Harold Kelley

Consensus, distinctiveness, and consistency answer different comparison questions. Consensus asks whether other people respond similarly, distinctiveness asks whether the behavior is specific to one situation or appears across situations, and consistency asks whether it recurs for the same person in the same circumstances over time. Considering all three helps an observer separate information about the individual from information about the context.

Covariation matters because behavior can be interpreted differently when it changes with the setting, differs from other people’s responses, or repeats over time. Kelley’s framework directs attention to these patterns rather than to a single striking action. That comparison can support judgments about internal dispositions or external circumstances, while also showing why incomplete information can encourage attributional bias.

The model describes a reasoning framework for assigning causes, whereas attributional bias describes systematic errors in that reasoning. An observer may use information about people, situations, and time yet still overemphasize personal characteristics or underrecognize situational factors. This distinction lets psychologists study both the intended causal process and the predictable mistakes that affect social perception and interpersonal judgment.

Applying the framework starts by separating observations into comparisons across people, situations, and time. A researcher can then examine whether a behavior appears broadly, is limited to a particular setting, or recurs for the same individual. These organized comparisons provide a basis for studying how participants form internal or external explanations in research on social perception and everyday social judgment.

Harold Kelley's framework is useful when researchers examine social perception, impression formation, motivation, or interpersonal judgment. It helps them ask whether an interpretation reflects evidence about a person or about the surrounding situation. In relationship research, the same logic can clarify how people explain recurring actions and how those explanations may contribute to biased judgments.

Everyday judgments may become biased when observers give greater weight to a person’s apparent characteristics than to situational factors. Kelley’s framework provides a way to identify that imbalance by directing attention to variation across people, contexts, and time. Researchers can therefore connect a specific judgment to broader patterns of causal reasoning, rather than treating it as an isolated impression.