Causal attribution in social cognition

The concept of causal attribution

Definition 1
Causal attribution is a separate phenomenon of interpersonal perception, or a person’s causal interpretation of his own and others’ behavior.

Causal attribution is associated with the individual experience of the subject and arises during social interaction. This phenomenon also applies to thinking, and not just to the perception of a person by a person. The essence of this phenomenon is to “complete” the missing piece of information for a person to create a complete and systematized idea of an object.

Emotions are an obstacle to logical thinking, so the patterns of causal attribution will manifest themselves most clearly when emotions block the process of thinking according to the laws of logic. Hence, it is especially clearly manifested when interpreting the causes of successes and failures, both one’s own and those of others, since the result of activity always has an emotional overtones.

The results and process of causal attribution, although they share common features, are largely individual. The result of causal attribution is the attribution of the causes of any act to external or internal sources. The causes of external events are mainly attributed to the actions of circumstances, while the causes of internal events are attributed to the actions of people.

Too lazy to read?

Ask a question to the experts and get an answer within 15 minutes!

Ask a Question

In addition to two types of attribution - external and internal, there are also stable and variable causal attribution.

Note 1

Foreign psychologists consider causal attribution as a universal mechanism of social perception. Russian psychology believes that the need for “attribution” arises only when the person observed in a non-standard situation demonstrates incomprehensible behavior.

Causal attribution, as Russian psychologists believe, occurs when the behavior of a social object is unique, i.e. beyond typical behavior.

Thus, the study of causal attribution primarily covers the following issues:

regular differences in explanations of one's behavior and the behavior of others;
deviations from the logical norms of the process of causal attribution as a result of subjective factors;
motivational influences on human activity.

Too lazy to read?

Ask a question to the experts and get an answer within 15 minutes!

Ask a Question

The measure and degree of “attribution”, instead of actual facts, presupposes the presence of such indicators as compliance of the action with social-role expectations, i.e. with a small amount of information, the degree of “attribution” will be greater, as well as the degree of behavior to generally accepted cultural norms.

The phenomenon of “attribution” is divided into three types of attribution:

personal attribution;
object attribution;
circumstantial attribution.

Note 2

Most often, an “outside observer” uses personal attribution, and a participant in the situation uses circumstantial attribution.

Social causal attribution

Home Favorites Random article Educational New additions Feedback FAQ

One of the problems with communication between representatives of different ethnic communities, as well as other large groups, is that they do not understand the reasons for each other's behavior and make false attributions. Study of causal attribution by the beginning of the 70s of the XX century. took one of the leading places in American and then world social psychology. However, the results of numerous studies conducted at the inter-individual level, in the perspective of interpersonal relationships, could not be transferred to the level of relations between social communities, including ethnic ones. As noted by the Swiss researcher J.-C. Deschamps, “it would be useless to study attribution processes without taking into account the relations between groups, the interaction of individuals belonging to different social categories” [ Deschamps,

1973/74, b. 719].

However, the first empirical studies that analyzed attributions depending on the group affiliation of their object and subject were conducted by psychologists in the USA and Canada. The most famous of them, the results of which are cited by almost all the authors of later works on social attribution, were carried out in the early 70s. in South India [ Taylor, Jaggi,

1974]. Its authors transferred to the group level the concept of egocentric attribution by H. Kelly, according to which there is a tendency to attribute success to oneself and failure to another, [p. 298] and suggested that people tend to attribute positive events to their group, and negative events to others.

Hindu subjects were offered descriptions of situations in each of which a Hindu or Muslim commits positive or negative actions (a shopkeeper shows generosity or deceives a customer, a teacher praises or punishes a student, a homeowner invites into the house or does not pay attention to a passerby caught in the rain, etc. ). The subjects were asked to explain the behavior of members of two religious groups by one of the proposed reasons: external (coincidence of circumstances; rules of behavior established in society) or internal (the generosity or greed of a merchant, the bad or good character of a teacher).

The hypothesis put forward was fully confirmed - internal reasons were attributed to the positive behavior of members of one’s own group and the negative behavior of members of an out-group, and external reasons were attributed to the negative behavior of “insiders” and the positive behavior of “strangers”. The attributions identified in this study, as well as attributions that similarly explain the success and failure of in-groups and out-groups, were called ethnocentric [ Stephan, Stephan

, 1996][133].
And T. Pettigrew proposed to consider their use as the primary (ultimate)
attribution error, understood as “the systematic structuring of false intergroup attributions, partly based on prejudices” [
Pettigrew,
1979, p. 464]. But Pettigrew did not try to consider group attributions within the framework of the psychology of intergroup relations, believing that only prejudiced individuals are susceptible to the primary attribution error.

the theory of social attribution in the early 80s

[
Hewstone, Jaspars,
1984].
It was from this time that the main attention in Europe turned to the study of social (or group) causal attribution, understood as the interpretation of the behavior and performance of individuals on the basis of their group membership. Such attribution is: 1) social
in origin, as it arises and develops as a result of the social interaction of individuals or under the influence of social information;
2) group
from the point of view of the object of focus - not on an individual, but on a member [p.
299]specific social group; 3) group
in terms of similarities among members of a social group and differences between groups.

According to researchers from Europe, the main function of social attribution is the formation, maintenance or strengthening of a positive group identity. A strategy to maintain a positive group identity is to use ethnocentric attributions, in which individuals favor members of their own group.

Very soon, social psychologists discovered that overt ethnocentric attributions were not universal. For example, an experiment by M. Hewstone and K. Ward was devoted to testing the hypothesis about their universality, in which the subjects were representatives of two ethnic groups - Malays and Chinese - simultaneously in two countries - Malaysia and Singapore [Hewstone, Ward,

1985]. In Malaysia, where nationalist ideology is dominant and the Chinese are a discriminated minority group, only the Malays showed a tendency to make ethnocentric attributions, while the Chinese showed out-group favoritism: internal reasons were more likely to explain the positive behavior of Malays than members of their own group. In Singapore, where the Chinese are not an oppressed minority group, the results were somewhat different: the Malays in that country also made ethnocentric attributions, and the Chinese showed neither in-group nor out-group favoritism.

The results of this study confirmed the validity of the following statement of the theory of Huston and Jaspers: “...under some conditions, failure to maintain a positive social identity is a function of social attribution. For example, members of subordinate minority groups who see no alternative to the existing system quite often tend to devalue their group and favor the dominant group" [ Hewstone, Jaspars,

1984, p. 398].

Moreover, the attributions demonstrated by Hindus in South India and Chinese in Malaysia can only be thought of as poles of a continuum that correspond to fairly high levels of favoritism (in-group in the first case and out-group in the second) and are empirical indicators of intergroup differentiation in the form of opposition. And the attributions identified among the Chinese in Singapore do not correspond to any of these poles and are located at some point between them.

In other words, under favorable conditions of intergroup interaction - the absence of obvious conflicts, approximate equality [p. 300]statuses, etc. — there is no need to construct ethnocentric attributions to maintain a positive group identity. Thus, even with a preference for one of the groups, attributions may reveal different attitudes towards individual spheres of life of the two communities. And the differentiation of one’s own and another’s groups ranges from opposition in favor of one’s group through comparison, which does not exclude criticism of the activities and qualities of both communities, to opposition in favor of the other group.

This was confirmed in a study we conducted at the end of the 80s, in which Moscow students had to assess the degree of influence of various reasons on the behavior and achievements of Soviet and American characters in several situations[134].

In a situation of interpersonal communication, the positive behavior of a Soviet passer-by helping a lost foreign tourist was more often attributed to his responsiveness and selflessness (internal reasons), and the positive behavior of an American character was attributed to circumstances (external reason), i.e. ethnocentric attributions were identified (with a contrast in favor of your group).

Differentiation in the form of comparison appeared when subjects had the opportunity to explain the behavior of Soviet and American characters in situations with non-matching stereotypical characteristics. They considered the main reasons for the good relations between neighbors in the hostel to be different positive qualities of Americans and Soviet people (looseness and respect for other peoples, respectively), and the main reasons for their bad relations were various negative qualities (a sense of superiority over other peoples and insufficient looseness). In other words, causal attributions were built in accordance with complementary images, which led to the explanation of both positive and negative behavior of members of both groups by internal stereotypical personality traits. But even in this case, a way to maintain a positive group identity was identified. It consisted of attributing to one's group the most socially desirable qualities, and to the out-group - qualities that are formally positive, but located at the bottom of the hierarchy of personality traits as values: in Russian culture, respect for other peoples is a more valuable quality than looseness.

[With. 301]But when the subjects had to interpret the successes and failures of the Soviet and American scientific teams, and among the reasons for the achievements were listed many qualities perceived as stereotypical for Americans (hard work, efficiency, enterprise), they demonstrated out-group favoritism - opposition in favor of the out-group. Thus, the failure of Soviet scientists was explained by all the proposed internal reasons - from insufficient hard work and enterprise to insufficient team cohesion. And the most likely reason for the failure of the Americans was considered to be an external unstable reason - bad luck.

By now, there are grounds to assert that in the ethnocentric attribution of causes of behavior and performance results, not only the locus factor plays a role (whether internal or external reasons are used), but also the stability/instability factor. Thus, in a series of works by Italian psychologists who studied intergroup linguistic bias

, there was a tendency to describe the positive behavior of in-group members and the negative behavior of out-group members using more abstract terms than when describing the negative behavior of in-group members and the positive behavior of out-group members.
For example, in the case of positive behavior, an in-group member is described as an altruist
, and an out-group member is described as
helping another person.
Conversely, in the case of aggressive behavior, an “insider” is described as
offending someone,
and a “stranger” is described as
an aggressor.
It is quite obvious that the more abstract terms are used to explain the reasons for an individual’s behavior, the more stable these reasons are perceived [
Maass, Cescarelli, Rudin,
1996].

The significance of the stability/instability factor in social causal attribution was also reflected in a study we conducted in 1987 in Dagestan. The subjects did not distinguish between the behavior of “friends” and “strangers” from the point of view of the locus of causes. But both Russians and representatives of indigenous peoples explained their good relationships with a representative of another ethnic group by the national characteristics of their group and the individual properties of their communication partner. “Naive psychologists” reasoned something like this: “we” get along with people because our people have positive qualities (kindness, responsiveness, sociability, etc.), and if one of “them” establishes a good relationship with “us” “, then only due to their personal characteristics. In general, they attributed the positive behavior of members of their group and the negative behavior of members of an out-group to group characteristics [p. 302]t. that is, internal stable reasons, and the negative behavior of members of one’s group and the positive behavior of members of an out-group are individual characteristics, i.e., internal, but unstable for the group, reasons.

Currently, in social psychology there is general unanimity on at least one point - there are differences in attributing the causes of behavior to “ours” and “strangers”. But then a new question arises: what underlies such asymmetry? There are two competing explanations: motivational and cognitive. According to the first model, social attributions are based on the motive of protecting one’s group or even “pure ethnocentrism.” This point of view is supported, for example, by the results of a study by J. Greenberg and D. Rosenfeld, where white Americans had to explain the reasons for the successes and failures of African Americans in solving problems that do not require the abilities included in the nave stereotype in the United States. Racist subjects tended to attribute the reasons for African American success to luck rather than ability, and the reasons for failure to lack of ability rather than bad luck, to a greater extent than did nonracially prejudiced subjects. The authors argue that the basis of negative attributions should be sought not in cognitive processes, but in motivation - racists demonstrate ethnocentric attributions simply because they do not like African Americans [ Greenberg, Rosenfield,

1979]. In other words, negative attitudes lead to corresponding attributions.

Authors adhering to the cognitivist model argue that it is not attitudes that lead to certain attributions, but the universal process of intergroup categorization and its more particular case - stereotyping [ Stephan, Stephan,

1996]. Since stereotypes are the source of internal explanations for the behavior and achievements of a group and its representatives, the basis for differences in social attributions is seen in the expectation of behavior consistent with stereotypes. For example, if there is a stereotype that Russians are hospitable, any actions of representatives of this ethnic group in which hospitality is manifested will be considered typical, that is, internal to the group and stable. And such attributions turn out to be ethnocentric only because autostereotypes are most often more positive than heterostereotypes. However, although this is the most likely case, other options are also possible.

In summary, a motivational model of the mechanisms underlying social attributions predicts the use of internal[p. 303] and/or stable reasons to explain the positive behavior of “our own” and the negative behavior of “strangers”, regardless

from expectations based on stereotypes.
And proponents of the cognitivist model argue that there is a tendency to attribute internal and/or stable causes to behavior that is consistent with stereotypes, and to attribute external and/or unstable causes to behavior that is inconsistent with stereotypes, regardless
of whether the behavior is positive or not. or negatively and to whom it is characteristic - “one’s own” or “someone else’s”[135].

The results of many studies allow us to consider it proven that “in the presence of social stereotypes, their content is used to causally explain behavior” [ Hewstone, Jaspars,

1984, p.
398]. In other words, expectations based on stereotypes are a sufficient
prerequisite for the formation of social attributions in individuals, even in the absence of motivational interests.
As an example, we can cite the results of a study by A. Maas and colleagues, in which both positive and negative behavior of immigrants from the north and south of Italy, corresponding to stereotypes established in society, was explained in more abstract terms, and those not corresponding to stereotypes were explained in more specific terms, i.e. e. linguistic bias manifested itself. The same results were obtained from Italians from the north, and from Italians from the south, and from subjects who did not identify themselves with either of the two groups, as well as in an experimental situation in which it was not possible to demonstrate the motive of protecting one’s group [ Maass, Ceccarelli, Rudin,
1996].

It appears that the cognitivist model received support in this and other studies because social causal attribution and stereotyping (the attribution of personality traits to in-group and out-group members) are two types of a single attributional process. They are closely interrelated: the process of social causal attribution is a mechanism for the formation of stereotypes, and the process of stereotyping is a mechanism for the formation of attributions.

But two interrelated types of a single attributive process are not reducible to each other and have relative independence. [With. 304] In particular, in an effort to maintain a unified focus in attributing reasons to certain behavior, individuals may ignore certain stereotypical traits. Thus, in our study already described, the presence of a holistic attribution pattern unfavorable for one’s group led to ignoring the stereotype of American individualism and to considering “insufficient cohesion” as a more likely reason for the failure of Soviet rather than American scientists. In this case, social attributions were influenced not only by stereotypes, but also by the motive of protecting the image of Americans as a social group preferred in the scientific field.

Although the motivation for maintaining a positive group identity - and more broadly - intergroup differentiation of the corresponding orientation is not necessary

a prerequisite for the construction of social causal attributions; in many real situations it is precisely this that determines their content. Thus, it can be assumed that in intergroup conflicts, when there is a threat to group identity, it is motivational mechanisms that are relevant, and cognitive ones are not even taken into account. Individuals in this case, using ethnocentric attributions, show in-group favoritism, which allows them to protect their group.

The following situations are identified in which individuals are motivated to intensify the defense of their group: 1) when they experience fear for their social identity; 2) when they belong to a group that has an unfairly low status; 3) when intergroup relations are competitive; 4) when there are no supergroup categories that include representatives of both in-group and out-group [ Brown,

1995].

Some of these situations have been examined by Italian psychologists. Thus, the subjects demonstrated greater bias when the experiment actualized hostility between immigrants from the north and south of Italy, but did not introduce a common supergroup category for them - Italians.

In today's interdependent world, ethnocentric attributions used to maintain a positive ethnic identity can contribute to the formation and maintenance of hostile stereotypes and hinder attempts to resolve intergroup conflicts. But there are also more serious problems: many low-status groups seek to establish positive differences in direct competition with the majority group, in which victory would allow them to occupy a higher position. 305]position in society. Earlier[136] we deliberately omitted this strategy of maintaining a positive ethnic identity in the face of unfavorable intergroup comparison - the collective strategy of social competition. Unfortunately, in this case, the desire of one people to restore a positive ethnic identity very often collides with the interests of other peoples, and social competition develops into ethnic conflicts, the socio-psychological analysis of which we will devote the next chapter to.

The structure of the causal attribution process

In the structure of causal attribution there is a subject, which is called the observer, there is an object - this is the observed, and there is a context, i.e. a social situation that influences the process of causal attribution.

All mental processes of the subject - thinking, attention, memory - exert their influence on the process of causal attribution.

The external signs of an object are perceived by the subject through the prism of his own inner world and are compared on the basis of past experience with personal characteristics - the result is an interpretation of the object’s behavior and its causes.

Within the boundaries of the psychological sphere of the subject, causal attribution unfolds, the process of which is influenced by the image of “I” and self-esteem. These personality traits will be the psychological foundation for the various factors that influence people’s relationships.

The profession, socio-perceptual skills and abilities of the subject of attribution, and his age play an important role in the successful interpretation of the causes of behavior. At the time of the process, the physical and mental state of the subject of causal attribution is also important.

An integral part of causal attribution is the object; it is he who is the author of the perceptual message, forming it in the process of communication.

The formation of a message occurs using expressive means - facial expressions, distance, pantomime, eye contact, etc.

When causal attribution occurs outside of direct communication, the perceptual message will be represented by specific actions and behaviors of the object of attribution.

An important point here will be the relationship between the properties of the subject and the object of attribution, their similarities and differences from the point of view of belonging to a particular social group.

If we are talking about a person’s perception and cognition of himself, then the object and subject of causal attribution may well coincide.

To determine the internal and external causes of an object’s behavior, the subject needs to imagine the circumstances in which the object’s behavior unfolded.

This or that behavior that arose in any social situation can be considered from the point of view of social norms.

Note 3

The content of causal attribution and the success of the social-perceptual process are associated with each of its structural components - the observer, the observed, the social situation.