Talk:Correspondent inference theory

Grammar

The covariation model is use with in this, more specifically that impact the degree in which you attribute behavior to the person as on the contrast to the situation. These factors are; does the person have a choice in the partaking in the action, is their behavior expected by their social role, and is their behavior consequence of their normal behavior?

I have no idea what this is trying to say so I can´t fix the grammar, could someone give it a go?

Logic

1)The fewer effects the possible choices have in common, the more confident one can be in inferring a correspondent disposition. 2)The fewer the non-common effects, the more certain the attribution of intent.

"effects the possible choices have in common" is not the same as "non-common effects" but is a 'correspondent disposition' the same as an 'attribution of intent'? My logic tells me it is.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.54.167.124 (talk) 11:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have the same problem. I think the two quotes tell exactly the opposite. 1) more common => less confident 2) more common => more confident

Or in other words: 1) more non-common => more confident 2) more non-common => less confident

Which one is true? Thanks in advance, Richard (hope it was right to add my post as edit of this post; sorry if bad english, I am from Germany, folks) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.189.10.29 (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"fewer effects the possible choices have in common" is different from "fewer the non-common effects". They are not opposites because it is possible to independently change the quantity of each. There is no inverse correspondence between the two statements. In the same way, "more confident one can be in inferring a correspondent disposition" is different from (but not opposite to) "more certain the attribution of intent". The original author would not have been trying to suggest correspondence between the two pairs of statements. But instead would be presenting two distinct relationships. 82.40.220.46 (talk) 18:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Correspondent inference theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051109040818/http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~dtg/SpeedingwithNed.pdf to http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~dtg/SpeedingwithNed.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Attributing Intention Section

As of 15 August 2022 this section is entirely blank. Was hoping to find more information about it? 72.43.53.11 (talk) 10:45, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]