Causal attribution as a socio-psychological phenomenon. Causal attribution: what is this phenomenon and where is it used?

The concept of attribution is to understand and correctly perceive one's own behavior. It also includes how other people express themselves. The personality qualities characterized by this concept are not clearly identified. They are not in the field of perception. That is, attribution is traits that are attributed to people based on logical conclusions and intuition. The concept also points to a result that may well not correspond to reality. There is also always the possibility that the analysis will be incorrect.

What is attribution

It all started with the desire of people to explain the motives for 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 scope.

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, and the reasons for behavior can also be considered.

Now attribution is not just about determining the characteristics of someone's behavior. It represents a number 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 characteristics.

Causal attribution is a concept in psychology introduced by psychologist F. Heider. 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 guessed at. Also, characteristics of various kinds (not represented in the field of perception) can be attributed to a social community and group.

In addition, causal attribution is an example in psychology of explaining the actions, thoughts, and 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 schemas. That is, he explains other people's behavior, guided by familiar patterns. Additionally, each person has their own range of systems and options. There are also certain personal methods of causality that explain other people's behavior.

The need for attribution

The information that can be obtained through observation is insufficient. It is not enough for a person to fully interact with what is happening. Therefore, such information needs to be “completed”.

Everything happens to predict the actions of the individual of interest in the future. Attribution can be made 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, other people's behavior is subject to speculation.

Types of attribution

People who have developed personal attribution are focused on finding the culprit of what happened. If we attribute the cause to the situation to a certain person, then personal attribution manifests itself in psychology. The examples are not complex: “We didn’t arrive on time because you missed the train.”

If a person has developed detailed attribution, he often blames external factors. He is not interested in searching for a specific person.

Stimulus attribution consists of blaming an object. The glass fell and broke as it was on the edge of the table. The reason may also be that the victim himself is to blame.

Errors of perception

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

It is also interesting that the reason for success is usually associated with one’s own merits. But failures are blamed on circumstances. A person believes that he is successful because he is hardworking and smart. And his failure was solely due to external factors.

But if we are talking about another person, then attribution in the psychology of communication manifests itself in the opposite way. Example: he is lucky, he is a sneaky and sneaky person, this person’s relationship with the manager is not formal. Or his failures are associated with laziness, insufficient intelligence.

Attribution when evaluating subordinates

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

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

Attribution for executives

If managers are asked to determine their ineffectiveness, then the majority chooses a lack of support, that is, an external situational factor. This is due to the tendency of bosses different levels deny your responsibility in the situation. This approach is also notable for taking responsibility for success. Attribution in psychology is a characteristic that manifests itself in managers’ assessment of their own performance.

There was an increase in their work efficiency with improved levels of support. They did not believe that their abilities, as well as their desire to work hard, were significant factors. But in relation to subordinates they insisted on the importance 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 additional information. We all try to get as much insight as possible about the interlocutor or team based on some data. But when there is not enough of them, an attribution arises that may correspond to reality or contradict it. Points like these should be taken into account.

Even (or precisely why) such a complex device as human psyche“jamming” – subject to cognitive distortions. Some of them are obvious, so it’s easy to fight them; it’s enough to be aware of them. But others are confusing and you can’t figure them out quickly. One of these complex phenomena is causal attribution, a phenomenon of human perception.

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

Types of causal attribution

Wikipedia defines the term as follows: (from Latin causa - cause, Latin attributio - attribution) - a phenomenon of interpersonal perception. It consists of interpreting, attributing reasons for another person’s actions in conditions of a lack of information about the actual reasons for his actions.

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

Here are examples of cognitive distortions due to causal attribution.

Fundamental attribution error

The fundamental attribution error is the explanation of other people’s actions by internal factors (“this person is a bore” - internal disposition), and one’s own - by external circumstances (“events unfolded in such a way that I could not have done anything differently” - external disposition). It becomes most obvious when people explain and assume the behavior of others.

Reasons for fundamental attribution:

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

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

Example two: stranger the car won't start. You decide to help him by giving him a couple practical advice. He disagrees with them or simply ignores them. You become angry and begin to see this person as rude and rejecting genuine help. However, he's probably been given the same advice before and it didn't work. After all, he just knows his car better. Or he was having a bad day.

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

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

Cultural prejudice

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

Difference between participant and observer

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

Dispositional (characteristic) attribution

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

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

Self-serving attribution

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

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

Defensive attribution hypothesis

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

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

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

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

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

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

Causal attribution and locus of control

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

Locus of control is the characteristic ability of an individual to attribute his successes or failures only to internal ones, or only external factors.

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

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

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

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

Causal attribution and learned helplessness

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

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

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

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

Causal attribution theories

The most popular are two of them.

Jones and Davis Correspondence Theory

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

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

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

So what leads us to draw a correspondent conclusion? Jones and Davis say that we use five sources of information:

1. Choice: If behavior is freely chosen, it is considered to be caused by internal (dispositional) factors.
2. Accidental or intentional behavior: Behavior that is intentional is more likely to be related to the person's personality, while random behavior is more likely to be related to the situation or external causes.
3. Social desirability: You watch someone sitting on the floor, even though there are free chairs. This behavior has low social desirability (discrepancy) and is likely to be consistent with the individual's personality.
4. Hedonic relevance: when another person's behavior is directly intended to benefit or harm us.
5. Personalism: When another person's behavior seems likely to affect us, we assume it is "personal" rather than simply by-product the situation we are in.

Kelly covariance model

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

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

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

• Consensus: The degree to which other people behave similarly in a similar situation. For example, Alexander smokes a cigarette when he goes to lunch with his friend. If his friend also smokes, his behavior has a high consensus. If only Alexander smokes, then he is low.
• Distinctiveness: The degree to which a person behaves similarly in similar situations. If Alexander smokes only when socializing with friends, his behavior is characterized by high distinctiveness. If in any place and at any time, then it is low.
• Consistency: The degree to which a person behaves in this way every time a situation occurs. If Alexander smokes only when socializing with friends, consistency is high. If only by special occasions, then low.

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

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

Now if:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

We wish you good luck!

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

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

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

Meaning

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

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

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

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

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

• External.
• Internal.

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

Attribution theory implies a certain order of human actions:

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

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

Varieties

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Misjudgment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is causal attribution?

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

Causal attribution - types and errors

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

Types of causal attribution

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

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

Causal attribution errors

There are typical errors in causal attribution:

1. Tendency to overestimate the role personal factors and the ability to underestimate the influence of the situation and circumstances. This error is characteristic of those who can be called observers. When assessing the behavior of another person, you can often see a certain pattern. So, in case of failures, they say that someone did not try very hard, or that people do not have enough abilities. When the result of the activity is successful, we can say that they were lucky. If we are talking about self-attribution, then we can observe the opposite trend, since its main goal is to maintain a positive attitude.
2. The fallacy of false agreement - a person tends to interpret his own behavior as typical, which is characteristic of many people.
3. The error of different possibilities of role behavior - different social roles may imply different behavior. For this reason, during attribution, the perceiver interprets the behavior of others according to their social roles.
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, etc. Each of us not only perceives those around us, but also forms our own attitude towards them. At the same time, it will be individual for everyone. This attraction affects the very phenomenon of causal attribution. In other words, when the attitude towards a person is positive, then both the explanation of the reasons for actions and behavior can be softer and more loyal. When a person is openly unlikable, the reasons for a person's actions can be mercilessly criticized.

Causal attribution in communication

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

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