In this article, the author claims that a
harmful assimetry has been growing in Attribution
Theory literature. This assimetry is
characterized by a great multitude of empirical
research and by a very scarce conceptual
production. As an attempt to counter this
state of affairs, the author provides a detailed
analysis of the theoretical process of generation
and development of Kelley's ANOVA
model, criticizes it and presents two alternative
Attribution models (Saspar's inductive
Logical Model and present author's «Method
of Differences» - based Model). The main
insufficiences of these lines of work are also
spelled out. Finally, the author tries to antecipate
what steps are to be taken to overcome
these insufficiences. Specifically it is argued
that the commonsense process of explaining
events should be viewed as a knowledge-based
inference process and the lay attributor as an
hypothesis tester
