A terrorist blows up a building in a hated foreign country. How might Kelly explain the terrorist's behavior?

In attribution theory, consensus plays a critical role in understanding why people behave the way they do. Consensus looks at whether other people would behave in the same way in a similar situation. Imagine you're observing a classmate who frequently answers questions in a seminar. If all classmates are active participants, we say the consensus is high. But if only this particular student speaks up, the consensus is low, indicating that the behavior is unusual.

When applied to our exercise about the terrorist, by identifying a low consensus, it suggests that the terrorist's actions are not common among others in the same context. Such insight can lead us to consider personal motives or unique circumstances influencing the behavior, rather than societal norms or general acceptance.

When we talk about distinctiveness, we're referring to how the behavior compares across different situations or stimuli. High distinctiveness implies that the behavior is unique to a particular circumstance. For example, a student might only ask questions in one favorite subject but remains quiet in others, showing high distinctiveness.

In the case of the terrorist, if direct violence is used solely against a specific foreign country and not in other scenarios or against other countries, we determine the behavior as highly distinctive. This finding points towards something about the specific target triggering the behavior.

Consistency is another cornerstone of attribution theory. It examines how stable a person's behavior is over time and in various situations. A high level of consistency indicates that a person reacts similarly whenever they encounter the same situation. Take, for instance, a student who always submits assignments late; their behavior is highly consistent.

Looking at our terrorist example, high consistency would mean the individual consistently uses violent means against the hated foreign country, suggesting a pattern. This kind of behavior may imply a deep-seated issue or a fixed attitude towards the country involved.

Attribution theory is closely tied with Kelley's covariation model, which posits that people make attributions based on the covariation of observed behavior with specific variables: consensus, distinctiveness, and consistency. Just as a scientist would look for patterns or correlations to explain a phenomenon, individuals use these three types of informational cues to understand behaviors.

In the textbook exercise, we use this model to analyze the terrorist's actions by examining the consistency (is the behavior repeated?), consensus (do others act the same?), and distinctiveness (is the behavior specific to a particular stimulus?). The covariation model helps us decipher whether the perpetrator's behavior is due to personal factors or the particular context of the situation.

Finally, behavior explanation involves creating a narrative or reason for why a behavior occurs. Attribution theory allows us to construct a potential explanation by assessing the information through consensus, distinctiveness, and consistency. If, for example, someone behaves kindly in one situation and harshly in another, we may attribute their behavior to situational factors rather than to their personality alone.

In the context of our terrorism example, we can attempt to explain the attacker's behavior by considering the low consensus, high distinctiveness, and high consistency of their actions. This leads us to infer that the destructive behavior is highly situational, possibly fueled by specific grievances against that country, rather than a universally accepted response or a stable trait of aggression.