Causal attribution as interpersonal communication. Casual attribution: the meaning of the concept and its application

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 it is elected different type attribution. 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 received 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, reflection, obsession, selfless dedication.

IN social psychology There is a whole section devoted to the study of patterns of perception of the causes of actions - causal attribution. Mechanism 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 constitutes the baggage of his everyday psychology. In any communication we somehow, without even asking special questions, we get an idea of ​​“why” and “why” a person did something. We can say that a person is given, simultaneously with the perception of another person’s action, 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 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). But, one way or another, it arises the whole system methods of such attribution (attribution).

In social psychology, there is an entire section devoted to the study of patterns of perception of the causes of actions - causal attribution. This section clearly highlights the theoretical and experimental lines of studying the process of causal attribution. The theory tries to elevate scientific analysis those unconscious cognitive processes that occur in the head of the “naive subject” engaged in causal attribution. The most famous schemes of causal analysis are those 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 the action;
2) on the degree of its social “desirability” or “undesirability.”

In the first case, we mean the fact that typical behavior is behavior prescribed by role models, and therefore it is easier to interpret unambiguously. On the contrary, unique behavior allows for many different interpretations and, therefore, gives scope for attribution of its causes and characteristics.

In the second case: socially “desirable” is understood as 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.

Other works have 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 personally to the person committing the act;
2) object attribution - when the cause 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, from time to time we use all three schemes, but we gravitate and feel personal sympathy for one or two. Moreover, what is very important: the scheme used seems to us not to be a subjective psychological bias, but a reflection of objective reality, so to speak, the ultimate truth: “that’s exactly how it is, I know it.”

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 natural errors and distortions.

It was found that the observer of behavior more often uses personal attribution to describe the reasons for the participant’s action, and the participant most often explains the reason for his behavior by circumstances. So, for example, when attributing reasons for success and failure: the participant in the action “blames” the failure primarily on the circumstances, while the observer “blames” the performer for the failure primarily. Thus, when explaining someone's behavior, we underestimate the influence of the situation and overestimate the degree to which the individual's traits and attitudes are manifested. 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 consider others to be responsible for their own behavior. We may say, “I am angry because things are not 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 external environment is constant and stable, but the actions of the actor are changeable and incomprehensible, which is why he pays attention to them, first of all. For the actor, his actions are planned and constructed, and the environment is unstable, so he concentrates attention 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).

Introduction

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

This work is devoted to causal attribution as a socio-psychological phenomenon.

The relevance of this topic is explained by the fact that causal attribution determines social behavior, is included in the structure of many socio-psychological processes, and therefore its study acquires significant theoretical and practical significance. Theoretical aspect is that now in social psychology there is a need to create a unified scientific theory, which explains the features and mechanisms of social perception, and one of the mechanisms of social perception is causal attribution. In addition, the study of causal attribution is also of practical importance, since for optimization joint activities And interpersonal relationships it is necessary, among other things, to take into account causal attribution as one of the main mechanisms of social perception.

The purpose of the work is to consider causal attribution as a socio-psychological phenomenon.

Object of study: the process of social cognition.

Subject of research: causal attribution as a socio-psychological phenomenon.

casual attribution social psychological

1. Causal attribution as a socio-psychological phenomenon

Causal attribution (from the Latin causa - reason + attribuo - I give, I endow) is a phenomenon of social perception, a person’s interpretation of the reasons for the behavior of another person, as well as his own.

The phenomenon of causal attribution occurs when people interpret the reasons for another person’s behavior in conditions of insufficient information about these reasons, that is, a kind of completion of information is carried out. At the same time, “the scope of attribution becomes much wider - causes are attributed not only to the behavior of an individual person, but to various social phenomena in general” and the meaning of the phenomenon of causal attribution comes down to “giving meaning to the environment.”

2. Theories of causal attribution by F. Heider and G. Kelly

2.1 F. Heider’s theory of causal attribution

F. Heider is the founder of the study of attributional processes. In the concept he proposed, a person strives to form a consistent and coherent picture of the world, and in the process of this striving, he “develops an ‘everyday 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 it.” At the same time, it is important “whether we explain this or that phenomenon by factors localized inside a person or outside him” (for example, a person’s mistake can be explained by his low abilities, which will represent an internal cause, or by the difficulty of the task, which will be an external cause). Moreover, 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 cognitive balance.” An example is that when there is a discrepancy between the expected actions and reactions emanating from a familiar person, cognitive balance is disturbed, and psychological forces come into play in the cognizer, seeking to restore it.

Many of the provisions of F. Heider's concept were tested and confirmed experimentally, and he himself refers to the experiment of M. Zillig, conducted back in 1928. “In this experiment, two groups of children - popular and unpopular - performed gymnastic exercises in front of their classmates. Although the “popular” ones deliberately made mistakes, and the “unpopular” ones performed flawlessly, the audience subsequently said the opposite.

2.2 G. Kelly's theory of causal attribution

The theory of the attributional process, proposed by G. Kelly, answers in sufficient detail the question of where the reasons attributed to the object of perception come from. This theory deals with two cases:

When the perceiver draws information from many sources and has the opportunity to combine the behavior of an object and its causes in various ways, choosing one of them, there are repeated observations.

When the perceiver has a single observation and yet must somehow explain the cause of the event,

of which there may be several.

For each of these two cases, a special section of G. Kelly’s theory is intended: the first case is considered in the “analysis of variations model” (ANOVA), the second - in the theory of causal schemes.

The variation analysis model includes such structural elements of the attributional process as: Personality, Stimulus (object), Circumstances. “Accordingly, three types of causes are called (and not two, as in Heider): personal, stimulus (or object) and circumstantial,” while “three types of elements and three types of causes constitute “causal space,” which is depicted using a cube, where parties designate types of attribution”, and the essence of the process of attributing causes is to “find adequate combinations of causes and consequences in each specific situation.” In this case, “when the perceiver has the opportunity to use the data of many, rather than one observation, he “selects” the cause to those factors with which, as it seems to him, the result will covary.” It is important to note that this diagram cannot be considered as absolute, since in a number of cases “an individual can demonstrate a choice of complex reasons, for example, “personal-object”.”

The essence of the principle of configuration is that “if in real situations a person does not have any information about the reactions of the subject to similar stimuli or about the reactions of other people to the same stimulus (i.e., cannot use the criteria of similarity, difference and correspondence), then he must outline the entire configuration for himself possible reasons and choose one of them,” and to facilitate this process, it is proposed to take into account the following possible characteristics of reasons: a) depreciation (the subject discards those reasons that have an alternative due to their “depreciation”), b) strengthening (more often a cause is attributed that is something something intensifies: for example, it seems more likely because it encounters an obstacle), c) systematic distortion of information (attribution errors), which together form “configuration principles”.

3. Causal attribution errors

3.1 Fundamental errors in causal attribution

In general, fundamental errors are “the tendency of people to ignore situational reasons for actions and their results in favor of dispositional ones,” that is, their nature represents an overestimation of personal and underestimation of circumstantial reasons.L. Ross, who calls this phenomenon “overattribution,” outlines the conditions for such errors:

“False agreement” is expressed in the fact that the perceiver accepts his point of view as “normal” and therefore believes that others must have the same point of view, otherwise the blame falls on the “personality” of the perceiver.

“Unequal opportunities” are noted in role behavior: in certain roles one’s own positive qualities are more easily manifested, and the appeal is made precisely to them, that is, also to the person’s personality, but in this case, having a role that allows him to express himself to a greater extent, which leads to an overestimation of the personal reasons for behavior without taking into account the role position of the actor.

“Greater trust in general in facts than in judgments” is manifested in the fact that the first glance is always turned to the individual.

“The ease of constructing false correlations” lies in the fact that a naive observer arbitrarily connects any two personality traits as necessarily accompanying each other, thereby automatically attributing the reason for the behavior of the observed individual through an arbitrary “bundle” of traits and reasons.

3.2 Motivational errors in causal attribution

Motivational errors “are represented by various “defenses,” biases, which the subject of the attributional process includes in his actions.” Initially, these errors were identified in situations where subjects sought to maintain their self-esteem while attributing reasons for another person's behavior. The magnitude of self-esteem depended to a large extent on whether successes or failures were attributed to oneself or to another. . A significant development of this problem belongs to B. Weiner, who proposed considering three dimensions in each cause:

internal - external;

stable - unstable;

controlled - uncontrolled.

So different combinations of these dimensions give eight models - possible sets of causes. Weiner suggested that the choice of each combination is due to different motivations.

When considering all experiments concerning the use of the first two pairs of reasons (the most studied), then “the result is everywhere unambiguous: in case of success, internal reasons are attributed to oneself, in case of failure - external (circumstances); on the contrary, when explaining the reasons for the behavior of another, different options", described by B. Weiner.

Conclusion

In the course of this work, the socio-psychological phenomenon of causal attribution was examined, for which an idea was drawn up about the origin and essence of such a concept as causal attribution in social psychology, the most significant theories of causal attribution were considered, and the types and essence of causal attribution errors were identified. From all of the above, the following conclusions can be drawn.

The attributional process is a phenomenon of social perception that is motivated by the individual’s desire to understand the causes and consequences of other people’s actions, that is, the meaning human relations, as well as the need to predict the further course of these relationships, which are the most important condition for a person’s orientation in the social world around him.

The most significant theories on this topic include F. Heider's theory of causal attribution, E. Jones and C. Davis' theory of correspondent inference, and G. Kelly's theory of causal attribution. But all these theories, despite interesting findings in the description of attributional processes, consider them outside the social context, which leads to numerous disagreements. The theory of social attribution tries to overcome this omission, where attribution is considered taking into account the belonging of the cognizing and cognizable individuals to a certain social group.

Errors in causal attribution include fundamental (overestimation of personal and underestimation of circumstantial causes) and motivational (represented by various “defenses”, biases that the subject of the attributional process includes in his actions) and are rather not “errors”, but rather a distortion of what is perceived.

Bibliography

1.Andreeva G.M. Psychology of social cognition: Textbook. manual for higher education students educational institutions. - Ed. 2nd, revised and additional - M.: Aspect Press, 2000. - 288 p. [ Electronic resource]. URL: #"justify">2. Pochebut L.G., Meizhis I.A. Social psychology. - St. Petersburg: Peter, 2010. - 672 p. [Electronic resource]. URL: #"justify">. Semechkin N.I. Social psychology at the turn of the century: history, theory, research: Part 1. - Vladivostok: Far Eastern University Publishing House, 2001. - 152 p. [Electronic resource]. URL: #"justify">. Modern foreign social psychology. Texts / Edited by G.M. Andreeva, N.N. Bogomolova, L.A. Petrovskaya. - M.: Publishing house Mosk. University, 1984. - 256 p. [Electronic resource]. URL: #"justify">. Stepanov S.S. Popular psychological encyclopedia. - M.: Publishing house "Eksmo", 2005. - 672 p.

.Yurevich A.V. On the analysis of studies of causal attribution in foreign social psychology / A.V. Yurevich // Questions of psychology. - 1986. - No. 5. - P. 168-175.

Causal attribution Etymology.

Comes from Lat. causa - reason and attribuo - bestow.

Author. Specificity.

An individual's interpretation of the reasons for other people's behavior. Under the influence of motivational factors, it significantly deviates from logically justified forms. Research has 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 ATTRIBUTION (With. 297) (from Latin causa - reason + attribuo - I give, I 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 the difficult-to-pronounce term into the native language, the essence of causal attribution can be defined as the attribution, attribution of the causes of a particular act to certain sources - external or internal. So, if one person hit another, the reason for this may seem to us to be that he himself is by nature an angry and aggressive person (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). These kinds of judgments are not always based on logic or objectively observable reality, but rather are dictated by our tendency to interpret the sources of behavior. Such interpretations are largely individual, but 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 receiving 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 reasons behavior, corresponding personality traits and attributes them to the observed person; 3.) such a causal interpretation significantly influences the behavior of the observer.

Attribution theories were developed based on 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, for example, motivation.

What is the essence of attribution theories? “Attributional theories in the broad sense of the term,” writes L.D. Ross, “consider the attempts of the average person to understand the causes and consequences of the events he witnesses; in other words, they study the naive psychology of the “man on the street” - how he interprets his behavior and the behavior of others.” Such broad goals of study resulted from a different view of man than was the case in behaviorism or Freudianism. Causal attribution researchers view each person as an intuitive psychologist, equal in status to a research psychologist. Target professional psychologist- 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 coding, reproduction, and analysis of interpreted data; 2) chronic lack of time required for assessment; 3) the action of distracting motivation.

F. Heider is considered the founder of the study of 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, as Heider puts it, “everyday 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 it. Heider emphasizes the importance of whether we attribute a phenomenon to factors located within the person or outside the person, for example, we can attribute a person's error to his low ability (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 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, and psychological forces will come into play, striving to restore balance.

Many of Heider's concepts have been tested and confirmed experimentally. Haider himself refers to an experiment by M. Zillig, conducted back in 1928. In this experiment, two groups of children - popular and unpopular - performed gymnastic exercises in front of their classmates. Although the “popular” ones deliberately made mistakes, and the “unpopular” ones performed flawlessly, the audience subsequently said the opposite. Heider points to this fact as an example of attributing “bad” qualities to “bad” people.

In my research into how we interpret the world around us, social psychologists have discovered a generalized tendency they call the fundamental attribution error. It consists of 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 conducted in the form of a quiz - similar to popular television polymath competitions. Subjects were assigned to play one of two roles - a host, whose task was to ask difficult questions, and a quiz taker, who had to answer them; The distribution of roles was carried out in random order. An observer, informed of the quiz show's procedures, watched the show play out and then judged the general erudition of the host and the participant answering 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 presenters on a television screen experience the erudition of a “man on the street” thirsting for a cash prize. The impression in most cases is this: on the one hand, we are presented with an intelligent, sophisticated, knowledgeable person, and 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 comes across as stupid. This is exactly what Ross and his colleagues found: to observers, the presenters appear to be much more knowledgeable than the participants. Although in reality it is highly unlikely that the presenters were more erudite than the participants, since everyone received their role thanks to random distribution. And what’s most interesting: the observers knew this too! And yet, when making their judgments about the performers of the quiz, 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 deserve attention. However, its consequences extend extremely widely. E. Aronson in his famous book “The Social Animal” gives an example that is typical for America, and has recently become well understood by us. Observing a person who, say, picks up on the street empty bottles, we will most likely wince in disgust: “Nothing! Slacker! If he really wanted to find decent job, I would have found it long ago!” Such an assessment may, in some cases, exactly correspond to reality, but it is also possible that it represents a manifestation of a fundamental attribution error. Do we know what circumstances forced a person to fall like that? Hardly! And his characterization is already ready.

One of the significant results of experimental research on causal attribution is that establishing systematic differences in how a person explains his own behavior and the behavior of other people. Own mistakes and we tend to interpret even unworthy actions as forced, dictated by unfavorable circumstances, while we are more likely to interpret successes and achievements as a natural consequence of our high merits. In relation to other people, the opposite pattern often applies - their successes are more likely to be regarded as a consequence of “luck”, a favorable combination of circumstances, someone’s patronage, etc., but mistakes and awkwardness are more likely to be regarded as a consequence of negative personal characteristics. Self-justification like “What else can I do - life is like this these days!”, envious “Some people are lucky!” (in the sense - clearly undeserved), disgusted “What else can you expect from such a worthless person?!” - these are all everyday examples of this pattern. It is worth considering whether we resort to these formulas too often and always justifiably...

An important pattern discovered in many experiments is that a person exaggerates his own role in the situation in which he finds himself involved - even 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 demonstrated such an “illusion of control” in a simple experiment. The study consisted of subjects buying lottery tickets. An 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. Subjects were then offered the opportunity to sell their ticket back to the experimenter. Langer discovered the following pattern: those subjects who chose tickets themselves charged a price for them, sometimes four times higher than the price assigned to subjects who received tickets according to the order. Apparently, the subjects had the illusion that their actions in choosing a ticket could influence the result; they considered the ticket that they themselves chose to be “happier,” although it is quite obvious that winning was determined by chance and none of the tickets had a higher probability turn out to be winning. However, the illusion of control created by egocentric thinking is very strong. Therefore, it is not surprising that in many situations, predetermined either by simple chance or by someone’s choice beyond our control, we are kindly given the illusory opportunity to “pull out the lucky ticket” ourselves.

It is very important that knowledge of the patterns and errors of causal attribution helps to make it a more effective tool for establishing interaction. Thus, knowledge of the existence of the “fundamental attribution error” can guide our perceptions more the right way taking into account various situational influences on a person. It is also very important to become 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 “attributional psychotherapy” shows that in many situations, awareness and a change in the style of attributing reasons 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 you scored well in an exam is because of the quality of your studying. you make a causal attribution, attributing your success to quality teaching (situational attribution).

Psychology. A-Z. Dictionary reference / Transl. 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) phenomenon of interpersonal perception. It consists of interpreting, attributing reasons for another person’s actions in conditions of a lack of information about actual... ... Wikipedia

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

CAUSAL ATTRIBUTION- (from Latin causa – reason, attribuo – I endow) – psychological mechanism social interaction, which determines the individual’s interpretation of the reasons for the behavior of other people. The concept was introduced by F. Heider. Study of K. a. comes from the following: 1) people,... ...

Attribution is causal- (latin attribution causa reason) attributing to other people certain reasons for behavior, although in fact these people may 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 in psychology and pedagogy

- (from the Latin causa reason and attribuo I give, I endow) the subject’s interpretation of the interpersonal perception of the reasons and motives of other people’s behavior. The study of A.K. is based on the following provisions: 1) people, getting to know each other, are not limited to... ...

• - (from the English attribute to attribute, to endow) the 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 can be given to a person... ... Great psychological encyclopedia

  - (from Latin causa cause) a concept used in social psychology to designate: a) the principles of causality analysis in the field of social perception (see social perception); b) stable ideas about specific causal connections. This… … Great psychological encyclopedia

  Attribution- [English] attribute attribution] attribution to social objects (person, group, social community) of characteristics 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

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, to 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 to a large extent 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 reasons 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 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 focusing 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.