girls become lovers

Hello all—John Mayer’s the man of the hour.



(You're welcome, ladies)


So this week the concepts under discussion actually made me think of some heavy stuff. I don’t know why—but I think it’s an interesting application and it’s about all I can readily come up with, so here goes…

Kelley’s Covariation Model is a normative approach to attribution theory that I find particularly valuable. In fact, when reading about it, I realized that I enlist it quite often. Basically, it’s a way to analyze a whole bunch of data in order to decide why a certain behavior is occurring. It uses three sources of information to come up with three possible attributions for behavior. Using this model, one decides whether to attribute someone’s behavior to the person, stimulus, or circumstances.

My senior year in high school, I had a friend who was in a relationship that was unhealthy. She was dating a guy that would often make fun of her for her weight, among other things. My friends didn’t like him, and none of us liked her dating him. There were three ways I could look at their unhealthy relationship—it was Margaret’s fault (person), it was Edward’s fault (stimulus), or there was just some occasional trouble in paradise, depending on their transient states (circumstances). Now let’s explore these in context…

SITUATION: Margaret has trouble with Edward.

Person: It is Margaret’s fault that her relationship is unhealthy (consensus and distinctiveness are low, and consistency is high). There was something about her that made her a target for emotional abuse.
• Consensus: To have low consensus, that would mean that Edward had a history of successful, healthy relationships. No previous girls had trouble with Edward, and he never before was emotionally abusive.
• Distinctiveness: To have low distinctiveness, that would mean that Margaret’s relationship with Edward is no different from her previous relationships with Wesley and Zachary. Every ex-boyfriend of Margaret’s was also emotionally abusive.
• Consistency: To have high consistency, that would mean that Margaret and Edward were constantly having problems, and Edward would often be emotionally abusive.

Stimulus: It is Edward’s fault that Margaret’s relationship is unhealthy (consensus, distinctiveness, and consistency are high).
• Consensus: (high) Edward did not have a history of successful, healthy relationships. Many of his previous girlfriends had trouble with him, and he was often emotionally abusive to people.
• Distinctiveness: (high) Margaret’s relationship with Edward is very different from previous relationships with Wesley and Zachary. Both of them had always treated Margaret with respect and had never emotionally abused her.
• Consistency: (high) Margaret and Edward were constantly having problems. Edward was often emotionally abusive.

Circumstance: Margaret only has trouble with Edward sometimes. His emotional abuse isn’t an everyday thing, and sometimes it even comes across as a joke. It just kind of depends on the situation (consistency is low). Most likely, it was just the occasional bad mood or environmental factors (Edward got a bad grade on a test, Margaret gained a bunch of weight out of nowhere, etc.)
• Consensus: Could be either high or low.
• Distinctiveness: Could be either high or low.
• Consistency: Low.

I know it’s kind of a heavy application, but like I said, I thought it was interesting. I think it’s clear from my biased introduction that I attributed the stimulus for the unhealthiness of the relationship. But they are apart now and Margaret is more radiant than ever. Gotta love a good success story. ☺

~Sarah Elizabeth

Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution in social psychology. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 15, 192-238.