The theory of cognitive covariation: what it is, and its characteristics

Attribution theories attempt to explain how people interpret events and how they relate to their way of thinking and acting. Here we will learn about 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 are going to know in detail the components and characteristics of the theory.

• Related article: "Cognition: definition, main processes and functioning"

The concept of attribution

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

Kelley's theory of cognitive covariation

Harold Kelley's (1967) theory of covariation is an attribution model, that is, it is oriented to determine the causes of the behaviors, facts or events that we observe.

Kelley establishes that when there are different events that can be the triggering cause of the same event, only the that are shown 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.

He distinguishes in the facts or actions two elements: the actor (observed subject, and who performs the action) and the perceiver (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 affirmative, 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 differences depending on the perceiver.

3. Consistency

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

That is, it would be the recurring representation of the same behavior whenever the same situation is represented.

• You may be interested in: "Theories of causal attribution: definition and authors"

causal attributions

Depending on the combination of these three elements, we can 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:

1. Causal attribution to the person

When consensus is low (few subjects different from the actor perform the same action), distinctiveness is low (the actor behaves like this with many) and consistency is high (it always behaves like this 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) throughout the year. In this case, the attribution of the action is the person, that is, the action depends to a greater degree on it.

2. Causal attribution to the entity (perceiving subject)

When consensus is high (many subjects other than the actor perform the same action), distinctiveness is high (the actor behaves like this few or only one) and consistency is high (it always behaves like this with the same subject in different circumstances or throughout the time).

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

3. Causal attribution to circumstances

When consensus is low (few subjects other than the actor perform the same action), distinctiveness is high (the actor agrees). behaves like this with few or only one) and the consistency is low (the actor behaves differently with the same subject throughout the 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 (under consensus). Here the event or fact will depend more on the circumstances (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 the Kelley model of covariation and configuration.)

This other concept of Kelley's theory, called "configuration", is about the information that comes from a single observation (unlike covariation, where there were multiple observations). From this information, causal schemes are generated.

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

1. multiple sufficient causes

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

1. 1. Principle of rejection or discount

Less importance is attached to a cause when there are other possible causes for the behavior.

For example, when a student performs poorly after surgery, the poor performance is attributed to health problems and not to lack of effort. The cause that is taken into account is the most salient or exceptional.

1. 2. principle of magnification

The role of a cause increases if the effect occurs in the presence of an inhibitory cause.

For example, the good performance of a student while her father is sick; More effort is attributed to that girl compared to other students with favorable circumstances.

2. Multiple Necessary Causes

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

For example, in some very difficult competitive examinations where few students obtain a place, several reasons must be given: that the student is motivated, has studied hard, has a high academic record and is lucky in the exam.

Bibliographic references:

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