[2] Causes of an outcome can be attributed to the person (internal), the stimulus (external), the circumstance, or some combination of these factors (Hewstone et al., 1973).
Attributions are made based on three criteria: Consensus, Distinctiveness, and Consistency (Kelley, 1973).
But if he compliments everybody's work, this is low distinctiveness, and one will attribute the behaviour to the person, in this case, Dr. Stanton (Orvis et al., 1975).
According to Hewstone and Jaspars (1987), we are able to determine whether a person would likely make a personal (internal), stimulus (external) or circumstantial attribution by assessing the levels of consensus, distinctiveness, and consistency in a given situation: Low Consensus, Low Distinctiveness, High Consistency = Personal Attribution High Consensus, High Distinctiveness, High Consistency = Stimulus Attribution High Consensus, Low Distinctiveness, Low Consistency = Circumstance Attribution In reference to McArthur's study (1972), consider the following example: "John laughs at the comedian" This outcome could be caused by something in the person (John), the stimulus (the comedian) the circumstances (the comedy club on that night), or some combination of these factors (Hewstone et al., 1987).
A causal schema refers to the way a person thinks about plausible causes in relation to a given effect.
The critique of the model mainly concerns the lack of distinction between intentional and unintentional behavior, and between reason and cause explanations (Malle, 1999).
Malle (1999) also pointed at the differential effect of being an actor versus observer, the effect of the self-serving bias and the distinction between subjective and rational reasoning as important factors acting on attributions of behavior.
Malle offers a new theoretical framework to give a broader and more comprehensive understanding of attributions of behavior.