Causal attribution from English. Causal attribution as a socio-psychological phenomenon

causal attribution.

Causal attribution(English attribute - to ascribe, endow) - the subject's interpretation of the causes and motives of the behavior of other people, obtained on the basis of direct observation, analysis of the results of activities and other things by attributing to a person, a group of people properties, characteristics that did not fall into the field of perception and how would speculate on them.

Each of the participants in the interaction, evaluating the other, seeks to build a certain system of interpretation of his behavior, in particular, its causes. In everyday life, people very often do not know the real reasons for the behavior of another person or do not know them enough. In conditions of information deficiency, they begin to attribute to each other both the causes of behavior, and sometimes the patterns of behavior themselves or some more general characteristics. Attribution is carried out either on the basis of the similarity of the perceived person's behavior 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. Thus, the interpretation of one's own and other people's behavior by attributing (reasons, motives, feelings, etc.) is an integral part of interpersonal perception and cognition.

A special branch of social psychology, called causal attribution, analyzes precisely these processes (F. Haider, G. Kelly, E. Jones, K. Davis, D. Kennose, R. Nisbet, L. Strickland). If at first the study of attribution was only about attributing the causes of the behavior of another person, then later methods of attributing a wider class of characteristics began to be studied: intentions, feelings, personality traits. The very phenomenon of attribution occurs when a person has a lack of information about another person: it is the process of attribution that has to be replaced.

The measure and degree of attribution in the process of interpersonal perception depends on two indicators, namely the degree:

the uniqueness or typicality of an act (meaning the fact that typical behavior is behavior prescribed by role models, and therefore it is easier to unambiguously interpret; on the contrary, unique behavior allows many different interpretations and, therefore, gives scope for attributing its causes and characteristics);

its social desirability or undesirability (socially “desirable” refers to behavior that corresponds to social and cultural norms and therefore is relatively easily and unambiguously explained, however, if such norms are violated, the range of possible explanations expands significantly).

Structure of the causal attribution process

The following aspects of interest to researchers of attribution are distinguished: features of the subject of perception (observer), characteristics of the object and situation of perception.

An interesting attempt to construct a theory of causal attribution belongs to G. Kelly. He showed how a person searches for reasons to explain the behavior of another person. In general terms, the answer sounds like this: every person has some a priori causal representations and causal expectations.

A causal scheme is a kind of general concept of a given person about the possible interactions of various causes, about what actions, in principle, these causes produce. It is based on three principles:

§ the principle of depreciation, when the role of the main cause of the event is underestimated due to the overestimation of other causes;

§ the principle of amplification, when the role of a particular cause in an event is exaggerated;

§ the principle of systematic distortion, when there are constant deviations from the rules of formal logic in explaining the causes of people's behavior Kelly G. The process of causal attribution // Modern foreign social psychology. Texts. M., 1984 C 146 ..

In other words, each person has a system of schemes of causality, and every time the search for reasons explaining "alien" behavior, one way or another, fits into one of these existing schemes. The repertoire of causal schemes that each person owns is quite extensive. The question is which of the causal schemes will work in each particular case.

In experiments, it was found that different people demonstrate predominantly completely different types of attribution, that is, different degrees of “correctness” of the attributed causes. In order to determine the degree of this correctness, three categories are introduced: 1) similarity - agreement with the opinions of other people; 2) differences - differences from the opinions of other people; 3) conformity - the constancy of the action of the cause in time and space.

Exact correlations have been established in which specific combinations of manifestations of each of the three criteria should give personal, stimulus or circumstantial attribution. In one of the experiments, a special “key” was proposed, with which the answers of the subjects should be compared each time: if the answer coincides with the optimum given in the “key”, then the reason is assigned correctly; if there is a discrepancy, one can establish what kind of "shifts" are characteristic of each person in the choice of predominantly attributed causes. Comparison of the answers of the subjects with the proposed standards helped to fix at the experimental level the truth that people do not always attribute the cause “correctly”, even from the point of view of very light criteria.

G. Kelly revealed that, depending on whether the subject of perception is himself a participant in an event or its observer, he can mainly choose one of three types of attribution:

personal attribution, when the reason is attributed to the person who performs the act personally;

object attribution, when the cause is attributed to the object to which the action is directed;

circumstantial attribution, when the cause of what is happening is attributed to the circumstances.

It was found that the observer more often uses personal attribution, and the participant is more inclined to explain what is happening by circumstances. This feature is clearly manifested when attributing the causes of 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. The general pattern is that, in proportion to the significance of the event, the subjects tend to move from circumstantial and object attribution to personal attribution (that is, to look for the cause of what happened in the conscious actions of a particular person). If we use the concept of figure and background (Gestalt psychology), then the attribution process can be explained by what falls into the field of view of the observer as a figure. For example, in one experiment, subjects watched a video of a suspect giving evidence during an interrogation. If they saw only the suspect, they perceived the confession to be true. If a detective also came into view, then the subjects (observers) were inclined to believe that the suspect was forced to confess Myers D. Social psychology St. Petersburg: Peter Kom, 1998. P 163.

In addition to errors arising from the different position of the subject of perception, a number of fairly typical attribution errors have been identified. G. Kelly summarized them as follows:

1st class - motivational errors, including various types of “defense” [addictions, asymmetry of positive and negative results (success - to oneself, failure - to circumstances)];

2nd class - fundamental errors, including cases of overestimation of personal factors and underestimation of situational ones.

More specifically, fundamental errors manifest themselves in errors:

"false consent"(when a “normal” interpretation is considered to be one that coincides with “my” opinion and is adjusted to fit it);

associated with unequal opportunities for role behavior(when in certain roles it is “easier” to show your own positive qualities, and the interpretation is carried out by appealing to them);

arising from more confidence in concrete facts than to general judgments, because of the ease of constructing false correlations, etc.

In order to substantiate the selection of just this type of errors, it is necessary to analyze the causality schemes that a person possesses. Offering descriptions of these schemes, G. Kelly puts forward four principles: covariance, depreciation, amplification and systematic distortion. The first of these principles (covariance) operates when there is one cause, the other three when there are many causes.

The essence of the principle of covariance is that the effect is attributed to the cause with which it is covariant in time (coincides in time). It should be remembered that all the time it is not about what the real cause of the event is, but only about what reason a “naive” ordinary person really ascribes to the event, to the act. In other words, the reasons put forward in worldly psychology are being investigated here. This is clearly demonstrated in the analysis of the following three principles named by Kelly.

If there is more than one reason, then the person is guided in the interpretation:

* or the principle of amplification, when priority is given to a cause that encounters an obstacle: it is “intensified” in the mind of the perceiver by the very fact of the presence of such an obstacle;

* or the principle of depreciation, when, in the presence of competing reasons, one of the reasons is disavowed by the very fact of the existence of alternatives;

* or the principle of systematic distortion, when, in a special case of judgments about people, the factors of the situation are underestimated and, on the contrary, the factors of personal characteristics are overestimated.

The process of attribution, determined by the characteristics of the subject of perception, is also manifested in the fact that some people are inclined, to a greater extent, to fix physical features in the process of interpersonal perception, and then the “sphere” of attribution is significantly reduced. Others perceive predominantly the psychological characteristics of others, and in this case a special “space” opens up for attribution.

The dependence of the attributed characteristics on the previous assessment of the objects of perception was also revealed. In one of the experiments, the assessments of two groups of children given by the subject of perception were recorded. One group was made up of “loved” children, and the other group was made up of “unloved” children. Although the “favorite” (in this case, more attractive) children intentionally made mistakes in the performance of the task, and the “unloved” children performed it correctly, the perceiver, nevertheless, attributed positive assessments to “favorites”, and negative ones to “unloved” .

This corresponds to the idea of ​​F. Haider, who said that people generally tend to reason in this way: “a bad person has bad traits”, “a good person has good traits”, etc. Therefore, the attribution of the causes of behavior and characteristics is carried out according to the same model: bad deeds are always attributed to “bad” people, and good deeds are always attributed to “good” people. Along with this, in the theories of causal attribution, attention is also paid to the idea of ​​contrasting representations, when negative traits are attributed to a “bad” person, and the perceiver himself evaluates himself by contrast as the bearer of the most positive traits.

Causal attribution Etymology.

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

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 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. Haider 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 the presenters on the TV screen 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 hand, a clumsy 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 typical of America, and recently 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 undeservedly), 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 was 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, wringed 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 an 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 greater 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 Latin causa cause and attribuo I attach, endow) interpretation by the subject of interpersonal perception of the causes and motives of other people's behavior. The study of A. to. proceeds from the following provisions: 1) people, knowing each other, are not limited to ... ...

• - (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

The concept of attribution is to understand and correctly perceive one's own behavior. It also includes how other people behave. Characterized by this concept of personality traits are not distinguished explicitly. They are not in the field of perception. That is, attribution is the traits that are attributed to people on the basis of logical reasoning and intuition. The concept also indicates the result, which may well not correspond to reality. There is also always the possibility that the analysis will be wrong.

What is attribution

It all began with the desire of people to explain the motives of their own behavior and the behavior of other people. Very soon, the term was expanded, as a result of which it was possible to go beyond the initial framework.

Attribution is the attribution of different psychological properties to a person based on observation of him. Even unconscious inferences about someone can take place here, as well as the causes of behavior can be considered.

Now attribution is not only the definition of the characteristics of someone's behavior. It is a series of psychological characteristics that can be directed to other objects. In any case, attribution is the main mechanism of social perception.

Causal attribution

Causal attribution is a concept in psychology that arose from attempts to explain the motives of one's own and others' behavior. But soon the term was expanded. Modern psychology is aimed at identifying the causes of behavior, which is accompanied by the attribution of various kinds of features.

Causal attribution is a concept in psychology introduced by the psychologist F. Haider. Sometimes you need to predict someone's behavior, but there is not enough data for this. Therefore, the motives and qualities of a person are often thought out. Also, characteristics of various kinds (not represented in the field of perception) can be attributed to a social community and a group.

In addition, causal attribution is an example in psychology of explaining the actions, thoughts, feelings of another person. Thus, there is a search for reasons that explain the behavior of the individual. Research has shown that each person prefers a range of causal patterns. That is, he explains someone else's behavior, guided by the usual schemes. In addition, each person has their own set of systems and options. There are also certain personal methods of causality that explain someone else's behavior.

The need for attribution

The information that can be obtained through observation is insufficient. It is not enough for a full-fledged interaction of a person with what is happening. Therefore, such information needs to be “finished”.

Everything happens to predict the actions of the individual of interest in the future. Attribution can be performed by a team or an individual.

It can be difficult to understand someone's behavior. For this, there is not enough sensitivity, knowledge in psychology or simply information. As a result, someone else's behavior is subject to conjecture.

Attribution types

People who have developed personal attribution are focused on finding the culprit of what happened. If you attribute the cause of the situation to a certain person, then personal attribution in psychology manifests itself. The examples are not difficult: "We didn't get there on time because you missed the train."

If a person has developed a detailed attribution, then he often blames external factors. The search for a specific person does not interest him.

Stimulus attribution consists in blaming the subject. The glass fell and broke because it was on the edge of the table. Also, the reason may be that the victim himself is to blame.

Perceptual errors

The study of causal attribution led to the identification of various patterns that lead to perceptual errors. It is noteworthy that people explain the success of outsiders and personal failures using situational attribution. Usually we try to treat ourselves softer and more loyal than to outsiders. But to analyze their own successes and failures of others, personal attribution in psychology is used. This is the peculiarity of the human psyche.

Also interesting is the fact that the reason for success is usually associated with one's own merits. But failure is blamed on circumstances. A person believes that he is successful because he is hardworking and smart. And his failure occurred solely due to external factors.

But if it comes to another person, then attribution in the psychology of communication manifests itself in the opposite way. Example: he is lucky, he is a sneak and a sycophant, this person has no formal relationship with the leader. Or his failures are associated with laziness, an insufficient amount of intelligence.

Attribution when evaluating subordinates

Conflicting attribution biases are typical in any organization. This is mainly related to different situations, namely, existing prejudices.

If managers are asked to talk about the reasons for the inefficiency of the work of subordinates, they mainly cite internal factors as the reasons. They consist of a lack of effort and ability. At the same time, external factors, such as insufficient support, are indicated by them much less often. Thus, there is a reassessment of the influence of individual factors in the behavior of other people. These results indicate a tendency to underestimate the influence of situational and exaggerate the influence of individual factors.

Attribution for executives

If managers are asked to determine their inefficiency, then the majority chooses a lack of support, that is, an external situational factor. This is due to the tendency of leaders at various levels to deny their responsibility in a situation. This approach is also notable for taking responsibility for success. Attribution in psychology is a characteristic that manifests itself in the evaluation of their own activities by managers.

There was an increase in the efficiency of their work with an improvement in the level of support. They did not consider their ability, nor their willingness to work hard, to be significant factors. But in relation to subordinates, they insisted on the significance of these aspects.

But people with a developed sense of empathy quickly understand the feelings of others. In addition, they tend to consider such behavior as their own.

That is, attribution is the conjecture of someone's behavior in the absence of additional information. We all try to get as much idea as possible about the interlocutor or team based on some data. But with their insufficient number, attribution arises, which may correspond to reality or contradict it. Points like this should be taken into account.

Casual attribution is a phenomenon of human perception by a person, which consists in explaining, attributing the reasons for the actions of this very perceived person in the absence of information about the real reasons for such an action.

So, you come to work, and your colleague, right from the doorway, gives you a compliment. You don't know the real reasons why he did it. And a variety of “explanations” may pop up in my head:

• "I had a fight with my girlfriend and now I'm ready to hit on me";
• “I really put on my make-up successfully today”;
• “wants to suck up and go on vacation, leaving extra work on me.”

So, in everyday life, we are faced with examples of casual attribution. Surprisingly, in fact, a colleague may just be in a good mood and he is ready to shower the whole world with compliments.

This concept was formed in Western social psychology, and is most fully disclosed in the theory of attribution. The main questions that were revealed when creating this theory concerned the mechanisms and factors by which an ordinary person explains, first of all, to himself the causal relationships of those events in which he participates or becomes a witness, as well as how he explains his personal behavior. .

Now the concept has expanded significantly. Casual attribution in psychology is the attribution of different motives and qualities to a person with whom we encounter in life. Sometimes, these "conclusions" of ours can be unconscious.

However, how do we explain to ourselves the behavior of a stranger, if we do not know his real motives, as was said earlier? Naturally, we ourselves have personal experience, on the basis of which we derive variants of existing motives. In addition, the society in which we live offers or even imposes habitual schemes for explanation.

So, while waiting for a friend who is late, we will catch ourselves wondering if something happened to her child, because for us at this stage of life, our baby is most important. And we can be late without a call only if something bad happens to the baby.

But the noisy radio, of course, will convince us that our friend is stuck in those terrible traffic jams in the city center.

Attribution types

• personal (the reason is attributed to the person who performs the action);
• objective or stimulus (the reason is attributed to the object to which the activity is directed);
• circumstantial or situational (the cause is attributed to independent circumstances).

People who have the most developed personal attribution always explain the events that happened to the “culprit”. “He got a promotion. Of course he's a sucker." “Is there financial problems in the son’s family again? Naturally, after all, the daughter-in-law does not know how to plan a budget at all. “I wasn’t hired? Yes, these leaders are all so stupid - they pay attention only to appearance.

It is impossible not to recall examples of self-flagellation. Let's say the guy promised to call back this morning, but you never got a call. And here there may be options when you can seem to yourself to be this very “culprit”: “I am to blame. As always, she stuffed herself too much. Or: “So always! I'm not lucky." Such cases of “moving down” into personal attribution with blaming oneself can significantly affect not only self-esteem, but even the mental state of a person and cause depression, neurosis, and suicidal thoughts. Remember that attribution is connected precisely with “thinking out” the reasons for what is happening. And not always (and more often - never) they do not coincide with the actual motives. Because the effect in question, as mentioned earlier, always occurs in situations of lack of real information. Therefore, if you find yourself thinking that you blame yourself for all mortal sins too often, you may need to talk to a psychologist about this.

Object or stimulus causal attribution, in contrast, blames the thing itself for what happened. "I am not guilty. The glass itself fell and broke,” a small child cries. However, stimulus attribution is not always so touchingly innocent. Let's analyze situations of family or child abuse, when the true causes are repressed or not realized. “He started it himself first,” say several ten-year-olds who beat a seven-year-old to a concussion. “He started insulting me,” says the tyrannical father who maimed his son. “Yes, she herself dressed like a prostitute,” says the grandmother of a teenage rapist.

In a word, the object itself provoked an action on itself. Often, this happens in situations of uncontrolled aggression. And even if your situation does not involve such critical cases, the preference to explain the action in terms of object attribution may be caused by an internal need to justify oneself. Think about it, didn’t you have to make excuses all the time in early childhood and didn’t it hurt you? If you remember such cases, then do not forget to work out such childhood situations with your psychologist.

If a detailed causal attribution prevails in a person, then circumstances, external factors, by and large not directly related to the subject or object of activity, are called the cause of everything. “Look at what films and games are now - sheer violence,” says the mother of the convicted hooliganist. And a patient with alcoholism swears for the hundredth time that he was not going to drink at all yesterday, it’s just that “the stars were formed that way”, and the low atmospheric pressure entailed the need for migraine therapy.

Perceptual errors

While some people tend to favor one type of attribution, most people explain motive and cause in terms of different types of phenomena. So, if we encounter our own failures and the successes of other people, then we tend to attribute this to circumstances. But if the opposite is true, then we consider our achievements and other people's failures from the position of personal attribution.

In addition, participants in events more often use detailed attribution, while observers use personal attribution.

Interesting examples of social casual attribution, which were transferred to various business trainings. So, if you ask managers to name the reasons for the crisis situation in which the company found itself, then almost always they name moments associated with poor skills or insufficient diligence of the employees of this company. In case of successful functioning, the merit is attributed to oneself. In both cases, there is a bias towards personal attribution. At the same time, external factors are almost never named, although they are often real components of the demand for this type of activity as a whole.

But if the task was set to describe why they were insolvent leaders, then the reasons prompted by detailed attribution came out on top.

All of the above and many other studies have led to the establishment
mechanisms of casual attribution. The conclusions were:

• there are systemic differences in explaining one's own behavior and the actions of other people;
• own subjective factors deviate the substitution process from logical rules;
• the activity of a person who received an unsatisfactory result is explained by the influence of the external environment, and a satisfactory result is explained by the influence of internal factors.

Objectives of the study and the possibility of using the phenomenon of casual attribution

As mentioned earlier, the first studies dealt with social causal attribution. The study of this phenomenon made it possible to establish the degree of responsibility that each member of the team assumed for joint activities. And also evaluate and correlate this with a real contribution to the work for possible forecasts of the prospects and success of employees.

However, now the attribution theory is used in the framework of pedagogical, age, sports psychology. And attribution errors help practicing psychologists to pay attention to some life attitudes and possible problems.

In addition, obvious biases towards one or another type of attribution can indicate unexplored childhood fears, which, in turn, can lead to various psychological behaviors or, even worse, personal problems. So, if you are interested in something or some point of the article was not completely clear to you, do not hesitate to talk about it with a psychologist.

Lapshun Galina Nikolaevna, Master of Psychology, psychologist of the 1st category

Attribution of ancient monuments. attribution methods. Do attribution. Attribution is based on the analysis of style, plot, the results of physical and chemical research.

Psychol. An attempt to understand the behavior of a person, a group of people, a social community in conditions of information deficiency by conjecture; a mechanism for explaining the causes of smb. behavior.

social attribution. personal attribution.

Encyclopedic information The beginning of the theoretical and empirical study of attribution was the work of F. Haider (1958), E. Jones, K. E. Davis (1965), X. Kelly (1967). The development of the concept of attribution began with the identification of how people explain to themselves the motives of someone else's and their own behavior (causal attribution). The modern concept of attribution covers the attribution of various mental properties to oneself and other people (personal characteristics, abilities), inferences (often unconscious) about the probable causes of their behavior and forecasting the likelihood of various actions and their results in the future. The most common concept is the “fundamental attribution error”, which consists in the tendency to attach more importance to personal (dispositional) factors and ignore situational influences when describing people and their behavior, which can lead to incorrect, inadequate attributions. The term was introduced by L. Ross (1977). (T. V. Anisimova)

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 evaluation is called "causal attribution". What is the theory of causal attribution is a question requiring 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 the causes of the actions of another person with a lack of information about the real reasons for his behavior. This term was formed in Western social psychology and was able to get a general idea in the attribution theory developed by researchers.

Causal attribution - types and errors

Causal attribution in psychology shows various patterns that lead to perceptual errors. People can explain their own failures and the success of others using situational attribution.

Often we all try to be more loyal and gentler to ourselves than to the people around us. Personal attribution is used to analyze one's own successes and the failures of others. An interesting fact is that the reason for success is often associated with one's merits, and failures can be blamed on circumstances. This is the peculiarity of the human psyche.

Types of causal attribution

In saying what causal attribution implies, it is important to keep in mind its types. Psychologists name three types of causal attribution:

1. Object causal attribution - a causal relationship is attributed to the object on which the action refers.
2. Personal - attributed to the person who committed the act.
3. circumstantial - attributed to circumstances

Causal attribution errors

There are typical errors of causal attribution:

1. The tendency to overestimate the role of personal factors and the ability to underestimate the influence of the situation, circumstances. This error is characteristic of those who can be called observers. Assessing the behavior of another person, you can often see a certain pattern. So, with 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 are lucky. If we are talking about self-attribution, then we can observe the opposite trend, since its main goal is to maintain a positive self-esteem.
2. False consent fallacy - it is common for a person to interpret their own behavior as typical, which is characteristic of many people.
3. The error of different possibilities of role behavior - different social roles may imply unequal behavior. For this reason, during attribution, the perceiver interprets the behavior of others according to their social roles.
4. 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 and relationships between people. Each of us not only perceives others, but also forms our own attitude towards them. At the same time, it will be individual for each. 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 reason for actions and the behavior can be softer and more loyal. When a person is openly unsympathetic, the reasons for the person's actions can be mercilessly criticized.

Causal attribution in communication

To understand what causal attribution means, it is important to know when it occurs. It appears when unexpected obstacles arise in the way of joint activities - in the event of difficulties and conflicts, a clash of interests and views. At the moment when all this happens, people apply causal attribution. In other words, we attribute the causes of behavior to other people, and the more complex the interaction, the more serious we approach the search for the cause.

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 the third one even doubts whether the latecomer was informed about the meeting place. So all friends have different ideas about the reasons for being late: circumstances, features and properties of character, the reason is in itself.

In the process of social interaction, a person perceives the other along with his actions and "through" actions. Building interaction with another person and, ultimately, the success of joint activities largely depends on the adequacy of understanding actions and their causes. There is a rather extensive direction in social psychology: the study of processes and results causal attribution(attributing causes) of behavior.

Causal attribution is the desire of people to find an explanation for what is happening to them and around them. Such explanations are necessary for people for various reasons.

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, 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 reasonably in the current situation, to choose a rational course of action.

causal attribution. When does causal attribution occur? It arises at the moment when unexpected obstacles and difficulties arise in the way of joint activity. In the event of difficulties and conflicts, in the event of a clash of interests, views. When this happens, people resort to causal attribution, i.e. we try to attribute the causes of behavior to other people - to explain the behavior of others. The more difficulties encountered in the interaction, the more seriously we approach the search for causes.

As an example: someone is late for a date with friends. One of those waiting believes that this is due to the poor performance of transport, the other that being late is the result of frivolity, the third one doubts whether he has informed the latecomer of a different, incorrect meeting place, the fourth one that they are being deliberately made to wait.

Thus, everyone has different ideas about the reasons for being late. 1 - circumstances, 2 - personality traits, 3 - the reason in itself, 4 - intentional and purposeful delay. The reasons for motivating attribution are different, because buddies do attribution differently.

Didn't find what you were looking for? Use search.