CAUSAL ATTRIBUTION

CAUSAL ATTRIBUTION
Social Psychology seeks to eagerly answer and know more about the stable traits of
the others and the causes that give rise to these behaviors. The interest in this arises from the desire to understand
the cause - effect relationship in the social world, that is, not only how individuals act in a society, but
also because they do it. Therefore, in this section we seek to analyze the causal attributions, which
they refer to our efforts to understand the causes behind the behavior of others.
1.1. CONCEPTUAL DELIMITATION
Human thought is very complex, it is always trying to build, search, and provide explanations to
our attitudes and manifest behaviors. That is why throughout our lives we are
gradually building appropriate explanations regarding why people behave
In a way and without meaning to, we elaborate theories that explain these experiences. This interest or desire to know
and explaining these behaviors is called attributions, which we can define as the process of
through which we seek and strive to understand the causes behind the behavior of the
others and, on some occasions, also the reasons behind our own behavior
1.2. THEORETICAL MODELS
One more step in understanding others is to try to find out why they behave the way they do.
In what they do, in this context we are going to study the main theories on attribution.
Theory of naive psychology by Heider, this author placed a lot of emphasis on what we commonly
we call it "Common Sense", it also refers to people as psychologists who rely on intuition,
leading to building causal theories about human behavior and these are important because they influence
the behaviors of people. For example, it is likely that people who believe in astrology act in a way
different from those who do not believe. In the same way, within his 3 principles or central ideas, Heider talks to us about
of internal attributions (personality, aptitude, etc.) and external attributions (situations, social pressure,
etc.); in this way we attribute internal causes and set aside external ones, for example, a subject that...
he shows serious, cold, and withdrawn at a party, the first thing we would say is that it is his way of being, however it is
likely that the cause is that he doesn't like the party, he doesn't feel comfortable and that's why his way of being in that
moment (Hogg 2010, p. 80).
There are four key contributions from Heider (1958) cited by Morales et al. (2007), to which
he is rightly considered the pioneer of the theory and research on causal attribution:
His conception of people as "intuitive or naive scientists" who try to find the
sense of the physical and social world we live in, in which we strive to discover the invariant elements
that exist in that world and we hope to achieve, in this way, for it to appear more stable to us,
predictable and controllable.

The sharp distinction it establishes between personal (internal) causes and situational (external, environmental) causes;
that is, the invariant elements we seek in our perceptions can be found both in the
external world (for example, a difficult task) as well as in individuals (for example, ability or effort).
Moreover, according to Heider, personal dispositions are easier to infer from intentional actions.
than those that lack this characteristic.
Your statement that "behavior swallows the field," that is, that people, when we try to explain
a behavior, we tend to give more importance to personal causes than to situational ones (this
The phenomenon would later be designated as the fundamental attribution error.

His idea is that, for the attributive process to kick off, it is essential that the situation to which it is...
faces the person whether incoherent, unstable, generating uncertainty or conflict.
Jones and Davis's theory of corresponding inference, who wondered how we use the
information about the behavior of others, as a basis for inferring that they possess certain
traits. In other words, the theory deals with how we decide, based on the observation of
behavior of people, that they possess specific traits or dispositions that will remain
clearly stable over time.
This approach outlines the process that a person would follow until making a dispositional attribution.
of cause, that is, to attribute a certain action (for example, to assault another person) to a disposition
internal of the one who executes it (for example, aggressiveness or aggressive character). When someone seeks to discover
the internal disposition of a person to explain their behavior follows, on one hand, a process
let's call it logical, in which it makes several judgments:

The first step is to decide whether the person had the capacity and freedom to carry out the conduct and whether they were aware of it.
effects. For example, it is unlikely that a judge would find a two-year-old child guilty of murder who
manipulating his father's shotgun, he kills a brother. To consider him guilty, it must be admitted that he
two-year-old boy knew what he was doing (that handling the weapon could lead to shooting) and had
real intention to kill. (Morales et al. 2007, p. 281)
Once it has been confirmed that the actor had capacity, freedom, and was aware of the effects of his action, the
The second important judgment consists of comparing the consequences of the action with the possible consequences.
of other actions that the individual could have taken. The specific consequences of the action (effects
(not common) provide us with interesting information about the internal cause that has triggered the behavior.
The fewer uncommon effects, the easier the inference becomes. For example, a student chooses a career.
a university that offers her prestige, good income, and the possibility to travel, when she can also choose another one.
a career that offers prestige and good income. In this case, it is easy to deduce that the possibility of traveling (the
the only uncommon effect of the first choice) is what has led him to decide on it. But also when
there are many uncommon effects causal attribution becomes difficult. Thus, if the choice were for the first
career compared to another that allows him to relate to people, develop his creativity and perform
risky activities, it would be complicated to know which of the three effects has motivated the choice (Morales and
others 2007, p. 281)
Thirdly, the social desirability of the action (that is, whether the consequences of the behavior are something
frequent or desirable for most people or rather it is something rare) also allows us to imagine
the dispositional cause. For example, choosing a career that provides prestige and good income does not tell us
necessarily that the person is a fame lover or greedy, because most people
they seek this type of effects. In contrast, choosing a profession in which many risks are taken does tell us
something more about who chooses her (he is an adventurer), given that it is a socially less desired effect
(Morales et al. 2007, p. 281)
Kelley's covariation model, which states that the way people seek to discover the cause of
Human behavior is similar to that of scientists. According to Kelley, he mentions that the method used
for people is similar to the statistical analysis of variance (ANOVA). People seek what factors
they would dig into the behavior and then assign a causal role to that factor (Hogg 2010, p. 84).

In the effort to understand the 'why?' of others' behavior, according to Kelley, we

we focus on information related to three main sources. First, we consider the consensus
the extent to which other people react to certain stimuli in the same way that he/she reacts
the person we are considering—. The greater the proportion of people who react in the same way
the way, the greater the consensus will be. Secondly, we consider consistency—the extent to which a
individual responds, in the same way, to a given stimulus or situation on different occasions, throughout
of time—. Thirdly, we examine distinctiveness—the extent to which this person responds to the
the same way in front of different stimuli or events—. According to Kelley's theory, we tend to attribute
internal causes to the behavior of others under conditions where consensus and distinctiveness are
low but the consistency is high. In contrast, we tend to attribute external causes when the consensus,
consistency and distinctiveness are high. Finally, we tend to attribute a combination of internal factors and
externals when consensus is low, but consistency and distinctiveness are high (Baron, 2005, p. 63).
Weiner's attribution theory, which is of vital importance to the causes and consequences of classes
of attribution made regarding success or failure in a task. In short, people evaluate whether
someone has had success or failure, consequently, positive or negative emotions; to then generate
causal attributions about performance, generating more specific emotions

1.3. ATTRIBUTION ERRORS

While it is true, we try and seek in every possible way to provide causal explanations for our
behaviors, all of this is always subject to various types of errors that can lead us to conclusions
false. Therefore, in this section we will see some of these typical or common mistakes in the search for over
human behavior.
Correspondence bias, which for Jones is the tendency to explain the actions of others as
corresponding to their provisions even in the presence of clear situational causes. For many
Social psychologists refer to bias as the common attribution error. In conclusion, we can say
that we perceive others, acting in the way they do because of the 'type of person' they are, more
that, as a result of many external factors that can influence behavior given by
a subject. Social psychologists have conducted various studies to find out why this bias occurs, without
However, the topic is still unclear. Within all of this, there is a possibility, which is that when we observe
the behavior of a person, we tend to focus on their actions; the context in which the person
it behaves and, therefore, the situational causes of its behavior often take a back seat
plan (Barón, 2005, p. 60).
Actor-observer effect, this is another attribution error that consists of the tendency to attribute
we attribute our own behavior to situational causes, but that of others to dispositional causes. Therefore,
for example, when we see someone stumble and fall, we tend to attribute this event to their clumsiness or
irresponsibility. However, if it were us who stumbled, we would be more likely to attribute
this event is due to situational causes, such as ice on the sidewalk or slippery floor (Barón, 2005, p. 61).
This predisposition occurs largely because we are aware of the various external factors that
can affect our own actions, but we are less aware of these factors when our
attention to the actions or behaviors of another person.
The self-serving bias, also known as 'Self-serving,' consists of the tendency to attribute the.
positive results to one's own causes, however we attribute negative results to
external causes, that is, those that have nothing to do with oneself. Various possibilities have been suggested for
to explain this type of bias, but most of them fall into two categories: cognitive explanations and
motivational. The cognitive model suggests that the self-serving bias seems to stem mainly from
certain trends in the way we process social information. Specifically, this model
it suggests that we attribute positive outcomes to internal causes and negative ones to external causes because
we hope to be successful and we tend to attribute the expected results to internal causes more
that the external ones. In contrast, the motivational explanation suggests that the self-serving bias comes from
our need to protect and enhance our self-esteem or the related desire to look good in front of
others (Greenberg, Pyszczynsik and Solomon, 1982 cited by Barón, 2005, p. 62). While both factors—the
cognitive and motivational factors can play a role in this type of attribution error, the evidence derived from
Research seems to offer more support for the motivational perspective. Regardless of the
origins of self-serving bias, this type of bias can be the cause of many frictions
interpersonal. This bias often leads people who work alongside others on a task to
to perceive that they, and not their peers, have made the greatest contributions (Barón, 2005, p. 62).
Examples:
Divorced couples often blame their ex-partners for the divorce during the process.
Business leaders usually blame their subordinates when the company is not doing well.
results, while the company's employees tend to explain their reasoning to the
circumstances
1.4. APPLICATIONS OF ATTRIBUTION THEORY
Kurt Lewin, one of the founders of modern social psychology, frequently remarked, "There is nothing
more practical than a good theory." With this expression, he meant to convey that once we obtain the
scientific understanding of some aspect of behavior or social thinking, we can potentially
apply this knowledge for practical use. (Baron, 2005, p. 63).
We will examine here an important application of attribution theory in detail.
ATTRIBUTION AND DEPRESSION. Depression is the most common psychological disorder. In fact, it has been estimated
that almost half of all humans experience this problem at some point in their lives (due to
example, Blazer et al., 1994 cited by Barón, 2005, p. 64). Although many factors play a role in the
depression, one of the ones that has received increasing attention is what can be referred to as a pattern of
counterproductive attributions (Baron, 2005, p. 64).
Unlike most people who show a self-serving bias, depressed individuals tend to
to adopt an opposite pattern. That is, they attribute negative outcomes to stable internal causes such
like their own traits or lack of ability, and attribute positive outcomes to external causes
temporary factors such as good luck or special favors from others. As a result, such people perceive
who have very little or no control over what happens to them—they are at the mercy of what dictates the
unpredictable destiny—. Few ask themselves why they are depressed and tend to give up on their
life. Fortunately, several forms of therapies have been developed that focus on changing such
attributions and seem to be quite effective (for example, Bruder et al., 1997; Robinson, Berman, and Neimeyer,
1990 cited by Baron, 2005, p. 64).
These new forms of therapy focus on helping depressed individuals change their attributions.
—give oneself credit for successful results, stop blaming oneself for the results
negatives (especially those results that cannot be avoided) and to look at some failures, in the end,
as a result of external factors beyond their control—. These new forms of therapy do not explore desires
repressed, internal conflicts or traumatic events that occurred during childhood, but they seem to be successful.
The attribution theory provides the foundations for these new forms of treatment, which has proven
to be certainly very useful in this regard
Analysis questions
What is causal attribution?
2. Explain the four fundamental contributions of Heider?
3. Explain the three sources of information that according to Kelley influence causal attribution?
4. Provide an example for each attribution bias
We know that different errors or biases often occur in the attribution process, this fact can
generate certain inconveniences with the people we interact with, in this regard I invite you to review the
next reading.
MINIMIZE THE IMPACT OF ATTRIBUTION ERRORS
Attribution is subject to many errors, and these can be costly both for you and for others.
with which you interact; therefore it is worth the effort to avoid such traps. Here are our suggestions
to recognize—and minimize—several important attribution errors.
The correspondence bias: The fundamental attribution error. We have a strong tendency to attribute the
behavior of others to internal (dispositional) causes even when strong factors are present
external (situational) factors that may be influencing behavior. To reduce this error, try
Always put yourself in the shoes of the person whose behavior you are trying to explain.
In other words, try to look at the world through their eyes. If you do, you will probably realize that
that, from their perspective, there are many external factors that played a role in their behavior.
The actor-observer effect: "I behaved this way due to situational causes; you behaved this way because
you are that kind of person
Consistent with the fundamental attribution error, we have a strong tendency to attribute our own
behavior to external causes and that of others to internal causes. This can lead us to generalizations
falsehoods about others and the traits they possess. To minimize this error, try to imagine yourself in their
place and ask yourself, "Why would I have acted that way?" If you do, you will quickly realize
that external factors may have influenced your behavior. Similarly, ask yourself, 'Did I
"Did I behave that way because in doing so I reflected traits or motives of which I am not very aware?"
This can help you appreciate the internal causes of your own behavior.
The self-serving bias: "I am good; you are lucky" Perhaps, the strongest attribution error that
we commit is to attribute positive results to internal causes such as our abilities or
efforts and the negative results to external factors such as luck or forces beyond your control.
This can lead us to overvalue our own contributions in group projects, producing,
therefore, an unnecessary friction with others. It can even reduce the opportunities for us to be able to
Learn valuable things from negative results, for example, we could do better next time!
You can help minimize this error by simply being aware of it; once you know it exists,
You can realize that all your positive results do not come from internal causes and that you may have
played a role in producing negative results. Also, try to remember that other people are subject
the same type of mistake; doing it can help you remember that they also want to get as much credit from
the positive results like you, as well as blaming external causes for negative results.
CONCLUSIONS OF THE SECOND WEEK
Attribution is the effort to understand: why others have acted the way they have.
and it also involves looking for the causes that exist behind our own behavior.
According to Heider's theory, when people try to understand the behavior of others, they behave
As naive psychologists (or scientists), this model of cognition characterizes people by the use of analysis.
rational, scientific type, cause-effect, to understand their world.
According to Jones and Davis's Correspondent Inference Theory, we try to infer the traits of others from
through the observation of certain aspects of their behavior.
Kelley's causal attribution theory focuses on the question of whether the behavior of others is due to
internal or external causes. To answer this question, we focus on information related to
consensus, consistency, and distinctiveness.
According to Weiner's theory, people evaluate whether someone has succeeded or failed, and then generate
causal attributions about performance, generating more specific emotions.
The correspondence bias indicates that people are more likely to believe that behavior
corresponds to basic personality traits.
The actor-observer effect refers to the tendency to attribute our own behaviors to external factors and those
conduct of others to internal factors.
The self-serving bias consists of the tendency to attribute positive outcomes to one's own causes.
Same, however, we attribute the negative results to external causes.
Unlike most people who exhibit a self-serving bias, depressed individuals tend to
when adopting an opposite pattern, they attribute negative results to internal causes.