Casual attribution. Causal attribution - what is it?

Causal attribution is the desire of people to find an explanation for what happens to them and around them. People need such explanations for various reasons.

1. When a person understands what is happening to him and around him, he is able to control what is happening and, to the extent possible, avoid unpleasant consequences and unforeseen events both for himself and for people close to him.
2. In this case, a person gets rid of the feeling of anxiety associated with a lack of understanding of what is happening.
3. Understanding what is happening allows a person to behave rationally in the current situation and choose a rational course of action.

By stated reasons a person searches and finds for himself at least some explanation for what is happening. Even if this explanation ultimately turns out to be incorrect, it can still allow the person to solve at least one of the problems outlined above, for example, temporarily calm down and be able to solve the problem in a calm environment on a reasonable basis.

One of the variants of the theory of causal attribution was proposed by the American scientist F. Filler. It argues that one person's perception of the behavior of other people depends largely on what that person perceives as the reasons for the behavior of the people he perceives.

It is assumed that there are two main types of causal attribution: interval (internal) and external (external). Internal causal attribution is the attribution of the causes of behavior to a person’s own psychological properties and characteristics, and external causal attribution is the attribution of the causes of a person’s behavior to external circumstances beyond his control. A person who is characterized by internal causal attribution, perceiving the behavior of other people, sees its causes in their own psychology, and someone who is characterized by external causal attribution sees these reasons in the environment. Combined, internal-external attribution is also possible.

Modern attribution theory is a broader concept than causal attribution. It describes and explains all kinds of attributive processes, that is, the processes of attributing something to something or someone, for example, certain properties to some object.

The general attributive theory comes from F. Heider's idea of attribution. This theory assumes the following order of events.

1. A person observes how someone else behaves in a certain social situation.
2. From the results of his observation, a person draws a conclusion about the individual goals and intentions of the person he observes on the basis perception and evaluation of his actions.
3. The person attributes to the observed certain psychological properties that explain the observed behavior.

When finding or explaining the reasons for certain events, people are guided by certain rules, make conclusions in accordance with them and often make mistakes.

F. Heider, the author of another well-known theory of causal attribution (along with Fiedler), came to the conclusion that all possible explanations of people are divided into two options; explanations with a focus on internal, psychological or subjective reasons, and explanations in which references to external circumstances beyond people's control predominate.

Another specialist in the theory and phenomenology of causal attribution, G. Kelly, identifies three main factors that influence a person’s choice of a method of internal or external explanation of what is happening. This is the constancy of behavior, its dependence on the situation and the similarity of behavior this person with the behavior of other people.

Constancy of behavior means the consistency of a person's actions in the same situation. The dependence of behavior on the situation includes the idea that in different situations people behave differently. The similarity of a person's behavior to the behavior of other people implies that the person whose behavior is being explained behaves in the same way as other people behave.

The choice in favor of an internal or external explanation of behavior, according to Kelly, is made as follows:

if a person concludes that a given individual behaves in the same way in the same situation, then this person attributes his behavior to the influence of the situation;
if, as a result of observing the behavior of another individual, a person comes to the conclusion that in the same situation the behavior of the observed person changes, then he explains such behavior internal reasons;
if the observer states that in different situations the person he is assessing behaves differently, then he is inclined to conclude that the behavior of this person depends on the situation;
if an observer sees that in different situations the behavior of the person he observes remains the same, then this is the basis for the conclusion that such behavior depends on the person himself;
in the event that it is discovered that different people in the same situation they behave in the same way, a conclusion is made in favor of the predominant influence of the situation on behavior;
If an observer finds that different people behave differently in the same situation, then this serves as a basis for attributing that behavior individual characteristics people.

It has been established that when explaining or assessing the behavior of other people, we tend to underestimate the impact of the situation and overestimate the impact of a person’s personal characteristics. This phenomenon is called the fundamental attribution error. This error does not always appear, but only when the probability of attributing a cause to external or internal circumstances is approximately the same. Based on Kelly's concept described above, we can state that most often the fundamental attribution error will manifest itself in conditions where the person explaining the behavior cannot make a definite decision regarding the extent to which it is constant, depends on the situation and is similar. with the behavior of other people.

In the cause-and-effect explanation of one's own behavior and the behavior of other people, a person acts differently. In the same way, a person explains the behavior of those people whom he likes or dislikes in different ways. There are certain patterns at work here, which, in particular, can manifest themselves in the following:

if a person has done a good deed, then he is inclined to explain it by his own merits, and not by the influence of the situation;
if an action committed by a person is bad, then he, on the contrary, is more inclined to explain it by the influence of the situation, and not by his own shortcomings.

When a person has to explain the actions of other people, he usually acts as follows.

1. If a good deed was committed by a person who is unsympathetic to this individual, such an act is explained by the influence of the situation, and not by the personal merits of the person who committed it.
2. If a good deed was performed by a person whom this individual likes, then he will be inclined to explain it by the own merits of the person who committed the deed.
3. If a bad deed is committed by a person who is antipathetic to a given individual, then it is explained by the personal shortcomings of the person who committed it.
4. If a bad act was committed by a person who is liked by the individual evaluating him, then in this case the corresponding act is explained with reference to the current situation, and not to the shortcomings of the person who committed it.

Another common error in causal attribution is that when a person explains the reasons for something, he looks for and finds them exactly where he was looking for them. This refers to the fact that if a person in a certain way mood, then this mood will inevitably manifest itself in the way he will explain what is happening.

For example, if, observing a person’s behavior, we are initially determined to justify it, then we will definitely find appropriate justifications; if from the very beginning we are determined to condemn the same behavior, then we will certainly condemn it.

This is manifested in a characteristic way, for example, in legal proceedings, which since ancient times has been focused on the presence and exclusion of subjectivity in human judgments and assessments. The prosecutor, however, is always opposed to the defendant. He accordingly looks for and finds arguments aimed at condemning him. The defense attorney, on the contrary, is initially inclined in favor of the defendant, and accordingly, he always looks for and finds compelling arguments in order to acquit the same defendant. WITH psychological point From a perspective, this practice is of interest because the above-described errors of causal attribution are clearly manifested in the attitudes and actions of the prosecutor and defense attorney.

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’s easy to fight them, just realize it. But others are confusing and you can’t figure them out quickly. One of these complex phenomena is causal attribution, a phenomenon of human perception.

Gestalt psychologist Fritz Heider is considered the “father” of causal attribution, which he wrote about back in the 1920s. In his dissertation, Haider addresses the problem of information perception 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 Latin causa - cause, Latin attributio - attribution) - a phenomenon of interpersonal perception. It consists of interpreting, attributing reasons for another person’s actions in conditions of a lack of information about the actual reasons for his actions.

Trying to find the reasons for other people's behavior, people often fall into the traps of prejudice and error. As Fritz Heider said: “Our perception of causality is often distorted by our needs and certain cognitive distortions.”

Here are examples of cognitive distortions 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 have done anything differently” - external disposition). It becomes most obvious when people explain and assume the behavior of others.

Reasons for fundamental attribution:

Unequal opportunities: ignoring the characteristics determined by the role position.
False agreement: viewing one's behavior as typical and behavior that differs from it as abnormal.
More trust in facts than in judgments.
Ignoring the informational value of what did not happen: what was not done should also be the basis for evaluating behavior.

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

Example two: stranger the car won't start. You decide to help him by giving him a couple practical advice. He disagrees with them or simply ignores them. You become angry and begin to perceive this person as rude and rejecting 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 was having a bad day.

Note that we're talking about about internal disposition. If we talk about external ones, then if you do not pass the exam, then, most likely, you will explain this not by the low level of your knowledge, but by bad luck - you got the most difficult ticket. And if your car doesn’t start, then the person who is trying to help/being smart, even though he wasn’t asked, will be to blame.

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

Cultural prejudice

It occurs when someone makes assumptions about a person's behavior based on their cultural practices, background, and beliefs. For example, it is believed that people from Western countries individualists, while Asians are collectivists. Well, you’ve probably heard more than one joke 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 may vary from person to person depending on their role as a participant or observer - if we are the main actor, we tend to view the situation differently than when we are simply observing from the outside.

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 treats his customer rudely, the customer may assume that he has a bad character. There is an instant reaction: “The waiter is a bad person.”

Thus, the customer succumbed to dispositional attribution, attributing the waiter's behavior directly to his personality, without considering the situational factors that could cause this rudeness.

Self-serving attribution

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

Initially, researchers thought that the person wanted to protect their self-esteem in this way. However, later it was believed that when results meet expectations, people tend to attribute this to internal factors.

Defensive attribution hypothesis

The defensive attribution hypothesis is a social psychological term that refers to a set of beliefs that a person holds in order to protect themselves from anxiety. To put it simply: “I am not the cause of my failure.”

Defensive attributions can also be made towards other people. Let's put it in the phrase: "Good things happen to good people, and the bad ones with the bad ones.” We believe this so we don't feel vulnerable in situations where we have no control over them.

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

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

When a person experiences dissonance, he strives with all his might to reduce the degree of discrepancy between two attitudes in order to achieve consonance, that is, correspondence. This way he gets rid of discomfort.
The person will avoid situations in which this discomfort may increase.

Since you got a D in the exam, why should you feel discomfort because 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 characteristic ability of an individual to attribute his successes or failures only to internal or only to external factors.

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

It's my own fault that I got a bad grade. I didn’t prepare much, I walked around, I thought about absolutely the wrong things. I'll fix it and start right now.
The ticket, the difficult subject, or the teacher are to blame. If it weren't for this, I would get what I deserve.

The difference between causal attribution and locus of control is the presence of willpower in the second case.

To change your locus of control, you must first get rid of the victim syndrome. Take full responsibility even if external factors really had a big impact on the results.

Causal attribution and learned helplessness

Causal attribution, interestingly enough, is often used to understand the phenomenon of learned helplessness.

Learned/acquired helplessness is a state of a person in which he does not make attempts to improve his condition (does not try to receive positive stimuli or avoid negative ones), although he has such an opportunity. This happens when he has tried several times to change the situation but failed. And now I’m used to my helplessness.

Father 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 at “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 so as not to lower their self-esteem, because otherwise they will attribute failure to their internal personal characteristics. If you don’t try, it’s much easier to blame external factors for everything.

Causal attribution theories

The most popular are two of them.

Jones and Davis Correspondence Theory

Scientists Jones and Davis presented a theory in 1965 that suggested that people pay attention special attention intentional behavior (as opposed to random or thoughtless).

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

Dispositional (i.e. internal) attributes provide us with information from which we can make predictions about a person's future behavior. Davis 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 leads us to draw a correspondent conclusion? Jones and Davis say that we use five sources of information:

Choice: If behavior is freely chosen, it is considered to be caused by internal (dispositional) factors.
Accidental or intentional behavior: Behavior that is intentional is more likely to be related to the person's personality, while random behavior is more likely to be related to the situation or external causes.
Social desirability: You watch someone sitting on the floor, even though there are free chairs. This behavior has low social desirability (discrepancy) and is likely to be consistent with the individual's personality.
Hedonic relevance: when another person's behavior is directly intended to benefit or harm us.
Personalism: When another person's behavior seems likely to affect us, we assume that it is "personal" and not simply a by-product of the situation in which we find ourselves.

Kelly covariance model

Kelly's (1967) covariance model is the most famous attribution theory. Kelly developed a logical model for assessing whether a particular action should be attributed to some characteristic (intrinsic) motive or environment(external factor).

The term "covariance" simply means that a person has information from multiple observations in different times and across situations and can perceive covariation between the observed effect and its causes.

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

Consensus: The degree to which other people behave similarly 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 extent to which a person behaves similarly in similar situations. If Alexander smokes only when socializing with friends, his behavior is highly distinctive. If in any place and at any time, then it is low.
Consistency: The degree to which a person behaves in this way every time a situation occurs. If Alexander smokes only when socializing with friends, consistency is high. If only by special occasions, then low.

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

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

Now if:

everyone laughs at this comedian’s jokes;
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 Alexey laughs 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 laughs at the jokes of a particular comedian;

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

So there are people who attribute causation to correlation. That is, they see two situations following 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, we won't necessarily know for sure whether his behavior will be consistent over time. So what should you do?

According to Kelly, we go back to past experiences and:

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

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

Conclusion

It is very important to avoid causal attribution, especially when it ruins your life and leads to trouble. Stop your flow of thoughts for a moment and understand the reason for the behavior of a particular person - this is usually enough to avoid making sudden conclusions. This will improve observation skills and teach.

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

We wish you good luck!

Causal attribution - the process of attributing to another person the reasons for his behavior in the case when information about these reasons is absent. The need to understand the reasons for the behavior of an interaction partner 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 model that existed 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: the degree of uniqueness or typicality of the act and the degree of its social “desirability” or “undesirability.” Typical and desirable behavior lends itself to 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 an observer of it. In these two different cases, a different type of attribution is chosen. G. Kelly identified three such types: personal attribution (when the cause is attributed personally to the person committing the act), object attribution (when the cause is attributed to the object to which the action is directed) and circumstantial attribution (when the cause of the action is attributed to the circumstances). When attributing reasons for success And failures: the participant in the action “blames” the failure primarily on the circumstances, while the observer “blames” the failure primarily on the performer himself.

Attribution errors:

Fundamental error (one! The rest is its manifestation) of attribution. Attribute the reason for the action to the person's personality. Limitations: 1) if a person views another from an internal locus of control, then that’s how he thinks. Same with the outside. 2) person – participant or observer of this process. The observer, unlike the participant, does not know the background. Another point: the person does not take into account what did not happen, although it may have been the cause.

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

19. Interpersonal attraction

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

Expert assessment

GOL (group personality assessment)

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

Interpersonal perceptual accuracy. Personality tests, but, firstly, there are no tests to identify and measure all the characteristics of a person (hence, if a comparison is possible, then 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. People who know well the person whose cat is the object of perception are selected as experts. Their judgments about it (“expert assessments”) are compared with the data of the subject of perception. But even in this case, we essentially again have two rows of subjective judgments: the subject of perception and the expert (who also acts as a subject of perception, and, therefore, his judgments do not at all exclude the element of evaluation).

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

Arbitrary ideas about the connection between different characteristics of a person are 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 connection between a person’s constitutional types and his character traits, ideas of physiognomy about the correspondence of facial features to certain psychological characteristics, etc.). A.A. Bodalev obtained very interesting data in this regard: out of 72 people he interviewed regarding how they perceive external features other people, 9 responded that a square chin is a sign of a strong will, 17 - that a large forehead is a sign of intelligence, 3 identify coarse hair with an unruly character, 16 - plumpness with good nature, for two thick lips - a symbol of sexuality, for five short stature - evidence of authority; for one person, eyes set close to each other mean hot temper, and for five others, beauty is a sign of stupidity (Bodalev, 1982, p. 118). No training can fully remove these everyday generalizations, but it can at least puzzle a person on the issue of the “unconditionality” of his judgment about other people.

Interpersonal attraction. The area of research related to the identification of mechanisms for the formation of various emotional relationships to a perceived person is called attraction research. Attraction is both the process of forming the attractiveness of a person for the perceiver, and the product of this process, i.e. some quality of relationship.

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

Often we try to understand the reasons for the actions of others. At the same time, the assessment of behavior can be associated both with circumstances and with the personal characteristics of a particular person. This assessment is called “causal attribution.” What is the theory of causal attribution is a question that requires detailed consideration.

What is causal attribution?

Experts in the field of psychiatry say that causal attribution is a separate phenomenon of interpersonal perception, which consists in interpreting, attributing reasons for the actions of another person when there is a lack of information about the real reasons for his behavior. This term originated in Western social psychology And general idea was able to obtain in the attribution theory developed by the researchers.

Causal attribution - types and errors

Causal attribution in psychology shows various patterns that lead to errors of perception. People can explain their own failures and the success of others using situational attribution. Often we all try to treat ourselves more loyally and softly than the people around us. To analyze your successes and the failures of others, personal attribution is used. An interesting fact is that the reason for success is often associated with one’s own merits, while failures can be blamed on circumstances. This is the peculiarity of the human psyche.

Types of causal attribution

When speaking about what causal attribution implies, it is important to remember its types. Psychologists call three types of causal attribution:

Object causal attribution - a cause-and-effect relationship is attributed to the object to which the action is directed.
Personal – attributed to the person who committed the act.
Circumstantial - attributed to circumstances

Causal attribution errors

Highlight typical mistakes causal attribution:

The tendency to overestimate the role of personal factors and the ability to underestimate the influence of the situation and circumstances. This error is typical for those who can be called observers. When assessing the behavior of another person, you can often see a certain pattern. So, in case of failures, they say that someone did not try very hard, or that people do not have enough abilities. When the result of the activity is successful, we can say that they were lucky. If we are talking about self-attribution, then we can observe the opposite trend, since its main goal is to maintain a positive attitude.
The fallacy of false agreement - a person tends to interpret his own behavior as typical, which is characteristic of many people.
The error of different possibilities of role behavior - different social roles may imply different behavior. For this reason, during attribution, the perceiver interprets the behavior of others according to their social roles.
Ignoring the informational value of what did not happen is a tendency to take into account exclusively obvious facts.

Causal attribution and interpersonal attraction

In psychology, interpersonal attraction is understood as sympathy, affection, etc. Each of us not only perceives those around us, but also forms our own attitude towards them. At the same time, it will be individual for everyone. This attraction affects the very phenomenon of causal attribution. In other words, when the attitude towards a person is positive, then both the explanation of the reasons for actions and behavior can be softer and more loyal. When a person is openly unlikable, the reasons for a person's actions can be mercilessly criticized.

Causal attribution in communication

To understand what the concept of causal attribution means, it is important to know when it occurs. It appears when unexpected obstacles arise along the way. joint activities– when difficulties and conflicts arise, clashes of interests and views. At the moment when all this happens, people apply causal attribution. In other words, we attribute the reasons for behavior to other people, and the more difficulties in interaction, the more seriously we approach the search for the reason.

An example of a causal attribution would be being late for a meeting with friends. Some of those waiting are sure that this may be due to the weather, another believes that a friend is late due to frivolity, and a third even doubts whether the late person was informed about the meeting place. So, all friends have different ideas about the reasons for being late: circumstances, characteristics and, the reason is in itself.

Every day we come across many people. We don’t just pass by, but begin to think about them: what they say, how they look, we observe their behavior.

And often it seems to us that we not only see how a person looks - whether he is fat or thin, tall or short, what color his eyes, hair, how he is dressed - but also such things as whether he is smart or stupid, respectable or No.

We even subconsciously determine his mood, social status and we assume that we have already compiled a description of the person. However, this is not true. All these actions of ours have their own name, and in psychology this phenomenon is called attribution.

Meaning

Let's figure it out: what is attribution? Attribution is a process where people, having small quantity information, draw conclusions about the reasons for a person’s behavior or events. But this doesn't always apply to other people. Most often, attribution is directed toward oneself, when a person tries to justify or explain his actions by referring to various factors.

The concept and essence of attribution is to take personal action. Those qualities of an individual that are characterized are excluded from the limits of perception - in fact, they even seem to not exist. That is, we can give another definition of attribution - this is the characteristic that they try to create through intuition and some inferences. And, as a rule, attributing certain qualities to one or another individual does not always turn out to be correct.

Causal attribution is aimed at explaining the motives of behavior - both one's own and others'. It happens that you need to analyze and predict the behavior of a person, but there is not enough data for this. Therefore, the reasons and motives that could guide the object of attention are often guessed at.

This approach also applies to social groups, when they are characterized, but there are no obvious motives for their behavior in the field of perception. Psychologists call this case group attribution. Group attribution also occurs when a group of individuals tries to explain their positive aspects internal factors, and for the out-group, external factors are indicated as the cause. And vice versa, their negative points blamed on external factors, while in an out-group they blame internal factors as the cause of negative aspects.

Attribution theory states that a person analyzes the behavior of other people depending on the reasons that he himself has intuitively identified. According to the theory, causal attribution is divided into two types:

External.
Internal.

The external type of attribution is the search for the causes of behavior among factors that do not depend on a person, that is, external factors. And internal (internal) is an explanation of the reasons for behavior based on one’s own psychological state.

Attribution theory implies certain order human actions:

Observation of an object and its behavior in a certain situation.
Based on assessments and personal perception, draw a conclusion from observing the object.
Using this conclusion and the behavior of the object, attribute psychological patterns of behavior to it.

The concept and essence of attribution implies speculating about the reasons for people’s behavior, but this does not always correspond to reality. To be more precise, more often than not, the theory of causal attribution is not true.

Varieties

Attribution in psychology is divided into three types. It is worth considering the types of attribution in more detail.

Personal attribution means that a person is looking for the culprit of a particular situation. More often than not, the cause is a specific person.
Comprehensive - in this case, a person is not interested in specific culprits; he is looking for the reasons for what is happening in external factors.
Stimulus - a person blames an inanimate object. This happens more often if he himself is to blame. For example: the glass broke because it was standing on the very edge of the table.

The causal attribution effect helped reveal some facts. If an individual has to explain the good fortune of a stranger or his own personal problems, then incentive attribution is used.

But if there is a need to analyze the success of the individual himself and the failure of an outsider, then personal attribution is used. This indicates a peculiarity of the psychology of any person - we treat ourselves much more loyally than others. Such examples of attribution very clearly prove this fact.

Also of interest is the fact that usually, when talking about success, a person indicates himself as the main reason. But in unsuccessful business, circumstances are always to blame. The individual believes that he has achieved everything because he is very smart and hardworking, and if any failure occurs, then the reason for this was factors beyond the control of the individual.

However, if a person talks about the successes of another person, then everything is the opposite. The other one was lucky because he is a suck-up, a weasel, and is on good terms with his bosses. But he is unlucky because he is lazy and not smart enough.

Social causal attribution is very clearly visible among organizational leaders when they need to characterize subordinates. There are long-standing biases at play here, and they are often formulaic. If management is asked to tell about the reason for an ineffective result, then the causal factor will always be internal. Always and everywhere, ordinary workers will be to blame for the decline in production.

And few would point out that the reason for the decline in production was insufficient funding or incorrect organization labor. In such cases, there is a tendency to underestimate situational factors and greatly overestimate the capabilities of individual ones.

It can also be noted that managers most often do not take responsibility for any failures. When asked why they are so ineffective in their place, they will point to low financial support as the reason, but not their own oversight. However, if we are talking about success, then management, as a rule, takes full credit for this achievement.

Misjudgment

When making judgments, a person very often makes mistakes. This is due to the fact that he usually underestimates external factors and the influence of the situation, but overestimates the personal capabilities of another individual.

This case is called the fundamental attribution error. This happens when the reasons are the same for both internal and external factors. The individual cannot make up his mind and a fundamental error occurs.

By indicating consequences and causes, we draw different conclusions. Also, our conclusions and explanations of reasons will be different depending on whether we like the other person or not.

If an individual achieves success, then he will indicate his own qualities as the reason.
The situation will be to blame for an individual's failure.

The phenomenon of causal attribution can be traced in the analysis of the behavior of a nice person and a not so nice person. A person makes a significant mistake when he finds reasons where he was looking for them. This means that if a person has already tuned in to a certain result, he will find it everywhere. If we intend to justify a person's actions, we will always find reasons to justify him.

And vice versa, if we decide to condemn someone, we will definitely condemn them by finding an appropriate reason. At the same time, only people with a developed sense of responsibility will attribute responsibility. They tend to imagine themselves in the shoes of others, understand the feelings of strangers and try on other people's behavior patterns.

Attribution is conjecture when analyzing someone's actions when there is a lack of information. In other words, we want to obtain data about our colleagues, interlocutors, or simply about a group of people based on some data that we have. If this data is not enough, then a psychological phenomenon called attribution arises. It can both reflect reality and distort it. This is very important to consider.