Kruglanski's attribution theory has been criticized for being inadequately defined and indistinguishable from other, adequate models. In this paper, some of the logical and empirical problems inherent in both Kruglanski's and other attribution models are discussed. An alternative model that does not appear to contain the same flaws is briefly presented.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anscombe, G.E.M.Intention. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1967.
2.
Calder, B.J. Endogenous-exogenous versus internal-external attributions: Implications for the development of attribution theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1977, 3, 400-406.
3.
Condry, J.Enemies of exploration: self-initiated versus other-initiated learning . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1977, 35, 459-477.
4.
Davidson , D. Actions, reasons and causes. Journal of Philosophy, 1963, 60, 685-700.
5.
Dworkin, G. Acting freely. NOUS, 1970, 4, 367-382.
6.
Harvey, J.H. & Harris, B.Determinants of perceived choice and the relationship between choice and expectancy about feelings of internal control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 31, 101-106.
7.
Harvey, J.H. & Jellison, J.M.Determinants of perceived choice, number of options, and perceived time in making a selection. Memory & Cognition, 1974, 2, 539-544.
8.
Kruglanski, A.W.The endogenous-exogenous'partition in attribution theory . Psychological Review, 1975, 82, 387-406.
9.
Kruglanski, A.W. , Riter, A., Amitai, A., Margolin, B., Shabtai, L., & Zaksh, D.Can money enhance intrinsic motivation? A test of the content-consequence hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 31, 744-750.
10.
Zuckerman, M. On the endogenous-exogenous partition in attribition theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1977, 3, 387-
