Introduction Attribution theory is concerned with how people explain events. Social psychologists have become increasingly concerned with the process by which people explain their own success and failures and those of others. People have an innate need to understand and control their environment and thus they function as naïve psychologists developing causal explanations for significant events (Jain, 2005, p.112). These beliefs about causation influence expectations which in turn influence subsequent behavior. There are three different types of attribution which include those that function to identify the cause of an effect, those that seek to identify the responsibility for an event and those that refer to personal qualities such as leadership or trustworthiness (Jain, 2005, p. 114). Attribution theory Attribution theory deals with people trying to make sense out of cause effect relationships. For example, when something like a disaster happens, it is natural that we will always want to attribute it to other related events or actions (Elbogen, 2002, p. 591). This theory states that a man tries to manage his environment in such a way that he is eventually free to be the source of his own behavior. It is through cognitive realization that we are able to determine our behaviors (Bemmels, 1991). The way we view people determines “our perception and judgment of a person’s action” (Robins, Millet & Water- Marsh, 2007, p. 143). An unexplainable event can leave one in a state of dissonance and this motivates one to try to explain the situation in order to reduce the dissonance. It becomes important to know why a particular event happens, so as to help make decision on how to react (Pearce& Denisi, 1983, p.121). Suppose a supervisor gives one an unpleasant assignment. If one sees the assignment as caused by unfairness, one will be tempted to fight it. If on the other hand he attributes the cause to a higher manager’s wishes, one might have a different reaction to the whole situation. Types of errors Typical self attributions for achievement include ability, effort, task difficult or luck. It’s natural that we as human beings find it quite challenging to deal with chances. According to Robins, Millet & Water- Marsh (2007), “most of us like to believe we have control over our world and our destiny” (p.61), something that is not consistently true as sometimes random events control our lives. A person may attribute a failure to be promoted as due to lack of ability whereas another may believe that the failure was primarily due to luck or chance. Several errors occur when making decisions based on attribution theory. These errors include the fundamental attribution error, the actor observer effect and the egocentric bias. In fundamental attribution error people make errors in favour of internal attributions (Curtis, 1994). Rowan makes this mistake where he says that he does not expect the interview to go well or hire Higan. This is because Rowan at one time coached him at local football team and he noted that Hagan was not very open to advice when he was coached. Rowan used internal attributions of Hagan to disqualify him even before he interviewed him. The other error in the case study was the actor- observer effect. When an actor is functioning in a particular situation his attention is usually foc