Causal attribution is a unique phenomenon in psychology that characterizes a person’s perception of the emotions, reasons and motives of a certain behavior of another person. If you do not have enough information about a person or the situation in which he is located, then a misinterpretation of what is happening arises. This phenomenon of perception is usually based on the attribution of some non-existent characteristics, features, and so on.

Attribution theory

Causal attribution was first studied in the mid-20th century social psychologists Lee Ross and Fritz Heider. Subsequently, this phenomenon of relationships between people was reflected in the theory of attribution. Researchers tried to explain to ordinary citizens the logic of the development of certain events and their own behavior. Causal attribution in psychology explains how people interpret the behavior of other people and what follows from this. In an exact translation, this concept sounds like this: “causa” - “reason”, “atributio” - “endowment”, “giving”.

Causal attribution abilities

It is very important to understand that different individuals can behave similarly, but at the same time their actions can be guided by completely different motives. And sometimes individuals realize the same motives in completely different ways. This is due not only to different conditions, but also to different internal potential. Therefore, when analyzing a particular act of an individual, it is necessary to take into account the specifics of his needs, character traits, temperament, and so on. External situational reasons also matter. Of course, first of all you need to compare the active and reactive principles in the behavior of other people. After all, our relationships with other people are based on our expectations, and vice versa, relationships are formed on what we expect. To avoid the idea that an individual is initially hostile, you need to try to delve into his inner world and understand that, in principle, he is the same as us, and it is unlikely that he deliberately seeks to harm us.

The essence of causal attribution

Mental projection is the attribution of importance to any manifestations of the activity of another individual. Basically, such causal attribution is based on a combination appearance a person and the way of behavior we have imposed on him.

Criteria for assessing individual behavior

Causal attribution requires criteria, which initially gives it the character of categorization and identification. After all, we know the behavioral traits of many people in a wide variety of different situations and in combination with information about their individual personality characteristics. In general, causal attribution evaluates an individual's behavior by constructing a model of his inner world and based on the characteristics of his character. At the same time, what is visible is repeatedly correlated with what appears to us mentally.

Objectivity in assessing behavior

In order to avoid the error of causal attribution, it is necessary to be extremely objective, that is, to very significantly compare oneself in the place of another in moral terms. But in some cases this may make it difficult to determine the true motives of his behavior. For example, what we did intentionally, another person may do accidentally or out of ignorance. Therefore, one person can commit evil due to his hostility, and another - under the influence of emotions. Causal attribution theory was originally studied within the framework of social psychology. Now it is used in many areas of psychology: pedagogical, developmental, sports, etc.

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 we assume that we have already compiled a description of the person. However, this is not true. All these actions of ours have their own name, and in psychology this phenomenon is called attribution.

Meaning

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

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

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

This approach also applies to social groups, when they are characterized, but there are no obvious motives for their behavior in the field of perception. Psychologists call this case group attribution. Group attribution also occurs when a group of individuals tries to explain their positive aspects internal factors, and for the out-group, external factors are indicated as the cause. Conversely, they attribute their negative aspects to external factors, in another group they indicate the reason negative points internal factors.

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.
• Detailed – a person in in this case He is not interested in specific culprits; he looks 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 it is used personal attribution. 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're talking about 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 factors, and for external ones. The individual cannot make up his mind and a fundamental error occurs.

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

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

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

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

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

It often happens that people try to explain the strange or challenging behavior of another person based on their own perception of the entire situation. When this happens, the person simply interprets the action and its motives in such a way as if he himself did it.

Psychological substitution

This psychological substitution of characters has a complex name in psychology - casual means that someone has no sufficient quantity information about the situation or about the person who appears in this situation, and therefore tries to explain everything from his own point of view. Casual attribution implies that a person “puts himself in the place of another” in the absence of other ways to explain the current situation. Of course, such an interpretation of the motives of behavior is often erroneous, because each person thinks in his own way, and it is almost impossible to “try on” your way of thinking on another person.

The emergence of attribution theory in psychology

The concept of “casual attribution” appeared in psychology not so long ago - only in the middle of the 20th century. It was introduced by American sociologists Harold Kelly, Fritz Heider and Lee Ross. This concept not only became widely used, but also acquired its own theory. The researchers believed that causal attribution would help them explain the mechanisms by which the average person interprets certain cause-and-effect relationships or even their own behavior. When a person does something that leads to certain actions, he always has a dialogue with himself. Attribution theory tries to explain how this dialogue takes place, what its stages are and the result, depending on psychological characteristics person. At the same time, a person, analyzing his behavior, does not identify it with the behavior of strangers. It’s easy to explain: someone else’s soul is in darkness, but a person knows himself much better.

Attribution classification

As a rule, each theory assumes the presence of certain indicators that are required for its functioning. Casual attribution, therefore, presupposes the presence of two indicators at once. The first indicator is the factor of compliance of the action in question with the so-called social-role expectations. For example, if a person has little or no information about a certain person, the more he will invent and attribute, and the more convinced he will be that he is right.

The second indicator is the compliance of the behavior of the individual in question with generally accepted cultural and ethical standards. How more norms violates another person, the more active the attribution will be. The very phenomenon of “attribution” is of three types in the theory of attribution:

• personal (the cause-and-effect relationship is projected onto the subject himself who performs the action);
• object (the connection is projected to the object to which this action is directed);
• adverbial (the connection is attributed to circumstances).

Mechanisms of casual attribution

It is not surprising that a person who talks about a situation “from the outside,” without directly participating in it, explains the actions of other participants in the situation from a personal point of view. If he directly takes part in the situation, then he takes into account circumstantial attribution, that is, he first considers the circumstances, and only then attributes certain personal motives to someone.

Being active participants in society, people try not to draw conclusions about each other based only on external observations. As you know, appearances can often be deceiving. That is why casual attribution helps people formulate some conclusions based on an analysis of the actions of others, “passed” through the filter of their own perception. Of course, such conclusions also do not always correspond to reality, because it is impossible to judge a person based on one specific situation. Man is too complex a creature to talk about him so easily.

Why casual attribution is not always good

There are many examples in literature and cinema when errors of casual attribution led to destruction human lives. Very good example- this is the film "Atonement", where little main character draws a conclusion about another character only based on the characteristics of his own child’s perception of the situation. As a result, many people's lives are ruined just because she misunderstood something. The probable reasons that we assume are very often erroneous, so it is never possible to talk about them as the ultimate truth, even if it seems that there can be no doubt. If we cannot even understand our own inner world, what can we say about the inner world of another person? We must strive to analyze indisputable facts, and not our own conjectures and doubts.

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, if 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 rationally in the current situation and choose a rational course of action.

For these reasons, a person seeks 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 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. A person attributes certain things to the observed psychological properties, explaining the observed behavior.

When finding or explaining the causes of 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 found that when explaining or assessing the behavior of other people, we tend to underestimate the impact of the situation and overestimate the impact personal characteristics person. 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 own merits, and not 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 is set in a certain way, 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. From a psychological point of view, 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.

Casual attribution

Causal attribution. Attribution (from the English attribute - to attribute, to endow) - attribution social facilities(person, group, social community) characteristics not represented in the sphere of perception. The need for attribution is due to the fact that the information a person receives during the process of observation is insufficient for effective interaction in a social environment and needs to be “supplemented.” Attribution plays the role of such an addition, completion necessary information. Causal attribution(from Latin causa - reason) - the subject’s interpretation of the interpersonal perception of the reasons and motives of other people’s behavior. Research on causal attribution, which initially related only to social psychology, currently covers other areas of psychological science: general, developmental, educational psychology, and sports psychology.

The study of the phenomenon of attribution was started by F. Heider (1958), who developed the basic categories and principles of the theory of causal attribution. Fritz Heider analyzed the "common sense psychology" by which man explains everyday events. Heider concluded that people tend to attribute behavior internally (e.g. personal inclinations) or external reasons(for example, something situational). A teacher, analyzing a student’s poor performance, can explain it by insufficient motivation and abilities (internal, dispositional reasons) or by social, family circumstances in which the student finds himself (situational reasons).

The theory of causal attribution is built on the following principles:

1. People, getting to know each other, do not limit themselves to receiving externally observable information and strive to find out the reasons for behavior and personal qualities subject;

2. Since the information obtained as a result of observation is most often insufficient for reliable conclusions, the observer finds probable reasons behavior and personality traits and attributes them to the observed subject;

3. This causal interpretation significantly influences the observer's behavior.

Patterns of attribution are also described in the works of G. Kelly, E. Johnson, K. Davis and others. To a certain extent, the theory of cognitive dissonance by L. Festinger also belongs to the field of causal attribution. A model of causal attribution, which makes it possible to find the cause in both the individual and the environment and at the same time takes into account information about many aspects of human behavior, was proposed by G. Kelly. In his approach, information about an action is assessed according to three aspects - consistency, stability and difference. Consistency is the degree of uniqueness of an action from the point of view of socially accepted norms of behavior. Stability of behavior emphasizes the degree of variability over time in a given person's reactions in similar situations. Difference determines the degree of uniqueness of this action in relation to this object. In another scheme proposed by E. Johnson and K. Davis, two zones are distinguished: inferred and observable. In the zone of inference, the social process of action begins with the dispositions of the subject. The activation of dispositions sets in motion a set of intentions. Intention, let us recall, is the direction of consciousness or thinking towards any object. This orientation is always based on the need and desire of the individual. Let's return to the discussed scheme. Intentions activate, at the same time, the knowledge and abilities of the subject. At this point the process enters the observable zone. An individual performs certain actions that lead to certain consequences. For the subject performing the action, the process unfolds from dispositions to consequences. But for an external observer, the order of the process is reversed. He can observe consequences, sometimes actions. But everything else: dispositions, intentions, knowledge, abilities, are attributed to them. This explains the large number of errors in social attribution.

In Russian social psychology, attribution has been studied since the late 1970s and is considered as a mechanism for many social processes. Currently, the role of attribution in intergroup interaction, in the regulation of marital relations, and in the emergence of industrial conflicts has been studied. According to modern ideas, attribution is not limited to identifying the causes of behavior, but includes the attribution of a wide class of characteristics. In addition, the role of attribution in various intergroup and interpersonal relationships is studied.

Common mistakes in “causal attribution.”

1. Fundamental attribution error. The most striking differences in the attribution of causes for ongoing events are contained in the attributions of the subject of actions and the “outside observer.” When explaining their own behavior, people tend to attribute reasons primarily to the requirements of the situation and circumstances (situational attribution), and when explaining the behavior of others - to internal conditions associated with the characteristics of the person’s personality and character (dispositional attribution). Simply put, if I act, then “such are the circumstances,” and if another acts, “he is like that.” This different perception associated with different levels awareness of the actor and observer of what is happening. The actor always better understands his motives, needs and expectations; the observer does not have such information. As a result, the observer tends to constantly overestimate the capabilities of the individual and the role of dispositions in the behavior of the acting subject. This pattern is called the “fundamental attribution error.”

Along with the fundamental attribution error, other “attribution errors” have been identified - the error "illusory correlations " and error " false consent».

Illusory Correlation Fallacy associated with the peculiarities of establishing causal connections between behavior and possible reasons who called him. This error manifests itself in a person due to various circumstances - past experience, professional and other stereotypes, education received, age, personal characteristics. This error often occurs when it is difficult to install the real reason events. For example, if a person has a stomach ache, some people begin to remember what they ate the day before, while others begin to remember that they were too nervous. last days. Research has also found that some people more often explain their own and others’ actions by the intentions, desires and efforts of another person, while others more often explain them by the requirements and characteristics of the situation.

The error of "false consent" - is that the attribution of causes always occurs from an egocentric position - a person starts from his behavior, overestimating its commonality and prevalence. When we do something, it seems to us that such behavior is the most natural and widespread for those around us. The results of numerous experiments have shown that attribution is each time carried out in such a way that its results do not contradict a person’s ideas about himself and confirm his self-esteem. Experiments by H. Heckhausen revealed that attribution is also influenced by motivational bias. So, in one of the experiments, the subjects had to teach two students to count so that those behind a glass partition with one-sided transparency. One of the students did not show success in learning, the other learned very quickly. The subjects (teachers) tended to attribute failure to their students and success to themselves. In the case where subjects were informed that their “ pedagogical activity” will be recorded on tape for subsequent analysis and public discussion, then the attribution changed - “teachers” tended to be held responsible for the failure rather than the success of teaching. The experience of psychologists involved in causal attribution shows that to increase the effectiveness of communication, it is important to be aware of your attribution style, as well as the ability to see the influence of the situation and the influence of dispositions on human behavior. The attribution error is reduced if the interlocutors are connected by common goals of activity, general conditions and equally understand the context of interaction in which communication is embedded. Thus, a wife can always accurately explain the reason for irritated communication on the part of her husband - he is really annoyed with her or he is having troubles at work today, and she simply fell under the “hot hand.”

Other, less significant errors in causal attribution include the following errors. Firstly, uniqueness error. Unique actions are attributed, while ordinary actions are not attributed. Secondly, social desirability bias. Socially desirable actions are not attributed. Thirdly, positive asymmetry error. Success in Russian culture is traditionally attributed to oneself, and failure is attributed to circumstances. Fourthly, matching errors. If one of the events "meets" in time and/or space with another event, the first is often considered to be the cause of the second. Fifthly, errors of uneven social roles. There are roles whose performance is not attributed, for example, a doctor. On the contrary, the roles of a customs inspector or a policeman are always attributed. Sixth, errors related to the amplification principle. Priority is always given to the cause that encounters obstacles on the way to its implementation. Seventh, errors in trusting specific facts. A specific fact is assessed as more significant than a theory or a general judgment.