Covariation Model - Making Attributions Using Consensus, Distinctiveness, and Consistency

Making Attributions Using Consensus, Distinctiveness, and Consistency

According to Hewstone and Jaspars (1987), we are able to determine whether a person would likely make a personal (internal), stimulus (external) or circumstantial attribution by assessing the levels of consensus, distinctiveness, and consistency in a given situation:

Low Consensus, Low Distinctiveness, High Consistency = Personal Attribution
High Consensus, High Distinctiveness, Low Consistency = Stimulus Attribution
Low Consensus, High Distinctiveness, Low Consistency = Circumstance Attribution

In reference to McArthur’s study (1972), let us consider the following example: “John laughs at the comedian” This outcome could be caused by something in the person (John), the stimulus (the comedian) the circumstances (the occasion on which the outcome occurred), or some combination of these factors (Hewstone et al., 1987).

If John is the only person laughing at the comedian (low consensus), he has done so in the past (high consistency), and he always laughs a lot (low distinctiveness), then the effect is seen as caused by something in the person (John).

If everyone is laughing at the comedian (high consensus), they don’t laugh at the next comedian who is on stage (low consistency), and the comedian who John is laughing at always makes his audience members laugh (high distinctiveness), then the effect is seen as caused by something in the stimulus (the comedian).

If John is the only person laughing at the comedian (low consensus), he hasn’t laughed comedians in the past (low consistency), and he has been laughing at all the comedians performing tonight (high distinctiveness) then the effect is seen as caused by something in the circumstance (the occasion on which the outcome occurred).