Causal attribution suggests the following three types. Causal attribution as interpersonal communication

Causal attribution - the process of attributing to another person the reasons for his behavior in the case when there is no information about these reasons. The need to understand the reasons for the interaction partner's behavior arises in connection with the desire to interpret his actions. Attribution is carried out either on the basis of the similarity of the behavior of the perceived person with some other pattern that was in the past experience of the subject of perception, or on the basis of an analysis of one's own motives, assumed in a similar situation (in this case, the identification mechanism may operate).

The measure and degree of attribution in the process of interpersonal perception depends on two indicators: on the degree of uniqueness or typicality of an act and on the degree of its social “desirability” or “undesirability”. Typical and desirable behavior lends itself to an unambiguous interpretation, undesirable and unique behavior allows for many different interpretations and, therefore, gives scope for attributing its causes and characteristics.

The nature of attributions also depends on whether the subject of perception is himself a participant in an event or its observer. In these two different cases, a different type of attribution is chosen. G. Kelly singled out three such types: personal attribution (when the reason is attributed to the person who performs the act), object attribution (when the reason is attributed to the object on which the action is directed) and circumstantial attribution (when the cause of the action is attributed to circumstances). When attributing reasons for success and failures: the participant of the action “blames” mainly the circumstances for the failure, while the observer “blames” the performer himself for the failure.

Attribution errors:

Fundamental error (one! The rest is its manifestation) attribution. Attribute the cause of the action to the person's personality. Restrictions: 1) if a person considers another from an internal locus of control, then he argues like that. Same with the outside. 2) people - a participant or observer of this process. The observer, unlike the participant, does not know the background. Another point: people do not take into account what did not happen, although it may have become the cause.

Motivational attribution errors. We attribute behavior to people based on our passions and motivations.

19. Interpersonal attraction

Methods for determining the accuracy of perception ( from the lecture ):

Expert review

GOAL (Group Personality Assessment)

Attraction (attractiveness, attraction) is an emotional component of interpersonal perception.

Accuracy of interpersonal perception. Personality tests, but, firstly, there are no tests to identify and measure all the characteristics of a person (therefore, comparison, if possible, is only for those characteristics for which there are tests); secondly, as already noted, tests cannot be considered as the only tool for studying personality, since they have certain limitations.

A similar problem arises when the method of expert assessments is used. As experts, people are selected who know well the person who is the object of perception. Their judgments about him (“expert assessments”) are compared with the data of the subject of perception. But even in this case, we essentially again have two series of subjective judgments: the subject of perception and the expert (who also acts as the subject of perception, and, therefore, his judgments by no means exclude the element of evaluation).

In experiments on interpersonal perception, four groups of factors are established: a) variables, with the help of which the subject of perception describes himself; b) previously known personalities; c) the relationship between oneself and the object of perception, and finally d) the situational context in which the process of interpersonal perception is carried out. By correlating these four groups of factors, one can at least determine in which direction perception tends to shift in each particular case.

Arbitrary ideas about the relationship of various characteristics of people were called "illusory correlations." These peculiar "stereotypes" are based not only on "life" experience", but often on scraps of knowledge, information about various psychological concepts that were widespread in the past (for example, Kretschmer's ideas about the relationship between human constitution types and traits of his character, ideas of physiognomy about the correspondence of facial features to certain psychological characteristics, etc.). A.A. Bodalev received very interesting data in this regard: out of 72 people he interviewed regarding how they perceive the external features of other people, 9 answered that a square chin is a sign of strong will, 17 - that a large forehead is a sign of intelligence, 3 identify coarse hair with rebellious character, 16 - fullness with good nature, for two thick lips - a symbol of sexuality, for five short stature - evidence of authority, for one person, eyes close to each other mean irascibility, and for five others beauty is a sign of stupidity (Bodalev, 1982, p. 118). No training can fully remove these worldly generalizations, but it can at least puzzle people on the issue of the “unconditionality” of their judgments about other people.

interpersonal attraction. The area of research related to the identification of the mechanisms of formation of various emotional attitudes towards the perceived person was called the study of attraction. Attraction is both the process of forming the attractiveness of some person for the perceiver, and the product of this process, i.e. some kind of relationship.

Attraction can be viewed as a special kind of social attitude towards another person, in which the emotional component predominates (Gozman, 1987), when this “other” is evaluated mainly in categories characteristic of affective assessments. In particular, the question of the role of the similarity of the characteristics of the subject and the object of perception in the process of formation of attraction, the role of "ecological" characteristics of the communication process (the proximity of communication partners, the frequency of meetings, etc.) is being studied. Different levels of attraction are distinguished: sympathy, friendship, love. There are even two mutually exclusive theories of love: a pessimistic one, which claims the negative impact of love on personality development (the emergence of dependence on a loved one), and an optimistic one, which claims that love helps to relieve anxiety, more complete self-actualization of the individual. Love styles: passion, play, friendship, reflection, obsession, selfless dedication.

Even (or precisely for this reason) such a complex device as the human psyche "jumps" - it is subject to cognitive distortions. Some of them are obvious, so it is easy to deal with them, it is enough to realize. But others are confused and you will not quickly understand them. One such complex phenomenon is causal attribution, a phenomenon of human perception.

Gestalt psychologist Fritz Heider is considered the "father" of causal attribution, which he wrote about as early as the 1920s. In his dissertation, Haider asks the problem of the perception of information and how a person interprets it. After him, many scientists began to study the phenomenon in more detail. We will talk about their theories later, but first we will deal with the concept itself.

Types of causal attribution

Wikipedia defines the term as follows: (from lat. causa - cause, lat. attributio - attribution) - a phenomenon of interpersonal perception. It consists in interpreting, attributing the causes of the actions of another person in the conditions of a lack of information about the real causes of his actions.

When trying to find the reasons for someone else's behavior, people often fall into the trap of prejudice and error. As Fritz Heider said: "Our perception of causality is often distorted by our needs and some cognitive distortions."

Here are examples of cognitive biases due to causal attribution.

Fundamental attribution error

The fundamental attribution error is the explanation of other people's actions by internal factors ("this person is a bore" - internal disposition), and one's own - by external circumstances ("events unfolded in such a way that I could not do otherwise" - external disposition). It becomes most evident when people explain and suggest the behavior of others.

Reasons for fundamental attribution:

Unequal opportunities: ignoring the features due to the role position.
False consent: thinking of one's behavior as typical, and of one's behavior as abnormal.
More reliance on facts than judgments.
Ignoring the informational value of what didn't happen: what didn't happen should also be the basis for evaluating behavior.

Example one: your friend failed an exam that you both took. He seems to have always had a low level of knowledge. You begin to think that he is lazy, doing anything but studying. However, it is possible that he has problems remembering information or some difficult circumstances in the family that prevent him from preparing for exams.

Example two: a stranger's car won't start. You decide to help him by giving some good advice. He disagrees with them or simply ignores them. You get angry and start to think that this person is rude and rejects sincere help. However, he's probably been given the same advice before and it didn't work. After all, he just knows his car better. Or he's having a bad day.

Note that we are talking about internal disposition. If we talk about the external, then if you do not pass the exam, then, most likely, explain this not with a low level of your knowledge, but with bad luck - the most difficult ticket came across. And if it’s your car that doesn’t start, then the person who is trying to help / being clever, even though he was not asked, will be to blame.

External disposition is not necessarily bad. This is to some extent a defense mechanism, because you do not feel guilty, do not spoil your mood and look at the world optimistically. But it can also lead to a constant search for excuses and degradation of the individual.

cultural bias

It happens when someone makes an assumption about a person's behavior based on their cultural practices, backgrounds, and beliefs. For example, people from Western countries are considered to be individualists, while Asians are considered to be collectivists. Well, you probably heard more than one anecdote about Jews, Armenian radio and representatives of many other nationalities.

Difference between participant and observer

As already noted, we tend to attribute the behavior of other people to our dispositional factors, classifying our own actions as situational. Therefore, attribution can differ from person to person depending on their role as a participant or observer - if we are the main actor, we tend to look at the situation differently than when we just observe from the side.

Dispositional (characteristic) attribution

It is the tendency to attribute people's behavior to their dispositions, that is, to their personality, character, and abilities. For example, when a waiter is rude to his client, he may assume that he has a bad temper. There is an instant reaction: "The waiter is a bad person."

Thus, the client succumbed to dispositional attribution, attributing the waiter's behavior directly to his personality, without considering the situational factors that might have caused this rudeness.

Self-serving attribution

When a person receives a promotion, he believes that it is related to his abilities, skills and competence. And if he doesn’t get it, he thinks that the boss doesn’t love him (an external, uncontrollable factor).

Initially, the researchers thought that a person wants to protect his self-esteem in this way. However, later the opinion emerged that when the results are in line with expectations, people tend to attribute it to internal factors.

Defensive attribution hypothesis

The defensive attribution hypothesis is a socio-psychological term referring to a set of beliefs that an individual holds for the function of protecting oneself from anxiety. To put it simply: “I am not the cause of my failure.”

Defensive attribution can also be shown to other people. Let's express it with the phrase: "Good things happen to good people, and bad things happen to bad people." We believe this so that we don't feel vulnerable in situations where we are not in control.

In this case, everything goes to the extreme. When a person hears that someone has been killed in a car accident, he may assume that the driver was drunk or bought a license, and this will definitely never happen to him personally.

All the examples of causal attribution listed above are very similar to the state of a person’s mental discomfort caused by a clash in his mind of conflicting ideas: beliefs, ideas, emotional reactions and values. This theory was proposed by Leon Festinger. He formulates two hypotheses of this phenomenon:

When a person has dissonance, he seeks by all means to reduce the degree of discrepancy between the two settings in order to achieve consonance, that is, compliance. Thus, he gets rid of discomfort.
The person will avoid situations in which this discomfort may increase.

Since you got a D on the exam, why else feel uncomfortable that you didn’t prepare at all, right? Not true. To understand this, let's talk about locus of control.

Causal attribution and locus of control

It should be said that causal attribution is closely related to .

Locus of control is the characterizing property of a person to attribute their successes or failures only to internal or only external factors.

In the case of causal attribution, there are double standards. Whereas the locus of control shows that a person chooses his own reaction. Having received a D on the exam, he can manifest this locus in two different ways:

It's my own fault for getting a deuce. I didn’t prepare much, I walked, I didn’t think about that at all. I'll fix it and start right now.
The ticket, a difficult subject or the teacher is to blame. If not for that, I would have gotten what I deserve.

The difference between causal attribution and locus of control lies in the presence of willpower in the latter case.

To change the locus of control, you must first get rid of the victim syndrome. Take full responsibility even if external factors really strongly influenced the result.

Causal attribution and learned helplessness

Causal attribution, curiously, is often used to understand the essence of the phenomenon of learned helplessness.

Learned/acquired helplessness is a state in which a person does not attempt to improve his condition (does not try to get positive stimuli or avoid negative ones), although he has the opportunity to do so. This happens when he tried several times to change the situation, but failed. And now I got used to my helplessness.

The father of positive psychology, Martin Seligman, demonstrated in his experiments that people put less effort into solving a "solvable" problem after they have suffered a series of failures in "unsolvable" problems.

Seligman believes that people, having received unsatisfactory results, begin to think that further attempts will also not lead to anything good. But the theory of causal attribution says that people do not try to redouble their efforts in order not to lower their self-esteem, because otherwise they will associate failure with their internal personality characteristics. If you do not try, it is much easier to blame external factors for everything.

Theories of causal attribution

The most popular are two of them.

Jones and Davis' correspondence theory

The scientists Jones and Davis presented a theory in 1965 in which they proposed that people place emphasis on intentional behavior (as opposed to random or thoughtless).

This theory helps to understand the process of internal attribution. Scientists believed that a person tends to make this mistake when he sees inconsistencies between motive and behavior. For example, he believes that if someone behaves friendly, then he is friendly.

Dispositional (that is, internal) attributes provide us with information from which we can make predictions about a person's future behavior. Davies used the term "correspondent inference" to refer to the case when an observer thinks that a person's behavior is consistent with his personality.

So, what makes us make a correspondent conclusion? Jones and Davis say we use five sources of information:

Choice: if the behavior is freely chosen, it is considered that it is due to internal (dispositional) factors.
Accidental or intentional behavior: Behavior that is intentional is more likely to be related to the person's personality, while inadvertent behavior is more likely to be related to the situation or external causes.
social desirability: you watch someone sitting on the floor, despite the fact that there are free chairs. Such behavior has low social desirability (inconsistency) and is likely to fit the personality of the individual.
Hedonic Relevance: when the behavior of another person is directly aimed at benefiting or harming us.
personalism: When another person's behavior appears to affect us, we assume that it is "personal" and not just a by-product of the situation we are in.

Kelly covariance model

Kelly's (1967) covariance model is the best-known attribution theory. Kelly developed a logical model for evaluating whether a particular action should be attributed to some characteristic (internal) motive or environment (external factor).

The term "covariance" simply means that a person has information from several observations at different times and in different situations and can perceive the covariance of the observed effect and its causes.

He argues that in trying to discover the causes of behavior, people act like scientists. In particular, they take into account three types of evidence.

Consensus: the degree to which other people behave in the same way in a similar situation. For example, Alexander smokes a cigarette when he goes to lunch with his friend. If his friend also smokes, his behavior has a high consensus. If only Alexander smokes, then he is low.
distinctiveness: the degree to which a person behaves similarly in similar situations. If Alexander only smokes when he is with friends, his behavior is highly distinctive. If in any place and at any time, then it is low.
Consistency: the extent to which a person behaves this way each time the situation occurs. If Alexander only smokes when he is with friends, the consistency is high. If only on special occasions, then low.

Let's look at an example to help understand this attribution theory. Our subject is Alex. His behavior is laughter. Alexey laughs at the comedian's stand-up performance with his friends.

If everyone in the room is laughing, the consensus is high. If only Alexei, then low.
If Aleksey laughs only at the jokes of a particular comedian, the distinctiveness is high. If above everyone and everything, then low.
If Alexey only laughs at the jokes of a particular comedian, the consistency is high. If he rarely laughs at this comedian's jokes, she is low.

Now if:

everyone laughs at our jokes of this comedian;
and will not laugh at the jokes of the next comedian, given that they usually laugh;

then we are dealing with external attribution, that is, we assume that Alexei is laughing, because the comedian is very funny.

On the other hand, if Alexey is a person who:

the only one who laughs at this comedian's jokes;
laughs at the jokes of all comedians;
always laughing at the jokes of a particular comedian;

then we are dealing with internal attribution, that is, we assume that Alexey is a person who likes to laugh.

So there are people who attribute causation to correlation. That is, they see that two situations follow each other, and therefore assume that one causes the other.

One problem, however, is that we may not have enough information to make such a decision. For example, if we don't know Alexey very well, then we won't necessarily know for sure whether his behavior will be consistent over time. So what should be done?

According to Kelly, we return to past experiences and:

We multiply the number of necessary reasons. For example, we see that an athlete wins a marathon and we believe that he must be a very strong athlete, train hard and be motivated. After all, all this is necessary to win.
Or increase the number of sufficient reasons. For example, we see that an athlete has failed a doping test, and we believe that he either tried to deceive everyone or accidentally took a prohibited substance. Or maybe he was deceived. One reason would be enough.

If your level of English is above average, you can watch the following video, in which the teacher from Khan Academy explains the term "covariance" in simple terms.

Conclusion

It is very important to avoid causal attribution, especially when it ruins life and leads to trouble. Stop your train of thought for a moment and understand the reason for the behavior of a particular person - this is usually enough not to jump to conclusions. This will improve observational abilities and teach.

In addition, you should understand that there is no problem in attributing your failures to external factors, and successes to internal ones (especially if it is deserved). Just do not make a blind out of this, but look at the situation.

We wish you good luck!

Causal attribution Etymology.

Comes from lat. causa - reason and attribuo - I give.

Author. Specificity.

An individual's interpretation of the causes of other people's behavior. Under the influence of motivational factors, it significantly deviates from logically justified forms. The studies revealed certain patterns of causal attribution, in particular the following: if failures are attributed to external events, and successes are attributed to internal ones, then this has a motivating effect on activity.

Psychological Dictionary. THEM. Kondakov. 2000 .

Causal attribution

CAUSAL ATRIBUTION (With. 297) (from lat. causa - reason + attribuo - I give, endow) - a phenomenon of social perception, a person's interpretation of the reasons for the behavior of another person, as well as his own. Translating an unpronounceable term into the native language, the essence of causal attribution can be defined as the attribution, attribution of the causes of this or that act to certain sources - external or internal. So, if one person hit another, the reason for this can be seen in the fact that he himself is an evil and aggressive person by nature (that is, the action is dictated by his internal qualities), or that he is forced to defend himself or defend his interests in this way ( that is, circumstances forced him to take this step). Such judgments are not always based on logic or on objectively observable reality, but rather are dictated by our tendency to interpret the sources of behavior. Such interpretations are largely individual, but they also have common features.

Researchers of causal attribution proceeded from the following provisions: 1) people in the process of interpersonal perception and cognition are not limited to obtaining externally observable information, but strive to clarify the causes of behavior and draw conclusions regarding the corresponding personal qualities of the observed person; 2) since information about a person obtained as a result of observation is most often insufficient for reliable conclusions, the observer finds probable causes of behavior, corresponding personality traits and attributes them to the observed person; 3.) such a causal interpretation significantly affects the behavior of the observer.

Attribution theories were developed on the basis of a generalization of the facts of social perception (interpersonal perception), but their authors later began to extend their explanatory principles and terminology to other areas, such as motivation.

What is the essence of attribution theories? “Attributive theories in the broad sense of the term,” writes L.D. Ross, “consider the attempts of an ordinary person to understand the causes and consequences of events that he is a witness to; in other words, they study the naive psychology of the "man in the street" - how he interprets his own behavior and the behavior of others. Such broad goals of study were the result of a different conception of man than was the case in behaviorism or Freudianism. Researchers of causal attribution consider each person as an intuitive psychologist, equal in status to a research psychologist. The goal of a professional psychologist is to learn the ways of perceiving and understanding events and people that an intuitive psychologist uses. These methods, as it turned out, suffer from a number of disadvantages associated with: 1) errors in encoding, reproduction, analysis of the interpreted data; 2) chronic shortage of time required for assessment; 3) the action of distracting motivation.

F. Haider is considered to be the founder of the research on attributive processes. The essence of the concept he proposed is as follows. A person strives to form a consistent and coherent picture of the world. In this process, he develops, in the words of Haider, "worldly psychology" as a result of attempts to explain to himself the reasons for the behavior of another person and, above all, the motives that caused him. Heider emphasizes the importance of whether we explain a given phenomenon by factors localized inside the person or outside of him, for example, we can explain a person’s error by his low abilities (internal cause) or the difficulty of the task (external cause). The nature of the explanation in each individual case is determined not only by the level of development of the subject, his own motives, but also by the need to maintain a cognitive balance. For example, if a person believes that another person treats him well, then any negative act of his will “fall out” of the overall picture, psychological forces will come into action, seeking to restore balance.

Many provisions of Heider's concept have been tested and confirmed experimentally. Heider himself refers to M. Zillig's experiment, conducted back in 1928. In this experiment, two groups of children - popular and unpopular - performed in front of their classmates with gymnastic exercises. Although the "popular" made mistakes on purpose, and the "unpopular" performed flawlessly, the audience later said otherwise. Haider points to this fact as an example of the attribution (attribution) of "bad" qualities to "bad" people.

In their research into how we interpret the world around us, social psychologists have discovered a generalized trend they call the fundamental attribution error. It consists in exaggerating the importance of personal (dispositional) factors to the detriment of situational, or "environmental" influences. As observers, we often lose sight of the fact that each person plays many social roles, and we often witness only one of them. Therefore, the influence of social roles in explaining human behavior is easily overlooked. This, in particular, is well illustrated by the ingenious experiment of L. Ross, T. Ambile and D. Steinmetz. The experiment was carried out in the form of a quiz, similar to the popular televised erudite contests. The subjects were instructed to play one of two roles - the presenter, whose task is to ask difficult questions, and the participant in the quiz, who had to answer them; The distribution of roles was done randomly. An observer, informed about the organization of the quiz, looked at this play-out show, and then assessed the general erudition of the presenter and the participant who answered the questions. It is easy for any of us to imagine ourselves in the role of such an observer, remembering what feelings we experience when we see how on the TV screen the presenters experience the erudition of a "man from the street" who is eager for a cash prize. The impression in most cases is this: on the one hand, we see a smart, sophisticated, knowledgeable person, on the other, an awkward and narrow-minded person. Just by asking tricky questions, the presenter gives the impression of being smart, and the quiz participant is faced with the need to answer them (and probably gives in to many), so he will show off stupidly. This is exactly what Ross and his colleagues found: to observers, the presenters seem much more knowledgeable than the participants. Although in fact it is highly unlikely that the hosts were more erudite than the participants, since everyone got their role through random distribution. And what is most interesting: it was known to the observers too! And all the same, when making their judgments about the performers of the quiz, the observers were unable to take into account the influence of social roles and fell into the trap of attributing what they saw to personal qualities.

If the fundamental attribution error were limited to judgments in such game situations, it would hardly need to be given attention. However, its implications are extremely wide. E. Aronson in his well-known book "The Social Animal" gives an example that is typical for America, and has recently been well understood by us. Watching a person who, say, picks up empty bottles on the street, we are likely to wince in disgust: “Nothing! Bum! If he really wanted to find a decent job, he would have found it long ago!” Such an assessment in some case may correspond exactly to reality, but it is also possible that it is a manifestation of a fundamental attribution error. Do we know what circumstances caused a man to fall like that? Hardly! And the characterization is already ready for him.

One of the significant results of the experimental study of causal attribution is establishing systematic differences in a person's explanation of his behavior and the behavior of other people. We tend to interpret our own mistakes and even unworthy actions as forced, dictated by unfavorable circumstances, while successes and achievements are more likely to be interpreted as a natural consequence of our high merits. In relation to other people, the opposite pattern is more likely to apply - their successes are more likely to be regarded as a consequence of "luck", a favorable combination of circumstances, someone's patronage, etc., but misses and awkwardness are more likely to be regarded as a consequence of negative personality traits. Self-justification like “What else can I do - life is like this today!”, Envious “Some are lucky!” (in the sense - clearly undeserved), squeamish "What else to expect from such a worthless person ?!" are all everyday examples of this pattern. It is worth considering whether we do not too often and always justifiably resort to these formulas ...

An important pattern found in many experiments is that a person exaggerates his own role in the situation in which he is involved - even if in a passive role. The very fact of participating in an event makes us feel (often unreasonably) our ability to influence its course and results. E. Langer in a simple experiment demonstrated such an "illusion of control." The study consisted of subjects buying lottery tickets. The important point was that some of them got the right to choose which ticket to buy, while others had to take the ticket that the experimenter offered them. The subjects were then offered the opportunity to sell their ticket back to the experimenter. Langer discovered the following pattern: those subjects who chose the tickets themselves bid up the price for them, sometimes four times the price set by the subjects who got the tickets according to the order. Apparently, the subjects had the illusion that their actions in choosing a ticket could affect the result, they considered the ticket that they chose themselves to be “happier”, although it is quite obvious that the winning was determined by chance and none of the tickets had a higher probability turn out to be winning. However, the illusion of control generated by egocentric thinking is very strong. Therefore, it is not surprising that in many situations, predetermined either by mere chance or someone else's choice, we are kindly given an illusory opportunity to "pull out a lucky ticket" ourselves.

Importantly, knowing the patterns and fallacies of causal attribution helps make it a more effective tool for building interaction. Thus, knowledge of the existence of a “fundamental attribution error” can direct our perception along a more correct path of accounting for various situational influences on a person. It is also very important to be aware of your own attribution style, which is present in any communication. It is very useful to answer the question: who am I - a “situationist”, who always tries to deduce everything from circumstances, or a subjectivist, who explains everything by the efforts and desires of a person? The experience of psychologists involved in "attributive psychotherapy" shows that in many situations, awareness and a change in the style of attributing causes lead to an increase in the success of communication.

Popular psychological encyclopedia. - M.: Eksmo. S.S. Stepanov. 2005 .

Causal attribution

Our conclusion about the causes of a particular situation. If, for example, you believe that the reason for a good mark in an exam is the quality of your study. you make a causal attribution, attributing your success to quality teaching (situational attribution).

Psychology. AND I. Dictionary-reference book / Per. from English. K. S. Tkachenko. - M.: FAIR-PRESS. Mike Cordwell. 2000 .

See what "causal attribution" is in other dictionaries:

Causal attribution- (from lat. causa cause lat. attributio attribution) a phenomenon of interpersonal perception. It consists in interpreting, attributing the causes of the actions of another person in the face of a lack of information about the actual ... ... Wikipedia

Causal Attribution- (from Latin causa cause and attribuo I endow) the phenomenon of social interaction, authored by F. Haider. An individual's interpretation of the causes of other people's behavior. Under the influence of motivational factors, it significantly deviates from logically justified forms. AT… … Psychological Dictionary

CAUSAL ATRIBUTION- (from Latin causa - reason, attribuo - I give) - a psychological mechanism of social interaction that determines the interpretation by an individual of the reasons for the behavior of other people. The concept was introduced by F. Haider. Studying To. and. comes from the following: 1) people, ... ...

Attribution is causal- (lat. attribution causa cause) attributing to other people certain causes of behavior, although in fact these people can be guided by completely different motives and motives. So, the behavior of other people is explained by the fact that they are aggressive, ... ... Encyclopedic Dictionary of Psychology and Pedagogy

- (from the English attribute to attribute, endow) the attribution to social objects (person, group, social community) of characteristics that are not represented in the field of perception. The need for A. is due to the fact that the information that a person can give ... ... Great Psychological Encyclopedia

- (from Latin causa cause) a concept used in social psychology to denote: a) the principles of causality analysis in the field of social perception (see social perception); b) stable ideas about specific causal relationships. It… … Great Psychological Encyclopedia

Attribution- [English] attribute attribution] attribution to social objects (a person, a group, a social community) of characteristics that are not represented in the field of perception. The need for A. is due to the fact that the information that observation can give a person ... ... Psychological lexicon

In social psychology, there is a whole section devoted to the study of the patterns of perception of the causes of actions - causal attribution. The mechanism of causal attribution refers to the situation of social cognition and means a causal explanation of actions. The ability to interpret behavior is inherent in every person, it is the baggage of his everyday psychology. In any communication, we somehow, without even asking special questions, get an idea of “why” and “why” a person did something. We can say that it is given to a person simultaneously with the perception of another person’s act to perceive its “real” reason.

Attribution is carried out either on the basis of the similarity of the behavior of the perceived person with some other pattern that was in the past experience of the subject of perception, or on the basis of an analysis of one's own motives, assumed in a similar situation (in this case, the identification mechanism may operate). But, one way or another, a whole system of ways of such attribution (attribution) arises.

In social psychology, there is a whole section devoted to the study of the patterns of perception of the causes of actions - causal attribution. This section clearly distinguishes the theoretical and experimental lines of study of the process of causal attribution. The theory tries to elevate to the rank of scientific analysis those unconscious cognitive processes that occur in the head of a “naive subject” engaged in causal attribution. The most famous are the schemes of causal analysis created by E. Jones and K. Davis, as well as G. Kelly.

The measure and degree of attribution in the process of interpersonal perception depends on two indicators:
1) the degree of uniqueness or typicality of an act;
2) on the degree of his social "desirability" or "undesirability".

In the first case, this refers to the fact that typical behavior is behavior prescribed by role models, and therefore it is easier to unambiguously interpret. On the contrary, unique behavior is open to many different interpretations, and therefore gives scope for attributing causes and characteristics to it.

In the second case, socially “desirable” means behavior that corresponds to social and cultural norms and, therefore, is relatively easily and unambiguously explained. When such norms are violated (socially “undesirable” behavior), the range of possible explanations expands.

In other works, it was shown that the nature of attributions also depends on whether the subject of perception is himself a participant in an event or an observer of it. In these two different cases, a different type of attribution is chosen. G. Kelly identified three such types:
1) personal attribution - when the reason is attributed to the person who personally performs the act;
2) object attribution - when the reason is attributed to the object to which the action is directed;
3) circumstantial (or situational) attribution - when the cause of what is happening is attributed to circumstances.

In life, we use all three schemes from time to time, but we gravitate, feel personal sympathy for one or two. Moreover, what is very important: the scheme used does not seem to us to be a subjective psychological predilection, but a reflection of objective reality, so to speak, the ultimate truth: “that’s exactly what it is, I know.”

However, the most interesting and practically significant section of causal attribution is the study of the truth of the attributions we make, the origin of regular errors and distortions.

It was found that the observer of behavior more often uses personal attribution to describe the reasons for the participant's act, and the participant most often explains the reason for his behavior by circumstances. So, for example, when attributing the reasons for success and failure: the participant in the action “blames” mainly the circumstances for the failure, while the observer “blames” the performer himself for the failure. Thus, in explaining someone's behavior, we underestimate the impact of the situation and overestimate the degree of manifestation of the individual's traits and attitudes. This phenomenon is called the "fundamental attribution error".

Because of this error, observers often tend to overestimate the role and responsibility of the individual in what is happening. People often explain their own behavior in terms of the situation, but believe that others are responsible for their own behavior. We may say, “I’m angry because things aren’t going the way we want,” but others, seeing our behavior, may think, “He (she) is acting aggressively because he (she) is an angry person.”

E. Jones and R. Nisbet in their extensive work on this issue come to the conclusion that the reason for the differences in the views of the actor and the observer lies in the appeal of both to different aspects of information. For the observer, the external environment is constant and stable, while the actions of the actor are changeable, incomprehensible, which is why he pays attention to them, first of all. For the actor, his actions are planned and built, and the environment is unstable, so he focuses on himself. As a result, the actor perceives his actions as a reaction to external signals (situational attribution), and the observer sees the activity of the actor changing the constant environment (personal attribution).

First, let's understand what causal attribution is. This phrase comes from the Latin words causa - cause and attribuo - I attach, endow. Those. as a result, we have a special phenomenon in the interpersonal perception of people, which consists in interpreting the actions of others, a subjective explanation of the causes of their behavior in conditions of limited information. For example, when grandmothers in the entrance see a young girl coming out of the front door, they think out that she is going on a date and that she is a windy person. Their speculation stems from a lack of sufficient information about this girl.

The very theory of causal attribution came to us from Western social psychology, where it was formulated in general terms as Attributiontheory scientists such as Fritz Heider (creator), Harold Kelly, Edward Johnson, Daniel Gilbert, Lee Ross and others. They saw their goal in tracing the mechanisms of building cause-and-effect relationships by ordinary citizens, to see how they explain not only the events taking place next to them, but also their own behavior.

The following mechanism of causal attribution helps us understand some important things about others: people, observing the behavior of another person, seek to find out for themselves the reasons for this behavior → limited information encourages people to formulate probable reasons for the behavior of another person → reasons for the behavior of another person, which people determine for themselves, affect their attitude towards this person. This explains such phenomena as, for example, why the neighbors look askance at you, why the teacher does not like your child, why you are rude in transport, and many others! Moreover, Haider, while studying the "man in the street", who is guided by common sense in explaining the behavior of other people, came to the conclusion that the opinion about a person (a good person - a bad person) automatically applies to all his behavior (does the right thing - bad arrives). That is why it is so difficult for you to change the wrong opinion of you from some around you!

Researcher G. Kelly identified three types of attribution:

personal attribution - the reason is attributed to the person performing the action (the child ate the candy because he was ill-mannered);
object attribution - the reason is attributed to the object to which the action is directed (the child ate the candy because this candy contains a lot of substances that cause addiction in children);
circumstantial attribution - the reason is attributed to the circumstances (the child ate the candy because lunch was a few hours ago).

An interesting fact is that participants in events more often use circumstantial attribution, while observers use personal attribution. This is called the fundamental error. So, for example, your child says that he was late for school because the road was very snowy/dug up/there was an angry dog, and the teacher may say that he was late for school because he is lazy/irresponsible/does not want to study.

What determines the degree of attribution, the depth of attribution? It depends on two factors: compliance of actions with role expectations and cultural norms. Those. the more you conform to existing stereotypes, the less you are credited. And why should you ascribe something if you behave predictably? After all, there is no shortage of information about you in this case.

I would like to end this article with the following: any theory gives us food for thought. So that,

before condemning another person - pay attention to the circumstances in which he found himself;
before making excuses - look deep into yourself, perhaps the reason lies not in your environment, but in yourself;
not all nice people do nice things and not all unpleasant people do bad things;
if you want to live an extraordinary life, demonstrate your bright individuality - keep in mind that you will become a victim of causal attribution, you cannot do anything about it, but whoever is warned is armed!

Harmony to you and your loved ones!