Correspondent Inference Theory
The Correspondent Inference theory explains the perception of ordinary people on the causes of the actions of another person. It explains how people examine the information they gather to reach a conclusion about the behaviour of a person or explain the causes of an event (Kite, 2016). The theory can be used in the causes behind the choice of Americans in the 2008 elections. An analysis of the theory assists in the analysis of the election of Obama in the US
- Summary of the Correspondent Inference Theory
The first factor is the degree of choice that the actor has in behaving in a particular manner. This factor explains that society has various degrees to which it encourages and values behaviour. Members of society give a large allowance for people to choose actions in some situations but leave a small allowance to other situations. It is from this degree of allowance that they believe in the high or low degree of choice (Scopelliti, 2015). Observers associate a high degree of choice with the internal motivation that the actor used to choose. In this situation, the actor is said to have had the allowance to choose from a large variety of choices. It is from their internal drive that he/she chose a particular course of action. The situation with a low degree of choice demands the action of a person in a particular manner, with limitation of choices. The external motivation is the driver of action in the low degree of choice.
The second factor is the expectedness of behaviour. This factor is associated with the norms and values of society. Various societies have varying values that they use in judging the behaviour of other people. Society encourages some behaviours and discourages others. For this reason, observers use the values and norms of society to gauge the proximity of action to the values and norms of society. Failure to act within the perceived standards is unexpected. Observers learn more about the situation when the person acts in the expected manner (Kite, 2016). It is after learning of the situation that they learn about the individual. On the contrary, people learn more about the individual first when he/she behaves unexpectedly. They assume that the person was driven by his/her intrinsic values as opposed to the situation at the time of action. They also assume that the characteristics displayed at that time will be manifested in other actions. The observers then learn about the situation because the behaviour of the individual was unexpected.
The third factor is the number of desirable outcomes. This factor explains that observers judge action according to the possible benefits that the actor may achieve in choosing a specific course of action. People tend to choose the courses of action that will best serve their interests. The number of desirable outcomes may be many or few (Basnett, 2015). Observers attribute behaviour with a stable personality when the number of desirable outcomes is less. They do so with the belief that the person is envisioning a greater goal in choosing the behaviour that will give him/her a less desirable outcome in a specific situation. On the contrary, they attribute the behaviour of an actor with the instability of personality when the desirable outcomes of a situation are more. They, however, infer that the person has a stable personality when the choice has additional benefits over time.
- Summary of a real event
One of the most interesting events of modern history was the election of Barack Obama as the President of the United States. The former President was elected in 2008 as the 44th president of the US (Crotty, 2015). He was a mixed-race citizen of the US since he was the son of a Black immigrant father and a White mother. The election of a person considered to be Black in the US was a baffling event. The US has, for a considerably long time, been considered an extremely racial country. Racial history began long before the period of slavery and has been a dominant issue in the White-dominated country. An additional issue of concern about the former President is that he was married to a Black woman, Mitchell Obama. It meant that the people of the US consciously elected a president from amongst people of colour, with the knowledge that the First Lady of the country was also a person of colour.
The election of Obama was a turn of events in the US. All the other presidents who have ever been elected in the country are White. The current President of the US is also White. Obama was, for this reason, an exception in the history of elections of the US (Yonk et al., 2017). A possible explanation for the dominance of the White Race in the presidency of the United States is that an overwhelming majority of the electorate of the US is White. Also, there has been an age-old belief in the supremacy of the White race. Although the issue is controversial, it is manifest in many other events that take place in the country. The rise of Obama to the most powerful office of the US was a display of a paradigm shift in the US. It signified, amongst other things, a change in the dominant thought of inferiority of Black people.
Another aspect of the election of Obama is that it involved a change in the number of voters. The election saw a difference in the number of electorates in 2008 as compared to 2004 (Crotty, 2015). A more interesting change in the figures was the rise in numbers of people of colour who took part in the elections. The voter turnout of Hispanics increased by 2.7%, Blacks by 4.9%, and Asians from 44.6% in 2004 to 47.0% in 2008 (Crotty, 2015). Also, there was a notable rise in the number of women and youths who participated in the 2008 elections as compared to 2004. A possible explanation for this change was the increase in the populations of the people of colour in the US. The changes in numbers, gender, and ethnicities of the voters who participated in the 2008 presidential elections also showed changes in thoughts and ideas amongst the American populace.
- Connection of the important elements of the Correspondent Inference Theory to the election of Barack Obama
The election of Obama may be explained using the three factors of the Correspondent Inference theory. The first factor is the degree of choice. The people who were eligible to vote in the 2008 elections had a low degree of choice. They were mandated to either elect Barack Obama or John McCain (Crotty, 2015). The only other choice they had was not to actively take part in the elections. The Correspondent Inference theory explains that observers judge actors with a low degree of choice from the perspective of the situation. They expect that the actor will be dictated by the external factors as opposed to their intrinsic motivation. The limitation of choices meant that Americans had to choose according to the circumstance as opposed to what they felt would best serve their interests. If both the candidates had appealing manifestos, they would have to do a lot of research before choosing the best of the two.
The case would have been different if the elections had a variety of candidates from whom to choose. A wide variety of candidates would have meant a high degree of choice. The world would have viewed the election of Obama as a result of the willingness of the American population as opposed to the tyranny of the situation. The Correspondent Inference theory explains that people judge the cause of the behaviour of an actor as an internal if they have a high degree of choice (Basnett, 2015). It would mean that the Americans would have been driven to choose Obama by their natural preference for him. Being Black or otherwise would not have been a factor in their election of the first non-white President of the United States. It is easy to understand the election of a Black president in a land dominated by Whites by evaluating the factor of unavailability of more choices.
The event may also be explained using the factor of expectedness of behaviour. The election of a Black president was an unexpected behaviour of the American population. According to the theory of Correspondent Inference, the expected behaviour of a person is determined using the norms and values of society (Basnett, 2015). The normal action of the American voters is electing White presidents. The standards of American society are that White people are the persons who are eligible for possessing the ultimate power in the land. The unexpectedness of the electorates to vote for Obama was due to these standards. A viable explanation in this situation, according to the Correspondent Inference theory is that observers in the other nations of the world first learned of the behaviour of America as a post-racist society. They inferred that the non-racist behaviour of American voters was a result of an internal factor. They then learned about the situation owing to the unexpectedness of the voters’ behaviour.
The opposite observation would have emerged if the Americans elected John McCain instead of Obama. People from other countries would have seen it as an expected situation. The action would have taken place in close proximity to the expected norms and values of behaviour created in the minds of the world population at large. According to the Correspondent Inference theory, observers first think of the event before thinking about the actors (Scopelliti, 2015). People would have, for this reason, first thought about the elections. The thought of the cause of electing McCain would have come later. In the current events, however, the Correspondent Inference theory helps in explaining why it most observers first thought and discussed more the cause of the action of Americans electing a Black man before analysing the conditions that dictated the outcome of the elections.
The factor of the number of desirable outcomes explains the personality of American voters. The election of a Black candidate was a deliberate action by the American voters (Yonk et al., 2017). They consciously chose Obama over a White candidate. The consciousness of action is further explained by the changes in numbers of the voters who participated in the election as compared to the 2004 election. The Correspondent Inference theory explains that observers deduce the cause of action from the number of choices that the actor has. They explain the personality of the actor as stable if the outcome of a course of action is undesirable. Electing a Black president may have had several negative outcomes owing to the presence of some degree of racism in the American populace. There was also the risk of outrage from the racist countries that related well with the US. The Americans, however, were observed as possessing a stable personality in general.
The American voters would have been seen as unstable in personality if they had elected McCain. The outcomes would have been largely in their favour. For example, they would not have risked criticism from the racist nations. According to the Correspondent Inference theory, choosing the course of actions that best serves the interests of that specific situation is inferred as to have been caused by the instability of thought (Scopelliti, 2015). Electing McCain at a time when the opposing candidate was Black would have meant that the electorates were more concerned about the desirability of the outcomes of a specific situation as opposed to using a long-term view of the issue of presidency in the US. Taking this perspective makes it easy to understand the long-term orientation of the American voters’ ideas since the election of a single Black candidate to the presidency will have positive effects for a long time. The world is and will continue appreciating America as a post-racist society.
The election of John McCain would also have been considered differently depending on the factors considered. Some observers would have viewed the election of a White President from the aspect of avoidance of the risks associated with the election of a Black man. The Correspondent Inference theory explains that people choose a course of action because they like it. They follow the course of action that best serves their interest (Scopelliti, 2015). The cause of doing so is internal. The presence of additional advantages in choosing the specific course is an external cause. If American voters elected John McCain in 2008, it would have been concluded that they did so to satisfy their desire for a White president. The desire would have been the internal cause. However, the added advantage of doing so is that it would have retained the good relations that the country had with other racist leaders from around the world. The additional benefits would have been the external causes of their choice of president.
The three factors considered in the Correspondent Inference theory explains the perception of Americans in electing Barack Obama in 2008. The limitation of choice, the unexpectedness of behaviour, and the number of desirable outcomes in both the short and long terms depict the causes behind the election choice. The theory may be applied in several other events to explain the causes of various behaviours.
