Условиями возникновения фундаментальной ошибки атрибуции являются

This article is about the social psychology term. For the legal term, see Fundamental error.

In social psychology, fundamental attribution error (FAE), also known as correspondence bias or attribution effect, is a cognitive attribution bias where observers under-emphasize situational and environmental explanations for actors observed behavior while overemphasizing dispositional- and personality-based explanations. This effect has been described as «the tendency to believe that what people do reflects who they are»,^[1] that is, to overattribute their behaviors (what they do or say) to their personality and underattribute them to the situation or context. The error is in seeing someone’s actions as solely reflective of their personality rather than somewhat reflective of it and also largely prompted by circumstances. It involves a type of circular reasoning in which the answer to the question «why would they do that» is only «because they would do that.» Although things like personality differences and predispositions are in fact real, the fundamental attribution error is an error because it misinterprets their effects.

As an example of the behavior which attribution error theory seeks to explain, consider the situation where Alice, a driver, is cut off in traffic by Bob. Alice attributes Bob’s behavior to his fundamental personality; e.g., He thinks only of himself, he is selfish, he is an unskilled driver. She does not think it is situational; e.g., He is going to miss his flight, his wife is giving birth at the hospital, his daughter is convulsing at school. Alice might well make the opposite mistake and excuse herself by saying she was influenced by situational causes; e.g., I am late for my job interview, I must pick up my son for his dental appointment, rather than thinking she has a character flaw.^[2]

Origin[edit]

Etymology[edit]

The phrase was coined by Lee Ross^[3] 10 years after an experiment by Edward E. Jones and Victor Harris in 1967.^[4] Ross argued in a popular paper that the fundamental attribution error forms the conceptual bedrock for the field of social psychology. Jones wrote that he found Ross’s phrase «overly provocative and somewhat misleading», and also joked: «Furthermore, I’m angry that I didn’t think of it first.»^[5] Some psychologists, including Daniel Gilbert, have used the phrase «correspondence bias» for the fundamental attribution error.^[5] Other psychologists have argued that the fundamental attribution error and correspondence bias are related but independent phenomena, with the former being a common explanation for the latter.^[6]

1967 demonstration study[edit]

Jones and Harris hypothesized, based on the correspondent inference theory, that people would attribute apparently freely chosen behaviors to disposition and apparently chance-directed behaviors to situation. The hypothesis was confounded by the fundamental attribution error.^[4]

Subjects in an experiment read essays for and against Fidel Castro. Then they were asked to rate the pro-Castro attitudes of the writers. When the subjects believed that the writers freely chose positions for or against Castro, they would normally rate the people who liked Castro as having a more positive attitude towards Castro. However, contradicting Jones and Harris’ initial hypothesis, when the subjects were told that the writers’ positions were determined by a coin toss, they still rated writers who spoke in favor of Castro as having, on average, a more positive attitude towards Castro than those who spoke against him. In other words, the subjects were unable to properly see the influence of the situational constraints placed upon the writers; they could not refrain from attributing sincere belief to the writers. The experimental group provided more internal attributions towards the writer.

Criticism[edit]

The hypothesis that people systematically overattribute behavior to traits (at least for other people’s behavior) is contested. A 1986 study tested whether subjects over-, under-, or correctly estimated the empirical correlation among behaviors. (ie traits, see trait theory)^[7] They found that estimates of correlations among behaviors correlated strongly with empirically-observed correlations among these behaviors. Subjects were sensitive to even very small correlations, and their confidence in the association tracked how far they were discrepant (i.e., if they knew when they did not know), and was higher for the strongest relations. Subjects also showed awareness of the effect of aggregation over occasions and used reasonable strategies to arrive at decisions. Epstein concluded that «Far from being inveterate trait believers, as has been previously suggested, [subjects’] intuitions paralleled psychometric principles in several important respects when assessing relations between real-life behaviors.»^[7]

A 2006 meta-analysis found little support for a related bias, the actor-observer asymmetry, in which people attribute their own behavior more to the environment, but others’ behavior to individual attributes.^[8] The implications for the fundamental attribution error, the author explained, were mixed. He explained that the fundamental attribution error has two versions:

1. That people make person-focused attributions more than environmental attributions for behavior, and
2. Observers will mistakenly overestimate the influence of personal factors on behavior.

The meta-analysis concluded that existing weight of evidence does not support the first form of the fundamental attribution error, but does support the second.

Explanations[edit]

Several theories predict the fundamental attribution error, and thus both compete to explain it, and can be falsified if it does not occur. Some examples include:

1. Just-world fallacy. The belief that people get what they deserve and deserve what they get, the concept of which was first theorized by Melvin J. Lerner in 1977.^[9] Attributing failures to dispositional causes rather than situational causes—which are unchangeable and uncontrollable—satisfies our need to believe that the world is fair and that we have control over our lives. We are motivated to see a just world because this reduces our perceived threats,^[10][11] gives us a sense of security, helps us find meaning in difficult and unsettling circumstances, and benefits us psychologically.^[12] However, the just-world hypothesis also results in a tendency for people to blame and disparage victims of an accident or a tragedy, such as rape^[13][14] and domestic abuse,^[15] to reassure themselves of their insusceptibility to such events. People may even blame the victim’s faults in a «past life» to pursue justification for their bad outcome.^{[16][page needed]}
2. Salience of the actor. We tend to attribute an observed effect to potential causes that capture our attention. When we observe other people, the person is the primary reference point while the situation is overlooked as if it is nothing but mere background. As such, attributions for others’ behavior are more likely to focus on the person we see, not the situational forces acting upon that person that we may not be aware of.^[17][18][19] (When we observe ourselves, we are more aware of the forces acting upon us. Such a differential inward versus outward orientation^[20] accounts for the actor–observer bias.)
3. Lack of effortful adjustment. Sometimes, even though we are aware that the person’s behavior is constrained by situational factors, we still commit the fundamental attribution error.^[4] This is because we do not take into account behavioral and situational information simultaneously to characterize the dispositions of the actor.^[21] Initially, we use the observed behavior to characterize the person by automaticity.^{[22][23][24][25][26]} We need to make deliberate and conscious effort to adjust our inference by considering the situational constraints. Therefore, when situational information is not sufficiently taken into account for adjustment, the uncorrected dispositional inference creates the fundamental attribution error. This would also explain why people commit the fundamental attribution error to a greater degree when they’re under cognitive load; i.e. when they have less motivation or energy for processing the situational information.^[27]
4. Culture. It has been suggested cultural differences occur in attribution error:^[28] people from individualistic (Western) cultures are reportedly more prone to the error while people from collectivistic cultures are less prone.^[29] Based on cartoon-figure presentations to Japanese and American subjects, it has been suggested that collectivist subjects may be more influenced by information from context (for instance being influenced more by surrounding faces in judging facial expressions^[30]). Alternatively, individualist subjects may favor processing of focal objects, rather than contexts.^[31] Others suggest Western individualism is associated with viewing both oneself and others as independent agents, therefore focusing more on individuals rather than contextual details.^[32]

Versus correspondence bias[edit]

The fundamental attribution error is commonly used interchangeably with «correspondence bias» (sometimes called «correspondence inference»), although this phrase refers to a judgment which does not necessarily constitute a bias, which arises when the inference drawn is incorrect, e.g. dispositional inference when the actual cause is situational). However, there has been debate about whether the two terms should be distinguished from each other. Three main differences between these two judgmental processes have been argued:

1. They seem to be elicited under different circumstances, as both correspondent dispositional inferences and situational inferences can be elicited spontaneously.^[33] Attributional processing, however, seems to only occur when the event is unexpected or conflicting with prior expectations. This notion is supported by a 1994 study, which found that different types of verbs invited different inferences and attributions.^[34] Correspondence inferences were invited to a greater degree by interpretative action verbs (such as «to help») than state action or state verbs, thus suggesting that the two are produced under different circumstances.
2. Correspondence inferences and causal attributions also differ in automaticity. Inferences can occur spontaneously if the behavior implies a situational or dispositional inference, while causal attributions occur much more slowly.^[35]
3. It has also been suggested that correspondence inferences and causal attributions are elicited by different mechanisms. It is generally agreed that correspondence inferences are formed by going through several stages. Firstly, the person must interpret the behavior, and then, if there is enough information to do so, add situational information and revise their inference. They may then further adjust their inferences by taking into account dispositional information as well.^[27][36] Causal attributions however seem to be formed either by processing visual information using perceptual mechanisms, or by activating knowledge structures (e.g. schemas) or by systematic data analysis and processing.^[37] Hence, due to the difference in theoretical structures, correspondence inferences are more strongly related to behavioral interpretation than causal attributions.

Based on the preceding differences between causal attribution and correspondence inference, some researchers argue that the fundamental attribution error should be considered as the tendency to make dispositional rather than situational explanations for behavior, whereas the correspondence bias should be considered as the tendency to draw correspondent dispositional inferences from behavior.^[38][39] With such distinct definitions between the two, some cross-cultural studies also found that cultural differences of correspondence bias are not equivalent to those of fundamental attribution error. While the latter has been found to be more prevalent in individualistic cultures than collectivistic cultures, correspondence bias occurs across cultures,^[40][41][42] suggesting differences between the two phrases. Further, disposition correspondent inferences made to explain the behavior of nonhuman actors (e.g., robots) do not necessarily constitute an attributional error because there is little meaningful distinction between the interior dispositions and observable actions of machine agents.^[43]

See also[edit]

Cognitive biases[edit]

References[edit]

Further reading[edit]

External links[edit]

• Detailed explanations by Lee Ross and Richard Nisbett

This article is about the social psychology term. For the legal term, see Fundamental error.

In social psychology, fundamental attribution error (FAE), also known as correspondence bias or attribution effect, is a cognitive attribution bias where observers under-emphasize situational and environmental explanations for actors observed behavior while overemphasizing dispositional- and personality-based explanations. This effect has been described as «the tendency to believe that what people do reflects who they are»,^[1] that is, to overattribute their behaviors (what they do or say) to their personality and underattribute them to the situation or context. The error is in seeing someone’s actions as solely reflective of their personality rather than somewhat reflective of it and also largely prompted by circumstances. It involves a type of circular reasoning in which the answer to the question «why would they do that» is only «because they would do that.» Although things like personality differences and predispositions are in fact real, the fundamental attribution error is an error because it misinterprets their effects.

As an example of the behavior which attribution error theory seeks to explain, consider the situation where Alice, a driver, is cut off in traffic by Bob. Alice attributes Bob’s behavior to his fundamental personality; e.g., He thinks only of himself, he is selfish, he is an unskilled driver. She does not think it is situational; e.g., He is going to miss his flight, his wife is giving birth at the hospital, his daughter is convulsing at school. Alice might well make the opposite mistake and excuse herself by saying she was influenced by situational causes; e.g., I am late for my job interview, I must pick up my son for his dental appointment, rather than thinking she has a character flaw.^[2]

Origin[edit]

Etymology[edit]

The phrase was coined by Lee Ross^[3] 10 years after an experiment by Edward E. Jones and Victor Harris in 1967.^[4] Ross argued in a popular paper that the fundamental attribution error forms the conceptual bedrock for the field of social psychology. Jones wrote that he found Ross’s phrase «overly provocative and somewhat misleading», and also joked: «Furthermore, I’m angry that I didn’t think of it first.»^[5] Some psychologists, including Daniel Gilbert, have used the phrase «correspondence bias» for the fundamental attribution error.^[5] Other psychologists have argued that the fundamental attribution error and correspondence bias are related but independent phenomena, with the former being a common explanation for the latter.^[6]

1967 demonstration study[edit]

Jones and Harris hypothesized, based on the correspondent inference theory, that people would attribute apparently freely chosen behaviors to disposition and apparently chance-directed behaviors to situation. The hypothesis was confounded by the fundamental attribution error.^[4]

Subjects in an experiment read essays for and against Fidel Castro. Then they were asked to rate the pro-Castro attitudes of the writers. When the subjects believed that the writers freely chose positions for or against Castro, they would normally rate the people who liked Castro as having a more positive attitude towards Castro. However, contradicting Jones and Harris’ initial hypothesis, when the subjects were told that the writers’ positions were determined by a coin toss, they still rated writers who spoke in favor of Castro as having, on average, a more positive attitude towards Castro than those who spoke against him. In other words, the subjects were unable to properly see the influence of the situational constraints placed upon the writers; they could not refrain from attributing sincere belief to the writers. The experimental group provided more internal attributions towards the writer.

Criticism[edit]

The hypothesis that people systematically overattribute behavior to traits (at least for other people’s behavior) is contested. A 1986 study tested whether subjects over-, under-, or correctly estimated the empirical correlation among behaviors. (ie traits, see trait theory)^[7] They found that estimates of correlations among behaviors correlated strongly with empirically-observed correlations among these behaviors. Subjects were sensitive to even very small correlations, and their confidence in the association tracked how far they were discrepant (i.e., if they knew when they did not know), and was higher for the strongest relations. Subjects also showed awareness of the effect of aggregation over occasions and used reasonable strategies to arrive at decisions. Epstein concluded that «Far from being inveterate trait believers, as has been previously suggested, [subjects’] intuitions paralleled psychometric principles in several important respects when assessing relations between real-life behaviors.»^[7]

A 2006 meta-analysis found little support for a related bias, the actor-observer asymmetry, in which people attribute their own behavior more to the environment, but others’ behavior to individual attributes.^[8] The implications for the fundamental attribution error, the author explained, were mixed. He explained that the fundamental attribution error has two versions:

1. That people make person-focused attributions more than environmental attributions for behavior, and
2. Observers will mistakenly overestimate the influence of personal factors on behavior.

The meta-analysis concluded that existing weight of evidence does not support the first form of the fundamental attribution error, but does support the second.

Explanations[edit]

Several theories predict the fundamental attribution error, and thus both compete to explain it, and can be falsified if it does not occur. Some examples include:

1. Just-world fallacy. The belief that people get what they deserve and deserve what they get, the concept of which was first theorized by Melvin J. Lerner in 1977.^[9] Attributing failures to dispositional causes rather than situational causes—which are unchangeable and uncontrollable—satisfies our need to believe that the world is fair and that we have control over our lives. We are motivated to see a just world because this reduces our perceived threats,^[10][11] gives us a sense of security, helps us find meaning in difficult and unsettling circumstances, and benefits us psychologically.^[12] However, the just-world hypothesis also results in a tendency for people to blame and disparage victims of an accident or a tragedy, such as rape^[13][14] and domestic abuse,^[15] to reassure themselves of their insusceptibility to such events. People may even blame the victim’s faults in a «past life» to pursue justification for their bad outcome.^{[16][page needed]}
2. Salience of the actor. We tend to attribute an observed effect to potential causes that capture our attention. When we observe other people, the person is the primary reference point while the situation is overlooked as if it is nothing but mere background. As such, attributions for others’ behavior are more likely to focus on the person we see, not the situational forces acting upon that person that we may not be aware of.^[17][18][19] (When we observe ourselves, we are more aware of the forces acting upon us. Such a differential inward versus outward orientation^[20] accounts for the actor–observer bias.)
3. Lack of effortful adjustment. Sometimes, even though we are aware that the person’s behavior is constrained by situational factors, we still commit the fundamental attribution error.^[4] This is because we do not take into account behavioral and situational information simultaneously to characterize the dispositions of the actor.^[21] Initially, we use the observed behavior to characterize the person by automaticity.^{[22][23][24][25][26]} We need to make deliberate and conscious effort to adjust our inference by considering the situational constraints. Therefore, when situational information is not sufficiently taken into account for adjustment, the uncorrected dispositional inference creates the fundamental attribution error. This would also explain why people commit the fundamental attribution error to a greater degree when they’re under cognitive load; i.e. when they have less motivation or energy for processing the situational information.^[27]
4. Culture. It has been suggested cultural differences occur in attribution error:^[28] people from individualistic (Western) cultures are reportedly more prone to the error while people from collectivistic cultures are less prone.^[29] Based on cartoon-figure presentations to Japanese and American subjects, it has been suggested that collectivist subjects may be more influenced by information from context (for instance being influenced more by surrounding faces in judging facial expressions^[30]). Alternatively, individualist subjects may favor processing of focal objects, rather than contexts.^[31] Others suggest Western individualism is associated with viewing both oneself and others as independent agents, therefore focusing more on individuals rather than contextual details.^[32]

Versus correspondence bias[edit]

The fundamental attribution error is commonly used interchangeably with «correspondence bias» (sometimes called «correspondence inference»), although this phrase refers to a judgment which does not necessarily constitute a bias, which arises when the inference drawn is incorrect, e.g. dispositional inference when the actual cause is situational). However, there has been debate about whether the two terms should be distinguished from each other. Three main differences between these two judgmental processes have been argued:

1. They seem to be elicited under different circumstances, as both correspondent dispositional inferences and situational inferences can be elicited spontaneously.^[33] Attributional processing, however, seems to only occur when the event is unexpected or conflicting with prior expectations. This notion is supported by a 1994 study, which found that different types of verbs invited different inferences and attributions.^[34] Correspondence inferences were invited to a greater degree by interpretative action verbs (such as «to help») than state action or state verbs, thus suggesting that the two are produced under different circumstances.
2. Correspondence inferences and causal attributions also differ in automaticity. Inferences can occur spontaneously if the behavior implies a situational or dispositional inference, while causal attributions occur much more slowly.^[35]
3. It has also been suggested that correspondence inferences and causal attributions are elicited by different mechanisms. It is generally agreed that correspondence inferences are formed by going through several stages. Firstly, the person must interpret the behavior, and then, if there is enough information to do so, add situational information and revise their inference. They may then further adjust their inferences by taking into account dispositional information as well.^[27][36] Causal attributions however seem to be formed either by processing visual information using perceptual mechanisms, or by activating knowledge structures (e.g. schemas) or by systematic data analysis and processing.^[37] Hence, due to the difference in theoretical structures, correspondence inferences are more strongly related to behavioral interpretation than causal attributions.

Based on the preceding differences between causal attribution and correspondence inference, some researchers argue that the fundamental attribution error should be considered as the tendency to make dispositional rather than situational explanations for behavior, whereas the correspondence bias should be considered as the tendency to draw correspondent dispositional inferences from behavior.^[38][39] With such distinct definitions between the two, some cross-cultural studies also found that cultural differences of correspondence bias are not equivalent to those of fundamental attribution error. While the latter has been found to be more prevalent in individualistic cultures than collectivistic cultures, correspondence bias occurs across cultures,^[40][41][42] suggesting differences between the two phrases. Further, disposition correspondent inferences made to explain the behavior of nonhuman actors (e.g., robots) do not necessarily constitute an attributional error because there is little meaningful distinction between the interior dispositions and observable actions of machine agents.^[43]

See also[edit]

Cognitive biases[edit]

References[edit]

Further reading[edit]

External links[edit]

• Detailed explanations by Lee Ross and Richard Nisbett

Каузальная атрибуция – инструмент анализа человеческого поведения. С помощью атрибуции мы пытаемся рационализировать действия и поступки других людей, субъективно приписывая им те или иные причины.

Человеческое поведение определяется множеством внешних и внутренних факторов. К внутренним относятся личные качества человека, особенности его поведения. К внешним относятся ситуативные факторы, которые не зависят от человека и его действий.

Ошибка атрибуции состоит в переоценке личных (внутренних) факторов в поведении других людей и одновременном преуменьшении значимости внешних обстоятельств, которые также могли сыграть свою роль. Таким образом человек оправдывает свои неудачи внешними случайными факторами, в то время как неудачи другого человека объясняет его личностными характеристиками, тем, что он приложил недостаточно усилий, был невнимателен или же просто неспособен вести себя как-то иначе.

Почему мы подвержены фундаментальной ошибке?

Влиянию этой ошибки подвержены все. Происходит это потому, что мы знаем контекст совершаемых нами действий и знаем те обстоятельства, при которых мы принимали решения. И напротив, мы не знаем ситуативных факторов, которые могли повлиять на действия других людей.

Мы не можем залезть в голову к другому человеку и узнать, чем он руководствовался, но нам необходимо рационализировать его действия и объяснить, как он пришёл к такому результату. Тут и активируется механизм фундаментальной ошибки: нам гораздо проще не вникать в то, что происходило на самом деле, мыслить стереотипами или действовать по установленным паттернам, навесив ярлык. Это упрощает процесс объяснения, поскольку не требуется дополнительных мыслительных усилий, временных затрат на анализ информации.

Более того, у людей есть ещё одно когнитивное искажение, которое заставляет нас становиться жертвой ошибки атрибуции. У каждого человека есть склонность к потреблению и восприятию той информации, которая ему уже известна или же соответствует уже сформировавшимся у него убеждениям. Эта ошибка называется предвзятостью подтверждения: мы видим или слышим то, что хотим увидеть или услышать, и это также не способствует объективной оценке ситуации.

Если говорить об оценке собственных действий, оправданию себя и своих неудач тоже есть объяснение. Человеку куда комфортнее думать, что не он виноват в своих провалах и неудачах. Легче убедить себя, что негативный исход является результатом воздействия внешней среды, на которую нельзя было повлиять. Это даёт человеку уверенность в том, что он сделал всё возможное для того, чтобы достичь поставленных целей.

Итак, фундаментальной ошибке атрибуции подвержено большинство людей, что обусловлено особенностями человеческой психологии. Важно осознавать, что это может приводить к негативным последствиям как для других людей, по отношению к которым применяется необъективная оценка, так и для мотивации самого человека, когда такую оценку он применяет по отношению к себе и своим поступкам.

Анастасия Ветчакова

• Писать или не писать? – вот в чем вопрос https://psychosearch.ru/7reasonstowrite
• Как стать партнером журнала ПсихоПоиск? https://psychosearch.ru/onas
• Несколько способов поддержать ПсихоПоиск https://psychosearch.ru/donate

Фундаментальная
ошибка атрибуции
— в социальной психологии склонность
человека объяснять поступки и поведение
других людей их личностными особенностями
(так называемой «внутренней диспозицией»),
а собственное поведение — внешними
обстоятельствами (так называемой
«внешней диспозицией»).

Так,
причину чужого опоздания часто объясняют
непунктуальностью или несобранностью
опоздавшего. Причину собственного
опоздания объясняют пробками или,
например, тем, что «вчера спать лег
поздно».

Причиной
блестящей сдачи экзаменов сокурсником
указывают «он умный», причиной собственного
успеха называют «я всю ночь не спал,
хорошо подготовился» или «мне повезло».

Причины
фундаментальной ошибки атрибуции:

—
Ложное согласие — представление о своём
поведении как типичном, а отличающемся
от него как ненормальном.

—
Неравные возможности — игнорирование
особенностей, обусловленных ролевой
позицией.

—
Игнорирование информационной ценности
неслучившегося — несделанное должно
также быть основанием для оценки
поведения.

—
Большее доверие к фактам, чем к суждениям
— это обусловлено механизмом «фигура
— фон».

—
Лёгкость построения ложных корреляций
— черты ошибочно соединяются как
обязательно сопутствующие друг другу.

На
неё также оказывает влияние локус
контроля.

Локус
контроля — понятие в психологии,
характеризующее свойство личности
приписывать свои успехи или неудачи
внутренним, либо внешним факторам.
Введено социальным психологом Джулианом
Роттером в 1954 году.

Исследования
показывают, что у каждого человека есть
свои, «излюбленные» схемы привычного
объяснения чужого поведения:

—
люди с личностной
атрибуцией в любой ситуации склонны
находить виновника случившегося,
приписывать причину произошедшего
конкретному человеку;

—
в случае пристрастия к обстоятельственной
атрибуции люди склонны прежде всегда
винить обстоятельства, не утруждая себя
поисками конкретного виновника;

—
при стимульной
атрибуции человек видит причину
случившегося в предмете, на который
было направлено действие (ваза упала
потому, что плохо стояла), или в самом
пострадавшем (сам виноват, что попал
под машину).

45. Я-концепция
как социально-психологический феномен

Психология
«Я-концепции» как одна из
социально-психологических схем личности
в теоретико-концептуальном плане в
целом опирается на положения
феноменологического подхода или
гуманистической психологии, символического
интеракционизма и в незначительной
степени психоанализа.

«Я-концепция»
— это сложный составной образ, или
картина, включающая в себя совокупность
представлений личности о себе самой
вместе с эмоционально-оценочными
компонентами этих представлений.
«Я-концепция» личности формируется в
процессе жизни человека на основе
взаимодействий со своим психологическим
окружением и реализует мотивационно-регуляторную
функцию в поведении личности.

Термин
«Я-концепция» появился в научном языке
на рубеже XIX-XX вв. в связи с представлениями
о дуальной природе человека как познающего
субъекта и познаваемого объекта.
Американский психолог У. Джемс в книге
«Принципы психологии» (1890) первый
предложил идею «Я-концепции» и внес
существенный вклад в ее разработку.
Согласно Джемсу, глобальное «Я» (личность)
содержит в себе два аспекта: эмпирического
объекта (Ме), познаваемого субъективным
оценивающим сознанием (I).

«Я»
как объект содержит в себе четыре
аспекта:

—
духовное «Я»;

—
материальное «Я»;

—
социальное «Я»;

—
телесное «Я».

Эти
аспекты образуют для каждого человека
уникальный образ, или совокупность
представлений о себе как личности. Кроме
этого Джемс предложил формулу оценивания
личностью самой себя. Формула самооценки
выражается в сравнении достигнутых
успехов с уровнем притязаний.

Феноменоменологический
подход к поведению
(гуманистическая психология), в котором
теория «Я-концепции» стала связующим
интегративным принципом, интерпретирует
поведение на языке феноменального поля
субъекта как субъективно воспринимаемой
и осознаваемой реальности индивида (К.
Левин), а не на языке аналитических
категорий, конструируемых внешним
наблюдателем. В целом теория «Я-концепции»,
разработанная в рамках феноменологического
подхода, сводится к следующим положениям:

1.
Поведение является продуктом восприятия
индивида, которое по своей природе
феноменологично: психологическая
реальность индивида — это не объективная
реальность как таковая, а продукт его
субъективного восприятия в момент
поведения.

2.
Центральной, интегрирующей точкой
феноменального поля индивида является
«Я-концепция», вокруг которой организуются
все образы восприятия.

3.
«Я-концепция» — это одновременно и
продукт восприятия, и совокупность
представлений, в которой содержатся
ценности, привнесенные из социокультурной
среды.

4.
С формированием «Я-концепции» поведение
в целом начинает регулироваться ею.

5.
«Я-концепция» относительно согласована
во времени и ситуативных контекстах, в
этом состоит ее прогностическая ценность.

6.
Потребность в положительном отношении
других людей возникает параллельно с
формированием «Я-концепции». Потребность
в своем положительном отношении к себе
(потребность в положительной самооценке)
возникает через усвоение опыта
положительной оценки себя другими
людьми.

7.
Для снятия расхождений между данными
текущего жизненного опыта и «Я-концепцией»
используются различные защитные
стратегии.

8.
Существует одно главное мотивационное
побуждение человека — потребность в
самоактуализации, в поддержании и
повышении ценности своей «Я-концепции».

Соседние файлы в предмете [НЕСОРТИРОВАННОЕ]

• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #