correspondent inference theory

Meaning: This is an attribution theory about how observers decide whether an action reveals a stable disposition (a trait or attitude) rather than the situation. Observers make a stronger correspondent, or dispositional, inference when several cues are present:

The person chose the behavior freely. The behavior is unexpected or socially undesirable. Conforming behavior fits almost anyone, so it tells us little. The action has few noncommon effects, meaning few consequences unique to the chosen option compared with the alternatives. This narrows the likely motive. The person seemed to know the consequences and to be able to produce them on purpose.

On the MCAT: A passage describes an actor and varies the conditions, such as a speaker who chose a position versus one who was assigned it. You predict which condition supports a stronger dispositional attribution. Free choice and norm-violating behavior give a stronger inference. Assigned roles and socially expected behavior give a weaker one. Answer choices may also ask you to separate this theory from other attribution ideas.

Common confusion: It is not the fundamental attribution error. Correspondent inference theory describes when a dispositional inference is reasonable. The fundamental attribution error is the bias toward dispositional explanations of others' behavior even when situational causes are plain. It is also different from Kelley's covariation model, which uses consistency, distinctiveness, and consensus.