Attribution theories

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Attribution theories are general approaches in psychology that describe how individuals use information to make causal explanations for human behavior.

The term must be distinguished from causal theories ; these are layman's explanations for the causes of feelings and moods.

As Attributionsstile is used to refer " habitual preferences with regard to the attribution of causes of events that have already occurred" - can also result from which certain expectations.

Heider

With his main work The psychology of interpersonal relations (1958), Fritz Heider laid the foundation for all attribution theories by being the first to distinguish between internal and external attributions. People are “naive scientists” or “everyday psychologists” who try to explain the behavior of others based on incomplete information. If one comes to the conclusion that the cause of the behavior lies in the acting person himself, i.e. his character, his convictions or other enduring personality traits , he calls this internal attribution. However, if one believes that the situation caused the behavior, he speaks of external attribution. Heider was convinced that we attribute too often internally and too seldom externally, which Lee Ross later pointedly referred to as a fundamental attribution error .

Attribution style and partnership

According to studies by Frank Fincham and co-workers, there is a connection between the success of a partnership and the personal attribution style: In happy marriages he found a dispositional, i.e. based on personality traits, causal attribution of pleasant behaviors of the partner, while negative behaviors of the partner were more situational, thus owed to external circumstances, were justified. In unhappy marriages it was exactly the opposite.

Kelley's principle of covariation

Illustration of Harold Kelley's attribution theory

According to Harold Kelley's covariation principle, humans objectively and logically analyze three pieces of information in order to arrive at an internal or external attribution. First he asks about the consistency of the behavior, i.e. whether the behavior of the actor occurs in similar situations over different points in time and is not just an exception. The consistency is high if the behavior occurs over different points in time and low if the behavior occurs only at a few points in time. If there is consistency, i.e. a behavior pattern, the internal or external attribution depends on two factors:

  • Consensus : Describes how much other people react in the same way as the actor in the same situation. The consensus is high when many other people react similarly and low when few other people react the same way.
  • Distinctness : Describes whether the behavior is a reaction to a specific stimulus. Distinctness is high if the person only behaves like this in a few situations and low if the person also behaves like this in many other situations.

Kelley assumes that humans blame those causes for behavior that covariate with behavior (see table):

Consensus Distinctiveness consistency
Internal attribution (actor) low low high
External attribution (situation) high high high
exception high or low high or low low
  • If the consistency is low , the behavior of the actor is classified as an exception.
  • With high consistency , a distinction is made as follows:
    • low consensus and distinctiveness lead to internal attribution (the cause of the behavior would lie in the actor)
    • high consensus and distinctiveness lead to external attribution (the cause of the behavior would be in the situation)

Example:
Someone gives a large tip in a restaurant .
In order to be able to decide why the person is doing this, the ascribing individual needs further information, namely

  • whether this person regularly gives high tips (if not, this was an exception), if so:
  • whether other guests give high tips and
  • whether the person only gives high tips in very specific situations.

The evaluation of this information provides the desired causality ascription. If the person tips high (low distinctiveness) in many situations and other guests do not tip high (low consensus), the cause of the behavior most likely lies in the person. If, on the other hand, the person only regularly gives high tips in this restaurant and other people do the same, the restaurant is probably the cause of the behavior.

Many studies have confirmed Kelley's theory. however, consensus information is weighted less than the other two. If parts of the required information are not available, they are replaced by assumptions. The fact that an agent has more distinctness and consistency information available than an observer contributes to the actor-observer divergence .

Seligman

Martin Seligman , known for his theory of learned helplessness , added two dimensions to Heider's model in order to explain the development of depression. In addition to "internal vs. external ”he differentiates between causes that are“ stable vs. variable "and" general vs. specific ".

Example: How do I declare that I have failed an exam?

internally external
stable variable stable variable
As a general rule I am unable to pass exams. I'm always too ill-prepared. Auditors always ask too much. I was unlucky and got tough exam questions.
specific The exam subject was too difficult for me. I learned too little for this exam. This examiner was too demanding. I wasn't prepared for these exam questions.

According to Seligman, a certain style of attribution promotes the development of depression, namely viewing negative experiences as internal, stable and generally caused:

  • Internal: You see yourself as the problem and not external circumstances.
  • Stable: You see the problem as immutable, not temporary.
  • In general: You see the problem as omnipresent and not limited to certain situations.

To attribute failure in performance tests externally, variably and specifically, on the other hand, is a sign of resilience .

Weiner

Similar to Seligman, Bernard Weiner , who mainly researched achievement motivation , developed a three-dimensional classification system in which the causes of success or failure can be classified:

  • Location / locus (internal vs. external causes)
  • Stability (stable vs. variable causes)
  • Controllability (controllable vs. uncontrollable causes)

In particular, the stability dimension is held responsible for changes in expectations. Relatively stable causes lead to the expectation that past performance results will also be achieved in the future, while unstable causes indicate that future results may differ from past results.

The dimension of controllability, on the other hand, is associated in particular with the evaluation of other people. An attribution to particular effort usually leads to a high reward, while an attribution to laziness can lead to a devaluation of the person.

The location dimension is particularly related to the emotional effects of attributions. An attribution to a disability by others can lead to aggression, an attribution to personal performance, on the other hand, to a feeling of guilt or lower self-esteem.

Example (see table): Possible causes for success and failure in an exam.

internal internal external external
stable unstable stable unstable
uncontrollable talent Ability to concentrate Task difficulty Luck or coincidence
controllable Knowledge effort permanent resources (help from a friend) temporary resources (help from a stranger)

In addition to its main application in the field of achievement motivation, the attributional theory of behavior also plays a role in other areas. Bernard Weiner postulated, among other things, that the willingness to provide help depends, among other things, on the extent to which the person in need is responsible for their own plight, whereby in his opinion responsibility arises from three factors:

  • the causal relationship between a cause and the action that led to the need for help,
  • the controllability of this action,
  • attenuating circumstances, such as the influence of drugs, which led to the very act.

The emotions of the person who could potentially provide help play a crucial role here, as they have a mediating function between cognition and action. The likelihood of helping the person concerned increases when compassion is felt for them, and decreases when anger is felt about the situation in which the person concerned has maneuvered himself. Compassion is felt for a person especially when they are not responsible for an awkward situation. On the other hand, anger is felt when the person's need for help is perceived as self-generated. Accordingly, according to Weiner, there is no direct causal relationship between subjective responsibility and willingness to provide help, since the emotions felt either inhibit or promote willingness to help. Analogously, this sequence model can also be used to explain the relationship between cognition, emotion and aggressive behavior.

Other areas in which theory plays a role are loneliness , depression , learned helplessness and decisions made by probation committees in prison .

Heckhausen

According to Heinz Heckhausen , different events can be attributed differently, i.e. explained by different reasons,

  • global: general (“ everyone hates me”);
  • specific: concerning a person or thing (" this teacher hates me");
  • stable: it is always like this ("my whole life ...");
  • variable: today, changeable;
  • internal: because of me, in me, proceeding from me, the reason lies in my person;
  • external: from the outside, concerning the environment, the reason is not my person.

If you always attribute good experiences internally and bad experiences always externally, you may suffer from megalomania .

People with depression tend to experience good always externally and bad always to attributing internally.

If you attribute good experiences internally and negative experiences externally, this can promote good self-confidence .

Corresponding Inference Theory

The theory of corresponding inferences developed by Edward E. Jones and Keith Davis is an attribution theory from the field of social psychology and deals with how observers of an action infer a disposition of the actor (s). The aim of the attribution process is to determine whether an observed behavior and the intention that led to this behavior corresponds to an underlying, stable characteristic of the person. This inference process involves two stages:

1. Attribution of intention ("Did the observed do it on purpose?")

In order for the observer to assume that the action was intended, he presupposes that the consequences of the action were known and the ability (e.g. physical strength) was present.

2. The attribution of disposition ("Which personality traits made him do this?")

The observer's opinion has a central influence as to whether other people would also act in the same way, i.e. whether they act in the sense of social desirability . The more socially undesirable the consequences, the stronger the conclusions. The observer attributes an intention behind the offensive behavior that can be traced back to a personal characteristic. However, only actions that are socially undesirable lead to assumptions about the actor.

The attribution to a specific cause is subject to a process that is divided into several steps:

  1. First of all, it is assessed which possible alternatives there were for an action and which effects these alternatives would have; these are compiled in a kind of mental list .
  2. Common effects are now removed from this list, as they were not exclusively causal. If different causes have common effects, then the choice of a particular cause is not due to that common effect; Rather, something else must have been the decisive factor in the decision.
  3. Now devaluation principles and appreciation principles come into effect, which affect the value of various causes. This principle of appreciation or depreciation can also be found in other attribution theories - for example in Kelley's covariation model .
    1. Appreciation principle : If the achievement of an effect is faced with an obstacle that makes it difficult to achieve the goal, the cause that is responsible for this effect is upgraded and gains importance in the attribution process.
    2. Devaluation principle : If there are several causes for an effect, the importance of the individual causes is weakened.

There are also other influences on the attribution process, such as freedom of choice and social desirability .

Freedom of choice

If there is no freedom of choice in the alternative courses of action, the observer does not gain any information from this. If, on the other hand, freedom of choice is not restricted, then observers tend to attribute the behavior shown to a greater degree to dispositions than would be the case if there was no freedom of choice.

Empirical evidence for this was provided by an experiment in which test subjects were asked to rate an essay on Fidel Castro . One group was told that the author was forced to write the essay and speak out for Fidel Castro. The other group was told that the writer chose his pro stance of his own free will. The essay with the voluntary posture was now rated as more extreme than the essay with the forced posture. There was the same evidence in an essay that spoke out against Fidel Castro.

Social desirability

If an action is carried out because it is desired in the situation, observers tend to judge this action as a less extreme attitude on the part of the actor. However, if the action is carried out contrary to social conventions , then the disposition of the agent is classified as more extreme by observers.

There are empirical findings for this as well. Reference is made to an experiment with supposed applicants as astronauts and submarine captains, in which test subjects were supposed to assess an alleged job interview and saw those candidates who resisted a given role as more extreme in their attitudes.

literature

  • Fritz Heider: The psychology of interpersonal relations . Wiley, New York 1958. (German: Psychology of interpersonal relationships . Klett, Stuttgart 1977, ISBN 3-12-923410-1 )
  • E. Jones, K. Davis: A theory of correspondent inferences. From acts to dispositions. In: L. Berkowitz (Ed.): Advances in experimental social psychology. Academic Press (New York), Vol. 2, 1965, pp. 219-266.
  • HH Kelley: Attribution theory in social psychology. In: D. Levine (Ed.): Nebraska symposium on motivation. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln 1967, pp. 192-238.
  • HH Kelley: Causal schemata and the attribution process. In: EE Jones, DE Kanouse, HH Kelley, RE Nisbett, S. Valins, B. Weiner (Eds.): Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior . General Learning Press, Morristown, NJ 1972, pp. 1-26.
  • HH Kelley: The process of causal attribution. In: American Psychologist. 28, 1973, pp. 107-128.
  • Hannelore Weber, Thomas Rammsayer: Differential Psychology - Personality Research. Hogrefe, Göttingen u. a. 2012, ISBN 978-3-8017-2172-5 , pp. 101-104.
  • Bernard Weiner: motivational psychology . Beltz, Weinheim 1994, ISBN 3-621-27221-6 .

swell

  1. ^ Richard J. Gerrig, Philip G. Zimbardo : Psychology. 18th updated edition. 2008, p. 637.
  2. ^ E. Aronson , TD Wilson, RM Akert: Social Psychology. 6th edition. Pearson Studium, 2008, ISBN 978-3-8273-7359-5 , p. 137.
  3. ^ Hannelore Weber, Thomas Rammsayer: Differential Psychology - Personality Research. Hogrefe, Göttingen u. a. 2012, ISBN 978-3-8017-2172-5 , p. 101.
  4. German: Psychology of interpersonal relationships . Klett, Stuttgart 1977, ISBN 3-12-923410-1 .
  5. ^ L. Ross: The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. In: L. Berkowitz (Ed.): Advances in experimental social psychology. Vol. 10, Academic Press, Orlando, FL 1977, pp. 173-220.
  6. FD Fincham et al .: Marital violence, marital distress, and attributions. In: Journal of Family Psychology. 11, 1997, pp. 367-372.
  7. ^ E. Aronson , TD Wilson, RM Akert: Social Psychology. 6th edition. Pearson Studium, 2008, ISBN 978-3-8273-7359-5 , pp. 105 f.
  8. including PA White: Causal attribution from covariation information: The evidential evaluation model. In: European Journal of Social Psychology. 32, 2002, pp. 667-684.
  9. ^ LZ McArthur:. The how and what of why: Some determinants and consequences of causal attribution. In: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 22, 1972, pp. 171-193.
  10. K. Fiedler include: Covariation-based attribution: On the ability to assess multiple covariations of an effect. In: Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 25, 1999, pp. 607-622.
  11. ^ EM Hansen et al .: Actors and observers: Divergent attributions of constrained unfriendly behavior. In: Social Behavior and Personality. 29, 2000, pp. 87-104.
  12. B. Weiner : An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. In: Psychological Review. 92, 1985, pp. 548-573.
  13. ^ EE Jones, VA Harris: The attribution of attitudes. In: Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 3, 1967, pp. 1-24.