Romer's critique indicates that the endogenous-exogenous model has largely ignored an important attributional problem; namely, how does one define the boundaries of the behavior that is to be attributed? It was argued, however, that the failure to consider this problem implies that the attributional model in question is incomplete but not inconsistent.
Heider, F.The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley, 1958.
3.
Jones, E.E. , & Davis, K.E.From acts to dispositions: The attribution process in person perception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Ex-perimental Social Psychology (Vol. 2). New York: Academic Press, 1965.
4.
Kruglanski, A.W.The endogenous-exogenous partition in attribution theory . Psychological Review, 1975, 82, 387-406.
5.
Newtson, D.Foundation of attribution: The unit of perception of ongoing behavior. In J. Harvery, W. Ickes, & R. Kidd (Eds.), New directions in attribution research. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1976.
6.
Romer, D.The endogenous-exogenous partition and the attribution of action . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1978, 4, 434-439.
7.
Zuckerman, M.On the endogenous-exogenous partition in attribution theory . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1977, 3, 387-399. (a)
8.
Zuckerman, M.The endogenous-exogenous distinction: A model of attribution or a theory of cognitive motivation . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1977, 4, 606-611. (b)
