Attribution theories try to explain how people interpret events and how they relate to their thinking and acting. Here we will know Harold Kelley’s Theory of Cognitive Covariation (1967).

Through this theory the cause of an event or behavior of a person can be determined. We will know in detail the components and characteristics of the theory.

The concept of attribution

In relation to attribution theories, A. Beck (1978) differentiated between expectation and attribution. He defined expectation as the conviction that a fact will accompany another fact (oriented to the future), and attribution as the conviction that a fact has accompanied another fact (oriented to the past).

Kelley’s Theory of Cognitive Covariation

Harold Kelley’s (1967) theory of covariation is an attribution model, that is, it is aimed at determining the causes of the behaviors, facts or events that we observe .

Kelley states that when there are different events that can be the trigger for the same event, only those that are proven to be consistently related to it over time will be considered as the cause of the event.

Types of information

The author understands covariation as information from multiple sources about the actor’s behavior (multiple observations). It would be the relationship between two or more variables.

It distinguishes in the facts or actions two elements: the actor (observed subject, who performs the action) and the receiver (subject who receives the action).

On the other hand, in his Theory of Cognitive Covariation, Kelley establishes three types of information about the past behavior of the observed person (actor) that will determine the type of attribution:

1. Consensus

Do other subjects perform the same action? If the answer is yes, the consensus will be high.

That is, it would be when the subject’s response coincides with the group rule, with the majority.

2. Distinctiveness or differentiation

Does the actor behave like this with others? If he behaves like this with more people, there will be a low distinctiveness or differentiation , that is, there will be no difference according to the recipient.

3. Consistency

Does the actor behave like this with the same subject in different circumstances (or over time)? If the answer is yes, there will be a high consistency.

In other words, it would be the recurrent representation of the same behaviour whenever the same situation is represented.

Causal attributions

Depending on the combination of these three elements, we may be able to make a causal attribution to the person, entity or circumstances. Thus, in the Theory of Cognitive Covariation, there can be three types of causal attributions :

Causal attribution to the person

When the consensus is low (few subjects other than the actor perform the same action), the distinctiveness is low (the actor behaves this way with many) and the consistency is high (he always behaves this way with the same subject or perceiver in different circumstances or over time).

For example, a person who always gives money to beggars (unlike his neighbors) all year round. In this case the attribution of the action is the person, i.e. the action depends to a greater extent on the person .

2. Causal attribution to the entity (recipient)

When the consensus is high (many subjects different from the actor perform the same action), the distinctiveness is high (the actor behaves this way with few or only one) and the consistency is high (he always behaves this way with the same subject in different circumstances or over time).

For example, let’s think of a father who buys Christmas gifts for his children, just like most people, and also buys the same number of gifts per child. This act, moreover, occurs even if the children have behaved better or worse during the year. In this case, the causal attribution will be the entity or children themselves who receive the gifts .

3. Causal attribution to circumstances

When the consensus is low (few subjects different from the actor perform the same action), the distinctiveness is high (the actor behaves this way with few or only one) and the consistency is low (the actor behaves differently with the same subject over time).

For example, a boy who buys a gift for his partner, and no one else, and only on special occasions, while no one in the family does (by consensus). Here the event or fact will depend to a greater extent on the circumstances (the special occasions).

H.Kelley’s Causal Schemes

On the other hand, Kelley’s theory of cognitive covariation also addresses another concept: that of causal schemes (that is why it is also called Kelley’s model of covariation and configuration).

This other concept of Kelley’s theory, called “configuration”, is about information coming from a single observation (as opposed to covariation, where there were multiple observations). From this information, the causal patterns are generated.

According to Kelley, there would be two types of causes in the causal schemes:

1. Sufficient multiple causes

They explain the regulatory or moderate effects . Among several causes, it is enough that one or some of them occurs for the effect to occur. Based on these causes, it establishes two principles:

1. 1. Principle of rejection or discount

Less importance is attached to one cause when there are other possible causes for the behaviour .

For example, when a student performs poorly after surgery, the poor performance is attributed to health problems rather than lack of effort. The cause considered is the most prominent or exceptional one.

1. 2. Magnification principle

The role of a cause is increased if the effect takes place in the presence of an inhibitory cause .

For example, the good performance of a student while her father is ill; more effort is attributed to that girl than to other students in favourable circumstances.

2. Necessary multiple causes

They explain the unusual or extreme effects, where several causes must concur in order to explain the effect.

For example, in very difficult competitions where few students get a place, there must be several reasons: the student must be motivated, must have studied a lot, must have a high academic record and must be lucky in the exam.

Bibliographic references:

  • Morales, J.F. (2007). Social psychology. Editorial: S.A. McGraw-Hill / Interamericana de España
  • Hogg, M. and Graham, M. (2010). Social psychology. Editorial: PANAMERICANA