Attribution refers to the process in which individuals explain and speculate on the reasons for their own or others' behavior. Attribution is a very common phenomenon. For example, if a student is late for class, everyone will explain what happened, and some people will think that he may have overslept. Some people speculate that it may be a traffic jam. No matter what factors are ultimately attributed, the process of exploring reasons and seeking explanations is attribution.
Everyone will analyze the reasons for what happened around them, but sometimes they don't realize it. Generally speaking, when unexpected things happen, people are more likely to guess the reason. This is like a classmate who has been doing well in the exam, and everyone may be used to it; However, if students who have been doing poorly get high marks, everyone will be curious and guess the reason.
According to the relationship between the attributive and the actor, attribution can be divided into self-attribution and other attribution. Self-attribution refers to an individual's analysis of the reasons for his own behavior, and his attribution refers to an individual's analysis of the reasons for others' behavior. In the former attribution, the attribution and the actor are the same person, while in the latter attribution, the attribution and the actor are not the same person. In other words, other people's behavior and their own behavior may become the object of attribution analysis. Attribution is not always based on one's own behavior, nor is it always analyzed from the perspective of bystanders. People may analyze their own behavior or the behavior of others.
Attribution reflects the individual's understanding of the cause of the event, so the reason derived from attribution is actually the individual's subjective explanation, not necessarily the real cause of the event. However, this subjective explanation is not necessarily correct, and it can often affect the individual's mood and behavior more than the real reason. For example, let's assume a situation: Ye failed in this exam, so she attributed her failure to her stupidity and poor ability; In fact, she is a very clever student with an IQ as high as 120. Her low score is purely a teacher's mistake in marking papers. The objective reason for this situation is the teacher's mistake, and Ye's subjective explanation is his low ability-obviously this is a wrong explanation; But of these two reasons, it is the latter that affects the leaf-because she feels stupid, she feels inferior, blames herself and is ashamed to meet people; It's not because of the teacher's mistake. It can be seen that this subjective explanation can affect individual behavior more than objective real reasons.
The famous attribution researcher B. Weiner (1972) believes that attribution is not an independent process. The value of attribution research is that attribution is an important link between the previous behavior and the next behavior. Specifically, the explanation of the reason of the previous behavior will have an important impact on the next behavior. For example, if a student attributes his failure to being too stupid, he will give up on himself, because cleverness and stupidity are beyond his control; On the contrary, if he attributes his failure to not working hard enough, he will work hard and study hard for the next good grades. From this perspective, attribution is an important factor affecting learning motivation.
Attribution is a rich research field, and psychologists have put forward various theories about attribution. Below we will introduce some important attribution theories.
Second, the important attribution theory
(A) Hyde's common sense psychology
Attribution was originally the research field of social psychology, and F. Heider (1958) was the pioneer in this field.
Hyde believes that in daily life, people will analyze, understand and infer the events around them like scientists. He also believes that people have a basic need, that is, to predict and control the environment; And one of the best ways to achieve this goal is to find the cause of the event. If we know the reason, we can control the environment better.
Why did an event happen? Hyde believes that the key to answering this question is to find out whether the cause of the incident lies in the individual (internal cause) or the environment (external cause), or both. Internal reasons include motivation (wanting to do) and ability (being able to do). For example, Xiaohua may have the ability to finish his homework, but he has no motivation and desire to finish it; On the contrary, Xiaodong may want to finish the homework assigned by the teacher, but he can't do these topics at all; Moreover, even if you are motivated and capable, you may not be able to finish your homework, because it is also affected by external factors, such as too much homework, insufficient time, physical discomfort, power failure and so on.
In addition to studying the cause of the incident, Hyde also discussed his views on the responsibility for the consequences of the incident. He believes that in many cases, it is more important to know who should be responsible for the consequences of things than who caused them to happen. For example, Tong Tong smashed Yuanyuan's foot in the shot put competition. In this case, the incident was triggered by Tong Tong, but the question of responsibility was not solved. Hyde assumes that a person has different degrees of responsibility for the events he caused, and the lowest degree of responsibility is joint and several liability. In this case, the so-called responsible person has nothing to do with the incident at all, but is wrongly associated with the incident by others. For example, Yuanyuan sprained her foot while walking, not Tong Tong. The second level is causal responsibility. At this point, the responsible person did cause the incident, but he did not know in advance that it would lead to this consequence. What happened was completely accidental. For example, Tong Tong did smash the shot put on Yuanyuan's foot, but Yuanyuan did not appear in his field of vision before Tong Tong threw the shot put. Just after Tong Tong put the shot, Yuanyuan ran into the danger zone. The third level is foreseeable responsibility, knowing that one's actions may lead to some consequences, but still taking such actions. For example, a mad dog came at Yuanyuan. Tong Tong wanted to drive the dog away with a shot put ── although he knew it might hurt Yuanyuan, he threw a shot put and unfortunately hit Yuanyuan's foot. The fourth level is intentional responsibility, and the purpose of taking some action is to cause such consequences. For example, Tong Tong wanted to get back at Yuanyuan, so he deliberately aimed his gun at Yuanyuan. The fifth level of responsibility is legitimate responsibility, and under certain circumstances, the occurrence of this matter can be considered legitimate. For example, when people are attacked by gangsters, in order to protect their lives and property, they can carry out "justifiable defense".
Hyde's contribution to attribution research lies in raising many basic questions, and his exposition of causality and responsibility inspired later researchers.
(B) consistent reasoning theory
Jones and Davis (E.E. Jones &; Davis (1965) assumes that we are used to finding meaningful explanations for other people's stable and informative behaviors. The so-called informative behavior means that the behavior of others is considered intentional, that is, it is caused by some consistent and important intention, and has nothing to do with the change of situation. In a word, an instant thought can see a person's essence better than a frequent intention. In their view, the purpose of attribution activity is to infer the consistency of others, that is, the behavior and the intention of causing behavior are always consistent with some important and stable characteristics of people (that is, tendencies). Therefore, the attribution of others' behavior tendency enables us to understand and predict others' behavior.
Jones and Davis put forward many clues to judge the cause of behavior, the most important of which is the "non-equivalence effect". If there are many possible reasons for a person's behavior, comparing the consequences of this behavior with other behaviors can help us infer the intention of this behavior. For example, when a student applied for the college entrance examination, he chose one of the two schools. The reputation, professional standards and campus environment of the two schools are similar, but one is closer to the students' home and the other is far from home. Then, we can speculate that he chose this school because the traffic here is more convenient. They further believe that the less similar the two, the more obvious the tendency and intention of behavior, and the more accurate the speculation we make. Moreover, the more unfavorable factors in a choice, the more important this intention is to others. For example, although the tuition fee of this school is higher than other schools, he chose this school, so we know that he really wants to choose a school with convenient transportation. It can be seen that the analysis of this "non-* * identical effect" can make us clear what the reason is. The fewer non-* * identical effects are found, the more confident we are in attribution.
Because of the different behavior reasons in real life, it is often difficult to determine and exhaust, and the analysis of non-* * * equivalence is also ambiguous. In order to solve this problem, Jones and Davis put forward some other clues and conditions of consistent reasoning.
One is the selectivity of behavior. To infer the intention of a person's behavior, the key point is to determine whether his behavior is forced by environmental restrictions or his own choice. For example, if a person finds his wallet when no one is around and gives it to the lost and found office, we can basically conclude that he is a selfless person; However, if a person picks up his wallet when there are many acquaintances around him, this behavior may not necessarily reflect his inner wishes, but may be considered by others.
Whether behavior conforms to social tradition is also an important criterion for us to judge causality. Tradition usually limits people's behavior. If people don't follow the tradition, they will risk adverse social consequences, such as being criticized, rejected or not understood by others. So when a person's behavior breaks the convention or tradition, it can be said that this behavior reflects his true face. For example, it is normal for students to chat and joke with each other after class; But if a student also chats with his deskmate in class, we can conclude that the student is really talkative.
Whether behavior is a part of social role can also provide information about behavior tendency. For example, if a fireman puts out a fire, we can't completely conclude that he is helpful because it is his job. If a certain behavior is done by someone who is not engaged in this job, we can infer his tendency from this behavior. For example, if a fireman is not a fireman at all, but an ordinary passerby, then we can infer that he is a helpful, brave and selfless person.
(C) Covariance analysis theory
One of the important contributions of Kelley (1967) to attribution research is the covariant analysis model.
Covariance refers to the phenomenon that multiple events occur at the same time. If two things always appear at the same time, it is high covariant, if they only appear occasionally, it is low covariant. For example, every time I wear a fur coat, the dog sneezes, which is a high covariant. If I wear a fur coat, it sneezes only occasionally, which is a low covariant. If we want to know the reason of a certain result, we should investigate the covariation between the result and various possible reasons and attribute the result to the reason with the highest covariation. For example, there is a high covariance between a dog sneezing and me wearing leather clothes, so it can be inferred that it is allergic to leather clothes.
Kelly believes that people will consider three factors related to behavior when evaluating covariant information, namely specificity, consistency and consistency. Specificity refers to whether the actor responds to other objects in the same way; Consistency refers to whether the behavior of the actor occurs in other situations and other times; Consistency refers to whether the behavior of the actor is consistent with that of others. We can use an example to illustrate these three factors and how to analyze the cause of the incident according to these three factors.
For example, Xiaoyu doesn't say hello to Feifei when she meets her. In this case, singleness means that Xiaoyu didn't say hello to everyone today? If so, it is low specificity, if not, it is high specificity; Consistency refers to whether Xiaoyu always doesn't say hello when he meets Feifei. If yes, it is high consistency, otherwise it is low consistency; Consistency means that people who meet Feifei today don't say hello to her? If so, it is high consistency, if not, it is low consistency.
Kelly believes that specificity, consistency and consistency are the basis of attribution, and different combinations of the three can provide specific information for attribution. For example, Xiaoyu greets others but ignores Feifei (high specificity), Xiaoyu never greets Feifei (high consistency), and others don't greet her (high consistency). Therefore, we can be sure that the reason lies in Feifei. For example, she may always keep a straight face or be condescending and domineering, which makes people feel inaccessible, so others dare not say hello to her.
If Xiaoyu greeted others today but just ignored Feifei (high specificity), Xiaoyu greeted Feifei before (low consistency), but people who met Feifei today didn't greet her (high consistency), then we can guess that the reason is Feifei, and she may have done something to offend everyone, so everyone is unwilling to ignore her.
If Xiaoyu just doesn't say hello to Feifei today but greets others (high specificity), Xiaoyu never greets Feifei (high consistency), only Xiaoyu doesn't say hello to Feifei today, and everyone else greets her (low consistency), then we can be sure that there may be a grudge between Xiaoyu and Feifei, so he ignores her.
If Xiaoyu greets others today but just ignores Feifei (high specificity), Xiaoyu greets Feifei before (low consistency), and others greet Feifei today (low consistency), then the reason may be Xiaoyu. He may be in a bad mood today, or feel unwell and listless, so he won't even say hello to Feifei.
Kelly's covariant model describes a reasonable attribution process. He compares everyone to a simple scientist, inferring causality in the way that a real scientist draws conclusions from data. Although Kelly's hypothesis is supported by many experiments, it is an idealized model, because in many cases, we can't get all the information about specificity, consistency and consistency. For example, we may not know this person's previous behavior characteristics, so we can't get the information about consistency, or we may not know the behavior of others in the same situation, so we lose the information about consistency ... In this case, Kelly's theory is not applicable. To say the least, even if we have all the information in three aspects, we don't analyze the reasons by covariant analysis in real life. An obvious trend is that people prefer consistency to specificity, and consistency is the least used. For example, if you meet an acquaintance and say hello to him, but he ignores you, your first reaction is often "what's wrong with this person today?" He was not like this before! " Instead of "does he do the same to others?" Why are you ignoring me? "Not to mention" does anyone else ignore me like him? "-the former is consistent information, and the latter two are specific information and consistent information respectively. In addition, the researchers also found that people would use extra information about the actor (such as personality) or situational information about behavior (such as situational constraints) whenever they had the opportunity, instead of using the information involved in the covariant model. In other words, in order to save trouble, people may directly give the simplest explanation of behavior, instead of synthesizing all aspects of information for strict and objective reasoning.
In a word, the covariant model describes an ideal method and a rigorous procedure of reasoning, which may not be completely matched when people actually do causal reasoning. At the same time, the application of covariant model will also be influenced by individual ability, and the conclusions drawn by covariant model are not all correct.
(D) Control source theory
Research on Control Sources by J. Rotter (1966) is an influential work in the field of attribution. Ross believes that people have different expectations about the causes of positive or negative events. Some people think they have the ability to control events, and Roth calls them internal controllers; Some people think that the incident has nothing to do with themselves, but is caused by external factors, and they are external controllers. People who tend to attribute internally have a strong sense of control. They tend to think that they are the cause of events and their actions are dominated by themselves. For example, they study well because they are smart or hardworking. However, people who tend to make external attribution have a lower sense of control. They think that the incident is caused by external factors other than themselves. For example, they did well in the exam because the questions were simple, because the teachers taught them well and because they were lucky.
Research by Roth and his colleagues (1966) shows that control source has an important influence on success expectation. They found that after a successful experience, if the subjects attributed their success to their own skills, then their expectations for the next success were higher; If success is attributed to opportunity, then the expectation of the next success is relatively low. On the contrary, after the failure experience, if you attribute the failure to your own skills, your expectations for the next success will be reduced; If failure is attributed to luck, then the expectation of success next time will rise.
Ross also believes that the source of control is a relatively stable tendency, which reflects the specific way that individuals view and interpret the world. He also developed a 29-question scale to measure people's control points (197 1).
(5) Self-perception theory
Early attribution researchers mostly paid attention to the attribution of others, that is, individuals stood on the sidelines and analyzed the reasons for others' behavior. In contrast, D. BEM focuses on self-attribution.
Bem (1967, 1972) thinks that people are often unclear about their emotions, attitudes, qualities and abilities, so they have to speculate from their own behavior and external environment. In other words, people will look for some clues to analyze their inner spiritual world. There is no essential difference between people's analysis of themselves and that of others. For example, if someone asks my classmate if he likes rock music, then I can recall whose songs this classmate likes to listen to, what programs he often listens to and what tapes he likes to buy ... If the answers to these questions are all related to rock music, then I can say: He likes rock music. Similarly, we should analyze our attitude by observing our behavior. If someone asks me if I like rock music, I also need to judge myself by judging others.
However, Bem attached several restrictive conditions to this process of self-perception, that is to say, the process of self-perception is not possible and necessary in all cases. The first is the selectivity of behavior, that is, we must first make sure that a certain behavior is chosen by ourselves and is not controlled by external factors, and then we can infer our attitude accordingly. If I often listen to rock and roll because my good friend only listens to rock and roll, then I can't make a self-recognition based on my listening to rock and roll, and assert that I like rock and roll, because listening to rock and roll is not my choice, but passive. Secondly, when the internal clues on which the inference is based are obvious, there is no need to carry out the process of self-perception. That is to say, if I have a fairly clear understanding of my attitude and emotions-for example, I have always been very clear that I am an avid rock fan and have no doubt about it, then there is no need to speculate on my attitude in a self-conscious way; Only when you don't know your inner state will you speculate by observing your behavior. Thirdly, if there are obvious external clues to show our attitude, there is no need for self-perception; Only when there are no external clues, we are more likely to have self-awareness. For example, my classmates nicknamed me "Rolling Stone", so I don't have to judge whether I like rock music through Bem's "self-perception" process, because it is obvious.
(VI) Achievement attribution theory
Although attribution research has been quite active, it is not very early that attribution theory really has an impact on the field of education, which began with Weiner. In the early 1970s, Weiner tried to explain achievement motivation by attribution, thus creatively combining the two together, forming a motivation attribution theory that is still quite influential.
In Weiner's motivation attribution theory, he first identified the most obvious cause perception of success or failure attribution in achievement situations, namely ability, effort, task difficulty and luck. The cognition of the reasons in the same activity situation is varied, especially in different situations. In order to find out the internal similarities and differences of many reasons, Weiner identified three dimensions of reasons through logical empirical analysis and mathematical statistical analysis (correlation method, multivariate analysis and multivariate variance analysis): (1) the source of reasons refers to the actor's own reasons or external reasons. (2) Controllability refers to whether the cause can be controlled by the subjective will of the actor, such as high controllability of effort and low controllability of ability and luck; (3) Stability, stability refers to whether the reason changes with time, such as luck is very unstable and ability is relatively stable. Weiner further proposed a three-dimensional structural model of attribution: cause source × controllability × stability. He believes that any kind of cause perception can be analyzed from these three aspects. Table 3- 1 lists his analysis of the cause dimensions of some common cause perceptions in academic achievement attribution.
It can be said that Weiner's determination of the cause dimension is one of his important contributions to attribution research. Weiner's other important contribution to attribution research is that he makes our attention to attribution no longer limited to attribution itself, but begins to explore the influence of attribution on subsequent behavior. Weiner believes that attribution is not an independent process, but an intermediary cognitive process between the consequences of behavior and subsequent behavior. Attribution of behavior consequences will affect the expectation and emotional response to the next result, and expectation and emotional response will become the motivation of subsequent behavior.