ABSTRACT

Covariation refers to a RELATIONSHIP between two events in which the variation in one is always accompanied by the same variation in the other, the conclusion being that they are causally linked. Tim Rees et al., apply the covariation principle to ATTRIBUTION.

The original covariation principle, which was formulated in the 1960s, posited that people use three types of information to link outcomes to causes: consistency, distinctiveness, and consensus. Rees et al. give the example of a despondent tennis player, who, having lost a match, concludes, ‘‘I’m just no good. I feel like giving up.’’ This might be challenged by prompting the players to reassess the initial postmatch reaction with information derived from distinctiveness (What were the good aspects of your game?), consistency (Have you ever played as poorly, yet still pulled through?), and consensus (Do you know others who have played as badly, felt the same way after the game, yet still continued successfully?). In this CONTEXT, the covariation principle is used as a ‘‘source of

support for helping to generate information about a client’s unrealistic or dysfunctional attributions.’’ ‘‘By focusing on consistency, distinctiveness, and consensus information one can help people to better understand the CAUSE of an event.’’ (Note: covariation is stronger than co-occurrence, which suggests that

events happen at the same time.)