Attribution Theory in Consumer Behavior

By

Armando Rodriguez

Introduction

            Some people wonder why they exist on this planet.  Some have wondered why the driver in front of them is driving ten miles under the speed limit.  Maybe some others have thought about if Michael Jordan really drives a Chevy Blazer.  All of these thoughts all come back to a person’s relentless habit of trying to explain things.  Attribution theory is a theory about how people explain things.  Some think people are always trying to explain things because as a kid they are always asking their parents “Why? Why? Why?”  As children grow older and more knowledgeable, they begin their lifetime of the need to attribute an explanation for all instances (Booth-Butterfield 1988). 

            Attribution theory can either work in two ways.  When trying to explain things, a person can assign an external attribute, which is blaming an outside force for the cause of the situation.  Or a person can assign an internal attribute which would be an inherent force within the actor (Booth-Butterfield 1988).  For example, on a steamy hot today a boy stands at an ice cream truck and purchases an ice cream cone.  A person (the observer) nearby watching the boy (the actor) might think that the boy is buying the ice cream cone because it is so hot outside, assigning an external attribute.  Another observer might think the boy is buying the ice cream cone because he is a kid and inherently enjoys sugary candy cones.  This observer is assigning an internal attribute to the boy.           

Attribution theory can be used extensively in marketing to help understand consumers.  Consumer psychologists have used widespread research on attribution theory to try to understand consumer responses, and how to change them to their advantage.  What they have found is that to change behavior, internal attributes must be the foci. If the observer cannot blame an external force for the cause of an effect, then the observer must assign an internal attribute towards the actor.  The actor can be the consumer, another person, or an object.

Explanation of the Topic

            Because attribution theory is not a single theory, but is more of a set of theories developed over time, its parts can often be controversial.  For this discussion, attribution theory will be divided into three categories:

Person-perception

            Person-perception, deeply researched by Heider, “the father of attribution theory,” is a study of how individuals understand and try to explain others’ behaviors.  Heider believes that people are “naïve psychologists,” and that they generalize rules for peoples’ actions.  People with similar origins and demographics generate similar actions.  Paradoxically, similar actions can best explain causality of these actions i.e., people in similar situation perform the same actions (Mizerski and Kerman 1979).

            Jones and Davis (1965) did a considerable higher study of the effects of actions as opposed to the actual actions.  They found that there were three factors that observers used when making attributions about others:  choice and effects, commonality, and desirability.  Choice and effects is basically the point that actors have a choice between their actions.  Commonality says that only effects that are noncommon, or “those unique to specific action” can be used for assigning internal attributes (Mizerski and Kerman 1979).  Evidently, external attributes cannot be the cause of specific actions.  Thirdly, “the more undesirable the action or the effects of the action, the more readily and more confidently causality can be inferred (Mizerski and Kerman 1979).”   Using only one of these criteria may leave the observer left with many explanations for the actor’s actions.  But when combining all three of these criteria, it is much easier for the observer to zone in on a single attribute.  This is what Jones and Davis refer to as the “correspondence of inference.”  With certain combinations of undesirability and noncommon effects for the actor, one can find higher correspondence of inference (Mizerski and Kerman 1979).

            For example, a salesman advising a couple which house to buy would normally try to convince the couple to buy a house at the top of their price range, or just above it.  If a salesman advised the couple to buy a less expensive house, the effect of a smaller commission for the salesman (the actor) is undesirable and noncommon.  The couple (the observers) may use correspondence of inference to assign an internal attribution that the salesman is a helpful, credible source who cares about his customer.  In the long run, the salesman may earn more for commission by selling more houses if he is given a high recommendation by former customers. 

            Person-perception can also be used when analyzing product endorsement.  Because of situational influences, researchers thought for a long time that consumers would not respond to endorsements.  The situational influence in endorsements is clearly the fact that the celebrity is being paid to promote a product.  New research shows that consumers assign attributions to celebrities for dispositional purposes, or because they believe and enjoy being associated with the product (Silvera 2003).  Through attribution theory, most people would object to the fact that Michael Jordan would drive a car also affordable to them.  According to new research, if Michael Jordan does not mind being associated with this vehicle, than it should prove to be good enough for most people.

            By increasing credibility, advertisers can move away from consumers assigning payment as an attribute for endorsing a product (Booth-Butterfield 1988).  Joe Namath has been often seen over the years promoting everything from Sports Illustrated to sports cream.  He is definitely a credible source for the use of sports products. 

Self-perception

            Just as consumers often assign attributes to others, they also use self-perception to assign causation for their own behaviors.  Daryl Bem, through his studies, has found that there is only a small difference between self-perception and Heider’s person-perception.  Bem uses Skinner’s study of “tact” and “mand” to employ his “radical behavioralist” position.  In essence, a mand property involves the presence of reinforcement or punishment.  Reinforcement and punishment suggests an external attribute, and therefore mand and external attributes coexist together.  On the other hand, a tact property would not involve a strong reinforcement, and would then suggest an internal attribute as the cause of the action (Mizerski and Kerman 1979). 

            This can be useful in marketing for a number of health and hygiene products.  For instance, by convincing somebody of the importance of skin care, an advertisement can convince the person that they are the type of person that cares about their skin.  By convincing a consumer of their new attitude on the importance of skin care, they will find a new need for the product.  They may now have an internal attribute for why they by a new line of skin lotions.

            Self-perception is also greatly used in the foot-in-the-door technique.  The foot-in-the-door technique is the theory that if someone complies with a first small request, they will then be more likely to comply with similar larger requests (Exploring Technology 2003).  This technique is seen often today through telemarketing.  Sometimes a telemarketer will call someone telling them that they will pay them five dollars to answer a series of questions over the phone.  After the survey, the person on the phone will often then feel like they are the type of person that is willing to answer surveys.  Just after this, the telemarketer will ask the person on the phone if they would be willing to fill out a survey by mail for twenty dollars.  After doing the phone survey, the person on the phone is more likely to comply with this request. 

Object Perception

            Kelley developed his own attribution theory, though its outcome is a result of the work of Heider, Jones and Davis, and Bem.  Kelley’s “covariation principle” establishes attribution with the use of three factors:  consensus, distinctiveness, and consistency.  Using consensus, Kelley asks if everyone or just a few people would respond to the stimulus in the same fashion as the actor.  The distinctiveness factor is used to find out whether or not the actor’s effect occurs when the stimuli is not present, or is it unique to this stimuli only.  Consistency can be used to find out if the actor’s effect is the same when presented with the stimulus over and over. 

            Kelley’s covariation principle is used as a basis for object perception.  This can be done so by thinking of the object as an actor.  Consumers can use this by asking the same questions Kelley uses when purchasing products.  Tide uses this in their many commercials showing the effect of Tide on tough stains versus “Brand X.”  Distinctiveness is shown by comparing the effect of Tide on stains versus Brand X.  The effect is not the same when Tide is not present.  By using a variety of commercials, with a variety of stains, we find that the results are always the same using the consensus factor.  In this same sort of way, by seeing many commercials along with many stains, Tides effects are also consistent. 

            Once again, attribution theory is not all cut and dry.  A big problem one can find analyzing a situation is whether to focus on the person, self, or object-perception.  Often situations can become quite complex.  There can also be a series of attribution processes, including causal chains with several attribution objects and attribution foci (Mizerski and Kerman 1979).  This is only the tip of the iceberg as studies of attribution theory have become far more complex.

Examples                              

Apple                                                                             

            Apple’s ad campaign launched in 1997 used the slogan “Think different.”  This slogan motivated many people who assigned themselves an internal attribute of being a motivated innovative thinker.  Apple’s many billboards and other ads included pictures of such greats as Albert Einstein, Mohammed Ali, Amelia Earhart, Thomas Edison, Mahatma Gandhi, Pablo Picasso, Rosa Parks and other role models.

These role models were pictured in black and white, while in the corner was the Apple logo in color and the phrase “Think different.”  The brilliant innovative ideas of these breakthrough creative individuals are now associated with Apple, as the computer for the person who can look at the world from a different view. 

Diet Pepsi                                                                   

Diet Pepsi launched its new ad campaign along with a new look for Super Bowl XXXVII on January 26, 2003 (AdSlogan Unlimited).  The new slogan, “Drink young. Think young.” Takes advantage of the fact that most consumers do not view themselves as old.  Most people already have an internal attribute which says that they can comply with what is in style, and Pepsi has been advertising to be the hip thing to do for years.  Their many young celebrity endorsements (like Britney Spears and Shakira of today) will agree with that too.

H&R Block

            H&R Block uses a slogan of “Just plain smart.” to persuade customers to use their tax services (AdSlogan Unlimited).  With this slogan, not only does H&R Block seem smart and reliable, but it makes a tedious task like taxes seem like outsourcing would be the simplest smartest way of taking care of it.  Everyone likes to assign themselves an attribute of being smart, so why not feel smart by making smart moves with H&R Block?

Relevant Web Sites

Apple Computers: www.Apple.com

Diet Pepsi: www.DietPepsi.com

H & R Block: www.HRBlock.com

Steve Booth-Butterfield of West Virginia University wrote a very helpful tutorial entitled Attribution Theory. http://www.as.wvu.edu/~sbb/comm221/chapters/attrib.htm

Exploring Technology had a wonderful tutorial entitled Applications of the Foot-in-the-Door Technique. http://www.dushkin.com/connectext/psy/ch15/foot.mhtml

Kelli McCormack Brown of University of South Florida also had a helpful tutorial entitled Attribution Theory. http://hsc.usf.edu/~kmbrown/Attribution_Theory_Overview.htm

 Suckers or skeptics?  Consumer beliefs concerning endorsement advertisements. David H. Silvera, The University of Tromsø, has a good essay on attribution theory and endorsements. http://www.sv.ntnu.no/psy/faggrupper/sosial_samf/seminars/2001/Abstracts/Silvera.pdf

Test for Understanding

1. Attribution theory can be thought of as:

   1. one set theory, with clear cut boundaries.

   2. a collection of theories, which can often be controversial.

   3. a theory which tries to explain how people assign causes for actions.

   4. b and c.
       

2. Which of the following is not a factor used by Kelley’s covariation principle:

   1. Consistency

   2. Distinctiveness

   3. Comparison

   4. Consensus
       

3. Which companies “Think different” ad campaign was launched at Super Bowl XXXVII?

   1. Gateway

   2. Dell

   3. Compaq

   4. Apple
       

4. What type of attribute must a marketer focus on to change consumer behavior?

   1. Internal attribute

   2. External attribute

   3. High involvement attribute

   4. Low involvement attribute
       

5. What type of perception does the foot-in-the-door technique take advantage of?

   1. Person-perception

   2. Self-perception

   3. Object-perception

   4. All of the above

 Scroll down for answers...

keep scrolling...

Answer Key:     1. b      2. c      3. d      4. a      5. b

References

AdSlogans Unlimited. The US Advertising Taglines of Super Bowl XXXVII. Retrieved April 21, 2003, from http://www.adslogans.co.uk/superbowl.html

Booth-Butterfield, Steve (1988).  Attribution Theory. Retrieved April 16, 2003, from http://www.as.wvu.edu/~sbb/comm221/chapters/attrib.htm

Brown, Kelli McCormack (1999). Attribution Theory. Retrieved April 18, 2003, from http://hsc.usf.edu/~kmbrown/Attribution_Theory_Overview.htm

Exploring Technology. Applications of the Foot-in-the-Door Technique.  Retrieved April 18, 2003, from http://www.dushkin.com/connectext/psy/ch15/foot.mhtml

Mizerski, Robert W., Linda L., and Kerman, Jerome B. (1979).  “The Attribution Process in Consumer Decision Making,” The Journal of Consumer Research, 6:2 (Sept.) 123-131.

Silvera, David H. Suckers or skeptics? Consumer beliefs Concerning Endorsement Advertisements. Retrieved April 16, 2003, from http://www.sv.ntnu.no/psy/faggrupper/sosial_samf/seminars/2001/Abstracts/Silvera.pdf