What is causal attribution. What is attribution

Causal attribution - the process of attributing to another person the reasons for his behavior in the case when there is no information about these reasons. The need to understand the reasons for the interaction partner's behavior arises in connection with the desire to interpret his actions. Attribution is carried out either on the basis of the similarity of the behavior of the perceived person with some other 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).

The measure and degree of attribution in the process of interpersonal perception depends on two indicators: on the degree of uniqueness or typicality of an act and on the degree of its social “desirability” or “undesirability”. Typical and desirable behavior lends itself to an unambiguous interpretation, undesirable and unique behavior allows for many different interpretations and, therefore, gives scope for attributing its causes and characteristics.

The nature of attributions also depends on whether the subject of perception is himself a participant in an event or its observer. In these two different cases, one chooses different type attribution. G. Kelly singled out three such types: personal attribution (when the cause is attributed to the person who performs the act), object attribution (when the cause is attributed to the object on which the action is directed) and circumstantial attribution (when the cause of the action is attributed to circumstances). When attributing reasons for success and failures: the participant of the action “blames” mainly the circumstances for the failure, while the observer “blames” the performer himself for the failure.

Attribution errors:

Fundamental error (one! The rest is its manifestation) attribution. Attribute the cause of the action to the person's personality. Restrictions: 1) if a person considers another from an internal locus of control, then he argues like that. Same with the outside. 2) people - a participant or observer of this process. The observer, unlike the participant, does not know the background. Another point: people do not take into account what did not happen, although it may have become the cause.

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

19. Interpersonal attraction

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

Expert review

GOAL (Group Personality Assessment)

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

Accuracy of interpersonal perception. Personality tests, but, firstly, there are no tests to identify and measure all the characteristics of a person (therefore, comparison, if possible, is only for those characteristics for which there are tests); secondly, as already noted, tests cannot be considered as the only tool for studying personality, since they have certain limitations.

A similar problem arises when the method of expert assessments is used. As experts, people are selected who know well the person who is the object of perception. Their judgments about it (“expert assessments”) are compared with the data of the subject of perception. But even in this case, we essentially again have two series of subjective judgments: the subject of perception and the expert (who also acts as the subject of perception, and, therefore, his judgments by no means exclude the element of evaluation).

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

Arbitrary ideas about the relationship of various characteristics of people were called "illusory correlations." These peculiar "stereotypes" are based not only on "life" experience", but often on scraps of knowledge, information about various psychological concepts that were widespread in the past (for example, Kretschmer's ideas about the relationship between human constitution types and traits of his character, ideas of physiognomy about the correspondence of facial features to certain psychological characteristics, etc.). A.A. Bodalev received very interesting data in this regard: out of 72 people he interviewed regarding how they perceive the external features of other people, 9 answered that a square chin is a sign of strong will, 17 - that a large forehead is a sign of intelligence, 3 identify coarse hair with rebellious character, 16 - fullness with good nature, for two thick lips - a symbol of sexuality, for five short stature - evidence of authority, for one person, eyes close to each other mean irascibility, and for five others beauty is a sign of stupidity (Bodalev, 1982, p. 118). No training can fully remove these worldly generalizations, but it can at least puzzle people on the issue of the “unconditionality” of their judgments about other people.

interpersonal attraction. The field of research related to the identification of mechanisms for the formation of various emotional attitudes towards the perceived person was called the study of attraction. Attraction is both the process of forming the attractiveness of some person for the perceiver, and the product of this process, i.e. some kind of relationship.

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

100 r first order bonus

Choose the type of work Graduate work Course work Abstract Master's thesis Report on practice Article Report Review Test Monograph Problem solving Business plan Answers to questions creative work Essay Drawing Compositions Translation Presentations Typing Other Increasing the uniqueness of the text Candidate's thesis Laboratory work Help online

Ask for a price

Causal attribution: it is the process of attributing to another person the reasons for his behavior in the event that information about these reasons is not available. 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.

The measure and degree of attribution depend on:

Degrees of uniqueness or typicality of an act

The degree of his social « desirable or undesirable. Experiments (John, Davis, Gergen): the subjects listened to interviews of people supposedly selected as astronauts and submariners. At the same time, the ideal astronaut was described as an introvert, and the submariner was an extrovert. Then they let me listen to a recording of interviews with people who were supposedly going to become submariners and astronauts and asked to determine the type of profession. In half of the subjects in the interview, the features of introversion and extraversion were clearly traced - the subjects accurately determined. In the other half of the subjects, the submariners demonstrated introversion in the interview, and the cosmonauts demonstrated extroversion. There were no clear answers. Conclusion : Behavior that deviates from role requirements needs additional behavior.

G. Kelly: Theory of causal attribution:

1. covariance theory

With repeated observation, 3 criteria are triggered in a person:

Similarities (does everyone behave like this).

Differences (do they always behave like this),

Coincidences (does everyone behave this way all the time).

In different cases, a different type of attribution is chosen.

- personal attribution (the reason is attributed personally to the person who does the act),

- stimulus attribution (the cause is attributed to the object to which the action is directed),

- adverbial attribution (the cause of what happens 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.

2. configuration theory(one single observation).

Basic principles :

Strengthening (priority is given to the reason that encounters an obstacle: a person clearly takes risks, performs an act, overcoming difficulties, etc.).

- depreciation (Thibault and Rickert experiment : People were asked, after viewing clips of "obliging behavior" of two people - one with high status and one with low status - to explain the reasons for this behavior. For low status both the internal cause (powerlessness in life) and the external one (desire for help) were chosen, and for high status- only internal (he really is), since his status is high and people believed that he definitely could not need help. Conclusion: a cause that has an alternative is discarded).

System distortion ( typical mistakes attribution).

A special place is occupied by the problem of attribution of responsibility. Hypothesis : the more serious the act, the greater the responsibility on the individual, and not on the circumstances. Experiment: with a car on a hill (attribution of responsibility depending on the severity of the damage).

Attribution errors :

Fundamental error (overestimation of personal characteristics compared to situational ones)

5 Reasons for Fundamental Mistake :

The idea of ​​false consent (the views of the other are similar to mine).

We attribute to the personality what should be attributed to the role.

Facts become more important than arguments about them.

Illusory correlations (arbitrary connection of completely unrelated phenomena).

We don't take into account what didn't happen.

Fundamental attribution error is not absolute, as participant and observer attribute causes differently. Why?

1. They have different levels awareness.

2. They have a different angle of view, they have a different perceptual focus. Storms experiment : the conversation of two people was filmed on camera, and then shown to them - when interpreting their behavior after the conversation and after watching the film, the interpretation of their behavior changed. And when viewing the tape, the interpretation coincided with the interpretation of the real observer of this conversation. And for real observers of the conversation, everything was the opposite - before watching the tape, they showed an attribution error, and after watching the tape, they "approached" in perception the participants in the conversation.

Motivational error (recognized by motivational processes, defenses).

Kinds:

1. reducing the motivation for positive self-esteem:

Counter-defensive attribution (if a person knows that his actions will be critically evaluated, he will attribute success to circumstances, and failure to himself).

Auto-hindrances (on the way to achieving the goal, a person creates obstacles for himself, that is, he makes excuses for failure in advance).

2. motivation corresponding to the norm (false similarity).

3. the need for stability, security:

Faith in a just world

Illusion of control (attributing to oneself more control than one actually has).

weiner: causes of motivational error:

Stable - unstable, internal - external, controlled - uncontrolled.

Depending on the motivation, a person may have a different set of reasons. The choice of each of the combinations is due to a different motivation: either to justify weakness, or to assert oneself, i.e. motivation for achievement or against achievement. Usually, if explained mine own success(failure), then success due to personal reasons a failure- situational and if someone else's success (failure) is explained, then the opposite is true. However, there is also impact of self-esteem: if a person has low self-esteem- then it is possible to attribute luck and circumstances. In addition, the attribution of internal or external reasons depend on the status perceived. Thibault and Rickert experiment with high-status and low-status people who, after listening to a speech about the need to donate, both went to donate blood, but in the case of a high-status person, such a decision was attributed to his personality, and in the case of a low-status one, to the success of the speech.

Research Nikolyukina : the study group was considered - the participants were asked to rank the group according to academic performance, and then each participant was given information that the student who, according to his own classification, was “smarter” than him received 2, and the student who was “sillier” received 5. In this case, the reasons were situational. And if “adequate” information was reported (i.e. vice versa), then the reasons were attributed to the individual.

Effects:

Installation effect plays a significant role in the formation of the first impression of a stranger, which was revealed in experiments A. A. Bodaleva. Two groups of students were shown a photograph of the same person (the criminal is a prominent scientist). After that, each group was asked to make verbal portrait photographed person. The portrait turned out appropriate.

Experiments halo effect

- Evaluations of two groups of children given by the subject of perception were recorded: “loved” and “unloved” children. Although "beloved" (in this case more attractive) children made (intentionally) mistakes in the performance of the task, and the “unloved” ones performed it correctly, the perceiver attributed positive assessments to the “loved ones”, and negative ones to the “unloved ones”. This is consistent with the correspondence theory that it is common for people to reason in this way.: "a bad person has bad traits», « good man has good features». Conclusion: 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.

- the transfer of physically attractive features to the psychological characteristics of the perceived person was demonstrated: a group of men were shown photographs of beautiful, ordinary and clearly ugly women and asked to comment on their features. Only the beautiful were endowed with such traits as strong, balanced, amiable, and even caring and attentive. The halo effect expresses a tendency to obscure certain characteristics and highlight others, it plays the role of a kind of filter when “reading” a communication partner.

The effect of "primacy and novelty" - concerns the significance of a certain order of presenting information about a person for compiling an idea about him: previously presented information is considered as “primary”, and lately presented as “new”. Experiment : Four groups of students were presented with a stranger who had to be described in terms of his personality traits and who was said to be: extrovert; introvert; first that he is an extrovert, and then that he is an introvert; the same, but in reverse order. There were no problems with this description in the first two groups. In the 3rd and 4th groups, the impressions about the stranger corresponded exactly to the order in which the information was presented: the information presented earlier prevailed. This effect is called "primacy effect" and was registered in cases where it is perceived stranger. On the contrary, in situations of perception of a familiar person, "novelty effect", which lies in the fact that the latter, i.e. newer, the information is the most significant. However, there is no single answer to the question of what is the best way to present information about another person.

causal attribution.

Causal attribution(eng. attribute - to attribute, 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 behavior of the perceived person 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 anyway, there is whole system ways of such attribution (attribution). Thus, the interpretation of one's own and other people's behavior by attributing (reasons, motives, feelings, etc.) is integral part interpersonal perception and cognition.

Special branch 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. AT general view the answer is that every person has some a priori causal beliefs and causal expectations.

The causal schema is a kind of general concept this person about the possible interactions of various causes, about what effects these causes produce in principle. It is based on three principles:

§ the principle of depreciation, when the role main reason events are underestimated due to 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 causality schemes, 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 the experiments it was found that various people demonstrate predominantly completely different types of attribution, that is, a different degree 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 ratios 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 conscious actions specific 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 various positions subject of perception, a number of fairly typical attribution errors have also been identified. G. Kelly summarized them as follows:

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

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

More specifically, fundamental errors manifest themselves in errors:

"false consent"(when the “normal” interpretation is considered to be one that coincides with “my” opinion and is adjusted to 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 cause a certain “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 the 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 attribution process, 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 features”, “a good person has good features”, 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, and the perceiver himself evaluates himself by contrast as the bearer of the most positive traits.

Causal attribution It is considered a unique psychological phenomenon that characterizes the human perception of emotions, motives and reasons for this or that behavior of another person. In the absence of sufficient necessary information about a particular person or about the situation in which he is, other people have a distorted interpretation of the situation. Such a phenomenon of perception is based on the attribution of certain non-existent characteristics, features, cause-and-effect relationships, etc.

The concept of causal attribution was first formulated in the middle of the 20th century by American social psychologists: UCLA professor Harold Kelly, researcher Fritz Heider, and Stanford University psychology professor Lee Ross. Further description of this phenomenon interpersonal relationships reflected in the "Attribution theory" (attribution theory). In accordance with causal attribution, the researchers tried to explain the mechanisms of interpretation by an ordinary ordinary citizen of the causal relationships of certain events, as well as their own behavior.

Attribution classification

Theory of causal attribution implies the presence of two indicators that determine the measure and degree of attribution instead of real facts:

compliance of the action with social-role expectations (i.e. the less information, the less correspondence, the greater the degree of attribution);
compliance of behavior with generally accepted cultural norms.

In accordance with the theory of causal attribution, the classification of the phenomenon of "attribution" is divided into three types of attribution:

• personal (a causal relationship is attributed to the person who committed the act);
• object (a causal relationship is attributed to the object on which the action is directed);
• circumstantial (a causal relationship is attributed to circumstances).

It was found that an observer "from outside" more often uses personal attribution, and a participant in a situation or event - circumstantial.

Mechanisms of attribution theory

Mechanisms of causal attribution are based on the following provisions:

getting to know each other in society, people are not limited to information obtained as a result of external observations: they strive to clarify the causes of an act and to formulate conclusions about personal qualities;
since the information obtained as a result of third-party observation is often insufficient, observers determine probable causes, prompted to action, and attribute them to the observed participant;
interpretation of the causes has a significant impact on the behavior of the observer.

The most significant results of the study were obtained as a result of studying the mechanisms of causal attribution. Were installed:

• systemic differences in a person's explanation of his own behavior and the actions of other people;
• deviations of the replacement process from logical norms under the influence subjective factors(informational and motivational);
• stimulating effect that is exerted on a person’s activity and his motivation by explaining the unsatisfactory results of such activity by the influence external factors, and satisfactory results - the influence of internal factors.

One of the most frequent patterns of the theory is considered to be an overestimation of one's own importance and an exaggeration of the role of certain factors (such as luck, luck, abilities) in shaping the situation.

Goals and results of the study of attribution theory

In accordance with the mechanisms of causal attribution, methods are determined practical use obtained results to influence the effectiveness of human activity, its motivation, emotions and goals. The study of attribution helps to establish the moment when the members of the team take personal responsibility for their actions. The results are used to adequately assess the real contribution of a particular participant to the overall corporate activities of the group.

The theory of causal attribution was originally studied only within the framework of social psychology. Now it is used in general, pedagogical, age, as well as in sports psychology. The main areas of study are self-perception, interpersonal perception, perception of a large volume of other social objects.

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 is directed.
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 .
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. 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 the concept of causal attribution means, it is important to know when it occurs. It appears when unexpected obstacles appear on the way. joint activities- in case of difficulties and conflicts, 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, the reason is in itself.