Jones and Davis’s Correspondent Inference Theory Correspondent inference theory assumes that we are motivated to find meaningful explanations for other peoples’ behavior We prefer that these explanations reflect stable causes, because attributing the cause of an event to something unstable gives us less ability to predict what will occur in the future.

Example: You are in a class for the first time. The instructor gets angry at another student and yells at her. Do you just ignore this? Do you ask yourself why the instructor yelled at the girl? Probably you are asking yourself why.

Example (continued): You could decide that the instructor just had a bad day, or you could decide that the instructor is a mean person. Recall from Heider that we want to understand events that happen around us so that we can predict what to do in the future to achieve our goals.

Example (continued): In the present case, you want to predict whether or not you should stay in this class. Let’s say that it is your goal to do well in class and not have trouble with your instructors.

Example (continued): Is it easier to predict what you should to do to achieve your goal if you: a. Decide the instructor had a bad day b. Decide that the instructor is a mean person?

Example (continued) Jones and Davis argue that we prefer to find a stable cause for the present event (in this case, a mean instructor), because a stable cause is easier to predict than a changeable cause (in this case, the instructor having a good or bad day).

Jones and Davis are saying that we prefer to find stable causes for events than unstable causes. A stable cause for the behavior of people would be their “traits”. So, Jones and Davis are saying that we prefer to find traits in people to explain their behavior, rather than to argue that changeable, environmental forces are behind their behavior.

This gets us to the purpose of Correspondent Inference Theory. The theory discusses what tools we use to determine what trait in a person seems to be the cause of his behavior.

A key term in the theory is “correspondence”. We seek correspondence. When we have the ability to observe a person’s behavior and decide what trait in him caused it, we have achieved correspondence.

Think of times when you observed a person do something and said to yourself something like, “For the life of me, I can’t understand why he did that.” Are you pleased when you can’t understand why a person did something? No, not usually. Why? Because we have not achieved correspondence – we have not been able to decide what disposition (trait) in the person caused his behavior.

Recall a statement made earlier, Jones and Davis describe the tools that help us decide what trait in a person caused his behavior – what tools we use to help us to achieve correspondence. What are these tools?

1. Social Desirability Social desirability refers to the likelihood that other people would do the behavior that your are trying to understand.

An act has HIGH social desirability if you decide that most other people would do the same thing, if they were in the same situation. An act has LOW social desirability if you decide that most other people would NOT do the same thing, if they were in the same situation.

Jones and Davis say that acts with LOW social desirability help us achieve correspondence; acts with high social desirability do not. It is easier to assign traits to people to explain their behavior when that behavior is something that most other people would not do in that situation.

Would you say that a teacher yelling at a student on the first day of class is an act with high or low social desirability?

Probably most of us would say that the act has low social desirability –most teachers would not do that sort of thing.

Since we conclude that yelling at students on the first day of class is an act with low social desirability, it is easy for us to go on and conclude that the instructor is mean. We think we have identified a trait in him – meanness.

Suppose that the teacher had entered the classroom and began reading over the roster and discussing the syllabus. What would that action have told us about the UNIQUE traits in that person?

Not much. Why. The act has high social desirability Not much. Why? The act has high social desirability. It is what we expect the teacher to do. Again, the point is that we find it easier to assign traits to people to explain their behavior when their actions have low social desirability than high social desirability.

2. Choice Choice occurs when a person is able to freely choose his actions; they are not forced on him.

Jones and Davis argue that actions that have a HIGH degree of choice behind them help us achieve correspondence. Actions with a LOW degree of choice behind them do not help us achieve correspondence.

Suppose an instructor asks you to write a paper on abortion Suppose an instructor asks you to write a paper on abortion. You write a paper that strongly opposes abortion. Have we learned anything about your views on abortion? Probably so. You seem to oppose it. We believe this because it appears that you freely choose to write from this side of the issue.

Suppose that your instructor asks you to write a paper that presents the arguments against abortion. You do so. Have we learned anything about your views on abortion? Probably not. You were forced to write against abortion; you had no choice.

If we believe that a person freely chose a particular course of action, we are more able to find a disposition to explain the action than if we believe the person was forced into the action. Choice in an action helps us achieve correspondence.

3. Noncommon effects Noncommon effects are consequences of an action that are unique to a chosen action. They are not present in a rejected action. We use noncommon effects to help achieve correspondence.

Example: John has to decide between University X and University Y.

Example (continued) University X: is a prestigious school is in a desirable location is expensive has a good program in his major

Example (continued) University Y: is a prestigious school is in a desirable location is expensive is where his girlfriend is going to college

Example (continued) Suppose John goes to University X. We want to know what trait in him caused this choice. According to Jones and Davis, we must look for a noncommon effect from his choice – something his choice will get him that the other school would not. What is the noncommon effect in this choice?

Example (Continued) The noncommon effect is the good program in John’s major. The good program is what John will get from his choice that he would not have gotten from the other alternative. Now that we have found the noncommon effect of John’s choice, we are ready to assign a disposition to him to explain why he made that decision.

Example (continued) What trait should we assign to John to explain his choice?

Example (Continued) I would call him a scholar, or a motivated student. These would seem to be the traits that would explain why a student would pick a college based on the quality of his chosen major.

Example (continued) Suppose John had chosen University Y. What is the noncommon effect of that decision?

Example (continued) The noncommon effect is being around his girlfriend. Choosing University X would not achieve this outcome for him.

Example (Continued) Now that we have identified the noncommon effect of the decision to attend University Y, we are ready to assign a disposition to John to explain his choice. What disposition would you assign to John for this choice?

Example (Continued) I would say that love motivated his choice. I would conclude that he is in love with his girlfriend. Of course, someone else might call him a stalker. We don’t necessarily have to agree on the dispositions that we assign to others to explain their actions. Indeed, often we don’t completely agree.

To summarize: Jones and Davis argue:

People prefer to find stable causes to explain the behavior of others.

A stable cause that we often use to explain other people’s behavior are their traits or dispositions.

Three tools are used to help us identify traits in people that are behind their behavior.

One tool is the social desirability of the action.

A second tool is the choice the person had in making the action.

A third tool is the noncommon effect that we find for the action.