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

It is one of the attribution theories, explanations about how we look for the causes of something.

Attribution theories attempt to explain how people interpret events and how they relate them to the way they think and act. Here we will learn about Harold Kelley's Theory of Cognitive Covariation. (1967).

Through this theory it is possible to determine the cause of an event or behavior of a person. We will know in detail the components and characteristics of the theory.

The concept of attribution

In relation to the theories of attribution, A. Beck (1978) differentiated between expectancy and attribution. He defined expectation as the conviction that a fact will accompany another fact (future-oriented), and attribution as the conviction that a fact has accompanied another fact (past-oriented).

Kelley's Theory of Cognitive Covariation

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

Kelley states that when there are different events that can be the triggering cause of the same event, only those 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). (multiple observations). It would be the relationship between two or more variables.

He distinguishes two elements in the facts or actions: the actor (the observed subject who performs the action) and the perceiver (the 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 this way with others? If he/she behaves this way with more people, there will be a low distinctiveness or differentiation, i.e., there will be no differences in the way he/she behaves with others.that is, there will be no differences depending on the perceiver.

3. Consistency

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

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

Causal attributions

Depending on the combination of these three elements, we can make a causal attribution to the person, the entity or the circumstances. Thus, in the Theory of Cognitive Covariation, there may be three types of causal attributions:

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 this way with many) and consistency is high (always behaves this way 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, ie, the action depends to a greater degree on the person.

2. Causal attribution to the entity (perceiving subject)

When consensus is high (many subjects different from the actor perform the same action), distinctiveness is high (the actor behaves this way with few or only one) and consistency is high (always behaves this way with the same subject in different circumstances or over time).

For example, think of a father who buys Christmas gifts for his children, just like most people, and also buys the same number of gifts per child. This act, moreover, occurs even if the children have behaved better or worse during the year. In this case, the causal attribution 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 behaves this way with few or only one) and consistency is low (the actor behaves differently with the same subject over time).

For example, a guy who buys a gift for his partner, and no one else, and only on special occasions, while no one in the family does so (low consensus). Here the event or fact will depend to a greater degree on the circumstances (the special occasions).

H. Kelley's causal schemes

On the other hand, Kelley's theory of cognitive covariation also deals with another concept: the concept of causal schemas (that is why it is also called Kelley's model of covariation and configuration).

This other concept of Kelley's theory, called "configuration", deals with information coming from a single observation (as opposed to 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 2.

They explain normative or moderate effects. Among several causes, it is sufficient for one or some of them to occur for the effect to be produced. From these causes, it establishes two principles:

1. 1. Principle of dismissal or discounting.

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

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

1. 2. Principle of increase

The role of a cause is increased if the effect takes place in the presence of an inhibitory cause..

For example, the good performance of a pupil while her father is ill; more effort is attributed to that child with respect to other pupils with favorable circumstances.

2. Multiple necessary causes

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

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

Bibliographical references:

• Morales, J.F. (2007). Psicología social. Editorial: S.A. McGraw-Hill / Interamericana de España.
• Hogg, M. and Graham, M. (2010). Social psychology. Publisher: PANAMERICANA