How we analyse things can affect our actions and responses. We can tweak this to our advantage.
When something happens - a retrenchment, a breakup, a job offer, a new connection - we tend to analyse the reasons behind it. This is especially so with unexpected events, and/or those regarded as highly positive or negative. The greater the reaction or impression, the more we want to understand why it happened, and what led to it.
But we assume that analysis means accuracy. In reality, different people can look at the same event and have different explanations for why it happened - this is called attribution. Our attribution styles can affect:
the actions we take
whether you take success or failure personally
whether we react with guilt, shame, anger
self-esteem
mental health
relationship quality
Knowing your locus of attribution can help you check your assumptions and consider alternative perspectives.
Three dimensions of attribution
Attribution is about how we explain events that happen. A particular attribution style reflects a particular pattern in our explanations (often to ourselves).
There are three dimensions of attribution. I’ll give different examples for each type, and then combine them at the end so you can see how they may be applied.
1. Internal vs external
Attributing an event to you, versus to situational or external factors
e.g. Get a low grade: is it because of your performance, or because the test was hard?
e.g. Meeting went well: because you said the right things, or because there was a good fit between different parties’ needs?
2. Stable vs unstable
Attributing something to a lasting condition, rather than changeable circumstances
e.g. Failing a fitness test: “I’m really not athletic” vs “I do better with more practise and better nutrition”
e.g. Disagreement with colleagues: “They’re so difficult to work with” vs “They’re all going through a lot of stress now”
3. Global vs specific
How broadly our explanations extend into other events, versus one particular occurence
e.g. Investment returns: “I’m a great investor” vs “I got lucky with this deal”
e.g. Poor election turnout: “Apathetic population” vs “Low engagement on election” (but recognizing that people may be engaged in other ways)”
Overall example - Rejected from a dream job:
Internal, stable and global: “I have nothing to offer.”
Internal, stable and specific: “I’m not a good fit for this role or company”
Internal, unstable and global: “I’m lousy at ____ right now”
Internal, unstable and specific: “I’m not great at _____, for this particular role, yet”
External, stable and global: “The industry will always reject me”
External, stable and specific: “This company or role is fundamentally a poor fit”
External, unstable and global: “Circumstances aren’t great for finding any job right now”
External, unstable and specific: “The company had other needs at this point in time”
We can have different attributional styles for different types of events (e.g. career, personal, relational). They’re not mutually exclusive.
They’re also not fixed or static. They’re not personality types. But they do reflect cognitive tendencies that in turn affect our self-esteem, responses and the story we tell ourselves about something that happens.
Application
Understanding our attribution styles isn’t just about perception. It’s also about recognizing our locus of control - how much we believe we can influence outcomes.
Research indicates that those who explain negative situations through internal, stable and global causes tend to be more pessimistic. They may feel less able to influence or change a negative situation, resulting in learned helplessness. Similarly, those who explain positive situations through external, unstable and specific causes often experience negative mood. Believing that you will always cause negative situations, and have not contributed to positive situations takes a toll on mood, energy and effectiveness.
Conversely, those who explain negative situations through external, unstable and specific causes naturally tend to believe that the negative situation is not their fault, and that it will pass. Seeing positive situations as due to internal, stable and global causes leads to more self-confidence and a greater sense of control.
Of course, all this can seem like verging on self-deception. Why believe something that may not be true, if we indeed contribute to a negative event, or have little influence over a positive event?
It’s possible to hold these perspectives in balance with alternative interpretations - to acknowledge our shortcomings while recognizing the role of timing, circumstances and other parties involved.
Ultimately, this concept is not about finding the “real” reason for events, which are often more complex and less objective. I see attributional styles as a tool:
to get ourselves out of a rut, if we’re deep in an unproductive way of thinking
to increase awareness of alternative perspectives, and our own biases
to shift towards action-oriented mindsets, rather than pessimism or learned helplessness
Further reading:
Action / Reflection
Examine your own attribution style. Is it contributing to ways of thinking that may be holding you back?
Pick a recent event where your attribution style may have led to responses (actions, feelings or thoughts) which weren’t helpful. How would you reframe them?
If there is a pattern you’d like to change, how will you become aware of your attributional style in future so that you can consider other perspectives?
ETC
Given recent retrenchments and the current job market, I’ve carved out a few pro-bono coaching sessions to those who are navigating a career transition and are unable to afford it. We can do one-off, or 3X1 hour.
I personally know quite a few people who’ve been laid off, but prefer not to coach those who are too close to me, so this is a pay-it-forward of sorts. If you know anyone who might be interested, please send them this and ask them to reach out, or book a chat: https://calendly.com/deliberatehumans.
No pressure.