How Do People Explain Their Own And Other People 's Behavior?

Trevor’s actions led his peers to label him as a constant threat, as well as the school “weirdo.” Everyone, even his parents, cautioned himself or herself around him. Trevor’s own actions categorized him as a threat to all. His peers would wonder about the causes for his actions. This led them to believe in false causes. A theory in this particular case, which is widely used in this concept, is the attribution theory. This explains and states the different types of processes we use to judge behaviors

There are many approaches that could explain different situations that could happen. Such as, if a person had road rage, or helping a fellow student, or a new student not wanting to join any activities at their new high school. Different approaches from psychology experts could tell us why that could happen.

Notably, the fundamental attribution error is a personal bias that is problematic in society. To emphasize, the fundamental attribution error is when individuals have the tendency to attribute people’s behavior to components of their character or personality, even when situational influences are producing the behavior (Textbook, page 171). An example of the fundamental attribution error operating in daily life is when a driver avoids hitting a pedestrian and causes an accident. In this

Attributions are the next facet of the four cognitive processes that can be seen in The Whore’s Child. They are defined as “assessments of the cause of an action or behavior,” (Canary 111) and can be both internal and external. Internal meaning that the behavior is attributed to qualities such as

I survey the body language, facial expressions and the possible words or phrases that can be interpreted more than one way. Because of this course I am more tolerant to people who are prejudiced. The most personally influential chapter to me was chapter two in the assigned textbook. The chapter introduced me to how stereotypes are formed and the consequences of categorizing people. Studies show that in order to simplify the workload of the brain, we place people into social categories based on previous experience and peer learning. “Social categorization involves thinking about people primarily as members of social groups rather than as individuals” (Blaine, 22).I found that I engage in this practice, but the automatic groups do not usually have negative stereotypes attached; When I meet a negative exception, they are then sorted into a subgroup.The second most influential chapter …..Chapter four of the textbook details the components of prejudices. the stereotypes and instances of prejudice enabled me

In the ways of the world it is easier to make assessments about people or objects based on a quick observation. For instance, almost everyone has heard the clique saying “Don’t judge a book by its cover.” This is a perfect scenario where looking at just what is holding the book together a decision is made on whether the book will be picked to read. In the same ways individuals tend to judge each other. Unfortunately, when quick judgments are snapped about a person or object the observer is missing out a bigger picture. This is defined as the fundamental attribution error. For example, a person kicking a vending machine over and over may not have an anger management problem. Although, the observer may make this assumption as they walk by not

The Fundamental Attribution Error occurs when a person’s personality is determined based on how they act in a certain situation, but not including the situation and outside influences when making that determination. The individual could be acting a certain way based on the particular situation or social circumstances, but in all actuality be completely different in another situation. Studies show that in most cases socially we want to fit in with a group, don’t want to be different, don’t want to be wrong, and in many instances act different than what our typical personality and values are based on influencing social factors. One of the main factors that often contributes to how we act in certain situations is to obey those in authority positions. The studies provided below are examples of the show how behaviors can change based on social factors.

Two assumptions bring the issue of explanation to the fore. One of these pertains to the range and the other to the type of event that the theories are adduced to account for. The merits of the theory theory and the simulation theory are usually discussed in relation to the practice of the prediction of intentional behavior. The reasonable assumption, (assumption A), is that the mechanism that is deployed in prediction will be the same one that is deployed in the explanation, the description and the interpretation of our own and others’ behavior. The second assumption, (assumption B), is that the two theories offer competing accounts of the same sort of event. The theory theory and the simulation theory, in proposing alternative views of the mechanism underlying our folk psychological practices of prediction, explanation, etc., agree on what these practices consist in.

Fritz Heider (1958) focuses on the internal and external attribution, which suggests why people behave a certain way according to their character or attitudes (external attribution) or the implication as to why an individual behaves a certain way due to the situation there in. “When we explain our own behavior, we are sensitive to how behavior changes with the situation” (Idson & Mischel, 2001). The significances of making a conclusion, gives direction and probability, which may help determine why a person may or may not act a certain way based on what the evidence shows. The implication of a certain behavior depends on the source to which it is attributed. For example: If Pat assumes that growing up isolated from her surroundings is normal, she won’t perceive it as non-normal. “The way we explain others’ actions, attributing them to the person or the situation, can have important real-life effects” (Fincham & Bradbury, 1993; Fletcher et., 1990). “A person must decide whether to attribute another’s friendliness to romantic interest “ (Myers, D. G.

As humans, we would like to think that we do everything for a reason. When asked why we act a certain way or make certain choices, we always manage to come up with a logical answer. Although some decisions are clearer than others, we cannot always say that we truly know why we do everything that we do. Sometimes, the reasons for our actions are not valid even if we think they are. Two experiments were conducted that demonstrated this concept; On one hand, we have the stocking experiment, and on the other, we have the bystander experiment.

The common senses explanation can be spilt into two sections; Individualistic and Naturalistic. Individualistic is where an individual does not see any connection between a social phenomenon and themselves. They see themselves as accountable for their own actions e.g. Individuals that are not employed and did not attend school regularly may see their lack of education as the root cause to their

The purpose of this essay is to outline and evaluate at least three psychological perspectives of human behaviour. The three approaches that will be summarised are humanistic, social learning theory and the Biological approach. They will also be criticised and compared to one another. A brief description on psychology will occur, and there will also be a short summarisation on some key early influences of psychology, from its origins in philosophy.

Throughout life an individual observes and registers specific events which has happened to themselves or another person. In this logic they develop into gatherers of information, which is then processed and organised, establishing Schemas or world views (Baron & Branscombe, 2013). These include but are not conclusive to their own behavior, other people’s, as well as past events. Furthermore this information acquired subsequently guides individuals to organize their cognitions. As well as providing an explanation of the world for themselves to comprehend (Hogg & Vaughan, 2013). This can be achieved either unconsciously or consciously. Part of this process allows a person to make a judgement if someone is similar to themselves or different. Dissimilar individualities may be utilised to establish these divisions. For example how an

theories and the underlying processes have a huge bearing on the subject. These psychological theories are more than theoretical in nature and can thus be applied practically. Indeed, through these theories, there is a growing belief that human behavior can be predicted using certain environmental factors. As psychologists continue to inquire more into human behavior, it becomes clearer than certain aspect of the social, biological, psychosocial, and technological environments have the biggest sway on people’s choice of actions. Often, human beings participate in a task because of the value they will derive from it, especially in terms of its economic and social importance. Social cognitive theory is of the thought that what a person perceives as right and its significance influences a course of action. A person’s behavior is greatly influenced by what he or she believes to be right or wrong. Most importantly, their actions are influenced by the benefits they accrue from them. For this reason, the subjective probabilities that affect the choice of actions can be used to determine a person’s next actions and ultimately, their behavior. In his theory, Rotter explains that learning and cognitive processes combine to determine people’s reactions to occurrences in life. Through Rotter’s social learning theory, behavior can be predicted using people’s responses to life’s occurrences. The social cognitive approach focuses on the crucial nature of cognitive processes in the

When we are explainig human behavior, we must speak about the Attribution theory. Fritz Heider (1958), in his book The psychology of interpersonal relations, explained that through perception we know the world around us, a world made up of things and people and different events. Researching people’s naïve, intuitive understanding of interpersonal events. He explained that these common sense inferences sometimes are biased, but nonetheless mediate interpersonal relations. He presented also in his book the idea of attribution, which influenced the next two decades of work in Social Psychology.