In addition to drawing on our schemata to interpret information from interpersonal encounters, we create explanations for others’ comments or behaviors, known as attributions. Attributions are our answers to the “why” questions we ask every day. “Why didn’t my partner return my text message?” “Why did my best friend post that embarrassing photo of me on Facebook?”

Consider an example shared with me by a friend of mine, Sarah. She had finished teaching for the semester and was out of town and offline for a week. When she returned and logged onto her e-mail, she found a week-old note from a student “Janet,” who failed her course, asking Sarah if there was anything she could do to improve her grade. Janet sent a curt follow-up e-mail a few days later accusing Sarah of ignoring her by failing to respond to the original request promptly.² Put yourself in Janet’s shoes for a moment. What attributions did Janet make about Sarah’s failure to respond? How did these attributions shape Janet’s communication in her second e-mail? Now consider this situation from Sarah’s perspective. If you were in her shoes, what attributions would you make about Janet, and how would they shape how you interpreted her e-mail?

Attributions take two forms, internal and external (see Table 3.1). Internal attributions presume that a person’s communication or behavior stems from internal causes, such as character or personality. For example, “My professor didn’t respond to my e-mail because she doesn’t care,” or “Janet sent this message because she’s rude.” External attributions hold that a person’s communication is caused by factors unrelated to personal qualities: “My professor didn’t respond to my e-mail because she hasn’t checked her messages yet,” or “Janet sent this message because I didn’t respond to her first message.”

Table 3.1 Internal versus External Attributions

Like schemata, the attributions we make influence how we interpret and respond to others’ communication. For example, if you think Janet’s e-mail was caused by her having a terrible day, you’ll likely interpret her message as an understandable venting of frustration. If you think her message was caused by her personal rudeness, you’ll probably interpret the e-mail as inappropriate and offensive.

Given the dozens of people with whom we communicate each day, it’s not surprising that we often form invalid attributions. One common mistake is the fundamental attribution error, the tendency to attribute others’ behaviors solely to internal causes (the kind of person they are) rather than the social or environmental forces affecting them (Heider, 1958). For example, communication scholar Alan Sillars and his colleagues found that during conflicts between parents and teens, both parties fall prey to the fundamental attribution error (Sillars, Smith, & Koerner, 2010). Parents commonly attribute teens’ communication to “lack of responsibility” and “desire to avoid the issue” whereas teens attribute parents’ communication to “desire to control my life.” These errors make it harder for teens and parents to constructively resolve their conflicts, something we discuss more in Chapter 9.

The fundamental attribution error is especially common during online interactions (Shedletsky & Aitken, 2004). Because we aren’t privy to the rich array of environmental factors that may be shaping our communication partners’ messages—all we perceive is words on a screen—we’re more likely to interpret others’ communication as stemming solely from internal causes (Wallace, 1999). As a consequence, when a text message, Facebook wall post, e-mail, or instant message is even slightly negative in tone, we’re very likely to blame that negativity on bad character or personality flaws.

A related error is the actor-observer effect, the tendency of people to make external attributions regarding their own behaviors (Fiske & Taylor, 1991). Because our mental focus during interpersonal encounters is on factors external to us—especially the person with whom we’re interacting—we tend to credit these factors as causing our own communication. This is particularly prevalent during unpleasant interactions. Our own impolite remarks during family conflicts are viewed as “reactions to their hurtful communication” rather than “messages caused by our own insensitivity.”

However, we don’t always make external attributions regarding our own behaviors. In cases where our actions result in noteworthy success, we typically take credit by making an internal attribution, a tendency known as the self-serving bias (Fiske & Taylor, 1991). Suppose, for example, you’ve successfully persuaded a friend to lend you her car for the weekend. In this case, you will probably attribute this success to your charm and persuasive skill rather than to luck or your friend’s generosity. The self-serving bias is driven by ego protection: by crediting ourselves for our life successes, we can feel happier about who we are.

Clearly, attributions play a powerful role in how we interpret communication. For this reason, it’s important to consider the attributions you make while you’re interacting with others. Check your attributions frequently, watching for the fundamental attribution error, the actor-observer effect, and the self-serving bias. If you think someone has spoken to you in an offensive way, ask yourself if it’s possible that outside forces—including your own behavior—could have caused the problem. Also keep in mind that communication (like other forms of human behavior) rarely stems from only external or internal causes. It’s caused by a combination of both (Langdridge & Butt, 2004).

Finally, when you can, check the accuracy of your attributions by asking people for the reasons behind their behavior. When you’ve made attribution errors that lead you to criticize or lose your patience with someone else, apologize and explain your mistake to the person. After Janet learned that Sarah hadn’t responded because she had been out-of-town, Janet apologized. She also explained why her message was so terse: she thought Sarah was intentionally ignoring her. Upon receiving Janet’s apology, Sarah apologized also. She realized that she, too, had succumbed to the fundamental attribution error by wrongly presuming that Janet was a rude person.

²This is an example e-mail contributed to the author by a professional colleague, with all identifying information removed to protect the identity of the student in question.