Attribuering Flashcards
Attribuering
Definition: Attribution is the process of inferring the causes of events, behaviors, or outcomes, often involving judgments about personal dispositions or situational factors.
Explanation: Imagine a student failing an exam. We might attribute this to their lack of studying (dispositional) or to a difficult exam (situational). Attribution is crucial for understanding social interactions, as it shapes our expectations and responses to others and ourselves. It’s closely related to impression formation, as our attributions influence our overall evaluation of people.
Materiell orsak
Definition: Materiell orsak hänvisar till den fysiska, observerbara orsaken till en händelse eller ett beteende.
Explanation: Tänk dig en bilolycka. Den materiella orsaken är den fysiska kollisionen mellan två fordon. Detta skiljer sig från andra orsaker, som förarens slarv (formell orsak) eller avsikten att skada någon (ändamålsorsak). Den materiella orsaken är den konkreta, fysiska händelsen.
Formell orsak
Definition: Formellt orsak hänvisar till en förklaring av ett fenomen baserad på en formell modell eller teori, snarare än en direkt observation av kausalitet.
Explanation: Tänk dig att en bil inte startar. En materiell orsak skulle vara ett dött batteri. En formell orsak skulle vara en förklaring baserad på en modell av bilens elektriska system, som identifierar en specifik komponentfel som orsakar problemet. Formellt orsak är abstrakt och modellbaserad.
Verkande orsak
Definition: Verkande orsak refers to a causal explanation that emphasizes the active role of an agent in bringing about an outcome, focusing on the process and mechanism of causation rather than simply the outcome itself.
Explanation: Imagine a sculptor creating a statue. Materiell orsak would simply state ‘the statue exists’. Verkande orsak explains the process: the sculptor’s skill, the tools used, and the steps taken to transform the raw material into the final artwork. It highlights the agency involved in causation.
Ändamålsorsak
Definition: Ändamålsorsak beskriver en kausal förklaring där en handling eller händelse förklaras av dess avsedda syfte eller mål.
Explanation: Tänk dig att du bakar en kaka. Ändamålsorsaken är att du ville baka en kaka, målet styr handlingen. Jämför med materiell orsak (ingredienserna) eller verkande orsak (bakprocessen). Ändamålsorsak fokuserar på intentionen bakom handlingen.
Attribuering tillämpas när något avviker från det vi förväntar oss
[31mError: Unable to decode response
6 fundamentala principer för orsak verkan
Definition: De sex fundamentala principerna för orsak-verkan beskriver hur vi intuitivt resonerar kring orsaker och effekter, baserat på hur händelser samvarierar i tid och rum.
Explanation: Tänk dig att du ser en fågel flyga iväg när du kastar en sten. Vi tenderar att dra slutsatsen att stenen orsakade fågelns flykt genom att observera samvariation, tidsordning, konstant samband, och uteslutning av alternativa färklaringar. Dessa principer är grundläggande för vår förståelse av kausalitet, även om de kan leda till felaktiga slutsatser.
Locus of causation
Definition: Locus of causation refers to the perceived origin of an event’s cause, whether it is attributed to internal, personal factors (disposition) or external, situational factors.
Explanation: Imagine a student failing an exam. Internal locus attributes the failure to lack of studying (personal disposition), while external locus blames a difficult exam (situation). Understanding locus of causation is crucial for attribution theory, which explores how we explain events’ causes.
Personal causation (Disposition)
Definition: Personal causation (Disposition) refers to the attribution of an event’s cause to internal, stable characteristics of an individual, such as personality traits, abilities, or motivations.
Explanation: Imagine a student failing an exam. A dispositional attribution would focus on the student’s lack of preparation or inherent lack of aptitude, rather than external factors like a difficult exam or unfair grading.
Impersonal causation (Situation)
Definition: Impersonal causation (Situation) refers to attributing the cause of an event to situational factors rather than personal dispositions.
Explanation: Imagine a student failing an exam. Impersonal causation would explain this failure by referencing factors like a difficult exam or lack of sleep, not the student’s inherent ability. It contrasts with personal causation, which focuses on internal factors.
Heiders attributionsteori
Definition: Heider’s attribution theory proposes that individuals strive to understand the causes behind behavior by analyzing whether it stems from internal dispositions (personal causation) or external circumstances (impersonal causation).
Explanation: Imagine someone is late for a meeting. Heider’s theory suggests we’ll try to figure out why: Were they lazy (internal)? Or was there heavy traffic (external)? We weigh these factors to understand their actions, constantly seeking causal explanations for observed behaviors.
Invarianser i Heiders kategorier
Definition: Invarianser i Heiders kategorier avser de konstanta faktorer som påverkar hur vi attribuerar orsaker till beteenden, oberoende av den specifika situationen.
Explanation: Heider identifierade att vi systematiskt säker efter vissa typer av information när vi förklarar andras handlingar. Oavsett om någon spiller kaffe eller för ett bra betyg, letar vi efter information om personens egenskaper (disposition) eller situationens påverkan. Dessa sökmönster är invarianta.
Correspondent inference theory
Definition: Correspondent inference theory proposes that we infer others’ dispositions from their actions, particularly when those actions are freely chosen, have unique effects, and are low in social desirability.
Explanation: Imagine someone donating to charity. If it’s a large sum, unexpected, and not for tax benefits, we’re more likely to infer they’re generous (a dispositional attribution). This contrasts with situational attributions, focusing on external factors.
Vi överskattar dispositioner hos andra
Definition: Vi överskattar dispositioner hos andra avser vår tendens att förklara andras beteende genom interna faktorer (personlighet, attityder) snarare än situationella faktorer.
Explanation: Tänk dig att någon är otrevlig mot dig. Du kanske snabbt antar att personen är en elak människa (disposition), medan det kan bero på en dålig dag eller stress (situation). Detta är ett exempel på hur vi ofta försummar kontextuella faktorer när vi dömer andras beteende.
Analysis of noncommon effects
Definition: Analysis of noncommon effects is a causal attribution strategy that focuses on identifying the unique factors that differentiate between multiple events or outcomes, thereby isolating the most likely cause.
Explanation: Imagine two friends, one succeeding and one failing on the same exam. To determine why, we analyze what differed between their experiences: study time, preparation methods etc. The unique factor(s) likely explain the differing outcomes.
Kelley Covariation model
Definition: The Kelley Covariation model proposes that people attribute causality by systematically assessing the covariation of cause and effect across time, situations, and actors.
Explanation: Imagine a friend laughing at a comedian. To determine if the laughter is due to the friend’s personality (disposition), the comedian (situation), or a consistent reaction (consistency), we consider if others laugh (consensus), if the friend laughs at other comedians (distinctiveness), and if the friend always laughs at this comedian (consistency).
Konsensus (consensus)
Definition: Consensus refers to a general agreement among a group of individuals regarding a particular belief, decision, or conclusion.
Explanation: Imagine a jury deciding a verdict. If all members agree on ‘guilty’, that’s consensus. It’s the convergence of individual opinions towards a shared understanding, crucial for group cohesion and effective decision-making. This relates to the concept of social influence, particularly conformity, as individuals may adjust their views to align with the group’s.
Särartsfall (distinctiveness)
Definition: Särartsfall (distinctiveness) refers to the extent to which a particular cause uniquely produces a specific effect, compared to other potential causes.
Explanation: Imagine you fail an exam. High distinctiveness means the cause is unique to that event (e.g., you didn’t study for that specific exam). Low distinctiveness means many factors could have caused it (e.g., generally poor study habits). This is crucial in Kelley’s covariation model for determining causality.
Konsistens (consistency)
Definition: Consistency, in the context of attribution theory, refers to the extent to which a person behaves in the same way across different situations.
Explanation: Imagine a friend who is always punctual. High consistency. Now, imagine someone who’s sometimes on time, sometimes late. Low consistency. Consistency helps us determine if a behavior reflects a stable personality trait or is situation-dependent.
Weiner Motivated behaviour
Definition: Weiner’s motivated behavior refers to the idea that our attributions about the causes of success and failure directly influence our future motivation and behavior.
Explanation: Imagine failing an exam. If you attribute the failure to lack of ability (internal, stable), you might lose motivation. But if you attribute it to insufficient effort (internal, unstable), you might try harder next time. This highlights how our causal explanations shape our subsequent actions.
False consensus effect
Definition: The false consensus effect is the tendency to overestimate the extent to which others share our beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors.
Explanation: Imagine you love pineapple on pizza. The false consensus effect might lead you to believe that most people also enjoy it, even if that’s not true. We project our own preferences onto others, assuming a greater degree of similarity than actually exists.
Social facilitation
Definition: Social facilitation is the phenomenon where the presence of others enhances performance on simple or well-learned tasks, but impairs performance on complex or novel tasks.
Explanation: Imagine a basketball player: shooting free throws in an empty gym (easy task) might be improved by the presence of a crowd, while attempting a complex new play in a game (difficult task) might be hindered by the same crowd’s presence. This is due to increased arousal.
Social loafing
Definition: Social loafing is the phenomenon where individuals exert less effort when working collectively on a task compared to when working individually.
Explanation: Imagine a group project: one person might slack off, assuming others will compensate. This is social loafing � reduced individual effort in group settings due to a diffusion of responsibility. The less identifiable individual contributions are, the more likely social loafing becomes.
Endogenous and exogenous acts
Definition: Endogenous acts are behaviors internally driven by an individual’s thoughts, feelings, or goals, while exogenous acts are behaviors triggered by external stimuli or environmental factors.
Explanation: Imagine a person spontaneously deciding to smile (endogenous) versus smiling because someone else smiled at them (exogenous). Endogenous acts originate from within, reflecting internal states; exogenous acts are reactions to external triggers.
Internal and external locus
Definition: Internal and external locus of control refers to the extent to which individuals believe they can control events in their lives, with an internal locus indicating a belief in personal control and an external locus indicating a belief in external forces.
Explanation: Imagine two students facing an exam. One (internal locus) believes their grade depends on their study habits, while the other (external locus) attributes success to luck or the teacher. This illustrates how locus of control shapes our understanding of causality and influences our behavior.
Cognitive load influences attribution
Definition: Cognitive load influences attribution by affecting the extent to which individuals engage in effortful, systematic processing versus relying on heuristics when explaining events.
Explanation: Imagine trying to solve a complex math problem while simultaneously juggling. The juggling (high cognitive load) makes it harder to focus on the math, so you might use a simpler, less accurate strategy. Similarly, high cognitive load can lead to simpler, less nuanced attributions.
Fundamental attribution error (FAE)
Definition: The fundamental attribution error (FAE) is the tendency to overemphasize dispositional factors and underestimate situational factors when explaining others’ behavior.
Explanation: Imagine someone cutting you off in traffic. FAE leads you to assume they’re a bad driver (dispositional) rather than considering they might be rushing to the hospital (situational). It highlights our bias towards internal explanations for others’ actions.
Actor-observer-effect
Definition: The actor-observer effect is a cognitive bias where individuals attribute their own actions to situational factors while attributing others’ actions to dispositional factors.
Explanation: Imagine you’re late to class. You blame traffic (situation). But if a classmate is late, you might assume they’re disorganized (disposition). This difference in attribution stems from differing perspectives and information availability.
Self-serving bias
Definition: Self-serving bias is the tendency to attribute positive outcomes to internal factors and negative outcomes to external factors, thus protecting self-esteem.
Explanation: Imagine a student who gets an A on an exam. They might say, “I’m so smart!” (internal attribution). But if they fail, they might blame the professor’s unfair test (external attribution). This bias is related to self-esteem maintenance.
Group-serving bias
Definition: Group-serving bias is the tendency to attribute positive outcomes of one’s group to internal factors and negative outcomes to external factors.
Explanation: Imagine a sports team. If they win, fans attribute it to the team’s skill and effort (internal). If they lose, they blame the referee or bad luck (external). This protects group self-esteem.
Self-centered bias (SCB)
Definition: Self-centered bias (SCB) is the tendency to overemphasize one’s own role and contributions in social events, leading to an inflated perception of personal influence and impact.
Explanation: Imagine a group project where everyone contributes equally. Someone with SCB might believe their ideas were the most crucial to success, downplaying the contributions of others. This bias stems from the inherent focus on one’s own experiences and perspective.
