It’s not me, it’s not you, it’s us! An empirical examination of relational attributions.

Abstract

It has recently been suggested that attribution theory expand its locus of causality dimension beyond internal and external attributions to include relational (i.e., interpersonal) attributions (Eberly, Holley, Johnson, & Mitchell, 2011). The current investigation was designed to empirically focus on relationship dynamics, specifically where 1 member of the relationship receives negative performance-related feedback. We use quantitative and qualitative data from 7 samples (5 samples for scale validation in Study 1 and 2 for hypothesis testing in Studies 2 and 3) that provide empirical support for the existence and impact of relational attributions. Our findings identify the circumstances under which relational attributions are likely to be formed and indicate that relational attributions are related to relational improvement behaviors, particularly when employees are of the same sex as their relationship partner and perceive sufficient time and energy to engage in relational improvement efforts. A personal attribute, relational self, contrary to expectations, did not moderate the link between relational attributions and improvement behaviors. These findings make an important contribution to attribution theory by providing evidence for the criticality of relational attributions within interdependent work relationships. (PsycINFO Database Record

The missing link? Implications of internal, external, and relational attribution combinations for leader–member exchange, relationship work, self‐work, and conflict

“…Because negative and unexpected events are more likely to be viewed as informative and provoke greater search for causes (Martinko et al, ; Weiner, ), as previously noted, our model begins with the leader and follower reflecting on a negative and/or unexpected achievement‐related event and subsequently making attributions for the event (see Figure ). We then extend Eberly et al's () model by considering the influence of attributional biases on leader and follower attributions. We further integrate and extend Martinko and Gardner's () and Eberly et al's () models by considering the extent to which leader and follower attributions are convergent versus divergent when the dyadic partners make internal, external‐person, external‐situational, or relational attributions.…”

“…We then extend Eberly et al's () model by considering the influence of attributional biases on leader and follower attributions. We further integrate and extend Martinko and Gardner's () and Eberly et al's () models by considering the extent to which leader and follower attributions are convergent versus divergent when the dyadic partners make internal, external‐person, external‐situational, or relational attributions. Then, the model connects the attribution combinations to LMX quality, relationship work, self‐work, and conflict.…”

“…Namely, relational attributions based on high distinctiveness, high consistency, and low consensus informational cues focus dyadic partners on addressing the relational causes of negative events and prompt individuals to engage in relationship work such as remedial voice behaviors (e.g., discussing the issue) or interpersonal citizenship behaviors (e.g., providing assistance with tasks or socioemotional support). In subsequent empirical research, Eberly et al () found that individuals spontaneously make internal, external, and relational attributions, and they discussed how leader–member interdependence increases the likelihood of a relational attribution. Additional empirical work has supported relational attribution theorizing and has examined the implications of relational attributions in the context of abusive supervision.…”

“…Moreover, we acknowledge that there are likely to be differential amounts of effort expended by the leader and follower to enhance LMX quality following a negative and/or unexpected event, and there are likely to be differential effects on LMX quality based on each party's capabilities and availability for relationship work. Indeed, Eberly et al () found that time or availability was a significant contextual moderator of the relationship between relational attributions and relational improvement behaviors. However, these differences are beyond the scope of our model.…”

“…They also suggested that when relational attributions are made, the parties are more likely to engage in relationship‐focused behaviors, or relationship work . In subsequent empirical research using data from seven samples, the authors tested and found support for the existence of relational attributions that are distinct from internal and external attributions, and they found that relational attributions are related to relationship work (Eberly, Holley, Johnson, & Mitchell, ).…”