Causal attribution: what it is in simple words, examples

The human psyche is one of the most complex creations of nature. Of course, it cannot always work perfectly, and some of its functions often do not work quite as they should, contributing to cognitive distortions and other perceptual phenomena. One of these phenomena is causal attribution - a mental property that forces us to make incorrect conclusions about others and their motives. Today we will talk about what it is, how it manifests itself, how it is explained, and how it often affects our lives.

What is causal attribution?

Causal attribution is a psychological phenomenon that manifests itself in the fact that we explain the actions of others based on what we know about them and how we perceive them. This feature of perception can work in relation to one person, a certain community of people or a social group. However, the conclusions we draw are usually based on our expectations based on life experience.

The term "causal attribution" is of Latin origin. It is formed from the words causa (translated as “reason”) and attributio (assignment, attribute property). That is, it can literally be read as “attribution of causes.”

This phenomenon is associated with perception and thinking. It is based on completing the picture and recreating the missing information. A person involuntarily finds simple explanations for actions performed by other people and by himself. At the same time, logical thinking is often interfered with by emotions, so causal attribution is most clearly manifested when a person explains successes and failures (both others’ and one’s own).

The term "attribution" is used to refer to the attribution of various properties, and the word "causal" implies that we are talking about causes. This phrase was first used by the Austrian psychologist Fritz Heider , who studied the peculiarities of how people interpret information when there is a lack of data.

Causality

Home / Letter "" / Causality - Next term

Causality

(Kausalitat; from Latin causa - “reason”) - causality, effectiveness, natural connection between cause and action. As a principle (causal principle, or law), causality expresses the following: every event has a cause (caused, arises as a result of influence) and at the same time is the cause of another event, or vice versa: nothing happens without a cause. Cause and effect form a chain extending from the past (see Proton kinuri), penetrating the present and disappearing into the future (causal connection; cf. Expedient). On closer examination, a cause is divided into at least the (external) circumstances under which something happens, the (internal) conditions due to which it occurs, and the call to action that serves as the immediate cause. Example: If the gunpowder is dry (circumstance) and correctly composed (condition), then due to the impact (causing action) it ignites (action). The concept of causation is formed as a generalization of the experience that something, an “action,” takes place if and only if something else, a “cause,” has taken place or is happening at that time. At the same time, it is easy to fall into error, mistaking “post hoc,” i.e., a temporary “after this,” for “propter hoc,” i.e., a causal “therefore.” In the history of philosophy, the principle of causality was first clearly formulated by Democritus, and as a strictly causal connection of events - by the Stoics and Epicurus. In the Middle Ages, the question of exact causality in nature, one might say, was completely consigned to oblivion, and only in the natural sciences of modern times (Bacon, Galileo, Kepler, etc.) the principle of causality of nature, which had not been broken through by any supernatural intervention, again began to be intensively studied. This naturally scientifically explainable objective concept of causation was opposed by the subjectivist understanding of causation, represented primarily by English empiricists. For example, according to Hume, belief in causality is based on association, expectation and habit. Kant considered the universal principle of causality to be a priori, but having significance only in the sphere of experience. Schopenhauer distinguishes three forms of causality: cause in the proper sense (for the inorganic world), irritation (in organic-vegetative life) and motive (in the actions of all conscious beings). Mill, Spencer and others tried to understand and explain causation based on experience alone, using induction. Positivism (Comte, Avenarius, Mach, etc.) replaces the concept of causality with the concept of functional dependence, the concept of cause with “condition” (see Conditionism). In the latest ontology, causation refers to categories. It is one of the possibilities of definition or forms of definition of what exists (see The doctrine of layers). Modern physicists, due to the lack of possibility of repeated empirical verification, leave open the question of the unlimited applicability of the principle of causality in the microworld; it is used as a working hypothesis, as a heuristic principle, as a probabilistic rule; see Uncertainty Relationship; Base.

See also: Proton kinuri Conditionism Doctrine of layers Uncertainty relation Foundation

Example of causal attribution

Causal attribution is a feature of perception that is common to all people, and you have probably encountered it one way or another. It manifests itself in the fact that we find an explanation for the actions of others that would correspond to our own expectations. At the same time, expectations are often dictated by emotions and attitude towards a person. Remember a situation when someone you know was late for a meeting with you. In such situations, there can be any reason, and we don’t know anything about it, but we draw conclusions based on how we perceive the person who is late.

If we are accustomed to the fact that this person is often late, then we immediately assume that he, as usual, is late due to his own irresponsibility. If we are accustomed to considering him a responsible person, then we begin to worry, assuming that something has happened to him. also influences our premature conclusions. If we are in a hurry and nervous, then the likelihood of reproaching a person for irresponsibility increases.

Typical errors in causal attribution

As noted above, the key feature of this phenomenon is that the explanations found for someone else’s or one’s own actions do not always correspond to reality. Let's look at a few typical errors that arise as a result of this.

Fundamental attribution error

Psychologists believe that this mistake is common to everyone, although this point of view also has opponents. The essence of the mistake is that we unconsciously attribute our successes to personal qualities, and our failures to the influence of circumstances. At the same time, looking at other people's successes, we prefer to explain them by luck or someone else's patronage, and we often explain the failures of other people by their own shortcomings and mistakes.

American social psychologist Lee Ross identified the following reasons for the fundamental attribution error:

• False consent. It is common for all people, in any circumstances, to consider their own point of view, as well as their own ideas about morality and ethics, to be the most correct. If someone's behavior contradicts these ideas, this is explained by his personal characteristics.
• Unequal opportunities. When assessing someone else's behavior, the influence of the role position in which this person is located is underestimated.
• Priority of trust in facts that do not require comprehension. Personality is the most noticeable fact that people pay attention to first. At the same time, the circumstances in which the individual finds himself still need to be assessed. Therefore, when assessing someone else’s behavior, the focus is on the facts, and the circumstances remain an inconspicuous background.
• Ignoring the importance of events that did not happen. We tend to perceive only what happened, but do not attach importance to events that did not happen, even if we know that they were prevented thanks to someone else's efforts.
• False correlations. By observing another person, we may combine unrelated personality traits, believing that they always go together. This often manifests itself in attributing certain character traits or intellectual abilities to people based on their appearance.

An example of a fundamental attribution error:

Let's imagine the following situation: you and your colleague start working on similar projects. If your colleague's project isn't going as well, you attribute it to the fact that he's less talented, less prepared, and putting in less effort. You don’t think about the fact that external circumstances, both work-related and unrelated, may interfere with him.

Explaining a person's success or failure by personal qualities is called internal disposition. If your colleague’s project is developing more successfully than yours, you are likely to explain this by saying that some circumstances are hindering you. This phenomenon is called external disposition. Essentially, this is a defense mechanism that helps to avoid rumination and not aggravate the situation with unnecessary worries.

Different perceptions of the participant and the observer

A person assesses the role of personal qualities and circumstances differently depending on whether he is a direct participant in events or observes them from the outside.

In the first case, he analyzes the circumstances in more detail and attaches greater importance to them. In the second, he practically does not notice them or considers them insignificant.

Cultural prejudice

There are many stereotypes associated with various national characteristics. These prejudices are not necessarily associated with chauvinism, and yet there are certain character traits that are usually attributed to representatives of different nations. For example, Asians are considered to be more collectivist, while Europeans are generally considered to be individualists.

In the post-Soviet space there are also many stereotypes associated with the behavioral characteristics of certain peoples. Most of these prejudices are conveyed primarily through anecdotes, but this does not prevent people from taking them seriously and allowing them to influence the way they treat others.

Dispositional attribution

It is a judgment about a person's personality based on his behavior. For example, if in some situation a person behaved rudely towards us, we believe that he has a bad character. At the same time, we don’t think that right now he’s in a bad mood, he’s late for something, or he’s annoyed by someone’s behavior. Thus, we make conclusions about a person's personality, completely ignoring situational factors.

Self-serving attribution

When a person receives encouragement at work, he explains it through his own merits and professionalism. At the same time, he explains the lack of expected encouragement by the fact that his superiors do not like him. Previously, psychologists believed that this was a defensive reaction to preserve self-esteem. But now it is believed that people tend to take credit for circumstances that meet their expectations (“I worked for it and got it!”).

Defensive attribution

It is difficult for any person to admit that it was his mistake that led to losses. Therefore, protecting himself from unnecessary worries, he believes that external circumstances are to blame for his failure. Defensive attributions can also be directed toward others.

In particular, most people have an internal belief that bad things only happen to people who deserve them (this explains, for example, victim blaming). This helps them feel safe, confident that they don't deserve bad things to happen.

CATEGORY OF CAUSALITY AND CONNECTION OF TEXT

Published in 2021, Issue October 2021, PHILOLOGY | No comments yet

Zinchenko V.M.

Candidate of Philological Sciences, Associate Professor, St. Petersburg State Technological Institute (Technical University),

CATEGORY OF CAUSALITY AND CONNECTION OF TEXT

annotation

The article presents an analysis of the participation of means of expressing causality in establishing semantic-syntactic connections in a German text based on the material of G. Bell's story “The Lost Honor of Katharina Blum”. The various manifestations of cause-and-effect relationships are illustrated within a single sentence, using the example of the configuration of two sentences, as well as at the paragraph level. The role of lexical and syntactic means of causality in text formation is considered using the theory of communicative (theme-rhematic) division of sentences.

Key words: causation, cause-and-effect relationships, text formation, lexical and syntactic means, topic-rhematic connections.

Zinchenko VM

PhD in Philology, Saint-Petersburg State Institute of Technology (Technical University)

CATEGORY OF CAUSALITY AND CONDUCTIVITY LINKS IN THE TEXT

Abstract

The article represents the analysis of causality category expression means involvement in the establishment of semantic and syntactic links in the German text on base of the H. Böll's story “The lost Katarina Blum's honor”. Various manifestations of cause-consequence relations are illustrated within one sentence, on the example of two sentences configuration and at the level of a paragraph. The role of lexical and syntactic means of causality in creation of the text structure is considered with taking into consideration the communicative (theme – rheme) partitioning theory of the sentence.

Keywords: causality, cause-consequence relations, creation of the text structure, theme-rheme links.

The category of causality or causation is a universal category of human cognition. In a broad sense, causality is defined as a special type of connection between phenomena, events and objects of the real world, which exists outside of human consciousness, but is reflected in it and analyzed by it. “The principle of causality claims to be universal, to be true in relation to everything that arises in reality” [5; 16].

Linguistics also notes the dominant role of the semantic categories of cause and effect. V.B. Evtyukhin, emphasizing their special, key position in the system of conditioning relations, [4; 63]. The remaining categories with the meaning of conditionality include the categories of goals, conditions, and concessions.

Representing one of the main forms of relationships between objects, events and phenomena of the real world, cause-and-effect relationships are involuntarily or purposefully perceived by the human consciousness in the flow of endless information and, as a result, are one of the fundamental elements of reflecting objective reality in language and speech. Cause-and-effect relationships often act as the logical tool with the help of which the sequence of human mental and speech activity is built. A.T. Krivonosov, analyzing the logical level of linguistic structures, notes that cause-and-effect relationships underlie any conclusion [6; 40] The significant role of causal relations is also observed in the structure of text development, where they are realized in the form of lexical and syntactic means.

To analyze the text-forming function of cause-and-effect relationships in the German text, the story “The Lost Honor of Katharina Blum” by G. Bell was chosen. Written in 1974, this work belongs to the best examples of the narrative genre of German literature. Exposing in the story the methods of conservative journalism and its interference in the private lives of ordinary people, the author uses an original creative form of presentation of the material involving elements of journalism. The new principle of storytelling is based on the opposition of an accurate, objective, reportage-like presentation of events and facts by the author, on the one hand, and false journalistic publications striving for far-fetched sensationalism, on the other. The originality of the story's concept is reflected in the choice of linguistic means. Achieving clarity, illustrativeness, and provability of the text is facilitated, in our opinion, by the rather abundant use of various means of expressing cause-and-effect relationships, in particular with regard to their involvement as executive components of the text formation function. “The text, which is the result of the speech-creative process, is subject to certain patterns and organization” and it is important to determine “which units are the constituents of the text and what meaningful and formal categories can be found in it” [2; 3].

A pre-warning marker for predicting the active role of causal semantic connections in the unfolding of the narrative in a separate fragment of text can be considered the interrogative adverb warum?, the use of which allows the author to direct the reader’s thought to the unfolding of causal relations in the content of the text, and also contributes, for example, in the passage below, to almost documentary validity stated protocol facts and actions.

Als sie dann gefragt wurde, warum sie ausgerechnet an diesem Tag, wo sie doch offensichtlich und zugegebenermaßen so gern Auto fahre, an diesem Tag mit der Straßenbahn zu Frau Woltersheim gefahren sei, sagte Katharina Blum, sie habe nicht gewusst, ob sie viel oder wenig Alkohol trinken würde, und es sei ihr sicherer erschienen, nicht mit ihrem Wagen zu fahren. [7; 55].

Here is the use of the interrogative adverb warum? determines the structural and semantic content of the entire subsequent paragraph. During the interrogation, they try to provoke Katharina into admitting that the reason for her going to the party by public transport, and not in her own car, was a preliminary agreement with Ludwig Getten and the knowledge that they would return to her home in his car. And further in the paragraph, in continuation of the investigator’s search for an answer to the same question warum?, there is a clarification of how truthful Katarina’s argument is about her fears of being behind the wheel that evening under the influence of alcohol that she may have drunk at a party.

The semantic structure of the next paragraph is constructed in the same way as Katarina’s consistent explanation of the question c warum?

Ein weiterer Punkt musste vor der Mittagspause geklärt werden: Warum sie weder ein Spa- oder ein Scheckbuch habe. Ob es nicht doch noch irgendwo ein Konto gebe [7; 55].

Then each sentence contains an answer, Katarina's explanation for why she doesn't have a checkbook or an extra bank account:

Nein, sie habe kein weiteres Konto als das bei der Sparkasse. Jede, auch die kleinste ihr zur Verfügung stehende Summe benutzte sie sofort, um ihren hochverzinslichen Kredit abzuzahlen; die Kreditzinsen wären manchmal fast doppelt so hoch wie die Sparzinsen, und auf einen Girokonto gäbe es fast gar keine Zinsen. Außerdem sei ihr der Scheckverkehr zu teuer und umständlich. Laufende Kosten, ihren Haushalt und das Auto, bezahle sie bar [7; 55-56].

It should be noted that the interrogative adverb warum? appears many times in the text of the novel, since one of the author’s main tasks was to show why the decent Katarina, who never violated the norms of behavior, decides to take such a desperate act - the murder of a journalist.

The system of lexical and syntactic means of expressing causal relations in the German language is diverse. It includes nouns (die Ursache, der Grund), prepositions (wegen, durch, aus), infinitive groups with um and without an introductory word, subordinate clauses with conjunctions (weil, da, denn), etc. All of these means form a functional -semantic field of causality and can be involved in the text deployment system based on cause-and-effect relationships.

The obvious and most frequent use is the use of causal means of text formation at the sentence level or as a connecting means between two sentences.

Diese Tatsache der Über-Aufmerksamkeit der Presse muss hier vermerkt werden, weil nicht nur die ZEITUNG, auch andere Zeitungen tatsächlich den Mord an einem Journalisten als etwas besonders Schlimmes, Schreckliches, fast Feierliches, man könnte fast sagen wie einen Ritualmord behandelten [ 7; 13].

Participating in text formation, in the deployment of the information content of the text, linguistic means of causality are included in the system of theme-rhematic connections, the division of sentences into “given” and “new”. The principle of thematic-rhematic perspective is reasonably considered as the leading principle of the structural organization of the text [3; 102]. Considering that the “given” (topic) is the initial information, and the “new” (rheme) is the subsequent one, one could assume that on the time axis “given” precedes the “new”, and therefore, in terms of the communicative division of the sentence linguistic means of causation should act as a theme, and the rheme will be represented by the semantics of the consequence. However, in a specific text, theme-rhematic connections are built from the standpoint of the author’s presentation of the relations between events, and as a result, both cause and effect can be presented either as a theme or as a rheme. N.S. Valgina about [1; 16-17].

In the above example, the subordinate clause with the conjunction weil, which is in postposition, standing after the main clause, is coordinated with new information, namely, it specifies the rheme of the main clause muss vermerkt werden, (topic: Über–Aufmerksamkeit der Presse). The subordinate clause explains: Why the increased media attention? – Because she presents the death of journalists as something especially terrible compared to the deaths of other people.

The participation of the subordinate causal clause in the development of thematic-rhematic progression is formed differently if it precedes the main clause and is in preposition.

Da die Hiepertz ebenfalls die Stadt während der Karnevalstage verließen und zu ihrer Tochter nach Lemgo fuhren, hatte Katharina die beiden alten Herrschaften noch in ihrem Volkswagen zum Bahnhof gebracht [7; 15-16].

This sentence contains two levels of theme-rhematic progression. The initial information of the entire complex sentence (macrotheme) is represented by a subordinate clause with the conjunction da, and the rheme is contained in the main clause, in which, in turn, at the micro level, the microtheme die Hiepertz and the compound microrheme die Stadt verließen, zu ihrer Tochter fuhren are distinguished. The distribution of the communicative load of the main sentence is as follows: topic - Katharina, rheme - hatte zum Bahnhof gebracht.

Thus, the traditional tendency of the German sentence can be seen here, which is that the most important, new information is located at the end.

The variety of linguistic means of causation makes it possible to complicate the structure of cause-and-effect relationships in the text and combine in one sentence two types of representation of causal relationships, for example, a conjunction and a preposition:

Da wegen der an diesem Tag beginnenden Weiberfastnacht zahlreiche Hausbewohner nicht zur Arbeit gegangen und noch nicht zu den alljährlich fälligen saturnalienartigen Umzügen, Festen etc. aufgebrochen waren, standen drei Dutzend Bewohner des zehnstöckigen Appartementhauses in Mänteln, Morgenröcken und Bademänteln im Foyer …, als Katharine Blum, zwischen Beizmenne und Moeding, von bewaffneten Polizeibeamten flankiert, den Aufzug verließ [ 7; 21].

In the given complex sentence there is a multi-stage theme-rhematic progression with the participation of two causal thematic components:

• da – because the residents of the house did not go to work;
• wegen - did not leave because the carnival had begun.

The rheme has the semantics of a consequence and is presented in the main sentence: (therefore) three dozen residents stood in the lobby.

In some cases, the causal connection is strengthened by repeated repetition of the causality indicator, resulting in the formation of a structure of parallelism, as occurs, for example, through the repetition of prepositional phrases with wegen:

Bei Blornas ist ein ungemütlicher Samstagsmorgen, äußerst ungemütlich, nicht nur wegen der fast schlaflosen, zerrüttelten und verschüttelten Nacht im Schlafwagen, nicht nur wegen der ZEITUNG , von der Frau Blorna sagte, diese Pest verfolge e inen in die ganze Welt, nirgendwo sei man sicher; ungemütlich nicht nur wegen der vorwurfsvollen Telegramme einflussreicher Freunde und Geschäftsfreunde, von der „Lüstra“, auch Hachs wegen , den man zu früh … am Tage anrief [ 7; 83].

Causal relationships can also be established between parts of the text implicitly, in the absence of linguistic indicators, i.e. based on logical conclusions.

Ich lasse mir aber nicht einreden, dass die Blum ebenfalls ein Zufallskontakt war. Ihr Telefongespräch mit der Scheumel die Pünktlichkeit, mit der sie bei der Woltersheim auftauchte, auch die verfluchte Innigkeit und Zärtlichkeit, mit der die beiden von der ersten Sekunde an getanzt haben – und wie rasch sie dann miteinander abgezischt sind -, alles spricht gegen Zufall [ 7; 73-74].

Despite the absence of a verbal connecting element between the first and second sentences, the author nevertheless manages to express, and the reader, on the basis of mental operations, to perceive a cause-and-effect correlation. The first sentence states that the police commissioner has no doubt that the meeting between Katarina and Gotting was not accidental. The second sentence reveals the reason for his mistrust: Katharina’s phone call, her appearance at Frau Waltersheim’s exactly at the appointed time, cordiality and tenderness in communication with Gotting.

The integrated use of various indicators of causality as means of text formation within one paragraph gives the text a sense of thoroughness and allows one to argue for the psychological state and sequence of actions of the characters, which is illustrated, for example, by the following passage:

... ES Soll Hier Erklärt Werden, Warum An Diesem Freitagmorgen Sowohl Beizmenge Wie Katharina So Milde, Fast Weich Oder Gar Zahm Waren ... Das Telefongespräch Mit Blorna Hatte Milderung Gesc Haffen, undo kurz nachdem ... Katharina Mit Blorna Telefoniert Hatte, Schon Frau Fletzer Erschienen War die offen zugab, dass man Katharinas Wohnung natürlich überwache und aus diesem Grunde wisse, dass sie hier zu finden sei, und nun müsse man leider – und leider auch Frau Woltersheim – zur Vernehmung, da war der offenen und netten Art von Frau Pletzer wegen der Schrecken über die ZEITUNG zunächst verdrängt und für Katharina ein nächtliches Erlebnis wieder in den Vordergrund gerückt, das sie als beglückend empfunden hatte : Ludwig hatte sie angerufen, und zwar von dort! Er war so lieb gewesen, und deshalb hatte sie ihm gar nichts von dem Ärger erzählt, weil er nicht das Gefühl haben sollte, er sei die Ursache irgendeines Kummers [ 7; 56-57].

Textual information is promoted here using a rich series of cause-and-effect components. The general theme of a paragraph is specified using the interrogative adverb warum? the relatively gentle and meek behavior of both Beitzmenne and Katharina this morning. This is followed by a detailed account of the morning events with the interweaving of causal elements, resulting in the following algorithm of cause-and-effect relationships in this paragraph:

• da – since Frau Pletzer appeared (she reported the observation);
• aus diesem Grunde – due to surveillance of Katharina’s apartment (Frau Pletzer knew where to look for her);
• wegen – because of Frau Pletzer’s friendliness (Katharina’s fright from reading the newspaper went away)
• colon – Ludwig called (Katarina felt happy);
• deshalb - he was very kind (Katarina did not tell him about her misadventures);
• weil - since he should not feel. What
• die Ursache - he is the cause of trouble.

Thus, analysis of the text-forming function of lexical and syntactic means of expressing causality confirms their special significance in ensuring the structural and semantic coherence of the text. Having great text-forming potential, they are often used indicators of connections between text components.

Literature

1. Valgina N.S. Text theory. – M.: Logos, 2003. – 173 p.
2. Galperin I.R. Text as an object of linguistic research. – M.: Nauka, 1981. – 138 p.
3. Dymarsky M.Ya. Problems of text formation and literary text. – M.: House of Books, 2006. – 296 p.
4. Evtyukhin V.B. Category of conditionality in modern Russian language. Publishing house St. Petersburg. University, 1997. – 198 p.
5. Knyazev N.A. The problem of causality in philosophy: (The concept of two levels): abstract. dis. ... doc. Philosopher Sci. – M., 1993. – 40 p.
6. Krivonosov A.T. Language, logic, thinking. Inference in natural language. – M.; New York: Walang, 1996. – 682 p.
7. Boll H. Die verlorene Ehre der Katharina Blum. – Köln: Kiepenheuer & Witsch, 2002. – 146 S.

References

1. Valgina NS Teoriya teksta. – M..: Logos, 2003. – 173 P.
2. Galperin IR Tekst kak obyekt lingvisticheskogo issledovaniya. – M.: Nauka, 1981. – 138 P.
3. Dymarsky MY Problemy tekstoobrazovaniya I hudojestvenniy tekst. – M.: Dom knigi, 2006. – 296 P.
4. Yevtuhin VB Kategoriya obuslovlennosty v sovremennom russkom yazyke. – Saint-Petersburg University, 1997. – 198 P.
5. Knyazev NA Problema prychynnosty v philosofyi: (Kontseptsiya dvuh urovnei) . – M. 1993. – 40 P.
6. Krivonossov AT Yazyk, logika, myshleniye. Umozaklucheniye v yestestvennom yazyke.[Language, logic, thinking. Conclusion in natural language]. – M.; New-York: Valang, 1996. – 682 P. [In Russian]
7. Boell H. Die verlorene Ehre der Katharina Blum. – Köln: Kiepenheuer&Witsch, 2002. – 146 P.

Causal attribution theories

There are several different theories explaining how causal attribution works. The most popular are two of them, each of which should be considered in detail.

The theory of correspondent relations

This theory was created by psychologists Edward Jones and Keith Davis. They hypothesized that people tend to consider any behavior of others to be intentional and attribute it to personality traits. This should help us better understand what we can expect from people in the future. If a person behaved in a friendly manner, we assume that he is friendly and will continue to behave in the same way.

Thus, according to this theory, causal attribution is the tendency to make natural conclusions that a person’s actions are fully consistent with his inner world. To denote the situation when an observer makes a conclusion about a person’s personality based on his behavior, the authors introduced the concept of “correspondent inference.” They argue that we draw this conclusion based on such sources of information as:

• Freedom of choice. If a person had the opportunity to choose and chose this particular action, then it is explained by his personal characteristics.
• Randomness or intentionality of behavior. If certain actions were committed by a person intentionally, we try to explain them by internal factors, but if something happened by accident, we look for external reasons.
• Social desirability. If someone engages in behavior that is characterized by low social desirability (i.e., “wrong”), they are attributed to personality traits.
• Personalism. If someone's actions influence us, we believe that they are due to the person's personal qualities.
• Hedonic relevance. Also, our conclusions about the personal qualities of another person are influenced by whether their actions brought us benefit or harm.

Kelly covariance model

The author of this attribution theory is the American social psychologist Harold Kelley, who published it in 1967. It is a logical model according to which people attribute certain behavior to internal motives or external factors.

In mathematical statistics, the term “covariance” refers to the mutual dependence of two random variables. Within the Kelly model, covariance refers to the dependence of attribution on random factors that are noticed and taken into account by the observer.

According to Kelly, when interpreting another person's behavior, people unconsciously use the same principles that scientists use in their research. In particular, he identified three criteria:

• Consensus (similarity). Does the person's behavior correspond to the typical behavior of most people?
• Distinctiveness. Are a person's actions towards an observer different from their actions towards other people?
• Consistency. In all situations does a person behave the same way towards the observer, or does his behavior depend on the situation?

As an example, consider the reaction of a person (let his name be Sergey) to a joke told in a company. If everyone, including Sergei, laughs, we can conclude that there is a high consensus. If only Sergei laughed, the consensus is low.

If Sergei laughs when this storyteller tells jokes, but perceives others no worse, the distinctiveness is high. If all the jokes seem funny to him, his distinctiveness is low. If Sergei always laughs when this person tells jokes, consistency is high; if not, consistency is low.

Now imagine a situation in which the jokes of a particular person cause the whole group to laugh, but at the same time they are not so willing to laugh in response to the jokes of another. In this case, we believe that Sergei is laughing, since the narrator who made him laugh is really talented at telling jokes. If only Sergei laughs, and at the same time he laughs at every joke, we can come to the conclusion that he is simply easy to make laugh.

In the example described above, we proceed from the fact that we have the opportunity to observe how Sergei behaves in different situations , how he reacts to different narrators, and how other participants behave. However, in reality, we often do not have such complete information, and we still find a convenient explanation for any situation, which we consider to be quite accurate.

In 1972, Kelly published a paper expanding on his theory. He supplemented it with principles that explain how we draw conclusions when there is a lack of information. In particular, this deficiency is compensated for by personal beliefs and accumulated life experience. In his published work, Kelly proposed 2 schemes:

1. Many good reasons. There may be several factors, each of which is sufficient to have the necessary influence. An interesting side effect of this scheme is the devaluation of individual factors if we assume that there are several reasons for the current situation (if a person is late for work because there was no water in the tap and his bus was delayed, he does not attach importance to the fact that he overslept).
2. Many necessary reasons. This scheme implies that we artificially combine several factors to explain a certain event, since only such a complex cause seems sufficient.

Kelly also described the “Principle of Magnification,” according to which the role of a cause is significantly exaggerated in the presence of negative factors. For example, if a person copes with a task despite unforeseen difficulties, he values ​​his merits much higher.