Core distinction and conditions
Social explanations depend on the relation between a person and the setting. A dispositional attribution emphasizes a personal tendency; a situational attribution emphasizes external conditions. An observer can overemphasize a trait while discounting an important constraint, illustrating a fundamental attribution error in the described setting. That does not mean dispositions never matter or that every culture shows the same pattern in every situation. To evaluate an explanation, identify which cause is emphasized, what evidence is available, and what relevant circumstance is overlooked.
Worked example: contrast a cause and a motive
An observer calls a teammate unmotivated after a missed meeting, despite knowing that an unavoidable transport shutdown affected the group. The explanation emphasizes disposition while neglecting a documented situational cause. Now consider another learner who privately disagrees with a group but publicly agrees solely to avoid rejection. The stated motive supports normative influence: acceptance matters more than adopting the group as a source of accurate evidence. If the learner instead believed others had better information and changed their belief for that reason, informational influence would be more directly supported. Public agreement alone may not distinguish the motives without those details.
Keep other group processes distinct
A group’s presence does not explain every outcome in the same way. Social loafing concerns reduced individual effort when contributions are pooled or less identifiable under relevant conditions. Group polarization concerns movement toward a more extreme group attitude. Obedience concerns responding to an authority’s command, while peer agreement can have a different relation. These processes can interact in real settings, but a short scenario should support the label through its specific outcome and conditions. Do not infer an emotional crowd effect from an effort comparison simply because both involve more than one person.
Transfer check: choose the discriminating detail
An individual retains a private answer but publicly endorses a different one to avoid exclusion. Explain what makes a normative account stronger than an informational one here. Then compare pooled task output with separately recorded contributions when effort declines under pooling. Identify the effort-related process and a limit on generalizing it to all groups. Finally, evaluate an observer who dismisses a known external obstacle and uses a trait label instead. A useful answer names the relevant outcome, motive or cause and rejects the nearest competing concept using evidence rather than judging whether the people behaved well or badly.
Try it, then explain it.
Complete a short set without looking at the example. After each answer, explain which evidence or rule supports your decision and why the alternatives do not fit.
Sources & authorship
Original OpenExam explanations and examples. References support the concepts; they are not the source of copied questions. Independent educator review is pending.
OpenStax Psychology 2e, section 12-1OpenStax Psychology 2e, section 12-4