework that has become a major research paradigm of social psychology.
Attribution theory assumes that people try to determine why people do what they do, i.e.,
attribute causes to behavior. A person seeking to understand why another person did something
may attribute one or more causes to that behavior. A three-stage process underlies an
attribution: (1) the person must perceive or observe the behavior, (2) then the person must
believe that the behavior was intentionally performed, and (3) then the person must determine if
they believe the other person was forced to perform the behavior (in which case the cause is
attributed to the situation) or not (in which case the cause is attributed to the other person).

Weiner focused his attribution theory on achievement (Weiner, 1974). He identified ability, effort,
task difficulty, and luck as the most important factors affecting attributions for achievement.
Attributions are classified along three causal dimensions: locus of control, stability, and
controllability. The locus of control dimension has two poles: internal versus external locus of
control. The stability dimension captures whether causes change over time or not. For instance,
ability can be classified as a stable, internal cause, and effort classified as unstable and internal.
Controllability contrasts causes one can control, such as skill/efficacy, from causes one cannot
control, such as aptitude, mood, others’ actions, and luck.

Attribution theory is closely associated with the concept of motivation. It also relates the work
done on script theory and inferencing done by Schank.
Application
Weiner’s theory has been widely applied in education, law, clinical psychology, and the mental
health domain. There is a strong relationship between self-concept and achievement. Weiner
(1980) states: “Causal attributions determine affective reactions to success and failure. For
example, one is not likely to experience pride in success, or feelings of competence, when
receiving an ‘A’ from a teacher who gives only that grade, or when defeating a tennis player who
always loses…On the other hand, an ‘A’ from a teacher who gives few high grades or a victory
over a highly rated tennis player following a great deal of practice generates great positive
affect.” (p.362). Students with higher ratings of self-esteem and with higher school achievement
tend to attribute success to internal, stable, uncontrollable factors such as ability, while they
contribute failure to either internal, unstable, controllable factors such as effort, or external,
uncontrollable factors such as task difficulty. For example, students who experience repeated
failures in reading are likely to see themselves as being less competent in reading. This self-
perception of reading ability reflects itself in children’s expectations of success on reading tasks
and reasoning of success or failure of reading. Similarly, students with learning disabilities seem
less likely than non-disabled peers to attribute failure to effort, an unstable, controllable factor,
and more likely to attribute failure to ability, a stable, uncontrollable factor.

Lewis & Daltroy (1990) discuss applications of attribution theory to health care. An interesting
example of attribution theory applied to career development is provided by Daly (1996)
who examined the attributions that employees held as to why they failed to receive promotions.

Example
Attribution theory has been used to explain the difference in motivation between high and low
achievers. According to attribution theory, high achievers will approach rather than avoid tasks
related to succeeding because they believe success is due to high ability and effort which they
are confident of. Failure is thought to be caused by bad luck or a poor exam, i.e. not their fault.
Thus, failure doesn’t affect their self-esteem but success builds pride and confidence. On the
other hand, low achievers avoid success-related chores because they tend to (a) doubt their
ability and/or (b) assume success is related to luck or to “who you know” or to other factors
beyond their control. Thus, even when successful, it isn’t as rewarding to the low achiever
because he/she doesn’t feel responsible, i.e., it doesn’t increase his/her pride and confidence.
Kelley's Covariation Model
Kelley’s (1967) covariation model is the best-known attribution theory. He developed a
logical model for judging whether a particular action should be attributed to some
characteristic (dispositional) of the person or the environment (situational).

Let’s look at an example to help understand his particular attribution theory. Our subject is
called Tom. His behavior is laughter. Tom is laughing at a comedian.

1. Consensus
If everybody in the audience is laughing, the consensus is high. If only Tom is laughing
consensus is low.

2. Distinctiveness
If Tom only laughs at this comedian, the distinctiveness is high. If Tom laughs at everything,
then distinctiveness is low.

3. Consistency
If Tom always laughs at this comedian the consistency is high. If Tom rarely laughs at this
comedian, then consistency is low.

Now, if everybody laughs at this comedian, if they don’t laugh at the comedian who follows
and if this comedian always raises a laugh, then we would make an external attribution, i.e.,
we assume that Tom is laughing because the comedian is very funny.

On the other hand, if Tom is the only person who laughs at this comedian, if Tom laughs at
all comedians and if Tom always laughs at the comedian then we would make an internal
attribution, i.e., we assume that Tom is laughing because he is the kind of person who laughs
a lot.

So what we’ve got here is people attributing causality on the basis of correlation. That is to
say,; we see that two things go together and we, therefore, assume that one causes the other.

One problem, however, is that we may not have enough information to make that kind of
judgment. For example, if we don’t know Tom that well, we wouldn’t necessarily have the
information to know if his behavior is consistent over time. So what do we do then?

According to Kelley we fall back on past experience and look for either

1) Multiple necessary causes. For example, we see an athlete win a marathon,

and we reason that she must be very fit, highly motivated, have trained hard etc., and
that she must have all of these to win
 2) Multiple sufficient causes. For example, we see an athlete fail a drug test, and
we reason that she may be trying to cheat, or have taken a banned substance by
accident or been tricked into taking it by her coach. Any one reason would be
sufficient.

Impression Formation

People are often very skilled at person perception—the process of learning about other
people—and our brains are designed to help us judge others efficiently (Haselton & Funder,
2006; Macrae & Quadflieg, 2010). Infants prefer to look at faces of people more than they do
other visual patterns, and children quickly learn to identify people and their emotional
expressions (Turati, Cassia, Simion, & Leo, 2006). As adults, we are able to identify and
remember a potentially unlimited number of people as we navigate our social environments
(Haxby, Hoffman, & Gobbini, 2000), and we form impressions of those others quickly and
without much effort (Carlston & Skowronski, 2005; Fletcher-Watson, Findlay, Leekam, &
Benson, 2008). Furthermore, our first impressions are, at least in some cases, remarkably
accurate (Ambady, Bernieri, & Richeson, 2000).

Recent research is beginning to uncover the areas in our brain where person perception
occurs. In one relevant study, Mason and Macrae (2004) used functional magnetic resonance
imaging (fMRI) scans to test whether people stored information about other people in a
different location in the brain than where they stored information about animals, and they
found that this was the case. Specific areas of the prefrontal cortex were found to be more
active when people made judgments about people rather than dogs

Learning about people is a lot like learning about any other object in our environment, with
one major exception. With an object, there is no interaction: we learn about the characteristics
of a car or a cell phone, for example, without any concern that the car or the phone is learning
about us. It is a one-way process. With people, in contrast, there is a two-way social process:
just as we are learning about another person, that person is learning about us, or potentially
attempting to keep us from accurately perceiving him or her. For instance, research has found
that when other people are looking directly at us, we process their features more fully and
faster, and we remember them better than when the same people are not looking at us (Hood
& Macrae, 2007).
In the social dynamic with others, then, we have two goals: first, we need to learn about
them, and second, we want them to learn about us (and, we hope, like and respect us). Our
focus here is on the former process—how we make sense of other people. But remember that
just as you are judging them, they are judging you.

Impression MANAGEMENT

Impression management is the effort to control or influence other people's perceptions. This could be their
perception of a certain person (including you), a material possession or an event. The theory goes on to explain
that we try to make the perception consistent with our goals. For example, a girl who only shares good things
about her boyfriend to her parents may be trying to present him as a good catch so they can stay together. If a
woman spends hours thinking about the right outfit to wear to a party, she may be trying to present herself as
beautiful and stylish while looking for a date. Of course, many of us can identify with the desire (and resulting
actions) to be seen a certain way or cause someone or something we care about to be seen a certain way.
Sometimes it's conscious and sometimes it isn't, but when we pay attention, we may find several perceptions we
are striving to get from others.

The most common types of impression management have to do with self-presentation, and in the business
world, the presentation of merchandise. How often have you wondered what someone will think of you if you
do this or that, or if you don't do it? We strive to have others view us positively, because we tend to put emphasis
on other views in ways that impact our self-esteem. As far as marketing goes, businessmen are going to present
a product in the best light possible. Their job relies on managing the impressions of the audience in specific ways
that boosts revenues. Also, in their understanding of human behavior, they might even imply that if you own this
product you may be more liked by others.

Why We Do It
There are two main motives we have for trying to manage the impressions of others: the instrumental and the
expressive.

The instrumental motive includes what we have already mentioned: the desire for increased self-esteem. The
fundamental meaning of instrumental motivation is the gaining of rewards. So, when we try to manage
perceptions to get something back from another person, we are motivated by instrumental purposes. For
example, if a sales representative shares with her customer that she uses this particular bar of soap and goes on
to explain how it has helped her skin, her reason for encouraging this sale might be her desire for a raise. Maybe
that is why she has been trying many products lately and praising them to customers. Besides seeking a raise, a
person could be looking for acceptance, respect, more friends, etc.

Have you ever felt like you wanted to redefine yourself or how you think you have been seen by others? Maybe
when you were growing up, your parents wanted you to dress, speak or act a certain way, and you wanted to
show them they couldn't define you. Whether or not we have felt this way, many people become aware of how
they are viewed and want to change that view of them. An expressive motive comes down to wanting to be in
charge of one's personal behavior and identity. It can come from a response to social norms, expectations or
restrictions, and it seeks to show others something different.